Asia Times
[Turkey is being incentivized on various fronts to return to the
Western fold and play its due role as a NATO power]
By MK Bhadrakumar
The zeal with which Washington is soliciting Turkey’s services to plot
a way to normalize Afghanistan’s Taliban raises some troubling
questions.
Acting on Washington’s request, Turkey will be hosting high-level
talks on the Afghanistan peace process this April to bring together
the Afghan government and the Taliban. Turkey has appointed a special
envoy to assume the mediation role.
Turkey is entering the cockpit to navigate the Afghan peace process to
a conclusion that meets US objectives. This will have a salutary
effect on the fraught Turkish-American relationship.
The US appreciates that Turkey is an influential member of the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, enjoys historical links with
Afghanistan and has a positive image among Afghans. But digging
deeper, the unholy US-Turkey alliance in the Syrian conflict creates
disquiet.
The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are reluctant to
vacate Afghanistan by the deadline of May 1. Turkey will be overseeing
an open-ended US-NATO presence. The US hopes to retain a strong
intelligence presence backed by special operations forces.
A report Friday from CNN disclosed that the “CIA, which has had a
significant say in US decision-making in Afghanistan, has ‘staked out
some clear positions’ during recent deliberations, arguing in favor of
continuing US involvement.”
The scale of the CIA activities in Afghanistan are not in the public
domain — especially, whether its regional mandate extends beyond the
borders of Afghanistan. The CNN report cited above lifted the veil on
“one of the most heavily guarded bases” of the CIA — Forward Operating
Base Chapman, “a classified US military installation in eastern
Afghanistan.”
Suffice to say, given the presence of the ISIS fighters (including
those transferred from Syria to Afghanistan — allegedly in US
aircraft, according to Russia and Iran) — the nexus between the
Taliban and al-Qaeda, and above all, the presence of Uighur, Central
Asian and Chechen terrorists, Turkey’s induction as the US’ buddy in
Afghanistan is indeed worrisome for regional states.
Turkey has transferred jihadi fighters from Idlib to Libya and
Nagorno-Karabakh to fight hybrid wars.
Significantly, Turkey has abruptly shifted its stance on the Uighur
issue after years of passivity and hyped it up as a diplomatic issue
between Ankara and Beijing. China’s ambassador to Ankara was summoned
to Turkey’s Foreign Ministry last Tuesday.
On the other hand, a perceptible “thaw” in US-Turkey relations is
under way. During the recent NATO ministerial in Brussels, US
Secretary of State Antony Blinken underscored, “I believe having
Turkey in NATO is particularly for the benefit of us.”
Clearly, any American overtures to Turkey will be in need of a
powerful success story. That is where Turkey’s mediatory role in
Afghanistan and a potential role in post-settlement Afghanistan become
templates of Washington’s dual containment strategy toward Russia and
China.
Turkey has staked claims for the mantle of leadership of the Turkic
world stretching from the Black Sea to the steppes of Central Asia and
China’s Xinjiang region. Simply put, Turkey’s role in Afghanistan and
Central Asia will challenge its relationship with Russia, which is
already under strain in Libya, Syria, Caucasus and potentially in the
Black Sea and the Balkans.
In a phone conversation on April 9, Russian President Vladimir Putin
cautioned Turkish president Recep Erdogan about “the importance of
preserving the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the
Straits with a view to ensuring regional stability and security.”
The Montreux Convention regulates the passage of naval warships
through the Bosporus.
Equally, the US hopes to keep Iran off-balance regionally by
encouraging Turkish revanchism. The Turkish-Iranian rivalry is already
palpable in Iraq where Washington hopes to establish NATO as a
provider of security.
Serious rifts between Ankara and Tehran appear also over
Nagorno-Karabakh. Thus, Afghanistan’s future figured prominently in
the discussions during Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif’s
recent six-day regional tour of Central Asian capitals.
China and Russia are vigilant about the US intentions in Afghanistan.
And both have problematic relations with Erdogan. Turkey’s ascendance
on the Afghan-Central Asian landscape cannot be to their comfort.
During his recent visit to Tehran, China’s State Councilor and Foreign
Minister Wang Yi voiced support for Iran’s membership of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
is due to visit Tehran on April 14.
Overall, these geopolitical realignments are taking place as the US
intensifies its suppression of China and Russia. But, for Turkey, the
intervention in Syria has proved profitable. The Turkish-controlled
territories of northern Syria consists of an 8,835-square-kilometer
area already and Ankara has no intentions to vacate its occupation.
Turkey will no doubt look for similar gains. For a start, regaining
primacy in the Western alliance system as the US’s irreplaceable
partner and as Europe’s interlocutor with Muslim Middle East has
always been a Turkish dream.
A clincher will be whether Washington can prevail upon the EU to grant
some special dispensation for Turkey — “associate membership” is one
possibility.
For the EU, too, Turkey becomes a key partner if NATO is to
consolidate in the Black Sea and encircle Russia in its backyard.
Turkey has already positioned itself as a provider of security for the
anti-Russian regime in Ukraine. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky
visited Erdogan on Saturday against the backdrop of rising tensions
with Russia.
Turkish officials are cautiously optimistic about recent high-level
efforts to improve dialogue between Ankara and Brussels. The European
actors are coordinating with Washington.
The EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council
President Charles Michel’s visit to Ankara last Wednesday can be seen
as a significant initial effort to improve relations with Turkey.
As one Turkish commentator put it, the “olive branch” given by the EU
leaders to Erdogan has “five main leaves”, namely:
A concrete agenda on economic cooperation and migration;
Handling and updating the problems related to a Customs Union;
Commitment to continue the flow of funds for refugees in Turkey;
Adding momentum to relations with Turkey on key cooperation areas; and,
The Eastern Mediterranean region’s security and stability
All in all, Turkey is being “incentivized” to return to the Western
fold and play its due role as a NATO power.
Today, Turkey is probably the only ally regionally and internationally
that Washington can lean on to wean Pakistan away from the orbit of
Chinese and Russian influence, which truly makes Turkey an
indispensable partner for the US and NATO in a Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan.
Indeed, Russia and Turkey have historically been rivals in
Afghanistan. Turkey has deep-rooted, centuries-old, pan-Islamic ties
with Afghanistan that by far predate Pakistan’s creation in 1947.
How far Pakistan will be willing to play a subaltern role in
Afghanistan’s future remains to be seen. But then, all this must have
Russia worried in regard to the security and stability of its Central
Asian backyard and North Caucasia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s
visit to Islamabad last week was the first such ministerial visit
since 2012.
Fundamentally, however, the contradictions in US-Turkey relations will
not simply wither away. Those contradictions include the US’ alliance
with Kurds in Syria; US opposition to Turkey’s intervention in Libya;
Erdogan’s abysmal human rights record; discord over Turkey’s S-400
missile deal with Russia; and so on.
But the two Cold War allies are also used to finessing contradictions
whenever opportunities arise to work together to mutual benefit.
Without a doubt, in the power dynamic of the highly strategic regions
surrounding Afghanistan, the two countries can look forward to
“win-win” cooperation.
Author: Jagharian Tania
Armenia, Iran discuss defense cooperation
Public Radio of Armenia
RFE/RL Armenian Report – 04/07/2021
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
Justice Minister Unhappy With Court Ruling In Favor Of Kocharian
April 07, 2021
• Naira Nalbandian
Armenia -- Justice Minister Rustam Badasian speaks with journalists, April 7,
2021.
Justice Minister Rustam Badasian deplored on Wednesday an Armenian court’s
decision to throw out coup charges brought against former President Robert
Kocharian in connection with the 2008 post-election violence in Yerevan.
A Yerevan judge presiding over the two-year trial of Kocharian and three other
former officials made the decision on Tuesday ten days after the charges were
declared unconstitutional by Armenia’s Constitutional Court.
The high court argued that they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged “overthrow
of the constitutional order” because there was no such article in the country’s
former Criminal Code which was in force during the events of March 2008.
“I can say that I am very upset with the processes that have taken place,”
Badasian told reporters when asked to comment on the development.
Badasian declined to comment on the future of the long-running criminal case on
the worst street violence in Armenia’s history. He said it is up to prosecutors
to decide whether to appeal against the decision made by Anna Danibekian, a
judge of the Yerevan court of first instance.
The minister implied that the decision may have been made possible by the
current Armenian authorities’ failure to radically reform the judiciary and
“vet” all judges.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian demanded a mandatory “vetting” of all Armenian
judges in May 2019 just days after another judge, who initially presided over
Kocharian’s trial, freed the ex-president from custody and questioned the
legality of the coup charges. Pashinian’s government subsequently agreed to
refrain from such a purge of the judiciary at the urging of European legal
experts.
The prime minister has repeatedly stated that law-enforcement authorities have
identified those responsible for the March 2008 deaths of eight opposition
protesters and two police servicemen in vicious street clashes between security
forces and demonstrators. His critics dispute that claim.
Kocharian and the other defendants deny responsibility for the bloodshed and
reject the accusations as politically motivated.
Putin Meets Pashinian On ‘Strategic’ Ties, Karabakh Peace
April 07, 2021
RUSSIA -- Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian and Russian President Vladimir
Putin meet at the Kremlin in Moscow, April 7, 2021
Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol
Pashinian on Wednesday for talks that focused on bilateral ties and the
implementation of a Russian-brokered agreement that stopped last year’s
Armenian-Azerbaijani war.
Putin emphasized the “strategic character” of Russia’s relationship with Armenia
in his opening remarks at the meeting held in the Kremlin. He also noted the
“solid” volume of Russian-Armenian trade, expressing confidence that it will
grow again after shrinking last year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Putin went on mention the “post-war situation” in the Karabakh conflict zone
and, in particular, renewed transport links between Armenia and Azerbaijan
envisaged by the ceasefire agreement which he brokered in November.
He said the reopening of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border for commercial traffic
will give Armenia “new opportunities for the country’s development.” “In my
view, this is an extremely important thing,” he told Pashinian.
Pashinian complained, for his part, that Azerbaijan is continuing to hold many
Armenian prisoners of war and civilian captives in breach of the truce accord.
“I am very glad that we have no differences regarding how to resolve this
problem,” he said.
Pashinian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev failed to reach an agreement on
the prisoner release during their trilateral meeting with Putin held in Moscow
on January 11. They only agreed to set up a Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani working
group tasked with working out practical modalities of restoring transport links
between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The group co-headed by deputy prime ministers of the three states has held
several meetings since January 30. Its Russian co-chair, Alexei Overchuk,
visited Baku and Yerevan last week.
No concrete agreements were announced after Putin’s and Pashinian latest talks.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said late last week that Armenia’s forthcoming
snap parliamentary elections will also be on the meeting’s agenda.
Pashinian has pledged to hold the elections in June in a bid resolve a domestic
political crisis sparked by Armenia’s defeat in the six-week war.
Moscow has expressed concern at the deepening crisis. Putin discussed it with
Pashinian in a February 25 phone call.
Neither leader mentioned the Armenian elections at the start of Wednesday’s
meeting.
Pashinian cited instead the need to ascertain “some nuances” of Russian-Armenian
military cooperation. He also announced that Armenia will receive on Thursday
the first 15,000 doses of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine against COVID-19.
“We need more than a million doses,” the Armenian leader said, implicitly asking
Putin to facilitate their delivery.
“Our [vaccine] production is gaining momentum,” replied Putin. “We are talking
about a fairly large volume of production of this vaccine. So I think that we
will solve this problem.”
U.S. Supports COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts In Armenia
April 07, 2021
• Narine Ghalechian
GEORGIA -- A health worker holds a vial containing the AstraZeneca vaccine
against COVID-19 used at the Infectious Diseases, AIFS and Clinical Immunology
Research Center in Tbilisi, March 15, 2021
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced on Wednesday
that it will allocate $1 million to help health authorities in Armenia vaccinate
people against COVID-19.
In a statement, the U.S. government agency said the United Nations children’s
agency, UNICEF, will receive the funding to “provide targeted technical
assistance to support and ensure effective implementation of COVID-19
vaccination efforts in Armenia.”
The statement said the allocation brought to $11 million the total amount of
coronavirus-related aid provided by USAID to the country since the outbreak of
the pandemic.
“This includes emergency funding to address immediate health needs and efforts
to address the secondary and tertiary impacts of the pandemic on democratic
development and economic growth,” it said.
Although Armenia has been hit hard by the pandemic and is currently grappling
with a third wave of coronavirus infections, its government plans to vaccinate
only a limited proportion of the population.
The country of about 3 million received on March 28 the first major batch of a
COVID-19 vaccine from the COVAX Facility, the World Health Organization’s global
vaccine-sharing scheme. The 24,000 doses of the vaccine developed by the
AstraZeneca pharmaceutical giant and Oxford University will be made available to
medical workers, care home personnel, persons aged 65 and older as well as
younger people suffering from chronic diseases.
Healthcare workers were due to start administering the vaccine on Monday. The
inoculations were postponed by several days due what the authorities called
logistical problems.
Deputy Health Minister Lena Nanushian said on Wednesday that Armenia is
continuing to negotiate with Russia on the acquisition of a smaller amount of
the Russian Sputnik V vaccine.
Nanushian also told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that COVAX has offered the
Armenian government to supply other coronavirus vaccines developed by the U.S.
companies Novavax and Johnson & Johnson.
“[The offer] has been discussed with a team of [health] specialists and the
country has replied to COVAX that it is ready to acquire these vaccines as
well,” she said.
The official did not specify how many doses of the Novavax and Johnson & Johnson
vaccines could be delivered to Armenia.
The daily number of coronavirus cases in the country and deaths caused by them
has increased sharply since the end of February.
The Armenian Ministry of Health said earlier on Wednesday that 1,025 new cases
have been registered in the past day. It also reported the deaths of 24 more
people infected with COVID-19.
According to the ministry, there were only 6 vacant beds at the intensive care
units of Armenian hospitals treating COVID-19 patients. Nearly 280 of those
patients were in a critical condition.
Russian, Armenian Defense Chiefs Talk Again
April 07, 2021
Defense Ministers Vagharshak Harutiunian (L) of Armenia and Sergei Shoigu of
Russia.
During a fresh phone call on Wednesday Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu
reportedly discussed with his Armenian counterpart Vagharshak Harutiunian
Russia’s military presence in Armenia and sweeping defense reforms announced by
Yerevan.
The Russian Defense Ministry gave no details of the conversation, saying only
that the two men spoke about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and “other issues of
mutual interest.”
According to a longer readout of the phone call released by the Armenian Defense
Ministry, Harutiunian and Shoigu focused on the activities of the Russian
military base in Armenia as well as “large-scale reforms launched in the
Armenian army” after last year’s war with Azerbaijan.
Harutiunian and the chief of the Russian military’s General Staff, General
Valery Gerasimov, also discussed the reforms when they spoke by phone on March
23. Harutiunian’s press office said they agreed that a high-ranking Russian
delegation will visit Yerevan soon for more detailed talks on the subject.
A delegation led by one of Gerasimov’s deputies, Colonel-General Sergei
Istrakov, already held weeklong negotiations with the Armenian army’s top brass
in Yerevan in January. Harutiunian said afterwards that the talks were aimed at
“assisting us in the reform and modernization of Armenia’s armed forces.”
The minister said concrete “recommendations” have already been made on how to
rearm the Armenian army in the current circumstances. He did not elaborate.
Harutiunian’s also asserted that that the Russian military base in Gyumri will
be expanded in view of the post-war “military-political realities in the
region.” He suggested that more Russian troops could be deployed to Armenia’s
southeastern Syunik province.
Syunik borders districts southwest of Karabakh which were retaken by Azerbaijan
during and after the six-week war stopped by a Russian-brokered ceasefire on
November 10. Russia deployed soldiers and border guards to the region to help
the Armenian military defend it against possible Azerbaijani attacks.
The Defense Ministry in Yerevan said “security issues in Syunik” were also on
the agenda of Harutiunian’s latest phone call with Shoigu.
The conversation came as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian flew to Moscow for talks
with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Pashinian announced plans to further deepen Russian-Armenian military ties
shortly after the Karabakh war. He said his country now needs “new security
guarantees.”
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2021 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
Iskander Missile’s Dilemma In Karabakh [Azeri opinion]
EurasiaReview
April 7 2021
By Shahmar Hajiyev*
The Second Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan changed geo-political situation in the South Caucasus. It is very important to underline that after the Armenian defeat in the April 2016 War, when Azerbaijani army liberated the strategically important hill Lala-Tepe, Armenia’s top military leaders strived to regain lost positions rather than accept new realities. As a result of series provocations, full-scale military operations were launched along the entire front in order to suppress the combat activity of the Armenian armed forces, as well as ensure the safety of the civilian population on 27 September 2020.
The Second Karabakh War was a full-scale war with use of all types of heavy and modern weapons. Russian weapons such as the BM-30 Smerch, “Tochka-U” high-precision tactical missile system, and a Scud missile were mainly used by the Armenian army. Along with the Russian weapons, Azerbaijan actively used the Turkish and Israeli modern weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
Touching upon the issue of the tactical missile systems, it is worth mentioning that there were certain signs on the use of Iskander missiles against Azerbaijan during the Second Karabakh War. It should be noted that the Russian-made Iskander-E tactical ballistic missile (TBM) system with a maximum range of 280 kilometers were obtained by Armenia, and those missiles have been shown at the military parade in September 2016. In fact, the acquisition of such a complex by Armenia threatened all strategic infrastructure in Azerbaijan. Earlier, the Azerbaijani Ambassador to the US Elin Suleymanov has also raised the issue of Iskander ballistic missiles during the meeting at the US National Defense University in 2017.
Since then, many Armenian military experts have highlighted the importance of Iskander-E missile systems for Armenian military forces, which had changed the balance in favor of Armenia. However, official Baku acquired the Belarusian-made Polonez multiple-launch rocket system as well as Israeli-made LORA operational-tactical missile system to keep balance in the region. So far, Azerbaijan has managed to counterbalance Armenia’s military capacity and sent a clear message to Armenia about the risks of use of the Iskander missiles against Azerbaijan. In addition, Azerbaijan strengthened its ballistic missile defence by purchasing the Israeli-made Barak-8 air defense system.
In fact, Iskander missiles were used against Azerbaijan during the Second Karabakh War. The first remark about this complicated issue came from ex-army chief, colonel-general Movses Hakobyan. He noted that “it was used during the war though I will not say where”. Later, the Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a very serious comment about the effectiveness of Iskander missiles. Armenian Prime Minister emphasized that “Russian-made Iskander ballistic missiles did not explode during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”. It is worth remembering the interesting fact when Armenia first demonstrated Iskander systems during a military parade in 2016, the former Defense Industry Minister Javer Jamalov noted “Armenia has Iskander-E missiles, and current operation time of these ballistic missiles have already expired”. After Nikol Pashinyan’s remarks on the low effectiveness of the Iskander complex, many Armenian and Russian military experts claimed that Iskander missiles were not used during the Second Karabakh War. In addition, Russia’s Defense Ministry also noted that “Moscow has objective and credible evidence that the Armenian army did not fire any Iskander missiles during the war”.
However, the Iskander dilemma became more complicated when the Mine Action Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan (ANAMA) detected remains of Iskander missiles in Shusha city. It should be especially highlighted that the detected remains of missiles under the 9M723 index code belong to Iskander-M type. Iskander-M with a maximum range of 500 km is exclusive for Russian military use, while the Iskander-E (9M720) with maximum range of 280 km aimed for export, and Armenia became the first buyer of such complex.
How, one might ask, were the remains of the Iskander-M missile detected in Shusha city, and who launched the missiles? Today, this is the main question to which many experts try to answer. To find an answer to this dilemma, one can note several important assumptions.
First assumption might be that Russia has sold Iskander-M missiles to Armenia instead of Iskander-E, and Armenian armed forces used those missiles against Azerbaijan. In this case, official Moscow violates the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. In addition, Russian officials always claim that Iskander-M is a serious offensive weapon, and naturally, the complex will not be exported to other states.
Second assumption might be that Armenia through diaspora bought illegally Iskander-M missile systems, smuggled it through Russian customs and used them against Azerbaijan. In such situation, serious investigations must be launched in the Russian army to find out responsible persons. Illegal acquisition of such a strategic weapon is a serious threat not only to regional security but also to the whole world. Therefore, the official Kremlin should start its investigation into the remains of Iskander-M missiles in Karabakh as soon as possible. However, experts are sceptic with regard to a possibility to smuggle such weapon from Russia.
And the third assumption as some experts claim Russia could use Iskander-M missiles against Azerbaijan in order to stop successful military operations of the Azerbaijani army. It is worth remembering that military operations were stopped after the Russian intervention of November 10, 2020. Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed the Trilateral Agreement, and the official Kremlin became a key guarantor for the ceasefire and peace. According to the agreement, 1,960 armed troops, 90 armored vehicles, and 380 motor vehicles and special equipment units have been deployed to the Karabakh region. By this, Russia got military presence in all three South Caucasian countries. If Russia used Iskander-M missiles against Azerbaijan then it may completely damage the image and credibility of the Russian peacekeeping forces in Azerbaijan.
Of course, all the above-mentioned are assumptions which need to be clarified by the Russian officials. According to Russian President’s Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov – “Iskander missiles were not used in Nagorno-Karabakh in the fall of 2020, and President Vladimir Putin was informed about the issue”. Apparently, this important issue and other developments were discussed between the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev and the Russian president Vladimir Putin during a telephone conversation on April, 1, 2021. Azerbaijan is waiting for reliable information and explanation about the Iskander-M dilemma in Shusha.
In the end, it is important to underline that the war is over. On the one hand, there are still some challenges such as the illegal transit of Armenian armed forces and weapons through the Lachin corridor to Karabakh, as well as the Armenian armed forces’ withdrawal from Azerbaijani territories, on the other hand, there are important opportunities for regional integration and stability. Armenia and Azerbaijan can support the reconciliation process by showing goodwill. Towards this end, official Yerevan should implement all clauses of the November agreement as well as recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan in return might resolve issue with detainees caught after 10 November 2020. Last but not least, the processes of disarmament within the context of post-conflict reconciliation should begin as soon as possible. As noted above, the Iskander-M missile system is a serious threat to the whole region, and the Shusha case demonstrated clearly that arms control is very important to strengthen peace and stability in the region.
*Shahmar Hajiyev, Senior advisor, Center of Analysis of International Relations
Nearly 63% of survey respondents say Armenia should strengthen its cooperation with Russia
14:15,
YEREVAN, MARCH 31, ARMENPRESS. According to the results of a survey conducted in Armenia, 62.9% of the respondents said Armenia should strengthen its cooperation with Russia, Aram Navasardyan, Director of MPG LLC, a full member of Gallup International Association in Armenia, said during a press conference.
The citizens were asked with which countries or unions in their view Armenia should strengthen its cooperation.
“62.9% mentioned Russia, 16.4% – US, 6.4% – France, 5.2% – the European Union, 2.6% – China, 2.4% – Iran, 1.5% – the Eurasian Economic Union, 0.7% – NATO, 0.7% – Georgia and 0.2% – CSTO”, he said.
Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan
Catholicos of All Armenians, US Ambassador discuss importance of safe and expeditious return of POWs
Catholicos of All Armenians, US Ambassador discuss importance of safe and expeditious return of POWs
15:16,
YEREVAN, MARCH 31, ARMENPRESS. US Ambassador to Armenia Lynne Tracy met with Garegin II, Catholicos of All Armenians in Echmiadzin on March 30 to discuss the importance of the safe and expeditious return of detainees following the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, the US Embassy in Armenia told Armenpress.
Armenian FM to attend CIS Foreign Ministerial Council session in Moscow
16:54,
YEREVAN, MARCH 30, ARMENPRESS. The delegation led by Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Aivazian will depart for Moscow, Russia, on April 1 to take part in the session of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, the Armenian foreign ministry told Armenpress.
The FM is expected to meet with a number of partners on the sidelines of the session.
Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan
Sports: FIFA lists Armenia’s Henrikh Mkhitaryan among ten stars who deserve a World Cup
Public Radio of Armenia
March 23 2021
‘In liberated Artsakh Azeris’ graves were not being destroyed’: Reference to BBC report
Panorama, Armenia
Culture 12:21 26/03/2021Armenia
“In liberated Artsakh Azeris’ graves were not being destroyed,” Facebook user Narine Arzumanyan said on Friday, referring to a part of the BBC News report “Nagorno-Karabakh: The mystery of the missing church”, which claimed the Armenians had allegedly destroyed the graves of Azerbaijanis.
“BBC News yesterday showed the totally demolished Armenian church in the territory of Artsakh occupied by Azerbaijan and then, to equate, some stones that Azerbaijanis were collecting and presenting as “ruined-by-Armenians-grave”.
“These photos were taken at archeological site of Tigranakert in Artsakh years ago,” Arzumanyan wrote, sharing the photos.
BBC correspondent Jonah Fisher has investigated the disappearance of an Armenian church that fell under the control of Azerbaijan in the recent Nagorno-Karabakh war. An online video shows Zoravor Surb Astvatsatsin Church near the town of Mekhakavan (Jebrayil) was intact when Azerbaijan occupied the territory.
“Azerbaijan has said ethnic Armenians are welcome to stay in Nagorno-Karabakh but Armenia has accused it of damaging and destroying Armenian cultural heritage left behind in the region, including churches and monuments. Both sides accuse the other of war crimes,” the BBC reported.
War in the media – Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict driven by hatred and atrocities
March 2021
Download article PDF
The texts published by the individual authors reflect only their opinions and not those of the editors and publishing platforms
Author: Simon Jacob, Valentin Hoffmann
Place: Armenia
Class: Text
Subject: Politics, Society, Religion, Extremism, Minorities
Date: 08.03.2021
Website: www.oannesjournalism.com
Reading time: ca. 20 min.
Language: English
Title:
(picture: private)
Professor Dr. Anahit Khosroeva teaches at North Park University in Chicago, is an expert on genocide research, and habilitated at the National Academy of Science in Armenia in 2003 on the topic of the genocide of the Assyrians, entitled: “The Assyrian Massacres in the Ottoman Turkey and on the Turkish Territories of Iran (late 19th – the first quarter of the 20th century). Excerpts can be found via the following link – “Assyrian Massacre in the Ottoman Turkey and Adjacent Turkish Territories“.
Related to the borderline conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the territory known as ” Nagorno Karabakh” as the central point of conflict, which was historically settled by Armenians, also a digital conflict manifested itself in the social media. It seems that this conflict was especially influenced by religious-nationalist ideas and intentionally triggered with memories of the genocide of Christians in the Ottoman Empire (1915-1918). Looking at the extremely martial rhetoric in the media, it seems obvious that the narrative of the “Armenian” as subhuman is propagated, especially driven by the fascist view of Pan-Turkish nationalists such as the “Grey Wolves”, in order to intimidate and demoralize the opponent. Protagonists deliberately refer to the genocidal murder of Christian Armenians, Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans, Pontos Greeks, etc. in the Ottoman Empire in order to create the impression that the nearly full annihilation of any Christian ethnic culture in the former Ottoman Empire is now being completed. In the media, both recordings of drones exported by Turkey to war zones and a strong presence of various trolls in social media, are used to fuel the conflict.
With Professor Dr. Anahit Khosroeva, a native Armenian and ethnically half Assyrian, we talk about the impact of fascist and nationalist ideas, which connect the history of the genocide of Christians in the Ottoman Empire with the current developments in Nagorno-Karabakh becoming a digitally toxic mixture, which also reaches and divides the European society. Especially when it comes to dealing with fascist ideologies that originate from the mindset of German citizens with a Turkish or Middle Eastern background and which are becoming a serious danger.
Dr. Khosroeva – How do you feel as an Armenian, how do you feel as a Christian?
I am often asked this question, and every time I am amused because in Armenia, where I grew up and spent most of my life, over 99% of the population are Christians. I think this is something that makes Armenia unique. For me, being a Christian with a maximum of religious freedom, which every Christian can dream of, does not mean following rules and regulations, performing rituals or even going to church. It means much more. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the Soviet Union, where religion was mostly prohibited. The first time I went to church was in my teens, and I wasn’t baptized until I was 25..
For me, as a Christian, it is mainly about a friendship that is based on a connection with Jesus Christ. And about the characteristics of Christianity, in the meaning of being God-fearing and humble. Christians should reveal the fruit of the Spirit given to them in Galatians 6 Paul’s letter from the Bible to the Galatians) – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.
Would there have been any other solution to solve the conflict, except the current agreement between Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan?
This is the most difficult question of all because there is so much to say about the situation, but I try to keep it short. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not new, but it started in 1988, when the Karabakh region was part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, just before it collapsed. Most people living in this area belonged to the Armenian ethnicity and expressed their wish to leave the Azerbaijani Republic. At the beginning of the war, the Soviet Union was alive and well, but by the end of the war in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan were two independent states. Unfortunately, no other country recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent territory. The first ceasefire agreement between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, representing the OSCE Minsk Group, was concluded in 1994 and called the “Bishkek Protocol.” The protocol should remain in place with no expiry date until a final agreement could be reached. However, a new agreement that could have secured peace or at least a cease-fire was not reached before war broke out last year.
But let’s turn to the question of why the conflict has started again. From the Armenian perspective, the area is called Artsakh and was traditionally and historically one of the 15 Armenian heartlands, mainly inhabited by Armenians. Basically, we consider it as our ancestral homeland. After the first Armenia – Azerbaijan War (1994) Armenia has conquered territory in Azerbaijan, which can be assigned to Armenia in the historical context, but which is considered “occupied” territory according to international law. This is related to Stalin’s decision in 1921, when the Communists granted autonomy to the Armenians in what is now Nagorno Karabakh, but incorporated the territory into the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. A fateful decision, fueling the current conflicts. Armenia’s hope and strategy was to wait for Nagorno-Karabakh to be recognized as an independent region.
The current conflict is another one, and it differs from the previous clashes because from the very beginning, the NATO member Turkey was involved in the planning, conception, and realization. An aggravating factor is that our new Government, which was established after the “revolution” in 2018, is organized inside the context of a parliamentarian democracy. Due to this, the newly elected prime minister, without any experience in military structures or war missions, was considered to be the commander-in-chief of the army. This may be standard practice for European politicians. But especially in a high-conflict region like the Caucasus, wedged between hostile countries, military experience is of primary importance. All presidents before were familiar with Nagorno-Karabakh and grasped the intricacies of the extremely complex situation. Many senior politicians in the previous administration were veterans of earlier conflicts and accordingly experienced in military matters. Academics like myself warned about the upcoming war because the reason of the conflict, as I mentioned earlier, is located in the past and had not been solved yet. Also, Armenia’s economic growth was limited due to a lack of resources and it is still suffering from the outbreak of the war today. But the government did not listen and ignored all our warnings. As a consequence, the people were not ready and not sufficiently prepared for this conflict, if one can be prepared at all.
In my opinion, our Prime Minister betrayed his own people; based on the fact that throughout the whole war, the government conveyed that we were winning and provided us false information. Later, the political leadership conveyed that, they were aware of losing the war just a few days after it started. This raises the question of why our prime minister was not aware of this right from the beginning. Why didn´t they tell us the truth? Maybe we would have been prepared better, emotionally and socially, if we had been treated honestly. In fact, it has to be said that our own government told us lies.
Unfortunately, I worry that the conflict will continue. We have to decide whether to reclaim the territory or accept the current status.
How was the media involved in the conflict and is the conflict continuing in the media?
First of all, I am surprised that the international media reported barely on the situation. How can it be that in a highly digitalized and eminently media-saturated world, hardly anyone is talking about this conflict? It almost seems as if no one cared. Azerbaijani media were instructed not to report during the war, which was a good idea. Ordinary media should not be dragged into a conflict without knowing the full facts. In contrast, the Armenian media reported on casualties and damages every day, but it turned out that the news from the Armenian side were not always truthful. Facts were not presented correctly. But I cannot blame the media. They were given the information they disseminated directly by the respective departments of the government. As a consequence of the painful defeat, the Armenian people want the government to step down. That is the reason why many demonstrations are taking place in the country. But so far the prime minister could not be convinced to resign. By the way, this is one of the main topics of media coverage at the moment.
Is there evidence that members of the Azerbaijani military have committed human rights violations and shared them on social media?
Yes, there are videos on social media that clearly show human rights violations. They did not only torture people, but also used biological weapons. For instance, Amnesty International reported on it
Does this apply to members of the Armenian military as well?
So far, I have not seen any evidence for such assertions. And frankly speaking, I don’t believe that Armenians who adhere to Christian values and call themselves Christians would do such atrocities. But, of course, the Azerbaijani propaganda claims the opposite.
How much do such actions and the spreading of such content poison the already difficult relations between the parties?
There is no doubt that such intentionally disseminated videos and human rights violations, especially spread on social media, just fuel the conflicts even more..
Are inhumane crimes, such as the ones possibly committed by members of the Azerbaijani military, part of an ideology that could be related to the genocide of Christians in the Ottoman Empire?
This is one of my main subjects, about which I have already stated several times, in various forms, always based on scientifically proven work. At the end of the 19th century Sultan Abdul Hamid II of the Ottoman Empire had 300 thousands Armenian and 55 thousands Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Christians being killed. During the First World War (1914-1918) over 2 million Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire were killed by the ruling Young Turks’ government. This genocide was against Armenians, Assyrians and other Christian minorities. Even today, Turkey, as the successor of the Ottoman Empire, refuses to admit that this mass murder was a genocide.
At the same time, Turkey and Azerbaijan have a strong military, economic, ideological and cultural relationship. We Armenians call Azerbaijanis the younger brother of the Turks. The language is also very similar. Erdoğan expressed that the two countries are one nation of two states. In recent years, Turkey has intensively supported Azerbaijan and encouraged the government in Baku to become more proactive – especially in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh. After the outbreak of the military conflict in July 2020, Turkey supported Azerbaijan heavily at various levels. For example, two Turkish F16 jets guarded the Azerbaijani airspace. They also supported Azerbaijani troops in military training, exported modern weapons to the country, in particular strategically important drone technology. Azerbaijan is of geopolitical and strategic importance to Turkey’s energy stability, as well as an important investor supporting Turkey’s struggling economy. Erdoğan aims to build a greater Turkey. His foreign policy is based on the idea of neo-Ottomanism, pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism. Pan-Turkism is a nationalistic ideology believing that all Turkic-speaking people in all parts of Asia are one unique nation.
At the same time, neo-Ottomanism is a religiously based ideology where all Turkish speaking people should be united. Both ideologies share the same goal, which is a “new great Turkey.” Erdoğan wants to be, figuratively and historically, the sultan of this new great Turkey. All people who stand in opposition to this ideology either leave the country or are imprisoned. Those who follow this ideology consider Christians, anchored in a nationalist-religious worldview, to be their enemy.
At a symposium on “Human Rights in Turkey” some time ago, the Middle East expert and journalist Simon Jacob gave a geopolitical lecture about this, explaining in more detail the connections between Turkish expansion policy, technological – military development, digitalization, nationalist – Islamic fascism and events in the past. The entire lecture is available with this link as a video on the website of a human rights organization as well as Mr. Jacobs comprehensive and interesting power point presentation in pdf – format.
Also interesting is the report „EASTERN EUROPE – Azerbaijan and Turkey’s genocidal assault against Armenians“ at the website „moderndiplomacy“, Also interesting is the report “EASTERN EUROPE – Azerbaijan and Turkey’s genocidal assault against Armenians” at the website “moderndiplomacy”, which deals with the topic objectively and factually.
How close is the ideology of extremist groups such as ISIS?
In my opinion, the Turkish government has deployed extremists in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. During the Karabakh war, Turkey mobilized about 4,000 former jihadists from Syria and other countries to fight against Armenia. This is a major problem, as it was no longer just a conflict between two countries, but became a trans-regional conflict after extremist groups were involved. But Ankara, of course, denies the fact that Islamist-inspired militiamen have been deployed. At the same time, this is also a problem for Russia, as more jihadists are entering to Dagestan via the Caucasus and contributing the expansion of Islamism.
For example, Turkey and the “IS” have much in common in terms of their ideology. The “Islamic State” is a Sunni jihadist group with a very brutal ideology that claims religious dominance on the Muslim community. Therefore, both groups try to get control over a certain territory to establish their own state, which is governed through their radical ideologies. It could be said that the pan-Turkish nationalists are a modern version of IS with more sophisticated technology and weapons – regardless of the fact that Shiites dominate Azerbaijan whom the IS religiously considers apostates and combats.
How strong is the effect on the Caucasus and Europe in this context?
When IS destroyed Christian Assyrian villages near the Khabour Valley in 2016, I told people on Armenian television that this was a problem in Syria at the moment, but sooner or later it could become a problem all over the world. I was given little credence in 2016 and it simply was unbelievable that extremist groups such as the IS could reach our region. But unfortunately, I was right. Based on Erdogan’s threat to stability in the Caucasus, he is playing with Europeans’ concerns about refugees at the same time. He also causes a split in France, when he is talking about Islamophobia, for example, and thus trying to incite citizens of Turkish origin and encouraging them to turn to terror. Related to this is the problem that Europe is trying to be more liberal and open to refugees, but in my opinion they are getting into a cultural conflict with them. Europe has difficulties in integrating them into the culture of the country they seek protection. Integration often fails bringing the above-mentioned problems, which leaders like Erdogan use for their own benefit.
One last question: Do you see a similarity between the ideology of IS and nationalists like the group of so-called “Grey Wolves”?
The ideology of the Grey Wolves highlights Turkish history by insisting on its glory days and instrumentalizing events such as the founding of the first Turkish states in Central Asia to form the idea of a purely “Turkish Race”. At the same time, the concept of the Turkish nation is linked to religion, Islam, as an ideal. The ideology of the “Grey Wolves” is based on the ” superiority idea” of the Turkish race and the Turkish nation. A “…striving for an “ideal” Turkish nation, which they define as Sunni Islamic and mono-ethnic: inhabited only by “true” Turks. A Turk is anyone who lives on Turkish territory, feels Turkish, and calls himself Turkish.”
Similarly, the IS promotes religious violence and considers Muslims who disagree with its interpretations as infidels or apostates, and there are very many of them; including Shiites in Azerbaijan. Such symbolism, similar to that of the “Grey Wolves,” is meant to resurrect past glory, whether it is the ” Caliphate” (IS) or the “Ottoman Empire” (Grey Wolves, nationalists)
Accordingly, there are many similarities, but also differences. Both are ultra-nationalist, Islamist and neo-fascist groups. For example, the Grey Wolves were also involved in the first Karabakh war. Members of the Grey Wolves fought on the side of Azerbaijan. For example, a picture of a parade in Azerbaijan after the victory shows a General of the Azerbaijani army giving the “wolf salute” – the distinctive identifying sign of the “Gray Wolves”, now banned in France but allowed in Germany. The Armenian radio station reported about that.
The significant difference between the ideologies is that the IS is a religiously motivated group. The Grey Wolves are motivated by Turkey’s history and the idea of the pure “Turkish Race”. But both of them usurp the same brutality, religiously justified, in order to use violence and spread as much fear and terror as possible.
In this context, it should be mentioned that the leader of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP for short, and coalition partner of the AKP, considers the Grey Wolves to be part of the MHP and more than shares its ideology. Recently, their chairman, Devlet Bahçeli (MHP) announced to start building a nationalist school in Shushi (the city in Nagorno Karabakh, which was captured by Azerbaijan on November 9th, 2020).
According to Turkish Daily News “Hurriyet”, Devlet Bahçeli said that both President Erdogan and President Aliyev approved his proposal to build the school in Shushi. They laid the cornerstone for this school on January 30th, 2021. I am sure that this was an ideological and symbolic act to demonstrate power.
Ms. Khosroeva, many thanks for these interesting information and your time.
Simon Jacob, Valentin Hoffmann
Lectures – Oannes Consulting GmbH offers several lecture series dealing with important social topics. Click here to get to the lecture portal.