Author: Varosian Antranik

OBAMA: THE NEW GUY IN TOWN
By Emre Uslu & Onder Aytac

Today’s Zaman
Nov 3 2008
Turkey

Short of a surprise, Barack Obama will be the next president of
the United States. It will be a truly historic period for American
politics as well as world affairs. Given that the basic premises of
Obama’s election strategy are "hope" and "change," one should ask in
what direction "change" in American policies will be evolving and to
whom it brings hope.

There is no doubt that not only his domestic politics but his foreign
policy preferences will be shaped by his overall message that a
positive change can create hope for Americans. His basic premise would
tell us in what direction American foreign policy preferences will
evolve in our region. It seems that the world is supporting Obama’s
idea of "change"; however, the "change" that Obama talks about and the
"change" people around the world expect might not be compatible.

Obama’s "change" policies will be predominantly oriented toward
American domestic policy. For instance, by ending the unpopular
war in Iraq, he expects to generate momentum among American people
to support his foreign policy preferences. But his preference to
change the status quo in Iraq may not make Kurds in Iraq happy and
hopeful. Would it make Turkey happy? We do not know yet. His policy
to change American aggressions around the world could make Russia
more aggressive. Would that make Georgia, Ukraine or Turkey happy? No.

When establishing his foreign policies, what Obama will predominantly
take into account is what Americans think about developments around the
world. Thus, media coverage about the crises around the world would
be one of the factors that would pressure the Obama administration
to take action. For instance, an Obama administration would likely
get directly involved with a crisis similar to Darfur. Unless these
problems thaw on their own, Obama isn’t likely to get involved in
frozen conflicts such as Cyprus or the Armenian genocide claims. Based
on this expectation, we can assume that an Obama administration would
be one that seeks to work with the actors to maintain the status quo.

Turkey is one of the actors with which the Obama administration would
want to establish better relations from Day 1. In fact, the Obama
campaign announced the restoration of a strategic partnership with
Turkey. In their foreign policy outline, "A Stronger Partnership
with Europe for a Safer America," Obama and Biden devoted a whole
paragraph to Turkey. They said that they "believe that a close
relationship with a stable, democratic, Western-oriented Republic
of Turkey is an important U.S. national interest. That relationship
has been deeply strained in recent years, most importantly by the
Bush administration’s misguided and mismanaged intervention in Iraq,
which has helped revive the terrorist threat posed to Turkey by the
separatist Kurdish Workers’ Party [PKK]."

It signals that an Obama administration, unlike the Bush
administration, will be actively involved in solving the PKK problem
in Turkey. They outline a plan to "bring together Turkish and Iraqi
Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals
with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkey’s territorial integrity,
and facilitates badly needed Turkish investment in and trade with
the Kurds of northern Iraq."

Unlike the advocates of the "genocide industry" in Turkey and
Washington who claim that Obama and Biden will put Turkey in a
difficult position, it would certainly be a good sign for Turkey to
see an Obama administration. He and Biden are two pragmatic American
politicians, and most importantly, they understand Turkey’s critical
position.

In fact, the word "genocide" in their outline is spelled out only
once to mention the Bosnian genocide. There is no mention of Armenia,
and they devoted another paragraph to the Cyprus problem. On that,
they "believe strongly that Cyprus should remain a single country in
which each of the two communities on the island is able to exercise
substantial political authority in its own geographical zone —
with a just and mutually agreed settlement of difficult issues like
property, refugees, land, and security." Is there a major difference
between what Turkey wants and what Obama and Biden want? No.

Most importantly, Obama and Biden, unlike the Bush administration,
understand the volatility of Turkish democracy and put emphasis
on "Turkish democracy" without any adjective before it. In their
statement, they clearly outline that they "will support the promotion
of democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression in Turkey and
support its efforts to join the European Union."

After all that, what can a Turk say? Welcome, Obama and Biden!

MCCAIN LAYS BARE THE FALLACY AT THE HEART OF ‘THE WAR ON TERROR’
by Tony Karon

The National
Nov 2 2008
United Arab Emirates

Desperately scrambling to reel in Barack Obama’s lead last week,
John McCain urged undecided Americans to imagine their priorities in
a way that might make them more likely to choose him. "For weeks now,
the attention of our country has been focused on the serious financial
troubles we face," he began. "When the jobs and financial security
of our people seem at risk, it is hard to spare much thought even for
the great and abiding concerns of this nation’s security… But these
dangers have not gone away while we turned our attention elsewhere."

Senator McCain’s aversion to focusing on the economy is quite
understandable: it’s an issue on which more American voters trust
Senator Obama to steer them through what they know will be a long and
vicious storm. So Mr McCain instead sought to persuade them that,
in fact, the economy will soon correct itself, and then the next
president will have to confront the key challenge of our times: "Is
[Barack Obama] a man who has what it takes to protect America from
Osama bin Laden?"

The suggestion that al Qa’eda poses more danger to the well-being of
ordinary Americans than a tanking economy that threatens the jobs and
homes of millions seems preposterous to any sober observer: al Qa’eda
is a small conspiratorial organisation that once, seven years ago,
managed to pull off a spectacular attack on US soil, and has over
the same period pulled off a few more such grisly stunts in London,
Madrid, Casablanca and Bali. It controls no territory and is incapable
of disrupting the defences of even the weakest states on the planet,
much less the most powerful. To suggest it poses a greater risk than
the most profound slump in three generations made a good Halloween
story, nothing more.

But if McCain was simply trying to scare people into voting for him,
he was inadvertently laying bare the fallacy at the heart of the Bush
administration’s "War on Terror", which made the organising principle
of US foreign policy a campaign against a handful of extreme jihadists.

Terror – politically motivated violence against civilians – has
always been a tactic favoured by marginal groups, who are able to
amplify their importance through the publicity garnered by grotesque
acts of carnage. But in itself, terrorism is rarely able to transform
the balance of power in favour of the terrorists. Palestinian radical
groups used the tactics of terror very effectively in the early 1970s
to prevent their people joining the Armenians in the panoply of the
world’s displaced and forgotten nations. But it was not until the
intifada that began in 1987, which made the occupation politically
untenable, that the PLO forced Israel to begin seeking a political
solution.

Unlike mass insurrection or insurgency, a campaign of terrorism
can be waged by a couple of dozen individual. Terrorism, after all,
is not warfare in any traditional sense; it does nothing to disrupt
the functioning of a state. It is simply a particularly brutal form
of marketing an idea. The power of the attacks of 9/11 was primarily
symbolic, making the whole world take notice – indeed, it is unlikely
that those who devised the plan believed the twin towers would fall;
the fact that they did was equivalent to windmills crumpling before
Don Quixote’s charge.

Like Che Guevara on his doomed adventure in Bolivia, the leaders
of al Qa’eda hoped that by demonstrating that they could bloody the
"far enemy" on his own soil, the global ummah would turn a marginal
jihadist movement into an insurrectional challenge to US-aligned
regimes all over the Muslim world. Nothing like this happened, of
course, and even in the most vulnerable pro-Western Muslim polities,
the balance of power remained unchanged. Even Islamist insurgencies
fighting US allies in places such as Gaza and Lebanon viewed al Qa’eda
with scepticism.

But when the Bush administration responded by invading first
Afghanistan and then Iraq in the name of stamping out the threat
of terrorism, it turned the Muslim masses against the US far
more effectively than the 9/11 attacks had done, and brought on a
spectacular decline in US strategic influence. Pakistan’s suggestion,
in the weeks after the attacks, that the US pursue a policy aimed
at separating the Taliban from al Qa’eda was swept aside and the US
plunged in to a war that is now proving unwinnable – and the original
Pakistani suggestion is becoming conventional wisdom.

In Iraq, it was only once the US decided to isolate the small bands of
al Qa’eda fighters by negotiating with (and even paying the salaries
of) many of the insurgents that had been killing American troops, that
they managed to turn things around. In Pakistan, a policy prioritising
military attacks on the communities hosting a handful of al Qa’eda
leaders has helped ignite an insurgency that has threatened the
viability of the Pakistani state.

In Somalia, the fact that a handful of al Qa’eda operatives were
sheltered by an element in the Islamist movement was enough for
Washington to back an Ethiopian invasion; but a political solution
that includes the Islamists will be the only way to restore stability
and end the piracy plaguing the Somali coastline.

Even domestic political liberty and the US constitution have suffered
egregious damage at the hands of the "war on terror", whose obsession
with al Qa’eda has become self-destructive to US global interests on
a scale commensurate with that wrought by Captain Ahab’s pursuit of
Moby Dick.

To the extent that the next president has much time for anything
beyond extracting the economy from a very deep ditch, the overriding
priority will be cleaning up the mess created by President Bush’s
obsession with Osama bin Laden. Call me Ishmael…

NO EXPERT EXAMINATION OF MARCH 1 FILM

A1+
[07:01 pm] 30 October, 2008

In a meeting with the NA Chairman yesterday member of the "Prosperous
Armenia" faction and member of the March 1 temporary commission Naira
Zohrabyan proposed to send the film presented by the opposition to
an international expert examination to find out whether it was edited
or not.

If it’s not about particular scenes, but rather the entire film,
then there is no sense in wasting time and money to conduct an expert
examination. It is more than clear that if it is a film in which there
are different scenes showing the events that took place in different
periods, then it’s obvious that those scenes were clipped together
during the editing.

Did the commission approve Zohrabyan’s proposal and will it send
the film to an international expert examination? We found out from
president of the commission Samvel Nikoyan that that was a proposal
made right off the bat, that nobody had ever expressed the wish to
do that and that he doesn’t find it suitable to send the film to an
expert examination.

"Your cameraman said that he had filmed the scene with the jaw and
blood. I believe that he shot that scene and that it is unedited,"
told "A1+" Samvel Nikoyan. He added that the commission had received
a conclusion from experts saying that it was the jaw of an omnivorous
animal and that the commission currently has no facts to prove the
opposite. So, it turns out that Nikoyan doesn’t trust Shota Vardanyan
who concluded that that was the jaw of a piglet.

Question: Why didn’t police find the jaw of the piglet in the lake
of blood as a result of an on-the-spot examination after the events
of March 1 and 2?

Perhaps this is a question that the commission members should raise
after several meetings with head of the investigative group Vahagn
Harutyunyan and not the journalists.

RUSSIAN EXPERT: TURKISH AND IRANIAN DELEGATES COULD REPLACE U.S. AND EU REPRESENTATIVES IN OSCE MG

PanARMENIAN.Net
28.10.2008 15:32 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ There are two preconditions for resumption of
Karabakh peace process: Baku’s closer relations with Russia and the
shift in Turkey’s approach to regional developments, according to a
Russian expert.

"The latest indicative event is the visit of U.S. Vice President
Dick Cheney to Baku and the way he was received. Cheney arrived
in Azerbaijan to enlist support for formation of an anti-Russian
coalition. However, President Ilham Aliyev, who has known Cheney
for a long time, did not even come to the airport to welcome the
guest. Furthermore, during the conversation Cheney was clearly
given to understand that Azerbaijan will strain relations with
Moscow. Later, Aliyev offered Russia to export a part of Azeri oil
through Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline, thus questioning expediency
of Baku-Ceyhan, which was a U.S. initiative," Alexander Kuznetsov,
senior expert at Russian Center of Geopolitical Expertise, said.

"Another precondition is the shift in Turkey’s approach to regional
developments. Turkey has become more realistic, what was proved by
landmark visit of President Gul to Armenia. In this respect, it makes
sense to think of replacement of U.S. and EU representatives in OSCE
Minsk Group by Turkish and Iranian representatives. The Karabakh
process is complicated and it would be too na?ve to suppose that
the 20-year-old problem can be resolved within several months. But
one thing is clear: it must be resolved. Acting as a constructive
mediator, Russia will refute all accusations of "attempts to revive
the soviet empire," and will gain authority in the CIS," the expert
wrote in an article posted on Geopolitika.ru.

Agence France Presse
October 22, 2008 Wednesday

‘Serious damage’ to Armenian economy from Georgia conflict: PM

YEREVAN, Oct 22 2008

Armenia’s economy has suffered damages of 670 million dollars (520
million euros) from the August war between Russia and neighbouring
Georgia, Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian said Wednesday.

"Armenia has suffered serious damage from the Georgia-Russia
conflict," he said at a session of the ex-Soviet republic’s
parliament. Officials have previously said Armenia’s trade was
disrupted and investors were scared off.

Georgia lies between Armenia and Russia, which are close allies.

Sarkisian’s comments came on the same day that an international donor
conference in Brussels pledged 4.55 billion dollars (3.5 billion
euros) in aid to conflict-stricken Georgia, which was partly occupied
by Russian troops.

Georgia is a crucial transit country for Armenia, as neighbours
Azerbaijan and Turkey have closed their borders with the country over
its support for Armenian separatists in Azerbaijan’s breakaway region
of Nagorny Karabakh.

Sarkisian said both Moscow and Washington would provide "financial and
technical help" to soften the impact of the conflict on the Armenian
economy.

Armenia is also one of the largest recipients of foreign aid from the
United States, home to a large Armenian diaspora.

Russia sent troops into Georgia on August 8 to repel a Georgian
military attempt to retake the Moscow-backed rebel region of South
Ossetia.

Russian forces occupied swathes of the country, but later withdrew to
within South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, which Russia
has recognised as independent states.

The conflict raised fears of instability throughout the South
Caucasus, a strategic region wedged between Iran, Russia and Turkey.

WPS Agency, Russia
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 24, 2008 Friday

WILL RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS LIFT BLOCKADE OFF KARABAKH?

by Yekaterina Grigorieva

RUSSIA UNDERTAKES TO SETTLE THE CONFLICT OVER NAGORNO-KARABAKH;
Presidents of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan will meet to discuss
Nagorno-Karabakh.

Toting up results of his visit to Yerevan, President Dmitry Medvedev
said the leaders of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan would meet soon to
discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.

Armenia is one of the victims of the South Ossetian conflict. Ferry to
Poti, Georgia, is the only alternative to expensive shipment of cargo
by the air. The ferry makes the trip once a week these days – too
infrequently even for so small a country as Armenia is. Political
difficulties meanwhile are even more formidable. Moscow’s ally as it
is, Yerevan is supposed to support recognition of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. It cannot do so. Supporting recognition of the former
Georgian autonomies, it will have to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as
well. Failure to do so will frustrate Armenian general
public. Recognition on the other hand is not something Azerbaijan will
put up with. Skirmishes between Armenian and Azerbaijani border guards
are too frequent as it is.

"Armenia is ready for the negotiations," President Serj Sarkisjan
announced. He said, however, that Armenia intended to take into
account Nagorno-Karabakh’s right to self-determination.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said several days ago that Karabakh
conflict settlement was making progress and that a couple of nuances
only had to be addressed now. Yerevan took offense. It decided that
what Lavrov was saying was that abandonment of claims for
Nagorno-Karabakh would make it easier for Armenia to get out of the
transport blockade. What information is available to Izvestia,
however, indicates that Lavrov reassured his Armenian colleagues and
said that he had only wanted to focus attention on some practical
issues. Including, one might think, the recent improvement of the
relations between Armenia and Turkey. What will happen now? Some
experts assume that deployment of Russian peacekeepers in
Nagorno-Karabakh is a definite possibility (there are no legal
obstacles to it, as matters stand). Others believe that another
Russian military base may be established in Armenia, a means to change
the correlation of forces in the region in Moscow’s favor.

Source: Izvestia (Moscow issue), October 22, 2008, pp. 1 – 2
Translated by Aleksei Ignatkin

NON-PARTICIPATION – UNACCEPTABLE

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
25 Oct 2008
Armenia

"I consider that non-participation in the activities of the
fact-finding group is unacceptable, at least as far as I am concerned.

This was a step the necessity of which was underlined until quite
necessary.

I attach much importance to the fact that the special report submitted
by the Human Rights Defender is going to serve as a basis for the
activities of the fact-finding group.

All this arguments are in favor of participation, and it is necessary
to welcome this initiative of the President," Human Rights Defender
ARMEN HAROUTYUNYAN is convinced

TURKISH-ARMENIAN SPRING TO BLOSSOM IN A JOINT DOCUMENTARY

Turkish Daily News
Friday, October 24, 2008
Turkey

After September’s football diplomacy between Ankara and Yerevan
marked the start of a new era, filmmakers from the two nations have
come together to produce a documentary film conveying their hope for
a continued thaw.

The group of Turkish and Armenian filmmakers came together to make
a documentary film based on the story of the Aras River, which runs
along the border between the two countries. The film depicts the end of
winter and blossoming of spring along the shared border, as a metaphor
for hope for a continued thaw in relations between the two countries.

Armenian film director Gevorg Nazarian and his Turkish counterpart,
Eray Mert, hope to be nominated for an Oscar in the documentary film
category, as well as attract international attention at international
festivals such as Cannes.

The documentary project, which is sponsored by the Turkish-Armenian
Business Development Council, or TABDC, and the Armenian Marketing
Association, takes its inspiration from real-life stories that have
been blossoming around the Aras River for decades.

The Turkish Daily News has learned the U.S. Embassy in Ankara is also
supporting the project, which adds an important dimension reflecting
Washington’s enthusiasm for the long-awaited Turkish-Armenian
rapprochement.

Turkish and Armenian production teams came together for a kick-off
meeting last week in Ankara, where directors Nazarian and Eray
exchanged views together with their screenwriters. According to the
scenario, which is still being drafted, the transition from winter to
summer in the Aras River region and the melting of the frozen waters
will be the theme, symbolizing the ice-breaking efforts between the
two nations.

Shooting is expected to start as the first snow falls on the Aras
River. The acting will be done by ordinary Turkish and Armenian
villagers from both sides of the river. Values shared by both nations
will be detailed throughout the film with an effort to remind viewers
of the shared history and to try to break down prejudices.

The famous folksong "Yellow Bride," which is claimed by both Turks and
Armenians, is being considered as the soundtrack for the film. "Yellow
Bride" was also played at the dinner hosted by Armenian President Serge
Sarkisian during President Abdullah Gul’s one-day trip to Yerevan on
Sept. 6.

While Gul and Sarkisian took the first political steps toward solving
the problems between the two countries, they agreed their efforts
should be supported by social and cultural projects to prepare both
societies for historic reconciliation. The joint documentary project
is considered among the first significant steps in this direction.

The co-chairman of the TABDC, Kaan Soyak, told the TDN the documentary
would display that the sealed border between Armenia and Turkey had
not been sufficient to cut ties between people.

"On both sides we have similar stories, similar lives, similar
people. If they are given the chance to cross borders and meet each
other, they will find out that the border was just a symbolic one. Our
documentary project will show how meaningless it is to close down
borders," he added.

Soyak expressed his belief that the documentary would encourage
political leaders to rapidly proceed in opening borders and removing
barriers.

MEDVEDEV, SARGSYAN SOLEMNLY OPEN SQUARE OF RUSSIA IN YEREVAN

Interfax News Agency
Oct 21 2008
Russia

The coordination of Russian and Armenian effort in the international
arena is a serious factor in the security of the Caucasian region,
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at the solemn opening ceremony
of the Square of Russia in Yerevan.

"Comprehensive multifaceted cooperation, as well as the understanding
of apparent advantages in searching for joint responses to various
modern threats, further promotes Russian-Armenian relations. I am
certain that the coordination of our positions in the Caucasian region
and the world is a serious factor in making the region safe as well
as strengthening our world positions," Medvedev said.

Russia will continue doing everything to strengthen and develop
the strategic partnership, "so that new projects and more direct
humanitarian ties add to traditions of mutual cultural enrichment,"
he said.

The opening of the Square of Russia in Yerevan is a landmark event,
which proves how deep relations between the two countries are, the
Russian president said.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said at the ceremony that he hopes
that Square of Russia will become "a symbol of devotion and friendship
between the two peoples."

There are also squares of Brazil and France in Yerevan. Jacques Chirac
opened Square of France in 2006.

RUSSIAN, ARMENIAN, AZERI PRESIDENT COULD SOON DISCUSS NAGORNO-KARABAKH IN MOSCOW

Interfax News Agency
Oct 21 2008
Russia

Russian, Armenian and Azeri presidents could soon meet in Moscow in
order to discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev said.

The August events showed that "any complicated issue should be resolved
on the basis of international principles," Medvedev said, adding:
"there is nothing that can bring more positive results."

Asked to comment on the state of affairs in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue,
Medvedev said: "It is hard to define the level of such talks. We are
at an advanced stage; both parties are ready for talks. I will not
comment on nuances, because this is a negotiating process."

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan confirmed that Armenia "is ready
to continue talks on the basis of the Madrid principles." "They are
very simple. They include the recognition of the principle of self-
determination and the right of the Karabakh people. We are convinced
that the Karabakh issue could be resolved on the basis of compromises
and talks," the Armenian leader said.