Author: Kalantarian Kevo

HISTORY LESSONS FROM MR. DAVUTOGLU

EDITORIAL | MAY 9, 2014 11:55 AM
________________________________

By Edmond Y. Azadian

Ever since Ahmed Davutoglu moved from academia to serve as Turkey’s
foreign minister, he has been repackaging Turkey’s bloody history and
has become an apostle of Prime Minister Erdogan’s denialist policy
on the topic of the Armenian Genocide.

He is more of a sidekick to Mr. Erdogan in the eyes of Genocide
scholars who have long passed their verdicts on the facts of the
Armenian Genocide.

The excuses enumerated by the Turkish leaders can hardly be used for
domestic consumption and perhaps only for a short while, because in
today’s globalized world, the Turkish society itself is undergoing an
intense process of instruction, learning the undeniable facts of the
Armenian Genocide. Mr. Erdogan is trying to intercept the process by
declaring a war against the media.

Less than a year ago, Mr. Erdogan was challenging Armenians to
“come up with one single proof that Turkey has committed [genocide]
against Armenians.”

The Turkish leader’s statements on April 23 were also meant to provide
a cop out to other politicians who are ready to jump on the Turkish
bandwagon. No wonder that our Secretary of State John Kerry was
“stunned” into silence.

But, on the eve of the Genocide centennial, Turkey is anticipating
a tsunami of events unmasking long buried ugly truths in Turkey. In
anticipation of that tidal wave, Turkey has hired high-powered PR
firms to soften the blow or to deflect similar statements recently
made by French President Francois Hollande. The current goodwill
campaign is certainly devised by those PR firms.

In a backdoor understanding with the White House, Prime Minister
Erdogan undertook the initiative to get President Obama off the hook.

In less than a week, Mr. Erdogan offset the goodwill — if any —
generated by offering his condolences to the grandchildren of the
Armenian martyrs.

He indeed denied that Turkey had perpetrated any genocide against
the Armenians when he was interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS.

In the meantime, another interview given to the German Der Spiegel
surfaced, although this one seems to have been published prior to
the April 23 condolences, in which the Turkish leader continued to
spout the same “there can be no talk of genocide” line.

With all those contradictory statements, Foreign Minister Davutoglu
published an opinion piece in the Guardian on May 2, ostensibly
with an olive branch in his hand, inviting the Armenians to “follow
Erdogan’s lead.”

After some sugarcoated statements about the contributions of the
Armenian musicians and architects to Ottoman history, he resorts to
the same diversionary tactics that Turkey has been using to duck the
issue. He tries to equate the suffering of the Genocide victims with
those of Turkish military losses during World War I.

“The power of the Ottoman empire declined continuously in the 19th
century. The loss of the Balkan provinces was a striking defeat which
resulted in mass atrocities, expulsion and the deportation of Ottoman
Muslims. … Approximately 5 million Ottoman citizens were driven away
from their ancestral homes in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Anatolia.

While much of western history tells of the suffering of the
dispossessed and dead Ottoman Christians, the colossal sufferings
of Ottoman Muslims remains largely unknown outside of Turkey,”
Davutoglu writes.

The murderers’ arithmetic is not compatible with the historic truth.

The historians have taken into account and evaluated objectively the
Ottoman losses, which were the result of a tyrant losing his grip
on his victims and suffering the consequences. For more than four
centuries, Ottoman sultans ruled the Balkans with iron and blood. And
when the empire began crumbling, those lands claimed their independence
and they sent back their torturers to Anatolia.

Any person in his right mind — let alone historians — will ask: what
responsibility do the Armenians bear in the collapse of the Ottoman
rule in the Balkans? After begging for some sympathy for Ottoman
losses, the smart diplomat tries to draw parallels with the Armenian
victims of the Genocide, hoping to create a fictitious “common pain.”

Yes, indeed, Armenians suffered and died, but also some Turks died,
therefore the Armenian martyrs must bear some responsibility for
the Turkish losses and the Diaspora has to use some “just memory”
that the Turks also suffered because they could no longer exploit
the subject nations in the Balkans.

The next building block of Mr. Davutoglu’s sympathy campaign is the old
story of commissioning a joint committee of historians “to discover”
the truth. The same discredited proposal was also made by Erdogan in
his Der Spiegel interview. That proposal comes also with a challenge:
“Turkey has opened its archives, let Armenia open its own archives.”

Serious historians have long established that Turkey has sanitized its
archives from any incriminating evidence. Also, the Ottoman archives
are not open to serious scholars. They are open only to some hired
guns that defend the Turkish government’s official line. Adding insult
to injury, Erdogan and Davutoglu have been proposing to bring those
discredited scholars in the same room with established and respected
scholars who have already “discovered” what the Turkish leaders cannot
seem to do.

At the conclusion of his column, Davutoglu ceremoniously invites the
world to a reconciliation charade: “The statement by Prime Minister
Erdogan is an unprecedented and courageous step taken in this
direction. I believe now is the time to invest in this relationship.

But we can only succeed if this endeavor is embraced by a wider
constituency intent on reconciliation. Turkey stands ready.”

If Turkey is ready, it has to demonstrate its willingness for
reconciliation by taking some concrete steps. During the discussions
leading to the signing of the Protocols, Mr. Davutoglu asked Armenians
to relinquish three regions under Karabagh forces in order to break up
the logjam and to create goodwill on the Turkish-Azerbaijani side. Now
we would like to ask the same from Turkey. Let the Turks lift the
blockade, which will benefit both sides. Let Turkey repeal Article
301 from its Penal Code punishing anyone who insults Turkishness. Let
Turkey come up with a plan to preserve Armenian architectural heritage
in historic Armenia. And let the Turks come up with a compensation
package.

That “Turkey is ready” will sound hollow without any such accompanying
steps.

Mr. Davutoglu proposes: “Let’s bury the common pain.”

But before burying the pain, let us properly bury the 1.5 million
victims. That way, history lessons will find their rightful place.

– See more at:

ANALYST: OSCE MINSK GROUP’S STATEMENT IS DANGEROUS FOR ARMENIA

May 15, 2014 | 18:27

YEREVAN. – The statement by OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs on the return
of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, is very disturbing,
because the emphasis is changed, analyst Yervand Bozoyan toldArmenian
News-NEWS.am.

According to him, the statement about inadmissible status quo on
Karabakh is not new, but remarks concerning the return of territories
are very dangerous.

“The situation is changing, and I see a danger in this,” Bozoyan
emphasized.

Referring to the fact that Armenian Foreign Ministry often declares
Armenian side’s position is in accordance with the stance of
international mediators, the analyst noted that the mediators are
using this.

“Armenia’s Foreign Ministry has never questioned the statements by
mediators, unlike Azerbaijan, that always expresses disagreement with a
particular item. Armenia is passive. Mediators see no resistance from
the official Yerevan, while Azerbaijan is showing resistance. So,
in order to solve the problem, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs are
gradually changing their decision in favor of Azerbaijan, which is
understandable,” Bozoyan emphasized.

As reported earlier, Minsk Group Co-Chairs on Monday released a
statement on the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire between the parties
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The statement said the settlement
will have to include the elements outlined by the Presidents of the
co-chair countries in statements from 2009 to 2013.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

AZERBAIJAN REJECTS SETTLEMENT OF SYRIAN ARMENIANS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
May 14 2014

By Sara Rajabova

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister criticized the settlement of Syrian
Armenians in Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.

“The settlement of Syrian Armenians in Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories is illegal under international law and must come to a
stop immediately,” Elmar Mammadyarov said on May 13.

The minister made the remarks while speaking at the first session
of the Arab Cooperation and Economic Forum with Central Asia and
Azerbaijan in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry said.

Mammadyarov pointed out that Armenia continues to use force to sustain
military occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories and prevent one
million Azerbaijani refugees and IDP’s from returning to their homes.

He underscored that the majority of Azerbaijan’s historical and
cultural monuments have been destroyed and desecrated.

“It is a matter of yet another serious concern that Armenia is
expanding the settlement of Syrian Armenians into the occupied
territories to change the demography on the ground. Such an activity
is illegal under international law and must be stopped immediately,”
Mammadyarov stressed.

Last year, a document received by RIA Novosti showed that about 200
Armenian refugees from Syria had settled in the occupied Zangilan
region, which was “another clear evidence of the illegal settlement
policy pursued by the Armenian state.”

Mammadyarov also expressed gratitude to the Islamic world for
condemning Armenia’s aggression and supporting Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani government has repeatedly voiced concern over Armenia’s
actions regarding settling Syrian citizens of Armenian descent in
Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov said Azerbaijan is not
opposed to the placement of Syrian Armenians in other areas, but is
absolutely against their settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenia occupied over 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally
recognized territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent
regions, after laying territorial claims against its South Caucasus
neighbor that caused a brutal war in the early 1990s. Long-standing
efforts by U.S, Russian and French mediators have been largely
fruitless so far.

As a result of the military aggression of Armenia, over 20,000
Azerbaijanis were killed, 4,866 are reported missing and almost
100,000 were injured, and 50,000 were disabled.

The UN Security Council has passed four resolutions on Armenian
withdrawal from the Azerbaijani territory, but they have not been
enforced to this day.

NEW MILITARY ATTACHE APPOINTED TO RUSSIAN EMBASSY IN YEREVAN

May 14, 2014 | 17:46

YEREVAN. – Russia’s Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volynkin introduced
newly appointed military attache to Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan.

Minister Ohanyan congratulated Major General S. Ischenko on the start
of his mission and thanked former attache Colonel Lobov.

Newly appointed military attaché met with Yuri Khachaturov, Chief of
staff of the Armenian Armed Forces, and Deputy Minister Davit Tonoyan
to discuss issues of Armenia-Russia defense cooperation.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

ANS TV CHANNEL: AZERBAIJANIS CUT HEADS AND COMMIT ATROCITIES IN SYRIA

18:32 13/05/2014 ” SOCIETY

“Only our compatriot-Azerbaijanis behead the victims in Syria. The
videos of horrible crimes and autocracies committed by the citizens
of Azerbaijan who fight against government forces, are disseminated
online. In one of the videos the Azerbaijani fighters brutally
behead one of the members of hostile religious group,” ANS TV reports
according to pia.az.

In an interview with the TV channel, the member of the Azerbaijani
Parliamentary Commission on Security and Defense Zahid Oruc noted
that the actions of these people are guided by ideology and may turn
against Azerbaijan in the future. The appropriate structures need to
take measures against it.

Note that the Azerbaijani Salafis and Wahhabis are fighting in the
ranks of various terrorist groups in Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

According to the Azerbaijani media almost 200 Azerbaijani terrorists
were killed only in Syria over the past three years.

Source: Panorama.am

THE RULE OF LAW PARTY’S THREE ELEMENTS AGAINST WARLICK’S SIX ELEMENTS

May 12 2014

“Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a de jure independent state, the freedom
and independence of which is achieved in the war imposed to us at
the expense of the blood of thousands of Armenian sons, hence the NKR
independence and security of its people are exceptional values, which
are not subject to any bargaining,” said the RoL faction MP Hovhannes
Margaryan, in the conversation with Aravot.am, referring to the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chair James Warlick’s recent statement. Recall that
the Ambassador Warlick had presented his vision on the solution of the
Karabakh problem in six elements, which caused contradictory reaction
in the Republic of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and Azerbaijan.

Hovhannes Margaryan said that the RoL party’s approaches are clear
and they are principles, in the presence of which the peaceful and
just settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible. “First,
Armenia should continue its calm, balanced posture and defend its
principles in the conflict resolution. Then, firstly, Nagorno-Karabakh
has not been and will not be in the composition of Azerbaijan, in
other words, Nagorno-Karabakh should become a de jure recognized
state or reunite the Republic of Armenia, and this should be decided
by the Nagorno-Karabakh people under the internationally accepted
self-determination principle of nations. Secondly, there should be a
direct connection to the land between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh,
i.e., exclusion of enclaves, and thirdly, provision of security
guarantees in case of regulation of the problem,” said the RoL party
MP, adding that the NKR issue should be resolved in a complete package,
through mutually acceptable tools by the parties, and the joint efforts
of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs should be aimed at elaboration of
such mechanisms of regulation that would ensure conditions for the
two independent states, Azeri and Armenians, live in peace.

Nelly GRIGORYAN

Read more at:

SWITZERLAND SUPPORTS MINSK GROUP MEDIATION: OSCE CHAIRMAN

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
May 13 2014

13 May 2014, 15:06 (GMT+05:00)
By Sara Rajabova

OSCE chairman, Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter welcomed
the statement by the OSCE Minsk Group on May 12 in connection with
the 20th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefire agreement signed between
Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Burkhalter expressed gratitude to co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
and Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Andrzej
Kasprzyk for their tireless mediation efforts, OSCE website reported.

He recalled that the ceasefire agreement of 1994 put an end to the
war, the consequences of which are still adversely affect the daily
lives of many people in the South Caucasus.

Burkhalter said the incidents on the contact line continue and the
conflict still remains unresolved.

In his appeal, Burkhalter acceded to the co-chairs statement, saying
the parties should take the necessary measures to ensure peace.

He further noted that as a chairman of the OSCE, Switzerland always
supports the mediation of the Minsk Group.

The precarious cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia was reached
after a lengthy war that displaced over a million Azerbaijanis and
has been in place between the two South Caucasus countries since 1994.

Since the hostilities, Armenian armed forces have occupied over
20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

The UN Security Council has adopted four resolutions calling on
Armenia’s withdrawal from the Azerbaijani territory, but they have
not been enforced to this day.

Peace talks, mediated by Russia, France and the U.S. through the OSCE
Minsk Group, are underway on the basis of a peace outline proposed
by the Minsk Group co-chairs dubbed the Madrid Principles. The
negotiations have been largely fruitless so far.

ARMENIANS HOLD CHURCH RITUAL IN NORTHERN CYPRUS

Daily Sabah, Turkey
May 13 2014

by AA

NICOSIA — Sunday’s mass at the Armenian Church on the Turkish side of
the island was the first in half a century. The Armenian community in
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on Sunday held its first church
service in fifty years. Around 500 Armenians coming from the Turkish
Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides of the island gathered at the Armenian
Church in the capital Nicosia to attend the ritual led by Archbishop
Varoujan Hergelian. The service was also attended by Lisa Buttenheim,
the U.N.’s special representative in Cyprus, and Å~^evket Alemdar,
imam of the Hala Sultan Mosque, along with a number of diplomats. “I
graduated from the school near the church. These places were home
to us. We are home now,” one of the participants of the service,
Gora Terziyan, told Anadolu Agency.

She expressed hope that such steps would contribute to the peace
process on the divided island. The island of Cyprus has remained
divided into Greek and Turkish zones since a Greek Cypriot coup was
followed by a Turkish peace mission to aid Turkish Cypriots in the
north in 1974. The Greek Cypriot administration is a member of the
European Union and is internationally recognized, except by Turkey,
which is the only country that recognizes the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus. Another participant of the service, Gula Kasabiyan,
said the day was of particular significance as being able to hold the
service after half a century was evidence that the issues between the
two populations of the island could be settled. “We should always look
beyond for peace,” she added. The Armenian Church hosting the historic
rite was allocated to the Armenian population of the island back in
the Ottoman era. However, it was abandoned by Armenians in 1964. Since
then, the church went to rack and ruin but was renovated in 2010.

SETTLEMENT OF SYRIAN ARMENIANS INTO AZERBAIJANI OCCUPIED TERRITORIES CONTRADICTS INT’L LAW

Trend, Azerbaijan
May 13 2014

Baku, Azerbaijan, May 13
Trend:

The settlement of Syrian Armenians into the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan is illegal under international law and must be stopped
immediately, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said on
May 13.

The minister made the remarks while speaking at the first session
of the Arab Cooperation and Economic Forum with Central Asia and
Azerbaijan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The foreign minister’s speech has been posted on the website of
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry.

Mammadyarov pointed out that Armenia continues to use force to sustain
military occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and to prevent one
million Azerbaijani refugees and IDP’s from returning to their homes.

He underscored that the majority of Azerbaijan’s historical and
cultural monuments were destroyed and desecrated.

“It is a matter of yet another serious concern that Armenia expands
settlement of Syrian Armenians into the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan to change the demography on the ground. Such activity is
illegal under international law and must be stopped immediately,”
the minister stressed.

He also expressed gratitude to the Islamic world for condemning the
Armenian aggression and for supporting Azerbaijan.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in
1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a
result of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied
20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and
seven surrounding districts.

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the U.S. are currently
holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

POST-SOVIET REFERENDA: THE DREAM OF IDEALISTS

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
May 13 2014

Can the international community apply a blanket policy supporting
the territorial integrity of all states?

Last updated: 13 May 2014 10:35 Vartan Oskanian, a member of Armenia’s
National Assembly, a former foreign minister and the founder of
Yerevan’s Civilitas Foundation.

Self-determination is an elusive concept. It means different things
to different people. A referendum is a potent instrument to enable
democratic decision-making and actions based on the will of the
majority. The controversy is over who has the legal and legitimate
right to decide to conduct a referendum.

Now put the two together – a referendum to practice self-determination
– and you get the confusion and chaos that has been created throughout
the world over the so-called parade of sovereignties. In addition to
legal discrepancies and political bickering, the situation is further
exacerbated because of the lack of clear international rules on the
legitimate timing and choice of referenda. To top it all off, there
is the matter of the double standards of the major powers in pursuit
of their geopolitical interests.

Most governments in the West recognise Kosovo as an independent
state; Russia does not. Russia and just a handful of other countries
recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. The US and
most Europeans do not. In both cases, one side accuses the other of
violating international law.

When Kosovo conducted a referendum for independence in 2007, the West
determined that Serbia’s consent was not required. Yet the absence
of Kiev’s consent has led the same Western countries to consider
Crimea’s referendum illegal.

Indeed, the line between the legality and non-legality of a people’s
right to determine their own fate and destiny through a referendum
has been irrevocably blurred.

Fate and destiny

On May 11, this confusion was taken to a whole new level when the
Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk voted on self-rule. Clearly,
these referenda, and before that Crimea’s secession from Ukraine,
were geopolitically motivated moves in response to Ukraine’s decision
to align itself with the West.

Such expedient actions should not in any way detract from and discredit
the more legitimate self-determination claims where whole ethnic
groups have been striving to gain or regain their rights.

There are 192 United Nations member states, more than 1,000 ethnic
groups and a few dozen simmering, frozen or dormant self-determination
movements in the world. If the world of nation-states resembles an
onion, and each layer represents a new wave of self-determination
movements, one may say that the onion is barely peeled.

US President Woodrow Wilson was the first in modern times to
embrace the right of self-determination. It was right after
World War I, at the Versailles peace talks, that the principle of
self-determination assumed its two distinct meanings. One is (external)
self-determination seeking full sovereignty, and the second is for
(internal) self-determination – to secure the right to meaningful
participation in a domestic political process.

When Wilson said, “No people must be forced under sovereignty
under which it does not wish to live”, even then Secretary of State
Robert Lansing was highly critical of this categorical embrace of the
principle of self-determination. In his notes at the Peace Conference,
he wrote: “The more I think about the president’s declaration as
to the right of self-determination, the more convinced I am of the
danger of putting such ideas into the minds of certain races…The
phrase is simply loaded with dynamite. It will raise hopes, which
can never be realised. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In
the end, it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of
an idealist who failed to realise the danger until too late to check
those who attempt to put the principle in force. What a calamity that
the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause!”

Lansing was half right. Since his days, a great many peoples have
realised their dreams of statehood, some indeed paying a high price
and experiencing painful calamities. There were 51 states when the
United Nations was created in 1945, today there are more than 190. The
newest joined just a couple of years ago. The process has not ended.

Dreams of statehood

Just as the world was not prepared to address and peacefully resolve
the self-determination claims at the Paris Peace Conference, so was
it not ready to address the wave of self-determination claims that
came right after the end of Cold War. It was a given that with the
collapse of the mother state, the individual Soviet republics and
the constituent parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would
emerge as independent states. The problem for the international
community was the autonomous regions within those new states, with
the exception of Crimea and Montenegro, immediately opted to exercise
their own self-determination.

In our time, we have witnessed East Timor’s independence made
legitimate through a referendum; we witnessed the independence of
South Sudan, too, on the basis of a referendum. We witnessed the
growing number of countries that recognised Kosovo’s independence
after its referendum. Among the political, legal, academic experts
working in and around those places, there is a growing awareness of the
possibility and reality of recognising the right of self-determination
in certain circumstances.

The UN’s growing membership is evidence that self-determination
through referendum is a mechanism that works.

The challenge is to have the right criteria to transcend the seemingly
contradictory principles of international order: territorial
integrity and self-determination. The key is to judge existing
self-determination struggles each on their own merit, each in terms
of their own historical, legal circumstances, as well as the realities
on the ground.

Certainly, we need to make a distinction between stability and
forced maintenance of status quo. A status quo in political life is
never inherently permanent. A viable policy of stability requires
the mechanisms to pursue a dynamic process of managing change. The
international community has to be ready to adopt a policy where it
can manage change in this quickly changing and dynamic international
environment. This is where the focus should be, instead of simply
applying a blanket policy supporting the territorial integrity of
states. Such a standard approach cannot be applied to every case
of self-determination.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.