ARMENIA RUMINATES OVER NATO MEMBERSHIP
By Ara Tadevosian in Yerevan for IWPR

Institute for War & Peace Reporting, UK
Nov 29 2006

Yerevan seeks to build better relations with Brussels, while not
offending Moscow.

Armenian politicians say that the issue of their country joining NATO
is currently not on the agenda – but they say so far less categorically
than just a few years ago. Relations with the North Atlantic alliance
are deepening and Moscow is no longer Yerevan’s only strategic ally.

Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanian told the Rose Roth NATO
parliamentary conference in Yerevan last year that the alliance could
play an important role in providing security in the Caucasus. Defense
minister Serzh Sarkisian was more cautious but said that relations
with the USA and NATO as well as with Russia and Armenia’s membership
of the Collective Security Pact of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) were the basis of its security.

"Basically last year was a breakthrough," Aris Ghazinian, an expert
with the Caucasus analytical centre in Yerevan, told IWPR. "Two
high-ranking officials made statements that from now on Armenia sees
two vectors when it comes to security issues."

Another leading official, the then parliamentary speaker Artur
Baghdasarian, went further in April this year when he told the German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, "the future of Armenia is the EU
and NATO" and "Russia should not stand in our way towards Europe."

Two days later, President Robert Kocharian corrected his colleague,
saying that Armenia had no intention to join NATO. Baghdasarian
said that he viewed it as a long-term prospect. Not long afterwards,
he resigned and went into opposition.

Public opinion is also shifting in favor of NATO. An opinion poll
conducted in Armenia in August showed that 42 percent of Armenians
favored joining the alliance and the number of strong opponents was
a mere nine percent.

Last year, Armenia and NATO agreed an Individual Partnership Agreement,
or IPAP, under which they agreed to work together to forge a "Strategy
of National Security and a Military Doctrine." This is the basis for
a program of reform of the armed forces of Armenia up until 2015.

This irritated some politicians in Russia, which was presented with
a finished document, despite regarding itself as Armenia’s chief
military ally – and the only country to have its troops stationed on
Armenian territory.

"Russia’s attitude toward cooperation between Armenia and NATO is
one of jealousy," said Ghazinian. "In NATO, the South Caucasus is
perceived as a single whole, despite an individual approach to each
separate country. And the basic feeling of jealousy is linked to the
fact that NATO perceives the region as a single whole."

Under one of Armenia’s commitments in IPAP, an Information Centre on
NATO opened its doors in Yerevan on 13 November. David Alaverdian,
who initiated the project, said that its aim was not for Armenia to
join NATO, but to inform Armenians about the alliance and the benefits
of cooperation with it.

"It is no secret that very many people in Armenia continue to perceive
NATO through the prism of the Cold War," Alaverdian told IWPR.

Many Armenian experts welcome the IPAP on the grounds that it demands
serious reforms of Armenia’s armed forces.

"The IPAP foresees the forging of closer links between the army and
society and the introduction of a mechanism of public control over the
armed forces," said Tevan Poghosian, executive director of the Armenian
Atlantic Association. "As a result of these reforms, the Armenian army
will grow stronger as the public’s trust in our armed forces grows."

Poghosian also noted that Azerbaijan – with whom Armenia is in dispute
over Nagorny Karabakh – had its own IPAP and reform program.

"Today we could say that a parallel process is taking place in
Armenia and Azerbaijan," he said. "I think that it will be extremely
beneficial for NATO to have a situation in which the armed forces
of Armenia and Azerbaijan become more predictable for the alliance
and will operate on the basis of similar standards. In the future,
it could provide the opportunity for collaboration between the armies
of Armenia and Azerbaijan, for example in dealing with the aftermath
of natural disasters."

However, the Armenian political elite is still treading a fine line
in its public comments over cooperation with NATO.

Last year, defense minister – and leading presidential contender in
2008 – Serzh Sarkisian said that Armenia’s armed forces aspired to
reach "international standards" – a phrase that commentators suggested
was carefully chosen to avoid specific mention of NATO.

Sarkisian went out of his way this week to say that there should be
no contradiction between Armenia’s membership of the Moscow-led CIS
Collective Security Pact and good relations with NATO.

"We should understand that military and political blocs are formed
for the sake of something, not in opposition to something," said
Sarkisian. He went on, "The agreement on the Collective Security
Pact was signed not against NATO, but to protect the security of the
countries that are part of it."

This message was repeated by Kurt Volker, the US principal deputy
assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, in a recent
conversation with Armenian journalists.

Other politicians are worried about the implications of closer
relations with NATO, when Turkey, its historical foe, is a member of
the alliance.

"NATO cannot guarantee the security of Armenia, as long as Turkey is a
member of the alliance, with whom Armenia has no diplomatic relations,"
said former prime minister and defense minister Vazgen Manukian.

In any event, the tone of the conversation about Armenia and NATO
has changed, with NATO no longer being perceived as merely a hostile
bloc and relations with the alliance now being a subject of pragmatic
discussion.

Oskanian told IWPR that future plans with regard to NATO depended to
a large degree on developments in the rest of the Caucasus.

"It is quite possible that Georgia will really join NATO within the
next five or six years," he said. "Azerbaijan is not yet talking
about NATO membership. As for Armenia, processes are underway which
we can’t stop. It’s hard to say what the next step will be. I think
that a lot will depend on the time frame of Georgia joining NATO. In
any case there is still time."

KARABAKH TALKS IN ‘FINAL STAGE’
By RFE/RL staff (29/11/06)

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
Nov 29 2006

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said today that negotiations on a
settlement with Armenia over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh
are entering their ‘final stage, RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service reported.

"It has been almost three years that the Karabakh negotiations have
been conducted within the Prague [peace] process," Aliyev said.

"During this period we have had many meetings at the levels of
presidents and foreign ministers. Of course, in these meetings ways
of resolving the problem were discussed. There were different stages,
but I can tell you we are approaching the final stage of negotiations."

Aliyev’s comments, broadcast on Azerbaijani State Television, came a
day after his talks with Armenian President Robert Kocharian on the
sidelines of the CIS summit in Minsk.

Constructive talks Aliyev assessed the results of his 28 November
meeting with Kocharian as "good," saying that the "negotiations were
held in a constructive matter." The success of future negotiations,
he added, will depend on the two presidents.

"The most contentious issues were at the center of the negotiations,"
Aliyev said. "Lately we have succeeded in resolving some of them. On
some of the issues on which we previously disagreed, we now have
agreement. But we still have some principal issues on which we have
different opinions. And both presidents addressed these issues."

Armenia has not yet commented on Aliyev’s statement. However,
upon arriving in Yerevan on 28 November, Armenian Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian provided a similar appraisal of the presidents’
talks that day.

"I can’t give you an assessment yet whether there was a progress
during the talks or not, but I can tell you that both presidents
positively evaluated the meeting itself in terms of atmosphere and
constructive approaches," Oskanian said. "I think in coming days the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will analyze everything in detail,
after which they will give concrete instruction to the ministers
about further steps to be taken."

The two countries are still officially at war over the predominantly
Armenian territory that seceded from Soviet Azerbaijan in 1988. About
30,000 people died in fighting between the two sides before a
Russian-brokered cease-fire was reached in 1994. The conflict
has been "frozen" ever since, with Armenian forces occupying
Nagorno-Karabakh.

Clear stance The Azerbaijani president clearly outlined the stance his
country is taking in negotiations on a settlement to the longstanding
conflict.

"Azerbaijan hasn’t changed its position," he said. "Azerbaijan insists
on the resolution of the issue [of Nagorno-Karabakh] on the basis of
our territorial integrity. The four resolutions of the UN Security
Council should be implemented. Azerbaijan’s land should be vacated by
the occupying forces, and more than 1 million of our citizens should
be able to return to their lands.

"Again, Azerbaijan’s position has not changed. [Azerbaijan’s]
territorial integrity should be restored and within that [restoration],
the people who live in Nagorno-Karabakh should be given the highest
status for self-rule."

Aliyev had strong praise for the role international mediators have had
in trying to resolve the dispute. The OSCE Minsk group, co-chaired
by representatives of Russia, the United States, and France, has
overseen negotiations since the 1994 cease-fire went into effect.

"Respected international organizations saying that the issue should
be resolved within the principle of our territorial integrity –
of course this approach strengthens our position," Aliyev said.

"Generally, every issue should be resolved in keeping with
international law and norms. No issue can be resolved outside of
this approach. Because the creation of any kind of precedent can also
create problems in the future for other countries."

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GEORGIAN LEADER SIGNALS GAS DEAL WITH AZERBAIJAN

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Nov 29 2006

President Saakashvili hinted on November 29 that Azerbaijan is willing
to provide Georgia with natural gas, as Tbilisi desperately seeks
alternative supplies to ease energy dependency on Russia.

President Saakashvili met with Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliyev on the
sidelines of the CIS summit in Minsk on November 28.

"I think this winter will become a historic example of brotherly
relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia," Saakashvili told reporters
in London, where he arrived overnight after Minsk summit.

He neither specified whether any concrete deal was reached during
the meeting, nor elaborated further details of talks.

"During the meeting, the two Presidents discussed issues related to
further enhancement of bilateral ties in various fields. Other issues
of mutual interests were also discussed," an official Azerbaijani
news agency AzerTag reported without any other details.

Meanwhile, Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, who accompanied
by Energy Minister Nika Gilauri, will pay one-day working visit to
Azerbaijan on November 30, said that Georgia may achieve favorable
"re-contracting" of Shah-Deniz gas deal.

Georgia wants to buy more gas from Azeri Shah-Deniz field than it is
currently envisaged by the contract – Turkey and Azerbaijan are also
part of this contract.

Georgia is expected to receive 200 million cubic meters of gas as
a transit fee, plus 50 million cubic meters at a reduced price from
the South Caucasus Gas Pipeline, which will transport Azeri gas to
Turkey via Georgia next year.

PM Nogaideli noted that in the meantime, gas distribution companies
in Georgia are currently in talks with the Gazprom’s export arm.

"These talks with Gazexport are being held in Yerevan [Armenia] because
it was impossible to hold these talks in Moscow for various reasons,"
PM Nogaideli said.

Russia’s monopoly Gazprom told Georgia it wants USD 230 per 1000
cubic meters of gas in 2007 instead of current USD 110.

PM Nogaideli also noted that in late December a joint Georgian-Iranian
economic commission will gather in Tehran with his participation to
finally define terms of gas supply from Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Tefft warned recently that Washington
does not approve of Georgia having long-term strategic energy-related
cooperation with Iran.

Georgia conducted its first emergency gas import from Iran in January,
2006 after twin blasts on two gas pipes in Russia’s North Ossetia
disrupted supplies in Georgia.

Capacity of Georgian-Azerbaijani gas pipeline, which was used for
import of Iranian gas in a period from January 30 to February 5,
2006, was 4 million cubic meters per day which is roughly a half of
the amount needed for Georgia per a day.

Sources close to the government say Tbilisi tries to maximally reduce
share of Russian gas in total Georgia’s consumption.

But some opponents have warned that by totally rejecting Russian gas
Georgia may become dependent on another supplier.

"The government was telling us that they are trying to diversify energy
supplies, but instead it seems that they are just changing them. Real
diversification means to have various supplies, meaning that country
will not depend on a single energy provider," Davit Ebralidze, energy
expect affiliated with the opposition Republican Party, told RFE/RL
Georgian Service on November 29.

TURKISH PRESIDENT VETOES EU-SOUGHT RELIGION LAW

Reuters, UK
Nov 29 2006

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer vetoed an
EU-inspired law to improve the property rights of non-Muslims, the
president’s office said on Wednesday.

Sezer, a staunch secularist, sent the law back to parliament for nine
articles to be reviewed, the president’s office said.

The ruling came on the day the European Commission recommended
suspending some parts of Turkey’s accession talks because of its
failure to open its ports to EU member Cyprus.

The so-called foundations law, which fell short of European Union
expectations, affects Greek Orthodox, Syriac and Armenian communities,
and was approved after months of fierce debate in officially secular
but predominantly Muslim Turkey.

Nationalists were concerned the law would give non-Muslim minorities —
seen by some as foreign in the case of the Greek Orthodox Church —
more influence in Turkey.

Sezer, who is sometimes wary of EU-inspired reforms which he fears
could weaken the state or its secular structure, often vetoes
legislation, which the AK Party dominated parliament can overturn.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ILHAM ALIYEV: "WE MANAGED TO AGREE ON PREVIOUSLY UNCOORDINATED ISSUES"

Regnum, Russia
Nov 29 2006

"We are now at the stage when the future of the negotiation process
depends on us. From this point of view, I generally assess the results
of our recent meeting," Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev said in an
interview to AzTV commenting on the meeting with Armenia’s President
Robert Kocharyan in Minsk on November 28. "During our last meeting
very serious talks were held, we discussed disputable issues.

For the recent time, we have managed to settle a number of issues. We
managed to agree on previously uncoordinated issues, but there are
some principal questions, under which our opinions differ, we discussed
them as well," the Azerbaijani president noted.

At the same time, Ilham Aliyev said: "We are approaching the last
stage of talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement."

According to him, within the last three years the talks were held in
the frameworks of the Prague Process, and "during this time enough
meeting were held with participation of the presidents as well as of
foreign ministers, at which, of course, ways of settling the problem
were discussed." "For this period we have managed to overcome certain
stages and are close to the last stage of talks," the president said.

Speaking on Azerbaijan’s position, Ilham Aliyev said: "We advocate
settlement of the problem observing the principle of Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity. UN resolutions should be implemented. The
Azerbaijani territories should be freed from the occupants
and more than 1,000,000 of our citizens should be returned to
their territories. We are satisfied with the recent activity of
international institutions. They stated their position to settle the
conflict observing the principle of territorial integrity. Of course,
it strengthens our position," APA quotes Aliyev as saying.

ARMENIANS BLAME GEORGIA FOR "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE"

TREND, Azerbaijan
Nov 29 2006

Armenians blame Georgia for "Armenian Genocide". The materials spread
by Armenian Centre "Mirk" functioning in Yerevan speaks about it.

According to researches and studies of scientists of the Centre,
it was Georgian Army that committed genocide against Armenians
during military hostilities in Abkhazia in the beginning of 1990s in
Abkhazia. The Armenian scientists cite numerous facts and evidence
given by Armenian population of Abkhazia. They also say that official
Tbilisi is continuing to carry out the same destructive policy in
Samtzkhe-Javakheti, which populated with ethnic Armenians.

Georgia has become the fourth country after Turkey, Russia, and
Azerbaijan, "Armenian historians-researches" blame for committing
the so-called "Armenian Genocide".

AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT CONSIDERS THAT IN GENERAL, MEETING WITH Armenian Head Went Normal
Author: A.Ismaylova

TREND, Azerbaijan
Nov 29 2006

The prestigious international organizations expressed their attitude
towards the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh within the framework of
keeping the territorial integrity, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham
Aliyev stated in an interview with AzTV as a result of the Summit of
the CIS State Heads.

The State Head said that generally the activities of the international
organizations over the recent period satisfy Azerbaijan. "Of course,
it strengthens our position. In general each question can be resolved
in certain frameworks – international law, norm and principles. No
question can be resolved outside these frameworks, and beginning
of any precedents in the future may impose serious problems for
other countries. Therefore, we once again stress that the principal
position of Azerbaijan remains unchanged – the territorial integrity
of the country should be restored. The population living in the
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh will be presented the highest status
of self-governance within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,"
the State Head said.

According to him, for already three years, the negotiations regarding
the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
have been held within the Prague process. "Within this period, many
meetings took place at the level of Foreign Ministers and Presidents
of the two countries. Naturally these meeting focused on the ways
of resolving the problem. There were stages when we came to the
concluding results of the negotiations, and it is possible to say that
the positions of the sides have fully reformed. We are at the level
when the future negotiations depend on our negotiations. In this plan,
I consider the results of the recent meeting as normal," Aliyev said.

In addition, he said that the recent meeting in Minsk took place in
a constructive manner and the disputable questions were discussed.

"Over the recent period, we have achieved the solution of several
questions and agreed upon previously uncoordinated issues. But
principal issues representing difference still remains. Both Presidents
hold talks around this aspect," Aliyev said.

Touching on the position of Azerbaijan, he said that the position of
Azerbaijan remains unchanged. "Azerbaijan insists on the solution of
the problem within the territorial integrity of the country. Each of
the 4 Resolutions of the U.N. Security Council should be implemented,
the occupied territories of Azerbaijan should be released and more
than one million Azerbaijanis should return to their native lands,"
the President of Azerbaijan said.

BENEDICT XVI BETWEEN CONSTANTINOPLE AND ISTANBUL
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

American Chronicle, CA
Nov 29 2006

When, within a few hours, the Pope will land in Istanbul, he will find
himself for a few days outside Time; the evenly balanced gravitation
of Istanbul and Constantinople will place the Pontiff at a uniquely
equidistant point between Turkey and Europe, Christianity and Islam,
and Orient and Occident. Few moments counted as much as this in the
World History.

Pontiff’s visit is the Terminus Post Quem

Conflicting interests and disastrous policies cultivated and pursued
for hundreds of years by all parts involved, in the past and the
present, have brought the world at the brink of the abyss. Few realize
how close the Mankind has reached to the point of collapse.

>>From ecological disasters caused because of the Industrial
revolution, the emergence of a besotted society of consumers, and the
repeated arms races of all sorts to cultural and educational alienation
of hundreds of millions of people, the Mankind deviated to the utmost
materialism, extreme oppression, and absolute disregard of the Other,
let alone the other’s sensitivities.

Suddenly, the world has become too small to accommodate an
ill-conceived European unification, an American presence in five
continents, two expansionist economies like those of China and
India that are based on extreme and at times inhuman exploitation
of masses without alleviating poverty and misery, plus unjustified
and unsolicited anti-Americanism that emanates from uncultured and
thuggish dictators like the Venezuelan clown, and last but not least,
the hysteria and the hatred directed by the pseudo-Islamic sheikhs
and their millions of followers against all the rest.

And all interconnected and interrelated to an extent that you almost
cannot mend this without deteriorating that. What to do, and where
to start?

Benedict XVI does not represent the Occident!

To some this statement may sound odd and erroneous, but brief thought
is enough to drive us to the conclusion that Benedict XVI does not
and by definition cannot represent the gay couples legalized in
Spain or the accepted adoption of children by them. Furthermore,
Benedict XVI does not represent abortion, pedophilia, and the
ceaselessly increasing consumption of drugs by Western youth. No
one can disagree on this; Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church
do not represent the advanced materialism that invaded the Western
societies, taking all possible forms of existentialism of the Left,
Marxism, anarchism and/or nihilism. Even more so, Benedict XVI does
not represent secretive groups, plots and conspiracies, racism and
anti-Semitism, all the ideological contaminations that brought wars
and disaster to Europe and the world.

Benedict XVI represents, is the only Authority in the West to
represent, Justice, Equity, Humanism, dedication to Spiritual Concern,
and a certain Hope for many.

Benedict XVI represents Jesus, a person highly revered by Muslims,
and adored by Christians. There is no divergence between the Christian
and the Muslim sources about, and references to, Jesus as regards
his Foremost Authority in terms of Justice and Equity.

Representing Jesus’ Legacy – or at least part of it as Muslims
claim that too -, Benedict XVI can truly offer great service to the
confused Mankind of our times, by sticking to the most representative
Criterion for Jesus’ Concept of Justice; he must make it his, apply
it everywhere, and support the approach:

Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

Representing this sentence, Luke, 20:23-25, bringing forth Justice
in the relations among states and nations, religions and ideologies,
Benedict XVI has a chance to be heard and accepted by a significant
number of Muslims, who know that the Right and the Just is not the
monopoly of those who pray – like the Pharisees of Jesus’ times –
five times per day, but forget to endure self-criticism and rejection
of egoism.

Benedict XVI to vigorously support Turkey’s adhesion to the European
Union

The Pontiff is a Head of State; and as such, he is able to understand
that Vatican’s policies are not situated at the miserable level of
parochial politicians like the former French Prime Minister Alain
Juppe and other lower and lewder fellows of the French Right.

The Pontiff cannot tolerate perverse political interests that would
jeopardize the entire relationship of Christianity with Islam. As
an institution, millennia long Vatican cannot be compared with, and
therefore cannot allow policies corresponding to those of, the French
Fifth Republic (est. 1958). The horizon of the universal Christian –
Muslim relations cannot be damaged at the hands of people like Angela
Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, and their likes. Looking at the centuries
ahead, Benedict XVI, although German of origin, cannot take into
consideration the current pocket interests of German employees and
workers.

What could all this miserable microcosm of the European politicians
say, when Benedict XVI stipulates that Ephesus, Smyrna and Thyateira
are as European as Stockholm and Dublin?

What would they answer to the Pontiff stating that Basil of Caesarea
is as European, although Cappadocian, as Mohyieldin Ibn Al Arabi
of Andalusia?

One sentence of the Pontiff can avert a most perilous blockage of the
Turkish candidature at the hands of the Southern Cypriot president
who is known for his long dated hatred of Catholic Christianity.

Benedict XVI to adamantly denounce colonial practices

The possibility to understand is one of the most significant privileges
of the human being. Certainly the Pope understands that the masses
gathered at the Aghia Sophia Museum two days ago do not hate him
personally; they reject the injustices and the crimes carried out by
the French and the British in Algeria, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Arabia
and Mesopotamia.

By denouncing practices that were never accepted by Vatican, the
Pontiff will demonstrate to hundreds of millions of Muslims that he
agrees with them in the Search of Justice, namely that he indirectly
condemns the murderous work of the colonials, and their illegal,
unjust, and ultimately antihuman interference in the lands of the
Ottoman Empire.

The Pontiff understands very well that the manipulation of Christian
populations of the Ottoman Empire by the French, the Russians, and the
British, who mercilessly and cynically abandoned these populations,
after they had first long incited them against their own country,
was a disreputable work for which the absolute condemnation is badly
and urgently needed.

France rather than Turkey stands accused for the murder of hundreds
of thousands of Armenians of Van and of Aramaeans of Julamerg (the
Kutshanus Patriarchate) and Tur Abdin. What does it mean except
dishonesty and duplicity that France is vociferous when it comes
to Armenians killed in WW I, but keeps silent about the parallel
extermination of hundreds of thousands of Aramaeans?

Either all will be denounced or we all will forget it all. The
cynical, unethical and disreputable attitude of thugs like the racist
Kotcharian tyrant of Armenia, and his French presidential friend,
must be castigated in Jesus language and terms.

Only then, the Muslims will be able to repent for their mistakes,
regret for the oppression of millions of Aramaeans and Copts at their
hands, be apologetic for their anti-Semitism, and finally, commonly
with the Roman Pontiff, and all those who seek Justice and Truth on
Earth, contribute to shaping a future faraway from the contamination
of the anticlerical French conspirators.

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, and
Islamologist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 49,
is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of
encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and
writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek
nationalism, supported Martin Bernal’s Black Athena, and rejected the
Greco-Romano-centric version of History. He pleaded for the European
History by J. B. Duroselle, and defended the rights of the Turkish,
Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian, Arvanitic, Latin Catholic, and Jewish
minorities of Greece, asking for the international recognition of
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Born Christian Orthodox,
he adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al
Arabi. Greek citizen of Turkish origin, Prof. Megalommatis studied
and/or worked in Turkey, Greece, France, England, Belgium, Germany,
Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Russia, and carried out research
trips throughout the Middle East, Northeastern Africa and Central
Asia. His career extended from Research & Education, Journalism,
Publications, Photography, and Translation to Website Development,
Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales & Brokerage. He traveled
in more than 80 countries in 5 continents. He defends the Right
of Aramaeans, Oromos, Berbers, and Beja to National Independence,
demands international recognition for Somaliland, and denounces
Islamic Terrorism.

les/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17231

THE KURDS AND THE STATE
By Michael Rubin

American Enterprise Institute, DC –
Nov 29 2006

BOOK REVIEWS
Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2007)
Publication Date: December 1, 2006

In The Kurds and the State, derived from her University of Pennsylvania
doctoral dissertation, political scientist [Denise] Natali explores
how Kurdish nationalism developed in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. She does
this with the opacity and jargon of an academic: "This book explains
why Kudayetî, or Kurdish national identity, becomes ethnicized and
the similarities and variations in its manifestation across space
and time."

Resident Scholar Michael Rubin Beyond style, her comparative approach
has value. The Kurds are not monolithic, linguistically or politically,
though too many works treat them as such; to this, The Kurds and the
State is an important exception. Natali avoids contemporary Kurdish
narratives of victimization. Kurdish complaints that European powers
divided Kurdistan do not hold up to historical fact: the border between
what is now Turkey and Iran, for example, dates from the sixteenth
century. Nor does she make the mistake of many contemporary authors
and instant experts, retroactively extending Kurdish nationalism. She
explains how Kurdish nationalism grew in early twentieth century
Anatolia with the coming of European consuls and intra-communal
tensions. In contrast, Kurdish nationalism took longer to develop in
polyglot Iran, perhaps because there Sunni versus Shi’ite sectarian
practice rather than ethnicity determined the degree to which Kurds
could integrate.

Natali’s overviews and comparisons are thought-provoking. She
juxtaposes the growth of Kurdish participation in the political process
in Turkey with an increasingly stilted process in Iraq and notes how
Ankara’s embrace of the Kurds and their socioeconomic and political
diversification undercut any unitary sense of Kurdish identity in
Turkey. Her examination of Turkish strategies to undercut Kurdistan
Workers Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan) terrorism in the 1980s
is also useful, even if she remains critical of Ankara’s refusal to
"de-ethnicize the notion of Turkish citizenship." In these ways,
The Kurds and the State advances the staid and often simplified
historiography that marks Kurdish studies.

But Natali’s work is undercut by several problems, starting with her
unsure grasp of history. She amplifies, for example, the efficiency
of Ottoman state control and discounts the efficiency of Iranian
bureaucracy. While inefficient and weak by Western standards,
nineteenth century Iran was organized enough to defeat incursions
by Ottoman Kurdish tribal chiefs along its periphery. Natali appears
unaware that published collections of Iranian diplomatic correspondence
are replete with reports and discussions telegraphed from the
front. She is also prone to exaggeration. If "early republican Turkey
removed all opportunities for the Kurds," then why did İsmet
İnonu, an ethnic Kurd, succeed Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey’s
founding father?

More serious is the incompleteness of Natali’s discussion of the
Ataturk religious reforms. She fails to address head-on the impact of
his abolishment of the caliphate, the source of a great deal of tension
among Turkey’s Kurdish tribes for whom religious traditionalism trumped
nationalism as the impetus for struggle with the nascent Turkish
republic. Her bibliographical judgment is questionable, citing, for
example, Armenian polemicist Vahakn Dadrian (whose name she misspells).

Discussion of the Kurds of modern Iran falls short and that of Syria
is non-existent. Natali parses secondary sources, many out-of-date,
for mention of Kurds and appears unaware that some authors upon whose
work she relies, including Afsaneh Najmabadi (whose name she also
misspells), approach Iranian historiography through a political prism
that ends up skewing her narrative. It is unfortunate that The Kurds
and the State falls short, for a more careful and complete comparative
examination of Kurdish society would contribute much.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.

–Boundary_(ID_7h6Ol2zs0bvmB63xtGsvvw)–

KOCHARIAN – ALIYEV TALKS HELD IN MINSK

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
Nov 29 2006

November 28 RA and AR Presidents Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev
held a meeting on the Karabakh conflict settlement at the Russia’s
Embassy in Minsk.

Russia’s FM Sergey Lavrov also participated in the talks. Then the
Presidents held a tete-a-tete meeting.

To note, the top-level talks on the Karabakh conflict settlement were
held within the frames of the summit of the CIS Presidents.

The decision to hold the meeting was rendered in the course of the
visit of the OSCE Minsk group Co-Chairs Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia)
and Bernard Fassier (France) to Baku and Yerevan November 21 – 23.