Senate Panel Approves Ricciardone In Divided Vote

SENATE PANEL APPROVES RICCIARDONE IN DIVIDED VOTE

asbarez
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Senator Menendez opposed Ricciardone’s nomination

Senators Menendez, Boxer, Risch vote against confirmation; Coons
and Shaheen voice reservations US Ambassador to Armenia Nominee John
Heffern approved unanimously by voice vote WASHINGTON-The nomination
of President Obama’s controversial choice to serve as U.S. Ambassador
to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone, was approved in a devided vote within
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over whether he should serve
as America’s top envoy to Ankara, reported the Armenian National
Committee of America.

By contrast, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia nominee John Heffern was
approved unanimously by the Committee by voice vote.

Voting against the Ricciardone nomination were Senators Robert Menendez
(D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jim Risch (R-ID).

“We would like to thank Senator Menendez for his principled leadership
in calling attention to Amb. Ricciardone’s offensive and unacceptable
responses to questions dealing with the plight of Christians in
Turkey,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Sen. Menendez
along with Senators Boxer and Risch sent a powerful message to
Ricciardone and State Department officials that the American people
deserve a U.S. envoy who will fight hard for U.S. values and interests
and not succumb to Turkey’s propaganda machine.”

Senator Menendez, who spoke forcefully prior to voting against the
nominee, noted Ambassador Ricciardone’s incorrect response to his
written question concerning the state of Christian churches in Turkey
today. Amb. Ricciardone’s initial response that “most of the Christian
churches functioning prior to 1915 are still operating as churches” was
“so wrong as to be offensive,” stated Senator Menendez. He continued,
“What concerns me more, however, is that his response indicates
that he either did not carefully review the responses that were
submitted in his name or worse or that he truly was unaware of the
history of the Christian church in Turkey and the difficulties that
Christian churches continue to face in that country. His response
indicates a lack of focus or interest in issue affecting the Armenian
community . . . We need an Ambassador in Ankara that can support,
defend and advocate on behalf of all of the United States’ interests
vis-a-vis Turkey. Unfortunately, I’ve lost confidence in the ability of
Mr. Ricciardone to undertake that task and will not be able to support
his nomination.” Senator Menendez’s full statement is provided below.

Both Senators Menendez and Boxer submitted written questions
to Ambassador Ricciardone and have, over the course of many years,
ensured careful scrutiny of both Administration policy and nominations
for ambassadorial posts in the region.

These legislators were joined by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), who,
while voting for Amb. Ricciardone, raised reservations regarding the
nomination and broader issues related to U.S. genocide policy and
religious freedom issues. He noted that he had heard from his Armenian
and Greek American constituents on their “historic and profound
grievances,” which have gone on for “far too long” and stressed that
they deserved “higher diplomatic priority.” Senator Jeanne Shaheen
(D-NH), Chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee added that the
Committee’s discussion on Amb. Ricciardone’s responses concerning
religious freedom sent a strong signal to Ambassador Ricciardone and
Turkey about U.S. commitment to religious freedom.

While sharply criticizing Ambassador Ricciardone’s initial
misrepresentations about the destruction of Armenian and other
Christian churches as “unacceptable, incorrect, and inappropriate,”
the panel’s Chairman, John Kerry (D-MA), praised the nominee’s “depth
of knowledge,” and ultimately voted for his confirmation.

“Amb. Ricciardone has, sadly, embraced Ankara’s genocide denial
narrative, above and beyond even the level of the President and the
rest of his Administration – compounding our government’s complicity
in the Turkish government’s lies with outright and easily verifiable
falsehoods about the state of the few surviving Armenian and other
Christian churches that remain today within the borders of present-day
Turkey,” explained Hamparian. “At this critical juncture in U.S.-Turkey
relations, we simply cannot afford a policy of appeasement.”

In recent weeks, in response to a wave of grassroots outrage and
growing Congressional concern, Ambassador Ricciardone had backed away
from his responses to inquiries during his Senate confirmation process
that included highly offensive misrepresentations about Turkey’s
destruction of Christian churches. Following broad-based concerns
expressed by Armenian American community and religious leaders, U.S.

Ambassador Ricciardone amended his response to Foreign Relations
Committee member Robert Menendez (D-NJ), in which he had argued,
without any basis in fact, that a majority of Christian churches
operating in the territory of present-day Turkey prior to 1915 were
still functioning today. His testimony and written answers, however,
continued to be characterized by errors of fact, the use of strained
euphemisms to appease Ankara, and a pronounced bias toward the genocide
denial narrative advanced by the government of Turkey.

Last month, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian demanded a retraction, correction,
and apology for Ambassador Ricciardone’s statement covering-up
Ottoman and Republican Turkey’s systematic destruction of thousands
of Christian churches. “We have been troubled by his eagerness to
embrace the government of Turkey’s false and hateful genocide denial
narrative, at lengths beyond even the Administration’s longstanding
and shameful complicity in Turkey’s denials of the Armenian Genocide,”
stated Hachikian in his August 15th letter. “His verbal and written
responses to questions during his Senate confirmation process,
regarding the Armenian Genocide and other issues, ranged from evasive
to deeply offensive.”

The ANCA encouraged concerned citizens to contact Secretary Clinton
on this matter, and urged members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to oppose the Ricciardone nomination.

His Eminences Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan and Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian, Prelates of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
Eastern and Western United States, respectively, and Archbishop
Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic
Church – Eastern United States each issued powerfully worded spiritual
messages in response to the Ambassador’s statement. In an August 15th
statement, from which Senator Menendez quoted, Archbishop Choloyan
stressed that the Ambassador’s assertion was “so blatantly false
that it cannot remain unchallenged.” Setting the record straight,
he noted that: “The facts are quite clear. From the massacres
of Armenians in 1895-96 and the Armenian Genocide in 1915, to the
decades following the establishment of the Turkish republic, Christian
houses of worship were systematically destroyed or confiscated. My
own church’s hierarchal see, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia,
was a victim of this process, and today is exiled in Lebanon. The
archives of the Catholicosate contain hundreds of original deeds
and other documentation of churches and church owned property that
were confiscated.”

Archbishop Mardirossian concurred, stating, “The presence of an
Ambassador in Ankara who is unaware of or uninterested in the truth
and the consequences of the Ottoman and Republican Turkish government’s
genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, Syriacs, Greeks and other Christians
materially undermines U.S. interests, compromises American values,
and weakens international efforts to defend religious freedom for
peoples of all faiths. Sadly, but unmistakably, with this hateful and
hurtful statement, Ambassador Ricciardone has demonstrated that he
is not the right candidate to effectively and responsibly represent
the United States in Turkey.”

On August 19th, Archbishop Barsamian noted that Amb. Ricciardone’s
response had “deeply offended Armenian-Americans”, explaining that
“the loss of these many hundreds of churches, their neglect and
outright destruction, and the conversion of many of our sanctuaries
into mosques, is a matter of intense pain to Armenians: an ongoing
reminder of the loss of life and the destruction that we suffered as a
result of the 1915 Genocide… In all charity, perhaps the Ambassador
is simply unaware of certain facts. But mastery of the history of a
country, its dark as well as bright chapters, is essential to serving
the United States effectively and diplomatically in this important
and complex region.”

Reservations about the Ambassador’s readiness to placate his
foreign host’s interests at face value were expressed last fall by
then Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), who, during the last session of
Congress, placed a hold on Ambassador Ricciardone’s nomination to
serve as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. In an August 16, 2010, letter to
Secretary Clinton, Sen. Brownback voiced disapproval of Ricciardone’s
tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, noting, among other things,
that “he quickly adopted the positions and arguments of his Egyptian
diplomatic counterparts.”

In the wake of Senator Brownback’s hold, President Obama circumvented
Senate objections by issuing a “recess appointment” of Amb.

Ricciardone. The Senate must approve his nomination in the upcoming
months, if Ambassador Ricciardone is to continue to serve in Turkey
for more than one year, of the usual three-year ambassadorial term.

During Ambassador Ricciardone’s July confirmation hearing, in response
to Delaware Senator Chris Coons’ question as to what steps he had taken
to promote religious freedom in Turkey, he offered an evasive answer:
“… very interestingly, they [the Turkish Government] follow our
debates about personal freedom and religious freedom and they say
‘Here is how you can understand this, American Ambassador. In your
country, you have in recent years made a distinction between freedom
of religion and the concept of freedom from religion. For too long in
our modern republic we focused on preventing the intrusion of religion
in our national life and political life. We are quite comfortable to
be observant Muslims, please don’t call us Islamists, by the way,’
they tell us, ‘but to the extent someone is praying as a Christian
or a Jew, it really doesn’t bother us at all – why should it? It’s
no threat to the state, on the contrary, we are rather proud of our
diversity and we happy to have them do it. As to their property issues,
let us take a fresh look at this and make sure they get justice.'”

This assessment is sharply at odds with reports by the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which raised the
following alarm in its 2011 report: “The Turkish government continues
to impose serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief,
thereby threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority
religious communities in Turkey.”

The nominations are now set to go to the full Senate for confirmation.

Remarks by Senator Menendez on the Nomination of Francis Ricciardone
to be Ambassador to Turkey

Mr. Chairman – I have comments that I would like to make about the
nomination of Ambassador Ricciardone.

In June, I had a meeting with Ambassador Ricciardone in my office. I
appreciated the time he took to meet with me and I believe that his
efforts on behalf of the majority of U.S. interests are well-focused in
Ankara. I was prepared to support his nomination until I received the
responses to the Questions for the Record that I submitted following
his nomination hearing before this committee.

I asked the nominee, who has now served as the U.S. Ambassador to
Turkey since January of this year, about the number of Christian
churches still functioning in present-day Turkey. His initial and
incorrect response was that “most of the Christian churches functioning
prior to 1915 are still operating as churches.” This response was so
wrong as to be offensive.

The Archbishop of the Eastern Prelacy of Armenian Apostolic Church
of America, His Eminence Choloyan, issued a statement to rectify the
facts, stating that the Ambassador’s statement was “so blatantly
false that it cannot remain unchallenged.” He noted that: “The
facts are quite clear. From the massacres of Armenians in 1895-96
and the Armenian Genocide in 1915, to the decades following the
establishment of the Turkish republic, Christian houses of worship
were systematically destroyed or confiscated. The archives of
the Catholicosate contain hundreds of original deeds and other
documentation of churches and church owned property that were
confiscated.”

After several inquiries, Ambassador Ricciardone submitted a revised
response stating that “Christian community contacts in Turkey report
that a total of 200-250 churches that date to 1915 and before offer
Christian worship services at least once a year. ” I understand this
number to also be an overestimation.

What concerns me more, however, is that his response indicates that
he either did not carefully review the responses that were submitted
in his name or worse or that he truly was unaware of the history of
the Christian church in Turkey and the difficulties that Christian
churches continue to face in that country. His response indicates a
lack of focus or interest in issue affecting the Armenian community
and sends a message to Turkey that the Armenia issue is not an
“A-list” issue. We need an Ambassador in Ankara that can support,
defend and advocate on behalf of all of the United States’ interests
vis-a-vis Turkey. Unfortunately, I’ve lost confidence in the ability
of Mr. Ricciardone to undertake that task and will not be able to
support his nomination.

Le Cable De L’ambassade Des Etats-Unis Sur Le Genocide Armenien Et L

LE CABLE DE L’AMBASSADE DES ETATS-UNIS SUR LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN ET LES ARCHIVES OTTOMANES
[email protected]

armenews.com
mercredi 14 septembre 2011

USA

Les guillemets qui sont employes au debut du telegramme sont peu
a peu abandonnes au fil du rapport du diplomate. Il est vrai qu’il
rappelle que selon les historiens turcs, quelques centaines de milliers
d’Armeniens tout au plus sont morts tues par des bandits, la maladie,
la faim, et les conditions climatiques…

Dans le paragraphe 4, on retrouve le thème developpe recemment par
Vahakn Dadrian sur la perception que les Turcs ont d’eux-memes,
après leurs defaites du debut du 20ème siècle dans les Balkans :
des victimes.

On apprend que la moitie environ des documents d’archive n’etant pas
encore “catalogues” sont inaccessibles aux chercheurs. Au huitième
paragraphe, un chercheur turc voit dans les travaux de mise en
catalogue une operation destinee a poursuivre la “purge” des archives.

Le diplomate ecrit explicitement que le gouvernement turc organise
la negation. Selon lui, ce sont les groupes nationalistes qui font
pression sur le gouvernement.

Le commentaire de fin est incomprehensible. Le consul americain renvoie
dos a dos les Armeniens et les Turcs. On aurait attendu qu’au moins
dans un document confidentiel, le diplomate eclaire son ministre
en disant de quel côte est le droit, voire la verite. On aurait pu
penser qu’il donne a son ministre des recommandations et des pistes
pour determiner une politique. Au lieu de cela, c’est le consul qui
demande a etre informe ; de quoi ? Des eventuelles protestations des
chercheurs genes dans leur accès aux archives.

Gilbert Beguian

Câble de l’ambassade des Etats-Unis – 04ISTANBUL1074

“GENOCIDE ARMENIEN ” ET ARCHIVES OTTOMANES

Identifiant : 04ISTANBUL1074

Origine : Consulat d’Istanbul

Creation : 12 juillet 2004 09:01:00

Classification : CONFIDENTIEL

Etiquette : PREL PGOV AM TU ISTANBUL

Redacteur : ce câble n’a pas ete redige par Wikileaks

Ce document est un extrait partiel du telegramme original, Le texte
en son entier du telegramme originel n’est pas disponible.

C O N F I D E N T I E L SECTION 01 DE 03 ISTANBUL 001074

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958 : DECL : 07/11/2014

TAGS : PREL, PGOV, AM, TU, Istanbul

SUBJECT : ARMENIAN “GENOCIDE” AND THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES

Classe confidentiel par : le Consul General David Arnett pour les
raisons 1.5 (b&d)

Ceci est un document conjoint du Consulat General d’Istanbul/Ambassade
d’ANKARA

1. (sbu) Resume : le defaut d’entente et de dialogue sur la question du
soi-disant “genocide” reste un obstacle majeur au rapprochement turco-
armenien. Une solution a long terme a cette question problematique
ne peut etre construite qu’a travers un dialogue ouvert et un debat
sain et objectif. Le libre accès a toutes les archives ottomanes,
où se trouvent pour l’essentiel les preuves historiques relatives a
cette periode, est un aspect critique pour que s’installe la confiance
mutuelle necessaire a un tel debat. Bien que la Turquie ait fait
de gros progrès vers l’ouverture des archives et de stigmatiser la
question, des problèmes persistants et des doutes sur les archives
continuent a saper les efforts pour remplir le fosse d’incomprehension
entre les Armeniens et les Turcs sur cette question historique. Fin
du resume.

2. (u) L’obstacle le plus serieux a la reconciliation turco-armenienne
reste une impossibilite d’entente, ne serait-ce que sur un dialogue
sain sur la “question” armenienne ou sur ce qui est pour la plupart
des Turcs le “suppose genocide”. Les accusations, negations et
contre-accusations sur cette question ont longtemps obscurci des
debats prepares dans la sincerite. Les intellectuels de la diaspora
ont reuni des quantites de temoignages oculaires et de declarations
detaillant les tragiques evenements de 1915-16 qui des conditions qui
d’après eux sont celles du genocide de 1,5 million d’Armeniens vivant
dans l’empire ottoman. Les historiens turcs contestent, quant a eux
disant que quelques centaines de milliers d’Armeniens, ont ete tues
par des bandits, par la maladie et les très dures conditions de vie,
quand, en reponse a la menace constituee par des insurges armeniens,
(et au “massacre” de beaucoup de musulmans turcs), une grande partie
de la population armenienne a ete deportee en Syrie et au Liban.

Une Question d’Identite

3. (sbu) Outre des milliers d’annees d’histoire ecrite, un riche
heritage culturel et une Eglise vivante, pour les Armeniens du
monde entier, les evenements de 1915-16 constituent une composante
fondamentale de leur identite moderne. Bien que quelques Armeniens
aient quelquefois cherche la vengeance dans la terreur et la violence,
(c’est le cas du terrorisme de l’ASALA des annees 1970), l’objectif
a ete fixe d’une campagne infatigable pour que ces evenements soient
reconnus comme un genocide.

4. (sbu) L’approche turque de la question armenienne est complexe.

Depuis l’instauration de la Republique turque, Ataturk et ses
heritiers de la classe dominante ont pense que pour entretenir l’
“identite turque” – qu’Ataturk et son entourage ont developpe comme
une construction artificielle, et dont ses heritiers politiques disent
qu’elle est sous la menace d’ennemis a l’interieur et a l’exterieur –
essentielle pour la protection et le developpement de la Republique.

Les representants a la fois de l’etat turc et de chaque gouvernement
jusqu’a ce jour, croient que la reconnaissance de tout mauvais
traitement inflige aux Armeniens remettrait en question ses frontières
et les propres revendications issues de la victimisation de la Turquie,
et exposerait la Turquie a des demandes d’indemnisation. Des decennies
de negation officielle et le refus d’envisager tout debat rationnel
en Turquie sur cette question taboue ont prive la Turquie d’un
environnement objectif propice aux affirmations de genocide.

Les archives sont-elles ouvertes ?

5. (sbu) Les deux parties se sont efforcees d’utiliser les Archives
ottomanes pour soutenir leur version des evenements. Les Turcs ont
publie des volumes de documents pour appuyer leur thèse, tandis que
l’attitude du gouvernement turc faisant obstacle au libre accès des
archives est vue par les chercheurs armeniens comme une volonte de
dissimuler les preuves du genocide.

Les chercheurs armeniens se sont plaints depuis longtemps de ne
pas pouvoir obtenir l’autorisation de faire des recherches dans les
archives ou de n’y en avoir eu accès que partiellement. D’autres faits
de retard (et disent-ils, deliberes) pour obtenir une autorisation,
ont souvent consomme la majeure partie de la duree prevue par les
conditions d’attribution d’une subvention ou celle d’un conge sans
solde.

Kevork Bardakchian, chef du programme des Etudes Armeniennes a
l’Universite du Michigan, par exemple, a rapporte aux responsables
politiques que ses autres collègues et lui-meme avaient essuye un
refus, tout simplement et sans explication lorsqu’il avait depose
des demandes dans les annees 1970 et 1980. Un directeur des archives
de l’epoque avait ouvertement parle de la necessite de “proteger”
les documents d’un mauvais traitement par des etrangers hostiles.

6. (sbu) Les specialistes turcs et etrangers sont d’accord pour dire
que l’ancien premier ministre et president Turgut Ozal a fait qu’un
pas reel soit franchi pour l’ouverture des archives a la fin des
annees 1980 et au debut des annees 1990. Les archives ont ete mises
sous l’autorite du premier ministre, les procedures pour obtenir des
autorisations de recherche allegees, et les efforts pour cataloguer
150 millions de documents ont ete acceleres. Tous ceux a qui nous
avons parle concèdent que cela a ete le signal d’un changement profond
qui se prolonge jusqu’a aujourd’hui. Selon l’administration turque
des archives, les autorisations sont normalement accordees en une
semaine, le personnel d’archivage est diligent, et les photocopies de
documents desirees sont disponibles a un prix raisonnable. Lorsque
des responsables politiques ont visite la salle de recherche des
archives un peu plus tôt ce mois-ci, le personnel lui a montre une
liste informatisee de plus de 300 chercheurs americains qui ont
recu l’autorisation de faire ici des recherches au cours des annees
recentes (plus d’une trentaine jusqu’a present, simplement pour cette
annee). Les catalogues sont egalement disponibles sur le site Internet
des Archives.

7 (sbu) Quelques restrictions a l’accès restent en place. Les
responsables turcs ne permettent pas l’accès a plus de 70 millions de
documents non encore catalogues et soutiennent que beaucoup d’autres
sont trop endommages pour etre employes par les chercheurs. En outre
quelques critiques s’elèvent encore selon lesquelles le gouvernement
turc cherche a bloquer les personnes qui cherchent dans le domaine de
la question armenienne. Le Directeur des services d’Archives d’Etat du
premier ministre Yusuf Farinay a indique aux responsables politiques
que les chercheurs doivent se trouver legalement en Turquie a cet
effet, ce qui implique un visa d’approbation du ministère des affaires
etrangères. Quelques chercheurs voient encore leur autorisation
retardee ou refusee purement et simplement (les chercheurs grecs ont
ete eux-aussi victimes de telles discriminations dans le passe). Le
Directeur d’Archive Sarinay a dit que bien que beaucoup de chercheurs
americains soient venus aux archives, il faut noter qu’aucun n’est
venu d’Armenie. Il a specule sur le fait qu’il n’y a pas de relations
diplomatiques entre la Turquie et l’Armenie – et cela a cause d’une
politique de reciprocite vis-a-vis de l’Armenie supposee ne pas ouvrit
ses archives aux chercheurs turcs. L’eminent historien de l’epoque
ottomane Halil Inalcik a critique le manque d’ouverture des archives
dans un editorial de fevrier 2001 dans le journal Radikal sous le titre
“Les Archives ottomanes doivent etre ouvertes au Monde”. En depit de
la critique, cependant, le leit motive aujourd’hui est “ouverture”
et toute discussion tendant a la “protection” des archives vis-a-vis
des etrangers est politiquement incorrecte. Bien que l’autorite du
Directeur des Archives lui permette encore d’interdire l’accès,
il aura du mal a expliquer les raisons d’une telle restriction a
l’encontre de tout chercheur serieux.

Les Archives ont-elles ete purgees ?

8.(c) Plus importante peut-etre que les questions d’accession,
cependant, est la question : les archives sont-elles complètes ? Selon
le professeur Halil Berktay, il y a eu deux initiatives serieuses
tendant a “purger” les archives de tout document incriminant la
question armenienne. La première a eu lieu en 1918, on presume avant
l’occupation d’Istanbul par les forces alliees. Berktay avec d’autres
relèvent un temoignage devant les Tribunaux Militaires Turcs, indiquant
que des documents importants ont ete “voles” des archives.

Selon Berktay, une seconde purge a eu lieu en marge de l’initiative
d’ouvrir les archives d’Ozal, par un groupe de diplomates et de
generaux a la retraite menes par l’ex ambassadeur Muharrem Nuri Birgi
(note : Nuri etait precedemment ambassadeur a Londres et a l’Otan et
secretaire general du ministère des affaires etrangères). Berktay
soutien qu’au temps où il passait les archives au peigne fin,
Nuri Birgi rencontrait regulièrement un ami commun et a un moment,
en reference aux Armeniens, il confessa tristement que “Nous les
avons reellement massacres”. Tony Greenwood, Directeur de l’Institut
Americain de Recherche en Turquie, a dit a des responsables politiques,
en aparte, que lorsqu’il travaillait aux archives a la meme epoque,
il etait bien connu qu’un groupe d’officiers a la retraite avaient un
accès privilegie et ont passe plusieurs mois a etudier les documents
archives. Un autre chercheur turc qui avait travaille sur la question
armenienne soutient que les travaux en cours pour repertorier les
documents servent en realite a purger les archives.

Faire face a l’Histoire

9. (sbu) Les attitudes de la Turquie vis-a-vis du genocide ont evolue
dans le temps. Meme si peu nombreux sont ceux qui ont le courage
d’en parler publiquement, quelques intellectuels, universitaires,
et d’autres remettent en question la version officielle des evenements.

Les citoyens ordinaires de l’Anatolie Centrale et Orientale
reconnaissent devant nous ce que leurs grands parents ont fait
subir aux Armeniens. Plusieurs visiteurs intellectuels americains
ont releve que le sujet n’est desormais plus tabou. Publiquement,
les classes dirigeantes turques (le groupe de reflexion nationaliste
ASAM, l’Association Historique d’Etat Turque, et jusqu’aux Archives
y compris), persistent a recuser les affirmations de la diaspora
et ripostent en accusant les Armeniens de s’etre engages dans des
revoltes massives et generalisees au cours de la guerre et en ayant
perpetre des massacres a grande echelle de musulmans turcs. Au cours
des recentes annees, le ministère de l’education a demande a des
lyceens de participer a un concours de redaction niant le Genocide
(note : Berktay soutient que cette idee a son origine dans l’ASAM
et impose au ministère par les contacts militaires de l’ASAM). Le
gouvernement actuel, quant a lui, a ete notablement plus reserve
que certains de ses predecesseurs, repetant consciencieusement la
necessite de ‘laisser la question a la discussion des historiens’.

Commentaire

10. (c) Bien que presque un siècle soit passe depuis les evenements de
1915-1916, le fosse d’incomprehension entre les Armeniens et les Turcs
sur cette question reste considerable. Tout en n’etant plus un sujet
complètement ferme comme il l’a ete, la discussion en Turquie en reste
encore limitee et dominee par la ligne nationaliste-classe dominante.

Meme si le gouvernement actuel espère laisser cette question en
arrière, il est peu probable qu’il sera capable de faire beaucoup
plus que simplement encourager la creation de conditions propices a
une saine discussion. Il est douteux qu’en l’etat actuel des choses,
les archives ottomanes puissent apporter une interpretation definitive
de la question armenienne, mais elles seront au centre et une clef
pour des Turcs et Armeniens desireux d’entreprendre d’authentiques
recherches et debats sur ce sujet.

A cette fin, nous devons soutenir et encourager les chercheurs a
maintenir le pression pour acceder au materiel d’archives et a se
preparer a s’adresser au gouvernement turc pour exprimer des griefs
sur les obstacles officiels. Nous demandons au Departement (d’Etat)
de nous informer de telles demarches.

Arts & Entertainment: Days Of Armenian Movie Kick Off In Anapa

DAYS OF ARMENIAN MOVIE KICK OFF IN ANAPA

Panorama
Sept 13 2011
Armenia

Days of Armenian movies will kick off today in Anapa-hosted
“Kinoshock-2011” film festival.

In the sidelines of non-format movies special performance of Armenian
movies dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Independence of Armenia
will be held.

There are 14 films in the main contest, including “Wondering” by
Arshaluys Harutyunyan.

Armenian delegation consisted of Marat Hayrapetyan, consultant of
Culture Minister, Vardan Abovyan, the deputy director of National
movie center, expert Davit Muradyan and actor Rafael Kotanjyan will
leave for Anapa to attend the festival.

Business & Economy: Research Center Of Renowned IT Company To Be Fou

RESEARCH CENTER OF RENOWNED IT COMPANY TO BE FOUNDED IN ARMENIA’S SECOND LARGEST CITY

news.am
Sept 13 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Testing and research center of the renowned D-Link IT
company is planned to be founded at Gyumri Technopark, the latter’s
foundation director Gurgen Paronyan told Armenian News-News.am.

Paronyan informed that, at present, negotiations are also underway
with other leading foreign companies.

In addition, local-capital companies are also being established. In
Paronyan’s words, 4 IT companies are already established and more are
on the way. “Two of these companies were established without state
involvement, and the Technopark provides them technical, expert,
and area support,” Paronyan said.

He also informed that they are currently training staff for the
Technopark, adding that the Technopark building’s technical task will
be prepared soon and its tender will probably be announced in October.

During its July 21 session, the Government of Armenia approved the
2011 program for the activities of Gyumri Technopark, and 176.5
million drams ($466,522 US) were allocated from 2011 state budget
for this purpose.

The project on creating the Gyumri Technopark was approved in 2006,
and the state assistance program for the Technopark’s activities was
endorsed in 2009.

ANKARA: Arabs Are Applauding But Administrations Skeptical

ARABS ARE APPLAUDING BUT ADMINISTRATIONS SKEPTICAL
By Mehmet Ali Birand, [email protected]

Hurriyet
Sept 13 2011
Turkey

The Prime Minister’s greeting when he landed in Cairo was featured
as a victory in our media. I am sure the prime minister did not take
very seriously the demonstration of love from thousands of Egyptians
who were applauding and cheering him. These types of demonstrations,
especially in Egypt, are specially arranged. They are constructed by
administrations and used so that the visitors are pleased or dissuaded
from conveying a negative message.

The Arab “streets” up to now have applauded countless persons but
after that they have also wiped the floors with the same leaders.

Erdogan is not in the same position.

He actually is a leader liked by the people. But this should not be
counted on too much. Because those governing these countries have a
different view of Erdogan.

The Turkish Prime Minister is being applauded in public statements,
his cheeks are being kissed. But when the doors close, the talk starts
with statements such as, “These Turks, now, have gone too far.”

Erdogan’s Gaza passion and his stance for smashing Israel and moving
Turkey to the forefront are bothering some other Arab countries.

Erdogan is both stealing a role from the Arabs and demonstrating
their incompetence in the Palestine issue.

This stance, starting with Cairo, does not serve the purpose of most
of them but they also cannot raise their voices.

Let’s get used to it.

This is how the game is played in the Middle East.

We are also going to play it as such.

We should not be surprised if tomorrow the wind blows from the opposite
direction in the Arab “streets.”

Athens should not use the Israel card

Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, according to media reports, has
stated that he was preparing to use the cards he has in his hand to
bother Turkey.

1. Assisting the PKK:

It is said that Israel, by giving arms and training, will assist
the terror organization to make Turkey bleed more. Up until today,
a lot has been said about Israel and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or PKK, relationship but nothing has been proven. To provide
an open and huge support to a terror organization, however angry they
may be at Turkey, does not suit this country’s long-term interests.

Consequently, it is very difficult for the foreign minister to play
this card. At most, he will be restricted to offering some trivial
intelligence and training assistance. Moreover, the PKK has reacted
to Lieberman’s statement. Murat Karayılan said Israel first has to
apologize to the PKK for its role in capturing Abdullah Ocalan and that
the PKK was not an organization that would allow itself to be used.

2. Cooperation with Armenian lobbies:

Nobody doubts it. Israel will find huge support from the Armenians
in this area.

Especially at this time when the 100th anniversary of the 1915 events
is nearing, Israel can do everything it can for a genocide bill to
pass in the U.S. Congress. But this is directly connected to the
Obama administration’s attitude. The Israeli lobby and Washington
would not very easily join the Lieberman campaign.

3. Greek-Greek Cypriot card:

Before anything else, we have to highlight that it is not known how
much these anti-Turkey initiatives of Lieberman are approved and
adopted by the Netanyahu government.

Now, let’s look at the possible stances of Greece and southern Cyprus.

It is unreasonable for both Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration
to become a card in Israel’s hands and let themselves be used against
Turkey.

Especially in this era when bilateral relations have entered a positive
stage, it does not serve any purpose for Athens to set off to make the
Turkish public its enemy yet again. Even for the sake of supporting
its brothers because of domestic policy reasons, Athens should not
take such a risk in view of Greek Cyprus’ exploring for oil in the
Mediterranean together with Israel and Turkey’s opposition to this.

It is difficult to believe that Greece, going through the worst
economic crisis in its history would opt for strategic cooperation with
Israel and join an anti-Turkey front. Prime Minister Papandreou is a
realistic person. I doubt he would participate in such an unnecessary
show that would not yield any results.

When we come to the attitude of the Greek Cyprus administration;
while the region is experiencing storms, joining Lieberman’s game and
wishing that Turkey be cornered would be just about the same level
of a wrong calculation.

I think Greece and the Greek Cyprus administration, for domestic
political reasons, may wink at Lieberman but will not go any further.

Even if Greek Cypriot President Christofias, considering the upcoming
elections, sets off to flirt with Lieberman, there is a low probability
that it finds the support it expects from Athens.

This is what is expected of Papandreou.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=arabs-are-applauding-but-administrations-skeptical-2011-09-13

Der Spiegel: Israel Fears Complete Isolation

ISRAEL FEARS COMPLETE ISOLATION
by Ulrike Putz

Spiegel Online International
September 12, 2011 Monday 6:48 PM GMT+1
Germany

SOFTENING STANCE AFTER SETBACKS

Israel’s relations with Turkey are ruined, the Palestinians plan to
seek UN recognition for their own state, the embassy in Cairo was
stormed: Jerusalem is under massive pressure. Even hard-line Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is starting to sound conciliatory.;
,1518,785845,00.html

Is Jerusalem softening its hard-line stance? After weeks of
confrontation with friend and foe alike, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu chose unusually conciliatory words in thanking the Egyptian
government for its help during the storm by Egyptian protesters on
the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Friday night.

During the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on Sunday, Netanyahu
praised the Egyptian security forces for rescuing six Israeli
diplomats and security guards who had been under siege in the embassy
building for hours. He continued with warm words for the Egyptian
ruling military council, saying: “I am glad that there are also other
voices in Egypt and in the leadership who want to bring forward and
preserve peace.”

Earlier, the government had accused the Egyptian security forces and
the military leadership of failing to do enough to protect the Israeli
embassy staff. Over the weekend, high-ranking government officials
in Jerusalem had expressed outrage that Israel had to get United
States President Barack Obama to intervene with Cairo to trigger a
commando-rescue operation that averted a lynching of six security
guards. By Monday, though, such talk had ceased.

Serious Setbacks

If Netanyahu is now backing down, it is because the situation is
serious. Very serious. The Israelis are no strangers to crisis,
but they will remember the last few weeks for a long time. Rarely
has the Jewish state suffered so many setbacks and blows as this month:

On Sept. 1, pro-Palestinian activists in London interrupted a
performance by the Israeli Symphony Orchesta so vehemently that the
BBC had to break off its broadcast of the concert for the first time
in its history.

On Sept. 6, it became known that former US Defense Secretary Robert
Gates had described Netanyahu as “ungrateful” in a meeting of the
National Security Council. By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s growing
isolation, Netanyahu was endangering his country, Gates said. The fact
that Gates’ comments became public and weren’t contradicted by the US
government suggest that they were a semi-official message to Jerusalem.

The dispute between Turkey and Israel over Israel’s refusal to
apologize for the deaths of nine Turkish activists in a 2010 Israeli
raid on a Turkish boat carrying aid for Gaza culminated last week
when Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador, cancelled its military
cooperation with Jerusalem and announced it would provide military
protection for Turkish ships heading to Gaza in the future. Israeli
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman retorted that Israel would cooperate
closely in the future with Kurds and Armenians, traditional opponents
of Turkey.

The Palestinian leadership has vowed to seek full United Nations
membership for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
at the UN General Assembly in New York on Sept. 20. Attempts by the
European Union and the US to persuade Ramallah to refrain from such
a move, by offering them the prospect of fresh peace negotiations,
have so far failed to dissuade the Palestinians.

On Friday night, thousands of demonstrators gathered in front of the
Israeli embassy in Cairo, tore a hole in the surrounding wall, stormed
part of the building and held six Israelis under siege for hours. All
embassy staff had been evacuated, and only one official was left in
the building at the time. Israeli’s most important representation in
the Arab world is effectively closed now.

Given these crises, Netanyahu is wise to try to calm the waters. For
weeks, Israeli politicians and analysts have been warning that Israel’s
hard-line stance is causing irreparable damage to its reputation
among Arabs and in the West. Criticism of the government is especially
strong in the security services: the military intelligence service,
the domestic intelligence service Shin Bet and the foreign secret
service Mossad have repeatedly called on the government in recent weeks
to resume talks with the Palestinians in order to ease tensions and
lessen international anger toward Israel, the daily Haaretz reported.

Call for Change in Policy

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a long-time opponent of Netanyahu,
is leading calls for a change in policy. According to Haaretz ,
Barak told fellow cabinet ministers that if Israel fails to try to
move the peace process forward, it will be seen as obstructionist by
its friends in the West.

Israeli President Shimon Peres is also reported to have urged
Netanyahu to change his stance on the Palestinians, Israel’s Army
Radio reported. Peres is said to have personally called on Netanyahu
to adopt a “softer” position in the upcoming UN vote on a Palestinian
state. Israel fears a blow to its reputation if such a state were to
be recognized. It would also face possible legal consequences if a
Palestinian state were able to seek prosecutions at the International
Criminal Court more easily.

But even if Netanyahu has decided to take the wind out of the
Palestinians’ sails by making compromise offers, it’s doubtful
whether he will be able to stay the course. He leads a right-wing
coalition in which some members have already made clear they
won’t back a policy of reconciliation. Netanyahu had only just
made his comments praising Egypt when members of his cabinet began
sounding confrontational again. If the Palestinians dare to seek UN
recognition for a Palestinian state, Israel must annex the West Bank,
four ministers from various right-wing parties demanded.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0

Taking On Turkey: Israel’S ‘Dangerous’ Game

TAKING ON TURKEY: ISRAEL’S ‘DANGEROUS’ GAME
By Ramzy Baroud

The Tripoli Post
September 12, 2011 Monday
Libya

The UN Palmer Report, which largely exonerated Israel for murdering
nine unarmed Turkish civilians in international waters on May 31, 2010,
seemed in some ways like the last straw. Prior to its publication,
the camel’s back had already mostly broken, and a collapse in
Turkish-Israeli ties was looming.

Turkey’s sin was seeking an apology for the killing of its citizens –
on their way to deliver essential, life-saving supplies to malnourished
and besieged Palestinians in Gaza – at the hand of Israeli army
commandos.

If the civilians had been Israelis, and the commandos part of a
Turkish force, all hell would have broken loose. Israel and the US
would have declared Turkey a pariah state. Turkey, however, merely
demanded an apology, and it was affronted further for doing so.

Of course, this is not the first time that Israel deliberately provoked
and tested Turkish patience. Israel has attempted to infiltrate
Turkey’s own political spaces by supporting its regional opponents
and arming various rebel groups with the aim of destabilizing Turkey.

Instead of acknowledging the country’s rising significance and
accommodating to the rules of the ‘new Middle East’ political game,
Israel resorted to intimidation and insults. It repeatedly placed
Turkey – a thriving democracy and a proud regional power of 80 million
– in a very sensitive standing.

However, the anti-Turkish attitude in Israel was not an outcome of
the Mavi Marmara incident last year. “The height of humiliation” is
how an Israeli newspaper described a scene in which Israel’s deputy
foreign minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador, Ahmet Oguz,
last January to humiliate him before Israeli media.

Oguz was reprimanded over a fictional Turkish TV show that was critical
of Israel. To ensure that the point has been successfully made, Ayalon
“urged journalists to make clear that the ambassador was seated on
a low sofa, while the Israeli officials were in much higher chairs,”
according to the BBC (January 13, 2010). Ayalon noted that is “there
is only one flag here” – the Israeli flag – and “we are not smiling”.

How did Turkey respond? A statement issued by the foreign ministry
‘invited’ their counterparts in “Israeli foreign ministry to respect
the rules of diplomatic courtesy.” Hardly outrageous.

The gist of the Turkish message that followed the murder of the Turkish
humanitarian activists a few months later was not much different. It
basically asked for an apology.

Turkey was shunned for the seemingly unreasonable demand. An unnamed
senior Israeli official explained the Israeli logic to Ynet news on
September 2, following Turkey’s decision to downgrade ties with Israel.

“Turkey is an important country in the Middle East, but an apology is
a very strategic precedent for Israel in this region,” he said. That
is true, Israel’s diplomacy is predicated on unfair trade, violent
storming of humanitarian boats, subservient activities, espionage and
much more. Indeed, an apology for the murder of Turkish’s civilians
would be a precedent.

Even after the recent publishing of Palmer Report – a contradictory
and obvious attempt at exonerating the Israeli army while implicating
Turkish humanitarian activists – Turkey acted responsibly.

But it also acted with the poise and dignity that is expected of a
democratic country expressing the wishes of the vast majority of its
people. It downgraded military, trade and other ties with Israel. Why
should Turkey share military intelligence with a country that murders
Turks, humiliates its diplomats and refuses to apologize?

Still, from Israel’s point of view, Turkey has crossed all the limits
of acceptable behaviour. “Turkish warships will escort any Turkish
aid vessels to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” said Turkish Prime
Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in an interview with Al Jazeera
(as quoted in The Guardian, September 8).

At the same time, Turkish diplomacy continued to offer a window of
opportunity to detain further escalation. “Our embassy in Israel is
open, and the Israeli embassy in Ankara is open.

The relations would return to the old days if Israel apologizes and
accepts to pay compensation,” said Huseyin Celik, seputy chairman of
the ruling Justice and Development party (according to The Guardian,
September 8.)

Since an apology is a ‘precedent’, Israel responded in the only way
it knows how. An accusatory campaign was launched against Turkey with
outlandish insinuations and direct threats.

“This is part of the Islamisation spreading there, and we must
recognize it,” said the senior official to Ynet. The leading Israeli
news source also published a column by one Ron Ben-Yishai, calling
the Turkish Prime Minister a “short-tempered thug.”

In ‘Turkey no great power,’ Yishai accused the country of failing on
most fronts. “Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership is neither a reliable
ally nor a credible rival,” he charged.

These views are hardly marginal, and were matched by specific threats
by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. “We’ll exact a price
from Erdogan that will prove to him that messing with Israel doesn’t
pay off,” Lieberman reportedly said.

More specifically, he “urge(d) all Israeli military veterans to
refrain from traveling to Turkey and facilitate cooperation with the
Armenians – Turkey’s historic rivals.” He said he also plans to meet
with the Turkish rebel group PKK to “cooperate with them and boost
them in every possible area,” according to UPI, September 9.

Per this logic, demanding an apology for murder equals a thuggish act,
while stirring regional instability and admitting to supporting armed
militias is an acceptable diplomatic manoeuvre.

Turkey had no other option but to escalate before an obstinate ‘ally.’
And considering the latter’s existing isolation in the region – and
the growing anti-Israeli sentiment in Egypt and elsewhere – it is
likely that Israel, not Turkey, will lose out in this political tussle.

Even the US, Israel’s ‘unconditional’ ally, seems to recognize the
dangerous game being played by Israel and its rightwing government
of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Recently revealed comments made by then US secretary of defence
Robert Gates indicate that Americans are simply fed up with supporting
Israel’s ‘dangerous’ policies, while ‘receive(ing) nothing in return’
(Bloomberg, September 5).

It is these very dangerous policies that guide Israel’s brewing
conflict with Turkey amid complete lack of political wisdom in Tel
Aviv. But if extreme militancy was not enough to intimidate or weaken
the resolve of a tiny and besieged place like Gaza, why should it
work against a great and rising power like Turkey?

Rational thinking in Netanyahu’s government might also be an acceptable
precedent.

Ramzy Baroud is an internationally-syndicated
columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book
is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press,
London)

www.ramzybaroud.net

BAKU: Uruguay’s MFA: Uruguay Honors Principles Of International Law

URUGUAY’S MFA: URUGUAY HONORS PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AZERBAIJAN

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
September 11, 2011 Sunday

Making attempts to give out the desired for the reality, the Armenian
mass media have once again distorted the information to deceive the
international community.

As earlier reported, the Armenian mass media have disseminated
information that at the meeting initiated by the Armenian “Ay Dat”
Committee in the South America and the Uruguay-Armenia parliamentary
group dedicated to the Armenian-Uruguayan relations, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay Luis Almagro, speaking about the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict, has allegedly supported recognition of
the separatist regime of Nagorno Karabakh.

“The embassy of Azerbaijan in Buenos Aires has already contacted
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay. In conversation with the
ambassador of Azerbaijan in Buenos Aires Mammad Ahmedzade, the deputy
minister of foreign affairs of Uruguay Roberto Karreras has underlined
that his country honors the principles of international law and backs
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and mediation activity of the OSCA
Minsk group”, press service of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan said.

The embassy of Azerbaijan in Buenos Aires continues to study the case.

BAKU: ‘Azerbaijan Supports Peaceful Settlement Of Nagorno-Karabakh C

‘AZERBAIJAN SUPPORTS PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT’

Today
Sept 12 2011
Azerbaijan

“Azerbaijan supports peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict,” member of the Azerbaijan parliament, Milli Majlis, Sevinj
Fataliyeva said at a “roundtable” meeting on “The ways of resolution
of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue: its influence on the region and society”
held in Krynica, Poland as part of the 21st Economic Forum.

Fataliyeva noted notwithstanding the ceasefire regime Armenian snipers
kill not only soldiers, but also civilians, including children. She
noted “President Ilham Aliyev had reiterated Azerbaijan`s territorial
integrity could never be a subject to discussions. All the people of
Azerbaijan totally share the Head of State` opinion.”

Fataliyeva also said Azerbaijan was successfully integrating into
Europe, and expanding its relations with the EU year after year.

BAKU: Karabakh Conflict Cause For Serious Concern – Swedish Minister

KARABAKH CONFLICT CAUSE FOR SERIOUS CONCERN – SWEDISH MINISTER

news.az
Sept 12 2011
Azerbaijan

News.Az reprints from APA the interview with Swedish Foreign Minister
Carl Bildt.

This year you paid first official visit to Azerbaijan. How do you
estimate the results of the visit, and what are the prospects of
development bilateral relations between Sweden and Azerbaijan?

The visit provided an excellent opportunity for me to engage with
Azeri partners in a dialogue on a broad set of issues, both bilateral
and pertaining to the to EU agenda. One important message from the
Azeri side was their continued commitment to internal reform and
integration with the EU. We also talked about the need for Azerbaijan
to step up its efforts in the fields of human rights, democracy and
good governance.

I reminded the Azerbaijani Government of the importance of the
upcoming Eurovision Song Contest in this respect. In the coming year
the European audience, and especially the younger generation, will pay
much more attention to Azerbaijan, and the clear expectation will be
that Azerbaijan lives up to the high European standards in respecting
the fundamental rights of its citizens. I had the opportunity to
reiterate these points in talks also with representatives of civil
society and the political opposition.

As far as the bilateral agenda is concerned, there is a great potential
for increased cooperation. Our trade and commercial links should be
developed further. During my visit, I also took good note of a strong
wish to work together in the education sector, something that has
already resulted in a visit of a Ministerial delegation to Sweden.

With our common history linked to the BraNobel heritage, we have a firm
basis for developing our bilateral ties. Incidentally, the Eurovision
Song Contest is a good illustration of successful Azerbaijani-Swedish
cooperation!

How does Sweden assess the ongoing developments on Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict in the region? Do you believe that there were sufficient
efforts to advance the peace process although the negotiations went
into deadlock?

Clearly, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a cause for serious concern,
with implications not only for the two countries involved, but for the
entire region and the international community. We must all encourage
Azerbaijan and Armenia to find a peaceful solution, and Sweden supports
the efforts of the Minsk Group. But it is fundamental to point out
that peace cannot be achieved in the negotiating rooms only.

The two parties will have to refrain from aggressive rhetoric and
instead build support for peace among their populations. The EU must
support the process and demonstrate to the peoples in the region that
there are important gains to be made from pursuing a peaceful path.

How do you evaluate the economic cooperation of Azerbaijan and the
European market? What is the most attractive for Swedish investors
in Azerbaijani market?

There is scope for increased economic cooperation between EU and AZ,
also to encompass other sectors than energy. The accession of AZ
to the WTO and a free trade agreement with the EU could facilitate
closer cooperation.

A growing interest in Azerbaijan among Swedish investors can be
discerned. As of today, only a few Swedish enterprises are present in
the market. TeliaSonera and Ericsson are some examples. Sweden hopes
to develop closer business relations with Azerbaijan. We are planning
for a visit of a Swedish trade delegation before the end of the year.

Since the energy sector is of prime importance to the Azeri economy,
there is great scope for cooperation in green energy technology,
energy efficiency and renewables.

What is your opinion on promotion of the “Eastern Partnership” program,
considering that Sweden was one of the initiators of it?

The Eastern Partnership aims to strengthen and deepen contacts
and cooperation with the six Eastern European countries, including
Azerbaijan. The EaP – with EU integration at the core – is a clear
expression of solidarity and long-term engagement from the EU’s side.

Moreover, the EaP has helped mobilize attention to the Eastern
neighborhood amongst EU’s 27 member states. With the EaP, the EU as a
whole has renewed its focus on Eastern Europe and has rallied around
an ambitious agenda for the countries in question.

The EaP has firmly placed the Eastern partners at the top of the EU
agenda – and rightly so. With the EaP, the countries in question are
offered greater political and economic integration with the EU. In
return, the countries must adhere to the values that underpin the
European cooperation and progress on internal reforms. The up-coming
second Eastern Partnership Summit on 29-30 November in Warsaw will
be a good opportunity to take stock of progress made so far, and to
set new policy goals for the future.