ARMENIA THIS WEEK
Monday, April 4, 2005
In this issue:
U.S. Military, NATO officials tout “great progress” in Armenia
relations
Armenian leaders offer condolences of over Pope John Paul II’s
passing
Survey: Armenians, Turks want better relations, but don’t expect
improvement
Israeli Daily: Former Minister urges change in Israel’s position on
Genocide
U.S. MILITARY, NATO OFFICIALS TOUT “GREAT PROGRESS” IN SECURITY TIES
WITH ARMENIA
Senior U.S. and NATO officials were in Yerevan last week to discuss a
growing security partnership with Armenia. In his second visit to
Armenia in less than a year, General Charles Wald, Deputy Commander
of the U.S. forces in Europe, noted that “great progress” has already
been achieved and that his talks with President Robert Kocharian and
Defense Minister Serge Sargsian focused on developing U.S.-Armenia
defense relations, particularly measures against international
terrorists.
Gunther Altenburg, NATO assistant secretary general for political
affairs and security policy, was in Armenia to preside over the
session of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC)’s
consultative group. EAPC is the main diplomatic forum between NATO
and partner countries such as Armenia. The Yerevan session brought
together representatives of 38 countries. In meeting with Altenburg,
Sargsian noted that the Armenia-NATO partnership was developing
rapidly and that Armenia saw closer ties with NATO as “very useful.”
Armenia has been building closer ties with the U.S. and NATO in
recent years, sending peacekeepers to Iraq and Kosovo, and providing
other assistance. But with lack of progress in relations with Turkey,
Armenia has also maintained a security pact with Russia.
Commentators are likely to seize on last week’s news as confirmation
of Armenia’s “drift” to the West.
An analysis of a recent visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to
Armenia, published in the widely-read Stratfor last week, cited
Armenian government sources that claimed that a “radical shift” in
Armenia’s foreign policy, backed by President Kocharian and Defense
Minister Sargsian, was in the making. While Stratfor did not spell
out what specific changes it anticipated, its analysis suggested that
Armenian leaders believe that the U.S. could do a better job in
helping Armenia address its security challenges, than can Russia.
Over the past year, Russia has also stepped up its cooperation with
Turkey. (Sources: Armenia This Week 4-30-04, 11-8-04, 2-14; Stratfor
3-28; RFE/RL Armenia Report 3-30; Mediamax 3-31)
ARMENIAN LEADERS EXTEND SYMPATHIES OVER POPE JOHN PAUL II’S PASSING
Armenia’s political and religious leaders shared condolences over the
passing of Pope John Paul II last week, praising his worldwide
leadership and role in establishing closer relations between Armenia
and the Vatican. Karekin II, the Catholicos of all Armenians, said
that “the passing of Pope John Paul II is truly a great loss for the
world” and praised him as an “untiring preacher of peace and defender
of Christian moral values” throughout his 26 years as Pontiff.
Catholicos Karekin II also recalled that in 2001, during celebrations
of the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity, John Paul
II became the first Pope to visit Armenia and also to officially
affirm the Armenian Genocide.
In a letter to Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano,
President Robert Kocharian noted that “the Armenian people together
with the whole Christian world mourn the death of John Paul II, who
has won the great sympathy and respect of the whole humanity.” Last
January, Kocharian became the last foreign head of state to be
received by John Paul II, prior to the deterioration of the Pontiff’s
health.
Relations between the Catholic and Armenian churches have grown
closer since a 1996 joint declaration that addressed theological
differences. Earlier this year, Pope John Paul II blessed the statue
of the Armenian Church founder St. Gregory the Illuminator that was
placed among the founding saints that surround the exterior of St.
Peter’s Basilica in Rome. (Sources: Armenia This Week 2-1; Mediamax
4-2, 4; Armenian Church – Echmiadzin 4-3)
SURVEY: ARMENIANS, TURKS WANT BETTER RELATIONS, BUT PESSIMISTIC ON
FUTURE
A first-ever joint survey conducted by Armenian and Turkish pollsters
and published last month confirmed a wide gap in perceptions between
the two nations, but also found majority support for improvement in
relations. The two groups, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies
Foundation (TESEV) and the Yerevan-based Sociological and Marketing
Research Center (HASA), polled 1,219 and 1,000 citizens throughout
Turkey and Armenia respectively in late 2002 – early 2003. The
Washington, DC-based American University Center for Global Peace
funded the project.
While the Armenian respondents were generally more educated and more
informed about Turkey, they also held overwhelmingly negative views
of the country. By contrast, fewer Turks were informed about Armenia
and also had less negative attitudes. Thus, a majority of Turks were
unaware of Armenia’s precise geographic location or its form of
government. Over one-fifth of Turks polled appeared to identify
Armenia with Israel, suggesting that Judaism was Armenia’s state
religion.
The study confirmed that Armenians’ negative attitudes are based on
the genocidal experience in Turkey – a full quarter of a randomly
selected Armenian sample knew at least some family members who were
born in present-day Turkey. A majority of Turks were aware that
Armenians inhabited parts of present-day Turkey before the arrival of
Turks and that most of the Armenian population was forced out during
World War I.
Both Armenians and Turks would approve the establishment of
diplomatic relations (88 and 65 percent respectively), open borders
(63 and 51) and resumption of economic ties before political
normalization (60 and 54); both Armenians and Turks believe that
diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey would serve as the
most important element in improving relations. However, most
Armenians and Turks believe that relations between the two countries
would either remain unchanged or change for the worse.
The study further found that mass media was a key source of
information for Turks and Armenians about each other. In a concluding
statement, TESEV and HASA suggested that fair and unbiased
representation in the media could substantially contribute to
improving mutual attitudes. (Source: Armenian and Turkish Citizens’
Mutual Perceptions and Dialogue Project, 2005
)
A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY THE ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA
122 C Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-3434
FAX (202) 638-4904
E-Mail info@aaainc.org WEB
Tue., March 29, 2005 Adar2 18, 5765
Ha’aretz [Israeli daily]
Israel is among the holocaust deniers
By Yossi Sarid
April 24 will mark the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, and
the Armenian government is holding an international conference in the
capital of Yerevan, dedicated to the memory of the more than a
million Armenians murdered by the Turks. I was also invited, and I
decided to attend. This month will also see the Hebrew publication of
Prof. Yair Auron’s eye-opening and stomach churning book, “Denial:
Israel and the Armenian Genocide,” Maba Publishing, which has already
been highly praised overseas in its English-language edition.
As opposed to many other nations, Israel has never recognized the
murder of the Armenian people, and in effect lent a hand to the
deniers of that genocide. Our official reactions moved in the vague,
illusory realm between denial to evasion, from “it’s not clear there
really was genocide” to “it’s an issue for the historians,” as Shimon
Peres once put it so outrageously and stupidly.
There are two main motives for the Israeli position. The first is the
importance of the relationship with Turkey, which for some reason
continues to deny any responsibility for the genocide, and uses heavy
pressure worldwide to prevent the historical responsibility for the
genocide to be laid at its door. The pressure does work, and not only
Israel, but other countries as well do the arithmetic of profits and
loss. The other motive is that recognition of another nation’s murder
would seem to erode the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust.
Five years ago, on the 85th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, I
was invited as education minister to the Armenian church in the Old
City of Jerusalem. This is what I said at the time:
“I am here, with you, as a human being, as a Jew, as an Israeli, and
as the minister of education in Israel. For many years, too many, you
were alone on this, your memorial day. I am aware of the special
significance of my presence here. Today, for the first time, you are
less alone.”
I recalled the Jewish American ambassador to Turkey at the time of
the slaughter, Henry Morgenthau, who called the massacre of the
Armenians “the greatest crime of modern history.” That good man had
no idea what would yet happen in the 20th century – who could have
anticipated the Jewish Holocaust? And I recalled Franz Werfel’s “The
40 Days of Musa Dagh,” which came out in Germany in the spring of
1933 and shocked millions of people and eventually, me, too, as a
youth.
Summing up, I said, “We Jews, the main victims of murderous hatred,
must be doubly sensitive and identify with other victims. Those who
stand aside, turn away, cast a blind eye, make their calculations of
gains and losses, and are silent, always help the murderers and never
those who are being murdered. In our new history curriculum I want to
see a central chapter on genocide, and within it, an open reference
to the Armenian genocide. That is our duty to you and to ourselves.”
The Armenian community in Israel and the world took note of that
statement with satisfaction. Turkey complained vociferously,
demanding an explanation from the Israeli government. And “my
government,” of all governments, first stammered and then denied
responsibility, and explained that I spoke for myself. And not a
remnant survives in the new curriculum of the Livnat era.
Now it can be said. They were right. All the stammerers and deniers.
I really did not consult with anyone else and did not ask for
permission. What must be asked when the answer is known in advance,
and it is based on the wrong assumption that there is a contradiction
between a moral position and a political one? Just how beastly must
we be as humans, or as Haaretz wrote then in its editorial, “The
teaching of genocides must be at the top of the priorities of the
values of the Jewish people, the victim of the Holocaust, and no
diplomacy of interests can be allowed to stand in that way”?
The Israeli Foreign Ministry, and not only it, is always afraid of
its own shadow and thus it casts a dark shadow over us all as
accomplices to the “silence of the world.” The Dalai Lama, leader of
the exiled Tibetans, has visited here twice, and twice I was warned
by “officials” not to meet with him. It would mean a crisis in
relations with China, the exact same thing they say about Turkey. I
rebuffed those warnings in both cases. I have always believed that
moral policies pay off in the long run, while rotten policies end up
losing.
And all this I will repeat in the capital of Armenia, only in my
name, of course.
AAA Note: Sarid is a member of the Israeli Knesset, Foreign Affairs
and Defense Committee, and Education and Culture Committee; Chair,
Meretz Movement.