Author: Dabaghian Diana

CONFLICTS THAWING FROM WITHIN
By Sergei Balashov

Russia Profile
id=International&articleid=a1221063672
Sept 10 2008
Russia

The Cases of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Require Regional
Attention, First and Foremost

The recent crisis between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia has
created speculation over possible further eruptions over the "frozen
conflict" territories of the former Soviet Union, namely the regions
of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. However, instead of continuing
the recent trend in conflict resolution, rather than seeing them as
a playground for grander, political pursuits between international
powers, the troubled regions of the CIS need a new localized approach
in solving their impending crises.

The war in South Ossetia and the recognition that followed of two
Georgian breakaway regions by Russia set one’s sights back on the
two remaining so-called "frozen conflict" republics in the CIS –
Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite the considerable diplomatic
efforts, it still seemed that the end of the crises was further away
than it was thought, once again shedding light on the insufficient
political mechanisms within the CIS. The odds of another flare-up are
not high, but the situation, which has been dragging on for almost two
decades, could be seriously harmed by further prolongation and made
more complicated by the growing tensions between Moscow and the West.

"When the Belavezh Accords were signed, I don’t think the heads of
the states who signed them thought of the legacy they were leaving
to the future independent states," said Tudor Sorochanu, a Moldavian
political scientist.

The new states were left to deal with their own problems alone, the
territorial disputes of which stood out as the most heated debates,
gravely tarnishing the relationships between the countries. South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, which were recognized by Russia in the end after
a brief military feud between Russia and Georgia, constitute only one
half of the breakaway regions on the CIS territory. The separatist
ambitions of the other two, Moldavia’s Transnistria and Azerbaijan’s
predominantly Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh (the latter regarded by Baku
as an Armenian-occupied territory), also caused bloody armed conflicts
in the late 1980s and early 1990s and have since been stalled amid
peace talks mediated by multiparty international organizations.

These cases, along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were dubbed
"frozen conflicts," a notion which lasted until August 2008 when the
war erupted in Ossetia, resulting in – with Russia’s assistance –
partial recognition of the de facto independent republics on the
international level.

The recent events have compelled the international community to treat
the two remaining troubled regions with more caution and speed up the
process of sealing up the chasms between the separatists and their
claimant governments to prevent any bloodshed.

Apart from Russia and Nicaragua, the Georgian breakaway regions were
almost immediately recognized by Transnistria; yet the reactions on
the streets of its capital city of Tiraspol were mixed.

"In view of the new events, some people in Transnistria think it’s
going to serve as a premise for their independence, yet the majority
believe that Russia will now have a desire to show that its views
are free of unipolarity and give the region away to Moldavia,"
said Sorochanu.

The conflicts surrounding the four troubled regions have one thing in
common – they all have resulted in military confrontations, sometimes
on more than one occasion. Now, following the war in Georgia, it is
widely assumed that any military solutions are out of the question.

"The Caucasus events prodded the international community to find
ways in resolving these situations, but now everyone is talking about
peaceful solutions," said Sorochanu. "That’s what Moldavia has always
wanted," he added.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has since met with both the President
of the unrecognized republic of Transnistria Igor Smirnov and Moldavian
President Petr Voronin, cautioning them not to resort to military
means in solving the crisis; in doing so, he virtually guaranteed
Tiraspol protection, should it share the fate of South Ossetia.

About 100,000 Russian citizens currently reside in Transnistria,
giving Moscow a pretext to respond to any military action, just
like in South Ossetia. After talks with Medvedev, Smirnov lifted
the moratorium on any talks with the Moldavian government which was
imposed as a result of Moldavia’s failure to condemn Georgia’s actions.

"I recently spoke to the Polish ambassador in Moldova, [Krzysztof
Suprovich]. He said that a positive resolution of the Transnistrian
crisis can serve as a good example for the EU in solving regional
crises," said Sorochanu.

The resumption of negotiations, as well as Moldavia’s willingness to
receive Russia’s support in bringing an end to an almost 20-year
dispute, is seen as a major step forward after the five party
negotiations between Transnistria, Moldavia, OSCE, Ukraine and Russia
were frozen in 2006. The talks between Voronin and Smirnov resumed only
in 2008, following the intervention of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis has been considered a more
distant prospect than the Transnistrian case and a more likely scene
for a military conflict to erupt.

The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was eased when Turkey acted as
a mediator. With its close ties to Azerbaijan, Turkey could be very
efficient in making a positive impact in bringing the dialogue between
Baku and Yerevan closer in search of progress.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul made his first official visit to
Armenia in early September, marking a new beginning in the bilateral
relations between the two countries, which have been marred by issues
surrounding the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire and Armenia’s
feud with Azerbaijan. Gul held talks with Armenian and Azerbaijani
officials about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and urged Azerbaijan
to be more open to dialogue with Armenia.

"There is a difference between the Georgian republics and
Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria," said Alexei Vlasov, head of the
Moscow-based Center for Social and Political Processes in Post-Soviet
Countries. "Over the past four to five years, the conflict in
Georgia has been an issue between Russia and Georgia, and we see more
participants in both Transnistria and especially Nagorno-Karabakh."

The recent developments are seen as a positive, but an excessively
deep involvement of third parties could eventually hamper the progress.

"Non-regional players are becoming more and more active in their
attempts to draw Georgia and Azerbaijan into anti-Russian military
and political alliances; it is becoming clear that the multilateral
involvement policy that Moldavia and Azerbaijan are following will not
allow them to balance between Moscow and Washington for too long,"
Vlasov noted. "If the confrontation between Moscow and Washington
grows, I’m not sure Moldavia and Azerbaijan will be able to maintain
a balance; then the odds of the resolution of these conflicts will
diminish considerably," he added.

Moldavia and Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia, are members of the
CIS, a Russian-dominated international organization comprised of
post-Soviet countries. Over the past years, it has been seen as weak
and not doing enough to establish strong political ties between the
member countries, and has been regarded as a failure in terms of
setting up and maintaining mechanisms of resolving tensions on the
post-Soviet territory.

All these factors spark the necessity of seeking the involvement of
third parties which in the long term could complicate the situation,
rather than appease it.

"I am certain that the problems that occur between the former Soviet
republics should be solved within the CIS," said Azerbaijani political
scientist Rashad Rzakuliev. "Its functionality and significance
depend on Russia; as of today, this structure is absolutely amorphous,
it doesn’t work."

"We need straight rules for mutual relations in the CIS which should
be set by Russia," said Rzakuliev.

YOUNG MEMBER OF RPA ARMEN ASHOTIAN TO HEAD ONE OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEES

Noyan Tapan

Se p 9, 2008

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 9, NOYAN TAPAN. Armen Ashotian, a member of the NA
"Republican Party of Armenia" (RPA) faction, was elected chairman
of the National Assembly Standing Committee of Science, Education,
Culture, Youth Issues and Sports on September 8. During a secret
ballot, 74 out of 82 NA deputies voted for him – the only nominated
candidate, 5 voted against, and 3 voting papers were recognized
as invalid.

Noting in his speech that the Standing Committee of Science,
Education, Culture, Youth Issues and Sports is the most successful
and well operating one of the parliamentary standing committees,
A. Ashotian at the same time pointed out the problems that exist in
these spheres. In his words, as the head of the standing committee he
will give priority to education, in which there are numerous problems
concerning all the links – from the preschool to higher educational
one. He said that even state universities do not show a state approach
to the problem of training experts necessary for economy. A. Ashotian
underlined the necessity of increasing the role of applied science
for developing the country’s economy. The newly-elected chairman
of the committee also spoke about the necessity to solve the mass
media-related problems jointly with journalistic organizations and
to review the status of religious organizations.

To recap, the post of the chairman of the NA Standing Committee of
Science, Education, Culture, Youth Issues and Sports was vacant after
the appointment of its former chairwoman Hranush Hakobian as the head
of the MFA State Committee of the Diaspora.

VENT D’OPTIMISME EN TURQUIE APRES LA VISITE HISTORIQUE DE GUL EN ARMENIE

Les Echos
8 Septembre 2008
France

Le president turc, Abdullah Gul, est revenu de sa visite historique
en Armenie avec des espoirs de normalisation avec son voisin. Premier
president turc a se rendre en Armenie depuis l’independance de cette
ex-Republique sovietique en 1991, Abdullah Gul a rencontre samedi son
homologue, Serge Sarkissian, avec lequel il a assiste a Erevan au match
Turquie-Armenie de qualification pour le Mondial 2010 de football. "
Je pense que ma visite a demoli une barrière psychologique dans le
Caucase ", s’est felicite Gul. Les chefs de la diplomatie armenienne
et turque, Edouard Nalbandian et Ali Babacan, se rencontreront fin
septembre a New York, lors de l’assemblee generale des Nations unies.

–Boundary_(ID_FtVuTEqip8ieRSQy6RzTrQ)–

THE CAUCASUS: SMALL WAR, BIG DAMAGE
By Soner Cagaptay

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
C06.php?CID=1176
Sept 8 2008
DC

Georgia’s attempt to take South Ossetia has backfired. In a
blitzkrieg, Russia drove the Georgian military completely out of South
Ossetia. Moscow also made forays into Georgian territory. Many people
in Turkey and across the transatlantic community have interpreted
the war as a by-product of Georgia’s aggressive attitude, and then
propagated a neutral position toward the conflict. Whatever is the
cause of the war, Russia’s foray into Georgia cannot be dismissed
as nuisance. The war has immense negative ramifications for the
transatlantic community, including Turkey and the United States,
as well as the European Union, or EU.

Russia’s motives

The major impact of the war has been in the realm of energy and
pipeline politics. Russia may not be a global superpower anymore,
but it is certainly an "energy power." Moscow’s strength lies in
immense oil and natural gas reserves. Such that, even though Russia’s
population of 145 million is twice as big as the Turkish population,
the Russian economy is smaller than its Turkish counterpart if the
energy sector’s contribution is subtracted.

Energy sector’s behemoth dominance in the Russian economy shapes
Russia’s foreign policy motives. Russian gas giant Gazprom’s policies
and Russian foreign policy serve each other’s mutual interests. Russia
takes advantage of exorbitant energy prices to increase its political
and military power — the arms industry is the second largest sector of
the Russian economy after energy. Energy politics is key to Russia’s
military and political ascent especially in the former USSR. In order
to grow further, Russia wants to achieve monopoly over the global
distribution of oil and natural gas from the former USSR countries.

This rationale seems to be the driving factor vision of Georgia. When
the Cold War ended and the USSR was dissolved, the United States
allied with Turkey to create a blue print to bring the newly explored
oil and natural gas from the Caspian basin to the global markets. The
shared U.S.-Turkish vision aimed to market Azeri, Kazakh, and Turkmen
oil and gas to the world, not via Russia, but through the East-West
corridor spanning the Caspian Sea and Turkey.

Georgia and Armenia

The U.S.-Turkish vision worked well in the pre-9/11 era when Russia
was under the politically incompetent rule of Boris Yeltsin and Moscow
was economically weak due to low oil and natural gas prices. As a
first step along the East-West corridor, the U.S. and Turkey backed
the building of Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan oil and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas
pipelines. The second phase of the U.S.-Turkish vision envisaged
extending these pipelines; east to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and
west to Europe. A big part of that vision was the Nabucco pipeline
between Turkey and Austria, the poster child for EU’s energy policy
that would have for the first time allowed Europeans to buy Caspian
gas without Russian intermediary.

Russia’s occupation of Georgia has dealt a blow to such plans. Georgia
and Armenia are two countries along the East-West corridor that lie
between the Caspian basin and Turkey. Since Turkey’s border with
Armenia is closed, this leaves Georgia as a key country along the
corridor. Georgia is mutilated by Russia and unstable. It is hard to
imagine today how any energy company would invest in extensions to the
East-West corridor, along which Georgia has become the weak link. By
occupying Georgia, Russia has exhausted the U.S-Turkish plans to
boost the East-West corridor and make Turkey an entrepot of Caspian
energy. Moscow has also preemptively blocked the EU’s plans to buy
energy from the Caspian basin without having to go through Russia.

Back in the USSR

A second transatlantic casualty of Russia’s invasion of Georgia is
the West’s political influence in the former USSR. Since the 1990s,
Turkey and the U.S. have managed to wield influence over countries in
the former USSR, especially Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, building
military and political ties with these states. Now that Russia has
taught Georgia a lesson about its pro-Western stance, Ukraine and
Azerbaijan will think twice next time they have a chance to take cue
from the United States or Turkey, respectively. Russia’s foray into
Georgia has demonstrated to the countries of the former USSR that
Russia is the regional hegemon and that they better listen to it.

As long as oil and natural gas prices remain high, Russia will project
further political and military influence over the Caucuses and the
Black Sea basin, and such influence will come at the expense of the
transatlantic community. Russia’s invasion of Georgia is a milestone
that marks the dawn of a new era. A small war has indeed produced
big results.

Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy and a visiting professor at Bahcesehir University, would
like to thank Melis Evcimik for her assistance with this article.

CASPIAN MISTAKE
Alexander Gabuev

RusData Dialine – Russian Press Digest
September 8, 2008 Monday

Azeri leadership refused to back U.S.-sponsored Nabucco

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney finished his tour of the South
Caucasus, which was intended to strengthen Washington’s positions in
its struggle for Caspian energy resources. The visit he paid to Tbilisi
yesterday went smoothly as expected. However, the talks he held in
Baku Wednesday failed. According to the information of Kommersant,
Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev gave his American guest a cold
welcome and sent a clear message that Baku won’t support the idea
to redirect the energy resources pipelines so that they would omit
Russia. He came to that conclusion watching the developments in the
neighboring Georgia. Money instead of tanks

On Thursday at 11 a.m. Dick Cheney arrived from Baku in Tbilisi,
where Georgia’s Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze. Before the meeting of
the U.S. Vice President with Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili
Georgian Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaya revealed the
talks’ agenda to Kommersant. "First, Dick Cheney wants to demonstrate
the U.S. support to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine," he said. "Second,
during the negotiations the parties will discuss the security of
communication lines that allow shipping the Caspian energy resources
to the West omitting Russia."

After the talks in the new residence of Georgia’s head-of-state,
Mikheil Saakashvili stated at the joint press-conference, "Georgia
feels the U.S. support, which is strong as never before." The
journalists had a chance to assess the strength of that support
following Dick Cheney’s address. The U.S. Vice President said that
Washington allocates $1 billion to restore the Georgian economy. "We
stand in solidarity with the people of Georgia. After your nation
won its freedom in the Rose Revolution, America came to the aid
of this courageous young democracy. We are doing so again, as you
work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory – and an
illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country’s borders
by force that has been universally condemned by the free world,"
the Vice President stated. "Russia’s actions have cast grave doubt on
Russia’s intentions and on its reliability as an international partner
– not just in Georgia but across this region and indeed throughout
the international system." Besides, Dick Cheney reiterated that
Washington fully supports Georgia’s NATO ambitions. "Georgia will be
in our alliance," he claimed.

Nevertheless, according to the sources of Kommersant in the Georgian
Chancellery, the talks of Mikheil Saakashvili and Dick Cheney didn’t
go as smoothly as their press-conference did. The discussion mainly
focused on the security of the existing pipelines, which were laid
in Georgia omitting Russia, and the project of the Trans-Caspian
gas pipeline Nabucco. Dick Cheney made no secret of the fact that
the U.S. is ready to provide the security of these pipelines using
political methods only. So, Georgia won’t get military assistance
from the U.S. now.

By the way, Wednesday, U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice made
this position public. "It is not yet time to look at the questions of
assistance on the military side," she stated in Washington. However,
Mikheil Saakashvili declared ready to further support American energy
projects in the region. According to the sources of Kommersant, he
promised to Dick Cheney that Tbilisi will support the Nabucco project
"whatever" in case the U.S. gets the approval of Georgia’s neighbors,
Baku, first of all.

The Baku emissary

Meanwhile, according to the information of Kommersant, Dick Cheney’s
visit to Azerbaijan he made on Wednesday turned out complete
failure. The guest of honor, who came in Baku for the first time,
was met neither by President Ilham Aliyev nor Prime Minister Artur
Rasizade. Instead, First Deputy Prime Minister Yagub Eyubov and Foreign
Office Chief Elmar Mammadyarov met Dick Cheney in the airport. As
to Ilham Aliyev, he was in no hurry to receive Mr Cheney. That’s why
the U.S. Vice President first went to a meeting with BP President in
Azerbaijan Bill Schrader and Chevron Azerbaijan top managers. Then he
visited the U.S. Embassy in Baku and held a meeting with Ambassador
Anne E. Derse. It was not earlier than in the evening that Dick Cheney
went to the residence of Azerbaijan’s President.

According to the sources of Kommersant with the Office of Azerbaijan’s
President, the talks turned out pretty tough, in spite of the fact that
Dick Cheney and Ilham Aliyev have had close ties since Mr cheney worked
with Halliburton and Mr Aliyev was SOCAR (Azerbaijan’s state-run oil
company) Vice President. They discussed the war in Georgia and the
prospects of constructing the Nabucco gas pipeline. According to the
information of Kommersant, Dick Cheney informed Ilham Aliyev that the
U.S. will support its allies in the region and intends to promote the
project of the gas pipeline omitting Russia. Nonetheless, Ilham Aliyev
sent a clear message that although he appreciates the relations with
Washington, he is not going to have a row with Moscow. In fact it
meant that under the present circumstances Baku decided to bide its
time without fostering the Nabucco project. Kommersant interlocutors
with the Presidential Office said that Dick Cheney was irritated by
the outcome of the discussion – he even refused to attend a banquet
in his honor.

Ilham Aliyev’s reluctance to support Washington quarreling with
Russia is easy to explain. Baku regrded Tbilisi’s definitively losing
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well as Russia’s tanks entering
Georgia as a signal to everyone in the region who is willing to join
NATO. Azerbaijan’s budget incurs great losses: because of the explosion
at the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline on August 12 – Turkey put
the blame on the Kurdistan Workers Party – and the pauses of the work
of the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline and Baku-Supsa oil pipeline,
energy carriers export from Azerbaijan in the western direction was
suspended. At the same time Baku has no claims to Russia. Moreover,
according to the information of Kommersant, Azerbaijan’s authorities
expressed their gratitude to the Russian Federation because during
the military operation and bombardments of the Georgian territory no
BTC-related facilities were destroyed.

Nevertheless, Baku can’t overhaul its stance towards the pipelines
on the territory of Georgia. Azerbaijan is said to have increased
the workload of the Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipeline. It concluded
that in the present situation it’s more secure to transport gas
to Europe via Russia, rather than Georgia and Turkey. Even more
so in June Gazprom offered to buy Azerbaijan’s gas at any volumes
according to the European pricing formula. During his visit to Baku
in July Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ilham Aliyev agreed to
launch negotiations concerning the matter. It seems the talks will
be accelerated, just like the pace of Baku and Moscow’s developing
closer relations.

The Russian leaders have already started work in this direction. In
the evening after the talks of Dick Cheney and Ilham Aliyev finished,
Dmitry Medvedev called Azerbaijan’s President. Sources in the Kremlin
explained to Kommersant the necessity of the telephone conversation
with Dmitry Medvedev’s desire to bring home to Ilham Aliyev, one of
the region’s most influential players, Russia’s position regarding
Georgia. Even more so Azerbaijan has a territorial dispute with
Armenia, which remains unresolved. "Armenian leader Serzh Sargsyanhas
recently visited Moscow and discussed the situation over South
Ossetia and Abkhazia during his talks with Dmitry Medvedev. The
Russian President thought it important to discuss those matters with
the Azerbaijani party as well because Baku belongs neither to SCO
nor CSTO – the organizations Russia has intensified contacts with,"
a source in the Kremlin told Kommersant. In her turn, Press-Secretary
of the Russian President Natalya Timakova told Kommersant that during
their conversation the leader of Russia and Azerbaijan discussed a
possibility of a meeting in the near future.

Hurriyet, Turkey
Sept 6 2008

TURKISH PREMIER INTERVIEWED ON RELATIONS WITH EU, ARMENIA, RUSSIA

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan replied to journalists’ questions
on his way back from his one-day visit to Damascus. He strongly
criticized CHP [Republican People’s Party] leader Deniz Baykal for
opposing President Gul’s visit to Yerevan, which he described as an
initiative to obstruct a plot. He said: "The uneasiness the left-wing
faction feels because of the absence of a leader has reached a peak
level." Prime Minister Erdogan replied to the questions that were put
to him by 10 journalists as follows:

Relations with EU: The Routine will not be disrupted

[Question] You found an opportunity to hold private talks with
President Nicholas Sarkozy. Can you comment on what you discussed?

[Erdogan] Yes, we discussed Turkey’s negotiations with the EU. The
talks are continuing in a satisfactory way. It seems that the routine
in the process will be maintained. We said that a problem must not
arise in the EU process. He responded by saying "we will take the
necessary steps." He viewed President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Armenia
as a very positive development.

[Question] Would it not have been better if the prime minister visited
Yerevan?

[Erdogan] That would be a wrong assessment. First of all, President
Gul’s visit is not linked with political relations. The president of
Armenia invited the president of Turkey to watch a football
match. President Gul’s response to the invitation would affect
Turkey’s reputation in the world. Had he not decided to go to Armenia,
he would have been accused of not even attending a sports
activity. However, his decision obstructed such a plot. Why is the
matter not assessed in that way? The Caucasus Cooperation Pact should
also be considered. We have firmly established four of its
legs. Armenia is the next country. My foreign minister will discuss
the matter with his Armenian counterpart during the football match or
when the game ends. President Gul will also discuss it with President
Sarkisyan.

[Question] Can you comment on CHP leader Deniz Baykal’s statement that
President Gul "should also place a wreath at the [Armenian] genocide
monument?

[Erdogan] President Gul does not need advice from Deniz Baykal on
where he should place a wreath. I do not welcome such a statement
against the president of my country.

[Question] According to the outcome of a public opinion poll by the
Metropolis Research Company, only 4 per cent of the people trust Deniz
Baykal.

[Erdogan] The popularity of the leaders and the popularity of the
political parties differ in Turkey at the present time. The questions
on the confidence the people have in the leaders brought up one digit
figures. The votes of the leaders and those of the political parties
differ in Turkey. The left-wing faction has its own votes. The results
of the opinion polls in that faction and the outcome of our surveys
show that the absence of a leader in the left wing has reached a peak
level.

[Question] Are your votes higher than the votes of your party?

[Erdogan] According to a recent survey, my party’s votes are higher.

Football match in Armenia: Ambitious game

[Question] What is the result you expect from the national football
match in Armenia?

[Erdogan] Ambition will affect the technical capabilities of the
players. I expect the Turkish team to win under normal conditions. The
charisma we had in the European championship must not be harmed.

[Question] The under-21 years old national team lost its game. There
was disgusting cheering…

[Erdogan] Coach Fatih Terim called me. Preparations were made [in
Armenia] to welcome the team. We have established that serious
preparations have been made to welcome President Gul.

[Question] Turkey was unsuccessful in the Olympic Games. Do you have a
plan on the matter?

[Erdogan] I have discussed the problem with the ministers and the head
of the General Directorate of Youth and Sports. I will also discuss it
with the minister of national education and the head of the High
Education Council. Training must start from primary or secondary
schools. In fact, we have to establish universities for that
purpose. Some of the universities must move ahead in various
fields. The Istanbul Technical University was very successful in
basketball for some time in the past. The new rector of the university
informed me a few days ago that they decided to have their team move
up to the first league again. We might transfer foreign coaches for
the teams. We will study the matter.

Relations with Russia: Strategic neighbour

[Question] Can you comment on the crisis between Turkey and Russia and
the problem in the Caucasus?

[Erdogan] The Caucasus Cooperation Pact is important. The United
States is our ally. But, Russia is our strategic neighbour. We buy
two-thirds of the energy we need from Russia. That country is Turkey’s
partner number one in trade. It is the number one country in
tourism. No one must expect us to ignore all that. Our allies must
adopt an understanding approach. We have not deviated even by a single
millimetre from the Montreux Agreement. Neither the United States nor
NATO has created a problem. The ships, tonnages, and dates are
completely in accordance with the agreements. Various countries have
called for changes in the Montreux Agreement. However, we are not in
favour of that. The commander of our naval forces held talks with his
Russian counterpart on one of our ships. Similar meetings might
contribute to peace in the Black Sea region. The EU officially
supported the Caucasus Cooperation Platform today. Turkey is a
regional country. It solves its own problems. Our problems must not
make others uneasy.

[Question] The diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East are yielding
positive results. Can you comment on the EU reaction?

[Erdogan] We have taken resolute steps for many years. Trust is very
important. The sides concerned trust us very much. Many initiatives
were made in Israel in connection with the kidnapped
soldiers. However, a result has not been achieved yet. They expect us
to help them. Of course, we have not assumed a role on the
matter. Egypt will feel uneasy if we consider the situation and assume
a role. We can take action if Israel officially asks us to help. The
Gulf Cooperation Council refrained from concluding an agreement with a
foreign country until now. It has concluded an agreement with us for
the first time. That is very important. Positive developments area
taking place in the political, military, and economic fields. In fact,
the leader of one of the Gulf States has said, "We are satisfied with
all your contractors, except one." These are positive
developments. Turkey’s businessmen will have larger shares in the
future.

We will maintain our political work under the existing conditions

[Question] Reports say that the reasoned decision of the
Constitutional Court on the closure case against the AKP [Justice and
Development Party] will limit the sphere of politics. Can you comment?

[Erdogan] We will respect the decision of the Constitutional
Court. That is the only alternative we have. We will maintain our
political work under the existing conditions. However, I disagree with
the assessments that are made by the opposition parties. Neither I nor
my colleagues agree with the effort that is made to describe the AKP
as the focal point of anti-secular activities. The AKP is the
strongest political party in Turkey. Our people will respond to us in
a most favourable way in the elections that will be held in
2009. Legality in democracies depends on the people. The decisions are
made by the people. It is not up to the CHP to make decisions on
legality. The CHP was not even able to secure the support of the 20
per cent of the electorate for its legality during the elections on 22
July 2007. In fact, it should thank the Democratic Left Party for the
support it received. The legality of the AKP was supported by the 47
per cent of electorate. The outcome of the elections in 2009 will be
the most appropriate reaction to the controversy.

[Question] Do you expect votes from the political parties that are not
as fortunate as you are in Diyarbakir? Do you expect votes from their
supporters?

[Erdogan] There is no reason to prevent them from voting for us. My
party’s situation in southeastern Turkey is very favourable. We will
disclose our candidates in areas which do not support the AKP earlier.

[translated from Turkish]

Milliyet, Turkey
Sept 6 2008

TURKISH FORMER FOREIGN MINISTERS OPPOSE PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO ARMENIA

President Abdullah Gul’s decision to go to Armenia has been criticized
by former Foreign Ministers.

Ilter Turkmen: "In my view, Gul should not have gone to Armenia. I am
quite worried about the ramifications of the trip.

"It is clear that Turkey could not accept the slightest untoward
situation during the visit. During the Yerevan visit of Foreign
Ministry Deputy Undersecretary Unal Cevikoz, in addition to security,
discussions were held on establishing a Joint Historical Commission.

"For whatever reason, this was given priority, whereas in my view, the
real thing that needs to be resolved is the border issue. I do not
expect any agreement to come out of the meeting between Gul and
[Armenian President Serzh] Sargsyan."

Mumtaz Soysal: "Gul’s approach of combining politics with the match is
very wrong. A policy of getting out one step in front is being pursued
here.

"Gul’s listening to [US President George W.] Bush prior to making his
decision strikes me as wrong.

"I think that Gul will encounter incidents there that will be at the
level of rowdiness. I am certain that even a 1-0 victory by Armenia
will be published in the Western media with a headline of ‘Revenge for
1915.’ Essentially, the real match took place between Gul and [Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.

"While Erdogan said ‘he definitely has to go,’ Gul was cautious. Gul
has tried to look good to the United States, and Erdogan to the EU."

Sukru Sina Gurel: "This decision by Abdullah Gul is very wrong. While
the genocide and a territorial claim are in the Armenian constitution,
I ask ‘why this visit?’ Perhaps it is a gamble…

"Diplomacy, however, is not a matter of playing at the gambling
table. It is certain that this visit by Gul will be used
inappropriately by Armenia.

"Even if this meeting should be seen as football diplomacy, it could
be called fancy footwork diplomacy, and this means a discrediting of
diplomacy."

[translated from Turkish]

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Sept 6 2008

Department head of President’s Office: `Turkish President’s visit to
Armenia is not the one to be forgotten tomorrow’

[ 06 Sep 2008 15:00 ]

Novruz Mammadov: `We will see everything in a month or two. Maybe,
those criticizing this visit will repent for its
consequences. Theoretically, it is also possible’

Baku. Elnur Mammadli ` APA. `Turkey is our friend, brother and
partner. Our interests coincide almost in all issues,’ Head of
International Relations Department of the President’s Office Novruz
Mammadov said in his interview to APA, while commenting on Turkish
President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Armenia. He said Azerbaijan and
Turkey were strategic allies. Saying that this alliance has deep
roots, the department head considers this cooperation will last long.

`Turkish state, its leaders have the right to make independent
decisions in all issues. We cannot take a stance on it. Azerbaijani
and Turkish media publish various views. But I think it is not right
to express resolute, radical and concrete position. This is a delicate
step. We should wait. Turkish President’s visit to Armenia is not the
one to be forgotten tomorrow. Nobody knows now what the position of
Turkey and Armenia was, what they talked about, whether steps were
taken forward or backward. All we can do now is to wait for the
results. This is a tactical step. I think Azerbaijan and Turkey have
common strategic target, it continues and will continue. No doubt,
during this visit Turkish President will also have concrete position
in the issue on Azerbaijan. I cannot say how the results will be’, he
said.

Asked about the influence of Abdullah Gul’s visit on Azerbaijan-Turkey
relations, Novruz Mammadov said it was right to link the relations
between the countries to this visit. He said the relations between
Azerbaijan and Turkey had been determined by the heads of the states
and that course was unchangeable.

`Perhaps, some give themselves up to the feelings and express their
opinion on the issue. Generally, state leader’s visit to a country is
considered as an end of a period in diplomatic ties, and the beginning
of new relations. Such questions arise since it is an extraordinary
step by the Turkish leader. This is the case I am mostly concerned
over. Armenian authorities are in a difficult situation now and when
they are in such situation they do not usually follow any ethics. They
can take any step in this condition. However, it does not mean they
will stick on this principle forever. Today, Iran is the main
guarantor of Armenia. They should be expected any maneuver, hypocrisy
because they are in a very difficult situation indeed’, he said.

As for the talks that Gul’s visit favors Iran more than Turkey,
Mammadov stated that it might be so.

`But Armenia is not given what it needs. This visit does not mean
Turkey will open the borders with Armenia. The parties will probably
discuss problems between them during the visit. It is possible to
express opinion on the visit when the discussions are announced in
details. Our position on the issue is that Turkey has made the
decision and we approve it’, he said.

Mammadov noted that he could not say whether Gul’s visit was initially
agreed with Azerbaijan.

`There is no need for such an agreement. Turkey is an independent
country, so it can take any step although we are in friendly
relations. Azerbaijani and Turkish communities are deeply concerned in
formal side of the issue and try to come to a logical
conclusion. There is no need to make such hasty decisions in
policy. We will see everything in a month or two. Maybe, those
criticizing this visit will repent for its
consequences. Theoretically, it is also possible’, he added.

Compiled from
Yeni Azarbaycan, Azerbaijan
Azadliq, Azerbaijan
Yeni Musavat, Azerbaijan
Zerkalo, Azerbaijan
Sept 5 2008

Azeri press offers differing views on Turkish leader’s planned visit
to Armenia

The Azerbaijani ruling party’s newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan has harshly
criticized Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s planned visit on 6
September to Armenia to watch a football game between the Turkish and
Armenian national teams.

"Gul, president of Turkey which is the closest friend of Azerbaijan
and its strategic partner, will visit an enemy country, Armenia, which
has territorial claims to both our country and Turkey and which
murders people, having forgotten the fundamental principles ‘One
nation – two countries’ and ‘Azerbaijan’s grief is our grief and its
joy is our joy’ which describe our historical relationship," Yeni
Azarbaycan said on 5 September. "It does not matter whether Gul will
meet government officials or watch a football game in Yerevan. What is
important is that in this way Turkey will stab its friend in the
back. It will not matter whether this step is explained and linked
with enforcement rules required by the globalizing world, pressure by
an Anglo-Saxon-Jewish alliance that is trying to dictate a unipolar
world order or Russian propaganda."

The paper also recalled that Abdullah Gul himself criticized the then
Turkish President Suleyman Demirel in 1993 over the visit to Ankara of
former Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan.

"Although 15 years have passed since then, nothing has changed. But
Gul is going to Yerevan to watch a football match," Yeni Azarbaycan
said.

The opposition Azadliq newspaper said that despite criticism of Gul’s
planned visit in Azerbaijan, the Baku government welcomed the move.

Commenting on the stance of the Azerbaijani authorities, the deputy
chairman of the People’s Front of Azerbaijan Party, Nuraddin Mammadli,
told Azadliq that the Baku government had coordinated its reaction
with Ankara.

"Because the Azerbaijani government has reached a critical point due
to the recent developments in the region and it does not need another
headache with Turkey," Mammadli said. "On the other hand, the
Azerbaijani government has no levers to influence the current
processes between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey has been taking the
latest steps with the EU’s consent."

In the meantime, the leader of the opposition Musavat party, Isa
Qambar, said that Azerbaijan should trust Turkey.

"I believe that we should be able to trust Turkey and rely on it,"
Qambar said in an extensive interview with Yeni Musavat newspaper on 5
September. "I am confident that Turkey is a country that seriously
understands that it is responsible for the fate of both the Turkish
people and Turkic nations and Turkic republics."

Qambar also said that if Azerbaijan wants Turkey to become a mediator
in the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh, it should
accept contacts between Ankara and Yerevan.

Independent Zerkalo newspaper said that Azerbaijan should not
dramatize the forthcoming talks between Armenia and Turkey and wait
for their outcome. "The opening of borders between Turkey and Armenia
will lead to the creation of qualitatively new relations at a new
level in the South Caucasus," the paper added.

[translated from Azeri]

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
Sept 5 2008

Turkey Misses Diplomatic `Goal’
05.09.08 18:32

Rufiz Hafizoglu ` Head of Trend News Editorial Staff for Middle East

The visit of the President of Turkey, Abdulla Gul, to Yerevan to watch
the football match between the teams of Armenia and Turkey was
reported by the Presidential Administration on 6 September.

Although the Administration declares that the visit take purely sport
character, it is emphasized that this step can open a way for the new
possibilities between two countries in the future. It is reported that
Gul’s visit to Yerevan gives hope for softening of the tense
situation, which recently appeared in Caucasus. However, the report
conceals one of the main moments. Indeed one of the main culprits of
the tension in Caucasus is precisely Armenia with its policy against
the countries of region.

One of the basic reasons, where the West and the USA turn blind eyes
on Turkey’s action as a mediator in many tense points, is the desire
to, in the future, use the `inclination’ of Ankara toward the
mediation for their political purposes. The policy pursued by the USA
brought its real benefits; Gul will leave for Yerevan to watch the
football match.

Already it is not secret that the visit will take place exactly under
dictate of Washington because Gul’s visit to Yerevan more corresponds
to the interests of Armenia and the USA. Regarding the relations
between Armenia and Turkey, Joseph Pennington, Charge’d’ Affaires of
the U.S. to Armenia, said the following: `Besides the USA, no country
so actively mediate to develop the relations between Armenia and
Turkey’.

Touching upon the present situation Armenia’s border with Turkey,
Pennington stated that opening the borders, which have been closed
since 1993, in the near future and developing free trade between the
two countries is very important.

Mentioning his attitude towards the relations of Armenia with Turkey,
the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Daniel Fried, said the
following: `The tense situation between the two states is advantageous
for no one. The borders between Turkey and Armenia must be opened. The
USA also supports the realization of trans-border dialogue, initiative
of studies between Armenia and Turkey, co-operation on the realization
of conferences and programs of exchange. Turkey must reconcile itself
to the dark pages of its history’.

Fried’s words give grounds to indicate that the Turkish diplomacy
shook loose before the policy, pursued by the USA, and sooner or later
Ankara will step back from its fundamental positions with regards to
Armenia.

At the same time, Armenia with the impatience expect Gul’s visit
because the Armenians were completely prepared for the visit of the
Turkish President to Yerevan.

Armenian President Sargsyan said to CNN: `One neighbour’s visit to
another neighbour is normal. The visit should not be taken as pressure
on the sides. Although no official in Armenia has presented
territorial claims for Turkey, there are structures in Turkey
believing that there is no country named Armenia. In spite of a
territorial problem between Turkey and Armenia, that is not an
obstacle to construct diplomatic relations between the two
countries. Russia, for instance, has territorial problems with China
and Japan, but they also maintain official diplomatic relations.

Sargsyan’s speech gives the ground to say that Armenian officials have
the same territorial claims for Turkey as for other countries in the
region. Through restoration of diplomatic relations with Turkey
Armenia just tries to economically strengthen to fulfil strategic
plans in future.

Taking into consideration Sargsyan’s words `recent events in Georgia
affected Armenia’s economy and a strong fuel crisis emerged in the
country,’ one can guess that establishment of diplomatic relations
with Turkey will enable Yerevan to restore its shaken economy.

First of all, restoration of Armenia’s economy requires opening of
borders and Kars-Gumri railway. Armenian administration will initially
put aside its principles for a while for the sake of country’s
economic development.

Such course of developments may generate domestic tensions in Turkey,
for Gul’s visit to Yerevan has not been taken as unambiguously in
Turkey as in Armenia. Gul’s visit may entail lost of votes of the
governing party and intensify opposition’s activity.

One of the moments worth attention is that it was Gul who criticized
15 years ago the then administration of Suleyman Demirel for Armenian
officials’ visit to Turkey.

Gul, who was then representing Rifah Party, said: `Show me a country
which meets with those who used to kill its brothers. How can one meet
in Turkey with the people who say that Kars is Armenia’s territory?’
Certainly, Armenia has not changed its policy during recent 15 years.

Turks have one proverb which has been forgotten by the Turkish
diplomacy – A soul thirsts neither for tea nor for tea-house. A soul
thirsts for a talk and tea is just a pretext. Sargsyan needs neither
football nor the match… Sargsyan needs opening of borders, and
football is just a pretext.