HISTORICAL POSSIBILITY TO REGULATE ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS

15/01/2008
Panorama.am

The United States of America encourages Turkey to use the historic chance and to open the boarders with Armenia.

Today the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairman M. Bryza took part in “Wider Black Sea Region, International and Regional Security Perspectives” international conference. He added that the regulation of Armenia-Turkish relations is deeply connected with the NKR antagonisms regulation. “Turkey made terms to Armenia in the regulation of their relations, but US hopes that the terms would be canceled,” he said. According to Bryza, Armenia also can do something, like accepting the boarders of Armenia as they are nowadays.

As for the NKR question, Bryza aid that the negotiations came to a very serious stage, and the both sides should revise whatever they have presented in Madrid. Bryza said that Armenia and Azerbaijan negotiate willingly and inform the sides about the most important and serious changes.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turks say they were absent from Armenian hearings due to religious holiday

28.12.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

A missed chance or intentional boycott?

"The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, Armen Rustamian, sent me an invitation via e-mail to attend the parliamentary hearings organized under the heading "Armenian-Turkish Relations: Problems and Perspectives" held on 19-20 December. Although they do not engender immediate results, such hearings are essentially useful as they are conducive to aiding the parties involved gauge each other’s viewpoints. For this reason, I would have liked to have been able to take part in the said discussions. Unfortunately, I had to inform Rustamian that I would not be able to attend due to prior engagements,” Omer Engin Lutem, chairman of the Eurasian Strategic Research Center (ASAM), said in a letter to Armen Rustamian.

“As gathered from the press, 20 or so Turks were invited to attend the hearings. Among them were personalities such as Taner Akcam, Fatma Muge Gokcek and Halil Berktay who fully espouse and have taken it upon themselves to win others over to Armenian views; people such as Orhan Pamuk and Baskin Oran who adhere to views that fall fairly in line with the Armenian stance; and individuals such as Can Paker who approach the subject matter from the perspective of the European Union. Apart from myself, in order to voice the "Turkish standpoint", Turkish Historical Society President Yusuf Halacoglu, and International Strategic Research Institute Director Sedat Laciner were invited to attend. Most likely Patriarch Mutafian was called upon to participate in order to represent Turkey’s Armenian community. As these hearings were organized by the National Assembly of Armenia, it would only have been appropriate if members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly were invited to attend as well. However, on this point, nothing surfaced in the press,” he wrote.

“All Turks invited notified how they would not be able to attend the hearings. No doubt this is a result of the hearings corresponding with a religious holiday and a result of the invitations having been made so late, and hence due to those in question having prior engagements,” he added.

“The importance of such hearings rests in generating greater understanding concerning the views and standpoints of the parties concerned. Looked at from this perspective, it would be worthwhile if the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s concerned commissions were to organize a similar meeting in the coming months," Lutem whote.

Meanwhile, Armen Rustamian said that the Turkish government spoke out against the arrival of Turkish scholars. “We provided a firm guarantee of security but Ankara decided that their presence would be inexpedient. For our part, we expressed readiness to travel to Turkey for similar hearings dedicated to cancellation of article 301,” Rustamian said.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Misinformation regarding ties between Armenia and Kurdistan Workers Party is possible prelude to aggression

26 Dec. 2007
Regnum
By Armen Ayvazyan

Recently, the Azeri mass media disseminated information claiming that “Armenia is settling Armenians and Kurds, emigrants from Syria and Iraq, in Nagorno Karabakh and now it also plans to host terrorists from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).” REGNUM asks Armen Ayvazyan, political scientist and Director of the “Ararat” Center for Strategic Research, to comment on this.

The new Turkish deliberations regarding ties between the PKK and Armenia that were voiced in recent weeks and the immediate joining-in of the official Baku should be considered in several aspects: first, in the context of Turkey’s consistently hostile policy towards independent Armenia; second, in the light of the acceleration in the pace of Azerbaijan’s preparation for a large-scale war of aggression against Artsakh and Armenia; and third, in the context of the continued passive information policy of Armenia.

The Turkish propaganda campaign alleging that Armenia supports and even provides bases for the PKK was first launched in 1993 and continued at varying degrees of intensity up to 2000, when the PKK temporarily extinguished the insurgency. The following headlines from the Turkish press convey an idea of the scale of the initial campaign: “Syria Flies PKK Militants to Armenia;” “PKK Will Attack with ASALA in the Spring;” “Intelligence Report Details Armenia-PKK ties;” “PKK Reportedly Moving to Iran, Armenia.” (1) Moreover, the Turkish Daily News article published on April 16, 1998, asserted without any proof that purportedly the PKK has 7 bases in Armenia, 11 in Iran, 4 in Russia and 1 in Cyprus. At the time Azerbaijan joined in this Turkish propaganda campaign when its defence minister declared that supposedly "200 Kurdish terrorists are being trained in the Lachin region, occupied by the Armenian aggressors, and another 457 Kurdish fighters are receiving full military training in Armenia, to be later deployed in the territory of Turkey. (2)

A number of high-ranking Turkish officials, including the Chief of Staff of the Turkish army, have made statements regarding ties between the PKK and Armenia. On October 11, 1998, Turkey’s Secretary of State Metin Gurderen openly threatened Armenia with war: “If Armenia supports separatists, then we have made our decision, the button has been pressed. A war might break out any moment.” (3)

Many suggest that the Turkish allegations regarding Armenia-PKK ties are intended only for “domestic consumption”, that they are put forth to explain the prolonged nature of the Kurdish armed resistance and to satisfy the hostile sentiments of the Turkish public towards Armenia. However, the reality is even more dangerous. The true purpose of this continuous and well planned false propaganda, coordinated with Azerbaijan, regarding Armenia-PKK ties is to create new and additional causes for exerting constant pressure on Armenia, to demonise Armenia and NKR in the eyes of the international community and to prepare the information front for the planned military aggression by Azerbaijan, with a possible direct intervention of Turkey. Let’s not forget that using the pretext of pursuing PKK, Turkey has periodically been invading Northern Iraq. Within the period of 1991 and the beginning of 1999 Turkey carried out 55 incursions into Northern Iraq, which the international community although did not authorize, but neither did it condemn. Four of them were large-scale operations with the participation of over 20,000 Turkish soldiers. (4)

Recently, new information was published revealing that Turkey planned an incursion into Armenia in October 1993, using the very same Kurdish bases as a pretext. (5) Leonidas Khrisantopolos, the Greek Ambassador to Armenia in 1993-1994, stated that the then Turkish Prime Minister Tancu Chiller had come to an agreement with the speaker of the Russian parliament Ruslan Khasbulatov on launching a few “surgical” strikes against Armenia. This information was indirectly confirmed by RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan in his interview to “Azg” daily (October 4, 2001), as well as by the former head of the National Security of Armenia Eduard Simonyan. (6)

Before that Western sources had reported that twice in 1993, in April and September, Turkey deployed its tank, mechanized and other units on the border with Armenia, the Turkish armed forces were brought to high state of combat readiness and Prime Minister Tancu Chiller warned she would ask the parliament for authorization to start military action, if Armenia touched any part of Nakhijevan. (7) Consequently, it is no accident that reports about PKK bases allegedly located in Armenia started to appear in the Turkish press as of Fall 1993. It is even less of an accident that in the above-mentioned reports the Turks indicated a number of locations in Armenia for supposed PKK bases (including the surrounding areas of the Armenian Atomic Power Plant and the Lachin region). (8)

Well affected by the Turkish propaganda some Western information agencies and think tanks presented the non-existent ties between Armenia and the PKK as a widely known fact. (9) Thus, in 1999, after the declaration of cease-fire by the PKK, one of the most famous American institutions of geopolitical research, Stratfor, apparently at the bidding of the Turks, trumpeted twice (on August 23 and November 23, 1999) to the whole world that the PKK squads were supposedly retreating to Armenia, for rearming and retraining in bases prepared for them beforehand. (10)

The halting of the Kurdish guerrilla war since 2000 (formalized only in 2002 (11)), to some extent deprived Turkey of the possibility to play the Kurdish card against Armenia. That is why the Chief of Staff of the Turkish armed forces Hussein Kivrikoghlu made a new false statement in the beginning of 2002, which alleged that Armenia possesses weapons of mass destruction, and, consequently, the same measures of punishment should be applied against Armenia as those against Iraq. (12)

On June 1, 2004, the PKK, now operating under the name CONGRA-GEL, terminated its 5-year old unilateral truce, (13) thus confirming that the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey are a long-term strategic factor in the region.

The latest insinuations coincided almost to the date with the intensification of Baku’s war rhetoric and particularly with the statement made by the Azeri Defence Minister Safar Abiyev that “as long as the Azeri territories remain occupied by Armenia, the probability of war is almost 100 percent.” Mr Abiyev’s statement was made on November 27 at the closing press conference of the Meeting of the CIS Defence Ministers Council in Astana. On November 30, with a direct reference to the Turkish intelligence, the Turkish pro-government newspaper “Zaman” disseminated misinformation about talks between Armenia and the PKK and alleged about the installation of bases for Kurds in NKR, in the towns of Shushi, Lachin and Fizuli. (14) This bait was immediately caught and circulated by the American United Press International. (15) On December 10, Araz Azimov, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani President’s Special Representative on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, stated about “readiness of Baku to launch anti-terrorist operations against the PKK’s military detachments stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh.” (16) It is exactly the coordination of activities between Baku and Ankara with respect to the timing and target of information attack that should be cause for concern. All these could be a prelude to not so virtual attacks.

The corresponding government bodies of Armenia should treat this newly unleashed campaign of Turkish-Azerbaijani propaganda in all seriousness. The brief refutations voiced by the Armenian MFA in this case are not at all effective. A well-supported clarification and condemnation of all the underpinnings of this old/new anti-Armenian row is necessary, including an exposition of all the dimensions, of its true purpose and possible consequences for the peace and stability in the region. Otherwise, it is impossible to expect the understanding and support of the international community for Armenia’s foreign policy positions, including for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

(1) Sezai Sengun, “Syria Flies PKK Militants to Armenia,” Hurriyet, 10 November, 1993, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service Daily Report (further in FBIS Daily Report): West Europe, 15 Nov. 1993, p. 72; Gorsel Polat, “PKK Will Attach with ASALA in the Spring,” Cumhuriyet, 27 December 1993, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 5 January 1994, p. 29; Sinan Onus, “Intelligence Report Details Armenia-PKK ties,” Aydinlik, 29 January 1994, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 3 February 1994, p. 36; “PKK Reportedly Moving to Iran, Armenia,” Turkish Daily News, 1 February 1994, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 7 February 1994, p. 44.

(2) Elmira Akhundova, "Defense Minister Abiyev: “We are keen on privileged partnership with NATO,” Azernews/Azerkhabar 2/17/99 — 2/23/99.

(3) RFE/RL Newsline Vol. 2, № 197, Part I, 12 Oct. 1998, Transcaucasus and Central Asia.

(4) Ed Blanche, “Terrorism: Turkey seizes PKK commander,” Jane's Intelligence Review-Pointer, 1 June, 1998. The same source notes that since the start of the Kurdish rebellion in 1984 through 1998 Turkey destroyed or deported 3000 Kurdish villages. According to data of the Turkish army, 39900 PKK fighters were taken out of action. The losses of the Turkish army amounted to 4600 deaths.

(5) См. Leonidas T. Chryzantopoulos, Caucasus Chronicles: Nation-Building and Diplomacy in Armenia, 1993-1994 (Princeton & London: Gomidas Institute Books, 2002), pp. 76-78, 155. “The Sensational Announcement of Leonidas Chryzantopoulos”, Golos Armenii, 19 September 2002 (in Russian).

(6) “'Turkey Really Was Going To Attack Armenia in Autumn 1993', Former Head of State Department of National Security, Major General Eduard Simoniants Says,” Noyan Tapan News Agency, Yerevan, September 23, 2002.

(7) R. Ernest Dupuis and Trevor N. Dupuis, World History of Wars. Book Four: 1925 – 1997 Saint Petersburg — Moscow: Polygon – Ast., 1998), pg. 754 (in Russian).

(8) Rouben Paul Adalian, “Armenia's Foreign Policy: Defining Priorities and Coping with Conflict,” in Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha, eds., The Making of Foreign Policy in Russia and the New States of Eurasia (Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1995), p. 318.

(9) For example, see Ed Blanche, “Terrorism: Turkey seizes PKK commander,” op. cit..

(10) Stratfor.com: “Where, oh where, has the PKK gone?” 1999.08.27; “PKK Wields Pipeline Leverage,” 1999.11.23.

(11) Officially the temporary halt in the armed resistance was announced after the regular 5th assembly of the PKK. It became known on February 6th, 2002, from the announcement of MED TV (see Akop Chakryan, “PKK decided to halt armed resistance in Turkey”, Azg, February 8th, 2002, #24, in Armenian).

(12) Here is an excerpt from the announcement distributed by PanARMENIAN.net on that occasion: “Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Turkey Hussein Kivrikoghlu stated the other day that Armenia possessed mass destruction weapons … This statement is included in the list of the six ‘apprehensions’ of Turkey that Kivrikoghlu had presented to Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit before the latter's visit to the U.S.A. Speaking about the negative response of Turkey to the possible U.S. strikes on Iraq, Kivrikoghlu stated not only Saddam Huseyn regime, but also Armenia, Syria, Iran and some other countries possessed weapons of mass extermination. In the words of the chief of the general staff of Turkey, sanctions like those used against Iraq, should be applied to Armenia.” See also. “Azeri ex-military men on threat if Armenia has weapons of mass destruction,” Azerbaijan News Service TV January 8, 2002; “Does Armenia Possess a Mass Destruction Weapon?” Azerbaijan News Service, January 9, 2002; “Armenian Defence Ministry spokesman calls Turkish general's statement 'absurd',” Arminfo, January 7, 2002.

(13) Selcan Hacaoglu, “Turkey's Kurdish Rebels End 5-Year Truce”, Associated Press News, 1 June 2004.

(14) Ercan Yavuz, “PKK looks into relocating to Karabakh,” 30.11.2007 http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=128340. It must be noted that even a month before this, on October 29 the same “Zaman” newspaper published an article titled “Relations between Armenian and PKK terrorism”, full of myths about Armenian-Kurdish relations during the 1980’s and 90’s, with an indication of dates and locations, intended to give the “information” semblance of veracity. That article seemed to prepare ground for the subsequent direct accusations.

(15) “PKK reportedly planning move to Azerbaijan,” United Press International, Published: Dec. 1, 2007 at 1:49 AM.

(16) Araz Azimov: Azerbaijan is ready to launch operations against the Kurdish guerrillas in Nagorno-Karabakh, REGNUM News Agency, 10:22 11.12.2007 (in Russian).

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMEN RUSTAMYAN FEELS THE BREATH OF “PAN TURKISM''

20/12/2007
Panorama.am, Armenia

The current state of Armenian-Turkish relations is hidden in the fact that Turkey proposes preconditions,'' NA deputy and chairman of committee Armen Rustamyan told a parliamentary hearing today. Rustamyan described that as a ''non-civilized approach.'' He said the preconditions put forward by Turkey are not legal and have underlying aim. By requiring the denial of the genocide, Turkey wants to have Armenia as partner in stopping the rising process of genocide recognition, he said.

Rustamian believes the ideology of Pan Turkism stays as the base of Turkish policy that ''lives a new revival.'' He said the breath of Pan Turkism is more and more felt in the multifactor policy of Turkey.

Speaking about Turkey's requirement to withdraw the Armenian forces from the zone of Karabakh conflict, he said it is not accepted in the modern world that a third country conditions the relations between two countries. Rustamyan said that this requirement makes Turkey an unofficial party of the conflict.


Source: Panorama.am

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

VARTAN OSKANYAN: TURKEY’S PRECONDITIONS DO NOT STAND CRITICISM

19/12/2007
Source: Panorama.am

The Armenian-Turkish relations are complex and Armenia must consolidate the burden of the past with the requirement of the present to live in a stable and peaceful region, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan told a parliamentary hearing on the Armenian-Turkish relations today. He also said the issues of the past may be tackled in case of normal diplomatic relations and open borders. However, Turkey wants to tackle the issues of the past first and after that it is ready to lift the border. In the presentation of the Armenian foreign minister, even in Europe there are countries that have problems with each other but they do not try to solve them by shutting down the borders and by putting preconditions.

He divided the Armenian-Turkish relations into several stages. In the first phase (1991-93) the Armenian-Turkish border was open but Turkey refused to enter into diplomatic relations with Armenia demanding recognition of Turkey’s frontiers and refusal from the Armenian genocide.

One must recall that during those years and until 1998, Armenia did not make the issue of genocide as part of its foreign policy agenda.

In the second phase (1993-98) when the Armenian forces occupied territories in Karabakh war, Turkey closed its border with Armenia and proposed a third demand – to free the mentioned territories. In the third phase that covers the period of 1998-2007, the mentioned three preconditions remained valid and strengthened even more since the issue of genocide has appeared in the foreign policy agenda of Armenia.

In the words of the foreign minister, none of the three preconditions stand any criticism from the “international point of view.” In Oskanyan’s words, Turkey is not a party of Nagorno Karabakh conflict and cannot put preconditions. Second, Kars and Moscow agreements of 1921 are still effective where the borders of our countries are outlined and Turkey’s demand to recognize its borders are groundless. As far as the recognition of the genocide is concerned, the recognition of the genocide by the parliaments of other countries is their internal affair and Armenia does not interfere, the minister said.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Former top scorer worried by football violence, fanaticism

Saturday, December 15, 2007
ISTANBUL – Turkish Daily News
Vercihan Ziflioğlu

Minas Asa managed to lead a noble football career, playing alongside the best of his time, and faced no problems due to his Armenian origins. That is why, he is bothered by the changing profile and hostile habits of current football supporters

If the subject is the changing face of football in recent years, either in the industrial sense or in the changing profile of fans, Minas Asa is among the ones with a thing or two to say.

A former striker who played in several top and second division clubs, Asa recalls that he was never targeted because of his Armenian origins.

“Nowadays there are 6-year-olds in the stadiums, all filled with nationalism and violence,” said Asa to the Turkish Daily News. “In the ‘80s, identities did not matter as they do today. I never kept the fact that I was an Armenian a secret.”

Today he doesn't go to the stadiums because of fanaticism.

“Fans came to the games wearing ties and top hats then. They stood up and applauded both teams at the end of the match.”



Pre-industrial football :

Another big difference he pointed to is the big money in the football business. The fact that he is a bus driver for Esayan Armenian High School in Taksim, Istanbul sounds odd now, considering the dizzying sums today's players earn.

“We earned as much as a worker did, but we just did not care,” said Asa, adding that his generation's only interest was the game itself.

After starting to play football at Şişli and Taksim Sports Clubs, which are the Armenian community's clubs in Istanbul, Asa was approached by Division Two side Karabükspor. However, the striker's father intervened, who was not positive to the idea of his son having a professional career. After a while the offers became more serious, one of them from Beşiktaş. He had to reject the offer and what he now calls “a big mistake that affected his whole life,” and opted for an Anatolian club that was more off the radar, instead of Istanbul's title contender. He moved to Bursaspor in 1980, and plied his trade for a while in Boluspor, where he played alongside Rıdvan Dilmen, one of the most prolific strikers of Turkish football history.



Life without football:

But his peak was when he was loaned out to Adana Demirspor in 1986. Asa still remembers the day he was welcomed by 500 fans and carried to the club on shoulders. He compensated for this love by scoring 17 goals to take the club to the First Division.

Nevertheless, his story on the pitch ended sadly, as he had to retire two years later, due to an ankle injury. Maybe it wouldn't have been a career-ending injury, but in the Turkey of the ‘80s there was no solution and he would have had to be treated abroad.

“For me, this was death,” said Asa. “I could not think a life without football.”

And he did not let go of the game although he started his second life. He trains the High School's football team and proudly states that one of his players has just become a pro in Sarıyer. As a licensed coach, Asa is considering a coaching job at Armenia's renowned Ararat club.



Expecting a draw:

Asa is also among those that sees the forthcoming World Cup qualifying fixture between Armenia and Turkey as a big chance to reduce tensions. He predicts that the games will end in a draw, as Armenia will take the games too seriously.

“The World Cup is so important in terms of economy, and Armenia needs development,” said Asa, adding that players will perform at their best in order to help the promotion of the country.

If he was to play for Turkey against Armenia, he claims he would not lose any sleep over it. He calls himself a professional and that is why he sees sports as separate from politics. Asa believes that the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would think that way as well. A former footballer at Kasımpaşa Erok Spor, Erdoğan played against Asa.

“No doubt he will say, the better team will deserve the win in the Turkey-Armenia game,” said Asa. “Because he is a professional that would separate football from politics.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Ter-Petrosian Reaffirms Conciliatory Line On Turkey

Monday 10, December 2007
Armenialiberty.org, Armenia
By Emil Danielyan

Former President Levon Ter-Petrosian reaffirmed on Saturday his conciliatory stance on Amenia’s relations with Turkey, saying that Yerevan should leave it to the worldwide Armenian Diaspora to pursue international recognition of the 1915 genocide. He also deplored Armenian efforts to thwart Turkey’s membership in the European Union.

The highly sensitive issue was a major theme of his latest speech at an anti-government rally in Yerevan, with Ter-Petrosian responding to government claims that his views on Turkish-Armenian relations are “pro-Turkish.”

Echoing long-standing claims by Armenian nationalist groups, President Robert Kocharian said in a newspaper interview last week that his predecessor is “ready to forget the genocide and turn Armenia into an appendage of Turkey.” State television and other media controlled by Kocharian, for their part, have cited Turkish press commentaries saying that Ter-Petrosian’s return to power would be welcomed by Armenia’s historical foe.

“Speaking about my being pro-Turkish are individuals who had sheepishly served Turks during a lengthy period of their adult life,” Ter-Petrosian shot back in a blistering reminder of the fact that Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian had held senior positions in the Communist hierarchy of Nagorno-Karabakh at a time when it was ruled by Azerbaijan.

Ter-Petrosian stressed that three generations of his family “fought against the Turks in one way or another,” recalling in particular their participation in a 1915 siege of several Armenian villages on the Turkish Mediterranean coast by Ottoman troops.

“My grandfather took part in the heroic battle of Musa Dagh; my seven-year-old father carried food and water to [Armenian] positions; while my mother was born in a cave in those days,” he told the crowd. “If French warships had not accidentally passed by the Musa Dagh coast, then I would not have existed and, to the delight of Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sarkisian, spoken from this podium today.”

“In 1966, at the age of 21, during a demonstration held on the occasion of the genocide anniversary I was arrested [by the Soviet KGB] and kept in a Yerevan jail for about a week at a time when Kocharian and Sarkisian had not even heard about the word genocide,” he said.

Ter-Petrosian said he continues to believe that genocide recognition should not have been included on Armenia’s foreign policy agenda after his resignation in 1998. “It is time to understand by setting ultimatums and cornering Turkey nobody can force it to recognize the Armenian genocide,” he said. “I have no doubts that Turkey will sooner or later recognize the Armenian genocide, but that will take place not before a normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations but after the creation of an atmosphere of neighborhood, cooperation and trust between our countries.”

Ter-Petrosian at the same time rejected as “unacceptable and offensive” Turkey’s calls for the creation of a Turkish-Armenian commission of historians that would be tasked with determining whether the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians constituted a genocide. He also criticized Ankara for its furious reaction to genocide resolutions adopted by various countries of the world under pressure from their Armenian communities.

“Turkey must not confuse Armenia with the Diaspora and must not resent the latter’s behavior because the Diaspora is a consequence of the genocide,” he said. “Had it not committed a genocide, there would have been no Diaspora.”

Armenia’s first post-Communist government headed by Ter-Petrosian avoided raising the genocide issue in its dealings with Turkey throughout its tenure from 1990-1998. The Kocharian administration has likewise stood for an unconditional normalization of bilateral ties. However, it has declared genocide recognition a major foreign policy goal and welcomed relevant lobbying efforts by the Diaspora. The policy change was underscored by Kocharian’s 1998 speech at the UN General Assembly in which he urged Turkey to come to terms with one of the darkest episodes of its past.

Ter-Petrosian dismissed such actions as mere gimmicks that have only antagonized the Turks and made the memory of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians killed in 1915-1918 an “object of immoral haggling” in the international arena. He claimed that Yerevan’s policy and Diaspora lobbying in Europe enable EU governments opposed to Turkey’s entry to the bloc to “exploit the genocide issue.”

“Isn’t it clear that Armenia can neither facilitate, nor impede Turkey’s membership in the European Union?” he said. “So why on earth do we send letters to Brussels demanding that the EU does not start membership talks with Turkey or set genocide recognition as a precondition?”

“Isn’t it obvious that Turkey’s membership in the EU is beneficial for Armenia in the economic, political and security terms?” he added. “What is more dangerous: an EU member Turkey or a Turkey rejected by the West and oriented to the East?

“Or what is more preferable? An Armenia isolated from the West or an Armenia bordering the EU? Our country’s foreign policy should have clearly answered these questions a long time ago.”

The Kocharian administration says that Armenia supports, in principle, Turkey’s accession to the EU but believes that should happen only after Ankara drops its preconditions for normalizing relations with Yerevan. “Armenia does not regard Turkey's potential membership in the EU as a threat to national security,” Prime Minister Sarkisian wrote in a December 2006 article in “The Wall Street Journal.” “Quite the contrary. We hope it will mean that Turkey will change, and be in a better position to face both its history and future.”

In an interview with Reuters news agency last July, Sarkisian accused the EU of turning a blind eye to Turkey’s long-standing economic blockade of Armenia. "Europeans are shy over these issues. They love to talk about human rights, about democratic values but it's much easier to talk rather than to implement anything," he complained.

Armenian lobbying groups in Europe take a harder line, saying that genocide recognition should be a precondition for Turkey’s EU membership. One of them, the Brussels-based European Armenian Federation, plans to stage an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Belgian capital on Friday. The EU’s governing Council is scheduled to meet on that day to discuss stalled accession talks with Ankara.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turkey, Armenia matches to go ahead despite divisions

29 Nov. 2007
By Darren Ennis

This is a positive step falling in line with opening of borders and establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey. Let the best team win.

BRUSSELS, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The World Cup qualifying games due to take place between Turkey and Armenia are expected to go ahead despite bitter political divisions between the two countries, UEFA president Michel Platini said on Thursday.

Concerns were expressed about the two fixtures after both countries -- at odds with each other over Turkey's failure to accept that 1.5 million Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks -- were drawn in the same qualifying group for the 2010 World Cup.

"We met with the associations from Armenia and Turkey and there weren't any problems, they said the games would be played the best possible way," Platini told reporters on a visit to Brussels.

Two Euro 2008 qualifiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan were cancelled in June due to a long-running dispute over land. Turkey shut its border with Armenia in 1993 to protest against Armenia's occupation of territory inside Azerbaijan.

"We had a problem last year between Armenia and Azerbaijan because it was worse than non-existing relationships, there was a problem of extreme tensions and so the executive committee took the decision of cancelling the two games," Platini said.
Up to 1.5 million Armenians died in massacres and mass expulsions in 1915. Armenia and the Armenian diaspora abroad -- backed by many Western historians -- say it was genocide and want foreign states to recognise it as such.

Turkey accepts there were widespread killings, but says they did not amount to genocide. A law in Turkey makes calling the deaths a genocide a criminal offence.
"But as far as Turkey and Armenia are concerned, there hasn't been any indication of a potential problem and the cancellation of matches," Platini said.

Both countries were drawn in Group 5 alongside Spain, Belgium, Bosnia and Estonia. (Editing by Miles Evans)

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turkey motivated blocking of air space for Armenian planes by security reasons?

15.11.2007 16:38 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian Foreign Ministry requested Turkey to explain the reasons of blocking the air corridor for Yerevan-Beirut and Yerevan-Aleppo flights, RA MFA Spokesman Vladimir Karapetian told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. No explanation has come yet, he said.

November 13 an Armavia-owned Yerevan-Beirut flight had to turn back to Yerevan, since the Turkish authorities blocked the air space.

Meanwhile, a source told PanARMENIAN.Net that Turkey blocked the air corridor for security reasons, as the route to Syria goes across the territory controlled by Kurdish rebels.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

U.S. To Again Press For Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement

24 October 2007
Armenialiberty.org, Armenia

By Emil Danielyan

The United States hopes to defuse the latest surge in Turkish-Armenian tensions and will make a fresh attempt to help normalize Turkey’s strained relationship with Armenia, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza said the controversy surrounding the possible passage of a U.S. Congressional resolution recognizing as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey underscores the need for the two neighboring states to have diplomatic relations and an open border.

“This incident has demonstrated in America, Armenia and Turkey how important it is that there be a serious initiative to fully normalize Armenian-Turkish relations,” he told RFE/RL in Yerevan.

Bryza, who was visiting the Armenian capital in his capacity as the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, said he will travel to Ankara on Thursday to discuss the matter with Turkish leaders on the margins of a Black Sea economic forum. “One of my own main goals is to explore the possibility of rejuvenating efforts to bring the countries together,” he said.

“The resolution will either pass or won’t pass. Either way, there is still going to be this problem out there that he is behind the whole controversy over the resolution. We have to get the two sides together,” he added.

Official Ankara has reacted furiously to the draft resolution’s approval by a key House of Representatives committee earlier this month, warning that its passage by the full chamber would not only damage U.S.-Turkish ties but have negative consequences for Armenia. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan indicated on October 16 that his government would be even more unwilling to unconditionally normalize ties with Yerevan.

"Those who expect openings from Turkey will be left alone with their problems," Erdogan said. "They will have to pay the cost of their hostility towards an important country like Turkey."

"I don't understand what the Turks are saying," Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian told the Associated Press news agency in Washington on Tuesday. "We have no relations now. We cannot harm something that is non existent."

While reaffirming Yerevan’s support for the House bill, Sarkisian stressed that his country does not view genocide recognition as a precondition for improving relations with Turkey.

Successive Turkish governments have made the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border and establishment of diplomatic relations conditional on a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a halt to the decades-long campaign for international recognition of the Armenian genocide. The U.S. has for years tried unsuccessfully get them to drop those preconditions. It has also urged Armenia to explicitly rule out territorial claims to Turkey.

In Bryza’s words, many officials in Ankara now recognize the need to reconsider Turkey’s policy towards Armenia. “It is outrageous that the [Turkish-Armenian] border is closed,” the official said. “I think that there are a lot of people in the upper reaches of the Turkish government who recognize that an open border would change the strategic map here in a very positive way. I hope that we can convince everybody in the region, including in Azerbaijan, that that’s indeed the case.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Relations With Yerevan

Published: 9/21/2007
Turkish Press, MI
BY SAMI KOHEN

MILLIYET- The border between Turkey and Armenia has been closed since 1993. Ankara cut all its relations with Armenia after the newly independent state occupied Karabagh in a conflict with Azerbaijan. Since then, the border has been closed and there has been no contact or trade between Turkey and Armenia. But you can find lots of Turkish products at stores in Armenia, reaching there indirectly, through Georgia. The issue of opening the border and normalizing relations has been brought up from time to time by non-governmental organizations. The issue was discussed at a conference last year on the economic and social impact opening the border would have. A later study was discussed during a meeting jointly organized by the ARI movement in Istanbul and the Armenian International Political Research Group (AIPRG). The focus was on the economic benefit of opening the border, but political factors stalling normalization were also discussed.


Of course, if the border is opened, both sides will benefit. Trade, transportation, tourism, etc. will be galvanized, and the economy will grow. Actually, opening it would benefit Armenia more, as the closure also hurts it more, and its economy is weaker. But according to Armenian sources and research, the Armenian economy has recently shown rapid improvement. Yerevan is boosting its trade with its neighbors and Europe, selling electricity to Georgia and Iran, etc. According to analyst Mher Beghramyan of AIPRG, Armenia has adapted itself to this situation. Likewise, in spite of Turkey’s sanctions, the country’s economy is improving. So we can’t say that the closed border has made Yerevan change its policy on Karabagh or Azerbaijan. Seeing the issue as primarily economic is also a mistake. The reason for Turkey’s insistence is wholly political, and this can’t be separated from economic considerations. In other words, there have been two factors behind Turkey not changing its policy on Armenia: firstly, Yerevan’s lack of compromise on Karabagh, and secondly its stance on its disagreements with Ankara, mostly on the so-called Armenian (“genocide”) issue.


Under Ankara’s policy, there won’t be any move towards normalizing unless Yerevan changes its stance. On the other hand, Yerevan is opposed to linking the border issue with these problems. Yerevan wants the border to first be opened and then to have other issues discussed. Speaking at the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) in Istanbul this June, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian signaled that if the border is opened, a proposal for a conference on the genocide issue might be discussed. Actually, the way to solve this complicated conundrum is to sit at the table and start a dialogue using creative diplomacy covering all the issues. Striking such a balance would be beneficial for both countries, not only economically, but also politically.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Interview With Murat Akgun of NTV R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Ankara, Turkey
September 20, 2007
QUESTION: Mr. Burns, good morning and welcome to the NTV studio.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: It's not a secret that the Turkish public is expecting a step or steps from the United States of America against the PKK as soon as possible, especially in northern Iraq. Do you think that we can see such steps in northern Iraq in the short term?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We are Turkey's greatest supporter on the PKK. We are against the PKK; we classify it as a terrorist organization; we do not give it any support; and we entirely sympathize with the Turkish people, the Turkish government. There was just an attack two days ago. A soldier was killed here in Turkey and I believe over 150 people have been killed this year by the PKK alone. And so we've got to work with Turkey and we want to work with Turkey to try to end this threat. Part of the answer will be working with the Iraqi leadership, specifically the Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq, to try to get them to give political support to the effort to stop the PKK. But we support Turkey entirely on this issue.

QUESTION: Last week there was a question to you from a journalist in Washington, if I'm not wrong. The question was can we see a step or steps from the US against the PKK in the next six months and then you said I believe so. If this is the correct answer as I remember it, what are you waiting for for some steps, especially in the military field in northern Iraq?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think that the imperative here is two steps. First is to isolate the PKK diplomatically, convince the European countries not to allow the PKK to establish political front organizations in European capitals and is to brand the PKK and castigate it internationally as a terrorist organization. We the United States have contributed to that goal with Turkey, working with the Turkish government, and will continue that. The second is -- are there concrete measures that can be taken to protect the Turkish people and to protect the Turkish military from cross-border attacks? We are working with the Turkish government and the Iraqi government to try to create that environment where the PKK will no longer be able to attack. So we want to be helpful and we’re working with the Turkish government towards that end.

QUESTION: Are we still in the first step, Mr. Burns?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, I think we've…we’ve been in the first step for ten years. We are in both the first and second phases. And both of them are important.

QUESTION: You were talking about cooperation between Iraqi authorities and Turkey and especially Kurdish leadership and Turkey, but now there are two important questions. First, Iraqi authorities have no power everywhere in the country and second, the Kurdish leadership do not even qualify PKK as a terrorist organization. In this case, what kind of cooperation do you expect between Turks and Kurds?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think there has to be political dialogue, frankly, with the Iraqi leadership and the Turkish government and the two have to talk. Hopefully the Turkish government and the United States government can convince the Iraqi leadership that this particular organization is a violent organization, it doesn't deserve to have any political support whatsoever, and it has to be kept away from the border areas with Turkey so that it cannot launch its strikes across the border. That is primarily a political question. So discussions are important. The United States can help to facilitate these discussions. We have our own discussions with the Iraqi government. I know that Prime Minister Maliki was here in Ankara just a couple of months ago. I know that he said some very critical things about the PKK when he was here and it was good to see that.

QUESTION: But on the other hand, during the visit of Mr. Maliki we couldn't even succeed to sign an agreement concerning the fight against terrorism.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, there's no question that Turkey deserves help from the United States. We are your ally. We are your friend. As a victim of terrorism, and we are a victim of terrorism, we sympathize entirely with the Turkish people and Turkish government so you should consider us your closest collaborator in this fight against the PKK.

QUESTION: When you say that the United States of America is also the victim of terrorism, I just remembered the statement of the Prime Minister of Turkey the day before yesterday. He said that even the Pentagon could not handle the terrorism. How do you evaluate this remark?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think that first of all I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Erdogan yesterday and I think that we, all of us, realize that the fight against terrorism is not going to be easy, that there are times when we'll have successes and there will be times when we'll have setbacks, but we've got to have a consistent effort. And it had to be universal. It has to be all democratic countries working together so in that respect I think there's a great connection between Turkey and the United States because we both need to struggle against terrorism, which is affecting both of our peoples.

QUESTION: Well, there's a discussion among the public in Turkey whether Turkish armed forces should make an operation into northern Iraq or not, if there is not enough cooperation between the Iraqi Kurdish leadership and Iraqi central authorities and Turkey. Do you think that it's going to be a legitimate right of Turkey to make an operation against PKK targets?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We hope there will be adequate consultations and cooperation with the Iraqi government that will make it unnecessary for Turkey to take such an action. Obviously Iraq is a country that has experienced incredible trauma over the last four and a half years. We don't want to see anything develop that would further destabilize Iraq and so our vast preference would be to see the kind of trilateral cooperation among Iraq, Turkey and the United States that will make such an operation not necessary. And that's the goal of our policy.

QUESTION: I will have one more question concerning Iraq. There are press reports that the United States of America will withdraw forces from Iraq next year more and more and according to the same reports the Washington administration would like to use some harbors and bases in Turkey. During your visit to Ankara did you have any specific request concerning this issue to the Turkish authorities?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I didn’t have…I did not have any specific request to the Turkish authorities and I can just tell you that President Bush spoke last week, a week ago, about our policy in Iraq. He was very clear that the United States will maintain our military forces in Iraq and that we intend to be successful there.

QUESTION: Iraq is not the only issue in the Middle East or among our neighbors. I would like to ask a question about Iran. How would you evaluate the cooperation between Iran and Turkey due to the fact that they are two neighboring countries?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first of all, we believe that Iran is a serious threat to peace. Iran is funding most of the Middle East terrorist groups and arming many of them. Iran is also trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. So Iran is a dangerous country. We want to work diplomatically, hopefully peacefully, with surrounding countries to try to isolate the Iranians. And, frankly, the United Nations has decided on sanctioning Iran so we are very pleased that Turkey is implementing the sanctions passed by the United Nations. We don’t believe there should be a business-as-usual attitude between any country and Iran because we need to pressure Iran economically so it will be more inclined to negotiate on this nuclear question.

QUESTION: There was very strong, hard statements from the French President and the French Foreign Minister concerning the nuclear capacity of Iran. Mr. Kouchner even mentioned the possibility of a war against Iran. Is it an option – a war between Iran and western countries or an operation of the United States of America if they do have nuclear weapons?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, there's no question in our minds that the achievement by the Iranian government in the future of a nuclear weapons capability would change the balance of power in the Middle East in a very negative way – for Turkey, for the United States, for all of the European countries – so all of us want to stop the Iranians from doing so. We have said, we Americans, that we wish to pursue diplomacy, that we wish to work with other countries to try to convince the Iranians that they need to stop. Now, one way to do that is through negotiations. We've offered negotiations with Iran. Iran had turned us down twice in the last year. We've said that we'll sit with Russia and China and the European countries, we the United States, together, talk to the Iranians and try to figure out a diplomatic way forward, but the Iranians have said no to the negotiations and they continue their nuclear research programs. That's why we've turned to sanctions, economic sanctions, at the Security Council. And we would like all countries to support those sanctions.

QUESTION: Do you still believe that there is risk of war in the area because of the nuclear capacity of Iran in the short term or mid-term?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, we hope very much to prevent a war. We hope very much that through a tough-minded policy of leverage of sanctions against Iran the Iranians will understand they are isolated in the world. Name the countries that support Iran in this quest for nuclear weapons – maybe Syria, maybe North Korea, maybe Belarus, maybe Cuba. There are very few countries supporting Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons in terms of its political aspirations. But most of the countries of the world are arrayed against Iran and advocating that Iran stop its nuclear weapons development and so it's important that Iran listen to the voice of the international community and understand how isolated it is.

QUESTION: A question about Syria – there was serious tension between Israel and Syria in recent days. There was a protest from the Turkish government to Israel. What kind of role may Turkey have concerning the tension between Israel and Syria and in general concerning the Middle East process, including the peace conference at the end of next month in Istanbul?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well I think in general Turkey is a unique country in the Middle East and has influence in the Middle East because Turkey can talk to nearly everyone and we appreciate the fact that Turkey has a good relationship with Israel. We appreciate the fact that Turkey is so close to some of the moderate Arab states. In the case of Syria and Iran, both of those countries are supporting terrorism and both of them are supporting Hezbollah which is a negative influence in the region and so we appreciate the fact that Turkey is a country that can send strong messages and communicate with countries to try to convince them to turn away in the case of Iran from a nuclear weapons program, in the case of Syria, from its support for terrorism.

QUESTION: About Cyrus, there were elections in Turkey and Greece and now we're going to have elections in the Greek part of Cyprus by the beginning of next year. What's going to happen? Do you see the chance of the development of a permanent solution at the end of 2008 in Cyprus?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We hope there can be progress in Cyprus. It's been far too long. It’s been so many decades where there has been no peace in Cyprus…

QUESTION: I'm asking about a solution…

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, we believe that the United Nations should restart its effort to find a peaceful solution and a just solution to the problem of Cyprus. The United States of course will be involved in this, as will Turkey, as will Greece and many other countries. We think it's very, very important that there be progress this year if that's possible. Now we know that Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Talat met recently. I don’t know if that meeting produced many positive results. I had very good discussions here in Ankara with the Turkish authorities. We are working with Turkey; we are working with Greece; and I look forward to meeting the Cypriot leader, President Papadopoulos, as well as Mr. Talat to see if we can push this process forward.

QUESTION: Last question concerning Turkish-Armenia relations. We know that the Washington administration wants Turkey to take some steps to normalization relations between the two countries but how about the Armenian responsibility? Don't you think that Armenia should also do something? For example withdraw its forces from Azerbaijan's occupied territory?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We have been concerned to see that since 1991 there has been no normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey is an ally; Armenia is a friend. So we wish to see progress there. Obviously this is up to the two countries to work out and it’s going to be a two-way street as any relationship is in international diplomacy but our hope would be that there could be a normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, that the border could be opened, there could be normal commerce and trade and a peaceful relationship. That may take some time, it may be difficult, but it's a necessary step in our view. And we hope to see the same kind of changes here within Turkey that will make this a place where minorities such as the Armenian population can live here in a peaceful way and contribute to Turkish society.

QUESTION: Mr. Burns, thank you very much for answering my questions.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much.

Released on September 20, 2007

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Poll reveals Turks see the US as threat, Greeks Turkey

11.06.2007
Today's Zaman İstanbul

A joint public opinion survey simultaneously conducted in Greece and Turkey has concluded that while Greeks view Turkey as the major threat to their country, for Turks, the US poses the greatest threat to their national security.


The Athens-based Elefterotipia daily newspaper published the results of the "Infacto Research Workshop" conducted by the Turkish Bilgi University and "KAPA Research" conducted by the Greek Center for Political Research and Communication (KPEE).

The research's section on Turkey indicates that 77.7 percent of the surveyed Greeks view Turkey as threat. In the survey Turkey is followed by Albania (5.6 percent) and Macedonia (2.3 percent).

For Turks the US is the most eminent source of threat with 35.6 percent. It is followed by a probable Kurdish state in northern Iraq with 25.8 percent and Greece with 9.5 percent. The EU is ranked fourth in the list of top threats (5.5 percent) and Israel is fifth (4.2 percent), according to the survey. Iraq (3.4 percent), Armenia (2.9 percent) and Iran (1.5 percent) followed in the list.

The research also shows that both Turks and Greeks see themselves as nations with no friend or significant ally. Of those surveyed, 71.3 percent of Turks and 54.5 percent of the Greeks believe that they have no political friends.

Majority of Turks say Atatürk represents nationalist values

Asked who they think represents their country's nationalist conscience, 85.6 percent of Turks said it was Kemal Atatürk, founder of the modern Turkish Republic. Mehmet Akif Ersoy, author of Turkey's national anthem, was ranked second. Eighteen percent of Greek participants answered the same question with Dionosis Solomos, the author of the national anthem, and 16.1 percent said military hero Theodoros Kolokotronis.

Asked what they believed would not befit their national values, 45.1 percent of Turks said atheism; 38.1 percent being Christian or Jewish; 23.1 percent homosexuality; 20.8 percent communism; 19.4 percent fanatical Islam; and 8.1 percent said extreme nationalism. For the same question, 47 percent of Greeks said being anti-democratic; 29.4 percent extreme nationalism; 20.9 percent being Muslim or Jewish; 16.4 percent atheism; 12.8 percent empathizing with Turks and Albanians; and 6.2 percent said homosexuality.

In response to questions on the EU, while 63.1 of Turks would vote for EU membership if a referendum were held, 50 percent believe the EU is trying to divide Turkey.

The research also revealed that 75 percent of Greeks believe there are still Greek territories that wait to be liberated from the yoke of foreign occupation. Nearly 18 percent of Greeks describe İstanbul, the Black Sea region, the Aegean coasts and northern Cyprus as "lost land," and believe these lands should be taken back by force; however 80.35 percent believe it is not necessary for the military to intervene.

A majority of both populations prefer to use domestic products instead of foreign products, even if the latter is less expensive. Turks perceive the Ottoman Empire and the period of the republic to be the most successful period, while Greeks perceive the ancient Greek era and rule of Byzantium Empire to be their golden periods.

In response to the question "who has contributed the most to promoting your country?" 15.5 percent of Turks said national soccer team coach Fatih Terim while 20 percent of Greeks said actress and singer Melina Mercouri.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II: I plan on speaking to General Buyukanit about Hrant

Monday, June 04, 2007
Hürriyet, Turkey

The leader of the Armenian Orthodox community in Turkey, Patriarch Mesrob II, has said that the initial societal support shown in the wake of journalist Hrant Dink's murder has lessened as a result of nationalist pressure, and that the figures behind the murder of Dink in Istanbul are still being protected.

Mesrob II noted in his comments, which were published on the German magazine "Der Spiegel"'s website, that he planned to meet soon with the leader of the Turkish military, General Yasar Buyukanit, on this matter.

Notably, Mesrob II also used his comments to express support for the current AKP administration, asserting that the AKP demonstrated a more tolerant attitude towards religious minorities than the opposition CHP.

Also in the interview, Mesrob II commented on the controversies swirling around the Armenian claims of genocide, noting "Rather than insisting on recognition for the Armenian claims of genocide, we Turkish Armenians should make an effort to see that dialogue between Turkey and Armenia can be developed."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS WON'T CHANGE IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT WHAT POLITICAL FORCE WILL WIN TURKISH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

May 25 2007
Noyan Tapan

YEREVAN, MAY 25, NOYAN TAPAN. Expressing any position connected with Turkey-European Union relations is very premature for Armenia: involving Turkey into EU, after all, is an issue to be decided by Europe. Armen Ayvazian, Director of Ararat strategic center, expressed such opinion at the May 25 discussion.

As he affirmed, the forecast of Armenian politicians that becoming EU member, Turkey will change its attitude to Armenia, is wrong. A. Ayvazian said that if even that country becomes a member of European family, which, in political scientist's words, is improbable, it will use all possibilities given to it within the framework of that union to exert greater pressure upon Armenia.

Touching upon the elections to be held in summer in Turkey, A. Ayvazian said that irrespective of the fact whether the Islamists or secular political forces will win the elections, Armenian-Turkish relations will not change.

Ruben Safrastian, Director of Institute of Oriental Studies of National Academy of Sciences, reminded that as early as before the previous elections the representatives of Justice and Development Party made sensational statements that in case of coming to power they will cooperate with Armenia purely from considerations of economic contacts. Their promises of the kind, naturally, were not fulfilled.

EU invites Turkey to adopt broader Caucasus policy

May 19, 2007
Turkish Daily News – ANKARA
FULYA ÖZERKAN

Peter Semneby, EU special representative for the South Caucasus, suggests Ankara not narrow the scope of cooperation with the 27-nation bloc in the region due to problems with neighboring Armenia

A senior European Union official has called on Turkey not to limit its Caucasus policy to the problems with neighboring Armenia, saying that the strained ties with Yerevan were narrowing the scope of cooperation between Ankara and the bloc in the region.

“Turkey and the EU have common interests in terms of reform and energy security in the region but this cooperation is limited because of problems between Turkey and Armenia,” Peter Semneby, EU special representative for the South Caucasus, told a conference on Friday at the Middle East Technical University.

He said the problems with Yerevan constrained Ankara's role in the region and narrowed the context of regional cooperation. “I hope this limitation will be removed in time,” he added.

Turkish-Armenian relations dominated the conference on the South Caucasus, with Ambassador Ünal Çeviköz, deputy undersecretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, urging third countries including the EU to encourage Armenia to revise its policies with neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan.

He emphasized that Turkey was keen to normalize ties with Yerevan through a set of confidence-building measures but said they were all unilaterally implemented by Ankara. As an example, he pointed to the rejection by Armenia of the Turkish government's proposal to set up a joint committee of historians to study the allegations of Armenian genocide under the Ottoman Empire.

Asked about last weekend's parliamentary elections in Armenia, Ambassador Çeviköz declined to comment, in apparent reference to Yerevan's refusal to issue visas for Turkish observers, who were tasked with monitoring the elections as part of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) group.

In comments on the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenians, Çeviköz said the conflict influenced the entire region and that a settlement would certainly contribute to Turkish-Armenian ties.

But when asked if normalization of bilateral ties between Ankara and Yerevan would not contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the ambassador said the problems with Armenia were not limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

“We look at the issues from both bilateral and multilateral perspectives. They are all inter-dependent. You cannot separate one issue from another. The problem of Nagorno-Karabakh is not the only problem with Armenia,” he added.

The border gate between Turkey and Armenia has been closed for more than a decade. Turkey closed the gate and severed diplomatic relations with Armenia after Armenian troops occupied Nagorno-Karabakh. Ankara now says normalization of ties depends on Armenian withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as on progress in resolution of a series of bilateral disagreements, including Armenia's discontinuation of support to efforts by the Armenian Diaspora to get international recognition for the alleged genocide.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Clash of civilisations

May 17th 2007 | KARS
The Economist

Beleaguered Armenians in Turkey—and a closed border with Armenia

FOR a seasoned diplomat, Hasan Sultanoglu Zeynalov, Azerbaijan's consul-general in Kars, eastern Turkey, is unusually indiscreet. He openly complains about Naif Alibeyoglu, the mayor, who is promoting dialogue between Turkey, Azerbaijan and their common enemy, Armenia, just over the border. “I don't believe in dialogue,” Mr Zeynalov snorts. He recently ordered his compatriots to boycott an arts festival organised by the mayor after finding that “there were Armenians too.” Like his masters in Baku, Mr Zeynalov is unnerved at the thought of his country's biggest regional ally suddenly making peace with Armenia.

He will have been cheered by the victory of Serzh Sarkisian, Armenia's nationalist prime minister, in a general election on May 12th. Mr Sarkisian is said to have engineered a last-minute ban on Turkish observers of the election. “I think it would be unnatural to receive observing representatives from a country that does not even wish to have a civilised official dialogue,” he commented.

Mr Sarkisian's hawkish views are echoed by Robert Kocharian, the Armenian president, whom he is tipped to succeed in a presidential election next year. Both men hail from Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous enclave wrested by the Armenians from Azerbaijan in a vicious war in the early 1990s. This prompted Turkey to seal its border (but not air links) with Armenia in 1993. The effect on Kars's economy has been disastrous, which is why Mr Alibeyoglu is so keen to reopen the border.

Ethnic Azeris, who make up a third of his city's 80,000 residents, are less enthusiastic. They are likely to vote in droves for the far-right MHP party in Turkey's parliamentary election on July 22nd. The party's fortunes have risen on a tide of xenophobic nationalism that has engulfed Turkey. Dismissing opinion polls that give Mr Alibeyoglu's AK party a big lead over its rivals, Oktay Aktas, the local MHP boss, confidently predicts victory. He would like Turkey to invade northern Iraq and to hang the Kurdish PKK rebel leader, Abdullah Ocalan. He also says there is no question of easing the blockade on Armenia—certainly not until it stops referring to his region as western Armenia and calling the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians in 1915 a genocide.

The sensitiveness of the genocide issue was reflected in January in the killing of Hrant Dink, an ethnic-Armenian newspaper editor in Istanbul, who had talked openly about it. The killer was a school dropout from the port of Trabzon. Mr Dink's lawyer, Ergin Cinmen, says there is compelling evidence that the Istanbul police were given warning of a planned attack at least a year ago, but they did nothing to protect Mr Dink. This week Istanbul's Armenians were shocked once again by a letter sent from Trabzon warning them to defend Turkey against the genocide claims or “face the consequences”. It was delivered to an Armenian primary school.

Such threats have dispelled the surge of goodwill that followed a huge turnout at Mr Dink's funeral and the reopening in March of an old Armenian church restored by Turkey's AK government. Etyen Mahcupyan, who replaced Mr Dink at his newspaper, says some of his kin are now talking of leaving Turkey for good. The border may stay closed for many more years.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

The sleeping giant awakens

Tuesday, May 15, 2007
TDN
By Mehmet Ali Birand

The secular people are usually silent. They prefer to remain spectators.

There is even a part that, no offense intended, the members of which have assigned the duty of looking after their interests to the military for years, instead of seeking their rights by democratic means. They do not leave their homes, they only complain, and when things take on a sharp turn, they cry to be saved by the generals. We have seen examples of this throughout history. They embraced the Republican People's Party (CHP) at times, treating it roughly at others. They neither totally identified with it nor excluded it in entirety.

Now it appears that this attitude is changing. This time around, with the declaration of April 27, the secular people took it to the streets for the first time. For the first time, they became active to have their voices heard. Even those that called on the military for duty got out of their homes to protect their interests, even at the expense of being disturbed.

The elections will be very different this time around.

For the very first time, I witness the secular people become so conscious. For the first time, housewives urge each other to vote. For the first time, the people who spend their summers in Bodrum plan to return back to their home towns on July 20-21 just to be able to vote. They have reserved their tickets already.

There is a general tension among the public.

We used to see this tension among the religious section of the Turkish society. But this time, the secular people are preparing. The “let's not let our votes go to waste” logic is gaining strength.

The latest rallies are clear signs of this.

Why did Kenan cry?

We, as spectators, view the Eurovision Song Contest differently than those involved in the organization and those that participate by giving points.

For us, Eurovision is no different than a national soccer game. We turn it into an issue of honor. We see those that we have not received points from as enemies, and cheer for those that gave us points. We see one as a friend of Turks, the other as an enemy of Turks.

However, Eurovision is a commercial event. It is both an attractive show and a mechanism to produce raw material for the music industry.

It is for this reason that countries that do not receive points blame not the others, but their own songs. For example, I have checked the newspapers of the following day in both Ireland, which received the least number of votes, and in the United Kingdom, which was once the champion but now gets very low points. I saw that no one cared.

Another fact about Eurovision is that Balkan states and ex-Soviet republics support each other. Greek Cyprus and Greece exchange points and the Scandinavians look after each other. But then, there are still those that act non-politically. The most characteristic example for this was Turkey's 12 points to Armenia. Turkey keeps surprising everyone on these issues.

Kenan Doğulu managed the mise-en-scene very well since the day he was elected to participate in the contest. He organized a very clever PR campaign. If he had not become fourth, he would have easily won third place, and even second had he been lucky.

However, when he could not get what he wanted, he cried in the hotel room with his mother. I was surprised. I thought he had worked out what Eurovision was all about. He should have been happy. He became more famous than ever. He also became known abroad.

Is it not what we call Eurovision anyway?

[...]

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

No major shift expected in Armenia’s policy after polls

15.05.2007
Today's Zaman
EMİNE KART ANKARA

Analysts and observers have held little hope for a dramatic shift in foreign policy of Turkey's estranged neighbor Armenia following the weekend's parliamentary elections in which pro-presidential parties won a large majority -- and with Yerevan being expected to continue to put worldwide recognition of an alleged Armenian genocide at heart of its foreign policy decision-making mechanism.

The winner of the election -- viewed as a dress rehearsal for the presidential vote due to be held at the beginning of 2008 -- was Prime Minister Serzh Sarksyan, who heads the Republican Party, which will control around 40 percent of the 131 seats in parliament.

Sarksyan, a 52-year-old former welder, is from Nagorno-Karabakh, as is current President Robert Kocharian, a notorious hard-liner. Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory inside Azerbaijan that has been controlled by Armenian and local ethnic Armenian forces since a six-year war that ended in 1994. Tensions remain high between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus. Sarksyan was at Kocharian's side in the separatist administration during the war. For nearly 15 years he has held senior posts in Armenia's government including defense minister and national security minister.

Back in December 2006, in an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, then-Defense Minister Sarksyan called on the European Union to become "increasingly involved in finding a way to a breakthrough for relations between Turkey and Armenia."

Armenia, for its part, considers remembering the Armenian "genocide" important, Sarksyan wrote then. But Armenia does not tie "the establishment of diplomatic relations to recognition of the genocide," he suggested at the time.

This very last sentence hinting that Armenia might not be insistent on recognition of an alleged genocide of Anatolian Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during the World War I for reestablishing diplomatic relations with Ankara could be considered as the sole light of hope regarding the new Armenian government's policy toward Turkey, Utku Kundakçı of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation's (TESEV) Foreign Policy Program, told Today's Zaman.

Noting that this hope could only be related to the tone and wording of Sarksyan's remarks, Kundakçı, however, cautioned that one should not hold high expectations.

Ankara has recognized Yerevan since the former Soviet republic gained independence in 1991, but nevertheless refuses to set up diplomatic ties because of Armenian efforts to secure international condemnation of the controversial World War I era killings of Anatolian Armenians as genocide. Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in orchestrated killings during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey categorically rejects the claims, saying that 300,000 Armenians along with at least as many Turks died in civil strife which emerged when the Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided with the Russian troops which were invading Ottoman lands.

In 1993 Turkey also shut its border with Armenia in a show of solidarity with its close ally Azerbaijan, which was at war with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, dealing a heavy economic blow to the impoverished nation. Ankara wants Armenia to abandon its campaign for the recognition of the killings as genocide and make progress in its dispute with Baku before formal diplomatic relations can be established.

For his part, Kaan Soyak, the co-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Council, noted that participation in the elections stood at 55-57 percent, thus low participation in elections have been widely interpreted as a confirmation of the ongoing status quo. Nevertheless, he still argued that Turkey should take the initiative of unilaterally opening the border with Armenia in order to invalidate hard-liner policies in the neighboring country.

Yet, Sedat Laçiner, head of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), drew attention to the fact that now those who favor hard-liner policies have been in power and any concession given by Turkey would be used as a tool by those again against Turkey.

"If Turkey makes any concessions such as unilaterally opening borders, then it will be giving a wrong message to both the ruling anti-Turkey camp and those in opposition who favor a more rationalist and softer relationship with Turkey. Then you would be encouraging those hard-liners to keep up with their unacceptable policies, while you'll be harming the moderate camp. Its costs would be heavy."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

International law doesn’t provide for inviolability of borders

11.05.2007 17:54 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ International law doesn’t provide for inviolability of borders. They are marked by international treaties, Ara Papyan, orientalist, specialist in international law and Armenia’s former Ambassador to Canada told a news conference in Yerevan.

“Till 1933 the Republic of Armenia was recognized by the League of Nations according to provisions of the Sevr (Sevres) treaty. Presently, Armenia, as the assignee of the First Republic of Armenia (1918-1920), has every reason to request the UN Security Council to urge Turkey to fulfill obligations undertaken in Sevr,” he said.

As to formation of an independent Kurdish state, it can happen, since provision 62 of the Sevr treaty provides for Kurdistan state on the territory of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and a part of Armenia. We should be ready for it,” the Armenian diplomat underscored.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.