Author: Kanayan Tamar

PRESS REVIEW
Caucasian deal: oil against Nagorno-Karabakh?

By The Voice of Russia | On the night of August 1, a shootout was five
dead on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border twelve Azerbaijanis and three
Armenian soldiers. Yerevan speaks of an incursion of Azerbaijan, while
Baku evokes provocations of the Armenian army.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the tripartite talks held in
Sochi, “As long as there’s good will there is a way out of any
difficult situation. I think that goodwill exists both on the side of
the Azerbaijani people, and as regards the Armenian people. ”

The Karabakh conflict broke out in 1988, after the Armenians living in
Nagorno-Karabakh reported to secede from Azerbaijan. In 1991, a
referendum was held in Nagorno-Karabakh and 99.89% of the votes
supported the independence of the region. Military operations of large
scale then launched by Azerbaijan led to a loss of control over not
only Nagorno-Karabakh but also seven adjacent regions or nearly 20% of
Azerbaijani territory. Since May 1994, following the entry into force
of the tripartite agreement on a cease-fire in the conflict zone,
military operations have ended. But the conflict has caused each side
about 25 to 30 000 deaths and the displacement of nearly one million
people. The cease-fire has since followed. From 1992 to today, the
negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the conflict is conducted
within the Minsk Group of the OSCE co-chaired by the United States,
Russia and France.

Now the war is against both the “victorious” Armenia, Karabakh, as
Iran, Russia or the European Union. Nevertheless, the American
co-chair of the Minsk Group, James Warlick, in an interview with Voice
of America acknowledged: “Unfortunately, the confrontation in the
region indicate that the conflict is not frozen.” He added: “Russia
now has big problems on its borders, and has nothing to gain from the
emergence of new conflicts.”

In the context of a new cold war with Russia, the United States is
trying to put pressure on Russia with the possibility of opening a
second front. But to the extent that Azerbaijan is the only one
opposed to the current situation in Karabakh State, Baku could well
use the Ukrainian crisis and European demand for Azerbaijani gas, to
try to turn the situation in his favor.

Azerbaijan is one of the countries with the highest level of world
economic development. Over the past ten years, more than $ 100 billion
was invested in the country. Pipeline projects linking Italy as
transanatolien pipeline (TANAP) passing through Turkey and the
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) through Greece and Albania were
presented in Baku as vectors for solving the set of its regional
problems, strengthening the presence of the United States and the
European Union in the South Caucasus. However, Baku, taking
responsibility for the funding of projects and most of the risk, would
like to have the assurance of the United States and the European Union
about the safety of Azerbaijan on all potential risks, including
“Armenian terrorist threats” by the restoration of Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity. It was therefore necessary to convince the EU
that the present status quo in the Karabakh conflict “creates risks
for the implementation of the Southern Gas Corridor.”

For now, both parties have only to threaten each other. Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev said:

“Nagorno-Karabakh is an Azerbaijani territory. Historically, it is the
homeland of Azerbaijan. International law is on our side. The world
recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as a territory of Azerbaijan. We will
never allow to be created in Azerbaijan land a second “Armenian state”
puppet and will restore our territorial integrity peacefully or
militarily. ”

What the Defence Minister of Karabakh Movses Hakobyan General, replied:

“After the recent events, the Azerbaijani people must understand the
possible consequences of any adventurous operation of their state, it
will only increase the number of victims but will not lead to any
redefinition of borders. Or if it did, it would be at the expense of
Azerbaijan. ”

Yet it is unlikely that the current conflict creates a new war in
Karabakh.Armenia will not be the initiator of a restart of the
conflict since it controls the area. Azerbaijan has tried to play on a
worsening situation and observe the reaction of Armenia and external
forces. It was soon clear that it was futile to rely on prompt
capitulation of Armenia. The inclusion of Armenia in the Organization
of the Collective Security Treaty (CSTO) and Russian support in its
defense remain in force. Azerbaijan can not count on military support
from other states. Of course, Turkey can bring him a military and
technical assistance, but Armenia will also send arms to the front of
Karabakh and Russia provide arms to Armenia as provided CSTO and
bilateral agreements .

So we are at an impasse. Under the current circumstances, if
resumption of military hostilities on the territory of Azerbaijan,
pipelines could play a role, the West has an interest in protecting
its energy supplies, the risk of destruction of Armenian military
forces has greatly increased . In Europe, there are very powerful
business lobbies, having invested in the Azerbaijani oil and gas
industry, and for them the conflict is damaging. Just look who are the
members of the Consultative Group on transporting Azerbaijani gas to
Europe: the former German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the
president of the American investment bank Goldman Sachs, Peter
Sutherland, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Money
appreciates peace …

Read more:

Sunday, August 17, 2014,
Stéphane © armenews.com

REVUE DE PRESSE
Le deal caucasien : pétrole contre Haut-Karabakh ?

Par La Voix de la Russie | Dans la nuit du 1er août, une fusillade a
fait quinze morts sur la frontière arméno-azerbaïdjanaise : douze
Azerbaïdjanais et trois soldats arméniens. Erevan parle d’une
incursion de l’Azerbaïdjan, tandis que Bakou évoque des provocations
de l’armée arménienne.

Le Président russe, Vladimir Poutine, a déclaré lors des négociations
tripartites qui se sont tenues à Sotchi : par la restauration de
l’intégrité territoriale azerbaïdjanaise. Il était pour cela
nécessaire de convaincre l’UE que l’actuel statu quo dans le conflit
du Karabakh >.

Pour le moment, les deux parties n’ont fait que se menacer
mutuellement. Le Président azerbaïdjanais, Ilham Aliev, a déclaré :

fantoche et
rétablirons notre intégrité territoriale pacifiquement ou
militairement. >>

Ce à quoi le ministre de la Défense du Karabakh, le général Movses
Hakobian, a répondu :

FRANCE
Charles Azna Рvour : son appel pour les pers̩ Рcu Рt̩s du Moyen-Orient

Jusqu’a – lors Charles Azna – vour était resté silen – cieux sur le conflit
qui s̩vit actuel Рle Рment au Moyen-Orient. Ce matin, il a publi̩ une
tribune dans Le Figaro où il propose que les commu – nau – tés
persé – cu – tées du Moyen-Orient s’installent dans les villages français
« Ã l’aban – don » avec pour obli – ga – tion de les recons – truire, pour les
faire revivre.

Depuis 1975 et sa chan Рson au titre sans d̩tour Ils sont tomb̩s, dans
laquelle il dénonçait l’horreur du géno – cide de 1915 et ses centaines
de milliers de morts armé – niens, Charles Azna – vour n’a de cesse de
s’en – ga – ger. Il a donc jugé bon de publier une tribune aujourd’ – hui
dans les colonnes du Figaro.

« Dans la guerre de reli – gions qui est en train d’embra – ser l’Irak et
la Syrie, il est essen Рtiel, certes, de se pr̩oc Рcu Рper du sort des
chré – tiens d’Orient, des Kurdes, des yazi – dis et des autres. Mais dans
cette énumé – ra – tion, il ne faut pas oublier une commu – nauté chère Ã
mon cÃ…`ur, les Armé – niens. On n’en parle jamais, et pour – tant, en
Syrie, hier encore, ils étaient quelque deux cent mille. Je suis
boule – versé par les drames qui se jouent lÃ-bas au quoti – dien. Notre
devoir n’est-il pas d’aider mora – le – ment, et concrè – te – ment, ces
popu – la – tions, le plus vite possible ? » écrit le chan – teur de 90 ans
qui propose même une « idée simple » pour faire avan – cer le conflit. «
Pourquoi ne pas confier ces « ?villages fantômes? » Ã ces chré – tiens,
ces Kurdes, ces yazi – dis, ces Armé – niens, explique l’inter – prète de La
Bohème. Puisque celles et ceux qui devraient y vivre sont partis,
pourquoi ne pas les rempla – cer par celles et ceux qui en ont besoin ?
Pourquoi ne pas confier ces « villages fantômes » Ã ces chré – tiens,
ces Kurdes, ces yazi Рdis, ces Arm̩ Рniens ? Ils auraient pour
obli – ga – tion de les recons – truire, de les faire revivre, de labou – rer
à nouveau des terres dont la ferti – lité ne fait aucun doute. Ils
pour Рraient ainsi vivre en paix, quasi Рment en autar Рcie.Je r̩ponds,
en parti – cu – lier, de mes compa – triotes. Je sais qu’ils sont très
travailleurs. »

L’icône des Armé – niens termine sa tribune en réité – rant qu’il compte
s’in – ves – tir plei – ne – ment dans son nouveau combat. « Je suis prêt Ã
soute – nir person – nel – le – ment et physique – ment,s’il le faut, une action
qui se veut réso – lu – ment apoli – tique, souligne-t-il. J’ai déjà chanté
en Syrie. Je peux y retour – ner, mais, cette fois-ci, seule – ment pour
parler. Pour aider toute forme de n̩go Рcia Рtion avec les
commu – nau – tés. C’est ce que nous devons et allons faire. C’est cela,
la véri – table aide huma – ni – taire. »

dimanche 17 août 2014,
Stéphane ©armenews.com

ARMENIE
La réparation de l’avenue Nord à Erevan sera terminée fin Août

La réfection majeure de l’Avenue Nord sera terminée fin Août, selon
l’adjoint au maire de la capitale arménienne Erevan David Ohanian.

S’adressant aux journalistes, il a déclaré la réparation a été retardé
en raison de pluies au début de l’été.

Selon lui, dés que la réparation sera terminée l’avenue Nord va
devenir encore plus belle, plus verte et un endroit agréable pour se
promener.

“Bien sûr, beaucoup de gens se plaignent que la réparation se fait au
cours de la saison touristique, mais nous ne pouvions pas commencer
les travaux plus tôt ou plus tard en raison des conditions
météorologiques. L’avenue aura plus d’espaces verts, de bancs et
d’éclairage >> a-t-il dit.

Il a ajouté que le coût de la réparation est d’environ 5 millions de dollars.

dimanche 17 août 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

TURKEY NOT TO OPEN BORDERS WITH ARMENIA, AMBASSADOR SAYS

Trend, Azerbaijan
Aug 15 2014

Baku, Azerbaijan, Aug. 15
By Elchin Mehdiyev – Trend:

The reports on opening of borders between Turkey and Armenia are
nothing more than a rumor, Turkish Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Ismail
Alper Coskun told reporters on Aug. 15.

He was commenting on the reports by some media on the possibility of
opening the Turkish-Armenian border following the creation of a new
government in Turkey.

“Current Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s representative for foreign
affairs clarified this issue,” the ambassador said. “I have been an
ambassador in Baku for two years, and always answering this question
I say that the opening of borders is impossible.”

Ambassador Coskun added that he can not say who and why is spreading
such information, but he is always ready to tirelessly and calmly
respond to this question.

“Because, Turkey’s attitude to this issue is well-known, and there
is no need for discussions,” the diplomat underscored.

Some media outlets claimed that in anticipation of “the 100th
anniversary” of the fictitious Armenian genocide, Turkey will in 2015
open borders with Armenia.

The diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia were severed
in 1993.

The break in relations and closing of the Turkish-Armenian border in
1993 were due to Armenia’s claims for recognition of the “Armenian
genocide” in the world, as well as Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani
lands.

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 four U.N. Security Council resolutions
on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

GEORGIANS MIGHT FACE THREAT IN OCCUPIED ABKHAZIA

The Messenger, Georgia
Aug 15 2014

By Messenger Staff
Friday, August 15

Russia is continuing its imperialistic policy in occupied Abkhazia.

Russia has declared the region an independent republic and currently
is backing the presidential elections there. The general mood in
Abkhazia is distinctly anti-Georgian. However, the current elections
are full of such attitudes more than ever. Ethnic Georgians living
in the Gali region are watching the events with fright. There is the
real possibility of ethnic Georgians being ousted from their homes
in Gali district as well.

The “presidential elections” in Abkhazia have four presidential
candidates. These are: Opposition leader Raul Khajimba, de-facto
Minister of Defense Merab Kishmaria, de-facto Interior Minister Leonid
Dzipshba and the head of the Security Council Aslan Bzhania. Thus,
only Raul Khajimba is not representing the current government, whose
leader Alexander Ankvab, was forced to resign by the opposition led
by Khajimba several months ago.

Khajimba is clearly pro-Russian and anti-Georgian. According to his
demand, Georgians living in the Gali region are forbidden to vote
in the presidential elections. He also initiated a policy that would
see ethnic Georgians from the Gali region deprived of their Abkhazian
passports.

Thus, separatists in Abkhazia, supported by Moscow, have carried out
clear discrimination policies against ethnic Georgians.

All the four presidential candidates are promoting anti-Georgian
propaganda and following pro-Russian ideology.

Prior to the military confrontation in Abkhazia, ethnic Abkhazians
represented only 17% of the population, whereas Georgians were around
50% of the region. Although more than 250,000 Georgians were forced
to leave Abkhazian territory, ethnic Abkhazians still are not the
majority population in the region. There are almost equal number of
Georgians, Abkhazians and Armenians in the area, followed by Russians.

Abkhaz nationalists cannot confront Armenians, who are major supporters
of Russian interests in the region.

Of course, Abkhazians cannot confront the ethnic Russian population;
they can only suppress Georgians, who can influence the election
outcome if they participate in the process.

Abkhazians are afraid of Georgians because of even theoretic
possibility of reintegration of the region to Georgia. In this case,
Georgians would demand their properties be returned.

Amongst the four presidential candidates, Khajimba enjoys the best
odds, as he is backed by Russians. If Khajimba is elected he might be
given a chance by Russia to transfer ethnic Georgians from Gali. Such
a development will create a new wave of IDPs for Tbilisi and Georgia
will be punished for its Euro-Atlantic course.

Many things will be cleared-up after the August “presidential
elections” in Abkhazia.

ARMENIA: WONDERING ABOUT RUSSIA’S MOTIVES IN KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS

Eurasia Review
Aug 15 2014

By Marianna Grigoryan, EurasiaNet

Amid the recent escalation of hostilities surrounding the contested
Nagorno-Karabakh territory, authorities and experts in both Armenia and
Azerbaijan are engaging in the old Soviet practice of identifying the
outside power that most benefits from conflict. For many in Armenia,
the answer is straightforward enough – Russia.

Russia has long exerted a high degree of economic and military
influence over Yerevan: that influence is underscored by Armenia’s
decision to join Moscow’s Customs Union, which the Kremlin hopes will
evolve into an alternative for ex-Soviet republics to the European
Union. Many Armenians believe the Kremlin’s sway has reached such
heights that Yerevan is now vulnerable to potential pressure from
Moscow to settle the 26-year-old Karabakh conflict on terms perceived
in Yerevan as unfavorable.

Seen as a troublemaker in Ukraine via its support for pro-Russian
separatists, Putin’s Russia appears to be trying to style itself a
peacemaker in the Caucasus. For this reason, Armenian analysts say,
the August 9-10 meetings between Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and Russian President Vladimir
Putin in Sochi, Russia, did not occur by chance.

Political scientist Ruben Mehrabian from Yerevan’s Center for
Political and International Studies made a connection between recent
events in eastern Ukraine and the Armenian-Azerbaijani standoff over
Karabakh. “Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine are prompting a tough
[Western] response [especially sanctions], so [Russia] attempts
to balance this out through its so-called potential for peace,”
Mehrabian said. “The escalation of hostilities on the [Karabakh]
border was Aliyev’s precious gift to Putin.”

He added that Moscow “did not score a goal” with the Sochi summit.

Even so, the situation along the frontline has remained relatively
calm since the talks.

Notably, Putin acted alone, convening the Armenian and Azerbaijani
leaders without the fellow American and French co-chairs of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk Group,
the entity that ostensibly oversees the Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Russia has long held the advantage of proximity and presence over
its fellow mediators, France and the United States,” noted Richard
Giragosian, director of the Regional Studies Center in Yerevan.

“Moscow may seek to collude, but no longer cooperate with Western
interests in mediating the Karabakh conflict, and a new attempt by
Moscow to push out Paris and Washington from equal footing in the
mediation effort is more than likely, given the new anti-Western
refrain from the Putin camp.”

There has been sniping and occasional firefights all along the
so-called Karabakh contact line since the signing of a ceasefire
agreement in 1994. But the clashes that occurred from July 28-August
3 featured perhaps the heaviest fighting in 20 years. According to
the Armenian Defense Ministry, the recent round of fighting left 25
Azerbaijani soldiers dead and over 30 wounded, while five Armenian
servicemen were killed in action and seven wounded.

In recent days, the patriotic mood has swelled in Armenia, stoking
sentiment among the general public in for an all-out offensive against
Azerbaijan. Some believe that Russia cannot be trusted to uphold
Armenian interests in the stalemated peace process and Armenia must
remain self-reliant: they argue that volunteers should be recruited
and deployed on the frontline; state-aligned Azerbaijani media claims
that Azeri volunteers already have started to press the Azerbaijani
government in Baku for such a mission.

“Russia is our strategic partner, but it sells weapons to Azerbaijan
which kill our soldiers and fires on our villages with those arms,”
stressed Ashot Makarian, a 39-year-old Yerevan construction worker.

“Despite all this, the spirit of the Armenian army is very strong. We
cannot be defeated. Today, it would be better for us to go to the
front than send our children there tomorrow.”

Some analysts wonder whether Russia has made a secret deal with
Azerbaijan, in which Russia would compel Armenia to accept territorial
concessions concerning Karabakh, and in exchange Azerbaijan would
join the Kremlin-led Customs Union. Neither Russia nor Azerbaijan
has given any hint such a quid-pro-quo has ever been considered;
and such speculation does not have wide currency outside Armenia.

“Armenia has to find a way out of this Eurasian Union path, as it is
something that Russia wants to sell to Azerbaijan through Armenia,”
Mehrabian argued.

Political expert Ara Papian, head of the Modus Vivendi Center,
a think-tank, argues that concerns about a Russian sell-out are
overblown. Papian added that President Sargsyan – a Karabakhi
native who led the territory’s armed forces from 1989 until 1993,
and served as Armenian defense minister at the time of the 1994
ceasefire agreement – would backtrack on Karabakh at this time.

“The Russians have already realized that they can dictate many things
to Armenia and even gain concessions from it, but they cannot make us
give away Karabakh because we’ve paid too dear a price for it,” Papian
said in reference to the thousands of ethnic Armenians killed, wounded
or made refugees during the 1988-1994 war with Azerbaijan. “Karabakh
is not a distribution network or a power plant; it’s much bigger,
a part of our homeland.”

Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in Yerevan and editor
of MediaLab.am.

KURDISTAN: TIME TO MAKE GOOD ON A 95-YEAR OLD PROMISE

Jurist.org
Aug 115 2014

Friday 15 August 2014 at 3:55 PM ET edited by Alex Ferraro

JURIST Contributing Editor Michael Kelly of Creighton University
School of Law makes the historical legal case for a change in US
policy on Kurdistan …

© WikiMedia (user)

Having existed through millennia of foreign dominance and occupation,
hard by the Zargos mountains, Kurds have a saying older than our
country. “The Kurd has no friend but the mountain.” Now is the time for
Washington to change its policy of a unified Iraq and support Kurdish
independence. Now is the time to show the Kurds they have a friend who
will stand with them. Military operations by the US in northern Iraq
have begun that could pave the way for this long-delayed eventuality.

US airstrikes against ISIS and air drops for trapped Yazidi and
Christian minorities in northern Iraq are legal under the 1948 Genocide
Convention [PDF], which obligates member states to prevent and punish
genocide. US military actions to protect these minority groups are
in furtherance of the “prevent genocide” prong of that multilateral
treaty. According to UN estimates, over 200,000 members of these
groups are now fleeing into Iraqi Kurdistan as ISIS advances on Erbil,
the Kurdish capital city, under threat of death by ISIS forces. Many
of those minority groups are also ethnically Kurdish. By extension,
these airstrikes also protect Iraqi Kurdistan as the safe haven for
those groups.

The US has a long-standing obligation to protect the Kurds, and it
will not allow the Kurdish capital to fall to ISIS. Ever since the US
encouraged the Kurdish uprising of 1991, but then failed to support it
as Saddam savagely crushed the Kurds, American foreign policy has been
geared to protect Iraq’s Kurds. Consequently, despite this betrayal,
the Kurdish government and people are the most ardent supporters of
the US in the Middle East outside Israel. Yet the Kurds continue to
exist under the control of other states; such has been their collective
political fate for almost a century.

It is time for the US and the international community to make good
on a 95-year old promise that the Kurds have their own state. Like
the Armenians, the Kurds were promised a homeland in the aftermath
of World War I. Upon the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Allied
Powers outlined an independent state for the Kurds in 1920 through
the Treaty of Sevres. However, the rise of Ataturk during the ensuing
Turkish War of Independence and his alliance with Lenin spelled the
end of independence for both the Armenians and the Kurds. Not wanting
another conflict, Britain and France replaced the Treaty of Sevres
with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, dividing the Kurdish population
outside Persia among the new states of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. The
US was not a party to either peace settlement as America was never
technically at war with the Ottomans during the First World War.

A population of 30 million spread over an area the size of France,
Kurds were victims of this legal double-cross and still do not have
a country of their own. The Kurds of northern Iraq have functionally
been a state since the US established a “no-fly” zone over their
territory to exclude Saddam Hussein’s forces from massacring them
after 1991. While a de facto state with an independently functioning
government, economy, border control, military, and educational
and healthcare system, the Kurds remain formally part of the Iraqi
federation. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US policy has favored
a unified Iraqi state with a federal power-sharing structure;
not independence for Kurdistan. The time has come to abandon this
outmoded idea. Facts on the ground have dramatically shifted and
American foreign policy on Iraq must catch up to this new reality. The
Shiite dominated Maliki government in Baghdad has collapsed and Iraq
is reforming itself into a new configuration. Washington needs to
be ahead of this reformation, not behind it trying to support the
preservation of what is quickly becoming a failed state.

Located in the mountainous convergence of Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq,
an independent Kurdistan would be a strategically important platform
for US foreign diplomatic and defense policy in the Middle East and
would establish a new player in the region on the international
stage that could alter the formula in favor of stability in the
Middle East. Last month, the Israeli Prime Minister called for the
establishment of an independent Kurdish state. Israel and Kurdistan
are natural allies against various combinations of Arab Sunni and
Shiite factions that have long been arrayed against them.

Kurdistan has recently begun shipping petroleum through a pipeline out
of Turkey from the reserves it controls, and Israel has received four
of these shipments. American diplomatic efforts would only benefit
from the addition of Kurdistan to the ranks of Israel and Turkey as
its most dependable allies there.

That said, territorial guarantees must be made reassuring Turkey
and Iran that the Kurdish areas in those states would not join a
newly independent Kurdistan. Turkey and Iran have traditionally
been opposed to a Kurdish state carved out of northern Iraq for
fear of losing the Kurdish parts of their own territories. Yet both
have developed lucrative cross-border trade relationships during the
past 20 years with Iraqi Kurdistan and have come to view the area as
stable and reliable. Syria has also opposed an independent Kurdistan
for the same reasons, but that is irrelevant at this point. Almost
as irrelevant as the current American policy on Iraq is becoming.

Michael J. Kelly is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Creighton
University School of Law. He has consulted with the Kurdish government
on their constitution and is the author of the book “Ghosts of
Halabja: Saddam Hussein & the Kurdish Genocide” (2008) and the article
“The Kurdish Regional Constitution within the Framework of the Iraqi
Federal Constitution: A Struggle for Sovereignty, Oil, Ethnic Identity,
and the Prospects for a Reverse Supremacy Clause” in vol.

114:3 of the Penn State Law Review (2010).

Suggested Citation: Michael Kelly, Kurdistan: Time to Make
Good on a 95-Year Old Promise, JURIST – Forum, August 15, 2014,

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 16 2014

Betrayal births a ring of fire

It seems that whichever direction you turn from Turkey you find a land
filled with hatred and killing.

Across the Black Sea lies the Crimea, caught in a tug-of-war between
Ukraine and Russia, and Eastern Ukraine, where fighting between rebels
and the government had grave international consequences with the
tragic downing of a Malaysian Airlines jet. The fighting still goes
on, as fierce as ever.

Swing around the compass a little and you reach Dagestan and Chechnya
and other Russian republics that want their independence. Fighting is
not confined to within the borders of the North Caucasus — terrorism
regularly spills onto the streets of Moscow and the Boston Marathon
bombers had links here.

To the east of Turkey, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over the
disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh has flared up again recently.
Both sides last Monday reported an escalation of fighting with 18
soldiers killed over the weekend.

Sadly, the nations to the south of Turkey seem to have been engulfed
in conflict for decades. Once more, we are witnessing horrific
violence spilling out of the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians in Gaza. Syria has been torn apart by a bloody civil war
that has displaced millions of its citizens.

And now we are witnessing meltdown in Iraq, with minorities fleeing
for their lives. Those outside of this region had scarcely heard of
the Yezidis. Now newspaper journalists and television reporters are
explaining to the world the beliefs and the plight of an ancient
people that are struggling for survival. Caught between the violent
oppression of jihadi fighters and the searing heat of the mountainous
desert, they are facing the real possibility of a genocide that would
wipe them off the face of the earth.

It seems that the international community, as usual, is unable to do
much. Thankfully, we have begun to see humanitarian aid being dropped
and Chinook helicopters being used to rescue people from the
mountainside. The opening up of safe corridors is essential. An end to
the fighting is required. Assistance to surrounding countries such as
Lebanon and Turkey, which are being flooded with refugees, is urgent.

Sometimes, however, it feels that all the world does is talk.
Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged
both sides to “refrain from further violence and commit themselves to
immediate de-escalation and continuing dialogue in the pursuit of a
rapid and peaceful political solution.” Similar statements are made by
world leaders relating to the sorry list of conflicts mentioned above.

But should we be surprised that the circle around Turkey is a ring of
fire? In Scott Anderson’s 2013 masterly history of the life and times
of Lawrence of Arabia, which has recently been published in paperback,
we read these words which this week seem so chillingly prophetic:

“Thus far the [Arab Spring movement] has shown little sign of
coalescing around any notion of Arab unity, let alone the old dream of
a greater Arab nation, but very much the opposite: a reversion to the
balkanized patchwork of ethnic and religious enclaves that existed
under the Ottoman millet system. While no American government official
will publicly admit it, Iraq today has largely devolved into three
mini-states, divided along those sectarian and ethnic lines —
Kurdish, Shia and Sunni — that predated the Western imperial
mapmakers.”

This is a stunning and broad-sweeping history of the overthrow of the
Ottoman Empire and the political power-play that accompanied it.
Anderson aims at history, rather than biography, although all the
familiar elements of the story are here. An archaeologist in Syria in
1914 becomes the legendary figure that unites the Arabs in their
revolt, and leads the charge towards the coastal city of Aqaba. The
familiar characters such as Faisal ibn-Hussein and General Allenby all
grace the stage, too.

But Anderson doesn’t fall into the familiar debate of whether Lawrence
was a blessing or a curse to the Arabs; whether he was pro-Zionist or
pro-Arab; whether he was a madman who thought he was a god or a mild,
humble reticent human being. For Anderson, Lawrence was all of these
since Lawrence’s views and attitudes changed throughout his life. He
presents us with Lawrence as a chameleon, and as a man uniquely
changed and haunted by what he had lived through. He summarizes that
for Lawrence, history was malleable and the truth was whatever people
were willing to believe. So instead of trying to decipher which of the
several versions of events that Lawrence told was the correct one, he
concentrates instead on the external historical events, whose
evolution caused Lawrence to change his position.

Unlike the famous David Lean film, with its haunting theme music that
played through my mind continually while reading this, “Lawrence in
Arabia” does not end when Lawrence is ordered home from Damascus. It
is from this point onwards that the real battle for Arabia began.
Lawrence had one vision for the Arabs, the Turks had another, and
Britain and France had a third. Lawrence may have won the war, but as
Anderson demonstrates, he was resoundingly trounced in the peace.

“All he’d fought for, schemed for, arguably betrayed his country for
turned to ashes is a single five minute conversation between the Prime
Ministers of Britain and France.” Through a series of backroom deals,
vengeful treaties and arbitrary borders, the leaders of these two
nations rushed through their plans for a new world order, before US
President Woodrow Wilson with his views on the rights of oppressed
people to self-determination arrived at their meetings.

A meticulous researcher, Scott Anderson recognizes the weakness of
accessing only Western sources and has attempted a history that covers
more than one view. It is thorough — so much so that even with the
exasperatingly small print it runs to over 500 pages. But the lucid
prose and keen insight, coupled with a refusal to make Lawrence into a
saint or to turn a blind eye to the self-seeking moves of Western
nations render, this a gripping and illuminating read.

The driving force behind his writing seems to be less a quest to
understand Lawrence as a man, but more a fascination with the series
of “what ifs,” and a desire to explore what the world lost when
Lawrence lost.

As the international community ponders its next moves in relation to
the many horrendous situations in the ring of fire surrounding Turkey,
it needs to ponder these, too. For the fall of the Ottoman Empire
“unleashed forces of such massive disruption that the world is still
dealing with the repercussions a century later.” We have been warned.

“Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the
Modern Middle East,” by Scott Anderson, is published by Atlantic
Books. 9,99 pounds in paperback. ISBN: 978-178239202-6
Rating: five stars out of five

REVUE DE PRESSE
Aznavourian et les Kurdes

Par Robert Chaudenson

Si sympathique qu’il soit, Charles Aznavour (né Aznavourian et qui,
comme beaucoup de Moyens-Orientaux, dont des Juifs, s’est privé de son
appendice anthroponymo-caudal jugé trop exotique sous nos cieux) ne
manque pas d’air ou ressent les premières atteintes de l’alzeimher.

Laissons de côté le mesquin problème de son statut fiscal qui n’a rien
à faire ici ; il faut bien qu’il réside en Suisse puisqu’il est
ambassadeur d’Arménie en Suisse ! Ce qui, en revanche, me paraît plus
fcheux ici tient aux lacunes manifestes de sa culture historique
personnelle ou des médias qui ont diffusé son texte pour ce qui
concerne le peuple arménien qui lui tient tant à coeur.

Brève citation de son intervention du jour (ou de la veille) :

>.

Sur le principe, rien à dire !

Le souci que manifeste Charles Aznavour de faire entrer les Arméniens,
légitimement si chers à son coeur, dans la liste des populations d’Irak
qu’il conviendrait d’aider devant les menaces que les félés du califat
islamique font peser sur les minorités non musulmanes ( ou non
conformes à leurs exigences théologiques !) est tout à fait légitime.
Je le trouve toutefois extrêmement hardi ou totalement irréfléchi de
faire figurer, dans le même contingent de victimes auquel doit
s’adresser l’aide internationale, les Arméniens et les … Kurdes !

Si ignorant qu’il soit de l’histoire de son propre peuple et en
particulier de celle du génocide arménien, Aznavour ne peut ignorer le
rôle des Kurdes qui y ont tenu une place sinon décisive, du moins
importante.

Certes préparés de longue main et organisés depuis Constantinople, les
massacres des Arméniens ont été mis en oeuvre sur le terrain anatolien
par les responsables locaux chargés de rassembler leurs administrés
arméniens, ainsi que par les soldats et gendarmes ottomans qui
escortaient les convois et procédaient eux-mêmes à des exécutions. Le
plus souvent on se bornait à laisser opérer la violence et la cruauté
de groupes de bandits armés, et surtout des Kurdes. Ces derniers, dans
le Sud-Est de l’Anatolie, nourrissaient une haine séculaire envers les
Arméniens et se sont faits les instruments du génocide.

On peut donc juger curieux voire hardi d’entendre aujourd’hui Aznavour
mettre dans le même train de l’assistance du secours extérieur les
Arméniens et les Kurdes, alors que ces derniers, ennemis séculaires
des premiers, furent parmi les acteurs majeurs du génocide de ce
peuple dont la Turquie officielle porte assurément la responsabilité
mais dont les Kurdes furent, pour une bonne part, les bourreaux.

samedi 16 août 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com