Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

COMMENTARY: TURKEY’S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND EMERGING MINORITY RIGHTS
By Edmond Y. Azadian

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Editor

Turkey has become a world power and consequently, its policies and
actions have a broader global impact than those of its immediate
neighbors. That is why the international news media, pundits and
statesmen were concentrating recently on the parliamentary elections
on June 12, in which Erdogan’s party won a third term.

Those elections brought some anticipated and unanticipated results.

The anticipated result was the landslide victory of Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP party, which was based on certain fundamental
factors. Those factors were economic growth (almost 9 percent),
assertive diplomacy and finally a promise to revamp the constitution,
which was adopted in 1982 by Gen. Kenan Evran’s military dictatorship
following the coup of 1980. Erdogan promised to bring “basic rights
and freedoms” through the new constitution and eliminate the tutelage
of the military enshrined in the constitution by Evran’s putschist
government.

Turkey’s population is estimated to be 74 million, of which 20
percent, according to very conservative estimates, are Kurds. There
are 50 million voters of which 84.5 percent have been at the polls –
an impressive participation by any measure. AKP won 50 percent of the
votes, garnering 326 seats in the 550-seat parliament. This outcome
will not help the party to unilaterally change the constitution,
but it paves the way for some horsetrading with opposition parties
in order to push the change through.

The constitutional change issue has also split longtime allies, Prime
Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, the latter apparently
opposing the change.

The AKP has taken Turkey in new directions in terms of domestic and
foreign policy; domestically, the party has opened the way for Islamic
culture, a trend opposed by Ataturk’s Republican Party (currently in
opposition), upending the founding fathers’ secularism.

Internationally, Erdogan has demonstrated an independent streak,
veering his course and putting distance between Turkey and the West,
and instead cozying up to Iran, challenging Israel and making Russia
the country’s major trading partner.

In a recent article, political scientist George Friedman foresaw
some ominous trends in the region, writing: “Now the United States
is withdrawing from the region, leaving behind instability and an
increasingly powerful and self-confident Turkey. In the end, the
economic and military strength of Turkey had to transform it into a
major regional force.”

This scenario does not augur well for the countries in the region,
and especially for Armenia, when Turkey can dictate the political
agenda for the entire region.

Through shortsighted political expediency, the West helped bankrupt
Turkey to attain economic boom and above all build the strongest
army in Europe. Now, the West has to deal with the outcome of its
shortsighted Cold War policy.

An unintended or unanticipated result of these elections is the
emergence of the minorities, and especially the vocal Kurdish minority,
which may eventually break up Turkey’s territorial integrity. However,
not yet.

When the US invaded Iraq, Turkey vehemently opposed the disintegration
of that country and in fact, conditioned its cooperation with
Washington on a promise not to allow the formation of an independent
Kurdistan, which could inspire and incite its indigenous Kurdish
population towards autonomy or independence.

Although the US held on to its promise, Israel infiltrated Iraq and
built up a Kurdish army and organized its administrative set-up.

Today, Iraq enjoys only a nominal unity, while an independent Kurdistan
has been formed, for all practical purposes.

In fact, the Turkish-Israeli row owed more to the Kurdish issue than
to the plight of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

Erdogan is a political pragmatist; while he could not contain the
formation of Iraqi Kurdistan, he was able to prevent the spillover
of that independence movement into Turkish territory by engaging
the Kurds politically. Although this policy is a race against time,
it may bear fruit for a while. Eventually the Kurds may rise up for
independence, as long as another junta does not emerge to crush their
movement as in the past.

During the election campaign, when asked by a TV reporter what Erdogan
has done on the Kurdish problem, he answered:

“First we changed the denialist policy in the country [i.e, suggesting
that Kurds don’t exist]. We faced the Kurdish issue as a problem and
we reversed the policy of assimilation. And today, we are dealing
with their social and economic problems.”

The Kurds have been brutally persecuted in Turkey. After becoming
willing partners with Turks in perpetrating the Armenian Genocide, they
received a raw deal from successive Turkish governments, beginning with
the founding father, Kemal Ataturk, who continued the Turkification
policies of the previous Ittihad ve Terrake Party.

Ataturk suppressed the Dersim uprising of the Kurds through aerial
bombardment.

The Kurds have never enjoyed independence in their history; they have
never had a sovereign government. Instead, they have been used as
political pawns by different governments. The Shah of Iran used them
against Iraq and the latter used them – in turn – against Iran. The
Soviet Union used the Kurds in all the countries over which their
people have been spread; they even set up a government in Iran and they
armed and financed them in Turkey. One of the Kurdish rebel leaders,
Mustafa Ali Kilani, even cozied up to Hitler to liberate the Kurds
from the British rule.

The only place the Kurds have felt at home has been Armenia, where
they have been able to use their language and practice their culture
and literature openly, without fear of reprisal.

The Kurds have always believed that they don’t have any friends except
the mountains and they fortified their forces in the mountain areas
to no avail, because of the advancement of modern weaponry.

Evren’s government and succeeding “democratic” administrations
dislodged the Kurds from their mountainous habitats into modern
Gulan communities in the plains, where they would be more easily
muffled if they were to stage a rebellion. In the June 12 election,
the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party won 36 seats. The Kurds are in
euphoria and they no longer conceal their ultimate goal, independence.

Following the victory, 50,000 Kurds rallied in front of the city hall
of Hakkiarai, a Kurdish city, where one of party leaders, Salaheddine
Demitas, addressed the crowd, saying: “We are ready to negotiate
about the constitution. The Kurdish people have endorsed our right
to negotiate. Now we have to open the road to peace together. But
in order to stop the raging war in the country, it is important to
continue the negotiations with the honorable Ocalan and establish
contacts with the PKK as an opposing force in the war. The government
should not avoid doing that in order to bring peace should accept
PKK as a negotiating party.”

Their demands seem very hard ones for the Turkish government to accept,
since it has declared PKK a terrorist organization and Ocalan as a
common criminal incarcerated in a prison at Imrali Island, with a
life sentence.

While Ocalan has extended his declared ceasefire from his prison cell,
another leader at the Hakkiari rally, Feliz Kocali, announced that
the Kurds will continue the struggle until they have independence,
while the crowd chanted “Kurdistan is our homeland and Diarbekir
its capital.”

It is a moot question if Erdogan ever imagined that his policy of
opening up the Kurdish question would lead to such an outburst of
extreme nationalism. The Kurds have even begun to bring up the issue of
the Armenian Genocide in the Turkish Parliament. We don’t believe they
have a genuine interest in the recognition of the Armenian Genocide,
but they will use it as a political chip against their adversaries,
until they achieve their own agenda.

Similarly, recognition of the Armenian Genocide has surfaced in the
Israeli Parliament to threaten Erdogan to tone down his anti-Israeli
rhetoric.

But that is the nature of political deals, unless another party
sees value in a life-and-death issue to another nation, it will not
cooperate on that issue.

But a more serious venue has reminded Turkey of its international
obligations, including Armenia.

Indeed, the International Crisis Group has already submitted 10 demands
to Erdogan’s new government, even before it is formed; they deal mostly
with the European Union, progress on Cyprus issue, Aegean islands with
Greece, Turkish Israeli relations and the seventh demand relates to
Armenia; that the new government has to take seriously relations with
Armenia, opening its borders and establishing diplomatic relations
with the latter.

We notice that Armenia and the Armenian issues have emerged from
three different fronts, mostly with self-serving policies, but anyway
reminding Turkey of its outstanding obligations to the Armenians.

Whether those are genuine interests or not, we have to capitalize
on them.

We don’t know how far the new Turkish government will accommodate the
Kurdish demands and minority rights, but the EU is on Turkey’s back
to loosen its grip on its minorities, whose fallout will certainly
benefit Armenia, and the Armenian community in Turkey.

From: Baghdasarian

EUROPE, REGION NEED NORMALIZATION BETWEEN ARMENIA AND TURKEY – ARMENIAN PRESIDENT

news.am
June 22 2011
Armenia

Normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey is important
not only for both countries but the region and Europe on the whole,
President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said in his speech in PACE.

The Armenian leader noted that Turkey did not honor its commitments
which made impossible ratification of the protocols and implementation
of the signed Armenian-Turkish accords.

President Sargsyan stressed that Armenia had initiated the
normalization process with good intentions under the circumstances
when “Turkey not only refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide in
the Ottoman Empire but, moreover, pursues denial policy”.

Nevertheless, the Armenian side will not leave the problem to future
generations.

“Normalization of relations is important not only to Armenia and
Turkey, but the region and Europe to establish cooperation and
security. Armenia’s blockade must be stopped,” he said.

From: Baghdasarian

PACE expectations for Karabakh subcommittee unclear – Armenian President

news.am
June 22, 2011
Armenia

The work of PACE Subcommittee on Nagorno-Karabakh without involvement
of the Armenian side does not make any sense and is impossible. The
PACE Bureau should have taken this into consideration when it resumed
its operation. PACE’s expectations for this subcommittee are unclear
to us, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan stated at PACE on Tuesday.

“We believe the PACE plays an important role in the region. Its
activities should not hinder the peace process. If it manages to
avoid mutual insults of the Armenia and Azerbaijani delegations at
PACE, it will have a significant impact on the improvement of the
atmosphere in the region,” he stated.

The Armenian leader stressed the importance of the OSCE Minsk Group
format led by international mediators.

“Recently we have learnt that the subcommittee suspended its activities
as Lord Russel passed away. That is not true. What a serious issue it
should have raised? It lacks historical memory, it has no notion of
the previous steps and is unable to make a fair decision,” Sargsyan
noted. “I do not see a more competent format. I believe the activities
of the subcommittee on Karabakh will be ineffective. For this reason,
I fully support the view of the Armenian delegation at PACE.”

As reported earlier, the Armenian delegation refused to participate
in the first session of a sub-committee on Nagorno-Karabakh held
on Monday at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
on June 20. The Armenia delegates stressed that existence of such
sub-committee endangers the negotiation process on Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement.

From: Baghdasarian

NEWSPAPER: CRIMINAL NEUTRALIZED BY ARMENIAN POLICE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A COOKERY SPECIALIST

arminfo
Wednesday, June 22, 20:54

In fact, Arman Yengibaryan killed by the police near “Garegin Nzhdeh”
metro station in Yerevan on June 14 was not a criminal and was
not wanted, “Zhamanak” newspaper says. According to the newspaper,
Yengibaryan was the head of the Association of Cookery Specialists
and a constant guest of TV cookery shows. To recall, according to the
Police, Arman Yengibaryan (born in 1981) was wounded and detained by
the police near “Garegin Nzhdeh” metro station after he had tried to
enter one of the apartments in Yeghbayrutyan Street, having introduced
himself as an ArmWaterCanal employee, however, he caused the apartment
owners’ suspect, and they applied to the Police.

The young man tried to escape, however, the law-enforcers caught
up with him near the metro station and wounded him with a firearm
because the latter was shooting back from a gas gun. Yengibaryan was
taken to hospital and operated on. However, he died of the injuries.

In his interview with the newspaper, Arman’s father Sergey Yengibaryan
pointed out that on April 7 he participated in a TV show, and the
Police’s statements that his son had been wanted for 4 months were
absurd. In addition, he wonders why the police neutralize a man with
two shots, even if he is a criminal, moreover, the last shot was made
in the head, and the impression is that this was not a policeman,
but a killer.

For her part, Arman’s mother Bavakan Yengibaryan said that several
hours after Arman’s murder the police came to their place and started
asking them susceptible questions, such as whether Arman had previous
convictions, and received a negative answer. According to her, her
son had never had any problems with the police.

Against this background, the question why the cookery specialist
Yengibaryan decided to enter an unknown person’s apartment and
introduce himself as an ArmWaterCanal employee is hanging in the air.

In the meanwhile, the press service of the Police told ArmInfo
correspondent that within the frames of investigation of this
case, citizens who earlier underwent assault related to robbery
were summoned for questioning. They were residents of various
administrative communities of the Yerevan: Kentron, Arabkir,
Malatia-Sebastia. According to the Police, these people were shown
the photos of the potential culprits, among which they recognized
Yengibaryan.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIA’S FIRST FIVE MONTHS BUDGET PERFORMED WITH A 6.7 BILLION DRAM DEFICIT

/ ARKA /
June 22, 2011
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, June 22, /ARKA/. Armenia’s first five months budget this year
has been performed with a 6.7 billion drams deficit, down from the
projected 56.2 billion drams, the ministry of finance said in a report.

According to official data, revenues grew by 8.9% year-on-year or by
26.6 billion drams to 325.7 billion drams as of late May 2011. Some
95% of the revenues were collected as taxes, state dues and mandatory
payments and some 5.1% were reported as other revenues and 0.1%
as official grants.

Some 258.6 billion drams were said to have been collected as taxes
and state dues, 82.1% of the amount projected for the first half of
the year. According to the report, tax and customs due collection
rose by 10.2% or 23.9 billion drams if compared to the first five
months of 2010, primarily due to improved VAT, income and profit tax
collection rates.

Expenditures were said to have grown by 7.2% year-on-year or 22.4
billion drams to 332.4 billion drams, 72.% of the projected amount
for the first half of the year. Some 304 billion drams were reported
as current expenditures, 74.2% of the projected rate. Compared to
the first five months of 2010 they rose by 6.8% or 19.3 billion drams.

Of total expenditures 28.4 billion drams were channeled into payment
of public sector salaries and 2 billion drams as mandatory social
payments. These figures represented a 77.9 and 71.9%. rise from a
year before respectively. The government also released 13.1 billion
drams to pay Armenia’s state debt. Of that amount 9.7 billion drams
were released for payment of foreign debt and 3.4 billion drams for
payment of domestic debt.

From: Baghdasarian

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USA-PAKISTANI RELATIONS

ARMENPRESS
JUNE 22, 2011
YEREVAN

The murder of Osama bin Laden May 1 2011 by the special American
squad created additional tension in the US-Pakistani relations that
are being described by analysts as “cold friendly”.

Obama’s administration adopted policy of gradual restriction of
American military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. For registering
essential success in this issue the USA needs ensuring certain
stability in the mentioned states. The situation in this respect
is more complicated in Afghanistan where despite of the decision of
Obama to send American troops, Taliban and other anti-western bands
continue the successful fight against the coalition forces headed by
NATO. The Pakistani special services also have certain role in this
issue. In spite of the American pressures they continue assisting a
number of Afghan bands ignoring the demand of the US side.

At the same time it is necessary to note that the force institutions
of Pakistan have noticeable dependence from the US military and
financial assistance, which does not allow them to finally worsen
relations with the United States.

During the recent years a quite dual situation has been created in the
US-Pakistani relations and the discovery of Osama bin Laden near one
of the military academies of Pakistan finally sharpened the relations.

The Pakistani force establishments view the terrorism bands in
Afghanistan as a tool of strategic significance for restricting India’s
impact in Afghanistan. During the recent years India has been actively
engaged in the events taking place in Afghanistan and the force system
of Pakistan finds that the further strengthening of India’s positions
in Afghanistan is a direct threat to the national security of Pakistan,
taking into consideration the existing controversies between the two
states in Kashmir issue. At the same time, Pakistan views the impact
on the bands operating in Afghanistan as a way to maintain its own
impact in that country after the USA withdraws its troops.

One of the essential factors agreeing the USA’s policy toward Pakistan
is the issue of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The further pressure on the
security system of that country may bring to drastic destabilization
of the situation which may cause unpredictable consequences after
the nuclear weapon appears in the arms of terrorists.

In the created situation, Obama’s administration, on one hand tries
to urge Pakistan stop assistance to terrorists, on the other avoids
actions that may endanger the inner stability.

Nevertheless, the US authorities clearly realize that without
suspending Pakistan’s assistance to terrorist in the territory of
Afghanistan the situation in that country will not show any signs of
stabilization, a circumstance which may be of essential significance
in the pre-context of the coming presidential elections in the USA
in 2012.

In the sphere of foreign policy one of the main promises of Obama was
the suspension of war in Iraq and directing the freed resources to
the improvement of situation in Afghanistan. The absence of concrete
results in the issue may have serious negative impact on the public’s
ideas of Obama’s foreign policy.

In the created conditions the American administration will more
probably try to use “carrot-and-stick policy”. The role of carrot will
be the assistance of billion of dollars provided to Pakistan, as well
as provision of loans by a number of international organizations –
World Bank, International Monetary Fund.

The US authorities will try to undertake steps directed toward
normalization of relations between India and Pakistan that have been
interrupted in 2008 after the terrorist act in Mumbai. In this way
Obama’s administration is trying to reach suspension of Pakistan’s
policy directed toward the decrease of India’s impact through the
terrorism organizations operating in Afghanistan.

As to the “stick”, in this issue this role may be assumed by the US
Congress. The legislative body may organize hearings and discussions
on the expediency of provision of military assistance to Pakistan,
mechanisms of distribution of that assistance, remarking the
possibility of restriction of the aid or agree it with the degree of
participation of Pakistani special services in the activities against
the terrorism organizations.

An important element of the new policy of the USA toward Pakistan
may be the implementation of joint activities with countries having
close relations with Pakistan – China and Saudi Arabia. Both China and
Saudi Arabia are not interested in the further destabilization of the
situation in Pakistan. The Chinese authorities are quite concerned
from the prospect of reinforcement of position of radical Islam
in its borderline region. The reinforcement of extreme Islamists
in Afghanistan may promote the dissemination of radical religious
ideas among the Muslim population of China and become a stimulus for
separatist strives.

In the created situation the main issue of the US Administration is to
reach the implementation of reforms in the Pakistani special services
as different terrorism organizations operating in Afghanistan get
main assistance not from the Pakistani army but special services. The
gradual reforms of these services and the reduction of impact of
the forces supporting Islamist extremists will not only promote the
stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan but will also create
grounds for the stabilization of inner political life in Pakistan
and increase the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT NEXT GENERATIONS TO FACE PROBLEMS IN RELATIONS WITH TURKEY

Vestnik Kavkaza
June 22 2011

The illegal blockade of Armenia needs to end, Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan said at a PACE session on Monday, commenting
onArmenian-Turkish relations, News Armenia reports.

Normalization of relations started two years ago. It could
allowrestoration of diplomatic ties and an opening of the border.

Sargsyan noted that support of mediators and high-ranking officials
ofthe Council of Europe is important. But the process hit a dead end.

Turkey started making pre-conditions again and refuses to fulfil
itsobligations. Another problem is the refusal of Turkey to recognize
thegenocide of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire in 1915,
hesaid.

The president underlined that they will not leave the problem forfuture
generations. He believes that the barriers will be removed theway
the Berlin Wall was.

From: Baghdasarian

OSCE: KARABAKH CONFLICT MAY BE SOLVED
Yelizaveta Isakova

Voice of Russia
June 22 2011

The forthcoming meeting on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution
in the city of Kazan (the Volga area) may succeed, the OSCE Secretary
General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut told reporters in Moscow.

Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian enclave on the territory of Azerbaijan
which proclaimed its independence in 1991.

The conflict was the key issue discussed by the OSCE chief and Russia’s
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow.

“The forthcoming meeting in Kazan under the chairmanship of President
Medvedev will follow the working meeting of foreign ministers held in
Moscow last week-end. The process of seeking a set of peace principles
for the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has been going on since 1992 and
we’ve had both high moments and difficulties. We had few moments when
the expectations were as high as they are now. The personal commitment
of Dmitry Medvedev and the involvement of the Minsk Group reflected
in a very strong Deauville statement, which clearly calls for the two
parties to make a move forward and adopt 14 peace principles which
have been elaborated throughout many years of negotiations.”

Azerbaijan and Armenia are expected to sign a legally binding agreement
setting the guidelines for a peace treaty. Armenia says that it views
one of the main principles as self-determination for the people of
the breakaway region.

The OSCE is also considering another long-lasting
conflict-Transnistria, a breakaway territory between Moldova and
Ukraine. Moscow hosted a meeting in 5+2 format featuring Moldova,
Transnistria, the US and the EU as observers and Russia and Ukraine as
mediators. However, the OSCE chief told the VoR that no consensus has
been reached as Tiraspol refused to sign a draft treaty proposed by
Russia. Next meeting will also be held in Moscow and have an official
status. Brichambaut believes that a breakthrough depends on goodwill
of the parties.

The troubleshooting is hindering by the organization’s lack of charter
which makes any action possible only after the approval of all its
56 members. Three years ago this was an obstacle to preventing the
Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia and now this may trigger
more problems in Karabakh and Transnistria . Still, the charter is
unlikely to be adopted soon as the members can’t agree on it, says
Brichambaut, who has to talk them into it in a short period of time –
next year his presidency is over and the chief is said to be replaced
by a Swiss diplomat.

From: Baghdasarian

KARABAKH SEPARATISTS ‘WERE MANAGED BY KGB’

news.az
June 22 2011
Azerbaijan

News.Az interviews Azerbaijani political scientist Arif Yunus.

The deputy chairman of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, Razmik
Zohrabyan, said recently that the Karabakh committee, which played a
role in the separation of Karabakh from Azerbaijan, was created and
managed by the former USSR KGB. Is this statement by the second most
senior person in the Armenian ruling party true?

I can say that this statement is completely true. Armenian political
and public figures have also written about it. For example, the
Armenians have said that a former deputy of the Armenian parliament,
Igor Muradyan, who was a member of the Karabakh committee, was
associated with the USSR KGB. For this reason, other members of this
committee, including former Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosyan,
were very suspicious of Igor Muradyan.

KGB leaders admitted in interviews in different newspapers after the
collapse of the USSR that the Movement of Crimean Tatars was the only
nationalist organization that contained no USSR intelligence agent,
while all the other nationalist organizations, created in the final
years of the USSR’s existence, contained KGB agents or were regulated
by them. Thus, the absolute majority of nationalist organizations had
KGB agents. As for the Karabakh committee, it should be taken into
account that even if this separatist organization was not under the
KGB’s direct control, at least this secret structure of the former
Soviet Union had agents and influence there.

All the same, I have to note that I have personal information about
people, who worked for the KGB in the Karabakh committee. I and some
other officials of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan
were retained by the country’s leadership to review the activity
of the Karabakh committee at the time of its official launch. This
group, of which I was a member, had unlimited access to KGB documents
related to the activity of the Karabakh committee. Meanwhile, the
KGB presented the records of speeches by committee members to our
group for familiarization. It was Igor Muradyan who presented the
material. He reported against Ter Petrosyan and other leaders of the
Karabakh committee for the KGB.

In other words, the “confessions” of Razmik Zohrabyan did not come
as news to me. He said what I have already known for many years.

What prompted Zohrabyan to make this disclosure?

It can be easily explained, given the complicated situation in
Armenia. The Armenian president’s position is shaky. The opposition
is putting a lot of pressure on him. This pressure has already been
effective, since Serzh Sargsyan ordered the release of political
prisoners and permitted protests in the centre of Yerevan. In this
sense, the “declaration” that the Karabakh committee was managed by
the KGB is a smear campaign.

Do you think that individuals who worked for the KGB in these
nationalist and separatist organizations can still fulfill their
former functions of reporting back or managing processes?

It’s not likely. The work of the Karabakh committee itself has
been stopped. The people who worked for the KGB inside the Karabakh
committee have no influence now. Therefore, this removes any need
to use their services right now. In addition, the whole KGB working
method, as far as I could understand it in the 1990s while analysing
the situation of the Karabakh committee for the Azerbaijani leadership,
was that the local KGB structures of Azerbaijan and Armenia were
closely cooperating. Meanwhile, all the information was sent to the
centre, Moscow, and some of the documents were also sent to the then
Soviet capital. In other words, most of the original material is
not in Baku or Yerevan. It is in Moscow. There is no organization as
secretive as the KGB. But the presence of documents about individuals
who once worked for the KGB naturally preserves influence over them.

Is there any need for Azerbaijan to use the material against the
members of the Karabakh committee to expose the separatist nature of
what was happening at that time?

On the one hand, we should not forget that we live in 2011 and the
events of the 1990s have sunk into history. This history must be
born in mind but not fixated on. If Razmik Zohrabyan says that the
Karabakh committee was managed by the KGB but does not name names,
I can name at least one person – Igor Muradyan. He is a provocateur,
he writes provocative, insulting, anti-Azerbaijani articles. Therefore,
the names of these people should be made public so that they know
that Azerbaijan is aware of them and remembers who are they are.

From: Baghdasarian

A TWO STATE SOLUTION FOR TURKEY?
Daniel Greenfield

Right Side News

June 21 2011

Imagine a European Union member nation which represses an ethnic
minority that makes up a fifth of its population. Now imagine the
EU being forced to take sides in a domestic civil war within its own
union in which ethnic cleansing is the order of the day. That is the
fate awaiting the EU if it admits Turkey as it is.

Turkish intolerance of ethnic minorities resulted in the Armenian
genocide. And in the ongoing repression of its Kurdish population.

Turkish prisons are full of Kurdish political prisoners, some who
have done nothing more than use the Kurdish language in the wrong
place or sing a Kurdish song. Kurds have fought back against Turkish
state repression with a political and militant struggle. And despite
what Turkish authorities are telling their European counterparts,
that struggle is not over.

The same elections that gave the Erdogan regime another term, also
racked up political victory for Turkey’s Kurds. Meanwhile chaos in
Iraq and Syria may be setting the stage for Kurdish independence in
both those countries. Iraq’s Kurds already enjoy partial autonomy.

Should Syria’s Kurds achieve full or partial autonomy, then Turkey
will be left to stand alone in its isolated policy of denying Kurdish
rights.

>From bombings by PKK militants to marches and political activism in
occupied Northern Kurdistan, it is increasingly clear that there
is no way forward for Turkey except through political autonomy in
Northern Kurdistan. The Erdogan regime has filled its prisons and
staged incursions into Western Kurdistan in Iraq. It has even been
accused of using chemical weapons against civilians. But the Turkish
perpetuation of the cycle of violence has not changed the determination
of the region’s Kurds to win their independence.

The Kurds remain a ticking time bomb inside Turkey. And no responsible
European leader can accept Turkish entry into the EU until the Kurdish
situation is resolved. Slightly relaxing the oppressive cultural
restrictions is not enough. It is time that the Erdogan regime be
made to understand that it faces a choice between maintaining the
occupation of Northern Kurdistan and joining the community of nations.

After a generation of fighting the PKK, Turkey is no closer to
defeating it. The PKK is not going away and neither is the dream of
Kurdish independence. If the Erdogan regime wishes to maintain its
borders in the face of Kurdish independence in Western Kurdistan, then
it will have to negotiate with the same leaders it has been throwing in
prison. Only by allowing an autonomous Kurdish state within the borders
of occupied Northern Kurdistan, will Turkey gain stability and peace.

Accepting Kurdish autonomy in Northern Kurdistan will allow Turkey
to avoid a full fledged civil war and a two state solution which
will see portions of its territory annexed to Kurdistan. While the
Erdogan regime is confident that Europe and the rest of the world will
continue turning a blind eye to its repression of the Kurds, there is
no doubt that this will change in the event of a civil war. The world
will not stand by and witness another genocide carried out by Turkey.

And it will certainly destroy Turkey’s prospects for EU membership.

Autonomy or a two state solution is in Turkey’s own best interests
as well. Kurds have a higher birth rate than ethnic Turks do. Almost
double. And that means that if Turkey fails to separate itself from
the larger portion of its Kurdish population– then all of Turkey
will eventually be Kurdistan.

Ending Turkish occupation of Northern Kurdistan will also leave
the Turkish economy in a better competitive position and reassure
international observers concerned about its stability. It will also
end the need for cross-border incursions which will sooner or later
lead to war.

The Turkish government has a limited time frame in which it can advance
a constructive solution. Its tactics of repression have failed,
its cultural band aids will only encourage a burgeoning desire for
independence and instability in Iraq, Syria and Iran mean that the
creation of a Kurdish state on its border is only a matter of time.

Now is the time for the Erdogan government to sit down with the
political representatives of the Kurdish people and their resistance
in pursuit of a negotiated solution.

Neo-Ottomanists within the Erdogan regime may still dream of an
expanding empire, but there is no place for such thinking in any nation
that wishes to be part of the European Union. And it is up to the
European leadership to make it clear that Erdogan and Davutoglu must
choose between imperialism and democracy. That Turkey’s relationship
with Europe depends on a negotiated settlement of the Kurdish question,
as well as a recognition and restitution of the Armenian genocide,
the termination of its occupation of Cyprus and eventual withdrawal
from its occupation of Northern Kurdistan.

Turkey’s economic successes should not be confused with political
stability or human rights. And the admission of an unstable country
at risk of fighting a bloody civil war against a fifth of its own
population remains untenable. It also raises serious questions about
the long term future of any foreign investment in Turkey. Particularly
in conflict areas.

The Erdogan regime should not be allowed to imagine that like China
it will be able to buy its way out of any uncomfortable questions
about human rights using economic leverage. Turkey is not China and
its high level of debt increase mean that it will not be able to
outproduce and outexport its troubles. With budget deficits as high
as 20 percent of its GDP and a troubled bond market, the Turkish
future is not as bright as the AKP’s oligarchs like to pretend. And
domestic instability in the form of a large scale Kurdish uprising
could easily bring Istanbul’s house of cards tumbling down.

European leaders have spent too much time flattering the Erdogan regime
and its oligarchy to share with them the hard truths that Turkey has
no future without meaningful reform. And beneath all those reforms
is the inescapable question of ending the occupation and achieving
a settlement with the Kurdish people.

Turkey must be willing to choose between Kurdish autonomy or a
withdrawal from occupied territory to pave the way for a Kurdish
state. There is no third option. Maintaining the occupation and
repression is not sustainable. And has no future.

If Istanbul really wishes to move forward, then it is time to begin
holding peace talks that address the national and political rights
of Kurdish citizens living in the occupied territories of Northern
Kurdistan. With Turkey increasingly dependent on IMF aid, that aid
should come with preconditions, including Turkish willingness to
participate in a peace conference with legitimate representatives of
the Kurdish people.

If Erdogan chooses to continue the repression of the Kurdish people,
then Turkey will join the likes of Burma and North Korea as a
rogue state, an Apartheid regime that will be brought down when the
aspirations of the Kurdish people are finally achieved in a state of
their own.

>From NY to·Jerusalem·, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories·Behind the
News. Daniel Greenfield is a blogger, author and columnists covering
international affairs, the rising threat of terrorism and the growing
problems of socialism. His daily blog can be viewed at·Sultan Knish.

From: Baghdasarian