Obama Trying To Make Rape Look Like Seduction

OBAMA TRYING TO MAKE RAPE LOOK LIKE SEDUCTION
Peter Chamberlin

CounterCurrents.org

May 24 2010

Thanks to Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice, the complex plan for world
domination, which has been produced over several generations by the
earth’s most advanced minds, teeters over the chasm of total defeat.

Obama’s mission is to keep us out of the chasm, while ramming through
the central elements of the plan.

Bush’s heavy-handed policies have been described in the Russian
press as “rape,” compared to Obama’s policies of “seduction”
(SEE: Turkey will show us how to play gambit with the West? Part 2
). Obama must persuade the people of central and south Asia to open
wide and accept the American intrusion into their lives, despite the
enormous anti-American resistance that has been created by previous
Bush intrusions. It would be only fitting if, in the end, America’s
self-inflicted wounds proved to be fatal.

Obama’s foreign policy is clearly a reversal of Bush policies,
backing-up, while staying in the same tracks and laying down a heavy
cover fire. Those tracks lead deep into central Asia. While it now
looks to us like nothing has really changed in the Western military
campaign in Afghanistan, it will soon become apparent that there is
a new military focus–central Asia.

Obama’s reversal undercuts basic Republican neoconservative ideology,
as originally spelled-out in the PNAC (Project for a New American
Century) document–“deterring any potential competitors from even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Elevating Turkey to a
regional power is a new twist, due to its strategic location, but even
more, because of the role that it has played in the plans up until now.

Turkey’s role in Bush’s attempted rape of the Caucasus and in
southern Russia has previously been described by FBI whistleblower
Sybil Edmonds . Turkey’s moderate Islamists of the Fatullah Gulen
movement have operated out of Saudi financed mosques throughout the
former Soviet Republic, indoctrinating locals in their Wahhabi-lite
version of Islam. These “Islamists” have stirred-up a lot of animosity
in the region.

Bush created a series of global proxies to take actions on America’s
behalf, giving some of them the impression that they were to be the
next great power in the Middle East of Asia. It was enough for some
of the minor players that they were just a part of the “winning team.”

The leaders of Turkey, India, Israel, Pakistan, even Georgia, were all
convinced that they were America’s “indispensible partners” in the new
global alliance. Each of these national leaders became key regional
players in the pipeline drama, even though they were all considered
expendable in an ever-changing pipeline scheme (In truth, the neocons
planned a classic “double-cross” for most of their partners.).

In the endgame, it was never American intentions to empower a real
competitor in the Middle East, key allies like India and Israel were
being set-up for a major double-cross just like Pakistan has been
going through on a daily basis for several years. Pakistan surely
has its faults, but the American manipulation of those fault lines
within Pakistan to warrant outside military intervention is the cause
of most of their major problems today. They have been set-up for a
very hard fall

As the leaders of these patsy nations have come to realize the big
set-up that they are in (mostly because of the shock of America’s
ongoing economic collapse), they have begun to wise-up to America’s
ways of forced penetration. It is rapidly becoming clear to more and
more of them that the policies of Bush/Cheney amounted to “rape” on
a national scale. Universal revulsion to this perception is fuelling
the global epidemic of anti-Americanism.

In order to reverse the damage done in this penetration, without losing
ground in the pipeline wars, a way had to be found to capitalize
on the gains made previously by Turkish assets. The solution was to
transform Turkey into the latest false adversary of America.

The quickest way to create the impression in people’s minds that
Turkey and America have parted ways is for the Turkish Prime Minister
to publicly pick a fight with Israel. No one comes between the Zionist
American administration and Israel. What better way to send a false
signal to the world?

Turkey next cancelled the yearly war games with Israel. The
Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives next passed
a resolution accusing Turkey of “genocide” for the slaughter of
thousands of Armenians in WWI. These acts created the impression that
the Turkish position had really changed. Erdogan was considered from
that time to be his own man, freed from US clutches. Nothing could
have been further from the truth.

Turkey, the world’s only “moderate Muslim” state, would play its new
designated adversary role, even while serving as Obama’s proxy. The
Empire’s battery of behavioral scientists determined that the Muslim
countries of the former Ottoman Empire would not likely push away
the more familiar Turkish suitor. Recep Tayyip Erdogan would serve
as Barack Obama’s Miles Standish , sent forth to woo the Muslim world
on his behalf.

Mr. Erdogan is a maverick. He is a “moderate Muslim,” a living example
of “democratic Islam.” Only Turkey could have produced this “new Muslim
man,” living proof that democracy and Islam are not incompatible. The
children of Ataturk have endured a split society for generations,
part of it secular, but most of it very religious.

Turkey has been for isolated for decades, sandwiched between East
and West, ostracized by the Muslim world for embracing secularism,
while its leadership hungered for NATO membership. This awkward
relationship between two civilizations has made Turkey an incubator
for “political Islam.”

It is possible that all of this speculation is dead wrong–that
Erdogan really has turned against the United States. But in this
American-dominated capitalistic world, it would be political suicide
in the international arena to defect from the American side. It is
more likely that mafia rules apply for national political leaders
just as much as they apply to the real “Cosa Nostra”–the biggest,
meanest thug gets whatever he wants. It may not be apparent to the
naked eye, but Barack Obama will prove to have been the biggest
“thug” on the planet. Blackmail and not profit is a more probable
explanation for Erdogan’s sudden behavior change. He may simply
be trying to save Turkey from American blackmail over the Armenian
“genocide” issue (an explosive issue with the real potential to cause
Turkey’s self-destruction).

For whatever hidden reasons, he is now riding a wave of
anti-Americanism while playing foil to America. In this role, he
is not only helping the US to get its way with the Muslim world,
but also to obtain Russian help in breaking through the national
social barriers to the multiple pipeline projects that have so far
proven to be unsolvable. By entering into partnerships with Russia,
it is hoped that he can become the key to unlocking the impasse between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, over Nagorno-Karabakh, so that more economical
southern pipeline routes from Baku to Turkey (which bypass Georgia)
can be opened.

For the most part, there is already full cooperation on pipeline
development. We are understandably mistaken to believe that news
reports on energy-related issues which concern both Russia and America
are about real areas of conflict or confrontation between East and
West. The conflict arises from efforts to integrate the separate
pipeline plans of Moscow and Washington.

The integration of systems of political control and supply creates
friction which is vented in social protests which erupt whenever
locals (who have always been accustomed to state-controlled prices)
experience real capitalist inflation.

In many ways, Russian/Soviet systems of supply and security have
already found integration into the Western UN security structure
(SEE: The Implications of UN-CSTO Cooperation ):

[Beginning in March] “the Russia-dominated security group and the
United Nations would henceforth cooperate in countering terrorism,
transnational crime (including illegal arms trafficking), and in
settling conflicts.”

Confrontations occur whenever the security arrangements of East and
West overlap, as they do in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Ukraine.

Development of Asian fuels will require the breaking-down of borders
and the simultaneous maintenance of security; this cannot happen
if both sides keep throwing-up new military boundaries that impede
progress.

American and Russian leaders have come to a quiet understanding,
arriving at a common strategy, intended to persuade the people of
the world to accept the globalist plans. Their idea was to maintain
perceptions of an “adversarial relationship,” while quietly entering
into joint projects together through third parties. They would ease
East and West together by focusing their merging strategies upon a
leader who is a product of both worlds, Turkish P.M. Recep Tayyip
Erdogan. He truly represents both sides.

Instead of open conflict over any of these national issues, the US and
Russia can now defuse regional tensions. Erdogan has been made into
a lightening rod for outrage, as well as a grounding force to pull
all things together. By carefully following the American military
science of the “strategy of tension,” explosive potential conflicts
can be defused or turned into opportunities. Threat levels are elevate
at first, then allowed to play-out in a controlled manner, keeping
deaths to an acceptable level. We see this process see at work in the
political conflict zones, playing-out in little psycho-dramas intended
to captivate and misdirect the locals into manageable conflicts.

These political dramas often cross the lines separating political
action from outright terrorism, enabling their misinterpretation by
the population at large as real outright conflicts. Deception and
misdirection of the target population accomplish the task of creating
a “false trail,” to throw-off any real investigations of the hidden
big picture.

The hidden picture is this–There are no real wars anymore; there is
only profit. “Enemies” are not really military adversaries; they are
either assets or competitors. Russia and America do not really work
against each other’s interests–ANYWHERE. If we think that Putin
and Obama (or even Brzezinski) are head-to-head in a “chess match”
for world domination–guess again. There is only the illusion of
competition; it is useful for misleading the locals.

Consider the Armenian/Azerbaijan contest–where alleged competitor
pipeline projects Nabucco and South Stream vie for access to Caspian
Sea gas. Even though both sides use Turkey in an apparent contest
between competing pipelines, both pipelines will transit Turkey on
their way to Europe. The big illusion is that Russia is seriously
trying to break the impasse over Nagorno-Karabakh in order to cut
America’s throat. There is zero chance that Putin will turn against
Armenia to force a resolution, considering that Russia’s only military
base in the S. Caucasus region is located there.

Everyone wants to see the energy harvested from central Asia. The
United States and Russia both want to gain total control of the world
and together put an end to the endless cycles of petty conflicts
which deplete limited resources. The US wants control of every market.

Russia wants to be accepted as the world’s primary energy supplier,
selling gas, oil and nuclear energy to the developing world.

All media-driven disputes in this region should be considered political
theater. Having said this, some major media events are not driven
by the media, but by the events themselves, or by the players in
them. Sometimes, one side in these violent political dramas goes
too far, requiring the “false opposition” to suddenly become very
real. One such event was the Georgian war on S. Ossetia. Mikhail
Saakashvili went way too far, threatening to cut Russian supply lines
through the Caucasus Mountains at the Roki Tunnel.

The latest case of one side going too far in central Asia is the
United States in Kyrgyzstan. US pressure to take control of the
country to secure the northern end of the NDN (Northern Distribution
Network) drove Putin and Medvedev to act. In spite of all the happy
talk coming out of Washington and Brussels lately about a “reboot”
of American/Russian relations, Vladimir Putin is playing to win
in Kyrgyzstan, just as he was in South Ossetia. While Obama may be
turning away from the brutish tactics of Bush and Cheney, Putin seems
to be ready for an old fashioned fist fight.

Neither Obama nor his mentor Brzezinski (not to mention the
conventional forces of the United States), appears to be in shape
for a knock-down, drag-out in the Ferghana Valley.

The Kyrgyz people, who are trapped in ringside seats, have no way of
escaping the turmoil that these antagonists may have planned there.

Yesterday, anti-Uzbek, anti-government violence escalated into open
street war, with each side fielding several thousand combatants. This
pent-up tension exploded when Naftogas cut the gas going to south
Kyrgyzstan by 50%. Rioting centered around the Uzbek university in
Osh, the one city which also happens to be the location of the only
Russian military base in that country. It is no coincidence that the
communist-inspired riots focused upon Russia’s allies the Uzbeks,
occured near a Russian air base. Any communist agitator will tell you
that the quickest way to gain properly motivated allies to your cause
is to stage attacks upon your own people or allies–a traditional
“false flag” attack. By bringing-down rage upon the Uzbeks within
Kyrgyzstan, support for Bakyiev’s cause was given stimulus to grow.

So, even if the Kyrgyz situation does represent a point of disagreement
between Putin and Obama, it still comes full-circle, with the rioting
bringing support to the Kyrgyz opposition. By building the forces of
opposition, it also pushes the country to civil war.

Civil war destabilizes the entire region–good for American plans.

With America playing the “bad cop,” instead of Russia, the historical
antagonisms between the former Soviets and their former clients is
temporarily pushed aside.

Learning to see.

Civilization is simply a cowed population. Americans are the most
cowed of all human livestock.

The New World Order will come about, but only when East and West
come together. That merger will either result in a harmonious world
of limitless opportunity, or it will bring-about the global police
state; it is within our power to choose the happy ending and the
new beginning.

We the People of Planet Earth must assert our people power to ensure
that the order which comes out of this coming together is respective of
all of our God-given rights as human beings. Failure to stand together
to protect all human rights in any global agreements which come about
will lead to a world where there are no protected individual rights
against the power of the almighty “Corporation.”

Our leaders are not fools; they know the same things that we know
(and so much more). They understand that humankind stands on the
threshold of the great awakening. In their eyes, that new day can
only come about through selective intelligent application of force,
to establish total control over all our lives. What they fail to
understand or to accept is that the keys to our survival lie within
us. It is human creativity that holds the power to effect all change,
and it, above all, must be set free.

Human nature itself must be changed and that cannot come about
through force.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.countercurrents.org/chamberlin240510.htm

ANKARA: Much To Do For The New CHP

MUCH TO DO FOR THE NEW CHP

Hurriyet
May 24 2010
Turkey

The main opposition Republican Peoples Party, or CHP, turned a major
page this weekend by effectively dumping its old ossified leadership
and electing a new and younger one headed by the unassuming yet
determined Kemal Kılıcdaroglu. Whether this represents a new page
for Turkey, however, is not clear at this stage.

It is nevertheless a fact that Prime Minister Erdogan and his ruling
Justice and Development Party, or AKP, are less comfortable today than
they were before the weekend. It is clear that the CHP in its present
formation has the potential to become a real “main opposition party”
that has its sights set on victory at the polls.

Many analysts believe the CHP under Deniz Baykal and his cronies had
no such aim. Theirs appeared to be more than an effort to remain in
Parliament, come what may, and not go beyond being the main opposition
in order to protect the entrenched political interests of a certain
group of politicians and elements in society that support them.

Whether this is true or not, it is clear that Baykal’s CHP produced
one electoral defeat after another and never took the cue from this
in order to let others in the party have a chance to see if they
could produce better results.

It is no wonder then that Prime Minister Erdogan should have cynically
thanked Mr. Baykal on quite a few occasions in the past for stubbornly
refusing to vacate the leadership seat in the CHP. As long as Baykal
and his cronies remained, it was clear that the CHP posed no political
threat to the government.

The present CHP, however, has the potential to be a much more viable
opponent for Prime Minister Erdogan and the AKP. This means that
the government is going to have to work harder, especially on social
policies affecting working men and women, given that general elections
are not that far off.

None of this means, however, that the CHP can take anything, let
alone an electoral victory, for granted. It too has much to do, first
to dissipate the dark clouds that have been hovering over the party
under its previous leadership. Then it has to campaign tirelessly
across the country on social policies in order to capitalize on the
growing public anger at the AKP for neglecting wage earners, be they
white collar or blue.

The previous CHP could not utilize the opportunities created for it by
the government in this respect because it was anything but a social
democratic party, despite its pretensions to being one. Given this
odd situation, it was left to the government to introduce what were
generally palliative measures for the working class, thus appearing
to be more social democratically orientated than the CHP.

The new CHP is also going to have to work out very rapidly what its
position is on crucial issues such as Turkey’s EU dimension, the Cyprus
issue, and the attempts at normalizing ties with Armenia. It must be
admitted that Mr. Kılıcdaroglu’s speech at the CHP convention over
the weekend did not provide much excitement in this respect.

He produced some hackneyed clichés that showed he still has work
to do in this respect. One highly welcome change in the CHP in this
respect is that the retired ambassadors in the party administration,
who generally have an ultranationalist outlook on crucial foreign
policy issues, have gone now.

Some names have been bandied around in terms of who among retired
ambassadors will be taken on as advisors for the new CHP. These names,
which include people like Ugur Ziyal, a former ambassador to Damascus
and Rome, and Nabi Å~^ensoy, the former ambassador to Washington who
retired over a disagreement with foreign minister Davutoglu during
Prime Minister Erdogan’s last visit to the U.S.

That names like this should be pronounced now bodes well for the CHP
given that these people are more in touch with the realities that
govern the world. This is why we prefer to give the benefit of the
doubt to Mr. Kılıcdaroglu on foreign policy issues even if we were
not impressed with his remarks on this subject.

We would like to believe he will, once he realizes the complexities
involved, will move toward a proactive position on key issues like the
EU and Cyprus, rather than repeat the reactive line of the previous
administration.

It is clear, however, that Kılıcdaroglu is going to score his real
points with the Turkish public over domestic issues, and especially
those that involve gross social injustices. It is also noteworthy
that he did not mention the notion of “secularism” once during
his address at the convention. He did not do this because he is
religiously orientated.

Kılıcdaroglu is after all an Alevi, which means he would be the last
one who would want to see Turkey’s secular system tampered with. But
he has his finger on the pulse of the people better than Baykal did
and knows that while he may be a staunch secularist, there are issues
that have to be resolved in this country, not the least of which is
the headscarf issue.

The way Baykal’s CHP approached issues such as these led many
conservatives to believe the CHP’s brand of secularism was in fact
against Islam. Kılıcdaroglu now has the task of proving to the
public that being secular and religious at the same time are not
mutually exclusive and that secularism is there to protect people’s
convictions, whether they be religious, agnostic or atheist.

The task facing Kılıcdaroglu is therefore daunting. Nevertheless,
he has injected fresh hope for social democracy in Turkey for those
who were deeply disappointed with the CHP under Baykal and had nowhere
to go. They will have a party to vote for now.

From: A. Papazian

Ladies Of The Caucasus Go Head To Head At Eurovision

LADIES OF THE CAUCASUS GO HEAD TO HEAD AT EUROVISION
Liana Aghajanian

ianyan magazine

May 24 2010

Kitsch lyrics, super sleek pop stars in shiny outfits that can be seen
planets away and the silent sound of oozing cheese can only mean one
thing in the spring time: Eurovision is here.

Yes, the best and worst (well, maybe just the worst) of 39 countries
have gathered for another year of frills and thrills, including Eva
Rivas and Safura, representing Armenia and Azerbaijan respectively.

The ladies will go head to head in the competition which will have
two semi-finals leading up to the final on May 29 in Oslo, Norway.

Both countries are favorites to win along with a few others, with
Azerbaijan’s Safura leading the pack.

Representing Armenia with “Apricot Stone,” Eva Rivas was born in
Rostov-on-Don in Russia and was a part of the “Arevik” ensemble for
eight years. She’s currently working on an album that will include
the songs of Sayat Nova. Dubbed as the Armenian Angelina Jolie,
Rivas’ song was composed by Armen Martirosyan, composer of Andre’s
“Without Your Love,” which was Armenia’s first foray into Eurovision
and written by Karen Kavaleryan, who has participated six times as
a lyricist for different countries in the contest.

Although Apricot Stone is sung in English, it’s symbolic lyrics
represent Armenia and mark a departure from last year’s bilingual
entry “Jan Jan” from sister duo Inga & Anush who sang “Jan Jan”
in Armenian and English.

Apricot stone, Hidden in my hand Given back to me >>From the motherland
Apricot stone, I will drop it down In the frozen ground I’ll just
let it make its round

While Rivas’ has a strong voice and even stronger looks, the most
exciting part of her performance will come in the form of renowned
duduk master Jivan Gasparyan, who will be seated on a stone, playing
the duduk. His presence marks an exciting new record for Eurovision,
as he will be the oldest person to be featured in performance.

In anticipation for her performance, Rivas has been traveling over
Europe and spreading some apricot seeds – literally. Just last week,
she visited France, where she planted an apricot tree at Chambovet
park in Lyon. Apricot trees by her and her team were also planted in
Thessaloniki, Greece and in Cyprus.

Across the border, Rivas faces some amazingly tough competition in the
form of Safura Alizadeh who will be representing Azerbaijan with “Drip
Drop,” a love ballad that is dripping in Western-infused touches –
from her choreographer JaQuel Knight, the mastermind beyond Beyonce’s
hit “Single Ladies” video to director Rupert Wainwright, an English
film director whose film, “The Fog,” was incidentally rated as one
of the 100 worst movies of the past decade by Rotten Tomatoes.

Unlike Rivas’ culturally infused song, “Drip Drop,” written by Anders
Bagge, Stefan Orn and Sandra Bjurman is as sleek and smooth as they
come – from the back up dancers, to her dazzling outfits and lest
we forget the flying diamonds, rain and underwater sequences in her
video. Songwriter Bagge has written and produced songs for heavy
hitters like Celine Dion, Madonna and Jennifer Lopez, however “Drip
Drops” lyrics fall short.

Tell me where have you been?

Why are you late?

You smell like lipstick again Come on, answer my question!

Say something.

Why are you acting out?

Oh, say it’s in my head…

And as Eurovision devotees know, “falling short” in the spectrum of
music in the real world, only means you’re bound to rise to the top
of this over the top spectacle of mediocrity.

This is not a bad thing. In fact, in turns out, it’s a great thing:
betting agencies favor her enough to predict she will win the contest,
according to Will Adams, editor-in-chief of Eurovision Song Contest
blog, wiwibloggs.com.

While most of Europe will gather this coming weekend to revel in the
all the glorious glory of Eurovision, it seems as though a cheesy song
contest never is just a song contest as Global Voices Caucasus Editor
Onnik Krikorian reflects in a post about the contest’s effect through
social media, which reflects the realities of the region outside of
the Eurovision pop bubble.

Unzipped also has a round up of subjective comparisons of both Eva
Rivas and Safura, grading details such as dress and moves, which as
any Eurovision lover can tell you, are important.

Watch videos of Eva Rivas’ “Apricot Stone” and Safura’s “Drip Drop”
below, and look out for more of Eurovision to come on ianyan.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.ianyanmag.com/?p=2600

ANKARA: ‘US Concerns Over Swap Deal Related To Domestic Politics’

‘US CONCERNS OVER SWAP DEAL RELATED TO DOMESTIC POLITICS’

Today’s Zaman
May 25 2010
Turkey

President Abdullah Gul has said the United States’ reaction to Iran’s
nuclear fuel swap deal sealed in Tehran a week ago was related to
domestic politics.

The president said the swap deal was a “requirement” of the EU, the
Vienna Group (the US, Russia, France and the International Atomic
Energy Agency [IAEA]), the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council — the US, China, Russia, France and Britain
plus Germany), and the international community. “Their reaction,
as I see it, is related to domestic politics,” Gul stressed while
speaking to a group of journalists en route to Kazakhstan on Sunday.

Observers believe US President Barack Obama wants to placate the
Republicans during the midterm congressional elections in November.

The Republicans criticize Obama for having a weak national security
policy vis-a-vis Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Despite different views on
Iran, Gul said the US is Turkey’s ally and that they are very aware
of the cost of the Iraq war to Turkey, adding that it is in Turkey’s
national interest to solve Iran’s nuclear dispute through diplomacy.

Gul also ruled out claims that Turkey wants to show itself off in the
international arena by taking on a role in the nuclear crisis. Saying
that US President Obama is following a policy of “engagement,”
repudiating his predecessor George W. Bush’s “You are either with us
or against us” rhetoric, Gul said Obama should embrace his policies,
implying that he needs to endorse the nuclear deal agreed with Iran
under Brazilian and Turkish mediation.

Iran on May 17 agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched
uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the
international standoff over this country’s disputed nuclear program
and head off a US-led push for tougher sanctions in the UN Security
Council.

Saying that the nuclear swap deal is a confidence-building measure,
Gul said other issues will need to be discussed following this step.

He said it is not proper to immediately reject the deal. “The end of
any path other than this is war,” he emphasized.

Also speaking about the stalled reconciliation process with Armenia,
Gul said it is important to work silently and decisively. “Today’s
status quo is [working] against all countries related [to the
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process]. Silent work continues [to
advance the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation process],” the president
noted. He also avoided commenting on newly elected Republican People’s
Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıcdaroglu, noting that he himself is
no longer a politician.

Asked what Turkey’s most important problem is, Gul said the Kurdish
issue. “It needs to be solved with maturity. Terrorism has to come
to an end. It is important to achieve democratic standards. Cyprus
and problems with Armenia are also important,” Gul said.

Commenting on the EU not giving Turkey an exact date on its EU
membership, President Gul said the matter is about Turkey. “We need
to implement EU reforms together with an understanding that transcends
political parties,” he added.

During his four-day visit to Kazakhstan, President Gul met with his
Kazakh counterpart, Nursultan Nazarbayev, on Sunday in Shymkent. On
Monday, he traveled to Turkistan to visit the Hoca Ahmet Yesevi
Turkish-Kazakh University. He then came to the capital of Astana to
participate in official meetings.

From: A. Papazian

Sochi Olympics Offer A Lever On Russia And Rights

SOCHI OLYMPICS OFFER A LEVER ON RUSSIA AND RIGHTS
Kurt Volker

Washington Post
May 25 2010

With summer arriving, it might seem early to be thinking through the
politics of the 2014 Winter Olympics. But the next Winter Games are to
be held in Sochi, Russia, just a few miles from Abkhazia, a territory
Russia broke off from Georgia by military force in 2008. Simply put,
this will be tricky. Preparations need to begin as soon as possible.

Few are suggesting that the United States and Europe boycott the Sochi
Games, a la Moscow in 1980. But attending the 2014 Olympics under
today’s circumstances would make all of us complicit in cementing
in practice Russia’s changing European borders by force, even if we
reject those changes in principle.

Imagine the practicalities. Abkhazia is a part of sovereign Georgian
territory according to every country in the world except Russia,
Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru. Already, Olympic construction workers
are being housed in Abkhazia. By 2014, we could see housing for
tourists, regular border crossings between Russia and Abkhazia without
a hint of Georgian sovereignty, high-visibility symbols of Abkhaz
“statehood” such as flags and travel documents, and the presence of
the Abkhaz and South Ossetian “presidents” at Olympic ceremonies —
alongside U.S. and European leaders.

To avoid the unpalatable choices of boycott or complicity, the United
States and Europe should get to work on a third possibility: that the
Sochi Olympics could become a catalyst for resolving long-standing
conflicts, bringing the Caucasus region into the 21st century.

Russia’s interest in a successful Olympics — an interest that we
share — should be a powerful incentive for consigning to history
Moscow’s zero-sum, divide-and-rule approach to the Caucasus. This
would surely be the best outcome for the states and peoples in the
region, for Moscow, for the athletes and for the Olympics.

To get there, four steps come to mind:

First, we need to be clear that in today’s Europe, the change of
borders by force will not be recognized. Diplomacy should begin now
so that at this autumn’s NATO and U.S.-E.U. summit meetings, we can
agree on a formal non-recognition policy pertaining to Abkhazia and
Georgia’s other breakaway province, South Ossetia.

Although details can be fine-tuned, such a policy could encompass:
non-recognition of statehood; non-acceptance of travel documents issued
by the two territories; no official travel to these areas unless the
access is from Georgian territory; no investment in, or trade with,
business entities based in these territories; and no U.S.

or E.U. visas for officials of the breakaway governments, unless it
is on terms the United States and Europe decide upon. But it should
be equally clear that the West is prepared to lift these policies
quickly should there be agreement with Georgia on internationally
supervised autonomy.

Second, in parallel with a non-recognition policy, the United States
and Europe should give a renewed push to the Geneva process of
negotiations over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. First launched after
the E.U.-brokered cease-fire in 2008, the talks are foundering. The
United States hit the reset button in early 2009; it is time for
Russia to reset as well.

Third, efforts should be reenergized to resolve the region’s other
major conflict: the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, which is disputed by
Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is an issue on which Russia, the United
States and Europe have been working together well for years, and the
outlines of a possible settlement have long been on the table. An
Azeri-Armenian settlement could spur travel, trade, investment
and economic prosperity in the region. A ministerial meeting of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk
group, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, should be convened to renew pressure toward
a settlement.

Fourth, the OSCE, the European Union and the United States should
put far greater resources into strengthening democratic institutions,
supporting nongovernmental organizations, monitoring conflict zones,
fighting corruption and building trade and investment throughout
the Caucasus. The next elections in Georgia — where democratic
institutions are strongest, though still fragile — should be heavily
monitored to make them as clean as possible. We should step up calls
for genuine democratic processes in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Washington
should increase Freedom Support Act funding and team up with the E.U.

Eastern Partnership initiative. Healthy political and economic
development will increase incentives for resolving conflicts and
serve as a magnet for breakaway territories to seek closer integration.

If the United States and Europe do nothing, we will surely face an
untenable situation in 2014. But by acting now, we can stake out a
position based on democratic values and increase the prospects for
reaching long-term solutions well before the Sochi Games.

Kurt Volker, U.S. ambassador to NATO from July 2008 to May 2009, is
managing director of the Center on Transatlantic Relations at Johns
Hopkins University and a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council of
the United States.

From: A. Papazian

Nagorno Karabakh Mediators Say They Recognize Democracy In NKR

NAGORNO KARABAKH MEDIATORS SAY THEY RECOGNIZE DEMOCRACY IN NKR
Armen Hareyan

HULIQ.com
May 25 2010
SC

OSCE Minsk Group, which consists of the representatives of The
United States, France and Russia said they “understand the need”
for holding parliamentary elections in Nagorno Karabakh Republic as a
way of providing good governance for Karabakh people. While Armenia
has strongly supported the democratic elections in NKR, Azerbaijan
has called it illegal.

The European Union has also called it illegal as Nagorno Karabakh’s
Republic is not recognized state and has broken away from Azerbaijan
22 years ago voting for independence. However, Catherine Ashton, High
Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy, reiterated EU’s “firm support to the OSCE Minsk-Group and the
work of the three Co-chairs and their efforts towards a settlement
of the conflict.” She also said in a statement that EU is ready to
further support to this end.

Now let’s see what the Minsk-Group has said about yesterday’s
parliamentary elections in Nagorno Karabakh. “Although the Co-Chairs
understand the need for the de facto authorities in NK to try to
organize democratically the public life of their population with
such a procedure, they underscore again that Nagorno-Karabakh is not
recognized as an independent and sovereign state by any of their three
countries, nor by any other country, including Armenia,” co-chairs
said in a statement published on OSCE’s website.

Mediators go little further saying this parliamentary election in
Nagorno Karabakh cannot pre-empt the solution to the conflict. While
this is understood, let’s see what exactly the co-charis say.

First, the countries that mediate the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
between Azerbaijan and Armenia do acknowledge the “de facto
authorities” of the republic. This naturally makes the authorities
as a conflict party, something that Azerbaijan denies and prefers
to negotiate only with Armenia. Second, is the important that Minsk
group co-chairs “understand the need” for organizing the public life
of the population. The third is very important: co-chairs understand
the need to organize the public life “democratically.”

No serious violation has been registered or report in Nagorno Karabakh
vote. While the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia continue,
Nagorno Karabakh made another big step toward proving that it is able
to self-govern itself in a very democratic way providing freedom for
its population.

The interest is growing to the ability of Nagorno Karabakh to function
as an independent democratic state. If this state is indeed making
such great headway in organizing its public life in a democratic way,
it is really good for the entire region. While Nagorno Karabakh is not
recognized country, it is a democratic state and it is in Europe’s,
Russia’s and United States’ interest to support and strengthen this
democracy.

There were more than 100 international observers monitoring the vote.

The statement issued by the Russian observing mission read that
the Nagorno Karabakh election was “legitimate, open, democratic,
transparent, fully responsible to the Electoral Code of NKR and all
the highest international standards for democratic elections.” It
further stresses that the parliamentary elections were held in an
atmosphere of free political competition.

From: A. Papazian

BAKU: Sargsyan’s Decision Was Received Relatively Positively In Turk

SARGSYAN’S DECISION WAS RECEIVED RELATIVELY POSITIVELY IN TURKEY – ANALYST

news.az
May 25 2010
Azerbaijan

Nigar Goksel News.Az interviews Nigar Goksel, senior analyst at the
European Stability Initiative (ESI) and Editor in Chief of Turkish
Policy Quarterly.

Do you expect improvements in the U.S.-Turkish relations after
Obama’s statement on April 24-th, which didn’t recognize 1915 events
as genocide?

Once again, President Obama may not have pronounced the word
“genocide”, but ultimately he defined genocide with the description
of the events in his message on April 24th. Had he used the G-word,
a harsh reaction was expected in Turkey.

The reaction among Turkish decision makers and opinion leaders to the
passage of the resolution in the House Foreign Relations Committee on
March 4th had already offered a glimpse of how dramatic the response
might be: American Congressmen who voted in favor of the resolution
were labeled “reckless” by Turkish decision makers, and the occasion
was described as an ‘American comedy.’ It was predicted by Turkish
commentators that “internal politics and foreign policy balances
would turn upside down” if the resolution were to be adopted by the
US Congress. The “opportunity” was also used in self-serving ways:
Hardliner supporters of the AKP government blamed the Jewish lobby
for not supporting Turkey against this vote. Some analysts blamed
Azerbaijan for not working hard enough against the resolution in the
House Committee, and consequentially questioned why Turkey should
make sacrifices for Azerbaijan.

Eventually, the fact that President Obama did not use the G-word
did not necessarily boost relations – it only prevented a severe
deterioration.

That Turkey ventured down the path of normalization of relations with
Armenia with various miscalculations is a common assessment by now.

But the United States also miscalculated by creating the impression
that the US threatened to recognize genocide unless Turkey ratified
the protocols. Ultimately, the US would not have benefitted from the
fallout of Washington’s genocide recognition, nor from a premature
Turkey-Armenia “breakthrough” that appeared to be US-imposed.

Even though Obama did not use the word “genocide”, unfortunately, we
left April 2010 behind with increased tension between involved actors –
including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and the US. After about a month
of keeping the issue relatively low-profile to cool the tensions, the
issue of rapprochement with Armenia has started to be discussed again
in Turkey. Hopefully this time the management of the complex dimensions
– also involving the US and Azerbaijan – will be more smooth.

How would you comment on Armenian decision to stop Turkish-Armenian
approaching process?

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s decision – announced with a
powerful speech – was understandable given the circumstances. The
normalization process was already deadlocked and at the eve of April
24th, Sargsyan was under domestic (and diaspora) pressure not to allow
Turkey to benefit from the mere appearance of ongoing normalization.

Before the President of Armenia’s announcement that the process was
stalled, Ankara tried to keep up the appearance of the normalization
process being on track even though public debate and political messages
from both countries had revealed insurmountable differences.

Unable to deliver results to appease its skeptics, Yerevan had
already hardened its rhetoric. The Armenian leadership was repeating
the Armenian nations’ red lines as often as the Turkish leadership
voiced its diametrically opposed expectations. The situation was
not sustainable.

Sargsyan’s decision was received relatively positively in Turkey.

Because, if instead, Yerevan had decided to go ahead and ratify the
protocols in its own Parliament, this would have put Turkey in a more
awkward position, highlighting the Turkish resistance to following
suit. In the current situation, the process can be regenerated when
Turkey is ready or when the circumstances Ankara expects are ripe.

What could the Turkish side do after this decision and what will be
the future of the two protocols ratification?

There are steps which do not require an open border ( thus do not
compromise geostrategic balances), that Turkey can take to build
trust and communicate sincerity about wanting to reconcile with the
Armenian nation. These steps will also help prepare the ground for
eventual Armenian-Turkish diplomatic rapprochement.

In this sense Turkish intellectuals and civil society have come a long
way – albeit with baby steps- in breaking stereotypes and changing
paradigms both at home and among Armenians. Hope for real change in
the region is vested – in the long term- in these developments.

Allowing such initiatives to be pursued freely, effectively
implementing the new laws that pertain to minorities- including the
Armenian minority in Turkey, putting more effort into attributing the
Armenian cultural heritage to their civilization, and investing more
political will into restoration efforts would substantiate the claim
of Turkey wishing to overcome the deep running problems between Turks
and Armenians.

On the diplomatic and strategic level there is a deadlock currently.

There is hope in Turkey that a compromise can be reached in the form
of Armenia withdrawing from a few districts surrounding Karabagh
and Turkey in parallel moving the protocol process forward. However
that such a formula will be welcomed by either the Armenian or the
Azerbaijani people is questionable. Given the mutually exclusive
expectations from the societies, it seems that this time, an effort
will be made not to announce the parameters of the processes to the
publics. This can prove to be problematic though, because speculation
will continue to abound, and of course eventually the challenge of
getting the people on board will have to be faced.

From: A. Papazian

BAKU; ‘Turkey Had Nothing To Worry About Armenian Allegations’

‘TURKEY HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS’

news.az
May 25 2010
Azerbaijan

Cemil Cicek A Turkish deputy prime minister said that Armenian
allegations regarding the incidents of 1915 were overshadowing
relations with the United States.

Turkey’s State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said
that Turkey had nothing to worry about the Armenian allegations.

“History will confirm it sooner or later irrespective of who says
what,” Cicek said during the “Turkish Day Festival” in New York.

Cicek said that the issue was overshadowing relations with the United
States, and hoped nobody would resort to such wrong views from now on.

Also, Cicek said the United States was Turkey’s ally and friend,
and two countries undertook responsibilities in many places around
the world from Korea to Afghanistan for over 50 years, which further
improved and institutionalized the relations.

However, Turkey was deeply sorry about the US resolutions reached by
baseless allegations accusing the Turkish nation, he said.

Cicek said Turkey was ready to confront its history.

Minister Cicek later left New York for Turkey.

The Federation of Turkish American Associations (FTAA) organized the
29th Turkish Day Festival in New York.

Janissary Band and folkloric dance team performed shows during the
festival. Also Turkish singers took stage and Turkish food was served
and sold the whole day.

From: A. Papazian

BAKU: Elections In Nagorno-Karabakh Do Not Matter – OSCE Chairman

ELECTIONS IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH DO NOT MATTER – OSCE CHAIRMAN

news.az
May 25 2010
Azerbaijan

Kanat Saudabayev Parliamentary elections held in Nagorno Karabakh on
May 23 did not contribute to the settlement of the conflict in the
region, said OSCE chairman.

“As the OSCE does not recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh,
the holding of” elections “have no meaning or effect on the
process of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement”, OSCE chairman, Foreign
Minister of Kazakhstan Kanat Saudabayev said in an interview with
Interfax-Kazakhstan on Monday.

He also said he supported the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group on
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and will continue to promote political
negotiations between all parties in the framework of the Minsk process.

Earlier, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy Catherine Ashton also said that the EU does not recognize the
legitimate upcoming elections.

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry condemned the intention to hold
elections in Nagorno-Karabakh. “The holding of such ‘elections ‘
violates the relevant provisions of the Constitution, as well as
rules and principles of international law, since these ‘elections’
are conducted in the absence of indigenous Azerbaijani population of
Nagorno-Karabakh and thus do not have any legal force”, the Foreign
Ministry states .

From: A. Papazian

BAKU: ‘The Normalization Of Turkish-Armenian Relations Could Take Ma

‘THE NORMALIZATION OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS COULD TAKE MANY YEARS’

News.az
May 25 2010
Azerbaijan

Emmanuel Karagiannis News.Az interviews Emmanuel Karagiannis, Assistant
Professor of Russian, post-Soviet Politics, University of Macedonia
at Thessaloniki, Greece.

There are a huge energy projects linking Azerbaijan, Turkey and
Greece. Don’t you think that Greece becomes more interested in
stability in the South Caucasus in this regard and does Greece have
any possibilities to assist this region to be more secure?

In recent years, Athens has shown greater interest in the South
Caucasus for a number of reasons. First, there is still an ethnic
Greek population in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Second, Athens
seeks to diversify its sources of energy and Azerbaijan is obviously
a viable option. Third, Greece would like to act as a bridge between
the EU and its eastern neighbors which hope to integrate further into
the Euro-Atlantic structures.

Russia and Turkey has been developing a close collaboration, especially
during the last 2 years. What is your opinion, may this collaboration
be fruitful for the stability in the South Caucasus region?

Given the Turkish-Russian fierce competition in the 1990s, the
current astonishing improvement of bilateral relations could certainly
contribute to regional stability. But the two countries have different
views about Georgia’s territorial integrity, the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, and the role of Russia in the South Caucasus. Since Ankara
and Moscow have competing interests in the region, they will often
find themselves in opposite camps which practically means that the
South Caucasus will remain a zone of great power competition.

Turkey is very active now as a mediator in the Karabagh conflict. But
at the same time Turkey has its own problems with Armenia. What do
you think about Turkish potential in the Karabakh settlement?

Turkey is not considered by most Armenians as a neutral party in the
Karabakh conflict. Ankara can be viewed as a reliable peace broker
only if it normalizes relations first with Yerevan. Yet, the genocide
issue has poisoned the Turkish-Armenian relations and has produced
mutual suspicion. Therefore, the normalization of Turkish-Armenian
relations could take many years.

Azerbaijan and Turkey say that there is a direct link between the
Karabakh conflict and Turkish-Armenian peace process, but Armenia
says they are two independent processes. Do you see interconnection
between the two problems?

Due to the Turkish blockade of Armenia, Ankara is considered by
many as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. The
Armenian leadership would have preferred to normalize relations
with its big neighbor in the east while avoiding any concessions to
Baku. But apparently the Erdogan government is not willing to pay
the political price of such a step at a time of increased tensions
with the Turkish military.

Secessionists in Karabakh held parliamentary elections in the occupied
Azeri territories on May 23. Do you think that international community
this time or anytime later will recognize its legality?

There are no indications whatsoever that the breakaway republic
of Nagorno-Karabakh will gain diplomatic recognition soon. Having
said that, Stepanakert will most likely seek further integration
into Armenia.

From: A. Papazian