Author: Kanayan Tamar

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 9 2014

Russian and Azerbaijani presidents discuss Karabakh issue

9 August 2014 – 3:28pm

Russian-Azerbaijani ties are developing in a very successful way,
Russian President Vladimir Putin said today during his meeting with
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, RIA Novosti reports on Saturday.

“Bilateral relations are developing successfully. We maintain direct
contact. Mutual ties are developing in various fields including in the
economy and the humanitarian sphere,” the Russian president is quoted
by the news agency as saying.

The positive dynamics in Russian-Azerbaijani relations have been
evident for many years, his Azerbaijani counterpart stressed. “Russia
is one of our main partners in the international community,” the
Azerbaijani leader said.

On the initiative of the Russian president the two heads of states
discussed the ongoing Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh.

“We have discussed Azerbaijan’s long term conflict with Armenia. We
agreed that the conflict should be resolved,” the Azerbaijani
president said.

Independent Catholic News
Aug 9 2014

Iraq: As ISIS massacres Christians, Lord Alton asks: Does anybody care?

This morning I received a plaintiff gut wrenching message from a
family who have fled from Nineveh. Describing how they were
overwhelmed by ISIS militias they fled “to protect our children and
sisters and wives.” They asked “where is the UN? Where is NATO? Where
is EU and US? Where is Putin?”

“Nobody cares about us. We are fleeing from one place to another, we
are exhausted. We are betrayed. We are being massacred and nobody
cares. We speak the language of Jesus, we are the first Christians but
the Christian world has forgotten us. We are the indigenous people of
Nineveh and everybody wants to see us killed.”

They simply plead that the international community must “do what you
can to stop this Genocide.”

It is welcome that belatedly the UK Cobra committee has at last met to
discuss this unfoldng catastrophe and that the US military aircraft
have begun air-dropping supplies to members of Iraq’s Yazidi
community. Trapped on a mountain without food and water after they
fled the advance of Islamic State fighters, they have been left with
the cruel choice of starving to death or being murdered by Jihadists.

It is to the credit of Kurdish and Shiite towns that they have opened
their doors to fleeing Christians, forced to leave Mosul and other
areas that fell under the control of the Islamic State.

Many have listened, as we should do, to the voice of Muslim religious
leaders such as Sayyed Hussein al-Sadr who issued a statement on the
displacement of Christians from Mosul, affirming their “national
belonging to Iraq.”. He rightly said “They are our brothers in the
country and in humanity, and have equal rights with all Iraqis.” But
now those who have opened their homes are the target of the Islamic
State.

If Iraq’s minorities are to be spared “slaughter-in-waiting”, and if
genocide is to be headed off, then Iraq’s authorities and the Kurdish
Peshmerga must urgently be given every assistance in resisting ISIS.
Fail to do this, fail now to protect minorities like the Yezidis and
Christians, and the Islamic State, will be further emboldened. As
their genocidal campaign engulfs all who refuse to accept their
dictats they will doubtless be echoing Hitler’s famous question “who
now remembers the Armenians?” No one needs to be reminded of the
consequences of the failure to protect the Armenians and all the other
minorities slaughtered in every genocide which has followed.

The indifference of many western governments to the plight of Iraq’s
minorities is truly shocking. The Islamic State is waging a genocidal
war against Christians, Yezidis and other minorities and the
international community looks away. It has now seized territory that
is almost two-thirds the size of Great Britain.

Houses have been looted and robbed. Graves and shrines have been
demolished. Crosses smashed and removed from churches. And beyond this
destruction is the visceral hatred directed at an ancient people who
had lived here in peace alongside their neighbours for centuries.

Iraqi Christians are the original residents of Mesopotamia –
descendants of the ancient Babylonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians and a
large number of Arab tribes, present in Iraq since the First Century
AD.

2,000 years later, the descendants of these original Christians have
seen their homes daubed with the identifying symbol of Nazarenes and,
if they refuse to convert, are forced to leave or be executed.

Welcome attempts to provide armed protection, by the Kurdish
Peshmerga, are reported, in some cases, to have been overwhelmed by
ISIS. UNICEF have reported the deaths of around 40 Yezidi children.
Christian families forced to leave in only the clothes which they were
wearing have been given temporary refuge and are hanging on to life by
their finger tips.

In the face of this religious cleansing and unfolding human rights
catastrophe the silence of President Obama, Secretary Kerry along with
the leaders of most Western governments has created the impression of
indifference.

Britain has been criticised by the Church of England for failing to at
least follow the French lead in providing asylum. The bishops are
right to be critical and, in the short term, asylum and the provision
of humanitarian relief are essential. But, in the long term, it is
unconscionable that the international community should collectively
shrug its shoulders with barely a murmur of protest and accept these
crimes against humanity.

In Bosnia and Rwanda the international community failed persecuted
minorities. We always say “never again” but in Mosul and Nineveh it’s
never again all over again. It’s yet another example of the abject
failure to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
UN’s doctrine of “a responsibility to protect.”

Armenia-based company obtains Crimea’s new mobile operator K-Telecom

by Emmanuil Lazarian
Thursday, August 7, 01:26

Crimea’s new mobile operator, K-Telecom, a company that came to
replace MTS-Ukraine, is owned by Armenia-based Cell Group Worldwide
Holding CJSC, reports Vedomosti, referring to Armenia’s legal entities
registry.

According to the source, the Armenian company belongs to Cell Group
Worldwide Ltd, a company with unknown jurisdiction.

Just a week after its registration in Krasnodar in late May, K-Telecom
was given MTS’s GSM frequencies in Crimea. The initial owner was
private travel consultant Anna Berezkina, followed by Nikolay Balashov
and finally Cell Group Worldwide Holding.

Vedomosti notes that MTS has K-Telecom subsidiaries in Armenia and
Russia but they in the company say that those operators have nothing
to do with the Crimean K-Telecom.

According to the source, K-Telecom has launched a one-way technical
roaming service for subscribers of Russian operators. So, the holders
of MTS sim-cards in Crimea will not be left without communication.
Referring to a source in a Russian operator, Vedomosti suggests that
the reason the company did it was to convince Russian operators to
sign roaming contracts with it.

According to iKS Consulting, as of late 2013 Crimea and Sevastopol had
2.97mln mobile service subscribers. 57% of them were subscribed to
MTS- Ukraine, 21% to Kyivstar (Ukrainian subsidiary of VimpelCom Ltd)
and 16% to Astelite Mobile (controlled by TurkCell).

Azeri ceasefire violations soar on week of August 3-9

August 9, 2014 – 17:57 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – 3000 ceasefire violations by Azeri armed forces were
reported at the line of contact between Nagorno Karabakh and
Azerbaijan from Aug 3-9.

Azerbaijan fired over 60000 shots from various caliber weapons towards
Karabakh positions.

Azeri troops attempted another one in the recent series of subversions
in the southern Hadrut and southeastern Martuni directions of the line
of contact between the armed forces of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan
on the night of August 9.

The advance of Azeri saboteurs was halted by the frontline units of
the NKR defense army. The enemy was repelled to initial positions,
suffering losses.

No casualties were reported on Armenian side.

On the night of August 8, Azerbaijani armed forces continued violating
the ceasefire, firing 9000 shots from various caliber weapons at the
Armenian positions along the border.

>From August 6 to the morning of August 7, 39 ceasefire violations by
the Azeri armed forces were reported, with 546 shots fired. The
Armenian side replied 8 times, firing 232 shots.

According to the Armenian Defense Ministry, 56 ceasefire violations
were registered on August 5-6, with 7175 shots fired in the direction
of Armenian positions. The Armenian side replied 28 times, firing 5025
shots.

>From July 28 to Aug 3, 2014, the Azeri army made over 5 cross-border
attempts in various directions of the contact line.

Sargsyan and Putin complete their meeting in Sochi

by Tatevik Shahunyan
Saturday, August 9, 19:06

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Russian President Vladimir
Putin have completed their meeting in Sochi.

The press service of the Kremlin reports that the presidents have
discussed urgent problems of Russian-Armenian cooperation and ways to
settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Before the meeting Putin said that Armenia and Russia enjoy friendly
strategic relations, which has been proved by Armenia’s recent
decision to join the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.

“Of course, we have many questions to discuss. This is also an
opportunity for us to discuss questions concerning the Nagorno-
Karabakh settlement,” Putin said.

Sargsyan said that the last time he met with Putin was three months
ago, so, there is need to sum up certain results. “I would like to
discuss some questions concerning the integration processes, more
specifically, Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Economic Union,”
Sargsyan said.

He expressed concern over the situation in Ukraine. “If you think it
necessary, Mr. Putin, please inform me of the measures Russia is
taking in this context and I will inform you of the situation in our
region and Azerbaijan’s motives to escalate tensions on its border
with Armenia and contact line with Nagorno-Karabakh,” Sargsyan said.

Earlier in the day Putin met with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.
Among other questions the presidents discussed the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh.
On Sunday Putin, Sargsyan and Aliyev will hold a trilateral meeting.

°CC9F20-1FD6-11E4-AFF20EB7C0D21663

On observance of principles of etiquette in interstate relations

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Chairman of the Political Science Association of Armenia, Elected
Member of the Academy of Military Sciences (RF), Visiting Professor at
the National Defense University (US), Doctor of Political Sciences
(RF), Major General Hayk Kotanjian asked our editorial staff to
publish the following statement.

This statement reflects a desire to help defuse tensions as a result
of violations of the truce between the parties to the Karabakh
conflict in terms of the recent hostilities on the borders of the
Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
ahead of the talks between the heads of state of the Republic of
Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi at the invitation of the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chair represented by the President of the Russian Federation.

As we know in the UN Charter and the preamble to the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations common goals and principles of interstate
relations are set forth concerning the sovereign equality of states,
the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion
of friendly relations among nations.

Taking into account that the etiquette of interstate relations is not
defined in some integrated code of international standards, it can be
interpreted as a reflection of the goals and principles of the UN
Charter and the Vienna Convention in the corporate rules of
professional conduct in interstate relations, including the procedure
rules and style of the visits, public speaking, business meetings and
negotiations between actors in international relations. And in these
terms, referring to the etiquette of interstate relations, we mean the
commitment of the political culture of a state and actors to certain
rules and traditions of maintaining relations with other states. At
the same time, as the main actors of interstate relations and bearers
of norms of this etiquette are the heads of states, and not just their
diplomatic agents on behalf of their representatives. It is important
to note that the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention are adopted both
by the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The use of this approach – in the absence of another – makes it
possible to interpret the observance of the norms of etiquette of
interstate relations by the Head of Azerbaijan with his partners in
the forthcoming talks in Sochi, being organized under the auspices of
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair represented by the Head of the Russian
Federation – one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In this regard, the reference of my Statement not only to the UN
Charter but also to the Vienna Convention – despite the absence of
diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan – disguises the
deep dissatisfaction with this political and diplomatic fact under the
conditions of the tripartite ceasefire agreement among the Republic of
Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, signed in May
1994, and many years of negotiations between the parties to the
Karabakh conflict, under the aegis of Co-Chairmanship of the three
permanent members of the UN Security Council: the Russian Federation,
the United States and the French Republic.

Meanwhile, two days before the talks between the heads of state of the
Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, on August 6, 2014, the official
website of the President of Azerbaijan Mr. Ilham Aliyev posted the
text of his speech entitled “THE PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN, SUPREME
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES ILHAM ALIYEV VISITED A MILITARY
UNIT IN AGHDAM”. In this speech, the Head of the neighboring state
used expressions against the Republic of Armenia, grossly violating
the generally accepted norms of interstate relations.

A fragment of the official text by the head of Azerbaijan is as
follows: – “… If the Armenian fascist state will not give up its
dirty deeds, the very existence of the Armenian state can be called
into question. …”.

As the Chairman of the Political Science Association of Armenia, I
consider it my duty to mention the unacceptability of such expressions
for heads of neighboring states having official interstate relations,
especially on the eve of peace talks.
By his in-no-way justified definitions the President of Azerbaijan Mr.
Ilham Aliyev grossly violated the goals, principles and norms of
interstate relations, established in the UN Charter and the preamble
of the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”. The definition of
“fascist state”, read out through the mouth of the President of
Azerbaijan to the Republic of Armenia, can only hinder the efforts to
establish peace and stability in the South Caucasus, as well as the
success of the forthcoming meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan in Sochi at the invitation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair
– the President of the Russian Federation.

Ahead of the meeting of the Heads of state of the Russian Federation,
the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi on August 8, 2014, I
have the honor to express the hope that such expressions –
inconsistent with international norms of interstate relations – would
not be repeated by the head of the neighboring state.

AZERBAIJAN TALKS TOUGH AS NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT HEATS UP

Foreign Policy
Aug 8 2014

BY Reid Standish

One day after President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan threatened war
with neighboring Armenia via Twitter, Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry
issued a statement saying that the country is prepared for war in
the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The recent bout of fighting cost Azerbaijan 12 troops and Nagorno
Karabakh three, each side confirmed on Saturday. Exactly what set off
the latest violence between the former Soviet republics is unclear
but both point to the other as the aggressor.

The Nagorno-Karabakh border remains heavily militarized. Azerbaijan
and Armenia each have 20,000 troops dug into World War I-style
trenches on their respective sides. Exchanges of sniper shots are
common but the recent fighting has raised the stakes. On Wednesday
Aliyev visited the frontlines, spending time with an Azerbaijani
military unit. The day after the president’s return from the front,
he launched a sabre-rattling Twitter tirade, announcing Azerbaijan’s
preparedness for war.

The two countries already fought a brutal, six-year war over
Nagorno-Karabakh that wracked up at least 30,000 casualties and
displaced hundreds of thousands of people. A cease-fire brokered by
Russia in 1994 ended formal hostilities but international efforts to
reach a last solution have failed and the conflict has been in limbo
for the last 20 years.

The heart of the conflict lies in the ethnic and political divisions
that existed when Armenia and Azerbaijan were Soviet republics.

Despite being part of Soviet Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh was home to a
large ethnic Armenian population. In 1988, the Armenians of Karabakh
— encouraged by politicians in Yerevan, the Armenian capital —
demanded unification with Soviet Armenia. Then, in December 1989,
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh declared unification and war broke
out with Azerbaijan. Armenia was able to hold Nagorno-Karabakh and,
following the 1994 cease-fire, retained control over the territory.

Azerbaijan keeps claiming the land as its own and considers it an
occupied territory.

Following its defeat, Azerbaijan launched a silent arms race to break
Armenia’s economy. Funded by its hydrocarbon wealth, Baku, Azerbaijan’s
capital, has been on a military spending spree, allocating $3.44
billion for defense in 2013. Its defense budget has skyrocketed 493
percent since 2004, according to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI). Armenia has done its best to follow suit,
spending $427 million on defense — a 115 percent increase from
2004, according to SIPRI. But lacking Azerbaijani natural-resource
wealth, Armenia has turned to Russia for military aid to bolster its
security. In return, Moscow has taken its pound of flesh from Yerevan
by establishing a major military base in Armenia.

With tensions high after the recent clashes, both Russia and the United
States have made calls for calm along the border and for reviving the
OSCE Minsk Group process — which was established to bring a lasting
solution to the conflict following the 1994 cease-fire. Russian
President Vladimir Putin has set up meetings with the Azerbaijani
and Armenian presidents for Friday and Saturday, in a bid to broker a
cease-fire. But a lasting solution will require more than just Russian
pressure. Moreover, with U.S.-Russia relations at an all-time low,
international cooperation on Nagorno-Karabakh looks confined to the
trenches for the immediate future.

KAREN MINASYAN/AFP/GettyImages

OPINION: TURKEY NEEDS ERDOGAN

CNN
Aug 8 2014

By social entreprenur Yavuz Yigit, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Yavuz Yigit is a 29-year-old social entrepreneur who
works with youth in community services. He has previously worked
for the youth branch of the AKP. Follow him on Twitter. The opinions
expressed in this commentary are solely those of Yavuz Yigit.

(CNN) — Leading Turkey in a political partnership with Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the country’s prime minister, would be “very good.” That’s
the view of his biggest rival in this weekend’s presidential elections,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

The comment might seem unusual for a politician, but it reflects
Turkey’s admiration for Erdogan.

Ihsanoglu, speaking on Turkish television, continued in the same
vein, noting he liked Erdogan’s leadership and admired his work as
prime minister.

Yavuz Yigit

According to the polls, more than half of Turkey agrees. Erdogan has
won a record three terms as prime minister and polls show he’s likely
to win Sunday’s presidential elections.

This is because Erdogan has led the country with actions, not words.

Erdogan has always been known by what he has achieved. His oratory
is impressive, but it’s not his winning point.

Before Erdogan was elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994, there were
frequent water cuts, garbage piled through the streets and air
pollution. He solved the problems in just three years.

Erdogan then co-established his own party, the Justice and Development
Party, or AKP, and ran in the general elections. He was known
colloquially as the saver of Istanbul and in 2002, he was voted in
as prime minister, with 34% of the vote.

What these women posted online is a sin

At the time Turkey was facing its biggest economic crisis. Inflation
rate ran above 30% and overnight interest rates had hit 63%.

Why are Turkish women posting these images?

Under Erdogan, inflation declined to single digits and GDP tripled.

His commitment to doing business with emerging markets such as Russia
and China meant the country secured nearly $130 billion in foreign
investment, compared to $15 billion during the previous 80 years.

Ä°hsanoglu: No need for tension in region

Visitor numbers soared, from 16 million in 2003 to 35 million in 2013.

The economic upturn helped Turkey fund schools, hospitals, highways,
railways, airways and universities.

And, looking at the figures, it seems naive to question how Erdogan
continues to dominate Turkish politics. The recipe is simple: He is
beneficial for the people, and they want him as their leader. Further,
when compared to the AKP, the opposition party CHP looks incompetent.

But Erdorgan’s success is not just economic. Turkey has a long way to
go towards full democracy, but Erdogan has tackled three significant
problems. Firstly he has, for example, allowed the army to do its
one and only job: Be an army.

Secondly, he has backed the “solution process,” designed to bring
peace with the Kurdish region. The “Kurdish Problem” has cost more
than 30,000 lives and up to $450 billion.

Thirdly, Erdogan has also modernized Turkish society by lifting the
headscarf ban in universities and public, liberating religious women.

Erdogan, in a first for the country, also expressed condolences to
the Armenian people for the massacre in 1915, during WWI.

Further, he initiated reforms that empowered non-Muslim communities,
such as the 2008 Law on Foundations that enabled property worth $2.5
billion, previously occupied unjustly by the state, to be returned
to minorities.

It won’t be a surprise if Erdogan is elected as president. Under his
leadership, democratic and economic improvements will continue. It
is good now — and it will hopefully get better.

ERDOGAN’S DIVISIVE POLITICS WILL GIVE HIM FIRST-ROUND VICTORY

AL-Monitor
Aug 8 2014

Author: Kadri Gursel
Posted August 8, 2014

According to poll results released on Aug. 7 by KONDA, a leading
polling company, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will win the
presidential election in the first round on Aug. 10, with 57% of
the votes.

Konda carried out the poll on Aug. 2 and 3 in 30 Turkish provinces,
via face-to-face interviews with 2,720 respondents. The poll has
a plus-minus 2% margin of error. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the joint
candidate of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)
and the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), is slated to obtain 34%
of the vote, far below expectations.

The poll also predicted that Selahattin Demirtas, candidate of the
People’s Democracy Party (HPD) who represents the Kurdish movement
and some leftist circles, will get 9% of the vote, which will be seen
as a success for him.

Findings from other polling companies predicted more or less the
same outcomes.

When announcing the poll’s results, Tarhan Erdem, chairman of
the board of Konda, made the following point: “The polarization
that embraced most of the voters over the last ten years, after
2011 became dominant over the minds and pens of the sides. We now
have two sides that respond to all issues within already well-known
parameters and totally contradict each other with their mindsets,
narratives and attitudes. These two sides, by transforming existing
cultural, economic and social identities, have almost created two
new political identities.”

Erdem said, “Political rivalry in Turkey is now based on these two
identities, without worrying about detailed arguments.”

Erdem identified the lead actor of this “identity-based political
rivalry” as Prime Minister Erdogan, “the one who planned this play and
painstakingly, diligently staged it.” He continued, “The opposition,
without noticing the toxic atmosphere, accepted roles in this play
without changing any of the scenes and dialogues.”

It is not possible to agree with Erdem’s analysis. To the contrary,
the opposition, to disrupt Erdogan’s well-established strategy of
winning elections by polarizing society around identities, agreed
on the candidacy of Ihsanoglu, a Sunni conservative who is not an
Islamist. The objective of this move was to divert votes from the
Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) Sunni conservative base by
scaling the walls of separation erected by Erdogan’s identity-oriented
polarization policies.

But, if the Aug. 10 results confirm KONDA’s forecast, it will be
obvious that the opposition did not achieve its goal.

No matter what percentage of people cast their votes on Sunday, Erdogan
securing the high percentage of 57% in the first round will depend on
two factors: First, Ihsanoglu will not be able to take votes from the
AKP base. Second, Erdogan will obtain a significant amount of votes
from the MHP and other smaller Islamist and nationalist parties.

There is no other way.

You have to remember that in the March 30 municipality elections,
the MHP and CHP combined got 43% of the votes, same as the AKP. Now,
if Ihsanoglu’s Aug. 10 vote remains at 34%, as predicted by KONDA,
one explanation for the failure would be the shift of votes from the
MHP base to Erdogan.

Then, somebody will have to explain why the MHP couldn’t persuade
its voters to cast their ballots for the party’s candidate, who was
chosen in agreement with the CHP. We can do that from now:

The CHP and MHP leaderships achieved a very positive first in
Turkey’s democratic history by agreeing on a joint candidate. But,
it is not possible to say that they did their part in orienting their
constituencies around this partnership or persuading them to vote
for this joint candidate.

When the joint candidate was first announced, the allergic reaction
from the CHP’s secularist base against conservative Ihsanoglu kept
public opinion busy for a while. It was assumed that the Sunni MHP
base would not object to Ihsanoglu, and they didn’t.

But the MHP leaders had to ease the tensions between the heavily Sunni
MHP base and the Alevis who vote for the CHP, which goes back to the
covert sectarian clashes of the 1970s that are still felt today.

Because this wasn’t done, it is understood that the MHP base in the
center of the country could not adapt to a partnership with the CHP.

Erdogan, who knows well the anti-Alevi sentiments in the MHP base,
did not hesitate to use it for his election campaign. In his Aug. 2
election rally speech in Izmir, Erdogan said: “[Kemal] Kilicdaroglu
[main opposition leader], you may be an Alevi. I respect you. Don’t be
afraid of it. Say it openly. I am Sunni and I say it comfortably. No
need to hesitate. There is no need to try to mislead the people.”

By asking Kilicdaroglu to reveal his sectarian roots, Erdogan
contravened the Turkish constitution, which stipulates, “Nobody
can be forced to reveal his beliefs.” He exercised discrimination
and sectarianism. Erdogan, by emphasizing the Alevi affiliation of
Kilicdaroglu, tried to ensure that people take note of his sect and
identify Ihsanoglu as the “candidate of Alevi Kilicdaroglu.”

Three days later in a live TV program, when asked about reactions to
his invitation to Kilicdaroglu to reveal his Alevi identity, Erdogan
said: “In Turkey, anyone who is a Turk should say he is a Turk, a Kurd
should say he is a Kurd. What is wrong with that? They said so many
things about me. They said I am Georgian. Excuse me, but they said
something even uglier. They said I am an Armenian. But I am a Turk.”

To label being Armenian as an “ugly” form of existence, if nothing,
is to commit a hate crime, no matter how you look at it.

The remarks of the prime minister should be seen not only as racist
and discriminatory blunders but elements of pre-planned political
communications. The target audiences are the AKP and MHP voters. These
constituencies, as much as they oppose Alevis, are also hostile to
Armenians. This toxic tactic of the prime minister may perhaps help
him score another election victory. But to further enflame enmities
that divide the nation is not going to help Turkey when our Middle
Eastern neighbors are burning in the flames of sectarian wars.

YAZIDISM: THE FORGOTTEN RELIGION FACING EXTERMINATION AT THE HANDS OF ISLAMIC STATE JIHADISTS

South China Morning Post
Aug 8 2014

It’s an unfortunate truism that the world pays attention to largely
forgotten communities only in their moments of greatest peril.

This week, the world has watched as tens of thousands of Yazidis – a
mostly Kurdish-speaking people who practise a unique, syncretic faith –
fled the advance through northern Iraq of Islamic State’s jihadists,
who have abducted and killed hundreds of this religious minority.

Ever since seizing Mosul, the forces of Islamic State have tried
to transform their domain into an idealised caliphate – they have
forced the conversion of religious minorities, destroyed the shrines
of rival sects and butchered those they consider apostates.

This week, a Yazidi member of parliament in Baghdad appealed:
“An entire religion is being exterminated from the face of the earth.”

The Yazidis globally number about 700,000 people, but most – about
half a million – live in Iraq’s north. The city of Sinjar was their
heartland. Now, it’s in the possession of extremists.

The Yazidi faith is a mix of ancient religions. Its founder was an
11th-century Umayyad sheikh whose lineage connected him to the first
great Islamic dynasty.

Despite its connections to Islam, the faith remains distinct. It was
one of the non-Abrahamic creeds left in the Middle East, drawing on
various pre-Islamic traditions. Yazidis believe in reincarnation and
adhere to a caste system. Yazidism borrows from Zoroastrianism – which
held sway in what’s now Iran before Islam – and even the mysteries of
Mithraism, a quasi-monotheistic religion popular in the Roman Empire.

Like India’s Parsees – latter-day Zoroastrians – Yazidis light candles
to signal the triumph of light over darkness.

Yazidis believe in one God represented by seven angels. One of the
angels, Malak Tawous, was sent to earth after refusing to bow to Adam.

Represented in peacock form, he is considered neither wholly good
nor evil by Yazidis, but Muslims know him as Satan. Islamic State
has justified its slaughter of Yazidis by claiming they are “devil
worshipers”.

The sect has suffered a long history of persecution. The Yazidi MP
referenced 72 massacres in her people’s history, ranging from Mongol
rampages to the purges of the Ottomans, who often targeted the Yazidis,
including during the early 20th-century massacres of Armenians.

The Yazidis’ fragile existence in northern Iraq grew more delicate
after the 2003 US-led invasion. In 2007, coordinated bomb blasts in
a Yazidi village killed about 800 people.