DOCSLIB.ORG

Turkey and Armenia Post-Protocols

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Turkey and Armenia Post-Protocols Turkey and Armenia Post-Protocols: FOREIGN POLICY Back to Square One? PROGRAMME D. Nigar Göksel Beginning with a football game in Yerevan societies of the two countries enwrapped in between the Turkish and Armenian teams on 6 heated debate about the process, but September 2008, a high-level diplomatic Washington, Brussels and Moscow were normalization process between Turkey and engaged, as were other interested parties such Armenia came under the spotlight. Following as the Armenian diaspora and the Azerbaijani intense diplomatic traffic, including the public and government. Analyzing various announcement in April 2009 that a roadmap dimensions of this attempt to normalization had been agreed upon, the public release of can therefore shed light on the contours of the two initialized protocols took place in August challenges, as well as the incentives of the 2009: “Protocol on establishment of diplomatic drivers and the spoilers. Developing this relations” and “Protocol on development of understanding can subsequently help build a mutual relations.” After six weeks of heated more solid and realistic sense of how the debate, the documents were signed by the two existing divides between the peoples and the countries’ foreign ministers on 10 October 2009 capitals might be bridged in the future. in Zurich. Besides opening the border and Though people-to-people ties have been establishing diplomatic relations, these intensifying among various segments of both protocols laid out plans to establish an nations, the state of relations in general is still intergovernmental bilateral commission with characterized by closed borders, the absence of seven sub-commissions to “develop” relations diplomatic relations, as well as deep distrust - one being an “impartial scientific examination and antagonism playing out at societal, of the historical records and archives” political and international levels. The two main (commonly referred to as the history sub- causes of this situation are the shared history commission). While the disintegration of the of Turks and Armenians, in particular the process had already begun in the spring and events of 1915, and the Nagorno-Karabakh summer months of 2009, the more explicit conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. fizzle began after the signing ceremony. There are also related problems involving D. Nigar Goksel has been compensation expectations, and tensions Editor-in-Chief of Turkish This was not the first attempt to normalize Policy Quarterly (TPQ) for related to the (non) recognition of the joint relations (the term typically used to refer to the ten years. Her research border. The protocol framework aimed to and analysis specializes on opening of the common border and the Turkey and the South directly and indirectly address these establishment of diplomatic relations) between Caucasus, including interwoven problems. dimensions such as EU Turkey and Armenia, but it was the initiative policies towards these most in the public eye since Armenia’s Highlighting political expediency calculations countries and European integration of the wider independence in 1991. Not only were the for the Ankara leadership and the social Black Sea region. outlook in Turkey more generally, this paper decades, the stripping of much of present-day will assess the logic of the formulas sought by Turkey of its Armenian communities has been the protocols for overcoming differences on taken up by the Turkish bureaucracy with history, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and denialist and defensive approaches, reflecting border recognition, examining why the process as such in public discourse and official broke down. The paper will also attempt to publications. The response from segments of stimulate thought about the various the active Armenian diaspora, has been dimensions relevant to both sides, that need to indiscriminate anti-Turkish propaganda. A be taken into account in future attempts to vicious cycle of mutual antagonism has address these complex issues. The final section become entrenched. emphasizes the need for a deeper, more consistent and holistic long term reconciliation The involvement of third party politicians, between the two nations, in a fashion that through genocide recognition resolutions that does not exclude Azerbaijan, to unlock the attempt to describe what happened in 1915 and stalemate of the region, and unleash its reach legal conclusions, has contributed to the cooperative potential. reduction of historical reflection to whether or not the word genocide applies, and the consequences thereof. This has created a Over the decades, the stripping of much of present-day Turkey cauldron of not only legal and historical of its Armenian communities has been taken up by the dispute but also political and material interest, Turkish bureaucracy with denialist and defensive approaches, as well as international strategic power games, reflecting as such in public discourse and official publications. turning the word genocide into a litmus test of The response from segments of the active Armenian diaspora, “patriotic credentials” for a sizeable has been indiscriminate anti-Turkish propaganda. A vicious proportion of Turks and Armenians. cycle of mutual antagonism has become entrenched. The effort, in particular by organized hardline Armenian diaspora groups, to pressure Turkey HISTORy – nOT GOING AWAY into recognition, restitution, and reparation has been countered with significant resources as The underlying problem between the two well as political and diplomatic capital by the nations is the clashing narratives about the Turkish state. This course of events has at history of Armenians in the final years of the times severely limited Turkey’s diplomatic Ottoman-Turkish state during World War I. manoeuvre space on other strategic questions, Wrapped up succinctly by the report of the and hardened public opinion and political International Center for Transitional Justice, space in both countries. The fact that Barack there is “disagreement as to the magnitude Obama, elected as US president in November and scope of these events, their context and 2008, was known to support the term genocide intended effect, and the identities and to qualify the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in affiliations of their perpetrators.”1 Over the during the early twentieth century”, International 1 “The applicability of the United Nations Center for Transitional Justice report, February 2 convention on the prevention and punishment of 2003, http://www1.american.edu/cgp/TARC/ictj. the crime of genocide to events which occurred htm Anatolia, increased the concern and pressure genocide recognition in Armenia’s foreign on Turkey. Meanwhile, partially as a factor of policy or its policy regarding the normalization the intensification of official apologies for of relations between the two countries. historical wrongs in Western democracies, and However, when Robert Kocharian came to as a result of campaigns of Armenian diaspora power as president in 1998 and raised the lobbies, genocide recognition by parliaments question of genocide recognition to the level of of third countries had gained momentum in the state policy - both as a weapon against Turkey 1990s and continued into the first decade of the and to stimulate diaspora support to his 21st century.2 administration - “history” once again rose to the forefront of the official bilateral agenda. Lightening the burden of “genocide diplomacy” was one of the expectations of the Turkish side The first publicized expression of the idea of a in venturing into normalization with Armenia history commission (to study archives and in 2008. There was an assumption in Ankara historical records) to be agreed on between - supposedly generated by US officials, that Ankara and Yerevan, was proposed by Turkish Washington would hold off with recognition, if Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on 10 Turkey normalized (or took serious steps in the April 2005. The Armenian response (arguably direction of normalizing) relations with not delivered explicitly as a response to Armenia. Whether specified clearly as such by Turkey’s offer), was that relations should first US authorities or not, the fact that this be normalized and borders opened, before conditionality was widely believed in Ankara, history, as well as “other issues of mutual became one of the driving forces for Turkey interest” could be taken up. Capturing the venturing into the protocol process. thinking of the Armenian government at the time, a wire from the US embassy in Yerevan, “History” has been on the agenda of bilateral released by Wikileaks, explains that the talks between Ankara and Yerevan for over 20 perception in Yerevan is that Turkey’s offer of a years. In 1991, when Ankara first started talks history commission is a “stall tactic” and “the with Armenian counterparts to establish Turkish side is uninterested in serious dialogue relations, an expectation that the Armenian with Armenia but hopes to create the diaspora end genocide-recognition campaigns impression of reaching out to Armenia as a was on its agenda. However, Yerevan clearly tactic to relieve European pressure”.3 The wire and consistently held that it was not the continues: “The GOAM [Government of interlocutor of this issue. History as an agenda Armenia] certainly has no desire to help Turkey item somewhat faded out of state-to-state ‘off the hook’ in the court of European opinion, negotiation, especially as it became clear to Armenia’s only real leverage in the Turkish Turkey
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cabinet of Armenia, 1920
    Cabinet of Armenia, 1920 MUNUC 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________ Letter from the Crisis Director…………………………………………………3 Letter from the Chair………………………………………….………………..4 The History of Armenia…………………………………………………………6 The Geography of Armenia…………………………………………………14 Current Situation………………………………………………………………17 Character Biographies……………………………………………………....27 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...37 2 Cabinet of Armenia, 1920 | MUNUC 32 LETTER FROM THE CRISIS DIRECTOR ______________________________________________________ Dear Delegates, We’re very happy to welcome you to MUNUC XXXII! My name is Andre Altherr and I’ll be your Crisis Director for the Cabinet of Armenia: 1920 committee. I’m from New York City and am currently a Second Year at the University of Chicago majoring in History and Political Science. Despite once having a social life, I now spend my free-time on much tamer activities like reading 800-page books on Armenian history, reading 900-page books on Central European history, and relaxing with the best of Stephen King and 20th century sci-fi anthologies. When not reading, I enjoy hiking, watching Frasier, and trying to catch up on much needed sleep. I’ve helped run and participated in numerous Model UN conferences in both college and high school, and I believe that this activity has the potential to hone public speaking, develop your creativity and critical thinking, and ignite interest in new fields. Devin and I care very deeply about making this committee an inclusive space in which all of you feel safe, comfortable, and motivated to challenge yourself to grow as a delegate, statesperson, and human. We trust that you will conduct yourselves with maturity and tact when discussing sensitive subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • THE IMPACT of the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE on the FORMATION of NATIONAL STATEHOOD and POLITICAL IDENTITY “Today Most Armenians Do
    ASHOT ALEKSANYAN THE IMPACT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ON THE FORMATION OF NATIONAL STATEHOOD AND POLITICAL IDENTITY Key words – Armenian Genocide, pre-genocide, post-genocide, national statehood, Armenian statehood heritage, political identity, civiliarchic elite, civilization, civic culture, Armenian diaspora, Armenian civiliarchy “Today most Armenians do not live in the Republic of Armenia. Indeed, most Armenians have deep ties to the countries where they live. Like a lot of us, many Armenians find themselves balancing their role in their new country with their historical and cultural roots. How far should they assimilate into their new countries? Does Armenian history and culture have something to offer Armenians as they live their lives now? When do historical and cultural memories create self-imposed limits on individuals?”1 Introduction The relevance of this article is determined, on the one hand, the multidimen- sionality of issues related to understanding the role of statehood and the political and legal system in the development of Armenian civilization, civic culture and identity, on the other hand - the negative impact of the long absence of national system of public administration and the devastating impact of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 on the further development of the Armenian statehood and civiliarchy. Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey was the first ever large-scale crime against humanity and human values. Taking advantage of the beginning of World War I, the Turkish authorities have organized mass murder and deportations of Armenians from their historic homeland. Genocide divided the civiliarchy of the Armenian people in three parts: before the genocide (pre-genocide), during the genocide and after the genocide (post-genocide).
    [Show full text]
  • Genocide Bibliography
    on Genocide The Armenian Genocide A Brief Bibliography of English Language Books Covering Four Linked Phases Genocide Facts Presentation of Oral and Written Evidence for the Armenian Genocide in the Grand Committee Room, The House of Commons London 24th April 2007 First and Second Editions 2007, with Addenda 2009, Third Edition 2011, Fourth Edition 2013, Fifth Edition Centennial Presentation, the 1st of January, 2015 Sixth Edition © English By Français T.S. Kahvé Pусский Español Ararat Heritage Հայերեն London Português 2017 Genocide: Beyond the Night, by Jean Jansem, detail photography by Ararat Heritage PREFACE There are certain polyvalent developments of the past that project prominently into the contemporary world with pertinent connotations for the future, decisively subsuming the characteristics of permanence. Their significance dilates not only because well organised misfeasance bars them from justice, but also because of sociological and psychological aspects involving far-reaching consequences. In this respect, the extensive destruction brought about by the Armenian Genocide and the substantive occupation of Armenia’s landmass by its astonishingly hostile enemies will remain a multifarious international subject impregnated with significant longevity. Undoubtedly, the intensity of the issue in motion will gather momentum until a categorically justifiable settlement is attained. A broad reconstruction programme appears to be the most reasonable way forward. PREAMBLE 1st. PRELUDE TO GENOCIDE Encompasses the periods referred to as the Armenian Massacres; mainly covering the years 1894 - 96 and Adana 1909. Some titles in the bibliography record the earlier international treaties that failed to protect the Armenians. Only a small number of works have been included, predominantly relevant to this period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Treaty of 1639 and Its Consequences for Armenia and the Armenians
    The Treaty of 1639 and its Consequences for Armenia and the Armenians Presented by Dr. R. Ali Kavani In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES Armenian Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor March 18-21, 2009. Published in ‘Armenia and Armenians in International Treaties’ Armenian Review, v.52, no. 1-2 (spring-summer 2010) Introduction Writing an article about the 1639 Treaty between Iran and Turkey is simple and difficult at the same time. It is simple because one might say that this Treaty divided Armenia and some parts of Mesopotamia. Yet, it is difficult because repeating what has been said many times before, is not sufficient for writing an article. So far, research has not come up with anything else, which shows how poor the historical knowledge of this Treaty is. It needs new research. This article focuses on the long and short term consequences of the Treaty. First, it will concentrate on the geographical aspects of historic Armenia and on the historical roots of the Armenian people. Then, it will describe Armenia as part of the Safavid Empire and the context of the 1639 Treaty. Finally, it will focus on the Treaty's consequences. Geographic location of historic Armenia What is considered historic Armenia was about 238,000 km2 in size, located in the eastern part of Lesser Asia. It is said that Greater Armenia was located to the east of the Euphrates River and Lesser Armenia to its west. Greater and Lesser Armenia consisted of the present Republic of Armenia and parts of northeast Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: the Case of Armenian Democratization
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 4-2009 Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: The Case of Armenian Democratization Arus Harutyunyan Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Harutyunyan, Arus, "Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: The Case of Armenian Democratization" (2009). Dissertations. 667. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/667 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTESTING NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN AN ETHNICALLY HOMOGENEOUS STATE: THE CASE OF ARMENIAN DEMOCRATIZATION by Arus Harutyunyan A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science Advisor: Emily Hauptmann, Ph.D. Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 2009 Copyright by Arus Harutyunyan 2009 UMI Number: 3354070 Copyright 2009 by Harutyunyan, Arus All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Diaspora and Democracy: the Diaspora's
    “Diaspora and Democracy: The Diaspora’s Response to National Movements in Armenia” Paper presented to the Second Annual PFA Forum on Armenia-Diaspora Relations February 28 – March 2, 2010 Washington D.C. Henry Dumanian BA Candidate Hunter College of the City University of New York 1. Beginnings and Foundations The Diaspora of the Armenians is arguably the only one of its kind. In the first place, it has existed for a millennium. Secondly, Diaspora Armenians, especially their commerce and European education, played an instrumental role in what we today consider to be the Armenian national liberation movement(s) of the 19th and 20th centuries. It has also undergone great transformations; the Spyurk is not merely a collection of dispersed communities -- “it is an entity in its own right,” and it has its own history.1 Ultimately, however, the most important and unique feature related to the Diaspora has nothing to do with it. While the Jewish Diaspora is older and arguably more (often exclusively) relevant to Jewish and Israeli history, it has not had a traditional ‘homeland’ continuously populated by co-ethnics. Indeed, there has been an uninterrupted Armenian presence in the Caucasus and Anatolia since at least the 6th century B.C., and themes of exile have been a dominant aspect of the Armenian narrative since the Mongol invasions of the 11th and 12th centuries. This is not to say that the nature of the Diaspora, its views on the homeland, and the homeland’s views of it, have remained static. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. The earliest Diaspora Armenians, for example, more often left Armenia pursuing lucrative business interests and intellectual adventures than as a matter of necessity.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Global Development and Security Studies
    .. ............... .......... .......... ........... ... ......................................... ....... .. ............ ......... ..... ........... .. Journal of Global Development and Security StudiesProceedings Eurasia International University Stonehill College International Conference Eurasia Partnership Foundation Yerevan 2017 June 23-24 Journal of Global Development and Security Studies International Conference Proceedings Yerevan 2017, June 23-24 Recommended for publication by the Scientific UDC 327:341:06 Council of Eurasia International University Editorial Board: Piyush Chandra, Stonehill College Benjamin Cole, Simmons College Richard Finnegan, Stonehill College Aleksandra Nesic, US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and school, USA Anna Ohanyan, Stonehill College Proceedings Editors: Nichali M. Xhelili Ciaccio, Eurasia International University Anna Ohanyan, Stonehill College Anamika Twyman-Ghoshal, Stonehill College © Eurasia International University, 2018 ISBN 978-9939-866-04-8 © Stonehill College, 2018 © Eurasia Partnership Foundation, 2018 Table of Contents Acknowledgements...............................................................................4 Disclaimer.............................................................................................6 Economic Development, Resource Management, and Human Security ............................................................................7 Agricultural Cooperatives as a Strategy for Economic Development and the Improvement of National Security in Armenia.............................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Toplanti 24 Yeni Layout 1
    AVİM Conference Book 24 THE CENTENNIAL OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE THREE SOUTH CAUCASUS STATES: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM) in Turkey on 9 November 2018 Türkmeneli İşbirliği ve Kültür Vakfı AVRASYA İNCELEMELERİ MERKEZİ CENTER FOR EURASIAN STUDIES The Centennial of the Independence of the Three South Caucasus States: Historical Background, Contemporary Developments and Prospects of Peace and Prosperity International Conference AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies) Conference Book No: 24 October 2019 Ankara AVİM CONFERENCE BOOK No: 24 EDITOR Tutku Dilaver Nigar Shiralizade REDACTION Mehmet Oğuzhan Tulun TRANSCRIPTION Alperen Ünlü DESIGN Ruhi Alagöz PUBLICATION DATE October 2019 PRINTING Özyurt Matbaacılık Saray Mahallesi 123. Cadde Kahramankazan / ANKARA Tel: 0 312 384 15 36 - Faks: 0 312 384 15 37 Statements of facts, or opinions appearing in this book are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by the editor or publisher. Copyright © AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies) 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers. To get your own copy of this or any of AVİM publications please visit http://www.avim.org.tr/ CONTENTS Contributors .....................................................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • “Kurdistan” in the Middle East Between 1919 and 1990: a Critical Geopolitical Approach
    THE (NON-)TERRITORIALIZATION OF “KURDISTAN” IN THE MIDDLE EAST BETWEEN 1919 AND 1990: A CRITICAL GEOPOLITICAL APPROACH THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE OF TOBB UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY NAZ DUYGU AKYOL-GÖZEN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE September 2016 I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. ______________________________________ Prof. Dr. Serdar SAYAN Director of Graduate School for Social Sciences This is to certify that I have read this thesis and that it my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Thesis Advisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Serdar PALABIYIK ______________________ (TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Political Science and IR) Thesis Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yıldız DEVECİ-BOZKUŞ ______________________ (University of Yıldırım Beyazıt, Eastern Languages and Literatures) Assist. Prof. Dr. Hakan Övünç ONGUR ______________________ (TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Political Science and IR) ii I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. __________________________ Naz Duygu AKYOL-GÖZEN iii ABSTRACT THE (NON-)TERRITORIALIZATION OF “KURDISTAN” IN THE MIDDLE EAST BETWEEN 1919 AND 1990: A CRITICAL GEOPOLITICAL APPROACH AKYOL-GÖZEN, Naz Duygu M.Sc., Department of International Relations Thesis Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Serdar PALABIYIK This thesis analyses the reasons of why a certain “Kurdistan” could not be established as a geopolitical entity within the Middle East between the years 1919 and 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do We Remember the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust? a Global View of an Integrated Memory of Perpetrators, Victims and Third–Party Countries
    6/2020 PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FRANKFURT / LEIBNIZ-INSTITUT HESSISCHE STIFTUNG FRIEDENS- UND KONFLIKTFORSCHUNG ELDAD BEN AHARON // HOW DO WE REMEMBER THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND THE HOLOCAUST? A GLOBAL VIEW OF AN INTEGRATED MEMORY OF PERPETRATORS, VICTIMS AND THIRD–PARTY COUNTRIES PRIF Report 6/2020 HOW DO WE REMEMBER THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND THE HOLOCAUST? A GLOBAL VIEW OF AN INTEGRATED MEMORY OF PERPETRATORS, VICTIMS AND THIRD–PARTY COUNTRIES ELDAD BEN AHARON // ImprInt LEIBNIZ-INSTITUT HESSISCHE STIFTUNG FRIEDENS- UND KONFLIKTFORSCHUNG (HSFK) PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FRANKFURT (PRIF) Cover: Titel: Holocaust Memorial in Berlin © flickr, /// Sarah, https://bit.ly/3kUdlY7., https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ Text license: Creative Commons CC-BY-ND (Attribution/NoDerivatives/4.0 International). The images used are subject to their own licenses. Correspondence to: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt Baseler Straße 27–31 D-60329 Frankfurt am Main Telephone: +49 69 95 91 04-0 E-Mail: [email protected] https://www.prif.org ISBN: 978-3-946459-59-0 Summary In 1915, during World War I, the declining Ottoman Empire carried out an extended campaign of geno- cide against the Ottoman Armenians. From massacres to death marches, 1.5 million of the Armenian population were exterminated. The Holocaust, in which six million European Jews were exterminated as part of what the Nazis called the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question,’ was perpetrated during World War II. Over the last forty years, the memorialisation of the Holocaust has become a distinct aspect of Western culture, encompassing reparations, museums, memorials and documentaries, and even legislation criminal- ising its denial.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenian Claims and Historical Facts Questions and Answers
    ARMENIAN CLAIMS AND HISTORICAL FACTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Center for Strategic Research – 2005 ANKARA WAS EASTERN ANATOLIA 1 THE ORIGINAL HOMELAND OF THE ARMENIANS? 2 ARMENIAN CLAIMS AND HISTORICAL FACTS CONTENTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ......................................................................................... 5 QUESTION 1: WAS EASTERN ANATOLIA THE ORIGINAL HOMELAND OF THE ARMENIANS? ................................................................................... 7 QUESTION 2: DID THE TURKS TAKE THE LANDS OF THE ARMENIANS BY FORCE?.......................................................................................................... 9 QUESTION 3: HAVE THE TURKS ALWAYS ATTACKED AND MISRULED ARMENIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY ? ............................................... 12 QUESTION 4: DID THE TURKS REALLY TRY TO MASSACRE THE ARMENIANS STARTING IN THE 1890's ? ......................................................................... 17 QUESTION 5: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM "GENOCIDE" ?............................ 27 QUESTION 6: DID THE TURKS UNDERTAKE A PLANNED AND SYSTEMATIC MASSACRE OF THE ARMENIANS IN 1915 ? ....................................... 28 QUESTION 7: DID TALAT PASHA SEND SECRET TELEGRAMS ORDERING MASSACRES? ...................................................................................................... 33 QUESTION 8: DID 1,5 MILLION ARMENIANS DIE DURING WORLD WAR I ?.......................................................................................................................... 39 QUESTION
    [Show full text]
  • Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
    HIGHLIGHT OF JOURNAL The role of ideology in mass atrocities: The case of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan Vugar Gurbanov CAUCASUS STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES Volume 1 • Issue 2 • Winter 2020 Armenia and Azerbaijan: CAUCASUS Between Failed Peace and War STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES - ARTICLES COMMENTARIES Geopolitics and the Second Karabakh War The Gordian Knot of the Armenia–Azerbaijan Damjan Krnjevic Miskovic Conflict and the Second Karabakh War: Conclusions and Reflections Western Blind Spot in the South Caucasus: Esmira Jafarova Chronicle of a War Foretold Robert M. Cutler Turkey’s Presence, Involvement and Engagement in the Armenia–Azerbaijan Conflict: A Reflection on Volume 1 • Issue 2 Winter 2020 Economic Potential of the Liberated Azerbaijani–Turkish Relations Territories of Azerbaijan: A Brief Overview Ayça Ergun Rovshan Ibrahimov Violations of International Humanitarian Armenia–Azerbaijan Conflict: Law by Armenia in the Second Karabakh war The Failure of Multilateral Diplomacy Nizami Safarov and Najiba Mustafayeva Murad Muradov Ukrainian Discourse on the Assessing Damage Caused by Illegal Armenia–Azerbaijan Conflict Activities of Armenia to Azerbaijan in the Liberated Anna Korzeniowska-Bihun (Formerly Occupied) Territories Javid Alyarli and Arzu Abbasova International Response to the Second Karabakh War Nina Miholjcic BOOK REVIEW SERIES: Exculpation of Armenian terrorism under guise of the ‘Armenian martyr’ reviewed by Murad Muradov Sama Baghirova “The Light that Failed: A Reckoning” (authored by Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes) JOURNALISTIC DISPATCH * reviewed by Mahammad Mammadov Dispatch from the Conflict Zone during “The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Azerbaijan’s Patriotic War Rules the World” (authored by Anu Bradford) Elmira Musazadeh Volume 1 • Issue 2 • Winter 2020 Armenia and Azerbaijan: Between Failed Peace and War CAUCASUS STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES Vol.
    [Show full text]