WHAT MEDIATION IS POSSIBLE?

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

If Turkey does not conceal the crimes committed in 1918

As we know, during his visit to Baku, the Turkish Foreign Minister not
only announced that the regulation of the Armenian-Turkish relations
depended upon the further course of the Armenian-Azeri relations,
i.e. the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, but also made certain
confessions that deserve special attention.

As mentioned by the Turkish Foreign Minister, "The Nagorno Karabakh
conflict concerns not only Azerbaijan, but also Turkey and the
whole region.

Since 1918, we have been standing by Azerbaijan and will always stand
by it in future."

This leads us to the following conclusion:

a) By making that statement, the official Ankara confesses that it
considers the Karabakh issue to be "its own business".

b) Furthermore, Turkey views the Karabakh conflict in the context of
the issues concerning the South Caucasus. It follows from here that the
problem fits the logic of Prime Minister R. T. Erdoghan’s proposal on
establishing a "Security and Stability Platform in the South Caucasus".

c) And after all, Turkey, in the person of its Foreign Minister Ali
Babajan, confesses that since 1918 it has been standing by Azerbaijan
and will always stand by it in future.

The following question comes up: what is, in that cas e, the motive
of Turkey’s unrestrained desire of organizing the Armenian, Turkish
and Azeri Foreign Ministers’ trilateral meeting in Helsinki, within
the frameworks of the session of the Council of the OSCE Ministers?

If Turkey considers the Karabakh issue to be "its own business",
i.e. it is a conflicting party and does not conceal the fact that it
"stands by Azerbaijan", then it cannot be a mediator. Moreover, if
the Karabakh issue is a matter concerning the whole South Caucasian
region, with Turkey being a conflicting party, then its "platform of
security and stability in the South Caucasus" is nothing more than
the expression of the unilateral intentions of one of the parties to
the Karabakh conflict.

When, apart from considering the Karabakh conflict a matter concerning
both Turkey and Azerbaijan, Ali Babajan also confesses that his country
"has been standing by Azerbaijan since 1918 and will always stand
by it in future", there emerges another puzzle. And what happened
in 1918 that makes the Turkish Foreign Minister start the history of
the Turkish-Azerbaijani relations from that particular year?

Let’s note that this was the year when, having committed the Armenian
Genocide, the Turkish army launched a new aggression against the South
Caucasus, putting half a million of Armenians to the sword and thus
establishing an artificial country that came to be known as Azerbaijan.

Thus, the country that is now trying to act as a mediator in the
Karabakh settlement talks does not actually conceal the fact that
the state bearing the name "Azerbaijan" was founded through its own
efforts in 1918, so it will always support it.

All that gives rise to the following question: if Turkey admits its
responsibility for the past inasmuch as Azerbaijan is concerned, how
come that it denies the same responsibility for continuing the Armenian
Genocide and exterminating half a million of Armenians in the South
Caucasus. Because the statement made by Ali Babajan may lead to the
assumption that in 1918 the Turkish troops were busy establishing the
same "Security and Stability Platform" currently proposed by Turkey.

We believe that in the meeting held in Baku on November 30, the Turkish
Foreign Minister not only expressed his refusal to act as a mediator in
the Karabakh settlement talks but also introduced to the Armenian party
all the legal bases for questioning Ankara’s proposal on establishing
"Security and Stability Platform in the South Caucasus".

If Turkey refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide, including the
extermination of around half a million of Armenians in the South
Caucasus, can the Republic of Armenia now have any guarantees that
in case of appearing in the same region, the country will not repeat
the crimes committed in the past but not recognized so far?

Therefore, as long as there is no clear-cut evidence as to the norms
of international law by which the perpetrator of Genocide guides
itself, attempting to act as the guarantor of its victims, Turkey’s
desires remain within the scope of the clear-cut bans prescribed by
"Convention on the Prevention of and Punishment for Genocide" (adopted
by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948). The relevant clauses
of the document envisage international taboo for the manifestation
of such desires.

Having politely and diplomatically rejected the proposal on holding a
trilateral meeting in Helsinki with the participation of the Armenian,
Azeri and Turkish Foreign Ministers, our Foreign Ministry did not
consider the Armenian diplomacy’s chances of having periodical meetings
in such format and giving a negative response to Turkey’s desires.

That is, Foreign Minister Ali Babajan’s statement saying, "Since 1918,
we have been standing by Azerbaijan and will always stand by it in
future" was perceived by the Armenian party as a clear-cut attitude
by the present-day Turkish leaders who are proud of the fact that in
1918 the Turkish Army exterminated around half a million Armenians
in the territory of the South Caucasus and first of all, in Baku,
the present-day capital town of Azerbaijan. And this serves as a
ground for the Republic of Armenia to refuse Turkey’s current and
future attempts of acting as a mediator, unless it confesses to and
repents for the war crimes committed in the South Caucasus in 1918.