Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

TCA PRESIDENT LINCOLN MCCURDY: “PRESSURE MUST BE EXERTED ON ARMENIA TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMISSION OF HISTORIANS” – INTERVIEW

APA
Feb 3 2012
Azerbaijan

“Sadly, those who show great humanitarian concern for a historical
tragedy have no compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani
refugees created by Armenian aggression today”

Washington. Isabel Levine – APA. APA correspondent interviews with
Lincoln McCurdy, the president of Turkish Coalition of America (TCA)

– What are your views on Armenia’s negative insistence on international
community as the French Senate recently passed the bill penalizing
the denial of the so-called genocides recognized by the law?

– This bill criminalizes speech by mandating the categorical acceptance
of a historical narrative. It goes beyond expressing support for
a one-sided narrative of the Ottoman Armenian tragedy, and would
effectively censor any viewpoint that differs from how a political
body, the French Parliament, reads and interprets this history and
defines it – although it lacks the legal or legitimate authority to
do so. It is an onslaught on academic freedom, freedom of inquiry,
freedom of thought and freedom of speech. This is antithetical to
the impartial pursuit of the truth.

There is ongoing and lively scholarly inquiry into this period of
history and how to most accurately understand and characterize the
tragic events during the closing days of the Ottoman Empire. In fact,
just recently, an issue of the Middle East Critique shed light on
the complex and controversial nature of the Ottoman Armenian tragedy.

Under the French law, some of the scholars who contributed to this
publication could be prosecuted if they were to voice the conclusions
of their research in French soil!

At the heart of this issue is freedom of thought and speech. We are
not talking about hate speech or inciting anyone to violence through
speech. We are not even talking about offensive speech. One could agree
with the entire pro-Armenian narrative of this history but still not
define it as “genocide” under the definition of international law.

TCA maintains that President Sarkozy should refrain from signing this
bill into law not only in the name of free speech and intellectual
inquiry; but also to show his support for efforts to attain closure
on this period of history, with a view to building new and strong
relations between Turkey and Armenia.

– What are the prospects of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation
in conditions when the Armenian lobby does not disavow the global
campaign for recognition of ‘Armenian genocide’ by parliaments,
as well as by the US Congress?

– The global campaign pursued by the Armenian lobby essentially reduces
the common history of the Ottoman Turks and Armenians to a one-sided
account of suffering that only serves to aggravate prejudices and
sabotage efforts to reconcile these two peoples.

This interpretation of history overlooks the historical friendship
between Ottoman Turks and Armenians-nurtured over ten centuries of
peaceful coexistence-and continues to cause division and bitterness.

Pursuing the truth concerning this complex chapter of history is
essential to fostering ties of friendship between Turks and Armenians
and paving the way towards improving relations between the two states
in the future.

– What should the US do in that case – stand aside of the process,
or continue participating in it?

– Anything the US can do to foster an atmosphere of reconciliation
between Turkey and Armenia would be appreciated. In this respect,
continued US support for the establishment of a joint commission of
historians to study the two nations’ shared Ottoman past is of utmost
significance. It is encouraging that support for the creation of a
joint historical commission has also been voiced by the parliamentary
assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe and most recently
by Swiss Foreign Minister Michelin Calmy-Rey.

It should be recalled that the proposal to establish a joint commission
of historians was first made by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan
in 2005 to then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian. Ever since,
the proposal has been repeated on various occasions at the highest
levels. Regrettably, Armenia still has not responded favorably and,
in fact, continues to keep pertinent archives closed to scholarly
research. Pressure must be exerted on Armenia to change its stance
on these matters if this proposal is to be taken forward and turned
into an effective reality.

– How will the fact that France passed the “genocide” bill affect the
Turkish-West relations? Do you think the French Parliament’s decision
will influence Turkey’s activity as a NATO member, its place and
importance in the region?

– It will be up to the Turkish government and society to determine
the best course of action against an act that is regarded as directly
affecting the right of not just Turks, but everyone who holds a strong
opinion on a disputed historical matter. All indication so far is that
Turks are deeply offended by the French bill, and that the Turkish
government is taking this issue extremely seriously, as it should.

– How will the France’s “genocide” bill affect to the Nagorno-Karabakh
adjustment process?

– France is a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which seeks to find
a political solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The passage
of this bill in the France Senate raises serious questions as to the
ability of that country to act as an impartial broker in-and thus
constructively contribute to-the mediation of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

– Can Azerbaijan provide any support to Turkey in resisting campaign
of Armenian lobby on passing the ‘genocide’ in the parliaments of
other countries? What kind of joint steps can Turkey and Azerbaijan
take in the current situation?

– Sadly, those who show great humanitarian concern for a historical
tragedy have no compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani
refugees created by Armenian aggression today. We find this very
difficult to understand.

TCA has always advocated that rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia
must include a joint effort to find a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

The histories as well as futures of Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan
are very much intertwined, and we implore all parties to take an
approach to both past and present that can create sustainable peace
and prosperity for future generations in the region.

From: Baghdasarian

FRANCE, DIASPORA AND MISSED OPPORTUNITY
MARKAR ESAYAN

Today’s Zaman
Feb 3 2012
Turkey

I will resume from where I left off in my last column.

The Hrant Dink murder is an important milestone and turning point
because it has shown the desire and eagerness of a nation that has
stayed emotionally polarized with regard to reunification. Failure
to ensure the survival of a peaceful, dignified, democratic
Anatolian-Armenian relationship has been heavy baggage for everybody
in this country. Dink, who lay on the ground with his worn shoes,
was like the addition of a dark past. He and his death showed us
that there is a great price for failing to confront the past and to
effectively deal with the coup instigators and the rule of murderers.

The people who attended Dinkâ~@~Ys funeral and the remembrance ceremony
held on Jan. 19, 2012, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of
his murder showed that they were unwilling to live in such a country.

These demonstrations served as visible popular support for dealing
with the poisonous past started by the leaders of the Committee of
Union and Progress (CUP) in a raid in 1913. Everybody is now aware
that partial democratization keeps them weak and that demands raised
in reference to this partial democratization lead to them being
manipulated. In other words, exclusive reference by an Armenian,
a Kurd or a Muslim to his or her own rights refers to a state of
weakness that the oligarchy is in fact looking for. In this way,
these demands may be presented to the rest of the nation as a threat.

However, the consolidation of power for a better democracy based on
universal standards and the protection of the rights of different
groups is far more influential. During the first term of the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party), the impact of the EU membership
bid was more visible. Therefore, the EU membership bid allowed us to
make progress without considering the prejudices of and confrontation
between different social groups. In other words, in the struggle to
address the headscarf problem of religious people, there was no need
for a separate strategy for the rights of the Alevis, the abolishment
of classes on religion or the reopening of the Halki Seminary.

Likewise, some ordinary Alevis who were fighting for their rights were
not uncomfortable with the contradiction of opposing the headscarf and
supporting the injustice in conjunction with the coefficient problem
in university admission. A religious party was in power and it was
making some efforts, but the EU was already requesting these reforms.

The reforms that the AK Party introduced did not bother the Muslims
because of assurances from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ~_an. In
other words, the Muslims were in power and confident during this
process and, for this reason, they adopted a progressive stance. The
motor behind this process since 2002 has been this group of people
anyway.

The Dink murder was committed at such a juncture. The Armenian
story has revealed history with all its baggage, and particularly
the 1915 massacres, which I call founding trauma, as well as their
perpetrators. Those who perpetrated the 1915 massacres were also
behind the murders of İskilipli Atıf Hoca and Cavit Bey, the
establishment of martial courts, the introduction of the Wealth
Tax, the commission of the Sept. 6-7, 1955 pogroms, the execution
of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, the organization of the massacres
before the Sept. 12, 1980 coup, laying the ground for the Feb. 28,
1997 coup and the killing of a number of Kurds. This was the method
used to govern the state. Despite the collapse of the Ottoman state
and the creation of the republican regime, Turkey has been ruled by a
mentality introduced by those who staged a coup in 1913. I am talking
about a century — I am talking about the tradition of a gang that
has remained opposed to the people and democracy.

Is it possible to argue that this century was unsuccessful? What was
successful? It was the legitimization of methods advanced by the CUP
mindset. True, most probably, the Sivas Madımak massacre was carried
out by a deep state organization. However, how would we explain the
â~@~Muslimâ~@~] people who gathered around the hotel asking for
the building to be set on fire? By deception alone? If we do this,
would we not be the same as those who follow a Kemalist mentality,
which does not consider the people mature enough? True, the Alevis
still support an antidemocratic stance on the headscarf issue, but
didnâ~@~Yt religious people indirectly support the stateâ~@~Ys dirty
policies and war through nationalism?

The Dink murder stands right there. True, I gave a definition of
an organization that seeks to topple the AK Party government. But
what would you say about the bureaucrats of the same government who
ignored extensive information about a potential murder? How would
you explain the protection of these bureaucrats over the past five
years? How would you explain the morality of the police officers who
ensured that the murderer posed in front of the Turkish flag at the
Samsun Police Department? It is hard to get concrete results without
realizing that this poisonous century created vicious ethics.

In my last column, I made mention of a speech I delivered at the
event in Paris held to remember Hrant Dink. I found the attitude of
the diaspora — by diaspora I mean all people, and their children,
who left Turkey — pretty grave. These are mostly people who migrated
out of fear, as well as for their children. They tend to oppose
any constructive or positive remarks about Turkey. I cannot make
generalizations, of course, but most of them hold this attitude. The
day they left Turkey is frozen in time for them. That they were not
understood undermined their efforts to understand. It is as if they
are living in the Turkey of the 1980s. The Armenians, leftists, Kurds
and Alevis are all furious with Turkey because they were victimized
and want justice.

Expectation of justice

A point that needs to be underlined is that there is an expectation
of justice. Regardless of what is happening, they believe Turkey
will never change. They have waited for the delivery of justice
for a century. This has sharpened their expectations and converted
an anticipation of justice into a request for punishment. The
fact that a religious party is in power has made things even more
complicated. The AK Partyâ~@~Ys reluctance over the last two years
to introduce further reforms — its reluctance to address growing
concerns over authoritarian tendencies and Turkeyâ~@~Ys conviction
by the European court — reinforce this judgment.

I observed in the Armenians that the feelings associated with
the peace and dialogue and the extensive support of thousands of
people for Dink after his murder are in decline in the aftermath of
Turkeyâ~@~Ys excessive reaction to the genocide denial bill adopted
by the French Senate. It is even known that the illegal demonstration
held outside the Senate was organized by Turkey. This created an
impression among many Armenians that the CUP was still haunting them
in their new homeland.

And they are not actually wrong, because the unreasonable reaction
by Turkey to the genocide bill reminds us of the old Turkey. A prime
minister who offered an apology for the Dersim massacre has not made
a single compassionate remark about 1915 yet; he has not given any
insight on a different approach to this matter. Collective denial of
the 1915 events through strong statements and an extremely defensive
attitude has undermined the AK Partyâ~@~Ys image as a promoter of
change here.

However, Turkey could have relied on a more compassionate discourse
for the 1915 incidents without compromising its official position on
the legal definition of genocide — it would not actually matter even
if the events are defined as genocide, considering they had nothing
to do with Turkey. To do this, the prime minister could have moved
slightly away from the position of people like Å~^ükrü ElekdaÄ~_
and more towards the standpoint of constructive figures like Dink.

Still, the cautious approach of the prime minister after the adoption
of the bill by the French Senate raises hopes. The referral of the
bill to the Constitutional Council is of course an important factor
in this. As 2015 approaches, the Armenian problem and 1915 will be
more frequently discussed. The denial bill adopted in France was
a good opportunity for a paradigm shift, but this opportunity was
missed. I hope such discussions will help similar future opportunities
to be seized.

From: Baghdasarian

FRENCH ARMY CHANGE ROUTE AFTER TURKEY BAN

Hurriyet Daily News
Feb 3 2012
Turkey

French state aircraft and warships are no longer using Turkish airspace
and territorial waters after permission requests in three different
cases were rejected by the Turkish government, France’s top diplomat
in Ankara said, amid the ongoing spat over a French law penalizing
the denial of Armenian genocide.

“Our requests [for an aircraft and two warships] have been rejected,
so we are no longer issuing such requests. We are using alternative
routes,” France’s Ambassador to Turkey Laurent Bili told the private
news channel CNN Turk in an interview.

Bili said the first rejection was to a request for a French military
aircraft that wanted to use Turkish airspace on its way to France
from Afghanistan. Similarly, two French warships were not allowed to
enter Turkish territorial waters recently. Turkey’s move against the
French military was part of sanctions imposed against France after
the adoption of the law at French Parliament late December last year.

Though enough numbers of lawmakers and senators were collected to
take the law to the Constitutional Council for possible annulment,
Bili’s words revealed the process was not an easy one.

“There was such an atmosphere [in Ankara] that necessitated my return
to France,” Bili said, adding that the Turkish reaction against
the move was a surprise for many French people but did not affect
Turkey’s image in the country. “France attaches great importance
to its relationship with Turkey. We need to be calm. The law is not
aimed against Turkey […] The number of Armenians living in France
is 10 times more than the number of Armenians in Turkey. They have
become a part of French history. I understand how sensitive issues
are concerning ancestors, but cutting off ties is not a good idea.”

The French Constitutional Council must conclude its study on the law
by Feb. 29 if the government does not demand the speeding up of the
process and give its verdict in eight days. If it does not embrace
the law, the council will either fully reject the law or will demand
a partial amendment. In both cases, the legislative process will have
to start from scratch.

From: Baghdasarian

“FRENCH BUSINESS CIRCLES WORRIED ABOUT AN ARMENIAN BILL”

Anadolu Agency
Feb 3 2012
Turkey

Turkish Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan said Friday that he held a
closed door meeting with the representatives of French companies in
Ankara last week about Turkish-French relations following an Armenian
bill that was adopted at the French Senate on January 23.

Speaking to the AA after inaugurating the Anadolu Agency’s new
editorial desk in Ankara, Caglayan said that French business circles
were worried about the Armenian bill and France’s wrong approach to
the incidents of 1915.

An Armenian bill adopted at the French Senate on January 23
criminalizes the denial of Armenian allegations pertaining to the
incidents of 1915.

Also speaking after the inauguration of the AA editorial desk, the
President of the AA Executive Board and Director General Kemal Ozturk
said that “thanks to state of the art technology being utilized, we can
connect with 100 regions in the world and hold online meeting with 30
editors. We discuss the developments in the world and Turkey with our
editors. How urgent a news is being debated at this editorial desk”.

From: Baghdasarian

IS EUROPE SETTING UP CLASH BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND THE WEST?

CNN

Feb 3 2012

By Mohammed Ayoob, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Mohammed Ayoob is University Distinguished Professor
of International Relations at Michigan State University and adjunct
scholar at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

(CNN) — Europe and the Muslim world seem to be on a collision
course that could have major political, economic and ideological
ramifications. January 23, 2012, may well come to be remembered as the
crucial date when Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis,
which many of us believed discredited beyond repair, was reaffirmed.

Political scientist Huntington wrote in 1993 that cultural divisions
preclude a defining global civilization, and the West and the Muslim
world would never share the same values.

Last month, Europe took two different actions that nonetheless sent
the same message to the Muslim world: You are not our equals and are
doomed to be judged by standards different from those by which we
judge ourselves. Future historians might call January 23 the day when
Europe irreversibly alienated not one, but both, pivotal powers —
Iran and Turkey — that in all probability will dominate the political
landscape of the Middle East for several decades.

One action was the European Union’s decision to ban oil purchases
from Iran, including imports of crude oil, petroleum products and
petrochemical products, to force Tehran to negotiate away its uranium
enrichment program, which Tehran insists is for civilian use only.

This is the latest in a series of increasingly stringent sanctions
that Western powers have unilaterally imposed on Iran. These sanctions
go well beyond those required by the U.N. Security Council.

The EU sanctions attempt to hit the Iranian economy where it hurts
most: Europe imports about a fifth of Iranian oil. When combined with
a ban on transactions with Iran’s Central Bank, this action is aimed
at paralyzing the Iranian economy.

At the same time, the French Senate passed a law making it a crime
to deny genocides that are officially recognized by France. The two
genocides in this category are the Holocaust and the killing of 1.5
million Armenians in Anatolia during the last years of the Ottoman
Empire. Because the denial of the Holocaust is already a crime under
French law, the obvious objective of the bill is to criminalize the
denial of the 1915 Armenian genocide.

The issue of Armenian genocide touches a very raw nerve in Turkey,
which denies the scale of the killings — Turkey maintains that roughly
500,000 Armenians were killed — as well as the claim that it was
planned. According to Turkey, the killings happened in the midst of
the disarray accompanying World War I and the disintegration of the
Ottoman Empire. Turkey says a nearly equivalent number of Turks and
Kurds were also killed in inter-ethnic strife with the Armenians,
who were allied with the Ottoman’s Russian adversaries.

It’s not the accuracy of the opposing claims that is at issue;
it’s Muslim perceptions. Iran may well be trying to develop nuclear
weapons, and what amounts to an Armenian genocide may well have taken
place. What roils Muslim opinion worldwide is the perception that
the West uses blatant double standards to pass judgment.

Harsh sanctions on Iran are seen as an attempt to prevent a Muslim
country from developing deterrents to attacks from Israel and the
United States, both nuclear powers hostile to the Islamic Republic.

Most Western discussions of the Iranian bomb do not make even passing
reference to the well-documented Israeli nuclear capability, even as
Israel threatens to militarily strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. This
omission is seen as hypocritical, dishonest and self-serving.

For many in the Muslim world, double standards explain why France
singled out Turkey, and didn’t criminalize the denial of other nations’
crimes against humanity. Although denying Germany’s crimes is a crime,
the Holocaust is universally accepted as genocide, while Turkey’s
is not.

Many ask why disputing European massacres of non-European people is
not criminalized — such as the French actions in Algeria, as Turkish
Prime Minister Erdogan has said. These would include the near-total
extermination of native populations by European settlers in Australia,
New Zealand, and North America.

They would include the killings of millions of people by the Belgian
administration of the Congo Free State, whose population was halved
during the early decades of Belgian rule. Most pertinent of all,
Muslims ask, why not criminalize the denial of the genocidal Spanish
Inquisition that led to the extermination, expulsion or conversion
of the entire Muslim and Jewish populations of the Iberian peninsula?

Many Muslims perceive these moves as the West targeting Iran
and Turkey in an attempt to prevent important Muslim countries
from achieving the military capacity — Iran — and the political
stature — Turkey — they deserve. Many see behind these moves the
not-so-hidden hand of an ideology based on Huntington’s theory of
the clash of civilizations. Although these perceptions may not fully
conform with reality, it is well established that perceptions count
much more than reality in the conduct of international relations.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIA: MALE EXODUS FROM RURAL COMMUNITIES
By Inna Mkhitaryan

Institute for War and Peace Reporting IWPR
CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, No. 626
January 24, 2012
UK

Gegharkunik has highest rate of labour migration anywhere in Armenia.

In the villages of Armenia’s Gegharkunik region, women describe
themselves as “almost-husbands”, since they have to do the tasks once
performed by their now absent menfolk, as well as their own work.

Around eight per cent of this eastern region’s population of 240,000
travel abroad every year as seasonal labour, mainly in Russia.

According to the national statistics agency, Gegharkunik has the
highest proportion of economic migrants of any region in Armenia.

Some of the migrants return every autumn, while others, like Shushan
Hovakimyan’s husband, barely come home at all.

Hovakimyan, a teacher in the village of Nerkin Getashen, lives with
her two sons and her 66-year-old mother-in-law, while her husband is
away in Russia most of the time.

“My husband was last home two years ago – he can’t come that often,”
she told IWPR. “He could at least come and see his aging mother. I’m
not important. I really worry about losing my husband, but what can
I do?”

Hovakimyan’s husband sends money home now and again, but it is rarely
enough to support them. She says that by the time she gets her monthly
wages, “I’ve already built up so many debts that I don’t know how to
distribute my salary.”

It is hard for men to make a living in Gegharkunik. In this mountainous
environment, winter lasts the best part of six months of the year,
and there are few jobs around apart from farming, which is barely
profitable.

Samvel Ghazaryan, 50, is one of the few men living all year round
in Nerkin Getashen. He spent 15 years as a labour migrant abroad,
but returned to care for the family 12 years ago when his wife Larisa
fell ill.

Inna Mkhitaryan is a freelance photojournalist in Armenia.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN JOURNALIST DETAINED BY POLICE CHIEF’S ORDER – NEWSPAPER

Tert.am
03.02.12

The Haykakan Zhamanak (Armenian Time) daily has issued a statement
on its journalist Haik Gevorgyan’s detention. The statement reads:

“On February 3, 2011, at about 11:00 am, police, using strong-arm
tactics, detained the well-known journalist Haik Gevorgyan and
transported him to the Nubarashen penitentiary. He was not allowed
to make a call nor did any official agency inform his relatives of
his whereabouts.

“The policemen explained their decision to transport the journalist to
the penitentiary by the fact that Haik Gevorgyan had been on a list
of wanted since January 23, in connection with a traffic accident
that involved his car.

“According to the RA Criminal Procedure, a person may be put on a
list of wanted if his or her whereabouts are unknown or he/she is an
absconder,” says the statement.

Both before and after January 23, Mr Gevorgyan continued his everyday
activities, driving his car, covering the Armenian government’s
sittings and top-ranking officials’ press conferences.

Mr Gevorgyan also had several telephone conversations with the
investigator and stated his readiness to appear if he was legally
summoned to the police. The investigator was informed of the
whereabouts of Mr Gevorgyan’s car. Mr Gevorgyan proposed that his
car be examined, but his proposal was rejected.

The developments suggest that the police are prosecuting one of the key
staff members of the newspaper by order, his journalistic activities
being the reason, says the statement.

On January 12, 2011, following the government sitting, Mr Gevorgyan
attended a press briefing of Chief of Armenia’s police Vladimir
Gasparyan. The journalist asked Mr Gasparyan a number of pointed
questions. Later, the newspaper published a disgraceful article about
the police chief. The article dealt with a number of facts about Mr
Gasparyan, which were not commented on by the journalist.

The same day, Á running-down accident involving Mr Grigoryan’s car
was attempted. The attempt failed due to Mr Grigoryan’s attentiveness,
says the statement.

Later developments do not leave any doubts that Mr Gevorgyan’s
detention was ordered by Chief of Armenia’s police Vladimir Gasparyan.

The reason must be an article published in the February 3, 2012,
issue. The article dealt with a G Mercedes owned by Mr Gasparyan,
which is worth $120,000 to 150,000.

The editorial staff of the Haikakan Zhamanak newspaper states:

1. Haik Gevorgyan’s detention is a fact of persecution by the
political Establishment, particularly by Chief of Armenia’s police
Vladimir Gasparyan. The aim is taking reprisals against Mr Gevorgyan
and preventing his further activities.

2. Vladimir Gasparyan, as well as other representatives of the
political Establishment aim at impeding the Haikakan Zhamanak
newspaper’s activities, intimidating all the Armenian journalists that
have no problems in making public the information on corrupt officials.

The newspaper demands immediate release of Haik Gevorgyan.

From: Baghdasarian

ECHOES OF WAR ACROSS THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
By Nicholas Clayton

Asia Times

Feb 2 2012

TBILISI, Georgia – As the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program
intensifies, South Caucasus leaders are pondering contingencies
since the consequences of open conflict or prolonged tensions are
potentially serious for all three nations.

Over the past several years, Iran has become an increasingly
influential player in the South Caucasus as Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia have each sought to diversify their economic and political
ties away from their traditional alliances – none more so than Armenia,
which now relies on Iran as a major trading partner and investor.

However, with tensions on the rise in the Persian Gulf, and with
threats by Iran to disrupt oil supplies passing through the Strait
of Hormuz in retaliation for the sanctions that have been slapped
on it by various countries over its uranium-enrichment activities,
South Caucasus capitals are pondering what role they would play should
the standoff get hot.

While some analysts see opportunity for the region, others worry the
three small countries could get pulled into an unpredictable conflict.

Out of the three, Armenia is the most concerned with preserving the
status quo, said Sergey Minasyan, head of the Political Studies
Department at the Caucasus Institute in Yerevan, the capital and
largest city of Armenia. Minasyan said Armenia’s relationship with
Iran had been “a constant dynamic” since its 1991 independence.

Landlocked Armenia has been geographically isolated since its conflict
with Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in
the early 1990s, during which Turkey also cut ties and closed its
border with Armenia in support of its Turkic Azeri brethren.

At the time, despite their ideological differences, the Islamic
Republic backed Christian Armenia over Muslim Azerbaijan and, along
with Russia, has been a source of important political support.

Furthermore, about one-third of Armenia’s trade passes through Iranian
territory. Armenia’s only alternatives are land routes passing through
Georgia to Russia and the Black Sea, however, heavy snows and avalanche
threats regularly close the Armenia-Georgia and Georgia-Russia border
crossings.

Iran has also been a key investor in Armenian business and
infrastructure, feeding the country natural gas through a recently
completed pipeline and an oil pipeline is in the works. Yerevan views
these links as key to preventing a near total dependence on Russia
for commerce.

In its 2011 report, “Without Illusions”, the Yerevan-based Civilitas
Foundation said that both the Karabakh war and the supply disruptions
caused by the 2008 Russia-Georgia war proved that Armenia’s “only
reliable access to the world was through Iran”.

Minasyan said Armenia had also served as a “proxy” for Iran in
developing business and political contacts in ways that bypass its
official isolation.

Still, Minasyan said that amid the occasionally violent stalemate with
Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the biggest consequences for Armenia
of a weakened or preoccupied Iran would be political, not economic.

“For the medium term, it would be possible to replace that trade
using Georgian routes. But the more important – the more dangerous –
would be the geopolitical results of closing the border if something
happened in Iran. On the other hand, another very important issue is
that not only Armenia is afraid of the possible consequences of a new
crisis with Iran. For Azerbaijan, it’s also a problem. Some experts
are thinking that we will have a crisis in Karabakh if something
happens in Iran, but politicians and experts in Azerbaijan are more
afraid of that outcome than in Armenia,” he said.

Indeed, Azerbaijan’s rocky relationship with Iran has hit an
historic low in recent months. Iran has long warned Azerbaijan
against exploiting energy resources near Iran’s Caspian waters, and,
in 2001, used military force to halt a BP-sponsored project near the
dividing line.

Since then, the two have traded barbs over ideological differences
related to Azerbaijan’s stolidly secular observance of Sunni Islam,
and Iran’s devotion to theocratic Shi’ite governance. Iran also worries
that Azerbaijan might play on the discontent among Iran’s sizable,
but repressed ethnic Azeri minority.

Last month, Azerbaijani government websites were hit by a wave a
cyber-attacks, which were responded to in turn with attacks against
Iranian state websites. Then, on January 25, Baku announced it had
foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Israeli ambassador to
Azerbaijan and attack a Jewish religious school in the country.

The suspects were captured after one allegedly met with his handlers
in northern Iran and was promised US$160,000 for the mission. The
capture came days after top Iranian officials had promised retribution
for the assassination of a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist, and
bore a striking resemblance to Iran’s alleged plot to kill the Saudi
ambassador to the United States.

Iran regularly accuses Azerbaijan of collaborating militarily with
both the US and Israel.

After the nuclear scientist was killed, an intelligence official in
Tehran was quoted as saying, “None of those who ordered these attacks
should feel safe anywhere.”

Stephen Blank, a research professor at the United States Army War
College, said that the threats Iran regularly made to Azerbaijan should
be taken seriously, including those saying that the country would be
“targeted and destroyed” if it allowed the US or it’s allies to use
Azerbaijani territory or air bases for an attack against Iran.

Azerbaijani airspace is already a key link in the Northern Distribution
Network supplying North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and
coalition forces in Afghanistan, and Azerbaijan has signed a number
of defense deals with Israel, but none of these arrangements were
directed against Iran thus far, Blank said.

That may not matter, however.

“I think Iran is driven by a different calculus. I don’t want to
leave anyone with the impression that we are dealing with people
who are deranged, because they’re not. But […] Iran is driven by
this kind of obsession of anti-Semitism and anti-Sunni thinking and
I think it manifests itself in their policy,” Blank said. “Second,
they have discovered that terrorism is an instrument that works.”

Lincoln Mitchell, a professor at Columbia University’s School of
International and Public Affairs, said, on the contrary, that the
region would stand to benefit from a US-Iranian escalation because it
“puts [the South Caucasus countries] in the driver’s seat, particularly
Azerbaijan, with its relationship with the US”.

“Azerbaijan plays a make-or-break role in this, and Azerbaijan can
make any attempt by the United States to do anything in Iran extremely
difficult, or it can make it considerably easier. So, the growing
tension between Iran and the United States gives far more leverage –
particularly to Azerbaijan – than they have now,” he said.

Mitchell said that in increasing its utility to the US, Azerbaijan
could alleviate Western pressure on Baku over democracy and
human-rights issues.

Georgia, while it does not share a border with Iran, may also come
into play.

Since coming to power in the 2003 “Rose” revolution, President Mikheil
Saakashvili has placed NATO membership at the forefront of his foreign
policy agenda. After Georgia’s brief war with Russia in 2008, those
aspirations appeared to be dashed, but Saakashvili has not given
up hope, deploying as many as 1,700 soldiers in Afghanistan’s most
violent province as a part of the NATO war effort.

However, Georgia has also sought to strengthen its ties with Iran
since the war, signing a visa-free travel agreement with the Islamic
Republic and opening up greater economic, academic and commercial
links in various agreements with Tehran.

Still, Mitchell, who worked as the chief of party at the National
Democratic Institute’s office in Georgia from 2002-2004 and has
authored a book on the Saakashvili regime, said that Georgia would
likely acquiesce to any requests by Washington to use Georgian
territory in support of American operations against Iran.

In an election year, Georgian opposition politicians and former
Georgian president Eduard Shevarnadze have publicly accused Saakashvili
of potentially dragging the country into a war with neighboring
Iran. But David Smith, a senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation
for Strategic and International Studies in Tbilisi, said such claims
“are reaching really far” and attributed the worries to political
polemicists.

Blank said that while there had been very few statements made about
the situation publicly, officials in all three countries were nervous
about the rising tensions.

“They are clearly concerned, as are the Russians, about the fact that
they’re being dragged into a contingency outside their area that they
don’t really have anything to say about,” he said.

Russia has responded to the standoff by announcing military exercises
in the North and South Caucasus that are unprecedented in scale. While
Russia regularly runs military drills in the North Caucasus, the
“Kavkaz-2012” maneuvers will also involve Russian units in Armenia and
the Georgian breakaway republic of Abkhazia. It had also reinforced
its military presence throughout the North and South Caucasus for an
indefinite term in response to the crisis, Blank said.

Over the past year, Russian officials have often warned that
foreign intervention in either Syria or Iran could lead to a “wider
conflict” in the region. Viewing both Syria and Iran as countries
on the periphery of its spheres of influence, Blank said Russia
was now attempting to reassert its claim over the South Caucasus,
its traditional buffer zone against the Middle East.

With the baseline of regional tensions raised, Mitchell said that the
rhetoric in both Russia and Georgia would likely turn increasingly
more provocative, as both countries’ leaders had a track record of
using external distractions to boost their personal popularity.

While most of talk remains just that, he said the confluence of the
regional events could lead to “a potentially explosive situation”.

So far, the South Caucasus has been exempted from pressure to freeze
its relations with Iran. Azerbaijan was even granted a special
exemption as European officials and energy lobbyists convinced the US
Congress not to include the development of Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz
natural gas field in its list of forbidden economic activities with
Tehran, although the Islamic Republic owns a 10% stake in the venture.

However, Blank said that the South Caucasus should not count on being
able to stay neutral forever.

“I think they will come under pressure to move back from their
relationship with Iran if the situation continues to remain at a high
level of tension. On the other hand, I think a war would be a worse
contingency for them,” he said.

Nicholas Clayton is a Tbilisi-based journalist and blogger
covering the Caucasus and the world. His blog can be found at

From: Baghdasarian

TURKEY WARNS EUROPE AGAINST MOUNTING RACISM, ISLAMOPHOBIA

Agence France Presse
February 1, 2012 Wednesday 11:15 AM GMT

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday warned of
rising racism and Islamophobia in Europe as he once again denounced
a recent French bill outlawing denial of Armenian genocide.

The French bill, was a “serious manifestation of an insidious danger
in Europe”, he said.

“There is an undeniable racist approach, a racist mentality … hidden
behind this bill,” Erdogan said at a meeting of his ruling Justice
and Development Party (AKP) in Ankara.

“This is not an affair that only concerns Turkey and France. This is
directly a European matter, a European Union matter,” he emphasised.

Turkey reacted furiously last week when the French Senate approved the
law, which threatens with jail anyone in France who denies that the
1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turk forces amounted to genocide.

Turkey would not remain silent to rising racism and Islamophobia
in Europe, Erdogan said, calling on friends of Turkey in Europe to
urgently address the problem.

“Turkey is a not a country that … will bow to insidiously growing
racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe,” he said.

“I would like to sincerely warn our friends in Europe that the
situation in France is a serious manifestation of an insidious danger.”

On Tuesday, two separate groups of French politicians who oppose the
contentious legislation — from both the Senate and the lower house
of parliament — said they had requested the constitutional council
to examine the law.

The council is obliged to deliver its judgement within a month,
but this can be reduced to eight days if the government deems the
matter urgent.

“I believe and hope that the constitutional council will act with
common sense and reach a conclusion that is compatible with French
values and European Union principles,” said Erdogan.

If the French senators had not taken the “racist and discriminatory”
law to the constitutional council, Turkish-French relations would
have suffered “irreparable harm”, he said.

Last week, the Turkish Premier warned that his Islamist-rooted
government would punish Paris with unspecified retaliatory measures
if French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed it into law.

Ankara has already halted political and military cooperation with
France and was threatening to cut off economic and cultural ties.

France has already officially recognised the killings as a genocide,
but the new law would go further by punishing anyone who denies this
with up to a year in jail and a fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000).

Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their forebears were killed in
1915 and 1916 by the forces of Turkey’s former Ottoman Empire.

Turkey disputes the figure, arguing that 500,000 died, and denies this
was genocide, ascribing the toll to fighting and starvation during
World War I and accusing the Armenians of siding with Russian invaders.

From: Baghdasarian

NICOLAS SARKOZY TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF FRANCE TODAY

Mediamax
Feb 2 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Nicolas Sarkozy will hold a meeting with
representatives of the Armenian community of France today.

The head of the Central Office of the Armenian National Committee
of “Dashnaktsutyun” Party, Kiro Manoyan, said today that the bill
criminalizing genocide denial will be discussed at the meeting. The
bill was passed by the French Senate and is now considered in the
Constitutional Council of France.

Kiro Manoyan said that “the Armenian community of France will do
everything possible so that the Constitutional Council makes a right
decision”.

He also noted that the Armenian authorities did not properly comment on
the appeal of several senators to the Constitutional Council of France,
as well as tried to ascribe the Senate’s decision to their own policy.

From: Baghdasarian