What Happened To Madrid Document?

WHAT HAPPENED TO MADRID DOCUMENT?
By Ivan Gharibyan

news.am
Nov 9 2009
Armenia

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ latest visit to the region took place
under "too thick" a veil of secrecy: the international mediators showed
themselves "persons of very few words" with the media. What is more,
several days have passed, but no leak has so far come from the Azeri
mass media.

Meanwhile, what is known as the Madrid document is taking on a strange
aura. Both the international mediators and representatives of the
conflicting parties admit the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process is developing under the Madrid document. From that point
on, however, the sides do not show further "uniformity" in their
positions. Rather, they show disagreements, and it is making them
"as slight as possible" that the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ efforts
must be aimed at.

The Madrid document is what "strange things" have recently happened
to. During the Co-Chairs’ last visit to the region, Russian Co-Chair
Yuri Merzlyakov told NEWS.am that the Madrid document had been revised
and would be submitted to the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders "at the
right moment." The "right moment", however, never comes. In any case,
no clear answer has been received to the question: did the Co-Chairs
submit the revised document to Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev during
their latest visit to the region on November 4-6?

Considering all that is going with the Madrid Principles, one can
arrive at two mutually exclusive conclusions. In the first case, the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process is progressing, and all the parties
involved decided to stop leaking information on the Madrid document
until they agree on the last details for Yerevan and Baku to reach an
agreement without any problems. In the second case, the disagreements
between the Armenian and Azerbaijan Presidents are so sharp that there
is no point in speaking of any principles. The first conclusion is
supported by the fact that the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents
agreed to hold the sixth meeting late this year, which means that
a bilateral agreement is possible. The opposite is corroborated
by official Baku’s more frequent non-constructive statements, and
Yerevan’s responses.

In any case, it is by the background to the next Sargsyan-Aliyev
meeting scheduled for late November that one can judge the results.

Despite the contradictory statements, on the threshold of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani presidential meeting, we can at least form an
idea of whether the peace process is "progressing" or "regressing".

The international mediators should remember, however, that the process
of revising the Madrid Principles behind "too thick" a veil of secrecy
may heighten the tension in both Armenia and Azerbaijan and impede
the preparations for the implementation of agreements.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Iraq Latest Crucible For Harvard Mediation: Negotiations Solve Triba

IRAQ LATEST CRUCIBLE FOR HARVARD MEDIATION: NEGOTIATIONS SOLVE TRIBAL DISPUTES
by James F Smith

Boston Globe
Nov 9 2009
MA

CAMBRIDGE – No longer locked in one big war, Iraq has become a land
of a hundred little wars. And this promised to be one more of them,
as two well-armed tribes clashed over a coveted swath of land.

One tribe brandished a promise to 2,000 acres from the current Iraqi
government. The other pointed to a like promise from the regime of
Saddam Hussein. Guns were raised, shots fired. There seemed no ground
for compromise, beyond the familiar local remedy: blood.

But then something extraordinary happened. The tribes agreed to
negotiate and, with the help of the local mayor and others, crafted
a deal giving both sides enough land to meet their needs.

"They began thinking of their relationship instead of thinking about
revenge upon each other," said Sa’ad Al-Khalidy, one of those who
arranged the intervention.

If it sounds like a chapter ripped right out of a dispute mediation
manual, well, it was. And the book was written in Cambridge.

The blood not spilled in central Iraq was another victory for the
mediation movement spawned by Harvard Law School guru Roger Fisher,
coauthor of the 1981 book "Getting to Yes." The Boston area has become
a global hub for teaching conflict resolution theory and practice
for uses in law, diplomacy, and business in farflung places.

The mediators in the Iraqi tribes’ dispute had all been recently
trained in methods developed by Fisher, whose landmark work in the
1960s and 1970s lives on in the many graduate school programs and
companies that he and his students have forged.

Dispute resolution programs now offer master’s and even doctoral
degrees at some campuses, among them the University of Massachusetts
at Boston, MIT, Tufts, and Brandeis. The Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School is a renowned source of expertise in the field.

Conflict management experts from the Boston area also helped tackle
vexing international stalemates, from Northern Ireland to South Africa,
Kosovo to China.

No wonder that when the State Department wanted to encourage Iraq
to move toward a culture of mediation and away from war, it turned
to Conflict Management Group, or CMG, the nonprofit consulting firm
launched by Fisher in Cambridge in 1984 that is now part of the
international development and relief group Mercy Corps.

A total of 73 municipal officials and tribal sheiks from across
Iraq underwent intensive training by CMG staffers in May and June in
mediation and negotiation skills. The effort, funded by a $2.5 million
State Department grant, grew out of a successful pilot program in
southern Iraq that trained 19 mediators.

Already, the newly trained mediators have helped local officials tackle
dozens of conflicts, mostly over scarce resources such as farmland, oil
income, electricity and water as well as numerous family disputes. The
goal is to build a national network of respected local negotiators.

Few countries have as much conflict to manage as Iraq. But Iraq has
little tradition of mediation, said Arthur Martirosyan, who lives in
Belmont and has run the Iraqi training program for CMG since 2006.

Traditionally, arbitration of disputes is left up to local sheiks,
whose decisions – picking one claim over another – often leave behind
festering anger.

Martirosyan came to Cambridge in 1991 to work with Fisher at CMG,
after getting a master’s degree from Yale. An ethnic Armenian born
in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, Martirosyan has used his
negotiation and language skills to mediate conflicts in Chechnya and
other regional hotspots as well as the Middle East.

Martirosyan returned to Iraq last month to train 24 more Iraqi
mediators, most of whom are tribal sheiks or municipal council
officials. He will also offer refresher courses to program graduates –
reflecting his conviction that good mediating skills take practice,
like playing the piano.

Khalidy, the coordinator for central and southern Iraq based in
Diwaniyah, said he has seen remarkable achievements by participants in
the pilot program, who went through five intensive rounds of classes.

Sixteen of them are full-time mediators, and have helped solve 32
disputes, ranging from an inheritance claim to a tense standoff
involving 50 abducted police officers, all of whom were released
safely.

"In many conflicts, they have been changed from enemies into partners
against the problem, not against each other," Khalidy said by phone
from Iraq.

Some successes are small. He described one mediation between two
families: one household with young girls built a privacy wall that
blocked sunlight from reaching the neighbor’s house. They had argued
for months, and were close to blows. A mediator helped them cool
down, and get away from their hardened positions. They came up with
a solution: The family that built the wall paid for a skylight for
the neighboring house.

The training uses methods that Fisher devised over decades of academic
study and popularized in "Getting to Yes," published in 1981. The
book has been translated into 18 languages – including a new edition
in Iraqi Arabic for this project.

Liza Baran, a Ukrainian who is Mercy Corps’ program manager for
the negotiation project in Iraq, said the sheiks appreciate the
step-by-step, common-sense approach that Fisher shaped. The bottom-line
goal is to help the parties identify their own interests, and the
other side’s interests – and then figure out ways to serve both sides.

"It’s kind of like getting the ABCs," Baran said. "Here is a whole
set of very systematized tools which you can apply, and it works."

Fisher, who is 88, lives in Cambridge and still goes to his Harvard Law
School office several days a week. Specialists in the field note that
some of his early ideas have been challenged and the field has evolved
dramatically in recent years, but no one doubts his seminal role.

Paul Cramer, a Harvard Law graduate who lives in Wellesley and is a
conflict management specialist for Accenture, the business consulting
firm, has traveled to Iraq with Martirosyan to conduct the training.

He said Iraqis had become used to having solutions imposed by a
dictatorship – and they quickly grasped Fisher’s premise that merely
defending entrenched positions was getting them nowhere.

He recalled one mediation by a sheik named Gazzi, who was called in
after a showdown between tribes over a murder. The usual solution would
be for the tribe to hand over the killer or go to battle. Gazzi helped
mediate one cooling-off period, and then another, giving the tribes
time to meet and express their longer-term interests. They finally
agreed to spare the young killer, lowering tensions in the whole
community and clearing the way to progress on their deeper conflicts.

Martirosyan said that building a network of Iraqi negotiators who can
then train others will extend the reach of the mediation far beyond
what foreigners could achieve trying to mediate cases themselves. He
said he is also talking to Iraqi universities, and several have said
they want to develop courses and exchanges with American institutions.

"I think negotiation is going to be an important skill set for Iraq,"
Martirosyan said. "People talk about the US exit strategy. I think
to a large degree it will depend how skilled the politicians are,
whether Kurds or Arabs . . . There are issues that will require a
lot of creative negotiation."

God Is Good, But Just Be Sure Not To Take Him Too Literally

GOD IS GOOD, BUT JUST BE SURE NOT TO TAKE HIM TOO LITERALLY
Joe Hockey

Sydney Morning Herald
ulture/god-is-good-but-just-be-sure-not-to-take-hi m-too-literally-20091109-i58p.html
Nov 10 2009
Australia

One reason why Christian faith has declined in the West is because
of the reliance placed on a literal reading of the testaments. Such
an approach has tangled the Christian faith in a confusion of
contradictions.

By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have
inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that
seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions.

I recently read the transcript of the cross-examination of William
Jennings Bryan in the famous Scopes trial of 1925.

The state of Tennessee had sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution
in its schools. When a teacher, John Scopes, deliberately flouted this
law, he faced trial in a high-profile battle between evolutionists
and the supporters of Biblical creation.

The prosecution was assisted by the serial presidential candidate
and one of the giants of Democratic politics, William Jennings Bryan,
who was called to give evidence.

What followed was the humiliation of Bryan and his literal
interpretation of the Bible as he sought to argue the historical
truth of Genesis. That Adam and Eve were really the first humans to
walk the Earth just 6000 years ago; that 2300 years before Christ,
all living things – apart from those saved by Noah – were wiped from
the planet, and that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish.

>From my perspective, Bryan’s most damning words were: "I believe in
creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will
accept it."

There are some who will with great conviction, even to this day, argue
that all of these things were so. In fact a number of fast-growing
evangelical Christian churches in Australia take a literalist approach
to the scriptures.

While most leaders of the older churches have moved away from such a
position, there is still an alienating literalism that pervades many
faiths, and Christianity is not alone in this regard.

Those of you who are political junkies will be avid watchers of The
West Wing. You may recall an episode in which President Jed Bartlet
confronts a right-wing radio host who has led a crusade against
homosexuality based on biblical doctrine. Bartlet wonders that if he
were to form his views on homosexuality based on the prescriptions
of Leviticus whether he should also be following the guidance of the
Old Testament in relation to the sale of his daughter into slavery;
whether he should be putting to death his chief of staff for working
on the Sabbath, or what he should be doing about footballers playing
with a ball made of pigskin, or his wife for wearing cloth made from
different threads.

Those who seek to proclaim the prescriptions of the Bible selectively
or literally provide an armoury of ammunition to those like Christopher
Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Laymen like myself struggle with the
logic of such an approach. While debate rages about such matters,
the true message of the scriptures – of compassion, justice, equality,
dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for other people – inevitably
takes a back seat.

Hitchens and Dawkins go further than simply trying to pick holes in
a literal or historical interpretation of the Bible and the texts
and teachings of the other great religions.

They argue that not only are all religions based on falsehoods but
also that religion is a malevolent force. Again, in this they are
supported by those across the globe who have used their faith to
justify and explain suffering, war, cruelty and calamity.

It is a debating technique as old as discourse itself – to seek to
define your opponents on terms that suit your hypothesis, usually by
selecting the extremes, and then send in the wrecking ball. It’s an
approach that anyone in the Australian Parliament would find familiar.

I don’t accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a
divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion
asks of us to become better people – to choose a life of giving and
compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius
to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.

For me this is the essential message of all faiths – that we should
love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his
final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the
great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you,
do not do to your fellow."

The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would
suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not
cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.

As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate
(Love in Truth): "Love is God’s greatest gift to humanity, it is his
promise and our hope."

It is not a loving God who wilfully inflicts pain and suffering. No
God of any mainstream religion would do that if God’s love is real.

The Koran does not encourage Muslims to bomb buildings. God does not
march off to war supporting one nation over another or the persecution
of those of different creeds and colour. My God does not discriminate
against women, or favour first born children over others. Nor does
God support one political party.

All of these things have been claimed as acts of God at various
times in our history. They provide easy targets for those who argue
that religion causes harm rather than good. However, they are not
propositions that I believe have any foundation in the mainstream
religions.

Many today look at the world and see one that is divided by religion.

This is inflamed by fear of the unknown and views formed by the
actions of fundamentalists.

There are some who wonder, for example, whether Islam and Christianity
can peacefully coexist.

My father migrated to Australia from the Middle East – the son
of an Armenian father and a Palestinian mother. While Dad was a
Christian growing up in Jerusalem, his closest childhood friend was
a Jewish girl. Dad speaks fluent Hebrew and Arabic. He taught me
tolerance. He is very ecumenical for someone who lost his home to
a war that was based on faith. In Australia he found a country that
tolerated diversity.

Australia has embraced religious diversity. It must always remain so,
and as a Member of Parliament I am a custodian of that principle of
tolerance. That is why it is disturbing to hear people rail against
Muslims and Jews, or Pentecostals and Catholics. Australia must
continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that
those gods are loving, compassionate and just.

An extract from In Defence of God, a speech by the shadow treasurer,
Joe Hockey, to the Sydney Institute last night.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-c

German Reluctance Towards Turkey Joining The EU

GERMAN RELUCTANCE TOWARDS TURKEY JOINING THE EU

Spero News
ctance-towards-Turkey-joining-the-EU
Nov 9 2009

Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have both voiced opposition to
full admission of Turkey into the EU, the only majority Muslim country
seeking to do so. At risk is NATO’s cohesion.

On October 25, a coalition government in Germany, comprising the
Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU),
and Free Democrat Party (FDP), formed a new cabinet. The following
statements by prominent representatives of Germany’s new coalition
partners — voicing both strong opposition to Turkey’s EU accession by
the CDU-CSU and a milder but skeptical anti-Turkish stance by FDP —
demonstrate the serious challenges for U.S. policy posed by Turkey’s
push for EU membership.

German statements strongly against Turkey’s EU Membership include:

"Not membership, but privileged partnership," said Angela Merkel (CDU),
German chancellor, May 11, 2009. The day before in a conference with
French president Nicolas Sarkozy, she said, "Accepting Turkey to the
EU is out of question."

"Turkey’s accession would overtax the EU," was the position of
Wolfgang Schauble (CDU), German minister of finance on October 28,
2009. Schauble on his website has enunciated "Six reasons against
Turkey’s EU accession:"

1. Germany’s primary interest is the success of European integration
… Europe has geographic borders. Nobody would feel like they are
in Europe if they border Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

2. Nobody wants to repel our Turkish friends. We are highly interested
in a strong partnership with Turkey. But that does not mean, therefore,
that all of our strong partners should belong to the European Union.

3. That Turkey is a great example of a democratic Muslim country has
nothing to do with the question of Turkey’s EU membership. If so, we
would have to think about Pakistan or Indonesia’s EU membership next.

Even now, Turkey’s changing role in the Arab world is suspicious. As
a full member of the Union, Turkey could not perform its role as a
bridge — because a bridge does not belong to one of the sides.

4. People who say that Turkish integration in Germany would
be endangered if Turkey were not to become a part of the EU are
endangering peaceful social coexistence between Turks and Germans. The
integration of Turks in Germany would succeed without Turkey’s EU
membership.

5. We do not help Turkey by concealing problems. As long as it
prohibits the building of churches or having priests for its Christian
minorities, no one can really talk about freedom of religion in Turkey
as we know it in Europe. [Turkish] prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
easily scored a goal on his own team with his defamatory bluster
"Club of Christians" [in reference to the EU].

6. It would be better if we keep offering Turkey a privileged
partnership. A failure after ten years of accession talks would be
as disastrous as the failure of Europe’s political unity."

NATO says that Turkish-Armenian rapprochement not only helps to
reconcile the two nations, but also fosters closer cooperation with
Armenia and improves the country’s image, RFE/RL’s Armenian Service
reports.

Christian unity is slow and painful"Turkey’s EU accession is and
was an illusion," Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (CSU), German minister
of defense, on October 28, 2009." He added, Turkey has insisted for
years now on an automatic pilot [for accession talks], instead of doing
extensive reforms in order to fulfill the criteria for EU accession.

This permanent insistence turns more and more into an empty promise.

Turkey should recognize that neither the Europeans nor the Turks
would accept Turkey’s full membership. Turkey should cooperate with
the Union in economic and security policy. This could happen best
within a privileged partnership."

He continues, "Christians are still discriminated against…. In
Turkey, freedom of religion is still understood as tolerance, rather
than a fundamental part of human rights."

Ronald Pofalla (CDU), German chancellor’s chief of staff, stated on
his official website: "We do not want Turkey’s EU accession…. Not
even being allowed to say that religious-motivated violence is a
particular problem for Islam is worrying. And calling Christians
"unbelievers" is a form of an insult. I ask myself how a country that
discriminates against Christian churches could be a member of the EU.

It is obvious that Turkey has made some progress, but it will not be
able to join the EU."

Pofalla adds: "A clear ‘yes’ to Europe, but also a clear ‘yes’ to
European borders. No full membership, but privileged partnership. We
want open-ended accession talks."

Peter Ramsauer (CSU), German minister of transportation, building,
and urban development, declared on his official website: "Brussels
again surrenders to Turkey…. A new chapter for the desired accession
will be opened. Prime Minister Erdogan has shown again how easy it
is to make use of the EU’s tiredness, which is tired from enlargements.

Through additional allegations against France and Germany, he has
achieved acquiescence from the EU."

He adds, "Turkey is not ready for accession; the EU is not ready for
Turkey’s accession either. But we want to keep Turkey as an ally and
NATO partner. We have a strong interest in avoiding Turkey’s slipping
to the East and to religious fundamentalism…. We seek a solid and
excellent relationship with Turkey…. Turkey has to show democratic
reforms, in order to achieve a democratically strong Turkey under the
rule of law with a strong civil society. These will show that Turkey
is on the right way to full membership."

Ramsauer continues, "It is possible that accession is not what will
come out in the end, but rather a privileged partnership. Turkey,
for its part, does not expect to be given a date for its membership.

However, it does expect, and justifiably so, that Europe does not
fundamentally reject its desire to join the EU."

He has also stated, "Turkey is not in a position to join at the moment,
nor is the EU in a position to accept it as a member. But I do expect,
of course, that existing agreements will be upheld in a coalition
government with the conservatives. Under the agreement with Turkey,
accession will be examined in an unbiased manner. This process will
continue for several years. Turkey is trying to satisfy constitutional
and economic criteria, and to orient itself toward the West and not
toward fundamentalism. Despite all setbacks, we can only encourage
them in this effort."

Earlier this year, Guido Westerwelle (FDP), German foreign minister,
on May 5, 2009, took a mid-stance saying, "Stopping Turkey’s accession
process will be the end of an intelligent foreign policy." His party
associate Dirk Niebel, German minister of economic cooperation and
development, on October 28, 2009 added, "In the foreseeable future,
Turkey will not become a member of the EU. Currently, Turkey is not
ready to join the EU, and the EU is not ready to take Turkey as a
full member. The FDP is for an open-ended accession process."

Based on the rhetoric of its members, the new German government will
either block Turkey’s EU membership or, at best, show benign neglect
toward the process. The new German cabinet’s vehement-to-mild
opposition to Turkey’s EU accession challenges U.S. policy,
which views Turkey’s EU membership as a strategic goal for both
the United States and Turkey. Turkey’s EU accession is not only an
important step in pulling the country toward the West, it is also
a fail-safe that guards Turkish democracy — as it spasms between
the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its opponents —
and promotes Turkey’s halted liberalization process. In this regard,
Washington could implement the following policy suggestions to break
the German impasse and to jumpstart the Turkish drive toward the EU:

â~@¢ Prod the Turkish government to re-embrace the EU process. The
AKP should not only be legislating reforms, it should also be
implementing those reforms; â~@¢ Pressure the AKP to drop its anti-EU
and anti-Western rhetoric, a problem that is becoming a key concern
in German political rhetoric.

â~@¢ Make Turkey’s EU accession a part of the U.S. strategic
conversation with the German government.

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research
Program at The Washington Institute, from where this article was
adapted. Rueya Perincek is an intern in the Institute’s Turkish
Research Program.
From: Baghdasarian

http://www.speroforum.com/a/22271/German-relu

ARP Hasn’t Decided Yet Whom To Support

ARP HASN’T DECIDED YET WHOM TO SUPPORT

Aysor
Nov 9 2009
Armenia

The Armenian Republican Party (ARP) has not decided yet whom he will
support for the vacant place in the Armenian National Assembly in
coming elections, stated Lernik Aleksanyan, the member of the NA ARP.

"The Republican Party has not taken decision as there has not been
any sitting yet", – the speaker said.

On December 6 in the electoral departments N 8 and N 25 will take
place elections of NA. In the department N 8 will be offered Koryun
Nahapetyan, in N 25 Mkhitar Harutyunyan.

For the elections of 2010 on January 10 in the 10th electoral
department will be suggested the head of the Marxist Party Davit
Hakobyan, former minister of communication Edward Madatyan,
political scientist Hmayak Hovhannisyan, and Vladimir Kostanyan,
and Ara Simonyan.

BAKU: Ambassador Tofig Abdullayev: "The Relations Between Azerbaijan

AMBASSADOR TOFIG ABDULLAYEV: "THE RELATIONS BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND THE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC CONFERENCE HAVE REACHED A NEW STAGE"

Today.Az
Nov 9 2009
Azerbaijan

Interview

Azerbaijan’s ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, permanent
representative to the Organization of Islamic Conference Tofig
Abdullayev interviewed by APA

-What role has the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) played
in the solution of the problems of the Muslim world within 40 years?

-The Organization of Islamic Conference was founded at the conference
of heads of Muslim state and government in Rabat, the capital
of Morocco in 1969. Some days after the arson was committed in
Al-Aqsa mosque, one of the two qiblas of the Islamic world and its
third holiest site, in August, 1969, foreign ministers of 14 Muslim
countries met in Cairo and accepted the proposal of the then king of
Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Abdul Aziz on holding a high-level summit of
the Islamic states to discuss the situation in the Near East.

The Saudis took the first initiative to found an organization uniting
Muslim countries. The idea of establishing "Pact of Islam" was first
put forward by king of Saudi Arabia Saud bin Abdul Aziz in 1957 and
was later improved by Faisal bin Abdul Aziz in 1965. But the idea was
not realized due to the confrontation of the leaders of some countries
closely cooperating with the Soviet Union. They considered that the
aim is to establish an imperialist bloc "wearing turban".

After the defeat of the United Arab Emirates and Syria in the six-day
war, they began to need serious support of "conservative states",
first of all Saudi Arabia.

Muslim states held a summit under the slogan "For the protection of
the holy values and the religion and first of all Al-Quds" in Rabat
on September 22-25, 1969. This summit was the beginning of the idea
to establish an international organization within Islamic solidarity.

The statement issued on September 23, 1969, envisages discussions
among the participating states on cooperation in economy, science,
culture, commitments on solving the problems basing on the goals and
principles of the UN. The Organization of Islamic Conference has 57
members. Muslim communities of some states, a number of international
and regional organizations have observation status under OIC.

-What has Azerbaijan gained from OIC membership? How many decisions
have been passed on Azerbaijan and how much has been allocated for
our country?

-Azerbaijan, which is an integral part of the Islamic world with its
history, religious, cultural and moral values, became OIC member in
December, 1991, and gained continuous support of the member states.

Approximately three months later, the then Secretary General of OIC
Hamid Algabid sent a delegation led by his assistant to Azerbaijan
to study the Nagorno Karabakh problem and solve it peacefully. The
delegation also visited Armenia, Iran, Turkey and Russia, met with
the officials of these countries’ foreign ministries and UN special
envoy Sairus Vens. After the delegation returned, OIC Secretary General
made a statement on the situation in Nagorno Karabakh. In September,
OIC foreign ministers coordination meeting was held during the session
of the Un General Assembly. An item on Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
was included into the final document of the meeting. But due to some
objective and subjective reasons, our republic could not effectively
use OIC’s opportunities and Islamic factor. Heydar Aliyev realized
these opportunities. His official visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
in July, 1994, his umrah, effective talks with Fahd bin Abdul Aziz
and meetings with the officials of OIC General Secretariat increased
the attention of the Muslim world to Azerbaijan.

Heydar Aliyev’s meetings with OIC Secretary General in Baku in
November, 1994, activated the cooperation between Azerbaijan and OIC
and played an important role in establishing diplomatic relations with
a number of Muslim states and opening new embassies in Baku. After
returning from visit OIC Secretary General sent letters to the
heads of Muslim states, with which our republic had not established
diplomatic relations, and drew their attention to the issue. Heydar
Aliyev attended the 8th summit of OIC heads of state and government
in Casablanca in December, 1994, he addressed the conference and on
request of OIC General Secretariat and a number of member states
made a greeting speech at the opening ceremony of the conference
on behalf Asian group states of OIC. He also took an active part in
the 7th conference of OIC heads of state and government in Tehran in
December, 1998.

– What contribution can OIC make to the solution to Nagorno Karabakh
conflict? Does the organization have an intention to participate in
the restoration of the region after the settlement of the conflict?

– As a result of intensive and purposeful activity of the Republican
leadership, OIC foreign ministers’ 21st Karachi conference in 1993,
7th extraordinary conference in September 1994, 22nd conference in
Casablanca in December 1994, 23rd Jakarta conference in December
1996 heard reports of the OIC Secretary General on Nagorno Karabakh
conflict and adopted resolution on the issue.

The resolutions strongly condemned Armenian aggression against
Azerbaijan and demanded immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces
from the occupied Azerbaijani lands and respect to the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. For the first time the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict was included in the list of problems
addressed jointly by OIC-UN cooperation in 1994 and it was very
important for Azerbaijan.

As a result of purposeful activity of the Republican leadership,
the title of OIC resolution on Nagorno Karabakh conflict was changed
from "Resolution on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan" to
"Resolution on Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan" in 1993.

Besides this resolution adopted in annual meetings of the OIC foreign
ministers and in the OIC summit every three years, OIC Standing
Committee for Commercial and Economic Relations (COMCEC) have passed
annual resolutions condemning the Armenian aggression since 1993.

– What events are planned for the 40th anniversary celebration of
the organization? Will the leaders gather for their summit?

– Recently very important event has been held in Baku on the eve of
OIC 40 years. Everyone knows that UN General Assembly March 14, 2008
resolution on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan was adopted as
a result of great support by the OIC member countries and "attack
diplomacy" set by President Ilham Aliyev before the Azerbaijani
diplomats. OIC as an international political organization is forming
its budget at the expense of membership fees of the countries and have
no opportunities to provide humanitarian assistances to the Muslim
countries facing with the problems. The assistances and long-time
loans are carried out bilaterally by the humanitarian international
organizations, financial institutions and OIC member countries as
well. The projects realized in Azerbaijan by the Islamic Development
Bank, Saudi Development Fund, Kuwaiti Fund, International Islamic
Relief Organization, International Islamic Youth Assembly and other
organizations confirm that.

In recent years, Azerbaijan-OIC relations have entered new stage.

President Ilham Aliyev’s participation at the OIC Third Summit in
Mecca in December, 2005 and 33rd OIC ministerial meeting in Baku
could be estimated as a part of this policy.

Series measures have been carried out in the field of cooperation with
OIC in recent years, including OIC tourism ministers’ 5th conference in
September 2006, conference on the role of mass media in the development
of tolerance and mutual understanding in April 2007, International
Forum on the Role of Women in the Cross-Culture Dialogue on June 10-11,
2008 on the initiative of the President of Heydar Aliyev Foundation
Mehriban Khanum Aliyeva, 4th conference of the ministers of education
and scientific research of the Islamic countries on October 6-8,
2008, OIC law-enforcement officials’ meeting on April 21-22, 2009, 6th
conference of OIC culture ministers on October 13-15, 2009 and others.

BAKU: Armenian Leadership Insists On Opening Of Borders With Turkey

ARMENIAN LEADERSHIP INSISTS ON OPENING OF BORDERS WITH TURKEY AGAINST ITS WILL: POLITICAL EXPERT

Today
328.html
Nov 9 2009
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with renowned Azerbaijani political expert Vafa
Guluzade.

Day.Az: OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia, Bernard
Fassier of France and Robert Bradtke of the U.S. tripped to the region
recently. Do you believe the current visits of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs to Azerbaijan and Armenia will lead to significant progress
in resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

Vafa Guluzade: I am confident that it will not. The persons specified
as OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are minor functionaries. True co-chairs
of OSCE Minsk Group are the presidents of the United States, France
and Russia who, quite possibly, even do not really know what Mr.

Merzlyakov, Fassier and Bradtke do during their visits to Baku and
Yerevan. This troika gets pretty good pay, they fly to Baku and
Yerevan and taste the Azerbaijani and Armenian cuisine. Position of
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries does not enable to hope for
a change in their attitude towards the process of resolution of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

It would be appropriate to note that the Azerbaijani side has recently
urged the U.S. to play a more active role in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Q: Is there any hope that this appeal will lead to concrete actions
by the U.S. in a just settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

A: I do not think that this will somehow impact short-term steps by the
U.S. on a just settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. We all witnessed the position of the United States recently
during the signing of Turkish-Armenian protocols in Zurich.

I was struck by pleasure of the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in the course of the ceremony. Oh my God, the United States,
who suffered much from terrorists, shakes hands and embraces terrorist
Serzh Sargsyan, who was involved in the massacre of the peaceful
Azerbaijani population, in occupation of Azerbaijani territories
which displaced hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani from their homes.

Naturally, under such a policy, it would be naïve to expect the
superpower like U.S. to take steps for a just settlement of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Q: Recently, there have been much talks about Turkey’s becoming OSCE
Minsk co-chair. Do you think it is possible?

A: I believe OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries will make every
effort ensure opening of Turkish-Armenian border under any pretext.

Talks about the likelihood that Turkey will become co-chair of the
OSCE Minsk Group resumed against this background. All of these talks
have a single goal – minimize Azerbaijan’s discontent with possible
opening of Turkish-Armenian border.

They will try to present Turkey’s becoming co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group to Azerbaijan as a significant progress in a just settlement
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But this is
ridiculous. Because, if countries like the United States and Russia
do not resolve different causes of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem,
Turkey has no chance to solve it either.

Q: Then why Armenia so nervously reacts to the idea that Turkey may
become OSCE Minsk Group co-chair?

A: The answer to this question lies in feelings of hatred towards the
Turks passed from generation to generation in Armenian. As a man who
had numerous talks with Armenian diplomats and politicians, I can
assure you that for Armenians a Turk man is a person whose raison
d’être is to cut heads of Armenians by yataghan. For this reason,
any mention of Turkey to Armenians is perceived negatively. Armenian
leadership insists on opening of borders with Turkey against its
will and certainly not out of love for Turks, but because of a need
to address its own serious economic problems.

http://www.today.az/news/politics/57

ANKARA: US Armenians Launch New ‘Genocide Recognition’ Campaign

US ARMENIANS LAUNCH NEW ‘GENOCIDE RECOGNITION’ CAMPAIGN

Hurriyet Daily News
Nov 9 2009
Turkey

A group of radical American-Armenians launched a new campaign Monday
that aims to obtain formal U.S. recognition of what they call the
"Armenian genocide."

The Armenian National Committee of America, or ANCA, said in a written
statement that the campaign was launched to coincide with Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s upcoming visit to Washington.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Erdogan are scheduled to meet at the
White House on Dec. 7.

The Armenian effort is "aimed at educating and inspiring President
Obama, on Dec. 7, to tell Prime Minister Erdogan, to his face, that
America stands for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian
genocide," ANCA said.

"The first week of the campaign will address the U.S. Senate, the
second the U.S. House, followed by the media in the third week and
then a final push in the last seven days directly to the White House,"
the group added.

American-Armenians and their backers in Congress are calling on the
U.S. administration and Congress to qualify World War I-era killings
of Armenians in the declining Ottoman Empire as "genocide." Turkey
warns that any such formal recognition by the United States would
hurt bilateral relations in a serious and lasting way.

Although Obama pledged to back the Armenian cause during last year’s
election campaign, as president he has declined to characterize the
deaths as genocide, instead actively supporting a reconciliation
process between Turkey and Armenia.

Normalization process

The Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a set of agreements
Oct. 10, stipulating that Ankara and Yerevan set up normal diplomatic
relations and reopen their land border.

Ankara closed the border in 1993 during a war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, Turkey’s close friend and ally. Armenians occupied the
mainly Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan
and part of Azerbaijan proper during that war.

The Ankara-Yerevan deal needs to be ratified by the parliaments of
the two neighbors before it can be implemented.

Analysts suggest that as long as the reconciliation process moves
forward, American-Armenians have little chance at winning formal
genocide recognition from the United States. But if the process fails,
U.S. congressional resolutions for genocide recognition are likely
to gain momentum, they said.

A resolution calling for U.S. recognition that genocide occurred has
been pending in the House of Representatives, Congress’ lower chamber,
since February. Two pro-Armenian senators introduced an identical
resolution at the Senate, Congress’ upper chamber, last month.

BAKU; Erdogan To Demand Obama To Solve Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

ERDOGAN TO DEMAND OBAMA TO SOLVE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

Today
57327.html
Nov 9 2009
Azerbaijan

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will strongly demand
U.S. President Barack Obama to0 solve Nagorno-Karabakh problem until
the end of 2010 during his visit to Washington, Cumhurriyyet newspaper
reported.

Erdogan will tell Obama that if the problem is not solved until
the end of 2010, the process of normalization of Turkish-Armenian
relations will be frozen.

The Turkish Prime Minister will demand intensification of the activity
of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs as well.

Erdogan will leave for the United States on Dec. 7.

http://www.today.az/news/politics/

Armenian Premier On Government Programs

ARMENIAN PREMIER ON GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

news.am
Nov 9 2009
Armenia

While trying to implement the RA Government’s IT programs, they
out-dated, RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan stated at the ArmTech
Congress ’09 in San Jose, California, USA.

In the course of his three-day visit to the U.S., Armenian Premier
discussed the programs carried out jointly with representatives of
"Renaissance" and "Senator Graphics" U.S. companies. Sargsyan stated
that he has "drawn a number of helpful lessons" from the meetings,
RA Governmental Press service informed NEWS.am.

The Armenian Premier pointed out that the meetings give Armenia an
exceptional opportunity to adjust its economic strategy. His visit to
the Silicon Valley demonstrated the need for amending the RA Government
programs. "Our programs are out-dated and we have to reload them,"
the Armenian Premier said.

"During one of the meetings with a large company representatives,
I heard an amazing idea: It is large companies that should come to
Armenia, not vice versa. The world is getting smaller, and competition
between the majors is getting stronger," the Armenian Premier said.

In his speech, Sargsyan also made a point of the Armenian Genocide,
Armenia-Diaspora ties and Armenian-Turkish relations and presented
Armenia’s official stance.

On the last day of his visit, Sargsyan visited the Plug and Play tech
center and familiarized himself with its programs and capabilities. A
cooperation agreement between the Enterprise Incubator Foundation
(Armenia) and Plug and Play was reached.