Detrás de las escenas del conflicto de Karabaj ...
Cenk Started
actualizada sobre el tiempo de 3/9/2009
milliyet.com.tr
Acercamiento turco-armenio en el proceso de los problemas más básicos de Karabaj se menciona es que los armenios de Karabaj ciertamente no se quiere conectar de nuevo a Azerbaiyán. Bakú, en el enfoque Karabaj ciertamente no le da la independencia, sin embargo, en los últimos tiempos entre la solución, de acuerdo a los armenios de Karabaj de Azerbaiyán en la ciudad cerca de todos los de la mayor parte o de retirada de Karabaj y Armenia se conectará con un corredor, la cuestión del estatuto político que se deja a la vez
Armenia, Azerbaiyán y luego arrastrados a la guerra, los estados grandes en el Cáucaso trajo cara y recientemente la frontera turco-armenia en el acercamiento al proceso más que el nombre mencionado-Karabaj, la Unión Soviética heredó el más difícil y complejo es uno de los problemas étnicos.Repartidos en un área de 4500 kilómetros cuadrados en el sur del nombre de la región del Cáucaso es también polémica. Azerbaiyanos de la región, turco, "negro" y persa "unión" para reunir a las palabras "Karabaj", dice, los armenios "bosque fuerte" en el sentido de "Artsah" se llama. Los rusos, por Karabaj "montaña", que significa "Nagornıy" Yo añade. A lo largo de la historia, Turquía, Irán y Rusia se mantuvo bajo la influencia, la participación en el 1800s temprano, el Imperio Ruso en Karabaj, los armenios, azeríes son también reclamados. El Kremlin tras la revolución de 1917, los ciudadanos de diferentes orígenes étnicos "divide y vencerás" táctica y comenzó a administrar el resultado de esta política dio Karabaj a Azerbaiyán.Divide y vencerás!La Unión Soviética, Rusia, Kazajstán, Ucrania, Azerbaiyán, Armenia y Lituania, la República constaba de un total de 15, por ejemplo. Esta es también diferente en su república propia, donde las personas pertenecientes a minorías étnicas viven las repúblicas autónomas, que estaban separadas o regiones. En todas partes, creando una tensión potencial, por lo que el Kremlin, el centro de la oposición masiva contra la posible antes del comienzo se ha suprimido, y se utiliza un grupo étnico contra otro.Como bomba de tiempoEsta política funcionó durante 74 años de poder soviético. Los rusos de Moldavia, Osetia del İnguşlarla, los turcos mesjetios y uzbecos de vez en cuando los conflictos se han sucedido entre. Territorio de Azerbaiyán, más de tres cuartas partes de la población de los armenios de Nagorno-Karabaj, región autónoma de Azerbaiyán, que consiste en el corazón de la creación significaba poner una bomba de tiempo. Del mismo modo, en Armenia y Azerbaiyán no tienen ninguna conexión por tierra, se fundó la mayoría de los azeríes en la Región Autónoma de Najicheván.Explotó en 1988La mayoría de la población de Karabaj, 180 mil personas componen la vida de los armenios de Azerbaiyán causados debido a la tensión, el proceso de reforma política del líder soviético Mikhail Gorbachev lanzó que aflojó las cuerdas en 1988 y llegó a ser explosivo. Con el consejo local votó a favor de los armenios de Karabaj con Armenia tomó la decisión de fusionarse. Decisión ha creado un efecto de terremoto. Entre armenios y azeríes se inició la difusión del conflicto, con los azeríes en Nagorno-armenios que viven en Azerbaiyán huido de sus hogares por temor y el pánico se había hecho. La desintegración de la Unión Soviética oficialmente creado el caos en los armenios de Karabaj de Azerbaiyán en 1991, "oficialmente", declaró la independencia.Presidente de Azerbaiyán Ebülfeyz Elchibey, junio de 1992, que gana la elección no tendrá la Azeri-ejército-Karabaj y la otra mitad se hizo cargo de conquista de la región. Sin embargo, el ejército armenio, con el apoyo de los armenios de Karabaj tomó estas tierras de nuevo. En ese momento, ampliamente debatido en Azerbaiyán esta derrota intentando hacer las caídas de los círculos gobernantes de Elchibey de la reclamación que se ha planteado. Sobre todo el ministro de Defensa Rahim período Gaziyev fueron acusados. En 1993, apoyada por Moscú azerí presuntos rebeldes contra el coronel Copia Hüseyinov'un Elchibey iniciado durante el intento de golpe de Estado que apoya la retirada de la fachada de la unidad, los armenios de Karabaj, en la frontera a través de un lote de terreno sin luchar, casi nunca conquistadas.40 mil personas murieronArmenios Karabaj "rebelión en el proceso antes de la ayuda confidencial Soviética, el ejército de Rusia ha obtenido también se habla mucho. Como resultado, 40 mil personas murieron en el conflicto y después de la masacre, Baku, Karabaj y en torno al conjunto de las siete regiones (Kelbajar, Lachin, Kubat con Gabriel, Zengilan, Akdam y Fuzuli), que constituyen más del 20 por ciento del territorio perdido. Más de un millón de azeríes, el "fugitivo", que "los inmigrantes" con el estado cayó.En 1994, el acuerdo de paz de Nagorno fue firmado arabuluculuğunda Rusia Bishkek. En 1997, el presidente de Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian de la época, un movimiento dirigido a resolver el problema de Karabaj. Sin embargo, la cabeza de Robert Kocharyan es eficaz para atraer-Karabaj de que la política de Armenia y de los políticos de origen, derrocó al ex comandante de inmediato.La independencia no conocía a nadieEn 2006 fue declarada la soberanía en un referéndum celebrado en Karabaj. La independencia de Karabaj hasta ahora no reconocida por ningún país, incluida Armenia.Organización para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa (OSCE), del Grupo de Minsk es debido, sus esfuerzos por resolver el conflicto de Karabaj, hasta mediados del año pasado fracasó. Después de la guerra ruso-georgiana, el punto de vista cambiantes de la región del Cáucaso en Moscú, tratando de mantener en el estante durante años para resolver la cuestión de Turquía con el apoyo de las iniciativas que comenzaron. El problema está bloqueado punto: volver a los armenios Karabaj a Azerbaiyán, definitivamente no se quiere conectar. La independencia de Karabaj a Bakú para dar absolutamente no se acercó.Un trabajo en el orden del díaSin embargo, últimamente muy discutido y se cree que tienen posibilidades de aplicación de la solución de acuerdo a la búsqueda, los armenios de Karabaj de alrededor de la totalidad o gran parte de la ciudad azerí de retirarse. Karabaj y Armenia se conectará con un corredor, el tiempo restante para la cuestión del status político. Petróleo y gas natural que se enriquece con Azerbaiyán, los armenios de Karabaj después de 15-20 años a raíz de las inversiones a realizar por cambiar las ideas sobre el papel, incluso si se puede re-up cuentas están conectados a Bakú. Armenia es la gestión, por resolver el problema de Karabaj, hasta ahora excluidos, como parte de la región para elevar el nivel de desarrollo y quiere venir en parte de la órbita de Rusia.
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
sábado, 24 de octubre de 2009
jueves, 22 de octubre de 2009
Remember to Forget
Remember to Forget
By Ofri Ilani , Haaretz.com, 16 October 2009
On a hill overlooking the Armenian capital Yerevan, a monument commemorates the murder of the Armenian people. Since the country gained independence in 1990, visiting foreign leaders are expected to stop at the monument and plant a tree in a small grove dedicated to the victims.
The first row of trees has plaques from Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, Pope John Paul II and a few Eastern European leaders. There are none from Israeli or American leaders. In fact, so few leaders have agreed to recognize the genocide that starting in the second row, the site's patrons have had to make do with top officials from various organizations. One tree was planted by the chairman of the European dentists association, another by the president of the international weight lifting federation.
While denial of the European Jewish Holocaust produces international condemnations, many countries have a policy of not recognizing the Armenian genocide, which was perpetrated by the Turks. This is due not to a lack of documentation about the massacres, but to massive Turkish political pressure. Armenia, for its part, has waged a persistent - and in some cases successful - struggle demanding the rectification of this ongoing historic wrong.
This week saw a dramatic development in the long and bitter conflict between Turkey and Armenia. The two countries signed an agreement to open their border and establish normal diplomatic relations. The genocide is not mentioned anywhere in the historic accord.
"I am afraid that now countries will hesitate to recognize the genocide," says Prof. Yair Oron, a genocide expert from the Open University of Israel who has published several books about the Armenian genocide. "They will say: Why should we grant recognition if the Armenians yielded? Recognition of the Armenian genocide is a paramount moral and educational act. We in Israel are obliged to recognize it. I see this as a serious blow to those who are fighting for its recognition."
If the agreement is ratified by the parliaments of the two countries, it could prove highly beneficial for Armenia. The small country in the Caucasus is isolated politically and lacks access to the sea. Its economy is in a shambles, and its government is corrupt. After the departure of some one million citizens over the past two decades, the country has a population of only three million. In the absence of regional allies, Armenia is compelled to rely on neighboring Iran for support.
Economically and politically, then, the agreement with Turkey, which will give Armenia access to the sea, looks like a good deal for the tiny republic. Like the Israelis, the Armenians also want to vacation in Antalya, politics be damned. But in return for the border being opened, Armenia completely dropped its demands regarding the property of genocide victims and Armenian lands in much of present-day eastern Turkey.
Moreover, Armenia has effectively dropped its demand for recognition of the genocide itself, the cornerstone of Armenian national identity. Yerevan had to accept the demand Turkey has been making for years: for an "objective historical examination" about whether the genocide took place.
This first significant peace agreement signed under the auspices of U.S. President Barack Obama raises questions of principle: Does a country have the right to forgo its past for the sake of present needs? Can a political agreement lay down an official version of history? Is the establishment of a commission the way to come to terms with memory?
Starting at the end of the 19th century, the Armenian minority living in the Ottoman Empire was subject to persecution. Tens of thousands were killed. The event known as the "Armenian genocide" involved the systematic destruction of communities between 1915 and 1918. The massacre of the Armenians began after Ottoman forces lost several battles against czarist Russia. Armenian soldiers living under the czar had distinguished themselves in battle on the Russian side, and this became the pretext for the massacre of the Armenians living in what is now Turkey.
Following lengthy deliberations, the Ottoman government decided to resolve once and for all the "Armenian problem." First, the Turks drafted about a quarter of a million young Armenians into the army. They were then stripped of their uniforms, concentrated in labor battalions and murdered. On the night between April 23 and 24, 1915, Istanbul police arrested hundreds of Armenian leaders and intellectuals in their homes; 235 were executed. Thus the Armenian leadership was destroyed, leaving the community unable to organize.
At this stage, the Armenians living in the eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire began to be evacuated by a "special organization" of criminals and prisoners created for that purpose. People were rounded up in their villages and cities. The men were usually shot on the spot, while the women, children and elderly were sent on forced marches into the Syrian desert. On the way, they were attacked and robbed by Kurdish gangs. Hundreds of thousands marched to their death. In October 1915, the U.S. consul general in Aleppo reported to his government on one such march of 18,000 people; 70 days later, only 35 were still alive.
Governments received reports about the genocide while it was in progress, but most did nothing. Current estimates state that about a third of all Armenians, 1.2 million to 1.5 million, were annihilated. The Turks claim only 300,000 were killed, in what they call a defensive move against a fifth column that had joined the country's enemies. They say that no decision was ever made to wipe out the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
"The Turks say: There was a war, there were battles and Armenians were killed, but so were Turks," says Oron. "It's true that the Turks did not espouse a racial doctrine like that of the Nazis, who set out to annihilate every Jew everywhere. And it is also important to say that there were cases in which Turks saved Armenians. But there was a policy of annihilating the Armenians and taking their property."
"Would the Jewish people be willing to forgo the memory of the Holocaust for the sake of good relations with Germany, if Germany were to make that demand?" asks Prof. Richard Hovannisian, a historian who has devoted the past 40 years to fighting denial of the Armenian genocide. The American-born Hovannisian, who teaches at UCLA, is the son of Armenian exiles from eastern Turkey. The family came from a village that was emptied by the Turks. Hovannisian has published many books on the genocide and is considered one of the world's leading authorities on the subject.
"The present agreement is the result of the fact that all the great powers wanted only for everyone to be good happy neighbors, irrespective of the price entailed," says Hovannisian, speaking by phone from California. "They want to do away with all the problems, but are not taking into account the victims' different perspectives."
Criticism from the diaspora
About two-thirds of Armenians live outside Armenia, mainly in Russia, the United States, France and the Middle East. Over the years complex relations have developed between Armenia, the small Caucasian state that was established after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Armenian diaspora. The Armenians living in the West send money to their homeland but can also be fiercely critical of it.
"I was disappointed. I expected the Armenian side to be more skillful in the negotiations," Hovannisian says. "It is clear that the government was under a great deal of pressure. Armenia is a small, isolated country. They are under siege, and it is only natural that they should want to be part of the world around them. But I think the government did not have the right to sign any agreement that accepts the present situation, which is the result of the genocide, as the normal state of affairs. The Armenian nation's present situation is the result of the Turkish expulsion and seizure of Armenian land. Even if we do not have the power to change this, I do not think we should recognize it. We have a moral obligation not to recognize it."
George Hintlian, former head of the Armenian community in Jerusalem, has a sharper response: "We in the Armenian diaspora are shocked. It is like an earthquake. It is the bankruptcy of international morality. They say there is reconciliation, but there is no recognition here by Turkey. It is a coerced agreement, which the world's powers forced on Armenia. Russia, which traditionally supported Armenia, is now drawing close to Turkey."
What is especially regrettable in this context, Hintlian says, is that in recent years recognition of the Armenian genocide has increased.
"Now they are placing the holocaust in doubt and saying, we will discuss it and see if it happened. It is impossible to know what the findings will be, what kind of formula they will reach. It is unlikely that the Turks will recognize the holocaust. The commission does not have a timetable, and in the meantime, after this commission is established, no country will take a stand on the Armenian genocide. Present-day Armenia is one-tenth the size of historic Armenia, and it has signed for its final borders without getting anything in return. "
Hintlian believes that the agreement's shortcomings far outweigh its advantages.
"The practical gain is the opening of the border and the lifting of the embargo," he says. "There was a physical embargo on Armenia, and now there is an embargo on the holocaust. The facts will not be buried, but the international discussion will suffer a blow."
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
By Ofri Ilani , Haaretz.com, 16 October 2009
On a hill overlooking the Armenian capital Yerevan, a monument commemorates the murder of the Armenian people. Since the country gained independence in 1990, visiting foreign leaders are expected to stop at the monument and plant a tree in a small grove dedicated to the victims.
The first row of trees has plaques from Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, Pope John Paul II and a few Eastern European leaders. There are none from Israeli or American leaders. In fact, so few leaders have agreed to recognize the genocide that starting in the second row, the site's patrons have had to make do with top officials from various organizations. One tree was planted by the chairman of the European dentists association, another by the president of the international weight lifting federation.
While denial of the European Jewish Holocaust produces international condemnations, many countries have a policy of not recognizing the Armenian genocide, which was perpetrated by the Turks. This is due not to a lack of documentation about the massacres, but to massive Turkish political pressure. Armenia, for its part, has waged a persistent - and in some cases successful - struggle demanding the rectification of this ongoing historic wrong.
This week saw a dramatic development in the long and bitter conflict between Turkey and Armenia. The two countries signed an agreement to open their border and establish normal diplomatic relations. The genocide is not mentioned anywhere in the historic accord.
"I am afraid that now countries will hesitate to recognize the genocide," says Prof. Yair Oron, a genocide expert from the Open University of Israel who has published several books about the Armenian genocide. "They will say: Why should we grant recognition if the Armenians yielded? Recognition of the Armenian genocide is a paramount moral and educational act. We in Israel are obliged to recognize it. I see this as a serious blow to those who are fighting for its recognition."
If the agreement is ratified by the parliaments of the two countries, it could prove highly beneficial for Armenia. The small country in the Caucasus is isolated politically and lacks access to the sea. Its economy is in a shambles, and its government is corrupt. After the departure of some one million citizens over the past two decades, the country has a population of only three million. In the absence of regional allies, Armenia is compelled to rely on neighboring Iran for support.
Economically and politically, then, the agreement with Turkey, which will give Armenia access to the sea, looks like a good deal for the tiny republic. Like the Israelis, the Armenians also want to vacation in Antalya, politics be damned. But in return for the border being opened, Armenia completely dropped its demands regarding the property of genocide victims and Armenian lands in much of present-day eastern Turkey.
Moreover, Armenia has effectively dropped its demand for recognition of the genocide itself, the cornerstone of Armenian national identity. Yerevan had to accept the demand Turkey has been making for years: for an "objective historical examination" about whether the genocide took place.
This first significant peace agreement signed under the auspices of U.S. President Barack Obama raises questions of principle: Does a country have the right to forgo its past for the sake of present needs? Can a political agreement lay down an official version of history? Is the establishment of a commission the way to come to terms with memory?
Starting at the end of the 19th century, the Armenian minority living in the Ottoman Empire was subject to persecution. Tens of thousands were killed. The event known as the "Armenian genocide" involved the systematic destruction of communities between 1915 and 1918. The massacre of the Armenians began after Ottoman forces lost several battles against czarist Russia. Armenian soldiers living under the czar had distinguished themselves in battle on the Russian side, and this became the pretext for the massacre of the Armenians living in what is now Turkey.
Following lengthy deliberations, the Ottoman government decided to resolve once and for all the "Armenian problem." First, the Turks drafted about a quarter of a million young Armenians into the army. They were then stripped of their uniforms, concentrated in labor battalions and murdered. On the night between April 23 and 24, 1915, Istanbul police arrested hundreds of Armenian leaders and intellectuals in their homes; 235 were executed. Thus the Armenian leadership was destroyed, leaving the community unable to organize.
At this stage, the Armenians living in the eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire began to be evacuated by a "special organization" of criminals and prisoners created for that purpose. People were rounded up in their villages and cities. The men were usually shot on the spot, while the women, children and elderly were sent on forced marches into the Syrian desert. On the way, they were attacked and robbed by Kurdish gangs. Hundreds of thousands marched to their death. In October 1915, the U.S. consul general in Aleppo reported to his government on one such march of 18,000 people; 70 days later, only 35 were still alive.
Governments received reports about the genocide while it was in progress, but most did nothing. Current estimates state that about a third of all Armenians, 1.2 million to 1.5 million, were annihilated. The Turks claim only 300,000 were killed, in what they call a defensive move against a fifth column that had joined the country's enemies. They say that no decision was ever made to wipe out the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
"The Turks say: There was a war, there were battles and Armenians were killed, but so were Turks," says Oron. "It's true that the Turks did not espouse a racial doctrine like that of the Nazis, who set out to annihilate every Jew everywhere. And it is also important to say that there were cases in which Turks saved Armenians. But there was a policy of annihilating the Armenians and taking their property."
"Would the Jewish people be willing to forgo the memory of the Holocaust for the sake of good relations with Germany, if Germany were to make that demand?" asks Prof. Richard Hovannisian, a historian who has devoted the past 40 years to fighting denial of the Armenian genocide. The American-born Hovannisian, who teaches at UCLA, is the son of Armenian exiles from eastern Turkey. The family came from a village that was emptied by the Turks. Hovannisian has published many books on the genocide and is considered one of the world's leading authorities on the subject.
"The present agreement is the result of the fact that all the great powers wanted only for everyone to be good happy neighbors, irrespective of the price entailed," says Hovannisian, speaking by phone from California. "They want to do away with all the problems, but are not taking into account the victims' different perspectives."
Criticism from the diaspora
About two-thirds of Armenians live outside Armenia, mainly in Russia, the United States, France and the Middle East. Over the years complex relations have developed between Armenia, the small Caucasian state that was established after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Armenian diaspora. The Armenians living in the West send money to their homeland but can also be fiercely critical of it.
"I was disappointed. I expected the Armenian side to be more skillful in the negotiations," Hovannisian says. "It is clear that the government was under a great deal of pressure. Armenia is a small, isolated country. They are under siege, and it is only natural that they should want to be part of the world around them. But I think the government did not have the right to sign any agreement that accepts the present situation, which is the result of the genocide, as the normal state of affairs. The Armenian nation's present situation is the result of the Turkish expulsion and seizure of Armenian land. Even if we do not have the power to change this, I do not think we should recognize it. We have a moral obligation not to recognize it."
George Hintlian, former head of the Armenian community in Jerusalem, has a sharper response: "We in the Armenian diaspora are shocked. It is like an earthquake. It is the bankruptcy of international morality. They say there is reconciliation, but there is no recognition here by Turkey. It is a coerced agreement, which the world's powers forced on Armenia. Russia, which traditionally supported Armenia, is now drawing close to Turkey."
What is especially regrettable in this context, Hintlian says, is that in recent years recognition of the Armenian genocide has increased.
"Now they are placing the holocaust in doubt and saying, we will discuss it and see if it happened. It is impossible to know what the findings will be, what kind of formula they will reach. It is unlikely that the Turks will recognize the holocaust. The commission does not have a timetable, and in the meantime, after this commission is established, no country will take a stand on the Armenian genocide. Present-day Armenia is one-tenth the size of historic Armenia, and it has signed for its final borders without getting anything in return. "
Hintlian believes that the agreement's shortcomings far outweigh its advantages.
"The practical gain is the opening of the border and the lifting of the embargo," he says. "There was a physical embargo on Armenia, and now there is an embargo on the holocaust. The facts will not be buried, but the international discussion will suffer a blow."
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
Concerning Nagorno - Karabakn
PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN PERIODICALS CONCERNING NAGORNO-KARABAKH IN 1918-20 Haykaram Nahapetyan
On March 29 of this year on Azerbaijani day.az portal the publication appeared, according to which in the archive of “New York Times” the article was found where Karabakh and Zangezur were mentioned as parts of Mousavatist Azerbaijan (http://day.az/news/politics/151388.html). As Artsakh neither in the mentioned years nor ever has been a part of Azerbaijan (including the fact that the independent Azerbaijan had never existed before May 28, 1918) it remains to find out the backgrounds of another disinformation. It is worth mentioning what “New York Times” and other authoritative American media wrote about Nagorno-Karabakh during the short period of independence of the South Caucasus republics. Thus, day.az cites the “New York Times” publication of August 4, 1920 in which it is mentioned that “Karabakh and Zangezur populated by the Armenians were cut off the rest of the Republic of Armenia and were not controlled by the Armenian authorities due to the absence of the roads and communications”1. Azerbaijani propaganda machine qualified this information no less than “a historical proof that those territories belonged to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan” though the word “Azerbaijan” is not even mentioned in that media report. The fact that the Azerbaijani propaganda machine failed to find in the American archives any publication where Artsakh is clearly mentioned as a part of Azerbaijan is rather conspicuous. The most the Azerbaijani propagandists could find and slant to their false thesis was the aforementioned publication. And what did the American press publish about Nagorno-Karabakh in 1918-20 in reality?
In the “Chicago Daily Tribune” issue of July 31, 1919 we can read the telegram of the American army officer Major Joseph Green who was working in Tiflis to the Director General of «Neat East Relief» humanitarian organization Herbert Hoover who was in Paris at that time at the Peace conference. Later, in 1929-1933 Hoover became the 31st president of the USA.
“The Turkish army well prepared and Tartars are advancing from 3 sides…They have cut off the Armenian relief supplies and threaten all the remaining Armenians with the extradition”. According to daily, “Herbert Hoover, the Director-general of the relief, immediately submitted Maj Green’s message to the peace conference, which already had similar reports from other American or British observers”. “The disaster will be more terrible than the massacres in 1915 and the Armenian nation will be crushed, to the everlasting shame of allies…General mobilization was ordered yesterday…We shall no be able to carry on relief work much longer unless British troops receive orders to clear all Russian Armenia, including Karabagh and Alaghez, of Turkish and Tartar forces”2, - wrote Major Green
In the issue of “Atlanta Constitution” of the same date we read: ““The Turks and Tartars are advancing in the districts of Karabagh and Alaghez. They now occupy approximately the territory of Russian Armenia. General mobilization was ordered yesterday”3.
Naturally, the “Tatars” and not “Azerbaijanis” ethnicon is used in the publication of the American press. The latter was put into circulation only at the end of 1936 on Stalin’s initiative. Even more in those two particular publications the unauthentic “Tartar” variant was used. In 1918-20s in the American press the ehtnicon “Tartar” was used instead of “Tatar”.
In “Christian Science Monitor” periodical of August 5, 1919 it is mentioned: “Karabagh is inhabited exclusively by Armenians, and was formerly practically independent and self-governing”4. The citation from the same newspaper of August 28: “The cause of the trouble is said to be apparently political, due to the desire of Tartars to annex the Armenian province of Karabagh to the Tartar Republic of Azerbaijan. The information from Paris gives the following details: “it was on June 4 at 3 o’clock in the morning, that the Armed forces of the Tartar government of Azerbaijan directed by Dr Soultanoff, who had been imposed by force as governor of Armenian Karabagh, began the attack upon the city of Chouci, the capital of Karabagh”5.
In the issue of the newspaper of September 2 we can read: “Some weeks ago, it will be remembered, Major Green who is directing the work of the American Relief association at Tiflis, dispatched message to Mr. Hoover – describing how the Turks and the Tartars were advancing on the Armenian district of Karabagh. Already the most carefully organized massacres have been carried out at Chouci, the capital of Karabagh” 6.
Just in a year when the 11th Red Army was in Caucasus American press informed of the aspiration of Moscow to establish Soviet order in Armenia. In “Bolsheviki advance into Armenia” publication in “Washington Post: 20.07.1920 ” it is mentioned:“The Armenian Government having refused to obey an ultimatum of the Russian Soviet Government, the Bolshevik army has received orders to advance and already has occupied province of Karabagh” 7. The Sovietization of Azerbaijan took place on April 28, 1920, meanwhile Russian army moved forward to Artsakh in July, and this is another puzzle for the Azerbaijani propagandists to present the lie that Karabakh was a part of Mousavatist Azerbaijan to their own and international communities. On July 26 “New York Times” develops the theme: “Considerable Russian Bolshevist forces, chiefly cavalry, are overrunning the Karabagh district of Armenia apparently with the purpose of joining the Turkish Nationalists”8. Here is the citation from “Atlanta Chronicles” of the same date: “Considerable Russian Bolshevik forces, chiefly cavalry, are overrunning the Karabagh district of Armenia … The Turkish Nationalists and the Bolsheviki approaching Shusha”9.
On August 2 “New York Times” wrote: “Bolshevist penetration of Armenia is continuing, according to late advices received here. The provinces of Karabagh and Zangezour, it is stated, established Soviet governments on July 20” 10.
And on March 16, 1921 when Armenia temporarily regained its independency “New York Times” wrote: “A radio telegram from Simon Vratian, President of the Armenian cabinet, dated March 7 at Erivan, announces that the Bolsheviki are completely beaten and that all the country from Karabagh to Alagheuz – that is to say, all the territory not occupied by the Turks – is now administrated by our government” 11.
Other examples can be brought. In the citations from more than a dozen of articles Nagorno-Karabakh is clearly defined as historically Armenian territory and a constituent part of Armenia from political point of view, and Baku is presented as the aggressor which aspired to annex Nagorno-Karabakh to the Tatar Azerbaijan. As we can see American officer Joseph Green saw the connection between the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the attempts to annihilate the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1919-1920. This is another fact which proves that at the end of the 20th century the Armenians of Artsakh fought exclusively for their self-defence and averted the threat of new genocide at the end of the 20th century. And the references to “New York Times” in its aspiration to present Nagorno-Karabakh and Zangezur as their historical territories is another manifestation of the Azerbaijani disinformation in which Baku, in fact, tries to profit from the name of the authoritative international media.
1Doubt Armenia is invaded, “New York Times”, 04.08.1920.
2Turks, Tatars peril Armenia, “Chicago Daily Tribune”, 31.07.1919.
3Turks move to Butcher Armenians, “The Atlanta Constitution”, 31.07.1919.
4Maasacre reported of 200 Armenians. “Christian Science Monitor”, 05.08.1919.
5Tartars and Kurds slay Armenians, “Christian Science Monitor”, 28.08.1919.
6Armenia again, “Christian Science Monitor”, 02.09.1919.
7Bolsheviki advance into Armenia. Will give aid to Turks, “The Washington Post” July 20, 1920.
8Bolsheviki marching to join Turks, “New York Times”, July 26, 1920.
9Bolshevik forces appear in Armenia, “The Atlanta constitution” 26.07.1920.
10Soviet invites Djemal pasha to lead Musulman reds, “New York Times”, August 2, 1920.
11Greeks said to plan new drive on Turks, “New York Times”, 16.03.1921
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
On March 29 of this year on Azerbaijani day.az portal the publication appeared, according to which in the archive of “New York Times” the article was found where Karabakh and Zangezur were mentioned as parts of Mousavatist Azerbaijan (http://day.az/news/politics/151388.html). As Artsakh neither in the mentioned years nor ever has been a part of Azerbaijan (including the fact that the independent Azerbaijan had never existed before May 28, 1918) it remains to find out the backgrounds of another disinformation. It is worth mentioning what “New York Times” and other authoritative American media wrote about Nagorno-Karabakh during the short period of independence of the South Caucasus republics. Thus, day.az cites the “New York Times” publication of August 4, 1920 in which it is mentioned that “Karabakh and Zangezur populated by the Armenians were cut off the rest of the Republic of Armenia and were not controlled by the Armenian authorities due to the absence of the roads and communications”1. Azerbaijani propaganda machine qualified this information no less than “a historical proof that those territories belonged to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan” though the word “Azerbaijan” is not even mentioned in that media report. The fact that the Azerbaijani propaganda machine failed to find in the American archives any publication where Artsakh is clearly mentioned as a part of Azerbaijan is rather conspicuous. The most the Azerbaijani propagandists could find and slant to their false thesis was the aforementioned publication. And what did the American press publish about Nagorno-Karabakh in 1918-20 in reality?
In the “Chicago Daily Tribune” issue of July 31, 1919 we can read the telegram of the American army officer Major Joseph Green who was working in Tiflis to the Director General of «Neat East Relief» humanitarian organization Herbert Hoover who was in Paris at that time at the Peace conference. Later, in 1929-1933 Hoover became the 31st president of the USA.
“The Turkish army well prepared and Tartars are advancing from 3 sides…They have cut off the Armenian relief supplies and threaten all the remaining Armenians with the extradition”. According to daily, “Herbert Hoover, the Director-general of the relief, immediately submitted Maj Green’s message to the peace conference, which already had similar reports from other American or British observers”. “The disaster will be more terrible than the massacres in 1915 and the Armenian nation will be crushed, to the everlasting shame of allies…General mobilization was ordered yesterday…We shall no be able to carry on relief work much longer unless British troops receive orders to clear all Russian Armenia, including Karabagh and Alaghez, of Turkish and Tartar forces”2, - wrote Major Green
In the issue of “Atlanta Constitution” of the same date we read: ““The Turks and Tartars are advancing in the districts of Karabagh and Alaghez. They now occupy approximately the territory of Russian Armenia. General mobilization was ordered yesterday”3.
Naturally, the “Tatars” and not “Azerbaijanis” ethnicon is used in the publication of the American press. The latter was put into circulation only at the end of 1936 on Stalin’s initiative. Even more in those two particular publications the unauthentic “Tartar” variant was used. In 1918-20s in the American press the ehtnicon “Tartar” was used instead of “Tatar”.
In “Christian Science Monitor” periodical of August 5, 1919 it is mentioned: “Karabagh is inhabited exclusively by Armenians, and was formerly practically independent and self-governing”4. The citation from the same newspaper of August 28: “The cause of the trouble is said to be apparently political, due to the desire of Tartars to annex the Armenian province of Karabagh to the Tartar Republic of Azerbaijan. The information from Paris gives the following details: “it was on June 4 at 3 o’clock in the morning, that the Armed forces of the Tartar government of Azerbaijan directed by Dr Soultanoff, who had been imposed by force as governor of Armenian Karabagh, began the attack upon the city of Chouci, the capital of Karabagh”5.
In the issue of the newspaper of September 2 we can read: “Some weeks ago, it will be remembered, Major Green who is directing the work of the American Relief association at Tiflis, dispatched message to Mr. Hoover – describing how the Turks and the Tartars were advancing on the Armenian district of Karabagh. Already the most carefully organized massacres have been carried out at Chouci, the capital of Karabagh” 6.
Just in a year when the 11th Red Army was in Caucasus American press informed of the aspiration of Moscow to establish Soviet order in Armenia. In “Bolsheviki advance into Armenia” publication in “Washington Post: 20.07.1920 ” it is mentioned:“The Armenian Government having refused to obey an ultimatum of the Russian Soviet Government, the Bolshevik army has received orders to advance and already has occupied province of Karabagh” 7. The Sovietization of Azerbaijan took place on April 28, 1920, meanwhile Russian army moved forward to Artsakh in July, and this is another puzzle for the Azerbaijani propagandists to present the lie that Karabakh was a part of Mousavatist Azerbaijan to their own and international communities. On July 26 “New York Times” develops the theme: “Considerable Russian Bolshevist forces, chiefly cavalry, are overrunning the Karabagh district of Armenia apparently with the purpose of joining the Turkish Nationalists”8. Here is the citation from “Atlanta Chronicles” of the same date: “Considerable Russian Bolshevik forces, chiefly cavalry, are overrunning the Karabagh district of Armenia … The Turkish Nationalists and the Bolsheviki approaching Shusha”9.
On August 2 “New York Times” wrote: “Bolshevist penetration of Armenia is continuing, according to late advices received here. The provinces of Karabagh and Zangezour, it is stated, established Soviet governments on July 20” 10.
And on March 16, 1921 when Armenia temporarily regained its independency “New York Times” wrote: “A radio telegram from Simon Vratian, President of the Armenian cabinet, dated March 7 at Erivan, announces that the Bolsheviki are completely beaten and that all the country from Karabagh to Alagheuz – that is to say, all the territory not occupied by the Turks – is now administrated by our government” 11.
Other examples can be brought. In the citations from more than a dozen of articles Nagorno-Karabakh is clearly defined as historically Armenian territory and a constituent part of Armenia from political point of view, and Baku is presented as the aggressor which aspired to annex Nagorno-Karabakh to the Tatar Azerbaijan. As we can see American officer Joseph Green saw the connection between the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the attempts to annihilate the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1919-1920. This is another fact which proves that at the end of the 20th century the Armenians of Artsakh fought exclusively for their self-defence and averted the threat of new genocide at the end of the 20th century. And the references to “New York Times” in its aspiration to present Nagorno-Karabakh and Zangezur as their historical territories is another manifestation of the Azerbaijani disinformation in which Baku, in fact, tries to profit from the name of the authoritative international media.
1Doubt Armenia is invaded, “New York Times”, 04.08.1920.
2Turks, Tatars peril Armenia, “Chicago Daily Tribune”, 31.07.1919.
3Turks move to Butcher Armenians, “The Atlanta Constitution”, 31.07.1919.
4Maasacre reported of 200 Armenians. “Christian Science Monitor”, 05.08.1919.
5Tartars and Kurds slay Armenians, “Christian Science Monitor”, 28.08.1919.
6Armenia again, “Christian Science Monitor”, 02.09.1919.
7Bolsheviki advance into Armenia. Will give aid to Turks, “The Washington Post” July 20, 1920.
8Bolsheviki marching to join Turks, “New York Times”, July 26, 1920.
9Bolshevik forces appear in Armenia, “The Atlanta constitution” 26.07.1920.
10Soviet invites Djemal pasha to lead Musulman reds, “New York Times”, August 2, 1920.
11Greeks said to plan new drive on Turks, “New York Times”, 16.03.1921
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
miércoles, 21 de octubre de 2009
Do the protocols Bridge any Divides ???
Do the Protocols Bridge any Divides?The Turkey-Armenia Agreementdr harry hagopian
In a BBC radio interview on Sunday Sequence last week, I was asked for an assessment on the geopolitical as much as human impact of the recent agreement between Turkey and Armenia, and whether the signing of the two protocols will lead - at least on paper - to a normalisation of relations between these two unfriendly neighbours or at least open the common border that has been closed off unilaterally by Turkey since 1993.
What could I tell the programme presenter that I had not already incorporated into my Open Letter of 6th October to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan? Were those issues not also adequately covered in the open letters, statements, analyses and opinions of many organisations and individuals alike? Had the Armenian National Committee of Canada, for instance, not dissected in five key points the two protocols and concluded that they were deeply flawed in nature? What about the writings of Raffi K Hovannisian and Vartan Oskanian, two seasoned politicians and former government ministers in Armenia? Had Hovannisian not asserted in his Protocols and Preconditions of 12th October that “in this millennial series of misfortunes”, the Armenian nation had never yet invited such destruction upon itself? Had Oskanian not also concluded on 14th October that “normalisation of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even, has been discredited” and that it “has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian side”? But perhaps a most telling - and in its own right a most powerful - articulation was the short but incisive 8th October open letter to the Turkish and Armenian leaders by Professor William Schabas, an Irish-Canadian law professor, and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, who expressed the wariness of the IAGS “of any call for allegedly impartial research into what are clearly established historical facts” and added that “acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any ‘impartial historical commission’ and not one of its possible conclusions”.
In the final analysis, I believe this fragile agreement that was shrouded in mystery till the eleventh hour is more a marriage of convenience imposed upon two South Caucasian neighbours by outside matchmakers than a real desire for reconciliation between them. It is certainly not a case of Armenia and Turkey wishing to establish good - in the classical sense of co-equal - neighbourly relations, but rather one of geopolitical realities being dictated upon them. If the real purpose of the exercise were to reach reconciliation, then the truth should not have been shunned so maladroitly by both sides. Let me take just three examples to mark the distinction between expediency, reconciliation and truth in international relations. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, which is genocide by another name, did Germany not recognise its heinous crimes and make good upon this chapter in its history during WWII? After all, it did not create a historical sub-commission to examine established facts, but rather recognised its crimes and made reparations for them. And if I were to look further at South Africa, with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission 1995, or perhaps even closer to home in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday / Belfast Agreement 1998, where erstwhile historical enemies worked together and admitted their mistakes, surely the paradox with the latest Turkey-Armenia agreement becomes even more self-evident in both its simplicity and duplicity. The simplicity is that the establishment of diplomatic relations between any two countries would require a mere - and familiar - template that is used universally and not two protocols with preconditions, commissions or omissions! The duplicity, on the other hand, is that such an agreement cannot be heralded as reconciliation when it brazenly obfuscates the truth and strays quite far from it. Indeed, by listening to President Sargsyan’s address last week when he placed the protocols in the context of Armenian rights and interests, not only did he fail to convince me with his arguments but in fact succeeded to underline why Armenia in the person of its foreign minister should not have signed the agreement as it stands today.
But the fact remains that those protocols have been signed in a rather self-conscious ceremony in Zürich that housed a smiling Turkish foreign minister, a less-than-smiling Armenian foreign minister, the clapping presence of the American, French and Russian foreign ministers as OSCE Minsk Group co-chair representatives, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Swiss host. Mind you, Turkey had every right to be smiling, as it avoided a last-minute glitch and deftly managed to pull off a political rabbit from its Ottoman fez. What now remains to be seen is whether the respective Turkish and Armenian parliaments will ratify this agreement in toto since they do not enjoy the right to amend or alter it, whether the border will eventually be opened so that Armenia acquires at long last an access to the sea, and whether the putative economic gains - a moot point for me actually - will filter down to the ordinary and needy people in Armenia. After all, I would suggest that an open border is at the very least as beneficial to Turkey as it is to Armenia since the former can trade in the Armenian market with cheap Turkish products, let alone invest in the country or even acquire Armenian national assets.But in the scroll of winners and losers from those two Turkey-Armenia protocols, it is almost a non-sequitur to argue that Turkey has largely neutralised Armenian efforts at lobbying for recognition of the genocide, found a market for its goods and also appeared to be a statesmanlike peace-builder which would earn it a few brownie points with the EU just in case its accession hopes are revalidated later. And while many people would also talk of the USA and the EU in terms of win-win or win-lose situations, what still surprises me is the eerie absence in the documents and commentaries coming out of politicians and pundits to date of the fact that the Russian Federation is another major benefactor of this agreement. This is why I would suggest that it will have exercised ample “friendly pressure” upon its ally Armenia to sign those two protocols. Following the Russian-Georgian war, and the new geopolitical shifts in the whole region, this agreement would not only facilitate its policies on oil and gas supplies and the route of its pipelines, it would also strengthen its influence in the region as well as wean oil-rich Azerbaijan just a tad away from Turkey and into its sphere of influence - as has been manifested by the successive visits to Baku by Russian political leaders.
Another crucial issue looming very much in the background of this agreement is the conflict in Nagorny-Karabagh. Again, as I wrote recently in my Open Letter, I remain quite convinced that Turkey will now use its “gains” from those protocols as a trump card to counter the “stalemate” in this conflict by coercing Armenia to settle with Azerbaijan. In fact, there is already some talk in the political corridors of the OSCE Minsk Group of a possible breakthrough between Armenia and Azerbaijan over a framework agreement on basic principles that was initially outlined in 2005. In fact, and in view of the surprise element of the two protocols when the Diaspora was for all intents and purposes ambushed by them without prior consultation, there is now mounting concern that Armenia would again be pressured to give up the occupied territories (which it should do eventually anyway) in exchange for mere promises of security (which it should certainly not accept on its own minus any concrete return). Yet, this breakthrough looks rather premature to me, more so in view of the increased frequency in armed skirmishes between both sides. However, once the negotiations - and concomitant pressures - become more critical over self-determination, or about an Armenian pullout or even over the corridor linking Armenia to Nagorny-Karabagh, I hope the Armenian politicians and their mandarins will be more prudent when they discuss the final outcome than what they did with the two protocols signed in Zürich last week.
But let me add a couple of correctives here. Many people today are claiming that this agreement dealt a fatal blow to the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and that countries from the USA to Israel will no longer have to recognise it since the Armenia government will be “implementing an impartial and scientific examination” over its historical veracity. Much as there is a modicum of truth in this postulation, I would nonetheless add that the issue of recognition will not die away since it remains a Diasporan priority that voters in the USA and elsewhere will continue to lobby for and perhaps even at a higher pitch - irrespective of any political protocols between Turkey and Armenia. So I would suggest that President Obama has not been let off the hook, as Armenian-American voters and their supporters will ensure that their demands remain audible. But as a lawyer, let me play the devil’s advocate and refer to an idea I was discussing earlier with the Armenian-British author George Jerjian. Is it remotely possible that this provision in the protocol is solely a smokescreen to help Turkey save face before “accepting” the recommendations of the said commission that genocide occurred in fact? Or is this too wild a theory even by Machiavellian standards?
In the final analysis, one regrettable collateral damage from those protocols is that scores of ordinary Armenian men and women worldwide who have been hardy supporters of normalisation with Turkey are now being labelled extremists, loudmouths or nationalists simply because they seek an agreement that is credible, equitable, mutually-beneficial and sustainable rather than one that is based on indignity, injustice, disequilibrium and non-sustainability. No amount of football matches in Yerevan (present capital of Armenia) or Bursa (former capital of the Ottoman Empire) could erase from the minds of countless peoples that this agreement lacks adequate moral as much as political probity and that its far-reaching and long-term ramifications are as unsettling as they are unclear.
But how will we Armenians be spared the disturbing fallout of those protocols when there is so much disappointment and some anger, and how will we also ensure that the yawning gap between the Armenian Republic and the Armenian Diaspora does not ricochet dangerously beyond control and arrest our collective future hopes? Will we manage to bridge any of the divides through public diplomacy and people-to-people contacts to ensure real reconciliation?
Therein lies in my opinion the next existential challenge that confronts us all, one that goes even beyond Mount Ararat and genocide, and it should have perhaps been the real question from the BBC presenter to me last Sunday.
© hbv-H @ 15 October 2009
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
In a BBC radio interview on Sunday Sequence last week, I was asked for an assessment on the geopolitical as much as human impact of the recent agreement between Turkey and Armenia, and whether the signing of the two protocols will lead - at least on paper - to a normalisation of relations between these two unfriendly neighbours or at least open the common border that has been closed off unilaterally by Turkey since 1993.
What could I tell the programme presenter that I had not already incorporated into my Open Letter of 6th October to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan? Were those issues not also adequately covered in the open letters, statements, analyses and opinions of many organisations and individuals alike? Had the Armenian National Committee of Canada, for instance, not dissected in five key points the two protocols and concluded that they were deeply flawed in nature? What about the writings of Raffi K Hovannisian and Vartan Oskanian, two seasoned politicians and former government ministers in Armenia? Had Hovannisian not asserted in his Protocols and Preconditions of 12th October that “in this millennial series of misfortunes”, the Armenian nation had never yet invited such destruction upon itself? Had Oskanian not also concluded on 14th October that “normalisation of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even, has been discredited” and that it “has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian side”? But perhaps a most telling - and in its own right a most powerful - articulation was the short but incisive 8th October open letter to the Turkish and Armenian leaders by Professor William Schabas, an Irish-Canadian law professor, and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, who expressed the wariness of the IAGS “of any call for allegedly impartial research into what are clearly established historical facts” and added that “acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any ‘impartial historical commission’ and not one of its possible conclusions”.
In the final analysis, I believe this fragile agreement that was shrouded in mystery till the eleventh hour is more a marriage of convenience imposed upon two South Caucasian neighbours by outside matchmakers than a real desire for reconciliation between them. It is certainly not a case of Armenia and Turkey wishing to establish good - in the classical sense of co-equal - neighbourly relations, but rather one of geopolitical realities being dictated upon them. If the real purpose of the exercise were to reach reconciliation, then the truth should not have been shunned so maladroitly by both sides. Let me take just three examples to mark the distinction between expediency, reconciliation and truth in international relations. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, which is genocide by another name, did Germany not recognise its heinous crimes and make good upon this chapter in its history during WWII? After all, it did not create a historical sub-commission to examine established facts, but rather recognised its crimes and made reparations for them. And if I were to look further at South Africa, with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission 1995, or perhaps even closer to home in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday / Belfast Agreement 1998, where erstwhile historical enemies worked together and admitted their mistakes, surely the paradox with the latest Turkey-Armenia agreement becomes even more self-evident in both its simplicity and duplicity. The simplicity is that the establishment of diplomatic relations between any two countries would require a mere - and familiar - template that is used universally and not two protocols with preconditions, commissions or omissions! The duplicity, on the other hand, is that such an agreement cannot be heralded as reconciliation when it brazenly obfuscates the truth and strays quite far from it. Indeed, by listening to President Sargsyan’s address last week when he placed the protocols in the context of Armenian rights and interests, not only did he fail to convince me with his arguments but in fact succeeded to underline why Armenia in the person of its foreign minister should not have signed the agreement as it stands today.
But the fact remains that those protocols have been signed in a rather self-conscious ceremony in Zürich that housed a smiling Turkish foreign minister, a less-than-smiling Armenian foreign minister, the clapping presence of the American, French and Russian foreign ministers as OSCE Minsk Group co-chair representatives, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Swiss host. Mind you, Turkey had every right to be smiling, as it avoided a last-minute glitch and deftly managed to pull off a political rabbit from its Ottoman fez. What now remains to be seen is whether the respective Turkish and Armenian parliaments will ratify this agreement in toto since they do not enjoy the right to amend or alter it, whether the border will eventually be opened so that Armenia acquires at long last an access to the sea, and whether the putative economic gains - a moot point for me actually - will filter down to the ordinary and needy people in Armenia. After all, I would suggest that an open border is at the very least as beneficial to Turkey as it is to Armenia since the former can trade in the Armenian market with cheap Turkish products, let alone invest in the country or even acquire Armenian national assets.But in the scroll of winners and losers from those two Turkey-Armenia protocols, it is almost a non-sequitur to argue that Turkey has largely neutralised Armenian efforts at lobbying for recognition of the genocide, found a market for its goods and also appeared to be a statesmanlike peace-builder which would earn it a few brownie points with the EU just in case its accession hopes are revalidated later. And while many people would also talk of the USA and the EU in terms of win-win or win-lose situations, what still surprises me is the eerie absence in the documents and commentaries coming out of politicians and pundits to date of the fact that the Russian Federation is another major benefactor of this agreement. This is why I would suggest that it will have exercised ample “friendly pressure” upon its ally Armenia to sign those two protocols. Following the Russian-Georgian war, and the new geopolitical shifts in the whole region, this agreement would not only facilitate its policies on oil and gas supplies and the route of its pipelines, it would also strengthen its influence in the region as well as wean oil-rich Azerbaijan just a tad away from Turkey and into its sphere of influence - as has been manifested by the successive visits to Baku by Russian political leaders.
Another crucial issue looming very much in the background of this agreement is the conflict in Nagorny-Karabagh. Again, as I wrote recently in my Open Letter, I remain quite convinced that Turkey will now use its “gains” from those protocols as a trump card to counter the “stalemate” in this conflict by coercing Armenia to settle with Azerbaijan. In fact, there is already some talk in the political corridors of the OSCE Minsk Group of a possible breakthrough between Armenia and Azerbaijan over a framework agreement on basic principles that was initially outlined in 2005. In fact, and in view of the surprise element of the two protocols when the Diaspora was for all intents and purposes ambushed by them without prior consultation, there is now mounting concern that Armenia would again be pressured to give up the occupied territories (which it should do eventually anyway) in exchange for mere promises of security (which it should certainly not accept on its own minus any concrete return). Yet, this breakthrough looks rather premature to me, more so in view of the increased frequency in armed skirmishes between both sides. However, once the negotiations - and concomitant pressures - become more critical over self-determination, or about an Armenian pullout or even over the corridor linking Armenia to Nagorny-Karabagh, I hope the Armenian politicians and their mandarins will be more prudent when they discuss the final outcome than what they did with the two protocols signed in Zürich last week.
But let me add a couple of correctives here. Many people today are claiming that this agreement dealt a fatal blow to the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and that countries from the USA to Israel will no longer have to recognise it since the Armenia government will be “implementing an impartial and scientific examination” over its historical veracity. Much as there is a modicum of truth in this postulation, I would nonetheless add that the issue of recognition will not die away since it remains a Diasporan priority that voters in the USA and elsewhere will continue to lobby for and perhaps even at a higher pitch - irrespective of any political protocols between Turkey and Armenia. So I would suggest that President Obama has not been let off the hook, as Armenian-American voters and their supporters will ensure that their demands remain audible. But as a lawyer, let me play the devil’s advocate and refer to an idea I was discussing earlier with the Armenian-British author George Jerjian. Is it remotely possible that this provision in the protocol is solely a smokescreen to help Turkey save face before “accepting” the recommendations of the said commission that genocide occurred in fact? Or is this too wild a theory even by Machiavellian standards?
In the final analysis, one regrettable collateral damage from those protocols is that scores of ordinary Armenian men and women worldwide who have been hardy supporters of normalisation with Turkey are now being labelled extremists, loudmouths or nationalists simply because they seek an agreement that is credible, equitable, mutually-beneficial and sustainable rather than one that is based on indignity, injustice, disequilibrium and non-sustainability. No amount of football matches in Yerevan (present capital of Armenia) or Bursa (former capital of the Ottoman Empire) could erase from the minds of countless peoples that this agreement lacks adequate moral as much as political probity and that its far-reaching and long-term ramifications are as unsettling as they are unclear.
But how will we Armenians be spared the disturbing fallout of those protocols when there is so much disappointment and some anger, and how will we also ensure that the yawning gap between the Armenian Republic and the Armenian Diaspora does not ricochet dangerously beyond control and arrest our collective future hopes? Will we manage to bridge any of the divides through public diplomacy and people-to-people contacts to ensure real reconciliation?
Therein lies in my opinion the next existential challenge that confronts us all, one that goes even beyond Mount Ararat and genocide, and it should have perhaps been the real question from the BBC presenter to me last Sunday.
© hbv-H @ 15 October 2009
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
martes, 20 de octubre de 2009
ASALA - ARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA
THE POLITICAL PROGRAM:
AN OUTLINEARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA
The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) became known for the first time when it undertook its first military operation which was directed against an institution (The World Council of Churches) that serves the interests of international imperialism and its reactionary sponsors. This act and our declaration on its occasion demonstrated our understanding of the nature of our problem and the nature of our enemy and its supporters. It also shows our political line with relation to other struggles in the world. Our organization believes that it is impossible to overcome our problem, the struggle of the Armenian people, and the oppression of the proletariat unless we adopt revolutionary struggle. We are convinced that organized armed struggle is the principal means, and that it is impossible to achieve victory without the guidance of a revolutionary theory that defends the interests of the exploited classes from the enemy and its conspirators. At the same time the Armenian case will be brought to the surface of international events through our activities all over the world. The world today is witnessing the explosion of the revolution of oppressed nations and peoples who are achieving victory against imperialism, the expansion of the revolution of the proletariat against the capitalist mechanism, the gradual stability of socialist regimes as they widen their influence through progressive social and economic strides, and finally the intensifying crises for international imperialism. Our organization has as its enemy the Turkish regime which is a dependent of the reaction and imperialism and which represents a continuation of the previous regime whose reactionary chauvinistic ideology led to the occupation of our land and other oppressed peoples' lands leaving the defeated populations without their most basic national and human rights. Our organization is a part of the international revolutionary movement since our struggle against this enemy constitutes a part of the international revolution. The strengthening of relations between and coalitions among the peoples' movements and the revolutionary classes serves in widening the revolutionary front and in the coordination of blows to the exploitive and oppressive enemy. Every revolutionary movement has its unique conditions and experiences. For this reason mutual support and close relations among all international revolutionary movements will lead in the end to the success of the struggle through the sharing of the wisdom and experience of each revolutionary case. Every development in the opposition of the reaction is in the interests of liberty, independence, progress and socialism. The victory of any revolutionary movement in any part of the world is a victory for the universal revolution and a death blow to the exploitative and oppressive camp. Our organization has drafted its political line over a long period of preparation, organization, and a range of military operations directed against a number of Turkish ruling class interests which are connected to many international imperialist powers:1. The ASALA is a political organization that works through all means of struggle for the liberation of occupied Armenian territories from Turkish imperialism which is tied to local reactionary forces and sponsored by international imperialism.2. Our organization intends to realise the aspirations of the Armanian people who reject the authority of the oppressing classes coordinated by the chauvinist Turkish leadership.3. Our organization is directed by the axioms of scientific revolution.4. Without the exclusion of other means of struggle, our organization believes that revolutionary violence is the principal means and correct path in facing the exploitation, oppression and terror of Turkish colonialism.5. Our organization is a part of the international revolutionary movement, and as such we strive for the strengthening and expanding of coalitions within that movement because it is our conviction that the unity of revolutionaries throughout the world is a necessity for the victory of the exploited and oppressed masses.6. The liberation of occupied Armenian territories from Turkish fascist overlords will be followed by the unity of these territories with other Armenian territories which border them in the eventual creation of a democratic, socialist and-revolutionary system.7. The battlefield of our struggle is the diaspora of our people and any position where our enemies or its sponsors exist.8. We shall strive for the solidarity of the Soviet Union and socialist countries, and the recognition by them of the just character of our struggle, and their cooperation with our people in Soviet Armenia in the transformation of Soviet Armenia into a revolutionary base for the long people's war against Turkish colonialism, reactionary collaborators ands imperialism.
ARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
AN OUTLINEARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA
The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) became known for the first time when it undertook its first military operation which was directed against an institution (The World Council of Churches) that serves the interests of international imperialism and its reactionary sponsors. This act and our declaration on its occasion demonstrated our understanding of the nature of our problem and the nature of our enemy and its supporters. It also shows our political line with relation to other struggles in the world. Our organization believes that it is impossible to overcome our problem, the struggle of the Armenian people, and the oppression of the proletariat unless we adopt revolutionary struggle. We are convinced that organized armed struggle is the principal means, and that it is impossible to achieve victory without the guidance of a revolutionary theory that defends the interests of the exploited classes from the enemy and its conspirators. At the same time the Armenian case will be brought to the surface of international events through our activities all over the world. The world today is witnessing the explosion of the revolution of oppressed nations and peoples who are achieving victory against imperialism, the expansion of the revolution of the proletariat against the capitalist mechanism, the gradual stability of socialist regimes as they widen their influence through progressive social and economic strides, and finally the intensifying crises for international imperialism. Our organization has as its enemy the Turkish regime which is a dependent of the reaction and imperialism and which represents a continuation of the previous regime whose reactionary chauvinistic ideology led to the occupation of our land and other oppressed peoples' lands leaving the defeated populations without their most basic national and human rights. Our organization is a part of the international revolutionary movement since our struggle against this enemy constitutes a part of the international revolution. The strengthening of relations between and coalitions among the peoples' movements and the revolutionary classes serves in widening the revolutionary front and in the coordination of blows to the exploitive and oppressive enemy. Every revolutionary movement has its unique conditions and experiences. For this reason mutual support and close relations among all international revolutionary movements will lead in the end to the success of the struggle through the sharing of the wisdom and experience of each revolutionary case. Every development in the opposition of the reaction is in the interests of liberty, independence, progress and socialism. The victory of any revolutionary movement in any part of the world is a victory for the universal revolution and a death blow to the exploitative and oppressive camp. Our organization has drafted its political line over a long period of preparation, organization, and a range of military operations directed against a number of Turkish ruling class interests which are connected to many international imperialist powers:1. The ASALA is a political organization that works through all means of struggle for the liberation of occupied Armenian territories from Turkish imperialism which is tied to local reactionary forces and sponsored by international imperialism.2. Our organization intends to realise the aspirations of the Armanian people who reject the authority of the oppressing classes coordinated by the chauvinist Turkish leadership.3. Our organization is directed by the axioms of scientific revolution.4. Without the exclusion of other means of struggle, our organization believes that revolutionary violence is the principal means and correct path in facing the exploitation, oppression and terror of Turkish colonialism.5. Our organization is a part of the international revolutionary movement, and as such we strive for the strengthening and expanding of coalitions within that movement because it is our conviction that the unity of revolutionaries throughout the world is a necessity for the victory of the exploited and oppressed masses.6. The liberation of occupied Armenian territories from Turkish fascist overlords will be followed by the unity of these territories with other Armenian territories which border them in the eventual creation of a democratic, socialist and-revolutionary system.7. The battlefield of our struggle is the diaspora of our people and any position where our enemies or its sponsors exist.8. We shall strive for the solidarity of the Soviet Union and socialist countries, and the recognition by them of the just character of our struggle, and their cooperation with our people in Soviet Armenia in the transformation of Soviet Armenia into a revolutionary base for the long people's war against Turkish colonialism, reactionary collaborators ands imperialism.
ARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA
Miguel Angel Nalpatian(1942).- Mar del Plata.- Buenos Aires.- Rca Argentina.-
lunes, 19 de octubre de 2009
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)