Month: September 2008

BELARUS RESPONDS CAUTIOUSLY TO GEORGIAN CRISIS
By David Marples

Eurasia Daily Monitor
Sept 2 2008
DC

Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka One of the interesting
features of the Russia-Georgia conflict has been the sluggish support
Russia has received from its allies. Perhaps most notable has been
the reaction in Minsk, where the government of President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka has acted ambivalently and still appears to be vacillating
over the wisest course of action.

Belarusian Television, as well as the official media, greeted the news
that war had broken out in Tskhinvali with silence. For several days
most residents of Belarus received news feeds about events only from
the Russian television channels. Even investigative programs such as
Panarama failed to mention the war.

On August 12, four days after the conflict began, Aleksandr Surikov,
Russia’s ambassador to Belarus, commented angrily on what he called
the "incomprehensible silence" of official Minsk with regard to the
Russian-Georgian war. Despite the fact that Russia had always backed
Belarus, particularly during its international isolation based on its
treatment of opposition leaders, Belarus had not supported Russia’s
position in the war, nor had it offered aid or sanctuary to troops and
civilians from South Ossetia who were injured or homeless (Reuters,
August 12).

The Russian on-line newspaper Vzglyad likewise described Belarus’s
reaction as a "betrayal" of its close ally and seemed particularly
incensed over a Belarusian media spokesperson’s call for an
end to the conflict and the laying down of arms by both sides
( ). Surikov noted that only
a minor official from the Belarusian Foreign Ministry had provided
a statement concerning Belarus’s response. In the main organ of the
presidential administration, the newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussiya,
a balanced article by Ihar Kalchenka called for an end to the armed
conflict and a peaceful solution (SB Belarus’ Segodnya, August 9).

At a previously scheduled meeting with Russian president Dmitry
Medvedev at Sochi on August 19, however, Lukashenka decided to offer
support to Russia. He thanked the Russians for "establishing peace in
the Caucasus" and declared that Russia’s thrust into Georgia did not
constitute an act of war. Rather it was a calm response that led to
peace in the region. Everything was done, he commented, "excellently,
very calmly, wisely, and beautifully" (krasivo). The two countries then
announced that they would sign an agreement on a unified air defense
system later in the fall (Belorusy i Rynok, August 25-September 1).

After Medvedev ratified the Russian Duma’s decision to recognize
the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Lukashenka sent
a message to Moscow, stating that with the situation getting ever
more complex, the only moral choice for Russia was to support South
Ossetia and Abkhazia. He did not, however, offer recognition from
Minsk and went on to say that it would be expedient to examine the
issue of the two regions’ independence at the forthcoming meeting of
the Collective Security Treaty Organization in Moscow on September 5
(Belapan, August 28), along with the other members of the organization:
Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

Russian news agencies then reported that although to date no countries
had followed Medvedev’s appeal to recognize the independence of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Belarusian authorities intended to do so
"in the next day or two." Almost immediately, a government source in
Minsk issued a statement that no further comment would be forthcoming
from Belarus (RIA-Novosti, August 28; Reuters, August 28). In other
words, Belarus has stopped short thus far of recognizing the breakaway
regions.

On August 16, just over a week after the conflict began, Lukashenka
issued a pardon for the last remaining designated political prisoner,
Alyaksandr Kazulin, who was detained at a penal colony in Vitsebsk
region, having served just over two years of a five-and-a-half
year sentence. Kazulin immediately appealed to the United States
and the European Union not to commence a new dialogue with Belarus
based on his release, noting the difficulties to which he and his
family had been subjected. Though awarded a pardon by the president
personally, he had signed no document nor had he been aware of the
nature of his release. Furthermore, his conviction was not revoked
(, August 16; , August 20).

The release of Kazulin and the nebulous Belarusian position on the
Russia-Georgia conflict suggest that the government of Lukashenka
is hoping for a relaxation of U.S. sanctions on its oil processing
company Belnaftakhim, as well as closer cooperation with the EU
through its Eastern Neighborhood program. Such concessions would
not be forthcoming if Belarus were to take an unequivocal position
alongside Russia with regard to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Adding to Belarus’s dilemma is the planned construction of a
U.S. anti-missile base in Poland, which Lukashenka has strongly
opposed, and at the same time the need to reach a modified agreement
with Russia on a new $2 billion loan as well as on gas prices,
which some sources fear could rise sharply. Russia has also demanded
frequently that the two countries switch to the use of a single
currency, that is, the Russian ruble (Kommersant, August 20). Thus,
the authorities are conducting a balancing act, not wanting to offend
either Russia or the West.

Lukashenka has assured Medvedev that Belarus remains a close friend and
supporter of Russia (BelTA, August 28). However, in reality Belarus’
position is that of a reluctant partner of Russian adventurism. As
one writer noted, the republic would likely be the first casualty of
a new Cold War and would be incorporated into a new imperial Russia
(Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, August 26).

DICK CHENEY TO TAKE FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIA’S OIL DOMINANCE TO AZERBAIJAN
By Damien McElroy in Tbilisi

Daily Telegraph
02 Sep 2008
UK

Dick Cheney, the US vice-president will arrive in the Caucasus on a
mission to prevent Russia from gaining a stranglehold over Central
Asia’s vast reserves of energy.

As he starts a tour of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, Mr Cheney
will try to allay fears that Russia’s campaign in Georgia has fatally
damaged a cornerstone of the West’s energy policy.

That message will be particularly potent in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku,
once the capital of the Soviet oil industry and now a pivotal ally
of the United States.

The Caucasus region, between the gas-rich Caspian Sea and Turkey,
provides the only energy pathway from Central Asia to Europe that
does not traverse Russia or Iran.

"If Azerbaijan tilts to Russia there goes 15 years of US energy
diplomacy," said a Western diplomat in Baku. "Cheney has the history
and personal clout to make this trip clearly focused on energy."

Mr Cheney’s unparalleled reputation as a defender of US interests and
close ties to the oil industry means the vice president is uniquely
placed to deliver a tough message to Russia.

John Hannah, his national security advisor said: "The overriding
priority, especially in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev, will be the same: a
clear and simple message that the United States has a deep and abiding
interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world."

After European leaders bickered over how to deal with Russia at
a summit on Monday, Mr Cheney will have to shore up Azerbaijan’s
confidence in Western support.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Georgian prime minister
Lado Gurgenidze said that without efforts by Gordon Brown, the EU
position would have been weaker.

"We are aware that the document perhaps would have read differently
if it had not been for the efforts of the British delegation," he said.

The vulnerability of pipelines running from Azerbaijan to Turkey was
dramatically illustrated by Russia’s war in Georgia, when exports
were halted and expatriate energy workers evacuated.

"Russia didn’t need to attack the pipelines running through Georgia
but by stopping the flow west it ensured that the great fears over the
system have been realised," said Andrew Neff, an analyst at research
firm, Global Insight. "Cheney must ensure that Azerbaijan doesn’t
take the wrong message from events in Georgia."

Supplies of Azeri gas are crucial to European efforts to build the
2,000 mile Nabucco pipeline through Turkey to Austria by 2013. Its
inauguration would erode Russian’s dominant role in energy supplies
to Central and Eastern Europe.

America has been a strong proponent of the project. "Without Azeri
gas, the Nabucco pipeline is dead on the drawing board," said Mr
Neff, who concluded that Russia’s campaign in Georgia had given it a
"de facto veto" over energy flows through Georgia.

Russia has already attempted to coax Azerbaijan away from its Western
backers. President Dmitry Medvedev used a visit to Baku in the spring
to herald "co-operation prospects" between the two states.

Gazprom, the large Russian oil firm, has offered to pay market rates
for its gas, which at a time of rising prices is more attractive than
the long-term supply deal prices proposed by the West.

Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s president, has been solidly pro-Western
since succeeding his father in 2003.

However, despite its rapid economic growth, Azerbaijan remains
vulnerable to Russia intervention in the breakaway enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh. As in the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh rely on Russian backing.

Diplomats have urged Mr Aliyev not to succumb to the short-term
pressures of Russian expansionism. "It’s ‘don’t lose sight of the
long-term goal for a short-term fix’," said one official. "Ultimately
Azerbaijan needs direct access to the Western market to remain
independent of Russia."

Senior American conservatives have rallied behind Mr Cheney’s trip,
possibly his last significant act before President George W Bush’s
term ends in January. "The security of Georgia and Azerbaijan are
vital American interests for a variety of reasons," said John Bolton,
a former US ambassador to the United Nations. "Including the critical
corridor they provide to get oil and natural gas out of the Caspian
Basin region without transiting Russia or Iran. Europe should also
understand this key point."

ENCIRCLEMENT OF ARMENIA MAY BECOME TIGHTER
Vardan Grigoryan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008
Armenia

If no non-standard steps are undertaken

Although, after the recent events in South Ossetia, the
Armenian-Georgian railway communication has already been restored,
the swift developments in the region come to show that in case of
relying upon the restricted communication resources our country may
face serious problems in the near future.

On August 28, right after Russia’s recognition of the independence of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia broke off its diplomatic and all
kinds of other ties with Moscow. Tbilisi has not only terminated the
communication between the two countries, but also refused to comply
with its commitments within the frameworks of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) which obliged the country to allow
the Russian air companies to carry out flights to Armenia via the
Georgian territory.

During the recent days, the Russian planes leaving Volgograd and other
towns have been arriving in Yerevan via the Azerbaijani airspace,
and our neighbor is trying to take advantage of the situation.

The Mass Media of Baku have already raised a wave of protest, however,
the Azerbaijani authorities say that Yerevan allows the airplanes
heading for Nakhijevan to fly over their territory, therefore they
can’t create obstacles for the aircraft entering Armenia.

Following the re cognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia
has been facing the real threat of being cut off from Armenia, its
strategic ally. Moreover, there also exists the problem of helping the
Russian military bases located in our country to overcome the blockade
– a prospect in which neither Georgia nor Azerbaijan have any interest.

The threat of encircling Armenia may increase still further if
the recent publications of the foreign press regarding Israel’s
plans of bombing the nuclear reserves of Iran with the help of the
United States become a reality this autumn. In that case, Armenia may
actually find itself in a total political-military blockade, as all
the roads ensuring the protection of our state will be closed. It
will be possible to import the required quantity of petrol, diesel
fuel and wheat via the Georgian territory at best till the beginning
of winter; as to the rest, we will have to take care of it on our own.

However, our country cannot feel totally secure in that sense
either. The thing is that, after the recent Russian-Georgian armed
conflict, Georgia has been looking upon our close military-political
cooperation with Russia in a kind of scowling manner. Now, the
Georgian propaganda never misses the occasion of reminding Russia about
Armenia’s dependence upon the Georgian transportation-communication
channels.

"The Kremlin overlooked even the fact that Georgia could have used all
its economic levers against Armenia, its closest partner, in case it
wished so," a certain Fridon Dochia writes in "The Georgiana Times",
"and it could have done that at the time when the Russians themselves
were pouring oil on the flames." Such remainders often take the form
of obvious pressures, the improper delays in the entry of the trains
to Armenia being one of their manifestations from time to time.

And that these are political pressures is substantiated by the
publication of the same "Georgian Times". In an article entitled "
‘Lookoil’ and ‘Rompetrol’ Save Armenia from Blockade", the newspaper
conducts thorough studies of the companies supplying Armenia with power
generating substances and finds out that some of those companies have
Russian origins. Furthermore, the companies realizing the export of
the supplies from Burgas to Poti and form Romania to Batumi, i.e.

"Lookoil" and "Rompetrol", as well as the addressees, i.e.

the RA Ministry of Defense and "Flash" company, are studied one by one.

The whole information published by the Georgian correspondent has
also appeared in the Azerbaijani press which actively discusses the
possibilities for hindering the transportation of the supplies to
the relevant agencies of Armenia via the Georgia territory.

Regardless whether the above-mentioned publication results from
mere curiosity or is some provocation instructed to Fridon Dochia,
the correspondent of "The Georgian Times", it objectively becomes a
forewarning addressed to Armenia which, in case of undertaking any step
undesirable for Georgia, may be deprived of petrol and diesel fuel.

Naturally, the issue cannot be overlooked by the Armenian and Russian
Presidents during their meeting held in Sochi today. Armenia has
become faced with an extremely difficult and dangerous dilemma. And
our strategic ally should take that fact into consideration. Obviously
Armenia is not Belarus, and it has to demonstrate utmost cautiousness.

Russia in its turn is also undertaking active steps towards
accelerating the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border. The
recent press publications on Russian customs officers’ "delaying"
the entry of around 10 thousand big Turkish trailers into Russia can
probably be accounted for by this. It is also necessary to keep in
mind that Russia is the supplier of around 60 percent of the gas and
56.4 percent of the coal used in Turkey.

All that forces Ankara to adopt strictly cautious attitudes towards
the recent developments in Georgia. However, the Russian side is no
longer satisfied with that because the issue at stake is actually
concerned with the existence of its military base in Gyumri, the
only fulcrum it has in the South Caucasus, and the future of the
Armenian-Russian relations.

Thus,20the new barrier faced by Russia after the recognition of the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has become a new circle of
blockade for Armenia, with Turkey being the only way towards overcoming
it in a peaceful manner. Otherwise, unpredictable developments may
be expected in the region.

ARMENIA NEEDS AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
Naira Khachatryan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008
Armenia

Chairman of Armenian – Georgian inter-parliamentary committee Volodya
Badalyan was the guest of "Urbat" club yesterday.

"After the explosion of the railway bridge on August 16, next day
the Chief of Georgian railway administration called us and asked for
help. The railway had to be restored, to continue the transportation
of the loads. I appealed to the leadership of South-Caucasian railway
and they immediately responded," V. Badalyan said.

The group of specialists armed with all the necessary technical means
was in Tbilisy in the evening of August 18. "We left by a special
train and took 3 wagons of sleepers with us. We received a very cordial
visit in Tbilisy from where we took our direction to city Kaspy.

The exploded bridge was located 8-10 km from that city. By the help
of Armenian specialists and the sleepers that we took with us we
started the reconstruction works."

The reconstruction works of the main bridge is still on: "In my view
these works will continue for one month. Luckily there was another
old bridge just next to the exploded one and it was possible to
reconstruct that one more swiftly and provide a round-about way. If
I’m not mistaken, on August 22nd the round-about way was ready. But
unfortunately that part of the railway can work only by diesel
locomotives and only by one direction. That is to say the wagons can
transport loads by two directions simultaneously, because there is
only one line.

To provide the transportation of first aid loads to Armenia the group
decided to move forward to Batum and Potty. "After the reconstruction
of the railway around 350 wagons of wheat, 68 wagons of petrol, and
other goods have been transported to Armenia. All in all 982 wagons
of load have already been transported to Armenia, by a round-about
way. There were certain difficulties in Potty, I must say that lots
of problems have appeared immediately after the war state but they
are almost solved and the railway is ready to return to its normal
schedule."

According to V. Badalyan the imported goods mainly belong to private
companies. "Those who worked actively didn’t have any problems. Even
if at the moment they appeal for help we are ready to help them in
the reconstruction of the roads, wagons and ports. Anyway at the
moment there are no accumulations on the roads."

As for the petrol: "On September 3 2500 tones of petrol will enter
Armenia. In my view the work is in normal process. There are lots of
difficulties on the roads and we can’t exclude anything, because it
is a post-war territory.

In that regard the issue of security is especially difficult to solve:
"Georgia=2 0is in fact in a "blitz-war". In such conditions no one
can guarantee security. When we went to the exploded bridge there
was no one there, even foreign journalists. They asked the cadres of
the exploded bridge from our group. But at the moment the authorities
must provide security."

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE MOVING FORCE OF COLORED REVOLUTIONS
Karen Nahapetyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008
Armenia

Many of us have most probably noticed that the moving force of the
native liberation movement is far not Armenian Pan National Movement,
or "Hanrapetutyun" or the People’s Party of Armenia, but rather the
non-governmental organizations, the so-called public organizations. It
is by the help of the before mentioned organizations that all the
protest functions are usually organized.

It is one of the modern revolutionary technologies. The experience
of the recent years has displayed the privileges of the public
organizations over the classical political parties. Flexibility,
destabilization, activities of various directions, high level of
dynamism and many other peculiarities of those organizations make
the counteraction of the law enforcers and the public services rather
difficult.

There are lots of social-political organizations in our reality. They
are civil-public institutions, structures of the self-organization
of the citizens in different spheres of life and activity.

Meanwhile, there are many other public organizations, which are engaged
exclusively in political activity, moreover, it is for that very
purpose that they are established, by the help of foreign grants. And
this evidently goes beyond the frameworks of the civil society.

In our view it is high time to give assessment to the activity of
the =0 D so-called civil institutions with political trend, which
completely changes the concept of the civil society.

Today the difference between the civil public organizations and the
political processes is intentionally eradicated; this should have long
ago become a matter of analyses. Whereas the public organizations
usually appear with the role of a judge that can take decisions
regarding the political organization of society and the activity of
the state institutions.

But if the parties – the classical participants of the political
processes have to regularly prove their own authority, by their
participation during the elections and show the level of the public
support by the votes gained (that is to say their right to introduce
their ideas to the society), then the public organizations engaged
in politics think they don’t have to prove their right to give
lessons on politics. They simply have a claim on the position of the
prosecutor. Do they have the right?

The funding and the establishment of similar public organizations
is the component of the organization of any colored revolution. For
example before "the revolution of tulips" in Kirgizistan, around 5-8
thousand similar organizations were established in this country by
foreign grants. By the number of the public organizations Kigizistan
was a champion in CIS. It was really ridiculous; almost each village
had its own public organization.

By establishing the se organizations the foreign funds were trying
to emphasize their importance. Should we mention that by increasing
the number of the public organizations they were far not trying to
establish civil society and democracy in this country?

Though how can we even speak about democracy? Democracy, in the 21st
century, has become a matter of political blackmail, interference in
the internal affairs of sovereign states and false speculations. It
has become a tool by the help of which they realize all the before
mentioned, in which the public organizations established by the
foreign grants serve as a moving force.

At the end we must underscore that the era of new colored revolutions
continue in the post-soviet countries. Of course they fail more and
more, because people are no more optimistic towards them. Our neighbor
Georgia is a bright example of what has been said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESIDENT SERGE SARGSYAN’S CONGRATULATORY ADDRESS ON THE OCCASION OF THE INDEPENDENCE DAY OF THE NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008
Armenia

I congratulate you on the occasion of the Independence Day.

The past 17 years came to prove that the choice of the people of
Artsakh was the only right way in the existing situation. For us,
that choice is historical, sacred and irreversible. Today is the
holiday of all of us, including those who became immortalized with
their feats for the sake of the liberated and dignified motherland.

Dear people of Artsakh,

You stood the test of both war and peace with dignity, and today,
you have devoted yourselves to the task of building and protecting
the free country.

You have devoted yourselves to this task in order to improve your
activities in the state government, social and economic spheres and
change your lives for the better. And I am sure that you will be able
to solve the existing problems and resist all the future challenges
with the help of Armenia and the whole Armenian people.

Congratulating you once again on this nice holiday, I wish you a
serene sky and sustainable progress.

ABDULLAH GYUL TO ARRIVE IN ARMENIA

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
02 Sep 2008
Armenia

In an interview with the journalists, Turkish Prime Minister Tayip
Erdoghan said that Mr. Gyul will leave for Yerevan by the invitation of
Armenian President Serge Sargsyan to watch the football match between
the Armenian and Turkish representative teams on the 6th of September.

After this assertion, several Turkish Parliamentarians belonging to
the ruling "Justice and Development" party (JDP) submitted requests
to the leadership of the JDP faction for obtaining permission to
leave for Yerevan.

The leadership of the ruling parliamentary faction was to pass a
decision on the MPs’ desire yesterday evening, during the session of
the Central Administrative Council.

Mr. Erdoghan has said that during his visit to Armenia President
Abdullah Gyul will be accompanied by Foreign Minister Ali Babajan.
From: Baghdasarian

WHAT ‘OCCUPATION’?
By Ashley Perry

Jerusalem Post
20353263300&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowF ull
Sept 2 2008

The recent occurrences in Georgia present a good opportunity to
compare how the media describe certain world events.

The conflict between Georgia and Russia was immediately cited by
President Mikhail Saakashvili as an "occupation of Georgia." The case
involved a sovereign independent nation where a neighboring hostile
army held onto and asserted its authority over territory within its
recognized boundaries. This is a classic definition of an "occupation."

The Hague Conventions of 1907 state specifically that "territory is
considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of
the hostile army." However, much of the world’s media do not appear
to have knowledge of the legal definitions in its appellation of the
Georgia-Russia conflict.

Most of the major media organizations have only used the word
"occupation" when quoting Saakashvili or others like British Foreign
Secretary David Milliband. Agence France Presse in almost every
report used the term "occupation" in quotation marks, or claimed that
"Tiblisi has labeled them [the Russians] an occupying force." Many
other media organizations follow suit.

Senior British journalist Peter Wilby implies in The Guardian that
Saakashvili has used terms like occupation to win a public relations
battle. He contends that the Georgian president knows which words pull
heartstrings in the West. "Note the use of terms that trigger Western
media interest: civilian victims, nuclear, humanitarian, occupation,
ethnic cleansing," Wilby wrote.

There is a sort of irony in the fact that The Guardian, long accused
of treating Israel unfairly in its reporting, has an article clearly
stating how certain words are utilized to garner sympathy for a
particular cause, when all these terms have been used against Israel
in the past – and mostly without quotation marks.

ISRAEL DOES not fit the literal definition of an occupying force. The
Hague Conventions and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not
appear to apply definitively to the West Bank. The West Bank has
never been sovereign territory, and was won from a nation which
held no legal claim to the area. After Israel conquered the West
Bank and Gaza, former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar wrote
in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the Fourth
Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the West Bank
and Gaza Strip, since the convention "is based on the assumption that
there had been a sovereign which was ousted, and that it had been a
legitimate sovereign."

To take it a step further, former US State Department legal adviser
Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice
in The Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: "Where the prior
holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state
which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of
self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

OBVIOUSLY, MANY would disagree with these formulations. However,
there is enough evidence to contend that Israel is not "occupying"
the West Bank according to the letter of international law. This
is further codified in UN Security Council Resolution 242 which,
according to its drafters, allows Israel to hold onto territories
it won in the 1967 war. This stands in contradistinction to other
theaters of conflict and occupation.

In 1975, an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
established that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial
sovereignty. Nevertheless, when the Western Sahara receives any
column inches in the international media, it is seldom referred to as
"occupied."

Nagorno-Karabakh, the area of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent
republic by indigenous Armenian separatists, is in the main referred
to as "disputed."

Of course, the media attention Tibet received as a result of China’s
holding the Summer Olympics provided another recent comparison. Again,
the famous quotation marks are frequently applied when using the
term "occupation" – if the word is used at all – to China’s control
of Tibet.

There are many other examples of territories that could denote an
occupation but are referred to as "disputed."

According to Dore Gold, former ambassador to the UN and president of
the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, there appears to be a major
disparity in the terminology describing conflicts around the globe.

"Of course each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety
of other territorial disputes – from northern Cyprus to the Kurile
Islands to Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf, which have involved some
degree of armed conflict – the term ‘occupied territories’ is not
commonly used in international discourse. Thus, the case of the West
Bank appears to be a special exception," Gold wrote.

THE TERM occupation has been long used as an accusation by the
Palestinians in what Wilby would describe as a "PR war." However, as
opposed to how circumspect the world media are about other territorial
disagreements, they are almost unequivocal that the West Bank is
"occupied."

This has had many ramifications as the UN now uses the term "occupied
territories" as if by rote in its resolutions when describing the
West Bank. Perhaps even more worryingly, the Israeli government has
bought into this terminology, which flies in the face of its own
legal opinions.

The Road Map which was agreed to by the government referred to an
"occupation that began in 1967," and soon after prime minister
Ariel Sharon criticized what he called the "occupation" in the
territories. By referring to the West Bank as occupied, Sharon broke
one of the greatest taboos in Israeli governmental policy.

Today, it has almost become commonplace for high-ranking
officials like Tzipi Livni to use the term "occupation" in their
speeches. Consequently, the government has adopted the language of
its accusers in the media, and has thus handed itself a major defeat
in its own PR war.

The writer is an editor at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
for the Middle East Strategic Information Project.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

OPPOSITON RAISES VOICE TO PREVENT GuL’S VISIT TO YEREVAN

Today’s Zaman
Sept 3 2008
Turkey

Although deputies of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK
Party) will not attend a soccer game between Armenia and Turkey in
Yerevan this weekend, it is likely that President Abdullah Gul will
attend the match upon an invitation from his Armenian counterpart
despite harsh criticism from the opposition.

While some academics say they cannot understand the attitude of the
opposition, others say the visit may indeed be problematic.

Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan had previously invited Gul to
watch the Sept. 6. World Cup qualifying match between the Turkish
and Armenian national teams in Yerevan, with which Ankara does not
have any official relations.

The necessary diplomatic back channels are in place for organizing
the possible presidential visit.

Turkey’s opposition parties have been extremely critical of Gul’s
possible visit. Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal
said the government is trying to reverse the country’s official policy
without Armenia meeting any of the conditions demanded by Turkey
for the normalization of ties. He also warned against alienating
Azerbaijan, saying this country is of vital importance for Turkey in
many respects.

The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), whose late leader, Alparslan
TurkeÅ~_, worked to improve ties between Turkey and Armenia, has
also opposed Gul’s possible visit. MHP leader Devlet Bahceli has
said Gul’s visit would be a historic mistake that would harm Turkey’s
national pride.

Turkey was among the first countries to recognize Armenia’s
independence, but it closed its border and severed formal ties with
Yerevan after Armenia occupied Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Turkish
policy, the normalization of ties requires an Armenian withdrawal
from Azerbaijani territory, the shelving of Yerevan’s support for
the Armenian diaspora’s efforts to win international recognition for
Armenian claims of genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire
and Armenia’s formal recognition of the current border with Turkey.

Professor Hasan Köni, from BahceÅ~_ehir University’s international
relations department, says a visit by Gul to Yerevan would be in
Turkey’s interests and that if the opposition is opposing it, it may
be because they are not well informed about the recent situation in
the Caucasus.

"The situation in the Caucasus is even more complicated now. Turkey is
trying to follow a policy that serves stability. Gul’s visit will serve
this aim," Köni says, adding that the Foreign Ministry should inform
the opposition parties about the recent situation in the Caucasus.

Baskın Oran, another professor of international relations who supports
Gul’s possible visit to Yerevan, said that he finds it difficult to
understand the position taken by the opposition parties. "Actually,
I was not surprised by the attitude of the CHP. … But the MHP’s
stance is surprising since their late chairman worked to improve
relations between Turkey and Armenia," he says.

But another opposition party, the Democratic Society party (DTP),
supports Gul’s visit to Yerevan. DTP co-chairwoman Emine Ayna pointed
out that the soccer game will not solve the problems between the two
countries and Turkey will not lose anything, but that Gul’s visit
will nonetheless serve to develop dialogue between the two countries.

"Turkey is in denial about some things and the Armenians have some
negative attitudes. These problems should be solved," Ayna told the
Cihan news agency recently.

Apart from diplomatic concerns, the main practical reason for opposing
Gul’s visit is security.

Many AK Party deputies wanted to attend the game, but the party
administration decided not to give permission due to security concerns.

Kaan Soyak, from the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council,
stressed that a new beginning is needed and that security will be
assured in Yerevan. "I don’t think that there will be protests but
if there are any, the Armenian state will silence them," Soyak said.

But Center for International Relations and Strategic Analysis (TURKSAM)
Chairman Sinan Ogan is doubtful about security in Armenia and warns
that if there are any protests or security problems, relations between
two countries could get even worse. "It is very difficult to control
a stadium. There is a huge risk there and I am not sure it is worth
taking this risk," he said.

Meanwhile, Turkish national team coach Fatih Terim said yesterday
at a press conference the game in Yerevan is a game, not a war:
"It is true that our rivals will prepare for this game with a special
motivation. For us this is just a soccer game. When I think about my
friends from all over the world that I met because of soccer, it is
impossible for me think in another way. You cannot prepare yourself
for a game while thinking about history and political problems. We
cannot carry the burden of history on our shoulders, if we do that
it will slow us down."

–Boundary_(ID_b3566YVFyQH7fQU9mEE4Tg )–

BABACAN REMINDS BAHCELI OF TURKES’ TALKS WITH TER-PETROSIAN

Today’s Zaman
Sept 3 2008
Turkey

Foreign Minister Ali Babacan has responded to nationalist opposition
leader Devlet Bahceli — who suggested the government acted under
foreign pressure concerning rapprochement moves with Armenia —
reminding him of past contacts between late Alpaslan TurkeÅ~_, the
founder of Bahceli’s party, and Armenian officials.

The debate on the issue stemmed from Armenian President Serzh
Sarksyan’s invitation to President Abdullah Gul to watch the World
Cup qualifying game between the two countries’ national soccer teams
on Sept. 6. Gul has so far remained cautious on the matter, saying he
is still considering whether or not to accept the invitation from his
Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sarksyan. However, Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, speaking to reporters over the weekend, indicated
that Gul would go to Yerevan for the match.

Such signs hinting that Gul would positively respond to the invitation
prompted Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Bahceli to release
a written statement on the issue on Monday.

"Going to Armenia by bowing to foreign pressures and impositions
and by surrendering to Armenian lobbies inside [the country] will be
historical heedlessness and such a manner will wound Turkey’s honor,"
Bahceli said in the statement.

Babacan, in a statement to the Anatolia news agency on Monday evening,
first of all noted that no decision had yet been made as to Gul’s
travel to Yerevan.

"We have difficulty in understanding Mr. Bahceli’s statement that
this visit will harm Turkey’s honor and self-esteem," Babacan said,
saying that it was not possible to accept Bahceli’s accusing statement.

Turkey has recognized Armenia since the early 1990s and there have
been contacts at various levels between the two countries, including
those held by statesmen of the time starting from the first half of
the 1990s.

"Within this framework, there are talks held in line with the
responsibility of a statesman by the late Alpaslan TurkeÅ~_ with
[Levon] Ter-Petrosian," Babacan said, referring to talks between
former Armenian President Ter-Petrosian and former MHP leader TurkeÅ~_
in 1993.

At the time, TurkeÅ~_ indicated that he had informed the prime minister
and foreign minister of Turkey that a meeting was planned between
himself and Ter-Petrossian, noting that the Turkish ambassador and
counselor were also at the meeting which was aimed at trying to see
if the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan could be stopped.

"If this visit is carried out, it will not be a result of foreign
pressures and impositions, but will be a reflection of Turkey’s
constructive efforts for making contribution to peace and stability
in the international field and in its region," Babacan said.

–Boundary_(ID_HbZubBJJVf7Ogpiqy9p0RA)–