Author: Nalchajian Markos

AZERBAIJAN AND ISRAEL: NOT A TYPICAL RELATIONSHIP

Huffington Post
baijan-and-israel-not_b_509229.html
March 23 2010

Relationships of convenience in the world of international politics
are ubiquitous. It is virtually impossible to scan this world and
not find an immediate example. Indeed, many of the United States’
"closest" international relationships are those of convenience. Are
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States really allies and/or
close friends? More likely, it is in the U.S.’s and Saudi Arabia’s
best interests to support the Saudi royal family, shall we say,
over less friendly options. Again, the world scene is replete with
these examples.

It is interesting and ultimately important and instructive to
delve into and take a closer look at alliances and state to state
relationships. Are these relationships pragmatic and based simply on
common interest? Are they "shot gun weddings," based on tactical and
short term needs? Or are some of these relationships based on the above
scenarios while also possessing deeper considerations? The answer is
not always evident. These cases take more study, as in the relationship
between the State of Israel and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The close relationship between the Israel and Azerbaijan would seem,
at first glance, to be one of simple convenience. Why would the Jewish
state, portrayed by radicals to be the enemy of all Muslims, and a
majority-Muslim nation decide to work with one another and to embark
upon the establishment of such a close bilateral relationship? One
may conclude that Azerbaijan was willing to sell much needed oil
to Israel, so Israel took the initiative. One may also argue that
Azerbaijan, when these contracts originated, was a newly independent
former Soviet Republic who needed a market for its oil exports and the
revenue they afforded and Israel was simply a buyer. It is interesting
to note that Azerbaijan, via its strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC)
Pipeline, supplies roughly a quarter of Israel’s oil.

Further investigation, though, bears out facts that shed a brighter
light on a more substantive and expansive relationship. Azerbaijan,
a secular, majority-Muslim nation, is well known for its pragmatic
and balanced foreign policy. Azerbaijan is also a nation that,
while considering its best interests, can be relied upon to do the
"right thing." In the politics of oil, and make no mistake, there is
a politics of oil, Azerbaijan chose to sell its oil to Israel. It is
a definite considered decision.

A large contributing factor and, some would argue, the genesis of
this close bilateral relationship between the State of Israel and the
Republic of Azerbaijan is the ancient Jewish community that resides
(indeed, thrives) in Azerbaijan to this day. This community, 35,000
strong, has resided there for 2,500 years without, by their own
admission, any persecution. The Jews of Azerbaijan fought alongside
their Muslim countrymen both against the Soviets as the collapse of
the Soviet Union was imminent and in Armenia’s war to conquer parts
of Azerbaijan. Muslims and Jews have harmoniously lived and worked
side by side in Azerbaijan for centuries as equals.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, many Azerbaijani Jews seized upon
the opportunity to leave and emigrated to Israel. As Azerbaijan
became independent and stable, these Jews began to travel back to
Azerbaijan and develop business and cultural relationships. Many Jews
from Azerbaijan now live in both nations.

In terms of sheer economics, the value of trade between the two
nations has risen to a whopping $3.6 billion USD per annum. The trade
turnover between Azerbaijan and Israel totaled $400 million in 2007,
and Israel’s exports to Azerbaijan in 2008 broke records for the third
consecutive year. According to figures released by Israel’s Central
Bureau of Statistics, Israel exported a total of $128,896,130 in 2008,
a 56.4 percent increase over the previous year’s figure. Azerbaijan
was Israel’s 41st largest market in 2008, ahead of more established
partners like Portugal, Ireland, Serbia, Bulgaria and Norway.

In the other direction, Israel is Azerbaijan’s third largest trading
partner, accounting for 6.4 percent of Azerbaijan’s total trade.

According to figures announced by Azerbaijan’s Statistical Committee,
Israel imported approximately $3.5 billion of goods, including oil
from Azerbaijan in 2008.

Investment by Israeli companies and partnerships with Azerbaijani
companies is also most notable. Investment by the Israeli-owned
Bakcell, a cell phone operator is the second largest in the Azerbaijani
market. In 2008, Israel and Azerbaijan closed a weapons deal worth
hundreds of millions of dollars. Most notable is the recent agreement
to jointly develop and build advanced unmanned aerial vehicles.

Many Israeli companies also operate in the expansive energy sector
of Azerbaijan. For instance, an Israeli-based supplier of high
technology to the energy industry, Modcom System Ltd., opened an
office in Azerbaijan in 2000 and has operated there since.

Trade in human capital is also significant between the two nations.

Regular governmental, business and cultural delegations are
exchanged between the two states. One of the first was the 1997
visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with the
revered late President of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev. Most recently,
the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and Israeli Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberman were welcomed to Azerbaijan by Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev with full state honors. It is interesting to note that
Iranian leaders objected strenuously to Peres’s visit and was basically
told by President Ilham Aliyev to mind their own business and that
he would host whomever he wishes in his nation. Ministerial-level
delegations to Azerbaijan include Israel’s Minister of Agriculture and
Rural Development, who traveled to Azerbaijan to discuss partnerships
in Azerbaijan’s burgeoning agricultural industry. Israel’s Minister
of National Infrastructure visited Baku to participate at the annual
Caspian Oil & Gas Exhibition. The list goes on.

Exchanges, delegations and visits from Azerbaijan to Israel are
equally plentiful. The Azerbaijani Minister of Economic Development
visited Israel to negotiate and sign an agreement for the reciprocal
promotion and protection of investments. Ministerial-level exchanges
in the realms of technology, emergency preparedness, security and
anti-terrorism, transportation and agriculture transpire on a regular
basis. The Azerbaijan-Israel International Association (AzIz) was
even established to increase and enhance these high-level contacts.

Critics argue that cracks exist in the bilateral relationship between
Azerbaijan and Israel. Perhaps. Surely, no relationship is perfect.

Azerbaijan necessarily often abstains from votes that would benefit
Israel in the United Nations and other world bodies. No, Azerbaijan
does not have an embassy in Israel. Should Azerbaijan? Perhaps. Would
the establishment of an embassy in Israel be a nice reciprocation of
the opening of an Israeli embassy in Baku, the capitol of Azerbaijan?

Yes. Would this limit Azerbaijan’s ability to work and deal with other
Muslim and majority-Muslim nations? Absolutely. Would it make a good
friend and ally pay for, in this specific case, somewhat of symbolic
gesture, given the depth of the existing relationship? Yes.

There exists a pragmatic aspect to the relationship between Israel
and Azerbaijan, certainly. Pragmatism is healthy. The relationship,
however, is much more than just pragmatism or shared interests. The
relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Israel are also
based on history, shared citizens and a devotion to freedom, rule of
law and building a prosperous and normal society. Relations between
the State of Israel and the Republic of Azerbaijan are truly, suffice
it to say, a prime example of a multifaceted, multilateral, positive
and healthy relationship.

Jason Katz is the principal of the Tool Shed Group, a consultancy
that advises foreign governments, including the government of the
Republic of Azerbaijan. He is also the former head of Public Affairs
for the American Jewish Committee in Los Angeles.

ATAA ADDRESSES A LETTER TO US PRESIDENT REGARDING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
23.03.2010 21:11 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA)
has sent a letter to United States President Barack Obama requesting
that Obama make a public statement to that Genocide resolution is
not brought to the floor of the General Assembly of the House of
Representatives.

"As a leading voice of over a half million proud Americans of Turkish
heritage and many more Americans who support the US-Turkish model
partnership, the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA)
urges that you continue to discourage a Congressional vote on House
Resolution 252, which narrowly passed the House Foreign Affairs
Committee by a vote of 23-22 on March 4, 2010," the ATAA said.

"That H.Res. 252 so narrowly passed out of HFAC indicates that Congress
remains deeply divided on this measure and its underpinnings.

By asking Chairman Berman not to promote the resolution, you have
signalled your understanding that the resolution is misguided and
incriminates a key ally, Turkey, and a key heritage community, the
Turkish Americans. As has been demonstrated by the recall of the
Turkish Ambassador, the mere commencement of a consideration of this
matter by the US legislature is likely to severely disrupt US-Turkish
relations, as well as derail the ratification of the Armenia-Turkey
Protocols in which you have so wisely invested," the ATAA underlined.

"The United States and Turkey enjoy a model partnership, whose pillars
include the fight against global terrorism, efforts for peace and
stability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and the broader Balkans and
Middle East, and democratic and economic development from Africa to
Central Asia. The United States and Turkey are also important trade
partners, as US exports to Turkey are more than 10 billion USD and
create thousands of American jobs," the ATAA emphasized, The Anatolia
News Agency reported.

AzerNews Weekly, Azerbaijan
March 20 2010

Turkish minister says Garabagh settlement feasible

20-03-2010 07:23:25

If Bosnia, Herzegovina and Serbia have managed to narrow their
differences after a large-scale war, there is a chance that Azerbaijan
and Armenia may reestablish peace as well, Turkish Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davudoglu was quoted by Turkish Hurriyyet newspaper as saying.
Davudoglu said the conflict involving Bosnia, Herzegovina and Serbia
was of greater proportions than Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh, but the
parties succeeded in normalizing their relations nonetheless. He said
Armenia was still accusing Turkey of supporting Azerbaijan and
refusing to discuss ways of Garabagh settlement with Ankara.
The minister added that if Turkey have managed to improve relations
with the Serbs after centuries of stand-off, it is also possible with
the Armenians. `Our confrontation with the Serbs dates back to the
1300s, while our problem with Armenians is only a century old. We have
never lived together with the Serbs, but we have with the Armenians.
However, we revised our relations with the Serbs in just one year even
though we were at war with them for a thousand years. I met with my
Serbian counterpart 11 times over a six-month period.’
The diplomat said further that thanks to the Turks the relations
between Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina improved, while Bosnia even
sent an ambassador to Serbia. Davudoglu said Turkey had been in talks
with Serbia and Bosnia for six months. `Why can’t we do the same with
Azerbaijan and Armenia?’
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a lengthy war that ended with the
signing of a cease-fire in 1994, but Armenia continues to occupy Upper
Garabagh and seven other Azerbaijani districts in defiance of
international law. The OSCE-brokered peace talks have been fruitless
so far.*

ATTITUDE OF THE ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE IN INSTANBUL TOWARDS THE ISSUE OF THE FORCIBLY ISLAMIZED ARMENIANS
Ruben Melkonyan

"Noravank" Foundation
09 March 2010

As a result of the historical developments in the 15th century the
Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul was established, which, besides
spiritual and religious had also had secular and political functions
connected with the Armenians living in Turkey. Alongside with the
stance and the attitude of the Patriarchate to various issues of
Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire and then in the Republic of
Turkey it would be also interesting to consider the approaches and
the policy of Patriarchate as regarded to the issue of the Armenians
forcibly Islamized during the Armenian Genocide.

After the World War I the defeated Ottoman Empire faced the issue
of the Armenians who were retained and forcibly Islamized during the
Genocide put forward by the Entente. Particularly, they demanded to
return Armenian women and children captured by the Muslim families
to their families and if they had no families to the Armenian or
Christian organizations. In this mission a serious role was allotted
to the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul which turned into a leader
in the saving of the splinters of the Armeniancy. Particularly,
the commissions were created which studied and gathered information
about the location and status of the Armenians who were retained and
forcibly converted after what they started the activity directed to
the saving of those splinters, i.e. the process of reclaiming them
from Muslim families.

The works directed to the reclaiming of the Armenian orphans and
women activated in 1919, during the second enthronement of Patriarch
of Istanbul Zaven Ter-Eghiayan (1913-1916, 1918-1922). The Ottoman
government of that day, represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
on February 5, 1919 sent an order to the provinces which said: "To
pass the Armenian women and children who are in Muslim families to the
commission consisting of the Armenians"1. This decree which is kept
today in the Ottoman archive of the prime-minister of Turkey was not
a manifestation of a good will but a result of serious pressure and
constraint. It is remarkable that while speaking about this decree
many Turkish scholars criticize it and consider it an evidence of
the weakness of the Turkish government of that time.

Of course the process of saving the splinters of the Armeniancy
faced a number of obstacles, among which were, e.g. the fact that
many Armenian women had children from those who had retained them
and they were faced with a difficult choice either to leave their
children and to return to their roots or to stay in captivity and
suffer till the end of their lives. It should be mentioned that over
that period a number of Armenian women and particularly minor girls
preferred to stay with their abductors. On this ground some Turkish
sources state that those women had chose their men on their own
accord and the commission forcedly returned them to their Armenian
roots. The Turkish party has also put into circulation recently
the absurd idea that while reclaiming the Armenians retained by the
Muslims the Armenian Patriarchate had also gathered Muslim Turkish,
Kurdish children and presented them as Armenians in order to increase
the number of the Armenians2. Turkish scholars call this a process
of forced Christianization. Of course, it is not excluded that some
inaccuracies may be revealed but in the most of the cases children who
were presented as Turkish of Curd Muslims were Armenian children who
were torn from their roots and educated in the ardent Muslim spirit
and who had almost lost the memories and the consciousness of their
Armenian decent.

However, in the issue of the four-years activity (1919-1922) of the
commission thousands of Armenians were reclaimed from Muslim families
and returned to their roots and religion. Summing up their work at
the beginning of 1921 the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul prepared
the report which English version was sent to the US State Department.

According to that report in 1921 there were still 63000 Armenian
orphans in Muslim families which representation in the provinces was
as follows:

1. Ter-Zor district

a) Nearby Zibar, Egabar and Varaqora ashirets – 500

b) Nearby Zibur ashiret – 600

c) Nearby Semmar ashiret – 700

d) Nearby Aneza ashiret – 2000

2. Nearby Cecen ashirets of Resulain districts – 2000

3. Istanbul and its suburbs – 6000

4. Izmir, Bursa, Balikesir – 2000

5. Inebolu – 1500

6. Eskisehir and Konia – 3000

7. Kastamonu – 500

8. Trebizond – 2500

9. Sebastia – 3500

10. Kesaria – 3500

11. Erzurum – 3000

12. Diarbekir and Mardin – 25000

13. Kharberd – 3000

14. Bitlis and Van – 50003.

The League of Nations, by the decision of which the special
investigating board was created, also dealt with the issues of the
Armenian women and children Islamized during the Genocide. In the
final report various difficulties connected with the reclaiming of
the Armenian women and children from the Muslim families are brought
and explanations are given: "An entire people was an accomplice to
this crime". A report stating that 90.819 Armenian children and women
were reclaimed from Muslim homes while almost as many had still been
forcibly retained4. If we compare those facts we see that the number of
the Armenian orphans presented by the Armenian Patriarchate – 63000 –
at some extent complies with the data of the League of Nations and
becomes even more convincing.

And even later the issue of the Armenians who stayed in provinces and
were at the different levels of assimilation had been the centre of
the attention of the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul. Particularly,
the works directed to the study of the issue of the converted Armenians
and returning them to their roots were carried out by Patriarch Garegin
Khachaturian (1951-1990). Over that period Kurdish speaking Armenian
children were brought to Armenian educational institutions in Istanbul
from provinces. Patriarch Shnorhq Galstyan who accessed to the throne
in 1961 (1961-1990) not only actively dealt with the issue of the
assimilated Armenians but also carried out scientific study of the
matter and gave the group division of the Armenians living in Turkey
and that work helps those who deals with that theme even today. Thus,
in 1980 in Jerusalem while speaking about the Armenians living in
provinces in Turkey, the patriarch divided them into four groups:

"a. Armenians who adopted Islam of their free will, separated from
Armenians and live among the Turks. Their number is about one million.

b. Armenians who were Islamized three generations ago and live in the
way of Kurdish ashirets separately and do not mix. There are hundreds
of such families in the district of Khnus; they know that they are
Armenians; they deliberately marry with each other and cherish the
hope to return to the religion of their fathers.

c. Armenians who were Islamized of their own will or against their
will but who realized their being Armenian and who after settling in
Istanbul through the court change word "Islam" in their passports to
"Ermeni".

d. The Armenians from provinces who regardless of all the obvious
or non-obvious difficulties stayed Armenians and today most of the
Armeniancy in Istanbul consists of themÂ"5:

It is remarkable that during the enthronement of Shnorhq patriarch
and mostly due to his efforts the well-known Ermeni Varto ashiret
moved to Istanbul and began communicate with the Armenian community.

The present patriarch of Istanbul Mesrop Mutafian has also touched
upon the issue of the Islamized Armenians for many times and, for
example, on May 30, 2007 stated during the meeting: "One should not
also forget that during the deportation many Armenians, in order to
avoid it, converted to Islam. We also regard them as our people"6.

Recently the archbishop Aram Ateshyan, the representative of
the Patriarchate in Istanbul and one of the main candidates at
the election of the joint-ruler patriarch, has also turned to the
issue of the Islamized Armenians in Turkey. In his interview to
authoritative Turkish "Hyurriyet" newspaper archbishop Aram said
that there were cases of Islamization in the republican period too,
and his family, a part of which converted in Islam in 1950s and today
lives in Diyarbekir as Muslims, did not avoid it as well. Answering
the question of the correspondent about the attitude of Patriarchate
towards the ethnic Armenians who want to return to their Christianity
and their roots Atehsian said: "Any citizen of Turkey can turn to the
passport office and change his religion. But it does not mean that
the man who has adopted Christianity is perceived by us as an Armenian.

This asks time. There is a six-month course during which we look at
how loyal he is to his roots and if we see persistence in his desire
to return to his roots then the patriarchate gives an appropriate
document which he can take to the passport office and change his
religion converting to Christianity. Then that man is christened and
becomes a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church"7.

It is well known that soon the elections of the joint-ruler patriarch
of Istanbul will take place and we can say that all the candidates
(Bishop Sepuh Chuljian, Archbishop Garegin Bekchian, and Archbishop
Aram Ateshian) one way or another touched over the issues and problems
assimilated Armenians.

Thus we can see that the issue of the forcibly converted Armenians
has been in the spotlight of the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul and
since the beginning of the 20th century all the Armenian patriarchs,
willing or not, has been facing the problems of the converted
Armenians. Having no case to act in this direction amid the Turkish
realities, they, however, made definite steps. At the same time we hope
that their policy will not change and will become even more active.

1Atnur Ä°., Turkiye’de Ermeni Kadınları ve Cocukları Meselesi
(1915-1923), Ankara, 2005, s. 189.

2BaÅ~_yurt E., Ermeni Evlatlıklar, Ä°stanbul, 2006, s. 44-45.

3Ozdemir H., Cicek K., Turan O., Calık R., Halacoglu Y., Ermeniler.

Surgun ve Göc, Ankara, 2004, s. 120, 122-123.

4Õ~JÕ¡O~@Õ½&#xD 5;¡Õ´ÕµÕ¡Õ ¶ Õ~M., Õ~DÕ"O~@Õ¦Õ¸&#x D5;µÕ¡Õ¶ Ô±., Ô±Õ¦Õ£Õ¥O~ @Õ"
Õ¬Õ"Õ£ Õ¡ÕµÕ" O~CÕ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ&#xA1 ;Õ©Õ²Õ©Õ¥O ~@Õ¶ Õ¡ÕºÕ¡O~AÕ&#xB8 ;O~BO~AÕ¸O~BÕ´
Õ¥&#x D5;¶ Õ~@Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~A O~AÕ¥Õ²Õ¡Õ&#xBD ;ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸O ~BÕ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ O~CÕ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ&#xA8 ;,
p

5Â"Ô±Õ¬Õ&quo t;O~DÂ", Ô¹Õ¥Õ°O~@Õ&#xA1 ;Õ¶, 18.12.1980, see the same
Ô½Õ¡Õ¶Õ&#x AC;Õ¡O~@Õ¥Õ¡Õ&# xB6; Ô¿., Õ~@Õ¡Õµ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯&# xD5;¹Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ¥& #xD5;¡Õ¶
Õ§Õ©&# xD5;¶Õ¸Õ¯O~@O…Õ&#x B6;Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ&#xB6 ; Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ¡Õ&#xAF ;Õ¥O~@ÕºÕ¸O~BÕ& #xB4;Õ¶Õ¥O~@Õ¨
&#xD4 ;¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ"Õ&#xA 1;ÕµÕ" Õ~@Õ¡Õ¶O~@Õ¡&#x D5;ºÕ¥Õ¿Õ¸O~B&# xD5;©Õ"O~BÕ¶Õ¸O ~BÕ´
(1923-2005), Ô±Õ¶Õ©Õ"&# xD5;¬Õ"Õ¡Õ½, 2009, Õ§Õ" 27:

6Õ~MÕ¡Õ½Õ¸ O~BÕ¶Õ¥Õ¡Õ&#xB6 ; Õ…., Ô"Õ~^Õ¶Õ¹Õ ¶
Õ§ Õ~DÕ¥Õ½O~@Õ¸&#x D5;º ÕºÕ¡Õ¿O~@Õ&quot ;Õ¡O~@O~DÕ"Õ¶
O~D&#x D5;¡Õ²Õ¡O~DÕ¡&# xD5;¯Õ¡Õ¶ ÕµÕ¡ÕµÕ¿&# xD5;¡O~@Õ¡O~@Õ¸O~BÕ& #xA9;Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶O~A
&#xD5 ;¤O~@Õ¤Õ¡Õº&#xD 5;¡Õ¿Õ³Õ¡Õ ¼Õ¨, Â"Ô±Õ¦Õ¤&# xD5;¡Õ¯Â", Ô²Õ¥ÕµO~@Õ&#xB8 ;O~BÕ©,
08.06.2007, see the same Õ~NÕ¡O~@Õ¤Õ¡&#x D5;¶ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ~M.,
Ô¿O~@Õ¸Õ¶ Õ¡O~CÕ¸Õ­ Õ°Õ¡Õ´Õ·&# xD5;¥Õ¶Õ¡Õ°&#xD 5;¡ÕµÕ¥O~@Õ" Õ¢Õ¡O~@Õ¢Õ&#xA1 ;Õ¼Õ¨,
Õ¢Õ&#xA1 ;Õ¶Õ¡Õ°Õµ& #xD5;¸O~BÕ½Õ¸O~BÕ&#x A9;ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ¶Õ&# xA8; O~G Õ¥O~@Õ£Õ¡O~@Õ&# xBE;Õ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ&#xA 8;,
ÔµO~@O~GÕ¡Õ¶, 2009, Õ§Õ" 32:

7Konuralp O., Turkiye Ermenilerinin Gizli KalmıÅ~_ Travması,
Hurriyet, 22.11.2009.

Other issues of author

ON THE TOPICAL ISSUES OF ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN ISTANBUL [22.02.2010] ON
THE MANIFESTATION OF TURKISH STATE POLICY IN REGARD TO THE ARMENIANS
[30.11.2009] TURKISHIZING OF THE PLACE NAMES IN THE REPUBLICAN
TURKEY [29.10.2009] ON THE MANIFESTATION OF ARMENIAN DESCENT IN
TURKEY [27.04.2009] ON ARMENIAN ORIENTATION OF ERGENEKON [31.03.2009]
PROBLEM OF ETHNIC ORIGIN ON THE POLITICAL AGENDA IN TURKEY [05.03.2009]
ON MUTUAL PERCEPTION OF ARMENIANS IN TURKEY [09.02.2009]

BAKU HAILS POSITIVE ARMENIA’S ADOPTION OF REVISED MADRID PRINCIPLES

news.am
March 19 2010
Armenia

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov hailed positive the
fact that Yerevan adopted revised version of Madrid Principles,
Trend News reports.

"This will create an opportunity to continue the negotiation process
and begin work on a large agreement on the settlement of the conflict,"
the source quotes FM. He also noted that OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs
have not contacted him on the matter yet.

"We need to discuss further steps with the mediators," Mammadyarov
said at the March 19 press conference.

Yesterday, RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that both
sides keep on drafting working proposals on Madrid Principles,
stressing that Armenian side continues to take Madrid Principles as
a basis for Karabakh peace process.

The Nagorno-Karabakh (armed) conflict broke out back in 1991, when,
after the demand for self-determination of the Nagorno-Karabakh people,
Azerbaijani authorities attempted to resolve the issue through ethnic
cleansings, carried out by Soviet security forces (KGB special units)
under the pretext of the implementation of the passport regime and by
launching of large-scale military operations, which left thousands dead
and caused considerable material damage. A cease-fire agreement was
established in 1994. Negotiations on conflict settlement are being
conducted under the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen
(Russia, USA, France) and on the basis of their Madrid proposals,
presented in November, 2007.

Azerbaijan has not yet implemented the 4 resolutions of the UN Security
Council adopted in 1993, continuing to provoke arms race in the region
and openly violating the basic principles of the international law,
non-use of force or threat of force.

ARMENIANS HOLD MILITARY EXERCISE IN OCCUPIED LANDS

news.az
March 18 2010
Azerbaijan

Military exercise is again held in the Azerbaijani lands occupied
by Armenia.

Military exercise with the use of heavy technique has started in the
region of occupied Uzundare, Kengerli and Geytepe villages.

The sound of technique and shooting is apparent in the adjacent
Azerbaijani villages. According to local residents, Armenians are
trying to spoil Novruz holiday but the residents consider that the
Azerbaijani army is able to respond to any provocations.

TURKISH ARMY WORRIED ABOUT ‘ARMENIAN GENOCIDE’ TALKS

Trend
March 16 2010
Azerbaijan

Talks about the so-called "Armenian Genocide" in parliaments worldwide
is a serious matter, Turkish Chief of General Staff Ilker Bashbug
was quoted as saying by CNN Turk.

Turkey is sensitive to this kind of decision, he said at a news
conference today.

A week after the adoption of a resolution on the "Armenian Genocide"
by a U.S. House committee, the Swedish parliament approved a document
recognizing the so-called "genocide"by a margin of one vote.

As a sign of protest against the adoption of the resolution, Ankara
recalled its envoys from these countries.

Bashbug said the Turkish army fully supports Ankara’s diplomatic
stepsagainst these two countries.

"The Turkish army, as well as the Turkish Foreign Ministry, is very
concerned about this issue," he said.

Officials of the U.S. State Department and the Swedish government
called the parliament’s decision to approve the resolution on the
"genocide" a mistake.

ARMAN MELIKYAN DOES NOT RULE OUT OBAMA’S USING THE TERM GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
16.03.2010 14:21 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Former Foreign Minister of NKR, Arman Melikyan did
not rule out US President Barack Obama’s using the term Genocide in
his April 24 annual address to American Armenian community.

"Obama’s using the term Genocide is more probable than US Congress
recognizing it," Arman Melikyan told a news conference in Yerevan

As he noted, presidential address has no legal force in contrast to
US Congress resolution.

"US’ actions can exacerbate the situation, leading to strengthening
of Russia-Turkey relations, which will, in turn, negatively affect
our interest in Karabakh conflict," he noted.

"Russia’s attempts at promoting Protocols ratification will spell
Armenia’s missing a number of possibilities. Protocols ratification
will create a situation similar to that caused by Kars Treaty, which
I believe is linked to Protocols. Also, Armenian authorities might be
the first to ratify Protocols, so as to demonstrate their adherence
to promises given. Turkey, though, will ratify Protocols whenever it
finds suitable," Arman Melikyan concluded.

The Protocols aimed at normalization of bilateral ties and opening of
the border between Armenia and Turkey were signed in Zurich by Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet
Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, after a series of diplomatic talks
held through Swiss mediation. On January 12, 2010, the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia found the protocols conformable to
the country’s Organic Law.

Press Release

p;p=0&id=1228&y10&m=03&d=12
09.03. 10

Since the 14th of February, 2010 the unit of the RA AF peacekeeping
brigade conducts security support issues in the region of Kunduz in
Afghanistan. The main task of the Armenian unit is to ensure security
of the airfield of Kunduz. The daily service includes patrolling in
the airfield and the area around it, guarding the posts, as well as
uncovering possible threats.

The Armenians serve under the German command in the ISAF RC North PRT
in the region of Kunduz, Afghanistan. In the past three weeks the
group has received the high evaluation of the German command for
showing high effectiveness in the extra safety means undertaken in the
area of the airfield with their own initiative.

RA MoD Department of Information and Public Affairs

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
March 11 2010

Turkish minister says US Armenian vote "unethical"

Dublin, 11 March: Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on
Thursday [11 March] that the EU needed Turkey in foreign policy.

On the second day of his formal visit to Ireland, Davutoglu delivered
a speech at the University College, Dublin, and stressed the
importance of relations between Turkey and Ireland.

Davutoglu also said that multiculturalism was important while guiding
the history.

Regarding Turkey-EU relations, Davutoglu said that questioning
Turkey’s EU membership and presenting different suggestions such as
privileged partnership were not right.

Noting that Turkey had a control over regional issues, Davutoglu said,
"Actually I think the EU needs Turkey – not Turkey needed EU – in
foreign policy."

Upon a question about 1915 incidents, Davutoglu said that Turkey was
ready to share the pain and reach a consensus but it was against to be
blamed.

Stressing that the voting (on Armenian allegations about 1915
incidents) at US House of Representatives Committee of Foreign Affairs
was unethical, Davutoglu said that the history should not be judged
like this.

Davutoglu recalled that there had been no tension throughout the
period Turks and Armenians lived together.