Category: Azerbaijan

Armenian claims for Nakhchivan:

Javid Huseynov [[email protected]]

and from Armenian Foreign Ministry record, interviewing the initiators of Karabakh separatism:

“Q– Not also Nakhichevan ?

Mikoyan: You see, as a matter of principle, Nakhichevan is also an Armenian land. It’s a pity that the authorities of that region did everything during the last decades toward changing the ethnic proportions of Nakhichevan, so that now only one or two percent of the population is Armenian.

Q– I think presently there are not more than 5,000 Armenians out of a population of approximately 250,000 people. That is, there are a quarter of a million Turks in Nakhichevan, as against only 5,000 Armenians.

Mikoyan: But if we compare that with those Armenian lands which are now in Turkey, one must understand that even if there are very few Armenians living on our ancient lands, still we believe those territories to be Armenian in spite of the ethnic change, especially when the change is realized through actions we will never forgive or forget.

October 21, 2009

Armenia: the end of the debate?

By Gwynne Dyer

Published October 21, 2009

THE FIRST great massacre of the 20th century happened in eastern Anatolia 94 years ago. Armenians all over the world insist that their ancestors who died in those events were the victims of a deliberate genocide, and that there can be no reconciliation with the Turks until they admit their guilt. But now the Armenians back home have made a deal.

On October 10, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a accord in Zurich that reopens the border between the two countries, closed since 1993, and creates a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915. It is a triumph for reason and moderation, so the nationalists in both countries attacked it at once.

The most anguished protests came from the Armenian diaspora: eight million people living mainly in the United States, France, Russia, Iran and Lebanon. There are only three million people living in Armenia itself, and remittances from the diaspora are twice as large as the country’s entire budget, so the views of overseas Armenians matter.

Unfortunately, their views are quite different from those of the people who actually live in Armenia. For Armenians abroad, making the Turks admit that they planned and carried out a genocide is supremely important. Indeed, it has become a core part of their identity.

For most of those who are still in Armenia, getting the Turkish border re-opened is a higher priority. Their poverty and isolation are so great that a quarter of the population has emigrated since the border was closed sixteen years ago, and trade with their relatively rich neighbour to the west would help to staunch the flow.

Moreover, the agreement does not require Armenia to give back the Armenian-populated parts of Azerbaijan, its neighbour to the east. Armenia’s conquest of those lands in 1992-94 was why Turkey closed the border in the first place (many Turks see the Turkic-speaking Azeris as their “little brothers”), so in practical terms Armenian president Serge Sarkisian has got a very good deal.

The communities of the diaspora, however, believe the Armenian government has sold them out on the genocide issue. Their remittances are crucial to Armenia, so President Serge Sarkisian has spent the past weeks travelling the world, trying to calm their fury. In the end, he will probably succeed, if only because they have nowhere else to go.

But can any practical consideration justify abandoning the traditional Armenian demand that Turkey admit to a policy of genocide? Yes it can, because it is probably the wrong demand to be making.

Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I got sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman empire out of the war quickly by simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, Russia from the north and Britain by landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south-coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority to be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps. Indeed, they became the ancestors of today’s huge Armenian diaspora. Armenians living elsewhere in the empire, notably in Istanbul, faced abuse but no mass killings.

It was a dreadful crime, and only recently has the public debate in Turkey even begun to acknowledge it. It was not a genocide if your standard of comparison is what happened to the European Jews, but diaspora Armenians will find it very hard to give up their claim that it was. Nevertheless, the grown-ups are now in charge both in Armenia and in Turkey, and amazing progress is being made.

n Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

=======================================================


	Latest Articles :: Gallery :: Books :: Directory :: Contact Coming Soon – Selected Book Chapters Podcasts Ideas1 Ideas2 Ideas3 TVO

GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

His first television series, the 7-part documentary ‘War’, was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, ‘The Profession of Arms’, was nominated for an Academy Award. His more recent television work includes the 1994 series ‘The Human Race’, and ‘Protection Force’, a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards. His award-winning radio documentaries include ‘The Gorbachev Revolution’, a seven-part series based on Dyer’s experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and ‘Millenium’, a six-hour series on the
emerging global culture.

Dyer’s major study “War”, first published in the 1980s, was completely revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the post-9/11 world: ‘Ignorant Armies’ (2003), ‘Future: Tense’ (2004), and ‘The Mess They Made’ (2006). The latter was also published as ‘After Iraq’ in the US and the UK and as ‘Nach Iraq und Afghanistan’ inGermany.

His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called ‘Climate Wars’, dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most other major markets in the course of 2009.

=========================================================================

DYER, GWYNNE

Canadian Journalist/Producer

Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military analyst. He is best known for his documentary television series, War which echoed the peace movement’s growing concern over the threat of nuclear war in the early 1980s. Nominated for an Oscar in 1985, it was based on his own military experience and extensive study.

After serving in the naval reserves of Canada, the United States, and Britain, Dyer completed his doctoral studies in Military History at King’s College, University of London in 1973. He lectured on military studies for the next four years at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England before producing a seven-part radio series, Seven Faces of Communism for the CBC and ABC in 1978. This quickly led to another radio series, War, in six-parts, 1981. Based on this series, he was invited by the National Film Board of Canada, the country’s public film producer to enlarge it into a seven-part film series in 1983. Upon release to critical acclaim, the series was broadcast in forty-five countries.

War was a reflection of Dyer’s own growing concern about the proliferation of new technology, its impact on the changing nature of warfare and the growing threat of nuclear annihilation. Filmed in ten countries and with the participation of six national armies, it examined the nature, evolution and consequences of warfare. It featured interviews with top level NATO and Warsaw Pact military leaders and strategists, many of whom spoke to the Western media for the first time. The series argued that in an era of total war, professional armies were no longer able to fulfill their traditional roles. The growth of nationalism, conscript armies and nuclear technology had brought the world perilously close to Armageddon. War offered the unique perspective of the soldier from the rigorous training of young U.S. marine recruits at the Parris Island Training Depot in South Carolina, to the field exercises conducted by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. It presented military officers from both sides talking frankly about how nuclear technology had changed their profession and follows them as they vividly describe how any superpower conflict would inevitably lead to an all out nuclear war. Dyer argued that the danger posed by the explosive mix of ideology and nuclear technology could only be mitigated by a total elimination of nuclear arsenals.

This award-winning series was soon followed by another production for the National Film Board of Canada in 1986, The Defence of Canada, an examination of Canada’s military role on the international scene. Following similar arguments postulated in War, Dyer called for Canada to set an example by rethinking its position in NATO and NORAD. He maintained his ties in the Soviet Union and in 1988-90 produced a six-part radio series The Gorbachev Revolution which followed the thunderous changes occurring in Eastern Europe. He served as a military commentator in Canada during the Gulf War and in 1994 his series The Human Race was broadcast nationally on the CBC. It was a personal enquiry into the roots, nature and future of human politics and the threat posed by tribalism, nationalism and technology to the world’s environment. He continues to publish his syndicated column on international affairs which is published on over 300 papers in some 30 countries.

-Manon Lamontagne

Gwynne Dyer

GWYNNE DYER. Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 17 April 1943. Educated at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, B.A. in History, 1963; Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., M.A. in Military History, 1966; King’s College, University of London, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History, 1973. Served as Reserve Naval Officer in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, 1956-64, 1966-68; U.S. Naval Reserve, 1964-66; British Royal Navy Reserve, 1968-73. Employed as a lecturer in military history, Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Ontario; senior lecturer in war studies, Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, 1973-77; producer of various radio and television special series from 1978; syndicated columnist, international affairs from 1973. Recipient: International Film Festival Awards; International Film Festival Awards, 1984; Best Writing Gemini for The Space Between, 1986.

TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY SERIES

1983 War (co-writer/host)
1986 Defence of Canada
1994 The Human Race (host)

FILMS

The Space Between, 1986 (co-writer/host); Harder Than It Looks, 1987; Escaping from History, 1994 (writer); The Gods of Our Fathers, 1994 (writer); The Tribal Mind, 1994 (writer); The Bomb Under the World, 1994 (writer).

RADIO

Seven Faces of Communism, 1978; Goodbye War, 1979 (writer/narrator); War, 1981; The Gorbachev Revolution, 1988-90; Millennium, 1996.

FURTHER READING

“Dyer’s Contrived Truth Doesn’t Tackle the Real Consequences.” Vancouver (Canada) Sun, 3 September 1994.

Dodds, Carolyn. “Too Close for Comfort.” Saturday Night (Toronto, Canada), August 1988

“Recording a Global Culture.” Maclean’s (Toronto, Canada), 25 March, 1996.

See also Canadian Programming in English

October 21, 2009

Baku Protests Ban On Flag At Bursa Soccer Match

Protesters wave Azerbaijani flags during a demonstration against Turkish relations with Armenia near the Ataturk Stadium in Bursa on October 14.

October 20, 2009

BAKU — Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry summoned Turkish Charge d’Affaires Nihat Civaneri to complain about the ban of Azerbaijan’s national flag at the historic Turkish-Armenian soccer match in Bursa last week, RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service reports.

Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov officially expressed his country’s protest over Turkey’s “disrespect to Azerbaijan’s national flag.”

The Turkish and Armenian soccer teams met in Bursa on October 14, with Turkish and Armenian leaders present.

The event became a symbol of the recent historic breakthrough in relations between Ankara and Yerevan.

Bursa’s governor initially banned Azerbaijan’s national flag at the stadium during the match, but, after numerous protests, he rescinded his order.

However, at the last moment, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) demanded that Azerbaijani flags not be allowed during the match.

Some fans who sought to ignore the ban clashed with law enforcement officers.

October 20, 2009
Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Where Next?

Caucasus Update No. 51, October 19, 2009

Caucasian Review of International Affairs

)

The signing of the Turkish-Armenian protocols in Geneva on October 10 was viewed as a success, with only the awkward matter of ratifying the protocols in the parliaments preventing the opening of the ‘last closed border in Europe’. There has been little consideration of the implications of the protocol signing.

The Turkish-Armenian thaw has the potential to seriously disturb the political dynamics of the South Caucasus. Both Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have made serious gambles on the thaw, and the consequences may be unpredictable.

President Sarkisian’s challenge is domestic. Although the diaspora continue to oppose reconciliation, the more serious risk comes from the political opposition: ex-President Levon Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress (ANC), the nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and the Heritage Party.

The opposition cannot challenge the ratification in parliament, since the ruling coalition dominates the legislature. Any challenge would have to be made, as so often in Armenian politics, on the streets. Anything could happen in such a volatile context, and a violent revolution is not unforeseeable if a cycle of escalation begins.

However, the government has calculated that the mutual distrust between the three opposition parties will prevent them from unifying to challenge the protocols. The ARF loathes Levon Ter-Petrosian, who banned them in 1994 during his presidency: a speaker at a recent ARF rally spent much of his speech attacking Mr Ter-Petrosian rather than the government (RFE/RL, October 16). Both the ARF and Heritage fear that Mr Ter-Petrosian’s opposition to the government is tactical. Despite recent calls by the ANC for President Sarkisian to resign, the other parties suspect that the ex-President supports the thaw and simply seeks to gain power (Tert.am, October 14).

The ARF, apparently playing a long game, are not calling for the President’s resignation – yet. They are calling for a popular movement to develop, allying with Heritage, and are insisting that their struggle will be fought through constitutional and legal means. This seems to be a tactical move to prevent alienating ordinary Armenians through revolutionary rhetoric.

Unless the ARF-Heritage movement can ally with the popular Mr Ter-Petrosian, they will not be able to generate sufficient support for a broad anti-government movement. Factional infighting will allow the government to sit tight and push the protocols through parliament. However, opposition to the protocols will grow as time passes – and there is no guarantee that they will be ratified soon.

This is because of Turkey’s challenge: reconciling public statements about the need for progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with its clear desire to ratify the protocols. The ruling AKP party had apparently gambled that they could force concessions from Armenia in the run-up to the signing ceremony. The linkage of the Turkish-Armenian thaw and progress on Nagorno-Karabakh had been explicitly made by the Turkish government, which insisted that one could not take place without the other (Today.az, October 12). But time is running out, and there has been no agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Until an agreement is made, ratifying the protocols would be seen by Azerbaijan, and by many Turks, as a serious betrayal. Intensive lobbying by Azerbaijani political groups in Turkey is creating serious momentum against ratification. President Sargsyan seems to be betting that under the pressure from the West (US President Obama already had a lengthy phone call with President Gul and sent an invitation to Prime Minister Erdogan to visit US on Oct. 29, Today’s Zaman) Turkey will be obliged to ratify the protocols regardless of progress on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan is making its fury increasingly clear. An ominous warning from the Foreign Ministry that the signing “calls into question the architecture of regional peace and security” was followed by a statement from President Aliyev that “the war is not over yet” and that “no problem in the region – political, diplomatic, economic, energy, transport – can be solved without Azerbaijan’s participation” (APA, October 17).

The significance of this statement was made clear in the same cabinet meeting, when President Aliyev launched a scathing attack on Turkey’s “unacceptable” price demands for the sale and transit of Azerbaijan’s gas (RFE/RL, October 17). He said that selling gas to Turkey at a third of the market price was illogical, and threatened to prioritise gas sales to Russia. Just days earlier, Azerbaijan signed a deal with Russia’s Gazprom (UPI, October 16). The contract formalised agreements made earlier in the year and which envisions the sale of 500 million m³of Azerbaijan’s gas to Gazprom in 2010.

Clearly, Baku is threatening to cease cooperating with Turkey on oil and gas transit, crippling its plans to become a regional energy hub. This could also be a fatal blow to the Nabucco project to bring Eurasian gas to the heart of Europe. Bypassing Turkey, Azerbaijan could send its gas to Russia, to Georgia’s Black Sea ports (and on to Europe), or to Iran, as was contemplated by President Aliyev in the same meeting. Any or all of these options would reduce the need for Nabucco.

More significantly, they would reduce Azerbaijan’s ties to the West. The Georgian option, the only route which would continue to link Baku with Europe, is impractical and costly. Sending gas to either Russia or Iran would tie Azerbaijan into a close relationship with those states. In particular, Moscow would be eager to reassert influence in the South Caucasus as its alliance with Yerevan loses focus. The EU, and the US, would lose traction in Azerbaijan even as they gain it in Armenia. For the purposes of energy security and geopolitics, this would be a questionable trade.

The next few months will be fraught with difficulties, as regional states attempt to untangle the Caucasian knot. If Turkey ratifies the protocols without progress on Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan will almost certainly suspend their alliance. Military tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan will rise. Nabucco will become even less likely and Western influence in the Caspian region will decrease even further.

Caucasian Review of International Affairs

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

October 20, 2009
Turkey Exposed:

Cannot Pretend to be

Both Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian

Publisher, The California Courier

Playing the skillful political games of their Ottoman predecessors, Turkey’s current masters present their country under various guises — as European and Middle Eastern, Islamic and secular, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli.

It now appears that the end is near for at least one of these Turkish charades. Israeli officials have finally awakened from their prolonged coma to discover that their erstwhile “strategic partner” is far more hostile than their Arab enemies.

For a long time, Turkish leaders have been calling the Israelis all sorts of unsavory names and accusing Israel of committing barbaric acts, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Strangely, Israel has shown little indignation, even in the face of persistent racist and anti-Semitic outbursts by large segments of the Turkish public.

The latest display of Turkish hostility was the exclusion of Israel from a multinational military exercise which was to start in Turkey on October 12. In protest, the United States, Italy and Holland pulled out of these maneuvers, causing their cancellation. In a move designed to further irritate the Israelis, Turkey announced that it would instead hold joint military exercises with Syria, Israel’s main adversary.

Turkey’s Prime Minster Rejeb Erdogan told the Anatolia Press Agency last week that he had banned Israel from the military drill in response to the wishes of the Turkish public. “Turkey does not take orders from anyone in regards to its internal affairs,” Erdogan boasted. Some Turkish officials indicated that the ban was instituted because the Israeli jets assigned to the exercise had participated in the Gaza bombings earlier this year.

This episode marks a major escalation of the long-standing Turkish bitterness towards Israel. For the first time, the Turkish military joined the civilian government in adopting an anti-Israeli position. Furthermore, Turkey went beyond mere verbal condemnation to taking concrete action. For years, the Israeli government was willing to swallow insults from Turkish officials, as long as its Air Force was permitted to make practice runs in the vast Turkish airspace, shared intelligence, and sold military hardware to Turkey.

Making matters worse, Israelis were deeply offended by the broadcast of a Turkish show on state TV last week, depicting graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children and committing other atrocities.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted by summoning the Turkish ambassador and accused Turkey of inciting hatred against Israelis. Lieberman stated that not even Israel’s enemies would air such a hostile TV series. Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses.” Another Israeli official stated: “We need to stop accepting the Turkish dictates and humiliations. It is inconceivable that they should insult us at every opportunity, and we should continue to hold our tongues.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected any future mediating role for Turkey in talks with Syria. An unnamed “senior Israeli official” was quoted by Haaretz as stating that the strategic ties with Turkey may “have simply ended.” Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post quoted some Israeli defense officials as stating that “advanced weapons sales to Turkey would now be reviewed.”

There were also widespread calls last week for the Israeli public to boycott Turkish resorts. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that Israel’s largest labor union would no longer plan for thousands of its workers organized tours of Turkey, and would direct them to go instead to Greece and Bulgaria. Since January, there has been a 47% drop in the number of Israelis spending their vacations in Turkey, according to Time magazine. An Israeli coffee shop chain expressed its displeasure by announcing that it would no longer serve Turkish coffee to its customers. In an unprecedented move, several Israeli cabinet ministers declared that they would turn down the Turkish Embassy’s invitation to attend Turkey’s Independence Day celebrations later this month.

Many outraged Israelis advocated that, in retaliation, Israel acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Dan Margalit of “Israel Hayom” newspaper accused the Turks of not only committing Genocide, but also the “ongoing crime, which is expressed in energetic Turkish activity to deny the atrocity and to incite against any country and government and artist who wish to express their horror.”

Ephraim Inbar, head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, reminded the Turks that they are still in need of “Israeli influence in Washington to prevent the passage in Congress of a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians during World War I a genocide.”

In an unprecedented action, the “Im Tirtzu” Israeli student movement held a protest last week in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv. The students displayed bloody pictures of victims of the Armenian Genocide, handed out books on the Genocide to passersby, and carried signs calling on Turkey to formally recognize the Genocide.

To atone for its past sin of siding with Turkish denialists, Israel must officially affirm the Armenian Genocide as well as actively lobby for its recognition by other states. Israel should also permit the erection of a monument at a prominent location to commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide and reverse its long-standing ban on TV broadcast of documentaries on this subject. It is certainly in Israel’s own interest to side with the victims of genocide rather than with its perpetrators!

Instead of maintaining at all cost its unholy alliance with Turkey, Israel should earnestly pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians and live in peace with its Arab neighbors, thus obviating the need to curry favors with the Turkish denialist regime.

==================== SUBJECT RELATED E-MAIL’S RECEIVED=

From: Ismet Takim [[email protected]]

Subject: {Pax Turcica} Our problems are just begining, l worned you all before, we play this game we will loose and guess who is happy???

READ

Turkey Exposed:

and any of you still have any questions about this? some of our readers here is also responsiable for this and you have no idea what we will face, you just sit and watch, pro Palestenian Turkey is comitting suicide,

Erdogan made the biggest mistake, and some of you who posts pro

Filistin BS, tags and articles here should be ashame of themselves

they have done a disservice and put our mainly my efforts back in

time, and we have to fix this now, l have to go to work again and undo some of this,

stupid stupid stupid bird brains bleeding hearts, stop your Anti Israel stands and get real, stop hurting Turkey,

======================================================

From: Metin Mangir [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

While we are all focussed on the Armenian issue (because of our

proxomity to the diaspora) Obama invited (!) Erdogan to come to WDC on

Oct 29 (with two weeks notice), following the cancellation of the joint

military exercises with Israel, US, and the increasing row with Israel

upon showing of a TV program on TRT. (now that Turkey has good

relations with Syria, does it not need Israel to squeeze Syria?? which

was what started the close military collaboration with Israel.)

The choice of date and such short notice is VERY significant (and

insulting)! The big brother is calling the errant boy on the carpet?

By the way, in general the news about the Armenian protocols are

positive in Turkey (amazing!). Very few voices are opposing it. Also

it has lost its luster as the “milli birlik acilimi” and the return of

34 people from Irak upon Ocalan’s orders has taken the center stage.

If the borders open the real big winner will be Russia, more than

Armenia. Since (rightly) Azerbeycan will be pissed off at Turkey and

the West, and get closer to Russia (if it can dare to play with such

danger) and the West, US will loose the Caucases.

What I do not understand is

1) how come US is willing to let this happen? What has Russia forced

upon US following Georgia?

2) Davutoglu, who has written in three different places in his book

about the crucial importance of Azerbeycan for Turkey, is going along

with this protocols steps?

Metin

==========================================

From: Ergun [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

Metin,

I suspect one major thing behind Obama’s sudden invitation: Afghanistan.

He may ask for more troops from Turkey. Secondarily, Iraq. O. may discuss

strategy with E. on the mechanics of US pull out, the vacuum in Iraq, etc.

All have to do with US involvement in unpopular, unwanted wars that are

draining the US economy and social life.

Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and others are little more than dressing for

the salad.

This is one man’s opinion. 🙂

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

===================================================

Statement released by National Security Council that met today is below. Afghanistan issue has been discussed. Turkey will resume Kabul Area Commandership for the second time.

Afganistan‘da son dönemde meydana gelen gelişmeler, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri dahil, değerlendirilmiş, ülkemizin Afganistan‘ın istikrarına yönelik katkı ve girişimlerinin sürdürüleceği belirtilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin Kabil Bölge Komutanlığı görevini Kasım 2009 başında ikinci defa alacağı, yine önceki görevlerde olduğu gibi, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin terörle mücadele, uyuşturucu ile mücadele, mayın temizleme görevlerinde kullanılmayacağı teyit edilmiştir.

Fariz Huseynov [[email protected]]

=======================================================================

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

dear Ergun

you are not alone for this opinion

is isn’t funny while we are disgracing our man and women in uniform ( TSK)
Obama needs our soldiers not government

if you didn’t have one of the best army in the middle east

O. wouldn’t care less for you

regardas,

vedat aslay

——————-

Dear Metin

Excellent observation and analysis

I wonder what is going behind the close doors?

Yes Russia it seems that the big winner?

how come for the US. Are we underestimating her.

The is a big game going on over the middle east and Central Asia.

The player are strong and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, TURKEY and even Israel is foot soldiers in this game

Obama will make sure that Erdogan is not out of step. If he is you know in military

SOL, SAG, SOL SAG, SOL, SOL P……. SOL
Don’t worry this game is a long game and we are just watching part I

Vedat Aslay [email protected]

========================================================

From: Yusif [[email protected]]
Subject: {Pax Turcica} Re: Are you aware of the slap to Erdogan by Obama?

That’s correct. Russia will be a winner big time.

First, they will close the discussion on Nabucco both restricting

other countries’ willingness to diversify their exports and preventing

anything that could possibly harm Russia economically and

politically.

Second, they will realize the South Stream project, always viewed as

an alternative to Nabucco and through that project will still control

southern Europe and Turkey itself.

Third, under the pretext of protection of South Stream, Russia will

completely militarize Black Sea with additional Russian fleet and will

henceforth prevent another proposed rival energy project White Stream

to go from Georgia to EU through Ukraine from realization.

Fourth, Russia will get deeper into Turkish economy through Armenia

and through Armenian element will be able to exert pressure on Turkey

and possibly other Middle Eastern states in the future. It benefits

Russia to see islamization of Turkey. The practice of moderate Islam

in the form of Gulenist ideology actually may suit Russia’s interests.

In regards to US interests in the deal there are several factors.

First of all, US was hoping for Russia’s support on the issues of

nuclear threat from Iran. In general, apart from everything else, it

is not in Russia’s interest to see containment and any sort of

democratization of Iran. There is 25 mln Azeri minority in Iran which

if needed could be a decisive factor in the future partition of Iran

or a tool to bring down the current mullah regime. That’s one of the

reasons Stalin was willing to and finally withdrew from Iran in 1946

because he did not want a more sizeable Azeri minority within Soviet

borders.

Secondly, in my opinion, it’s not the US that is exerting pressure on

Turkey. I think it’s Turkey which is using its inadequate behavior

with Israel to pressure the United States. If we go back to 2003 we

would see that Turkey was bold enough to withstand pressure from US

during proposed invasion of Iraq from Turkey. To me personally, it

doesn’t make sense to see America give up Azerbaijan and Georgia and

the existing energy projects therefore losing both economically and

politically.

As far as Turkey’s position about Azerbaijan is concerned, I think

they might have striken a deal on withdrawal of Armenian troops from 5

occupied regions and agreed with Russia and US on joint peacekeeping

mission. In any case, allowing any peacekeeping missions in Karabakh

would be disastrous for Azerbaijan. If Russia’s troops are allowed to

be stationed on Azerbaijani soil in any form, this would be the end of

Azerbaijani independence and goodbye to Karabakh. Experience with

Georgia is a good example.

Presence of US troops would mean almost the same. Experience with

Kosovo is a good example. That’s why Kaidanow is all around (http://

www.a1plus.am/en/official/2009/10/20/nalbandian-tina-kaidanow)

Presence of Turkish troops, if any, would mean nothing at all,

especially if the protocols are ratified and diplomatic relations

established and ‘good will of friendly’ Turkish government is

recognized in Armenia and separatist regime in Karabakh.

Any peacekeeping mission whatsoever would mean protraction of this

conflict and interim status of NK last forever, therefore ending in

partitioning of Azerbaijan forever.

I guess, the original plan of these regional players is:

1. to strike a deal, have Armenian troops withdrawn from 5 regions;

2. bring in the peacekeeping force into those regions;

3. ensure return of Azerbaijani refugees to those regions;

4. re-arrange routes of energy resources from Azerbaijan and Central

Asia through Armenia and/or through occupied Karabakh, as many allege;

5. build confidence between people of the region

6. hold a referendum in NK. Holding a referendum in Karabakh would

mean complete loss.

Opening any borders means directly benefitting Armenia economically

which will stimulate economy and therefore human reproduction of

Armenians in Karabakh. That’s when the numbers will matter.

Yusif

================================================

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

https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/10/20/turkeys-the-policy-of-zero-problems-creating-new-problems/

From: Ergun [[email protected]]

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

October 20, 2009
Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

From: Ergun [[email protected]]

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

October 20, 2009