Tweet
Sinan Ogan, founder and chairman of the Turkish Centre of International Relations & Strategic Analysis, is the author of the so-called "Armenian Strategic Plan" concept or conspiracy theory. According to this, the Armenian nation has a 100 year plan starting from 1915 and ending in 2015. 
It is ironic though that Turks are the biggest participants in this.
Would Armenia like to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Font Size: Larger|Smaller
Thursday, August 19, 2010
SİNAN OĞAN
Many countries have their own strategic plans for their problems which they deem significant. While sometimes states explicitly represent these strategies, in some cases they choose not express and, even hide, them. 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 the same as Armenia’s genuine intentions and strategies? Finding an answer requires a careful analysis and specification of strategies.
One can accept or deny it, 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 really a 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 a superior strategy and a major project.
What is this hundred year plan, and what is its target? What kind of short, medium and long term plans do Armenians design to achieve their goals?
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 in the first place, several intellectuals, bureaucrats and authorized officers were slaughtered. An important part of these people were removed physically, however the courts in the conquered Istanbul failed to come to a significant solution. In parallel with the foundation of the USSR and the following the Cold War, the Armenian claims and practices retreated for a while but were never given up. Armenians headed for a different direction after the realization of the fact that the Armenian claims and ASALA acts 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” falls in the year 2015. For this date, a plan comprising multiple stages was arranged and currently is performing accurately. Some tactical arrangements are being made, however any significant amendment is not recorded in this strategy.
The Armenian Strategic Plan has followed a bi-directional strategy to this date. In one direction of this strategy, the Armenian diaspora takes part. In 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, degeneration and assimilation of Armenians in the society they live and avoiding the loss of Armenian identity. To achieve this, Armenians outside Armenia should be directed to a goal. This goal shall be Turkish antagonism. Armenians mobilized in the Turkish antagonism shall utilize this goal at the same time by converting it to monetary and political gain.
It comes out that Armenians have made progress 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 crime never committed, Armenians cannot appeal to any International Court for the incidents of 1915. Yet, Turkey shall in no doubt save face in such a case. For this reason, Armenians long to condemn Turkey in the conscience of the world’s 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, the 1915 deportation is called “genocide” by the people, from politicians to ordinary men, without feeling any need to give any historical analysis.
Unfortunately, on 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-judicial bodies like parliaments, federal assemblies and local administrative organs of many states. Especially in recent years, Armenians have mobilized 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, which gives the Armenians another opportunity on these grounds.
The last step of the above mentioned 3 stage plan aims at establishing an international genocide convention with the signature of several countries. Armenia has 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 other short term gains. In other words, for nearly all Armenians the condemnation of Turks, firstly in the conscience and in the parliaments, and thereafter on legal grounds – getting substantial amount of compensation (in terms of territory and money) – is preferable to opening borders with Turkey and providing partial welfare to Armenians.
After this remark, the question to what extent the Armenians desire the opening of the borders comes to mind. 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 until 2015 and Armenians believe they can endure this period with closed boundaries.
If the borders are opened, the good relations between Turkey and Armenia shall aggravate the issuing of a “genocide” verdict in the western parliaments. Therefore, Armenians in fact, prefer inconclusiveness in the border issue until 2015. There is a direct connection between the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the border issue. If progress is made with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey will re-open the borders. The re-opening of borders will not damage the perception of “one nation two states,” as reflected in the words of the great leader of Azerbaijan Haydar Aliyev. Therefore, Armenia will not fulfill its goal of destroying Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. If the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is resolved, leading to the opening of borders, then the parliaments of many countries will not issue any verdict against Turkey. This is 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 any effort to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue nor will they try to ease relations with Turkey. We may expect the Armenians to adopt a more aggressive attitude in 2015. This situation has bears exception. Azerbaijan, with its empowered army, will 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 of the 2015 goal for the moment, and this will partially give way to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On the other hand, a well-intentioned peace does not seem to be a possibility for the near future.
Another point to clarify about the Armenians is the usage of the term “genocide,” and figuring out what exactly is desired by its use. Is the usage of the 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 April 24, 2009 speech of Obama, and Turkish public opinion was preparing for this term. We had not only anticipated that date but also April 24, 2010, when Obama would use the Armenian term instead of English. Our anticipation turned out to be true. When everyone was fixated on the English word “genocide,” a great clandestine promotional activity was being carried out on the Armenian term Mets Yegern. One should be certain that the Armenian objective aims to create an international debate and present this word to the literature of the dispute.
In recent years, Armenians have observed the xxxs and copied their activities. Today, with the word “Holocaust,” the xxxish 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 their own form of “Holocaust.” In reality, the insistence of the English word “Genocide” is a publicity campaign intended to direct attention to the word Mets Yegern.
Sinan Oğan is the founder and chairman of the Turkish Centre of International Relations & Strategic Analysis, or TURKSAM. This piece appeared on the TURKSAM website.
It is ironic though that Turks are the biggest participants in this.Would Armenia like to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Font Size: Larger|Smaller
Thursday, August 19, 2010
SİNAN OĞAN
Many countries have their own strategic plans for their problems which they deem significant. While sometimes states explicitly represent these strategies, in some cases they choose not express and, even hide, them. 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 the same as Armenia’s genuine intentions and strategies? Finding an answer requires a careful analysis and specification of strategies.
One can accept or deny it, 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 really a 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 a superior strategy and a major project.
What is this hundred year plan, and what is its target? What kind of short, medium and long term plans do Armenians design to achieve their goals?
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 in the first place, several intellectuals, bureaucrats and authorized officers were slaughtered. An important part of these people were removed physically, however the courts in the conquered Istanbul failed to come to a significant solution. In parallel with the foundation of the USSR and the following the Cold War, the Armenian claims and practices retreated for a while but were never given up. Armenians headed for a different direction after the realization of the fact that the Armenian claims and ASALA acts 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” falls in the year 2015. For this date, a plan comprising multiple stages was arranged and currently is performing accurately. Some tactical arrangements are being made, however any significant amendment is not recorded in this strategy.
The Armenian Strategic Plan has followed a bi-directional strategy to this date. In one direction of this strategy, the Armenian diaspora takes part. In 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, degeneration and assimilation of Armenians in the society they live and avoiding the loss of Armenian identity. To achieve this, Armenians outside Armenia should be directed to a goal. This goal shall be Turkish antagonism. Armenians mobilized in the Turkish antagonism shall utilize this goal at the same time by converting it to monetary and political gain.
It comes out that Armenians have made progress 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 crime never committed, Armenians cannot appeal to any International Court for the incidents of 1915. Yet, Turkey shall in no doubt save face in such a case. For this reason, Armenians long to condemn Turkey in the conscience of the world’s 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, the 1915 deportation is called “genocide” by the people, from politicians to ordinary men, without feeling any need to give any historical analysis.
Unfortunately, on 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-judicial bodies like parliaments, federal assemblies and local administrative organs of many states. Especially in recent years, Armenians have mobilized 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, which gives the Armenians another opportunity on these grounds.
The last step of the above mentioned 3 stage plan aims at establishing an international genocide convention with the signature of several countries. Armenia has 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 other short term gains. In other words, for nearly all Armenians the condemnation of Turks, firstly in the conscience and in the parliaments, and thereafter on legal grounds – getting substantial amount of compensation (in terms of territory and money) – is preferable to opening borders with Turkey and providing partial welfare to Armenians.
After this remark, the question to what extent the Armenians desire the opening of the borders comes to mind. 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 until 2015 and Armenians believe they can endure this period with closed boundaries.
If the borders are opened, the good relations between Turkey and Armenia shall aggravate the issuing of a “genocide” verdict in the western parliaments. Therefore, Armenians in fact, prefer inconclusiveness in the border issue until 2015. There is a direct connection between the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the border issue. If progress is made with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey will re-open the borders. The re-opening of borders will not damage the perception of “one nation two states,” as reflected in the words of the great leader of Azerbaijan Haydar Aliyev. Therefore, Armenia will not fulfill its goal of destroying Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. If the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is resolved, leading to the opening of borders, then the parliaments of many countries will not issue any verdict against Turkey. This is 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 any effort to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue nor will they try to ease relations with Turkey. We may expect the Armenians to adopt a more aggressive attitude in 2015. This situation has bears exception. Azerbaijan, with its empowered army, will 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 of the 2015 goal for the moment, and this will partially give way to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On the other hand, a well-intentioned peace does not seem to be a possibility for the near future.
Another point to clarify about the Armenians is the usage of the term “genocide,” and figuring out what exactly is desired by its use. Is the usage of the 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 April 24, 2009 speech of Obama, and Turkish public opinion was preparing for this term. We had not only anticipated that date but also April 24, 2010, when Obama would use the Armenian term instead of English. Our anticipation turned out to be true. When everyone was fixated on the English word “genocide,” a great clandestine promotional activity was being carried out on the Armenian term Mets Yegern. One should be certain that the Armenian objective aims to create an international debate and present this word to the literature of the dispute.
In recent years, Armenians have observed the xxxs and copied their activities. Today, with the word “Holocaust,” the xxxish 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 their own form of “Holocaust.” In reality, the insistence of the English word “Genocide” is a publicity campaign intended to direct attention to the word Mets Yegern.
Sinan Oğan is the founder and chairman of the Turkish Centre of International Relations & Strategic Analysis, or TURKSAM. This piece appeared on the TURKSAM website.
Comment