Turkish Forum

Category: Cyprus/TRNC

  • Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

    Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

    From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]

    ergun_s

    The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

    Case one:  Azerbaijan.

    The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly.  Check out these recent developments:

    1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

    2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

    3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

    https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

    4-  Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

    When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan.  If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia.  Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out.  We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package.  Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

    April 24 is not far away.  We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines.  (Prediction:  the latter.  Why?  Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out.  Huge mistake!)

    Case two: Israel

    This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

    TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

    Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

    Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

    My take on all this:

    I am not against dialog or peace.  I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

    The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

    Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

  • The Cypriot Stumbling Block

    The Cypriot Stumbling Block

    naamloos

    This analysis by Robert Ellis was first published at PoliGazette.

    Like Ireland, Cyprus has been a victim of geography and both are today still divided. As the Arab geographer Muqaddasi wrote in 985: “The island of Qubrus is in the power of whichever nation is overlord in these seas”. And with its position 40 miles off the southern coast of Turkey and 70 miles from Syria it has been a strategic prize for centuries.

    This outpost of Hellenic civilisation was conquered by the Crusaders in the twelfth century to secure their route to the Holy Land and later by Venice. When Famagusta fell to the Ottomans in 1571, the island’s fate was sealed. Therefore it is ironic that the British took over Cyprus with its mixed population in 1878 as a result of a deal with Turkey to protect the Ottoman Empire against the Russians, who have lurked in the background ever since.

    The island’s Greek identity was emphasized in its support of the Greek revolt against Ottoman rule in 1821 and with the participation of both the Greek Cypriot majority and the Turkish Cypriot minority in a legislative council under British rule. When other Greek islands under Turkish occupation such as Crete and the Dodecanese were united with Greece, the same demand grew in Cyprus. As a result, a plebiscite held among Greek Cypriots in 1950 showed a 96.5 percent support for enosis (union with Greece).

    As the British were only prepared to give the Cypriots limited self determination, a terrorist organisation EOKA was formed, which in 1955 launched a campaign to force Britain to withdraw. But the campaign was counter-productive, as this was met by the formation of the Turkish Cypriot paramilitary TMT with a demand for taksim (partition).

    However, as Britain depended on the Middle East for 70 percent of its oil imports, it was not prepared to give up control of the island. As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden put it at the time: “No Cyprus, no certain facilities to protect our supply of oil. No oil, unemployment and hunger in Britain. It’s as simple as that.”

    Consequently, Britain invited both Greece and Turkey to a conference in London to discuss questions concerning the Eastern Mediterranean. But as defence minister Selwyn Lloyd explained to the Cabinet before the conference: “Throughout the negotiations our aim would be to bring the Greeks up against the Turkish refusal to accept enosis and so condition them to accept a solution, which would leave sovereignty in our hands.”

    Independence
    The ruse was only partly successful, because under American pressure for guaranteed independence, a deal between was brokered between Greece and Turkey in 1959, which resulted in a power-sharing constitution and independence the following year. A Treaty of Establishment also provided for two permanent British bases, and a Treaty of Guarantee between the new Republic, Greece, Turkey and the UK, prohibited the union of Cyprus with any other state or partition.

    Nevertheless, Greek Cypriot nationalists under the leadership of their new President, Archbishop Makarios, continued to strive for “Enosis and only enosis”. When Makarios three years later proposed a number of amendments to the Constitution, which reduced the status of the Turkish Cypriots to that of a minority, fighting broke out between the two communities. In March 1964 this resulted in a UN resolution to put in a peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, which has been in place for the last 45 years.

    After an attack by the Greek Cypriot National Guard on Turkish Cypriot positions Turkey recciprocated with the bombing of Greek Cypriot villages and the situation was critical. Makarios, who had already joined the non-aligned movement, appealed to the Soviet Union for arms and support, and George Ball, the US Acting Secretary of State, told President Johnson they faced the most dangerous confrontation since the Cuban missile crisis.

    With the additional risk of war between two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, Johnson addressed a severe warning to Turkey against military intervention. Consequently, Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, and Ball put forward a plan for the partition of Cyprus to solve what Johnson had called “one of the most complex problems on earth”.

    Because of US preoccupation with the situation in Vietnam the plan was shelved but another outbreak of fighting in 1967 once again brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. By 1974 Makarios, “the Castro of the Mediterranean”, had succeeded in alienating the Greek junta, Turkey and the United States, who together brought about his downfall.

    Partition
    In July the same year the Greek junta instigated a coup to topple Makarios and five days later – when Britain failed to intervene – Turkey took matters in its own hands and invaded, dividing the island into two zones. The coup failed and Makarios was reinstated but a few months before he died in 1977 he came to the conclusion: “It is in the name of enosis Cyprus has been destroyed.”

    Since 9/11 the strategic importance of the island has increased and a solution to the Cyprus question is the key to improved relations between EU and NATO. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, which became a member of the EU in 2004, is also a stumbling block to its own accession talks.

    There have been numerous initiatives on the part of the UN to reunify Cyprus, latest the Annan Plan in 2004. This was, however, rejected by the Greek Cypriots, because it failed to provide for the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops and adequate restitution and compensation for the loss of Greek Cypriot property. There is also the fact that Turkey since the occupation has maintained a policy of colonisation and assimilation by mainland Turks.

    In 1983 the Turkish Cypriots declared the northern part of the island to be an independent state, which has only been recognized by Turkey. This, or a confederation with the Greek Cypriot south, is the preferred Turkish solution but recently Turkey has struck an ominous note. In an echo of Germany’s “Heim ins Reich” (Back to the Reich) policy in 1938 Prime Minister Erdogan has indicated his patience is exhausted and Foreign Minister Davutoglu cannot say whether Turkey has reached its final borders as established by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty.

    Given Turkey’s strategic importance, it would be unfortunate if Europe faced a new Sudetenland crisis, which would put an end to Turkey’s prospects of EU membership. And to do as Neville Chamberlain and dismiss the Cyprus issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” could be fatal.

    Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in Denmark and from 2005-2008 was a frequent contributor to the Turkish Daily News.

  • A new role for Turkey

    A new role for Turkey

    Friday, October 16, 2009

    Article |

    The Boston Globe | A new role for Turkey By Stephen Kinzer
    October 15, 2009

    REACHING LAST weekend’s diplomatic breakthrough between Turkey and Armenia was not easy. It took six weeks of secret talks in Switzerland, seven last-minute phone calls from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the two countries’ foreign ministers, and a wild ride in a Zurich police car, lights flashing and siren shrieking, for a Turkish diplomat carrying a revised draft of the accord.

    This breakthrough could also be said to have taken 16 years, the length of time the Turkey-Armenia border has been shut, or 94 years, the time that has passed since Ottoman Turkish forces slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Armenians in what is now eastern Turkey.

    In the end, pragmatism prevailed over emotion. Armenia is a poor, landlocked country that desperately needs an outlet to the world. Turkey is a booming regional power, but suffers from its refusal to acknowledge the massacres of 1915. With this accord, each side helps solve the other’s problem. The border is to be reopened and diplomatic relations restored, giving Armenia a chance to rejoin the world. Questions about what happened in 1915 – was it genocide? – will be submitted to historians for “impartial scientific examination.’’

    The most bizarre aspect of this process was the effort by Armenians in France and the United States to derail it. Earlier this month in Paris, President Serge Sarkisian of Armenia was met by shouts of “Traitor!’’ and had to be protected by riot police. The potent Armenian-American lobby also rallied against the accord.

    If President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran proposed that impartial historians examine the question of whether the Holocaust actually happened, most Jews would presumably accept happily. The failed rebellion by Armenians in the diaspora suggests that some are trapped by the past; their cousins back home, meanwhile, seek a better future.

    “There is no alternative to the establishment of relations with Turkey without any precondition,’’ Sarkisian said as the new accord was signed. “It is the dictate of the time.’’

    Both parliaments must ratify the accord. There will be disagreements over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, which Armenia occupies but which the rest of the world considers part of Azerbaijan, Turkey’s ally. Nonetheless, both countries seem resolved to thaw this long-frozen conflict. They will probably do whatever necessary to overcome remaining obstacles.

    The accord will allow trade between the two countries to resume. It will also make it easier for Armenians to visit magnificent monuments from their past that lie within modern-day Turkey. Beyond that, it has far-reaching geopolitical importance.

    For nearly all of its 86 years as a state, Turkey has kept a low profile in the world. Those days are over. Now Turkey is reaching for a highly ambitious regional role as a conciliator and peacemaker.

    When Turkish officials land in bitterly divided countries like Lebanon or Afghanistan or Pakistan, every faction is eager to talk to them. No country’s diplomats are as welcome in both Tehran and Jerusalem, Moscow and Tblisi, Damascus and Cairo. As a Muslim country intimately familiar with the region around it, Turkey can go places, engage partners, and make deals that the United States cannot.

    This new Turkish role holds tantalizing potential. Before Turkey can play it fully, though, it must put its own house in order. That is one reason its leaders were so eager to resolve their country’s dispute with Armenia.

    Turkey has one remaining international problem to resolve: Cyprus. Then it must solidify its democracy at home. That means lifting restrictions on free speech and fully respecting minority rights not just those of Kurds, whose culture has been brutalized by decades of repression, but also those of Christians, non-mainstream Muslims, and unbelievers.

    Under other circumstances, Egypt, Pakistan, or Iran might have emerged to lead the Islamic world. Their societies, however, are weak, fragmented, and decomposing. Indonesia is a more promising candidate, but it has no historic tradition of leadership and is far from the center of Muslim crises. That leaves Turkey. It is trying to seize this role. Making peace with Armenia was an important step. More are likely to come soon.

    Stephen Kinzer is the author of “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq.’’
    © Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

  • Turkey rides on Irish ‘yes’ to promote EU entry

    Turkey rides on Irish ‘yes’ to promote EU entry

    Published: Monday 5 October 2009   

    Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, said an Irish ‘yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty would create the legal conditions for future EU enlargements and pleaded passionately for his country’s accession to the Union.

    Turkey can help Europe to become a major player on the international stage if Turkey is admitted to the club, Davutoglu said. He further insisted that his country was not making these efforts “for PR” reasons, but to help the EU.

    Davutoglu, a professor and political scientist, was speaking in Brussels on Friday (2 October), as Irish voters were being called to the ballot box for a second time to decide on the Lisbon Treaty.

    There, he met with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in his capacity as representative of the rotating EU presidency.

    The Turkish diplomat said his country was a key regional player and was already playing the role of “honest broker” in a number of conflicts in which EU countries have little leverage. 

    Davutoglu gave many examples of Turkey’s mediator role in conflicts in the Middle East, the Caucasus or during ongoing tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme. He said his country was pursuing a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbours, with all of whom he said relations were “very good”.

    Asked by journalists about his country’s relations with Greece, where a number of bilateral problems persist (EurActiv 28/08/09, EurActiv 03/07/09), Davutoglu explained that there were “of course difficulties”. But he said there was a big difference compared to the situation 10-15 years ago, because problems were now being dealt with constructively “without escalating tensions”. He even called Turkish-Greek relations “excellent”.

    On Cyprus, Davutoglu accused the Greek Cypriot side of not being constructive in ongoing reunification talks held under UN patronage (EurActiv 30/09/09). Among other things, he blamed the president of Cyprus, Dimitris Christofias, for having declined a meeting in New York in trilateral format, with Turkish Cypriot negotiator Mehmet Ali Talat and a Turkish delegation. He said that for the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots were “semi-human beings,” while Greek Cypriots were “super human beings”.

  • Turkey’s EU Membership: Will the ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?

    Turkey’s EU Membership: Will the ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?

    Caucasus Update No. 49, October 5, 2009

    Caucasian Review of International Affairs

    )

    Turkey’s foreign policy, as emphasised by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, is to have ‘zero problems with neighbours’ (Today’s Zaman, September 13). This is, first and foremost, intended to stabilise Turkey’s complex regional environment and ensure Turkey’s reputation as a peacemaker. It is also, more tactically, intended to boost Turkey’s long-running EU membership application. Ankara hopes to show that it is a responsible, and indeed indispensable, partner for Europe in Eurasia and the Middle East.
    The rapprochement with Armenia, which seems to be gathering pace, is sometimes interpreted in this light. Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, Egemen Bağış, stated in early September that he expected the ‘Armenian opening’ to help Turkey’s EU bid (Today’s Zaman, September 2). However, this view is rather optimistic. In reality, normalization of relations with Armenia will have a marginal effect on Turkey’s EU application, at best.

     

    In truth, the EU has never been particularly concerned about the closed border between Armenia and Turkey. European policy towards the South Caucasus as a whole has been patchy and vague. It took the war in Georgia for the EU to take an active stance, and in truth this was mainly the product of Nicolas Sarkozy’s energetic diplomacy as EU President, rather than any institutional determination on behalf of the whole Union.

     

    The EU Monitoring Mission now keeping the peace between Georgia and Russia is welcome: however, as the Caucasus Update has argued before, the lack of subsequent hostilities is due to Russia’s lack of interest in a new conflict, not the EU’s efforts (Caucasus Update, March 16).

     

    The EU has been less concerned about the Turkish-Armenian confrontation and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Europe has let the OSCE take the lead on Karabakh, and has been content to sit back and express its support for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. There is little appetite within Brussels, for instance, for an EU peacekeeping force to be deployed in such a tense environment.

     

    However, the EU still has an interest in preventing major conflicts in the ‘wider European space’. The cold war between Turkey and Armenia does not pose this risk. Although Turkish troops might intervene in the event of a new Karabakh war, they did not do so in the early 1990s, partly out of a desire to maintain a semblance of a balanced policy towards the conflict. Ankara, now more than ever, values its role as a peacemaker. Military intervention would destroy that reputation and cripple Turkey’s EU accession hopes.

     

    Without a risk of war, it is clear that the thaw between Armenia and Turkey is hardly at the top of the EU’s list of priorities. Brussels already has evidence of Turkey’s good intentions as a regional mediator: it is currently negotiating between Iraq and Syria (BBC, August 31), has been intermittently involved in the Israel-Palestine peace process, and has also been quietly acting as a bridge between the West and Iran. Although welcome, opening the border with Armenia would not be a ‘game-changer’ in Turkey’s relationship with the EU.

     

    Indeed, the two biggest game-changers in Ankara’s membership talks are Cyprus and the ‘Kurdish question’. Cyprus is, superficially, similar to the Armenian issue – an inter-state dispute with deep roots, which currently hinges on a closed border and diplomatic recognition. Unlike the Armenian issue, Cyprus is an EU member. Consequently, the dispute with Cyprus is the biggest single stumbling block in Turkey’s EU application.

     

    Clearly it is not the only issue – there are 35 ‘chapters’ on which Ankara must satisfy Brussels, and only one (science and research) has been completed. But Cyprus’ significance is such that, when Turkey failed to apply a 2005 protocol on free movement of goods and people to the Cypriot government, the EU insisted that no ‘chapters’ could be closed, and that several would not be discussed until it had applied the protocol. The stakes are hardly as high in the Armenian thaw.

     

    The Kurdish question is less significant than Cyprus, but more so than Armenia. The EU is reluctant to move forward on membership talks with a state which still – despite much recent progress – faces a serious ethnic insurgency. Until Ankara can, in the eyes of Brussels, get its house in order and negotiate a peaceful settlement with its Kurdish population, it will continue to be viewed as an irresponsible and unsuitable candidate for membership by some within Brussels.

     

    It is instructive to look at the question in reverse. If, for instance, Turkey had resolved Cyprus and the Kurdish question, but had failed to make headway on opening the Armenian border, would this impede its membership process? It is unlikely.

     

    Indeed, the only EU members which would be likely to turn the Armenian issue into an obstacle would be those – notably France – which already oppose Turkish accession.  Most pragmatists in Brussels would probably be willing to move on, and urge Ankara towards an open border whilst continuing the membership negotiations.

     

    It would be wrong to think that the EU does not value the thaw between Turkey and Armenia. It does improve Turkey’s reputation. But that reputation is already high, for more important reasons. And it is not the lack of an open border with Armenia – which the EU has little interest in – which is blocking Ankara’s accession to the Union. Until Cyprus and the Kurdish question are resolved, whether or not the Armenian border is open will be a minor footnote in Turkey’s relationship with Brussels.

     

    Caucasian Review of International Affairs

    Eppsteiner str 2, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
    Tel: +49 69 138 76 684
    E-mail: contact@cria-online.org
    Web: www.cria-online.org

  • Erdoğan warns world about KKTC’s future status

    Erdoğan warns world about KKTC’s future status

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sits next to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council at UN headquarters.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has warned the international community that the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) as an independent state will have to be acknowledged if the ongoing talks to reunite the island fail, signaling that his government might revise its pro-reunification stance in effect since it first came to power in 2002.

    “It must be understood that negotiations cannot last forever, the present window of opportunity cannot stay open forever and there is an absolute need to make the process successful,” Erdoğan said on Thursday at the UN’s 64th General Assembly.

    By “process,” Erdoğan was referring to a revived peace process between the island’s Greek and Turkish Cypriots, who have lived divided since 1974, when Turkey militarily intervened in the north of the island in response to a Greek-inspired coup.

    Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias broke a four-year stalemate on talks in March 2008 and have been engaged in face-to-face negotiations with the goal of reunifying the island. Previous reunification efforts on Cyprus collapsed in 2004, when Greek Cypriots rejected a settlement blueprint drafted by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and accepted by Turkish Cypriots.

    ‘If a solution cannot be reached because of the Greek 
    side's rejection then normalizing the status of the Turkish 
    Republic of Northern Cyprus in the global arena will be a 
    must that can no longer be delayed’

    Erdoğan said a comprehensive settlement can be achieved if the parties are constructive. “If not, the UN secretary-general should step in as in 2004. We are aiming for a referendum in the spring of 2010 at the latest. But if a solution cannot be reached because of the Greek side’s rejection, as in 2004, then normalizing the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the international arena will be a must that can no longer be delayed,” Erdoğan added.

    According to sources at the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister Erdoğan reminded the world community at the UN that Turkey has a Plan B. “Turkey will be engaged in efforts to provide recognition for the KKTC if the Greek side rejects a proposed solution,” the source said.

    The Turkish side often reiterates that there is a serious inequality in negotiations because Turkish Cypriots are isolated in every sphere and are unable to even play an international soccer match while Greek Cypriots comfortably enjoy international recognition and EU membership. In addition, Turkey’s entry into the European Union partly hinges on a peace deal in Cyprus, whose Greek Cypriot population represents the island in the EU.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attended the G-20 meeting in the US city of Pittsburg with his wife, Emine. The two posed for a photo with US President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, ahead of the meeting.
    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attended the G-20 meeting in the US city of Pittsburg with his wife, Emine. The two posed for a photo with US President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, ahead of the meeting.

    “Turkish Cypriots are still faced with unjust isolation. It is not right to expect the Turkish Cypriot party to pay the cost of deadlock,” Erdoğan also said. “What the prime minister has voiced at the UN is not new, but his words make the case stronger that Turkey will make an effort for the KKTC’s recognition if all other efforts fail to reunify the island,” said Özdem Sanberk, a former foreign ministry undersecretary and a foreign policy analyst.

    “The prime minister’s words should not be perceived as a threat. We are saying that we are ready for a solution similar to the Annan plan, but if it is rejected by the Greek side, there is no escape from a de facto KKTC state,” Sanberk told Today’s Zaman. “The Greek side should understand this message in the right way.”

    But he added that the problem is that the status quo is not bothersome for the Greek side because they are already in the EU.

    “If Turkey starts diplomatic efforts for the recognition of the KKTC, the Greek side will then start to act, and a war of attrition is likely. So the prime minister’s words reveal a hidden threat,” Sanberk said. Observers agree that the window of opportunity is small for a solution in Cyprus and that it could start to close in late 2009 as preparations begin for Turkish Cypriot parliamentary and presidential elections in February and April 2010, respectively.

    Former diplomat Temel İskit evaluated the situation as “the last chance.” “Conditions are ripe, but on both sides there are people who do not want a solution,” he told Today’s Zaman.

    “If the result of a referendum shows that the Greek side is rejecting a solution, then the Greek side will be seen as responsible for non-settlement,” he said. “And so the prime minister is warning about what could happen in such a situation.”

    Meanwhile, the KKTC’s Talat told reporters on Thursday in New York that the international community has an important role in finding a solution to the Cyprus problem. He added that the KKTC is working in close cooperation with Turkey for a solution in Cyprus and that Prime Minister Erdoğan’s words were “beneficial and meaningful.”

    Asked when he would meet with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Talat said a specific date was not yet set but that they would meet in the coming days. He said he had meetings with British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

    Talat also said he wanted to meet with Christofias in New York but did not want to have an official meeting with him. Talat is expected to meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu as well as officials from Turkey’s permanent representation at the UN.

    ‘Turkish-Armenian relations at new level’

    Addressing the UN General Assembly, Erdoğan said Turkey is an element of peace and stability in its region.

    “Problems in our region have global consequences. Therefore, our constructive and conciliatory policy in the region contributes to global peace as well,” he said and added that the ongoing dialogue process between Turkey and Greece was a concrete example of such an approach and that efforts aiming at the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations were yielding fruitful results.

    Erdoğan, speaking at Princeton University on Thursday, said Turkish-Armenian relations have reached a new level through Swiss mediation. “I believe agreements we have initialed could be submitted to Parliament if political biases and concerns do not get in the way,” he said, adding that the government can possibly bring the issue to Parliament by Oct. 10 or 11.

    Meanwhile, the Armenian and Turkish presidents will be meeting in Switzerland on Oct. 10 to sign the two diplomatic protocols, which are then to be submitted to the Turkish and Armenian parliaments, as sources revealed the current Turkish-Armenian diplomatic plan.

    ‘World should fulfill its promises to the Gazans’

    In his address to the UN General Assembly, Erdoğan said Turkey expects countries of the region to share the same vision for peace, security and stability.

    Stressing the importance of Iraq’s territorial integrity, political unity and domestic peace, he said that Turkey attached great importance to the establishment of a national consensus in the country as well as the continuation of a political dialogue focusing on all segments of Iraqi society.

    Commenting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Erdoğan said Turkey has always supported the Palestinians. He also brought up the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza last winter, in which close to 1,400 Palestinians, including 252 children, were killed in Israel’s attacks.

    He called on the international community to fulfill its promises to the Gazans.

    26 September 2009, Saturday
    YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN İSTANBUL

    Source: www.todayszaman.com, Sep 26, 2009