In Facing Its Adversaries, America’s Got a Hidden Lever: Armenia

Truman National Security Project’s, Daniel Gaynor, in In Facing Its Adversaries, America’s Got a Hidden Lever: Armenia, left his readership with a set of suggestions with no basis in logic or reality. A response is being posed here due to the lack of reader commentary on Gaynor’s blog.

First, there was no war between Armenians and Turks in 1915 to have resulted in the genocide of a million and half Armenians, as Gaynor claims, and further, he uses a NY Times quote as evidence of Turkey being “the historic nemesis of the Armenians”. Gaynor could have simply taken a second to research the topic, but clearly didn’t. The International Association of Genocide Scholars states:

“ In three previous statements of the International Association of Genocide Scholars—first, a unanimous resolution declaring that the Turkish massacres of Armenians in 1915-1918 constituted genocide; second, an Open Letter to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan calling upon him to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide; and third, an Open Letter concerning scholars who deny the Armenian Genocide—we have made our position clear: the historical record on the Armenian Genocide is unambiguous and documented by overwhelming evidence. It is proven by foreign office records of the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and perhaps most importantly, of Turkey’s World War I allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary, as well as by the records of the Ottoman Courts-Martial of 1918-1920, and by decades of scholarship.”

On this single issue alone Gaynor’s post should be dismissed. However, he further claims that Armenia’s geopolitical position provides a unique platform with which the US can advance its foreign policy goals. Gaynor fails to provide any evidence of how Armenia could advance US policy interests. Armenia has been in the same geographic area since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In two decades what has the US done to persuade Armenia that much of its strategic interests coincide or at least parallel those of the US? Apparently little or the US was simply not persuasive enough. Perhaps, Armenia does not provide any Hidden Lever for the US at all. Gaynor never states what Armenian interests the US could promote?

Unfortunately, Armenia is viewed as little more than a nuisance to US foreign policy interests, even if has positioned itself at a functional median political position between Iran, Russia, and NATO. Is the US going to provide the political clout necessary to extract genocide reparations from the Republic of Turkey including the return of land (with significant borders changes) and monetary reparations? Is Armenia going to unilaterally declare itself mortal enemies of Iran, Russia or both, which might in passing, be in the temporal interest of the US? Gaynor does not tell us. What Armenian interest would be served and replaced by US influence that would not radically upset the tenable regional balance? Again, Gaynor is silent.

It is not clear what the Truman National Security Project is engaged in, but basing political projection on erroneous history and proposing national interest void of content does not fit the Project’s mission, “to provide the skills, knowledge, and network to create an influential force of leaders across the country who advance strong progressive national security policy through advocacy initiatives, media appearances, and public service in elected and appointed office.”

The rise of genocide memorials By Clare Spencer BBC News

This anti-Armenian article can be viewed here. The BBC did not mention any monuments dedicated to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians -- not a single mention! This could not possibly be an oversight based on ignorance considering even Wikipedia's entry on Genocide, states, in paragraphs two and three:

The preamble to the CPPCG [United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide] states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history,[3] but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law. During a video interview with Raphael Lemkin, the interviewer asked him about how he came to be interested in this genocide. He replied; "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. First to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action."[4][5]

The BBC also didn't allow any comments in response to their article. The BBC and the British Foreign Office would rather selectively delete facts than to upset the Republic of Turkey, who denies such a genocide ever occurred. BBC's blatant disregard for clearly established facts places its editorial policy in the genocide denial camp. There are over 135 monuments dedicated to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians in over 30 countries.

Comment on RFE/RL Armenian Service: Azeri Drone Reported Shot Down Over Karabakh

In article, http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/24328198.html, a response to a comment was sent in twice and apparently did not pass RFE/RL moderators. Below is the comment in question and my response.

US , : US
14.09.2011 20:19

The UAV appears to have been down due to a malfunction. Had it been "downed" by Armenia's army, it would have fallen into smaller pieces. Here we can see it in very large chunks. Also, REGNUM reported that the price tag of this UAV is "up to $18 million" - glad to see journalism standards here higher than at REgnum, because this UAV costs under $2 million. And Azerbaijan has 100 more of them.

My response (submitted 9/25/11 and 9/27/11):

One cannot conclude that this UAV could not have been downed by "Armenia's army" simply because it is in large pieces. A single bullet could have damaged the UAV and it could subsequently have exhibited characteristics of an on-board malfunction. There was no mention of it being hit by a rocket or other such ordnance which could have dismembered the UAV in flight. In any case, this is a political embarrassment for Azerbaijan.

Also, it is very unclear how much a single UAV costs because they are part of a much larger system. Without ground stations and supporting infrastructure, UAVs are useless, and I doubt any of us have seen the receipt given to Baku.

Samatha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy

In an article:
http://asbarez.com/94959/does-samantha-wield-the-power-to-set-obama-on-the-right-course/, it is hoped that US foreign policy can be "corrected" and set on a "moral" path:

Foreign policy decisions are not based on right or wrong, but rather on interests. [Samantha] Power herself makes that case (A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. If a policy on some event happens to conveniently coincide with what is considered right, most parties are happy. When a foreign policy decision ignores what is right, many are outraged – but outrage for its own sake is not productive.

How do we know that Power herself didn't use a preoccupation with genocide for her own personal gain? After all, who would counter her expose' on ignoring genocide. Power extracted as much as she could from the topic, and those intimately associated with it, and has moved on. There is a clear lesson here.

David Davidian
www.regionalkinetics.com

The International Crisis Group and Partisanship

by David Davidian

On February 8, 2011 the International Crisis Group published a Policy Briefing, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/caucasus/B60-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.aspx). It is basically an update from earlier ICG briefs that have intimidated untrained readers into concluding that war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is inevitable without an immediate final settlement. The ICG stated, on page 1, that the best settlement is to agree on the basic principles, “first outlined by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2005”. The ICG states that the current status quo is not in the interest of Azerbaijan, yet the ICG recommends, on page 2 “Armenia and the de-facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities should cease supporting activities that make the status quo more intolerable for Azerbaijan...” The ICG puts the burden of conflict settlement squarely on the shoulders of Armenians. This makes the ICG as partisan today as it was in 2007.

In November 2007, the ICG recommended in Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking War (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ICG,,AZE,,473c101e2,0.html), the “withdrawal of Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh forces from all occupied territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh, with special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin” as well as “The de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities should end support for settlement of occupied territories with Armenians” and “Azerbaijan should allow Karabakh Azeris to elect the head of their community and make a concerted effort to increase transparency and reduce corruption so that oil revenues are used to benefit all citizens, particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs)”. (see pages i-ii).

On page 4 of the 2011 brief, the ICG claimed, “The Armenian front-line units that came under attack [June 18-19, 2010] reportedly “panicked” and initially fled, producing some concern among military officials in Yerevan that their troops’ training and combat experience may not be as superior as often claimed. ¹⁴”. This claim appeared odd and moreover, the reference provided looked bogus. The ICG needed to explain.

The following email was sent to the International Crisis Group on February 9, 2011.

Subject: Request for References: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011
From: “David Davidian” dbd@urartu.sdpa.org
Date: Wed, February 9, 2011 9:15 am
To: brussels@crisisgroup.org
Dear International Crisis Group,
I have two short informational questions regarding a report you published yesterday.
In report: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War, you made a reference on page 4:
“The Armenian front-line units that came under attack reportedly ‘panicked’ and initially fled, producing some concern among military officials in Yerevan that their troops’ training and combat experience may not be as superior as often claimed.¹⁴“
and footnote 14 states: “14 Crisis Group interview, military analyst, Yerevan, November, 2010.”
However, I cannot find this reference on the ICG site after extensive searching. Can you provide a link to reference 14?
Also, you noted on page 1: “…the country’s [Azerbaijan] oil revenues are projected to decline after 2014.” Can you provide a reference for this claim as well.
Thank you for your time and effort,
David Davidian

There has been no response to this request. A reference for a 2014 oil declination claim on page 1 but was used as a control case. Actually, this 2014 oil claim is made again later in the brief and there it is referenced with footnote 98.

The ICG should provide clarity when using references in their policy briefs, considering they provided 152 of them in a 16-body page publication. A reference that cannot be located or clarified calls into doubt the author's intent and questions the entire report. Even high school term papers are required to have verifiable references. It would be interesting to examine the entire ICG brief, but the effort would only reinforce the partisanship exhibited by the ICG.

The ICG is engaging in tactics generally associated with psychological warfare. The function of their latest brief is crafted to pressure Armenian and “de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities” to accept the deal proposed by mediators. The ICG's analysis and recommendations are clearly not convincing at the expert level, however, the ICG's target is really the unsuspecting general public.

Azerbaijani and Turkish English language media apparently had no issues with the ICG 2011 brief, as they merely quoted directly from the ICG. See a sampling:

http://www.news.az/articles/politics/31052

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-234804-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.html

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=icg-warns-of-war-risk-between-armenia-azerbaijan-2011-02-08

In particular, note an article -- apparently worthy of being published in the Turkish Sunday's Zaman -- by Sabine Freizer, the Europe Program Director at the International Crisis Group. See: http://sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=234935

--

David Davidian is a Sr System Architect at a major IT firm engaged in technical intelligence analysis. He manages the US office of RegionalKinetics.com