Tweet
TURKEY IS TRYING TO DICTATE TO ARMENIA
By Lee Jay Walker
The Seoul Times
Jan 22 2010
S. Korea
The passages of time never heal completely when such crimes have
been committed and the aggressor refuses to either admit to such
barbaric crimes or makes lame excuses all the time. Despite this,
Armenia entered talks with Turkey in the hope of solving long held
problems and in the need to stabilize the region.
However, leaders in Turkey are still trying to dictate and they are
putting pre-conditions down on a conflict which is outside their
remit. This applies to the ongoing crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh and
the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yet this issue involves
Armenia and Azerbaijan and it is not up to Turkey to decide the fate
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Yes, Turkey, just like the Russian Federation and Iran, and other
regional nations and nations who are also concerned about this issue,
does have a right to be concerned about regional problems but it must
be "an honest broker" and not dictatorial. After all, would Turkey be
happy if Armenia stated that Turkey must handover land to the Kurds
or return land to the Armenians, Assyrians, and other ethnic groups
who were "cleansed" in the early 20th century?
It also must be remembered that Turkish military forces are still
based throughout northern Cyprus and this is the problem with Turkey.
For it appears that the leaders of Turkey suffer from historical
amnesia. Also, nationalism is still a potent force within the major
institutions of Turkey.
If we look at the founding father of modern day Turkey, Kemal
Ataturk, then it is clear that he himself supported the destruction
of Christianity via the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian
genocide of 1915. Therefore, it is clear that Turkish nationalism
and secularism is tainted by its anti-Christian nature and also its
anti-Kurdish nature. After all, the nation state of Turkey was about
Turkish nationalism and secularism did not protect the religious or
ethnic minorities of this diverse nation.
Some people in Turkey play "the religious card" and ply the mantra
of Muslim brotherhood. However, this is also hollow because tens
of thousands of mainly Muslim Kurds have been killed over the last
few decades and many Kurdish villages were also destroyed. Also,
the Alevi are a Muslim minority group in Turkey and they also face
discrimination and massacres have taken place against them from time
to time, for example in 1993 you had the Sivas massacre when radical
Sunni Islamists killed many innocent people.
Turning back to recent times the Foreign Minister of Armenia,
Eduard Nalbandian, was very frank about the ongoing problem with
Turkey. He stated that "Had there been preconditions, we would
not have started this process and reached agreements in the first
place." Nalbandian continued by stating that "If one of the parties
is creating artificial obstacles, dragging out things, that means
it is assuming responsibility for the failure of this process," and
this can be seen to be a tacit warning to Turkey about the ongoing
problems involving Armenia and Turkey.
However, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, stated in
October 2009 that "Turkey cannot take a positive step towards Armenia
unless Armenia withdraws from Azerbaijani land [...] if that issue
is solved our people and our parliament will have a more positive
attitude towards this protocol and this process."
Erdogan also stated that "We will bring the protocol to parliament but
parliament has to see the conditions between Azerbaijan and Armenia
to decide whether this protocol can be implemented."
Yet according to Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus
Media Institute in Yerevan, he makes it clear that "The Turkish side
needs to play to its domestic audience. Erdogan and other political
figures have made such statements often enough [...] It's a fact that
neither the word Karabakh nor Azerbaijan appears in the documents
that were signed."
Nalbandian also commented in January 2010 that "If Turkey takes a
step back, then this will be not only a violation of the agreements
with Armenia but will demonstrate that it is not respecting the
international community's opinion, with all resulting consequences
and the loss of credibility in the first instance." He continued by
stating that "Armenia, on the other hand, will -- let's not say win --
not lose anything that we had before this process."
Therefore, outside nations need to put more pressure on Turkey in
order for "a new chapter" to begin between Armenia and Turkey. The
Nagorno-Karabakh issue is indeed serious, however, this dispute is
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis must be resolved by all the parties
involved and by both regional and global institutions which have a
vested interest in solving this complex problem.
However, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis is a separate issue and Turkey
can't claim otherwise because this issue was outside the signed
agreement between Armenia and Turkey.
The genocide of Armenians and other Christians in 1915 is an historical
fact and the same applies to massacres which took place before and
after this date. Turkey can never erase this history, however, this
nation can start "a fresh chapter" which is based on sincerity and
genuine friendship with Armenia.
Therefore, do the leaders of Turkey desire friendship and honesty
or is nationalism too embedded within the mindset of the political
elites of this nation?
By Lee Jay Walker
The Seoul Times
Jan 22 2010
S. Korea
The passages of time never heal completely when such crimes have
been committed and the aggressor refuses to either admit to such
barbaric crimes or makes lame excuses all the time. Despite this,
Armenia entered talks with Turkey in the hope of solving long held
problems and in the need to stabilize the region.
However, leaders in Turkey are still trying to dictate and they are
putting pre-conditions down on a conflict which is outside their
remit. This applies to the ongoing crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh and
the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yet this issue involves
Armenia and Azerbaijan and it is not up to Turkey to decide the fate
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Yes, Turkey, just like the Russian Federation and Iran, and other
regional nations and nations who are also concerned about this issue,
does have a right to be concerned about regional problems but it must
be "an honest broker" and not dictatorial. After all, would Turkey be
happy if Armenia stated that Turkey must handover land to the Kurds
or return land to the Armenians, Assyrians, and other ethnic groups
who were "cleansed" in the early 20th century?
It also must be remembered that Turkish military forces are still
based throughout northern Cyprus and this is the problem with Turkey.
For it appears that the leaders of Turkey suffer from historical
amnesia. Also, nationalism is still a potent force within the major
institutions of Turkey.
If we look at the founding father of modern day Turkey, Kemal
Ataturk, then it is clear that he himself supported the destruction
of Christianity via the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian
genocide of 1915. Therefore, it is clear that Turkish nationalism
and secularism is tainted by its anti-Christian nature and also its
anti-Kurdish nature. After all, the nation state of Turkey was about
Turkish nationalism and secularism did not protect the religious or
ethnic minorities of this diverse nation.
Some people in Turkey play "the religious card" and ply the mantra
of Muslim brotherhood. However, this is also hollow because tens
of thousands of mainly Muslim Kurds have been killed over the last
few decades and many Kurdish villages were also destroyed. Also,
the Alevi are a Muslim minority group in Turkey and they also face
discrimination and massacres have taken place against them from time
to time, for example in 1993 you had the Sivas massacre when radical
Sunni Islamists killed many innocent people.
Turning back to recent times the Foreign Minister of Armenia,
Eduard Nalbandian, was very frank about the ongoing problem with
Turkey. He stated that "Had there been preconditions, we would
not have started this process and reached agreements in the first
place." Nalbandian continued by stating that "If one of the parties
is creating artificial obstacles, dragging out things, that means
it is assuming responsibility for the failure of this process," and
this can be seen to be a tacit warning to Turkey about the ongoing
problems involving Armenia and Turkey.
However, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, stated in
October 2009 that "Turkey cannot take a positive step towards Armenia
unless Armenia withdraws from Azerbaijani land [...] if that issue
is solved our people and our parliament will have a more positive
attitude towards this protocol and this process."
Erdogan also stated that "We will bring the protocol to parliament but
parliament has to see the conditions between Azerbaijan and Armenia
to decide whether this protocol can be implemented."
Yet according to Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus
Media Institute in Yerevan, he makes it clear that "The Turkish side
needs to play to its domestic audience. Erdogan and other political
figures have made such statements often enough [...] It's a fact that
neither the word Karabakh nor Azerbaijan appears in the documents
that were signed."
Nalbandian also commented in January 2010 that "If Turkey takes a
step back, then this will be not only a violation of the agreements
with Armenia but will demonstrate that it is not respecting the
international community's opinion, with all resulting consequences
and the loss of credibility in the first instance." He continued by
stating that "Armenia, on the other hand, will -- let's not say win --
not lose anything that we had before this process."
Therefore, outside nations need to put more pressure on Turkey in
order for "a new chapter" to begin between Armenia and Turkey. The
Nagorno-Karabakh issue is indeed serious, however, this dispute is
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis must be resolved by all the parties
involved and by both regional and global institutions which have a
vested interest in solving this complex problem.
However, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis is a separate issue and Turkey
can't claim otherwise because this issue was outside the signed
agreement between Armenia and Turkey.
The genocide of Armenians and other Christians in 1915 is an historical
fact and the same applies to massacres which took place before and
after this date. Turkey can never erase this history, however, this
nation can start "a fresh chapter" which is based on sincerity and
genuine friendship with Armenia.
Therefore, do the leaders of Turkey desire friendship and honesty
or is nationalism too embedded within the mindset of the political
elites of this nation?