Going in circles with Turkey

Lack of preconditions undermines Armenia’s position
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday May 08, 2009

Turkish derwishes whirling. 18th cent. painting.

Washington, - President Serge Sargsian admitted in his April 17 press conference that eight-month-long negotiations with Turkey may not result in a breakthrough after all. At the same time he appeared willing to continue the diplomatic effort until the return World Cup qualifying soccer match between Armenia and Turkey in October.

While President Sargsian said he would only travel to Turkey if the Armenian-Turkish border was open or "about to open," no new decisive circumstances are likely to emerge in the next four months to push Turkey or Armenia to change their policies to allow for headway in talks.

The April 22 statement by Armenian, Swiss and Turkish foreign ministries - which according to the Turkish press came after much lobbying by the U.S. State Department - only codifies this status quo: the parties agreed to continue discussions along several issues in a so far unpublished "road map," but without a clear timeframe and without Turkey dropping its preconditions.

Third failure

President Sargsian's attempt to engage Turkey is likely to end in failure just as those of his two predecessors' did as well.

The administration of President Levon Ter-Petrossian tried to launch a new relationship with Turkey "without preconditions." With the country facing a series of seemingly insurmountable crises, relations with Turkey were seen at the time as almost the only route to salvation.

In the end, Mr. Ter-Petrossian proved unable to either subdue diaspora activism on the Genocide issue or restrain Armenian military success in Karabakh, to be able to satisfy Turkey's demands for normalization of relations. The country survived regardless, and stumbled forward.

Turkey's decision to talk to the administration of President Robert Kocharian came after Armenia caught Turkey's attention by threatening to veto the OSCE summit from taking place in Istanbul in 1999, and in the context of publicity surrounding the 2000 push for an Armenian Genocide resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.

President Kocharian agreed to talk to Turkey first by indirectly supporting an informal Track II initiative - the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) - and then through direct talks between foreign ministers. But those efforts, also conducted on the basis of no preconditions by Armenia, also brought little progress.

The most recent round of talks - initiated by President Sargsian - came amid the rise of a U.S. administration comprised of known supporters of Armenian Genocide affirmation and as Turkey drew politically close to Armenia's ally Russia.

For now, the only noticeable success of the Sargsian administration in this regard has been procedural: Turkey no longer insists on talking to Armenia in the presence of Azerbaijan and does not consult Azerbaijan on the talks. (This has visibly irritated the easily irritable Azerbaijani leadership.)

The on-again off-again Armenia-Turkey talks have also helped build up some reservoir of mutual respect.

But factors encumbering progress in relations continue to prevail over arguments for change.

After addressing immediate concerns related to Russia's role in the Caucasus and the Obama administration's position on the Armenian Genocide, Turkish leaders have returned to preconditions linking relations with Armenia to unilateral compromises (by Armenia) in bilateral relations and on Karabakh.

Skewed priorities

The fundamental reason Turkey can treat Armenia the way it does is on the surface. Turkey has more than 20 times the population of Armenia, 17 times the territory, and 10 times the armed forces, and can simply afford to ignore Armenia's concerns so long as they are not also raised by great powers.

Additionally, Turkey's priorities appear tangible and clear, Armenia's not so much.

First and foremost, seeking to become one of the world's most important countries, Turkey wants an end to the embarrassing campaign of Armenian Genocide recognition. It is no accident that each new bout of high-level Armenia-Turkey talks follows a new spike in the Genocide affirmation campaign.

Turkey also wants Armenia to surrender any claims, real or financial, that stem from the mass violation of the basic rights of Ottoman Armenians. This is what Soviet Armenia did in the Kars treaty of 1921 but independent Armenia has not embraced.

Finally, though less insistently, Turkey wants Armenia to commit to compromises over the Karabakh conflict that would satisfy Turkey's "co-nationals" in Azerbaijan.

What does Armenia want as part of normalization? Nothing, Armenia has declared repeatedly, "there are no preconditions."

That leaves having diplomatic relations and an open border with Turkey as Armenia's priorities.

But that makes little sense from the point of view of real Armenian concerns and interests with regard to Turkey and in Karabakh. Additionally, such posture undermines Armenia's negotiating position with Turkey.

Why "preconditions" make sense

Diplomatic ties and open borders alone do not imply "normal" or even non-hostile relations. There are countries in the world that share an open border while engaging in a direct confrontation.

At the same time, it would be quite reasonable for Armenia to want Turkey to condemn past violence against Armenians, stop discriminating against Armenians today, and protect the Armenian cultural heritage remaining on Turkey's territory. And it would be reasonable for Armenia to so state as part of a normalization process.

Moreover, a less biased Turkish position on the Karabakh dispute could serve as an indication that Turkey no longer condones genocidal policies against Armenians and is finally ready to accept a viable Armenian state on its border.

It is understandable that such policies will take time for Turkey to warm up to. But with these issues absent from bilateral conversations, talks inevitably shift to what Turkey wants – an end to recognition campaigns and a pledge not to make any Genocide-related claims.

Since an Armenian government can never deliver on these demands, even if it tried, this leaves conversations going around in circles. Even those Turkish officials who genuinely want a normal relationship with Armenia have a hard time justifying a change of policy toward Armenia without Armenia reciprocating in any obvious way.

Arguments that a border opening would be mutually beneficial are not persuasive: Armenia is a small country that can be bypassed at relatively low cost, and the impoverished regions bordering on Armenia carry little weight in Ankara’s decision-making process.

Preconditions have become a dirty term in Armenia’s political lexicon. In fact, they are a common way to outline one’s priorities in any negotiation.

By obfuscating their own priorities, successive Armenian governments have only confused their own public as well as Turkish interlocutors and have not helped advance an already complex diplomatic effort.

Editor’s note: an earlier version of this commentary was published in the April 2009 issue of the Stepanakert-based Analyticon journal. It has been edited and updated to reflect some of the more recent developments.

Armenian FM visits Washington, avoids media

Washington hosts foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Brief visits intended to “prepare ground” for Karabakh talks
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday May 08, 2009

Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian after leaving the State Department on May 5. Mr. Nalbandian declined interview requests during a 2-day trip to Washington. Armenian Reporter photo

Washington, - The U.S. State Department hosted the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan this week on the eve of yet another meeting between the leaders of the two South Caucasus countries.

The visits lasted just two days - May 4-5 - because Foreign Ministers Edward Nalbandian of Armenia and Elmar Mammadyarov of Azerbaijan had to fly to Prague to join their presidents ahead of the European Union summit meeting on its "Eastern Partnership" initiative.

The two invitations were made after the Obama administration assured the government of Azerbaijan that it would step up efforts toward progress in the Karabakh peace process, as the Azerbaijani government grew increasingly anxious about apparent progress in Armenian-Turkish talks.

Karabakh and Turkey on "parallel tracks"

On May 5, Mr. Nalbandian met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as the outgoing assistant secretary for Eurasia Dan Fried and his deputy Matt Bryza.

Mr. Bryza told journalists at the State Department that meeting with the Armenian and Azerbaijani ministers, Mrs. Clinton sought to "prepare the ground for the meetings in Prague."

In brief introductory statements before their meeting on Tuesday morning, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Nalbandian expressed the customary readiness to expand bilateral relations, which Mrs. Clinton called "very lasting and durable."

"It was a very, very good meeting and constructive," said State Department spokesperson David Wood said the same day. "We have a lot of interests with Armenia, and we look forward to improving and strengthening the bilateral relationship as we go forward."

"Secretary Clinton underscored her personal commitment to do everything possible to accelerate our efforts on Nagorno-Karabakh within the OSCE Minsk Group to achieve a breakthrough," Mr. Bryza told the Armenian Reporter later in the day on May 5.

Recent Armenian-Turkish talks were also discussed.

"We view Armenia-Turkey relations as one track and the Nagorno-Karabakh [peace process] as another track," Mr. Bryza said. "They are separate tracks but they are moving forward in parallel, maybe at different speeds, and we hope this process of Armenia-Turkey normalization is going to help us achieve that breakthrough on Nagorno­-Karabakh."

Mr. Bryza declined to comment on a report claiming that he was actively involved in getting Armenia and Turkey to an agreement on the April 22 statement made by the Armenian, Turkish, and Swiss foreign ministries reporting "tangible progress and mutual understanding" in the process of normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey.

Welcoming the April 22 statement, the State Department called for a "reasonable timeframe" for normalization of relations to be achieved.

Asked if, in line with the comments made by President Serge Sargsian, it was reasonable to expect the Armenian-Turkish border to open by October, Mr. Bryza suggested that was "up to the parties themselves, not the calendar."

Other meetings (and non-meetings)

On Capitol Hill, the Armenian minister met with the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), as well as Reps. Anna Eshoo (D.-Calif.), Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.) and Steve Rothman (D.-N.J.).

Members of Congress reportedly raised concerns expressed by Armenian-Americans about the April 22 statement.

The statement was made just before the April 24 commemoration of the Armenian Genocide and was followed by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's departure from the ruling coalition.

Asked to comment, Rep. Pallone called the meeting with Mr. Nalbandian "positive."

The minister "expressed his hope that concrete steps will be taken to open the [Armenia-­Turkey] border by year's end," Rep. Pallone said in an e-mail to the Armenian Reporter. "He reiterated that normalization of relations must continue without preconditions regarding the ongoing peace process over Karabakh."

Informed sources told the Armenian Reporter that Mr. Nalbandian met with representatives of the Armenian Assembly of America, but not with their counterparts from the Armenian National Committee of America who reportedly declined to meet. Unlike the ANCA, the Assembly welcomed the April 22 Armenian-Turkish statement.

Mr. Nalbandian has been unavailable to answer media inquiries since the publication of the April 22 statement, including this newspaper's requests before and during the Washington trip. [Only issued a sort of "frequently asked questions" through the state ArmenPress news agency on April 28. - E.S.]

Also on the trip's agenda were bilateral issues, including the U.S.-Armenia Task Force meeting on economic cooperation due later this month, the Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Armenian FM invited to U.S., Armenia may join NATO's Afghan mission

This was first published in May 2, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Armenian FM to visit U.S. after “historic step” with Turkey

Armenia's FM Nalbandian was last in Washington in July 2008 to meet then Secretary of State Condy Rice. Armenian Reporter photo.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Armenian foreign minister Edward Nalbandian to welcome the April 22 statement by the foreign ministries of Armenia and Turkey as a "historic step," Armenia's Public Radio reported on April 28. The statement committed Armenia and Turkey to an "on-­going process" with a goal of normalizing bilateral relations.

According to informed sources, Mrs. Clinton also extended an invitation for Mr. Nalbandian to visit Washington early next week, which the foreign minister accepted.

Meanwhile, the Armenian Assembly of America reported that on April 27 its leader Hirair Hovnanian was telephoned by Vice President Joe Biden. According to the Assembly, "they exchanged views on the history and status of Armenian-American community efforts to obtain affirmation by the U.S. government of the Armenian Genocide."

[UPDATE: According to an informed source, Mr. Biden also called an Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) leader to argue that Obama administration's avoidance of the genocide term was acquisced to by the Armenian leadership seeking normalization of relations with Turkey. - E.S.]

According to U.S. and Armenian reports, last week Mr. Biden called Armenian President Serge Sargsian twice, both before and after the April 22 statement was made public. During the second call, Mr. Sargsian was praised for his "leadership" on the issue.

For its part, the Assembly welcomed the April 22 statement by Armenia and Turkey, while also expressing disappointment about President Barack Obama's April 24 statement that did not contain the word genocide.

State Dept. report notes Armenia’s “active interest” in aiding the U.S. in Afghanistan

In July 2000, then–Defense Secretary William Cohen (left) signs a nonproliferation deal with Armenia’s Serge Sargsian. Department of Defense

After Armenian peacekeepers completed their mission in Iraq last October, "the Armenian Ministry of Defense has expressed active interest in sending a peacekeeping contingent to Afghanistan in support of the International Security Assistance Force," according to the State Department's annual "Country reports on terrorism 2008," released on April 30.

Discussions of such a deployment were already reported in October 2007, when the then-prime minister Serge Sargsian visited the United States.

Overall, the report registered a considerable decline in terrorism-related fatalities from the high of 22,500 deaths in 2007 to under 16,000 in 2008. While there was a decline in terrorist activity in Iraq, an increase was registered in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan.

The report also noted that "Armenia's counterterrorism partnership with the United States included granting blanket over-flight clearance and ad hoc landing rights to U.S. military aircraft," as well as cooperation on non­proliferation issues.

(Arminfo reported on April 29 that the Armenian Defense Ministry asked the National Assembly to ratify a prolongation of the July 24, 2000, U.S.-Armenia Agreement on Counterproliferation. The agreement, which became the first in a series of U.S.-Armenia security agreements, was signed during an earlier visit to the U.S. by Mr. Sargsian, who was minister of defense at the time.)

While referring to "measured progress in implementing border security and anti-trafficking measures," the U.S. report retained some of the concerns expressed about Armenia last year.

The concerns included reported "widespread corruption" that hampered counterterrorism efforts as well "interest in strengthening its ties with Iran," that was said to lead to Armenia's reluctance "to participate in international efforts that criticized or placed pressure on Iran."

Like last year, the report expressed no such concerns with regard to Azerbaijan or Georgia.

“Rival” gas pipelines discussed in Sofia, Prague

European countries are continuing to discuss ways to safeguard their gas supplies from interruptions, resulting in part from their overdependence on supplies from Russia and the latter's recurring pricing disputes with transit countries like Ukraine.

A meeting in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia on April 24-25 brought together senior officials from 28 countries and, according to local media, focused on the so-called South Stream project that would bring Russian natural gas under the Black Sea to Turkey and then on to Europe, thus avoiding Ukraine.

That summit's main intrigue was Russian premier Vladimir Putin's decision to pull out at the last moment, sending his energy minister instead. According to media speculation, Mr. Putin's decision came after Bulgaria declined to cede its gas distribution network to Russia's Gazprom as part of South Stream.

For their part, Europeans seek to increase the transparency of gas purchase and transit agreements made by Gazprom with Central Asian gas suppliers.

On May 6–7, the European Union will hold its summit in the Czech capital. On the agenda there is EU support for the U.S.-backed Nabucco gas pipeline that aims to bring Central Asian (and potentially Iranian) gas to Europe bypassing Russia via Turkey. (Turkey has conditioned its support for Nabucco on progress of its accession talks with the union, which are hampered by objections from Cyprus.)

The Prague summit will also bring together leaders of four former Soviet republics, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, for the formal launch of the "Eastern partnership" proposed by the EU. Leaders of Belarus and Moldova are expected to stay out over their disputes with EU member-states.

Freedom House catalogues worldwide media struggles

"Journalists faced an increasingly grim working environment in 2008," the Freedom House reported in its annual report released on May 1. The think tank's research registered global decline for the seventh year in a row and, for the first time, a decline in every region of the world.

The biggest decline of any region was again registered in Eastern Europe / Former Soviet Union, but even countries like Israel, Italy, and Hong Kong were relegated from "free" to "partly free" status.

Country reports were not available as of press time, but the think tank was expected to again put Armenia's press environment in the "not free" category, as in several preceding reports.

Obama deals with Armenian genocide issue by sticking close to Clinton-Bush approach; new Caspian envoy appointed

First published in April 25, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Obama, Biden tout genocide prevention

On April 23, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both took part in events to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day.

In a speech at the Capitol Rotunda, Mr. Obama stressed the importance of confronting genocide denial as well as working toward genocide prevention.

“We have the opportunity to commit ourselves to resisting injustice, intolerance, and indifference in whatever forms they may take, whether confronting those who tell
lies about history or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities,” the president said.

[The following day, on April 24, Pres. Obama deferred to Turkey in not using the term Armenian genocide in his first Armenian Remembrance Day statement. The statement, which again referred to Mr. Obama's past affirmation of the genocide, caused a mild irritation of the Turkish government and was harshly criticized by Armenian American organizations. - E.S.]

Genocide prevention should be treated “not just as a moral imperative,” but also as a “national security priority,” Vice President Biden said in remarks at a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum event.

Responding to genocide is “strategically necessary,” he said. “When genocide goes unchecked America’s credibility and leadership is tarnished.”

U.S. avoids Armenian genocide references, promotes Armenia-Turkey talks

Vice President Joe Biden telephoned President Serge Sargsian twice this week to discuss Armenia’s talks with Turkey, and the State Department encouraged the two countries to reach “normalization [of relations] without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe.”

According to the Armenian president’s office, the first conversation took place on April 20. Just two days later the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministries issued a joint statement. That April 22 statement committed Armenia and Turkey to continued talks on normalization of relations in accordance with a “road map” that has not yet been made public. The same day, the State Department welcomed the development in a press release.

In a follow-up call on April 23, Mr. Biden welcomed the “statement regarding [Armenia’s and Turkey’s] commitment to normalize their relations,” the White House press office reported the same day. He also “applauded President Sargsian’s leadership, and underscored the Administration’s firm support for both Armenia and Turkey in this process.”

Also this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed optimism about Armenia- Turkey talks and the Karabakh peace process. Speaking in hearings held by congressional committees two days before Armenian Genocide Commemoration Day and just hours before a joint Armenia-Turkis statement on talks, Mrs. Clinton did not refer to and was not asked about the genocide.

Like her predecessor Condoleezza Rice did in the past, Mrs. Clinton only alluded to the Genocide as “shared tragic history” that needs to be addressed by Armenians and Turks.

At the House Foreign Affairs committee on April 22, the subject of Armenia was brought up by Turkey Caucus co-chair Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.) who asked about “possible extraordinary breakthroughs” between Armenia and Turkey. (As it turned out Mr. Wexler had "heads up" from State Department and/or Ankara about the upcoming joint statement.)

Turkish officials and their Washington lobbyists have been playing up the likelihood of such a “breakthrough” for weeks, while simultaneously warning U.S. leaders not to refer to the Genocide, as that might prevent the would-be “breakthroughs.”

Mrs. Clinton responded that she has “been very encouraged by the bold steps that have recently been taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders to reconcile their countries with each other and with their shared and painful past.” She did not specify the “bold steps,” adding that the United States has been asked to and was supporting Armenia-Turkey “reconciliation” efforts.

Hillary Clinton "reassures" Azerbaijan about Karabakh talks


Mr. Wexler also asked about the Karabakh conflict. In response, Mrs. Clinton said the United States has “assured the government of Azerbaijan that we will intensify our efforts to resolve the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and other outstanding issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia.”

She promised that the United States would continue to be “deeply engaged” through the OSCE Minsk Group, adding that she hoped that “there will be some resolution in the next month.”

Asked about that latter comment, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza declined to comment on the secretary’s stated timeframe, but said that he, along with the French and Russian envoys for Karabakh talks “welcome continuing progress in efforts with Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve the final differences in the Basic Principles for a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.”

In a comment to the Armenian Reporter, Mr. Bryza added, “The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan are demonstrating mutual respect for each other, as they engage in give-and-take discussions that are gaining momentum.” Foreign aid

Also at the hearing, committee member Rep. Brad Sherman (D.- Calif.) suggested that the United States should increase aid to Armenia and either “eliminate or at least maintain parity” in military aid to Azerbaijan; the secretary of state was expected to respond to that issue in writing.

On April 23, Mrs. Clinton spoke to the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, which authorizes foreign affairs funding, to request an additional $7 billion for State Department and foreign operations as part of an $84 billion in supplemental funding request for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The supplemental also included “assistance for Georgia that the prior administration promised that we believe we should fulfill,” Mrs. Clinton said in a prepared statement. Shortly after the war last August, the Bush administration pledged $1 billion in aid to Georgia.

Clinton-era official re-appointed as U.S.’ Caspian envoy

On April 20 Ambassador Richard Morningstar was appointed Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy to “provide the Secretary [of State] with strategic advice on policy issues relating to development, transit, and distribution of energy resources in Eurasia.”

Amb. Morningstar already worked in similar capacity in 1998–99, before being appointed U.S. ambassador to the European Union (1999–2001). In 1995–98, Mr. Morningstar was the official in charge of U.S. aid programs in the former Soviet republics. In recent years he was an adjunct lecturer at Harvard and Stanford universities.

Amb. Morningstar is now likely to focus on what is known as the Nabucco gas pipeline – intended to link non-Russian gas producers such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and possibly Iran to European consumers via pipelines that don’t cross Russia and thus reduce Europe’s dependence on that country.

In recent months, the Nabucco scheme came under greater strain as Azerbaijan hinted it might sell its natural gas to Russia, and Turkey sought to use the project as leverage in its talks with the EU, which has already authorized some initial funding for the gas pipeline.

April 24 commemorations

Armenians around the world commemorate the Genocide
by Maria Titizian and Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday April 24, 2009

Yerevan and Washington - Hundreds of thousands of people, from near and far, today made the solemn journey to Tzitzernaka­berd, the Armenian Genocide memorial here, to lay flowers and pay tribute to the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who were made to waste away in death marches or were killed outright in the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-17.

In Washington, President Barack Obama issued a statement on "the 1.5 million Armenians who were massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire," avoiding the term genocide.

In a reference to his campaign pledges that as president he would recognize the Genocide, Mr. Obama wrote, "I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

But, the president argued, "the best way to advance that goal right now is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward."

Reacting to the statement, Ken Hachikian of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) voiced "sharp disappointment with President Obama's failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide."

Ross Vartian of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC) said in a statement, "President Obama's first April 24 statement became a lost opportunity to affirm the Armenian Genocide."

On April 22 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) along with fellow members of Congress joined hundreds of Armenian Americans and friends for the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

"It is long past the time for the United States to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide," the Speaker said. "How far we can go with the resolution this year depends on the outreach that each and every one of us can do to win on the floor of the House," she argued.

"We can do any amount of inside maneuvering in the Congress and Washington, but what is important is the outside mobilization to bring to bear the voices of people across America."

Meanwhile, the Turkish government briefly recalled "for consultations" its ambassador to Canada after Canadian officials attended an Armenian Genocide commemorative event.

Ambassadors accredited in Armenia were also at the Genocide memorial. U.S. envoy Amb. Marie Yovanovitch said, "The prayers of all Americans are with the Armenian people at this time, so we are pleased to be able to be here and to be able to pay our respects."

Ukraine's envoy, Ambassador Alexander Bozhko told Armenpress that the Ukrainian people share Armenia's anguish. "An entire civilization was exterminated - a notable part of the Armenian people. I've translated Sasuntsi David; I've translated Vardan Vardanian's novel Komitas; Mushegh Galshoian's novels about Western Armenia; I know what took place in reality," said the ambassador.

Members of Congress mark April 24 with calls for U.S. recognition of Armenian Genocide
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Thursday April 30, 2009

Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressing the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 22, 2009. She called for “mass mobilization” to surmount opposition to the Armenian Genocide resolution but did not pledge to act on the measure now backed by more than 100 members of the House of Representatives. Armenian Reporter

Washington, - As in years past, members of the U.S. Congress marked April 24, Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, with speeches, statements, and pledges of support for the congressional resolution on the Genocide.

Among those attending the April 22 congressional commemoration held annually on the Capitol Hill and hosted by co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) and 20 other members of Congress. (See the Armenian Reporter for April 25 for some of the comments and photos from the commemoration.)

Also this week support for H. Res. 252, affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide, increased to 116 House members. Statements by congressional leaders gave no indication of when the resolution might be considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Congressional Record

Additionally, statements for the record were made by Senators Reed and Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), Reps. Pallone, Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), Michael Capuano (D.-Mass.), Jim Costa (D.-Calif.), Jerry Costello (D.-Ill.), Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.), Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D.-Mass.), Gary Peters (R.-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.), Tim Walz (D.-Minn.), Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.) and Frank Wolf (R.-Va.).

Last year, Sen. Boxer was the only member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against the Bush administration's nominee for ambassador to Armenia; she took exception to the administration's policy on the Armenian Genocide issue. In her April 24 statement, the senator expressed support for recent talks between Armenia and Turkey, expressing hope that "this process will lead the Turkish Government to finally acknowledge the irrefutable truth of the Armenian genocide and also to greater peace and prosperity for the people of Armenia."

Referring to President Barack Obama's pre-election statements on the Genocide, Sen. Boxer stressed, "There is no need for further study or debate because we must never legitimize the views of those who deny the very worst of crimes against humanity."

Sen. Reed in his statement underscored the need "for our own country to recognize the Armenian genocide." He concluded the statement in Armenian "Menk panav chenk mornar - We will never forget."

Rep. Pallone expressed hope that "the U.S. Government can stand behind our statements and our promises" on the Armenian Genocide.

"If we are going to live up to the standards we set for ourselves and continue to lead the world in affirming human rights everywhere, we need to stand up and recognize the Armenian Genocide," Rep. Pallone said. "To not do so sends a message that we are complicit in Turkey's denial."

In a statement on April 22, Rep. Costa - who represents Fresno and San Joaquin Valley - recalled, "Year after year, we have seen the same standard letter from the White House which offers sympathy and apology for the ‘mass killings,' yet refused to label these events as genocide."

Rep. Costa added, "I am hopeful Madam Speaker, we finally escape from being under Turkey's thumb on this issue. It is vital our Nation has a foreign policy that accurately reflects history."

An April 28 statement by Rep. Wolf - a veteran Republican from northern Virginia - recalled that Raphael Lemkin's coinage of the word genocide "was driven largely by what happened to the Armenians."

Rep. Wolf said stressed, "there is power in speaking the truth, even about atrocities that occurred nearly a century ago so that other men with evil aims might not be empowered by our silence."

In his turn, Rep. Walz - who represents southern Minnesota - said he remained "committed to the public recognition of the fact of the Armenian genocide," noting that "it is the only way to make sure we are forever vigilant to prevent genocide in the future."

At the April 22 congressional commemoration, Rep. Walz was the only speaker to express his disappointment with President Obama's nonuse of the word genocide during his recent trip to Turkey.

"We hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate as well the memory of genocide's victims," said Rep. Berman in his statement.

Rep. Berman chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to which the House Resolution 252 affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide has been referred since its introduction.

Ed Djerejian: My 1991 posting to Moscow was blocked by Azeris

This was first published in April 25, 2009 Armenian Reporter.

Edward Djerejian: Armenia’s future depends on good relations with neighbors
Retired Ambassador discusses his life, his book, and recent Armenia developments

A leading expert on U.S. policy in the Middle East, Edward Djerejian served in the State Department from 1962 to 1994, receiving numerous awards and distinctions. His postings included ambassador to Syria (1989–91) and Israel (1994), and he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs (1991–93).

After his retirement from the Foreign Service, Amb. Djerejian became the founding director of the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. He has remained active in international affairs. In 1999 he spearheaded a mediating mission to Armenia and Azerbaijan that helped launch talks between the presidents of the two countries.

In 2003, at the request of the secretary of state, he chaired an Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World and in 2006 he was a senior policy advisor to a bipartisan Iraq Study Group. His book Danger and Opportunity: An American Ambassador’s Journey through the Middle East was released last September. He spoke with Washington editor Emil Sanamyan on April 17.

A child of refugees and a U.S. ambassador

Armenian Reporter: Looking back at your career, what would you say has been the recipe for your success as an American diplomat?

Edward Djerejian: A great deal of perseverance and hard work, being motivated by serving our country. I think public service is a very worthy endeavor in life. I always felt it was a privilege to represent the United States of America both abroad and in Washington with various foreign governments.

And I also think it is a tribute to our country that the American dream of accepting immigrants from all over the world and assimilating them to our society and giving them equal opportunities to achieve what they wish to achieve is a rather unique model.

In my book, I recounted [telling] my own family story to then President Hafez al Asad when I just began my posting as ambassador to Syria.

“After a brief exchange of pleasantries over Arabic coffee and sweets, Asad noted my Armenian name and asked me about my family origins. I recounted how, as youngsters, my father and mother had escaped the Turkish massacres during the 1915–18 period, when the Young Turk government was pursuing its genocidal policy against Armenians, and how they fled to Syria, where they were given refuge.

“My mother’s father, a police official in the Armenian town of Kharpout, was executed, and her mother succeeded in bringing her and her sisters to Aleppo, in northern Syria, for a short period, then took them to the coastal town of Jbeil (Byblos) in Lebanon, where there was a Danish orphanage for Armenian young girls.

“In his upper teens, my father escaped the ‘Death March’ that forced Armenians to travel on foot from their homes in eastern Turkey to the Syrian Desert town of Deir az-Zor, an ordeal during which hundreds of thousands died” (Danger and Opportunity, pp. 84–85).

Mr. Djerejian’s parents eventually made their way to the United States where they started a family. Edward Djerejian was born in New York City in 1939. And 70 years after his parents came to Syria as refugees, he was nominated to be U.S. ambassador in the same country.

ED: I think this [family story] is symbolic of much of what America is about.

Denied assignments in Ankara and Moscow

AR: While there are equal opportunities in U.S. public service for individuals of various backgrounds, outside the United States ethnic and other biases are still a norm. Did your background ever deny you an opportunity abroad as an ambassador to a particular country or an envoy on a specific issue?

ED: It is true that as a member of a minority group I had to work a little harder in order to compete and if you will make the grade and come up the career ladder. But that is probably true of all ethnic Americans that have to break new ground – you just have to work harder at the beginning to establish yourself.

When I came into the Service in early 1960s, I don’t think there were any ethnic Armenians in the Foreign Service. But I didn’t feel any discrimination per se.

The only assignment denied to me was being assigned to [the U.S. Embassy in] Turkey, because I was an Armenian and the State Department thought that could cause problems with the Turkish government.

Once, I got a call and was asked if I had any objections to being added to a list of potential nominees for ambassador to Turkey. I said absolutely not, but also that I didn’t think it was going to happen.

Also, I was on the list to be ambassador to Russia. And that became a case study of where my nomination did not go through because I was Armenian.

President George Bush-41 and Secretary of State Jim Baker nominated me to be the ambassador to Soviet Union. It was 1991 and that was the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Word came back from the last foreign minister of the USSR, Aleksandr Bessmertnykh, that although the Soviet government would be very pleased with Djerejian being nominated and that there was no ad hominem objection, there was a problem coming from [then still Soviet] Azerbaijan. The Azeris’ objection was that having an Armenian-American could be prejudicial for their interests and therefore the nomination was not forwarded.

And as a result, I was appointed assistant secretary in charge of Middle East policy, and we ended up going to Washington instead of Moscow.

Karabakh mission

AR: How did the February 1999 mission come about with you and
Ambassador Peter Rosenblatt going to Armenia and Azerbaijan?

ED: That was an initiative that I took as director of the Baker Institute, where we have a conflict resolution forum. And we have done track-II projects, including Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian tracks, which we continue to do.

At that point the Nagorno-Karabakh issue was quite on the agenda. And I thought we could provide a track-II dimension to the official talks that were on and off. I established a small team, and Amb. Rosenblatt was on the team and served very well. I even had my son Gregory Djerejian serve as a rapporteur for our talks and a couple of other people.

We had the assistance of Robert (Vache) Manoukian, a very wellknown businessman in London, and very involved in Armenian issues. He was going to Armenia at the time in any case and very graciously offered his plane for us to do shuttle diplomacy between Baku and Yerevan, which we did. It would have been near impossible to do the same on commercial planes flying between Baku, Moscow, and Yerevan.

In the end, we were able to narrow some of the issues and present them to the two governments as well as the U.S., the Europeans, and the Turks. I don’t want to exaggerate the importance of what we did, but I think it was useful.

We never went back because the OSCE Minsk Group work picked up since then. But I did a lot of work with the State Department advising both Secretary Madeleine Albright and Secretary Colin Powell on the situation in subsequent years.

There was a terrible missed opportunity in 2001. Secretary Powell called me at one point and said that we have a window where President [George W.] Bush and I can get involved to get the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations moving forward.

And that was about the time of the meeting [between Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents] in Key West, Florida.

So I called our contacts to urge them to be as positive as possible. What I stressed to them is that it is not often when an American president is ready to focus on Armenian-Azeri relations and Nagorno-Karabakh.

That it was a priceless opportunity to take advantage of. Unfortunately, that opportunity was squandered.

AR: Did President Heydar Aliyev have an issue with you as an Armenian-American mediating?

ED: I don’t think so. I think they were a bit surprised over the initiative I took. And one of the Azeri officials said in Baku that we are very impressed with the fact that not only that you came to Baku and that you also brought your son. These gestures in diplomacy can sometimes be very important.

Talks with Turkey “really hold promise”

AR: What is your sense of negotiations underway today?

ED: As you know the high-level talks between presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan continue. And there these extremely important talks between the governments of Armenia and Turkey, which really hold promise right now. And it is something that I absolutely encourage.

I have been promoting Armenian- Turkish reconciliation for years and working behind the scenes with both sides to encourage this.

And over the last year I have seen some real progress. I met with [Armenian] Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian in London – that was months ago – and that was the first indication that I got that something serious was afoot.

We had some track-II talks with the Turks and Armenians on reconciliation issues. But now it is really upfront at the highest levels of both governments. And that is really the way to go to deal with the border opening and the genocide issue in a context of enhanced relations between Turkey and Armenia.

AR: How would you assess the skill level of Armenian diplomacy over the past decade and a half? Are there any ups and downs that you could identify?

ED: I have seen the Armenian Foreign Ministry evolve over the years. It needed serious training of its diplomats. It needed serious reorganization and obviously needed to have the full support of whoever was the president of Armenia.

Over the last few years I have seen the improvement in capability of the Armenian Foreign Service. And we had the activism of foreign ministers. We have had two [activist] foreign ministers, Vartan Oskanian and now Nalbandian.

I have to say that there is now professionalism that I had not seen before and the ability to think outside the box and not just play to political constituencies, Armenian or foreign.

Armenia has begun to take a more defining role in foreign policy issues that are really critical to the future of Armenia. Be it with Azerbaijan,Turkey, Russia, the United States, France, or other powers, I think now the Armenians have begun to play their hand much more skillfully and effectively.

I have met both President Serge Sargsian and Minister Nalbandian and I think they understand that Armenia has a lot of assets. Even though it is a small state and relatively weaker in relation to some of its neighbors like Turkey or Russia, Armenia is a state that sits at crossroads.

Armenia is a Christian nation, and should Turkey normalize its relations with Armenia, that would really enhance its chances to enter the European Union.

If peaceful relations are established with Azerbaijan and Turkey, you could see some of the pipelines routed through Armenia as well.

Also, Armenia has a strong relationship with the United States because of the very vibrant and active Armenian-American community. Armenia has been supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations and is deserving of U.S. support.

Armenia does have a lot of problems. It needs to reform internally, build up its economy, get rid of corruption, and make the political experimentation with democracy more real.

But once the strategic alignment around Armenia is improved, particularly vis-à-vis Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia can look forward to a bright future.

AR: Say the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments, for whatever reason, decline to establish relations with Armenia. What is the formula for survival in a state of continuing confrontation?

ED: That would be a very serious setback for Armenia and all countries of the region, including Turkey and Azerbaijan. But that would only be one failed effort. Everyone would have to re-assess the situation and see how they could pick up the pieces again.

I don’t see any way forward other than state to state relations between Armenia and Turkey and Armenia and Azerbaijan. If talks fail, we’ll just be wasting time and the populations we can never rule out prospects of another war with Azerbaijan.

But why waste more time, when parameters of a settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between Armenia and Turkey are pretty well defined.

Genocide affirmation

AR: Over the years, many Armenian-Americans must have asked you about what to do to have our government take a clear stand on the Armenian Genocide and send an unambiguous message to Turkey. Why you think that campaign has been unable to achieve its stated goal over the last 30-plus years?

ED: The reasons are geopolitical in terms of U.S. interests in the broader Middle East region. Turkey is a major NATO ally. It is a secular state with majority Muslim population. There are many geopolitical assets that Turkey offers to the United States and therefore every administration, Democratic or Republican, has been hesitant to alienate the Turkish government on the genocide issue.

That has been a clear factor in the reluctance of American presidents and administrations to come out and call it genocide.

We Armenians can be frustrated over the fact that the word is not used specifically. But for years I have been saying that the only way this issue is going to be resolved is through state-to-state relations between Armenia and Turkey.

The issue is not just about the use of the word but about dealing with the genocide issue in a sustainable manner. That is why I am bolstered by the latest news from Armenia.

[Ed. Note: the conversation took place before the April 22 joint statement by Armenia, Switzerland, and Turkey.]

Pelosi on Gen. res., Hastert hired by Turks, ICG report, Georgian FM in DC

This was first published in April 18, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Speaker Pelosi says she’s committed to Armenian Genocide affirmation

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) reiterated her support for affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported.

In an April 14 letter to her constituents in California's 8th district, Speaker Pelosi noted that she "will continue to support official recognition of the Armenian genocide."

"A grave injustice was committed and the fact that our nation is not officially recognizing these crimes as genocide is a disappointment," Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying.

The nonbinding House Resolution 252 (H. Res. 252), introduced last month, as of this week had the support of 94 members, somewhat less support than its predecessor resolution - H. Res. 106 - had two years ago in the previous Congress.

H. Res. 252 has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by another supporter of Armenian Genocide affirmation, Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.). But it remains unclear when it might be considered by the Committee.

The Obama Administration has not yet taken a public position on H. Res. 252.

Ex-Speaker Hastert hired by Turkish lobby

The firm of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) will receive $35,000 a month to lobby for the Turkish government, the Hill newspaper reported on April 10 citing public filings made to the Department of Justice as part of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

Mr. Hastert was the Speaker of the House of Representatives between 1998 and 2006. In 2000, Mr. Hastert initially pledged to bring an Armenian Genocide resolution to a House vote after it passed in committee. Just as the resolution was to come to a vote - and pass - he deferred to the Clinton administration, and pulled the resolution off the agenda.

In August 2005, Vanity Fair magazine published a story referring to a federal investigation that looked into payments that Turkish diplomats allegedly discussed making to then-Speaker Hastert and others in U.S. government in an effort to prevent the Genocide resolution from passing in 2000.

While the speaker's staff denied any knowledge of the matter, in December 2005 Mr. Hastert shed himself of $70,000 in "tainted" campaign contributions, directing them to an unspecified charity, the Village Voice reported at the time.

Last February, Mr. Hastert's firm Dickstein Shapiro agreed to take on a sub-contract of Turkey's main government lobby DLA Piper, which is in turn led by former Democratic and Republican House leaders, Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.) and Dick Armey (R.-Tex.)

DLA-Piper took up the main Turkey contract in May 2007, replacing the lobby of another former senior member of Congress, Bob Livingston, a Republican from Louisiana, who led the Turkish lobbying effort for nearly a decade before that, before Democrats swept the congressional election.

Crisis Group issues report on Armenia-Turkey issues

Armenia, the United States, and European and other countries should avoid "statements or international actions relating to [Armenian] genocide recognition that could inflame Turkish public opinion," the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) recommended this week.

The 44-page report, "Armenia and Turkey: Opening Minds, Opening Borders," released on April 14, also recommended that Turkey de-link normalization of relations with Armenia from its preconditions related to the Karabakh conflict.

Last week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan indicated that Turkey still insists on such preconditions, Agence France Presse reported, referring to the Anatolia news agency.

For weeks before President Barack Obama's trip to Turkey on April 5-7, Turkish officials have sought to portray Armenia-Turkey talks as nearing a breakthrough that could be upset should Mr. Obama deliver on his pre-election pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

After Mr. Obama avoided the use of the genocide term while discussing Armenian issues in Turkey, Turkish leaders began to suggest that a breakthrough with Armenia was not that close after all.

A source familiar with the ICG report's preparation told the Armenian Reporter that ICG also waited to hear the words used by Mr. Obama on the subject of the Armenian Genocide. According to the source, the group delayed the release of the report to make sure it was aligned to the wording used by Mr. Obama.

ICG's proposals tend to be in line with policies of the United States and European Union.

Coming up: Armenian Genocide commemorative events in Washington

The co-chairs of the House Armenian Issues Caucus, Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), on April 22 will host the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. The event traditionally brings together hundreds of Armenian-Americans and friends, who have an opportunity to meet and hear from members of Congress on Armenian issues.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) will host its third annual "End the Cycle of Genocide: Grassroots Capitol Campaign," between April 22 and 24. The campaign includes visits to offices of the members of Congress to discuss the importance of genocide affirmation.

The Armenian Youth Federation (AYF) will hold its annual protest outside the Turkish Embassy in the afternoon of April 24. Later the same afternoon the Armenian Embassy will host its annual wreath-laying and commemorative event.

Additionally, on April 23, the Armenian Students' Network will host a cultural event at George Washington University. On April 25, The Georgetown Boys: A Musical Tribute to Genocide Survival, performed by Hamazkayin, will be featured at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington.

U.S. indicates neutrality on Georgia standoff

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met visiting Georgian foreign minister Grigol Vashadze on April 14 to reiterate "U.S. support for Georgian independence and democracy," but she did not openly support President Mikheil Saakashvili, currently under siege by his domestic opposition.

Mr. Vashadze reportedly sought assurances that the Obama administration would continue to consider Georgian concerns as it sought to expand relations with Russia, The AP reported the same day.

Mrs. Clinton called the Georgian domestic confrontation "a very challenging time in the country's young democratic history." Protests in Tbilisi entered their second week, but appeared to be running out of steam, and the opposition showed signs of fracturing.

Opposition leaders, including several political figures previously aligned with Mr. Saakashvili, have charged the incumbent with authoritarianism and incompetence. Mr. Saakashvili offered to share power with the opposition, but his offer has been rejected.

Like Mr. Saakashvili, his political opponents support Georgia's accession to the U.S.-led NATO alliance. NATO announced on April 15 plans to hold a military exercise in Georgia this May, a move that Russia's envoy to NATO protested, requesting it be postponed.

de Waal: “Armenians should focus on improving Karabakh de-facto”

Expert argues conflict status quo is fragile and threatened
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday April 17, 2009

Tom de Waal at CSIS in Washington in May 2007. Armenian Reporter

Washington, - A program associate for UK-based Conciliation Resources (CR), Tom de Waal is the author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, the only comprehensive study of the Karabakh conflict available in English. For several years CR has been implementing Track 2 initiatives seeking to establish mutual confidence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.

On March 10 de Waal gave a phone interview to Armenian Reporter Washington editor Emil Sanamyan about his recently released paper, "The Karabakh Trap: Dangers and dilemmas of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict," a draft of which he presented in Baku, Stepanakert, and Yerevan prior to the paper's release in early 2009. De Waal last spoke with the Armenian Reporter in May 2007.

Why challenge the status quo?

Armenian Reporter: Your long-held view has been that the current status quo in Karabakh is bad. It also seems to be the central bias of the "Karabakh Trap" paper. Fundamentally, why shouldn't this status quo - with its very limited level of violence for almost 15 years - be cemented and made to last?

Tom de Waal: This is the main line of criticism you hear on the Armenian side: that Karabakh is building up its statehood and no one really wants a war.

I think it is possible that you will see this status quo continue. But a number of reasons make this a dangerous assumption.

First, the cease-fire is based on the good will of the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. And if one side - and we are basically talking about the Azerbaijani side - wants to make things worse, to escalate the level of firepower used across the cease-fire line to increase the number of casualties, they can. And there is nothing that could stop it.

The second point that is not properly appreciated by the Armenian side is that while Karabakh may be de-facto lost to Azerbaijan, and I think some people in Azerbaijan may accept that, it is absolutely unacceptable that the [districts] occupied by Armenian forces outside Karabakh could remain under Armenian control. With the exception of Lachin, [these districts] are totally destroyed and empty, and that is a daily insult to Azerbaijan that these territories are lying empty and in ruins.

If in a place like Cyprus, the matter may be just normalizing the status quo [between Cyprus proper and Turkish-occupied northern third] and building bridges across it, in Karabakh, the factor of the occupied territories and the cease-fire line make things much more unstable.

Additionally, there is the international cost for Armenia diplomatically. It is hard to justify maintaining the occupied territories and this gets condemned in international forums, in resolutions. And obviously there are economic costs for Armenia as well, although those have been mitigated in recent years.

But I believe these are enough reasons and that the status quo needs to change.

Economic trends

Reporter: Overall, you seem to be optimistic as to where Azerbaijan is headed economically and politically and pessimistic vis-à-vis Armenia. There is no mention of the impact of falling oil prices, for example.

de Waal: One might indeed get that sense [from the "Karabakh Trap" paper] - that Azerbaijan is booming and that Armenia is in crisis. But if readers take a closer look, I do note that Azerbaijan's boom will be relatively short-lived, that there is no evidence that they will be using the money wisely, and generally I am skeptical that this boom will be of long-term benefit to Azerbaijan.

And yes, falling oil prices do impact Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan being a small country, the billions [of dollars] that it will get [from energy sales regardless of price] will still be significant.

And Armenia has had very impressive growth in last 10 years, but everyone accepts that that now is coming to an end [with the effects of the global economic crisis].

Reporter: You do not mention the difference in political systems in Armenia and Azerbaijan. If Armenia has a problematic system, it is at least competitive politically. No political competition is apparent in Azerbaijan. Do you see that as an asset or a risk for Azerbaijan?

de Waal: Azerbaijan is indeed a rigid political system. There is lot more debate in Armenia, in Yerevan. And much less debate in Baku - or Stepanakert for that matter. But at the same time, there is broad consensus in Azerbaijan on the Karabakh issue and it is difficult to break that consensus.

Reporter: You were criticized rather harshly by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's Foreign Ministry that your paper had a pro-Azerbaijan bias and even amounted to "war-mongering."

de Waal: This was very unfortunate and I think an irrational reaction. This may be a symptom of a bunker mentality when everything is viewed through a very narrow perspective and this is exacerbated by Karabakh being sidelined from the peace process. I have to note that I have always been a proponent of Karabakh's participation in talks and in decisions that are being made about Karabakh.

Who wants war?

Reporter: You make the argument that the Azerbaijani public is supportive of or even impatient for a war in Karabakh. It seems the events in Georgia last year showed that the vast majority of the public, while rhetorically supportive, when it came to the actual fighting remained on the sidelines. Even though the war in South Ossetia was taking place just a two-hour drive from Tbilisi, there were very few volunteers.

de Waal: I would say that the temperature is higher on the Karabakh issue because there is this feeling in Azerbaijan that they are now a force to be reckoned with in the world and that "we should not bear this humiliation much longer."

What they will do about that is a different issue. It may be limited to things like United Nations resolutions and international courts, trying to drag Armenia through them whether they have any success or not.

But like in Georgia, having spent all this money on weapons, in Azerbaijan there is a risk of the government talking themselves into a war, even if they do not consider it a good idea strategically.

This is what I am trying to highlight in the paper. That there is this rising expectation in Azerbaijan, not very well articulated, not necessarily very rational, but one that may have its own logic.

Reporter: What about the role that Russia could potentially play in any new military confrontation. After Georgia, it seems that, should there be a new conflagration over Karabakh, the threat of Russia coming in to secure the Azerbaijani oil fields, for example, cannot be discounted.

de Waal: I did begin the paper before the August war, so perhaps that was the reason [that experience was not reflected in the paper sufficiently]. But my sense is that Russia has a weaker hand in the Caucasus than most people think. And the Americans do as well for that matter.

I do believe that Russians would try to do everything in their power to prevent the war from getting started and not to be dragged into it, considering that Russia and Armenia have allied relations.

Looking for a way forward

Reporter: Has there been much feedback on the paper's main recommendation - about changing the hostile official rhetoric on both sides?

de Waal: There has not been much feedback. Perhaps what I am suggesting is not doing something bigger or grander, but rather a slow recovery. And that [lack of interest] perhaps does reinforce the impression that everyone is more or less happy with the status quo. If great powers wanted to solve this conflict, they could solve it [and they have not].

Reporter: Do you see a scenario where there is one regional hegemon in the Caucasus that clamps down and resolves conflict, as happened in the past?

de Waal: I don't see one hegemon emerging in the Caucasus, no. The scenario that I could see is that if the U.S. and Russia both make [a Karabakh settlement] a strategic priority, then it could get solved.

And even then, it would be hard. I hear from [Western diplomats] in the region that it is an unpleasant thing to push [Armenians and Azerbaijanis] to compromise. They don't like it because this is an issue of national identity for them. And they have many other agendas with them, and these agendas - energy, security, etc. - could be undermined [if the countries are pushed too hard].

Reporter: Last year, there were a couple of initiatives by OSCE mediators regarding cease-fire strengthening: earlier in the year, reaffirmation of the 1995 agreement on cease-fire violations; and late in the year, the call for the sides to pull back snipers. Do you know if that progressed to implementation at all?

de Waal: They made a big push on the issue of snipers on the cease-fire line at the Helsinki ministerial, but I don't think they got much of a positive response. And that is on a seemingly non-controversial issue such as snipers. It is hard to justify the need for snipers on cease-fire line.

I do think this shows the weakness of the [mediators'] mandate and that generally the situation in terms of casualties could deteriorate relatively easily with sides, say, beginning to use mortars regularly without even any big offensive across the cease-fire line.

The order of settlement

Reporter: Certainly the situation could deteriorate at any time, but there are also certain things holding Azerbaijan back from an escalation. One of these factors seems to be the current geography of the conflict that helps keep the relative balance of forces in place.

Should this geography be altered via Armenian pull-outs in exchange for some kind of temporary arrangements for Karabakh, without a final settlement - as is being suggested in the so-called Madrid Principles - wouldn't that make the risk of escalation more pronounced?

de Waal: Well, in the Arab-Israeli conflict too you had the Oslo process with its temporary status and withdrawals that eventually broke down. So that argument does make sense. But that also reinforces the need for peacekeeping forces and demilitarization of occupied territories.

Reporter: And what if the order of settlement is put in reverse: there is recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh but conditional on withdrawal of its forces from all or most of adjacent territories. Could that make the process less risky and more predictable for everyone?

de Waal: If that were accepted on the Azerbaijani side - to give up on Nagorno-Karabakh - this conflict could have been solved in 1988. But Karabakh still has meaning in Azerbaijan that makes it impossible for Azerbaijan to give up [its claim] de jure.

So, I think for the Armenian side rather than seeking a de jure status, the priority should be improving the de-facto status of Karabakh.

Obama in Turkey, Gordon held-up, U.S. to talk to Iran

This was first published in April 11, 2009 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Obama visits Turkey, calls Azerbaijan

Pres. Obama enters a Mosque in Istanbul. White House photo.

President Barack Obama visited Turkey on April 6-7 in an effort to rebuild a troubled alliance and reach out to the Muslim world. The White House reported that on April 7, Mr. Obama also placed a call to the president of Azerbaijan.

Addressing the Turkish parliament, the U.S. president said he was "committed to renewing the alliance" that has come under strain as U.S. and Turkish policies on Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East conflict drifted further apart in recent years.

Mr. Obama said his visit was evidence of the importance he placed on U.S.-Turkish relations, although no formal agreements were announced during the trip. From the first days of his administration, Mr. Obama said he wanted to reach out to the Islamic world and was expected to visit a majority-Muslim country in the first months of his presidency.

In January, Turkey invited Mr. Obama to attend a United Nations conference dubbed the Alliance of Civilizations, held in Istanbul. The invitation led to an official visit to Turkey at the end of Mr. Obama's tour of Europe.

Speaking in parliament, Mr. Obama praised Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish political system, while also noting that there are disagreements and outstanding issues such as the history of Armenian-Turkish relations.

The latter subject also featured in a "good conversation" Mr. Obama had with Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, in which the "U.S commitment to a strong relationship with Azerbaijan and to supporting progress toward a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" were reiterated.

According to Hurriyet newspaper, upset with reports of progress in Armenia­-­Turkey talks, Mr. Aliyev refused to attend the Alliance of Civilizations meeting even after being telephoned by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who reportedly promised a meeting with Mr. Obama.

Instead, Mr. Aliyev dispatched his daughter Leyla Aliyeva. Ms. Aliyeva serves as the Moscow representative for the Heydar Aliyev Foundation headed by her mother Mehriban Aliyeva.

State Department nominee held up over Armenian Genocide comments

Left out of President Obama's trip to Turkey was his pick for assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, Philip Gordon. According to Foreign Policy magazine, Mr. Gordon planned to depart after confirmation by the Senate on April 3, but his nomination was held up at the last moment.

In a statement issued on the same day, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomed the "delay as a meaningful opportunity for senators to weigh the merits of approving a nominee with a record of arguing against [U.S.] recognition of the Armenian genocide." (See this page in the March 14 Armenian Reporter for some of Mr. Gordon's past comments on the subject.)

During a March 27 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Mr. Gordon's nomination, his views were scrutinized by Sen. Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.), who had previously blocked a Bush administration nominee for ambassador to Armenia over his comments on the Genocide.

But according to Foreign Policy, Mr. Menendez eventually decided not to block Mr. Gordon‘s candidacy and abstained in the committee vote.

On April 8, the Armenian Assembly of America reported that it was Sen. John Ensign (R.-Nev.) who requested the postponement of Mr. Gordon's confirmation. In 2007 Mr. Ensign was the main Republican co-sponsor of a Senate resolution on Armenian Genocide.

The Senate is expected to return to consideration of the nominee after its Easter recess.

U.S. joins talks with Iran, requests release of detainees

In a departure from Bush administration policy, the State Department said on April 8 that the United States will formally join other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany in their ongoing talks with Iran regarding its nuclear program.

Barack Obama advocated direct talks with Iran during his presidential campaign. Under George W. Bush, the United States insisted that Iran first halt nuclear fuel enrichment as a condition for U.S. participation in the talks.

Incidentally, on April 9 the New York Times reported that Iran had announced just days earlier making advances in its ability to enrich uranium.

On April 6, the State Department additionally urged Iran to release 34-year-old Silva Harotonian, an Iranian-Armenian employee of the U.S.-funded International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) imprisoned in Iran since last June.

The State Department's acting spokesperson Robert Wood said that charges against Ms. Harotonian - of plotting against the Iranian government on behalf of the United States - were "baseless" and that "she is reportedly in poor and deteriorating health as a direct consequence of her confinement."

Ms. Harotonian's case, first made public last January, was covered by the Los Angeles Times on April 2 and ABC News on April 7. (See also a story in the Reporter's Feb. 28 edition.)

Georgian opposition launches campaign for president’s ouster

Georgian opposition posters. Photo: Civil.ge

Political opponents of Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili began on April 9 what they promise will be continuing protests aimed at toppling the president, whom they blame for authoritarianism and last year's defeat in the war with Russia.

The opposition includes a number of past allies of Mr. Saakashvili's, including former parliament Speaker Nino Bourjanadze and former Ambassador to the United Nations Irakli Alasania, the two figures seen as frontrunners in a potential early election.

In a manifesto released before the campaign's launch, the opposition pledged to guarantee Mr. Saakashvili's personal security should he resign voluntarily. Mr. Saakashvili in turn offered dialogue to the opposition, but insists he will stay in office until his second term of office expires in 2013.

President Obama, in Turkey, raises Armenian issues

Avoids the word genocide
Asks Turkey to open Armenia border
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday April 10, 2009

President Obama meets with, from left, Armenian foreign minister Edward Nalbandian, Swiss foreign minister (and mediator) Micheline Calmy-Rey, Turkish undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry Ertugul Apakan and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan at a reception in Istanbul on April 6. The president met with the foreign ministers to commend them on “recent progress” toward the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations and urged them to complete a bilateral agreement. Pete Souza / White House

Washington, - In a first for a U.S. president, Barack Obama used his visit to Ankara to publicly speak of the need for Turkey to address its past and improve its present relations with Armenia.

But citing reports of an impending breakthrough in talks between Armenia and Turkey, Mr. Obama effectively sidestepped his pre-election promise to clearly recognize the destruction of Ottoman Armenians as genocide. Mr. Obama also encouraged Turkish and Armenian officials "to complete an agreement" in an expeditious manner.

Armenian agenda without the G word

In his April 6 speech at Turkey's Grand National Assembly and in a joint press conference with Turkish president Abdullah Gül earlier the same day, Mr. Obama became the first U.S. president to publicly air some Armenian-American concerns on a visit to Turkey. (See transcripts.)

Addressing the parliament, Mr. Obama recalled America's own treatment of Native Americans and Blacks, and urged Turks to address the "terrible events of 1915" in a way that is "honest, open, and constructive." Extolling the benefits of opening the border with Armenia - which was closed and is kept closed by Turkey - he said the United States "strongly supports normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia." He also invited Turkey to play a "constructive role" in the Karabakh peace process.

At the press conference, the subject was formally prompted by Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times correspondent Christi Parsons, who referred to Mr. Obama's comments on the Armenian Genocide as a senator and his pre-election pledges to recognize the Genocide as president. Ms. Parsons asked whether the president still held the same views and whether he asked Mr. Gül to recognize the Genocide.

Mr. Obama responded that he had not changed his views, which are "on the record." But he then turned to the subject of talks between Armenia and Turkey that could "bear fruit very quickly very soon" and which, he said, he did not want to "tilt" in favor of either side, presumably by speaking more candidly.

In his follow-up, Mr. Gül outlined some of the points of the official Turkish position, denying the Armenian Genocide, and seeking to shift it from the realm of law and politics to the realm of academic history.

The Turkish president did not sound as upbeat as Mr. Obama about the prospect of a breakthrough in talks with Armenia, noting only that he "would like to see a good resolution of these discussions," and adding, "we have a lot of work" to do, including resolving "issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan."

Talks with Armenia: PR campaign or real progress?

Turkish officials and their supporters have offered contradictory opinions on the status of talks with Armenia and whether they might be nearing some kind of a turning point.

On the eve of Mr. Obama's visit, a media blitz sought to play up progress in talks. Leaks by anonymous, but presumably Turkish and some U.S. officials to the Wall Street Journal even suggested April 16 as a day when an Armenian-Turkish agreement could be signed. The story was picked up by the Washington Times, Financial Times, and others.

Members of the congressional Turkey caucus spun the same story line, urging Mr. Obama to encourage Armenian and Turkish leaders to reach an agreement.

But speaking in London on April 3, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey would not concede that the Ottoman treatment of Armenians was genocide and again linked the establishment of relations with Armenia to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The next day Mr. Gül dismissed the Wall Street Journal report of the April 16 date as "false."

In a comment for the media late Sunday night, Armenia's Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stressed that there is a "mutual understanding" between Armenia and Turkey that normalization can have no preconditions, that there would be no linkages to the Genocide or Karabakh, and that statements to the contrary "may be regarded as an attempt to impede the progress reached in the negotiations."

Mr. Nalbandian then postponed by 24 hours his departure for Istanbul, where he was to attend the Alliance of Civilizations meeting. Upon arrival in the evening of April 6, he had a brief conversation with Mr. Obama and then a four-way meeting that included the foreign ministers of Turkey and Switzerland, which has recently hosted talks between Armenian and Turkish officials.

An unnamed but senior U.S. official told Reuters that Mr. Obama "urged [Armenian and Turkish ministers] to complete an agreement with dispatch."

In the meantime, the Azerbaijani leadership expressed public distress over Armenian-Turkish talks and President Ilham Aliyev refused to attend the Istanbul conference - even after being promised a meeting with Mr. Obama, Turkish media reported.

On April 7, Turkish foreign minister Ali Babacan again spoke of progress made in talks, but a report carried by the Anatolia news agency referred to no timeline. In a comment that could be seen as directed to the United States, Mr. Babacan suggested that "third countries should act sensitively during this ongoing process."

Mixed community reaction

Adding to the week's confusion were the substantially different interpretations of Mr. Obama's remarks offered by Armenian-American advocacy groups.

Aram Hamparian of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) said in a statement, "President Obama missed a valuable opportunity to honor his public pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide." At the same time, he welcomed as "a step in the right direction" Mr. Obama's "willingness to raise his commitment to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, even indirectly."

In a comment for the Armenian Reporter, Ross Vartian of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC) said, "President Obama made it clear that his well-known views on the Armenian Genocide have not changed and that Turkey needed to face its history. Yet he could have and should have said the words ‘Armenian Genocide' at a time and place perfect for doing so."

"President Obama stands by his pledge regarding affirmation of the Armenian genocide," ran the headline of the Armenian Assembly of America statement released to the media. Unlike the ANCA, the Assembly offered no criticism, pointing instead to Mr. Obama's comment that he hasn't changed his view.

The Assembly's Bryan Ardouny noted, "For the first time, a U.S. President has delivered a direct message to Turkish officials in their own country that he stands behind his steadfast support and strong record of affirmation of the Armenian Genocide."

The Assembly statement sidestepped the fact that Mr. Obama chose to sidestep the word genocide.

Incidentally, on April 6 the Hawaii State House of Representatives passed a measure condemning the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Obama's home state became the 42nd U.S. state to recognize the Genocide.

Gordon nominated, Turkish caucus readies ground for Obama in Turkey, House Intel hearing on Armenia

This was first published in April 4, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Obama begins tour of Europe and Turkey

President Barack Obama began a weeklong five-city tour that focuses on the European allies of the United States, relations with Russia and Turkey, and the economic crisis. The trip is the president’s first major foray abroad since taking office.

In London on April 1–2, Mr. Obama was joined by leaders of world’s largest economies, including those of Russia and Turkey, for the G20 economic summit. Talks with the Russian president were followed by a joint statement pledging a fresh nuclear disarmament initiative, and cooperation on missile defense, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and talks with Iran.

The president’s next stop, Strasbourg (April 3–4), is hosting the 60th anniversary summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which just expanded to 28 members after formally adopting Albania and Croatia. Another former Yugoslav republic, Macedonia, has been blocked from joining due to Greece’s longstanding objections to that country’s name.

A spokesperson for the State Department said on April 1 that NATO is open to additional members and “that both Georgia and Ukraine, should they choose to become NATO members and meet NATO’s membership criteria, will someday become members of the alliance.”

While U.S. officials refuse to admit it, rhetorically there has been markedly less enthusiasm for the two countries’ membership since the brief war between Russia and Georgia last August.

After a stop in Prague for a summit between the United States and the European Union on April 5, Mr. Obama will continue to Ankara (April 5–6) and Istanbul (April 6–7).

According to a White House national security affairs spokesperson, Denis McDonough, who spoke with Turkish media on March 28, the Ankara itinerary includes a visit to the Ataturk Mausoleum; a meeting with the Turkish president, followed by lunch and a joint press conference; an address to the Turkish parliament; and a meeting with the prime minister.

In Istanbul later on April 6, Mr. Obama will participate in the meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations – a United Nations program co-initiated by Turkey and Spain. The alliance brings together 78 countries worldwide, including Azerbaijan, Iran, and Russia, but not Armenia, Georgia, or Israel.

And on the final day of the trip, Mr. Obama will meet with Turkey’s religious leaders, visit Sultanahmet Mosque and Hagia Sophia, and participate in a roundtable with a group of Turkish students joined by others in Europe and Middle East via video conference.

Administration nominee promises “energetic engagement” on Karabakh

“We must engage energetically on enduring conflicts in Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh,” newly appointed Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon told members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee during his March 27 confirmation hearings.

In his prepared testimony, Mr. Gordon also promised to “support the negotiations on a settlement in Cyprus; promote Turkey’s EU aspirations while encouraging it to improve relations with Armenia, Cyprus and Greece; and vigorously promote the diversification of European energy supplies.”

Mr. Gordon, the State Department’s new manager for Europe and Eurasia, also noted the need to “promote democracy, encourage economic reform, protect national
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and resolve the enduring conflicts that cause needless suffering on a daily basis and – as we saw last summer in Georgia – risk erupting violently at any time.”

Possibly reflecting the Obama administration’s interest in engaging Russia, and while referring to “the Russian invasion of Georgia and unjustifiable recognition of two breakaway regions,” the testimony did not as in the past offer outright support for Georgia’s position on those regions.

Committee member Sen. Bob Menendez (D.-N.J.) raised concerns with Mr. Gordon’s past opposition Armenian Genocide affirmation and tilt in favor of Turkey on the Cyprus conflict.

In his response, Mr. Gordon referred to the Genocide as “a terrible tragedy” and used other language that was also employed by former President George W. Bush and his officials when discussing the issue.

He also declined to term Turkish military presence in Cyprus an occupation.

Turkey’s friends in Congress write to Obama, Gül, and Sargsian

Rep. Wexler during Obama's campaign in Florida.

Congressional supporters of U.S.-Turkey ties who have also opposed past resolutions affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide have written to Presidents Barack Obama, Abdullah Gül, and Serge Sargsian to “support Armenian-Turkish rapprochement.”

Reps. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.), Ike Skelton (D.-Mo.), Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) and John Murtha (D.-Penn.) were the main signatories to the Gül-Sargsian letter. Mr. Wexler co-chairs the congressional Turkey caucus.

In 2007 he was joined by Reps. Skelton, Hastings, Murtha, and other senior democratic members in opposing passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution, which was
supported by the House Democratic leadership.

The March 30 letter addressed to Presidents Gül and Sargsian said its authors “care deeply about Armenia and Turkey” and supported “ongoing efforts . . . to heal open wounds, mend broken hearts and create a better future for both nations and peoples.”

In an April 1 letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Wexler was joined by other Turkey caucus co-chairs and 27 other members to tout Turkey’s importance and call on the president to step up U.S.-Turkey cooperation.

Among other issues in the long agenda, they called on the Obama “Administration [to] lend its unequivocal support to Turkey and its rapprochement efforts with its neighbor Armenia.”

The letter makes no mention of Mr. Obama’s pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide or the congressional resolution on the issue introduced last month.

House Intelligence Committee holds Armenia briefing

A key congressional panel that oversees the U.S. intelligence community this week held a rare briefing dedicated to Armenia. According to a public notice on its website, the House Select Intelligence Committee met on March 31 to receive a closed “Briefing on Armenia,” presumably given by administration officials.

Congressional aides declined to discuss the briefing, citing government secrecy, but a source familiar with the issue told the Armenian Reporter that the U.S. and Armenian governments were working cooperatively on the issue that was the briefing’s focus.

The committee is chaired by Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D.-Tex.) and includes as a member Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.). Rep. Schiff and two other committee members visited Armenia during a May 2008 trip that included stops in Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.