Analytical Articles on Armenian Issues

Asbarez.com

Clinton In The Caucasus: ANCA Offers Ten-Point Checklist For Successful Visit

WASHINGTON—The Armenian National Committee of America has suggested the

following ten steps that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should undertake during her

upcoming visit to the Caucasus region to advance U.S. interests, promote American

values, and strengthen the Obama Administration’s diplomatic standing in a pivotal

region of strategic importance.

Secretary Clinton is set to travel to the Caucasus from June 4 to 7 to discuss issues

of regional security, democracy, economic development and counter-terrorism. She

will visit Armenia on June 4, Georgia on June 5, and Azerbaijan on June 6, prior to

 traveling to Turkey for meetings on June 7.

ANCA

10 Steps Toward a Successful Visit by Secretary Clinton to the Caucasus:

1. A public announcement by Secretary Clinton that President Obama, after more

than three years in office, will finally honor his promises to recognize the Armenian

Genocide and to support the proper recognition of this crime by the U.S. Congress.

2. An official visit to the Armenian Genocide memorial, during which she honors

her own pledges to recognize the Armenian Genocide, renounces her assertion that

the Armenian Genocide is a matter for “historical debate,” and asserts that the

Administration will no longer use the failed Turkey-Armenia Protocols as an excuse

for complicity in Ankara’s genocide denial.

3. A clear statement distancing the U.S. from a recent NATO declaration prioritizing

the principle of territorial integrity over self-determination in settling the status of

Nagorno Karabakh, and a commitment to strike, from a recently released State

Department report, the false assertion that Nagorno Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan,

a Baku-backed claim that is directly at odds with President Obama’s pledge to work

 towards a durable settlement “based upon America’s founding commitment to the

principles of democracy and self determination.”

4. A public retreat from the Administration’s proposed 19% cut in economic and

democracy-building aid to Armenia, and a pledge to both work with Congressional

appropriators to honor the President’s promise to “maintain” aid levels to Armenia,

and also to allocate all unexpended aid that Congress has intended for Nagorno

Karabakh.

5. A joint declaration with the Armenian government, in the spirit of President

Obama’s promise to foster stronger U.S.-Armenia economic relations, announcing

talks to implement bilateral trade and investment initiatives, including a Trade and

Investment Framework Agreement, a Double Tax Treaty, and a Free Trade Agreement.

6. A strong stand, during her visit to Azerbaijan, against the Aliyev regime’s escalating

pattern of threats and renewed aggression against Nagorno Karabakh, and a public

announcement that the White House will not waive Section 907 of the FREEDOM

Support Act as long as Baku fails to commit to a peaceful resolution of its conflict

with Nagorno Karabakh.

7. A withdrawal of the Administration’s support, in light of Baku’s ongoing threats

and acts of aggression, for the sale or transfer of any and all arms or dual-use items

to Azerbaijan, including the controversial pending sale of advanced helicopter-based

sensing equipment.

8. A visit to investigate the medieval Armenian cemetery in Djulfa, Nakhichevan, the

site of thousands of intricate Armenian stone crosses (khatchkars) systematically

destroyed by the Azerbaijani military in December of 2005, as documented on

video-tape.

9. A public expression of U.S. support, during her trip to Georgia, for targeted U.S.

economic, development, and infrastructure assistance programs and public-private

partnerships for the Armenian-populated Javakhk region of Georgia.

10. A trip to Stepanakert to demonstrate support for the OSCE Minsk Group peace

process, to press for the reinstatement of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh as a

full participant in all negotiations, and to underscore America’s longstanding and

proud tradition of supporting the right of all peoples to democratic self-determination.

COMMENTARY: AZERIS ARE WINNING THE MEDIA WAR

By Edmond Y. Azadian

May 31, 2012 11:21 am

Azerbaijan's political clout is growing in the Caucasus, despite

internal dissensions as well as the beatings and jailing of the jour-

nalists, because major powers are not interested in those finer

matters, unless they became the necessary tools to meddle in the

internal affairs of some targeted sovereign countries, marked for

regime change.

Currently, Azerbaijan has been elected to the UN Security Council

non-permanent membership and in a rotating system, it is presiding over

the UN Security Council. If you need to figure out the moral bankruptcy

of international politics, you have to watch the war-mongering

President Ilham Aliyev, delivering his speech at the UN forum

lambasting Armenians as aggressors and occupiers of Azeri territory.

Two major factors have contributed to Azerbaijan's accession to the

Security Council seat, defeating Slovenia: 1) It is reported that

between $100 to $140 million were "donated" to developing countries

to buy their votes. Islamic countries are regularly brain- washed

at Islamic conferences that Christian Armenians have massacred their

fellow Muslims in Karabagh, playing the religion card. Most vocal among

the Islamic countries is Pakistan, under different administrations

(Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf and the current rulers). They are

natural supporters of their Muslim Azeri brothers, never mind that

the Karabagh conflict is not a religious issue.

Therefore, the Islamic bloc does not need any bribes to sup- port

Azerbaijan's candidacy. 2) Azerbaijan's newfound friendship with

Israel has also helped to rally many Western countries around that

country. Azeris are playing an incendiary role in the region, providing

their territory to Israel as a launching pad, in preparation for an

eventual confrontation with Iran.

Interestingly, no binding resolutions can be adopted at the UN

Security Council level on the Karabagh issue, because the co- chairs

of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

are also part of that body and they are not ready to relinquish their

mediator's role to the UN.

However, Azerbaijan and Turkey will gain a lot of public

relations mileage every time they can bring the issue to the UN

forum. This poses a very serious challenge to Armenia's foreign

policy establishment. Armenia has seasoned diplomats, beginning with

Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, and ending with Garen Nazarian,

Armenia's ambassador to the UN.

Armenia cannot depend too much on world powers, who have demonstrated

time and again that Azeri oil is worth more than Armenian blood.

Therefore, they have to rely on the limited resources at their

disposal.

One may wonder what Diaspora Armenian activism can provide to the

Foreign Ministry's diplomacy. An organized and politicized diaspora

can act as the extension of Armenia's foreign policy establishment.

But are we ready, willing and capable of playing

that role? Do we have the political vision to assume such a role?

Some introspection, admission of responsibility and guilt, if you

will, are in order here. The Armenian community was informed a long

time ago about

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's appearance at the UN. In addition, no

one had any doubts what kind of speech he was about to deliver. Only

an impressive massive rally at the UN could blunt Aliyev's message,

reverberating in the news media. Our diplomats were already conducting

their task, quietly. But Aliyev stood up at that world forum and

told his side of the story with- out an effective challenge from

"the one-million-strong US Armenian community."

Who was supposed to take the initiative? Our religious leaders have a

good excuse and they cannot get involved in politics; never mind that

Aliyev's politics destroys thousands of khachkars, religious symbols

in Nakhichevan with another few hundred houses of worship. Out of

thousands of attendants at the Times Square commemoration, a few

hundred must have the political motivation to counter Aliyev at

the UN. Some of our lobbying groups are locked in other battles and

therefore let Aliyev enjoy a free ride at the UN.

That leaves the burden to the Armenian political parties; the Armenian

Democratic Liberal Party (ADL) is split, and whatever the legitimate

leadership undertakes on the East Coast, some renegades undermine the

initiative, under orders from their Armenian Revolutionary Federation

(ARF) bosses.

The ARF led a half-hearted demonstration at the UN head- quarters,

probably giving a good laugh to the Azeri delegation. It was reported

that only 50 demonstrations showed up with some banners. That was

enough for domestic consumption to boast that only the ARF challenged

Aliyev's arrogance, whereas it may have done more damage than good.

If the ARF leadership considered that this was a cause of para- mount

importance, they could have invited other groups also to participate,

if they were not concerned sharing the glory with them. After all,

that party was able to mobilize more than 1,000 demonstrators at the

Armenian Embassy in New York to protest the signing of protocols with

Turkey. Many more showed up under their leadership in Los Angeles and

Beirut to harangue and insult Armenia's president during that period.

Had no one showed up at the UN, the Azeri delegation could be

mystified, thinking that Armenians have a secret formula to counter

their onslaught. But the way the community reacted pacified the

Azeris that they can dismiss Armenian political power in the US,

which demonstrated its quixotic face at the UN.

Perhaps it is not altogether fair to single out the ARF leadership in

this case, since the entire community is responsible for the debacle.

And after that we cannot play the role of armchair guru, blaming

Armenia's foreign policy establishment battling the Azeri public

relations and media onslaught.

As we can see, the Azeris are winning the media war assisted by

petrodollars and their friends in higher positions.

Ottoman Destruction of Three Christian Communities a Homogenization Process

GMT 6-3-2012 2:28:55

Assyrian International News Agency

By Joseph Haweil

(AINA) -- AINA interviews Ara Sarafian, the founder of the Gomidas Institute (London),

an organization promoting and disseminating research and scholarship on modern

Armenian studies. In 2000 Sarafian edited and published The Treatment of Armenians

in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916 (known as the Blue Book), an extensive collection

of primary-source documents concerning the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocide,

compiled originally by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee and presented to Viscount

Grey of Fallodon in 1916.

Please tell us about your personal and academic background.

All of my grandparents came from different parts of what is now modern Turkey. So I

have a personal involvement in the Turkish-Armenian issue. I am also an archival

historian specializing in late Ottoman and modern Armenian history. I often go to

Turkey to work in archives and visit various places of interest. Only recently I went to

Ayash, outside Ankara, which was one of the locations where Armenian intellectuals

from the capital were held prior to their execution. Finally, I am the director of the

Gomidas Institute (London), an independent academic organization dedicated to modern

Armenian Studies (www.gomidas.org).

Do you consider the 1915 genocide of the Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks to be

one genocide?

Yes I do, in the sense that the Armenian Genocide was part of a process of

"homogenizing" a modern Turkish state. In the case of Armenians, Assyrians and

Greeks, this was largely achieved through mass murder, but also forced assimilation

of the remnants. The destruction of these three Christian communities was one

aspect of the "homogenizing" process, which also included the murder and assimilation

of Muslim groups as well--such as Kurds, Arabs, Circassians and Pomaks. However, in

the case of Muslim groups, there were less murders and more forced assimilation, as the

history of the Turkish Republic shows.

As you are aware, scholars focusing on the Assyrian Genocide are a few. Why do

Genocide scholars broadly speak so little about the fate of co-victims of the Ottoman

Empire genocide, as opposed to that of the Armenians? How can low-levels of interest

in the Assyrian genocide amongst scholars be explained?

There are many reasons. 1. The destruction of Assyrians took place in more isolated

 parts of the Ottoman Empire, most notably in Hakkirari-Diyarbekir; 2. Elsewhere,

Assyrians were often an invisible Christian minority and seen as "Armenians" by

outsiders--such as in the Harput region. They were counted as Armenian victims;

3. Many Armenian historians have not bothered to find out more about Assyrians, or

they have not wanted to dilute their "Armenian narrative" by dwelling on the murder

of Assyrians as a separate category; 4. Assyrians and their sympathisers have not been

able to represent the Assyrian experience better. This need not be the case today, and it

is not. There are more publications on Assyrians and a better understanding of their fate

 as a distinct ethnicity.

Does the Blue Book compiled by Viscount Bryce and Arnold Toynbee remain the most

authoritative reference for primary-source documentation of the genocide, or is new

research revealing hitherto unknown information and perspectives?

The Blue Book was a catalyst in informing the world about the Armenian Genocide. I

believe that Bryce and Toynbee considered calling it "The Treatment of Armenians and

Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16." I believe they did not do so because

information about Assyrians was weaker--they simply did not have the authoritative

information they needed at hand. One can see this in the Toynbee Papers at the UK

National Archives. For example, the Americans in Diyarbekir were expelled before the

killings began, so that a crucial part of the potential evidence was missing. That was

not the case for Trebizond, Harput, Aleppo, or Damascus where there were US Consuls,

missionaries and others. However, Assyrians were mentioned in the book, but not in the

title of the book. While the Blue Book was compiled under difficult circumstances and

made its essential point, we now have a great deal of information, primary sources, that

were not available to the authors of the Blue Book. The history of the Assyrian Genocide

should be based on this broader range of records, not only such sources as those in

German and Austrian archives, but also the testimonies of Assyrians themselves. There

is a lot of potential to make progress, if there is the right organization to promote it.

Asked in 2005 whether Armenia should become the first state to acknowledge the Assyrian

genocide, respected scholar Professor Vakhan Dadrian commented, '… I can't give you an

answer, because we do not know much about your experience.' Referring to the latter

comment, Professor Hannibal Travis has suggested that 'there is a movement within

genocide studies to construct an Armenian Genocide that affected Armenians only' and

that this genocide is 'discontinuous from the experiences of victims of anti-Christian

massacres in historic Assyrian [sic], Pontic Greece, and Thrace.' Would you agree with

Professor Dadrian's suggestion that little is known about the Assyrian genocide? How

would you, in turn, respond to Professor Travis' analysis?

Professor Travis does have a valid point, and we know a great deal more about the Assyrian

experience today. I suggest that we focus on making the Assyrian issue better understood

today. Professor David Gaunt has a very good book on the Assyrian experience, and I hope

more scholars will follow it up. I am always happy to work with Assyrian scholars, and indeed,

I do so. But Assyrians should create the means to bring such work to fruition--that means

funding for excellent research, publications, dissemination of information, and not least, the

creation of a new generation of academics who can continue with such work.

In March 2012, the Armenian Parliament rejected a proposal to consider a bill recognizing

the Assyrian and Greek genocides. Assyrians worldwide have asked; 'if Armenia cannot

understand the need for recognition, then who can?' Should Armenia have recognized the

Assyrian genocide and would you urge the Republic to reassess is previous decision?

Armenia should be the first country to express solidarity with Assyrians and recognize the

Assyrian Genocide--both at the state and non-governmental level. I am sure, with a little work,

it would be possible to win over people in Armenia to take a stand on the Assyrian issue.

How best can the three main victim groups cooperate for a united approach towards genocide

recognition and justice? How necessary is a united approach?

Adopting common projects (i.e. supporting common research and publications), maintaining

academic standards, making such knowledge available at a popular level. I should also add

that many Turks, Kurds and other Muslims recognize the genocides that were committed in

the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, and they identify with the victims of these genocides.

Of course, this is a welcome development because it holds the prospect of a real resolution

based on principles of shared human and ethical values. Recently at the two main

commemorations of the "Armenian Genocide" in Istanbul, Turkish sympathizers did not leave

out Assyrians as one of the main groups who were destroyed in 1915. So, once more, there

is a foundation to work on--but Assyrians need to work together and project their case in a

sensible manner. Having said all this, I have to say that there is progress, and I appreciate the

 work your Seyfo Center [Assyrian Genocide Research Center] has done over the years. I hope

you are getting the support you need to carry on and expand your work.

What is the extent of your work with Assyrians and Assyrian genocide scholars and activists?

I have good relations with Assyrian scholars, and this summer we have two advanced scholars

working on Assyrian issues at the Gomidas Institute in London.

By Joseph Haweil