NO EVIDENCE OF OTTOMAN INTENT TO DESTROY ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
by Selcuk Gultasli
Zaman, Turkey
April 24 2006
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science,
University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The
Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide’ that what
happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the
Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race.
The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication
of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about
the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives
the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of
distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been
attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts
from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16,
you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian
race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the
incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent
to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead
alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of
an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the
number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime
had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help
of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s
interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10
other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford
University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books
– with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of
Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic
Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish
government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation
you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians
wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events
of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert;
you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American
scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of
genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years
in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the
archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are
more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American,
German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia,
as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the
deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in
the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the
Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic
would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The
argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are
Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent
as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and
not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the
Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the
Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different
reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and
the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took
its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former
Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these
atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored
because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western
world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous
events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality,
no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to
outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and
devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this
prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and
devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by
many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah
– aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian
massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the
Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The
fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo
were exempted from the deportation is another important indication
that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian
minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at
800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000.
How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000
killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with
this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply
repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to
their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened
in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged
genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of
1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot
of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the
Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused
humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the
massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian
autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged
Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties
among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on
their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably
shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar
on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or
excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude
among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort
the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His
violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so
numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many
countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will
have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a”genocide” without a
court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide
contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this
principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the
alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will
be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government
that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during
World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am
now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a
nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it
extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make
a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian
Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other
than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately
refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to
be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars
to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done
so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu,
is a person who does not even read English is a scandal.

HISTORIC DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS – MP MOLLAZADE
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
April 24 2006
Turkey should carry out all possible measures, in particular, open its
archives for the world community to unmask the statements by Armenians
on the so-called ‘genocide’, MP Asi Mollazade, the chairman of the
Democratic Reforms Party (DRP), told Trend.
The politician noted that the Armenian lobby in Armenia and
in different world countries carries out purposeful work in the
international level to convince the world community of the truth of
the invented statements.
Mollazade added that as a result the parliaments of some countries
adopted documents on the so-called ‘genocide’. “Historic documents
drafted as a result of objective researches should be set off against
the Armenian propaganda. We should also take into consideration that
the attempts taken worldwide for the recognition of the so-called
‘Armenian genocide’ is Armenia’s official foreign policy. Azerbaijan
should inform the international organizations, the world community
of the fact of genocide committed by Armenia against Azerbaijan in
1918 and 1992,” he underlined.

CASCADING TOWARD THE 91ST ANNIVERSARY? THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 1915
Dr Harry Hagopian
Assyrian International News Agency
April 24 2006
London — Armenians across all five continents are getting ready this
week to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
With the noteworthy achievements of 2005 now behind them, it is time
to think both tactically and strategically of the 24th April events –
not only for this week, but also for the longer-term policy of the
years ahead. After all, Armenians are nine critical years shy of a
century in order to break through the psychological barrier of denial.
Image In this context, events in Turkey as of late have also been
quite relevant. After all, this country – whose predecessor regime was
culpable for those atrocities but which remains to date a bastion of
rapacious denial – has taken some grudging steps toward acknowledging
the existence of a “problem” rather than simply blotting it out of its
collective psyche. In fact, having applied to join the European Union,
this post-Ottoman republic should accept not only EU democratic norms
and values, but also the requirement to guarantee the fundamental
human rights of all its citizens.
True, Atom Egoyan’s film Ararat was shown last week on the private
Turkish Kanalturk television station with less censorship than has been
the case in the past. It is equally true that a Turkish court dropped
charges against four Turkish journalists (Hasan Cemal, Ismet Berkan,
Haluk Sahin and Erol Katircioglu) who had been charged with writing
articles in which they criticised a judicial decision to delay a
conference last year entitled ‘Ottoman Armenians during the decline of
the empire: Issues of scientific responsibility and democracy’. These,
along with other small paces, have been positive although they have
stopped short of going any further in translating them from tactical
orientations to strategic decisions. For instance, while dropping
charges against those four journalists, the court decided nonetheless
to proceed with the trial of Mehmet Murat Kadri Belge, a columnist
for the Radikal newspaper. Besides, just as with Orhan Pamuk’s case,
the Turkish government did not address itself to repealing the articles
in the Turkish Penal Code that would allow such charges to be made in
the first place (Amnesty International UK is presently campaigning for
the abolition of Article 301), but applied insincere interpretations
to try and satisfy a Western EU-friendly audience whilst at the same
time not budging away from its own stolid political standpoints.
Let us be clear that there is no shortage of historians, academics,
institutes, lawyers and writers worldwide – not least the International
Association of Genocide Scholars – who have acknowledged the genocidal
nature of the atrocities meted out against Armenians during WWI. So
the problems – and thereby solutions – inherent to denial cannot
solely be traced to historical issues. On the contrary, they are
overpoweringly political. It is self-evident that many countries –
not least the USA or the UK – would not wish to upset Turkey as a NATO
ally with a substantive military presence and with many bases in a
geo-strategic but volatile region. The same applies for Israel. When
the then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres publicly stated in
April 2001 to the Turkish Daily News that the Armenian experience was
not tantamount to genocide, he was thinking of buttressing the strong
military ties and ongoing economic interests that Israel enjoys with
Turkey despite occasional complaints about Islamism. No wonder then
that Yisrael Charny, director of the Jerusalem-based Institute on
the Holocaust and Genocide, reproved publicly this wily politician
for misrepresenting the facts.
It is true that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by some
parliaments and councils indicates a painstaking but relentless
momentum forward. But Armenians should now consider working with
the younger Turkish academicians who have also been researching this
chapter of Turkish history. Moreover, they should be careful not to
be perceived as a token anti-Muslim (and by analogy anti-Turkish)
force, or be used in the brinkmanship between Turkey and the EU as
a convenient pretext for barring Turkish entry into the European club.
After all, Turkey has major challenges today that make it fall foul
of accession anyway – namely, the Kurdish issue that has recently
flared up again in the violence-wracked southeast region that is now
a homeland for a large Kurdish minority, as well as the refusal by
Turkey to open its ports and airports to Cypriot-registered vessels
despite a customs’ union agreement. Turkey also has economic woes,
one year short of parliamentary elections, with high public debt,
high current-account deficit and tax breaks that are contrary to IMF
recommendations – as evidenced by the recent spat over the appointment
of the central bank governor.
I believe Armenians should re-configure their strategic interests
discursively, with more reason and less intuition. Would the
acquisition by Armenians (and other long-standing minorities such
as Assyrians) in Turkey of EU passports, for example, not help them
in their legal and functional quests? Should those Turks who helped
rescue Armenians during the genocide not be honoured too, in the
same way that Israelis honour brave Gentiles who saved Jews during
the Holocaust? After all, these too are intrepid people who upheld
the honour of the Turkish nation when their government was destroying
its own Armenian citizens. Focusing on such a moral issue would prove
that many Armenians are certainly not visceral anti-Turks, and could
also turn into an exposed embarrassment for Turkey.
Geopolitics in the 21st century is not based on high decibels
and angst-ridden feelings alone. Rather, it is based on strategic
thought and vested interests. Could Armenians not invest in their
resourcefulness to excel in this arena too?

PKK Models ASALA
By Sedat Gunec, Ankara
Zaman, Turkey
April 24 2006
The terror network, PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party), took the Armenian
terror network, ASALA, that martyred 34 Turkish diplomats as an
example for its operations. Turkish National Intelligence Organization
(MIT) uncovered a plot of the terror network against 131 foreign
representatives of Turkey.
Armenian terror network ASALA (The Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia) firstly martyred Turkey’s Ambassador to Vienna
Danis Tunaligil in 1975. The same organization martyred 34 Turkish
diplomats by 1984. Upon the action realized against Ankara Esenboga
Airport on 7 August 1982, Turkey had started wide scale operations
against ASALA with the instruction of the term’s President, Kenan
Evren.
Many terror experts say ASALA changed dimension and continues its
activities within PKK.
Several Armenians were caught in the operations against the terror
network.
The terror network PKK driven into a corner in Turkey with the spring
operation code named, “Suleyman Soydan 137,” launched by Turkish
Armed Forces by reinforcing troops in the region of 2nd Division now
aims at Turkey’s representatives abroad. In its action plan abroad,
the organization will use the methods of terror network ASALA.
The intelligence units say that the terror network plans various
actions on the ground that it will seek revenge for 15 people who
died in the incidents in 13 provinces, mainly in Diyarbakir.
MIT revealed the divisive organization is preparing for actions aiming
at Turkey’s 131 foreign representatives in this frame. The Turkish
Foreign Ministry taking action upon MIT’s warning warned Turkey’s
131 diplomatic representatives abroad against probable actions. In
this frame, top level security measures have been taken for Turkey’s
foreign representatives.
In the operations against the organization within the last five years,
hundreds of kilos of plastic explosives (C-3, C-4 and A-4) have been
seized by the police.

AZERBAIJAN OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO EU AS ENERGY RESOURCE PRODUCER AND TRANSIT COUNTRY
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
April 24 2006
The diversification of energy resources and routes is among the
priorities of European Union, Hand Winkler, head of EU Three
delegation, State Secretary of Austrian Foreign Ministry, said at
Saturday’s press conference in Baku.
He added that Azerbaijan is of great importance to the EU as an energy
resource producer and transit country.
Winkler said that energy issues were the focus of talks held between
the Three and Azerbaijani authorities in Baku.
Asked about the EU’s attitude toward Trans-Caspian energy projects,
Winkler answered that the EU is ready to encourage projects from
the Caspian Sea basin to Europe, but decisions must be made by the
interested countries and companies.
Azerbaijan’s participation in the European Neighborhood Policy was
also discussed during the visit. Winkler added that the EU creates
policy with its neighbors and partners on the basis of common values,
including principles of market economy, democracy, human rights,
pluralism and supremacy of law. Winkler expressed hope that during
the third round of consultations, scheduled for May 2006, work on the
plan of actions within the framework of European Neighborhood Policy
would be over. The plan will envisage measures aimed at reforms in
political, legal, economic and cultural fields.
Speaking about the Karabakh conflict, Winkler stressed the necessity
of a just conflict settlement on the basis of international law to
establish a lasting peace. The establishment of peace will foster
stability in the region, said Winkler.

GAZAKH REGION UNDER FIRE
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
April 24 2006
On April 23 at 8.25 p.m. Armenian troops fired on Azerbaijani
positions in Mazamli village of the Gazakh region On the same day at
10.30 p.m. Armenian troops fired Gushchu Ayrym village in the same
region and neighboring positions of Azerbaijani army from Voskevan
and Shavarshan villages in the Armenian Noemberian region.
At 11.35 p.m. Armenian troops opened fire from Aznakr mountain in
the Noemberian region. Gushchu Ayrym village was fired from machine
and sub-machine guns.
The Azerbaijani side returned fire, but casualties are not reported
by Defense Ministry’s press office.

ILHAM ALIYEV TO GO TO USA ON TUESDAY
Regnum, Russia
April 24 2006
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s first official visit to the USA
is to start on April 25. It was earlier reported, the visit was to
start on April 28, notes a REGNUM correspondent.
According to the president’s press office, the visit is to be held
under an invitation by US President George Bush, Vice President Dick
Cheney, State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Defense Minister Donald
Rumsfeld and other governmental officials, including congressmen.
During the visit, agreements on political and economic cooperation
are expected to be signed.
Recently, US Ambassador in Baku Reno Harnish has announced that the
Karabakh problem will occupy not the least place among the issues to
be discussed during the upcoming visit by Ilham Aliyev to Washington.
“The Azerbaijani leader’s visit to Washington and his meeting with US
President George Bush will confirm the fact that the Azerbaijani party
is a supporter of a peaceful way of conflict settlement,” said Harnish.
The ambassador noted that schedule of the four-day visit was well
done. According to the diplomat, the zest of the visit is the
meeting of the two presidents. During their meeting tete-a-tete,
issues of mutual interest will be discussed, including terrorism,
and implementing energy projects in the region.

DEPUTY ARMENIAN FM: WHO SAID WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE TURKISH BORDER?
By Selahattin Sevi, Yerevan
Zaman, Turkey
April 24 2006
Celebrating the anniversary of the so called genocide today, the
Yerevan administration indicated they are working for recognition of
the so-called genocide, and emphasized they have never requested land
from Turkey.
Despite this statement of Armenia, references to the eastern part of
Turkey in Armenia’s constitution and declaration of independence have
already been made. The Mount Ararat is among the state’s symbols. In
an interview with Zaman, Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Arman
Kirakossian also evaluated this contradiction. Upon being reminded
the 1921 Treaty of Kars that determined the border between the two
countries, Kirakossian responded by asking, “Who said we do not
recognize the Treaty of Kars?” and posed for a photograph in front
of the painting of Mount Ararat hanging in his office.
Kirakossian responded: “Things I say have no importance unless
diplomatic relationships between Turkey and Armenia are established.
We can say we are respectful towards each other’s unity of territory
in reciprocal agreements” when asked, “Can you say Armenia does not
have any demand for Turkish lands?”
When reminded of Turkey’s proposal to “Have the incidents of 1915
be investigate by an independent commission made up of historians,
and accept the results,” the Armenian authority said: “Our history is
an indisputable reality,” and referred to Armenian President Robert
Kocharian’s proposal to “Establish an intergovernmental commission.
If Turkey had set up a diplomatic relationship with us in 1991,
we might be speaking at a different level now.”
The Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakossian responded to
the following questions Zaman posed:
You want Turkey to open its Armenian border? Does this mean you accept
the 1921 Treaty of Kars and therefore recognize the border you want
to be opened?
Who said we do not recognize the Treaty of Kars?
But there are references to the eastern regions of Turkey in your
official documents…
I want to say something officially as a representative of the Republic
of Armenia. After Armenia’s independence in 1991, Armenia has wanted
to set up relationships without preconditions with Turkey.
The Republic of Armenia has not declared that it does not recognize
the Treaty of Kars. The preconditions have always been set forth
by Turkey during this time, especially with the problems of the
Mountainous Karabag (Karabakh) and the Armenian genocide.
Can you say that Armenia has no documented evidence of its claims
over eastern Turkish provinces?
What I say will not have any value until we establish actual diplomatic
relations between Armenia and Turkey. Only after we build ties we can
claim to have respect for the territorial integrity of both countries
in mutual agreements.
Because of the ongoing Armenian efforts to prove the so-called genocide
happened, the border is closed and your country is suffering from an
economic depression. Many Armenians tend to leave the country. How
much longer can you keep this up?
Armenia does not suffer economic difficulties. A look at the traffic
in Yerevan will explain my point. Our economy adjusted itself to the
situation within the past 15 years. Of course, we would like to have
a stronger and advanced economy. The opening of borders would be of
great benefit to us. We would like to say that we are ready to have
relations with Turkey and without any prerequisites. If Turkey accepts
it, we could sit around the table and discuss our problems.
Your newspaper [Zaman] is reporting that we are in talks.
Washington will host a guest, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, for
an exchange of official contacts at a time when there is concentrated
discussion of Iran’s nuclear involvement. Are you worried about
this visit?
No, I am not, since we have excellent relations with the administration
in the United States (US). In accordance with the Millennium Challenge
Program, there has been a transfer of $235 million to Armenia, and US
President George W. Bush acknowledges this program is useful to our
economy. Azerbaijan is not eligible for this transfer of financial
aid, since the government in Azerbaijan is not eligible to be part
of the program. The Armenian president will probably be another guest
in Washington in the upcoming days, after Aliyev.
Armenia and the Diaspora carry out intense efforts regarding the
events of 1915. They have 450,000 web-sites set up for this purpose
alone. While efforts are being made regarding an event that happened 90
years ago, 800,000 refugees exiled from Azerbaijan struggle to survive
in negative conditions. Have you ever considered empathizing with them?
We do not accept the figure of 800,000. However, the number is
unimportant. We have 300,000 refugees from Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
The dialogue, which includes this issue between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
still goes on.
Turkey proposes to leave the allegations regarding the events in 1915
to the historians and accept the outcome. Will you keep rejecting it?
Right, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made such
a proposal. On the other hand, Armenian President Robert Kocharian
proposed to the formation of a commission to handle various problems
concerning politics, economy, borders and agreements.
We believe the Turkish people are not responsible for the events of
1915. The Turkish administration at that time is the responsible
party. We expect a step from Turkey akin to the one taken by the
German government. Armenia wants to have unconditional, good and
friendly relations with all its neighbors, especially with Turkey.
The future of the two countries will not be decided by the findings
of historians. Politicians will determine the fate of the two
countries. If Turkey had made diplomatic relations with us, we could
have been holding this conversation at a much different level.

ARMENIA NOT TO JOIN NATO, EU: PRESIDENT
Xinhua, China
2006-04-24 18:24:13
April 24 2006
MOSCOW, April 24 (Xinhua) — Armenia is not going to join NATO and
the European Union (EU), Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said
Monday in an interview with local newspaper Golos Armenii.
“The membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
and the high level of military-technical cooperation with Russia solve
the task of ensuring the country’s security in a sufficient degree,”
Kocharyan said.
Therefore, Armenia will not join NATO, the Armehian president said. The
member states of the CSTO include Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Kocharyan said that the “whole law base of the Armenian-Russian
relations in the military-technical sphere has been ratified by the
republic’s parliament.”
“Within the framework of the individual partnership program, Armenia is
actively broadening the cooperation with the North Atlantic alliance
as a key European security organization. We hope for fruitful
cooperation, especially in the reform of Armenia’s armed forces,
and in the peacekeeping activity,” Kocharyan said.
The president said, “at present, Armenia is preparing for closer
cooperation with the European Union within the framework of the New
Neighborhood Policy, but we do not formulate the task of joining the
European Union.”
“Euro-Atlantic ambitions of Armenia are weighed, realistic, positively
seen by European structures, and do not create problems in the
relations with Russia,” he said.
“We equally articulate our stance in Moscow, Brussels and Washington,”
the president said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

YEREVAN COMMEMORATES VICTIMS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1915
Interfax, Russia
April 24 2006
YEREVAN. April 24 (Interfax) – Yerevan is commemorating the more than
1.5 million Armenians massacred in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
Armenian officials and average citizens visit the Memorial of the
Genocide Victims in Yerevan every April 24.
Yerevan and Ankara still do not have diplomatic relations. Armenian
authorities are ready to establish diplomatic relations without any
preliminary conditions, but Turkish authorities want Yerevan to stop
insisting on the international recognition of the Armenian genocide
and make serious concessions to Azerbaijan in the Karabakh settlement.