Category: Main Issues

  • Bahraini King suggests rail link between GCC, Turkey

    Bahraini King suggests rail link between GCC, Turkey

    His Majesty the King, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s suggestion to establish a railway link between the GCC states and Turkey has been welcomed by observers as a strategic vision for a bright economic and political future for the region.

    Half of the ambitious project would be carried out by Saudi Arabia while the rest would be taken care of by the other GCC states which will enact laws and put in place mechanisms to implement the suggestion.

    During his recent visit to Turkey, King Hamad laid the moral cornerstone for the economic integration with Turkey through the project connecting Turkey with the Arabian Gulf.

    Observers did not expect such a suggestion and said it was the perfect time to start working on it thanks to the economic and political options offered by Turkey and the GCC states.

    There is a proposal to set up a link from Oman, the uae, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq and then to Turkey. Another proposal suggests the network to start from Oman, the uae, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria to Turkey.

    The King Fahad Causeway will be the integral part in either project to reach Turkey.

    The gcc states set up a financial plan for the project by signing an agreement to establish a free trade zone with Turkey in May, 2005 in Bahrain. Negotiations are expected to start to implement the agreement.

    Bahrain has signed agreements with Turkey on avoidance of dual taxation and tax evasion to provide suitable atmosphere to attract investment.

    During the dinner banquet hosted in King Hamad’s honour, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said HM the King’s visit was a turning point in friendly ties between both countries.

    Gul said Istanbul paid great attention to the agreement on promoting strategic dialogue between Turkey and the gcc states.

    Turkish people believe that their economic potential meets the region’s demands and their country is a secure place for investment.

    King Hamad highlighted Turkey’s importance in the region and said the country links Asia and Europe and seeks peace, freedom and development for all which is the goal of every body in the Gulf.

    © Bahrain Tribune 2008

    Source: www.zawya.com, 1 Septewmber 2008

  • France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    Currently holding the EU Council Presidency, France, which assumes it as a duty to give human rights and democracy lessons to the world, is now being accused of genocide.

    Because of its role in the events that occurred between two tribes in 1994 and resulted in the death of 800 thousands of people, France is officially accused of genocide with a report declared by Rwandan government on August 5th 2008. In the report prepared by the Rwandan Investigatory Committee, it is mentioned that “The support of France had a political, military, diplomatic and logistical nature”.

    In the 500-pages report of the Commission, it is stated that France was aware of the genocide arrangements, took part in these arrangements, and played an active role in the murders. France is also being accused of providing intelligence, strategy and military support to the perpetrators of genocide, contributing to the determination of the list of people to be murdered, providing weapons, being directly involved in the killings. The commission suggests Rwandan government in its report that “Formal allegations against the French government should be submitted to the international institutions, legal action should be brought and 33 French political and military officials should be brought to trial”.

    The Investigatory Committee also makes heavy accusations against French soldiers who were on duty during the military operation carried out by France in June-August 1994 under the guise of “humanitarian assistance”. Rwandan Ministry of Justice tells in its statement on the issue that “French soldiers were also directly involved in the genocide, they killed Tutsis and those Hutus who had been blamed for hiding Tutsis, and they raped many Tutsi people who survived”. The Ministry of Justice emphasizes that “France’s great support for, decisiveness in and insistence on the murder policy in Rwanda prove that French military and political officials were accomplices in the execution and arrangement of Tutsi genocide in 1994”.

    Among the French officials who are being accused in the report are the President of the time Francois Mitterand, Prime Minister Eduard Balladur, Foreign Affairs Minister Alain Juppé, his former chief of staff Dominiques de Villepin, Elysee Secretary General Hubert Véedrine.

    As is known, the downing of the French airplane aboard which Rwandan and Burundian presidents were traveling in 1994, resulted in the incitement of massacres in Rwanda. It had been found out that the missiles used in the sabotage against the plane had come from the arsenal of the French army. All of the three French pilots had died in this sabotage.

    According to the United Nations, the genocide that resulted in the death of so many people in April-July 1994 had been “planned” for the annihilation of Tutsis by Hutus. In the statements made by the UN at different times, it was told that French companies had continued to supply weapons to this country even after the UN imposed arms embargo to Rwanda and that the UN had been warned about the massacres three months ago, but the initiatives for a resolution to be taken by the Security Council for tasking the UN troops in order to prevent any massacre had been hindered by France.

    Despite all these developments, French administration insistently continues to avoid making any explanation showing repentance. It is reported that in the course of the preparation of the report, France has been making efforts to prevent genocide allegations from getting official recognition by pressuring Rwandan government through a variety of means, Rwandans did not yield to pressures, and they opted for the truth to come to light.

    When the report was announced, France strictly rejected the accusations against its former political administrators and military officials and Romain Nadal, the Spokesman of the Foreign affairs Ministry, told that there were “unacceptable” accusations against French political and military leaders in the report prepared by the Committee; and this stance of France is accepted as an example of typical “French custom of denial”.

    Rwandan genocide is unfortunately neither the first nor the last damage to the humanity caused by France with its wars and intrigues. Despite all its denials, the dark past of France is full of serious crimes against humanity.

    This decision on genocide is not the first accusation against France in the international arena. In June 2006, French State and Railway Company “were convicted of playing a role in the transportation of the Jews to the concentration camps during the Second World War” and were ordered to pay compensation. The French Railway Company also had similar convictions previously.

    It has been already written in the pages of history that France subjected 1 million people in Algeria to genocide with its attacks directed at innocent civilians during the Second World War and that it attempted to annihilate Algerian people by torturing 25.000 people and with the extrajudicial killings of 3.025 persons. In the course of the investigations into what happened in Algeria, it was established that in the murky operations of certain Algerian terrorist groups, there was a forth individual, mostly a police officer or a military security officer who accompanied them and that these terrorist groups confirmed that the police, military security or SDCE (French Secret Services) and a subordinate secret service called GIC gave them information slips and thus indicated their targets; in short, it is known they carried out the filthy activities on behalf of the police and the republican army.

    In that period, the Algerian Muslims called Harkis, who were conscripted in the French army, were disappointed with the result of their attempts to take refuge in France after the independence of Algeria. Only for 42 thousand of them, they had provided homes. Upon the request of De Gaulle in 1962, they were housed behind barbed wire deep in the French forests in small uncomfortable barracks constructed hastily. This is an interesting example of what has happened to the collaborators of the French against the independence of their country.

    Turkey is also one of the countries that have been targeted by France for her obscure policies. During World War I, France had occupied Ottoman territory and massacred millions of innocent civilian people. As a result of “the friendship ties that had strengthened for centuries” between the Armenians and France, the Armenian gangs were provided with arms in the end of the 19th century and provoked to rebel against the Ottoman Empire. Part of the members of these Armenian gangs who did not succeed to pull away territory from Turkey at the end of World War I, fled to France.

    These Armenians, who went to Marseilles, were brought together in the Oddo camp which had extremely bad housing conditions. The Oddo camp was officially closed down in 1928, but actually in 1935. Not any Armenian could leave the camp without a working contract. The authorities treated these Armenians like stateless people, but when France fought with Germany they were sent as soldiers constituting another hypocrisy in history that the French have to account for.

    It is still fresh in our minds that – until it caused harm to the country with the Orly attack – France did not show any reaction for years against the terrorist organization ASALA, which came into existence in the 1970’s and was known for its attacks against Turkish targets especially diplomats, and that France felt sympathy for the Armenian terrorists and adopted a tolerating attitude.

    In the 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist organizations changed their tactics upon the reactions they received from the world’s public opinion and resorted to cooperation with the terrorist PKK. The PKK was known for its attacks against Turkey and became now affiliated with ASALA which killed diplomats. These facts were stated many times by the relevant experts and supported with evidence. In spite of this, France did not take any measure against these terrorist organizations that were hostile towards Turkey and refrained from cooperation. This was extremely meaningful….

    When talking about “France” and “terror”, one of the names that comes up in our minds is Mitterand and his wife who are also accused for the genocide in Rwanda. The Turkish public opinion knows these two very well. The support provided by France to the PKK has increased considerably due to the foreign policy understanding of Mitterand and maybe also a little bit due the effect of the “special protection” shown to the PKK by First Lady Daniella Mitterand as a result of her “personal friendship” with Head of the Paris Kurdish Institute Kemdal Nezan. Consequently, France has become one of the most important bases of this terrorist organization in Europe. And it appears that France still continues to welcome terrorist groups that have no other aim than being hostile to Turkey.

    However, the Armenian diaspora in France as well as the terrorist organizations, that are striving against the independence and/or territorial integrity of other countries, are collaborating with France without foreseeing what will happen to them by trying to understand what has happened to those who betrayed Algeria, Rwanda and the Ottoman State. In the future, as it has happened before, France shall push aside the traitors in accordance with its own interests or shall, instead of her own children, send the traitors to other wars to die.

    As a matter of fact, it is not a coincidence that France is pronounced whenever we talk about a massacre, war or genocide at any place of the world. While she has a history of colonization, she continued her aggressive, expansionist policies in the 21st century. She holds control of an important part of the world’s arms trade. Her national income is bolstered with the blood shed in other countries darkly shadowing world peace. Every year, more than 300 thousand people are being killed on the world with conventional weapons. Even more people are being wounded, violated in their rights, forcefully deported and left helpless. In 2005, 82% of all the arms transfer on the world was realized by five countries. One of these countries is France. Thus, France has an important portion in the world’s arms trade. A war that is staged at any place on the world is sustaining the French economy.

    In France there is still a longing for colonization and laws that praise the era of imperialism and slavery are still in force. Although these raise some doubts about the long-term foreign policy goals of France, at present they talk about a “French crisis” on the world. Certain historians say that the “regression process” of this country started with the Prussian-French War in 1870. Although France won in World War I on paper, this was actually the beginning of the end. World War II followed by the Cold War era caused polarization between the USA and the USSR as a result of which France regressed even more and in the international arena this country was not taken so seriously anymore.

    The time has come for France to refresh her memory and encounter her past not only because of its inhuman acts in Rwanda, but also in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, in Algeria and in the other colonies.

    France should accept the role that she has played in the genocides throughout her history and apologize for that. French politicians and military officials that are responsible for the genocide in Rwanda should face trial in the international court for war criminals.

    In spite of everything is there still freedom, equality, brotherhood?…

    The Organization for the Commemoration of the Genocide Victims

    (SKAO)

  • Turkish Bodyguards ‘Preparing For’ Gul’s Trip To Armenia

    Turkish Bodyguards ‘Preparing For’ Gul’s Trip To Armenia

     

     

     

     

     

    By Ruben Meloyan

    A team of Turkish security officials will reportedly travel to Yerevan this weekend to discuss security measures that would be put in place in the event of President Abdullah Gul’s historic visit to Armenia.

    President Serzh Sarkisian, meanwhile, has again expressed hope that Gul will accept his invitation to arrive in the Armenian capital and watch with him the first-ever game between Armenia’s and Turkey’s national football teams scheduled for September 6.

    Gul said in televised remarks late Wednesday that he is “still considering” the invitation. “What is important is whether such a visit will be useful or not,” he said.

    The Turkish daily “Zaman” reported on Thursday that the Turkish president’s security detail is already preparing for his possible trip and planning to send a “forward unit” of 15 bodyguards to Yerevan. It said they would discuss with their Armenian colleagues security measures in and around the city’s Hrazdan stadium where the qualifying match for the 2010 football World Cup in South Africa will be played.

    “According to current plans, a group from the [Turkish] counterattack team, armed with M5 and M16 rifles, will be responsible for Gul’s security during the visit,” “Zaman” said.

    Another leading Turkish newspaper, “Hurriyet,” said the Foreign Ministry in Ankara is trying to arrange the security team’s visit and is going to contact the Armenian government for that purpose. The paper said the Turks will either approach the Armenian embassy in Georgia or Armenia’s permanent representative at the Istanbul headquarters of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation organization.

    A diplomatic source in Yerevan told RFE/RL that the Armenian side has not been contacted by Ankara as of late Thursday afternoon. Another Armenian source, who asked not to be identified, essentially confirmed the Turkish newspaper reports.

    The invitation extended to Gul in June underscored a thaw in relations between the two estranged neighbors that followed Sarkisian’s victory in Armenia’s February 19 presidential election. The new Armenian president responded positively to Ankara’s offers of a “dialogue” on problems hampering the normalization of Turkish-Armenian ties. Senior diplomats from the two countries held confidential talks in Switzerland in early July.

    In an interview with the Turkish daily “Radikal” made public on Thursday, Sarkisian stressed the importance of what would be the first-ever trip to Armenia by a Turkish president. “If I did not believe in the visit’s importance, I would not invite Mr. Gul in the first place,” he said. “We are neighbors. We went through difficult times in our history. But Armenia is prepared for a development of our relations and expects the same from Turkey.”

    Sarkisian also stated that he and his Turkish counterpart “have reached the decision-making phase.” “Those will not be easy decisions,” he said. “Those decisions will not be approved by the entire publics in Armenia and Turkey. But I am sure the majority of the publics will support positive decisions.”

    Sarkisian also indicated that Yerevan and Ankara can reconcile their conflicting proposals to set up commissions discussing issues of mutual concern. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested in 2005 that the two states form a commission of historians who would look into the 1915 Armenian massacres in the Ottoman Empire and jointly determine whether they consistuted a genocide. The Armenian government turned down the offer and came up with a counter-proposal to have this and other problems hampering a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement tackled by an inter-governmental body.

    “The best solution is the establishment of diplomatic relations,” Sarkisian told “Radikal.” “That way we can form many subcommissions and groups within the framework of the commission to be set up by the governments.”

    Sarkisian was also asked whether the Yerevan government shares territorial claims to Turkey voiced by some Armenian political groups. “I don’t remember a single Armenian official speaking about territorial claims,” he replied. “But I keep hearing about that from the opposite side.”

    “If that was our official policy, then we would be called not the Republic of Armenia but the Republic of Eastern Armenia,” added the Armenian president.

  • Turkey: Ankara’s S-300 Curiosity

    Turkey: Ankara’s S-300 Curiosity

     
     

    A Russian S-400 air defense battery, which is based on the S-300 design
    Summary
    Turkey is reportedly in the process of acquiring late-model Russian air defense technology from Ukraine and Belarus, Turkish daily Today’s Zaman reported Aug. 25. Bought second-hand, these systems would be used for the Turkish air force to train against, rather than to upgrade Ankara’s aging air defense network. That training could prove an important tool for both Turkey specifically and NATO in general.
    Analysis
    Turkey is in the process of acquiring several variants of the Russian S-300 air defense system, Turkish daily Today’s Zaman reported Aug. 25. The systems — reportedly to be acquired second-hand from Belarus and Ukraine — are not meant to revitalize Ankara’s aging air defense network; they are intended to be a training tool for the Turkish air force. Turkey decided to make the purchase July 22 — before the Russo-Georgian conflict — but should the deal go through, the lessons Turkey hopes to learn will almost certainly proliferate to NATO as a whole.
    The S-300 encompasses a number of long-range strategic air defense systems (some variants also have a limited ballistic missile defense capability). Turkey has its sights set on both the S-300 and S-300V. The former, known to NATO as the SA-10B/C/D, encompasses several models of varying capability, but in short approaches the height of Soviet strategic air defense systems. Though neither Ukraine nor Belarus has the most modern S-300 variants — the PMU series — Turkey will likely attempt to acquire a PMU-series variant from them if it can, because Ankara knows Greece fields a PMU1 variant on Crete.
    The S-300V, meanwhile, shares the same design heritage as the S-300 (including some component parts). But while its spectrum of coverage and engagement envelope are quite similar, it is a distinct air defense system (known to NATO as the SA-12) characterized by the large tracked vehicles on which it is mounted. The S-300V was designed with a higher degree of mobility in mind. Russian troops deployed near the Turkish border in Armenia are protected by an S-300V battery.
    Both the United States and Israel reportedly were able to acquire some S-300 components during the 1990s (including, in the U.S. case, parts of the S-300V), but the Turkish effort could include a later model or a more complete system.
    Should Turkey succeed in this acquisition, Ankara’s subsequent work would take two important approaches. The first is reverse engineering, where key components are disassembled and their inner workings closely examined.. The second is training in electronic warfare against actual systems.
    Ukraine and Belarus have neither the newest nor the best-maintained air defense hardware. The condition of the equipment Ankara seeks to buy is unclear, and Russia may be in a position to block at least the Belarusian part of the sale. But perhaps the most significant aspect of this news is the intention to train against it — not just dissecting the missile, but actually flying against functional systems.
    A training range at Konya, less than 150 miles south of Ankara, is reportedly slated to host this Russian hardware, along with the shorter-range Russian Tor-M1. According to the report, the systems will be integrated with an electronic warfare training system with which Turkey’s F-16s will conduct exercises.
    If Turkey is able to acquire even one of the three S-300 variants it seeks, it will undoubtedly work at the training range to learn and test the technology’s performance parameters. This will allow Turkey (and any other NATO allies who happen to train with Turkish forces at the Konya facility) to test tactics and challenge the system over and over again. Whether it will succeed in acquiring a PMU1 remains to be seen, but even older variants could offer very real insight into some of the overall S-300 design’s ultimate limitations and weaknesses. And the result will be a Turkish air force more capable of addressing the two most advanced air defense systems positioned on its periphery: the Greek S-300PMU1 batteries (which were originally slated for Cyprus) to its southwest and the Russian S-300V battery in Armenia, on its eastern border.
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Should Russia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

    Should Russia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

     
    19:00 | 25/ 08/ 2008
     

    MOSCOW. (Fyodor Lukyanov for RIA Novosti) – The Georgian-Russian conflict has dramatically changed the position of the self-proclaimed republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The idea of recognizing their independence has been put to the vote in Moscow.

    By trying to use military force to restore the country’s territorial integrity, Tbilisi has killed the last hope of a political settlement to the conflict. The return of the breakaway republics to Georgian sovereignty, unlikely before Mikheil Saakashvili’s ill-advised adventure, is now completely impossible.

    But this does not mean the future is predetermined. There are two precedents that developments may follow: that of Kosovo or that of Cyprus. Russia must be very careful when choosing between them.

    The Kosovo scenario seems to promise more lasting results. Judging by the sixth paragraph on the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan, or at least its Moscow version, which provides for international discussion of the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Kremlin would prefer the Kosovo scenario.

    But it can only be implemented if the UN Security Council approves a relevant resolution, similar to Resolution 1244 adopted in June 1999 after the end of NATO’s air raids on Yugoslavia.

    The international community already knew then that Kosovo, which had refused to bow to the central authorities long before the Yugoslav army pulled out, would never accept the sovereignty of Belgrade. However, it was impossible to announce this publicly, as this could have provoked unpredictable developments in Serbia and would amount to the crude dismemberment of a sovereign state.

    The issue was put on hold, and at Moscow’s insistence a clause was added to the resolution affirming the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.

    This did not save Belgrade, but Russia and Serbia doggedly quoted that clause when contesting Kosovo’s unilateral proclamation of independence and its recognition by several Western countries.

    The Russian leaders only state the facts when they say that Saakashvili has dealt a deadly blow to Georgia’s territorial integrity. Yet the Security Council cannot approve a document that does not affirm it. Not only the West, bent on supporting Tbilisi, but also most other countries, would oppose it.

    It is one thing when some states act illegally, as when Kosovo’s independence was legalized. But it is quite another matter when the international community approves a resolution sanctioning the dissolution of a sovereign state. No country, including those that will never experience such problems, could approve it.

    On the other hand, Moscow will find it extremely difficult for domestic reasons to tolerate any mention of Georgia’s territorial integrity in a UN resolution. It has made quite a few public statements and pledged to pay for the restoration of South Ossetia. Besides, it will be impossible to explain to the public why a military victory has not translated into a political win.

    It will take refined diplomatic skills to formulate ideas in such a way that all sides can interpret them as victory. Otherwise, the danger is that developments in Georgia will follow the Cyprus scenario. Russia would unilaterally recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia according to the formula that has linked Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which only Turkey has recognized, since 1974.

    This would create new problems without solving old ones.

    If Russia opts for that scenario, the position of the breakaway republics will not change in terms of international law, even though many countries have lately been violating it. It should be said, for justice’s sake, that Moscow is not among the leaders in this ignoble race.

    The practical situation will not improve either. The United States encouraged a score of influential countries to recognize Kosovo’s independence, but Russia is unlikely to convince even one country to follow its example. International support for Russia’s actions, or rather lack thereof, became apparent during its clash with Georgia.

    Unilateral recognition of their independence will not help Abkhazia or South Ossetia to break out of international isolation, but will put powerful pressure on Russia. Moscow could not be blamed for its stance on Kosovo because it acted strictly according to international law, while Western countries appealed to expediency. The situation can be reversed this time, with Russia’s actions losing consistency and integrity.

    It would be extremely difficult to follow the Kosovo scenario even if the Security Council approved a resolution on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Their new status can be formalized only if the process becomes international, whereas Moscow and the two breakaway republics would like to decide the matter without international involvement. Unfortunately, they cannot do so, because Russia lacks the political resource.

    The issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s status will take some time to decide. It took nine years for Kosovo to gain independence, and even then only part of the international community recognized it. Northern Cyprus has been demanding independence for nearly 34 years.

    Hasty moves motivated by a desire to score political points at home or demonstrate Russia’s ability to disregard the opinions of others would seriously damage the Kremlin’s prestige. But hard daily political and diplomatic efforts will eventually bring about the desired effect.

    Fyodor Lukyanov is editor-in-chief of the Moscow-based magazine Russia in Global Affairs.

  • ANKARA AND YEREVAN – Waiting and watching

    ANKARA AND YEREVAN – Waiting and watching

    Turkey and the Caucasus

    Waiting and watching

    Aug 21st 2008 | ANKARA AND YEREVAN
    From The Economist print edition

    A large NATO country ponders a bigger role in the Caucasus

     

    APErdogan plays the Georgian flag

    AT THE Hrazdan stadium in Yerevan, workers are furiously preparing for a special visitor: Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul. Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has invited Mr Gul to a football World Cup qualifier between Turkey and its traditional foe, Armenia, on September 6th.
    If he comes, Mr Gul may pave the way for a new era in the Caucasus. Turkey is the only NATO member in the area, and after the war in Georgia it would like a bigger role. It is the main outlet for westbound Azeri oil and gas and it controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles, through which Russia and other Black Sea countries ship most of their trade. And it has vocal if small minorities from all over the region, including Abkhaz and Ossetians.
    Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has just been to Moscow and Tbilisi to promote a ‘Caucasus Stability and Co-operation Platform’, a scheme that calls for new methods of crisis management and conflict resolution. The Russians and Georgians made a show of embracing the idea, as have Armenia and Azerbaijan, but few believe that it will go anywhere. That is chiefly because Turkey does not have formal ties with Armenia. In 1993 Turkey sealed its border (though not its air links) with its tiny neighbour after Armenia occupied a chunk of Azerbaijan in a war over Nagorno-Karabakh. But the war in Georgia raises new questions over the wisdom of maintaining a frozen border. 
    Landlocked and poor, Armenia looks highly vulnerable. Most of its fuel and much of its grain comes through Georgia’s Black Sea ports, which have been paralysed by the war. Russia blew up a key rail bridge this week, wrecking Georgia’s main rail network that also runs to Armenia and Azerbaijan. This disrupted Azerbaijan’s oil exports, already hit by an explosion earlier this month in the Turkish part of the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan, in Turkey.
    ‘All of this should point in one direction,’ says a Western diplomat in Yerevan: ‘peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.’ Reconciliation with Armenia would give Azerbaijan an alternative export route for its oil and Armenia the promise of a new lifeline via Turkey. Some Armenians gloat that Russia’s invasion of Georgia kyboshes the chances of Azerbaijan ever retaking Nagorno-Karabakh by force, though others say the two cases are quite different. Russia is not contiguous with Nagorno-Karabakh, nor does it have ‘peacekeepers’ or nationals there.
    Even before the Georgian war, Turkey seemed to understand that isolating Armenia is not making it give up the parts of Azerbaijan that it occupies outside Nagorno-Karabakh. But talking to it might. Indeed, that is what Turkish and Armenian diplomats have secretly done for some months, until news of the talks leaked (probably from an angry Azerbaijan).
    Turkey’s ethnic and religious ties with its Azeri cousins have long weighed heavily in its Caucasus policy. But there is a new worry that a resolution calling the mass slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in the 1915 genocide may be passed by America’s Congress after this November’s American elections. This would wreck Turkey’s relations with the United States. If Turkey and Armenia could only become friendlier beforehand, the resolution might then be struck down for good.
    In exchange for better relations, Turkey wants Armenia to stop backing a campaign by its diaspora for genocide recognition and allow a commission of historians to establish ‘the truth’. Mr Sarkisian has hinted that he is open to this idea, triggering howls of treason from the opposition. The biggest obstacle remains Azerbaijan and its allies in the Turkish army. Mr Erdogan was expected to try to square Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliev, in a visit to Baku this week. Should he fail, Mr Gul may not attend the football match—and a chance for reconciliation may be lost.