Author: Mamian George

GAZPROM UNDERMINES NABUCCO IMPLEMENTATION

PanARMENIAN.Net
08.04.2009 22:12 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Europe’s energy consumers should have breathed
a sigh of relief last month, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel
reversed field to support EU funding for the Nabucco pipeline and the
union earmarked â~B¬200 million of seed funding for the project in its
coming budget. At last, the EU had banded together to provide monetary
incentives for investment in the route that would bring natural
gas to Europe through Turkey, providing an important alternative to
Russian-controlled imports.

But now it seems that hard-won unity may have been too little, too
late. The long-suffering Nabucco project – always a geopolitical
priority but a commercial question mark – was designed to depend in
its first phase on new gas coming online from Azerbaijan’s Shah-Deniz
II and Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli fields in the Caspian Sea. The second
phase, when the pipeline reached its full capacity of 31 billion cubic
meters per year (still just a fraction of Europe’s gas needs), would
require gas from Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq or the Gulf states. In the
beginning, however, Azerbaijan’s gas is key. Yet the Russians may
have just taken it.

Rovnag Abdullayev, the head of Azerbaijan’s state-owned energy
company, visited Moscow on March 27. There, in a quiet ceremony
at the headquarters of Russia’s Kremlin-controlled energy behemoth
Gazprom, he signed a memorandum of understanding that pledges gas from
Azerbaijan’s two new fields for Russian consumption — and possibly
for further export to the EU. While still nonbinding, the agreement
could undercut the viability of the Nabucco project entirely.

European consumers, such as those in Bulgaria who froze this January
when Moscow cut off their gas for almost three weeks, stand to
lose another alternative to Russian gas. Two alternatives, in fact:
Azerbaijan is also the only route through which Turkmen gas can reach
Europe without going through Russia. European energy diversification
could very quickly depend on a potentially hostile Iran, as gas
flowing from Iraq and the Gulf alone would not be sufficient to
justify Nabucco’s construction.

The offer from Gazprom had been on the cards since at least March
of 2008. So what compelled Mr. Abdullayev to visit Moscow now? After
all, Baku has been a driving force behind Nabucco’s construction as
a vehicle for building closer ties with Turkey and the West.

Two major developments in the past few months have changed that
calculus: Russia’s invasion of neighboring Georgia, and Turkey’s
decision to tie energy projects across its soil to Ankara’s gaining
EU membership. The former challenged the region’s Western trajectory
but did not necessarily knock Baku’s ambitions off course. The latter,
however, left Azerbaijan and the other oil- and gas-producing states
around the Caspian without a reliable bridge to Europe. There was
little choice left but to turn north, to Russia.

It is perhaps ironic that EU unity on Nabucco came less than two months
after Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, refused to attend
a conference on the pipeline’s construction, citing the still-closed
energy chapter of Turkey’s EU accession process as a barrier to
cooperation. Turkey has met all of the technical requirements for
opening the chapter, but continuing intra-EU disagreements over
Turkey’s membership stand in its way.

Those disagreements, whether over divided Cyprus, immigration,
culture or religion, also stand in the way of Europe’s energy
diversification. Perhaps their importance should not be played
down, but neither should the implications of Russia’s energy
geopolitics. Barack Obama’s new administration clearly understands
the strategic importance of taking Turkey’s interests seriously,
having made Ankara the final stop on his just-completed European
tour. Turkey-skeptic EU leaders ought to take Mr. Obama’s lead and
at least visit the country to listen to those interests articulated.

The result of Turkish resentment is not only a lost energy-transit
partner but, more important, lost energy producers. This could mean the
collapse of Nabucco, a project the European Commission has labeled an
EU strategic priority. Such a prospect would leave European consumers
in the same position as Azerbaijan: with little choice but to turn
to Russia, The Wall Street Journal reports.

AMBASSADOR OF HUNGARY TO ARMENIA HANDED HIS CREDENTIALS

Panorama.am
17:06 08/04/2009

The new appointed Ambassador of Hungary to Armenia Gabor Shagi
(residence Tbilisi) handed the copied of his credentials to the Foreign
Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan, public relations department
of the Foreign Ministry reports. According to the source the Foreign
Minister mentioned that Armenia is interested in developing the
Armenian-Hungarian relations and expressed his hope that the new
appointed Ambassador would contribute to the strengthening of those
relations. The Ambassador has also mentioned that his country is
interested to improve bilateral relations with Armenia.

RWANDA: MEMORY AND DENIAL – THE GENOCIDE FIFTEEN YEARS ON
Gerald Caplan

AllAfrica.com
/200904080624.html
April 8 2009

Kigali — April 2009 marks the 15th anniversary of the genocide in
Rwanda of most of its Tutsi population and of many Hutu who refused
to embrace violent extremism.

Five years ago, the world marked the 10th anniversary of what almost
the entire world regards as one of the definitive genocides of the
20th century. Perhaps it was somehow symmetrical that both the first
and the last genocides of the 20th century took place in Africa.

In 1904, soldiers representing Imperial Germany deliberately sought
to exterminate the Herero people of Namibia, then the German colony
of South-West Africa. Anxious to occupy the lands of the Herero, the
German colonial army came precious close to achieving its grisly,
racist goal. Before it ended, some three-quarters of 80,000 Herero
were dead.

Exactly 90 years later, the racists were powerful Hutu extremists
in Rwanda who conspired to annihilate the minority Tutsi people,
largely to avoid sharing power and wealth with them. Like the Germans
before them, the genocidaires in Rwanda were remarkably successful in
executing their plot. Before they were defeated, about three-quarters
of all the country’s Tutsi had been murdered, often in the most
sadistic ways imaginable. Exact numbers remain unknown to this day,
but it is possible that as many as a million Tutsi were killed in
the 100 days of the genocide.

But very like South-West Africa, outside influences were key to events
in Rwanda. Had European missionaries not invented an ideology that
blatantly set Tutsi against Hutu, had the Belgian colonial government
not institutionalised this false ideology, had the French government
not offered all possible support to the Hutu government of Rwanda in
the years immediately leading to the genocide, the genocide might
never have happened. Once triggered, it was the Security Council,
urged on by the United States, that refused to take a single step to
stop the slaughter.

Before the 10th anniversary, the international movement known as
Remembering Rwanda was motivated by a fear that the genocide was
being forgotten by the rest of the world. That concern has proved
premature. Rwanda is probably as well known today as any tragic event
very far from western countries, and causing direct harm to none of
them, can be.

Tragically, one of the forces that revived the memory of 1994 was
the conflict that began in Darfur, western Sudan, in 2003. When
the secretary-general of the United Nations commemorated the 10th
anniversary of Rwanda in 2004, his cry was that Darfur must not be
allowed to become ‘the next Rwanda’. And so Rwanda’s international
role was finally crystallised: It was the latest acknowledged
failure of the solemn, eternally repeated, never heeded, pledge
of ‘Never Again’. Perhaps one day in the not too distant future,
Rwanda’s invidious distinction will be replaced by Darfur, and the
international community will vow not to permit ‘the next Darfur’.

At the same time as Rwanda was being turned into symbol of betrayal by
the international community, it was attracting the interest of western
filmmakers. This entirely unanticipated phenomenon has also given
the genocide a renewed lease on life, as it were. It is probable that
more feature-length films and full-length documentaries have been made
about the genocide than any other contemporary international crisis
save Iraq or the so-called ‘war on terror’. Not all the films were
of top quality and few bothered to show the critical and malevolent
role of western influence in Rwandan history. The most popular film,
Hotel Rwanda, the one that really dragged Rwanda into mainstream
western consciousness, had as its hero a man who now trivialises
the genocide. Nonetheless, his story, overblown as it may have been,
combined with the others, has assured that the genocide in Rwanda is
in little danger of being forgotten.

THE DENIERS

Yet at the same time, as in virtually every other genocide, denial
is alive and kicking. Here is yet another common thread that binds
the people that suffered through what many consider the three classic
genocides of the 20th century – the Armenians, the Jews and the Rwandan
Tutsis. The bitter and apparently never-ending fight against deniers,
or revisionists, is a common cause among the survivors of all these
genocides, one that will be highlighted in Rwanda in April 2009 as
people from all over the world will gather to mark the 15th anniversary
of the genocide of the Tutsi – Remembering Rwanda 15, or RR15.

If much of the world now remembers the genocide in Rwanda, the battle
against those who deny that genocide is much less familiar though
no less insidious than its Armenian or Holocaust equivalents. The
persistence of Holocaust denial remains a reality everywhere in
the world that anti-Semitism rears its head. In some countries it
attracts elites. In the west it is the preserve of a lunatic fringe,
and usually more an irritation than anything else. But there is
always a well-earned fear that it could explode into something more
ferocious, especially as anti-Semitism and opposition to Israeli
policies sometimes become difficult to distinguish.

Denying the Armenian genocide is a decidedly more precise
phenomenon. It exists only when attempts are made to recognise
the genocide for what it is, either by resolutions of legislative
assemblies or through education. And unlike either Holocaust or Rwanda
denial, it is invariably orchestrated by the Turkish government and
its acolytes, most of them on that government’s payroll. By a terrible
irony of realpolitik, among the most steadfast collaborators of the
Turkish government in its hardball efforts to prevent recognition of
the genocide is its close ally Israel and some powerful Israel support
groups throughout the western world. Whether Turkey’s unexpectedly
vehement condemnation of Israel’s recent aggression against Gaza
changes these equations is still not at all clear.

Rwanda is a different case. For one thing, in much of the
English-speaking world, denialism has been very much a fringe
phenomenon, largely peddled by a motley coalition. There are
anti-American left-wingers who are perversely convinced that
Rwandan president Paul Kagame, in their eyes the evil genius
behind the conflict (they deny it was a genocide), was an American
stooge. There are those who have ties of some kind with the defence at
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Sometimes these are the
same people. They are still largely unknown to most English-speakers
who have seen the movies, or admire General Romeo Dallaire (another
American puppet, in the twisted view of the deniers) and have no
reason to doubt that a genocide actually was carried out.

Naturally the small band of leading deniers are well-known to the
Rwandan diaspora community, which is not only wounded by the denials
but fails to understand why their lies are given any media attention
at all. At least as ominously, the deniers’ reach and influence has
been spreading, metastasising like a malignant cancer, thanks to the
anarchy of the blogosphere and to the embrace of the deniers’ arguments
by a small but influential number of left-wing, anti-American journals
and websites.

Google Rwanda and you’re quite likely get a deniers’ rant featuring
the tiny band of usual suspects – French Judge Bruguiere, former UN
Rwanda chief Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, Robin Philpot, former Australian
investigator Michael Hourigan, American academic Christian Davenport –
each enthusiastically citing the others as their proof that the entire
so-called genocide was really an American imperial plot. That there is
no evidence for this assertion, that every single reputable scholar who
has studied the genocide has categorically disagreed with it, carries
no weight with this incomprehensible band of true believers. At the
same time, the harsh criticisms of the present Rwanda government by
respected human rights advocates has unhappily provided a certain
illogical legitimacy to the deniers’ pernicious cause.

Thanks to the reach of Hotel Rwanda, which has been seen by more people
than all other Rwanda films combined, many ordinary English-speakers
are likely to know of only one Rwandan, Paul Rusesabagina, and to
believe him a hero of the genocide, a righteous man who saved Tutsi
lives at great personal risk. That he now is the most prominent
person in the world claiming Kagame’s rebels were as deadly as the
genocidaires, that he insists Rwanda today is comparable to Rwanda
during the 100 days, and that he openly works with known genocidaires
and western deniers against the Kagame government, is still not
grasped by his western admirers. That’s why the uncritical adulation
in which he is held and his own fierce determination to spread his
message makes him a serious threat that should not be underestimated.

In Europe and in French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec, genocide
denial is more mainstream. In large part this is due to longstanding
ties between the pre-genocide francophone Hutu elite and assorted
government and church officials in western Europe and Quebec. But as
elsewhere, deniers in these areas reflect a miscellany of motives. A
number are former genocidaires themselves, some being protected by
political and religious allies of the old regime, others walking free
and peddling their poison. All of these Rwandans and non-Rwandans
cherish a fantasy of someday reviving ‘Hutuland’ and the ‘demographic
democracy’ that prevailed from 1959 to 1994, in other words, a Hutu
dictatorship based exclusively on Hutu constituting a large majority
of the population. Others have acted on behalf of the defence at
the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). Some simply
cannot abide Kagame and his inner circle of former Ugandans. A few are
well-known non-Rwandan academics, taking every advantage to disparage
the Kagame government while consciously cultivating a generation of
Rwanda-hating Congolese. The harm being done will be felt throughout
the Great Lakes region for decades.

So the final assault common to the classical genocides of the 20th
century – the denial that it ever happened – continues to be an
ugly shared reality for all those touched by the Armenian genocide,
the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi. The 15th
anniversary of the final genocide of the 20th century and of the
millennium provides an opportunity to unite all those affected by the
three of them in a sustained and systematic counter-attack against
deniers of all kinds.

It also moves us into the new century/millennium. It should pre-empt
the many friends of the Government of Sudan from insisting, as the
al-Bashir government routinely does, that the crisis in Darfur is
very much the responsibility of its own victims.

Gerald Caplan has a PhD in African history He recently published The
Betrayal of Africa.

Armenians to urge Obama to recognize 1915 genocide
9 Apr 2009, 0325 hrs IST, TNN

KOLKATA: Armenians of the city are going to write to US President
Barack Obama, urging him to recognize the massacre of Armenians in
Turkey on April 24, 1915, as genocide’.

Students of city’s Armenian College have collected photographs and
historical data about the genocide after a year-long research. The
data they have gathered has been collated in the form of a film, which
too will be presented for President Obama’s consideration. Senior
members of the city’s Armenian community, like Peter Hyrapiet, Suzanne
Reuben and Gulnaar Gilhooly have worked alongside the students to help
them with data collection and film-making.

Outside Armenia, the US has the largest concentration of
Armenians. While the country has offered refuge to the community in
its hour of crisis, it has never accepted the mass killings of
Armenians on that fateful day as genocide. There are about a 100
countries that have pledged acceptance of the term in the United
Nations.

"About a fortnight ago, even Australia accepted the massacre as
genocide. We just hope that the US also follows suit. Recent comments
by President Obama have encouraged the community across the world. We
hope that this year on April 24, he actually declares his country’s
acceptance of the darkest episode in the history of the community as
genocide," said head of the Armenian Church in India, Oshagan
Gulgulian, who has also spent a sizable part of his clerical life in
the US.

While every year, a part of the community in some part of the world
takes upon itself to take up the cause of the genocide forward, this
year it is the turn of Armenians based in India. The 200-strong
community in the city has tied up with the German consulate for a
public programme. "Since the largest concentration of Armenians in
this country is in Kolkata, we have taken the initiative here. We want
the people of Kolkata, who have always been very receptive to our
community, to share our pain. On that fateful day, 250 of our
intellectuals were murdered by the Ottoman empire in Constantinople.
Throughout that year, there were more than a million murders. The
genocide can be compared to the Jewish holocaust," Gulgulian said.

The Armenian community wants that Turkey must cease to be the only
major country in the world to deny the Armenian Genocide. Turkey must
allow American aid to present-day Armenia to pass through unhindered
and that it must cease to train Azerbaijani soldiers for the purpose
of attacking Armenia. These issues will also be raised in the charter.

A RESOLUTION TOO FAR: SLAP WOULD RISK A PIVOTAL RELATIONSHIP
By Ed Whitfield

The Washington Times
April 5, 2009 Sunday

President Obama travels today to the Republic of Turkey. This historic
visit presents the United States with an excellent chance to assert
and strengthen our relationship with a strategic ally and a critical
trade partner. During this time of economic uncertainty and great
military challenges, the United States must do all it can to build
upon our ties to foreign nations and promote opportunities to grow
the global economy.

Turkey plays an extremely important role in the U.S. economy. Billions
of dollars and thousands of American jobs are dependent on exports to
Turkey. During the last two years, exports to Turkey from the United
States have nearly doubled, with our country sending more than $10
billion worth of goods last year alone. This upward trend demonstrates
a flourishing financial partnership between our two nations that can
only benefit our struggling economy.

In addition to exports, Turkish industries continue to grow and develop
to the benefit of the United States. In 2009 alone, Turkey is expected
to commit more than $20 billion in aerospace purchases. U.S. companies
are well-positioned to win these contracts, creating thousands of
well-paying jobs for American workers and pumping needed capital into
our economy.

Turkey also plays an invaluable role in assisting our efforts to
combat the global war on terror. Turkey provides extensive logistics
support to American troops in Iraq and serves as a critical access
point for the shipment of U.S. supplies into that country. Turkey
has provided millions of dollars for reconstruction efforts and
humanitarian assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, helped to train
members of the Afghan National Police and the National Army, and
operates hospitals and schools in Afghanistan that serve hundreds of
thousands of individuals. The time and resources Turkey has dedicated
have been invaluable to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More broadly, Turkey is a key diplomatic partner in a hostile region
of the world. With the only secular and democratic government in a
predominantly Muslim nation, Turkey is uniquely poised to work with
surrounding countries such as Syria and Lebanon. These ties can only
serve to help the United States in its dealings with the Muslim world
as well as in bringing stability to the Middle East.

With Turkey’s record as such a steadfast ally to the United
States during troubled times, it would be a dangerous misstep to
unnecessarily risk alienating the Turkish people. Yet efforts are,
once again, afoot in the Congress to label as genocide the deaths
of ethnic Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire in
World War I. This sort of proclamation, which bears no legal effect,
would almost certainly be seen as a slap in the face to Turkey and
a harpoon to U.S. relations with the country.

As a global leader, the United States should continue to play an active
role in ending atrocities throughout the world. As friends and allies,
we should always be able to tell Turkey how we really feel when we
disagree with their policies and actions. But the "Armenian genocide"
issue remains a matter of debate by historians, making it foolish,
arrogant and dangerous for politicians to make historical claims for
political points.

Turkey and Armenia have made great strides on their own in improving
relations between the two countries. Turkish President Abdullah Gul
has visited Armenia and held discussions with Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile. With the two
countries already working in step to resolve their differences and
advance their relationship, U.S. involvement in the situation appears
unnecessary and intrusive.

The ties that bind Turkey and the United States are strong and will
continue to be strong as we combat threats to both our nations and
work to bring stability to the Middle East. At this decisive juncture,
the United States needs to be mindful of the consequences of actions
that will be ill-received by a nation so important to our country.

OBAMA: TALKS SHOULD CONTINUE ON GENOCIDE ISSUE

Associated Press Online
April 6, 2009 Monday 11:32 AM GMT

President Barack Obama ays he is not pressing Turkish leaders to
acknowledge that their country committed genocide against Armenians
during World War I because he does not want to interfere with
negotiations on the matter.

Obama said Monday he stood by his 2008 assertion that Ottoman Turks
carried out widespread killings of Armenians decades ago. But he said
he would not press Turkish leaders to acknowledge that genocide took
place because Turks and Armenians are engaged in talks that may bear
fruit soon.

Obama said at a news conference in Ankara, "I want to be as encouraging
as possible."

Turkish President Abdullah Gul stood next to Obama. He said historians,
not politicians, should decide how to label what happened nearly a
century ago.

JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT GUL OF TURKEY

White House Documents and Publications
April 6, 2009

PRESIDENT GUL: (As translated.) We are very pleased to host the
President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, in Turkey. It
would not be wrong to say that our discussions began in Strasbourg,
and the discussions that we began in Strasbourg, we continued with
them today, both during our meeting and then over lunch. And it was
very beneficial.

At the outset of my remarks, I would like to say that we heard that
there’s been an earthquake in Italy — we just heard. And I would
like to express my condolences to the people who lost their lives. We
share the sorrow of the Italian people.

We are very appreciative of the fact that Mr. Obama, having been
elected President, made Turkey one of his stops in his first overseas
visit, and we have been very happy with that — the Turkish people
have been very happy with that.

We have had opportunity to review the strategic dimension of our
relations. Most of our relations seem to be on a military and political
dimension, but we are also determined to move forward on the economic
dimension of our relations. On the area of technology, we’ll continue
to support development of economic and technology cooperation. These
are areas which we place importance on.

In we look at Turkish-American issues, we see that the United States
is very much interested, and must be interested, in important issues
around the world as a superpower, and Turkey is an important country
in her region, and Turkey is very much interested in many subjects. So
if we were to make two separate lists of the issues that our countries
are interested in, we would see that they are very much alike. And
so I’m very pleased to say that Turkey and the United States have
great understanding for each other and they work in cooperation with
each other.

Of course, fighting against terrorism is one of the most important
issues for both of the countries, and the cooperation that we’ve
had so far will be further developed, and in many geographies,
from Afghanistan to the Caucuses to the Balkans to the Middle East,
we are working together and we are determined to continue to work
together. And the President has also shown great interest to Turkey’s
relations with the European Union. We appreciate that very much. We
thank him very much for his words in that regard.

I think that this visit has been very beneficial. I’d like to welcome
the President once again and wish him success.

Please.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, thank you very much. And, President Gul, you
could not be a better host, and we are grateful to you and your team,
as well as all the people of Turkey for the extraordinary hospitality
that you’ve extended to us.

As you mentioned, we just heard the news of the earthquake in Italy,
and we want to send out condolences to the families there and hope
that we are able to get rescue teams in and that we can minimize the
damage as much as possible moving forward.

I have now spent a week traveling through Europe. And I’ve been
asked,are you trying to make a statement by ending this weeklong trip
in Turkey" And the answer is, yes, I am trying to make a statement. I’m
trying to make a statement about the importance of Turkey not just
to the United States but to the world. This is a country that has
been often said lies at the crossroads between East and West. It’s
a country that possesses an extraordinarily rich heritage, but also
represents a blend of those ancient traditions with a modern nation
state that respects democracy, respects rule of law and is striving
towards a modern economy.

It is a member of NATO and it is also a majority Muslim nation, unique
in that position, and so, as a consequence, has insights into a whole
host of regional and strategic challenges that we may face. And I’ve
been extraordinarily impressed with President Gul and the quality
of his leadership, as well as Prime Minister Erdogan, and so, as a
consequence, I’m excited about the prospects of us working together.

As the President noted, we had a wide-ranging conversation. We thanked
Turkey for its outstanding work in Afghanistan, and we discussed our
strategic review. We have a similar perspective in terms of how to
move forward, and Turkey’s contributions to ISAF and the overarching
effort is going to be critical.

We discussed the progress that’s been made in Iraq and how we can
continue to build on that progress as the U.S. begins to draw down
its troops.

We talked about Middle East peace and how that can be achieved. And
we discussed the need — a shared view for us to reduce the threat
of nuclear proliferation not just in the region, but around the
world. And as President Gul noted, we also talked about business and
commerce, because all too often the U.S.-Turkish relationship has
been characterized just by military issues and yet there’s enormous
possibilities for us to grow the economy and to make sure that trade
between our countries and commerce and the lines of communication
between our two countries continually strengthen, because we think
that that’s going to be good for Turkey, but it’s also going to be
good for the United States.

So we also discussed the issue of terrorism more broadly. And I
reiterated my support to make sure that we are supporting Turkey in
dealing with terrorist threats that may — they may experience.

So, overall it was an extremely productive meeting, and it gives me
confidence that, moving forward, not only are we going to be able to
improve our bilateral relations, but as we work together we’re going
to be able to I think shape a set of strategies that can bridge the
divide between the Muslim world and the West that can make us more
prosperous and more secure.

And so I’m proud that the United States is a partner with Turkey,
and we want to build on that partnership in the years to come.

PRESIDENT GUL: Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. We were going to call on one —

PRESIDENT GUL: One and one, yes. Sorry.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Do you want me to start, or you?

PRESIDENT GUL: You can start, yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Christy Parsons, Chicago Tribune — hometown —
hometown newspaper.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As a U.S. senator you stood with the
Armenian-American community in calling for Turkey’s acknowledgement
of the Armenian genocide and you also supported the passage of
the Armenian genocide resolution. You said, as President you would
recognize the genocide. And my question for you is, have you changed
your view, and did you ask President Gul to recognize the genocide
by name?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, my views are on the record and I have not
changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under
President Gul’s leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations,
a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole
host of longstanding issues, including this one.

I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which
are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly very soon. And
so as a consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right
now but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If
they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history,
then I think the entire world should encourage them.

And so what I told the President was I want to be as constructive
as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my sense is,
is that they are moving quickly. I don’t want to, as the President of
the United States, preempt any possible arrangements or announcements
that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we
are going to be a partner in working through these issues in such
a way that the most important parties, the Turks and the Armenians,
are finally coming to terms in a constructive way.

Q So if I understand you correctly, your view hasn’t changed, but
you’ll put in abeyance the issue of whether to use that word in
the future?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I’d like to do is to encourage President Gul to
move forward with what have been some very fruitful negotiations. And
I’m not interested in the United States in any way tilting these
negotiations one way or another while they are having useful
discussions.

Q Thank you.

PRESIDENT GUL: (As translated.) Let me also share my views on this
subject. This is an issue under great discussion. But it is not a
legal or political issue, it’s a historical issue. What is being
discussed is a situation that was experienced in 1915 under the
conditions of World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was battling on
four fronts. And unfortunately, some citizens of the empire then
were provoked by some other countries and there were many internal
clashes and many people lost their lives. And we share the sorrow
of all those who lost their lives, but we have to remember that the
Muslim population also suffered greatly at the same time.

And at the time from the Balkans, from the Caucasus, there were
millions of Muslim Turks who were displaced, who were having to come to
travel to Turkey, and there were many losses as they traveled. So the
losses there took place during the chaotic times of the situation then.

But when the Turkish republic — the modern republic was established,
the Turkish republic did not create this into big issue in order
not to create greater hatred or hostility in future generations. But
unfortunately, these issues politically, especially by the diaspora,
have been brought to the agenda as a way to perhaps cling to their
identity.

And our view to that has been that we should let the historians, the
experts on the subject, sit down and talk about this issue. We are
ready to face the realities, the facts. It cannot be the politicians
and the legal experts who can make decisions here as to what happened
when, under what conditions, and who lost more lives, and who is
right and who is wrong. It is not a parliamentarian, a politician,
who can make a decision on this without knowing the circumstances to
the situation.

So that’s why we suggested that a joint history commission be
established and that we would agree to the results or the conclusions
of this commission. And Turkey opened — made its archives available
for that purpose.

And we invited everyone, including the Armenians, and we took one
more step forward and we said that if another country, for example,
the United States or France, if they are very much interested in this
issue, then they, too, could be a part of this joint commission and
we would be ready to listen to the conclusions of that commission.

We, as Turkey, we would like to have good relations with all the
countries in our region. Our relations with Armenia, unfortunately,
did not exist so much, although there are some Armenian citizens
in Turkey now — there are more than 70,000 Armenians who work —
live in Turkey, who send money back to their families and there are
some cultural activities. But we didn’t have other relations. And
our goal in order to normalize these relations, as Mr. President has
just said, we initiated some discussions to normalize relations and
we would like to see a good resolution of these discussions.

No doubt there’s a new situation in the Caucasus. We saw how potential
events could flare up in the Caucuses last year. So it’s important
that in this process we work together to try to resolve the issues
in the Caucasus. We should work to resolve issues between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, and all the conflict in the region so that the area
becomes fertile ground for greater cooperation.

And we have a lot of work, with the best of intentions, in that regard,
and I do believe that when we reach a conclusion we will have resolved
many issues.

Q A question to both Presidents, both leaders. Mr. Obama, during the
Bush presidency there were some difficulties in Turkish-American
relations, and certain steps were taken to resolve those
difficulties. We are in the third month of your presidency and there
is a high expectation in the Turkish public opinion, as well, about
Turkish-American relations. So what will be changes in your outlook on
Turkish-American relations as opposed to the previous administration?

Another question to both Presidents. You said that you discussed
fighting against terrorism. There’s, again, a lot of expectation in
the Turkish public opinion regarding the elimination of the PKK. What
sort of concrete steps will we see in that regard?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As I mentioned at the outset, I think despite some of
the problems that we saw, beginning in 2003, that you have seen steady
improvement between U.S.-Turkish relations. I don’t think they ever
deteriorated so far that we ceased to be friends and allies. And what
I hope to do is to build on what is already a strong foundation. As
I indicated earlier, commercial ties can be improved. That’s an area
where I think the President and I share a vision.

I think when it comes to our cooperation on terrorism, I’ve been
very clear that PKK is on our terrorist watch list. As a NATO ally of
Turkey’s, we are very comfortable with providing them the assistance
they need to reduce the threat. We have seen that cooperation bear
fruit over the last several months, over the last year. You’ve seen a
lessening of the attacks that have been taking place. We’ll continue
to provide that support, and President Gul and I discussed how we
can provide additional support on that front. But we have been very
clear that terrorism is not acceptable in any circumstances.

I think that where — where there’s the most promise of building
stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey
and the United States can build a model partnership in which a
predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a
Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents — that we
can create a modern international community that is respectful, that
is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable
tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.

That’s something that’s very important to me. And I’ve said before
that one of the great strengths of the United States is — although
as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not
consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim
nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by
ideals and a set of values.

I think Turkey was — modern Turkey was founded with a similar set
of principles, and yet what we’re seeing is in both countries that
promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom,
respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these
values and being willing to stand up for them in the international
stage. If we are joined together in delivering that message, East
and West, to — to the world, then I think that we can have an
extraordinary impact. And I’m very much looking forward to that
partnership in the days to come.

Okay.

PRESIDENT GUL: Okay. Thank you.

ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL DECREES?

A1+
12:33 pm | April 07, 2009

Politics

Taking the demands set forth in the RA Law on "Legal Acts" as a basis,
the "Supreme Council" parliamentary group appealed today to the RA
President with the request to annul the decree that was issued to
appoint Manuk Vardanyan as presidential adviser.

"This is not the first time that the RA President assigns state posts
not foreseen by the law, particularly:

-Deputy Head of the RA presidential administration, advisers,
assistants…

-Secretary of the National Security Council -Standing Representative
of the RA President in the National Assembly -Mayor of Yerevan and more

The RA President also assigns some posts without even noting the fact
that the proposals were made by the RA Prime Minister, particularly
the appointments of Yerevan mayor and RA Ministers.

In other words, the President creates posts and makes appointments
in a time of crisis.

For instance, does anybody know why the Prime Minister undertook the
initiative to replace ministers, or why the President infringed upon
the constitutional order and proposed to replace the mayor while he
praised the previous one?

As we were not able to find the corresponding resolution of the RA
Prime Minister, we asked the Prime Minister today to provide us with
information regarding his proposal to appoint former mayor Yervand
Zakharyan as President of the State Committee on Real Estate Cadastre
adjunct to the RA Government," as stated in the release of the group.

ROA PRIME MINISTER MEETS WITH WORLD BANK MISSION

hetq.am/en/economy/jgnajam-5/
2009/04/07 | 19:27

Economy

RoA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan hosted a mission from the World
Bank’s Development Policy Lending Program Design division, headed by
Senior Economist for Armenia Robert Talierzo.

Robert Talierzo thanked the Armenian prime minister for facilitating
fruitful discussions with the local ministries and agencies concerned.

Mr. Talierzo informed PM Sargsyan on the status of the 3-year country
support lending program development activities currently underway
at the World Bank. He noted that the mission has already discussed
this year’s lending program with corresponding Armenian agencies. The
2010-2011 programs were said to have been left for discussion at a
session scheduled for the last decade of this month.

The Prime Minister was further briefed on the mission’s recommendations
regarding actions in anticipation of the first lending program which
was said to have an anti-crisis bias. Mr. Talierzo stressed the need
for earmarking additional funds to the social sector. The mission
head appreciated the steps taken so far by the Government, including
the set of legislative initiatives providing for increased small
and medium-size enterprise support, improved business environment
etc. Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan concurred with Mr. Talierzo.

The parties have stated that the package of proposed action will
be finalized once the Government of Armenia, the World Bank and the
IMF come to an agreement on Armenia’s macroeconomic forecasts. Prime
Minister Sargsyan accepted the proposal on establishing a task force
to formulate more accurate macroeconomic forecasts and develop a
number of scenarios.

Robert Talierzo said the Bank is prepared to support Armenia and
as soon as the preliminaries for this year’s program are finalized,
the mutually agreed document will be submitted to the World Bank’s
Board of Directors for consideration

Representativ es of Azerbaijani mass media appeal to their Turkish colleagues
07 Apr 2009 13:53

Baku – APA. Representatives of Azerbaijani mass media appealed to
their Turkish colleagues, APA reports. The appeal says that
journalists, like the entire Azerbaijani society, are concerned over
the reports that borders will be opened, diplomatic and economic
relations will be established between Turkey and Armenia.
`The main reasons for making this appeal is that Turkish authorities
do not refute these reports, socio-political figures of the fraternal
country reveal in their speeches and media facts proving establishment
of relations between Armenia and Turkey. To establish relations with
countries is the sovereign right of Turkey like any other country. No
countries in the history closed borders forever. The most serious
contradictions, conflicts, problems are solved peacefully, through
negotiations. This is also inevitable in the South Caucasus region.
But it is too early to speak about establishing equal-right and
constructive relations with Armenia, which has claims against Turkey
and Azerbaijan, is keeping Azerbaijani territories under occupation
and carried out ethnic cleansing policy against Azerbaijanis,’ the
appeal says.

According to the appeal, before establishing relations between Turkey
and Armenia, the causes of closed borders between these states,
factors making the current situation necessary, fairness of the
planned action, and finally, the influence on the relations between
the two countries having the language, religion, culture and
traditions of the same root should be taken into consideration.

`While closing the borders with Armenia in 1993, Turkey was guided not
only by the Armenian territorial and `genocide’ claims against it, but
in sign of its loyalty and respect to the Turkic solidarity and
brotherhood, emphasized the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani
territories, ethnic cleansing and genocide policy against Azerbaijani
people among the serious reasons guided Turkey to close the borders.
The Azerbaijani people also demonstrated same support and solidarity
with Turkey. The Azerbaijani public community, representatives of
government and civil society organizations, Diaspora communities
abroad provided purposeful activity against the occupant policy of
Armenia against our country, as well as its territorial and `genocide’
claims against Turkey’.

The signatories noted that refusal of comprehensive cooperation with
the occupant country and closing of borders with it is an acceptable
and justified political method in the world. `We see and highly
appreciate its signs in the current situation of Turkish-Armenian
relations. Armenia refuses to fulfill UN resolutions about
unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied
Azerbaijani lands, shrugs off the summons of the Council of Europe,
Organization of the Islamic Conference and other reliable
international organizations and demonstrates implacable position in
the OSCE Minsk Group-mediated negotiations toward the settlement of
Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno Karabakh. Undoubtedly, the opening of
Turkish-Armenian borders and establishing of comprehensive relations
between them will be only in favor of Armenia. We believe that this
action will negatively impact on the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation
process, will justify the Armenia’s occupant policy and will encourage
Armenia for new occupations. On the other hand, undoubtedly, Armenians
will not leave their territorial claims against Turkey and Armenian
lobby will not stop its activity toward recognition of `genocide’ even
after the establishing of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Basing
on the courage of our Turkish colleagues to defend justice in the
difficult moments of the history, their high professionalism, bravery
and staunch character, we call you to lead the prevention of threats
damaging the idea of `one nation, two countries’. We believe that your
solidarity, activity and resolute position will prevent the intentions
of AKP government to open borders with Armenia’.

The address was signed by the representatives of Azerbaijani mass media.