Month: November 2006

REGIONAL GOVERNOR IN EASTERN UKRAINE CRITICIZES RULING PARTY

Ukrayina Moloda, Ukraine
Nov 9 2006

Kharkiv Region governor Arsen Avakov has said that the Party of
Regions did not keep its promises made during the parliamentary
election, in particular, regarding language, NATO and people’s
well-being. The following is the text of Avakov’s article headlined
"November propositions" published by propresidential newspaper Ukrayina
Moloda on 9 November. Original subheadings have been retained:

Conclusions on the Rubicon: why did the "blues" win, what mistakes
did the "oranges" make, and is it all right to betray principles.

Weary of the hustle and bustle, the yellow leaves of autumn are
falling. Parting with their leaves, the branches of trees decked with
the blue ribbons of the election winners are growing bare everywhere.

The ribbons are being bared and so are the intentions… [ellipsis
as published]

Leaves, painted the brilliant colours of emotions, are falling to
the pavement, and so, too, are promises, laying bare the blatantly
crude nature of the true positions and promises of politicians.

Nobody is disturbed by the lies, which are becoming obvious.

Deceived yet again after the 2006 elections, society is not even
attempting to analyse the reasons for having been deluded or, more
precisely, self-deluded.

But let us nevertheless examine the key promises of the Party of
Regions, which enabled it to gain a victory in the elections.

Promise number one. Language.

It is easy for me to talk about both the problems of the Russian
language and the problem of the Ukrainian language, because I myself
am practically entirely the product of Russian-language culture. Yet
despite that I consciously consider myself a supporter of the position
that Ukrainian is the only state language in our country; Russian is
the main language of intercourse in the eastern and southern regions
of Ukraine, and nothing more.

I see no problems in communication between Russian speakers and
Ukrainian speakers. These problems arise once every four years,
only before elections. The problems are artificial, premeditated,
make-believe in form, and provocative in content. Because no serious
politician can fail to understand that the State of Ukraine has the
right and is obliged to support the Ukrainian language, if for no
other reason than because Armenia supports the Armenian language,
Russia -the Russian language, Germany -the German language.

Ukrainians, the citizens of this state, and the Ukrainian state must
support the Ukrainian language, because language, among other things,
is the basis of the nation’s culture, its self-identification.

It so happened that for many years the peoples within the borders of
the Soviet Union, in a single polyethnic space, worked together to
create a unique, beautiful culture, the quintessence and expression of
which was the Russian language. It was in the Russian language that
countless cultural masterpieces and artistic monuments were created,
incorporating the entire polyethnic esthetic of cultures from Georgia
to Ukraine, from Moldova to Kazakhstan, from Russia to Armenia. I
love this culture. I grew up in it, and I value highly its beautiful
monuments created in the Russian language, the "great and mighty." And
it is absolutely obvious to me that the Russian language will always
continue to be used and respected in Ukraine. For the educated,
cultured individual, it will always be a vital fount of knowledge,
along with other languages.

But the Ukrainian language -beautiful, melodious, born on this land
– is as natural here as the air that the sons and daughters of this
land breathe, loved by many, many millions of Ukrainians, both ethnic
and those whom fate has bound to this land. It always has been,
is, and must remain the foundation of a unique Ukrainian culture,
of the nation’s spiritual essence, which is the basis on which true
statehood is built.

How long will this inherently unnatural conflict between Russian and
Ukrainian last in Ukraine? Unfortunately, just as long as we, the
generation of people who were born and lived in the Soviet Union,
remain alive – the generation that was the author of this unique
polyethnic Russian-language culture.

And, therefore, it will be our lot to hear many more elections promises
like the one offered by the Party of Regions as the leading proposition
in the 2006 election. This promise to restore Russian as the state
language was largely responsible for the victory of the "Regionals."

This promise is a mirror that reflects the secret hope of a large
number of voters… [ellipsis as published]

Let us imagine, for example, a very learned professor, a wise man, an
intellectual, who lectures at, let’s say, Kharkiv State University. A
true specialist, whom overzealous ministry officials suddenly force
to deliver his brilliant lectures in Ukrainian. And this turns into
torture for the professor!

No doubt that, somehow or other, every lecturer can master a
language, but for some this poses a very serious problem, especially
in the case of an older individual who grew up and was raised in a
Russian-speaking environment, understands it, and feels comfortable
in it… [ellipsis as published] Yet government officials demand that
this individual teach his subject in Ukrainian. And his wonderful
lecturers lose all their brilliance, even though they are delivered
in the state language. In this case, the lecturer, in his heart of
hearts will always set aside any other moral imperatives and based on
his innermost desire will vote for the one who proclaims be it even
a populist but still so appealing to him slogan: "Russian should be
the second state language!" And he will not care whether or not this
proposition leads to a split in the country, to social conflict,
because this promise reflects his wish… [ellipsis as published]
Therein lies the reason for so many votes in support of an empty
phrase, devoid of common sense and elementary culture.

The other side of the coin. What has caused such a metamorphosis in the
consciousness of people for whom Russian is their native language,
the language in which they think and create? Surely the radical
actions of political marginals, the extremely strident statements
by national-patriots, who demand everything and immediately, only
this and literally right now. It is they who have provoked such a
feeling of revulsion against the Ukrainian language among a part of
our intelligentsia.

A government official must deal with tact, sensitivity, and respect
with an issue as delicate as the relationship between languages during
this transitional period in the life of our society.

Promise number two. The anti-NATO promise.

This promise contains equal parts of deception and false propaganda.

The deception lies in the fact that the "Regionals" know perfectly
well that NATO is a broad, modern, international platform and not
the worn-out cliche of an "aggressive military bloc." The falseness
of the propaganda -in the methods used to stir up opinion similarly
to the attacks of the "cold war" period. All the "Regionals" lacked
to complete the picture were the caricatures by the Kukryniks tandem.

It is clear that behind this promise lies a ruthless pro-Russian
order. It is clear that the manipulation of people’s expectations
(everyone expects a peaceful sky) is best done with the help of
fearmongering. Unfortunately, the pressure of Soviet propaganda
has left such a strong imprint on the minds of ordinary people that
anti-NATO sentiments have been very easily resurrected. The current
attempt to shape attitudes towards NATO through a referendum is
cynical. Cynical, because it is very easy to achieve the expected
result: whip up hysteria with the help of leftist marginals and then
drive people to a banal conclusion: I don’t know what NATO is, but
I’ll vote against just in case.

Very important in this respect is the awareness of one universal
fact. NATO is not the one calling on Ukraine to join its community
-it is Ukraine that should be seeking to become a member of this
organization. Just as Ukraine has made joining the European Union
its goal. It is Ukraine, first and foremost, that needs membership in
NATO. The reasoning that, see, Russia is allegedly not seeking to join
the West and we should follow her example is mistaken and dangerous.

At one time France showed the whole world the art of compromise in
foreign policy. Before de Gaulle came to power in 1958, France was
a full-fledged member of NATO – not only American bases but also
the governing bodies of NATO were located on French territory: the
alliance’s Council, Secretariat, and Supreme Headquarters. Moreover,
a contingent of French troops was assigned to the composition of NATO
forces under American command.

In de Gaulle’s view, all this infringed on French interests. The
dependence of Western Europe in security matters was turning into
political dependence. Fearing that France would be drawn into conflicts
that had no bearing on her interests, France left the North Atlantic
bloc in 1966 and assumed a special status. The NATO bloc adapted
to this state of affairs. Paris did not participate directly in the
work of NATO’s military bodies, but maintained missions in them to
coordinate actions. France participated in the work of certain bodies
of NATO’s military-technical infrastructure.

The most important dilemma – combining solidarity with NATO with
an autonomous status in the bloc – was resolved professionally and
diplomatically. De Gaulle’s actions set a trend, especially apparent
in our own time (the independence of the members of the North Atlantic
bloc from the US is growing).

Perhaps Ukrainian politicians should also seek a similar approach
in order to reach a compromise in foreign policy and especially in
domestic politics.

Russia’s tough and irreconcilable policy towards NATO is not a model in
this case. Russia is a completely different country. A rich, ambitious
country, with a strong authoritarian orientation, an imperial ideology,
and actions that are not always well-timed.

"Ukraine is not Russia," as former President [Leonid] Kuchma said. In
that (and not only in that) I agree with him. We have chosen a
European course of development, we are fighting for democracy, we do
not have the natural resources they have, and we are energy-dependent
on Russia. Where we are alike is in that we are also ambitious –
Ukraine is trying to prove to herself, to Russia, and to the world at
large that she is not a borderland but an independent European state.

For that reason, the Regionals’ reversal towards the older brother
is essentially a betrayal of Ukraine, the betrayal of her national
interests. I use such strong language, because I am neither a
Russophobe nor a Russophile. I am a patriot of Ukraine; I find it
extremely offensive that I and my country are being deceived. Doubly
offensive when this is being done by my fellow countrymen.

The "anti-crisis" coalition has decided to undertake a serious revision
of the country’s foreign policy course. And we need to understand
clearly that statements by the new government that shock the world
community are ringing out one after another not for the sake of
carrying out its election promises. The goal is much more serious:
to halt Ukraine’s progress along the path of democracy, consciously
enter Russia’s sphere of influence, and obtain huge political and
financial dividends in exchange.

Promise number three. "A real improvement of life by tomorrow…"

No matter how many times our long-suffering people have got burned
by various political ruses, advertising tricks, and other swindles,
their belief in an unrealizable but "rosy dream" proves to be much
stronger than ordinary common sense.

And politicos take advantage of this belief as they sweepingly paint
a cloudlessly-blue-skied tomorrow. And so the people believe that
promises that Russian gas will not increase but drop in price…

[ellipsis as published] And the residents of multimillion cities
believe that the costs of housing will never rise… [ellipsis as
published] And the voters are being calculatingly deceived with
the fairy tale of the "Five-year development plan"…[ellipsis as
published]

Come to your senses, my fellow countrymen! Why do you allow the rivers
of milk and honey of promises from the country’s political swindlers
to flow?!

The victors will always find a way to explain why they did not keep
their promises -never doubt this, even for a moment. Looking at
you with innocent eyes, offering reasons and speaking with great
feeling, they will describe to you the grandiose mistakes of the
preceding government, they will cite unexpected difficulties, they
will find the necessary wording and metaphors, they will confidently
swear that black is white and vice versa… [ellipsis as published]
And we – not because we believe all this, but because we have grown
tired of the demagoguery – we will stop listening and go about our
business. And those in power – about their business. That is precisely
what they want!

I remember what Charles de Gaulle once said: "Since a politician
never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his
word." The political allegories of the Party of Regions played a bad
joke on the voters, because everyone believed much too literally
the promise that "life will be better by tomorrow." Instead,
the country got hard and harsh realities from the victors: the
abolishment of benefits, an increase in the price of gas, rising
rates, tax pressure, a restoration of the old schemes of dealing with
businessmen… [ellipsis as published]

Today’s ruling elite is more cynical than any before it. On the one
hand, the "Regionals" themselves did not expect the extent and the
kind of power they got, not so much won as voluntarily left on the
field of battle. On the other hand, the crisis of statehood produced
by the political reform promotes both boundless political adventurism
and economic redistribution. And so, under the circumstances, it is
irrelevant to consider the people and their expectations; you have
to "take and divide" among the chosen. To divide up power and money,
spheres of influence and parliamentary votes. And whenever necessary,
with diabolical shrewdness, take cover behind the shield with its
tarnished motto of "the will of the voters." Or, "the interests of
Kharkiv residents," for example. Or without any inscription at all,
a mirror-shield, in which are reflected, or, more precisely, from
which all promises, expectations, hopes have been reflected and cast
back… [ellipsis as published]

The mistakes of strategists and the incompetence of tacticians.

I am striving to be objective in my judgments. It is not easy for me,
but I must also say something about the side that lost (or, did not
win) – about the "orange" team.

On this subject, I will use harsher language. After all, I am pretty
familiar with the process from the inside and want to given an
accurate diagnosis.

The "oranges" were failed by the mistakes of their strategists and
the incompetence of their tacticians.

The mistake of the primary strategists lay in that the objectives
set after the triumph of the Orange Revolution (economic reforms,
Eurointegration, the European way of life, NATO, WTO) were absolutely
inconsistent with the rapidity of a realistic pace. This disparity
between time and space produced an avalanchelike disillusionment
in society.

And there is no other word than stupid to describe the tactical
mistakes that were made. They burst forth in all their beauty in the
post-election period: intrigues and vanity, double games and the same
kind of standards, irresponsible statements and petty bargaining,
political activity in diametrically opposed directions, and so on.

Add to this personnel-related blunders, in which revolutionary
expediency in the rotation of administrators resulted in some loss of
professionals and a split in the "orange" camp, and the primary cause
of the defeat of the "oranges" becomes clear: you have to unite "for"
and not "against." It was this collective, national "FOR" that we all
lacked badly right after the revolution and still lack today, even as
the fate of not only the coalition and the opposition but, strictly
speaking, the fate of the nation and the country is being decided.

…November. The branches of trees with the blue ribbons of the
election winners are growing bare. The multicoloured ribbons-promises
of a "better life" are growing bare, the true intentions of those who
made those promises are being laid bare… [ellipsis as published]
But spring will come and cover in green the trees innocent of false
promises. Life will win over the political garlands. Only we must
not let Spring pass us by.

Arsen AVAKOV,

Chairman of the Kharkiv Oblast State Administration

25 October 2006, between the congresses [of Our Ukraine]

I am extremely saddened by that fact that, even while not in power
(de facto, in opposition), Our Ukraine, BYuT [Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc,
and many other patriots and democrats once again cannot unite "for."

I find the position of some Our Ukraine deputies, who are prepared
to shed their principles and convictions in order to join the
"anti-crisis" coalition, totally incompatible with my own views.

We lost the election, but we did not lose our ideals and our voters.

Being in opposition to the existing government, we must work hard
and productively. We must unite all the democratic forces, but not
AGAINST [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych and [Speaker Oleksandr]
Moroz but FOR justice and democratic values.

We have gone through severe trials, but anyone who says that they have
ended is not being honest. We must leave behind all our grievances
and ambitions, rid ourselves of all pettiness and vanity, as trees
rid themselves of their yellowed leaves.

PRO-WESTERN FORCES BEHIND ANTI-ISLAMIC ARTICLE – AZERI PARTY LEADER

Day.az , Azerbaijan
Nov 22 2006

The chairman of the Islamic Party of Azerbaijan, Haciaga Nuri, has
said that the anti-Islamic article published in an Azeri newspaper
was an insult to all Muslims and he praised the people of Nardaran
outside Baku for having the courage to demonstrate and condemn
their publication. In an interview with an Azeri website, he said
he believed there are "certain forces", including the Zionists and
the Armenians, who are behind these provocation which are aimed
at damaging Azerbaijan’s prestige in the Islamic world. He said
Azerbaijan’s pro-western policy has suffered a defeat and the people
are beginning to realize the values of Islam. The following is the
text of his interview, published on the Day.az web site on 22 November
entitled "Haciaga Nuri: I would say that in this situation the people
of Nardaran have saved our country’s image"; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:

An exclusive interview of Day.az with the chairman of the Islamic
Party of Azerbaijan [IPA] Haciaga Nuri.

[Correspondent] What is your opinion of the situation around the
Sanat newspaper?

[Nuri] What can I say? I never thought some of our journalists could
stoop so low that they would start to abuse their own faith and
the Prophet. I don’t want to name these journalists, but by their
behaviour they have not only insulted all the people, but all Muslims
in general. I don’t think they were alone in their actions. I am
more than sure that there are certain forces, who just cannot come
to terms with Azerbaijan’s growing respect in the Islamic world,
who are behind these reports.

Just imagine, this year alone there have been a number of events of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Azerbaijan, our country
has started to play an active part in solving the problems of the
Islamic world, and the Islamic countries, by supporting Azerbaijan
unconditionally, have condemned the Armenian aggression. And, of
course, this could not appease the hostile forces who are using
such provocative methods to damage Azerbaijan’s prestige in the
Islamic world.

To our great regret, the accomplices of these forces in Azerbaijan have
started to help them carry out these sordid plans. The Zionists and
the Armenians have long been preparing a plan to sow discord between
Azerbaijan and the Islamic world. And the recent reports are a part
of these insidious plans. The task of our law-enforcement agencies
now is to find out who the patrons of these provocateurs are. And
this is precisely what we, as an Islamic party, are demanding of
our authorities.

[Correspondent] It is common knowledge that the people of Nardaran
passed a death sentence on the writer of this article, Rafiq Tagi. We
would like to know what you think about this.

Country’s image saved

[Nuri] The people of Nardaran could not have acted any differently in
this situation. They passed a death sentence on the enemies of Islam
and the infidels who have brought shame on the whole of Azerbaijan
in the eyes of the whole world. This blasphemy must be punished. Of
course, I, too, am opposed to such measures. However, the feelings of
the people have been insulted and one can understand them. I believe
that the state and our public should not bow down to these people
and the toughest measures should be used against them. I would say
that in this situation the people of Nardaran have saved our country’s
image. Do you recall how the demonstrations in the Islamic world broke
out after the reports in the Danish press? God forbid that we should
see such demonstrations in relation to Azerbaijan. In other words,
by passing this sentence the people of Nardaran have shown the whole
world that the Muslims of Azerbaijan are themselves incensed by this
article. However, I say again that the state should express its opinion
on this question and punish these provocateurs severely. I believe
we will have to wait some time before we can wipe away this disgrace.

[Correspondent] But what about freedom of speech and opinion? The
writer of these articles has expressed his own opinion on this.

[Nuri] Lately we have loved to speculate on these concepts. But
freedom of speech does not mean that anyone has the right to insult
the feelings of millions of people. Nobody has given anyone such
rights. I believe that clauses should be added to the "Law on the
media" seriously condemning such publications. And tough measures
should be taken against those media which break these rules.

Otherwise, we will learn nothing from all these outrageous things
which have been reported in the media lately.

[Correspondent] But the West, too, won’t stand for such a tough stand
against the media, will it?

Values of Islam override pro-Western policy

[Nuri] I can only say one thing. Beginning with the declaration of
independence, all of Azerbaijan’s foreign and domestic policy has
been coordinated with the West. This policy has suffered a defeat.

The people of Azerbaijan are finally beginning to realize that leaning
on the West for support will not restore its territorial integrity and
will not provide a dignified way of life for our citizens. The people
of Azerbaijan are beginning to realize the values of Islam. This
worries the West and the Zionists who want to sow discord in our
society. And did you know that Azerbaijan has entered the list of
those states which are coming under the control of the Zionists? And
so the Western countries, finding themselves under the protection
of the Zionists, will never agree to the values of Islam triumphing
in Azerbaijan.

[Correspondent] I am sure you are aware that some young writers have
renounced Islam. What is your opinion of this?

[Nuri] What is happening in Azerbaijan today cannot be described
other than as an absurdity. It is not they who have renounced Islam,
but Islam has renounced them. These people have taken the path of
Satan. Well, they themselves chose this path and nobody is planning
to stop them. Besides, there are very few of these people. They are
clearly the same kind of provocateurs as Rafiq Tagi, who by such
dirty deeds, are trying to launder the Zionists’ money.

[Correspondent] Iran’s reaction to these reports was also tough.

What’s your attitude to this?

[Nuri] You know, Iran’s reaction was perfectly justified. After all,
such a base article was published not in some other country, but
in Azerbaijan, which is friendly towards Iran. The whole history
and culture of the Azerbaijani people is linked with Islam. And
the publication of this article in Azerbaijan does not, of course,
cause joy in the Muslim countries. These provocateurs do not realize
what a dangerous game they have dragged Azerbaijan into. Therefore,
it seems to me that the sooner we can get rid of this disgrace, the
better it will be for us. Otherwise the wave of indignation will
not be limited to Iran, but will whip up the whole Islamic world,
which is something I am very much afraid of.

GENOCIDE: LE CHEF DE LA DIPLOMATIE ARMENIENNE TEND LA MAIN A LA TURQUIE

Agence France Presse
25 novembre 2006 samedi
Correction Appended 5:09 PM GMT

Le ministre armenien des Affaires etrangères Vartan Oskanian a tendu
la main a la Turquie pour normaliser les relations entre les deux
pays, comme une etape-cle vers un accord politique sur le sujet
ultra-sensible du massacre d’Armeniens au debut du XXè siècle.

"Pour l’Armenie, la reconnaissance (du genocide) par la Turquie
n’est pas une condition prealable pour des relations normales de bon
voisinage", a declare a l’AFP M. Oskanian, lors d’une visite a Chypre,
qui s’est achevee samedi.

La Turquie n’entretient pas de relations diplomatiques avec l’Armenie
voisine en raison notamment du differend sur les massacres d’Armeniens
en 1915-17 sous l’Empire ottoman, qualifies par de nombreux historiens,
le Parlement europeen et la France de "genocide", une appellation
categoriquement rejetee par Ankara.

Les massacres et deportations ont fait plus de 1,5 millions de morts
selon les Armeniens, 250.000 a 500.000 selon la Turquie.

M. Oskanian a estime que les deux pays avaient besoin de "transcender"
leur passe commun.

"Cet obstacle (de la reconnaissance turque) peut etre supprime et
(les idees que les deux peuples peuvent avoir sur l’autre) peuvent
etre ameliorees par de nouvelles experiences", a-t-il ajoute.

Cependant, M. Oskanian a rejete categoriquement une offre turque de
mise en place d’un comite mixte d’historiens des deux pays pour faire
la lumière sur la question.

"La suggestion du (Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip) Erdogan a ete
un ecran de fumee", a-t-il dit, se demandant comment une commission
conjointe pourrait etre mise en place sans relations diplomatiques
entre Ankara et Erevan, capitale de l’Armenie qui a obtenu son
independance en 1991, après la chute de l’URSS.

"Vous devez gerer ce sujet d’un point de vue politique", a-t-il
poursuivi.

M. Oskanian a critique en outre ce qu’il a qualifie de nouvelle
"politique d’Etat" d’Ankara de negation du genocide.

"Alors que davantage de pays reconnaissent (le genocide), la Turquie
devient (…) plus agressive dans sa politique de negation", a-t-il
estime.

Une recente proposition de loi francaise rendant passible de prison
la negation du genocide armenien est, selon lui, "une reaction claire
a cette politique agressive de negation d’Ankara".

L’ecrivain turc Orhan Pamuk, laureat 2006 du Nobel de litterature,
a ete poursuivi par la justice turque en 2005 pour des propos tenus
sur le massacre d’Armeniens.

Accuse d’"insulte ouverte a la nation turque", il etait passible
de six mois a trois ans de prison. Sous la pression internationale,
les poursuites ont ete abandonnees debut 2006.

–Boundary_(ID_Mb3Kym7Dj4bi3FFX2X3LjQ)–

RUSSIA SHARES TURKEY’S CONCERNS ON KURDISH ISSUE
Ayhan Simsek

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 27 2006

Russia is deeply concerned about the looming threat of Iraq’s
disintegration and shares the concerns of Turkey on the Kurdish issue,
said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko in an interview
with a group of Turkish journalists in Moscow over the weekend.

Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko underlined that on a growing range
of international issues, including Iraq, Iran and the Arab-Israeli
conflict; positions of Russia and Turkey have become very close,
sometimes even identical. "Our relations are rising to a level of a
multifaceted partnership, a goal stipulated by our heads of states
in Dec 2004," Grushko stressed.

On Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister underlined that this process should promote greater stability
and mutually beneficial international cooperation in the region,
and also raised Moscow’s expectation that Turkey’s commitments to
the EU during the accession process will not hinder development of
the multifaceted Russian-Turkish partnership.

Stressing that Russia has always advocated a comprehensive, fair and
viable solution to Cyprus problem in line with the UN resolutions,
Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko said Turkish and Greek Cypriots should
be encouraged for resumption of full-scale negotiations with the
goal of reaching a comprehensive settlement. He also said Russia is
prepared to carry on a policy of developing economic relations with
the Turkish Cypriots on condition of compliance with the principles
of international law and UN resolutions.

On the claims of the Armenian genocide and problems between Turkey
and Armenia, Alexander Grushko expressed hope that improvement of
Turkish-Armenian relations will contribute to a greater stability
in the region. "In our opinion, the parties should agree to jointly
address issues related to the genocide. Russia’s position on the issue
is well known: relations today must not be made hostage to history,"
he said. Grushko also expressed support for Turkish proposal for
establishing an international commission of historians.

"We think that implementation of the initiative on setting up an
international commission of historians, in one form or another,
could be beneficial," he said.

Here is what Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko had to tell us:

-Russia and Turkey have stepped up political cooperation in recent
years. What is Moscow’s view of the quality of bilateral relations
and their future, in particular over the next decade?

-GRUSHKO: Russian-Turkish relations have been progressing dynamically,
and political dialogue has become more active at the top level. The
leaders of the two countries have met six times since December 2004,
when the Russian head of state made an official visit to Turkey for
the first time in the history of bilateral relations.

They regularly talk on the telephone and exchange messages.

Our foreign policy departments are interacting very intensively and
effectively, as proved by a packed schedule of their consultations.

This month, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his Turkish
counterpart Abdullah Gul in Moscow, First Deputy Foreign Minister
Andrei Denisov held talks with the leaders of the Turkish foreign
ministry, and two rounds of ministerial consultations were staged
in Ankara.

Our relations show that the positions of our countries coincide or
are similar on a growing range of international issues. In fact,
they are rising to a level of a multifaceted partnership. This goal
was stipulated by the heads of the two states in the Joint Political
Declaration they signed in December 2004.

Out trade and economic cooperation has given a powerful impulse to
bilateral relations. Bilateral trade amounted to $12.6 billion in
2005 and is growing at a fast rate. We expect to raise it to $25
billion by 2008.

Relations in the fuel and energy sector play a crucial part in our
cooperation. Russian companies are prepared to contribute to the
construction of underground storage facilities and other elements of
the gas infrastructure in Turkey, as well as in projects stipulating
the delivery of Russian gas to global markets via Turkey.

There are good cooperation opportunities in the generation of
electricity, including at nuclear power plants. We also regard
military-technical cooperation as a promising element of bilateral
relations.

Tourism promotes contacts on a personal level; about 2 million
Russian tourists visit Turkey every year. We have agreed to hold
events dedicated to Russian and Turkish culture in 2007 and 2008 to
encourage state cultural exchanges.

Taking into account the level of cooperation we have reached and
future possibilities, we think that Russian-Turkish relations have a
fair chance of progressing to the benefit of our nations and in the
interests of stronger regional security and development.

-How do you view Turkish foreign policy on the issues such as the
Iranian nuclear program, Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli conflict?

-GRUSHKO: On the whole Ankara’s official position on these problems
is seen as realistic and aimed at their speediest political settlement
in the interests of peace and stability in that region.

Our approaches to the solution of these problems are very close
and sometimes identical, which is a good foundation for an active
Russian-Turkish exchange of views. We value confidential communication
established between us in the recent period on the issues indicated,
and are ready to pursue it further.

-Rising sectarian violence and future of Iraq –

-What does Russia think about Iraq and its future? Does Moscow share
Ankara’s concerns about the possible disintegration of Iraq?

-GRUSHKO: We are deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq, where
a large-scale civil conflict is brewing and has already spread to the
relatively tranquil Shiite southern provinces. There is a looming
threat of Iraq’s disintegration. We stand fully for preserving its
territorial integrity, and share the concern of our Turkish partners,
including on the Kurdish issue.

We believe that the process of national reconciliation can start on
the basis of agreements reached at the meeting on Iraq held in Cairo
in November 2005 under the banner of the Arab League and attended by
the leaders of the major political forces and ethnic and religious
groups of Iraq.

Outlining a timetable for the presence of multinational forces in
Iraq may considerably ease tensions there.

We are convinced that the international community must not stop
its efforts to harmonize the warring sides’ positions. Neighboring
countries have not yet exhausted their possibilities either. Turkey
regularly attends the conferences of foreign and interior ministries
of Iraq’s neighbor countries.

Russia is prepared to contribute to drafting and implementing
any initiative that can facilitate an early stabilization of the
situation. In our opinion, a political settlement in Iraq based on
a broad consensus between Kurds and Shiite and Sunnite Arabs would
contribute to the development of a civilized model of a federative
state with a balance of interests of the regions and the federal
center.

-Turkey’s EU perspective, Cyprus question-

-Accession to the European Union is a major priority of Turkey’s
foreign policy. What do you think are the possible reflections of
Turkey’s EU process to the Turkish-Russian relations?

-GRUSHKO: We are closely monitoring Ankara’s intention to become
a full member of the EU. In our opinion, this process, which will
depend on the sovereign decisions of Turkey and the EU countries,
should promote greater security and stability, and mutually beneficial
international cooperation in the region, and should prevent tensions
and the appearance of division lines.

We believe that issues directly bearing on Russian-Turkish
relations can appear on the agenda at the early stages of EU-Turkish
negotiations. One of them can concern compatibility between bilateral
contracts and agreements and EU norms regulating foreign trade,
energy relations, transport, visa regimes, and so on.

Russia does not want Turkey’s commitments to the EU to hinder the
development of multifaceted Russian-Turkish partnership, trade and
economic cooperation, or complicate the entry of Russian visitors
to Turkey. In bilateral relations with Turkey, we stress our desire
to hold prompt consultations aimed at minimizing possible negative
effects of the EU accession on Russian-Turkish relations.

-Ankara expects Russia to support it on the issue of ending the
international isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. What is Russia’s
stand on the issue of the Cyprus settlement? Will Moscow advance
relevant initiatives?

-GRUSHKO: Russia has always advocated a comprehensive, fair and
viable solution to the Cyprus problem in keeping with relevant UN
resolutions. We have worked consistently to ensure the legitimate
interests of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and will continue to act in
this vein. We think UN Security Council resolutions and the assistance
of the UN Secretary General should be used to encourage the parties
involved in the conflict to resume full-scale negotiations.

Definite results have been attained in the past year. Dr. Ibrahim
Gambari, the UN Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, who
visited Cyprus last July, coordinated a mechanism for starting an
inter-ethnic dialogue on the everyday life of the two communities and
on substantive issues. Both can facilitate the solution of fundamental
problems hindering a comprehensive settlement. In our opinion, the
international community and all countries working for a settlement
of the Cyprus problem should help Cypriots advance towards these goals.

We believe that steps should be taken to strengthen the leading role
of the UN in resolving the Cyprus problem and the role of the five
permanent member states as the main body of international political
monitoring. We are prepared to contribute to the resumption of the
Good Offices Mission of the UN Secretary General.

We think that the two parties’ striving for settlement should be
encouraged, and we are prepared to carry on a policy of developing
economic relations with the Turkish Cypriot community on condition of
compliance with the principles of international law and UN resolutions.

-Armenian genocide claims, international commission-

-Can Russia propose ways to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia?

-GRUSHKO:We think direct Armenian-Azerbaijani contacts must be resumed
to bring about a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.

In our opinion, the recent meetings between foreign ministers were both
productive and instructive, and paved the way to solving outstanding
problems.

Russia and its partners from the OSCE Minsk Group think it crucial to
continue to discuss the positive achievements made in the Karabakh
settlement since mid-2005. We support the initiative of formalizing
the coordinated settlement principles by signing a relevant document.

As for Turkish-Armenian relations, we are confident that their
improvement could contribute to greater stability in the region. We
know that Armenian and Turkish leaders have been communicating, and
think that bilateral consultations at different levels, including a
top one, will facilitate the search for reasonable compromises.

In our opinion, the parties should agree to jointly address issues
related to the genocide. Russia’s position on the issue is well known:
relations today must not be made hostage to history. The adoption
of a relevant law in the French parliament has provoked a wave of
indignation in the Turkish community. A reply wave of anti-Armenian
sentiments would hinder the normalization of relations between Turkey
and Armenia. We think that the implementation of the initiative on
setting up an international commission of historians, in one form or
another, could be beneficial.

– The Chechen issue had at one time been a negative impact on
Turkish-Russian relations. Has the situation changed?

-GRUSHKO: We respect the balanced approach of the Turkish officials
to the issue of combating terrorists and separatists in the North
Caucasus, which is particularly painful to us. We welcome measures,
taken in the last years, to stop the operation of self-proclaimed
"representatives of Ichkeria" in Turkey, and hope that Ankara will
respect our antiterrorist concerns. Double standards must not be
allowed in our common fight against international terrorism.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EDUCATING TURKEY
By Nazlan Ertan

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 18 2006

Opinions

The week, between the two key congresses of the right wing, was
dominated by an issue just as explosive as the congresses itself:
education.

Admittedly, education has always been the Achilles’ heel of this
government, and The New Anatolian certainly offers its tentative
praise to Huseyin Celik, who managed to keep his post as education
minister despite all the objections from the military, higher education
officials and the public. Erkan Mumcu, who now has his eyes on the
prime ministry, failed miserably in his short tenure as education
minister, attracting both the anger and the scorn of university
professors, who referred to him as "rookie" or "the boy."

But the 17th Education Convention, convening to grab headlines after
— years, proved to be a hot potato rather than an asset to the
government. First of all, the ruling Justice and Development Party
(AKP) was accused of imposing its agenda related to the university
entrance of vocational schools, namely the clergy high schools known
as imam hatip.

Given the time and effort allocated to facilitate students of
vocational schools being able to enter any university of their choice,
many accused the government of not looking at education strategy but
at its own election strategy. Presently, the graduates of vocational
schools get points in the centralized university exam when their
points are calculated for universities of the field they studied,
and have a disadvantage when they decide to switch fields. To give a
concrete example, a graduate of an imam hatip school would get extra
points if his score was calculated to enter a faculty of theology
but not for political science.

The desire to recalculate the coefficient of high school average in
the overall score has been constantly expressed by the AKP government
but was stalled by the president and the Constitutional Court.

Thus, when this issue — rather than the badly needed discussion on
Turkish education’s compatibility with international standards, the
need for adult education, the need for vocational education to meet
the needs of the public and language training — dominated the news,
many felt that this was an imposition.

Education Minister Celik defended the decisions, saying that the
ministry did not impose an agenda on the convention. He said that
several key academics will prepare reports after the convention,
which he described as a platform for free thought, and added that no
opposition party should use certain ideas expressed at the convention
as a tool to denigrate the initiative.

Like Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Celik also gave assurances
that the government respected secularism. "The Turkish Republic’s
education system is secular," he said, blaming, like the premier,
the press for ignoring the big picture and just concentrating on a
couple of mistakes or shortcomings at the convention.

The convention is now over, but alas, the problems and criticism in
the education sector are not.

Search me

One would have thought that State Minister and chief negotiator for the
EU Ali Babacan would have enough troubles without searching for more.

This time trouble went searching for him. When Danish security guards
at the Copenhagen airport wanted to search Babacan, it blew up into
a diplomatic crisis. Denmark apologized, and the event was described
as one that is "unfortunate."

"Unfortunately,&quo t; this was not an isolated action. Copenhagen security
caused similar incidents over the last two years, including one with
recently deceased former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit in 2005. Ecevit,
arriving in the country with full documentation, was kept waiting
for half an hour during which he fell ill.

Fortunately, Babacan is in better health. Not so much can be said
of Turkish-Danish ties after the cartoon crisis and the Kurdish and
pro-PKK Roj-TV broadcasts.

French leave

The damage imposed on Turco-French ties after the French National
Assembly passed the law to penalize denial of the so-called Armenian
genocide had dropped from the front pages of newspapers. But it made
a pronounced comeback when Gen. Ilker Basbug, the commander of the
land forces, said that the military was boycotting France after the
decision. Paris tried to shrug off the remarks, only to be told the
next day, this time by Turkey’s Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, that
France was intentionally left off the list of invitees to the Eighth
Defense Industry Fair. A French colonel reportedly left as soon as
he heard the remarks. Hurriyet daily gave the news with the headline:
"Offended by a couple of words".

FRENCH HAVE LITTLE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, BUT …
By Ilnur Cevik

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 18 2006

Opinions

It’s no secret that Turks are extremely angry and frustrated with
a French National Assembly decision to make it a crime to deny that
Turks were involved in a genocide against the Armenians at the turn
of the last century.

The Turkish government was known to have voiced its dissatisfaction
with this decision to the French administration, but it was generally
believed that Ankara would take a "wait and see" approach to observe
whether the French Senate would reject the bill or how the French
president would block it.

But a development this week showed that either the government changed
its decision and has started to prod the French not to make any wrong
calculations about Turkey’s silence or the Turkish military has jumped
the gun and has decided to punish the French…

Land Forces Commander Gen. Ilker Basbug let the cat out of the bag,
saying the military had shelved its relations with the French and
that the first-ever meeting between the Turkish and French militaries
scheduled for December was cancelled.

If this is the case, then there are several important questions to
be asked.

Was this a unilateral decision by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), and
if so why wasn’t it made official by the General Staff headquarters
but rather left to a Land Forces commander to make such a statement
in an informal environment like a reception?

If all this is also true, then our adversaries can once again argue
that the TSK is not acting like an institution controlled by the
elected civilian government but has a mind of its own…

If all this is not the case and it was a government decision to start
showing the French, we are unhappy then it should not have been left
to a military official to make such an announcement.

It seems the government may be involved in all this because soon
after this incident, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul disclosed that the
French will not be officially invited to the defense fair in Ankara
scheduled for next May. The French were allegedly so annoyed that
the French Military attache who was present at the meeting for the
fair refused to attend a reception given later at the Dedeman Hotel

The French should have been prepared for all this because what they
have done has deeply hurt the Turkish people, who consider France an
old and trusted ally. What we oppose is the way all this was done

If the military is so forceful on the French issue, they should shelve
all economic relations with French companies. The military-controlled
and -funded giant OYAK company has strong ties with the French in all
sectors especially in the auto industry and in insurance. Why don’t
they show the same courage through OYAK?

KARABAKH CONFLICT SERIOUS OBSTACLE IN ARMENIA-TURKEY RELATIONS

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 14:48 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Nagorno Karabakh conflict is a serious obstacle
to the establishment of relations with Turkey, Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian told France Press. "Close relationships
between Turkey and Azerbaijan works against Ankara, since it undermines
Turkey’s authority in the region and its intention to become a
bridge between East and West," the Minister said adding that it’s
inadmissible to draw parallels between Nagorno Karabakh and Northern
Cyprus, since the former appeared as result of the USSR decline and
the latter -on the territory of a UN member state. Remarking that both
Armenia and Cyprus see a number of obstacles to Turkey’s accession to
the EU the Minister refuted the hearsay that the two states operate
against Turkey. "The purpose of the President’s visit to Cyprus is
to encourage economic ties. We have many topics to discuss but we do
not unite against other states," Vartan Oskanian said, reports RFE/RL.

CONFERENCE ON HISTORY OF NATIONAL MINORITIES IN TURKEY HELD IN PARIS

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 16:08 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The history of Kurdish, Pontus Greek, Chaldean and
Armenian minorities in Turkey was discussed in a conference held in
the Parisian suburb of Versailles. The conference was held as part of
the Year of Armenia in France and attended by Pontus Greek historian
Vassia Karkayannis-Karabelias, head of the Kurdish Institute of Paris
Kendal Nezan, Secretary-General of the International Federation of
Human Rights Raffi Kalfayan and President of the Chaldean Association
of France Naman Adlun.

The French Chaldean community asserts Chaldeans were exterminated by
Turkey and built a Chaldean genocide monument in Paris last year. The
monument aroused surprise among Turkish diplomats in Paris, who have
good relations with Chaldeans. Representatives from the Chaldean
community were invited to this year’s Republic Holiday reception at
the Turkish embassy in Paris as usual despite the genocide monument,
reports zaman.com.

EU-TURKEY TALKS ON CYPRUS FAILED

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 16:11 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Discussions between the European Union and Turkey
on the Cyprus question have failed.

"This morning I first met with Cypriot Foreign Minister Giorgios
Lillikas and then I spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah
Gul. Unfortunately we have come to the conclusion that the
preconditions for achieving an agreement do not exist at this stage
during the Finnish EU Presidency", said Finnish Foreign Minister
Erkki Tuomioja, reports CNN-Turk.

The EU has called on Turkey to open its harbors and airports to Greek
Cypriot vessels and planes by December the 6th. In return, the EU has
said that Turkish-occupied North Cyprus could be allowed to trade
directly with the EU. Turkey could face at least some obstacles in
its membership talks with the EU if it rejects the demands. However,
Gul says that he does not believe that there would be any break or
slowdown in the talks. "The Cyprus question is political, and it
should not poison our negotiation process. It is not a part of the
negotiation process", Gul said.

CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS: BAKU GOES ON BLAMING OTHERS

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 17:03 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Azeri side violates the ceasefire at the contact
line of the Karabakh and Azeri armed forces from time to time,
PR officer of the NKR Defense Minister, lieutenant colonel Senor
Asratyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. "The Azeri armed forces
break the ceasefire themselves and then lay blame on the Armenian
side," he underscored.

Any statement on so-called ‘fire upon the Azeri army from the Armenian
side’ is misinformation spread by the Azeri media, Asratyan added.