Month: April 2007

CONTACT LINE OF TROOPS TO BE MONITORED

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 16 2007

The contact line of Azerbaijani and Armenian troops near the village
of Gapanli of Azerbaijan’s Terter region will be monitored under
the mandate of personal representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office on
April 17, Defense Ministry press service told the APA.

The monitors on Azerbaijani side are to be Imre Palatinus and
Jaslan Nurtazin, field assistants of the Personal Representative
of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, and personal representative of OSCE
Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk, his field assistants Peter Ki
and Miroslav Vimetal on the opposite side, internationally recognized
territory of Azerbaijan.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

POLITICAL TENSIONS INCREASE AS TURKISH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS APPROACH
By Kerem Kaya and Sinan Ikinci

World Socialist Web Site, MI
April 16 2007

As presidential elections approach, Turkey’s political tensions
are continuing to intensify both domestically, between the Kemalist
establishment and the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party
(AKP) government, as well as internationally, between the Turkish
establishment and the Iraqi Kurds.

The Turkish military is decisively leading both campaigns with support
from the "unarmed forces," a euphemism invented to describe supporters
of the military within influential business and political circles. The
principal protagonists of these forces are Deniz Baykal of Republican
People’s Party (CHP), the main opposition leader, and the outgoing
president Ahmet Necdet Sezer. It also includes the Kemalist Thought
Association (ADD) and the Association for Supporting Modern Life
(CYDD), which are both by-products of the events of February 28,
1997, when the military intervened to oust a coalition government
led by the Islamic-based Welfare Party.

The head of ADD, Sener Eruygur, is a former general. Democratic
Left Party (DSP), and the Social Democrat People’s Party (SHP) also
supported a march organized by the "unarmed forces" late last year.

CHP has long been acting as the civilian spokesman of the Turkish
military. In short, all the social democratic or "left-wing Kemalist"
parties, are included.

Less prominent members of this camp are the Turkish Industrialists’
and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) and the Union of Chambers of
Commerce (TTOBB). The Turkish Trade Union Confederation (Turk-Is)
and the Revolutionary Trade Union Confederation (DISK) are also active
together with Kemalist-Maoist Workers Party of Dogu Perincek.

President Ahmet Necdet Sezer (who does not have a party affiliation)
also sides frequently with the military against the government.

It appears that the strategy of the military is to heighten tensions
domestically while capitalizing on the deteriorating Kurdish situation
in the east to increase pressure on the elected AKP government before
the general elections currently set for November.

In addition, the first round of parliamentary voting in the
presidential elections is scheduled for April 27.

The AKP government represents the moderate wing of political Islam in
Turkey. It was elected on November 3, 2004, with 34 percent of the
vote, a large enough margin to form a single party government. It
lost some of its base after establishing close relationships with
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and implementing far reaching
austerity measures on behalf of the big business. Despite this, the
government still enjoys a measure of public support partly due to its
relative success in stabilizing the country’s financial situation,
after 30 years of uninterrupted high inflation. The latest polls
show that the AKP enjoys the support of 25 to 30 percent of the
electorate. This level of support makes it very difficult to topple
an elected government via an outright military intervention and hence
comes the critical role played by the "unarmed forces."

A common feature of these forces, armed or otherwise, is their
determination to whip up a nationalist mood throughout the country.

In so doing they seek to exploit the international situation. The US
aggression in Iraq has destabilized Turkey’s neighbors and created
an environment that the political establishment has used to spread
chauvinist and nationalist sentiments. Similarly, the brushing aside
of Turkey in the accession talks with the EU and the subsequent
nationalist rhetoric from both sides-especially the use of Kurdish,
Armenian and Cyprus questions by the EU as a means of pressure-played
into the hands of the nationalists in Turkey.

The Kurdish crisis

There is growing social unrest in eastern Turkey within the
predominantly Kurdish population. Social unrest in the region has
intensified since the Semdinli events of November 9, 2005, when
police intelligence officers (JIT) were caught in a provocative
bombing campaign against the civilian population and General Yasar
Buyukanit, the current chief of general staff, publicly praised one
of the bombers.

Last month, during the Kurdish New Year (Newroz) celebrations there
were many banners supporting the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party-the Kurdish
nationalist guerilla organisation) and pictures of Abdullah Ocalan,
the former PKK leader currently jailed by Turkey-despite the ban on
such Kurdish symbols. Since ending its 15-year long military campaign
towards the end of the 1990s and fruitless attempts to curry favor
with Turkish establishment, the PKK has now increased its military and
political activity inside Turkey. In response, there are reports that
Turkish military has drawn up a 250,000-strong contingency force in
the southeast region to combat the PKK near the Iraqi border. Buyukanit
said on Thursday that an all out offensive has started against PKK. On
April 8, Kurdish rebels killed nine members of Turkish security forces.

There is a growing threat that the Turkish army will invade northern
Iraq in the coming days to clamp down on PKK forces in their Iraqi
safe haven. As a result, tensions between Ankara, Washington and
the Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, namely Barzani and Talabani,
have been growing over the last few months. Last month witnessed a
harsh clash of words between Ankara and Kurdish leaders, particularly
Barzani, the president of the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq.

The high point in this campaign was a press conference by Chief of
General Staff Buyukanit on Thursday attended by all military force
commanders in uniform. He accused the EU of "inventing" minorities
in Turkey, but made no direct criticism of the US. Buyukanit instead
declared that a cross-border operation to northern Iraq was necessary
and that the Turkish military was ready to move, but he emphasized
that the go-ahead was a political decision. This provoked defiant
responses from Iraqi Kurdish leaders, as well as conciliatory noises
from Washington.

Kemal Kerkuki, vice-president of Kurdish autonomous zone in northern
Iraq, remarked that "a military operation on Kurdish regional soils
would constitute a declaration of war directly against Iraq." He
said that there was no basis for claims by Turkey that the PKK is
receiving military and economic aid from the northern Iraqi government.

This comes on top of Barzani’s remarks in an interview made at the
end of February but broadcast only recently in which he said that if
Turkey interferes with Kurdish plans to attach the oil-rich Iraqi city
of Kirkuk to the Kurdish autonomous zone, Iraq’s Kurds would retaliate
by intervening in southeast Turkey, where the PKK mainly operates.

After Barzani’s remarks Ankara sent an official ultimatum to the
Iraqi government. Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul said
they will do "whatever is necessary" unless Baghdad responds "as
expected." Spokesman for the ministry said that the ultimatum asks
for border security and the capture of members of the PKK and their
return to Turkey.

After this Washington immediately stepped in. Having acknowledged
that the PKK must be dealt with, US State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said this should not be done unilaterally by Turkey.

Washington has also criticized Barzani for not being helpful in
dampening down the crisis. Assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs Dan Fried went further and accused Barzani of
being "unwise."

In the past, Washington has issued harsher reactions against Turkish
threats to undertake military intervention in northern Iraq. This time,
however, they have clearly taken into account the fragile domestic
political situation in Turkey due to the imminent presidential
elections and the general elections later this year.

Should the AKP government follow Buyukanit proposal and order a
cross-border operation, it would lead to a break between the AKP and
the US. If not, the AKP could be attacked for capitulating to Kurdish
"separatism."

The presidential election

The crisis between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey could hardly come at a
better time for the military. The military had exerted enormous
pressure on the AKP government with regard to the election of the
new president of Turkey. AKP leader and current prime minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan has long indicated his ambitions for the presidential
seat. Now, the military is putting pressure on the AKP government to
allow a cross-border military operation, thus pushing the AKP into
a political mine field just before the presidential election.

The president is elected by the parliament for a seven-year term in
office and holds some important powers such as appointing rectors of
universities, the members of the Higher Education Council, the members
and the chairman of the state Supervisory Council, the members of the
Constitutional Court and one-fourth of the members of the Council of
State. He also appoints the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Deputy
Chief Public Prosecutor of the Higher Court of Appeals, the members
of the Military High Court of Appeals, the members of the Supreme
Military Administrative Court and the members of the Supreme Council
of Judges and Public Prosecutors. These are the strongholds of the
Kemalist establishment and in a space of seven years with an Islamist
President, Islamists could seize them all one by one.

For his part, CHP leader Baykal chose to attack Erdogan personally,
accusing him of referring to then PKK leader Ocalan as "Mr. Ocalan"
on January 15, 2000, long before he became prime minister. The acronym
"Mr" in Turkey is exclusively reserved for respected members of the
society. Erdogan, on his part, managed to brush away this flimsy
attack. Even though the claim went to court based on Article 215
of Turkish Penal Code for the "crime" of "praising a crime and the
criminal," Erdogan was soon acquitted of all charges.

Other attempts are desperately being made. In particular, the idea of
reinterpreting the constitution came to fore. It is being argued that
two thirds of the parliamentary majority is required to "open" the
session to elect the president. AKP currently holds 354 parliamentary
seats and the presidential candidate cannot vote. By this logic,
AKP would be short of 14 seats to elect the president outright. AKP
argues that in 1989 during the election of 8th President Turgut Ozal,
the session was opened with a majority below two thirds. Against this,
CHP asserts that "a bad example cannot be the rule."

The nationalism that has been deliberately whipped up since 2005 is now
expected to play a decisive role in the decisions of the AKP. It has
already produced an atmosphere of intimidation by dragging writers,
translators, activists and other intellectuals into the courts, not
to mention open political opponents of the state. The stage has now
been set for a confrontation with AKP if Erdogan insists on himself
or another Islamist taking the summit of the state power in Turkey.

A similar episode occurred in 1997. After an ultimatum to weaken
the religious training schools the military put pressure on the
Islamist-led government to implement eight years of uninterrupted
compulsory primary education. On May 1997 hundreds of thousands
Islamists attended a huge demonstration in Istanbul as a display of
power, and in the wake of this demonstration Dogu Ergil of Turkish
Daily News wrote, "as the latest Sultanahmet demonstration proves,
they can rally together and bring one million people onto the streets
with a snap of the fingers." However this counter attack by Islamist
forces backfired when the military and the "secularist" front used
it as further proof of an immediate reactionary threat.

It appears that AKP would like to avoid such a confrontation. This
time, however, the Kemalist establishment organized a demonstration
against the Islamist government. Saturday’s "Republic Rally" organized
by ADD and supported by CHP, DSP, IP, trade union federation Turk-Is,
but also right-wing extremist MHP (Nationalist Movement Party,
"Grey wolves"), managed to bring "hundreds of thousands" to the
streets according to the organizers, mainly from middle-class and
well educated layers. Some estimates put numbers at 100,000 to 200,000.

This was a large demonstration by any measure but it came after two
years of sustained campaigning against the government. Last Friday,
president Sezer himself tacitly supported the campaign by declaring
before military commanders, "Since the foundation of the Republic
Turkey’s political regime has never been under this much threat …

For the first time in history the fundamental values of the Republic
has been questioned and both domestic and foreign forces seek Turkey
to conform to the model of conservative Islam."

In a thinly veiled warning against an AKP president, Sezer said, "The
President represents the Republic’s principles and constitution. In
other words, these principles and constitution defines the red lines
of the Turkish Republic’s regime." Buyukanit at his press conference
on Thursday said almost the same, "We hope that someone who truly
respects the principles of the republic [becomes president], not
someone who pretends to do so."

After the demonstration, Erdogan did not appear unduly impressed and
remarked calmly that he was "happy to see a peaceful demonstration
like this in a democratic Turkey." In the Islamist media there were
no signs of panic.

In the face of growing pressure, Erdogan made a minor concession in
November 2006 by saying, "I have no bet to become the president."

However he ruled out the possibility of appointing someone outside of
the parliament, "Selecting an external candidate for presidency is an
example of helplessness. We will not be in such a helpless situation."

Since then AKP has tried to keep a low profile and avoid any clash with
the military. The party announced is would not select its presidential
candidate until April 25-the day before the deadline-in order to
limit controversy.

The Kemalist establishment argues that if elected as president,
the Islamists will usurp the regime and change the character of the
state. There is a grain of truth in this; however, history shows that
the interventionist methods currently promoted by the Kemalists have
consistently strengthened the Islamic parties. After the 1980 military
coup, Turgut Ozal came to power-a man with close links to political
Islamist circles. After the February 28, 1997, military intervention,
the Islamists swept to power with the AKP in the elections of 2002.

The root cause of the rise of the Islamic parties is the betrayal
of Stalinism and collapse of bourgeois nationalism in Turkey and
internationally, which has created a huge political vacuum that is
being exploited by the reactionary religious and ethnic nationalist
political tendencies. In the parliamentary elections of 2002, more
than ninety percent of all parliamentarians were voted out of office
at a time when parliament was dominated by the Kemalist clique.

The Kemalists represent the corrupt state bureaucracy, army and the
traditional big banks and corporations, while the Islamists represent
newer bourgeois layers who are no less ruthless, but keen to break up
the established structures in order make their own enrichment easier.

There is nothing progressive in either camp. The campaign of
nationalism and repression by the Kemalists under the battle cry of
secularism is in the final analysis directed against the democratic
rights of the working class.

turk-a16.shtml

DREADFUL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATES
By Prof. FÝkret BaÞkaya*

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 16 2007

The presidential election has been under debate for quite some time
now. For some reason, people have not been bothered by the futility
of the debates. In most countries, the question is "Who should be
president?" in Turkey, it’s who should not be president.

Have you seen such foolishness anywhere else? Can you tell a prime
minister of an average bourgeois democracy that he cannot become
the president? Can anyone even think they have the right to make
such a statement? If you can nominate your own candidate then so can
others and you don’t have the right to interfere. In fact, in most
bourgeois democracies, the prime minister has more authority than the
president. While the prime minister enforces policies, the presidency
is a symbolic post that simply approves or vetoes legislation. So what
is the problem? The problem is with the nature of the regime in Turkey
and its association with a democratic and laic civil law. The style
and language of the "no thank you" front regarding the presidential
election actually reveals the quality of the regime and mentality of
the administration.

In the Ottoman Empire a deeply-rooted state/public isolation was
effective. This was necessary according to the Ottoman mentality. The
public did not interact with the government unless it was paying
tribute or punishment. The relationship was from top down. In 1923 the
state became a republic, but the state vs. public isolation remained. A
name change for the state did not mean a change for the society. The
republic was declared without the authorization of the leader. As a
result, there was a republic without a leader. The Devlet’I Aliyye had
become the Republic of Turkey. Those who studied the bigoted official
history and ideology, the guardians of the academic status quo and the
others never attempted to debate the nature of the regime. Actually
they could not even if they wanted to.

Despite the modern rhetoric, former mentalities and administration
styles continued. Instead of paying tribute, the public paid taxes.

They were mandated to serve in the military and were not allowed to
intervene in politics. The reason why they weren’t allowed to intervene
was because the society was perceived to be ignorant. They weren’t
ready for assimilation. In legal terms, they did not have proper
discretion and so they would remain isolated until they matured
and developed the ability to make good judgment. This mentality
is deeply rooted. There are still people who believe democracy was
implemented too soon. And that is where the problem exists. In other
words, the problem regards the meaning and nature of the transition
to democracy. Was the nation becoming democratic or were they just
making it seem like the nation was becoming democratic? What did the
multi-party system that was introduced in 1946 really mean?

The regime after 1923 was an autocratic, dictating one. After World
War II, autocracy could not function the same way because of domestic
and foreign reasons. From then on, the state would consist of multiple
parties. Turkey would employ democracy. A multi-party system meant an
increase in the number of state parties. The one-party system would
be removed. Of course, this did not mean any one could form their
own political party or form a party based on class.

Besides, there is no need for a one-party system in a nation where
a classless, assimilated, interactive society dominates. The type
of multi-party system founded did not focus on freedom of speech or
freedom of organization. The parties that were founded were those
allowed by the state. The rules of the game had changed. The state
would provide the parties and the society would provide the votes…

However, there was one thing they forgot to calculate. When people
intervene, even for limited purposes, a controlled movement faces
the risk of losing control. That is why the Democratic Party (DP)
was founded as a collusive party. Although it failed to win in the
1946 general elections because of pressure and corruption, it received
support from the oppressed majority in the 1950 elections and became
the leading power. Needless to say, when you need votes from the
public you are bound to make concessions. The concession made by the
DP disturbed the "owners of the nation." They feared they were losing
the nation. They complained that the public had intervened too much.

On May 27, 1960 a coup was held and the DP government was overthrown.

The party was dissolved and the prime minister was executed. It was in
those years that the tradition of governing the nation with collusive
parties began. The 1950-1960 period served as a lesson to the "center,"
in other words the "owners of the republic." What they needed to form
was a system where they could control the collusive parties from a
distance. To limit public intervention they used several foundations
and mechanisms (i.e., legalizing military intervention on grounds
of protection and safety, making the National Security Council an
effective and leading source, the Senate, the Constitutional Court,
etc.). They formed a structure they would be able to control from a
distance. However, since they needed public votes, matters were not
that easy for them. That’s why coups were held every 10 years (i.e.,
1960, 1971,1980 and 1997). They needed to reorganize their structure.

During the entire process, the main concern of the "owners of
the republic" was keeping the public isolated. If the public
intervened in their benefits, relief and state status were bound to
be questioned. During the process that began in 1946, an interesting
division of labor had been created between the center, which I call
the "real state party" and the environment [the collusive parties
formed by the center]. This division of labor was developed more
after each coup but it was never spoken of. Although parties in the
government knew what they could do and what they were allowed to
do, they still could not escape being overthrown. During that time,
political parties began functioning like corporations. They looted the
Treasury and the state budget to make themselves and their close ones
rich. In other words, political parties were allowed to function like
corporations as long as they did not intervene in politics. The center
had to do this if it did not want to debate its authority. The double
standard structure and the administration style of collusive parties
was the reason why political parties in Turkey were not leading powers
although they formed the government. Actually, to better understand the
situation in Turkey, look at the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(KKTC). The real leaders there are the Turkish soldiers and next to
them stand a series of organization that are playing the democracy
game (i.e political parties, government, prime minister, president,
independent courts etc). While the government there can not collapse
any bridges without military approval, in Turkey no government can
intervene in anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the center,
if it does it will have to pay a price. For example, a party that
has come to power by election cannot debate the Kurdish problem,
talk about the Armenian massacre of 1915, initiate new opportunities
with Cyprus, or meddle in any of the regime’s taboos.

Remembering the short back plan I’ve just explained will help you
to understand the futility and oddity of the debates regarding the
presidential elections. Claims by the Republican People’s Party (CHP)
and the "no thank you front" that the republic’s principles and laicism
will be threatened if Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan becomes
president are directly related to the double standard structure I
mentioned above. In other words, it’s a confession of the nature of
the democratic game in Turkey. I wonder if the principles they claim
will be threatened are their personal interests, the leadership power
of the center, their benefits or the relief from charges? Weren’t
they the ones that wanted to use the US-controlled political Islam
against the left? Was laicism under threat then? It seems they are
seeking excuses not to follow their own rules. I wonder if laicism
champions have concerns about the Diyanet? After the 1946-50 period,
when multi-parties or rather collusive parties governed the nation,
the public voted but the parties they voted for did not represent
them. (When saying this do not think I am praising the figurative
democracy that was built to avoid real democracy.) Do those that
did not worry about the junta constitution, political parties and
election law really have a right to complain today? The CHP introduces
itself as a left-wing party and there are some who believe it is that
way. But the CHP is not even a typical political party for it to be
a left-social democrat party. The CHP is a tool of the state. That’s
why it’s not very excited and can’t be excited to become the leading
power. Besides isn’t the problem about isolating the public? The CHP
is one of several components (president, military, National Security
Council, Constitutional Court, high courts, YOK, BAR union, some
media organs, etc.) of the real leading power, what I call the real
state party and therefore it is not a typical political party. Its
sole concern is to protect the "holy state." It doesn’t care about
democratization or freedom. Actually, it owes its existence to the lack
of democratization and freedom. In Turkey, politics and bureaucracy
have a reverse relationship. The bureaucracy in Turkey is not like a
normal bureaucracy. It is like a circus game intended to fool people
about democracy. Known as a modern version of an Ottoman tradition,
bureaucracy cleans politics and molds political characters.

The constitution drafted by the Sept. 12 junta was intended to make
politics as inactive as possible, in other words they wanted to stop
democratization and prevent the public from participation. They placed
anti-democratic authoritative figures in the presidential palace,
which they perceived as their protected area. However, the junta
members and the professors that prepared that constitution did not
think unwanted people would be able to climb up the ladder. And that’s
why we constantly hear the story of how laicism is under threat. Yet,
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom they hope will not climb
further up the ladder, does not have the destruction of the junta
constitution or any other anti-democratic law on his agenda.

In such an atmosphere, debating who the president will be holds no
significance. In a country where a double standard state mentality
dominates there is no need to be a figurine in the silly democracy
game. That said, I have a suggestion… Let’s start a creative debate
that will question the nature of the regime and seek to change the
constitution, the election and political parties law, and other laws
the prevent freedom of speech and organization. Are we always going
to be fooled, pushed, and oppressed? What better time to show our
patriotism and citizenship, if not now?

*Ozgur (Free) University President

–Boundary_(ID_Hi1xB0OpIoRV2lYagNQ+bA)- –

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TYCOON RULES OUT ‘REVOLUTION’ IN ARMENIA
By Aza Babayan in Moscow

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
April 16 2007

Attempts to stage an anti-government popular revolt in Armenia are
doomed to fail because they would meet with a tough response from
President Robert Kocharian, according to his most trusted oligarch
who looks set to do well in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Gagik Tsarukian interrupted the election campaign of his Prosperous
Armenia Party (BHK) to visit Moscow late last week. No details of
the trip were made public by his aides in Yerevan.

RFE/RL learned on Monday that Tsarukian met with officials from
President Vladimir Putin’s administration and two senior members
of Russia’s parliament close to the Kremlin. It also emerged that
he was interviewed by a little-known Russian television station,
commenting on the political situation in Armenia and the future of
its relations with Russia.

"We will develop 90 percent of our relations with Russia and 10
percent with Europe and others," Tsarukian told the O2 TV channel in
rare remarks on Armenian foreign policy. He declined to elaborate.

The tycoon, whose party is widely seen as Kocharian’s new power base,
was also asked about the Armenian opposition’s chances of replicating
the kind of post-election regime change that took place in Ukraine and
in Georgia to Moscow’s dismay. "Our president is very strong and is
closely following the pre-election struggle," he said. "If something
happens, he will strictly punish the guilty."

Kocharian already cracked down on the opposition to suppress its most
recent attempt to force him into resignation with a campaign of street
protests three years ago. Some opposition groups seem undaunted by the
failure of that campaign and make no secret of their plans to use the
May 12 elections for again trying to spark a "democratic revolution"
in the country.

EFFECTIVE WAYS OF RESOLVING TAVUSH REGION’S PROBLEMS MUST BE FOUND, ARMENIAN PREMIER STATES

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
April 16 2007

YEREVAN, April 16. /ARKA/. RA Premier Serge Sargsyan ordered the
relevant officials to find effective ways of resolving the problems
of the Tavush region of Armenia.

The Press and Public Relations Department, RA Government, reports
that the instructions were issued at a meeting held as a result of
the Premier’s visit to the region.

Sargsyan informed the meeting participants of his approaches to and
impressions of the issues discussed during his public meetings in
the region. After listening to the officials, the Premier ordered
them to find effective ways of resolving them as soon as possible.

Premier Sargsyan informed the meeting participants that this approach
will be constantly applied, and officials must be ready to present
reports on real solutions to the population’s problems.

Participating in the meeting were representatives of Ministries and
government institutions, local government bodies.

MEASLES AND RUBELLA IN ARMENIA TO BE LIQUIDATED BY 2010

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
April 16 2007

YEREVAN, April 16. /ARKA/. Measles and rubella in Armenia are planned
to have been liquidated by 2010, said head of national immunization
program of the RA Health Ministry Gayane Sahakyan.

She said that for this purpose the National program of measles and
rubella liquidation program is elaborated in Armenia, within which
extra injections against these infective diseases will be given
in 2007.

"The analysis of the previous infective episode showed that the
disease was widespread in 1-27 age groups because of insufficient
immune level. In connection with this the decision to vaccinate these
population groups was made," Sahakyan said.

She said that the age group up to six is included in the planned
vaccination, and in the 6-27 age groups extra vaccination will
be given.

She pointed out that the vaccines imported to Armenia of good quality
and correspond to WHO certification.

"Armenia is insured against low-quality vaccination, moreover, during
the recent years no lethal outcome because of vaccination has been
recorded in the country," she said.

The national strategy against measles and rubella liquidation for
2007-2010 is implemented in Armenia, as well as with the aim of
controlling parotitis and congenital rubella syndrome. The vaccination
is conducted within WHO, UNICEF, "Immunization of Armenian Children
of Millennium" Program and Vishnevskaya-Rostropovich Fund.

ARMENIA’S PRESIDENT CONGRATULATES POLICE STAFF ON PROFESSIONAL HOLIDAY

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
April 16 2007

YEREVAN, April 16. /ARKA/. Armenia’s President Robert Kocharyan
congratulated the Police staff and veterans on professional holiday,
celebrated in Armenia on April 16.

"A policeman’s image in a democratic society should inspire a feeling
of confidence and security. Your rating in the society is directly
connected with the crime rate in the country and the scale of its
detection," said the President’s letter of congratulation.

Kocharyan pointed out that the reforms in the Police system are called
to increase the productivity of Police staff’s work, its modernization,
as well as extermination of negative phenomena.

"Many functions committed to you by the Government, directly refer
to citizens, starting from passport issuing up to traffic security
provision. You are those officials, who represent the Republic of
Armenia," Kocharyan said.

"I wish you to do your difficult professional job with the sense of
high responsibility, dignity and success," the letter said.

RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SHOULD NOT BE PRECONDITION FOR OPENING ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
April 16 2007

YEREVAN, April 16. /ARKA/. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide
should not be a precondition for opening the Armenian-Turkish border,
the Chairman of Christian-Democratic Union of Armenia (CDUA) Khosrov
Harutiunian told a press-conference. According to him, the genocide
problem should not impede establishment of diplomatic relations
with Turkey.

"Armenian-Turkish relations have a strategic orientation: opening the
Armenian-Turkish border not only opens up economic opportunities to us,
but creates a real chance for global integration," Harutiunian said.

According to Harutiunian, after the border is opened, Armenia
will become a renewed country and will be perceived in the world
differently.

Armenia and Turkey do not have diplomatic relations and the
Armenian-Turkish border has been closed since 1993 initiated by
official Ankara.

Turkey puts a number of preconditions for establishing bilateral
relations, particularly Armenia’s resignation of the policy of
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Empire
and concessions on Karabakh issue.

According to international experts, as a result of the Turkey’s
blockade against Armenia, the Armenian economy suffers $500 mln damage
every year.

UNITED STATES: RELATIONS WITH AZERBAIJAN, TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
Simone Comi

Equilibri.net , Italy
April 16 2007

Involved in a number of international fronts and areas the United
State’s remain the primary political and economic partner of the
European Union and the Caucasian States – due in part to strong
cooperative relations with Azerbaijan. The possible cooling of
relations between Washington and Ankara could have a negative influence
in the Middle East – an area already under a certain strain due to the
problematic relations with Syria and Iran and the difficult situation
in Iraq.

New energy agreements with Azerbaijan and a cooling in USA-Turkey
relations

The United States and Azerbaijan have signed an agreement of
reciprocal collaboration in the energy sector. The agreement,
developed by the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Elmar
Mamedyarov, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, focuses on
collaboration in the context of energy security in the Caspian Sea
region. As its principal objective the Memorandum of Understanding
focuses on the enlargement of production and exportation, for and
towards international markets, of Azerbaijan’s oil and gas reserves and
the construction of a gas pipeline that will cross Turkey and reach
Greece and Italy. The pipeline will connect Europe’s distribution
network with Azerbaijan’s thus guaranteeing Europe greater energy
security and a diversification of natural gas and petrol sources,
a factor significant to reducing Europe’s energy dependancy on Russia.

In the same period that the MoU was being signed diplomatic relations
with Ankara registered a moment of difficulty. This was due to the news
that the House of Representatives were intent upon approving a motion
that would condemn as genocide the massacre of Armenians in Turkey
between 1915 and 1923. To date 15 countries, including Switzerland and
France, have denounced the acts as genocide. The reply to Turkey’s
protests was entrusted to the Secretary of State and the Defense
Secretary: Condoleeza Rice e Robert Gates in a joint statement to
the head of the House of Representative’s Foreign Commission, Thomas
Lantos, declared that the resolution would ruin relations with the
ally and requested that the motion not be voted upon. The Speaker
of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has already announced that the vote will
take place by mid-April, however, should this happen then President
Bush may well intervene in order to block any such action.

Speaking in front of the House Foreign Commission the under-Secretary
of State, Daniel Fried, explained that the repercussions to US-Turkish
relations would be extremely serious. The Turkish Government has
already threatened to close the American air-base at Incirlik – one
of the most important for troop and supply movements towards the
Middle East – and deny overfly permission. The under-Secretary of
State also let it be understood that Turkey could act against Kurds
in the north of Iraqi in a moment in which the American presence is
ever more important in the country.

Opinion polls in Turkey have shown that support for the United States
is at the lowest level ever, Fried underlined the fact that twice in
the past, in 1990 and 2000, the House did not vote on similar motions
in order to preserve American diplomatic relations with Ankara. The
turkish foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, during a visit to Washington in
January stated that Turkey is reconsidering its past history but that
all foreign condemnation would be counterproductive. For the Armenian
communities around the world postponing or canceling the resolution
would be a momentary defeat, representatives of the most important
American communities have already declared that even if the motion is
withdrawn it would be proposed again after the 2008 elections when, as
expected, the White House will host a representative of the Democrats.

The new economic agreement between Europe and the United States

Relations between the United States and Europe are completely
different: according to the official declarations of Robert Kimmit,
the vice-Secretary of the Treasury, Washington and Brussels seem
ready to up their economic integration to a higher level. This would
be achieved by lowering normative obstacles in order to reach direct
reciprocal investments and the integration of financial markets.

The United States have favorably received the initiative to improve
the transatlantic market proposed by the German Chancellor, Angela
Merkel, and representatives of the US treasury have declared that the
United States and the European Union need to arrive at the economic
summit of 30 April with a series of proposals. The objectives that
the US and European negotiators have posed are clear: reduce as far
as possible US and European norms and promote a harmonious convergence
of the policies that still divide the two markets. The vice-Secretary
of the Treasury underlined that the American priority in the global
commercial arena was the success of the Doha Round, thus lowering
the fears of many analysts that believed that a greater integration
of the world’s two major economic powers would favor a weakening of
the current forces aimed at reducing global barriers.

Both Kimmit and the principal US economic analysts agree that the
forces necessary to furthering economic relations between the United
States and Europe will be of equivalent success to the forces necessary
to obtaining a single european market – one which has less barriers,
better protects intellectual property and promotes greater competition
in transport infrastructure and business services.

As regards the potential of the agreements Daniel Hamilton, Director
of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins
University, underlined how commercial relations between the US and
the EU differentiate from relations with other regions. The barriers
to free-trade between the US and the EU are already quite low and
the real question is removing legislative barriers to the flow of
capital. Hamilton added that a strong ‘transatlantic motor’ could
function to the advantage of the global economy; reaching a high
level of success in relations with the principal economic partners,
such as the EU, could bring the US to being a better client for goods
coming from markets in which the US presence is not so strong.

According to Hamilton during the first half of the current decade
Europe received more than 57% of American direct foreign investment
while representing 75% of foreign capital invested in the United
States. These investments could increase if both parties resolve the
issue of the diverse corporate administration and fiscal duties –
currently major investors lament the fact that the differences are
the source of considerable costs and problems.

Conclusions

The new MoU between the US and Azerbaijan have brought about a greater
closeness between Russia and China, not only politically but also
in terms of economic and technology cooperation. Although there has
been no substantial progress in the Siberian oil pipeline that would
create a link between the two countries, commercial agreements for
a value of 4 billion dollars have been agreed upon. Of particular
importance is the agreement to collaborate in space programs, including
the launch in 2009 of a Chinese satellite that will orbit Mars and
a Moon space-shuttle that will be used to build an orbiting space
station. The collaboration in question is of political significance
above all, even if their interests are diverse both countries are
intent on giving the impression of ever greater strength in order to
counter balance the United States – an influence particularly strong
in europe and one that will become ever stronger in the Caucasian
region. Of crucial importance is the resolution of the diplomatic
crisis between Washington and Ankara: the closure of the American
base in Incirlik and the blockage of fly-over permission would create
enormous obstacles to the US presence in Iraq.

_States__relations_with_Azerbaijan__Turkey_and_the _European_Union

UN COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE DENIAL

The Toronto Star, Canada
April 16, 2007 Monday

More than 90 years ago, when Turkey was still part of the Ottoman
Empire, Turkish nationalists launched an extermination campaign there
that killed 1.5 million Armenians.

It was the 20th century’s first genocide. The world noticed, but
did nothing, setting an example that surely emboldened such later
practitioners as Hitler, the Hutu leaders of Rwanda in 1994 and
today’s Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

Turkey has long tried to deny the Armenian genocide. Even in the
modern-day Turkish republic, which was not a party to the killings,
using the word "genocide" in reference to these events is prosecuted
as a serious crime. Which makes it all the more disgraceful that
United Nations officials are bowing to Turkey’s demands and blocking
the scheduled opening of an exhibit at UN headquarters commemorating
the 13th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide because it mentions the
mass murder of the Armenians.

Ankara was offended by a sentence that explained how genocide came to
be recognized as a crime under international law: "Following World
War I, during which 1 million Armenians were murdered in Turkey,
Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin urged the League of Nations to recognize
crimes of barbarity as international crimes."

The exhibit’s organizer, a British-based anti-genocide group, was
willing to omit the words "in Turkey." But that was not enough for
the UN’s craven new leadership, and the exhibit has been indefinitely
postponed.

It’s odd that Turkey’s leaders have not figured out by now that
every time they try to censor discussion of the Armenian genocide,
they only bring wider attention to the subject and link today’s
democratic Turkey with the now distant crime.

As for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his inexperienced new
leadership team, they have once again shown how much they have to learn
if they are to honourably and effectively serve the United Nations,
which is supposed to be the embodiment of international law and a
leading voice against genocide.

This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared Friday in
the New York Times.