Author: Chmshkian Vicken

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS ALREADY LOST HIS INTEREST IN ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROCESS

ArmInfo
2010-03-23 16:14:00

Interview of Sergey Markedonov, Head of the Department for Problems of
Ethnic Relations at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis,
with ArmInfo news agency

Mr.Markedonov, how much perspective is further promotion of H.Res.252
on the Armenian Genocide?

The prospects of the H.Res.252 for adoption over the general voting
at the US Congress are not as big, as the political expediency itself
makes US Administration to argue against this pro-Armenian resolution.

Almost a similar situation was created in 2007 when the Subcommittee
of the US House of Representatives also voted "for" Resolution
106, however, the latter did not pass further. There are numerous
objective and subjective reasons for such alignment among supporters
and opponents of H.Res.252. The standstill in the Armenian-Turkish
process is one of such objective reasons. Of course, the standstill
is not a deadlock yet but it is not promotion either. There are not
only opponents but also supporters of recognition of the Armenian
Genocide in the USA, and these supporters do not take care whether
it is beneficial for the USA in the political aspect or not, they
just proceed from the sense of justice. So, the fight among the
supporters and advocates of justice and the supporters of a value
approach to recognition of the Armenian Genocide will go on. As
regards the Administration, it will do its best to prevent or at
least fail further promotion of H.Res. 252 in the Congress. In case
these efforts fail and the resolution is put on vote in the Congress,
President Obama will veto it.

By the way, do you expect Obama to speak Armenian again or to call
the Genocide in some different way?

I think that on April 24 Obama will speak Armenian again. I think
that something like this will happen. As regards the prospects
and probability if Obama will pronounce the word "genocide" in his
traditional address to the Armenian community in the USA on April 24,
I do not think it will happen. Obama will most probably find another
way to avoid responsibility and mention the fact of Genocide without
calling things by their proper names. I expect reoccurrence of last
year’s situation.

Why is Turkey so much dear to the US Administration?

There are many reasons why Turkey is so much dear to US Administration,
and the problem of Iraq, which American servicemen got bogged
down in, is the most important one. Everything is simple, 70%
of military cargo to supply the American contingent in Iraq pass
via the territory of Turkey, and I don’t think that in this case
Armenia may be an alternative to Turkey, since it is geographically
impossible. There is quite a specific problem of Afghanistan in which
the Turkish factor also plays its stable part. Moreover, there is also
the American base in the Turkish town of Injirlik, which Americans
cannot leave at present. And finally, the most important answer to
the question about the role of Turkey is hidden in the ideological and
political significance of Turkey for Washington. In fact, unlike the
rest Muslim, in particular, Arab world, Turkey is the only country
of the Islamic West which the USA has friendly relations with. So,
there are many obstacles, like the above-water and underwater reefs,
on the way of Resolution 252 promotion.

The Swedish Riksdag has recently recognized the Armenian Genocide in
Turkey, to which no importance is attached in Europe.

The situation with Sweden’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide has
quite a different history and motivation. Moreover, this situation is
applicable not only to certain countries but to the whole European
Union. EU holds a rigid position with respect to Turkey concerning
the Armenian Genocide and demonstrates its unwillingness to accept
70-million Turkey to Europe. That is to say, the issue of recognition
of the Armenian Genocide for the European policy is a tool of
suppressing Turkey on the way to EU. In this context, the Europeans’
striving to recognize extirpation of Greeks and Assyrians by Turks
as genocide is of much significance. This is very important as the
Assyrian community in Europe is one of the largest ones despite the
fact that Assyrians have no motherland.

What has the process of ratification of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols
stumbled over?

Ratification of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols has stumbled over
Azerbaijan. Baku has managed to achieve much in this area by its
permanent militarist rhetoric and elementary blackmail with regards to
Turkey. The ruling elite in Turkey that is not ready for establishment
of full-fledged relations with Armenia has been subjected to pressure
and blackmail by Azerbaijan, which served a good opportunity for
Turkey to resolve its doubts. Azerbaijan has rather successfully
used Turkey’s hesitations and Ankara has come back to the previous
situation and drawn parallels between the Armenian-Turkish process
and the Karabakh conflict, though these two processes cannot be linked.

Against this background even the initiator of the process, President
of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan, has already lost his interest in it.

This is proved by adoption of amendments to the Law "On International
Treaties" by the parliament in the second reading, according to which
at any moment Armenia may recall its signature under the Protocols
with Turkey. The Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision on the
Protocols poured oil on the flames. Of course, Armenia hit the right
path having approved the Protocols via the Constitutional Court –
it was dictated by diplomatic prudence. Anyone having an idea about
the Constitution of Armenia perfectly realizes what kind of catch
was prepared for Turkey. The Constitution of Armenia clearly says
that Armenia consistently demands recognition of the Genocide, so,
having recognized the Protocols as complying with the republic’s
Constitution, Armenia did not give up its requirements on recognition
of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey. If desired, they in Turkey
could not even notice it and ratify the Protocols; however, against
the background of the Azerbaijani military rhetoric, in Ankara they
could not but notice it.

In Baku they constantly say about some mythical terms of the Karabakh
conflict settlement. Can one speak of any terms of settlement today?

Actually, like earlier, it is impossible to speak about the terms of
the Karabakh settlement today. One can speak about the terms only if
the parties finally understand that to arrange around any formula is
better than to preserve neither war nor peace situation. Let’s look at
Israeli-Egyptian conflict. In 1979 after the war Egypt understood that
it could not prevail over Israel and made up its mind to existence
of the Jewish state having got peace in exchange. For their part,
they understood in Tel-Aviv that they would not manage to destroy
Egypt finally and returned the Sinai to Egypt. That is to say,
an elementary exchange took place, which is so much necessary for
peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict at present.

How do you imagine this exchange in case of the Karabakh settlement?

The idea to integrate Nagornyy Karabakh and the Armenians residing
there in Azerbaijan with the highest status of autonomy in the world,
is problematic, first of all, for Baku. In case Karabakh gets a
status of autonomy, actual independence, as part of Azerbaijan, the
other national minorities densely populated in that country may also
demand such high level of autonomy. It is not difficult to foretell
what this will lead to. In addition, penetration of Armenians into
Azerbaijani business, which will be inevitable, does not meet Baku’s
interests either. On the other hand, Armenia has no resources to
develop the 7 regions conquered over the Karabakh war. Armenia will
be able to develop only Lachin and Kelbajar at best. It is rather
difficult for Armenia and Karabakh to refuse the other 5 regions. And
it is difficult for Azerbaijan to recognize independence of the NKR
even in exchange for those 5 regions. However, I think that the only
possible solution will be the above exchange.

AzerNews Weekly, Azerbaijan
March 19 2010

Turkish sequel to reflect on Garabagh conflict

19-03-2010 07:32:29

Valley of the Wolves, the most popular television series in Turkey,
will have a section on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper
(Nagorno) Garabagh, an executive of the company producing the sequel
has said during a visit to Baku.
Mehmet Canpolat, the Pana Film executive, said the long-standing
conflict will be covered by a new film, entitled `Valley of the
Wolves-Garabagh’ or Valley of the Wolves-Khojaly’, Turkey’s Vatan
newspaper reported.
Along with Canpolat, the main cast members of the Valley of the
Wolves, including Necati Sasmaz (Polat Alemdar), arrived in Azerbaijan
on Wednesday. The actors are expected to spend a few days in the
western Gabala district.
The Turkish media have also reported that Sasmaz plans to do business
in Azerbaijan. He is reportedly expected to open a boutique selling
men’s clothing and accessories in Baku, with its title being directly
linked to the TV series.
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a lengthy war that ended with the
signing of a cease-fire in 1994, but Armenia continues to occupy Upper
Garabagh and seven other Azerbaijani districts in defiance of
international law. Peace talks have not yet resulted in resolving the
conflict.*

news.am, Armenia
March 21 2010

Erdogan’s hysteria and stagnation in Armenian-Turkish process: weekly review

11:14 / 03/20/2010 Domestic policy

Major domestic political events this week centered round the
consideration of the situation in Armenia by the PACE Monitoring
Committee. The discussion once more showed antipodal opinions on the
human rights situation and democratic development in Armenia held by
the pro-government and opposition camps.

At the Monitoring Committee’s meeting in Paris, France, on March 17,
pursuant to the PACE Co-Rapporteurs’ requirements, the Armenian
authorities submitted a schedule of measures aimed at implementing the
PACE resolutions on the post-election processes in the country.
Specifically, the Armenian authorities pledged to amend the RA
Election Code by the end of this year `in order to start preparing for
new elections in 2011.’ Official Yerevan also promised to hold a
broadcasting contest this July, and the A1+ TV Company, which got its
broadcasting license revoked in 2002, will be able to participate in
the contest. The European Court of Human Rights ruled the TV company’s
rights had been violated. The Armenian authorities deliberately
postponed the relevant contests under the pretext of affording all the
TV companies an opportunity to digitize their broadcasting.

The principal opposition political force in Armenia, Armenian National
Congress (ANC), was initially sure that the authorities would submit
`half-hearted measures’ rather than a schedule of practical measures
to overcome the consequences of the 2008 domestic political crisis.
The day before the Monitoring Committee was to discuss the situation
in Armenia, the ANC held a procession of protest in Yerevan. It was an
interim event before the next republican rally scheduled for April 6.
The demonstrator handed the extra-parliamentary Opposition’s demands
over to the CE office in Yerevan. The ANC representatives stated the
ANC has its own schedule of measures. As regards the demands submitted
to the international institutions, the AC does not expect much of them
` they only contain information. As regards the ANC’s demands as such,
they were made public at the March 1 rally: renewing the A1+ TV
Company’s broadcasting license before this summer, reforming the
law-enforcement agencies and election law, appointing early
parliamentary and presidential elections for the period between June
and September 2010. It should be noted that the ANC’s last ` and the
most significant ` demand can only be met under massive rallies’
pressure. At present, such pressure is only possible in case of most
unfavorable results of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. The
developments are not yet following this course. So the ANC has to
`restrict itself’ to mass, but occasional rallies designed to keep the
few supporters `mobilized’ and political passions `high.’

The package of bills designed to regulate journalists’ activities
approved by the RA Parliament in its first reading evoked a serious
public response. At first sight, the law seems to have been made less
severe: libel and misinformation are viewed as an administrative
offence rather than a criminal one. However, many representatives of
civil society, experts and opposition journalists see a serious threat
to freedom of speech in the bills, as they provide for extremely high
fines for libel. The opponents are sure the new law will become a
scourge in the authorities’ hands against the newspaper out of their
control. They also refer to the state of emergency in Armenia March 1
to 20, when all the restrictions on freedom of speech applied on the
opposition media alone, while the newspaper under the authorities’
control offered their biased interpretation of the tragic events
following the presidential election.

It should be noted that the information policy of the print media
supporting both political camps needs regulating. However, with the
previous experience and the political reality considered, the bills
the ruling parties are pushing through Parliament might serve as an
instrument for struggling against the opposition newspapers. Applying
sanctions against the opposition newspapers can hardly be of any
benefit to a country under PACE’s permanent control. We should
remember, after all, that the newspapers publishing critical articles
about the statesmen of every rank are most popular in Armenia now.
This means that the public needs the information that is not normally
`on the air.’ Struggling against such newspapers may prove to be one
more headache for the authorities, with numerous scandals and appeals
to international agencies.

Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and region

Turkish Premier Recep Erdogan has been the `hero’ of the region this
week. He threatened to deport alleged100,000 illegal Armenians in
Turkey. That irresponsible statement suggests a number of conclusions
about the chief ideologists and champion of the policy of
democratizing Turkey’s public life.

The likeness the incumbent Turkish leader bears to his `small brother’
Ilham Aliyev is the first thing that strikes the eye. The Turkish
Premier has had several grave fits of hysteria since the
Armenian-Turkish normalization process was launched. During his fits
Mr. Erdogan first reminded Yerevan and the entire world of illegal
Armenian immigrants in Turkey and then threatened to deport them.
Turkish Premier kept on `whetting his voracious appetite’ ` the number
of illegal immigrants to be deported was gradually increasing from
70,000 up to 100,000. Considering Erdogan’s rhetoric, you cannot but
draw a parallel with `Turkey’s brother Azerbaijan,’ which has made it
its state policy to deliberately exaggerate the figures having to do
with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Immediately after the hostilities,
Azerbaijan claimed 13% of its territories to be `occupied.’ Later the
figure was 17% and it is 20% now. The number of Azerbaijani refugees
similarly reached 1,000,000, though the Armenian troops did not make
any advance after May 1994. Considering the approaches shown by Turkey
and Azerbaijan, which are strikingly alike, you remember the saying
`scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’

The 15,000 illegal Armenian immigrants in Turkey are a real disgrace
for Yerevan. This is one of the results of the hard social conditions
in independent Armenia for many years, and the authorities have not so
far taken sufficient necessary measures to resolve the population’s
social problems. Turkey, for its part, should think of the
consequences deportation of thousands of Armenian citizens might have
amid the policy of zero problems with neighbors declared by official
Ankara.

Even if the 15,000 illegal Armenians immigrants are really deported,
it will not be a disaster for the country’s socio-economic life. As to
Turkey, it will certainly lose.

For several years, the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) has
been posing a champion of a new policy. In this context, some have
even called Erdogan a second Ataturk. But no progress has so far been
made in the country: the Kurdish problem remains unsolved, and the
Turkish Premier has shown that it is a person’s nationality that
accounts for an attitude toward him or her in `secular and democratic
Turkey’ ` he threatened to deport illegal immigrants only because they
were Armenians.

It should also be noted that Erdogan’s threats remain mere threats.
Turkey cannot make any progress in its way to the European Union (EU),
and mass deportation of even illegal immigrants will destroy the last
hopes for the country’s admission to the EU. Significant are however
the very statements that have been made now that the Armenian-Turkish
process is on the point of failing.

Both Turkish and Armenian officials have changed their tone over the
last weeks. The impression is that neither Ankara nor Yerevan has a
clear idea of their further steps in the Armenian-Turkish
normalization process. Or they are gradually revising their previously
constructive positions.

The Nagorno-Karabakh problem proved the most serious hindrance to the
normalization process. As the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is
drawing near (the United States believes Yerevan and Ankara will make
a breakthrough in their relations on this occasion), the expert and
political statements on interrelation between the Armenian-Turkish
normalization and Nagorno-Karabakh peace processes are proving true.
In defiance of its promises to settle relations with Armenia without
any preconditions, Turkey assumed the role of hostage to Azerbaijan
Ankara has delayed the ratification of the Armenian-Turkish protocols
in the Turkish Parliament as long as possible, making a positive
decision conditional on progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process. As a result, official Yerevan’s forecast have come true `
making the two processes conditional on each other will cause both to
fail.

In any case, the only thing for us to do is to state that the
Armenian-Turkish normalization process has been stalemated due to the
combined efforts of Baku and Ankara. With the perseverance shown by
Azerbaijan and Turkey considered, we can say that the process can only
be continued if the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process shows appreciable
progress, which is hardly likely. The situation may become clearer by
the end of this month, when the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs pay a new
visit to the region.

Economy and social life

This week the Armenian national currency has continued depreciating.
The process has been accompanied by a steady rise in prices for stable
goods. RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan stated that a law on wage,
pension and allowance adjustment for inflation would entail inflation
risks in the country, which might cause a collapse of the state’s
macroeconomic system, According to him, legislations like that are
adopted in the countries with inflation exceeding 10%. `But in
countries like Armenia, with stable inflation, such a law would be
inadvisable,’ Sargsyan said. He stressed that the Government is now
trying to curb a price rise. `It would be more advisable to curb
inflation than adjust the population’s incomes for inflation, and the
Government is doing it now,’ the Premier said.

At his meeting with the RA Premier, President of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Thomas Mirow made a high
appraisal of the Armenian Government’s macroeconomic policy. He
pointed out that the EBRD seriously increased its aid to the country
last year.

Armenia and Iran will sign a free trade agreement, stated Robert
Harutyunyan, Director General of the Armenian Development Agency. The
Armenian and Iranian ministries of economy were ordered to draft the
agreement at the January sitting of the Armenian-Iranian
Intergovernmental Commission. Under a prior agreement, the imported
products will be exempted from taxation. `Iran’s 80-million-strong
market is of high importance for Armenia. We have been unable to enter
this market because of the very high taxes on imports in Iran,’
Harutyunyan said.

T.P.

SOUTH CAUCASUS RAILWAY PREPARING FOR OPENING OF YEREVAN-BATUMI SEASONAL RAILWAY COMMUNICATION

ArmInfo
2010-03-19 17:31:00

ArmInfo. On March 19 the South Caucasus Railway (SCR) Head Office
conducted a small scientific and technical council on preparations
for the start of summer passenger traffic. The Council chaired by
Shevket Shaydullin, SCR Director General, heard the reports by the
heads of various technical services.

Passenger flow and service quality will be in the focus of attention in
2010. The Council discussed also the Yerevan-Batumi seasonal passenger
transportation and cooperation with the Georgian railway. As regards
upgrading the speed and safety of traffic, Shevket Shaydullin said that
this requires constant efforts. In addition, the Council discussed
also readiness of the railway terminals for the summer season and
permanent monitoring of passengers to improve service and announce
new services of the company. "Passengers and cargo recipients are
the alpha and omega of our work. They should me provided with all the
necessary services to stay loyal to us, therefore, we attach a special
importance of the transport services and speed," Shaydullin said.

SINGAPORE WANTS UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO FULFILL RESOLUTIONS ON NK CONFLICT

APA
March 19 2010
Azerbaijan

Baku. Viktoriya Dementyeva – APA. Singapore wants the UN Security
Council to fulfill resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh conflict, said
Singaporean Foreign Minister George Yong-Boon YEO, who is on a visit
to Azerbaijan, APA reports.

Delivering a speech at the press conference, the minister said that
one of the main principles which Singapore prefers was to fulfill UN
Security Council’s resolutions and solve the conflict in the framework
of law.

THE EXODUS – PART II?
Burak Bekdil

Hurriyet
March 18 2010
Turkey

"The killings of Uighur Turks by the Chinese police during
demonstrations constitute genocide. I use this term intentionally."

(Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, July 2009)

"I went to Darfur myself and saw no genocide there. Muslims don’t
commit genocide." (Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, November 2009)

"Politicians cannot decide on genocides. This is the duty of
historians." (Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, March 2010)

This concise compilation of three statements on three different
dates within a span of eight months has been brought to the public’s
attention by Cem Toker, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, or
LDP. Put in chronological sequence, the three remarks unmistakably
summarize Mr. Erdogan’s mindset on genocide.

When combined, the three statements allow us to safely conclude,
on the prime minister’s behalf, that: 1) Politicians other than Mr.

Erdogan himself should not make judgments about genocide, a crime
Muslims don’t commit but others – non-Muslim Chinese, for instance –
do; 2) The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians cannot amount
to genocide, but the deaths of less than a hundred Uighur Turks can;
and 3) Genocide is something visiting dignitaries can "see," and if
they don’t see it, a genocide did not take place.

How convincing this mental calculus can be is a question we had better
leave to the reader’s judgment.

More alarmingly, what Mr. Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet
Davutoglu, are trying to "market" in a nice gift wrapping that
reads "Turkey: A regional power" is becoming what it is privately:
a regional bully.

Almost a century after the mass deportation of Armenians from Ottoman
Turkey, a Turkish leader is talking about a second mass deportation of
Armenians, this time from Turkish Turkey. The Western press agrees that
Mr. Erdogan’s threat to expel thousands of illegal Armenian immigrants
in retaliation to American and Swedish lawmakers’ recognition of the
Armenian "genocide" amounts to racism.

Your taxi driver, or the owner of the shop on the corner, could have
made such insane proposals and you would smile back and tell him
it would not be nice if we made "Exodus II" in the 21st century. In
10 minutes time, you might forget what your taxi driver or the shop
owner had suggested, but it makes a difference if it is your prime
minister threatening Armenian immigrants with mass deportation – not
because of something they did wrong, but because foreign lawmakers
had passed resolutions.

In reality, how could Turkey deport 100,000 illegal Armenian
immigrants? Would the police launch a collective Armenian-hunt
throughout the country? Stop every illegal immigrant, raid their
homes? You are illegal here. Yes, sir. What’s your nationality?

Georgian, sir. Good, you can go. How about you? I am Armenian,
sir. Ha ha, got you! You are under arrest!

Of course, some cabinet minister, some advisor, some party bigwig
must be sitting on his desk by now, trying to find the diplomatic
language to "correct the prime minister" and to tell us that
"Mr. Prime Minister’s remarks were misunderstood." Similarly, the
army of pro-Erdogan columnists must be pondering how to pen articles
in defense of our liberal prime minister who would never think of
such a racist act. Here are a few proposals to help our colleagues:

They can claim that Mr. Erdogan threatened to expel the Armenian
immigrants because he was under pressure from the fascist generals
to do so. They can also claim that what the prime minister said was
really meant not as a threat to expel the Armenians but as a way
to illustrate to the world how hospitable we Turks are, especially
Islamist Turks. Would the secular Turks tolerate 100,000 illegal
immigrants? God forbid, they would have executed the Armenians had
they been in power!

A note to the prime minister’s advisors: Quickly organize an "Armenian
immigrant initiative." Organize a fancy gathering. Let the prime
minister speak to them, embrace them and shower them with precious
gifts. Tell them they are our dearest guests. The Armenians smile,
cheer for the prime minister, thundering applause, curtains down. Make
sure there is plenty of local and foreign press coverage. And, presto,
our liberal, warm-hearted, tolerant prime minister is back!

But, just in case, poor Armenian immigrants should better start
praying that some new distant foreign parliament does not join the
20 or so others already in genocide recognition these days. Or they
should start practicing to pose as Georgians if they come under
police interrogation.

.php?n=the-exodus-8211-part-ii-2010-03-18

TALKING TURKEY ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Tim Giannuzzi

Calgary Herald
urkey+about+Armenian+genocide/2695978/story.html
M arch 18 2010
Canada

If you want an ugly reminder of the past to stay there, you shouldn’t
throw a fit whenever someone brings it up. This is a lesson Turkey
ought to learn sometime.

The world’s freest and best-developed mostly Muslim democracy has a
very large skeleton in its closet, one to which it has lately been
drawing a great deal of attention, despite harbouring a strong desire
that everyone forget about it completely. That lingering remnant
would be the Armenian genocide.

In the spring of 1915, the First World War was in its second year,
while the Ottoman Empire, the precursor to modern Turkey, was on its
sickbed and none too likely to get up again. Believing that their
Armenian inhabitants constituted a potential fifth column which would
work against the Central Powers (the alliance to which the Ottomans
belonged), prominent Ottoman politicians devised a deportation scheme
which provided cover for an organized attempt at mass extermination.

As many as 1.5 million Armenians met horrid ends.

Turkey has always denied any systematic murder and prefers to ascribe
the deaths to the chaos swirling around the Ottoman Empire’s last days,
but reams of historical evidence would say otherwise.

Various countries and groups have taken up the cause of historical
truth and recent weeks have brought more of the same. Three weeks past,
the Parliament of Catalonia, in Spain, recognized the genocide.

Two weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House
of Representatives squeaked out a resolution (by one vote) which
labels the killings as genocide and last week, Sweden’s parliament,
the Riksdag, passed a similar measure.

Turkey reacted to the moves as it always does, recalling its
ambassadors, cancelling conclaves and hinting grimly about the damage
each country has done to its standing with the Turks. The Swedish and
American governments, which each opposed the motions, appear to believe
this, with the former calling the vote a mistake and the latter, in the
form of the White House, promising to prevent the bill from passing.

The usual arguments cited for toeing Turkey’s line are its strategic
importance as a bridge between East and West (potentially as a
member of the European Union) as a transit point for Central Asian
oil pipelines, and the country’s NATO membership (Turkey has the
alliance’s second-biggest army and its Incirlik base is a major
staging area for U.S. efforts in Iraq). Dire things will happen,
it is often said, if Turkey is crossed over this issue. At the very
least, its slowly improving relations with Armenia will be hurt,
although these have stalled recently anyways.

Most of this is bunk. Canada officially recognized the Armenian
genocide in 2004 with insignificant consequences, as have nearly two
dozen other countries, and the Harper government ought to encourage
more nations to follow suit. While the Turks bluster and bellow,
they are not about to damage themselves by alienating their most
powerful allies just to distort the truth.

Turkey’s chances of joining the EU are slim since most Europeans
and an increasing number of Turks don’t want to see it happen, while
Incirlik is of diminishing importance as the U.S. draws down in Iraq.

The Turks are not about to give up the revenues they earn from the
pipelines, nor do they want a Russia-like reputation for erratic
behaviour, which would encourage potential customers to look
elsewhere. There are too many oil-rich competitors (like Canada)
who could potentially fill the gap.

Aside from the harm recognition of the Armenian genocide would do to
their puffed-up nationalist preconceptions, Turkish opposition centres
on fears of being forced to pay hefty compensation to their victims’
descendants. They can put their minds at ease. There is no interest in
forcing Turkey to make reparations, not least because plenty of other
countries have self-inflicted historical black marks which would get
undesired attention if they pushed Turkey to literally pay for its
crimes. In this case, a hug and a handshake will work fine.

Timothy Giannuzzi is a Calgary writer specializing in foreign affairs.

ERDOGAN UNDER FIRE AT HOME FOR REMARKS ON ARMENIAN WORKERS

Today’s Zaman
March 18 2010
Turkey

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s remarks about the possible
deportation of irregular Armenian workers in Turkey have angered civil
society organizations despite the ruling Justice and Development Party
(AK Party) attempts to explain that Erdogan did not intend to expel
these workers but only wanted to underline Turkey’s "magnanimity."

"Look, there are 170,000 Armenians in my country — 70,000 of them
are my citizens, but we are managing [tolerating] 100,000 of them in
our country. So, what will we do tomorrow? If it is necessary, I will
tell them, ‘Come on, back to your country.’ I will do it. Why? They
are not my citizens. I am not obliged to keep them in my country. I
mean these are [defenders of the Armenian claims of genocide], their
attitude is affecting our sincere attitude in a negative way, and
they are not aware of it," Erdogan told the BBC Turkish service in an
interview on Tuesday during a visit to London for talks with British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He was responding to a question about a
couple of resolutions passed at a US congressional panel and in the
Swedish Parliament earlier this month recognizing Armenian claims of
genocide by Ottoman Turks a century ago. He described the votes as a
"show" and warned that they were harming Turkey’s efforts to normalize
its ties with Armenia. "We are committed to the zero-problem policy
[with Turkey’s neighbors], but there is nothing we can do if the
other side clenches its fist while we extend a hand."

Leaving aside foreign policy considerations, civil society
organizations criticized Erdogan’s remarks on several grounds: first,
he mentioned Armenian Turkish citizens together with the citizens
of Armenia, and secondly, he was using foreign workers as a tool of
foreign policy and neglecting the humanitarian side of the problem.

But Suat Kınıklıoglu, deputy chairman of the AK Party Foreign
Affairs Committee, underlined that Erdogan was trying to explain that
Turkey tolerates the irregular Armenian workers. "As has been known
for many years, there are Armenians illegally living and working
in Turkey, and as a reflection of our goodwill and efforts toward
normalization which started in 2005, we do not really touch them.

We tolerate them and take their difficult circumstances into
consideration. In particular, we are not questioning their status due
to the acceleration of the normalization process in Turkish-Armenian
relations. The prime minister needed to draw this fact to people’s
attention, especially now, when resolutions have been accepted which
damage normalization. I think Turkey’s magnanimity is being ignored,"
he said, and added that the prime minister did not mean he would
immediately send those workers back to their country.

Ozturk Turkdogan, the chairman of the Human Rights Association (Ä°HD),
said Erdogan’s remarks could easily be considered a "threat" and
as discrimination. "These remarks could lead some people to think
that to expel people is a 2010 version of forced migration. This
mentality is far from human rights-oriented thinking. People have
the right to work, and this is universal. There are many Turkish
workers all over the world; does it mean that Turkey will accept
their expulsion when there is an international problem? Secondly,
these remarks are discriminatory; there are many workers in Turkey
of different nationalities," he said.

Ceren Ozturk from the immigrant solidarity network said that free
circulation of people is a universal right and Erdogan’s remarks
are not acceptable. "The right to free circulation cannot be used
as a wild card in international relations. Immigrants have to have
equal rights with Turkish citizens because they are producing and
contributing to society," she said.

Armenian issue as litmus test Journalist Hayko Bagdat said Turkish
foreign policy loves the principle of "reciprocity," but uses its own
citizens who are minorities. "If the prime minister is angry with the
US or Sweden, he should expel the citizens of those countries who
are living or working in Turkey. The poor Armenian workers here —
by the way, their number is not 100,000 at all — have nothing to do
with the genocide resolutions," he said.

He added that Erdogan had also made a distinction between "good
Armenians" and "bad Armenians." "The prime minister mentioned
Armenian Turkish citizens and Armenian citizens together, but later
talked about expelling the poor Armenian workers. This means that
the official policy has been lying to us for years. He put everyone
in the same category, but according to what — according to their
ethnic origin. But for years we have been told that there are no
distinctions on the basis of ethnic origin. This means that "unity"
is not internalized and the roots of discrimination are very strong,"
Bagdat said.

He added that there are two camps in Turkey now: one is claiming
that it is trying to change the system and the other one is resisting
this change, but when it comes to the Armenians, they have a common
understanding.

"The Armenian question is the litmus test for everyone to find out if
they really want a change in the system," he said. After the "genocide"
resolutions in the US and Sweden, during a debate over the issue
in Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Commission, Canan Arıtman from the
Republican People’s Party (CHP) suggested deporting Armenian workers
in Turkey. In the past, she has also called for an investigation into
the ancestry of President Abdullah Gul’s mother, implying that she
was of Armenian origin. Gul took Arıtman to court.

The Ä°HD’s Turkdogan was also critical of Erdogan’s remarks regarding
ethnically Armenian Turkish citizens: "We can see that the classic
republican understanding based on ethnic Turkism is still valid.

Minorities cannot be the subject of bargaining in international
relations. This is racist discourse and only proves how far we are
from a human rights-oriented perspective," Turkdogan said.

Number of Armenian workers is controversial issue There is controversy
over the precise number of Armenians illegally working in Turkey,
but a recent study by the Eurasia Partnership Foundation claimed
that there are between 12,000 and 13,000 Armenian citizens working in
Turkey. The study conducted by Alin Ozinan states that according to
official numbers, 6,000 Armenians did not return home after traveling
to Turkey between 2000 and 2008. Ozinan adds figures from the 1990s
to this number and says the number of Armenians illegally living
in Turkey is not 70,000 to 100,000 as has previously been asserted,
but is actually between 12,000 and 13,000.

According to the study, 94 percent of the Armenians working in Turkey
are women, with very few Armenian men accompanying their spouses or
working here. Armenian women tend to work as childcare providers,
servants, janitors and saleswomen. Most of the Armenian men who
accompany their wives here choose not to work at all, while those
who do tend to work in the jewelry business. In the past, Turkish
foreign ministers and diplomats have also claimed that the Armenians
living in Turkey number around 70,000. Turkey has deported very few
Armenians working irregularly here in recent years, the report says,
asserting that Armenians are only deported if they have committed a
crime outside of working illegally; the crime rate amongst immigrant
Armenians is very low.

EDWARD NALBANDYAN: STATEMENTS BY TURKISH PARTY ABOUT DEPORTATION OF ARMENIANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE AND CAUSE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

ArmInfo
2010-03-18 13:29:00

ArmInfo.<> Statements by Ankara about deportation of Armenians
are unacceptable, and they certainly harm the Armenian-Turkish
normalization process, as To recall, during his visit to London,
Erdogan threatened to deport illegal citizens of Armenia from the
country’s territory. "The statement by Turkish PM is a topic of
serious discussion in Turkey as well. Many do not understand how such
a statement could be made", Nalbandyan said. He emphasized that such
statements lead to negative consequences. The events, which caused
the Armenian Genocide in 1915, also started from such statements.

Unfortunately, the statements about deportation of Armenians were also
made in another country, Azerbaijan, prior to slaughter of Armenians
in Sumgait, Baku and other towns and settlements of this country,
and we know what it caused", E. Nalbandyan said. Along with it, the
minister expressed hope that a more realistic approach will prevail
in Turkey, and Ankara will listen to what the world community,
represented by almost all the countries of the world, says: it is
necessary to more forward without preconditions, without blackmail,
without threats and provocations, and carry out the earlier reached
agreements but not threaten and blackmail Armenia and other countries.

"This is not the way that may be walked on in a civilized world",
E. Nalbandyan said.

OBAMA ET LA NEGATION DU GENOCIDE
par Jean Eckian

armenews
Revue de Presse
jeudi18 mars 2010

Stephen Zunes fait manifestement partie de ces specialistes qui ont
du Genocide Armenien une vision fondee sur des elements historiques.

Lorsqu’il dit qu’il y a des preuves incontournables, on sait qu’il
les a regardees.

En consequence, le bref historique qu’il trace dans cet article sur
la reconnaissance toujours attendue du Genocide Armenien par les
Etats-Unis comporte quelques revelations interessantes.

Lorsqu’il aborde les motivations des negationnistes, par contre,
on peut ne pas etre d’accord lorsqu’il dit que ce sont les memes
dans le cas de la Shoah et du Genocide Armenien. Contrairement aux
negationnistes du Genocide des Juifs, qui sont des antisemites
sectaires, les negationnistes du Genocide Armenien ne sont pas
necessairement des anti-armeniens visceraux. Ils le font quelquefois
au nom d’interets politiques alambiques, comme l’executif americain,
mais le plus souvent pour de l’argent.

Obama et la Negation du Genocide

Publie le lundi 15 mars par Foreign Policy in Focus (Le Point sur la
Politique Etrangère, FPIF)

Par Stephen Zunes

L’administration Obama, citant ses relations avec la Turquie, s’est
engagee a bloquer le vote par la Chambre des Representants de la
resolution a laquelle la Commission des Affaires Etrangères a donne son
feu vert jeudi passe, reconnaissant en cela le Genocide en 1915 de 1,5
millions d’Armeniens par l’Empire Ottoman. Meme si l’administration
Obama avait precedemment refuse et meme man~uvre pour que soit
escamotee la preuve documentee de crimes recents de guerre commis
par Israël, un autre allie clef du Moyen Orient, peu pensaient que
l’administration irait jusqu’a nier effectivement le genocide.

[…]

En depit du soutien etendu de la resolution par les Democrates,
Clinton s’est declaree confiante que l’administration trouvera les
moyens de bloquer le projet, declarant "nous croyons a present que
le Congrès des USA ne prendra aucune decision sur ce sujet." […]

Clinton a reconnu que c’etait une volte face, mais a dit que les
circonstances avaient change "de facon très significative." Le
Departement d’Etat a cependant ete dans l’incapacite de ne citer
aucune preuve qui pourrait s’opposer au large consensus qu’un genocide
a effectivement eu lieu. […]

L’excuse officielle est que cela pourrait nuire a un rapprochement
important entre l’Armenie et la Turquie. Il n’y a cependant aucune
indication que le gouvernement armenien ne soit inquiet d’aucune
retombee negative dans ses relations bilaterales venant d’une
resolution votee par le corps legislatif d’un pays tiers… Plus
probablement, c’est la cooperation de la Turquie pour les sanctions
a venir contre l’Iran qui est consideree.

Entre 1915 et 1918, sous les ordres des gouvernants de l’Empire
Ottoman, on estime a deux millions le nombre d’Armeniens forces
de quitter leur maison dans une region où se trouvait la nation
armenienne depuis plus de 2 500 ans. Les trois quarts d’entre eux
sont morts assassines, prives de nourriture ou pour d’autres raisons
liees a ces evenements.

Selon H. Morgenthau, alors ambassadeur des USA dans l’Empire Ottoman,
"quand les autorites turques ont donne l’ordre de ces deportations,
ils ont en fait emis l’arret de mort de toute un peuple ; ils
comprenaient bien cela, et, au cours des conversations que nous
avions, ils ne faisaient une quelconque tentative pour dissimuler cette
realite." Alors qu’un ordre valant "arret de mort pour tout un peuple"
serait normalement considere comme un genocide qu’elle qu’en soit
la definition, cela n’est apparemment pas l’avis de l’administration
Obama. La Convention sur la Prevention du Crime de Genocide, signee
et ratifiee par les Etats-Unis, definit officiellement le genocide
comme toute action "pour detruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe
national, ethnique, racial ou religieux, en tant que tel." Le premier
a proposer une telle convention internationale a ete Raphaël Lemkin,
un juriste juif polonais, qui a a l’origine cree le mot "genocide"
et identifie le cas des Armeniens comme exemple de reference […]

[…] reconnu le Genocide Armenien. L’administration Obama, cependant,
ne l’a pas fait et est apparemment determinee a empecher que le
Congrès ne le fasse.

Le Congrès a precedemment fait savoir officiellement qu’il condamnait
le President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pour son refus de condamner le
Genocide des Juifs par l’Allemagne. Le Congrès ne semble pas vouloir
defier, apparemment, le refus d’Obama de reconnaître le Genocide
des Armeniens par les Ottomans. Tandis que la veille contre l’anti-
semitisme est heureusement suffisamment repandue pour marginaliser
ceux qui refusent de reconnaître l’Holocauste, la tolerance a la
doctrine anti-armenienne apparaît encore politiquement acceptable au
point de permettre la negation de leur genocide.

Le Facteur Turquie

Les opposants a la resolution se disent etre inquiets de la degradation
des relations avec la Turquie, etat successeur de l’Empire Ottoman et
allie important des USA. Les Etats-Unis ont de toute facon beaucoup
degrade leurs relations avec la Turquie par leur action politique plus
significative qu’une resolution symbolique reconnaissant une tragique
periode de l’histoire. Les Etats-Unis ont soutenu clandestinement une
tentative de coup d’etat militaire par des officiers turcs en 2003,
armant des Kurdes iraniens et irakiens proches des Kurdes rebelles de
Turquie qui ont ete responsables de la mort de centaines de citoyens
turcs. Les Etats-Unis ont aussi envahi l’Irak voisin. Il en a resulte
la chute du pourcentage de Turcs qui voient positivement les Etats-Unis
de 52 pourcent a seulement 9 pourcent.

Des generations de Turcs ont appris qu’il n’y avait aucun genocide des
Armeniens, mais qu’il y a eu des atrocites dans les deux camps. De
fait, la plupart des Turcs croient que leur pays a servi de bouc
emissaire, en particulier quand les Etats-Unis refusent d’appeler
Genocide le traitement qu’ils ont inflige aux Indiens ou reconnu des
crimes plus recents. Il en resulte que certains qu’une facon plus
appropriee d’aborder la negation de faits historiques averes actuelle
de la Turquie, serait le dialogue ou une sorte de reeducation,
evitant les effets politiques patents d’une resolution du Congrès
aui mettrait les Turcs sur la defensive.

Ne pas reconnaître le genocide, cependant, est un affront tragique
au nombre rapidement decroissant des survivants et a leurs descendants.

C’est aussi un mauvais service rendu aux Turcs nombreux qui se sont
opposes a la politique de l’Empire Ottoman et essaye d’arreter le
Genocide, ainsi qu’au nombre croissant de Turcs aujourd’hui, qui
risquent l’emprisonnement ordonne par le regime soutenu par les USA,
qui denoncent publiquement les crimes de leurs ascendants. C’est ainsi
qu’Orhan Pamuk, auteur de nouvelles turc et prix Nobel de litterature
2006, a ete poursuivi et s’est expatrie pour fuir les menaces de mort
recues a la suite de plusieurs references publiques au genocide.

Certains opposants a la resolution soutiennent que voter des
resolutions liees a des evenements historiques n’a pas de sens. Il
n’y eut cependant aucune reserve de ce genre lors de l’adoption
de resolutions sur l’Holocauste, ou pour des resolutions votees ces
dernières annees depuis la commemoration du 65e anniversaire de la mort
du leader politique et musicien Ignace Jan Paderewski jusqu’a marquer
le 150e anniversaire de la première reunion du Parti Republicain dans
le Wisconsin.

L’administration Obama insiste sur le fait que le moment est mal choisi
pour contrarier le gouvernement turc. Le moment etait tout autant mal
choisi lors du vote de la resolution en 2007, parce qu’il ne fallait
pas compromettre les accès aux bases turques des forces US engagees
dans une contre-offensive d’insurges lors de la guerre d’Irak. Ce
n’etait pas le moment non plus lorsqu’une resolution similaire avait
ete proposee en 2000, parce que les Etats Unis utilisaient leur
base en Turquie pour contrôler une zone interdite de vol au nord de
l’Irak. Et le moment etait encore mal choisi en 1985 et 1987, quand
des resolutions similaires etaient deposees parce que les bases US
en Turquie etaient considerees comme d’importantes bases d’ecoute de
l’Union Sovietique au cours de la guerre froide.

Pour les negationnistes du Genocide Armenien, le moment est toujours
"mal choisi".

Alors que l’adoption de la resolution conduirait certainement a
une vigoureuse protestation diplomatique turque, on peut douter que
cela n’aille jusqu’a la rupture entre Ankara et Washington. Quand
le president Ronald Reagan, soutien majeur de la dictature de droite
turque alors au pouvoir en Turquie, avait use une fois du mot genocide
a l’egard des Armeniens et les relations USA-Turquie n’en avaient
pas souffert.

L’administration Obama, comme d’autres avant elle, refuse tout
simplement de reconnaître qu’un genocide armenien ait eu lieu. Comme
recemment dans les annees 1980, le Bulletin du Departement d’Etat
soutenait que "parce que les annales historiques des evenements de
1915 en Asie Mineure sont ambigues, le Departement d’Etat ne souscrit
pas aux allegations selon lesquelles le gouvernement turc a commis
un genocide contre le peuple armenien." Encore plus recemment, Paul
Wolfowitz, qui tenait lieu de Secretaire de la Defense de George W.

Bush, declara en 2002 que ‘l’une des choses qui m’impressionne dans
l’histoire turque, ce sont les egards avec lesquels la Turquie traite
ses propres minorites.’

La clause d’application de la resolution appelle simplement Obama "a
s’assurer que la politique exterieure des USA reflète de correctes
appreciation et sensibilite sur les questions liees aux droits
de l’homme, au nettoyage ethnique et au genocide documente dans
les annales des Etats-Unis relatives au Genocide Armenien et les
consequences d’un refus d’adopter une juste resolution." Si donc
Obama ne veut vraiment pas que le Congrès vote une telle resolution,
il ne lui reste plus qu’a exprimer la reconnaissance du genocide
au nom de l’executif. Quelle que soient les excuses qu’on invoque,
ne pas le faire equivaut a nier le genocide.

Negation du Genocide

Etant donnees les annales indiscutables sur le Genocide Armenien,
beaucoup de ceux qui refusent de reconnaître le genocide des Armeniens
par les Turcs, tout comme ceux qui refusent de reconnaître le genocide
des Juifs d’Europe par l’Allemagne, sont motives par l’ignorance et
le sectarisme. Le specialiste du Moyen Orient cite le plus souvent
par les membres du Congrès comme influant sur leur comprehension
de la region est Bernard Lewis, negationniste notoire du genocide,
est membre de l’Institut d’Etudes Turques de Washington.

Tous les opposants sur la resolution en cours ne nient pas
explicitement qu’il y ait eu un genocide. Certains reconnaissent qu’un
genocide a eu lieu en effet, mais ont ete apparemment convaincus qu’il
est contraire a la securite des USA de le dire publiquement. Cela
est tout autant inexcusable. Une telle faiblesse morale n’est pas
moins reprehensible que le refus de reconnaître que l’Holocauste
ait eu lieu si l’on pensait que cela pourrait blesser l’Allemagne,
qui accueille aussi des bases US.

Obama n’est pas le premier president democrate a nier effectivement le
Genocide Armenien. Le president Bill Clinton avait reussi a persuader
le president de la Chambre Dennis Hastert de supprimer un tel projet
de resolution, après qu’il ait eu le feu vert de la Commission des
Affaires Etrangères par un vote a 40-7 et etait sur le point d’etre
facilement adopte par la Chambre dans son ensemble. Le president Jimmy
Carter avait lui aussi supprime une action conduite au Senat par Bob
Dole, dont le sauvetage miraculeux de ses blessures de la Deuxième
Guerre mondiale etait dû a un docteur Americain armenien survivant
du genocide.

Il est interessant de constater que les neo- conservateurs, prompts a
pourfendre les crimes contre l’humanite de l’administration Bush, du
gouvernement israelien et d’autres, utilisent opportunement la volte
face d’Obama sur ce sujet comme preuve du laxisme des Democrates sur
les questions des droits de l’homme.

Adolf Hitler, repondant a des soucis sur l’heritage du crime, avait
demande un jour : "qui, après tout, parle aujourd’hui de la destruction
des Armeniens ? " Obama adresse aux futurs tyrans le message qu’ils
peuvent commettre un genocide sans reconnaissance par le pays le plus
puissant du monde.

Bien sûr, refuser de reconnaître un genocide et ceux qui en sont
responsables rend plus facile la negation du genocide aujourd’hui. En
1994, l’administration Clinton a egalement refuse d’employer le mot
"genocide" pour les massacres par le gouvernement Rwandais de plus
de la moitie de la population Tutsi, une decision qui a contribue a
retarder le deploiement de forces de paix internationales après le
massacre de 800 000 personnes.

La position de l’administration Obama sur le Genocide Armenien ne
concerne pas simplement commemoration d’une tragedie qui s’est passee
il y a 95 ans. Elle concerne notre position en tant que nation en
face du plus horrible des crimes. Elle se rapporte a notre volonte de
se dresser pour la verite en face de mensonges. Elle se rapporte a la
vision que nous avons de notre nation apaisant nos allies strategiques
ou respectant nos principes anciens.

Stephen Zunes est Redacteur a Foreign Policy In Focus (Le Point
Politique Etrangère pour le Moyen Orient). Il est professeur de
Politique a l’Universite de San Francisco et auteur de Tinderbox :
U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Poudrière :
la politique des USA au Moyen Orient et les Racines du Terrorisme)
Common Courage Press, 2003.