Many countries have their own strategic plans for their problems which they deem significant. While sometimes states represent explicitly these strategies, in some cases they choose not expressing and even hiding. In this context, the strategies of Armenia with regard to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and the normalization process with Turkey is widely concerned. Are the remarks of Armenia about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and normalization process of relations between Turkey and Armenia same with Armenia’s genuine intentions and strategies? Finding an answer requires a careful analysis and specification of according strategies.
One shall accept or deny, but the current normalization process with Turkey and Armenia is interrelated with the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Therefore, the solution should be pursued in parallel with the issue. Then, is the solution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is really the desired move? Before responding to this query, one should comprehend the strategy of Armenia with regard to the normalization process of relations with Turkey. For this, one should also comprehend the Armenian Hundred Year Plan which can be considered as a superior strategy and a major project.
What is this hundred-year plan and what is the target of it? What kind of short, medium and long term plans do Armenians design to achieve their goals? Do the Armenians make tactical twists in this strategic plan to succeed? In this article, the answers to these questions will be pursued.
For Armenia and to the Armenians all over the world, the deportation/relocation verdict in the combat conditions of 1915 is interpreted as ‘genocide’. For Armenians, the revenge of the incidents of 1915 must be taken. For this, beginning with the murders of the signatories and/or the contributors of the deportation verdict, a solution was sought with the initiation of legal transactions for these people. Talat and Cemal Pashas at first place, several intellectuals, bureaucrats and authorized officers were slaughtered. An important part of these people was removed physically, however, the courts in the conquered İstanbul failed to come to a significant solution. In parallel with the foundation of the USSR and the following Cold War, the Armenian claims and practices were retreated for a while and/but never given up. Armenians headed for a different direction after the realization of the fact that the Armenian claims and ASALA act against Turkish diplomats brought nothing but terror. This time, in the parliaments, federal assemblies and the local parliaments of several states they initiated a campaign for entitling the incidents of 1915 as ‘genocide’ in order to issue decisions against Turkey. Yet, cooperating with the local governments of several states Armenians succeeded in erecting some monuments. In parallel with these, black propaganda method against Turkey was sustained and the persuasion quests for the 1915 incidents as “genocide” were carried out increasingly year by year.
The 100th year of the alleged Armenian “genocide” coincides to the year 2015. To this date and after, a plan comprising multiple stages was arranged and currently, it is performing precisely. Some tactical arrangements are being made however any significant amendment is not recorded in this strategy.
Armenian Strategic Plan has followed a bi-directional strategy to this date. In the one direction of this strategy, the Armenian diaspora takes part. On the other part, the verdicts against Turkey in the parliaments, federal assemblies and local administrations of foreign countries were aimed. These goals should briefly be detailed.
The first goal of the Armenian Strategic Plan is to congregate the Armenians living in every part of the globe and to prevent the dissolution of, degeneration and assimilation of Armenians in the society they live and avoiding the loss of the Armenian upper identity. To achieve this, the Armenians on the outside of Armenia should be directed to a goal. This goal shall be Turkish antagonism. The Armenians mobilized in the Turkish antagonism shall utilize this goal at the same time by converting it to money and political gain.
It comes out that Armenians have made progress in achieving these goals.
The second goal of the strategic plan consists of the condemnation of Turkey. Being conscious of the inconclusiveness of all the initiatives and failure to obtain a credible document against a never committed crime, Armenians cannot appeal to any International Court for the incidents of 1915. Yet, Turkey shall in no doubt save its face in such a case. For this reason, Armenians long for condemning Turkey in the conscience of the world public opinion instead of resorting to legal means.
As a result of Armenian practices directed especially towards western public opinion and to the re-configuration of textbooks, 1915 deportation is called ‘genocide’ by the people from politicians to ordinary men without feeling any need to historical analysis.
Unfortunately, in this issue, Armenians are also working successfully and progressively.
In the goal of the Armenian strategic plans lies the issuing of a verdict against Turkey in the semi-judiciary bodies like parliaments, federal assemblies and local administrative organs of many states. Especially in recent years, Armenians are mobilizing all the means to this end. In addition, some states are conducting their foreign policy problems and conflict of interests with Turkey on this ground and this gives the Armenians another opportunity in these grounds.
The last step of the above mentioned 3 stage plan aims the issue of an international genocide convention with the signature of several countries. Armenia is currently intensified its energy and attention to this end. To achieve this end, Armenia should neither come to terms with nor establish good relations with Turkey before the eyes of the rest of the world.
This goal of Armenia is a strategic one and is more important than the other short term gains. In other words, nearly for all Armenians, the condemnation of Turks firstly on the conscience then in the parliaments, and thereafter on legal grounds getting a substantial amount of compensation (in terms of territory and money) is preferable than the opening of Turkish borders and providing partial welfare to Armenians.
After this remark, the question to what extent the Armenians desire the opening of the borders comes to minds. It is generally recognized that Armenians desire the opening of the border if it leads to damage in the alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The border has been closed for 17 years and the embargo still continues. There are just 4 years ahead for the year 2015 and Armenians believe they can endure for another 4 years with the closed boundaries.
If the borders are opened, the good relations between Turkey and Armenia shall aggravate the issuing of “genocide” verdict in the western parliaments. Therefore, Armenians in fact, prefer inconclusiveness in the issue of the borders until 2015. There is a direct connection between the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and the border issue. If progress is made with regard to the Nagorno Karabakh, Turkey will re-open the borders. The re-opening of borders shall not damage the perception “one nation two-state” as reflected in the words of Great Leader of Azerbaijan Haydar Aliyev. Therefore, Armenia shall not fulfil its goal of destroying Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. If the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolves to lead to the opening of borders then the parliaments of many countries will not issue any verdict against Turkey. This falls on contrary to the hundred-year strategy of the Armenians. Therefore, though the Armenians pretend to be working for the solution of the conflict, they shall neither make efforts to solve the Nagorno Karabakh issue nor will try to ease the relations with Turkey. We may expect the Armenians to adopt a more aggressive attitude in the 2015 period. This situation has one exception. Azerbaijan, with its empowered army, shall strongly reveal its intention of resorting to a military option in order to save Armenian occupied territories. Only as a result of this, Armenians shall tactically opt-out from this 2015 goal for the moment and partially and this shall give way to the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. In the opposite case, a well-intentioned peace does not seem to be realized in the near future.
Another point to clarify about the Armenians is the usage of the term “genocide” and figuring out what is exactly desired with this. Is the usage of term Mets Yegern/Great Tragedy by President Barack Obama a coincidence? Yet similarly, is the campaign “we apologize” initiated by our “intellectuals” bringing the usage of term Major Disaster a coincidence? Surely, not. As early as 2008 we had determined that this term was not used to describe the pain. In addition, the usage of this specific term is not a coincidence and it was a rehearsal for the 24 April 2009 speech of Obama and Turkish public opinion was preparing for this term. We had not only anticipated for that date but also for the 24 April of 2010, that Obama will use the Armenian term instead of English. Our anticipation came out to be true. When everyone was fixed to the English word “genocide” a great clandestine promotional activity was being carried out on one word which was Mets Yegern in Armenian and which means Great Tragedy. One should be certain that the Armenian objective aims to create an international debate and present this word to the literature.
For recent years, Armenians are observing the Jews and copying out their practices. Today, with the word “Holocaust” the Jewish genocide comes into minds regardless of the etymology of the word. What the Armenians desire to achieve is to present the term Mets Yegern as the word Holocaust and they want this word to be associated with the “Armenian Genocide”. In reality, the insistence on the English word “Genocide” is made to establish a publicity campaign to direct the attention to the word Mets Yegern. Yet debates on “genocide” and usage of Mets Yegern are exactly a public campaign.
Not: Bu makale 1 Haziran 2010 tarihinde yazılmıştır.
This article is taken from TURKSAM –> http://www.turksam.org/en/a273.html
Sinan OĞAN