Author: Badalian Vardan

SEN AREVSHATIAN: WE CAN IMPROVE ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS BUT NOT AT EXPENSE OF NATIONAL INTERESTS

YEREVAN
APRIL 16, 2009
NOYAN TAPAN

Lie and falsehood have taken roots in the new generation in Turkey,
and it does not permit the Turks to realize the terrible sin of their
grandfathers. Sen Arevshatian, a philosopher-historian, academician
of the RA National Academy of Sciences, said in his interview to the
Ararat Strategic Center. According to center’s information, since 2007
December a film is being shown at Turkey’s schools on the initiative
of the Turkish Ministry of Education, which is about how allegedly
the Armenians slaughtered the Turkish people. 600 thousand disks of
the film were distributed to schools, and already 12 million pupils
have seen it, including pupils of primary classes.

According to Sen Arevshatian, official Yerevan says nothing about this
measure because of its inability to fight the falsehood. He considers
that the Armenian authorities should introduce an official protest
to Turkish government and international instances.

According to the academician, we can improve the Armenian-Turkish
relations in a well-considered way, not at the expense of national
interests. He considers inadmissible and dangerous Turkey’s
participation in the construction of a new Armenian nuclear power
plant. In S. Arevshatian’s words, it will give nothing to Armenia
except damaging its national security.

s/guest_contributors/article6094144.ece

>From The (London) Times

April 15, 2009

A promise of peace in the shadow of Ararat

At last the Turkey-Armenia border may finally be opened. But the move
will stir up deep and long-held regional feelings
Michael Binyon

Y ears ago Andrei Gromyko, the veteran Soviet Foreign Minister, was
once buttonholed by his irate Turkish counterpart. `Why do you show
Mount Ararat, which lies in Turkey, on the flag of Soviet Armenia? Do
you lay claim to our territory?’ `No,’ replied Gromyko. `Why do you
have a crescent on your flag? Do you lay claim to the Moon?’

Armenia is now free of Soviet control. But the Turkish-Armenian
border, sealed during the Cold War years when it marked the tense
boundary between Nato and the Soviet Union, remains closed. And though
Armenians gaze across at Ararat’s elusive peak, they still cannot
cross over into the lost provinces of their historic homeland that lie
in northeast Turkey.

Something, however, may at last be moving. Ali Babacan, Turkey’s
Foreign Minister, will visit Yerevan today for a meeting of the Black
Sea Economic Cooperation Council, an 11-nation regional grouping set
up in 1992. But the real issue for him and for his Armenian hosts is
the border. Can both countries set aside their historic animosities
and suspicions and dismantle the last Cold War barbed-wire barricades?

Barack Obama hopes so. Indeed, in Istanbul last week he challenged his
Turkish hosts to `move forward’ and establish, for the first time,
diplomatic ties with their Armenian neighbours. Much more than just
the border is at stake. A reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia
would help to ease more than 90 years of bitterness dating back to the
Ottoman massacres of Armenians between 1915 and 1917, which still cast
a long shadow over the politics of the Caucasus and the West’s
attitudes to Turkey.

Background

An open border would not only bring huge economic benefits to both
sides: it could also help to thaw one of the last `frozen conflicts’
in Europe’s backyard, the military stand-off between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over control of the ethnically Armenian enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh.

It could also help Russia to regain its balance within the turbulent
Caucasus and Turkey to extend its reach to its cultural Central Asian
hinterland. And it could remove some of the taboos from today’s
Turkish politics, where any mention of the Ottoman killings of up to
1.5 million Armenians produces a venomous nationalist reaction.

The issues are all interlinked, and, bedevilled by emotion, are
exceptionally difficult to resolve. At the heart of the stalemate lie
the fears and political isolation of Armenia, a tiny country of less
than three million people, that has historically been at the mercy of
its powerful neighbours. Armenia, the first nation to adopt
Christianity, lies on the front line of Islam, and has always looked
to Russia for protection from Turkey and its Muslim Azeri neighbours.
It is a role that Moscow has embraced eagerly, and one that has
underpinned Russia’s military confrontation with Turkey, which for
centuries has shaped the history of both countries.

But the forcible incorporation of Armenia into the Soviet Union in
1922 changed the relationship. There is lingering resentment in
Yerevan of Moscow, especially after the postSoviet economic collapse
when Russia put pressure on Armenia by cutting fuel supplies. The
impoverished nation shivered through several winters. Armenia hoped to
open up to the south. But although the border with Turkey was briefly
opened, it was closed swiftly in 1993 after Armenia invaded Azerbaijan
to establish a corridor to the besieged Nagorno-Karabakh, and Turkey
sided with Muslim Azeris.

Turkish support is vital to Azeri hopes of regaining control of its
enclave. Azerbaijan has therefore reacted ferociously to hints of a
Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. It has suggested that it would use its
oil muscle and interrupt supplies through the vital pipeline from Baku
to southern Turkey unless Armenia made concessions.

The threat seems to have rattled Ankara. Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Turkey’s Prime Minister, poured cold water yesterday on suggestions
from Armenia that the border could be opened in time for the World Cup
qualifying tie in October. President Sarksyan said he hoped he would
be able to cross the border into Turkey to watch the football game.
Not until Nagorno-Karabakh is settled, Mr Erdogan retorted.

The Islamist Prime Minister cannot be seen to abandon his Muslim
neighbour. But Turkey has also long harboured hopes that it could
spread its influence far beyond Azerbaijan into former Soviet Central
Asia, which is Turkic-speaking and desperately in need of some Western
knowhow and investment. These hopes came to little in the early 90s.
Now they are being revived. Ankara can ill afford to upset the Azeris.

Reconciliation with Armenia, however, and an end to the Caucasus
stalemate could benefit everyone. It would confirm the status of
Turkey as the superpower within the Black Sea council. Turkey may look
to the EU as a supplicant, but to its neighbours it looks an economic
giant.

Armenia, blocked to the north by the instability in Georgia and
fearful of being too dependent on Russia, would have an alternative
outlet to the world through Turkey. And economic cooperation could
soothe historic hatreds.

For Russia, there would also be gains. Paradoxically, the Russians
have never had better relations with Turkey than now, largely because
of the huge volume of trade, the massive flow of Russian tourists and
the reduced threat from a Nato member on Russia’s borders. But these
smooth relations are fragile.

Historic competition for influence and for the region’s energy
resources could flare up again. Russian actions in Georgia raised
hackles in Turkey. Moscow needs a settlement to ensure that there is
no new `South Ossetia’ in the offing – and that the Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute does not turn violent again, leaving Moscow and Ankara on
opposite sides.

Mount Ararat is a peak of startling beauty, especially in the morning
sun. The reputed resting place of the Ark and revered by so many in
the region, it has become a symbol of division. An open border would
allow all to approach its heights.

TURKISH-ARMENIAN DIALOGUE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
By: Emil Danielyan

Jamestown Foundation
he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34855&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=c1620bcf97
April 14 2009

The nearly year-long negotiations between Armenia and Turkey look set
to prove fruitless after Ankara has revived its long-standing linkage
between the normalization of bilateral ties and a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
repeatedly made clear this month that his government will not establish
diplomatic relations with Yerevan and re-open the Turkish-Armenian
border without Azerbaijan’s consent. In Armenia and especially
amongst its worldwide diaspora, meanwhile, there are growing calls
for President Serzh Sarkisian to abandon the Western-backed talks.

The success of those talks seemed a foregone conclusion in the weeks
leading up to President Barack Obama’s visit on April 6-7. According
to reports in both the Turkish and Western media, Armenia and Turkey
have finalized an agreement on gradually normalizing their strained
relations and setting up inter-governmental commissions dealing with
various issues of mutual interest. Some of those reports quoted unnamed
Turkish officials as saying that the agreement could be signed during
or shortly after Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s trip
to Istanbul on April 6. The resulting outcry in Azerbaijan (EDM,
April 10) suggested that Ankara and Yerevan were indeed very close
to cutting a far-reaching deal.

Erdogan called into question the possibility of such a deal when
he told a news conference in London on April 3 that Turkey cannot
reach a "healthy solution concerning Armenia" as long as the Karabakh
dispute remains unresolved (Today’s Zaman, April 4). He reaffirmed
the linkage on April 8, two days after Obama stated in Ankara that
the Turkish-Armenian negotiations were "moving forward and could
bear fruit very quickly, very soon." The Turkish premier went as
far as demanding that the U.N. Security Council denounce Armenia
as an "occupier" and called for Karabakh’s return under Azeri rule
(Hurriyet Daily News, April 9).

Any doubts about the practical implications of these statements
were dispelled by Erdogan during his holiday in southern Turkey on
April 10: "We will not sign a final deal with Armenia unless there
is agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Karabakh," he told
journalists (Anatolia news agency, April 10). In an interview with
the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo published the following day, the
deputy chairman of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, Haluk
Ipek, said the Turkish-Armenian border will remain closed for at
least ten more years. Ipek dismissed speculation over its impending
re-opening as "dishonest" Armenian propaganda aimed at driving a
wedge between the two Turkic nations. Turkey’s more dovish President
Abdullah Gul likewise underscored the importance of Karabakh’s peace
when he commented on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation in an interview
with The Financial Times on April 8.

That the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is reaching an impasse was
effectively acknowledged by Sarkisian at an April 10 news conference:
"Is it possible that we were mistaken in our calculations and
that the Turks will now adopt a different position and try to set
preconditions? Of course it is possible," he said (Armenian Public
Television, April 10). The Armenian leader insisted that Karabakh
has not been on the agenda of that dialogue. Indeed, Ankara was
clearly ready to stop linking Turkish-Armenian relations with a
Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku when it embarked on a dramatic
rapprochement with Yerevan last summer. The two countries’ foreign
ministers would have hardly held numerous face-to-face meetings since
if it was not.

For his part, Sarkisian signaled his acceptance, in principle,
of a Turkish proposal to form a joint commission of historians
tasked with examining the 1915-1918 mass killings of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. One of the Turkish-Armenian commissions which the
governments reportedly agreed to form would conduct such a study. The
idea was floated by Erdogan in 2005 and rejected by then Armenian
President Robert Kocharian as a Turkish ploy designed to scuttle
greater international recognition of what many historians consider
the first genocide of the twentieth century. Turkish leaders have made
no secret of using the fence-mending negotiations with the Sarkisian
administration to discourage Obama from making good on his election
campaign promise to describe the slaughter of more than one million
Ottoman Armenians as genocide.

The almost certain collapse of the talks has left Armenian politicians
and pundits questioning the wisdom of further Armenian overtures to the
Turks. "If Turkey suddenly succumbs to Azerbaijan’s threats and these
negotiations yield no results soon, then I think the Armenian side
will not carry on with them," said Giro Manoyan, a senior member of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation, a nationalist party represented in
Sarkisian’s coalition government (Hayots Ashkhar, April 10). Former
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian likewise advocated, in an April
7 interview with RFE/RL, Yerevan’s pullout from the reconciliation
process if the sixteen year Turkish blockade of Armenia is not lifted.

Such views are indicative of the dominant mood in the Armenian
diaspora and, in particular, the influential Armenian community
within the United States. Harut Sassounian, a prominent community
activist and commentator, criticized Armenia’s policy on Turkey,
effectively blaming it for Obama’s failure to publicly use the word
"genocide" during his visit to Turkey. "In view of these developments,
it is imperative that the Armenian government terminates at once all
negotiations with the Turkish leaders in order to limit the damage
caused by the continued exploitation of the illusion of productive
negotiations," Sassounian wrote in an April 9 editorial by his Los
Angeles-based newspaper California Courier.

Sarkisian insisted on April 10 that the dialogue with Turkey can
be deemed beneficial for the Armenian side even if it produces no
tangible results. He said Armenia will "emerge from this process
stronger" in any case because the international community will have no
doubts that "we are really ready to establish relations [with Turkey]
without preconditions."

GEORGIA OUTRAGED BY SAAKASHVILI’S REMARK ON ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
13.04.2009 17:57 GMT+04:00

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s recent remark on Armenia
is outrageous and thoughtless, Development and Collaboration Center
Projects Manager Paata Zakareishvili told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

"A high ranking official must now permit himself to make such
statements, and especially about his neighboring country. The statement
outraged many in Georgia," the expert said.

"The step is president’s attempt to distract Georgian people’s
attention from existing issues and prove that the neighboring country
is in a worse state than Georgia."

"If I compromised with Russia, we’d lose all our democratic values,
like Kirgizia did, or be as poor as Armenia, with economy fully
dependent on Russia," Newsweek cited Saakashvili as saying.

New Issue of `Armenian Review’ Published, Two Others Forthcoming

rmenian-review-published-two-others-forthcoming/?e c3_listing=posts
By Weekly Staff – on April 11, 2009

WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.) – The fall-winter 2008 issue of `The Armenian
Review’ was released earlier this month. Titled `Armenians and
Progressive Politics,’ the issue presents Armenia and Armenians within
the larger context of progressive and modern socialist politics.

Edited by guest editor Dikran Kaligian, the issue features articles by
Khatchik DerGhougassian, Levon Chorbajian, Ara Khanjian, Razmig
B. Shirinian, Markar Melkonian, Dikran M. Kaligian, as well as several
book reviews.

In September 2008, Asbed Kotchikian, professor at the global studies
department at Bentley University, assumed the editorship of the
journal and, during the last couple of months, the Review has
witnessed restructuring and change, including the revamping of its
website (), the formation of an advisory board,
the appointment of Vartan Matiossian as the book review editor of the
journal, as well as the planning of several events around the upcoming
issues. Kaligian continues as managing editor.

`The revamping of the website has been a priority because it is the
face of the new Review,’ said Kotchikian. `It aims at attracting
researchers and scholars to submit proposals for possible articles and
it will provide a detailed index of past issues.’

Talking about the mission of the Review, Kotchikian highlighted the
journal’s role in Armenian studies circles. He noted that in March,
during the Society of Armenian Studies conference held at UCLA, the
new issue of the Review was presented, and the journal generated a
renewed interest by participating scholars.

After being published relatively irregularly for the past several
years, the new issues promise the regular publication of this
peer-reviewed academic journal, which will be celebrating its 60th
anniversary this year with a special issue looking at the history of
the Review and of other journals dealing with Armenian studies.

Also in the works are issues on the comparative study of reparations
for mass crimes and injustices, and a special issue on civil society
in Armenia, both scheduled for publication in 2009. With these issues,
the journal promises to resume publishing three times a year.

Alongside its regular publications, the Review will organize and
co-sponsor conferences and panel discussions related to its wider area
of interest, which includes socio-political and economic developments,
art and architecture, geography and the politics of the former Soviet
space and the Middle East, the role of ethnography and nationalism in
politics and history, ethnic conflicts, and conflict resolution.

One such event will be held on April 20 at Bentley University. Titled
`Subjects and Citizens: (Un)Even Relations between Turks, Kurds,
Armenians,’ the panel will include scholars Ugur Umit Ungor
(University of Sheffield, UK), Bilgin Ayata (Johns Hopkins), Henry
Theriault (Worcester State College), and Kaligian (Regis
College). Kotchikian will moderate.

First published in 1948 by the Hairenik Association, the Review has
become a forum of intellectual and academic exchange dealing with
issue pertaining – but not limited – to Armenians and Armenia. For
more information, visit or email
[email protected].

ARMENIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS [ANC] COMES FORWARD WITH CRITICAL STATEMENT REGARDING FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN PRESIDENT’S INAUGURATION

ArmInfo
2009-04-09 13:59:00

ArmInfo. Armenian National Congress [ANC] has come forward with
a critical statement regarding the first anniversary of Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan’s inauguration. The statement says that over
the passed year Sargsyan failed in local as well as foreign policy.

‘Over a year of staying in office Serzh Sargsyan proved that he is
one of the creators of the hellish machinery of falsifications on 19
February (presidential election), having left hundreds of law breakers
and real criminals unpunished. He did everything possible to hide the
barbarous beating of peaceful participants in the rally. According
to his order even no criminal case was initiated on the fact of
10 persons’ death on 1 March 2008. He goes no keeping 55 political
prisoners in prison, and does not even care that in this way he is
discrediting the whole legal system of the country. Monopolization
of the economy of the country reached a new level.

At the same time a unique process of poverty redistribution has
started.

This is very dangerous for the country which has shortage of resources
and is in crisis now’, – the statement says.

Sargsyan’s foreign policy course is also criticized in the
statement, which says that Armenia goes on remaining under the PACE
monitoring. Moreover, over the passed year three resolutions on
Armenia were adopted, which reduced to powder international image of
the country. According to the statement, Sargsyan put interests of the
country at the international ‘auction’. As for the Karabakh conflict,
it may be resolved either via signing of an unfavorable for Armenia
document or disastrous war. ‘Having agreed to the absurd proposal
of Turkey to set up a commission of historians on the problem of the
Armenian genocide, Sargsyan in fact called into question the fact of
the Genocide and by this he kept other state from recognition of the
Armenian genocide’, – the statement says.

ERDOGAN AGAIN LINKS TURKISH-ARMENIAN TIES TO KARABAKH DEAL

_4/10/2009_1
Thursday, April 9, 2009

ANKARA (Combined Sources)–A deal between Armenian and Turkey which
would normalize relations and reopen borders will have to wait until
Armenia and Azerbaijan first settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a news conference
late on Wednesday.

"The Azerbaijan-Armenian dispute should be resolved first. Then,
problems between Turkey and Armenia can be solved, too," Erdogan told
a news conference late on Wednesday.

Erdogan’s remarks come amid growing pressure from Azerbaijan, which
has been increasingly vocal in its opposition to the opening of the
Turkish Armenian border.

"We hope the U.N. Security Council takes a decision naming Armenia
as occupier in Nagorno-Karabakh and calling for a withdrawal from
the region. This is a process the Minsk Group… could not succeed
in for 17 years. We hope this trio will accomplish that," he said,
according to Reuters news agency.

The OSCE Minsk group — set up in 1992 and co-chaired by Russia, the
United States and France — is seeking a solution to Nagorno-Karabakh,
one of the most intractable conflicts arising from the Soviet Union’s
collapse. There has been no progress.

Erdogan said Ankara had already taken a step and proposed to form the
Caucasian Stability and Cooperation Platform with the participation
of Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.

A Karabakh settlement was until recently one of Turkey’s main
preconditions for establishing diplomatic relations and reopening
its border with Armenia which it had closed in 1993 out of solidarity
with Azerbaijan.

Turkey had also hinged relations on an end to international efforts
to recognize the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government appeared
ready to drop that linkage when it embarked on an unprecedented
dialogue with Yerevan last year.

After months of intensive negotiations the two sides have come close
to normalizing bilateral ties. Recent reports in the Turkish and
Western press said a relevant Turkish-Armenian agreement could be
signed this month.

However, Erdogan poured cold water on those reports late last week
when he stated that Turkey cannot reach a "healthy solution concerning
Armenia" as long as the Karabakh conflict remains unresolved. Armenian
Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian denounced the statement as an
attempt to scuttle the Turkish-Armenian dialogue. It is not clear
if Nalbandian raised the matter with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali
Babacan when he visited Istanbul earlier this week.

The two ministers held a brief meeting there with U.S. President
Barack Obama, who pressed Ankara and Yerevan to complete talks aimed
at restoring diplomatic ties between the two neighbors during a two-day
visit to Turkey. Obama also stressed the importance of Turkish-Armenian
reconciliation, a major U.S. policy goal in the region, in an ensuing
phone conversation with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

Senior Azerbaijani officials have expressed serious concern at
the possible breakthrough in Turkish-Armenian ties, saying that it
would weaken Baku’s position in the Karabakh conflict. "It would be
painfully damaging to the Turkey-Azerbaijan brotherhood and to the
ideas of Turkic solidarity," the political parties represented in
Azerbaijan’s parliament said this week in a statement reported by
the APA news agency.

"With its policy [Turkey’s governing] Justice and Development Party
is stabbing Azerbaijan in the back," Vahid Ahmedov, a pro-government
member of the parliament, was reported to say on Wednesday.

The Turkish newspaper "Today’s Zaman" reported on Thursday that
Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul will visit Baku soon to discuss the
Azerbaijani concerns with Aliev. Citing an unnamed Turkish government
official, the paper said that the Turkish-Armenian border will likely
remain closed at least until October. "Ankara will use the time until
November to ease Azerbaijan’s concerns," it said.

In Armenia, meanwhile, there are growing calls for official Yerevan
to halt negotiations with Ankara if they do not lead to an agreement
soon. "If Turkey suddenly succumbs to Azerbaijan’s threats and these
negotiations yield no results soon, then I think the Armenian side
will not carry on with them," Giro Manoyan, a senior member of the
influential Armenian Revolutionary Federation, told reporters on
Wednesday. "The negotiations can be deemed failed if they don’t
produce quick results."

Manoyan called on the Armenian foreign ministry to be more vocal in
expressing Armenia’s official position, adding that Armenia’s silence
has allowed Turkey to speak on its behalf.

Former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian took a similar view in an
interview with RFE/RL earlier this week. "I believe the ball is on the
Turkish court today," he said. "Turkey should overcome its dilemma and
open the border. Or else, Armenia should call a halt to this process."

Any agreement between Turkey and Armenia on normalizing relations
cannot come at the expense of future generations or the Armenian
nation’s collective national interests, said ARF Bureau member
Dr. Viken Hovsepian Monday during a live interview on Horizon 180
on Monday.

"It is unacceptable for us that any agreement–be that the border
opening or normalizing relations–contain concessions that will impact
future generations," said Hovsepian.

Hurriyet revealed late Thursday that Azerbaijan had sent an envoy to
Ankara with a set of demands Yerevan must meet before Baku gives its
consent for the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border.

The preconditions require Armenia to cede control of the liberated
districts surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and allow for
the creation of a Turkish-Azeri land corridor through the southern
part of the strategic region of Kashatagh (Lachin), linking Armenia
and Karabakh.

AZERBAIJAN’S BIGGEST YOUTH UNION ADDRESSES TURKISH LEADING PARTIES AND YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
April 8, 2009 Wednesday

Azerbaijan`s biggest youth organization Irali Public Union has sent
an address to heads of Turkish leading parties and youth organizations
concerning the issue of opening of Turkey-Armenia borders.

Recalling the slogan one nation, two states, the Azerbaijani youths
noted that Azerbaijan and Turkey are fraternal countries, and
their relationship has deep historical roots. The union expresses
its concern over the circulations about opening of Turkey-Armenia
borders in local and foreign media, saying these steps are directed
to weaken influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan, leaders of the Turkic
world, in the region and the world.

As the biggest youth organization of the country, Irali Public Union
declares that even a little probability of opening of borders with
Armenia, which does not leave its aggression position and genocide
claim, as well as occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan`s lands and caused
one million Azerbaijanis become refugees and IDPs, rightly worry us,
the address said.

According to youths, opening of Turkey-Armenia borders can have a
negative impact on Azerbaijani-Turkish relations.

Irali Public Union hopes the Turkish government will once more
thoroughly and deeply think before making a decision, and undertake a
step complying with common advantage and interests of both countries,
the address said.

TURKEY IN EUROPE? ROME ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH AS WASHINGTON
by Alberto Negri

Il Sole 24 Ore
April 7 2009
Italy

Thin as a blade, the suspension bridge over the Bosphorus is the
symbol of Istanbul and of Turkey’s unique position as the front door
linking Europe to Asia.

Turkey occupies a geopolitical space so vital that it is almost
sufficient in and of itself to contradict the notion that continents
are something different from one another. But it is precisely that
idea, that idea of Eurasia which is as old as our civilization,
that is constantly being called into question: Turkey, according to
certain key European Union member countries, is not Europe even if
it does contain an important limb of Europe within its borders, with
a population of millions and which accounts for almost one-third of
the entire GDP of a country with a population of over 70 million.

Turkey is not Europe in the view of Sarkozy’s France – though
Sarkozy himself hails from a Jewish family that came originally from
Thessaloniki and lived for a long time under the Ottoman Empire. That
very Thessaloniki where Ataturk, the founder of nonconfessional
Turkey and one of the giants of the 20th century, was born. Nor is
Turkey Europe in the view of Mrs Merkel’s Germany, a country where
Turks and Kurds have now reached the second and even third generation.

Nor can Turkey be considered Europe in the view of a large part of
the north of our continent, despite the fact that that area has taken
in millions of emigrants. The Netherlands, too, is against the idea:
After being the land of exiles par excellence, the country is torn
apart today by the results of a difficult integration process. Everyone
is proffering his reasons for rejecting a new entry into the Union
that would turn its demographic, religious, and cultural balances on
their head. Turkey is, after all, the largest Muslim country on the
Mediterranean seaboard, so powerful and strategic as to have become a
pillar of the Atlantic alliance against the Soviets after World War II.

Yet Turkey’s European calling is beyond question. It was the first
country to apply for membership back in the sixties, though it was
rejected back then; after that, it doggedly pursued a whole series
of agreements on economic integration. But of course, when the time
came to set out down the path leading to membership, things got
more complicated.

Turkey has had to face major economic crises that have very much called
into question its ability to meet stringent European parameters. It
has come to terms with the constitutional changes necessary to tailor
its laws to the Union: Three military coups, the last one of which was
in 1980, had forged a power apparatus dominated by the generals. And
above all, Turkey has come up against its own historical and moral
inconsistencies: the bloody repression of Kurdish guerrilla warfare and
of terrorism, and the denial of certain basic human and civil rights.

The Turks have only recently started to call into question certain
traditional taboo topics such as the slaughter of Armenians in the
years preceding World War I, to which Barack Obama referred in his
visit to Ankara yesterday even though he voiced ardent support for
Turkish membership of Europe.

But no one, from the Balkans to the Middle East, has made more
convincing progress than Turkey along the path leading to civic
and political emancipation. And this, in a moment of transition
that could have proved fatal, with the electoral rise of Erdogan’s
moderate Muslim AKP [Justice and Development Party] party. Italy,
Spain, and the United Kingdom have recognized that progress. So has
Greece, an age-old adversary and the country that perhaps more than
any other should have been hostile towards Ankara after 500 years of
Ottoman domination.

It is right to call on Turkey to take all the steps needed to join
the Union. But to no other dossier does Brussels devote such intense
scrutiny, on every occasion. And in any case, everyone knows the
strategic assets of a country that is a crossroads of oil and of gas,
a player increasingly involved in mediating in the crises in the
Middle East, a neighbour of Syria and of Iraq, an interlocutor of
Iran, of Moscow, and of the Turkish-speaking Asian republics, and a
leading player with its troops in international contingents as far
away as Afghanistan. And, last but not least, it is also the Muslim
country that enjoys the best relationship with the state of Israel.

Obama’s vision of Turkey, which he would like to see become a full
fledged European country, does not match the vision held by certain key
countries in the Union. In one sense, Italy’s view is more realistic
and takes continental idiosyncrasies into account. Italy has clashed
with Turkey in the past, too. One has but to recall the controversy
that blew up over the affair of Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurdish PKK
[Kurdish Workers Party] leader who found temporary shelter in our
country, but it was precisely that crisis that forged our increasingly
strong conviction that it is necessary to keep Ankara, an important
economic partner, hooked up to Europe.

Where Turkey is concerned, it is not a matter of reaching
a cut-and-dried decision – "in" or "out" – but of accompanying a
process towards its maturity pending the development of positions also
in north Europe, which too often talks about the integration of the
Mediterranean and of its southern rim but, when push comes to shove,
is reluctant to set off across a convenient modern bridge over the
Bosphorus. Here, on the Bosphorus, there is a historic rendez-vous
between the West and the Muslim world that needs to be honoured.

NEWLY APPOINTED AMBASSADOR OF HUNGARY HANDS HIS CREDENTIALS TO RA PRESIDENT

Noyan Tapan
Apr 9, 2009

YEREVAN, APRIL 9, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenian-Hungarian relations have
always distinguished themselves by their friendly nature, and the
activation recorded in the past years created new preconditions for
development of cooperation, and expansion of the legal-contractual
sphere between the two countries is important in that respect. RA
President Serzh Sargsyan said during the conversation following the
ceremony of handing credentials by newly appointed Ambassador of
Hungary to Armenia Gabor Shagin (residence Tbilisi) on April 9. He
expressed the hope that the Ambassador during his tenure will do his
best to expand the cooperation circle between the two countries.

According to the report of the RA President’s Press Office, the
interlocutors held the same opinion that there are serious bases for
making the relations more intensive.

G. Shagin, in his turn, said that Hungary is going to further
strengthen cooperation with Armenia in bilateral and many-sided formats
and resolutely assists the EU Eastern Partnership initiative. According
to the Ambassador, the Hungarian side also considers S. Sargsyan’s
official visit to Hungary planned in late 2009 as a serious stimulus
for development of the two countries’ partnership.