OSTRICH ATTITUDE

Europe is preparing to officially celebrate 23 August as a remembrance day for victims of totalitarianism, which implies two political regimes - German Nazism and Soviet Communism. This is further demonstration that post-war Europe is built on the rejection of Nazism and Communism. While giving a final political and legal assessment to these two phenomena of the last century, the West appears to be offering everyone a path of self-purification that is intended to stop mankind becoming a hostage to ethnic fundamentalism and totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, carried away by attempts to give an assessment to historical developments, the West is overlooking a sudden growth of ethnic fundamentalism and xenophobia in its own backyard, while its policy of "open borders" often resembles "a one-way street". Fully preoccupied with the witch-hunt in the East and the fight against "Islamic fundamentalism", the West, where presidents of leading countries say in unison that multi-culturalism has failed, was unpleasantly "surprised" by the actions of the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik who killed and wounded about 200 people (mostly Muslims) on Utoya Island and in Oslo.

It is likely that every effort will be made during the trial to avoid a serious discussion of Breivik's anti-Turkish, anti-Islamic and pro-Armenian views stated in his "manifesto". Likewise, Europe remains tight-lipped over the latest aggressive call on Armenian youth made by Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. Asked what borders future Armenia would have and whether Western Armenia together with Mount Ararat (Mount Agri Dag on the territory of Turkey - R+) would be returned, Sargsyan said, "This depends on your generation. I think my generation fulfilled its obligation when part of our homeland, Artsakh (Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan - R+), had to be protected from the enemy in the early 1990s."

But instead of condemning Sargsyan's renewed territorial claims, the West is putting pressure on Ankara to open the border with Armenia which was closed in the aftermath of Yerevan's aggression against Azerbaijan. The opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is also one of the numerous preconditions for Turkey's accession to the European Union. 

Stubbornly ignoring Armenia's destructive stance, the West tirelessly torpedoes Ankara. Not a word is said about the fact that it is Yerevan and Armenianism as a whole that are setting conditions by amending provisions of the Zurich protocols on the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. This issue was discussed during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Ankara. 

During her meeting with leaders of the Turkish opposition People's Republican Party, the US secretary of state expressed concern over a slowdown in the Armenian-Turkish process. Clinton also voiced her discontent at the fact that the resistance of the People's Republican Party is hampering the Turkish parliament's ratification of the Zurich protocols. The chairman of the People's Republican Party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, for his part, expressed astonishment at this interpretation, saying that the authorities have a parliamentary majority and can pass these protocols any time. The mutual recriminations of the Turkish authorities and the main opposition party on this issue are surprising because the answer to the US secretary of state's question is on the surface: Armenian-Turkish rapprochement is delayed purely because of Armenia's destructive position which it has no intention of giving up. For some reason, however, neither the Turkish authorities not the main opposition force wanted to frustrate Clinton. And apparently in vain. 

But every cloud has a silver lining. By exposing the aggressive essence of Armenianism, Sargsyan provided the answer to Mrs Clinton's question about the Zurich process. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who flatly condemned Sargsyan's statement together with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, said that the official position of Armenia made any agreement with it impossible. 

Those in Turkey advocating the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border, as well as those who prematurely and arbitrarily initiated the construction of a monument to Armenian-Turkish friendship, appear likely to draw the necessary conclusions. If Armenia, a country facing a catastrophic socioeconomic situation, wants to take on Turkey now, it is not too difficult to predict its behaviour once the border has been opened. 

Even more amazing is the fact that Sargsyan's aggressive exhortations to Armenian young people remain "unnoticed" by the mediators in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the international community as a whole. These countries and organizations have been saying for years that closed borders are an absurdity in the 21st-century. But is a blockade of an aggressor more reprehensible than the overt propaganda of fascist ideology in the era of globalization? Highly unlikely. Moreover, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries, which adamantly oppose any statement Azerbaijan makes about the possibility of retaking by force the Armenian-occupied territories, are not even trying to urge Yerevan to abandon fresh territorial claims. 

As was the case a century ago, the world's superpowers are again skillfully playing the "Armenian card" in an effort to secure their own geopolitical interests in Asia Minor and the South Caucasus. This tactic was confirmed at the dawn of the 20th century by a member of the Dashnaktsutyun party, the then prime minister of Armenia (1918-1919), Hovhannes Katchaznouni. After breaking his ties with the terrorist Dashnaktsutyun party, Katchaznouni wrote that the incommensurate ambitions of the Armenian delegation at the Paris peace conference in 1919 came as a complete surprise to him. He says the delegation had come to the conference with minimum demands that would enable the Armenians to set up their first state. But the Armenian lobby at the conference, encouraged by the Western powers (France, Great Britain and the USA), put forward unforeseen claims on Azerbaijan and Turkey. Washington, seeking a protectorate over Armenia, openly stated that it would be happy to protect only the so-called "Greater Armenia". And if the Armenian delegation did not enhance its territorial claims on Turkey, the USA would refuse to support Armenia in its undertakings. After that, the Armenian delegation gladly joined the immoderate ambitions of the diaspora which has always been good at using external forces as the fifth column in the South Caucasus. 

This is exactly why the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be viewed as an integral part of the "Armenian issue", the sharp end of which is pointed at Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia, Iran and Georgia and which always keeps up tension in the region. This Gordian knot can only be untied by the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in line with international law. Only this can take the "Armenian issue" off the agenda. Otherwise, it is destined to play a destabilizing role in the entire region, which has been acknowledged by Sargsyan. Of course, this put tremendous responsibilities on the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries, especially the USA which positions itself as a "strategic ally" of Turkey. But Washington's actions after Sargsyan's statement suggest that the USA can tackle anything other than Armenia's aggressive policies. In fact, Washington is actually conniving at the Armenian policy. Here are some examples. 

In late July, the US Senate recognized the fact of the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This infuriated Russia, a country Washington reset relations with more than two years ago. At the same time, Washington (and indeed other Minsk Group co-chair countries) has yet to recognize Armenia as an aggressor. The annual US State Department reports repeatedly point to occupied Azerbaijani territories, but without specifically naming the aggressor. Is small Armenia more terrifying to Washington and its allies than Russia with its military and nuclear potential? Or is a completely different card being played? Otherwise, Washington would have at least publicly censured Armenia for voting against a draft resolution "On the status of refugees and IDPs from Abkhazia, Georgia and Tskhinval region of South Ossetia", initiated by Georgia and passed by the UN General Assembly. 

Another example. US President Barack Obama recently ordered a ban on entry into the United States of anyone involved in human rights violations, genocide and war crimes, and established a government "working group to prevent wrongdoing". He authorized the secretary of state to determine the extent of "undesirability" of certain persons entering the country. Will the list of unwanted people include Sargsyan who, by his own admission, was one of the main organizers and direct participants in the Khojali genocide unleashed on Azerbaijani civilians?

Moreover, shortly after Sargsyan's notorious call, the US Congress passed another decision to allocate the aggressor-state of Armenia financial assistance to the tune of $40 million. And this happened at a time when the US itself had narrowly escaped a default on its obligations, raised the ceiling on public borrowing and substantially reduced budget spending. At about the same time, The Wall Street Journal, analysing a series of resignations of the Turkish top brass, asked the crucial question, "Can Erdogan democratize Turkey?" Not a single US newspaper bothered to ask the same question about Armenia which is a far cry from Turkey in terms of democratization and ethnic and religious tolerance. In fact, the "democratization" of Turkish society (especially Turkish youth where some conformist groups are trying to erase the genetic memory) represents tremendous interest to Armenia, given its territorial and other claims on Turkey. Armenian ideologists, who raise Armenian youth in a spirit of hatred for Azerbaijanis and Turks, enjoy watching rallies with the slogans "We are all Armenians" and remembrance campaigns for the victims of the "Armenian genocide" that gain momentum in Turkey every year. It was no coincidence that Armenian political analyst Richard Kirakosyan, while talking about Armenian-Turkish relations last year, said that, most importantly, the Armenians have succeeded in changing Turkey from within. It is this confidence that encourages Armenia's political leaders to challenge Turkey. But the West is so busy putting consolidated pressure on Turkey that it has fostered Armenian ethnic fundamentalism which has deeper roots than fascism and can lead to no less tragic consequences. It is quite likely that Europe is gradually contracting the virus of "Armenian fascism". The example of Breivik should serve as a wake-up call for the superpowers which, due to their flabby, double-dealing policies, allowed Hitler to plunge mankind into the Second World War. The current policy of double standards boosts Armenia's appetite for occupation.