Month: November 2006

“RIGHT OF CHOICE”: FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY BASED ON NATIONAL INTERESTS
Democratic Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
The foreign policy laid down by the national leader Heydar Aliyev
is continued with confidence by President Ilham Aliyev, enriching it
with new specifities
The power of every independent state is measured by its successes
in the field of foreign policy. Just countries upholding civilized
criteria, International law norms and principles can protect their
diplomatic interests with dignity and strive for crucial successes.
For the last 13 years the Azerbaijan Republic has been advancing with
confidence to the purposes of the important criteria. The realities
of the last 13 years allow to affirm that in all international and
regional issues official Baku is guided by the general principles
and prefers to establish equal relations with all states, and is
against “double standards”. Azerbaijan, advancing with confidence
on the path to building-up of democratic, lawful and secular state,
is based on progressive achievements in the field of foreign policy,
not allowing restrictions in any fields of society.
For the first years of independent Azerbaijan, incompetent politicians
turned out to be in power tried to set out a foreign policy guided
by non-real and obscure “principles” that led not only to regional
but also to international isolation of the country.
Instable political situation, anarchy, chaos and arbitrariness
prevailing in the country that time caused the information blockade and
unjust sanctions against Azerbaijan. When the Armenian aggression was
particularly wide-spread, no actions at a diplomatic level considering
bringing to the notice of international community the true situation
in the country were taken.
After return to power in 1993 the national leader Heydar Aliyev got a
chance to determine priorities of the country’s foreign policy based on
national interests. The great leader’s rich experience in government
and professional diplomatic skills allowed to eliminate uncertainty
in the country’s foreign policy, to regulate normal relations with
the major powers, and to develop dynamic bilateral and multilateral
relations. That time the Head of State faced with the necessity to
overcome double standards towards Azerbaijan; in addition, there
was clearly a need to convince the world in capabilities of our
state to step forth from independent positions in all issues. The
first Constitution of the independent Azerbaijan, developed under
the leadership of the great leader and adopted on November 12,
1995 by national elections, embodied the conceptual foundations,
purposes and principles of state foreign policy. Article 10 of the
Constitution says that Azerbaijan, guided by the International law
principles in accordance with the national interests, establishes
relations with other countries.
The balanced foreign policy laid by the national leader Heydar Aliyev
not only initiated the strategic concept designed for the conquest
of perspective purposes but also was directed to the strengthening
of Azerbaijan’s prestige and position on the international scene and
the solution of the national problems.
The national leader Heydar Aliyev’s foreign policy determined
Azerbaijan’s special place in the modern world, and laid the foundation
of new-quality international relations. Under the direction of
the great leader Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, relations with the
major powers and international organizations met completely the
national interests, and developed in the line of ascent, taking into
consideration the political perspectives.
The impressive successes of President Ilham Aliyev, the worthy
successor of Heydar Aliyev’s policy line are determined by his
devotion to permanent priorities and a single strategy of foreign
policy, and also by undoubted diplomatic talent. The Head of State
Ilham Aliyev makes unbelievable efforts to consolidate Azerbaijan’s
position in international organizations, to develop relations and
win-win relationship with the major actors worldwide. Against the
background of complicated and contradictory worldwide developments,
Ilham Aliyev has managed to strengthen more the political independence
and national security of our Republic.
Faced with the Armenian aggression Azerbaijan has determined a
priority of its foreign policy doctrine – representation in all
prestige international and regional organizations. The representation
in the organizations creates perfect opportunities for the prevention
of Armenian occupation and highlighting the true purposes of Armenian
policy. From this standpoint it is necessary to underline the special
role of the Council of Europe. The parliamentary delegation of our
country attending the sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe since January 2001, from the very beginning
represented Azerbaijan’s interests with dignity and this activity was
positive. Azerbaijani MPs’ activity was not restricted just within the
provision of the Republic’s prestige growth on the international scene
but also pursued a purpose to expose Armenian aggressive policy and
to oppose the Armenian false propaganda. As consequence of the done
activity, the PACE session which was held in January 2005, adopted
the Resolution 1416 which recognizes Armenia the state-aggressor
that illegally occupied Azerbaijani lands. PACE’s Resolution 1416
says that Azerbaijani territories are occupied by the Armenian armed
forces, the Nagorno-Garabagh region is still under the control of
separatist forces, and highlights to comply with United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and
884 (1993), in particular by refraining from any armed hostilities
and by withdrawing military forces from all occupied territories of
Azerbaijan. The requirements were also embodied in the Recommendation
1690 adopted by the PACE last year. Visiting the region in March 2005
the OSCE mission for studying facts in the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan confirmed the fact of Armenians’ mass illegal settlement
in the lands that was reflected in the OSCE final report.
For the last 10 years Azerbaijan has been developing relations not
only with the Council of Europe but also with the United Nations,
the European Union, OSCE, NATO, CIS, OIC, GUAM, the Organization for
Black Sea Economic Cooperation, International Monetary Fund, etc. The
co-operation with the organizations contributes to more elevation
of Azerbaijan’s prestige and realization of various international
projects. The Head of State Ilham Aliyev’s visit to Brussels this
May opened a new phase in relations of Azerbaijan with EU and NATO.
The strengthening of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, realization of
an active and flexible policy, consolidation of Azerbaijanis living
abroad in a single organized force, creation of lobby and diasporas
are on the focus of President Ilham Aliyev’s activity for the last
three years. The recruitment and structural transformations in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the opening of new diplomatic missions
in a number of countries can prove it.
At present Azerbaijan has established diplomatic relations almost
with 160 countries worldwide. Henceforth the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs recruits by test in order to provide diplomatic service
with the worthy personnel. That demonstrates Azerbaijan’s efficient
diplomatic activity, strengthening of its prestige and position,
and efficient use of diplomatic tools in foreign policy.
The enhancement of international cooperation is very important
for Azerbaijan aiming to propagandize social and economic progress
in the world. Azerbaijan’s rich natural resources, unique transit
potentialities connecting the East with the West, involvement in global
projects as the main party, and also a balanced foreign policy create
the good prerequisites for broadening relations with the major powers
worldwide. The successful realization of global economic projects is
urgent for Azerbaijan within the political end. At the meeting with
national diplomats Ilham Aliyev informed: “Today Azerbaijan pursues an
independent policy and this is the outstanding achievement. I.e. this
field has good chances that we have to use efficiently. Azerbaijan’s
growing economic potential, progress in foreign policy, and strategic
co-operation with the major powers open magnificent perspectives. We
use and them shall use efficiently further. The embassies that should
bring to the notice of international community the truth of Azerbaijan
play a great role in that.”
The embassies operating in different countries are obliged
to propagandize and to develop abroad the Azerbaijani language,
culture, art, progressive traditions and history of our nation. These
criteria as the fundamental political and ideological principles and
cultural wealth of every nation should be permanently at the centre
of attention of our diplomats. They are regarded as a cornerstone for
the provision of cultural-ethics unity of our compatriots abroad. For
that foreign embassies and diaspora organizations should demonstrate
high efficiency and influence public and political life of their
residence-country. Just in this case it is possible to overcome the
information blockade and to bring Azerbaijan’s realities to the notice
of international community.
Non-settlement of the Nagorno-Garabagh conflict is a serious source
of potential threat to the Caspian region. It is very important
that equally with governmental and non-governmental organizations
opposing the false propaganda of Armenian lobby, our embassies launch
a counter-offensive. International law norms, including principal
position of a number of authoritative organizations prove the
groundlessness of Armenian claims on Azerbaijani territories. The
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822, 853 , 874 and 884
respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,
and recognize inviolability of frontiers. The documents demand
particular by refraining from any armed hostilities and by withdrawing
military forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan. For the
last years official Baku’s diplomatic efficiency, and consistent and
system activity to bring to the notice of international community the
truth of regional developments are being observed. As a result, a lot
of countries recognize Armenia the state-aggressor, roughly violating
International law norms and principles. It causes the weakening of
official Yerevan’s diplomatic positions. According to I. Aliyev,
the processes progressing in Azerbaijan should be extremely clear for
the international community: “…There are strong Armenian lobbyist
organizations working against Azerbaijan. That’s why our embassies
should show their worth in this point. In the residence-country
they must work not only with different governmental but also with
non-governmental organizations, members of Parliament, mass media
and society. That will enhance our positions more.”
The Head of State highlighted that today Azerbaijan is broadening
relations with the leading countries worldwide and neighbors. Talking
of his official visits during the presidency, Ilham Aliyev pointed out
the international community’s interest in cooperation with Azerbaijan
in many fields. “…The visits demonstrate once more that international
organizations have a favorable opinion about Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
is respected and considered. In region related issues Azerbaijan
turns into a leading country. Win-win bilateral relations meeting
Azerbaijan’s national interests are established not only with neighbor
countries but also with other countries. Of course, we’ll reinforce
our bilateral relations with all countries further.”
Undoubtedly, the opinions, recommendations and commissions of President
Ilham Aliyev made at the meeting with the heads of national diplomatic
missions abroad are of great importance and are perceived as a concept
of MFA perspective activity. I. Aliyev expects more systematic and
successive work necessary for strengthening of the achieved foreign
policy successes, because some problems of Azerbaijan require strongly
the activation of efforts, particularly in the field of foreign policy.
Elshad Abdullayev, Chief of the Heydar Aliyev International Center
of Strategic Studies and Forecasting, Doctor of Law, Professor.

ARMENIAN HISTORIAN REJECTS “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”
Democratic Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
Levon Panos Dabagian: “Turkish history has never had genocide
against Armenians” While protest actions against the adoption of a
draft bill concerning the punishment for denial “Armenian genocide”
adopted by the Lower Chamber of the French Parliament are ongoing, the
Armenians living in Turkey decided to join to the process. According
to the Armenians, distinguishing with their more moderate approach
to the 1915 events rather than the Armenian diaspora, political
speculations developing around the so called “Armenian genocide”
complicates the process of improvement of the relations between Turks
and Armenians. Turkish Armenians informed that they condemn the draft
bill that is expected to be adopted by the Parliament of France and
stated that the document just serve for pre-election interests of
French political circles.
Mesrop Mutafian II, the religious leader of Armenians living in Turkey
also noted that such decision of the French Parliament won’t give
anything to Armenians but just make worsen unfavorable relations
between the two nations. In general, Mutafian’s view to the 1915
events (Patriarch do not call them genocide) are regularly critiqued
by Armenian diaspora and Yerevan political circles. According to
Mutafian, Turks as well as Armenians are directly relevant to the
1915 events. But as the Patriarch thinks, the both nation’s be better
leave behind this date and think over how to rehabilitate friendship
once existed between the nations, rather than to day, several decades
after that event to reveal who is to blame for that to a greater or
lesser extent.
Levon Panos Dabagian, Armenian historian living in Turkey also
thinks so. It is appropriate mention that Dabagian was one of the
first of few representatives of Armenian lobby who openly speaks
against “genocide” campaign. At the same time Dabagian considers
Armenian demands concerning the “genocide” groundless on the basis of
historical facts. The historian studying the history of the Ottoman
Empire’s Armenians for a long time published his own book entitled
“The history of Turkish Armenians” in 2003. It is known that right
away after the decision of French Parliament Dabagian appeared in
Turkish mass media and criticized such action of French MPs.
Dabagian confirms that throughout all Turkish history there were
never events even closed to Armenian genocide, and all statements
relating that are based on the political interests: “During World
War I Turkey deported Armenians living in its territory and it is
generally accepted but Turkey has never had conducted a genocide policy
against Armenians.” According to Dabagian, the decision concerning
the mentioned deportation was taken due to the wartime conditions:
“Anyway, the actions cannot be called genocide.”
It is appropriate mention that it concerns the “Law on Deportation”
adopted towards Armenians living on front-line in 1915, when in the
Eastern Anatolia the armed hostilities between the Ottoman Empire and
the czarist Russia were in progress. According to the law composed of
3 Articles, the Armenian population living there who excited rebellion
against the Ottoman armed forces had been deported to the territory
of non-armed hostilities, including the Middle East. In addition, the
multitude of Armenian population, not involving in the propaganda and
armed rebellion against Turkey were subjected to the deportation and
Turkey recognizes the fact today. But it was wartime and any state
would act in so way.
As the Armenian historian thinks, the majority of Armenians excited
rebellion in 1915 and living in the areas where armed hostilities
between the Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire progressed were not
indigene, and the Russians instigated them to the rebellion. He
informed that in World War I the western countries as well as Russia
had used the Armenians against the Ottoman Turkey: “Western world
decided to make use of Armenians and undermine the power of Turkey.
Thus, Russia, making use of the factor strived for the commencement
of the majority of armed conflicts by the Armenians removed to Turkey
from Russia.”
As the Armenian historian notes, while the event used to be discussed
between Armenia and Turkey, the majority of Western countries are
still trying to make use of it in their own political interests.
According to Dabagian, the use of the “Armenian genocide” in the issue
relating Turkish accession to the European Union has no in common
with the Armenian lobby activity in the United States and with the
majority of Armenians’ demands.
The Armenian historian’s such statement is very noteworthy. But
unfortunately, voices of such scholars as Dabagian are lost among
deceitful speculations of Armenian lobby and their supporters,
ongoing the groundless campaign for a long time. The Armenian false
to date is echoed in different countries worldwide that assume the
historical truth and even make use of it in their purposes as some
Western countries do it. The draft bill adopted by the Lower chamber
of the French Parliament can be exemplified once more.
Of course, it is impossible to say that Turkey makes absolutely no
efforts to counteract to the campaign. It is impossible to deny that
Turkey held just observance position for a long time as it did not
believe in Armenian successes. But for recent two years Turkey began
to undertake purposeful and complex steps, holding symposiums devoted
to “Armenian issue”, and organizing international conferences with
participation of the distinguished foreign historians.
One of the foreign scholars exposing Armenian false on international
scene, a British professor Andrew Mango made a report on the occasion
in Turkey. In speech the English scholar informed that one of the
key purposes of the dissemination of false information about Turkish
“deeds” by Armenians is to cover up their own actions committed against
the Azerbaijani nation. Talking of that he cited the Khojaly tragedy
as an example.
By holding such arrangements Turkey is trying to bring the issue to
the notice of international community, guiding by the historical facts
and truth, but not false fantasy. As it is known, last year Rajab
Tayyib Erdogan, a Turkish Prime-Minister offered to Robert Kocharian,
the Armenian President to set up a common commission for studying the
1915 events and following period. But the official Yerevan rejected
the proposal. Thus, the regulation of Armenian-Turkish relations
under such context is very a complex task.

THERE IS NO NOTION OF “ARMENIAN PEOPLE”
Democratic Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
“Release us from the captivity” was presented at the Azerbaijan
National Academy of Sciences Recently the book entitled “Release us
from the captivity” in close collaboration with the Institute of Human
Rights of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, State Commission
for War prisoner, hostage and missing’ issues, and “The way of grief”,
the Public Unity for war prisoner assistance was presented. The book
get up by Esmira Orujeva, informs about 753 war prisoners and missing
persons of Azerbaijan.
Rovshan Mustafayev, a Director of the Institute of Human Rights of
ANAS and Doctor of Political Studies informed that the book based
on concrete documents was get up in close collaboration with the
State Commission for War prisoner, hostage and missing’ issues and
its chairman Eldar Mahmudov. According to R. Mustafayev, such books
need a comprehensive discussion. In addition, he informed about the
Nagorno-Garabagh problem, and the Institute is dealt by with studying
of the crimes committed by Armenians against Georgian, Jewish and
Arabic nations: “Armenians’ criminal activity resulted in death
of 8 million persons in Egypt. We all bear a great responsibility
in connection with the problem. We have to know what problems are
expected us during settlement of the Nagorno-Garabagh conflict.” R.
Mustafayev, rejecting availability of such notion as “Armenian people”,
instead of that, suggests to use the term “Armenian ethno-corporative
organization”: “Kept silent MPs, disinterested officials and illiterate
scholars hold away us from the victory. But this victory is necessary
for us to become aware of ourselves as nation.” The Director of the
Institute, highlighting the importance of such books called all for
releasing our compatriots from captivity and following all instructions
of the President Ilham Aliyev.
Shahin Sayilov, a Secretary of the State Committee for War prisoner,
hostage and missing’ issues called the book “historical document”.
According to him, the State Commission has materials of each person
mentioned in the book: “When we speak of war prisoners, international
organizations and Armenians accuse us of interference into politics.
But the book denies these accusations.” The positive fact is that
NGOs made such a work. In addition, we’ve prepared English version
of the book, e-version of which we intend to prepare in future.”
Nizami Bahmanov, a head of the Shusha district executive power
informed that besides 753 missing mentioned in the book, there are
about 4600 our missing compatriots. N. Bahmanov assured of missing
persons’ relatives of that the Government attaches a great importance
to the problem. In addition, he informed that the book will be sent
to international organizations and the Council of Europe.
Ganira Pashayeva, a Member of Parliament called all to act: “To
date the facts relating war crimes are on agenda of international
organizations. Unfortunately, we have no materials to submit to the
international organizations. Because of that they suppose that by
holding talks on this subject we interfere into politics. Thus, the
book will help us in this point.” Expressing dissatisfaction about
inactivity of Azerbaijani community in respect to the Nagorno-Garabagh
conflict G. Pashayeva made a proposal to eliminate such tendency: “The
Nagorno-Garabagh problem should be discussed at schools, universities,
and in families, otherwise we can stray from the subject as we strayed
from Zangazur and our other lands. There is clearly a need to transform
this issue into a part of national thinking and ideology.” MP considers
bringing the problem to the notice of international community more
purposeful: “It is necessary to discuss the problem with scholars
worldwide. For instance, when we left for Hungary for the protection
of Ramil Safarov, I did not find any book concerning Azerbaijan in
library of this State that is very a sorrowful fact. We have to use
with the fact that films concerning the human rights are transmitted
free abroad”.

ARMENIA PRESIDENT TO GERMANY TO TALK ON COOPERATION PROSPECTS
ITAR-TASS, Russia
Nov 15 2006
YEREVAN, November 15 (Itar-Tass) – Armenian President Robert Kocharyan
on Wednesday embarks on a three-day working visit to Germany in order
to discuss prospects for political and economic cooperation between
the two countries.
The Armenian president will meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
Bundestag chairman Norbert Lammert and Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit.
Together with the Bundestag head Kocharyan will attend an opening
ceremony of the new Armenian Embassy building in Berlin.
In recent years, the Armenian-German political dialogue has noticeably
intensified, the republic’s presidential staff said.
Armenian officials explain it, on the one hand by the growing interest
of Germany and the European Union toward the South Caucasus region
and on the other – importance Yerevan attaches to European integration.
Armenia attaches major importance to the political dialogue with
Germany both in the context of bilateral relations development and
European and North Atlantic cooperation, the Armenian presidential
administration officials stressed. In particular, they hope for
considerable support of Germany in issues of the development of
cooperation with South Caucasus countries within the framework of the
“European neighbourhood policy” of the EU by way of the development
and implementation of specific programmes.

NOBEL AUTHOR: MY WORDS CAN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
By Elizabeth Gudrais
Journal State House Bureau
Providence Journal, RI
Nov 15 2006
PROVIDENCE – Speaking at Brown University last night, the novelist
who brought Turkey its first Nobel Prize sought to turn attention to
his writing, rather than his actions.
Even during a panel discussion on censorship and freedom of expression,
Orhan Pamuk spoke of broad trends, rather than the situation in his
home country.
Pamuk, 54, won the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and the Swedish
Academy, which confers the prizes, gave only literary reasons in
its announcement. Still, there was a political subtext to giving
the award to Pamuk. He was charged last year with insulting Turkish
identity by denouncing, in an interview with a Swiss magazine, the
Ottoman Empire’s mass killing of Armenians during World War I. After
much publicity, and speculation that restraining free speech might
jeopardize Turkey’s entry to the European Union, the case against
Pamuk was dropped on a technicality in January.
The salt-and-pepper-haired Pamuk answered audience questions on his
craft with considerably more fervor than he did questions on politics,
nationalism, Turkish identity and the like. At one point, he quipped,
“The real punishment the Turkish state gave me was political questions
like this.”
In an interview after the Nobel announcement last month, Pamuk told
The New York Times he is “essentially a literary man who has fallen
into a political situation.” Fittingly, he sidestepped one pointed
question last night.
A student began by saying that Pamuk’s novel The New Life had changed
her life – as in the novel’s first line, which reads, “I read a book
one day and my whole life was changed.” The student said she read it
in Turkish at age 14, that it was “the first serious book” she read,
and that it opened the world of literature to her.
Then, she asked Pamuk whether, in the interview that prompted the
charges against him in Turkey, he deliberately avoided using the word
genocide. (The heart of the controversy is that the Turkish government
denies the killings constituted genocide.)
Pamuk’s aggravated response: “Can I pull myself out of this question
for awhile?
“I don’t want to go into it,” he said, then went on to the next
question.
The discussion – part of Brown’s weeklong event titled “Strange Times,
My Dear: A Freedom-to-Write Literary Festival” – offered insight into
the way Pamuk views his work.
Pamuk aspired as a child to become a painter and attended, but did not
finish, architecture school. He said yesterday that he sees himself as
“a visual writer.” With some authors, he said, “narration of the drama
and dialogue are more important to them than painting the picture.” In
his case, he said he would write a murder scene including a description
of the flowers growing in the field alongside the body, as well as a
description of the corpse itself. ” ‘There’s a killing and a lot of
blood all over’ – I’m not that kind of writer,” he said.
The discussion also offered delightful tidbits about Pamuk’s methods.
For instance, he’s no longer a night person. Pamuk said he used to
write consistently until 4 a.m. and sleep consistently until noon,
but that has changed since his daughter, Ruya, was born in 1991. He
now wakes around 5 a.m. to write for a couple of hours before waking
Ruya and taking her to school, he said.
Pamuk also said he still writes his manuscripts by hand. By the time
the computer became a household fixture, he said, “I was already
writing for 20 years. I decided I didn’t want to change.”
He said he tried a computer, but found the light from the screen hurt
his eyes. “It’s like writing in front of an aquarium,” he said.
Before the solo question-and-answer session, Pamuk participated in a
panel discussion – titled “Warning: Writing May Be Hazardous to Your
Health” – alongside three other authors who have faced censorship of,
and persecution for, their writing.
Pierre Mumbere Mujomba, the Congolese author of The Last Envelope,
a commentary on the excesses of the Mobutu regime in the former Zaire,
spoke about how writers, musicians, journalists and religious leaders
are all censored in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Iranian writer Shahrnush Parsipur spoke about how she was imprisoned
four times for her writings, which are banned in her home country,
available only on the black market.
She and fellow Iranian author Shahryar Mandanipour said freedom of
expression is blatantly repressed in Iran, but that such repression
exists elsewhere, including in the United States, in less blatant
forms. They said writers may be silenced just as effectively by
inspiring a climate of fear through surveillance and government
secrecy as by throwing writers in jail or executing them.
“In Iran, it’s very clear,” Parsipur said. “In other countries,
it’s hidden.”
As chairwoman of the Writers in Prison Committee for International PEN,
a group that supports freedom of expression, Joanne Leedom-Ackerman
publicizes the cases of writers imprisoned, or threatened with prison
sentences, for their writings, and advocates for those writers’
release.
She said yesterday that she sees her work as “insisting on the role
of the individual in society,” and as a celebration of the power of
the individual vis-À-vis society.
“You can imprison a person’s body,” Leedom-Ackerman said. “You can
confiscate his computer. You can burn all his books. You can torture
him. You cannot – cannot – take away his imagination.”
The festival continues today with a panel on trends in Iranian
literature and readings by Mandanipour and Parsipur. Salman Rushdie,
the Indian author who went into hiding after Ayatollah Khamenei of
Iran called Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses blasphemous against Islam
and offered a bounty for Rushdie’s death, will speak tomorrow and
give two readings on Friday. The festival concludes Friday evening
with screenings of several Iranian films.
The full schedule is available at brown.edu/web/strange_times/ or by
calling the Brown events office at (401) 863-2474.
–Boundary_(ID_/G30U64u+zWGbBFTjbjzZA)- –

FRAGMENTATION OF IRAQ CANNOT BE A WAY OUT, GUL
Anatolian Times, Turkey
Nov 15 2006
ANKARA – “Some circles try to show fragmentation of Iraq as a way
out. Such an approach, which will certainly drag Iraq into a chaos,
cannot be Turkey’s policy. The mistake that were made at the beginning
of Iraq war cannot be repeated,” Turkish FM & Deputy PM Abdullah Gul
said on Tuesday.
Commenting on Turkish-U.S. relations, Gul said, “our relations with
the USA cover a wide range and are directed towards similar targets.”
He said fight against terrorism was the main concern of Turkey and
the USA.
Briefing MPs at the parliament about recent developments in Iraq, Gul
said Turkey, from the very beginning, did its best for a democratic and
well-administered Iraq, which also preserve its territorial integrity
and political unity.
“Unfortunately, we are sorry to see that sectarian acts of violence
escalated in Iraq and the security, generally speaking,is worsened,”
Gul noted.
“Another issue on which Turkey feels uneasy is the future status of
Kirkuk,” Gul indicated, and noted that the ambitious policies carried
out on this matter were very dangerous.
-PKK/KONGRA-GEL-
Pointing to the presence of members of PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorist
organization in (northern) Iraq, Gul said fight against terrorism
can only succeed in case all support coming from abroad is stopped.
-MIDDLE EAST-
Underscoring that Palestine-Israel conflict was on the basis of the
problems in the Middle East, Gul said Turkey believed that the only
way out was through (the establishment of) two-states (Palestine and
Israel) living side by side.
Commenting on sending of Turkish peacekeepers to Lebanon, Gul
added, “not only military but also members of NGOs and humanitarian
organizations were sent to this country. This proves that Turkey is
a reliable partner as regards preventing clashes and human tragedies
in its region.”
-IRAN-
“Turkey closely monitors the developments regarding Iran’s nuclear
program. Turkey exerts efforts to solve this problem through diplomatic
means” Gul said.
“Turkey supports the right of all countries to take advantage from the
nuclear technology for civilian purposes,” Gul said, indicating that,
“Turkey deems proliferation of nuclear weapons as a serious security
threat.”
-ARMENIA-
Touching on relations with Armenia, Gul said, “Turkey expressed its
willingness to normalize relations with Armenia within the framework
of good neighborhood, mutual interest and respect to territorial
integrity. Armenia has not yet displayed a similar approach.”
-RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA-
Gul said Turkey considered relations with Russia from a positive
point of view, noting that recent reciprocal high ranking visits
strengthened mutual confidence.
Turkish FM indicated that Turkey has become Russia’s second biggest
trade partner last year with a trade volume of 15-billion USD . “We
hope to raise this figure to 20 billion by the end of this year and
to 25 billion USD in 2008,” he said.
-GREECE-
Gul said Turkey deployed efforts to solve problems with Greece
through dialogue and underlined that Turkey’s objective is to raise
the bilateral trade volume with this country to 5 billion USD.

JOSE LUIS CRUZ FACES ARCHAK TER-MELIKSETIAN ON UNDERCARD
The Sweet Science
Nov 15 2006
Bobby Pacquiao (27-11-3, 12 KOs) defends his WBC Continental Americas
Lightweight Championship against Hector “El Artillero” Velazquez
(45-11-2, 1NC, 32 KOs) in the 12-round main event of the next VERSUS
Fight Night card in conjunction with Top Rank Boxing on Thursday,
November 16, at 9 PM/ET from the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las
Vegas. The undercard features an 8-round Super Welterweight showdown
between Jose Luis Cruz (33-2-2, 28 KOs), the former Mexican champion
against Archak “Shark Attack” Meliksetian (16-4, 13 KOs).
The 26-year-old Pacquiao, who hails from General Santos City in the
Philippines, currently holds Continental Americas super featherweight
title. He has three wins in his last three fights, defeating former
world champions Kevin Kelley (June, 2006), Carlos Hernandez (October
2005) and Carlos Navarro (June, 2005). In his last bout on June 10
at Madison Square Garden, he KO’d Kelley in the fourth.
Velasquez, from Tijuana, Mexico, has been fighting professionally
for 13 years. In his last fight on September 1 in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, he won a 12-round unanimous decision against Yuri Voronin. He
also won a 10-round decision over Guadalupe Hernandez (June 17, 2006)
and TKO’d Adnan Amador in the second round (May 20, 2006). Prior to
those three wins he lost to Manny Pacquiao by KO in 2005.
Cruz, from Mazaltan , Mexico is the former Mexican welterweight
champion. A 10-year veteran, Cruz, has been in the ring with some of
boxing’s best. He has lost two fights in a row, both by decision, to
former world champions Sharmba Mitchell and Shane Mosley. He TKO’d
Vince Thompson in the 8th round on June 14, 2005. He also sports
a draw with Carlos Baldomir and a KO victory over WBC welterweight
champion Jorge Vaca.
Meliksetian, from Armenia, replaces Anthony “The Messenger” Thompson,
who suffered an eye injury and had to withdraw from the card. The
hard-hitting Meliksetian, who fights out of Paterson, NJ, earned a
four-round TKO over Dillon Carew in his last fight on September 15.

SYSTEM OF A DOWN LEND MUSIC AND VOICES TO SCREAMERS
-Jason MacNeil
Chart Attack, Canada
Nov 15 2006
System Of A Down
System Of A Down have lent “their voice, music, and support” to a
documentary entitled Screamers.
The film, directed by activist Carla Garapedian, had its world premiere
earlier this month at the AFI Film Festival in Los Angeles.
It was shot while the band toured Europe and the U.S. behind their
Mezmerize and Hypnotize releases.
The film’s website explains that it revolves around the personal
story of SOAD singer Serj Tankian’s 96-year-old grandfather, Stepan
Haytayan, a survivor of the 1915 Armenian genocide. The film shows
the band visiting different locations and hearing stories of genocide
while on tour.
“System Of A Down have always worked to spread the message about
official Armenian Genocide Recognition within the U.S. and other world
powers that have yet to formally acknowledge that it took place,” the
group write on their website. “The band felt compelled to work with
this unique project that hauntingly illustrates how the denial of those
crimes lead to more genocides of the 20th Century – from the Holocaust
to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda… and all the way to present-day Darfur.”
The film includes interviews with the band members, all of whom
are grandchildren of genocide survivors. Seven live System Of A
Down performances are also featured, including “Holy Mountains,”
“P.L.U.C.K.” and “B.Y.O.B.”
Screamers will arrive in theatres in select American cities on Jan.
12 following an exclusive limited engagement starting in Los Angeles
on Dec. 8. There’s no word yet on a Canadian release date.
0.cfm

THE EU COMMISSION’S “SHAMEFUL” REPORT
Oktay Eksi (Hurriyet)
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Nov 15 2006
The EU Commission’s progress report on Turkey, which had been prepared
for months, delayed once, and whose contents everyone was curious
about, was finally released yesterday. What the report revealed was
nothing too surprising, in fact, it went over things which were already
known. Like that we need ot bring our military-civilian relations in
line with EU standards.
It’s true-but in order bring about these standards in that arena,
the current political administration must leave off its policies which
carve away at the foundation of the secular republic. Unfortunately,
these policies continue. The main opposition CHP, which should be
the first in line to protect secularity, is content instead to stand
back and just regard secularity with love and respect. Which is why
the military steps in, saying “secularity is not a political matter,
but a basic part of life.”
Let’s hope the EU excuses us but…..in Turkey, with things the way
they are, there is no way military-civilian relations can be brought
to any level which is going to please the EU. And so, what will happen
if they don’t? Well, maybe Turkey won’t be able to get into the EU,
due to the role its military plays, but at least, and more importantly,
its secular order will stay in place.
Yesterday’s EU progress report on Turkey also issues a complaint about
the 301st article from the Turkish Penal Code, saying “it is being used
to limit expressions of thought which do not contain any violence.”
Maybe the EU has a free pass to comment on every matter there is,
but it was the EU itself who ignored Turkish protests on this 301st
article when it was first accepted in its current form. And now the
EU is ignoring the fact that even some of its member countries have
similar laws on their books. Most EU countries, including Austria,
France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium all have laws calling for jail
sentences for people denying the Holocaust, or who publish anti-semitic
work. Add to this the new tilt towards making it a crime to deny the
Armenian genocide allegations. Don’t all these things also fit into
the category of “limiting expressions of thought which don’t contain
any violence”? Which is why I say, let the EU first clean up its own
house before it takes on Turkey in this arena.
By this, I do not mean that we should protect the mistakes we have in
our own legal system. Of course we need to straighten them out. All
I’m saying is that those who can’t see the speck in their own eyes
should really look in the mirror before criticizing us.
The EU progress report also contains an expression of the EU desire for
Turkey to open up its air and sea ports to Southern Cypriot airplanes
and ships.
This desire is understandable, since Turkey, in order for the EU
accession talks to start up in December 2004, gave its word to follow
the 1963 Ankara and 1996 Customs Union agreements as they pertain to
Southern Cyprus. It gave its word, true, although before that point,
there was a promise from the EU that isolationary measures against
Northern Cyprus would be lifted with a resounding “yes” to the Annan
Plan. And now the EU, which was not able to keep its previously
made promise, wants Turkey to keep its part of the promise, also
previously made.
Do these Europeans think they are the smartest people in the world?
A person can want demand certain things, but only if they are in the
right position…..

ARSHILE GORKY — EARLY DRAWINGS
By Andrea K. Scott
The New York Times
November 10, 2006 Friday
Late Edition – Final
In 1932 Arshile Gorky outlined his influences for the art dealer
Julian Levy: “I was with Cezanne and now naturally I am with
Picasso.” Mr. Levy replied that he would exhibit the Armenian-born
New York painter “when you are with Gorky.”
Mr. Levy would not have been wowed by this modest if instructive
show of 21 drawings, all but one sketched in graphite or ink between
1928 and 1935. This was several years before Mr. Gorky evolved from
a brilliant self-taught student of European Modernism to a rapturous
innovator, whose Surrealism-charged spin on non-objective painting
paved the way for Abstract Expressionism.
Drawing was crucial for Mr. Gorky — he called it “the basis of art”
— and he made thousands of works on paper before his suicide in 1948,
at 44. But those hoping for a coda to the Whitney Museum of American
Art’s dazzling 2004 retrospective of Gorky drawings should adjust
their expectations.
These elegantly framed but mostly rudimentary sketches belonged to
Mr. Gorky’s student and friend Hans Burkhardt, the Swiss painter who
probably salvaged several from piles that his mentor planned to abandon
while relocating his studio from Greenwich Village to Union Square in
1930. (Or so speculates the art historian Melvin P. Lader, in an essay
that accompanied an expanded version of this show in Los Angeles.)
Still lifes predominate. The best, made around 1935, depict tabletop
arrangements of organic forms (recalling Arp and Miro) that resist
recognition, but imply function; one biomorphic blip sports a circle
inscribed with a dash that looks uncannily like the head of a screw.
Some locate their forms against lines that evoke corners, windows and
doors, reminiscent of the interior spaces in the artist’s magnificent
series, also from the early 1930s, “Nighttime, Enigma and Nostalgia.”
There is one late work here, an assured pencil-and-crayon study on
poster board from 1945 (the year Mr. Levy finally gave Mr. Gorky a
show). The wiry, graceful composition is anchored in the center by
a seductive slash of orange, a welcome, colorful note in a show of
minor works by a major 20th-century artist.