Author: Dabaghian Diana

NEW SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF COE SECRETARY GENERAL APPOINTED

armradio.am
11.09.2008 16:38

On September 11 RA National Assembly Speaker Tigran Torosyan received
the Director General of Political Affairs and Cooperation of the
Council of Europe Claudia Luciani, who is in Armenia to present the
newly appointed Special Representative of the CoE Secretary General
Silvia Zahe.

Attaching importance to the Armenia-Council of Europe relations,
NA Speaker Tigran Torosyan expressed hope that in some time it will
become possible to return to the main issue, the implementation of
Armenia’s commitments before the Council of Europe, since European
integration is of primary importance for Armenia and certain unwanted
events should not shadow the main issue. He expressed willingness
to support the newly appointed Special Representative of the CoE
Secretary General Silvia Zahe during his mission in Armenia.

The interlocutors turned to the draft law on "Implementing Amendments
to RA Law on Television and Radio" and the "Law on Meetings,
Demonstrations, Gatherings, Marches and Rallies."

During the meeting reference was made to the Armenian-Turkish
relations.

Highly appreciating the Turkish President’s visit to our country at the
invitation of RA President Serzh Sargsyan, Tigran Torosyan attached
greater importance to undertaking further practical steps. According
to the assessment of Mrs. Luciani, some Turkish businessmen are
especiall y attentive towards these changes, anticipating opening
of the border and cooperation with the Armenian side. Speaker Tigran
Torosyan considers that opening of the border will demand a long time,
since the Turkish side is really ready for that step.

When joining the Council of Europe in 2001, Armenia and Azerbaijan
assumed responsibilities, including the peaceful resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. However, the propaganda of hatred towards neighbors
and rapid growth of military expenses continues in Azerbaijan, which
counters the committments assumed. According to Tigran Torosyan, being
the most important European structure, to which Armenia and Azerbaijan
are members, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should
take a more principled and consistent stance, which will contribute to
the establishment of peace in the region and resolution of conflicts.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version: nian.htm

HIS HOLINESS ARAM I EXPRESSES HIS CONDOLENCES
TO THE THREE IRANIAN DIOCESES

His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia dispatched the
following condolence letter to the Primate of the Diocese of Tehran,
Archbishop Sebouh Sarkissian, regarding the tragic death of 17 Armenians in
a horrifying accident near the borders of Iran.

Archbishop Sebouh Sarkisian
Primate of the Diocese of Tehran
Tehran, Iran

Dear Archbishop,

During our official visit to Damascus, Syria, we received with great pain
the news of the terrible accident that happened near the Turkish-Iranian
border. According to the information that reached us, 17 Armenians fell
victim to the accident and a similar number of people are injured. The
tragic incident happened as a group of pilgrims from Tehran, Ourmiya, Tabriz
and New Julfa had visited Western Armenia to tour our centuries-old
spiritual and intellectual monuments.

The loss is great; it deals a heavy blow to the Armenians of Iran and it
causes us great pain. At this time of mourning we share your pain with you.
At such moments we should turn to the Holy Spirit, asking Him spiritual
comfort. May God accept in his heavenly kingdom the souls of our innocent
compatriots.

We express our deepest condolences to the Primate of the Diocese of Tehran,
Archbishop Sebouh Sarkisian, the Primate of the Diocese of Isfahan, Bishop
Papken Charian, and the Primate of the Diocese of Azerbaijan, Bishop Neshan
Topouzian, the Armenian national committees of the three dioceses, the
families of the victims as well the Armenians of Iran.

We pray to God to protect our nation’s children in Iran and the rest of the
world from such accidents.

With Pontifical Love,

ARAM I
CATHOLICOS OF CILICIA
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician
Catholicosate, the administrative center of the church is located in
Antelias, Lebanon.

TURKISH PRESIDENT BELIEVES HIS YEREVAN VISIT NOT TO CAUSE ILL-EFFECTS IN BAKU

Trend News Agency
Sept 10 2008
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, Baku, 10 September / Trend News / Turkish President
Abdullah Gul gave an interview to journalists at the Esenbogha airport
before his one-day visit to Baku, CNN Turkish news agency reported.

Gul said that he would not inform his Azerbaijani counterpart about
the visit to Armenia. "I believe his Yerevan visit did not cause
ill-effects in Azerbaijan," Gul said.

Ali Babajan, the Turkish Foreign Minister will accompany Gul during
this visit. Gul said that he would discuss the latest developments
in Caucasus, as well as other topical problems with the Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev.

CONFLICTS THAWING FROM WITHIN
By Sergei Balashov

Russia Profile
id=International&articleid=a1221063672
Sept 10 2008
Russia

The Cases of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Require Regional
Attention, First and Foremost

The recent crisis between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia has
created speculation over possible further eruptions over the "frozen
conflict" territories of the former Soviet Union, namely the regions
of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. However, instead of continuing
the recent trend in conflict resolution, rather than seeing them as
a playground for grander, political pursuits between international
powers, the troubled regions of the CIS need a new localized approach
in solving their impending crises.

The war in South Ossetia and the recognition that followed of two
Georgian breakaway regions by Russia set one’s sights back on the
two remaining so-called "frozen conflict" republics in the CIS –
Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite the considerable diplomatic
efforts, it still seemed that the end of the crises was further away
than it was thought, once again shedding light on the insufficient
political mechanisms within the CIS. The odds of another flare-up are
not high, but the situation, which has been dragging on for almost two
decades, could be seriously harmed by further prolongation and made
more complicated by the growing tensions between Moscow and the West.

"When the Belavezh Accords were signed, I don’t think the heads of
the states who signed them thought of the legacy they were leaving
to the future independent states," said Tudor Sorochanu, a Moldavian
political scientist.

The new states were left to deal with their own problems alone, the
territorial disputes of which stood out as the most heated debates,
gravely tarnishing the relationships between the countries. South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, which were recognized by Russia in the end after
a brief military feud between Russia and Georgia, constitute only one
half of the breakaway regions on the CIS territory. The separatist
ambitions of the other two, Moldavia’s Transnistria and Azerbaijan’s
predominantly Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh (the latter regarded by Baku
as an Armenian-occupied territory), also caused bloody armed conflicts
in the late 1980s and early 1990s and have since been stalled amid
peace talks mediated by multiparty international organizations.

These cases, along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were dubbed
"frozen conflicts," a notion which lasted until August 2008 when the
war erupted in Ossetia, resulting in – with Russia’s assistance –
partial recognition of the de facto independent republics on the
international level.

The recent events have compelled the international community to treat
the two remaining troubled regions with more caution and speed up the
process of sealing up the chasms between the separatists and their
claimant governments to prevent any bloodshed.

Apart from Russia and Nicaragua, the Georgian breakaway regions were
almost immediately recognized by Transnistria; yet the reactions on
the streets of its capital city of Tiraspol were mixed.

"In view of the new events, some people in Transnistria think it’s
going to serve as a premise for their independence, yet the majority
believe that Russia will now have a desire to show that its views
are free of unipolarity and give the region away to Moldavia,"
said Sorochanu.

The conflicts surrounding the four troubled regions have one thing in
common – they all have resulted in military confrontations, sometimes
on more than one occasion. Now, following the war in Georgia, it is
widely assumed that any military solutions are out of the question.

"The Caucasus events prodded the international community to find
ways in resolving these situations, but now everyone is talking about
peaceful solutions," said Sorochanu. "That’s what Moldavia has always
wanted," he added.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has since met with both the President
of the unrecognized republic of Transnistria Igor Smirnov and Moldavian
President Petr Voronin, cautioning them not to resort to military
means in solving the crisis; in doing so, he virtually guaranteed
Tiraspol protection, should it share the fate of South Ossetia.

About 100,000 Russian citizens currently reside in Transnistria,
giving Moscow a pretext to respond to any military action, just
like in South Ossetia. After talks with Medvedev, Smirnov lifted
the moratorium on any talks with the Moldavian government which was
imposed as a result of Moldavia’s failure to condemn Georgia’s actions.

"I recently spoke to the Polish ambassador in Moldova, [Krzysztof
Suprovich]. He said that a positive resolution of the Transnistrian
crisis can serve as a good example for the EU in solving regional
crises," said Sorochanu.

The resumption of negotiations, as well as Moldavia’s willingness to
receive Russia’s support in bringing an end to an almost 20-year
dispute, is seen as a major step forward after the five party
negotiations between Transnistria, Moldavia, OSCE, Ukraine and Russia
were frozen in 2006. The talks between Voronin and Smirnov resumed only
in 2008, following the intervention of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis has been considered a more
distant prospect than the Transnistrian case and a more likely scene
for a military conflict to erupt.

The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was eased when Turkey acted as
a mediator. With its close ties to Azerbaijan, Turkey could be very
efficient in making a positive impact in bringing the dialogue between
Baku and Yerevan closer in search of progress.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul made his first official visit to
Armenia in early September, marking a new beginning in the bilateral
relations between the two countries, which have been marred by issues
surrounding the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire and Armenia’s
feud with Azerbaijan. Gul held talks with Armenian and Azerbaijani
officials about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and urged Azerbaijan
to be more open to dialogue with Armenia.

"There is a difference between the Georgian republics and
Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria," said Alexei Vlasov, head of the
Moscow-based Center for Social and Political Processes in Post-Soviet
Countries. "Over the past four to five years, the conflict in
Georgia has been an issue between Russia and Georgia, and we see more
participants in both Transnistria and especially Nagorno-Karabakh."

The recent developments are seen as a positive, but an excessively
deep involvement of third parties could eventually hamper the progress.

"Non-regional players are becoming more and more active in their
attempts to draw Georgia and Azerbaijan into anti-Russian military
and political alliances; it is becoming clear that the multilateral
involvement policy that Moldavia and Azerbaijan are following will not
allow them to balance between Moscow and Washington for too long,"
Vlasov noted. "If the confrontation between Moscow and Washington
grows, I’m not sure Moldavia and Azerbaijan will be able to maintain
a balance; then the odds of the resolution of these conflicts will
diminish considerably," he added.

Moldavia and Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia, are members of the
CIS, a Russian-dominated international organization comprised of
post-Soviet countries. Over the past years, it has been seen as weak
and not doing enough to establish strong political ties between the
member countries, and has been regarded as a failure in terms of
setting up and maintaining mechanisms of resolving tensions on the
post-Soviet territory.

All these factors spark the necessity of seeking the involvement of
third parties which in the long term could complicate the situation,
rather than appease it.

"I am certain that the problems that occur between the former Soviet
republics should be solved within the CIS," said Azerbaijani political
scientist Rashad Rzakuliev. "Its functionality and significance
depend on Russia; as of today, this structure is absolutely amorphous,
it doesn’t work."

"We need straight rules for mutual relations in the CIS which should
be set by Russia," said Rzakuliev.

YOUNG MEMBER OF RPA ARMEN ASHOTIAN TO HEAD ONE OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEES

Noyan Tapan

Se p 9, 2008

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 9, NOYAN TAPAN. Armen Ashotian, a member of the NA
"Republican Party of Armenia" (RPA) faction, was elected chairman
of the National Assembly Standing Committee of Science, Education,
Culture, Youth Issues and Sports on September 8. During a secret
ballot, 74 out of 82 NA deputies voted for him – the only nominated
candidate, 5 voted against, and 3 voting papers were recognized
as invalid.

Noting in his speech that the Standing Committee of Science,
Education, Culture, Youth Issues and Sports is the most successful
and well operating one of the parliamentary standing committees,
A. Ashotian at the same time pointed out the problems that exist in
these spheres. In his words, as the head of the standing committee he
will give priority to education, in which there are numerous problems
concerning all the links – from the preschool to higher educational
one. He said that even state universities do not show a state approach
to the problem of training experts necessary for economy. A. Ashotian
underlined the necessity of increasing the role of applied science
for developing the country’s economy. The newly-elected chairman
of the committee also spoke about the necessity to solve the mass
media-related problems jointly with journalistic organizations and
to review the status of religious organizations.

To recap, the post of the chairman of the NA Standing Committee of
Science, Education, Culture, Youth Issues and Sports was vacant after
the appointment of its former chairwoman Hranush Hakobian as the head
of the MFA State Committee of the Diaspora.

VENT D’OPTIMISME EN TURQUIE APRES LA VISITE HISTORIQUE DE GUL EN ARMENIE

Les Echos
8 Septembre 2008
France

Le president turc, Abdullah Gul, est revenu de sa visite historique
en Armenie avec des espoirs de normalisation avec son voisin. Premier
president turc a se rendre en Armenie depuis l’independance de cette
ex-Republique sovietique en 1991, Abdullah Gul a rencontre samedi son
homologue, Serge Sarkissian, avec lequel il a assiste a Erevan au match
Turquie-Armenie de qualification pour le Mondial 2010 de football. "
Je pense que ma visite a demoli une barrière psychologique dans le
Caucase ", s’est felicite Gul. Les chefs de la diplomatie armenienne
et turque, Edouard Nalbandian et Ali Babacan, se rencontreront fin
septembre a New York, lors de l’assemblee generale des Nations unies.

–Boundary_(ID_FtVuTEqip8ieRSQy6RzTrQ)–

THE CAUCASUS: SMALL WAR, BIG DAMAGE
By Soner Cagaptay

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
C06.php?CID=1176
Sept 8 2008
DC

Georgia’s attempt to take South Ossetia has backfired. In a
blitzkrieg, Russia drove the Georgian military completely out of South
Ossetia. Moscow also made forays into Georgian territory. Many people
in Turkey and across the transatlantic community have interpreted
the war as a by-product of Georgia’s aggressive attitude, and then
propagated a neutral position toward the conflict. Whatever is the
cause of the war, Russia’s foray into Georgia cannot be dismissed
as nuisance. The war has immense negative ramifications for the
transatlantic community, including Turkey and the United States,
as well as the European Union, or EU.

Russia’s motives

The major impact of the war has been in the realm of energy and
pipeline politics. Russia may not be a global superpower anymore,
but it is certainly an "energy power." Moscow’s strength lies in
immense oil and natural gas reserves. Such that, even though Russia’s
population of 145 million is twice as big as the Turkish population,
the Russian economy is smaller than its Turkish counterpart if the
energy sector’s contribution is subtracted.

Energy sector’s behemoth dominance in the Russian economy shapes
Russia’s foreign policy motives. Russian gas giant Gazprom’s policies
and Russian foreign policy serve each other’s mutual interests. Russia
takes advantage of exorbitant energy prices to increase its political
and military power — the arms industry is the second largest sector of
the Russian economy after energy. Energy politics is key to Russia’s
military and political ascent especially in the former USSR. In order
to grow further, Russia wants to achieve monopoly over the global
distribution of oil and natural gas from the former USSR countries.

This rationale seems to be the driving factor vision of Georgia. When
the Cold War ended and the USSR was dissolved, the United States
allied with Turkey to create a blue print to bring the newly explored
oil and natural gas from the Caspian basin to the global markets. The
shared U.S.-Turkish vision aimed to market Azeri, Kazakh, and Turkmen
oil and gas to the world, not via Russia, but through the East-West
corridor spanning the Caspian Sea and Turkey.

Georgia and Armenia

The U.S.-Turkish vision worked well in the pre-9/11 era when Russia
was under the politically incompetent rule of Boris Yeltsin and Moscow
was economically weak due to low oil and natural gas prices. As a
first step along the East-West corridor, the U.S. and Turkey backed
the building of Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan oil and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas
pipelines. The second phase of the U.S.-Turkish vision envisaged
extending these pipelines; east to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and
west to Europe. A big part of that vision was the Nabucco pipeline
between Turkey and Austria, the poster child for EU’s energy policy
that would have for the first time allowed Europeans to buy Caspian
gas without Russian intermediary.

Russia’s occupation of Georgia has dealt a blow to such plans. Georgia
and Armenia are two countries along the East-West corridor that lie
between the Caspian basin and Turkey. Since Turkey’s border with
Armenia is closed, this leaves Georgia as a key country along the
corridor. Georgia is mutilated by Russia and unstable. It is hard to
imagine today how any energy company would invest in extensions to the
East-West corridor, along which Georgia has become the weak link. By
occupying Georgia, Russia has exhausted the U.S-Turkish plans to
boost the East-West corridor and make Turkey an entrepot of Caspian
energy. Moscow has also preemptively blocked the EU’s plans to buy
energy from the Caspian basin without having to go through Russia.

Back in the USSR

A second transatlantic casualty of Russia’s invasion of Georgia is
the West’s political influence in the former USSR. Since the 1990s,
Turkey and the U.S. have managed to wield influence over countries in
the former USSR, especially Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, building
military and political ties with these states. Now that Russia has
taught Georgia a lesson about its pro-Western stance, Ukraine and
Azerbaijan will think twice next time they have a chance to take cue
from the United States or Turkey, respectively. Russia’s foray into
Georgia has demonstrated to the countries of the former USSR that
Russia is the regional hegemon and that they better listen to it.

As long as oil and natural gas prices remain high, Russia will project
further political and military influence over the Caucuses and the
Black Sea basin, and such influence will come at the expense of the
transatlantic community. Russia’s invasion of Georgia is a milestone
that marks the dawn of a new era. A small war has indeed produced
big results.

Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy and a visiting professor at Bahcesehir University, would
like to thank Melis Evcimik for her assistance with this article.

Milliyet, Turkey
Sept 6 2008

TURKISH FORMER FOREIGN MINISTERS OPPOSE PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO ARMENIA

President Abdullah Gul’s decision to go to Armenia has been criticized
by former Foreign Ministers.

Ilter Turkmen: "In my view, Gul should not have gone to Armenia. I am
quite worried about the ramifications of the trip.

"It is clear that Turkey could not accept the slightest untoward
situation during the visit. During the Yerevan visit of Foreign
Ministry Deputy Undersecretary Unal Cevikoz, in addition to security,
discussions were held on establishing a Joint Historical Commission.

"For whatever reason, this was given priority, whereas in my view, the
real thing that needs to be resolved is the border issue. I do not
expect any agreement to come out of the meeting between Gul and
[Armenian President Serzh] Sargsyan."

Mumtaz Soysal: "Gul’s approach of combining politics with the match is
very wrong. A policy of getting out one step in front is being pursued
here.

"Gul’s listening to [US President George W.] Bush prior to making his
decision strikes me as wrong.

"I think that Gul will encounter incidents there that will be at the
level of rowdiness. I am certain that even a 1-0 victory by Armenia
will be published in the Western media with a headline of ‘Revenge for
1915.’ Essentially, the real match took place between Gul and [Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.

"While Erdogan said ‘he definitely has to go,’ Gul was cautious. Gul
has tried to look good to the United States, and Erdogan to the EU."

Sukru Sina Gurel: "This decision by Abdullah Gul is very wrong. While
the genocide and a territorial claim are in the Armenian constitution,
I ask ‘why this visit?’ Perhaps it is a gamble…

"Diplomacy, however, is not a matter of playing at the gambling
table. It is certain that this visit by Gul will be used
inappropriately by Armenia.

"Even if this meeting should be seen as football diplomacy, it could
be called fancy footwork diplomacy, and this means a discrediting of
diplomacy."

[translated from Turkish]

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Sept 6 2008

Department head of President’s Office: `Turkish President’s visit to
Armenia is not the one to be forgotten tomorrow’

[ 06 Sep 2008 15:00 ]

Novruz Mammadov: `We will see everything in a month or two. Maybe,
those criticizing this visit will repent for its
consequences. Theoretically, it is also possible’

Baku. Elnur Mammadli ` APA. `Turkey is our friend, brother and
partner. Our interests coincide almost in all issues,’ Head of
International Relations Department of the President’s Office Novruz
Mammadov said in his interview to APA, while commenting on Turkish
President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Armenia. He said Azerbaijan and
Turkey were strategic allies. Saying that this alliance has deep
roots, the department head considers this cooperation will last long.

`Turkish state, its leaders have the right to make independent
decisions in all issues. We cannot take a stance on it. Azerbaijani
and Turkish media publish various views. But I think it is not right
to express resolute, radical and concrete position. This is a delicate
step. We should wait. Turkish President’s visit to Armenia is not the
one to be forgotten tomorrow. Nobody knows now what the position of
Turkey and Armenia was, what they talked about, whether steps were
taken forward or backward. All we can do now is to wait for the
results. This is a tactical step. I think Azerbaijan and Turkey have
common strategic target, it continues and will continue. No doubt,
during this visit Turkish President will also have concrete position
in the issue on Azerbaijan. I cannot say how the results will be’, he
said.

Asked about the influence of Abdullah Gul’s visit on Azerbaijan-Turkey
relations, Novruz Mammadov said it was right to link the relations
between the countries to this visit. He said the relations between
Azerbaijan and Turkey had been determined by the heads of the states
and that course was unchangeable.

`Perhaps, some give themselves up to the feelings and express their
opinion on the issue. Generally, state leader’s visit to a country is
considered as an end of a period in diplomatic ties, and the beginning
of new relations. Such questions arise since it is an extraordinary
step by the Turkish leader. This is the case I am mostly concerned
over. Armenian authorities are in a difficult situation now and when
they are in such situation they do not usually follow any ethics. They
can take any step in this condition. However, it does not mean they
will stick on this principle forever. Today, Iran is the main
guarantor of Armenia. They should be expected any maneuver, hypocrisy
because they are in a very difficult situation indeed’, he said.

As for the talks that Gul’s visit favors Iran more than Turkey,
Mammadov stated that it might be so.

`But Armenia is not given what it needs. This visit does not mean
Turkey will open the borders with Armenia. The parties will probably
discuss problems between them during the visit. It is possible to
express opinion on the visit when the discussions are announced in
details. Our position on the issue is that Turkey has made the
decision and we approve it’, he said.

Mammadov noted that he could not say whether Gul’s visit was initially
agreed with Azerbaijan.

`There is no need for such an agreement. Turkey is an independent
country, so it can take any step although we are in friendly
relations. Azerbaijani and Turkish communities are deeply concerned in
formal side of the issue and try to come to a logical
conclusion. There is no need to make such hasty decisions in
policy. We will see everything in a month or two. Maybe, those
criticizing this visit will repent for its
consequences. Theoretically, it is also possible’, he added.

Compiled from
Yeni Azarbaycan, Azerbaijan
Azadliq, Azerbaijan
Yeni Musavat, Azerbaijan
Zerkalo, Azerbaijan
Sept 5 2008

Azeri press offers differing views on Turkish leader’s planned visit
to Armenia

The Azerbaijani ruling party’s newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan has harshly
criticized Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s planned visit on 6
September to Armenia to watch a football game between the Turkish and
Armenian national teams.

"Gul, president of Turkey which is the closest friend of Azerbaijan
and its strategic partner, will visit an enemy country, Armenia, which
has territorial claims to both our country and Turkey and which
murders people, having forgotten the fundamental principles ‘One
nation – two countries’ and ‘Azerbaijan’s grief is our grief and its
joy is our joy’ which describe our historical relationship," Yeni
Azarbaycan said on 5 September. "It does not matter whether Gul will
meet government officials or watch a football game in Yerevan. What is
important is that in this way Turkey will stab its friend in the
back. It will not matter whether this step is explained and linked
with enforcement rules required by the globalizing world, pressure by
an Anglo-Saxon-Jewish alliance that is trying to dictate a unipolar
world order or Russian propaganda."

The paper also recalled that Abdullah Gul himself criticized the then
Turkish President Suleyman Demirel in 1993 over the visit to Ankara of
former Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan.

"Although 15 years have passed since then, nothing has changed. But
Gul is going to Yerevan to watch a football match," Yeni Azarbaycan
said.

The opposition Azadliq newspaper said that despite criticism of Gul’s
planned visit in Azerbaijan, the Baku government welcomed the move.

Commenting on the stance of the Azerbaijani authorities, the deputy
chairman of the People’s Front of Azerbaijan Party, Nuraddin Mammadli,
told Azadliq that the Baku government had coordinated its reaction
with Ankara.

"Because the Azerbaijani government has reached a critical point due
to the recent developments in the region and it does not need another
headache with Turkey," Mammadli said. "On the other hand, the
Azerbaijani government has no levers to influence the current
processes between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey has been taking the
latest steps with the EU’s consent."

In the meantime, the leader of the opposition Musavat party, Isa
Qambar, said that Azerbaijan should trust Turkey.

"I believe that we should be able to trust Turkey and rely on it,"
Qambar said in an extensive interview with Yeni Musavat newspaper on 5
September. "I am confident that Turkey is a country that seriously
understands that it is responsible for the fate of both the Turkish
people and Turkic nations and Turkic republics."

Qambar also said that if Azerbaijan wants Turkey to become a mediator
in the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh, it should
accept contacts between Ankara and Yerevan.

Independent Zerkalo newspaper said that Azerbaijan should not
dramatize the forthcoming talks between Armenia and Turkey and wait
for their outcome. "The opening of borders between Turkey and Armenia
will lead to the creation of qualitatively new relations at a new
level in the South Caucasus," the paper added.

[translated from Azeri]