Author: Tatoyan Vazgen

Macomb Observer, October Edition

By Mitch Kehetian

At Detroit Southwestern High School, Tom Mooradian was an academic
all-star in the classroom, and captain of the school’s 1946 public
school league championship basketball team.

A year later the All-State basketball player was on a Soviet ocean
vessal bound for the Armenian Soviet Republic.

And for the next 13 years the Soviets refused to grant Mooradian an
exit visa , but he never gave up in his quest to get back to America.

When Mooradian boarded the ‘Rossia’ docked in the New York harbor, he
was the youngest member of a group of 151 other American Armenians who
willingly, but unknowingly, had renounced their American citizenship
to "repatriate" to the then Soviet-ruled Armenia.

Mooradian was only 19 when he renounced his American citizenship, a
fact he realized too late once the Rossia was plying the waters of the
Atlantic bound for the Georgian Black Sea port of Batume.

When word spread through two of Southwestern’s student hangouts, the
"Sweet Shoppe" and the "Bee Hive," that Tom had renounced his American
birthright citizenship for the Soviet Union, his friends were baffled
by the decision. Why would he give up so much to go to
communist-controlled Armenia. He had everything going for him at the
time. The kid from blue-collar southwest Detroit had made the
All-City" basketball teams at Detroit’s three daily papers, and was a
scholar and affluent public speaker. The Free Press tagged Tom its
"Player of the Year."

But Tom’s dream was to earn a college degree in Armenia, then a
Soviet-subjugated country and teach them how to play American-style
basketball. He had been convinced by his father that terror and denial
of free speech in the Soviet Union was a capitalist-driven myth.

Though he had all the smarts of a bright young scholar, his father’s
political influence had taken its toll. Tom’s father was a strike
organizer at Kelsey-Hayes and active member of the Communist Party of
America.

Since returning to America in 1960, Tom refrained from writing about
his personal survival behind the "Iron Curtain" to protect those who
helped him through 13 years of self-imposed exile in the old Soviet
Union, which Ronald Reagan during his presidency had branded as "the
Evil Empire."

Now 79, the retired suburban newspaper sports editor has opened his
heart to share the doom and gloom of life behind the Iron Curtain in a
500-page autobiography appropriately titled "The Repatriate – Love,
Basketball and the KGB."

When the Soviets granted Mooradian an exit visa in 1960 I was a
reporter for the Detroit Times. A week after Tom was back with his
family, I interviewed my old classmate for my paper. Tom graduated in
1947, a year before me.

Somehow Tom survived beatings by the KGB, and was able to live with
the knowledge that only he had himself to blame for the self-imposed
nightmare he had been forced to endure.

In the interview for my story in the Aug. 21, 1960 Detroit Times,
Mooradian told me there was no freedom of speech in Soviet Armenia or
any other Soviet republic. "You always cringed with fear when there
was a knock on the door," Tom related. Even then, now in the safety of
the family home in southwest Detroit there was the look of fear in the
eyes of my old school friend. But he never mentioned the names of his
friends to me or any one else. He was still fearful of what the
communists and the KGB would do to his old sports pals in Armenia and
Russia. He didn’t know why the Soviets finally let him "to fly the
roost" to freedom.

Not until the collapse of Soviet rule in 1991 did Mooradian express
any hope that freedom would be restored in what was then the Soviet
Union. For the peoples of the Baltic States nations – Ukraine,
Georgia, Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, the demise of the "Evil
Empire" meant freedom to guide their own destiny.

That’s why Mooradian’s book is must reading for young Americans who
only know of the chilling expressions that are remembered as the "Iron
Curtain," the "Cold War" and the "Evil Empire." .

His stirring account of life in the old Soviet Union, when the
Kremlin-led Communist regime ruled with the fear a knock on the door
meant the KGB had come to take you to its slave labor camps in Siberia
was a real life experience – not just expressions of the past from a
handbook on the Bolsheviks.

Mooradian also tells us how Soviet citizens stood in long unruly lines
"hoping to purchase a kilo of black, damp, saw-grain filled bread."
And always fearful of the knock on the door after the midnight hour.

His first encounter with the NKVD, the Soviet Secret Police, came
shortly after his arrival in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. He
survived a severe beating, and felt the barrel of a loaded revolver
placed to his head – then released when he was certain his life on
earth was about to end.

He was armed with a petition he had authored and signed by several
other American Armenian repatriates who were also seeking the help of
the American Embassy in Moscow to get back to America.

That brush with death convinced him he had to accept his fate and
fight for survival.

Mooradian’s salvation was his stellar basketball skill and willingness
to teach young Soviet athletes how to play the game the American way.

Soon Mooradian’a basketball prowess captured the hearts of the Soviet
people and by his own admission, "it saved my life and gave me the
strength to retain my sanity."

The nights when he was haunted by the nightmare of being trapped in
the Soviet Union, by his own self-imposed exile, his thoughts flashed
back to 1946 when he led his high school team to a 30-28 overtime win
over the heavily-favored Miller High at Olympia Stadium.

As for repeated attempts to get to Moscow, without the fear of the
NKVD dragging him into a cellblock, Tom’s basketball talent had given
him limited freedom within the Soviet Union – especially in 1953 after
he paced an all-star Armenian basketball team to victory over a
towering visiting team from Red China. In looking back in life, Tom
says "basketball was not a part of my life: it was my life. It saved
my life."

After defeating the Chinese team, Mooradian was now a member of an
all-star national Soviet team that played against other Soviet teams –
and on every visit to Moscow, he popped in the American Embassy.

They told me I could only return to America if the Soviets gave me an
exit visa.

But he needed help.

On Sept. 5, 1957 while in Moscow, he was told Eleanor Roosevelt was at
the National Hotel.

By a miracle while dining with a friend he spotted the wife of former
president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt at another table . Unable to
approach her table, the following morning he seized that opportunity
in a crowded stairway and appeaed for her help. She took his name and
noted that the American from Detroit was just a minor when he signed
away his citizenship rights in 1947.

The Soviets thought highly of Mrs. Roosevelt and to this day Tom has
no idea if the former First Lady spoke to Soviet officials to grant
"the young American" an exit visa.

Two and a half years later with his 32nd birthday approaching, a
college professor told him:"Mooradian, the Soviets are letting you
leave for America. Get ready."

The nighmare was about to end. On July 31, 1960 Tom was on his way to
the Sheremetyev International Airport.

He clerared customs with a Soviet exit visa, and one-way ticket to
America with a stop in Copenhagen to receive an American passport.

Mooradian left Detroit at age 19, a minor. He returned on his 32nd
birthday.

Soon after he completed his quest for a degree from Wayne State
University, with a major in journalism.

Tom preferred and excelled in sports writing while reporting for
suburban newspapers in western Wayne County.

Tom and his wife Jan, a retired Detroit school teacher, divide their
time between homes in Oakland County and Hubbard Lake.

They have two grown daughters, Jennifer and Bethany, and three
grandchildren. How my old school pal survived 13 years behind the
"Iron Curtain" is a miracle in itself let alone the mystery
surrounding his release by the Kremlin.

I’ll have to read his book again, between the lines, for a clue to
unravel the mystery.

Tom has a simple answer:" The Soviets not only took away my youth, but
they also made it impossible to sleep. The worst part was the Soviet
night. The nightmares. The midnight pounding on doors."

The nightmare is over.

(Editor’s Note: Mitch Kehetian is a contributing columnist for
Observer-Fracassa Publications, and retired editor of the Macomb
Daily. Signed, prepublication copies of ‘The Repatriate’ can be
ordered from the website _www.tommooradian.com_
( m/) . In December the book will be
available from Wayne State University Press, Barnes & Noble.com;
Borders.com, and Amazon.com. )

THE RULING POWER BEATS THE OPPOSITION
KIMA YEGHIAZARYAN

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
20 Sep 2008
Armenia

In Terms Of Pure Initiatives

Interview with ex-MP, Chairwoman of the Public organization
`Shrjadards’ Emma Khudabashyan.

`Mrs. Khudabashyan how do you estimate the internal political
situation? By the estimation of the pro-oppositional power headed by
Levon Ter-Petrosyan the crises continues in the country. Do you agree
with this assessment?’

`No. In my view there is no crises in our country. Due to the active
work of the ruling power and firstly the President we managed to
overcome the crises in our country. Even the internal political
situation has calmed down as compared with the atmosphere, which
existed two months back.

We all saw that the elected President Serge Sargsyan, immediately after
holding his position came out with lots of initiatives. Beginning from
tax and customs system, he realized reforms in different spheres,
established a Ministry of Diaspora to make the role of Diaspora more
important. He made the government sessions public; he adopted new
approaches in our foreign policy by inviting the Turkish President to
Armenia.

It is another issue that they need time to realize all those
initiatives. But it is a fact that lots of changes have been made in
the before mentioned spheres. And the employees of those spheres feel
this on their ski
ns. Many employees of customs services complain, `It
has become impossible to work’.

Now let’s speak about the opposition belonging to Ter-Petrosyan. With
what initiatives did they appear in the post-election period? What was
the initiative of that opposition? `March-1′? What else? The
establishment of `Armenian National Congress’? We have already seen
`Ardarutyun’ (justice) union. Which means they didn’t come out with any
new initiative.

It is another question that Ter-Petrosyan is a brilliant orator. He can
introduce black as white, very skillfully. So when we compare the two
camps in terms of initiatives, we evidently see that the ruling power
beats the opposition.

Whereas opposition should have showed more initiatives. Because this is
their chance. Ter-Petrosyan’s initiatives are usually related to the
foreign sphere, but the ruling power managed to take it from him,
meanwhile maintaining clear and healthy approach.’

`Could you ever expect Stepan Demirchyan to join LTP? Though you are
not a member of the People’s Party of Armenia any more, anyway as a
member of the founding staff of the party aren’t you concerned about
the party’s fate?’

`I must mention that at the moment People’s Party of Armenia is very
far from the political line oriented by Karen Demirchyan. According to
Karen Demirchyan People’s Party of Armenia should have never become a
radical political power. And when after Karen Demirchyan the Party
manifested certain radicalism, especially after joining LTP, the party
lost its face.

In 1998 K. Demirchyan used to underscore that he can’t take power at
cost of even one person’s blood. He used to say that power is not
worthy of people’s blood. He would have never chosen that way.’

`You compared the congress with `Ardarutyun’ union. Do you mean that it
will have the same end?’

`In case of no results the people will definitely become disappointed.
And by now their struggle has been futile. The only thing they have
managed is splitting society and sowing hatred.

They made a fatal mistake by refusing to have dialogue with the ruling
power. After 1998 and 2003 the authorities didn’t come out with similar
proposals. And this was the first time when the authorities proposed
cooperation and the opposition shouldn’t have refused. Especially
because as compared with 2003 these elections were rather just and
transparent.

If the opposition really wants to see changes in the country they must
appreciate the steps made by the authorities in that direction. But
they didn’t welcome any step except the invitation of the Turkish
President to visit Armenia.

For example fighting corruption. When the President was making such
risky steps, we must welcome this, especially because the
anti-corruption struggle was against the supporters of the country’s
President, who have endorsed Serge Sargsyan during the elections. But
instead of supporting the President they continue to speak about it
with irony.

Which means, for these people, taking the power is an end in itself. I
can’t understand are they against these changes. I wonder what would
they do had they come to power?

On the other hand when you look at the ex-officials supporting
Ter-Petrosyan, as a result of the reforms they should have been the
first to be punished. Ter-Petrosyan’s cadre bank would have become the
first target for the struggle against corruption. Which would have been
very fair.’

ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM: A SUMMER OF DIFFICULTIES,
BREAKTHROUGHS

=117576

JERUSALEM, SEPTEMBER 19, ARMENIANS TODAY – NOYAN TAPAN. During the
summer, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem suffered two incidences
of vandalism to its outlying properties, one in Ramleh, an hour’s
distance from Jerusalem, and one at Baron Der, a
thirty-three-and-a-half acre olive grove between the towns of
Bethlehem-Beit Jala and Jerusalem, as reports the patriarchate.

In Ramleh, vandals took advantage of the temporarily uninhabited
property of St. George’s Armenian Monastery to ransack the interior as
well as to destroy doors and windows. The Superior of the Monastery,
Father Avedis Ipradjian, reported the incident to the Israeli police.
Patriarch Archbishop Torkom Manoogian, accompanied by members of the
St. James Brotherhood, traveled to Ramleh to survey the damage.

The Monastery dates back to the 1600’s and its ancient history is
linked to Armenian pilgrims, who, before the invention of modern
transportation, regularly disembarked from boats in the nearby port of
Jaffa on their way to Jerusalem. After resting at St. Nicholas Armenian
Monastery in Jaffa, overlooking the harbor of Tel Aviv, they would
proceed to Ramleh and St. George’s Monastery. After another rest
period, they would resume their journey to Jerusalem.

Barely a month later, the Patriarchate learned of another incident that
a fire of suspicious origin had damaged 15-20 olive trees in the Baron
Der olive grove.

There was positive breakthrough on two outstanding issues dealing with
the physical condition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the
Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

For decades, the roof of the Church of the Nativity was in need of
restoration, having fallen into a serious state of disrepair. Divergent
positions among the three custodian churches, the Greek Orthodox, the
Armenian Orthodox and the Custos of the Holy Land had been preventing
an agreement in the Status Quo Committee, mainly due to the position of
the Greek Orthodox that they alone had the right to conduct the
restoration. Endeavoring to resolve this impasse, the Status Quo
Committee reached the decision to refer the matter to the Palestinian
Authority, requesting that the Authority undertake the supervision of
the roof restoration.

The three custodian communities of the Holy Places also have
successfully reached an agreement in the Status Quo Committee on the
restoration of lavatories in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This
issue had been a contentious one for decades until intensive
negotiations yielded a breakthrough. The renovation work has begun on
ten lavatories, the 6,000 cost to be shared equally by the three
custodian communities.

The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem needs the financial support of
each Armenian community worldwide to preserve and maintain the
priceless legacy of heritage and presence left by past generations of
faithful pilgrims in the Holy Land. Time, attention, prayers and
donations are all essential to the success of Armenian Jerusalem.

TURKEY AND TRANSATLANTIC TRENDS
Ibrahim Kalin

Sept 18 2008
Turkey

According to the 2008 Transatlantic Trends public opinion survey
recently released by the German Marshall Fund of the United States
(GMF) — available at — Turkey’s threat perception has
declined and its confidence has increased compared to a year ago.
Economic crisis, climate change, international terrorism, energy
dependency, Iran’s nuclear program and religious fundamentalism —
none of these seem to create a sense of urgency or fear among the
Turks surveyed. Considering the turbulent events Turkey went through
in 2007, this is an important indication of a reasonable degree of
stability. There are other indications, as well. The big economic
crisis many observers were expecting never came. The Russian-Georgian
war, at least so far, has not created a major political division
or regional crisis for Turkey. Turkey is handling the Middle East
as well as before — and even better in some areas. The fact the
Syrian-Israeli talks facilitated by Turkey (how is this different
from mediation?) have not collapsed is a sign of hope. The Iranian
nuclear issue is far from being as explosive as many feared.

On top of all these came something rather unexpected: a sign of
normalization for Turkish-Armenian relations. President Abdullah
Gül’s visit to Yerevan was a bold and historic move. The fact that
the Armenian side has agreed to the Turkish proposal to establish a
committee of historians to look into the events of 1915-1916 could be a
harbinger of much more to come. Some are even talking about some secret
energy and border deals between Ankara and Yerevan. I have no way of
confirming or denying such deals, but this much is clear: The Caucasus
crisis may turn out to be just another big opportunity for Turkey,
not a final countdown toward a choice between the West and Russia.

The threat perception of a society is extremely significant for its
understanding and handling of policy. It is also an extension of one’s
self-identity. For decades, one of the leitmotifs of the republican
state identity has been its exaggerated threat perception regarding
foreign powers, as well as its own population. Foreigners have been
seen as imperial powers bent on dividing and destroying Turkey. Their
alleged domestic collaborators, the "real traitors inside," have been
watched closely and their political activities monitored by Turkish
intelligence agencies. Leftists, nationalists, Kurds, Islamists and
non-Muslim minorities, including Jews, Greeks and Armenians, have
been seen as potential threats to the integrity and unity of Turkey.

Now this is changing. There is more self-confidence in the Turkish
people, as well as among the elites. And it works both ways: As Turkey
builds its internal self-confidence and trust, it thrusts itself into
the maelstrom of international affairs and sees much benefit in such
risk-taking. At the same time, Turkey’s increasing involvement in
its region and world affairs speaks to national pride and honor.

The 2008 GMF survey also confirms the findings of other surveys
conducted in Turkey; and they all point to a healthier political
development in Turkey. According to the survey, Turkey has become
slightly warmer to other nations. While people surveyed identify
themselves as religious, somewhat religious and non-religious,
these descriptions do not point to deep political divisions on key
issues. Certainly, this is a sign of maturity. About 70 percent oppose
the banning of the headscarf at Turkish universities; another sign
of increasing respect for religious freedom in Turkey. About half
believe that Turkey should act alone in international affairs. This
can be interpreted as reflecting an isolationist and even bullying
attitude. But this is more a reaction to the policies of unilateralism
of the US, Russia and others than a strong political opinion.

Finally there is the issue of how Turks and Europeans feel about
where Turkey belongs. Turks and Europeans agree that Turkey is not
part of the West. And the survey shows that this is a value-based
judgment. Seventy-six percent in Germany, 68 percent in France and
61 percent in Italy believe Turkey and Europe have such different
values that they cannot belong to the same culture and civilization.

To me, this seems to be the critical question: Do Turks have to be
like the Germans or the French to be accepted into the community
of EU countries? If assimilation is the only way to accept Turkey
(or any other country for that matter), what does this say about
European notions of cultural pluralism?

–Boundary_(ID_BQhNduHs56os/tGPPRZ4cg) —

PRESIDENT OF IRAN: REGIONAL STATES DO NOT NEED NATO INTERFERENCE TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS

ArmInfo
2008-09-17 12:40:00

ArmInfo. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday said promotion
of relations between Iran and Armenia at bilateral, regional and
international levels will relay a message of friendship to the world,
IRNA reports.

"Regional states do not need NATO interference to solve their
problems," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandian. He said cooperation between Tehran and
Yerevan can set a model for others.

He went on to say that expansion of relations with Armenia is the
definite policy of Iran. "There is no limit on expansion of relations
with Armenia," he added.

Ahmadinejad said unipolar system has been almost demolished and its
consequences are visible throughout the world, so efforts should be
made to build a new order on the basis of which friendship and peace
can be established.

Nalbandian for his part touched on the Caucasus events and said the
events indicate that the region is in a sensitive situation. "So,
we should think of new ways for expansion of mutual ties," he added.

Iranian and Armenian foreign ministers in Tehran on Tuesday
exchanged views on the latest developments in the Caucasus region
and reviewed ways out of the current crisis. Speaking to reporters
after the meeting, Manouchehr Mottaki said that in his meeting with
Edward Nalbandyan, the two ministers also discussed promotion of
Tehran-Yerevan relations.

MOTTAKI: TEHRAN CLOSELY FOLLOWING UP CAUCASUS EVENTS

IRNA
Sept 17
Tbilisi

Iran-Georgia-Mottaki

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday that Tehran
was closely following up ongoing events in the Caucasus and wants
stability and security restored to the region.

"Recent bitter events and human catastrophe have been regrettable
and we have been closely following the events, given our sensitivity
towards restoration of security and stability there," Mottaki told
Georgian President Michael Saakashvili here Wednesday.

He said Iran has offering solutions to different parties in the region
in order to get out of the current stalemate and help restore stability
and security.

Consultations have been held with Russian, Azeri, Armenian, and
German officials on mechanisms for restoring stability and security
to the Caucasus, said Mottaki, adding that today in Tbilisi too he
ould discuss with Georgian officials ways of getting out of the crisis.

He hoped that suitable steps will be taken during his Georgia visit
towards restoration of security and peace to the Caucasus.

Mottaki also discussed with Saakashvili a host of other subjects,
including ways of expanding bilateral ties.

Saakashvili, for his part, said Iran holds a major status and a
significant position in the region.

"We attach special importance to expansion of relations with the
Islamic Republic of Iran," said Saakashvili, adding that Tbilisi and
Tehran should maintain regular contacts to that end.

Terming present conflict in the Caucasus as "devastating", Saakashvili
hoped that consultations at regional level and Iran’s contribution
would lead to re-establishment of security and stability in the region.

He said, "We are ready to have necessary cooperation with any regional
power that can help normalize conditions," he added.

AFGHANISTAN FREEZES TIES WITH REGIONAL SECURITY GROUP

RIA Novosti
17:30 | 15/ 09/ 2008

MOSCOW, September 15 (RIA Novosti) – Afghanistan has had virtually
no contact over the past year with a regional security group on the
post-conflict settlement, the head of the Collective Security Treaty
Organization said on Monday.

The CSTO is a security grouping comprising Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

"There has been no cooperation with the Afghan side over the past
year. A year ago, the Afghan side stopped all diplomatic contacts
with CSTO representatives on the issue of a post-conflict settlement,"
Nikolai Bordyuzha.

He added that the behavior could be linked to "big brother giving
the Afghans appropriate instructions."

The CSTO group of the post-conflict settlement in Afghanistan was
established in 2006 and includes national coordinators from all the
CSTO member states. It was meant to provide assistance to Afghanistan’s
law enforcement, drug-control and other security agencies.

Moscow continues to permit non-military supplies for NATO troops
stationed in Afghanistan to pass through Russian territory, despite
suspending in August all peacekeeping operations with NATO for at
least six months.

Russia made the decision to continue supporting NATO operations in
Afghanistan over concerns about the worsening military and political
situation in the Central Asian country amid a rise in extremist
attacks and heroin production.

Since the Taliban regime was overthrown in the 2001 U.S.-led campaign,
Afghanistan has become the world’s leading producer of heroin.

Afghanistan’s opium production increased from 6,100 tons in 2006
to 8,200 tons in 2007, according to the UN. The narcotics trade has
become an acute problem for Russia and the Central Asian republics
due to a continual flow of illegal drugs from Afghanistan.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has about
53,000 troops operating in the country under a UN mandate to help
give security support to the Afghan government and stop the flow of
drugs from the country.

However, despite international efforts, the Taliban, ousted from
power after a U.S.-led military operation in 2001, have stepped up
their operations over the past year with an increase in suicide and
other attacks.

On Sunday two UN doctors and a driver were killed, when a suicide
bomber rammed into their vehicle in southern Afghanistan. And in a
separate incident, around six children died with 12 others wounded
when a roadside bomb detonated outside of the country’s capital Kabul.

SCHOOLGIRL OF ARMENIAN ORIGIN INCLUDED IN TURKISH NATIONAL WATER POLO TEAM

Noyan Tapan

Se p 15, 2008

INSTANBUl, SEPTEMBER 15, ARMENIANS TODAY – NOYAN TAPAN. Stephani
Berberoglu, a pupil of the 12th form of Mkhitarian college, has been
included in the national water polo team of Turkey. Marmara daily
(Istanbul) reported that she together with other members of the
national team will soon leave for the Slovak Republic to take part
in an international water polo competition there.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Turkey again offers Armenia to form commission of historian
13.09.2008 13:48 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Foreign Minister Ali Babacan pressed Armenia `to
accept a Turkish proposal to establish a joint commission of
historians to study events of World War I in eastern Anatolia, which
Armenians claim amounted to systematic genocide of the Armenian
population by the late Ottoman Empire.’

"We are ready to face our past. We have nothing to be afraid in our
history, and we are ready to face whatever this proposed commission
will come up with at the end of its studies. We are that confident,"
Babacan said, the Anatolia news agency reports.

Babacan was speaking after a visit to Switzerland, one of the
countries whose parliament recognized the Armenian Genocide. At a
press conference after talks with his Swiss counterpart, Micheline
Calmy-Rey, late on Thursday, Babacan said history must be written by
historians, not by "yes" or "no" votes by deputies.

Turkey proposed the commission of scholars in 2005, but Armenia
rejected it, since the fact of Genocide is universally recognized and
doesn’t need to be studied.

Turkey denies that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic
genocide.

The two neighbors have had no formal ties since 1993, when Turkey
closed the border to demonstrate support to Azerbaijan in the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY TANGO IN THE BLACK SEA
By M K Bhadrakumar

Asia Times Online
September 12, 2008

Amid the flurry of diplomatic activity in Moscow last week over
the Caucasus, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov took time off for an
exceptionally important mission to Turkey, which might prove a turning
point in the security and stability of the vast region that the two
powers historically shared.

Indeed, Russian diplomacy is swiftly moving even as the troops have
begun returning from Georgia to their barracks. Moscow is weaving
a complicated new web of regional alliances, drawing deeply into
Russia’s collective historical memory as a power in the Caucasus and
the Black Sea.

German poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht would have marveled at
Lavrov’s diary, heavily marked with "Caucasian chalk circles" through
last week, with intertwining plots and sub-plots – an Extraordinary
European Council Meeting taking place in Brussels; a meeting of the
foreign ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) in Moscow; three foreign counterparts to be hosted in Moscow –
Karl de Gucht of Belgium, Franco Frattini from Italy and Azerbaijan’s
Elmar Mamedyarov; visits by the presidents of the newly independent
republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; and consultations with the
visiting United Nations secretary general’s special representative
for Georgia, Johan Verbeke.

Yet, Moscow signaled the highest importance to consultations with
Turkey. Lavrov summarily dropped all business at home and hurried to
Istanbul on Tuesday on a working visit, essentially aimed at catching
a few hours’ urgent confidential conversation with his counterpart,
Ali Babacan. Lavrov’s mission underscored Russia’s acute sense of
its priorities in the current regional crisis in the Caucasus and
the Black Sea.

Historical rivals becoming allies Almost inevitably, there is
great historical poignancy when Russia and Turkey discuss the Black
Sea. During the year-long siege of the Russian fortress naval base
Sevastopol in 1854-55 by the British and French, Tzarist Russia
realized one or two home truths. One, that Turkey’s role could be
critical for the safety of its Black Sea fleet, and, two, without the
Black Sea fleet, Russia’s penetration into the Mediterranean would
not be feasible. Most important, Russia learned that the original
ground of a war may be lost, but the protagonists could continue
with hostilities.

When peace finally came with the Congress of Paris in 1856, the Black
Sea clauses came at a tremendous disadvantage to Russia – so much
so that within the year the tzar conspired with Germany’s Otto von
Bismarck, denounced the accord and proceeded with re-establishing a
fleet in the Black Sea.

The timing of Lavrov’s consultations in Turkey was noteworthy. US Vice
President Dick Cheney happened to be in the region, visiting Ukraine,
Azerbaijan and Georgia, drumming up anti-Russia animus.

Turkey didn’t figure in his itinerary. Moscow shrewdly estimated the
need of political dynamism with regard to Turkey.

Moscow has taken careful note that unlike the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the European Union, Turkey’s reaction to
the conflict in the Caucasus has been manifestly subdued. Ankara
briefly expressed its anxiety over the developments, but almost in
pro-forma terms without taking sides. On the one hand, Turkey is a
NATO member country and it aspires to join the EU. It was a close
Cold War ally of the US. Turkey will be the net beneficiary as an
energy hub if any of the West’s grandiose plans to bypass Russian
territory and access Caspian energy materialize. It is the entrepot
of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

On the other hand, Russia is poised to be Turkey’s number one trading
partner, with annual trade already nearing US$40 billion. Invisible
trade is also substantial, with 2.5 million Russian tourists
visiting Turkey annually and Turkish companies extensively involved
in Russia’s services sector. And, Russia supplies 70% of Turkey’s
needs of natural gas.

Thus, Turkey has ingeniously come up with the idea of a "Caucasus
Stability and Cooperation Pact", whose main virtue would be, to quote
Turkish commentator Semih Idiz, to "provide Turkey with the option of
remaining relatively neutral in this dispute, even if this was not
to everyone’s satisfaction in Washington". Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Moscow on August 12 to discuss the
proposal with the Kremlin. Idiz adds, "Put another way, Ankara is
not in a position to take sides in this dispute, at a time when a new
‘East-West divide’ is in the offing, even if it is a member of NATO."

Conventional wisdom is that Moscow abhors encroachments into its
"sphere of influence" in the Caucasus by outside powers. However,
in the present case, the Kremlin promptly welcomed the Turkish
proposal and agreed to have consultations on building up bilateral
and multilateral dialogue on all aspects of the Caucasus problem. The
Russian approach is pragmatic.

Primarily, it was imperative to engage Turkey, an important regional
power, which helped mitigate Russia’s regional isolation in the
crisis. Second, it paid to involve Turkey on Russia’s side, as it
does not form part of the EU peace initiative.

Turkey’s influence in Southern Caucasus is undeniable. Turkey’s annual
trade with Georgia amounts to $1 billion, a considerable volume by
the latter’s yardstick. Turkish investment in Georgia is in excess
of half a billion dollars. Turkey also supplied weapons and provided
training to the Georgian military. Turkey’s ties with Azerbaijan have
been traditionally close, too.

Thus, Moscow took the perspective that the Turkish proposal could
provide the basis to work out mechanisms for limiting the conflict
potential of the region and enhancing regional stability and act
as a counterweight to the West’s intrusive moves directed against
Russian interests.

Lavrov told Babacan that while "it is necessary at this stage
to create appropriate conditions" for Ankara’s peace initiative,
"including elimination of the consequences of the aggression against
South Ossetia", "we absolutely agree with our Turkish partners that
the groundwork for that interaction can and must be laid now".

At the core of the Russian thinking lies the preference for a regional
approach that excludes outside powers. Lavrov was open about it. He
said, "We see the chief value in the Turkish initiative in that it
rests on common sense and assumes that countries of any region and,
first of all, countries belonging to this region should themselves
decide how to conduct affairs there. And others should help, but not
dictate their recipes."

Lavrov was hinting at displeasure over the US role. He went on, "Of
course, this will be an open scheme, but the initiative role here will
belong to the countries of the region. This is about the same thing
as ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] in Southeast Asia,
which has a lot of partners [10], but the ASEAN members define the
work agenda for the region, and the region’s life."

The Russian approach is to welcome an "entente cordiale" with Turkey in
the Black Sea region, which frustrate US attempts to isolate Russia in
its traditional backyard. During Lavrov’s visit to Istanbul, the two
sides agreed about the "necessity of using more the already available
mechanisms – the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization [based
in Istanbul] and Blackseafor [regional naval force] – and developing
the Turkish idea of Black Sea harmony, which is increasingly acquiring
a multilateral and practical character."

Curiously, at the press conference in Istanbul with Babacan by his
side, Lavrov made a huge ellipsis in the thought process by linking
the Russian-Turkish shared interest in undertaking joint initiatives
to two other regional issues – Iraq and Iran. He said, "Essentially
from the same positions we also champion what needs to be undertaken
for a definitive resolution of the situation in Iraq on the basis of
the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that state. Also similar
are our approaches to the necessity of a political peaceful settlement
to the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program."

The full import of Lavrov’s statement needs careful analysis. Its
ramifications are profound. It can be understood against the backdrop
of the US’s ideas in the past to use the eastern Black Sea coast as
a staging post for its military operations in Iraq and a potential
strike against Iran – which Ankara firmly rejected, to the great
relief of Moscow. Suffice to say, Lavrov has done brilliantly by
floating an idea to link Iraq and Iran with a Russo-Turkish regional
framework on security and cooperation.

The straits question But in immediate terms, Moscow has its eyes set
on the US’s military pressure in the Black Sea. At the root of the
present situation lies the so-called "straits question". Briefly,
Moscow would like Ankara to continue to resist US attempts to revisit
the 1936 Montreux Convention, which vests in Turkish hands control
over the Bosphorus Straits and the Dardanelles. The US was not party to
the 1936 convention, which severely restricted the passage of warships
through the two Turkish straits to the Black Sea and virtually ensured
the Black Sea as a Russo-Turkish playpen.

The Montreux Convention is critical to Russia’s security. (During World
War II, Turkey denied the Axis powers permission to dispatch warships
to the Black Sea to attack the Soviet naval fleet based in Sevastopol.)

In the post-Cold War scenario, Washington has been mounting pressure on
Turkey to renegotiate the Montreux Convention so as to progressively
convert the Black Sea into a preserve of NATO. Turkey, Romania and
Bulgaria are NATO countries; the US has military bases in Romania;
the US is hoping to induct Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

Therefore, Turkish resistance to the US entreaties regarding
renegotiating the Montreux Convention assumes great importance for
Moscow. (During the current conflict in the Caucasus, Washington
sought to dispatch two massive warships weighing 140,000 tons to the
Black Sea ostensibly to provide "aid" to Georgia, but Ankara refused
permission on the grounds that such passage through the Bosphorus
violated provisions of the Montreux Convention.)

Moscow appreciates the nuance in the Turkish policy. Actually, Moscow
and Ankara have a shared interest in maintaining the Black Sea as
their joint preserve. Second, Ankara rightly apprehends that any move
towards re-opening the Montreux Convention – which Turkey negotiated
with great dexterity, statesmanship and foresight by Kemal Ataturk
against formidable odds – would open a Pandora’s box. It might well
turn out to be a step towards reopening the Lausanne Treaty of 1923,
the cornerstone which erected the modern Turkish state out of the
debris of the Ottoman Empire.

Writing in the liberal Milliyet newspaper recently, prominent Turkish
political analyst Tahya Akyol neatly summed up the paradigm: Anatolia’s
geography required giving priority to looking towards the West during
the Byzantine and Ottoman eras, while never ignoring the Caucasus
and the Middle East. Of course, nuances change, depending on events
and problems.

A Turkey directed towards the West would never ignore Russia, the
Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Middle East or the Mediterranean. The
symphony of changing and complicated nuances depends on the ability of
our foreign policy and the size of our power. There’s no such thing
as an infallible policy, but Turkey has avoided making huge foreign
policy mistakes. Its basic principles are sound.

Moscow has a deep understanding of the quintessential pragmatism
of Turkey’s "Kemalist" foreign policy. (Ataturk reached out to the
Bolsheviks in the early 1920s.) Lavrov gently glided over the pages
of contemporary history. He said in Istanbul that post-Soviet Russia
didn’t feel any "restraining factors" on account of Turkey’s NATO
membership as long as the two powers remained "truly sincere, truly
trustful and truly mutually respectful". What did he mean?

>From the Russian perspective, what matters is that Turkey shouldn’t
use its NATO membership to the detriment of Russia’s interests, even
while legitimately fulfilling its obligations and commitments to the
alliance. In other words, Lavrov reminded that

[lg.php?bannerid=27&campaignid=23&zo neid=36&channel_ids=,&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fw
w w.atimes.com%2Fatimes%2FCentral_Asia%2FJI12Ag02.ht ml&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.atimes.com%2Fatim es%2FprintN.html&cb=f92015b5f7] Turkey should not
forget about its "other international commitments and obligations",
such as "the framework of the international treaties that govern the
regime on the Black Sea, for example".

Lavrov drew comfort that "Turkey never places its commitments to NATO
above its other international obligations, but always strictly follows
all those obligations that it has in the totality. This is a very
important trait not characteristic for all countries. We appreciate
this, and endeavor to approach our relations likewise." To be sure,
he left behind much food for thought for his Turkish hosts.

Caucasian chessboard Meanwhile, to use Akyol’s metaphor, a
new "symphony" has indeed begun in the Black Sea and Southern
Caucasus. International observers, who reduce the current discord
to one of Russia’s support to the principle of self-determination,
are counting the trees and missing the wood.

After testing out NATO’s real capabilities to wage a war against Russia
in the Black Sea – a Russian military expert assessed Moscow would need
20 minutes to sink the NATO fleet – Russia has announced its intent to
deploy regular troops in the newly independent states of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia under the treaties of "friendship, cooperation and mutual
assistance" that Russia signed with them in Moscow on Tuesday. Defense
Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said a contingent in excess of a brigade
each would be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In practical terms, Russia has reinforced its presence in the Black Sea
region. Lavrov explained in Moscow on Tuesday, "Russia, South Ossetia
and Abkhazia will take all possible measures jointly to remove and
prevent threats to peace or attempts to destroy peace and to counter
acts of aggression against them on the part of any country or any
group of countries." He said Moscow would henceforth expect that any
discussions by the United Nations Security Council over regional
security issues would be "senseless" without the participation of
the representatives of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – a precondition
Washington is certain to reject.

Equally, another Russo-Turkish symphony is heard elsewhere in the
Caucasus. On Saturday, Turkish President Abdullah Gul flew into
Yerevan, breaking the century-old ice in Turkish-Armenian relations.

Moscow encourages the thaw. Yerevan hopes to benefit from the
Russo-Turkish regional concord to normalize relations with Ankara
and reopen the Armenian-Turkish border after a gap of almost a century.

Armenian President Serge Sarkisian is expected to visit Turkey
on October 14. The back channels working quietly in Switzerland
for months are being elevated to a formal level. Pitfalls remain,
especially with regard to the complicated Nagorno-Karabakh problem.

Again, Washington might get alarmed and begin to pull strings through
the Armenian diaspora in the US – and, vice versa.

At any rate, Gul visited Baku, Azerbaijan, on Wednesday to brief
the Azeri leadership. In the same context, Azeri Foreign Minister
Elmar Mamedyarov visited Moscow last weekend, following a telephone
conversation between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his
Azerbaijan counterpart Ilkham Aliyev. Medvedev invited Aliyev to
visit Moscow. Armenian President Sarkisian recently visited Moscow.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant cited a Kremlin source to report
that Moscow could broker an Armenian-Azeri summit meeting. If so,
Russia and Turkey, working in tandem, are effectively bypassing Europe
and the US. The so-called Minsk group of the Organization of Security
and Cooperation in Europe has to date been in the driving seat of the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. (Interestingly, Russia is a member
of the Minsk group, whereas Turkey stood excluded.)

Baku snubs Cheney To quote Kommersant, "Moscow and Ankara are
consolidating their position in the Caucasus, thus weakening
Washington’s influence there." The signs are already there. When Cheney
visited Baku last week on Wednesday on a mission single-mindedly aimed
at isolating Russia in the region, he came across a few rude surprises.

The Azeris made a departure from their traditional hospitality to
visiting US leaders by accorded a low-level airport reception for
Cheney. Further, Cheney was kept cooling his heels for an entire
day until Aliyev finally received him. This was despite what Cheney
always thought was his special personal chemistry with the Azeri
leader dating to his Halliburton days. (Aliyev used to head the Azeri
state-run oil company SOCRAM.)

Cheney ended up spending an entire day visiting the US Embassy in
Baku and conversing with sundry American oil executives working in
Azerbaijan. Finally, when Aliyev received him late in the evening,
Cheney discovered to his discomfiture that Azerbaijan was in no mood
to gang up against Russia.

Cheney conveyed the George W Bush administration’s solemn pledge to
support the US’s allies in the region against Russia’s "revanchism".

He stated Washington’s determination in the current situation to punish
Russia at any cost by pushing the Nabucco gas pipeline project. But
Aliyev made it clear he did not want to be drawn into a row with
Moscow. Cheney was greatly upset and made his displeasure known by
refusing to attend the Azeri state banquet in his honor.

Soon after the conversation with Cheney, Aliyev spoke to Medvedev
on phone.

The Azeri stance demonstrates that contrary to US media propaganda,
Russia’s firm stance in the Caucasus has enhanced its prestige
and standing in the post-Soviet space. The CSTO at its meeting in
Moscow on September 5 strongly endorsed the Russian position on the
conflict with Georgia. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin undertook
a highly significant visit to Tashkent on September 1-2 aimed at
boosting Russian-Uzbek understanding on regional security. Russia and
Uzbekistan have tied up further cooperation in the field of energy,
including expansion of the Soviet-era gas pipeline system.

Kazakhstan, which openly supported Russia in the Caucasus situation,
is mulling its oil companies acquiring assets in Europe jointly with
Russia’s Gazprom. The indications are that Tajikistan has agreed to
an expansion of the Russian military presence in Tajikistan, including
the basing of its strategic bombers. Indeed, the CSTO’s endorsement of
the recent Russian package of proposals on developing a (post-NATO)
European treaty on security is a valuable diplomatic gain for Moscow
at this juncture.

But in tangible terms, what gives utmost satisfaction to Moscow is
that Azerbaijan has reacted to the Caucasus tensions and the temporary
closure of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline by pumping its oil exports
to Europe instead via the Soviet-era Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline. The
dramatic irony of Baku overnight switching from a US-sponsored oil
pipeline bypassing Russia to a Soviet-era pipeline that runs through
the Russian heartland couldn’t have been lost on Cheney.

More worrisome for Washington is the Russian proposal that lies
on Aliyev’s table offering that Moscow will be prepared to buy all
of Azerbaijan’s gas at world market prices – an offer Western oil
companies cannot possibly match. It is an offer Baku will seriously
consider against the backdrop of the new regional setting.

The complete failure of Cheney’s mission to Baku would appear to have
come as a rude awakening to Washington that Moscow has effectively
blunted the Bush administration’s gunboat diplomacy in the Black Sea.

As the New York Times newspaper grimly assessed on Tuesday,""The Bush
administration, after considerable internal debate, has decided not
to take direct punitive action [against Russia] … concluding it has
little leverage if it acts unilaterally and that it would be better off
pressing for a chorus of international criticism to be led by Europe."

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained to the daily that
Washington prefers a long-term strategic approach, " [and] not one
where we act reactively in a way that has negative consequences". He
added thoughtfully, "If we act too precipitously, we could be the
ones who are isolated." Cheney himself has scaled down his earlier
rhetoric to severely punish Russia. He now thinks the door for
improving relations with Russia must remain open, and casting future
relations with the US is a choice for the leaders in Moscow to make.

But Turkey appears to have made its choice. From the speed with which
Erdogan conjured up the idea of the Caucasus Stability Pact, it seems
Turkey was ready for it for a while already. It is not as easy as
it appears to invariably turn factors of geography and history to
geopolitical advantage. Besides, as its misleading name suggests, the
Black Sea is actually an iridescent blue sea full of playful dolphins,
but pirates and sailors were captivated by its dark appearance when
the sky hung low laden with storm clouds.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri
Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.