Tweet
What Americans did is not only unserious, but also worrisome for Armenia
27.04.2007 16:09
Tatul Hakobyan
"Radiolur"
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,
then 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 did they provide $35 million in aid to Nagorno Karabakh between
1998-2006? 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.
27.04.2007 16:09
Tatul Hakobyan
"Radiolur"
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,
then 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 did they provide $35 million in aid to Nagorno Karabakh between
1998-2006? 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.