Category: Eastern Europe

  • RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SEEKS TO DESTABILIZE CRIMEA

    RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SEEKS TO DESTABILIZE CRIMEA

    By Taras Kuzio

    Wednesday, October 1, 2008

     

    On September 29 the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) protested against an appeal made by the Russian delegation to the OSCE about the Crimea. “Methods and dirty technology created in the ’90s of the last century are being used to destabilize the situation in the ARK [Autonomous Republic of Crimea] by fomenting separatist movements in the territories of the former USSR… Such actions cannot be regarded as anything other than gross interference in the internal affairs of another state,” the MFA said (www.mfa.gov.ua, September 29). 

    That Ukrainian-Russian relations are poor and deteriorating is increasingly obvious from mutual accusations, counter-accusations, and insinuations. Russian political technologist Sergei Markov, a Unified Russia deputy, described Ukrainian-Russian relations to all intents and purposes as non-existent (www.pravda.com.ua, September 24).

    Even in the area of Soviet history the Ukrainian and Russian sides have diametrically opposite views. The Russian Foreign Ministry gloated over Ukraine’s failure to find support for a resolution at the UN to recognize the 1933 artificial famine as “genocide” conducted against Ukrainians. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry issued a strongly worded rebuttal. Writing in September’s Prospect magazine Arkady Ostrovsky said, “an old fashioned nationalism, in neo-Stalinist costume, has become the most powerful force in Russian society” (www.prospect-magazine.co.uk).

    Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko has officially accused Russia of seeking to destabilize the autonomous republic of the Crimea. It is undesirable that “the Russian consulate in Simferopol distributes passports” (EDM, September 15). Meanwhile, Russian politicians, such as Moscow Mayor Yuriy Luzhkov, travel to Ukraine and call for uniting the Crimea to Russia (Fokus, no.38, September 19).

    Ohryzko also complained that Russia was attempting to block Ukraine’s entry into NATO by using, among others things, the Crimean card. Russia also disrespected Ukraine’s sovereignty (Fokus, no.38, September 19).

    At a well-publicized press conference on September 25, the Security Service (SBU) provided extensive details of attempts by Russian intelligence to hire Ukrainian citizens to participate in conflicts in the Caucasus. The SBU gave details about recent attempts to hire Ukrainians for the August Georgian conflict. In August and September the SBU collected intelligence on many attempts by Russian intelligence to dispatch Ukrainians to the conflict. Ukrainians were offered $200 to $500 per day if they accepted the proposal. Candidates approached by Russian intelligence should have “specific training, including in the field of subversive activity.” Russian intelligence targeted those with existing connections to the Ukrainian military, including reservists (www.mfa.gov.ua, September 29).

    The SBU warned Russia that it was carefully observing these approaches and was initiating counter-measures (www.sbu.gov.ua). “Every attempt at recruiting Ukrainian citizens in foreign games will receive a harsh rebuff,” the SBU warned. Russian intelligence had established and supported “extremist organizations” in Tiraspol, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia; but “We will never permit such activity on our territory,” the SBU stated. Following the Georgian-Russian war, Ukraine purchased its first unmanned drone from the Israeli Ministry of Defense (www.pravda.com.ua, August 29).

    Senior Russian military officers have alleged that Ukrainians fought on the Georgian side during the August conflict. Such claims about “Ukrainian nationalists” are nothing new. In the first and second Russian interventions into Chechnya in 1995 and 2000, Russian officials and media alleged that numerous “Ukrainian nationalists” were fighting with the Chechens. The allegations revived Soviet ideological tirades against western Ukrainian “bourgeois nationalists.”

    The nationalist group most often accused of training recruits for battle against Russia is the extreme right UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian Peoples Self Defense Organization). Russia’s intelligence on Ukrainian nationalists is, in fact, outdated, as the UNA-UNSO disintegrated in the late 1990s into at least three groups.

    One wing of UNA-UNSO that remained committed to its nationalist ideology aligned with the radical opposition Yulia Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT) and Socialist Party in the “Kuchmagate” crisis. The radical opposition led the protests by Ukraine Without Kuchma and Arise Ukraine! from 2000 to 2003. UNA-UNSO members also acted as paramilitary stewards during the orange revolution. The UNA-UNSO was accused of organizing the March 2001 riots in Kyiv (in reality, this was apparently a provocation by undercover Interior Ministry personnel to discredit the anti-Kuchma opposition), and 20 senior UNA-UNSO leaders were charged and imprisoned. Following their release, many of the nationalist wing of the UNA-UNSO, such as Andriy Shkil, joined the BYuT. Shkil is still a BYuT deputy.

    The other two wings of the UNA-UNSO were co-opted by Russian intelligence. They continue to be available for provocations by Russian intelligence in attempts to portray Ukraine’s orange leaders (like their Georgian rose revolution counterparts) as “anti-Russian extremists.”

    The two co-opted former wings of the UNA-UNSO played a highly provocative role in attempts to discredit the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the 2004 presidential elections. Political technologists close to Russia’s presidential administration (i.e., Markov and Gleb Pavlovsky) worked for the candidate supported by Russia, Viktor Yanukovych. They sought to portray Yushchenko as a rabid “anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist” to reduce his popularity in Russophone eastern Ukraine (see EDM, June 29 and September 23, 2004, May 13, 2005).

    One of the two co-opted UNA-UNSO groups, led by Dmytro Korchynsky, was renamed Bratstvo (Brotherhood). Bratstvo and the Progressive Socialist Party are the only two Ukrainian parties in the Highest Council of the International Eurasian Movement and the Eurasian Youth Movement. Both of these organizations are devoted to the Eurasianist ideologist Aleksandr G. Dugin who has ingratiated himself with the Putin regime (see Andreas Umland’s detailed analysis in www.pravda.com.ua, July 20, 2007).

    The SBU has also unveiled Russian intelligence’s attempts to recruit Ukrainians who would “testify” for money that they had undergone “subversive training” in UNA-UNSO bases in western Ukraine with the aim of undertaking “terrorist” attacks alongside Chechens in Russia. Recruited Tatars were also paid to speak on Russian television about the existence of alleged training camps for Islamic terrorists in the Crimea. The aim in both cases, the SBU believes, was to show that Ukraine was a host to training camps for religious and nationalist extremists.

    Russia’s accusations are doubly ironic. First, the UNA-UNSO wing with solid nationalist credentials joined the BYuT in 2001-2002. Tymoshenko meanwhile has been accused of “treason” by the presidential secretariat based on an unfounded allegation that she has “done a deal” with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Second, the remainder of the former UNA-UNSO (i.e., Bratstvo) has long worked for Russian intelligence.

  • TURKEY ACTS AS CAUCASIAN PEACEMAKER

    TURKEY ACTS AS CAUCASIAN PEACEMAKER

    By John C. K. Daly

    Wednesday, October 1, 2008

     

    The armed military confrontation between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in August has produced major shockwaves throughout the Caucasus and beyond. Amid the suffering, the military clash may have shaken opportunities to resolve one of the “frozen conflicts” left over from the collapse of the USSR, the current state of cold war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the aftermath of the 1988-1994 conflict over Karabakh.

    One of the unpleasant diplomatic byproducts of the dispute for Armenia was Turkey’s decision in 1993 to close its 204 mile-long border with Armenia in a show of solidarity with Baku. Ankara consequently has no formal diplomatic ties with Yerevan, but following President Abdullah Gul’s “soccer diplomacy” last month, possibilities exist under Turkey’s proposed Caucasus Cooperation and Stability Platform to help break the diplomatic stalemate between the two Caucasian states.

    On September 27 at the 63rd United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov for wide-ranging tripartite discussions that covered diplomacy, energy, and security (Anadolu Ajansi, September 26). In a sign of reciprocal flexibility, Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian said that Armenia welcomed the Caucasus Cooperation and Stability Platform initiative, adding that they also discussed the necessary steps to fully normalize bilateral relations.

    In Yerevan the Turkish initiative is perceived as a move away from Ankara’s traditional unwavering support of Azerbaijan’s stance, with Turkey increasingly seeing normalization of relations with Armenia as key to expanding its role in the South Caucasus, leaving it the choice of continuing in its role of Azerbaijan’s patron or becoming a regional super power (Hayots Ashkharh, September 26).

    One area in which Turkey exerts substantial influence is its armed forces; its army is the second largest in NATO. A recent NATO military exercise indicates both the possibilities of using the alliance to forge further trilateral links and the distance that yet remains. Armenia is participating in an international exercise held under NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) affiliate program and a newer, complementary NATO program launched in June 2004, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI).

    The NATO Cooperative Longbow/Lancer-2008 (CO LW/CO LR 08) exercise began in Armenia on September 29 and will last through October 20. More than 1,000 servicemen from 18 nations (7 NATO members and 11 PfP partners) are involved in the exercises (www.cooperative08.com/News/news.htm). Besides the Armenian contingent, other nations contributing troops include Canada, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Britain, the United States, Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, and ICI member United Arab Emirates (www.mil.am). Qatar, Serbia, and Montenegro have sent observers to the exercises.

    The CO LW/CO LR 08 operative scenario is based on a UN mandated, NATO-led Crisis Response Operation (CRO), with COLW/ COLR 08 designed to provide a demonstration of NATO’s ability to undertake a complex operation displaying the interoperability of NATO and partner forces, providing a balance between NATO’s training requirements and the training needs of the PfP and ICI.

    Notably, Turkey, a NATO member, is not involved, except for an officer who works for NATO’s international structures and who has arrived in Yerevan. Troops from PfP members Russia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, all of which joined the program in 1994, will also not attend (Arminfo, September 29).

    Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan said, “We see Cooperative Longbow/Lancer-2008 as a means of strengthening trust throughout the region. It is a pleasure for Armenia to conduct an international exercise in its territory on the proper level. We are conducting this exercise to master our peacekeeping skills” , September 29). A source from NATO’s information center in Armenia said that the exercises “will be the biggest in the whole history of NATO’s relations with countries of the South Caucasus” (Itar-Tass, September 29).

    Armenia’s Ministry of Defense press office reported that the Armenian army’s chief of staff Colonel General Yuri Khachaturov noted that the exercises were planned last year and would not affect the region’s geopolitical situation (Arminfo, September 26).

    Russia, however, has been carefully considering Caucasian geopolitics. President Dmitry Medvedev recently stated, “Russia, just as other countries in the world, has regions of privileged interests” (Vesti Informatsionnyi Kanal, August 31). Elaborating on Medvedev’s words, Politika Foundation president Vyacheslav Nikonov said in Moscow, “Russia’s zone of privileged, vital interests consists primarily of the states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization and Ukraine (Argumenty i Fakty, September 26).

    Undoubtedly driving the new diplomatic flexibility is a common concern shared by both Armenia and Turkey—Russia’s dominance of their natural gas imports. Gazprom supplies nearly 65 percent of Turkey’s gas and almost all of Armenia’s, and the Kremlin has not hesitated to use its “gas weapon.” Last month Gazprom Board Chairman Alexei Miller met with ArmRosgazprom Director General Karen Karapetyan to discuss Gazprom raising its natural gas prices to Armenia to the level it charges its European customers by 2011. Gazprom not only owns 68 percent of ArmRosgazprom and provides the gas but also participates in its transport and distribution throughout the republic , September 17). Gazprom, which currently charges Armenia $110 per thousand cubic meters (tcm) of gas, will raise the price 40 percent to $154 starting April 1, 2009.

    For both Armenia and Turkey, neighboring Azerbaijan’s rising natural gas production would provide an energy godsend free of Moscow’s influence, giving both countries the added benefit of collecting transit revenues for surplus production. Moreover, the recent military clash starkly reminded Baku of the vulnerability of its current export options.

    Turkey’s agenda extends beyond regional energy security. During President Gul’s bilateral meetings in New York, he lobbied heavily for Turkey’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council for the 2009-2010 term (Hurriyet, September 29). It is an initiative that all of Turkey’s neighbors would be wise to support.

    Spiraling energy costs are introducing a new pragmatism into a region where politics has frequently been suborned to emotional nationalist agendas. In an era when energy superpowers talk about “privileged interests,” discussing regional Cooperation and Stability Platforms has a far less threatening tone than Russia’s military operations in the Caucasus. If the United Nations cannot provide the sole agenda for tripartite discussions, then perhaps the NATO, PfP, and ICI initiatives can assist, since in the 59 years that the alliance has been in existence, no two members have ever fought each other.

  • Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire

    Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire

    Posted by: Marlene Laruelle <marlenelaruelle@yahoo.com>

    Marlène Laruelle.
    Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire
    Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson Press/Johns Hopkins University Press,
    2008, 288 p.

    Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has been
    marginalized at the edge of a Western-dominated political and economic
    system. In recent years, however, leading Russian figures, including
    former president Vladimir Putin, have begun to stress a geopolitics
    that puts Russia at the center of a number of axes: European-Asian,
    Christian-Muslim-Buddhist, Mediterranean-Indian, Slavic-Turkic, and so
    on. This volume examines the political presuppositions and expanding
    intellectual impact of Eurasianism, a movement promoting an ideology
    of Russian-Asian greatness, which has begun to take hold throughout
    Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. Eurasianism purports to tell Russians
    what is unalterably important about them and why it can only be
    expressed in an empire. Using a wide range of sources, Marl? Laruelle
    discusses the impact of the ideology of Eurasianism on geopolitics,
    interior policy, foreign policy, and culturalist philosophy.

    Marlène Laruelle is currently a research fellow at the Central Asia
    and Caucasus Institute of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
    International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University. She has been a
    postdoctoral fellow at the French Institute for Central Asia Studies
    in Tashkent and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center
    for Scholars
    . In Paris, she is an associate scholar at the French
    Center for Russian, Caucasian, and East-European Studies at the School
    of Advanced Social Sciences Studies.

    Contents:

    Introduction: Eurasianism – Marginal or Mainstream in Contemporary Russia?

    The Historical Roots of the Eurasianist Idea
    Neo-Eurasianism and Its Place in Post-Soviet Russia
    Marginal or “Mainstream”?
    Premises of This Study

    1. Early Eurasianism, 19201930

    The Life and Death of a Current of Thought
    A Philosophy of Politics
    A Geographic Ideology
    An Ambiguous Orientalism
    Conclusions

    2. Lev Gumilev’s A Theory of Ethnicity?

    >From Dissidence to Public Endorsement:
    An Atypical Biography
    “The Last Eurasianist”?
    Gumilev’s Episteme: Subjecting the Humanities to the Natural Sciences
    Theories of the Ethnos or Naturalistic Determinism
    The Complex History of the Eurasian Totality
    Xenophobia, Mixophobia, and Anti-Semitism
    Gumilev, Russian Nationalism, and Soviet Ethnology
    Conclusions

    3. Aleksandr Panarin: Philosophy of History and the Revival of Culturalism

    Is There a Unified Neo-Eurasianist Theory?
    >From Liberalism to Conservatism: Panarin’s Intellectual Biography
    “Civilizationism” and “Postmodernism”
    Rehabilitating Empire: “Civilizational” Pluralism and Ecumenical Theocracy
    Highlighting Russia’s “Internal East”
    Conclusions

    4. Aleksandr Dugin: A Russian Version of the European Radical Right?

    Dugin’s Social Trajectory and Its Significance
    A Russian Version of Antiglobalism: Dugin’s Geopolitical Theories
    Traditionalism as the Foundation of Dugins Thought
    The Russian Proponent of the New Right?
    Fascism, Conservative Revolution, and National Bolshevism
    A Veiled Anti-Semitism
    Ethno-Differentialism and the Idea of Russian Distinctiveness
    Conclusions

    5. The View from “Within”: Non-Russian Neo-Eurasianism and Islam

    The Emergence of Muslim Eurasianist Political Parties
    The Eurasianist Games of the Russian Muftiates
    Tatarstan: The Pragmatic Eurasianism of Russia’s “Ethnic” Regions
    Conclusions

    6. Neo-Eurasianism in Kazakhstan and Turkey

    Kazakhstan: Eurasianism in Power
    The Turkish Case: On the Confusion between Turkism, Pan-Turkism, and
       Eurasianism

    Conclusion: The Evolution of the Eurasian(ist) Idea in the Twentieth Century

    The Unity of Eurasianism
    Organicism at the Service of Authoritarianism: “Revolution” or “Conservatism”?
    Nationalism: Veiled or Openly Espoused: The Cultural Racism of Eurasianism
    Science, Political Movement, or Think Tank?
    Is Eurasianism Relevant to Explanations of Contemporary Geopolitical Change?
    Psychological Compensation or Part of a Global Phenomenon

    Notes
    Bibliography
    Index

  • Consent of Armenia to Participate in Turkish Project is Positive Trend

    Consent of Armenia to Participate in Turkish Project is Positive Trend

    29.09.08 13:15Azerbaijan, Baku, 27 September /corr. Trend News E.Tariverdiyeva / Consent of Armenia to participate in the Turkish project “Platform of security and stability in Caucasus” is a positive trend for discussions over many disputable questions in the Caucasus region. However, the opinions of political scientists do not conver the question of the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the help of the Turkish initiative.

    “It is very important that the Armenian leadership is more opened to the Turkish role in the region and this is positive changes, which now occur,” American expert on Caucasus, Svante Cornell, told TrendNews by telephone from Stockholm.

    At the meeting in New York on 26 September, the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia supported Turkish initiative to establish “Platform of security and stability in Caucasus”, Foreign Minister of Turkey, Ali Babajan, told CNN Turk television.

    “Negotiations in format of troika will be continued further. There is real desire of the authorities of the two states to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem,” said the diplomat.

    In mid September, Russia and Turkey began realization of plan with regards to establishment of “Platform of security and stability in Caucasus” for five countries – Azerbaijan, Russia, Georgia, Turkey and Armenia. The aspiration of Turkey for the prompt solution of the territorial conflicts in Caucasus between Armenia and Turkey, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan was the purpose of the creation of this platform.

    Observers consider that the consent of Armenia to participate in the Turkish initiative is the first step to the beginning of constructive talks on the problems in the region.

    The European Commission considers that Turkey could make a contribution to the solution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

     

    “Turkish initiative to establish “Platform of security and stability in Caucasus” is very interesting, and it can contribute to the solution of conflicts in this region,” the Head of the Diplomatic Mission of the European Commission to Azerbaijan, Alan Waddams, told TrendNews .

    The proposal of Turkey is interesting and should be considered, he said.

    “I believe that with the initiative of Turkey, the OSCE Minsk Group can achieve solution of protracted conflicts,” the diplomats said.

    The conflict between the two countries of South Caucasus began in 1988 due to territorial claims by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Armenia has occupied 20% of the Azerbaijani land including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and its seven surrounding Districts. Since 1992, these territories have been under the occupation of the Armenian Forces. In 1994, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement at which time the active hostilities ended. The Co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, France and USA) are currently holding peaceful negotiations.

    The Azerbaijan side hopes for Turkish initiative in the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    “It is completely possible that after the visit of the Turkish President to Yerevan, Armenia will also participate in the establishment of peace and stability in Caucasus,” member of Azerbaijani delegation to PACE, MP Aydin Mirzazade, said.

    This means the new way of Armenian policy, and in the near future, it is completely possible that we will observe changes in the policy of Armenia, he said.

    “Azerbaijan, as state close to Turkey, and Armenia, which wants to establish relations with Turkey, helped Turkey and gave worthy assessment to its initiative, which is no longer pointless talk and proposal in air,” Mikhail Remizov, President of Russian Institute of National Strategy, told TrendNews.

    However, the political scientist does not consider this decision of Armenia and Azerbaijan in linkage to the Karabakh conflict. “I do not here see the Karabakh theme, with exception of the fact that in the case of creating this format, this will be favorable for discussion of similar questions,” he said.

    Turkish political scientist Arif Keskin does not believe in the success of platform, proposed by Turkey, in the Karabakh problem solution.

    “Talks with the mediation of Turkey can at best lead to the liberation of Azerbaijani regions around Karabakh, which will make a Karabakh problem even more difficult,” representative of Eurasian Research Strategic Center (Ankara), Keskin, told Trend News by telephone.

    American expert on Caucasus Cornell connects further solution of the conflict with the actions of Russia.

    According to him, the conflict will not be resolved unless there are serious signals that Russia is inclined to the peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    “In the present situation, when Russia became stronger in the region, and the West is weaker, it would be good be see changes in the direction of the solution of conflict in Karabakh,” Cornell, Research Director of Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University, told TrendNews by telephone.

    E.Ostapenko (Baku), B.Hasanov (Baku), I.Alizade (Baku) and R.Agayev (Moscow) attended the preparation of the material.

    The correspondent can be contacted at: trend@trend.az

  • ‘Top Syrian officer among bomb victims’

    ‘Top Syrian officer among bomb victims’

    A mysterious explosion near Damascus on Saturday claimed the lives of at least 17 people, including a brigadier-general, further destabilizing the Syrian regime.

    A car bomb carrying 200 kilograms of explosives exploded near the Palestine branch of Syrian Military Intelligence, the London-based daily Asharq Alawsat reported.

    The identity of the high-ranking military officer, who was reportedly killed as a result of the explosion, had not yet been revealed.

    Palestine branch of Syrian Military Intelligence is headed by Gen. Suleiman Dayoub, a close ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s brother-in-law, Gen. Asif Shawkat, who heads military Intelligence and is considered one of the strongest men in the Syrian regime.

    No group has yet taken responsibility for the attack.

    The Media Line’s analysts indicate this was the second incident this year directed against a security target. Earlier this year, Assad’s top security adviser Muhammad Suleiman was assassinated in Tartous. The investigation into his murder was not made public.

    Saturday’s attack may be connected to Suleiman’s assassination and to a behind-the-scenes battle within the top Syrian security command. Various unconfirmed reports over the past few months indicated that Assad may have begun to worry about Shawkat’s increasing power.

    Syria, of course, is not revealing any such internal disputes, and is trying to place the blame on outside elements.

    “Unfortunately, in the years that followed the American war on terror, terrorism has further spread. These kinds of incidents can occur anywhere and are not indicative of security breaches,” Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told reporters.

    Muallem said further that Israel was among the “biggest benefactors” of the attack.

    Source: The Jerusalem Post,

  • U.S. Ambassadorial nominee for Turkey doesn’t dispute Morgenthau’s record on Armenian Genocide

    U.S. Ambassadorial nominee for Turkey doesn’t dispute Morgenthau’s record on Armenian Genocide

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ Ambassador to Turkey designate James Jeffrey, in response to questions from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE), affirmed that official U.S. diplomatic reports by Ambassadors Morgenthau and Elkus and other Armenian Genocide-era U.S. diplomats in the Ottoman Empire did, in fact, describe the attempted extermination of the Armenian population, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) told PanARMENIAN.Net.

    “Although falling far short of a clear and proper recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Ambassador Jeffrey, in his response to Senator Biden’s questioning, moved U.S. policy in the right direction by publicly agreeing – after long years of official disregard, disrespect, and dismissal of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s proud legacy – that our nation’s diplomatic representatives to the Ottoman Empire did, in fact, document the Ottoman government’s clear intent and systematic campaign to destroy its Armenian population,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “We want to thank Chairman Biden for his thoughtful inquiries that led to this reaffirmation of the American record, and to, once again, express our appreciation to Senators Menendez and Kerry for their incisive lines of questioning during the Foreign Relations Committee’s confirmation hearing earlier this week.”

    In questions submitted to the Amb. Jeffrey, Sen. Biden asked: “Do you dispute that U.S. diplomats serving in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian Genocide documented a systematic, government-sponsored campaign ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part’ the Armenian population?”

    Ambassador-Designate Jeffrey provided the following response: No. I have read many of the historical records from 1915-1916 related to U.S. diplomatic reporting on these events in Turkey, and I do not dispute that Ambassador Morgenthau, Ambassador Elkus, and other diplomats during that time period reported on what they described as an attempt to exterminate the Armenian population.

    Source: www.panarmenian.net, 27.09.2008