Recognition of the Armenian Tyranny by Ankara Equals Colonization of Turkey by Freemasonic EU – US

By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

[ Posted On: 2009-03-15 ]

In several earlier articles, I discussed the ongoing phenomenon of Turkey’s colonization as performed first through Turkey’s participation in the NATO (earlier, limited, and slow stage) and second by means of an Islamist administration (ongoing, expanded, and accelerated stage).

I presented Turkey’s policy toward the Aramaeans (Suryani) as purely colonialist, because the acceptance by Turkey of the colonial term “Assyrians” for the nation of the Aramaeans represents Turkey’s harmonization with the policies of the colonial regimes of England and France that passionately pursued all possible methods in order to destroy first, the Ottoman Empire and second, Republican Secular Turkey.

The transformation of Republican Secular Turkey into an Islamist pseudo-state fitting in the postcolonial Middle East (which is in its entirety a complete Freemasonic Anglo-French fabrication) will be the end of Turkey and the beginning of the Middle Eastern wars machinated by the regimes of London and Paris.

Quite indicative of Turkey’s harmonization with the colonial orders issued in London and Paris is the ongoing change of Turkey’s stance and policy toward the collapsing and disintegrating tyranny of Armenia.

Turkey does not need Armenia in any sense; Turkey must not open its border to the vicious, revengeful tyranny of Erevan that pursued purely racist policies toward Azerbaijan – a country with which Turkey must unite, abandoning the idiotic dreams of a participation in an otherwise useless Europe.

Under any circumstances, and prior to the elimination of the racist regime of Erevan, before the abandonment of the Anti-Turkish, racist propaganda of the Armenian Diaspora about the supposed ‘Armenian Genocide’, and without the retreat of the Armenian army from parts of the Azeri territory, Turkey should not recognize Armenia. Except, Islamist Turkey is urged to help PKK and Armenia shape an even stronger terrorist and racist front against many nations and peoples of the wider Middle East and Caucasus region.

Turkey’s colonization is proven through the harmonization of the current, unrepresentative, Islamist pseudo-government with the Anti-Turkish interests of Paris and London that want simply to avoid the disintegration of the ailing Armenian tyranny by forcing the “independent” Islamist government of Turkey to open its border and thus preserve the (already asphyxiated at an advanced level thanks to the correct policies of the assassinated President Turgut Ozal) Armenian tyranny in life.

The policy imposed on the unrepresentative Islamist pseudo-government of Gul and Erdogan is not only gravely detrimental to Turkey’s interests and prejudicial for the regional peace; it is also contradictory with the Anglo-French colonial contents’ demands for the supposed Turkey’s further democratization.

- If Turkey should be further democratized and harmonized with Europe, then why should Turkey open its borders to a criminal tyranny denounced as such by the HRW in a lengthy and devastating Report?

It makes no sense – not only for an average Turk but also for any balanced and fair person allover the world.

In two earlier articles entitled “Turkey’s Ongoing Colonization: Only Reason for Recognizing Racist Armenian Tyranny” (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94451) and “Devastating HRW on Armenian Tyranny Imposes Cancellation of the Gul – Erdogan Pro-Armenian Policy” (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94453), I republished parts of the devastating HRW Report (the HRW Press Release issued on the occasion of the Report publication a few days ago, the Contents, the Summary, and the Methodology), and called for a master coup against the unrepresentative Erdogan gang of high traitors, freemasons and besotted pseudo-Islamists, who implement the Anti-Turkish colonial agenda of England and France; in fact, the colonial powers imposed on the Freemasonic pupils Gul and Erdogan the Turkish – Armenian rapprochement.

In the present article, I republish the HRW Report chapter on the Background, which is focused on the tyrannical regime of Hatred that rules from Yerevan as puppet of the Armenian Diaspora that linked its interests with the vicious Anti-Islamic, Anti-Ottoman, and Anti-Turkish policies of the Anglo-French Apostate Freemasonic Lodge. In forthcoming articles, I will republish further parts of the devastating HRW Report on the Armenian Tyranny.

III. Background

Early Post-Soviet Politics and Society in Armenia
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/80933/section/5

Armenia was propelled to independence as the Soviet Union unraveled in 1991. As elsewhere in the Soviet republics, a nationalist movement had emerged at the end of the 1980s to directly challenge one-party Communist rule. In 1990 many Soviet republics held multiparty elections for their national legislatures; in Armenia these were won by the Armenian Pan-National Movement (ANM).[1] A reformist, nationalist-oriented government was installed, which in September 1991 held an independence referendum that produced a 94 percent vote in favor.[2] Armenia achieved independence when the Soviet Union ceased to exist at the end of 1991, and this independence was internationally recognized in early 1992.

In Armenia, a catalyst for the nascent nationalist movement was the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave within neighboring Azerbaijan with a majority ethnic Armenian population. Confrontation started in early 1988 when the local ethnic Armenian population, backed by Armenia, sought through its legislature to separate the enclave from Azerbaijani administration and transfer it to Armenia. Political confrontation tipped into outright conflict with an anti-Armenian pogrom in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait at the end of February, and mass expulsions from Armenia and Azerbaijan of their respective Azeri and Armenian minorities.[3] The conflict escalated in 1991 into full-scale war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It raged on through Armenia's first independence years, with Armenian forces gaining the upper hand, until a ceasefire in 1994.[4] The conflict remains unresolved, and as a consequence, Armenia's border with Azerbaijan is closed, as is its border with Turkey (which supports Azerbaijan), complicating foreign trade relations and economic development.[5] The Karabakh conflict continues to loom large in Armenian political life, as the basis on which many leading politicians have built their careers and connections.

Adding to the dire conditions surrounding Armenia's independence, in 1991 the country had barely begun to recover from a December 1988 earthquake that had massively damaged the north, including Armenia's second and third cities Gyumri and Vanadzor, and killed some 25,000 people.[6] And as everywhere in the former Soviet Union, the abrupt end of central economic planning and subsidies and the switch to market conditions caused a catastrophic economic contraction that did not turn around until 1994.[7] Unemployment, food shortages, and drastic rationing of public utilities forced hundreds of thousands to emigrate from Armenia, temporarily or permanently, for work.[8]

The Ter-Petrossian Presidency, 1991-98

The Armenian Pan-National Movement had evolved out of the Karabakh Committee, founded in 1988 by a group of Armenian intellectuals, which championed the Karabakh cause inside Armenia.[9] Levon Ter-Petrossian entered politics as one of the Karabakh Committee's and later the ANM's leaders.[10] When the ANM won the 1990 parliamentary elections he became parliamentary chairman and titular head of state. He went on to win Armenia's first presidential election, held in October 1991 while Armenia was still formally part of the Soviet Union, with 83 percent of the vote, and led the country to independence.[11]

As president during the troubled first years of independence, Ter-Petrossian struggled to maintain popular support. He was reelected in 1996 only by a narrow margin (see below). In 1997 he advocated compromise with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh; this, together with lingering questions about the legitimacy of his election victory the year before, cost him the presidency. He was forced to step down in early 1998 when the then defense minister, Vazgen Sargsyan, a prominent former Karabakh war commander, called for his resignation and 40 members of parliament quit the bloc that supported the president.[12]

Robert Kocharyan, a Karabakhi whom Ter-Petrossian had appointed prime minister in 1997, took over as acting president (as the constitution required), and went on to win the early presidential election held in March 1998. In May 1999 parliamentary elections the ANM was routed, holding on to only one seat in the 131-seat National Assembly. Vazgen Sargsyan became prime minister.

Prevailing Characteristics of Armenian Party Politics

On October 27, 1999, five gunmen entered the National Assembly chamber while the Assembly was in session with the government present. They took the entire chamber hostage, and assassinated prime minister Vazgen Sargsyan, parliamentary speaker Karen Demirchyan, and six other ministers and parliamentarians.[13] They then gave themselves up. After a protracted trial, five persons, including the group's leader, were sentenced in December 2003 to life imprisonment.[14] It has never been fully explained what motivated the attack: the gunmen claimed to have been acting on their own initiative,[15] and despite abundant conspiracy theories, no convincing evidence surfaced to suggest that any political leader or party was behind the attack. Nevertheless, the killings left a leadership void in the political establishment.

Armenia in the post-Soviet era has held four parliamentary elections and four presidential elections. It has remained stuck in a cycle of unfair contests, fraud, and disputes that more often than not spill onto the streets. There is low public confidence in the way elections are run, and widespread cynicism about their outcome.[16] The functioning of Armenia's multiparty system and genuine political competition are hampered by the persistent failure of the array of political parties to stabilize and consolidate-established parties have waxed and waned dramatically, fragmented, and major new players have emerged, with almost every parliamentary election.

Disputes and Violence a Fixture in Armenian Elections

Ter-Petrossian's reelection, 1996

Ter-Petrossian ran for reelection in September 1996, his main challenger being fellow ANM founder Vazgen Manukyan, around whom most of the opposition had rallied. Ter-Petrossian passed the 50 percent threshold required for a first-round outright victory by just under 22,000 votes, but discrepancies of an almost identical number were recorded in the official results both in terms of ballot papers issued to polling stations but subsequently unaccounted for, and ballot papers recorded as issued but not recorded as being present in the ballot boxes.[17] On the basis of these and other irregularities international observers called into question the integrity of the overall election process.[18] The opposition's own suspicions of electoral fraud brought protestors onto the streets of Yerevan: demonstrators marched on and broke into the National Assembly, where the Central Election Commission (CEC) was then housed, to demand a recount. In the process protestors beat up the parliamentary speaker and deputy speaker. In response, police beat demonstrators and later arrested at least 28 opposition leaders and supporters and CEC staffers.[19] In the wake of these events, police detained about 200 more individuals believed to have participated in the demonstration, President Ter-Petrossian banned public demonstrations and called in army troops to patrol Yerevan, and the prosecutor general announced his intention to bring criminal charges against Vazgen Manukyan and seven other opposition leaders, for attempting to violently overthrow the government. Police closed the offices of, among others, the National Democratic Union, Manukyan's party.[20]

These were not the first political party restrictions imposed by Ter-Petrossian's administration. At the end of 1994 Ter-Petrossian had suspended the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), a major opposition party, and ordered the closure of 12 media outlets allegedly associated with it, claiming that the ARF had become a cover for a secret organization allegedly responsible for terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal arms trading. In January 1995 the Supreme Court upheld the ARF's suspension for a six-month period, citing, however, not threats to national security, but the presence of foreigners in the party's board. The government claimed that it was by mere coincidence that the six-month suspension was to lapse just after parliamentary elections (Armenia's first post-Soviet elections) on July 5, 1996. The government allowed individual ARF members to run for parliament, but the party's absence paved the way for a resounding victory of Ter-Petrossian's ANM.[21]

Kocharyan's 1998 election and 2003 reelection

The snap 1998 presidential election went to two rounds, with Robert Kocharyan beating Karen Demirchyan in the second-round runoff. Election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) found both rounds to have been marred by extensive fraud, and stated outright that the second round did not meet OSCE standards.[22]

Kocharyan was reelected in 2003 in an election that also went to two rounds and was again marred by irregularities.[23] The OSCE once again found the election fell short of international standards for democratic elections, declaring that the overall process failed to provide equal conditions for the candidates; voting, counting, and tabulation showed serious irregularities including widespread ballot box stuffing; and the political atmosphere was charged and marred by intimidation. The OSCE found, "The failure of the 2003 presidential election to meet international standards lay not in technical or procedural lapses, but in a lack of sufficient political determination by the authorities to ensure a fair and honest process."[24]

Between the announcement of preliminary first round results on February 20, 2003, and the official start of the second round campaign, the opposition who supported second-placed candidate Stepan Demirchyan held large unsanctioned rallies in Yerevan. Police on February 22 began detaining opposition supporters for alleged hooliganism and/or participation in unsanctioned public meetings: At least 200 individuals were detained including many opposition staff, and many were sentenced to up to 15 days of administrative detention, a clear attempt to damage the opposition prior to the runoff election held on March 5.[25] Following publication of the preliminary second-round results, the opposition resumed protest gatherings in Yerevan and staged a picket outside the CEC building for several days up to the announcement of the final results.[26]

Stepan Demirchyan challenged the 2003 second-round results in the Constitutional Court. The Court did not rule in his favor, but struck down results in 40 polling stations, and recommended that the National Assembly and president hold a "referendum of confidence" within a year.[27]On April 12, 2004 (almost a year to the day from the Constitutional Court ruling), Armenia's political opposition united in mass peaceful protests to force this "referendum of confidence" on President Kocharyan and to call for his resignation. The government dispersed the demonstrations using excessive force: repeating the cycle of repressive tactics from the 2003 election, the authorities arrested opposition leaders and supporters, violently dispersed demonstrators, raided political party headquarters, attacked journalists, and restricted travel to prevent people from participating in demonstrations. In response to international pressure, the government released some opposition leaders detained during the crackdown, and participated in discussions about cooperation with the opposition.[28] However, the referendum recommended in the 2003 Constitutional Court ruling never happened.

Notes

[1] Human Rights Watch, World Report 1990 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1990), Soviet Union chapter, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1990/WR90/HELSINKI.BOU-03.htm#P263_60248; Keesing's Record of World Events, vol. 36, 1990, pp. 37323, 37618.

[2] Keesing's Record of World Events, vol. 37, 1991, p. 38418.

[3]Thomas de Waal, "The Nagorny Karabakh conflict: origins, dynamics and misperceptions," in Laurence Broers, ed., "The Limits of Leadership: Elites and societies in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process," Accord series, Conciliation Resources, 2005, http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/origins-dynamics-misperceptions.php (accessed September 16, 2008).

[4] Ibid. At the ceasefire, Armenian forces controlled most of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as a large swathe of Azerbaijani territory between the enclave and the Armenian and Iranian borders. See also Volker Jakoby, "The role of the OSCE: an assessment of international mediation efforts," in Broers, ed., "The Limits of Leadership," http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/osce-role.php (accessed September 16, 2008).

[5] Turkey and Armenia severed diplomatic relations in 1993 over Turkish criticism of Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. There has been a recent rapprochement: Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Armenia on September 6, 2008, at President Sargsyan's invitation, and the resulting warming in Armenian-Turkish relations has included talks on reopening the border. See "Turkish - Armenian Relations In 2008," Turkishpress.com, January 5, 2009, http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=256512 (accessed January 9, 2009), and International Relations and Security Network, "NK: Frozen, but not still," January 9, 2008, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?coguid=A647C846-E3F9-CF68-A317-42373E9ED3FB&lng=en&id=95151 (accessed January 9, 2009).

[6] "History of deadly earthquakes," BBC News Online, May 12, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2059330.stm (accessed September 16, 2008).At the time of the earthquake Gyumri and Vanadzor had the Soviet-era names Leninakan and Kirovakan, respectively.

[7] According to Armenian government figures, the economy contracted by 54 percent in the period 1991-93. See "Economic Priorities and Prospects for Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction," speech by Prime Minister Andranik Margarian at the Paris Consultative Group Meeting on Armenia, July 10, 2001, http://www.gov.am/enversion/premier_2/primer_home.htm?mat=235 (accessed September 15, 2008). Armenia began recording modest economic growth in 1994. Ibid.

[8] Armenian International Policy Research Group, "Economics of Labor Migration from Armenia: a Conceptual Study," January 2006, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003150/01/economics_of_labor_migration_from_Armenia.pdf (accessed September 16, 2008), p. 14, citing estimates that in the period up to 2002 Armenia lost to emigration between 14 and 24 percent of its population (as calculated in 1990) of 3.4 million.

[9] International Crisis Group, "Armenia: Internal Instability Ahead," ICG Europe Report No. 158, October 18, 2004, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/europe/caucasus/158_armenia_s_internal_instability_ahead.pdf (accessed September 16, 2008).

[10] "Armenia: Vote 2008, Levon Ter-Petrosian -- Candidate biography," Eurasianet.org, http://eurasianet.org/armenia08/gallery/levon/shtml (accessed May 21, 2008).

[11]Ibid.

[12]Human Rights Watch, World Report 1999 (New York:Human Rights Watch, 1999), Armenia chapter, http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/europe/armenia.html.

[13] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2000 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2000), Armenia chapter, http://www.hrw.org/wr2k/Eca-01.htm#TopOfPage; Kenneth de Figueiredo, Armenia: Presidential Elections February 2008 (Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Human Rights/NORDEM, 2008), http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/nr/2008/0608.pdf (accessed September 16, 2008).

[14] "Five defendants in Armenian parliament shooting case sentenced to life," Mediamax (Yerevan), December 2, 2003, reproduced by Eurasianet.org, December 3, 2003, http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/armenia/hypermail/200312/0006.shtml (accessed September 16, 2008).

[15] The group's leader, Nairi Unanyan, said at the opening of his trial that his actions were intended to save Armenia from "disintegration and government corruption." See "Armenia parliamentary killings trial begins," BBC News Online, February 15, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1171809.stm (accessed September 16, 2008).

[16] The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) noted, "[V]iolations and shortcomings observed [during 2008 Presidential elections] did nothing to increase currently lacking public confidence in the electoral process." CoE PACE Resolution 1609 (2008), "Functioning of Democtatic Institutions in Armenia," http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1609.htm (accessed February 6, 2009).

[17] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), "Armenian Presidential Elections September 24, 1996, Final Report," October 24, 1996, http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/1996/10/1208_en.pdf (accessed September 16, 2008).

[18] Ibid.

[19]Adrian Karatnycky, Alexander J. Motyl, Boris Shor, Nations in Transit, 1997: Civil Society, Democracy and Markets in East Central Europe and the Newly Independent States, (Transaction Publishers, 1997), p. 42

[20] Human Rights Watch, World Report 1997 (New York:Human Rights Watch, 1997), Armenia Chapter, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/WR97/HELSINKI-01.htm#P95_35834.

[21] Human Rights Watch, World Report 1996 (New York:Human Rights Watch, 1996), Armenia Chapter, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/WR96/Helsinki-02.htm#P168_33365.

[22] Human Rights Watch, World Report 1999, Armenia chapter. The OSCE observer mission's final report noted that observers witnessed ballot stuffing, discrepancies in the vote count, a large presence of unauthorized persons in polling stations, and intimidation of voters, election workers, and even the international observers themselves.

[23] "Armenia: Election Marred by Intimidation, Ballot Stuffing," Human Rights Watch news release, March 7, 2003, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/03/07/armeni5383.htm.

[24] OSCE/ODIHR, "Republic Of Armenia Presidential Election 19 February and 5 March 2003, Final Report," April 28, 2003, http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/04/1203_en.pdf (accessed September 23, 2008).

[25]Ibid.;Human Rights Watch, An Imitation of the Law: The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election, May 23, 2003, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/armenia/index.htm.

[26] OSCE/ODIHR, "Republic Of Armenia Presidential Election 19 February and 5 March 2003, Final Report."

[27] Ibid. The OSCE/ODIHR reported, "[The court] found that the arguments brought by Demirchyan were not refuted, but did not invalidate the results of the election. To address the violations identified during the case, the court ordered that in 40 designated polling stations where the results were proved to be implausible, the number of votes given to the candidate who won in that polling station should be deducted from the candidate's overall total. The Decision also stated that the Office of the Prosecutor General should investigate these cases and hold accountable those responsible for falsification of election documents in the 40 polling stations."

[28] Human Rights Watch, Cycle of Repression: Human Rights Violations in Armenia, May 4, 2004, http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/armenia/0504/.

Note: The post-soviet state of Armenia is not a modern state. It attempts to revivify the medieval ages’ Christian anti-Islamism against two non Islamic countries, Turkey and Azerbaijan, that are inhabited by the world’s most tolerant and most moderate Muslims. The tyrannical regime of Yerevan is not constituted by pious Christian statesmen whose ideal is Medieval Armenia; it is controlled by criminal gangsters who are the lowest level puppets of the colonial Freemasonic establishments of Paris and London – through the interposition of the Armenian Diaspora. They use the Armenian Christian Medieval Heritage for their Anti-Christian nationalistic purposes; and their real masters truly despise and loathe the Armenian Christian Medieval Heritage in the same way they hate Christianity, Islam, and all the religions whatsoever.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

About The Author: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis - is Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, Islamologist, Historian and Political Scientist. Dr. Megalommatis, 52, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.

| View Profile & All Articles By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive World Affairs Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | News | World Affairs

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Share in FaceBook
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Propellor
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

| More Subscription Options |

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles