Author: Chilingarian Babken

Green Left Weekly, Australia
Dec 6 2009

Arundhati Roy’s early warning: behind India’s `miracle’

Review by Mat Ward
4 December 2009

Listening to Grasshoppers: Field Notes on Democracy By Arundhati Roy
Penguin, 2009 256 pages, $30

India successfully markets itself to the globe as the `world’s largest
democracy’ ‘ but what kind of a democracy is it?

In Listening to Grasshoppers, Booker Prize-winning author and activist
Arundhati Roy gives a devastating verdict on her country that should
serve as a warning to the world.

The title of the book comes from Roy’s friend, whose mother recalled
how swarms of grasshoppers visited her Armenian village in 1915. The
village elders were alarmed because they knew that grasshoppers were a
bad sign.

A few months later, 1.5 million Armenians were wiped out by a
genocidal Ottoman Empire.

In India today, says Roy, the grasshoppers are calling.

The 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai could be seen as the grasshoppers
nibbling on a harvest of poisonous seeds sown long ago.

India, which is often lauded as an all-inclusive, secular society of
more than a billion different souls, has been sowing those poisonous
seeds by persecuting its 150 million Muslims for decades.

What kind of a democracy, asks Roy, would hand over the keys of an
Islamic mosque, the Babri Masjid, to a baying Hindu mob, so they could
demolish it brick by brick, as happened in 1992?

What kind of a democracy would allow the murder of 2000 Muslims and
the eviction of a further 150,000 in the Gujarat riots of 2002?

What kind of a democracy would use half a million soldiers to
persecute a mostly Muslim nation, Kashmir, in the world’s biggest
military occupation, leading India and Pakistan to the brink of
nuclear war?

The type of democracy, says Roy, now dominant in the Western world.

Since India fled the Non-Aligned Movement after the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1989, it has often referred to itself as the `natural
ally’ of Israel and the United States.

Certainly, says Roy, India’s occupation of Kashmir is a mirror image
of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the US-led occupation of Iraq
and Afghanistan. But superpowers such as the US, she points out, do
not have allies ‘ only agents.

India, a loyal agent of the US-led free market, is now persecuting
another of its own minorities ‘ the Adivasi tribal people, who happen
to live on the land containing India’s richest unexploited resources
of iron ore, bauxite and uranium.

India’s strategy to get rid of the Adivasis is unsurprising ‘ it has
labelled them terrorists. India’s Prevention of Terrorism Act, or POTA
‘ like the US Patriot Act ‘ was brought in to strip the rights of
anyone it considers inconvenient.

India’s home affairs minister P. Chidambaram, a former Enron lawyer
and mining director, says his vision is to get 85% of India’s
population to live in cities. This would entail the upheaval of 500
million people.

A plan to force indigenous people off their resource-rich lands and
into cities ‘ does that sound familiar?

But the analogies with Western democracies do not end there. India’s
government claims a thumping mandate gives it the right to enact
sweeping powers, yet is elected by only 10% of the people, says Roy.

In Britain, a Labour government that was last elected with the support
of barely a fifth of the British adult population is now conducting a
fire sale of public assets.

In the US, vote-rigging now seems as American as apple pie and obesity.

Obesity is fine, but democracies don’t take kindly to starvation
deaths, says Roy. `So, dangerous levels of malnutrition and permanent
hunger are the preferred model these days.

`Forty-seven per cent of India’s children below three suffer from
malnutrition, 46 per cent are stunted … about 40 per cent of the
rural population in India has the same food grain absorption level as
sub-Saharan Africa.’

But Roy predicts that the bitterest harvest is yet to come. The rights
of all Indians are being eroded by the Supreme Court.

`The judiciary has managed to foil every attempt to put in place any
system of checks and balances that other institutions in democracies
are usually bound by.’

Indian TV news, which Roy says makes Fox News look left-wing, has been
backing the courts in attacking anyone who criticises the police and
military.

Though she doesn’t mention it in this book, Roy has been jailed for
doing just that.

There is hope. Roy notes that the greatest optimism for Kashmir came
in a peaceful uprising by its people in 2008. After all, how could
India crush the kind of movement that brought about its own freedom?

Yet Roy also says that when people’s rights are eroded, they are left
with little choice but armed struggle.

`We’re standing at a fork in the road’, she says. `One sign points in
the direction of `Justice’, the other says `Civil War’.

`There’s no third sign, and there’s no going back. Choose.’

93

Sunday’s Zaman, Turkey
Dec 6 2009

Stop the old `bridge’ metaphor; Turkey has become a new regional `hub’

During Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an’s upcoming visit to Washington, his host
at the White House is likely to offer him diplomatic niceties on
Turkey’s role as a `bridge’ between East and West.

Our argument is that this metaphor, however flattering it may have
been in the past, no longer fits the reality of contemporary Turkey.

Today, Turkey is less of a bridge and more of a dynamic regional hub
in a rapidly changing world where a fundamental power shift is taking
place towards Asia and away from the West. Turkey has re-emerged as a
powerful actor in its own right, deriving its strength from a
$750-billion-strong economy, large military, huge cultural and
historic hinterland, and an increasingly effective and trusted broker
role for protracted problems in the region. Turks also have redefined
their strategic interests and are not happy at all to be treated in a
patron-client relationship.

Our suggestion is that Western officials should accept this new
reality not as a challenge but as a positive development. If they stop
treating Turkey as a biddable client providing useful transit services
(as implied by the bridge metaphor) and instead recognize Turkey’s
autonomous status and far-reaching national interests, a far healthier
basis for future relations between Turkey and its Western allies will
emerge.

One way or another, a resurgent Turkey is rewriting the rules of the
power game in the Middle East, Eurasia and Southeast Europe. It is
doing so in a positive and non-confrontational manner that, when seen
through this new `hub’ lens, accords well with Western interests in
the troubled regional geography in which Turkey lies at the center.

In effect, what we are witnessing today is the emergence of a Turkish
version of the German Ostpolitik of the 1960s — with just the same
potential for positive outreach into a troubled region.

The current Turkish behavior is shaped by the shifts in the country’s
international identity and the changes in Turkey’s vision of its new
geopolitical role. These, in turn, are the result of powerful
processes that are reshaping the socio-political life of the country.
These processes are the economic development in the Anatolian
hinterland, the broadening of the elite through the emergence of the
new ambitious provincial social actors, who are economically dynamic
and culturally conservative, and the increasing role of elected
officials and thus a stronger government. None of these dynamics need
be seen as detrimental to Western interests.

In revisiting the `Turkey dossier,’ the first step for Western policy
makers will therefore be to back away from the past, where Turkey was
seen as the `sick man of Europe’ or a `loyal ally’ of the West on the
outer margins of the EU, NATO or Asia. A more constructive image is to
view Turkey as being located in the very heart of Eurasia and now
working free from the post-Ottoman cliché of `modernization.’

Policy shift to rise as a regional powerhouse

The signature policy of Turkey’s new self-confidence is the policy of
`zero problems with neighbors.’ This marks a revolutionary change from
the `siege mentality’ that promoted the paranoiac view that Turkey was
surrounded by enemy countries. One after another initiative has been
launched to pave the ground for the settlement of most historically
deep-seated and complex problems.

In this context, Turkey and Armenia, two historic enemies, broke new
ground in October by signing protocols providing for the restoration
of diplomatic relations and the opening of the long-closed border
between them. If borders are not reopened by April 2010, it seems
certain that the Turkish-American partnership could possibly be dealt
another blow due to the long-standing proposed `Armenian genocide’
bill.

Iran remains the single most important item on Turkey’s plate.
ErdoÄ?an’s recent visit to Tehran resulted in new projects to increase
the existing $11 billion trade volume to $30 billion over the next few
years. There was talk of Turkey brokering a deal with Iran on nuclear
matters including storage of enriched uranium on Turkish soil. Joint
exploration and production of natural gas, trade in local currencies,
the establishment of an industrial border area and a joint airline are
also among the points agreed upon to boost economic cooperation
between the two neighbors.

Two other visits this past October may serve to more vividly
illustrate Turkey’s activist foreign policy. Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an,
accompanied by nine ministers and an Airbus full of businessmen,
visited Baghdad, where he held a joint session with the Iraq
government and signed no fewer than 48 memoranda in the fields of
commerce, energy, water, security, forestry, the environment and so
forth. At almost the same time, Foreign Minister DavutoÄ?lu was in
Aleppo, where he signed another 40 agreements with Syrian Foreign
Minister Walid al-Muallim, of which perhaps the most important was the
removal of visas, allowing for a free flow of people across their
common border.

These developments have been balanced by some loosening in Ankara’s
traditionally close ties to Tel Aviv. Turkey has closed its airspace
to Israeli military training (while holding joint military exercises
and opening borders with Syria). However, the Nov. 24 visit to Ankara
by Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Binyamin `Fuad’ Ben
Eliezer demonstrated that both sides are open-minded to repairing
their mutual relations.

In the wake of Turkey’s accelerating regional engagement, the EU
accession process enjoys less priority, partly due to the particularly
unwelcoming approach under the Sarkozy presidency and the Cyprus
problem still staying as a stumbling block.

In fact, Turkey’s accession story is like an unfinished symphony,
started almost half a century ago and yet to be finalized. Turks tend
to see EU policy as evasive and full of double standards, with many
promises going unfulfilled. This has cost Brussels a serious loss of
credibility in the eyes of most Turks, even those who are fervently
pro-European. Turkey has certainly not lost its European vocation, but
this will have to be adjusted to fit the new circumstances. On Cyprus,
for example, Ankara made it clear that if a choice has to be made at
the end of this year between Cyprus and EU membership it would be
undoubtedly Cyprus.

In order for its `zero problem with neighbors’ strategy to be
credible, Turkey has to deal with its own domestic problems first on
the basis of widely shared consensus with internal stakeholders.
Turkey has always been a conservative country and the vast majority of
Turks have traditionally voted for center-right parties. The rise of
the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) represents a struggle
between the military and the civilian bureaucratic elites, and
challenges the secular, modernist forces in the country.

There are signs that the AK Party finds it difficult to divorce the
country’s foreign policy goals from its own cultural and religious
sensitivities. In a historic turnaround, the current government has
opened Pandora’s box on the Kurdish issue, albeit not in a
well-engineered and orchestrated manner. Turkey is now using a softer
approach. A peaceful settlement of this decades-long problem will
enhance Turkey’s desire to implement a more activist regional
strategy.

Turks eager to get promoted in energy politics

Energy has a pivotal role in shaping Turkey’s regional role as the
country, a major consumer of energy in its own, is also key to linking
oil and gas producers in Russia, Caspian, Central Asia and the Middle
East with energy-hungry markets in Europe. Yet, Turks are not content
to be a simple `bridge’ over which energy flows only; they aspire to
become a regional `hub’ extracting greater value for the crisscrossing
oil, gas pipelines and power interconnections.

Unlike the West, Russia seems to have adjusted much earlier to this
new geopolitical game. Seizing the opportunity created by Ankara’s
growing frustration with the EU and the US, Russian Prime Minister
Putin traveled to Turkey on Aug. 6 with his basket of tempting
strategic and economic proposals immediately after a similar Nabucco
agreement mission in July 2009 by his EU opponents.

The crystal-clear message from Russia to Turkey during Putin’s visit
was, `We will make it worth your while to do business with Russia.’
Hence, the visit has generated a series of unprecedented commercial
and energy contracts worth $40 billion that will support Turkey’s
drive to become a regional hub for fuel transshipments while helping
Moscow maintain its preferred partner status on natural gas shipments
from Asia to Europe.

There are heightened fears in several capitals about Turkey becoming
too cozy with Moscow at the expense of overriding some Western energy
and strategic interests, with possible security ramifications in the
long run. Some of the same misgivings were felt at the time of
Germany’s Ostpolitik outreach to then-Soviet-occupied Europe. Just as
those fears proved misplaced, so a smart engagement strategy to keep
Turkey plugged into the West’s preferred energy strategy will require
a more nuanced understanding of this country’s interests. We believe
that this is entirely possible; but, so far, that is not what we have
seen.

These developments have unsettled Western assumptions about Turkey. In
particular, it has undermined the article of faith that the West
enjoyed the whip hand over Turkey because of the latter’s aspiration
to join the EU. This was the theme of President Obama’s speech to the
Turkish Parliament in April. This assumption needs to be reviewed. It
does not help when Western think tanks hold conferences about Turkey,
they talk about Turkey’s `dangerous drift’ in Turkey’s progress toward
adopting the `acquis communautaire.’ This is living in the past.

President Obama has a lot in store to discuss with Prime Minister
ErdoÄ?an, including Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Armenia, Syria and
Israel, when he comes to the White House on Dec. 7. There is an
important lesson here for the Obama administration. With its strategic
commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan and economic challenges at
home, the US is less able to dictate strategic outcomes to countries
like Turkey.

Luckily, the more astute of America’s diplomats already know this.
They recognize that, increasingly, if Washington wants to promote and
protect US interests in this critical region, it will have to do so
through serious diplomacy — by respecting evolving balances of power
and accommodating the legitimate interests of others so that US
interests will be respected. Turkey’s current policy provides a
valuable model of what that kind of diplomacy could be like.

Let’s not jump to an easy conclusion that what Turkey has been doing
systemically since 2002 in this most difficult part of the world is a
simple drifting away from the West and embracing `rogue’ and
`anti-Western’ nations at the expense of its historical western
vocation. It is also too early to judge Turkey’s multi-vectored drives
as successful. Indeed, far from looking for a life without them,
Turkey is looking for an upgraded relationship with the US and the EU.
Turkey can hardly expand its influence without first having a firm
footage in the West.

A more promising approach lies in better understanding Turkey’s
drivers, needs and priorities and seeking western alignment for a
durable, `win-win’ relationship with Ankara as well as using Turks’
leverage in the broader Middle East, Eurasia and Southeast Europe to
find solutions to protracted problems that the West has thus far
failed to address.

Turkey is the only country in the world which can simultaneously talk
in a spirit of trust and partnership to Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus,
Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Moscow, Baku and Yerevan, as well as enjoying
dialogue with most radical groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and
Afghanistan. Hence, Ankara stands at a historic juncture and possesses
the ability to shape politics beyond its borders if it pays attention
to the two following parameters: maintain its newfound global role
only by building international constituencies and prove that its heart
beats for Muslims and non-Muslims, and Turks and non-Turks, with the
same strength.

Turkey’s respected and non-confrontational rise in that volatile,
troubled region that is increasingly peaceful, with countries
cooperating with one another, is good for the West and the world. This
is an exceptional and unique role Turkey could play as a regional
`hub,’ rather than a `bridge.’ This is what Washington and Brussels
should be supporting wholeheartedly, rather than getting worried
about.

———————————- ——————————

* Mehmet Ã-Ä?ütçÃ&#xBC ;, a former Turkish diplomat, OECD international staff
member and an honorary fellow with University of Dundee, is currently
with a major multinational corporation based in London. Jonathan
Clarke, a former UK diplomat, is a senior fellow at the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York.

06 December 2009, Sunday
MEHMET Ã-Ä?Ã`TÃ?Ã`/JONATHAN CLARKE*

Sunday’s Zaman, Turkey
Dec 6 2009

Turkey rethinks military cooperation with Israel

Last month Israeli Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer’s (L)
visit was the first of its kind from an Israeli statesmen since Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an walked out of a World Economic Forum
session in January.
Turkey and Israel are currently going through one of the rockiest
moments in their history.

The precariousness of the relationship between the two countries,
decided mainly by the Palestinian problem, is now manifest in the
field of military cooperation. Traditionally, military contracts
between Turkey and Israel have always kept bilateral relations from
collapsing, but cooperation in the recent period in security and
intelligence has nearly halted completely. Civil society organizations
in Turkey want all existing agreements between the two countries to be
annulled.

The first strain in relations occurred when Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip ErdoÄ?an requested `one minute’ from a moderator in Davos during
a World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in January to finish his speech,
followed by a dramatic walkout in protest of Israel’s Gaza policies.
In October, Turkey excluded Israel from a multinational air defense
exercise at the last minute.

Although the primary factor in the deterioration of the relations is
the situation in Gaza, Israel’s constant failure to fulfill the
conditions it guaranteed to carry out in military contracts has also
contributed to a loss of confidence, particularly regarding the
modernization contracts for Heron and F-4 warplanes and M-60 tanks.
Israel has defended itself, saying that Turkey’s demands concerning
these contracts are simply not realistic.

If the two countries fail to overcome the gap in confidence, it might
be impossible for Israel or Israeli companies in the future to win
military contracts in Turkey.

The most striking example of the recent development was the
cancellation of the $38 million Lorop Project, bought from the Israeli
Elop Electro-Optic Company by the Air Forces Command. In addition to
this, a $40 million tender for the Harpy II system was canceled by the
order of Air Forces Commander Gen. Faruk Cömert.

Yet another factor that has damaged the relationship of the two
countries is the relationship between Israel and northern Iraq.
Interior Minister BeÅ?ir Atalay has stated that he was deeply offended
when the Israeli army trained troops in northern Iraq.

A history of relations

Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel. Traditionally
the contents of military contracts with Israel have been kept highly
confidential, as well as the method of their signing. The first
agreement between the two countries was signed on July 4, 1950. It was
a trade agreement. Later, an air transportation contract was signed
between the two countries in February 1951. However, Turkey started
seeing Israel as the biggest threat in the Middle East at the time of
meetings for the Baghdad Pact, straining relations between the two
countries. In 1956, Turkey recalled its ambassador in Israel when
England, France and Israel attacked Egypt over this country’s
nationalization of the Suez Canal.

After this point, the two countries chose to conduct their
relationship in a more low-profile manner. In 1958, Israeli Prime
Minister David Ben Gurion and Foreign Minister Golda Meir came to
Turkey, where they held secret talks with then-Prime Minister Adnan
Menderes. The two countries signed a top-secret agreement against the
Soviet threat, known as the Environment Alliance. Only the top 10
politicians and generals knew about the agreement. In fact, this
agreement has been kept from the public eye until very recently.
Today, Turkey officially rejects the existence of such an agreement,
but Israeli archives suggest otherwise. Most surprisingly, Iran,
Israel’s archenemy, appears as a third signatory to this agreement.

In 1966, Turkey failed to secure Israel’s support for the vote on
Cyprus in the United Nations, further straining relations between the
two countries. In 1966, Turkey notified the Israeli military attaché
that military cooperation between the two countries was officially
over. In 1967, at the time of the Arab-Israeli war, Turkey refused to
give clearance to US planes bringing logistical supplies to Israel,
while it let USSR planes helping Arab countries through its airspace.

Relations normalized after US interference

Israeli-Turkish relations deteriorated further until the military coup
in 1980 in Turkey. Upon the escalation of tensions, 61 US senators
sent a letter to the US ambassador in 1981, asking him to make special
efforts toward the improvement of Turkish-Israeli relations.

Following this letter, Turkey, with an order from then-President and
coup leader Kenan Evren, abstained from a vote on the UN resolution
which condemned the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. In return
for this, Israel provided intelligence to Turkey about the Armenian
terror organization ASALA. A new era began in Turkish-Israeli
relations when intelligence units from both countries carried out a
joint operation in Zahle, east of Beirut, dealing a heavy blow to
Lebanon’s ASALA faction and JCGA militants.

This warm rapprochement between the two countries gained a new
dimension with then-Prime Minister Turgut Ã-zal’s visit to the United
States in 1985, when he met secretly with the Jewish lobby. From that
date on, it became a tradition for Turkish prime ministers to visit
with the Jewish lobby during their visits to the US.

Being the first Muslim country that recognized Israel in 1948, Turkey
was also among the first countries to recognize the establishment of
the state of Palestine, on Nov. 15, 1988. Since 1950, Turkey had tried
to keep its relations with Israel secret; however, after a deal
between Israel and Palestine in 1993, Turkey made its relations with
Israel public.

>From this date on, full cooperation began between Israel and Turkey.
In 1992, a tourism cooperation agreement between Turkey and Israel
became the first of a series of agreements to be signed. A visit paid
by Israeli President Ezer Weizman on Jan. 25, 1994, was meaningful in
that it was the first Israeli presidential visit to Turkey.

Ã?iller’s term

A visit from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to Turkey in April
1994 was the start of a new era. Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ã?iller
made a proposal to cooperate in intelligence sharing and
anti-terrorism, a watershed event in the history of the two countries’
relations. Ã?iller also signed a treaty with Israel on March 31, 1994,
assuring full confidentiality on all agreements signed with Israel.
Between 1994 and 1997, Turkey signed 19 agreements with Israel, 12 of
these ironically signed by the anti-Israeli government of Necmettin
Erbakan’s Welfare Party (RP).

Constitution and agreements with Israel

For the 12 agreements signed under the Erbakan government, some have
speculated that they are unconstitutional as the signature under these
was that of then-Chief of Staff Gen. İsmail Hakkı Karadayı and not the
Turkish defense minister, as should be per the law. None of the
agreements were ratified by Parliament, another violation of the
Turkish Constitution.

Nurettin AktaÅ?, a former deputy from the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party), submitted a question to Parliament in 2002 querying the
number of military treaties with Israel and their content.
Then-Defense Minister Sabahattin Ã?akmakoÄ?lu said there were 13 defense
agreements with Israel, the content of which had not been ratified by
Parliament due to confidentiality clauses.

Speaking to Sunday’s Zaman, AktaÅ? said: `All treaties with Israel are
against the Constitution. If the government wants to, it can annul all
of these.’

A similar question motion was submitted by Republican People’s Party’s
(CHP) Kemal Anadol. The response, from Foreign Minister Ahmet
DavutoÄ?lu, also confirmed confidentiality. Of these secret agreements,
Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an had spoken of several during a party congress
in Kütahya.

Problems in treaties

In the long term, most of these agreements have worked to damage
relations between the two countries. Israeli companies won $500
million in tenders to modernize 54 F-4 warplanes and 48 Phantom
planes. Another project was the joint manufacturing of Leopard tanks,
which were developed, incidentally, by a team of engineers including
former Prime Minister Erbakan.

Some observers have also stated that the Feb. 28 unarmed military
intervention of 1997, which took place exactly three days after
then-Chief of General Staff Gen. Karadayı’s visit to Israel, is also
meaningful, claiming that the military’s close rapport with Israel
played a role in the intervention.

After Erbakan’s RP was ousted by the 1997 intervention, a Motherland
Party (ANAVATAN)-Democratic Left Party (DSP) coalition government came
to power. In this period, the two countries’ relations truly
blossomed. Turkey and Israel started participating in military drills
together. There still was slight tension in this period due to
Israel’s attack on Aksa, Palestine, that year. However, the coalition
government led by Bülent Ecevit never fully severed ties with Israel.
To the contrary, the most important military projects began to be
awarded to Israel.

In 2002, Turkey awarded a contract for the modernization of 170
American-made M-60 A1 tanks to Israel. Those who were against this
were accused of anti-Semitism by Chief of General Staff Gen. Hüseyin
Kıvrık&#x C4;±oÄ?lu. In the face of controversy around this $1.035 billion
tender, the Israeli IMI company reduced the tender price. However, the
modernization project did not succeed in the way Turkey wanted.
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) deputy Erdal Sipahi said his party
and many others in Parliament at the time objected to this tender
being awarded to Israel, but `an order from above’ handed it to
Israel.

Sipahi says: `According to the contract, these tanks were supposed to
be modernized by the end of 2003. Later, they reset the date and moved
this to 2007. We are now in 2009, and the project has not yet been
completed. The cost of a single tank for Turkey has reached $4.5
million. Leopard-2 tanks that we buy from Germany on the other hand
cost $1 million per tank. I don’t think those tanks would be of any
use after all this time even if Israel completed the delivery.’

A major controversy about this tender was the technical capability of
Turkish military defense company ASELSAN, which was able to complete
the modernization of 162 Leopard tanks for just over $160 million.

Projects under way

Currently, the cost of military tenders awarded to Israel and Israeli
companies stands at $1.8 billion. The annual trade volume between the
two countries is $2.6 million. When the AK Party came to power in
2002, Israel sought to maintain warm relations with the government.
However, the first crisis broke with Israel in January during the
bombings of the Gaza Strip.

In May 2007, ErdoÄ?an visited Israel, which was returned with a visit
by Israeli President Shimon Peres in November that year. After the two
visits, Turkey awarded $700 million in projects involving tank
modernization and the modernization of 48 warplanes and 300
helicopters. In the latest agreement with Israel, Turkey bought 10
unmanned Heron air vehicles; however, there has been a major delay in
Israel’s delivery of the Herons, only adding to the problems of the
M-60 tender. The Herons, which were initially promised for May 2008,
were finally delivered last month. The Air Forces are currently
testing these aircraft, but it is hard to say that Israel’s next job
will be as easy in the next military tender.

06 December 2009, Sunday
ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA

Karabakh: A deal maker or breaker?

Sunday, December 6, 2009
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News

Armenia’s withdrawal from Karabakh and the new US strategy for the war
in Afghanistan are topics that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an and
US President Barack Obama might discuss during their meeting Monday,
experts say. ErdoÄ?an’s visit comes just days after Obama said he would
boost US troops in Afghanistan and requested that his allies do the
same

Turkey’s determination not to send combat troops to Afghanistan and
its demand that Armenia pull out of a disputed Azerbaijani enclave
will likely dominate a key meeting between Turkish and U.S. leaders,
according to international-relations experts.

(See "Experts focus on Karabakh as top issue in Obama-ErdoÄ?an talks"
for what the experts have to say.)

Experts responded to four questions on the critical issues: the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran’s nuclear impasse with the West and the
recent thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations. They shared their views
with the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review about what U.S.
President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an
might discuss during their meeting in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

The meeting comes a few days after Obama’s decision to bolster the
U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. As he departed
for the United States, ErdoÄ?an said Turkey would not send combat
troops to Afghanistan.

Experts from both Turkey and the U.S. have echoed the same thoughts
over Turkey’s decision on Afghanistan and said ErdoÄ?an would stick to
his government’s policy about staying on as peacekeeping forces in the
war-torn country.

Experts also said the Turkish prime minister would ask Obama to push
Armenia for a withdrawal from the disputed Azerbaijani enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh.

On Iran’s controversial nuclear drive, Semih Ä°diz, a columnist for
daily Milliyet, said ErdoÄ?an’s hand is weak on Iran, while Sabri
Sayarı, an international-relations professor from Sabancı University,
described the issue as the most sensitive one.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq will also likely be on the
table during the meeting, Sayarı said.

Ä°lter Turan, an international-relations expert from Bilgi University,
said ErdoÄ?an would seek the United States’ cooperation against the
outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

American Jewish Committee (press release)
Dec 4 2009

AJC Decries Shameful Assaults on Christian Clergy in Jerusalem

December 4, 2009 ` New York ` In a letter to Israel’s minister for
public security, AJC expressed dismay over the incidents of some
religious Jews spitting on Christian clergy in the Old City of
Jerusalem. The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch:

I write on behalf of the American Jewish Committee to express our
dismay over reports of disgraceful assaults on Christian clergy and
lay people in Jerusalem. It appears, for instance, that some Jews have
made a practice of spitting at Christian clergy in the streets of
Jerusalem. A recent incident involving Armenian clerical seminarians
is simply the latest in a distressing pattern.
We at AJC have long been committed to the values of pluralism and
mutual respect, and are friends of and advocates for the State of
Israel. Needless to say, these actions by a few demonstrate profound
disrespect toward other religions and stand in contrast to Israel’s
fundamental commitment to protect the rights of all its citizens. We
also fear that they may damage Israel’s international image and
jeopardize its important relationships with faith communities around
the world.

We respectfully encourage you take immediate measures to halt this
deplorable behavior. We hope that vigorous enforcement of the law will
succeed in preventing these shameful acts and disciplining those
responsible for them.

Sincerely yours,
David A. Harris

2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2818295&content_id= %7BF1C05B52-51B1-47BB-9AE7-56C248C10974%7D&not oc=1

THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY SYSTEM OF ARMENIA TODAY IS FULLY READY FOR WINTER

ARMENPRESS
DECEMBER 4, 2009
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 4, ARMENPRESS: The electricity supply system of
Armenia today is fully ready for winter. Every year on winter eve
certain works are being implemented in the whole system which let
to prevent possible force majeure situations, Armenian Energy and
Natural Resources Minister Armen Movsisyan told today.

Referring to the import of gas from Iran and the volume of supply,
the minister said that it is possible to import to Armenia 2.3 billion
cubic meter of gas annually through Iran-Armenia gas pipeline which
means that it is possible to ensure the general one day consumption
of gas.

DETROIT COMMEMORATES ARF’S 119TH ANNIVERSARY
By Georgi-Ann Oshagan

detroit-commemorates-arf%E2%80%99s-119th-anniversa ry/
December 2, 2009

DEARBORN, Mich.-The ARF Detroit "Azadamard" Gomideh observed the
federation’s 119th anniversary on Nov. 13-14 at the Armenian Community
Center in Dearborn with ARF Archives Institute director Vatche Proodian
speaking on both days.

On Nov. 13, the AYF-YOARF Detroit "Kopernik Tandourjian" Senior
Chapter joined the "Azadamard" Gomideh and its members for a joint
membership meeting. The meeting was preceded by a pizza and salad
supper and socializing. The Gomideh chairman, Narses Gedigian, and the
AYF chapter president, Ani Hagopian, opened the meeting and introduced
their respective executive boards.

Gedigian gave a presentation on the ARF’s position on the
Armenia-Turkey protocols and provided information on the Gomideh’s
leadership role in organizing metro Detroit’s April 2010 commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide. AYF executive board member Nieri Avanessian
outlined the impetus behind the ANCA’s national "Countdown to Erdogan"
Campaign and urged all AYF and ARF members to participate in the
ANCA’s daily directives to ensure the maximum support and impact of
the grassroots campaign.

A highlight of the evening was a presentation by AYF members Anoush
Mardigian and Arakel and Jaclyn Chopjian on their AYF summer internship
in Armenia this past summer. They answered many questions about their
impressions of Armenia and Armenian society, Armenian youth attitudes,
and the Armenian public’s reaction to the protocols.

Proodian presented a DVD on the establishment of the ARF Archives
Institute at the Hairenik Building in Watertown, Mass. The video
featured important and rare items from the archives, and Proodian
provided additional details on the ARF’s archive project and the back
story to some of the items contained in the archives.

The following day, on Nov. 14, members of the ARF’s affiliated
organizations gathered for dinner at the Armenian Community Center and
listened to Proodian speak about the run-up to the protocols and the
international political pressures that led Armenia into signing them.

Proodian began by explaining that the government of Turkey has been
focused on changing its international image by presenting itself
as an important mediator in long-simmering political disputes and
by favoring open dialogue to resolve political problems. Proodian
noted that Turkey has embraced this new image not only to gain entry
to the European Union but also to stifle recognition and reparations
demands in connection with the Armenian Genocide.

With the recent diminishment of Turkey’s "Kurdish problem," he said,
following the establishment of a "de facto Kurdistan" in northern Iraq,
only Armenia presents a threat with its political and territorial
demands.

Proodian said that Turkey’s leaders had become concerned of shifting
pro-genocide recognition dynamics in the U.S. Congress earlier this
year-particularly after Obama’s April 2009 statement while in Turkey,
that his personal position on the Armenian Genocide had not changed-and
feared that those conditions could lead to U.S.

recognition of the genocide in 2009.

Thus, he said, Turkey’s push for the protocols.

Proodian enumerated the well-established problem points in the current
protocols: the establishment of a body to investigate the Armenian
Genocide’s "historical dimension," waiver of Armenian territorial
claims with recognition of the Kars Treaty-established border, and
Armenia’s recognition of her neighbors’ "territorial integrity" so
as to diminish the self-determination rights of Karabagh’s Armenian
population. He observed that the national interests and rights of the
Armenian people would be "doomed" if the protocols were ratified by
Turkey’s and Armenia’s parliaments in their current state.

Proodian urged all audience members to participate in anti-protocol
activities to derail the ratification process. "We are in a war that
is possible to win," he concluded. "We must do everything."

A lively question and answer period followed Proodian’s remarks.

EURONEWS ACCUSED OF BIASED REPORTING ON AZERBAIJAN

news.az
Dec 1 2009
Azerbaijan

Euronews logo Azerbaijan’s ANS TV has accused the Euronews TV channel
of biased reporting on Karabakh.

Euronews reporters who visited the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh
republic referred to the independence of Karabakh and presented its
leader, Bako Saakyan, as president of Nagorno-Karabakh.

"The journalists rudely violated the concept of our profession by
not mentioning Azerbaijan’s position. Speaking about the need of
constant balance, they forgot about the simplest duty of a journalist –
impartiality and objectivity,".

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry is investigating the report, spokesman
Elkhan Polukhov said.

EDWARD NALBANDYAN MEETS WITH THE OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS

ARMENPRESS
DECEMBER 1, 2009
YEREVAN

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan met November 30 in
Athens with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov, Bernard
Fassier, Robert Bradtke and personal representative of the OSCE
acting chairperson Andrzej Kasprzyk. Afterwards the meeting of the
Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers took place in a format of
a working dinner.

Armenian Foreign Ministry’s Press and Information Department
told Armenpress that during the meeting the parties discussed the
possibility of adopting a statement about the Nagorno Karabakh issue
at the 17th OSCE Ministerial Council.

On the same day Edward Nalbandyan met with the special representative
of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Karabakh Issue Goran Lenmarker
and discussed with him the recent developments over Karabakh conflict
regulation process.

13-YEAR-OLD BOY STABBED TO DEATH IN YEREVAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.11.2009 15:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Erebuni police department was alerted Sunday that
dead body of a boy with numerous stab wounds was found in an apartment
in the district’s central street. The alert on the incident was also
received from Erebuni medical center, where the body of 13-year-old
Sos Melkonyan was brought.

The task force found out that an unknown stabbed the boy to death in
the period from 3 to 5 pm. The boy died on the way to hospital.

The incident is being investigated.