FREEDOMS ARE POLITICAL CRITERIA TURKEY SHOULD FULFILL, KRETSCHMER
Turkish Press
Oct 4 2006
ANKARA – Freedom of expression, religious freedoms, and
civilian-military relations are political criteria that Turkey should
fulfil, as all other member states had done, said Hansjoerg Kretschmer,
the head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Turkey.
Appearing on a live broadcast on Turkish private NTV channel,
Kretschmer underlined importance of progress in political criteria,
and said that Turkey has to do more.
Kretschmer noted that EU`s stance towards civilian-military relations
is obvious, and he expressed his views about this matter in a meeting
held by the Turkish Economic & Social Studies Foundation (TESEV),
when commenting on yesterday`s remarks of Chief of General Staff
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit at the War Academies.
Recalling Buyukanit`s words that “the army has a different role in
Turkey”, Kretschmer said, “there are two different positions and
views. And the commanders said that the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces)
is different from the armies in the EU. We will see if it changes
within the negotiation process.
Civilian-military relations are important in the EU process, and it
should be solved. I think that it is possible.”
Kretschmer expressed belief that Turkey will fulfill all required
criteria, adding, “I am hopeful and optimistic. I think that Turkey
will be successful at the end of the process.”
On the so-called Armenian genocide allegations, Kretschmer said that
it is not one of the accession criteria but it can be effective within
the general framework of the accession process.
Kretschmer noted that Turkish government is determined and willing
to make more reforms.
Commenting on the views that the EU is trying to divide Turkey,
Kretschmer said, “it is even impossible to talk about Turkey`s
division. Political criteria are for the best interest of Turkey and
Turkish people.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MEETING OF PACE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR NK CANCELLED
Author: A.Ismaylova
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 4 2006
The meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe for Nagorno-Karabakh was cancelled, the Permanent
Representative of Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe Akshin Mehdiyev
told Trend.
The meeting had to be held within the fall session of PACE held from
2 to 6 October.
The Ambassador stressed that on October 5, the Chairman of the PACE
Ad Hoc Committee for Nagorno-Karabakh Lord Russell Johnston will meet
with the heads of the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegations.
The Head of the Committee will discuss the visit of the members of
the Committee to the region.

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT RECEIVES OSCE MG CO-CHAIRS
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 4 2006
YEREVAN, October 4. /ARKA/. Armenian President Robert Kocharian
received OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia), Matthew
Bryza (USA) and Bernard Fassiet. The president’s press service reported
that personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Anjey
Kaspshik also participated in the meeting.
They discussed issues, related to the current process of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan received the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs on the same day.
According to the press service of the Armenian foreign ministry,
they discussed the current state of the negotiation process, and also
exchanged opinions regarding the settlement perspectives.

MP PASHAYEVA PREPARED 2 WRITTEN APPEAL CONCERNING ARMENIAN AGGRESSION TO SUBMIT TO COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF COE
Author: J. Shakhverdiyev
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 4 2006
MP Ganira Pashayeva, a member of the Azerbaijani delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has prepared
two written appeals concerning Armenia`s aggression policy for further
submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,
the MP told Trend herself today.
She pointed out that one of the two appeals is connected with the
frequent violations of the cease fire regime by Armenian Force. “The
appeal speaks about the fact that Armenia does not observe the
cease fire regime signed in 1994, as well as the resolutions of PACE
and UN Security Council. The appeal also points out that Armenians
also subject even the population of its non-occupied territories of
Azerbaijan”, pointed out Mrs. Pashayeva.
She told that the appeal includes the statistics where it is pointed
out that 36 local residents killed, 65 wounded and 41 captured, and
only 31 out of them have freed. “Even after the cease fire regime was
announced, Armenians has continued to explode houses and communications
on the territories of the contact line”, the MP told.
According to Mrs. Pashayeva, the violation of the cease fire regime
has been linked with the announcements of Armenian President Robert
Kocharyan with the participation of Armenia`s Defense Minister Serg
Sarkisyan at the military training of Armenian separatists in 2006.
The second appeal is connected with the Armenian aggression policy
as well.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERBAIJAN DM DENIED THE AGREEMENT ON THE MEETING WITH SERJ SARKISYAN
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 4 2006
“Azerbaijan and Armenian Defense Minister agreed to meet,” Andrzej
Kasprzyk, OSCE chief personal representative told in the press
conference in Yerevan, APA reports. Armenian Arminfo agency reported
that Andrzej Kaspshik said the ministers will take measures for
maintaining ceasefire in the region.
“There is information about casualties from Azerbaijan and Armenian.
We should take immediate steps maintain ceasefire,” he said.
Azerbaijan DM press service officer Ilgar Verdiyev told the APA that
he has no information about Kasprzyk’s statement.
“There is no such kind of agreement. If there had been, Kasprzyk
would have given any information during his visit to Azerbaijan,”
he said.

THE ASSYRIANS: IGNORED AMONG FEARS OF AN IRAQI CIVIL WAR
By Charles Tannock
The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 4 2006
The world is consumed by fears that Iraq is degenerating into a civil
war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But in this looming war of all
against all, it is Iraq’s small community of Assyrian Christians that
is at risk of annihilation.
Iraq’s Christian communities are among the world’s most ancient,
practicing their faith in Mesopotamia almost since the time of
Christ. The Assyrian Apostolic Church, for instance, traces its
foundation back to 34 AD and St. Peter. Likewise, the Assyrian Church
of the East dates to 33AD and St. Thomas. The Aramaic that many of
Iraq’s Christians still speak is the language of those apostles –
and of Christ.
When tolerated by their Muslim rulers, Assyrian Christians contributed
much to the societies in which they lived. Their scholars helped usher
in the “Golden Age” of the Arab world by translating important works
into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. But in recent times, toleration
has scarcely existed.
In the Armenian Genocide of 1914-1918, 750,000 Assyrians – roughly
two-thirds of their number at the time – were massacred by the Ottoman
Turks with the help of the Kurds.
Under the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, the Assyrians faced persecution
for co-operating with the British during the World War I. Many fled to
the West, among them the Church’s patriarch. During Saddam Hussein’s
wars against the Kurds, hundreds of Assyrian villages were destroyed,
their inhabitants rendered homeless, and dozens of ancient churches
were bombed. The teaching of the Syriac language was prohibited
and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic names in an
effort to undermine their Christian identity. Those who wished to
hold government jobs had to declare Arab ethnicity.
In 1987, the Iraqi census listed 1.4 million Christians. Today, only
about 600,000 to 800,000 remain in the country, most on the Nineveh
plain. As many as 60,000, and perhaps even more, have fled since
the beginning of the insurgency that followed the United States-led
invasion in 2003. Their exodus accelerated in August 2004, after the
start of the terrorist bombing campaign against Christian churches by
Islamists who accuse them of collaboration with the allies by virtue
of their faith.
A recent UN report states that religious minorities in Iraq “have
become the regular victims of discrimination, harassment, and,
at times, persecution, with incidents ranging from intimidation to
murder.” It also observed that “members of the Christian minority
appear to be particularly targeted.”
Indeed, there are widespread reports of Christians fleeing the country
as a result of threats being made to their women for not adhering
to strict Islamic dress codes. Christian women are said to have had
acid thrown in their faces. Some have been killed for wearing jeans
or not wearing the veil.
This type of violence is particularly acute in the area around Mosul.
High-ranking clergy there claim that priests in Iraq can no longer
wear their clerical robes in public for fear of being attacked by
Islamists. Last January, coordinated car-bomb attacks were carried
out on six churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk; on another occasion, six
churches were simultaneously bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Over the
past two years, 27 Assyrian churches have reportedly been attacked
for the sole reason that they were Christian places of worship.
The attacks go beyond targeting physical manifestations of the faith.
Christian-owned small businesses, particularly those selling alcohol,
have been attacked, and many shopkeepers murdered. The director of the
Iraqi Museum, Donny George, a respected Assyrian, says that he was
forced to flee Iraq to Syria in fear of his life, and that Islamic
fundamentalists obstructed all of his work that was not focused on
Islamic artefacts.
Assyrian leaders also complain of deliberate discrimination in the
January 2005 elections. In some cases, they claim, ballot boxes
did not arrive in Assyrian towns and villages, voting officials
failed to show up, or ballot boxes were stolen. They also cite
the intimidating presence of Kurdish militia and secret police near
polling stations. Recently, however, there are signs the Iraqi Kurdish
authorities are being more protective of their Christian communities.
Sadly, the plight of Iraq’s Christians is not an isolated one in the
Middle East. In Iran, the population as a whole has nearly doubled
since the 1979 revolution; but, under a hostile regime, the number
of Christians in the country has fallen from roughly 300,000 to
100,000. In 1948, Christians accounted for roughly 20 percent of
the population of what was then Palestine; since then, their numbers
have roughly halved. In Egypt, emigration among Coptic Christians is
disproportionately high; many convert to Islam under pressure, and
over the past few years violence perpetrated against the Christian
community has taken many lives.
The persecution of these ancient and unique Christian communities,
in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, is deeply disturbing. Last
April, the European Parliament voted virtually unanimously for the
Assyrians to be allowed to establish (on the basis of section 5 of
the Iraqi Constitution) a federal region where they can be free from
outside interference to practice their own way of life. It is high
time now that the West paid more attention, and took forceful action
to secure the future of Iraq’s embattled Christians.
Charles Tannock is vice-president of the Human Rights Subcommittee
of the European Parliament and the Conservative Party’s
foreign affairs spokesman in the United Kingdom. THE DAILY STAR
publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate
(). .dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&cat eg_id=5&article_id=75907

ARMY UNDER CIVILIAN CONTROL IN EUROPE
By Suleyman Kurt, Zaman, Ankara
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 4 2006
In response to General Yasar Buyukanit’s remarks on the EU, European
Commissioner for Enlargement, Olli Rehn, said “The army is under
civilian control in European democracies.”
Finland’s Olli Rehn had meetings in the Turkish capital of Ankara on
the first anniversary of full membership negotiations between Turkey
and the EU.
In a symposium titled “European Social Model and Syndical Rights in the
Process of Negotiation with EU,” Rehn fielded questions from the press.
In response to a reporter’s question “Are there reactionary movements
in Turkey?”, a reference to the Turkish Chief of General Staff ‘s
remarks, Rehn said “There is a misunderstanding here.”
Stating they are open to dialogue with Turkish Armed Forces (TSK),
Rehn noted he does not question their professionalism.
“We have a deep respect for the TSK. They support international
peace-keeping forces. We consider Turkey’s general outlook with
respect to democratically elected governments. Turkey may take pride
in the reforms it has realized. It must be particularly proud of the
reforms in army-civilian relationships.. In European democracies,
the Army is under civilian control,” Rehn said.
“I am here because I do not want this first anniversary of negotiations
to be the last,” Rehn said and he asked Ankara “to restart the reform
process and fulfill liabilities in the supplementary protocol” in
order to prevent a possible “train crash.”
Rehn asked that article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code be amended and
said: “This article is in no compliance with EU standards. Turkey is
a democratic and powerful country. Does it need such an article?”
Rehn said this change is “related with Turkey’s negotiations with
the EU.”
Stating the EU needs Turkey, the European Commissioner said “A train
crash can be prevented with necessary political will.”
In the framework of his contacts in Ankara concerning the amendment
of the article 301, Rehn also paid visits to Minister of Justice
Cemil Cicek and main opposition leader Deniz Baykal, but failed to
obtain support.
Criticizing Rehn’s approach of the article 301, Cicek replied
to a relevant question from the reporters as follows: “Instead of
asking about this, ask about the draft in France.” [Referring to the
draft bill envisioning punishment for those rejecting the Armenian
“genocide.”]
The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader stated
similar articles exist in EU member countries as well, and this
article may become redundant in Turkey in a few years’ time.
Recognizing genocide is no condition for membership
Rehn repeated that recognition of the Armenian genocide allegations
is not a condition for EU membership.
Stating Turkey should handle “such issues” both within itself and with
its neighbor Armenia, Rehn gave support to Turkey’s proposal to set up
“a joint commission of historians.”
Rehn and Gul to Discuss Finnish Formula for Cyprus
The commissioner for enlargement, in talks he will hold with Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul,
will discuss proposals put forward by EU Term President Finland in
order to prevent a possible “train crash.”
Rehn spoke “hopefully” before the talk, but rumors in Ankara that
“the proposal contains imbalances” indicate the difficulty in finding
a solution.
Previously, Term President Finland offered a package of proposals
to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus in order to overcome the problems over
“Cyprus.”
Rehn will repeat the proposal in today’s meetings and ask for
a solution.
Ankara will remind Rehn of the EU’s promises on removing sanctions
against Northern Cyprus.
The parties did not give a “negative reply” to Finland’s proposals
in the first stage.
Communicating the proposal verbally, not in writing, is interpreted as
“taking the pulse.”
Rehn, in his statement yesterday, said: “I do not want to be too
optimistic, but this is an encouraging situation. If parties wanted
to reject the formula, they would make it leak to the press.”
However, no such atmosphere is perceived in Ankara.
Though certain elements in the package of proposals also exist in
Turkey’s “Cyprus Action Plan,” sources think there is imbalance in
other elements.

IRAN-ARMENIA GAS PIPELINE ON STREAM EARLY 2007
Tehran Times
Oct 4 2006
TEHRAN – The project of Iran’s gas conveyance pipeline to Armenia will
come on stream early 2007, Reza Kasaiizadeh, the managing director
of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) said here on Wednesday.
“First, Iran will export 3 million cu. m. of gas per day to
Armenia. The figure will gradually reach 10 million cu. m. of gas per
day, according to the schedule,” he told Iranian Students News Agency
(ISNA).
Shifting to Iran-Turkey gas pipeline, he said that Iran’s gas export
to Turkey was resumed on October 2, after parts of the pipeline which
were damaged by last Thursday’s explosion were repaired.
“The explosion was the first of a kind occurred at Iran’s border. NIGC
is pursuing plans to increase security in border regions in order to
prevent such events in future,” he added.
He also said that Iran presently exports 20 million cu. m. of gas to
Turkey per day.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

OP-ED ON “THE NEW YORK TIMES APPEASEMENT OF TURKEY”
By Gene Rossides
Hellenic News of America
Oct 4 2006
The New York Times Appeasement of Turkey
Washington, DC – The following Op-Ed appeared in the September
23, 2006 issue of The National Herald, page 11, the September 25,
2006 issue of Greek News, page 48, the October 3, 2006 issue of the
Hellenic News of America, page 3 and it will appear in the October 11,
2006 issue of The Hellenic Voice on page 5.
The New York Times editorial of September 10, 2006, reprinted in the
National Herald in its September 16, 2006 issue, is a prime example of
the New York Times appeasement of Turkey for decades to the detriment
of U.S. interests and to the detriment of Greece and Cyprus.
The editorial contains misstatements of fact, misleading statements
and serious omissions of facts and issues.
The editorial commends the U.S. for appointing retired Air Force
General and former NATO Commander Joseph Ralston “to work with
Turkish authorities.
General Ralston will be responsible for coordinating American
antiterrorist efforts with Iraq and Turkey, both of which have sizable
Kurdish minorities and minorities within those minorities who have
resorted to terror.”
The New York Times editorial fails to state that the Turkish
government and military have from 1984 through 1998 resorted to
massive state terror against its 15 million Kurdish minority which
has been characterized as genocide by many observers including the
late respected Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. During that
time the Turkish military killed 35,000 Kurds, 30,000 of whom were
innocent civilians and 5,000 were PKK rebels.
During that time the Turkish military burned and destroyed 3,000
Kurdish villages creating three million Kurdish refugees in their
own country.
During that time the Turkish paramilitary under the direction of the
Turkish military assassinated 17,500 Kurds as stated by Eric Rouleau,
former French Ambassador to Turkey in his article “Turkey?s Dream
of Democracy” in Foreign Affairs, November/December 2000, pp. 100 to
114 at 112.
Instead the New York Times editorial refers to the Turkish Foreign
Ministry?s hailing “the appointment as a ?new opportunity? for
cooperation between the United States and Turkey”…and says the
U.S. “would be wise to create many more and varied opportunities to
engage with Turkey, a longtime ally, and a uniquely important one.”
I strongly disagree that Turkey is “a longtime ally and a uniquely
important one.” Let?s look at the record for the 20th century and
the opening years of the 21st century.
The record clearly shows that in the 20th century Turkey fought against
the U.S. in World War I; that in World War II Turkey broke its treaty
with Britain and France to enter the war; stated its neutrality;
profited from both sides; and actually aided Nazi Germany by providing
Hitler with chromium, a vital resource to Nazi Germany?s armaments
industry and war effort. (See F. Weber, The Evasive Neutral 44 (1979).
Hitler?s armaments chief, Albert Speer, provided Hitler a memorandum in
November 1943 on “Alloys in Armaments Productions and the Importance
of Chromium Imports from the Balkans and Turkey,” which stated that
the loss of chromium supplies from Turkey would end the war in about 10
months. A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich 316-17, 405, 550 n. 10 (1970).
The allies finally halted chromium exports to Nazi Germany. However
the net effect of Turkey supplying Hitler with chromium was that
Turkey prolonged WW II in Europe by seven months.
Let?s look at the record since 1947 when the U.S. started ait to
Turkey at the beginning of the Cold War. How many readers are aware
that since that date, and while being a NATO member since 1952,
there are several instances where Turkey actively aided the Soviet
military to the detriment of the U.S. and NATO! The facts are well
known yet the New York Times editorial board simply ignores them and
calls Turkey “a staunch NATO member since 1952.”
As long ago as 1974, Edward Luttwak, the noted strategic analyst,
discussed Turkey?s cooperation with the Soviet military during the
Cold War. He wrote the following:
“No longer presenting a direct threat to the integrity of Turkish
national territory, and no longer demanding formal revision of
the Straits navigation regime, the Soviet Union has nevertheless
successfully exercised armed suasion over Turkey, even while
maintaining a fairly benevolent stance, which includes significant aid
flows. Faced with a sharp relative increase in Russian strategic and
naval power, and eager to normalize relations with their formidable
neighbor, the Turks have chosen to conciliate the Russians, and have
been able to do so at little or no direct cost to themselves. It
is only in respect to strategic transit that Turkey is of primary
importance to the Soviet Union, and this is the area where the
concessions have been made.
Examples of such deflection, where the Russians are conciliated at
the expense of western rather than specifically Turkish interests,
include the overland traffic agreement (unimpeded Russian transit
to Iraq and Syria by road), the generous Turkish interpretation
of the Montreux Convention, which regulates ship movements in the
Straits, and above all, the overflight permissions accorded to Russian
civilian and military aircraft across Turkish air space. The alliance
relationship in NATO and with the United States no doubt retains
a measure of validity in Turkish eyes, but it is apparent that
its supportive effect is not enough to counteract Russian suasion,
especially since the coercion is latent and packaged in a benevolent,
diplomatic stance.” (Luttwak, The Political Uses of Sea Power, Johns
Hopkins Press, 1974, pp. 60-61.)
Examples of Turkey?s disloyalty and unreliability over the past
decades as a NATO ally for U.S. strategic purposes include:
1. During the 1973 Mid-East War, predating the Turkish invasion
of Cyprus by one year, Turkey refused the United States military
overflight rights to resupply Israel and granted the U.S.S.R. overland
military convoy rights to resupply Syria and Iraq, and military
overflight permission to resupply Egypt. (See Karaosmanoglu, “Turkey?s
Security and the Middle East,” 52 Foreign Affairs 157, 163, Fall 1983.)
2. In the 1977-78 conflict in Ethiopia, Turkey granted the Soviets
military overflight rights to support the pro-Soviet minority of
Ethiopian communist insurgents, led by Colonel Mengistu, who eventually
prevailed and established a Marxist dictatorship directly dependent
upon the Soviet Union.
(C. Meyer, Facing Reality- From World Federalism to the CIA 276-80,
1980.)
3. Over NATO objections, Turkey allowed three Soviet aircraft carriers,
the Kiev on July 18, 1976, the Minsk on February 25, 1979 and the
Novorosiisk on May 16, 1983, passage rights through the Bosphorous
and Dardanelles Straits into the Mediterranean in violation of the
Montreux Convention of 1936. The Soviet ships posed a formidable
threat to the U.S. Sixth Fleet.
4. In 1979 Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to send 69 U.S. marines
and six helicopters to American military facilities at Incirlik
in Turkey for possible use in evacuating Americans from Iran and
protecting the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
5. Again in 1979 Turkey refused the U.S. request to allow U-2
intelligence flights (for Salt II verification) over Turkish airspace
“unless Moscow agreed.” (N.Y. Times, May 15, 1979, at A1, col. 3.) This
position was voiced over a period of months by Turkish officials, the
opposition party and the military Chief of Staff, General Kenan Evren,
(See, Washington Post and New York Times, April-September 1979).
6. In January of 1981, President Carter tried to obtain a commitment
from Turkey for the use of Turkish territory for operations in cases
of conflict in the Middle East. The January 20, 1981, New York Times
reported that Turkey was not in favor of “the United States using
Turkish bases for conflicts not affecting Turkey.” In the spring,
1983, issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Harry Shaw pointed out that
Turkey is unlikely to become involved in, or allow U.S. forces to
use Turkish territory in a Middle East war that does not threaten
her territory directly.
7. As an example of the above, in 1980, Turkey refused to permit the
U.S. to use the NATO base at Diyarbakir in eastern Turkey as a transit
point for the purpose of conducting a rescue mission into Tehran,
Iran, to free the American hostages held in that city. The distance
from Diyarbakir to Tehran is 450 miles as opposed to the actual route
taken, which was over 900 miles.
8. In May, 1989, Turkey rejected an American request to inspect an
advanced MIG-29 Soviet fighter plane, flown by a Soviet defector to
Turkey. (New York Times, May 28, 1989, at A12, col.1.)
9. The Turkish government refused repeated American requests for the
installation of antennas in Turkey concerning eleven transmitters
whose broadcasts would have been directed primarily at the Soviet
Union and its eastern European satellites. (Newsweek, July 22, 1983)
10. Turkey further damaged NATO by vetoing NATO?s effort to put
military bases on various Greek islands in the Aegean for defensive
purposes against the Soviet navy.
Most readers are aware of the latest failure of Turkey as an “ally”
to assist the U.S., namely, the Turkish Parliament?s refusal on March
1, 2003 to allow U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern
front against Saddam Hussein?s dictatorship when it counted most.
The reason for the refusal was Turkey?s efforts to get more
money. Prime Minister Erdogan stated that he wanted $6 billion more
for Turkey?s cooperation over the $26 billion irresponsibly offered by
the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz! A U.S. negotiator
called it “extortion in the name of alliance.”
The Times states erroneously that Turkey is a “secular democracy
situated between Europe and the Middle East.” Freedom House points out
that Turkey is a “partial democracy” because, among other things, the
military is not under civilian control and there is a lack of freedom
of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Further
Turkey is 95% in the Middle East and 5% is Europe.
The public opinion surveys in Turkey referred to by the Times
editorial can and should be cited to demonstrate that Turkey, a 99%
Muslim nation, cannot be relied upon by the U.S., NATO and the West.
The Times editorial?s serious omissions of issues and facts are
three-fold: Cyprus, the Aegean and Armenia. How could an editorial on
Turkey not include a discussion of Turkey?s invasion of Cyprus in 1974
and its occupation of 37.3% of northern Cyprus since 1974 with 35,000
illegal occupation troops, and 120,000 illegal colonists/settlers
in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Turkish barbed
wire fence across the face of Cyprus?
How could it not refer to the report of the UN Commission of Human
Rights condemning Turkey for the killings and rapes of innocent
civilians and looting by its army in 1974 and thereafter?
How could it not refer to the Turkish Air Forces illegal flights in the
Aegean in violation of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) rules?
How could such an editorial not discuss the illegal economic blockade
of Armenia which prevents U.S. humanitarian supplies to Armenia?
Frankly, the editorial should have asked:
What is the U.S. State Department doing to advance full human and
political rights for Turkey?s Kurds?
When is the State Department going to apply the Bush doctrine of
democracy to Turkey?
What is the State Department doing to remove the Turkish occupation
troops and settlers from Cyprus and getting rid of the Turkish barbed
wire fence?
What is the State Department doing to halt the illegal Turkish Air
Force flights in the Aegean in violation of ICAO rules? General Ralston
should have been appointed to halt Turkey?s illegal Air Force flights
in the Aegean.
What is the State Department doing to lift Turkey?s economic blockade
of Armenia?
I urge my readers to write and call the New York Times to protest
its appeasement of Turkey. Your letters and calls can definitely help.
ewsid=5641&lang=US

AZERBAIJAN REJECTS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FINAL PEACE ON NAGORNO KARABAKH
Vardan Barseghian
Diplomatic Traffic, DC
Oct 4 2006
Mr. Cromwell,
Thank God, you did not need to ask for Azerbaijan’s permission to
meet with me and to publish an article based on my interview. Anybody
can guess the outcome if you were to do so. Fortunately for Karabakh,
we also don’t need to ask for Azerbaijan’s permission to do anything
anymore: Karabakh has been free for 15 years!
Historic facts are important to understanding a region with a very
complex history, such as Nagorno Karabakh’s. Many people would also
agree that debates can help air differences and, hopefully, also
find points of agreement. Thus, I think debates on Nagorno Karabakh,
including the one on DiplomaticTraffic.com, could be useful. However,
Azerbaijan and its representatives (both official and non-official),
while continuing to have plenty of opportunities to speak directly,
debate and negotiate with representatives of Nagorno Karabakh,
regrettably, prefer doing so through third parties, international
organizations and media, branding Karabakh in a very negative light
along the way, which resembles propaganda rather than a genuine effort
to advance a peaceful resolution of this conflict.
Time and again, Nagorno Karabakh has offered to implement
confidence-building measures to establish an atmosphere of trust,
conductive to reaching a final peace. We also remain open for a
constructive dialogue with Azerbaijan on every level, official and
non-official. Azerbaijan continues to reject any such efforts and
contacts. Since the cease-fire agreement of 1994, the ball [to advance
lasting peace] has been in Azerbaijan’s court. I hope Azerbaijan
would finally choose to use it.
In Karabakh, we like shortcuts, and it is time for Azerbaijan to take a
‘shortcut’ and speak with Nagorno Karabakh directly, if Azerbaijan is
sincere about its desire to achieve a negotiated peace. Unfortunately,
we don’t have a single reason to believe that the latter assumption
about Azerbaijan is valid…
In Karabakh, we are also very serious about our independence and our
determination to defend it.
Vardan Barseghian Representative of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States
p?ID=588