Tweet
Yerevan Press Club presents www.mediadialogue.org web site, featuring the
most interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
and Turkey on issues of common concern. The latest updates on the site are
weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************ ***************************************
RECOGNIT ION OF THE GENOCIDE - THE RIGHT TO RETURN
| "Golos Armenii" newspaper (Armenia) | Aris Ghazinian | 18-May-2006 |
In early XX, the Armenian people lost not only the demographic majority but
also the historical homeland - at least 90% of the area, making the natural
habitat of national settlement. Thus, on the eve of the First World War the
Armenian factor was still the dominant demographic and cultural-constructive
element of the upland. In this respect, the catastrophe of the Armenian
people has no precedent, since there is no other nation forced to build its
statehood on the tenth part of the historically assimilated Homeland.
There is an obvious difference between the concepts of Fatherland and
Statehood. While, due to various historical reasons the Armenian people,
dozens of times losing political independence, each time found the strength
and ability to restore the state set-up of national life. The guarantee for
restoration of sovereignty was not only the traditional vector of
orientation (general character of the Armenian of pre-20th century, aimed at
recovery of the lost statehood) but also the fact of the presence of
Homeland proper. Irrespective of any political formation, the national life
in a historical Homeland did not interrupt. However, in early past century
it is the Fatherland that the nation lost first. So if the process of
restoring statehood is possible to imagine, the mechanism of restoring the
Homeland (the right for life in natural habitat of national activity) is not
worked out. To this effect, we need a special ideology.
In short-term perspective, Turkey may afford recognition of the Armenian
Genocide, and there is ground to suppose that it will be the case. It is
obvious however that herein Ankara's traditional preconditions will again
come up: before expressing official readiness to this revolutionary step of
theirs, the Turkish authorities will by all means demand guarantees of the
Armenian side. In particular, Yerevan will be proposed to sign (in exchange)
under the point for RA being ineligible for setting any territorial claims
to Turkey.
Doubtlessly, none of the heads of Armenian state has a right to sign such a
document. It is also obvious that the refusal of official Yerevan will
become subject for foreign policy speculations by Ankara. It is also
possible that Turkey will lift the blockade of the border and will even act
as apologist for establishing diplomatic relations with RA. However, does
the Armenian nation today have an ideology, capable of facing the coming
challenges? What will be the position of the official Yerevan if Ankara
pledges its willingness before the international community: a) to recognize
the Armenian Genocide; b) deblock the border; c) establish diplomatic
relations with Armenia? Won't the Armenian statehood be placed in a certain
ideological vacuum in this case?
The official line of RA, aimed at international recognition of the Genocide,
should be formulated quite clearly and rigidly. In various forms and on
various levels it is recognized in over two dozens of states, however, the
priority provision - the Homeland lost after the Genocide - is not mentioned
in any of respective documents.
RA President Robert Kocharian repeatedly stated (to the Turkish journalists
as well) that the issue of Turkey's recognition of the Armenia Genocide is
not linked to the territorial problem that should be viewed within the
aspect of the Sevres Treaty. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
stated on his behalf that the current authorities of the country will not
raise this issue, "however, theoretically it can be raised by one of the
subsequent heads of the Republic". Nevertheless the fact of losing the
Homeland proper - the natural habitat of the Armenian settlement - is not on
the agenda of RA foreign policy. Apparently, no one except Yerevan will
raise this issue.
Currently, there is a vital necessity for adapting the previously chaotic
intention for Genocide recognition on more pragmatic ground with the demand
for guaranteed (by the international community) right for repatriation of
the peoples deprived of the homeland. If the Armenian people is now ready
for repatriation is another matter. However, in any case we need to
officially state that by the process of Genocide recognition, Yerevan also
views the right of the Armenian people for return.
EDWARD SHEVARNADZE: "IF WE ARE NEITHER A NORMAL COUNTRY NOR HAVE A NORMAL
PRESIDENT, WE CAN EXPECT ANY TROUBLE"
| "Georgian Times" newspaper (Georgia) | Maya Margvelani | 16-May-2006 |
- What is your assessment of the recent activities of the Georgian
authorities, their statements addressed to Russia? How adequate is the
reaction of the Russian side?
- Russia's actions towards Georgia are a factual blockade. It is a classical
manifestation of Russian policy. Wine, alongside "Borjomi", are our maim
products. When they are not sold in Russia, it naturally raises concerns. In
fact, the world market already has set preferences, and the loss of the
Russian market is very alarming.
- Is it Russia's response to the tough policy of our authorities?
- We had quite a negative experience with the Russian authorities but it did
not go as far as the breakup of the union. Georgia's accession to CIS was
not a forceful one, though Russia insistently recommended us to join the
Commonwealth. If my friends - presidents of other countries - had not joined
the CIS, we would probably do the same. I heeded their opinion; without
mutual support, it would be hard to find common ground with Russia. We are
on good terms with President Putin though even then both in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia their behavior was very bad. However, Putin is a flexible
person with a mild character.
- If he has a mild character, how do you explain his attitude to Georgia?
- We should pay attention to Putin's speech in response to the statements of
our leaders. It was a balanced political speech. He said, "The friendly
Georgian people experiences grave economic problems, and we will try to find
a solution". However, subsequent statements of our high-ranking officials
aggravated the situation.
- You mean the Defense Minister?
- The statement of the Defense Minister would be insulting for any country.
I am not initiated into the details but possibly the speech of the
Parliament Chairman in Saint Petersburg also had its share. Burjanadze
enraged Duma. I do not justify Russia, a lot happens with its approval. At
the same time, I would note that Putin's speech was more balanced and sound.
- Where is the way out?
- We are now in actual blockade. I think the meeting of the Presidents of
Russia and Georgia is obligatory. Besides, it is the Georgian President who
should take the initiative. The relations will not improve without the
high-level meeting, moreover they might deteriorate.
- Can Russia toughen the sanctions still more?
- Russia has many levers of pressure. It may stop the supply of gas and oil
products. Once we have other gas, we can speak on different terms. When the
gas pipeline was blown up, we accused the Russian authorities. Indeed,
someone blew it up but it might be an Ossetian, a Russian or a Georgian! The
Russian authorities had no motivation for the explosion of the pipeline: we
buy gas from them and at quite high prices. In the future, it might grow
even more expensive. So that Russia may enact quite a lot of levers, as I
already mentioned... I think Russia's irritation comes from the dislocation
of its bases. I also was categorical about their liquidation. They mostly
withdrew the bases. As for Akhalkalaki base, it was decided back in 1998,
however I was not very anxious to dislocate the base, since several
thousands of locals were employed there, while we did not have an
opportunity to give them jobs. By the way, during my presidency we
dislocated the Russian military base from Vaziani without any scandal. I
think the dislocation of the Akhalkalaki base was not a very urgent issue.
- You mean to say that Putin must not be negatively disposed to the
Georgians?
- Actually he was not. I will bring an example. I always tried to have as a
priority Georgia's good relations with both Russia and US, as far as it is
possible. The recent meeting with Putin took place in Alma Ata. I told him
about my request to USA for support in army training. He was a bit upset
over it and said that Russia could also help. Then by the end of the summit,
someone asked him about his attitude to US supporting the Georgian army.
Putin turned around and replied, "Georgia is an independent country with a
right for choice. If it views America as its friend, how can we object?" So
we can see that Putin is a flexible person, open to cooperation and
compromise. In Georgia, there is a tough opinion about him, and he is now
thinking over a possible solution. Our tense relations really need
discharging.
- What is your opinion about the special operations of the Interior
Ministry, which often end up with victims...
- During my presidency, there was an escape of the prisoners but we did not
shoot them... Law is binding for all! So when the officials neglect the law,
it is already troublesome.
- It is a fact that you personally expressed condolences to the Girgvliani
family (scandalous murder of the young man, in which high-ranking officials
are involved - Trans.), while Mikhail Sahakashvili is still silent about
this barbarous crime.
- It is impossible in a normal country. I am convinced that sooner or later
the President will provide adequate assessment of this murder, and the
public will be informed about his decision. I repeat that it is the case in
a normal country, and if we are neither a normal country nor have a normal
president, we can expect any trouble. I am convinced that Sahakashvili will
give a proper assessment of the incident. He is well aware that he should
give his reaction to such facts.
COMPLICATED ISSUES
| "Milliyet" newspaper (Turkey) | Sami Kohen | 16-May-2006 |
When Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper made a statement on April 24 in
support of the Armenian Genocide allegations, it slipped the attention of
the Canadian public. The Canadian media took up this issue only after Turkey
has summoned its Ambassador in Ottawa Aydemir Erman to Ankara for
consultation. This speech by the Prime Minister is not the first event in
Canada, supporting Armenian Genocide allegations. In Canada, there are a
hundred thousand Armenians with an active Armenian lobby. Two years ago, the
Canadian Parliament adopted a law on the recognition of the Genocide. A
large share of it was with the Conservative Party, then oppositional, headed
by Harper. After the victory of the conservatives at the elections, the
Armenian lobby started to pressure the government of the country to ratify
the law adopted by the Parliament. Prime Minister Harper kept to his stance
and made a statement recognizing the fact of Genocide. Thus, the Genocide
allegations are supported in Canada both on parliamentary and government
level.
The Situation is Different in France
In this respect, the situation in Canada and France is different. Thus, In
France the government did not make any clear and official statements,
recognizing the Armenian Genocide. However, today the French Parliament is
considering a draft law, stipulating a punishment for denying the Armenian
Genocide, which is even worse.
The presence and influence of the Armenians in France is a common knowledge.
Internal political factors often make the French parliamentarians take the
side of the Armenian community.
What is the case in Canada? Not only in Canada: in many countries of Latin
America and Europe, where the Armenian communities are not numerous, the
Parliaments take similar decisions.
Herein, the organized activity of the Armenian Diaspora and its influence in
these countries doubtlessly has a large role.
On the other hand, Turkey itself has long abstained from these campaigns. It
cannot boast with effective presentation of its position, nor did it work
out new strategies on the "Armenian issue".
Overall, Ankara takes measures on this issue post factum, and they are
usually short-term. In certain cases, the feedback of Ankara not only lacks
preventive force but also impedes bilateral relations. It has already been
the case with France and other European countries...
Canada's Example
What to do with Canada?
Turkey recalled its ambassador in Ottawa for a few days, and prior to it,
the country did not participate in NATO exercise in Canada...
Alongside such "symbolic" steps, other measures, like weakening of trade and
economic relations, are also discussed. The turnover between the two
countries makes about 1 billion dollars today, and the investments of the
Canadian firms in Turkey - 700 million dollars... Besides, there are other
important joint projects (for example in nuclear energy sphere). The issue
is what will be the practical results of Canada's isolation? Will such a
"punishment" change the position of its authorities? What will be the impact
of the isolation of large international companies on the inflow of
international investments in Turkey as a whole? Shouldn't we think over this
aspect of the issue as well?
IRAN WILL REMIND BAKU OF ITS ANTIIRANIAN STATMENTS, expert from Iran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad milieu announces
| "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) | G. Inanj | 16-May-2006 |
Azerbaijan unwillingly finds itself in the epicenter of regional processes
that are sometimes quite dangerous for it. At this stage official Baku is
given a very disguised role of mediator between the USA and Iran, claiming
to be a regional power. Yet Tehran has not forgiven the official Baku
certain steps and statements on Iran,.
In the exclusive interview to "Zerkalo", given by Iranian expert Jalal
Mohammadi, known in the West for his proximity to the President of Iran
Ahmadinejad, interesting aspects of Azerbaijani policy of official Tehran
can be traced between the lines. Notably, in the West the statements by
Mohammadi are equaled to the opinion of official Tehran.
- The threats of US about attacking Iran that have been going on for four
years is nothing but a psychological war. Washington discusses different
ways, including a military way of solving the uranium enrichment issue in
our country. For this reason some statements voiced by American officials on
the plans of attacking Iran must not be considered as a fact.
- Do you exclude the military attack on Iran?
- The USA cannot apply military force against Iran. In the modern history
our country is a strong state of both Middle East and of Islamic world.
Under the circumstances the intrusion into Iran is not a simple question.
The aim of the Cold War is to present Iran as an unstable country and to
obstruct the development of its cooperation with other countries, including
its neighbors.
The promotion of the idea of how invincible the USA are among the smaller
countries is a part of the US anti-Iranian policy. Washington attempts to
frighten all these states into worshipping it. Contrary to everything I
would like to state that Iran is thoroughly ready for any form of aggression
from the USA, including military.
The US attempts to weaken Iran from inside, to ignite a domestic crisis
bring the Iranians together around the national idea which is today the
nuclear program.
Washington, on the one hand uses international organizations to exercise
pressure on Iran, on the other - it attempts to create ethnic problems
inside the country. the USA allocated 74 million USD for the Iranian
opposition.
- The "Zerkalo" sources in Tbilisi confirm the rumors, disseminated in media
about a certain arrangement between Georgia and USA about the use of
Georgian basin of the Black Sea in the case of military aggression against
Iran. In the US-Iranian confrontation Washington has a different role for
Azerbaijan.
- The leader of Islamic revolution Ayatollah Imam Khomeini once announced
that if the US decides to wage a war against Iraq, they will face a war from
all sides. For me the war from all sides means one thing - all the parties,
supporting the aggressor in the war launch, will get their punishment.
- After the well-known incident during the Second Congress of Azerbaijani,
Baku and Tehran have a concealed tension between them. Does Iran have a
stone in the pocket?
- Much earlier, after the presidents exchanged visits, Baku and Tehran had
positive relations. Yet the anti-Iranian statements at the 2nd Congress of
Azerbaijanis in Baku revealed the lack of firmness in the Iranian policy of
Azerbaijan and set ground for the lack of trust between the countries. Iran
does recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the fact of
Mountainous Karabagh occupation, and the official Baku allows some
questionable people to speak against the territorial integrity of Iran. Such
statements set fertile soil for Armenia and other unfriendly countries to
actively oppose our cooperation. The response of Iran on the statements
questioning the territorial integrity of the country will become known
later.
- You are implying Israel. But the Jewish lobby supports Azerbaijan in the
issues, important for the country, such as confronting Armenian lobby.
- Since the rule of the Popular Front a group of Azerbaijani politicians
believes that by cooperating with Jewish lobby and Israel they can oppose
the Armenian lobby.
The illusions about solving the Mountainous Karabagh conflict with the help
of Jewish lobby have vanished. Not a centimeter of occupied territories has
been liberated as a result of 15-year long cooperation between Baku and
Jerusalem. These politicians obviously are unaware of the priorities of
world political relations. the Western empire has two wings - the Armenian
and Jewish lobby.
- One of the reasons the USA gave up the idea of "colored revolution" in
Azerbaijan is the Iranian policy of Washington and the role given to Baku in
the scenario. The White House did not risk shattering the stable political
situation in the neighboring Azerbaijan before the serious dialogue with
Tehran.
- Firstly, the official Baku has made its conclusions after the Georgian and
Ukrainians events and cleared the government of officials, capable of
supporting the "colored". Also, the Azerbaijani opposition is weak and does
not enjoy the support of the people. No one supports it but for the US
Embassy in Baku.
But the USA are not that omnipotent. Washington did not manage to clear the
way for a <colored> coup in Azerbaijan. Certainly, the refusal of the White
House from the scenario of the power change in Baku also includes the
neighborhood of Azerbaijan and Iran, the Shiite Islam in the two countries,
the culture and history, uniting our nations.
- To a certain extent the lack of solution to the Mountainous Karabagh
conflict also ties the hands of the White House in terms of realization
their interest-related plans. Is it the reason for the recent haste that the
West displays in the Mountainous Karabagh resolution process?
- The haste of the West in the resolution of the conflict is related to the
inner problems in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the international ties of
Azerbaijan and geopolitical situation. The factors listed complicate the
conflict resolution even more. The occupied territories are not liberated at
a negotiations table. Certainly, the war results in losses of human force as
well as inflicts moral and financial damages. What can be done, the
political organization of the world is unfair.
Many countries use the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in their interests.
They use their present status quo, but are in no way interested in the
resolution of the conflict. The continuation of the conflict is in the
interests of France, Russia and Turkey.
Turkey links the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict with the relations between
Armenia and Turkey and the interstate problems. Ankara, waving the
occupation of MK as a flag, tries to prove the aggressive policy of Armenia
and to protect itself against the psychological and political pressure of
Armenian lobby demanding the recognition of the Armenian genocide in the
Ottoman Empire.
************************************************ ***************************
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].
Website: www.mediadialogue.org
most interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
and Turkey on issues of common concern. The latest updates on the site are
weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************ ***************************************
RECOGNIT ION OF THE GENOCIDE - THE RIGHT TO RETURN
| "Golos Armenii" newspaper (Armenia) | Aris Ghazinian | 18-May-2006 |
In early XX, the Armenian people lost not only the demographic majority but
also the historical homeland - at least 90% of the area, making the natural
habitat of national settlement. Thus, on the eve of the First World War the
Armenian factor was still the dominant demographic and cultural-constructive
element of the upland. In this respect, the catastrophe of the Armenian
people has no precedent, since there is no other nation forced to build its
statehood on the tenth part of the historically assimilated Homeland.
There is an obvious difference between the concepts of Fatherland and
Statehood. While, due to various historical reasons the Armenian people,
dozens of times losing political independence, each time found the strength
and ability to restore the state set-up of national life. The guarantee for
restoration of sovereignty was not only the traditional vector of
orientation (general character of the Armenian of pre-20th century, aimed at
recovery of the lost statehood) but also the fact of the presence of
Homeland proper. Irrespective of any political formation, the national life
in a historical Homeland did not interrupt. However, in early past century
it is the Fatherland that the nation lost first. So if the process of
restoring statehood is possible to imagine, the mechanism of restoring the
Homeland (the right for life in natural habitat of national activity) is not
worked out. To this effect, we need a special ideology.
In short-term perspective, Turkey may afford recognition of the Armenian
Genocide, and there is ground to suppose that it will be the case. It is
obvious however that herein Ankara's traditional preconditions will again
come up: before expressing official readiness to this revolutionary step of
theirs, the Turkish authorities will by all means demand guarantees of the
Armenian side. In particular, Yerevan will be proposed to sign (in exchange)
under the point for RA being ineligible for setting any territorial claims
to Turkey.
Doubtlessly, none of the heads of Armenian state has a right to sign such a
document. It is also obvious that the refusal of official Yerevan will
become subject for foreign policy speculations by Ankara. It is also
possible that Turkey will lift the blockade of the border and will even act
as apologist for establishing diplomatic relations with RA. However, does
the Armenian nation today have an ideology, capable of facing the coming
challenges? What will be the position of the official Yerevan if Ankara
pledges its willingness before the international community: a) to recognize
the Armenian Genocide; b) deblock the border; c) establish diplomatic
relations with Armenia? Won't the Armenian statehood be placed in a certain
ideological vacuum in this case?
The official line of RA, aimed at international recognition of the Genocide,
should be formulated quite clearly and rigidly. In various forms and on
various levels it is recognized in over two dozens of states, however, the
priority provision - the Homeland lost after the Genocide - is not mentioned
in any of respective documents.
RA President Robert Kocharian repeatedly stated (to the Turkish journalists
as well) that the issue of Turkey's recognition of the Armenia Genocide is
not linked to the territorial problem that should be viewed within the
aspect of the Sevres Treaty. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
stated on his behalf that the current authorities of the country will not
raise this issue, "however, theoretically it can be raised by one of the
subsequent heads of the Republic". Nevertheless the fact of losing the
Homeland proper - the natural habitat of the Armenian settlement - is not on
the agenda of RA foreign policy. Apparently, no one except Yerevan will
raise this issue.
Currently, there is a vital necessity for adapting the previously chaotic
intention for Genocide recognition on more pragmatic ground with the demand
for guaranteed (by the international community) right for repatriation of
the peoples deprived of the homeland. If the Armenian people is now ready
for repatriation is another matter. However, in any case we need to
officially state that by the process of Genocide recognition, Yerevan also
views the right of the Armenian people for return.
EDWARD SHEVARNADZE: "IF WE ARE NEITHER A NORMAL COUNTRY NOR HAVE A NORMAL
PRESIDENT, WE CAN EXPECT ANY TROUBLE"
| "Georgian Times" newspaper (Georgia) | Maya Margvelani | 16-May-2006 |
- What is your assessment of the recent activities of the Georgian
authorities, their statements addressed to Russia? How adequate is the
reaction of the Russian side?
- Russia's actions towards Georgia are a factual blockade. It is a classical
manifestation of Russian policy. Wine, alongside "Borjomi", are our maim
products. When they are not sold in Russia, it naturally raises concerns. In
fact, the world market already has set preferences, and the loss of the
Russian market is very alarming.
- Is it Russia's response to the tough policy of our authorities?
- We had quite a negative experience with the Russian authorities but it did
not go as far as the breakup of the union. Georgia's accession to CIS was
not a forceful one, though Russia insistently recommended us to join the
Commonwealth. If my friends - presidents of other countries - had not joined
the CIS, we would probably do the same. I heeded their opinion; without
mutual support, it would be hard to find common ground with Russia. We are
on good terms with President Putin though even then both in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia their behavior was very bad. However, Putin is a flexible
person with a mild character.
- If he has a mild character, how do you explain his attitude to Georgia?
- We should pay attention to Putin's speech in response to the statements of
our leaders. It was a balanced political speech. He said, "The friendly
Georgian people experiences grave economic problems, and we will try to find
a solution". However, subsequent statements of our high-ranking officials
aggravated the situation.
- You mean the Defense Minister?
- The statement of the Defense Minister would be insulting for any country.
I am not initiated into the details but possibly the speech of the
Parliament Chairman in Saint Petersburg also had its share. Burjanadze
enraged Duma. I do not justify Russia, a lot happens with its approval. At
the same time, I would note that Putin's speech was more balanced and sound.
- Where is the way out?
- We are now in actual blockade. I think the meeting of the Presidents of
Russia and Georgia is obligatory. Besides, it is the Georgian President who
should take the initiative. The relations will not improve without the
high-level meeting, moreover they might deteriorate.
- Can Russia toughen the sanctions still more?
- Russia has many levers of pressure. It may stop the supply of gas and oil
products. Once we have other gas, we can speak on different terms. When the
gas pipeline was blown up, we accused the Russian authorities. Indeed,
someone blew it up but it might be an Ossetian, a Russian or a Georgian! The
Russian authorities had no motivation for the explosion of the pipeline: we
buy gas from them and at quite high prices. In the future, it might grow
even more expensive. So that Russia may enact quite a lot of levers, as I
already mentioned... I think Russia's irritation comes from the dislocation
of its bases. I also was categorical about their liquidation. They mostly
withdrew the bases. As for Akhalkalaki base, it was decided back in 1998,
however I was not very anxious to dislocate the base, since several
thousands of locals were employed there, while we did not have an
opportunity to give them jobs. By the way, during my presidency we
dislocated the Russian military base from Vaziani without any scandal. I
think the dislocation of the Akhalkalaki base was not a very urgent issue.
- You mean to say that Putin must not be negatively disposed to the
Georgians?
- Actually he was not. I will bring an example. I always tried to have as a
priority Georgia's good relations with both Russia and US, as far as it is
possible. The recent meeting with Putin took place in Alma Ata. I told him
about my request to USA for support in army training. He was a bit upset
over it and said that Russia could also help. Then by the end of the summit,
someone asked him about his attitude to US supporting the Georgian army.
Putin turned around and replied, "Georgia is an independent country with a
right for choice. If it views America as its friend, how can we object?" So
we can see that Putin is a flexible person, open to cooperation and
compromise. In Georgia, there is a tough opinion about him, and he is now
thinking over a possible solution. Our tense relations really need
discharging.
- What is your opinion about the special operations of the Interior
Ministry, which often end up with victims...
- During my presidency, there was an escape of the prisoners but we did not
shoot them... Law is binding for all! So when the officials neglect the law,
it is already troublesome.
- It is a fact that you personally expressed condolences to the Girgvliani
family (scandalous murder of the young man, in which high-ranking officials
are involved - Trans.), while Mikhail Sahakashvili is still silent about
this barbarous crime.
- It is impossible in a normal country. I am convinced that sooner or later
the President will provide adequate assessment of this murder, and the
public will be informed about his decision. I repeat that it is the case in
a normal country, and if we are neither a normal country nor have a normal
president, we can expect any trouble. I am convinced that Sahakashvili will
give a proper assessment of the incident. He is well aware that he should
give his reaction to such facts.
COMPLICATED ISSUES
| "Milliyet" newspaper (Turkey) | Sami Kohen | 16-May-2006 |
When Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper made a statement on April 24 in
support of the Armenian Genocide allegations, it slipped the attention of
the Canadian public. The Canadian media took up this issue only after Turkey
has summoned its Ambassador in Ottawa Aydemir Erman to Ankara for
consultation. This speech by the Prime Minister is not the first event in
Canada, supporting Armenian Genocide allegations. In Canada, there are a
hundred thousand Armenians with an active Armenian lobby. Two years ago, the
Canadian Parliament adopted a law on the recognition of the Genocide. A
large share of it was with the Conservative Party, then oppositional, headed
by Harper. After the victory of the conservatives at the elections, the
Armenian lobby started to pressure the government of the country to ratify
the law adopted by the Parliament. Prime Minister Harper kept to his stance
and made a statement recognizing the fact of Genocide. Thus, the Genocide
allegations are supported in Canada both on parliamentary and government
level.
The Situation is Different in France
In this respect, the situation in Canada and France is different. Thus, In
France the government did not make any clear and official statements,
recognizing the Armenian Genocide. However, today the French Parliament is
considering a draft law, stipulating a punishment for denying the Armenian
Genocide, which is even worse.
The presence and influence of the Armenians in France is a common knowledge.
Internal political factors often make the French parliamentarians take the
side of the Armenian community.
What is the case in Canada? Not only in Canada: in many countries of Latin
America and Europe, where the Armenian communities are not numerous, the
Parliaments take similar decisions.
Herein, the organized activity of the Armenian Diaspora and its influence in
these countries doubtlessly has a large role.
On the other hand, Turkey itself has long abstained from these campaigns. It
cannot boast with effective presentation of its position, nor did it work
out new strategies on the "Armenian issue".
Overall, Ankara takes measures on this issue post factum, and they are
usually short-term. In certain cases, the feedback of Ankara not only lacks
preventive force but also impedes bilateral relations. It has already been
the case with France and other European countries...
Canada's Example
What to do with Canada?
Turkey recalled its ambassador in Ottawa for a few days, and prior to it,
the country did not participate in NATO exercise in Canada...
Alongside such "symbolic" steps, other measures, like weakening of trade and
economic relations, are also discussed. The turnover between the two
countries makes about 1 billion dollars today, and the investments of the
Canadian firms in Turkey - 700 million dollars... Besides, there are other
important joint projects (for example in nuclear energy sphere). The issue
is what will be the practical results of Canada's isolation? Will such a
"punishment" change the position of its authorities? What will be the impact
of the isolation of large international companies on the inflow of
international investments in Turkey as a whole? Shouldn't we think over this
aspect of the issue as well?
IRAN WILL REMIND BAKU OF ITS ANTIIRANIAN STATMENTS, expert from Iran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad milieu announces
| "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) | G. Inanj | 16-May-2006 |
Azerbaijan unwillingly finds itself in the epicenter of regional processes
that are sometimes quite dangerous for it. At this stage official Baku is
given a very disguised role of mediator between the USA and Iran, claiming
to be a regional power. Yet Tehran has not forgiven the official Baku
certain steps and statements on Iran,.
In the exclusive interview to "Zerkalo", given by Iranian expert Jalal
Mohammadi, known in the West for his proximity to the President of Iran
Ahmadinejad, interesting aspects of Azerbaijani policy of official Tehran
can be traced between the lines. Notably, in the West the statements by
Mohammadi are equaled to the opinion of official Tehran.
- The threats of US about attacking Iran that have been going on for four
years is nothing but a psychological war. Washington discusses different
ways, including a military way of solving the uranium enrichment issue in
our country. For this reason some statements voiced by American officials on
the plans of attacking Iran must not be considered as a fact.
- Do you exclude the military attack on Iran?
- The USA cannot apply military force against Iran. In the modern history
our country is a strong state of both Middle East and of Islamic world.
Under the circumstances the intrusion into Iran is not a simple question.
The aim of the Cold War is to present Iran as an unstable country and to
obstruct the development of its cooperation with other countries, including
its neighbors.
The promotion of the idea of how invincible the USA are among the smaller
countries is a part of the US anti-Iranian policy. Washington attempts to
frighten all these states into worshipping it. Contrary to everything I
would like to state that Iran is thoroughly ready for any form of aggression
from the USA, including military.
The US attempts to weaken Iran from inside, to ignite a domestic crisis
bring the Iranians together around the national idea which is today the
nuclear program.
Washington, on the one hand uses international organizations to exercise
pressure on Iran, on the other - it attempts to create ethnic problems
inside the country. the USA allocated 74 million USD for the Iranian
opposition.
- The "Zerkalo" sources in Tbilisi confirm the rumors, disseminated in media
about a certain arrangement between Georgia and USA about the use of
Georgian basin of the Black Sea in the case of military aggression against
Iran. In the US-Iranian confrontation Washington has a different role for
Azerbaijan.
- The leader of Islamic revolution Ayatollah Imam Khomeini once announced
that if the US decides to wage a war against Iraq, they will face a war from
all sides. For me the war from all sides means one thing - all the parties,
supporting the aggressor in the war launch, will get their punishment.
- After the well-known incident during the Second Congress of Azerbaijani,
Baku and Tehran have a concealed tension between them. Does Iran have a
stone in the pocket?
- Much earlier, after the presidents exchanged visits, Baku and Tehran had
positive relations. Yet the anti-Iranian statements at the 2nd Congress of
Azerbaijanis in Baku revealed the lack of firmness in the Iranian policy of
Azerbaijan and set ground for the lack of trust between the countries. Iran
does recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the fact of
Mountainous Karabagh occupation, and the official Baku allows some
questionable people to speak against the territorial integrity of Iran. Such
statements set fertile soil for Armenia and other unfriendly countries to
actively oppose our cooperation. The response of Iran on the statements
questioning the territorial integrity of the country will become known
later.
- You are implying Israel. But the Jewish lobby supports Azerbaijan in the
issues, important for the country, such as confronting Armenian lobby.
- Since the rule of the Popular Front a group of Azerbaijani politicians
believes that by cooperating with Jewish lobby and Israel they can oppose
the Armenian lobby.
The illusions about solving the Mountainous Karabagh conflict with the help
of Jewish lobby have vanished. Not a centimeter of occupied territories has
been liberated as a result of 15-year long cooperation between Baku and
Jerusalem. These politicians obviously are unaware of the priorities of
world political relations. the Western empire has two wings - the Armenian
and Jewish lobby.
- One of the reasons the USA gave up the idea of "colored revolution" in
Azerbaijan is the Iranian policy of Washington and the role given to Baku in
the scenario. The White House did not risk shattering the stable political
situation in the neighboring Azerbaijan before the serious dialogue with
Tehran.
- Firstly, the official Baku has made its conclusions after the Georgian and
Ukrainians events and cleared the government of officials, capable of
supporting the "colored". Also, the Azerbaijani opposition is weak and does
not enjoy the support of the people. No one supports it but for the US
Embassy in Baku.
But the USA are not that omnipotent. Washington did not manage to clear the
way for a <colored> coup in Azerbaijan. Certainly, the refusal of the White
House from the scenario of the power change in Baku also includes the
neighborhood of Azerbaijan and Iran, the Shiite Islam in the two countries,
the culture and history, uniting our nations.
- To a certain extent the lack of solution to the Mountainous Karabagh
conflict also ties the hands of the White House in terms of realization
their interest-related plans. Is it the reason for the recent haste that the
West displays in the Mountainous Karabagh resolution process?
- The haste of the West in the resolution of the conflict is related to the
inner problems in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the international ties of
Azerbaijan and geopolitical situation. The factors listed complicate the
conflict resolution even more. The occupied territories are not liberated at
a negotiations table. Certainly, the war results in losses of human force as
well as inflicts moral and financial damages. What can be done, the
political organization of the world is unfair.
Many countries use the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in their interests.
They use their present status quo, but are in no way interested in the
resolution of the conflict. The continuation of the conflict is in the
interests of France, Russia and Turkey.
Turkey links the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict with the relations between
Armenia and Turkey and the interstate problems. Ankara, waving the
occupation of MK as a flag, tries to prove the aggressive policy of Armenia
and to protect itself against the psychological and political pressure of
Armenian lobby demanding the recognition of the Armenian genocide in the
Ottoman Empire.
************************************************ ***************************
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].
Website: www.mediadialogue.org