WASHINGTON—Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Executive Director Aram Hamparian issued the following comment in response to U.S. Ambassador James Warlick’s U.S. policy statement titled, “Nagorno-Karabakh: The Keys to a Settlement.”
“The Warlick plan proposed today offers little new.
The framework it presents is neither morally acceptable nor practically sustainable.
While we do welcome the renewed focus on the centrality of status, at a fundamental level, this plan falls far short of our American ideal of democratic self-determination, the enduring principle upon which our nation was founded and through which more than one hundred new countries have emerged over the past half century.
Using the profoundly incendiary and patently inaccurate language of “occupation,” this proposed framework again effectively calls upon Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia—the victims of Baku’s war of aggression – to make up-front, strategic security concessions in return for entirely undefined and easily reversible promises by an increasingly belligerent Azerbaijani government.
We remain hopeful in the overall prospects for an OSCE-brokered peace, are disappointed by the status and security asymmetry in this particular proposal, and look forward to engaging, as meaningful stakeholders, in a more balanced, inclusive and democratic framework for the future of the independent Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. Over-riding Baku’s veto on Nagorno Karabakh’s full and direct participation in all peace talks should, of course, be the first item on the OSCE’s agenda.”
Ambassador Warlick’s full statement, delivered at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is provided below and available at: http://armenia.usembassy.gov/news050714.html
Ambassador James Warlick Nagorno-Karabakh: The Keys to a Settlement
May 7, 2014
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Wednesday, May 7, 9 a.m.
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
Thank you for joining me this morning. I recognize a number of you who have served as counsel or sounding-board for me over the past eight months and I want to extend a special thanks to you.
Let me start by saying that I do not want to revisit the history of the conflict. Our goal should be to find a pragmatic way forward to bring about a lasting settlement.
Although I speak to you today as the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, I do not speak for the co-chairs. My message to you is a statement of official U.S. government policy that guides our engagement as we help the parties find peace.
And peace is within reach. The sides have come to a point where their positions on the way forward are not that far apart. They have almost reached agreement on several occasions – most recently in 2011. And when they inevitably returned to the negotiating table after each failed round, the building blocks of the next “big idea” were similar to the last time.
There is a body of principles, understandings, and documents already on the table that lay out a deal, and no one has suggested we abandon them. The challenge is to find a way to help the sides take that last, bold step forward to bridge their remaining differences and deliver the peace and stability that their populations deserve.
For two decades, however, peace has been elusive. All parties distrust each other and a generation of young people has grown up in Armenia and Azerbaijan with no first-hand experience of each other. As many have noted, older generations remember a time when Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived side-by-side and differences did not need to be resolved through the barrel of a gun.
As Churchill once reminded us, “you negotiate peace with your enemies, not with your friends.” The key to any successful negotiation is for all parties to conclude that they have won something, and in the case of the Armenians and Azerbaijanis there is no question that a deal will unlock a new era of prosperity across the region. The benefits of peace far outweigh the costs of continued stalemate, and avoid the catastrophic consequences of renewed hostilities.
Armenia would immediately benefit from open borders, greater security, and new opportunities to trade, travel, and engage with all its neighbors.
Azerbaijan would eliminate a key impediment to its growth as a player on the world stage, regional trade hub, and strong security partner, while giving hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons a prospect for reconciliation and return.
The thousands of people living in Nagorno-Karabakh would be freed from the prison of isolation and dependence.
A peace agreement, properly designed and implemented, would also eliminate the tragic, steady stream of casualties – both military and civilian – along the border and the Line of Contact. Numbers are hard to pin down, but there have already been at least a dozen killed and even more injured on the front lines this year so far. This is unacceptable.
No less significant is the huge financial burden that military readiness and a growing arms race imposes on national budgets – a peace dividend that, used more productively, could itself be a game changer for both Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Next week will mark 20 years since a ceasefire agreement was signed. While we can take some pride in having avoided a return to outright war, we must also agree that the current state of affairs is unacceptable, and unsustainable.
Perpetual negotiations, periodic outbreaks of violence, the isolation of Armenia and the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh, frustration in Azerbaijan and anger among its populations of IDPs – this is not a recipe for peace or stability and it is certainly not the path to prosperity.
The people of the region deserve better.
***
I began this job last September with a trip to the region, with visits to Baku and Yerevan to meet the two presidents and their foreign ministers. I also made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh to join Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s team for an OSCE monitoring mission along the Line of Contact on the road between Agdam and Gindarkh.
I joined the team on the west side of the Line of Contact, and got my first glimpse of the front lines. I saw the bleak reality faced by young soldiers on both sides of this Line, who live and work behind trenches and berms, with nothing but barbed wire and land mines keeping them apart.
The sides live under threat from sniper fire and landmines. They are concerned for the lives of their civilian populations and their access to farmland, cemeteries, and buildings that happen to fall “too close” to the Line of Contact or the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
OSCE monitors have been working for two decades to keep an eye on this fragile peace, but have neither the mandate nor the resources to put a stop to the frequent casualties, or even to identify responsibility.
The sides themselves report thousands of ceasefire violations every year, but have been unable to reach agreement on any means of reducing that tally.
I have also traveled throughout Nagorno-Karabakh itself, where I have met with the de facto authorities to hear their views. I plan to do so again next week with the other co-chairs. There is no question that any enduring peace agreement must reflect the views of all affected parties if it is to succeed.
In the capitals, I have heard a more reassuring message. Both presidents want to make progress. Both agree that the series of documents negotiated over the past several years contains the outlines of a deal.
The co-chairs hosted the presidents in Vienna last November. This was their first meeting since January 2012 – and the first time since 2009 for them to meet one-on-one. We were encouraged by their conversation, and by their stated commitment to find a way forward. Since that time, we have met on ten separate occasions with one or both foreign ministers to keep the discussion alive.
It is clear, however, that only the presidents have the ability to conclude a deal with such transformative consequences for their countries. It is the presidents who must take the bold steps needed to make peace. The United States has pressed both leaders to meet again soon and take advantage of this window of opportunity when peace is possible.
***
When I made that first trip to Baku and Yerevan last fall, I carried with me President Obama’s endorsement and reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to working for peace as a Minsk Group co-chair and a close partner with both countries. The outlines of a compromise were already well established by that point, and my message was that the time had come for a renewed effort to bring peace to the region.
Let me walk you through the key elements of that “well-established” compromise, all of which have been in the public domain since appearing in joint statements by Presidents Obama, Medvedev, and Sarkozy in L’Aquila in 2009 and Muskoka in 2010. These principles and elements form the basis of U.S. policy toward the Minsk Group and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
At the heart of a deal are the UN Charter and relevant documents and the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. In particular, we focus on those principles and commitments that pertain to the non-use or threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
Building on that foundation, there are six elements that will have to be part of any peace agreement if it is to endure. While the sequencing and details of these elements remains the subject of negotiations, they must be seen as an integrated whole. Any attempt to select some elements over others will make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution.
In no particular order, these elements are:
First, in light of Nagorno-Karabakh’s complex history, the sides should commit to determining its final legal status through a mutually agreed and legally binding expression of will in the future. This is not optional. Interim status will be temporary.
Second, the area within the boundaries of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region that is not controlled by Baku should be granted an interim status that, at a minimum, provides guarantees for security and self-governance.
Third, the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijani control. There can be no settlement without respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and the recognition that its sovereignty over these territories must be restored.
Fourth, there should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. It must be wide enough to provide secure passage, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district.
Fifth, an enduring settlement will have to recognize the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence.
Sixth and finally, a settlement must include international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation. There is no scenario in which peace can be assured without a well-designed peacekeeping operation that enjoys the confidence of all sides.
The time has come for the sides to commit themselves to peace negotiations, building on the foundation of work done so far. It is not realistic to conclude that occasional meetings are sufficient by themselves to bring about a lasting peace.
When such negotiations commence, the parties should not only reconfirm their commitment to the ceasefire but also undertake much-needed and long-sought security confidence-building measures.
Once we get into such peace negotiations, there is a much broader range of practical issues that we can put on the table to benefit all sides. There are economic and commercial incentives to develop; energy, transportation, and communications links to rebuild; and travel and people-to-people programs that can begin to counter the dangerously one-sided narratives that currently prevail.
The co-chairs of the Minsk Group share a common interest in helping the sides reach a peaceful resolution. We intend to continue working through the Minsk Group as the primary channel for resolving this conflict. Together with France, the United States and Russia share a common commitment to peace and security in Nagorno-Karabakh. The United States stands ready to help in any way we can. I would also call on the diaspora communities in the United States and around the world to speak out for peace and to help bring an end to this conflict.
Of course, it is up to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to take the first step. They should consider measures, even unilateral ones, that will demonstrate their stated commitment to making progress, reducing tensions, and improving the atmosphere for negotiations. They should reduce the hostile rhetoric, and prepare their populations for peace, not war.
Track II efforts to build people-to-people contacts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians are no less integral to a lasting settlement. Programs of this kind can help citizens of both countries prepare for peace and find reconciliation with the pain of the past. We expect the sides to support organizations and individuals which are committed to Track II and people-to-people programs.
I hope that you will work with us to make the case for a lasting peace. The co-chairs have the mandate to facilitate negotiations, but we should all be supporting engaged citizens, secular and religious leaders, NGOs, media outlets, and others working toward these goals. A lasting peace must be built not on a piece of paper, but on the trust, confidence, and participation of the people of both countries.
Let’s work together to build the demand for peace. Let’s demand the benefits that a peaceful settlement will bring to people across the region.
Thank you.
Guest Contributor
Warlick and the US State Department want US hegemony over the Caucasus. They would love to see Armenia disappear by someday encouraging a Turkish invasion of Armenia to enact the Final Solution: the complete destruction of every Armenian man, woman, and child. That way, the US could lay oil and gas pipelines over their bones. Ancient churches will be bulldozed and their stones used to construct oil and gas pumping stations. US officials will bathe in warm baths of Armenian blood, and drink Turkish brandy made of Armenian apricots. Etchmiadzin will become a NATO air base, and US and Turkish soldiers will drink to the glories of genocide.
Nothing new. Same old stuff.I consider it a very pro-Azeri statement and an attempt to show US power and will since the Ukrainian crises.
His proposals must be rejected out of hand as it serves the interests of the Azeris.There is a new reality on the ground,and any liberated land fought with our blood cannot be given back period,our diplomats must work towards that goal.In any case all those liberated lands were part of Armenia, so what is he talking about,he needs to read history instead of opening his big mouth.
What happened to so called “Human Rights”?
Hey everybody, how much money do you think the Azeri government paid James Warlick in coming up with this kind of a “garbage” speech? It must have been a gigantic sum of money. Anyway, it really doesn’t matter how many garbage speeches are made by James Warlick, on behalf of his pimp, President Aliyev. The people of the Nagorno-Karabagh Republic, don’t give the slightest damn about what James Warlick says or what any other crooked U.S. politician says. As we all know by now, these kinds of fake, deceitful U.S. politicians have no commitment whatsoever to human rights and social justice in this world. These charlatans are motivated by greed, exploitation of other countries, and attempting to colonize the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries with the help of their little mistress, Israel.
Once again, the people of the Nagorno-Karabagh Republic are in control of their own destiny. And if they claim their independence as they’ve been doing for the past 22 years, then they are independent. Let the world be fully aware of this!
The US can never be trusted in solving any problem in the world,they will just make it worse as the principles of human rights, democracy,and justice does not come into play any more just corporate interests, in this case oil,gas,and pipelines.
The world is littered with examples of US foreign policy failures,Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria,Palestine,Cyprus,Egypt,Ukraine,not to mention a list of regime changes all over the world to suit the US interests.
The US uses soft power coupled with illegal sanctions,media blockage,putting pressure on countries to follow their line or else, and directing most of the main media channels to pursue the US narrative.
This is what you get from the US these days.
{“ Using the profoundly incendiary and patently inaccurate language of “occupation,” this proposed framework again effectively calls upon Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia—the victims of Baku’s war of aggression – to make up-front, strategic security concessions in return for entirely undefined and easily reversible promises by an increasingly belligerent Azerbaijani government.”}.
Well said Mr. Hamparian.
Well done ANCA.
The paid StateDept Neocon oilyshills for the Turkbaijani invadonomads from Uyguristan who still occupy Armenian lands – e.g. Lowlands Karabagh, Nakhichevan, etc – are obviously confused who is the real occupier and who is the indigenous ethnos.
This kerfuffle is a milder version of the blowup with Honorable former US Amb John M. Evans some years ago.
Mr. Evans uttered the ‘banned’ word Genocide, and was fired for being too honest to work at the US State Dept.
Something similar happened here.
I believe Mr. Warlick is also a decent man, and was rudely reminded that it is against StateDept policy to be humane.
Here is how it went:
Just recently Mr. Warlick let his decency ‘get to his head’, and tweeted some things that are verboten by US State Dept Neocons.
-Mr. Warlick wrote a tweet that was widely interpreted as calling for direct participation of NKR in the negotiations. Ouch (!).
-Mr. Warlick also tweeted ‘We remember Sumgait’. (Sumgait ? What Sumgait ?)
Immediately the Anti-Armenian psychofascists in Baku went ballistic, accusing Mr. Warlick of being pro-Armenian, and demanding from their oilycon buddies at StateDept that he be fired.
So, after giving it a little time not to make the linkage too obvious, Mr. Warlick was told to announce – with great fanfare – that an Official Statement will be forthcoming…. Drum Roll please…and there it was.
The same old, same old: soothing words for the yapping grey wolf wannabe jackals in Baku Khanate. Throw them some more old bones to chew on.
The West and US still need to keep the sheepherding nomads sedated with the usual BS, because the Azerbaijan Gas Station is not fully empty yet.
After it has been completely drained, BP and oilycons will move on, and nobody will pay attention to the howling hysterics of the Baku Sultanate jackals.
They will revert to tending their flocks of sheep for sustenance.
(Just recently Mr. Warlick let his decency ‘get to his head’, and tweeted some things that are verboten by US State Dept Neocons.
-Mr. Warlick wrote a tweet that was widely interpreted as calling for direct participation of NKR in the negotiations. Ouch (!).
-Mr. Warlick also tweeted ‘We remember Sumgait’. (Sumgait ? What Sumgait ?)
I think the tweets have been deleted, too.
https://twitter.com/AmbJamesWarlick
…..meanwhile, Armenians from all corners promptly responded to the Anti-Armenian hate-speech prepared in Baku, which OSCE US Amb Mr. James Warlick was compelled to deliver:
•California Assembly voted 70 to 1 to recognize NKR. Ziiiinnnngggg.
•RoA DM Seyran Ohanyan said this on May 8, 2014: {The Armenian army is a guarantor of Artsakh’s security and if anything happens in Artsakh, we all will fight for every inch of land,} (panorama.am). Kick a____.
•DM Seyran Ohanyan then said this on May 9, 2014: {James Warlick’s statement was nothing new and we should continue our struggle and do everything for the fulfillment of our goals, Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan told reporters at Victory Park.
“We have no intention to cede our territories,” he stressed.} (panorama.am).
•NKR Presidential spokesman David Babayan said this on May 8, 2014: {….there is only one standpoint in Stepanakert – there will be no return to the former borders. We are guided by the Constitution of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which highlights that there are no liberated or any other territories. There is only one territory – the Artsakh Republic} (panorama.am).
Let’s repeat NKR’s official position: {.. there are no liberated or any other territories. There is only one territory – the Artsakh Republic}.
Spoken like a true Armenian Highlander.
Կեցցե Արցախի հերոս ժողովուրդը.
RoA and NKR have it covered locally.
What we in US must to do is to keep constantly promoting the meme of Independent Artsakh – as is – and keep blocking any and all efforts by the enemies of RoA & NKR at the Federal , State, and Local levels from getting any traction.
As for example was done recently by ANCA and volunteers in Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota , Tennessee, and Mississippi.
Also, e.g. at the Federal level, US Congressional Foreign Relations Chairman Royce meeting with NKR President Bako Sahakian in Yerevan.
All these are layers of protection around RoA and NKR from warmongering Anti-Armenian StateDept Neocons.
ANCA is doing great work, but each one of us US citizens needs to get involved as well.
We have little influence over the Executive branch (State Dept), but Congress is highly susceptible to active voters’ pressure.
Anytime anyone in US remotely threatens RoA or NKR, your Rep and Senators need to hear from you.
They may not respond, but they take note.
It costs nothing, but pays huge dividends.
If we are not in the Political Arena, the hired ‘friends’ of Azerbaijan and Turkey can cause a lot of damage to RoA & NKR by passing Anti-RoA or Anti-NKR legislation, which like cancer will grow into something very, very bad if not eradicated at once.
For that reason alone, Armenian-Americans cannot afford not to get involved.
US should worry about Axeris oil pipe lines, and leave Artsakh alone!
These kind of people are the reason for the collapse of the USA empire, game is over US is over, unable even to sustain and defend its principales stepped over by the economic interrest, what remains of the land of Freedom?
Name me one time America took the side of armenia. Pre4sident Wilson used his power to put forth “Wilsonian Armenia” after WW 1.The USA waas behind this so was USA armed forces.President Wilson died supposedly of stroke-many americans believed he was murdered. In 1927Turkey offered the usa all mining rights i exchange for no recognition of the genocide and so it went. with every genocide bill in congress, the number of armenians killed has been i/2 million less each time. NOW Obaama has promised a “strong statement” for the 100th anniversary. I bhet it6s 100% in favor of Azeri interests!
Mary, USA built based on judeo-Christian beliefs…unfortunately this heretical beliefs reduced since 2-nd world war. US has been changed politically and morally, become a perfect capitalist money worshipping nation, where in a long term will hurt US interests in this politically corrupted bankrupt world!
Sorry HELEN I had a different person’s name in my mind!
Here are the steps that should be taken to resolve this issue once and for all:
1. Armenia should formally recognize liberated Artsakh, now free of occupation from artificial azeri state, as an independent state and join it to the motherland.
2. Make plans to liberate the occupied Armenian province of Nakhichevan still under criminal azeri occupation and join it to the motherland.
3. Steps 1 and 2 will close the chapter and put an end to the baseless claims and fairy tales fabricated by the fake azer nation and artificial azeri republic.
4. Gather resources and focus on the Armenian Genocide acknowledgement worldwide, including financial reparation and punishment of the illegal and fascist Turkish republic, followed by the liberation of Western Armenia and joining it to the mother land.
4. The United States should take a hike and mind her own business and stop telling us what we have to do.
“1. Armenia should formally recognize liberated Artsakh”
Here is a better idea. Armenia should have demanded Russia to recognize NKR in exchange for Armenia’s risky UN vote re Crimea. That would have made it easier for Armenia to recognize NKR. But Armenia’s regime will not do it as long as Armenia is undemocratic (and therefore a weak pawn).
Number 2 is a little risky, as it will invite an attack by Turkey, which is the guarantor of Nakhichevan under the Kars treaty.
For number 4 (the 1st 4), good idea, but we should also pool our recourses to establish democracy in Armenia, the only way to make Armenia stronger (through emigration, investment, and growth), which will in turn resolve 1, 2 and 3.
For the second 4, I highly doubt “we” (meaning Armenia) are in the position to tell the U.S. to take a hike. U.S. has legitimate interests in Caucasus (security, oil, stability), and it will continue to tell others what to do. A better idea for Armenia is to become like the U.S., adopt the U.S. model of democracy, and thus become stronger and prosperous like the U.S., and therefore become a strong player instead of a weak pawn.
“Name me one time America took the side of armenia.”
The U.S. sent massive aid to starving Armenia after WWI, more than any other country. The U.S. sent massive aid to ruined Armenia in 1988. The U.S. has given hundreds of thousands of Armenians a safe haven on its soil. The U.S. has allowed these Armenians to enjoy rights that they could not even dream about in their homeland. The U.S. has no obligation whatsoever to do anything for Armenia, given that Armenia is a loyal servant of Russia, a country which is against everything that America stands for. Whatever the U.S. has already done for Armenia, Armenians should thank the U.S. for it.
…and you are a loyal servant of Axerbaijan!!
“U.S. has legitimate interests in Caucasus (security, oil, stability), and it will continue to tell others what to do. A better idea for Armenia is to become like the U.S., adopt the U.S. model of democracy.” Since when, does the Turkbaijani poster from above, who’s so deeply obsessed with fake U.S. democracy, happen to be in any position to say what Armenia should or shouldn’t do? In regard to the U.S. telling others what to do, the republics of Armenia and Artsakh certainly don’t care about anything the United States has to say. The United States, with its illegitimate interests, is only interested in building oil pipelines throughout the Caucasus and exploiting those countries, just like they’ve been exploiting countries throughout the Middle East and other parts of the world.
It is indeed a blessing that Armenia will never be anything like the fake, make-believe democracy of the United States. What Armenia needs to do now, is adopt the true democratic principles of its baby brother, Artsakh.
The United States, is also the same country which turned its back on the Armenian people after World War One, by not enforcing its “Wilsonian section” of the Treaty of Sevres, and therefore enabling the Turks to keep the stolen lands of Western Armenia. In addition, even after World War One (1918), when the Turks continued with four more years of extermination against Armenians, the United States never once attempted to stop it.
If the United States has given hundreds of thousands of Armenians a safe haven on its soil, then it’s also necessary to say that Russia has given a safe haven to 2.5 million Armenians on its soil.
@Vahagn, When you talk about what the United States has done for the Armenians in isolated events without context, it sure sounds like the United has done well for the Armenians. However, if you put things in context, you will realize the United States has done more harm to the Armenians than good. I say this because, as @Yerevanian pointed out in his remark, if the United States senate had ratified the Wilsonian Mandate on Armenia at the end of WWI, which would have restored to the Armenians most of their historic territories, most of Turkish-occupied Western Armenia in particular, I don’t believe we would be debating the Armenian Cause today.
The United States abandoned Armenia at a time when Armenia needed her the most. Turkey was defeated and was at the mercy of the Allied Powers at the end of WWI. The United States, after all the sacrifices the Armenians had made in the war and instead of ratifying the Armenian Mandate which would have required to send troops to defend the newly-drawn Armenian borders, instead sacrificed what was left of Armenia to the Soviets and to the rebel Turks led by Ataturk. The Turks, even though defeated, taking advantage of the indecisiveness and lack of commitment on the part of the United States toward Armenia, and making secret deals with the Soviets to absorb between them what was left of Armenia, launched attacks and not only took back liberated Western Armenian provinces but they also invaded Eastern Armenia, what is now contemporary Armenia, until they were defeated and stopped by the Armenians in the battles of Bash Abaran and Sardarabad.
Another good deed that came out of the United States in recent years, and I’m being sarcastic, I suppose was the absorption of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis into the United States and giving them all the freedom they wanted which they could never had experienced in their own homeland in their wildest dreams, after falsifying documents and misrepresenting cooked-up “facts” at the United Nations to get the green light to illegally invade a sovereign country as a result of which several hundred thousand people lost their lives and their country turned into a parking lot and more divided and dangerous than before the invasion.
Perhaps, given what I described, what little good the United has done for our people has been by design and by guilt for abandoning Armenia in the first place to pursue her selfish and imperialistic adventures. When you put things in context, things don’t look as rosy as they do otherwise!
@ Ararat. Your facts are correct (except the Bash Aparan and Sardarapat parts). However, the U.S. did not have to ratify the Wilsonian Armenia. The U.S. did not “abandon” Armenia because the U.S. did not have to protect Armenia in the first place. The U.S. was and is a complex democracy, and while Wilson wanted to send troops to Armenia, the Republican Senate felt that the U.S. should not get involved in administering a Middle Eastern country. Given the recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure had some grounds for that. Instead of blaming the U.S. for not sending troops to Armenia, which is useless, we should blame Armenia’s government for being so incompetent as to rely on a hope that Wilson, who could not even sign a document at the time due to stroke-induced disability, would save Armenia. While America had no responsibility to protect Armenia, Armenia’s government has responsibility to be competent and to make wise decisions.
As for the battles of Bash Aparan and Sardarapat, they occurred in 1918, whereas the U.S. Mandate and Ataturk happened in 1920. Speaking of 1918, the U.S. actually saved Armenia in that year. Sardarapat temporarily saved Armenians around Yerevan, not elsewhere. 6 months after Sardarapat, in September of 1918, Enver marched to Baku and massacred 30,000 Armenians. Had the war continued longer, nothing would stop the Turks from exterminating the rest of Armenians. The only reason that the war stopped when it did was because of the United States’ entry to the war (Russia was not even a factor at the time). So, I think we should at least be grateful to the U.S. for preventing the complete annihilation of Armenians in that regard.
I think comparing the U.S. role in Iraq and Armenia is not right. When the U.S. gave safe haven to Armenians after the Genocide, these Armenians were not escaping a U.S. invasion in Turkey. In fact, as you demonstrated, Armenians were begging the U.S. for an invasion.
You’re absolutely correct, Ararat, in saying that the United States abandoned Armenia. Following the conclusion of World War One, despite the fact that the leader of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, had made a commitment to the Armenian people to attach the lands of Western Armenia with Eastern Armenia, by way of the “Wilsonian section” of the Treaty of Sevres, he nevertheless failed in his commitment. Furthermore, the extremely undemocratic and heartless Republican party of the United States, happened to be fully against the idea of taking a mandate for Western Armenia and therefore rejected President Wilson’s “Wilsonian section.” As a result of the breakup of the former Ottoman Turkish Empire, which produced the newly formed, oil-abundant countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Kuwait, the United States due to its obsession with all that oil, immediately relinquished its previous commitment to human rights and social justice, and as a result, it turned its back on Armenia to focus its attention on all that oil, which was suddenly available to it. In addition, speaking of 1918, when the United States could have easily prevented the further annihilation of Armenians, it totally failed to do so. This explains the reason why the Turks were able to continue exterminating the Armenians for four more years after 1918. And just imagine if Armenia had not joined the former Soviet Union in November of 1920? If that had been the case, there would be no Armenia today, nor would there be an Armenian people.