Author: Toneyan Mark

IRAN WILL NOT ALLOW OF ANY AGREEMENTS ON CASPIAN WITHOUT ITS PARTICIPATION

PanARMENIAN.Net
10.09.2009 12:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Iran will not allow of any agreements on Caspian sea
without its participation, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Motakki
stated. The oncoming Caspian states summit in Aktau contradicts Iran’s
national interests, he said.

The official Tehran was offended by the fact their representatives were
not invited to informal meeting of Caspian Sea region leaders in Aktau.

Moscow believes Iranians leaders’ statements on illegality of
a separate meeting between Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan are rather forced. No documents on Caspian collaboration
which couldn’t be signed without Iran’s participation will be concluded
at Aktau, meeting, a diplomatic source in Moscow reported to Interfax.

FM DAVUTOGLU SHOULD CHOOSE HIS WORDS CAREFULLY

Hurriyet Daily News
Sept 10 2009

I had the opportunity to accompany Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
on his visit to Georgia earlier in the week. During the visit, he
was anxious to clarify some things, particularly about the issue I
raised in my column in Milliyet on the very day that we were flying
to Tbilisi.

My basic argument there was that Davutoglu should select his words
correctly when he puts forward his grand foreign policy vision, since
his remarks can be – and are in fact – interpreted incorrectly in
neighboring or nearby countries that used to be part of the Ottoman
Empire.

My particular focus was on his remarks on the news channel NTV last
week, after the announcement of the two protocols for rapprochement
with Armenia. He openly suggested there that, being the strongest
country in the region, Turkey would be the prime mover in the
establishment of a "new order" in this part of the world.

I had indicated that when you highlight the country’s strength,
this generally connotes military strength for many, and that when
you talk about being "instrumental in establishing a new order,"
this has imperial connotations for many in the region.

I had also underlined the fact that it is precisely such remarks by
Davutoglu that have resulted in him being branded as a proponent of
"neo-Ottomanism," a notion that does not go down well in surrounding
countries because it also suggests that Ankara has imperial designs.

Davutoglu explained he had never used the term "neo-Ottomanism"
himself and that "imperial motives" were the last thing on his
mind when saying the things he does. He went on to explain what he
meant. He indicated that the end of the Cold War left a trail of
instability and disorder in its wake in regions such as the Balkans,
the Caucasus and the Middle East, all of close concern to Turkey.

Davutoglu said that if there were something happening in the world
that affected Turkey, then Turkey had a right to speak out and would
always exercise this right. He also explained that when he talked
about the need for a new order in the region he meant this sincerely.

He said his vision included an order that would enhance collective
stability and security in the region, adding that all Turkey wanted
was to play its part in establishing this order by contributing its
share. Although he did not say so himself, we can surmise that being
the strongest country in the region, the role he envisages Turkey
playing in this context is in fact a vital one.

When looked at from the perspective of these explanations, we can
see that what Davutoglu is suggesting is indeed a positive thing,
and one that would also be welcomed by its partners whether they are
in the Europe, the Middle East or the Caucasus, provided everything
is explained clearly and there is no confusion resulting from the
use of certain words.

It is incumbent on him to tread carefully in this respect, because
words do matter in the conduct of foreign policy. We all remember,
after all, how much trouble the use of the word "crusade" caused for
former President Bush after 9/11, even though he had not thought of
the actual Crusades when he used that term.

It is in fact ironic that most Turks don’t like to consider the
fact that Turkey also has historical baggage, just like the U.K. or
France, due to the fact that it was born out of the remnants of an
empire. It is strange for Turks to act as if they were one of the
downtrodden people of the world who had to liberate themselves from
Western imperialism.

This is a mentality that results from the events of 1919-1923 and
tends to overlook the centuries of Ottoman rule before that. Neither
do Turks consider the fact that countries liberated from the Ottomans
also remember the past and can be highly sensitive about issues that
pertain to this past.

Therefore it is a foregone conclusion that Turkish officials have
to tread cautiously when addressing subjects that are sensitive for
the countries and people of the region. Otherwise we also know, as
we emphasized in our Milliyet commentary last week, that Davutoglu
has no imperial designs.

But what we believe is not important, at the end of the day, when
such cases are concerned. What is important is what others believe,
whether rightly or wrongly.

IT’S NAIVE TO BELIEVE TURKISH ARCHIVES RETAINED PROOFS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
09.09.2009 17:07 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "The point stipulated in RA-Turkish protocols
on creating historic research subcommittee is unacceptable, as by
researching archives on Armenian Genocide, we automatically question
the fact of the Genocide," Gnchakyan Social Democratic Party Leader
Lyudmila Sargsyan said at today’s joint news conference with RA
Republican Party representative Sukias Avetisyan.

According to Sargsyan, by discussing the Genocide issue with Turkey,
Armenia not only allows to question the Genocide fact, but also
places states which already recognized the crime against humanity in
awkward situation.

Sukias Avetisyan noted that by researching Turkish archives for proofs
of Genocide, Armenia will acquire new facts to confirm truthfulness
of Armenian party.

In reply to RA Republican Party representative’s statement, Lyudmila
Sargsyan noted that Armenia would be very naive to believe Turkish
archives retained any documents proving the fact of Armenian Genocide

CALLING A SPADE A SPADE

The Civilitas Foundation
Thursday, 03 September 2009 14:48

Attempts to analyze the present state of Armeno-Turkish relations
are based on one of two hypotheses.

The first is that Turkey will not open its border with Armenia without
a Karabagh settlement or progress toward one. In short, it won’t
open the border without Azerbaijan’s assent. For the proponents of
this theory, the signing of the August 31 protocols is a nightmarish
development: Those documents have given Turkey, in writing, everything
it had wanted of Armenia since Armenia’s independence but had been
unable to gain.

In other words, Armenia has not yet gotten what it expects of Turkey,
the opening of the border–a tangible, physical act–whereas Turkey’s
expectations of Armenia are merely statements, which it has already
gotten, and in writing at that.

>From the moment that the protocols were made public, they
allowed Turkey to reap rewards–diplomatic, political, moral, and
other–because the Armenian government had given its assent to those
documents. It’s not possible to assert, therefore, that so long as
parliament has not approved the protocols Turkey has not achieved what
it wanted of Armenia regarding the genocide and territorial demands.

As soon as the protocols were made public, many pundits and the
representatives of the administration hailed the absence of an
y mention of Karabagh in those documents as a great diplomatic
achievement.

But if we take into account that Turkey’s highest officials have
in the past year-and-a-half taken every opportunity to proclaim
that the Armenia-Turkey border would open only after a settlement
of the Karabagh question, we must reach the opposite conclusion:
Only if the Karabagh question were referenced in the protocols,
with the clear formulation that Karabagh is in no way connected to
the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations, could we have talked
of a diplomatic victory.

Because only such a reference would have precluded the Turkish foreign
minister from asserting–as he did just one day after the protocols
were made public–that the settlement of the Karabagh issue is a
precondition for the establishment of Armeno-Turkish relations.

Moreover, a sober assessment inevitably reveals the following dangerous
scenario. The Turkish executive branch, by seeking to improve relations
with Armenia, has displayed its "goodwill" before the entire world;
as "an established democracy," however, it cannot force its will
on parliament.

It’s already evident from the reactions of Turkish legislators that
the protocols-related ruckus in parliament will be loud. And so the
Turkish government could easily explain to the international powers
that in order for the protocols to be ratified by its parliament,
the Armenian side should make at least some concessi ons on Karabagh
and evacuate the territories adjacent to Karabagh.

The second hypothesis is that Turkey is prepared to move toward opening
the border even at the cost of temporarily or outwardly alienating
Azerbaijan, and so Armenia must also expend every effort toward that
end. The proponents of this theory can be provisionally divided into
two groups.

The first thinks that the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border takes
precedence over all other concerns, and so the Armenian side can
refrain from asserting historical concerns, because in an environment
of open borders those issues could more easily be resolved between
the two nations.

The adherents of this interpretation of the situation must nevertheless
realize that the Karabagh issue cannot be bypassed. If Turkey agrees
to open the border without first obtaining any progress favorable to
Azerbaijan regarding the Karabagh issue, there can be no doubt that
it will have done so only because it has obtained clear promises from
international powers that all territories abutting Karabagh will
be returned to Azerbaijan without any guarantee of a final status
for Karabagh.

The second group understands the incontrovertible necessity of opening
the border, but it is not prepared to achieve it at all costs. And that
is the very basis on which a healthy debate must unfold. It would be
an irreversible mistake for the Armenian parliament to discount all
th e dangers lurking in the protocols merely for the sake of saving
face for the executive branch. Although it’s clear that including
the mechanism of parliamentary ratification was Turkey’s idea, we
should nevertheless attempt to take advantage of it by allowing for
the possibility of either inserting modifications into this version
of the document or rejecting it altogether.

And finally, it is important to recognize that independent Armenia,
as a sovereign state, would for the first time be signing a joint
agreement with Turkey having to do with territory, borders, and our
most painful issue, the genocide–and that cannot be done merely as a
matter of political expediency. It’s also apparent that the documents,
in their present form, are not in our national interest. Efforts to
present the protocols as a great diplomatic victory cannot be taken
seriously. Armenia’s previous administrations, however, over the last
17 years, have refrained from such a step, because they had a sense
of political and historical responsibility.
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Description:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: [email protected]
Subject: Calling a Spade a Spade

Calling a Spade a Spade
Analysis / Turkey

The Civilitas Foundation
Thursday, 03 September 2009 14:48

Attempts to analyze the present state of Armeno-Turkish relations are
based on one of two hypotheses.

The first is that Turkey will not open its border with Armenia without
a Karabagh settlement or progress toward one. In short, it won’t open
the border without Azerbaijan’s assent. For the proponents of this
theory, the signing of the August 31 protocols is a nightmarish
development: Those documents have given Turkey, in writing, everything
it had wanted of Armenia since Armenia’s independence but had been
unable to gain.

In other words, Armenia has not yet gotten what it expects of Turkey,
the opening of the borderâ??a tangible, physical actâ??whereas Turkey’s
expectations of Armenia are merely statements, which it has already
gotten, and in writing at that.

From the moment that the protocols were made public, they allowed
Turkey to reap rewardsâ??diplomatic, political, moral, and otherâ??because
the Armenian government had given its assent to those documents. It’s
not possible to assert, therefore, that so long as parliament has not
approved the protocols Turkey has not achieved what it wanted of
Armenia regarding the genocide and territorial demands.

As soon as the protocols were made public, many pundits and the
representatives of the administration hailed the absence of an
y mention
of Karabagh in those documents as a great diplomatic achievement. But
if we take into account that Turkey’s highest officials have in the
past year-and-a-half taken every opportunity to proclaim that the
Armenia-Turkey border would open only after a settlement of the
Karabagh question, we must reach the opposite conclusion: Only if the
Karabagh question were referenced in the protocols, with the clear
formulation that Karabagh is in no way connected to the normalization
of Turkish-Armenian relations, could we have talked of a diplomatic
victory.

Because only such a reference would have precluded the Turkish foreign
minister from assertingâ??as he did just one day after the protocols were
made publicâ??that the settlement of the Karabagh issue is a precondition
for the establishment of Armeno-Turkish relations.

Moreover, a sober assessment inevitably reveals the following dangerous
scenario. The Turkish executive branch, by seeking to improve relations
with Armenia, has displayed its "goodwill" before the entire world; as
"an established democracy," however, it cannot force its will on
parliament. It’s already evident from the reactions of Turkish
legislators that the protocols-related ruckus in parliament will be
loud. And so the Turkish government could easily explain to the
international powers that in order for the protocols to be ratified by
its parliament, the Armenian side should make at least some concessi
ons
on Karabagh and evacuate the territories adjacent to Karabagh.

The second hypothesis is that Turkey is prepared to move toward opening
the border even at the cost of temporarily or outwardly alienating
Azerbaijan, and so Armenia must also expend every effort toward that
end. The proponents of this theory can be provisionally divided into
two groups.

The first thinks that the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border takes
precedence over all other concerns, and so the Armenian side can
refrain from asserting historical concerns, because in an environment
of open borders those issues could more easily be resolved between the
two nations.

The adherents of this interpretation of the situation must nevertheless
realize that the Karabagh issue cannot be bypassed. If Turkey agrees to
open the border without first obtaining any progress favorable to
Azerbaijan regarding the Karabagh issue, there can be no doubt that it
will have done so only because it has obtained clear promises from
international powers that all territories abutting Karabagh will be
returned to Azerbaijan without any guarantee of a final status for
Karabagh.

The second group understands the incontrovertible necessity of opening
the border, but it is not prepared to achieve it at all costs. And that
is the very basis on which a healthy debate must unfold. It would be an
irreversible mistake for the Armenian parliament to discount all th
e
dangers lurking in the protocols merely for the sake of saving face for
the executive branch. Although it’s clear that including the mechanism
of parliamentary ratification was Turkey’s idea, we should nevertheless
attempt to take advantage of it by allowing for the possibility of
either inserting modifications into this version of the document or
rejecting it altogether.

And finally, it is important to recognize that independent Armenia, as
a sovereign state, would for the first time be signing a joint
agreement with Turkey having to do with territory, borders, and our
most painful issue, the genocideâ??and that cannot be done merely as a
matter of political expediency. It’s also apparent that the documents,
in their present form, are not in our national interest. Efforts to
present the protocols as a great diplomatic victory cannot be taken
seriously. Armenia’s previous administrations, however, over the last
17 years, have refrained from such a step, because they had a sense of
political and historical responsibility.
To read the complete protocol click here

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
PRESS RELEASE
Haigazian University
Mira Yardemian Public Relations Director
Mexique Street, Kantari, Beirut

The International Conference: the Armenian Genocide and International
Law concludes its Sessions

The two-day international conference entitled "the Armenian Genocide and
International Law" organized by Haigazian University and the Armenian
National Committee – Middle East concluded its sessions on Friday,
September 4, 2009, with full days of enriching discussions and
deliberations.

This long planned conference, unfolded on Wednesday, September 2, 2009,
with the inaugural speech of the President of the House of
Representatives of Cyprus, H.E. Marios Garoyan who stated that his
presence as the guest speaker of the conference is driven by his
country’s "commitment to international law, peace, security and
stability, but also the determination to continue to condemn, on every
possible occasion, any infringement of International Law by acts of
Genocide."

During the next two days of the conference, thirteen experts in the
field of Genocide and International Law, coming from the USA, Canada,
Switzerland, Ireland, Armenia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt
and Lebanon joined the eighty Lebanese local community of political
scientists and activists, sociologists, historians, religious leaders,
educators, intellectuals, international correspondents, journalists and
students, in establishing a solid step in the direction of addressing
the consequences of the Armenian Genocide and promoting a fair
perspective through international law.

In a profoundly academic atmosphere, the conference covered such topics
as genocide denial and recognition issues, Turkish nationalism and the
politics of denial, as well as the economic aspect of the genocide and
the issues of lands and assets. Within the framework of international
law, the conference discussed the general topics of genocide and crime
against humanity, retribution, and preservation of the Armenian cultural
heritage.

More specifically, Dr. George Charaf from the Lebanese University,
lectured on the Problem of Minorities and Majorities, discussing the
case of the Ottoman Empire.

Dr. Ugur Ungor, from the University of Sheffield, talked about
demographic Engineering in the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide.

Dr. Mohammad Rifaat, from the University of Alexandria, discussed the
Armenian Question according to Arab sources.

Dr. William Schabas from the National University of Ireland, discussed
the problems and prospects of the Genocide and International Law, 60
years after the Convention.

Dr. Alfred De Zayas, from the Geneva School of Diplomacy and
International Relations, elaborated on the issues of justice and
international law regarding the Armenian Genocide.

Khatchig Mouradian, a PhD candidate in Genocide Studies at Clark
University, lectured on the Armenians, Raphael Lemkin and the UN
Convention.

Dr. Taner Akcam’s paper on Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide
Issue in Turkey today was read in absentia.

Dr. Ragip Zarakolu, Vice President of Human Rights Association of
Turkey, tackled the issue of Genocide Denialism and Law in Turkey.

In the same context, Dr. Seyhan Bayraktar, from the University of
Zurich, covered the evolution of the Armenian genocide denial in the
Turkish Press.

A PhD. Candidate, at John Hopkins University, Bilgin Ayata talked about
the Kurdish – Armenian relations and the Armenian Genocide.

Dr. Roger Smith, a professor Emeritus of government at the College of
William and Mary in Virginia, lectured on Professional Ethics and the
Denial of the Armenian Genocide.

Dr. Henry Theriault, from the Worcester State College, talked about
restorative justice and alleviating the consequences of genocide.

And finally, Dr. Rihard Hovannissian, from the UCLA, covered the issue
of universalizing the legacy of the Armenian Genocide.

The discussants and moderators of the sessions, were Dr. Arda Ekmekji,
Dr. Naila Kaidbey, Mr. Giro Manoyan, Dr. Rania Masri, Dr. Joseph Bayeh,
Dr. Ohannes Geukjian, Mr. Antranig Dakessian, and Dr. Haig Demoyan.

The two-day conference ended with a brainstorming session.

Haigazian University President, Rev. Dr. Paul Haidostian considered that
such conferences will always keep the Genocide issue alive, giving an
increasingly growing international momentum to it. Moreover, Haidostian
said that "the Genocide topic and this conference in particular, will
hopefully open the door to further academic studies and research,
activating deeper study in the economic, social and legal aspects of
inter-state relations."

Parallel to the conference, public lectures were held during three
evenings, on related topics.

It is planned that the conference proceedings will be published in a
separate volume.

Haigazian University
Armenian National Committee – Middle East
September 8, 2009

TURKEY-ARMENIA BORDER NOT TO BE REOPENED BEFORE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT IS RESOLVED: AZERBAIJANI AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY

Today.Az
/55327.html
Sept 7 2009
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan’s Ambassador in Ankara Zakir Hashimov said Saturday the
foreign ministries of Turkey and Azerbaijan discussed Turkish-Armenian
relations over phone and reached a common understanding, Anadolu
Agency reported.

Speaking to reporters at a fast-breaking dinner in Ankara, Ambassador
Hashimov indicated that the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border
prior to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue would be against
Azerbaijan’s interests.

"As Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan
said, we believe that the border will not get opened unless the issue
of Nagorno-Karabakh is resolved," Hashimov said.

Asked about what he thinks on two protocols signed by Turkey
and Armenia, Ambassador Hashimov stressed that "Turkey is a great
country. It is Turkey’s own business to decide with which countries
it establishes relations".

Javahk and Artsakh students will be paying for tuition in Armenia
along with RA citizens
04.09.2009 22:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ At RA NA standing committee sitting, RA Parliament
Deputy Speaker Naira Zohrabyan presented draft law package on
additions to the law on higher education and post university
specialization.

The author suggested additions, which forbid charging Artsakh, Javahk
and Kvemo Kartli students with higher tuition fees than students with
RA citizenship.

RA Education Minister Armen Ashotyan presented RA government’s
positive opinion on current draft laws. The draft law will be included
in the forthcoming 4-day parliamentary sitting agenda.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Sept 6 2009

Turkey’s regional moves ease its EU bid, while widening EU’s horizon

If he were giving university lectures now and were asked to present a
case study showing how a relationship moves from crisis to vision, he
would cite Turkish-Iraqi relations, which have improved since the
DaÄ?lıca attack in October 2007, as an example, Foreign
Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu stated earlier this week.

In October 2007, the DaÄ?lıca military outpost in
southeastern Anatolia was attacked by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK), and 12 soldiers were killed, while eight other soldiers
were captured and held for two weeks by the PKK before being released
in a mountainous area in northern Iraq. A Turkish land operation
against the PKK was launched into northern Iraq in February 2008 and
was followed by a landmark visit to Turkey by Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani. The two countries are now preparing to hold `joint cabinet
meetings’ in the near future under the name High-Level Strategic
Cooperation Council, with Ankara voicing its readiness to engage in
limitless cooperation with other countries in the region in order to
once again turn the Mesopotamian Basin, which was once the cradle of a
succession of glorious civilizations, into a prosperous area.

DavutoÄ?lu, a professor of political science and international
relations, was speaking a day after Armenia and Turkey announced on
Monday that they have agreed to submit two protocols to their
respective parliaments for internal debate, which will hopefully
result in them being ratified and the countries’ mutual border being
opened.

It is not possible to say whether Armenia and Turkey, the two
estranged neighbors, will, after all this time, have the friendly ties
they are aiming for just by looking at the progress in relations with
Iraq. However, one has to appreciate that Iraq is not the only
neighbor with which Turkey has managed to change the nature of its
relationship in a positive way. In the autumn of 1998, Syria and
Turkey came to the brink of war over the presence of the now-jailed
leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ã-calan, in Syria. At the time, Turkish
troops were marshaled along the border with Syria, with Ankara
demanding that Damascus cease its support for the PKK and hand over
Ã-calan.

Today, Ankara and Damascus are considering establishing a similar
strategic mechanism to the one between Turkey and Iraq, while Turkey
last year mediated several rounds of indirect peace negotiations
between Israel and Syria.

EU’s good-neighborhood principle

All of the background mentioned above is not meant to serve as
rose-colored glasses showing Turkey in a problem-free neighborhood. In
addition to still absent normalization of relations with Armenia, the
Cyprus issue is standing as a major obstacle to Ankara’s European
Union bid. Additionally, the exchange of strong remarks on the issue
of Cyprus and territorial matters between Aegean neighbors Greece and
Turkey has apparently intensified recently.

The EU, which opened accession talks with Ankara — an EU candidate
since 1999 — in October 2005, has constantly stressed the importance
of its good-neighborhood principle in its various reports evaluating
Turkey’s progress.

Ankara’s bold foreign policy moves regarding its region, meanwhile,
indicate its intention to go beyond a `zero-problem policy’ in its
neighborhood by reaching out for the creation of an atmosphere of
maximum cooperation among all its neighbors.

`Turkey has actually been designing a sub-system in which all
neighboring countries in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Eurasia and the
Black Sea can have an impact on global developments by uniting their
forces. There is no place for any kind of gap in such a system. Cyprus
and Armenia are the two major obstacles in this maximum cooperation,’
Bülent Aras, a professor of international relations in the
department of humanities and social sciences at Ä°stanbul
Technical University, told Sunday’s Zaman.

Aras noted that efforts regarding Armenia are evident, while in
addition Turkey is also making serious efforts to resolve the Cyprus
issue this autumn. According to Aras, in order to attain its vision of
becoming a regional power, Turkey has to get rid of troublesome
aspects in its bilateral relations, and the recent move regarding
Armenia is one such move to get rid of one of the troubles that has
always stood before Turkey as an obstacle.

`The EU has always encouraged the resolution of problems in Turkey’s
neighborhood so that these problems would not have any negative impact
on the EU. However, Turkey, instead of just resolving the problems and
then building walls between itself and that neighborhood, is
designing, favoring and constituting a maximum level of cooperation
with that neighborhood. Thus, it is implementing principles of the
highest level of dialogue and mutual dependency. Such policymaking and
implementation is more European than the EU itself. The EU has little
activity in the Caucasus and the Middle East. With its proactive
policy regarding those regions, Turkey is increasing its activity
there without even becoming a member of the EU,’ Aras explained.

Turkey says `check’

Ã-zdem Sanberk, a former undersecretary at the Foreign Ministry and
an esteemed foreign policy analyst, speaking with Sunday’s Zaman,
first of all described his reaction to those who suggest that Turkey’s
recent agreement with Armenia was a result of pressure from the United
States. Underlining that finding a resolution to the dispute regarding
Armenia has been on the Turkish foreign policy agenda for decades,
Sanberk recalled the contact between then-Turkish President
Süleyman Demirel and then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian
in the late 1990s and used them as an example.

`Attempts [to resolve] this issue have never dropped from the Turkish
side’s agenda. However, the international conjuncture has never been
as ripe as it is now. What I can see is that the government is taking
advantage of this conjuncture. [US President Barack] Obama came here
and mentioned the issue; this is not something bad because our
interests in resolving this issue match those of the US. Obama’s
honeymoon in the White House is still going on, and he is still
powerful, but nobody can guarantee that he will not fall into [former
US President George W.] Bush’s situation in two years’ time. When he
becomes less powerful, he will also be prone to pressure from certain
lobby groups,’ Sanberk said.

During a landmark visit to Turkey, Obama appealed for reconciliation
between Ankara and Yerevan. Obama, who pledged to recognize the
Armenian diaspora’s genocide claims in his election campaign, avoided
using the g-word in his traditional April 24 message.

`As for Europe, they are at least registering the positive
developments. As for Russia, it doesn’t want yet another crisis in its
neighborhood after its dispute with Georgia last year. Given that
there is such a positive environment and such a political background,
Turkey’s step toward untying this knot is an extremely legitimate and
righteous step,’ the veteran diplomat said.

`Without untying this knot, Turkey is unable to settle on decisive
policies in the Caucasus, and this entangled position in foreign
policy, which is stems from ideological radicalization, also nourishes
and triggers polarization and radicalization inside the country. This
is a very important dimension. On the other side, as these genocide
allegations are more openly and widely discussed, our thesis gains
power because taboos in the global arena nourished by Armenian lobbies
have been shaken,’ he said.

Strength of political correctness

`There is a shockwave moving around the world, and we’re just at the
beginning. If we can manage this shockwave moving around the world
appropriately and inform public opinion in a healthy way, then we can
pass on to the approval process more comfortably,’ he said, referring
to the parliamentary approval of two protocols which Ankara and
Yerevan announced they plan to sign within six weeks under the plan to
normalize relations.

`There is nothing to be lost; on the contrary, there is a situation
where Turkey said `check’ in this chess game. Like in 2004, when
Turkey campaigned for approval of the UN-led reunification plan for
Cyprus, Turkey has again put itself in a politically correct
situation."

Suat KınıklıoÄ?lu , the deputy chairman for
external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK
Party), said he observed the shock among his European counterparts,
calling it more a reaction of puzzlement. He spoke with Sunday’s Zaman
by telephone from abroad.

Both the process regarding Armenia and the government’s recent
initiative on the resolution of the Kurdish issue have had very
positive receptions in Europe, and these developments have regional
meanings beyond the EU itself, KınıklıoÄ?lu
said.

`For example, normalization between Turkey and Armenia will have an
overall impact on the South Caucasus, and it is highly possible that
it will also have positive impacts on energy security in Europe. When
you look at the overall picture, the Kurdish issue, the Armenia move,
the Cyprus negotiations, Turkey’s bid to resolve the recent dispute
between Iraq and Syria; all of these moves give a clue about Turkey
and its foreign policy establishment’s capacity to undergo different
processes at the same time. I sense a feeling of disbelief when I
speak to my European friends. They are still trying to understand and
comprehend these moves. Some European friends may have difficulty
digesting Turkey’s role and determination in foreign policy
initiatives but, at the end of the day, they will have to accept the
reality that Turkey has been undertaking all of these moves both for
itself and its region,’ he continued.

EU’s applause not enough

`Some European actors who are not used to seeing such strong will from
Turkey may have some feelings of jealousy toward Turkey, but this is
natural,’ KınıklıoÄ?lu also suggested.

Like Aras, speaking of the EU’s stance vis-Ã-vis Turkey, Sanberk
particularly recalled how the EU has always urged Turkey to maintain
its internal stability and also play a role in the maintenance of
regional stability so that Turkey’s internal instability and regional
instability would not have a negative impact on `us, on our
territory.’

`This is actually in a way telling Turkey to serve as a buffer zone
for the EU without eventually becoming a member. Turkey has been
working hard to make contributions to the resolution of regional
conflicts; we have been carrying the burdens, but we have not been
taking our share of the benefits. The EU’s applause is not sufficient
vis-Ã-vis Turkey’s efforts toward security and stability, which
should not be regarded as charitable acts,’ Sanberk warned.

`Turkey should center its focus on EU membership and explain that it
will play this role of promoting security and stability much better
when it becomes a member. Turkey should clearly show the EU that it’s
neither naïve nor a dummy,’ he said.

06 September 2009, Sunday
EMINE KART TODAY’S ZAMAN

BOSNIA DEFENDER EMIR SPAHIC MATCH FIT FOR ARMENIA CLASH

Goal.com
Sept 4 2009

The defender has recovered from swine flu…

Montpellier defender Emir Spahic has recovered from swine flu in
time to take part in Bosnia’s World Cup qualifiers against Armenia
(Saturday) and Turkey (Wednesday).

According to French newspaper L’Equipe, Spahic underwent tests last
weekend that confirmed he no longer has the virus. The 29-year-old
defender had been sidelined for about a week.

Spahic has been one of the key figures at Ligue 1 outfit Montpellier
this season since joining them from Lokomotiv Moscow. The defender
has scored twice in his fist three league matches.

Bosnia have collected 12 points after six matches in Group 5 and
currently sit second in the table. They trail table-toppers Spain by
six points, but have a comfortable four-point lead on third placed
side Turkey.

NALBANDIAN SAYS ‘DON’T PANIC,’ WHILE DAVUTOGLU EYES KARABAKH
By Ara Khachatourian

albandian-says-%e2%80%98don%e2%80%99t-panic%e2%80% 99-while-davutoglu-eyes-karabakh/
Sep 2, 2009

As Armenia’s foreign minister, Eduard Nalbandian told reporters
Wednesday that there was no need to panic over the Turkey-Armenia
roadmap protocols, his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu promised
a swift resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

In fact, Nalbandian brushed aside legitimate concerns about
national issues, and in a rather pedestrian move used yet another
animal analogy. When asked whether the provision on recognizing
present-day borders amounted to Armenia’s acceptance of the Kars
Treaty, Nalbandian said: "Don’t look for a calf under a bull." This,
coupled with his "don’t fish in murky waters" from several weeks ago
demonstrates the level of sophistication of Armenia’s chief diplomat
and the indifference with which this new page in Armenian history is
being treated.

This non-chalance-or arrogance-further exasperates matters, as Turkey,
having raised its position through the provisions of the protocols,
is moving forward and engaging stakeholders and players to garner a
resolution on Karabakh.

"To be able to turn this normalization [between Turkey and Armenia]
into permanent peace, we are expecting a forthwith settlement on the
dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the contributions of the
international community," Davutoglu told reporters late Tuesday.

Turkey has already launched a new diplomatic initiative for mobilizing
international actors in this regard, according to sources. Davutoglu
held a long phone conversation with the foreign ministers of France
and the United States, two members of the Minsk Group. The issue was
already largely discussed with Russia.

Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan will also be a harbinger for a quick
fix to Karabakh when next month he attends the UN General Assembly,
of which Turkey is a permanent member.

So, assurances by President Sarkisian and Nalbandian do not silence
the alarm that was sounded after Monday’s announcement. Nor, does it
reassure Armenians around the world that their very national interests
are not up for grabs for the myriad nebulous benefits the opening of
the border is said to bring.

What has become crystal clear since Monday is that continued insistence
by Armenia’s leaders that they have demanded no preconditions in the
negotiation process was misleading at best and a lie at worst.

Unless the definition of the word "precondition" has changed since
April 22 when the so-called "roadmap" agreement was announced,
the provisions on the establishment of relations between Armenia and
Turkey are peppered with preconditions that corner Armenia into making
concessions and pose an extreme threat to our national interests,
security and future. Clearly, Turkey is not wasting any time.

The Sarkisian administration’s self-righteous posturing and hollow
promises signal that they are either truly out of touch or are the
stranglehold on Armenia is so tight that they are unable to catch up
with the paradigm shifts that have occurred since that ill-fated day
in Moscow in 2008 when Sarkisian extended the invitation and kicked
off the so-called "soccer diplomacy" fiasco.

>From the onset this process was doomed and the administration did not
ask for or seek national consensus, instead it turned away allies,
alienated a significant portion of the Diaspora and polarized the
entire nation.

The upcoming six weeks are a critical time for Armenia and
Armenians. The protocol-mandated six week domestic political vetting
period leading up to the return soccer match in Istanbul and the
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs visit at the end of this month with the
revised Madrid Principles will test how adeptly we, as a nation,
can maneuver this crucial turning point in history.

Political forces and organizations in the Diaspora must come together
to ensure that their decades-long struggle is not pushed to the side
in favor of a defeatist agreement and the Armenian government, with
its president, foreign ministry and Diaspora ministry should rally
the entire nation toward an uncompromising national solution.