Armenian Political News

RFE/RL Report
Mediators Oppose Karabakh Independence, Says Azeri Official
Azerbaijan -- Novruz Mammadov, head of international relations
department of President²s Office, Baku
04.08.2009

The basic principles of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
favored by international mediators preclude international recognition
of the disputed territory's secession from Azerbaijan, according to
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's chief foreign policy aide.

`As is pointed out in the `Madrid principles' and as the
president of Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated in his speeches, the
conflict can be resolved only within the framework of the country's
territorial integrity,' Novruz Mammadov said in an interview with
the APA news agency published on Tuesday. He said future agreements
on Karabakh's status envisaged by the proposed settlement would
amount to clarifying the extent of the Armenian-populated enclave's
autonomy within Azerbaijan.

The claims sharply contrast with Armenian officials' interpretation
of the basic principles which the U.S., French and Russian co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group formally proposed in Madrid in November 2007.
According to them, Karabakh's population would be able to vote for
independence, reunification with Armenia or return under Azerbaijani
in a future referendum to be held years after the liberation of the
Armenian-occupied territories around Karabakh.

The mediators themselves have refused to elaborate on the proposed
vote in their public pronouncements, saying that its practical
modalities have yet to be agreed upon. In a July 10 joint statement,
the U.S., Russian and French presidents said only that Karabakh's
status will be determined `through a legally binding expression of
will.'

The mediators are expected to present the conflicting parties with
what they call an `updated version' of the Madrid principles soon.
Whether or not they plan to make significant changes in the document,
first discussed by Aliyev and Armenia's former President Robert
Kocharian, remains to be seen.

Mammadov claimed that Armenia's current leadership `often changes
its position' and is `not yet daring to take serious steps' in
the peace talks. He also said the mediating powers have stepped up
their pressure on the Armenian side due to a number of factors,
notably the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.


IS THE ARMENIAN-TURKISH RAPPROCHEMENT IN JEOPARDY?
by Liz Fuller
Radio Free Europe
August 3, 2009

Over the past month, Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian has expressed
frustration on three separate occasions that the Turkish government
is apparently backpedaling with regard to its April commitment to
seek ways to

"normalize" bilateral relations without preconditions. Turkey's
response to those statements has been cautiously muted.

Sarkisian first publicly called for unconditional rapprochement between
Turkey and Armenia over a year before his election as president in
February 2008. In September 2008, Turkish President Abdullah Gul
visited Yerevan at Sarkisian's invitation to watch a soccer match
between the two countries' national teams.

Then in April, following months of Swiss-mediated talks, it was
announced that the two sides had agreed on a "road map" intended to
lead to the establishment of formal bilateral relations and to the
opening of their common border.

The first unconfirmed reports of that impending announcement surfaced
in late March and triggered outrage in Azerbaijan, whose leadership
had for years argued that any formal agreement by Turkey on closer
relations with Armenia should be contingent on key concessions by the
latter on the terms for a solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

On June 16, Turkey's Ambassador to Azerbaijan Hulusi Kilic told
Azerbaijan's APA news agency that no steps had been taken to implement
measures outlined in the road map. "Nothing is being done. Nothing
has changed," he was quoted as saying. Commenting on July 21 on
the apparent stalemate, Richard Giragosian, who heads the Armenian
Center for National and International Studies, made the point that
"Turkey is surprised: it underestimated the reaction of Azerbaijan
and overestimated its own leverage."

The lack of progress in implementing the road map, in conjunction
with increasing opposition criticism of the most recent draft of
the so-called Madrid Principles for resolving the Karabakh conflict,
clearly irks Sarkisian. Speaking in Yerevan on July 6 following talks
with visiting Cypriot President Demetris Christofias, Sarkisian said,
"we want to eliminate closed borders remaining in Europe and to build
normal relationships without preconditions. But in that endeavor,
we do not intend to allow [anyone] to use the negotiating process
for misleading the international community."

Three weeks later, on July 28, Sarkisian implied that he might refrain
from traveling to Turkey in October as planned to watch the return
soccer match unless Ankara takes "constructive steps" to "create a
proper environment" for that visit. "I will leave for Turkey if we
have an open border [by then] or stand on the brink of the lifting
of the blockade of Armenia," Sarkisian said.

Then on July 30, at a meeting with young diaspora Armenians, Sarkisian
explicitly rejected attempts to link the desired normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations to progress in resolving the Karabakh
conflict. Sarkisian recalled that Armenia had "found the strength"
to extend a hand in friendship to Turkey despite the legacy of
the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. He said that
"Armenia and Turkey have been conducting negotiations for a whole
year, we have reached agreement on two documents, but now certain
Turkish political forces are trying to put forward preconditions and
link the establishment of diplomatic relations with Armenia to the
Karabakh conflict and to Armenian-Azerbaijani relations."

Sarkisian acknowledged that Turkey is a large and influential
country. But he warned at the same time that "we Armenians are
an independent nation, and it is inadmissible to talk to us in
the language of preconditions. Any tough step brings about a
counterreaction." He did not elaborate.

Some Turkish commentators have suggested that such statements by
Sarkisian could jeopardize the rapprochement process. But Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu took a softer position, saying
that the "cold war" in bilateral relations is over and that the two
countries no longer regard each other as enemies. Davutoglu said he
considers it unlikely that Sarkisian will cancel his plans to visit
Turkey in October.


ARMENIA: YEREVAN'S "FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY" FAILS TO SCORE
Marianna Grigoryan
Eurasia Insight
8/04/09

After almost a year of discussions and declarations about improving
Armenian-Turkish relations, some Armenian analysts say that the
two countries' "football diplomacy" initiative appears to have
stalled. They add that Yerevan's relationship with Ankara appears to
be entering a get-tough phase.

President Serzh Sargsyan's July 28 declaration that he would travel
to Istanbul for an October 14 World Cup qualifying match between
Turkey and Armenia only "if agreements are observed and visible steps
[toward reopening the two countries' border] are taken" is driving
the analysts' conclusions.

Given the welcome reception that Sargsyan's comments received in
Armenia, the president seems more intent on placating vocal critics
at home, who argue that the dâ"~\â~L~Ptente policy toward Ankara
compromises Armenian interests, than he does on forcing Ankara to
reopen its border.

Members of Armenia's influential Diaspora community have been among
the most outspoken presidential critics. At a July 30 meeting with
young Diaspora Armenians, Sargsyan said that Yerevan had made every
effort to reestablish diplomatic ties with Turkey and have the border
reopened, without insisting on conditions for that rapprochement. The
Turks, Sargsyan claimed, did not follow suit.

In May, Ankara expressed its intent to link the reopening of its border
with Armenia with a comprehensive solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Turkey
closed its Armenian border in 1993 in support for ally Azerbaijan in
its war with Armenia over the breakaway territory.

"We understand very well that Turkey is a big and powerful state. We
know perfectly well Turkey's role both in our region and in the world,
but, on the other hand, the Turks must accept that we are Armenians,"
Sargsyan told the Diaspora group. "We are an independent state. We
live now in the 21st century and one cannot speak the language of
preconditions now; any precondition, any tough position, sparks a
counter-reaction."

While such statements are likely to win political points with the
Diaspora, one opposition advisor suggested that Armenia's president
had lost his bearings. "A person would have to be flippant to declare
in April that he is going to Turkey to watch the football match,
and then refuse to go in July," commented Vladimir Karapetian,
foreign relations coordinator for the Armenian National Congress and
a former spokesperson for former Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian. "Sargsyan seems to be lost in a trap, not knowing what
to do."

Meanwhile, other Armenian observers wondered what took the president
so long to start playing hardball with Ankara. "[S]omething is changing
in President Serzh Sargsyan in the right direction, and he has started
to call a spade a spade," said Kiro Manoian, a senior official in the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun Party who oversees
political issues and matters related to Ottoman Turkey's 1915 massacre
of ethnic Armenians. Manoian, along with other opposition members,
contended that Turkey's interest in negotiations with Armenia stems
from a desire to cater to the international community. He argued that
Armenia should have ceased talks immediately after Turkey's statement
about Nagorno-Karabakh.

Heritage Party MP Stepan Safarian agreed, but said that Sargsyan's
declaration was "better late than never." Independent political
analyst Yerevand Bozoian echoed that assessment. "The notorious
football diplomacy is coming to an end," he commented.

But if Sargsyan's attitude toward Turkey has changed, that does not
mean that his policies will, these commentators predict. The framework
for a Karabakh resolution is reportedly slotted for a makeover by
October, an event that could delay any move to transform Armenia's
policy toward Turkey. "I don't think any real changes will take place
before October," Bozoian said. "Most likely, the Armenian president
will not go to Turkey to watch the football match. Turkey will take
some steps, again, seeking political dividends."

Ruben Safrastian, a Turkish studies expert and director of the
National Academy of Sciences's Institute of Oriental Studies, says that
Turkey will continue to strive to improve relations with Armenia, but
cautions that predicting Yerevan's response is not yet possible. "The
two countries are fighting diplomatically," Safrastan said. "I don't
think there will be fundamental changes in the near future."

Editor's Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based
in Yerevan.

Turkish National Assembly Blocks Distribution of Genocide

Book to Members
By Ayse Gunaysu • on August 7, 2009 •

Armenian Weekly columnist Ayse Gunaysu reports from Istanbul on yet another effort

by the Turkish Grand National Assembly to stifle discussion about the Blue Book.

The delivery of the Blue Book to the members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly

(TGNA) has been rejected by the Speaker of the TGNA. The 550 copies of the new

authorized Turkish translation of “The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

1915-1916,” a 1916 publication of the British Parliament known as the Blue Book, had

been individually packed and addressed to each member of the TGNA after the launch

of the book in Ankara by Lord Avebury, vice-chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights

Group and Ara Sarafian, director of the Gomidas Institute, on June 26, 2009. The 550

copies were returned to the printing house. Delivery through a cargo company in Ankara

was later arranged.

The Turkish edition of Blue Book released in Ankara was published by the Gomidas

Institute (London), which had also published the uncensored editions of the original 1916

publication, edited and with an introduction by Ara Sarafian, in 2000 and 2005 respectively.

A report published in the August 5 issue of the daily Hurriyet revealed the truth behind the

TGNA’s refusal of the books. In a news item by Hurriyet correspondent Sefa Kaplan,

Sukru Elekdag is quoted to have said that it was he who called Speaker Koksal Toptan

(the deputy of the ruling AKP) and told him not to give permission for the distribution of

the books.

Here is how Sukru Elekdag justified his action: “Toynbee had himself confessed that the

book was a collection of lies. I consider it my duty to stop the delivery of the books. I

don’t think that this is censorship. It is inappropriate to let a book which is nothing but

a propaganda tool distributed and promoted.”

Sukru Elekdag said he hadn’t received any invitation from Sarafian but he is ready to

discuss the Blue Book issue with Sarafian either in England or in Turkey.

Ragip Zarakolu, the owner of the Belge Publishing House and the Vice-Chair of the Human

Rights Association in Turkey, organized the delivery of the books through a cargo company.

He said the ban on the book by the Speaker of TGNA was a scandal and a usurpation of

the right of MP’s to exercise their free will. Zarakolu said they will send the copies to the

home addresses of the TGNA members.

Contacted by phone, Ara Sarafian commented, “Elekdag is concerned about his own legacy.

He has misled and compromised the TGNA on the Blue Book issue for many years. Now

he wants to stop his colleagues from finding out what he has done. We will invite Elekdag

to a public meeting and hold him accountable for his views.”

Sukru Elekdag is a retired ambassador and the architect of Turkey’s domestic and

international strategy against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. He was the one

behind the well-known TGNA letter to the British Parliament, signed by 550 members,

demanding the withdrawal of the Blue Book and acknowledgement of the fact that it is

nothing but a war-time propaganda tool, a “fabrication.”

For more information about the blue book issue, including copies of the invitations sent to

Elekdag and his colleagues for a dialogue regarding the Blue Book see www.gomidas.org.
Blue Book Sent to Turkish Parliamentarians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~