Since the EU wishes to play tough, Turkey should too. From now on Turkey’s policies should be the following:

-The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus should integrate with Turkey.

-All islets/islands in the Aegean Sea not mentioned in international treaties as belonging to Greece should revert to Turkey, the heir of the former Ottoman owner.

-Turkish-populated West Thrace (in Greece) should eventually unite with Turkey.

-Turkoman regions of northern Iraq (Mosul-Kirkuk) should reunite with Turkey.

-Turkish-populated Bayirbucak (in Syria) should join Turkey.

-Karabakh and all other occupied territories of Azerbaijan should be liberated.

-Historic Azerbaijani Zangezur and Goyce regions (in Armenia) should reunite with Azerbaijan.

-South Azerbaijan (occupied by Iran) should proclaim independence, then, unite with Azerbaijan.

-The new Turkey and new Azerbaijan could integrate through a confederation.

-East Turkestan (occupied by China) should regain independence.

-Tatarstan, Bashkortistan, Yakutia and all other Turkic regions occupied by Russia should proclaim independence.

-All Turkic regions of Bulgaria and Ukraine should achieve independence.

-Turkic Gaugazian Autonomous Republic in Moldoava should proclaim independence.

-The new revitalized Turkic world and the already existing Turkic republics (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) can establish a economic-political union to rival the EU and any other opponent.

Since the EU wishes to play tough, Turkey should too. From now on Turkey’s policies should be the following:

-The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus should integrate with Turkey.

-All islets/islands in the Aegean Sea not mentioned in international treaties as belonging to Greece should revert to Turkey, the heir of the former Ottoman owner.

-Turkish-populated West Thrace (in Greece) should eventually unite with Turkey.

-Turkoman regions of northern Iraq (Mosul-Kirkuk) should reunite with Turkey.

-Turkish-populated Bayirbucak (in Syria) should join Turkey.

-Karabakh and all other occupied territories of Azerbaijan should be liberated.

-Historic Azerbaijani Zangezur and Goyce regions (in Armenia) should reunite with Azerbaijan.

-South Azerbaijan (occupied by Iran) should proclaim independence, then, unite with Azerbaijan.

-The new Turkey and new Azerbaijan could integrate through a confederation.

-East Turkestan (occupied by China) should regain independence.

-Tatarstan, Bashkortistan, Yakutia and all other Turkic regions occupied by Russia should proclaim independence.

-All Turkic regions of Bulgaria and Ukraine should achieve independence.

-Turkic Gaugazian Autonomous Republic in Moldoava should proclaim independence.

-The new revitalized Turkic world and the already existing Turkic republics (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) can establish a economic-political union to rival the EU and any other opponent.

Over 30,000 Azerbaijanis, all unarmed civilians, were slaughtered by invading Armenian forces between 1993-1994. This is well documented by BBC, Reuters, and Agence France and the UN.

Yet the EU and so-called “human-rights defenders” (who do not hesitate to support the so-called “armenian genocide”) remain silent. Can they not speak because they are guilty of their lies and imperialism, or do they not care because the Azerbaijani victims are Muslim and Turkish? Perhaps both.

Despite repeated UN labels of Armenia being an aggressor, UN resolutions equivocally stating Nagorno-Karabakh is a historical, unseparable, and integral part of Azerbijan, and calls for Armenia to withdraw unconditionally and immediately all of its occupying forces from Azerbaijan, the world watches passively.

Instead of debating proven lies of the so-called “armenian genocide” from 90 years ago, the EU should take a active stand of contemporary issues such as Armenia’s aggression and the killings of Azerbaijanis, which happened only 13 years ago! Only then can the EU claim to be an “enlightened humanistic” force.

The Ottoman counter measures to such Armenian violence involved deporting Armenians known to have participated in the rebellions. This was not ‘genocide’, as the actions were not motivated by ethnicity/religion, but by security, which was endangered because of Armenian violence. The Ottoman government’s orders of deportation criminalized any killing/massacre of Armenians. Furthermore, Armenians in Istanbul and western Anatolia were spared from deportations, as they were opposed to the rebellions. Also, about a dozen Armenian villages in the east were spared, as they were against Armenian terrorism as well. Unfortunate murders of some Armenians (200,000) were perpetrated by Turkish, Caucassian, Kurdish villagers taking revenge for family members killed by Armenian terrorism. The Ottoman government had nothing to do with such acts and penalized many involved.
European governments (Britain France Russia) encouraged the Armenian rebellions in order to satisfy their imperialist mission of gaining stratigically important Ottoman territories in the Middle East.

Clearly, there was no “genocide”. The agitation resulted from European/Armenian violence. All Armenian nationalists proudly and openly admitted this during the time.

Today, rather than slandering Turkey through lies, European governments should admit their role in the formenting of Armenian violence and its consequences, which caused the suffering of both the Armenian and Turkish peoples, and forever placed a high wall between these two once friendly nations. Then, the Armenian leadereship should apologize to Turkey, and European leaders should apologize to both Turkey and Armenians.

Isn’t that sop for every state. Can’t name a state who doesn’t try to whitewash its history

That sentence is not entirely correct, or at least, I would put an important nuance on this. An important aspect of the issue is the point that the events did not take place during the existence of the Turkish Republic — thus it is not really “its own history”. The events took place during the last years of the Ottoman Empire, under the rule of a cadre of people that were later widely discredited under the Turkish Republic.

I am fully of the opinion that Turkey should much more openly accept free debate on all sides of the Armenian genocide issue. I believe, as the blogger insightfully points out, that Turkey is overly worried that those who support the historical view that there was an attempted genocide are “out to destroy” Turkey (as European powers were at the end of the first world war).

By pointing out that the events occured prior to the existence of the current republic, not only under a different government, but under an entirely different nation — in fact not a nation at all but a loose Empire controlled by a hereditary monarchy — Turkey should deflect all direct incrimination regarding the issue, and thereby become more open and less sensitive to discussions of the brutality and horrors of what occured.

Look, Turkey funds an entire bunch of pocket genicide deniers who use the exact same method and vocabulary as Holocaust deniers.

No one cares what bizzare and morally bankrupt view it takes of the Armeinan Genocide, the fact is more and more Turkish scholars recognize this terrible event.

But they have jailed people for even mentioning it, thereby violating there own agreement swith the EU as well as a slew of other human rights agreements.

This Coleman would be my view.

“Is making demands the best way?”

Well I know it may sound like a detail, but I don’t think either Randy or I have acually used the word ‘demand’. I think we are talking about bilateral negotiations here, and the best model for these may not be employer/employee disputes. I would not want to see this discussion carried out confrontationally. I think I would use the word condition. It should be a condition for the successful conclusion of negotiations, as, incidentally should the recognition of Cyprus. The point is the negotiations should be used to facilitate change in Turkey, and this is one of the changes I would like to see facilitated. So sometimes being firm isn’t so bad, and negotiating isn’t such a harmful thing. Indeed it may give strength to those politicians in Turkey who want reform and can use the ‘intransigence’ of the EU in their support.