Genocídio Armênio: 99 ANOS DE SOLIDÃO

Heitor Loureiro, historiador,

doutorando em História pela UNESP-Franca

No clássico livro Cem Anos de Solidão, do escritor colombiano Gabriel García Márquez, falecido recentemente, há uma passagem sobre o massacre de três mil trabalhadores na fictícia Macondo, perpetrado pela poderosa companhia estrangeira responsável pela produção e exportação de bananas. Apesar do impacto da matança, o esforço do governo e da empresa para negar o crime fez com que a própria população da cidade não acreditasse no que havia ocorrido, tomando por louco o único que ousava tocar no assunto. Os perpetradores e os espectadores passivos, assim, venceram a batalha no campo da memória e escreveram a História ao seu modo, escolhendo o que seria lembrado e o que seria esquecido.

A obra fantasiosa de Márquez, nessa passagem, é baseada em um fato real: o massacre de Aracataca, em 6 de dezembro de 1928, quando trabalhadores e sindicalistas da United Fruit Company promoveram uma greve de quase um mês para reivindicar melhores condições de trabalho. O movimento foi debelado com violência pelas forças de segurança locais, deixando centenas de trabalhadores mortos.

Infelizmente, o que García Márquez escreveu sobre o evento ocorrido em sua cidade natal, transportando-o para a fantástica Macondo, não ficou circunscrito à Colômbia ou à América Latina. O modus operandi de execução de um grupo-alvo já havia ocorrido alguns anos antes, no longínquo Império Otomano, contra as minorias cristãs que viviam dentro de suas fronteiras, sobretudo, os armênios.

Em 24 de abril de 1915, o Comitê União e Progresso, agrupamento político chauvinista e radical que tomou o poder no Império Otomano, ordenou a prisão e deportação de centenas de intelectuais e políticos armênios na capital Constantinopla. Na noite de Páscoa, essas lideranças da comunidade armênia otomana foram retirados de suas casas e colocados em comboios ferroviários rumo à prisões no interior. Essa noite marcou o início do extermínio sistemático da população armênia do Império, que nos anos seguintes sofreu ocupações de suas vilas e cidades, expropriações de seus bens e deportações rumo aos desertos da Síria ou ao Rio Eufrates, em um processo no qual os historiadores calculam que entre 1 e 1,5 milhão de armênios tenham sido mortos, o que significa algo entre 50 e 75% da população armênia otomana. Para uma nação mergulhada numa grave crise econômica e prestes a se esfacelar, o extermínio dos armênios significaria a transferência de grande parte da economia do país para as mãos dos turcos e outros povos muçulmanos, ao mesmo tempo em que tornaria o Império mais homogêneo, sem o elemento cristão. Eram tempos em que ideologias nacionalistas, higienistas e a ideia idílica de um retorno à “era de ouro” estavam na ordem do dia.

Embora tenha causado grande comoção e mobilização no ocidente na época, o plano de extermínio dos armênios foi enterrado junto com o nascimento da moderna República da Turquia, pelas mãos de Mustafá Kemal (posteriormente nomeado Atatürk), em 1923, quando um tratado assinado entre os kemalistas e as potências ocidentais não mais previa a devolução dos territórios da Turquia ocidental aos armênios, sendo estes obrigados a se contentar com a diminuta República Socialista Soviética da Armênia. Com a Turquia, se consolidava uma política estatal de negação do ocorrido com os armênios, pois admitir os massacres planejados e sistematizados pelo governo otomano seria reconhecer que a moderna nação turca estava alicerçada nas propriedades, terras e, sobretudo, vidas de mais de um milhão de pessoas.

Quando o conceito de genocídio foi criado, os armênios pleitearam o reconhecimento mundial para o que havia acontecido a partir de 1915 também ser classificado como tal, principalmente após grande mobilização na Armênia Soviética em 1965. Como consequência, vários países e entidades internacionais reconheceram que os massacres perpetrados contra a população armênia no Império Otomano constituíram sim um genocídio. Não obstante, a Turquia fortaleceu sua posição negacionista, patrocinando eventos, debates e publicações para provar que as mortes foram consequências da I Guerra Mundial e que não havia uma intenção de exterminar a minoria armênia. EUA, Israel, Grã Bretanha e outros aliados estratégicos do Estado turco mantiveram um ensurdecedor silêncio, apesar da forte pressão política das comunidades armênias espalhadas pelo mundo.

O fato é que na primeira década do século 21 algumas coisas mudaram. Cada vez mais países reconhecem a existência do genocídio e convocam a Turquia a enfrentar o próprio passado. Após o assassinato de um jornalista turco-armênio em Istambul em 2007, a população turca também iniciou um processo de questionamento das instituições nacionais que culminou nos protestos da Praça Taksim no ano passado. Muitos intelectuais turcos, hoje, falam abertamente que houve um genocídio e que a Turquia deve se retratar. A comunidade internacional também não consegue manter o silêncio. Por mais que os EUA não reconheçam, a maior parte de seus estados já o fez. Em países como França, há discussões sobre legislações que criminalizem a negação do genocídio armênio, a exemplo do que ocorre com o Holocausto.

O primeiro ministro turco Recep Tayyip Erdoğan enfrenta a pior crise política de seu governo. Abandonado por aliados históricos e visto com desconfiança por vários setores da sociedade turca, Erdoğan não abandona a postura ofensiva para se defender das críticas e denúncias. Sobre o genocídio armênio, não é diferente: a um ano do centésimo aniversário do genocídio, o político já se articula com aliados como o Azerbaijão para mitigar os eventos que a República da Armênia e a diáspora farão para rememorar o ocorrido. Assistiremos a uma guerra no campo de batalha da memória em 2015.

Erdoğan está em xeque pelos movimentos sociais turcos, pela oposição e pela sociedade internacional. A sistemática política de negação da Turquia cada vez mais tem se confundido com as ações polêmicas e duvidosas do primeiro ministro. A única saída possível é enfrentar a própria História e propor soluções para a reconciliação nacional observando o tripé “justiça, memória e verdade”. Do contrário, a Turquia ficará isolada, negando o inegável e o evidente, comemorando em 2015 seus “cem anos de solidão” no que diz respeito aos direitos humanos.

*Uma versão resumida do texto foi publicado pelo Estadão.

EUA, Turquia e o Genocídio Armênio

O possível reconhecimento por parte dos EUA do massacre de 1.5 milhão de Armênios no seio do Império Otomano no início do século XX - episódio tomado por Hitler como modelo, inclusive, para fazer pouco caso de sua matança particular - suscite dois pontos, dois questionamentos.

Em primeiro lugar, a indagação mais óbvia: "E daí?"

Sim, é um questionamento válido. Sabemos que os EUA são a maior potência atual - por mais que se fale em multipolaridade e etc e em diminuição do poder imperial estadunidense -, mas o fato dos EUA reconhecerem ou não o genocídio como tal muda em que o fato em si?

Podemos compreender, do ponto de vista das vítimas, que é maravilhoso ter sua história e seu sofrimento reconhecidos depois de décadas por uma grande potência. Do lado do algoz, a Turquia - herdeira Otomana - podemos compreender o reconhecimento como uma facada por parte de um aliado.

Mas, mesmo sabendo de tudo isto, ainda falho em compreender o porque de tamanho teatro, o alcance exato que um reconhecimento deste tipo teria.

Claro, alguns vão bater no velho chavão de que os EUA são a grande potência, são formadores de opinião - por mais que, no geral, hoje, eu não concorde totalmente - e tem um grande peso mundial,, mas, no geral, o reconhecimento ou não não altera nada. É um país a mais.

Compreendo o medo da Turquia (ainda que me pareça improvável) que o possível reconhecimento por parte dos EUA abra as portas - em linguagem comum, facilite que demais países coloquem as asinhas de fora - para que outros países façam o mesmo. Fora isto, o resto é pavor deslocado e, retomando o que eu havia dito em posts anteriores, é uma maquiagem da realidade.

As palavras do ministro de relações exteriores da Armênia parecem inspiradas:

É uma nova prova do apego do povo americano pelos valores humanos universais e um passo importante para a prevenção de crimes contra a humanidade.

Mas são mais teoria que prática. Crimes contra a humanidade foram e são cometidas pelos EUA independentemente de reconhecerem ou não um genocídio ou outro. Questiono, enfim, o alcance a relevância mundial - e não específica, esta indiscutível - de tal reconhecimento.

Irão os EUA e aliados parar de torturar? De invadir países sem permissão da ONU - ou mesmo com permissão? Irão todos parar de matar a África de fome e metade do mundo graças ao modelo econômico adotado? E tantos outros questionamentos válidos.

O segundo questionamento é, talvez, mais delicado. Questiono a Turquia, enquanto herdeira do Império  Otomano, pela desfaçatez e até mesmo cara-de-pau de maquiar a realidade a seu favor mesmo com o mundo inteiro sabendo da verdade.

Mas, não sejamos simplistas. Os Estados tem a suprema necessidade de se mostrarem idôneos, honestos, coerentes. Seja para o público interno, seja para o externo. Sempre terá alguém para acreditar nas mentiras contadas pelos Estados. Oras, os Chineses não são nacionalistas e acreditam em seu Comunismo (sic)? Os estadunidenses não acreditam piamente que são uma - a maior - democracia justa e maravilhosa e que realmente exportam este modelo para o mundo?

Sejam quais forem os argumentos Turcos - válidos ou não, ou em parte - nada muda o fato de que o que aconteceu com os Armêmios - e também com Assírios e Gregos Pônticos - foi e sempre será um Genocídio.

A questão do reconhecimento, por outro lado, passa por outra dinâmica. Não passa necessariamente pela verdade, pelos fatos, mas pela construção de uma verdade, de uma historia, de mitos por parte do Estado interessado.

Existe uma verdade aceita em geral por acadêmicos e pela maior parte da população mundial, o Estado turco quer construir outra. E espera que aliados e amigos sejam coniventes com esta verdade construída a toque de caixa.

Toda verdade é socialmente construída, o Genocídio Armênio é uma verdade construída com sangue.
---
Levando a resolução aprovada para o debate, o fato é que dificilmente esta virará lei. Precisa ser votado na Câmara dos Representantes, no Senado e então ser aprovado por Obama, que é contra - e nisto nos lembra as posições retrógradas de Bush - e a pressão turca junto ao governo deve realizar seu trabalho de forma satisfatória - para os turcos.

Válido é que o debate é sempre mantido acesso. Não importa a terminologia usada, o debate sempre é trazido de volta para a mesa e os argumentos são dispostos e, enfim, a posição do Estado turco, intransigente, é sempre visto e reconhecido.

Genocídios Otomanos

Depois do meu último post resolvi comentar um pouco sobre outros dois genocídios pouco conhecidos, que tiveram parte no que veio a ser a Turquia.

Além do Genocídio diário contra os Curdos, perseguições, ilegalizações e etc, e o Genocídio Armênio (onde a câmara de gás foi usada pela primeira vez, consistia em colocar famílias Armênias em uma caverna e encher o lugar com gás carbônico do escapamento de carros e caminhões), no início do séc. XX sofreram perseguições, assassinatos e deportações membros de outros dois grupos, os Gregos Pônticos e os Assírios (Sayfo, é como é conhecido o episódio).

Entre 1914 e 1920 entre 500 mil e 750 mil Assírios foram mortos pelos "Jovens Turcos", especialmente nas regiões do norte da Pérsia. Outros milhares foram exilados ou obrigados a deixar suas casas e se esconder para salvar suas vidas.

Da Aina.org, a Agência Assíria de Notícias, vem este livro fantástico sobre o episódio. Vale a pena a leitura (formato PDF).

No caso do Genocídio contra os Gregos, os números oscilam entre 200 mil e 1 milhão dentre mortos e deportados para a Grécia, entre 1914 e 1923.

Cabe lembrar que estas populações (se somarmos Armênios, Gregos e Assírios, a soma de mortos pode passar dos 3 milhões, sendo 1.5 milhão de Armênios, 750 mil Assírios e 1 milhão de Gregos e é impossível contar as baixas curdas até hoje), em geral, nunca ofereceram qualquer perigo à Turquia, aos Otomanos ou aos seus planos. O objetivo dos "Jovens Turcos" era o de tornar uniforme a nação, extirpar qualquer "desvio" étnico e cultural. Fora os Curdos, foram bem sucedidos, tendo assassinado milhões de inocentes. Mulheres, crianças e homens indefesos, desarmados e raros foram os que resistiram ou puderam resistir.

Abaixo coloco um texto antigo mas muito bom sobre o Genocídio dos gregos Pônticos.

The Pontic Greek Genocide

To remember does not mean stirring up hatred within or without. Hatred destroys what was good and pure in the past and the present. It simply means to embrace what is ours'

Thea Halo, author of "Not Even My Name"

The Turkish Government reacted sharply to the recent dedication of the Pontic Hellenism Genocide monument which was opened recently in Thessaloniki to mark the genocide's anniversary. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Namik Tan said that " so-called Pontic genocide" lacks historical and scientific evidence. “We suggest that Greek authorities and scholars evaluate the historical events objectively instead of using such expressions that can damage relations between our two countries,” said Tan. “We want to again reiterate that this step, which became a fodder for feeble arguments, isn’t in line with the spirit of the cooperation and dialogue we’re trying to develop.”

May 19th marked the 87th anniversary of the Pontian genocide that occurred in present day Turkey. Between 1916 and 1923 over 300,000 Pontic Greeks living in along the Black Sea coast and Asia Minor were systematically exiled or killed along with one and a half million Armenians and 700,000 Assyrians Christians. The Pontic people lived in Turkey from ancient times for over 3000 years and are descendants of Greek colonists who arrived there long before the ancestors of present day Turks. The Turks, under the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, pursued a deliberate policy of "Turkey for the Turks." It was adopted against the backdrop of the Greek occupation of parts of Asia Minor as spelled out in the Treaty of Versailles. Its purpose was to rid Turkey of its Greek, Armenian and Assyrian Christians. The resulting Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and the defeat of the Greek Army sounded the death knell for Christian minorities in Turkey. The process began with Christian owned businesses being boycotted, leading to bankruptcies and confiscation of property. Eventually intellectuals and community leaders were rounded up and executed. One of the methods used in the elimination of the Greek population was the "labor battalions." In them, mostly young and stronger people were captured and forced to do exhausting slave labor by the Turkish State, in order to reconstruct areas destroyed during the war. Some were sent to concentration camps and amongst the survivors was the well known writer, Elias Venezis, who later described his experiences in his book "Number 31328." Thousands died of exhaustion, starvation and dehydration on forced marches. This effective method was used by the Turks to force the weaker population, including women and children, to walk for hundreds of kilometers until they died. This was known as the "Light Death."

These tragic events were recorded by American, as well as the German and Austrian diplomats of the time. Unlike Germany which has taken responsibility for its sins committed in World War II, Turkey still refuses to even admit that these events occurred, let alone apologize for the genocide and ethnic cleansing it inflicted on a helpless population. Not only were the people expunged from Turkey, so too were any traces of their existence. Admitting guilt would entail casting a shadow on Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk is revered and represents the heart and soul of the modern Turkish ethos of who they are as a nation. The present Turkish government has gone to extraordinary lengths to quash any attempt to publicize these events throughout the world, including keeping their own people ignorant of their history. To do so would require a reexamination of the very foundation on which the modern Turkish State is built. As a Friend of mine was fond of saying: "Folks it ain't gonna happen." Interestingly, the Kurds, fellow Muslims were active participants and abetted this genocide but now find themselves in a reversal of roles. They have become the target of draconian assimilationist policies designed to suppress their identity and language.

If you would like to learn more, read Thea Halo's book: "Not Even My Name" about her mother's own odyssey and survival during the Pontic genocide. It is a powerful reminder of a history that cannot and should not be erased from human memory. The following are excerpts from a recent interview. Her words say it much better than I can:

"The sad thing is that they lost so much, because the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians had so much culture there. They brought so much vibrancy to the country that was lost. They were wonderful artisans, intellectuals, teachers, musicians. At the time, there were Europeans who were saying "What in the world will Turkey do without the Christians?" After all, it was the Christians who were the intellectuals and business people, who had the education to help Turkey progress into the 20th century. When Turkey got rid of the Christian populations, they set themselves back, way-way back. The general Turkish population was not well educated at that time, because the Turkish government didn't bother to educate them the way the Christian
missionaries educated the Christian populations. For the most part, the government wouldn't allow Muslims to attend the Christian schools, for fear of conversion, so most Turks of the time remained peasants and farmers. Consequently, the Turks did themselves a great disservice, because the removal of the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians left a great vacuum in Turkey...... Almost every ancient culture has this attachment to the land. What else is there without a place to call home? When I stood on that land, for the first time in my life I could actually feel my ancestors, my grandparents. They became real to me for the first time. They were as much a
part of that land as the trees, the rocks, the grasses. Their blood and sweat is mingled with the earth for thousands of years. How can one walk away from that without feeling that a part of oneself is somehow left behind, somehow missing, like an amputated leg or arm that continues sending out sensations to the brain, even though it's gone? Just the other day my mother said to me, "you know, when you are born in a country, there is a part of you that always feels that that country is your true home."

Read the entire interview.

The Pontic plight, just like the Asia Minor Catastrophe and the Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922, are periods of modern Greek History that speak to who we are as Greeks, no matter where we live. Those that do not know what history teaches us are doomed to repeat it

Lest we forget.

Nenhum genocídio deve ser esquecido

Serra é um escroto, um Tucano que se pudesse vendia o país mas, pelo menos, parece que é humano...

Este artigo de hoje, da Folha de SP, sobre o Genocídio Armênio me surpreendeu. É excelente.

Se Serra tivesse a mesma sensibilidade ao tratar com o povo e das coisas do povo que teve ao tratar deste assunto, estávamos bem...

TENDÊNCIAS/DEBATES

Nenhum genocídio deve ser esquecido

JOSÉ SERRA

Aqueles que insistem em ressuscitar o conceito de raça devem ser contidos, sob pena de incitarem processos odiosos

O DIA de hoje, 24 de abril, lembra a campanha de extermínio movida pelo governo turco contra a população armênia em 1915, durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial.
Nesse dia começaram a ser executadas ordens expressas de extermínio. Em dezenas de cidades do Império Turco-Otomano, onde conviviam pacificamente famílias de diferentes etnias, toda a população armênia masculina foi reunida à força, executada e empilhada em vales e cursos d'água.
Famílias inteiras foram amarradas e jogadas vivas nos rios, com um de seus membros morto a tiros, levando todos os demais ao afogamento. Estima-se que pelo menos 1,5 milhão de armênios tenham sido assassinados.
Pelo menos em um caso, homens foram concentrados em uma caverna e asfixiados com o gás carbônico produzido por imensas fogueiras. Mulheres e crianças foram deportadas de todo o império para os arredores de Alepo, na Síria (que integrava o Império Otomano), e reunidas em campos de concentração.
Parte da deportação se fez em trens de carga destinados ao transporte de gado. Nas centenas de quilômetros percorridos pela população feminina, a maioria a pé, grande parte das deportadas morreu de inanição ou de doença e as demais foram executadas.
As razões invocadas para o massacre -uma vez que a política de extermínio é até hoje negada- foram principalmente a alegada traição dos armênios, que teriam colaborado com o exército russo no início da guerra, a necessidade de limpeza racial para converter a Turquia, então multirracial, em uma nação uniformemente turca, e o fato de os armênios serem geralmente mais educados e mais ricos do que o restante da população.
Os assassinatos foram em grande número, houve deportações em massa, para dificultar a identificação dos perseguidos e limitar sua capacidade de reação ou de contar com ajuda externa. Recorreu-se à asfixia por gases, à inculpação das vítimas e, mais importante ainda, à denegação sistemática e à pressão e intimidação contra os que tentaram reconstituir os acontecimentos históricos. Nisso tudo o genocídio dos armênios foi exemplar.
Os fatos foram amplamente registrados, na época, pela imprensa americana e europeia, com destaque aos jornais britânicos. Documentos diplomáticos de diversos países relatam os massacres sistemáticos da população armênia masculina e a deportação em massa das mulheres com tudo o que isso implicava de estupros e mortes por doença e inanição, sem excluir o massacre final.
Líderes daquele tempo referiram-se ao extermínio -como Winston Churchill, em seu livro "The Aftermath"- e ninguém menos do que o controverso Kemal Ataturk, que viria a ser considerado o pai do moderno Estado turco, reconheceu em 1920 a existência do massacre, considerando-o "um ato vergonhoso".
Não obstante suas diferenças relevantes, não há dúvida de que o extermínio dos armênios foi precursor no século 20 do genocídio judaico. O próprio Hitler, que concebeu e executou o Holocausto dos judeus, teria feito a comparação com a política nazista de deportação e extermínio em massa de poloneses: "Afinal, quem ainda fala sobre os armênios?".
Mas ainda se fala, sim. Há relatos detalhados das atrocidades, um volume impressionante de resultados de pesquisas arqueológicas e, principalmente, depoimentos de vítimas que escaparam dos massacres.
Uma versão romantizada, mas não menos realista do massacre e das deportações iniciadas em 24 de abril, é o extraordinário filme dos irmãos Paolo e Vittorio Taviani, "La Masseria delle Allodele" ("A Casa das Cotovias"). Com sua conhecida sensibilidade e sofisticação de narrativa, os Taviani mostram o terrível emaranhado de sentimentos que uma situação de extermínio provoca dentro de uma família e de uma comunidade, com suas renúncias e cobiças, seus pequenos heroísmos e traições, e sua dor sem medida, que tanto desumanizam algozes e vítimas.
A noção de crime contra a humanidade pressupõe a ideia de negar às vítimas de uma campanha deliberada de extinção a própria condição de seres humanos, com seu direito inerente à existência. Esse é, aliás, o passo mais extremado de uma atitude que começa com o preconceito, estende-se à discriminação e culmina com o racismo. De fato, todos os processos conhecidos de extermínio em massa têm como pressuposto a superioridade de um credo ou de uma raça e a consequente inferioridade de outra.
Aqueles que, em pleno século 21, insistem em ressuscitar o conceito de raça e em criar legislações baseadas na premissa de que elas merecem tratamento diferenciado pelo Estado devem ser contidos em suas ações e pretensões, sob pena de incitarem, em algum momento do futuro, processos odiosos que não podem ser aceitos pela humanidade.
Por isso, nenhum genocídio deve ser esquecido, todos devem ser lembrados, seus responsáveis execrados, suas causas e motivações sempre pesquisadas e analisadas, suas brutalidades reconstituídas, suas vítimas homenageadas. Nunca esquecer para que não volte a acontecer.

JOSÉ SERRA, 67, economista, é o governador de São Paulo. Foi senador pelo PSDB-SP (1995-2002) e ministro do Planejamento e da Saúde (governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso) e prefeito de São Paulo (2005-2006).

Genocídio Armênio, 94 anos!

Apenas para constar, hoje se "comemora" os 94 anos do início do Genocídio Armênio, praticado pela Turquia Otomana contra mais de um milhão e meio de Armênios.

"Há 94 anos, na Turquia otomana, foi planejado e executado em nível estatal o genocídio dos armênios. Uma enorme parte de nosso povo foi massacrada a sangue frio", assinalou o chefe do Estado em mensagem à população por ocasião do aniversário desse "massacre".

Até hoje a Turquia nega o crime e existe uma lei no país que proíbe falar sobre o assunto (o que praticamnete é assumir a culpa).

YEREVAN -- Armenians are holding annual commemorations to mark the 94th anniversary of the onset of mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the World War I era.

Armenians say 1.5 million of their kin were systematically slaughtered in what they describe as "genocide," as the Ottoman Empire, Turkey's predecessor, collapsed.

Turkey has rejected that death toll as well as any genocidal intent in connection with the killings.

Most scholars and a number of governments around the world recognize the tragedy as a genocide, but the political debate sparks emotional reactions on both sides.

This year's remembrances come after Armenia and Turkey said on April 22 that they had agreed on a "road map" aimed at the establishment of normal ties after decades of hostility.

The negotiations reportedly set a goal of "weeks or months" to achieve what has been elusive progress.

They are expected to include the genocide issue as well as the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border, closed by Turkey in 1993 during the Armenian conflict with Turkish ally Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory.

Neste meio tempo a Armênia e a Turquia vem tentando normalizar suas relações e reabrir suas fronteiras - fechadas desde 1993 quando a Armênia invadiu a região de Nagorno-Karabakh, reivindicada pelo Azerbaijão, aliado turco, para defender os armênios que lá são minoria e declararma sua independência unilateral - e abrir seu comércio, movimentos que tiveram início com a visita do Presidente Turco, Abdullah Gül à Armênia para um jogo entre as duas seleções ano passado em jogo válido pelas eliminatórias da Copa de 2010.

April 23, 2009 Turkey and Armenia have agreed to normalize bilateral relations, according to a joint statement issued April 23 by the foreign ministers of both countries and Switzerland, which mediated talks between Yerevan and Ankara, Itar-Tass reported. According to the statement, the two countries “have carried out joint intensive work with the aim to normalize bilateral ties and develop them in the spirit of mutual respect and good-neighborly relations.” Officials said the agreement would help to shore up “peace, stability and security in the entire region.”

O documentário "Screamers", de Carla Garapedian que tem como base a banda americana cujos integrantes são todos descendentes de armênios, System of a Down, é uma excelente maneira de conhecer um pouco mais sobre o genocídio, além de aproveitar excelentes músicas e acompanhar todo o processo para que os EUA reconhecessem formalmente como Genocídio, os fatos do começo do séc. XX.

Outro excelente filme sobre o genocídio, é "Ararat", de Atom Egoyan, um filme dentro de um filme sobre o genocídio contra os Armênios.

São 94 anos sem qualquer pedido formal de desculpas pelo primeiro Genocídio do século XX que serviu de inspiração para Hitler e vitimou mais de um milhão e meio de Armênios!

Genocídio Armênio e Karabakh

Dois interessantes artigos sobre as relações entre Armênia e Turquia, o Genocídio Arêmio e a possível troca do Genocídio (do reconhecimento por parte da Turquia) pela região de Karabakh, hoje sob controle Armênio mas, de jure, parte do Azerbaijão.


Has Turkey Traded Genocide for Karabakh?

With Turkish / Armenian negotiations reaching a peak, the focus of attention is moving from the wider debate to petty bickering over who said this and who said that, the inevitable outcome of a process in which a country’s leaders discuss fundamentals of agreements with their international counterparts then hide the truth from their domestic audience. The Armenian negotiating parties, President Sargsyan and MFA Nalbandian, have unashamedly deceived the Armenian public with respect to their year-long negotiations on Karabakh and Genocide. Today, they would have the Armenian public believe that Turkey has suddenly introduced pre-conditions for opening the border, an untrue statement and particularly alarming as it came immediately after discussions with the US President in Turkey, which surely must have led to a common understanding between Turkey, Armenia and the US. True, the Turkish side did change its position after Obama’s trip to Turkey and re-introduced Karabakh as a pre-condition. But in contrast to Armenia, Turkish reports on its position have been consistent, in Ankara, in Baku and in Yerevan.

Turkey resolutely denies that the hostilities involving the slaughter of Armenians in the early 20th century amounted to Genocide and each year it spends considerable resources to defend its position, especially in the US. This year Turkey’s leaders spent several months and went to extraordinary lengths to avoid US recognition, realizing the new US President and most of his senior administration supported Armenia’s claim of Genocide. That is understandable from a Turkish perspective. But it is disturbing that the Armenian negotiating parties have not added their voices to the Armenian lobby for the US to recognize Genocide, but understandable, as US recognition would put a stop to the plan they have been doing all they can to keep from the Armenian public. Sargsyan and Nalbandian have been ‘warming to the Turkish proposal to establish a commission of historians’ and they have said so on several occasions, not for the good of the Armenian Republic, but in pursuit of personal gain.

On April 6th and 7th, Turkey was host to the US President, first in Ankara then in Istanbul, hailed as the highlight of Obama’s European tour. Several weeks prior to the Obama visit, Turkey announced that it had removed the Karabakh issue from its list of pre-conditions for opening the Turkish / Armenian border, seemingly infuriating Azerbaijan, but clearly a tactical move to demonstrate Turkish acquiescence in a ‘warming relationship’ with the Armenian administration and part of Turkey’s concerted effort to avoid what seemed to be an inevitable US Genocide recognition. The Obama trip went according to plan with the US and Turkey singing each others praise. But for Armenia, whilst Obama confirmed his personal position had not changed, he avoided using the word Genocide.

Armenia’s MFA Nalbandian decided not to travel to Ankara to meet with US President Obama on the 6th April as planned, but he eventually managed to find time on April 7th in Istanbul. He returned to Yerevan bristling with confidence of an imminent border opening and assuring the Armenian public that he and his President would do nothing to jeopardize a possible US recognition of Genocide. In fact, they had already done their damndest to jeopardize a possible US recognition of Genocide, they had announced that negotiations with Turkey were developing well and they anticipated an early opening of the Armenian / Turkish border – possibly in April. Under these circumstances it would have been confrontational for Obama to talk about Armenia’s ‘Genocide’ in Turkey and he would have been blamed for spoiling the Turkish - Armenian reconciliation process.

Nalbandian had barely finished his press conference in Yerevan, when Turkey announced in Ankara, Baku and Yerevan that it was to re-introduce Karabakh to the border-opening list of pre-conditions, a seemingly provocative move, especially after the Obama visit and only two weeks prior to a much anticipated 24th April Obama declaration on Genocide in the US. The Turkish move completely contradicted Nalbandian’s statement, plus many such Nalbandian statements in the run-up to Obama’s trip to Turkey. Sargsyan responded in Yerevan, accusing Turkey of suddenly introducing hitherto unknown pre-conditions, although pre-conditions have been known and documented throughout the nearly year-long negotiation process, and neither Sargsyan nor his Minister of Foreign Affairs had ever explained in Armenia how they had been resolved. However, the ‘newly introduced pre-condition’ did not dampen Sargsyan’s enthusiasm and he re-confirmed he would be travelling through the newly opened border on his way to watch football in Turkey this October.

From this somewhat implausible chain of events, it is presumably to be believed that President Gul had a change of heart after negotiations between President Obama and Armenia’s MFA Nalbandian; that he decided to slap the well-intentioned face of his most powerful strategic ally by revoking on this critical and most sensitive of issues. If true, that would surely invoke US recognition of Armenia’s Genocide on the 24th.

Of course not, Turkey’s President Gul would never concede on the Genocide issue, knowing that 90 percent of the Turkish population is opposed, and at a time when his ratings had plummeted in a keenly contested democratic election. The conclusion can only be that Obama left Turkey thankful and relieved that Turkey and Armenia had agreed to resolve the Genocide issue between them, through Turkey’s commission of historians, or some other such mechanism. Armenia’s President Sargsyan is on record as saying he has no ambitions with regard the historic Armenian lands in the eastern part of Turkey, so only the Karabakh issue needs to be resolved for him to travel through the border in October this year, and Bryza’s opinion is that Karabakh will soon be resolved.

Armenia’s former President Kocharian has been preparing his deal on Karabakh for several years, held back firstly by the lack of an acceptable Azerbaijani compensation package, and secondly his nerve to commit to the deal, knowing he would face the backlash from an angry Armenian public. Kocharian waited his time and supported Sargsyan as his successor on the understanding that Sargsyan, when President, would go through with the agreement he dare not sign.

However, in the same way that Turkey would never withdraw its support from Azerbaijan with regard Karabakh, Azerbaijan is equally committed to supporting Turkey on Genocide. In July 2008, seeing that Sargsyan was determined to finalize the Kocharian deal on Karabakh, the Azerbaijani / Turkish allies joined forces and threw Genocide into the equation, knowing the self-imposed illegitimate Sargsyan regime would jump at the chance of adding to the package of compensation it was demanding in return for one of Armenia’s very few state assets left after Kocharian’s eight years of pillaging - Karabakh.

In August 2008, the Georgia conflict prompted Moscow to force the pace of negotiations, so Medvedev dangled a $500 million carrot; then the World economic crisis presented the opportunity for the US to throw a billion or so more dollars into the pot, conveniently facilitated by the World Bank and the IMF. Now half the World is on tenterhooks, waiting the next episode in this most unsavory Caucuses conflict resolution saga, which is due this 24th April in New York.

The Kocharian / Sargsyan Karabakh ‘Ace’ has already been played several times with the EU and PACE to chock up the illegitimate Sargsyan Presidency. Soon it will be played for the last time, to draw massive compensation in return for a beneficial agreement for Azerbaijan on Karabakh and for a Turkish commission of historians to finally eliminate Armenia’s claims of Genocide.

Turkey and Azerbaijan will have solved their longstanding problems with Armenia, the US will have been relieved the burden of Genocide recognition, Russia will see additional political clout and economic benefits in the Caucuses, and the Sargsyan / Kocharian regime will have a compensation package worth several billion dollars.

The vast majority of Armenians will be hoping that the US president stands by his promise and formally recognizes the Armenian Genocide this 24th April; in the longer term it will be beneficial to all parties concerned. Otherwise the Kocharian / Sargsyan regime will be having to cope with the backlash in Armenia, after having sold Armenia down the river with their ‘Karabakh / Genocide Deal’.

-------------------

ERDOGAN, AZERBAIJAN AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION

Svante E. Cornell

The past several weeks have seen the level of diplomatic rumoring on a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement reach new heights. The Turkish government embarked on this endeavor seriously last Summer, a move that could redraw the geopolitics of the Caucasus in unpredictable ways, depending on how it is undertaken. While the initiative had much to do with Turkish-US relations, the Obama visit paradoxically coincided with Ankara being forced to hit the brakes on the issue, at least temporarily. It has once again been made clear that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict remains the major security challenge in the region, and that it needs to be tackled head on.

BACKGROUND: Turkish-Armenian relations have been tense since the independence of Armenia. While Turkey was among the first countries to recognize Armenia’s independence in late 1991, the two states never established diplomatic relations, and the border between has remained closed for 17 years. The tensions between the two countries relate both with history, the controversy over the massacres of 1915, and the present, Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territory.

Both factors contributed to prevent a normalization of relations. Suspicious of Armenian irredentism advanced especially by the Armenian diaspora, Ankara wanted Yerevan to recognize the border between the countries. Arguing that the initiation of diplomatic relations would imply the mutual recognition of borders, Armenian leaders refused to make what they termed a “superfluous statement” to that effect. Since 1998, moreover, the campaign to have the 1915 massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire recognized as “Genocide” has become government policy in Yerevan, bringing it in alignment with the diaspora groups and irritating Ankara further. Yet the closure of the border was related mainly to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which escalated soon after the two countries’ independence in 1992. When Armenia intervened militarily on the side of the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians and deployed troops on Azerbaijani territory, Ankara sided with Azerbaijan, with which it enjoys close cultural and linguistic ties. The ethnic cleansing of over 800,000 Azerbaijani Turks from Karabakh itself and surrounding territories that Armenia has occupied since the war further solidified Ankara’s position.

In later years, Turkey sought to make the normalization of its relations with Armenia an element in the peace process between its two neighbors – essentially offering to open its border with Armenia at some point in a coordinated sequence of events that would contribute to a resolution of the conflict. Nevertheless, Turkey refused to take that step unilaterally, demanding prior Armenian concessions in the conflict; not to do so, the logic went, would lead to abandoning the remaining leverage on Armenia to vacate occupied territories, and essentially accepting the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis. Turkey’s position has been close to paying off. In 2002, for example, former Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliyev offered to initiate economic and trade relations with Armenia in exchange for the liberation of four of the seven occupied provinces around Nagorno-Karabakh, at which point Turkey would also lift its economic embargo. Armenia, ruled by Robert Kocharyan, nevertheless refused, although this constituted the first sign of willingness by Baku to de-link the lifting of the economic embargo on Armenia from Karabakh’s status.

Yet fifteen years after the cease-fire, the border remains closed, the conflict unresolved, Armenia isolated, and the Azerbaijani displaced persons have yet to return to their homes. Meanwhile, the Armenian diaspora has stepped up its efforts to achieve international recognition of the massacres as Genocide; last year, only a determined intervention by the White House prevented the passing of a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In Turkey, voices calling for a new approach to the Armenian question have gradually risen as the deadlock over Karabakh continues. Business lobbies from the eastern provinces bordering Armenia have called for the opening of the border, as have forces uneasy with a perception that Azerbaijan holds a veto over Turkish relations with a neighbor on an issue that hurts Turkey internationally. Indeed, Turkish leaders have been under pressure from both Washington and European capitals to normalize ties with Armenia.

But until 2008, prospects for normalization seemed remote as the calculus of Turkish national interests spoke against unilateral Turkish action. The move was unlikely as long as political forces sensitive to Turkic solidarity were strong in the Turkish government, for which such a move would constitute a sellout of its closest ally and kindred country in the Caucasus. Secondly, even leaving aside the cultural linkages, Turkey hardly stood to gain from the move. It being obvious that a Turkish de-linking of the Armenian border issue from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict would inevitably alienate Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s population is almost three times Armenia’s, its GDP almost four times larger. It has large energy resources that flow to Turkey, and is strategically located as Turkey’s gateway to Central Asia. If winning over Armenia meant losing the privileged relationship with Azerbaijan, that seemed like a bad trade.

Three reasons combined to change Ankara’s calculus in 2008. First, the AKP secured re-election in 2007, emboldening it in its foreign and domestic policies. Its foreign policy doctrine, formulated by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s chief advisor Ahmet Davutoglu, featured a “zero-problem” policy with neighbors; moreover, the AKP is rooted in political Islam, and therefore many of its leaders have a stronger self-identification as Muslims rather than as Turks. They therefore have only limited interest in the Turkic but secularized (and in the Azerbaijani case also mainly Shi’a rather than Sunni) post-Soviet republics compared to the non-Turkic but pious Middle East, which has always figured prominently in their priorities. Resistance to an opening toward Armenia was hence weakened.

Second, the war in Georgia shook the fragile status quo in the South Caucasus and led to greater activism in Ankara. More specifically, it led Ankara to propose a “Stability Platform” for the South Caucasus that significantly, aside from the three states of the South Caucasus, included Russia but no western power.(See Turkey Analyst, 29 August 2008) The initiative was well-received in Yerevan, whereas Baku and Tbilisi both reacted warily. That may seem curious for a Turkish initiative, but both capitals had reason for concern. In fact, the peculiar architecture of Russia, Turkey and the three small countries would further decrease Western influence in the region; moreover, some of the associated proposals appeared to serve to freeze the territorial situation in the region and thereby the occupation by Russia and Armenia, respectively, of about a fifth of Georgia’s and Azerbaijan’s territory. This shift in Turkish policy – which appeared to imply acceptance of a “junior partner” position to Russia in the Caucasus – opened the way for further contacts with Armenia.

President Barack Obama addresses Turkish Parliament

Third, Barack Obama was elected President of the U.S. in November. Obama had made it clearer than any major presidential candidate in modern history that he intended to recognize the Armenian massacres as Genocide if elected president, leading to acute concerns in Ankara. To thwart a resolution, Ankara was hence running out of options. Yet a rapprochement with Armenia could change the calculus in Washington. As everyone understood that U.S. recognition of the massacres as Genocide would make a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement domestically impossible, the prospect of exactly such a rapprochement could therefore influence both the Obama administration and moderate elements in the Armenian diaspora to desist from pressing for a resolution. In fact, arguing for one would now appear foolhardy, as it could prevent the best chance in years to improve Armenia’s regional situation.

IMPLICATIONS: These factors all combined to bring about the “soccer diplomacy” that began when Turkish President Abdullah Gül traveled to Yerevan in early September to attend a qualifying game between the national teams of the two countries. That in turn boosted a flurry of diplomatic exchanges and meetings between Turkish and Armenian cabinet ministers, accelerating in the first months of 2009. By late March, plans for a normalization of relations beginning in early April were unofficially announced and leaked to the media.

But these plans fudged the question whether Ankara had effectively de-linked its normalization of relations with Armenia from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In Baku, concerns were mounting that Ankara had done exactly that. It is clear from both Turkish and Azerbaijani sources that Ankara kept notifying Baku of most of its intentions, but fell far from consulting with its counterparts there, let alone seek ways to bring Baku on board.

Ali Babacan and Elmar Mammedyarov

Matters were brought to a point when President Obama announced his intention to travel to Turkey in early April, right after Turkey’s March 29 local elections. Azerbaijani officials started making their opposition to the developments known. Indeed, events were now pushing Baku to a crossroads. Baku already acutely felt the vacuum of Western presence in the region following the Russian-Georgian war, and was disillusioned by Turkish and German moves to stymie its prospects of exporting gas through the Nabucco pipeline to Europe. (See CACI Analyst, 25 March 2009) Turkish moves now led Baku to see the foundations of its balanced, pro-western foreign policy unraveling – all while Gazprom was tickling Baku by offering full European prices to buy all of Azerbaijan’s gas exports.

Baku’s reaction did not register in Turkish media and politics until after the local elections, in which the AKP did much worse than expected, losing almost ten percentage points compared to its results in the 2007 national elections. Turkish media and both main opposition parties now started castigating the government for selling out Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev then pulled out from a planned trip to the high-profile Istanbul summit of the Alliance of Civilizations. Turkish efforts to secure his attendance failed, as did two phone calls from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one promising a meeting with President Obama.

As Aliyev stayed home, Erdogan was faced with the choice of backpedaling or to appearing to sell out Azerbaijan – an option that could have caused strong reverberations domestically, even within his own party, and which could have been the final straw that pushed Baku into Moscow’s orbit. Predictably, Erdogan therefore backpedaled, making it clear that Armenian concessions on Karabakh remained a prerequisite for the ratification of any Turkish-Armenian agreement, if not its signing. Yerevan’s disappointment was best illustrated by Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian’s decision to delay his travels to Ankara for attending the summit.

CONCLUSIONS: The Turkish leadership may have achieved one major aim of his rapprochement with Armenia: following President Obama’s speech in the Turkish parliament and his clear efforts to rebuild the Turkish-American strategic partnership, American recognition of the 1915 massacres as Genocide are now quite unlikely – for this year. But the episode suggests a number of lessons for Turkish as well as American policy-makers to draw.

Events have made it clear that Turkish-Armenian relations and the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are not easily de-linked. Turkey simply stands to lose too much by unilaterally normalizing relations and opening its border with Armenia without a quid pro quo from Yerevan. The domestic and regional losses would be so significant as to overshadow the possible benefits for any Turkish government.

Second, the key to these interlinked issues continue to remain in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. These events have served to remind the Turkish government that security and development in the South Caucasus is impossible without its full resolution. Whereas current Turkish and American leaders have sought to sidestep that fact and find shortcuts to improving regional security, recent events prove that the conflict can be ignored only both Washington’s and Ankara’s peril. Indeed, not only Azerbaijan’s interests are at stake, but Turkish and U.S. long-term interests are as well, most tangibly in energy security.

This implies that there is an opening for renewed investment of time and energy into a diplomatic push that would include both the conflict and the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. But in an otherwise excellent speech to the Turkish parliament, President Obama only mentioned the Karabakh conflict in passing, referring to Turkey’s role in helping broker a solution. He refrained from stating America’s intention to take part in that effort.

It is now to be hoped that the four parties to this issue – Ankara, Yerevan, Baku and Washington – will draw the right conclusions from the episode: that a breakthrough to advance the security of all parties is within reach; but that it will be achieved not by a piecemeal approach but by a broader tackling of the underlying root causes of insecurity in the region, namely the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That in turn involves the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

Given the improvements in Turkish-Armenian relations, it would now make sense for Washington to take the lead and broker a broader deal involving the three protagonists, that would secure the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations as well as substantial and concrete progress toward a resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It may be worth revisiting a version of the 2002 gambit, whereby the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement coincides with an Armenian retreat from the occupied territories on Azerbaijan’s border with Iran, and the normalization of economic ties between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Such a package deal would truly help change the dynamics of the South Caucasus. It is achievable, but it would require sustained American commitment, and at the very least the appointment of a senior U.S. negotiator responsible for the issue.

Fontes: Turkishforum.com.tr

Turquia e suas minorias...

Me impressionou como esta pequena notícia conseguiu ser tão profunda e direta em sua análise e passar tanta informação....

O ponto central, a turquia recentemente permitiu uma rádio em Armênio (população vítima do primeiro genocídio do séc. XX, mais de 1 milhão de mortos e deportados) e um canal de TV em idioma curdo.

Os Curdos são vítimas diárias de um genocídio cometido pelos turcos mas, curiosamente, foram grandes responsáveis pela morte dos armênios no passado, tendo participado ativamente nos massacres de 1915-1917.

Realmente, não existem inocentes no mundo.

Mas, voltando à notícia, o ponto central é a razão apra esta suposta demonstração de tolerância e amizado por parte dos Turcos para suas minorias: A União Européia.

Os Turcos só poderão ter esperanças de adentrar à União Européia caso melhores seus indicadores sociais e, acima de tudo, que passem a respeitar os Direitos Humanos (não que a União Européia seja um poço de respeito e justiça, vide a Espanha e as torturas e perseguições contra os Bascos, a situação dos imigrantes na Itália, o tratamento Grego à Macedônia e etc).

Deve ser MUITO difícil para os turcos engolirem.... Mas, estão tentando (ao menos, a propaganda é boa).

A radio station in Armenian is launched in Turkey

19/03/2009

NEWS IN BRIEF. Ankara continues to take steps to improve diplomatic relations with Yerevan.

Reuters news agency recently announced, quoting official Turkish sources, that the government of Turkey is about to launch a new radio station broadcasting in Armenian, a language spoken by 600,000 Armenians in Turkey. The measure is seen as a bid to improve the record of respect of human rights in the eyes of the EU, as well as restoring good diplomatic relations with Armenia, one of Turkey's main regional opponents.

The principal reason for discord between both countries is the killing of Armenians by Ottoman troops during First World War. Erevan, which counts with several international supports -including the US-, has branded the event as an "attempt of genocide". Ankara not only denies the accusation, but persecutes within itsboundaries those who hold so.

Some months ago, Turkey also sponsored the launching of a new TV channel in Kurdish, in a bid to win support among the Kurds for next elections on March 29, and neutralize the influence of Kurdish TV stations broadcasting from abroad, such as Roj TV.

Further information:

• Reuters: Turkey to launch Armenian-language radio station
• Nationalia: Turkish education ignores minoritised languages, cultures and religions, Minority Rights Group says