Christine Harutyunian – Page 40 – Armenian Directory & News

‘Technical neutrality’ is at times a greater enemy to peace than belligerence

October 22, 2020October 22, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

Emerging Europe

Oct 21 2020

Rima Nieto

As the war in Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) enters its fourth week, with little hope of peace in sight despite the pleas of the international community, Azerbaijan’s policy is becoming ever more aggressive and ambitious. One of the most recent demonstrations of this were the accusations of Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov directed towards France over its alleged lack of neutrality as a mediator in the conflict.

This was meant as a message of dissatisfaction with the French side for breaking its silence days after the latest round of Turkish-backed Azeri aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia began, by confirming the presence of Jihadist militants from Syria and Libya among the ranks of the Azerbaijani armed forces, deployed with the assistance of Turkey. It also made reference to France pointing the finger at Baku as the mastermind and initiator of the latest attacks on Armenia, the exact opposite of Azerbaijan’s official line.

But why would Azerbaijan expect ‘neutrality’ from France at all? Or of anyone, for that matter?

Together with Russia and the US, France is one of the co-chairs of the tripartite OSCE Minsk Group, which has served as the only internationally agreed mediation format for the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict since 1997 – a rare occasion when three out of the five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are working together to reach a conflict resolution.

For more than two decades, the OSCE Minsk Group has witnessed sporadic outbreaks of conflict and regular breaches of the ceasefire along the Line of Contact between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as on the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border. It has also seen the Four-Day War of 2016 – the worst in its scale and intensity before September 27 of this year. In such instances, the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides would traditionally accuse each other of violating the 1994-95 Ceasefire Agreements, while the Minsk Group would issue statements calling on both sides to cease hostilities or to tone down inflammatory rhetoric, without actually naming ‘the side’ that had initiated the incident. In other words, trying to stay “neutral” or ‘balanced’ probably with the understanding that their status as mediators dictates such stance.

It should be noted, however, that there would be no need for such a blame game each time if Azerbaijan had accepted the proposals of the OSCE Minks Group to establish an incident investigation mechanism for ceasefire violations, as well as to enlarge and strengthen the mandate of the OSCE monitoring mechanism on the ground. In contrast, Armenia has always been vocal in its support for these proposals.

Nevertheless, even in the absence of such a mechanism, the accusations of Azerbaijan are groundless.

To understand why, we first need to define what being ‘neutral’ means. Most dictionaries define ‘neutral’ as ‘not saying or doing anything that would encourage or help any of the groups involved in an argument or war.’

Under these criteria, Turkey, which is directly involved in Azerbaijan’s aggression with its military force and ‘unconditional support,’ is automatically disqualified as a possible mediator, in effect becoming, instead, an active party to the conflict. Whereas, the situation with France and other Minsk Group countries is fundamentally different from that of Turkey. Essentially, because even when mediating a conflict, one cannot expect a state to be ‘absolutely neutral’, like for example in the case of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose primary objective is to alleviate the effects of war on those suffering from immediate hostilities, without engaging in peace dialogue. To that end they have to avoid any actions that might give rise to controversies or that might expose the actual aggressor.

This somewhat ‘technical neutrality’, is, by definition, impossible to apply to states. States are rational actors. They have their legitimate interests and obligations under different international instruments, as well as before their citizens and the international community as a whole. Take, for example, Russia’s obligations before Armenia under bilateral arrangements of strategic partnership and the Charter of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Azerbaijan cannot expect the Russian Federation to act in breach of its treaty obligations if it continues violating the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia. Still, it has accepted Russia as a ‘neutral’ mediator, with all the possible consequences.

Thus, when the French or other governments openly demonstrate their discontent about the actions of Azerbaijan and Turkey, they are not favouring Armenia but trying to contain a relatively local conflict that has the potential to grow into a larger regional confrontation directly affecting the interests of their respective countries.

By denouncing the deployment of Jihadist mercenaries by Azerbaijan and Turkey so close to European borders, France is also acting in line with its commitments in the context of the global fight against terrorism and radicalism, that have, among others, caused so much suffering to European citizens. Moreover, we should not forget that France is also a Permanent Member of the UNSC – the primary guarantor of international peace and security. Finally, when speaking about ‘neutrality’, it is crucial to understand that it refers primarily to the neutrality towards the peace process and not to the sides per se. This means that mediators should first and foremost serve the best interests of sustainable and durable peace.

Azerbaijan is playing a dishonest game of laying a guilt trip for ‘breached neutrality’ on anyone criticising its dangerous and destabilizing behaviour. Still, genuine ethics of neutrality for a party mediating peace, as well as for those supporting the efforts of the mediators, require openly naming the aggressor and exerting all possible pressure to make it silence its guns, and also require the recognition of the right to self-defence of the side that has been attacked. Most importantly, they require ensuring the unhindered exercise by the people, suffering from existential threat, of their right to international guarantees for safety and security, including by the means of establishment of an independent statehood as the only possible remedy in given circumstances.

Therefore, reviewing the ethics of neutrality is pertinent for saving the lives of innocent civilians on all sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. .

—

Unlike many news and information platforms, Emerging Europe is free to read, and always will be. There is no paywall here. We are independent, not affiliated with nor representing any political party or business organisation. We want the very best for emerging Europe, nothing more, nothing less. Your support will help us continue to spread the word about this amazing region.

TURKISH press: Turkey’s new gas reserves and Black Sea geo-politics

October 20, 2020October 20, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

COLUMNS

OCT 19, 2020 12:05 AM GMT+3

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced Turkey's latest natural gas discovery in the Black Sea on Saturday. This development demonstrates that Turkey's energy drive has reached the next level – and it's not just about the economy. As the power struggle in the Eastern Mediterranean rages on, the Black Sea may possibly emerge as a new geopolitical flashpoint.

Over the weekend, international media outlets reported about an Armenian attack on Nakhchivan in the Caucasus region, east of the Black Sea. A Russia-brokered cease-fire between Azerbaijan and Armenia proved extremely fragile. Apparently, putting a stop to the fighting will not be an easy task. Armenia's Soviet-era ballistic missile arsenal, along with the influx of foreign fighters, including members of the PKK terrorist organization, deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh and the "heavy weapons" that Moscow threatens to give Armenians, are a source of concern. Attacks on energy lines and Nakhchivan, too, represent acts of provocation by an increasingly desperate Yerevan.

The Black Sea and the Caucasus emerged as the focal point of competition between the West and Russia, following a 2008 commitment by NATO to admit Ukraine and Georgia as new members. In response to the organization's eastward expansion, Moscow partitioned Ukraine and Georgia. The 2014 annexation of Crimea was possibly the zenith of that escalation.

Although the United States and the European Union attempted to alter Russia's behavior through economic sanctions under the Barack Obama administration's watch, they failed miserably. Under the Trump administration, Russian President Vladimir Putin expanded his country's sphere of influence to the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa and the Gulf. A joint Russian-Egyptian naval exercise in the Black Sea alone attests to the links between ongoing power struggles in various parts of the world. Needless to say, the Black Sea occupies a central place in Moscow's strategic assessments. The region is key to Russian influence over Eastern Europe (i.e. Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova), Ukraine and the Caucasus. Moscow attaches great importance to the Black Sea for national defense, military capabilities and the power struggle in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

For the Western alliance as well, the Black Sea is too important to be surrendered to Russian control. As the U.S. think tank RAND recently stated, the power struggle between the West and Russia will determine Europe's future. Indeed, American strategists trying to redefine Washington's global role do not expect the U.S. to completely disregard Europe – even in the case of a total retreat. Even U.S. President Donald Trump has been mounting pressure on Germany over its dependence on Russian energy.

If re-elected, Trump is expected to focus on China and stick to his administration's current policy on Russia. In that case, Moscow may preserve the current balance of power in the Black Sea. The most recent developments in Belarus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kyrgyzstan, however, indicate that the status quo won't be easily maintained.

If Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wins the race, however, Washington is expected to concentrate on Russia's containment. Attempting to empower the trans-Atlantic alliance, Biden must reduce the Russian pressure on Europe. In other words, he must stop the expansion of Russia's sphere of influence.

Regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 3, geopolitical tensions in Turkey's neighborhood are bound to escalate. Depending on the winner, there won't be just a new chapter in Turkey-U.S. relations. At the same time, Ankara and Moscow will have a new road map in light of their competition, cooperation and tensions.

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said, it is unlikely that Turkey and Russia will be more than "partners." The two countries compete in Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, the Black Sea and the Caucasus. In my view, Turkey's initiatives unsettle Moscow in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.

As Turkey grows stronger, it must develop a new kind of relationship with not just the Western alliance but also Russia. The Black Sea may be a geopolitical space where that claim will be put to the test.

Armenia & Azerbaijan declare ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ in Nagorno-Karabakh starting Sunday

October 18, 2020October 18, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

RT – Russia Today

Oct 17 2020

17 Oct, 2020

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and forces of the self-proclaimed republic of Nagorno-Karabakh have all agreed to stop fighting for “humanitarian reasons” after dozens of civilians have died in the latest flare-up over the disputed region.

The foreign ministries of the two countries announced the decision late on Saturday, simultaneously releasing similar statements. The ceasefire is said to come into effect within hours, at 00:00 local time.

It has also been acknowledged by the foreign ministry of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which said it was ready to stop hostilities.

The disputed region became the scene of a new conflict in late September, for which both Armenia and Azerbaijan blamed each other.

The ceasefire on the ground comes after a truce was agreed to by the warring parties at lengthy talks held in Moscow. The initial October 10 ceasefire did not hold, as the intense fighting resumed within hours after it came into effect. Moscow, which brought Armenian and Azerbaijani officials to the negotiating table, said the military on both sides have to agree details for it to be effective.

The conflict in the breakaway Azerbaijani region, mostly populated by ethnic Armenians and de facto controlled by the self-proclaimed republic, is the latest major flare-up since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which triggered the longstanding territorial dispute.

Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been referred to by Armenian officials as the nation’s “sacred homeland,” broke away from Azerbaijan after a bloody war in the early 1990s. Although it has proclaimed independence, Baku continues to regard it as an integral part of the country. Yerevan, while backing the ethnic Armenian government, has stopped short of recognizing the region’s independence.

Russian weapons and proxy fights add to tensions in one of the world’s ‘most kinetic areas’

October 11, 2020October 11, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

Business Insider

Oct 10 2020

Christopher Woody

Reports that Turkey activated a Russian-made air-defense system to track US-built fighter jets raised hackles in Washington, which is pressuring Ankara to get rid of the system.
The reports have also added to existing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea region, where Turkey has a number of disputes with its neighbors, including its NATO allies.

A report this week that Turkey activated a Russian-made air-defense system to track Greek fighter jets raised US ire and added to tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, an increasingly troublesome region for NATO.

Greek outlet Ekathimerini.com reported Monday that Turkey activated radars on its S-400s to track Greece's US-made F-16 fighter jets as they returned from a multinational exercise near Cyprus on August 27.

Turkey's 2017 purchase of the S-400 has been a problem for the US from the start. Its delivery in July 2017 prompted the US to kick Ankara out of the F-35 program, citing concerns Russia could use the system to gather data on the jet.

Turkey's tests of the S-400 with its own F-16s late last year were also seen as an implicit threat by some in Congress.

It remains unclear if Turkey actually did activate its S-400s to track the Greek jets, and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Republican Sen. James Lankford want answers from the Trump administration.

"Reports of this activation make clear that Turkey has no intention of reversing course and divesting of this system," the senators wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. "Additionally, the slow pace at which the Department of Defense is moving to remove Turkey from the F-35 supply chain has no doubt emboldened [Turkish] President Erdogan."

The senators said the reports added to concerns "about Russia's ability to access sensitive data." They asked Pompeo for more information about the August 27 incident as well as whether Turkey has integrated the S-400 with NATO's Link 16 tactical data link and if that access facilitates Russian intelligence-gathering.

A State Department spokesperson said they were "aware of these reports" and "deeply concerned" about Turkey continuing work on the S-400.

Turkey's suspension from the F-35 program "signaled the seriousness with which the administration approaches this issue," the spokesperson said.

Southeastern Europe has become a troublesome front for NATO.

Russian activity there has been a major concern, prompting Adm. James Foggo, former head of US naval forces in Europe, to call the Eastern Mediterranean "one of the most kinetic areas in the world" in a June speech. But Turkey's actions have made it a thorn in the side of its NATO allies.

Turkey has clashed with the US and its European neighbors over the war in Syria. The Libyan civil war has become a point of contention, as shown by a June incident in which Turkish warships escorting an arms shipment to Libya reportedly harassed a French frigate on a NATO patrol. (France has also taken a more aggressive approach to disputes in the Mediterranean.)

Tensions have risen between Turkey and Greece, historic foes and NATO members, over a longstanding territorial dispute in the Mediterranean, though NATO said this month that they had agreed on a mechanism "to reduce the risk of incidents and accidents in the Eastern Mediterranean."

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan embraced that vision after a failed coup in 2016, scorned by what he saw as a lack of a strong response by other Western countries.

After that coup, Erdogan "dramatically reduced the independence" of the Turkish military, said Ben Hodges, who commanded the US Army in Europe between 2015 and 2017.

"Many officers who had longtime NATO or Western relationships, a lot of them are gone now," Hodges told Insider. "You still have the same very professional, talented, competent Turkish military, but you can tell that they are extremely cautious about saying anything or doing anything that would be seen as not 100% in line with what would be expected from Ankara."

Erdogan's frustration with NATO allies over issues like the war in Syria as well as their reluctance to provide Ankara with other air-defense systems has been cited as motivation for the S-400 purchase.

During a discussion of the S-400 at a recent meeting that included retired Turkish military officers, Hodges said he was told that the purchase "was a decision made by the administration, not an institutional decision."

"In other words, it was not the normal procurement process," Hodges said.

In their letter, Van Hollen and Lankford noted that the Trump administration hasn't sanctioned Turkey for the S-400 purchase under the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, which is meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election and has been used to sanction buyers of Russian arms.

The US continues "to stress at the highest levels" that the S-400 is "a major obstacle" in Turkey's relations with the US and NATO and risks CAATSA sanctions, the State Department spokesperson said.

Van Hollen and Lankford also expressed concern about reports of an S-400 test planned next week in the Turkish city of Sinop, on the Black Sea, where US and NATO aircraft are very active. (Russia has S-400s in Crimea and its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, both near where NATO aircraft are active.)

Azerbaijan no longer can make decisions over its fate, it’s Turkey who decides.

October 9, 2020October 9, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

From now on Turkey decides Azerbaijan’s fate – PM Pashinyan

18:40, 8 October, 2020

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8, ARMENPRESS. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to German ‘’Spiegel’’. ARMENPRESS reports Pashinyan stated that Armenia sees a task for Turkey to swallow Azerbaijan, and

Question – In fact, you claim that Turkey is not interested in the territory of Nagorno Karabakh, it just aims to create a corridor through the Armenian territory.

Answer – Yes, and we see Turkey is solving the task of swallowing the Azerbaijani state. From now on, it’s not Azerbaijan that decides its own fate, but Turkey does it.

WP: Two strategically sensitive countries are on the verge of war — and Trump is missing in action

September 30, 2020September 30, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

Washington Post

Sept 29 2020

pinion by David Ignatius

Columnist

at 6:42 PM EDT

The escalating conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has taken a dangerous new turn with Turkey’s reported shootdown Tuesday of an Armenian fighter jet. The Armenian prime minister said in an interview that he fears a wider war between Turkey and Armenia, bitter historic adversaries.

Nikol Pashinyan, the Armenian prime minister, said in a telephone interview that Turkey “is creating instability in its neighborhood, in the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and now the South Caucuses. It poses an increasing threat to global security.” He said, in addition to the F-16 involved in Tuesday’s reported shootdown, Turkey has been aiding Azerbaijan with drones and mercenary forces from Syria since the conflict erupted Sunday.

The United States, Russia, France and Germany have urged diplomacy, and Pashinyan said he and his colleagues have talked with top officials from all of those countries. But so far there has been no evident progress toward a cease-fire or settlement negotiations.

The State Department has been increasingly concerned about the showdown between a big U.S. ally (NATO-member Turkey) and a close Russian one (Armenia). But President Trump, who in the past has boasted of his friendship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has so far been silent about the situation.

Pashinyan said a Turkish-supported Azerbaijani assault on Armenia itself “has now become a reality,” with shelling of the Vardenis region, east of the Armenian capital, Yerevan. He said the Turkish F-16 that reportedly shot down the Armenian S-25 fighter was providing support for the Azerbaijani attack on the Vardenis area. Russia’s Tass news agency reported the shootdown Tuesday, citing a statement by the Armenian defense ministry. (Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have denied the plane was downed.)

The bitter war exploded Sunday over the disputed territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh. The enclave is claimed by Azerbaijan but populated largely by Armenians, who have run it since a 1994 war wrested control from Azerbaijan. Each side has accused the other of starting the latest round of fighting, but Pashinyan said Azeri President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly threatened such an attack in recent “days, weeks, months.” (Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Twitter that Armenia had “again crossed the line, and this time received a response on the battlefield.”)

“What is happening today is a war declared against the Armenian people,” Pashinyan argued. He said that, because of Turkey’s historic conflict with Armenia, his country faces an “existential threat.” Asked about the threat of an attack from Nakhchivan, a chunk of Azerbaijani territory to the southwest of Armenia, Pashinyan said he has declared martial law and stressed, “We must use all means to defend ourselves.”

In explaining the Turkish threat, Pashinyan cited the murder of more than 1 million Armenians in 1915, in the final years of the Ottoman empire, which has been described as a “genocide” in a resolution passed by the U.S. Congress and recognized by many countries — but denied by Turkey. “Turkey’s president [Erdogan] has turned denial into an official policy of his state,” Pashinyan charged. “’Denialism’ is one of the likely preconditions for a new genocide.”

The Armenian prime minister said Armenia had lost “dozens” of dead and suffered about 200 injured since the fighting began Sunday. He said the Azerbaijanis had lost several hundred dead, plus more than 100 tanks, some helicopters and other equipment. He said that because Armenian forces had repelled attacks on both Karabakh and Armenia, “I hope by now the Azerbaijani president will understand that there is no military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.”

Pashinyan said he has spoken about a possible diplomatic settlement his week with Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.

The State Department said Sunday that the United States was “alarmed by reports of large-scale military action” in Karabakh and warned against “participation in the escalating violence by external parties,” a semming reference to Turkey. The statement said Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun had called the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia “to urge both sides to cease hostilities immediately.” Pashinyan said further talks with U.S. officials are planned.

The highest-level U.S. statement about the conflict came Tuesday from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. During a media session with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Pompeo said: “Both sides must stop the violence and work with the Minsk Group co-chairs [Russia, France and the United States] to return to substantive negotiations as quickly as possible."

The Armenia-Azerbaijan standoff is one of those forgotten “frozen conflicts” that have a way of melting down suddenly, when regional and global tensions are on the rise — and when the political stakes in the United States are high. So far, Trump is nowhere to be seen.

Tavush Governor reports increasing Azerbaijani cross-border shootings

September 19, 2020September 19, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

18:03,

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 18, ARMENPRESS. Governor of Tavush Hayk Chobanyan has called for both engineering and technological advancements at the frontline military positions in order to protect the lives of the on-duty troops at the border with Azerbaijan. His comments come two days after the Azerbaijani military opened cross-border gunfire and killed an Armenian soldier in an unprovoked attack.

“We must do everything in terms of both engineering and technology so that nothing threatens the lives of our troops at the border,” Chobanyan said. He said the July 16 killing of the soldier must receive a reaction in the strongest possible terms. The Governor also offered condolences over the serviceman’s death, stressing that human life is the highest value.

Governor Chobanyan says he believes the recent spike of Azerbaijani ceasefire violations at the Armenia border in his province’s section has to do with the Armenian military’s reinforcement of positions – something Azerbaijan dislikes.

“They are trying to continue provocations.”

“We observe an increase of adversary activeness at the border since the July events,” he said, referring to the most recent Azerbaijani offensive on Armenia in July 2020.

“Before the July events, especially in the past one and a half year, there was relative calm, and from this perspective the latest developments are a significant change compared to the earlier situation,” the Governor said.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

Both opposition parties demand education minister’s resignation

September 17, 2020September 17, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

17:00,

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 16, ARMENPRESS. The two opposition parties in parliament are demanding the resignation of the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sport Arayik Harutyunyan for what they describe as a complete failure of reforms in the sector.

The Prosperous Armenia (BHK) party officially joined the Bright Armenia (LHK) in their call for the minister's resignation. The LHK has introduced a draft motion requesting the Prime Minister to sack Harutyunyan. It will be put up for vote on September 17 in parliament.

Arayik Harutyunyan, however, has strongly dismissed accusations of mishandling the reforms and the activities of the ministry.

Meanwhile, the LHK has also called on supporters to gather outside parliament and demonstrate against Harutyunyan.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

Turkish press: Eastern Mediterranean’s Bermuda Triangle: Analysis of the bigger picture

September 15, 2020September 15, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

OP-ED

SEP 15, 2020 12:05 AM GMT+3

Turkey's seismic vessel Oruç Reis anchors off the coast of the southern province of Antalya on the Mediterranean, Turkey, Sept. 13, 2020. (AP Photo)

Last week Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis wrote a guest article for the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) in which he presented Turkey as a provocateur in the Eastern Mediterranean and as a danger for the European Union. He portrayed President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as someone who would use all means to push through his interests, a characterization the Turkish president does not deserve.

Above all, Mitsotakis addressed the issue of refugees, which is essential for Germans and Europeans and has triggered increased right-wing extremism and Islamophobia in large parts of the EU following the refugee crisis five years ago.

According to the Greek prime minister, Turkey sent refugees to Greece in the beginning of 2020 to blackmail the EU and signed a maritime border agreement with Libya last year with the aim of provocation, which, according to him, is null and void since Turkey is not a geographic neighbor of Libya. He also accused Turkey of occupying the northern areas of Cyprus illegally since 1974.

However, this is the same Mitsotakis who ordered the Greek army to shoot refugees down when crossing the border earlier this year. And it is the same Mitsotakis who is militarizing the Dodecanese and other Aegean islands, which is required to remain demilitarized under the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and the Treaty of Paris (1947).

It is the same Greek state that allows other global powers, together with its accomplice the Greek Cypriot administration, to set up bases in the region, change Ottoman mosques into sanitary facilities, ban the opening of a mosque in Athens and force Western Thrace Turks to assimilate. However, Western Thrace Turks are under international protection due to the Treaty of Lausanne.

Furthermore, they are the same Greek opinion leaders who treat refugees in migrant camps inhumanely and burn the Turkish flag because of the Hagia Sophia's reopening for Muslim worship.
It must be clearly emphasized at this point that the Turkish operation in 1974 to prevent Greek Cypriots from committing an intended genocide of the island's Turks was declared legal by the Athens Court of Appeals’ decision in 1979.

Also, Turkey opened its borders at the beginning of the year, not to provoke the EU but to draw attention to Brussels' counterproductive attitude in Syria and the one-sided burden of the refugees since the EU has not provided promised funds.

So, after this explanation, it becomes evident that Mitsotakis’ aim is emotional impact and his limited political guest contribution was to gain the support of the German population. Greek Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades did the same a few weeks ago in his contribution to the German daily Die Welt and thus presented the Greek Cypriot administration as victims of crimes in the Eastern Mediterranean, of which they are, in fact, the perpetrators.

Mitsotakis' pretension and use of technical terms – most of which the population will not know and he therefore deliberately used – illustrate the extent of his deception and his leadership style in particular.
Greece has been playing an underhanded game in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in recent weeks, together with French President Emmanuel Macron, the Greek Cypriot administration, the United States and Israel.

Part 1: Israel and the U.S.

The U.S. was unable to realize its "Greater Middle East" project due to both the failed Arab Spring and the failed coup attempt in Turkey in 2016. Washington is now trying to redesign the region with the Trump administration's “deal of the century." For this, U.S. President Donald Trump has even been nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, this news is no longer surprising.

With the new Middle East peace plan, however, the U.S. has officially initiated Palestine's annexation. After this, some states under significant American influence have recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

With its political ambitions and Mossad's help, Israel continues to strive to win over the Balkans, the Gulf region and above all, North Africa. The reason follows later, but it is striking in this context that these areas once belonged to the Ottoman Empire.

After the United Arab Emirates (UAE) initiated the "normalization process" with Israel, other Gulf monarchies, as well as Serbia and Kosovo, are on the verge of following suit.

The Gulf and Balkan states are fulfilling this process as a condition of their client, the U.S., since Washington has gained a great deal of influence in each region after the EU, especially Germany as an opponent to France in the EU, neglected the regions. As they try to acquire more geopolitical power, stability and international recognition in the region, Israel has broader interests in its new strategy.

Through the normalization process with Islamic countries, Tel Aviv wants to legitimize the annexation of Palestine on the one hand. It is because Israel can argue that, despite the peace plan, Islamic countries want to reconcile with Israel and are, therefore, not doing anything wrong.

On the other hand, ironically, the strategy intends to end Turkish influence in the region in former Ottoman territories and push Turkey into total isolation in the region by polarizing other states against Ankara.

This strategy, which Israel is pursuing with its partners Greece, the U.S., partly Egypt and the Greek Cypriot administration, is also clearly evident in Mitsotakis’ above-mentioned guest article in the German daily FAZ.

By reconciling with its neighboring countries, Israel seeks to gain new transportation, air and logistics routes, minimize the threat from neighboring countries and win new sales and procurement markets to reach its regional ambitions for hegemony.

Reconciliation with neighboring states is particularly important, as Israel is looking for new sales markets for its natural gas, which it draws from the Eastern Mediterranean. It can no longer transport the gas to Europe via the EastMed pipeline due to the Turkey-Libya agreement.

If its strategy works, Israel can now emerge as a regional power and expand its influence in Syria and Lebanon. Thus, the main threat it faces directly or indirectly from Iran's presence in these states will be negligible.

Israel wants to establish Iran as the main enemy of the Middle East because of its Shiite orientation and above all, to make Turkey, under the veil of “neo-Ottomanism,” which Erdoğan is accused of by the West and Israel, the new target of geopolitics in the Eastern Mediterranean of the 21st century.

In this regard, Mossad's ambitions are particularly noteworthy. The national intelligence agency continually publishes reports claiming that Turkey wants to besiege some Balkan countries and Egypt – claims that are far from the truth.
France and the Greek sides

France has always been ambitious to make the EU the counterpart of the U.S. Remaining distanced from the English language, France continues to cultivate the habit of behaving like a colonial power, such as in its monetary and financial policy in today's sovereign but formerly French colonial countries in Africa.

France is planning to reshape the EU, as in all common European policy areas, at Germany's expense with the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), a joint military system designed as a counterpart to NATO.

Above all, France has pointed to the unrest in the Eastern Mediterranean for the need for a joint operational and deterrent military alliance that can take action.

Since Turkey is a NATO member state, France knows it cannot take military action against Turkey, primarily since Ankara draws its strength from international treaties and has a robust military.
As it is, Ankara has had to cope with a decadeslong fight against the terrorist organization PKK thanks to the West since this organization is the extended arm of the Western imperialist endeavor.

However, its megalomania has not exhausted. Macron has presented himself in the media like a liberator in Lebanon after the explosion in Beirut's port in August, making recurring French colonial aspirations public once again. However, France plans to continue to expand its influence in the former colonial area of Lebanon to take Israel's archenemy, Bashar Assad, under its wing in Syria, to weaken Hezbollah, to end Iran's influence in the Shiite crescent and to build up pressure on Turkey, through symbolism, but also by stationing its troops in the region.

The first step in this direction is deploying its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Eastern Mediterranean, joint maneuvers with the Greek Cypriot administration and Greece, and permanently stationing frigates near Cyprus.

Macron's presumptuous desire to isolate Erdoğan, as he stated in his speech last week, is hugely encroaching, misplaced and shows his insuppressible megalomania.

Above all, France is showing off in Cyprus, although it has neither guarantor status nor maritime territory bordering the island. Thus France, just like the U.S., has absolutely no say in the region.
Only the EU would be able to offer input because of its member states, Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration. However, since German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Macron disagree on a common policy in the region, Macron cannot align the EU politically according to his interests. However, these ambitions still work to counter de-escalation in the area.

Ways out?

It is openly stated above that the U.S., France, Israel, Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration intend to politically isolate Turkey in the region, depriving it of all its rights and denying its rights to natural resources in the Mediterranean. This demonstrates the manipulative tactics of the 21st century. Nevertheless, what are the ways out for Turkey? The answer is quite clear. Turkey has three options:

First, Turkey has to sign a maritime border agreement with Egypt. According to President Erdoğan, Egypt is interested in such an agreement and informed him through the Egyptian intelligence service. This agreement would benefit both sides.

Second, a lasting solution in Syria would have to be achieved promptly with Russia and Iran's help, and relations with Damascus would have to be normalized.

Third, Russian-Iranian-Turkish trilateral cooperation would have to be expanded not only with Syria but also in the Eastern Mediterranean and especially in energy and security policy.

If Turkey misses this step, it could face permanent isolation as it did during the 1915 Armenian allegations, which were concocted by the West. But if Turkey is successful, the Greek comedy in the Eastern Mediterranean will be finished forever and replaced by an upcoming Greek tragedy.

*Master of arts at Friedrich Alexander University in Erlangen, Germany

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

*Doing master's thesis on the geopolitical and economic facets of the EastMed Pipeline project at the Friedrich Alexander University, Erlangen

Yerevan to have 2008 March 1 memorial

September 9, 2020September 9, 2020 Christine Harutyunian

16:07, 8 September, 2020

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 8, ARMENPRESS. The Yerevan City Council approved the installation of a memorial in honor of the 2008 March 1 victims.

The memorial will be installed at the Children’s Park near the St. Gregory the Illuminator and Zakiyan intersection.

During the City Council session the councilors held a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the unrest.

Earlier the government had allocated 2 million drams to the Yerevan City Hall for the designing works.

The design of artist Albert Vardanyan was awarded the project in an open tender.

March 1 colloquially refers to the 2008 post-election unrest in Yerevan, when 10 people- including two police officers- died in clashes between protesters and security forces.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan