Author: Badalian Vardan

ON ISRAELI-PKK RELATIONS – I

Hurriyet Daily News
Sept 14 2011
Turkey

Tension between Turkey and Israel is continuing with conflicting
interpretations of events, as well as doses of verbal warfare. It is
remarkable that the debate is so structured as to provoke sensitivities
and deepen fears on both sides. While the source of traditional fears
and anxieties in Israel is the Palestinian question, Turkey’s source of
anxiety is the Armenian question and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or PKK. Although Turkey’s approach toward the Palestinian
question is well-known, the Israeli-PKK relationship is not so. This
article aims to contribute to the ongoing debate by focusing on
Israeli-PKK relations.

Of course, Israel, keeping a close eye on everything in the Middle
East, concerns itself with the Kurdish issue in general and the
PKK in particular. As a matter of fact, one of the first strategic
pillars of that interest was formed with the immigration of Iraqi
Jews to Israel in the post-1945 period and with Iraq’s approach
toward the Arab-Israeli wars in the early 1960s. Mulla Mustafa
Barzani’s rebellion against the Iraqi regime provided Israel with
an opportunity to conduct a proxy war against Iraq. Israel offered
the Barzani clan logistical support, military training and new
perspectives. The foundations of intelligence organization in the
Kurdistan Democratic Party were then laid down by Mossad. By these
means, Iraq was made to pay for the support it gave to the Arabs
during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars through Barzani’s guerilla
attacks. The Iranian shah’s support which helped Israeli intelligence
access northern Iraq must also be kept in mind. All these relations
were proper in the Cold War spirit. Nevertheless, Israel’s interest
continues in different guises. This interest has remained a question
in the minds of both the Turkish people and security circles.

Historically, Israel and the PKK were not on good terms. In 1971,
the Israeli consul in Istanbul was abducted and killed by Marxist
organizations. This caused Israel to focus on leftist organizations
in Turkey linked with Palestine.

Quickly, the search focused on Abdullah Ocalan and his organization,
the PKK. Ocalan fled from Turkey to Syria in 1979. Then, he settled
in Lebanon with the help of Syrian intelligence and the Marxist
organizations of Gibril and Havatme and George Habash, the late leader
of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP. These
three entities were a source of trouble for Israel and started to
provide guerilla training to Ocalan’s militants.

In sum, Israeli-PKK relations have featured three phases. The first
phase covers the period from the PKK’s establishment to 1992. In
this phase, the PKK was a secondary problem which was to be closely
watched. The second phase was between 1992 and 2002, when the PKK was
subject to low-level diplomatic, but high-level “business” relations
within the progressing Turkey-Israeli relationship. The final phase
covers the period from 2002 onwards.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, it encountered “International
Marxist” resistance along with the Palestinian groups. As a Marxist
organization, PKK militants fought against the Israeli army, too,
losing 11 militants in the battles. An additional 13 militants were
captured, imprisoned and interrogated. This enabled Israel to lay
hands on a large number of PKK documents. Thus, from early on, Israel
has had important information about the PKK. Later, the imprisoned
PKK militants were released together with Palestinian Liberation
Organization, or PLO, members. They flew to Greece and then moved
to Iran. In this process, while Israel perceived the PKK as a threat
sponsored by Syria that was to be watched closely, it also shared a
large number of documents now in its hands with Turkish intelligence.

To be continued…

RUSSIAN, EU OFFICIALS MULL NAGORNO-KARABAKH ISSUE

Trend
Sept 14 2011
Azerbaijan

State Secretary – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin
has today received European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for
the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia Philippe Lefort upon
the latter’s request, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported.

The sides exchanged views on the South Caucasian issues, including
the EU co-chairing at the Geneva discussions. The meeting also mulled
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the report reads.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

KARABAKH FORMS COMMISSION TO STUDY SHOOTING DOWN OF AZERBAIJANI RECONNAISSANCE DRONE

news.am
Sept 14 2011
Armenia

STEPANAKERT. – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) Defense Army’s press
service commented on Monday’s shooting down of an Azerbaijani drone
flying through NKR air space.

“In parallel with the ceasefire violation at the line of contact
between the Karabakh-Azerbaijani forces, the adversary’s air force
is likewise considerably active in recent periods, and it carries
out educational-military as well as reconnaissance flights.

According to the Defense Army’s latest data, in recent days the
adversary’s drones carry out fairly frequent reconnaissance flights
along the entire length of the border zone, and, in some cases, violate
Artsakh’s air space. The Defense Army’s air defense servicemen have
confirmed about such flights in the past 10 days, and corresponding
preventive measures are taken. On September 12 at 7:30 a.m., in
particular, and as a result of the special measures taken by the
Defense Army’s Air Defense and Radio Electronics subdivisions, a
drone from the Azerbaijani air force was disabled nearby Vazgenashen
village of Martuni region. Parts of the downed plane are kept at
the Defense Army’s respective services. A commission is formed to
study the details of the incident, and an investigation is underway,”
NKR Defense Army’s press service informed Armenian News-NEWS.am.

DEFROSTING CONFLICT: ALARMISM OVER RUSSIA’S ROLE IN TRANSDNESTR BELIES THE POTENTIAL OF AN UPCOMING MOSCOW CONFERENCE

Russia Profile
Sept 14 2011

Once again Transdnestr has become the focus of attention among
specialists across the post-Soviet space. On September 9, under the
auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OECD), an international conference was held during which the Moldovan
Prime Minister Vlad Filat met the President of the Unrecognized
Transdnestr Moldovan Republic Igor Smirnov.

Contact between representatives of Tiraspol and Chisinau over the past
ten years has been fitful. In 2001 Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin
was reelected on a ticket of reintegrating the country. He criticized
his predecessors harshly for provincial nationalism and a lack of
flexibility. The Voronin of 2001 was even ready to legally acknowledge
aggression from Chisinau against the left bank of the Dnestr. However,
slogans and real politics do not always coincide. Rejecting a Russian
plan (known as the Dmitry Kozak Plan) to reunite the country on federal
principles, Moldovan leaders in 2003 gave up talks with Transdnestr’s
de-facto leadership as lost. It was only at the end of 2008 that the
conflicting sides made timid steps toward each other once again.

But the long-awaited meeting of the leaders of Moldova and Transdnestr
did not make the negotiating process irreversible, especially since
in 2009 the Moldovan political system suffered a crisis. A series of
parliamentary campaigns failed to result in the election of a head
of state (Moldova is a parliamentary republic). In this context, the
peace process was relegated to secondary importance. Since this time
there has been no official attempt to renew the “5 + 2” format, which
envisaged a resolution between the two conflicting sides and five other
interested parties – two guarantor-states – Ukraine and Russia, an
OECD mediator and two observer states – the United States and the EU.

At the latest meeting in Germany, the sides agreed to meet in
Moscow on September 22, 2011, to make provisions for a return to
fully-fledged talks. However, the very fact that Igor Smirnov agreed to
be drawn into the negotiating process (albeit half-heartedly) already
means a lot. Firstly, for many years he was forbidden to travel in
Europe. In September of 2011, this ban was lifted in the hopes that
the Transdnestr leader would take up constructive positions. Secondly,
in December 2011 presidential elections are set to take place in
Transdnestr, and Smirnov is expected to take part in what will be
his fifth election campaign. It is not hard to understand that for
a politician who has counted on separation from Moldova, taking part
in negotiations with Chisinau is not a simple choice.

And as often happens in such cases, experts are looking for “Moscow’s
footprint.” In reality, not long before the September conference
in Germany, Russian law enforcement agencies showed interest in the
business of certain members of Smirnov’s family. And the fact that
Russia is not interested in prolonging the leader’s time in power is
no secret. Recent announcements from representatives of the Russian
Consulate have also caused a stir: they have said that inhabitants
of Transdnestr applying for Russian citizenship can no longer do so
in Tiraspol and now have to go to the Moldovan capital. Those who do
not have Moldovan citizenship are also obliged to apply for a Moldovan
residence permit.

It has to be noted, however, that the meeting of Filat and Smirnov,
as well as pressure from Moscow, can be interpreted as an attempt by
Russia to act to resolve an old conflict by diplomatic means. It is
not the first year that Russia has taken part in either relations with
Transdnestr (for example the March 18, 2009 meeting of the presidents
of Russia, Moldova and Transdnestr) or the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process (three-way meetings between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia
have already become a regular occurrence). And although there have
been no obvious breakthroughs, the negotiating process in itself
can be seen as positive. But in the case of Transdnestr, in contrast
with Nagorno-Karabakh, Moscow’s diplomacy is frequently taken as a
sign of weakness. Recent events led to critical media response in
both Russia and Transdnestr. It is not the first time that this kind
of alarmism has emerged. Two years ago criticism was directed at the
joint statement issued on March 18, 2009, which stated that Russia was
ready to transform the current peace process to a “peace-guaranteeing
process.” This position was then described as a practical defeat for
Russian diplomacy, although Moscow only started talking about such a
transformation after achieving a compromise between the conflicting
factions, and not a day earlier!

In 2011 pressure on president Smirnov was called “a loss” and “a
defeat.” But if we put emotions aside, recent events have hardly
revealed anything new. Did Moscow really ever make public promises to
recognize a de-jure Transdnestrian state? The celebrated Kozak Plan
of 2003, which failed following the decisive participation of the
Moldovan elite together with Western diplomats, by no means suggested
secession. It was based on a suggestion to create a federative Moldovan
state (officially Chisinau prefers the autonomy of Transdnestr in a
unitary formation), but this did not encompass self-determination
of the disputed territory. The same is true of all the preceding
documents linked to the peace process that were prepared with Russian
participation.

Where is such alarmism coming from? Russia itself has certainly played
a role, with its policies in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Three years
ago Russia recognized their independence and today it is increasing
its military-political and economic presence in the two previously
autonomous Georgian states. But this move was necessary – it is not
the consequence of implementing an imperial plan, but a reaction to
the process of frozen conflicts thawing, which began in Tbilisi in
that year. Within the narrow corridor of possibilities Moscow took a
decision that created many potential political risks. But this does
not mean that the main aim of Russian politics in the post-Soviet
space should be direct clashes with all of the former republics of
the Soviet Union and their Western partners. Is this a priority for
Russian foreign policy? Hardly. Conducting a narrow diplomatic game,
maintaining its strong position in both Chisinau and Tiraspol is much
more promising. The rupture between Russia and Georgia only happened
when room for maneuver in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian
conflicts had been exhausted.

But such possibilities do remain on the Dnestr! It’s also important to
remember that Russia is not the only player in the Moldova-Transdnestr
peace process. And if Chisinau fails to understand Russia’s moves,
or they spur an inadequate action from the Moldovan government, there
is always the option to freeze this or that diplomatic activity,
particularly as Moscow has shown more than once that it is ready for
one-sided concessions, which are not in its interests (such as the
rapid withdrawal of its troops from the area or agreeing to a Unitarian
Moldova, without taking into account Transdnestr’s interests.)

Therefore it is unreasonable to push Russian diplomacy toward a tough
choice: revisionism or maintaining the status-quo. It will be much more
productive for Russia to act based on the situation and not sticking
to one plan, maintaining the status quo where it is convenient and
breaking it where there is no alternative.

Sergei Markedonov, Ph.D., is a political analyst and a visiting fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),

ARMENIAN AIR CARRIER SUPPLIED ARMS TO LIBYA?

ArmeniaDiaspora.com
Sept 14 2011

Epress.am — The IL-76 that arrived in Moldova from Libya, with the
aim of picking up a regular shipment of arms (and it is presumed to
go back), belongs to “an Armenian civil air carrier,” said chief of
general staff of Moldova’s national army, General Iurie Dominic.

Press secretary of the Department of Civil Aviation in Armenia Nelly
Cherchinyan told Epress.am that “only [Armenian national air carrier]
Armavia can comment on this matter.” However, calls to Armavia press
secretary Nana Avetisova went unanswered.

General Dominic confirmed the fact that where the arms were going was
no secret to the air carrier. Citing a Moldovan TV channel’s public
report, Interfax reports that Chisinau (ChiÅ~_inÄ~Cu) sold old,
expired weapons to Libya.

Article source:

SENATE PANEL APPROVES RICCIARDONE IN DIVIDED VOTE

asbarez
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Senator Menendez opposed Ricciardone’s nomination

Senators Menendez, Boxer, Risch vote against confirmation; Coons
and Shaheen voice reservations US Ambassador to Armenia Nominee John
Heffern approved unanimously by voice vote WASHINGTON-The nomination
of President Obama’s controversial choice to serve as U.S. Ambassador
to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone, was approved in a devided vote within
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over whether he should serve
as America’s top envoy to Ankara, reported the Armenian National
Committee of America.

By contrast, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia nominee John Heffern was
approved unanimously by the Committee by voice vote.

Voting against the Ricciardone nomination were Senators Robert Menendez
(D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jim Risch (R-ID).

“We would like to thank Senator Menendez for his principled leadership
in calling attention to Amb. Ricciardone’s offensive and unacceptable
responses to questions dealing with the plight of Christians in
Turkey,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Sen. Menendez
along with Senators Boxer and Risch sent a powerful message to
Ricciardone and State Department officials that the American people
deserve a U.S. envoy who will fight hard for U.S. values and interests
and not succumb to Turkey’s propaganda machine.”

Senator Menendez, who spoke forcefully prior to voting against the
nominee, noted Ambassador Ricciardone’s incorrect response to his
written question concerning the state of Christian churches in Turkey
today. Amb. Ricciardone’s initial response that “most of the Christian
churches functioning prior to 1915 are still operating as churches” was
“so wrong as to be offensive,” stated Senator Menendez. He continued,
“What concerns me more, however, is that his response indicates
that he either did not carefully review the responses that were
submitted in his name or worse or that he truly was unaware of the
history of the Christian church in Turkey and the difficulties that
Christian churches continue to face in that country. His response
indicates a lack of focus or interest in issue affecting the Armenian
community . . . We need an Ambassador in Ankara that can support,
defend and advocate on behalf of all of the United States’ interests
vis-a-vis Turkey. Unfortunately, I’ve lost confidence in the ability of
Mr. Ricciardone to undertake that task and will not be able to support
his nomination.” Senator Menendez’s full statement is provided below.

Both Senators Menendez and Boxer submitted written questions
to Ambassador Ricciardone and have, over the course of many years,
ensured careful scrutiny of both Administration policy and nominations
for ambassadorial posts in the region.

These legislators were joined by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), who,
while voting for Amb. Ricciardone, raised reservations regarding the
nomination and broader issues related to U.S. genocide policy and
religious freedom issues. He noted that he had heard from his Armenian
and Greek American constituents on their “historic and profound
grievances,” which have gone on for “far too long” and stressed that
they deserved “higher diplomatic priority.” Senator Jeanne Shaheen
(D-NH), Chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee added that the
Committee’s discussion on Amb. Ricciardone’s responses concerning
religious freedom sent a strong signal to Ambassador Ricciardone and
Turkey about U.S. commitment to religious freedom.

While sharply criticizing Ambassador Ricciardone’s initial
misrepresentations about the destruction of Armenian and other
Christian churches as “unacceptable, incorrect, and inappropriate,”
the panel’s Chairman, John Kerry (D-MA), praised the nominee’s “depth
of knowledge,” and ultimately voted for his confirmation.

“Amb. Ricciardone has, sadly, embraced Ankara’s genocide denial
narrative, above and beyond even the level of the President and the
rest of his Administration – compounding our government’s complicity
in the Turkish government’s lies with outright and easily verifiable
falsehoods about the state of the few surviving Armenian and other
Christian churches that remain today within the borders of present-day
Turkey,” explained Hamparian. “At this critical juncture in U.S.-Turkey
relations, we simply cannot afford a policy of appeasement.”

In recent weeks, in response to a wave of grassroots outrage and
growing Congressional concern, Ambassador Ricciardone had backed away
from his responses to inquiries during his Senate confirmation process
that included highly offensive misrepresentations about Turkey’s
destruction of Christian churches. Following broad-based concerns
expressed by Armenian American community and religious leaders, U.S.

Ambassador Ricciardone amended his response to Foreign Relations
Committee member Robert Menendez (D-NJ), in which he had argued,
without any basis in fact, that a majority of Christian churches
operating in the territory of present-day Turkey prior to 1915 were
still functioning today. His testimony and written answers, however,
continued to be characterized by errors of fact, the use of strained
euphemisms to appease Ankara, and a pronounced bias toward the genocide
denial narrative advanced by the government of Turkey.

Last month, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian demanded a retraction, correction,
and apology for Ambassador Ricciardone’s statement covering-up
Ottoman and Republican Turkey’s systematic destruction of thousands
of Christian churches. “We have been troubled by his eagerness to
embrace the government of Turkey’s false and hateful genocide denial
narrative, at lengths beyond even the Administration’s longstanding
and shameful complicity in Turkey’s denials of the Armenian Genocide,”
stated Hachikian in his August 15th letter. “His verbal and written
responses to questions during his Senate confirmation process,
regarding the Armenian Genocide and other issues, ranged from evasive
to deeply offensive.”

The ANCA encouraged concerned citizens to contact Secretary Clinton
on this matter, and urged members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to oppose the Ricciardone nomination.

His Eminences Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan and Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian, Prelates of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
Eastern and Western United States, respectively, and Archbishop
Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic
Church – Eastern United States each issued powerfully worded spiritual
messages in response to the Ambassador’s statement. In an August 15th
statement, from which Senator Menendez quoted, Archbishop Choloyan
stressed that the Ambassador’s assertion was “so blatantly false
that it cannot remain unchallenged.” Setting the record straight,
he noted that: “The facts are quite clear. From the massacres
of Armenians in 1895-96 and the Armenian Genocide in 1915, to the
decades following the establishment of the Turkish republic, Christian
houses of worship were systematically destroyed or confiscated. My
own church’s hierarchal see, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia,
was a victim of this process, and today is exiled in Lebanon. The
archives of the Catholicosate contain hundreds of original deeds
and other documentation of churches and church owned property that
were confiscated.”

Archbishop Mardirossian concurred, stating, “The presence of an
Ambassador in Ankara who is unaware of or uninterested in the truth
and the consequences of the Ottoman and Republican Turkish government’s
genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, Syriacs, Greeks and other Christians
materially undermines U.S. interests, compromises American values,
and weakens international efforts to defend religious freedom for
peoples of all faiths. Sadly, but unmistakably, with this hateful and
hurtful statement, Ambassador Ricciardone has demonstrated that he
is not the right candidate to effectively and responsibly represent
the United States in Turkey.”

On August 19th, Archbishop Barsamian noted that Amb. Ricciardone’s
response had “deeply offended Armenian-Americans”, explaining that
“the loss of these many hundreds of churches, their neglect and
outright destruction, and the conversion of many of our sanctuaries
into mosques, is a matter of intense pain to Armenians: an ongoing
reminder of the loss of life and the destruction that we suffered as a
result of the 1915 Genocide… In all charity, perhaps the Ambassador
is simply unaware of certain facts. But mastery of the history of a
country, its dark as well as bright chapters, is essential to serving
the United States effectively and diplomatically in this important
and complex region.”

Reservations about the Ambassador’s readiness to placate his
foreign host’s interests at face value were expressed last fall by
then Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), who, during the last session of
Congress, placed a hold on Ambassador Ricciardone’s nomination to
serve as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. In an August 16, 2010, letter to
Secretary Clinton, Sen. Brownback voiced disapproval of Ricciardone’s
tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, noting, among other things,
that “he quickly adopted the positions and arguments of his Egyptian
diplomatic counterparts.”

In the wake of Senator Brownback’s hold, President Obama circumvented
Senate objections by issuing a “recess appointment” of Amb.

Ricciardone. The Senate must approve his nomination in the upcoming
months, if Ambassador Ricciardone is to continue to serve in Turkey
for more than one year, of the usual three-year ambassadorial term.

During Ambassador Ricciardone’s July confirmation hearing, in response
to Delaware Senator Chris Coons’ question as to what steps he had taken
to promote religious freedom in Turkey, he offered an evasive answer:
“… very interestingly, they [the Turkish Government] follow our
debates about personal freedom and religious freedom and they say
‘Here is how you can understand this, American Ambassador. In your
country, you have in recent years made a distinction between freedom
of religion and the concept of freedom from religion. For too long in
our modern republic we focused on preventing the intrusion of religion
in our national life and political life. We are quite comfortable to
be observant Muslims, please don’t call us Islamists, by the way,’
they tell us, ‘but to the extent someone is praying as a Christian
or a Jew, it really doesn’t bother us at all – why should it? It’s
no threat to the state, on the contrary, we are rather proud of our
diversity and we happy to have them do it. As to their property issues,
let us take a fresh look at this and make sure they get justice.'”

This assessment is sharply at odds with reports by the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which raised the
following alarm in its 2011 report: “The Turkish government continues
to impose serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief,
thereby threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority
religious communities in Turkey.”

The nominations are now set to go to the full Senate for confirmation.

Remarks by Senator Menendez on the Nomination of Francis Ricciardone
to be Ambassador to Turkey

Mr. Chairman – I have comments that I would like to make about the
nomination of Ambassador Ricciardone.

In June, I had a meeting with Ambassador Ricciardone in my office. I
appreciated the time he took to meet with me and I believe that his
efforts on behalf of the majority of U.S. interests are well-focused in
Ankara. I was prepared to support his nomination until I received the
responses to the Questions for the Record that I submitted following
his nomination hearing before this committee.

I asked the nominee, who has now served as the U.S. Ambassador to
Turkey since January of this year, about the number of Christian
churches still functioning in present-day Turkey. His initial and
incorrect response was that “most of the Christian churches functioning
prior to 1915 are still operating as churches.” This response was so
wrong as to be offensive.

The Archbishop of the Eastern Prelacy of Armenian Apostolic Church
of America, His Eminence Choloyan, issued a statement to rectify the
facts, stating that the Ambassador’s statement was “so blatantly
false that it cannot remain unchallenged.” He noted that: “The
facts are quite clear. From the massacres of Armenians in 1895-96
and the Armenian Genocide in 1915, to the decades following the
establishment of the Turkish republic, Christian houses of worship
were systematically destroyed or confiscated. The archives of
the Catholicosate contain hundreds of original deeds and other
documentation of churches and church owned property that were
confiscated.”

After several inquiries, Ambassador Ricciardone submitted a revised
response stating that “Christian community contacts in Turkey report
that a total of 200-250 churches that date to 1915 and before offer
Christian worship services at least once a year. ” I understand this
number to also be an overestimation.

What concerns me more, however, is that his response indicates that
he either did not carefully review the responses that were submitted
in his name or worse or that he truly was unaware of the history of
the Christian church in Turkey and the difficulties that Christian
churches continue to face in that country. His response indicates a
lack of focus or interest in issue affecting the Armenian community
and sends a message to Turkey that the Armenia issue is not an
“A-list” issue. We need an Ambassador in Ankara that can support,
defend and advocate on behalf of all of the United States’ interests
vis-a-vis Turkey. Unfortunately, I’ve lost confidence in the ability
of Mr. Ricciardone to undertake that task and will not be able to
support his nomination.

LE CABLE DE L’AMBASSADE DES ETATS-UNIS SUR LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN ET LES ARCHIVES OTTOMANES
[email protected]

armenews.com
mercredi 14 septembre 2011

USA

Les guillemets qui sont employes au debut du telegramme sont peu
a peu abandonnes au fil du rapport du diplomate. Il est vrai qu’il
rappelle que selon les historiens turcs, quelques centaines de milliers
d’Armeniens tout au plus sont morts tues par des bandits, la maladie,
la faim, et les conditions climatiques…

Dans le paragraphe 4, on retrouve le thème developpe recemment par
Vahakn Dadrian sur la perception que les Turcs ont d’eux-memes,
après leurs defaites du debut du 20ème siècle dans les Balkans :
des victimes.

On apprend que la moitie environ des documents d’archive n’etant pas
encore “catalogues” sont inaccessibles aux chercheurs. Au huitième
paragraphe, un chercheur turc voit dans les travaux de mise en
catalogue une operation destinee a poursuivre la “purge” des archives.

Le diplomate ecrit explicitement que le gouvernement turc organise
la negation. Selon lui, ce sont les groupes nationalistes qui font
pression sur le gouvernement.

Le commentaire de fin est incomprehensible. Le consul americain renvoie
dos a dos les Armeniens et les Turcs. On aurait attendu qu’au moins
dans un document confidentiel, le diplomate eclaire son ministre
en disant de quel côte est le droit, voire la verite. On aurait pu
penser qu’il donne a son ministre des recommandations et des pistes
pour determiner une politique. Au lieu de cela, c’est le consul qui
demande a etre informe ; de quoi ? Des eventuelles protestations des
chercheurs genes dans leur accès aux archives.

Gilbert Beguian

Câble de l’ambassade des Etats-Unis – 04ISTANBUL1074

“GENOCIDE ARMENIEN ” ET ARCHIVES OTTOMANES

Identifiant : 04ISTANBUL1074

Origine : Consulat d’Istanbul

Creation : 12 juillet 2004 09:01:00

Classification : CONFIDENTIEL

Etiquette : PREL PGOV AM TU ISTANBUL

Redacteur : ce câble n’a pas ete redige par Wikileaks

Ce document est un extrait partiel du telegramme original, Le texte
en son entier du telegramme originel n’est pas disponible.

C O N F I D E N T I E L SECTION 01 DE 03 ISTANBUL 001074

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958 : DECL : 07/11/2014

TAGS : PREL, PGOV, AM, TU, Istanbul

SUBJECT : ARMENIAN “GENOCIDE” AND THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES

Classe confidentiel par : le Consul General David Arnett pour les
raisons 1.5 (b&d)

Ceci est un document conjoint du Consulat General d’Istanbul/Ambassade
d’ANKARA

1. (sbu) Resume : le defaut d’entente et de dialogue sur la question du
soi-disant “genocide” reste un obstacle majeur au rapprochement turco-
armenien. Une solution a long terme a cette question problematique
ne peut etre construite qu’a travers un dialogue ouvert et un debat
sain et objectif. Le libre accès a toutes les archives ottomanes,
où se trouvent pour l’essentiel les preuves historiques relatives a
cette periode, est un aspect critique pour que s’installe la confiance
mutuelle necessaire a un tel debat. Bien que la Turquie ait fait
de gros progrès vers l’ouverture des archives et de stigmatiser la
question, des problèmes persistants et des doutes sur les archives
continuent a saper les efforts pour remplir le fosse d’incomprehension
entre les Armeniens et les Turcs sur cette question historique. Fin
du resume.

2. (u) L’obstacle le plus serieux a la reconciliation turco-armenienne
reste une impossibilite d’entente, ne serait-ce que sur un dialogue
sain sur la “question” armenienne ou sur ce qui est pour la plupart
des Turcs le “suppose genocide”. Les accusations, negations et
contre-accusations sur cette question ont longtemps obscurci des
debats prepares dans la sincerite. Les intellectuels de la diaspora
ont reuni des quantites de temoignages oculaires et de declarations
detaillant les tragiques evenements de 1915-16 qui des conditions qui
d’après eux sont celles du genocide de 1,5 million d’Armeniens vivant
dans l’empire ottoman. Les historiens turcs contestent, quant a eux
disant que quelques centaines de milliers d’Armeniens, ont ete tues
par des bandits, par la maladie et les très dures conditions de vie,
quand, en reponse a la menace constituee par des insurges armeniens,
(et au “massacre” de beaucoup de musulmans turcs), une grande partie
de la population armenienne a ete deportee en Syrie et au Liban.

Une Question d’Identite

3. (sbu) Outre des milliers d’annees d’histoire ecrite, un riche
heritage culturel et une Eglise vivante, pour les Armeniens du
monde entier, les evenements de 1915-16 constituent une composante
fondamentale de leur identite moderne. Bien que quelques Armeniens
aient quelquefois cherche la vengeance dans la terreur et la violence,
(c’est le cas du terrorisme de l’ASALA des annees 1970), l’objectif
a ete fixe d’une campagne infatigable pour que ces evenements soient
reconnus comme un genocide.

4. (sbu) L’approche turque de la question armenienne est complexe.

Depuis l’instauration de la Republique turque, Ataturk et ses
heritiers de la classe dominante ont pense que pour entretenir l’
“identite turque” – qu’Ataturk et son entourage ont developpe comme
une construction artificielle, et dont ses heritiers politiques disent
qu’elle est sous la menace d’ennemis a l’interieur et a l’exterieur –
essentielle pour la protection et le developpement de la Republique.

Les representants a la fois de l’etat turc et de chaque gouvernement
jusqu’a ce jour, croient que la reconnaissance de tout mauvais
traitement inflige aux Armeniens remettrait en question ses frontières
et les propres revendications issues de la victimisation de la Turquie,
et exposerait la Turquie a des demandes d’indemnisation. Des decennies
de negation officielle et le refus d’envisager tout debat rationnel
en Turquie sur cette question taboue ont prive la Turquie d’un
environnement objectif propice aux affirmations de genocide.

Les archives sont-elles ouvertes ?

5. (sbu) Les deux parties se sont efforcees d’utiliser les Archives
ottomanes pour soutenir leur version des evenements. Les Turcs ont
publie des volumes de documents pour appuyer leur thèse, tandis que
l’attitude du gouvernement turc faisant obstacle au libre accès des
archives est vue par les chercheurs armeniens comme une volonte de
dissimuler les preuves du genocide.

Les chercheurs armeniens se sont plaints depuis longtemps de ne
pas pouvoir obtenir l’autorisation de faire des recherches dans les
archives ou de n’y en avoir eu accès que partiellement. D’autres faits
de retard (et disent-ils, deliberes) pour obtenir une autorisation,
ont souvent consomme la majeure partie de la duree prevue par les
conditions d’attribution d’une subvention ou celle d’un conge sans
solde.

Kevork Bardakchian, chef du programme des Etudes Armeniennes a
l’Universite du Michigan, par exemple, a rapporte aux responsables
politiques que ses autres collègues et lui-meme avaient essuye un
refus, tout simplement et sans explication lorsqu’il avait depose
des demandes dans les annees 1970 et 1980. Un directeur des archives
de l’epoque avait ouvertement parle de la necessite de “proteger”
les documents d’un mauvais traitement par des etrangers hostiles.

6. (sbu) Les specialistes turcs et etrangers sont d’accord pour dire
que l’ancien premier ministre et president Turgut Ozal a fait qu’un
pas reel soit franchi pour l’ouverture des archives a la fin des
annees 1980 et au debut des annees 1990. Les archives ont ete mises
sous l’autorite du premier ministre, les procedures pour obtenir des
autorisations de recherche allegees, et les efforts pour cataloguer
150 millions de documents ont ete acceleres. Tous ceux a qui nous
avons parle concèdent que cela a ete le signal d’un changement profond
qui se prolonge jusqu’a aujourd’hui. Selon l’administration turque
des archives, les autorisations sont normalement accordees en une
semaine, le personnel d’archivage est diligent, et les photocopies de
documents desirees sont disponibles a un prix raisonnable. Lorsque
des responsables politiques ont visite la salle de recherche des
archives un peu plus tôt ce mois-ci, le personnel lui a montre une
liste informatisee de plus de 300 chercheurs americains qui ont
recu l’autorisation de faire ici des recherches au cours des annees
recentes (plus d’une trentaine jusqu’a present, simplement pour cette
annee). Les catalogues sont egalement disponibles sur le site Internet
des Archives.

7 (sbu) Quelques restrictions a l’accès restent en place. Les
responsables turcs ne permettent pas l’accès a plus de 70 millions de
documents non encore catalogues et soutiennent que beaucoup d’autres
sont trop endommages pour etre employes par les chercheurs. En outre
quelques critiques s’elèvent encore selon lesquelles le gouvernement
turc cherche a bloquer les personnes qui cherchent dans le domaine de
la question armenienne. Le Directeur des services d’Archives d’Etat du
premier ministre Yusuf Farinay a indique aux responsables politiques
que les chercheurs doivent se trouver legalement en Turquie a cet
effet, ce qui implique un visa d’approbation du ministère des affaires
etrangères. Quelques chercheurs voient encore leur autorisation
retardee ou refusee purement et simplement (les chercheurs grecs ont
ete eux-aussi victimes de telles discriminations dans le passe). Le
Directeur d’Archive Sarinay a dit que bien que beaucoup de chercheurs
americains soient venus aux archives, il faut noter qu’aucun n’est
venu d’Armenie. Il a specule sur le fait qu’il n’y a pas de relations
diplomatiques entre la Turquie et l’Armenie – et cela a cause d’une
politique de reciprocite vis-a-vis de l’Armenie supposee ne pas ouvrit
ses archives aux chercheurs turcs. L’eminent historien de l’epoque
ottomane Halil Inalcik a critique le manque d’ouverture des archives
dans un editorial de fevrier 2001 dans le journal Radikal sous le titre
“Les Archives ottomanes doivent etre ouvertes au Monde”. En depit de
la critique, cependant, le leit motive aujourd’hui est “ouverture”
et toute discussion tendant a la “protection” des archives vis-a-vis
des etrangers est politiquement incorrecte. Bien que l’autorite du
Directeur des Archives lui permette encore d’interdire l’accès,
il aura du mal a expliquer les raisons d’une telle restriction a
l’encontre de tout chercheur serieux.

Les Archives ont-elles ete purgees ?

8.(c) Plus importante peut-etre que les questions d’accession,
cependant, est la question : les archives sont-elles complètes ? Selon
le professeur Halil Berktay, il y a eu deux initiatives serieuses
tendant a “purger” les archives de tout document incriminant la
question armenienne. La première a eu lieu en 1918, on presume avant
l’occupation d’Istanbul par les forces alliees. Berktay avec d’autres
relèvent un temoignage devant les Tribunaux Militaires Turcs, indiquant
que des documents importants ont ete “voles” des archives.

Selon Berktay, une seconde purge a eu lieu en marge de l’initiative
d’ouvrir les archives d’Ozal, par un groupe de diplomates et de
generaux a la retraite menes par l’ex ambassadeur Muharrem Nuri Birgi
(note : Nuri etait precedemment ambassadeur a Londres et a l’Otan et
secretaire general du ministère des affaires etrangères). Berktay
soutien qu’au temps où il passait les archives au peigne fin,
Nuri Birgi rencontrait regulièrement un ami commun et a un moment,
en reference aux Armeniens, il confessa tristement que “Nous les
avons reellement massacres”. Tony Greenwood, Directeur de l’Institut
Americain de Recherche en Turquie, a dit a des responsables politiques,
en aparte, que lorsqu’il travaillait aux archives a la meme epoque,
il etait bien connu qu’un groupe d’officiers a la retraite avaient un
accès privilegie et ont passe plusieurs mois a etudier les documents
archives. Un autre chercheur turc qui avait travaille sur la question
armenienne soutient que les travaux en cours pour repertorier les
documents servent en realite a purger les archives.

Faire face a l’Histoire

9. (sbu) Les attitudes de la Turquie vis-a-vis du genocide ont evolue
dans le temps. Meme si peu nombreux sont ceux qui ont le courage
d’en parler publiquement, quelques intellectuels, universitaires,
et d’autres remettent en question la version officielle des evenements.

Les citoyens ordinaires de l’Anatolie Centrale et Orientale
reconnaissent devant nous ce que leurs grands parents ont fait
subir aux Armeniens. Plusieurs visiteurs intellectuels americains
ont releve que le sujet n’est desormais plus tabou. Publiquement,
les classes dirigeantes turques (le groupe de reflexion nationaliste
ASAM, l’Association Historique d’Etat Turque, et jusqu’aux Archives
y compris), persistent a recuser les affirmations de la diaspora
et ripostent en accusant les Armeniens de s’etre engages dans des
revoltes massives et generalisees au cours de la guerre et en ayant
perpetre des massacres a grande echelle de musulmans turcs. Au cours
des recentes annees, le ministère de l’education a demande a des
lyceens de participer a un concours de redaction niant le Genocide
(note : Berktay soutient que cette idee a son origine dans l’ASAM
et impose au ministère par les contacts militaires de l’ASAM). Le
gouvernement actuel, quant a lui, a ete notablement plus reserve
que certains de ses predecesseurs, repetant consciencieusement la
necessite de ‘laisser la question a la discussion des historiens’.

Commentaire

10. (c) Bien que presque un siècle soit passe depuis les evenements de
1915-1916, le fosse d’incomprehension entre les Armeniens et les Turcs
sur cette question reste considerable. Tout en n’etant plus un sujet
complètement ferme comme il l’a ete, la discussion en Turquie en reste
encore limitee et dominee par la ligne nationaliste-classe dominante.

Meme si le gouvernement actuel espère laisser cette question en
arrière, il est peu probable qu’il sera capable de faire beaucoup
plus que simplement encourager la creation de conditions propices a
une saine discussion. Il est douteux qu’en l’etat actuel des choses,
les archives ottomanes puissent apporter une interpretation definitive
de la question armenienne, mais elles seront au centre et une clef
pour des Turcs et Armeniens desireux d’entreprendre d’authentiques
recherches et debats sur ce sujet.

A cette fin, nous devons soutenir et encourager les chercheurs a
maintenir le pression pour acceder au materiel d’archives et a se
preparer a s’adresser au gouvernement turc pour exprimer des griefs
sur les obstacles officiels. Nous demandons au Departement (d’Etat)
de nous informer de telles demarches.

DAYS OF ARMENIAN MOVIE KICK OFF IN ANAPA

Panorama
Sept 13 2011
Armenia

Days of Armenian movies will kick off today in Anapa-hosted
“Kinoshock-2011” film festival.

In the sidelines of non-format movies special performance of Armenian
movies dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Independence of Armenia
will be held.

There are 14 films in the main contest, including “Wondering” by
Arshaluys Harutyunyan.

Armenian delegation consisted of Marat Hayrapetyan, consultant of
Culture Minister, Vardan Abovyan, the deputy director of National
movie center, expert Davit Muradyan and actor Rafael Kotanjyan will
leave for Anapa to attend the festival.

RESEARCH CENTER OF RENOWNED IT COMPANY TO BE FOUNDED IN ARMENIA’S SECOND LARGEST CITY

news.am
Sept 13 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Testing and research center of the renowned D-Link IT
company is planned to be founded at Gyumri Technopark, the latter’s
foundation director Gurgen Paronyan told Armenian News-News.am.

Paronyan informed that, at present, negotiations are also underway
with other leading foreign companies.

In addition, local-capital companies are also being established. In
Paronyan’s words, 4 IT companies are already established and more are
on the way. “Two of these companies were established without state
involvement, and the Technopark provides them technical, expert,
and area support,” Paronyan said.

He also informed that they are currently training staff for the
Technopark, adding that the Technopark building’s technical task will
be prepared soon and its tender will probably be announced in October.

During its July 21 session, the Government of Armenia approved the
2011 program for the activities of Gyumri Technopark, and 176.5
million drams ($466,522 US) were allocated from 2011 state budget
for this purpose.

The project on creating the Gyumri Technopark was approved in 2006,
and the state assistance program for the Technopark’s activities was
endorsed in 2009.

ARABS ARE APPLAUDING BUT ADMINISTRATIONS SKEPTICAL
By Mehmet Ali Birand, [email protected]

Hurriyet
Sept 13 2011
Turkey

The Prime Minister’s greeting when he landed in Cairo was featured
as a victory in our media. I am sure the prime minister did not take
very seriously the demonstration of love from thousands of Egyptians
who were applauding and cheering him. These types of demonstrations,
especially in Egypt, are specially arranged. They are constructed by
administrations and used so that the visitors are pleased or dissuaded
from conveying a negative message.

The Arab “streets” up to now have applauded countless persons but
after that they have also wiped the floors with the same leaders.

Erdogan is not in the same position.

He actually is a leader liked by the people. But this should not be
counted on too much. Because those governing these countries have a
different view of Erdogan.

The Turkish Prime Minister is being applauded in public statements,
his cheeks are being kissed. But when the doors close, the talk starts
with statements such as, “These Turks, now, have gone too far.”

Erdogan’s Gaza passion and his stance for smashing Israel and moving
Turkey to the forefront are bothering some other Arab countries.

Erdogan is both stealing a role from the Arabs and demonstrating
their incompetence in the Palestine issue.

This stance, starting with Cairo, does not serve the purpose of most
of them but they also cannot raise their voices.

Let’s get used to it.

This is how the game is played in the Middle East.

We are also going to play it as such.

We should not be surprised if tomorrow the wind blows from the opposite
direction in the Arab “streets.”

Athens should not use the Israel card

Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, according to media reports, has
stated that he was preparing to use the cards he has in his hand to
bother Turkey.

1. Assisting the PKK:

It is said that Israel, by giving arms and training, will assist
the terror organization to make Turkey bleed more. Up until today,
a lot has been said about Israel and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or PKK, relationship but nothing has been proven. To provide
an open and huge support to a terror organization, however angry they
may be at Turkey, does not suit this country’s long-term interests.

Consequently, it is very difficult for the foreign minister to play
this card. At most, he will be restricted to offering some trivial
intelligence and training assistance. Moreover, the PKK has reacted
to Lieberman’s statement. Murat Karayılan said Israel first has to
apologize to the PKK for its role in capturing Abdullah Ocalan and that
the PKK was not an organization that would allow itself to be used.

2. Cooperation with Armenian lobbies:

Nobody doubts it. Israel will find huge support from the Armenians
in this area.

Especially at this time when the 100th anniversary of the 1915 events
is nearing, Israel can do everything it can for a genocide bill to
pass in the U.S. Congress. But this is directly connected to the
Obama administration’s attitude. The Israeli lobby and Washington
would not very easily join the Lieberman campaign.

3. Greek-Greek Cypriot card:

Before anything else, we have to highlight that it is not known how
much these anti-Turkey initiatives of Lieberman are approved and
adopted by the Netanyahu government.

Now, let’s look at the possible stances of Greece and southern Cyprus.

It is unreasonable for both Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration
to become a card in Israel’s hands and let themselves be used against
Turkey.

Especially in this era when bilateral relations have entered a positive
stage, it does not serve any purpose for Athens to set off to make the
Turkish public its enemy yet again. Even for the sake of supporting
its brothers because of domestic policy reasons, Athens should not
take such a risk in view of Greek Cyprus’ exploring for oil in the
Mediterranean together with Israel and Turkey’s opposition to this.

It is difficult to believe that Greece, going through the worst
economic crisis in its history would opt for strategic cooperation with
Israel and join an anti-Turkey front. Prime Minister Papandreou is a
realistic person. I doubt he would participate in such an unnecessary
show that would not yield any results.

When we come to the attitude of the Greek Cyprus administration;
while the region is experiencing storms, joining Lieberman’s game and
wishing that Turkey be cornered would be just about the same level
of a wrong calculation.

I think Greece and the Greek Cyprus administration, for domestic
political reasons, may wink at Lieberman but will not go any further.

Even if Greek Cypriot President Christofias, considering the upcoming
elections, sets off to flirt with Lieberman, there is a low probability
that it finds the support it expects from Athens.

This is what is expected of Papandreou.