Tag: Nagorno-Karabakh

Armenian claims for Nakhchivan:

Javid Huseynov [javid@azeris.com]

and from Armenian Foreign Ministry record, interviewing the initiators of Karabakh separatism:

“Q– Not also Nakhichevan ?

Mikoyan: You see, as a matter of principle, Nakhichevan is also an Armenian land. It’s a pity that the authorities of that region did everything during the last decades toward changing the ethnic proportions of Nakhichevan, so that now only one or two percent of the population is Armenian.

Q– I think presently there are not more than 5,000 Armenians out of a population of approximately 250,000 people. That is, there are a quarter of a million Turks in Nakhichevan, as against only 5,000 Armenians.

Mikoyan: But if we compare that with those Armenian lands which are now in Turkey, one must understand that even if there are very few Armenians living on our ancient lands, still we believe those territories to be Armenian in spite of the ethnic change, especially when the change is realized through actions we will never forgive or forget.

October 21, 2009

Houston: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

Written by Administrator

Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:00

Turkey closed its Armenian Border and suspended the relations between Turkey and Armenia as a consequence of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, in 1992. Recently a protocol between the Turkish and the Armenian governments has been signed, which may lead to the opening of Borders and normalizations of relations between the two nations, if approved by both nations’ parliaments.

To the best of our knowledge, the protocol agreed by the two sides does not have any provisions that indicate that Armenia has promised to meet any of the conditions Turkey has put forth for opening of the Armenian Border and normalization of the relations between the two nations. Quite the contrary, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently stated that normalization of the relations between the two states should have no preconditions, and that Turkey and Armenia have a mutual understanding to that end.

TurkishPAC firmly opposes normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations without preconditions. It believes that normalization should depend on Armenia’s agreeing to certain conditions. In particular, Armenia should:

Comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, which it illegally occupies,

Drop false “genocide” claims against Turkey that go back almost 100 years and agree to the establishment of a joint committee of historians, as proposed by Turkey, to study and judge the 1915 events. As Turkey has declared it would do so, Armenia should declare that it would consider the findings of such a committee binding.

Withdraw its support to the Armenian Diaspora on the latter’s campaign to disseminate “genocide” propaganda, and,

Remove indirect reference to a Greater Armenia in its Constitution by amending Article 13 of Chapter 1 that describes its national coat of arms.

With regard to items 3 and 4, note should also be made that in its Declaration of Independence in 1990, Armenia declared its support to false “genocide” claims against Turkey and has referred to Eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia,” and as such, considers this area as part of Armenia. That is not a friendly posture toward a neighbor.

TurkishPAC continues to view with apprehension the Turkish Government’s signing a protocol with Armenia, which will lead to opening the border and normalization of the relations between the two countries without any preconditions.

TurkishPAC Board of Directors

October 21, 2009

Turkey Exposed:

Cannot Pretend to be

Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

Publisher, The California Courier

Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

From: Ismet Takim [ismettakim@yahoo.com]

Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

READ

Turkey Exposed:

and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

======================================================

From: Metin Mangir [mangir.metin@gmail.com]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

upon showing of a TV program on TRT. (now that Turkey has good

relations with Syria, does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

insulting)! The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

positive in Turkey (amazing!). Very few voices are opposing it. Also

it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

Armenia. Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

What I do not understand is

1) how come US is willing to let this happen? What has Russia forced

upon US following Georgia?

2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

about the crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

with this protocols steps?

Metin

==========================================

From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

Metin,

I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation: Afghanistan.

He may ask for more troops from Turkey. Secondarily, Iraq. O. may discuss

strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

draining the US economy and social life.

Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

the salad.

This is one man’s opinion. 🙂

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

===================================================

Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

Fariz Huseynov [huseynovfa@gmail.com]

=======================================================================

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <vaslay@aol.com> wrote:

dear Ergun

you are not alone for this opinion

is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
Obama needs our soldiers not government

if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

O. wouldn’t care less for you

regardas,

vedat aslay

——————-

Dear Metin

Excellent observation and analysis

I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

Yes Russia it seems that the big winner?

how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
Don’t worry this game is a long game and we are just watching part I

Vedat Aslay vaslay@aol.com

========================================================

From: Yusif [yusif@azeris.com]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

politically.

Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

southern Europe and Turkey itself.

Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

borders.

Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

politically.

As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

Georgia is a good example.

Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

5. build confidence between people of the region

6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

mean complete loss.

Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

Yusif

================================================

Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]

The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

Case one: Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly. Check out these recent developments:

1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

4- Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan. If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia. Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out. We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package. Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

April 24 is not far away. We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines. (Prediction: the latter. Why? Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out. Huge mistake!)

Case two: Israel

This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

My take on all this:

I am not against dialog or peace. I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

October 20, 2009
One Step at a Time

by TOL
12 October 2009

With Turkey and Armenia now talking to each other, outside powers hold the key to resolution of the Caucasus’ most intractable conflict.

This week saw an important step toward an easing of the tensions surrounding the breakaway province of Nagorno-Karabakh, with an agreement to restore diplomatic ties and open the border between Armenia and Turkey for the first time since 1993. The presence of the French, Russian, and U.S. foreign ministers at the signing ceremony on 10 October signaled their countries’ commitment to the accord. Assuming that the countries’ parliaments ratify the deal, the border itself will be opened within two months.

The deal nearly fell apart at the last minute when the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers could not agree on the statements they would each make at the ceremony. In the end, both agreed to make no speeches.

Each side had to make a substantial concession to realize this small step. The Armenian side had to swallow the fact that Ankara was not going to apologize for, or even acknowledge the existence of, the mass slaughter or, as the Armenians insist, genocide of more than 1 million Armenians in 1915. Instead, Turkey promised merely to open a dialogue with Armenia over the issue, including the creation of a joint historical commission. For their part, the Turks had to agree to lift their border blockade even though Armenia’s ally-cum-offshoot, the de facto Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, illegally occupies 17 percent of the territory of Turkey’s ally, Azerbaijan. Armenian skeptics argue that the creation of the commission will mean the indefinite postponement of genocide recognition by Turkey. Turkish critics urged their government to insist that Armenia give up its territorial claims on Turkey as a precondition for opening the border.

Opposition politicians and nationalists on both sides accuse their governments of selling out their national legacy for short-term economic gain and have vigorously protested the accord, whose confirmation by the parliaments is by no means a sure thing. Opening the Turkish border and allowing some trade with Armenia will be one small step in the direction of a lessening of tension. Opinions differ over who stands to benefit more from an open border – Armenia, because it would help revive its anemic economy, or Turkey, because it would boost Ankara’s influence in the region. Clearly, large-scale trade would take off only if Azerbaijan also opened its border with Armenia. Goods from Turkey that take 10 days to arrive in Azerbaijan via Georgia could cross Armenia in four hours.

Remnants of a war lost: Wrecked Azerbaijani tanks in Nagorno-Karabakh. Creative Commons licensed photo.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is the toughest to solve of all the conflicts that erupted in the post-Soviet space – in Georgia, Moldova, and Tajikistan. It was the only one to involve the occupation of the territory of an internationally recognized sovereign state (Azerbaijan); and the only one to involve direct conflict between two states (until the 2008 war, Russia’s support for Georgian secessionists had been indirect). Also, the Karabakh conflict was unique in coming against the background of a century of hostility between Armenians and Turks, with many on both sides viewing the Azeris as a branch of the Turkish people.

Sixteen years after the end of fighting in Karabakh, the dispute seems as far from resolution as ever. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space: the Karabakh Armenians are not willing to accept Azerbaijani rule, and Azerbaijan is not willing to give up any of its territory. (And that is not even getting into questions of war crimes, refugees, and so forth.) Time does not heal all wounds. It causes some sores to fester and infect the rest of the international body politic. In Armenia and Azerbaijan new generations have grown up who did not personally experience the casual multiculturalism and close friendships across ethnic lines that were the norm in the Soviet period. Rather, they have been raised on a pedagogic diet of national victimization and imminent threat.

Why, after 16 years of inertia, are the two sides ready to make even this modest movement forward? The answer is external pressure. Last year’s Georgia war was a wake-up call to the international community. “Frozen” conflicts can thaw in a flash, and “local” conflicts can quickly draw in global powers, guns blazing. You don’t need to be Tom Clancy to imagine a scenario where the August 2008 conflict turned into a shooting war between Russia and the United States. In the case of Armenia, the resumption of war with Azerbaijan could conceivably draw in Turkey and Russia.

Russia has the biggest leverage over Armenia, and Turkey probably has the closest connections to Azerbaijan – although neither country is in a position to dictate terms to its ally. Turkey is acting as a responsible regional power, even though the carrot of eventual entry to the European Union is looking more remote with each passing year.

The Armenians’ anger over Turkish reluctance to acknowledge and apologize for the 1915 genocide is one of a series of cases where historical truth is an obstacle to current political and economic relations. 2010 will mark the 100th anniversary of Japan’s occupation of Korea – but Korean hopes that the Japanese emperor will visit Seoul and apologize for the colonization are unlikely to be realized. Greece continues to insist that the Republic of Macedonia’s name constitutes a territorial claim on the Greek province of the same name, and on that basis has blocked Macedonia’s entry to NATO.

Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute itself, or even something as ephemeral as a “road map” toward its resolution, is still nowhere in sight. Azerbaijan is unwilling to accept the consequences of its defeat in the 1992-1994 war, and has been using its burgeoning oil revenue to rebuild its armed forces. Many hardliners on both sides seem to believe that it will take another war before the two antagonists are really prepared to make the compromises necessary for a lasting peace (just as the 1973 war seemed to clear the way for peace between Israel and Egypt). Apart from the human costs of war, the chances of escalation and the involvement of other powers make such a scenario unacceptably risky. That is why, for once, Russia and the United States seem to be following the same script. Their continued cooperation in the pursuit of peace is the best chance for avoiding more wars in the Caucasus.

October 13, 2009
Azerbaijan, Armenia Hold ‘Serious’ Talks On Karabakh

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian (right) and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev meet in Chisinau on October 8

October 09, 2009

CHISINAU (Reuters) — The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia held constructive talks on the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh on October 8 and will meet again soon, a U.S. envoy said.

Success in the talks in the Moldovan capital is seen as key to easing the way for restoring relations between Christian Armenia and Muslim Turkey to end a century of hostility.

U.S. ambassador Robert Bradtke said the meeting between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Serzh Sarkisian continued “a positive dynamic in the discussions” on the future of the mountainous enclave.

“The discussions were serious and constructive. They have agreed to meet again in the near future,” Bradtke, who appeared alongside envoys from Russia and France, told reporters.

But there was no word on the substance of the talks.

Violence erupted in the mountainous territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan’s internationally recognised borders, in the late 1980s as the Soviet Union headed towards its 1991 collapse.

Ethnic Armenian forces, backed by Armenia, drove out Azeri troops and took control of seven districts of Azerbaijan adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Some 30,000 people were killed in the war and many more people displaced.

Russian ambassador Yury Merzlyakov said the next meeting between the two presidents would be “relatively soon.”

Both men were to stay on in Chisinau on October 9 when they will meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as part of a summit of ex-Soviet republics within the Commonwealth of Independent States.

It was not clear if they would hold a second round of face-to-face talks on Karabakh then.

Ease Tension

Analysts said the outcome of the October 8 talks in Chisinau was important in terms of a scheduled meeting in Zurich on October 10 when Armenia and Turkey are scheduled to sign an accord to normalize ties.

The hostility between the two nations dates back to mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman forces in World War I.

Turkey broke off diplomatic relations and closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with its ally Azerbaijan.

An agreement to normalize ties and open the border would bolster Turkey’s credentials as a moderniser in the West, boost the poverty-stricken economy of landlocked Armenia, and improve security in the South Caucasus, a transit corridor for oil and gas to the West.

Merzlyakov said the Zurich meeting between Armenia and Turkey did not figure in the Chisinau talks. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to attend the Zurich ceremony.

French envoy Bernard Fassier said the work of the Minsk group, which comprises the United States, Russia, and France and sponsors international efforts to find a Karabakh settlement, was “without links to other processes.”

Aliyev and Sarkisian have much to lose at home if they are seen to make concessions over the emotive issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both men looked tense as they posed for cameras at the start of the talks which were held at the residence of the U.S. ambassador and lasted nearly 3 1/2 hours.

A Turkish parliamentarian, speaking ahead of the talks, said it would be difficult to secure parliamentary approval in Turkey for any normalization of ties with Armenia if the talks on Karabakh did not show progress.

October 9, 2009
Current Turkish “opening” to Armenia cannot be supported

By Ferruh Demirmen

The Turkey-Armenia normalization process, due to take effect soon, in its present form carry imponderables that raise serious questions as to its merits for Turkey.

Three major Turkish-American umbrella organizations, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and the Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA), regrettably issued statements recently in support of the normalization process.

In their endorsement, ATAA and TCA stressed, as has the Turkish government, the importance of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia in pursuit of regional peace, while FTAA, being more prophetic, argued that the process would be a blow to the Armenian diaspora, making it ineffective in its lobbying efforts against Turkey.

There is, however, fierce opposition to the normalization process both in Turkey and Armenia.

No pre-conditions

The normalization process, in its present form, is ill-founded, ill-advised, and cannot be supported from the Turkish point of view. The arguments advanced for normalization, while sounding reasonable, and in principle commendable, represent to a large extent wishful thinking for the Turkish side, not backed by the two diplomatic protocols announced by Turkey and Armenia. The protocols, initialed on August 31 and due to be signed on October 10, form the blueprint for the normalization process.

Reading through the protocols, the one thing that is striking is the generality of the language and the lack of concrete steps to be taken to resolve the outstanding issues between Turkey and Armenia. No caveat or pre-conditions are attached to normalization and the opening of the common border.

Given that the opening of the border will overwhelmingly benefit Armenia, the protocols call for no concessions from Armenia.

Genocide allegations and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are the chief thorny issues between the two countries; but for Turkey, Armenia’s hitherto hostile behavior is also a cause for deep resentment.

Genocide issue

On the genocide issue, the protocols call for the establishment of a bilateral commission to study “the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including … an examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” There is no mention to specifically address the genocide issue, whether it happened or not.

Nor is there any commitment to open Armenian archives for examination. Turkish archives are already open.

Likewise, the time frame for the completion of the commission’s work is left open. This work may continue for years, during which time the border will remain open.

Swiss and other international experts will be joining Armenian and Turkish experts, and herein lies a potential trap for Turkey – considering how the West is already biased against the Turkish position. Switzerland is one country where denial of “Armenian genocide” is punishable by law. France is another one.

Furthermore, assuming that the commission will reach a well-defined conclusion, there is no commitment on the part of Armenia that it would abide by this conclusion, or that it would try to dissuade the diaspora Armenians from continuing the genocide rhetoric.

In its August 23, 1990 Declaration of Independence, Armenia stated that it will continue supporting international recognition of “the 1915 genocide,” and has done so ever since.

It is probable that the Armenian diaspora will press for genocide recognition with undiminished fervor, with implicit if not explicit support of Armenia, regardless of the conclusions reached by the historical commission. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), the chief lobbying arm of the diaspora in America, is firmly against the Turkish-Armenian protocols. The Armenian-American community, in general, is also opposed.

With the diaspora’s anti-Turkish lobbying efforts continuing in full force, Armenia can, as a last resort, “wash its hands off,” arguing that it has no “control” on the diaspora.

There are also reports from Armenian sources that the Armenian government will insist that the historical commission should focus not on whether “genocide” occurred – because this is a given “fact” – but rather, how it occurred.

In a recent interview with the Armenian Reporter in New York, Armenian President Serge Sargsian noted that Armenia and the diaspora are “one family,” and that recognition of “genocide” is a “long-awaited victory for justice.”

A clear message, but not a helpful one for normalizing relations.

So, how is the establishment of the historical commission as foreseen in the protocols really make a difference as far as genocide allegations? A check of reality is in order here.

Nagorno-Karabagh conflict

The language in the protocols on the Nagorno-Karabagh issue is even fuzzier. Other than a “commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes,” the protocols contain no concrete reference to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. There is no mention of ending the illegal occupation of the Azeri territory by Armenia – notwithstanding the UN resolutions – of the innocent Azeri civilians that fell victim to ethnic cleansing by Armenian forces, and of the plight of one million Azeri refugees.

On a recent visit to Moscow, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that the Nagorno-Karabagh issue never entered into negotiations with Turkey, and never will.

Still, as part of the normalization process, Armenia may implement a cosmetic withdrawal from the occupied territory, but this will fall well short of the UN demands, and will not in any way satisfy Azerbaijan. The Minsk Group has been ineffective to date.

In any case, while the Nagorno-Karabagh issue drags on in negotiations, the Turkey-Armenia border will remain open.

Occupation of Nagorno-Karabagh by Armenian forces was the reason Turkey closed the Turkey-Armenia border in 1993.

Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations without the solution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict will be a “sellout” by Turkey of brotherly Azerbaijan, and a betrayal of Azeri nation’s trust in Turkey.

Other than trust, the chief fallout from a rift in Azeri-Turkish relations will be energy projects – including Shah Deniz II gas supply for the Nabucco project. Throughput to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) crude pipeline may also be curtailed, and the Kazakh oil reaching Baku (due to increase following recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan) across the Caspian Sea, instead of the BTC outlet, will likely be exported from the Black Sea ports of Supsa (Georgia) or Novorossiysk (Russia).

Economics aside, that will increase oil tanker traffic through the Bosporus.

Should these eventualities materialize, Turkish politicians, or rather the AKP leaders, will have a lot in their hands to “explain.”

Other issues

Other thorny issues between Turkey and Armenia include refusal of Armenia to recognize the 1921 Kars Agreement (signed between Turkey and the three neighboring Soviet Republics defining the borders), reference to Mount Ararat as a national symbol in Armenia’s Constitution, inclusion of the Mount Ararat insignia on Armenia’s national flag, and reference to eastern Turkey as “Western Armenia” in the Armenian Declaration of Independence.

Such stance on the part of Armenia is an antithesis of good intentions towards a neighbor. Yet, apart from a veiled reference to the Kars Agreement, the issue is largely ignored in the Turkish-Armenian protocols.

How could a country like Turkey normalize relations with a neighbor when the latter signals territorial claims on its neighbor – and does not want to alter its mind-set?

Could the U.S. have a normal diplomatic relation with Mexico if the latter claimed in its Constitution that the southwest U.S. is part of a larger Mexico?

Lingering in the background, of course, is the nefarious ASALA terror that caused the death of more than 40 Turkish diplomats in various countries in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

Armenia cannot be directly blamed for ASALA’s terror, but the Armenian officials have not publically condemned the dastardly acts of ASALA.

Memories are still fresh on Armenian president Andranik Makarian’s warm welcome extended to the ASALA terrorist Varadian Garabedian when the latter was released from French prison in 2001. The Yerevan mayor Rober Nazarian gave the terrorist assurance that he would be given food, shelter and a job in Yerevan. In fact, Garabedian received a hero’s welcome when he stepped into Armenian soil. He had been convicted in France of the 1983 bombing of the Turkish Airlines bureau at the Paris-Orly airport, killing 8 people and wounding 61.

Call for judgment

The notion of normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia is applaudable. Peace and political stability in the region require such normalization, and no reasonable person can oppose this process. Normalization, however, should be predicated on the ending of all hostile elements in the relations between the two countries.

Other than closing the border in 1993, Turkey has not nurtured any adversarial notions towards Armenia. Countless Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, with their churches, hospitals, charities, etc. live peacefully in Turkey, enjoying the full rights of any Turkish citizen, including the right to vote, while at the same time the presence of some 70,000 illegal Armenian workers in Turkey is tolerated.

No Armenian flags are publically burned or trampled upon on national holidays in Turkey, and children are not indoctrinated with anti-Armenian sentiments – in families, schools or mosques – from day one of reaching their consciousness.

The despicable murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink – by unknown forces still under investigation – in January 2007 in Istanbul was widely condemned in Turkey, many Turks taking to the streets chanting “We are all Armenians,” or “We are all Hrant Dink.”

Compare these realities with those in Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora, and what a stark, depressing contrast emerges! One would be hard put, for example, to find a single functioning mosque in Armenia.

And no president of a Turkish-American organization was charged with and convicted of terror activities, like the ex-ANCA president Murat Topalian, who received, in 2001, a 3-year prison sentence in Ohio court for his involvement in a bomb attack against the Turkish House in New York in 1981.

Notwithstanding some gross exaggerations, e.g., 1.5 million purported deaths, Armenians have a genuine sorrowful history to tell going back to World War I, and they want Turkey to account for the sad history. But Turks also have a painful, traumatic history, with 2.5 million Moslems (Turks and Kurds) contemporaneously perished in Anatolia, some half a million at the hands of renegade Armenian bands that joined the invading Russian and French forces, hitting the Ottoman forces from behind.

Wartime tragedies are like the two sides of a coin, and if Armenia insists on accounting of history, it must also show empathy for the other side and face the excesses of its own history.

That is why, it is essential that the historical commission that is envisioned in the protocols have access to all archival documents, Armenian and Turkish included, and the commission’s purview should be making a comprehensive review of the World War I events in their entirety.

Turkey is prepared to face its history. Is Armenia prepared to face its own?

Christian sympathies for the Armenian claims should not ignore or overlook tragedies visited on the Moslems.

Wrap-up

Wrapping up, reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia in principle is commendable, and in fact, long overdue. But such a process must first remove hostile attitudes that exist between the two countries. Because the animus, or an attitude of hostility, has been very largely on the Armenian side, Armenia must first change its attitude toward Turkey, e.g., by revising its Constitution.

An expression of sorrow on the ASALA terror would be also helpful.

The two Turkish-Armenian protocols, however, give no assurance or confidence that Armenia will take these steps. Based on ambiguous, noncommittal language in the protocols, one can only hope for a positive change on the Armenian side.

But hope is not sufficient. There should be greater certitude in the protocols as to how Armenia will alter its conduct.

The only certain clause in the protocols is the one that calls for the opening of the Turkey-Armenia border within 2 months after the protocols take force. There is little doubt that the land-locked Armenia, with most of its population living in poverty, will reap major economic gains from the free-trade opportunities afforded by a re-opened border.

Once the border is opened, it will be virtually impossible to reverse the process regardless of how Armenia behaves. Closure of the border would draw harsh criticism from the U.S. and the EU.

The Turkish-Armenian protocols, devoid of any pre-conditions, are being pushed by Turkey’s AKP government at the strong urging of the U.S., in particular President Obama in person. The EU is also pressuring Turkey. By signing these protocols, the government hopes to earn “brownie points” from the U.S. and the EU in an effort to further advance its Islamic political agenda.

This is regrettable. While the issue is one of political convenience for the AKP government, it is essentially a matter of national dignity for Turkey.

A fundamental question that the government must explain is, other than “brownie points,” what it will actually gain from the signing of the two protocols. If the purpose is to deflect the Obama administration from recognizing Armenian “genocide” – as President Obama said he would during the election campaign – it is a black mark for the Turkish foreign policy. It would be caving in to what is effectively a blackmail.

When he visited Turkey in April, Obama inveighed that he had not changed his “thinking” on genocide allegations. The implication – a veiled threat – was not lost on Turks.

Another key question is, if the protocols are ratified by the Turkish Parliament and they become binding, how the government will handle the Azeris’ certain displeasure. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly assured the Azeris that he will not disappoint them. Yet, the protocols give little hope of a diplomatic breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

Perhaps the government is hoping secretly that the Parliament will decline to ratify the protocols, letting the PM effectively “off the hook.” That eventuality, of course, will trigger another headache. Parliamentary ratification is a Constitutional requirement in Turkey. The Parliament, however, cannot make any alterations to the protocols. It can only ratify or reject them.

The indications are that the Turkish government has forced itself into a predicament, possibly even a trap, of its own making.

In this context, it is particularly disconcerting that, according to Nalbandian, the text of the Turkish-Armenian protocols was prepared entirely by the Armenian side, with Turkey suggesting only minor revisions. Why such passivity on the part of Turkish foreign ministry?

There is a perception that the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s vision of “strategic depth” and “zero problems with neighbors” is turning the country into a weakling of a country lacking resolve and respectability.

It is also regrettable that ATAA, TCA and FTAA have lent support to the normalization process in its present form. Apparently they (at least ATAA and TCA) have chosen to toe the line with the official Turkish government policy. Living on a day-to-day basis with the realities of the Armenian propaganda perpetrated across America, these organizations should have known better. At the very least, they should have stayed neutral on the issue.

ferruh@demirmen.com

October 9, 2009