Author: Hambardsumian Paul

President.am, Armenia
Sept 6 2009

Statement of President Sargsyan at the annual gathering of the MFA
senior executive staff and Heads of the Armenian Embassies and
Consulates abroad

Dear Colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is one of our traditional meetings which take place in the
framework of the annual ambassadorial gathering. These gatherings
provide a good opportunity to evaluate the ongoing developments in
your host countries and international organizations and look together
for the answers for the emerging challenges and issues.

You represent the highest level of political planning in the area of
foreign relations and these gatherings are also expected to produce
practical proposals and programs regarding our future activities.

My present statement consists of two major parts: First, we will talk
about the main directions of the Armenian foreign policy and current
developments, and in the second part we will deal with the activities
of the Embassies and the work ahead.

At the outset, I would like to make a note regarding our country’s
standing on the international arena and I would like to invite special
attention to this issue. Today, Armenia appears to the world as a
stable, predictable, and reliable partner, the positions of which are
comprehended and appreciated. Major international players and centers
respect our country, a country which has proved its reliability on the
regional, bilateral and international levels. As a result, all we have
been advocating since regaining independence reverberates today in
international quarters and with regard to our country and essential
regional issues the international community maintains positions which
overall concur with our views.

A number of important developments have taken place since our last
meeting.

I would like to make a special reference to the multifaceted and wide
ranging relations with our strategic partner, Russia. We will continue
to undertake all necessary steps to further deepen and strengthen our
relations in all areas. We have already had many meetings on the
presidential level, including reciprocal state visits.

I have already started a series of visits to the regions of the
Russian Federation, particularly, to those with a sizeable Armenian
population. I am confident that there is a great potential in working
with the Russian regions for fostering Armenian-Russian economic
relations as well as for inspiring our compatriots and strengthening
their ties with Armenia.

At the first signs of economic crisis we received a 0mln loan from the
Russian Federation, which was used to mitigate the impact of the
crisis.

Substantial progress was registered during Armenia’s presidency at the
Collective Security Treaty Organization, when fundamental decisions on
the Organization’s enhanced efficiency were developed and
adopted. First and foremost, I mean the decisions related to the
establishment of rapid response forces. Initial military exercises
will take place shortly, or to be precise, their first phase has
already begun. We consider it to be an important element in upgrading
Armenia’s security level.

I want to mention with satisfaction that our friendly relations with
the United States expand day by day, dynamics of which underwent
changes after the elections in the US and with the accession of the
new administration. There is a mutual desire and will to further
develop these relations. We maintain direct contacts with the White
House and the State Department. There are numerous programs in the
areas of democracy strengthening, security, and expansion of economic
relations.

The Armenian American community is a natural link bridging our two
countries. Through their efforts Armenia has many friends in the US
Congress. Levels of assistance to Armenia have been maintained for
years.

Our experience of recent months, related to the normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish relations, has also become a distinct factor within
the Armenia-US relations. There are some critics, who claim that our
initiatives directed at the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations barred the President of the United States from using word
Genocide in his April 24 statement. I have already said this and would
like to repeat that I am confident that our actions in no way hindered
the United States and one needs just to look into the American sources
to give a right assessment to the ongoing process, and I am confident
that sooner or later that assessment will be given.

We will continue to deepen our vigorous cooperation with Europe both
bilaterally as well as in the framework of European structures. We
have recorded two momentous developments in our relations with the
European Union. First, the Easter Neighborhood program has been
launched. Second, by the invitation of the Armenian side a group of
European experts arrived to Armenia and started to work. We believe
that this format of cooperation with the European Union is one of the
best means to continue the process of reforms in Armenia.

The Eastern Partnership provides endless opportunities to use the
European potential. We need to get the best of European experiences
and expert assistance. We must be persistent and proactive seeking and
using all the opportunities provided in Brussels as well as in the
European capitals. We should also insist on receiving from the
European Union and the European countries adequate assistance and
support envisaged for partner countries.

Armenia has been provided with the opportunity to make use of the
general system of preferences and that opportunity must be utilized
expediently. We should be more aggressive in promoting Armenian goods
in the European markets and work diligently to sign the free trade
agreement. We must solve promptly all the internal problems which will
get us closer to gaining an eased visa regime with the EU. For quite
some time we have been unable to register concrete results in
establishing a general center for the EU entry visas. We haven’t
received any objection with this regard from the European structures,
but we do not take steps that would bring us closer to solving that
problem. Armenia and Europe are linked by the similar system of
values. To make that similarity generate new results it is necessary
for our societies and individuals to interact more actively.

Our relations with NATO are progressing; results of Armenia’s
Individual Partnership Action Plan are encouraging as are the results
and level of Armenia’s participation in the international peacekeeping
operations.

We will continue efficient cooperation with our neighbors – Iran and
Georgia. Further development of good-neighborly relations with these
countries is of crucial importance for the Armenian foreign policy.

Together with the Islamic Republic of Iran we launched the
Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, while during my official visit to Tehran we
reached understanding regarding the implementation of a number of new
infrastructure projects. With our colleagues from the Asian
Development Bank we have started the North-South highway construction
project which will undoubtedly become a strong impetus not only for
Armenia-Iran but a number of new regional initiatives.

With Georgia too we continue our political dialogue on the highest
level. We exchanged visits on the Presidential level. At this very
moment intensive works are underway on Gyumri-Akhaltskha-Bavra-Batum
road, the conclusion of which will allow to facilitate shipping from
Armenia to the Black See and in the opposite direction.

We should do our best to provide possible assistance to the Armenian
community of Georgia. Logic of our policy toward Javakhk should rest
on `integration without assimilation’ premise. In this case,
integration should presume strengthening of the Armenians in Georgia
as dignified, able and respected citizens of that country. I believe
that recognition of the Armenian as a regional language, registration
of the Armenian Apostolic Church, steps to protect Armenian monuments
in Georgia will only strengthen Armenian-Georgian friendship and
enhance the atmosphere of mutual trust. On all these issues we should
be considerate but also persistent and principled.

Invigoration of our relations with the Arab world remains an important
issue on the agenda of the Armenian foreign policy. Dynamic
development of these relations in the first years of independence was
followed by a stalemate which is to be overcome and steps on that
direction have already been taken.

We have been maintaining close relations with China and India, which
hold a special place in Armenia’s policy toward the Asian region.

I stressed it during our last meeting and I would like to underscore
it now: it is necessary to further develop relations with our
traditional partners as well with the countries relations with which
are not yet at the adequate level. It goes for the countries of the
South-East Asia, Australia, and the Latin American countries.

Now, I would like to talk about two pivotal issues of our foreign
policy: Nagorno Karabakh peace process and our initiative for the
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. ***

About the NK peace process:

Our negotiations with Azerbaijan with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk
Group are being conducted in a rather visible and comprehensible
format. As you know, with the President of Azerbaijan we have already
met six times. The Maindorf Declaration was signed in November, 2008,
there was a joint statement of the Heads of the MG Co-chair countries,
and the Co-Chairs have presented the general outline of the Madrid
principles. I am sure there is nothing new for you in these
publications, but the public at large saw all these principles brought
together and heard from official sources for the first time. I attach
great importance to the fact that there is not a single point in those
documents on which we failed to inform the public on our viewpoints
and approaches. Publication of these documents proved that we never
lied and never tried to mislead our own people on the issues that were
negotiated.

Obviously, there are some provisions in the documents that differ,
sometimes considerably, from our desired ideal settlement. It is also
obvious however that all the players realize that the right of people
of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination and issues of comprehensive
security guarantees for Nagorno Karabakh are the cornerstones of these
documents.

I do understand the roots of anxiety in some circles in Armenia and
Artsakh. The NK issue is a sacred issue and thousands of our fellow
citizens put their lives on the altar of the cause, for which we have
been enduring hardships, but it is also one of the most glorious pages
of our history. There is no doubt in my mind that any Armenian leader,
who has been involved in the resolution of the NK conflict, realizes
the enormous responsibility before our people, our history and our
future generations.

Any other point of view is either the result of ignorance or petty
profiteering. In case of Artsakh petty profiteering is unacceptable.

It is important that you explain everyone, and first of all the
officials in your host countries, that the NK settlement is not an
issue of days, weeks, or even months. Everyone must understand clearly
that currently we are negotiating over only some of the basic
principles for settlement. Even if the agreement is reached on these,
that are still many other principles to be negotiated, and after that
` the agreement itself, which will regulate the details for
implementation. That process requires huge work.

At this stage our priority will be to ensure security of Nagorno
Karabakh during the negotiation period and to achieve a proper
understanding of the issue on behalf of the international
community. In this struggle the Armenian people have been the ones
fighting for survival and freedom and no one has any right to call the
people of Artsakh, who defended their right to live with blood,
`aggressor’. Our response to that must be forceful, confident, and
compelling. This is particularly important for our Ambassadors
accredited to the countries-members of the Islamic Conference. We
should redouble our efforts for neutralizing negative impact of the
resolutions either adopted by that organization or future ones.

On the Armenian-Turkish relations:

As you already know, a joint statement on the process of normalizing
Armenian-Turkish relations was released yesterday. The documents,
which fully reflect the agreements made so far, have also been
publicized: Protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations
between the two countries and Protocol on the development of bilateral
relations.

At the meeting with you last year I set out the objectives that I
pursued by inviting the President of Turkey to Armenia. Armenia
approximated the possibility of normalizing Armenian-Turkish
relations. The awareness and commitment of the international community
has been increased.

I have sought to normalize relations with our neighboring country with
dignity as it is appropriate to the civilized world of the 21st
century.

I think that these protocols open up that opportunity. The drafts made
public yesterday reflect three vital realities:

1.As I have repeatedly stated, the talks conducted with Turkey and the
agreements attained do not contain any precondition related to the
peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict or any other
issue related to that.

2.As we have stressed, the issues on the historical dimension will be
discussed not within the committee of historians but rather within one
of the sub-commissions of the intergovernmental commission.

3.For the first time in the history of independent Armenia public
debates will precede the signing of the most important international
documents. The debates will enable to listen to all the views and
approaches.

On this issue I anticipate your active participation. You should lead
an active part during the public discussions in Armenia as well as in
Diaspora. You should explain the provisions of the pre-signed
Protocols in detail, both their positive and, why not, also
controversial elements.

I also anticipate that shortly we will be having vigorous discussions
in the Armenian communities abroad and international research
centers. With this regard you should also provide necessary venues for
the meetings and presentations of the speakers from Armenia.

Dear Colleagues,

Area of foreign relations is one of the crucial elements of our
national security. You are entrusted with the important and
responsible mission. The diplomatic missions of Armenia are our first
points of entry and foreigners get their first impression by stepping
over that threshold and meeting with you. It means that positive
impression of Armenia depends on your professionalism, attitude and
image.

Since becoming the President of Armenia I have appointed more than ten
Ambassadors. Only two of them were political nominees, who never
before were employed in diplomatic service. It means that I want to
view diplomatic work as a professional activity, the cornerstones of
which are your professional qualities and dedication to Armenia, not
to a person. But that approach of mine requires reciprocal
responsibility.

It is great honor to be called Armenian diplomat. One must be
deserving of that honor every day and every minute and that honor must
be carried with the greatest responsibility. I wish you success and I
wish this annual gathering productive work.

Thank you.

ARMENIA AND TURKEY: RECONCILIATION: RUSSIA DOES NOT OBJECT
by Kirill Zubkov

What the Papers Say
September 2, 2009 Wednesday
Russia

ARMENIA AND TURKEY ARE A STEP CLOSER TO NORMALIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENT
OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS; An update on the Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement.

Closed since 1993, the state border between Armenia and Turkey might
be finally deblocked come winter. Yerevan and Ankara are even prepared
to establish diplomatic relations. Fortunately, the Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement does not encroach on the interests of Russia in Armenia
or, broader, in the South Caucasus. Moscow, Yerevan, and Ankara want
peace and stability for the region.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry reported yesterday that Ankara and
Yerevan with Switzerland as the broker were working on the protocols
"On establishment of diplomatic relations" and "On development
of bilateral relations". "The consultation will take six weeks,
so that the Turkish-Armenian will hopefully be opened by 2010,"
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.

The state border was closed in 1993 in a show of Turkish solidarity
with Azerbaijan that lost Nagorno-Karabakh to the Armenians this
year. As for diplomatic relations, Turkey never even established them
with Armenia when the latter became a sovereign state in 1991. Yerevan
demanded from Turkey to recognize the genocide in the Ottoman Empire
in 1915-1917, something Ankara could not do, of course.

Mikhail Alexandrov, Chief of the Department of the Caucasus of
the Institute of CIS Countries, plainly told RBC Daily that "the
Armenian-Turkish reconciliation does not mean dismantlement of the
special relationship between Yerevan and Moscow." Sandwiched between
Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia, Armenia found itself isolated on
all sides after the last year war in South Ossetia. The opening of
the border with Turkey will make life considerably easier for Armenia.

In the meantime, the reconciliation will also benefit Turkey which
aspires to the status of the regional leader. "Ankara is through
both with being exceptionally pro-Western and with its pan-Turkic
illusions," Alexandrov said. "The period when Ankara participated in
the blockade of Armenia in the name of solidarity with Azerbaijan is
finally over."

Maintenance of regional stability in accordance with the Security and
Development Platform plan is Ankara’s number one priority. Bracing
for the forthcoming withdrawal of the US Army from Iraq, Turkey
prepares itself for the nearly inevitable deterioration of the Kurd
problem. Neither do Armenia and Russia want anything but stability
in the region.

TURKISH MINISTER BRIEFS OSCE OFFICIAL ON TURKEY-ARMENIA PROTOCOLS

Anadolu Ajansi
Sept 1 2009
Turkey

Ankara, 1 September: Turkey’s foreign minister briefed the cochairman
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Minsk Group on the two protocols initialled by Turkey and Armenia.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu telephoned OSCE Minsk Group Cochairman
Bernard Kouchner, giving him information about the recent developments
between Turkey and Armenia.

Davutoglu briefed Kouchner on the two protocols which were initialled
by Turkey and Armenia on Monday [31 August] and said that it would
be beneficial to speed up efforts for resolution of dispute between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.

A joint statement issued by Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland on Monday
said that Turkey and Armenia agreed to start their internal political
consultations on the establishment of diplomatic ties and development
of bilateral relations.

The statement said internal political consultations over two protocols,
which had been agreed on under Swiss mediation, would be completed
within six weeks which would be followed by ratification at Turkish
and Armenian parliaments.

STREETWEAR SPOTLIGHT: ARKA CLOTHING
SoJones Asmara

SoJones
treetwear-spotlight-arka-clothing/
Sept 3 2009

SoJones.com got a hold of a new apparel line, ARKA
Clothing. Established in 2009 by trio Shant Der Ashodian, Burag
Celikian, and Sevan Aliksanian, The Tarzana, California-based company
got its name from an Armenian word which means "to be the king of
all kings", as they feel that everybody has a leader within and can
contribute to the beauty of today’s world. Just how much are they
contributing to the streetwear world? SoJones.com sits down with
Shant Der Ashodian, owner of ARKA Clothing and gets the lowdown on
the up and coming clothing line.

Introduce yourself and please describe how your brand was started? And
what’s the story behind the non-toxic inks you use for your products?

We are three friends who grew up together in Los Angeles. Being in
such a big city, with so much diversity, we have always been exposed
to a variety fashion, music and artwork. We decided two years ago
that we wanted to display our artwork on T-shirts because people
love to express their thoughts and ideas through the clothing they
wear. We intend on having bold and thoughtful designs. The non toxic
(non-formaldahyde) inks we use were due to the fact that we recognize
the current global situation. Even though we are just one company,
we want to make others realize that with minimal effort, they can
make a difference for a better future.

What are your main inspirations?

All three partners were born in different parts of the world. Not only
have we exposed to the LA culture but also what we see at home. It was
only natural for us to blend ideas and concepts in order to make our
message clear to anyone who sees it no matter what their background.

What celeb or well-known figure(s) exemplify the brand?

We feel that somebody like Mos Def exemplifies our brand. From his
first album, Black on both sides, to his latest, Ecstatic, he has
always stayed true to his style. He always thought provoking lyrics
and the style to go along with it. He never compromised what he stood
for. We were intend on have eye-catching, bold designs, but we wanted
to make them relevant with a clever message. Also we did not want to
sacrifice the quality of our shirts. We made sure to use preshrunk
premium 100% cotton shirts.

Any product placements on celebs, in movies or videos to keep an eye
out for?

Currently we are featured in an indie movie "The Rise and Fall of
Armando Venezuela", a very funny mockumentary. We got the attention
of the film director, and he wanted to use our shirts in his movie.

Any expansion plans?

We want to expand our line with hoodies, jackets, and of course,
more graphic tees.

Looking ahead over the next year or two, what themes/looks/styles do
you see your brand gravitating to?

With our first line, we focused mainly on T-shirts for everyday casual
wear. We want to help urban wear evolve into a fashionable night time
attire in order to be versatile.

What themes/looks/styles do you see your brand moving away from?

As much as we enjoy using bold concepts and style, we still want to
maintain a classic style that somebody would appreciate years from
now. Our goal is to have longevity.

ARKA Clothing line is retailed for $29.99 for the classic
ARKAmedes classic logo tee and $39.99 for the rest of the t-shirt
collection. Featured below are the What’s On Your Mind tee, Doves in
The Chamber tee and Purple Octopus tee. Visit
to get the awesomeness.

ARMENIAN FOREIGN DEBT SOARS 54% IN H1

Interfax
Sept 1 2009
Russia

Armenia had foreign debt of a tentative $2.434 billion on July 1,
up 54.3% from $1.577 billion on December 31 and 57% from the same
date of 2008, the Finance Ministry said.

Foreign debt grew 8.8% in 2008.

The government’s debt grew 45.5% to $2 billion in the first half of
2009 and accounted for 82.2% of total foreign debt as of July 1. The
Central Bank’s debt soared almost 200% to $424.2 million and made up
17.4% of total debt. Debt on special programs declined 16% to $3.8
million and accounted for 0.2% of foreign debt.

Armenia’s debt to the World Bank grew 2.3% over the last year to $1.1
billion, to the International Fund for Agriculture Development – 2.8%
to $59.7 million, to the International Monetary Fund – almost 200% to
$375.6 million and to OPEC – 16.2% to $17 million. Armenia had no debt
to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as of July 1.

DAVUTOGLU: TURKEY’S FINEST FOREIGN MINISTER OF REPUBLICAN ERA
By Richard Falk

Today’s Zaman
Sept 2 2009
Turkey

It has been my privilege to know Ahmet Davutoglu since he was a young
professor teaching in Malaysia in the early 1990s.

At that time I was immediately struck by his keen understanding of
the importance of culture and civilization for the proper conduct
of international relations. Mr. Davutoglu was definitely not just
one more realist foreign policy analyst with a good grounding in
the mainstream tradition of Western political thought covering
the conceptual ground that connects Machiavelli to Kissinger. This
tradition was preoccupied with the management of power, and there
is no doubt that Davutoglu had a sophisticated understanding about
how to cope with power and conflict in world politics. Yet what made
him more intriguing and distinguished him from many other intelligent
interpreters of the changing global scene was his recognition of the
significance of non-Western thought as forming an essential basis for
the shaping of historically relevant policy to enable a government
to meet the challenges of the contemporary world.

Davutoglu returned to Turkey a few years later, and began teaching
university courses. More impressively, he founded a voluntary program
of advanced studies for doctoral students in the social sciences
and humanities from all over the country. He led this effort by way
of a foundation for arts, culture, and science that started in a
modest building, but from its outset established an exciting and
innovative learning community that combined an intrinsic love of
knowledge and ideas with a search for practical wisdom that would
enable Turkey to fulfill its potential as a national, regional and
global actor. Davutoglu led this educational effort, emphasizing
in the teaching program the importance of history and culture, and
what is sometimes called macro-history, or the comparative study of
civilizations, examining the broad sweep of the rise and fall of
civilizations through time and across space. In this illuminating
spirit of inquiry, the role of Turkey was interpreted within a wider
cultural and historical context of past, present, and future. Such an
approach acted as a corrective to a narrowly conceived nationalism
that never looked back further than the ideas and guidance of the
founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

>From such a perspective, the interpretation of the place of Turkey
in the modern world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries was
of preeminent importance. It was Davutoglu’s particular insight that
Turkey, in order to move creatively forward into the future, needed
to recapture an understanding of and a pride in the achievements of
its pre-republican past and especially the extraordinary capacity
of the Ottoman Empire to encompass diverse peoples while exhibiting
respect for distinct cultures and religions. I found this way of
thinking congenial. It represented a refreshing enlargement upon the
non-historical forms of strategic thought that seemed so prominent
at the time in Turkey, and was almost entirely derivative from the
way world politics was conceived in the United States. Davutoglu as a
scholar was striving for an approach that came directly to terms with
Turkey’s hopes and aspirations for the future, turning to philosophy,
culture and history for this deepening of his understanding. In this
same spirit, it was his consistent desire to expose students and the
intelligent public in Turkey to similar styles of global thinking from
other parts of the world. His foundation organized several conferences
in the last decade that brought to Turkey leading thinkers from all
over the world. Such events exhibited Davutoglu’s commitment to the
establishment of a cross-cultural community of scholars dedicated to
a universalizing vision of a peaceful and just world.

In his notable scholarly publications, these features of Davutoglu’s
thoughts gained attention for his ideas. His book on "strategic depth"
as the foundation of a constructive approach to security is one of
the outstanding formulations of the way sovereign states should pursue
their interests with respect to their region and the world. Although
the book is now about 10 years old and is not available in English, it
has gone through many printings, and is being translated into a variety
of foreign languages. It is one of the most significant contributions
to the literature of international relations, and although imprinted
with the geopolitics of the Cold War and its globalization sequel,
it retains great relevance to the relations of Turkey to an evolving
world order. Davutoglu has expressed frustration that his public
duties have prevented him from either revising "Stratejik Derinlik"
or following it up with a second book on "cultural depth" that would
have given his published work a more accurate reflection of his
original approach to international relations in our time.

Against such a background, it may not seem surprising that Davutoglu
has had such a major impact on Turkish foreign policy, initially as
chief advisor to the top AK Party leadership, and since May of 2008,
as foreign minister. Usually there is not a very good fit between
influential professors and successful government service. What has
made Davutoglu an exception is his unusual combination of social and
diplomatic skills and an absence of political ambition. Staying aloof
from party politics, yet aligned with the AK Party policy outlook,
has managed to give him a unique place on the Turkish scene, which
is at once independent and yet exceedingly influential with political
leaders, with the public, and in foreign capitals.

Even before becoming foreign minister, it was widely appreciated in
the media and in the diplomatic community that Davutoglu has been
the architect of Turkish foreign policy ever since the AK Party
was elected in 2002. His initial main portfolio involved a focus on
achieving Turkish membership in the European Union. It was always
Davutoglu’s view that such membership was not only beneficial to
Turkey, including establishing a stronger foundation for genuine
democracy at home, but also that it presented Europe with a unique
opportunity to become a dynamic force in a post-colonial world,
enjoying multi-civilizational legitimacy in a world order where the
West could no longer play an effective role unless it could claim an
identity and recruit the participation of the rising peoples of the
East. Although Davutoglu’s hopes for greater European receptivity to
Turkey have undoubtedly been disappointed by the unanticipated surge of
Islamophobia in several European countries, as well as the unfortunate
admission of Cyprus to the EU in 2004, he continues to believe that
the goal of Turkish membership is attainable and desirable. This
Turkish quest for EU membership continues, with its ups and downs,
and has had its own benefits, providing all along strong support for
domestic moves to strengthen democracy and human rights in Turkey.

As foreign minister, Davutoglu has exhibited the qualities of energy,
intelligence, political savvy, moral concern, self-confidence (without
arrogance) and historically grounded vision that one encounters in
his scholarship and lectures. It is hard to think of a world figure
that has had a more positive impact in a shorter time. Davutoglu’s
signature approach of "zero problems with the neighbors" has been
consistently successful in establishing better Turkish relations
throughout the region, and challenging a country such as Egypt for
regional leadership, even among Arab governments. Less noticed, but as
important, is Davutoglu’s tireless search for non-violent approaches
to conflict management based on identifying and maximizing the common
ground between adversaries. This diplomacy of reconciliation brings
an urgently needed stabilizing influence to the inflamed politics
of the Middle East, but also brings Turkey respect, stature and
expanding economic and diplomatic opportunities in the region and
world. Perhaps most notable in this regard are the growing economic
links, especially in relation to energy, with both Russia and Iran,
countries that have often in the past been at odds with Turkey.

Turkey: an important ally

It is particularly notable that Turkey embarked on these controversial
initiatives without harming its strategically central relationship
with the United States. Quite the contrary: Turkey is more than ever
treated by Washington as an important ally, as exhibited by President
Obama’s early visit, but to a far greater extent than in the past,
Turkey is now also respected as an independent actor with its own
agenda and priorities that may diverge from that of the United States
in particular instances. It was an expression of this new mutuality
that led Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan, to
say during his recent visit to Istanbul that it was up to Turkey to
decide whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. This seems
like the natural thing to do in the relations among sovereign states,
but it contrasted with the heavy-handed approach of the Bush years,
where American officials, most prominently Paul Wolfowitz, lectured
Turkey in public on their responsibilities to do whatever the White
House desired. Of course, this changed atmosphere generally reflects
a more multilateralist foreign policy in the United States, but it
is also a recognition that Turkey is now an independent force in
world affairs, not just an appendage of NATO or the West, which was
the case during the Cold War and in the 1990s. Davutoglu deserves
major credit for conceptualizing this change in the perception and
treatment of Turkey, as well as through its expression in practical,
day to day foreign policy decisions.

It is important to appreciate that Davutoglu took career risks while
serving as chief foreign policy advisor that showed a willingness to
put principle ahead of personal ambition. Davutoglu tried very hard
to find and enlarge the common ground and dormant mutual interests
in the most intractable, sensitive, and dangerous regional conflict,
that of Israel/Palestine and Israel/the Arab world. He did his best
to broker Israel/Syria negotiations, encouraging an agreement that
would end Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and some kind of
diplomatic normalcy between the two countries.

And more controversially, but no less constructively, Davutoglu tried
hard to soften Hamas’ posture as an uncompromising and violent element
in the Palestinian struggle, and at the same time to encourage Israel
to treat Hamas as a political actor, not a terrorist organization,
after Hamas gained political power through the 2006 elections in
Gaza, and declared its intention to establish, at first unilaterally,
a cease-fire. Israel, as well as the United States and the EU, refused
to drop the terrorist label, and instead put deadly pressure on the 1.5
million Palestinians living in Gaza. A devastating humanitarian ordeal
has resulted in Gaza from this refusal to respect the outcome of the
elections, and is continuing with no end in sight. In retrospect,
so much suffering might have been avoided if Davutoglu’s approach
had succeeded. Additionally, the outlook for peace between the two
peoples would have been far brighter than it is today. In this sense,
Davutoglu’s foreign policy disappointments during the past several
years are as deserving of our admiration as his successes.

There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey is extremely fortunate to
have Ahmet Davutoglu as its foreign minister, and it is a tribute
to the elected leadership in Ankara that so much responsibility has
been entrusted to someone without party affiliations, of independent
character and of scholarly temperament. Much has been made of
Davutoglu’s emphasis on "strategic depth," but I believe he will be
in the end most remembered for his "moral depth." By moral depth, I
mean a dedicated concern for seeking peaceful resolution of conflict
through mediation and compromise, based on mutual respect for legal
rights and a commitment to justice. Although it is far too early in
his tenure to make any final appraisal with confidence, it is not too
soon to think that fusing strategic depth with moral depth will turn
out to be a memorable dimension of Davutoglu’s legacy. If so, it is
likely to underpin an eventual judgment that Ahmet Davutoglu should
be regarded as Turkey’s finest foreign minister of the Republican era.

*Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law and practice
at Princeton University and the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied
Palestinian territories.

TURKEY AND ARMENIA WILL NORMALIZE TIES

About – News & Issues
nd-armenia-will-normalize-ties.htm
Aug 31 2009

Could that have been why, when he had the chance in April, President
Obama refused to condemn the Armenian genocide perpetrated by Turks,
breaking a campaign promise?

Today, Turkey and Armenia agreed to establish diplomatic relations–to
"start political negotiations" toward a final settlement, as their
joint statement had it–seemingly ending a century of enmity borne of
that genocide during the fading days of the Ottoman Empire. About 1.5
million Armenians were massacred in that first wide-scale genocide
of the 20th century. Turkey to this day denies there ever was a
genocide. As official Turkish history has it, people were dying
on all sides at the end of World War I, of famine, of population
"transfers," of war, but Turks didn’t intentionally set out to massacre
Armenians. The record says otherwise.

Turkey’s motives for settling its antagonistic history with
Armenia isn’t a secret. Turkey wants into the European Union. The
European Union isn’t thrilled. Turkey’s human rights record, its
genocide-denial, its increasingly Islamist-flavored, and favoring,
government, are obstacles to admission. By making nice with Armenia,
it’s one obstacle removed. To that end, Turkey agreed to talks with
Armenia mediated by Switzerland last year, and in September Turkish
President Abdullah Gul pulled something of an Anwar Sadat by going to
Armenia (at the Armenian president’s invitation) to attend a soccer
game between Turkey and Armenia. It was another step in the thaw.

Had Obama kept to his promise and spoken of the Armenian genocide
as such, his administration may have calculated (over-calculated,
in some opinions, mine among them) that it would risk derailing
the talks with Armenia. It may well have had the opposite effect,
accelerating them–and ending Turkey’s assumption that any time it
bullies its allies, they’ll back down. At this juncture, we won’t know.

What we do know is that as negotiations proceed between Armenia and
Turkey, the subject of the Armenian genocide remains untouched. So
does the issue of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh (where an Armenian
majority lives, and voted to unite with Armenia), disputed between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey backs Azerbaijan in that one.

Turkey and Armenia’s final negotiating round is due to culminate
in six weeks in Istanbul when, on Oct. 14, the two countries face
off again on the soccer pitch in a World Cup qualifying match. The
match won’t be as dramatic as it was on June 9 in Yerevan, the
Armenian capital. That was the first qualifier in the two countries
group. Armenian played as if they had a chance. They didn’t, really,
getting beaten 2-0 and going on to lose five of the six matches it’s
played to date, and being eliminated along the way.

Turkey though is still fighting for a spot in the 2010 World Cup,
barely. so the match against Armenia may carry even more significance
than a mere signing away of a century of enmity.

Don’t laugh. Soccer can do funny things for diplomacy.l Two countries
that have already qualified for the 2010 World Cup and may well meet on
the pitch in front of a world audience of hundreds of millions? North
and South Korea.

‘THE NATIONAL SECURITY MINISTRY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEHAVED THIS WAY’

Azadliq
Aug 23 2009
Azerbaijan

Expert on security issues thinks safety precautions should have been
carried out without knowledge of those who voted for the Armenian
participants

Discussions are under way around questioning by the NSM of those
who voted for the Armenian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest
2009. This step of the NSM is considered both right and wrong. Each
side has own arguments. Those who support the questioning of those
who voted for the Armenian singers by the NSM think that identities of
those people should be established, their ties with foreign countries
should be investigated and in a nutshell, they should be kept under
control. Those who consider this step wrong believe that the NSM
inflicts a serious blow to Azerbaijan’s international image.

Azerbaijan may for this reason come under sanctions and be disqualified
for three years from participating in the contest. Therefore, there is
no point to exaggerate the fact of sending 43 votes to the Armenian
participants. The NSM officials have connected this step with safety
measures. They believe those who voted for the Armenian singers were
summoned for preventive conversations and to identify reasons behind
the move.

Yesterday we spoke to a security expert close to the government. The
expert did not approve of the government’s step. In his opinion, the
NSM did not act as a special service body: "I do not justify those
who voted for the Armenian representatives. They certainly are not
right. However, there is no point to exaggerate the matter to such an
extent. If the NSM wanted to keep them under control, it might have
done it without their knowledge. But agents of the NSM resorted to
a police method. And suppose that those who voted for the Armenian
singers have a kind of relation to the enemy. Given this, the special
services should have taken secret control of them. If there emerged
definite cases, a plan to arrest them would be prepared. If you summon
someone to ask why he voted for the Armenian and has he any ties with
them, of course, he would not tell you everything he knew. By this way,
you cannot go to the bottom of the issue. In my view, this step of
the NSM is a result of the fact that not everyone is in place. This is
neither a safety precaution nor an example of love for the Fatherland."

The expert also drew attention to an interesting case: "Let us accept
that the call to the NSM of those who voted for the Armenian singers
is a safety precaution. Why then does the NSM not carry out a similar
safety precaution with regard to officials who are married to ethnic
Armenian women? It is an open secret that wives of several officials
are Armenians. In such a case, safety precautions in connection with
those officials should also be carried out from time to time. Visits
of those people abroad should be kept under control and their contacts
should be investigated. Why does the NSM not think of this? I want to
reiterate that I do not think that those who voted for the Armenian
singers made proper steps. Simply, I believe that the NSM should not
have behaved so rudely on this matter."

TIGRAN DAVTYAN: ARMENIA’S NATIONAL DEBT IS UNDER CONTROL

Information-Analytic Agency NEWS.am
Aug 28 2009
Armenia

"Armenia’s national debt is accurately managed controlled up to
acceptable limits," RA Minister of Finance Tigran Davtyan stated.

National debt law enables to augment the debt up to 60% of GDP, however
there is a limit of 50% and once reaching it, certain restrictions
are applied. Particularly budget deficit should not exceed 3% of
GDP. Davtyan considers there are no grounds for concern as Armenia’s
national debt has not reached this limit. "The microeconomic stability
in Armenia is maintained. We have a clear program of debt servicing
till 2025, which we stick to," Davtyan concluded.

August 28, 2009

PRESS RELEASE
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate
6252 Honolulu Avenue
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Tel: (818) 248-7737
Fax: (818) 248-7745
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

PRELATE TO PRESIDE OVER DIVINE LITURGY AT
ST. GARABED CHURCH IN HOLLYWOOD

On Sunday, August 30th, 2009, H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian,
Prelate, will preside over Divine Liturgy at St. Garabed Church in
Hollywood.
On Sunday, September 6th, the Eve of the Fast of the Exaltation of
the Holy Cross, the Prelate will preside over Divine Liturgy at St. Mary’s
Church in Glendale.

SUNDAY SCHOOL SEMINAR TO BE HELD AT THE PRELACY

On Sunday, September 6th, registration for our Sunday Schools
begins, which will start the new school year on September 13th.
In preparation for the school year, by the initiative of H.E.
Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, the Sunday Schools Central
Directorate has organized a one-day seminar for Sunday School directors and
teachers to take place on Saturday, September 5th, at the Prelacy "Dikran
and Zarouhie Der Ghazarian" Hall.
At 6:00 p.m., Divine Liturgy will be celebrated at the "St. Dertad
and St. Ashkhen" Chapel. The community is invited to participate in the
Liturgy, which will be celebrated by Very Rev. Fr. Muron Aznikian.

PRELATE PRESIDES OVER BACK TO SCHOOL CEREMONY OF
KROUZIAN-ZEKARIAN-VASBOURAGAN SCHOOL

On Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, Prelacy Schools will commence the
2009-2010 academic year with opening ceremonies and prayer led by H.E.
Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, and clergy members.
On Wednesday, August 26th, the Prelate departed for San Francisco to
preside over the opening ceremony of Krouzian-Zekarian-Vasbouragan School,
which commenced the new school year on Thursday, August 27th.
At the opening ceremony, the Prelate was accompanied by Very Rev.
Fr. Vaghinag Meloian and Rev. Fr. Avedis Torossian, and St. Gregory Church
Board of Trustees Chair Mr. Varant Kasbarian.
During the ceremony parents and students had the opportunity to
become acquainted with the new principal Mrs. Grace Andonian and the new
director of the pre-school Mrs. Roubina Kasparian.
The Prelate welcomed the administration and students back to school
and conveyed his blessings and well wishes for a successful school year.
Remarks were also offered by Mr. Jirair Sarkissian on behalf of the School
Board.
The students also received Holy Communion, after which the Prelate
visited classrooms and introduced the students to Fr. Vaghinag who will be
their new religion instructor.

PRELATE TO ATTEND RECEPTION ORGANIZED BY HAMAZKAYIN REGIONAL EXECUTIVE

On the evening of Friday, August 28th, 2009, a reception organized
by the Hamazkayin Regional Executive will take place at the residence of Mr.
and Mrs. Sarkis Berberian.
The reception is being held to honor the tenure of previous
principal of Pilibos School Dr. Viken Yacoubian, and to welcome new
principal Mr. Nazo Apanian.
H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, accompanied by
Archpriest Fr. Vicken Vassilian, will attend the reception and convey his
blessings and well wishes.

PRESENTATION OF ARCHPRIEST FR. KHOREN HABESHIAN’S BOOK KEER GYANKI AT THE
PRELACY HALL

On the evening of Thursday, August 27th, 2009, the presentation of
Archpriest Fr. Khoren Habeshian’s new book Keer Gyanki took place at the
Prelacy "Dikran and Zarouhie Der Ghazarian" Hall.
The event was held under the auspices of H.E. Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian, Prelate, and was organized by the Mousa Dagh Compatriotic
Union.
The Master of Ceremonies was Prof. Vahram Shemmassian
The book was presented by Mr. Sarkis Mahserejian, who noted that the
book is not only a compilation of the author’s thoughts and reflections, but
also covers issues that have affected mankind in the past and which are
still of concern today.
Excerpts from the book were read by Deacon Sevag Kendirjian, and
members of the Element band performed a number of songs.
The author was then invited to offer his remarks. Fr. Khoren first
and foremost conveyed his thanks to the Prelate and to the organizing
committee for putting together the event. He then reflected on the
inspiration for writing the book and shared a few of his thoughts with the
audience.
In his remarks, the Prelate reflected on the introspective nature of
the book, and on specific segments of the book concerning freedom, faith,
and issues of special concern to Armenians. The Prelate concluded by
conveying his blessings and well-wishes to the author.

THE FLAG OF THE CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA FLIES HIGH ABOVE THE "ARMENIA" SHIP

On Monday, August 24th, 2009, hundreds of community members gathered
at San Pedro port to welcome the arrival of the "Armenia" Ship, which is
currently on a journey around the world. One of the most memorable moments
was when the leader of the crew Zori Balayan was handed the flag of the
Catholicosate of Cilicia which now waves high above the ship.
The "Armenia" Ship docked in San Pedro at 5:30 p.m. where the crew
was greeted by Consul General of Armenia the Honorable Grigor Hovhannisyan,
clergy members, representatives of community organizations, and Homenetmen
scouts. Representing H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, was
Very Rev. Fr. Muron Aznikian who was accompanied by Rev. Fr. Hrant Yeretzian
and Rev. Fr. Ardak Demirjian.
Speaking on behalf of the Prelate and the Western Prelacy, Very Rev.
Fr. Muron Aznikian exalted the mission of the Holy See of Cilicia and noted
that with its flag waving above the ship, the Catholicosate of Cilicia was
now a fixture not just on the "Armenia" Ship but in its worldwide mission.
He concluded by wishing the crew a safe journey as they make their way to
their final stop in Beirut.
An artistic program consisting of Armenian songs and dances also
took place, as well as reception.
Around the time of the ship’s arrival, Mr. Zori Balayan visited the
Western Prelacy where he met with the Prelate, who presented him with a
memento. On the evening of Friday, August 28th, the Prelate, accompanied by
Archpriest Fr. Vicken Vassilian, will attend a reception organized by the
Regional Executive of the Armenian Relief Society in honor of the crew.