Tag: Nagorno-Karabakh

  • Azerbaijan’s Unsinkable General .. Caucasus Report

    Azerbaijan’s Unsinkable General .. Caucasus Report

    B79CED86 F2E3 443E 9FDA A62D2AF95292 w527 sAzerbaijani Defense Minister Safar Abiyev, 2004
    63FA40BC 7BB6 4206 BA2D 9FCDBE8EF74B w830 h64
    March 14, 2010
    Colonel General Safar Abiyev is the longest serving defense minister in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and one of the longest serving in the world.

    Now just 60, he has headed the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry since February 1995. Over that time, Azerbaijan has raised defense spending from $97.2 million in 1999, to $175 million in 2004 to $1.5 billion last year.

    Yet the spending of prodigious amounts of cash on state of the art military hardware has not resulted in the creation of an effective and battle ready army. On the contrary, the armed forces remain weak. Discipline is lax, morale low, and hazing endemic. The rank and file suffers from shortages of food, fuel, and such basic items as winter uniforms. The Defense Ministry is reputedly a hotbed of corruption. Why, then, is Abiyev seemingly viewed as indispensible?

    Abiyev was born in Baku on January 27, 1950. He is a Lezgin. He graduated in 1971 from Baku’s Higher Military College, and in 1982 from the Command Faculty of the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow, and has spent his entire professional life in the armed forces.

    Abiyev served briefly as acting defense minister from June — August 1993, immediately after the coup that toppled the Azerbaijan Popular Front government and paved the way for the return to power in Baku of former Communist Party of Azerbaijan First Secretary Heidar Aliyev. He was named defense minister in February 1995, four months after the failed bid by Suret Huseinov and Rovshan Djavadov to overthrow Aliyev — an undertaking in which the army reportedly sided with the leaders of the insurrection.

    Azerbaijan has channeled into the defense budget a considerable amount of the proceeds from the export of its oil and gas. That trend intensified after Ilham Aliyev succeeded his father in late 2003. But much of the money has reportedly been embezzled. The independent daily “Ayna/Zerkalo” played a key role in the late 1990s and early 2000s in reporting on the efforts of former naval officer Djanmirza Mirzoev to publicize corruption within the armed forces. Mirzoev was arrested, tried and sentenced in 2001 to eight years’ imprisonment on fabricated charges of murder; Heidar Aliyev pardoned him in May 2004.

    In addition to sporadic corruption scandals, hazing too has raised questions about discipline and professionalism in the armed forces. A scandal erupted in the fall of 2008 after two videos were posted on YouTube showing sergeants beating younger servicemen. The Defense Ministry reacted by denouncing them as a fake, but subsequently admitted that an investigation had confirmed that the mistreatment shown on the video clip had indeed taken place. Aydyn Mirzazade, who heads the parliament commission for defense and security, nonetheless denied there have any been any incidents of hazing in the armed forces.

    At least five fatal instances of hazing have been reported in the media since December 2006. In the most recent, in January 2010, two privates reportedly shot four officers and then killed each other. Yashar Djafarli, chairman of the Organization of Retired and Reserve Officers, claimed in November 2008 that of over 40 servicemen who died not in combat or of disease since 2003, the majority either died from ill-treatment or committed suicide.

    During Abiyev’s tenure as defense minister, Azerbaijan has signed military cooperation agreements with Turkey, the U.S., and Pakistan, among others. It was one of the first former Soviet republics to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, but has for years remained equivocal over full membership of that alliance. In September 2004, NATO cancelled a conference in Baku after the Azerbaijani authorities refused to issue visas for Armenian officers who planned to participate.

    This year, for the first time, the Defense Ministry budget does not allocate any funds for Azerbaijani participation in PfP activities or for Azerbaijan’s Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP).

    Baku’s lack of real commitment to cooperation with NATO is paralleled by delays in formulating and making public a national defense strategy and in implementing radical reform of the defense sector. The International Crisis Group (ICG) noted those failings in a briefing in October 2008 that described the armed forces as “fragmented, divided, accountable-to-no-one-but- the-president, untransparent, corrupt and internally feuding.” Among other measures, the ICG urged greater oversight powers for the parliament; increased civilian control in the defense ministry; amending relevant legislation in line with international human rights requirements; and improving personnel management and training.

    In light of the multiple weaknesses that detract from Azerbaijan’s defense capability, two inter-connected factors may explain Abiyev’s extended tenure.

    The first is his absolute and unswerving loyalty to the Aliyev dynasty — first father Heidar and then son Ilham, whose ascent to the presidency was more by selection than election. The second is his role in an ongoing double act with Ilham Aliyev intended to expedite a solution on Azerbaijan’s terms to the Karabakh conflict.

    Ilham Aliyev’s legitimacy and political future hinge to a considerable degree on his continued ability to convince the population that Azerbaijan will at some point succeed in wresting back control of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. And in this exercise Abiyev’s support is crucial, if not indispensible.

    Over the past decade, Abiyev has sporadically conjured the specter of a new war in Karabakh. He reasons variously that as a result of either Armenia’s refusal to compromise and withdraw unconditionally from occupied Azerbaijani teritory, or of the OSCE Minsk Group’s inability to draft a settlement plan that will satisfy all conflict sides, Baku will have no choice but to resort to military force. And he claims that Azerbaijan’s armed forces are fully capable of winning a new war.

    A year and a half after the brief but devastating war in Georgia, the most recent  belligerent statements by the Aliyev/Abiyev duo raise the specter of a new outbreak of hostilities in South Caucasus. Increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress towards resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and angered by Turkey’s embrace of tentative rapprochement with Armenia, Azerbaijani officials are again threatening a new war to restore Azerbaijan’s control over the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

    Moscow’s formal recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the wake of the August 2008 war left Nagorno-Karabakh the sole “frozen” conflict in the South Caucasus. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and G-8 leaders have launched separate but complementary initiatives aimed at overcoming the remaining points of disagreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and thus expediting the signing of a blue-print that could serve as the basis of a permanent settlement.

    But Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev continues to alternate between reaffirming his commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement, and threatening a new war in light of Armenia’s intransigent refusal to “compromise,” by which he means to withdraw unconditionally from seven districts of Azerbaijan bordering the NKR that are currently under Armenian control.

    In most countries, the head of state’s traditional New Year’s address seeks to convey a message of cooperation, peace and prosperity. But this year, President Aliyev’s message was one of war. He warned that “Azerbaijan is strengthening its military potential,” which he claimed is “increasing day by day” and is “being strengthened in terms of weapons and equipment.”  He then affirmed explicitly that Baku has the “military effectiveness” and will “use all the means at our disposal to solve the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”

    Abiyev expanded on that threat during a meeting on February 25 with the French Ambassador to Baku, Gabriel Keller. He warned that a “great war” in the region is becoming “inevitable.”  He argued that since the 1994 ceasefire with Armenia that effectively “froze” the Karabakh conflict, “diplomacy has not achieved any concrete results.” “Azerbaijan cannot wait another 15 years,” Abiyev continued, adding that “now it’s the military’s turn, and the threat is growing every day.”

    But there is a profound disparity between such militant rhetoric and the military reality. At one level, such words of war are no more than empty threats, as the exaggerated boasts of Azerbaijan’s military strength ignore the weakness of the Azerbaijani armed forces.  Even so, despite the overwhelming superiority and defensive advantages of the Armenian side, the future trajectory of the military balance of power in the region favors Azerbaijan over the longer term.

    But at another level, the bellicose warnings by the Azerbaijani leadership pose a very real threat to regional security and stability, insofar as they exacerbate latent tensions that have their own destructive dynamic. Specifically, they harden the defensive posture of the Armenian side, making any real resolution of the Karabakh conflict that much more difficult now, and making it even harder for Azerbaijan to adopt a more moderate position later.

    In addition, such rhetoric steadily saps morale within the Azerbaijani military, which has yet to enjoy the benefits of increased defense spending.

    Clearly, despite repeated injunctions from visiting U.S. and European diplomats, Azerbaijan has failed to learn the primary lesson from the Georgia war—that there is no military solution to what are essentially political problems. And for Nagorno-Karabakh, still excluded from the formal negotiating process, Azerbaijan’s bluff and bluster only serves to highlight the broad divide between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    In addition, such threats from Baku foster a perception that the Azerbaijani leadership is not ready for peace, and call into question the sincerity of its proclaimed commitment to international mediation efforts seeking a negotiated resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

    Both Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian have responded to Baku’s threats with warnings of their own that any Azerbaijani attack against Armenia and Karabakh will be met by “serious counter attacks” and rebuffed.

    The recent verbal spat and its possible repercussions have not gone unnoticed. Senior U.S. intelligence official Dennis Blair recently testified to the U.S. Congress that the chances of another Armenian-Azerbaijani war are only increasing, fuelled in part by Azerbaijani frustration over the U.S.-backed normalization effort underway between Turkey and Armenia.

    — Liz Fuller and Richard Giragosian

    ========================================================
    Comment Sorting
    by: David Jonhson from: London

    March 14, 2010 17:14
    Reply
    The article is one-sided and aims at elaborating the sheer weakness of the Azerbaijani armed forces without telling the readers about “the overwhelming superiority and defensive advantages of the Armenian side”.
    I can see why Richard Giragosian has penned such a one-sided piece, but to see Liz Fuller falling into that trap is regrettable.
    The Azerbaijani armed forces suffer from inadequate discipline, corruption, low morale and hazing, but the Armenian military has been cut from the same cloth. So are the Georgian armed forces.
    Armenia is weak, if not bankrupt, economically and in terms manpower is in a disadvantageous position. In the long-run, as you seem to acknowledge, the trajectory of military balance in the region favours Azerbaijan. This would materialize sooner if the Aliyev dynasty in Azerbaijan came to an end which is not unimaginable. A truly nationalist government with a proclivity towards Islamic values together with a better organized army will change the attitude of the Minsk Group, Russia and the United States towards the Karabakh issue for a host of strategic, economic and military reasons.
    The notion that there is no military solution to the Karabakh issue and that Azerbaijan should learn a lesson from the Georgian war is false. You are mixing apples with oranges. In the Georgian war, Russia, a military superpower, was bashing a weak state. In a possible war over Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia, which are more or less of the same weight, will be facing each other. No doubt, they will be backed by their friends and allies, and in this respect, Armenia does not have the upper hand. And, if Azerbaijan plays its cards right, it could muster the support of Iran too.
    In short, your argument is flawed and a juxtaposition of the weaknesses and strengths of both countries in the military, political and economic domains would have given your piece the necessary weight.
    In Response

    by: Martin from: Los Angeles

    March 14, 2010 20:39
    Reply
    The Armenian military is definitely weak when it comes to its budget and spending, but its soldiers are among the bravest and most disciplined in the world, which would defeat any army Azerbaijian puts together. The Azeri army remains demorilized from the clashes in the 90’s.
    In Response

    by: Henrik Dumanian from: New York

    March 15, 2010 02:03
    Reply
    Actually Mr. Johnson, Giragosian’s observations are quite correct. As proof of the Armenian Army’s undeniable advantage over the Azeri army, we can only look to their previous encounter. The Armenian armed forces (which were less organized or trained) defeated an army three times the size of their own, which had access to better funds. No significant developments have occurred since 1994 to suggest that the Azeri army is more capable than they were in 1994, and none to suggest that the Armenians haven’t kept pace. They had both advantages you claim will give them victories the last time around — and we all know what happened las time.

    Second, I do agree that a nationalist government in Azerbaijan would certainly be advantageous (at least one not linked to petro dollars) for the Azeris. But that dynasty will come to an end when and if the oil runs out. And when and if the oil runs out, Azerbaijin will lose its commodities based economic foundation, and with it any serious geopolitical usefulness for the powers that be (or at least any significance that Armenia cannot provide).

    Thirdly, I would like to counter your claim about the Armenian army being cut from the same cloth. On the contrary, the two armies have very different histories and personalities. The Armenian army, according to both Russia and NATO, remains the most capable and mobile army in the immediate region.

    And lastly, I would like to bring your attention to the military argument countering yours. Azerbaijan’s job is not only to have an army better trained, better funded, and bigger in size than Armenia’s (in fact some of those are true). Instead, Azerbaijan has to be able to carry out an offensive. As anybody who is slightly versed in military tactics can tell you, carrying out an offensive can in no way shape or form be succesful unless one side can OVERWHELM the other. Essentially, the Azeri army has to have about 4-5 people run through mines, barbed wire, and a hail of bullets and snipers, so that the 6th person can reach the trenches of the enemy without getting killed. That is why the Soviet Union had so many casualties. They were caught off gaurd in the beginning of the war, and thus had to carry out extremely costly counter-offensives.

    Case in point, Mr. Giragosian is right — there is no military solution to the conflict that favors Azerbaijan (or army). It will at best preserve the status quo or change a few kilometers of position. If there was a military solution, the Azeri army would be attacking right now, not fluffing up its own feathers and trying to save face.


    by: eddy

    March 14, 2010 19:08
    Reply
    This article is just a summary of bellicose statements and war threats voice by the authorities in Baku! There is no mention that in the Republic of Azerbaijan, there is a well organized and by the state orchestrated Anti Armenian propaganda going on against Armenians. A hate campaign almost similar to the Nazi propaganda against the European Jews!

    In case of war once again Azerbaijan will use Lezgins and other ethnic groups and foreign mercenaries as “cannon fodder“ and terrorist acts!

    Vafa Guluzade the ultra nationlist ex advisor to Heidar Aliyev has voiced more than once (even in duty) that as long as an Armenia is living in Nagorno-Karabakh there can not be peace and so on..The same Azerbaijani administration, which Vafa Guluzade still unofficially belongs to, likes to give security guaranties to Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) …. !!!


    by: eddy

    March 14, 2010 19:38
    Reply
    @David Jonhson
    Every thing is possible. There is no secret that Azerbaijan is making real war preparation. Azerbaijan is even training “commandos” to enter Armenia to curry act of Terror and sabotage within Armenia in case of war . Alone in the last week Armenian has neutralized two Azeri commandos in Armenia!

    If some countries/ or even UN regard Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, nobody should be surprise or regard such a development against “international law” , if an Armenian form Nagorno-Karabakh becomes president in Baku, in case of war- as i said every thing is possible!!


    by: eddy

    March 14, 2010 19:53
    Reply
    Azerbaijan regards still NK as part of Republic Azerbaijan or people in NK as “Azerbaijani citizens” THEREFOR:
    In case of war, defence army of Nagorno-Karabakh has every right to enter Baku or any other Azerbaijani city . We should not forget the way which Alive clan come to power – by a coup d’état !
    In Response

    by: alakbar

    March 15, 2010 09:47
    Reply
    WOW! We are waiting for you. Come 🙂

    by: RD

    March 14, 2010 22:10
    Reply
    David, your puerile comments seem to focus on resolving the NKR conflict based on which country is militarily superior, now or in the long term (i.e. by the use of force). You seem to overlook the fact that the NKR conflict will not be resolved even if Azerbaijan re-claimed NKR again today. What does Azerbaijan think will happen? Azerbaijan will take over NKR with its expensive military hardward and the people of NKR will live happily ever after under Azeri rule? Azerbaijan should learn from the U.S. mistake in Iraq. The only solution to the conflict is a diplomatic one. Diplomacy may be difficult and frustrating but not as difficult and as costly as war. You and Azerbaijan will do well to remember Churchill’s quote: “Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events”.
    In Response

    by: serge

    March 15, 2010 09:49
    Reply
    Who says that armenians will stay in NK if Azerbaijan liberates it?

    by: leon from: USA

    March 14, 2010 23:36
    Reply
    To Mr. David Johnson from London or David wannabe who is defending Islamic values!! Please post your real name next time.
    truth is one sided!!
    Everything listed here happened, didn’t it? There is constant war threat by Azerbaijan. Abiyev’ is loyal to Aliyev. There is major corruption in the Azeri armed forces. At the present the Armenian forces being on the defensive position are still superior despite the Azei spending; however, the future trajectory of the military balance of power favors Azerbaijan.

    by: Emin A from: Azerbajian

    March 15, 2010 00:05
    Reply
    David,

    You obviously know nothing about the local politics.

    Azerbaijan has its own land claims with Iran for starters and they are in dispute about rights to the Caspian oil reserves. Secondly they have historically sided with Armenia in the dispute, despite the religious link between them.

    Thirdly the strength of the Armenian position is due to the mountainous terrain and the highly sophisticated S300 Air defence system and the training in which their servicemen received during soviet times.

    And finally David you seem to ignore their social and military Alliance with Russia which has proven to be longstanding and they (Russia) have an established base in Armenian territory.

    It seems to me you are also very one sided. I personally found the article very interesting.


    by: Andrea Jackson from: USA

    March 15, 2010 00:10
    Reply
    This article is a great article. And while Giragosian is an Armenian the truth speaks here. Look at the latest series of problems int he Azerbaijan’s Army. On the other hand, reports come out that the 11 years old son of Azerbaijan’s President buys 40 million dollar worth of property in Dubai while his father’s salary is less than half a million a year. How does this happen?

    The authors are true, is there a military solution to a political problem? Hardly. If there was one, USSR would have won the war in Afghanistan long time ago.

    In Response

    by: To Andrea

    March 15, 2010 09:51
    Reply
    Andrea, are you speaking about the truth in the article? for some reason, it says nothing about the mass desertion of hungry armenian soldiers across the front line. So many cases! Perhaps, due to the “high” morale in the Armenian army… hahaha

    by: eddy

    March 15, 2010 12:21
    Reply
    This not a hidden fact no longer! There are people in Baku ready to committee suicide

    Azerbaijan is even training terro commandos to curry out act of sabotage and terror within Armenian, and create panic in Armenian in case of war.

    We should not forget last year a bombe was placed near Armenian atomic complex- Terror groups which Azerbaijan is training today to use against Armenian should alarm other countries . Tomorrow, well trained terror groups from Azerbaijan will use there knowledge and experience against other countries (one should not forget terrorist and killers and other criminals from Afghanistan and else where, which were haired and paid by Azerbaijan to massacre Armenians in NK in the begining of 90´s). As I mentioned already Azerbaijan is testing the security of Armenian borders by sending special terror commandos to cross the border (and more)

    NKR is a legal party to the current cease fire signed with Republic of Azerbaijan. NKR has ever right to launch a preventive war/operation against the criminal rulers in Baku and free the rest of “Azerbaijan “from rule of bandits, IN case NKR is convince that bandits in Baku are going to start a war against NKR in near future!


    by: Barbarian from: Yerevan

    March 15, 2010 12:43
    Reply

    The article simplifies the real situation. While not speaking about the bankrupt Armenian economy and the Armenian Cabinet of Ministers begging any instance for additional money, it too much focuses on problems in Azerbaijani army while ignoring the sustained problems in Armenian army, if there such an army indeed. I would rather call the Armenian army the shadow of the Russian army.

    In any case, the shadow Russian army, oh sorry, the Armenian army, suffers from the similar problems of the Azerb army, but in a greater scale. The fact Armenian army positions are located in the mountainous areas doesn’t matter at all. Who told Armenians that the attack or the war will start from the front-line. Indeed Azerbaijani commandos are fully equipped and capable of starting the war and attack from the behind of the Armenian army. So guess, if your trenches will be of any help. They current front-line trenches strengthened by the armenian army will serve just as mass graves for unfortunate and hungry armenian soldiers.
    The day when many armenian mothers will cry not so far. But the blame and full responsibility for the next battle fully lie on the armeinan nationalists and fundamentalists and those live and lived with the dream of big armenia.
    Lis Fuller should not have fallen into the trap of the armenian journalist in developing this write-up.

    by: Teymur Azeri

    March 15, 2010 14:13
    Reply

    Yes, there is no long-term military solution to this conflict. Both sides have to work out a solution where long term peace is possible and rights of Azeri and Armenians are respected.

    Separation of NK from Azerbaijan will be unjust if rights of Azeris who would return there are not guaranteed, respected and if they do not have real say in political process of Nagorno-Karabagh. Similarly, territorial integrity is not an absolute right if individual rights of Armenians in Azerbaijan are not respected. The solution must start from return of internal refugees to their homes, only then final political solution can follow.

    I do find comments by some Armenian readers hypocritical. They support political solution only because Armenia has imposed military occupation on Azerbaijan. Had the reverse been true, they would advocate war.

    On military side the Karabakh war was never one sided, In 1992 Azerbaijan army’s counteroffensive has taken back a good deal of occupied territory. As for the morale of Armenian side one should read an interesting article (in Russian) by N. Shahnazarian where she describes how Armenian civilian population was forced to stay in NK by Armenian militants at the gun point.

    see
    http://gusaba.ru/cntnt/festshrift/shahnazary.html

  • BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    BEN MEHR, REASSESSING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION, KAHIRE BASININDA IKTIBASEN YAYINLANDI     Pulat Tacar [tacarps@gmail.com]

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Alon Ben-Meir

    Senior Fellow at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs

    Posted: March 9, 2010 05:09 PM

    Tam boyutlu görseli göster

    Reassessing the Genocide Resolution

    Once again, as has happened every spring for years running, the debate over whether the ethnic clashes against the Armenians in the break up of the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide has made it into the US political arena for Congress to weigh in. The recent resolution adopted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs-to officially recognize actions against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks-has less to do with the US government’s pursuit of historical accuracy, than political theater that has come at a strikingly inopportune time.

    Genocide is a serious label, and requires not only moral authority from those who use it but a deep comprehension of the historical context in which these events occurred. Armenians have every right to demand official inquiries about the terms and conditions in which hundreds of thousands of their ancestors were killed, but this is not the task of US Congress, who has neither the moral standing to codify armed clashes of a century ago without proper inquiry nor the right to be selective about human rights offenses for political points. Every effort should be made by President Obama and the remaining House Representatives to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.

    Beyond the very serious damage that such a resolution could inflict on US-Turkish relations, should it pass the full House, congressional interference at this juncture could severely erode the very moral argument used justify the resolution. Turkey and Armenia have only recently concluded two protocols calling for closer ties, open borders, and most importantly, the creation of a commission to examine the historical evidence of the tragic events. Not only will this vote undermine the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia, but it threatens the US-Turkish relationship at a time when Turkey is playing a critical role aiding the US and the Middle East peace process.

    Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet. Had the purpose been for the US to champion human rights and officially condemn any large scale atrocities in times of war, then why was there no debate about massacres in Sudan, Rwanda, Algeria or the Balkans? The fact that it was supported by a powerful lobby and sponsored by many members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Committee Chairman Howard Berman from California, and Donald Payne and Albio Sires from New Jersey, each of whom represent relatively large Armenian constituencies, takes this debate out of the moral realm and into the political one. Beyond this matter, Howard Berman and the Foreign Relations Committee failed to address the pressing issues behind what such a resolution would invite forth, mainly the land disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the issue of reparations for descendants of the victims, none of which can be treated in isolation. However large the political benefit these members of Congress may garner this election year by pushing this resolution, it is not in US interests, as the end result will hurt the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process and severely undercut Turkish-US cooperation should it come to fruition. Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and investigation, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.

    Turkey has been a loyal friend of the United States for more than a half century, and continues to support American efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is a modern secular democracy, and has made great strides in remaining open and progressive. Why then should the United States Congress hold the descendants of the Ottomans responsible for the deeds of their fathers perpetrated a century ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? This generation had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were. What then gives the United States’ House of Representatives the moral authority to pass judgment, when domestic political interest shamelessly dominates their motives? The argument against the resolution by the full House should be based on moral grounds, and the members must not act as judges and jurors when Turkey and Armenia have agreed to establish their own joint committee to unravel what in fact happened.

    At a time when America still suffers from a lagging global image after years of hawkish foreign policy and two ongoing wars, the United States Congress must support what Turkey and Armenia have agreed to do to resolve their conflict and help facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute. Even the Jewish lobby, in the wake of a series of diplomatic rifts between Turkey and Israel, acted quietly in favor of the Turks, resulting in a close margin in the vote. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent statements have not fared well with the Israeli public, the Israeli diaspora is keen on maintaining the strategic nature of its relationship with Turkey as well as Turkey’s relationship with the West.

    But more importantly, the Turkish government, who acted out fervently against the US government following the resolution, must come to grips with the separation of power in the United States. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have come out strongly against the resolution — albeit last minute — yet they cannot control the votes or the agenda of Congress. Under no circumstance should Prime Minister Erdogan cancel his upcoming visit to the US, as he should use this opportunity to present his case and prove that Turkey is capable of handling the disputes with Armenia without US congressional intervention.

    It is by no means certain that this misguided resolution taken by Pelosi and Berman will pass in the full House should it come to a vote. Furthermore, it is unlikely these sponsors will even bring the resolution to the floor unless they are certain it has a substantial chance to pass. This represents a keen opportunity for Democrats and Republicans alike to find a common area of interest and work in unison for the best interests of the US, Turkey, and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

  • SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    SPANISH PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

    news.am
    March 11 2010
    Armenia

    The motion on Resolution on Armenian Genocide was introduced to
    Spanish Parliament. The sponsors of the document are representatives
    of Republican Left of Catalonia and three MPs of Initiative for
    Catalonia Greens.

    They also proposed to include in the resolution a provision that
    Spanish Government supports Armenia-Turkey normalization process and
    calls EU to back Yerevan-Ankara dialogue.

    February 26, the Catalonian Parliament, unanimously voted for the
    Armenian Genocide approval.

  • CATALONIAN PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES FOR “BASELESS” ARMENIAN RESOLUTION

    CATALONIAN PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES FOR “BASELESS” ARMENIAN RESOLUTION

    Good news! Apparently, an unassuming event in a place tucked away in picturesque Spain may elucidate the ugliness and shamelessness behind the persistent Armenian deception surrounding the alleged genocide.

    It is not uncommon to wake up to news that the parliament of so and so place passed a resolution recognizing the alleged” Armenian genocide. Names like Wales, Catalonia, Patagonia, Uruguay, and others make you think: “What? Do these voters even know where Armenia is today, let alone the complexities of the Armenian revolts, treason, and terrorism of 1877-1921 period and the Ottoman Empire’s security measures taken in response to them some 100 years ago half a world away?”

    Then you read the resolution and go : “Hmmm. Where did I read that before?”

    Finally it downs on you: it is the same worthless and baseless propaganda piece you have seen in all the perennial resolutions in the US Congress and elsewhere, penned by the Armenian extremists, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting public through equally devious and selfish politicians who could not give a damn about history and even less about human rights. Because if they did, they would not violate the human rights of Turks by ignoring article 11 which says every human being is entitled to defend him/herself in the face of accusations. Turks’ right to defend themselves against the accusation of a high crime are stripped with the ill-informed and malicious votes. American (and universal) value of assumption of innocence until the guilt is proven, at a court of law, after due process, is abandoned.

    This happens all too often, no thanks to the deceitful Armenian lobby, victimizing Turks. In the meantime, no word of condemnation of Armenian terrorism since 1973 causing 70+ fatalities among Turkish diplomats or Armenian ethnic cleansing and aggression in Azerbaijan since 1992 causing one million Azeris to suffer in leaky tents while their homes are populated by Armenian soldiers conducting target practice on places of Azeri cultural heritage, schools, and mosques. I guess current human suffering of enormous dimensions is not as important to these righteous, virtuous, honorable politicians as the falsified history of a scheming Armenian radicals.

    Back to the story. You then dig a bit deeper to find out about the Patagonia-Armenia connection and that’s when you notice the dishonest and corrupt Armenian lobby rearing its ugly head. You check it in Wales… Catalonia… You see them everywhere… And the mystery is resolved: the politicians are duped by the Armenian lobby.

    Here is how the Armenian lobby does it: the contacts of the Armenian community are used to impress upon unsuspecting people that Armenian are persecuted by Turks, never showing them the photos of Armenian thugs armed-to-the-teeth (www.ethocide.com) murdering Turkish women and children. The Armenian lobby only talks about how bloody the Turkish retaliation were, but never about Armenian rebellions, treason, bombings, assassinations, hostage takings, bank raids, murders, and terrorism, at a time of war, when the motherland was under brutal foreign occupations, that finally drove the Turks to TERESET (temporarily resettle) the Armenians suspected of fifth column activities.

    An intensely emotional atmosphere is created before the vote is taken. That’s when the tricky Armenian lobby, for good measure, wheels in a few 80-year-olds in wheel chairs and pass them as “genocide survivors”. The theatrical stage is set for a bogus Armenian genocide. Resolution passes.

    Then you read in the media that so and so place has accepted the genocide resolution, never mentioning all the fanfare and drama staged by the fraudulent Armenian lobby. The impression is created that, somehow, these people in some part of the world, all of a sudden, came to their senses on a raging moment of righteousness attack, decide to call a spade a spade. Really? Where did that come from? You wonder.

    These shenanigans, at least in one case, in the case of Catalonia, was exposed today when an irate president “apologized” to Turkey for the abuse of his parliamentarian system by the wily Armenian lobby.

    First we read that “…the decision of Catalonian Parliament on recognition of Armenian genocide allegations does not reflect the opinion of Spain regarding to the issue…” Turkey’s Foreign Minister Davutoglu discusses the issue with his Spanish counterpart and expresses Turkey’s concerns . He stresses that “… Turkey condemns recognition of baseless (genocide) claims and that it is not the job of local or national parliaments to write history.” Davutoglu is pleased to hear from his Spanish counterpart that the “…Spanish government announced that recognition of so called Armenian genocide does not reflect the views of the Spanish government related to the issue”. Then comes the clincher. Catalonian Autonomous Government’s President Jose Montilla apologizes on behalf of his administration and stresses “…that the decision was baseless…” (source: .)

    So, here you are, dear fair-minded truth-seeker, another Armenian falsification is exposed. If you go after each and every recognition masquerade in all forty states and the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the United States and some twenty countries, mostly in Europe, you will see the common thread of deception and distortion by Armenians running through all of them, repeat, all of them. No self-respecting parliament would reduce itself to the level of approving a fallacy and legislating a racist and dishonest version of history. It is only a matter of time before the entire Armenian hullabaloo bites the dirt as spotlights of scrutiny and critical thinking are shone on the Armenian propaganda.

    So, what did just happen here?

    First came the vote, then the apology for the vote.

    Hmmm. I say chalk this one off to the start of enlightenment and awakening. Turkish perseverance in sticking with the truth, in a sea of bias and bigotry, may be paying some dividends after all.

    One word of advice to the Armenians who shamelessly promote a bogus genocide: GET A LIFE!

  • US CONGRESS & SWEDISH PARLIAMENT VOTES: HOW POLITICIANS DEMOLISHED A PEACE PROCESS

    US CONGRESS & SWEDISH PARLIAMENT VOTES: HOW POLITICIANS DEMOLISHED A PEACE PROCESS

    March 12, 2010

    Hon. Ambassador Jonas Hafström
    Embassy of Sweden
    2900 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007, USA
    Phone: 202-467 2600
    Fax: 202-467 2699
    Email: ambassaden.washington@foreign.ministry.se

    Dear Ambassador Hafström,

    According to the report of International Radio of Sweden, Sweden’s former Consulate General to Istanbul and Middle East expert Ingmar Karlsson said that the decision of Swedish Parliament will have negative effects especially on Armenia. Stressing that Armenia is isolated from the rest of the world, Karlsson said, “The ones who consider that they are struggling for Armenia should know that their efforts will affect Armenia negatively.” Karlsson stressed that voting in the Swedish parliament may undermine the achievements that are made till now and said, “The risk for Armenia to fall under the influence of Russia is more than any other time now.” (Source: .)
    I agree with Ingmar Karlsson and wish to record it here for the use of future generations, in no uncertain terms, that those politicians who voted for the bogus genocide in Washington DC and Stockholm are responsible for destroying a peace process.

    Readers of my columns at www.turkla.com, www.historyoftruth, www.turkishny.com , www.turkishjournal.com , www.turkishforum.com , and elsewhere know well that I have repeatedly written that if Armenian does not wish to become a distant, irrelevant, isolated province of Russia, then Armenia must do three things:

    1) stop the military occupation of Azerbaijan soil in Karabagh and the seven surrounding provinces (thus honoring the U.N. Security Council resolutions for same,)

    2) allow a million Azeri refugees made refugees on their own soil at gunpoint by Armenian regulars and irregulars armed with Russian weapons and advisors,

    3) and stop political pressure by its diaspora on foreign parliaments designed to defame and demonize Turkey with falsified history promoted as genocide in meaningless resolutions.

    Armenia, and its diaspora, delivered on none of those expectations. Now that The U.S. Congress Foreign Affairs Committee and the Swedish Parliament, both voted by a single vote majority, to take Armenian propaganda at face value with total disregard for the truth, as summarized in the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict (www.turkla.com) , the Turkey is in no mood to feel charitable towards its land-locked, poverty-stricken, starving, aggressive, violent, corrupt, and tiny neighbor, Armenia. The protocols signed between the two last October, signaling a rapprochement of sorts, are pretty much dead-on-arrival now, thanks in no small part to those irresponsible politicians whose narrow personal interests outweighed the considerations of peace between two nations, and indeed an entire region of Caucasus involving Azerbaijan and Georgia.

    I protest, therefore, the incredibly selfish actions of a few politicians who chose their own selfish interests over peace in a difficult region involving millions of people.

    Sincerely,

  • THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    Re:  “ The Armenian Genocide: A Case Of Selective Memory”,  By Dmitry Babich, RIA Novosti, Moscow, 9 March 2010, (produced below for your convenience – the undersigned thanks www.TurkishForum.com.tr for bringing this anti-Turkish, anti-Azeri, andti-Muslim artcile to my atention, giving me a chance to respond.)

    ergunk1

    THE BOGUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    Dear Editor,

    So this is what Journalism Department of Moscow State University produces:  cockeyed look at world events to promote Russian interests at all costs.  Here is a writer who will shamelessly complain about selective memory while “practicing” it.

    Did you read any lines about Azeris killed by Armenians above?

    Did you see any remorse about Khodjaly exterminations of Azeris (genocide?) by Armenian thugs using Russian advisors and weapons?

    Any word about the mass killings of Azeris in Karabagh by Armenian soldiers and paramilitaries under the command of Russian “advisors”  using Russian tanks?

    Azeris were killed by Armenians toting Russian Mosins in 1893 and Russian Kalashnikovs in 1993?  Both under the leadership of Russian “advisors”.  What has changed in the hundred years, other than the model of the murder weapon?

    How about Armenian aggression in the seven rayons (provinces) surrounding Karabagh?  Why is he silent about that?  Isn’t that pure aggression and persecution?

    Most dramatic of all, perhaps, is the embarrassing silence of the Russian writer (and I use the term loosely) about the million or so Azeri refugees bracing, made homeless by the Armenian thugs toting Russian rifles, bracing for the 18th scorching summer after 17th freezing winter endured in leaky tents with little food or medicine.  Is this how a Russian “journalist” sees events?  Through the prism of selective memory?

    Just like those biased promoters of a bogus genocide who will…

    a) remember Morgenthau’s falsified reports but not Bristol’s or Hubbard’s eyewitness reports;

    b) remember the long-discredited lie of 1.5 million dead Armenians, but not the Paris Peace Conference report dated 29 March 1919 declaring the number “…more than 200,000…” from which the current lie had originated;

    c)  remember the Armenian dead (about 200,00 according to Paris Peace Conference of 1919) but not more than 524,000 Muslim, mostly Turkish dead;

    d) remember 24 April as the start of a fake genocide, but not the fact that 24 April was nothing more than the Ottoman Guantanamo when the known Armenian terrorists, insurgents, and spies and their suspected accomplices, were arrested for questioning, some of whom were later released;

    e) remember Turkish retaliations but not the Armenian revolts that started them, the biggest one of all being the Van rebellion of April 1915 which was the 9/11 of the Ottoman Empire when Armenian killed more than 40,000 of thei Muslim neighbors and turned the city over to the invading Russian armies;

    f)  remember Dink, but not Arikan, and 70 other the Armenians killed since 1973;

    g)  remember Armenia Tereset (temporary resettlement of 1915) but not the facts that Armenians backstabbed their own country at a time when the motherland was under brutal foreign invasion in the West (Dardanelles by the French, and Anzacs, in the East (by Russians and Armenians), in the South (by the British in Sinai, Palestine, and Mesopotamia);

    h)  remember Armenians who were resettled because of their treasonous activities and revolts but not the Crimean Tatars (Turks) who were deported in cattle wagons to Kazakhstan, or Meshketian Turks to Uzbekiastan, or Koreans or Ukranians or Chechens or tens of millions of others  to  distant deserts and barren plains of Central Asia and icy regios of Siberia, who met worse tragic end, if such a thing is possible,  at the hands of their brutal Russian handlers… and many more (too long to list here)

    i)  remember to quote the Armenian commentator Andronik today but not the Armenian terrorist Andranik of last century who ruthlessly murdered many non-combatant, unarmed Muslims, mostly Turks, after torturing them in unspeakable manners;  or those other Armenian terrorists like Dro, Aram, and thousands of others who were trained and supported by the Russians all along the way;

    Russians are the last people on earth to talk about selective memory or persecution of defenseless ethnic people.

    Sincerely,   Ergün KIRLIKOVALIPresident-Elect, ATAA    ergun@cox.net 9741 Irvine Center Drive                   Irvine, CA 92618-4324 , USA Cell: (949) 878-1186


    THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: A CASE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

    Dmitry Babich

    RIA Novosti
    15:44 09/03/2010
    Moscow

    A resolution on the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, passed by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations, has raised a real storm in international diplomacy.

    Feverish diplomatic activity and apparent hesitations of the U.S. administration are a clear sign that Turkey’s foreign policy influence has grown.

    The committee’s resolution is non-binding and it is not clear if it will be placed before the whole house, but Turkey has already recalled its ambassador to Ankara for consultations, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, has asked the Congress not to take up this delicate matter now.

    When, in 1915, 1.5 million Armenians “disappeared” as a result of the action undertaken by the Young Turks’ government, Turkey and Armenia froze all contacts with each other. It was only last year that signs

    of thawing first became manifest, and in the fall of 2009 the sides agreed to establish diplomatic relations. This was viewed as a success for the Turkish leadership, both the prime minister and the president.

    Will now a final “thaw” be postponed again?

    That is not likely, although Turkish politicians are certain to take advantage of the situation to improve their standing.

    It is very likely that the current scandal will only boost the prestige of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Not so long ago, he was the first politician in Turkish history to challenge the

    military, saying he uncovered a military plot initially scheduled for 2003. Before that, Erdogan made out a successful case for the Palestinians as Muslim brothers, harshly criticizing Israel for its Gaza Strip operation. During the U.S. Iraqi campaign, Turkey never allowed American troops to pass through its territory, forcing Washington to invade Iraq only from the south.

    Now the ambiguous position the U.S. has maintained for years on the Armenian genocide, which helped Washington to draw Turkey into NATO, is beginning to backfire against U.S. interests. This is a good

    lesson for all, and it is not limited to the events of 1915. There are other examples. The Western mass media are still keeping silent about anti-Armenian violence in Baku in 1989-1990. Most reports mention only that Soviet troops were introduced into the city.

    The reason for such selective memory in American and West European media is understandable: it is simple to place the blame on Moscow, forgetting all about previous events. At that moment, the troops

    sent by Moscow saved the lives of thousands of Armenians and other “Russian speakers” in Baku. Even many Russian media find the subject of the violence in Baku unpopular and almost forbidden. Some say this could lose Russia advertising contracts and lead to conflicts with influential people.

    “I do not know what has to be done to get the mass media throughout the world to highlight those events,” says political analyst Andronik Migranyan, a member of Russia’s Public Chamber. “Will Armenia itself

    have to carry out PR campaigns to make things change?”

    The point is that the events of 1915 and those of the 1980s in Armenia and Azerbaijan do not concern only Armenians; they concern everyone.

    The anti-Armenian violence in Baku came after an inhumane expulsion of Azerbaijanians from Nagorny Karabakh, followed by the Khodzhala tragedy that shocked the world. People must remember everything,

    because destruction of human life cannot be forgotten or remembered selectively. Otherwise, diplomatic embarrassments like the present U.S.-Turkish spat may become regular.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

    ***

    Biography of the author:  Dmitry Babich graduated from the Journalism Department of Moscow State University. From 1990-1996, he worked as a correspondent and senior parliament correspondent in Komsomolskaya Pravda, which was at the time a respected Russian daily newspaper with a circulation of up to 20 million. He the covered politics for the TV-6 television channel for three years before becoming head of the international department of the weekly newspaper Moscow News. While he was working at Moscow News, Dima won a prize from ITAR-TASS for developing Russian-Ukrainian information exchange following a series of reports from Ukraine. He joined Russia Profile as a staff writer at the beginning of 2004.

    ********************