Author: Frangulian Shushan

TURKEY – WEBSITE EDITOR TO BE TRIED ON CHARGE ON INSULTING PRESIDENT

Global Politics
or-be-tried-charge-insulting-president-20100302167 55.html
March 2 2010

Baris Yarkadas, the editor of the online newspaper Gercek Gundem
(Real Agenda), will face up to five years in prison when he appears
before a criminal court in the Istanbul district of Kadiköy tomorrow
in response to a complaint brought by the president’s office. He is
charged with insulting President Abdullah Gul under article 299-2 of
the criminal code for failing to remove a comment posted by a reader.

"We call for the immediate withdrawal of this baseless charge,"
Reporters Without Borders said. "It is incomprehensible that Yarkadas
should be accused of insulting the president when he did not himself
write the comment, which was anyway neither rude nor insulting. This
prosecution is indicative of a desire by the government to intimidate
and silence its critics."

The president’s office has even said it knows who posted the comments,
referring to him as "the aggressor" and revealing that he lives
abroad. The reader accused President Gul of allowing his Armenian
counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, to defy him. "Bravo, you have trampled
on the honour of the great republic of Turkey," he wrote.

Yarkadas is facing other prosecutions. He is due to appear before
the same court on 5 March on a charge of offending Nur Birgen, the
head of the Institute for Forensic Medicine’s expertise section,
by reporting allegations that human rights NGOs have made against her.

US CONGRESS – NOT THE PLACE TO DEBATE HISTORY

PanARMENIAN.Net
02.03.2010 20:29 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ US Congress’s annual determination to debate
the history of the Ottoman Empire is a sign of spring. The Turkish
government’s approach to the American Jewish community to help sink
the proposed Congressional resolution officially recognizing the
horrific killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the early 20th
Century as Genocide is a similar ritual. Unlike the swallows, however,
both Congress and the Turks are out of their habitat.

During the flowering of Turkish-Israeli political and security
relations, it was easy for representatives of the "organized" Jewish
community to speak on behalf of its Turkish friends and against the
resolution. As the Turkish government began to slide-and then rush-away
from its relationship with Israel and slide- and then rush-toward new
accommodations with Syria and Iran, the Jewish community has become
less inclined to use its organizational skill on behalf of the agenda
of a country that is less inclined toward the Western side of the
great divide. It doesn’t help that the Turkish "request" for "help"
has begun to sound more like a threat of damage yet to come.

It is tempting under the circumstances for the Jewish community to
"lie low," not support the resolution but not actively oppose it
either. It is probably equally tempting for the Turkish government to
start looking for someone to blame if the resolution passes-guess who?

To the extent that either side believed opposition to the resolution
was a test of loyalty, or tied it to extraneous issues, they made
a mistake. The Armenian resolution – driven largely by the Armenian
American community-should be opposed and defeated. But the reasons
stand without regard to the (increasingly difficult) behavior of the
Turkish government and without regard to (increasingly difficult)
Turkish-Israeli or Turkish-American relations.

"The Congress of the United States is not the place to debate the
history of other people in other times. The failings of our history
and the resolution of our wars are our responsibility-and those of
the Ottoman Turks have to find redress by their heirs.

"The Ottoman and Soviet Empires are gone; Turkey and Armenia are
independent countries. Their governments have to find whatever
understanding and accommodation are possible. Meddling by
Congress-particularly when Turkey has fallen out of political
favor-won’t help.

Turkey and Armenia have, in fact, made tentative-and reversible-steps
toward bilateral relations, but the protocols they signed last
autumn show signs of fraying and neither parliament has completed the
ratification process. Switzerland was the mediator for the protocols,
and perhaps could be of assistance. The U.S. government might also have
a role to play, but passage of the Armenian resolution by Congress
would make it impossible for the State Department to offer help. We
recall that after Turkey invited Hamas to Ankara, its offer to mediate
between Israel and its neighbors was no longer welcome in Jerusalem.

It’s another good reason to oppose the Armenian resolution when it
comes before Congress later this week, JINSA Reported.

MILITARY SOLUTION TO KARABAKH UNREALISTIC – FINNISH ANALYST

news.az
March 2 2010
Azerbaijan

Mikko Palonkorpi News.Az interviews Mikko Palonkorpi, a researcher at
the Graduate School for Russian and East European Studies, University
of Helsinki.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said before the November meeting
with his Armenian counterpart that if the Munich negotiations failed,
Azerbaijan would start a war to liberate the occupied lands. Do you
think the military scenario is a realistic way to resolve the conflict?

In my opinion, settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by
resorting to military force is unrealistic. This policy involves
serious military, political and economic risks that are very difficult
to calculate beforehand. All the unpredictable factors simply cannot
be simulated in war games and the outcome of a new war would be far
from certain.

>>From the military point of view, there are no guarantees that an
Azerbaijani military initiative would be successful or victorious,
especially since the Armenians have dug themselves into strong
defensive positions. Therefore, in order to succeed Azerbaijan
would need substantial quantitative and qualitative superiority in
troops and armaments and I don’t see evidence of that yet. Moreover,
if the Azerbaijani side were to suffer substantial losses without
recapturing much territory, what would be the domestic political
backlash in Azerbaijan? Or what if the Armenians were able to capture
more territory as a result of renewed fighting?

One of the lessons to be learned from the Russo-Georgian war is that
Russia is not a passive bystander in attempts to change the status
quo in the South Caucasus by military means, especially if its
perceived vital interests in the region or those of its key allies
are threatened.

In the worst case scenario, fighting could seriously threaten
Azerbaijan’s oil and gas exports via the South Caucasus energy corridor
and as a consequence threaten the backbone of the republics economy. At
the very least a new war would negatively affect investor confidence
in Azerbaijan (and Armenia) and hamper efforts to develop the South
Caucasus energy corridor including the Nabucco project.

Furthermore, if Azerbaijan were the initiator of a new war, this would
harm Azerbaijan’s international image and reputation more broadly.

Just consider how much effort both Russia and Georgia took to prove
the other side guilty of starting the August conflict.

Even if an Azerbaijani offensive were successful in retaking the lost
territories in and around Karabakh, it would not completely solve
the political problem or the root cause of the conflict. It would
turn fortunes around for Azerbaijan for sure, but leave Armenia and
Karabakh Armenians preparing for another rematch.

What action would the United States and Russia take if Azerbaijan
initiated war to liberate its land?

First of all, it is hard to see how a new war in Karabakh could be
in the interests of either Russia or the United States. It is also
very difficult to predict the exact course of action they would take
in such an eventuality, so the answer to this question is highly
speculative. Naturally, the US and Russian response would depend
on actions taken by the other actors, in particular the regional
states: Turkey, Iran and Georgia. The US would not only observe
closely Russian reaction to the conflict, but also Iranian reaction,
fearing that Iran could use the war as an opportunity to increase
its geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus region.

For the United States a new war in Karabakh and the proper response
to it, would be almost as problematic as the Russo-Georgian conflict
was, albeit for somewhat different reasons. It is highly unlikely
that the United States would intervene militarily in such a conflict,
not only because of it’s military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan
and its key role in the relief operation in Haiti, but mainly because
of the fear that Russia could also be drawn into the conflict. The
only possible exception would be a multinational peace-keeping or
peace-enforcing force that would have a clear UN mandate combined
with Russian approval and support.

Moreover, it would be very difficult for the United States to choose
sides in such a conflict, regardless of Azerbaijan being seen as
an initiator of the war. The US would opt for neutrality as long as
possible and would use intensive diplomatic pressure on both Armenia
and Azerbaijan to bring about a ceasefire and end to hostilities. The
US would likely attempt to persuade Turkey to use its influence on
Azerbaijan, but the leverage of both the US and Turkey on Azerbaijan
is limited, despite interdependencies between Turkey and Azerbaijan
in energy transit, etc. The US administration itself would be under
strong pressure from both Armenia and the Armenian diaspora lobby in
the US to pass a UN Security Council resolution which would condemn
the Azeri actions.

Certainly the US reaction would also depend on the scale of the war
and in particular the number of civilian casualties and refugees
involved. I think the United States would try to restrain both sides
from escalating the conflict beyond Karabakh and the other regions
of Azerbaijan currently under Armenian control and ensure that the
energy export infrastructure of Azerbaijan were not targeted by the
Armenian forces.

What do you think of Azerbaijan’s military potential at present? Is
Armenia able to hold an arms race with Azerbaijan without Russia’s
military support and intervention?

Azerbaijan’s military potential has certainly been boosted by
increased spending on the country’s defence budget over the last
five years or so. As a result Azerbaijan is acquiring new and more
sophisticated weapons systems, has launched new initiatives for
domestic manufacturing of military equipment and ammunition and is
also negotiating with multiple foreign partners on joint ventures
in the military-industrial sector. However, these are all assets
for Azerbaijan’s future military potential and power, since it
takes a while to train military personnel to operate new weapons
systems effectively and it would take a long time to acquire enough
state-of-the-art armaments to tilt the military balance of power
decisively in Azerbaijan’s favour, especially considering that Armenia
has also updated its destructive capacity over the years.

By focusing only on the military budget figures, it appears that the
on-going arms race between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a process which
the latter can ill afford. For this year (2010) Armenia has budgeted
360 million dollars for defence expenditure, compared to Azerbaijan’s
1.5 billion dollar military budget. Moreover, even though Azerbaijan’s
defence budget is more than four times the size of Armenia’s in
absolute terms, the relative burden of defence spending as a share
of the overall budget expenditure is still smaller for Azerbaijan
(10-11%) than for Armenia (15%).

However, one has to bear in mind, that stockpiles of Russian military
hardware and equipment were held at Russian military bases in Armenia
from the mid-90’s onwards and just a few years ago (2007) in line with
the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Treaty commitments, Russia withdrew its troops
from the base(s) in Georgia proper (Akhalkalaki) and a significant
portion of the arms and equipment were transferred to its military
base in Gyumri.

In brief, since it is not exclusively a bilateral arms race between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Russian military and other support for
Armenia plays an essential role in the equation, Azerbaijan is
faced with a difficult "dilemma". Any hike in oil and gas prices
will increase the oil and gas windfall received by Azerbaijan, which
among other things enables Azerbaijan to allocate more resources to
the military budget. But the same holds true for Armenia’s key ally
Russia, which as a consequence of increase in energy export revenues,
can deliver more military support to Armenia, if it so chooses.

Therefore, Russian support is extremely important for Armenia,
especially considering the serious impact of global economic crises
on the Armenian economy.

Regarding the arms race between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the key
question that should be asked is: what are the prospects for
achieving a tangible "victory" in this arms race? Is there a real
chance of the type of victory gained by US President Ronald Reagan
when he challenged the Soviet Union into a space arms race with his
Star Wars project? Or is this arms race creating new security dilemmas
and heightening tensions in the already volatile South Caucasus region
and resulting in a lose-lose pattern where both sides waste resources
that are urgently needed in other sectors of society?

STEPAN SAFARYAN: ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION U.S. BARGAIN

news.am
March 2 2010
Armenia

"The possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting an Armenian Genocide
resolution will enable the United States to pressure Turkey in the
Armenian-Turkish reconciliation process," Stepan Safaryan, Chairman of
the Heritage parliamentary faction, told a press conference on March 2.

>From the moment the Armenian-Russian protocols were singed, Turkey
launched a policy of long-term delay of international recognition
of the Armenian Genocide, he said. Safaryan pointed out that the
ratification of the protocols may halt the process. "It is not yet
clear whether U.S. President Barack Obama will pronounce the word
‘genocide’ on April 24. It is not ruled out in case Turkey fails to
meet the United States’ requirements. It is more important, however,
that the U.S. Congress adopt the Armenian Genocide resolution,"
Safaryan said. The discussions at the U.S. Congress scheduled for
March 4 are nothing but another step to threaten Turkey.

In his turn, the specialist in Turkic philology Ruben Melkonyan,
said that the possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting the Armenian
Genocide resolution will exacerbate the anti-American sentiments
in Turkey.

According to him, in its efforts to prevent the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, Turkey has become hostage to its own actions. "The
United States, as well as a number of European states, making use of
the problem, will be ‘extorting’ concessions from Turkey, and the
present market relations between the United States and Turkey are
evidence thereof. Using the Armenian Genocide resolution as a bludgeon,
the United States is threatening turkey even now," Melonyan said.

He emphasized the fact that before March 4, President Barack Obama,
in contrast to his predecessor, George Bush, is keeping silence
about the possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting the Armenian
Genocide resolution. Safaryan, in turn, pointed out that on the way
to normalizing its relations with Turkey, Armenia has to "rearrange"
its actions toward Turkey.

Families of March 1st Victims Request Meeting with PACE Co-Rapporteurs
2010/02/27 | 18:06

society

Dear members of the Permanent Monitoring Committee of PACE,

In 2001, our country became amember of the Council of Europe. In 2002
it joined the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.

During all this time, PACE has adopted numerous resolutions on
Armenia. However, they have not contributed to the improvement of
effective human rights protection in the country.

Moreover, those resolutions and PACE structures including the
Monitoring Committee, have not essentially contributed to the
development of newly established democratic institutions in Armenia
and to democracy in general.

Proof of the above are the fraudulent and falsified presidential
elections of 2008 and the illegal engagement of the army for
intimidating and controlling peaceful protesters. This resulted in the
death of 10 people, numerous others being wounded, hundreds of
political dissidents arrested and the detention several dozen others.

After the tragic events of March 1-2, 2008, PACE has adopted 4
resolutions, among which #1609 has probably been the most impartial in
recording the existing situation, and which mentions compulsory steps
for the Armenian authorities to implement.

However, during these two years PACE and its Monitoring Committee in
fact did not make any practical steps for bringing to the life
resolution #1609, as well as the three following three following
resolutions.

Nor did PACE rely to its authority and leverages of influence to
contribute to comprehensive reveal and punishment of those guilty for
March 1-2 events. Regrettably, PACE neglected publicly known facts. We
are surprised and confused about application of double standards by
PACE.

We, the families of the victims of March 1-2, 2008 events, are
indignant and protest the behavior of PACE Co-rapporteurs George
Colombier and John Prescott. Particularly, it is unclear and
unacceptable for us their announcement made on February 2, 2010 and
posted on the official website of the CoE.

What does it mean `The Armenian authorities need to implement the
reforms recommended by the ad hoc Committee of the National Assembly
of Armenia on the events of 1 and 2 March 2008, without further
delay,’? Or what does it mean that `The reforms recommended by the ad
hoc Committee, in combination with those contained in the relevant
PACE resolutions, if implemented in good faith, could comprehensively
address the circumstances that led to the events of 1 and 2 March
2008,’? During these two years time, the justice system and
authorities of Armenia have been unable to find murderers of our
children, and now, should we wait for reforms …?

PACE officials, especially Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier, are well
aware that the Armenian authorities are deliberately not revealing
those responsible for tragic events of March 1-2, 2008.

In the document prepared by co-rapporteurs (AS/Mon (2009) 38), article
41, they are pointing out that there is an impression that Armenia’s
ad hoc parliamentary committee censors itself and tries by all means
to avoid openly discrediting the official version of the authorities,
which is regrettable and casts doubt over the whole investigation.

Thus, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier contradict themselves, on one
hand by announcing that investigation of the ad hoc parliamentary
committee has not been fair and the murders have not been revealed up
to day, and on the other hand, by demanding a reform schedule from
another parliamentary committee and the Chairman of the National
Assembly and expecting that such a process can be successful.

Judicial reform has been underway in Armenia since 1998. Overall,
Armenian legislation is in line with CoE standards. In order to have
the guilty for March 1-2 crimes revealed, elections not falsified,
freedom of speech not limited and political dissents not persecuted,
it is also necessary that high rank officials of PACE express timely,
impartial and adequate assessments that Armenian authorities are
failing to fulfill their
obligations to the CoE.

The crimes of March 1-2 happened not because of bad legislation or
slow reforms, but among others, as a consequence of actual inaction of
PACE and its `one step forward’ assessments continuously given to
incumbent authorities about their fulfillment of obligations to the
CoE.

Armenia’s obligations towards the Council of Europe were last
discussed at the summer session of 2009. Afterwards, due to inactivity
and indifference of the co-rapporteurs, Armenian authorities started
to claim publicly, that the March 1 page is closed…

We have an impression that among those who back this statement aiming
to cover murders of our children, are Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier,
who did not participate in the December 17, 2008 Session of the
Monitoring Committee and therefore, the document they had prepared was
never presented and discussed at this session.

Later, during discussions at the January 27-28, 2010 session of the
Monitoring Committee, the February 2 statement appeared, regarding
reform schedule and political prisoner Nikol Pashinyan.

And where did demands to the Armenian government disappear? I.e. why
is a proper investigation not carried out to reveal crimes of March
1-2? Why haven’t those guilty for illegally using armed forces for the
oppression of the peaceful demonstration been punished? One of those
killed, Tigran Abgaryan, was doing his military service.

Why hasn’t a comprehensive investigation to reveal how and with whose
order had he appeared in the central streets of Yerevan been carried
out – who ordered him, an ordinary soldier, to be transferred from
his military unit to the centre of the capital?

There are numerous video records of how Armenian armed forces were
being transported to the central streets of Yerevan before March 1 and
after the emergency situation.

There is also the executive order of then president Robert Kocharyan
concerning the emergency situation, where he mentions that the
Ministry of Defense is among the implementers and servers of the
emergency situation.

`We have to use the opportunity of the army…’ President Kocharyan said
these words on March 1, 2008, during his midnight meeting with
journalists… Isn’t PACE interested in these facts? If so, why are the
PACE Co-rapporteurs neglecting them?

With the knowledge of PACE, the fact finding group was closed, while
the latter put some light over true circumstances of March 1-2 murders
and events.

With the knowledge of PACE, the ARF representative Armen Roostamyan
was involved in the Monitoring Committee as an opposition deputy,
while his party, being part of the government, actually shares the
responsibility for March 1-2 tragic events and for building an
authoritarian regime in our country.

During the last 10 years, the ARF has been part of the government and
has supported former president Kocharyan. Only recently did this party
claim itself an opposition and officially announced that they are
withdrawing from the government coalition because of disagreement in
foreign policy issues.

We are aware that on March 12, 2010 during the meeting session of
Permanent Committee in Paris the period of authorization of the
Co-rapporteurs is going to be discussed. Thus, we urge you to include
in your discussions the issues raised in this appeal.

We want to believe that in its actions and assessments PACE will
indeed be the conscience of democratic Europe.

Dear members of PACE Monitoring Committee,

Taking into account the above mentioned and wishing to present our
demands and comments in more details, we would appreciate a meeting
with co-rapporteurs for Armenia, George Colombier and John Prescott,
during their next visit to Armenia.

We believe that this meeting is absolutely necessary and we strongly
insist on it. We assume, that at least in this issue, the Monitoring
Committee should be interested as well.

Sincerely,
Families of victims of March 1-2, 2008 criminal events

Agos Weekly, Istanbul
Feb 21 2010

Turkey is the most frequently condemned country in the history of the ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that from its
foundation until the end of 2009, Turkey came first in violation
judgements. Accordingly, 20 percent of all violation judgments were
entered for Turkey among the 47 signatory states. Namely, 2,295
judgments were entered for Turkey. For the same period, 2,021
judgments were entered for Italy and 862 judgments were entered for
Russia.

In 2009, Turkey was again the worst human rights violator, with 356
cases out of a total of 1,625. Russia followed Turkey with 210
judgments against it and then came Romania and Ukraine, with 168 and
126 judgments respectively.

In terms of `right to life,’ 217 judgments were entered by the ECHR
since 1959, in which the states were directly or indirectly
responsible for a death. Russia led in this category with 115
judgments, while Turkey came second with 76. Among the remaining 45
states, seven of the state-related death cases concern Bulgaria and 19
cases concern other countries.

Bako Sahakyan pays tribute to Sumgait victims

27.02.2010 13:57 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ President of the Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan
accompanied by top officials attended Saturday the Stepanakert
memorial complex to pay tribute to the victims of Sumgait pogroms,
Central Information Department of the NKR President Office reported.

The pogroms of Armenians in Sumgait (a town located a half an hour
drive away from Baku) took place on February 27-29, 1988. The events
were preceded by a wave of anti-Armenian statements and rallies that
swept over Azerbaijan. Almost the entire area of the town with
population of 250 thousand became a site of unhindered mass pogroms.
Armed with iron rods, stones, axes, knives, bottles and canisters full
of petrol, the perpetrators broke in Armenian houses. There were
dozens of casualties, mostly burnt alive after assaults and torture.
Hundreds of innocent people were wounded and disabled. The story of
Sumgait marked the first entry in a long list of crimes against
humanity and ethnic cleansings of the end of the 20th century.

WHAT HINDERS TO OPEN THE BORDER

s16972.html
11:01:11 – 26/02/2010

In response to the request to comment on the statement of the Turkish
foreign minister, the staff of the president answered that in Kiev
the Armenian president did not receive the Turkish foreign minister.

Among other invited persons, Davutoglu participated in the swearing-in
ceremony of the Ukrainian newly-elected president where he approached
Serge Sargsyan and exchanged opinions with him.

Serge Sargsyan underlined that political will is needed to move
forward and Armenia thinks the current process is to be taken to its
logical conclusion as soon as possible otherwise, as it was stated
previously, the Republic of Armenia will renounce from its signature
of the protocols.

He reiterated that the involvement of Turkey in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue is impossible because it is a country providing
with unilateral military aid one of the conflicting sides-Azerbaijan,
and always issues partial statements.

Sargsyan told his collocutor that a country which dreams about a region
without borders has to do the first step to eliminate the blockade of
Armenia which will enable communication and transport infrastructures
to function in the region. He said that if the Azerbaijani repression
does not let the Turkish parliament ratify the protocols, nothing
holds back Turkey from opening the border that it once closed. The
press service of the president reports.

ARMENIAN NEOCONSERVATIVES CALL ON CHINA TO RECOGNIZE GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.02.2010 14:48 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Around 60 representatives of National Neoconservative
Movement (NNM) of Armenia held a rally at Chinese Embassy in Armenia
Thursday, February 25.

Following the appeal of NNM chairman Edgar Gegelyan to recognize the
Armenian Genocide, demonstrators passed a letter addressed to the
Ambassador of Peoples’ Republic of China.

The letter urges PRC to recognize the Armenian Genocide and acknowledge
Azeri aggression against Nagorno Karabakh as a consequence of
pan-Turkic program, drawing analogies between reunification of Taiwan
with China and Artsakh with Armenia.

The Armenian Genocide (1915-23) was the deliberate and systematic
destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during
and just after World War I. It was characterized by massacres, and
deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to
lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of deaths
reaching 1.5 million.

The majority of Armenian Diaspora communities were formed by the
Genocide survivors.

To date, twenty countries and 44 U.S. states have officially recognized
the events of the period as genocide, and most genocide scholars and
historians accept this view.

The conflict between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan broke out in
1988, as result of the ethnic cleansing the latter launched in the
final years of the Soviet Union. The Karabakh War was fought from
1991 (when the Nagorno Karabakh Republic was proclaimed) to 1994
(when a ceasefire was sealed by Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan). Most
of Nagorno Karabakh and a security zone consisting of 7 regions is
now under control of NKR defense army. Armenia and Azerbaijan are
holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group up till now.

MENSOIAN: IF THE ARF FAILS TO CONFRONT THE CHALLENGES, WHO WILL?
By Michael Mensoian

/mensoian-if-the-arf-fails-to-confront-the-challen ges-who-will/
February 22, 2010

Deja vu. Again we anxiously wait to see if the resolution recognizing
the Armenian Genocide will be favorably voted out of the House Foreign
Relations Committee. If Turkey with its coterie of paid lobbyists,
academic surrogates, and other associated anti-genocide proponents
fails to defeat congressional passage of the resolution, another moral
victory may be added to the two dozen or so moral victories in hand
from foreign governments that have recognized the genocide.

Several years ago it was opined that Turkey was sufficiently emboldened
to launch a diplomatic offensive that was geared to placing Yerevan in
a compromising position based on its obsessive desire to normalize
relations and have an open border (see "Normalization Can Never
Be Worth Turkey’s Asking Price," the Armenian Weekly, Dec. 6,
2008). Secret negotiations between Ankara and Yerevan during 2008
culminated in President Serge Sarkisian’s "surprise" invitation to
Turkish President Abdullah Gul to attend the soccer match in Yerevan.

Thus began the "soccer diplomacy" charade leading to the signing
of the protocols and Sarkisian’s invitation to witness the second
meeting of their nation’s soccer teams in Bursa, Turkey.

At the same time in the United States, the Armenian electorate was
euphoric when candidate Obama recognized the Armenian Genocide as
a historic fact. Why those who supported his candidacy should have
been dismayed when this charming eloquent politician qualified his
explanation is difficult to understand. As president, he adroitly
side-stepped his acceptance of the Armenian Genocide by essentially
saying that it was his personal belief and not the basis for United
States foreign policy (see "President Obama’s Message to Turkey: Let’s
Agree to Disagree on the Armenian Genocide," the Armenian Weekly,
April 18, 2009).

Rapprochement is the Turkish Trojan Horse of their diplomatic offensive
whose acceptance will marginalize Armenia as an effective political
entity. Its concomitant objective is to eliminate the political,
economic, and psychological "millstone" that Hai Tahd represents
and by association the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun that has been
Hai Tahd’s historic proponent. Recently Sarkisian not only challenged
recalcitrant Turkey to ratify the protocols, but has spoken forcefully
with respect to Karabagh’s right to independence. Hopefully this is not
more "planned spontaneity." Time will tell. However, the ARF remains
the principal Armenian organization opposed to the ratification of
these documents. Individuals and organizations that have accepted
the view "Let’s see what happens" or "It’s in the best interests of
Armenia" represents a grasping for straws which places faith in a
process that has yet to show how the Armenian nation will benefit. It
is this group that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encourages to
continue their support of Yerevan.

Normalization with an open border provides absolutely no benefit
for Armenia. No explanation has yet been offered by proponents
to contradict this assessment. Any benefit that might be conjured
would come at an exorbitant cost (see "Sarkisian’s Faustian Bargain,"
Armenian Weekly, Oct. 24, 2009). While the United States continues to
press Yerevan, the Minsk Group (United States, France, and Russia),
representing the interests of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), continues to seek a settlement of
the Karabagh conflict that will deny de jure independence to the
Karabaghtsis (see "The Key to Armenia’s Future Political and Economic
Future," the Armenian Weekly, January 2010 magazine). Political
stability and economic development in the south Caucasus is a laudable
goal, but should it come at the expense of Armenia’s interests and
those Armenians who live in the historic Armenian regions of Artsakh,
Javakhk, and eastern Anatolia?

Since independence in 1991, a maelstrom of events has battered
Armenia and the Armenians of Artsakh and Javakhk. The protocols and
rapprochement are the most recent issues to confront the Armenian
nation. The ARF has recognized the inherent dangers to Armenia
posed by these protocols. The Jan. 12, 2010 ruling by Armenia’s
Constitutional Court tangentially confirmed the ARF’s concerns, but
does not prevent the protocols from being presented to parliament
for ratification. Ankara views the decision as hindering their
insidious plot to use the protocols’ suggested historic commission
to redefine the Armenian "Genocide." The Turkish end-game has always
been to marginalize Armenia, eliminate the moral issue of genocide
that besets the nation, and in the process nullify Hai Tahd and
the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun. According to their reasoning,
whatever else remains will easily fall into place.

Unfortunately, neither preventing the ratification of the protocols
nor genocide recognition by the United States Congress will provide
the proverbial "silver bullet" that will smite Turkey and allow final
victory to be declared. (To what political end has genocide recognition
by France and Russia served?) A universe of legitimate issues
exist-many are long-standing-that must be vigorously confronted and
resolved before Armenia’s future is secure. The singular problem for
the ARF is to determine the how and when and where it may efficiently
and effectively respond to these challenges. This is no easy matter.

This universe of issues encompasses the harsh unjustified political,
economic, and cultural policies that the Georgian government imposes
upon the Javakheti Armenians. Yerevan is not aggressively confronting
Tbilisi on these policies and actions that contravene the required
economic, political, and core democratic value changes in its treatment
of minorities agreed to by Georgia in 2006 as a member of the European
Union’s "European Neighborhood Policy" (ENP). And this by a government
that the United States steadfastly maintains is the beacon of democracy
in the south Caucasus. If these discriminatory policies by Tbilisi
are not challenged (hopefully by the ARF) within the next several
generations Armenian Javakhk will be irretrievably lost.

Linked to this "harassment" is the perversion of justice perpetrated on
the Javakheti Armenian activist Vahagnn Chakhalyan (sentenced in 2009
to 10 years in prison) that has been visited upon two other activists:
Gurgen Shirinyan, who was given a 3-year sentence in October 2009 in
addition to a 17-year sentence originally handed down in 2008, both
trials in absentia; and the ongoing trial of Aram Batoyan, again in
absentia, who is being tried on charges that date back to 2005 (see
"Javakheti Activist Vahagn Chakhalyan: Justice Denied by Georgia,"
the Armenian Weekly, Sept. 19, 2009). This police and judicial
misconduct has been documented by Yerkir Union and acknowledged by
the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

Then there is Karabagh. Since the 1994 ceasefire, the imperative to
resettle strategic areas of Karabagh has languished. What happened to
the government’s program to increase the population by some 100,000
people? During the 14 years of de facto independence, the population
has basically remained unchanged (see "The Political-Strategic
Resettlement of Karabagh’s Security Zone," the Armenian Weekly, June
30-July 7, 2007). On another front, what is being done to lay the
requisite foundation to support Karabagh’s right to be recognized
as an independent political entity? It will take more than public
declarations that the Karabaghtsis have this inalienable right. It
would be a logical initiative for the ARF to convene a conference of
recognized scholars who would discuss the legal and human rights basis
for the former Soviet autonomous region of Karabagh to be independent.

Coincidentally, what is being done to influence sympathetic
journalists, political leaders (especially members of the U.S.

Congressional Armenian Caucus), business leaders, leaders of advocacy
groups, and the public at large (including Armenians) by visits and
reports to support Karabagh’s right to recognition? Azerbaijan and its
enabler Turkey are being allowed to describe the conflict in terms
of terrorist activity and the claim for independence as an Armenian
irredentist ploy.

And now Turkey. There are so many issues that have been left to
languish. Where to begin? The destruction and seizure of religious
and educational property and its restitution or indemnification have
not been forcefully and continuously challenged in appropriate venues.

Neither has government policy allowing for the physical decay of
cultural artifacts or for their planned destruction. What of the
Armenian farmlands, businesses, and homes that were involuntarily
abandoned when the Ottoman Turkish government carried out its
genocidal plan to empty historic western Armenia (eastern Turkey) of
its inhabitants resulting in the systematic murder of some 1.5 million
innocent Armenian men, women, and children? At best only sporadic,
uncoordinated, and ineffectively implemented actions have been made
to challenge these issues to which Turkey is vulnerable.

And finally, what of the tens of thousands of children and young women
who were "taken" by tribal villagers (under varying circumstances)
and required to live within an alien cultural environment. During
the ensuing 90 years, these "lost" Armenians of the genocide became
the progenitors of successive generations who presently populate the
Turkish western provinces of historic Armenia. Has thought been given
to what should or could be done with respect to these "forgotten"
Armenians still connected by blood to the martys of the genocide?

It is obvious that this universe of issues contains more than the
protocols and genocide recognition. In accepting the challenge, the ARF
faces a Herculean task that far transcends anything the Dashnaktsutiun
may have attempted in the past. In charting its course of action, the
ARF must continue its active engagement of the Armenian Diaspora for
the moral and financial support required to achieve its mission. And
it must harness the expertise of those dedicated Armenian men and
women who can assist in formulating and implementing the initiatives
necessary to achieve its objectives. Now is the most critical period in
the modern history of the Armenian nation. If the Dashnaktsutiun fails
to vigorously and effectively confront these challenges, who will?