Armenian-Azerbaijani-Russian presidential meeting starts in Sochi

Armenian-Azerbaijani-Russian presidential meeting starts in Sochi

14:57 * 10.08.14

An Armenian-Azerbaijani-Russian presidential meeting has started in
Sochi, Russia, Armenian Presidential Spokesman Ara Saghatelyan reports
on his Twitter page.

The trilateral meeting between the presidents of Russia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan focused on the current situation in Nagorno-Karabakh
started Sunday in the Bocharov Ruchey residence in Russia’s southern
resort city of Sochi, RIA novosti reports.

The meeting comes amid sharp ratcheting up of tensions along the
contact line of Nagorno-Karabakh with Azerbaijan which led to
casualties on the both sides.

On Saturday, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian leader Serzh
Sargsyan held separate meetings with Vladimir Putin. During the
negotiations the warring sides exchanged opinions on the situation in
the region. Aliyev said that the conflict has dragged on and required
an immediate solution and Sargsyan blamed the Azari side for
“intentional escalation of the situation.”

Moscow in its turn also expressed concerns about the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, which, according to Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov
remains “tense and volatile.”

According to the Defense Ministry of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
recent attacks in the past days have claimed the lives of 25 Azeri and
five Armenian soldiers. The Azeri side insists it has lost 12
servicemen.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2014/08/10/meeting3/

BAKU: Putin and Sargsyan discuss prospects of Armenia’s joining EAEC

Trend, Azerbaijan
Aug 9 2014

Putin and Sargsyan discuss prospects of Armenia’s joining EAEC

Baku, Azerbaijan, Aug. 9
Trend:

Presidents of Russia and Armenia Vladimir Putin and Serzh Sargsyan at
the meeting in Sochi discussed prospects of Armenia’s joining the
Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC), the situation in Ukraine and the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, RIA Novosti reported.

Opening the meeting, the Russian president said that relations between
the two countries are “friendly, strategic in nature.” He said, that
the process of preparing accession of Armenia to the Eurasian Economic
Union is underway, and promised to inform his colleague on the
progress.

Sargsyan said that Armenia is concerned with the situation in Ukraine.

“Of course, we are concerned with the situation in Ukraine. If you
find it necessary, could you please inform us about the measures being
taken by Russia”, – the head of Armenia said.

For its part, the Armenian president has promised to tell about the
situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, which has seriously deteriorated in
recent days.

Earlier it was reported that Putin held a bilateral meeting with
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result
of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent
of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven
surrounding districts.

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the U.S. are currently
holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

From: Baghdasarian

BAKU: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict lasted far too long and needs to be

Trend, Azerbaijan
Aug 9 2014

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict lasted far too long and needs to be resolved
– President

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict lasted too long and needs to be resolved.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev made the remarks during the
bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin held in
Bocharov Stream residence, ITAR-TASS reported.

“We discussed the issue of regulation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has lasted far too long and needs to
be resolved,” Aliyev said.

There is a stable positive dynamic in the relations between Russia and
Azerbaijan in recent years, according to the president.

“We appreciate it very much and consider Russia as one of our key
partners in the international arena,” Aliyev said.

He also noted that cooperation between the two countries covers a lot
of areas.Good result shows cooperation not only in political but also
in the economic sphere. In particular, trade turnover and mutual
investments are growing.

“We are determined to increase the potential for cooperation,
including in the spheres of regional security and stability in our
region,” Aliyev concluded.

In turn, President Putin said that the relations between Azerbaijan
and Russia are on the rise, the trust between the two countries is
being strengthened.

The contacts are maintained at presidential level, at the level of
governments, relations are being developed in economic, humanitarian
and other new fields, according to the Russian president.

“This is an element of trust, which is strengthened constantly in
bilateral contacts,” he said.

Putin also proposed to discuss “long-standing problems” which relate
to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict at the meeting.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result
of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent
of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven
surrounding districts.

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the U.S. are currently
holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

From: Baghdasarian

ISTANBUL: As Turkey enters a new era

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Aug 9 2014

As Turkey enters a new era

SERKAN DEMİRTAÅ?

Nearly four months after the local elections, Turkish citizens will go
to the polls once again, this time, to elect the country’s 12th
president. This election is particularly important, as it’s the first
time a president will be elected through direct vote. Whoever will
claim victory on Sunday will be marked as the first `elected
president,’ complicating the Turkish political and administrative
system based on a parliamentary system.

One of the most important observations regarding the presidential
election process is that its law has many shortcomings that need to be
corrected. It lacks provisions to force candidates to be more
transparent regarding donations made to their campaigns; it should
extend the pre-election process for a better campaigning and
fund-raising period; it should introduce a way to increase the number
of candidates, especially from civil society; it should bring about
measures for a fair and equal competition between the candidates and
it should oblige the resignations from official duties for candidates.

It seems the current law is tailored for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an’s election to the presidency. As underlined by the election
monitors from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and Council of Europe, the pre-election process was fully based
on an unfair competition to ErdoÄ?an’s advantage. The state broadcaster
just worked for ErdoÄ?an’s campaign, while Ekmeleddin İhsanoÄ?lu and
Selahattin DemirtaÃ…? found hardly any chance to appear on the state
broadcaster’s channels.

As suggested by Kemal KılıçdaroÄ?lu, leader of the Republican People’s
Party (CHP), an obligation for the candidates to participate to a live
debate with other contenders could also be inserted into the new law,
if it is amended one day.

As for the candidates’ performances, it could be said ErdoÄ?an
capitalized on the advantage he had of being prime minister and using
the state’s means. He often used the concept `new Turkey’ and promised
his voters that he will continue to serve the country under his new
capacity. In a bid to attract votes from the Nationalist Movement
Party (MHP), he boosted his nationalistic rhetoric, while insulting
Armenians, Alevis and Kurds at the expense of being criticized for
using hate speech.

İhsanoÄ?lu’s challenge was bigger, as he first tried to make himself
known to the masses. The support he had from the CHP and the MHP was
limited to the chairmen, as neither parties provided sufficient
institutional backing to him. He could not offer much to voters except
that he will be a protocol president to represent Turkey in the world
in the most respectable and credible way. He fell short in making his
arguments in many platforms and his blunders overshadowed many of his
positive messages.

DemirtaÃ…? faced challenges and obstacles during his presidential
campaign, but his messages were praised by a large group, including
President Abdullah Gül and KılıçdaroÄ?lu. He opened his party to
different segments of society and received a positive reception from
them. He will likely increase his votes on Sunday’s polls, which would
also strengthen his hands for the Kurdish reconciliation process.

Whoever will be elected on Sunday, the presidential polls will mark a
new era for Turkey.

August/09/2014

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/as-turkey-enters-a-new-era.aspx?pageID=449&nID=70166&NewsCatID=429

Karabakh’s Guns of August

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 9 2014

Karabakh’s Guns of August

8 August 2014 – 9:05am
Thomas de Waal

More gunfire disturbed this unquiet summer over the last few days,
this time across the Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire line.

Reliable information is hard to find from the remote war zone around
Nagorny Karabakh. But information from both sides suggests that at
least 30 soldiers have died in the last few days–and perhaps many
more. Armenian sources claim thatfive Armenians and 25 Azerbaijanis
have died. An Azerbaijani general said that 71 Armenians had been
killed, while the Azerbaijani defense ministry puts its losses at 13.

That suggests there have been many more casualties on the front-line
in a week than in the whole of 2013.

The Karabakh front-line is the most militarized area of Europe. With
no peacekeepers there, it is mainly rational self-interest that keeps
the two armies of 20,000 or so men, backed up by heavy weapons, from
going back to war.

In the last 15 years, around two or three dozen people have died every
year in shooting incidents. This year, a number of factors, such as
deeper cynicism about the peace process and the continuing arms race
have made the situation much worse.

Armenia has lurched in a more pro-Russian direction, with the
country’s course set on joining Russia’s Eurasia Union. That may have
reinforced the belief in Yerevan that in the event of conflict, Moscow
will step in to defend its treaty obligations under the CIS Collective
Security Organization and come to the aid of Armenia.

For the last two months, there have been reports of more
Armenian-Azerbaijani cross-border clashes, some in border areas that
had formerly been mostly quiet, such as the one around Nakhichevan.

Many of the ceasefire violations are localized and uncoordinated, but
more serious incidents, such as raids across the line, could not
happen without political approval.

The Azerbaijanis make it their business to challenge the status quo,
make the other side nervous and remind the world of the conflict. That
is the most plausible interpretation for the last major outbreak of
violence in June 2012 which coincided with former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton’s visit to the region.

However, the Armenian side is not averse to making a political point
either.Photographs of captured bulky radio equipment published this
week by Armenians suggest a raid on Azerbaijani positions. As
presidential official Novruz Mammadovpointed out, it is unlikely his
side ordered an offensive when both Azerbaijan’s president and defense
minister were abroad last week.

So this latest violence may have been the result of a big Armenian
operation or counter-operation that came after numerous smaller
Azerbaijani attacks. Once fighting kicks off, of course, the issue of
“Who started it,” rapidly becomes irrelevant.

On August 4, the centenary of the outbreak of Europe’s “Guns of
August,” the fighting subsided somewhat–hopefully because the killing
sobered both sides up. The two presidents, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh
Sargsyan, have been invited to Sochi on August 8 and 9 for separate
talks with President Vladimir Putin, although it is not confirmed that
they will meet each other.

Putin, of course, will have his own agenda at the meeting, which may
be just as much about Ukraine as Karabakh. Without a more substantial
peace process that the two parties can buy into, the violence is all
too likely to re-occur.

From: Baghdasarian

http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/society/58614.html

BBC News’ ‘Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors’: Putting a Positive S

Breitbart News
Aug 9 2014

BBC News’ ‘Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors’: Putting a Positive
Spin on Conquest

by Kate O’Hare

(If you don’t have BBC World News on your cable system, the series is
available on iTunes and on DVD.)

While it’s not exactly a whitewash of the invasion into Europe of
Muslims from Turkey, and the subsequent centuries-long occupation,
it’s not a condemnation either.

As the U.K. Catholic Herald wondered at the time of the show’s premiere:

The title of the series tries to sneak in a rather contentious point
as a given–‘Europe’s Muslim Emperors.’ Some mistake, surely? While
large swathes of Europe did fall under Ottoman rule, for centuries
this rule was deeply resented, and the powers of Europe, or at least
most of them, did their best to expel the invader.

Even if the Ottoman Turks may have ruled parts of Europe, their
civilisation was not European, but Asiatic. As someone once said,
‘Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent
contrast to Europe.’ It would make sense to describe the Turkish
Sultans not as European, but anti-European.

And while the series has three hours to tell its story, it wastes an
inordinate amount of time with static shots of host Rageh Omaar–a
British Sunni Muslim of Somali heritage–walking hither and thither,
staring moodily across landscapes or squinting at interviewees.

Many of these sequences are repeated episode to episode, along with
verbatim sections of certain interviews, leaving one to wonder if the
budget just didn’t allow for enough material to fill three full hours,
because the whole thing, while sumptuously filmed, feels thin in
places in terms of history and information. Or perhaps, Omaar used his
own face or beautiful images to fill in gaps where there were parts of
the story he wanted to soften or minimize.

And sometimes, the images don’t live up to the words.

Omaar, the International Affairs Editor for ITV News in the U.K. (and
late of Al Jazeera English and the BBC) shows us pictures of what he
says are spectacular Ottoman buildings, but the most impressive is
Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, which no doubt was even more magnificent
when it was a Christian church in the former Constantinople, before
Ottoman conquerors stripped it of much of its art and religious
symbols.

Otherwise, Omaar does show us the lovely 16th Century Suleymaniye
Mosque in Edirne, Turkey, which is the work of Sultan Suleiman the
Magnificent’s gifted architect, Mimar Sinan.

But as it turns out, Sinan was born a Bosnian Christian, taken from
his family as a little boy as part of a system of child enslavement
called devshirme, forcibly converted to Islam and raised a Muslim.
This was a common practice of the Ottomans, who used these kidnapped
lads to help build their armies. But Omaar and his experts point out
that some went on to have glittering careers, so that’s, one supposes,
all right then.

Christian girls were also taken and forced into harems, where, as it’s
pointed out, they had the chance to become the mothers of sultans, so,
again, what’s your problem? (Apparently abducted concubines, lacking
any protection or social status, were easier to deal with than women
with troublesome relations who might want things.)

Other than the Suleymaniye Mosque, the buildings Omaar tours are not
particularly magnificent, nor do they look particularly well-kept.

At more than one point, he gazes out at the Bosphorus Straits, a view
he says “takes your breath away,” where Ottoman emperors could view
the two continents they ruled.

True, but the same could have been said of rulers of the earlier
Byzantine Empire, which under Justinian in the 6th Century, extended
into North Africa and Italy.

At one point, a British historian states that Europe is “richer for”
the Ottoman Empire, but the documentary never really explains how,
except to say there was a lot of “multiculturalism” and trade (which
one supposes would have gone on anyway). It does go to great pains to
talk about how “tolerant” the Ottomans were of Christians and Jews, so
long as they peacefully accepted their Muslim overlords, their
second-class dhimmi status, and dutifully paid their extra taxes (oh,
and if they were Christians, tithed their sons and daughters).

To Omaar’s credit, while it’s evident that he’s trying to put the best
face on the situation, he does include many dissenting voices,
including Eastern Christians, Greeks, and other descendants of people
subjugated by the Ottomans. And while some of the historians
practically glow in their admiration of the Ottomans–including some
Brits–others are more skeptical.

Interestingly, the greatest threat to the Ottoman Empire’s Muslim
hegemony was, as Omaar repeatedly states, “nationalism,” or, as
Americans like to call it, self-rule, self-determination, and basic
human freedom.

Things get stickiest at the end of the Empire around World War I, when
the Ottomans were called the “sick man of Europe.” The Empire sided
with the Germans, as the Turks went on to do also in World War II, but
Omaar’s story ends before that (as did the Ottoman Empire) and
leapfrogs into the present day.

There is an examination of the ejection of Greek Orthodox Christians
from Turkey in 1923, exemplified by the occupation by Muslim newcomers
of an entire Greek town (now abandoned because the new residents
couldn’t make a go of it), balanced by the woes of one Muslim family
who had to leave Greece (but look to be doing pretty well in modern
times).

Of course, then there’s the question of the wholesale slaughter of
Armenian Christians in Turkey, generally said to have begun in April
1915, which even the often left-leaning History Channel labels as the
“Armenian Genocide.” Omaar’s interview leaves the exact labeling of
the atrocity an open question.

In the last episode, Omaar examines the rise of leader Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk and his spearheading of the transformation of the Ottoman
theocracy into the modern secular (or at least it was, until recent
elections) Republic of Turkey.

But Omaar laments the decline of Islam as a guiding force under
Ataturk and seems pleased to see it return, with Turkey presenting an
opportunity to see if Islam and democracy can co-exist (an experiment
that is far from over). He also seems to approve of a lavish Turkish
TV-series–titled, in English, “Magnificent Century”– which adds a
dose of glamour to a depiction of Suleiman’s court.

But one merit in watching Ottomans is that it reinforces the ongoing
role of Russia in all these affairs, and how often it positioned
itself as the defender of Eastern Christianity. Current Russian
President Vladimir Putin, in partnership with Patriarch Kirill of the
Russian Orthodox Church, has made moves in Syria and most recently in
Iraq that are reviving the historic notion of Russia as the last
bastion against Christian genocide.

The series also digs into inter-Muslim disputes, between Sunni and
Shia, between Turks and Arabs, that can shed some light on the endless
Muslim-on-Muslim violence that plagues the Middle East to this day.
And it clearly shows that persecution of Christians, genocide of
Christians, abuse of Christian children and women, and so on, is
nothing new.

Reaction in the U.K. to the series has been mixed, with some Muslim
commentators wondering if not enough credit was given to Islam itself,
and the U.K.’s Catholic Herald calling it “balanced” but wondering why
Omaar didn’t go further in explaining why the Turks failed to move
into the modern era, and why the notion of a “Caliphate” is still so
enticing to them.

American viewers can find something of value in Ottomans, even if it’s
only a sketch of an issue and era not often discussed, but which does
bear on current events, provided they remember throughout that Omaar,
while making efforts to appear balanced, has a definite pro-Ottoman
and pro-Islam slant. This isn’t surprising–or unusual, as many
documentary series that also function as a personal journey of the
host have a distinct point of view–but bear it in mind.

As an aside, here’s one of Omaar’s recent tweets about the current
conflict in Israel, which may give you some sense of his mindset (it’s
only one of many, many tweets on the situation, universally in support
of the Palestinian side): “don’t think egypt with will do much to
pressure israel into concessions – both share aim of trying to
undermine hamas as much as possible.”

He’s also devoted recent tweets to soccer news, but going back to
July, has been silent himself on the persecution and murder of
Christians in Iraq. He did, however, on Aug. 6 retweet this U.K.
Telegraph story on Iraqi religious minorities stranded on a mountain
top while fleeing Islamic State militant death threats and attacks.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/08/09/BBC-News-Ottomans-Europe-s-Muslim-Emperors-Putting-a-Positive-Spin-on-Conquest

Armenian leader says tension on border with Azerbaijan escalated del

Armenian leader says tension on border with Azerbaijan escalated deliberately

FAMAGUSTA GAZETTE
* Saturday, 09 August, 2014

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan on Saturday said tensions on the
border with Azerbaijan had been escalated deliberately.

At a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi on
Saturday, Sargsyan asked him what measures Moscow was taking to help
to settle the crisis in Ukraine and said he would, in turn, speak
about “the situation in our region and the causes of the deliberate
escalation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and armed clashes
there”.

Sargsyan earlier reiterated Armenia’s commitment to a speedy
resolution of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a de facto
independent but unrecognised state in Azerbaijan populated mainly by
Armenians, on the basis of international law and join statements of
the Minsk Group co-chairs.

“We firmly believe that a new war cannot resolve the conflict,” Sargsyan said.

In his opinion, “confrontation will only lead to destabilisation,
provoke tensions and arms race, and further aggravate interstate
contradictions, foment ethnic and religious strife, and threatens the
security of other countries”.

Sargsyan said that his country would do everything it can to resolve
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue peacefully.

“We will do everything we can to solve the Karabakh problem
peacefully,” the president said.

“The [settlement] process is underway, and we are acting
constructively in this process,” Sargsyan said.

“We will do our best to find a fair solution,” he said. “The stronger
we are, the more combat capable our army is, the better our positions
at the talks will be.”

However Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could be resolved only if the territorial
integrity of his country was ensured.

“The conflict can be resolved only within the framework of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. There is no other solution, and I
have no doubts that Azerbaijan will restore its territorial
integrity,” the head of state said.

He stressed that Azerbaijan was seeking to solve the issue “peacefully”.

“We hope for a peaceful resolution yet. To this end, the Armenian side
should unconditionally comply with the resolutions of international
organisations, including the U.N. Security Council, free the occupied
territories, and Azerbaijani citizens should return to their homes.
After that peace and stability will come to the region,” Aliyev said.

He said the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was the “biggest source of
threat” in the region.

Azerbaijan and its people “will never allow a second Armenian state to
be created on their historical land”, he said.

He made it clear that Azerbaijan would “never step aside from its
position of principle”.

The head of state called for the soonest and fair settlement in
Karabakh on the basis of international law.

Speaking of the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh, he said it was “a
matter of the future”.

“We have said many times that we will never agree to any status for
Nagorno-Karabakh outside Azerbaijan, and international law supports
our positions,” the president said.

Aliyev urged Armenia to continue peace talks on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Putin, Aliyev and Sargsyan may meet in Sochi on August 10, Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday.

“We do not rule out such a meeting,” he said, adding that the leaders
of the three countries could attend a combat sambo competition in the
evening of the same day.

Speaking of Putin’s separate meetings with Aliyev and Sargsyan held
earlier in the day, Peskov said, “All sides expressed concern about
the growing tension and recent incidents that resulted in numerous
casualties.”

“The situation is in fact volatile and unstable and efforts are being
taken now to bring it under control,” he said.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict began on February 22, 1988. On November
29, 1989 direct rule in Nagorno-Karabakh was ended and Azerbaijan
regained control of the region. However later a joint session of the
Armenian parliament and the top legislative body of Nagorno-Karabakh
proclaimed the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.

On December 10, 1991, Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh held a referendum,
boycotted by local Azeris, which approved the creation of an
independent state.

The struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh escalated after both Armenia and
Azerbaijan obtained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By the
end of 1993, the conflict had caused thousands of casualties and
created hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides. An unofficial
ceasefire was reached on May 12, 1994.

As of August, 2008, the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group were
attempting to negotiate a full settlement of the conflict. On August
2, 2008, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan travelled to Moscow for talks with Dmitry Medvedev, who
was Russian president at the time. As a result, the three presidents
signed an agreement that calls for talks on a political settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. — ITAR-TASS

From: Baghdasarian

http://famagusta-gazette.com/armenian-leader-says-tension-on-border-with-azerbaijan-escalated-deliberate-p24789-69.htm

Erdogan wants to steal the votes of nationalists by insulting Armeni

Erdogan wants to steal the votes of nationalists by insulting Armenians

August 9 2014

On August 10, the first presidential elections will be held in Turkey.
Earlier, the president in Turkey was elected by the National Assembly.
Now, it will be elected directly by people. The main and possible
winning incumbent is the prime minister and the leader of `Justice and
Development’ political party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his main
rival, an opposition united candidate, former employee of the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin İhsanoglu, who was
nominated by the two strongest opposition forces of Turkey: the
Kemalist `Republican People’s’ party and `Nationalist movement’
political party. Just four or five days prior to the elections,
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become a serious
target for social criticism, as he had made such a racist expression
during the love interview to the Turkish NTV television. `I was called
a Georgian. Sorry, of course, but it had happened worse than that,
they had called me an Armenia. But I am a Turk.’ At the request of
`Aravot’, commenting on the incident, the turkologist Artak Shakaryan,
first stated that the phrase of `an Armenian’ for many years and
decades had been considered an insult in Turkey. `In Turkey,’ the
phrases of `an Armenian bitch’ and `an Armenian descendent’ are the
lowest offenses. And this is also the way people in political circles
offend each other, when they want to decry someone. Abdullah Gül was
also called an Armenian, and he was trying to get rid of this label,
the leader of `Republican People’s’ party, Kemal Kılıçdaroglu was also
called an Armenia, also Abdullah Ã-calan¦ Erdogan clearly acknowledges
that the nationalist forces now as a united candidate of opposition
have opposed a person against him who is not very much accepted by the
same nationalists. Former Secretary General of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin İhsanoglu, though nominated by the two
nationalist forces, anyway is not so much accepted by the
nationalists, therefore, Erdogan is trying to play on the votes of the
nationalists, to take on the votes, thereby, it is necessary to
introduce some nationalistic notes. Therefore, he made this phrase, `I
was called a Georgia, sorry, even worse, an Armenia,’ and it was
rather a message addressed to nationalists to be seen a little more
nationalistic, because he clearly understands that the nationalistic
votes in Turkey are always more profitable.’ In this regard, Artak
Shakaryan noted, `Once again I want to emphasize that no matter some
circles say that the Turks are changed, that Turkey is no longer the
one, taking Erdogan’s message on April 23 that people were saying that
Erdogan has been changed, the policy against Armenians has been
softened, nevertheless, we should note that the Turkish policy
currently is formulated as follows, what is bad for Armenians is good
for Turks. And as long as this mindset also exists among ordinary
people, political sentiments would not be changed.’ To our doubts
about whether this Armenophobic sentiment also exists among ordinary
people, the turkologist replied, `By saying ordinary people, let’s
recall that the ordinary people are not only the population of
Istanbul, a greater part of population lives outside of Istanbul, and
for most of them, the Armenian is the image of a `Giaour’, a
`traitor’, which is consistently seated in their conscience for
decades, who should be hated, because he is trying to steal something
from them, to return the lands.’ We also asked the turkologist whether
he sees the role of Turkey in last days’ tension in
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. A. Shakaryan replied, `Theoretically,
Turkey’s head is busy now with the situation in northern Iraq, with
own Turkmen problems, not to mention the refugees coming from Syria,
not to mention this strained election situation, not to mention the
anxiety with Kurds¦ I do not think whether Turkey has made any
proactive step with regard to the last days’ incidents, but the
Turkey’s Foreign Ministry’s statement that it sends condolences for
the victims of the Azerbaijani side, not saying a word about the
victims of the Armenian side, once again clearly indicate that Turkey
definitely cannot and is not taking a neutral position in this
conflict, it is excessively biased for Azerbaijan, and no way one can
ever trust any neutral-assuming role to Turkey, and give a hope of
mediation in this matter. Especially when there is a rapid reaction by
Azerbaijan society that they expect Turkey’s great support in possible
collision, both technically and human resources, in terms of
volunteers, like it was in the nineties full-scale war.’ In this
regard, we also asked the opinion of the turkologist about Turkey’s
`interference’ on regular base pertaining to the talks about
deployment of peacekeeping troops. `If there are ever talks about
deployment of peacekeepers in our region, Turkey, in every way, being
a member of the Minsk Group, would try doing everything to have its
forces here. And if the Russians stationed here, Azerbaijanis would
say that the Russians are pro-Armenians, so we need pro-Azerbaijan
Turkey be presented as a counterbalance. In this case, Artsakh and
Armenia should fight until the last drop of blood to prevent it. If
Turkish troops enter into the region, it would be extremely difficult
to take them out from there. The border closure until now, acting in
the Karabakh war by Azerbaijani side and other facts prove that Turkey
does not have a neutral position, and we should fight at all costs to
prevent its access.’

Melania BARSEGHYAN
Read more at:

From: Baghdasarian

http://en.aravot.am/2014/08/09/166410/

BAKU: Europe Stand Beside Azerbaijan Over Peaceful Resolution Of Nag

EUROPE STAND BESIDE AZERBAIJAN OVER PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Aug 8 2014

By Sara Rajabova

The international community recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as integral
part of Azerbaijan, ignoring it means Armenian politics is playing
with fire.

German MP Steffen Kanitz (CDU faction) made the remarks answering
questions of The European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS) on the
Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Kanitz said he supports the resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.

The MP further noted that the application of the principle of
territorial integrity in Europe was undisputed until the violent
aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan.

“By occupying a great part of Azerbaijan’s state territory and
Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia has noticeably placed itself outside the
valid legal standards. Such a behavior cannot be tolerated by us,
parliamentarians,” Kanitz said.

He further said the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
has made clear that Armenia’s occupation policy clearly violates
international law.

“Guided by the resolution, Germany and Europe stand beside Azerbaijan,
when it is about a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Directly after the end of the Soviet Union, Armenia illegally occupied
the Nagorno-Karabakh region and in addition to that seven surrounding
Azerbaijani regions and expelled one million refugees from their
homelands. It must be clear that this is an insupportable situation.

Therefore we will further increase our efforts for a peaceful solution
of the conflict,” Kanitz underlined.

He said the European Community fiercely condemns Armenia’s actions
against international law, human rights and freedom, adding that
Armenia must be held responsible and accountable also internationally.

“We will no longer be able to tolerate Armenia’s aggressive occupation
policy,” he stressed.

The precarious cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia was reached
after a lengthy war that displaced over a million Azerbaijanis and
has been in place between the two South Caucasus countries since 1994.

Since the hostilities, Armenian armed forces have occupied over
20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

The UN Security Council has adopted four resolutions on Armenia’s
withdrawal from the Azerbaijani territory, but they have not been
enforced to this day.

Peace talks mediated by Russia, France and the U.S. have produced no
results so far.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.azernews.az/azerbaijan/69537.html

Azerbaijan Threatens To Punish Armenia For Sabotage At Mingechaur Re

AZERBAIJAN THREATENS TO PUNISH ARMENIA FOR SABOTAGE AT MINGECHAUR RESERVOIR

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 8 2014

8 August 2014 – 12:22pm

The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry has threatened to punish Armenia for
any attempts of sabotage on the Mingechaur Dam, press service of the
ministry reports.

Azerbaijani armed forces may hit any facilities on occupied territories
and Armenia itself, according to the ministry. It emphasized that
missile will annihilate Yerevan if necessary.

Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Oganyan talked about sabotage on
the Mingechaur Reservoir.

From: Baghdasarian