BAKU: Ilham Aliyev: "We Will Not Allow Armenia To Conduct Endless Ne


May 17 2010

Baku – APA. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Turkish Prime
Minister Receb Tayyib Erdogan held a joint press conference in Baku,
APA reports quoting CNN Turk.

Answering the question whether borders between the two countries
will be opened or not if Armenia accepts updated Madrid proposals,
President Aliyev said Azerbaijan had been searching peaceful way
during 16 years of fruitless negotiations since ceasefire was reached
in 1994. He said Azerbaijan accepted the updated Madrid proposals
with little exclusions and was expecting Armenia to accept it.

Despite 6 months have passed since the proposals was put forward,
Armenia has not given positive response, said Azerbaijani President
and added that Armenia intended to conduct endless negotiations in
this manner. The head of state said Azerbaijan wouldn’t allow it. "The
negotiations must have certain frames and time limit. The Minks Group
was established in 1992. The negotiations are going on for almost 20
years. Armenia always broke off the negotiations when the solution was
approached. Unfortunately the same position is observed today. Armenia
will respond positively to the proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group and
we will approach the solution or the process will be broken and a
new stage will be started between Armenia and Azerbaijan. If Armenia
positively responds the proposals and starts to withdraw its invasion
troops from the Azerbaijani lands, Azerbaijan will open borders and
peace and security measures will be carried out in the region".

Masao Kawasoe In Yerevan


May 17 2010

By the invitation of the chairman of "Busido" federation Shahen
Petrosyan, the Japanese master, technical director of international
traditional karate arrived at Armenia Masao Kawasoe.

The aim of his visit was to encourage the children who have taken
up this sport. He will also take part in seminars, as well as
traditional festivals dedicated to Karate, informs the Armenian
Federation of Karate.

Grandmaster of dissidence, Garry Kasparov

Jerusalem Post
May 15 2010

Grandmaster of dissidence, Garry Kasparov
14/05/2010 19:06

"To stop Iran, you must bring down Putin."

Garry Kasparov is ` what else? ` playing chess when I arrive at his
Tel Aviv hotel suite. He drags himself away from the laptop and phone
in the bedroom just long enough to let me in, says a quick hello while
waving me vaguely toward a couch, and then disappears again.

I know he doesn’t have much time to talk ` he’ll shortly be leaving
for Tel Aviv University, where he is scheduled to play one of his
famed simultaneous exhibition matches, against 30 greater and lesser
local talents (all of whom he will defeat, of course). As the minutes
slowly pass, and I overhear him discussing sophisticated variations
for pawns and knights with whoever it is on the other end of the phone
line, I start to assume that the former world champion has quite
forgotten that I’m waiting.

Learn from your mistakes

Brilliance in chess, after all, requires absolute focus. The tuning
out of all distraction. And Kasparov, who held the world’s top ranking
for 255 months in succession ` three times longer than any rival ` is
considerably more than brilliant. He is widely regarded as the
greatest ever exponent of this most cerebral of pursuits.

Recently turned 47, the black locks now graying, Kasparov formally
retired from chess five years ago. But plainly the obsession remains

He has been coaching the 19-year-old player Magnus Carlsen, helping
the Norwegian prodigy establish himself as the youngest ever World No.
1. And even now, on what should be a short holiday break in sunny Tel
Aviv, with that 30-game contest ahead of him, the Russian maestro
evidently remains deep in the thrall of chess’s endless permutations.

As the burble of moves adopted and rejected continues from the
bedroom, I look out from his window to the Tel Aviv beachfront and
ruefully wonder whether, had I arrived here 10 or 15 minutes earlier,
I might have beaten the phone call and got the interview.

But Kasparov has developed a second obsession in recent years. Raised
in Azerbaijan, he was born Garry Weinstein to a Jewish father, who
died of leukemia when he was seven, and an Armenian mother whose
surname he later adopted. And he spent his formative years in the
paranoid world of competitive chess in the Soviet Union, where it was
often the players, no matter how gifted, who were the pawns, and where
success on the board of play was deemed vital to the nation’s global

Having grown up with the weight of Communist expectations on his frail
shoulders, in the fevered climate of nationalism, manipulation and
defection that culminated in the collapse of the USSR, it is no great
surprise that, from competitive chess, the adult Kasparov turned his
focus to political activism. And that, here too, his commitment is

And so it is, after I have waited perhaps a quarter of an hour, that
Kasparov the chess nonpareil reluctantly surrenders to Kasparov the
political activist. He emerges from the bedroom, warmly shakes my
hand, and sits down to discuss that other white-black strategic
adversary, his nemesis Vladimir Putin.

PUTIN, THE former president of Russia and now the prime ministerial
power behind his handpicked successor Dmitry Medvedev, is, in
Kasparov’s emphatic conception, a terrifying creature of ruthless
avarice – the personification of Russia’s woes and an acute danger to
much of the international community besides. Kasparov’s post-chess
cause, his post-chess obsession, is to bring Putin down and thus
`restore democracy’ to his country.

To that end, Kasparov has set up social movements for change,
organized a series of anti-Putin rallies and demonstrations, mounted a
short-lived presidential bid of his own, and found himself
intermittently threatened, arrested and even briefly jailed.

Inevitably, therefore, Putin quickly makes an entrance into our
conversation, when I ask Kasparov how, applying a grandmaster’s
strategic thought processes to some of our difficulties, he would
advise Israel to handle the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. And once
on stage, the baby-faced ex-KGB chief proves a lasting presence.

`Look,’ Kasparov begins with a world-weary sigh, `Israel is in some
kind of political trouble because there is no political will in the
West to do anything with the Iranian crisis. Europe is too busy with
their own agenda now. They are busy printing more money to save Greece
and other countries rather than thinking about anything a year ahead.
America is also busy printing money, but one would expect them to come
up with a plan. Yet it seems there is no plan. Making the same
statements that a nuclear Iran is `intolerable’?’ he snorts cynically.
`Fine. As we heard many times, a nuclear North Korea was also

Swiftly now, in his fast, excellent English, Kasparov moves on to
Russia. `Without Russia’s technical assistance,’ he notes correctly,
`Iran wouldn’t be even close to a nuclear bomb.’

And that brings us immediately to the dark lord. Kasparov can be an
understated, almost self-effacing and certainly a friendly presence,
but when it comes to Putin, his body coils and his language turns
fierce. `I said it during the Bush administration, and I repeat it
now: Unless you make Putin listen, nothing is going to happen [to stop
the Iranian nuclear drive]. And he’s not going to listen to your
requests or your pleading, or [respond] to some kind of sweet deal. At
the end of the day, selling nuclear technology to Iran, selling
anti-missile defenses, brings cash. And if America or Israel, or both,
at a certain point attack Iran, the oil price goes up, so for Putin
it’s a win-win situation. Unless he sees real consequences for his
well-being, he will not do anything.’

But how, in Kasparov’s view, can Putin be made to fear `real
consequences for his well-being.’ Only, it seems, via his wallet. In
the next few minutes, Kasparov, leaning toward me from armchair to
couch, lists a succession of Russian oligarchs who he says serve as
the prime minister’s financial henchmen ` the `family,’ as he puts it,
making considered use of Mafia terminology. `The only way to make him
listen is to go after his money,’ he says.

Unless America is truly ready to take on some of these oligarchal
heavyweights, says Kasparov, brow furrowed now, speaking still faster
and with still more passion, `just don’t tell me you want to stop the
Iranian nuclear program. Iran will not stop unless Russia is ready to
join the sanctions, because apart from the nuclear technology and
anti-missile defense systems, Russia is a main energy supplier. It
seems the [Obama] administration is ready to attack Goldman Sachs,’ he
says witheringly, `but it is not ready to attack Putin’s financial
interests. Which means that Iran feels safe, and rightly so.’

How is one to `attack’ the Putin `family’? On what basis?

Kasparov looks at me a little pityingly. `I think there’s enough,’ he
says after a pause, and rapidly cites a sequence of tax-evasion and
money laundering allegations that he believes could be successfully
pursued, were there sufficient will. `I’m sure there are many options’
for international law enforcement. `If you believe that the Iranian
nuclear bomb is an imminent threat, not only to Israel but also to the
interests of the United States and the Western world, you act,’ he
says flatly. `If you don’t believe it, you can find thousands of
excuses [not to act] ` as the Western powers found 75 years ago when
not acting against the rise of Nazi Germany.’

Does he really want to make that comparison?

`Putin’s threat is probably not comparable to the one in the 1930s,’
he clarifies, `but to a certain degree it will have a very serious
impact on the Western system, because the No. 1 Russian export is not
oil. It’s corruption. And Putin has found great demand for this
product in the West. The damage he has done to the Western political
and business system has yet to be understood.’

Repeating phrases I’ve seen him utilize in past interviews, language
built to shock, he claims: `Where Hitler used tanks, Putin is using
banks. And I don’t know which will have the more lasting consequences.
He doesn’t use poison gas, but he uses natural gas. He’s very smart in
building his personal relationships and using enormous amounts of
cash. I’d guess he controls more cash than anyone else on this

But isn’t even this horrifyingly depicted Putin concerned about
enabling a nuclear Iran on Russia’s doorstop? Kasparov’s response is
an emphatic no. `It’s a legitimate question to ask about Russia,’ he
allows. Russia doesn’t want a nuclear Iran. But Putin? Iran’s progress
toward nuclear weapons `doesn’t affect Putin’s power base in Russia,’
he says. Actually, `it might only help… A crisis around Iran will
boost his position. It will give him more bargaining chips at this
geopolitical casino.’

The Russian interest, as distinct from Putin’s interest, says
Kasparov, mirrors Israel’s. He argues that, whatever their ideological
backgrounds, Russians regard Putin’s policies on radical Islam as
`suicidal for our country.’ They don’t see Russia endangered by the
West, but rather facing `the geopolitical threat from China and a
growing threat from the south. A nuclear Iran is a terrible threat,’
he says.

The trouble is, he plunges on, that with Russia facing so many
domestic problems at present, the Iranian threat is not a priority.
`For people who live in the far east, yes, China is a priority; they
can see the gradual Chinese invasion. For people who live in or near
the North Caucasus, they can smell the rise of Islamic-based
terrorism. Although it is mixed in with all kinds of local fights, you
can still smell the rise of resistance based on Shari’a law and the
rejection of the secular state. But Moscow is so far away. Yeah, there
was an explosion in the Moscow subway’ ` 40 people killed by two
female suicide bombers on March 29 ` `and it clearly had a trace to
the North Caucasus, but still, you know, it’s very hard to break the
social apathy… And in this vacuum of the national agenda, Putin can
simply rule always with his own plans.’

So what are Putin’s plans, what is his agenda?

`I said once that his dream is to rule like Stalin and live like
[billionaire oil businessman and soccer club owner Roman] Abramovich,’
Kasparov shoots back. `With the emphasis on Abramovich… It’s all
about money and power. The advantages brought by money are at the top
of his agenda. But he knows that he cannot keep the money unless he
stays in power.’

Ominously, Kasparov then adds: `He probably lost his opportunity to
walk away peacefully… At a certain point, for people who rule
undemocratically, there is no way back. He has already crossed that

While he regards `puppet’ as the wrong term for Medvedev, he considers
the president – who this week infuriated Israel by meeting with Khaled
Mashaal in Damascus and urging the inclusion of Hamas in the
diplomatic process – to be too weak to lead what he says is a not
insignificant level of opposition to Putin. `It may be that at a
certain point, even Medvedev will realize that the balance of power
shifted in his favor. But Putin made a very good choice [of
presidential successor].’

A good joke that’s currently circulating, Kasparov says, is that
`there are two parties in Russia: Putin’s party and Medvedev’s party.
The problem is that Medvedev doesn’t know which party he belongs to.’

After that abortive bid in 2007, is Kasparov going to try to challenge
for the presidency again?

`In Russia, we’re not fighting to win elections, we’re trying to have
elections,’ he replies carefully. `Our fight is very different…
because we do not live in a democratic country. This is something that
people in the West and also in Israel don’t want to recognize. By the
way it is getting worse… They keep violating basic rights guaranteed
by the constitution, and they are limiting even what is left of the
political freedoms. In Russia today, you cannot stage any kind of
peaceful protest without being harassed, detained, maybe arrested, and
maybe even convicted.’

I ASK him, this intense individual, a genius in one pursuit who has
transferred his passion to a far more resonant field, whether he
considers that we are untenably naïve about the dismal Russian
dictatorship he has described.

`It’s about intellectual self-deception,’ he replies with a small
shrug. `You [in the West] don’t want to hear this. If you recognize
that Putin belongs to the group of [Belarus President Alexander]
Lukashenko, [Zimbabwe’s Robert] Mugabe and [Venezuela’s Hugo] Chavez,
you have to change your behavior. You’d rather not.’

In the case of China, there is less hypocrisy, he points out. America
and Europe are doing a lot of business with China, but no one is
claiming it’s a democracy. `We all understand that they rule
differently. We do business because it’s for mutual benefit. But at
the end of the day, you know that China is China.’

With Russia, however, the US and the world’s leading democracies
`pretend that Putin is a member of this elite club. So there’s nothing
wrong with [Italy’s Silvio] Berlusconi or others making friends with
him, and for others to be on his payroll. No one wants to touch it.
The only reason I make parallels with the 1930s is because it’s the
same rejection of the obvious.’

Doesn’t stating `the obvious’ in such open confrontation with so
powerful a figure as Putin place Kasparov’s life in danger?

Apparently so. There is no personal protection surrounding him here,
but `I have bodyguards in Moscow,’ Kasparov notes. Still, he adds, `in
Russia, if the state goes after you, nothing helps.’

He pauses, relaxes and allows himself a rare half-smile. `I try to
live a normal life.’


9 Sportsmen To Represent Armenia In The European Weightlifting Junio


Armenia will be represented by 9 sportsmen in the European
Weightlifting Junior Championships 2010 is due in Valencia, Spain May
16. Among the Armenian sportsmen will perform: Smbat Margaryan (56kg),
Raffi Melikyan and Aren Nersesyan (77 kg), Azat Sayadyan (85 kg),
Hamlet Poghosyan (94 kg), Misha Muradyan and Gor Minasyan (+105 kg).

Isabella Yalyan (53kg) is the only Armenian representative in the
Women’s Championship, according to the information department of the
Armenian Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs.

BAKU: Russian, Turkish Positions On Karabakh ‘Similar’

May 12 2010

Alexey Vlasov Russian analyst has commented on the Russian President’s
visit to Turkey.

Relations between Turkey and Russia have been developing very rapidly
in the past two years, despite the fact that, following on from the
Cold War era, Turkey has usually been put in the Western camp in terms
of military and political affiliation, the director of Moscow State
University’s analytical centre on post-Soviet states, Alexey Vlasov,
told website today.

Vlasov said that Moscow and Ankara were gradually moving to a deeper
level of strategic partnership in all spheres of the economy, energy
and security.

‘Moscow and Ankara can play a very important role in solving the
problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, since the positions of Russia and Turkey
are quite similar,’ Vlasov said.

‘Both sides are interested in getting out of the vicious circle of
the conflict, which clearly retards the development of the entire
South Caucasus region. I think some agreements will be reached
on encouraging the actions of Russia and Turkey as moderators and
facilitators of the negotiation process, something that Ankara and
Moscow have sought since August 2008,’ he continued.

‘The effect of these agreements on the actual course of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement depends not only on Ankara and
Moscow, but also on other participants in the negotiating process. And
yet it seems to me that the strengthening ties between Moscow and
Ankara are a positive signal to those who are interested in peace
and stability in the South Caucasus.’

May 12 Marks 16 Years Of Ceasefire In Nagorno Karabakh


May 12, 2010 – 11:27 AMT 06:27 GMT

May 12 marks 16 years of ceasefire in Nagorno Karabakh, under Russia’s

As OSCE Minsk Group Russian Co-chair in 1992-1996, Ambassador
Vladimir Kazimirov says, there is no other agreement of the kind in
the international practice.

"Russia has always given priority to a peaceful resolution of the
conflict," he says. "Following Russia’s proposal, on July 3, 1992,
the OSCE MG called on the parties to suspend hostilities for 30
days. A similar attempt was made on August 5, 1992. Some of short-term
agreements were prolonged, some failed. In September-October 1993,
ceasefire was maintained for 50 days. The historical meeting in Bishkek
was summoned on the initiative of Russia, CIS Interparliamentary
Assembly and Kyrgyz parliament speaker."

"16 years of ceasefire is a period sufficient to find a mutually
acceptable agreement for a conflict resolution. However, no
breakthrough is expected in the near future," the diplomat concluded.

What Is Happening To Turkey?



052748703674704575235141350028342.html?mod=WSJ_Opi nion_BelowLEFTSecond
MAY 11, 2010

As the country has become wealthier, it paradoxically has also shed
some of its Western trappings.

Last week I asked Bernard Lewis where he thought Turkey might
be going. The dean of Middle East historians speculated that in a
decade the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk might
more closely resemble the Islamic Republic of Iran-even as Iran
transformed itself into a secular republic.

Reading the news about Turkey from afar, it’s easy to see what Prof.

Lewis means. Since coming to power in 2002, the ruling Justice
and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
has dramatically recast the traditional contours of Turkish foreign
policy. Gone are the days when the country had a strategic partnership
with Israel, involving close military ties and shared enemies in Syria
and Iran and the sundry terrorist groups they sponsored. Gone are the
days, too, when the U.S. could rely on Turkey as a bulwark against
common enemies, be they the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Today, Mr. Erdogan has excellent relations with Syrian strongman Bashar
Assad, whom the prime minister affectionately calls his "brother." He
has accused Israel of "savagery" in Gaza and opened a diplomatic line
to Hamas while maintaining good ties with the genocidal government of
Sudan. He was among the first foreign leaders to congratulate Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on his fraudulent victory in last year’s election. He has
resisted intense pressure from the Obama administration to vote for
a new round of Security Council sanctions on Iran, with which Turkey
has a $10 billion trade relationship. And he has sabotaged efforts
by his own foreign ministry to improve ties with neighboring Armenia.

The changes in foreign policy reflect the rolling revolution in
Turkey’s domestic political arrangements. The military, long the
pillar of Turkish secularism, is under assault by Mr. Erdogan’s
Islamist-oriented government, which has recently arrested dozens
of officers on suspicion of plotting a coup. Last week the Turkish
parliament voted to put a referendum to the public that would,
if passed, allow the government to pack the country’s top courts,
another secularist pillar, with its own people. Also under assault is
the media group Dogan, which last year was slapped with a multibillion
dollar tax fine.

Oh, and America’s favorability rating among Turks, at around 14%
according to recent polls, is plumbing an all-time low, despite Barack
Obama’s presidency and his unprecedented outreach to Muslims in general
and Turks in particular. In 2004, the year of Abu Ghraib, it was 30%.

All this would seem to more than justify Prof. Lewis’s alarm. So
why do so many Turks, including more than a few secularists and
classical liberals, seem mostly at ease with the changes Mr. Erdogan
has wrought? A possible answer may be self-delusion: Liberals were
also at the forefront of the Iranian revolution before being brutally
swept aside by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But that isn’t quite convincing
in Turkey’s case.

More plausible is Turkey’s economic transformation under the AKP’s
pro-free market stewardship. Inflation, which ran to 99% in 1997,
is down to single digits. Goldman Sachs anticipates 7% growth this
year, which would make the country Europe’s strongest performer-if
only Europe would have it as a member. Turks now look on the EU with
diminished envy and growing contempt. One time arch-rival Greece
mostly earns their pity.

Chief among the beneficiaries of this transformation has been the
AKP’s political base: an Islamic bourgeoisie that was long shut
out of the old statist arrangements between the country’s secular
political and business elites. Members of this new class want to
send their daughters to universities-and insist they be allowed to
do so wearing headscarves. They also insist that they be ruled by
the government they elected, not by the "deep state" of unelected and
often self-dealing officers, judges and bureaucrats who defended the
country’s secularism at the expense of its democracy and prosperity.

The paradoxical result is that, as the country has become wealthier
and (in some respects) more democratic, it has also shed some of
its Western trappings. Mr. Erdogan’s infatuations with his unsavory
neighbors undoubtedly stem from his own instincts, ideology and ego.

But it also reflects a public sentiment that no longer wants Turkey
to be a stranger in its own region, particularly when it so easily
can be its leader. Some Turks call this "neo-Ottomanism," others
"Turkish-Gaullism." Whichever way, it is bound to discomfit the West.

The more serious question is how far it all will go. Some of Mr.

Erdogan’s domestic power plays smack of incipient Putinism. The
estrangement from Israel is far from complete, but an Israeli attack
on Iran might just do the trick. And it’s hard to see why Mr. Erdogan
should buck public opinion when it comes to Turkey’s alliance with
the U.S. when he’s prepared to follow public opinion in so many
other matters.

Most importantly, will the Erdogan brand of Islamism remain relatively
modest in its social and political ambitions, or will it become
aggressive and radical? It would be wrong to pretend to know the
answer. It would be insane not to worry about the possibility.

Azerbaijan Seems To Have Fallen Down Far On The List Of American Pri

17:02 11/05/2010


"Relations between Baku and Washington have deteriorated significantly
for several reasons, one of them being the lack of an American
ambassador even being nominated for almost a year," the former US
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
who currently serves as Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German
Marshall Fund in Washington DC David Kramer said in an interview to
Turan agency.

Among the several reasons Kramer also mentioned the decision to
not invite President Aliyev to the Nuclear Security Summit; the
U.S. focus on Armenia-Turkey reconciliation to the virtual exclusion of
consideration of Azerbaijan; the deteriorating human rights situation
inside Azerbaijan.

He said that Baku wants more respect from Washington, while Washington
wants to enhance its energy and security relationship with Azerbaijan.

"But Azerbaijan seems to have fallen down far on the list of American
priorities and that isn’t good for relations," Kramer noted.

Referring to Aliyev’s statements on reforms in the economic and
political fields of Azerbaijan, Kramer said: "I regret that Aliyev
has not taken active steps in advancing human rights and democratic
development in his country. Economic development in the absence of
political liberalization is a recipe for problems down the road."

When asked why West does not apply sanctions against Azerbaijani
officials, like they do against the ones from Belarus and Uzbekistan,
Kramer said: "The U.S. does indeed need to speak up more about the
problems in Azerbaijan."

Kramer said the government in Baku needs to understand that the
U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship cannot reach its fullest potential if
the political situation is in decline. "Before any consideration of
sanctions or other punitive measures, there needs to be more serious
and lasting engagement on human rights issues," he highlighted.

Ralph Yirikian: We Are Open And Eager To Share With The Younger Gene

15:59 11/05/2010


VivaCell-MTS, a subsidiary of "Mobile TeleSystems" OJSC, announces
that today, in the frames of its Career Development Project, the
Company’s General Manager Ralph Yirikian spoke before the students of
the University of International Economic Relations. Ralph Yirikian
presented to the students his vision of management culture based
on core values such as respect, transparency, openness and devotion
to work.

During the lecture, attended by 150 students and professors from
all the faculties of the university, VivaCell-MTS General Manager
described how VivaCell-MTS made his way to success, overcoming all
the challenges and difficulties, rapidly growing into one of the
leading companies in the country.

"When there is a will there is a way: we started our company with
only one employee – myself. But the belief in our capacity to achieve
gathered in a short while a dedicated group of people determined
to make the dream come true – and that was to build the Company we
are today.

Today we are Armenia’s leading mobile operator due to the efforts of
our employees, members of VivaCell-MTS family, the most valuable asset
of our Company," said VivaCell-MTS General Manager Ralph Yirikian.

In the course of question and answer session the students learnt more
about the involvement of VivaCell-MTS in various projects aimed at
supporting healthcare, sport, education, environmental issues, culture,
thus having a closer view of the notion of Corporate Responsibility.

Russia Might Play A More Active Role In The Karabakh Peace Process

10.05.2010 16:27

Russia might play a more active role in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process and Armenia-Turkey normalization process, Turkish Ambassador
to Russia Halil Akinci stated in an interview with Interfax.

"We believe Russia as a regional player is capable to contribute to
Karabakh conflict resolution. After all, Russia is the only regional
country among OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries," he said on the
threshold of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Turkey on
May 11-12.

According to him, the issue will be the focus of Medvedev’s forthcoming
visit to Ankara.

Asked whether the difficulties in the normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish relations could negatively impact the process of
negotiation on the Karabakh conflict settlement, Halil Akinci said
"the ratification of the Armenian Turkish protocols by Turkey is
impossible independent from the Karabakh issue."