BAKU: Azeri leader vows to restore full sovereignty, beef up militar

AzTV Baku, Azerbaijan
Dec 31 2011

Azeri leader vows to restore full sovereignty, beef up military strength

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has again reiterated country’s
determination to restore full sovereignty over the
internationally-recognized territories. Karabakh is internationally
recognized as the territory of Azerbaijan. The conflict must be
resolved on these principles, he went on to say. “The territorial
integrity of our country must be restored. The occupying forces must
withdraw from all the occupied lands,” the president of Azerbaijan
said in his New Year address. Aliyev also promised to continue
military beef up and purchase state-of-the-art weapons. Subheadings
have been inserted editorially:

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has vowed to continue diplomatic,
political and military efforts for the resolution of the
long-drawn-out Karabakh conflict and have the country’s territorial
integrity restored.

Territorial integrity is a must

He said: “What concerns us most is the unresolved Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan has always, especially over the
recent period, stepped up its efforts. But, as you know, the
resolution of this issue does not only dependent on us. Unfortunately,
the unconstructive position of Armenia, its hypocrisy demonstrated in
the negotiations process, the actual refusal from the talks dealt a
big blow to the process. Unfortunately, the international community
and the parties directly involved in the matter still do not speak
openly and unequivocally, who is to blame for violations of the
negotiations.

“There are positive statements. We hear those statements, support
them. In particular, what turned out to be new this year was that the
co-chair countries have repeatedly made statements about the
unacceptability of the status quo. We support these statements.
However, concrete steps must come after statements. Unfortunately,
these steps are not being taken. We will continue our diplomatic and
political efforts. We have a fundamental position in the negotiations.
We will not step back from this position. Nagornyy Karabakh is a
primordial, historical Azerbaijani lands.

“The international community, the United Nations recognize and support
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Nagornyy Karabakh is
internationally recognized as the territory of Azerbaijan. The
conflict must be resolved on these principles. The territorial
integrity of our country must be restored. The occupying forces must
withdraw from all the occupied lands. Azerbaijani citizens must return
to all the occupied territories, including Nagornyy Karabakh, Susa.
Only after this can long-term peace be achieved. We can never allow a
second contrived Armenian state be created on the native Azerbaijani
lands for the second time. This is our principled position. I am
reiterating, this position is based both on history and the law and
justice.”

New weapons to be purchased

The president of Azerbaijan also pledged to go ahead with acquisition
of state-of-the-art weapons and also step up the opportunities of the
newly-established domestic military industry: “Along with this, like
in economy, we are implementing radical reforms in the military
sphere. Our military power, military capabilities are growing. In
2011, our military spending exceeded 3bn dollars. It is more than all
the expenses of Armenia. Next year, the military spending will rise
again. The state-of-the-art weapons, military hardware, combat
aircraft and helicopters and ammunition are imported and will be
imported.

“Along with this, the Ministry of Defence Industry of Azerbaijan, set
up several years ago, already produces 600 types of military products.
We will continue to attach efforts to beef up our military
capabilities. Today, the military potential of Azerbaijan allows us to
liberate our native lands from invaders by any means. Simply, our
hopes for the talks have not yet exhausted and these negotiations have
to continue.”

Energy sector

Aliyev also saluted achievement in the energy sector in 2011. He said:
“In 2011, great successes were achieved in very important for our
country energy sector. Azerbaijan has managed to consolidate its
positions. At the beginning of the year, the European Union and
Azerbaijan signed a very important declaration on strategic energy
cooperation. Azerbaijan has already been recognized as a country that
is able to provide Europe with energy resources, particularly natural
gas. Our opportunities are growing.”

UN Security Council non-permanent seat historic win

The president termed Azerbaijan’s win of the non-permanent seat of the
UN Security Council as an important event and a great historic
victory: “The year 2011 marked a very important event for our country.
Azerbaijan was for the first time elected a member of the Security
Council of the United Nations. This is a great historic victory. I
think this is our biggest win over 20 years of independence period. In
the hard struggle, we managed to win the confidence of the entire
world community. From the first to the last round, Azerbaijan led in
the voting. In the end, 155 countries cast their votes to Azerbaijan,
they believed in Azerbaijan, supported our policies. Azerbaijan enjoys
great confidence. Our policy is supported since it is based on
justice. Our policy is an independent policy. Over the past eight
years, I have repeatedly said that Azerbaijan has pursued an
independent policy. Azerbaijan has its own way.”

[translated from Azeri]

Aznavour, philosophers, Turkish writer call French Senate to ratify

news.am, Armenia
Jan 2 2012

Aznavour, philosophers, Turkish writer call French Senate to ratify
bill penalizing Armenian Genocide

January 02, 2012 | 10:47

PARIS. – Famous singer Charles Aznavour, director Robert Guédiguian,
lawyer Serge Klarsfeld, philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy and Michel
Onfray, as well as Turkish writer Erol Özkoray have signed a joint
appeal aiming to persuade the French Senate to ratify the bill
penalizing the Armenian Genocide, passed by the French National
Assembly last December.

`As Elie Wiesel has written, the denial of the genocide is killing its
victims for the second time. We welcome the adoption of the bill on
racism, discrimination and denial by the French National Assembly on
December 22.

Our target is the ban of denial on state level that the Turkish
authorities bring up to France. In order the text to become a law, we
call the French President, the government and the leading parties to
confirm their gesture and let the Senate ratify the bill,’ reads the
appeal published in Le Journal du Dimanche.

Le génocide arménien : l’extermination (1/3)

Le Monde, France
29 dec 2011

Le génocide arménien : l’extermination (1/3)

Professeur à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS),
Vincent Duclert est notamment spécialiste de l’affaire Dreyfus. Son
travail sur les mobilisations intellectuelles l’a amené à s’intéresser
à la question du génocide arménien, et au-delà, à la vie
intellectuelle en Turquie. Il a notamment publié un ouvrage sur les
engagements intellectuels turcs dans les années 2000, L’Europe
a-t-elle besoin des intellectuels turcs ? (Armand Colin, 2010) à
travers l’étude de plusieurs pétitions emblématiques de l’évolution de
la société turque, notamment celle du 15 décembre 2008 de demande de
pardon aux Arméniens pour la “grande catastrophe” de 1915. La
traduction de ce livre devait être publiée en Turquie par l’éditeur
Ragip Zarakolu, mais celui-ci a été arrêté comme “terroriste” le 29
octobre et ses manuscrits saisis. Vincent Duclert a co-fondé avec
Hamit Bozarslan, Cengiz Cagla, Yves Deloye, Diana Gonzalez et Ferhat
Taylan le Groupe international de travail (GIT) “Liberté de recherche
et d’enseignement en Turquie” ( et
)

Le génocide de 1915 a été précédé par une autre vague de massacres,
vingt ans plus tôt. En 2006, vous avez édité un discours prononcé par
Jean Jaurès à la Chambre des députés le 3 décembre 1896, alors que des
massacres faisaient rage dans l’Empire ottoman (Il faut sauver les
Arméniens, Mille et une nuits). Le dirigeant socialiste soulignait que
les tueries s’accompagnaient de la volonté de dissimuler ce qui était
en train de se produire. En quoi était-ce inédit ?

La volonté de dissimulation des massacres au XIXe siècle, notamment
ceux commis par les Turcs contre les Grecs dans la guerre
d’indépendance (1822-1830), est récurrente. Mais le fait nouveau ici
est le caractère organisé de cette dissimulation. Le pouvoir du sultan
Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) en vient à payer la presse européenne pour
qu’elle ne parle pas de ces massacres. C’est ce que dénonce aussi
Jaurès à la tribune.

Comment caractériseriez-vous les massacres de 1894-1896 ?

Plus de 200 000 personnes ont été massacrées, mais à cela s’ajoute un
processus de spoliation, et même d’humiliation de tout un peuple, qui
accélère un phénomène déjà ancien. Or, la dégradation collective et
individuelle favorise la réalisation des génocides : plus une
population est bien intégrée, moins il est facile de la faire
disparaître. Les grands massacres de 1894-1896 rendent possible le
génocide de 1915. Ils sont aussi pré-génocidaires dans la manière dont
la mort est administrée.

Il y a eu un acharnement sur les corps, une volonté de destruction des
familles et des communautés, une cruauté exceptionnelle dans la mise à
mort des personnes. Dans les régions d’Anatolie où les Arméniens,
parfois, étaient majoritaires (la Grande Arménie), les tueries sont
perpétrées par des populations musulmanes et par des régiments
“hamidiés”, une cavalerie kurde placée sous l’autorité du sultan.

A Constantinople, c’est le petit peuple arménien, celui qui travaille
par exemple dans le bazar, qui est massacré. Des stocks de gourdins,
un instrument redoutable pour briser les crnes, avaient été
auparavant écoulés dans toute la ville. Il faut se souvenir qu’au
Rwanda, avant le déclenchement du génocide de 1994, des importations
massives de machettes avaient été réalisées… Lorsque les Arméniens
protestent contre les tueries, leurs manifestations sont décimées par
la même violence, avec ou sans l’aide des forces armées.

Comment et pourquoi ces massacres pré-génocidaires s’arrêtent-ils ?

D’abord, le sultan estime qu’il est arrivé à ses fins, notamment la
réduction du pourcentage d’Arméniens en Anatolie. Et puis les
pressions internationales, celle du gouvernement anglais et,
finalement, celle du gouvernement français (la pression de Jaurès et
des intellectuels a fini par payer) commencent à agir. Mais si les
massacres s’arrêtent, la persécution continue. Des Arméniens prennent
le chemin de l’exil. Et un nouveau massacre pré-génocidaire
s’accomplit en 1909 à Adana et en Cilicie, impliquant cette fois la
responsabilité du nouveau régime jeune-turc qui a mis fin à la
tyrannie du “sultan rouge” Abdulhamid II.

Peut-on dire que c’est l’effondrement de l’Empire ottoman qui produit
le génocide ?

La perte progressive des territoires européens, au XIXe siècle, et les
prétentions russes dans le Caucase, font peu à peu basculer l’Empire,
jusque-là fondé sur une coexistence relativement pacifique entre les
communautés, dans l’ultra-nationalisme. Or la modernisation de
l’Empire est venue profondément de cet ancrage européen. C’est là que
s’est développé le mouvement Jeune-Turc. Le sentiment d’un Empire
assiégé, menacé en Europe et dans le Caucase, nourrit une rhétorique
sur l’ennemi intérieur. Au final, les Arméniens, qui passaient pour la
minorité la plus fidèle, deviennent désignés comme des traîtres en
puissance parce qu’ils constituent la minorité la plus nombreuse.

Les Grecs sont vus comme moins menaçants : ils ont leur pays. Les
Arméniens, eux, n’ont pas de foyer national. On les accuse d’être les
agents des puissances européennes qui se disputent le contrôle des
ressources de l’Empire ottoman… Dans le même temps, avec les pertes de
territoires, des milliers de musulmans chassés d’Europe s’implantent
au c`ur de l’Anatolie. Ils y transportent leur humiliation, leur haine
du Chrétien, de l’Européen, et y transfèrent les pratiques de violence
extrême produites par les guerres balkaniques. Ces populations seront
très sensibles à la propagande ultra-nationaliste et anti-chrétienne
de l’Empire ottoman finissant.

Peu à peu s’impose l’idée que l’Empire doit se ressourcer dans sa
nature turque. Ce mouvement s’accompagne d’un racialisme qui fait des
chrétiens, notamment les Arméniens, un danger mortel pour cette
“turcité” proclamée.

Mais la réponse nationaliste n’est pas la seule : le déclin de
l’Empire ottoman suscite aussi une réponse libérale de la part des
Jeunes-Turcs, qui se diviseront ensuite entre libéraux et
nationalistes (dits “unionistes”). C’est ce dernier courant qui
triomphe à partir de 1909 puis à la veille de la Première Guerre
mondiale.

Les massacres de 1894-1896 sont dénoncés très fortement à l’étranger.
Mais qu’en est-il à l’intérieur de la Turquie ?

Le sultan Abdulhamid nie ces massacres, mais les réseaux diplomatiques
européens, et le maillage des écoles missionnaires, notamment
anglaises et américaines, recueillent et diffusent l’information.
L’élite jeune-turque se renforce contre la tyrannie hamidienne. Les
leaders arméniens contribuent fortement à cette opposition libérale.

Y a-t-il parallèlement une revendication indépendantiste arménienne ?

Pour les Arméniens, la révolution des Jeunes-Turcs, en 1908-1909, va
représenter un grand espoir. La liberté allait être apportée à
l’Empire ottoman ; ils vont en conséquence se battre pour elle. C’est
d’ailleurs une des autres raisons qui feront d’eux une cible
prioritaire de la dictature unioniste à travers le génocide. Qu’il y
ait eu dans certains groupes ou partis des revendications
d’indépendance nationale, c’est vrai. Mais l’essentiel du mouvement
arménien se projette dans une modernisation et une démocratisation en
profondeur de l’Empire.

Pourquoi les événements de 1915 seront-ils si différents ?

D’abord on a affaire à un nouveau pouvoir, la dictature des membres du
Comité Union et Progrès, qui ont pris le pouvoir en 1913 après
l’effondrement des guerres balkaniques. Cette faction liée à
l’Allemagne, globalement favorable à la guerre, est traversée par des
conceptions racialistes et pan-turquistes.

La défaite contre l’armée tsariste à Sarikamish, dans le Caucase, en
janvier 1915, précipite la décision de déporter les Arméniens aux fins
d’extermination. Officiellement, il faut les éloigner du front pour
éviter qu’ils ne jouent le rôle de cinquième colonne. Mais l’argument
ne tient pas : les Arméniens restent fidèles à l’Empire, ils
combattent loyalement dans l’armée ottomane. La première des tches du
gouvernement unioniste sera d’éliminer ces officiers et soldats
arméniens loyaux, affaiblissent d’autant une armée ottomane en pleine
retraite.

La date habituellement retenue pour dater le commencement du génocide
est le 24 avril 1915, jour d’une grande rafle de notables et
d’intellectuels à Constantinople. Mais les persécutions ont débuté
plus de vingt ans plus tôt, comme on l’a vu. Il faut envisager le
génocide arménien comme un continuum de persécutions, de spoliations
et de massacres.

En 1915, les procédures d’élimination sont différentes et l’intention
génocidaire est clairement constituée : les Arméniens des centres
urbains (sauf ceux de Constantinople, finalement préservés après la
grande rafle du 24 avril parce qu’indirectement protégés par les
ambassades et autres communautés étrangères), sont éloignés pour
éviter que des grands massacres dans les villes n’entraînent des
désordres, et ne se produisent sous les yeux des consuls et
diplomates, autant de témoins oculaires.

Sans les déplacements de population, il aurait été difficile de
construire une interprétation de l’histoire selon laquelle
l’extermination n’a pas eu lieu. Sur les routes d’Anatolie,
l’extermination est rationnalisée et “peu coûteuse” : elle se fait
sans témoins ni dégts socio-économiques. Coordonnés par
l’Organisation spéciale (OS), sorte d’Etat dans l’Etat – police
politique et administration de la terreur -, les massacres seront
réalisés par certaines populations locales, surtout kurdes, par des
bandits de droit commun au service de l’OS, et aussi par les
détachements réguliers, avec plus ou moins de zèle. De nombreux
orphelins seront récupérés par les gendarmes.

L’extermination se fait par l’assassinat massif, la faim et la soif,
la noyade. Les témoignages insistent particulièrement sur les viols,
mutilations et massacres de femmes, d’enfants et de nouveaux-nés
commis par les génocidaires. Les survivants qui arrivent dans le
désert de Syrie sont précipités vivants dans des grottes, quand
d’autres trouvent finalement refuge en Cilicie, ou au Dersim, ou
encore à Alep, là où l’écrivain juif autrichien Franz Werfel
découvrira des orphelins misérables et décidera d’écrire Les Quarante
jours de Musa Dagh (1933).

Que se passe-t-il alors, hors de l’Empire ?

Les Alliés, ennemis de l’Empire ottoman, ont tout intérêt à révéler
les preuves de cette extermination. Mais elle est aussi dénoncée par
des sources plus indépendantes, comme certains missionnaires
allemands, et par le travail des Américains, notamment l’ambassadeur à
Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau, qui fait un travail exceptionnel
pour alerter son gouvernement et l’opinion publique. En France,
certains parlementaires comme Marcel Cachin se mobilisent. Mais on est
en situation de guerre totale en Europe, la barbarie est générale, et
la tragédie arménienne reste au second plan.

Comment le génocide cesse-t-il ?

Contrairement aux grands massacres de 1894-1896, le génocide ne
s’arrête pas. On estime qu’il y avait 1,5 million d’Arméniens dans
l’Empire en 1896, puis 1,3 million en 1915, à la veille du génocide,
qui a lui-même fait environ 900 000 morts. Le moment central est
1915-1916, mais jusqu’à la fin de la guerre, la machine est en action
et des “génocides miniatures”, selon l’expression de l’historien
Vahakn Dadrian, se produisent – dans le Caucase notamment.

Propos recueillis par Jérôme Gautheret

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/12/29/le-genocide-armenien-l-extermination-1-3_1624124_3224.html
www.gitfrance.fr
www.gitinitiative.com

Le génocide arménien : la mémoire et l’oubli (2/3)

Le Monde, France
29 dec 2011

Le génocide arménien : la mémoire et l’oubli (2/3)

Professeur à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS),
Vincent Duclert est notamment spécialiste de l’affaire Dreyfus. Son
travail sur les mobilisations intellectuelles l’a amené à s’intéresser
à la question du génocide arménien, et au-delà, à la vie
intellectuelle en Turquie. Il a notamment publié un ouvrage sur les
engagements intellectuels turcs dans les années 2000, L’Europe
a-t-elle besoin des intellectuels turcs ? (Armand Colin, 2010) à
travers l’étude de plusieurs pétitions emblématiques de l’évolution de
la société turque, notamment celle du 15 décembre 2008 de demande de
pardon aux Arméniens pour la “grande catastrophe” de 1915. La
traduction de ce livre devait être publiée en Turquie par l’éditeur
Ragip Zarakolu, mais celui-ci a été arrêté comme “terroriste” le 29
octobre et ses manuscrits saisis. Vincent Duclert a co-fondé avec
Hamit Bozarslan, Cengiz Cagla, Yves Deloye, Diana Gonzalez et Ferhat
Taylan le Groupe international de travail (GIT) “Liberté de recherche
et d’enseignement en Turquie” ( et
)

Comment la mémoire du génocide se structure-t-elle en Turquie ?

Les principaux responsables s’enfuient en Allemagne à l’automne 1918
au moment de l’effondrement de l’Empire ottoman. S’installe un
gouvernement issu de l’Entente libérale. Ses membres sont décidés à
juger les responsables du génocide. Des déclarations très fortes sont
posées, et des procès sont lancés. Mais cette phase de justice sera
mise en échec après l’isolement progressif des libéraux face à la
croisade nationaliste de Mustapha Kemal.

A l’origine, le fondateur de la Turquie nouvelle s’était montré très
sévère pour les responsables de la défaite et du génocide, jugeant
qu’une position claire sur le sujet pourrait permettre une paix
honorable. Puis sa position évolue, parce qu’il a besoin de cadres
pour son nouveau pouvoir, et parce que les prétentions territoriales
des Alliés menacent la souveraineté nationale. La conquête de Smyrne
par les Grecs est un point de non-retour. Dès lors, l’objectif de
juger des responsables unionistes du génocide est abandonné.
S’ajoutent à cela les représailles commises par les Arméniens contre
les Turcs sur le front russe, point de départ de la thèse de certains
négationnistes d’un génocide contre les Turcs perpétré par les
Arméniens…

Comment le dispositif négationniste se met-il en place ?

Globalement, la cause des survivants arméniens disparaît de l’agenda
kémaliste, au point que l’idée même de reconnaissance de l’ampleur des
massacres devient un danger pour la future République. Certains
députés en viennent à les justifier, comme Hasan Fehmi en 1919 : “Ce
qui a été fait l’a été pour assurer l’avenir de notre patrie, qui est
à nos yeux plus sacrée que notre vie même.” Mustafa Kemal se rangea à
la thèse du risque de corruption du pays par les Arméniens survivants,
comme le démontra l’historien turc Taner Akçam (Un acte honteux. Le
génocide arménien et la question de la responsabilité turque, Denoël,
2008).

A ce moment-là, donc, il n’y a pas de négation…

Non, effectivement. L’heure est à la justification. Plus tard, les
kémalistes en viendront à reprendre une partie des arguments des
génocidaires : les Arméniens sont un danger pour la nation, et le
sujet du génocide serait un des arguments que font peser les
vainqueurs de la Première Guerre mondiale sur les vaincus ottomans
dans la négociation des traités. Le génocide est à la fois nié comme
génocide et justifié comme un massacre nécessaire en situation de
péril national. Pour les Turcs, les Alliés instrumentalisent le passé,
dans le but de fragiliser l’existence même de la nation turque.

Trois ans après le traité de Sèvres qui prévoyait un Etat arménien
(avec un mandat d’exécution confié aux Etats-Unis), le traité de
Lausanne (1923) entérine l’existence de la Turquie actuelle, née de la
guerre de libération nationale menée par Mustafa Kemal. La délégation
arménienne ne pourra pas siéger et l’Arménie n’est même pas
mentionnée. De plus, tous les crimes commis entre le début de la
première guerre mondiale et le 20 novembre 1922 sont amnistiés.
Quelques orateurs évoquent bien le déni de civilisation qu’a été le
massacre des Arméniens, mais il apparaît comme essentiel aux Alliés
comme aux Turcs de tourner la page. Les Occidentaux, au départ
mobilisés pour juger les responsables, considèrent vite que leur
objectif est plutôt de protéger les détroits que de défendre la
mémoire et les droits d’une minorité quasiment disparue.

Pour les kémalistes, le succès est total, d’autant qu’ils peuvent
installer le nouvel Etat-nation dans une Anatolie vidée de ses
minorités. La “turcification” peut s’opérer, avec l’appui d’une
bourgeoisie enrichie par la spoliation des biens arméniens. Les droits
des minorités sont très encadrés. Celles-ci feront plus tard l’objet
de violentes campagnes d’opinion et de persécution d’Etat : les juifs
durant la seconde guerre mondiale ; les Grecs, avec notamment les
pogroms de 1955 déclenchés par l’attentat (une provocation des
services secrets turcs) contre la maison natale de Mustafa Kemal à
Salonique ; mais aussi les alévis ou en 1937, les Kurdes du Dersim où
s’étaient réfugiés des survivants arméniens : ils n’échapperont pas
cette fois à l’extermination.

Qu’en est-il, maintenant, de la situation à l’extérieur de la Turquie ?

La France a accueilli une part importante des survivants du génocide à
condition toutefois qu’ils s’intègrent et qu’ils fassent oublier leurs
origines “orientales”… On peut dire que pendant l’entre-deux-guerres,
la mémoire du génocide est faible. Beaucoup d’Arméniens, comme une
partie de la gauche française, se passionnent aussi pour l’aventure de
la petite Arménie soviétique.

Certains événements, pourtant, marquent les esprits. Ainsi du procès,
à Berlin, de Soghomon Tehlirian, qui avait assassiné le 15 mars 1921
Talaat Pacha, ministre de l’intérieur des Jeunes-Turcs. Ce jeune
survivant des massacres, qui n’a jamais nié son acte, sera acquitté.
Les attendus du jugement, mettant en lumière toute l’horreur des
massacres, serviront au juriste américain Raphael Lemkin, inventeur du
néologisme et du concept de “génocide”, dans son travail de définition
appliqué au génocide juif.

Mais au milieu des violences de l’entre-deux-guerres, la tragédie de
1915 n’est pas perçue dans sa singularité génocidaire. C’est la
définition du crime contre l’humanité, à Nuremberg, en 1945, qui va
rétroactivement questionner le passé arménien.

Quand les communautés arméniennes se saisissent-elles de la mémoire du
génocide et commencent-elles à en revendiquer la reconnaissance ?

Pas avant les années 1970. En 1973, le normalien Jean-Marie Carzou
fait paraître l’un des tout premiers livres sur le sujet, chez
Flammarion : Un génocide exemplaire aura un énorme impact et
contribuera à réveiller cette mémoire.

Les années 1960 ne sont pas du tout propices à l’ouverture du dossier.
En France, le régime kémaliste, qui a beaucoup emprunté à
l’organisation de l’Etat français, est très bien perçu : on insiste
sur la modernité de l’Etat-nation, la laïcité qui est pourtant bien
différente du modèle français… Le général de Gaulle fait un voyage
triomphal à Ankara en octobre 1968. La Turquie est membre de l’OTAN.
Les biographies hagiographiques d’Atatürk se succèdent tandis que la
recherche sur la fin de l’Empire ottoman reste très faible. Par
ailleurs, l’époque n’est pas encore à la prise en compte des mémoires
collectives et individuelles.

Qu’est-ce qui provoquera ce basculement ?

C’est avant tout le révisionnisme turc, et les injures répétées contre
l’histoire des Arméniens. Les idées qu’il y a eu des massacres, mais
dans une situation de guerre qui les justifiait, ou du moins les
expliquait, ou qu’il y a eu au contraire un génocide des Turcs par les
Arméniens, sont déployées par l’historiographie officielle turque, par
l’Etat, notamment les diplomates, et par toute une série
d’associations aux ordres. Elles relèvent d’un monopole de l’histoire,
qui fonctionne comme un instrument de contrôle social et idéologique.
La sociologue Büsra Ersanli, qui a étudié cette fabrique de l’histoire
officielle dans sa thèse, est aujourd’hui en prison…

Il faut voir que la place de l’histoire dans la construction de
l’Etat-nation turc est essentielle. Kemal lui-même se veut
historiographe national. En octobre 1927, il prononce devant la Grande
Assemblée un discours de 36 heures 30 retraçant l’histoire des Turcs
depuis la préhistoire… Cela relève du dogme et tout manquement à ce
dogme est pénalisé par une série de dispositifs judiciaires encore en
vigueur. Et lorsque ceux-ci ne suffisent pas, l’incrimination de
“terrorisme” est mobilisée, instrument redoutable dans un pays qui
fait effectivement face à la rébellion armée du PKK kurde.

Ne peut-on pas dire, en caricaturant, que cette conception de
l’histoire comme vérité officielle a quelque chose de très français ?

Oui, mais l’immense différence est que si le président de la
République se veut, d’une certaine manière, l’historiographe français,
ses déclarations sont sous la surveillance intellectuelle et
scientifique des historiens – lesquels ne risquent pas la prison pour
des faits de recherche ou de controverse. Les politiques sont même
durement critiqués lorsqu’ils sont tentés d’écrire une histoire
officielle. Il suffit de voir ce qu’il reste de projet de Maison de
l’histoire de France… Ou bien d’observer le débat, très vif, sur les
lois mémorielles. Le discours officiel en France n’est pas un discours
unique. En Turquie, c’est toujours le cas.

Propos recueillis par Jérôme Gautheret

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/12/29/le-genocide-armenien-la-memoire-et-l-oubli-2-3_1624169_3224.html
www.gitfrance.fr
www.gitinitiative.com

ISTANBUL: Vingas: Turkey’s non-Muslims, government getting closer

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2012

Vingas: Turkey’s non-Muslims, government getting closer

1 January 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DOÄ?AN , İSTANBUL

Laki Vingas, the first non-Muslim citizen of Turkey to be elected as a
representative of non-Muslim foundations in the Council of the General
Assembly of the VGM, has said that the government and the non-Muslim
community have been establishing closer relations after years of
mistrust and distance.

`Since we had a new law, we had a new chance. The first meeting of VGM
officials with non-Muslim community leaders in İstanbul in March 2009
has recently borne fruit,’ Vingas said for Monday Talk. `What seemed
so unattainable has become attainable.’

He was referring to the new law on non-Muslim foundations that was
passed in Parliament in 2008 with some deficiencies because of
nationalistic reactions as those foundations would be able to reclaim
their seized properties.

In November 2006, Parliament passed a bill to return assets and
property previously seized from non-Muslim foundations by the state,
but it was vetoed by then-President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who claimed
the bill was a national security risk and returned the bill to
Parliament. That law was subject to much criticism because it violated
the fundamental rights and liberties of non-Muslim citizens, which are
guaranteed under the Turkish Constitution, the European Convention on
Human Rights and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.’ Then, civil society
groups appealed to the government and Parliament not to pass the bill
in its current form and to listen to representatives of non-Muslim
foundations before coming up with a new draft.

`A few years ago, our foundations were regarded as `foreign’ by some
in Turkey, but today the highest-level officials of the country come
together with non-Muslim community representatives,’ he said.

In a more recent move, the government issued a decree to return
properties confiscated from religious minorities since 1936, and in
cases where property belonging to such organizations has been sold by
the state to third parties, the religious foundation will be paid the
market value of the property by the Ministry of Finance.

The decision was announced before an iftar (fast-breaking dinner) on
Aug. 28, attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an and
representatives of non-Muslim communities in İstanbul, and non-Muslim
groups in Turkey have highly praised the government’s move.

The law on foundations in 1936 aimed to control non-Muslim foundations
by placing them under the guardianship of the VGM. Since then
government relations with non-Muslims have become even more troubled
than before. The laws on foundations have been altered a few times,
with new amendments following each other; new laws granting some
rights, which were then rescinded by other regulations.

Turkey’s population of nearly 75 million, mostly Muslim, includes
about 65,000 Armenian Orthodox Christians, 20,000 Jews, 15,000
Assyrians and about 3,500 Greek Orthodox Christians. While Armenian
groups have 52 and Jewish groups have 17 foundations, Greeks have 75.
Some of the properties seized from those foundations include
hospitals, schools and cemeteries.

Answering our questions, Vingas said that the government’s relations
with non-Muslims are changing for the better.

If we go back three years ago, when you were first elected to the post
to represent non-Muslim foundations, what would you tell us about it?

Let me tell you about how I feel as a person living in this country.
First of all, I’ve always felt like a full-fledged citizen in this
country — even at times when I faced troubles that made me think that
I should not feel that way. In my opinion, I had only one way to go:
to live as a full-fledged citizen while I protected my identity
without being ashamed of it. I knew that I was not a person who could
act in a different way. When I speak like this, some people might say:
`Laki never had to endure any hardships. How would he know the
difficulties and pains that the non-Muslim community has had to suffer
from?’ But even though I had my own difficult stories, I still felt
like I am either a full-fledged citizen or not; I would not change my
name or act as if I am not from a certain, different background than
the majority. Before I was first elected for the post three years ago,
I was dealing with the cultural events of the Greek community, and in
the process I’ve been trying to establish bridges between and among
different cultures. So recently, when there was an opportunity for
non-Muslims to be representatives of their community in the VGM, I
asked in the community what they were planning to do.

If we can pause there for a moment, let’s talk about when exactly this
right was provided for non-Muslims¦

It was provided when the Law on Foundations was changed in 2008, and
took effect in 2009. But while the bill concerning non-Muslim
foundations was being discussed in Parliament in 2008, there were
objections and attacks against the government going so far as to claim
that it was betraying and selling out the country! The law passed with
some deficiencies. During the implementation phase for the return of
properties during the last three years, we’ve seen deficiencies that
have been improved by recent decrees. At the time, in 2009, I was
asking our Greek community what plans they had as we have rights for
representation in the VGM. I proposed a couple of candidates from our
community, but since they couldn’t leave their positions to go to
Ankara twice a month they couldn’t accept.

And people started to look at me. With the support of our Greek,
Armenian and Jewish foundations, I was elected and completed my
three-year term.

And you were the first non-Muslim to be in that representative
position in the VGM¦

Yes.

—————————————————————-

`It was a difficult encounter for non-Muslims and government’
How were you received in Ankara?

It was an unusual coming together as both sides have had reservations
toward each other, but we had to take risks. Non-Muslim cultures
belong to this land, and they enrich this land. We are realities in
this country. Approaching each other has not been very easy as it
requires patience, analysis and compromise. If you are not sincere, if
you are not at peace with yourself, if you are not there to find
solutions to problems and if you don’t believe that you can claim your
future in your native land, you cannot be successful. My duty was to
further develop relations between state authorities and non-Muslim
foundations as well as try to develop relations among non-Muslim
communities. Of course this needed to be done with actions to
compensate for past injustices — to give back what had been taken
unjustly before. Another duty of mine has been making the non-Muslim
communities more participatory as they have started to feel more
relaxed and at ease. Seeing and acting on that reality is possible
through laws; it is not enough to be aware of it in one’s conscious
and religion. It is certain that the non-Muslim communities do not
have much political power since they are few in number. They are not
an economic power anymore, either. They don’t have the power to lead
socially. However, Turkey has a major responsibility to keep their
legacy and culture alive since it could enrich and positively
contribute the young generations of Turkey. Turkey has a
responsibility not only to preserve them but also to provide
opportunities for them to flourish.

Do you think that the great distance between the VGM and the
non-Muslim communities has been narrowed in recent years?

There was a huge distance between them. First, that distance should be
reduced before doing anything else. Giving presents or even rights to
non-Muslims communities without establishing a trusting environment
would do no good; and for trust to develop there must be a dialogue.
Since we had a new law, we had a new chance. We are finally seeing the
results of the 2009 meeting of VGM officials with non-Muslim community
leaders. There were about 200 people during that meeting, which seemed
so impossible before it happened. Until that time, relations between
the VGM and the non-Muslim community has been through the assistance
of certain people. Only those people were able to establish relations
with VGM officials. But we supported a more open relationship, more
open dialogue in which each citizen would be able approach his or her
representative. After that meeting, we had more gatherings together.
And what seemed so unattainable has become attainable. Here, I have to
underline the importance of the government’s positive approach to the
issue. A few years ago, our foundations were regarded as `foreign’ by
some in Turkey, but today the highest-level officials of the country
come together with non-Muslim community representatives.

How do you think the opposition has changed in that regard?

We haven’t seen any political resistance from the opposition in the
last three years. There are some close relations at the local level —
the Büyükada, Bakırköy and Sarıyer municipalities work with the
non-Muslims communities, and non-Muslims can assume active roles in
these municipalities.

VGM does not have very much visibility in society, does it?

The VGM is a closed government institution, and its services are not
well known. It has recently founded two universities, Fatih Sultan
Mehmet University and Bezmiâlem University. There are also major
valuable restorations that the VGM has undertaken, among them churches
and synagogues.

You have a major undertaking in your second term at the VGM as there
will be a process to return a number of properties to non-Muslims.

The maximum number of applications that we expect is 350. They will be
reviewed, and then there will be a decision made about how many of
those will be actually returned. It’s been four months since the
governmental decree was announced, but there have not been many
applications so far.

Isn’t it a problem that the VGM still has the final say over
registering the title deeds of the properties that will be returned to
their owners?

This is a political decision. The reasons that led to the founding of
the VGM in 1924 might have changed today, and the institution might
need reforms in light of today’s developments. And that reform might
be possible if there is the political will.

—————————————————————-

`Non-Muslims demand equal rights’
There are still some concerns about some of the properties because
they do not fall under the category of properties to be returned. One
such property concerns the Armenian community; the Tuzla Armenian
Children’s Camp was built by Hrant Dink and it was bought by the
GedikpaÅ?a Armenian Foundation. But subsequent to a later Supreme Court
of Appeals ruling, acquisitions made after the infamous 1936
declaration have no legal validity, and therefore had to be returned
to their former owners. As a result, the Tuzla camp was returned to
its first owner.

I agree with the community’s rightful needs. We also have to realize
that property returns have been possible since 2003 with missing parts
being completed in each next step. It is important to see how the
implementation of the laws will be. Let’s first take advantage of new
developments provided by the law. It is of historic importance that we
will compensate the foundations for some of their losses. I have no
doubt that all those new and recent laws are passed with utmost
sincerity. And nobody says that rights cannot be sought further. It
takes time. Yes, we are tired; we are losing our patience. Look what
is happening to our schools; they are being closed down one by one.
Non-Muslim schools’ representatives recently had a meeting with the
minister of education [Ã-mer Dinçer]. It was a very important meeting.
It wouldn’t really matter if you gave properties back to uneducated,
ignorant, prejudiced and insecure people. But if our rights to
education are granted without political influence, then we will be
strengthened. Without education, buildings do not matter. I hope
non-Muslim foundations will be strengthened after receiving some of
their properties back. After that, they can participate to a greater
degree in society. We have been longing to see non-Muslims as natural
citizens of Turkey.

Would you elaborate on this concept of natural citizenship?

Non-Muslims citizens of this country should not be given anything just
because this is what the European Union wants or because the world is
watching Turkey with regard to this issue. The purpose is to make
non-Muslims feel at ease. They should not be defined within the limits
of how much property they had or that they have now; they should not
be defined by looking at their past. They are not `foreigners.’ They
don’t have a `secret agenda.’ They have a culture, and they can
contribute to progress in Turkey just like any other Turkish citizen.
They can share sorrows and joys of this country just like any other
Turkish citizen. They should be accepted and treated as equal
citizens. We do not want to be on Turkey’s political agenda anymore.
We do not have to be in a defensive position, proving all the time our
devotion to the country.

—————————————————————-

Greek seminary to be opened when religious freedom granted
Why is the Halki Seminary on Heybeliada still closed?

The Halki Seminary has been closed for years as a result of political
speculation. It has been the Patriarchate that has been paying dearly
for it. Currently, Turkey is in the process of preparing a new
constitution. It’s been a good process since we are all debating what
should and shouldn’t be in that new constitution. This is quite
different than the process of the 1980s when a military-designed
constitution was imposed on people. The new constitution is supposed
to grant equal citizenship for all people in Turkey; it is supposed to
provide religious freedom, freedom of expression and the right to
assembly. It is supposed to prohibit hate speech and discrimination.
If those are granted in the new constitution, the seminary will
automatically be opened because opening the seminary falls under the
freedom of religion issue. When there is freedom of religion, then
adherents of a religion should be able to educate their religious
people.

—————————————————————-

PROFILE
Laki Vingas

Elected to the Council of the General Assembly of the VGM — attached
to the Prime Minister’s Office in Ankara — as the Representative of
Non-Muslim Foundations at the end of 2008, he will serve his second
term in the position following elections on Dec. 25. A Turkish citizen
of Greek descent, living in Yeniköy, İstanbul, Vingas is a
businessman. He actually studied marine engineering. He is the elected
representative of 164 non-Muslim foundations in the council of the
VGM.

In his words:

`I never practiced my engineering profession. My father died when I
graduated from high school. We did not have connections in society,
which was typical for a non-Muslim family at the time. We were living
in our own, isolated world. I had applied, through an intermediary, to
some companies to find a job. But I found that companies had some
non-Muslim employees and did not want to hire more non-Muslims. I gave
up looking for a job in engineering thinking that the situation was
out of my hands, and I was not going to be able to find a job in that
field. I graduated from university in 1983. These were tough years,
really tough [following the Sept. 12, 1980, military coup]. Every day,
we would enter the university after identification checks; there were
military policemen everywhere. Sometimes we were not even allowed to
use bathrooms. Once I was sitting next to a student who asked me if I
was Greek. I said, yes, but I was uneasy; we were already dealing with
the issues of being leftist and rightist at the time and now this! He
sensed my anxiety, then smiled and said, `Don’t worry, I am an
Armenian.’ Unfortunately, we grew up with such anxieties.’

ISTANBUL: Azerbaijan uneasy over France’s mediating role in dispute

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2012

Azerbaijan uneasy over France’s mediating role in dispute with Armenia

1 January 2012 / MAHIR ZEYNALOV, İSTANBUL

It was a signal designed to send chills through Paris: Azerbaijani
parliamentary members warned in a letter to the French Senate that
France may cast a shadow over its neutrality with regards to its
mediating role within a body assigned to peacefully solve its dispute
with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh following the passing of a
controversial bill by the French parliament that made it a crime to
deny the World War I-era killings of Armenians as genocide.
The letter sent to the French Senate Friday simply echoed Azerbaijan’s
concerns over the genocide-denial bill the lower house of the French
parliament adopted a week ago.

IIn the latest twist in the saga, a group of Azerbaijani activists
burned a French flag in front of French embassy in the capital city of
Baku on Friday, demanding France leave its position in the Minsk
Group, a platform of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) aimed at mediating peace talks between Azerbaijan and
Armenia.

Ali Hasanov, head of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration’s
Social and Political Department, added fuel to an ongoing debate in
Azerbaijan as to whether or not France could be an honest broker in
the two-decade long conflict that has kept peace away from the South
Caucasus. Recalling Turkish President Abdullah Gül’s earlier remarks
about France’s role in the Minsk Group, Hasanov told reporters
Thursday that France’s mediating role in the group will be discussed
at the next meeting.

The Turkish president urged France on Friday to withdraw from the
Minsk Group if the bill recently approved by the French National
Assembly becomes law.

The bill sets a punishment of up to a year in prison and a fine of
45,000 euros ($59,000) for those who deny or `outrageously minimize’
the alleged genocide of Armenians in eastern Anatolia during the final
years of the Ottoman Empire, putting such action on par with denial of
the Holocaust. The bill now needs to be passed by the Senate, the
upper house of parliament, before it comes into effect.

The disputed genocide of 1915 has been a matter of fuming discussions
between Turks and Armenians, as Armenians claim Ottoman Turks carried
out a systematic mass murder of Armenians with the aim of eradicating
them from the country. Turks say Armenians were deported when they
took up arms against the state at a time of chaos as the Ottoman
Empire crumbled and modern day Turkey’s founders fought a political,
armed war against foreign forces that tried to take over the country.
Most of the casualties occurred when deported Armenians were not able
to survive on the road to their destinations under extreme
circumstances, although Armenians raise allegations that the deaths
were intentional.

Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry officials declined to comment on the matter.

Earlier this week, however, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman
Elman Abdullayev said that considering France is one of the co-chairs
of the Minsk Group, it is saddening to see that some members of the
French parliament have become hostages of the Armenian diaspora. He
said if France takes a principled approach to certain issues, it
should also look into the Khojaly massacre, where hundreds of
Azerbaijani civilians were slaughtered by Armenians in 1992.

Rovshan Ibrahimov, a professor with Azerbaijan’s Qafqaz University,
played down tensions between Azerbaijan and France over the
genocide-denial bill. Recalling Turkish Economy Minister Zafer
Ã?aÄ?layan’s statement that Turkey is not going to boycott French goods,
Ibrahimov questioned why Azerbaijan should bother.

Ã?aÄ?layan said last week that French investments in Turkey are safe,
ruling out any boycott to French goods but suggested that `consumers
might take matters into their own hands.’

Ibrahimov, who also presides over the foreign policy department at
Baku’s Center for Strategic Studies (SAM), said it is difficult to
link the French bill to France’s mediating role in the OSCE Minsk
Group, yet he said France’s political approach to a matter that needs
historical interpretation raises serious questions as to whether or
not it will put the same scenario into play with respect to the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

`France has totally lost its reputation by endorsing this bill,’ Asim
Mollazade, leader of Azerbaijan’s Democratic Reforms Party, said. He
added it is obvious that the French leadership is under the influence
of the Armenian diaspora.

Mollazade, who is also a member of the Azerbaijani parliament, said
Azerbaijan must work to replace France with the European Union as a
mediator in the Minsk Group, which he said may push progress in the
perpetual conflict.

According to the Azerbaijani politician, the French parliament has
intervened in something that is out of its jurisdiction. He said the
bill, restricting freedom of expression and thought, in fact is
against the `spirit of France and Europe.’

He added that he thinks the French bill has primarily been designed
and calculated for the presidential elections in France slated for
April of next year. `This plan is all about [French President Nicolas]
Sarkozy and his party’s aim to benefit from [the] Armenian diaspora
during the elections,’ Mollazade said, adding that French authorities
had stopped the bill several times in the past and that the declining
popularity of their party has forced them to shift their position.

BAKU: Oleg Krapivin: France, isn`t it a lot of scandals for one year

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
December 27, 2011 Tuesday

Oleg Krapivin: France, isn`t it a lot of scandals for one year?!

Kiev December 27, 2011

As is known, in the Turkic world, in all civilized and democratic
community a protest wave was caused by the decision of a group of the
French members of parliament to approve the bill providing punishment
for negation of the so-called Armenian genocide. Correspondent of
AzerTAc in Kiev Oleg Krapivin, president of the international public
organization “Institute of Azerbaijanism”, the founder of the
Ukrainian-Azerbaijani educational, scientific-cultural, sports center
after Heydar Aliyev, the known sportsman, the trainer and patron of
art, to express his opinion in this regard. He, in particular, said:

As a person born in Azerbaijan, living in Baku the most part of my
life, perfectly knowing the true history of Turkic world, I am well
aware of the pain and sufferings of my people as a result of
occupational and aggressive policy of the Republic of Armenia towards
Azerbaijan. I was deeply surprised by the decision of the lower
chamber of National Assembly of France.

However, if to analyze some political tendencies which are taking
place in this country as repressions rendered recently by the French
power, law enforcement bodies upon the people for carrying of Muslim
clothes, the mentioned decision of the members of parliament looks one
more link in the chain of the measures directed on ousting from France
of the immigrants, first of all, from the countries of the Turkic
world.

We have not forgotten the events when in streets of Paris, other
cities of the country there took place meetings against xenophobia,
tens of were burnt, store windows of boutiques and supermarkets were
trashed.

We remember and the sexual scandal connected with one of the real
candidates to presidency of France, the former head of the
International Monetary Fun Dominic Gaston Andre Strauss-Khan, which
caused an indignation storm in world public opinion.

The decision accepted by the French members of parliament on
insistence of the Armenian lobby is antidemocratic and, at least,
incorrect… France, isnt it a lot of scandals for one year?

ISTANBUL: Old church turns into culture center

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Dec 30 2011

Old church turns into culture center
ISTANBUL – Anatolia News Agency

Vortvots Vorodman Armenian Church reopened on Dec 28. The church has
not been used since World War I and turned into a culture center after
restoration.

Turkish Customs and Trade Minister Hayati Yazıcı inaugurated Vortvots
Vorodman Armenian Church Culture Center in Istanbul Dec. 28, using the
opportunity to discuss Turkish-Armenian relations.

Referring to a recent French resolution that criminalizes the denial
of Armenian allegations regarding 1915 incidents adopted by French
Parliament, Yazıcı said it was wrong to assess Turkish-Armenian
relations within the range of only a short period of time during World
War I. The Turkish-Armenian friendship was nearly 1,000 years old, he
said.

Yazıcı said Armenians were defined as `loyal people’ during the
Ottoman Empire period, and said there had been no problem between
Turks and Armenians until the 20th century. Today, according to
unofficial figures, nearly 100,000 Armenians are living in Turkey,
said Yazıcı.

Noting Turkey’s views regarding the 1915 incidents were based on
archives, documents and scientific research, Yazıcı said it would be
the most correct thing to leave the issue to historians of both
countries. Parliaments should not act like courts and should not make
judgments relating to such issues, said Yazıcı, adding involvement in
this process for political advantage by third countries like France
was wrong.

The Lower House of French Parliament recently passed a resolution
criminalizing rejection of Armenian allegations pertaining to the
incidents of 1915. Only 70 of 577 parliamentarians joined the voting
of the resolution, which passed after winning the vote majority.

The resolution proposes a one-year prison term and a fine of 45,000
euros for those who deny genocide recognized by French laws. French
Parliament already officially recognized the 1915 Armenian `genocide’
on Jan. 29, 2001.

Vortvots Vorodman (Children of Thunder) Church, which opened for
worship Oct. 14, 1828, has not been used since World War I. The
building was restored as part of the scope of projects initiated
around Istanbul European Capital of Culture 2010.
December/30/2011

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/old-church-turns-into-culture-center.aspx?pageID=238&nID=10309&NewsCatID=393

ISTANBUL: WWI inflicted pain on everyone, Davutoglu says

Hurriyet, Turkey
Dec 30 2011

WWI inflicted pain on everyone, DavutoÄ?lu says

Friday, 30 December 2011

DavutoÄ?lu says not only Armenians but also Turks suffered during World
War I and calls on other nations that suffered at that time to share
and respect it.

Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu has called on Armenians and other
nations who lived under Ottoman rule to share the pain suffered during
World War I but also show respect to Turkish suffering.

Speaking at a conference in Edirne yesterday, DavutoÄ?lu said French
politicians `are trying to build a new history on the suffering of
others.

`Every nation thinks its suffering is unique; however, we can
understand the suffering of all nations because we suffered the most,’
the minister told the conference at Trakya University titled `From
Balkan War to Balkan Peace: Turkish Foreign Policy on its 100th
Anniversary.’

`We respect our neighbors with whom we lived together for 10
centuries. We invite them to share our common pains on condition they
respect ours,’ he said. He also pointed to the huge loss of life Turks
suffered during the dissolution years of the Ottoman Empire when it
was invaded by Western powers. `To expect people to forget their own
pain and to declare a nation guilty by birth without even giving it
the right to self-defense is unacceptable,’ the minister said. `A
common history does not mean a history with one-sided suffering that
forgets the suffering of another nation.’

Referring to the French bill criminalizing the denial of Armenian
`genocide,’ DavutoÄ?lu called on the French Senate, which is the next
legislative stage for the bill, `not to make imperialist plans on the
suffering of others.’

He pointed to the example of the Republic of Turkey founder Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk, who embarked on a mission of reconciliation with Greece
after he led the Turkish victory against invading Greek troops during
the Turkish War of Independence.

`He did not build a nation upon hostility. He could have incited his
people as the founder of a new nation state, and could have made his
nation keep its pain alive. However, he did not do so but instead
extended his hand to [Greek leader] Venizelos, because a leader like
Atatürk was the outcome of a 10 century blend,’ DavutoÄ?lu said.

`I am not saying it only for [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy.
French leaders have progressed by making other nations suffer, and now
they are trying to build a new history on the suffering of others,’ he
said.

In further remarks, DavutoÄ?lu urged the European Union to lift visa
restrictions for trips between Balkan cities and Turkey. `Those who
put visa barriers between Turkey and Europe are the ones who stand in
the way of the normalization of history,’ DavutoÄ?lu said. He charged
that some countries were `trying to build a wall between Edirne and
Skopje,’ but `one day that wall will collapse.’

Friday, 30 December 2011

Armenia-Turkey: the end of rapprochement

Open Democracy
Dec 30 2011

Armenia-Turkey: the end of rapprochement
Vicken Cheterian, 30 December 2011

A diplomatic process designed to normalise relations between Armenia
and Turkey led to the signing of two protocols in 2009. Its failure is
rooted in the miscalculations of both sides, says Vicken Cheterian.

The genocide museum in Yerevan lies north of the Armenian capital at
the top of a hill called Tsitsernakapert. The physical effort of
walking to the summit is an appropriate spur to the visitor to reflect
on the hardship of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman citizens of
Armenian origin, who in 1915 and subsequent years were forced by their
state to walk to the Syrian desert, there or on the way to die of
hunger, exhaustion or by an act of murder. Today, the end-point is the
sight of a sober, forty-four-metre high stele pointing skywards, as if
claiming justice; and beside it, a circular monument of twelve basalt
slabs that both open to and protect the eternal flame.

On 24 April each year, the day of commemoration of the Armenian
genocide, thousands of people gather at Tsitsernakapert to place a
flower at the monument – and then walk down the other side of the hill
where, on a clear day, there is a magnificent view of Mount Ararat,
with its white glaciers as if hanging from heaven. It is a poignant
sight, for Ararat is both the visible totem of the Armenians yet
remains unreachable to them, since it lies on the other side of the
border that divides Armenia from Turkey. The two countries’
300-kilometre-long frontier, which runs only 40 kilometres from the
centre of Yerevan, is closed: the last closed border of the cold war.

I went to Tsitsernakapert to visit Hayk Demoyan, the director of the
genocide museum which is part of the cluster of monuments on the site.
“This museum tells the history of not only the Armenian people, but
also that of the Turkish people”, Demoyan tells me. He refers to the
the diplomatic exchanges since 2008 that sought to normalise
Armenian-Turkish relations, saying that he expected these to prompt “a
flow of Turkish visitors”. It has proved a vain hope. “The
international community, especially the Americans, did not exert
enough sustained pressure on Turkey to open up the border”, Demoyan
says. “Now the process is at a dead-end”.

>From blockade to diplomacy

The complicated relationship between Armenia and Turkey is rooted in
the events of the great war of 1914-18, when the Ottoman
administration deported en masse its Armenian citizens from their
towns and villages in Anatolia, the prelude to the anihilation of
almost the entire Armenian population of the empire. The legacy of
this bitter history was such that only in the early 1990s, amid the
break-up of the Soviet Union and Armenia’s attempts to secure its
independence, did a chance arise for Armenia and Turkey to move beyond
deep antagonism and create normal relations.

At the time, Armenia’s new political leadership was trying to escape
Moscow’s influence and prepared to establish diplomatic relations with
Turkey without preconditions. But the escalation of the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave inside the new state of Azerbaijan with a
majority Armenian population, posed a major obstacle to this course.
Turkey’s then leadership supported Azerbaijan in this conflict,
refused to open diplomatic links, and (in 1993) joined Azerbaijan in
imposing an economic blockade on land-locked Armenia in an effort to
force it to end its backing for the Karabakh Armenians’ quest for
self-determination.

A frozen conflict ensued, until the war between Russia and Georgia in
August 2008 overturned the region’s geopolitical map. Ankara saw a
chance to address this anomaly of its Caucasus policy. On 8 September
2008, Turkey’s head of state Abdüllah Gül visited Yerevan during a
football world-cup qualifying match between the two national teams,
and this was followed by a series of diplomatic meetings where
practical steps were discussed.

In fact, secret diplomatic talks had been held in Bern since 2007,
mediated by the Swiss foreign ministry. The chain of diplomatic
contacts culminated in the signing in Zurich on 10 October 2009 of two
“protocols”, dedicated to establishing diplomatic relations and on
opening the borders. The ceremony, hosted by Swiss foreign minister
Micheline Calmy-Rey, was attended by international dignitaries such as
United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign
minister Sergei Lavrov.

“What is ironic is the fact that during the cold war this border was
not so hermeticaly closed as it is now. At the time, trains travelled
regularly between Kars and Leninakan [now Gumri]”, says Tatul
Hakobyan, a Yerevan-based author who is finishing a book on
Armenia-Turkey relations. Hakobyan’s interpretation of the failure of
dialogue is interesting: “The expectations of the various sides were
based on wrong calculations. The Armenian side thought that it was
possible to change the status quo on Armenian-Turkish relations
without changing the status quo on the Karabakh issue. Turkey thought
that dialogue with Armenia will lead to Armenian concessions on
Karabakh. And the international community did not pay enough attention
to details.”

The protocol-signing process in Zurich was fraught: the Turkish side
wanted a public declaration linking the protocols with the Karabakh
negotiations process, leading the Armenian delegation to boycott the
ceremony, meaning that in the end there was no declaration. “In
Zurich, the sides showed that they were not ready to compormise.
Turkey wanted Armenian concessions on Karabakh, not just on the
question of genocide and fixing the current border”, says Hakobyan.

The results of failure

When the process began, both presidents took risks in the hope of
bringing peace and stability to their countries. For Armenia’s Serge
Sarkissian, entering a dialogue with Turkey was a particularly bold
step; he was already challenged by a powerful domestic opposition that
contested the legitimacy of his election, and the diplomatic move so
angered the Tashnaktsutyun party (which has a large diaspora base)
that it left the government coalition in protest. The signing of the
protocols also created a schism between Yerevan and Armenian
communities abroad, which Sarkissian experienced directly when, during
a foreign tour of diaspora communities, he was faced by demonstrations
in Paris, Los Angeles and Beirut.

For Turkey’s diplomacy, the policy of rapprochement with Armenia was
part of a wider effort to ease tensions in the Caucasus’s several
conflict-zones, especially that of Karabakh. They believed that
ameliorating Ankara’s relations with Armenia would facilitate
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Instead, they were
confronted by a vehement reaction from Azerbaijan that accused Turkey
of betraying Baku’s interests. Baku threatened to suspend relations
with Ankara and to cancel future hydrocarbon deals. As a result, the
Turkish leadership insisted that Armenia made concessions over
Karabakh on the grounds that this would enable the protocols to be
ratified by the Turkish parliament. Ankara was here not just seeking
measures additional to those foreseen in the protocols, but reverting
to its earlier position that Armenian-Turkish relations can only move
forward if Armenia complies with Azerbaijani demands on the Karabakh
conflict.

Thus, both Armenia and Turkey entered the process of negotiations
without anticipating all the moves they might be expected to make, and
were surprised along the way. Yerevan’s diplomats proceeded to sign
the protocols without consulting diaspora communities, amid protests
by diaspora communities against the president of Armenia for the first
time since independence. Ankara similarly misjudged its capacity to
resist opposition from Baku, and even a reversal of its policy has not
allayed Azerbaijani suspicions.

The failure of the protocols is so great that it will have long-term
consequences. “The failure of Armenian-Turkish negotiations will
harden the Armenian position on Karabakh negotiations”, according to
Ara Tadevosyan, the director of the Media Max news agency in Yerevan.
Even worse, what started as personal initiatives and cautious trust
has turned into mistrust. Today, the Armenian leadership feels
deceived by its Turkish equivalent: it signed two protocols for which
it had already paid a political price back home, only to be asked to
make further concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh.

This perceived deception will harden Yerevan’s position in relation to
Turkey, only three years before the centenary commemoration of the
Armenian genocide in 2015. Turkey’s official reaction to the proposed
outlawing of the denial of genocide in France shows that attitudes on
its side are becoming even more intransigent. The hopes of 2009 look
ever more distant.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/vicken-cheterian/armenia-turkey-end-of-rapprochement