CANBERRA, Australia–A Federal Member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, Monday spoke openly about the Armenian Genocide in the Federal Parliament of Australia, calling for recognition of the heinous crime.
In response to appeals by the Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia), Hockey raised in Parliament the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) recent use of the qualifier ‘alleged’ when making reference to the Armenian Genocide in a documentary entitled ‘Family Footsteps – Armenia’ broadcast in September. Hockey stated: “In the dead of night on 24 April 1915, 250 Armenian political, religious, educational and intellectual leaders in Istanbul were arrested, deported to the interior of the country and murdered… which is now recognized as the beginning of an official attempt by the Turkish government to exterminate its Armenian population. “Around 1.5 million Armenians were murdered during the Armenian genocide out of an estimated total Armenian population of just 2.5 million people,” said the legislator. Hockey concluded by calling on the Commonwealth Government to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He urged “this parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was–not alleged, not supposed and not so-called.” In a statement released today, ANC Australia President Varant Meguerditchian thanked Hockey for “again demonstrating leadership on a human rights issue which transcends party politics”. The statement read: “ANC Australia reaffirms its commitment to raising awareness of the Armenian Genocide as a measure toward the prevention of such crimes against humanity.” Hockey thanked ANC Australia for bringing this matter to his attention. The statement by Hockey in Parliament follows an active grassroots action by ANC Australia to raise awareness and seek correction by the ABC for referring to the Armenian Genocide as the ‘alleged Armenian Genocide’ in a recent documentary. In addition to more than 1000 emails sent by members of the Armenian-Australian community to the ABC regarding this matter, ANC Australia secured letters of support from Maxine McKew, Member for Bennelong, Prof. Gregory Stanton, President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Dr Donna-Lee Freize, Deakin University, Prof. Peter Balakian, Author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, the Australian Hellenic Council and the Australian Institute for Holocaust & Genocide Studies. |
Category: Regions
-
Armenian Genocide Discussed In Australian Parliament
-
Syria hits out at ‘terrorist’ US
Syria’s foreign minister has accused the US of an act of “criminal and terrorist aggression” over what it says was a helicopter raid on its territory.
Walid Muallem said Sunday’s attack saw four US aircraft travel eight miles inside Syrian airspace from Iraq and kill eight unarmed civilians on a farm.
Unnamed US military officials have said the attack targeted and killed a high profile al-Qaeda operative.
But the White House has not confirmed or denied the alleged raid.
Walid Muallem: We put the responsibility on the American government
A US official was quoted by the AFP news agency as saying that its forces had mounted a “successful” raid against foreign fighters threatening US forces in Iraq.
He said the raid was believed to have killed “one of the most prominent foreign fighter facilitators in the region”.
The BBC’s Kim Ghattas in Washington says the person targeted was Abu Ghadiyah, an Iraqi from Mosul.
He was the leader of a network which smuggled fighters into Iraq and had been put on a US Treasury Department black list in February for funding and arming insurgents, says our correspondent.
The military official quoted by AFP said: “Look when you’ve got an opportunity, an important one, you take it”.
“That’s what the American people would expect, particularly when it comes to foreign fighters going into Iraq, threatening our forces.”
The US has previously accused Syria of allowing militants into Iraq, but Mr Muallem insisted his country was trying to tighten border controls.
‘An opportunity’
Speaking at a news conference in London, Mr Muallem said the raid on the town of Abu Kamal had killed a father and his three children, a farm guard and his wife, and a fisherman.
Mr Muallem said the raid was “not a mistake” and that he had urged the Iraqi government to investigate.
“We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government,” he told reporters following talks with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
He added: “All of them [the victims] are civilians, Syrian, unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories.
“Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression.”
Asked if Syria would use force if a similar operation was mounted, he said: “As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our territories.”
Referring to the US presidential election, he said: “We hope the coming administration will learn the mistakes of this administration.”
Mr Muallem and Mr Miliband were scheduled to hold a joint press conference, but Mr Miliband withdrew. The UK government has declined to comment on the raid.
Exclusive BBC footage of the site of the alleged raid
BBC
-
Sarkisian Vows Public Debate On Karabakh
President Serzh Sarkisian pledged to initiate an “active” public debate on how to resolve the conflict with Azerbaijan and accused his opponents of exploiting the issue after inspecting frontline positions of Nagorno-Karabakh’s army over the weekend.
Sarkisian traveled to Karabakh to attend military exercises conducted by Karabakh Armenian forces. He then visited sections of the heavily militarized Armenian-Azerbaijani line of contact east of the disputed territory.
Speaking to Armenian Public Television afterwards, a uniform-clad Sarkisian acknowledged that internationally sponsored efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict have entered an “active phase.” “I strongly believe that we will enter a period of much more active public discussions,” he said. “Discussions are always useful but they must center only on the interests of the Armenian people. We have invested too much effort into the settlement of the Karabakh problem to turn a blind eye on or to ignore instances of exploitation [of the issue.]”
“We are achieving an important historical objective, and if someone is trying to pursue other interests, then that is not moral,” he added.
It was an apparent reference to opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian’s October 17 speech in which he accused Sarkisian of being willing to “put up Karabakh for sale” in return for earning the West’s support for his continued rule. Ter-Petrosian claimed that Sarkisian is even ready to agree to Russia’s replacement by Turkey at the OSCE Minsk Group helm. Newspapers supporting Ter-Petrosian have also seized on Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s reported claims that Sarkisian himself asked Ankara to mediate in Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations.
Sarkisian denied the claims attributed to Gul, insisting that he believes Turkey can only “assist” in the Karabakh peace process. “Yes, I am convinced that Turkey can assist and, I think, is now assisting in the process of the Karabakh conflict resolution,” he said. “President Gul’s [September 6] visit to Yerevan, the continuation of Turkish-Armenian negotiations is a very good example of solving very difficult problems.” Turkish contribution to Karabakh peace will be even greater if Ankara opens the Turkish-Armenian border and establishes diplomatic relations with Yerevan, he added.
Sarkisian further described as “very legitimate” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s efforts to host the next, potentially decisive, meeting of his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts. But he would not say when that meeting could take place and what its chances of success are.
“A resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible if Azerbaijan recognizes the Nagorno-Karabakh people’s right to self-determination, if Nagorno-Karabakh has a land border with Armenia, and if international organizations and leading nations guarantee the security of the Nagorno-Karabakh people,” stated the Armenian president.
Sarkisian’s newly reelected Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliev, repeated on Friday that Baku will never recognize Karabakh’s secession from Azerbaijan.
The U.S., Russian and French diplomats co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group were due to visit the conflict zone this week in line with their pledges to step up the search for Karabakh peace after the October 15 presidential election in Azerbaijan. But the group’s French co-chair, Bernard Fassier, said late last week that the trip has been postponed.
Analysts in Yerevan were on Monday divided over possible reasons for the delay. Manvel Sargsian, a Karabakh expert at the Armenian Center for National International Studies, attributed it to Medvedev’s initiative. “It looks as though a new situation has arisen after that statement and the parties are chewing over their next steps,” he said.
But Gagik Harutiunian, director of the Noravank Foundation, believes that the United States and France have no problem with Russia’s unilateral push for a Karabakh settlement. “The situation is such that they may have chosen not to meddle in the ongoing process to avoid disrupting it,” he said.
Richard Giragosian, a Yerevan-based U.S. analyst, likewise saw no U.S.-Armenian disagreements on Karabakh. “Moscow and Washington have actually moved even closer to each other in the Minsk Group,” he told RFE/RL.
-
RUSSIA TAKES INITIATIVE IN INTERNATIONAL PUSH FOR KARABAKH PEACE
By Emil Danielyan
Russia has taken the center stage in international efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict, which could yield a breakthrough before the end of this year. President Dmitry Medvedev is expected to host a potentially decisive meeting of his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts next month. Moscow may thus be trying to sideline the OSCE’s so-called Minsk Group on Karabakh, which it has long co-chaired with the United States and France.When he paid an official visit to Yerevan on October 21, Medvedev publicly urged Presidents Serzh Sarkisian of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan to meet in his presence in Russia. The Karabakh dispute was high on the agenda. “I hope that the three presidents will meet in the very near future to continue discussions on this theme,” he told a joint news conference with Sarkisian. “I hope that the meeting will take place in Russia” (Regnum, October 21). He noted that the Karabakh peace process now seemed to be “in an advanced stage.”
Medvedev discussed what the Kremlin described as preparations for the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit in a phone call with Aliyev the next day (Interfax, October 22). Konstantin Zatulin, a Kremlin-linked Russian pundit, told Armenian journalists afterward that the crucial summit would likely take place in early November; but neither conflicting party has yet confirmed the meeting, let alone announced any dates for it. Aliyev’s chief foreign policy aide, Novruz Mammadov, has said only that it was “possible” (Trend news agency, October 22). Armenian officials have not commented on the matter at all.
Medvedev announced his initiative following unusually optimistic statements on Karabakh peace prospects that were made by his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. In an October 7 interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta, Lavrov spoke of a “very real chance” to end the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the coming weeks. “There remain two or three unresolved issues that need to be agreed upon at the next meetings of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan,” he said. He added that the future of the so-called Lachin corridor, which is the shortest overland link between Armenia and Karabakh, is now the main stumbling block in the peace talks. Three days later, Lavrov held a trilateral meeting with his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts on the sidelines of a CIS summit in Bishkek.
Many analysts in the South Caucasus and the West have long contended that Russia was uninterested in a Karabakh settlement, lest it lose leverage against Azerbaijan and, even more, Armenia, its main ally in the region. Peace with Azerbaijan, they have argued, would reduce the significance for Armenia of maintaining close military ties with Russia and make the Armenian economy less dependent on Russian energy supplies. Medvedev’s desire to host the crucial Aliyev-Sarkisian encounter is, however, a clear indication that Karabakh peace is not necessarily incompatible with Russian goals and interests in the region, especially if Moscow plays a key role in a multinational peace-keeping force that would have to be deployed in the conflict zone.
Armenia is rife with speculation that Moscow is trying to cajole Azerbaijan into agreeing to a Russian troop presence and pursuing a more pro-Russian policy on other issues, notably the transportation of Caspian oil and gas to the West. “To that end [the Russians] need to force Armenia into making essentially unilateral and absolutely unacceptable concessions on the Karabakh issue,” Yerkir, a Yerevan weekly controlled by the governing Armenian Revolutionary Federation party, wrote on October 24, reflecting the growing opinion among local observers.
Sarkisian appeared to rule out such concessions when he said after his talks with Medvedev that the peace process had to proceed on the basis of the framework peace agreement that was formally put forward by the Minsk Group’s U.S., Russian, and French co-chairs in November 2007. The document calls for a phased settlement of the conflict that would start with the liberation of at least six of the seven Azerbaijani districts around Karabakh that were fully or partly occupied by Armenian forces during the 1991-1994 war. In return, Karabakh’s predominantly Armenian population would be allowed to determine the disputed territory’s status in a future referendum.
According to U.S. officials privy to the talks, Baku and Yerevan essentially agreed to this peace formula as of late last year and only needed to work out some of its details. Political turmoil in Armenia that followed the February 2008 presidential election and the ensuing toughening of Azerbaijani leaders’ Karabakh rhetoric, however, have dealt a serious blow to the mediators’ efforts to negotiate a peace deal. Those efforts gained new momentum after the Russian-Georgian war, with all three mediating powers stressing the danger posed by unresolved ethnic disputes in the region.
However, the sharp deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations resulting from the Georgia crisis called into question Moscow’s and Washington’s ability to continue to work together on Karabakh. Medvedev’s seemingly unilateral initiative raised more such questions. Washington has yet to react officially to the move. Incidentally, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried flew to Yerevan ahead of the Russian’ president’s visit. Fried said after talks with Sarkisian on October 17 that the signing of a Karabakh peace accord before the end of the year was “possible” but “not inevitable” (RFE/RL Armenia Report, October 20).
Meanwhile, Bernard Fassier, the Minsk Group’s French co-chair, told the Azerbaijani APA news agency on October 21 that he and his American and Russian opposite numbers planned to visit Baku and Yerevan jointly next week; but two days later he said that the trip had been postponed, ostensibly because of the co-chairs’ conflicting work schedules.
-
Turkey, the Region and U.S.-Turkey Relations: Assessing the Challenges and Prospects
Event Summary
Turkey has weathered exceptionally turbulent times in recent years and continues to face serious domestic and foreign policy challenges. Following the so-called “e-coup” warning of a possible military intervention, civil-military tensions climaxed during the summer of 2007. A year later, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government was nearly shut down by the Constitutional Court. The AKP’s landslide electoral victory in July 2007 was followed by another crisis over the presidency. In addition, PKK extremist attacks have been sharply on the rise. How should the next U.S. administration manage Turkish-U.S. relations? Where is Turkish domestic politics going? What is Turkey’s foreign policy outlook?Event Information
When
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
9:00 AM to 5:00 PMOn October 28, the Brookings Center on the United States and Europe and the SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research will host a conference to examine Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy challenges and prospects. The conference will feature a keynote address by Professor Ahmet Davutoglu, chief foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. After the keynote address, Ibrahim Kalin, founding director of SETA; Nonresident Fellow Omer Taspinar, director of the Turkey Project at Brookings; Visiting Fellow Mark Parris, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey; and Talha Kose of George Mason University will moderate a series of discussions featuring a distinguished group of Turkish and American experts, officials and scholars.After each panel, participants will take audience questions. A buffet lunch will be served from 12:30 to 1:00 p.m.
Participants
9:00 am — Welcome and Opening Remarks
Omer Taspinar
Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy
Ibrahim Kalin
SETA
9:15 am — Keynote Address
Ahmet Davutoglu
Chief Advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Republic of Turkey
10:45 am — Panel One: U.S-Turkish Relations: What Will the New President Bring to the Table?
Moderator: Mark R. Parris
Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy
Cengiz Candar
Radikal (Turkey)
Ian Lesser
German Marshall Fund
Suat Kiniklioglu
Member of Turkish Parliament
1:00 pm — Panel Two: Turkey’s Challenges and Opportunities and Its Region: Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus and the EU Process
Moderator: Talha Kose
George Mason University
Steven Cook
Council on Foreign Relations
Kemal Kirisci
Bogazici University and Carleton University
Taha Ozhan
SETA
3:00 pm — Panel Three: The Domestic Scene: The Continuing Battle for Turkey’s Soul
Moderator: Ibrahim Kalin
SETA
Mustafa Akyol
Turkish Daily News
Bulent Ali Riza
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Omer Taspinar
Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy
4:45 pm — Closing Remarks<!–