Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue” Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub project.
As a part of the project web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
***************************************************************************
===========================================================================
CONFLICTS
==========================================================================
NEGOTIATIONS PROMISE RAPPROCHEMENT
———————————— —————————————-
Source: “Echo” newspaper (Azerbaijan) [June 21, 2005]
Author: R. Orujev
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov Informed the Media
At the negotiations on the settlement of Mountainous Karabagh
conflict yesterday, special representative of Azerbaijani President,
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov held a press conference on the
results of recent negotiations in Paris on June 17. He stated that
the negotiations had two formats – general, with the participation of
OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen, and the one between the Foreign
Ministers of the two countries, Elmar Mamediarov and Vartan Oskanian.
Azimov stated that the negotiations may be viewed essential in
content. `Various elements of peaceful settlement of the conflict
were discussed. Thus, the main issue raised was setting up a normal
situation on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan after their
liberation and return of the displaced persons to their
homes. However, this problem raises many other issues to be
resolved. Liberation of the territories is the most principle point
in Azerbaijani stance. Most concerns are raised by working out of
mechanisms for the coexistence of Azerbaijani and Armenian
communities of Mountainous Karabagh and their joint control over the
territory. Peaceful cooperation should be established between the
sides’.
As an instrument for reaching this result, the Paris negotiations
discussed the issue of restoring transport communication between
Azerbaijan and Armenia, according to the Deputy Minister. `It is a
common fact that Armenia has long supported it. Our position is that
in exchange for opening communications, Armenia should reject any
territorial claims to Azerbaijan. The functioning highway via Lachin,
linking Armenia to Mountainous Karabagh, should be under Azerbaijani
control. Another car route Agdam-Shusha-Khankendi-Lachin-Goris(Armenia)
-Sisian(Armenia)-Shahbuz(Nakhichevan autonomy) should be restored and
used by both sides. This highway leads further to Turkey. In my
opinion, recovery of this route may have a positive impact on setting
trust measures between Azerbaijanis and Karabagh Armenians. It is of
benefit to both peoples’.
Azimov noted that he does not intend to appear a great optimist since
all the points of negotiations mentioned are now on discussion.
Speaking about the `parliamentary elections’ in Mountainous Karabagh,
Azimov emphasized that in contrast to previous statements of this
country’s MFA, the recent one states that this event impedes joint
cooperation of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Karabagh
in setting up legitimate power bodies. `I will note that Minsk Group
Co-chairmen of Russia, France and USA stated in Paris that they do
not view the current authorities in Mountainous Karabagh as
independent and legitimate, nor do they recognize any events
organized by such authorities’.
Azimov states that Agdam-Armenia-Nakhchevan car route will not be
very costly. `It certainly needs reconstruction in separate sections
but it is not a very complex project. The sooner the route is ready
for exploitation, the better conditions for cooperation between the
communities. To restore the route, there is an idea for holding a
conference of international donor organizations. Their assistance will
be necessary for restring all the infrastructure on the occupied
territories as well. It is expected that the aid will be provided by
UN, European Union and others. As for the security problems at initial
stage, it should be ensured on liberated territories by international
armed forces. Besides, control observation groups will be set by
Azerbaijan and Armenia. The route from Agdam to Shahbuz will be put to
operation only after withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied
territories. Its security will be ensured by the representatives of
international forces. Future sta! tus of MK will be discussed within
the framework of peaceful negotiation process’.
According to Azimov, the issue of subordination of Karabagh new
authorities to official Baku has not been considered yet. `However,
it may soon be discussed. In any case, the new authorities should
represent the interests of the population in total, including the
Azerbaijanis that returned`.
The Deputy Minister noted that in early July, Co-chairmen will visit
the region and may introduce new proposals to the sides. `Azerbaijan
insists on intensification of the negotiation process. We suggest
organizing several meetings between Foreign Ministers prior to the
coming negotiations between Presidents I. Aliev and R. Kocharian to
be held in Kazan in August while celebrating the city’s
anniversary. The Ministers should submit a number of agreements for
Presidents’ approval’. At the same time, A. Azimov stated that it is
still too early to speak about any principal agreement of the sides
even on one of the currently discussed points.
One of the most interesting issues of the conference was the
possibility of breaking the negotiation process in Prague, as it
often was the case provoked by various international forces. `I would
not state there is no such risk in place’, Azimov declared. `On the
contrary, the situation is quite complex and more problems are still
ahead. Each side should do its utmost for withstanding this
danger. In any case, Azerbaijan has not a single force opposing
peaceful settlement of the conflict. Therefore, I do not think that
our opposition forces, ready for parliamentary elections, may be used
for disrupting negotiation process”.
As reported by `Mediamax’, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
gives a positive assessment of the negotiation results by his
Azerbaijani colleague Elmar Mamediarov. Oskanian stated yesterday at
the briefing in Yerevan that the negotiations were `of constructive
nature and passed in quite friendly atmosphere’. Alongside this, the
Minister noted `we did not reach agreement on one of the important
issues delegated to us by the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
after the Warsaw meeting’. Despite this, Oskanian stated, `if each of
the sides makes a small compromise, there is a large chance for
agreement’.
===========================================================================
REGION
==========================================================================
IN THE BACKYARD OF BIG POLITICS
—————————————– ———————————–
Source: “Novoye Vremya” newspaper (Armenia ) [June 21, 2005]
Author: Tamara Hovnatanian
Since May, the dislocation of the Russian bases from Georgian
territory and opening of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline have become
most urgent issues on regional agenda. Moreover, they are related to
the factors likely to disrupt the geopolitical status quo in the
region. Therefore, these issues now get most comments by the
politicians and analysts, military men and economists.
Dislocation of the Bases Turned Into `Perfect Psychosis’ The epic
about dislocation of Russian military bases from Georgian territory,
particularly Batumi and Akhalkalaki, got prospects for fast
resolution through the mutual statement made on May 30 by the Foreign
Ministers of Russia and Georgia – Sergey Lavrov and Salome
Zurabishvili. Based on the agreement reached, the process of Russian
base dislocation is to be over in 2008.
Further information on the transfer of a part of Russian munitions
from Georgia to Armenia, to 102 Gyumri Base of Russian Armed Forces,
provoked a storm of indignation in Baku.
`We demand that the Russian military bases be not stationed in
Armenia’, Azerbaijan issued a `note of protest’. `The region needs
demilitarization, therefore we raise the issue of no necessity for
dislocating the troops here’, AR Foreign Minister, Elmar Mamediarov
stated.
`This step will not serve the interests of peace and security in the
region and will aggravate the situation still more in the complex
process of settling the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
which has shown faint hope for reaching peace in
negotiations. Moreover, this may impact Russian-Azerbaijani
relations’, Azerbaijani MFA states in its note.
Commenting on the official response of Russian MFA, Russian Charge
d’Affaires in Azerbaijan, Peter Burdykin stated, `This dislocation is
not directed against any of the third countries, it will in no way
impact Mountainous Karabagh settlement and does not contradict
international agreements. Therefore, I think there is no reason for
serious concerns and exaggeration’…
`The concerns over alleged transfer of Russian bases from Georgia to
Armenia, thus strengthening the military potential of Yerevan and
putting a menace to the process of Karabagh settlement, are
groundless. Any such statements, to put it mildly, do not sustain
criticism and reveal ignorance of the commenter at best and the
deliberate misinformation of the public for anti-Russian attitude at
the worst’, Foreign Policy Advisor of the Russian Embassy in
Azerbaijan, Achahmat Chekunov repeats, qualifying the reaction of the
Azerbaijani press to this question as `perfect psychosis’. The
psychosis by the way took the form of quite concrete threats to
Russia.
`Constructivism’ in Azerbaijani Style
Prime Minister and Head of Azerbaijani MFA both implied the `steps’
that might be taken by Baku in response. The `counter measures’ are
denunciation of the agreement on the tenancy of the Gabalin radar
station and access for American military bases to Azerbaijani
territory. At the same time, Baku threatens to have a wholesale
instead of retail in their case. `There is no point about giving
munitions to Armenia, it is just a dislocation to another Russian
base. This will be Russian property simply at another Russian base,
that’s all’, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov explained. He
emphasized that Russia will transfer only a part of the munitions to
Gyumri since it `respects and complies with the zone limitations of
the adapted Treaty on Reduction of Armed Forces in Europe’.
The fact that the dislocation of the munitions is carried out within
the framework of the Treaty and by Georgian quota is recognized even
in Baku. `Formally, Russia will have no changes, which is also true
for Azerbaijan’, Baku political scientist Rasim Musabekov comments on
the situation. `Aren’t the majority of the servicemen at the Russian
base in Akhalkalaki Armenians by nationality? We have another point
here. Previously, Armenia was rendered support in less obvious form,
now it is quite open. By its large military presence in Armenia,
Russia seems to be sheltering it from Turkey and stimulates its
unconstructive role in the region’.
It may be assumed the threats for `American landing troops’ are made
in Baku exclusively out of the bent for constructivism. The spirit of
constructivism also nourishes the Turkish aid to the reforms of
Azerbaijani armed forces. Thus in the time to come, the Nakhichevan
corps will get assistance of up to 3 million US dollars, besides a new
agreement with Turkey is to be signed. Based on the agreement, the
arsenal of Azerbaijani air defense forces will be renewed, a new
military aerodrome will be built in Nakhichevan and joint maneuvers on
guarding Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline are planned. Moreover, the
Azerbaijani sources state that the summer meeting of the Defense
Ministers of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey will discuss the issue of
setting up Turkish-Azerbaijani-Georgian military bloc. It is assumed
that the idea of creating this bloc may become a reality after the
operation of Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline. This context should also
embrace the Georgian-Turkish plans on the const! ruction of
Kars-Akhalkalaki railway network and the predictions of many analysts
speaking of the presence of Turkish military in Samtskhe-Javakheti
instead of Russian bases, even despite the promise of the Georgian
leadership for avoiding it.
`Russian Base is an Element of Security’
Meanwhile, the news agencies report that a railway echelon – 15 cars
with equipment and munitions, is already transported to Armenia from
Batumi. Two more echelons are taken to Russia.
The recent comment on this issue is made by the head of the General
Headquarters of Armenian Armed Forces, Michael Harutiunian, stating
yesterday `the planned dislocation of a part of the Russian munitions
from Georgia to Armenia will not disrupt the balance of forces in the
region’. `The Russian base in Gyumri is set for ensuring security not
in the East but the West. If we compare the balance of forces in the
West, it is essential to consider the half million Turkish Army,
dozens of thousands of Turkish tanks, hundreds of military aircraft’,
colonel-general stated, advising Azerbaijan to calculate its
equipment and munitions. `I would like to officially state that
Azerbaijan deceitfully holds more equipment and munitions than
allowed by the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces’.
The views of Armenian politicians and experts on dislocation of the
Russian munitions are diverse.
`Armenia and Russia comply with the bilateral Agreement on Military
Cooperation and Dislocation of the Russian military bases in Armenia,
also the quota obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe. If our decisions fall in the frames of these two
documents, no one is eligible to interfere in the affairs of Armenia
and Russia’, RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian commented on the
situation.
`The Russian base in Armenia is an element of security’, head of the
Standing Committee on Defense, National Security and Internal Affairs
of the National Assembly, Mher Shahgeldian stated, emphasizing that
there is no new agreement on enlarging and strengthening the
base. The dislocation is carried out within the strict limits of the
current agreement’.
`We have a neighbor having executed Armenian Genocide on state level,
and the presence of the Russian military base meets our interests’,
is the opinion of the head of Republican Party of Armenia, Galust
Sahakian, noting that the stir around the dislocation is the result
of insinuations by the Azerbaijani side.
Among alternative views, the right forces took quite a negative
stance. According to the Chairman of Liberal Progressive Party of
Armenia, Hovhannes Hovhannisian, the Armenian authorities are making
`another unreasonable and dangerous step’. `They are trying to
withstand the disrupted political and economic balance in the country
by a military disbalance in the South Caucasus, by transferring the
Russian military equipment from Georgia to Armenia’, Hovhannisian
holds. At the same time, he does not suggest alternative ways for
restoring the disrupted balance.
`Armenia is No Dump’… Ex-Speaker of the National Assembly Babken
Ararktsian is still more categorical. `Armenia is no dump. Let
Russia take its garbage back. These munitions are over 40 years old,
and they are useless’, Ararktsian states, urging not to be anxious
over Azerbaijan’s statement that the transfer of the Russian
equipment to Armenia will radically impact the military potential of
the Armenian army. `Dislocation of the military bases to Armenia has
the aim of deteriorating Armenian -Georgian relations’, Ararktsian
thinks.
By the way, Russian military journalist Victor Baranets also
expressed a similar view. `I think this old rusty junk, more
resembling scrap metal, should not have been dragged to Armenia, it
is objective. However, it is a comfortable position for someone
sitting at a warm Moscow office. There is one serious objective
reason. If we go home by tanks and fighting machines from Georgia,
there are 18 bridges on the way, and nothing but the name might
remain from them’, the journalist holds, supporting the view that the
equipment was not transported by cargo aircraft and the trawls to
aggravate Georgia.
`The Russian bases is more a political than military factor’, Leader
of Popular Democratic Union, Vazgen Manukian states. `I don’t think
we should currently discuss if their military potential in case of
abstract military operations. I think Azerbaijan also understands
that these military bases will never be used in military
operations’. Leader of National Democratic Union also thinks the very
sense of the presence of military bases in Armenia will gradually be
reduced to zero point both for Russia and Armenia.
`I do not know how long this period will last till the economic,
political and geopolitical issues of the region are solved. There is
great uncertainty, however it is quite clear that this uncertainty
will not be settled through military means’, Manukian states.
`The bases in Georgia should have been dislocated a while ago’, the
political scientist, Director of Caucasus Media Institute, Alexander
Iskandarian thinks. In military sense, they lost their significance,
whereas in the political sense the presence of these bases works for
Georgia and not Russia, since Georgia is using this factor as an
instrument for pressure, and by the way in a very qualified way’.
According to the political scientist, Armenian-Georgian relations
were never very warm and good. `Alertness’ – by this term he defines
the relations between Georgia and Armenia, emphasizing that this
alertness, conditioned by objective reasons, will last for quite long,
not growing into confrontation that cannot be afforded by either
Armenia or Georgia. `The bases in Batumi and Akhalkalaki are not only
Georgian-Russian problem. It is the problem of Georgia, Russia and
Armenia’, political scientist Andranik Migranian holds. He thinks that
Armenia should be involved in Russian-Georgian negotiations on the
bases.
`The Richer Our Neighbors, the Better For Us’
It is only for a while that dislocation of the Russian equipment from
Georgia to Armenia distracted the politicians and experts from much
more obvious infringing on regional balance than the Russian bases.
`The exploitation of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline disrupts the
economic balance of forces in South Caucasus region, and Armenia is
trying to find alternative ways for its restoration’, RA Prime
Minister Andranik Margarian thinks.
`I don’t think Armenia’s interests are affected since the richer our
neighbors are the better for us’, former RA Prime Minister Hrant
Bagratian states as an argument. `Sooner or later such projects,
including the hopefully successful Baku-Ceyhan project, will have a
positive impact on Armenian economy as well’.
Not entering the disputes on economic efficiency of Baku-Ceyhan
pipeline, we will just note that Bagratian is not the only one
doubting the efficiency of BTC and its impact on Armenia.
`The presence of Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline feeds the prospects of
Karabagh issue settlement and excludes the possibility for restarting
military operations’, Vartan Oskanian thinks, emphasizing that
Azerbaijan in this sense faces serious limitations. `Those
considering Armenia’s marginalization from the project as a defeat of
Armenian diplomacy, get the following response from Armenian Foreign
Minister, `It is obvious that only through rejection of Karabagh we
might have the oil pipeline pass via our territory…’
In other words Armenia, being forced to choose, kept to
Karabagh. This choice fits in the formula, `Oil to Azerbaijan,
independence to Karabagh’. As a result, we have a quite peaceful
response to the oil pipeline by political parties of Armenia.
`Armenia has numerous factors for resistance, and it is not hopeless
or condemned’, head of `Dashnaktsutiun’ Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, Levon Mkrtchian states. `As for Armenian neighbors and
architects of regional politics, they should understand that
political science does not allow for the notion of `black holes’. So
if they try to keep Armenia in communication blockade, circumvent it
through all possible ways, they should keep in mind that in this case
stability and security are impossible in the region’.
Representative of `Ardarutiun’ opposition party Victor Dalakian
suggests as a counteraction development of democracy in the
country. As an illustration, he provides a full assessment of the
incomes in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey for the next year and a
long term forecast up to 2030. He does not calculate democracy in
barrels, assuring that it will bring more dividends than oil dollars.
Becoming A Regional Player?
The greatest optimism is expressed by economic experts. Thus, the
Director of `ArmRosgasprom’ company Karen Karapetian holds that
Armenia has a chance to use Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum to meet its national interests.
`Certainly it would be more desirable if these pipelines passed via
Armenian territory, still it is already positive that they are
constructed even circumventing the Republic’, Karen Karapetian
states. He sees new possibilities for Armenia in these projects as
regards production of electrical energy. In his opinion, Georgia may
supply to Armenia a part of its gas from the quota for the transit of
the `blue fuel’.
`Having abundance of electrical energy and finishing the construction
of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, as well as reconstruction of Abovian
subterranean gas depositary, Armenia may become a serious player in
the region’, the Director is confident. He suggests transforming `the
negative geopolitical situation for Armenia into an advantage’. The
forecasts show that Armenia’s neighbors will soon face deficit of
electrical energy they would have to compensate. It is not by
accident that Georgia has already started negotiations on the
construction of a new `Armenia-Georgia’ power transmission line’,
Karapetian states.
Meanwhile, regional processes keep developing in unexpected
directions for Armenia. As Iran IRNA agency reports with reference to
Baku sources, till the end of 2005, an agreement will be signed on
the supply of natural gas from Iran to Georgia via Azerbaijani
territory. Karadag-Tbilisi pipeline will be used for deliveries. The
Azerbaijani section of the pipeline was restored in 2004, whereas the
Iranian side allotted 2.5 million dollars without compensation for
repairing the Georgian section. Iranian gas will become for Georgia
an alternative to Russian supplies in case of their suspension. It is
interesting what advantages for Armenia will be envisioned by
Armenian political scientists and experts in this project?
SOUTH CAUCASUS PARLIAMENTARIANS REACHING AGREEMENT
9—————————————————————————-
Source: `24 Saati’ newspaper (Georgia) [June 17, 2005]
Author:
Last week, Tbilisi witnessed a notable event likely to have a large
impact on the social political life of South Caucasus in
general. Parliamentary Assembly of South Caucasus countries was set
up at Georgian Parliament.
The negotiations on this issue started quite a while ago. The authors
of the idea stated that despite the contradictions in place, the
point is about the unsettled relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia. The South Caucasus states have a lot of similar problems or
tasks which may be resolved through mutual effort, particularly when
it refers to international arena where Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan may have a unified front for achieving their goals and
forgetting the current internal problems for a while. However, a
resolute step in this direction was made only recently, though the
bilateral negotiations (Georgia-Azerbaijan, Georgia-Armenia) at
parliamentary level regularly voiced the willingness for certain
activity in setting up the Parliamentary Assembly. Both the Armenian
and Azerbaijani sides, each on its behalf, thought it essential to
emphasize that the activity of the organization can hardly be
efficient as a result of problematic Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.!
Naturally, Baku put the blame on Yerevan, whereas Yerevan conditioned
the possible problems for the functioning of the Assembly by Baku.
Anyway, heads of the parliamentary delegations of the three South
Caucasus countries still signed the Memorandum on setting up the
Parliamentary Assembly of South Caucasus Countries (PASC) on June
16. It was signed yesterday at Georgian parliament. The signatories
to the Memorandum were Chairman of Georgian Parliament Nino
Burjanadze, Vice-speaker of Armenian Parliament Tigran Torosian and
member of `Yeni Azerbaijan’ government party, deputy of Milli Mejlis
(Parliament) of Azerbaijan, Syavush Novruzov.
Nino Burjanadze qualified the event as `unique’. `I think PASC has
the potential for becoming a serious and stable guarantee of
stability in the region. Setting up this union will undoubtedly
promote active dialogue between the three countries of the region’,
she stated to media representatives. According to Nino Burjanadze,
signing of the Memorandum became possible due to the study of the
experience of the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of Baltic countries.
However, the `unique event’ again revealed the deep contradictions
among the participants and raised certain doubts of its
sustainability. Thus, the head of the Armenian delegation, Tigran
Torosian expressed hope that the Assembly may be launched already in
2007. `I see no serious reasons that might stand in the way’, he
stated. However, the Azerbaijani delegation had its vision of the
situation. Representative of Azerbaijan, Syavush Navruzov stated in
his turn that setting up of the Assembly may become possible after
resolution of Mountainous Karabagh problem. `The territorial problems
unresolved, the Assembly’s activity may be considerably impeded’, he
stated.
Nevertheless at a special briefing, the sides showed willingness for
compromise and avoided discussion of the problems. After signing the
document, the sides unanimously declared that the mutual efforts of
the South Caucasus states may promote more efficient implementation
of the activities, aimed at the development of their countries and
the region as a whole.
===========================================================================
NEIGHBOURS
==========================================================================
GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS MOVING AT US IN AVALANCHE
—————————————- ————————————
Source: “Milliyet” newspaper (Turkey) [June 18, 2005]
Author: Semih Idiz
Erdogan’s position, shortly qualified as `Our archives are open. Let
all the sides involved open their documents to do away with empty
talk,’ was again voiced in Beirut the day before. It stirred into
action International Union of Genocide Researchers, which sent its
address to Erdogan on June 13, 2005.
The Union, involving many famous scientists from various countries,
Turkey included, resolutely parries the arguments by Erdogan (`the
events of 1915 should be studied by historians to reveal the
truth’). The letter states that Erdogan is not aware of hundreds of
pieces of research on Armenian Genocide, conducted by the scientists
from various countries and nationalities for decades.
Conference in Every Two Years
The letter states in particular that the events of 1915 are qualified
by most scientists as Genocide, in compliance with the Genocide
Convention of 1948. The text of the letter was adopted unanimously at
the conference of the Union, held every two years. This year it took
place on June 4-7 in the city of Boca Raton (USA, Florida). The
address also states, `We admit that there are diverse opinions as to
how and why the Armenian Genocide occurred. However, rejection of
Genocide is not academic but propaganda behavior, an attempt to
justify the perpetrators, put the blame on the victims and to
obliterate the significance of this event from history pages’.
The Conference in Bogazici is Also Mentioned
The statement also points to the Turkish scientists, accused of
dependence on the government and the state in the attempts to hide
the truth and `provoke ethnic turmoil’. It also mentions the
conference on the Armenian issue, planned at Bogazici University and
postponed because of the reaction of Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek. `Thus your government proved its intolerance to academic and
intellectual freedom – the most important condition for democratic
society’.
Interesting Coincidence
The letter ends up, `To occupy a decent and equal place in
international democratic society, the Turkish society needs to bear
responsibility for Armenian genocide similarly to the German people
towards the Jews’. It is notable that the date of the address
coincided with the hearings on Armenian Genocide in German
Parliament. The historians should get together and study the issue
thoroughly in order to withstand similar statements to be gradually
increasing.
External Problem
The situation is getting clear each day. Both in the West and East,
Turkey stands alone in its position on Armenian Genocide. It is still
not clear what is the way out. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gull notes
that this issue is a priority for the government, not mentioning
however a concrete action plan. The government statements on this
issue seem to be largely focused on internal audience. Meanwhile, the
source of the problem is not inside the country, the greatest part of
the population refuting Genocide allegations. The problem is outside
Turkey’s borders, where these allegations are growing as a snowball
and moving at us in avalanche.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress