Tweet
'CHRISTMAS ONSLAUGHT BY ETHNIC INTEREST GROUPS IN FRANCE AND US'
news.az
Dec 26 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Javid J. Huseynov, Ph.D., General Director of
Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) and the co-founder of the Pax
Turcica Institute (PTI).
What do you think of the recent law criminalizing the denial of
so-called "Armenian genocide", which passed the lower house of French
National Assembly?
The adoption of the law by 50 out of 577 deputies constitutes
an unlawful attack on the freedom of speech. The World War I era
atrocities in Eastern Anatolia were never tried under any legitimate
international tribunal. No judgment was ever issued to describe these
events as a genocide per the relevant 1948 United Nations' Convention.
This is not the case with the Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide, the two
cases identified in France as the crimes against humanity. Both crimes
were determined by international courts to constitute the acts of
genocide before France recognized them so. Thus, in the case of the
so-called "Armenian genocide", French legislators would essentially
impose the definition of genocide and criminalize its denial by
circumventing a proper international legal process.
What should be Azerbaijan's reaction if the law is adopted?
Azerbaijan would have to react in a unified front with Turkey,
and not only due to fraternal bonds. Ever since October 2009,
when Turkey and Armenia signed protocols to restore bilateral
relations, there developed two school of thought with regards to
reconciliation. The first approach, advocated by the US, EU and
Armenia, seeks to separate Turkish-Armenian rapprochement from the
resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The
second school of thought, advocated by Azerbaijan and Turkey, views
the two issues as inseparable. As an ardent supporter of the second
approach, Azerbaijan would have to take the most stern position
against France on the new law.
More specifically, would this affect France's role as a co-chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?
Based on the logic I just described above, if the law is adopted,
Azerbaijan would have to question France's position as the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chair country. That is, since Azerbaijan views the
Turkish-Armenian issue as a part of a broader reconciliation process,
after the passage of the law, France would become a non-neutral party
in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict resolution. Not to mention that
France has already been a non-neutral arbiter ever since adopting the
2006 law recognizing the World War I atrocities in Eastern Anatolia as
"Armenian genocide".
Recently, the Armenian news agencies, citing the Armenian National
Committee of America, announced that the US Congress allocated
$40 million in foreign aid to Armenia and maintained the aid to
Nagorno-Karabakh at $2 million.
I would like to bring clarification in regards to US assistance to the
occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, especially in light of
misinformation distributed recently by Armenian agencies. On December
17, 2011, the US Senate approved FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (Conference Report on HR 2055), including the FY 2012 State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) Appropriations Bill
(http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=c77b528b-623c-405f-8b54-55f076cf4605).
Unless otherwise specifically amended (to my knowledge,
it was not), the approved legislation is based on
July 26th SFOPS draft by the House Subcommittee
(http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12-SFOPS-07-25_xml.pdf).
The only place, where Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned in that document
is: "That funds made available for the Southern Caucasus region
may be used for confidence-building measures and other activities
in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of conflicts, including
in Nagorno-Karabakh."
Furthermore, the amounts of US aid approved for Armenia and Azerbaijan
are based on the request and justification by the Department of State
(http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156214.pdf ), which,
unless otherwise amended, shows the aid of $40 million to Armenia
(as opposed to $41 million allocated in FY 2011) and $16.6 million to
Azerbaijan (as opposed to $22 million allocated in FY 2011). Again
no specific aid amounts to Nagorno-Karabakh are indicated in these
reports either.
Therefore, unlike suggested by some Armenian agencies, there is no $2
million in US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh allegedly being maintained, there
was no specific aid amount allocation for Nagorno-Karabakh in the final
FY2012 Appropriations. US legislators' realization that allocation
of direct US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh is a waste of American taxpayer
dollars in the times of economic peril is a first major success for
Azerbaijani- and Turkic-American communities. Through the Pax Turcica
Capwiz legislative and media campaigns and Congressional testimonies,
they remained at the forefront of opposition to any direct US aid
to the puppet regime on the occupied Azerbaijani territories. The
Pax Turcica letters raising concern about the US aid to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh were also published in the local newspapers in the
states of Washington and Iowa.
As you know Ambassador Bryza's term expires at the end of this year
without the confirmation from the US Senate. How do you think this
would affect US-Azerbaijani relations?
As I mentioned in one of my interviews last year, the US foreign policy
is defined in Washington and not in Baku. Therefore, the personality
of US Ambassador serving in Azerbaijan is of little relevance to the
conduct of that policy. Unfortunately, this was not well understood
by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), both of
which acted to please ethnocentric Armenian-American special interest
by blocking Mr. Bryza's confirmation in the Senate.
>>From the rhetoric used by Senator Menendez on the issue, it is clear
that the Turkish ethnicity of Matthew Bryza's wife was a consideration
in his blocking decision.
The departure of Ambassador Bryza would negatively affect
US-Azerbaijani relations because it is influenced by Armenian-American
special interest. It clearly demonstrates that US foreign policy
towards Azerbaijan and the region is not conducted independently,
but biased under pressure of an antagonistic ethnic lobby. This
certainly stains the US image as an impartial arbiter in resolution
of regional conflicts.
The Pyrrhic victory by Armenian-American lobby on Bryza confirmation
case may also have a boomerang effect. It will now become a
priority for Azerbaijani and Turkish advocacy groups to question US
ambassadorial nominees to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues
of interest to Azerbaijani- and Turkish-Americans. For example,
the nominated US diplomats would have to be questioned about their
views on Azerbaijani Genocide, Turkish suffering during World War I,
the 1992 Khojaly Massacre, unfair allocation of US aid to the South
Caucasus, and other issues of concern.
This month, the US Congress also adopted House Resolution 306 demanding
Turkey to protect its Christian heritage and to return confiscated
church property. What is the position of Azerbaijani-Americans?
Along with four other anti-Turkish resolutions introduced in US
Congress this year, H.Res. 306 is yet another assault of ethnic
special interest groups against Turkey. This resolution is an unhealthy
attempt to accuse Turkey of religious discrimination, while numerous
US and European reports uphold the freedom of religion in Turkey. If
Congress had freedom of faith in mind while passing H.Res.
306, then why not ask Armenia, to restore Azerbaijani mosques in
Yerevan or to stop erasing Muslim heritage on its territory? How about
questioning why Athens remains the only European capital without a
single mosque?
But most importantly, H.Res. 306, introduced by Republican Congressman
Ed Royce of California, is a severe insult to the US Constitution. The
establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits any federal or
state government from preference to any particular religion, including
Christian. Meanwhile, the US Congress passes a law asking the US
government to demand a privileged treatment of Christian religion
in Turkey.
Azerbaijani-Americans joined their Turkish counter
parts in the Pax Turcica actions against H.Res. 306
throughout the year. Pax Turcica letters denouncing this
resolution were published by the Providence Journal-Bulletin
(Rhode-Island), Staten Island Advance (New York), Sun Herald
(Mississippi) and most recently by prominent St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/resolution-on-turkey-distorts-the-facts/article_4289fbfa-25ad-11e1-91d6-0019bb30f31a.html)
and by The Troy Record (New York). Our objective is to tell American
voters how US foreign policy and its image is being tarnished by
a limited ethnic interest through Congressional lobbying. This is
certainly a major concern that should be brought to attention in the
upcoming elections.
From: A. Papazian
news.az
Dec 26 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Javid J. Huseynov, Ph.D., General Director of
Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) and the co-founder of the Pax
Turcica Institute (PTI).
What do you think of the recent law criminalizing the denial of
so-called "Armenian genocide", which passed the lower house of French
National Assembly?
The adoption of the law by 50 out of 577 deputies constitutes
an unlawful attack on the freedom of speech. The World War I era
atrocities in Eastern Anatolia were never tried under any legitimate
international tribunal. No judgment was ever issued to describe these
events as a genocide per the relevant 1948 United Nations' Convention.
This is not the case with the Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide, the two
cases identified in France as the crimes against humanity. Both crimes
were determined by international courts to constitute the acts of
genocide before France recognized them so. Thus, in the case of the
so-called "Armenian genocide", French legislators would essentially
impose the definition of genocide and criminalize its denial by
circumventing a proper international legal process.
What should be Azerbaijan's reaction if the law is adopted?
Azerbaijan would have to react in a unified front with Turkey,
and not only due to fraternal bonds. Ever since October 2009,
when Turkey and Armenia signed protocols to restore bilateral
relations, there developed two school of thought with regards to
reconciliation. The first approach, advocated by the US, EU and
Armenia, seeks to separate Turkish-Armenian rapprochement from the
resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The
second school of thought, advocated by Azerbaijan and Turkey, views
the two issues as inseparable. As an ardent supporter of the second
approach, Azerbaijan would have to take the most stern position
against France on the new law.
More specifically, would this affect France's role as a co-chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?
Based on the logic I just described above, if the law is adopted,
Azerbaijan would have to question France's position as the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chair country. That is, since Azerbaijan views the
Turkish-Armenian issue as a part of a broader reconciliation process,
after the passage of the law, France would become a non-neutral party
in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict resolution. Not to mention that
France has already been a non-neutral arbiter ever since adopting the
2006 law recognizing the World War I atrocities in Eastern Anatolia as
"Armenian genocide".
Recently, the Armenian news agencies, citing the Armenian National
Committee of America, announced that the US Congress allocated
$40 million in foreign aid to Armenia and maintained the aid to
Nagorno-Karabakh at $2 million.
I would like to bring clarification in regards to US assistance to the
occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, especially in light of
misinformation distributed recently by Armenian agencies. On December
17, 2011, the US Senate approved FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (Conference Report on HR 2055), including the FY 2012 State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) Appropriations Bill
(http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=c77b528b-623c-405f-8b54-55f076cf4605).
Unless otherwise specifically amended (to my knowledge,
it was not), the approved legislation is based on
July 26th SFOPS draft by the House Subcommittee
(http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12-SFOPS-07-25_xml.pdf).
The only place, where Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned in that document
is: "That funds made available for the Southern Caucasus region
may be used for confidence-building measures and other activities
in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of conflicts, including
in Nagorno-Karabakh."
Furthermore, the amounts of US aid approved for Armenia and Azerbaijan
are based on the request and justification by the Department of State
(http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156214.pdf ), which,
unless otherwise amended, shows the aid of $40 million to Armenia
(as opposed to $41 million allocated in FY 2011) and $16.6 million to
Azerbaijan (as opposed to $22 million allocated in FY 2011). Again
no specific aid amounts to Nagorno-Karabakh are indicated in these
reports either.
Therefore, unlike suggested by some Armenian agencies, there is no $2
million in US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh allegedly being maintained, there
was no specific aid amount allocation for Nagorno-Karabakh in the final
FY2012 Appropriations. US legislators' realization that allocation
of direct US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh is a waste of American taxpayer
dollars in the times of economic peril is a first major success for
Azerbaijani- and Turkic-American communities. Through the Pax Turcica
Capwiz legislative and media campaigns and Congressional testimonies,
they remained at the forefront of opposition to any direct US aid
to the puppet regime on the occupied Azerbaijani territories. The
Pax Turcica letters raising concern about the US aid to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh were also published in the local newspapers in the
states of Washington and Iowa.
As you know Ambassador Bryza's term expires at the end of this year
without the confirmation from the US Senate. How do you think this
would affect US-Azerbaijani relations?
As I mentioned in one of my interviews last year, the US foreign policy
is defined in Washington and not in Baku. Therefore, the personality
of US Ambassador serving in Azerbaijan is of little relevance to the
conduct of that policy. Unfortunately, this was not well understood
by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), both of
which acted to please ethnocentric Armenian-American special interest
by blocking Mr. Bryza's confirmation in the Senate.
>>From the rhetoric used by Senator Menendez on the issue, it is clear
that the Turkish ethnicity of Matthew Bryza's wife was a consideration
in his blocking decision.
The departure of Ambassador Bryza would negatively affect
US-Azerbaijani relations because it is influenced by Armenian-American
special interest. It clearly demonstrates that US foreign policy
towards Azerbaijan and the region is not conducted independently,
but biased under pressure of an antagonistic ethnic lobby. This
certainly stains the US image as an impartial arbiter in resolution
of regional conflicts.
The Pyrrhic victory by Armenian-American lobby on Bryza confirmation
case may also have a boomerang effect. It will now become a
priority for Azerbaijani and Turkish advocacy groups to question US
ambassadorial nominees to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues
of interest to Azerbaijani- and Turkish-Americans. For example,
the nominated US diplomats would have to be questioned about their
views on Azerbaijani Genocide, Turkish suffering during World War I,
the 1992 Khojaly Massacre, unfair allocation of US aid to the South
Caucasus, and other issues of concern.
This month, the US Congress also adopted House Resolution 306 demanding
Turkey to protect its Christian heritage and to return confiscated
church property. What is the position of Azerbaijani-Americans?
Along with four other anti-Turkish resolutions introduced in US
Congress this year, H.Res. 306 is yet another assault of ethnic
special interest groups against Turkey. This resolution is an unhealthy
attempt to accuse Turkey of religious discrimination, while numerous
US and European reports uphold the freedom of religion in Turkey. If
Congress had freedom of faith in mind while passing H.Res.
306, then why not ask Armenia, to restore Azerbaijani mosques in
Yerevan or to stop erasing Muslim heritage on its territory? How about
questioning why Athens remains the only European capital without a
single mosque?
But most importantly, H.Res. 306, introduced by Republican Congressman
Ed Royce of California, is a severe insult to the US Constitution. The
establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits any federal or
state government from preference to any particular religion, including
Christian. Meanwhile, the US Congress passes a law asking the US
government to demand a privileged treatment of Christian religion
in Turkey.
Azerbaijani-Americans joined their Turkish counter
parts in the Pax Turcica actions against H.Res. 306
throughout the year. Pax Turcica letters denouncing this
resolution were published by the Providence Journal-Bulletin
(Rhode-Island), Staten Island Advance (New York), Sun Herald
(Mississippi) and most recently by prominent St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/resolution-on-turkey-distorts-the-facts/article_4289fbfa-25ad-11e1-91d6-0019bb30f31a.html)
and by The Troy Record (New York). Our objective is to tell American
voters how US foreign policy and its image is being tarnished by
a limited ethnic interest through Congressional lobbying. This is
certainly a major concern that should be brought to attention in the
upcoming elections.
From: A. Papazian