Author: Karagyozian Lena

Interpressnews , Georgia
Feb 21 2009

Grigol Vashadze Met with President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan
21 February, 2009 07:30:00

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia Grigol Vashadze met with
president of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan today.

Georgian foreign department informs that Vashadze held meetings with
Prime Minster of Armenia Tigran Sarkisyan and foreign minister Eduard
Nalbadyan. Grigol Vashadze gave detailed information to the Armenian
side about situation in Georgia.

He stated that more active and intensive cooperation between the
sides, work on joint documents in political, economic and social and
cultural directions were necessary.

Regular political consultations were held between foreign ministers of
Georgia and Armenia. Vashadze’s counterpart Eduard Nalbdyan
will pay visit to Tbilisi in March.

Armenian side supported Georgian sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

GEORGIAN FM VISITS ARMENIA

Civil Georgia
Feb 20 2009
Georgia

Grigol Vashadze, the Georgian Foreign Minister, is paying an official
visit to Armenia on February 20-21.

After meeting with his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian,
and President, Serzh Sargsyan, on February 20, the Georgian Foreign
Minister will lay a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial and
tour the Genocide Museum in Yerevan on February 21, according to the
Georgian Foreign Ministry.

FRANCE’S ROLE IN HOLOCAUST OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.02.2009 14:31 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ France’s top judicial body on Monday formally
recognized the nation’s role in deporting Jews to Nazi death camps
during the Holocaust – but effectively ruled out any more reparations
for the deportees or their families.

Jewish groups welcomed the ruling by the Council of State, the clearest
legal acknowledgment to date of France’s role in the Holocaust.

Nearly 70 years ago, the Vichy government helped deport some 76,000
people – including 11,000 children – from Nazi-occupied France to
concentration camps during the war. Fewer than 3,000 returned alive.

The council said that the French government of the time "allowed or
facilitated the deportation from France of victims of anti-Semitic
persecution."

"In an absolute rupture with the values and principles notably of
the dignity of the human person … these anti-Semitic persecutions
provoked exceptional damage of extreme gravity," it said, the AP
reports.

ARMENIAN AND REGIONAL ENERGETIC PROCESSES IN THE CONTEXT OF INFORMATION SUPPORT
Karen Karapetyan

"Noravank" Foundation
16 February 2009

What should be the basis for regional informational security? What
should be a guide-line for Armenia on the global competitive resource
market where the companies from the countries, which do not have
enough hydrocarbon resources to support their economic development,
are extensively included? What is the place of Armenia on the energetic
map of the region? And finally, what is the role of information support
in the elaboration and promotion of particular projects in energetic?

The answers to these questions play a key role in the process of
elaboration of the efficient policy directed to the real integration
of the countries of the region in the sphere of energetic.

1.Information wars and political nature of a number of projects The
current regional energetic projects "suffer" from the limitation of
transit schemes, which is conditioned by political reasons, and cannot
be regarded as the paragon of multilateral collaboration. The prime
cause of such a situation is the political rivalry, the competition
of energetic "heavy weights" for the oil or gas fields, boreholes,
pipelines.

Such a competition substitutes real collaboration in the region of
South Caucasus and engages our countries in useless and unpromising
dispute around politically and not economically reasoned =0 Aprojects.

Today it is much spoken about the necessity to elaborate new
architecture of security in the world and mainly in South Caucasus. I
think it would be right and appropriate to elaborate new concept of
energy security of the region.

We should admit that the energetic situation in the region is covered
very insufficiently and very often unilaterally on different levels,
including national level. It is not a secret that the political nature
of energetic projects in South Caucasus hits the pocket of every
inhabitant of that region. Meanwhile, the low level of awareness among
the population of the countries of the region causes the elites to
implement political projects, which do not have sufficient economic
verification and thus they put a time bomb under the energetic and
generate further speculative occurrences on international energy
market and this may definitely be the reason of the latest global
and financial crisis.

Therefore, a new quality of information support is needed to bear
the initiatives of the political and business elites. We need
constant "authorities-business" feedback. We need the situation
when creative plans and projects of business-elite have objective
and highly professional informational support and create necessary
"background" and motivation for the regional political leaders so that
those projects were regarded as viable and vital for the development
of the country. The=2 0foregoing collaboration should promote to
the creation of the appropriate convenient medium for the mutual
integration of energetic programs.

At present, unfortunately, the situation is far from the creation
of above-mentioned reference points. Each country, undoubtedly,
chooses its own system and model of energy security ensuring, but at
the same time they do not take into consideration the tendencies and
the projects, which are carried out in that neighbouring countries
(where in our opinion there are ample opportunities for collaboration
and optimization of national energetic sectors).

This happens:

Due to the lack of confidence in political and economic integration of
the countries of the region and on this basis each of the countries
of the region chooses the concept of maximal energy independence
and self-sufficiency.

Due to practically complete political nature of the information
support of all the energetic projects, both national and regional.

In my opinion it is necessary today:

To elaborate by common efforts some kind of "code of conduct" in
information space, mainly for the coverage of regional energetic
projects.

The principles of objectiveness and honesty, pragmatism and
collaboration orientation should lie at the root of that "code"; To use
the informational resources we have to spread progressive forms and
methods of energetic management and actively involve the population
in the discussion of th e issues of energy security of countries of
the region and mainly of Armenia; To raise constantly the proficiency
of the participants of the informational processes. The information
must be professional and of high quality.

Unfortunately at present one can rarely meet the objective and high
quality analysis of the energetic projects and development models [1].

The creation of free energy market in South Caucasus by means of the
integration of national energy systems, service corridors and all the
available scientific and technological potential is one of the basic
terms for the improvement of the quality of life in the countries of
the region.

This is one of the paramount objectives of international diplomacy [2].

"Energy without borders" – this should become a slogan.

2. New quality in the policy of Armenia Today we can state that
Armenia, which does not have any hydrocarbon resources and access to
the sea, can be regarded on the background of complex and ambiguous
political and economic processes going on in the countries of the
region as a striking and potent example of the successful solution
of the problem of maintaining the desired level of energetic security
of the country.

One of the means of further energetic security upgrade of Armenia is
the elaboration of qualitatively new export policy on the state level,
which should be aimed on the creation of unique and very efficient
capabilities for20boosting external economic exchange of the Republic
of Armenia with the neighbouring countries and this will promote to
the energetic security upgrade of the country. Armenia should be very
active in the process of elaboration and consistent implementation of
the new regional projects, which have "common point" for the countries
of our region. Amid the global financial and economical crisis there
is no alternative for regional collaboration, especially in the sphere
of energetic.

Armenia, which possesses two gas pipelines and underground storage
facilities for gas and also additional competitive productive
capacities, has all the chances to become a kind of regional liberal
energetic field.

The solution of this not simple problem supposes the implementation
of the ambitious programs in the near future, either in the economy
of Armenian on the whole or in energetic particularly. The aims and
goals of that problem may be set out in the following thesises.

Energetic security upgrade of Armenia by means of competitive
export market grouping; The elaboration and implementation of state
policy of the RA directed to the real support of export oriented
energetic projects which should be based on flexible price policy; The
elaboration of unified stance of the strategic partners directed to
the extension of the cooperation in the field of regional energetic,
which should include not only the nearest neighbours of Armenian but
=0 Aalso Turkmenistan, Iraq and other countries.

Here are the conditions under which Armenia can turn into energetic
"base" of the region: the further liberalization of external economic
exchange, the enlargement of the access to the innovative achievements,
progressive technical standards and methods of state and corporative
economy management, real shift to the new quality of export policy. The
part of the professional information support in the implementation
of the aforementioned ambitious program is undoubtedly big.

All the aforementioned cannot be fully implemented if all the regional
actors do not realize the importance of consolidating prospects
of the cooperation in the sphere of energetic, of the acceptance
and the observation of the legal status (which is coordinated
with international norms and is not changed at once own will or
unilaterally). Today Armenia regards the new energetic situation as
very positive fact for itself and is conscious of real opportunity
of being involved in big regional energetic projects and it has all
the chances to become one of the key actors on the energetic map of
South Caucasus.

And at the end, we think that it would be much easier to implement
that large-scale task when there is a proper level of information
support of our initiations and projects, on which we reckon in the
course of our activity.

LAVROV: "SAHAKASHVILI TO INFRINGE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF GEORGIA"

Panorama.am
15:20 16/02/2009

"Michail Sahakashvili is the only guilty to infringe the territorial
integrity of Georgia," said the Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey
Lavrov in his interview given to "Shpigel," magazine.

"Georgia treated the two nations joined to it within Soviet Times
chauvinistically. President Sahakashvili himself infringed the
territorial integrity of the country when ordered to bomb the peaceful
city of Southern Ossetia. It was a crime against the people whom he
considered to be the citizens of his country," stressed Lavrov.

Russia announced the independence of Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia
after the President of Georgia announced that "the war is not over,
it will start later", said the Foreign Minister.

According to Lavrov, NATO and UN rejected to study the case and the
West was planning to equip Georgia. "Then we were sure that the only
way to provide security to Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia was the
declaration of their independence," concluded Sergey Lavrov.

Russian builds its new empire with finance, not fear

Times Online
February 5, 2009

From Belarus to the Caucasus and Central Asia, Russian power and
influence is at its greatest height since the Soviet collapse

Tony Halpin in Moscow

Whatever the economic calamities ahead, this year is proving an
excellent one for the political project of forging a new Russian
empire.

A plethora initiatives from the of Kremlin is binding most of Russia’s
former Soviet satellites ever more tightly to Moscow. Only yesterday
the Kremlin created a rapid reaction force with six of the states and
an economic bailout fund with four of them.

The reaction force will be under central command, which will
undoubtedly be in Moscow since Russia is providing most of the troops.
Soldiers from Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan will once again learn to take orders in Russian.

Russia is also putting up $7.5 billion (£5.19 billion) of a $10 billion
mutual rescue fund it established with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
and Kyrgyzstan. Despite growing hardship for millions of Russians at
home, the Kremlin also offered to throw billions of roubles at Belarus
after both countries agreed to form a joint air defence system pointed
at Europe.

He who pays the piper calls the tune as the United States learned
painfully on Tuesday from President Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan, who served
notice t
o quit a key airbase for supplying Nato forces in Afghanistan.
A gleeful Kremlin denied any link between that decision and the $2.15
billion in loans and aid it had given the impoverished republic just
moments earlier.

Washington is flirting with Tajikistan as another potential base for
Afghan supplies. President Rakhmon, enjoying the attention, apparently
felt emboldened enough to cancel his visit to Moscow initially, but
quickly thought better of it.

Having squeezed the US military out of Central Asia, Russia is
determined to prevent the European Union becoming a rival for energy in
its backyard. The EU is desperate to break Russia’s grip on gas by
securing new supplies from the region through the Caucasus.

President Medvedev beat them to Uzbekistan where his Uzbek counterpart,
Islam Karimov, pledged last month to double supplies to Russia, adding
reassuringly that Uzbekistan "sells gas to Russia and to Russia only".

Gas-rich Turkmenistan offers hope but only if the Caucasus remains open
as a conduit for pipelines. Since the war with Georgia last summer and
the de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia has
returned to the region with a bang.

Armenia is little more than a vassal state, having sold most of its
economic infrastructure to Russian companies. The "frozen conflict"
between Armenia and neighbouring Azerbaijan over the disputed territory
of Nagorno-Karabakh gives the Kremlin further leverage.
0D
Moscow denied Azeri claims last month that it had funnelled arms worth
$800 million to Armenia, which is host to a Russian military base. But
both sides understand that Russia could tip the balance of power in
either direction if it chooses.

From Belarus to the Caucasus and Central Asia, Russian power and
influence is now at its greatest height since the Soviet collapse.
While Kremlin ruled its old empire with fear, it is building its new
one on finance.

Only Ukraine remains beyond Moscow’s so-called "sphere of influence"
despite the recent bruising gas war. Presidential elections are just 11
months away, however, offering the Kremlin empire-builders a great
opportunity to avenge the setback of the pro-western Orange revolution.

YEREVAN, BAKU DON’T PREPARE PUBLICS FOR PEACE AGREEMENT ON KARABAKH

PanARMENIAN.Net
11.02.2009 21:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Center for National and International
Studies (ACNIS) Director Richard Giragosian issued a statement today
commenting on a recent report in the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet
claiming that a new "partial agreement" has been reached between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh, brokered by Turkish
Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. The report alleged that Armenia and
Azerbaijan reached a new agreement on four key points of a draft
peace plan, including the reopening of road and rail links between
Azerbaijan and Armenia and the deployment of an undefined international
peacekeeping force to the region.

The statement says:

"While today’s report in the Turkish media remains unsubstantiated by
any Armenian, Azerbaijani or Turkish officials, the rather sensational
claims of a sudden breakthrough over the unresolved Karabakh conflict
raises several concerns. Most notably, the unconfirmed report reveals
the danger posed by the overall lack of transparency and inadequate
public awareness of the status of the peace process.

By its very nature, the closed and secretive process of mediation by
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk
Group only fosters misunderstandings and misinformation, especially
as neither the Armenian nor the Azerbaijani governments are doing
enough to prepare their constituencies for a possible peace deal.

At the same time, however, there is no viable alternative to the
OSCE Minsk Group as a mediator for the Karabakh conflict. The Minsk
Group is the sole international body empowered to manage the mediation
effort aimed at resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and has been
long engaged in conducting delicate diplomacy toward that end.

But the OSCE Minsk Group format is also structurally flawed by the
absence of the democratically-elected representatives of the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic (NKR) which, as a party to the conflict, must be
afforded a more direct and formal role in the peace process.

Moreover, the failure to incorporate Karabakh in the peace talks as
a party of equal standing only questions the viability of reaching
a negotiated resolution capable of meeting the minimum standards of
security and sustainability.

The recognition of the vital and primary role of the OSCE Minsk Group
as the mediator for the Karabakh also means that Turkey can have no
direct role in the peace process. By virtue of its close strategic
relationship with Azerbaijan, and in terms of Turkey’s open diplomatic,
economic and military support for Azerbaijan, including its ongoing
blockade of Armenia, Turkey can not been accepted as a neutral broker
or mediator of the Karabakh conflict.

On a broader level, the lack of information concerning the peace
process only leads to misinformation, endangering the already fragile
and delicate peace talks. For Armenia, the lack of information only
fuels misunderstanding and fosters a deeper sense of apathy among the
population. The Armenian government must do much more to educate and
involve its citizens in the peace process.

Equally important, Azerbaijan has also failed to properly prepare its
public for any possible progress in the peace talks. In addition,
the secrecy surrounding the peace talks has only strengthened the
militant rhetoric of its leadership and has radicalized the discourse
within Azerbaijani society. Although the August 2008 war in Georgia
only reaffirmed the danger of a sudden outbreak of hostilities in
the region, Azerbaijani leaders continue to dangerously promote an
irresponsible language of aggression and threat, tending to exacerbate
regional insecurity.

Therefore, the recent revelations of the Turkish media suggesting a
secret peace deal over Karabakh only serves to complicate efforts to
forge a fair and lasting peace. Most crucially, the lack of information
and transparency encourages a dangerous trend of misinformation and
disinformation that entrenches stereotypes and emboldens more extreme
views. Thus, the failure of all sides to prepare and engage their
publics in the peace process only reveals the deficit of prudent
statesmanship and proper leadership."

WORK BEING DONE TO BUILD SVERDLOVSK TRACTOR PLANT BRANCH IN ARMAVIR REGION

Noyan Tapan

Feb 9, 2009

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 9, NOYAN TAPAN. During the February 9 working
meeting Armavir Governor Ashot Ghahramanian reported RA President
Serzh Sargsyan about the process of work done in the region in 2008
and planned for this year, as well as the work in the direction of
solving problems supposed by the President’s preelection program and
raised by the region’s residents during the election campaign.

S. Sargsyan instructed him to pay a serious attention and to undertake
all-embracing steps to provide residents with drinking water, as well
as to sell the produced agricultural products.

A. Ghahramanian said that he is leaving for Sverdlovsk region soon to
sign agreements regarding sale of agricultrual goods. The Governor also
said that RF Sverdlovsk region’s delegation in its turn is arriving
for Armenia to sign agreements with the local producers. According
to the Governor, work is being done to build Sverdlovsk tractor plant
branch in Armavir region.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 9 2009

Turkey in the United Nations Security Council

ABSTRACT – Turkey’s new seat in the UNSC marks a historic achievement
for Turkish foreign policy since 1961. Turkish diplomatic corps around
the world and political leaders have lobbied towards this end since
2003.

In recent years, Turkey has expanded its foreign policy parameters not
only in theory but in practice and reached out to disparate corners of
the world. Turkey’s present success offers challenges and
opportunities together. While trying to contribute to international
security, Turkey will face the requirement of transforming its
domestic politics in accordance with the realities of the post Cold
War era. Turkey’s policies of bringing the conflicting sides together
and initiating platforms for cooperation will be seen more often now
in international politics.

TURKEY IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

Turkey won a seat as a non-permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council in the election held on October 17, 2008. Turkey had
competed in the `Western European and Others’ bloc along with Austria
and Iceland; out of 192 voting members of the UN General Assembly, 151
voted for Turkey. Turkey and the second winner in the same bloc,
Austria, will replace Belgium and Italy. The responsibilities of the
seat will resume on January 1, 2009 and end on December 31, 2010.

The United Nations Security Council is formed around five major
permanent members (also called the big five), the United States,
Russia, China, the UK, and France. The permanent members represent the
real power distribution, each holding the power to veto any
decision. In addition to these five permanent members, the United
Nations General Assembly elects ten non-permanent members from among
five blocs representing different regions in the world. Non-permanent
members of the UNSC are elected for a two years term and are not
eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey’s new seat in the UNSC is a
historic achievement for Turkish foreign policy since 1961. After
holding a non-permanent member seat three times, in 1951`1952,
1954`1955 and in 1961, Turkey tried its hand throughout the 1970s and
twice in the 1990s with no success. Turkey’s present success was not
won easily and reflects the dynamic transformation in Turkish foreign
policy over the last few years. The success came with hard work and
coordinated diplomacy, and it promises to offer challenges and
opportunities together. The following lines briefly discuss the path
that led to Turkey’s present seat in the Security Council, and assess
its potential impact on Turkish foreign policy.

Turkey Builds a New Circle of Trust

Turkey’s new government decided to run for a seat in UNSC immediately
after its election in 2002. Since then, Turkish foreign policy has
demonstrated a remarkable dedication to this goal. Turkish diplomatic
corps around the world and political leaders lobbied to achieve this
end during the last six years until the last hours before the
election. Perhaps for the first time in its modern history, Turkey
coordinated a multidimensional diplomacy initiative of this magnitude
effectively and successfully. During the campaign Turkey expanded its
foreign policy parameters not only in theory but in practice and
reached out to disparate corners of the world. The new territories
Turkey charted for this goal ranged from Pacific countries (all of
whom voted in favor of Turkey in the UN General Assembly) to
Sub-Saharan Africa, and from South America to Central Asia.

By hosting various summits in Istanbul, among them one for African
countries and another for member states of the Caribbean Community,
Turkey exhibited a high level of engagement with countries whose
problems had not received a dedicated voice in the Western world. The
summit between Turkey and the member states of the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) was held on August 21-23 2008. The summit exemplified the
evolving nature of Turkish foreign policy and the global nature of its
economic relations irrespective of geographical distance. Attendees
raised common concerns and emphasized their commitment to advancing
economic, political, social and cultural relations. The CARICOM
countries welcomed Turkey as a permanent observer to both the
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) and the Organization of the
American States (OAS). Turkey’s proposal to raise its level of
relations with these countries by establishing a `Consultation and
Cooperation Mechanism’ was also welcomed.

Another Istanbul summit, which was held right before the
Turkey`CARICOM meeting, gathered heads of delegations from the African
Union countries with Turkish statesmen in August 18-21 2008. `The
First Africa-Turkey Cooperation Summit’ embodied Turkey’s most recent
openings towards the continent. For too long the continent had escaped
the attention of Turkish foreign policy. To rectify this situation and
to bring the continent and its problems to the world’s attention
Turkey had declared the year 2005 as `The Year of Africa’ during which
several conferences were held and new initiatives introduced. As part
of Turkey’s new opening to Africa, TIKA (the Turkish Cooperation and
Development Agency) financed and carried out several development
projects in different parts of the continent. In addition, for the
first time in Turkey, a scholarly journal solely devoted to issues
related to the African continent, Afrika began to be
published. Africa, beyond a handful of Northern countries, was a
recent `discovery’ for Turkish statesmen, business people and NGOs; in
fact they all discovered how much could be done in the region. In an
attempt to fill the gap of representation, Turkey plans to open up ten
more embassies in Africa.

In addition to its initiatives in Africa, Turkey’s contributions to
the UN and to projects in the least developed regions of the world
have been on a steady increase during the last few years. Turkey’s
contribution in development assistance programs now amounts annually
to more than 700 million US dollars; when combined with the NGOs’
contributions the number reaches to more than one billion
annually. Such efforts fall under the Millennium Development Goals
promoted by former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, and
contribute to Turkey’s trust building efforts. In sum, despite its
limited financial means, Turkey is emerging as a donor country in the
UN. The Africa`Turkey cooperation summit in Istanbul emphasized
Turkey’s positive role in the world in general and its constructive
initiatives for Africa in particular. The declaration of the Summit,
announced on August 19, 2008 in Istanbul, welcomed the African Union’s
decision to declare Turkey a strategic partner. The declaration
recognizes the importance of economic cooperation between Turkey and
the growing economies of African states, and also makes significant
references to the role of the UNSC. Among these, the declaration calls
for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, emphasizing the
UNSC’s role in providing peace and security in the world, and demands
recognition by the UNSC of the positive role facilitated by the
African Union in the settlements of conflicts in the continent. As
evidenced by the Summit, Turkey’s objectives and the African Union’s
desires to resolve international conflicts through negotiations and
peaceful methods compliment each other.

Another highly visible event was the United Nations Ministerial
Conference of the Least Developed Countries which took place in
Istanbul July 9`11, 2007. The meeting discussed issues around how to
increase the participation of LDCs in global business by addressing
their specific problems in attracting investment and international
trade.[1] Through the UNDP Turkey hosted this event and embraced the
problems of the least developed world.

Obviously Turkey did not engage in all of these efforts only to get
the non-permanent seat in the UNSC. After the end of the Cold War the
international system had to be redefined. And it was redefined by
three major events: the first war on Iraq (after Saddam’s invasion of
Kuwait), the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the second war in Iraq
(both of the latter took place after the horrifying terrorist attacks
on the US on September 11, 2001). Turkey, along with the rest of the
world, was entering unknown territory in terms of its international
relations. The world system was becoming increasingly unpredictable,
as there was no agreed upon mechanism for re-distribution of world
resources by major powers. The showcase territory for the new world
order, led by the US, was in close proximity to Turkey, and Turkey’s
financial losses from the first war on Iraq were second only to Iraq’s
own. In addition, Turkey paid (and is still paying) a heavy price in
terms of financial resources and human lives due to terror originating
from Northern Iraq. Turkey needed to regain its strength in order to
meet new challenges coming from all directions. Turkey’s diplomatic
initiatives over the past few years can be interpreted from this
perspective, and its successful bid for the nonpermanent seat in the
UNSC is emblematic of its new and dynamic approach to the post Cold
War world.

The United Nations was formed around three major concerns:
development, human rights and security. The Security Council
represents the security aspect of these three major pillars. As
outlined in the UN charter, the Security Council oversees peace and
security operations around the world. The Council has the power to
authorize military actions, peacekeeping operations, and international
sanctions. In this regard Turkey’s active involvement in the Council’s
decision-making process has different dimensions. Main dimension is
related to Turkey’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations. In
recent years, Turkey has provided a range of military services under
the umbrella of the UN (and NATO), in places ranging from Somalia to
Bosnia and from Kosovo to Lebanon. Turkey led UN troops (ISAF) in
Afghanistan with a large number of military personnel and is currently
providing peacekeeping and infrastructure-building services in the
war-torn regions of Lebanon. One thing that should be kept in mind is
that Turkey’s approach toward UN security operations has traditionally
been concentrated around its peacekeeping efforts. Therefore, the
non-permanent status of Turkey in the Security Council compliments
Turkey’s role and efforts in providing peacekeeping operations around
the globe.

Turkey and the UNSC: Challenges

There is no question that non-permanent membership in the UNSC will
provide Turkey with great prestige in the international community, or,
conversely that it reflects Turkey’s prestige in the world. But in
what ways and to what extent can Turkey transform this `capital’ into
real benefits for itself and for the good of the international
community?

Turkey will be serving at the UNSC at a time of a great many
challenges. The most recent financial crisis in the US spread to the
rest of the world in a matter of days, and with only grim prospects
for immediate solution, the same crises is now shaking the very
grounds of liberal economies around the globe. The question if and/or
to what extent the traditional paradigms of the current international
economic system, the parameters of which were set at Bretton Woods[2]
after the end of WWII, should be reconsidered revised lies at the core
of the uncertainty. The same uncertainty delays and complicates the
emergence of a new political international system. What will be the
roles of new centers of power in the would-be emerging world system,
namely the European Union, China, India and Russia? Maybe there will
be no new international `system.’ Maybe there will be multiple systems
in the world. To debate a clear answer to these issues would be far
too ineffectual at this stage. But until that time comes there are
many good things to be done, and with its new role Turkey can serve
the good of humanity along with the other non-permanent members and
the big five of the UNSC.

One of the most urgently needed steps in order for Turkey to function
with maximum efficiency in the UNSC is for Turkey to bring its
domestic politics urgently into the real world of the post Cold War
era. This is necessary for two reasons: the most recent internal
political struggles in Turkey (e.g. the closure case against the
Justice and Development Party, the relentless rejections of main
opposition party, the People’s Republican Party, government proposals
for a more democratic constitution,[3] the inability to effectively
eradicate the undemocratic environment so that those who aspire to
utilize terror will lose their ground, the need to transform unwilling
and disgruntled segments of the old fashioned bureaucracy, etc.) are
preventing Turkey and its political leaders from tapping their full
potential. The second reason is that for outsiders, domestic power
struggles invite worries that Turkey’s trends toward greater
democratization and economic stability could be temporary rather than
the established norm. Turkey needs to eradicate these anomalies and
the damaging misperceptions they perpetuate now in order to strengthen
its claims for a better and more peaceful world.

Given Turkey’s emphasis on peacekeeping, a major dilemma could arise
for Turkey when the issues of using military power or authorizing
sanctions against another country are brought before the Security
Council. The most immediate issue before the Council will inevitably
be the case against Iran because of its nuclear program. The case
against Iran has the potential to turn into an international military
conflict. While Israel has pressed the US and the UN to take military
action against Iran, the EU has shown reluctance. China and Russia
likewise disfavor an immediate military operation. Turkey’s position
regarding Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weaponry is clear; Turkey does
not want a proliferation of nuclear arms in general, and in its
neighborhood in particular. Whether Iran’s nuclear program is designed
for peaceful civil use or to reach military capability, making Iran a
nuclear power posing a viable threat to Israel seems to be at the core
of the problem. Turkey has tended to accept Iran’s statements that its
nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, while the US and
Israel have not. The case against Iran in the UNSC seems to be
deadlocked as there is a disagreement among the permanent members: the
US and the UK lobby for wider sanctions ` perhaps before a military
campaign ` while China and Russia try to prevent it.

The case is complicated for Turkey for several reasons. First, Turkey
does not want another sanctions regime around its borders. Turkey paid
a heavy price from the sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq, and was never
compensated for its losses. Several Turkish companies operating in
Iraq lost billions of dollars when they had to leave the country
before the first war on Iraq in 1991. The total losses of Turkish
companies are estimated to be around 40`60 billion dollars. Second,
although few Turkish companies operate in Iran today, Turkey needs to
remain on good terms with this neighbor, because Iran provides the
only viable alternative to Turkey’s sole natural gas supplier,
Russia. Aware of Turkey’s need to diversify its energy supply, Iran
recently offered Turkey a privileged status to supply its energy from
Iran, a proposal containing partnership offers for the drilling of oil
and natural gas reserves. Although the proposal

has yet to be realized, and although the US does not want Turkey to go
ahead with it, the proposal certainly is an attractive offer given
Turkey’s currently limited options for energy supplies.

Turkey opposes military operations for another and more humanitarian
reason, urging the world to recognize that the region has exhausted
its capacity to endure another war. Another unjustified military
operation would eradicate the prospects of democratization in the
region, this time perhaps forever. As a point of even greater caution,
a war against Iran should not at all be compared to the war against
Iraq. The consequences of an Iran war would be far more catastrophic
than the Iraq war ever was. Although Iran’s military capacity cannot
compare with America’s military might, it could still inflict heavy
damages on American resources and on US allies in the region.

Turkey can and should mediate between the sides to preempt a
large-scale conflict in the region, and it can do so with greater
efficiency using the UNSC as a platform for cooperation. The role
Turkey would assume to prevent an armed conflict between the US and
Iran also fits Turkey’s traditional foreign policy directive,
inherited from the founder of the Republic, namely `peace at home,
peace abroad.’

Turkey and the UNSC: Opportunities

Through its membership in the UNSC, Turkey should offer its
experiences in combating terror for the good of the international
community. It is widely known that Turkey sided with the US in the
`War on Terror’ but received little sympathy from its Western allies
in general or from its European partners in particular during its
struggle against the PKK. Originating from Northern Iraq where their
terrorist activities have yet to be outspokenly and frankly rejected
by local authorities, a PKK terror network has long been active in
Turkey, causing a wide gap of trust between its supporters behind the
scene and Turkey’s people. It would be imprudent for Turkish statesmen
not to raise the issue of the PKK and its subsidiary terrorist
networks with a stronger voice now, in order to get higher-level
attention and cooperation from the international community. No better
place exists among the current international institutions than the
UNSC to voice such concerns and demand solid contributions from
partners to combat terrorism. The most recent conflict between Georgia
and Russia has created instability around Turkey which involves the US
also. The dimensions of the conflict inevitably invite Turkey to be
more proactive in seeking a peaceful solution, as it has good
relations with both countries and the Western world. Though the
conflict took place between Georgia and Russia, the results would
suggest a new geopolitical situation between the US and Russia. The
conflict can also be perceived as Russia’s reaction to NATO’s policies
of expansion to include the former Soviet republics. The conflict
poses a critical challenge to Turkish foreign policy because Turkey is
a member of NATO and is also trying to form a high level of economic
partnership with Russia. The disagreement between the US and Russia
(and to a limited extent between the US and the EU) over NATO’s future
role in the region invites careful policymaking as far as Turkey is
concerned. Not yet admitted to the decision-making process of the
European Union’s major security structures, Turkey faces a dilemma and
perhaps a hard choice between two seemingly close but internally rival
blocs, the EU and the US. The real dilemma for Turkey appears to lie
in how to accommodate Russia’s new aspirations and the United States’
already in-progress designs for the region. Turkey’s choices are quite
limited where Russia is involved: Russia is the only major natural gas
supplier for Turkey, the only alternative being Iran. Turkish Prime
Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan’s recent proposal to form a regional
cooperation scheme (the Caucasian Stability and Cooperation Platform)
which includes Russia, would serve as a good exit point `if realized
meaningfully`from the current impasse and could provide alternative
venues to engage the parties involved in the conflict. Despite the
possibility that Turkey could find itself in the middle of an
international conflict while trying to mediate a regional
disagreement, (consider that the conflict in Georgia was perceived by
many as between Russia and the US), if used effectively, Turkey can
utilize the UNSC as a mediating platform. Turkey will bring more to
the table than any other country in the region not only because it is
and has been a reliable partner to both Russia and the US, but also
because it seeks to expand diplomatic and economic cooperation with
the countries in the region. With much to lose in future international
conflicts in the Caucasus region Turkey should try to prevent any
further expansion of the current conflict.

Other Dimensions

Turkey will be working with a new American administration in the
UNSC. This certainly presents a big opportunity for Turkey because the
new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has a considerable knowledge
of Turkey and Turkish leaders. While Clinton has acknowledged Turkey’s
positive role in the Middle East and has attended events with Turkish
policymakers more than once, Turkey should not expect that the
relationship between the two countries will be stress-free. If
American-Armenian’s allegations are brought before the House, with
Hillary Clinton and the next president of the United States Barack
Obama, as well as the current speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
already committed to the Armenian claims; it would mark a catastrophic
beginning for bilateral relations. Common sense suggests that the
issue should be delayed if not eliminated altogether to let Turkey
cultivate alternative venues to reach out to Armenia and the Armenian
Diaspora. Turkish President Abdullah Gül’s visit to Armenia in
September 2008 is a positive step showing Turkey’s willingness to
resolve the issue. But each side needs time to digest the steps taken
and prepare for a better future ahead. If third parties cannot remain
neutral they should at least encourage the Armenian Diaspora to
support Turkey’s recent initiatives. America’s military campaign
against Iraq without the authorization of the UNSC was the beginning
of a series of events that led to further destabilization of the
Middle East and cost America its legitimacy in the region. The US
needs to repair at least some of its legitimacy more than ever, and
this might not happen without Turkey’s positive input. After a new
administration takes office in Washington, how much help Turkey can
provide to Obama’s efforts to rebuild American legitimacy in the
region will be determined by the level of cooperation offered to
Turkey. While working with the US in the Middle East will be one of
the most challenging subjects for Turkish foreign policy, American
policymakers should also reevaluate their objectives in the region and
their methods of reaching those objectives afresh. The US and Turkey
will be closer to each other in the corridors of the UN than they have
ever been in Iraq, and they should both take time to listen to each
other more than they once did. The pragmatics of international affairs
dictates more cooperation between Turkey and the US in the near
future.

The improvement of bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia
started in the post Cold War context with Russia cleverly tapping
Turkey’s need to access alternative markets beyond Europe, while at
the same time creating an environment in which it can control Turkey’s
aspirations toward the Turkic states in Central Asia. The relations
between Turkey and Russia are complex, but rich at the same
time. Although known as traditional foes, Turkey and Russia have been
cultivating venues of cooperation during the last two decades. In an
attempt to make the transition to a liberal market economy, Russia
invited Turkish business people and welcomed billions of dollars of
Turkish investments in several infrastructure projects. Russia has now
become one of the major importers from Turkey (second only to
Germany), and around two million Russian tourists visit Turkey every
year. In addition, Turkey derives its natural gas Supplies almost
exclusively from Russia.[4] If the US continues to remain a superpower
whose primary foreign policy tool is hard power, Turkish`Russian
relations will naturally improve further. The growth recorded in the
Russian economy in the last few years seems poised to make Russia to
reappear once again as a global actor. But such aspirations may be
dimmed by the current global financial crisis that has resulted in an
incredible fall in oil prices, the sole pillar of Russia’s
economy. Russia and Turkey seem more interdependent now than ever
before in history, the positive impacts of which will reflect in the
geopolitics of the region in the near future.

Slowly but surely, China has been entering into Turkey’s foreign
policymaking parameters since the early 1990s. The constant growth
rate of its economy has brought China to a status worth reckoning
with. While China, so far, has not openly attempted to translate its
economic power into the political realm (with the minor exception of
the Hong Kong issue), the future holds more challenges between China
and the West. A major reason for the rivalry is that affordable
Chinese products are defeating the very grounds of local industries
all over the world. The second reason, which has already placed the US
and China at odds, is China’s constant need for energy, specifically
oil and natural gas, to supply and maintain its growing economy. In an
attempt to cultivate alternative resources beyond the Middle East,
where it cannot challenge American dominance, China has developed
inventive models to gain the trust of some oil-rich countries (Africa
for instance) by financing infrastructure projects. Nevertheless,
their contribution to China’s thirst for energy has been minimal to
date, leaving Iran as one of China’s major suppliers. An ambitious
pipeline project to supply China with oil and gas from Russia is
already underway. It is perhaps within this context that the brewing
crisis between Iran and the US should be read. Last but not least,
despite Turkey’s credible worries over the current status of China’s
Turkic minorities, Turkey will have more encounters with China while
serving in the Security Council.

Despite its recent successes, Turkish foreign policy still suffers
from an acute problem of ineffective public relations (PR). While the
following examples are real time issues with international
consequences they also represent a high level of ineffective PR cases
as far as Turkey is concerned. The most recurrent of these cases has
been the claims of Armenian Diaspora about the events of 1915. Turkey
lagged behind in countering the efforts of the Armenian Diaspora in
Europe and the Americas when it chose to remain on the
defensive. Neither Turkish historians with international acclaim nor
diplomats have shown so far a well-coordinated academic and diplomatic
engagement to defeat the accusations. Despite the successful efforts
of the Armenian Diaspora in turning their claims to non-binding laws
or decisions in different parliaments around the world, the Turkish
diplomatic corps still does not seem to posses a sophisticated
approach to the issue. Turkey must realize that it cannot continue to
its current policies of defense against the Armenian claims and
suffice to rely on the power of lobbies alone. Turkey’s systematic
denial of Armenian claims should not prevent its policymakers and
diplomats from developing a proactive and informative
approach. Turkey’s current inactivity with regard to this issue will
not be helpful especially when the new administration in the US takes
office with some of the major figures in politics already expressing
their sympathies for the claims of the American-Armenians. To arrest a
catastrophic result in the US, Turkey should use its presence in the
UNSC to be more proactive and reach out to clearly explain its
position, its willingness to refer the matter to scholars from third
party countries, and its recent goodwill efforts toward
Armenia. Moreover, the stressful relations with Armenia will certainly
ease and gain a deeper momentum when Armenia shows willingness to
solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem by withdrawing its forces from
Azeri territories. Turkey should certainly bring this issue, including
the plight of about one million Azeri refugees caused by Armenia, to
the attention of the members of the UNSC, and must push for a strong
UNSC resolution to force a withdrawal.

Another major multi-dimensional problem for Turkey has been the Cyprus
issue. Due to its geo-strategic location and loaded history the island
is causing challenges far greater than its actual size. Turkey’s
historic ties with the Turkish community on the island make Turkey an
active participant in the debates surrounding the island. Turkey’s
position as a guarantor, recognized by the Zurich and London
Agreements of 1959,[5] was challenged when the Cypriot side was
unilaterally accepted to the European Union, a clear violation of
article 22 of the 1959 Agreement. In the referenda prior to the
accession of the Greek side to the EU, the Annan Plan was voted upon
by the Turkish and Greek communities. The EU and the US supported the
Plan, and Turkish Cypriots were promised that they would be dealt with
on equal terms if they voted yes to the Plan. Yet despite the fact
that Turkish Cypriots voted yes and the Greek Cypriots voted no, the
EU went ahead with the full accession of the Greek Cypriots, as if no
referenda had ever taken place. Today, the Turkish side still suffers
from the heavy blockade of the international community. While in the
UNSC, Turkey should mobilize for the recognition of a new regime for
the Turkish Cypriots so that they will be able to live in peace with
their immediate neighbors and the rest of the world.

Turkey obviously should not exaggerate its potential role in the UNSC
vis-à-vis the real powers of the Council (the big five or
permanent members). As the most recent crises in the Middle East
demonstrated, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a
major challenge for the region at large and most recently a turn of
events for the idealism that is dominating the Turkish foreign
policy. Referring to the peace talks between Israel and Syria Turkey
has been mediating; the Turkish prime minister accused his Israeli
counterpart that Olmert was preparing for war while talking
peace. While Hamas foolishly triggered the Israeli assault, the
humanitarian plight in Gaza caused by the use of uncontrolled force
must have been disheartening for the party of peace in both
sides. With the veto power of the US government, the UNSC becomes
literally ineffective when it comes to Israeli`Palestinian
conflict. Erdogan’s proposal to mediate the demands of Hamas to the
UNSC for a ceasefire seems beyond the interest of Israel and the
US. Turkey seems to be caught up in a wide gap between its aspirations
for peace and the hard reality on the ground.

SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
[*] Akif Kirecci, Assistant Prof. Bilkent University, School of
Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences.

Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Issues in Trade and
Investment,’ The United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least
Developed World, Making Globalization Work for the LDCs 9`11 July
2007, UNDP & UNCTAD Issues
Paper. [ 07-Globalization_and_LDCs. pdf]. Accessed
on December 21, 2008.

The Bretton Woods system is an international monetary agreement signed
in 1944 which gave the US currency a dominant status in the world
economy. The agreement made the US dollar the reserve money for the
world; the system has been malfunctioning since 1971. On October 13,
2008, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown asked world leaders to
create a new `financial architecture’ to replace the current
system. For further details, see (inter alia): Joan E. Spero and
Jeffrey A. Hart, eds. The Politics of International Economic Relations
(Thompson/Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2003), Martin S. Feldstein,
ed. The United States in the World Economy (Chicago: Chicago
University Press & National Bureau of Economic Research, 1988).

Turkey’s current constitution was prepared in 1982 at the behest of
the military leaders of the 1980 coup d’état.Despite several
amendments the current constitution still needs to be improved and
brought up to the standards of the established democracies of the
European Union.

Graham E. Fuller, The New Turkish Republic: Turkey as a Pivotal State
in the Muslim World. (Washington, DC: The United States Institute of
Peace, 2008), pp. 131`132.

See Murat Metin Hakki, ed. The Cyprus Issue, A Documentary History
1878`2007. (London, New York: I. B. Tauris), pp. 31`40.

21 January 2009, Wednesday
AKIF KIRECCI [*]

CANADA ELICITS NO TURKISH DELIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL POPULARITY CONTEST
Josh Wingrove

Globe and Mail
LAC.20090206.SURVEY06/TPStory/International
Feb 6 2009
Canada

If it’s ever going to be voted the most popular kid in the class,
Canada has some PR work to do in Turkey.

Canada finished second only to Germany in a survey of public opinion
worldwide, according to a worldwide BBC poll released today that
relied on 13,000 citizen interviews in 21 countries.

In 19 countries, a majority of respondents spoke favourably of
Canada. Opinions were mixed in one other country, but there was just
one detractor: Turkey, where negative views more than doubled since
opinion of Canada there was last polled in 2007. The two countries
maintain normal relations, but Turkey recalled its ambassador in 2006
shortly after Canada’s recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915,
wartime killings Turkey contends were over-reported and didn’t amount
to genocide.

Views of Canada are now "predominantly negative in Turkey," the BBC
report found.

Egypt was the next most skeptical of Canada, with an essentially split
view. Positive views dropped in Russia, but overall opinion remained
slightly in favour of Canada.

Canada’s reputation improved in other places since last polled in
2007. In the Philippines, the United States, Italy, China and Britain,
Canada’s approval rating jumped.

The survey, conducted after the election of Barack Obama, also saw
an increase in respect for the United States, although numbers remain
low. About 40 per cent of respondents outside the United States had a
"mainly positive" view of it.

The big losers were Russia and China. Out of 20 respondent countries,
14 had an overall negative view of Russia. The actual effect may
be worse, as polling began before Russia interrupted gas service
to Europe. "The more it acts like the Soviet Union, the less people
outside its borders seem to like it," said Doug Miller, chairman of
GlobeScan, which conducted the polling for the BBC.

But in the survey, all hearts were with Germany, of which 61 per
cent of the world holds a positive view. No country had a negative
majority view. Germany’s ascent was led by jumps in positive opinion
in the two countries snubbing Canada – Turkey and Egypt.

They really like us

59% Amount of respondents with a ‘mainly positive’ view of Canada

14% Amount with a ‘mainly negative’ view of Canada