Skip to main content

Armenian-Russian Bilateral Allied Relations Activated in 2021: Armen Ghevondyan

Market Screener
Nov 5 2021
11/05/2021 | 03:23am EDT

At the joint sittings of the NA Standing Committees on Regional and Eurasian Integration and on the Financial-Credit and Budgetary Affairs the RA Deputy Foreign Minister Armen Ghevondyan presented the allocations and to be provided to the sphere and the result indicators to be expected.

According to the Deputy Minister, the format of the bilateral and multi-lateral cooperation exists in the Eurasian region. In 2022, the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the diplomatic relations between Armenia and Russia turns, as well as the 25th anniversary of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Aid.

Despite the pandemic, in 2021 the Armenian-Russian allied relations were activated on the bilateral and multilateral platforms: 4 meetings of the RA Prime Minister and the RF President, 5 meetings of the Foreign Ministers, more than dozens of telephone talks.

Armen Ghevondyan noted that with the results of the statements of the Heads of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan signed on 9 November 2020 and 11 January 2021 the de-blockading process of the economic and transport communication was launched in the South Caucasus region.

In December of this year, the next 20th meeting of the Inter-Governmental Commission for Economic Cooperation between Armenia and Russia it planned to hold in Yerevan. It was noted that the RF showed great support to our country in the fight against pandemic.

In the near future the next meeting of the Eurasian Inter-Governmental Council will be convened in Yerevan.

In activating the economic ties the MP Khachatur Sukiasyan highlighted the effective work of the embassies, the commercial attaches and tried to clarify what tools were used in this direction. To Armen Ghevondyan’s conviction, to enliven the economic ties we may use new opportunities, if there will be the diversification channels, which can connect our countries and facilitate the contacts of the entities. In this context the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Financial-Credit and Budgetary Affairs Gevorg Papoyan has recorded that there is the notion economic diplomacy in the five-year plan of the Government activity, and in case of the concrete programmes allocations will be designed during the distribution of the budgetary means.

Attachments

  • Original document
  • Permalink

Disclaimer

National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia published this content on 04 November 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on  07:22:04 UTC.

A Geopolitical Reshuffle In South Caucasus – Analysis

Nov 5 2021

By Geopolitical Monitor

By Robert M Cutler*

One of its most important points in the trilateral statement signed by Armenia’s prime minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev, and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin in Moscow on 10 November 2020—which established the ceasefire and capitulation of armed forces of the Republic of Armenia in the Second Karabakh War—is the unblocking of transport communications in the South Caucasus region.

Although the trilateral statement mentions reconnecting the Nakhchivan exclave with the main body of Azerbaijan (via the Zangezur corridor) in particular, its ninth point begins with the simple and universal statement: “All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked.”

For the last year, Armenia has found different ways to block the implementation even of the Zangezur Corridor project, even though it is to everyone’s benefit. In the most recent weeks, however, this has been changing. Obstacles in Armenian domestic politics appear to be in the process of being overcome, as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan succeeds more and more in institutionalizing his government.

Pashinyan won snap parliamentary elections in Armenia in June 2021, despite Yerevan’s catastrophic loss of the Second Karabakh War a year ago. This occurred because of the complete political bankruptcy of the “Karabakh clan” that was hegemonic on the Armenian political scene from the late 1990s through 2018. Since the election earlier this year, Pashinyan has been able to install practical cooperation-minded personnel in key ministries and reduce the influence of the Yerevan “war party.”

The former defense minister Davit Tonoyan, for example, whose infamous slogan, “new war for new territories” typified the aggressive outlook of the old regime, is now under arrest for corruption along with other figures in the defense sector of the economy. On October 15, Pashinyan visited Moscow and agreed to open a railway between Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan proper, across the southern Armenian region Syunik, which borders Iran.

As the noted Russian military expert Igor Korotchenko correctly observed in a recent interview, the Zangezur corridor will make it possible to launch international transport communications in the full region. In his assessment, pragmatic Armenian politicians understand the benefits of the Zangezur corridor for Armenia and are ready to participate in it, but “they are afraid of becoming victims of a witch-hunt.” There are threats of terrorist attacks and assassination attempts even against Pashinyan and his family. Korotchenko is editor-in-chief of the authoritative review National Defense and a former chairman (and current member) of the Public Council at Russia’s Ministry of Defense.

Further according to Korotchenko, despite the “revanchism” (literally, “revenge-seeking”) of “part of the population and part of politicians in Armenia,” nevertheless “Yerevan has an understanding of the benefits of the Zangezur corridor.”

Peace and the development of Armenia are now incompatible with territorial claims against Azerbaijan. “I think they are [finally] ready participate in projects to unblock communications, including work on the opening of the Zangezur corridor,” Korotchenko recently said. This is frustrating to the militant fringes of the Armenian diaspora, particularly in the United States, which has become even more vituperative and aggressive in its attacks on the “peace party” in Yerevan, in Baku, indeed in Washington itself.

The Zangezur transport corridor is the headline project here but not the only one. It will catalyze the development of economic ties within the so-called “3+3” initiative (also called the “Six-way platform”) that brings together the three South Caucasus countries plus Iran, Russia, and Turkey. To take just one example, Armenia, which lost its land connections with Iran that had gone through the de-occupied Azerbaijani territories, will gain a rail connection with Iran through Nakhchivan.

But that is not all. Azerbaijan has surprised observers with the strength and resolve of its efforts to develop the de-occupied territories. According to one estimate, Baku has already invested almost $3 billion to promote such redevelopment. High-profile projects include roadways to improve connections to the rest of the country and airports (notably,  but not only Fizuli, which has already opened) that will also promote international links, including tourism.

The Azerbaijani government has provided tax benefits and created economic development zones in order to promote its initiatives. There are also initiatives to build “smart villages” and renewable-energy infrastructure. Most phenomenally, almost the whole region now has electrical power, including parts did not have it even before the last war. It is indeed likely that the Karabakh region will become, as Rosbalt’s correspondent Irina Dzhorbenadze put it, “an investment center of Azerbaijan” for years to come.

With the price of oil not far from $100 per barrel, whereas Baku’s state budget had been planned according to an expectation of $45 per barrel, Azerbaijan has become and will continue to be the economic driver of economic development in the South Caucasus region for the foreseeable future. Past Armenian governments, led by the now politically bankrupt “Karabakh clan” had earlier refused Turkish proposals for all-round economic cooperation and development. That was nearly a generation ago, and the Armenian public is tired of mass poverty and elite corruption.

Pashinyan is not a newcomer to Armenian politics. He had long been a supporter of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the country’s president from 1991 until his forced resignation in 1998. When Ter-Petrosyan ran for president again in 2008, eventually losing to Serzh Sargsyan of the Karabakh, Pashinyan was one of his most outspoken supporters. Pashinyan made accusations of vote-rigging and fraud, and he was eventually jailed for “organizing mass disorders.”

Before becoming prime minister during Armenia’s “velvet revolution,” Pashinyan had been notable for his criticisms of Armenian state dependence—indeed vassalage—to Russia. The “back-story” to present-day state-to-state relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan is therefore more complicated than appears at first glance.

Russia, however, is well aware of this back-story, and it was a signal that they remained neutral in the 2021 snap parliamentary elections. These elections were an electoral battle mainly between Pashinyan and the other dominant Karabakh-clan politician, Robert Kocharyan, who had been president from 1998 to 2008. Today, even Russian security elites have pragmatically recognized that in some ways good relations with Baku are more important to Moscow than is the subjection of Yerevan.

*About the author: Robert M. Cutler is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Source: This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Azerbaijan-Iran tension highlights Karabakh’s energy supplies

eurasianet
Nov 5 2021

Gevorg Mnatsakanyan Nov 5, 2021


In mid-September, Azerbaijani border guards detained two Iranian truck drivers on the road connecting the southern Armenian cities of Goris and Kapan. The arrests spiraled into a deep crisis between Baku and Tehran, including demonstrative military exercises and unprecedentedly aggressive rhetoric from both sides.

The saber rattling also had the unintended effect of spotlighting Iran’s energy exports to Nagorno-Karabakh. The two drivers were arrested on charges of illegally crossing Azerbaijan’s border, as they were reportedly delivering bitumen to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Iranian supplies of fuel and other goods to Nagorno-Karabakh have long been a thorn in Baku’s side, as it considers entry into the Armenian-administered territory to be a violation of its border.

Ultimately, Iran’s Roads and Transportation Agency issued a ban on the country’s trucks traveling to Nagorno-Karabakh.

But officials and businesspeople in Karabakh are loath to talk about the Iranian trade.

The isolated enclave gets all of its energy supplies, in the form of natural gas, from neighboring Armenia. Channeled through a single pipeline that runs parallel to the Lachin Corridor, the road that connects Armenia with Karabakh, the latter imports over 50 million cubic meters of gas per year for commercial, industrial and household use, according to Karabakh’s Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure.

The security of the pipeline – parts of which now traverse Azerbaijani-controlled territories since the transfer of some land as a result of the ceasefire that ended the war – is guaranteed by the Russian peacekeeping forces. In December 2020, a month after the war ended, the peacekeepers reported that they had helped restore over 10 kilometers of the pipeline near the village of Lisagor; they also have demined the territory around the pipeline.

Most of the gas in that pipeline comes from Russia. 

“Because a monopoly 90 percent of the gas supplied to Armenia comes from Russia, so is the gas that is transported to Karabakh,” the head of the central dispatching service of Gazprom Armenia, Artur Karakhanyan, told Eurasianet.

The rest of the gas supplied to Armenia – 365 million cubic meters of the total 2.5 billion imported in 2020 – comes from Iran, via the 194-kilometer Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. (The Armenian portion of that pipeline also is Russian-owned.) Armenia uses that gas to produce electricity that is then transferred back to Iran in the framework of a 2004 gas-for-electricity agreement between the two countries.

Private trade with Karabakh, however, is another matter.

Oil by-products like petrol, diesel and asphalt for road construction are imported to Karabakh through private companies in Armenia that ship their products with privately operated trucks, de facto Deputy Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure Levon Gabrielyan told Eurasianet.

So far in 2021, the region has sourced over 7 billion Armenian drams ($15.5 million) in petroleum from Armenia, though it is unclear how much is of Iranian origin. Overall, in 2020 Armenia satisfied just under a quarter of all its needs for petrol, diesel and the like through Iran, according to data published by the Armenian State Revenue Committee.

In a recent interview with the Russian news website REGNUM, Karabakh’s de facto Minister of State Artak Beglaryan boasted that the new ban on Iranian trucks entering Karabakh “doesn’t mean that Iranian-made goods cannot be imported by our trading companies.” The minister did not specify what products these businesses were bringing into the region. 

None of the Armenian companies that deal in Iranian petroleum in Karabakh agreed to answer questions about trade volumes to the region and the impact of the recent developments on that trade. Echoing the private businesses, a source with the local police who requested anonymity for security purposes told Eurasianet that they hadn’t registered any Iranian oil tankers entering the enclave.

Azerbaijanis claim otherwise. In a September 12 letter to the Russian Defense Ministry and the peacekeeping contingent stationed in Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry complained about the entry of “legal entities and individuals of other countries and their vehicles” into the territory, which it called “a violation of the laws of our country.” The ministry also claimed that the transit violated the trilateral agreement signed with Russia and Armenia to stop the fighting in November 2020.

President Ilham Aliyev later claimed in an interview with the Turkish Anadolu Agency that in a one-month period in August and September, Azerbaijanis had detected 60 Iranian trucks that had “illegally entered Karabakh.”

In an interview with Armenian media, Karabakh’s de facto Minister of Foreign Affairs Davit Babayan said Azerbaijan’s attempts to cut off Iranian trade with Karabakh were motivated by Baku’s policy of “isolation and ethnic cleansing” and intimidating the territory’s Armenian population into leaving.

Azerbaijan released the two Iranian truckers on October 21, citing “the principles of humanism, mutual respect and good neighborliness,” the country’s State Customs Committee announced.

Meanwhile, Iran has promised to support Armenia’s construction of a new road through southern Armenia, via Tatev and Kapan. The new road will avoid crossing into Azerbaijani territory; the current road now crisscrosses the boundary with Armenia several times, and following the transfer of territories after last year’s war Azerbaijan regained control over some sections of the road. In August it set up checkpoints on the road and started charging border entry fees to Iranian vehicles. 

 

Gevorg Mnatsakanyan is a journalist based in Yerevan. 


Azerbaijani Press: Israeli ex-PM: Azerbaijan’s victory in Karabakh war important historical event

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Nov 5 2021

By Ayya Lmahamad

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has described Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia in the 44-day war with Armenia late last year as an important historical event.

He made the remarks in an interview with journalists during VIII Global Baku Forum – “The World after COVID-19” held in Baku on November 4-6.

The former prime minister noted that by this war, Azerbaijan itself implemented the UN Security Council resolutions.

“Liberation of Azerbaijani lands from occupation also means the restoration of international justice,” he added.

Ehud Barak also noted that the development of Azerbaijani-Israeli relations continues in all spheres. He expressed confidence that friendship and brotherhood between the two countries will continue to strengthen and develop.

Speaking about climate change, Barak underlined that the situation with it will worsen if necessary steps are not taken. He underlined that it is important to prevent environmental pollution.

“It is necessary to create alliances, coalitions, for which steps must be taken,” the former prime minister added.

Barak stressed that at first, everyone thought that the COVID-19 vaccination would last for a year.

“But as you can see, this is not enough, the whole world is still being vaccinated. I am sure that the only way to protect from COVID-19 pandemic is vaccination, so vaccines must be evenly distributed among all countries,” he added.

Azerbaijan and Israel have been expanding bilateral cooperation over the years. The cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel is based not only on economic partnership but also on traditional historical, cultural roots and mutual respect and trust. Israel was one of the first countries to recognize the state independence of Azerbaijan and to establish diplomatic relations.

Moreover, Israel was among the first countries to voice support for Azerbaijan over its just position and its territorial integrity during the 44-day Second Karabakh War. In January, Azerbaijan expressed its willingness to involve Israel in the restoration of the country’s newly-liberated territories. Thus, Israel will build a buffalo farm in Azerbaijan’s liberated Zangilan region.

Organized by the Nizami Ganjavi International Center under the patronage of President Ilham Aliyev, the next Global Baku Forum under the motto “The world after COVID-19” kicked off in Baku on November 4.

The 8th Global Baku Forum brings together high-level representatives, including former heads of state and government, officials of international and non-governmental organizations from more than 40 countries, as well as other distinguished guests to discuss issues of global importance.

The forum will last until November 6.

​Then Came the Chance the Turks Have Been Waiting For: To Get Rid of Christians Once and for All

Ha’aretz, Israel
Nov 4 2021


Then Came the Chance the Turks Have Been Waiting For: To Get Rid of Christians Once and for All

In the late 1800s, Christians made up 20 percent of Turkey’s population. By the late 1920s, they were down to just 2 percent. New research reveals the scope of the genocide committed by three successive regimes.


In May 1919, six months after the end of World War I, a Greek Navy fleet made its way to the city of Izmir in western Anatolia, escorted by British warships. The preceding October, the Ottoman rulers had signed an armistice agreement in Moudros harbor on the Aegean island of Lemnos, an accord that clearly reflected the Allied victory. By its terms, the Ottomans ceded control over large chunks of their empire to Britain, France and Italy, which in turn gave the Greeks the go-ahead to take control of the western coast of Anatolia, an area that prior to the war was populated mainly by Greek Christians. After landing in Izmir, the Greek forces made their way into the country’s interior. At the height of their expansion, in August 1921, they reached the outskirts of Ankara, the capital city of General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, leader of the Turkish national movement. From that point on, the forces under Atatürk’s command began to push the invaders back in the direction of the Aegean Sea, and on September 9, 1922, their victory was completed. The invading Greek army retreated to its ships and sailed back to Greece; Atatürk’s First Cavalry Division entered Izmir (Smyrna, to the Greeks) at a light canter, with swords drawn.

What happened in Izmir in the early days of the Turkish occupation boggles the imagination. The first day was characterized by mass plunder and rape, which only intensified when another Turkish division entered the city. An American naval officer, Lt. Commander H.E. Knauss, whose ship was anchored in the port at that time, recounted: “En route we passed many dead on streets.… The smaller shops were being looted. Invariably, the owner was lying dead.” In another place, he saw four people murdered in cold blood. Another eyewitness told about seeing many Christian men being executed. Others died when their houses were set on fire. One of the people killed was the Greek Bishop Chrysostomos. When the bishop came to shake the hand of the commander of the First Army, Nureddin Pasha, the latter spit on his outstretched hand and handed the bishop over to the mob. They chopped off his beard, gouged his eyes out and cut off his ears, nose and hands before they killed him. Afterward, his body was dragged through the streets.

But that was just the start of the nightmare for the two-thirds of Izmir residents who were Christians – a majority of them Greek and a minority Armenians. (Muslims made up the other third, with 30,000 Jews.) On September 10, Atatürk came to the city and evidently ordered Commander Nureddin to expel all the Christians from the city. The next day, Turkish soldiers surrounded the Armenian Quarter and launched a hunt for Christians. They pulled people out of their homes, looted their properties and raped the women. Many Armenian men were arrested, hauled away and shot.


Two days later, the city was set ablaze in a massive fire. Initially, several buildings in the Armenian Quarter were observed to be on fire, and crowds of refugees, mostly women and children, fled in a panic toward the seashore. By evening, “The entire waterfront seemed one solid mass of humanity and baggage of every description,” wrote Arthur Japy Hepburn, the local U.S. Navy squadron’s chief of staff, who was on a ship near the port at the time. An estimated 150,000 people crowded onto the quay as the mass of flames moved directly toward the waterline. Escape routes out of the area were blocked by the Turks, and the fire was advancing rapidly. Within minutes, it had reached the piers and they began to burn. Sailors from Allied ships that were anchored in the port succeeded in rescuing thousands of people who leapt into the sea or fled the shore in small boats. But thousands more Greeks and Armenians were either slaughtered by the Turks or perished in the great fire.

Ethno-religious massacres

This was the beginning of the end of one of the worst and longest genocides in modern history. It is common to speak about the massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, during World War I, as President Biden did in his statement on April 24, 2021, in which he announced U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide. But the story of what happened in Turkey is much broader and deeper.


It goes deeper, because it covers not just what occurred during World War I, but a series of giant ethno-religious massacres that lasted from the 1890s through the 1920s and beyond. It is broader, because it was not only Armenians who were persecuted and killed. Along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians – the Armenians cite a figure of more than 1.5 million killed over the entire period – a similar number of Greeks and Assyrians (or adherents of the Assyrian or Syriac churches) were slaughtered. (Greek historians speak of more than a million Greeks who were murdered.)

By our estimate, over the course of the 30-year period, between 1.5 and 2.5 million Christians from the three religious groups were either murdered or intentionally starved to death, or allowed to die of disease, and millions more were expelled from Turkey and lost everything.

In addition, tens of thousands of Christians were forced to convert to Islam, and many thousands of Christian women and girls were raped, either by their Muslim neighbors or by members of the security forces. The Turks even opened markets where Christian girls were sold as sex slaves.

One of the people killed was a Greek bishop. The commander of the First Army handed him over to the mob. They chopped off his beard, gouged his eyes out and cut off his ears, nose and hands before they killed him.

These atrocities were committed by three very different, successive regimes: Sultan Abdülhamid II’s authoritarian-Islamist regime; the government of the Committee of Union and Progress (the Young Turks) during World War I, under the leadership of Talaat Pasha and Enver Pasha; and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s post-war secular nationalist regime.

The three regimes worked to eliminate the Christian minorities in Anatolia for similar reasons, including suspicion of their ties with external Christian enemies of the state, anger at the extra privileges granted to Christians in previous years, revenge for real or imagined massacres and expulsions of Muslims by Christians in the Balkans, as well as out of jealousy of the Christian minorities’ wealth and success. But the main reason was a lethal combination of religion and nationalism. Sultan Abdülhamid II may have had an imperialist worldview, but during his time, the budding Turkish national identity was already evident, hand in hand with a pan-Islamist outlook. In his attempt to undo the reforms of his predecessors, which aimed to accord full rights of citizenship and a degree of equality to religious minorities, Abdülhamid strove for the political unification of the Muslim peoples and worked to suppress the national aspirations and civil rights of the Christian minorities in his country. Since the Greeks already had a homeland – Greece obtained independence in 1830 – and the Assyrians had no real national movement to speak of, the sultan identified the Armenians as posing the greatest danger to the empire’s territorial integrity.

Indeed, in that period, an Armenian national movement arose that occasionally attacked soldiers, policemen, officials and collaborators. Between 1894 and 1896, approximately 200,000 Armenians and possibly more were massacred or persecuted to death by Abdülhamid’s regime. He believed that, as a result, the Armenians would not thereafter dare to “raise their heads” and threaten his regime and empire.


When the members of the Committee of Union and Progress seized power in the 1908 revolution, however, they discovered that Abdülhamid had failed in his mission, and that the Armenian national movement had survived. A Greek cultural revival was also identified. By Greeks we mean those who belonged to the Greek Orthodox church and identified themselves as being of Greek origin (mostly living in the Pontus and along Turkey’s Aegean coastline). Many of the ethnic Greeks also spoke Turkish as a first language and lacked strong ties to Greece. But the fear of an uprising by the large Greek communities came to the fore during the Balkan Wars that immediately preceded World War I. During and right after the war, the Young Turks’ governments brutally expelled tens of thousands of Greeks from the border region and from the Aegean coast. In addition, in a local conflagration in 1909, between 20,000 and 30,000 Armenians were slaughtered in the Adana region in southeastern Anatolia. The horrible massacre in Adana may not have been planned by the government, but the indifference it was met with around the world made it all the more clear to the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress that the major powers would not lift a finger to save the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

A holy mission

When the world war broke out, in August 1914, the committee’s leaders realized this was the chance they’d been waiting for to get rid of the country’s Christians. Under their rule, a further shift had occurred among Turkey’s majority population, from a religious Islamic identity toward the Turkish national identity, and an attempt was made at “Turkifying” the Arabs and other non-Turkish Muslims (such as the Kurds and Circassians). However, religion was still perceived as a central component of Turkish identity. For example, there are many testimonies to the fact that Talaat Pasha, the main architect and overseer of the World War I genocide, was a devout Muslim who viewed the elimination of the Christians who rebelled against the rule of Islam as a holy mission, and many perpetrators of the massacres said they were motivated by the imperatives of Islam, as they saw it.


Over the course of 30 years, 1.5-2.5 million Christians from were killed, and millions more were expelled from Turkey and lost everything. Tens of thousands were forced to convert to Islam, and many thousands of Christian women and girls were raped.


The Ottoman Empire’s decision to enter the war on the side of Germany and Austria, despite having no clear interest at stake, arose in part from a desire to take advantage of the expulsion of Britain and France from the region to achieve a number of “improvements,” including wiping out what was perceived as a Christian threat to the empire’s integrity. Between the spring of 1915 and the summer of 1916, in an effort coordinated from Istanbul (Constantinople), most of Anatolia’s Armenians were banished to the Syrian-Iraqi desert. After most of the able-bodied males (17- to 50-year-olds) were systematically slaughtered, the convoys of women, children and the old were driven southeastward. Many Armenian young men were drafted into the army and sent to labor battalions where they were disarmed, and shot or worked to death. Many if not most of the women, children and elderly died in the death marches to the Syrian desert; many of those who did make it to the desert died there of starvation and thirst, or were killed by murderous gangs acting in the service of the government.


When the war ended, the few refugees who survived thought they would be able to return to their homes, under the victorious Allies’ patronage, but their hopes were disappointed. In 1919, General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, an Ottoman war hero, had begun to organize the forces of the Ottoman Army that had crumbled, and to fight back against the foreigners that had occupied his land, primarily against the French who took over southeastern Anatolia and the Greeks who invaded the Aegean coastal region. It is true that Atatürk’s worldview was Turkish nationalist and secular (in the French sense of the word, in which the state does not take any position on questions of religion). But, for him, too, religion – as a component of culture and history – was an integral part of Turkish identity. And like many military officers of that period, he also believed that the Christians were a fifth column in the country that was serving, or could potentially serve, the enemy, and had to be gotten rid of at all costs. He explicitly said as much to Western officials whom he met with in Izmir days after its conquest.

Thus, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk deliberately continued the policy of his predecessors. The Armenian refugees who returned after the war to the area now under French control (the Cilicia region, in southern Anatolia) were expelled again, and many of them were killed in order to encourage others to flee. But now it was mainly the Greeks’ turn to suffer massacre and expulsion. From 1920 to 1922, the Turks resumed the death marches, this time from the large Greek communities along the Black Sea (the Pontus), which had hardly any connection to the Greek invasion in the Aegean Sea.


Since Syria was now ruled by the French, and the Greeks could not be deported to the Syrian desert, as was done with the Armenians during the war, the expulsions were carried out to arid, mountainous regions in Turkey’s interior, with the Greeks often made to march endlessly in circles until many died. Others, mainly in the western region, were expelled to Greece, with many of those who remained ultimately perishing in the great fire in Izmir. With the signing of a population-exchange agreement, by which the remaining 189,000 Greek Orthodox were resettled in Greece, and 355,000 Muslims were transferred from Greek territory to Turkey, this period of mass expulsions came to an end.

According to most estimates, during the final quarter of the 19th century, Greeks comprised 20 percent of the population within the borders of present-day Turkey. By the end of the 1920s, they comprised just 2 percent of the population. Many of those who remained in Turkey were residents of Istanbul who were not massacred or expelled due to the large presence there of journalists and international observers. Our research concludes with the period right after the founding of the Turkish Republic, in 1923, but the acts of ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Christians continued beyond that time, particularly during two rounds of anti-Greek pogroms in Istanbul, in 1955 and 1966.

Intimate and personal

A comparison between some aspects of the genocide of Christians in Turkey and the Jewish Holocaust is unavoidable. The Holocaust of the Jews was unprecedented – the vast numbers of people murdered in a short time, the mechanical, industrialized way in which this was accomplished. But in other ways, the slaughter of the Christians in Turkey, that night without end, even surpasses the Shoah. First, because despite its appalling scope, the Holocaust lasted five years (or seven, if you start counting from Kristallnacht, in November 1938), and was carried out by a single regime. The killing of the Christians in Turkey continued, off and on, for 30 years, and was carried out by three entirely different regimes. Second, despite some exceptions, the Holocaust involved murder that was mechanical and devoid of feeling. Instances of sadism were relatively rare, and in most cases, the victims were murdered like bugs that had to be squashed. The murder of the Christians in Turkey, however, was intimate and personal. The killers frequently knew their victims, as they often came from the same villages and towns or adjacent clans.

One key difference between the two genocides was the participation in the murder, rape and looting of masses of Turkish citizens, while the Holocaust was carried out mainly by the German security forces and appended forces from the occupied countries. (Most Germans did not participate at all in the acts of killing, and some claimed they were unaware of what exactly was happening.) In the Turkish case, while there were some Muslims, and even some military officers and governors, who courageously took action to save Christians and hide them, for the most part, the population took an active part in the violence, sometimes murdering Christians with knives, axes, rocks and metal bars, and often accompanying the killing with sadistic torture. Untold numbers took part in the looting.

Many aspects of the Turkish Christian tragedy have yet to be studied in depth. We hope that our research has contributed something to an understanding of its scope.

“The Thirty-Year Genocide,” by Dror Ze’evi and Benny Morris, was published in English by Harvard University Press in 2019. A Hebrew edition was published last month by Am Oved/Sifriyat Ofakim.

The mysterious origin of the name of Armenia city in Colombia

Nov 5 2021

Armenia, Quindio, Colombia. Photo by Luis Alveart/Flickr. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Throughout the Americas, it is common to find cities with European names, but one, in particular, has generated controversy: Armenia in Colombia. Colombia has 43 geographical locations called Armenia. However, it is the capital of the Department of Quindío that sparked a debate about the reasons behind its name.

In the national collective imagination, there is the idea that the name Armenia commemorates the Armenian victims of the Ottoman Empire. When a foreigner learns about a city called Armenia in Colombia, he may assume that its name is due to the presence of diaspora or the origin of its colonizers. But scholars say none of these theories are true.

The Armenia at the center of this misunderstanding is located near the central mountain range of the Colombian Andes, about 290 kilometers west of Bogotá. It has about 300,000 inhabitants and a pleasant 20°C temperature throughout the year. Before the Spanish colonization, it was the main city of the extinct Quimbaya civilization. After its Spanish founding, the city was at the epicenter of the Colombian coffee bonanza, which lasted until the end of the 20th century.

Transportation by donkey. Courtesy of Carlos Alberto Castrillón

This Armenia has a very different history from that of the country of Armenia in the South Caucasus. This country is located in the mountain range between Europe and Asia. For centuries, Armenians were under the rule of different empires (Ottoman, Persian, and Russian), but they managed to maintain an identity with their millennial language, the early adoption of the Christian religion, and, more recently, the struggle for the recognition of the genocide of which they were victims.

The Armenian genocide refers to the killing and expulsion of about one million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. More than 30 countries acknowledge the genocide, but Turkey, the country currently located in the former territory of the Ottoman Empire, never admitted the systematic annihilation of the Armenian people. It argued that the relocation of Armenians was a legitimate state action in response to the Armenian revolutionary movement that threatened the empire during the war. Although Colombia does not recognize the genocide either, the city of Armenia approved a decree commemorating the centenary of the genocide in 2017.

Armenian historians and the media did not miss the opportunity to attribute the existence of this Colombian city to Armenian compatriots. For example, Armenian historian Hovhannes Babesian had initially written that “the city was founded by a group of Armenian immigrants in the 19th century.”

This theory by the Armenians was further promoted byZavén Sabundjián, another historian, who, in 1983, commented that a monument had been erected “in memory of the founders of the city and its compatriot martyrs.” Later, the Yerevan Magazine even stated that “it is a symbolic monument that evokes the Armenian victims of 1896.” This is a reference to the emblematic Monument to the Founders (located in the park with the same name) which consists of an ax, a symbol of the work by the Antiochians who built the city by cutting down the thick jungle.

Monument to the Founders in Armenia, Colombia. Public domain photo.

It is understandable to assume there is an Armenian diaspora in Colombia. The violent expulsion or death of almost all Christian Armenians in the Ottoman Empire created the second-largest diaspora in the world, after the Jewish people. It is estimated that about three million Armenians live in the current Republic of Armenia and the territory of Nagorno Karabakh, while other ten million are spread around the world.

Various waves of Armenian migration have been recorded in Latin America since the 19th century, and the vast majority have escaped the alleged genocide. The largest diaspora is in Argentina, where there are approximately 150,000 Armenians, but the most noteworthy relationship is with Uruguay, which is the first state to recognize the Armenian genocide. No Armenian diasporas settled in Colombia. On the contrary, by the decree of 1937, this country banned the entry of several immigrants carrying Egyptian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, Syrian and Turkish passports. Later, in 1954, the Armenian bishop Cirilo Zohrabián visited Colombia and observed that “in all of Colombia there is not even the shadow of an Armenian.”

The origin of the name of the Colombian city of Armenia is not due to the origin of its founders. What is known as a true fact is that the city of Armenia was founded on October 14, 1889, by settlers from the older state of Antioquia, who established hamlets at this intermediate point between eastern and western Colombia in search of fertile land, opportunities for the extraction of rubber, and the need to move away from the battlefield of the civil wars from 1876 to 1899.

In 1896, the massacre of more than 300,000 Armenians shocked the world at a time when the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, commonly known as Dashnaktsutyun, was advocating for a free, independent, and unified Armenia, or at least greater autonomy and protection of their rights as a minority in the Ottoman Empire. However, the city of Armenia in Colombia was founded almost a decade before these events, and twenty years before the alleged genocide.

In support of this theory, historian Miguel Ángel Rojas Arias from Quindío argues that “it is very likely that the priests in their pulpits mentioned Armenia, the first nation to adopt Christianity as the official religion, and a place known as the Paradise on Earth or as the landing port for Noah’s Ark. This name would remain in the minds of the first settlers.

But there is not consensus on the origin of this name attributed to the church, either. In his article, Notes for a toponymy of Quindío,” Professor Carlos Alberto Castrillón from the Spanish and Literature Program at the University of Quindío explains that the use of foreign names in the department is due to the mystery and allure surrounding foreign place names, as well as the opportunities for a new life for the settlers in these lands.

View of the mountain range near Armenia, Colombia. Photo by McKay Savage/Flickr. (CC BY 2.0)

In an interview with Global Voices, Castrillón said: “None of the well-known texts from that time mention anything related to religious traditions. When analyzing the main toponymy of the region, no religious names are found, unlike other places in Colombia. The founding settlers defined themselves as freethinkers and educated men, which explains the abundance of names taken from universal history or literature.”

There is even a city in the Department named in reference to another Caucasian nation. One of its founders, a renowned freemason, proposed changing the ordinary name of the land “La Plancha” to a more exotic one: Circassia.

But more importantly, by the time the city was founded, the name was already used in the region. The sales contract for the settlers’ estates mentions the property as located in the village of Armenia. Consequently, Carlos Alberto concludes: “Relating, as some do, this name to the story of Noah seems pure historical imagination or post-toponymic explanation; if there was a religious motivation, it was for naming the village.”

Little has been said about the origin of the name of the hamlet where the city was later founded, which at some point it was attributed to settlers from the city of Armenia in Antioquia.

With no consensus, the motivations for the city’s name remain a mystery.

https://globalvoices.org/2021/11/05/the-mysterious-origin-of-the-name-of-armenia-city-in-colombia/

How an ex-war zone shapes the Russia-India corridor

Nov 5 2021
Published on 05-11-2021 at 12:30


ANALYSIS – The development of the North-South International Transport Corridor connecting Russia with India via Iran is on hold. Many said that the missing link for its completion, in this case, is Iran and its underdeveloped railway network. However, a grey zone between two Caucasian countries seems to cause more serious problems.

A prerequisite for the corridor’s development and further use is not only the construction of railway lines in Iran. Most importantly, to connect Russia with Iran and further to India, the corridor must pass through the Caucasus, where the countries of Armenia and Azerbaijan lie. This is where things get complicated because the rail link that will be used in this region now belongs to a disputed grey zone after the Nagorno-Karabakh war.

The two countries reached a ceasefire agreement almost a year ago, on 10 November 2020, following Russia’s intervention. However, to this day, their borders remain fluid, with both countries including disputed territories on their maps and development agendas. What applies to geopolitics also applies to the economy. And currently, no one knows what the future of the North-South Corridor will be if the two countries do not resolve their rivalry.

A week ago, multiple parties attended the launching of the first Rotterdam-Moscow shuttle in Rotterdam’s RSC terminal. Among the attendees, there were many representatives from Eurasian countries like Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan. Armenia and Azerbaijan were there too. Both of them presented their rail freight development agendas. Azerbaijan’s representative emphasised that the Caucasian country invests heavily in the North-South Transport corridor and aims to transform the port of Baku into an international logistics hub as part of it.

However, when the Armenian delegate took the floor, the situation became more complex. He accused Azerbaijan’s representative of misleading the public by presenting the North-South Transport Corridor as a project coordinated exclusively by Azerbaijan and Iran. In fact, he underlined that the rail link to which Azerbaijan refers is positioned in a disputed area not belonging to any of the two countries. Moreover, he explained that Armenia signed a cooperation agreement with Iran to develop the corridor. So what is the truth, and are Armenia and Azerbaijan the only countries of influence in this matter?

With red colour: the disputed area and its surroundings.

Officially, both countries claim their role on the transport route. The ministry of digital development and transport of the Republic of Azerbaijan has a dedicated page explaining its role in the North-South Transport Corridor and its initiatives to develop it as part of an agreement with Russia, Iran, and India since 2005.

On the other hand, Armenia and Iran have also reached an official agreement on the same matter. Only, as we can see on the official website of Iran’s Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, this agreement concerns mainly road links that are part of the North-South Transport Corridor. Nevertheless, as Amir Asri from the Iranian company MAPNA Locomotive explained in an interview, the Armenia-Iran links could also extend to rail if the political situation allows.

Asri continued explaining that Iran is in a very sensitive but neutral position concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. “Due to the border fluidity, Iran faces problems with both countries currently,” he said. “The border with Armenia is closed, and we also have many issues with Azerbaijan since they posse restrictions to cross-border transportation via the disputed regions,” he continued.

Simultaneously, Asri explained that Armenia and Iran have very strong economic and transport bonds. That is why they recently decided to cooperate on the North-South transport corridor. Although this cooperation focuses on road links, “the countries also have a firm rail tradition that could become an extension of the current agreement,” he highlighted.

After all, from a purely business point of view, “Armenia is a better option for Iran when it comes to the North-South rail link”. That is because cargo can travel through Georgia and Russia via Armenia and access the Black and Caspian seas. On top of that, it is known that Iran needs some external investments to develop the rail links missing in its territories, and Armenia seems to be more willing to contribute since the cooperation with Azerbaijan is not very fruitful until now.

The conflict is there, and projects are on hold, but who will decide the outcome of all these? Russia will most probably become the game-changer, said Asri. Russia intervened to stop the war between the two countries in the first place, and it seems to have the same role in the current dispute. Specifically, Russia is the leading party concerned about developing the North-South corridor since it will benefit the most by expanding its Eurasian rail network.

Since it has a mediating role now, the country will unavoidably have to choose sides at some point and decide through which country it wants to connect with Iran. If Armenia is the first choice, then Iran will go with it too, since it will have a solid partner to invest in its infrastructure, underlined Asri. However, even this scenario is not certain.

Asri mentioned that Turkey is also looking for opportunities to invest in Azerbaijan’s railways. If this becomes a reality, then another big player will enter the political-economic arena of the Caucasus region. “We cannot exclude this option. Everything is fluid now, and we tend towards Armenia, but if Turkey and Azerbaijan provide a competitive solution, then Iran will consider their offer,” he concluded. Who gets to choose after all? It seems that the North-South Transport Corridor will rely on who makes the fastest and smartest move.

ECtHR obliges Azerbaijan’s authorities to pay compensation to relatives of two Armenian POWs

Caucasian Knot, EU
Nov 5 2021

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has awarded the compensations in the amounts of 40,000 euros to the family of Mamikon Khodjoyan and the family of Karen Petrosyan, residents of the Tavush Region of Armenia, who were captured and tortured in Azerbaijan in 2014.

The “Caucasian Knot” has reported that on January 28, 2014, Mamikon Khodjoyan, a 77-year-old Armenian citizen, was detained in the Tovuz District of Azerbaijan. On March 4, the man was handed over to Armenia and placed to a resuscitation ward in a hospital, where he died on May 20. Karen Petrosyan, who lived in the Armenian village of Chinari, was captured on August 7, 2014, and the other day he died suddenly from acute heart failure. According to the Azerbaijan’s authorities, the man was a member of a sabotage group.

According to the materials of Mamikon Khodjoyan’s case, Azerbaijani investigators claimed the man deliberately crossed the border, knowing that he could be captured. The country’s authorities also argued that Azerbaijan was not responsible for the death of the elderly man in Armenia and that he was detained as a prisoner of war (POW) in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

The Strasbourg Court found in the cases of both complainants a violation of the articles on the right to life and on the prohibition of torture, and in the Mamikon Khodjoyan’s case, the ECtHR also recognized a violation of the article on the right to liberty and security of person of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As a result of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh in the autumn of 2020, the death toll in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh reached 3788 people, while 224 soldiers and 22 civilians were missing, Armenia reported. On August 11, Armenian human rights defender Artak Zeinalyan reported that Azerbaijan recognized the existence of only 45 Armenian prisoners of war, while Armenia submitted the information about 280 POWs to the European Court of Human Rights.

This article was originally published on the Russian page of 24/7 Internet agency ‘Caucasian Knot’ on November 4, 2021 at 07:26 pm MSK. To access the full text of the article, click here.

Source: CK correspondent

Source: 
© Caucasian Knot

Liquidation of the Armenian SIS puts an end to torture cases

Caucasian Knot, EU
Nov 4 2021

The National Security Service (NSS) of Armenia will fail to endure efficient investigation of torture cases, Ara Karagezyan, a lawyer, has suggested. For proper inquiry into these cases, a separate agency is needed, Nina Karapetyants, a human rights defender, believes.

On November 3, a discussion of the consequences of the disbanding of the Special Investigating Service (SIS) was held at the Yerevan “Media Centre” Club of Public Journalism, the “Caucasian Knot” correspondent has reported.

In Armenia, counteracting torture and abuses is formal; and after the liquidation of the SIS, the issue of investigating torture criminal cases will remain open, Nina Karapetyants, the head of the Helsinki Association of Armenia, believes.

A brawl during the peaceful protest of the residents of “Fizgorodok” against the construction of a high-rise building testifies to the authorities’ unwillingness to undertake fundamental police reforms, Ms Karapetyants has added.

“Authorities need those who use brutal force during peaceful protests. There are many examples, take at least Electric Yerevan or Amulsar,” Nina Karapetyants has explained.

The police are using violence to intimidate people so that people do not go out to fight for their rights, said Vardan Arutyunyan, an activist of the “Fizgorodok”. In his opinion, the Armenian police are protecting the interests of a narrow circle of people.

This article was originally published on the Russian page of 24/7 Internet agency ‘Caucasian Knot’ on November 4, 2021 at 04:22 am MSK. To access the full text of the article, click here.

Author: Tigran PetrosyanSource: CK correspondent

Source: 
© Caucasian Knot

Relatives of missing soldiers achieve meeting with Pashinyan

Caucasian Knot, EU
Nov 4 2021

Yerevan protesters from among relatives of the dead and missing Armenian soldiers have achieved a meeting with the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan. They said that at the meeting appointed for October 6, they would demand to reveal the exact number of prisoners of war (POWs), and a report on the progress of the investigation.

The “Caucasian Knot” has reported that on November 3, relatives of the dead servicemen went out to a protest action in Yerevan. They blocked traffic in one of the streets and threatened with more radical protests, if Pashinyan failed to appoint the date for the meeting.

Relatives of the dead and missing soldiers have repeatedly held protests, at which they claimed that authorities were hiding the real number of soldiers who were captured as POWs in Azerbaijan. On September 14, relatives of the dead soldiers called on to cancel the celebrations of the Independence Day of Armenia.

In the evening on November 3, relatives of the killed soldiers stopped their protest after Pashinyan agreed to meet them later this week. “We insist on our demands; we have the right to voice them out, so that the relevant structures have to react,” the “Panorama.am” has quoted Garik Mkhitaryan, one of the protesters, as saying.

This article was originally published on the Russian page of 24/7 Internet agency ‘Caucasian Knot’ on November 4, 2021 at 07:55 am MSK. To access the full text of the article, click here.

Source: CK correspondent

Source: 
© Caucasian Knot