Author: Badalian Vardan

REVOLT IN TURKEY: ERDOGAN’S GRIP ON POWER IS RAPIDLY WEAKENING

By Ozlem Gezer, Maximilian Popp and Oliver Trenkamp

AP/dpa Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks to the
media in Istanbul on June 3.

For a decade, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had a tight grip
on power. But it suddenly looks to be weakening. Thousands have taken
to the streets across the country and the threats to Erdogan’s rule
are many. His reaction has revealed him to be hopelessly disconnected.

The rooftops of Istanbul can be seen in the background and next to
them is a gigantic image of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey’s powerful
prime minister is watching over the city — and is also monitoring
the work of the political party he controls. At least that seems to
be the message of the image, which can be found in a conference room
at the headquarters of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP).

These days, though, Istanbul is producing images that carry a
distinctly different meaning — images of violent protests against
the vagaries of Erdogan’s rule. And it is beginning to look as though
the prime minister, the most powerful leader Turkey has seen since
the days of modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, might be
losing control.

As recently as mid-May, Erdogan boasted during an appearance at the
Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. of the $29 billion airport
his government was planning to build in Istanbul. “Turkey no longer
talks about the world,” he said. “The world talks about Turkey.”

Just two weeks later, he appears to have been right — just not quite
in the way he had anticipated. The world is looking at Turkey and
speaking of the violence with which Turkish police are assaulting
demonstrators at dozens of marches across the country. Increasingly,
Erdogan is looking like an autocratic ruler whose people are no longer
willing to tolerate him.

For years, Erdogan seemed untouchable and, at least until the recent
demonstrations began, was the most popular politician in the country.

He entered office amid pledges to reform the country and introduce even
more democratic freedoms. In his gruff dealings with foreign powers,
he gave Turkey a new kind of confidence. He broke the grip on power
held by the country’s old elite, he kick-started the economy and he
calmed the conflict with the country’s Kurdish minority.

Democracy Lost

But one thing got lost in the shuffle: Democracy. Success made Erdogan
even more power-hungry, thin-skinned and susceptible to criticism.

Indeed, he began governing in the same autocratic style for which he
had bitterly criticized his predecessors. And now, he is faced with
significant dangers to his power from several quarters.

The biggest danger facing the Turkish premier is his own
high-handedness. Though he said on Monday that he understood the
message being sent by the protesters, there is little evidence
that is true. Indeed, his response thus far has shown the degree to
which he has become distanced from realities in his country. With
hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, Erdogan has
opted for confrontation rather than de-escalation. On Monday morning,
he threatened that he would be unable to keep the 50 percent of Turks
who voted for him from taking to the streets themselves. Critics see
the comment as nothing less than a threat of civil war.

He said that he won’t allow “a handful of plunderers” to dictate
policy. He also branded the marches as being ideological and said that
they have been “manipulated by the opposition.” Twitter, he said, is
the “greatest threat to the society.” Such sentiments are reminiscent
of those Arab dictators who were overthrown in the Arab Spring of 2011.

Erdogan has recently shown a complete inability to gauge the
anger of the country’s Kemalists. He recently offended the secular
followers of Ataturk with comments regarding a law aiming to reduce
the consumption of alcohol. During a party meeting, Erdogan painted
a rhetorical picture of an alcoholic populace: He spoke of police
who continually find empty bottles in people’s cars, of husbands who
beat their wives and of fathers who are a poor influence due to their
consumption of beer.

Most pointedly, however, he asked if Turkey wanted to follow a law
passed by two drunks or the law of God. Since then, the country
has been filled with speculation as to who Erdogan may have been
referring to. Many believe it was an attack on Ataturk and his Prime
Minister Ismet Inonu, who were in office when the ban on alcohol in
the country was lifted in 1926. Furthermore, Ataturk is rumored to
have died from cirrhosis of the liver. As such, Erdogan’s comments
are seen as an attack on a national hero.

Diverse Protests

But it isn’t just the Kemalists who are now venting their rage at the
Turkish prime minister. Demonstrations have been reported in more than
40 cities, and they are drawing more than students and intellectuals.

Families with children, women in headscarves, men in suits, hipsters
in sneakers, pharmacists, tea-house proprietors — all are taking to
the streets to register their displeasure.

Thus far, no opposition party has sought to claim the protests as
its own. There have been no party flags, no party slogans and no
prominent party functionaries to be seen. Kemalists and communists
have demonstrated side-by-side with liberals and secularists. Simply
calling them all “marauders and extremists,” as Erdogan has sought
to do, will not be enough.

Another threat may also be lurking. In Istanbul, people have begun
whispering that the military is distributing gasmasks — but to the
demonstrators rather than to the police. The message is clear: The
military supports the protests.

The story is certainly consistent with the Turkish military’s
traditional role in society. The generals have long seen themselves as
protectors of Ataturk’s legacy and as protectors of a secular Turkey.

Indeed, the military has staged three putsches in its history to
guarantee Kemalist values: in 1960, in 1971 and again in 1980.

Erdogan, to be sure, has done his best to reduce the military’s power.

He has removed some officers and had others locked away, convicted
of conspiracy. It is difficult to predict how the military might
now react to the protests. But Erdogan certainly cannot rely on them
remaining in their barracks.

Visit to Tunisia

Even within his own party, the AKP, Erdogan’s rule has become
contentious. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, likewise of the AKP,
has been careful to distance himself from Erdogan’s comments over the
weekend that citizens should express their opinions at the ballot box.

Gul responded that “democracy doesn’t just mean casting a ballot.”

Turkish law prohibits Erdogan from running for another term. In
response, however, he appears to be leaning toward the model followed
by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Erdogan is currently seeking to
increase the powers of the Turkish presidency, preparatory to taking
over the position himself in 2014. Not everyone in the AKP is behind
the plan and speculation of an internal power struggle is rife.

On Monday morning, after a weekend full of some of the most intense
protests Turkey has seen, Erdogan spoke yet again, saying he suspects
that “foreign powers” are behind the demonstrations and that Turkish
intelligence is investigating. “It is not possible to reveal their
names, but we will have meetings with their heads,” Erdogan said,
according to the English version of the Turkish daily Hurriyet. The
strategy is transparent: The prime minister is doing all he can to
portray the protests as an attack on Turkey.

Erdogan is hoping that will be enough to keep the situation under
control for now. This week he embarks on a trip through North Africa.

And, after a visit to Morocco, the Turkish premier is scheduled to
visit Tunisia — where not so long ago, the people rose up against
their autocratic ruler.

HOW DEMOCRATIC IS TURKEY?

Not as democratic as Washington thinks it is.

BY STEVEN A. COOK, MICHAEL KOPLOW | JUNE 3, 2013

It seems strange that the biggest challenge to Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authority during more than a decade in power
would begin as a small environmental rally, but as thousands of Turks
pour into the streets in cities across Turkey, it is clear that
something much larger than the destruction of trees in Istanbul’s
Gezi Park — an underwhelming patch of green space close to Taksim
Square — is driving the unrest.

The Gezi protests, which have been marked by incredible scenes of
demonstrators shouting for Erdogan and the government to resign
as Turkish police respond with tear gas and truncheons, are the
culmination of growing popular discontent over the recent direction
of Turkish politics. The actual issue at hand is the tearing down of
a park that is not more than six square blocks so that the government
can replace it with a shopping mall but the whole affair represents
the way in which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has
slowly strangled all opposition while making sure to remain within
democratic lines. Turkey under the AKP has become the textbook case
of a hollow democracy.

The ferocity of the protests and police response in Istanbul’s
Gezi Park is no doubt a surprise to many in Washington. Turkey,
that “excellent model” or “model partner,” is also, as many put it,
“more democratic than it was a decade ago.” There is a certain amount
of truth to these assertions, though the latter, which is repeated ad
nauseum, misrepresents the complex and often contradictory political
processes underway in Turkey. Under the AKP and the charismatic
Erdogan, unprecedented numbers of Turks have become politically
mobilized and prosperous — the Turkish economy tripled in size
from 2002 to 2011, and 87 percent of Turks voted in the most recent
parliamentary elections, compared with 79 percent in the 2002 election
that brought the AKP to power. Yet this mobilization has not come with
a concomitant ability to contest politics. In fact, the opposite is
the case, paving the way for the AKP to cement its hold on power and
turn Turkey into a single-party state. The irony is that the AKP was
building an illiberal system just as Washington was holding up Turkey
as a model for the post-uprising states of the Arab world.

Shortly after the AKP came to power in 2002, a debate got under way
in the United States and Europe about whether Turkey was “leaving
the West.” Much of this was the result of the polite Islamophobia
prevalent in the immediate post-9/11 era. It was also not true. From
the start, Turkey’s new reformist-minded Islamists did everything they
could to dispel the notion that by dint of their election, Turkey was
turning its back on its decade of cooperation and integration with the
West. Ankara re-affirmed Turkey’s commitment to NATO and crucially
undertook wide-ranging political reforms that did away with many of
the authoritarian legacies of the past, such as placing the military
under civilian control and reforming the judicial system.

The new political, cultural, and economic openness helped Erdogan
ride a coalition of pious Muslims, Kurds, cosmopolitan elites, big
business, and average Turks to re-election with 47 percent of the
popular vote in the summer of 2007, the first time any party had gotten
more than 45 percent of the vote since 1983. This was unprecedented
in Turkish politics. Yet Erdogan was not done. In 2011, the prime
minister reinforced his political mystique with 49.95 percent of the
popular vote.

Turkey, it seemed, had arrived. By 2012, Erdogan presided over the
17th-largest economy in the world, had become an influential actor
in the Middle East, and the Turkish prime minister was a trusted
interlocutor with none other than the president of the United States.

Yet even as the AKP was winning elections at home and plaudits from
abroad, an authoritarian turn was underway. In 2007, the party seized
upon a plot in which elements of Turkey’s so-called deep state —
military officers, intelligence operatives, and criminal underworld —
sought to overthrow the government and used it to silence its critics.

Since then, Turkey has become a country where journalists are routinely
jailed on questionable grounds, the machinery of the state has been
used against private business concerns because their owners disagree
with the government, and freedom of expression in all its forms is
under pressure.

Spokesmen and apologists for the AKP offer a variety of explanations
for these deficiencies, from “it’s the law” and the “context is
missing,” to “it’s purely fabricated.” These excuses falter under
scrutiny and reveal the AKP’s simplistic view of democracy. They
also look and sound much like the self-serving justifications that
deposed Arab potentates once used to narrow the political field
and institutionalize the power of their parties and families. Yet
somehow, Washington’s foreign-policy elite saw Turkey as a “model”
or the appropriate partner to forge a soft-landing in Egypt, Tunisia,
Libya and elsewhere.

In the midst of the endless volley of teargas against protesters
in Taksim, one of the prime ministers advisors plaintively asked,
“How can a government that received almost 50 percent of the vote
be authoritarian?” This perfectly captures the more recent dynamic
of Erdogan’s Turkey, where the government uses its growing margins
of victory in elections to justify all sorts of actions that run up
against large reservoirs of opposition.

The most obvious way this pattern has manifested itself is in the
debate over the new Turkish constitution, which Erdogan had been
determined to use as a vehicle to institute a presidential system in
which he would serve as Turkey’s first newly empowered president. When
the opposition parties voiced their fervent opposition to such a plan
and the constitutional commission deadlocked in late 2012 — missing
its deadline of the end of the year to submit its recommendations —
Erdogan threatened to disregard the commission entirely and ram through
his own constitutional plan. He floated the idea again in early April
2013, but softened his position as it became clear that there is
significant opposition to his presidential vision even within the AKP.

Turkey’s new alcohol law, which among other things sets restrictions
on alcohol sales after 10 p.m., curtails advertising, and bans new
liquor licenses from establishments near mosques and schools, is
another example of the AKP’s majoritarian turn. Despite vociferous
opposition, the law was written, debated, and passed in just two weeks,
and Erdogan’s response to the law’s critics has been to assert that
they should just drink at home.

Similarly, the AKP is undertaking massive construction projects in
Istanbul, including the renovation of Taksim Square, the building
of a new airport, and the construction of a third bridge over the
Bosphorus, all of which are controversial and opposed by widespread
coalitions of diverse interests. Yet in every case, the government has
run roughshod over the projects’ opponents in a dismissive manner,
asserting that anyone who does not like what is taking place should
remember how popular the AKP has been when elections roll around. In
a typical attempt to use the AKP’s vote margins as a cudgel, Erdogan
on Saturday warned the CHP — Turkey’s main opposition party —
“if you gather 100,000 people, I can gather a million.”

Turkey’s anti-democratic turn has all taken place without much
notice from the outside world. It was not just coercive measures
— arrests, investigations, tax fines, and imprisonments — that
Washington willfully overlooked in favor of a sunnier narrative
about the “Turkish miracle.” Perhaps it is not as clear, but over
the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition
of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods
depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those
who resist do so at their own risk.

All this is why the current tumult over the “redevelopment” of
Gezi Park runs deeper than merely the bulldozing of green space. It
represents outrage over crony capitalism, arrogance of power, and
the opacity of the AKP machine. In the media, Erdogan has encouraged
changes in ownership or intimidated others to ensure positive coverage
— or, in the case of the Gezi Park protests, no coverage. In what was
a surreal scene – but sadly one that was altogether unsurprising to
close observers of Turkey — CNN International on Friday was covering
the protests live in Taksim while at the very same time CNN Turk, the
network’s Turkish-language affiliate, was running a cooking show as
the historic heart of Turkey’s largest city was in enormous upheaval.

This dynamic of Turkish press censorship and intimidation, in which
media outlets critical of the government are targeted for reprisal,
has resulted in the dismissal of talented journalists like Amberin
Zaman, Hasan Cemal, and Ahmet Altan for criticizing the government or
defying its dictates. This type of implicit government intimidation
is unreasonable in an allegedly democratic or democratizing society.

Under these circumstances, Turkish politics is not necessarily more
open than it was a decade ago, when the AKP was pursuing democratic
reforms in order to meet the European Union’s requirements for
membership negotiations. It is just closed in an entirely different
way. Turkey has essentially become a one-party state. In this the
AKP has received help from Turkey’s insipid opposition, which wallows
in Turkey’s lost insularity and mourns the passing of the hard-line
Kemalist elite that had no particular commitment to democracy.

Successful democracies provide their citizens with ways in which to
express their desires and frustrations beyond periodic elections,
and Turkey has failed spectacularly in this regard.

The combination of a feckless opposition and the AKP’s heavyhanded
tactics have finally come to a head. This episode will not bring down
the government, but it will reset Turkish politics in a new direction;
the question is whether the AKP will learn some important lessons
from the people amassing in the streets or continue to double down
on the theory that elections confer upon the government the right to
do anything it pleases.

It is not just the AKP that needs to reassess its policies, but
Washington as well. Perhaps the Obama administration does not care
about Turkey’s reversion or has deemed it better to counsel, cajole,
and encourage Erdogan privately and through quiet acts of defiance
like extending the term of Amb. Francis Ricciardone, who has gotten
under the government’s skin over press freedom, for another year.

This long game has not worked. It is time the White House realized
that Erdogan’s rhetoric on democracy has far outstripped reality.

Turkey has less to offer the Arab world than the Obama administration
appears to think, and rather than just urging Arab governments to pay
attention to the demands of their citizens, Washington might want to
urge its friends in Ankara to do the same as well. The AKP and Prime
Minister Erdogan might have been elected with an increasing share of
the popular vote over the last decade, but the government’s actions
increasingly make it seem as if Turkish democracy does not extend
farther than the voting booth.

AFP/Getty Images

SUBJECTS: TURKEY, DEMOCRACY

Steven A. Cook is the Hasib J. Sabbagh senior fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Koplow is program
director of the Israel Institute and the author of the blog Ottomans
and Zionists.

RUSSIA DEPLOYS ADVANCED MISSILES TO ARMENIA

EurasiaNet.org, NY
June 3 2013

June 3, 2013 – 2:40pm, by Joshua Kucera

Russia has deployed an advanced new missile system to its base in
Armenia,amid deteriorating relations with Armenia’s rival, Azerbaijan.

A source in Armenia’s Defense Ministry confirmed to RFE/RL’s Armenian
service the deployment of “several” Iskander-M systems.

The Iskander-M is a relatively new Russian mobile (truck-mounted)
theater ballistic missile system, comparable to the infamous Scud but
with a longer range (400 km) and more accurate.

The Iskanders will be stationed at Russia’s base in Gyumri, so it’s
not clear whether or not they would be a factor in any war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory they both claim but which
Armenian forces control, Nagorno Karabakh. It’s impossible not to see
the deployment in the light of the recent chill in Azerbaijan-Russia
relations, including the apparent cancellation of fighter aircraft
deliveries. Emil Sanamyan, a keen observer of Armenia-Azerbaijan
defense issues and Washington editor of the Armenian Reporter, tells
The Bug Pit that “I see it as an effort to build up deterrence against
the war in Nagorno Karabakh and also to increase the Russian footprint
in the Caucasus, particularly in light of the closure of the Gabala
radar.” [Gabala, recall, was the Russian radar that Azerbaijan hosted
until the two sides failed to agree on an extension of the terms.]

It’s also the case that Russia is upgrading its equipment across the
board, so this may just be part of a regular update with no
geopolitical implications. But you can bet that in Baku they are
looking closely at this.

SYUNIK SHOOTOUT: WOUNDED COLONEL IS IN GRAVE CONDITION

06:19 PM | TODAY | POLITICS

Artsrun Hovhannisyan, Spokesman for Armenia’s Minister of Defense, has
written on his Facebook account more details on Saturday’s shootout
in Goris, a city in southern Syunik province. Hovhannisyan says that
Colonel Artak Budaghyan, one of the two men injured in the gunfight,
had undergone a second surgery, with doctors removing one more bullet
from his body. Budaghyan’s condition is described as grave. A new
surgical intervention is not excluded, writes the Ministry official.

Avetik (Avo) Budaghyan, a former mayoral candidate in Goris, was
killed in the result of Saturday’s shooting outside the house of
Syunik Governor Surik Khachatryan. Nikolay Abrahamyan, a relative
and bodyguard of Surik Khachatryan, and Avo Budaghyan’s brother Artak
Budaghyan, a commander at a military unit in Karabakh, were wounded
in the gunfight. Syunik governor’s son Tigran Khachatryan and his
bodyguard Zarzand Nikoghosyan were arrested today in relation to the
murder of Avo Budaghyan.

NOT SURPRISING THAT TURKISH GOVERNMENT DENYING GENOCIDE USES FORCE AGAINST PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS – SERJ TANKIAN

June 03, 2013 | 17:12

Not surprising that government denying genocide of Armenians, Greeks
and Assyrians is using force against peaceful demonstrators, Serj
Tankian said about uprising in Turkey.

“Not surprising that a government that puts journalists in jail
indiscriminately and denies its Genocide of 1.5 million Armenians,
Greeks and Assyrians doesn’t hesitate to use force against peaceful
demonstrators. Gezi park in Taksim Square, with its surrounding
international hotels, was built on an old Armenian cemetery. It’s
impossible to hide the bones of your past with your current demeanor.

I am appalled by Obama’s closeness to this hypocrite named Erdogan,
Turkey’s Prime Minister,” he wrote on his Facebook.

Police used violence against protest action in Taksim Square of
Istanbul which was followed by uprising throughout the country. Around
2,000 people were arrested and dozens were injured during the clashes.

Environmental mottos turned into political ones demanding Erdogan’s
resignation.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

MELKUMYAN, MEKHITARIAN, PETROSIAN FALL 0.5 POINTS BEHIND LEADERS

17:16 04/06/2013 ” SPORT

GMs Hrant Melkumyan, Krikor Sevag Mekhitarian, Tigran L. Petrosian
have scored 2.5 points each after three rounds at the Grand Europe
Open in Albena, Bulgaria.

They fall half a point behind the six leaders. GM Avetik Grigoryan
and David Paravyan have 2 points each, armchess.am reported.

Source: Panorama.am

ARMENIAN TRADE UNIONS ARE LITTLE INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-RELIANCE, MP SAYS

YEREVAN, June 4. / ARKA /. The main problem of Armenian trade unions
is their insufficient independence and self-reliance, Elinar Vardanyan,
chairman of a parliament standing committee on human rights and public
affairs, told ARKA before a parliamentary hearing on how trade unions
could operate independently.

“The real problem is that the existing trade unions are structures
which were inherited from the former Soviet Union; they are not
independent and self-reliant because of imperfect law,’ she said.

The purpose of the hearing is to voice the problems of trade
unions, she said adding that before this hearing the MPs met with
representatives of some trade unions who raised their most pressing
problems requiring quick solution.

Vardanyan expressed hope that the hearing would result in a set of
proposals that would guarantee the activities of trade unions.

“If the proposals appear to be legislative, we will try to find
solutions in the National Assembly. If they require specific mechanisms
we will ask the government for a support,’ she said. -0-

DANISH INSTITUTE MAY ESTABLISH CAMPUS WITH ARMENIA’S UNIVERSITIES

June 04, 2013 | 13:18

YEREVAN. – Armenia’s Education and Science Minister Armen Ashotyan on
Tuesday received a delegation from the Zealand Institute of Business
and Technology of Denmark.

The delegation is in Armenia to get familiar with the education
system of the country. The guests expressed willingness to cooperate
with Armenia’s institutions of higher education, and to even set up
a campus.

Welcoming the proposal for cooperation, Ashotyan noted that Armenia
is interested in developing inter-university ties and investing in
the country’s higher education, the Education and Science Ministry
press service informs. Ashotyan also informed that there are numerous
foreign and Diaspora-Armenian students that receive education in
Armenia’s institutions of further education.

The interlocutors also reflected on Armenia’s assumption of the
Bologna Process Secretariat from 2012 to 2015, and the holding of a
ministerial summit in capital city Yerevan.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

BAKO SAHAKYAN HOSTED PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM CZECH REPUBLIC

13:46, 4 June, 2013

YEREVAN, JUNE 5, ARMENPRESS: The Artsakh Republic President Bako
Sahakyan received a group of parliamentarians from the Czech Republic
on June 4. As Armenpress was reported by the Central Information
Center of the Artsakh President’s Staff, a number of issues concerning
the Artsakh-Czech interrelations were discussed during the meeting,
attended by the NKR National Assembly deputy speaker Arthur Tovmasyan.

Special attention was paid to the ties between the parliaments of the
two countries. The President Sahakyan noted that Artsakh is interested
in establishing and developing relations with the Czech Republic,
adding that it would be useful for the both states.

Islamic Republic News Agency IRNA, Iran
May 31 2013

Tehran-Baku ties strategic, with positive future outlook – envoy

Baku, May 31: IRI envoy to Azerbaijan Rep referring to Iran-Azerbaijan
historical ties, shared religious-cultural values, economic factors
like commerce ties, communication networks, and goods and energy
transit, termed bilateral ties as strategic with positive future.
According to IRNA, Iran’s Ambassador Mohsen Paka’in made the comment
here on Friday [31 May] in an interview with Azerbaijan’s Ollaylar
daily, pointing out that yet, the two countries’ relations get
subjected to ups and downs at times, which are managed thanks to the
two countries’ officials’ wise conduct.

He added: “During the past months constructive and trust building
negotiations between the two countries’ presidents and foreign
ministers, as well as the recent visit of the Head of Azerbaijan
Republic National Security Council Ramiz Mahdiev and an Azeri
delegation headed by the Head of Caucasus Muslims Office Sheykh
ol-Islam Pashazadeh have led to new dynamism aimed at boosting
bilateral relations.”

Paka’in said: “I believe the Islamic Republic of Iran and Azerbaijan
Republic have lots of useful potentials for expansion of bilateral
ties, recognition of which can lead to proximity of the two sides and
turn the two countries into strategic partners.”
Iran’s Ambassador to Baku referred to the role and progressing status
of Iran in the world and the region, as well as Azerbaijan Republic’s
wise recognition of this point, noting that the active presence of
Iran in crisis solving in Karabachos is to the benefit of promoting
peace and stability in the region.

He reiterated: “The Islamic Republic of Iran, too, considers
Azerbaijan Republic an important country in the region which is a gate
towards the Caucasus region countries, while in commerce, goods and
energy transit, too, keeping in mind having shared land and sea
boarders, we are interested in strengthening ties with Baku.”

He said that satisfactory relations between Tehran and Baku can lead
to regional stability and balance and play an important role in
preservation of peace and stability inside both countries.

In response to a question on the current level of Iran-Azerbaijan
economic ties, and the unused potentials for further improving them,
Paka’in said: “In economic field the activation of the two countries’
Joint Economic commission has both regulated and expanded the two
countries’ cooperation. In trade field, too, we have cooperation in
goods and energy transit field.”

The IRI ambassador to Baku said that the annual volume of official
trade between the two counties is now over 500 million US dollars,
adding: “If we wish to add the transactions between the two countries’
boarder dwellers, that figure would be doubled to around one billion
dollars, which is of course not satisfactory, and can grow thanks to
the already adopted measures.”

He referred to 30 per cent growth last year in economic transactions
between Iran and Azerbaijan Republic, adding: “Yet, the potential for
these two friendly neighbouring countries’ trade ties is much higher
than that and taking advantage of the existing potentials between the
two countries must still be kept in mind, until Azerbaijan Republic
would become one of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s main trade
partners.

Paka’in said: “We get Azerbaijan’s gas and swap it to Naxcivan. In the
field of goods transit, to, Iran is the safest, closest, and most
economic routs for the entire regional countries, including Azerbaijan
Republic.” The Iranian railways, roads, and sea routs are taken
advantage of in this field. In commerce and energy fields, too, we
have maximum cooperation.”

Pointing out that the deputy heads of the two countries’ customs had a
meeting recently, followed by regular monthly meetings between the
managing directors of the Iranian and Azerbaijani customs
organizations, emphasizing: “The customs and transit difficulties have
decreased and facilities for traffic of goods and passengers have
increased and these moves have positively affected our bilateral
trade, although there is still a way to be paved before achieving the
satisfactory status.”

Asked bout the moves made for expansion of bilateral cultural ties and
the future plans for the purpose, the Iranian ambassador said:
“Keeping in mind the numerous cultural commonalties between the two
countries, the culture weeks of Iran and Azerbaijan Republic have been
held in Tehran and Baku and the two countries’ artists have close
relations with each other, particularly in cinema, theatre, miniature,
painting, and calligraphy fields, and Azerbaijan Culture Week is
therefore, scheduled to be held in Tehran this week.”

Paka’in said: “In order to strengthen the two nations’ relations, we
unilaterally lifted the visa regime for Azeri citizens and this led to
greater relations between the two nations and boosting tourism both
for those who are interested in visiting Iran and for those who want
to go to our country pilgrimage or medical purposes.”

He added: “The two countries’ leaders are in favour of expanding
friendly ties and their will must be implemented in other levels. Of
course, the media, as an influential means on public opinion and on
politicians, can play a decisive role in this respect.”
The Azeri daily reporter asked what role Iran can play in solving the
Karabachos crisis, keeping in mind Tehran’s often repeated proposals
for meddling in the dispute.

Paka’in emphasized that the Karabachos dispute is a 20 year crisis and
the Azerbaijan and Armenia republics have chosen the Minsk Group
mechanism for the purpose, not yielding to any other solution.

He added: “I believe the Minsk Group is not neutral in this dispute
and that is the reason why the efforts made aimed at solving the
Karabachos dispute have thus far been unsuccessful.”

The Iranian envoy said: “The policy of Minsk Group is elongating this
dispute and sometimes it has even stated that solving the matter is in
need of another two decades, which is neither to the benefit of
Azerbaijan Republic, nor to the benefit of regional security. I
believe, the regional countries must get involved in this issue,
because the regional countries have strong incentives for solving this
crisis.”

He said that entry of the Islamic Cooperation Organization to the
matter, too, can be useful, adding: “Iran, as the rotating head of the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and an active member of the OIC is ready
for meddling and is also ready for offering assistance aimed at
putting an end to the engagements and return to the original status,
in which respecting the boarder lines and ending the engagements would
be in mind. The Karabachos region has created a lingeringarmed
engagement and enmity zone near our boarders and it is quite natural
for us to be worried about the existence of tension in this region and
to offer assistance, if we can.”
In response to a question on Iran and Azerbaijan cooperation in the
international scene, the Iranian ambassador said: “Fortunately, there
are fruitful relations and cooperation between the two countries,
particularly at the UN, the OIC, the ECO, and the NAM.
“I believe Azerbaijan Republic would maintain its strategic status in
the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because the
Iranian government favours the advancement and development of
Azerbaijan and the two countries’ relations can grow without being
influenced by the other countries, to secure the long term interests
of both sides.”

In response to Ollaylar daily’s question on the effect of the sanction
on the Iranian economy, he said: “The main reason for imposing the
sanctions against Iran is a few countries’ opposition against the
peaceful nuclear programme of Iran.

“The Iranian nuclear programme is pursued with peaceful incentives and
aimed at economic development of the country. The International Atomic
Energy Agency has conducted the most and strongest series of
inspections in its entire history, including over 100 unannounced
inspections and over 4,000 person/day inspections in Iran.”

Paka’in added: “The agency has often announced that there is no reason
for believing that even one gram of radioactive material to prove that
Iran has deviated towards manufacturing atomic bombs. Of course, our
enemies have tried to aggrandize the sanctions’ issue and to tell lies
about their exclusive relation with our nuclear programme, while the
sanctions started as of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, when no
nuclear issue existed. The sanctions are nothing new and they have
existed as of the victory of the revolution, but our system has
throughout the past 33 years kept on progressing constantly.”

Paka’in added: “We are a nuclear power today, enjoy very high military
power, have launched satellites to outer space, are the top medically
advanced country in the region, and enjoy very high and unique
scientific growth rate, and all these achievements have been gained in
the course of the imposed sanctions against us. These sanctions are in
fact an undeclared war against a nation, but by grace of God the
enemies will be defeated by the Iranian nation in this war, as well.”

He said that the emerged difficulties due to the sanctions are quite
natural, arguing: “This cannot be denied, but due to the economic
potentials, particularly in energy field in our country, and the
Iranian nation’s will to defend their Islamic Revolution, the holy
Islam, and their own national interests, we have resisted and managed
the sanctions, having regular relations with every country in the
world. Therefore, the western imposed sanctions would not urge the
Islamic Republic of Iran to abandon its objectives and ideals.”