Category: America

Alleged Armenian Genocide

TP&J COM. IN CALIFORNIA
Turkish Peace and Justice Committee California
P. O. Box. 866 Sacramento, CA 95812-866 Tel: 530 297-1655 [email protected]
==========================================
Update from California legislature

Bad news:

CA Senator Wyland introduced an SB 234.
Approximately 4 year ago, former Senator Scott introduced a bill that allowed genocide survivors or their descendents to go to public school K-12 classrooms to tell their genocide stories orally. Implementation of these talks in the classroom was optional. Senator Wyland’s bill SB 234 makes it mandatory for schools to include it in their curriculum. And compensate these people (clowns) that participate in this subject.

The intention of this bill (SB 234) is to allow children to be brainwashed by the so-called genocide survivors. By putting on theatrical shows, they will brainwash and transfer their hatred to the naive and innocent American children. The end result of this bill will demonize the Turkish people and their nation.

Some people might not see the importance of this affair. Unfortunately, this occurrence is very dangerous for us (Turkish nation and its people) and for our next generation (our children). In the business world and State Capitol, I am already encountering graduates form UCLA and other schools that were brainwashed and have negative feelings against Turkey and the Turkish people.

I vigorously worked to defeat Senator Scott’s bill but couldn’t succeed. Know that we have a second chance to make our voice heard and heard clearly. We have no choice but to stop this nonsensical political bigotry. I am begging every one of you. Please take all the necessary steps to organize and fight back for the sake of our country and our next generation.

I am not going to plea for help again. I am very frustrated with chasing bill after bill; it never ends. I do not have the time and energy to do so. I have no choice but to direct my limited energy and resources to the objective. Even though in the last 12 years we did accomplish some successes, we have not overcome this problem fully, and this is frustrating me. Many times I intended to quit but the love of my country stopped me.

I am attaching bill SB 234 for your information.

In addition to SB 234, Assembly member Krekorian introduced a resolution AJR 14 relative to the Armenian Genocide. I was waiting for this resolution. This type of resolution comes up every year for approximately the last forty years. Because I knew it is coming up, I started lobbying against it since January. Before that, I volunteered for the election campaign. Every year it is getting harder for them to pass the resolution, but we were not able to stop it completely.

For some reason, our community is not sensitive on this issue. The so-called Armenian genocide resolution is the main source of fuel to start other laws and resolutions. I believe that if we can succeed to stop this so-called Armenian genocide resolution, we will be able to stop other laws and resolutions that relate to this subject.

Some might ask: what should I do? I don’t know, what is your intention and available resources? I suggest doing something such as: write a letter containing one sentence or even one paragraph; call and visit your senators and assembly members. Organize groups…..

Respectfully yours,

Karahan Mete

CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE : S.B. No. 234
AUTHOR(S) : Wyland.
TOPIC : Curriculum: oral histories: genocide.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/13/2009

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/13/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee with author\’s amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED. Set for hearing April 29.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN EDUCATION
HEARING DATE : 04/29/2009

TITLE : An act to amend Section 51225.3 of the Education Code, relating to curriculum.
BILL NUMBER: SB 234 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2009

INTRODUCED BY Senator Wyland

FEBRUARY 24, 2009

An act to amend Section 51225.3 of the Education Code, relating to curriculum.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL\’S DIGEST

SB 234, as amended, Wyland. Curriculum: oral histories: genocide.
(1) Existing law requires each pupil completing grade 12 to satisfy certain requirements as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation from high school. These requirements include the successful passage of the high school exit examination and the completion of designated coursework in grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The coursework requirements include the completion of 3 courses in social studies, including United States history and geography, world history, culture, and geography, a one-semester course in American government and civics, and a one-semester course in economics. This bill, commencing with the 2010-11 school year, would prohibit a pupil from receiving credit for passing a course in United States history and geography, or in world history, culture, and geography, without exposure in that course to an oral history component, as defined, specifically related to genocides , as specified . To the extent that school districts would be required to provide a higher level of service in order for pupils to meet this requirement, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51225.3 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51225.3. (a) Commencing with the 1988-89 school year, no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from high school who, while in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, has not completed all of the following:
(1) At least the following numbers of courses in the subjects specified, each course having a duration of one year, unless otherwise specified.
(A) Three courses in English.
(B) Two courses in mathematics.
(C) Two courses in science, including biological and physical sciences.
(D) (i) Three courses in social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; a one-semester course in American government and civics, and a one-semester course in economics.
(ii) Commencing with the 2010-11 school year, a pupil shall not receive credit for passing a course in United States history and geography, or in world history, culture, and geography, world history, culture, and geography, without
exposure to an oral history component in that course, specifically related to genocides , including, but not limited to, the Darfur, Rwandan, Cambodian, Jewish Holocaust, or Armenian genocides . As used in this clause, “exposure to an oral history component” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, in-person testimony, video, or a multimedia option , such as a DVD or online video .
(E) One course in visual or performing arts or foreign language. For the purposes of satisfying the requirement specified in this subparagraph, a course in American Sign Language shall be deemed a course in foreign language.
(F) Two courses in physical education, unless the pupil has been exempted pursuant to the provisions of this code.
(2) Other coursework as the governing board of the school district may by rule specify.
(b) The governing board, with the active involvement of parents, administrators, teachers, and pupils, shall adopt alternative means for pupils to complete the prescribed course of study , which may include practical demonstration of skills and competencies, supervised work experience or other outside school experience, career technical education classes offered in high schools, courses offered by regional occupational centers or programs, interdisciplinary study, independent study, and credit earned at a postsecondary institution. Requirements for graduation and specified alternative modes for completing the prescribed course of study shall be made available to pupils, parents, and the public.
SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

BILL NUMBER: AJR 14 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Krekorian
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member De Leon)
(Principal coauthors: Senators Cogdill and Simitian)

APRIL 14, 2009

Relative to the Armenian Genocide.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AJR 14, as introduced, Krekorian. Armenian Genocide: Day of Remembrance.
This measure would designate April 24, 2009, as “California Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923.” It would memorialize the Congress and the President of the United States to act likewise to commemorate the Armenian Genocide.
Fiscal committee: no.

WHEREAS, The Armenian people, living in their 3,000-year historic homeland in eastern Asia Minor and throughout the Ottoman Empire, were subjected to severe persecution and brutal injustice by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire before and after the turn of the 20th century, including widespread massacres, usurpation of land and property, and acts of wanton destruction during the period from 1894 to 1896, inclusive, and again in 1909; and WHEREAS, The horrible experience of the Armenians at the hands of their oppressors culminated in 1915 in what is known by historians as the “First Genocide of the Twentieth Century,” and as the prototype of modern day mass killing; and
WHEREAS, The Armenian Genocide began with the arrest, exile, and murder of hundreds of Armenian intellectuals, and business, political, and religious leaders, starting on April 24, 1915; and WHEREAS, The regime then in control of the empire, known as the \”Young Turks,\” planned and executed the unspeakable atrocities committed against the Armenian people from 1915 to 1923, inclusive, which included the torture, starvation, and murder of 1,500,000
Armenians, death marches into the Syrian Desert, the forced exile of more than 500,000 innocent people, and the loss of the traditional Armenian homelands; and
WHEREAS, While there were some Turks and others who jeopardized their safety in order to protect Armenians from the crimes being perpetrated by the Young Turk regime, the genocide of the Armenian people constituted one of the most egregious violations of human rights in the history of the world; and
WHEREAS, The United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., stated \”Whatever crimes the most perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, and whatever refinements of persecutions and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive, became the daily misfortunes of this devoted people. I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. The killing of the Armenian people was accompanied by the systematic destruction of churches, schools, libraries, treasures of art, and cultural monuments in an attempt to eliminate all traces of a noble civilization with a history of more than 3,000 years”; and WHEREAS, In discussing World War I, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote that “… the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it … the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense”; and WHEREAS, Winston Churchill wrote: “As for Turkish atrocities: … massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust–these were beyond human redress”; and
WHEREAS, Contemporary newspapers like the New York Times commonly carried headlines such as “Tales of Armenian Horrors Confirmed,” “Million Armenians Killed or in Exile,” and “Wholesale Massacre of Armenians by Turks”; and
WHEREAS, Adolph Hitler, in persuading his army commanders on the eve of World War II that the merciless persecution and killing of Poles, Jews, and other peoples would bring no retribution, declared, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”; and
WHEREAS, Unlike other peoples and governments that have admitted and denounced the abuses and crimes of predecessor regimes, and despite the overwhelming proof of genocidal intent, the Republic of Turkey has inexplicably and adamantly denied the occurrence of the crimes against humanity committed by the Young Turk rulers, and those denials compound the grief of the few remaining survivors of the atrocities, desecrate the memory of the victims, and cause continuing trauma and pain to the descendants of the victims; and
WHEREAS, The Turkish Government has engaged in concerted efforts to revise history through the dissemination of propaganda falsely suggesting that Armenians were responsible for their fate in the period from 1915 to 1923, inclusive, and by the funding of programs at American educational institutions for the purpose of furthering the cause of this revisionism;and
WHEREAS, The Republic of Turkey has been condemned by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations for making free speech a crime by enacting Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes “public denigration of Turkishness … the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security structures ” punishable by imprisonment, and has used this device to harass, intimidate, prosecute, and imprison Turkish citizens who have written or spoken honestly about the Armenian Genocide, including Nobel Prize winning author Orhan Pamuk; and
WHEREAS, Among those charged with “denigration of Turkishness” by Turkish prosecutors for his forthright acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide was journalist Hrant Dink, and in this atmosphere of intolerance of dissent, Mr. Dink was assassinated for his views on January 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, The accelerated level and scope of denial and revisionism, coupled with the passage of time and the fact that few survivors remain who serve as personal eyewitnesses to the indescribable brutality and torment, compel a sense of urgency in achieving formal recognition and reaffirmation of the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide; and
WHEREAS, By honoring the victims and survivors, and consistently remembering and forcefully condemning the atrocities committed against the Armenian people as well as the persecution of the Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire, we guard against repetition of the crime of genocide; and
WHEREAS, California has become home to the largest population of Armenians in the world outside of Armenia, including Armenian Genocide survivors and their descendants, and those citizens have enriched our state and our Nation through leadership in academia, medicine, business, law, agriculture, government, the arts, and many other worthy endeavors, and they are proud and patriotic practitioners of American citizenship; and
WHEREAS, The State of California has been at the forefront of encouraging and promoting a curriculum relating to human rights and genocide in order to empower future generations to prevent recurrence of the crime of genocide; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California hereby designates April 24, 2009, as the “California Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923”; and be it further Resolved, That the State of California commends its conscientious educators who teach about human rights and genocide; and be it further Resolved, That the State of California respectfully memorializes the Congress and the President of the United States to act likewise and to formally recognize and reaffirm the historical truth that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people constituted genocide; and be it further Resolved, That the State of California calls upon the Republic of Turkey to acknowledge the facts of the Armenian Genocide and to work toward a just resolution; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, Members of the United States Congress, the Governor, and the Turkish Ambassador to the United States.

April 16, 2009
War, Oil and Gas Pipelines: Turkey is Washington’s Geopolitical Pivot

by F. William Engdahl

Global Research, April 14, 2009

The recent visit of US President Obama to Turkey was far more significant than the President’s speech would suggest. For Washington Turkey today has become a geopolitical “pivot state” which is in the position to tilt the Eurasian power equation towards Washington or significantly away from it depending on how Turkey develops its ties with Moscow and its role regarding key energy pipelines.

If Ankara decides to collaborate more closely with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s natural gas pipeline route to Europe, the so-called Nabucco Pipeline, is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under US auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

For Washington the key to bringing Germany into closer cooperation with the US is to weaken German dependence on Russian energy flows. Twice in the past three winters Washington has covertly incited its hand-picked President in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko to arrange an arbitrary cut off of Russian gas flows to Germany and other EU destinations. The only purpose of the actions was to convince EU governments that Russia was not a reliable energy partner. Now, with the Obama visit to Ankara, Washington is attempting to win Turkish support for its troubled Nabucco alternative gas pipeline through Turkey from Azerbaijan which would theoretically at least lessen EU dependence on Russian gas.

The Turkish-EU problem

However willing Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan might be to accommodate Obama, the question of Turkish relations with the EU is inextricably linked with the troublesome issue of Turkish membership to the EU, a move vehemently opposed by France and also less openly by Germany.

Turkey is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has considerable influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and German ties to Russia weaken considerably. If Turkey decides to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is dependent on Russian energy. Since it became clear in Moscow that US strategy was to extend NATO to Russia’s front door via Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has moved to use its economic “carrot” its vast natural gas resources, to at the very least neutralize Western Europe, especially Germany, towards Russia. It is notable in that regard that the man chosen as Russia’s President in December 1999 had spent a significant part of his KGB career in Germany.

Turkey and the US Game

It is becoming clear that Obama and Washington are playing a deeper game. A few weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues such as troops for Afghanistan or more economic stimulus that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled the trip to Turkey.

During the recent EU meetings in Prague Obama actively backed Turkey’s application for EU membership knowing well that that put especially France and Germany in a difficult position as EU membership would allow free migration which many EU countries fear. Obama deliberately confronted EU states with this knowing he was playing with geopolitical fire, especially as the US is no member of the EU. It was a deliberate and cheap way to score points with the Erdogan government of Turkey.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed him because of his defense of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block Rasmussen. The Turks backed off the veto, and in return won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

Turkey

thereby boosted its standing in NATO, got Obama to vigorously defend the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then went to Turkey for a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

Obama has a Grand Strategy to use Turkey to isolate Russia via Nabucco pipelines through Georgia and Armenia to the EU

The Obama Erdogan talks were perhaps the most strategic of the recent Obama tour

During US-Russian talks there had been no fundamental shift by Obama from the earlier position of the Bush Administration. Russia rejects Washington’s idea of pressuring IUran on their nuclear program in return for a bargain of an undefined nature with Washington over US planned missile and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The US claimed it need not rely on Russia to bring military and other supplies into Afghanistan, claiming it had reached agreement with Ukraine to transship mililtary supplies, a move designed by Washington to increase friction between Moscow and Kiew. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO. The key geopolitical prize for Washington remains Moscow but clearly Turkey is being wooed by Obama to play a role in that game.

Germany will clearly not join Obama in blocking Russia. Not only does Germany depend on Russia for energy supplies. She has no desire to confront a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany. For Berlin, at least now, they are not going to address the Russian question.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia is shaping up. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The US Congress is considering a provocative resolution condeming “Turkish genocide” agianst Armenians. Turkey is highly sensitive to these charges, and Congressional passage of such a resolution would have meant a Turkish break in diplomatic relations with Washington. Now since the Obama visit Ankara has begun to discuss an agreement with Armenia including diplomatic relations which would eliminate the impact of any potential US Congress resolution.

A Turkish opening to Armenia would alter the balance of power in the entire region. Since the August 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict the Caucasus, a strategically vital area to Moscow has been unstable. Russian troops remain in South Ossetia. Russia also has troops in Armenia meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded.

Turkey is the key link in this complex game of geopolitical balance of power between Washington and Moscow. If Turkey decides to collaborate with Russia Georgia’s position becomes very insecure and Azerbaijan’s possible pipeline route to Europe is blocked. If Turkey decides to cooperate with Washington and at the same time reaches a stable agreement with Armenia under US guidance, Russia’s entire position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe becomes available, reducing Russian leverage against Western Europe.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

The most important Obama speech in his European tour came after Turkey won key posts in the NATO political structure with US backing. In his speech Obama sided with Turkey against the EU and in effect showed Turkey Washington was behind her. Obama’s speech addressed Turkey as an emerging regional power, which was well received in Ankara. The sweet words will cost Turkey dearly if it acts on them.

Moscow is not sitting passively by as Washington woos Turkey. Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a four-day visit to the Russian Federation this February, where he met with President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Putin, and also traveled to Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, where he discussed joint investments. Gul was accompanied by his minister for foreign trade and minister of energy, as well as a large delegation of Turkish businessmen. The stakes in this complex three-way Great Game for domination of Eurasia have been raised significantly following the Obama trip to Ankara. Turkey imports 65 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia. Therefore, Turkey is also developing a growing dependency on Russian energy resources, including coal.

On March 27, 2009, a memorandum was signed between the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR and Russia’s Gazprom. The memorandum includes a statement of deliveries, beginning in January 2010, of Azerbaijani natural gas to Russia.

Gazprom was particularly interested in signing such an agreement with Azerbaijan, not the least because Azerbaijan is the only state outside Iran or Turkmenistan, both of which are problematic, that could supply gas to the planned EU Nabucco pipeline, for transporting natural gas from Azerbaijan and the Central Asia states through Turkey to south-eastern Europe. In reality, gas may come only from Azerbaijan. Russia has proposed an alternative to Nabucco project, South Stream, also in need of Azerbaijani gas, so in effect Russia weakens the chances of realization of Nabucco. Obama strategy is clearly not less confrontational with Russia. It is merely playing with a slightly different deck of cards than did Cheney and Bush.

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-oil-and-gas-pipelines-turkey-is-washington-s-geopolitical-pivot/13171

The Russian Dimension

April 15, 2009
Obama to Lift Cuba Travel Restrictions

President Obama will announce today that he is lifting travel restrictions that block Cuban Americans from traveling to Cuba and will relax the rules governing what items can be sent to the island, a senior White House official said. The decision does not lift the trade embargo on communist Cuba but eases the prohibitions that have restricted Cuban Americans from visiting their relatives and has limited what they can send back home.

Obama Lifts Some Restrictions on Cuba

A man rides his bicycle along the Malecon in Havana on April 9, 2009. (Javier Galeano/Associated Press)

Updated 5:55 p.m.
By Michael D. Shear
President Obama is lifting some restrictions on Cuban Americans’ contact with Cuba and allowing U.S. telecom companies to operate there, opening up the communist island nation to more cellular and satellite service, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced at his regular news briefing today.

The decision does not lift the trade embargo on Cuba but eases the prohibitions that have restricted Cuban Americans from visiting their relatives and has limited what they can send back home.

It also allows companies to establish fiber-optic and satellite links between the United States and Cuba and will permit U.S. companies to be licensed for roaming agreements in Cuba.

Communications of those kinds have been prohibited under tough rules put in place by George W. Bush’s administration to pressure for democratic change in the island nation.

But under the new policy promoted by Obama, satellite radio companies and television providers will also be able to enter into transactions necessary to provide service to Cuban citizens.

It will also provide an exception to the trade embargo to allow personal cell phones, computes and satellite receivers to be sent to Cuba.

“All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects the basic human, political and economic rights of all of its citizens,” Gibbs said. “President Obama believes the measure he has taken today, will help make that goal a reality.”

As a candidate, Obama promised to seek closer relations with Cuba, and courted Cuban voters in the key state of Florida. As president, he has signaled that he intends to move toward a greater openness.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, praised the move. “President Obama has made the right call. . . ,” he said in a statement this afternoon. “These changes are both compassionate and responsive to reality.”

A White House aide said the president believes that democratic change will come to the Cuban nation more quickly if the United States reaches out to the people of Cuba and their relatives in the United States.

But the move is highly controversial, especially among those who supported Bush’s hardline policy and view the restrictions as a way of spurring political change.

The news drew quick criticism from Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and his brother, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who called it a “serious mistake.” In a statement posted online, they said, “Unilateral concessions to the dictatorship embolden it to further isolate, imprison and brutalize pro-democracy activists, to continue to dictate which Cubans and Cuban-Americans are able to enter the island, and this unilateral concession provides the dictatorship with critical financial support.”

Obama’s administration takes a somewhat different view than the Bush administration, but has resisted a wholesale elimination of the trade embargo and travel ban, which has been pushed for by some in Congress.

The announcement comes as the president prepares to leave Thursday for the Summit of the America’s in Trinidad, and a stop in Mexico.

April 15, 2009
The Turkish-Armenian Thaw and Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has criticized the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement

April 14, 2009

By Abbas Djavadi

U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent visit was a big boost for Turkey. But a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement was in the works even before Obama was elected president.

Now Baku is upset that Ankara and Yerevan are about to formalize a deal sidelining Azerbaijanis’ main concern: restoring sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions of Azerbaijan that have been occupied by Armenian forces since early the 1990s. Are the days when both Turks and Azeris used to say they were “one nation with two state” gone for ever?

Ankara and Yerevan intensified their negotiations in August 2007 when their diplomats started to regularly meet in Geneva to discuss the details of establishing “good-neighborly” relations. Once the “technical preparation” was almost complete, President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Yerevan in September last year to attend a Turkish-Armenian soccer match, and the meeting between Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in January 2009 on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos signaled the political will of both sides to proceed.

Diplomats have confirmed to the Turkish media that Baku was not only fully informed about the progress and details of those talks, but even “in agreement” with the way Ankara has been approaching the rapprochement issue.

Dozens of rounds of talks between the Turkish and Azerbaijani presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers preceded this climax in the Turkish-Armenian thaw. Cengiz Candar, a Turkish journalist who accompanied President Gul to Tehran on March 11, reports that Gul and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, met in the Iranian capital specifically to discuss the issue.

What an irony of history that now a Turkish government with an Islamic background and an Armenian government led by a former nationalist fighter from Nagorno-Karabakh are close to a breakthrough

Turkish leaders seem to be surprised by the outrage with which President Aliyev, other Azerbaijani officials, and the Azerbaijani media have responded to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. Some Turkish analysts maintain that Baku’s “demonstrative dismay” is meant primarily for internal consumption, while others speculate that the intention is to make clear to Moscow, Yerevan’s main supporter, Baku’s readiness to include it in all political processes in the southern Caucasus.

Whatever the reason for Baku’s anger, the Turkish leadership seems to have concluded that having no diplomatic relations with one of its neighbors and keeping its border closed have not produced, and will not produce, any positive movement on three key issues that have frozen the status quo for nearly 17 years.

The first of those is Yerevan’s insistence that the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians in 1915 should be recognized as “genocide.”

The second is Ankara’s demand that Yerevan clearly recognize the current Turkish-Armenian border, and refrain in future from referring to eastern Turkey as “western Armenia.”

And the third is concluding an agreement between Baku and Yerevan on Nagorno-Karabakh and other Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenian forces.

Referring to serious disputes on all these three points, Turkey “acknowledged” Armenia’s independence in 1991 but declined to extend formal diplomatic recognition. And following the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenian forces, Ankara closed its borders with Armenia in 1993.

For the past 15 or more years, Yerevan has been demanding the opening of the border and the establishment of diplomatic relations “without any precondition.” Ankara, on the other hand, has made both those demands contingent on the resolution of the three main disputed issues. Endless and exhausting talks have been held between all parties involved: Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the “Minsk Group,” consisting of Russia, the United States, and France, to mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

But those talks yielded no concrete results. What an irony of history that now a Turkish government with an Islamic background and an Armenian government led by a former nationalist fighter from Nagorno-Karabakh are close to a breakthrough in what was long enough considered a “frozen conflict.”

With technical details reportedly worked out and political will evident in both Ankara and Yerevan, the next few weeks may bring breaking news about the beginning of a historical rapprochement between Turks and Armenians. There are also reports that the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict may be “very close to a settlement,” although the players in each of these two distinct but intertwined dramas apparently don’t want to wait for the other game to be played out first.

The public, however, still doesn’t know much about what the agreements would produce, either with regard to the “genocide,” or the recognition of the Turkish-Armenian border, or how the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute will be resolved. “Having good relations with Armenia is very good,” said Tulin Kanik, a student of political sciences from Ankara. “But what will happen with their claims on eastern Turkey or with the districts of Azerbaijan still occupied by Armenian forces?”

That both Ankara and Yerevan look confident indicates that people on both sides of Mount Ararat will probably soon hear something they can not only live, but also be happy with. Both Erdogan and Sarkisian know that they have to present their respective populations with a win-win deal. And they also know that, however enthusiastic and supportive the West may be or Russia may become, their own constituencies must accept that deal if they want to survive as national leaders.

Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting with RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.

http://www.rferl.org/content/The_TurkishArmenian_Thaw_and_Azerbaijan/1608216.html

April 14, 2009
Turkish-Armenian Dialogue on the Verge of Collapse

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 71

April 14, 2009 12:55 PM Age: 38 min

Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey, Armenia, Home Page, Foreign Policy

By: Emil Danielyan

Abdullah Gul (left) and Serzh Sarkisian

The nearly year-long negotiations between Armenia and Turkey look set to prove fruitless after Ankara has revived its long-standing linkage between the normalization of bilateral ties and a resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly made clear this month that his government will not establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan and re-open the Turkish-Armenian border without Azerbaijan’s consent. In Armenia and especially amongst its worldwide diaspora, meanwhile, there are growing calls for President Serzh Sarkisian to abandon the Western-backed talks.

The success of those talks seemed a foregone conclusion in the weeks leading up to President Barack Obama’s visit on April 6-7. According to reports in both the Turkish and Western media, Armenia and Turkey have finalized an agreement on gradually normalizing their strained relations and setting up inter-governmental commissions dealing with various issues of mutual interest. Some of those reports quoted unnamed Turkish officials as saying that the agreement could be signed during or shortly after Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s trip to Istanbul on April 6. The resulting outcry in Azerbaijan (EDM, April 10) suggested that Ankara and Yerevan were indeed very close to cutting a far-reaching deal.

Erdogan called into question the possibility of such a deal when he told a news conference in London on April 3 that Turkey cannot reach a “healthy solution concerning Armenia” as long as the Karabakh dispute remains unresolved (Today’s Zaman, April 4). He reaffirmed the linkage on April 8, two days after Obama stated in Ankara that the Turkish-Armenian negotiations were “moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly, very soon.” The Turkish premier went as far as demanding that the U.N. Security Council denounce Armenia as an “occupier” and called for Karabakh’s return under Azeri rule (Hurriyet Daily News, April 9).

Any doubts about the practical implications of these statements were dispelled by Erdogan during his holiday in southern Turkey on April 10: “We will not sign a final deal with Armenia unless there is agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Karabakh,” he told journalists (Anatolia news agency, April 10). In an interview with the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo published the following day, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, Haluk Ipek, said the Turkish-Armenian border will remain closed for at least ten more years. Ipek dismissed speculation over its impending re-opening as “dishonest” Armenian propaganda aimed at driving a wedge between the two Turkic nations. Turkey’s more dovish President Abdullah Gul likewise underscored the importance of Karabakh’s peace when he commented on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation in an interview with The Financial Times on April 8.

That the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is reaching an impasse was effectively acknowledged by Sarkisian at an April 10 news conference: “Is it possible that we were mistaken in our calculations and that the Turks will now adopt a different position and try to set preconditions? Of course it is possible,” he said (Armenian Public Television, April 10). The Armenian leader insisted that Karabakh has not been on the agenda of that dialogue. Indeed, Ankara was clearly ready to stop linking Turkish-Armenian relations with a Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku when it embarked on a dramatic rapprochement with Yerevan last summer. The two countries’ foreign ministers would have hardly held numerous face-to-face meetings since if it was not.

For his part, Sarkisian signaled his acceptance, in principle, of a Turkish proposal to form a joint commission of historians tasked with examining the 1915-1918 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. One of the Turkish-Armenian commissions which the governments reportedly agreed to form would conduct such a study. The idea was floated by Erdogan in 2005 and rejected by then Armenian President Robert Kocharian as a Turkish ploy designed to scuttle greater international recognition of what many historians consider the first genocide of the twentieth century. Turkish leaders have made no secret of using the fence-mending negotiations with the Sarkisian administration to discourage Obama from making good on his election campaign promise to describe the slaughter of more than one million Ottoman Armenians as genocide.

The almost certain collapse of the talks has left Armenian politicians and pundits questioning the wisdom of further Armenian overtures to the Turks. “If Turkey suddenly succumbs to Azerbaijan’s threats and these negotiations yield no results soon, then I think the Armenian side will not carry on with them,” said Giro Manoyan, a senior member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, a nationalist party represented in Sarkisian’s coalition government (Hayots Ashkhar, April 10). Former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian likewise advocated, in an April 7 interview with RFE/RL, Yerevan’s pullout from the reconciliation process if the sixteen year Turkish blockade of Armenia is not lifted.

Such views are indicative of the dominant mood in the Armenian diaspora and, in particular, the influential Armenian community within the United States. Harut Sassounian, a prominent community activist and commentator, criticized Armenia’s policy on Turkey, effectively blaming it for Obama’s failure to publicly use the word “genocide” during his visit to Turkey. “In view of these developments, it is imperative that the Armenian government terminates at once all negotiations with the Turkish leaders in order to limit the damage caused by the continued exploitation of the illusion of productive negotiations,” Sassounian wrote in an April 9 editorial by his Los Angeles-based newspaper California Courier.

Sarkisian insisted on April 10 that the dialogue with Turkey can be deemed beneficial for the Armenian side even if it produces no tangible results. He said Armenia will “emerge from this process stronger” in any case because the international community will have no doubts that “we are really ready to establish relations [with Turkey] without preconditions.”

https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-armenian-dialogue-on-the-verge-of-collapse/

April 14, 2009
Nabucco Hucksterism, Iran Pollyanishness, and a $5 Billion Bribe. The Oil and Glory Interview: Steven Mann

A Blog on Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus

Saturday, April 11, 2009

On Thursday, a ceremony in the State Department will mark the retirement of Steven Mann, Coordinator for Eurasian Energy Diplomacy, after 32 years with the U.S. diplomatic service. The 58-year-old Mann served most of the last 17 years in senior positions in the Caucasus and Central Asia: He opened the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan in 1992, was ambassador to Turkmenistan, and tried to negotiate a deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh. For the last several years, Mann was America’s man on the spot in the New Great Game on the Caspian Sea.

I visited Mann at his Chevy Chase home. Amid stacked up magazines and books, Mann told me that Europe’s “energy security” is not necessarily at peril. And, for O&G readers, he broke one bit of historical news: Remember the demise of the trans-Caspian pipeline in the chapter An Army for Oil? The one in which then-Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov persisted in demanding a $500 million bribe of the Bechtel-General Electric consortium? It turns out that Niyazov originally requested $5 billion. The edited interview:

Q – Does the U.S. need a high-level ambassador on Eurasian energy? And what is your advice going forward?

A – Yes it is helpful. But we also have to get away from Nabucco hucksterism.

Q – What is that?

A – In terms of the wrong lessons learned from [the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline], the wrong lesson learned is to adopt a project and attempt to bring it about through political will. I think so much of the governmental activism on both sides of the Atlantic the last few years has been devoid of a commercial context. There have been quite a number of officials who know very little about energy who have been charging into the pipeline debate. Nabucco is a highly desirable project, don’t get me wrong. But there are other highly desirable projects besides Nabucco. And the overriding question for all these projects is, Where’s the gas?

Q – South Stream was Putin’s response to Nabucco. Did the U.S. blunder by promoting Nabucco before having the commercial context?

A – In terms of whether we are talking EU or US diplomacy, I think you have to be credible. All too often we’ve gotten out ahead of the commercial realities of Nabucco. You have to be able to point to an upstream supply. You have to have a commercial champion. And governments don’t build successful pipelines. Consortia do. The object of any envoy should be to get all those stars aligned before you give the full embrace to any project.

I think Secretary Clinton will bring a more unified focus to the U.S. effort. In the previous administration, we had six special envoys on energy in the State Department, and three deputy national security advisers on the [National Security Council] staff.

Q – Is that too many?

A – It’s four too many in State. And three too many at NSC.

Q – The stated reason for Nabucco is to diversify Europe’s energy supply. Is that a valid enough reason for U.S. involvement? And is European energy security a genuine issue?

A – Anyone who makes that argument knows very little about energy. And I often heard those arguments in the White House Situation Room. Diversification is an objective good. But it can be achieved in ways other than pipelines. The best thing Europe could do for its security is to link its energy grid, which it’s already doing.

Q – Is there alarmism on the subject?

A – The January cutoff of gas through Ukraine only affected 2-3% of European consumers.

Q – So it is overplayed.

A – Yea, I think it was overplayed. What also was underplayed was how successful the Europeans were in shifting gas, linking grids. That’s the untold story of [the January cutoff].

Q – The corollary – that Russian domination of supply equals a political threat in Europe – is that also alarmist?

A – With the EU, I think it’s hard to make that case. That’s the kind of argument that has to be dissected on a country-by-country basis. But Gazprom has been an extremely reliable supplier for 25 years. And I think Gazprom will continue to be an extremely reliable supplier to Europe.

Q – So really one should not be vexed if and when Nord Stream and South Stream are built? And if it takes some time for the ducks to be lined in a row for Nabucco, so be it?

A – Basically, yes. I think Nabucco is far more important to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan than it is to the EU.

Q – In the late 1990s, there was the initial effort by Bechtel and GE Capital to build a trans-Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan to Baku.

A – What happened was that Niyazov, with his Soviet mentality, demanded so-called preliminary financing. That is, an upfront payment to do the project. [The consortium] already paid a signing bonus of $10 million. But then Niyazov demanded in the range of $5 billion. Then it came down to $3 billion. And the consortium said, ‘This is utterly unrealistic.’ Niyazov thought they were bargaining. So he dropped the demand to $1 billion; then it came down to $500 million. The consortium said, You have until March 2000 or we walk. And at that time, they walked.

The fundamental problem, and it’s relevant today, is that a foreign investor cannot rely on a governmental entity [in Turkmenistan] to supply the upstream, to supply the product.

Q – Was it ever realistic that Niyazov was going to hook up with the East-West Corridor?

A – It was and it is realistic. Without alternatives to the Gazprom monopoly, Turkmenistan has to accept the price that Gazprom is willing to pay. There is a powerful commercial logic to a trans-Caspian pipeline.

Q – What is the best way today for a Caspian republic to get along in the region?

A – Kazakhstan is a good model of how to develop a Eurasian energy sector. You’re good partners with Russia, but you take advantage of foreign technology and capital.

Q – Does Russia have a role in helping to create a thaw between the U.S. and Iran?

A – Every time there is a substantial political change in the U.S., the oil and gas industry gets up on its tip-toes and says, ‘Aren’t we about to have a change in policy?’ You saw this with the Bush-Cheney election in 2000; the industry thought now was the time it would happen. You saw it after the [2001] invasion of Afghanistan, with certain cooperation and contact between the U.S. and Iran. You’re seeing it now with the advent of the Obama administration. So this is something that the oil and gas industry is always waiting for – that change.

Q – You are saying that this is nothing new.

A – It is nothing new.

Labels: Azerbaijan, Caspian, Kazakhstan, Nabucco, nord stream, oil, south stream

http://oilandglory.com/

April 14, 2009