Author: Vasilian Manouk

AZERBAIJANI LEADER MEETS KARABAKH MEDIATORS

news.az
Jan 22 2010
Azerbaijan

President receives OSCE mediators Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
yesterday received the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, who are
mediating a settlement to the Karabakh conflict.

The co-chairs – Ambassadors Robert Bradtke of the United States,
Bernard Fassier of France and Yury Merzlyakov of Russia —
were accompanied by the personal representative of the OSCE
chairman-in-office, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk of Poland.

The meeting focused on the current state of talks on a settlement to
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

No further details of the meeting have been made public, but the
talks probably covered the forthcoming meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents.

That meeting will be mediated by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
and will take place on 25 January in Sochi.

The Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents met frequently in 2009 to
discuss a settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Their last
meeting was in Munich on 22 November.

TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN OBAMA’S FIRST YEAR

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 21 2010

U.S. President Barack Obama has been in office for a year now. The
interim precipitates ambiguous. Not much is left in reality of the
great hopes and announcements of the Presidential candidate Obama.

Domestically, Obama did accept major hurdles for his prestige project
of health reform, but it seems to be more complicated after the
election of the new (Republican) Senator of Massachusetts. Externally,
Obama stood for a change in the political climate after the sobering
years of the Bush Administration. But the list of debts after 365 days
in office is longer than the list of demands. The prison at Guantanamo
is still open, the threat of terrorism increases, the climate change
summit in Copenhagen failed and the fight against corruption and the
Taliban in Afghanistan has no foreseeable end. However, Obama was
able to demonstrate some success. With his speech in Cairo, he set a
positive precedent in the dialogue with Islam. The speech was quite
remarkable in comparison to his predecessor. In addition, the global
economy is no longer in a free fall after the dramatic beginning of the
financial crisis in 2008. The stock markets finished the previous year
with a profit and even the U.S. unemployment rate dropped slightly.

Preventing the collapse of the global economy, in which Obama’s
Administration had an important share, is probably the most positive
impact on Turkey.

Otherwise, Turkey also feels disillusionment. Although the Turkish
public sympathizes with the Obama administration, the Anti-Americanism
is spreading – as the USAK Survey has shown in their Perceptions of
Foreign Policy in August 2009. "Turkish society expected much from
Obama. The people like him and probably also his Administration but
they don’t like his country," summarized Mehmet Yegin, Researcher at
USAK Center for Transatlantic Studies, of the survey.

Obama needs to deal substantially with the PKK terrorists to win back
the hearts of the Turkish people, added Yegin. Aside from his rhetoric
support for the Kurdish initiative, the US-President didn’t give the
necessary attention to Turkey’s problems. "It is really hard to see
Ankara from Washington with every single issue," although substantial
cooperation against PKK terrorism seems possible according to Yegin.

"He has to take substantial steps to change the US imagine in Turkey.

Catching Abdullah Ocalan was a significant step and it is not too hard
to do the same in Northern Iraq. It will not destabilize the region."

The latter is in reference to taking action against the militant PKK
terrorists while not putting the Iraqi Administration in danger.

Arresting and sending the top militants to Turkey would be another
step to increase the Turkish-American relations.

Turkish-Armenian issues do not seem as important as the PKK problem. A
clear division between issues is important for Yegin: "The Armenian
Diaspora and their so-called genocide is one issue", said the USAK
Researcher. The Diaspora – especially in the US – identifies itself
with the incidents. "It is the glue between the Armenian Diaspora all
over the world. If they lose the topic, they will automatically lose
their identity. But it is not helping the people in Armenia." The
Turkish-Armenian talks to open the border were an important step,
but Obama will not be a substantial help in this issue. "Obama is too
much committed to the Armenian Lobby in the United States." Even the
developing relations between Turkey and Armenia gives Obama some space,
but as long as he mixes both issues, there won’t be a solution.

Yegin declined to make general summaries about Obama’s first year
as President. "Of course the first year is important, but it does
not offer too much time to change the most important country in the
world with its limits in system and economy." However, Obama made
one important mistake; he didn’t say that he cannot fulfill all the
expectations in time. "His time is passing and he has to solve several
issues in the next two years," said Yegin.

By Marcus Schadlich (JTW) Thursday, 21 January 2010 Journal of
Turkish Weekly

TURKEY DOESN’T NEED ISRAEL ANY MORE

PanARMENIAN.Net
21.01.2010 16:22 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The strategic ties between Israel and Turkey are not
at the same level they were a decade ago, as the latter is no longer
dependent on close cooperation, Israel’s military intelligence chief
has said.

The comments by Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs
and Defense Committee reflected wider concern in the Jewish state
following a high-profile visit to Turkey by Israeli Defense Minister
Ehud Barak on Sunday that was meant to help mend the relationship
after a sharp diplomatic row.

"There are still common strategic issues between Israel and Turkey,
but it’s not the same strategic closeness that existed in the past. In
the past Turkey acknowledged joint interests, which strengthened the
relationship. For example, in the 1990s, the Turks regarded Syria as
an enemy. There was a joint enemy. However, over the years Turkey and
Syria resolved their differences, and Turkey doesn’t need Israel’s
closeness anymore," Yadlin elaborated.

"In the past they had an interest in securing their Syrian border and
therefore their relations with Israel were strong. In the past Turkey
strove to come closer to the West, beyond joining NATO," he said,
Today’s Zaman reported.

ARMENIA SHOULD SET SPECIFIC TIMEFRAMES TO TURKEY

PanARMENIAN.Net
21.01.2010 19:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Neither Moscow nor Washington could openly declare
that they link Armenian-Turkish rapprochement with Karabakh peace
process, Neo-Conservative Movement leader Edward Abrahamyan finds.

"Unfortunately, words and deeds often differ in politics," he told
PanARMENIAN.Net in an interview.

"After the meeting with Russian Premier in Ankara, Erdogan announced
that the two processes are ‘implicitly’ interrelated. And we all
realize what he meant by that," the expert said.

"To avoid tricks, it would be advisable for Armenian authorities
to set Protocol ratification timeframes to Turkey before the 95th
anniversary of Genocide," he stressed.

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.

The Arsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) Republic (NKR) is a de facto independent
republic located in the South Caucasus, bordering by Azerbaijan to
the north and east, Iran to the south, and Armenia to the west.

After the Soviet Union established control over the area, in 1923
it formed the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the
Azerbaijan SSR. In the final years of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan
launched an ethnic cleansing which resulted in the Karabakh War that
was fought from 1991 to 1994.

Since the ceasefire in 1994, most of Nagorno Karabakh and several
regions of Azerbaijan around it (the security zone) remain under the
control of Nagorno Karabakh defense army.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have since been holding peace talks mediated
by the OSCE Minsk Group.

ARMENIAN EXPERT: TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTRY TRIES TO DRAG OUT RATIFICATION OF TURKEY-ARMENIA PROTOCOLS

Today
/59922.html
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with Armenian political expert, Deputy Director of
the Caucasus Institute Sergey Minasyan.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has issued a statement criticizing the
Armenia Constitutional Court decision declaring Turkish-Armenian
protocols consistent with the Armenian Constitution. In your opinion,
will the parliaments of both countries ratify the protocols?

The Armenian Constitutional Court decision is a prerequisite to submit
them to the parliament for ratification. However, in political terms,
statement of the Armenian Constitutional Court was accepted by Turks
as an example of counter-pressure on Turkey.

In the meantime, by its statement the Turkish Foreign Ministry tries
to drag out process of the protocols’s ratification in the country’s
parliament owing to serious internal problems the Turkish government
is facing.

Currently, however, the ratification of the Protocols depends not so
much on domestic political development within Turkey or in Armenia,
but on the outcome of multi-level negotiations between the world’s
leading players, match or mismatch of their positions, mutual influence
and pressure on regional policy.

In other words, possible recognition of so-called "Armenian resolution"
by the U.S. Congress on the eve of April 24 or Turkey’s EU admission
influence the ratification more than failure of the "Kurdish
initiative" by "Erdogan or backlash of the Turkish of opposition. So,
probability of Turkish Parliament’s ratifying the protocols still
remains while it is not serious problem for Armenia to ratify them
following approval by the Constitutional Court.

Russian FM Sergey Lavrov visited Armenia a couple days ago. What
does this visit mean given that it happened almost simultaneously
with Turkish prime minister’s visit to Russia?

This visit scheduled back in December last year intended to discuss
prospects of bilateral cooperation in all fields including humanitarian
and military-political ones. Another thing is that Lavrov’s visit
also coincided with a very interesting and important stage in regional
politics, especially intensification of the Armenian-Turkish process
and expected ratification of the protocols in the parliaments.

Russia is actively promoting the Armenian-Turkish process, which is
almost the only example of convergence of foreign policy interests
of Moscow, Washington and Brussels in the post-Soviet area. So,
consultations between the foreign ministers of both countries on a
range of critical issues of regional policy were natural.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has stated that Russia and Turkey
are holding quiet, but very intensive diplomatic consultations with
special emphasis on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. How do you comment
on this statement?

Ankara and Moscow are constantly holding diplomatic consultations which
is quite natural and understandable, because they are the two major
regional powers. However, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unlikely
to be the main subject of consultation, not only in the context of
Russia-Turkish bilateral relations, but also even during exchange
of views between Russian and Turkish leaders on the Armenian-Turkish
process as testified by outcomes of Erdogan’s Moscow visit and latest
public statements by Russian PM Putin and FM Lavrov.

What is Turkey’s role in solving regional issues, in particular,
the Karabakh conflict?

It depends on whether Turkey is ready to fully normalize relations with
Armenia and reopen the borders without any preconditions in accordance
with the provisions of the protocols. If Turkey’s parliament ratifies
the protocol within a reasonable time, Ankara will be able to play a
more active role in the region promoting peaceful settlement of the
Karabakh conflict.

If not, then Turkey will again remain outside our region, and
its policy initiatives in the South Caucasus will not realized,
as we have partly seen in connection with decline in importance of
"Caucasus Platform" Ankara launched back in 2008.

How do you assess outcomes of the past year in terms of the settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Can we hope for a breakthrough on
this issue in 2010 given the intensified high-level meetings?

The negotiation process will see some kind of dynamics, comparable
to the dynamics of the past year. Possibly, certain documents and
declarations with the participation of the conflicting sides will be
adopted, but no comprehensive agreement on a final settlement will
be reached.

ARMENIAN FISH BREEDERS HAVE FAILED TO SEE THE EXPORT VALUE OF WHITEFISH

ArmInfo
2010-01-21 18:12:00

ArmInfo. Armenian fish breeders have failed to see the export value
of whitefish, says Chairman of the Union of Fish Breeders of Armenia
Arkady Gevorgyan.

Today, whitefish could be sold on foreign markets for $5 per kg. "We
are losing an export potential we have been creating for decades. In
the past we produced 8,000 tons of whitefish a year, today, we may
lose this resource," says Gevorgyan. Formerly, fishers were prohibited
catching whitefish during maturation period, today, they are not.

In 2009 Director of the Hydroecology and Ichtyology Institute of the
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia Boris Gabriyelyan said that,
today, there are just 170 tons of whitefish in Lake Sevan against as
many as 30,000 tons in the 1980s.

THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF ARMENIA CLEARS UP

Aysor
Jan 20 2010
Armenia

Today the information and public relations department has commented
on the article found in the newspaper "Zhamanak" on January 20 in 2010.

The article titled "Why did Ohanyan leave for Moscow?" the author is
writing that on January 13 during his visit to Moscow Seyran Ohanyan
was accompanied also with several high ranked officers, which the
IPR department of the ministry, has concealed form the media.

On this concern the IPR department of the RA Defense Ministry is
mentioning once again that during the Minister’s visit to Moscow he
was not accompanied by anyone.

"The comments and the analysis in the article are the result of
the sick imagination of the author", – the release of the Defense
Ministry reads.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT LIMITS PROTOCOLS’ DAMAGE TO ARMENIAN NATIONAL INTERESTS

Panorama.am
16:53 19/01/2010

After months of bickering among Armenians the world over about
the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the Constitutional Court of Armenia
on January 12 pronounced its judgment on whether the obligations
stipulated by the Protocols comply with the constitution.

The Court’s task would have been relatively easier, if it were to
simply deal with the legal aspects of the Protocols which would have
required a yes or no decision followed by a brief explanation. Yet the
fact that the Court’s verdict was eight pages long and contained scores
of clarifications, interpretations, explanations, and restrictions,
indicated that the Justices of the Court had to walk a tightrope
between safeguarding Armenia’s relations with major foreign powers
and minimizing the potential damage the Protocols could cause to the
Armenian national interest.

Since the Court was apparently reluctant to reject outright these
badly-negotiated and poorly-worded Protocols, it did the next
best thing: accept the Protocols after placing a large number of
restrictions on their legal interpretation and implementation. Thus,
the Court’s decision partially vindicates all those who have been
expressing their serious reservations regarding the negative aspects
of the Protocols.

Here are some of the main interpretations and limitations that the
Court placed on the Protocols: 1) The Court made all clauses of the
Protocols conditional on the implementation of two main obligations:
"establish diplomatic relations" and "open the common border." The
Justices thus made these two actions a necessary prerequisite for
the fulfillment of all other obligations to be undertaken by Armenia
and Turkey.

2) The Court narrowly interpreted the "open the common border"
clause of the Protocols, indicating that Armenia was simply making a
commitment "to resolve legal-organizational and institutional issues
connected to safeguarding the normal operation of border checkpoints."

Significantly, the Court used the term "checkpoint" rather than
"border," thereby indirectly refusing to accord legal recognition
to Armenia’s present boundary with Turkey. Since it was Turkey that
closed the border, it alone is responsible for re-opening it.

Armenia’s obligation, on the other hand, is limited to simply making
the necessary administrative arrangements to permit passage through
a checkpoint.

3) The Court ruled that only those international treaties that have
been ratified under the constitution of the present Republic of
Armenia could be considered legally valid. The clear implication is
that border issues regulated by treaties pre-dating the Republic’s
existence cannot be considered valid. This interpretation contradicts
frequent Turkish declarations that the Protocols reconfirm Armenian
territorial concessions to Turkey, specifically referencing the 1921
Treaty of Kars. Indeed, the Court pointedly downplayed the overall
significance of these Protocols by mandating that all future treaties
that establish and further develop relations between Armenia and
Turkey require its specific approval.

4) The Court countered the text of the Protocols which included
specific language about multilateral obligations, by asserting that
the documents in question were "exclusively of a bilateral interstate
nature." The Justices thus precluded Turkey from interfering in
the Karabagh (Artsakh) negotiations and making the improvement
of Armenia-Turkey relations conditional on the resolution of that
conflict.

5) The Court took issue with Turkish statements that the aim of
the historical commission envisaged by the Protocols is to review
the facts of the Armenian Genocide. The Justices clearly stated
that the provisions of the Protocols could not contradict the
preamble of the constitution which includes a reference to Armenia’s
Declaration of Independence. Article 11 of the Declaration stated:
"The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving
international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and
Western Armenia."

The key question now is what happens next?

At a minimum, the Constitutional Court has limited some of the
damaging aspects of the Protocols by ruling that any laws emanating
from the Protocols, after parliamentary ratification, cannot violate
the constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

Of course, it would be far more preferable if the Parliament were to
reject these Protocols outright. Regrettably, this is unlikely, as
the Parliament is dominated by pro-government deputies. If rejection
is not a possibility, the President of Armenia and the Parliament
should at least consider specific reservations or changes to these
Protocols in line with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

Failing that, Armenians who oppose the Protocols must pin their last
hope on the Turkish Parliament’s insistence that it would not ratify
the Protocols until Armenia withdraws from Artsakh. Should the Turkish
Parliament not ratify the Protocols, it would be highly ironic if
Armenians had to rely on Turkish actions in order to protect their
national interest!

By Harut Sassounian Publisher, The California Courier

NETANYAHU MUST AVERT TURKEY’S SLIDE TOWARD SYRIA, IRAN
By Itamar Rabinovich

Ha’aretz
spages/1143623.html
Jan 19 2010
Israel

Now that the melodrama of insults and apologies has passed, the
government of Israel should seriously tackle the challenge of its
relations with Turkey – one of the most important elements of our
national security. What’s needed is a departure from routines, and
primarily the engagement of the prime minister in managing the crisis.

The strained relations between Ankara and Jerusalem affect the
balance of power in the entire region. A decade ago, Turkey was
an ally of the United States and maintained varied and extensive
relations with Israel. In recent years, it has been sliding toward
Syria and Iran and away from America, and has become a venomous
critic of Israel. If it slides any further, Turkey could become part
of an Iranian-Syrian-Turkish triangle that would be a key element in
Middle Eastern politics – to the detriment of Washington, Israel and
the moderate Arab states.

Turkey’s foreign and domestic policies have undergone a transformation
in the wake of developments upon which outside forces, including
Israel, have no influence. The end of the Cold War eliminated Ankara’s
dependence on Washington as a shield against the Soviet Union,
and the European Union’s de facto refusal to take Turkey in has
weakened the part of the country that advocate a secular, modernist
and pro-Western orientation. Most importantly, the Islamist party,
which has gradually shed the moderate cloak it started out with,
has been taking over the country’s power centers.

Advertisement

The secular parties are weak, while the military is paralyzed by a
dilemma: Grabbing power in a military coup, as has occurred in the
past, would finally slam the door on the European dreams harbored
by the secular modernist camp the army represents. Meanwhile, the
government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been systematically wiping
out the opposition’s remaining power centers. A similar pattern has
emerged in relations with Israel: estrangement accompanied by calming
rhetoric, followed by hostile rhetoric and actions. Turkey’s role as
mediator between Israel and Syria served to cover up the course of
these developments, but it has ended in a breakdown.

There is not much Israel can do under these circumstances. The
sources that yielded the collaboration have for the most part dried
up. The Soviet Union is no more and Turkey has joined the radical
camp in the Arab world. The influence held by Washington and Europe
has diminished. The main assets Israel still wields in its ties with
Turkey are mutual economic and security interests, the need of the
Turkish ruling party to take into account the opinion of the army and
pro-Israeli elements, and the country’s goal of playing a central
role in regional politics. The Turkish leadership realizes that to
mediate between Syria and Israel, or to help the Palestinians, it
must maintain a dialogue with Israel.

To take advantage of its assets, Israel has to make a concerted
effort, managed by the top governmental echelon. A considerable part
of the damage caused last week would have been averted if the prime
minister had intervened earlier. He must ensure coordinated action
and division of responsibilities. The embassy and consulates in Turkey
must also be strengthened. Turkey is still a democratic country with
a developed economy and infrastructure, and with which Israel should
engage. Moreover, "Jewish diplomacy" – to which the Turks tend to
ascribe great importance – should be put into effect. Having already
made bitter enemies of the Greeks and the Armenians, they certainly
don’t want to do the same with the Jewish people.

It is a difficult and complex task, whose fruits will not be
immediately evident. The prime minister must place it high on his
agenda.

THE QUALITY OF VIOLENCE IS THE SAME

Lragir.am
19/01/10

The head of the committee on freedom and protection of speech Ashot
Melikyan and an expert of the committee Mesrop Harutyunyan presented
on January 19 the situation in Armenia connected with violence
against press means and reporters. Ashot Melikyan noted the year
may be divided into two parts. During the first half of 2009, cases
of violence against reporters were quite numerous especially at the
Mayoral election on May 31. And the second half was calmer.

Melikyan noted that every year in case of some political events,
such cases become more often. According to Melikyan, comparing the
year 2008 with 2009 from the point of the scale of violence against
reporters, it decreased. Melikyan notes at the same time that the
situation is not good at all.

The expert of the committee Mesrop Harutyunyan presented the registered
cases dividing them into-physical violence, indirect interference,
hidden censorship and limitations of informational freedom. As to
non-physical violence he mentioned the worst example saying that it is
a dangerous precedent- it is the closure of the Chorrord Ishkhanutyun
daily. Ashot Melikyan noted that in 2009 there have been very many
trials against journalists which could be positive considering that
people started settling their affairs with journalists not by force
but in courts. But, as Melikyan notes, since our judicial system
does not let justice to triumph, only those who are wealthier and
more powerful win.

In answer to the question what the level of freedom of speech is in
Armenia, Ashot Melikyan said they did not make a study on this issue,
by in accordance with the assessments of international organizations,
the situation generally corresponds to the reality.