Armenian-Turkish Reconciliation To Reflect Karabakh Issue, Turkish P

ARMENIAN-TURKISH RECONCILIATION TO REFLECT KARABAKH ISSUE, TURKISH PRESIDENT SAYS

Yerkir
19.10.2009 16:22

Yerevan (Yerkir) – Turkish President Abdullah Gul stated that
Armenian-Turkish relations’ normalization will reflect Karabakh
conflict settlement, Turkish TRT website reported.

Gul underlined that Armenia-Turkey reconciliation would normalize the
situation in the Caucasus. "Armenia-Turkey Protocols will provide
stability in the region. If Armenia-Azerbaijan relations are not
resumed, there will be no peace in the Caucasus. Armenia-Turkey
relations will definitely affect the Karabakh peace process. The
Caucasus and Balkans are of immense significance for Turkey and I have
already discussed the issue in the course of the phone conversation
with the U.S. President Barack Obama," Gul said.

ANKARA: FM Davutoglu Faces Harsh Criticism Over Protocols

FM DAVUTOGLU FACES HARSH CRITICISM OVER PROTOCOLS

Hurriyet Daily News
Oct 21 2009
Turkey

The reconciliation protocols are milestones that will help solve the
conflicts in the southern Caucasus, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
says during a special parliamentary session. ‘These documents will
shape history,’ he adds

The reconciliation protocols signed with Armenia will pave the way
for a comprehensive solution in the southern Caucasus, according to
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

"These documents will shape history," Davutoglu told parliamentarians
from the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, who were
interrupting his remarks.

Davutoglu, the architect of the "zero problems with neighbors" policy,
said Turkey would be surrounded with stability and peace as a result
of its foreign policy. "Our main missions are to ensure security and
stability for everyone in the region, to solve the disputes through
dialog, to boost economic interdependence among neighbors and to
create mutual respect for cultural pluralism."

The status quo in the Caucasus is not consistent with Turkey’s vision,
Davutoglu said. "The frozen conflicts are like unexploded bombs in our
hands. We need to eradicate them one by one through peaceful means."

"The existing picture does not serve anybody’s interest in the region,"
he said in reference to the fact that Azerbaijan has been under
occupation for 17 years while Armenia’s economy has been worsening.

"We have to change the status quo in order to prevent further risks,"
Davutoglu said as critical voices from the opposition seats attempted
to drown him out.

Davutoglu continued, saying, "We aim at reconciliation between Turkish
and Armenian communities in the diaspora and at opening healthy
communication channels through the elimination of exploitation based
on historical sufferings."

The Turkish government has not changed it political mission to end the
Armenian occupation in Nagorno-Karabakh, Davutoglu said. "Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity is as important for Turkey as its own territorial
integrity. Turkey will continue to advocate [Azerbaijan’s rights]
at every diplomatic stage like it has done so over the last 17 years."

The minister said President Abdullah Gul brought the matter up during
his phone conversations with his Russian and U.S counterparts in
the last two days. "We will do our best to solve this dispute. We’re
well aware that any bilateral normalization is not realistic without
a comprehensive regional solution. We will open a road to solve
Karabakh in line with international law," he said, adding that the
peace negotiations between Baku and Yerevan have to step up as a
result of the reconciliation talks with Ankara."

The articles related to recognizing the country’s common border and
establishing a joint historical commission to investigate the events
of 1915 is not against Turkey’s position, Davutoglu said. Over the din
caused by the opposition parliamentarians, he said, "These documents
will shape the history."

Severe criticism by opposition MPs

Oktay Vural, a member of Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, accused
the government of obeying outside pressure and missing a strategic
opportunity when Armenia is cornered due to its worsening economy.

"From whom did we hear about opening the border with Armenia for the
first time? U.S President Barack Obama," he said.

Vural reminded everyone that President Gul had, in the past,
criticized the possibility of any negotiations with Armenia because
its constitution shows Kars within Armenian territory, asking,
"What has changed now?"

"The MHP will be against the reconciliation process and border opening
until Armenia shifts its hostile policies," Vural said, expressing
his party’s stance.

Selahattin DemirtaÅ~_, from the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party,
or DTP, sparked tension among the parliamentarians of the CHP and the
MHP. "Denial has been the way to deal with a tragedy in history. The
massacre against Armenians was not put into history books," DemirtaÅ~_
said, increasing the tension in the hall.

Stressing that governments have failed to prevent a historically
based anti-Armenian attitude that has dominated the country for over a
century, he said: "It is not easy to explain a reconciliation protocol
with Armenia under such conditions. We should begin by correcting."

Å~^ukru Elekdag, a retired ambassador from the CHP, criticized
the ambiguous language in the protocols, arguing that Turkey’s
interests were at risk. Elekdag also pointed out the strategic
alliance with Azerbaijan. "It would be an incomprehensible mistake
to lose Azerbaijan. It may worsen Turkey’s relations with all Turkic
republics across the world."

"There is no condition about Armenia changing its constitutional law
to recognize Turkey’s integrity. How can the government explain this
failure? Turkey has regretfully failed to use its advantages," he said.

Davutoglu rejects "any foreign influence or orders"

Davutoglu, in reply to the critics said, "No foreign influence
forced Turkey to take these steps," noting that "the diplomatic talks
were conducted secretly and started even before our government came
to power."

He described the flag crisis between Turkey and Azerbaijan as the
product of provocateurs and said, "Though others may say so, we will
not shift our policy [that aims] to bring stability to the Caucasus and
bolster the process to save Azerbaijani territories from occupation."

ANKARA: Turkey Gives Diplomatic Note To Azerbaijan

TURKEY GIVES DIPLOMATIC NOTE TO AZERBAIJAN

Today’s Zaman
Oct 21 2009
Turkey

Turkey on Wednesday gave a diplomatic note to Azerbaijan over hauling
down of the Turkish flag in front of the Council for Religious Affairs
in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Spokesman Elhan Polhov reaffirmed that
Turkey gave a note to Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry.

Workers of municipality removed the Turkish flag in front of the
Council for Religious Affairs without making any statement.

Turkish flags in front of Turkish Martyrdom, Turkish schools and
various Turkish buildings were removed after Azerbaijani flags were not
allowed in the football match between Turkey and Armenia on October
14 played in western province of Bursa, following a FIFA decision
not to allow flags of third countries in the stadium.

Azerbaijani executives said flags of foreign countries could only be
hoisted in some specific places under the law on flag.

21 October 2009, Wednesday THE ANATOLIA NEWS AGENCY BAKU

Mikhail Alexandrov: Turkey Must Not Depend On Azerbaijan

MIKHAIL ALEXANDROV: TURKEY MUST NOT DEPEND ON AZERBAIJAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.10.2009 16:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "Azerbaijan continues with its anti-rapprochement
campaign, Head of Caucasus Department at CIS States Institute,
Mikhail Alexandrov told PanARMENIAN.Net reporter, commenting on Azeri
Parliament’s intention to discuss RA-Turkish Protocols. According to
him, Azeri policy aimed to impose a blockade on Armenia so that the
latter ceded NKR. In case of RA-Turkish rapprochement Baku will have to
compromise on the issue. "To stop RA-Turkish protocols’ ratification
process, Azerbaijan might even address Turkish parliament," Mikhail
Alexandrov noted, adding that Ankara will gain nothing by supporting
Baku.

He also commented the information on Azeri and Turkish Diaspora’s
unification in order to hamper protocols’ ratification. "The Azeri
seem to be unaware of their true origin; at one moment they consider
themselves Caucasian Albanians’ descendants, at another they’re
descended from Turks."

Alexandrov also noted that Turkey must not depend on Azerbaijan. "It’s
time for Ankara to act in accordance with it’s own interests, instead
of Azerbaijan’s," Mikhail Alexandrov said.

Azerbaijan slams Armenia-Turkey deal, warns of instability

Agence France Presse
October 11, 2009 Sunday 8:23 AM GMT

Azerbaijan slams Armenia-Turkey deal, warns of instability

By Emil Guliyev
BAKU, Oct 11 2009

Azerbaijan on Sunday slammed its ally Turkey for agreeing to normalise
ties with Armenia and warned that the opening of the Armenian-Turkish
border could cause instability in the volatile South Caucasus.

"The normalisation of relations between Turkey and Armenia before the
withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani territory is
in direct contradiction with the interests of Azerbaijan and casts a
shadow over the spirit of brotherly relations between Azerbaijan and
Turkey, built on deep historical roots," the Azerbaijani foreign
ministry said in a statement.

"Azerbaijan believes that the unilateral opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border calls into question the architecture of peace
and stability in the region," it added.

Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and his Turkish
counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu on Saturday signed landmark pacts to
normalise their two countries’ relations and open their shared border.

The deals, which must still be ratified by the two countries’
parliaments, are a first step to reconciliation after nearly a century
of bitterness over World War I-era massacres of Armenians under
Ottoman rule.

The Azerbaijani foreign ministry said Baku expected Ankara to follow
through on promises made by Turkish officials not to open the border
until Armenian forces withdrew from Azerbaijan’s disputed Nagorny
Karabakh region.

"Azerbaijan’s position on this issue is unequivocal," the statement said.

Azerbaijan has strongly objected to Turkey normalising ties with
Armenia and opening the border before the resolution of Baku’s
conflict with Armenia over Nagorny Karabakh.

Officials earlier this year hinted that energy-rich Azerbaijan could
cut off oil and gas supplies to Turkey if its interests are ignored in
the reconciliation effort with Armenia.

Backed by Yerevan, ethnic Armenian separatists seized control of
Nagorny Karabakh and seven surrounding districts from Azerbaijan in
the early 1990s, in a war that claimed an estimated 30,000 lives.

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with
Azerbaijan over the conflict.

Armenia has rejected any linkage between the conflict and its
reconciliation efforts with Turkey, with President Serzh Sarkisian
saying in an address to the nation Saturday that relations with Turkey
"cannot be connected with the question of the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict."

Armenia and Azerbaijan have cut direct economic and transport links
and failed to negotiate a settlement on the status of Nagorny Karabakh
despite years of talks.

Armenian and Azerbaijani forces are spread across a ceasefire line in
and around Nagorny Karabakh, often facing each other at close range,
and shootings are common.

Fresh talks on Karabakh between Sarkisian and Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev last week failed to produce a breakthrough. While Armenia
said the talks had been "constructive," Azerbaijan said there had been
"no results" from the negotiations.

The US, French and Russian co-chairs of the Minsk Group, which is
mediating the talks, have said negotiations are moving forward and
analysts say the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation efforts have given
fresh impetus to the peace process.

EU Member-States’ FMs To Meet

EU MEMBER-STATES’ FMS TO MEET

News.am
10:39 / 10/17/2009

On December 8, 2009 Foreign Ministers of the EU member states jointly
with the "Eastern Partnership" project participants will discuss
issues related to the program implementation in Brussels.

"It is the first political meeting after the establishment of &’Eastern
Partnership’ in 2009", Polish politician Jaroslav Jajic said, not
ruling out the approval of first projects at the meeting.

The first summit of the EU new political project "Eastern Partnership"
was held in Prague, May 7, 2009.The summit aimed at enhancement of
relations between Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.

For the project implementation in 2009-2013, ~@600m will be allocated.

Armenian Genocide Rememberance Day Bill in the UK Parliament

Armenia Solidarity and Nor Serount Cultural Association Press Release
c/o The Temple of Peace, Cardiff
07718982732
[email protected]

Ar menian Genocide Rememberance Day Bill in the UK Parliament

We are pleased that the bill by the Member of Parliament Andrew
Dismore, who has helped us so much in the past is scheduled to be given
a second reading today, (16th October). This is the first time ever that
a bill which is potentially destined for a vote has reached so far.

Sixty-three private bills by Members of Paliuament are scheduled to
be debated today, of which the Armenian Genocude Day bill is down at
number five. Even though it came very high in the list, the procedure
of Parliament means that usually there is only time to debate two or
three such bills and all the other bills will "fall" The fact that so
little time is available for parliament to debate such important bills
is all the more appalling as ninety years have elapsed since the
"Turkish Rule in Armenia" debate in the House of Lords in 1919. Ninety
years ago, the government made promises which were subsequently broken,
and as if to excuse themselves, the present British government even deny
the facts on which the promises were made.(note that Earl Curzon , for
the government, even then had little time to stay in the debate. Now,
after waiting for ninety years, there is still not enough time to debate
the issue.)

Details of the bill are given below:

"Armenian Genocide Rememberance Day Bill. Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported
by John Austin, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Clive Efford, Ms Karen Buck and Rob
Marris, presented a Bill to introduce a national day to learn about and
remember the Armenian genocide. "

Parliamentarians will be sent this to remind them of the
government’s past promises to the Armenians,containing their recognition
of Turkey’s central involvement in the Genocide

TURKISH RULE IN ARMENIA.

House of Lords Debate 17 December 1919 vol 38 cc279-300
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to call attention to the
sufferings of the Christian refugees, Armenian, Nestorian, and
Chaldæan, who are still prevented from returning to their homes by the
Turkish troops who are occupying the districts from which they were
driven, and to the repeated declarations made by the Government that all
Turkish rule should cease in Armenia and the other districts referred
to; and to ask His Majesty’s Government whether they can give any
information as to the steps taken or proposed in relation thereto.

The Blue Book.

"The appalling stories of wholesale massacre, of expulsion of great
populations from their homes under conditions which could only be
described as in most cases slowly dragged-out massacre, are set before
us in incident after incident, showing what has happened on a scale so
vast as is scarcely credible in our own time or, indeed, in any time.
Every one who studies the subject at once begins to ask himself: Are the
outrages which are here described the misdeeds of lawless ruffians who
are out of hand and incapable of knowing what mercy or humanity means,
or can they be the deliberate acts of a Government itself? On that
question very large issues would necessarily turn. Unhappily the
Blue-book leaves the impartial reader in no doubt whatever as to the
answer which must be given. The book is no mere string of incidents. It
gives the coherent story of these years, introduced and supplemented by
narratives of the past and summaries of what has happened in the
present which enable us by the lucidity, the range, and the clear
arrangement of the whole, to deal with that question without hesitation
and to arrive at the conclusion which is, I think, inevitable. No one
reading it carefully but must be convinced, not, I will say, of the
Turkish Government’s complicity in these matters, but of its authorship,
the actual authorship of these unspeakable outrages.

At the very outset of the war a deliberate plan was adopted, it is
perfectly clear, by the Turkish Government for dealing with these long
oppressed peoples, peoples in their various groups whose courage, whose
loyalty to their Christian faith and, in some cases, whose industry aid
grit had enabled them to hold their own for centuries and centuries in
face of oppression, and poverty, anti misrule. The Government decided
upon a cold-blooded plan of a double character. It was first to be a
plan of quite deliberate massacre on a large scale, and it was next to
be a plan of so-called deportation from the occupied regions which, in
very many cases, merely meant massacre in a deferred degree.

Different regions were taken in order. The records which are here
brought to light show that there were telegrams at the same time sent to
the various parts of the Empire so that the massacre, if it was to be a
massacre, should take place at the same time in different places. The
deportations were carefully arranged by a plan which makes it utterly
impossible to suppose that they were the acts of local governors, or
local authorities, or that they emanated from any other source than
headquarters, whether or no those headquarters had an identity different
from that which belonged to the Turkish Government.

What took place is described in this book by eye-witnesses.
Narrative after narrative gives it in detail. These are not for the most
part the accounts of victims who had survived; they are narratives by
calm, competent, highly-skilled observers, familiar with the country,
familiar with the people, and incapable of misrepresenting what they
saw. Americans, Germans-I will note Germans very markedly-and English
observers as well. These all support, with practical unanimity, the
stories given by those victims who had survived, whose records, had they
not been thus supported, might very unfairly have been judged as not
likely to be correctly or temperately given.

I believe that the story of these years is really an outrage on
civilisation without historical parallel in the world. I do not believe
that in the wildest barbarities recorded in history, including those of
the days of Tamerlane, you would be able to exceed, if you could
parallel, the accounts that are here given. And these can be, as I have
said, undoubtedly traced, not to the outrageous conduct of undisciplined
hordes, but to the deliberate plan and scheme of a Government with which
you are supposed to have been on friendly terms and in alliance for many
purposes. After all the distractions which the war has brought into the
mind of men all over the world in contemplating contemporary history, is
it conceivable that we are going to allow these facts to be forgotten;
or, if we do not allow them to be forgotten, that we are going to allow
conditions to arise again during which their repetition can be possible?
That seems to me to be a question which ought to be, and must be, asked
at once. ..

It is, of course, difficult to know how to deal with the question
and that is a matter which is not within my province or within my power
to handle in any way at all. No one contends that it is a very easy
matter to know what ought to happen next, and hardly any one contends
that we should suppress the Turk in Asia Minor proper; that is in the
peninsula west of a line running from Samsoon in the north to
Alexandretta in the south. West of that line we admit that Asia Minor is
a region under Turkish rule, and presumably it is to continue to prevail
with whatever checks or supervision are practicable. No one suggests
that they should be suppressed in this region. But east of that line the
whole conditions are entirely different. That region has never
historically belonged properly to Turkey; is not inhabited by the
Turkish races, nor are the Turks as numerous there, as are other races.
………

It has been definitely promised that whatever flag it is which flies
over these regions in the future the actual control must never again be
in Turkish hands. I will not trouble your Lordships with quotations but
I will give two from the Prime Minister himself. Speaking in December
20, 1917, in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said this- What
will happen to Mesopotamia must be left to the Peace Congress when it
meets; but there is one thing that will never happen; it will never be
restored to the blasting tyranny of the Turk. At best he was a trustee
of this far famed land on behalf of Ah! what a trustee! He has been
false to his trust, and his trusteeship must be given over to more
competent and more equitable hands chosen by the Congress which will
settle the affairs of the world. That same observation applies to
Armenia, the land soaked with blood of innocents massacred by the people
who were bound to protect them. Speaking a little later the Prime
Minister said- Outside Europe we believe the same principles should be
applied. While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire
in the home lands of the Turkish race with its capital at
Consantinople-the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea
being internationalised and neutralised-Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
Syria, and Palestine are, in our judgment, entitled to a recognition of
their separate national conditions. What the exact form of that
recognition in each particular case should be need not be here
discussed, beyond stating that it would be impossible to restore to
their former sovereignty the territories to which I have just referred.
I ask now, What are we to understand as to their fulfilment? I do not
believe I appeal to an unsympathetic tribunal. I apologise for having
detained your Lordships so long but the point raised in the question had
to be made clear; it is one which deserves attention and must not pass
from the memory of civilised people. It is a matter of vital import to
the honour of humanity and the good faith and wellbeing of the world."

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF
KEDLESTON) (for the government)

My Lords, I do not want to stand between the House and my noble
friend Lord Bryce, but, I have an engagement which compels me to go away
presently. No one will dispute the extreme gravity or the poignant
tragedy of many of the incidents which the moat rev. Primate has placed
before us. He has recapitulated from the Blue-book many of the most
terrible incidents in the long career of bloodshed, atrocity, and crime
which has disfigured what I hope will be the dying days of the Turkish
Empire in those parts of Asia to which he had alluded. . …..

… as regards the Assyrians who lived before and who are willing to
live again in the areas which belong to the old Turkish Empire, either
to place them in an enclave adjacent to the territories under our
control, so that they may be under our wing and within easy reach of our
protection, or, if we provide a home for them in their former home lands
or further afield among the Kurdish peoples, to try to make such
arrangements for them as may secure their safe and decent existence.

The most Rev. Primate alluded to the different declarations that
have been made at various times since we went into the country by
responsible spokesmen of His Majesty’s Government. He quoted in
particular two declarations made in the course of last year or the year
before by the Prime Minister. By those declarations we stand. They have
never been departed from there. They do not express the sentiments, the
aspirations, or the intentions of ourselves alone. They are shared by
all our Allies. And, my Lords I hope that many months-I may even go
further and say that I hope that many weeks-will not now elapse before
the Allied Powers in Conference are able seriously to come to a solution
of the Turkish problem, too long delayed already, and bring it to a
satisfactory conclusion.

VISCOUNT BRYCE

….. They (the Armenian refugees) cannot return until something is done
to check the Turkish bands which are still ravishing the country. There
are, I am informed, no regular Turkish forces now in Armenia proper,
that is to say, in Armenia to the east of the Taurus Mountains, nor in
Cilicia, but there are wandering bands-the remnants of the former
Turkish forces-and all the bad characters who always come to front where
a country is in complete disorder, and these are so numerous and so well
armed that it would be unsafe for the refugees at present to return.

I believe that by that means, by means of the exercise of diplomatic
pressure, by sending a force into the country, which need not be a very
large force, to see that these bands are suppressed, it will be possible
to enable the refugees to return in safety.

That brings me to say a word about the Treaty itself. The first
condition of any Treaty to be made with the Turks is that they shall
entirely evacuate what is known as Armenia. I share the view which was
expressed by the most rev. Primate that there is no reason why a Turkish
Sultan should not continue to reign in those parts of Asia Minor where
there is a majority of the Muslim population. The Muslim population is
in the large majority along the north coast of Asia Minor, and through
most parts of the central plateau, and there a Sultan may remain, and if
anybody likes-if he can obtain recognition from the Mahomedan world as
Caliph-he may remain as Caliph also. But what I believe the public of
this country will insist upon, and in fact, what public opinion must
insist upon when it knows the facts and realises those facts upon which
the most rev. Primate dwelt-the immense scale and the circumstances of
horror which attended these massacres and which have shown once again
how utterly unfit the Turk is to exercise powers over persons of a
different faith and race-is that there shall be no more Turkish rule in
Armenia nor in those other regions, Chaldæan and Assyrian, in which
the massacres have been perpetrated.

Some other declarations-those made by the present Prime Minister-have
been referred to by the most rev. Primate. I could if it were necessary
give other declarations-declarations made by Mr. Balfour on behalf of
the Government, declarations made by Lord Robert Cecil on behalf of the
Government., declarations made by M. Clemenceau who also pledged France
to secure liberation of the Armenians. And therefore I am very glad to
know that the noble Earl, in the words which he spoke just now, declared
that His Majesty’s Government-and he said he spoke for the Allies
also-stand by those declarations, and intend to fulfil them. I am sure
the House will note with satisfaction that declaration, and will feel
sure that His Majesty’s Government will carry it out. But I want to
press this point upon it, that that must be taken to mean the regions in
which the Muslim population is not in a large majority, such as the
centre of Asia Minor, and that the declaration must be taken to include
all the countries to the east of the Taurus Mountains, Cilicia, and the
six vilayets of Armenia, and that it is not only for the Republic at
Erivan that independence is to be promised, but that that independence
is to belong to all the regions which historically belong to the
Armenian part of Western Asia.

I need only remind your Lordships that if you desire to have any other
view of the conduct of the Turks and the character of those massacres in
addition to that which the Blue-book presents, to which the most rev.
Primate has referred, you will find it in the book of Mr. Morgenthau,
the American Ambassador at Constantinople during the period of the
massacres. He tells us himself that he constantly went to Enver and
Talaat, who are the two chiefs of the Committee of Union and Progress
and the persons chiefly responsible for planning and carrying out the
massacres. He represented to them that the world would be outraged if
those things continued, and he tried for the same purpose to enlist the
sympathy of the German Ambassador, Wangenheim. He describes there how
Talaat and Enver did not attempt to conceal the massacres, did not deny
what their policy of extermination was. They did it all with a
deliberate purpose; they were supported by the other members of the
Committee of Union and Progress, and not a word was said amongst the
Turks against these massacres.

I.

RPA Deputy Chairman: Armenia Not To Ratify Protocols Before Turkey

RPA DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: ARMENIA NOT TO RATIFY PROTOCOLS BEFORE TURKEY

ArmInfo
2009-10-14 15:55:00

ArmInfo. Armenia will not ratify the protocols before Turkey, deputy
Chairman of the Republican party of Armenia, MP Razmik Zohrabyan
said at today’s press-conference when asked which party would first
approve the documents.

‘I think the Armenian-Turkish protocols will be finally ratified. As
for the terms, the ratification will last till spring at the most,
moreover, Armenia will not ratify the protocols before Turkey’,
Zohrabyan said. Speaking of the necessity of opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border, the MP said unblocking of the border is
beneficial from the economic viewpoint, first of all, as new sales
markets for the Armenian goods will appear.

The Primate’s Pastoral Visit To The Armenian Apostolic Church Of The

THE PRIMATE’S PASTORAL VISIT TO THE ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF THE DESERT IN RANCHO MIRAGE

e-s-pastoral-visit-to-the-armenian-apostolic-churc h-of-the-desert-in-rancho-mirage/
Oct 02 2009

Following the Regional meeting on Saturday, September 26, held at
the Diocesan Headquarters, His Eminence Archbishop Hovnan Derderian
paid a pastoral visit to the Armenian Church of the Desert in Rancho
Mirage. The Parish Council had organized a special fundraising event
for the construction project of the church. Dn. Martin Zakaryan;
Parish Council members headed by Chairman Carol Nogosian, the former
mayor of Rancho Mirage, current Councilmen Mr. Ron Meepos and Alan
D. Seman and other Parish members were present during the meeting.

The Primate acknowledged and praised the efforts of all faithful
whose common goal has been the building of the church. Following His
Eminence Archbishop Hovnan Derderian’s message, more donations were
made to the building fund. We are pleased to inform you that the
anticipated completion date of the church is summer 2010.

http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/the-primat

Tbilisi: Georgia Welcomes Progress In Armenian-Turkish Normalisation

GEORGIA WELCOMES PROGRESS IN ARMENIAN-TURKISH NORMALISATION
By Temuri Kiguradze

Messenger.ge
Monday, October 12

[Armenia’s Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Turkey’s Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu clap after the signing ceremony of a peace
deal between the two countries while flanked by France’s Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner, Switzerland’s Foreign Minister Micheline
Calmy-Rey U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russia’s Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov in Zurich October 10, 2009. REUTERS/Patrick
Kraemer/Pool] The establishment of diplomatic relations between
Armenia and Turkey is being evaluated in Georgia as a positive sign
for the Caucasus as a whole.

The Turkish and Armenian Foreign Ministers signed protocols on the
"development of bilateral relations" in Zurich on October 10, this
event marking significant progress in the reestablishment of relations
of two countries. The protocols say that the sides will open their
mutual border, closed by Turkey in 1993, recognise each others’
territorial integrity and start holding political negotiations.

The signing of the agreements has already been called "historic" by the
foreign media and been hailed by the international community as a step
forward in the stabilisation of relations between the two countries. "I
welcome the historic agreement to normalise relations between Turkey
and Armenia, and commend the effort and political will both leaders
have invested in overcoming differences and working towards a more
secure and stable region, which is in all our interests," said OSCE
Chairman-in-Office George Papandreou on October 11.

"There were concerns on both sides," stated U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, who mediated the difficult negations between the
two parties, "so there were several times when I said to all of the
parties involved that this is too important, this has to be seen
through, and you’ve come too far [to go back now]."

Georgian officials have also spoken about the positive aspect of the
negotiation rested in good and friendly relations existing between all
our neighbours. We have the hope that the establishment of relations
between Armenia and Turkey will stabilise the situation on the Caucasus
and some progress will be reached on the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict," stated Georgian State Minister Temur Iakobashvili, speaking
to The Messenger on October 11. He added that he had always thought
that "the bad relations between Armenia and Turkey were an anomaly."

The confrontation between Armenia and Turkey was created, among
many other factors, by the efforts of Armenia to achieve global
recognition of the humanitarian catastrophe in the Ottoman Empire
in 1915 as genocide. Another issue is Turkey’s protest against the
participation of Armenia in the Nagorno Karabakh war, which ended
with Armenia occupying that region (as well as some others) although
it is internationally recognised to be part of Azerbaijan. After the
conflict Armenia was blockaded by Azerbaijan and Turkey.

"The normalisation of relations between Turkey and Armenia before
the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani territory
is in direct contradiction to the interests of Azerbaijan and casts
a shadow over the spirit of brotherly relations between Azerbaijan
and Turkey, built on deep historical roots," the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry has said in a statement, commenting on the October 10 deal.

Former Georgian Ambassador to Armenia Revaz Gachechiladze notes that
the process of rebuilding relations will not be as easy as it may
seem. "This agreement has yet to be ratified by the Parliaments of
both republics and here it may face serious difficulties. There are
many nationalist political forces in Armenia that actively protest
against any normalisation of relations. The same situation exists in
Turkey," Gachechiladze said, speaking to The Messenger on the night
of the agreement’s signing.

Some Georgian analysts say that Tbilisi is not actually interested in
the normalisation of Turkish-Armenian relations onomic corridor for
blockaded Armenia. Georgian analyst on South Caucasus issues Irakli
Chikhladze notes that the society should take a "deeper look" at the
situation. Speaking to The Messenger Chikhladze noted that in Armenia
nowadays "the greatest part of the economy and business is under
Russian control." "If and when the border with Turkey opens a lot
of Turkish businessmen will be interested in creating new business
projects in Armenia, which will ruin the Russian monopoly in the
country and seriously harm its position in the South Caucasus as a
whole as a new player – Turkey – appears in the region, and Georgia
should be interested in these processes,"

________________________________ __________________________________________________
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.

Learn more:

http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/