Džo Baidenas. Joe Bidenas. EPA – ELTA nuotr.
Vašingtonas, rugsėjo 28 d. (AFP-ELTA). JAV prezidento Joe Bideno šuo Commander‘is vėl įkando slaptosios tarnybos agentui. Vienas už prezidento apsaugą atsakingos institucijos darbuotojas „turėjo kontaktą su pirmosios šeimos keturkoju“, kuris jam įkando, pareiškė slaptosios tarnybos atstovas Anthony‘is Guglielmis. Agentui esą medicininė pagalba suteikta vietoje – Baltuosiuose rūmuose.
Anot stoties CNN, tai jau mažiausiai vienuoliktas incidentas, kai dvejų metų vokiečių aviganis Commander‘is įkanda žmogui. Vienu atveju auka netgi buvo gydoma ligoninėje.
Pirmosios ponios Jill Biden atstovė sakė, kad Baltieji rūmai naminiams gyvūnams yra „stresą kelianti aplinka“. Prezidentas su žmona esą ir toliau deda pastangas, kad aviganis priprastų prie dažnai „nenuspėjamos“ Baltųjų rūmų aplinkos.
Jau vasarą pirmoji šalies šeima pareiškė, kad Commander‘is, reaguojant į jo elgesį, yra specialiai dresuojamas. Keturkojis į Baltuosius rūmus pateko 2021 m. gale. Netrukus čia apsigyveno ir katė vardu Willow.
Priprasti prie Baltųjų rūmų aplinkos sunku buvo ir kitam Bidenų augintiniui vardu Majoras – taip pat vokiečių aviganiui. Jis taip pat kandžiojosi ir tada laikinai buvo išsiųstas į privačius JAV prezidento namus Delavere. Vėliau Majoras apsigyveno pas šeimos draugus.
Vokiečių aviganiai yra žinomi dėl savo stipraus apsauginio instinkto.
JAV pirmoji ponia Jill Biden ir JAV prezidentas Joe Bidenas. EPA – ELTA nuotr.
Vašingtonas, balandžio 19 d. (AFP-ELTA). Pirmoji JAV pora praėjusiais metais uždirbo 579 514 JAV dolerių, nors, kaip matyti iš antradienį paviešintos Joe ir Jill Bidenų mokesčių deklaracijos, tai buvo gerokai mažiau nei ankstesniais metais.
J. Bidenas atkūrė paprotį, skirtą skaidrumui Baltuosiuose rūmuose demonstruoti; ryškiausia šios nerašytos taisyklės išimtis buvo jo pirmtakas Donaldas Trumpas, kuris nuolat atsisakydavo paskelbti savo metinę pajamų ir mokesčių deklaraciją.
Prezidento ir pirmosios ponios bendroje deklaracijoje nurodyta, kad bendros pajamos 2022 metais sudarė beveik 580 000 dolerių, t. y. 30 000 dolerių mažiau nei ankstesniais metais. Didžiąją dalį šių pajamų sudarė J. Bideno standartinis 400 000 JAV dolerių prezidento atlyginimas, kurį nustato Kongresas.
Jill Biden, kuri dėsto Šiaurės Virdžinijos bendruomenės koledže ir yra pirmoji prezidento sutuoktinė, dirbanti apmokamą darbą, uždirbo 82 335 dolerių.
Jų mokėtinas federalinių mokesčių tarifas siekė 23,8 proc., t. y. šiek tiek mažiau nei pernai, kai jis buvo 24,6 proc., todėl sumokėjo 137 658 dolerių federalinį pajamų mokestį.
Joe Bideno kritimai
Taip pat jie sumokėjo 29 023 JAV dolerių pajamų mokestį savo gimtojoje Delavero valstijoje, o pirmoji ponia sumokėjo 3 139 JAV dolerių pajamų mokestį Virdžinijos valstijoje.
Labdaros organizacijoms jie paaukojo daugiau nei 20 000 dolerių, o didžiausią įnašą – 5 000 dolerių – skyrė Beau Bideno fondui, kovojančiam su smurtu prieš vaikus ir pavadintam 2015 metais mirusio J. Bideno sūnaus vardu.
Baltieji rūmai pranešė, kad J. Bidenas paviešino savo 25 metų mokesčių deklaracijas ir taip „dar kartą parodė, kad yra pasiryžęs skaidriai informuoti Amerikos žmones apie vyriausiojo vado finansus“.
Viceprezidentė Kamala Harris ir jos vyras Dougas Emhoffas savo mokesčių deklaracijose nurodė, kad jų bendros pajamos sudarė 456 918 JAV dolerių, jie sumokėjo 93 570 JAV dolerių federalinio pajamų mokesčio, taip pat 17 612 JAV dolerių pajamų mokesčio savo gimtojoje Kalifornijos valstijoje.
FTB atlieka kratas D. Trumpo namuose Floridoje. EPA-ELTA nuotr.
Vašingtonas, rugpjūčio 12 d. (dpa-ELTA). JAV Federalinis tyrimų biuras (FTB), atlikdamas kratą buvusio prezidento Donaldo Trumpo namuose, anot „The Washington Post“, ieškojo ir slaptų dokumentų apie branduolinius ginklus. Laikraštis remiasi neįvardytais šaltiniais.
Tačiau šaltiniai neatskleidė nei kokia tai informacija, nei ar ji susijusi su JAV ar kitomis valstybėmis. Šaltiniai taip pat nenurodė, ar atitinkami dokumentai per kratą buvo rasti.
FTB praėjusį pirmadienį atliko kratą D. Trumpo rezidencijoje Floridos valstijoje. Tai beprecedentis atvejis JAV istorijoje. Kratos metu D. Trumpo namuose nebuvo. Jis ir kiti respublikonai griežtai sukritikavo kratą ir apkaltino demokratų prezidentą Joe Bideną politizuojant FTB. Baltųjų rūmų duomenimis, J. Bidenas iš anksto nežinojo apie kratą.
Donaldas Trumpas. EPA-ELTA nuotr.
Krata tikriausiai buvo atlikta ieškant dokumentų iš to meto, kai D. Trumpas buvo prezidentu. Metų pradžioje paaiškėjo, kad Nacionalinis archyvas, kuris atsakingas už prezidento korespondencijos saugojimą, įtaria, jog D. Trumpas savo „Mar-a-Lago“ rezidencijoje laikos dėžes su slaptais dokumentais. Sausį kai kurie dokumentai buvo perduoti archyvui.
Vėliau kilo įtarimų, kad D. Trumpas ar jo komanda yra neatidavę daugiau svarbių dokumentų, rašo „The Washington Post“, remdamasis anoniminiais šaltiniais. FTB dabar esą išsivežė 12 dėžių su dokumentais.
G. Landsbergis su JAV sekretoriumi A. Blinkenu aptarė galimą pagalbą Lietuvai. Lietuvos ambasados JAV nuotr.
Vašingtone viešintis užsienio reikalų ministras Gabrielius Landsbergis tvirtina, kad su JAV valstybės sekretoriumi Antony’iu Blinkenu aptarė galimą ekonominę ir finansinę pagalbą Lietuvai, kuri dėl savo pozicijos Taivano atžvilgiu susiduria su Kinijos ekonominiu ir politiniu spaudimu.
„Galiu pasakyti, kad aptarėme tiek ekonominę, tiek finansinę galimą pagalbą, kuri galbūt būtų ir reikalinga šiandien Lietuvai. Tačiau kol kas daugiau apie tai kalbėti būtų šiek tiek anksti“, – Eltai telefonu sakė ministras po trečiadienį Vašingtone vykusio susitikimo su JAV valstybės sekretoriumi Antony’iu Blinkenu.
G. Landsbergis teigė besidžiaugiąs vykusiu susitikimu, nes su JAV valstybės sekretoriumi pavyko aptarti šiuo metu ganėtinai įtemptą Lietuvos situaciją.
„Susitikimas tikrai buvo geras, dalykiškas, atviras ir nuoširdus. Turėjau galimybę aptarti ir Lietuvos situaciją. Lietuva patiria beprecedentį spaudimą iš arti esančių autoritarinių valstybių: Baltarusijos, Rusijos. Taip pat susiduria su nauju reiškiniu – ekonominiu Kinijos spaudimu dėl Vyriausybės siekių plėtoti artimesnius ryšius su Taivano žmonėmis“, – sakė G. Landsbergis po pirmojo savo dvišalio susitikimo su A. Blinkenu.
Aptartos Vakarų atsakas dėl Rusijos ir Baltarusijos susijungimo
Vykusio susitikimo metu aptartas ir Baltarusijos bei Rusijos projektuojamos sąjunginės valstybės klausimas. G. Landsbergio teigimu, šis aspektas paliestas regioninio saugumo kontekste. Ministras pažymėjo, kad su JAV sekretoriumi svarstytos bendro Vakarų atsako šiai iniciatyvai, kuri keičia regioninio saugumo architektūrą, galimybės.
„Stiprėjanti Baltarusijos ir Rusijos karinė sąjunga dabar vykstančių pratybų kontekste didina mūsų regiono nesaugumą. Kitaip tariant, didina saugumo deficitą. Mes jį jaučiame Lietuvoje, lygiai taip pat jaučia mūsų kolegos ir partneriai Latvijoje, Estijoje ir Lenkijoje. Kalbėjome apie tai, ką daryti su šiuo saugumo deficitu, kaip užtikrinti ir kokių garantijų reikėtų Baltijos valstybėms ir Lenkijai, kad išsilygintų svarstyklės, kurios dabar yra pradėjusios svirti į kitą pusę“, – sakė G. Landsbergis.
„Aptarėme gal ir bendrą atsaką į gresiantį valstybių sujungimą ir koks turėtų būti Vakarų atsakas, gal net ir išankstinis, pasakant, kad mes nepripažinsime, jei tai įvyktų. Jei Baltarusijos prezidentas nelegitimus, jei jis neturi įgaliojimų iš savo žmonių ar net (veikia – ELTA) prieš savo žmonių įgaliojimus… Jis negali sudaryti sąjungos su Rusija“, – sakė G. Landsbergis.
Užsienio reikalų ministras šią savaitę Vašingtone lankosi su darbo vizitu. Vizito metu taip pat numatyti susitikimai su Baltųjų rūmų pareigūnais, analitinių centrų, verslo bendruomenėmis.
Kinija ėmė spausti Lietuvą dėl politikos Taivano atžvilgiu
Lietuvai ėmus megzti glaudesnius ryšius su Taivanu, ėmė blogėti santykiai su Kinija. Kinija šią vasarą konsultacijoms atšaukė savo ambasadorių Vilniuje ir paragino atšaukti Lietuvos ambasadorių Pekine. Lietuvos ambasadorė Kinijoje Diana Mickevičienė į Vilnių konsultacijoms grįžo rugsėjį. Kinijos užsienio reikalų ministerija tokį sprendimą argumentavo Vilniaus ketinimais Lietuvoje atidaryti Taivano prekybos atstovybę. Kinijos atstovų teigimu, toks Lietuvos ketinimas „įžūliai pažeidžia Lietuvos ir Kinijos komunikatą dėl diplomatinių santykių užmezgimo“. Pekinas Taivaną laiko dar viena savo provincija, todėl bet kokius kitų valstybių santykius su Taivanu vertina kaip prieštaraujančius pačios propaguojamam „vienos Kinijos principui“.
Todėl Pekinas stengiasi, kad Taivanas būtų izoliuotas pasaulio arenoje, ir trukdo bet kokiam oficialiam žodžio „Taivanas“ vartojimui, kad tai nesuteiktų salai tarptautinio teisėtumo jausmo.
Reikšdama savo nepasitenkinimą dėl sprendimo Vilniuje steigiamai atstovybei suteikti „Taivano“, o ne „Taipėjaus“ pavadinimą, Kinija Lietuvos atžvilgiu ėmėsi ir ekonominio spaudimo priemonių. Pekinas sustabdė krovininius traukinius į Lietuvą, taip pat sumažino Lietuvos įmonėms kredito limitus bei pakėlė kainas.
Santykius su Kinija aptemdė Vilniaus sprendimas trauktis iš 17+1 formato
Lietuva taip pat yra pasitraukusi iš Kinijos bendradarbiavimo su Vidurio ir Rytų Europos valstybėmis forumo „17+1“. Pasak Lietuvos diplomatijos vadovo G. Landsbergio, šis dalies ES narių bendradarbiavimo formatas su Pekinu „skaldo“ ES. Jo teigimu, santykių su Kinija formate Lietuva galėtų dalyvauti, jei į jį būtų įtrauktos visos Europos Sąjungos šalys.
JAV atstovų parama Lietuvai dėl Kinijos išsakyta ne vieną kartą
Kiniją piktinančią poziciją dėl Taivano užėmusią Lietuvą užstoja JAV. JAV valstybės sekretorius A. Blinkenas dar rugpjūčio pabaigoje pareiškė paramą Lietuvai dėl Kinijos daromo spaudimo.
Vašingtono parama Lietuvai išsakyta ir šią savaitę. JAV prezidento Joe Bideno nacionalinio saugumo patarėjas Jake’as Sullivanas po pokalbio telefonu su premjere Ingrida Šimonyte pažymėjo, kad JAV palaiko Lietuvą diplomatiniame ginče su „prievartą taikančia“ Kinija.
JAV pirmoji ponia Jill Biden ir JAV prezidentas Joe Bidenas. EPA – ELTA nuotr.
Saulius Kizelavičius
Šiandien vėl norėčiau tęsti aktualumo neprarandančią temą: kokie tikrieji JAV prezidento Džo Baideno (Joe Biden) ir Vladimiro Putino susitarimai dėl Ukrainos.
Vėl, kaip ir praėjusį kartą (straipsnis „JAV prezidentas Džo Baidenas – misteris „pakazuha“?; slaptai.lt), remsiuosi buvusio Rusijos prezidento Vladimiro Putino patarėjo, ekonomisto, analitiko Andrėjaus Ilarionovo, jau senokai gyvenančio JAV, įžvalgomis, pagarsintomis videointerviu „Asmeniniai santykiai“ (youtube.com).
Tame interviu, duotame JAV atsargos karininkui Garry Tabaxui, paminėtas ir Lietuvos vardas. Ne itin palankiame kontekste. Lietuvos politikus A.Ilarionovas vertina kaip protingus, į kurių nuomonę pravartu įsiklausyti. Tačiau tąsyk A.Ilarionovas prisiminė aukšto rango Lietuvos politiką (neurodydamas pavardės), kuris džiaugėsi, kad Ukraina tapo itin saugi JAV prezidentu tapus Dž.Baidenui. A.Ilarionovo manymu, tas Lietuvos politikas sakė netiesą. Dž.Baidenui atėjus į Baltuosius rūmus Ukraina kaip tik atsidūrė dideliame pavojuje. Ne veltui Ukrainos prezidentas Volodymiras Zelenskis viename savo straipsnyje, kurį publikavo ir Amerikos leidiniai, apgailestavo, jog Dž.Baidenas išduoda Ukainą: V.Putinui neša sviedinius, kuriais šis vėliau bombarduoja Donbasą ir Luhanską.
Volodymyras Zelenskis. EPA – ELTA nuotr.
Amerikoje senokai įsikūrusio A.Ilarionovo komentarų stiprybė neabejotina: šis analitikas lygina politikų pareiškimus su konkrečiais jų darbais. A.Ilarionovui ne tiek svarbu, ką teigia politikas, ką tvirtina darysiąs. Svarbiausia – politiko darbai. Tik lyginant žodžius ir konkrečius darbus įmanoma suprasti, ko vertas prezidentas, premjeras ar Parlamento vadovas.
A.Ilarionovas apgailestauja, kad ir plačioji Ukrainos visuomenė, deja, kaip tas Lietuvos politikas, vis dar žavisi Dž.Baidenu nepastebėdami, jog šis nekenčia Ukrainos. Kuo A.Ilarionovas remiasi, taip sakydamas? Pavyzdžiui, Dž.Baidenas visai neseniai Vašingtone susitiko su Baltarusijos opozicijos lydere Sviatlana Cichanouskaja (A.Ilarionovas mano, kad ji iš tiesų gerokai daugiau surinkusi balsų nei Aliaksandras Lukašenka, todėl ji jau pirmąjame ture nurungė „Batką“, jei tik nebūtų klastojami rinkimų rezultatai). Tačiau apie šį susitikimą Baltieji rūmai nieko konkretaus, nieko oficialaus nepranešė. Tylėjo. Keista, mat kai Dž.Baideno patarėjai skambina Rusijos žvalgybos bosui, ši žinia plačiai reklamuojama oficialiuose JAV valdžios internetiniuose puslapiuose. Kodėl Dž.Baidenas, rinkiminės kampanijos metu labai garsiai šaukęs, jog visur rems demokratijas ir murkdys diktatorius, nenori garsiai prisipažinti, jog kalbėjosi su rinkimus Baltarusijoje laimėjusia, tačiau diktatoriaus į šoną nustumta S.Cichanauskaja? Dž.Baidenas bijo A.Lukašenkos? Dž.Baidenui – nusišvilpt į demokratiją?
Andrejus Ilarionovas. Slaptai.lt nuotr.
Tačiau Dž.Baideno susitikimas su S.Cichanouskaja, pasak A.Ilarionovo, bado akis pirmiausia dėl kitų priežasčių. Su S.Cichanauskaja rado laiko ir noro susitikti, o su į Vakarus einančiu, demokratiją kuriančiu, su okupantais narsiai kovojančios Ukrainos prezidentu V.Zelenskiu – vis nesusitinka. Per septynetą pastarųjų mėnesių nerado nei laiko, nei noro kalbėtis su V.Zelenskiu. Net telefonu vengė šnekėtis. Vieno oficialaus telefoninio pokalbio metu net numetė ragelį – nutraukė pokalbį. Beje, toks elgesys didžiojoje politikoje – nepriimtinas. Susitikimą su V.Zelenskiu suplanavo tik rugpjūčio 30-ąją, kai JAV Kongresas – atostogauja. vasaros pabaiga pasirinkta specialiai. Kad V.Zelenskio komanda turėtų kuo mažiau galimybių akis į akį šnekėtis su Amerikos kongresmenais, senatoriais. Mieliausiai, dažniausiai Dž.Baidenas šnekučiuojasi su V.Putinu – ne tik akis į akį Ženevoje, bet ir telefoninio ryšio pagalba, beje, nė karto nenumesdamas ragelio. Pasak A.Ilarionovo, Donaldas Trampas (Donald Trump) taip niekad nesielgė: prieš kalbėdamasis su V.Putinu pirmiausia surengdavo pokalbį su tuometiniu Ukrainos prezidentu Petro Porošenka.
Ką byloja toks Dž.Baideno elgesys? Kodėl jis nemyli Ukrainos? O jei nekenčia – ko konkrečiai nekenčia? Juk Dž.Baideno priešrinkiminė programa buvo labai proukrainietiška. A.Ilarionovas netiki versija, kad tokio pasikeitimo kaltininkė – Kinija. Esą atėjęs į valdžią Dž.Baidenas pamatė, jog tikrasis JAV priešas – ne Rusija, o didžioji Kinija. Ar Amerikai, atsūmusiai Ukrainą, bus lengviau tramdyti Kiniją?
Tikroji Dž.Baideo neapykantos Kijevui priežastis – jo sūnelio verslai Ukrainoje. Pasirodo, Ukrainoje vis dar nenutraukta baudžiamoji byla, kurioje įrašyta ir verslu šioje šalyje užsiėmusio Dž.Baideno sūnaus pavardė. Tereikia prisiminti, kaip 2015-2016-aisiais, dar nebūdamas JAV prezidentu, Dž.Baidenas šantažavo tuometinį Ukrainos vadovą P.Porošenką. Reikalavo, kad byla prieš jo sūnų būtų nutraukta, kad Ukrainos generalinis prokuroras, išdrįsęs pakelt ranką prieš jo sūnų, būtų nedelsiant pašalintas iš pareigų. Bet, pasirodo, Ukraina turi stuburą. Ji stengiasi korupciją pažaboti visose srityse. Ji, siekdama turėti draugų ir partnerių, neatsisako savarankiškos politikos, nesiruošia tapti pastumdėle, klusniai vydančia kiekvieną užgaidą. Taigi byla, kurioje minimas Dž.Baideno sūnus, Ukrainoje vis dar neuždaryta. V.Zelenskis ir negali, ir nenori kištis į teisėsaugos institucijų veiklą, grdi, tą Dž.Baidenui nemalonią temą vertėtų uždaryti „visiems laikams“.
Garry Tabax
Štai tokią nuomonę susidariau klausydamas A.Ilarionovo ir G.Tabaxo pašnekesio. Ar tai reiškia, jog galima teigti, esą dėl savo asmeninių reikalų Dž.Baidenas išduoda valstybinius reikalus? Ar galima manyti, jog Dž.Baidenas – nesąžiningas politikas, dėl į teisėsaugos akiratį patekusio sūnaus galimų klystkelių pasiryžęs šantažuoti Ukrainą, besiginančią nuo Rusijos agresijos (ukrainiečiai jau prarado 13 tūkst. karių).
A.Ilarionovas mano, kad Dž.Baideno neapykanta viskam, kas ukrainietiška (neskiria finansinės paramos, o jei ir duoda, tai – labai mažai; nesuteikia vlties, jog Ukraina artimiausiu metu taps NATO nare arba bent jau strategine JAV partnere; neduoda rimtų ginklų; neskuba akredituoti JAV ambasadoriaus Kijeve), – tėra asmeninis jo nusiteikimas. Neleistinas, netoleruotinas.
Laimė, taip elgdamasis Dž.Baidenas – gana vienišas. Jis neturi daug šalininkų. Tiek jo partijoje, tiek administracijoje, tiek Kongrese – daug politikų, kurie įsitikinę, jog Ukrainą būtina ginti nuo Kremliaus išpuolių.
Šiuos niuansus Lietuvos piliečiams, man regis, vertėtų įsidėmėti. Mums reikia žinoti ne tik, kas buvo Barakas Obama, Donaldas Trampas. Mums gyvybiškai svarbu susigaudyti, kas iš tiesų yra šiandieninis Amerikos vadovas Dž.Baidenas. Tačiau ar pagrindiniuose Lietuvos internetiniuose portaluose bei stambiausiose Lietuvos televizijos laidose nagrinėjama Dž.Baideno neapykantos Ukrainai tema?
Gabrielius Landsbergis. Foto by Dainiaus Labutis (ELTA)
Gintaras Visockas
Now, after the visit of the Lithuanian Minister G. Landsbergis to the South Caucasus, several cautious observations can be made. Undoubtedly, the visit was important. As many as three countries were visited: Armenia, Sakartvelo (Georgia) and Azerbaijan. No mistakes? The following information was published on the official website of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: „Minister G.Landsbergis: we believe that Armenia will remain on the path of democratic reforms”, „Lithuanian grove” inaugurated in Armenia”, „Minister G.Landsbergis: I call all Sakatrvelo political forces to focus on reforms” and „Minister G.Landsbergis: Lithuania is interested in closer relations between the EU and Azerbaijan”.
All the intentions are solid, hopeful, meaningful, commendable. Not the slightest reproach. Who could be outraged by calls to remain democratic, to implement reforms, to work more seriously with Europe?
There is only one suspicion – why the Lithuanian Minister’s trips to the South Caucasus were organized at the end of April – at a time when Armenia is commemorating the tragic events of 1915? There are suspicions that in such a subtle manner, official Vilnius has expressed special support for Armenia and at the same time hoped not to irritate Turkey, the NATO ally. But no matter how you will try to hide a stitching awl, it will come out of the bag. At the end of April Lithuanian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mantas Adomėnas paid an official visit to Yerevan. He came to Yerevan not to rest. The official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania states: „Deputy Minister M.Adomėnas participated in the commemoration of the 106th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide”. There are many photos in the public space showing how Deputy Minister M.Adomėnas puts a wreath at the monument. Let us also remember that G. Landsbergis’ visit to the South Caucasus started from Armenia, that G. Landsbergis started to plant a „Lithuanian grove” in the Lori region of Armenia – and we will have a detailed picture of the most important Lithuanian accents.
Mantas Adomėnas. Foto by Dainius Labutis (ELTA)
Of course, one can also remember that at the end of April, even the new US President Joe Biden named the tragic events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire as an „Armenian genocide”. Lithuania is just stepping on the path of its ally America. As if it has no other choice.
And yet the truth should be the most important, even more important than the political intrigues. Lithuania is small, weak. Unlike the big, powerful countries, it does not have the privilege of doing wrong – to suppress the truth in the name of political interests. If we do not seek truth and justice everywhere and always, we will not be able to demand truth and justice from others if we get into trouble ourselves.
And the truth is this: „Neither the President of the United States, nor the American Congress, nor Yerevan have a legal basis for calling 1915 a genocide.” These are not my words. This is according to Bruce Fein, an expert on US constitutional and international law, former adviser to US President Ronald Reagan.
Slaptai.lt publishes the Lithuanian translation of an interviewof this US lawyer given to one American television.
„Neither the US President, nor the American Congress, nor Yerevan have a legal basis to call 1915 genocide”
Bruce Fein, a lawyer who specializes in constitutional and international law, is being interviewed.
Although the U.S. Congress already recognizes the events of 1915 as a genocide, why is it important that President Joe Biden also made that public? Will there be any legal consequences?
Bruce Fein, former legal adviser to US President Ronald Reagan
No, it has no legal significance. This is a political statement. Biden, the Congress, and Armenians have no legal basis for calling 1915 a genocide. Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which entered into force in 1951, 70 years ago, states that any dispute concerning the existence of a genocide must be referred to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. For 70 years Armenians have had the opportunity to bring their charges to the Hague tribunal – an organization that is not politicized and does not accept political gifts. 70 years of silence on the Armenian side. Legally there is no basis for such a case, they used political gifts and political power to obtain political statements. I have no doubt that Mr. Biden did not really undertake any serious legal investigation into what the Genocide Convention means, what elements include a case of a genocide, and what happened in 1915. Has he ever read a decision of the European Court of Human Rights stating that the Armenian genocide was never confirmed, that the events of 1915 were never anywhere confirmed as genocide.
I think it would have been wise for Mr. Biden to call on Armenia to exercise its right to the Article 9. The International Court of Justice has waited for 70 years for Armenia to go to court with its arguments. Unfortunately, we know that politicians are motivated by political motives, but they are not motivated to find out historical facts. This, unfortunately, is a constant politicization that will move this matter away from decision. Genocide is named as the most heinous crime, so why does official Yerevan not hand over the material it has to the International Court of Justice? 70 years is a long enough time to make your own claims. Another matter that is no less important, Justin McCarthy has asked Armenia: why do you keep your archives closed? If you have a case that requires archives for evidence, why do you keep it closed? Biden’s obvious hypocrisy is also obvious when he says there is a case of genocide on the one hand, but on the other hand, Armenia and Turkey should meet and resolve the disagreements. But he has already settled the case before they meet! He has already said he is on the Armenian side. Why should Armenia give away what Biden has already given her?
You have written several articles on this topic. What is your personal opinion on the 1915 events?
Firstly, I believe that we cannot fully apply the elements of genocide described in the Genocide Convention to the actions that took place before the Convention was formulated. Even the term genocide did not appear in the common language until 1943. Thus, the law on genocide cannot be applied retroactively to 1915.
Secondly, it is also impossible to prove that the Turkish state at that time wanted to destroy part or all the Armenians because they were the Armenians. Let us take advantage of the Armenian statements they made at the Paris Peace Conference on 26 February 1919. There the Armenians kept repeating: in the wake of the war the sultan offered us the autonomy in exchange for a loyalty; we rejected it, we became fighters and enemies of Turkey. These Armenians were Ottoman citizens, so basically, they have chosen betrayal. They described themselves at the Paris Peace Conference as fighters. They stated at the conference that the number of perished Ottoman Turks equaled to the number of perished Ottoman Armenians. War is hell – our famous General William Tecumseh Sherman said. This was not the case with Jews and the Holocaust. No Nazi died in Auschwitz. Here, however, both sides suffered a terrible war. I believe there is a great resemblance to our own civil war against the confederate states of America. The southern states wanted to separate, although they did not have that right. They shelled Fort Sumter. A terrible civil war started. Hundreds of thousands were killed, but no one offered to name it genocide. They pursued the political goal – independence. The war broke out and the South lost. Southerners were immediately accused of treason, and the union was not accused of genocide.
The Ottoman Armenians sought the same separation from the Ottomans as the confederate states, believing that they would gain independence after the war. Their aspiration was not successful, the Paris Peace Conference did not give them independence, but that was their goal. Therefore, I do not believe, based on the Armenian arguments, that there is evidence that the Turks intended to destroy the Armenians because they were Armenians. The massacre was because Armenians united with Turkish enemies during the war, their aspiration was a political independence. When the genocide convention was being drafted, the destruction of the group because of its political approach was considered as a forbidden category, but it was rejected. This means that massacres (I am not saying there were no other violations of the law) for political purposes, such as independence, are clearly not genocide.
So, what are Turkey’s options, how it should continue to act and respond legally?
I believe that there is a possibility that Turkey could immediately go to the International Court of Justice on Article 9 itself, saying that we are offended by false accusations of genocide, and present excusing arguments. Armenia did have a chance to file its case that it was genocide. In that case, we would have already had a legally resolved issue that could be removed from politics.
Bruce Fein, former legal adviser to US President Ronald Reagan, and US President Joe Biden
It is clear that Armenians are well adapted to maneuver in the American political system. Tilt politicians to their side with gifts and other means. If you stay in the political atmosphere, without an impartial tribunal Turkey’s chances are very slim. This can be corrected. I work with a group in the United States called the Turkish Anti-defamation Alliance. It is trying to create an educational program about what the genocide law is, what the Armenian accusations are. To present a case that is systematic, rejecting weak arguments, such as: Armenians were slaughtered because they are Armenians, and rejecting the fact that they were enemies seeking political independence.
The reason for trusting going to court, is the nearest tribunal that has ruled on this issue – the European Court of Human Rights, of which Armenia is a member and Turkey is not. The court said there was never a proven Armenian genocide. This is a historical issue that cannot be answered definitively. And that’s what I suggest you consider. It has been in the political space for too long. These issues of genocide must be dealt by the international court of justice, not in the corridors of politics, because there are always hidden motives.
What will Lithuanian Deputy Foreign Minister Mantas Adomėnas answer to these arguments of Bruce Fein? Maybe these arguments are unknown to M.Adomėnas? How will Lithuanian Minister G. Landsbergis behave if Turkey refuses to protect the air space of the Baltic States with its fighter jets after M. Adomėnas’ voyage, to send its troops to defend the Baltic States from a possible Russian invasion?
Every year, on the eve of 24 April, disputes start how the West should commemorate the tragic events of 1915, when many Armenian people died in then Ottoman Empire.
It was very curious to hear, what the new US President Joe Biden would do. Biden’s predecessor republican Donald Trump avoided word ‘genocide’ in his statements on 1915 events. Barack Obama, in whose administration Biden was a Vice President, also did not use this definition.
Unfortunately, US President Biden yesterday, according to Armenian press, officially called the wars of 1915 as ‘genocide’. This statement is not binding, it is just a declaration. And it is a strange step by the 46th US President.
History is not politics. It is impossible to understand historical events by throwing out political statements. It is stupid and primitive to search who was right then, by voting in the Congress, the Senate or the White House. There is only one way to learn history – carefully study it in archives. Today’s situation is this: US congressmen and senators really do not know, what, how and why happened in 1915 between Turks and Armenians in the lands of the Ottoman Empire. Official Yerevan is to be blamed the most for the fact that the world still does not know the real truth about 1915. Yes, Armenia, unlike Turkey, still keeps its archives of this painful topic classified. Armenia did not respond to Turkey’s urges to all interested countries to unlock their archives, carefully review them and then sit at a round table and discuss all nuances and details. So, it will only be possible to say who shot, killed, starved when US historians will have a possibility to review Armenian archives (Turkish archives, as I have told, are open).
So, Biden’s hurry to make categorical conclusions without knowing the Armenian archives is a fateful mistake. Biden’s hurry to indulge Yerevan shows not the 46th US President’s morals, sensitivity, but his weakness and primitivity by succumbing to large lobbying influences. There are many Armenian lobby organizations in Washington, and he shamefully succumbed to them. If Biden cared about truth and justice, one question would have been enough for him: does America know what secrets Armenia hides in its archives? Hearing the answer about locked doors of Armenian archives, the principled President must have responded: until Yerevan opens its old manuscripts, there will not be an official statement by Washington.
Bruce Fein
Finally, before making strong statements, Biden should have asked what former law advisor of US President Ronald Reagan, Bruce Fein thought about this. This advisor of President Reagan has many times publicly stated that the White House has tried to carefully analyze the issue of ‘Armenian genocide’ using available information. This is his conclusion, which today is reminded by a publication Turkiye and Caucasus Online: ‘If the archives are opened, Armenians will have to apologize for misleading the world’.
In my opinion, Armenian researcher, historian, author of the book ‘Israel Ori. Pandora’s chest’ Philip Ekozians has the most sober view of the Armenian tragedy of 1915. Here is his comment, which he gave to slaptai.lt on January 20th, 2020:
‘The fight for recognition of ‘genocide’ is not a fight for the victory of justice. It is a fight to change one definition to another: calling the tragedy of all nations of the Ottoman Empire as genocide of one Armenian nation. It is clear to a smart person, that in such conditions, when the Ottoman Empire was fighting on several fronts, when there were several outbreaks of civic confrontation inside the country, which rose because of both religious and national reasons, it was very difficult to record this sad statistics, which today is manipulated by ‘victims of genocide’ (saying ‘victims of genocide’ I mean, of course, not those who were killed, God rest their souls, but those who today are trying to get financial and moral ‘royalties’ for their deaths). It is obvious, that today it is impossible to clearly uncover, what exactly happened in every city, every village, every part of the front. Does any one of us understand: who is killing whom and why in Iraq and Libya? Today we are using satellite connections, internet, media, video records, we have thousands of professional journalists working in hot spots. And we still cannot doubtlessly answer these questions. What to say about a hundred years old events!’.
Philip Ekozians
Balanced opinion of official Ankara is also worth attention: ‘Turkish Government recognizes the fact of the mass killing of Armenians, but stands against the use of term ‘genocide’ and states that the number of victims, claimed by Armenia, is too high. According to Ankara, Armenian deaths were not a result of a purposeful government policy, but the outcome of the civil war in the Ottoman Empire, which claimed Turks as victims as well’.
Unfortunately, official Washington spat at all arguments of Armenia’s opponents. And at the same time opened the famous Pandora’s chest. What do I mean? They not only drove away their NATO ally Turkey, but also set against themselves millions of Muslims across the world, also gave a right to their big and small critics to constantly ask: how should destruction of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki be called, how should we call wars in Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia’s bombings? Even attacks against red-skinned Americans could be remembered.
Joe Biden. EPA – ELTA foto
Another question by America’s opponents is also possible: is it worth to blindly believe every word of Washington, if the previous US President guaranteed territorial integrity to Ukraine with his signature in exchange for ‘giving up nuclear bombs’ and later US President forgot this public and solemn obligation?
In the beginning of April this year the official webpage of the State Security Department of Lithuania (SSD) published a report by Danish intelligence service, which states that threat of terror attacks in the Danish state remains high in 2021. The document, published by the Terror analysis centre under the Danish security and intelligence service, states that ‘radical Islamists, willing and capable of organizing attacks’ are still the biggest threat to the Kingdom of Denmark. Allegedly they plan to carry out terror attacks using both firearms and explosives.
XXX
Of course, not only radical Islamists, but also far right extremists, believing complicated theories about ‘Sionist plot’ or worried about ‘the fate of the suffering white race’ are also mentioned among the threats. But the Danish document focuses on Islamic fanatics, who, for example, are irritated by the French satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’, which published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed, and Quran burnings, initiated by Danish radical political party ‘Stram Kurs’.
Denmark. EPA – ELTA foto
Why did I remember this Danish document? It does not include a deep, serious analysis on who is responsible for emerging of ‘radical Islamists’. Those several short arguments, that, let’s say, one side considers caricatures of Prophet Muhammed as personal insult, and others understand such images as ‘freedom of expression’, – are too straightforward, too primitive. If we look at it like this (we are all understanding good people, they are baddies, who don‘t understand anything) we will not understand the real reasons of the confrontation.
We should take a deeper look at the topic of ‘radical Islamists’. Not only Danish, we all should. Those caricatures are only a striking case among many examples, of how wrongly we act communicating with Muslim states and later we are surprised why Muslims are angered, disappointed, insulted (raising this issue I do not justify killing, because taking a life is one of the worst crimes).
XXX
This is how the Paris tragedy in 2015 was reported in the portal slaptai.lt, then edited by me:
What happened in France is a horrible example of intolerance. Unfortunately, intolerance from both sides. Some of the caricatures, published in the journal, which has become tragically famous across the world, are simply disgusting, insulting, inciting religious enmity. What did their authors seek? Double standards are obvious. Insulting some is allowed, but not the others? Christians are allowed to mourn genocide, while Muslim victims are too few to be considered as genocide?
Bill Donohue, leader of Catholic League – a US organization ‘defending Catholic rights’ – made a press release called ‘Muslims have reasons to be angry’. In it, Donohue criticizes the journal’s tendency to insult believers across the world, including not only Muslims. ‘Murdered editor of ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Stephane Charbonnier ‘did not understand the role, with which he contribute to his own tragic death’, reads the statement.
So intelligence services of the European Union, in my understanding, should talk not only about consequences of ‘radical Islam’. Such reports should include the causes of this phenomena. Let’s analyze not only Muslim mistakes, let’s start seriously analyzing our own sins. What are our, European, mistakes? Saying this I do not invite to become submissive, abject. Let‘s not allow others climb onto our hears. Let‘s not allow our churches be turned into mosques. But if we want Muslims to respect us, we must respect their traditions, religion, symbols. If we see that they are irritated by the disgusting caricatures, maybe we should refuse them, even if freedom of expression provides a right to draw them?
But now it is chaos. We demand them to respect us, but we do not have to respect them?
XXX
By there are many more cases, when we act unacceptably. The disgusting ‘Charlie Hebdo’ caricatures of public burning of Quran are only the tip of the iceberg. We are demonstrating double standards much more often and more subtly. Not only Denmark or France. Let’s have a wider, deeper look. For example, I mean a successful victory of Azerbaijan (in the end of 2020 Muslim country in 44 days managed to reclaim most of the territories of Nagorno Karabakh, lost in 1992-1994). Did we congratulate Azerbaijan with this impressive victory (so far it is the only republic of the former Soviet Union, who managed to restore its territorial integrity, Georgians, Moldavians and Ukrainians are still struggling)?
Charlie Hebdo. AFP nuotr.
We did not congratulate them. It seems we cannot turn our tongue to rejoice in Azerbaijan’s achievements, because Azeri’s opponents are Armenian, that is Christian, separatists. Having not congratulated Azerbaijan, we also did not condemn Armenia, when it opened fire to civilian Azeri cities, which are not related to Nagorno Karabakh. Have we forgotten how in the second half of 2020 Armenian armed forces used powerful cannons to bomb Azerbaijan‘s old capital Gence and two smaller Azeri cities – Barda and Terter?! Women and children were killed in these attacks. Many residential buildings were destroyed. Did the great European capitals express sympathies to Azerbaijan over these attacks, organized by the Armenian armed forces? No, they did not. Why? Because Armenians are Christians?
XXX
Why didn’t we commend Turkey, who helped Azerbaijan take back its Nagorno Karabakh territories? It is also Ankara’s merit, that Baku managed to restore its territorial integrity. We did not congratulate or commend. Of course, such subtle silence and ignorance are not as disgusting as caricatures, but they are still painful. European tactlessness is the most obvious. Muslim world sees it, feels and analyzes it.
Turkish army
European tendencies regarding Turkey are obvious too. We did not commend Turkey when it helped Azerbaijan to forcefully drive out Armenian troops, neither when Ankara strongly defends Ukraine’s right to Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk and supplies Ukrainian troops with arms. Instead of commending Turkish government for principles in respecting territorial integrity of other countries, we criticize Ankara for real and imagined sins – for not sharing sea with Greece, making high EU official sit not in a central chair during an official reception, when democracy level does not comply with Brussel’s and Strasbourg’s standards. Muslim world sees, how tendentiously EU supports Greece and Armenia, conflicting with Turkey.
XXX
Here is another example, that does not make us more honorable.
We all know what UNESCO is. UNESCO is the specialized agency of the United Nations, aiming to contribute to strengthening peace and security in the world by developing cooperation among nations in the fields of education, science, culture and communication.
But does this organization always act correctly? Let’s look at the South Caucasus region. In the end of 2020, when Azerbaijan, helped by Turkey, in a military way took back Nagorno Karabakh, which belongs to it by international law, from Armenian separatists, UNESCO representatives started criticizing Azeri, saying they should not dare to destroy Armenian cultural, historical and architectural monuments. Looking from aside, such warning by an influential international organization is understandable. Carefulness does not harm.
However, throwing such suspicions at Azerbaijan is immoral, because those who know at least a bit about the history of this Muslim country, clearly know: Azeri have always been tolerant to other nations and other religions. Suspecting that after reclaiming Nagorno Karabakh, called the Black Garden, they would necessarily start avenging, that is destroying objects of Armenian culture, is primitive. By the way, as soon as it started liberation operation in 2020, official Baku, without any urges, stated that it would protect all Armenian, all Christian signs of architecture, history, culture. Azeri have never been vandals.
UNESCO
Official Baku also stated that it was not against UNESCO’s plan to send a special expert delegation to Nagorno Karabakh, which would follow how culturally, historically valuable Christian objects are protected in this region.
However, such energetic concern of UNESCO, whether Azeri would destroy, figuratively speaking, Armenian churches, is ambiguous. It speaks about the unsound morality of this organization, lack of principles, about applied ugly double standards. Why do I think so? A moral international organization, before starting to search for so called ‘cases of Azeri barbarism’ in the end of 2020-beginning of 2021 (not even a year has passed), firstly should examine how Armenian forces acted in this region for three decades (from 1994 to autumn of 2020). It firstly had to raise a question – how many of Muslim, Azeri heritage objects have been destroyed by Armenian supported separatists.
But UNESCO organization has never been interested in Armenian actions in Nagorno Karabakh in 1994-2020. While Azerbaijan’s Nagorno Karabakh was in the hands of Armenian separatists, Azeri government many times applied to UNESCO. It requested sending delegations, which would examine how Azeri cultural and historical objects are taken care of there. UNESCO ignored all Azeri requests. It would diplomatically steer away or justify itself saying it cannot intervene to issues of the international politics.
However, in 2020, when Yerevan started causing noise about allegedly endangered Christian masterpieces, UNESCO immediately expressed wish to examine ‘the real situation’. Double standard, not suitable for a solid international organization, are obvious. If efforts to examine objects of Azeri heritage in Nagorno Karabakh is politics, then concern about Armenian cultural objects in Nagorno Karabakh should be politics too? But UNESCO cares, it seems, not about seeing ‘the whole picture’ but only about finding at least a single example of unacceptable action by Azerbaijan.
But Azerbaijan is rejoicing that eventually UNESCO got concerned about Nagorno Karabakh and, let’s hope, seven nearby regions (which were also occupied by Armenian separatists). Because there are many cases of Armenian vandalism, when mosques were destroyed there, museums were robbed, Caucasian and Albanian architectural monuments were remade into Armenians, Agdam and Fizuli cities were destroyed to dust.
Karabakh
Despite indifference of the international community to the three decades of erasing Muslim heritage in Nagorno Karabakh, all that time Azerbaijan carefully recorded every case of Armenian vandalism. All barbarisms are registered in two catalogues: ‘Losses of historical and cultural monuments in occupied Azeri territories’ and ‘Catalogue of Azeri cultural monuments in Nagorno Karabakh’. These encyclopedias are translated to Azeri, English, Russian and French languages.
So it will not be difficult for sirs from UNESCO, arriving to Nagorno Karabakh, to search for the real vandals. But will they want to sincerely establish, how many architectural, historical, cultural monuments were destroyed by Armenian separatists?
Do you think the Muslim world does not see these slaps in the faces Do you think such European hypocrisy does not disappoint, irritate them?
XXX
The Danish intelligence‘s reports somehow does not include a single word about possible attacks of Armenian terrorist organizations in 2021. Today situation is complicated in Armenia. There are powers there that urge the countrymen to take arms and avenge, avenge, avenge. Azerbaijan and Turkey are the targets of Armenian paramilitary terrorist groups. You ask, what Denmark has to do with it?
Let‘s remember 1981, when an explosion took place in Copenhagen, near the office of Turkish transport company ‘THY’, and two Danish persons were seriously injured. One of Armenian terrorist organizations claimed responsibility for this attack. This was their alleged revenge to Turks for tragic events in 1915. Focus here – they took revenge not in Turkish, but in Danish territory, without any concerns that not only Turks, but also innocent Danish could be harmed.
That 1981 attack in Copenhagen is only one of the terror attacks, organized by Armenian terrorists in the West in 1973-2002, which claimed 70 lives, injured 524, where 105 were taken hostage and 12 of them were killed. Not only Turkish diplomats are among the murdered and crippled. Those were revenge acts by ASALA, Dasnakcutiun, Gncak and their related organizations against Turks in Denmark, France, Switzerland, Italy, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, Great Britain.
Aren’t such terrorist actions by ASALA, Sasnakcutiun, Gncak, which shook Europe for almost three decades, impossible today?
XXX
One of the last disgusting slaps in the face was the words, uttered by the 46th US President Joe Biden on 24 April this year, allegedly that the 1915 wars in the territories of then Ottoman Empire were ‘Armenian genocide’. Maybe. But we do not know. We cannot know. Armenia, unlike Turkey, does not allow researches into its archives. Therefore, I am surprised: how can one say there was or there wasn’t ‘Armenian genocide’ without thoroughly researching Armenian archives? For example, Bruce Fein, former law advisor to the US President Ronald Reagan, admits that during the administration of Raegan, Washington started researching the events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. However, this research was not finished. And still, from what they managed to collect, Fein came to conclusion: ‘if the archives are opened, Armenians will have to apologize for misleading the world’ (it is reported in publications ‘Turkiye and Caucasus Online’).
Joe Biden. EPA – ELTA nuotr.
So my beloved and respected America made the biggest mistake by underlining strong reproaches to Turks – they should have waited until Yerevan opens its archives.
Lithuania’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Mantas Adomėnas also made a bad mistake, by flying to Yerevan on the even of 24 April to pay respects to the victims of ‘Armenian genocide’. How could Adomėnas not know: Armenian archives are still carefully protected from foreign researchers. Member of Seimas Raimundas Lopata also made a mistake on 24 April, by urging states, who have not done so yet, to recognize the 1915 tragedy as ‘Armenian genocide’. Prof. Lopata, who in the past had an important position in the International relations and political sciences institute, must know: historians, scientists, politicians, who seriously look at history, firstly analyze archives of the conflicting side and only then make resolutions, decisions and publish laws.
Mr. Adomėnas and Lopata should listen to at least what Latvian Vice Minister and Defense Minister Artis Pabriks has written on his personal social network profile: ‘The position of the US President on the issue of the Armenian genocide will only complicate cooperation between two NATO countries when it is most needed. I can give similar advise to those Latvian parliamentarians who want to buy indulgences for themselves by sacrificing national interests’.
These are only several examples when we act without tact in communication with Muslim countries.
