Showing posts with label 19th October 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 19th October 2009. Show all posts

Monday, 19 October 2009

Football News‏

Sun 10/18/09 12:02

Armenia, Turkey pursue 'soccer diplomacy'
The Associated Press
October 14,2009
By SUZAN FRASER (AP)


BURSA, Turkey ? Turkey defeated longtime foe Armenia on a soccer field
Wednesday ? an event that had little significance in the world of sports but
meant a lot in the arena of international politics.

Armenian President Serge Sarkisian arrived in Turkey to attend the World Cup
qualifier after a dinner hosted by Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Bursa,
a former Ottoman imperial capital. Gul attended an initial game in Armenia
in a goodwill gesture last year, kicking off a round of "football diplomacy"
that led to the signing last weekend of an agreement to establish diplomatic
ties and open their border within two months.

Turkey's Halil Altintop scored with a header in the 16th minute, and Servet
Cetin fired the ball into the Armenian net in the 28th minute to make it
2-0, a lead that held until the end. After the first goal, Sarkisian shook
Gul's hand to congratulate him.

The game, televised live in both countries, began after Turkish fans booed
and whistled as an announcer read out the Armenian lineup, and cheered the
Turkish players. Some fans released white doves in a gesture of peace that
drew applause in the stadium.


The announcer urged fans to show "traditional Turkish hospitality" to the
visiting team and not to jeer or whistle during the playing of the Armenian
national anthem. His appeal was mostly ignored. Police in riot gear stood
outside the stadium.

A bus taking Armenian journalists to the stadium was pelted with stones by
Turkish fans, but there were no injuries or broken windows.

After the game, Sarkisian told reporters: "Both sides have achieved a lot
and this is the evidence."

He also said Armenia was taking all opinions into account but was pressing
ahead with its reconciliation agenda. He was referring to fierce opposition
from some Armenian groups, including sectors of the powerful Diaspora.
Gul sounded a similar note.

"Try and remember two years ago and you will see the distance that we have
covered in relations," Gul said. "What's important here is to make the
region into a region of cooperation."

Earlier, Turkish diplomats who attended a meeting between Gul and Sarkisian
quoted the Turkish president as saying: "We're not writing history, we're
making history."

Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey of Switzerland, along with the foreign
ministers of Turkey and Armenia, also attended the match. All three
participated in last weekend's signing in Switzerland of the agreement,
which needs to be approved by the parliaments of both countries.

The deepest dispute is over history and has yet to be resolved: Armenia and
many historians allege that Ottoman Turks committed genocide against
Armenians early in the last century, a charge that Turkey denies. The
countries have agreed to set up a commission to study the issue, though they
are unlikely to give much ground on their positions.

Police intensified security ahead of Wednesday night's match for fear of
protests from Turkish nationalists who oppose reconciliation with the
country's eastern neighbor. Both teams have already been knocked out of the
World Cup qualifying, so neither can deliver a killer blow to the other's
athletic hopes. Turkey won the first game against Armenia 2-0 in Yerevan in
September 2008.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned against "provocations
that might come from people who desire to abuse the process between Turkey
and Armenia."

The agreement has strong support in the two countries' parliaments but faces
stiff opposition from nationalists. Turkey has said it would send the
agreement to parliament next week. It was signed only after U.S. diplomats
helped to resolve a last-minute hitch.

A day after the deal was signed on Saturday, Erdogan repeated a demand that
Armenia withdraw from the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia
controls the enclave in Azerbaijan, which is inhabited mainly by ethnic
Armenians
. Turkey, in a show of solidarity with ally Azerbaijan, sealed its
border with Armenia in response to the country's invasion of
Nagorno-Karabakh in 1993.

Azerbaijan, a regional oil and gas power, has criticized the
Turkish-Armenian deal, saying it aggravates the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. A
group of Azeri lawmakers were to meet Erdogan on Wednesday to express their
concerns.

Turkish and Azerbaijani flag stickers were pasted on dustbins, electricity
poles and billboards surrounding the stadium in Bursa. Street peddlers sold
Turkish and Azerbaijani flags.

Virtually all flags inside the stadium were Turkish. One fan unfolded an
Azeri flag and briefly held it up.

FIFA ? world football's Zurich-based governing body ? earlier contacted
Turkey's Football Association and asked it to ensure that Azeri flags were
not flown inside the stadium, in line with FIFA's stance against political
interference and provocative acts
.

"The governor was ordered to prevent fans from entering the stadium with
Azeri flags," said Mahmut Ozgener, head of Turkey's football association.
"FIFA is very sensitive about political issues."

Ozgener also said that football is instrumental in "opening a new era
between Turkey and Armenia."

The Turkish-Armenian deal also faces opposition from groups in the powerful
Armenian Diaspora, which insists that Turkey accept that the killing of up
to 1.5 million Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire amounts
to genocide. Turkey says the number is inflated and that many died on both
sides during a chaotic period.

Still, the agreement could benefit Turkey in its long-standing bid to become
a member of the European Union.

In its annual progress report on that effort Wednesday, the bloc urged
Turkey to boost its chances by speeding up reforms, but EU Enlargement
Commissioner Olli Rehn welcomed the accord.

"I'm encouraged by the historic steps Turkey and Armenia have just taken
toward normalizing their relations. This process should now lead to full
normalization as soon as possible," Rehn said.


Sarkisian Condemned For Turkish Goal `Celebrations'
Turkey -- The scoreboard at Bursa's Ataturk Stadium during the Turkey-
Armenia football match on October 14, 2009.
15.10.2009
Irina Hovannisian, Ruzanna Stepanian

President Serzh Sarkisian faced harsh criticism from domestic
political opponents, media and football fans on Thursday for what they
saw as his unbridled celebration of Turkey's defeat of Armenia in a
high-profile match the previous night.

Playing in the northwestern Turkish city of Bursa, the Armenian
national soccer team was beaten 2-0 by the superior Turks in front of
about 19,000 passionate spectators as well as the presidents of the
two mutually antagonistic countries.

Sarkisian broadly smiled and promptly congratulated his Turkish
counterpart Abdullah Gul with handshake every time Turkey scored to
seal the victory. The scene, highly unusual for heads of state
attending major football games, was repeatedly replayed by Turkish
television broadcasting the match to both countries.

The spokesman for Sarkisian's Republican Party of Armenia (HHK)
defended the president's seemingly warm reaction to the Turkish goals
that came after a mass jeering of Armenia's national anthem played in
Bursa's Ataturk stadium. `He smiled because the goal was nice. He
enjoyed watching football,'
Eduard Sharmazanov explained at a news
conference in Yerevan, sparking laughter among journalists.
ARMENIA SAW TURKISH HOSPITALITY: ERDOGAN
News.am
12:58 / 10/15/2009


Turkey-Armenia rapprochement process started before the football match,
Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated before leaving for Iraq,
CNNTurk reports.

"I consider match was held in peaceful atmosphere and Armenia saw
hospitality of Turkish people," Erdogan said.

Yesterday Turkey-Armenia football match took place in Bursa. Armenian
and Turkish Presidents Abdullah Gul and Serzh Sargsyan attended.

The two leaders' negotiations were held in Almira hotel right before
the match and later dinner was offered in honour of high rank guests.

Despite Armenian team lost 0:2, according to Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyan "it was something more than just a sport
event." He stated that it has evoked a wide response and inaugurated
the Armenia-Turkey normalization process.


HOW TURKEY'S BURSA WELCOMES ARMENIAN DELEGATION
Aysor.am
Friday, October 16

Football match Armenia v. Turkey in 2010 World Cup qualifying group
game in Turkish northwestern province of Bursa is over.

Given that this was more round of "football diplomacy" began last year,
than a football match, find some details on Turkish welcome below.

As reported Aysor's correspondent from Bursa, the stadium was
completely filled despite the non-sold tickets. By the way, Turkish
fans were angered by this gathered at adjoining to stadium side.

It was repeatedly reported that Azerbaijan's symbols were strongly
prohibited; however one could buy Azerbaijan's flag near stadium
paying 20 dollars. The road to stadium was full of fluttering
Azerbaijan's flags.

Despite the diplomatic context of the match, the Turkish fans hissed
Armenia's Anthem. Moreover, the bus with Armenian journalists
was stoned. Police saw it never lifted a finger to prevent the
provocation. The Turkish fans, who stoned at one of the buses of the
Armenian delegation, carried Turkey's flags.

It's worth mentioning, that Turkish side repeatedly announced that
all necessary security measures would be provided.


ARMENIAN JOURNALISTS PROHIBITED FROM WAVING STATE FLAGS
News.am
00:44 / 10/15/2009

Armenian journalists were prohibited from bringing Armenian flags to
tribunes, NEWS.am correspondent reports from Bursa.

Referring to the FIFA law, banning to place flags at the journalists'
tribunes, but not those of fans, Turkish football federation threatened
Armenian journalists to be strongly punishment.

Scuffle between Armenian delegation and those responsible for the
press occurred. Only after persistent insistence, Armenian journalists
achieved the waving of the state flag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Protocol News‏



Sent: Sun 10/18/09 11:54 AM



Attachments:


(follow this one if you can!)
lragir.am
WHY WAS NALBANDYAN NOT SMILING?
11:42:07 - 14/10/2009


According to the assessment of the Republican press speaker Edward
Sharmazanov, after the signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols
the Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu was smiling form anger. If we
follow Sharmazanov's logic, so the dark and cold face of the Armenian
foreign minister Edward Nalbandyan expressed his happiness. Moreover,
if we follow this logic, we may presume that Edward Nalbandyan seeing
that Davutoglu was smiling from anger decided that he had to have an
angry face expression to express his happiness for people thinking
like Sharmazanov not to think that he was as angry as Davutoglu. It
is not ruled out either that Davutoglu saw the darkened face from
happiness of Nalbandyan and started smiling from anger. No doubt,
Chouchner, Clinton and a little Lavrov were angry too who were smiling
like Davutoglu. And the CoE commissioner Javier Solana apparently was
in stress and wanted to feel some happiness on Nalbandyan's cold and
dark face.

The question is that there are people looking at whose faces you are
able to understand something though wrongly, but there are others
looking at whose faces you cannot even understand anything wrongly
because their thoughts are quite understandable. In addition, within
the Armenian government, such people are the complete majority. This
is the reason why a normal and grounded explanation of their own steps
is from the sphere of fantasy for the Armenian government which is
the reason why so important situations are explained with such simple
words like if Azeris are dissatisfied so we have to be content. But if
Davutoglu is smiling from anger, Aliyev is not smiling from happiness
just like Edward Nalbandyan.

Hurdles to Turkey-Armenia Pact
The Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 12, 2009
Territorial Dispute Is One Problem on Path to Ratification by Both
Parliaments
By SAMANTHA SHIELDS in Yerevan, Armenia, NICHOLAS BIRCH in Bursa, Turkey,
and MARC CHAMPION in Brussels


Just a day after Turkey and Armenia signed a historic accord aimed at
opening their borders and normalizing relations soured for generations by a
dispute over genocide, Turkey made clear that significant hurdles remain to
getting the deal implemented.

Saturday's long-awaited signing in Switzerland almost didn't happen due to
disagreements over what each side would say at the ceremony. U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
intervened with dramatic last-minute mediation. The signing in Zurich went
ahead three hours late. Diplomats said the compromise to get the accord
approved was that neither side made any statement.

But suspicions in Armenia were strong Sunday that Turkey had wanted to make
clear a linkage between implementing the accord and movement from Armenia to
resolve a territorial conflict with its neighbor, Turkic-speaking
Azerbaijan.

On Sunday, Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, confirmed the
linkage, though he remained vague on what Armenia would have to do. "We want
all the borders to be opened ... but as long as Armenia has not withdrawn
from Azerbaijani territory that it is occupying, Turkey cannot have a
positive attitude on this subject," Mr. Erdogan told members of his ruling
Justice and Development party, according to news-agency reports.

Mr. Erdogan underlined that the agreement still needs to be ratified by the
parliaments of Armenia and Turkey to take effect. He said Turkish
ratification is more likely if it becomes clear that Armenia and Azerbaijan
have begun "to look for a resolution to their problems."

Armenia has controlled Azeri territory in and around Azerbaijan's mainly
ethnic-Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh since a war in the early 1990s.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993, in protest at what it viewed
as an Armenian occupation of Azeri territory.

Mr. Erdogan faces significant pressure from Azerbaijan and at home over the
deal. "This issue is very sensitive for Armenian society, but on the Turkish
side you have opposition not just in society but inside the state
apparatus," said Alexander Iskandaryan, a Yerevan-based political analyst.

"Surrender to the Armenians," read the headline in Turkey's nationalist Yeni
Cag newspaper, though pro-government dailies were more supportive. The
foreign ministry of Azerbaijan said in a statement that the deal "casts a
shadow over the spirit of brotherly relations between Azerbaijan and
Turkey."

David Babayan, adviser to Nagorno-Karabakh's de facto president, said people
in the enclave worry Turkey will link the accord to a deal on Karabakh that
could weaken the position of Armenians there. "Officially there is no
mention of Karabakh in the protocols, but some people think a covert deal
has been done," he said by phone from Stepanakert, the Nagorno-Karabakh
capital.

Armenian President Serge Sarkisian reiterated in a televised address to the
nation before the protocols were signed Saturday his position that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unrelated to the Turkey accord.

Both sides stand to gain if the border opens. For Armenia, it could reduce
the landlocked nation's economic isolation, and bring new trade and trade
routes. For Turkey, it could remove an irritant in relations with the U.S.
and in its accession talks with the European Union.

But Saturday's accord is highly sensitive in Armenia and among the large
Armenian diaspora because it would establish a joint history commission to
look into the issue of up to 1.5 million ethnic Armenians massacred around
1915 in what was then the Ottoman Empire. Most Western historians agree with
Armenia that the killings amounted to genocide. But Turkey strongly refutes
the label, and some Armenians worry Turkey will use the history commission
to push its case that both sides committed atrocities in what amounted to
civil war.

The accord also would affirm the current border Turkey-Armenia border, set
in a 1921 treaty between Turkey and Russia.
TURKISH MEDIA: PARLIAMENT APPROVAL DEPENDS ON NAGORNO
-KARABAKH DISPUTE
ArmInfo
2009-10-13 11:38:00

ArmInfo. Following the signing of a protocol on Saturday between
Turkey and Armenia to establish diplomatic relations, the approval
process of the protocol in the Turkish Parliament will begin after
Armenia withdraws from Nagorno- Karabakh, an Azerbaijani territory,
government sources told Today's Zaman.

Justice and Development Party (AK Party) parliamentary group deputy
chairman Bekir Bozdag said the approval process of the agreement will
depend on Armenia's withdrawal from the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Stressing that the entire world wants the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
to be settled, parliamentary foreign affairs committee spokesman
and AK Party deputy Suat Kiniklloglu said: "The internal process
in Parliament is, of course, clearly defined in the regulations of
Parliament. It will first come to the foreign affairs committee and
will be debated there. If it passes the committee, then it will be
sent to the advisory council of the speaker's office and from there
it would be sent to the floor of the general assembly.

When and how this process will fare is dependent on parallel
processes. Here the political will and courage of the Azerbaijani
and Armenian leadership is key. The Minsk Group demonstrated its
support during and before the signing ceremony. Not only Turkey and
our Parliament but the whole world is expecting positive movement
on Karabakh."

Kiniklloglu said a significant step has been taken toward
normalization in the southern Caucasus, as he added: "This is a
historic process. We welcome the overall optimism and encourage the
parties to take appropriate steps to further strengthen the ongoing
process of normalization in the South Caucasus. We always maintained
that Turkish-Armenian normalization is forcing the South Caucasus to
be transformed into a stable and predictable neighborhood of Turkey."

The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist
Movement Party (MHP) accused the government of taking a "backward
step" in Turkish foreign policy by signing the deal with Armenia and
say the protocol will place Azerbaijan in a difficult situation and
should not be approved by Parliament. CHP deputy leader Onur Oymen
said the protocol, which he said included the demands of Armenia,
does not have any chance of being approved by Parliament, while MHP
group deputy chairman Oktay Vural called on the entire nation to stand
up against the approval of the protocol in the Turkish Parliament.


IN ZURICH ARMENIAN DELEGATION PREVENTED THE STEPS OF
TURKEY UNACCEPTABLE FOR ARMENIA
ArmInfo
2009-10-13 16:24:00

ArmInfo. In Zurich Armenian delegation has prevented the steps of
Turkey unacceptable for Armenia, Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister
Shavarsh Kocharyan told journalists today.

'We were assured that the Turkish party has already prepared the text
with oral statements which had to be sounded by the foreign ministers
after the ceremony of the protocols signing. Our delegation also had
the similar ready text. But the Turks did not submit their text to
us before the ceremony. This made us seriously doubt', - he said.

Kocharyan said this was the reason why the Armenian delegation did
not go to the university where the signing ceremony should take place,
demanding the mentioned text. Instead of giving the text the Armenian
delegation was informed about its content by telephone. After that
it became clear that it contains the points unacceptable for the
Armenian party.

'All those points, which the Turkish party did not manage to include
in the protocols over the talks, were in the text of Davutoglu's oral
speech. Thus, at this respectable meeting Turkey made an attempt to
sound the demands unacceptable for us regarding recognition of the
Armenian genocide as well as Karabakh settlement. But thanks to our
alertness and the efforts of the intermediaries, after long lasting
talks the Turkish party did not manage to sound and fulfill what they
decided', - Kocharyan concluded.
IWPR
TURKEY'S CAUCASUS ALLIES PONDER ARMENIA DEAL
Azeris say Turkey's border accord with Armenia is a betrayal
of their alliance.
By Kenan Guluzade in Baku


The Turkey-Armenia peace deal has angered Azeris, who accuse
Ankara of betraying them by not tying its signature to a resolution of
the Karabakh conflict.

Turkey and Azerbaijan, whose people are close ethnic kin, have been
allies since the end of the Soviet period, and Turkey broke off ties with
Armenia in 1993 to support Azerbaijan over the Karabakh conflict.

Now, 15 years after the war ended with a ceasefire, Armenians still
rule Nagorny Karabakh as a self-proclaimed state - in defiance of the
international community, which considers it part of Azerbaijan - and
Armenian forces hold around a seventh of Azerbaijan's internationally
recognised territory.

"Sometimes the opinion is expressed that the normalisation of Turkish
-Armenian relations, the opening of the border, could in future help the
regulation of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. I do not support these
opinions," said President Ilham Aliev on the eve of the signing ceremony.

"I think that if Turkish-Armenian relations normalise before the Karabakh
problem is resolved, then the position of Armenia in the talks process
will toughen. I am absolutely convinced that these two processes - the
regulation of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict and the opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border - should move in parallel. Maybe there is no
official connection between these processes, but there is an unofficial one."

The day after the October 10 signing ceremony, Azerbaijan's newspaper
headlines made clear the country's reaction to the move. "Everyone agrees,
except Azerbaijan," said the Mirror. "The Armenian-Turkish protocols are
signed. Will Turkey keep its promise to Azerbaijan?" asked the Echo.

On October 13, activists from the Organisation for the Liberation of Karabakh
protested outside the Turkish embassy. The next day, they held another
protests, with about 40 people taking part - a large number for an unsanctioned
demonstration in Baku. The police broke up both protests, and detained
several participants, but not before the protesters had shouted their slogans.

The protesters shouted "Shame on the Turkish government", "No ratification"
and "Turkey, don't betray Azerbaijan" and burned portraits of the Turkish
president, prime minister and foreign minister.

Analysts doubted the protest would change much, however, and said direct
pressure should be put on the Turkish government.

"To hold this protest in Azerbaijan is ineffective. Only large protests in Turkey
can affect the process. And we must act in solidarity with the Turkish opponents
of the protocols' ratification," said Boyukaga Agayev, an expert on the South
Caucasus.

Large protests in Turkey have not materialised, however, although opposition
parties have pledged to disrupt the ratification process, and pro-Azerbaijan
activists have distributed anti-Armenian stickers and Azerbaijani flags.

Not everyone in Azerbaijan thinks they should. Ilgar Mammadov, co-founder of
the opposition Republican Alternative Civic Union movement, said he hoped
Turkey and Armenia would sign their peace deal, thus giving Turkey a chance
to counteract Russian influence in the South Caucasus. Armenia is currently a
close Russian ally, and Moscow has military bases there.

"If the border is opened, over time Turkey and its western partners will be able
to build a solid and legitimate economic and political presence in Armenia.
That presence would allow them to drag Armenia out of the hands of the
decision-makers in the Kremlin when Baku and Yerevan are close to a deal
next time," he said.

But his opinion is a rare one. Most opposition politicians in Azerbaijan, no
matter how fierce their criticism of the government on other questions, line up
behind Aliev when it comes to Karabakh.

"I think it is necessary to hold talks with the Turkish government and appeal to
the Turkish people. In Turkey, the government cannot take a step on this without
the support of the nation. The will of the Turkish nation could force the government
to refrain from taking this step," said Ali Kerimli, chairman of the opposition
Party of the National Front of Azerbaijan.

Turkey's parliament is due to vote on ratifying the deal on October 21,
according to officials in Ankara, and Azeri politicians still hope the deal might be
avoided.

"We hope that during the discussion of the protocols in the Turkish parliament,
the deputies will unanimously tell Armenia and the world that ratification of these
documents is possible only after the liberation of the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan," said Ganira Pashayeva, who also singled out France, Russia and
America, which attended the signing ceremony , as possible friends of Azerbaijan.

"First of all, they must put pressure on Yerevan, so Armenia frees the Azerbaijani
lands. Peace and cooperation in the region are possible only after Armenia leaves
the occupied territories."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagining Armenia - Jo Laycock

Dear Armenag
I should be grateful if you could distribute the attached flyer. It is a new book about Armenia by Jo Laycock (who came to church earlier this month).
Many thanks in advance.
kind regards
Vicken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill in the UK Parliament‏

Armenia Solidarity and Nor Serount Cultural Association Press Release

c/o The Temple of Peace, Cardiff

07718982732

eilian@nant.wanadoo.co.uk

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill in the UK Parliament

We are pleased that the bill by the Member of Parliament Andrew Dismore, who has helped us so much in the past is scheduled to be given a second reading today, (16th October). This is the first time ever that a bill which is potentially destined for a vote has reached so far.

Sixty-three private bills by Members of Parliament are scheduled to be debated today, of which the Armenian Genocide Day bill is down at number five. Even though it came very high in the list, the procedure of Parliament means that usually there is only time to debate two or three such bills and all the other bills will "fall" The fact that so little time is available for parliament to debate such important bills is all the more appalling as ninety years have elapsed since the "Turkish Rule in Armenia" debate in the House of Lords in 1919. Ninety years ago, the government made promises which were subsequently broken, and as if to excuse themselves, the present British government even deny the facts on which the promises were made.(note that Earl Curzon , for the government, even then had little time to stay in the debate. Now, after waiting for ninety years, there is still not enough time to debate the issue.)

Details of the bill are given below:

"Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill. Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by John Austin, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Clive Efford, Ms Karen Buck and Rob Marris, presented a Bill to introduce a national day to learn about and remember the Armenian genocide. "

Parliamentarians will be sent this to remind them of the government's past promises to the Armenians,containing their recognition of Turkey's central involvement in the Genocide

TURKISH RULE IN ARMENIA.

House of Lords Debate 17 December 1919 vol 38 cc279-300

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to call attention to the sufferings of the Christian refugees, Armenian, Nestorian, and Chaldæan, who are still prevented from returning to their homes by the Turkish troops who are occupying the districts from which they were driven, and to the repeated declarations made by the Government that all Turkish rule should cease in Armenia and the other districts referred to; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information as to the steps taken or proposed in relation thereto.

The Blue Book.

"The appalling stories of wholesale massacre, of expulsion of great populations from their homes under conditions which could only be described as in most cases slowly dragged-out massacre, are set before us in incident after incident, showing what has happened on a scale so vast as is scarcely credible in our own time or, indeed, in any time. Every one who studies the subject at once begins to ask himself: Are the outrages which are here described the misdeeds of lawless ruffians who are out of hand and incapable of knowing what mercy or humanity means, or can they be the deliberate acts of a Government itself? On that question very large issues would necessarily turn. Unhappily the Blue-book leaves the impartial reader in no doubt whatever as to the answer which must be given. The book is no mere string of incidents. It gives the coherent story of these years, introduced and supplemented by narratives of the past and summaries of what has happened in the present which enable us by the lucidity, the range, and the clear arrangement of the whole, to deal with that question without hesitation and to arrive at the conclusion which is, I think, inevitable. No one reading it carefully but must be convinced, not, I will say, of the Turkish Government's complicity in these matters, but of its authorship, the actual authorship of these unspeakable outrages.

At the very outset of the war a deliberate plan was adopted, it is perfectly clear, by the Turkish Government for dealing with these long oppressed peoples, peoples in their various groups whose courage, whose loyalty to their Christian faith and, in some cases, whose industry aid grit had enabled them to hold their own for centuries and centuries in face of oppression, and poverty, anti misrule. The Government decided upon a cold-blooded plan of a double character. It was first to be a plan of quite deliberate massacre on a large scale, and it was next to be a plan of so-called deportation from the occupied regions which, in very many cases, merely meant massacre in a deferred degree.

Different regions were taken in order. The records which are here brought to light show that there were telegrams at the same time sent to the various parts of the Empire so that the massacre, if it was to be a massacre, should take place at the same time in different places. The deportations were carefully arranged by a plan which makes it utterly impossible to suppose that they were the acts of local governors, or local authorities, or that they emanated from any other source than headquarters, whether or no those headquarters had an identity different from that which belonged to the Turkish Government.

What took place is described in this book by eye-witnesses. Narrative after narrative gives it in detail. These are not for the most part the accounts of victims who had survived; they are narratives by calm, competent, highly-skilled observers, familiar with the country, familiar with the people, and incapable of misrepresenting what they saw. Americans, Germans—I will note Germans very markedly—and English observers as well. These all support, with practical unanimity, the stories given by those victims who had survived, whose records, had they not been thus supported, might very unfairly have been judged as not likely to be correctly or temperately given.

I believe that the story of these years is really an outrage on civilisation without historical parallel in the world. I do not believe that in the wildest barbarities recorded in history, including those of the days of Tamerlane, you would be able to exceed, if you could parallel, the accounts that are here given. And these can be, as I have said, undoubtedly traced, not to the outrageous conduct of undisciplined hordes, but to the deliberate plan and scheme of a Government with which you are supposed to have been on friendly terms and in alliance for many purposes. After all the distractions which the war has brought into the mind of men all over the world in contemplating contemporary history, is it conceivable that we are going to allow these facts to be forgotten; or, if we do not allow them to be forgotten, that we are going to allow conditions to arise again during which their repetition can be possible? That seems to me to be a question which ought to be, and must be, asked at once. ..

It is, of course, difficult to know how to deal with the question and that is a matter which is not within my province or within my power to handle in any way at all. No one contends that it is a very easy matter to know what ought to happen next, and hardly any one contends that we should suppress the Turk in Asia Minor proper; that is in the peninsula west of a line running from Samsoon in the north to Alexandretta in the south. West of that line we admit that Asia Minor is a region under Turkish rule, and presumably it is to continue to prevail with whatever checks or supervision are practicable. No one suggests that they should be suppressed in this region. But east of that line the whole conditions are entirely different. That region has never historically belonged properly to Turkey; is not inhabited by the Turkish races, nor are the Turks as numerous there, as are other races. .........

It has been definitely promised that whatever flag it is which flies over these regions in the future the actual control must never again be in Turkish hands. I will not trouble your Lordships with quotations but I will give two from the Prime Minister himself. Speaking in December 20, 1917, in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said this— What will happen to Mesopotamia must be left to the Peace Congress when it meets; but there is one thing that will never happen; it will never be restored to the blasting tyranny of the Turk. At best he was a trustee of this far famed land on behalf of Ah! what a trustee! He has been false to his trust, and his trusteeship must be given over to more competent and more equitable hands chosen by the Congress which will settle the affairs of the world. That same observation applies to Armenia, the land soaked with blood of innocents massacred by the people who were bound to protect them. Speaking a little later the Prime Minister said— Outside Europe we believe the same principles should be applied. While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the home lands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople—the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being internationalised and neutralised—Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine are, in our judgment, entitled to a recognition of their separate national conditions. What the exact form of that recognition in each particular case should be need not be here discussed, beyond stating that it would be impossible to restore to their former sovereignty the territories to which I have just referred. I ask now, What are we to understand as to their fulfillment? I do not believe I appeal to an unsympathetic tribunal. I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long but the point raised in the question had to be made clear; it is one which deserves attention and must not pass from the memory of civilised people. It is a matter of vital import to the honour of humanity and the good faith and well-being of the world."

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON) (for the government)

My Lords, I do not want to stand between the House and my noble friend Lord Bryce, but, I have an engagement which compels me to go away presently. No one will dispute the extreme gravity or the poignant tragedy of many of the incidents which the moat rev. Primate has placed before us. He has recapitulated from the Blue-book many of the most terrible incidents in the long career of bloodshed, atrocity, and crime which has disfigured what I hope will be the dying days of the Turkish Empire in those parts of Asia to which he had alluded. . .....

... as regards the Assyrians who lived before and who are willing to live again in the areas which belong to the old Turkish Empire, either to place them in an enclave adjacent to the territories under our control, so that they may be under our wing and within easy reach of our protection, or, if we provide a home for them in their former home lands or further afield among the Kurdish peoples, to try to make such arrangements for them as may secure their safe and decent existence.

The most Rev. Primate alluded to the different declarations that have been made at various times since we went into the country by responsible spokesmen of His Majesty's Government. He quoted in particular two declarations made in the course of last year or the year before by the Prime Minister. By those declarations we stand. They have never been departed from there. They do not express the sentiments, the aspirations, or the intentions of ourselves alone. They are shared by all our Allies. And, my Lords I hope that many months—I may even go further and say that I hope that many weeks—will not now elapse before the Allied Powers in Conference are able seriously to come to a solution of the Turkish problem, too long delayed already, and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

VISCOUNT BRYCE

..... They (the Armenian refugees) cannot return until something is done to check the Turkish bands which are still ravishing the country. There are, I am informed, no regular Turkish forces now in Armenia proper, that is to say, in Armenia to the east of the Taurus Mountains, nor in Cilicia, but there are wandering bands—the remnants of the former Turkish forces—and all the bad characters who always come to front where a country is in complete disorder, and these are so numerous and so well armed that it would be unsafe for the refugees at present to return.

I believe that by that means, by means of the exercise of diplomatic pressure, by sending a force into the country, which need not be a very large force, to see that these bands are suppressed, it will be possible to enable the refugees to return in safety.

That brings me to say a word about the Treaty itself. The first condition of any Treaty to be made with the Turks is that they shall entirely evacuate what is known as Armenia. I share the view which was expressed by the most rev. Primate that there is no reason why a Turkish Sultan should not continue to reign in those parts of Asia Minor where there is a majority of the Muslim population. The Muslim population is in the large majority along the north coast of Asia Minor, and through most parts of the central plateau, and there a Sultan may remain, and if anybody likes—if he can obtain recognition from the Mohammedan world as Caliph—he may remain as Caliph also. But what I believe the public of this country will insist upon, and in fact, what public opinion must insist upon when it knows the facts and realises those facts upon which the most rev. Primate dwelt—the immense scale and the circumstances of horror which attended these massacres and which have shown once again how utterly unfit the Turk is to exercise powers over persons of a different faith and race—is that there shall be no more Turkish rule in Armenia nor in those other regions, Chaldæan and Assyrian, in which the massacres have been perpetrated.

Some other declarations—those made by the present Prime Minister—have been referred to by the most rev. Primate. I could if it were necessary give other declarations—declarations made by Mr. Balfour on behalf of the Government, declarations made by Lord Robert Cecil on behalf of the Government., declarations made by M. Clemenceau who also pledged France to secure liberation of the Armenians. And therefore I am very glad to know that the noble Earl, in the words which he spoke just now, declared that His Majesty's Government—and he said he spoke for the Allies also—stand by those declarations, and intend to fulfill them. I am sure the House will note with satisfaction that declaration, and will feel sure that His Majesty's Government will carry it out. But I want to press this point upon it, that must be taken to mean the regions in which the Muslim population is not in a large majority, such as the centre of Asia Minor, and that the declaration must be taken to include all the countries to the east of the Taurus Mountains, Cilicia, and the six vilayets of Armenia, and that it is not only for the Republic at Erivan that independence is to be promised, but that independence is to belong to all the regions which historically belong to the Armenian part of Western Asia.

I need only remind your Lordships that if you desire to have any other view of the conduct of the Turks and the character of those massacres in addition to that which the Blue-book presents, to which the most rev. Primate has referred, you will find it in the book of Mr. Morgenthau, the American Ambassador at Constantinople during the period of the massacres. He tells us himself that he constantly went to Enver and Talaat, who are the two chiefs of the Committee of Union and Progress and the persons chiefly responsible for planning and carrying out the massacres. He represented to them that the world would be outraged if those things continued, and he tried for the same purpose to enlist the sympathy of the German Ambassador, Wangenheim. He describes there how Talaat and Enver did not attempt to conceal the massacres, did not deny what their policy of extermination was. They did it all with a deliberate purpose; they were supported by the other members of the Committee of Union and Progress, and not a word was said amongst the Turks against these massacres.

I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Support Congressman Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate‏

ANC PAC (ancpac@ancpac.org) class="ReadMsgHeaderCol1">Sent: Sat 10/17/09 2:12 PM

Support Congressman Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate

New Page 1




"Despite repeated pledges to recognize the Armenian Genocide, the State Department now supports the establishment of an official commission to review whether a genocide happened at all. The United States should be leading the world in calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide -- not supporting efforts to rewrite history." -- Congressman Mark Kirk

Help Elect Congressman Mark Kirk
to the U.S. Senate

Click here to make a donation on the
Kirk for Senate website.

Please write 'ANC event 2009' in the 'Special Comments' section at the bottom of the donation page.


In the Chicago area on October 24th?

Please join
Dr. and Mrs. Aram and Seta Semerdjian
and the Armenian National Committee PAC

for a reception honoring

United States Senate Candidate
Congressman Mark Kirk

Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 6:30pm

Hancock Building
175 East Delaware Avenue- 44th Floor | Chicago, IL 60611
Parking available at Westin Hotel on Michigan Avenue

Suggested donation levels
$125 per person / $250 per couple
*Please make checks payable to Kirk for Senate.

*Individuals are limited to $2,400 per election (primary and general) for a total of $4,800 per cycle or $9,600 per couple on joint bank accounts.

Please fax or email this reply form to Christen Mogavero
at fax # 847.559.2940 or email cemogavero@gmail.com.


Paid for by the ANCPAC
FEC ID# C00146969


Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to obtain and report the name, mailing address, employer and occupation for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle. Contributions to Kirk for Senate are not tax deductible as charitable donations for income tax purposes. Contributions from corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited.

JO






Angueshrelin‏

ARTICLE BY ARAM SEPETJIAN

BEIRUT, LEBANON
ՅՕԴՈՒԱԾ ԱՐԱՄ ՍԵՓԵԹՃԵԱՆ-ԷՆ
ՊԷՅՐՈՒԹ, ԼԻԲԱՆԱՆ