ANKARA: Turkish President Welcomes Azeri Support For Fight Against T

TURKISH PRESIDENT WELCOMES AZERI SUPPORT FOR FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

Anatolia News Agency, Turkey
Nov 2 2007

Baku, 2 November: Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Azerbaijan has
always supported Turkey in its fight against terror.

In a statement issued to Azerbaijani press, Gul indicated that "Turkey
wishes to see brotherly Azerbaijan’s support to Turkey in its future
struggle against terror".

Gul stressed that Turkey lost over 37,000 of its citizens due to terror
acts. "The situation in the region got tense due to terrorist acts
staged against Turkey from north of Iraq," told Gul in his statement.

Gul said Turkey is ready to provide any necessary assistance to help
Azerbaijan regain territories occupied by Armenians.

"Azerbaijan is a sister country of Turkey. We also have excellent
relations among our two armies. We are and will be on Azerbaijan’s
side always," underlined Gul.

"Preservation of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is crucial for
Turkey," the Turkish President said.

President Gul is expected to visit Azerbaijan next week. He will meet
his Azerbaijani counterpart and address the national parliament of
Azerbaijan. Gul will also meet Azerbaijani refugees who left their
homes due to Armenian invasion.

Ishkhan Zakaryan Nominated For The Position Of The Oversight Chamber

ISHKHAN ZAKARYAN NOMINATED FOR THE POSITION OF THE OVERSIGHT CHAMBER CHAIRMAN

armradio.am
01.11.2007 17:20

The issue of appointment of the Chairman of the Oversight Chamber is
on the agenda of the special session of the National Assembly to be
convened on November 2.

According to the amended Constitution, the Chairman of the Oversight
Chamber is appointed by the National Assembly upon the suggestion of
RA President of the term of six years.

President Robert Kocharyan has nominated the Vice-Speaker of the
National Assembly, member of the Prosperous Armenia faction Ishkhan
Zakaryan to the position.

In case Ishkhan Zakaryan is appointed Chairman of the Oversight
Chamber, Prosperous Armenia will nominate Arevik Petrosyan, the
Chairwoman of the NA Standing Committee on Human Rights Defense and
Public Affairs, to the position of the Vice-Speaker of the National
Assembly.

Sportsman From Artsakh Will Take Part In World Championship

SPORTSMAN FROM ARTSAKH WILL TAKE PART IN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

KarabakhOpen
31-10-2007 19:23:07

Ashot Danielyan, master, champion of Europe in sambo fighting, will
take part in the world championship which starts November 6 in Czech.

Today Prime Minister Ara Harutiunyan met with Ashot Danielyan and
his trainer Ernest Mirzoyan. He said the government will focus on
sports more.

Facilities for training will be improved.

Ara Harutiunyan gave the sportsman a watch with the national emblem
of NKR, talked about his achievements and problems.

Foxman Takes Center Stage Against Carter, Lobby Critics

FOXMAN TAKES CENTER STAGE AGAINST CARTER, LOBBY CRITICS
By Ami Eden / JTA

Jerusalem Post
Oct 30 2007

As patrons filed into Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y to catch a sold-out
appearance by Larry David, the scene outside was producing a punchline
straight out of his HBO sitcom "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

David and one of his "Curb" co-stars, Susie Essman, were the main
event on that recent evening. But protesters had gathered outside
to jeer the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham
Foxman, who was slated to speak – in another packed, albeit smaller,
room – about anti-Semitism and his new book, "The Deadliest Lies:
The Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control."

The demonstrators were voicing outrage over Foxman’s initial
unwillingness to characterize the World War I-era Turkish massacres
of Armenians as genocide and his continued opposition to a proposed
congressional resolution that would put America on record as using
the g-word.

"Larry David is in favor of genocide?" one confused visitor asked.

RELATED Video: Foxman vs. Mearsheimer on PBS Abe Foxman’s JPost blog

The mix-up could have served as the basis for a good "Curb" plot,
to be sure, but in real life Foxman is the one who’s been taking
it from all sides of late. And while he certainly has suffered some
self-inflicted public-relations wounds, he’s also taken plenty of heat
for things that he never said or did, including the misdeeds of others.

Legitimate or not, the barrage of criticism has had an impact: Foxman,
who has worked at the ADL since 1965 and run the organization for the
past 20 years, has become an increasingly polarizing figure for Jews
and non-Jews on both sides of the political spectrum.

Despite, or perhaps because, he has become a walking flash point,
Foxman remains the media’s top go-to guy on Jewish affairs – a status
further cemented by his high-profile national book tour.

In short, he may have never commanded more attention or attracted as
much criticism. It’s a high-stakes dynamic as he takes the lead role
in the Jewish community’s fight against a growing list of vocal and
respectable critics of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby, most notably
former President Jimmy Carter and the academic duo of John Mearsheimer
and Stephen Walt.

Foxman insists he has no second thoughts about jumping into the center
of the debate over the pro-Israel lobby.

"I’m not nervous. No hesitation whatsoever," Foxman said during an
interview last month in his ADL office at the start of his book tour.

Still, he conceded, "The one thing that haunts me is my credibility
because that’s all we got."

As it turns out, Foxman has written a reasoned, measured response to
Carter’s "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and the articles that evolved
into Mearsheimer and Walt’s "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy."

Foxman’s book breaks little new ground in its bid to debunk the most
objectionable claims put forth by Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt,
et al. But for those seeking a quick and accessible road map for
understanding the weakest points in the attack on Israel and the
pro-Israel lobby, "The Deadliest Lies" does the trick – with a big
boost from the foreword by former Secretary of State George Shultz.

The question is, will it be read by anyone who isn’t already settled
on the issue? Does Foxman still command the respect and credibility
to make headway beyond his base, to reach, as he describes them,
"the fair-minded people who may be wondering whether there is any
truth in the claims promoted in ‘The Israel Lobby’ and are willing
to hear the other side of the story?"

Foxman essentially touches on the issue in his book during his
recounting of the outrage triggered last year by an inaccurate claim
that he had pushed the Polish Consulate in New York to pull the plug
on a lecture by New York University Professor Tony Judt.

The ADL had inquired about the event, which was being sponsored by
an outside group that was renting space at the consulate, but it
turned out to be David Harris, the executive director of the American
Jewish Committee, who had asked for the event to be canceled. Still,
the furor eventually triggered a lengthy profile of Foxman in The
New York Times Magazine last January.

Written by James Traub, the piece used the flap over Judt – who caused
an uproar with a 2003 essay arguing that the idea of a Jewish state
was and is a mistake – as a vehicle for examining claims that the
Jewish community is guilty of trying to shut down debate over Israel.

Among other things, Traub’s piece played into the left-wing’s negative
– and often unfair – attacks on Foxman by ignoring his efforts to line
up American Jewish support for peace moves approved by the Israeli
government. Traub also incorrectly lumped Foxman in with those who
argue that the Jewish community should steer clear of criticizing
Christian conservatives on domestic policy because of their support
for Israel.

In fact, one of the biggest complaints of Foxman’s right-wing critics –
Jewish and non-Jewish – is his continued willingness to confront the
religious right. For example, they point to his speaking out against
the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" and a 2005 speech
Foxman gave in an attempt to rally the Jewish community against
efforts to "Christianize America."

And of course they steam over his support for the Oslo process and
the Gaza disengagement, which he framed as an issue of Israel’s
democratically elected government deserving deference on issues of
peace and security.

In "The Deadliest Lies," Foxman argued that given the "preconceived
notions" of his critics, it would be "almost impossible" for them
"not to assume the worst about me." He was talking about Judt and
his supporters in left-wing academic circles, but the same applies
to Jewish and Christian conservatives who falsely claim that the ADL
leader suggested "The Passion" would spark anti-Jewish pogroms in
America and tagged Gibson as an anti-Semite during the controversy
over the film.

Despite his growing ability to invite backlash from some liberal and
conservative circles, Foxman insists he has no plans to listen to
those who say he needs to tone down his approach.

"We don’t have that luxury," he said during the interview at his
office.

Foxman in his book seemed to make an effort at maintaining some
appearance of balance, stopping well short of full-throated apologetics
for Israeli policy: "As in most conflicts, there have been rights
and wrongs on both sides," he wrote, "and there is plenty of room
for open debate about how the blame should be apportioned — and,
more important, about the best way forward."

On the question of whether Jewish groups are in the censorship
business, Foxman is guilty to some degree of wanting it both ways. He
worked hard to clear his own name in the Judt episode, but defends
the right of the AJCommittee and other Jewish entities to protest
invitations to objectionable speakers. And if such efforts are
successful, he argues, the blame rests solely with the institutions
that comply, not the Jewish agitators.

"The fundamental truth remains that it was the Polish consulate alone
that chose to cancel Tony Judt’s speech," Foxman wrote. "To try to
place the responsibility for that ill-advised decision on some cabal
of pro-Israeli groups is fairly ludicrous."

In the interview, Foxman stood by the point: Jews who feel so inclined
are "not wrong" to move against speakers to whom they object.

"It’s their expression of freedom of speech," he said.

While some segments of the Jewish community might go too far, Foxman
said, it is really the Jewish community that is the target of a
campaign of "intimidation." The goal of Mearsheimer and Walt in arguing
that the pro-Israel lobby and Israeli officials played a vital role in
the US decision to invade Iraq, Foxman said, is to scare American Jews
from weighing in for a tough stand against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

"I think part of this is an attempt to intimate us," Foxman said.

Noting the attacks on himself, he added: "If they can succeed in
shutting me up, then they can shut the Jewish community up."

One thing is clear, at least when it comes to Foxman: "They" aren’t
getting very far.

192380691757&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShow Full

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1

Armenian FM To Visit Bulgaria, Hungary

ARMENIAN FM TO VISIT BULGARIA, HUNGARY

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 29 2007

YEREVAN, October 29. /ARKA/. RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan is
paid an official visit to Bulgaria on October 28.

The press and information department, RA Foreign Office, reports that
the RA Foreign Minister was to hold meetings with Bulgarian President
Georgy Prvanov, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as well as with
representatives of the Armenian community in Sofia.

On October 30 Minister Oskanyan is to leave for Budapest, where he
is to meet with his Hungarian counterpart Kinga Gentz, as well as
with Chairman of the Foreign Relations Commission Zort Nemety.

Minister Oskanyan ia to make a speech at the Central European
University in Budapest.

Economist: The Kremlin’s Useful Idiots

THE KREMLIN’S USEFUL IDIOTS

Economist, UK
Oct 29 2007

Our correspondent meets yet another bearded Brit

THE Old Theatre at the London School of Economics is a hotspot for
demagoguery. Fiery student orators have honed their rhetoric there
before going on to jobs in investment banking; mobs denouncing
dictatorship have hounded hapless visiting speakers from the podium.

Notoriously poorly ventilated, the air can be thick with everything
from the smell of wet clothes (LSE is too cramped to provide a
convenient cloakroom) to flurries of paper darts directed at speakers
that the audience finds boring or annoying. On one memorable occasion,
a gigantic inflated condom came floating down from the gallery to
disconcert a notoriously adulterous politician who was trying to give
a talk on privatisation. In 1980, when your diarist arrived there as
an undergraduate, it was gripped by the issue of Soviet beastliness at
home and abroad. At one end of the political spectrum were the ardent
anti-communists, soon to be reinforced by refugees from martial law
in Poland. They denounced the persecution of Soviet Jews, collected
signatures for Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, and celebrated the West’s
renaissance under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. At the other
end were the Spartacists, a weird group of Stalinist Trotskyists
(yes, you did read that correctly), whose slogans included "Workers’
bombs are bombs for peace!

Capitalist bombs are bombs for war!" and "Smash NATO, defend the Soviet
Union!" A slightly less bonkers approach by the Kremlin’s useful idiots
was to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It
was called "whataboutism": "So you object to Soviet interventions in
eastern Europe? Then what about the American assault on the Nicaraguan
Sandinistas?" "You mind about Soviet Jews? Then what about blacks
in South Africa?" So an evening debate on the death of Russian press
freedom (where your diarist was putting the case for the prosecution)
produced a sense of deja vu. Two Russian journalists, putting the case
for the defence, centred their case not on the rights and wrongs of
Russia’s laws on extremism, but on the shortcomings of the British
media for superficiality, double-standards, and craven obedience to
its political and commercial masters. How dare we criticise Russian
public broadcasting after the way the BBC had bowed to government
pressure on so many occasions? Had not the newspaper coverage of the
Litvinenko murder been a farrago of exaggeration, misunderstanding and
hypocrisy? Well perhaps it had. But the debate was about Russia. The
shortcomings of the British press are widely discussed, not least by
its own journalists; though it gets most things wrong most of the time,
the errors are not directed by weekly meetings at Number 10, Downing
Street at which a prime ministerial aide lays down the line to take
in the coming days. Soviet propagandists’ overuse of "whataboutism"
provided the punchline for subversive jokes. For example: A caller to a
phone-in on the (fictitious) Radio Armenia asks, "What is the average
wage of an American manual worker?" A long pause ensues. (The answer
would have been highly embarassing to the self-proclaimed workers’
paradise, which was proving to be lots of work and no paradise). Then
the answer comes: "u nich linchuyut negrov" [over there they lynch
Negroes]. By the late 1980s, that had become the derisive catchphrase
that summed up the whole bombastic apparatus of the Soviet propaganda
machine. Yet "whataboutism" attracted vocal support from some parts
of the audience. A student from Pakistan passionately denounced
democracy as a sham. Someone from Malaysia praised the Kremlin for
standing up to America. A bearded Brit came up with a predictable,
"Who are we to judge?".

Others, including what seemed (from their accents) to be a good
sprinkling of Russians, disagreed, denouncing the Kremlin line and
bemoaning the loss of media pluralism (not quite the same as freedom,
but still worth having) since the Yeltsin years. Most did not give
their names before speaking. "The embassy is watching us" explained
one of them afterwards. Plus ca change.

Jerusalem: Don’t alienate Ankara

Jerusalem Post
Oct 28 2007

Don’t alienate Ankara

By GIDON D. REMBA

Under pressure from the Bush administration and Turkey – a key US
NATO ally – the Congressional leadership recently performed an
about-face on a resolution condemning as genocide the mass slaughter
and wholesale deportation of Armenian men, women and children nearly
a century ago by Ottoman Turkey.

The Jewish community has been deeply divided over the moral
quandaries raised by this resolution. It has brought into play
Turkey’s role in supporting US military efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Israel’s military alliance with the Turks, the
relationship between Israel and American Jews, the Jewish memory of
the Shoah – and our anguished moral consciences.

The moral question seems to have a clear-cut answer. Jewish tradition
reflects a potent strain of ethical idealism, an absolute commitment
to principle – even to the point that the consequences be damned.
Maimonides exemplified this when he ruled that "if pagans should tell
[the Jews], ‘Give us one of yours and we shall kill him, otherwise we
shall kill all of you,’ they should all be killed and not a single
Jewish soul should be delivered."

But there is another major stream in Jewish tradition which
emphasizes that the Torah was given so that we may live by it. It
implores us to choose life, raising the demand to save lives above
virtually all the other commandments – pikuah nefesh. The Jewish
commitment to the absolute inviolability of the individual and to
human rights can be summed up by an ancient, non-Jewish aphorism: Do
justice, urged the Romans, even though the heavens may fall.

But we live in a time in which the falling of the heavens is far from
a remote possibility. If we gaze at the history of the past century,
up to the present moment, we bear witness to a dark panorama of
butchery, war, terrorism and genocide. The heavens have fallen – time
and time again. And justice has, all too often not been done.

We Jews have been among the greatest victims of such barbarity. But
we are hardly its only victims. Before the Holocaust of WWII there
was another genocide, of over 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman
Turks in 1915-17. The Allied governments of Britain, France and
Russia condemned the Ottoman government for committing "crimes
against humanity and civilization," the first time such language had
ever been invoked (the term genocide had not yet been coined).

The US, seeking to avoid involvement, refused to join the Allied
declaration. Despite America’s wish to be celebrated as a global
beacon of human rights and liberal democracy, the US has often failed
to speak out against genocide, or even to take modest risks to stop
it in concert with our allies. Nor have the Europeans done much
better, for all their commitment to peace, international law and
human rights.

FROM TURKEY’S destruction of the Armenians, the Nazi Holocaust, and
Pol Pot’s Cambodian reign of terror, to Saddam’s gassing of the
Kurds, the Bosnian Serb slaughter of Muslims, and the Hutu
evisceration of the Tutsi, America, and often its allies, failed to
invest real capital into stopping genocide. Indeed, it sometimes even
directly or indirectly aided those committing it. Samantha Power
documents this sordid tale in her path-breaking book, A Problem From
Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.

More recently, the US has failed to lead the UN Security Council (or
given the UN’s impotence in the face of Chinese oil investments in
Sudan), NATO, the G-8 and the African Union, to take stronger action
to halt the continuing atrocities in Darfur. Such steps include
targeted sanctions against Sudan for obstructing the deployment of
the multinational force, provision of NATO logistical support,
equipment and additional funding necessary to provide the force with
the capacity to defend itself against attacks by armed groups and to
protect civilians. America stopped the horrors in Serbia and Bosnia;
it can stop them in Darfur.

AGAINST THE backdrop of this sorry chronicle of moral bankruptcy, it
behooves Washington to at long last to formally recognize the Turkish
genocide of the Armenians. America bears a heavy moral obligation to
do so.

And yet – must America do justice now even if the heavens will fall?

The Armenian genocide is not unfolding today; it is nearly a century
old. Were it happening today, there would be no harm to American
interests which could justify our failure to lead or participate in
effective international intervention – from potent economic sanctions
and the promise of war crimes tribunals and a willingness to arrest
and try the perpetrators, to the deployment of a NATO-led or other
multinational armed force.

But today several hundred thousand American troops are fighting deep
in Iraq and Afghanistan, heavily dependent on Turkey to permit the
transfer of weapons and material necessary to prevent an even greater
loss of life. The removal of Turkish cooperation – a realistic
prospect – could also prolong the presence of large numbers of US
troops in Iraq.

Whatever American liberals believe about the justice of these wars –
the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan is surely a
just war, even if the Iraq war is not – if we hold dear the value of
human life, we cannot remain indifferent to the jeopardy into which
an untimely public recognition of the Armenian genocide would place
American forces, along with Iraqi and Afghani civilians.

But it gets worse. Kurdish separatist guerrillas are attacking
Turkish forces in Turkey, which is threatening to invade Iraq, a step
which could draw Iran into the breach and further destabilize the
Iraqi government. The guerrilla attacks, coupled with Turkish
estrangement from the US, could strike the match that sets alight a
great tinderbox, sparking a regional firestorm into which US forces
could be drawn. And you thought the Iraq war was already going badly?

It gets worse still. Turkey is Israel’s closest military ally in the
Muslim world. Turkish military cooperation is vital to Israel’s
self-defense against Iran and Syria. A serious degradation in
relations between Turkey and the US or Israel would represent a blow
to Israeli deterrence, exposing Israel to greater security threats
from Iran and Syria, increasing the risk of war with Israel.

We Jews bear a profound moral duty to recognize the genocide of the
Armenians. The United States too must right its own historic wrong.
But not when there is grave danger that the heavens may fall.

We must minimize harm to human lives here and now, and urge our
leaders to take a courageous moral stand on historical truth when the
cost to innocent lives, and world peace, is more bearable. This, I
believe, the victims of genocide would themselves demand.

The writer, based in New York City, is national executive director of
Ameinu: Liberal Values, Progressive Israel.

380674662&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFul l

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192
www.ameinu.net

Turks still must be held accountable

News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
October 26, 2007 Friday
News & Record Edition

Turks still must be held accountable

by JACK STRATAS

In your praise for U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., for his lack of
support for a resolution against Turkey, you showed a disregard for
history.

Troops from Turkey occupy half of the nation of Cyprus. Years ago, it
invaded the island, according to Turks, to stave off a merger of
Cyprus with Greece.

The Turkish government to this day holds in virtual captivity the
head of the oldest Christian church, the Orthodox Church. The
patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church is made to reside in a dusty
complex in Istanbul, a virtual captive of Muslim Turks.

Throughout history, the Turkish government has shown an animosity
against Christians, much as the News & Record.

In his book, "The Blight of Asia," Edward Horton, a retired U.S.
general in that area, lists atrocities committed by Ottoman Turks
against Christians. The butcher’s bill is: Chios Greeks, 50,000,
1822; Missologini Greeks, 8,750, 1828; Mosul Assyrians, 10,000, 1850;
Armenians, 150,000, 1895-96; Macedonians, 14,667, 1903-04; and,
finally, the massacre in Adana, in 1909, of 30,000 Aremians.

Horton features prominently the slaughter of indigenous Greeks in
Smyrna by Mustafa Kemal, the creator of modern Turkey.

No one knows for sure how many Greek Christians were slaughtered, but
we do know from pictures that they were either killed or driven into
the sea, and the city burned to the ground. This is a fact.

Many of the Greeks were on the Turkish mainland by request of the
sultan. Greek presence in Turkey reaches back to antiquity.

The red in the modern Turkish flag celebrates the blood of Greeks
slaughtered in Smyrna. There is a Web site you can visit titled
"Blight of Asia."

No one holds the Turkish nation accountable for the slaughter of
innocents, but they should. I support Democrats in this resolution.

The writer lives in Denton.

Armenia: Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Stanford Review, CA
Oct 27 2007

Armenia: Between Iraq and a Hard Place

by Tristin Abbey
Deputy Editor

As coalition and Iraqi forces struggle to fight insurgents and
terrorists in Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress has decided
now would be a good time to infuriate one of our most important
allies in the region, Turkey.

On January 30, 2007, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a
resolution that condemns as genocide the systematic killing of
hundreds of thousands of Armenians during World War I by the Ottoman
Empire. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) followed suit on March 14,
introducing an identical version in the Senate. Of Schiff’s original
235 co-sponsors, 17 later withdrew their support. On October 10, the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved the resolution.

Turkey, heir to the Ottoman mantle, expressed outrage. As this goes
to press, President Bush is urging congressional leaders to kill the
resolution.

Of the 21 congressmen opposing the measure, 8 were Democrats. Of the
27 in support, 8 were Republicans.

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Chris Starling, a national security affairs
fellow at the Hoover Institution, explained the importance of this
issue: `Losing the support of Turkey would pose significant
logistical challenges for the U.S. military in Iraq.’

Raffi Mardirosian, president of Stanford’s Armenian Students’
Association, said members of the club were `very happy to see this
resolution pass’ the committee and that they will be even happier
when it passes the full House and Senate.

Mardirosian went on to say that the `revisionists are being driven to
the margins of political influence.’

`Very few serious historians who have examined the evidence doubt
that the 1915 massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was a
case of genocide,’ said history professor Norman Naimark.

However, Naimark draws a distinction between what is historically
true and what should be done today. `I don’t believe a Congressional
resolution is the right way to discuss history.’
A senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International
Studies, Naimark added, `The timing of the proposed resolution, of
course, could not be worse, given the critical juncture in the Iraq
conflict, but also in European-Turkish and U.S.-Turkish relations.’

Mardirosian disagreed. `Our need for allies in the Middle East will
not stop in the foreseeable future,’ he said, pointing out that
Washington has `used this excuse for decades.’ Ankara, he continued,
`needs to come to terms with the events of the past.’

me_XXXIX/Issue_3/World/world1.shtml

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volu

No visible progress in Armenian-Turkish relations – foreign minister

Russia & CIS General Newswire
October 25, 2007 Thursday 8:02 PM MSK

No visible progress in Armenian-Turkish relations – foreign minister

No significant positive changes have occurred in Turkey’s foreign
policy in relation to Armenia, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian said in comments on the results of his meeting with
newly-appointed Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan in New York in
early October.

"Turkey remains interested only in processes, but we are interested
in results," Oskanian said at a Thursday press conference in Yerevan
in describing the current condition of bilateral relations.

There is no agreement on this aspect, but this does not mean that
Armenia will avoid meetings with Turkish officials at the level of
ministries and deputy ministers of foreign affairs, Oskanian said.

However, contacts like that which took place in New York cannot be
viewed as a component of the "virtually nonexistent" development of
bilateral relations, he said.

Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosian is currently in
Ankara to take part in a ministerial meeting of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organization and might meet with his Turkish
counterpart, Oskanian said.

Talking about relations between Armenia and Iran, Oskanian said they
are "expanding from day to day." Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Yerevan passed positively and "was
profound and substantive in its essence."

"Our relations with Iran are expanding, and projects that are being
implemented have not only bilateral but also regional dimension –
from a gas pipeline project to the possible construction of an oil
refinery and a railroad to connect Armenia and Iran," Oskanian said.