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Department - only codifies this status quo: the parties agreed to continue discussions along several issues in a so far unpublished "road map," but without a clear timeframe and without Turkey dropping its preconditions.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 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.

Discussion of Karabakh talks on Iran's Press TV

Featuring Vafa Gulizade, Karen Nazarian, Atilla Yesilada and your own Emil Sanamyan.

Community activism and its global effect

The Armenian Genocide Resolution's Real-World Impact
Emil Sanamyan | 08 Apr 2009
World Politics Review

Pres. Obama raises Armenian issues in a speech to Turkish parliament

Recurring efforts by Armenian-Americans to secure official U.S. condemnation of the Armenian genocide have often been portrayed by opponents as "counterproductive" to U.S.-Turkey, as well as Turkey-Armenia, relations. But the campaign to pass a non-binding congressional resolution has actually helped focus these relations by catalyzing Armenian-Turkish dialogue, advancing democratic debate inside Turkey and, perhaps most counterintuitively, helping navigate the U.S.-Turkish partnership through a troubled stretch.

An Ancient Relationship

Separated by religion and language, for almost a thousand years Armenians and Turks shared one homeland -- a large area known alternately as Eastern Turkey and Western Armenia. It was never a harmonious arrangement. Rather, Ottoman Turks, as overlords, merely tolerated Armenians as a lower caste, so long as they did not threaten the prevailing order.

When Armenians began to demand more equal rights, Ottomans responded with increasingly bloody crackdowns. In 1915, that process culminated in a complete removal of Armenians from their homeland and more than a million deaths.

It is that legacy that lies at the core of today's acrimony.

Armenians seek condemnation of how their ancestors were treated. Many Turks view any such remorse as a concession that could lead to demands of financial and even territorial restitution.

But lobbying campaigns in the U.S. and elsewhere are merely one aspect of this tug-of-war. The other is Turkey's policy towards present-day Armenia: For the past two decades, Turkey has refused to establish diplomatic ties or to open the land border with Armenia.

That policy, born out of efforts to support Azerbaijan in its territorial dispute with Armenia over the breakaway province of Karabakh, has long become a liability for Ankara. Not only has the embargo failed to achieve Armenian compromises, it has emerged as an irritant in relations with the European Union and U.S. Still, owing more to policy inertia more than anything else, it remains in place.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

Every time that recognition efforts in U.S. have intensified, Turkey has launched a fresh round of diplomacy with Armenia. This was the case in 2000 and again in 2004. Most strikingly, it has been the case since the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, who has been more vocal on the Armenian genocide than any of his predecessors.

While Turkey's diplomatic initiatives are intended primarily to stall the embarrassing resolution by painting it as "counterproductive to fruitful negotiations," they also have a secondary effect of rekindling Armenian-Turkish dialogue. That helps smooth tensions and should help to eventually normalize relations.

A Rekindled Debate

The proposed resolutions have had an even more striking impact inside Turkey itself.

A Turkish parliamentarian told a Washington audience in 2007 that, if adopted, a genocide resolution would be headline news for every Turk throughout the country, including shepherds in the remotest mountain pastures.

To understand how a non-binding congressional resolution might have such an exaggerated importance, look no further than the Turkish government. For decades, Ankara has made the issue a foreign policy fetish. The determination to oppose the resolution at any cost has helped publicize what otherwise might have remained an obscure chapter of history, both abroad and in Turkey.

Until relatively recently, many Turks were simply unaware of the Armenian massacres. The issue was left out of school books and largely forgotten.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

The battle over the non-binding resolution brought history back to life in a contemporary Turkey torn between its nationalist, fundamentalist and progressive urges.

Over the last decade, the issue of the Armenian genocide has become a focal point of public debate. Clumsy attempts by the nationalist establishment to ban public discussion of the Armenian genocide have led to a series of lawsuits against journalists and writers, leading to even more publicity.

When a Turkish-Armenian editor who spoke openly about the genocide was killed by nationalists, the outpouring of outrage -- tens of thousands of Turks chanting in the funeral procession, "We are all Armenians" -- was unprecedented and revealed a strong, if often invisible, desire for change.

These days, Turkish television programs regularly host intellectuals arguing about details of 90-year-old history: how many Armenians died, and why, and what should be done about it today.

The genocide resolutions and Turkish government's determination to fight them has rescued this history from obscurity.

A Flailing Alliance

Following Turkey's opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S.-Turkish alliance had become dysfunctional, with the two NATO allies' forces coming close to a direct confrontation in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Among the issues exacerbating relations was Turkey's ongoing battle against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) based in Northern Iraq. While the U.S. had designated the PKK a terrorist group, it had done little to support Turkey in its campaign against the guerilla movement.

Enter the Armenian genocide resolution.

In 2007, the Bush administration worked closely with Turkey and associated interest groups to prevent the genocide resolution from being voted on in the House of Representatives, with President George W. Bush going so far as to personally lobby members of Congress.

The "war on the non-binding resolution" restored a level of trust between Washington and Ankara in ways that the "war on terror" could not.

The Turks began to coordinate their operations in northern Iraq with the U.S., which furnished actionable intelligence on PKK camps in Iraqi Kurdistan. And the Turkish military resumed its orders of U.S.-made weaponry.

History with a Future

On his visit to Turkey this week, President Obama did not use the term genocide. But with a non-binding resolution on Armenian genocide just re-introduced in the House of Representatives, he also confronted the question of Turkish-Armenian relations head on.

At a press conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul, he implicitly leveraged his position on genocide, which "has not changed," to a positive outcome of Armenia-Turkey talks, "very quickly, very soon."

Significantly, in the same speech to the Turkish parliament in which he outlined a broad blueprint for future U.S.-Turkish engagement, Obama spoke of the need for "each nation to work through its past" and for Turkey to address its Armenian legacy.

Emil Sanamyan is Washington editor and bureau chief for the Armenian Reporter.

Armenia-Turkey 'deal' played up ahead of Obama trip

Speculations mount about a possible Armenia-Turkey deal
Anonymous sources cited on timing, substance
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday April 03, 2009

Armenian and Turkish leaders shaking hands in Davos earlier this year.

Washington, - With President Barack Obama on his way to Turkey just weeks before Armenian Genocide commemoration day, and unprecedented high-level meetings between Armenia and Turkey, expectations for progress in relations between Armenia and Turkey are once again being fueled.

Armenian officials contacted by the Armenian Reporter would not comment on whether an agreement with Turkey was imminent, but did confirm that Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian will attend the Istanbul conference, which Mr. Obama will address.

Writing on April 1, the Wall Street Journal cited anonymous diplomatic sources as claiming that Armenia and Turkey "could soon announce a deal aimed at reopening their border and restoring relations" and that "the timing of the deal is being choreographed" with Mr. Obama's trip, the paper's Brussels and Istanbul correspondents reported.

One of the Journal correspondents contacted by the Reporter would not reveal if any of the officials he spoke with were from Armenia.

The outlines of the deal, as described by these anonymous sources would include "opening and fixing borders, restoring diplomatic relations and setting up commissions to look at disputes, including one on the tense history between the two nations."

The latter issue - of a commission - has been one of the more controversial matters. In 2005, the Turkish government first proposed establishing a "commission of historians" allegedly to study the genocide. Seeing it as a ploy against genocide affirmation, President Robert Kocharian made a counteroffer suggesting a bilateral commission to look into all issues.

President Serge Sargsian has taken a similar position.

Another sticking point has been Turkey's preconditions related to the Karabakh conflict, but those appear to have been set aside for the moment.

Long-held suspicions and mounting speculations

With Turkish officials saying that a Congressional resolution about the Armenian Genocide would undermine progress in the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, many longtime observers wonder whether the speculations are just intended to provide an excuse for President Obama to go back on his pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Already, when asked about the issue, spokespersons for the White House have responded repeatedly that the administration's "focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past."

Turkish media has speculated for months about an imminent breakthrough in relations between Armenia and Turkey, and Western media too have started speculating on the topic. Much of the fodder for such speculation has been provided by officials involved.

Both Armenian and Turkish officials have said a breakthrough is close.

Foreign Minister Nalbandian said last November in Istanbul that Armenia-Turkey normalization "could be done in a quick way, because I do not see any major obstacles."

According to Turkey's Sabah newspaper, senior members of the Turkish parliament for the ruling party, visiting Washington last month, told their congressional counterparts not to move on the Armenian Genocide resolution, as an Armenia-Turkey deal was imminent.

Other officials told the Armenian Reporter they believe some kind of a deal is likely, although one key Armenian official discounted newspaper reports.

End-game, kind of

Ten months ago, when the Armenian Reporter asked experts if they expected such a breakthrough, most were not optimistic.

It was in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal on July 9, 2008, that President Sargsian first sought to convey his determination to normalize relations with Turkey.

The initiative since then seems to have been boosted by the aftermath of the war in Georgia - which drew Russia and Turkey closer together - and the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president.

President Abdullah Gül made his unprecedented half-day visit to Yerevan in September.

And two months ago President Sargsian and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met at Davos, Switzerland.

More talks have taken place between the two countries' foreign ministers and other officials.

Expectations for a breakthrough had been raised before, perhaps artificially so. But the most recent talks do appear to be reaching a kind of an end-game.

Turkish leaders' overriding concern seems to be to get President Obama to continue the previous administrations' policies on the Armenian Genocide issue.

The first crucial test of that will be President Obama's comments on the subject in Turkey and in the anticipated April 24 commemorative statement.

From the Turkish perspective, success in getting President Obama to sidestep the issue should be a good enough catalyst for a positive change in Turkey's policy toward Armenia.

But this is true only if, as a senior Turkish official told this newspaper, it is in fact their intention "to have best relations with Armenia," and "good relations" with Armenians in the diaspora.

Rep. Kirk on genocide resolution

Rep. Mark Kirk is waiting for Speaker’s decision on Genocide resolution
Denies media report that he claimed it “will not pass”
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Thursday April 02, 2009

Rep. Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) who has been selected as co-chair of the House Caucus on Armenian Issues late last year.

Washington, - Rep. Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), co-chair of the congressional Armenian caucus, says that he remains hopeful about the progress of the Armenian Genocide resolution and was misquoted by the Turkish media about it.

"My hope is that we get this resolution to [a vote on] on the floor and that we adopt it," Mr. Kirk told the Armenian Reporter on April 2. But, he added, "I don't know when Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi is going to put this resolution on the floor. We are all waiting for the Speaker to tell us."

"My hope is that [Speaker Pelosi] puts the resolution on the floor," he said. "President [Barack] Obama said that he is for this resolution and campaign promises should matter."

Together with Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), Mr. Kirk is an original co-sponsor of House Resolution 252 affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide, which is currently co-sponsored by 85 additional members of the House of Representatives.

On April 2, the English version of Hurriyet daily published a translated excerpt of an interview with Rep. Kirk published the same day in the daily Aksam in Turkish.

The excerpt quoted Rep. Kirk as saying, "Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi will not dare pass the bill. She will not place Obama in a difficult position. The bill will not pass, don't worry."

When asked about this line, Mr. Kirk said that it was "quite an addition to what I said."

While confirming that he spoke with Aksam newspaper correspondent Nagehan Alci, Mr. Kirk said the quote was inaccurate.

"When my words were translated from English to Turkish and then back to English, I did not recognize them anymore," Mr. Kirk said. "The interview made it sound like I was not a supporter of the resolution. Not only I am supporter, but I am a lead Republican supporter."

The Armenian Reporter's request for Ms. Alci to comment made shortly before press time has not yet been answered.

UPDATE: In a private communication to this author, Ms. Alci conceded there was some mistranslation, but insisted the gist of her reporting - that Rep. Kirk sounded less than hopeful about the resolution's chances - was accurate.

Arm. caucus on U.S. aid/policy, Rustamian letter, Davutoglu visit, Obama msg. to Iran, EU on EE

First published in March 28, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Armenian Caucus co-chairs make aid, policy proposals

The United States should increase engagement with Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and tighten existing restrictions on ties with Azerbaijan, Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues recommended in a March 24 letter to colleagues.

The letter, currently open for additional co-signers, is addressed to Reps. Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y., pictured) and Kay Granger (R.-Tex.), respectively chair and ranking member of the House Foreign Appropriations Subcommittee which sets foreign-aid levels at the early stages of the annual budget process.

Specifically, the Pallone-Kirk letter argued for an increase in U.S. economic aid to Armenia from Fiscal Year 2009 level of $48mln to $70mln; military aid, from $3.5mln to $5mln; and aid to Nagorno-Karabakh from $8mln to $10mln.

The letter also recommends report language that would lift any "official or unofficial restrictions" on formal U.S. engagement with Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as support for confidence-building measures to help resolve the Karabakh conflict.

Additionally, citing Azerbaijan's continued war threats, the letter recommends an additional condition on presidential authority to waive existing restrictions on U.S. aid to Azerbaijan.

The new language would require the executive branch to certify that "in the last fiscal year, Azerbaijan has not taken hostile action, either through military force or incitement, including but not limited to threatening pronouncements by government officials, toward Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh."

Should that condition be met, the co-chairs suggest equal levels of military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan, or the so-called "parity" approach to continue.

Last summer, the effort by Mr. Kirk's predecessor as co-chair, former Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) to zero out U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan outright failed narrowly in the subcommittee vote.

Armenian politician weighs in on Genocide resolution

In a rare letter to a congressional colleague, a senior member of the Armenian parliament wrote to express "complete support" for the House Resolution 252 affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide, introduced earlier this month.

Armen Rustamian, chair of the National Assembly's Foreign Relations Committee and senior member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)'s leadership, addressed the March 19 letter to his U.S. counterpart, Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which should next consider the resolution. The letter was circulated by the ARF's press service.

While pursuing universal recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide is Armenia's official policy, senior Armenian officials have rarely spoken out on specific proposals before the U.S. Congress. On the other hand, Turkish leaders have frequently voiced their opposition to the resolution.

Last week, a spokesperson for the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) reiterated her support for genocide recognition but added that congressional action on resolution was not imminent. The spokesperson, Brendan Day, told Reuters on March 19 that "no one's talking about a vote any time soon."

Senior Turkish official in Washington ahead of Obama’s visit

Ahmet Davutoglu, senior foreign policy advisor to Turkish leaders, last week met with U.S. officials to discuss President Barack Obama's visit to Ankara and Istanbul on April 5-7.

After meeting Mr. Obama's national security advisor Jim Jones on March 19, Mr. Davutoglu told Reuters that he could not say what the Obama administration's intentions were with regard to the president's pre-election pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, adding only that the two officials "went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner."

Administration officials have so far refused to address the Armenian Genocide issue directly.

Mr. Davutoglu suggested that U.S.-Turkey relations were "in a historic era where our policies are almost identical on all issues," Associated Press reported him as saying on March 19. He added that the Armenian Genocide issue "could be debated from a historical perspective, but should not hijack the strategic vision of Turkish-American relations or Turkish-Armenian relations."

With regard to Armenia-Turkey talks, Mr. Davutoglu said that "there is a process, and everyone should strengthen this process and not try to weaken it," the Washington Post cited him as saying. "We hope that the discussions on the Armenian issue [in U.S.] do not affect this process in a negative sense."

During a visit to Washington shortly before the presidential elections, Mr. Davutoglu insisted that Turkey wants "to have best relations with Armenia," and "good relations" with Armenians in the diaspora.

Obama offers goodwill message to Iran

President Barack Obama stressed U.S. commitment to diplomacy and dialogue with the Iranian government in a March 20 video message dedicated to Nowruz, the Iranian new year.

"I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek," Mr. Obama said in the message. "It's a future with greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace."

Mr. Obama's comments reflected a campaign pledge to reach out to Iran. But the message also referred to "terror" and "arms," reflecting longstanding U.S. charges that Iran supports terrorist groups and seeks to develop nuclear weapons.

A spokesperson for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed "the wish of the president of the United States to put away past differences." But in an interview with Reuters, the spokesperson, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, put the blame for tensions on the U.S. "The only source of instability in the region is the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan," he claimed.

In what is seen as a step toward U.S.-Iranian dialogue, Iranian officials said this week they would attend a United Nations conference on Afghanistan to be held in The Hague on March 31. The conference was proposed by the United States earlier this month, as the Obama administration has made stabilization of Afghanistan its immediate foreign policy priority.

European Union leaders agree on “Eastern” policy

Member countries of the European Union have formally approved two policy initiatives involving their eastern neighbors.

During a March 19-20 summit in Brussels, European leaders agreed to set aside 600 million euros for a multiyear program dubbed "Eastern Partnership," which will involve Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, RFE/RL reported.

The program is viewed as a counterweight to Russia's increasingly dominant posture in the former Soviet space since the war in Georgia last year. While promising increased cooperation up to free trade agreements and visa-free travel, it makes no mention of potential European Union expansion into the area.

In a related development, the European Union agreed to spend 200 million euros to facilitate the Nabucco gas pipeline from the Caspian region to Europe, bypassing Russia. Europeans hope the new route will lessen their dependence on Russia as supplier of natural gas.

Family politics

Azerbaijan scraps presidential term limits, may defer elections
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Saturday March 21, 2009

Ilham Aliyev and his spouse Mehriban Pashayeva. RFERL photo

Washington, - Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev could remain in his position for as long as he wants and may scrap holding scheduled elections if he determines that the country is "at war," according to the changes approved by Azerbaijan's citizens on March 18, news agencies reported.

According to official figures more than 70 percent of eligible voters turned out and 92 percent of them voted for the government-proposed changes.

Opposition groups said less than 25 percent of citizens turned out, making referendum results invalid. But no public protests were reported, with opposition leaders blaming "public apathy."

There has also been little to no international reaction.

In Washington, a State Department spokesperson expressed concerns over reports of violations during the referendum and a low-key campaign that preceded it, Voice of America reported. But there have been no official U.S. comments on the substance of changes.

European parliamentarians who observed the vote said the referendum was well-run. But Ian Micaleff, a Council of Europe official, told Radio Liberty the amendments violated Azerbaijan's commitments to the Council and could even result in Azerbaijan's expulsion from the organization.

The intention to hold the referendum was first made public last December, two months after Mr. Aliyev was re-elected to his second five-year term. Azerbaijan's opposition also boycotted that vote.

Government officials said the changes were important for Azerbaijan's stability.

Government critics suggested the move was intended to constrain the government faction that sought to have Mr. Aliyev's wife, Mehriban, to replace her husband in 2013.

Other countries with presidential rule to have recently scrapped presidential term limits include Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Meanwhile, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Russia, and Turkey are among countries that retain term limits for presidents.

UPDATE: In late April Ilham's older sister Sevil Aliyeva publicly denied speculations she was considering challenging her brother's rule. While Sevil appears to remain loyal to her brother, she might have helped veto Mehriban's bid for the presidency, at least for now.

In photo, Sevil Aliyeva during a visit to Baku in 2006. She has been resident in London for most of the last decade. RFERL photo

Clinton call to Armenia, State no comment on resolution

First published in March 21, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Secretary Clinton calls Armenia

In the first high-level contact between the Obama administration and Armenian government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke by telephone with President Serge Sargsian on March 17, Mediamax reported the next day citing the president's office.

"They covered a wide range of topics, including our shared efforts to advance a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia's relations with Turkey, and efforts to catalyze domestic reforms inside Armenia," the State Department's Caucasus, Turkey, and Greece manager, Deputy Assistant Secretary Matt Bryza told the Armenian Reporter.

The president's office specifically noted discussion of "programs of the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation in Armenia." Mrs. Clinton chairs the MCC board, which on March 11 criticized the Armenian government's handling of domestic issues following the presidential elections last year. The board is due to review Armenia's continued eligibility again in the next few months.

Eligibility for MCC aid is based on complex scoring criteria reflecting countries' political, social, and economic performance.

State Department withholds comment on Genocide resolution

"We're looking at that resolution," the State Department's acting spokesperson Robert Wood said on March 18 when asked about the congressional Armenian Genocide resolution introduced the day before. "We obviously want to take a close look at it . . . and discuss it within the government"

The resolution is identical to the one introduced in the 2007-2008 Congress. It was at the time supported by then-Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The Obama administration has not taken a direct position on the resolution, instead emphasizing the importance of the recent meetings between Armenian and Turkish officials.

In the March 17 briefing, Mr. Wood confirmed that the subject of the resolution came up in Mrs. Clinton's conversations during her visit to Turkey, but that he didn't "have any details about conversations that the Secretary had with the Turkish leaders beyond what I've said" and could not comment.

Coming up… Congressional advocacy and commemoration of Genocide

The annual Capitol Hill commemoration of the Armenian Genocide will take place on April 22 this year, co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) reported in a March 17 release.

"We invite Armenian-Americans across the country to gather with us on Capitol Hill as we solemnly remember the 1.5 million people brutally murdered 94 years ago," said Rep. Kirk. "With a new president publicly committed to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, we look forward to a meaningful commemoration by the Congress and the White House."

The traditional event features speeches by members of Congress and will be held in the Cannon Caucus Room of the congressional Cannon Office Building from 6 to 9 p.m.

From April 22 to 24, the Armenian National Committee of America will hold its third annual "End the Cycle of Genocide: Grassroots Capitol Campaign," which includes visits to congressional offices and meetings with their staff, and a protest outside Turkish Embassy in Washington.

For information on how to participate connect at www.anca.org.

Turkey to buy more combat aircraft from U.S.

Turkey will take delivery of 30 new F-16 fighter jets produced by Lockheed Martin Corporation, news agencies reported. The order is worth $797 million and planes would be locally built in Turkey by 2012. When initially negotiated in 2006, the deal for 30 aircraft was valued at $2.7 billion, but the price tag has since been repeatedly discounted.

Turkey already possesses 216 F-16s, produced in Turkey in the 1980s and 90s, and since partially upgraded. Starting 2014, in a deal worth more than $10 billion over 20 years, Turkey plans to take delivery of more than 100 F-35s, a new-generation combat aircraft currently under development by companies from the United States, Turkey, and seven other countries.

Genocide resolution formally introduced

Armenian Genocide resolution introduced in Congress
Passage hinges on president’s position
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Tuesday March 17, 2009

Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.) at microphone, with Rep. George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), left, and Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), discussing the Armenian Genocide resolution in January 2007. Armenian Reporter

Washington, - A congressional resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide was been formally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 17 by Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.)

As in the past the Turkish government is fighting the resolution and warning it would retaliate against the interests of the United States and Armenia if it progresses through the House. President Barack Obama plans to travel to Turkey in early April; the trip points to Turkey's importance in the new administration's priorities.

In recent days, Turkish officials have also been dropping hints of an imminent breakthrough in relations with Armenia that could be "undermined" by the resolution. High-level meetings between Turkey and Armenia have regularly taken place since last September.

The Turkish daily Sabah reported on March 14 that senior members of parliament from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) told members of Congress that an "agreement" on relations with Armenia could be announced soon, and therefore the genocide resolution should be held up.

Prevent atrocities

The introduction of the measure, which was given the number House Resolution 252, was preceded by a March 7 letter from International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) to President Obama. The association called on Mr. Obama to uphold a pre-election pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide if elected president.

IAGS president Gregory Stanton described the resolution as a "merely symbolic commemorative resolution" that nevertheless "would signal a new chapter in U.S. diplomacy."

"If we are to lead in the effort to stop the genocide in Darfur and prevent future atrocities, we must be willing to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs," argued Mr. Schiff in a statement. "While there are still some survivors [of the Armenian Genocide] left, we have a compelling moral obligation to speak plainly about the past."

"As a nation we must hold ourselves to the utmost moral standards, which includes having the courage to appropriately recognize atrocities of the past to prevent future occurrences," Mr. Radanovich said in a statement.

The resolution gathered early support from 77 members of the House of Representatives. A similar measure, H. Res. 106, in the previous Congress was introduced in January 2007 with 100 co-sponsors. It eventually gathered the support of a majority of House members and won a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee the following October.

Progress of H. Res. 106 ultimately stalled as some supporters defected under strong pressure from the Bush administration. It was never brought to a vote by the full House.

White House position

The current resolution would likewise need to go through the Foreign Affairs Committee. Since both the administration and Congress are now controlled by the same party, progress in Congress is likely to depend even to a greater degree on the position of the White House.

President Obama has not spoken out on the issue since his election.

In policy language similar to the Bush administration's, President Obama's spokesperson Mike Hammer told The Associated Press on March 13 and the Los Angeles Times on March 17, "At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past."

Mr. Hammer added that the Obama administration was "encouraged" by recent Armenia-Turkey talks, saying it was "important that the countries have an open and honest dialogue about the past."

A strong proponent of the measure, Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), predicted in an interview with the Armenian Reporter on March 2 that there would be no progress on the issue in the next two months, while the White House seeks to win Turkey's support for its Middle East priorities.

Mr. Radanovich, the measure's lead Republican co-sponsor said in his statement that he was "truly disheartened that President Obama might delay his presidential proclamation to the Armenian people on April 24."

The IAGS letter too expressed concern that "Turkey's lobbying efforts, which are now in full force, will lead to a repetition of the H. Res. 106 debacle of late 2007, when the President, as usual, got the resolution blocked from a House vote."

But the Armenian National Committee of America's Aram Hamparian was unfazed. He told the Los Angeles Times that President Obama "is a man of his word and has been crystal clear on the issue."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the resolution appears below.

Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide
HOUSE RESOLUTION 252

Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide , and for other purposes.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the `Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The House of Representatives finds the following:

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing `a crime against humanity'.

(3) This joint statement stated `the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres'.

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians'.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide , Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.

(7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.

(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide , especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.

(9) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide .

(10) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as `a campaign of race extermination,' and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the `Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution'.

(11) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that `the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians', who at the time were enduring `starvation, disease, and untold suffering'.

(12) President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

(13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered'.

(14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages'.

(15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

(16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term `genocide' in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide , invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin's urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards.

(18) In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide `precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term `crimes against humanity' is intended to cover' as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(19) The Commission stated that `[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of `crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments'.

(20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide , especially those of Armenian ancestry . . .'.

(21) President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part `like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it - and like too many other persecutions of too many other people - the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten'.

(22) House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on September 10, 1984, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide , especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry . . .'.

(23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled `Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ,' which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916'.

(24) This report also explained that `[a]t least 1,000,000, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany.'.

(25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.

(26) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide `contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted'.

(27) On June 5, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Bill 3540 (the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997) to reduce aid to Turkey by $3,000,000 (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the United States) until the Turkish Government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.

(28) President William Jefferson Clinton, on April 24, 1998, stated: `This year, as in the past, we join with Armenian -Americans throughout the nation in commemorating one of the saddest chapters in the history of this century, the deportations and massacres of a million and a half Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the years 1915-1923.'.

(29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated: `On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.'.

(30) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide , the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives-

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.



Resolution sponsors praise Obama’s record on Genocide
Letter comes ahead of president’s April trip to Turkey
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Saturday March 14, 2009

Washington, - Key sponsors of the anticipated congressional resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide have written to President Barack Obama to recall his "courage" as a senator and a presidential candidate "in characterizing properly the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915-1923 as genocide" and stressing the importance of "formal American recognition."

The March 10 letter to Mr. Obama, co-signed by Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), noted that "no president in the postwar era has come into office with a stronger understanding of the historic facts of the genocide." (See full text below.)

The four members of Congress are currently seeking additional co-sponsors for a congressional resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

The letter comes a week after other congressional supporters of the resolution, particularly Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), downplayed the likelihood that Mr. Obama would use the word "genocide" in the annual presidential message to Armenian-Americans delivered around April 24, the day of commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

Additionally, President Obama plans to visit Turkey just weeks before April 24. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made public the president's intention during her own trip to Ankara on March 7. (See editorial.)

The president is expected to attend the April 6-8 Istanbul summit of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative launched recently by Spain and Turkey with the blessing of the United Nations. The visit is seen as part of Mr. Obama's policy to reach out to the Muslim world.

That trip would cap a tour that includes three other stops. On April 2, Mr. Obama will be in London for the summit of the world's 20 leading economies (including Turkey); he will next go to the NATO summit held on April 3-4 in Strasbourg and the U.S.-European Union summit in Prague on April 5.

No "clarity" after Clinton trip

Speaking on March 2 at the Armenian Assembly of America conference in Washington Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said he spoke with Mrs. Clinton before her trip and that a "lot still remains unclear" about the Obama administration's intentions on the Armenian Genocide issue. The issue was not raised publicly during Mrs. Clinton's trip.

Instead Mrs. Clinton and Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan issued a joint statement that among other things stressed the need "to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the south Caucasus, including through U.S. support for the efforts of Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations and joint support for the efforts of the Minsk Group to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict."

A day after the visit, Mr. Babacan told Turkey's NTV station that "I still see a risk [of U.S. affirmation of the Genocide]. Mr. Obama made the promise five times in a row," Agence France Presse reported on March 8.

He added that "the new American administration understands Turkey's sensibilities better today," warning that "a bad step by the United States would only worsen the process" of reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.

On March 10-13, Mr. Babacan's deputy undersecretary Unal Cevikoz arrived in Washington for follow-up meetings at the State Department and Capitol Hill.

Text of the letter
The following is the text of the letter from four members of Congress to President Barack Obama.

March 10, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

As we approach the upcoming 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide on April 24, we want to thank you for the courage you have always shown in characterizing properly the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915-1923 as genocide. No president in the postwar era has come into office with a stronger understanding of the historic facts of the genocide, or with a greater track record of speaking plainly on this terrible chapter in the past.

As a United States Senator, your record on the Armenian Genocide was clear and unequivocal. In 2005 and 2006 you joined many of your colleagues in asking President Bush to refer to the slaughter of Armenians as genocide, noting that "[i]t is in the best interests of our nation and the entire global community to remember the past and learn from these crimes against humanity to ensure that they are never repeated."

In 2006 you wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the wake of the recall from Yerevan of Ambassador John Evans for using the term "genocide" to describe the events of 1915-23. In your letter you described the official U.S. position on the genocide as "untenable" and reminded the Secretary that "the occurrence of the Armenian genocide in 1915 is not an ‘allegation,' a ‘personal opinion,' or a ‘point of view.' Supported by overwhelming evidence, it is a widely documented fact."

In questions submitted to Ambassador-designate Marie Yovanovitch last year, you pressed her on the issue of genocide recognition, specifically asking her what steps she would take to recognize the genocide and what actions the Department of State was undertaking to press for Turkish recognition of the crimes committed by their Ottoman forebears. Last April, in a statement printed in the Congressional Record, you pledged to "continue to push for the acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide."

As a presidential candidate, you were also forthright in discussing your support for genocide recognition, saying that "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides." We agree with you completely.

During your upcoming trip to Turkey and in discussions with your advisors over how to commemorate the events of 1915-23, you will doubtless be counseled by some to continue the practice of avoiding the truth in favor of short-term political expediency. We do not minimize Ankara's threats of adverse action when you recognize the genocide, or when Congress takes action to formally recognize the genocide, but we believe that our alliance is strong enough to withstand the truth.

Elie Wiesel has described the denial of genocide as the final stage of genocide - a double killing. Sadly, our nation's foreign policy has, for too long, abetted this denial. As you told Secretary Rice in your letter about the sacking of Ambassador Evans, "when State Department instructions are such that an ambassador must engage in strained reasoning - or even outright falsehood - that defies a common sense interpretation of events in order to follow orders, then it is time to revisit the State Department's policy guidance on that issue."

Mr. President, you have demonstrated time and again your understanding of the importance to Armenian-Americans of formal American recognition of the crime that was committed against their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Their pain is not unlike that of American Jews, who live each day with the memory of the Holocaust, and African-Americans, whose view of themselves has been colored by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. But, of course, the importance of speaking unequivocally about a matter as grave as genocide is a human rights imperative affecting us all. Whether it is today's Sudanese government or yesterday's Ottoman Empire, the perpetrators of genocide, as well as the victims, must know that the United States will not shrink from confronting the truth.

Sincerely,

ADAM B. SCHIFF
Member of Congress

GEORGE RADANOVICH
Member of Congress

FRANK PALLONE, JR.
Member of Congress

MARK STEVEN KIRK
Member of Congress