Tweet
WHAT AMERICANS DID IS NOT ONLY UNSERIOUS, BUT ALSO WORRISOME FOR ARMENIA
AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007
Karabakh Issue
At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide"
to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman
Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide... I think we, the
US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest
way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied
it, there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is
unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe
in calling things by their name," he said.
Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal
advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events
of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian
Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added:
" We made many mistakes after WWI."
At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US
follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody
realizes that Karabakh can't be given back to Azerbaijan. That would
be a disastrous step."
Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service
at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would
be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous,
bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians
back."
But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected
himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United
States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the
term 'genocide' speaking in what I characterized as my personal
capacity. This was inappropriate."
Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted,
"The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously
following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a
discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted
to say aloud.
Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows:
Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but
does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more
simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh
is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality,
since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused
a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs,
but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.
The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed
referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since
due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group
Matthew Bryza it's not a secret for experts, at least. That is to
say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five
territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For
its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno
Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of
the document on the bargaining table.
Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in
an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the
occupied territories is an important component of the main principles
of settlement.
"However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories,
which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If
Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will
do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn,
it will reduce the tension.
However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the
leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult
is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of
Nagorno Karabakh."
Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of
another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, "were unbelievably close
to settlement." The main architect of the Key West was the US. The
document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of
Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia
was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the
content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the
policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If
Washington really changes its policy and accepts that "Armenia
continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh
and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question
arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased
mediator? Let's pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey,
which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position,
seems to be more unbiased on this background.
If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside
the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia,
that Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed
against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US
Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter
imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If
Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans,
then why do they provide $35 million since 1998 in aid to Nagorno
Karabakh? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that
the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.
If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what
is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past
15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge
Programme?
If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly
written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have
been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the
Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt
any resolution.
It was obvious for the international community that war was logical,
and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia
and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to
be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control
of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting
resolutions one after the other. The international community started
to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of
their imagination.
At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted
two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted
November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair
solution to the conflict, which would reflect the will of the region's
population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80%
of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was
Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the
resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According
to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, "it was a crude and
self-proclaimed mediation" and "such decision of the Senate panel
caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation
can be understood."
In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail
Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the
demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous
Region with Armenia.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording
on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording
can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such "unserious"
steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose
why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one
thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake
the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia.
By Tatul Hakobyan, "Radiolur"
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007
Karabakh Issue
At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide"
to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman
Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide... I think we, the
US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest
way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied
it, there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is
unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe
in calling things by their name," he said.
Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal
advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events
of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian
Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added:
" We made many mistakes after WWI."
At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US
follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody
realizes that Karabakh can't be given back to Azerbaijan. That would
be a disastrous step."
Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service
at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would
be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous,
bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians
back."
But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected
himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United
States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the
term 'genocide' speaking in what I characterized as my personal
capacity. This was inappropriate."
Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted,
"The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously
following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a
discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted
to say aloud.
Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows:
Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but
does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more
simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh
is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality,
since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused
a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs,
but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.
The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed
referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since
due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group
Matthew Bryza it's not a secret for experts, at least. That is to
say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five
territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For
its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno
Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of
the document on the bargaining table.
Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in
an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the
occupied territories is an important component of the main principles
of settlement.
"However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories,
which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If
Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will
do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn,
it will reduce the tension.
However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the
leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult
is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of
Nagorno Karabakh."
Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of
another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, "were unbelievably close
to settlement." The main architect of the Key West was the US. The
document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of
Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia
was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the
content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the
policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If
Washington really changes its policy and accepts that "Armenia
continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh
and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question
arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased
mediator? Let's pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey,
which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position,
seems to be more unbiased on this background.
If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside
the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia,
that Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed
against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US
Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter
imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If
Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans,
then why do they provide $35 million since 1998 in aid to Nagorno
Karabakh? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that
the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.
If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what
is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past
15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge
Programme?
If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly
written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have
been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the
Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt
any resolution.
It was obvious for the international community that war was logical,
and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia
and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to
be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control
of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting
resolutions one after the other. The international community started
to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of
their imagination.
At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted
two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted
November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair
solution to the conflict, which would reflect the will of the region's
population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80%
of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was
Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the
resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According
to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, "it was a crude and
self-proclaimed mediation" and "such decision of the Senate panel
caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation
can be understood."
In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail
Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the
demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous
Region with Armenia.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording
on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording
can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such "unserious"
steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose
why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one
thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake
the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia.
By Tatul Hakobyan, "Radiolur"
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress