ANKARA: Sensoy: Turkey will act responsibly to help defuse Iran issu

New Anatolian, Turkey
April 20 2006

Sensoy: Turkey will act responsibly to help defuse Iran issue

The Associated Press / Washington

Turkish Ambassador to Washington Nabi Sensoy late Tuesday dismissed
speculations that the Iranian nuclear standoff could create a crisis
between Turkey and the U.S., saying that Ankara will act as a
responsible member of the international community on the Iranian
issue.

Addressing Turkish-U.S. relations in a speech at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a leading U.S.-based
think tank, Sensoy said that there may be nuanced differences in
policies followed by the two countries towards Iran, but the goal is
the same.

“During their talks with Iranian leaders, Turkish officials should
pressure them to voice their real intentions about their nuclear
activities in order to convince the international community,” said
Sensoy, underlining that Turkey favors a diplomatic solution to the
dispute between Tehran and the West over Iran’s nuclear program.

—————Ara Baslik————–

‘Turkey wants to take Britain’s role in US-EU relations’

Sensoy expressed Turkey’s goal of taking over Britain’s powerful role
as a bridge between U.S. and European Union relations following its
accession to the 25-nation bloc.

“Ankara is trying to bring its foreign policy and security
initiatives in line with those of the EU. It is also working to share
common values and goals with the U.S.,” said the Turkish ambassador,
stressing the importance of good U.S.-EU relations for Turkey. “NATO
is the backbone of transatlantic relations, and cooperation between
Turkey, the EU and the U.S. under the umbrella of NATO will be
crucial to respond to new security threats,” he added.

Sensoy stated that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured
him that there is a political will to protect and develop strategic
partnership between the two countries, adding that two “hiccups”
appear to have damaged the relations. “One of them is the movie
‘Valley of the Wolves Iraq,’ and the other is the surprise visit of
the Hamas delegation to Turkey [in February]. I call these events
‘hiccups’ because they are too tiny to damage well-established
bilateral relations” he said.

“Valley of the Wolves not only tatters the image of Turkey in the
U.S., but it also negatively affects Turkish psychology. Ankara
conveyed not only the international community’s but also Turkey’s
requests and expectations from Hamas during their visit,” he added.

‘PBS documentary one-sided’

Sensoy lashed out at the U.S. public television network PBS for
airing a controversial documentary about the Armenian genocide
claims, saying that the documentary was one-sided since it gave
little opportunity for scholars who don’t support the Armenian thesis
to have their say.

“Instead of accepting the Armenian genocide claims as an unresolved
issue, the documentary aimed to silence legitimate discussion on the
controversial issue. In contradiction to the thesis of the
documentary, Armenian genocide claims have never a found historical
or legal basis,” Sensoy said.

ANKARA: Turks & Azerbaijanis to protest Armenian demonstration in US

Turks & Azerbaijanis to protest Armenian demonstration in USA

Hurriyet, Turkey
April 20 2006

Turks and Azerbaijanis living in the USA will protest the
demonstration the Armenians are planning to stage in Washington D.C.
on April 24th, the anniversary of the so-called genocide. Around 600
Armenians, who will gather in front of Turkish Embassy in Washington
D.C. between April 21st and 25th, will carry banners and stage
demonstrations protesting the so-called genocide.

On the other hand, Turkish and Azerbaijani communities in the USA
will stage a counter demonstration to support Turkey’s theses.
Turkish diplomats have warned the two communities to stay calm and
~Snot to be provoked.~T

Security measures will be tightened in front of the embassy building
during the demonstrations. The secret service and Washington police
will be responsible for ensuring the security.

USA’S STANCE

On the other hand U.S. President George Bush is not expected to use
the term ~Sgenocide~T in the speech he will make on April 24th.

There are actually three drafts, acknowledging the so-called genocide
allegations, at the Senate and House of Representatives. Two of them
were passed by the congressional committees. According to diplomatic
sources, the drafts may be adopted in case they are broughtto the
full House of Representatives and Senate.

White House and State Department executives have assured Turkey that
the drafts will not be taken up. However, one of them may be annexed
to any regulation debated at the Senate, and be passed by a ‘fait
accompli’. Therefore, Turkish diplomats are closely monitoring the
developments at the U.S. Senate.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkey- Friend or Foe?

Turkey- Friend or Foe?
By Gene Rossides

Hellenic News of America
April 20 2006

The surfacing last year in Turkey of virulent anti-Americanism and
anti-Semitism raises the question of what should U.S. relations with
Turkey be in the interests of the U.S.?

To answer this question we need to answer the following first

Is Turkey a reliable ally?

What is Turkey’s strategic, political and economic value to the U.S.?

Is Turkey a friend or a foe of the U.S. (or somewhere in-between)?

I submit that Turkey is not a friend of the U.S.; that Turkey’s
interests basically are not compatible with U.S. interests; that
Turkey is of minimal strategic value to the U.S. and that Turkey is
clearly and fundamentally an unreliable ally.

Let’s look at the record.

Is Turkey a reliable ally?

The evidence is overwhelming that Turkey is an unreliable ally whose
actions damaged the U.S. during the Cold War decades and more
recently in the 21st century.

I have written previously regarding Turkey’s traitorous conduct
during the Cold War when Turkey actively aided the Soviet military to
the serious detriment of the U.S. Let me repeat three examples.

1. During the 1973 Mid-East War, Turkey refused the U.S. military
overflight rights to resupply Israel and granted the U.S.S.R.
overland military convoy rights to resupply Syria and Iraq, and
military overflight permission to resupply Egypt. A member of the
Turkish Foreign Policy Institute in Ankara wrote:

During the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, Moscow’s overflights of Turkish
airspace were tolerated. On the other hand, during the same Middle
East conflict, Turkey refused to allow the United States refueling
and reconnaissance facilities during the American airlift to Israel.
(Karaosmanoglu, “Turkey’s Security and the Middle East,” 52 Foreign
Affairs 157, 163, Fall 1983.)

2. In the 1977-78 conflict in Ethiopia, Turkey granted the Soviets
military overflight rights to support the pro-Soviet minority of
Ethiopian communist insurgents, led by Colonel Mengistu, who
eventually prevailed and established a Marxist dictatorship directly
dependent upon the Soviet Union. Giant Soviet Antonov-22 transport
aircraft ferried Cuban troops, Soviet weapons and other assorted
needs to Ethiopia through Turkish airspace. By late December 1977,
17,000 Cuban troops were in Ethiopia. The Cuban troops were
immediately moved to the fighting front against Somali and
anti-communist Ethiopian forces. They effectively turned the tide in
favor of the communists. (C. Meyer, Facing Reality- From World
Federalism to the CIA 276-80, 1980.)

3. Over NATO objections, Turkey allowed three Soviet aircraft
carriers, the Kiev on July 18, 1976, the Minsk on February 25, 1979
and the Novorosiisk on May 16, 1983, passage rights through the
Bosphorous and Dardanelles Straits into the Mediterranean in
violation of the Montreux Convention of 1936. The Soviet ships posed
a formidable threat to the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

Most readers I assume are aware of Turkey’s unreliability as an ally
on March 1, 2003, when the Turkish Parliament voted not to allow U.S.
troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Saddam
Hussein’s dictatorship.

That negative vote was maneuvered by the Erdogan government and the
Turkish military and was aimed at extracting another $6 billion over
the $26 billion irresponsibly offered to Turkey by then Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz for use of bases in Turkey.

A U.S. administration official involved in the negotiations called
Turkey’s negotiating tactics “extortion in the name of alliance.”

What is Turkey’s strategic, political and economic value to the U.S.?

The U.S. defeat of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003 without
Turkey’s help demonstrated conclusively that Turkey is of minimal
strategic value to the U.S. in the region.

The Turks did not allow the U.S. to use Incirlik airforce base in
southeastern Turkey in the Iraq war. It is not needed by the U.S.
today and should be shut down and U.S. taxpayer money saved. Its
primary use was to patrol the Iraqi Kurd no-fly zone against Saddam
Hussein’s government.

In the early years of the Cold War, the U.S. placed nuclear warheads
on Turkish soil. In 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis with the
Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy secretly removed the U.S.
nuclear missiles from Turkey as part of the deal in which the Soviet
Union removed its nuclear missiles from Cuba.

>>From the time of the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in 1962 to
the end of the Cold War in 1990, Turkey was of minimal strategic
value to the U.S. And as stated above, Turkey actually aided the
Soviet military to the detriment of U.S. interests.

After the end of the Cold War, Turkey’s proponents in the State and
Defense Departments and its paid U.S. foreign agents, came up with
the argument that Turkey, a 99.9% Muslim country, is a democracy and
can be a model for other Muslim nations in the Middle East and a
bridge between the East and West, particularly in Central Asia. That
allegation was false then and is false today. And Turkey’s alleged
value to the U.S. in Central Asia was a complete failure. That
argument did prolong military and economic aid to Turkey for several
years at U.S. taxpayer expense.

The U.S. has minor trade and commercial relations with Turkey.
Whatever they are now or in the future they should not interfere with
U.S. support of the rule of law and democratic values in our
relations with Turkey.

Freedom House in its annual report does not list Turkey as a
democracy! It is listed as a partial democracy. It lacks freedom of
speech; it lacks religious freedom and is openly against Eastern
Orthodox Christians and Jews; it regularly conducts ethnic cleansing,
crimes against humanity and genocide against its 20% Kurdish
minority; and its human rights violations against its citizens in
general is extensive.

Turkey’s military is not under civilian rule and Turkey is an
aggressor in Cyprus and continues to illegally occupy 37.7 of Cyprus,
now in its 32nd year.

Turkey continues to blockade Armenia over U.S. objections. And Turkey
refuses to acknowledge its genocide against the Armenians in
1915-1916 and the massacres against the Armenians in 1894-1896.

Turkey is hardly a model for Muslim nations or anyone.

Is Turkey a friend or a foe of the U.S. (or somewhere in-between)?

Based on the record of the past several decades, there is no
substantial evidence to
justify calling Turkey a friend of the U.S. Turkey’s interests and
aims are in most cases not in accord with or compatible with those of
the U.S.

While I believe the evidence makes it clear that Turkey is not a
friend of the U.S., I do not believe the evidence is adequate to call
Turkey an outright foe of the U.S. Turkey’s actions have done
substantial damage to the U.S. over the past 50 years from its
support of the Soviet military; its invasion of Cyprus and continuing
occupation of 37.3 % of Cyprus; its blockade of Armenia; its crimes
against its 20% Kurdish minority; its actions against the Iraqi
Kurds; its substantial drug trafficking and its “No” vote of March 1,
2003.

These actions and others by Turkey bring Turkey close to the line of
being a foe but not over that line yet.

However, Turkey’s conduct and history are such that the U.S. in its
relations with Turkey should treat Turkey at arms length and should
apply forceful pressure to achieve U.S. aims.

Words are definitely not enough in dealing with Turkey to achieve
U.S. goals. For example, the U.S. seeks a Cyprus settlement based on
a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a state with a single
sovereignty and international personality, incorporating norms of a
constitutional democracy embracing key American principles, the EU
acquis communautaire, UN resolutions on Cyprus and the pertinent
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the other
European Courts.

If the U.S. acted forcefully with Turkey using the full range of
diplomatic weapons, including economic sanctions, the withdrawal of
trade benefits, and pressure from international financial
institutions, the Cyprus problem could be solved in short order.

I reject the British argument that the Cyprus question is a difficult
problem to solve. It is a problem of aggression and occupation. The
British started the problem during their colonial rule by pitting an
18% minority against an 80% majority for Britain’s selfish interests.
The two communities have proven they can live and work together
peacefully.

The U.S. could go a long ways to solving the problem by publicly
calling for the demilitarization of the island, the removal of the
Turkish barbed wire fence separating the communities and the return
of Turkey’s 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers/colonists to Turkey and
stating that if Turkey does not cooperate the full range of
diplomatic actions will be utilized.

In taking such action the U.S. should move multilaterally with other
nations through the UN Security Council.

Similar action should be taken against Turkey regarding full
political and human rights for the 20% Kurdish minority and for full
religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the return of
church properties taken by the Turkish government and the reopening
of the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology.

Talking to Turkey has not and will not resolve these problems. State
Department officials misled the Greek American community for years by
saying they will speak to the Turkish government on our issues
knowing that their comments would have no impact on Turkey.

Turkey will only respond to forceful action. Turkey paid the several
hundred thousand dollars court judgment in the Loizidou case after
several years only when the Council of Europe threatened expulsion on
a specific date if the judgment was not paid.

Write to President Bush and Secretary Rice and urge them to apply
forceful pressure on Turkey to solve the above problems in which
Turkey is the cause:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Tel. 202-456-1111 (Comments)
202-456-1414 (Main Switchboard)
Fax: 202-456-2461
E-mail: [email protected]

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
The State Department
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Phone: 202-647-4000 (Main Switchboard)
Fax: 202-647-2283

Gene Rossides is President
of the American Hellenic Institute and
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: Azeri official on new Garabagh proposals

Azeri official on new Garabagh proposals

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006

Baku, April 19, AssA-Irada — Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz
Azimov has said new proposals and concessions are essential in the
settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict.

“But the outcome should not be aside from the basic framework [for
conflict resolution],” he said, when commenting on a statement by the
Russian co-chairman of the mediating OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov
that the intermediaries’ new suggestions “concern some principles of
the conflict settlement”.

Azimov said the internationally-accepted autonomy models are currently
being studied.

“We may hear some statements concerning new proposals and concessions,
but whether or not this will yield specific results will be clear in
further meetings. The point is that there are specific frames, and
constructive and swift efforts should be made to settle the conflict
within them.”

The official said the existing international models differ and
various status options of self-administration are applied in Europe
and other regions of the world. “However, these alternatives are
used considering the location of territories and with respect for
the territorial integrity [of countries]. We have stated this on many
occasions. If we are talking about advancing within this framework,
Azerbaijan is ready for this,” Azimov added.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: 45,000 in Armenian army

45,000 in Armenian army

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006

Baku, April 19, AssA-Irada — Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian
has said his country’s troops are 45,000 people strong, explaining
this by the current situation in the South Caucasus region.

Touching upon the plight and structure of the three-million nation’s
military, Sarkisian said it is common knowledge that the Armenian
military consists of infantry regiment units and the air force. The
troops are not centralized in any way and have no local headquarters.

“There is only one chief HQ overseeing all of the armed forces. This
entails commanding separate corps, artillery units and air defense
forces,” said the minister, who also serves as secretary of the
Armenian National Security Council.

With regard to further impact of the rising tension in Georgia’s
breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on regional states,
Sarkisian said any given conflict flaring in the South Caucasus region
could play a role of a “detonator”.

He said the Caucasus is a very small area, which makes regional
countries dependent on each other. “For this reason, a resumption of
military action [in the region] could bring about negative consequences
for us,” the Armenian defense chief said.

As for the current situation in Georgia, the minister said a possible
disruption of stability there would not benefit his country. His
concern could be explained by the fact Georgia is the only country
facilitating Armenia’s access to the rest of the world.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Developpement Relations Suisse-Turquie Les avions Pilatus boycottesp

Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)
SDA – Service de base francais
19 avril 2006

Developpement Relations Suisse-Turquie Les avions Pilatus boycottes
par Ankara: Berne intervient

Berne (ats) Nouvel accroc dans les relations entre la Suisse et la
Turquie: le ministère de la defense turc a decide d’exclure l’usine
d’avions Pilatus, basee a Stans, d’un appel d’offres pour de nouveaux
avions d’entraînement. Berne est intervenue auprès des autorites
d’Ankara.

Pilatus, en tant qu’entreprise suisse, ne peut pas participer a cet
appel d’offres, a indique mercredi a l’ATS le patron de Pilatus,
Oscar J. Schwenk, citant une lettre des autorites turques. “On ne
nous a donne aucune raison a cette reponse negative”, a ajoute M.
Schwenk, confirmant une information du “Tages-Anzeiger”.

L’entreprise de Nidwald n’a tout simplement pas pu deposer d’offre.
“Cela n’est encore jamais arrive dans l’histoire de notre entreprise,
c’est tout simplement incroyable” a declare M. Schwenk.

Contrat de 500 millions de francs

L’avion d’entraînement PC-21 correspondait pourtant parfaitement a
l’appel d’offres turc, auquel Pilatus s’etait prepare durant quatre
ans, selon M. Schwenk. Un contrat aurait represente une somme d’au
moins 500 millions de francs, a-t-il releve.

Pilatus n’a pas la possibilite de contester la decision turque.
“C’est desormais un problème politique entre les deux Etats” a
declare M. Schwenk. Il suppose que l’attitude des responsables
d’Ankara est une mesure de retorsion suite aux polemiques entre la
Suisse et la Turquie sur la question du genocide armenien.

Intervention de Berne

La decision des autorites turques a pousse Berne a intervenir. “Nous
suivons cette affaire avec une grande attention” a affirme Carine
Carey, porte-parole du Departement federal des affaires etrangères
(DFAE). Le departement de Micheline Calmy-Rey a evoque ce dossier au
niveau diplomatique aussi bien a Berne qu’a Ankara, a ajoute la
porte-parole, sans apporter plus de precisions.

Le Departement federal de l’economie (DFE) s’est aussi saisi du
dossier. Son chef Joseph Deiss a assure le patron de Pilatus qu’il
s’engagerait a resoudre le problème lors d’une visite en Turquie, a
rapporte le porte-parole du conseiller federal, Christophe Hans.

Jusqu’a present, aucune date n’a encore ete fixee, après qu’Ankara
eut deplace pour une duree indeterminee une visite initialement
prevue en septembre 2005.

La question armenienne provoque des tensions recurrentes entre Berne
et la Turquie. Si Ankara reconnaît la realite des massacres perpetres
par l’Empire ottoman contre la minorite armenienne, elle recuse le
terme de “genocide” et conteste le nombre de morts.

Parmi les derniers episodes en date figurent les enquetes pour
negation du genocide armenien ouvertes en Suisse contre des
intellectuels turcs.

NOTE: depeche entièrement remaniee

–Boundary_(ID_pjeAA+1XVITlgH/tz2QHDg)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Die Opfer des Genozids

Die Opfer des Genozids

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
20. April 2006

Zur Rezension des Buches von Guenter Lewy uber den Genozid an den
Armeniern (F.A.Z., “Politische Bucher” vom 23. Marz) durch Professor
Eberhard Jackel: Das Osmanische Reich geriet nicht erst nach den
Balkankriegen (1912 bis 1913) in eine Existenzkrise. Diese Krise trat
nach dem Scheitern der zweiten Belagerung Wiens (1683) und der
anschließenden Zuruckdrangung der Turken aus Europa in Richtung
Sudosten auf. Sultan Abdul Hamid II. (1876 – 1909) meinte zunachst,
die Krise durch die Turkisierung der ethnisch nicht definierten
islamischen “umma” zu uberwinden. Der Versuch scheiterte vor allem am
Widerstand der Araber. Abdul Hamid II. organisierte dann 1894 bis
1896 die ersten Massaker von Christen im Osmanischen Reich. Die
Jungturken strebten den Aufbau einer “turkischen Nation” nach
europaischen Vorbildern an und verubten daher Genozid an allen
christlichen Minderheiten Kleinasiens. Opfer dieses Genozids waren
nicht nur die Armenier, sondern auch Griechen, Syrochaldaer und
Aramaer.

In der Nicht-Deportation der Armenier aus Konstantinopel 1915 ein
Indiz zu sehen, daß kein Genozid gegen sie stattgefunden hat, setzt
eine arge Unkenntnis der Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches voraus.

Die Christen in Konstantinopel konnten allein wegen der dortigen
Anwesenheit der diplomatischen Vertretungen der europaischen Machte
nicht eliminiert werden. Der Bau der Bagdadbahn begann 1903 und war
1915 weit nach Osten, bis kurz vor der heutigen turkisch-syrischen
Grenze, fortgeschritten.

Die primaren Quellen uber den Genozid an den Armeniern und den
Christen Kleinasiens stammen aus den Federn europaischer – zumal
deutscher – und amerikanischer Diplomaten im Osmanischen Reich, die
ihn erlebt hatten. Dazu gehort auch Otto Liman von Sanders Pascha.

Schade fur sie, daß sie nicht einen Herrn Lewy bei sich hatten, um
ihnen zu erklaren, was sie sahen. Schade auch fur die Richter des
Schwurgerichts des Landgerichts zu Berlin, die von Lewy nicht
erleuchtet werden konnten und deshalb den armenischen Studenten
Salomon Teilirian freisprachen, nachdem er den Schlachter der
Christen Kleinasiens, Talaat Pascha, in Berlin erschossen hatte.

Schade aber auch, daß Rezensent Jackel kein Wort uber die Diskussion
in den Vereinigten Staaten bezuglich der Rolle der auch in
Deutschland sehr wohl bekannten amerikanischen Agentur Hill und
Knowlton verloren hat, die seit 1989 von der turkischen Regierung
beauftragt ist, die turkischen Interessen in Amerika publizistisch zu
fordern. In dieser Sache arbeitet Hill und Knowlton, bei Einsatz von
erheblichen Geldmitteln, in den amerikanischen Universitaten.

Dr. Gregor M. Manousakis,

Kropia, Griechenland

–Boundary_(ID_plF1fZzSJEl4MsiKKNMH1 Q)–

Desecrators Of The Armenian Genocide Memorial Will Be Punished

DESECRATORS OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MEMORIAL WILL BE PUNISHED

Yerevan, April 20. ArmInfo. Minister for Internal Affairs of France
Nicolas Sarcosy considers unbearable the desecration of the memorial
of the Armenian Genocide victims. As it was previously reported,
on April 17 the memorial of the Genocide, erected in Lyon, was
desecrated. The memorial was to be officially opened on April 24,
the 91-th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in eth Ottoman Turkey.

‘France Presse’ agency reports that Mr. Sarcosy called the writings
on the memorial denying the fact of the Genocide unacceptable and
promised the desecrators to be punished. In the person of Jules
Martirosian, Minister for Protection of Monuments, Nicolas Sarcosy
expressed solidarity to the Armenian community of France. He reminded
that France has recognized the Genocide of 1915.

It should be noted that unknown barbarians wrote the following:
‘There was no genocide’, ‘One must be happy of being Turk’. On March
18 the Turkish community protested against erecting the memorial.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ambassador Of USA To RA John Evans With Wife Donna To Celebrate Worl

AMBASSADOR OF USA TO RA JOHN EVANS WITH WIFE DONNA TO CELEBRATE WORLD
DAY OF LAND IN ARAGATS REGION’S KARIN VILLAGE

Yerevan, April 20. ArmInfo. The Ambassador of the USA to Armenia-
John Evans with his wife Donna will celebrate the World Day of Land in
the Aragats region’s Karin village, where an action for tree planting
will be held.

As ArmInfo was informed in the Yerevan office of the “Armenia Tree
Project” American organization, representatives of the Armenian
government and a number of international organizations will also
participate in the action to be held April 21. To be noted, planting
of 900,000 trees was carried out in 550 communities of Armenia since
1994 by the efforts of the Armenia Tree Project.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Possibility To Take Unawares NKR Defence Army By Azerbaijan IsExclud

POSSIBILITY TO TAKE UNAWARES NKR DEFENCE ARMY BY AZERBAIJAN IS
EXCLUDED, SEYRAN OHANIAN ASSURES

YEREVAN, APRIL 20, NOYAN TAPAN. “We have the respective intelligence
services and the possibility to take unawares our army by Azeris
is excluded”. NKR Defence Minister Seyran Ohanian informed about at
the meeting with journalists. According to him, “if even they manage
to occupy our trenches, they do not know what they can expect from
the NKR Defence Army”. S.Ohanian also emphasized that the engineer
constructions and barriers are perfected year by year.

As S.Ohanian affirmed, in order to have long-term peace we should be
first of all ready for a war. According to him, the preferable variant
of settlement of the problem is a way of negotiations. S.Ohanian
considers that though RA leadership carries on this process rather
consistently, it would be desirable that NKR leadership also take
part in the negotiations.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress