Bare Ruined Choirs Turkey’s War On The Cultural Heritage Of Cyprus

BARE RUINED CHOIRS TURKEY’S WAR ON THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF CYPRUS
BY Katherine Eastland

Hellenic News of America
Jan 25, 2010

When churches fall completely out of use

What shall we turn them into?

–Philip Larkin, Church Going

Nicosia

Soon after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the roof of St.

Andronikos church in Kythrea caved in and fell into its sanctuary. No
one came by to clear the rubble, so there is a heap of ruins on the
ground covered with tangled greenery. From where I stand, on top of
that heap, I can see that the walls, once known for their frescoes,
have been stripped white and are now marked with black and neon
graffiti. In some places there remain a few painted figures, including
ones of Saints Peter and Paul, but their faces are chiseled out and
their bodies have been pockmarked by bullets. Cars roll by every so
often, but the one persistent sound is the hum of bees coming from
a smashed clerestory window.

I came across this church off a road near the Agios Dimitrios crossing
point on the Green Line, the boundary running through the island and
keeping it cloven in two radically disparate parts: the Republic of
Cyprus, and the upper third of the island Turkey seized in 1974.

Turkey has since held that part under illegal military occupation,
and turned it into a rogue breakaway "state" called the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), recognized by Turkey only.

Dilapidated churches like St. Andro- nikos are a common sight here. As
the journalist Michael Jansen observes, the north, full of 12,000 years
of history at a key crossroads in the Mediterranean, now looks like a
"cultural wasteland."

During and soon after the invasion, museums in the north and
private collections were plundered, artworks were burned in pyres,
stolen, or illegally exported, 21 major archaeological sites were
captured–including the ancient city kingdoms of Salamis, Soli, and
Engomi–along with more than a hundred places that had been inspected
or were being excavated, four castles, and over 500 churches, chapels,
and monasteries, most of them dating to the Byzantine period (4th-15th
centuries). From the interiors were removed several major icons,
mosaics, frescoes, Bibles, wood carvings, reliquaries, silver and gold
vessels, and more. Sixteen thousand icons alone are reported missing.

The Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus have worked to
repatriate, with some major successes, several of these works through
local, foreign, and international courts. But the list of damaged
items and places keeps growing. As the occupation continues, so does
destruction–whether by intent or neglect, or lack of adequate funds.

While much of the damage that took place in the north cannot be
visited–most of the art hangs in other countries, was destroyed, or
has been secreted away–the 500 religious buildings are still standing,
at least for now. They remain as solid memories of a past that is
flickering out as a new, and decidedly Turkish, culture develops
in the north. The rise of that culture is quickened by the heavy
influx of Turkish settlers, who currently outnumber the indigenous
Turkish-Cypriot population by two-to-one. This cultural shift is
apparent even in the cafés, where the drink of choice is black tea
in tulip-shaped glass cups, the sort you can buy in twelve-packs in
Istanbul. Town names are now Turkish, and the twin red-and-white flags
of Turkey and the TRNC are everywhere–from mountain slopes to the rear
windows of vans. Another part of this shift is seen in the churches
which, with their ravaged cemeteries, are arguably the elements of
Greek Cypriot culture that have suffered the most in the occupation.

Divorced from their original use as houses of Christian worship,
they are now in ruins or used for other purposes.

Most of the 500 buildings belong to the island�s Greek Orthodox
Church, one of the world�s earliest, founded by St. Barnabas in 46
A.D. and decreed autocephalous in 431. Others are Catholic, Maronite,
Armenian Apostolic, and Anglican; a few are synagogues. Nearly all of
them can be visited; but about 50 are inaccessible since they stand
within the U.N.-moderated buffer zone or Turkish military camps,
where they are used as barracks, hospitals, cafeterias, and warehouses.

Over a fifth of the northern churches, like roofless St. Andronikos,
have been skinned of their art and left to the elements and foraging
animals. About 80 other churches still have a religious use as
mosques. Some of them are modest, with creaky mihrabs and sheets
thrown over what remains of the iconostasis (a gilt wall where icons
once hung). Others are rich, with big-branched chandeliers of glass.

In St. Paraskeve in Morphou the gilt bishop�s throne and epistyle
have been reassembled into a mihrab and mimbar. Some mosques that
were formerly churches have been abandoned.

Most of the churches have been cast in new, secular roles as garages,
luxury hotels, granaries, storage rooms for furniture or potatoes or
hay, classrooms, bars, cafés, and art studios. One is a morgue. A
few, such as the St. Barnabas Monastery in the Karpass peninsula,
have been set up as icon galleries with whitewashed walls, but the
works on view are not native to the buildings and are young and
relatively worthless, dating from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Of the Christian buildings in the occupied north, three are kept, at
least in appearance, as churches. But restrictions on their use and
maintenance prevent Christians living in the north from worshiping
in them regularly without interruption by Turkish officials.

The history of converting churches into mosques and mosques into
churches, and of reappropriating buildings of any faith for secular
purpose, is long and well documented. But the argument that Cyprus�s
occupied religious buildings, and the art within them, are legitimate
spoils of war does not hold. In today�s Europe, cultural property is
seen as subsisting in a special niche that should be protected. Under
the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),
destruction of cultural heritage is considered a war crime.

Furthermore, the European Union itself has several directives on
cultural property–which Turkey would have to follow should it
enter the EU. (Notably, one of the preconditions the EU has set for
Turkey�s admission is a settlement to the Cyprus problem; i.e.,
the island�s reunification.)

This past summer in Washington the U.S. Helsinki Commission (CSCE),
which monitors compliance between and among member states on the
Helsinki accords, issued a 50-page report for Congress on the state
of Cyprus�s cultural and religious heritage, saying that it was
"in peril" and that "under conventional and customary law, Turkey,
as an occupying power, bears responsibility for acts against cultural
property." It also numbers the various ways Turkey has violated
international humanitarian law, as set forth in post-World War II
treaties that Ankara has signed.

While there is a promising, but perhaps fatally slow-going, effort
to reunify Cyprus by diplomatic means, the Church of Cyprus–which
has remained independent through every vicissitude of political
rule–believes it has a special, natural obligation to its religious
heritage. But this heritage, especially if it�s already in shambles,
fades in importance when urgent matters such as governance and property
distribution are being addressed by the diplomats drafting a political
settlement for Cyprus. The churches themselves simply don�t get
much attention. But the Church, headed by Archbishop Chrysostomos II,
is taking significant measures to try to save its property, usurped
by the TRNC. And the Church reminds the EU that Turkey still has a
long way to go before it conforms with EU policies.

Around Easter last year Chrysostomos opened an office in Brussels next
to EU headquarters. When I met with him here in Nicosia–in his long
office, featuring an icon of Christ in judgment on the wall behind his
desk–he cheerfully said that at the new office there will always be
a bishop to welcome EU parliamentarians and "present and promote our
efforts." By doing this, Chrysostomos hopes to "exert some pressure
with the hope that we will manage to restore all the monuments if
possible before it�s too late." Thirty-eight are near collapse.

"Of course, it goes without saying that I can see the huge
difficulties associated with such a task, not to say its impossible
nature. Unfortunately," he continues, "it seems to me that Europe
does not know the real dimensions of the problem."

Chrysostomos is frank about meddling in politics:

I know that the government might be reacting to such an idea [direct
involvement of the Church] especially at this time, but we will
continue our efforts. We invited [Cypriot] President Christofias to
come and inaugurate our offices with us in Brussels, but he didn�t.

To further publicize the churches–and prepare as much as possible for
their pending restoration–the Church has underwritten, through the
Kykkos Monastery, the work of a young Byzantinist at the Hellenic Open
University in Patras, Greece, to catalog all accessible religious
monuments in the north. Professor Charalampos G. Chotzakoglou
started work on the project with a team of archaeologists and other
Byzantinists in 2003, when the Green Line was partially opened by the
TRNC government, allowing people to cross the line freely for the first
time since 1974. The Helsinki Commission consulted Chotzakoglou�s
detailed account when it drafted its report for Congress last summer.

Incomplete reports had been made before Chotzakoglou�s, such as
those by foreign journalists visiting the area, and by Turkish-Cypriot
journalists such as Mehmet Yasin, who wrote some of the most eloquent
testimonies. But the first report, UNESCO�s in 1975, was shelved
because UNESCO feared it was too damning! (It has only recently become
available, and on a strictly limited basis.) The man who submitted
this report–Jacques Dalibard of Canada, who was specially appointed by
UNESCO to assess the state of cultural heritage after the 1974 war–was
not even allowed access to some of the most damaged churches. Still,
he wrote that the whole island of Cyprus should be "regarded as one
huge monument," and that a team of specialists be dispatched solely
to protect the remnants of Greek heritage in the north.

His suggestions were not followed.

Chotzakoglou�s findings were published in a book in 2008 (Religious
Monuments in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus: Evidence and Acts of Continuous
Destruction; Lefkosia) and will soon be available in an online public
database. He has also been tending to a similar project with Greek and
Turkish Cypriots on all religious monuments on the island (Muslim and
Christian), cyprustemples.com. It is a valuable site, but needs to be
updated: Some of the recent destruction, such as the bulldozing of St.

Catherine Church in Gerani in the summer of 2008, and its cannibalizing
for buildings in the nearby village of Trikomo, has not been noted.

Incidentally, the razing of St. Catherine is not an isolated case:
In the past five years 15 churches have been leveled. That such
destruction still occurs is especially disappointing because,
since 2007, there has been a special government-appointed technical
committee of Greek and Turkish Cypriots dedicated to the maintenance
and restoration of heritage on both sides of the island. (To be sure,
these committees are destined to do only some good as long as Cyprus
remains divided: Their success depends on the good faith of both sides
to honor promises to restore the other side�s damaged buildings.)

Destruction did occur to Muslim monuments south of the Green Line,
mostly in the years leading up to the war, when both communities
were fighting and the Turkish Cypriots, in the minority, bore the
brunt of the violence. But the Church and the republic have worked to
restore those buildings–no doubt hoping for a gesture of goodwill
in return–and since 1989 the government has spent over $600,000
in the effort. So far, 17 historic mosques damaged and looted by
Greek Cypriots have been restored. In 2000 the project to restore
and protect all Muslim sites in the south began; the Department of
Antiquities has recorded all their names and will guard them until they
are renovated. This project should be completed sometime this year.

In a recent meeting proposed by the EU, the archbishop met with the
mufti of northern Cyprus and said that he would welcome him as his
guest in the south to inspect the Muslim sites. If the mufti did not
find a site well preserved, he said, then "we as the Church of Cyprus
would be willing to take full financial responsibility to restore it."

In exchange, he told the mufti that he wanted him to "facilitate our
crossing to the Turkish-occupied area in order to begin restoring
our churches with our money. And we will bear any and all costs."

The mufti declined the offer, and suggested that one church in the
north be restored for every mosque restored in the south. Deeming the
mufti�s proposal a "worthless gift"–there are far fewer mosques
in the south than churches in the north, and it would take, at best,
500 years to renovate the north�s 500 churches and "in 500 years
there will be nothing for us to restore"–Chrysostomos rejected the
counteroffer.

The north�s "real policy," he believes, "is to procrastinate so
the monuments themselves might be destroyed in time."

On the morning before I visited some of the northern churches, I
walked through the Archbishop�s Palace museum and looked at the
art on view. In one room, I stopped by seven small wooden boxes,
each with a glass top and containing a head of a saint, archangel,
or Christ rendered in tesserae. The heads rested on white tissue
paper that ran around their heads like second halos or bandages.

The master smuggler Aydin Dikmen had raggedly cut these exceptional
late fifth/early sixth-century works–some of the few to have survived
the rampant iconoclasm of the eighth century–from the walls of the
Church of Panagía Kanakariá at Lythrankomí. Efforts at restoration
and rocky international flights had weakened them further, causing them
to crack. At one point, Dikmen tried to repair the loose tesserae–some
with sockets of silver imported from Bethlehem–with Elmer�s glue.

While they once reminded a visitor of heaven and immaterial gain, they
are now symbols of earth and material loss. Which is painful precisely
because, as Chrysostomos says, "these are not just art objects for us."

The case for the restoration of these churches, and the art within
them, is compelling–and the loss to art history and to Cypriot culture
is immense and immeasurable. Until the island is one again–which could
happen in four months or four decades–its two sides will continue to
diverge, becoming more lopsided, with a Turkish culture taking root
in the north amid the continuing collapse of its Hellenic heritage.

Whatever happens to Cyprus, there remains an eloquent, otherworldly
hope, as expressed by Paul in a letter to the Christians at Corinth at
about the same time the Church of Cyprus was founded by his coworker
Barna-bas: "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is
destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens." Paul�s thought is especially poignant when
you�re standing inside a church in early ruin, or looking at a torn
mosaic–things that were made, at one time, as if to last.

Katherine Eastland is an assistant editor at The Weekly Standard.

‘We Were Knocked Out Three Times In Karabakh’

‘WE WERE KNOCKED OUT THREE TIMES IN KARABAKH’

Aysor.am
Tuesday, January 26

"Azerbaijan has lost the war, and did fail, this is the reality,"
said in his interview with Bizim Yol paper PhD Azer Babayev, expert
at the Center for European Social Studies.

"Actually, we’ve lost not only Karabakh, but three-fold territories.

In a sport-language, we were knocked out three times.

"In this sense, Azerbaijan’s wish for restoring the soviet-times’
situation is an out-and-outer approach," he said.

When asked about Europe’s reaction on attempts by Azerbaijan to go in
war for Karabakh, the expert said Azerbaijan would receive neither
support. "Azerbaijan will not receive any support from the west, at
least. The west helped Georgia, but won’t help Azerbaijan. Moreover,
it will impose sanctions against Azerbaijan," he added.

‘It Can Hardly Be Said Of The Successful End For War’

‘IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID OF THE SUCCESSFUL END FOR WAR’

Aysor.am
Tuesday, January 26

Director of the CIS Institute Konstantin Zatulin in his comments on
the trilateral Armenia-Azerbaijan-Russia meeting between Presidents
Serge Sarkisian of Armenia, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and Dmitry
Medvedev of Russia, said in an interview with Russian Service of Voice
of America that Azerbaijan will lose in economy and investments in
case of the military solution to the Karabakh conflict.

"Given the completely different views by Armenia and Azerbaijan on
the final results of the running negotiations, I can’t say if there
is another way for solving the conflict but the forced methods,"
said Konstantin Zatulin.

"If Azerbaijan’s government decides to enter the war to return those
lost territories, or as it calls them — ‘occupied territories’ —
then it can hardly be said of the successful end for this. At least,
it will lead to great economical problems and flow-out of investments
for which Azerbaijan is wishing for."

In any case, the sides would rather negotiate than go in war, according
to Konstantin Zatulin. He pointed that negotiations provide trust
and hope for the peace settlement to the conflict. Superpowers –
Russia, US, and the EU – can force Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept
‘their scenario’, says Konstantin Zatulin adding that all this doesn’t
mean that parties will agree, and that other regional superpowers —
Iran and Turkey — won’t declare their own ‘special interests’.

PACE President Rules Out The Military Solution Of The Karabakh Confl

PACE PRESIDENT RULES OUT THE MILITARY SOLUTION OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

armradio.am
25.01.2010 17:04

The activities of the Nagorno-Karabakh Subcommittee must be revived,
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
Luis Maria de Puig said. "We tried to harmonize the positions of both
countries," he said at the news conference within the framework of
the PACE winter session.

"I rule out the armed solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It
is also PACE’s position. The conflict should be settled in a peaceful
way. We must move forward through dialogues. New PACE president will
continue this activities," the PACE president said.

In 2010, mandate of Luis Maria de Puig as PACE president finished.

Turkish MP Movlud Cavushoglu was elected new PACE president.

Georgian Prime Minister Nika Gilauri To Pay One-Day Working Visit To

GEORGIAN PRIME MINISTER NIKA GILAURI TO PAY ONE-DAY WORKING VISIT TO YEREVAN ON JANUARY 26

Noyan Tapan
Jan 25, 2010

YEREVAN, JANUARY 25, NOYAN TAPAN. A delegation headed by Prime Minister
of Georgia Nika Gilauri will pay a one-day working visit to Armenia
on January 26.

During the visit the Georgian prime minister will attend the 8th
sitting of the Georgian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on
Economic Cooperation and will meet with President Serzh Sargsyan and
Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, the RA Government’s Information and
PR Department reported.

BAKU: Egyptian website publishes Azerbaijan’s map without NK, Naxi

Trend, Azerbaijan
Jan 21 2010

Egyptian website publishes Azerbaijan’s map without Nagorno-Karabakh
and Nakhichevan

Azerbaijan, Baku, Jan. 21 / Trend News U. Sadikhova /

Egyptian news website Moheet.com has published an article about
Azerbaijan, in which it presented the map of Azerbaijan without the
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic.

The article says about holding the Week of Egyptian cinema in Baku
together with Azerbaijani Union of Cinematographs. It will strengthen
the cultural relations between Azerbaijan and Egypt.

The map posted at the Egyptian website indicated the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan as Armenian one.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.
Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994.

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. General Assembly’s
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the
occupied territories.

CC decisions are obligatory

CC decisions are obligatory

A1Plus.am
22/01/10

"Each decision of the RA Constitutional Court is a complete document
with all provisions having equal legal significance," Ministry of
Defense Gevorg Danielyan told A1+ adding that the preamble is
similarly obligatory for the Armenian Parliament.

"In other words, all provision of a CC decisions have an obligatory
force," the Minister said.

Under the RA Law on the Constitutional Court (Part 5, Article 61)_CC
decisions are compulsory for state and local self-government bodies,
their officials as well as physical and legal persons throughout
Armenia.

"No one can accept a CC decision partly or with reservations as it is
a complete legal source," Gevorg Danielyan noted. "According to the
same Article, CC decisions and conclusions are final and are put into
effect after publication; hence they cannot be reviewed upon
mediation."

Let’s remind that Protocols aimed at normalization of bilateral ties
and opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey were signed in
Zurich by Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and his Turkish
counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, after a series of
diplomatic talks held through Swiss mediation.

On January 12, 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Armenia found the protocols conformable to the country’s Organic Law.

Commenting on the decision of the Armenian Constitutional Court, the
Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that "the decision contains
preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and
spirit of the Protocols" and demanded Armenia to review the CC
decision.

Turkey Will Ratify The Protocols In A While, MPs Say

TURKEY WILL RATIFY THE PROTOCOLS IN A WHILE, MPS SAY
Lena Badeyan

"Radiolur"
22.01.2010 15:11

Member of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun faction Artsvik Minasyan and
Republican MP Gagik Melikyan agree that Turkey will ratify the
Armenian-Turkish protocols after a while.

According to Gagik Melikyan, Turkey will be pressured to ratify. Gagik
Melikyan considers, however, that the documents are beneficial for
Turkey: they will keep silent for a while and ratify the protocols.

Touching upon the recent phone conversation between the Foreign
Ministers of Armenia and Turkey, Gagik Melikyan said: "I think it
had better be in a written form. If there was a written statement,
then we also had to respond in a written way."

According to Artsvik Minasyan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes
one mistake after the other. It’s incorrect not to publicize the
results of the talks. Not only the final document needs to be made
public. The process is also important," he said.

BAKU: Necessary To Prepare For War Inside The Country Even In Baku,

NECESSARY TO PREPARE FOR WAR INSIDE THE COUNTRY EVEN IN BAKU, MILITARY EXPERT
Leyla Tagiyeva

news.az
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Yashar Jafarli News.Az interviews Yashar Jafarli, Azerbaijani military
expert and chairman of Officers in reserve and in resignation public
association.

Azerbaijan has paid great attention to building its armed forces
in the recent years. How do you assess the combat readiness of the
Azerbaijani army?

The country’s defense budget has grown dramatically in the past
years and it continues to grow. We can see a 7-8 times growth over
the indicator of 2003. Today our defense budget equals the overall
state budget of Armenia. This shows the high attention paid by the
supreme commander and the government of the country to the army needs.

Naturally, such financing promotes positive development including
purchase of weapon, armed technique, ammunition and allocation
of more funds for training and maintenance of personal staff,
settlement of social problems of servicemen. This has a positive
influence on country’s defense capacity and the combat readiness of
the Azerbaijani army.

Which problems does the Azerbaijani army have today?

Certainly, there are some problems and I cannot and do not want to
bypass them. I consider that what we have today is not sufficient. Our
society expects something more. For example, the problem of civil
control over the armed forces has not been settled yet. In fact,
no one in the parliament, the community or elsewhere, except for
the supreme commander, knows about the processes ongoing in the
army. No report is made. No parliamentary hearings are held for the
defense ministry to report on the items they use the state budget
funds and the reasons of frequent deaths in the armed forces. Thus,
no relations are being developed between the society and the armed
forces. In addition, I think the level of corruption and bribery in
the army is growing. There are sufficient grounds to believe that a
greater part of state budget funds are misappropriated and this is
backed not by the insignificant persons in the armed forces.

Do you think that the funds allocated to the defense sphere from the
state budget are sufficient to create an army able to liberate the
occupied lands?

As a military expert, I consider that the allocation of funds is not
enough. Today we have a good army which is considered the strongest
and most combat-ready in the South Caucasus. But our country is
facing a task to liberate the lands occupied by Armenia and ensure
its territorial integrity. But what we have now is not enough. This
is not sufficient for us to start offensive and liberate the lands,
raising our flag there.

What do we lack for this?

I consider that we are not ready to this. People often ask whether
our army is ready to liberate lands. What else has it to do, if its
main vocation is to fight and hold hostilities? Army cannot guarantee
victory in war. The responsibility here is laid rather on strategists
and the political leadership of the country. A combat ready army is
not enough to win in war. Victories are needed in diplomacy, economy
and sociopolitical life. Victory has many components and we need to
do more to win. We should prepare the society and the army rears for
this. We should prepare for war inside the country even in Baku. The
most important is the moral spirit of people and military and patriotic
upbringing. But the moral spirit of the people is weak so far. In
addition, we do not build enough military facilities. I consider
that we must excel the enemy at least five times both in the number
of the personal staff and the quality of technique and equipment,
as well as the rest parameters. I would site another example.

If we drive from Ali-Bayramli inside the country, there is a
bridge via Kura. This is the only bridge that links Sabirabad to
Ali-Bayramli. This bridge is not intended for transport weighting over
15 tons. But the lightest tank weights 40 tons. How can we say that
we are preparing for war? It should not be like that There should be
additional bridges by which our tanks will take offensive. However, we
have not dislocated all our tanks in the front area. We have reserves
and rears somewhere. But are our roads suitable for transportation
of a column of tanks and other technique from, for example, Lenkoran
or Baku to the conflict area? No, they are not. That is, I think that
along with training the armed forces, there is a need to prepare the
society, build communications. The war is conducted between the states
rather than armies. Army from each side is just an ordinary instrument
reporting to the state. Among all state structures the armed forces
are most ready for war, because they are intended for this. But,
in fact, today no one is ready for war except for the armed forces.

At the recent session in the government by results of 2009 with
participation of the president, the head of state spoke of the export
potential of the Azerbaijani defense production. Is it actual abroad
considering the fact that we have appeared on the arms market not
long before?

First of all, I would like to voice my opinion regarding issues of
the need for defense industry. This is one of the directions of the
nonoil sector which is good because this sector needs in development.

Therefore, I consider that the defense industry should be developed
especially because we have the necessary potential. As is known, we
have certain defense enterprises that have been left since the Soviet
times. On their basis we have constructed, or resumed, or restored
production that is we use what we already have. Why not use them?!

Thus, we send money for the development of something, create additional
jobs, produce our own production by means of which we meet the need
of the armed forces at low prices. I consider that this is normal
and correct.

In addition, today Azerbaijan has a potential to produce for export.

For example, as far as I know Turkey and Pakistan have already
purchased sniper rifles Istiglal and are planning to buy more. I
have also heard that Israel, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia
also display interest with it. The negotiations on modernization
of technique and spare parts and mechanisms supplies are currently
underway with these countries. Is it bad? We produce, sell and get
money. This means that there is development. I think we have the
most promising cooperation in this field with Turkey, Pakistan and I
do not rule out cooperation with Georgia and Israel. Only Iran from
the nearest surrounding remains closed in this sense while definite
work is carried out with the remaining neighbors including in the
post-Soviet area, even with the Central Asian countries. I think
the greatest breakthrough will be with Turkey as the potential,
understanding and interest are bigger here.

Armenian, Russian And Azerbaijani Presidents To Have Trilateral Meet

ARMENIAN, RUSSIAN AND AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS TO HAVE TRILATERAL MEETING IN SOCHI ON JANUARY 25

Arminfo
2010-01-21 13:20:00

ArmInfo. Armenian, Russian and Azerbaijani presidents, Serzh Sargsyan,
Dmitry Medvedev and Ilham Aliyev, met in Sochi on January 25 in
the trilateral format. The presidential press- service of Armenia
reported on Thursday confirming ArmInfo’s report made on Wednesday
with a reference to the Kremlin sources.

The presidents are expected to discuss new proposals of the OSCE Minsk
Group on Madrid principles adopted at the OSCE Summit in Madrid in
November 2007 and containing proposals of the mediators on settlement
of the Karabakh conflict. OSCE MG co-chairs visited Armenia to make
preparations for the trilateral meeting.

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict broke out on February 28 1988 in the
Azerbaijan Sumgait with massacre of Armenians as a peculiar response
of Azerbaijanis to the peaceful demand of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region, part of the Azerbaijani SSR, to unite with the
Armenian SSR. This resulted in other pogroms of Armenians in Baku,
Kirovabad and other regions of Azerbaijan populated with Armenians.

In 1991 Azerbaijan unleashed war against peaceful populations of
Nagorno-Karabakh, expulsion of ethnic Armenians from the territory of
Azerbaijan. Dozens of thousands of peaceful residents on both parties
were killed in the military actions, and hundreds of thousands were
left homeless and have become refugees. In 1994 in Bishkek in mediation
of the OSCE MG, the NKR, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a Protocol on
Ceasefire that is observed more or less so far.