Turkey Failed To Follow Its Commitments, Armenian President Says

TURKEY FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS COMMITMENTS, ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SAYS

NEWS.am
June 23, 2010 | 10:09

In taking the initiative to normalize relations with Turkey, Armenia
was concerned over the region’s future, seeking to remove the dividing
lines and establish an atmosphere of confidence, develop economic
cooperation as a guarantee of favorable conditions for solving further
political problems, RA President Serzh Sargsyan stated in his speech
at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

“Why did our initiative fail? Turkey not only failed to follow
its commitments and ratify the Protocols, but also returned to its
earlier stance, namely, preconditions and even threats. To date,
the Armenian-Turkish border remains Europe’s only closed border,”
Sargsyan said.

According to the Armenian leader, a number of factors account for
the failure of the Armenian-Turkish process. Among them is political
leaders’ bankruptcy or unwillingness. “Some analysts may also point
out the pressure on the part of Azerbaijan,” Sargsyan said. “Some
western analysts tried to persuade me that it was a temporary thing
for domestic election processes. Time will show. A more thorough
analysis suggests the following conclusion: resolving problems at
others’ expense is still practice in our region. ‘I am strong, so
I will dictate solutions.’ The zero-problems-with-neighbors policy
does not produce any results. It will last as long as Turkey keeps on
seeking its own interests in our region in the context of the clash
of interests,” Sargsyan said.

The Armenian leader expressed conviction that it is time for the
regional leaders to be superior to narrow political agendas and
disagreements. He hopes that the modern-day leaders will display the
necessary qualities.

From: A. Papazian

Turkey’s ‘Zero Problems’ Policy Is A Flop

TURKEY’S ‘ZERO PROBLEMS’ POLICY IS A FLOP
Simon Tisdall

guardian.co.uk

Monday 21 June 2010 16.30

The Turkish government is running into trouble at every turn in its
attempt to be a regional powerbroker

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is seeking influence
and markets for Turkey’s expanding economy across the Middle East.

A surge in violence pitting Turkish forces against Kurdish separatists
along Turkey’s south-eastern border with Iraq has underscored how
far the Ankara government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan still has to go in
resolving the “Kurdish question”.

But the renewed fighting also poses a larger question: to what extent
the policy espoused by Erdogan and his high-profile foreign minister,
Ahmet Davutoglu, of “zero problems with neighbours” is producing
tangible, lasting results. On a range of fronts, high ambitions are
colliding with intractable realities on the ground.

Erdogan’s fierce condemnation of the killing on Saturday of 11
soldiers by Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) fighters possibly reflected
frustration that Ankara’s pursuit of non-military solutions has
produced little that is concrete in the eight years since his Justice
and Development party (AKP) first came to power.

“Today we will not make the traitors happy,” Erdogan said during a
visit to Van. “We will defend this ground heroically …

“I say here very clearly, they will not win. They will gain nothing.

They will melt away in their own darkness … they will drown in
their own blood.”

Such rhetoric, echoing Erdogan’s full-blooded attacks on Israel over
Gaza, could not disguise widely felt dismay that a conflict that
has claimed an estimated 40,000 lives since 1984 may be reviving,
partly due to political failures.

Citing continuing Turkish military attacks, the PKK announced this
month it was ending a unilateral ceasefire. The decision followed the
banning by Turkey’s constitutional court of the pro-Kurdish Democratic
Society party (DTP), a ruling strongly criticised by Massoud Barzani,
president of Iraqi Kurdistan, and the EU.

Concern is now growing that further clashes could lead to a repeat of
the 2008 Turkish military incursion into northern Iraq, where some PKK
fighters are based. Such an outcome could strain Ankara’s relations
with Baghdad, where its efforts to encourage a role in government for
Iraq’s Sunni Muslim minority are already viewed as unwelcome meddling
by some Shia politicians.

Turkey’s “zero problems” has also run into trouble around Azerbaijan’s
disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, where four ethnic Armenian and
one Azeri soldier were killed in a skirmish on Saturday. Turkey and
Armenia struck a supposedly historic peace accord last year but the
deal backfired when close Turkish ally Azerbaijan angrily insisted
the Nagorno-Karabakh stand-off be settled first. Instead of easing
tensions, Erdogan’s initiative inflamed them.

Despite its aspirations to act as a regional powerbroker, Turkish talk
has not been matched by persuasive actions in another troublespot –
Cyprus. Elections earlier this year saw Turkish Cypriots vote in a
new president who appears to favour the permanent partition of the
island, notwithstanding the ongoing UN-sponsored reunification talks
backed by Greece and the EU.

Erdogan has certainly improved relations with one important neighbour:
Iran. His decision to vote against the latest UN sanctions on Tehran
dismayed the US and European countries while delighting President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In contrast, relations with Israel are at low
ebb after the Gaza flotilla debacle, with Turkish media reporting
that diplomatic and military relations will be frozen indefinitely.

Erdogan’s regional foreign policy initiatives, his flirtation with
Iran, his split with Israel, and his courting of supposedly suspect
countries such as Syria have led western commentators to speculate
about a “strategic realignment” in Turkish policy, away from the
west and Nato and towards the Arab and Muslim worlds, in parallel
with the AKP’s pursuit of a neo-Islamist agenda at home.

“Turkey’s Islamist government [seems] focused not on joining the
European Union but the Arab League – no, scratch that, on joining
the Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran resistance front against Israel,” complained
American columnist Tom Friedman.

Writing in The Australian, Greg Sheridan drew a comparison with the
situation in south-east Turkey: “The Turkish government is expressing
maximum outrage over the Gaza incident, although it has been vastly
more brutal in suppressing Kurdish separatists and suspected terrorists
than anything Israel has ever dreamed of.”

Strong criticism of the perceived shift has also been voiced in the
US Congress, while the Obama administration has voiced concern at
some recent Turkish actions. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary,
said one explanation was EU foot-dragging over Turkey’s membership bid.

For his part, Davutoglu says western countries should not worry.

Rather, they should welcome the fact that Turkey was “playing an
increasingly central role in promoting international security and
prosperity”. Close relations with the EU and Nato were “main fixtures”
of Turkish policy while bilateral ties with the US remained of “vital
importance”, he said in Foreign Policy magazine.

Such assurances may miss the point. From a western perspective at
least, the problem is not that Erdogan and Davutoglu want a bigger
role for Turkey and are increasingly ready to go it alone. The problem,
more often than not, is that when they do, they mess up.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/21/turkey-zero-problems-policy

Le Partenariat Oriental Va Devenir Un Nouveau Defi Pour L’Armenie Se

LE PARTENARIAT ORIENTAL VA DEVENIR UN NOUVEAU DEFI POUR L’ARMENIE SELON VAHAN HOVHANNISYAN
Stephane

armenews
mercredi23 juin 2010
ARMENIE

La Federation Revolutionnaire Armenienne continue a insister sur la
demission de non seulement le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, mais
aussi des hauts fonctionnaires du Ministère des Affaires etrangères
a declare le chef de la faction de la FRA Vahan Hovhannisyan lors
d’une conference de presse.

” Le monde change mais l’Armenie continue a ne pas remarquer cela ”
a-t-il dit. Selon lui, de nouvelles arènes politiques et de nouveaux
joueurs sont necessaires dans la nouvelle situation.

” Dans le CSTO, l’interet de la Russie domine les interets des autres
Etats membres ; dans l’OTAN, la Turquie poursuit une politique qui ne
rencontre pas les standards de l’Alliance ; finalement, le Partenariat
Oriental affecte la region entière, avec une participation de l’UE
plus profonde dans les processus democratiques dans les pays associes”
a dit Vahan Hovhannisyan.

” De nouveaux facteurs et des acteurs apparaissent mais l’Armenie n’a
pas developpe de nouvelles approches encore ” a expose M. Hovhannisyan

Le Programme de Partenariat Oriental va devenir un nouveau defi pour
l’Armenie est assure Vahan Hovhannisyan. Ce dernier va etre a la tete
de la delegation de 10 membres armeniens a l’Assemblee Parlementaire
du Partenariat Orientale ou l’Euronid. On s’attend a ce que 160
delegues soient representes dans l’Euronid, dont 60 representeront
l’Union europeenne. La Bielorussie, la Moldovie, l’Ukraine, l’Armenie,
la Georgie et l’Azerbaïdjan auront chacun 10 delegues.

From: A. Papazian

Le Roman De Gilbert Sinoue Sur Le Genocide Armenien Traduit En Bulga

LE ROMAN DE GILBERT SINOUE SUR LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN TRADUIT EN BULGARE
Stephane

armenews
mercredi23 juin 2010
BULGARIE

Le 11 juin, Plovdiv a accueilli une presentation du roman de Gilbert
Sinoue ” Erevan ” consacre au genocide armenien. Le livre a ete
traduit en bulgare.

L’auteur met en scène une famille armenienne impitoyablement decimee
lors du premier genocide commis au 20ème siècle. Il commence son roman
avec la description des massacres d’Armeniens organise par le Sultan
Abdul Hamid.

L’ambassadeur armenien en Bulgarie, Sergey Mansaryan aussi bien que
le traducteur et le redacteur du livre Zlatko Staikov ont participe
a la presentation.

From: A. Papazian

Les Partis Armeniens Denoncent Une Provocation Deliberee

LES PARTIS ARMENIENS DENONCENT UNE PROVOCATION DELIBEREE
Marion

armenews
mercredi23 juin 2010
Karabagh

Le Parti republicain (HHK) et les forces de l’opposition ont accuse
Bakou d’avoir provoque deliberement les affrontements des 18 et 19
juin dans le nord du Karabagh durant lesquels quatre soldats armeniens
sont morts.

Comme le gouvernement armenien, le porte-parole du HHK, Edouard
Sharmazanov a lie l’incident a la dernière reunion des presidents
armenien et azerbaïdjanais qui a eu lieu a Saint-Petersbourg le
17 juin.

Il a affirme que le president azerbaïdjanais Ilham Aliev est reparti
” extremement satisfait ” des pourparlers.

” Si l’Azerbaïdjan espère que de tels actes de provocation peuvent
semer la panique au Karabagh ou en Armenie, je vais les decevoir en
leur disant que notre armee est dans les meilleures conditions “,
a declare Sharmazanov, ajoutant que l’Azerbaïdjan perdrait davantage
de territoires dans le cas d’une autre la guerre.

” Nous devons tous faire comprendre a l’Azerbaïdjan que, si elle opte
pour la guerre, nous serons de nouveaux victorieux comme en 1994 “, a
convenu Hrant Markarian, chef de file de la Federation revolutionnaire
armenienne (FRA).

S’adressant a RFE / RL, Markarian a egalement affirme qu’Aliev a
ordonne une attaque contre un avant-poste armenien au Karabagh en
raison de l’ issue des pourparlers a Saint-Petersbourg.

Le Congrès national armenien (HAK) a egalement condamne ” la violation
du cessez-le feu par l’Azerbaïdjan “. Dans un communique, l’alliance
dirigee par l’ancien president Levon Ter-Petrossian a declare qu’elle
serait ” a la avant-garde de la lutte pour la securite au Haut-Karabagh
dans le cas d’un danger de guerre. ”

From: A. Papazian

Naissance du 300ame enfant armenien

NAISSANCE DU 300AME ENFANT ARMENIEN
Stephane

armenews
mercredi23 juin 2010
ARMENIE

Le Centre de Procreation Medicalement Assistee Franco-Armenien
d’Erevan, le Centre de Medecine de la Reproductionet l’Association
d’Aide et de Cooperation a l’Armenie-Azadakroutioun de Marseille ont
la joie, le bonheur et l’honneur d’annoncer la naissance du 300ème
enfant armenien a Erevan.

Nous tenons a feliciter et a honorer particulièrement le Dr Jean-Pierre
Franquebalme, principal artisan de cette reussite sans precedent
pour l’Armenie.

Pr. G. Okoev. Dr. J.-P. Franquebalme. Dr. A. Agopian

Erevan-Marseille.

From: A. Papazian

Sarkissian : La Politique Turque Peu Propice Aux Relations Turco-Arm

SARKISSIAN : LA POLITIQUE TURQUE PEU PROPICE AUX RELATIONS TURCO-ARMENIENNES
Stephane

armenews
mercredi23 juin 2010

Le president armenien, Serge Sarkissian, a deplore mardi a Berlin
que la nouvelle orientation de la politique etrangère turque soit
peu propice aux relations turco-armeniennes.

“Cette nouvelle voie ne nous promet rien d’optimiste et c’est
regrettable”, a-t-il dit au cours d’une conference de presse au côte
de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel.

La nouvelle orientation de la Turquie donne le sentiment a certains
responsables politiques europeens et americains qu’elle se detourne
de ses allies occidentaux.

Les relations turco-armeniennes “ne peuvent se developper que si une
grande volonte politique est la et nous n’avons pas vu cette volonte
du côte turc”, a-t-il declare, rappelant que son pays avait lance en
2008 un processus de normalisation des relations avec la Turquie.

“La politique actuelle de la Turquie ne contribue pas a ce que
nos relations s’ouvrent”, a-t-il ajoute. Le president armenien a
souligne avoir dû geler en avril le processus de ratification des
accords historiques devant etablir des relations diplomatiques avec
la Turquie faute de ratification des protocoles par le Parlement turc.

Erevan accuse Ankara de vouloir lier les efforts de reconciliation
au conflit entre l’Armenie et l’Azerbaïdjan voisin sur le
Nagorny-Karabakh, territoire azerbaïdjanais peuple majoritairement
d’Armeniens.

La Turquie et l’Armenie, divisees sur la question des massacres
d’Armeniens sous l’Empire ottoman (1915-1917), ont signe en
octobre 2009 deux protocoles prevoyant l’etablissement de relations
diplomatiques et la reouverture de leur frontière commune. Erevan
qualifie ces massacres de genocide, un terme qu’Ankara rejette.

From: A. Papazian

Aghjayan: Embracing The Global Reparations Movement

AGHJAYAN: EMBRACING THE GLOBAL REPARATIONS MOVEMENT
George Aghjayan

Tue, Jun 22 2010

The nature of the pursuit for justice for the genocide committed
against the Armenian people has changed at an ever-increasing pace. As
we look back over the years since the horrific crime was committed,
there have been many successes and some failures, but the altered
environment is unmistakable. As we approach the 100th anniversary
in 5 years, we must be prepared for further acceleration and remain
vigilant in defending our rights.

Unfortunately, a number of slogans, often repeated by our adversaries,
have become accepted as truths even within the Armenian community.

These misconceptions often sound reasonable on the surface but actually
are nonsense and, worse, convey a dangerous cynicism.

For instance, particularly offensive is the notion that use of the
term genocide is a barrier to dialogue between victim and perpetrator.

In the halls of the United States capitol and repeated mechanically
in the media, this justification has been used to scuttle legislative
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The offensiveness of this becomes
even more apparent when one realizes that the current “dialogue”
between Turkey and Armenia has been manufactured with the sole purpose
of delaying the inevitable just resolution.

Logic demands recognition as a prerequisite to the process of healing.

The demise of the misnamed Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC) and the recent protocols between the governments of Armenia
and Turkey, as well as other such initiatives over the past decade,
are proof of that. Sincere dialogue can only begin with proper
acknowledgment of the crime.

Even our own rhetoric can be harmful. United States recognition of the
genocide, which should more appropriately be termed reaffirmation,
has been elevated to the point of being considered a cure for
various ills. It is often stated that recognition will help prevent
future genocide or end the denial of the genocide. Yet we know that
recognition of the Jewish Holocaust, which is one of the most widely
written about events in history, has not stopped the occurrence of
genocide nor even stopped its denial by those with malicious agendas.

By misrepresenting the purpose of genocide recognition, we run the
risk of disillusioning our supporters. Viewing recognition as the
objective, as opposed to the first step in a process, also leads to
inappropriate strategies for success.

The purpose of the original crime was to end any possibility of an
Armenian nation being formed on our ancestral lands. It is undeniable
that this objective has not changed in 95 years. The current illegal
and immoral blockade of Armenia, the aggressive denial of the Armenian
Genocide around the world and the devious disruption of community
solidarity continue to victimize us to this day.

Restorative justice is clearly not possible given the extent of
the crime. Any just resolution, however imperfect, must begin with
ensuring the security and perpetuation of the Republic of Armenia.

Reparations and restitution of land are necessary, but not sufficient
to cure the scourge of genocide. One can point out that, again,
the conviction of those responsible for the Holocaust and subsequent
reparations paid to the victims have not stopped genocide. But that
can be attributed to the Holocaust being an exception rather than
the rule. What is needed is consistent treatment of all perpetrators
of genocide. While progress has been made, there is still a long way
to go.

Thus, the call for reparations for the Armenian Genocide is part of
a global reparations movement and we can leverage greatly from what
is at its core a human rights movement.

Yet this is not our sole objective. While the issue is surely much more
complex than what I have described, nonetheless Turkey and Armenia,
Turks and Armenians can not move forward without the necessary
progression of recognition, reparations, and restitution.

The state sponsored denial of the Armenian Genocide by the government
of Turkey has largely been responsible for increasing public awareness
of the crime to the point of near universal acceptance. Again, there
will always be those with the motivation to deny known genocides,
but their existence is not evidence of any controversy over the facts
of history.

Interestingly, the tactics employed by the Turkish government have
led to Armenian Genocide recognition being used by various nations to
extract political concessions from Turkey. The vicious cycle has led
to the current environment where the threat of genocide recognition
has been diluted by having already been achieved. Thus, we see a
diminished ability to extract concessions from Turkey and greater
independence of its foreign policy from United States interests.

Without doubt, the current environment is fluid and so complex as to
make analysis difficult, if not impossible. Each player has interests
and objectives that must be accounted for, but it is a mistake to
simplistically view it as a conflict between moral concerns and cold
hard politics. It is critically important to not allow our cause to
be so limited.

The reality is that the solution for Turkey is easily achieved and
insignificant when compared to its desired economic future. Make no
mistake; much of Turkey’s foreign policy initiatives can be traced to
a desire for regional economic supremacy. Turkey desires to expand its
role as a regional energy hub, as well as supplier of goods to both
Europe and the Middle East. These objectives can only be enhanced,
if not achieved, along with greater democracy in Turkey, by a just
resolution to the Armenian Genocide that goes beyond hollow and
insincere acknowledgment.

This is not based simply on idealism, but the lessons of history have
taught us what is achievable when willed by enough people.

On April 24 and 25, a conference took place in Ankara where some
participants discussed reparations for the Armenian Genocide. A
Turkish participant spoke clearly and bravely about the need for
reparations. It will be the final insult to the memory of the victims
if we, their descendants, in the comfort of our lives, simply beg for
acknowledgment while the number of those in Turkey risk much more to
demand justice be served.

We must expect more, we must do our part for the global reparations
movement. That is our obligation for those that died, those that
survived, and those that continue to strive for justice.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/06/22/aghjayan-embracing-the-global-reparations-movement/

President Of Armenia And Chancellor Of Germany Discuss Several Key I

PRESIDENT OF ARMENIA AND CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY DISCUSS SEVERAL KEY ISSUES

ArmInfo
2010-06-22 17:00:00

Arminfo. The meeting of the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel took place at Merkel’s residence
in Germany.

As press-service of the Armenian president reported, they touched on
several issues regarding development of the bilateral Armenian-German
relations as well as fulfillment of the cooperation opportunity in
the multilateral format. President of Armenia said that the high level
meetings move the political dialogue ahead and give an opportunity to
deepen the relations in all the spheres. He also added that Armenia
watches the relations with Germany also as an important component
of the European integration process. The parties also touched on
development of the trade and economic relations, mentioning that
availability of 80 companies with the German capital in Armenia
creates a good basis for extension of cooperation in the investment
sphere. They also discussed the financial and technical aid by the
government of Germany to Armenia.

President Sargsyan and Chancellor Merkel also touched on South Caucasus
problems. The president welcomed the balanced policy of Germany in the
region. As for Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, he said that the fact that
Azerbaijan still says about possibility of the conflict settlement by
means of war, causes anxiety, as not only the talks but also stability
in the region become unsteady. As for the Armenian-Turkish relations,
the president regrets that the efforts of Armenia and the world
community directed to normalizing of the relations and opening of
the last shut down border in Europe had no result, as Turkey used the
process for other purposes and refused the principles arranged earlier.

The parties mentioned the importance of development of
the normalization process between Armenia and Turkey without
pre-conditions. As the Karabakh conflict, it is necessary to reach
peaceful settlement of the conflict vis the talks within the frames
of the OSCE Minsk Group.

From: A. Papazian

Armenia Leaves Azerbaijan And Georgia Behind In Failed States Index

ARMENIA LEAVES AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA BEHIND IN FAILED STATES INDEX 2010

ArmInfo
2010-06-22 19:14:00

ArmInfo. Armenia ranks the 101st out of 177 positions in the Failed
States Index 2010 published by the US Foreign Policy Magazine in
cooperation with The Fund for Peace public organization. (A total of
177 states were ranked in order from most to least at risk of failure).

Armenia was ranked among Borderline countries alongside with Russia,
Turkey, India, Brazil, Mexico, and others. The most stable countries
were Norway, Finland and Sweden (177m 176 and 175m respectively).

Somalia, a country without government (as determined by the UN) tops
the list. Top 5 critical countries are Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As for our region, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Iran were ranked 55th, 37th and 32nd, respectively among
the countries In Danger. Uzbekistan (36th) and Tajikistan (38th)
proved the most vulnerable countries in the post-Soviet area.

The Fund for Peace uses its Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), an
original methodology it has developed and tested over the past decade.

CAST is a flexible model that has the capability to employ a four-step
trend-line analysis, consisting of (1) rating 12 social, economic,
political, and military indicators; (2) assessing the capabilities
of five core state institutions considered essential for sustaining
security; (3) identifying idiosyncratic factors and surprises; and
(4) placing countries on a conflict map that shows the risk history
of countries being analyzed.

From: A. Papazian