Author: Hakobian Adrine

TURKISH HURRIYET SPREADS MISINFORMATION

Aysor.am
Friday, October 16

Citing to CNN-Turk, Turkish Hurriyet released some mis-information,
reporting that Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan yesterday in Turkey’s
northwestern province of Bursa said that the goal of his pan-Armenian
trip through centers of Armenian communities was to inform compatriots
on made decision, not discussing.

Cabinet’s spokesman Samvel Farmanyan commented this information:
"There were no any statements made by Armenian President during the
visit to Turkey.

Daily chronicle show that the decision was made after initiated
six-week discussions, after President’s pan-Armenian trip, and after
National Security Council session which agenda was to discuss the
item. Thus, Turkish publication is just a misinformation."

ARMENIAN-TURKISH RECONCILIATION PROCESS TO BE INTENSIFIED IN EARLY 2010

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
15.10.2009 15:59 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian-Turkish dialogue has been constructive so
far, according to Alexander Markarov, director of Yerevan branch of
the Institute of CIS Studies.

"Given the position of the Armenian ruling coalition, I do not
think that there will be problems with ratification of Protocols in
the RA parliament. However, I can’t say the same about the Turkish
parliament. The process is likely to be intensified in early 2010,"
he said.

Markarov also emphasized that if Turkey wishes to be a democracy and
not to fail talks with the EU, it should ratify the document.

First Step-Capitulation

Aravot
October 14, 2009

By Vartan Oskanian

Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

*First Step – Capitulation:* The ill-constructed protocols signaling the
beginning of formal relations between Armenia and Turkey received an
uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. The parties themselves and the
representatives of the world powers, all were present but all remained
silent. When such a `historic’ moment goes by with none of the sides or the
witnesses able to say anything acceptable to the rest, either about the
long-awaited event itself or the content of the documents being signed –
it
becomes obvious that these documents are in fact full of the contradictions
and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and respect
necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries.

Those within and outside Armenia who support this process label all those
against it as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically reject all
relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who have for decades
wanted and continue to believe in the importance of Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.

We are not afraid to recognize the enormous challenges of creating a new
relationship in the context of overwhelming political, psychological,
practical challenges. It is for fundamental political and security reasons
that we oppose these protocols. We want the documents that define our
reciprocal relationship to be respectful, farsighted and most of all,
sustainable. These protocols are not. We want the documents to define a 21st
century relationship that is as honest about past grievances as it is about
contemporary political realities. These protocols are not.

Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic divide and mutual distrust
that separates us, or at the very least circumventing that topic, the
documents place one-sided conditions and receive one-sided concessions.
Normalization has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian side.

Indeed these protocols – barely signed and not even ratified – have already
damaged, possibly irrevocably, Armenia’s positions on the three most
significant issues of national security and national identity.

First, they will hamper the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The reason
for this is simple. Any Armenian insistence of no-linkage between
Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not credulous. The linkage
between the Turkey border opening and the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it’s inarguable. If the presence
of the Minsk Group co-chair countries’ foreign ministers at the signing
wasn’t enough, there were the last minute frantic attempts at the signing
ceremony to prevent Turkey from speaking of that linkage at that forum. But
the coup de grace was the Turkish Prime Minister’s unequivocal conditional
announcement the day after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party
whose meeting had just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won’t ratify
these protocols until territories are returned.

Any acceptable resolution will require certain compromise on the Armenian
side – including compromise on the territories surrounding Karabakh. Many
would say that such compromise would have been necessary eventually
regardless of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But in this
conditional environment, when Turkey at every opportunity refers to the
return of territories without the resolution of Karabakh’s status, even the
most reasonable compromise that Armenia would have been prepared to make
will be more difficult for this or any administration to make, because it
will be viewed domestically as a concession made under pressure, in exchange
for open borders, not for the independence of Karabakh. Even if the Turkish
parliament ratifies the protocols and opens the border with the mere
expectation that Armenians will return those territories in the near future,
still, in the context of the forceful and repeated admonitions by the
Turkish leadership, those expectations will themselves become conditions
that the border opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.

Second, the nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The ink
on the protocols was not even dry before major news outlets and
international figures began to couch their terminology, retreating from the
use of the term genocide, citing the protocol’s provisions that a commission
will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other words, we have
offered the international community the formalization of official Turkey’s
position. If earlier, Armenians and international experts had defined the
political and historical events as genocide, while the official Turkish side
insisted on denying the term and the history behind the term, today, the
official Turkish `doubts’ have been sanctioned and will internationalize the
denial of the events, their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the
historic and demographic status quo. Armenians will now be dragged into a
new cycle of denial – struggling against the machinery of a state bent on
rewriting history and consolidating the consequences of genocide.

Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had heretofore been a
dormant but sensitive issue – the subject of borders and territorial claims.
No Armenian administration had ever made such a claim of Turkey. Today, this
sensitive issue has become a front-line issue. When Turkish Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu says these protocols reaffirm the provisions of the Lausanne
Treaty, that means the issue of reparation and compensation is now on the
table. I do not demand my ancestral home in Marash, but if that demand were
really so illusive, then why is Turkey forcing me to renounce my historic
links with that home?

It is important to understand that the claim on land is not merely a
sentimental issue having to do with Armenian properties in Turkey 100 years
ago. The issue of lands is also an important element of the Karabakh
conflict. If a mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to formalize and
legalize its control of lands taken forcibly, then what’s to prevent
Armenians from waiting if that offers them the opportunity to formalize
their control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?

On Saturday, October 10, we heard President Sargsyan’s address to the
Armenian people, issued just hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the
content of which was directly contradictory to the content of the
protocols. It can even be said that the president’s arguments were
the best reasons to reject the protocols. The address insisted that
there are irrefutable realities and we have undeniable rights; the
protocols on the other hand question the first and eliminate the
second. Armenia, without cause and without necessity, conceded its
historic rights, both regarding genocide recognition and what the
address so justly called `hayrenazrkum’ – a denial and dispossession
of our patrimony.

The administration said one thing and signed another. Normalization of
Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even, has been discredited.

The processes – both Armenia-Turkey, and the Karabakh peace talks – are
going to become more complicated and more intense, and not at all to our
advantage. If Armenia does not bring this process to a halt, and return to
square one, the consequences will be grave not just for the administration,
but for the Armenian people.

Fears of hooliganism as Turkish-Armenian diplomacy moves to football field

>From The Times Online
October 14, 2009

Turkish supporters say that they will forget politics during the match with
Armenia but they are not happy about the ?fireball? landing in their laps
Nicholas Birch in Istanbul
Mehmet Guzelsoz normally looks forward to football, but the weight of
expectation surrounding the match between Turkey and Armenia today is
proving difficult to bear.

It is not the game that worries him. Both sides have already forfeited their
chances of travelling to the World Cup finals next year.

What worries Mr Guzelsoz, the chairman of the biggest supporters¹ group in
the northwestern Turkish city of Bursa, where the match will be played, is
what could happen in the stands. ³Did they really have to chuck this
fireball into our laps while the whole world was watching?² he asked.

The match brings to a climax the process of rapprochement that began last
year at an Armenia-Turkey match in Yerevan, the Armenian capital. It was
attended by Abdullah Gül, the Turkish President. His Armenian counterpart,
President Sargsyan, now plans to return the gesture by going to the Bursa
match.

Nationalists on both sides oppose the thaw. Afraid of sabotage, authorities
in Bursa have been on red alert for days. Their first port of call has been
to the supporters¹ club, called Texas after the wild reputation its members
acquired in the 1970s.

³We¹ve talked to everybody,² Mr Guzelsoz said. ³The police chief, the
governor, politicians, even the President.²

On Sunday morning a Cabinet minister visited the 20,000-seat Ataturk stadium
in Bursa to talk to prominent Texas members. ³He told us to show the world
we are model fans,² said Selim Kurtalan, a Texas fan better known as ³the
Boss². ³We promised we would do everything to ensure the match went well.
Stadiums are for sport. Politics is for outside.²

That is not the image many Turks have of Texas. Since September 26, when
violence broke out during a match between Bursa and a team from the mainly
Kurdish city of Diyarbakir, the group has been pilloried in the press as a
hotbed of racist nationalism.

When some Diyarbakir supporters failed to stand for the national anthem that
has been a fixture of domestic games since a Kurdish separatist war broke
out in 1984, Bursa fans began hurling insults, stones and plastic chairs. A
12-year-old boy was taken to hospital with head injuries. Texas members said
that the affair was blown out of proportion. ³We accept we are hooligans,²
Mr Guzelsoz said disarmingly. ³What annoys us is to be described as extreme
nationalists.²

Mr Guzelsoz, a Kurd from Diyarbakir,agrees that the slogans shouted during
the match were offensive. He blamed the violence however on provocateurs
sitting in stands beyond the Texas group¹s control.

Running parallel with the Armenian rapprochement, unprecedented Turkish
efforts to solve its Kurdish problem have ³unfortunately created a fertile
ground for provocation², he added. ³Texas will cause no problems but this
isn¹t even our match. Who else will be in the stadium?²

On Sunday, a small crowd of Turks and Azerbaijani students waving national
flags gathered outside the stadium to protest against the Armenian thaw.
³The public is being tricked,² Fahrettin Yokus, a trade union leader, told
bystanders.

Like many Turks, Texas members said that the Armenian rapprochement could
move forward only if Armenia took steps to end the occupation of Azerbaijani
land that it has controlled since the 1990s. Turkey closed its border with
Armenia in 1993 to show solidarity with Azerbaijan. Reopening it is one of
the steps foreseen by the protocols, due to be ratified by Turkish and
Armenian parliaments.

Yet for all their sympathy for Azerbaijanis, most Bursa football fans said
that they supported the rapprochement. Batuhan Demirtas, a Texas member,
quoted a slogan by Turkey¹s founder, Kemal Atatürk: ³Peace at home, peace in
the world.²

³A century ago, England and France tried to carve this country up,² he said.
³Is there any point in scratching old sores? Of course not.²

Nonetheless, the authorities in Bursa are taking no chances. About 2,500
police will be on duty in the stadium tonight and surrounding buildings have
been searched.

Texas members doubt that many Armenian fans will turn up. They intend to
welcome those who do, mirroring friendly scenes during the match in Yerevan
last September.

They even plan to sing a well-known folksong – claimed by Turks, Azeris and
Armenians as their own – about a Muslim boy¹s tragic love for a Christian
girl.

³We have been dragged into politics against our will,² Mr Guzelsoz said.

³That final whistle blows and it is all over for us – politics, opening the
[border] gate, opening the window, they can do what they want. We just want
to go back to supporting our team. That is our life.²

Turf wars

? Christmas Day 1914, British and German troops stop fighting in First World
War. Thousands play football in no-man¹s land

? 1938, At Germany-England ³friendly² in Berlin, England told to make Nazi
salute. England win 6-3

? September 1967, two sides in Biafran war declare truce to watch Brazilian
team Santos, starring Pelé, play two matches

? 1969, ³Football War² erupts between El Salvador and Honduras after three
matches. First match (Honduras won 1-0) marred by riots. Second match (El
Salvador won 3-0) sees dead rats thrown in Honduran dressing room. After
third match (El Salvador won 3-2) El Salvador invades. Thousands killed and
100,000 displaced

? 1980, North and South Korean World Cup qualifier moved from Pyongyang to
Shanghai, because North will not fly South Korean flag or play national
anthem (Score 0-0)

? October 2008, Palestinian team play first home game, near Jerusalem,
against Jordan

Source: Times database

"TURKEY DISSEMINATES DISINFORMATION"

/2009/10/12/tigran-balayan
02:46 pm | October 12, 2009

Politics

Turkish Mass media circulated information that the verbal speeches
of Foreign Ministers Edward Nalbandian and Ahmet Davutoglu to be
made after the signing of the Protocols between Armenia and Turkey
in Zurich on October 10, 2009, had been publicized two weeks before.

According to Turkish mass media, the signing ceremony wasn’t delayed
because of Davutoglu’s speech which wasn’t agreed upon by Edward
Nalbandian.

Spokesman for the RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tigran Balayan,
says the information doesn’t correspond to reality.

"The information disseminated by Turkey is an outrageous lie," he said.

Mr. Balayan informed A1+ that Edward Nalbandian was given the written
version of the Turkish FM’s speech on October 10.

"I don’t know why Turkey distorts the reality. You had better inquire
from Turkey."

CHORBAJIAN: THE MEANING OF THE PROTOCOLS FOR THE FUTURE OF KARABAGH
By Levon Chorbajian

/10/chorbajian-the-meaning-of-the-protocols-for-th e-future-of-karabagh/
October 10, 2009

While neither protocol mentions Nagorno-Karabagh by name, there are
provisions in the protocols with dangerous and permanent implications
for Karabagh and Armenia. Three highly problematic provisions appear
in the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between
the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

The first reads: "Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral
and international relations, to respect and ensure respect for the
principles of equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in [the] internal
affairs of other states, territorial integrity, and inviolability
of frontiers…" It should be noted that self-determination is
missing. The right to self-determination is a strong black letter
law principle in international law. It is the basis on which the
people of Karabagh challenged their standing as an autonomous
region of Azerbaijan and fought for their independence, leading
to the creation of their de facto state, the Republic of Nagorno
Karabagh. The principle of self-determination is not present
anywhere in these protocols. What is present is the principle
of territorial integrity, which is also a longstanding principle
of international law. The two-self-determination and territorial
integrity-have absolutely equal weight in the law. One does not
trump the other, which is part of what makes disputes such as the
one over Karabagh difficult and often intractable. In an effort to
alter that consequence and to shift the debate and the solution in
a direction to their liking, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and their powerful
allies have sometimes falsely argued that territorial integrity has
greater power than self-determination. Here in the protocols, they
go one step further and remove self-determination from the equation
altogether. This provision and its exclusion can be used-and we
can predict will be used-to argue that the present Turkish-Armenian
frontier is legitimate and inviolable. Furthermore, the case will be
made that Karabagh should be re-integrated into Azerbaijan because
its independence is in violation of territorial integrity, which even
the Armenian government has agreed through these protocols is the sole
principle on which issues of territorial dispute should be resolved. As
it applies to Karabagh, this provision contains implications of such
toxicity that it should be cause by itself fo!

r the rej ction of the protocols.

The second reads: "Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing
border between the two countries as defined [by] relevant treaties
of international law…" The relevant treaties are the Treaties
of Alexandropol (December 1920) and Kars (October 1921). The first
granted to Turkey three-fifths of the territory of the first Republic
of Armenia, while Kars ratified that allocation and set the borders
between Armenia and Georgia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, in addition
to Armenia and Turkey. There are several factors that call the
legitimacy of these treaties into question, not the least of which
is that Alexandropol was signed by Armenian delegates under extreme
duress who were not in power at the time, having shortly before been
expelled by the Bolsheviks. As pertains to Karabagh, the Caucasian
Bureau of the Bolshevik Party had allocated Karabagh to Azerbaijan
in July 1921. The protocol provision above would have the effect of
legitimizing Azerbaijan’s claim to Karabagh by drawing on the Treaty
of Kars despite its weak legal foundation.

The third reads: "Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between
the two countries, in the international and regional organizations,
especially within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the Council of
Europe, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the BSCE…" Enter
the Madrid Principles, which clearly fall "…within the framework
of…" When Obama, Medvedev, and Sarkozy issued their joint declaration
on Karabagh in July 2009, they relied on the Madrid Principles as the
basis for peace, but in fact enforcement of the Madrid Principles would
lead to great instability and the possibility of war. These Principles
call for the withdrawal of Armenian and Karabagh forces from occupied
territories adjacent to Karabagh, the return of displaced persons,
and the status of Karabagh to be determined at a later date. It
may appear to be a reasonable program to the uninitiated but when
it is examined, this plan reveals itself to be highly detrimental
to Armenian interests. The only leverage the Armenians have in the
negotiations over the future of Karabagh is the occupied territories
(a term, by the way, universally rejected in Karabagh in favor of
"liberated" territories). Armenia and Karabagh are asked to surrender
their most powerful trump card for nothing in return. By returning the
territories, Armenia and Karabagh will create an impossible security
problem for themselves. With currently Armenian-held territories in
Azerbaijani hands, Armenians will have to patrol and secure many
times the length of the border they currently have to secure. An
impossible task.

There is simply not the manpower for it. With the territories between
Armenia and Karabagh in Azerbaijani hands, Karabagh will be surrounded
on four sides by an armed and hostile Azerbaijan. Armenia itself will
have a border with Azerbaijan that is much closer to Armenia than is
currently the case, and render its entire eastern front, and possibly
Yerevan itself, subject to artillery bombardment and missile attack.

There are other problems with the Madrid Principles. Security concerns
are to be assuaged through the deployment of peacekeeping forces. Yet
peacekeeping forces can offer little comfort because their history
throughout the world has largely been one of failure attributable to
poor funding, inadequate numbers, inadequate periods of deployment,
unclear mandates, poor leadership, and various forms of corruption.

Second, the return of displaced persons is generally taken to mean the
return of Azerbaijanis to Karabagh and surrounding territories. It does
not refer to Armenians forced out of Baku and the rest of Azerbaijan.

There is no provision for them to return to their homes, or one
that guarantees their safety or monetary compensation for their
losses. Lastly, Karabagh’s final status is to be determined by
a vote. But who is to vote? Karabagh Armenians, all residents of
Karabagh, residents of the returned territories, all of Azerbaijan? The
answer is yet to be determined, and in light of past history, it
would not be wise to make reasonable assumptions.

In conclusion, the resolution of territorial disputes based on the
principle of self-determination have historically been made on the
basis of three criteria: The first is who has lived there in the
past, the second is who lives there now, and the third is what do
the people who live there now want? It is actually unusual for all
three of these questions to be answered in favor of one side. For
example, a well-known, anti-colonial struggle is that of Catholics
in Northern Ireland. Yet, while their case is strong, Catholics in
Northern Ireland have not been in the majority since 1920. All three
of the above questions when applied to Karabagh are answered in favor
of the people of Karabagh. Karabagh presents perhaps the strongest
case for self-determination anywhere in the world. That should never
be forgotten, and it should be the foundation for any resolution of
the Karabagh Question-not the protocols or the Madrid Principles.

‘CHEATED’ BY THE WEST, TURKEY LOOKS TO ARMENIA – ANALYST

RIA Novosti
October 12, 2009
Moscow

MOSCOW, October 12 (RIA Novosti) – An important reason for Turkey’s
decision to sign a deal on restoring diplomatic ties with Armenia is
that it feels cheated by the West and wants to secure its economic
interests, a Russian analyst said on Monday.

Turkey and Armenia signed on Saturday historic accords on restoring
diplomatic relations and opening borders. The documents have yet to
be ratified by the country’s parliaments, and face fierce opposition
from nationalist parties in both countries.

Mikhail Aleksandrov, head of the Caucasus department at the Institute
of CIS Studies, said: "one important consideration for Turkey was
to advance economic ties with Armenia, because the West has deceived
Turkey."

"Turkey is not being let into the EU, the United States created
problems with Iraq, and problems have arisen with transit via
Georgia because Saakashvili started a war [with South Ossetia],
and the Caspian pipeline passes through Georgia."

"In other words, U.S. policy has jeopardized Turkey’s economic
interests," he said.

Aleksandrov said that because of these circumstances, Turkey proposed
a plan of regional integration with the participation of the three
Caucasus states, Russia and Turkey.

"However, it first has to normalize relations with Armenia. So as a
first step, Turkey has agreed to lift the blockade," he said.

On the issue of ratification, "the opposition is very strong, even
within the ruling parties, both in Turkey and Armenia."

The European Armenian Federation for Justice has spoken out against
the accords, which it says do not take into account issues such as
the Turkish genocide of Armenians, recognition of the borders between
Armenia and Turkey, and the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.

Turkey has demanded that that Yerevan drop its campaign to have the
mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 internationally
recognized as genocide.

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in a show of support for
Azerbaijan, a predominantly Muslim, Turkic-speaking ally of Ankara,
following a bloody conflict over Nagorny Karabakh between the two
republics.

The region in Azerbaijan, which has a largely Armenian population,
has been a source of conflict between the former Soviet republics
since the late 1980s and is de facto independent. Azerbaijan strongly
opposes normalization of ties between Ankara and Yerevan before the
Nagorny Karabakh conflict is resolved.

Armenia and Turkey agreed to a "roadmap" to normalize their relations
under Swiss mediation this April. The draft pact between the countries
was backed by the United States and European Union.

Armenia FM, US Secretary of State to meet in Zurich
10.10.2009 17:29

Shakeh Avoyan
â??Radiolurâ??
Zurich

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and US Secretary of State
Hilary Clinton are scheduled to meet at the residence of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland at 6 p.m. Yerevan time.

The parties are expected to discuss the Armenian-American relations.
Minister Nalbandian will, perhaps, express gratitude to the State
Secretary for her initiative of participating in the Armenian-Turkish
normalization and her willingness to act as a guarantor. Naturally, the
parties will discuss the pre-signed Armenian-Turkish protocols.

Later in the evening the signing ceremony will take place at the Zurich
University, which is expected to last a little less than an hour.
Speeches will be made by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Turkey and
Switzerland.

The documents will be the first in the history to be signed between
Armenia and Turkey at the initiative of Armenian and not under outer
pressure and with participation of important role-players of
international politics.

The Foreign Ministers of Russia and France, Sergey Lavrov and Bernard
Kouchner, EU Commissioner for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier
Solana, other senior representatives of world politics have already
arrived in Zurich to be present at the signing ceremony.

OBAMA WINS 2009 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

armradio.am
09.10.2009 15:55

U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for
giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear
disarmament.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between
peoples."

The laureate – chosen by a five-member committee – wins a gold medal,
a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

The committee highlighted Mr Obama’s efforts to support international
bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.

"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the
world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,"
the committee said in a citation.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead
the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are
shared by the majority of the world’s population."

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after
he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was
because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". "It
is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done,"
he said.

He specifically mentioned Mr Obama’s work to strengthen international
institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms, the
BBC reported.

OCTOBER 10 – WORLD MENTAL HEALTH DAY

PanARMENIAN.Net
09.10.2009 18:25 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On October 10, World Mental Health Day, Yerevan will
host round table discussions on "Return to society and healthy life".

Discussions were organized by Psychiatry Medical Center at RA Ministry
of Healthcare and "Mentally challenged people and their families"
NGO. The event will be attended by healthcare specialists.

One in 100 people in the world suffers from mental illnesses, with
their number increasing by over 4,5 million annually. 42357 people
are suffering from mental disorders in Armenia.