updated
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 3, 2001
[subhead] Is there any point in OSCE monitoring on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
front?
Another routine monitoring on the contact line of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
front took place this week, on 31 January to be precise. AssA-Irada news
agency reported that it was conducted by a delegation headed by the personal
representative of the OSCE acting chairman, Andrzej Kasprzyk.
Such monitoring is conducted on a regular base, and tiny reports about them
in the local media no longer catch anyone's interest. Meanwhile, the
monitoring of the situation on the border of countries involved in a
conflict, which have declared a temporary truce, and on the contact line, in
general, is a very complicated process. Preparations for it are carried out
seriously and on a large scale. Generally, it is no ordinary event. The
other thing is whether there is any point to it. But we will speak about
this a bit later.
A delegation's visit is scheduled no more than two weeks ahead. This is
logical. The war is going on, even if the sides are observing the truce. The
situation is sometimes changing not every day, but every hour.
[Passage omitted: example cited of cease-fire being violated]
So, the truce along the whole front line is quite fragile. Now imagine that
something happens while an OSCE delegation is conducting its monitoring. A
la guerre comme a la guerre. A person can be wounded by a stray bullet or
blown up by stepping on a mine. In brief, dangers lurk at every turn.
Incidentally, mines are the biggest headache for the sides receiving foreign
observers. People conducting the monitoring have heard a lot that these
deadly devices were planted to excess along the entire demarcation line and
are not eager to go to that area. It is sometimes impossible to convince
them that the area was cleared by a platoon of sappers just before their
visit.
[Passage omitted: there is always a danger of an act of provocataion but
both sides are interested in the successful outcome of a monitoring; cites
another example of cease-fire violation]
There are also cases when one of the sides, for its own reasons, refuses to
let a foreign delegation enter its territory directly through the front
line. That is to say, the observers can get to the territory, which the
observers can see even without binoculars, only by making a giant detour via
one neighbouring country, as a minimum.
Parties to the conflict do not choose the people who conduct the monitoring.
But intelligence and counterintelligence get involved in it and collect as
much information about visitors as possible.
Why is this done? Just imagine that an experienced scout is sent as an
observer. As is known, one spy may cost an entire division. Therefore, apart
from everything else, all filming and photography during the monitoring, if
any is needed, are carried out under the control of the appropriate
structures.
However, by the time the strangers visit the front line, everything is
cleaned out so that it is almost impossible to notice anything important.
The main question arises from this. What is the point in monitoring? The Big
Soviet Encyclopedia reads: "Monitoring is observing the environment with the
aim of surveying, forecasting and protecting it." Probably, monitoring is an
irreplaceable mechanism for studying the ecological situation. It is used in
war as well, but has a different name - reconnaissance. So, according to the
majority of servicemen, monitoring conducted on the front line is to some
extent a pointless action, no more than a tick in OSCE documents saying that
"everything is quiet in Bagdad".
Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 03 Feb 01 p 5
Azeri opposition MP wants Germany to replace France
as Karabakh mediator
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 2, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi
Baku, 2 February: "Today there is a situation in which Azerbaijan has to
think seriously over the extent, to which the current composition of the
OSCE Minsk Group is capable of participating in the process of settling the
Karabakh conflict. After the well-known pro-Armenian decision of the French
Senate, it emerged that its activities in the Minsk Group would not yield
anything good to Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the new US administration is
most likely to continue its policy of supporting Armenia. Thus, the balance
of power in the Minsk Group is not in Azerbaijan's favour," Milli Maclis
Deputy Asim Mollazada told our Bilik Dunyasi correspondent.
France needs to be replaced in the Minsk Group by another country. This
country could be Germany, whose participation in the Minsk Group will change
the balance of power in Azerbaijan's favour. We should take into
consideration that the influence of the Armenian diaspora is not so
significant in Germany and that Germany has no oil interests in Azerbaijan,
Mollazada pointed out. I am going to submit this idea for debate by the
Milli Maclis.
Source: Bilik Dunyasi, Baku, in Russian 1608 gmt 02 Feb 01
NEW STAGE IN AZERI-ARMENIAN TALKS
According to official reports, the face-to-face Paris negotiations between
Azeri and Armenian presidents, as well as talks joined by French president
Jacques Chirac, mainly concerned issues of a peace settlement of the
Garabagh conflict. The parties confirmed the need for carrying on the
meetings and voiced a hope for compromising ways in breaking the deadlock.
The two presidents have agreed that the countries co-chairing the OSCE
Minsk Group need to step up their effort toward resolving the problem.
The absence of more detailed information about the talks has led many to
remain content with behind-the-scenes sources and brief statements by
interested parties. For example, Armenian foreign minister V. Oskanian has
been quoted as saying briefly that the talks have not yielded any fruit.
Also speculated upon is the conclusion that the recent visit to Baku by
Russian Security Council secretary was connected with Moscow-proposed
solution alternative - to liberate several Azeri provinces from Armenian
occupation and to station UN-mandate Russian troops on the frontline. This
would be perfectly acceptable both for Armenians and Russians.
However, most of the comments concern a statement by Armenian President
Kocharian made prior to the direct talks in Strasbourg. The statement
spelt out three preconditions put forward by Yerevan. The first seeks
recognition of all parties to the conflict, which means an actual
independence of Upper Garabagh, the second defines the impossibility of
Garabagh being an enclave within Azerbaijan, which automatically signifies
annexation of the Lachin corridor and probably even the Kalbajar province
of Azerbaijan, and third requires security guarantees for Upper Garabagh
population to be provided by the international community, which envisions
its actual secession from Azerbaijan. It is clear that all of these rule
out the possibility of a compromise.
GARABAGH SOLUTION PROSPECTS
Upon returning to Baku from Paris Saturday, President Aliyev told
journalists at the airport that he had held talks with his Armenian
counterpart over the Garabagh peace prospects. The talks are progressing
very slowly, but I think this is the only right way as it is the way of
peace. Therefore, I consider our latest meeting, especially the one joined
by the French president, as very useful, he said.
Asked whether membership in the Council of Europe could facilitate
solution to the conflict, the President stated that if two members of the
organization are at war, this does nothing to improve its authority.
Therefore, I have explained in the Council of Europe that all
member-states should contribute to the settlement.
The president answered negatively the question if France, as a co-chair in
the OSCE Minsk Group, has put forward any suggestions toward peace
settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijan dispute. Neither France, nor Russia,
nor USA has any suggestions, while their previous proposals are known to
all, President Aliyev said.
He added that R. Kocharian had tried to blame the dragging on conflict on
Azerbaijan, saying that Azerbaijan had turned down the condominium state
suggestion by the Minsk Group co-chairs. I had to remind my counterpart
that Armenia too had rejected two proposals by co-chairs following the
OSCE Lisbon Summit. So, it is now 2 to 1 for Azerbaijan, the president
said.
Responding to an utterance that Turkey had vehemently criticized him for
the visit to France, he said newspapers were spreading misinformation.
According to him, in his lengthy meeting with President Chirac he
condemned the French Senate decision, while in Strasbourg H. Aliyev
announced that France has no right to interfere with the affairs of
another country. Besides, even if something of this kind did happen 85
years, there was no democracy and Council of Europe then.
President Aliyev dismissed a report by a Russian news agency that the next
round of talks would be joined by the Upper Garabagh administration.
First of all, it is necessary for the two presidents to arrive at an
agreement. When that happens, then a third, fourth, or fifth party can
take part in the negotiations, he said.
AssA-Irada News, January 27-30, 2001
ANOTHER ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH
CONFLICT ENDS WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT
Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met in Paris last week for
negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh.
As before, the latest round of negotiations has not produced any results.
Heidar Aliyev of Azerbaijan once again reiterated the idea of considerable
autonomy for the rebel region with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
remaining intact. This is what it boils down to: no independent Republic
of Nagorno-Karabakh, a million Azerbaijani refugees return to their long
since abandoned homes, and the process is observed by international
peacekeepers.
Robert Kocharjan said that the conflict could not be settled without a
third party, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, being represented at the
negotiations. Official Baku has always denounced the idea, as is
understandable. If Nagorno-Karabakh participates in the negotiations, it
would amount to its recognition by Azerbaijan. In the first place, it
would make discussion of autonomy for the region even harder. Second,
other states could follow suit and recognize the self-proclaimed Republic
of Nagorno-Karabakh too.
In other words, the Paris meeting does not have anything to show for its
efforts. So far, there is absolutely nothing to justify Kavano's
optimistic assurances (Kavano represents the United States in the OSCE
Minsk Group for Nagorno-Karabakh) that the problem will be solved in
2001. Kavano did hint, however, that the Minsk Group was working on some
new proposals...
Former Azerbaijani foreign minister Tofik Zulfugarov is confident that
Azerbaijan could take over Nagorno-Karabakh only by force.
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)
DEFENSE AND SECURITY
February 2, 2001, Friday
SECTION: CIS DEFENSE
SOURCE: Vremya MN, January 30, 2001, p. 5
Snark and ArmenTV's reports on Naira Melkumyan's "statements"
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:22:10 -0800 (PST)
#########################################################################
HL NOTE: The following news articles ignore such basic facts that:
1) Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was, is, and will remain to be a
legitimate part of the Azerbaijan Republic;
2) Karabakh, and seven other regions are illegally occupied by
the Republic of Armenia, the aggressor;
3) That the puppet leaders and regime(s) of some self-proclaimed "NKR"
entity are recognized by no state and lack any legitimacy whatsoever.
Further, the Stalin imposed name of Stepanakert in 1923, is invalid and
the historic name of the city, Khankandi, has been restored since
Azerbaijan's re-establishment of independence.
#########################################################################
Karabakh committee pushes "legal resolution" to conflict
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 31, 2001
Text of report by Armenian TV on 30 January
The Nagornyy Karabakh Republic's [NKR] Foreign Minister Naira Melkumyan
has stated that Armenia's and Azerbaijan's membership of the Council of
Europe will have a positive effect on the Karabakh settlement. Azerbaijan
will be obliged to recognize the priority of human rights and the rights
of the people. Melkumyan described Azerbaijan's membership of the Council
of Europe as a big concession on the part of the international community
as Azerbaijan is still a totalitarian state in Melkumyan's opinion.
The organizational committee in support of the NKR issued a statement
today that Armenia should tackle the Karabakh issue in the Council of
Europe from the legal point of view, presenting numerous documents that
legally prove Armenia's ownership of the Karabakh territory. According to
the representatives of the committee, a political solution to the Karabakh
issue has come to a dead end. There are signs of Armenian and Azerbaijani
economic cooperation in the near future and any military solution of the
conflict is unacceptable. The committee thinks that the only option is to
solve this issue through legal channels, taking into consideration the
fact that Nagornyy Karabakh has passed legislation in compliance with
international norms.
Source: Armenian TV Channel 1, Yerevan, in Armenian 1700 gmt 30 Jan 01
New OSCE proposals might be inadmissible for both Armenia, Karabakh -minister
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 31, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Stepanakert, 31 January: The foreign minister of the Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic [NKR], Naira Melkumyan, does not rule out that the cochairmen of
the OSCE Minsk Group could make new suggestions on the Karabakh conflict,
"which will be inadmissible for both the Armenian sides". But the minister
noted in an interview with Ayots Ashkhar (Armenian world) newspaper that
the cochairs of the Minsk Group (Russia, USA and France), which could
submit such suggestions, were perfectly aware of the position of the
Nagornyy Karabakh and realized the limits of the concessions that Karabakh
was ready to make. "I do not think that the cochairs are ready to provoke
the discontent of both Armenian sides," Naira Melkumyan noted. She
believes that before making any new suggestions, the cochairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group will hold preliminary consultations with all the three parties
to the conflict.
The NKR foreign minister said that the mediators "have not yet found that
golden mean" which could get all the parties around one negotiating table.
Meanwhile, Naira Melkumyan is confident that the cochairs realize
perfectly well that without Karabakh's consent and participation, it is
impossible to solve the Nagornyy Karabakh problem.
Touching upon the position of the Baku government, the minister said that
Azerbaijan's position had not changed on the propaganda level. "However,
there are signs that Azerbaijan's internal political position on the
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict has undergone some changes," Melkumyan noted.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1005 gmt 31 Jan 01
Azeri official rejects Karabakh minister's remark on possible resumption of war
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 2, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency MPA
Baku, 2 February: "The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly announced its
intention to resolve the Karabakh problem in a peaceful way," Novruz
Mammadov, head of the foreign relations department of the presidential
administration, told MPA, commenting on remarks by Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic [NKR] Foreign Minister Naira Melkumyan about the alleged
possibility of hostilities resuming if the determination of Nagornyy
Karabakh's status were delayed. Azerbaijan intends to use all possible ways
to resolve the conflict peacefully, and the representative of the
presidential administration thinks that there is no alternative solution to
the problem at the moment.
Mammadov pointed out that the Armenian side had neither the capacity nor the
desire to resume hostilities now and, on the contrary, it was scared of a
resumption. Even if we presume that hostilities will resume, the department
head of the presidential administration stressed, it is possible that
Azerbaijan sooner or later will have to liberate its lands from occupation
and restore its territorial integrity. In other words, if all the options
for resolving the conflict peacefully run out and do not yield the necessary
results, it cannot be ruled out that Azerbaijan will resort to other
methods, Mammadov explained.
Source: MPA news agency, Baku, in Russian 1445 gmt 02 Feb 01
Azeri expert suggests resolving conflict by deferring
Karabakh status issue
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 31, 2001
Text of Orxan report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zaman entitled "Is `sliding
status' possible?"
[Subhead] In the opinion of the political scientist, Eldar Namazov, who put
forward this initiative half a year ago, a new qualitative approach to a
Nagornyy Karabakh settlement is required
Although the 13th meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in the
last two years is now history, the general picture of the settlement
principles has not even been outlined yet. The fact that the Armenian
president stressed in Paris that Nagornyy Karabakh should be granted enclave
status (i.e. Lacin's annexation should be made official) and stressed that
the need for Baku and Xankandi [Stepanakert] to be equal subjects was an
important condition shows that the opposite side is not ready for
constructive concessions. According to our information, at the Azerbaijani
president's tete-a-tete meeting with President Jacques Chirac in Paris, the
French leader put forward a partly altered option of the "common state"
principle. At the same time, it is pointed out that this option has also
been corrected in proposals by Russia, which has recently started to get
actively involved in the mediation process. However, President Heydar Aliyev
did not accept these proposals and explained in detail during the first
meeting with Jacques Chirac why this project was unacceptable to Azerbaijan.
We should note that after his meeting with the leaders of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, the French president hinted that the Minsk Group would come up with
new proposals. In the opinion of Novruz Mammadov, head of the foreign
relations department of the Presidential Executive Staff, the cochairs are
now less likely to come up with a new project which will be radically
different from the previous three settlement plans: "What we may be talking
about is some kind of synthesis of those three plans." Interestingly, the
Armenian side also thinks so, and Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan
made a similar statement after the Paris meeting.
Eldar Namazov, former chief of the presidential secretariat, who for a long
time knew what was going on behind the scenes in the Nagornyy Karabakh
negotiating process, thinks that it is necessary to think about approaches
to the issue rather than new plans since all the settlement options have
been tried. The political scientist sees pushing the status issue to the
last stage of the Nagornyy Karabakh negotiations as the optimum way out of
such a situation: "We can put off the granting of status to Nagornyy
Karabakh for 10 or 15 years. During this period, we can solve other problems
(return the refugees to districts around Nagornyy Karabakh and open
communications with Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenia) and achieve mutual trust
with Armenian separatists." However, the political scientist stresses that
this process should not at all boil down to the idea of "forgetting the
status and solving the remaining issues" like the Armenians had earlier
suggested. "On the contrary, we should notify the Armenians right at the
start as to what would be the highest degree of self-government we would
give them within Azerbaijan in 10 or 15 years. At present, the Armenians are
not ready to accept this status, but they will agree to it 10 or 15 years
down the line after obtaining rich social protection within Azerbaijan and
not within Armenia." We should remind you that Namazov came up with this
initiative last summer, calling it "sliding status". At that time, the
authorities did not express their attitude towards this initiative. In his
conversation with us yesterday, Novruz Mammadov, an official of the
Presidential Executive Staff, underlined that such ideas were not new in
principle and were being examined in the general context of the settlement
process.
Source: Zaman, Baku, in Azeri 30 Jan 01 p 3
Azeri retired officers' union appeals to people, calls for war
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 30, 2001
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq entitled
"Problem should be solved without mediators"
[Subhead] The Union of Retired Officers is appealing to the nation
"Azerbaijan should prepare its army and respond to the enemy. It became
clear again in Strasbourg that Armenia was not going to make any concessions
regarding settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Therefore, Azerbaijan should
resolve this problem without any mediators and enter the Council of Europe
with 86,600 sq. km. territory in reality."
This quote comes from an appeal by the Union of Retired Officers to the
Azerbaijani people on the occasion of Azerbaijan's admittance to the Council
of Europe.
"We, the members of the Union of Retired Officers, trust to the strength and
will of our people. We are ready to do our best for Azerbaijan's prosperity
in the European family," the appeal says.
Source: Azadliq, Baku, in Azeri 30 Jan 01 p 6
Azeri opposition leader believes war only way
to resolve Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 29, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi
Baku, 29 January: "I am convinced that the Azerbaijani army will defeat the
enemy, even under the current leadership, should hostilities begin," the
Musavat Party leader, Isa Qambar, said. This belief in the victorious might
of the national army was expressed at a round table at the weekend devoted
to resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
The chairman of the Union of [Retired] Officers, colonel Isa Sadixov,
commenting on the unexpected opinion of the Musavat leader, expressed his
solidarity with him: "War is imperative since we shall not succeed in
regaining the lost territories by peaceful means. Kocharyan has confirmed
openly in Strasbourg that the Armenians do not intend to return Karabakh. I
believe that the Azerbaijani people is in a state to liberate the occupied
territories by force."
This bellicose mood amongst Azerbaijani politicians is growing stronger
because of the Azerbaijani president's ineffective efforts to make peace,
some experts in Baku believe. The former defence minister [under President
Ayaz Mutallibov], Tacaddin Mehdiyev, is also convinced of the fact that war
is the best way to resolve the problem. This is happening at a time when the
majority of political figures agree with the views of experts about the
unfavorable state of affairs, corruption and bullying in the Azerbaijani
army. "Given the necessary reforms, six months are enough to raise the
fighting spirit of the soldiers and the fighting efficiency of the army,"
the former defence minister believes.
Source: Bilik Dunyasi, Baku, in Russian 1000 gmt 29 Jan 01
Azeri, Armenian bodies on POWs, hostages agree to cooperate
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 31, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani radio station ANS on 31 January
[Presenter] Monitoring of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border took place again
today. This monitoring [of the cease-fire] differs from others in the sense
that a meeting took place between representatives of both countries'
commissions on POWs and missing persons. The chief of the Foreign Ministry
department for conflict situations, Matin Mirza, is on the "Isti-isti"
programme.
[Matin Mirza, speaking over telephone] Another monitoring was held on 31
January on the initiative of the personal representative of the OSCE
chairwoman in office, Mr Andrzej Kasprzyk, on the territory of Azerbaijan's
Qazax District [northwest Azerbaijan], near the front line village of
Cafarli. As usual this monitoring passed off quietly. This time Ismayil
Bagirov, a representative of the Azerbaijani state commission on POWs,
hostages and missing persons, also took part in the monitoring. After the
monitoring, he met his Armenian counterpart. The major aim of the meeting
was to learn about the fate of people taken prisoner or hostage or who have
gone missing during the conflict. The meeting solved some very important
issues. The Azerbaijani side submitted to the Armenian side a list of
missing persons. We can say proceeding from the results of the meeting that
both sides understood each other very clearly and it was decided to create
all the necessary conditions in future to find out about the fate of POWs,
missing persons and hostages, about when they were taken prisoner and to
secure their release from captivity. Both sides will do their best to
achieve this end. We should note that we also crossed the border and met at
the guest house of the governor of Armenia's Tavush Region, and all these
meetings took place in Armenia's Tavush Region.
Source: ANS radio, Baku, in Azeri 1430 gmt 31 Jan 01
Haktanir: Armenians want our land
Turkey's Ambassador in London Korkmaz Haktanir states that the Holocaust
Memorial Day in Britain is turning into an outburst of Turcophobia, and
stresses that Armenians want Turkish land
Ankara - Turkish Daily News
Turkey's Ambassador in London, Korkmaz Haktanir, has stated that Armenians
want Turkish land and indicated that the Holocaust Memorial Day has turned
into an outburst of Turcophobia in Britain.
In a press meeting in London last Saturday, Haktanir said he paid a visit
to the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, to express his
deep sympathy for the victims of the Nazi Holocaust between 1939 and
1945. The visit was made as a gesture to mark the Holocaust Memorial
Day. Haktanir said during his meeting with Rabbi Sacks he praised the
tolerance of Ottoman Turks towards Jews and the assistance Turkey had
given the Jewish people throughout the ages.
Stressing that his visit to the chief rabbi was intended to show that
Turkey mourned the Holocaust and all innocent victims of such
persecutions, Haktanir said he was not unable to attend the
occasion. Turkey boycotted the day as the British government included
Armenians among the guests.
Haktanir said: "The Holocaust Day has simply turned into the latest excuse
for an outburst of Turcophobia in Britain. The day was intended to mark an
act of regret for European cruelty to non-Christians. It has ended up
perpetuating an irredentist extremist vendetta against the largest
non-Christian nation in Europe on behalf of people who want our territory
and have already stolen land in the last decade by driving a million
people from their homes in the Caucasus."
Strongly condemning the anti-Turkish attitudes in Europe, Haktanir said
Turks could not get a fair hearing in much of Europe today. "We even see
attempts in other countries by the media and legislators with the
flimsiest knowledge of long distant events to rewrite Turkey's history. I
would remind the British people that leading academic specialists on
Ottoman history say that the claims being made against us can not possibly
be true and also that 3 million Turks died in Anatolia during World War
One. These victims of a devastation carried out by Christians against
non-Christians were fully entitled to be remembered in the Holocaust
Memorial ceremonies, but they are ignored because they were not
Christians." said Haktanir.
The Embassy has also issued a statement on why Turkey was so sensitive on
the issue. The statement read as follows:
Because we know the full background and Europe does not, we think this is
a case of complacent Christian Europeans attacking a non-Christian element
in Europe and it has deep historical roots.
We are not anti-Armenian. No one wants to minimize the scope of the
Armenian suffering, but it can not be viewed as separate from the
suffering experienced by the Turkish population of Anatolia in World War
One.
You have to bear in mind, that we have suffered wounds of our own on a
vastly greater scale than the rest of Europe knows and like the Jews in
Nazi Germany, we suffered it because we were not Christians.
For example, all muslims of Crete, who were Ottoman but Greek speaking,
were either killed or expelled to Turkey in the late nineteenth
century. They made up a third of the island.
This is just one example. There are scores of others from the Balkans,
Russia, the Caucasus and Greece -- and of course Turkey itself during the
First World War and the Turkish War of Independence.
In all about 5.5 million Ottoman Muslims died in these places between 1821
and 1923.
As for the radical Armenians, they were guilty of absolutely everything
they accuse the Turks of. Their rebel leaders systematically exterminated
Muslims wherever they could since they were a minority in eastern Anatolia
and could never have created an `Armenia' without expelling or killing the
Muslim Ottomans who were the majority.
They were not unarmed non-combatants like the Jews in Germany. They were
in armed rebellion and helping an invader in time of war.
Everyone mourns the tragedy of that war. But do not forget that 3 million
Turkish Ottomans died in it. We are outraged at the one-sided version of
events, which relies on British World War One propaganda, fabricated and
embellished at Wellington House, the War Propaganda Office, and which is
used unquestioningly by British journalists today who do not even know the
population figures for the Ottoman Empire.
We also remember that in the Caucasus in the last decade, the radical
Armenians, drove out 1.25 million Azeri Turks from their homes.
The Armenian campaign wishes such suffering to be ignored and suppressed.
The Holocaust was intended to mark an act of regret for European cruelty
to non-Christians. It has ended up carrying on a vendetta against the
largest non-Christian nation in Europe. This is the basic irony."
30 JANUARY 2001, Copyright Turkish Daily News
The New York Press
Wednesday, January 23, 2001
The Mail
Talking Turkey
I know better, but cannot resist commenting on Christopher
Atamian's "rebuttal" to Melik Kaylan's "rebuttal" to Charles
Glass's 12/13 "Taki's Top Drawer" piece on Diaspora Armenian
attempts to have the so-called Armenian genocide officially
recognized by the U.S. Congress and various European parliaments.
I know better because anyone-anyone-who dares question one bit of
the history of the Armenian people (written, by and large, by
Armenians for Armenians) almost inevitably comes in for the sort of
brick shower of ad hominem abuse, slander and invective used by
Mr. Atamian against Mr. Kaylan.
I have no doubt that should you publish this letter, you will soon
be inundated with protest letters describing me as a liar,
fabricator, paid apologist for Big Oil, agent of
Turkey/Israel/Azerbaijan, etc., by individuals who just happen to
be associated with well-heeled American Armenian lobby groups such
as the Armenian Assembly of America.
My crime, for your information, was to report on Armenian
atrocities against civilian Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds in and
around the disputed territory of Mountainous (Nagorno) Karabagh,
and to dare to suggest that the long-suffering Armenians might be
involved in a war crime or two themselves. And more. Any Armenian
scholar or writer who has the temerity to question or disagree with
the official Armenian line of "innocence all the time" was and is
likewise branded a stooge, quisling and national traitor by the Mr.
Atamians of this world.
One of the reasons that some observers and historians express doubt
about the Armenian version of events of 1915-'23 in Ottoman Turkey
is that they extrapolate backwards from the glaring distortions and
discrepancies in the Armenian version of events in the contemporary
Caucasus, where innocence is a very rare commodity and where
numbers associated with massacres, removals and general suffering
all have a political hue. A leading member of the Armenian diaspora
community in the U.S. once declared at a congressional hearing I
had been invited to address that 20,000 Karabagh Armenians had been
killed by the Azerbaijani army in one month of fighting in
1992. Twenty thousand in a month! While not trying to denigrate
Armenian losses and suffering in that mini-war, in reality the
total killed over six years of fighting does not exceed 35,000. And
the vast majority of those were Azerbaijanis. But the figure of
20,000 slain Armenians was thus inserted in the congressional
record for posterity, and will no doubt become a "fact" after
sufficient repetition.
The implications of this sort of numbers-crunching in the debate
about whether the Ottoman Turks effected a genocide against 1.5
million Armenians in the period 1915-1923 is self-evident.
According to census data at the time (when, due to tax-collection
purposes, the Muslim authorities had no reason to diminish numbers
of non-Muslims in the Ottoman realm), the total number of Armenians
did not exceed one million. Interestingly, the number of Armenians
allegedly killed during the period in question has consistently
been "goosed" upward over the years, starting, as I recall, with
claims of 300,000 dead in the 1920s, half a million in the 1930s,
one million in the 1950s and not reaching the "some 1.5 million"
claimed today until the 1960s or possibly 1970s. I wait with bated
breath for the adjective "some" to be replaced with "more than" in
the literature, thus opening the possibility of 1.75 million
killed, and eventually two million.
Is Turkey blameless in all this number-crunching? Hardly. While
rightly insisting that the issue of genocide/no genocide be "left
up to the historians and not politicians," the authorities in
Ankara have consistently dragged their feet on fully opening up the
one source that would, theoretically, serve as the material basis
proving or disproving the Armenian claim: the Ottoman Archives.
Until Ankara ceases using such flimsy excuses as the need to
properly organize the historic data contained therein and screening
historians before allowing them access, the government of Turkey
will leave itself wide open to any charge or change of number that
Armenian diaspora groups choose to level at the ancestors of
today's Turks.
Lastly, I would like to suggest to Mr. Atamian and his associates
in the diaspora that he and they might better serve the Armenian
people who are actually obliged to live in Armenia (as opposed to
the U.S., Canada, France, etc.) by assisting the process of peace
and amelioration between Armenia and its neighbors, rather than
stoking the fires of ethnic hatred with irresponsible rhetoric. He
might also take a trip some day to Turkey, too, where there is a
surprisingly open and refreshing discussion under way about all
aspects of the creation of the Turkish Republic and the
contemporary scene, ranging from the position of the Kurds and
other elements of the ethnic mosaic that make up your basic "Turk"
to feature programs on the 20,000 Armenians from Armenia who have
chosen to take up (illegal) residence in Istanbul due to economic
difficulties at home. In a word, I suggest Mr. Atamian get a
little closer to the Armenia-on-the-Ground, and cease the sort of
constant pejorative heckling he indulges in when thinking of
Armenia-in-the-Sky.
Thomas Goltz, author, Azerbaijan Diary, via Internet
News referred from Habarlar-L