Author: Tavakalian Edgar

ARMEN ASHOTYAN: ARF TRYING TO GET RID OF THE IMAGE OF A RULING PARTY
Karen Ghazaryan

"Radiolur"
27.04.2009 15:23

ARF Dashnaktsutyun has declared today that it is going to withdraw from
the coalition. Two hours prior to the statement MP from the Republican
Party, Armen Ashotyan, spoke about ARF as former partner. Speaking
about the opportunities of withdrawal from the opposition, the
Republican MP assessed the recent developments in the Armenian-Turkish
relations as a cause rather than a deep principled reason. According
to him, some justifications are beneath criticism.

According to Armen Ashotyan, Dashnaktsutyun associates its approaches
with three behind-the-scenes issues. "The first one is the so-called
pressure from the Diaspora," Ashotyan said, adding that it is a result
of misinformation about the Armenian-Turkish relations. "ARF either
did not want or did not manage to inform and elucidate the Diaspora,"
the MP said.

On several occasions Dashnaktsutyun has threatened to withdraw from
the coalition. According to Armen Ashotyan, "ARF is trying to withdraw
from the coalition in order to try to get rid of the image of a ruling
party and participate in the elections of 2012 as an opposition force"
and the recent developments in the Armenian-Turkish relations were
a good occasion.

Agence France Presse
April 26 2009

Crisis warms Turks to opening Armenia border

KARS, Turkey (AFP) ‘ Hit by a bruising economic crisis, residents of
Kars, in eastern Turkey, are increasingly warming to the idea of
opening the border with Armenia, hoping that revived trade links would
provide a lifeline to the impoverished region.

The border’s closure in 1993 — ordered by Turkey to back Azerbaijan
in a territorial conflict with Armenia — has had heavy economic
consequences not only for Armenia but also this Turkish city of
80,000.

The border crossing, some 70 kilometres (43 miles) away, was once
massively used to export cattle — Kars’ main wealth — to the
Caucasus and Russia through the only railway linking Turkey to its
northern neighbours.

The halt of trade has cost the province of Kars nearly one-twelfth of
its population, which dropped from 356,000 to 326,000 between 1990 and
2000.

The prospect of re-opening the border, boosted by ongoing talks
between Ankara and Yerevan, has become even more important now that
the global economic turmoil is biting Turkey, sending unemployment up
and slowing down the economy.

"Of the 300 members of the chamber of commerce, 280 believe the border
should be opened immediately," said Fuat Doganay, owner of the largest
restaurant in Kars.

"Business has gone down… I have to save my business and pay my
debts. The government has to understand that," he said.

Many here believe Turkey’s embargo is hurting Kars more than Armenia
as Armenians can fly to Istanbul to work and shop, and Turkish
products end up in Armenia via Georgia.

Kaan Soyak, co-chairman of a Turkish-Armenian business group, said the
annual volume of bilateral trade — mostly via Georgia — stood at
around 100 million dollars.

With the expected re-opening of the border "we expect the exchanges to
immediately reach four to five billion dollars per year," Soyak said,
buoyed by the announcement Wednesday that Ankara and Yerevan had
agreed a "roadmap" on normalising ties. Kars businessman Alican
Alibeyoglu complained that Turkish entrepreneurs were worst affected
by the entangled political problems in the region.

"I have been to Georgia and Armenia many times. In both countries I
saw hundreds of joint businesses between Armenians and Azeris, but
when it comes to Turkey, it is not possible," he grumbled, adding that
50,000 people in Kars signed a petition in 2004 for the re-opening of
the border.

The sealed frontier however is not the only problem: Yerevan claims
that up to 1.5 million of Armenians were victims of "genocide" at the
hands of Ottoman Turks during World War I.

Ankara, which categorically rejects the accusation, has refused to
establish diplomatic ties with Yerevan until it drops its
international campaign to have the killings recognised as genocide.

During a visit to Turkey in early April, US President Barack Obama
encouraged the dialogue between the two neighbours and called for a
swift normalisation of ties.

Obama said Friday reckoning with the past was the best way for the
Turkish and Armenian people to work through their "painful history" in
a "way that is honest, open and constructive."

But such appeals fail to impress many in Kars, which is home to
several thousand Turks of Azeri origin.

"The Armenians have to solve the Nagorny-Karabakh problem," said Ali
Guvensoy, head of the Kars chamber of commerce, referring to the
Armenian-majority enclave which broke away from Azerbaijan in the
early 1990s.

"They also have to stop putting allegations of genocide on the table,"
he added, summarising Ankara’s official line on the dispute.

But Soyak, who has for years campaigned for Turkish-Armenian
reconciliation, was optimistic.

"We expect a happy ending soon… We expect a settlement within three
or four months," he said.

The businessman stressed Azerbaijan’s inclusion into the fence-mending
process was a must "if we want a full economic development" in the
region.

"I think it is going to be step by step: first normalisation of
relations between Turkey and Armenia… The next step will be to
include Azerbaijan," he said.

Ottawa Citizen
April 25, 2009 Saturday
Early Edition

Obama sidesteps Armenian genocide

President Barack Obama Friday avoided calling the 1915 massacres of
Armenians by Ottoman Turks quot;genocide,quot; despite vowing to use
that term during his campaign. Obama followed U.S. diplomatic
tradition by issuing a written statement on Armenian Remembrance Day,
branding the killings of more than 1.5 million people as quot;one of
the great atrocities of the 20th century.quot; Obama avoided the label
after a conflict with Turkey over the matter.

ARMENIAN PROTESTERS CONDEMN TURKISH THAW
Hasmik Lazarian

Reuters
April 23 2009
UK

YEREVAN, April 23 (Reuters) – Protesters in Armenia burned a Turkish
flag and condemned moves to normalise relations with Ankara on Thursday
during a traditional march to recall the 1915 mass killing of Armenians
by Ottoman Turks.

Several thousand protesters, mainly supporters of a nationalist junior
partner in the government, held their annual protest march through
the capital holding flaming torches on the eve of the national
commemoration of the World War One killings, which Armenia says
was genocide.

Turkey and Armenia announced they had agreed on a road map to normalise
ties — believed to include the opening of their border — in a step
that would boost Turkey’s relations with the EU and United States
but could upset its oil-producing ally Azerbaijan.

In a small sign of backlash, the protesters’ party — the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF) — said it would reconsider its
participation in government if the deal goes ahead without Turkey
recognising the killings as genocide.

"I am categorically against establishing relations with Turkey,
because Turkey hasn’t even asked forgiveness for the genocide,"
said 64-year-old Armenian-American Bella Grigorian.

Analysts say the protesters represent a minority in Armenia, where
they say most people support the opening of the border in the hope
it will improve trade and help isolated and landlocked Armenia fight
the effects of the global economic crisis.

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL

But the 1915 killings remain a defining element in Armenian national
identity, and thousands are expected to lay flowers on Friday at the
Genocide Memorial in Yerevan.

Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman
Turks but denies that up to 1.5 million died in what amounted to
genocide, and says many Muslims also died.

Protesters on Thursday carried banners calling for "Recognition,
Restitution, Remembrance."

Others read: "1.5 million deaths will never be forgiven."

The ARF condemned the announced deal without Turkish recognition of
the killings as genocide, and said it would consider pulling out of
the government over the coming days.

"The release of the statement at this time and in these circumstances
is a blow to the interests of Armenia and the Armenian people,"
it said.

The ARF has 16 seats in the 131-seat parliament. The government would
still hold a majority without its support.

REMEMBERING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Paul Krekorian

Los Angeles Daily News
April 23 2009

In a town called Kharpert 94 years ago, my great uncle, Khachadour
Nahigian, was a math professor and influential member of the Armenian
community. He had studied at the University of Michigan and returned
home to teach and provide opportunity to the young people of his
community.

Professor Nahigian was living a quiet and peaceful life in academia
when, in June of 1915, his world was transformed when he and millions
of others were summarily arrested, brutally tortured and eventually
killed by Turkish authorities.

As we now know, Professor Nahigian was one of 1.5 million Armenians
who, from 1915 to 1923, were slaughtered at the hands of Ottoman
Turks. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, but tragically,
it would be the last.

Each April, we set aside our busy lives for a moment to consider
the vast implications of genocide and the affect it has on our
culture. Today, the California State Assembly passed a resolution that
declares Friday — April 24 — a day of remembrance for the Armenian
Genocide. While the measure has much personal significance for me and
thousands of others who live in my district, the resolution should
also be a clarion call to others concerned about genocide and human
rights around the globe.

We pause in remembrance today, not just to honor the victims of the
Armenian genocide, but to also stand in honor of those who have lost
their lives during history’s darkest periods. We honor the victims of
the world’s first modern-day genocide to also pay tribute to the 12
million Jews and non-Jews who were murdered during World War II and to
the millions of Cambodians, Rwandans, Sudanese and others whose civil
societies crumbled against the brutality of homicidal dictatorships.

Our common humanity should create an intrinsic bond that brings us
together to reject all abuses of human rights. One way of achieving
that is in remembering the victims of the Armenian genocide, even as
we confront the most brutal moments that have marred history through
violence. We do this so we can move forward, collectively learning
from humanity’s shared past so that our children can live in harmony
and prevent future atrocities.

I am honored to live in a state of great diversity and to serve a
district of such varied cultures. Together, let us seize this moment
to pause and reflect so we can progress as one nation, one people,
and one community, united in our commitment to justice and truth and
in our rejection of bigotry and hatred in all of is forms.

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) represents the cities
of Burbank and Glendale, and the Los Angeles communities of
Atwater Village, Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Toluca
Lake, Valley Glen, Valley Village and Van Nuys. His website is

RUBEN MELKONYAN: WE SHOULD BE READY TO RESIST THE ARTFUL TRAPS OF TURKEY
Gita Elibekyan

"Radiolur"
23.04.2009 18:42

Does the joint statement issued by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of
Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland mean that Turkey’s diplomacy has won?

Turkologist Ruben Melkonyan told a press conference today that "if
the Armenian diplomacy has entered the game, it should be ready to
resist the artful traps of Turkey."

As for the roadmap, Melkonyan considers that the questions refer to
the discussion of the stage-by stage opening of the Armenian-Turkish
border. He noted, however, that the roadmap could refer to the Karabakh
issue rather than the Armenian-Turkish relations.

According to Melkonyan, if the roadmap is related to the Karabakh
issue, then "the return of the five territories to Azerbaijan is the
price we pay for the freezing of the Karabakh issue and the opening
of the Armenian-Turkish border. Is it worth paying the price for
this? I think no."

The Turkologist considers that if it is so, then "the most important
of the Turkish preconditions has worked and we have accepted this
precondition."

However, Melkonyan wishes to believe in the official position of
Armenia that "we will accept no precondition for the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border."

METRO VIEWS: NEW ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MUSEUM
MARILYN HENRY

JERUSALEM POST
;c id=1207649994342&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2F ShowFull
Apr 13, 2008 16:49

Several blocks from the White House, Armenian-Americans are building
a genocide museum. Like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum down the
street, its location will make it impossible to ignore.

Genocide is a word that the White House avoids each April 24, when
the Armenians commemorate the horrific event, which traditionally is
dated from 1915. The US government acknowledges the atrocity without
naming it, so as not to offend Turkey, which vehemently denies there
was a genocide.

"Each year on this day, we pause to remember the victims of one of the
greatest tragedies of the 20th century, when as many as 1.5 million
Armenians lost their lives in the final years of the Ottoman Empire,
many of them victims of mass killings and forced exile," President
George W. Bush said in a statement last April 24. "I join my fellow
Americans and Armenian people around the world in commemorating
this tragedy and honoring the memory of the innocent lives that
were taken. The world must never forget this painful chapter of
its history."

Memory is part of the mission of the Armenian Genocide Museum of
America. The museum, to be constructed in the landmark building that
was once the National Bank of Washington, is intended to commemorate
the victims and educate the public about the Armenian genocide and
subsequent crimes against humanity.

Many Armenians see the rescue of the survivors largely as an
American endeavor, and as an American story. "This is the story of
what Americans did for another people – saving them from starvation,
bringing them back to life, creating the foundation for a community
that wants to thank the United States for bringing it here, giving
it its liberty and the security that allows for this expression in
the museum," said Dr. Rouben Adalian, a historian and the museum’s
project coordinator.

And much of it has a strong Jewish component. Museum exhibits are
likely to feature three figures: Henry Morgenthau, Franz Werfel and
Raphael Lemkin, each of whom reflected on the genocide within his
own field – diplomacy, literature and law.

IT WAS Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire, who first raised the alarm. "Deportation of and excesses
against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports
of eyewitnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is
in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion," Morgenthau
wrote in a 1915 cable to the State Department.

Last month, the Armenian Genocide Museum passed a critical test when
the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Review Board approved
a proposal for the museum to restore and use the former bank, which
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The site is about a 20-minute stroll along 14th Street from the US
Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Armenians learned much and lost much
from the American museum, which held its dedication ceremonies 15
years ago, on April 22, 1993.

"The construction of Holocaust museums – especially the US Holocaust
Memorial Museum – was illuminating in the sense that a story that
is so stark and horrifying could be conceived and reconstructed in
a manner that could be made comprehensible to general audiences and
be respectful of the subject and the victims," said Adalian.

But the Washington museum, funded by tax dollars and private donations,
gave short shrift to events before the Nazi rise to power. It uses
a famous quote of Hitler’s, made shortly before the invasion of
Poland: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the
Armenians?" The museum could say: "Not us."

"The US Holocaust Memorial Museum essentially committed itself to
telling the Jewish story," said Michael Berenbaum, who was the project
director for the Washington museum’s permanent exhibition. "It made
a couple of references to the Armenian story, but it did not fulfill
the Armenians’ fondest hopes, maybe even unrealistic hopes, to create
an Armenian wing or maybe an Armenian memorial."

The Armenian museum, which is privately financed, is scheduled to
open in two years.

"Jews should have a couple of eerie feelings as they enter an Armenian
museum," said Berenbaum, now the director of the Sigi Ziering Center
for the Study of the Holocaust and Ethics at the American Jewish
University in Los Angeles. "The first is: What would have happened
to the remembrance of the Holocaust if Germany had denied the crime?"

The Armenian museum should also remind Jews to be grateful for
survivors’ testimonies, Berenbaum said, noting that technological
advances had made these testimonies – the dramatic means for
remembrance – inexpensive to produce and accessible on video. "We have
so much more first-hand documentation, which they will not have because
it was earlier, from a less articulate and less visual era," he said.

THERE ARE between seven million and eight million Armenians worldwide
today. "Part of the damage of the genocide was the destruction of
the civilization, and what remains is all the more precious to the
Armenian people," said Adalian. The museum will have exhibits on the
history and culture of the Armenians, as well as the genocide and the
bitter battle to have the Armenian fate acknowledged. "We understand
that the denial and the challenge to the Armenian genocide is part
of the story of the Armenian genocide."

Armenians see the genocide as the beginning of a pattern that
began in one century and continued into the next. Along the way,
its consequences were felt in the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda and
Darfur. The museum planners also envision an "action center," to help
visitors prepare to respond to violations of human rights.

"We are not interested in having visitors come through and merely
stare at an exhibit," he said. "We want them to come out of the exhibit
further committed to defending human rights, anybody’s human rights."

A week after Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, we will commemorate Yom
Hashoa. The calendar is such that one day, 17 years from now, Yom
Hashoa will coincide with the Armenians’ memorial day. What will we
do? We know they were murdered; to deny it is killing them twice. If
we are silent, are we killing them yet again?

As we adamantly demand that Holocaust denial find no quarter, so must
we insist that other genocides cannot be denied. By failing to do so,
we diminish ourselves and squander the moral authority we gained –
gained not only because Jews are commanded to remember, but because
Germany owned up to its crimes.

The Armenians and the Jews have much in common: atrocities, expulsion,
our own languages and cultures, and schisms within our faiths. But
we Jews have been spared one grievous harm: as Berenbaum has noted,
the fact that Germany acknowledged the Holocaust enabled the Jews to
commemorate it appropriately – not to argue about whether it happened.

ISSUES OF ORGANIZATION OF ARMENIANCY
Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan

s&nid=1752
16 April 2009

We can meet both pessimistic and optimistic and sometimes even
"realistic" forecasts, which are formed by a simple combination of
"bad" and "good" scenarios, on the informational field regarding the
current "crisis".

Anyway it is difficult to evaluate those scenarios. The crisis
processes change our notion of the system of values, and this,
in its turn, makes the notion of what is "good" and "bad" rather
relative. Under such an uncertainty the issue of the adequate
orientation of national elite becomes of vital importance.

And, at first, let us try to mention briefly the ongoing system
changes:

1. Liberal (democratic) ideology cedes its dominating position and at
current moment some kind of multi-ideological field, which consists
of combined universal (liberal, socialistic) and national ideological
provisions, is formed in the leading countries. National component
comprises the information regarding a separate civilizational unit and,
in fact, it is the factor, which conditions the competitive ability
of the society.

2. The former unipolar and "overorganized" military and political
system has changed into a multi-polar system. On this stage the
possibility of new (even nuclear) conflicts has grown.

3. New realias influenced the globalization. Now, this process is
initiated not by one, but by several civilizational centres, which have
enough spiritual, mental and material resources. Such a process intends
both convergence (mutual influence) and confrontation (collision). As
a result, the level of global "chaos" rises and at the same time the
necessity of the "dialogue of civilizations" is underlined.

The aforementioned changes inevitably influence Armenian realias. There
is no doubt that in order to resist those new challenges, it is
necessary not only to centralize the means we possess, but also to
create the resources of a new quality. Among them, in our opinion, the
elaborations of various strategies and technologies should be included.

At the same time the every strategy supposes the clear perceptions
of the initial situation.

Characteristic of Armenia-Armeniancy system

It is obvious that in the context of the aforementioned problems our
competitive ability can be provided only when the resources of the RA,
the NKR and Armeniancy are united. Though we should keep in mind that
the considerable part, if not the main part, of those resources belongs
to the Armenians who live abroad and who are of different faith and
speak different languages. Depending on the point of residence their
geopolitical orientation also differs. From the informational point of
view there are some difficulties connected with the difference between
"eastern Armenians" and "western Armenians". Taking into consideration
all those facts, it should be stated that today the main constructive
and uniting idea of the Armeniancy is the Armenian civilization and
political community1.

At the same time, one should realize that Armenian civilization, as it
was mentioned above, is not uniform and the perception of the world
on behalf of its different stratum very often differs. That means,
according to those measures, our civilization can be regarded as the
so called "split civilizations" and possibility of the fall of such
civilizations, as it is known, is rather high.

Thus, there is a bit paradox situation: under the newly formed
circumstances the only guarantee of our development and survival is
to be a united civilization unit but the current condition of that
civilization objectively contains definite risks of degeneration.

Accepting the objective essence of the abovementioned challenges one
should not forget that any crisis, "negative" situation contains
also new possibilities. Particularly, the diversity of Armeniancy
can benefit to our national interests. For example, under the
conditions of current civilizational collision our various faith and
different language speaking parts can carry out a definite mission
and become the implementers of the interests of the Armeniancy in
different geopolitical and cultural fields. But it is obvious that the
implementation of such a policy is possible only under the condition
of highly organized national nature.

On the net centric system

Today, undoubtedly, more attention is paid to the issues of the
organization of Armeniancy. Particularly in the publications you
can often meet the idea that the most efficient mean of national
organization is the formation of "net centric system of government". At
the same time there is an impression that this notion is taken a
bit simple. From this point of view it would not be out of place to
touch briefly upon the history of the formation of that technology
and its essence.

The concept of "net centric warfare" was elaborated at the end of the
90th of the last century by the employees of American RAND Corporation
J. Aqvil and D. Ronfelt. The point that in the informational society
the strength of the state (community), first of all, depends on its
ability to inform, to get the information, to fix it in proper way is
accepted as a reference point. According to the author’s conception the
notion of "net" supposes the cancellation of the "Centre-periphery"
hierarchic governing method, which is characteristic of industrial
society, and the elaboration of the system, which have no distinct
structure, i.e. unstructured system, and which supposes non-linear
process logic. Within such a system there is no "centre", but every
link, constituting the part of that system, can obtain the functions
of the governing "centre".

The concept, offered by RAND, captured the attention of military
strategists (D.Rumsfeld, P.Wolfovitz and etc.) and very quickly many
"think tanks" took over the implementation of that concept. The
department of "reorganization of Armed Forces", which on the
assumption of net centric warfare principles implements the reforms
of the American armed forces and carries out new elaborations,
was established.

Thus, "net centric" concept is:

the system with high intellectual resources, which components can
be adequately informed and can fix properly and fast the obtained
information, the understanding of the state of war (the broad concept
and not exclusively military actions) and an appropriate psychology
and way of conduct.

Some conclusions

It appears from this that the implementation of "net centric"
organization and governing technologies demands from the Armenincy
the critical mass of intellectual and organizational resources and
spiritual and psychological training. It is obvious that in order
to possess and to use the resources the elite with the appropriate
skills is necessary. It is characteristic that famous British political
scientist Arnold Toynbee conditions the survival of the civilizations
by the presence of such a "creative minority".

1Thereby, let us mention that the attempt to narrow the perceptions
regarding Armeniancy, trying to present it as an ethno-religious unit
and not civilizational unit, definitely conflicts with our interests.

TURKEY’S MISSED OPPORTUNITY
Vartan Oskanian

The Guatemala Times
cated/the-world-in-words/1026-turkeys-missed-oppor tunity.html
April 20 2009

Abba Eban used to say of the Palestinians that they never miss an
opportunity to miss an opportunity. Turkey, sadly, seems to be falling
into that habit in its relations with Armenia. And, as with Palestine,
failure to act only breeds wider regional instability.

In the two weeks before US President Barack Obama’s recent visit to
Turkey, there was almost universal optimism that Turkey would open
its border with Armenia. But Obama came and went, and the border
remained close.

Turkish-Armenian relations remain more about gestures than
substance. Indeed, Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s dismissive recent statements hint that Turkey
may even be backtracking on its plans to establish more normal
bilateral ties.

Those ties have been strained since 1993, when Turkey closed its border
with Armenia in solidarity with Azerbaijan in the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. When Erdogan and Gul came to power
in 2003, nothing changed. The border remained closed.

In my first meeting with Gul, who was Turkey’s foreign minister
in 2003, he acknowledged that Turkey had not benefited from its
policy of linking Armenia-Turkey relations to a resolution of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. Turkey, he said, wanted to establish
normal bilateral relations with all neighbors. That was music to my
ears, and I told him so.

But Azerbaijani pressure prevailed, and Turkish policy did not
change. Of course, at that time, Turkey’s own interests were not
what they are today. Accession talks with the European Union had not
begun; Turkey wanted an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan; the resolution
condemning the Armenian genocide had not gathered steam around the
world; Turkey’s economy was not in crisis; and Georgia-Russia tensions
were not in free-fall.

Today, the world is so different that even Russia and the US agree
about opening the Turkish-Armenian border. Indeed, in the face of
Russia-Georgia strains, Turkey can benefit from a new role in the
Caucasus. Its proposed "Platform for Cooperation and Security in the
Caucasus" is a first step. And public opinion in Turkey is more ready
than ever for a rapprochement with Armenia.

Such a move would make Europe happy, too. Although Erdogan likes to
call Turkey a natural bridge between East and West, Europe is waiting
for Turkey to assume the function that geography has bestowed upon it.

As for Azerbaijan, now that a pipeline from Baku to the Turkish port
of Ceyhan is operational, Azerbaijan needs Turkey more than Turkey
needs Azerbaijan.

And, this month, Turkey has a deadline. Obama committed himself during
his presidential election campaign to calling the violence against
the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by its name – genocide. The
anniversary of those events is April 24.

One would think that these developments provide Turkey with a great
opportunity to act in its own best interests and open its border with
Armenia. But Turkey has already missed two such opportunities. The
collapse of the Soviet Union was the right time to establish
diplomatic relations with Armenia. Turkey did not, instead offering
mere recognition of Armenia’s independence. No functioning relationship
could come from that.

Then, in 2004, with the beginning of EU accession talks, Turkey had
ample cause to explain to Azerbaijan why improved relations with
Armenia were inevitable. It did not do so, allowing the opportunity
slip away.

History is now offering Turkey a third chance to play a greater
regional role. By actually opening borders, or at least announcing a
real date and actual modalities, Turkey would open doors to a shared
future. But Gul and Erdogan are signaling that they cannot.

Before Obama made it back to Washington, they forcefully and repeatedly
announced – presumably to appease Azerbaijan – that they would not
act to open the border until the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is resolved.

But Turkey and Azerbaijan are wrong. Keeping the border closed will not
solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On the contrary, an open border
would facilitate resolution of the conflict – not because it would be a
tradeoff for something else, or come with strings attached, but because
an open border demonstrates evenhandedness towards all neighbors.

An open border between Armenia and Turkey would mean that Azerbaijan
could not shirk negotiations. My grandmother from Marash would have
said that Azerbaijan today believes that, with Turkey, it "has an
uncle in the jury," and thus that it can persist in its petulance
and intransigence.

An environment of compromise requires a regional environment devoid
of threats and blackmail. Without Turkey tipping the scale for the
benefit of one side in this conflict, both sides must become more
accommodating, especially on security issues. The Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict is about security. Armenia, sandwiched between two
hostile states, is unlikely and unable to agree to security
compromises. Closing a border is an act of hostility. Opening that
border would mean creating a normal regional environment.

History is offering Turkey the opportunity to take regional relations
to a new level. Symbols and gestures are insufficient. And waiting
for a Nagorno-Karabakh solution is no solution at all. It is merely
one more missed opportunity.

Vartan Oskanian, president of the board of the Yerevan-based Civilitas
Foundation, was Armenia’s foreign minister from 1998 to 2008.

AZERBAIJANI CONFLICT SCIENTIST: KARABAKH SUMMIT IN PETERSBURG WILL NOT BE OF ANY PRACTICAL USE FOR AZERBAIJAN

Today.Az
tics/51643.html
Azerbaijan
April 20 2009

For already 20 years the conflict parties regularly meet in different
formats and different countries and no one rejects these meetings,
on the contrary Baku and Yerevan still repeat every time that the
"talks will be useful", said Elkhan Mehtiyev, head of the Center of
Peace and conflict.

According to him, if now the initiative was proposed by Moscow, there
are no doubts that Aliyev and Sargsyan will meet in Petersburg in June.

"But what a summit will it be if there is no foundation? Russia
considers it to be a mediator here, but Azerbaijan considers that to
some extent it is also a party to the conflict, due to the military
presence in Armenia and especially because Russia supplies Armenia
with arms.

Moscow must say the final word in the conflict, but it does not do it,
repeating only that it can be just a guarantor of agreements between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, which Armenia does not want any agreement and
even proposes that the situation is now changing in their favor after
the Georgian-Russian war, new CSTO solution, changes in the relations
with Turkey, after the Turkey visit of Obama, who made the Armenian
issue the subject of discussions", said Mehtiyev.

He said we should not forget that no positive results in the
negotiation process have been fixed after the previous meeting
of Medvedev, Aliyev and Sargsyan and their signing of the Moscow
declaration.

"Today Sargsyan makes the statements that completely contradict to
the spirit of earlier conducted talks. This proves that Armenia does
not intend to withdraw from Karabakh. It means that Yerevan intends
to attain the recognition of the legality of its military occupation,
legalization of its territorial claims. It means the armed resolution
of the conflict. Thus, in fact this Karabakh summit in Petersburg
will not be of any practical use for Azerbaijan", concluded Mehtiyev.