Tweet
Interview with David Boyajian:
The Armenian - Turkish Protocols,
U.S. - Russian & Turkish - Israeli relations,
and other political topics
Interviewed by Jim Hogue
Air Date: October 26, 2009
WGDR 91.1 FM
Community Radio from Goddard College
Plainfield, Vermont
Jim Hogue's weekly radio program, The House at Pooh Corner, focuses on
national and community issues, especially 9/11 Truth, Election
Integrity, the economy, and sustainable agriculture
(http://www.wgdr.org/houseatpoohcorner .html)
David Boyajian is an Armenian American writer and activist. Many of
his articles and interviews are archived at Armeniapedia.org
Transcript:
INTERVIEWER:
Well , here we are, Jim's House at Pooh Corner. The following program
presents the opinions of its producer and guest and does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of WGDR or its licensee Goddard
College. Today our guest is David Boyajian. He was a guest about a
month ago. He is an expert on the Caucasus and the relationships that
affect that region, like the relationship between Russia and China and
Turkey and Israel and the U.S. And there is the Caucasus, in the
middle of an interesting, deadly tug of war. So I'm going to put on
some music, and then we'll do that. Let's see, what shall it be?
[MUSIC]
INTERVIEWER:
That was Fred from `I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket.' I think
it was from Top Hat. All right, Mr. Boyajian, can you hear
me?
BOYAJIAN:
I can, Jim.
INTERVIEWER:
Great. Well, as I mentioned to people earlier in the program, David
Boyajian is an expert on things in the Caucasus, particularly the
relationship between Turkey, Russia, China, Israel, the U.S. and the
area of Armenia.
And things are not particularly in the news about that area, so that's
one of the reasons why David Boyajian should be a guest on this
program, because he can tell us why they ought to be in the news.
And we are recording this in two different ways today, David, so we
should grab it without any problem. Well, would you like to tell us -
you want to first rehash a little bit about what we went over last
time? Or do you want to tell us what's hot?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I'll give you just a minute of background. We have the three
ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus, the republics of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and just to the west of that region is
Turkey, and just to the east of it is the Caspian Sea, which is very
rich in oil and gas.
And I like to call this area `ground zero' for the new Cold War between
Russia and the United States.
Russia's trying to hold on to this region, because it wants to retain
control over the oil and gas in that region, and the United States and
NATO, on the other hand, are trying to penetrate that region and
access the oil and gas. And to some extent, it's been successful in
doing that. There are two major pipelines, one gas, one oil, from
Azerbaijan west through the Republic of Georgia into Turkey.
So that's kind of the lay of the land over there right now.
INTERVIEWER:
And how does that affect Armenia at this point?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, let's see, the big news, Jim, and actually there is a lot of
news coming out of the Caucasus these days - there is a proposed
agreement between Turkey and Armenia. It's called the Protocols, and
the presidents of Turkey and Armenia have signed these Protocols. But
they're not ratified yet. They won't become official until the
parliaments of Turkey and Armenia vote to agree to them, but that's
not clear at this point exactly.
The reason these Protocols come up, there's a little background to
this. Briefly, Turkey committed genocide against Armenians in the
years 1915-1923, so Armenia has been concerned with this ever since,
especially since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, because
then Armenia was on its own. So Armenia is very concerned about
Turkey and its aggressive intentions. Now, in 1993, what happened is
that Turkey closed its border with Armenia, out of sympathy with the
nation of Azerbaijan, because Azerbaijan and Armenia had fought a war,
and there's still a cease fire going on over there, over the Armenian
populated territory of Karabagh, which is just inside Azerbaijan.
Armenia won that war, but as I say, Turkey closed the border with
Armenia in 1993. So these Protocols - proposed Protocols - were meant
to reestablish relations between Armenia and Turkey. And whether this
happens or not is of vital interest to the United States and to
Russia, too.
INTERVIEWER:
Because that will open up a clearer path to the pipelines?
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. Right now, if one were to look at a map, the republics
of Georgia and Armenia form a kind of physical wall between east and
eest, between - on the east - the oil and gas in Azerbaijan and the
Caspian Sea, and - on the west - Turkey, which is a pipeline route out
of that area. Right now, because Armenia's eastern and western
borders were closed by its neighbors, the only pipeline route out is
through the Republic of Georgia just to the north. So that's where
the western-bound U.S. built pipelines are constructed.
Now, what the United States would like to do is open up the borders
between Armenia and its neighbors - its eastern and western neighbors
- in order to facilitate U.S. penetration into that area,
U.S. influence and so forth. Russia, on the other hand, has generally
wanted those borders to be closed, because closed borders stop
U.S. penetration. But something has changed recently, Jim. I think a
lot of what has changed is the result of the war between Russia and
Georgia last year. That cast doubt on Georgia's ability to continue
hosting present and future oil and gas pipelines out of the Caspian
Sea. So the United States would like an alternative way to get into
the Caspian, and that can only happen if the Turkish -Armenia border
were to be opened. However, why does Russia now want an open border
between Turkey and Armenia?
It's not entirely clear. I think the reason is that they're trying
to, well, Russia is becoming friendlier to Turkey. Russia has a
certain leverage over Turkey, because it supplies most of Turkey's
natural gas. Now, it may be that Russia is trying to draw Turkey into
its sphere of influence, so to speak, and therefore it does not mind
opening up the border between Turkey and Armenia. Indeed, Russia may
see this as a strength, because Russia controls so much of the
Armenian economy that it may not fear Turkish and Western penetration
into Armenia. In other words, Russia feels it has a tight enough hold
on Armenia at the present time that the U.S. could not penetrate. So
we're going to have to see what happens.
INTERVIEWER:
And the geography is indeed very important, and it's of course murky to
a lot of people, because there are so many little `baijans' down there, and
Armenia you said is just south of Georgia.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right.
INTERVIEWER:
And it also touches on the Caspian.
BOYAJIAN:
Armenia does not touch on the Caspian. Armenia is actually
landlocked. It has no sea coast at all. Just to the south of Armenia
is Iran.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and just to the north is Georgia, and just to the west is Turkey.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. And just to the east, bordering on the Caspian Sea, and
wealthy in oil and gas is Azerbaijan. It is a confusing geography,
but it means everything.
I encourage people to try to get hold of a map, because I know it is
difficult to picture sometimes.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and what we described last time was the importance of this, that
this was sort of the route of last resort, but the U.S. doesn't want to lose
control of that.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. That's right exactly. The U.S. is trying to penetrate
the region to get at the oil and gas. Also, NATO is trying to
penetrate the region. As you know, since the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, NATO gobbled up most of the countries of Eastern Europe
that were under Soviet control. Now it's trying to make the ex-Soviet
republics to the south of Russia part of NATO. They haven't joined
NATO yet, but they are candidates.
Georgia and Azerbaijan particularly are candidates. And that gets
Russia very, very angry, and that's one of the reasons we saw the war
between Russia and Georgia last year.
INTERVIEWER:
Ah, all right, even though that war, that wasn't one of the reasons
given for that war, but you think that was an underlying motivation?
BOYAJIAN:
Absolutely. There is relentless pressure on Georgia by Russia, and
there has been for the last 20 years. The leadership of Georgia wants
to go towards the West. It wants to get out from under Russian
influence, Russia's thumb, and it wants to be friendly with Europe.
And this has infuriated Russia. Now, ostensibly, last year, the war
between Russia and Georgia was over the disputed enclave of South
Ossetia, which Russia controls and is just inside the Georgian border,
but in fact is legally part of Georgia. But South Ossetia and a
region called Abkhazia broke away from Georgia after the dissolution
of the USSR, with the support of Russia. So these two areas are under
the influence of Russia. In fact, Russia has now recognized them as
independent, although only a few other countries in the world have.
So, ostensibly, even though the war last year was over this disputed
region of South Ossetia, in fact, the larger context was that Russia
is trying to put pressure on Georgia not to join the West.
INTERVIEWER:
OK. I wonder how quickly Russia would recognize Vermont if Vermont
decided to declare independence from the beast.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's very funny. I think that Russia would become very
friendly to Vermont if Vermont made an overture. But unfortunately,
Vermont does not have a seaport, except on Lake Champlain, as far as I
know.
INTERVIEWER:
I don't know why anybody would want Vermont as an independent country,
except just a stick in the eye to the beast.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, this is a good point. Because what the United States and Russia
do is they take these small countries, and basically use them for
their own purposes. Russia may say, well, it cares about the
independence of South Ossetia, but not really. Russia is using it.
The United States may say it cares about human rights in the Republic
of Georgia, but no, it really doesn't.
It's trying to use Georgia as a middleman, a gas and oil pipeline
route, between Azerbaijan and Turkey. Why else would the United
States be interested in these very small nations over in the Caucasus
and Central Asia? Why is the U.S. interested in Afghanistan?
That's a whole other question there, too.
INTERVIEWER:
And we can certainly talk about that, because one of my points that
I've been making - the light bulb went off about a year or so ago, and
finally got brighter in my head - is that the U.S. is no more. And
what I mean by that is that we're just calling this land between the
Atlantic and the Pacific the United States, when in fact, it is a
series of 50, well, 48 vassal states, which provide treasure and
bodies for the financial elite, and they are the army for the
financial elite, and they are the source of wealth for the financial
elite, which run the country. And this was solidified in my head when
the people who we know are criminals, Paulson, Geithner, Summers,
Bernanke, that crowd that's been robbing the United States for years,
when they were officially put in charge of the United States by Obama,
who was groomed by Brzezinski and that crowd right from the start. So
it's a pretty closed, a pretty tight ship. And they've circled the
wagons around each other, and they're now running what you might call
the country. And I don't know whether you agree with that, but I see
that as an important thing to recognize if you're going to be
understanding what's happening in the rest of the world.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I think people are becoming increasingly informed, but the
powers-that-be in the United States do now want to explain to the
people why the United States is in so many other countries. They just
don't want to say we're there for oil and gas, for example. It just
doesn't sound good to most people, I think, especially when we send
soldiers over there, and those soldiers die. The leaders - our
leaders - don't want to say, `we're over there for oil and gas because
we see it as a necessary commodity to keep our economy going, and
unfortunately, young men and women have to die to safeguard that oil
and gas.' They don't want to say that. They're afraid of the
reaction of people. And so, the American people are told, `we're in
Afghanistan because of al Qaeda, because of 9/11, because of the
Taliban.' And to some degree we are, yes. But there are also other
motives there.
There's oil and gas in Afghanistan, and just to the north. I should
mention, I was mentioning the Caspian as being rich in oil and gas,
Jim. Now, in terms of getting it out to the West, what the United
States has been doing is, it's sort of been aiming its arrow from the
West, from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, but there's an eastern route
into the Caspian, too, and that's from Afghanistan, up through
Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan has a lot of natural gas - huge, huge
amounts. And the United States has been trying to get at it now for,
oh, at least 15 years, way before 9/11, actually. But you don't hear
about this very much as a reason for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
I think most people would be rather surprised to read about this. But
it is really not in the consciousness of the average U.S. citizen now.
INTERVIEWER:
I read recently a story that control of the opium trade is another
very important reason why the U.S. is in Afghanistan. And I think
that's the kind of thing that Sibel Edmonds would be good to talk
about, because she is the one who identified the millions and millions
of dollars that were involved in the whistle-blowing, in her
whistle-blowing efforts, because she was able to trace the money right
into the pockets of U.S. senators.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I know she says that the main route for heroin into Europe is
via Turkey, and she says that the Turkish military - the Turkish
government - is actually involved in this trade, that it lets it
happen because it's able to milk so much money out of that trade.
I don't know. That's not an area I'm particularly conversant with,
but from everything I've read, it makes a certain amount of sense. We
really don't know what's happening behind the scenes here sometimes.
INTERVIEWER:
So you cannot confirm or deny that drug trade is an important reason for
the U.S. to be in Afghanistan.
BOYAJIAN:
That I don't know, Jim. I can't address that. But I might, at this
point, I might want to get back to something in the Turkish - Armenian
Protocols, and they're very much in the news now. And what do they
consist of? Well, a lot of the sections of the Protocols are just
boilerplate on establishing normal relations and so forth. But there
are two very significant parts of the Protocols from the perspective
of Armenians. And this is why Armenians in Armenia and around the
world have been up in arms in the last several weeks. One involves
the establishment of a so-called joint commission between Armenia and
Turkey, which supposedly would determine whether the Armenian genocide
occurred. Now, this outrages Armenians, because 20 nations around the
world, the European Parliament, and the International Association of
Genocide Scholars have all recognized the Armenian genocide. So
Armenians think, `why do we need to sort of bury this issue in a joint
commission between Turks and Armenians when we know that if there's a
final vote taken on that commission, the Turks are going to say there
was no genocide?' So Armenians are aggrieved about this. The second
thing they're aggrieved about is, although Armenia has never made
formal territorial claims against Turkey, there are such claims, and
there are reparations claims in the background, because after World
War I, much of what is called eastern Turkey today was supposed to be
incorporated as part of Armenia. So what these Protocols do, and this
is the second thing people do not like, is they have Armenia recognize
the territorial integrity of Turkey. Now, that may sound reasonable
to most people, but to Armenia, a small landlocked country that was
supposed to get a coastline on the Black Sea after World War I, they
see this as a betrayal by the Armenian leadership, which they see as
largely corrupt. So these Protocols, it's not clear whether they're
going to be ratified and whether that new route between Turkey,
Azerbaijan and Armenia is going to be opened up in the future, whether
that border is going to be opened.
INTERVIEWER:
Now, you mentioned NATO, and how NATO was operating as though it had a
mind, as though it were one thing with a mind. Is it the U.S. that's
actually determining what NATO wants to do in this situation?
BOYAJIAN:
It is. Of course the United States is the driving force behind NATO.
And NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is getting pretty
far from the north Atlantic these days. It gobbled up the nations of
eastern Europe after the Soviet Union broke up, and that made Russia
rather nervous. It made it seem to the Russians and to many other
people, too, that the United States was continuing the Cold War, even
after the Soviet Union broke up.
After all, they, in their minds, said `since NATO came about as a Cold
War instrument to contain the Soviet Union, why did it need to expand
when that Cold War was won by the United States and NATO?' So Russia
saw this as a continuance of the Cold War. But I don't think that
eastern Europe concerns Russia as much in terms of its being in NATO,
as the republics to the south of Russia, in the Caucasus, and also in
Central Asia, which we haven't talked much about: Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan =85 these are mostly Muslim republics, and Russia is
nervous that there will be Western influence there, that the West will
tap the oil and gas there, and that possibly those countries could
become members of NATO.
Because if that happens, not only does NATO surround Russia on
Russia's west in Europe, but also its entire southern tier. So Russia
would be virtually surrounded by NATO and China at that point. I
think that gets Russia pretty nervous.
INTERVIEWER:
All right. And what kind of
rapprochement is there now going on or otherwise between Russia and China?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, they're getting friendlier.
How deep it goes, I don't know.
I do know that there are a lot of Chinese workers in Siberia now,
working on industry, oil and gas there, and that Russia plans to
supply China with a lot of natural gas. I think even with weaponry,
too. This is rather surprising to those of us who were brought up
believing that China and Russia were enemies. And they still may be.
But on a certain level, they're cooperating. They certainly have a
common interest in keeping the United States out of Central Asia.
Central Asia is right next door. It lies right between Russia and
China, and if anybody is going to get at the oil and gas there, Russia
and China feel it should be theirs, not the United States's. So
that's another point of competition.
INTERVIEWER:
And Webster Tarpley was talking about the U.S. trying to drive a wedge
between this agreement that might be happening between Russia, China
and India. Unless I've, I mean, that was an old story for him, but he
says that as these countries make deals, that's upsetting to the
Brzezinski crowd.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, there is an organization, let me try to remember, the SCO,
Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And that is, that's between
Russia, China, I believe India and some other Asian states. And
that's widely viewed as an initiative to kind of keep the United
States out of the region, a counterbalance to U.S. influence.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes. And it was making the Brzezinski crowd nervous, but it didn't
come into play for the Bush Administration, particularly. It's as if
it was off their radar. But that's just what I learned from Webster
Tarpley some time ago. So you see that as another means of control by
Russia, China and India, of Central Asia.
BOYAJIAN:
Definitely, particularly driven by China. China especially wants to
grab the oil and gas in that region. There is a deal, in fact,
between Turkmenistan and China, now, where China will construct a
pipeline, it might even be in the process of being built right now,
the natural gas pipeline would go from Turkmenistan north through I
believe it's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China, and China has sunk a
lot of money into this project. I think Russia is probably very
jealous about that because up to the present time just about all of
the Turkmen gas has been going north through Russia, and a little bit
south through Iran. And, as I say, I believe that the natural gas in
Turkmenistan is one of the reasons the U.S. is in Afghanistan today.
So there's definitely a big battle over the natural gas in
Turkmenistan. It's funny how these relatively small countries that
most Americans have never even heard of play such a central role in
U.S. policy here, Jim. Very interesting, Turkmenistan. Whoever would
have thought? But it does play a major role.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, now, last time you told what to me was a very funny story about a
lot of Turkish money in the form of what we might call a bribe if we
were using regular English, but it was some kind of campaign
contribution to a congressperson in Illinois?
BOYAJIAN:
Oh, let's see, yes. This is what Sibel Edmonds, the FBI
whistle-blower, says. She claims that there was a congresswoman from
Illinois - and we don't know who it is - it's been speculated that
it's Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Sibel Edmonds alleges that a
female Turkish agent lured this U.S. congresswoman into an affair.
This U.S. congresswoman is married with children, and, as Sibel
Edmonds claims, this woman, a Turkish agent, lured her into an affair.
Turkish agents videotaped and audiotaped their romantic tryst, and
that they subsequently blackmailed her or tried to blackmail her. I
don't know. I know that Jan Schakowsky has denied that she had any
involvement of this type. And that, of course, brings up the whole
Sibel Edmonds issues.
She has a gag order on her.
She has been able to talk a little bit about the secret FBI tapes she
listened to when she was a translator there just after 9/11. But she
has a gag order placed on her. So what really needs to happen there,
Jim, as I'm sure you know, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed.
And this whole thing needs to be aired, because she's alleging
espionage activities between some of the neo-cons, like former
U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Mark Grossman, and he's selling
U.S. secrets to Turkey, and perhaps Pakistan. He denies it, but we
really need a special prosecutor to look into it.
INTERVIEWER:
Here's a huge question. How does Israel fit into this formula? Not
the one we just talked about, necessarily, but what is their, what dog
do they have in this fight when it comes to the oil and gas in the
Caspian?
BOYAJIAN:
Yes, well, Israel is quite interested in the Caucasus, the Caspian and
Central Asia. One reason goes back to a long-standing Israeli policy.
It's called the Periphery Policy, where it tries to make friends
outside of the immediate region, because its relations with its
neighbors, its Arab and Muslim neighbors, have been so problematic.
It looks for friends outside, for example in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Israel's quite friendly with Georgia and Azerbaijan now, and
Jewish American organizations continually send delegations to the
republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, and Israel supplies weapons to
Georgia and Azerbaijan, too. So they're very much involved.
INTERVIEWER:
Aren't there Israelis in the Georgian parliament?
BOYAJIAN:
I believe the foreign minister of Georgia might have originally been
an Israeli citizen. I'm not quite sure. But that is the word. But
for sure, Israel would like to have access to some of that oil and gas
coming out of the Caucasus and Central Asia. That's a definite. So
that, because of Israeli influence on U.S. foreign policy, that may
partially be driving the U.S. agenda there. I don't say it's the
entire reason why the U.S. is in the Caucasus and Caspian, but it
could be part of it.
INTERVIEWER:
And this is WGDR, Plainfield, and it's five minutes after 9:00. Now,
the right wing in Israel in particular seems to be jumping up and down
and screaming that it wanted the US to attack Iran at some point.
Now, I know that that's been off the table for a long time. Why were
they so anxious, if I'm correct, why were they so anxious to have the
U.S. attack Iran?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, of course, the U.S. claims that Iran has a nuclear, a covert
nuclear weapons program, that it's enriching uranium and wants to
build a bomb, which the U.S. says could be used against Israel or in
some other fashion contrary to U.S. interests. So yes, of course, as
we all know, Israel and the U.S. have been very concerned about this
for a number of years. Right now I don't know if an attack on Iran is
actually off the table. Voices have been lowered over Iran lately,
but we really don't know what's happening. But the really interesting
thing happening now is between Turkey and Israel. Turkey and Israel
have been allies for a long time. This may seem very strange to
people, because Turkey is a Muslim country, but, in fact, Turkey was
the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel after 1948, and relations
have been pretty close, very close since then.
Since the mid-1990s, Turkey and Israel have been very close,
economically, and at the military level, joint training exercises.
Israel is selling Turkey weapons. There's a lot of tourist trade
taking place between the two countries.
But lately, there's been a kind of falling out, at least on the
surface. Turkey's been criticizing Israeli behavior in the Gaza
Strip, and the Islamic government in Turkey has been accusing Israel
of committing genocide against Palestinians. And it's rather ironic,
because what Israel has said very subtly to Turkey is, `don't accuse
us of genocide when we know you committed genocide against Armenians
during the First World War, and you have yet to admit it.' So we'll
have to see what happens.
The relationship between Turkey and Israel goes rather deep, Jim, and
I know that people have been saying in the news that it looks like the
relationship is breaking up, because the Islamic government has been
so critical of Israel. But we really have to wait to see how this
develops, because even though the Islamic government may not like
Israel, the relationship goes deeper than that, especially at a
military level, and it's not clear that Turkey wants to anger Jewish
American groups, who of course are very, very influential in the
U.S. Congress.
I should mention - some of your listeners may know because of the
last time I was on, or because they've read it in the news - but
Israel has long refused to recognize the Armenian genocide, and so
have Jewish American groups, some of the top Jewish American groups -
not all of them - like the Anti-Defamation League and the American
Jewish Committee. Israel kind of recruited the Jewish American
lobbying groups to lobby on behalf of Turkey because Turkey asked for
it - because Turkey felt that it didn't have enough lobbying muscle in
the United States.
So these top groups like the Anti-Defamation League have in effect
served as a pro-Turkish lobbying group.
But we have to see how things develop, because they're a bit angry
against Turkey right now.
INTERVIEWER:
That is interesting to me, because the Turkish lobby is, I'm learned
from Sibel, so powerful. And this explains why, because they not only
have their own lobby, but they are able to take advantage of the
Jewish American lobbies as well.
BOYAJIAN:
Exactly. When Turkish officials come over to the United States, they
meet with all the top leaders of the Jewish lobbying groups - ADL,
AJC, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, AIPAC, and so
forth - and Turkey always tries to make sure that they are still in
Turkey's camp. And one of the main issues has always been the
Armenian genocide [resolution] in the U.S. Congress, which of course
Turkey vehemently opposes. And it's gotten these Jewish American
groups, at least the top four or five of them, to actually be against
the Armenian genocide resolution. And this came into the news a
couple of years ago when some of us, Armenian Americans and human
rights advocates here in Massachusetts, tried very successfully to get
a lot of cities and towns in Massachusetts to sever their ties with a
certain ADL program called No Place For Hate, because, we said, `how
can the ADL sponsor an anti-bias program in U.S. cities if the ADL
itself is denying the Armenia genocide and working with a major human
rights violator, Turkey? This is a contradiction.'
INTERVIEWER:
You mentioned that last time.
Oh, and I have to, ladies and gentleman, your guest is David Boyajian.
I'm sorry I haven't been mentioning it more often. But yeah, go
ahead.
BOYAJIAN:
Yes, so Armenians and human rights activists, and many, many
principled Jewish Americans blew the whistle on the Anti-Defamation
League. And what has happened is that 14 cities and towns in
Massachusetts that had ADL programs have severed ties with those
programs. Also the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which
represents every city and town in Massachusetts, severed its ties with
the Anti-Defamation League because of the Armenian genocide issue.
And this made news around the world. It started out as a very local
issue in Watertown, Massachusetts, and it became an international
issue within a few weeks. The Israeli ambassador to Israel was on
vacation. And when this issue in Massachusetts broke, he had to fly
back to Israel for consultations, because Turkey was just hopping mad
over this.
INTERVIEWER:
Now, my mind just leapt to something Cynthia McKinney told me some
time ago, and one of the reasons she was robbed of her seat - she
refused to sign, that every congressperson, apparently, from what she
said, in the U.S. is asked to sign a kind of allegiance to Israel.
And she refused. And that was part of her problem. She got
gerrymandered out of her seat by the Democrats. She's a Democrat, of
course. And they made sure that she was not re-elected in Georgia.
Do you know anything about this pledge?
BOYAJIAN:
I have heard of that, and we all know that any U.S. Senator or
Congressman or woman who opposes the pro-Israel lobby too vehemently
gets targeted. This has been the case for decades. Now, one may ask,
what about Massachusetts, because many of the local officials here
came out against the Anti-Defamation League.
But I think they did so out of principle, and I believe that the
Anti-Defamation League was just so much on the defensive regarding the
denial of the Armenian genocide that they really couldn't strike back.
They had no moral leg to stand on. But actually we had more elected
officials in Massachusetts who came out on our side. I would have
liked to see our two U.S. Senators come out for us, and members of
Congress. But they didn't, unfortunately. This was mainly an issue
that involved the cities and towns.
INTERVIEWER:
And another tangent that just jumped into my head - that's the way my
head is - is the Israeli supposed art students have been in the news
lately. That is the group that we call the Dancing Israelis, part of
that group was what we called the Dancing Israelis in Secaucus, when
they were arrested by the Secaucus police for filming, setting up to
film 9/11 before it happened, and then cheering when it happened. So
they were naturally arrested by the Secaucus police, and then
immediately freed by Chertoff and sent back to Israel. Do you, are
you aware of any connection between Mossad and that kind of an
operation and what we're
talking about overall?
BOYAJIAN:
I'm not aware of it personally.
I do know that there were about 100 so called Israeli art students
that were making the rounds of the United States before and after the
time of 9/11, and they were visiting FBI offices trying to sell them
cheap pieces of art. This is a very strange thing. And finally the
FBI got onto them and apparently arrested them all and shipped them
back to Israel. But why these Israeli art students were in the United
States to begin with is something of a mystery, and there's been a
blackout on this.
Although if you look up Israeli art students on the Web, you'll find a
fair amount about it, but the mainstream media by and large has not
touched this.
INTERVIEWER:
Oh, no, they don't touch anything having to do with evidence of 9/11,
truthful evidence of 9/11. But very recently, Kevin Barret has been
talking about the new news that the Israeli art students had access to
the Twin Towers through the security company there that was run by
Bush.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's interesting.
INTERVIEWER: ... Marvin Bush [brother of President George W. Bush].
So given their access, and given their tendency, apparently, of some
of the stories, where in the Twin Towers, where the explosives went
off, that answers the big question of how could anyone have had access
to the Twin Towers to rig it with explosives. Well, they were the
tenants, and so they had free access to many of those floors.
BOYAJIAN:
You know, Jim, if I may interrupt for a second, there is a study by a
lawyer, and his name escapes me at the moment. He did a study of the
movements of these Israeli art students prior to 9/11. What he claims
is that they were on the trail of the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11
happened. And that's a big mystery. If they were on the tail of the
hijackers, what did they do with the information? We just don't know.
This needs to be looked into, but it remains a real mystery. You
know, and on the subject of terrorism, there's an interesting
connection here that I'd like to mention. The only country in the
region we've been talking about - the Caucasus and Caspian - and
actually for a fairly large radius around Armenia - Armenia's the only
country whose territory and government has had no relation whatsoever
with Islamic terrorism and al Qaeda and so forth.
Now, one would think that if the U.S. were engaged in a war on
terrorism that you would have heard about this before. In fact, I
talked with a U.S. ambassador to Armenia face to face about this one
time. I said, `Gee, how come if we're involved in a war of terrorism,
you haven't mentioned that Armenia, this tiny state, is the only
country with no connection to it over there? I would think that this
would be a major positive point you would bring up.' He had no answer
for it.
And I asked another U.S. ambassador to Armenia about this. They
basically had no answer at all. I'm not saying this to praise
Armenia, Jim. What I'm saying is, if this is truly a war against
terrorism that we're involved with, why haven't we heard that there's
a small country over there that's had no relation to al Qaeda, because
all the surrounding countries have either served as bases or transit
points or inadvertently served al Qaeda's purpose. I'm not saying
that the governments there have necessarily sided with al Qaeda, but
their territories have been used as a base. I bring this all up to
show you that the war on terrorism isn't just about terrorism. And in
fact, it may not be about terrorism much at all. It's about
geopolitical influence. It's about using terrorism as an excuse to
get into various areas of this world, such as Afghanistan, and to stay
there and establish permanent bases, all the while using the excuse of
terrorism as a cover.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and my listeners have certainly heard that in one form or another
on this program for a long time.
And the powers that be use al Qaeda as a threat. There are a few
threats that seem to work brilliantly because, well, you don't have to
be brilliant, because the New York Times always jumps on them.
So if suddenly the State Department or some objective source were to
decide that al Qaeda had a base in Armenia, then the New York Times
would report that al Qaeda had a base in Armenia, and that could
become the stick that the U.S. needs to beat Armenia with, if it ever
needed to beat Armenia with a stick. So I'm glad you've brought up
something that we haven't talked about before, which is the
possibility that Armenia is playing an interesting game here, that OK,
we won't accuse you of being a terrorist state if you walk this line.
Is that conceivable?
BOYAJIAN:
It's possible, although I think that the U.S. just probably has not
considered the terrorist angle at all.
But I'd like to get back to something concerning Armenia itself,
because it plays such a central role over their now. You know, it's
interesting that the United States always says it supports small
countries against being bullied by Russia. It supports the Republic
of Georgia because it wants to protect it against Russian bullying.
It's interesting that the United States is trying to bring Turkey and
Armenia together, and yet Turkey is 30 times larger, 30 times more
populous than Armenia, and has 60 times the gross domestic product of
Armenia. One would think that if the US were so sympathetic to small
countries being bullied, that the United States would have been saying
something about Turkey's having unilaterally closed the border with
Armenia in 1993 and keeping it closed.
One would have thought that the United States would say, `Turkey, this
is against international law to close the border. You have to open
it. You have to allow Armenia to have an import/export route here.
You're a big country. You're bullying Armenia.' But no. It hasn't
served U.S. interests up to this time to say that. So it simply
ignores the huge disparity in weight and power between Armenia and
Turkey. And I think this is very interesting. It doesn't ignore the
disparity and power and weight between the Republic of Georgia and
Russia, but it does between Armenia and Turkey, because Turkey's an
ally.
INTERVIEWER:
And that could play into some other more complicated levers that the
U.S. might be applying.
BOYAJIAN:
It could, it could. Now, I'd like to mention this dispute, this
ongoing conflict called Karabagh, this region that's Armenian
populated that's inside Azerbaijan, but is now controlled by Armenia
because of a war between Armenians and Azerbaijan in the early 1990's.
The Azerbaijani-Armenia border is shut because of this conflict, and,
as I mentioned, Turkey has closed its border with Armenia. In order
for the U.S. to get a route totally into the Caspian - a straight shot
through Armenia - both borders need to open. But right now, the
United States is trying to open the border between Turkey and Armenia,
and it's true that it's trying to, that Russia, France, and the United
States are trying to have Armenia and Azerbaijan come to an agreement
over Karabagh. But that has not happened yet. And so that really
needs to happen in order for the U.S. to get a straight shot into the
Caspian Sea. We don't know whether that conflict [Karabagh] is going
to be solved any time soon. But, interestingly, Turkey says that it
will not open the border with Armenia until that conflict is solved.
What that means is that Turkey may not in fact ratify these Protocols
that it has with Armenia until this Karabagh situation is solved. So
many people are looking forward to Turkey and Armenia's ratifying
these Protocols, but Turkey has now imposed another condition on top
of things. So we'll have to see how things go in that regard, because
if Turkey and Armenia ratify these Protocols, according to the text of
the agreement, Turkey must open the border within two months. So I
don't think it will want to ratify these Protocols until it knows
there's a Karabagh solution about to take place. And what we're going
to see as a result is more pressure by the United States on Armenia
and Azerbaijan to come to an agreement over this. And it's of concern
to Armenians, because they know that this region, Karabagh, is very
important. It's been, in effect, independent for, oh, 15 years or so.
And it's very wary of outside powers twisting arms to come to a quick
solution to this that may endanger the people there in the long run.
And Russia also has its hand in this. And as I say, Russia's motives
now are a little bit murky.
One thing I should mention, if I may, is that Russia may be trying to
drive a wedge between Turkey and Azerbaijan by having Turkey and
Armenia sign these Protocols, because remember, Azerbaijan is the
country that supplies the oil and gas that eventually goes to Turkey.
If Azerbaijan sees Turkey becoming friendlier with Armenia, what it
could do is retaliate against Turkey and perhaps shut off the oil and
gas pipelines, although that's probably very unlikely, or it could get
angry enough to say, `You know what?
We're going to sell our future oil and gas production to Russia.' And
that's what Russia wants. So that may be the Russian game here, as I
say, to try to drive a wedge between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
INTERVIEWER:
And is the U.S. somehow a player in that one?
BOYAJIAN:
It is. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
OSCE, of which the co-chairs are France, the United States and Russia,
have been trying to broker a deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia over
Karabagh for a number of years. They haven't been successful. I
don't think Russia, up to the present time, has been sincere in trying
to broker a deal, because I believe it's liked the fact that the
borders are, that Armenia's eastern and western borders are shut,
because that has prevented U.S. penetration. But as I said, Russian
calculations may have changed. It's playing a game there in order to
push the U.S. away, out of the region.
Whether it will work or not, we'll have to see. It's a constant
seesaw, Jim, the Caucasus [is] a constant seesaw between the United
States and Russia. One minute it looks like Russia's going to win.
Another minute it looks like the U.S. has the advantage.
INTERVIEWER:
And is it important enough that we could attribute some of this
discussion about Afghanistan, the amount of troops that are supposedly
going to be poured into Afghanistan, does that have anything to do
with it?
BOYAJIAN:
Absolutely. It is said that Afghanistan has very large deposits of
natural gas and oil that are untapped. And as I've mentioned, just to
the north of Afghanistan is Turkmenistan, which has huge volumes of
natural gas. And Presidents Bush and Clinton negotiated with - tried
to negotiate with - the Taliban - this was before 9/11 - to put a
pipeline from Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan. I think what
the U.S. is aiming for now is to stabilize Afghanistan enough so that
it can tap the oil and gas in that country and also put pipelines from
the north through Afghanistan into Pakistan.
Afghanistan is also a very central country to the region. Whoever
controls it, it's sort of a linchpin or pivot point, if you will, and
if the U.S. can establish permanent bases there, and it looks like
they might, this would be a very significant thing. So it involves a
lot more than the war on terrorism, that's for sure. But neither
President Bush nor Obama has leveled with the American people in
regard to why we're really there. And I'm not sure he ever will.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, no, I wouldn't expect a president to tell the truth about
anything like that. But I romantically think that somebody in the
press, besides me and a few other alternative people, would be willing
to get this out, because the American people still have this belief in
authority, and that if you don't hear it from mainstream media, it's
not worth listening to.
So I think it's very important that we get out the news as to why, and
a large contingent of Vermont soldiers just are off to Afghanistan
now. So it's important that we get the news out as to why the U.S. is
in Afghanistan.
And I think you've helped a great deal in telling a couple of people, a
few people around here.
BOYAJIAN:
Why members of Congress do not talk about this much, Jim, is beyond
me. It's almost a conspiracy. It's a very strange thing. One would
think that some of the congressmen who oppose the war in Iraq and who
have doubts about our presence in Afghanistan would bring this up.
They must know it. If I know it, if you know it, they certainly know
it. And yet they won't bring it up. It's very disconcerting.
INTERVIEWER: Well, they might, if they're not on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, or the Armed Services Committee and stuff like
that, actually they might not know it. But what they do know is how
their pockets are lined by AIPAC.
And if what you said, if the Israeli lobby, one of the many Israeli
lobbies is pushing them in another direction, then that's the
direction they're going to go in.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's true. I think that, I think, though, that some members
of Congress could sort of band together. I mean, there is strength in
numbers. When this campaign two years ago that I mentioned that
started in Massachusetts against the genocide denials of the
Anti-Defamation League, denials of the Armenian genocide, it started
small. It started with a letter to a local newspaper by myself, and
then other people came on board. Armenian organizations came on
board. We got the support of local officials. So when you're just
one or two people, you can be retaliated against. An issue won't
necessarily go anywhere. But it has to start small and grow. So I
think our congressmen should get together and talk about the motives,
why we're in Afghanistan, that is has a lot to do with oil and gas and
the centrality of Afghanistan in that part of the world and just start
small, and try to gather steam.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, this has certainly rounded out our knowledge, expanded our knowledge
as to why the U.S. is in Afghanistan.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, yes. You know, talking about the ADL, it just occurred to me, I
mentioned this the last time I was on your program, the Vermont
Department of Education has Anti-Defamation League programs. And I
don't know why they continue to have them, given what's happened in
Massachusetts. Perhaps they just do not know about it. But I think
if people in the Department of Education were informed that the
Anti-Defamation League has really never acknowledged the Armenian
genocide and still works against the Armenian genocide resolution in
Congress, people in the Department of Education might have second
thoughts about being affiliated with the Anti-Defamation League. But
that's for Vermonters to decide, not myself. I live in Massachusetts.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, if you were to send me something specific and a pitch that
somebody could make to the Vermont Department of Education.
BOYAJIAN:
Sure.
INTERVIEWER:
Mayb e I can do something about that. I assume we have some Armenians
in the area. We have a famous artist who's Armenian who lives right
in Plainfield.
BOYAJIAN:
I can do that, Jim. I'd be happy to.
INTERVIEWER:
And his daughter is a very good artist as well. Anyway, he's the one
that I'm well aware of, but I'm sure there are others.
BOYAJIAN:
There's a website called NoPlaceForDenial.com. That gives the whole
background about the struggle against the genocide denials of the
Anti-Defamation League, the complete history of it, and hundreds and
hundreds of articles.
And there's a section in there which people can navigate to - it's
called A History of Lobbying Against the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
And it has many, many excerpts from articles describing what the
Anti-Defamation League and similar groups have done to deny the
Armenian genocide.
It's simply astounding. And a lot of this has been written by
principled Jews and Israelis who are just disgusted with the behavior
of some of their groups. I want to mention, there are more than a
dozen Jewish American groups that favor the Armenian genocide
resolution. I want to be fair and say that.
INTERVIEWER:
What's that website?
BOYAJIAN:
NoPlaceForDenial.com. All one word.
INTERVIEWER:
And also there's another famous artist, another very well known
Armenian artist who lives on the road parallel to mine. And she's, I
don't know whether any of these people are activists, but anyway.
There are people that I could get in touch with.
Noplacefordenial.com, and that specifically relates to the Armenian
genocide and the ADL's position that it never happened?
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. The ADL takes a little bit more subtle view of it than
that it never happened. What it used to say is, we don't know whether
there was a genocide or not, and the Boston Globe once asked Abe
Foxman if there was an Armenian genocide, and he said, `I don't know.'
And then a couple of weeks later, they came out with a statement which
appeared to be an acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, but was
not, in fact.
It used legalistic language to imply that the murder of Armenians was
not intentional, and thus did not fit the official definition of
genocide in the 1948 United Nation Genocide Treaty.
So what appeared to be an acknowledgement of the genocide was actually a
way of saying there was no genocide.
So this is how dishonest the Anti-Defamation League can be, with all
due respect to the good people that are in there. There are a lot of
good people in there. But the leadership is another story entirely.
INTERVIEWER:
Is that a dot com, NoPlaceForDenial or a dot org?
BOYAJIAN:
It's a dot com, yes.
INTERVIEWER:
All right. Well, thank you very much. You have extended your time
very generously, longer than you promised. And I thank you for that.
And I will remind people of this website, and I'll let them know that
there is an opportunity for some activism, which it looks to me has
far reaching implications beyond just making your voice heard about
the Armenian genocide.
BOYAJIAN:
It does, Jim. And I want to thank you for having me on, and I want to
thank your listeners. It's always good to, you know, we Armenians
being a rather small group, it's nice to have our voice heard out
there, and I for one really thank you, and I thank your listeners for
tuning in, too.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, well, thanks a lot.
BOYAJIAN:
Thank you, Jim.
INTERVIEWER:
And I'll talk to you again.
BOYAJIAN:
Very good, Jim. Bye now.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, that was David Boyajian. I just mixed his name up. I
just created a name. Boyajian. Anyway, that's crazy. I said two
other Armenian names in my head before that, and now I'm mixing them
all together. The artist that I mentioned second, that is a married
name, I just realized.
So she may not be Armenian.
But we still do have some Armenians in our midst, and they might want
to take the ball and run with it, and the website is
NoPlaceForDenial.com. And the connection here is that apparently the
Department of Education in Vermont is playing ball with the
Anti-Defamation League, whose official position is that there was no
Armenian genocide. So it sounds a little arcane to some people, I
know. But not to me.
[END]
The Armenian - Turkish Protocols,
U.S. - Russian & Turkish - Israeli relations,
and other political topics
Interviewed by Jim Hogue
Air Date: October 26, 2009
WGDR 91.1 FM
Community Radio from Goddard College
Plainfield, Vermont
Jim Hogue's weekly radio program, The House at Pooh Corner, focuses on
national and community issues, especially 9/11 Truth, Election
Integrity, the economy, and sustainable agriculture
(http://www.wgdr.org/houseatpoohcorner .html)
David Boyajian is an Armenian American writer and activist. Many of
his articles and interviews are archived at Armeniapedia.org
Transcript:
INTERVIEWER:
Well , here we are, Jim's House at Pooh Corner. The following program
presents the opinions of its producer and guest and does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of WGDR or its licensee Goddard
College. Today our guest is David Boyajian. He was a guest about a
month ago. He is an expert on the Caucasus and the relationships that
affect that region, like the relationship between Russia and China and
Turkey and Israel and the U.S. And there is the Caucasus, in the
middle of an interesting, deadly tug of war. So I'm going to put on
some music, and then we'll do that. Let's see, what shall it be?
[MUSIC]
INTERVIEWER:
That was Fred from `I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket.' I think
it was from Top Hat. All right, Mr. Boyajian, can you hear
me?
BOYAJIAN:
I can, Jim.
INTERVIEWER:
Great. Well, as I mentioned to people earlier in the program, David
Boyajian is an expert on things in the Caucasus, particularly the
relationship between Turkey, Russia, China, Israel, the U.S. and the
area of Armenia.
And things are not particularly in the news about that area, so that's
one of the reasons why David Boyajian should be a guest on this
program, because he can tell us why they ought to be in the news.
And we are recording this in two different ways today, David, so we
should grab it without any problem. Well, would you like to tell us -
you want to first rehash a little bit about what we went over last
time? Or do you want to tell us what's hot?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I'll give you just a minute of background. We have the three
ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus, the republics of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and just to the west of that region is
Turkey, and just to the east of it is the Caspian Sea, which is very
rich in oil and gas.
And I like to call this area `ground zero' for the new Cold War between
Russia and the United States.
Russia's trying to hold on to this region, because it wants to retain
control over the oil and gas in that region, and the United States and
NATO, on the other hand, are trying to penetrate that region and
access the oil and gas. And to some extent, it's been successful in
doing that. There are two major pipelines, one gas, one oil, from
Azerbaijan west through the Republic of Georgia into Turkey.
So that's kind of the lay of the land over there right now.
INTERVIEWER:
And how does that affect Armenia at this point?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, let's see, the big news, Jim, and actually there is a lot of
news coming out of the Caucasus these days - there is a proposed
agreement between Turkey and Armenia. It's called the Protocols, and
the presidents of Turkey and Armenia have signed these Protocols. But
they're not ratified yet. They won't become official until the
parliaments of Turkey and Armenia vote to agree to them, but that's
not clear at this point exactly.
The reason these Protocols come up, there's a little background to
this. Briefly, Turkey committed genocide against Armenians in the
years 1915-1923, so Armenia has been concerned with this ever since,
especially since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, because
then Armenia was on its own. So Armenia is very concerned about
Turkey and its aggressive intentions. Now, in 1993, what happened is
that Turkey closed its border with Armenia, out of sympathy with the
nation of Azerbaijan, because Azerbaijan and Armenia had fought a war,
and there's still a cease fire going on over there, over the Armenian
populated territory of Karabagh, which is just inside Azerbaijan.
Armenia won that war, but as I say, Turkey closed the border with
Armenia in 1993. So these Protocols - proposed Protocols - were meant
to reestablish relations between Armenia and Turkey. And whether this
happens or not is of vital interest to the United States and to
Russia, too.
INTERVIEWER:
Because that will open up a clearer path to the pipelines?
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. Right now, if one were to look at a map, the republics
of Georgia and Armenia form a kind of physical wall between east and
eest, between - on the east - the oil and gas in Azerbaijan and the
Caspian Sea, and - on the west - Turkey, which is a pipeline route out
of that area. Right now, because Armenia's eastern and western
borders were closed by its neighbors, the only pipeline route out is
through the Republic of Georgia just to the north. So that's where
the western-bound U.S. built pipelines are constructed.
Now, what the United States would like to do is open up the borders
between Armenia and its neighbors - its eastern and western neighbors
- in order to facilitate U.S. penetration into that area,
U.S. influence and so forth. Russia, on the other hand, has generally
wanted those borders to be closed, because closed borders stop
U.S. penetration. But something has changed recently, Jim. I think a
lot of what has changed is the result of the war between Russia and
Georgia last year. That cast doubt on Georgia's ability to continue
hosting present and future oil and gas pipelines out of the Caspian
Sea. So the United States would like an alternative way to get into
the Caspian, and that can only happen if the Turkish -Armenia border
were to be opened. However, why does Russia now want an open border
between Turkey and Armenia?
It's not entirely clear. I think the reason is that they're trying
to, well, Russia is becoming friendlier to Turkey. Russia has a
certain leverage over Turkey, because it supplies most of Turkey's
natural gas. Now, it may be that Russia is trying to draw Turkey into
its sphere of influence, so to speak, and therefore it does not mind
opening up the border between Turkey and Armenia. Indeed, Russia may
see this as a strength, because Russia controls so much of the
Armenian economy that it may not fear Turkish and Western penetration
into Armenia. In other words, Russia feels it has a tight enough hold
on Armenia at the present time that the U.S. could not penetrate. So
we're going to have to see what happens.
INTERVIEWER:
And the geography is indeed very important, and it's of course murky to
a lot of people, because there are so many little `baijans' down there, and
Armenia you said is just south of Georgia.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right.
INTERVIEWER:
And it also touches on the Caspian.
BOYAJIAN:
Armenia does not touch on the Caspian. Armenia is actually
landlocked. It has no sea coast at all. Just to the south of Armenia
is Iran.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and just to the north is Georgia, and just to the west is Turkey.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. And just to the east, bordering on the Caspian Sea, and
wealthy in oil and gas is Azerbaijan. It is a confusing geography,
but it means everything.
I encourage people to try to get hold of a map, because I know it is
difficult to picture sometimes.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and what we described last time was the importance of this, that
this was sort of the route of last resort, but the U.S. doesn't want to lose
control of that.
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. That's right exactly. The U.S. is trying to penetrate
the region to get at the oil and gas. Also, NATO is trying to
penetrate the region. As you know, since the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, NATO gobbled up most of the countries of Eastern Europe
that were under Soviet control. Now it's trying to make the ex-Soviet
republics to the south of Russia part of NATO. They haven't joined
NATO yet, but they are candidates.
Georgia and Azerbaijan particularly are candidates. And that gets
Russia very, very angry, and that's one of the reasons we saw the war
between Russia and Georgia last year.
INTERVIEWER:
Ah, all right, even though that war, that wasn't one of the reasons
given for that war, but you think that was an underlying motivation?
BOYAJIAN:
Absolutely. There is relentless pressure on Georgia by Russia, and
there has been for the last 20 years. The leadership of Georgia wants
to go towards the West. It wants to get out from under Russian
influence, Russia's thumb, and it wants to be friendly with Europe.
And this has infuriated Russia. Now, ostensibly, last year, the war
between Russia and Georgia was over the disputed enclave of South
Ossetia, which Russia controls and is just inside the Georgian border,
but in fact is legally part of Georgia. But South Ossetia and a
region called Abkhazia broke away from Georgia after the dissolution
of the USSR, with the support of Russia. So these two areas are under
the influence of Russia. In fact, Russia has now recognized them as
independent, although only a few other countries in the world have.
So, ostensibly, even though the war last year was over this disputed
region of South Ossetia, in fact, the larger context was that Russia
is trying to put pressure on Georgia not to join the West.
INTERVIEWER:
OK. I wonder how quickly Russia would recognize Vermont if Vermont
decided to declare independence from the beast.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's very funny. I think that Russia would become very
friendly to Vermont if Vermont made an overture. But unfortunately,
Vermont does not have a seaport, except on Lake Champlain, as far as I
know.
INTERVIEWER:
I don't know why anybody would want Vermont as an independent country,
except just a stick in the eye to the beast.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, this is a good point. Because what the United States and Russia
do is they take these small countries, and basically use them for
their own purposes. Russia may say, well, it cares about the
independence of South Ossetia, but not really. Russia is using it.
The United States may say it cares about human rights in the Republic
of Georgia, but no, it really doesn't.
It's trying to use Georgia as a middleman, a gas and oil pipeline
route, between Azerbaijan and Turkey. Why else would the United
States be interested in these very small nations over in the Caucasus
and Central Asia? Why is the U.S. interested in Afghanistan?
That's a whole other question there, too.
INTERVIEWER:
And we can certainly talk about that, because one of my points that
I've been making - the light bulb went off about a year or so ago, and
finally got brighter in my head - is that the U.S. is no more. And
what I mean by that is that we're just calling this land between the
Atlantic and the Pacific the United States, when in fact, it is a
series of 50, well, 48 vassal states, which provide treasure and
bodies for the financial elite, and they are the army for the
financial elite, and they are the source of wealth for the financial
elite, which run the country. And this was solidified in my head when
the people who we know are criminals, Paulson, Geithner, Summers,
Bernanke, that crowd that's been robbing the United States for years,
when they were officially put in charge of the United States by Obama,
who was groomed by Brzezinski and that crowd right from the start. So
it's a pretty closed, a pretty tight ship. And they've circled the
wagons around each other, and they're now running what you might call
the country. And I don't know whether you agree with that, but I see
that as an important thing to recognize if you're going to be
understanding what's happening in the rest of the world.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I think people are becoming increasingly informed, but the
powers-that-be in the United States do now want to explain to the
people why the United States is in so many other countries. They just
don't want to say we're there for oil and gas, for example. It just
doesn't sound good to most people, I think, especially when we send
soldiers over there, and those soldiers die. The leaders - our
leaders - don't want to say, `we're over there for oil and gas because
we see it as a necessary commodity to keep our economy going, and
unfortunately, young men and women have to die to safeguard that oil
and gas.' They don't want to say that. They're afraid of the
reaction of people. And so, the American people are told, `we're in
Afghanistan because of al Qaeda, because of 9/11, because of the
Taliban.' And to some degree we are, yes. But there are also other
motives there.
There's oil and gas in Afghanistan, and just to the north. I should
mention, I was mentioning the Caspian as being rich in oil and gas,
Jim. Now, in terms of getting it out to the West, what the United
States has been doing is, it's sort of been aiming its arrow from the
West, from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, but there's an eastern route
into the Caspian, too, and that's from Afghanistan, up through
Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan has a lot of natural gas - huge, huge
amounts. And the United States has been trying to get at it now for,
oh, at least 15 years, way before 9/11, actually. But you don't hear
about this very much as a reason for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
I think most people would be rather surprised to read about this. But
it is really not in the consciousness of the average U.S. citizen now.
INTERVIEWER:
I read recently a story that control of the opium trade is another
very important reason why the U.S. is in Afghanistan. And I think
that's the kind of thing that Sibel Edmonds would be good to talk
about, because she is the one who identified the millions and millions
of dollars that were involved in the whistle-blowing, in her
whistle-blowing efforts, because she was able to trace the money right
into the pockets of U.S. senators.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, I know she says that the main route for heroin into Europe is
via Turkey, and she says that the Turkish military - the Turkish
government - is actually involved in this trade, that it lets it
happen because it's able to milk so much money out of that trade.
I don't know. That's not an area I'm particularly conversant with,
but from everything I've read, it makes a certain amount of sense. We
really don't know what's happening behind the scenes here sometimes.
INTERVIEWER:
So you cannot confirm or deny that drug trade is an important reason for
the U.S. to be in Afghanistan.
BOYAJIAN:
That I don't know, Jim. I can't address that. But I might, at this
point, I might want to get back to something in the Turkish - Armenian
Protocols, and they're very much in the news now. And what do they
consist of? Well, a lot of the sections of the Protocols are just
boilerplate on establishing normal relations and so forth. But there
are two very significant parts of the Protocols from the perspective
of Armenians. And this is why Armenians in Armenia and around the
world have been up in arms in the last several weeks. One involves
the establishment of a so-called joint commission between Armenia and
Turkey, which supposedly would determine whether the Armenian genocide
occurred. Now, this outrages Armenians, because 20 nations around the
world, the European Parliament, and the International Association of
Genocide Scholars have all recognized the Armenian genocide. So
Armenians think, `why do we need to sort of bury this issue in a joint
commission between Turks and Armenians when we know that if there's a
final vote taken on that commission, the Turks are going to say there
was no genocide?' So Armenians are aggrieved about this. The second
thing they're aggrieved about is, although Armenia has never made
formal territorial claims against Turkey, there are such claims, and
there are reparations claims in the background, because after World
War I, much of what is called eastern Turkey today was supposed to be
incorporated as part of Armenia. So what these Protocols do, and this
is the second thing people do not like, is they have Armenia recognize
the territorial integrity of Turkey. Now, that may sound reasonable
to most people, but to Armenia, a small landlocked country that was
supposed to get a coastline on the Black Sea after World War I, they
see this as a betrayal by the Armenian leadership, which they see as
largely corrupt. So these Protocols, it's not clear whether they're
going to be ratified and whether that new route between Turkey,
Azerbaijan and Armenia is going to be opened up in the future, whether
that border is going to be opened.
INTERVIEWER:
Now, you mentioned NATO, and how NATO was operating as though it had a
mind, as though it were one thing with a mind. Is it the U.S. that's
actually determining what NATO wants to do in this situation?
BOYAJIAN:
It is. Of course the United States is the driving force behind NATO.
And NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is getting pretty
far from the north Atlantic these days. It gobbled up the nations of
eastern Europe after the Soviet Union broke up, and that made Russia
rather nervous. It made it seem to the Russians and to many other
people, too, that the United States was continuing the Cold War, even
after the Soviet Union broke up.
After all, they, in their minds, said `since NATO came about as a Cold
War instrument to contain the Soviet Union, why did it need to expand
when that Cold War was won by the United States and NATO?' So Russia
saw this as a continuance of the Cold War. But I don't think that
eastern Europe concerns Russia as much in terms of its being in NATO,
as the republics to the south of Russia, in the Caucasus, and also in
Central Asia, which we haven't talked much about: Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan =85 these are mostly Muslim republics, and Russia is
nervous that there will be Western influence there, that the West will
tap the oil and gas there, and that possibly those countries could
become members of NATO.
Because if that happens, not only does NATO surround Russia on
Russia's west in Europe, but also its entire southern tier. So Russia
would be virtually surrounded by NATO and China at that point. I
think that gets Russia pretty nervous.
INTERVIEWER:
All right. And what kind of
rapprochement is there now going on or otherwise between Russia and China?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, they're getting friendlier.
How deep it goes, I don't know.
I do know that there are a lot of Chinese workers in Siberia now,
working on industry, oil and gas there, and that Russia plans to
supply China with a lot of natural gas. I think even with weaponry,
too. This is rather surprising to those of us who were brought up
believing that China and Russia were enemies. And they still may be.
But on a certain level, they're cooperating. They certainly have a
common interest in keeping the United States out of Central Asia.
Central Asia is right next door. It lies right between Russia and
China, and if anybody is going to get at the oil and gas there, Russia
and China feel it should be theirs, not the United States's. So
that's another point of competition.
INTERVIEWER:
And Webster Tarpley was talking about the U.S. trying to drive a wedge
between this agreement that might be happening between Russia, China
and India. Unless I've, I mean, that was an old story for him, but he
says that as these countries make deals, that's upsetting to the
Brzezinski crowd.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, there is an organization, let me try to remember, the SCO,
Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And that is, that's between
Russia, China, I believe India and some other Asian states. And
that's widely viewed as an initiative to kind of keep the United
States out of the region, a counterbalance to U.S. influence.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes. And it was making the Brzezinski crowd nervous, but it didn't
come into play for the Bush Administration, particularly. It's as if
it was off their radar. But that's just what I learned from Webster
Tarpley some time ago. So you see that as another means of control by
Russia, China and India, of Central Asia.
BOYAJIAN:
Definitely, particularly driven by China. China especially wants to
grab the oil and gas in that region. There is a deal, in fact,
between Turkmenistan and China, now, where China will construct a
pipeline, it might even be in the process of being built right now,
the natural gas pipeline would go from Turkmenistan north through I
believe it's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China, and China has sunk a
lot of money into this project. I think Russia is probably very
jealous about that because up to the present time just about all of
the Turkmen gas has been going north through Russia, and a little bit
south through Iran. And, as I say, I believe that the natural gas in
Turkmenistan is one of the reasons the U.S. is in Afghanistan today.
So there's definitely a big battle over the natural gas in
Turkmenistan. It's funny how these relatively small countries that
most Americans have never even heard of play such a central role in
U.S. policy here, Jim. Very interesting, Turkmenistan. Whoever would
have thought? But it does play a major role.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, now, last time you told what to me was a very funny story about a
lot of Turkish money in the form of what we might call a bribe if we
were using regular English, but it was some kind of campaign
contribution to a congressperson in Illinois?
BOYAJIAN:
Oh, let's see, yes. This is what Sibel Edmonds, the FBI
whistle-blower, says. She claims that there was a congresswoman from
Illinois - and we don't know who it is - it's been speculated that
it's Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Sibel Edmonds alleges that a
female Turkish agent lured this U.S. congresswoman into an affair.
This U.S. congresswoman is married with children, and, as Sibel
Edmonds claims, this woman, a Turkish agent, lured her into an affair.
Turkish agents videotaped and audiotaped their romantic tryst, and
that they subsequently blackmailed her or tried to blackmail her. I
don't know. I know that Jan Schakowsky has denied that she had any
involvement of this type. And that, of course, brings up the whole
Sibel Edmonds issues.
She has a gag order on her.
She has been able to talk a little bit about the secret FBI tapes she
listened to when she was a translator there just after 9/11. But she
has a gag order placed on her. So what really needs to happen there,
Jim, as I'm sure you know, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed.
And this whole thing needs to be aired, because she's alleging
espionage activities between some of the neo-cons, like former
U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Mark Grossman, and he's selling
U.S. secrets to Turkey, and perhaps Pakistan. He denies it, but we
really need a special prosecutor to look into it.
INTERVIEWER:
Here's a huge question. How does Israel fit into this formula? Not
the one we just talked about, necessarily, but what is their, what dog
do they have in this fight when it comes to the oil and gas in the
Caspian?
BOYAJIAN:
Yes, well, Israel is quite interested in the Caucasus, the Caspian and
Central Asia. One reason goes back to a long-standing Israeli policy.
It's called the Periphery Policy, where it tries to make friends
outside of the immediate region, because its relations with its
neighbors, its Arab and Muslim neighbors, have been so problematic.
It looks for friends outside, for example in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Israel's quite friendly with Georgia and Azerbaijan now, and
Jewish American organizations continually send delegations to the
republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, and Israel supplies weapons to
Georgia and Azerbaijan, too. So they're very much involved.
INTERVIEWER:
Aren't there Israelis in the Georgian parliament?
BOYAJIAN:
I believe the foreign minister of Georgia might have originally been
an Israeli citizen. I'm not quite sure. But that is the word. But
for sure, Israel would like to have access to some of that oil and gas
coming out of the Caucasus and Central Asia. That's a definite. So
that, because of Israeli influence on U.S. foreign policy, that may
partially be driving the U.S. agenda there. I don't say it's the
entire reason why the U.S. is in the Caucasus and Caspian, but it
could be part of it.
INTERVIEWER:
And this is WGDR, Plainfield, and it's five minutes after 9:00. Now,
the right wing in Israel in particular seems to be jumping up and down
and screaming that it wanted the US to attack Iran at some point.
Now, I know that that's been off the table for a long time. Why were
they so anxious, if I'm correct, why were they so anxious to have the
U.S. attack Iran?
BOYAJIAN:
Well, of course, the U.S. claims that Iran has a nuclear, a covert
nuclear weapons program, that it's enriching uranium and wants to
build a bomb, which the U.S. says could be used against Israel or in
some other fashion contrary to U.S. interests. So yes, of course, as
we all know, Israel and the U.S. have been very concerned about this
for a number of years. Right now I don't know if an attack on Iran is
actually off the table. Voices have been lowered over Iran lately,
but we really don't know what's happening. But the really interesting
thing happening now is between Turkey and Israel. Turkey and Israel
have been allies for a long time. This may seem very strange to
people, because Turkey is a Muslim country, but, in fact, Turkey was
the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel after 1948, and relations
have been pretty close, very close since then.
Since the mid-1990s, Turkey and Israel have been very close,
economically, and at the military level, joint training exercises.
Israel is selling Turkey weapons. There's a lot of tourist trade
taking place between the two countries.
But lately, there's been a kind of falling out, at least on the
surface. Turkey's been criticizing Israeli behavior in the Gaza
Strip, and the Islamic government in Turkey has been accusing Israel
of committing genocide against Palestinians. And it's rather ironic,
because what Israel has said very subtly to Turkey is, `don't accuse
us of genocide when we know you committed genocide against Armenians
during the First World War, and you have yet to admit it.' So we'll
have to see what happens.
The relationship between Turkey and Israel goes rather deep, Jim, and
I know that people have been saying in the news that it looks like the
relationship is breaking up, because the Islamic government has been
so critical of Israel. But we really have to wait to see how this
develops, because even though the Islamic government may not like
Israel, the relationship goes deeper than that, especially at a
military level, and it's not clear that Turkey wants to anger Jewish
American groups, who of course are very, very influential in the
U.S. Congress.
I should mention - some of your listeners may know because of the
last time I was on, or because they've read it in the news - but
Israel has long refused to recognize the Armenian genocide, and so
have Jewish American groups, some of the top Jewish American groups -
not all of them - like the Anti-Defamation League and the American
Jewish Committee. Israel kind of recruited the Jewish American
lobbying groups to lobby on behalf of Turkey because Turkey asked for
it - because Turkey felt that it didn't have enough lobbying muscle in
the United States.
So these top groups like the Anti-Defamation League have in effect
served as a pro-Turkish lobbying group.
But we have to see how things develop, because they're a bit angry
against Turkey right now.
INTERVIEWER:
That is interesting to me, because the Turkish lobby is, I'm learned
from Sibel, so powerful. And this explains why, because they not only
have their own lobby, but they are able to take advantage of the
Jewish American lobbies as well.
BOYAJIAN:
Exactly. When Turkish officials come over to the United States, they
meet with all the top leaders of the Jewish lobbying groups - ADL,
AJC, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, AIPAC, and so
forth - and Turkey always tries to make sure that they are still in
Turkey's camp. And one of the main issues has always been the
Armenian genocide [resolution] in the U.S. Congress, which of course
Turkey vehemently opposes. And it's gotten these Jewish American
groups, at least the top four or five of them, to actually be against
the Armenian genocide resolution. And this came into the news a
couple of years ago when some of us, Armenian Americans and human
rights advocates here in Massachusetts, tried very successfully to get
a lot of cities and towns in Massachusetts to sever their ties with a
certain ADL program called No Place For Hate, because, we said, `how
can the ADL sponsor an anti-bias program in U.S. cities if the ADL
itself is denying the Armenia genocide and working with a major human
rights violator, Turkey? This is a contradiction.'
INTERVIEWER:
You mentioned that last time.
Oh, and I have to, ladies and gentleman, your guest is David Boyajian.
I'm sorry I haven't been mentioning it more often. But yeah, go
ahead.
BOYAJIAN:
Yes, so Armenians and human rights activists, and many, many
principled Jewish Americans blew the whistle on the Anti-Defamation
League. And what has happened is that 14 cities and towns in
Massachusetts that had ADL programs have severed ties with those
programs. Also the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which
represents every city and town in Massachusetts, severed its ties with
the Anti-Defamation League because of the Armenian genocide issue.
And this made news around the world. It started out as a very local
issue in Watertown, Massachusetts, and it became an international
issue within a few weeks. The Israeli ambassador to Israel was on
vacation. And when this issue in Massachusetts broke, he had to fly
back to Israel for consultations, because Turkey was just hopping mad
over this.
INTERVIEWER:
Now, my mind just leapt to something Cynthia McKinney told me some
time ago, and one of the reasons she was robbed of her seat - she
refused to sign, that every congressperson, apparently, from what she
said, in the U.S. is asked to sign a kind of allegiance to Israel.
And she refused. And that was part of her problem. She got
gerrymandered out of her seat by the Democrats. She's a Democrat, of
course. And they made sure that she was not re-elected in Georgia.
Do you know anything about this pledge?
BOYAJIAN:
I have heard of that, and we all know that any U.S. Senator or
Congressman or woman who opposes the pro-Israel lobby too vehemently
gets targeted. This has been the case for decades. Now, one may ask,
what about Massachusetts, because many of the local officials here
came out against the Anti-Defamation League.
But I think they did so out of principle, and I believe that the
Anti-Defamation League was just so much on the defensive regarding the
denial of the Armenian genocide that they really couldn't strike back.
They had no moral leg to stand on. But actually we had more elected
officials in Massachusetts who came out on our side. I would have
liked to see our two U.S. Senators come out for us, and members of
Congress. But they didn't, unfortunately. This was mainly an issue
that involved the cities and towns.
INTERVIEWER:
And another tangent that just jumped into my head - that's the way my
head is - is the Israeli supposed art students have been in the news
lately. That is the group that we call the Dancing Israelis, part of
that group was what we called the Dancing Israelis in Secaucus, when
they were arrested by the Secaucus police for filming, setting up to
film 9/11 before it happened, and then cheering when it happened. So
they were naturally arrested by the Secaucus police, and then
immediately freed by Chertoff and sent back to Israel. Do you, are
you aware of any connection between Mossad and that kind of an
operation and what we're
talking about overall?
BOYAJIAN:
I'm not aware of it personally.
I do know that there were about 100 so called Israeli art students
that were making the rounds of the United States before and after the
time of 9/11, and they were visiting FBI offices trying to sell them
cheap pieces of art. This is a very strange thing. And finally the
FBI got onto them and apparently arrested them all and shipped them
back to Israel. But why these Israeli art students were in the United
States to begin with is something of a mystery, and there's been a
blackout on this.
Although if you look up Israeli art students on the Web, you'll find a
fair amount about it, but the mainstream media by and large has not
touched this.
INTERVIEWER:
Oh, no, they don't touch anything having to do with evidence of 9/11,
truthful evidence of 9/11. But very recently, Kevin Barret has been
talking about the new news that the Israeli art students had access to
the Twin Towers through the security company there that was run by
Bush.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's interesting.
INTERVIEWER: ... Marvin Bush [brother of President George W. Bush].
So given their access, and given their tendency, apparently, of some
of the stories, where in the Twin Towers, where the explosives went
off, that answers the big question of how could anyone have had access
to the Twin Towers to rig it with explosives. Well, they were the
tenants, and so they had free access to many of those floors.
BOYAJIAN:
You know, Jim, if I may interrupt for a second, there is a study by a
lawyer, and his name escapes me at the moment. He did a study of the
movements of these Israeli art students prior to 9/11. What he claims
is that they were on the trail of the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11
happened. And that's a big mystery. If they were on the tail of the
hijackers, what did they do with the information? We just don't know.
This needs to be looked into, but it remains a real mystery. You
know, and on the subject of terrorism, there's an interesting
connection here that I'd like to mention. The only country in the
region we've been talking about - the Caucasus and Caspian - and
actually for a fairly large radius around Armenia - Armenia's the only
country whose territory and government has had no relation whatsoever
with Islamic terrorism and al Qaeda and so forth.
Now, one would think that if the U.S. were engaged in a war on
terrorism that you would have heard about this before. In fact, I
talked with a U.S. ambassador to Armenia face to face about this one
time. I said, `Gee, how come if we're involved in a war of terrorism,
you haven't mentioned that Armenia, this tiny state, is the only
country with no connection to it over there? I would think that this
would be a major positive point you would bring up.' He had no answer
for it.
And I asked another U.S. ambassador to Armenia about this. They
basically had no answer at all. I'm not saying this to praise
Armenia, Jim. What I'm saying is, if this is truly a war against
terrorism that we're involved with, why haven't we heard that there's
a small country over there that's had no relation to al Qaeda, because
all the surrounding countries have either served as bases or transit
points or inadvertently served al Qaeda's purpose. I'm not saying
that the governments there have necessarily sided with al Qaeda, but
their territories have been used as a base. I bring this all up to
show you that the war on terrorism isn't just about terrorism. And in
fact, it may not be about terrorism much at all. It's about
geopolitical influence. It's about using terrorism as an excuse to
get into various areas of this world, such as Afghanistan, and to stay
there and establish permanent bases, all the while using the excuse of
terrorism as a cover.
INTERVIEWER:
Yes, and my listeners have certainly heard that in one form or another
on this program for a long time.
And the powers that be use al Qaeda as a threat. There are a few
threats that seem to work brilliantly because, well, you don't have to
be brilliant, because the New York Times always jumps on them.
So if suddenly the State Department or some objective source were to
decide that al Qaeda had a base in Armenia, then the New York Times
would report that al Qaeda had a base in Armenia, and that could
become the stick that the U.S. needs to beat Armenia with, if it ever
needed to beat Armenia with a stick. So I'm glad you've brought up
something that we haven't talked about before, which is the
possibility that Armenia is playing an interesting game here, that OK,
we won't accuse you of being a terrorist state if you walk this line.
Is that conceivable?
BOYAJIAN:
It's possible, although I think that the U.S. just probably has not
considered the terrorist angle at all.
But I'd like to get back to something concerning Armenia itself,
because it plays such a central role over their now. You know, it's
interesting that the United States always says it supports small
countries against being bullied by Russia. It supports the Republic
of Georgia because it wants to protect it against Russian bullying.
It's interesting that the United States is trying to bring Turkey and
Armenia together, and yet Turkey is 30 times larger, 30 times more
populous than Armenia, and has 60 times the gross domestic product of
Armenia. One would think that if the US were so sympathetic to small
countries being bullied, that the United States would have been saying
something about Turkey's having unilaterally closed the border with
Armenia in 1993 and keeping it closed.
One would have thought that the United States would say, `Turkey, this
is against international law to close the border. You have to open
it. You have to allow Armenia to have an import/export route here.
You're a big country. You're bullying Armenia.' But no. It hasn't
served U.S. interests up to this time to say that. So it simply
ignores the huge disparity in weight and power between Armenia and
Turkey. And I think this is very interesting. It doesn't ignore the
disparity and power and weight between the Republic of Georgia and
Russia, but it does between Armenia and Turkey, because Turkey's an
ally.
INTERVIEWER:
And that could play into some other more complicated levers that the
U.S. might be applying.
BOYAJIAN:
It could, it could. Now, I'd like to mention this dispute, this
ongoing conflict called Karabagh, this region that's Armenian
populated that's inside Azerbaijan, but is now controlled by Armenia
because of a war between Armenians and Azerbaijan in the early 1990's.
The Azerbaijani-Armenia border is shut because of this conflict, and,
as I mentioned, Turkey has closed its border with Armenia. In order
for the U.S. to get a route totally into the Caspian - a straight shot
through Armenia - both borders need to open. But right now, the
United States is trying to open the border between Turkey and Armenia,
and it's true that it's trying to, that Russia, France, and the United
States are trying to have Armenia and Azerbaijan come to an agreement
over Karabagh. But that has not happened yet. And so that really
needs to happen in order for the U.S. to get a straight shot into the
Caspian Sea. We don't know whether that conflict [Karabagh] is going
to be solved any time soon. But, interestingly, Turkey says that it
will not open the border with Armenia until that conflict is solved.
What that means is that Turkey may not in fact ratify these Protocols
that it has with Armenia until this Karabagh situation is solved. So
many people are looking forward to Turkey and Armenia's ratifying
these Protocols, but Turkey has now imposed another condition on top
of things. So we'll have to see how things go in that regard, because
if Turkey and Armenia ratify these Protocols, according to the text of
the agreement, Turkey must open the border within two months. So I
don't think it will want to ratify these Protocols until it knows
there's a Karabagh solution about to take place. And what we're going
to see as a result is more pressure by the United States on Armenia
and Azerbaijan to come to an agreement over this. And it's of concern
to Armenians, because they know that this region, Karabagh, is very
important. It's been, in effect, independent for, oh, 15 years or so.
And it's very wary of outside powers twisting arms to come to a quick
solution to this that may endanger the people there in the long run.
And Russia also has its hand in this. And as I say, Russia's motives
now are a little bit murky.
One thing I should mention, if I may, is that Russia may be trying to
drive a wedge between Turkey and Azerbaijan by having Turkey and
Armenia sign these Protocols, because remember, Azerbaijan is the
country that supplies the oil and gas that eventually goes to Turkey.
If Azerbaijan sees Turkey becoming friendlier with Armenia, what it
could do is retaliate against Turkey and perhaps shut off the oil and
gas pipelines, although that's probably very unlikely, or it could get
angry enough to say, `You know what?
We're going to sell our future oil and gas production to Russia.' And
that's what Russia wants. So that may be the Russian game here, as I
say, to try to drive a wedge between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
INTERVIEWER:
And is the U.S. somehow a player in that one?
BOYAJIAN:
It is. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
OSCE, of which the co-chairs are France, the United States and Russia,
have been trying to broker a deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia over
Karabagh for a number of years. They haven't been successful. I
don't think Russia, up to the present time, has been sincere in trying
to broker a deal, because I believe it's liked the fact that the
borders are, that Armenia's eastern and western borders are shut,
because that has prevented U.S. penetration. But as I said, Russian
calculations may have changed. It's playing a game there in order to
push the U.S. away, out of the region.
Whether it will work or not, we'll have to see. It's a constant
seesaw, Jim, the Caucasus [is] a constant seesaw between the United
States and Russia. One minute it looks like Russia's going to win.
Another minute it looks like the U.S. has the advantage.
INTERVIEWER:
And is it important enough that we could attribute some of this
discussion about Afghanistan, the amount of troops that are supposedly
going to be poured into Afghanistan, does that have anything to do
with it?
BOYAJIAN:
Absolutely. It is said that Afghanistan has very large deposits of
natural gas and oil that are untapped. And as I've mentioned, just to
the north of Afghanistan is Turkmenistan, which has huge volumes of
natural gas. And Presidents Bush and Clinton negotiated with - tried
to negotiate with - the Taliban - this was before 9/11 - to put a
pipeline from Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan. I think what
the U.S. is aiming for now is to stabilize Afghanistan enough so that
it can tap the oil and gas in that country and also put pipelines from
the north through Afghanistan into Pakistan.
Afghanistan is also a very central country to the region. Whoever
controls it, it's sort of a linchpin or pivot point, if you will, and
if the U.S. can establish permanent bases there, and it looks like
they might, this would be a very significant thing. So it involves a
lot more than the war on terrorism, that's for sure. But neither
President Bush nor Obama has leveled with the American people in
regard to why we're really there. And I'm not sure he ever will.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, no, I wouldn't expect a president to tell the truth about
anything like that. But I romantically think that somebody in the
press, besides me and a few other alternative people, would be willing
to get this out, because the American people still have this belief in
authority, and that if you don't hear it from mainstream media, it's
not worth listening to.
So I think it's very important that we get out the news as to why, and
a large contingent of Vermont soldiers just are off to Afghanistan
now. So it's important that we get the news out as to why the U.S. is
in Afghanistan.
And I think you've helped a great deal in telling a couple of people, a
few people around here.
BOYAJIAN:
Why members of Congress do not talk about this much, Jim, is beyond
me. It's almost a conspiracy. It's a very strange thing. One would
think that some of the congressmen who oppose the war in Iraq and who
have doubts about our presence in Afghanistan would bring this up.
They must know it. If I know it, if you know it, they certainly know
it. And yet they won't bring it up. It's very disconcerting.
INTERVIEWER: Well, they might, if they're not on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, or the Armed Services Committee and stuff like
that, actually they might not know it. But what they do know is how
their pockets are lined by AIPAC.
And if what you said, if the Israeli lobby, one of the many Israeli
lobbies is pushing them in another direction, then that's the
direction they're going to go in.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, that's true. I think that, I think, though, that some members
of Congress could sort of band together. I mean, there is strength in
numbers. When this campaign two years ago that I mentioned that
started in Massachusetts against the genocide denials of the
Anti-Defamation League, denials of the Armenian genocide, it started
small. It started with a letter to a local newspaper by myself, and
then other people came on board. Armenian organizations came on
board. We got the support of local officials. So when you're just
one or two people, you can be retaliated against. An issue won't
necessarily go anywhere. But it has to start small and grow. So I
think our congressmen should get together and talk about the motives,
why we're in Afghanistan, that is has a lot to do with oil and gas and
the centrality of Afghanistan in that part of the world and just start
small, and try to gather steam.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, this has certainly rounded out our knowledge, expanded our knowledge
as to why the U.S. is in Afghanistan.
BOYAJIAN:
Well, yes. You know, talking about the ADL, it just occurred to me, I
mentioned this the last time I was on your program, the Vermont
Department of Education has Anti-Defamation League programs. And I
don't know why they continue to have them, given what's happened in
Massachusetts. Perhaps they just do not know about it. But I think
if people in the Department of Education were informed that the
Anti-Defamation League has really never acknowledged the Armenian
genocide and still works against the Armenian genocide resolution in
Congress, people in the Department of Education might have second
thoughts about being affiliated with the Anti-Defamation League. But
that's for Vermonters to decide, not myself. I live in Massachusetts.
INTERVIEWER:
Well, if you were to send me something specific and a pitch that
somebody could make to the Vermont Department of Education.
BOYAJIAN:
Sure.
INTERVIEWER:
Mayb e I can do something about that. I assume we have some Armenians
in the area. We have a famous artist who's Armenian who lives right
in Plainfield.
BOYAJIAN:
I can do that, Jim. I'd be happy to.
INTERVIEWER:
And his daughter is a very good artist as well. Anyway, he's the one
that I'm well aware of, but I'm sure there are others.
BOYAJIAN:
There's a website called NoPlaceForDenial.com. That gives the whole
background about the struggle against the genocide denials of the
Anti-Defamation League, the complete history of it, and hundreds and
hundreds of articles.
And there's a section in there which people can navigate to - it's
called A History of Lobbying Against the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
And it has many, many excerpts from articles describing what the
Anti-Defamation League and similar groups have done to deny the
Armenian genocide.
It's simply astounding. And a lot of this has been written by
principled Jews and Israelis who are just disgusted with the behavior
of some of their groups. I want to mention, there are more than a
dozen Jewish American groups that favor the Armenian genocide
resolution. I want to be fair and say that.
INTERVIEWER:
What's that website?
BOYAJIAN:
NoPlaceForDenial.com. All one word.
INTERVIEWER:
And also there's another famous artist, another very well known
Armenian artist who lives on the road parallel to mine. And she's, I
don't know whether any of these people are activists, but anyway.
There are people that I could get in touch with.
Noplacefordenial.com, and that specifically relates to the Armenian
genocide and the ADL's position that it never happened?
BOYAJIAN:
That's right. The ADL takes a little bit more subtle view of it than
that it never happened. What it used to say is, we don't know whether
there was a genocide or not, and the Boston Globe once asked Abe
Foxman if there was an Armenian genocide, and he said, `I don't know.'
And then a couple of weeks later, they came out with a statement which
appeared to be an acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, but was
not, in fact.
It used legalistic language to imply that the murder of Armenians was
not intentional, and thus did not fit the official definition of
genocide in the 1948 United Nation Genocide Treaty.
So what appeared to be an acknowledgement of the genocide was actually a
way of saying there was no genocide.
So this is how dishonest the Anti-Defamation League can be, with all
due respect to the good people that are in there. There are a lot of
good people in there. But the leadership is another story entirely.
INTERVIEWER:
Is that a dot com, NoPlaceForDenial or a dot org?
BOYAJIAN:
It's a dot com, yes.
INTERVIEWER:
All right. Well, thank you very much. You have extended your time
very generously, longer than you promised. And I thank you for that.
And I will remind people of this website, and I'll let them know that
there is an opportunity for some activism, which it looks to me has
far reaching implications beyond just making your voice heard about
the Armenian genocide.
BOYAJIAN:
It does, Jim. And I want to thank you for having me on, and I want to
thank your listeners. It's always good to, you know, we Armenians
being a rather small group, it's nice to have our voice heard out
there, and I for one really thank you, and I thank your listeners for
tuning in, too.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, well, thanks a lot.
BOYAJIAN:
Thank you, Jim.
INTERVIEWER:
And I'll talk to you again.
BOYAJIAN:
Very good, Jim. Bye now.
INTERVIEWER:
OK, that was David Boyajian. I just mixed his name up. I
just created a name. Boyajian. Anyway, that's crazy. I said two
other Armenian names in my head before that, and now I'm mixing them
all together. The artist that I mentioned second, that is a married
name, I just realized.
So she may not be Armenian.
But we still do have some Armenians in our midst, and they might want
to take the ball and run with it, and the website is
NoPlaceForDenial.com. And the connection here is that apparently the
Department of Education in Vermont is playing ball with the
Anti-Defamation League, whose official position is that there was no
Armenian genocide. So it sounds a little arcane to some people, I
know. But not to me.
[END]