Serge Sargsian: Greatest risk is that protocols will be defeated

President discusses Genocide, Turkey policy in The Armenian Reporter exclusive
Karabakh agreement is not imminent
by Armenian Reporter staff
Published: Thursday October 01, 2009

President Serge Sargsian addresses a gathering of over 50 political parties in Armenia, Sept. 17. He called the meeting to discuss the protocols on Armenia-Turkey relations. Photolure

YEREVAN - President Serge Sargsian expressed confidence about Armenians' ability to benefit from the proposed normalization of relations with Turkey, even as he acknowledged that the planned signing of protocols with Turkey also involved risks and downsides.

Mr. Sargsian responded to questions posed by the editors of the Armenian Reporter ahead of a five-city, four-country tour that starts this week and includes visits to New York and Los Angeles on October 3 and 4, during which he said he intends to "consult" with Armenian diaspora communities on Armenia's Turkey policy.

Asked about the rewards and risks of proceeding with ratification and implementation of the protocols between Armenia and Turkey, the president said that with an end to the Turkish blockade of Armenia, "a potential market with a population of 70 million opens before our producers." He argued that "the greatest risk is that the protocols will not be implemented."

Non-implementation "will deepen the atmosphere of mistrust and enmity in the region," Mr. Sargsian warned. "For a long time after that, no politician will be able to touch the issue of normalizing Armenia-Turkey relations."

The Karabakh connection

For the protocols to be implemented, they must be ratified by the parliaments of Armenia and Turkey. Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly linked the opening of the border with Armenia, promised in the protocols, to satisfaction of Azerbaijan's demands in the Karabakh peace process.

On the Karabakh issue, Mr. Sargsian revealed that he did "not expect to sign any document in Moldova" during his meeting with Azerbaijan's Ilham Aliyev during the Commonwealth of Independent States summit on October 8.

"Let me go further: in view of the limited progress we have made on agreeing to very few portions of the Madrid Document, we are quite far from signing any document at this stage," the president told the Armenian Reporter.

Mr. Sargsian took the position that normalization of relations with Turkey would help generate the kind of trust in the region that is a prerequisite for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Moreover, he said, "The only way Turkey can help the resolution of the Karabakh conflict is by not interfering."

"In spite of the Genocide"

Mr. Sargsian expressed his interest in the normalization of relations with Turkey even before his election as president. On December 22, 2006, as defense minister, he authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed "In spite of the Genocide..." As prime minister, Mr. Sargsian reiterated the position in an October 22, 2007, conversation with the Armenian Reporter and elsewhere.

Since the start of his presidency in April 2008, Mr. Sargsian has made normalization of relations with Turkey a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

In this week's interview, the president conceded that as a result of the provisions of the protocols, "perhaps in some countries and in some circumstances, the Armenian lobby will face certain difficulties" in pursuing affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. But, he added, "It must also be understood that there are bound to be certain complications in such a difficult process."

He expressed confidence, however, that "sooner or later" all the countries that have not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide will do so. He did not elaborate.

"The overarching purpose of the process for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is to see the Turkish people and Turkey follow the lead of numerous civilized countries and recognize the fact of the Genocide," the president added. "There is the current generation of Turks, who must come to terms with their own history. I think our present initiative is opening doors for this internal discussion, this internal reconciliation."

The full text of the interview appears here.

Serge Sargsian meets Diaspora on Armenia-Turkey protocols

President Sargsyan promotes Turkey protocols in diaspora meetings
ARF stages street protests in New York and Los Angeles
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Tuesday October 06, 2009

President Serge Sargsian meets with representatives of American-Armenian and Canadian-Armenian groups in New York, Oct. 3, 2009. Press Office of the President of Armenia

NEW YORK - At meetings in New York and Los Angeles on October 3 and 4, representatives of American-Armenian and Canadian-Armenian groups had an exchange of views with President Serge Sargsyan on the agreement on the normalization of relations initialed between Armenia and Turkey. The meetings were part of a longer presidential tour with stops in France, Lebanon, and Russia.

According to Turkish officials, the protocols on diplomatic relations and bilateral cooperation are expected to be signed by the foreign ministers of the two countries in Zurich, Switzerland, on October 10. Armenian officials have not yet confirmed that date.

Armenian officials requested that the diaspora discussions be treated as off the record, although many of the statements delivered by organizations were made public either before or after the meetings.

The October 3 New York meeting included representatives from the eastern United States and Canada, with representatives from the western United States and Latin America attending the Los Angeles meeting the following day.

The meetings were by invitation only. No public appearances were organized, and an anticipated presidential interview with three Los Angeles-area Armenian television channels did not take place.

Debate in New York

The New York event involved about 50 participants from the diaspora, representing several dozen organizations, sitting at tables arranged in a large square, with media sitting at a separate table. President Sargsyan's delegation included former president of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Arkady Ghoukasian, the chairperson of Armenia's Constitutional Court Gagik Harutiunian, Diaspora Minister Hranush Hakobyan, and a dozen or more aides and diplomats.

Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who handled the negotiations over the protocols and is expected to be the one to sign the documents on Armenia's behalf, was not in the delegation. Neither were any members of parliament; the protocols require parliamentary ratification to go into effect.

Diaspora organizations represented included this newspaper's parent company CS Media and the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC). In attendance were archbishops and other clergy from the Eastern and Canadian dioceses and prelacies of the Armenian Church, representatives of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), Armenian National Committee of America, and affiliated groups in the eastern United States and Canada, the Armenian General Benevolent Union and its associated organizations, the Armenian Assembly of America and its affiliates, the Zoryan Institute, the Fund for Armenian Relief, the Armenia Fund, Birthright Armenia, and the Congress of Canadian Armenians.

Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Andranik Migranian, a Russian-Armenian community leader and former Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission member now working in New York, and Vahan Kololian of the Mosaic Institute of Toronto were also present.

Media representatives in attendance included the Armenian Reporter, the New York-based freelancer Florence Avakian, Ardzagank TV (which also reports for Voice of America Armenian Service), AGBU and Ararat magazines, the Boston-based Hairenik, Armenian Weekly, and Armenian Mirror-Spectator newspapers, and the Montreal-based Horizon newspaper.

The event began with on-the-record introductory remarks by the president. He reiterated his determination to proceed toward normalization of relations with Turkey, while also admitting to a number of reservations and concerns, many of which he had shared in his interview with the Armenian Reporter last week.

Mr. Sargsyan, who in the early 1990s was commander of Karabakh self-defense forces, compared the ongoing talks with Turkey to the war in Karabakh. The war was incredibly difficult and few initially expected Armenian success, he said, but it was also unavoidable.

Just as Armenians prevailed in the war, Mr. Sargsyan said, he fully expected to be successful in talks with Turkey as well, which he also described as difficult but unavoidable.

He also argued that the process of normalization of relations with Turkey was not an excuse for a curtailment of genocide-affirmation efforts.

On the subject of talks with Azerbaijan, Mr. Sargsyan confirmed the long-standing Armenian position that Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be made part of Azerbaijan and that any settlement required serious security guarantees for its Armenian population.

The president's 40-minute introduction was followed by more than 40 statements, remarks, and questions from various organizations and individuals that continued for nearly four hours uninterrupted.

The views expressed ranged from unreservedly supportive to highly critical of the president's policy on the Turkey protocols. There were a number of tense exchanges.

Following the diaspora presentations, and comments by Mr. Ghoukasian and Mr. Harutiunian, Mr. Sargsyan wrapped up the meeting by responding to some of the concerns and questions posed.

According to participants in the Los Angeles meeting, the event involved about 60 diaspora representatives, with the president responding to points raised after each of about 30 presentations. At that meeting, while a number of disagreements were voiced, the discussion remained civil.

Angry protests

Throughout the president's tour, the ARF organized street protests, with many thousands reportedly turning out in Los Angeles on October 4, while up to 200 were seen picketing in New York the day before.

In New York the protestors came from as far away as Boston, Chicago, and Washington. They held placards saying "Voch" (no) to the protocols, telling the president "Mi Davachanir" (or Mi tavajanir, Do not betray), and announcing that Mr. Sargsyan was "not welcome in New York."

According to the Armenian Weekly, a smaller group of protestors at one point entered the New York hotel where the meeting was taking place; the protestors' chanting briefly became audible inside the meeting hall, before the New York police and the U.S. Secret Service intervened.

Video reports available online indicate the Los Angeles protest included similar slogans and also involved a brief attempt by protestors to cross the police barricade, but no serious incidents.

According to Asbarez, some 200 activists set up a human barricade around the Armenian Genocide monument in Montebello, as activists in Paris had done two days earlier, in order to prevent President Sargsyan from laying flowers there. The president did not show up at Montebello at the time the demonstrators had expected him.

Also, a hunger strike, organized by the Armenian Youth Federation, kicked off on Monday, October 5, at midnight, and was to last for 96 hours until midnight Friday.

Paris

In Paris on Friday, October 2, the president had lunch with crooner Charles Aznavour, who serves as Armenia's ambassador to Switzerland. He met with representatives of community organizations, after which he was scheduled to lay a wreath at the Armenian Genocide memorial on the banks of the Seine River.

French police spent an hour dragging some 300 French-Armenian protesters out of the way, Tatul Hakobyan reported from the scene. Once the protesters had been removed, the president approached the statue, spent a few moments there, and placed a small wreath.

Beirut

In Lebanon on October 6, Mr. Sargsyan met with over 100 individuals representing various organizations operating in Middle Eastern Armenian communities, including Egypt and Iran. Before the meeting, the president met with Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, who has been critical of the protocols.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the president's hotel.

Hagop Pakradouni, one of six Armenian deputies in Lebanon's parliament, said the community supported improved ties between Armenia and Turkey - but not at any price, according to AFP.

Rostov on Don

In Rostov on Don, Russia, the next day, the president met with representatives of Russian-Armenian groups and discussed Armenian-Turkish relations.

Armenia's former deputy defense minister and chief of general staff in the early 90s, General Norat Ter-Grigoriants, said, "The nation is opposed to the protocols. You could just not sign them, and you will be treated as a national hero."

Ara Abrahamian, the president of the powerful Union of Armenians in Russia, suggested that more time was needed for expert analysis of all the consequences of the protocols, warning that the deal would probably shelve the international recognition campaign for years to come.

In a September interview with the Armenian Reporter, Mr. Abrahamian had expressed concerns about the terms of the protocols. Regarding the proposed intergovernmental commission on the "historical dimension," he had said, "If you want to bury an issue, give it to a committee." He had also expressed reservations about the recognition of existing borders between Armenia and Turkey.

Armenian president to discuss Turkey protocols on diaspora tour
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Thursday September 24, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Serge Sargsian will visit Armenian communities, including those in Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Rostov-on-Don in Russia, and Beirut starting at the end of next week, according to diplomatic sources involved in organizing the trip.

The visit is intended to outline Armenia's policy vis-à-vis Turkey. On August 31 Armenia and Turkey announced their intention to sign protocols on diplomatic relations and bilateral cooperation after six weeks of domestic discussions. Under the protocols, Turkey agrees to open the land border with Armenia.

Some major Armenian-American organizations have endorsed the protocols while expressing concern about certain provisions. Others have been more critical. In recent days, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation has organized protests at the Armenian Mission to United Nations in New York, as well as in Los Angeles.

Mr. Sargsian's visit to New York is expected to include a meeting with representatives of Armenian-American groups on October 3. That would be followed by a similar meeting as well as a televised press conference in Los Angeles.

International context

The Armenian president's trip comes just ahead of yet another summit meeting between him and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev, which is expected to take place in Moldova on October 8 or 9. The signing of Armenia-Turkey protocols by the foreign ministers of Armenia and Turkey is due on October 13.

Turkish leaders have said that implementation of the protocols is contingent on satisfaction of Azerbaijan's concerns in the Karabakh dispute. Armenian officials for their part reject the link, noting that the published protocols make no reference to the Karabakh conflict.

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated the Karabakh linkage during his meeting with Jewish-American groups in New York on September 22, Today's Zaman reported, citing the Anatolia news agency.

The United States has reemerged as an informal facilitator of Armenia-Turkey talks, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussing the issues in a phone call to President Sargsian on September 19, the Armenian president's office reported.

U.S. officials have called for progress on both the Karabakh and Armenia-Turkey tracks but they have formally opposed a direct linkage between the two.

Vartkes Yeghiayan interview

In Armenian insurance case, lawyers to ask for rehearing
Appeals panel ruling misinformed, lawyer involved argues
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Friday August 28, 2009

At a May 11, 2006, press conference, attorney Mark Geragos, California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, and attorneys Brian Kabateck and Vartkes Yeghiayan announce a class action lawsuit on behalf of descendants of Armenian Genocide victims, against Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank for assets belonging to descendants of Armenian Genocide victims. Damian Dovarganes / AP

Washington - On August 20, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California law that allows the descendants of Armenian Genocide victims to sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits, as we reported last week. The majority in the 2-1 ruling argued that the statute interfered with the president's prerogative to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

Vartkes Yeghiayan, a lawyer based in Glendale, Calif., has spearheaded lawsuits against major U.S. and European insurance companies that did business in Ottoman Turkey. These efforts led to settlements with New York Life for $20 million and with the French AXA insurance company for $17 million in 2004-2005.

On August 27 Mr. Yeghiayan discussed last week's court ruling with Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan.

Armenian Reporter: What is the meaning and what are the ramifications of the ruling of the Appeals Court panel on August 20?

Vartkes Yeghiayan: We were surprised by this decision. The District Court had previously ruled that this [lawsuit against German insurance companies] is valid and that our clients have a right to continue with the lawsuit.

When we got to the Ninth Circuit court [to which the insurance companies had appealed], three judges listened to us, and two out of three decided that there is a conflict between state and federal power.

This decision basically rested on the fact that the [California] statute . . . said that the killings that took place [in Ottoman Turkey] are called the Armenian Genocide; because the words "Armenian Genocide" were used, [the majority found that] they were in conflict with federal policy. . . .

We disagree with that. The federal government has never taken a stand against the Armenian Genocide. And [as part of its decision making,] the court did not [cite] any statute, executive order, or statement saying that this [state law] interferes with the foreign policy of the United States.

They are just speculating, and their speculation is drawn from the fact that in the last decade there were three resolutions placed before Congress and these resolutions didn't pass because of opposition from the administration.

But the administration did not dispute the validity of what resolutions said. Rather they spoke of bad timing and impact on the war in Iraq or whatever other developments were taking place at the time.

The arguments the court cited were only half-true. For example, President Ronald Reagan used the term "Armenian Genocide," as did the Congress in two resolutions that passed in the 1970s and 80s. And they did not cite those facts at all, focusing on the last decade alone.

But our issue here is not with Turkey. We are suing private insurance companies that owe money to Armenians and are in breach of contract. But everything [in the court decision] seems to turn around the words "Armenian Genocide." Had those "toxic" words not been used in California legislation, the court would have no problem with the statute.

AR: Has the federal government ever expressed opposition to the California law?

VY: Absolutely not. In fact they have never objected to any of the resolutions passed in the 40-odd states. They have never formally made a statement. Apparently, they did not feel those resolutions interfered with the conduct of foreign policy. And it seems obvious to me [that they did not].

In making its decision the [Appeals] court cited past decisions in the Jewish Holocaust cases [to deny the victims' rights to sue]. But that situation is different because there was a formal agreement between the United States and Germany that said that [following German agreement to pay reparations,] no additional lawsuits could be filed in U.S. courts.

[There is no such agreement in the Armenian case.]

AR: What could be the immediate consequences of this ruling? Do you plan to appeal? Could there be new legislation passed in California?

VY: The first thing we will do is petition for a rehearing. And because we only had 14 days to do that, we just requested an extension and we were granted an additional seven days. So, our brief for a rehearing will be filed on September 10.

Basically, we are asking for a larger panel of judges to listen and review our arguments. It could be up to ten judges hearing the case.

If, for some reason, the judgment is not reversed, we will appeal to the Supreme Court.

And, of course, we can amend our lawsuit and remove the words "Armenian Genocide," while describing all of the killings, deprivations, deportations, etc.

But first we will be appealing, because "Armenian Genocide" is the appropriate term for the events that occurred and the U.S. government does not have the policy that says that Armenian Genocide did not take place. In fact, I would like the U.S. government to come out and declare its policy once and for all.

AR: As part of your petition do you plan to invite testimonies and briefings from the state of California and other interested parties?

VY: Yes. We don't want to make announcements yet, but we have asked three organizations to file amicus briefs [as "friends of the court"] and [we expect that] they will do it.

AR: What has been the immediate repercussion of the ruling so far?

VY: We have a separate case with the British insurance company Aviva and the judge has just given us until September 12 to dismiss the case because of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. Now we are talking with attorneys to see if we can stipulate the continuance of the case or if we have to do a dismissal, make sure it is a dismissal without prejudice, so that we could re-file the minute there is a new statute.

AR: Are you receiving public feedback following the ruling?

VY: Yes, we are hearing from a lot of lawyers and law-school professors at some of the top universities, who see this ruling as part of a pattern of continuous infringement by the federal government in powers of the states. On most domestic issues, such as insurance, family law, property, and tort, it is up to the states to regulate, and these issues must not be affected by the rhetoric of federal officials.

I read the Turkish press and I noticed they are celebrating [this ruling] and reading things into it that don't exist. I don't think it's a victory [for Turkey].

It's an issue of balancing powers of the state and federal governments. If necessary, we Armenians will be ready to pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Ted Kennedy passing, Doug Frantz, Marc Grossman updates

First published in August 29, 2009

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Senator Kennedy’s leadership on Armenian issues recalled

Armenian-Americans this week remembered the longstanding leadership and support of Senator Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.). Senator Kennedy died on August 26 after months of battling with cancer. He was 77 years old.

Throughout more than four decades in the U.S. Congress, Senator Kennedy actively supported Armenian-American concerns, including U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide and independent Armenia's security and development, the Armenian National Committee of Massachusetts recalled in a press statement.

These efforts included securing the Senate Judiciary Committee's passage in 1989 of an Armenian Genocide resolution; Senator Kennedy worked together with, among others, Vice President Joe Biden, who at the time was a senator and chairperson of the committee.

Senator Kennedy championed the 1991 passage of a resolution that condemned Azerbaijan's anti-Armenian pogroms that resulted in the expulsion of more than 300,000 Armenians and was followed by Azerbaijan's aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh.

In later years, Senator Kennedy played a key role in the passage and maintenance of U.S. sanctions against Azerbaijan, known as Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act, as well as the 1994 passage of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which came in response to Turkey's closure of its border with Armenia. [The same year, he hosted a reception for the president of Armenia at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.]

Speaking on April 21, 1999, at the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide held on Capitol Hill, Senator Kennedy argued that "if people here in the United States had paid attention to the Genocide in the early part of this century, we would not have had, perhaps, the tragedies in World War II" and later genocidal campaigns in former Yugoslavia and Africa.

During the April 24, 2000, commemoration at Trinity Church in Boston, Senator Kennedy stressed that while "the persecution of the Armenian people and the atrocities committed against them will never be forgotten . . . the continuing leadership of the Armenian people throughout the world today, and the birth of the Armenian republic provide an example to us all of what the human spirit at its best can achieve."

In a June 5, 2006, letter, signed together with Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass.), Senator Kennedy raised concerns with the Bush administration's early recall of Ambassador John M. Evans from Armenia over the ambassador's comments on the Armenian Genocide; the letter demanded an explanation for the move.

A member of America's most prominent political family, Edward Kennedy will be remembered as a strong and effective champion of liberal values. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama came at pivotal moment in a tough primary race.

Senator Kennedy will be buried beside his brothers at the Arlington National Cemetery on August 29.

Former editor Doug Frantz probing nuclear smuggling for Senate committee

The former Los Angeles Times editor who stirred up controversy in the Armenian community is now working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass.) According to the committee website, Douglas Frantz was hired by the committee early this year as chief investigator to probe financing of nuclear smuggling and other illegal activities.

Mr. Frantz caused controversy in April 2007 after he reassigned a major story on the Armenian Genocide resolution, initially assigned to Times journalist Mark Arax, to another writer. In an e-mail that was later made public, Mr. Frantz alleged that Mr. Arax had a "position on this issue" that caused a "conflict of interests." (Mr. Frantz's new boss, Senator Kerry, is a strong supporter of Armenian Genocide affirmation.)

Mr. Arax had in turn alleged that Mr. Frantz himself may have had a bias on the issue, having spent years working as a reporter in Turkey and that he was "heavily involved and invested in defending the policies of Turkey."

In subsequent months, a number of Armenian-Americans, including the Armenian Reporter's editorial page, called on the Times to take "decisive action" in the case. Mr. Frantz resigned in June 2007.

Mr. Frantz was initially expected to become the Istanbul-based Middle East bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. But he instead joined the then newly launched (and since closed) Condé Nast Portfolio magazine as senior writer and authored a book on the black market in nuclear technology.

For his part, Mr. Arax also left the Times in June 2007. Last April he published his third book, this one about life in California.

Former U.S. official: Karabakh settlement up to Armenia and Azerbaijan

The Karabakh "conflict should be solved in Baku and Yerevan, not in Washington or Moscow," Marc Grossman, former U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs told Azerbaijani officials on August 24, Azerbaijan's APA news agency reported. Mr. Grossman was speaking at an event organized by Azerbaijan's president's office in Baku.

Mr. Grossman suggested that as mediators all third countries could do was to organize venues for Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders to meet, as they have.

According to an Azerbaijani government statement on August 22, the former senior American diplomat arrived in Azerbaijan for a five-day tour that included meetings with senior officials and visits to colleges and the main oil terminal.

Since leaving the government in 2005, Mr. Grossman has been a board member for Turkey's Ihlas Holding and vice-chair of the Washington-based Cohen group, a lobbying firm. He was the State Department's number-three official between 2001 and 2005 and ambassador to Turkey before that.

"Armenian issue is at core of Turkish identity"

Nigar Goksel discusses Armenia and Turkey
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Thursday June 25, 2009

Nigar Goksel in Yerevan

Washington - Diba Nigar Goksel is an Istanbul-based senior analyst for the European Stability Initiative (ESI), a Berlin think tank. For the past several years, Ms. Goksel's work has focused on Armenia and has included a report, "Noah's Dove Returns: Armenia, Turkey and the Debate on Genocide," released last April. Last week she was in the United States to begin a research project on the Armenian diaspora's role in Armenia. She was interviewed by the Armenian Reporter's Washington editor Emil Sanamyan on June 17.

Welcomed in Armenia as "normal person"

Armenian Reporter: When you first began working in Armenia, were you apprehensive about it or, perhaps, excited about the opportunity, or both?

Nigar Goksel: I was excited. I was a little bit concerned that as a Turk I wouldn't be spoken to about issues in Armenia openly and that would influence the quality of research I would do.

Like in Georgia and Azerbaijan, our research in Armenia is about trying to understand how Armenia is changing, where Armenia is headed. How the state-building process and economic development, and a debate about the future of Armenia is progressing. A lot of our research in Armenia entailed travel outside of Yerevan, talking to ordinary people, opinion leaders, and business people.

So I was concerned that because I was a Turk, answers would be adjusted accordingly and there would be a perception that I was looking for problems to display [to the outside world] or something like that.

It ended up not being the case and I was positively surprised.

I was received and welcomed wholeheartedly, especially in the villages of Armenia. In Yerevan, it was more complex: some would be more positive, others more negative. And it was in small towns where I received the most challenging questions and borderline accusations.

So it ended up being research / bilateral dialogue effort, because I was also asked a lot of questions by Armenians about Turkey. One amazing thing is how high the level of interest is in Armenia about what is happening in Turkey and how few Turks Armenians actually meet.

AR: The warm reception you describe particularly in the rural areas, did you feel like you were given special treatment because, perhaps, you were breaking existing stereotypes? Or was it more just out of a sense of general neglect and an appreciation of an outsider's attention?

NG: At least in some places, my Turkishness was not important or not initially an important issue. People would talk about their local problems. Say, how budget of this village is sufficient or not for reconstruction of a particular sewage system or whatnot.

And it could be an hour into a conversation when someone would ask where I was from. And upon hearing I was from Turkey, they would say, "Oh, why didn't you tell us?" and start bringing fruits and vodka to the table and start talking about the past.

In part, I think it was a stereotype issue. I was not a classical Turk that people envisioned – a stern man with a mustache. And it was an opportunity for [Armenians] to talk to one of those people that they had heard so much about but never had an opportunity to confront.

Sometimes, when my Turkishness would be first revealed, the conversation would turn more confrontational. [I would be often asked] if from my perspective there was genocide. And after hearing me say yes [there was], and that Turkey is changing profoundly in this sense but that there are still problems- as soon as it seemed that I talked as a normal person, the atmosphere [would relax.]

And in villages, sure, there is a sense of not being paid attention to by other Armenians first of all. So, someone coming from an international organization and caring about what their daily life looked like certainly got a positive reaction.

Rural similarities and differences

AR: You have also done field research in rural parts of Turkey; how similar are problems in Armenia's rural areas to those in Turkey?

NG: There are similarities with Turkey, but frankly problems in Armenia are more similar to Azerbaijan's or Georgia's by virtue of the Soviet heritage and the breakdown of the Soviet system.

In Armenia, in some rural areas, people used to work in industry and had to readjust to working on land, but are still trying to hold on to some degree of their education.

That is different from eastern Turkey where industrialization has not yet reached. And people in Turkish villages were always there and education-wise they are not where the villagers of Armenia are.

And of course in eastern Turkey there is the conflict with the Kurdish insurgency which taps into identity issues and relations with the Turkish state.

Other than that, in terms of underdevelopment, the lack of amenities and limited opportunities, they are similar.

Armenian-Turkish engagement and where it could lead

AR: Having focused on Armenia for several years now, what is your sense of Armenia's main challenges?

NG: When we began working in Armenia, our focus was not on Armenia-Turkey relations. But we soon saw that the debate on the political scene, what politicians are accused of, is usually about concessions they are [ostensibly] ready to make to Turkey. Or the debate on the economy, why Armenia's economy is in a state it is in: Oh, it is because Turkey has closed the border.

So, we realized we could not avoid the Turkey issue if we were to discuss Armenia's challenges. Frankly, I think more and more people realize in Armenia that the source of Armenia's problems today is not necessarily Turkey. Yes, Turkey's border being closed does create some challenges, but were it to open tomorrow it would create other obstacles to recovery of the economy as well.

But Armenia's challenges certainly go beyond the border issue.

AR: On the issue of the border opening: Today, with the border closed, certainly that keeps people apart but not just from cooperating; it also limits conflict. In your sense, would a potential border opening be necessarily a step toward normalization, or just toward a different form of confrontation?

NG: I have thought about this question. Results of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue so far have been positive. Many more Turks come to Armenia, and many more Armenians go to Turkey. That is all very positive and contributes to a positive change in how people perceive each other.

Strong feelings in Armenia

On the other hand, there are issues that we are sweeping under the rug that might come to the surface more should there be [more direct contact via] an open border.

For example, in Turkey there is this perception that diaspora Armenians are the ones who insist on recognition of genocide internationally, and talk about lands and compensation. And that Armenian-Armenians are brotherly neighbors who don't share those views necessarily.

Ironically, this view has been promoted by Turkish liberals, including some liberal columnists, in an attempt [to make the Turkish public] more comfortable about relations with Armenia and so that negative feelings about genocide recognition are not transferred to Armenia in Turkish minds.

But I think there would be a rude awakening when the border does open, and more Turkish nationalists get a chance to meet with Armenians from Armenia, who actually feel quite strongly about genocide recognition.

The Turkish public needs to be ready for that and prepare to hear that.

[Having said all that,] there is really no other way forward, and many Armenians and Turks would have to agree to disagree on certain issues, and that might be the case for some time. And I think if we have some tolerance toward different opinions on both sides, there will be many opportunities to find common ground and similarities.

Many Turks who come to Armenia are astounded at how similar the cuisines, the dances are, the way people look and carry themselves.

Why Turks should care about Armenians

AR: What do you think should or could happen between Armenians and Turks, for them to become nations with historical, but not necessarily present-day problems?

NG: I could speak from the Turkish perspective on this.

Strong political leadership in Turkey is important. A sincere attitude in terms of remorse – I don't know if it is the right word – for the past needs to be emanating from Ankara. And that can be in the form of words, but beyond that having a memorial that is dedicated to the Armenians that were in Anatolia – right now, as you know, we have a memorial to Turks who died in that period.

Definitely, [another thing to do is] owning up to the cultural heritage of Armenians. Having one Holy Cross Church on Aghtamar restored should not be the end. There are other Armenian churches and monasteries that need to be approached with respect and acknowledgement of their Armenianness.

There can be a multitude of steps that could demonstrate a new attitude of Ankara and the past treated with more openness and more regret.

The current government has been inconsistent about its rhetoric on Armenia. There are positive developments, such as more open debate. But on the other hand, while suggesting a historical commission, [Turkish leaders] claim with certainty that there was no genocide. If you are proposing a free and independent study, you can't be making a judgment like that before the study is realized.

AR: Regarding the historical commission, do you see it as purely an element of the public-relations effort – to deflect genocide recognition – or could there be an opportunity there as well?

NG: I don't think [a commission], a state-driven initiative, would change the hearts and minds of Turks and Armenians, nor that it should.

It depends on how it is designed, what its mandate is. I think a commission to facilitate research on this issue can only help, if it is going to involve opening of archives, a meeting of minds, independent scholars from around the world, a platform for discussion that is open and constructive, then fine.

But we have to adjust our expectations. I don't think anybody really expects that [a commission] would work and solve the differences. I think we should be used to different opinions that can come closer together over time, but not necessarily be resolved all together.

I think when there is a critical mass in [Turkish] society leaning in a particular way, the government will follow that lead.

AR: Why should a critical mass of Turks care about Armenia or the Armenian issue?

NG: Because the Armenian issue is a core issue when it comes to Turkish identity, and the state's relationship [with the public]. When you see liberal intellectuals confronting the state in Turkey, the Armenian issue is one of the issues at hand.

It symbolizes the Turkish state's monopoly over history learning for many years. The Armenian issue is not the only issue that the Turkish education system has selectively opposed; there are many others.

As Taner Akcam noted, the issue is not Armenia; the issue is the Turkish state and its relationship with its citizens. And as Turkish society evolves and becomes more democratic, there will be more questions about what else we have been misled about or not allowed to speak of freely.

In the end, what it means to be a Turk is very intertwined with the Armenian issue.

Going from words to deeds

AR: Do you think Turkey will ever come to a point when it would be ready to offer some sort of compensation – financial or even physical – for the Armenian Genocide?

NG: There has been very positive progress in recent years in terms of allowing for a more open debate in Turkey about Ottoman Armenians, giving more space to challenging views. And considerable progress on minority issues in Turkey. On culture, too, there have been important strides forward: restoration of a church in Diyarbakir is now underway, for example, due partly to changes in foundations law recently.

In terms of compensation [pauses]. I don't think there is a way to hold Turkey legally liable in the foreseeable future. Turkey might be interested in making some gestures toward the Armenians who are descendants of Anatolia families. There is a discussion among intellectuals in Turkey as to what kind of gestures these could be. From benefits in acquiring lands to inviting members of the diaspora to help them find their roots, it is a wide range of possibilities.

Would Turkey actually be sitting down to try to determine financial compensation? We have not found legal ground for that. In foreseeable future, I think gestures will be of different nature.

There is, I think, genuine desire in Ankara to right some wrongs of the past, but there is also a risk of moving too fast and generating a political backlash.

Considering the defensive tone that has dominated in Turkey – you just can't go from that [to paying compensation]. More time is needed.

AR: From an Armenian perspective, of course, plenty of time has elapsed – more than 90 years.

NG: Definitely. But if you look at how much Turkey changed on this issue in the last nine years – it is much more than any change that had occurred from 1915 to 2000. Since 2000 there has been dramatic change. So don't look at the last 90 years, look at the last nine years.

Karabakh linkage and purpose of the "road map"

AR: What about the conflict in Karabakh? Do you see Turkey continuing to side with Azerbaijan on that to the degree it has until now, or do you see a debate and possible evolution there?

NG: The Karabakh issue is difficult. Most people in Turkey see a grave injustice committed to detriment of Azeris and that also no one in the world acknowledges that.

For Turks that is seen as "classical" example of Turkish people being wronged by the international community. Believe it or not, there is a complex of victimization psychology in Turkey as well and in that sense [Azerbaijan] is seen as an extension of Turkey.

But the perception of Turkey and Azerbaijan being "ethnic" brethren is stronger than the reality of it.

Secondly, there is also a feeling for many in Ankara that a Karabakh resolution is not that difficult and can even be done this year, and that is where there is a lack of realism.

But if you ask, who in this region has taken land and given it back, it is hard to find example of that. So, there is not a simplified view of Karabakh [in Turkey]; there is not a very good understanding of it.

There is also a fear of "losing" Azerbaijan to Russia, grounded or not. And the sentiment is that there is more vested economic interest of Turkey in Azerbaijan than there could be in Armenia.

Those in the Turkish press who argued that Turkey should take the Azerbaijani side – who are a minority right now – [tend to] engage in very simple economic calculations, comparing populations and energy resources.

AR: So where do you see Turkey going on this issue?

NG: The Turkish prime minister [Recep Tayyip Erdogan] has said over and over again in April and in May that there would be no normalization with Armenia until there is resolution in Karabakh. He said that so many times in so many different environments that it is difficult to conceive that he could do something that would be totally detached.

What he could do is spin some kind of development on Karabakh – that may not necessarily be a major development – as one more important than it really is and say, OK, this justifies a step toward Armenia. And there could be more steps like that, starting with establishment of diplomatic relations.

But it would be politically very difficult to disconnect [Armenia-Turkey relations] from Karabakh.

AR: What was then the purpose of the April 22 declaration by Armenia, Switzerland, and Turkey? Was it just a kind of "cease-fire" agreement to try to preempt "bad" resolutions in foreign parliaments?

NG: Turkey might hope that the "road map" would serve as a disincentive for some countries to pass genocide resolutions. Some people in Turkey might think that that might serve that purpose.

But whoever signs that paper on behalf of Armenia, be it president or foreign minister, does not have the authority to prevent the diaspora in the rest of the world from acting.

So, if that is the intention, then it is not realistic. But I don't think that is the only intention either. I would like to think that there is more to it than that.

Going in circles with Turkey

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

Turkish derwishes whirling. 18th cent. painting.

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

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

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

Third failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skewed priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why "preconditions" make sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armenian FM 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.

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.

News from Turkish archives: there was genocide

This was first published in March 14, 2009 Armenian Reporter.

Scholar: Ottoman documents corroborate Armenian Genocide
Hilmar Kaiser on new archival research and view of future

Kaiser (l.) with Ara Nazarian who helped put together the Armenian Assembly's genocide exhibit in background. Armenian Reporter photo

A scholar of Ottoman history, Hilmar Kaiser specializes in the Armenian Genocide. He has conducted archival research on the subject worldwide and is one of only a few Genocide historians to have spent extensive time working in Turkish archives. According to Mr. Kaiser, in recent years these archives have become “world class” in terms of service and are open to all interested experts.

Mr. Kaiser was in Washington to speak at the Armenian Assembly of America’s National Advocacy Conference on March 2, where he introduced an exhibit of photographs taken by German military personnel that depicted Armenian Genocide victims during deportations and their aftermath.

Following his presentation, Hilmar Kaiser spoke with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan.

Official Turkish evidence of genocide

AR: You said in your presentation that there is now the “first low, but reliable body count on Armenian victims - 1.1 million lost their lives, 150,000 were assimilated in Turkey.”

The numbers corroborate what has already been known from Armenian and European sources. What is the significance of the “new” numbers?

HK: These numbers come strictly from official Ottoman Turkish sources, specifically Ministry of Interior archives.

Some of these materials popped up in the “Black Book” of Talaat published in January and others in other places. You have to understand, these sources are from the administration. These sources are political documents people acted upon. These are returns on deportees, survivors, counts, and so on. These are documents prepared for [the Ottoman Minister of the Interior] Talaat to do politics. And Talaat knew exactly what was going on and he had this number in front of him.

According to Hilmar Kaiser there are now “respectful disagreements and debate in Turkey” regarding the Armenian genocide. He encouraged outreach to Turks who don’t recognize the genocide, since many of them see charges of genocide “as a personal insult with hidden agenda.”

“I have come to appreciate Turkish denial,” he said, because to a large extent it represents a rejection of genocide as an immoral act.

HK: There is no unified Turkish position or thesis on [the Armenian genocide]. Just in January six evenings a week, you had two to three hours of Armenian genocide on TV every evening. There is an aggressive debate about the apology initiative.

In addition to people on TV, there are those who work silently in academic circles. The treatment of the subject is much more sophisticated. And I have to say I am very optimistic.

AR: While there is certainly change in Turkey, your colleague Ara Sarafian recently visited a number of Turkish museums and found that denial of Armenian history is still the order of the day there.

HK: This is a slow process. Even if you want to change things, you need a budget for changing things. These are institutions that have bureaucratic processes.

One should not over-politicize everything. Certain things are just red tape. I have seen things done in Turkey in a way that I could never understand. But it is not political. It is just basically administrative law.

Turkey’s good intentions and commission proposal

HK: In Turkey, there is a strong desire for normalization of relations [with Armenia], obviously with a hope that in return the genocide would disappear [as an issue].

[Recep] Tayyip Erdogan is a remarkable person who has the habit of doing the right thing, although he has certain constraints on his policy due to what he inherited.

AR: At the same time, for nearly four years, the Turkish government has conditioned its relations with Armenia on a commission of historians, which as you mentioned earlier was effectively a political ploy thought up by a former Turkish diplomat, who is now a member of parliament.

HK: Some people think that once you put the [genocide issue] out of politics and hand it over to historians, you can deflect the [pressure on this] issue. This is a way for politicians to duck the issue. Although, this may not be a bad idea as such, I do not think [such a commission] would deflect the pressure.

But there is no need for historical commission to do research and it is not going to help advance academic research and understanding of the issue.

If someone wants to have a commission, let them have their commission. I will continue with my work. I hope that we come to a situation when a historical commission is no longer even thought of or deemed necessary.

Just the idea to have this artificial environment created gives me a headache. Knowing the red tape on the Turkish side and on the Armenian side, if these two paper tigers get together there will be a mountain of paper created, and I do not want to be buried under it.

I definitely do not want to be part of any commission, because I am anyhow [doing research] in Turkey, what would I need a commission for?

Preparing for the future

AR: At the end of the day, beyond academic research, what do you want to happen between Armenians and Turks?

HK: It is very simple. [It should become] absolutely normal to walk down the street in Van and hear Armenian and Turkish [languages spoken], like in Yerevan. I do not see many differences between Armenians and Turks. Leave the people alone and let them eat the same food and sing the same songs.

There should be an office of the ARF [Armenian Revolution Federation] in Van with coat of arms and an Armenian flag in front of it, because that is where ARF belongs. Catholicos Aram I should have his See in Cilicia and not in Lebanon. There should be a right of return for Armenians. I think Armenians belong not in Lebanon or Syria but in Turkey.

I would be happy when we see the Armenian genocide and decades following it as one chapter of Armenian history in historic Armenia, Anatolia, Kurdistan, or whatever [you call it]. I think that Armenians were there for 3,000 years and they should be there also in 3,000 years.

We have to overcome the results of the genocide. We have to prepare the future. The recognition of the Armenian genocide is not the end of things, it is the beginning.

Pallone on U.S. support for NKR; Erdogan on Bush & Obama; Vatican on Armenian Genocide; EU's new FSU plan; Caucasus on NATO ties

First published in November 29, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Rep. Pallone: U.S. should step up support for Karabakh

"It is necessary that the United States place an importance on the existence of the smaller states in the Caucasus," Rep. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) said in a statement released following his meeting with president of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Bako Sahakian, on November 22 in New York.

"The United States must not ignore the unique cultural identities of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh," the co-chair of the Congressional Armenian caucus went to say. "As a country founded on self-determination, we must champion the rights of people everywhere to self-determination."

While welcoming the November 2 Moscow declaration on Karabakh signed by the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Mr. Pallone also called for more "robust" U.S. role in the peace process under the incoming administration of Barack Obama.

Speaking on November 23 in Los Angeles, Mr. Sahakian welcomed President-elect Obama's "readiness to help meet the challenges faced by the Armenian nation." Karabakh's president is in the United States for the annual fundraising effort organized by the Armenia Fund in Los Angeles.

Turning to specific priorities for next year, Mr. Pallone said that as this year he will "urge a shift in U.S. aid to Nagorno-Karabakh from humanitarian to developmental programs [to] help rebuild Nagorno Karabakh's infrastructure [and] secure the health and safety of [its] people."

Turkish leader derides Bush, lobbies Obama

Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan used an invitation from President George W. Bush to an economic summit in Washington to lecture President-elect Barack Obama and to lambast the Bush administration's policies as "disastrous."

Although Mr. Obama himself declined to take part in the summit, he asked former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Rep. Jim Leach (R.-Iowa), and Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution to meet with foreign leaders on his behalf.

According to Turkish media, in meetings with Mr. Obama's representatives and in speeches at Brookings on November 14 and a day earlier at the Columbia University, Mr. Erdogan touted Turkey's importance and warned President-elect Obama about Turkey's "sensitivities" such as its insistence on denial of the Armenian Genocide and opposition to a de facto Kurdish state in Iraq.

In his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly pledged to drop the Bush administration's policy and stop deferring to the Turkish lobby when it came to U.S. policy on the Armenian Genocide.

Separately, Mr. Obama pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq within sixteen months.

Mr. Erdogan criticized the withdrawal plan as "premature" and the recognition pledge as "immature."

At Brookings, the Turkish leader claimed that "U.S. support is essential for maintaining the dialogue" between Turkey and Armenia, implying that Ankara would stop seeking normal relations with Yerevan if President Obama, in Mr. Erdogan's words at Columbia, acquiesced to Armenian-Americans' "cheap political lobbying" and speak clearly on the genocide in Ottoman Turkey.

Also at Columbia, Mr. Erdogan spoke of his desire to follow the recent Russian example and host a meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents.

And in Washington, Mr. Erdogan repeated his offer to mediate between the United States and Iran, while suggesting that Tehran cannot be forced to drop its nuclear program while other countries (presumably Israel, India, and Pakistan in addition to the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China) retain nuclear weapons.

Vatican: Memories of Armenian Genocide need to be overcome

"The Holy See's official position was expressed in Pope John Paul II visit in Armenia [where he] spoke about genocide," Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Vatican's voice on interfaith relations told Vatican Radio on November 22 (audio of the program is available at www.vaticanradio.org).

Cardinal Kasper was asked about the issue on eve of a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia who visited the Vatican from November 23 to 27.

In Armenia, "we visited the memorial of victims of what is called genocide, even though the Turkish [government] does not recognize this term. Normally it is called in this way," the cardinal recalled.

"In any case, the problem is not the term. It is a fact that thousands of Armenians were killed and starved and the terrible memories are there and we must help overcome these memories and also to improve if possible the relations between Armenia and Turkey, which are neighboring states but which have no relations with each other. And I don't know if the Holy See can do anything in this regard but of course we are always with the victims and not with those who did the bad things."

During his November 2006 trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI referred to "tragic circumstances [Armenians] endured in the last century," according to a report by www.asianews.it.

According to the Catholic News Service, in meeting with the Armenian delegation on November 24, Pope Benedict XVI also referred to Armenians' "unspeakable suffering."

In turn, Aram I said it was essential that the Armenian Genocide is explicitly acknowledged to help prevent new genocides "by affirming the rights of all people to dignity, a dignified life, freedom, and self-determination."

The Holy See last May hosted Karekin II, the Catholicos of All Armenians, who at the time appealed "to all nations and lands to universally condemn all genocides that have occurred throughout history," saying that "denial of these crimes is an injustice that equals the commission of the same."

In the meeting this week, Benedict XVI also noted "the escalation of persecution and violence against Christians in parts of the Middle East and elsewhere," apparently referring to attacks on Christians, including the Armenian community, in the U.S.-occupied Iraq.

"Only when the countries involved can determine their own destiny, and the various ethnic groups and religious communities accept and respect each other fully, will peace be built on the solid foundations of solidarity, justice and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples," the pope said.

European Union weighing ties with Russia, ex-Soviet republics

"In recognition of European aspirations" of Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, the European Commission is set to propose a new Eastern Partnership project to encompass the six republics in June 2009, www.EUObserver.com reported on November 24.

The EU Commission's draft communication seen by EU Observer describes relations between the European Union and Russia would take priority over the proposed new project.

At the same time, in an implicit swipe at Russia, the document notes that "the conflict in Georgia in August 2008 and its broader repercussions have resulted in increased awareness of the vulnerability of Eastern partners.... There is a sense of urgency among member states as to the need to enhance relations with our Eastern neighbors to support them in drawing closer to the EU."

Until now, EU engaged the six countries through its European Neighborhood initiative, which also involves the countries of the Levant and North Africa.

The new initiative, first floated by Poland and Sweden last May, is meant to send "a clear and lasting political message of EU solidarity" and to "produce benefits perceived and recognized by citizens of the partner countries."

Among them would be increased European aid to the six ex-Soviet countries, easing of visas for travel, and "a single deep and comprehensive Free Trade Area, providing the basis for the development of a common internal market, such as the European Economic Area [EEA]," such as EU now enjoys with Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.

But to qualify, the six states would be required to "take over [the entire EU legal code], including the acceptance of European Court of Justice rulings."

Caucasus countries clarify NATO policies

NATO foreign ministers will meet in Brussels on December 2-3 to find face-saving solutions that would help postpone immediate membership action plans (MAPs) for Ukraine and Georgia, news agencies report. Both countries were promised eventual membership at the NATO summit last April.

"At the moment [NATO membership] is not on Armenia's agenda," President Serge Sargsian told Euronews TV during his trip to European Union and NATO headquarters in Brussels in early November, reiterating a longstanding policy.

At the same time Mr. Sargsian added that Armenia wants to continue to partner with NATO, calling such cooperation "integral to [Armenia's] real security."

And in an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on November 11, Mr. Sargsian disagreed with the view that one of the lessons of the war in Georgia is that NATO should no longer be in the Caucasus. At the same time he noted that Armenia does not want to become an alliance member and is against "dangerous dividing lines" being drawn in the Caucasus.

In Baku, spokesperson for President Ilham Aliyev said on November 20 that Azerbaijan has no plans to enter NATO, Mediamax news agency reported.

"The talks concerning this issue do not reflect reality," said Elnur Aslanov. And in what may be the most belated correction in history, he added that the "statements about placing of NATO military bases in the territory of Azerbaijan," initiated in 1999 by Vafa Gulizade, senior aide to then-President Heydar Aliyev, "are also groundless."

For years, Azerbaijani officials have been more ambivalent about country's NATO aspirations.

Meanwhile, Georgia remains committed to NATO membership and "the decision, made in Bucharest, according to which Georgia will become a member of the Alliance, is still in effect", Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili said last week.

But speaking to Reuters on November 25, Ms. Tkeshelashvili appeared to concede that no action plan that could put a timeframe on future membership was forthcoming.

Armenian, Turkish FMs talk in Istanbul

First published in November 29, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Armenia’s foreign minister expects normalization of relations with Turkey “very soon”
On visit to Istanbul, says Armenia will “never” halt genocide recognition efforts
by Emil Sanamyan

Washington, - Armenian-Turkish normalization "could be done in a quick way, because I do not see any major obstacles," Armenia's foreign minister, Edward Nalbandian, said in Istanbul on November 24.

At the same time, Mr. Nalbandian stressed that Armenia is not saying, "never said, and will never say to our diaspora organizations or to any countries to stop the international recognition efforts of the Armenian Genocide. It is absolutely impossible."

The Turkish government has sought to prevent such recognition, warning in the past that Turkey would retaliate against Armenia's interests should the U.S. Congress adopt a resolution on the Genocide.

According to the Hurriyet newspaper on November 24, "the Turkish government is planning to restore [sic] diplomatic relations with Armenia by appointing an ‘accredited ambassador' if the Yerevan administration agrees to take a step on investigating the 1915 incidents."

Armenian leaders, including President Serge Sargsian earlier this month have rejected the so-called "commission of historians" proposed by Turkey in 2005 as a ploy to undermine recognition efforts.

Armenia holds the rotating presidency of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organization, and it was in this capacity that Mr. Nalbandian was in Istanbul. In additional to littoral states, the organization includes Armenia and Azerbaijan and a few western Balkan countries.

Following the BSEC meeting, Mr. Nalbandian met Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. That meeting lasted for more than two hours, the Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a press release.

"At the briefing that followed the meeting, Edward Nalabandian and Ali Babacan assessed the meeting as effective and constructive," the press release said. "Ministers agreed to continue efforts directed towards normalization of bilateral relationship."

According to Turkish media reports, Mr. Babacan said that the aim of both sides "is to totally normalize bilateral relations."

Answering questions from numerous foreign and Turkish media outlets following the BSEC session and before meeting Mr. Babacan, Mr. Nalbandian said "negotiations concerning normalization of [Armenian-Turkish] relations" continue "in a positive way," according to the recording of the remarks made available by the Armenian Foreign Ministry.

"We are discussing some details and points as any [other] establishment of diplomatic relations, this must be prepared properly," Mr. Nalbandian went on to say, implying that a political decision to normalize relations has already been taken by both sides. "All opening of borders that have been closed for years and years must be prepared properly. This is not a problem, this is a question of our discussions."

Mr. Nalbandian reiterated the Armenian government's position that it has no preconditions for establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of borders. He added that he expected "the same approach from the Turkish side [because] normalization is in the interest of Armenia and Turkey" and was "not a favor" of one side to another.

After Turkish president Abdullah Gül's visit to Armenia in early September on President Sargsian's invitation, there have been heightened expectations for a breakthrough in relations.

Following talks in Yerevan, Mr. Nalbandian and Mr. Babacan met in New York in late September on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

But judging by comments Mr. Gül made at the U.N. and Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan made during his visit to the United States in mid-November, Turkey continues to condition normalization on the satisfaction of Turkish concerns on the matters of Armenian Genocide and, to a lesser extent, the Karabakh conflict.

At the press conference in Istanbul, Mr. Nalbandian also said that he is likely to meet with his Azerbaijani counterpart at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Finland next week and that a new presidential summit may follow sometime in early 2009.