Category: Southern Caucasus

Turkish Ratification Of Armenia Accords ‘Almost Impossible’ Now

Turkey – Suat Kiniklioglu, a deputy chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party, undated.

11.03.2010

Sargis Harutyunyan

Turkey is extremely unlikely to ratify its fence-mending protocols with Armenia at this juncture, a senior Turkish lawmaker and deputy chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) said on Thursday.

In an interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian service in Yerevan, Suat Kiniklioglu made clear that Ankara continues to make the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations conditional on a Karabakh settlement. He said the passage of an Armenian genocide resolution by a U.S. congressional committee has rendered Turkish ratification of the protocols even “more difficult.”

“[Ratification] is very difficult right now,” Kiniklioglu said, speaking on the sidelines of an international seminar organized in the Armenian capital by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. “It’s almost impossible. Especially after [the progress of the House Resolution] 252, it’s almost impossible.”

Turkey has strongly condemned the draft resolution approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on March 4. It calls on President Barack Obama to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.”

Kiniklioglu headed one of the two Turkish parliamentary delegations that traveled to Washington last week to lobby against the bill’s passage. They were present at the committee debate and vote on the measure along with fellow parliamentarians from Armenia.

“Neither the Turkish parliament nor any other parliament should be judging on other peoples’ history,” Kiniklioglu told RFE/RL. “We continue to propose the history commission that was part of the protocols, and I think that’s the best way to go about. Turkish-Armenian relations do not need the American Congress to be approved or to be condoned. I think Turks and Armenians are mature enough to resolve their problems on a bilateral level.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has publicly warned Washington against exploiting the genocide bill to pressure Ankara to validate the U.S.-brokered agreements envisaging diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey and the opening of their border. U.S. officials have repeatedly called for a speedy and unconditional ratification of the protocols.

Kiniklioglu indicated that the Turkish government, which has a clear majority in parliament, persists in linking the ratification with an Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement on Karabakh. “In our view, there is a connection [with Karabakh,]” he said. “You can not normalize [relations] with a country when there is an abnormal situation going on right next door to you.”

“All sides, especially the American side, the Minsk Group, are working on the Karabakh issue,” said the lawmaker. “I hope something positive will come out of it because as soon as something positive comes out, I think we will push the protocols through the parliament.”

Meeting with Davutoglu in Kiev late last month, President Serzh Sarkisian threatened to walk away from the deal if the Turks fail to honor it “within the shortest period of time.” U.S. and European Union officials have likewise said it should be ratified within a “reasonable” timeframe.

“I think eventually it will happen, but we should not put artificial deadlines on the process and should continue in a determined fashion towards finalizing the reconciliation process,” countered Kiniklioglu.

“I am on the optimistic side,” he said. “One year ago or two years ago, there were no protocols whatsoever. Right now we have two documents that outline in detail how the normalization should take place. I think it’s still a success.”

“True, they are still awaiting ratification by the Turkish and Armenian parliaments,” added the AKP vice-chairman for foreign relations. “But I think if we show enough patience — and hopefully there will be some movement on Karabakh, we don’t know — I’m confident that normalization will eventually take place.”

Kiniklioglu went on to describe the Armenians and the Turks as “very similar people” who can put an end to their long history of mutual hostility. “This is my fourth visit to Armenia,” he said. “I have lots of friends here and I see more and more commonalities and similarities between us.”

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1980769.html

March 11, 2010
Sarkisian Downbeat On Turkish-Armenian Normalization

Armenia — President Serzh Sarkisian (R) meets with prominent members of France’s Armenian community in Paris, 10 March 2010.

11.03.2010

Emil Danielyan

President Serzh Sarkisian has suggested that Turkey will not unconditionally normalize relations with Armenia anytime soon and again threatened to annul the universally welcomed agreements signed by the two nations last October.

In an interview with the French daily “Le Figaro” published on Thursday, Sarkisian also warned that Ankara’s reluctance to ratify them is swelling the ranks of Armenians opposed to his conciliatory policy on Turkey.

“Our desire to establish normal relations is great,” he said. “However, recent statements from Turkey make me think that they will not ratify the protocols in the foreseeable future.

“We had warned that if we become convinced that the Turks are using the normalization process for other purposes we will take appropriate steps. In that case, we will withdraw our signature from the protocols.”

According to Sarkisian, the two governments agreed to put the protocols into practice “within a reasonable time frame and without preconditions” when they inked the deal in Zurich in October 2009. “We have said that Armenia would ratify the protocols immediately after their ratification by Turkey,” he said. “And yet Turkey keeps putting forward preconditions for their ratification, the most important of them relating to Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Sarkisian again avoided setting any deadlines for the Turkish ratification. Officials from his administration implied earlier that the Turkish leadership has until the end of March to endorse the agreements or face their unilateral repeal by Armenia. However, the latest indications are that Yerevan is ready to wait at least until the April 24 annual commemoration of the start of the mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

U.S. President Barack Obama is due to issue a statement on the occasion, and Ankara hopes that he will again stop short of calling the extermination of more than one million Ottoman Armenians a genocide. Obama avoided using the politically sensitive word last April, citing the need not to undermine the ongoing Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

Just two days before that statement, the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministries announced that they have worked out a “roadmap” to completing the normalization process. Sarkisian was accused by his political opponents in Armenia and its Diaspora at the time of willingly helping Obama backtrack on a campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide.

Sarkisian told “Le Figaro” that his Turkish policy has caused “a great deal of concern among Armenians around the world.” “As a result of the dragging out of the normalization process, the number of [Armenian] supporters of the protocols is increasingly dwindling,” he warned.

The Armenian leader also reaffirmed Yerevan’s strong support for the passage of a U.S. congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian massacres as genocide. “But the U.S. Congress and State Department hardly make decisions based on our views or wishes,” he added.

March 11, 2010
THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

Re: “ The Armenian Genocide: A Case Of Selective Memory”, By Dmitry Babich, RIA Novosti, Moscow, 9 March 2010, (produced below for your convenience – the undersigned thanks www.TurkishForum.com.tr for bringing this anti-Turkish, anti-Azeri, andti-Muslim artcile to my atention, giving me a chance to respond.)

THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

Dear Editor,

So this is what Journalism Department of Moscow State University produces: cockeyed look at world events to promote Russian interests at all costs. Here is a writer who will shamelessly complain about selective memory while “practicing” it.

Did you read any lines about Azeris killed by Armenians above?

Did you see any remorse about Khodjaly exterminations of Azeris (genocide?) by Armenian thugs using Russian advisors and weapons?

Any word about the mass killings of Azeris in Karabagh by Armenian soldiers and paramilitaries under the command of Russian “advisors” using Russian tanks?

Azeris were killed by Armenians toting Russian Mosins in 1893 and Russian Kalashnikovs in 1993? Both under the leadership of Russian “advisors”. What has changed in the hundred years, other than the model of the murder weapon?

How about Armenian aggression in the seven rayons (provinces) surrounding Karabagh? Why is he silent about that? Isn’t that pure aggression and persecution?

Most dramatic of all, perhaps, is the embarrassing silence of the Russian writer (and I use the term loosely) about the million or so Azeri refugees bracing, made homeless by the Armenian thugs toting Russian rifles, bracing for the 18th scorching summer after 17th freezing winter endured in leaky tents with little food or medicine. Is this how a Russian “journalist” sees events? Through the prism of selective memory?

Just like those biased promoters of a bogus genocide who will…

a) remember Morgenthau’s falsified reports but not Bristol’s or Hubbard’s eyewitness reports;

b) remember the long-discredited lie of 1.5 million dead Armenians, but not the Paris Peace Conference report dated 29 March 1919 declaring the number “…more than 200,000…” from which the current lie had originated;

c) remember the Armenian dead (about 200,00 according to Paris Peace Conference of 1919) but not more than 524,000 Muslim, mostly Turkish dead;

d) remember 24 April as the start of a fake genocide, but not the fact that 24 April was nothing more than the Ottoman Guantanamo when the known Armenian terrorists, insurgents, and spies and their suspected accomplices, were arrested for questioning, some of whom were later released;

e) remember Turkish retaliations but not the Armenian revolts that started them, the biggest one of all being the Van rebellion of April 1915 which was the 9/11 of the Ottoman Empire when Armenian killed more than 40,000 of thei Muslim neighbors and turned the city over to the invading Russian armies;

f) remember Dink, but not Arikan, and 70 other the Armenians killed since 1973;

g) remember Armenia Tereset (temporary resettlement of 1915) but not the facts that Armenians backstabbed their own country at a time when the motherland was under brutal foreign invasion in the West (Dardanelles by the French, and Anzacs, in the East (by Russians and Armenians), in the South (by the British in Sinai, Palestine, and Mesopotamia);

h) remember Armenians who were resettled because of their treasonous activities and revolts but not the Crimean Tatars (Turks) who were deported in cattle wagons to Kazakhstan, or Meshketian Turks to Uzbekiastan, or Koreans or Ukranians or Chechens or tens of millions of others to distant deserts and barren plains of Central Asia and icy regios of Siberia, who met worse tragic end, if such a thing is possible, at the hands of their brutal Russian handlers… and many more (too long to list here)

i) remember to quote the Armenian commentator Andronik today but not the Armenian terrorist Andranik of last century who ruthlessly murdered many non-combatant, unarmed Muslims, mostly Turks, after torturing them in unspeakable manners; or those other Armenian terrorists like Dro, Aram, and thousands of others who were trained and supported by the Russians all along the way;

Russians are the last people on earth to talk about selective memory or persecution of defenseless ethnic people.

Sincerely, Ergün KIRLIKOVALIPresident-Elect, ATAA [email protected] 9741 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618-4324 , USA Cell: (949) 878-1186

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

Dmitry Babich

RIA Novosti
15:44 09/03/2010
Moscow

A resolution on the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, passed by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations, has raised a real storm in international diplomacy.

Feverish diplomatic activity and apparent hesitations of the U.S. administration are a clear sign that Turkey’s foreign policy influence has grown.

The committee’s resolution is non-binding and it is not clear if it will be placed before the whole house, but Turkey has already recalled its ambassador to Ankara for consultations, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, has asked the Congress not to take up this delicate matter now.

When, in 1915, 1.5 million Armenians “disappeared” as a result of the action undertaken by the Young Turks’ government, Turkey and Armenia froze all contacts with each other. It was only last year that signs

of thawing first became manifest, and in the fall of 2009 the sides agreed to establish diplomatic relations. This was viewed as a success for the Turkish leadership, both the prime minister and the president.

Will now a final “thaw” be postponed again?

That is not likely, although Turkish politicians are certain to take advantage of the situation to improve their standing.

It is very likely that the current scandal will only boost the prestige of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Not so long ago, he was the first politician in Turkish history to challenge the

military, saying he uncovered a military plot initially scheduled for 2003. Before that, Erdogan made out a successful case for the Palestinians as Muslim brothers, harshly criticizing Israel for its Gaza Strip operation. During the U.S. Iraqi campaign, Turkey never allowed American troops to pass through its territory, forcing Washington to invade Iraq only from the south.

Now the ambiguous position the U.S. has maintained for years on the Armenian genocide, which helped Washington to draw Turkey into NATO, is beginning to backfire against U.S. interests. This is a good

lesson for all, and it is not limited to the events of 1915. There are other examples. The Western mass media are still keeping silent about anti-Armenian violence in Baku in 1989-1990. Most reports mention only that Soviet troops were introduced into the city.

The reason for such selective memory in American and West European media is understandable: it is simple to place the blame on Moscow, forgetting all about previous events. At that moment, the troops

sent by Moscow saved the lives of thousands of Armenians and other “Russian speakers” in Baku. Even many Russian media find the subject of the violence in Baku unpopular and almost forbidden. Some say this could lose Russia advertising contracts and lead to conflicts with influential people.

“I do not know what has to be done to get the mass media throughout the world to highlight those events,” says political analyst Andronik Migranyan, a member of Russia’s Public Chamber. “Will Armenia itself

have to carry out PR campaigns to make things change?”

The point is that the events of 1915 and those of the 1980s in Armenia and Azerbaijan do not concern only Armenians; they concern everyone.

The anti-Armenian violence in Baku came after an inhumane expulsion of Azerbaijanians from Nagorny Karabakh, followed by the Khodzhala tragedy that shocked the world. People must remember everything,

because destruction of human life cannot be forgotten or remembered selectively. Otherwise, diplomatic embarrassments like the present U.S.-Turkish spat may become regular.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

***

Biography of the author: Dmitry Babich graduated from the Journalism Department of Moscow State University. From 1990-1996, he worked as a correspondent and senior parliament correspondent in Komsomolskaya Pravda, which was at the time a respected Russian daily newspaper with a circulation of up to 20 million. He the covered politics for the TV-6 television channel for three years before becoming head of the international department of the weekly newspaper Moscow News. While he was working at Moscow News, Dima won a prize from ITAR-TASS for developing Russian-Ukrainian information exchange following a series of reports from Ukraine. He joined Russia Profile as a staff writer at the beginning of 2004.

********************

March 11, 2010
GENOCIDE OVER AZERBAIJAN NATION IN MARCH OF 1918

Tamilla Musayeva,

Doctor of history, professor

Adil Mammadov, Doctor of history

It’s already ten years since our nation has commenced building its sovereign state being in utterly difficult situation and surpassing incredible obstacles. Looking back to the passed way we observe both errors, shortcomings and those great achievements which were possible exclusively in terms of the independence. Among such achievements there is opportunity to see our nation’s history in new light, form objective approach to historical course of its evolution, reveal obscure pages of history, give proper, unbiased appraisal to its individual periods and events having been distorted, forged or just hushed up for long decades. One of the pages is March events of 1918 that were presented in soviet historiography as “civil war”, “musavatists’ counter-revolutionary rebellion” being allegedly provoked by “Musavat” party’s members with aim of overthrowing soviet regime in Baku. In present-day times owing to efforts of azerbaijani social scientists who found and analysed most archive documents being earlier thoroughly concealed, and also owing to current democratic processes in Azerbaijan there was created condition for public declaring the whole truth about the March events, qualifying them as genocide over Azerbaijanis, list the main ringleaders of this bloody massacre. February revolution and following October events, publication of such documents as “Declaration of russian nations’ rights” and “Appeal to moslem working people of Russia and East” were taken by Azerbaijan nation, intellectuals, national parties for opportunity of realizing “national autonomy within Russian Federation” idea.

“Musavat” party that appeared at the respective period on political struggle’s proscenium advanced “Azerbaijan’s autonomy” idea as one of the paramount programme demands. But provisional extraordinary commissar on Caucasian affairs, S.Shaumyan was ardent antagonist of the idea. He considered azerbaijani nation’s legitimate and natural demand of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy as “dream of azerbaijani nationalists” to make Baku “capital of Azerbaijan khanate” (S.G.Shaumyan, Selected works. Moscow, 1978, II v., p.257). The paradox is that flatly refuting possibility of granting Azerbaijan an autonomy Shaumyan at the same time took for due plan of establishing Provisional armenian government at its territory occupied russian troops. Moreover realization of this plan in accordance with decree dated by December 29, 1917, signed by V.I.Lenin and I.V.Stalin was charged to Shaumyan. He was also commissioned with leading over determination of this “autonomy’s” bounds especially of adjoining moot areas (Decrees of Soviet government. Moscow, 1957, p. 289-299).

The bolshevist government was pretty aware of Shaumyan’s approaches to most clue points of bolshevist party’s national programme, his radically hostile attitude to such items as granting of autonomy, nations’ right to self-determination. As far back as 1914 Lenin expressed in his letter to Shaumyan critical attitude to these views. “It’s shame on russian marxist to hold standpoint of armenian hen-coop… Because of “armenian” blindness you become apprentice of Purishkevichs and their nationalism” (Lenin V.I. Complete Works, v.48, p.302).

It’s very interesting that on the eve of March developments “Bakinskiy rabochiy” newspaper published in March, 15 Lenin’s letter to Shaumyan written as early as December, 1913 where the latter has been sharply criticized for non-recognition of autonomy and self-determination right ideas (CW, v.48, p.233-236).

Maximalism of Shaumyan’s views, obstinacy and strict methods during activities conducted by him were known to Centre. Right therefore Lenin wrote in his telegram to Shaumyan dated February 14, 1918 that along with “firm and resolute” policy it’s necessary to conduct very cautious diplomacy. The former took into account utterly complicated situation in this region, he demanded to solve very delicately and carefully most important problems (V.I.Lenin about Azerbaijan. Baku, 1959, p.75).

It should be kept in mind that Shaumyan – “internationalist” regarded Azerbaijan nation highly malevolently attaching to it such labels as “Tatar (azerbaijani) mob”, “tatar ignorant masses”, “robber gangs”, “tatar ruffians” etc. It’s enough to read fluently his selected works for making sure of the above-mentioned. (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, I v., p.119, 129, 185; II v., p. 216). All of this accounts for Shaumyan’s behaviour in March days of 1918.

Considering March events in the light of contemporaneity we reveal the facts that used to escape our consciousness, weren’t paid due attention.

Among them – appointment of Kobozev P.A. as Extraordinary Commissar of government in Middle East and Baku province. The fact is mentioned in events chronicle from volume 36 of V.I.Lenin’s Complete Works (p. 684). In March 17, 1918 Lenin had conversation with Kobozev, signed and delivered him mandate for taking measures on securing local authorities, handed him letter addressed to Baku comrades. The letter mentioned in Complete Works is supposed to be written by Stalin on Central Committee and Lenin’s instructions. It was of great importance and provided guide to action, directed and anticipated prospects of the developments in the region. In view of the letter’s importance we’re citing it in more details: “To Stepan, Alyosha and other friends. We are sending comrade Kobozev to you as extraordinary commissar of Middle Asia and Baku. He’s resolute, has rich experience in struggle with counter-revolution in Middle Asia, knows the particulars of war art, he’s railway engineer and old party worker. Appointing him also as commissar of Baku we were guided by the fact that Stepan, Caucasian affairs commissar functions basically in Tiflis, while Baku, this central point of the entire south is already besieged from everywhere, therefore it’s impossible for Stepan to be both in Middle East and Baku at once. We are fully sure that Kobozev (he is warned by us) will act in concordance with Stepan. One thing is indubitable; in military and financial terms Baku should be fortified, if Moslems demand autonomy, we should grant it, ensure unconditional recognition of central and local soviet authorities, immediately establish within Baku Deputies Council Moslem department, highly develop Moslem literature… Kobozev will report you details. Faithfully yours, Stalin”. (Azerbaijan Republic Political Parties and Public Movements State Archives, copies fund № 453).

Thus all measures listed in the letter were aimed on fortifying soviet power in Baku and winning round large working strata of moslems. Confrontation with local inhabitants wasn’t necessary to Centre. Here in Baku, with its extremely motley population there was required delicate and cautious approach to many complicated problems and maximalism was absolutely irrelevant here. Appointment of Kobozev, experienced party member and military specialist was in our opinion careful attempt to restrict Shaumyan’s actions from making decisions on his own as Caucasian Extraordinary Commissar. Henceforth decisions were to be taken in concord. As further events showed Centre’s apprehensions were grounded.

If he knew about concrete resolution of Centre concerning autonomy for Moslems he would have come to an agreement with “Musavat” party’s leaders and solve the problem by peaceful means. Especially as before March events “Musavat” members publicly advanced idea of autonomy within Russian Federation. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly whether this letter reached Shaumyan before the March events (Kobozev was at this time in Baku), and how he took part in them.

Historians will have to study all of this thoroughly. One thing was undeniably obvious: Shaumyan went toward confrontation deliberately. It was necessary for realizing well-conceived plan. Frenzied atrocities over Azerbaijanis, cruelty and vandalism of dashnaks in March days in Baku give ground to suppose that it was Shaumyan’s “requital action” as stresses M.Rasul-zade in ‘Untorgettable tragedy’ article (“Azerbaijan” newspaper, March 31, 1919) on account of March developments’ first anniversary (quotation from “Historiography of March slaughter, 1918” book after A.Iskandarov, Baku, 1997, p. 103): action of cleaning Baku from Azerbaijanis because differently it’s impossible to account for mass slaughter of Azerbaijanis, absolutely innocent peaceful Azerbaijan population of Baku and other towns of the region in March days. The further course of developments confirms this.

At this period in Baku because of blocking Baku-Tiflis railroad there gathered several thousands of armed Armenians returning from battle-fronts. Besides here were thousands well-armed fighters who represented Dashnaksutun party. Shaumyan was perfectly aware of ardent nationalistic and counter-revolutionary orientation of dashnaks’ policy. Right therefore he had to hinder from their staying in the city. But this failed to take place.

By this time it was observed swift increase of “Musavat” party’s influence. Shaumyan admitted himself that “by the II year since revolution the party had become the most potent one in Transcaucasus” (Shaumyan S.G. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p.291). In these conditions he tried by any hooks to debar “Musavat” from political rival, discredit it.

Azerbaijanis in Baku and its vicinities were completely defenceless before armed to the teeth armenian military units. At that time “Musavat” failed to dispose of any units. Y.Ratgauzer writes in his “Revolution and civil war in Baku” book: “Musavat” party didn’t have available regular military units by the time of beginning events in the city. The Musavat forces located in provinces weren’t brought up to Baku in proper time. We suppose that “Musavat” party’s leaders didn’t expect commencement of battle in March 30” (Ratgauzer Y. Revolution and civil war in Baku. 1927, Baku, p.145). Presence of numerous armed dashnaks who inundated the city incandesced situation exceedingly. The fact attracts its attention that during recordings at different plants all except Azerbaijanis have been enrolled into Red Army. Most detachments raised in that way almost completely consisted of Armenians. In many respects it was favoured by Avakyan, military commandant of Baku city who raised the detachments.

Besides in March 29, 1918 due to Shaumyan’s order there began disarmament of “tatar regiment’s” (being part of “Wild division” raised during I World War) soldiers and officers who were on the board of Eveline ship that sailed toward Lankaran-its dislocation point.

A small-numbered detachment of the division’s officers and soldiers headed by general Talyshinski was in Baku in view of H.Z.Tagiyev, eminent Azerbaijan oil industrialist-magnate’s tragically perished son’s funeral. Why Baku council obstacled the sole armed groups of moslems from peaceable leaving the city and failed to disarm armenian military units located in great amount in Baku that days? Haven’t all national units been liable to abolition and withdrawal from Baku in accordance with Baku Soviet’s resolution dated from March 15, 1918 on the base of Shaumyan’s report? It applied to all armed forces dislocated in the city. However Shaumyan neglected the directions given by his participance (SPIHDA,[1] fund 276, errata 3, addendum 272, sheets 5-6). This action caused discontent and protests of Baku’s moslem population. In March 30 in mosques, different parts of the city there began spontaneous movements, meetings of Azerbaijanis who demanded return of armament and withdrawal of national armenian units. These days “Achyg soz” (“Speech freedom”) newspaper-publication of “Musavat” party-addressed to local inhabitants appeal of resisting emotions, remaining calm.

The provocative firing of a small-numbered Red Army detachment executors of which remained unknown was initial point of the terrible bloody action victims of which were peaceful azerbaijani inhabitants. Shaumyan wrote himself that they needed just a slightest cause for realizing their plan. “We took opportunity of the first attempt of armed attack to our cavalry and passed to offensive on a wide front. We already had 6000 amounted armed forces. “Dashnaksutun” also counted 3-4 thousands national units. The latter’s participance attached to the civil war national carnage feature but it was nevitasible. We did it consciously. If they (Musavatists) gained the upper hand in Baku the city would have been proclaimed as capital of Azerbaijan” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works, Moscow, 1978, v. II. p.246). Here as it’s said commentaries are needless.

Under pretext of struggle with musavatists bolshevist-dashnak detachments practically started single-minded slaughter of peaceful Azerbaijan population. Their dwellings were bombarded from sky and sea. It was armenian units that took especially active part in atrocities over Azerbaijanis. Not the least was the fact that this time chief of Red Army’s headqu arters in Baku was Tsarism Army’s former colonel, member of dashnaks party Z.Avetisyan. For several days the outrages have lasted in the city. Stubborn fighting had been taking place in its most central part, Ichari Shahar (Inner City) area. A.I.Mikoyan commanded personally by offensive to this historical place. In March 30 one of commissars Tatevos Amiryan entered building of moslem charity “Ismailiya” with gang of armed dashnaks and set fire on it. Theatre of G.Z.Tagiyev being first one in the East was also burnt, Taza-Pir mosque seriously damaged. “Struggle with counter-revolution” turned into unprecedented carnage. S.M.Afandiyev stressed that “dashnaks slaughtered not only musavatists but also generally moslems…” (Nationalities life, 1919, July 6).

Trying to involve into their sloven actions Caspian fleet dashnaks resorted to their pet method-provocations. Among sailors they began spreading rumours that Azerbaijanis allegedly kill Russians in the city. Therefore at the action’s beginning there thundered gun salvoes from Caspian fleet’s ship toward azerbaijani dwellings. But soon these rumours proved to be utter fiction and dashnaks’ provocation.

Not only national armenian units but also those of Red Army took active part in violences over peaceful Azerbaijanis. In these terms the fact should be stressed that the latters consisted of armenians at 70%. According to G.Avetiysn, corresponding member of Armenian Republic Academy of Sciences, “for Baku Army battled 4 brigades of Caucasian Red Army consisting of 25 battalions and 18000 soldiers. About 70% of the latters were Armenians” (“Communist”, Yerevan, August 26, 1989, №199).

Even after accepting Baku Council ultimatum by Azerbaijanis murders and robberies by Armenian units continued. Only after interfering of Japaridze who noted events march to go extremely far, and also order of 36^-th Turkestan regiment about stopping moslems’ carnage and threat of gun firing at armenian dwellings the massacre was ceased.

Much more atrocities inflicted during punitive raid to Shamakhi and Guba where over 50 villages had been set on fire and sacked.

The great-numbered detachment expedited to Guba commanded by Dashnaksutun Amazasp consisted solely of Armenians being members of Dashnaksutun party. The detachment was raised under the personal control of G.Korganov, chairman of war-revolutionary committee of Caucasian army, Armenian by nationality.

Beside of murders Amazasp’s punitive detachment marauded and robbed Azerbaijanis’ property.

In result of the punitive action about 2000 peaceful azerbaijanis were killed in Guba. Speaking before local inhabitants Amazasp declared: “I’m hero of armenian nation and protector of his interests… I’m sent here not for establishing order and Soviet power but for taking vengeance for murdered Armenians, I had commandment of killing all moslems from Caspian coasts to Shahdag and razing your dwellings to the ground. History of Azerbaijan in documents and publications, Baku, 1990, p. 185;

Before events in Guba armed forces of Baku council commanded by Amazasp Avetisov commited io the flames and completely burnt Shamakhy town (A.Balayev. Azerbaijan national movement in 1917-1918, Baku, “Elm” p.h., 1998, p. 175).

Punitive operations were conducted in Lankaran, Khachmaz, Hajigabul, Salyan provinces. Direct participation of S.Shaumyan in bloody March events of 1918 and dashnaks’ atrocities in Baku and province were reported in “Azerbaijan” newspaper dated October 8, 1918. There was founded special provinces commission on investigating these crimes. Shaumyan cynically confessed that “in result of civil war suffered mass of poor and homeless moslems”. He stressed they “had to make use of armenian regiment. We even couldn’t permit ourselves luxury of neglecting its services. It was necessary to use the regiment’s services, and the victory is so much great that it slightly clouds reality” (S.G.Shaumyan. Selected works. Moscow, 1978, v. II, p. 249, 250). Even “Nash golos” (“Our voice”) menshevist newspaper characterized the events as national massacre. The eyewitness of March events People’s Enlightenment Commissar of Baku People’s Commissars Council N.Kolesnikova wrote in her memoirs that “dashnak groups commenced in the town massacres, arsons of houses, robberies, murders of innocent peaceful citizens, mainly Azerbaijanis” (Kolesnikova N.N. About history of struggle for Soviet power in Baku, Moscow, 1960, p. 71). In letter addressed to Council of People’s Commissars, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic dated from April 13, 1918 Shaumyan trying to justify heinous crimes of Armenian units in Baku in March days and conceal from bolshevist authorities the real scales of Azerbaijanis slaughter made under his leadership falsified death roll, facts of threatenings by the side of moslems. Realizing that it’s impossible to conceal everything and aspiring to calm down Centre he wrote: “Moslem mass heavily suffered but now it’s consolidating around bolshevists and council”, that “oil is already at our disposal”. Here was also especially stressed role of armenian national units in defence of Soviet power (“Historical archives”, №2, 1957, p. 55-57).

In Shaumyan and Japaridze addressed letter published in “Gummat” newspaper in April 3, 1918, Narimanov mentioning March events wrote: “This smirches Soviet power, casts slurs upon it. If the next few days you don’t tear the black veil and don’t remove the stain bolshevist idea and Soviet power will fail to consolidate here…”

You know that power won by means of arms failing to be supported by people can’t stay long (N.Narimanov. Selected works in 3 vol., II v., Baku, “Azernashr” p.h., 1989, p. 122-123). These words turned out to be prophetic. After March events despite of Shaumyan’s allegations broad masses of azerbaijani people turned away from Soviet power. In “Baku organization of bolshevists in 1917-18” article published in 1923 A.J.Mikoyan had to admit: “March events also resulted in much more estrangement of moslem working” masses from Soviet power (“Bakinski rabochiy” (Baku worker), March 14, 1923, №57). March events had serious public repurcussions. S. Ter-Gabrielyan, notable bolshevist wrote in letter addressed to S. Shaumyan sent by him from Astrakhan in April 28, 1918 that the local community and newly arrived Russians who left on a mass scale Baku for Astrakhan regarded developments in “Baku not as struggle “ for Soviet power, but national carnage, and that “this carnage was organized by Armenians” (Sur. Shaumyan. The Baku Commune. Baku, 1927, p.94).

Armenians’ outrages in Baku since March 30 till April 2, then continued in provinces were none other than massacre on national basis or more exactly – genocide over azerbaijani nation. Right therefore Soviet power in Baku held out not long and ignominiously quitted the stage in 1918.

Today we can definitely say it was well-conceived and well-planned action prepared by Shaumyan and victims of which were Azerbaijan moslems. With armenian troops and Dashnaksutun party’s cut-throats Shaumyan vented his hatred toward musavatists by massacres in azerbaijani dwellings of Baku, Azerbaijan provinces. Just in Baku that days were murdered over 10000 peaceful inhabitants, in Shamakhy-7000, Guba-2000, Lankaran and Astara – more than 1000, Salyan and Hajigabul – almost 1000. In March – April, 1918 armenian – bolshevist detachments killed in Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Mugan, Lankaran districts more than 50000 Azerbaijanis (“Statement of Azerbaijan Republic National Council” article in “Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 2001).

Using bolshevist power and slogans as a cover Shaumyan betrayed Soviet power discrediting it by his actions. But this wasn’t principal for him. His purpose was another-extermination of Azerbaijanis. All his efforts were aimed that March days on deporting Azerbaijanis from the lands for their further joining to “armenian autonomy” establishment of which was charged to Shaumyan due to decree of People’s Commissars Council dated December 29, 1917.

The prominent german researcher Erikh Figle in his “Truth terror. Armenian terrorism – roots and reasons” (Baku, “Azernashr”, 2000) speaking of Shaumyan’s activity in 1918 stresses that Stepan Shaumyan was leader of armenian communists in Baku where he formed bolshevist government tyranny of which intended to expatriate or exterminate Azerbaijanis. His aim was “Baku’s armenianizing by any hooks or crooks” (p. 101, ibid).

Unfortunately these heinous crimes commited in Baku and provinces in March, 1918 received in due course proper and objective appraisal neither by world society nor republic’s authorities. For sake of internationalism and consolidation of nations friendship these facts were painstakingly kept silent, concealed. Right this gave full scope to nationalist – separatistic forces. In 1988 as a result of the so-called Highland Garabagh problem a great number of Azerbaijanis were killed and expatriated from their primordial lands of Armenia because of their national belonging, in January of 1990 savage crimes were committed over people who expressed protest against the actions, in 1992 bloody Khojaly genocide took place. Adventurous actions of armenian aggressors and “Great Armenia” ideologists on ethnical mopping – up resulted in expatriating more than millions of our countrymen from their motherland and their superhuman sufferings. Just in XX c. as it’s stressed in “Appeal to Azerbaijan nation in view of March 31, day of Azerbaijanis Genocide” over 2 millions of Azerbaijanis became victims of loathsome genocide policy pursued by our enemies in one or another form” (“Bakinski rabochiy”, March 31, 1999).

Current advancing of Armenia’s claims to Nakhchivan being primordial azerbaijani land, calls to abolishing Gars treaty concluded in October of 1921 between Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Turkey, claims to Georgian, Turkish landsall of this are after-effect of impunity reigning in world society respect to aggressive Armenian Republic.

Today our major task is forming in present and future generations eternal memory of genocide committed over Azerbaijan nation in the last century, attain political and legal appraisal of these events from international community, avert its grave consequences and do the all best for this never recur.

Our long silence and tolerance costed us dear. Right therefore republic government adopted resolution of declaring March 31 as day of Azerbaijanis Genocide.

In these terms important are monumental works and documentary archives revealing dashnak terrorists, their heinous crimes on azerbaijani land during the last century. Committing genocide over Azerbaijanis they represent themselves as innocent victims having been subject to genocide. As early as July 15, 1918 due to decree of Azerbaijan Republic under the leadership of Foreign Affairs Ministry there was established extraordinary “Inquiry Committee” on investigating violences made by Armenians over moslems within the entire Transcaucasus since I World War. In the committee’s materials there was stressed that in March days basically suffered Azerbaijanis, their properties were plundered and dwellings burnt out. In State Archives of Republic there are kept materials of the committee which are impossible to be read without shudder, scales of vandalism displayed by Armenians that bloody days are incommensurate. The documents were drawn up on hot trails, March events described by eye-witnesses. Today when our state is member of many in ternational organizations, the committee’s materials must be published and become possessions of the world society. Let it know the real executors of genocide on our land, those who through XX c. claimed to our areas, who hold the region’s inhabitants in permanent tension can’t go on any longer. The Armenians’ claims must be repulsed finally and decisively.

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.

Historical Facts of Armenia’s Actions in Azerbaijan Land

Baku – Елм – 2003

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

[1]Arkhive- SPSASR.

March 11, 2010
Information of Echmiadzin Synod
Azerbaijan SSR. The News of ANAS.

History, philosophy and rights series in 1989 N2

Information of Echmiadzin Synod Prosecutor A. Frenkel, submitted in 1907 to the Most Holy Synod.

After liquiditation of Echmiadzin patriarchate in 1826 and Albanian patriarch throne in 1836, the Most Holy Synod established several consistories in Transcaucasus.
1. Frenkel who was appointed by the Most Holy Synod as Echmiadzin Synod prosecutor, in 1907 submitted to the Most Holy Synod for handing over to the Russian Emperor rather curious document characterizing Gregorian church condition in the early 20 th century.
A.Frenkel, Echmiadzin Synod Prosecutor

Historical Great Armenia which adopted Christianity in IV c., in V century already lost any political independence and was simultaneously reigned by Persians (Zoroastr tenet), Byzanty, Arabians, Saljug Turks and other conquerors.

Different provinces of former Armenia separated under rule of winners developed and built their special and church relations dependantly on conditions and state order of their rulers, gradually loosing links between each other; by force of such circumstances every province going on to uphold purity and inviolability of Armenian Gregorianism tenets, became extremely denationalized in language, laws and traditions.

Not to mention Turkish, Egyptians, Persian and Indian Armenians-if to take our Transcaucasus alone we’ll note rather interesting fact: Tiflis Armenians (Georgian influence), Akulis, Yelisavetpole and Karabag Armenians (Persian influence) and Akhalkalak Armenians (Turkish influence) almost don’t understand each other and marriages between them take place rarely.

Historical fortunes of Armenian people proved with undeniable exactness absolute unability of the people to set up independent state, state organism, proved their absolute unability to comprehend true fundamentals of high civilization, because through several millenia history hadn’t written down any name among leading lightsin science and art . Old Great Armenia didn’t leave after itself any code of national laws except collection of Laws by monk-scholar Mkhitar Gosh, being piteful compilation of Moisey laws, Byzantine and some Armenian folk traditions.

This fact nowise can be related to unfavourable domestic and political conditions,

contrary example of which are Jews who gave to the world outstanding painter-thinkers. If to read the best Armenian historians, classical and contemporary ones, you become surprised with those gloomy views to Armenian reality, which environed prominent thinkers of the people. Aim-seeking intrigues, perjuries, venality, servility seem to be basic national traits of the tribe. Due to such qualities Armenian people were always close to assimilation with dominant nation, and ‘national-religious problem’ which was popular several years ago, has acquired its true importance enough lately, and before this Armenians always paved up auspicious ground for renegatism, since honours and personal material incentives were connected with the fact.

Unfortunately, when appeared idea of Emperor Nikolay the First about division of ‘big man’, Armenians immediately assumed high significance and absolute unjustified hopes pinned on. Our envoys in Ottoman empire and together with them Foreign Ministry suggested to the Government idea about extreme importance policy in the East, and ,by the way, such support could be rendered, providing: 1) if to the catholicos rank there is promoted candidate being devoted to interests of Russia; 2) if such candidate is able to subordinate in moral terms Turkish Armenians. This fully erronious idea generated a number of compromises, indulgences from our government, which were pretext for the future solicitations of Armenian catholicoses about granting exclusive status to their congregation regulated by law of 1836 and still more sanctioned by the present Caucasian authorities. Taking into account potential advantages from promoting quazi-governmental candidate to catholicos, didn’t understand that had deal with cunning Asians who were rottened by slovery and only slightly touched with civilization, not to mention that no real advantages should have been expected from Armenians contempted and hated by the whole Christian and Moslem East. This ground paved up by us ourselves, long-year practice of unpunished opposition to the government-created among Armenian people very opportune field of action for anti-governmental communities of the local and foreign origin of every type.

Until XVIII century when began onward movement of Russia to the Near Moslem East, most Armenians separated between Turkey and Persia nowise had been reacting against Moslem dominion, because Armenians lived not worse than other subjects to Sultan and Shah. Armenians quickly penetrated governmental and financial spheres of their conquerors, having appropriated almost completely trade and credit.

Moslem rulers acknowledged sovereignty of Armenian catholicoses in the church administration, and Armenia history knows many patriarchs who collected from their congregation big sums through Turkish zaptis and Persian farrashes. It should be considered that such specific order even flattered national Armenian pride, because in the person of mosterful catholicos there was created illusion of people head.

Neither Turks, nor Persians interfered Armenian Traditional law and order of self-administration by small elective district councils.

The first one third of XIX century being notable for national self-consciousness rousing among minor people couldn’t pass by tracelessly for Armenians, all the more that after a number of Russia’s successful wars against Turkey and Persia, which ended in seizing several provinces with Armenians couldn’t help to pin hopes on complete liberating from Moslem yoke.

National self – consciousness feeling which aroused among Armenians, took direction being similiar to all people enslaved by foreigners. Patriots and public figures, first of all, paid attention to restoring and founding literature, national pride through bringing up youth on examples (even if apocryphal) of ancestors’ valour etc. Later, surely, active struggle against Government, in this case Turkish one was to be included to program, because that time Armenians regarded Russia for saviour.

In this view all secret and legal Armenian national-religious societies of the past century can be divided on two below groups:1) Armenian communities in Russia with respect to Armenians of Russian citizenship had purely religious-enlightenment character. All their aspirations were aimed on founding literary-colloquial, common to all Armenians language which hadn’t existed before, setting up national schools for Armenian people, and raising prestige of catholicos as head of people, elected by the whole nation. Being safe in Russia, these communities were closely linked with such organizations in Turkish Armenia, making for realization of revolutionary actions against Turkish government; 2) Armenian communities in Turkey had obviously revolutionary character. They were interested with active struggle against Turkish government rather than perspective results of enlightening activity, especially when Armenians ensured virtual support of European revolutionary bodies in London, Lozanne, Geneve, and first of all, new Turks. We have grounds to tell that our government through 1830-1880-ies at least had been ignoring (and maybe considering profitable) close inter connection of Armenian organizations in Russia and Turkey. From Russia to Turkey there were conveyed without any obstacle arms, ammunitions and rendered extensive help by money and Armenian volunteers.

Political refugees-Armenians found reliable asylum in our boundary provinces and presently in Caucasus concentrated more than 50 thous. Of such refugees. Half criminals in Eastern Caucasus are Turkish Armenians. Indifference to solidarity of Russian and Turkish Armenian organizations resulted in other dangerous phenomena. During 70years 3-4 generations of opposing government (even if Turkish one), obtaining political perception, trained to idea of potentiality and legality of struggle against government. After closing of Armenian schools in Caucasus, most Armenian youngsters left for Switzerland and Germany, whence returned as ready socialists. Sosializm propaganda was fruitable among Armenian urban residents, because Armenian-town inhabitant hasn’t homeland of which he would be proud, but only bitter consciousness of the fact that his people has been slave and paraside being hated by everyone through already 1300 years. Under such historical legacy and national baggage transition to Internationalism, to propagating connection of Proletarians from all countries looks very easy. There appeared pretext for Armenian revolutionaries. In 1880-1890ies there had been paid attention to harmful character of studying at Armenian schools, noted obvious connection between Echmiadzin parriarch and foreign, as well as local revolutionary organizations, revealed shortages in administration over church and cloister Armenian territories.

In view of general character of policy conducted by Caucasian authorities in that period, these circumstances evoked appearance of certain decrees about Armenian schools, depriving the Patriarch right to personally undertake matters about nuptials, language, oath, church possessions confiscation etc. It was sufficient for rousing Armenian people masses against Russian government. Armenian revolutionary forces by this period had been already enough trained both morally and materially. In leaflets ‘Turkey” word was changed to “Russia”. And just like several years before Armenian subjects of Russia conveyed arms and volunteers to Turkey, so now Turkish Armenians “Fidan” began passing Russian frontier. Presently all Armenian political groups: !) nationalists (old Dashnaktsakans). Their key aim is retaining Armenian tribe, language, religion, potentiality to implement cultural-tribal tasks under the aegis of mighty government; 2) new Dashnaktsakans –all leftist Armenian fractions, from Social democrats to anarchists. They are true masters of situation in Echmiadzin patriarchate.

Conclusions from this shot note are the below ones: !) Armenian people in their mass are absolutely unrevolutionary and confine themselves to minimum economic demands; 2) Armenian people and Armenian public opinion are influenced by a small group of impudent revolutionaries who seized the press, Echmiadzin patriarchate and representation in Duma; 3) servility with respect to the patriarch, compromising government, results in extreme harm.

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

History Institute named after Bakikhanov A.A.
March 11, 2010
France Urges Progress On Karabakh, Turkish-Armenian Ties

France — President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) bids farewell to his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian at Elysee Palace in Paris, 10Mar2010

10.03.2010

Ruzan Kyureghian in Paris

French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged more intensive efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a quick implementation of the Turkish-Armenian normalization agreements during talks with his visiting Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sarkisian, on Wednesday.

The two leaders met in Paris on the second day of Sarkisian’s official visit to France. None of them made any public statements after the meeting. Their joint news briefing scheduled beforehand was cancelled for unknown reasons.

Official Armenian and French sources said the talks touched upon bilateral relations, the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

A spokesman for Sarkozy said the French leader called for “developing the dynamic” of the ongoing work on the “basic principles” of a Karabakh settlement put forward by the U.S., Russian and French mediators co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group.

The mediators hope that Armenia and Azerbaijan will iron out their remaining differences over the proposed framework agreement in the course of this year. Armenian leaders have indicated, however, that a breakthrough in the peace talks is still not on the horizon.

France — Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian reviews the presidential guard at Elysee Palace in Paris, 10Mar2010

Sarkozy, according to his spokesman, urged the conflicting parties to reinvigorate their search for a mutually acceptable deal. “One should take the necessary steps that will lead to a lasting peace and would be beneficial not only for the two countries but the whole region,” he was cited as telling Sarkisian.

Sarkozy was also reported to say that Armenia and Turkey should have “the courage to move forward and use this historic opportunity” to normalize their relations. The spokesman said he specifically stressed that a speedy ratification of their fence-mending “protocols” is expected not only by France but the broader international community.

Sarkisian’s office gave no details of the two presidents’ discussions on Karabakh and Turkey, in a written statement issued later in the day. It said only that Sarkozy praised the Armenian leader’s “efforts aimed at establishing peace and stability in the region.”

“Nicolas Sarkozy reaffirmed his country’s intention to develop relations with the Republic of Armenia in all directions and stressed that France has been and remains Armenia’s friend, always standing by its side,” read the statement. He also spoke of a “sincere sympathy towards Armenia and the Armenian people” existing France, it said.

Sarkisian, for his part, described France as his country’s “reliable partner and ally on the international stage. “President Sarkisian noted with satisfaction that French-Armenian relations are dynamically developing in all areas,” his office said.

The Elysee Palace spokesman said the two men discussed ways of boosting bilateral economic ties and welcomed in that regard the French telecom giant Orange’s recent entry into Armenia. He said France is not satisfied with the current volume of French-Armenian commercial contacts and hopes that they will increase in the near future.

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1980071.html

March 10, 2010