Author: Tatoyan Vazgen

CAUCASIAN TRIANGLES

.htm
21 – 27 May 2009

The Arabs could learn much from watching Iran, Turkey and Russia play
their cards in the struggle for influence and power in the Caucasus,
writes Mustafa El-Labbad*

Iran and Turkey are locked in a neck-to-neck contest over regional
roles not only in the Middle East but in the Caucasus as well. An
analysis of the dynamics of their rivalry in that region is important
from the Arab perspective, as it sheds light on the means and tactics,
and skills and resources that they bring to bear on their contest in
this region. This applies all the more so in view of the resemblance
between the ways the two powers conduct their rivalries in the two
regions. In both areas, they steer well clear of direct military
involvement and, instead, build networks of alliances through which
they can extend and consolidate their regional presence. A second
common denominator is the involvement of a third and senior party
in the business of policy design and role assignation: the US in the
Middle East and Russia in the Caucasus.

The Caucasus — the crossroads between Europe, Asia and the Middle
East — consists of two major political regions. The southern Caucasus
consists of the three fully independent republics of Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan.

The northern Caucasus, by contrast, is located entirely within the
borders of the Russian Federation and is made up of the autonomous
republics of Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Adyghea, Kabardino-
Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, Krasnodar Krai and
Stavropol Krai. As Russia has long since established its dominant
influence in North Caucasus, Iran and Turkey remain uninvolved in
whatever tensions that erupt there. It is, therefore, to the South
Caucasus that we must turn to examine the Russian- Turkish-Iranian
regional rivalry since the emergence of the three independent republics
there following the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Geographical and historical factors combine to establish the influence
of the three powers in the Caucasus. Not only do Iran, Turkey and
Russia form the region’s natural boundaries, but the Persian, Ottoman
and Russian empires have had long histories of control over it. One
could say that for three centuries, at least, the Caucasus has been
the thermometer for gauging power balances in the Iranian-Turkish-
Russian triangle. Caught in the middle, the small, relatively sparsely
populated and weaker republics are ultimately dependent for their
survival upon their alliances with one of the three powers. We find,
therefore, that since its independence from the former Soviet Union,
Azerbaijan has allied with linguistically, ethnically and culturally
similar Turkey, while Armenia allied first with Russia and more
recently with Iran. Although Georgia has attempted to cast its sights
further afield, forging ties with the West in general, and the US in
particular, it failed to escape the Russian grip, to which testify
the events of summer 2008.

The alliances between the three regional powers and the
Caucasian countries are as intricate as the Caucasian terrain
and linguistic/ethnic make-up. The conflict in the early 1990s
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, leading to Armenia’s occupation
of the Azerbaijani province of Nagorno-Karabakh, exemplifies the
ironies. Although Iran and Azerbaijan share a common Shia Muslim bond,
Tehran sided with Christian Armenia because of Azerbaijan’s alliance
with its regional adversary Turkey. Similarly, predominantly Christian
Georgia has maintained warm relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and
relatively cool relations with Armenia. As these examples indicate,
political-strategic considerations override religious and sectarian
allegiances in the patterns of alliances. And these same patterns
repeated themselves since the mid-1990s whenever the three southern
Caucasian republics quarrelled.

Most recently, Obama’s visit to Turkey marked the official opening of
a more proactive phase in Turkey’s policies towards its neighbouring
areas, even if it began around a year ago. Turkey is currently involved
in intensive negotiations with neighbouring Armenia over normalising
relations between them. Reopening the common border between the
two countries, closed since the mid-1990s, will facilitate Turkey’s
land access to Azerbaijan and Central Asia, while Armenia will have
greater land access to Europe. Also, the planned Nabucco pipeline
for transporting natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Turkey to
the EU would be able to pass through Armenia, which would give the
latter a much needed boost to its strategic value and chronically
suffering economy. In terms of pure interests, therefore, there
is nothing to stand in the way of normalisation. However, several
impediments continue to hamper the prospect of Armenia changing its
pattern of alliances. Prime among them is the history of the hundreds
of thousands of Armenian civilians who were killed or died in forced
marches in 1915.

Whereas Yerevan insists that Ankara officially recognise the Armenian
"genocide" at the hands of Turkish forces, Ankara refuses to go so far.

While expressing its deep regret over these events, Ankara maintains
that this was wartime and that it was not a one-sided affair. Another
major sticking point in Turkish-Armenian negotiations is Armenia’s
occupation of the Azerbaijani area of Nagorno-Karabakh. As long as
this problem remains unresolved, the common linguistic, cultural and
ethnic bonds between Turkey and Azerbaijan will impede normalisation
between Ankara and Yerevan.

Moscow has been keeping a close eye on the Turkish-Armenian
negotiations.

Their success would usher in the Nabucco pipeline, which would
break Moscow’s monopoly with regards to the overland flow of energy
supplies to Europe. In addition, with the Armenian barrier removed,
Turkish influence in the Caucasus would outstrip that of its Russian
and Iranian rivals, as Ankara would be on good terms with all three
South Caucasus republics, in contrast to Russia’s and Iran’s good
relations with only one of them, Armenia.

Iran, for its part, has little to offer to dissuade Yerevan from moving
ahead in its negotiations with Ankara. It certainly cannot vie with
either Moscow or Ankara in offers of military or economic aid. The
most it has been able to do, so far, is to supply Armenia with cheap
energy in exchange for Armenia’s support against Azerbaijan, which has
voiced territorial claims to northwest Iran, which Baku refers to as
"South Azerbaijan".

Azerbaijan fears that Ankara is preparing to sell it out on the
question of the return of Armenian occupied Nagorno-Karabakh,
which has not been made a point in the Turkish-Armenian
negotiations. Capitalising on Baku’s dismay, Russia invited Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev to Moscow for talks. That Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Erdogan subsequently asked to attend that meeting as well may
mean that Moscow could regain control over the pace and direction of
developments in that region. It is hardly surprising therefore that
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan should choose precisely this time for
a visit to Iran in order to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani and National Security Adviser Said
Jalili. If the Armenian move was motivated by shifting balances in
the Caucasus, Tehran needs to maintain a broader perspective. Above
all, it would refrain from doing anything that might jeopardise its
strategic relations with Moscow merely in order to placate Armenia,
as important as the latter is to Tehran in the Caucasus region. Given
this plus the abovementioned fact that Tehran has little more to
offer Yerevan beyond cheap energy supplies, the current round of
Armenian-Iranian talks will lead to nothing.

The Iranian-Turkish-Russian interplay in the Caucasus is instructive on
the dynamics of international power politics. It teaches us, above all,
that national interests prevail over ideology and sectarian or ethnic
allegiances in the forging or dissolution of bilateral alliances. We
learn, secondly, that the primary tools that the three regional
powers bring to bear in their rivalries are diversification and
consolidation of alliances through the creation of new and concrete
areas of economic and strategic common interest, as opposed to the
bluster and bravado that blares across the airwaves in our part of
the world. As the balances of power currently stand in the Caucasus,
Russia leads, with Turkey edging closer in second and Iran in third
place. However, against that shifting background we learn, thirdly,
that the hierarchy of regional power status does not change from one
day to the next and that what it takes to change them is a long and
complex process in which economic, political and strategic assets
are deployed realistically, rationally and resolutely.

* The writer is director of Al-Sharq Centre for Regional and Strategic
Studies.

PRESIDENT OF CROATIA S. MESIC VISITS TSITSERNAKABERD

ARMENPRESS
May 22, 2009

YEREVAN, MAY 22, ARMENPRESS: President of Croatia Stjepan Mesic,
who is in Armenia on an official visit, today accompanied with the
Armenian Justice Minister Gevorg Danielian and mayor of Yerevan Gagik
Beglarian visited the memorial complex to the Armenian Genocide and
put flowers by the Internal Flame.

The guest also visited the museum-institute to the Armenian Genocide
where director of the institute Hayk Demoyan briefly presented the
history of Armenian Genocide to S. Mesic.

Croatian President also made notes in the memorial register of the
museum: "I bow in front of the memory to human victims".

H. Demoyan presented S. Mesic a book about the Armenian Genocide.

Eurovision opens new wounds in the Caucasus

22.05.2009 by Onnik Krikorian

Already notorious more for its political block voting than even its
kitsch and glitzy musical entries, nothing could have prepared anyone
for the controversy surrounding the three countries of the South
Caucasus in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest. In February, the
international song contest was already off to a bad start when Georgia,
still fuming over the August 2008 war with Russia, decided to enter a
retro disco track into the competition scheduled to be held in Moscow.

The song, `We Don’t Wanna Put In’ by Stefane and 3G, mocked the Russian
prime minister and was naturally considered unsuitable for the contest.
Eurovision’s organizers requested that the lyrics be changed, but
Georgia refused. Besides, the country had initially considered
boycotting the competition and the song had anyway enjoyed considerable
international media exposure. Georgia instead decided to stage its own
`alternative’ music festival which was held concurrently in Tbilisi last
week.

However, the first real attempt to politically exploit this year’s
competition had actually come in June 2008 when rumors started to spread
that internationally renowned American-Armenian metal band System of a
Down (SOAD) would enter the competition for Armenia. The band’s front
man, Serj Tankian, was quoted as saying SOAD would consider doing so if
it could perform a song written about the 1915 massacre and deportation
of 1.5 million Armenians living in the then Ottoman Empire.

A campaign was launched on social networking site Facebook to support
the band’s apparent Eurovision bid, and popular contest web sites even
picked up on the rumors. Armenian nationalist blogs selectively quoted a
French journalist as confirming SOAD’s entry as late as December last
year while Turkish parliamentarian Akif Ekici believed the hype so much
that he even tabled a question on the matter to Turkey’s prime minister.
By January 2009, however, it became apparent that the rumors were untrue.

The news came as a huge disappointment for many in Armenia as well as
its large Diaspora, but rather than focus on who might instead represent
the country, attention was turned towards finding a suitable scapegoat
to blame.

With centuries of ethnic rivalry and hostility slow to die out in the
region, it was obvious where one could be found. Distorting the actual
chronology of events, prominent nationalists such as American-Armenian
propagandist Harut Sassounian were quick to point the finger at Turkey,
accusing it of manufacturing the SOAD rumors.

A few weeks later, when the actual Armenian Eurovision entry was decided
in a televised national competition, all attention turned to how another
set of rivalries in the South Caucasus might play out.

Although Azerbaijan didn’t enter Eurovision until last year, it has
nonetheless been highly critical of Armenian entries in the past. In
2006, for example, a complaint was lodged against Armenia’s entry –
Andre, a young singer hailing from Nagorno Karabakh. Yerevan and Baku
are still technically at war over the disputed territory situated within
the borders of Azerbaijan. Other years have also been accompanied by
accusations that Armenia has `stolen’ Azeri melodies, and many expected
the same to be true this year. Surprisingly, however, it wasn’t.

Instead, Eurovision had appeared to be devoid of the tit-for-tat
accusations of the type defining earlier competitions. That is, until
the first semi-final held last week in Moscow when Azerbaijan discovered
that the presentation video for the Armenian entry included images of a
statue situated in Nagorno Karabakh. After complaining to the event
organizers, the image of the statue – considered to be the symbol of the
territory and also used on its coat of arms – was reluctantly removed.
However, Armenia’s Public TV nonetheless plotted to display the image
live on air during the final itself.

In an elaborate plan to have its presenter – last year’s entry, Sirusho
– stand in front of a video image of the monument displayed on a large
LCD screen in Yerevan’s Republic Square, the singer also had a
photograph of the statue stuck to the back of the clipboard used to read
out votes cast by the Armenian public. The singer, recently engaged to
the son of former Armenian and Nagorno Karabakh President Robert
Kocharian, gleefully performed her task and local bloggers happily
documented much of the preparations for the provocation online.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan had also decided to retaliate against its
erstwhile foe in the South Caucasus by not displaying the telephone
number for viewers to vote for Armenia’s entry. True, few would probably
have done so anyway, but Armenia did at least award one point to
Azerbaijan. Even so, ethnic rivalry between the two competing nations
was of course more noticeable than any symbolic gesture, with bloggers
in Baku reporting that not only was the sound turned down for Armenia’s
entry in some local nightspots, but jeering occurred in at least one bar.

For most viewers outside of the two countries, however, the latest shots
fired in the war between Yerevan and Baku over Nagorno Karabakh hardly
rang out, although some did pick up on Armenia’s blatant disregard of
the earlier Eurovision ruling about the statue. Therefore, perhaps in an
attempt to save face, nationalist bloggers in the country soon started
to accuse Azerbaijan’s act, Aysel and Arash, of displaying an image of a
monument in Iran, even going so far as to accuse Baku of making
territorial claims on its southern neighbor.

The station also made an official complaint against Azerbaijan for its
removal of the telephone number necessary for viewers to vote for
Armenia’s entry, although that would hardly have made much of a
difference. When all the votes had been tallied from the 42 countries
competing from the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) on Saturday night,
Azerbaijan finished third with 207 points, Armenia came in tenth with
just 92, and Norway won the competition far ahead of the crowd with 387.

Predictably, however, the `battle’ did not end when the competition did,
with Aysel and Arash returning to Baku on a private jet named `Karabakh’
while many in Armenia and its Diaspora applauded the decision of Public
TV to disobey Eurovision’s earlier ruling about the statue. And with one
local newspapers in Yerevan now alleging that Armenia’s Eurovision jury
had been `pressured’ into awarding a full 12 points to Russia, the
controversy over this year’s Eurovision certainly looks set to continue.

Yet, among the nationalist bickering to be heard from both sides, there
are at least some voices of reason struggling to be heard. `Perhaps it’s
time to switch from this kindergarten approach to real conflict
resolution?’ asked one young Azeri rhetorically on her blog. `Our kids
need fairy stories, not war tales – love, not hatred. Our kids deserve
the peaceful happiness we never had.’

—
cle/articleview/11363/1/404/

CROATIAN PRESIDENT HONORS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS MEMORY

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
22.05.2009 12:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Visiting Croatian President Stjepan Mesic honored
the memory of victims of the Armenian Genocide.

He laid a wreath to the Memorial and attended Armenian Genocide
Museum Institute, where he left the following note in the Memory Book:
"We bow in memory of violence victims."

EDWARD NALBANDYAN MEETS BERNARD FASSIER IN BRUSSELS

Panorama.am
12:04 21/05/2009

The Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan, who is currently
paying a working visit to Brussels, had a meeting yesterday with
the OSCE Minsk Group French co-chair Bernard Fassier, the press and
information department of the Foreign Ministry reports.

According to the source, the parties have discussed the negotiations
over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The French co-chair presented to
the Foreign Minister the results of his meetings in Baku. Bernard
Fassier said that the co-chairs plan to make another full group
visit to the region to prepare the Presidents to their next meeting
in Saint Petersburg most hopefully.

VIVACELL-MTS TO BE RENAMED MTS-ARMENIA

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
20.05.2009 23:01 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian State University of Economics (ASIE) and
VivaCell-MTS have reached an agreement that ASIE students will undergo
practical training in the company, General Manager Ralph Yirikian said.

He also informed that VivaCell-MTS will be renamed MTS-Armenia soon,
as 80% stocks of the company will be sold.

MEETINGS BETWEEN ARMENIAN AND NKR LEGISLATORS PROMOTE ARTSAKH’S INDEPENDENCE

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
19.05.2009 19:16 GMT+04:00

On May 19 RA Parliamentary Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan met NKR President
Bako Sahakyan.

At the meeting Hovik Abrahamyan noted recent intensification of ties
between RA and Artsakh legislators. He emphasized the importance of
parliamentary collaboration and development of direct connections
between special committees. NA Chairman expressed confidence that
collaboration between Armenian and NKR legislators will promote
Artsakh’s independence.

The parties also focused on NKR conflict settlement issues and Armenia-
Artsakh communication matters.

S. NIKOYAN ELECTED DEPUTY NA SPEAKER AND A. DAVTYAN CHAIRMAN OF NA’S SCIENCE, EDUCATION, CULTURE, SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS COMMISSION

ARMENPRESS
May 18, 2009

YEREVAN, MAY 18, ARMENPRESS: Today at the closed voting Samvel Nikoyan
has been elected deputy NA speaker and Artak Davtyan chairman of the
NA’s science, education, culture, sports and youth affairs permanent
commission.

104 of participating 108 members of parliament backed the candidacy
of S. Nikoyan, three voted against, one bulletin has been recognized
invalid. Candidacy of A. Davtyan has been backed by 102, 6 members
of parliament voted against.

S. Nikoyan was secretary of the Armenian Republican Party’s faction
and will be replaced by Eduard Sharmazanov.

THE ENTIRE SPEECH BY HARUT SASSOUNIAN AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: GENOCIDE RECOGNITION AND A QUEST FOR JUSTICE
By Harut Sassounian

AZG Armenian Daily
16/05/2009

Armenian Genocide

I would like to discuss with you today why Armenians actually seek
justice, rather than symbolic recognition, for the Genocide committed
against them by Ottoman Turkey.

In the immediate aftermath of the Genocide, most of the wretched
survivors were scattered throughout the Middle East. They had no food,
no shelter, and barely the clothes on their back!

The first generation of survivors firmly believed that their nightmare
would soon be over and they would be able to return to their ancestral
homeland in Western Armenia from which they were so brutally uprooted.

Alas! It was not to be!

They vainly hoped to be rescued by European Christian nations.

On August 10, 1920, the Treaty of Sevres was signed by more than a
dozen countries, including the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan,
Turkey and Armenia.

These countries, large and small, committed to restore justice to
the long-suffering Armenian nation.

This treaty recognized Armenia’s independence and asked Pres. Woodrow
Wilson to fix the borders between Armenia and Turkey.

Unfortunately, the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified; The European
powers abandoned their "Little Ally." The newly-established Republic
of Armenia lasted only for two years, before being swallowed up by
the Soviet Union and Turkey.

The destitute refugees, abandoned to their tragic fate, were forced
to settle down in permanent exile. In those early years, their first
priority was survival, fending off starvation and disease. Gradually,
they rebuilt their lives in new homes, churches, and schools.

Engaging in lobbying activities or making political demands was the
last thing on their minds.

Every April 24, the survivors commemorated the start of the Armenian
Genocide by gathering in church halls and offering prayers for the
souls of the 1.5 million victims of what was then known as "Meds
Yeghern" or Great Calamity.

Two weeks ago, Pres. Obama, for reasons of political expediency,
resuscitated that old Armenian term in his April 24 statement, even
though, for the past 60 years, ever since Raphael Lemkin coined the
word "genocide," Armenians have referred to those mass killings as
"tseghasbanoutyoun" which means genocide.

The succeeding generation, particularly after 1965, the 50th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, tried to break the wall of
silence surrounding the greatest tragedy that befell their nation.

Tens of thousands of Armenians in communities throughout the world
held protest marches, wrote letters to government officials and
petitioned international organizations.

The Turkish government, along with the rest of the world, initially
turned a deaf ear to Armenian pleas for recognition of the
long-forgotten genocide.

But, as media outlets, world leaders, parliaments of various countries
and international organizations began acknowledging the Armenian
Genocide, Turkish leaders — astonished that the crimes perpetrated
by their forefathers were making headlines so many decades after the
fact — began pumping major resources into their campaign of denial,
funding foreign scholars to distort the historical facts, engaging
the services of powerful lobbying firms, and applying political and
economic pressure on countries acknowledging the Genocide.

Since 1965, legislatures of more than 20 countries, including Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Russia, Poland,
Argentina, and Uruguay, have recognized the Armenian Genocide.

Even though, it is commonly assumed that the United States has not
acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, the fact is that the U.S. House
of Representatives in 1975 and 1984 adopted resolutions commemorating
the Armenian Genocide.

President Ronald Reagan issued a presidential proclamation in 1981that
spoke about "the genocide of the Armenians."

Furthermore, the legislatures of 42 out of 50 U.S. states have adopted
resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

In fact, the U.S. government first acknowledged the Armenian Genocide
back in 1951, in a document it submitted to the International Court
of Justice, commonly known as the World Court.

Furthermore, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities adopted a report in 1985, prepared by special
rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker who is with us today, acknowledging that
the Armenian Genocide met the U.N. criteria for genocide.

The European Parliament adopted a resolution in 1987, recognizing
the Armenian Genocide.

In addition, hundreds of Holocaust and Genocide scholars have issued
joint statements confirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

After so many acknowledgments, the Armenian Genocide has become a
universally recognized historical fact.

Regrettably, despite such worldwide acknowledgment, the United Kingdom
remains one of the rare major countries that has yet to recognize it.

Britain’s siding with a denialist state is not so much due to lack
of evidence or conviction, but, sadly, because of sheer political
expediency, with the intent of appeasing Turkey.

It may be wise for the British government to heed the cautionary words
of one of its illustrious leaders, Prime Minister Winston Churchill
who is famously quoted as saying: "An appeaser is someone who feeds
a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

As is well-known to many of you, in his book, "The World Crisis,"
published in 1929, Churchill described the Armenian Genocide as
follows: "In 1915 the Turkish Government began and ruthlessly carried
out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in
Asia Minor. …The clearance of the race from Asia Mino was about as
complete as such an act, on a scale so great, could well be. There
is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for
political reasons. The opportunity presented itself for clearing
Turkish soil of a Christian race…. The Armenian people emerged from
the Great War scattered, extirpated in many districts, and reduced
through massacre, losses of war and enforced deportations adopted as
an easy system of killing, by at least a third. Out of a community
of about two and a half millions, three-quarters of a million men,
women, and children had perished. But surely this was the end."

One would hope that the British government would join most of the
enlightened world — certainly most of Europe — in acknowledging the
historical facts as they are, rather than as the Turkish government
wishes them to be!

Armenians no longer need to convince the world that what took
place during the years 1915-1923 was "the first genocide of the
20th century."

A simple acknowledgment of what took place and a mere apology, however,
would not heal the wounds and undo the consequences of the Genocide.

Armenians are still waiting for justice to be meted out, restoring
their historic rights and returning their confiscated lands and
properties.

In recent years, Armenian lawyers have successfully filed lawsuits in
U.S. federal courts, securing millions of dollars from New York Life
and French AXA insurance companies for unpaid claims to policy-holders
who perished in the Genocide.

Several more lawsuits are pending against other insurance companies
and German banks to recover funds belonging to victims of the Armenian
Genocide.

In 1915, a centrally planned and executed attempt was made to uproot
from its ancestral homeland and decimate an entire nation, depriving
the survivors of their cultural heritage as well as their homes,
lands, houses of worship, and personal properties.

A gross injustice was perpetrated against the Armenian people,
which entitles them, as in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, to just
compensation for their enormous losses.

Restitution can take many forms.

As an initial step, the Republic of Turkey could place under the
jurisdiction of the Istanbul-based Armenian Patriarchate all of the
Armenian churches and religious monuments which were expropriated
and converted to mosques and warehouses or outright destroyed.

In the absence of any voluntary restitution by the Republic of Turkey,
Armenians could resort to litigation, seeking "restorative justice."

In considering legal recourse, one should be mindful of the fact that
the Armenian Genocide did neither start nor end in 1915.

Large-scale genocidal acts were committed starting with Sultan
Abdul Hamid’s massacre of 300,000 Armenians from 1894 to 1896; the
subsequent killings of 30,000 Armenians in Adana by the Young Turk
regime in 1909; culminating in the Genocide of 1.5 million Armenians
in 1915 to 1923; and followed by forced Turkification and deportation
of tens of thousands of Armenians by the Republic of Turkey.

Most of the early leaders of the Turkish Republic were high-ranking
Ottoman officials who had participated in perpetrating the Armenian
Genocide.

This unbroken succession in leadership assured the continuity of the
Ottomans’ anti-Armenian policies.

The Republic of Turkey, as the continuation of the Ottoman Empire,
could therefore be held responsible for the Genocide.

An important document, recently discovered in the U.S. archives,
provides irrefutable evidence that the Republic of Turkey continued
to uproot and exile the remnants of Armenians well into the 1930’s
motivated by purely racist reasons.

The document in question is a "Strictly Confidential" cable, dated
March 2nd, 1934, and sent by U.S. Ambassador Robert P. Skinner from
Ankara to the U.S. Secretary of State, reporting the deportation of
Armenians from "the interior of Anatolia to Istanbul."

The U.S. Ambassador wrote: "It is assumed by most of the deportees
that their expulsion from their homes in Anatolia is a part of the
Government’s program of making Anatolia a pure Turkish district.

"They relate that the Turkish police, in towns and villages where
Armenians lived, attempted to instigate local Moslem people to drive
the Armenians away….

"The Armenians were told that they had to leave at once for
Istanbul. They sold their possessions receiving for them ruinous
prices. I have been told that cattle worth several hundred liras a
head had been sold for as little as five liras a head.

"My informant stated that the Armenians were permitted to sell their
property in order that no one of them could say that they were forced
to abandon it. However, the sale under these conditions amounted to
a practical abandonment."

The U.S. Ambassador further reported: "The Armenians were obliged to
walk from their villages to the railways and then they were shipped
by train to Istanbul. …

"The real reason for the deportations is unknown…. It is likely,
though, that their removal is simply one step in the government’s
avowed policy of making Anatolia purely Turkish."

In the 1920’s and 30’s, thousands of Armenian survivors of the
Genocide, were forced out of their homes, in Cilicia and Western
Armenia to locations elsewhere in Turkey or neighboring countries.

In the 1940’s, these racist policies were followed by the Varlik
Vergisi, the imposition of an exorbitant wealth tax on Armenians,
Greeks and Jews.

And during the 1955 Istanbul pogroms, many Greeks as well as Armenians
and Jews were killed and their properties destroyed.

This continuum of massacres, genocide and deportations highlights the
existence of a long-term strategy implemented by successive Turkish
regimes from the 1890’s to more recent times, in order to solve the
Armenian Question with finality.

Consequently, the Republic of Turkey is legally liable for its own
crimes against Armenians, as well as those committed by its Ottoman
predecessors.

Turkey inherited the assets of the Ottoman Empire; And, therefore,
it must have also inherited its liabilities.

It is noteworthy that on several occasions, Turkish leaders have
threatened to take legal action in international courts against
Armenians on the genocide issue.

After some reflection, however, they have quietly backed down, fearing
that they may end up losing such a lawsuit, thus opening the Pandora’s
Box of claims from Armenians!

In recent years, Turkish officials, ignoring the verdicts of the 1919
Turkish Military Tribunals, have frequently claimed that the Armenian
Genocide could not be considered a genocide since there had not been
a court verdict to that effect.

That argument was taken away from them once and for all, on Dec. 12,
2007, when Switzerland’s Federal Tribunal, the country’s Supreme
Court, confirmed a lower court’s conviction of Turkish Party leader
Dogu Perincek for denying the Armenian Genocide.

This is the first time that the highest court of any country passes
such a judgment on the Armenian Genocide, setting a precedent for
all future legal action on this issue.

Finally, since Armenians often refer to their three sequential demands
from Turkey: Recognition of the Genocide; Reparations for their losses;
and the return of their lands; Turks have come to believe that once
the Genocide is recognized, Armenians will then pursue their next
two demands.

This is the main reason why Turks adamantly refuse to acknowledge the
Armenian Genocide. They fear that acceptance of the Genocide would
lead to other demands for restitution.

They believe that by denying the first demand, they would be blocking
the ones that are sure to follow.

The fact is that, commemorative resolutions adopted by legislative
bodies of various countries and statements made on the Armenian
Genocide by world leaders have no force of law, and therefore, no
legal consequence.

Armenians, Turks and others involved in this historical, and yet,
contemporary issue, must realize that recognition of the Armenian
Genocide or the lack thereof, will neither enable nor deter its
consideration by international legal institutions.

Once Turks realize that recognition by itself cannot and would not
lead to other demands, they may no longer persist in their obsessive
denial of these tragic events.

Without waiting for any further recognition, Armenians can pursue
their historic rights through proper legal channels, such as
the International Court of Justice (where only states have such
jurisdiction), the European Court of Human Rights and U.S. Federal
Courts.

Justice, based on international law, must take its course.

ARKA NEWS AGENCY PUBLISHES "CREDIT ORGANIZATIONS OF ARMENIA" BULLETIN BY Q1

ARKA
May 15, 2009

YEREVAN, May 15. /ARKA/. ARKA News Agency published next quarterly
bulletin "Credit Organizations of Armenia" by first quarter of 2009.

The bulletin is published every quarter and is based on official
financial reports of credit organizations published in the press.

The bulletin consists of some 38 pages of tabular
material on indicators of credit organizations and has
twelve main sections: 1. General description of credit
organizations. 2. Assets. 3. Liabilities. 4. Capital. 5.

Profits/Losses. 6. Information on Cash Flow. 7. Normative Indicators of
Activities of Credit Organizations. 8. Indicators of Capitalization. 9.

Indicators of Profitability. 10. Consolidated Indicators of Activities
of Credit Organizations (generalization). 11. Consolidated Indicators
of Activities of Credit Organizations. 12. General Services Rendered
by Credit Organizations.

The information contained in the book, makes it possible to provide
an overall picture of the financial condition of credit organizations
and carry out a comparative analysis of their activities. The product
also contains technical and methodological comments for the tables.

ARKA Agency operates from May 1, 1996, and specializes in financial,
economic and political information. The agency issues a quarterly
bulletin, "The Main Indicators of Armenia’s Banks" since 1999,
a quarterly bulletin, "Lending Agencies of Armenia", since March,
2005, "Financial Indicators of Banks" since May 2006, "Indicators of
Insurance Companies" since July 2008.