Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

ARMENIA TO DEVELOP PARTNERSHIP WITH RUSSIA – SARGSYAN

Voice of Russia
May 7 2012

Developing a partnership with Russia is one of Armenia’s foreign
policy priorities, President Serzh Sargsyan declared in his greetings
to Vladimir Putin on the occasion of his assuming office as Russian
President.

Sargsyan stressed Armenia’s determination to develop the strategic
partnership with Russia.

“I am convinced that the cooperation of our two countries will continue
to serve the interests of our nations’ well-being, and stability and
security in the Southern Caucasus,” the Armenian leader said.

From: Baghdasarian

EUROPE’S MORNING AFTER
by Thomas Lifson and Rick Moran

American Thinker

May 7 2012

The smoke has nearly cleared after elections in 6 European countries
on Sunday and Monday revealed an angry, fearful electorate who have
tired of the pain brought by austerity measures. In France, Greece,
Germany, Serbia, Italy, and Armenia, voters sent a clear message to
their leaders; let’s try something different.

The consensus seems to be in favor of heading straight for the fiscal
cliff, pedal to the metal. Today, financial markets are taking the
measure of the implications, and it is not pretty. Tokyo, the first
major market to open closed down almost 3%. The US stock market opened
lower and oil dropped below $100 bbl – the result of fears that Europe
is not serious about reducing its crushing debt. The democracies
apparently lack the will to honestly face the realities of spending
at levels that cannot be sustained by the taxpaying capacities of
the populace.

France, the most prominent example of the rejection of austerity,
elected a socialist who has promised drastic change, and he has the
intent and the ability carry out such a program. Richard Waghorne of
the Daily Mail

Francois Hollande is a man who means what he says and his rise to
the French presidency comes at a moment when there are exceptionally
few restraints on how far the French Socialist Party may now push
its agenda.

The party already controls many of the branches of French government.

There are few institutional checks not already in the hands of his
allies. In the hands of a resolute politician, the powers of the
French presidency are almost breathtaking in their latitude. Most
fundamentally, he has earned a mandate to do much of what France’s
unreconstructed left he longed to do for years.

In view of his promise to tax millionaires at 75%, the wealthy
of France are already making plans to relocate, as French income
taxes stop at the border (unlike American income taxes — we are the
exception among major nations). Thanks to the EU, French plutocrats
can live anywhere in the union, with no visa.

Hollande also plans on reducing unemployment the old fashioned way —
drastically increasing the number of government workers, thus expanding
the welfare state even beyond the generous cradle to grave cocoon in
which the French state lovingly wraps its citizens. He has made vague
promises that he won’t add to the debt to realize his economic goals,
but it is very difficult to see how he can avoid it.

Perhaps the most dangerous change in France will be its relations
with Germany. “Merkozy” – the name given to the close partnership of
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Nicholas
Sarkozy – is no more. The duo worked closely together to bring the euro
zone through several ticklish crises, and guide the EU to establish
a stronger central bank and agree to a fiscal compact. Hollande is
not likely to see eye to eye with the German Chancellor who believes
that austerity is the only way to re-establish confidence by investors
that european nations will pay back what they owe.

And after closely watched local elections in Germany where Merkel’s
center right party was ousted from power, the Chancellor herself has
very little room to maneuver. As the Wall Street Journal points out,
“Ms. Merkel’s options for ruling beyond 2013 are narrowing.” Merkel
has pledged to continue to push austerity measures on over-indebted
nations like Spain and Italy, but if she is seen as something of a
lame duck, her influence will be lessened.

That influence will be needed in Greece. The Greeks not only
marched over the fiscal cliff by rejecting the bail out coalition
that negotiated the EU/IMF deal to reduce its sovereign debt, they
decided to set the country on fire before they jumped.

Fox News:

Official results showed conservative New Democracy came first
with 18.85 percent and 108 of Parliament’s 300 seats. Party leader
Antonis Samaras, who backs Greece’s bailout commitments for austerity
but has called for some changes to the bailout plan, will launch
coalition-forming talks later in the day.

“I understand the rage of the people, but our party will not leave
Greece ungoverned,” Samaras said after Sunday’s vote.

After receiving the mandate to start negotiations from President
Karolos Papoulias, Samaras will have three days to strike a coalition
deal. But that could prove impossible because even with the support
of the only other clearly pro-bailout party elected, Socialist PASOK,
New Democracy would fall two seats short of a governing majority.

If the deadlock does not ease, Greece faces new elections under a
caretaker government in mid-June, about the time it has to detail
new drastic austerity measures worth [email protected] billion ($19 billion)
for 2013-14.

In June, Athens is also due to receive a ~@30 billion ($39.4 billion)
installment of its rescue loans from the other countries in the
17-strong eurozone and the International Monetary Fund.

Analyst Vangelis Agapitos said protracted instability would threaten
the country’s eurozone membership. Greece’s debt inspectors – the
eurozone, IMF and European Central Bank, collectively known as the
troika – could turn the screws by halting release of the bailout
funds until Athens moves forward with its pledged reforms.

If Greece fails to receive the next segment of bail out money, they
will be in default and will almost certainly have to leave the euro
zone. Some politicians on the far left and right bet that the EU was
bluffing and would give them the cash even if they reneged on the
bail out deal’s strict austerity measures. That’s the kind of wishful
thinking Greek voters heeded when they went to the polls yesterday.

The local voting in Italy on Monday is showing a public tired of
austerity. Allies of Prime Minister Monti, who has been sidling away
from the austerity camp in recent weeks and begun to sound more
pro-growth in his public statements, are expected to lose ground
in elections affecting about 900 towns in Italy. Pre-election polls
showed a large number of undecideds but lowered support for two of
his major coalition partners.

Monti, a centrist technocrat, was chosen to run the country last year
and save Italy from a Greek-like default. With no popular mandate,
he has gleaned the straw in the wind and is gradually edging away
from making the kind of structural changes that will save Italy
from disaster. He will survive, but the local elections will hardly
strengthen his hand going forward.

In Serbia, the socialists find themselves in the cat bird seat. They
hold the key to any coalition government that is formed and they are
likely to side with those who want to do away with austerity.

Reuters:

The Socialist Party of late strongman Slobodan Milosevic held the
key to power in Serbia on Monday after tied elections in which voters
angry about the country’s economic woes roundly punished the ruling
Democratic Party.

The Democrats, part of a reformist bloc that turned Serbia westwards
with Milosevic’s ouster in 2000, saw their support crumble to 23
percent from 38 percent in 2008, hurt by an economic downturn that
has left a quarter of the Serbian workforce jobless.

After years of teetering between pro-Western reformers and pro-Russian
nationalists, Sunday’s elections for president and parliament were
marked by an unprecedented consensus between the major political
blocs on Serbia’s bid to join the European Union.

The right-wing Serbian Progressive Party, led by former
ultranationalists who say they now share the goal of EU accession,
claimed the narrowest of victories in the more-important parliamentary
vote with around 24.7 percent, but was seen struggling for coalition
allies.

The Democrats and the Progressives will fight it out for control of
the presidency, too, when Democrat incumbent Boris Tadic and opposition
leader Tomislav Nikolic go head-to-head in a run-off on May 20.

The Socialists, led by Milosevic’s former spokesman Ivica Dacic,
doubled their vote to some 16 percent and emerged as kingmakers.

In tiny Armenia, President Serzh Sarksyan’s Republican Party
won a parliamentary election that turned on which side was more
pro-development. Armenia, as an emerging democracy, hasn’t suffered
as much from the financial crisis as other nations who have been
brought low by their crushing debt. Sarksyan will seek a coalition
government with his main rival – the Prosperous Armenia Party.

With the exception of Armenia, the elections booted or greatly damaged
incumbent parties who had been pushing austerity as the way out of
Europe’s financial mess. Because markets are looking at the future,
many of the consequences of this widespread rejection of reality will
play out before the American election. It is a wild card for Obama. If
Europe goes into crisis because its voters embraced programs like
Obama’s, what will American voters conclude? How does Obama spin that?

Read more:

From: Baghdasarian

ARTSAKH PRESIDENT CONGRATULATES FRANCOIS HOLLANDE ON VICTORY

05:50 pm | Today | Official

President of the Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan has sent a
congratulatory address to the President-elect of the French Republic
Francois Hollande.

The address runs as follows: “Respected Mr. Hollande, On behalf of the
people, authorities of the Artsakh Republic and myself, I cordially
congratulate You on being elected President of the French Republic.

I am confident, that under Your direct rule the fraternal people of
France will effectively respond challenges the republic faces and
make progress in all spheres of economy.

We rate high the stance of the French Republic as the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chair country in the settlement of the Azerbaijani-Karabakh
conflict, which has a substantial impact on maintenance and
strengthening peace, security and stability in the whole region.

I once again congratulate You and wish successes in the high and
responsible office of the country’s President.”

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN EXPERT CRITICAL OF GALLUP INTERNATIONAL EXIT POLL

tert.am
07.05.12

The exit poll mechanism the Gallup International Association employed
in the May 6 parliamentary elections in Armenia was not so efficient.

In fact, the exit poll proved to be pressure on people because many
of them were afraid of answering the questions, Boris Navasardyan,
Chairman of the Yerevan Press Club, told journalists on Monday.

According to him, it is too early to apply such technologies in
Armenia.

“TV channels were showing the exit poll results for hours, which
means they attached too great importance to them. That is wrong. I
am grateful to the TV companies that did not show the results,”
Navasardyan said.

The exit poll was conducted at 131 polling stations and involved over
20,000 voters. Forty percent of the respondents refused to answer
the question.

From: Baghdasarian

ARF WAS PREVENTING ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONSHIPS TO GET BETTER

13:40 – 08.05.2012

President of “New times” party Aram Karapetyan is sure that the
authorities have lowered the number of ARF votes on purpose.

He believes that the authorities have to pay a huge price for that.

Inside that price is ongoing theft from the nation and outside is
the Armenian-Turkish relations and NKR conflict and the outer world
is not happy with the disposition ARF has.

Karapetyan noted that even though MFA Nalbandyan said that Turkey does
not deserve to be greeted, but Armenian-turkish protocols continue
to be in the agenda.

Karapetyan noted that the matter is not in numbers of ARF MPs in NA,
but in the fact that those hundreds of thousand people that did not
vote for ARF will have other dispositions concerning that issue.

Aram Karapetyan believes that the only thing our authorities want is
opening the border.

“International society is pleased with these authorities”, said he.

From: Baghdasarian

CONGRESS WON AT ARF’S EXPENSE

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 15:13:55 – 08/05/2012

In fact, the Armenian National Congress which had formed the joint
headquarters with the PA and ARF won the election at the expense of
the ARF.

The Congress will have 7 parliamentary seats, while ARF Dashnaktsutyun
will have only 6 seats compared with its 16 seats in the previous
parliament. Besides, the Republican Party got 69% at the expense of
3 seats of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun and 2 seats of the Rule of Law and
Heritage each, which is 5 seats more compared with 2007. PA had 25
seats while now it has 36.

Non-partisan Edmond Marukyan and Marina Marabyan won the elections
in N30 and N40.

From: Baghdasarian

” UNE FEMME PORTE LE FOULARD A LA COMMEMORATION DU 24 AVRIL ” PAR ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
Stephane

armenews.com

mardi 8 mai 2012

Jusqu’a present, pour tous les gouvernements de la Republique turque,
la question armenienne reste un problème recurrent.

Dès lors qu’on approche de la date du 24 avril, ou a chaque fois que le
parlement d’un pays etranger vote sur la reconnaissance du genocide,
il devient habituel pour nous de reagir et d’exprimer la reprobation
nationale par notre ministre des affaires etrangères.

Entre temps, chaque fois que nous avons obtenu d’un pays occidental
qu’il retropedale en mettant dans la balance le poids commercial et
militaire de la Turquie, nous avons pris cela comme une victoire. Le
point fondamental, c’est qu’aux yeux du gouvernement comme aux yeux de
la societe, la question armenienne tend a etre prise pour une question
de “politique etrangère” ; c’est un peu comme si ces evenements ne
s’etaient pas passes en Anatolie, mais au cours d’un conflit avec
un pays ennemi, a la frontière geographique de notre pays. L’un des
facteurs qui favorise cette perception, c’est que d’après l’histoire
officielle de notre pays, les deplacements forces se sont deroules
en temps de guerre, alors que des forces etrangères cherchaient a
diviser l’Anatolie, nos territoires de l’interieur constituant en
quelque sorte une frontière. De ce fait, les Armeniens ne pouvaient
plus etre consideres comme faisant partie des nations anciennes (le
millet) de l’Empire ottoman, mais comme une tribu agressive en guerre
avec l’etat. C’est de cette facon que la decision de la deportation
forcee des Armeniens a pu etre decidee…

L’adhesion de la communaute turque a cette thèse a ete en outre
sollicitee par l’etat ; en depit de sa diversite, la communaute
a repondu a cette invitation. D’un autre côte, il y avait des
implications entre la question armenienne et le regime republicain
parce que les fondateurs du nouveau regime n’etaient autres que les
cercles du Comite Union et Progrès (CUP) proches des communautes. En
outre, les Kemalistes avaient sur les non-musulmans les memes approches
que le CUP. Il est sûr que plusieurs annees après l’instauration de
la republique, les non-musulmans commencèrent a subir une pression
croissante a travers les lois et les pratiques deliberees. Finalement,
la societe se sentait redevable envers l’etat qui l’avait sauvee de
la domination des puissances etrangères, et par suite, elle avait
adopte sans poser des questions sa position officielle sur la question
armenienne.

Lorsque le debat sur le genocide reapparut après 1980, l’etat, dans
l’esprit du regime du 12 septembre, commenca a dire a ses citoyens,
ouvertement, ce dont ils devaient penser de ce problème. Et ceux dont
le discours differait de celui officiel de l’etat etaient consideres
comme des traîtres, puis broyes par les lois penales. L’opinion
publique en general pensait qu’un conflit s’installait, de plus en
plus important, et considerait que la bonne chose a faire etait de
se ranger a la position de l’etat…

Ce schema commenca a changer au milieu des annees 1990. Des
organisations laïques montrèrent des signes de division, des democrates
prenant leurs distances avec l’etat sur les sujets du nationalisme
et de a laïcite. Le premier accroc important se produisit entre les
groupes des democrates laïcs et les intellectuels du camp islamiste
alors engage dans les changements, et au moment du coup d’etat du
28 fevrier 1997, la division au sein des groupes laïcs battait son
plein. Après quelques temps, le Mouvement Democratie Nouvelle commenca
a mettre en cause le discours de l’etat sous diverses formes, les
intellectuels de la communaute armenienne lancèrent le journal Agos et
une opposition “progressiste” emergea du Parti Islamiste du Salut (RP).

Le Parti Justice et Developpement (AKP) agit comme une revolution
silencieuse qui ramena ces diverses tendances a la separation vers un
unique parti. En plus de servir de reference aux groupes islamistes
pour definir leurs actions, ce mouvement sert de mediateur entre la
societe et le besoin de “reformer” l’etat. Ce changement se produit a
une telle vitesse que le president du parlement Cemil Cicek, qui avait
dit de la conference armenienne de 2005, “ils nous poignardent ans
le dos”, ressent a present le besoin d’aborder la question armenienne
dans le contexte de l’initiative de nouvelle constitution ; il insiste
a present sur la necessite de se confronter a fond avec son passe.

L’AKP n’est pas le moteur de ce changement surprenant…Le changement
reel se poursuit au sein de la communaute islamique, et l’energie
qui se degage de ce changement depasse les reticences du gouvernement.

Cette annee, une femme portant le foulard a lu le communique de
presse concernant la commemoration du 24 avril au nom de tous les
participants. Beaucoup d’intellectuels et de journalistes de groupes
islamistes ont exprime leur respect pour la peine issue du deplacement
des Armeniens, et ont condamne la mentalite pro-CUP. L’association
des droits de l’homme et de Solidarite avec les Peuples Opprimes
(Mazlum-Der), l’association des droits de l’homme la plus importante
parmi les groupes islamistes, a publie un communique de presse
extremement respectueux pour les pertes en vies humaines, qui
soulignait la realite historique et son refus du jargon d’etat. De ce
point de vue, la Turquie est sur le point de franchir un seuil… La
politique de negation est a present percue comme ridicule qui ne touche
a present que les TV nationalistes (ulusalci). Il est peu probable que
le gouvernement reste indifferent a la liberation mentale des groupes
islamistes. Mais l’Occident devrait s’abstenir de considerer cette
question, une fois de plus, comme un sujet de ‘politique etrangère”…

From: Baghdasarian

TURKEY IS READY TO OPEN ARCHIVES RELATING TO 1915 EVENTS

Trend
May 7 2012
Azerbaijan

Ankara is ready to open the archives to investigate the events of
1915, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at a meeting
in Slovenia, where he is on an official visit, TRT Haber reported
on Monday.

“We are ready to open our archives to investigate the events of 1915.

At present there are more than 1,500 documents in our archives,”
Erdogan said.

He said that Armenia, unlike Turkey, is afraid to do it.

“The words that until Turkey recognises the so-called “Armenian
genocide”, it will not become an EU member are totally unfounded. It is
historians who should discuss history, not politicians,” Erdogan said.

Armenia and the Armenian lobby claim that the predecessor of the Turkey
– Ottoman Empire had committed the 1915 genocide against the Armenians
living in Anadolu, and achieved recognition of the “Armenian Genocide”
by the parliaments of several countries.

From: Baghdasarian

HOPES DIM FOR NORMALIZATION OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

Today’s Zaman

May 7 2012
Turkey

As Armenians headed to the polls on Sunday, expectations were low
that new life would be breathed into an unratified deal signed by the
foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia in 2009 to normalize relations.

Armenian officials and politicians accuse Turkey of holding the
ratification process hostage through its insistence that Armenia must
first agree to a solution to the long-standing Nagorno-Karabakh issue
as a precondition for normalization.

Armenian Parliament head Samvel Nikoyan, who spoke to Turkish
reporters who came to Armenia as part of the program sponsored by
the Hrant Dink Foundation and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Association
accused Turkey’s policy of threatening the process, remarking: “We are
seeing that any kind of provision, especially the precondition of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as devastating the process of talks. To
move talks forward … it’s necessary that we vote on the protocols
without preconditions.”

Galust Sahakyan, leader of the Republican Party of Armenia
parliamentary faction, meanwhile, indicated that Armenian leaders had
their own red lines that will take priority over the reconciliation
pact, stating to the press, “For us, the Karabakh problem and the
genocide issue are more important than a restart in relations with
Turkey.”

Nonetheless, Sahakyan said he thinks of Turkey as the key to solving
the region’s most pressing problems, saying of the protocol’s future:
“We aren’t going to take any steps back. But if Turkey announces
that it is withdrawing officially from the protocol, we will also do
what’s necessary.”

Armenia’s third-largest expected winner at this year’s election,
the Heritage Party, meanwhile, indicated that it was against the
protocol, with party leader Raffi Hovannisian stating that it was
necessary to restart the talks without preconditions. “If Turkey
insists on preconditions, the Armenian side will have to develop a
symmetric response.”

Nikoyan, commenting on the deadlock before the elections, said the
disagreements still do not constitute a major rift between the two
countries. “In a situation in which there are no official diplomatic
relations and the border is closed, our communications are strong. At
this moment commerce isn’t being supported, but we know there’s the
potential for [re-establishing] trade. There are Turkish businessmen
in Armenia, and Armenian businessmen in Turkey.”

Richard Giragosian of the Regional Studies Center also said the rift
was less formidable than portrayed, noting, “I am optimistic about
Armenian-Turkish normalization.”

Indicating that significant pressure exists to re-establish relations
before the 100th anniversary of the Armenian massacres in 2015,
Giragosian said, “It’s possible that some of the unofficial diplomatic
ties will be made more official.” Giragosian believes that the Turkish
Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, could be accredited by Yerevan or that
relations could be formally established through the Swiss Embassy
there. He also suggested that certain border gates could be opened.

Such measures are not without cost, however, and Giragosian warns
that they could meet heavy opposition in Azerbaijan.

Eurasia Partnership Foundation Country Director Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan,
meanwhile, speculated that the prospective relations change would
be tied to changes in Armenia’s government. “The elections can in
the medium run create new chances if the government changes and new
and more energetic people come to power who are ready to engage more
vocally in international organizations and thus induce Turkey to take
some steps with regard to confidence-building measures,” he stated.

“I think the Turkish governments’ statements are sometimes too
emotional, just like the Armenians, and more calm pragmatism is needed
on both sides,” he added.

Turkish-Armenian relations also appear imperiled by Armenia’s continued
appeal to territorial rights over territories possessed by Turkey. In
the elections run-up, Nikoyan stated that for Armenia Mount Ararat
must remain as one of the state’s symbols. Calls for recognition
of the 1915 killings of Armenians as genocide also remain high on
politicians’ priorities.

The coming 100th anniversary of that event is also likely to upset
relations between the two countries, with analysts predicting that
2015 will see major demonstrations, especially among Turkey’s minority
Armenian community.

Russia-Turkey balance

Turkey and Armenia’s renewed push to negotiate an opening of the
border gates between the two countries might also be viewed in
the framework of the latter’s close ties to Russia. According to
Giragosian, Armenia remains “tied to a fundamental degree to Russia.”

An Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)
official, who asked not to be named, said Armenia should strive to be
“small and transparent” in the future. “In foreign policy, they’re
going to try to develop close relations with the EU and the West.”

Ter-Gabrielyan agreed. “In the times to come, Russian interest is
going to diminish even further because Armenia is getting closer and
closer to Europe,” he commented.

Commenting on the possibility of starting Turkish-Armenian
normalization process, Salpi Ghazarian, director of The Civilitas
Foundation, based in Yerevan said “I dont know if it will. Because
it is in Turkey’s hand”

From: Baghdasarian

DID THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT PRACTICE ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING’ AGAINST ARMENIANS?

Journal of Turkish Weekly

Maxime Gauin
JTW Columnist
Monday, 7 May 2012

This column is a reaction to one of Mustafa Akyol’s in Hurriyet Daily
News, published on April 25, 2012.

There is absolutely nothing personal, or even ideological, in this
response; I want only to respond to these precise points, as a
historian working on the Armenian question.

Mr. Akyol alleges that “the nationalist Young Turk government decided
to expel almost all Armenians to Syria” and that “The ‘Turkism’ of
the Young Turks, Kaplan reminded, yearned for not a plural nation of
many faiths and ethnicities, but an exclusive ‘Turkish homeland.'”

The Ottoman census counted around 1,300,000 Ottoman Armenians on the
eve of 1914. This census undercounts both Muslims and non-Muslims,
for technical reasons (a lack of material and human power to count
everybody, especially in eastern Anatolia and Arab lands). The most
serious estimations count around 1,700,000-1,750,000 Armenians.[1]

There is no definitive study on the number of relocated Armenians. The
Ottoman sources indicate that 438,758 Armenians were relocated until
the beginning of 1916 to Arab provinces, including 382,148 who arrived
at their destination and 56,612 who perished.[2]Certainly, more
perished due to illness or being attacked by Arab tribes, especially
during the year 1916; others had been killed in inter-communal clashes
in Van, Urfa, and some other cities. There are also reasons to believe
that the account of relocated Armenians is not comprehensive.[3]

Now, let’s look at the Armenian sources. In 1918, Boghos Nubar,
co-president of the Armenian delegation in the Paris peace conference,
estimated the total to be 600 or 700,000.[4] In addition, the Russian
army relocated about 300,000 Armenians (half whom perished, surely
not because of any “ethnic cleansing” design)[5], and some others
were relocated from one Anatolian town to another.

As a result, to pretend that “the nationalist Young Turk government
decided to expel almost all Armenians to Syria” is at least
questionable and an overly simple assertion.

Most of the Armenians of Ystanbul (160,000), Yzmir (13,000), Edirne
(33,650), Kastamonu (13,700), Kutahya (several thousand), Antalya (at
least 500), Mara? (6 or 7,000), and Aleppo (22,000)were not relocated
during WWI, and neither were thousands of Armenians who were Catholics,
Protestants, artisans or parents of soldiers.[6] They were not because
they did not represent a threat to the Ottoman State’s security.

Indeed, it should be noted that there was no “Turkism” in the main
reasons for the relocation. If the CUP “yearned for not a plural nation
of many faiths and ethnicities, but an exclusive ‘Turkish homeland,'”
why did this party accept Christians, Jews and non-Turkish Muslims,
not only as members, but also for high positions, like mayors,
deputies and ministers?

The presence of Jews, including Emmanuel Carasso, a leader of the
Young Turks, provoked anti-Semitic reactions against the CUP from
various factions. The Young Turks supported the election of its
sympathizer Bedros Kapamaciyan as mayor of Van in 1909. Kapamaciyan
was assassinated by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in December
1912.[7]The CUP promoted Gabriel Noradunkian to minister of commerce
in 1908, despite him havingmade his career as a top-rank civil servant
under Abdulhamid. Noradunkian served as minister of foreign affairs
in the anti-CUP government of 1912-1913. Regardless, the CUP, coming
back to power in January 1913, proposed several times, in vain, that
Noradunkian remain in his position.[8] From January 1913 to November
1914, the minister of PTT, Oskan Mardikian (member of the CUP), was
Armenian, and the minister of public works, SulaymanBustani, was a
Christian Arab. Both resigned because they supported the neutrality
of the Ottoman Empire; the majority of the CUP leaders considered
maintaining the neutrality to beimpossible.

In summer 1914, the CUP proposed in vain that Boghos Nubar become the
Ottoman minister of foreign affairs. The Armenian insurrections (see
below) did not provoke an absolute and general distrust of Armenians
by the CUP leaders. Indeed, Berc Keresteciyan, deputy director general
of the Ottoman Bank, was promoted to director general during WWI.

Keresteciyan supported the Kemalist movement during the Turkish war
of independence, and was a deputy of Afyon from 1935 to 1946.

It should also be noted that even Enver Pasha was a staunch supporter
of the full integration of non-Muslims in the Ottoman army, at least
until 1914.[9]

Mr. Akyol rightfully praised the book of Guenter Lewy on the Armenian
question. This book contains a devastating analysis of the allegations
against Ziya Gokalp, an intellectual and member of the CUP central
committee, wrongly presented as a chauvinist and anti-Christian.[10]

What motivated the Ottoman government in 1915 to relocate a portion
of the Armenian community? Chiefly, military and security reasons. In
addition to the well-known insurrection in Van (April 1915), other
important revolts took place in Zeytun (August 1914, February 1915)
and Bitlis. Insurrectional activities were organized in Cilicia as
well, with the Armenian committees hoping for and repeatedly making
claims of an Anglo-French landing. Even in the Bursa region, there
were Armenian gangs attacking the Ottoman army and Muslim civilians.

Considering the atmosphere of panic in spring 1915 and the limited
number of roads in the Ottoman Empire, the decision is easy to
understand.[11] The gradual reaction of the Istanbul authorities
is another argument against the “ethnic cleansing” allegation: The
insurrectional movement in Zeytun was crushed in the relocating of
the Armenians of this city to Konya, instead of Arab lands; and as
late as May 2, 1915, Enver suggested relocating only the Armenians
living in the vicinity of Lake Van.[12]

“Ethnic cleansing” was so far from the Ottoman government’s mind
that, as early as 1916-1917, several thousand Anatolian Armenians
were allowed to goback to Urfa.[13]

It is perfectly true, however, that the Armenian committees, assisted
by the Greek government, prevented the coexistence of communities
in Cilicia through intense and misleading propaganda.[14] Similarly,
the Greek army practiced a scorched earth policy during its retreat
of 1922, which not only included a general burning of all villages
and cities, as well as numerous massacres, but also the forced exile
of Christians, to undermine the recovery of the Turkish economy after
the peace treaty.[15] This was a kind of “ethnic cleansing.”

If the descendants of Christian Anatolians want to present grievances,
if Turks want to show a “common pain,” they should logically begin
presenting their critiques to Athens and to the headquarters of
the three old Armenian nationalist parties, namely the ARF, Hunchak
and Ramkavar.

[1] Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005, p. 235; Justin McCarthy,
“The Population of the Ottoman Armenians,” in TurkkayaAtaov (ed.), The
Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period, Ankara: TTK/TBMM, 2001, p. 70,

[2] Yusuf Halaco?lu, “Realities Behind the Relocation,” in
TukkayaAtaov (ed.), The Armenians in the Late…, pp. 130-133,

[3] GuenterLewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 198-203, 209-220
and 236.

[4]

[5] Richard G. Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence. 1918,
Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press, 1967, p.

67.

[6]Kemal Cicek, “Relocation of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915: A
Reassessment,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 22, 2010, pp. 120-121;
Yusuf Halaco?lu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman
Armenians?, Ankara: TTK, 2008, pp. 52 and 91; GuenterLewy,The
Armenian Massacres…, pp. 158, 165, 180, 186-187, 191, 203-205;
HikmetOzdemir and Yusuf Sarynay, Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents,
Ankara: TTK/TBMM, 2007, pp. 119, 127, 175, 201, 203, 207, 213- 221,
237, 265, 283, 321, 339, 341.

[7]HasanOktay, “On the Assassination of Van Mayor Kapamacyyan by the
Tashnak Committee,” Review of Armenian Studies, I-1, 2002, pp. 79-89,
;
KaprielSeropePapazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston: Baikar Press,
1934, p. 69.

[8]YucelGuclu, The Holocaust and the Armenian Case in Comparative
Perspective, Lanham-Boulder-New York-Plymouth: University Press of
America, 2012, pp. 85-86.

[9]Odile Moreau, L’Empire ottoman a l’âge des reformes. Les
hommes et les idees du ” Nouvel Ordre ” militaire (1826-1914),
Paris : Maisonneuve et Larose, 2007, pp. 49-50 and 70-71,

[10] Guenter Lewy,The Armenian Massacres…,pp. 43-47.

[11]Numerous references in MaximeGauin, “The Convergent
Analysis of Russian, British, French and American Officials
Regarding the Armenian Volunteers (1914-1922),” International
Review of Turkish Studies, I-4, Winter 2011-2012, pp. 13-16,

[12]Yusuf Halaco?lu, “Realities Behind the Relocations…”,
pp. 109-110; Facts on the Relocation of Armenians. 1914-1918, Ankara:
TTK, 2002, pp. 58-60 and 67-68; GuenterLewy, The Armenian Massacres…,
p. 307, n.

4.

[13]GuenterLewy, The Armenian Massacres…, pp. 203 and 215.

[14] Background and references in MaximeGauin, “The Convergent
Analysis…”, pp. 34-41.

[15] See, for instance,MevlutCelebi (ed.),Greek Massacres in Anatolia
on Italian Archive Documents, Ankara: AAM, 2010, pp. 102-110; Rapport
d’ElzearGuiffray, administrateur delegue de la Societe des quais
de Smyrne, 27 juillet 1922 ; Raymond Poincare au colonel Mougin,
7 septembre 1922 ; Colonel Mougin au general Pelle, 8 septembre 1922
;Ministère des Affaires etrangères au representant francais a Athènes,
8 septembre 1922 ; ministère aux ambassadeurs a Londres, Rome et
Washington, 8 et 9 septembre 1922 ; General Pelle au ministère des
Affaires etrangères, 12 septembre 1922 ; ministère au charge d’affaires
a Washington, 26 septembre 1922, Archives du ministère des Affaires
etrangères, P 1380 (the microfilm P 1380 is full of French documents
regarding the Greek scorched earth policy).

“Statements of facts or opinions appearing in the pages of Journal
of Turkish Weekly (JTW) are not necessarily by the editors of JTW nor
do they necessarily reflect the opinions of JTW or ISRO. The opinions
published here are held by the authors themselves and not necessarily
those of JTW or ISRO.

Materials may not be copied, reproduced, republished, posted without
mentioning the mark of JTW or ISRO in any way except for your own
personal non-commercial home use. For the news and other materials
republished by the JTW you must apply the original publishers. JTW
cannot give permission to republish this kind of materials.”

From: Baghdasarian