Category: Eastern Europe

Ankara-Yerevan Accords Point toward Armenia’s Withdrawal from the Occupied Territories

foto -geography.about.com

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus
The emotions, whipped up by commentaries which followed the signing on October 10 of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia, have prevented a logical analysis of the situation. In order to begin such an analysis, we need to recognize that at the roots of the signing of these accords lie a multi-sided game of significance far beyond the South Caucasus region.

If at the outset, the opening of the borders with Armenia was one of the conditions on Turkey’s path toward joining the European Union, then at the present time, the rapprochement of the two countries depends on the geopolitical situation and Ankara’s participation in these processes. Immediately after the signing of the Turkish-Armenian accords, as one should have expected, the EU put forward some new demands for Turkey, about which the latter could not have but known about in advance. This means that Turkey signed the agreements with Armenia not as part of its effort to join the EU, something that provides one of the points of departure for understanding why Turkey decided to reach an agreement with Armenia.

At the same time, we must not ignore the pressures on Turkey both direct and behind the scenes. And those came from more places than just the capitals of the countries which were represented at the signing ceremony. (Here, we intentionally are not touching on the role of Israel in all these complicated political games, the situation around Iran, the transportation routes for Iraqi oil and the Kurdish element in Iraq, as each of these represent a distinctive subject for discussion).

Turkey, who bear the genetic code of the Ottoman Empire as far as great power games are concerned, will not agree to play the role of a defeated country even under the pressure of world powers. Ankara is not in such a weak geopolitical situation that it has to act in ways that harm its national interests. Not long ago, we should remember, Turkey felt itself strong enough to refuse the United States the right to use the military base at Incirlik for the supply of the anti-Saddam operations of the coalition forces in Iraq.

When pointing to the harm the protocols between Ankara and Yerevan create for Azerbaijan in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, one must not forget that the Armenian diaspora has terrorized Turkey with the issue of the so-called “Armenian genocide.” In its turn, Turkish diplomacy, which connects this question with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict until recently took a position absolutely the same as Azerbaijan both because of their common Turkishness and because of Turkey’s own national interests. These two issues also served as a factor which united the Azerbaijani and Turkish diaspora, which resisted recognition of “the Armenian genocide” by pointing to the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands.

Viewed from that perspective, it would seem that Turkey, which has little to gain economically and politically by reaching an accord with Armenia, signed the protocols in a way that both undercut its own interests and angered its fraternal and strategic relationship with Azerbaijan.

Of course, in contrast to the 1990s, Azerbaijan today is not the weak “younger brother” who needs support but an equal state that is confident in its own forces and demands respect on that basis. This cannot entirely please the current Turkish powers that be, but it is not the occasion for a break with a reliable partner. Differences in the question of the transportation of Azerbaijani gas to Turkey also cannot be the subject for speculation on such a strategic question as the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border.

During the entire period of talks with Armenia, official representatives of Turkey at various levels repeated that the relationship Ankara sought would not harm the interests of Azerbaijan and that the Turkish-Armenian borders will not be opened until the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Among those who have constantly said this are Turkish President Abdulla Gul, Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu, members of the parliament, opposition figures and others both before and after the signing of the protocols.

At the same time, every step of Armenian-Turkish negotiations was discussed with Baku, and talks about the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue continued in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

And in this context, the declaration of Turkish President Gul concerning the impact in “a short time” of the Armenian-Turkish accords on “the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict” merits attention and should calm many of the concerns in Azerbaijan.

At the present time, when Azerbaijan has acquired major geopolitical importance, ignoring its interests on such an important issue is impossible. Consequently, the interests of Baku were taken into consideration. Note that immediately after the signing in Switzerland of the Armenian-Turkish agreement Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev arrived in Zurich where the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed. Further, a short time after the signing of the agreement with the very same mission, Tina Kaidanow, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia arrived in Baku, and in the framework of the meetings of the foreign ministers of the Black Sea countries, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with President Ilham Aliyev and his foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov. And the visit to Baku of General Ishyk Koshaner, commander of Turkish ground forces, to meet with Azerbaijani Defense Minister Col. Gen. Safar Abiyev is yet another confirmation of this.

Taken together, it is clear that this cycle of visits was not a matter of chance.

And if there were any doubt about this, the reaction both within Armenian society and also in the diaspora to the accord which should allow Armenia to escape from the blockade has been negative. Evidently, Armenian society and politicians recognize that they will have to free the occupied territories, because otherwise no one intends to save Armenia. It is not accidental that after the signing of the Zurich agreement, all sides represented at the ceremony except for Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan did not hide their satisfaction with what had taken place.

In other words, everything shows that the Zurich agreement will have a positive consequence on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Judging by the presence at the signing ceremony of the representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group, it is possible to assert that all interested sides are informed about this process and about its impact on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

If under the pressure of the diaspora Armenia will not ratify the agreement, Azerbaijan and Turkey will return to where they were before. If the Turkish and Armenian parliaments all the same give legal force to the agreement, then Armenia will have to free Azerbaijani territories in order to secure the opening of the Turkish borders. Otherwise, Ankara, responding to public pressure in Azerbaijan and in Turkey will not be able to open the borders with Armenia. In that case, Azerbaijani and Turkish public opinion will be in a position to increase international pressure on Yerevan and the Armenian diaspora regarding the liberation of the occupied territories.

If Armenia does not follow through, then Turkey will always be in a position to find reasons to close the borders. In such a case, Azerbaijan will be left with only one choice – the liberation of the occupied territories by military means; and the countries involved in the division of spheres of influence in the region will have to agree with this. Otherwise Azerbaijan, using its status as “the most reliable country for the transportation of gas,” will have every reason for refusing to allow the Nabucco project to pass through its territory.

Every country has its own interests and priorities, and in this case, that means that there is no chance that Turkey will sacrifice its relations with Azerbaijan for new ties with Armenia.

May 6, 2010
Crimea’s Stability Under Threat, Crimean Tatar Leader Warns

Paul Goble

Vienna, March 17 – Mustafa Cemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatar national movement, warned the European Parliament that the situation in his homeland is increasingly fragile in the wake of the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008 and the recent election of pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich as president of Ukraine.
Those two events, he argued, have exacerbated a situation already tense because of the anti-Crimean Tatar rhetoric and actions of the local ethnic Russian community, which justifies its presence there by attacking the Crimean Tatars, and by the failure of the Ukrainian government to provide the necessary support for the Crimean Tatars on their return from exile.
Lest the situation deteriorate still further, Cemilev continued, the European Parliament not only needs to declare the Soviet deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944 a genocide, an action fully in keeping with that body’s actions on Stalin-era crimes against humanity, but take a number of specific steps to reduce tensions and ensure the survival of the Crimean Tatar nation.
While it is unlikely that the European Parliament will take any immediate action – there are too many countervailing pressures – Cemilev and the Crimean Tatars can claim a real victory by attracting attention to a problem that all too many government officials and even human rights activists often view as an historical matter.
And by suggesting that instability and violence are real possibilities in Crimea unless the European Parliament and other international bodies take note and take action, Cemilev is forcing such groups and international opinion more generally to recognize that if they fail to take steps now in a small place about which they know little, they will bear responsibility for what happens.
Cemilev, the head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, began his remarks by thanking the European Parliament for paying attention to the issues of his people and homeland by devoting “a special session” to the discussion of the problems in Ukraine and in Crimea.
The problems of Crimea, a region that constitutes four percent of Ukraine’s area and five percent of its population, have “became more complicated and disturbing after the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008” and the adoption of a new Russian military doctrine saying that Moscow has the right to use force beyond its borders if Russian citizens are threatened.
Those developments have intensified the feelings of many ethnic Russians there that the exile of the Crimean Tatars in 1944 was not a genocide but rather an appropriate punishment for their supposed “collaboration” because such feelings justify the presence of the ethnic Russians there and the mistreatment or even expulsion of the Crimean Tatars.
In his remarks, Cemilev talked about the many problems the Crimean Tatars face: the difficulties they have in gaining ownership of land, their low representation in government offices, the obstacles they face in maintaining schools and opening mosques, and the continuing exile of the more than 100,000 members of their nation who have not been able to return.
And these problems have been intensified recently by the election of Viktor Yanukovich, “who is considered a pro-Russian and anti-Western politician,” as president of Ukraine, a man the ethnic Russians of Crimea overwhelmingly supported but that the Crimean Tatars overwhelmingly opposed.
This situation, Cemilev continued, could lead to instability, and consequently, the Crimean Tatar leader called on the European Parliament not only to declare the expulsion of the Crimean Tatars a genocide but also to support a series of specific programs to ensure that the Crimean Tatars, “now on the verge of the loss of linguistic and cultural identity,” will survive.
Cemilev called on the European institution to support the construction of schools for the Crimean Tatars, the renovation of Crimean Tatar historical and cultural treasures, the promotion of digital and print media in Crimean Tatar, the development of small and mid-sized enterprises, and, perhaps most important, support for easing repatriation efforts for those not yet returned.
If the European Parliament and other European structures respond even in part, Cemilev concluded, their efforts will represent “a contribution to the cause of strengthening an independent and democratic Ukraine and stability in the greater Black Sea region in Eastern Europe.

NOTE: Mubbeyin Altan, head of the Crimean Tatar Information and Research Center in the United States, kindly provided the author with an English and a Russian text of Mustafa Jemilev’s remarks in Brussels. Anyone who would like to receive a copy of these texts can do so by sending an email to paul.goble@gmail.com

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/03/window-on-eurasia-crimeas-stability.html

March 18, 2010
Int’l Symposium on Karaite Studies

An international symposium on the Karaite Studies will be held by
jointly Bilecik University and Sakarya University in Bilecik, Turkey,
April 5-8, 2010. In the symposium; the Karaite history, culture and
important leaders will be discussed. In addition to this, at the round
table discussions their future, relations with Turkey and their
leaders will be examined.

For the symposium programme, see the following web site:

Asst. Prof. Dr. M. Bilal CELIK
On the Behalf of the Organization Committee

March 18, 2010
Russian Patriarch Honors Armenia ‘Genocide’ Victims

Catholicos Garegin II (right) and Russian Patriarch Kirill lay a wreath at a monument to Russian soldiers killed in the Russo-Persian war in Yerevan.

March 17, 2010

YEREVAN — Russian Orthodox Church leader Patriarch Kirill has honored the victims of what Armenians consider the first genocide of the 20th century.

During a visit to Yerevan, Kirill laid wreaths at Yerevan’s Armenian Genocide Monument, dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who died in World War I-era mass killings by Turkish forces.

Russia is among the countries that recognize the killings as genocide, a term Turkey rejects.

Earlier, Kirill pledged to strengthen relations between the Russian and Armenian churches at the beginning of his three-day official visit.

Kirill and Catholicos Garegin II, the supreme leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church, were greeted by hundreds of believers and led a joint prayer service at the Armenian church’s main cathedral in Echmiadzin, near Yerevan, shortly after Kirill’s arrival in the Armenian capital on March 16.

“Every visitor to Armenia receives unforgettable impressions, looking at its main symbol, the holy Mount Ararat,” Kirill said in a speech.

He added that Russian-Armenian relations have been “warm and friendly” ever since modern-day Armenia was incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1828 as a result of a Russo-Persian war. He underlined the significance of that victory later in the day by visiting a memorial to Russian soldiers killed in that war.

Garegin, for his part, spoke of the Armenian people’s “total love of and warm feelings of gratitude toward the Russian [Orthodox] Church, the great Russian people, and the Russian state.”

A spokesman for Garegin, Vahram Melikian, told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that the visit will “further strengthen” ties between the two churches, which both enjoy strong government support.

Russian analysts say that unlike his predecessor, Aleksy II, who died in 2008, Kirill is active in the political arena and keen to reach out to other
churches. Aleksei Makarkin, director of the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies, likened him to experienced politicians who can “very quickly achieve their goals.”

Makarkin told RFE/RL that the 63-year-old patriarch has a cordial rapport with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

“Patriarch Kirill is undoubtedly an influential political figure in Russia, someone whose views the Kremlin takes into account,” he said.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is the oldest state church in the world.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Russian_Patriarch_Honors_Armenia_Genocide_Victims/1986689.html

March 17, 2010
Killing Two Birds With One Stone?

Gulnara Inandzh
Director
International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

mete62@inbox.ru

RELATED INFO

https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia complicated the ethnic situation in the entire Caucasus by creating favorable conditions for the exacerbation of ethnic self-consciousness among many groups and for the manipulation of some of these groups by various countries both in the region and beyond.

The activities of the Circassians who hope to unite the members of their ethnos into a single republic have attracted a great deal of attention, but developments in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a Georgian region populated largely by ethnic Armenians have not, although for many reasons, what is going on there may have even greater immediate consequences.

At the start of this year, the Georgian authorities – as they have in the past sought to prevent the situation in Samtskhe-Javakhetia from getting out of hand – arrested several activists, who Armenians said are completely “innocent.” But almost at the same moment this exchange occurred, an unusual declaration by Dashgyn Gulmammadov, the president of the National Assembly of Azerbaijanis of Georgia, was released.

That declaration [1] called for Georgia to be transformed into a confederation of Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians. But despite its Azerbaijani origin, it did not call for ethnic Azerbaijanis to gain autonomy, limiting itself to the demand that in this new state, Azerbaijani should be one of the state languages. A similar idea surfaced during the Russian-Georgian war of last August. At that time, its authors were citizens of the Russian Federation and an ethnic Azerbaijani from Iran now living in Sweden.

And this declaration, by a strange coincidence appearing at the time of the Javakhetia events but one not strange at all if these groups are being manipulated by Moscow and Yerevan, also called for giving the ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan, in particular the Talysh, Avars and Lazgis, similar rights. By putting out such statements, those who issue them and even more the people who are orchestrating this hope to weaken and fragment Georgia and Azerbaijan and to limit the options of both Tbilisi and Baku.

Confirmation of this is provided by the following: During the most recent arrests in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, Armenian commentators hurried to accuse Azerbaijan of being behind events there. In this way, Yerevan sought to take steps to give it greater freedom of action in the future. First of all, since Javakhetia organizations, in the opinion of Georgian experts, are directed by the Armenian special services and Russia, then the shift in rhetoric toward Georgia regarding its citizens of Azerbaijani nationality beyond any doubt indicates who compiled the “Azerbaijani” declaration.

Moscow is interested in the further dismemberment of Georgia and consequently views the efforts of the Javakhetia Armenians as a completely logical next step. Azerbaijanis, on the other hand and as Georgians recognize, do not have separatist ambitions and remain loyal to the Georgian government. Changing that by a few declarations of the type cited above won’t shift them from that.

Consequently, it should be obvious that claims to the contrary are simply intended to provide cover for Armenian plans. Equally indicative of what is going on is that the exacerbating of the ethnic situation in Georgia has slowed the process of the return of Meskhetian Turks to their historical lands in Samtskhe-Javakhetia, a return that Armenians of that region oppose.

And the sponsors of this exploitation of ethnic minority aspirations have promoted their ideas via scholarly conferences about these communities, propaganda about the dangers of Pan-Turanism and the assimilation of peoples living in Azerbaijan, and the creation of websites which speak out in defense of the rights of ethnic communities living there, to name just a few. Lazgis, Udins, Tats, Jews, and Kurds who alongside Azerbaijanis and Turks at the beginning of the 20^th century were killed by the thousand by Dashnaks have suddenly been transformed into the brothers of the Armenians. Indeed, Armenian websites are ready to post materials about the interrelationships of the indigenous peoples of Azerbaijan with the power structure which exists in this republic and about the means of expanding relations between them and the Armenian people. [2]

The latest and especially gratuitous example of this involves the dissemination by the Armenian information agency Panarmenian.net of reports about “Jewish pogroms” in Sumgait this month, events which someone at the agency or somewhere else invented out of whole cloth. There were no such “pogroms.” But reports that they were, however false, may help the Armenian lobby in the United States to push through a Congressional resolution about the Armenian genocide. And it is possible that they were directed at complicating relations between Israel and Turkey.

Armenia, even as it remains in occupation of Azerbaijani territory, has always sought to convince the world that the rights of ethnic minorities are not protected in Azerbaijan and consequently that it would be unthinkable to return the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to a position in which they would be threatened by discrimination and destruction. The ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan and “the defense of their rights” thus remain under the constant control of political operatives in Armenia.

Unfortunately, this effort is often supplemented by the dispatch of Islamic groups and even criminal elements into Azerbaijan where they pose as “defenders” of the interests of ethnic Daghestanis. Indeed, the appearance in Daghestan of the youth movement Anti-Turan, the goal of which is the struggle with the spread of Turkish throughout the Caucasus, is a measure of the lengths Armenia and its Russian backers are prepared to go to promote anti-Azerbaijani attitudes. [3]

Notes
[1] Regnum (2009), ‘Настало время добиваться своих национальных целей: президент Национальной ассамблеи азербайджанцев Грузии’, January 30, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

[2] E.g. explore .

[3] Khabal.info (2009) ‘Заявление молодежного патриотического движения “Анти-Туран”’, January 18, available at (accessed February 12, 2009).

l

March 15, 2010
Georgian Human Rights Groups Meet Western Diplomats

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 10 Mar.2010

Georgian human rights and advocacy groups met with British, French and U.S. ambassadors in Tbilisi on March 10 to convey their concerns regarding recent cases of, as they put it, targeting human rights groups and activists.

Representatives from Human Rights Centre (HRC), Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and Multinational Georgia, an umbrella organization for dozens of NGOs working on ethnic and religious minority issues, participated in the meeting held in the office of HRC.

“There have been cases of direct or indirect pressure on activists and human rights groups and we wanted to inform ambassadors about these cases,” Ucha Nanuashvili, head of Human Rights Centre, said.

He said, among other issues, the case of Arnold Stepanian, founder of Multinational Georgia and representative of Armenian community in Georgia, was raised during the meeting.

Some Georgian media outlets alleged recently Stepanian was working for the Russian intelligence. Posts made by anonymous users on several Russian internet discussion forums were cited as source of information.

One of such reports was aired recently by Tbilisi-based Real TV, a station going out in Tbilisi through cable. Its 9-minute long report on the issue opens with footage from a meeting of leaders of Alliance for Georgia (Irakli Alasania, Davit Usupashvili, Davit Gamkrelidze and Sozar Subari) with representatives of Armenian community, also attended by Arnold Stepanian; the footage is accompanied by voiceover saying: “Irakli Alasania, Davit Usupashvili, Davit Gamkrelidze and Sozar Subari are sitting alongside with a presumed special agent of Russia’s Federal Security Service Arnold Stepanian.”

In general targeting opposition politicians has become a hallmark of Real TV; but the way how the station does it has become a source of criticism from many journalist and media experts saying that the station’s reports are often mudslinging.

After the meeting in HRC office, French Ambassador Eric Fournier told a reporter from Real TV: “Your channel has specifically targeted some members of the opposition to make a very cynical portrait of them and it has been considered as concern by many of us.”

John Bass, the U.S. ambassador, said the meeting aimed at getting “first-hand impression, first-hand assessment” about the human rights landscape in Georgia.

“It’s part of our broad interaction with wide range of organizations so that we can assess human rights situation as part of our broad commitment to help Georgia to realize its goals of membership in Euro-Atlantic community,” Bass said.

Denis Keefe, the British ambassador, said work of human rights groups was “fundamental to Georgia’s democratic development.”

“We have good cooperation with number of these NGOs… and we have very useful and serious discussion,” Keefe said.

Ucha Nanuashvili of HRC said that another case raised with the diplomats was related to a long-time investigative journalist Vakhtang Komakhidze, who has requested asylum in Switzerland, citing pressure from the authorities.

On February 26 eighteen human rights and advocacy groups released a joint statement expressing concern over, as they put it, smear campaign against them.

“Information campaign against human rights organizations has intensified since December 2009. Those media outlets, which are either controlled by or have links with the authorities, have reported biased stories one after another, where some human rights groups were portrayed as the country’s enemies working against public interests,” a joint statement by 18 non-governmental organizations.

March 10, 2010