Author: Khoyetsian Rose

, Turkey
Dec 31 2009

Quo Vadis Turkey?!?

Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:41

(Open letter)

Recent pictures and news from Turkey are indeed disturbing and painful
and they made me ask myself: Why was the Ottoman Empire dissolved?
Answers to this question vary but the main are: various overt or
covert forces, nationalism and corruption, as well as religious,
cultural and scientific primitivism. These are the approximate answers
that can be found both in the past and present on this issue. However,
recent events in Turkey gave me strength to find another, new answer;
it is new for the time in which I live, but from its content it is an
old one, because it can be found in various Revelations, including the
Holy Qur’an, and that is: the fitnah is more dangerous or harder than
a murder. It has destroyed societies and empires.

Nevertheless, the Empire exists no longer, and instead a new modern
state, Republic of Turkey was created or "inherited" the Empire, which
through great difficulties came to what it is today. Of course that
today’s Turkey is not that Empire, but one should not forget the cream
of that Empire gathered here, that is in this state. Thus we can say
that this state was "born" after great pains, but for the sake of love
and in the name of love it survived to the present days. Because love,
sincerity and justice can keep this state on its feet; if it looses
them, it will loose many, many things.

Now, is it that what is going on and what we are seeing today
accidental? Of course it is not accidental, because we are not
responsible for accidents: we are responsible for everything that is
going on in these parts. The factor for what is going on today in
Turkey is man, namely the man of Turkey, a man whose roots go back to
the ancient times, as well as in the Ottoman Empire. But, it seems
that those responsible for the fall of the former Empire today are
playing havoc in Turkey.

In Turkey, unfortunately, the vocabulary of the meanings of words
doesn’t correspond with the reality, like for instance "democracy" in
the entire world has its genuine meaning, both in the vocabulary as
well as in politics, but in Turkey it has to have a different meaning.
"Religion" in the whole world has its meaning, but in Turkey it
doesn’t correspond with the real meaning that it has in the modern
world. This goes both for the bureaucrats as well as for the military.
Democracy in the West is functioning properly and day by day assumes
the form of stability, which can be noticed in the functioning of
Western countries. Today one can’t find any national or cultural
discrimination between the French and Germans, the English or the
Flemish. Of course, there are disputes, but not discrimination. This
is noticeable in the European Parliament too, regardless of
misunderstandings on various issues, which are being put into their
proper places. But what is important here that I want to relate to
Turkey’s picture? One can not find within a country, be it Germany,
France, England… certain force that ignores all values of the
country in which it lives. And, unfortunately, this happens in modern
Turkey during the last years, only because of disliking someone, many
unjust actions are taken, in spite of the fact that such actions harm
not only the state interests, but the state itself too. This is clear
among different formations of the political "ground" and "underground"
and, unfortunately, recently among the military ranks.

This kind of "democracy" is humiliating both to the human mind and to
the human culture too, because it gets away from its content. How can
the issue of another ethnicity in Turkey be presented, when we know
that the language of a people who have accepted and accepts to live in
that country is banned. For instance, I have heard and seen when a
song performed in Kurdish language caused qiyamah, while in Greek
language it didn’t cause any problem whatsoever, even more all danced
with it. Why should this issue pose a problem? In the modern world
this issue is regulated, and it seems that only in the Balkans and in
the East, this is a "problem". The worst of all is that this is done
by those who trumpet to have brought democracy and modernization in
Turkey. Unfortunately, this is evident within the Turkish Parliament,
and makes some of its members look silly trying to present a "truth"
without the truth. If there is democracy ` it is there, if not ` there
is not! Such mentality has cost a lot both the state and the people of
Turkey. Let us not forget the issue of the Armenians, an issue that
has unfortunately remained as inheritance from the "democrats" of such
kind and their fatal mentality. In stead of taking lessons from that
case, without entering into the interpretation of history of the kind
of "debates" in media which for years continue in Turkey, today such
cases are repeated, with other ethnicities. Of course, the opposition
are those who incite such burning topics, because it seems that only
there they see their "gain". I wish they could answer me how the
future generations of Turkey could explain the "war" waged against a
people, only because of someone’s terrorist activities!?! I’m
convinced that the opposition and supporters of the idea of war
tomorrow will open the doors and, God forbid, will be forced to accept
the mistakes, if it wishes to become a part of the modern world. And
they will surely be forced to do that by the international factor, as
they are today forced to accept certain things from the past.

As I said before, religion too has its meaning in the world, but in
Turkey it doesn’t correspond with the reality. Today in the Western
world, regardless of difficulties that religion and religious
phenomena have in the theological and philosophical dimension, yet
certain religious facility is obvious: religious institutions work
properly and people have no problem with Christianity whatsoever. It
is not possible to find a language, let alone official policy, that
speaks against Christianity as it is done with the religion of Islam
in Turkey. Such attitude and "democratic" mentality "democracy" of
Turkey creates great difficulties for the sound religious and cultural
reason. In stead of being in service of religion, state politics and
the state itself have made a servant out of religion. Now, you see the
problems that in the "modern" world are somehow regulated, yet in
Turkey you have the Turkish Islam, alevism, sunnism, wahabism,
atheism… which one of them is regulated or settled? In stead of
leaving the religion alone to create peace and stability in the
country, today religion in Turkey has become a "force" of the problem
and day by day it is being undressed of its true meaning. As for an
illustration, the issue of hijab is the most significant picture of
this problem without a problem. It is an issue that all around the
world has been settled: those who want to wear it they can do so and
the others not, but they don’t bother each-other, regardless of the
support they find for their stance: some find their support in
religion and others their non-support, also in religion.

"Latest" problems, beginning with Ergenekon up to the idiocy of the
cheep buy-sellers, "the fishermen of human souls", who are bought and
sold so cheep only to come to power, prove that those who don’t know
to be an opposition will never be a position. Turkey’s opposition in
stead of dealing with high and progressive issues, it violates all
rules and relations, namely the international conventions on human
rights, only to come to power. It is shameful to see how Turkish
opposition ignores state, national and cultural interests and with
illogically confronts with the position in power, knowing that the
latter has made from Turkey a state that during the most difficult
economic-financial times during the last hundreds of years overcame it
without any serious shaking. The power in Turkey has its legitimacy
and its proving itself in the most wonderful way, starting with its
results in economy, culture, science as well as in the development and
progress of democracy. It observes the Constitution and existing laws,
and yet it is prepared for greater, more efficient and more
progressive reforms. All surveys in the world show that Turkey is
becoming a modern and a strong state, which undoubtedly pleases all of
us. However, the opposition objects such development and freedom in
Turkey and they undertake terrifying acts, for which the people, and
indeed the state itself will pay a high price. The opposition in
Turkey is like the oppositions in many Balkan countries where I live.
Even what is 100% good is opposed only because it’s not a merit of the
opposition, and the same is refused and opposed.

As I said above, the opposition in Turkey is not a political
opposition in the true sense of the word, but opposition to a certain
person. So, only because they dislike the Prime Minister, the members
of the opposition are trying to shake the state. This is being done in
every step they take: in the Parliament, during highest state
receptions which they boycott, in the media and, unfortunately, among
the military. One should not forget the issue of stays behind the
"unknown executors" of tens of thousands of criminal acts.

It surprises and hurts me a lot to follow the events and see how they
are interpreted in many of the TV channels and how the information is
broadcasted. For years it is discussed about democracy, secularism,
religion, hijab, religious and national "minorities" and "majorities",
about various "isms". I don’t believe that any of those who talk on
these topics could use the same vocabulary in such debates in the
Western world, because they would look ridiculous. This is the case
with recent events, when because of some corrupt "gangs" and crazy
persons, who shamelessly go out on the streets and throw Molotov
cocktails and stones, again the "heads" were gathered in Turkish TV
channels and started discussing about the necessity of return of state
of emergency, or the coup d’état. How to comment on this?

I myself have witnessed several social systems in the Balkans, as well
as the dissolution of states. It is interesting that those, who
claimed to be the proponents of those orders and "patriots", proved to
be the main destroyers of those systems and states in whose names they
raised their voices. I don’t want to make such parallel with regard to
Turkey, but it becomes a necessity. It is pitiful to see that in stead
of doing their utmost in confronting such destructive phenomena for
their own country, one part of the intellectual and cultural force of
the country remains silent.

Today it’s not the time to remain silent; it is time to say the truth
and to support the truth. The opposition can’t live only by initiating
and supporting the evil and the bad, but it should come forth with
progressive and modern proposals and suggestions for Turkey. The army
should protect and defend the peace, to stay as far as possible from
incidents and provocations, without entering into adventures of
military coup d’états, because they have never been successful.
Intellectuals and religious institutions are the moving force, the
spirit of the nation; they should be careful and take the courage for
strengthening the stability for creating the modern Turkish state. The
main supporting power for them must be justice, not fitnah.

WHEN POLITICAL REGIME CHANGES

Lragir.am
25/12/09

They often say that the quality of a political regime (system) depends
directly on the cultural level present within the frames of the
regime. We have to admit this thought is logic. Hardly anyone can
dispute the idea that a dictatorial regime is impossible to appear in
a society where the greater part known its rights and is ready to
defend them where respect towards the rights of other is a tradition.

Even if we assume that within such a community, some dictators, with
the help of lies, manage to get involved into the governmental system,
so they will be unable to resist there a single day. First, they will
not find necessary human resources to remain there. People will not
obey them in general by the simple reason that a tradition that they
have to live in accordance with some rational and useful rules is
formed among them. People’s mode of life, their usages are impossible
to be changed in one instant if they are pleasant for people and
proved their effectiveness in different situations of the life.

This means that a non-democratic regime may be formed only in case
within the public there are favorable conditions for its formation.
But it is interesting that this idea is often used as an argument to
justify corrupt authorities. Sometimes, expressions such as `the
authorities are bad because the society is bad, so let it leave the
government alone. If people living in a non-democratic country want
positive changes, let them change themselves’ is heard.

But does this mean that the non-democratic regime will just disappear
when the society is changed? And in general, how can we know if the
society is changed or not? And when they say the society is to be
change, do they mean the whole society or just a part of it?

First let us note that as the historical experience shows a whole
society cannot change altogether. It has never occurred that all the
people of a country stand up for the elimination of autocracy or
establishment of communistic orders etc. The society has always been
divided in supporters and rivals (by the way, we cannot say that
changes happen only when the majority supports them). So, in this
case, by saying `society’, we do not have to understand the whole
society but a part of it.

Second, in our opinion, the authoritarian regime may change by itself
only in one case – when the government of that regime will belong to
that part of the society which wants changes. But it is little
possible because, as Lord Acton has repeatedly said, `Any power ruins,
and absolute power ruins absolutely’. The leadership of an
authoritarian regime represents the sphere of the society which gets
use of the advantages procured by the government. Consequently, it is
logic that the leadership of the above-mentioned power will not belong
to the part of the society matured for quality changes.

Hence, the authoritarian regime can hardly change by its initiative
and for the change of the power, the change of concrete persons and
groups will be needed. And this may become possible only when the
part of the society ready for changes will unite forming an
organization (formal or informal) which will not obey to the not
written rules of the authoritarian and criminal regime. This will
prove that the very part of the society, regardless what part of the
society it is, changed its quality and really does not deserve its
authoritarian rulers and has rights to form a democratic regime. And
the creation of the latter in this case is a matter of `techniques’.

EDGAR VARDANYAN

PATRIARCHATE DRIFTING AWAY, SAYS BARTHOLOMEW

Today’s Zaman
Dec 25 2009
Turkey

As a follow-up to his controversial and much-debated interview with
CBS’s "60 Minutes," Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew said in an
interview with the Milliyet daily on Thursday that his community is
running out of oxygen and that the patriarchate is slowly drifting away
due to restrictions placed on the Greek Orthodox community in Turkey.

Patriarch Bartholomew’s remarks, in which he likened his treatment
by the Turkish government to crucifixion, led to disappointment and
anger in Ankara. Speaking to Milliyet, Bartholomew did not take back
what he said earlier, noting that what he said was a "reality."

Speaking in an interview with "60 Minutes" for a story broadcast in
the United States on Sunday night, Patriarch Bartholomew said Turkey’s
Greek Orthodox community does not feel it enjoys complete freedom as
Turkish citizens and that it feels it is treated as "second-class
citizens." During his interview with the Turkish paper yesterday,
Bartholomew said he used the word crucifixion figuratively, but that
everyone has gotten overly fixated on this phrase. "It was supposed
to mean we have problems," he said.

Repeatedly noting that the Halki Seminary has kept closed for 39
years, Bartholomew said most of the metropolitans in Europe are
over 70 years old and that they expect new men of religion from
the patriarchate. Another issue that he complained about during his
interview with Milliyet was that discussions and projects about the
Halki Seminary are being carried out in secret in Ankara and that the
patriarchate does not have any information on this. On the opening of
the seminary, the leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians around the
world said the government intends to open the seminary but "perhaps
the deep state does not want it to be opened."

"We are running out of people, patience and there is no solution. If
there were no pilgrims from Greece, our churches would be empty. There
are only 3,000 Greeks left," he added. Making mention of the Cage plan,
a recently revealed plot that aimed to kill non-Muslims to bring about
chaos in the country, Bartholomew pointed to an article published
by the Zaman daily to show that he, along with Armenian Patriarch
Mesrob and prominent Jewish businessman Ishak Alaton, were on the
hit list. "What more can I say? Is this not crucifixion?" he asked.

ARMENIA WON’T RATIFY RELATIONS DEAL BEFORE TURKEY: SPEAKER

Agence France Presse
December 24, 2009 Thursday 2:56 PM GMT

The head of Armenia’s parliament said Thursday that it will not ratify
a landmark deal on ties with Turkey before the Turkish parliament does,
accusing Ankara of setting new conditions on the agreement.

"The National Assembly of Armenia will start discussions on the
ratification of the protocols only after their ratification by the
Turkish parliament," speaker Hovik Abrahamian told journalists.

He accused Turkish officials of trying to link the ratification
to Armenia’s conflict with Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorny
Karabakh region and the question of whether World War I-era killings
of Armenians under Ottoman Turkey constituted genocide.

"These are not fair steps, as initially this was a question of
normalising relations without preconditions," Abrahamian said.

Turkey and Armenia signed two protocols in October on establishing
diplomatic ties and re-opening their shared border in a deal hailed
as a historic step towards ending decades of hostility stemming from
the World War I-era massacres.

But Armenia in recent weeks has expressed growing frustration over
Turkey’s failure to ratify the protocols, with President Serzh
Sarkisian earlier this month threatening to walk away from the deal
if Ankara "drags out" the process.

Turkish officials have repeatedly said the agreements will not be
ratified without progress in Armenia’s dispute with Azerbaijan over
Nagorny Karabakh.

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

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in a show of solidarity
with Azerbaijan — with which it has strong ethnic, trade and energy
links — against Yerevan’s support for the enclave’s separatists.

AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT CHARACTERIZES THE YEAR OF 2009 AS POSITIVE IN TERM OF SETTLEMENT OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH, BUT "LESS POSITIVE THAN IT MIGHT BE."

Trend
Dec 24 2009
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev characterized the year of 2009 as
positive in term of settlement of the Armenian -Azerbaijani conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh, but saying it was "less positive than it
might be."

"There is proximity in some positions, while there are disagreements
on others," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev told Russian television
channel Vesti.

Aliyev said even in 2008 the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents held
talks. A joint declaration on the way of solution to Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict was signed with the participation of the Russian Federation.

"The document clearly indicated that the conflict should be solved
on the basis of international law, decisions and resolutions of
international organizations. There are four resolutions of the UN
Security Council, demanding urgent withdrawal of Armenian occupation
forces from the Azerbaijani territory. They have not been implemented
for over 20 years," the Azerbaijani president said.

According to President Aliyev it is important to restore the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, to deoccupy Azerbaijani lands and
to achieve repatriation of refugees and internally displaced people.

"Unfortunately, hopes for 2009 did not justify themselves to the
extent which we expected. The joint declaration of the presidents of
Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia was a very significant event, and it
became the first after the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 1994.

There were hopes to solve the dispute in 2009, even to solve the basic
principles. However, they did not justify themselves, and not by our
guilt," the Azerbaijani president said.

President Aliyev said there is certain optimistic mood for 2010,
because the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has become one of the central
issues in the international agenda.

"It became clear to many – those who did not understand it perfectly –
it will be impossible to solve any regional problem without regulating
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. We believe we will succeed to
coordinate major positions in 2010, but we are strongly against making
permanent the negotiation process," the president underscored.

According to Ilham Aliyev, talks to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute
have been held since 1992, when the OSCE Minsk Group was established.

"A ceasefire agreement was concluded in 1994. Although 15 years
have past, still there is no result. Therefore, we cannot allow the
process to become frozen namely in the literary meaning of this word,"
Aliyev stated.

RUSSIAN EXPERT: INT’L SITUATION IS VERY FAVORABLE TO RESOLVE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
H. Hamidov

Today
8529.html
Dec 24 2009
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with Konstantin Truevtsev, Russian political expert,
doctor of philosophy, associate professor at the Department of Applied
Political Science of State University – Higher School of Economics.

Day.Az: You were in 1989 Baku and witnessed beginning of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh conflict …

Konstantin Truevtsev: It is a painful theme for us. It is painful for
me because the issue of the Caucasus is close to me. Apart from this,
I have been both in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and I feel a deep and
sincere sympathy to both countries and both peoples.

While in Baku in 1989, when I was participating in a scientific
conference on ethnic and religious conflicts, I and my colleagues from
Moscow and other cities and republics of the former USSR witnessed
how the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict broke out. The conflict then
escalated into a fratricidal war in the Nagorno-Karabakh. It dealt a
deep political and moral harm not only to Azerbaijani and Armenian
peoples, but also to other nations and former Soviet republics,
including Russia as well.

Realizing the depth of the Karabakh conflict, I am very skeptical,
or at least extremely careful about simple recipes offered to resolve
it believing imposing such recipes (such as "exchange") can only
exacerbate the conflict rather resolve it. It seems to me that in this
case, the medical rule of "do no harm" should be fundamental to the
obvious long-term settlement process for both parties to the conflict,
and especially for those who act in this process as mediators.

Efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been stepped
up lately. OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs state a serious progress in the
resolution process. In your opinion, what does this progress imply? Is
there actually real progress or these are just habitual statements?

If one still tries to return to the "dry residue", that is, those
constituent parts of a conflict which we have today as result of its
effects, overall situation seems extremely complex.

Some aspects of the settlement, for example, return of Azerbaijanis
to their places of historical residence in Karabakh is intractable
and it seems there has been progress in this regard.

The conflicting sides still have differences about status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. I do not see possibility of even coming closer in
this issue.

The position of the Azerbaijani side is to recognize territorial
integrity of states stipulated not only by a certain norm of
international law which was further consolidated in the Helsinki
accords of 1975, but also legal practice established during the
Soviet collapse, according to which the boundaries of the new states
remain unchanged and integrity of these states has international
legal recognition.

Armenia’s position is based on the alleged right of nations to
self-determination, which in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, they say
was formed on basis of the status quo in the course and outcome of
the Karabakh conflict, in fact, even before the Soviet collapse.

Simultaneously with resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the whole
region also keeps a close eye on Turkey-Armenia protocols. Many in
Turkey say that ratification of the protocols depends on resolving the
Karabakh conflict. In your view, to what extent these two processes
are interdependent?

Exactly these aspects of development of events in the region and
around it create an entirely new situation which I regard as one of
dimensions of nonlinearity of the political process. It can be viewed
from different angles, what is done including by those in Armenia
and in the Armenian Diaspora who are inclined to consider Sargsyan’s
policy almost as a national betrayal, and those in Azerbaijan who
tend to see Turkey’s policy as betrayal of closest Turkic brothers.

It seems Serzh Sargsyan is strongly willing to resolve the conflict
while he makes statements such as "We won’t give a single inch of the
occupied Azerbaijani lands." In your opinion, what does it mean? Are
his words are meant for the Armenian people so that radicals will
not replace him?

It is clear that it is not a personal position of Serzh Sargsyan,
although, he has to politically maneuver in very difficult conditions
which prevailed after the August events.On the one hand, Armenia
wound up in a geopolitical and economic semi-blockade (in fact, Iran
is the only lasting and stable outlet for the outside world for it).

On the other hand, partly because of the war, partly because of
complex interplay of interests between NATO-EU-Turkey-Russia, almost
unprecedented alliance between Turkey and Russia began to take shape
in the formation of which Armenia saw unique historical opportunity
for itself.

Do you think, the United States and Russia are really interested
resolving the Karabakh conflict?

In my opinion, the international situation today is very favorable to
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, especially if we bear in mind
the two main outside players – the United States and Russia, as well
as current relations through the Russia-EU and Russia-NATO Council.

As for Russia, despite all conflicts and contradictions, process
of recovery of the post-Soviet area in a new format of unity took
place in last few days. The question is whether Transcaucasia will
enter this area. Armenia participates in this process despite its
geographic isolation. Azerbaijan partly participates and partly does
not participate in this process.

Russia’s relations with the United States, NATO, the EU have reach
such a point that many shifts (economic, political, etc.) firstly
lead to the convergence of many positions including in international
field and specifically in the Azerbaijani-Armenian issue (though not
in Georgian). It is taking place under the United States-Russia and
Russia-France line, which is essential for this specificity. Secondly,
the EU and the U.S. most recently made a number of steps to recognize
Russia’s role in the post-Soviet area as compared with even very
recent times.

AZERBAIJANI PARLIAMENTARIAN: AZERBAIJAN SHOULD RECONSIDER LEVEL OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH U.S.
Z. Ahmadov

Today
8483.html
Dec 24 2009
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with member of Azerbaijan Milli Majlis (parliament)
Jamil Hasanli.

Day.Az: The Armenian president has initiated to adopt a law that
provide for withdrawal of country’s signatures from the previously
signed international treaties. Analysts say Armenia may use this law
to withdraw from the Armenia-Turkey protocols. What consequences this
step may have?

Jamil Hasanli: I think Armenia was not ready for this agreement.

Armenia’s withdrawal from the Zurich protocols can lead to loss of
international confidence in Armenia. Nevertheless, I believe it will
result in no sanctions against Armenia. It can be concluded from the
fact that world powers which are both co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group
back Armenia. They are delaying solution to the Karabakh conflict in
a hope that Azerbaijan will put up with the current status quo.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is going to trip to
Ankara soon. What can be expected from this visit? What issues will
be discussed during the meetings?

Azerbaijan and Turkey share a unified position on all international
issues, including the Karabakh conflict. So, there are no disagreements
and backroom conversations between our countries. Turkey strives to
solve Azerbaijan’s problems as their own. Therefore, I consider it
is expedient for our countries to coordinate positions and act on
international arena with one voice.

Being in Washington, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
reiterated that Turkey’s interests are not different from those of
Azerbaijan urging the OSCE Minsk Group to step up its work towards
a speedy resolution of the Karabakh conflict under international law.

Azerbaijan has presented a note to the U.S. to protest Washington’s
financial support to breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you think the U.S.

move is a manifestation of double standards in relation to Azerbaijan?

How will Washington respond to the note from Baku?

Such a step by the United States, a co-chair the OSCE Minsk Group,
is impermissible. Support for the separatist regime in Azerbaijan’s
territory casts doubt on Washington’s involvement in the OSCE Minsk
Group. On the other hand, U.S. companies are engaged in energy projects
in Azerbaijan enjoying enormous profits.

Given these facts, this aid can not be perceived as humanitarian
support. It’s unequivocal support for separatists in Azerbaijan’s
territory.

I think that if such a policy of double standards continues, Baku
should reconsider level of strategic partnership with Washington.

THE AZERBAIJANI MASS MEDIA HAVE ONCE AGAIN LOST THEIR WAY

Lragir.am
24/12/09

The Azerbaijani mass media have once again lost their way in broad
daylight, trying to depict the Karabakh party in an unfavourable
light. During a day, the woman, who was killed on December 20, 2009
on the NKR and Azerbaijani armed forces’ contact-line first by an
"Armenian" serviceman, then, as it was found out, by an Azerbaijani
soldier, turned from an "Armenian woman" into an Azerbaijani one.

Moreover, a photo of a Georgian woman made in August 2008 during the
war in South Ossetia was attached to the information.

The Azerbaijani mass media have practiced forgeries in their
anti-Armenian propaganda for a long time. This was fixed not only
by the Karabakh party. The Moscow edition New Region notes that the
Azerbaijani mass media have, at least, three times used forgeries for
the last three months, applying photomaterials of various countries
for "proving the facts of the Armenian aggression". Besides the
abovementioned forgery of the Azerbaijani Agency Vesti.az related to
the killed woman, the edition notes as an example the distribution
of a photo of a Georgian soldier killed in August 2008 "to confirm"
the Karabakh party’s losses allegedly taken place as a result of the
NKR Defense Army units’ attacking the Azerbaijani positions. In fact,
everything was exactly the contrary.

Besides, the Russian edition unmasked Trend Azerbaijani information
agency, which had informed of the completion of a documentary about
the Karabakh conflict, attaching a photo of alleged "victims of the
Armenian aggression", which, in fact, turned out to be a photo of
deceased citizens of Kosovo taken from a Canadian francophone website.

This forgery related to the tragic events in Khojaly and placed at some
Azerbaijani websites, including the one of the basic anti-Armenian
misinformation center of the Heydar Aliyev Fund (),
the leader of which is the Azerbaijani President’s wife, was earlier
diclosed by the NKR Foreign Ministry.

We have to state once more that against the background of the
proceeding meetings of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents and
the optimistic statements of the international mediators on certain
progress in the Karabakh conflict settlement process, official Baku
and its improvised mass media continue their aggressive information
war against the RA and NKR, using all the means for introducing the
Armenian parties as the misdeeds’ actors and for injecting a new
portion of Armenian-hatred poison into the international community’s
and their own people’s mind.

Unfortunately, this destructive policy of official Baku isn’t properly
assessed by corresponding international structures, which is fraught
with nullifying the multiyear peacemaking efforts.

"Democratic" Azerbaijan "integrating" into the West and its
"independent" mass media should finally realize that freedom of speech
is not freedom of misinformation.

We hope that in the coming year, the international community will
take the counterproductive actions of the Azerbaijani authorities
more seriously.

NKR MFA Information Department

PUBLIC COUNCIL’S COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SAYS ARMENIA COULD SELL $250 MILLION ELECTRICITY TO TURKEY

ARKA
Dec 24, 2009

YEREVAN, December 24, /ARKA/. Vazgen Safarian, chairman of a
presidential Public Council’s committee in charge of financial and
economic issues, said today Armenia could sell $250 million worth
electricity to neighboring Turkey if both countries normalized their
relations.

Speaking at a news conference he said Armenian exports to Turkey may
skyrocket to $300 million a year and apart from electricity Armenia
could also sell confectionary and industrial goods to Turkey.

He also said Armenian textile goods could compete with Turkish at
global markets if the government supports the sector.

Turkey and Armenia have had no diplomatic ties since Armenia became
independent from the Soviet Union in 1991. Turkey closed its border
with Armenia in 1993 in a show of support for its ally, Azerbaijan,
which had a dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, the ethnic
Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan.

There are several sensitive issues complicating the establishment of
normal relations between the two countries, particularly, Ankara’s
blatant support of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution process and Turkey’s refusal to acknowledge the mass
killings of Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman Empire as
a genocide.

On October 10 Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, and Edward
Nalbandian, his Armenian counterpart signed two protocols in Zurich,
Switzerland on establishment of diplomatic relations and development
of bilateral ties. The protocols will still need ratification by
their respective parliaments.

YEREVAN WARNS ANKARA AGAINST DRAGGING OUT TIME

PanARMENIAN.Net
24.12.2009 17:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ By issuing a statement on the possibility
of announcing RA-Turkey protocols void in case Ankara drags out
ratification, Armenia’s political elite is trying to signal that time
can no longer be dragged out, said Alexander Iskandaryan, Director
of Caucasus Institute.

"Yerevan suggests that the time frame for normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations is of importance," he told the news
conference in Yerevan.