Author: Kanayan Tamar

POUTINE A ANKARA : LA QUESTION DE L’ARMENIE SUSCEPTIBLE D’ETRE DISCUTEE LORS DE LA VISITE DU PRESIDENT RUSSE EN TURQUIE

ARMENIE

Le president russe Vladimir Poutine entame une visite en Turquie le 1er
Decembre et selon certaines publications de medias en Russie, certaines
questions liees a la region du Caucase en general et en particulier
l’Armenie seront a l’ordre du jour de ses discussions a Ankara.

Le chef de l’etat russe participera a la cinquième reunion du Conseil
de cooperation de haut niveau a Ankara, qui sera presidee par le
president turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

La politique etrangère de la Russie a recemment subi quelques
echecs sensibles – les relations endommagees avec l’Occident avec
comme fond la Chine et d’autres pays qui refusent de developper des
liens plus etroits avec Moscou. Dans ces conditions, la Russie tente
de se rapprocher de a l’Iran et de Turquie. Le ministre russe du
Developpement economique Alexei Ulyukayev est maintenant a Teheran,
et le president Poutine se rendra en Turquie.

Les experts ne s’attendent pas a des percees dans les relations
russo-turques, bien que, comme l’a dit Poutine lui-meme, la Turquie
n’a pas rejoint les sanctions occidentales contre la Russie et “mène
une politique clairvoyante”. Dans le meme temps, le commerce entre la
Turquie et la Russie est en baisse, et la controverse sur la question
syrienne est en croissance.

Mais a des moments historiques importants l’union entre la Turquie et
la Russie est devenu un facteur geopolitique critique. En particulier,
ce fut le cas lors des traites russo-turques signe pour le premier
a Kars, puis a Moscou dans les annees 1920 qu’ont ete divisees les
terres armeniennes entre la Turquie et la Russie sovietique. Les
experts estiment que la nouvelle alliance potentielle russo-turque
peut egalement avoir lieu au detriment de l’Armenie deja independante.

Dans le monde aujourd’hui, on parle de plus en plus de la necessite
de reviser le Traite de Lausanne de 1923 en vertu duquel la Turquie
a renonce a toute pretention sur l’Empire ottoman et en retour, les
Allies ont reconnu la souverainete turque au sein de ses nouvelles
frontières. Si le traite est revise, le Traite de Moscou sera menace.

Dans ce cas, l’Armenie pourrait avoir une chance de faire une demande
a la Turquie pour le genocide commis il y a 100 ans.

Poutine est susceptible d’offrir un moyen a Erdogan pour empecher un
tel cours des evenements, mais il va demander un bon prix pour cela.

Par exemple, Moscou suggère que le volume de gaz russe achete par
la Turquie qui a fortement diminue cette annee soit augmente. La
partie russe veut egalement que le commerce se relève au niveau de 100
milliards de dollars par annee, veut construire la première centrale
nucleaire de Turquie etc ..

Il est encore difficile de savoir si la question armenienne sera
discute lors de la visite de Poutine a Ankara. Mais il y a deja des
informations dans la presse russe que la Turquie pourrait accepter
d’ouvrir la frontière avec l’Armenie en echange de concessions
armeniennes sur le Karabagh > par la Russie. La Russie
tente de restaurer le chemin de fer abkhaze, qui reliera la Russie
avec l’Armenie via la Georgie et de la avec la Turquie. Il n’est
pas exclu que cette question va devenir l’un des points importants
a l’ordre du jour de la visite de Poutine a Ankara.

Par Naira Hayrumyan

ArmeniaNow

mardi 2 decembre 2014, Stephane (c)armenews.com

WASHINGTON N’EST TOUJOURS PAS FAVORABLE A UNE ZONE D’EXCLUSION AERIENNE

SYRIE

La Maison Blanche n’est toujours pas favorable a une zone d’exclusion
aerienne entre la Syrie et la Turquie, defendue avec force par Ankara,
a indique lundi le porte-parole de l’executif americain.

Cette proposition n’est pas une bonne solution “a ce stade”,
a declare Josh Earnest, porte-parole de l’executif americain,
en reponse a des articles dans la presse americaine evoquant une
evolution de la position americaine sur ce point, a l’issue d’un
voyage du vice-president Joe Biden en Turquie.

La Turquie a pose comme condition a son entree dans la coalition
contre l’EI la creation d’une zone-tampon et d’une zone d’interdiction
aerienne le long de sa frontière avec la Syrie.

La Turquie soutient depuis longtemps cette idee de zone tampon pour y
accueillir notamment les refugies pousses a fuir par les combats entre
regime syrien de Bachar al-Assad, les rebelles et les jihadistes de
l’Etat islamique.

Ankara considère insuffisants les raids aeriens de la coalition et
juge que la menace jihadiste ne sera ecartee qu’avec la chute du
president Bachar al-Assad, sa bete noire.

Mais Ankara n’a pas reussi a ce jour a convaincre ses allies de
l’Otan. Contrairement aux Turcs, les Americains restent focalises sur
la lutte antijihadiste. “Nous sommes d’accord avec les Turcs, il faudra
une transition politique sans Assad au bout du compte”, a insiste a
Istanbul le vice-president americain Joe Biden, “mais pour le moment,
notre priorite absolue en Irak et en Syrie reste la defaite de l’EI”.

Contrairement aux Etats-Unis, la Turquie refuse de fournir une aide
militaire aux forces kurdes qui defendent la ville syrienne de Kobane
assiegee par les jihadistes. Sous pression de ses allies, elle s’est
contentee d’autoriser le passage vers Kobane, via son territoire,
de combattants peshmergas kurdes venus d’Irak.

Washington, 1 dec 2014 (AFP) –

mardi 2 decembre 2014, Ara (c)armenews.com

“International institutions need to shift from words to actions and
punish Azerbaijan by all international laws”

November 24 2014

NA MP Margarit Yesayan is convinced Recently, we learned from the PACE
website that years ago PACE adopted a resolution condemning Azerbaijan
for granting Ramil Safarov a pardon. The Standing Committee of
Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) condemns Azerbaijan
for using one of the conventions of the Council of Europe has released
convicted Ramil Safarov immediately after extradition. The resolution
compiled based on the report of UK MP Christopher Chope adopted after
the discussions held in Brussels reads that the use of Article 12 of
Convention on the “Transfer of Sentenced Persons” for the Azerbajani
officer Ramil Safarov’s case is an “infringement of bona fide
principles and the rule of law in international relations.” The RA NA
MP, head of Armenian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of La
Francophonie, Margarit Yesayan, is sure that this conviction is late,
but an important fact, which perhaps can be a call for sobriety for
different international organizations. “If this statement, this
conviction were in time, maybe Azerbaijan would finally have started
being accountable for its policy. Destruction of the helicopter
performing a training flight obviously is contrary to all
international norms, and, naturally, the international institutions
are obligated to give an assessment. First of all, to defend their
credibility and reputation. Reactions, condemnations and expressing
concerns were not late, but they are very much the same to nothing
saying statements made until now. Our European friends are always
limited to expressing concerns only. And this very fact, enables
Azerbaijan to be guided by the principle of absolute impunity,
violations of universal and international norms. Azerbaijan does not
fit into the universal human values system. It is more convenient for
a country where the human rights and the right to self-determination
of the nation have no value. And when someone puts itself beyond
generally accepted norms, it makes no more sense to speak to it with a
civilized vocabulary and diplomatic nuances. It is high time for the
international organizations to condemn not in words but in actions,
the subject matter is not only the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, but
the mandate and influential power of the same EU, PACE, OSCE, State
Department and the Minsk Group. With its inhuman behavior and trade of
corpse, Azerbaijan sends a challenge to everyone and in response, it
receives a parity and nothing saying calls and exhortations, hence,
also an opportunity to start a war. And the experienced, visionary and
prudent officials of international organizations cannot but understand
it.” To the question of “Aravot” whether the behavior of the
Azerbaijani side to the representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office
Anjey Kasprishik may become an opportunity for the international
structures assess the situation more sober, as it was also a slap on
the OSCE and Minsk Group, Margarit Yesayan said, “Obviously, what
happened is the result of a bad manner, our neighbors once again did
not hide their true face, and yes, I agree that this move was a slap
on the same international community, therefore, I reiterate my belief
that this should be given an adequate response by the structures
representing the same community”. Note that the Azerbaijani side had
not allowed the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office
Anjey Kasprishik to visit the place of falling of Karabakh helicopter
downed by Azerbaijan. According to the MP, the behavior of the
Armenian side completely fits in the framework of international norms,
and also followed by its assessment, the PACE and OSCE and other
structures should demonstrate an equivalent counteraction to
Azerbaijan, and first of all it was to be done by the CSTO, to which
Armenia is a member (whereas Nikolay Bordyuzha’s statement was as
neutral as the US State Department’s), and also it was to be done the
strategic partner Russian Foreign Ministry. How long can the Parties
be called for peace, persistently failing to notice that only one side
is search for war by crossing out the peace, searching openly and
being armed daily, and everyone knows and sees that this side is
Azerbaijan. The history of all terrorist groupings shows that when you
arm today, tomorrow the weapon will be directed against you.
Forgetting the law of the boomerang is the most dangerous for
political and public figures. The history gives lessons and we should
not forget these lessons. Margaret Yesayan did not share our
observation that the matter is also the results of dereliction of
duties of foreign policy of Armenia. the MP opines, “The entities
responsible for foreign policy of Armenia are doing everything
possible to regulate the situation without resumption of war and
without new victims. Artsakh problem should be resolved exclusively
peacefully. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, in these years, have done
everything and still will do to solve the problem through negotiations
and only through peace. All those who fume about swagger with war
calls and the statements of giving an equivalent response to
this-or-that move by Azerbaijanis should ultimately realize that
swaggering is unsubstantiated for receiving success in foreign policy
and pro-Armenia solution of the Karabakh conflict.” Margarit Yesayan
cannot talk about non-government forces with the same praising. “None
of them said anything during these days, no call was made to the same
international structures and Azerbaijan. This also speaks of
inadequate behavior of these forces, they do not realize that the
homeland is one and the only one, and it does not matter at all
whether you are a government or non-government.”

Nelly GRIGORYAN
Read more at:

ARMENIE
Yerevan Brandy Company à acheter 37000 tonnes de raisins cette année

Yerevan Brandy Company (YBC) a annoncé qu’elle a fait l’acquisition de
37 000 tonnes de raisins cette année soit 2000 tonnes de plus que
l’année dernière.

La société a payé 150 drams pour 1 kg de raisins à Armavir et Aygavan
et 140 drams dans la région de Tavush, contre 145 et 135 drams
respectivement qu’ elle avait versé l’an dernier.

dimanche 30 novembre 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

ARMENIE
Les missions étrangères informées de l’opération au Karabagh

Le Premier Vice-Ministre de la Défense d’Arménie Davit Tonoyan a
rencontré les diplomates étrangers et attachés militaires basés à
Erevan pour les informer sur le raid d’un commando afin d’accéder au
Haut-Karabagh au site du crash d’un hélicoptère abattu.

Une déclaration du ministère arménien de la Défense dit que Davit
Tonoyan a présenté les détails de

BELGIQUE
Europalia-Turquie et le centenaire du génocide de 1915 par Dogan ÖZGÜDEN

Les médias belges du 26 novembre 2014 ont fait écho favorable à une
conférence de presse tenue à Bruxelles au sujet de Europalia-Turquie
qui se tiendra dans la capitale européenne en 2015. La Libre Belgique,
par exemple, a donné l’information sous le titre de “L’édition 2015 du
festival Europalia mettra la culture turque à l’honneur”.

Quant aux médias turcs, même ceux qui sont contre le pouvoir islamiste
actuel, ils applaudissent la tenue de cette conférence de presse en
présence du ministre turc de la Culture, Omer Çelik, comme une
victoire du lobby turc dans la capitale européenne contre les
diasporas anatoliennes qui se préparent à commémorer le centenaire du
génocide des Arméniens et Assyriens en 2015.

Pourquoi ?

Parce que le ministre turc les aurait pris à contre-pied en disant :
“L’Anatolie est le berceau d’innombrables civilisations, un musée à
ciel ouvert. Nous voulons faire connaitre la culture anatolienne dans
son ensemble, complète et non divisée en compartiments et la culture
arménienne en fait partie. Comme les veines d’un seul corps.”

Quelques expositions, peut être quelques représentations musicales
seront, selon eux, suffisantes pour montrer au public européen que les
veines arménienne, assyrienne, grecque de ce corps sont toujours aussi
vivantes que la veine turco-islamique dans la Turquie actuelle.

Qu’en est-il du génocide et de la déportation des millions
d’Arméniens, Assyriens et Grecs d’il y a 100 ans ?

Pourquoi il n’y a aujourd’hui que quelques dizaines de milliers de
descendants de ces peuples autochtones d’Anatolie, peuples qui y
existaient déjà avant l’arrivée des Turcs dans “ce berceau
d’innombrables civilisations” ?

L’Anatolie d’aujourd’hui est-elle vraiment “un musée à ciel ouvert” ou
bien “un cimetière à ciel ouvert” d’innombrables civilisations dont
les créateurs ont été exterminés ou déportés il y a un siècle.

Qu’en est-il de l’oppression et de l’extermination des peuples kurdes
et yézidis ? Koçgiri, Seyh Said, Agri, Dersim et Roboski ?

Qu’en est-il de la tyrannie sunnite sur la communauté alévie ?

Quand s’est élevée lors de la conférence une question à propos du
centenaire du génocide de 2015, le président d’Europalia International
Jacobs de Hagen a dit qu’il s’agit d’une simple coïncidence de dates
et rappelle qu’Europalia se veut “apolitique”.

Apolitique ?

Alors que toutes les forces démocratiques du monde se préparent déjà à
la commémoration du 100e anniversaire du premier génocide du 20e
siècle, les dirigeants néo-ottomans et islamistes de la Turquie
persistent toujours dans la négation de ce crime honteux commis par
l’Empire ottoman sur les terres qui étaient la mère patrie des
Arméniens, Assyriens et Grecs.

Le ministre des affaires étrangères de ce régime, Mevlut Cavusoglu, a
déclaré récemment au Parlement turc qu’il est impossible pour la
Turquie de reconnaître le génocide arménien qui est attribué à leurs
ancêtres et à la nation turque. (armenews.com, 7 novembre 2014)

D’ailleurs, les dirigeants d’Europalia ne doivent-il pas tenir compte
de la situation des droits de l’Homme et de la liberté d’expression
dans un pays qui sera choisi comme partenaire du festival ? Il suffit
de feuilleter les derniers rapports d’ONG internationales comme
Amnesty International, Reporters sans frontières, Human Rights Watch,
Fédération Européenne des Journalistes et Comité pour la protection
des journalistes.

Et les déclarations rétrogrades et scandaleuses du président de la
République ? (Le président Erdogan, roi de la polémique, AFP, 27
novembre 2014)

Honorer un tel régime par l’organisation d’Europalia, est-ce vraiment
un acte apolitique ?

N’oublions pas que la décision du Conseil d’administration d’Europalia
International du 23 mai 2013 de consacrer Europalia 2015 à la Turquie
avait déjà suscité des réactions comme ce fut le cas en 1995.

En effet, comme souligné par la Libre Belgique du 28 mai 2013,
Europalia avait dû interrompre en mars 1995 l’organisation de
l’édition 96 consacrée à la Turquie en raison du “manque de respect de
la Turquie dans le programme de la diversité culturelle, en ce compris
la dimension kurde”.

Voir également l’article de Dogan Özgüden intitulé “Europalia ’96 :
festivités de la honte ?”, Le Soir, 23 décembre 1994.

Après la nouvelle attribution d’Europalia à la Turquie, le président
de la Communauté arménienne de Belgique, Me Michel Mahmourian, avait
lancé l’appel suivant :

“Il est évident que le choix de l’année 2015 n’est dû ni au hasard ni
à l’initiative de la partie belge. Si inviter la Turquie est déjà en
soi discutable – rappelons qu’en 1995 le gouvernement fédéral s’est
opposé à l’invitation de la Turquie pour des raisons politiques – nous
ne pouvons pas ne pas réagir au choix de l’année 2015. Réagissons
donc, mais pas seuls 2015 sera le centenaire du génocide des Arméniens
mais aussi du commencement de l’anéantissement de tous les chrétiens
de l’Empire ottoman. L’occasion nous est ainsi donnée de réunir à nous
les Grecs et les Assyro-chaldéens, et même de solliciter le soutien
d’autres minorités ex-ottomanes soucieuses de se démarquer de la
position officielle turque.”
()

Malgré cet avertissement, les autorités belges persistent d’honorer un
régime négationniste sans aucune réserve.

Or, elles pouvaient exiger pour la tenue du festival que la Turquie
reconnaisse solennellement le génocide de 1915 et s’engage à la
réparation de toutes les conséquences de ce crime contre l’humanité.

Ce qui n’a pas été fait par les dirigeantes belges est fait en Turquie
par les forces démocratiques malgré tous les risques.

Un dernier exemple :

La députée kurde Sebahat Tuncel du Parti pour une société démocratique
(HDP) a soumis au Parlement turc un projet de loi exigeant la
reconnaissance du génocide de 1915 ainsi que des massacres commis
contre les Kurdes et les Alévis lors de la période républicaine.

Tuncel invite le président de la République à présenter des excuses à
la tribune du Parlement aux victimes de ces crimes contre l’humanité.
Elle exige également que les archives d’Etat turc soient ouvertes, que
le 24 avril soit proclamé comme un jour de commémoration et que des
dommages moraux et matériels soient indemnisés par l’Etat.

Les autorités belges et les dirigeants d’Europalia ne doivent-ils pas
faire preuve de courage comme cette femme politique kurde, toujous
menacée par des forces réactionnaires, et exiger la reconnaissance du
génocide de 1915 par l’Etat turc avant la mise en oeuvre du programme
du festival ?

S’ils se veulent vraiment “apolitique” !

dimanche 30 novembre 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

“Parajanov actually was very-very lonely”

November 29 2014

Professor of the Yerevan Conservatory Marine Abrahamyan’s memories
Recently, “Aram Khachaturyan” Concert Hall hosted pianist, Honored
Artist of Armenia, Yerevan Conservatory Professor Marine Abrahamyan’s
and her daughter, author and performer, and winner of international
competitions Eva Voskanyan’s concert, which was dedicated to the 90th
anniversary of Sergei Parajanov. In the conversation with “Aravot”,
Marine Abrahamyan recalled an episode. Exactly 25 years ago, when she
was hosted with her husband in Parajanov’s apartment in Tbilisi, and
the maestro was just taken home from the hospital. Perhaps, having the
feeling of his time to “travel” to the heavenly life, with a childish
shyness, Parajanov requested her to devote one evening to him. Later,
he took off his photograph with Marcello Mastroianni from the wall,
signed it and dedicated it to Marine. And as to when the acquaintance
with Parajanov was held, the pianist said, “My husband, Pavel
Voskanyan, when living in Kiev, he was the concertmaster of
violoncellists’ group at the National Opera House, and at the same
time was playing with solo concerts. In 1955, after the next solo
concert broadcast over Kiev television, Parajanov called him on the
phone and asked him to meet. The prominent film director also had an
education in music and was working at Dovzhenko Film Studio. From the
moment of meeting, they made friends and became good friends…” During
the conversation, Marine Abrahamyan listed Parajanov’s films, one by
one, including “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” and “The Color of
Pomegranates”, noting that these two full-length films once were
imposed to the Soviet censorship. “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”
with its abundance of national costumes, interesting and innovative,
and unusual presentation of rural life, received numerous
international awards, bringing fame to Parajanov. And “The Color of
Pomegranates” that tells about troubadour Sayat-Nova is a masterpiece
on the background of historic and colorful Caucasus… How could such a
talented individual be imprisoned…? Many celebrities: artists, writers
and film directors, responded to this unjust verdict. Despite this,
Parajanov was released four years later being sentenced, moreover, by
intervention of the French surrealist Louis Aragon and other
celebrities. For many years, Parajanov was banned to shoot films, and
in early 1980s, Parajanov was again in the shooting arena. In 1984,
his “The Legend of Suram Fortress” was screened, then “Ashik Kerib”
films, which were the Master’s multi-color reaction to his earlier
works. In his late years, he was shooting his autobiographical “The
Confession” film, which remained unfinished. The Maestro passed away
in 1990. This unfinished work was completely used in Michael
Vardanov’s “Parajanov. The Last Spring” documentary film,” informed
Marine Abrahamyan. She also informed that in 2010, Parajanov-Vardanov
Institute was established in Hollywood to study the works of these
masters, joyfully proving the high rating of this institution.
Referring to the concert in memory of Parajanov, which was welcomed by
the Armenian audience with great warmth, we inquired whether when
choosing the program, Parajanov’s preferences in the art of music were
considered, Ms. Abrahamyan replied, “Undoubtedly… Parajanov was
eagerly listened to Beethoven, Chopin, Babajanyan, Khachaturyan… Every
time, he was saying, how cordial are these sounds. When meeting with
us, Parajanov was always saying, Pavel, Marina, do you know that we
are bound to each other by a friendly spirit, flavored with art.” At
the end of our conversation, Marine Abrahamyan make one remark,
“According to the first impression, Parajanov was surrounded by
colleagues, the fans of his art… actually he was very-very lonely.”

Samvel DANIELYAN
Read more at:

Pope Francis to visit Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople

16:48, 29 November, 2014

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 29, ARMENPRESS. It is expected that within the
framework of his visit to Istanbul, Pope Francis will visit Archbishop
Mesrob Mutafian, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who is in the
St. Savior Armenian hospital. As reports `Armenpress’, the Turkish
Demokrathaber.net stated about this.

In July 2008, it was announced that Mesrob Mutafyan was suffering from
Alzheimer’s disease and has since withdrawn from all his duties and
from public life; however he still officially remains patriarch and
archbishop.

Archbishop Aram AteÅ?yan, who is from Diyarbakır, is running the
day-to-day affairs of the Patriarchate after being
appointed as Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople with 25 of the 26
members of the Religious Council voting for him.

An official communiqué confirmed on January 14, 2011 that the
Patriarch was suffering from Frontal temporal degenerative dementia,
and that his physical and mental situation had deteriorated very
rapidly.

Likelihood of Turkish Intervention in War

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – 29 November 2014, 13:25

NATO regional policy has the best prospects of all other doctrines of
the alliance because the main challenges are encountered in different
regions, and NATO cannot continue to implement its policy of military
operations without the assistance and support of new partners,
especially in the regions neighboring with or relatively far from
Europe.

NATO has several problems relating to treaty and concepts as NATO is
seen by the UN as a regional organization, and any advancement of the
troops of the alliance in different regions beyond the area of mandate
generates a high risk and counteraction of different states.

The problem is not the understanding of priorities of the global
security system but the shortage of resources and controversies among
leading and other NATO members. The question is whether the alliance
is capable of understanding the initiatives of the United States,
France and other states on military operations rapidly and in a
coordinated way.

Greece, for example, does not think that NATO should carry out an
operation towards Syria while Turkey insisted on more active
involvement of NATO. In this case, in fact, all the NATO members think
that a military intervention in Syria is meaningless and will have
severe consequences.

At the same time, while the United States, the United Kingdom and
France are taking an active part in support of several oppositions
groups, Germany and other states are quite reserved in their reaction
to this intervention.

The attitudes of NATO member states regarding the operations in Libya
and Mali were quite controversial and did not result in the
participation of those states which took a more active part in lasting
operations in NATO. NATO is cautious with the developments in the Near
East where the United States has limited its activity and will
possibly limit its presence as well.

NATO does not intend to develop new programs for new partners but
everyone understands that it is time to expand participation of new
partners in NATO operations. The problem of expenditures occurs
because part of new partners does not have money for broader
participation in operations despite the assistance of NATO member
states.

Therefore, the new partners need to seek for direct partnership with
member states to receive their assistance for operations. Experts
agree that it would have been more interesting to develop programs for
new members but at this stage the existing programs are universal and
suppose diverse participation, mostly voluntary for new partners.

The problems that had occurred over 14 years ago between Turkey and
the United States have not been resolved because Turkey puts forth
ambitious demands that often irritates most members of the alliance.
Turkey’s policy which is at the same time directed at the expansion of
its regional influence, implementation of the “European project”, i.e.
membership to the European Union, as well as provision of its national
security, occasionally leads to controversies with other NATO member
states, first of all the leading members of the alliance.

The United States is trying to maintain equal relations with Turkey,
and the reason is not only the interest of the Americans in the
services of Turkey in the Near East and other directions but also the
fears that Turkey will implement a policy that will not be in line
with the interests of the United States and NATO in these regions.

Experts agree that currently Turkey has assumed a tactics that rules
out distance and too problematic issues in its relations with the
United States and NATO, seeking for their support. At the same time,
Turkey has not given up on its policy of intensifying its influence in
the regions, including the Near East.

On the whole, the prospects of the U.S.-Turkish relations have not
been clarified and remain uncertain. The United States is considering
Turkey in the close perspective, trying to develop resolutions on
problems for several months and two or three years.

Currently, it is difficult to predict the development of the Turkish
policy on the Western community, as well as in respect to the regions.
Nevertheless, Turkey intends to stay loyal to NATO and the United
States, realizing the possibility of a negative effect of too many
problems in the domestic and economic spheres. Turkey is facing
certain economic problems and is reluctant to spoil its relations with
rich and strong partners.

One can suggest views of experts working for NATO and the European
Union on the possibility of the role and behavior of Turkey relating
to a possible military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as
well as the attitude of Turkey to development of NATO-Armenia
cooperation.

As a sovereign state, Turkey gives significant military and technical
assistance to Azerbaijan under the agreement on mutual assistance
according to which Turkey is entitled to military intervention in a
military conflict to help Azerbaijan. At the same time, it may happen
within the framework of international law if Turkey or its ally
undergoes aggression.

At this point, a major problem occurs – to what extent will it be
possible to consider Armenia an aggressor against Turkey or
Azerbaijan? In answer to the question to what extent NATO and the
United Nations will be objective in their assessment of such a
situation, experts said that NATO member states have all this
necessary information.

In fact, the agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan is not legitimate
in terms of the NATO Charter but NATO is reluctant to bring up this
matter. The existence of such an agreement may cause a complicated
situation for NATO actions in case of occurrence of a military
conflict.

As a UN member, Turkey cannot launch military actions unless
aggression or UN sanctions are in place. Currently, Turkey is not
interested in a war, especially in the South Caucasus that may cause a
military conflict under an unclear vision.

Trend Daily Economic News
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 11:09 AM GMT +4

Article on territorial integrity of Azerbaijan included in NATO PA resolution

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov.26
By Elchin Mehdiyev – Trend:

The article on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan
has been added to the resolution on “NATO Reassurance and Support to
Partners”, adopted at the 60th annual session of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly, held in The Hague, a member of the Azerbaijani
delegation to NATO PA, MP Malahat Ibrahimgizi told Trend Nov.25.

She said that the Armenians tried to prevent the introduction of this
article in the resolution. But despite their efforts, as a result of
the arguments of the Azerbaijani side, this resolution was adopted.

The MP went on to add that the Armenians have also tried to add an
article on “self-determination of minorities” to the resolution, but
the Azerbaijani delegation was able to prevent this attempt.

The delegation said at the meeting that the Armenians have once
realized self-determination, and the other delegations rejected this
article, Malahat Ibrahimgizi said.

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

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the US are currently
holding peace negotiations. Armenia has not yet implemented four UN
Security Council resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh
and the surrounding regions.

Malahat Ibrahimgizi said that the new NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg during the session said that Azerbaijan is a trusted
partner of NATO, and stressed the importance of settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict within the framework of international law
and the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.

Stoltenberg also said that he is ready to assist the efforts of the
OSCE Minsk Group in the settlement of the conflict, the Azerbaijani MP
said.