By Ivan Gharibyan

On the threshold of the 95^th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey, official Ankara is receiving more and more new signals that the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is going on.

No sooner had Turkey digested the approval of an Armenian Genocide resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs than it received bad news from Spain and Sweden. Recently the Parliament of Catalonia unanimously recognized the Armenian Genocide, which may cause the Parliament of Spain to approve a similar decision as well. The official statements that it is only the position of Catalonia are not so important. Of importance is that the process got under way. Swedish political parties intend to hold a hearing of the issue.

Everything suggests the following: no matter how hard Turkey tries to blackmail the international community by threatening to thwart the Armenia-Turkey normalization process should any country define the 1915 events as genocide, the process is going on. This fact can easily be explained, but Ankara is unwilling to understand elementary things.

No doubt, Turkey’s present problems are the result of its own policy. Kid-glove Turkish diplomacy is doing its best to link the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide to the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation – two processes that have nothing in common. The Turkish authorities’ policy has for many years been “fed” by different U.S. administrations, which have repeatedly prevented the U.S. Congress from approving relevant resolutions. At present, the U.S. Secretary of State, who has overtly disowned her own position and stood up for Ankara, is trying to frighten everyone with a possible failure of the Armenian-Turkish normalization process. Washington even pretends to be unaware of the detrimental effects of its position and attempts to anticipate the development of Armenian-Turkish dialogue.

The United States is supposed to realize that Turkey is responsible for the present situation in the region, as it interfered in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and imposed a blockade on Armenia. The U.S. should also be aware that making Turkey realize the need to stop cashing in on the Genocide denial policy would enable Armenia and Turkey to establish normal relations in the shortest space of time. But the United States continues supporting Turkey’s policy thereby torpedoing the Armenian-Turkish normalization process, while it claims it is strongly for a success in this process.

The latest developments have shown this, as well as Armenia’s new foreign policy after Serzh Sargsyan was elected president, has not been very detrimental to the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In any case, although a number of foreign newspapers published articles about the “soccer diplomacy’s” negative effects on the process, it remains topical, and evidence thereof is the latest decision by the Parliament of Catalonia and, most likely, a positive result of hearings at the Swedish Parliament.

Turkey, in turn, has to either put up with the inevitability of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the country’s all attempts to reform its society and turn into a democratic state will be sacrificed to its own stereotyped thinking.

AYC YOUTH FORUM!

Why Turkey Needs Armenia More Than Armenia Needs Turkey

BY TED TOURIAN

The early momentum driving the Armenian-Turkish protocols have considerably slowed down in recent weeks. For instance, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has issued the following official statement on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols:

“The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has declared its decision of constitutional conformity on the Protocols between Turkey and Armenia signed on 10 October 2009 with a short statement on 12 January 2010. The Constitutional Court has recently published its grounds of decision. It has been observed that this decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols.

This was in response to the Republic of Armenia’s (Armenia) Constitutional Court’s acceptance of  the Protocols, but only after placing a number of restrictions on their legal interpretation and implementation. The reason for this decision is that the Protocols are a vaguely written document, and should not have any precedence, or authority to legally govern the Republic of Armenia’s policies, and legal rights.1

Furthermore, the recent rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey has also come under fire by Azerbaijan, and its attempts to procure concessions from Armenia before normalization occurs. In fact, Azerbaijan has threatened Turkey where it would export natural gas and oil through alternate transit routes, which does not include Turkey. Azeri President Ilham Aliyev told the Wall Street Journal: “Azerbaijan can export gas in four directions: Turkey, Georgia, Iran and Russia.”2
Yet, coincidentally enough, it is the opposite of what Ilham Aliyev said that holds water. It is this reason Turkey needs Armenia more than Armenia needs Turkey for the ratification of the protocols.

The following analysis looks at why Russia, Georgia and Iran are unacceptable transit routes of Azeri and Central Asian petroleum products, leaving Armenia as the only compromise that can satisfy the major powers in the region. It is this reason Armenia should not compromise on any issues that will have a damaging effect on the long-term well-being of the nation of Armenia.

Russia and its disputes with the European Union

The primary reason Russia is not an adequate transit route with Europe is its unreliability for gas transit in recent years. Russia has been an unreliable trade partner is because Russia has used its chip as the as being Europe’s major gas supplier as a bargaining chip to prevent NATO expansion to its former spheres of influence, turning off the faucets when it feels threatened or looks for a concession. As such, Russia’s long-term policy is to ensure that all natural gas supplies from Central Asia and other surrounding areas travel through its territory, in order to secure this geopolitical asset. The following section looks more in-depth at these assertions.

In recent years, Russia and Ukraine have had several disputes that have stopped the flow of gas from Russia to Europe. The fallout from these trade disputes has caused the EU Commission and Presidency to declare that these crises have caused irreparable and irreversible damage to customers’ confidence in Russia and Ukraine. This means Russia and Ukraine can no longer be regarded as reliable partners.3

Recent history suggests this dispute is far from over, despite an agreement between Russia and Ukraine in January 2009 to end these gas shortages.

For instance, on October 2, 2007 Gazprom threatened to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine because of unpaid debt amounting to $1.3 billion.4 This dispute appeared to be settled on 8 October, 2007.5 On 5 January, 2008 Gazprom warned Ukraine again it will reduce its gas supplies on 11 January, 2008 if a $1.5 billion gas debt was not be paid.6 Presidents Putin and Yushchenko announced on 12 February, 2008 an agreement on this particular gas issue.7 Ukraine would begin paying off its debts for natural gas, consumed in November–December 2007 and the price at $179.5 will be preserved in the year 2008.8  The presidents also decided to replace RosUkrEnergo and UkrGazEnergo by two new intermediaries, creating them as joint ventures of Gazprom and Naftohaz.9

The gas crisis of 2009 began with a failure to reach an agreement on gas prices and supplies for 2009. Ukraine owed a debt of $2.4 billion to Gazprom for consumed gas, and Gazprom asked this amount be repaid before the commencement of a new supply contract.10 Although in December 2008 more than $1 billion was paid by Ukraine to reduce its debt, Gazprom remained committed to cut supplies to Ukraine by 1 January, 2009, if Ukraine did not redeem its $1.67 billion debt for gas supplies and $450 million in fines.11 On 30 December 2008, Naftohaz paid $1.522 billion,12 but parties were not able to agree the price for 2009. Ukraine proposed a price of $201 and later $235, while Gazprom demanded $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.13 Negotiations between Gazprom and Naftohaz were interrupted on 31 December 2008.14

The effects of Russia and Ukraine’s haggling for gas could be felt in Hungary, Romania and Poland, which reported that pressure in their pipelines had dropped. Bulgaria also reported supply was falling and that transit to Turkey, Greece and Republic of Macedonia was affected.15

This trade dispute stems from Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004. Since then, Ukraine has moved closer to the west, looking for NATO and European Union membership. Russia is penalizing a former member of the USSR and Warsaw Pact for removing itself from its sphere of influence. It rewards more “loyal” ex-Soviet countries with cheaper prices. The dispute is also compounded by a full-scale political crisis inside Ukraine with President Viktor Yushchenko at war with his former ally and Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.16

Obviously, Russia is concerned about an ever stronger NATO presence encircling it, considering the West’s insistence on deploying its missile shield closer to the Russian border, under the guise of defending against rogue states like Iran and North Korea. In fact, the Russians feel that “it is highly likely that the missile threat from ‘problem’ states is not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system by the Americans,” Mikhail Barabanov, editor of Arms Export magazine wrote. “The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear missiles, Russia and China most of all.”17

In order to provide itself security from NATO’s tightening grip, Russia has focused on strengthening control over its strongest geopolitical advantage, natural gas supplies headed for Europe, which relies on over 150bn cubic metres a year (cm/y) of natural gas.

In fact, Russia has started to pay full price for Central Asian gas exports. In fact, after years of buying gas from Central Asia cheaply, state-controlled Gazprom agreed with the three former Soviet states of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to pay them European prices for their gas on long-term contracts, rather than see those producing countries sell their gas directly to Europe and thus break its stranglehold on exports to the continent.18

Thus, there is tension between Russia and the West; where the West wants energy independence from Russia; and Russia wants to monopolize natural gas flow to Europe to prevent NATO expansion.

Georgia is Unstable as an Energy Hub

Georgia is a key transit point in the recent Central Asian oil boom, where it is the central hub connecting the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

However, Georgia suffers from instability due to its poor relations with Russia where it removed Russian military bases, and replaced them with NATO forces. Furthermore, Georgia has ethnically diverse provinces, each having problems with the central Georgian government about their identities. The recent military operations in South Ossetia, and the push for Osset independence only encourages minorities in Abkhazia, Ajaria, Akhalkalai and Kaxeti to seek their own sovereignty, with Russia fueling independent tendencies and the West promoting stability to prevent oil-transit stoppages. These interests directly compete with each other, potentially leading to complete civil war.

Many questions remain unanswered whether Georgia can exist as a viable trade hub in order to deliver Central Asian oil and gas to European markets.

Energy Passage through Iran is Unacceptable to the United States:

Central Asian oil and gas passing through Iran is unacceptable to the United States. The obvious answer garnering much rhetoric will be that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel.19 However, the more insidious answer lies with Iran’s foreign policy of trying to unhinge oil trading from the US dollar.

First of all, Iran has begun to expunge its US dollar reserves and started to replace them with Euros. In fact, the head of Iran’s Central Bank has recently boasted that Iran has gained $5 billion by excluding the U.S. dollar from its currency basket and replacing it with the Euro.20

Secondly, Iran has been advocating to other OPEC nations that they should stop trading oil strictly in US dollars, and replace trading in a basket of currencies that include the Euro, the Japanese Yen and China’s Yuan. So far, only Venezuela has agreed to stop trading oil in US dollars.21 However, that is not to say that this policy is not favored by other countries. For instance, China, Russia, India, and Brazil (all major consumers of oil) support Iran’s recent initiatives.22

Currently, Iran has only faced sanctions from the United Nations, and the United States and its allies. Countries like India, China, Russia, and several others remain undeterred in trading with Iran.

Iran’s actions of being a perceived military threat to Israel, and more importantly, attempting to move away from trading oil in US dollars, bears a striking resemblance to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

For instance, prior to the Coalition of the Willing’s23 invasion into Iraq, some commentators asserted that Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.24 As well, like Iran, Iraq was mired in global sanctions that, at the time, severely restricted its ability to trade.

If Iran’s foreign policy on oil currency exchange becomes a successful alternative for international oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article25 :

Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London’s International Petroleum Exchange.
…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. “We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage,” said an IPE spokeswoman.26

The above factors have contributed to Iran’s isolation from the West. Keeping Iran isolated, and preventing the achievement of Iran’s foreign policy goal will prevent a cascading event amongst industrialized nations from dropping the US dollar as the predominant currency in oil trading. The reason for this is that industrialized nations would likely only move in tandem on the currency exchange markets in an effort to thwart neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of dominating the world’s largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per se – but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. 27

It should be noted that central bankers throughout the world community are extremely reluctant to currently ‘dump the dollar,’ because the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf,28 which are currently in close alliance with the United States.29

Armenia: The only viable option?

Armenia is the best option for delivering Central Asian and Azeri gas to European markets in light of the West’s strategy of isolating Iran and Russia, and the recent turmoil in Georgia. Armenia also offers a compromise for both Russia and Iran.

First, using Armenia as a transit line is beneficial to the West’s policy of isolating Russia.30  With the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations and activation of the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh, it is possible that “Nabucco” pipelines would go through Armenia rather than Georgia.31  If Turkey decides to cooperate with Washington and reaches a stable agreement with Armenia under US guidance, Russia’s entire position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe becomes available, reducing Russian leverage against Western Europe.32

A Turkish opening to Armenia would alter the balance of power in the entire region. Since the August 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict the Caucasus, a strategically vital area to Moscow has been unstable. Russian troops remain in South Ossetia. Russia also has troops in Armenia meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded.33

Second, using Armenia as transit line for the Nabucco project is feasible to Iran. Last year, Iran “returned” to “Nabucco” project. After the election of Barack Obama as the US president and the statement of his intentions to improve the relations with Tehran served as a political signal to start the negotiations with Iran on the “Nabucco.” At the beginning of 2009, Turkey, actively lobbied of Iran’s participation in “Nabucco”. Tayipp Erdogan even stated in Brussels that there was no sense to build the gas pipeline without Iran’s participation.34

These recent developments are consistent with Iran’s long-term goals of using Armenian territory to export gas to Georgia and the EU. However, only  nterference from Russia prevented this objective from happening where Iran built a pipeline to Armenia that was of small capability, in order to prevent Iranian gas entering the European market.35 This occurred where Gazprom took major precautionary measures against an expansion of Iran’s role and indeed against any independent Iranian gas-export policy in Armenia or beyond. It imposed from the outset on Yerevan — against Tehran’s will — to reduce the Iran-Armenia pipeline’s diameter from the originally designed 1,420 millimeters (the size of major gas export pipelines) to 700 millimeters. This measure precludes any transit of Iranian gas to third countries through this pipeline, confining Iran to the Armenian market.36

Finally, and most importantly, Russia is amenable to Armenia being an alternate transit route to deliver natural gas to Europe. Russian energy firms already own or manage several major power plants that account for as much as 80 percent of Armenia’s electricity production. In addition, they are the sole suppliers of the country’s main energy resources: natural gas and nuclear fuel.37

Furthermore, Russia has enhanced its already dominant role in Armenia’s energy sector by buying the country’s electricity grid after years of behind-the-scene maneuvering. The Armenian government gave the green light recently to the formal takeover of the Electricity Networks of Armenia (ENA) utility by a subsidiary of Unified Energy Systems (UES), the state-controlled Russian power monopoly.38

In addition to Russia’s dominance of Armenia’s electricity market, Russian interests have also consolidated their dominance in Armenia’s natural gas pipelines. In December of 2004, Russian giant Gazprom was invited to build and repair one part of the Armenian-Iranian gas pipeline, between Kadjaran and Ararat, at a cost of $90 million. As payment for its work, Gazprom would receive the No. 5 generating unit at the Razdan power plant, Armenia’s largest heating and power plant, which supplies 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs. Armenian President Robert Kocharian had earlier dismissed reports of such a deal.

Furthermore, the Armenian government agreed that the new pipeline’s section on Armenian territory would be given over to Gazprom via the ArmRosGaz company, in which Gazprom and its offshoot Itera hold a combined 68% interest. Controlling the pipeline and distribution network within the country, Moscow can exercise all but discretionary control over the access of gas from a third-country supplier — a situation that Moscow seeks to achieve in certain European countries as well.39

Conclusions

Despite rhetoric from Turkey that it may have to abandon the Armenian-Turkish protocols, it is painfully clear that Armenia is a necessary cog in the world of global oil transit.
Russia, Georgia and Iran are unacceptable transit routes of Azeri and Central Asian petroleum products, leaving Armenia as the only compromise that can satisfy the major powers in the region.

It is this reason Armenia should not compromise on any issues that will have a damaging effect on the long-term well-being of the nation of Armenia.

ANC Australia thanks US Ambassador after key panel recognises Armenian Genocide

SYDNEY: The Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia) has thanked the United States Ambassador to Australia Jeffrey L. Bleich after the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted Resolution 252, recognising of the Armenian Genocide.

The resolution, which affirms and condemns the Armenian Genocide as a crime against humanity, paves the way for the resolution to enter US Congress for discussion and a vote.

The letter, sent on behalf of ANC Australia by its President Varant Meguerditchian, read: “The Armenian-Australian community joins human rights advocates worldwide, as well as the government of the Republic of Armenia, the people of Armenia, and the Armenian diaspora in sincere appreciation of this milestone.”

Meguerditchian told Armenia Online that this decision, while only a step towards a Congress resolution in the US, sets an important precedent for Australia, where ANC Australia hopes to have the Armenian Genocide recognised at Federal level. The Armenian Genocide has already been recognised by the New South Wales and South Australian state governments, respectively.

He said: “We welcome the decision of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to pass the Armenian Genocide resolution in the United States.

“The recently passed resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide by the Parliament of South Australia has built momentum and raised hopes for the Federal Parliament of Australia to also recognise the Genocide of Armenians in 1915.”

For ANC Australia’s full letter to Ambassador Bleich, please click here.

Sydney Armenian Genocide survivor, Arshag Badelian, no longer

SYDNEY: Mr. Arshag Badelian, one of the Armenian-Australian community’s last living survivors of the Armenian Genocide, passed away aged 100 on Thursday, attracting messages of condolences from Armenians globally.

A regular at Sydney Armenian Genocide Commemoration events each year until very recently, the loss of Mr. Badelian will be felt by all as April approaches in 2010.

“We send our deepest condolences to the Badelian family on behalf of all Armenian-Australians and Armenians the world over,” said Mr. Varant Meguerditchian, President of the Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia).

“Mr. Badelian was an Armenian-Australian icon; a true survivor that we have had the pleasure of knowing since his arrival from Lebanon in 1980. He will be remembered.”

Mr. Meguerditchian added: “In his memory, ANC Australia reaffirms its struggle for the universal condemnation of the Armenian Genocide and its denial, as well as the final and just resolution of this crime against humanity.”

Mr. Badelian was born in 1909, in the then-Western Armenian district of Kharpert, beside the Euphrates River. He lived in the rural village of Anchrti until 1915, when he and his family were driven out of their ancestral homes by the orders of the Young Turks.

Mr. Badelian survived various attempts by Turkish soldiers who drowned many Armenian children in the Euphrates River after kidnapping them from their parents. Mr. Badelian always credited his mother’s intelligence and tenacity for his “miraculous escape”.

After World War I, and defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Mr. Badelian joined the few Anchrti -Armenians who returned to their village, and he lived there until 1927. At this time, the new governor of Kharpert evicted all Armenians, sending Mr. Badelian on a journey to Aleppo Syria, then Beirut Lebanon, where he worked as a tailor.

In 1944, Mr. Badelian married Gadar Aharonian, and they were blessed with 4 children; Sarkis, Elo, Loosin and Hrair. In 1980, the Badelians migrated to Australia and settled in the suburb of Fairfield.

Mr. Badelian was a passionate Armenian; a regular listener to Armenian radio bulletins, an avid reader of Armenian newspapers, the Holy Bible and Armenian books. He always dreamed of returning to his village and seeing an independent Armenia, which he managed to do recently.

Mr. Badelian was a constant mentor to his 9 grandchildren and always reminded them of the importance of preserving the Armenian language and culture. He also had the privilege of seeing 4 great grandchildren and blessed them in his prayers. Mr. Badelian also sponsored three Armenian orphans as part of the Armenian Relief Society’s program.

His funeral will be held at the Armenian Apostolic Church at 10am, on Monday, 8th of March.

LONDON (Combined Sources)–Efforts to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia and open their common border could fail unless the process is carried out “properly,” Turkey’s foreign minister said Friday, referring to a ruling by Armenia’s Constitutional Court over the protocols.

“If we are not convinced that the process is being carried out properly, there is no possibility to carry it forward,” Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkish journalists a London.

Davutoglu’s warning is the strongest response yet from Turkey to an Armenian court ruling this month that has cast doubt over accords signed in October.

Armenia’s Constitutional Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the agreements on January 12, but highlighted that the agreements could have no bearing on the Armenian government’s constitutional obligation to seek international recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey. The court also reiterated that the protocols could have no link to the Karabakh conflict.

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian is bound by the constitution to include the high court’s reservations when he submits the protocols to parliament for ratification.

Davutoglu has accused Armenia of trying to rewrite the protocols that launched the reconciliation three months ago.

“We respect every country’s way of functioning. It is their own process, but what concerns us is not changing the documents amid that ongoing functioning,” he said in reference to the court ruling, the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News reported.

Davutoglu made his remarks after meeting Thursday with his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, on the sidelines of an international conference regarding Afghanistan.

“We believe [the court ruling] brings restrictions to the protocols. We raised our expectation that the process should not be blurred,” Davutoglu said of his meeting with Nalbandian.

Davutoglu said he is seeking clarification from the Armenian side over the extent to which Sarkisian’s administration will adhere to the court ruling.

“We have worked with Nalbandian on various stages and gone through a difficult process. There were disagreements but the process that has carried us this far should not be harmed,” Davutoglu said, adding that “mutual determination, mutual goodwill and mutual political will are needed for normalization” of relations.

Davutoglu predictably made no mention of growing international frustration with Turkey over its attempts to insert preconditions into the normalization process by linking the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to its parliament’s ratification of the protocols.

“We have open-mindedly exchanged our views [with Nalbandian],” said Davutoğlu, who declined to elaborate further, saying only, “The Armenian side is well aware of our opinion.”

The two ministers agreed to meet more in the coming days. One of those meetings could be on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich, Germany next week, Hurriyet said, quoting unnamed Turkish diplomats. Nalbandian, however, is reportedly not to attend the Munich conference, according to the Armenian Foreign Ministry.

“There is not a visit to Munich and a meeting with Turkey’s Foreign Minister in Mr. Nalbandian’s schedule,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Tigran Balayan was quoted as saying.

The Armenian court ruling spurred much diplomatic traffic on the sidelines of the London conference. Davutoglu met with his Azerbaijani counterpart, Elmar Mammadyarov, on Thursday for talks on the matter.

Davutoglu also held a 15-minute meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday and said he conveyed Turkey’s concerns over the Armenian court decision to Washington. “I am of the opinion that the United States better understands Turkey’s concerns.” Clinton met separately with Nalbandian.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also met separately with Nalbandian and his Azeri counterpart over the ongoing Minsk Group Karabakh negotiations.

Remembering Black January and the Massacre of Baku’s Armenians

Armenians were murdered in their homes during the weeklong massacers.

YEREVAN (Combined Sources)—A conference dedicated to the 1990 massacres of Armenians in Baku took place at the Armenian National Academy of Sciences on Tuesday. The symposium brought together journalists, scholars and politicians to explore the slaughter of Baku’s Armenians that began on January 13 and continued for a week before Soviet troops were brought into the city to end the violence.

The conference featured presentations by a documentary screening of journalist Marina Grigoryan’s film, titled “Baku January 1990: Ordinary Genocide.”

Speaking at the event were: the director of the National Academy of Sciences History Institute, Ashot Melkonyan, the director of the Center for Caucasus Studies at MGIMO, Vladimir Zakharov, a member of Armenia’s Public Council, Vladimir Movsisyan, and Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan.

“When commemorating the victims, we should highlight that the only thing they are to blame for was being Armenian,” Sargsyan said in his remarks. “Armenians were killed just for being Armenian.”

The pogroms resulted in the death of an estimated 300 Armenians. They came as a direct response from Soviet Azerbaijan to the hundreds of thousands of Armenian demonstrators urging the Kremlin to allow Karabakh to be part of Armenia in 1988.

To quash the movement, Azeri OMON (special forces) units had begun a systematic pogrom of Armenia’s in Sumgait in 1988. Those massacres were followed by a series of similar assaults on Armenians in Kirovabad, Baku and later in the Shahumian district of Karabakh.

Movsisyan reiterated those points during his own presentation, describing the pogroms as the continuation of a policy begun during the 1905-1907 massacre of Armenians in Baku, Nakhichevan and Shushi.

“We witnessed the most brutal expression of that policy in Sumgayit, Gandzak and Baku,” he said.

To this day the exact number of Armenian actually killed in Baku remains a mystery as no specific records were kept of the murders. The only solid statistics available are of the refugees. Baku was emptied of its entire 250,000 strong Armenian population within days. Leaving behind all their belongings to flee the carnage, most eventually found refuge in Georgia, Russia, Armenia and Karabakh.

Unfortunately the Armenian Authorities have failed to properly convey the truth about the Karabakh conflict to the international community, Zakharov noted in his presentation. “A policy needs to be formulated and carried out at the state level to counteract Azerbaijan’s misinformation campaign,” he stressed. “A special fund should be created to translate literature on the subject from Armenian into foreign languages.”

Zakharov explained that the root cause of the massacres was the advent and spread of Pan-Turkism. “Despite an official ban of all nationalist groups in the Soviet Union, xenophobic sentiment always existed in Azerbaijan.”

“Hatred against Armenians passed on from generation to generation and today the image of Armenians as an enemy to Azerbaijan is propagated at the national level,” he added.

That hatred gave birth to the massacres of 1988-1990 and eventually escalated the situation into a war when Azerbaijani forces invaded Nagorno-Karabakh to bring it under Baku’s control.

“Baku’s failure to win that war led it to present the events of 1988-190 as a genocide against Azeris perpetrated by Armenians,” Melkonyan said, discussing the Karabakh liberation war’s impact on the historical interpretation of the events within Azerbaijan.

In his remarks, Sargsyan alluded to the possibility that Azerbaijan’s continued warmongering and threats for renewed war could bring about a new crisis in the region. He compelled Armenians to unite and be prepared for “the serious hazards and challenges ahead.”

“The need for this doesn’t stem only from the Baku Pogroms of 20 years ago but also from the present reality that Azerbaijan maintains an official policy of hatred toward the Armenians.”

The event coincided with an official memorial ceremony at the Tsitsernagapert Genocide Memorial to commemorate the victims of the 1990 pogroms.

Turkey Cries ‘Preconditions’ in Response to Court Ruling



Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

ANKARA, YEREVAN (Combined Sources)—In response to last week’s ruling by Armenia’s Constitutional Court, the Turkish Foreign Ministry Tuesday issued an announcement condemning Armenia for setting “unacceptable” preconditions on the Armenia-Turkey protocols.

In a statement issued late Monday, Turkey’s foreign ministry said “It has been observed that this [Constitutional Court] decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols.”

“The said decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach cannot be accepted on our part,” continued the Turkish statement.

“Turkey, in line with its accustomed allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence to the primary provisions of these Protocols,” added the statement.

“We expect the same allegiance from the Armenian Government,” the Turkish Ministry said in a statement,” concluded the brief statement.

On January 12, Armenia’s Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the protocols, adding however, that the documents cannot have any connection with the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process or impede Armenia of its pursuit of international recognition of the Armenia Genocide. To reinforce the latter point, the Court referenced Article 11 of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which states: “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.”

Official Yerevan was quick to react with Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian saying that he will personally phone his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu to “express my bewilderment and clarify where exactly the Turkish side sees preconditions and just how the decision by Armenia’s Constitutional Court contradicts the fundamental objectives of the protocols.”

Nalbandian also suggested that the Turkish government was looking for excuses to delay the process and add further preconditions on the protocols.

Despite countless arguments by the Armenian President and foreign minister that Armenia has entered this process without preconditions, Turkey has repeatedly linked the normalization of relations between the two countries with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in favor of Azerbaijan.

As recently as late last week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the protocols would not be ratified until a resolution to the Karabakh conflict is reached. These remarks came after his meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who bluntly said that the processes were separate and could not be interconnected. The same position was expressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last week during his official visit to Yerevan.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which has spearheaded vocal opposition to the protocols both in Armenia and the Diaspora, rejected Turkey’s statement. The party’s political director Giro Manoyan told reporters Tuesday that with its statement Turkey proved, once again, that, aside from its own interpretations, it rejects any other explanation of the protocols.

Manoyan warned that after this announcement by Turkey, Armenian authorities should not attempt to weaken the Armenian high court’s position.

“It is imperative for the Armenian authorities to not seek to weaken the Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision,” said Manoyan explaining, “The Armenian government must continue the process in the spirit of the court ruling.”

In a statement issued by the ARF following the Court ruling, the party expressed its continued rejection of the protocols, but added that the Constitutional Court provisions referenced above provide an opportunity for revisions in the next phase of the ratification process.

“We have launched a process of normalization in relations with Armenia and in good faith taken steps that include the signing of the protocols,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Burak Ozugergin told the Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review. “We have often expressed our views about what the necessary conditions are for the maintenance of peace and stability in the Caucasus.”

The Turkish government submitted the protocols to Parliament, but they have not been submitted for ratification because they depend on the progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, added Hurriyet in its news report on the matter.

Burcu Gultekin Punsmann, a Caucasus expert at the Turkish think tank TEPAV, said the diplomatic agreements were a product of consensus between the states concerned and argued that the Armenian constitutional court’s reasoning was putting limits on points for which the sides had already reached an agreement, reported the Hurriyet.

Armenians and Turks miss a unifying figure

I still remember shaking Hrant Dink’s hand in his Istanbul office, never imagining three years later there there would be a 100,000 strong funeral procession condemning his assassination chanting “We are all Hrant Dink: We are all Armenian”.

It is three years since Dink, an editor-in-chief of the bi-lingual Turkish Armenian newspaper Agos, and prominent member of the Armenian minority in Turkey was killed. For decades Dink advocated for reconciliation between Turks and Armenians as well as calling on the Turkish Government to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915.

Since Dink’s assassination, significant progress has been made for reconciliation, however, his loss emphasises the need for a unifying figure between Turks and Armenians. Despite progress, deep divisions still exist, and the absence of an individual that can unify both peoples.

Dink was a unifying figure for many Armenians and those Turks advocating for democracy and free speech in Turkey and repealing repressive laws such as Article 301. Article 301 is a controversial section of the Turkish penal code making it illegal to insult Turkey, Turkish ethnicity, or government institutions. Among those charged by Article 301 included Dink himself and Orhan Pamuk, Turkish writer and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2006. Pamuk was charged following comments made in an interview about the mass killings of Kurds and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

There are those that argued Dink provoked Turkish nationalism. Soon after Dink’s death, photographs of the assassin emerged flanked by smiling Turkish police, posing with the killer side by side in front of the Turkish flag. The photos created a scandal in Turkey.

Despite this, there has been steady progress for reconciliation including the signing of an internet petition by some 200 Turkish intellectuals about the genocide, saying that they are sorry. The text of their apology did not use the term genocide, however, about 30,000 Turks, from many different walks of life, signed the petition.

Then there was the bold move of football diplomacy last year where Armenia’s President Serg Sargsyan invited Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, to watch the football World Cup qualifier between both countries. The invitation was reciprocated when the sides played in Turkey.

Unfortunately, in a backward step, what was meant to be the momentous signing of protocols between Turkey and Armenia last year degenerated into a political sideshow. The protocols have been formulated to restore diplomatic relations between both countries, however, they are yet to be ratified by their respective parliaments. The protocols have faced significant resistance within Turkey and Armenia because of the ambiguous language contained in the document, as well as the lack of consultation leading to the signing.

In all of this, one thing is clear, there is no individual or leader that stands out like Dink.

In a speech delivered in May 2006, at a seminar by the Turkish Journalists’ Association and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Dink said: “I think the fundamental problems in Turkey exist for the majority as well. Therefore . . . I will speak for the majority, including myself in it and dwell on where, we, as Turkey, are headed.”

The majority of people want a restoration of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia, but there exists many different paths to getting there and continuing deep distrust. Dink had an ability to bring people together to a common ground. That is what is needed now.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela once said: “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

Dink spoke the language that went to the heart. He remains missed.

Sassoon Grigorian travelled to Turkey in 2004.

Currently Armenia has no domestic resources for coup d’état

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The week began with a meeting of Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan with students and instructors of Yerevan State University. “I am always guided by the principle: “If you want peace, prepare for war”. We never exclude the possibility of a military solution to the Karabakh conflict on the part of Azerbaijan, but the Armenian army is always ready to defend their homeland,” declared the Minister of Defense. According to him, NKR cannot be part of Azerbaijan. “In this regard, we raise three problems: the right of NKR people to self-determination should be respected, Nagorno-Karabakh should have a land connection with Armenia and its security must be ensured by international guarantees,” the Defense Minister stressed.

The same day Razmik Zohrabyan, Deputy Chairman of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, was the first to assess the tripartite meeting between the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia in Sochi. Touching upon the surrender of territories, the Republican Party representative said “It is out of the question” until the scopes of compromise are clarified. “Transitional status is not yet defined, and it is still unknown how the people of Karabakh can express their will. I think the parties have no idea how this can occur,” the MP said. He predicted that after the meeting in Sochi it would become clear whether or not a framework agreement would be signed on Karabakh. “However, no framework agreement will be signed till the yearend, I suppose,” Zohrabyan stressed.

At a joint press conference a similar assessment was given to the Sochi meeting by Social Democrat Hunchakian Party board member Vardan Khachatryan and Member of the Republican Party of Armenia Karen Avagyan. “It would be unrealistic to believe that all issues related to Karabakh conflict settlement could be given final resolution during the trilateral presidential meeting in Sochi,” declared Avagyan. According to him, every presidential meeting is a step forward to conflict resolution. He noted that the only fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh status was discussed at the latest meeting could be regarded as progress.

Vardan Khachatryan, for his part, noted that despite the recent progress, Baku keeps demanding the impossible to gain maximum benefit, with President Aliyev repeatedly bringing up the issue of military settlement of Karabakh conflict.

“Negotiations will not definitely accelerate the conflict settlement process, but the outcome of Armenian, Russian and Azerbaijani Presidents’ meeting in Sochi will enable Turkey to speed up the ratification of Armenian-Turkish Protocols,” declared Deputy Director of the Caucasus Institute Sergey Minasyan in an interview to PanARMENIAN.Net.

Tuesday, January 26, President Serzh Sargsyan received Prime Minister of Georgia Nikoloz Gilauri, who paid a working visit to Yerevan to attend the 8th session of the intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation between Armenia and Georgia. At the meeting President Sargsyan noted that Yerevan is ready to further extend cooperation with Tbilisi. In his turn, Gilauri conveyed to the Armenian President Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s invitation to visit Georgia.

On the same day Yerevan hosted a pre-planning conference on Combined Endeavor 2010 exercise. The event organized by the U.S. European Command brought together 300 communication specialists from 34 countries, including NATO members and partner states.

On January 26 Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki paid a working visit to Yerevan to attend the 9th session of the Armenian-Iranian intergovernmental commission. During the visit Iranian Foreign Minister met with president of Armenia, RA prime minister, speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, secretary of the RA National Security Council and Armenian foreign minister. At the meeting with Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan, the counterparts discussed bilateral, regional and international issues. The foreign ministers also touched upon the Karabakh conflict settlement and normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. Manouchehr Mottaki presented to Edward Nalbandyan the processes related to the nuclear program of Iran.

Another positive evaluation of the tripartite presidential meeting in Sochi was voiced Tuesday by Director of Analytical Research Center Ruben Hakobyan. “The Sargsyan-Aliyev-Medvedev meeting in Sochi met our expectations,” Hakobyan said at a press conference in Yerevan. As to the preamble of revised Madrid principles, Hakobyan said: “I’m not aware of the contents of the preamble, but Karabakh conflict is expected to be settled in compliance with 2 international norms – territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination.”

Ruben Hakobyan also highlighted that during the past two decades, the inner and outer life of Armenia has been conditioned by the Karabakh conflict. Hakobyan did not share the view of some experts, who claim that any progress in the Karabakh conflict may raise the issue of coup d’état. “Armenia does not have the corresponding resources. The “immune system” of the country is too weak,” said Hakobyan.

The recent presidential meeting in Sochi repeated the scenario of previous meetings, according to ARFD parliamentary group member Hrayr Karapetyan. Karapetyan believes there was much fuss both now and prior to the Meindorf meeting, but expectations were not met in either case. According to the MP, Azerbaijan should realize that Karabakh will never be part of it and it should be involved in talks as an independent party.

Next day, January 27, the Sochi meeting was once again criticized, this time by the Heritage party. “I consider that the trilateral meeting between the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia in Sochi was another defective meeting,” declared Heritage party secretary, MP Larisa Alaverdyan. According to her, presidential meetings without Artsakh leader’s participation can’t be considered talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. “Presidential meetings have only one positive side: while they continue, there is hope that there will be no war,” Alaverdyan noticed.

On January 27, President Serzh Sargsyan received Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. The President noted the importance of the Armenian-Iranian intergovernmental commission. “You know how much we value the relations with Iran and we consider you a reliable partner and a country of key importance in the region,” Sargsyan said, addressing to the Iranian FM.

Wednesday was also marked by another event: the Republican Party of Armenia, “Prosperous Armenia” and “Orinats Yerkir” issued a statement regarding the interview of PACE President Mevlut Cavusoglu to Azeri news agency APA. “Some of PACE President’s comments call into question his impartiality in the perception of Nagorno-Karabakh. PACE President has a wrong perception of the nature and details of the issue, as well as of negotiation progress concerning the problem in question,” the joint statement said. Armenian coalition parties urged RA NA speaker to clarify with PACE President the reliability of the interview in question and demand explanations, also asking Cavusoglu to specify whether his words should be regarded as the official position of PACE. If necessary, the RA NA Speaker was also to discuss the issue of suspension of the Armenian delegation’s activities in PACE during Mevlut Cavusoglu’s presidency.

Next day, January 28, Armenian NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan had a telephone conversation with newly-elected PACE President Mevlut Cavusoglu. During the conversation Cavusoglu informed the NA Speaker that on January 26 the Azerbaijani news agency APA had misinterpreted his remarks, ascribing him statements he had not uttered. The PACE President assured that these statements were the result of a wrong interpretation and mistreatment of the Azerbaijani media representatives.

On January 28 Armenia celebrated the 18th anniversary of formation of the Armenian National Army. Traditionally on this day the country’s top leaders visit the Memorial of Military Volunteers Yerablur to commemorate the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the motherland.

The day was crowned with a solemn concert devoted to 18th anniversary of the Armenian Army. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, Ex-President Robert Kocharyan, Chairman of the National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan, and Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan were present at the concert.

At the end of the week Leader of Constitutional Right Union party Hayk Babukhanyan made a series of dramatic statements at a press conference. According to him, Armenia should think of developing nuclear weapon as a deterrent to Turkey’s genocidal policy.

Another scandalous statement issued by Babukhanyan concerned the Heritage Party. Babukhanyan believes that Armenian authorities should suspend the Party’s activities, because of its destructive position in the PACE and assistance to Turkish-Azerbaijani policy. Soon Leader of Heritage faction Stepan Safaryan disapproved Hayk Babukhanyan’s statement on the party’s anti-governmental policy. According to Safaryan, “There is reliable information that leader of Constitutional Right Union receives funding from an oligarch representing one of the three coalition parties.”

On January 29 Armenian Parliament held a working meeting, which discussed the draft agenda of the RA NA spring session. The agenda includes 78 issues and 14 international treaties.

Armenian officers sue dept.

GLENDALE — Four Armenian officers and one former officer have filed a joint lawsuit against the Glendale Police Department, alleging years of discrimination, derogatory comments and harassment because of their race.

Officers John Balian and Robert Parseghian; Sgts. Vahak Mardikian and Tigran Topadzhikyan; and former Officer Benny Simonzad filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, alleging myriad on-the-job discrimination and harassment incidents.

When confronted with complaints of the discrimination, command staff failed to respond, according to the federal lawsuit.

City Atty. Scott Howard on Monday rebuffed the claims made in the lawsuit.