Category: Regions

  • FORGED HITLER QUOTE ACCUSING TURKEY

    FORGED HITLER QUOTE ACCUSING TURKEY

    Washington soykırım müzesi Hitler'in sözü
    Washington soykırım müzesi Hitler’e ait olduğu iddia edilen söz

    By: Cengiz Özakinci – History Writer, Researcher and Editor

    (Translated from Turkish “Bütün Dünya” March 2018 , Monthly Magazine of Baskent University)

    FORGED HITLER QUOTE ACCUSING TURKEY IN
    US HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

    The Second World War began on September 1, 1939, with the invasion of Poland by the German Military. Hitler, in fact, gave his invasion orders ten days before this date in a secret meeting he held on August 22, 1939 where he addressed his top generals with a lengthy speech. The world war that started with Hitler Germany’s invasion of Poland would last six years, claiming millions of lives and causing significant tangible and intangible destruction.
    In 1945, US, England and Russia had already beaten Germany and had started the process of gathering any and all available evidence to try German officers in Nuremberg International Tribunals. Among the evidential documents seized by the US Military in Saalfelden, Austria, in 1945, there were notes taken on the day of August 22, 1939 at the meeting where Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland.
    Later in 1942, Louis P. Lochner, the Berlin Correspondent of Associated Press, published a book titled “What About Germany”. In that book, Lochner included a text of this speech of Hitler’s, attributing it to “a source”. However, there were significant differences between the speech version Lochner quoted and those seized in Saafelden, in 1945. For instance, Lochner claimed in his book that Hitler said:
    “Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. I have issued the command – and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations on readiness – for the present time only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus, shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    Hitler, with Generals of the German Army
    However, the other versions of Hitler’s speech that were found among the Nazi archival documents or in other documents presented by the defense, there was not a single line of speech that spoke of the Armenians.

    The words attributed to Hitler in Lochner’s book, published in 1942.
    The Military Prosecution found that the text offered in Lochner’s book was based on a dubious source and therefore did not use this text as evidence in the trial process. Interpreter Carlos Porter later reviewed the three pages of speech text that Lochner claimed to have “received from a source and immediately forwarded a copy to the US Embassy in 1939”. Porter determined that not only this text was typed with a typewriter that did not have a German keyboard but also that the text was written with a bad German.
    Some 30 years following the Nuremberg Trials, there has been an effort to establish a Holocaust Memorial Museum in The United States to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust. In those years where Turkish diplomats were being assassinated by ASALA terror organization, an Armenian-American man named Set Momjian who made his way to the Museum administration promised a donation of $1,000,000 in exchange for the Museum to provide a display to remember the events of 1915. When the news reached to Turkey that Holocaust Memorial Museum would provide a space for Armenian genocide propaganda, it was met with disappointment; The Ministry of Foreign Affairs have made attempts to prevent this move while our press began to mold a public opinion against the Armenian propaganda.
    In the beginning of 1980s, prominent Armenian scholars in The United States proposed the Museum to display the quote “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”According to these folks, the first genocide of the century was perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915. Not only that, they claimed that in planning his genocide against Jews, Hitler was inspired by the fact that what has been done to Armenians had been forgotten and had gone unpunished. For that matter, it was important to them that Hitler’s Armenian quote to be displayed at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

    Propaganda Posters claiming that the Holocaust was based on 1915 Armenian relocation.
    As all this propaganda continued in The United States, in a booklet he prepared in two languages (English and French) titled: “Hitler and the Armenian Question / Hitler et la Question Armenienne”, Prof. Turkkaya Ataov showed us that this forged Hitler quote was used by many US Senators and Congressmen in their addresses to the House and Senate and proved based on the Nuremberg trial documents, that this quote did not belong to Hitler. A year after Ataov’s revelation, in 1985, Prof. Heath W. Lowry wrote an article titled: “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians” in which he proved that this so-called Hitler quote that was being intended to be displayed at the Museum was forged or “spurious”.
    Armenian propagandists did not take even one step backwards on their intent to display this Hitler quote at the Holocaust Museum despite all the evidence to suggest that the quote was a forgery. Jews who lived in The United States got divided into two camps: A majority with a Pro-Israel stance saying “The Jewish Holocaust is an unprecedented event and it may not be marginalized by getting mixed up with other genocide claims” and a minority thinking that it is unwise to oppose the opinions of US Presidents (such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) who favored providing a space in the Holocaust Museum for Armenians as a continuation of the formal US policy.
    The Memorial Museum Council declared in December of 1987 that the “Armenian genocide will be included in all of the Museum’s current studies for being the first genocide of the 20th century” and Museum Council’s President Harvey Meyerhoff declared later at the Museum’s Foundation Laying Ceremony – which was attended by Ronald Reagan himself- that the decision to include Armenian genocide claims in the Museum was final.

    Taking five years to build, the Museum was opened to public on April 26, 1993 following an opening ceremony held on April 22, 1993. However, due to strong diplomatic reaction from Turkey, Museum administration decided not to display the Armenian genocide propaganda and the forged Hitler quote.
    However, from a picture taken during Armenian President Serge Sarkisian’s visit on May 6, 2015, we found out that the forgery Hitler quote that has long been used as an Armenian propaganda tool was being displayed at the Museum despite the decision made in the 1993 opening.

    Armenian President Serge Sarkisian, Armenian Patriarch and CatholicosKarekin II, Foreign Minister of Armenia and Minister of Diaspora, Archbishop KhajagBarsamian, The Metropolite of Diocese of Armenian Church of America (Eastern) and others, under guidance of Arthur Berger, Senior Advisor, standing in front of the forged Hitler quote at The US Holocaust Memorial Museum (May 6, 2015 – Photo: US Holocaust Memorial Museum)
    Researcher Sukru Server Aya, who literally took every Armenian claim one by one and repudiated them in his books with solid evidences, has also proven that this quote attributed to Hitler was indeed a forgery. (For reference, see “Genocide of Truth”, Istanbul University of Commerce, 2008, p.366, “Genocide Traders”, Derin Publishing, Jan. 2009, pgs. 205-206, “Genocide of Truth Continues”, Derin Publishing, Dec 2010, pgs 249-270)

    A few books of Sukru Server Aya (pic. above), proving the falsehood of the Armenian propaganda lies.
    In response to this forged Hitler quote appearing on The Wall Street Journal, in an article penned by Robert M. Morgenthau on January 25, 2018, S.S. Aya wrote the following to the Editors of The Wall Street Journal, The Administrators of The Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the Office of the Presidency (the Museum Administrators report to):
    “Esteemed Gentlemen,
    As private researchers and writers on the WW-1 and WW-2 History and events related to the “mythomania of genocide” (Erich Feigl) we are profoundly disturbed by the domineering tone of the author and feel compelled to refute the contents of this article from A to Z, since almost everything written by former New York District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau is untrue, not evidenced, and flawed with colossal deficiency of knowledge on past and present history. The “alleged Hitler Quote” still standing on the wall of the Museum is a complete forgery, which undoubtedly has been known to the Museum from the very early days for more than twenty years. Regrettably, despite written applications and provided documentary as evidence, the Museum preferred, or was probably told to, “remain quiet, hide and falsify history” to the public. The Museum has become instrumental in propagating the “genocide palaver”, despite all judicial requirements and verdicts of various authorized courts in Europe. (…)
    The US archives are full of official documents bearing references of the US Congress and Senate contradicting his article and yet, Mr. Morgenthau, a celebrity in law and justice, has either ignored or defied by “acting as a persecutor, without hearing any defense, no evidence, and no obedience to nor respect for the laws of this land and as a judge or deity for eternity”.
    We submit that this cannot be accepted, and we respectfully request a statement from Wall Street Journal whether or not it subscribes to Mr. Robert M. Morgenthau’s claims of Armenian Genocide.”
    ***
    “A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes”, says Mark Twain. However, the propaganda lies of powerful lobbies seem to be capable of traveling one thousand times around the globe.
    In my previous article, I have exposed and repudiated the popular propaganda idea claiming: “Hitler and the Nazi Party were inspired by Kemalism, Ataturk and the Turkish War of Independence”. In this article, we repudiated with proof, the idea that “Hitler’s genocide on Jews was inspired by 1915 relocation of the Armenians”.
    It would appear that The West tries hard to prove that the ideology behind Hitler’s fascism and genocidal behavior -which stained their history- emanated from Turks, and not from them. I submit that it is important that we see such lies and slanders being mounted against us as a ground work, preparatory to future invasions and attacks on Turkish soil. Thus, combating such lies and slanderous allegations is a prerequisite for “peace at home, peace in the world”. A world that is dominated by lies will only lead to more wars. *
    < By: Cengiz Özakinci – History Writer, Researcher and Editor> cengizozakincibd@gmail.com
    (Translated by Emre Serbest)

    REMEMBRANCE  &  DEVELOPMENTS
    “The Wall Street Journal” dated 25.1.2018 had published a letter written by the retired New York District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, who was Jew and the grandson of Henry Morgenthau Sr. USA’s Istanbul Ambassador in the 1915s. https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-trump-tell-the-truth-about-the-armenian-genocide-1516925489. Robert Morgenthau was asking President Trump, to declare April 24, the day of “Armenian genocide”, the same way he had declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. As evidence he referred to the quote on the walls of the Washington Holocaust Museum, a sentence that Hitler (allegedly) said in 1939. The inscription on the wall was wrong and was a lie and the Museum was aware of this fact from the very early years but they kept it there likely to comply with the wishes  f Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama  as the high authority of the Museum Administration. The complaints of some Turks (Melih Berk, Turkkaya Ataov, Sevgin Oktay, Sukru S. Aya…) were all from “individuals and not from an official”. None of them were replied to, despite additional documentary evidences.

    On 13.2.2018 a Research Paper and Cover letter co-signed by Sukru S. Aya, Ata Atun and Yurdagül Atun was e-mailed to the Washington Holocaust Museum, the White House and about a hundred senators and congress members. These document which were previously shared, can be sent again on request.  These original documents in English were translated into Turkish for Turkish offices and sent by express cargo to the Office of Prime minister, President and Foreign Affairs office, by adding a Turkish informative page, having included as document my book “Buyuk Yalan”.  Another package was sent to the US Embassy Press Attaché in Ankara.  Furthermore, Mr. Arslan Bulut in his column on “Yenicag” Newspaper dated 15.2.2018 wrote a descriptive article explaining the importance of this subject under the heading: “USA opens the third front”.  I did not expect any reply from the USA since (the lie is clear and cannot be denied).  But more sorrowful is the fact that none of our administrators could see the “importance of this chance” and there was no response whatsoever.

    Mr. Cengiz Özakinci, as writer of several books and being reputed for his meticulous researches, is also the editor of “Bütün Dünya” (The Whole World) monthly Cultural Publication of the Baskent University.
    In the March 2018 issue of the magazine,  Ozakıncı goes into the details with evidential documents of this “Hitler Lie” and relation to the State Administered Holocaust Museum and he shows that this cannot be denied by official historical documents and presents all this to the knowledge of READERS and THOSE WHO SHOULD BE INTERESTED.  The Turkish photocopy of the article is attached along with the English translation. I do pray with my exhausted patience, that a responsive reader will finally see and understand the documentary value of this Armenian-USA lie and the inexplicable bigotry, which otherwise lead to a new slander from President Trump,.

    Sukru Server Aya

  • How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    (Part 2)

    Last week, I described Azerbaijan’s distortions of two of the four UN Security Council Resolutions adopted in 1993. I will now present the remaining two Resolutions:

    Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 874, adopted October 14, 1993:

    “Calls upon the parties concerned to make effective and permanent the cease-fire established as a result of the direct contacts undertaken with the assistance of the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the CSCE Minsk Group.”

    “Expresses the conviction that all other pending questions arising from the conflict… should be settled expeditiously through peaceful negotiations in the context of the CSCE Minsk process.”

    “Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group’s “Adjusted timetable”, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation.”

    “Calls on all parties to refrain from all violations of international humanitarian law and renews its call in resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in all areas affected by the conflict.”

    “Urges all States in the region to refrain from any hostile acts and from any interference or intervention which would lead to the widening of the conflict and undermine peace and security in the region.”

    Azerbaijan has violated every one of the above clauses. In addition to the frequent violations of the mandated cease-fire, the Azerbaijani forces attacked Artsakh in April 2016, causing major damage to border towns and killing civilians. By cutting off the ears of elderly Armenian villagers and decapitating several Armenian soldiers, Azerbaijan’s armed forces committed a barbaric act and a war crime!

    Excerpt from UN Security Council Resolution 884, adopted November 12, 1993:

    “Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993), and to ensure that the forces involved are not provided with the means to extend their military campaign further.”

    Armenian officials usually neither respond to the Azeri accusations regarding the UN Security Council Resolutions nor try to set the record straight. The only exception was Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s comprehensive speech at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014.

    Pres. Sargsyan stated: “While discussing the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement I cannot but address the four UN Security Council Resolutions, which were adopted during the war, that every so often are being exploited by the Azerbaijani authorities in order to justify their obstructive policy.”

    “It is about those four Resolutions that demanded unconditionally as a matter of priority cessation of all military hostilities. Azerbaijan failed to comply. Azerbaijan’s own noncompliance with the fundamental demands of these Resolutions made impossible their full implementation. The Resolutions contained calls upon the parties to cease bombardments and air strikes targeting the peaceful civilian population, to refrain from violating the principles of the international humanitarian law but instead Azerbaijan continued its indiscriminate bombardments of the civilian population. Azerbaijan did not spare children, women and old persons thus gravely violating all legal and moral norms of the international humanitarian law.”

    “Now Azerbaijan cynically refers to these Resolutions — refers selectively, pulling them out of context as a prerequisite for the settlement of the problem. The adequate interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolutions is not possible without correct understanding of the hierarchy of the demands set therein.”

    “The Resolutions inter alia request the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region (UN SC Resolution 853) and removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation (UN SC Resolution 874). It is no secret that Azerbaijan and Turkey imposed blockade on Nagorno Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia from the outset of the conflict. The Azerbaijani President in his statements even takes pride in this fact promising his own public that direction would remain the priority of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy.”

    “The above mentioned UN Security Council Resolutions called upon Azerbaijan to establish direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan refused to establish any direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh, which was a legally equal party to the Cease-fire Agreement concluded in 1994 as well as a number of other international Agreements; moreover, Azerbaijan preaches hatred towards people it claims it wants to see as a part of their State.”

    “None of the UN Security Council Resolutions identifies Armenia as a conflicting party. Our country is called upon only ‘to continue to exert its influence’ over the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians (UNSC Resolutions 853, 884) in order to cease the conflict. Armenia has fully complied, and due to its efforts a Cease-fire Agreement was concluded in 1994. All UN Security Council Resolutions recognize Nagorno Karabakh as a party to the conflict.”

    “Azerbaijani authorities have failed to implement the fundamental demands of the Security Council Resolutions, including abiding and sticking by the humanitarian norms.”

    “Incidentally, Azerbaijan has been gravely violating this demand every now and then. Azerbaijan’s cruel and inhumane treatment of the Armenian civilian prisoners of war regularly results in their deaths. Although, I think, one shall not be surprised about it because it is the same State that suppresses and exercises the most inhumane treatment of its own people. A clear proof of it was the decision of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to suspend its visit to Azerbaijan due to obstructions it encountered in the conduct of official Baku.”

    “The Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group is the only specialized structure that has been dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue according to the mandate granted by the international community. While Azerbaijan is very well aware that it could not possibly deceive or misinform the Minsk Group, which is very-well immersed in the essence of the problem, it attempts to transpose the conflict settlement to other platforms trying to depict it as a territorial dispute or exploiting the factor of religious solidarity. That is ironic, since Armenia traditionally enjoys very warm relations with the Islamic nations both in the Arabic world or, for instance, with our immediate neighbor Iran.”

    I would like to summarize my key points regarding Azerbaijan’s distortions of the four UN Security Resolutions:

    1)    The UN Security Council Resolutions were adopted in 1993 during the height of the war between Artsakh/Armenia and Azerbaijan. These Resolutions reflect the conditions on the ground at the time. Since then, the situation has dramatically changed.
    2)    Despite the cease-fire that was signed in 1994 between Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan, the latter keeps violating both the ceasefire and the UN Security Council Resolutions by its frequent attacks on both Artsakh and Armenia.
    3)    Azerbaijan opposes Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations, thus violating the UN Security Council Resolutions.
    4)    The Minsk Group co-chairs, composed of the United States, France, and Russia, are the official mediators of the Artsakh conflict, not the UN Security Council and not the UN General Assembly.
    5)    In fact, when Azerbaijan brought the Artsakh issue to the UN General Assembly in 2008, all three Minsk Group co-chairs voted against it. Azerbaijan’s proposal was adopted by a small number of States. The overwhelming majority abstained.
    6)    By blockading Artsakh, Azerbaijan is violating the four UN Security Council Resolutions.
    7)    Importantly, Armenia is mentioned in the UN Security Council Resolutions, not as a party to the conflict, but only as an intermediary to persuade Artsakh Armenians to comply with these Resolutions. Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliyev acknowledged this fact during his speech to the Parliament on February 23, 2001: “Four resolutions have been adopted in the United Nations Security Council…. It is written in these four resolutions that the occupational army should leave occupied lands of Azerbaijan. But there is not a word “Armenia”, that is, there are no words “the Armenian armed forces”. But in one of resolutions it is written to demand from Armenia to exert influence on Mountainous Garabagh (Nagorno-Karabakh). In reality, it is an Armenian-Azerbaijan war. In reality, Armenia has made aggression against Azerbaijan. However, nobody recognizes Armenia as an aggressor in a document of any international organization….”

    Azeris who continue to distort the four UN Security Council Resolutions should follow former President Heydar Aliyev’s statement and refrain from accusing Armenia of violating these Resolutions when in fact Azerbaijan is the one not complying with them.

  • Russian elections: why Putin wins

    For many Russian citizens who gave their votes for the future presidential candidates on Sunday as well as for most of international audience the result of the Russian elections has come to no surprise. However, the re-election of Vladimir Putin has risen a lot of controversies in the international media. While some experts believe the elections had been fabricated, independent international observers who were monitoring the elections process say exactly the opposite.

    Among the new members of the international observation delegation were the representatives from Abkhazia. They shared their fresh and unambiguous impression from the election process. According to Astamur Logua, Abkhazia’s Parliamentary Deputy, the entire election process met the international standards and was perfectly organized. He also added that voters who mostly came with their families and children were very cheerful and friendly while the atmosphere at the voting stations was quite festive. The observers from the Italian “North League” party mentioned that all international observers had been provided with all the necessary facilities required to perform their work including the free access to all the voting stations, non-stop support from the organizers etc.

    But what mystifies the international community the most is perhaps the conscious vote for Putin of most of the Russian citizens. Despite the “authoritative” style of the Putin’s policy, as how most of the Western media describe it, many young Russians along with the senior citizens preferred the Putin’s candidacy to a young opposition leader Ksenia Sobchak. Why did it happen? Many Russian people still clearly remember the tough 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin came to the power and proclaimed the change. It was then when many Russian people were left jobless overnight while others got fabulously wealthy. It was also the time when most of financial and trade deals not recorded and the proclaimed legalized government still reminded a sort of anarchy. When Putin came into power things got stabilized. Russian companies and industries started to thrive again while Russian people could afford buying cars, homes and have a better standard of living.

    Moreover, the example of Ukraine Revolution and the Arab Spring has taught the Russians a lesson: when it comes to the West’s interference into a sovereign government system and the West’s support of the opposition the outcome might be very disastrous for a single nation. Considering the multiple attempts of the West to destabilize the Russian legislative system including the latest case of Sergey Skripal’s poisoning the support of the Russian opposition could hardly have been massive for the Russians care about their national values, culture and traditions and remember the lessons the history has taught them.

  • How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    image001 7

    The Armenian National Committee of America, San Fernando Valley West chapter, held an all-day conference on March 17 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Artsakh (Karabagh) liberation struggle. The conference was held at the Ferrahian Armenian High School in Encino, California. The speakers were: historian Garo Moumdjian, Ph.D, California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian, ANCA National Board Member Steven Dadaian, Esq., A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Levon Kirakosian, Esq., and A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Vache Thomassian, Esq.

    Here are excerpts from Harut Sassounian’s remarks at the conference:

    The United Nations Security Council adopted four Resolutions during the Artsakh (Karabagh) war in 1993 calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces, cessation of all hostilities and urging a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    These four Resolutions are often cited by the Azerbaijani media which is under the strict control of the government of Azerbaijan. In the past 25 years, the Azeris have repeatedly condemned Armenia for not abiding by these UN Security Council Resolutions, and have made them a part of their continued propaganda war against Armenia.

    However, Azerbaijan has distorted the contents and context of these Resolutions, trying to deceive the international public opinion. Azerbaijan itself has not complied with these Resolutions. When one side (Azerbaijan) violates these Resolutions, it cannot accuse the other side (Armenia) of not complying with them.

    The UN Security Council is composed of 15 States: Five of them are permanent members who have a veto power (United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France) and 10 of them are rotating members. The UN Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. UN member states are obligated to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

    It is particularly hypocritical of the Turkish government to blame Armenia for not complying with the four UN Security Council Resolutions, when Turkey itself has violated over 60 UN Security Resolutions adopted since Turkey’s invasion of Northern Cyprus in 1974.

    Let us now review each of the four UN Security Council Resolutions which were adopted unanimously by all 15 member states. I have added my comments in bold letters at the end of some of the clauses of these four Resolutions:

    Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 822, adopted April 30, 1993:

    “Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.” Azerbaijan has violated the cease-fire for 25 years on a regular basis by continuously shooting across the borders of Artsakh and Armenia.

    “Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem.” The Minsk Group of CSCE, subsequently renamed OSCE, is composed of three co-chairs: the United States, France and Russia which are the official mediators to help resolve the Artsakh conflict, not the United Nations Security Council!

    “Calls for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in the region, in particular in all areas affected by the conflict in order to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population and reaffirms that all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” Despite this clause, Azerbaijan has tried to undermine the delivery of international humanitarian aid to the people of Artsakh.

    Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 853, adopted July 29, 1993:

    “Expressing once again its grave concern at the displacement of large numbers of civilians in the Azerbaijani Republic and at the serious humanitarian emergency in the region.” The reference to “the serious humanitarian emergency in the region” also applies to Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan.

    “Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and all other States in the region.” This clause applies to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    “Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.” Artsakh Armenians have the right to self-determination under international law and UN Protocols.

    “Reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4 above its earlier calls for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region.” This clause is violated by Azerbaijan and Turkey by their blockades of Armenia and Artsakh.

    “Urges the parties concerned to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution to the conflict, and pursue negotiations within the Minsk Group of the CSCE, as well as through direct contact between them, towards a final settlement.” The reference to “the parties concerned” and “direct contact between them,” implies Artsakh’s inclusion in the negotiations, as was the case earlier. Azerbaijan blocked Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations.

    “Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposal of the Minsk Group of the CSCE.” Armenia coordinates its negotiating position with the government of the Republic of Artsakh. However, Artsakh’s exclusion from the negotiations makes the task of coordination more difficult. Furthermore, Artsakh not being a recognized state and not a member of the UN is under no obligation to comply with any of these Resolutions.

    “Urges States to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” This clause is violated by Turkey, Russia, Israel, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Pakistan, and several others, which have supplied billions of dollars of weaponry to Azerbaijan.

    (Continued next week)

  • EU’s bitter lessons

    EU’s bitter lessons

    europe crisisThe European Union continues to struggle with its economic and migration crises. The huge debt, obsolete political and economic regulations and inability to manage its migration policy are important alerts for the EU indicating the Brussels’s need to change its compass, says Pino Arlacchi, Member of the European Parliament.

    By pursuing the US political course in the Syria war, the EU did not get any visible profit. Instead, it was left alone to cope with the increasing flows of illegal migrants posing safety threats for the EU citizens.

    Indeed, The Syrian scenario is very much alike to the one in Afghanistan in 1979. When the Soviet army entered in 1979 trying to set up a friendly government in the country and altering the Cold War balances in the region, The United States, Saudi Arabia, and other countries started arming the anticommunist Afghan militia groups. The country was flooded with weapons while most of those weapons were in hands of Taliban. Shortly after that the US became the number one enemy for Afghanistan, says Arlacchi.

    During the Syria war, the US have once again learned the bitter lesson as they did in Afghanistan. However, the Syrian opposition is so diverse and uncontrolled that its arming could have much tragic consequences. This is why the US used Saudi Arabia and Qatar as a sort of a liaison to keep the balance in the region. But we also saw the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that split the countries apart. Obviously, the strategic alliance of Iran, Russia and Turkey has played a crucial role in the Syria war. All the countries could be able to gain the trust from both people and decision-making powers in the region. At the same time the US along with the EU received little credibility from the Syrian government.

    Moreover, the EU is swamped with its internal issues that it faces the risk of splitting apart. Ironically it may be, but with integrity being its main value, The European Union is falling apart today. A huge debt of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and other EU’s members and their inability to repay it explains the attempts of those countries to boycott the Brussels’s regulations.

    According to Arlacchi, the world is changing its compass and the EU has to adapt to it. The West is losing its role of the world economic and political dictator due to its huge debt and ineffective policy. Instead, China and Eurasia are on the rise today.

  • Turkish-Iranian trade revived amid growing cooperation in Syria

    Turkish-Iranian trade revived amid growing cooperation in Syria

    Mehmet Cetingulec

    Article Summary
    Turkey and Iran have reversed a four-year downturn in bilateral trade as collaboration in Syria increases, but the possibility of a setback remains real.

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (R) meets with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, Dec. 13, 2017.

    After a four-year downturn, trade between Turkey and Iran rose in 2017, as the two neighbors began collaborating in Syria. Judging by figures from the past five years, the political climate between Ankara and Tehran seems to directly affect commercial ties. Their bilateral trade volume contracted during periods when Turkey’s Middle East policies led to closer cooperation with Saudi Arabia and deeper differences with Iran, but perked up in 2017, when the two countries engaged in joint efforts in Syria.

    Trade volume between Turkey and Iran reached an all-time high in 2012, totaling $21.9 billion. In 2013, it fell sharply, to $14.5 billion, under the impact of US sanctions on Iran. The decline continued in 2014, down to $13.7 billion. In a bid to prop up commercial ties, the two countries enacted a preferential trade agreement at the start of 2015, cutting tariffs on hundreds of products. A target was set of $35 billion in annual bilateral trade.

    The nuclear agreement Iran signed with the world powers soon led to the lifting of sanctions, fueling hope that no major obstacles remained to the desired boom in bilateral trade. Yet despite positive developments, trade volume slumped to $9.7 billion in 2015 and then to $9.6 billion in 2016. The worsening figures were a clear sign that commercial ties would fail to take off unless the two countries resolved areas of conflict in their regional policies, chief among them the crisis in Syria.

    Things began to change in 2017, as Turkey came to loggerheads with the United States in Syria and engaged in efforts with Russia and Iran toward a resolution to the conflict. A significant factor bringing Ankara and Tehran closer has been a shared concern that their countries could be next in line for trouble stemming from the regional upheaval, with the Kurdish problem growing more complicated for both of them.

    Turks have long been concerned that Western powers want to “divide” their country, and this has been a major factor shaping domestic and foreign policies alike. In this vein, one major motivation behind Turkey’s new alliances is to move to neutralize any risks that might lead to partition. For a great deal of ordinary Turks and even state officials, many NATO countries are not really allies, but Western powers plotting to carve up Turkey to create a proxy Kurdish state adjacent to Iran and diminish Turkey’s position as a regional power. Hence, the idea of bolstering regional alliances enjoys solid public support. Political, military and economic rapprochement with Iran, Russia and Iraq and the narrative of preserving Syria’s territorial integrity rest on the notion of standing together with allies to stave off threats to the integrity of Turkey’s border and avoid partition.

    Amid the drive to strengthen regional alliances, high-level visits between Turkey and Iran intensified last year. The two sides agreed to use their national currencies, instead of the US dollar, in bilateral trade. A deal to that effect was signed by the Turkish and Iranian central banks in October.

    Parallel to the political rapprochement, the trade volume rose for the first time since 2012, standing at $10.7 billion at the end of 2017, representing a $1.1 billion increase from 2016. Iran benefited more from the revival than Turkey did. Its imports from Turkey amounted to about $3.2 billion, down from nearly $5 billion in 2016, while its exports to Turkey increased to more than $7.5 billion, up from about $4.7 billion the previous year. In other words, Iran reversed the trade balance in its favor, from a $266 million deficit in 2016 to a surplus of nearly $4.3 billion in 2017.

    In fact, however, the figures show that bilateral trade is only returning to normal. In the past 17 years, 2016 was the only year in which Iran ran a trade deficit in regard to Turkey, with surpluses ranging between $579 million and $8.8 billion in other years.

    How did the balance shift in Iran’s favor? Increased oil supplies to Turkey were the main factor. Official data is not yet available, but according to figures compiled by Turkey’s state-run Anatolia Agency, oil imports from Iran reached 7.4 million tons in the first seven months of 2017, a 142% increase compared to the same period the previous year. Increases of more than 100% were also seen in Turkish imports of untreated zinc, nitrogenous minerals and chemical fertilizers, untreated aluminum, and fresh and dried fruits.

    Why then did Turkish exports decrease? The decline stems primarily from a dramatic slump in Turkey’s once-booming gold exports to Iran, which trickled to $111 million last year, from $1.3 billion in 2016.

    Iran’s vast energy reserves — 150 billion barrels of crude oil and 33.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas — make it one of the world’s leading energy producers, while neighboring Turkey remains a major oil and gas importer amid efforts to become a key energy route between the Middle East and Europe.

    Bolstering economic ties with Iran may be beneficial to Turkey, but the possibility of a setback cannot be ignored given recent fence-mending moves between Ankara and Washington. The Donald Trump administration clearly has Iran in its crosshairs. Meanwhile, Turkey has become a potential target of US sanctions over its plan to purchase advanced Russian missiles, atop the lingering spat in Syria.

    If Ankara is committed to mending fences with Washington, doing so while maintaining cooperation with Iran will require masterful balancing acts.

    Found in: Economy and trade, Syria war spillover

    Mehmet Cetingulec is a Turkish journalist with 34 years professional experience, including 23 years with the Sabah media group during which he held posts as a correspondent covering the prime minister’s and presidential offices, economy news chief and parliamentary bureau chief. For nine years, he headed the Ankara bureau of the daily Takvim, where he also wrote a regular column. He has published two books.

    MORE LIKE THIS

    Palestine

    US pressure on Hamas risks new era of enmity

    Turkey

    KRG delegation arrives in Afrin as Turkey offensive softens Kurdish split

    Turkey

    Animosity toward US uniting Turkey, Russia, Iran in Syria