Author: Navasardian Karapet

Turkish Daily News
Oct 27 2007

Comments by leading writers and publishers
Saturday, October 27, 2007

Doðan Hýzlan – Literary critic: Istanbul Book Fair has slowly
started to attain international recognition. In Turkey, it is the
only major book fair event. Its international character will provide
a platform for Turkish writers to meet with international writers.
Thanks to this, Turkey’s and the world’s pioneering publishers will
come together. The literary circles did not expect Orhan Pamuk to be
selected as an honorary writer. The people that served to Turkish
literature, art and culture for years, and that have a prominent
place in cultural and literary history are selected as honorary
writers. Of course, other authors as well as Orhan Pamuk can be
mentioned in the upcoming years.

Metin And – Honorary writer at the fair: Being this year’s
honorary guest in the fair is the greatest prize I can see these days
of my 80th year. I have received over 20 prizes to date in Turkey and
abroad. All of them are important for me. The number of books I’ve
written is as huge as my age. However, it is a surprise that I have
been chosen among so many poets and novelists in creative literature
and distinguished writers in essay writing and philosophy.

Vahit Uysal – Doðan Kitap Sales Manager: It is the 26th year of
the fair. Turkey did not have enough publishers 26 years ago and the
existing ones did not have an area for promotion. Istanbul Book Fair
has undertaken an important mission in this respect. The fair
provided comfort in terms of space after it moved from Tüyap to
Beylikdüzü. The number of visitors has increased three times.
However, due to its distance from the city center, a visitor that has
been to the fair once usually does not come again. Despite this, the
number of visitors has exceeded 300,000.

Mýgýrdiç Margosyan – Aras Publishing, author: The most important
mission of the Istanbul Book Fair is to remove the curtain between
author and reader. Thanks to this, mutual communication between
readers and writers was enabled. Publishers could reach more readers
this way. As Aras Publishing, we have been attending this fair for
the last few years. We are introducing Turkish readers with Armenian
Literature. Aras Publishing is among the rare publishers that makes
publication in two languages. Publishing translated books of
Armenian authors and books of modern Armenian authors in Turkish,
Aras Publishing has laid the ground for people of different cultures
living on the same geography to know and understand each other better
via literature.

Nancy Öztürk – Çitlembik Publications: Publication is a close
field, and we do not have many occasions to meet in a year. This fair
overcomes this deficiency and provides us with direct contact with
readers. The rate of foreign guest participation is low in the fair
and it should be increased. We make publication in English and
Turkish. Compared to out Turkish books, English books draw less
attention and constitute 20 percent of our total publication.

Sabri Koz – Yapý Kredi Culture- researcher / writer: Istanbul Book
Fair held by TÜYAP has left a quarter century behind it. For a person
like me, who spends a substantial proportion of his daily life with
books, such event with the place it is exhibited is a corner from
heaven. In these fairs, I look for the books that I have heard about
but been unable to obtain throughout the year. It is possible to meet
publishers, writers, translators and eager people like me here. TÜYAP
Istanbul Book Fair is the most prestigious, beneficial and
”necessary” events held for books. In my opinion, Metin And is an
exceptional person who has made important contributions to our
country and the world. His writing career started 60 years ago.

Navhind Times, India
Oct 27 2007

US: Deteriorating International Relations

by Inder Malhotra

FOR a country trying to cope up with the highly frustrating and
divisive Iraq War, engaged in a dangerously escalating confrontation
with Iran, immersed in a bitter presidential election campaign long
ahead of the event, worried over a likely economic recession and so
on, the United States has wrought an unexpected wonder of sorts. In
the course of a single day a fortnight ago, it added three avoidable
challenges to its already overstretched diplomacy. Ironically, the
worst friction it invited was with one of its closest allies, Turkey,
a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member that renders it
enormous help in Iraq. Sudden tensions with Russia and China may be
understandable, but why add to the already existing ones?

Of course, it is the fracas with Turkey that makes no sense at all.
Indeed, President Mr George W Bush and his Secretaries of State and
Defence, Ms Condoleezza Rice and Mr Robert Gates respectively, made
strenuous efforts at the last minute to avert the bust-up, but to no
avail, which is a measure of the enormous impact the domestic
political discord is having these days on America’s conduct of its
relations with friends and foes, alike.

American sources, including the serving and retired diplomats and
experts on Turkish affairs readily conceded this, though one of them
did retaliate by saying, `You fellows are no better. Thanks to your
political quarrels; you have virtually killed the best possible
nuclear deal you could have got.’ Incidentally, his blunt remark is
at some variance with the general American opinion on the subject of
the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Washington’s official position is that
the deal is not dead, only deadlocked, and that it might yet be
revised. But that is a different story to be told some other time.
For the present, the arcane reasons for the totally unnecessary
dispute between Ankara and Washington – driving the Turks to a
towering rage and reducing the Bush administration to helplessness –
need to be understood.

The trouble began on October 11 when the Foreign Relations Committee
of the House of Representatives took for consideration, a resolution
to be forwarded to the whole House, condemning the `genocide’ of
Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman Empire around 1915. The
Turks sent frantic messages to the White House that the adoption of
this resolution would imperil friendly relations between the two
countries and Ankara would be constrained to stop all cooperation
with the US in relation to the war in Iraq. No wonder the top guns of
the Bush administration went to work immediately, appealing to the
Democratic majority in the committee and the House to desist from
taking up a motion that would alienate an ally that was giving the US
inordinate help in the pursuit of its war in Iraq. Defence Secretary,
Mr Gates spelled out that 90 per cent of the most essential weaponry
and equipment reached the American troops in Turkey only through the
courtesy of Turkey. But the committee paid no heed and passed the
resolution by a majority of 27 to 21.

Sure enough, the enraged Turkish government immediately threatened to
terminate all cooperation with America. It has not yet done anything
in this regard but it is on the verge of achieving the same result by
sending its troops into the Kurdish area in northern Iraq to end the
guerilla attacks by Iraqi Kurds, thus aggravating Turkey’s own
Kurdish problem. Conscious of this, the president of Iraq, a Kurd,
has appealed to the Kurdish guerillas to `surrender their arms or
leave Iraq.’ As it happens the Kurdish area is the only relatively
stable region in Iraq and Iraqi oil reserves are located there.

Two crucial questions arise. The first is: Why is Turkey so sensitive
about criticism of a ghastly outrage that did take place 90 years ago
and for which no living Turk below the age of 102 can be blamed? The
answer is rooted in Turkish history and psyche. Even in its crumbing
days, the Ottoman Empire was a huge polyglot entity. Today’s Turkey,
modern and secular, started as a nation 84 years ago. It was founded,
on the ashes of the Ottomans, by Kemal Ataturk. One of his legacies
was never to admit that the `genocide’ of the Armenians in which over
one million of them were massacred, took place.

The second question is more puzzling: Why should the American
legislature, at this day and age, want to pass a resolution against
an undoubted outrage that occurred nearly a century earlier? This is
not the first time that a resolution denouncing the `genocide’ of
Armenians has been moved. It comes up almost always at election time.
And thereby hangs the real reason for the strange drama.

Armenians in America are not so numerous as some of other ethnic,
religious or denominational groups. But they are very rich and
influential people. In some constituencies, they can make a key
difference. The richest and the most influential Armenians live in
the constituency of the House Speaker, Ms Nancy Pelosi. This should
explain why she, unlike some previous speakers, refused to block the
resolution. Now it seems she might change her stance. That would save
the situation.

Sharp exchanges between an increasingly assertive Russian President,
Mr Putin and US leaders have gone on for some time, and it is
arguable that it was he who upped the ante at the very moment when
the row with Turkey was at its peak. In Moscow, he lectured Ms
Condoleezza Rice and Mr Bill Gates in public and mocked the American
policies. The US felt that he was rude. Only after they suddenly
found Mr Putin visiting Iran – the first Russian leader to go to
Tehran since Stalin’s wartime visit in 1943 – has Washington realised
that its insistence on building a missile defence system against Iran
at Russia’s doorstep is costing it dearly.

On the other hand, America’s responsibility for causing gratuitous
offence and provocation to China is manifest and complete. There was
no compelling reason for the US to confer the highest civilian honour
on the Dalai Lama and otherwise lionising him at this particular
juncture. The respected Tibetan leader has met the present and
previous US presidents no fewer than ten times but always in the
privacy of the Oval Office; never in public. This time Mr Bush did
not only confer on him the Congressional Gold Medal at Capitol Hill
the next day but both, he and the First Lady, Ms Laura Bush, welcomed
the Dalai Lama ostentatiously at the White House at the precise
moment when the House committee was adopting the anti-Turkey
resolution.

Predictably, Beijing has protested in the harshest terms and
threatened `retaliatory action.’ No one knows what it will do. Mr
Bush and his advisers are confident, however, that China would not
want to risk the cancellation of the US President’s visit to Beijing
at the time of the Olympics next year, which the Chinese want to make
a roaring success. In fact, America’s conviction is that neither
Turkey, nor China or Russia would carry their quarrels with the US
beyond a point because none of them `can afford a complete breakdown
of relationship with the sole superpower.’

.php?Story_ID=102718

ARMENIANS’ DUTY TO THE PAST

armradio.am
26.10.2007 17:10

October 15 Fred Hiatt published an article in the Washington Post, in
which he was urging the Armenian Diaspora to work as hard for democracy
in Armenia as for congressional recognition of the genocide. It’s even
possible that modern Armenia would be as democratic as modern Turkey,
the author wrote.

The same day the Armenian Ambassador to the United States Tatoul
Margaryan sent a response letter to the Washington Post, which was
published on October 24. It’s noted in the letter that Fred Hiatt’s
"Armenians Who Need Help Today" leads the debate over recognition of
the Armenian genocide in the wrong direction.

The Ambassador mentioned that the difficulties that Armenia has
encountered during its successful democratic and economic transition
are not taboo subjects for genuine discussion. And members of our
Diaspora have always provided economic assistance and been actively
involved in issues such as the environment, civil and political
liberties, and security. But this activism has not come at the expense
of the quest for genocide recognition, a moral duty for all Armenians
and all of humanity.

"In addition, the Turkish state’s denial of the Armenian genocide
translates into its continuing refusal to normalize relations with
Armenia, leading us to believe that our only choice is to pursue both
historical and contemporary justice.

The fact that Armenia’s democratic transition is not yet complete
should not prevent Armenia from condemning crimes against humanity,
especially a genocide that killed 1.5 million of our ancestors,
took their historical homeland and destroyed a millenniums-old
culture. The suggestion that Armenia’s routine transition problems
and the genocide carried out by Ottoman Turkey can be weighed on the
same scale is ill-founded, to say the least," the Ambassador wrote.

SPONSORS OF THE SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL REFUSE TO PUT IT TO VOTE

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 26 2007

Sponsors of the so-called Armenian genocide bill sent a letter to
House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi and asked not to put
the bill to vote. APA’s US bureau reports that Adam B. Schiff, Brad
Sherman and Anna G. Eshoo.

Ms. Eshoo congressmen from California and New Jersey,
compactly-populated by Armenians said in their letter that it is not
right to put the bill to vote. But the congressmen stated that they
do not refuse the idea of voting and will put it on the agenda late
this year or in 2008.

Nancy Pelosi’s office reported that speaker respects the position of
her colleagues.

21 congressmen withdrew their signatures from the bill after the
bill on the so-called Armenian genocide was supported in House of
Representatives Foreign Affairs committee on October 10. As a result
of it, the number of the congressmen supporting the bill fell from
226 to 205.

Hundreds of experts and civilians through American mass media and TV
channels accused leaders of Democratic Party and speaker Nancy Pelosi
of selling national interests of America.

FIRST PRESIDENT SAID TO RUN IN THE ELECTION AND OPENED THE BLACKLIST

Lragir
Armenia
Oct 26 2007

The first president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan who addressed
the rally on October 26 announced that he will be running in the
presidential election. "You may believe me or not. It does not worry
me. I believe that the main problem of Armenia today is not the
personality of the future president of Armenia but the prevention of
the reproduction of this regime because it is a vicious government,
a government which treats its citizens like aliens, and is a disgrace
for the Armenian people," Levon Ter-Petrosyan said. He repeated what
he had stated in his address on September 21 that he will support any
activist who will emerge and prove able to solve this problem. If not,
Ter-Petrosyan says there is nothing else to do but to fulfill the will
of people. "Frankly speaking, I was inclined to make a decision on
the eve of the election process. However, the recent acts of violence
against my supporters, as well as the immense energy of this rally
urge me to make a decision immediately. Therefore, I am stating now
that I will be nominated as president of the Republic of Armenia,"
Levon Ter-Petrosyan stated. He says since he has already announced
he will be a presidential candidate, it means his status is going to
change abruptly as a political activist. "Therefore, let the policemen
surrounding us listen to me attentively – any act of violence against
my supporters or attempts of intimidation by the tax service will
be viewed as a criminal violation of the right of the citizens to
vote, and will be conveyed to both our society and the international
organizations. Let every policeman, community head or taxman keep
in mind that an act of violence against the constitutional rights
of citizens is a crime, and sooner or later they will be responsible
before the law," Levon Ter-Petrosyan said.

Besides, the first president said a list of people using force
against people is being made, and it will include everyone who
misbehaves. Levon Ter-Petrosyan said the list already includes the
head of the Police of Yerevan Nersik Nazaryan, his deputy Sashik
Afyan and deputy chief of the police Ararat Mahtesyan. "The heads of
two communities of Yerevan are contending for appearing on my list,
whose names will or will not be announced in the upcoming rallies,
depending on their behavior," Ter-Petrosyan stated. its opponents.

After the definition and structured revelation of the government
Levon Ter-Petrosyan touched upon the moral, psychological, political,
economic, social consequences of the rule of this regime, which has
turned Armenia into an "outcast", the population is impoverished,
even though the government is demonstrating tiger bounces through
juggling of statistics. "However, research by serious economists
shows that these indices are false, and the annual growth in reality
is hardly 3-4 percent. What is the secret of appearance of those
two-digit numbers? It turns out that there is no secret. The figures
of the economic growth are direct correlation with the dynamics
of remittances," Levon Ter-Petrosyan says, adding that it means if
the Armenian economy develops, it develops outside Armenia. "At the
expense of the muscle energy of hundreds of thousands of Armenian
migrant workers in Russia," Levon Ter-Petrosyan says. He also spoke
about black economy because, according to him, black economy is one
that is out of the control of the government. "It is found everywhere,
even in the most developed and legitimate countries.

Meanwhile, the ruling system in Armenia is so organized and powerful
that nothing avoids its control, even a proprietor who earns 200
dollars. In other words, all kinds of criminal economic activities
are carried out by it. Consequently, it is not black economy but
flagrant robbery, extortion, and two budgets accrue in Armenia, one
is the official budget, the other is in the pocket of the government.

In addition, calculations show that the second is much bigger than
the first," Levon Ter-Petrosyan says. He says, however, he does not
think the government, which comprises conscientious professionals,
provides false data to the government. Levon Ter-Petrosyan believes
that the data are initially correct but they are distorted before
offering to the society. According to him, the judicial system also
serves the government, and recent evidence is Justice Pargev Ohanyan’s
punishment who dared to make a decision on acquittal.

However, Levon Ter-Petrosyan points out that he does not mean thousands
of lower-ranking judicial and low enforcement officials who are
honest and conscientious professionals. "They are also humiliated
and insulted by the regime like the rest of people. They are not
expressing their feelings because of the lack of an alternative,
but they will unanimously join the surge of popular movement. The
same is with the police, like in 1988, during the national movement,"
Levon Ter-Petrosyan says. Nevertheless, Levon Ter-Petrosyan said this
criticism and attitude gives him pain because both Robert Kocharyan
and Serge Sargsyan were his personal and military friends not a long
time ago. "Personalities whose names should be out down in the modern
history of the Armenian people.

Their behavior after 1999 cannot erase or cast a shadow on them, as
well as the undeniable and considerable role of Samvel Babayan in the
liberation of Artsakh, restoration and strengthening of the Armenian
state. My tough statements do not aim to defame or condemn them,
and are out of sheer necessity to prevent the reproduction of the
regime," Levon Ter-Petrosyan stated. He even said Robert Kocharyan
and Serge Sargsyan will stand a chance to keep their good name in
the history of independence of Armenia if they leave the political
arena voluntarily. The first president also stated that his attitude
is not due to their Karabakhi origin. "If they deserved, they would be
welcome to rule in Armenia for one hundred years, like their ancestors,
the Hetumians from Artsakh who ruled the Kingdom of Cilicia for 150
years," Levon Ter-Petrosyan says. He condemns all efforts to tap a
wedge between the Armenians of Karabakh and Armenia, describing them as
unfair and dangerous. "Therefore, I will be trying my best to prevent
this mindset from spreading and becoming rooted. Especially that 99
percent of the pillars of the government system created by Kocharyan
and Sargsyan are Armenians of Armenia rather than of Karabakh,"
Levon Ter-Petrosyan says.

EXPERT THINKS IRANIAN PRESIDENT HAD ENOUGH REASON TO LEAVE ARMENIA EARLY

Lragir, Armenia
Oct 25 2007

Recently the top issue of the media has been the early departure of
the Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad from Armenia who interrupted
his official visit to Armenia. Experts and reporters say the move
of the Iranian president was a demarche. Official Yerevan says the
Iranian president left because of problems in his country.

Ahmadinejad says he did not leave early, on the contrary, he left an
hour and a half late. The reporters asked the opinion of Alexander
Iskandaryan, a political scientist, on October 25 at the Friday Club.

Before answering this question he said he is not an expert on the
home policy of Iran.

"I can see something is underway there. Laridjani has resigned. It is
very important. There is some commotion, escalation of the situation
regarding the Iranian nuclear program. There are changes around Iran.

I mean the Turkish action in North Iraq, and the Kurdish issue directly
relates to Iran. There is unofficial information from different
sources, and I repeat I am not an expert on the home policy of Iran,
but I cannot reject that Mr. Khomeini’s having health problems,
that he is sick, and changes are likely to happen there," Alexander
Iskandaryan says. Hence, Mahmud Ahmadinejad had enough reason to
leave Armenia early.

"I think it need not necessarily relate to Armenia. It rather relates
to what is underway in Iran. I think it is a secondary issue how
it happened, an hour here, or an hour there, because whatever is
underway in Iran, each of us need not be an expert to understand
that what is happening there is rather serious and might relate to
a change of configuration of the Iranian government. It is enough
reason to interrupt the visit," Alexander Iskandaryan says.

FT.com
House sponsors of Turkey bill seek delay

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: October 26 2007 02:50 | Last updated: October 26 2007 02:50

The principal sponsors of a US congressional bill that has infuriated
Turkey put the legislation on hold on Thursday night until possibly
next year, in the wake of diplomatic tensions that have soared in
recent days.

In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives speaker, the
four main backers behind the proposed House resolution to censure the
Ottoman Empire-era killings of Armenians as genocide said they now
planned to move forward with the legislation "some time later this
year or in 2008".

The letter, by legislators Adam Schiff, Frank Pallone, Brad Sherman,
and Anna Eshoo, said that "we believe that a large majority of our
colleagues want to support a resolution recognising the genocide on
the House floor and that they will do so, providing the timing is more
favourable."

Ms Pelosi, who had previously backtracked from her own commitment to
hold a vote on the legislation in the full House before the
Thanksgiving holiday, had asked the bill’s sponsors to gauge
congressional support for the measure in the wake of the growing
controversy.

As of Thursday night, the number of declared supporters for the bill
had declined to 212 of the 435 House members, with 24 congressmen
having withdrawn their support.

Turkey has vehemently complained about the resolution, and the Bush
administration, which has also lobbied against the measure, has voiced
its concerns that Ankara could restrict US use of Turkish resources to
supply its troops in Iraq.

Administration officials also said the furore over the genocide bill
has impeded Washington’s efforts to convince Turkey not to launch a
large scale military incursion into Iraq.

The Turkish parliament has authorised the step as a means of attacking
the Kurdish separatist PKK but US diplomats fear it could lead to a
wider conflict drawing in Kurdish government forces and even Turkey
and Iraq’s neighbour, Iran.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Source: 0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

17th MEETING OF COUNCIL OF BSEC COUNTRIES’ FOREIGN MINISTERS HELD IN ANKARA

Noyan Tapan
Oct 25, 2007

ANKARA, OCTOBER 25, NOYAN TAPAN. The 17th meeting of the council of
foreign ministers of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization’s
(BSEC) member states was held in Ankara on October 25, by which the
term of Turkey’s presidency over the organization finished.

The deputy foreign minister of the RA Arman Kirakosian represented
Armenia in the council. In his speech he attached great importance to
the role of multilateral economic cooperation in the establishment
of peace, stability and security in the region. A. Kirakosian said
that Armenia pays special attention to the extension and development
of regional transport routes and infrastructures.

According to a press release submitted to NT by the RA MFA Press
and Information Department, at the conclusion of the meeting the
"Ankara Declaration" was adopted, in which the results of Turkey’s
presidency over the organization were summarized and the directions
of future activities of the BSEC were outlined.

INVASION BLUES
Dilip Hiro

Outlook
1025&fname=hiro&sid=1
Oct 26 2007
India

The Kurdish problem has been a running sore for Iraq and Turkey since
their emergence as modern states, but was little more than a local
irritant–until now. American failure to rein in the restive Kurds
has reignited a long-simmering conflict

The Kurdish problem has been a running sore for Iraq and Turkey
since their emergence as modern states, but was little more than a
local irritant–until now. With US occupation forces encamped in Iraq
and the Kurdish drive for independence appearing irreversible under
Washington’s wings, the issue has shot up on the international agenda,
threatening to upset the fragile regional balance of power and further
delay US withdrawal from Iraq.

Several strands make the issue highly combustible: tapped and
untapped hydrocarbon reserves in the Kurdish territories; strong
extra-territorial Kurdish solidarity; the unresolved distribution
of power between the center and the provinces in post-Saddam Iraq;
Washington’s ongoing coddling of Iraqi Kurds, who consolidated their
quasi-independent status, with support of the US and Britain for 12
years; and the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) in Turkey resorting
to violence to achieve autonomy for the Kurdish-majority region.

Although Kurds in the region are citizens of Turkey, Iraq, Iran or
Syria, their ethnic identity tends to supersede their loyalty to the
central national authority. A major event concerning Kurds in one
country quickly engages fellow Kurds in neighboring states.

The Kurds in the region envy those in Iraq. Consisting of three
provinces, Iraqi Kurdistan has its own army, parliament and flag. Its
schools impart education in the Kurdish language, akin to Persian, not
Arabic. It passed its own hydrocarbon law. And, ignoring the warnings
of the oil ministry in Baghdad, it signed exploration and production
contracts with nine oil companies including the Dallas-based Hunt
Oil Company, which is close to the Bush administration.

Recent events put the Kurdish issue on the front burner. Despite last
month’s agreement between the prime ministers of Turkey and Iraq to
stamp down Kurdish terrorism, and repeated pinprick forays by the
Turkish army into northern Iraq, an estimated 3,500 PKK guerrillas,
based in Iraqi Kurdistan, have killed 42 Turks, soldiers and civilians.

The Turkish parliament provided the government with a yearlong window
to conduct cross-border operations against the PKK, listed as a
terrorist organization by the US and the European Union. The vote was
507 to 19, with all negative votes cast by ethnic Kurds, highlighting
the priority that Kurds give to their ethnicity over their nationality.

Against this volatile background came the ill-considered attempt by
the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee to pass
legislation that inflamed Turkish opinion. The resolution describes
the massacres and deportations of 1 million Armenians during World
War I–when Ottoman Turkey sided with Germany against the Allies–as
genocide. This is a highly sensitive subject for Turkey, successor to
the Ottoman Empire. Turkey has threatened, if the House adopts this
resolution, to close its airspace and ports to the US, thus reducing
Pentagon effectiveness in Iraq.

After securing parliamentary authorization for "cross-border
operations"–a euphemism for invasion–Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan said that such a move was not imminent.

That did not stop thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the regional capital of
Irbil marching to the United Nations compound to demand intervention
by the UN Security Council.

Nor did it dampen debate in Iraq as to how Iraqi authorities would
respond to the Turkish army’s advance into northern Iraq. Will Kurdish
militiamen–called "peshmergas," or those ready to die–and US troops
engage the Turkish soldiers? Or will the central government deploy
forces to repel the incursion?

The second option is academic.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has upgraded the 75,000
peshmergas, belonging to the two ruling political parties–the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK)–to regular soldiers, and refused to let Iraqi troops enter
its territory. Its armed forces guard the posts along the borders
with Turkey and Iran.

Faced with the prospect of an onslaught by the Turkish army, the second
largest in NATO, a spokesman of the KRG offered "honest dialogue"
with Ankara to resolve the PKK problem without "the constant violation
of Iraqi sovereignty."

In his view, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki made a mistake by
excluding the KRG from talks with his Turkish counterpart to forge
an agreement on countering PKK terrorism.

But Turkey has shunned the government in Irbil–which repudiated the
Erdogan-Maliki agreement–while loudly protesting its ever-expanding
power and profile. It fears that even implicit recognition of this
entity will encourage Turkish Kurds to demand autonomy as a preamble
to independence.

The idea of independence for the Kurds in the region dates back to
the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, formalized
in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. Kurds feel that US President Woodrow
Wilson failed to keep his promise of delivering to them an independent
state as envisaged in the treaty. They ignore the fact that the Turkish
parliament rejected that treaty and the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne
of 1923 made no mention of an independent Kurdistan.

More recently, heeding the call by US President George H.W. Bush at
the end of the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds in Iraq rebelled against
Saddam Hussein’s regime, only to see their uprising crushed by
Saddam’s forces. Washington and London created a safe haven in the
north for Kurdish refugees and rebels by providing an air umbrella
that continued until the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Kurdish leaders agreed in March 2004 to dissolve their militias or
merge them into the new Iraqi army and then later said they were
postponing the agreement "indefinitely." The US, the occupying power,
did nothing.

In the interim parliament, lacking proportionate Sunni representation
due to the Sunnis’ boycott of the general election, conflict
developed between Shiites and Kurds. The recently empowered, deeply
religious Shiite majority wanted to establish a centralized Islamic
republic. But, committed to secular Kurdish nationalism, the KDP and
the PUK favored a federal Iraq with a weak center.

When Shiite leaders failed to get their Kurdish counterparts to agree
to diminution of the autonomy Kurdistan had enjoyed, they approached
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for guidance. Noting Kurdish obstinacy,
Sistani recommended a federalist system, allowing one or more of the
15 non-Kurdish provinces to form a regional government with powers
comparable to Kurdistan’s.

This alarmed Ankara. In contrast, the Bush administration, beholden
to the Iraqi Kurds, looked on benignly as the new Iraqi constitution
sowed the seeds of the republic’s break-up.

Washington’s failure to pressure the Iraqi Kurdish leadership at a
crucial moment alienated the Turkish government.Matters grew worse
when Ankara’s repeated appeals to the US to use its forces to curb
the PKK went unheeded.

Irked by Bush’s warnings against a military move into Iraqi Kurdistan,
Erdogan said that he did not need to seek permission from any foreign
entity: "Did they [the Americans] seek permission from anybody when
they came from a distance of 10,000 km and hit Iraq?"

What puzzles the Turkish leaders is Bush’s failure to see that they,
too, combat terrorism.

"Turkey is implementing the same international rules that were
implemented by those who linked the attacks on the twin towers to some
organization," explained Turkish justice minister Mehmet Ali Sahin.

But payback inevitably follows. "If Turkey conducts any attack or
operation against Iraqi Kurdistan or Kurds anywhere, we are prepared
to defend ourselves," said an unnamed PKK leader. "We will spread
resistance throughout Turkey and Kurdish areas in Iraq, Iran and
Syria."

The Bush administration should have tempered its indulgence toward
Iraqi Kurds with pressure during the drafting of the new constitution
and gotten its leaders to scale down Kurdistan’s quasi-independence
to re-establish a unitary republic. The failure to do so brings it
to the point where the US is seen as soft on terrorists–albeit of
non-Islamist variety–facing the prospect of the only peaceful Iraqi
region turning into a battlefield.

Dilip Hiro is the author of Secrets and Lies: Operation ‘Iraqi
Freedom’ and After, and, most recently, Blood of the Earth: The
Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources, both published by
Nation Books, New York. Rights: © 2007 Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization. YaleGlobal Online

–Boundary_(ID_BeNlRnw3d7TaKh7nFlz3jA)–

ARMENIAN POLICE DETAINS EDITORS OF OPPOSITION NEWSPAPERS

Agence France Presse — English
October 23, 2007 Tuesday 10:01 PM GMT

Armenian police late Tuesday detained editors of two opposition
newspapers for calling for people to attend a rally on Yerevan’s
central streets, the television channel Erkir-Media reported.

Nikol Pashinyan, chief editor of Armyanskoye Vremya, and Shoger
Matevosyan of Chetvertaya Vlast used loudspeakers to call Armenians
to an opposition rally scheduled for Friday, police officials said.

The rally is due to include Armenia’s first president Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, who said he intended to return to politics after a 10
years of remaining silent on the sidelines.