Author: Tvankchian Parkev

TURKEY, ARMENIA COULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS IN SECOND HALF OF 2009

Hurriyet
Feb 10 2009
Turkey

Turkey and Armenia could attain the required conditions to normalize
relations in the second half of 2009 if the ongoing dialogue process
between the two countries continues at its current pace, a report
Monday quoted the neighboring country’s president as saying.

"I can say that there could be no problem for diplomatic relations
to begin between Armenia and Turkey if the atmosphere gained in the
recent contacts continues in the future," Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan told MediaMax news agency after talks between the countries
at Davos and the Munich Security Conference.

The two countries’ relations would be much different and of higher
quality, Hurriyet daily quoted him as telling the Armenian news agency.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met his Armenian counterpart
Eduard Nalbandian both on the sidelines of the annual meeting of
last month’s World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos and at this month’s
Munich conference.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan also met Sargsyan at Davos in
a bid to contribute to the normalization efforts.

Turkey and Armenia have no diplomatic relations and their border
has been closed for more than a decade, as Armenia presses the
international community with the backing of the diaspora to admit
the so-called "genocide" claims, instead of accepting Turkey’s call
to investigate the allegations, and over Armenia’s invasion of 20
percent territory of Azerbaijan.

A warmer period began in relations when Turkish President Abdullah
Gul paid a landmark visit to Yerevan in September to watch a World Cup
qualifying football match between the two countries on the invitation
of Sargsyan. The two countries have been holding contacts at the
ministerial level since.

THIRD PARTIES DISTRUPTIVE

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Monday any intervention by
a third party into Turkey’s ongoing talks with Armenia would prove
counterproductive, when asked about a controversial U.S. resolution
awaiting voting in the Senate recognizing Armenian claims as
"genocide".

"The dialogue between our two countries aims at normalizing
all bilateral relations and we make progress to that end in each
contact. And I do not believe that the intervention of other countries
would be constructive," Babacan was quoted by the Anatolian Agency
as telling a joint press meeting with visiting Ethiopian Foreign
Minister Seyoum Mesfin in Ankara.

Babacan said talks with Armenia included the events of 1915, asking
for support to the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia.

"As we conduct such important talks, everyone should avoid moves that
would damage this process," he said.

PRESIDENT SARGSYAN TO MEET BAKO SAHAKYAN

Panorama.am
19:04 09/02/2009

The President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan had a meeting with the
President of Nagorno Karabakh Bako Sahakyan, reports the press
service of the President’s Administration. According to the source,
the Presidents discussed the on going stage of the negotiations of
the NKR conflict.

President Sargsyan told his counterpart the details of his meeting
with the President of Azerbaijan in Zurich. The Presidents have
also discussed the world financial-economic crisis and its impact on
the countries.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Agreement on CSTO RRF formation propaganda maneuver
07.02.2009 13:51 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The decision on formation of a CSTO rapid reaction
force is a propaganda maneuver, meant to solution of some Russian
momentary tasks, an Armenian military expert said.

"At that, the tasks are psychological rather than political. As a
matter of fact, this agreement is a delayed remedy for phantom pains
caused by melting influence of a world power, an attempt to raise
stakes in the Big Game. As result, we have nothing but one more CIS
agreement ," Ruben Meghrabyan, expert at the Armenian center of
political and international studies, told PanARMENIAN.Net.

The participant states do not possess essential transmission potential
to respond in very short time frames to emergencies, i.e. the level of
organization and material-technical support does not meet the
proclaimed tasks, according to him.

"The agreement is non-binding and useless," he said.

"The signatories, scared by the toughening demands of the Russian
Federation, joined the agreement in exchange of money they need more
and more. This agreement is message to the West, a claim for respect,"
he said.

"Meanwhile, it’s too hard to fancy an Uzbek or Tajik special forces as
Armenia’s cooperative neighbors fighting against Azerbaijan or Turkey
or Armenian paratrooper rebuffing a fundamentalist sortie in
Pamir. It’s too expensive and not serious," Meghrabyan said.

DEBATE CONTINUES OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES GENOCIDE

Worldfocus
09/02/05/debate-continues-over-what-constitutes-ge nocide/3925/
Feb 5 2009
NY

Turkey admits to World War I-era mass killings in Armenia but denies
that it was genocide. A memorial in Yerevan, Armenia, commemorates
the killings.

The word genocide was coined in the wake of the Holocaust.

Since then, the term has been used in varying contexts to describe
modern conflicts, from Rwanda to Darfur. But the term itself has become
a source of conflict, as many look to whether or not governments and
leaders recognize and punish genocide.

The United Nations defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group" and a convention criminalizing genocide became law in 1951.

Some people have been prosecuted and found guilty of genocide,
including Rwandan politician Jean-Paul Akayesu and Serbian General
Radislav Krstic.

However, while the U.S. has pointed to genocide in Darfur, the United
Nations has refrained from using that term to describe the killings
in Sudan.

The "Killing Denouement" blog discusses the historical use of the
term and modern debates surrounding its usage:

Is Gaza a genocide; is Darfur a genocide? Where do you draw the lines
between ‘land conflict’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide’, and what
are the political value(s) of doing so? And how does something get
designated as genocide anyway – is it, legally, only when the ICC at
the Hague says so?

[…]The Rwandan genocide is popularly characterised as one of the
most shocking massacres of a century already stained by violent
bloodshed. Much of its associated visceral horror comes from the
situation of neighbours turning against each other. Not unlike its
historical cousin of the Nazi Holocaust, it too was structured around
several poles of binary opposition. Citizen and subject; native and
settler. Hutu and Tutsi; Nazi and Jew. Both of these atrocities have
seeped their way into the collective Western consciousness, and have
come to function as embedded points of reference for future conflicts.

The "Presidential Blog" writes about the debate surrounding the Gaza
war and its casualties:

I see how the name-calling and the evocations of other historical
horrors take us all further away from understanding, further away from
any hope of resolution on a human scale. Comparisons to "genocide"
or "apartheid" simply raise the rhetorical stakes; they may help
speakers or writers score points (in their own minds and the minds of
the like-minded) but they do nothing to advance shared understanding.

On the contrary.

Mahmood Mamdani of "Pambazuka News" points to similarities between
violence in Darfur and the war in Iraq, exploring how the conflicts
are named differently:

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate
of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly
similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the
official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The
victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather
than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is
named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency
and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the
difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference
does it make?

Flickr user "Bullneck" posts an image of a protester with a sign
declaring genocide, and argues that the word is misused:

Here’s an idea: Why don’t we all put the term ‘genocide’ (and
‘Holocaust,’ too) on a hiatus from placards and instead use words with
more meaning, rationality, and thought? The only situation which calls
for the use of such terms would be something akin to Rwanda in the
’90s. Everything else is self-righteous hyperbole which cheapens the
word’s meaning.

Blogger "Stacey Perlman" argues that governments use alternate terms
to avoid responsibilities:

The genocide in Darfur has gone on since 2003 and has not gained the
attention it deserves. Other genocides include Rwanda in 1994 and
the Cambodian Killing Fields in 1975. Not to mention the death of 11
million people, 6 million of them Jews, in the Holocaust during WWII.

Perhaps lesser known is the first genocide of the 20th century. No,
it wasn’t the Jews in WWII, it was the Armenians in 1915 during
WWI. It is estimated that one and a half million people died between
1915 and 1923. There is still controversy surrounding the mass murder
of these people as the Turkish government has continually denied it
ever happened.

In Kenya, the recent election controversy was the straw that broke the
camel’s back after decades of tension from grudges over land. Using
a term like "ethnic cleansing" is an easy way to avoid providing
aid. […] Until the situation is deemed "genocide" no legal action
needs to be taken, which is disturbing. Ethnic cleansing is not any
less minor of a situation than a declared genocide and efforts should
be made to combat it.

The "BlogCritics" blog writes that Western governments only deem mass
killing genocidal when economic interests are involved:

After the horrors of World War II, the world said "never again" to
horrific mass killings. But, due to the Cold War tensions, idealistic
ideas such as this one were abandoned in favor of realist politics
and fighting for self-interests. "Never again" does not mean "we
will do everything to stop genocides from happening anywhere in the
world." The Western world in particular considers stopping genocides
only in countries where they have economic or other interests.

That is why in 1994 the American government did not want to use
the term "genocide" to describe the fastest genocide in recorded
human history that took over 800,000 lives in Rwanda in only 100
days. […] Calling the mass slaughter "genocide" would obligate the
US and other governments, signatories of the Resolution 260A(III),
to intervene and stop it. But the US and other Western countries did
nothing because they had no interests in the small, overpopulated, and
poor African country. That a whole ethnic group was being exterminated
in front of the whole world was not enough.

Blogger "Erica Thurman" argues that omitting gender from the definition
of genocide allows violence against women:

Discourse of human security as it relates to women appears to avoid
the "G" word–genocide. This is perhaps because the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Convention)
fails to identify systematic sexual based violence as an act of
genocide. Various threats to human security are gender specific. Rape,
forced impregnation, maternal mortality rates and sexual slavery
are components of human insecurity which have to be viewed through a
gendered lens to recognize "who is affected and how, and what specific
forms of protection or assistance are needed by whom." […]

A finding of systematic rape as genocide would serve two purposes. The
first would allow the violence against African women to be classified
as genocide, thereby compelling the international community to
act to prevent future occurrences of this heinous crime. Secondly,
the finding of rape as genocide would introduce the idea of sexually
specific crimes in the discourse of genocide which could subsequently
compel an amendment to the Convention establishing women as a protected
class against genocide.

ANKARA, JERUSALEM ATTEMPT TO REPAIR DAMAGED RELATIONS.
By Haviv Rettig Gur

The Jerusalem Post
February 4, 2009 Wednesday

Jerusalem still considers Turkish prime minister persona non grata
after outbursts regarding Gaza offensive

Turkey and Israel seemed to signal a rapprochement Tuesday after a
month of souring relations over Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

"We are now looking towards the future," Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister
Cemil Cicek said on Tuesday. "Turkey is not targeting Israel and the
Israeli people."

"The relations between the two countries are important to us and we
want to protect them," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said
in response to Cicek’s comments.

Those relations seemed to be on a downward spiral in the wake of
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s accusation that
Israel had committed "inhuman actions which would bring it to
self-destruction" during the 22-day January action against Hamas
infrastructure in Gaza.

"Allah will sooner or later punish those who transgress the rights of
innocents," Erdogan promised in one of a series of angry excoriations
of Israel during the fighting.

He told Turkey’s parliament on January 13 that "media outlets supported
by Jews" were failing to reveal that Israel was intentionally targeting
schools, mosques and hospitals in Gaza.

Senior Israeli officials said this past week they were surprised by the
unusually strident response from a close ally in a battle against an
organization committed to Israel’s destruction. They told The Jerusalem
Post in recent days that Israel was reconsidering Turkey’s role as
a mediator in the region and the close Israeli-Turkish defense ties.

Now senior officials in both countries seem to be working to patch
things up.

"We give special importance to our bilateral ties with Israel and we
want to preserve ties with that country," Cicek said.

"We will still have close economic and military relations with Turkey,
even with Erdogan’s Justice and Development party," a senior Israeli
diplomatic official told the Post on Tuesday. "But there won’t be any
communication with Erdogan himself. He went too far, and we simply
can’t trust him again. He hasn’t even bothered to apologize."

The Turkish prime minister’s rhetorical attacks on Israel were
accompanied by mass demonstrations against Israel and a spate of
anti-Semitic incidents against Jewish property in the country that
raised safety concerns for the five-century-old community.

There are 23,000 Jews in the predominantly Muslim country of more
than 70 million.

On Monday, a leading American Jewish group told the Post that US
Jews might consider supporting Armenian efforts to win recognition
of century-old Turkish massacres as genocide.

Perhaps in response to this threat, Erdogan himself said Sunday that
Turkey had no history of anti-Semitism, calling the hatred of Jews a
"crime against humanity."

Then, on Tuesday, he insisted that criticism of Israel’s offensive
in Gaza should not be regarded as anti- Semitism, and seemed eager
to reassure Turkey’s Jewish citizens that they are safe.

"There has been no anti-Semitism in the history of this country,"
Erdogan told ruling party lawmakers. "As a minority, they’re our
citizens. Both their security and the right to observe their faith
are under our guarantee."

In a statement, the Jewish community welcomed statements by Erdogan
and other Turkish officials that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated,
and noted a decrease since the January 18 Gaza cease-fire of what it
called "anti-Semitic manifestations" during protests against Israel.

"Numerous sensible and impartial journalists and intellectuals have
accentuated that this is not a war of religions," said Musevi Cemaati,
which means Jewish Community in Turkish.

But the group, which has links to Turkey’s rabbis, said "at present
there are unfortunately several TV programs with messages embedded
with harshly anti-Semitic rhetoric."

The group appeared to be referring to some current affairs programs and
other news shows in which comments deemed to be anti-Jewish were made.

It said it was in contact with Cabinet ministers and members of
parliament, and was cooperating closely with police as it worked to
ensure "community premises and members are protected."

Haberturk television reported that Mustafa Cagirici, the chief Islamic
cleric in Istanbul, instructed clerics to avoid statements in weekly
sermons on Friday that would disturb the Jewish community.

In November 2003, Islamic terrorists linked to al- Qaida detonated
bombs outside two synagogues in Istanbul, killing and injuring
dozens. Since then, police have often been posted at Jewish centers.

Jewish community leaders say there have been several hundred
anti-Semitic writings in Turkish media, and that prosecutors have
failed to take legal action. Turkey bans acts that incite racial or
religious hatred.

Turkey acted as a mediator last year in peace efforts between Israel
and Syria, and Erdogan said his country could still play such a role
despite his criticism of Israel.

"Telling the truth is not an obstacle to being a mediator between
two countries," Erdogan said.

Nobody wants to see Turkish-Israeli relations torn asunder, said
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, referring to the
apparent cooling of tempers between the two countries.

"But we can’t be silent in the face of the incitement in recent
weeks. We can’t become willing partners of scapegoating us," he said.

Attacking Israel is a "cheap shot," he added.

"It’s important to see a healing in relations, but it has to start
with the prime minister [Erdogan] and be reflected internally and
externally in Turkey," he noted.

PARLIAMENT HEARING OF CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO BE HELD IN ARMENIA

ARKA
Feb 6, 2009

YEREVAN, February 6. /ARKA/. Parliament hearings of a special public
report on the legislative problems of children’s rights are to be
held in Armenia.

The Public Relations Department, RA Parliament, reports that the
hearings have been arranged by the Parliamentary Commission for Human
Rights and Social Affairs.

ANNOUNCING THE U.S.-ARMENIA PARTNERSHIP ON THE BIOLOGICAL THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

ArmInfo
2009-02-05 13:01:00

ArmInfo. The Government of the Republic of Armenia and the Government
of the United States of America are planning to sign the Agreement
between the Department of Defense of the United States of America
and the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Armenia
Concerning Cooperation in the Area of Prevention of Proliferation
of Technology, Pathogens and Expertise that Could Be Used in
the Development of Biological Weapons within the framework of the
Biological Threat Reduction Program. The Biological Threat Reduction
Program already works in Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.

The Program seeks partners in the global fight against biological
weapons proliferation. Through the Program the Armenian Ministry of
Emergency Situations and the U.S. Department of Defense will work
to improve Armenia’s overall biosafety and biosecurity systems and
procedures, consolidate and secure dangerous pathogen collections
and research, and enhance capacity to detect, diagnose, report and
respond to outbreaks.

Recognizing that disease has no boundaries, and terrorists remain
a continuing threat, the parties believe it is imperative to form
strategic partnerships to face these global challenges.

The United States of America welcomes Armenia, its newest partner to
the Biological Threat Reduction Program, and underscoring Armenia’s
scientific potential and existing resources, looks forward to
productive cooperation.

The Republic of Armenia, being committed to the global fight against
terrorism, appreciates the assistance of the United States and its
expertise in this area, and looks forward to tangible results for
the benefit of the two nations.

Work on the Biological Threat Reduction Program will be carried out
under the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of Armenia Concerning
Cooperation in the Area of Counterproliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction that was signed in 2000 and the bilateral Biological Threat
Reduction Program legal framework agreement that the governments of
the United States and the Republic of Armenia will sign soon.

Before signing the agreement, U.S. and Armenian experts have begun
to develop implementation plans for this cooperative endeavor.

DRAMATURGE: "STARVING FOR REAL CITIZEN"

Panorama.am
19:48 03/02/2009

While some political parties in Armenia were discussing whether
PACE would suspend Armenia’s voting right, a group of intellectuals
of Armenia was concerned with the issue, and another group was
indifferent, said dramaturge Karine Khodikyan during a press
conference.

The intellectuals should have joined and should demand from the
officials to do everything to guarantee that Armenia would not
be suspended of its voting right, she said. "Unfortunately, the
intellectuals have not joined," said the dramaturge.

Film director Tigran Khzmalyan said that a group of intellectuals
wanted Armenia to be suspended of voting right. He said that world
needs intellectuals to hear the truth, if the intellectuals don’t
describe the true scene, then they are not needed.

K. Khodikyan said that Armenia is facing a real regress. "No citizen
of Armenia feels like real citizen of its country. We starve for
real citizens. In a democratic country citizens should feel like real
citizens of that country," she said.

NKR PRESIDENT HELD A WORKING CONSULTATION

Azat Artsakh Daily
02 Feb 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]

On 31 January NKR President Bako Sahakyan held a working consultation
on the activities of "Shen" organization directed at developing
viticulture in Artsakh. Underlining the importance of developing
viticulture for the republic’s economy, the Head of the State noted
that this process should be of a comprehensive nature encompassing
potential and prospects of production, processing and realization. Only
in this case it will be possible to register palpable results.
NKR premier Ara Haroutyunyan, minister of agriculture Armo Tsatouryan,
director of "Shen" organization Haik Minasyan, heads of appropriate
structures partook at the consultation. On the same day the President
held a meeting with director of "Karabagh Telecom" company Ralph
Eyerekyan. Issues related to the activities of the company in the
republic were discussed at the meeting.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Ahmadinejad hails Erdogan’s walkout in Davos
31.01.2009 13:38 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday
that the objection of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to
remarks by Israeli President Shimon Peres was "a genuine expression of
the heartfelt feelings of both the Turkish people and other nations
worldwide."

Erdogan walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli
president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the
World Economic Forum on Thursday, and vowed never to return to the
annual gathering.

Ahmadinejad hailed Erdogan’s reaction as "praiseworthy" and said the
Turkish PM, as a human being who felt deeply for human dignity and
justice, "behaved the way he was expected in condemning the Zionist
crimes and its barbaric atrocities," KUNA reports.