Category: Regions

  • HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    HURRIYET ENGLISH: Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    July 25, 2008

     

    Compiled by Sonay Kanber , ATAA Research Associate
    E-mail: assembly@ataa.org
     

    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Foreign minister says Turkey wants to normalize relations with Armenia

    Turkey is willing to normalize its relations with the neighboring Armenia, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said late on Thursday.

    Turkey wanted to create an atmosphere of dialogue with Armenia, Babacan told a press conference in New York.  

    “Turkish president, prime minister and foreign minister sent letters to their Armenian counterparts after recent elections in Armenia, and these letters aimed to open a new door of dialogue with the new (Armenian) administration,” he was quoted as saying by the Anatolian Agency.

    As a signal of efforts to revive relations between the two countries, Turkish and Armenian officials held a series of secret meetings in the capital of Switzerland on July 8. This meeting Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s proposal for “a fresh start” with the goal of normalizing relations with Turkey and opening the border.

    Sargsyan also invited Turkish President Abdullah Gul to watch a football match between the two country’s national teams on Sept 6 to mark “a new symbolic start in the two countries’ relations”. Turkey has been evaluating this invitation.

    Although Turkey is among the first countries that recognized Armenia when it declared its independency, there is no diplomatic relations between two countries as Armenia presses the international community to admit the so-called “genocide” claims instead of accepting Turkey’s call to investigate the allegations, and its invasion of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory despite U.N. Security Council resolutions on the issue.

    The foreign minister said that Turkey’s aim was to have zero problems with its neighbors. “Naturally, we are also expecting some concrete steps from the other party,” he said. [link to article]
    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey Lobbies for Council Membership

    He is actually in New York City to lobby for Turkey’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

    Turkey would work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, Babacan told at the conference, adding there was a lot of hope for Turkey to attain a non-permanent seat at the Council.

    “However, it is important to work hard till the last minute to secure a non-permanent seat,” Babacan said.

    “It is likely that the election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council would take place in October 2008. We would attend the U.N. General Assembly meetings in September with Turkish President Abdullah Gul. Both President Gul and I would have many bilateral talks. We would continue lobbying for Turkey’s non-permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council,” Babacan said.

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.

    Turkey would need the votes of 128 countries out of a total of 192 countries in order to be elected as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

    Babacan also said he saw the appointment of Alexander Downer, Australia’s former foreign minister as the new U.N. special representative for Cyprus, as an important signal that the organization would more closely and seriously deal with the Cyprus problem.

    “The U.N. should intervene in settlement of Cyprus problem,” he also said. He added Turkey wished wish that comprehensive talks would be launched in Cyprus soon. [link to article]

    IHT:  Turkey’s broadening crisis

    Turkey is facing a domestic political crisis that not only threatens the country’s internal stability but could weaken its ties to the West and exacerbate instability in the Middle East.

    In February, the Turkish public prosecutor forwarded a 161-page indictment to the Constitutional Court that calls for the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, to be closed down and for 71 of its leading politicians, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, to be banned from politics for five years. The indictment charges that the party violated secularism, a fundamental principle enshrined in the Turkish Constitution. The Constitutional Court starts final hearings in the case on Monday.

    While the evidence is flimsy, most Turks, including leading members of the AKP, expect that the Constitutional Court, a bastion of secularism, will vote to close the party. Indeed, the AKP has already begun to make preparations for its dissolution.

    Closing the AKP will not eliminate the party as an important force in Turkish political life. The party will simply re-emerge under a new name, as its predecessors Refah and the Virtue Party did when they were banned. However, closure would likely have a number of damaging side effects.

    One would be in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. Under the AKP, Turkey has emerged as an important diplomatic actor in the region – as its successful effort to act as a broker in peace talks between Israel and Syria recently underscored. Without the AKP, Turkey’s active diplomatic engagement in the Middle East is likely to diminish and the United States would lose an important partner in trying to stabilize this volatile region.

    Another unwanted side effect would be in Turkey’s relations with its Kurdish minority. The AKP enjoys strong support among the Turkish Kurds. In elections last summer the party doubled its support in the Kurdish areas of the Southeast. If the AKP is closed, the main beneficiary is likely to be the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has been conducting terrorist attacks against Turkey from sanctuaries in Northern Iraq. Moreover, the main Kurdish party, the Democratic Society Party, is also likely to be closed. Thus the Kurds would have no political vehicle to express their interests except through the PKK.

    In addition, Turkey’s rapprochement with Iraq could lose valuable momentum, while the hand of those forces in Turkey pushing for stronger military action against the PKK in Northern Iraq is likely to be strengthened. This could lead to an escalation of tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq, undercutting American efforts to promote better ties between the two entities.

    Finally, closure of the AKP is likely to increase strains in Turkey’s relations with the European Union. Opponents of Ankara’s EU membership will use the closure as a pretext to intensify their opposition, while supporters will find it harder to make the case for Turkish membership.

    At the same time, banning the party could undercut efforts to promote reform and democracy in the Middle East. Many moderate Islamists in the Middle East are likely to see the party’s closure as proof that it is impossible to achieve their political goals by democratic means and could turn to more radical solutions.

    So far the United States has avoided taking sides, expressing support for both secularism and democratic processes. However, given the negative strategic consequences likely to flow from the closure of the AKP, the Bush administration should encourage the Turks to find a compromise before the crisis does untold damage to Turkey’s democratic credibility and international reputation and further complicates Ankara’s prospects for EU membership.

    If, after all that, the AKP is still closed, the United States should avoid taking punitive measures. That would only strengthen the hand of the hard-line nationalists and further weaken Turkey’s ties to the West. Instead, American officials should continue to nudge Turkey toward bolder reforms that will strengthen internal democracy and bolster the qualifications for EU membership. In the long run, this is the best way to ensure the emergence of a stable, democratic Turkey closely anchored to the West.

    F. Stephen Larrabee, co-author of “The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey,” holds the corporate chair in European Security at the RAND Corporation. [link to article]
     
    AFP:  Cyprus leaders discuss peace talks plan

    NICOSIA (AFP) – Rival Cypriot leaders met on Friday aiming to set a date for peace talks to end the island’s 34-year-old divide, with the Turkish Cypriots hoping for a deal by the end of this year.

    President Demetris Christofias, a Greek Cypriot, and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat met at the UN-controlled Nicosia airport in the buffer zone amid hopes both sides will announce a September start for full peace talks.

    On Thursday Talat said he wanted intensive negotiations.

    “Our objective is to reach a settlement in a short time… I believe we can make it by the end of 2008,” he told Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

    “Starting from September, we have four months… This much time is sufficient. It can be extended a little bit if necessary, but resolving the Cyprus question in a short time must be our primary objective.”

    The international community remained cautious ahead of Friday’s meeting, but the United States and Britain have both boosted diplomatic links with the two sides.

    The lack of a Cyprus settlement is viewed as a major stumbling block to Turkey’s European Union ambitions.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wants direct negotiations to start soon, and he has named Australia’s former foreign minister Alexander Downer as his special envoy for Cyprus.

    Downer, 56, is expected to be present if a renewed peace initiative is launched in earnest.

    An agreement between Christofias and Talat, both regarded by the international community as “pro-settlement,” is seen as the best chance for peace since a failed UN reunification blueprint in April 2004.

    On July 1 they agreed in principle on single citizenship and sovereignty in a reunified island and vowed to meet on July 25 for a “final review” of preparatory negotiations before launching peace talks proper.

    Christofias has warned against outside pressure for a quick-fix settlement, saying it would only backfire, and has refused to accept deadlines or restrictive time frames.

     

    He was elected president in February on a platform of reviving reunification talks which went nowhere under his hardline predecessor Tassos Papadopoulos.

     

    Initial euphoria at the prospects of a settlement dampened as both sides found the going sluggish at the committee level over the sensitive issues of property, territory, sovereignty and security.

     

    Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops occupied its northern third in response to an Athens-engineered Greek Cypriot coup seeking enosis, or union with Greece.

     

    Thousands of Greek Cypriots living in the north fled south and Turkish Cypriots fled north, with both communities abandoning property.

     

    Displaced Greek Cypriots outnumbered Turkish Cypriots by about four to one — roughly the same proportion as the 1974 population.

     

    The Turkish Cypriots nationalised Greek Cypriot land and property and most of it was distributed to Turkish Cypriots displaced from the south and to settlers from Turkey.

     

    The two leaders reached a landmark agreement on March 21 to begin fully fledged peace talks after four years of virtual stalemate following the 2004 rejection of a UN peace plan by the Greek Cypriots.

     

    They met again in May and decided to review progress made by the technical committees.

     

    The Greek Cypriots say real progress at the committee stage must be achieved if face-to-face talks are to have any chance of success, while the Turkish Cypriots say any difficulties can be resolved at the negotiating table. [link to article]

    REUTERS:  Turkish court convicts former Kurd party head- agency
     
    ISTANBUL, July 24 (Reuters) – A military court on Thursday sentenced the former leader of Turkey’s main pro-Kurdish party to one year in jail for evading military service by deception, state-run Anatolian news agency said.

    Nurettin Demirtas had resigned as leader of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in April to do his military service, which he had previously avoided on health grounds.

    Prosecutors had accused him of using fake health reports to avoid being called up.

    “The air force military court sentenced the former DTP leader Nurettin Demirtas to one year in prison for ‘seeking to avoid military service by deception’,” Anatolian said.

    No further details were immediately available.

    Military service usually lasts about 15 months in Turkey and is obligatory for all able-bodied Turkish men. Turks who dodge military service usually receive stiff punishment.

    Prosecutors, who say the DTP has links with the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group, were seeking a 2-5 year prison sentence for him. He had rejected the charges.

    Demirtas is not a member of parliament but was elected head of the party last November. A new leader has been elected since he stood down in April.

    The DTP is facing a Constitutional Court case brought by prosecutors seeking its closure over alleged links to the PKK. The party rejects the charges.

    The PKK took up arms against the state in 1984 with the aim of creating a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey. Some 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (Reporting by Daren Butler, editing by Mary Gabriel) [link to article]
     

    AP:  Turkish stretch of railway linking Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan launched
     
    The presidents of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan have launched the construction of the Turkish stretch of a railway linking their nations.
     
    The US$600 million rail line will connect the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, with the eastern Turkish city of Kars, via the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

    The project is one of several linking oil-rich Azerbaijan and Central Asia with Turkey and European markets while bypassing Russia.

     

    A groundbreaking ceremony in Kars Thursday marked the start of the 50 mile (76 kilometer) Turkish section of the 110 mile (180 kilometer) railroad.

     

    “We are launching the iron Silk Road,” Turkey’s Abdullah Gul said. “It will link China in Asia to London.”

     

    The Silk Road was an ancient Asian trading route. The railway will be operational in 2011. [link to article]

    XINHUA: Turkey’s free trade volume increases in first half of 2008

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) – Trade volume in Turkey’s free zones increased 12 percent in the first half of 2008 compared with the same period of 2007, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported on Friday.

    Turkey‘s trade volume reached 13.3 billion U.S. dollars in this period, according to the report.

    The report said that trade volumes in the first half of 2008 were 3.2 billion dollars in Istanbul Leather Free Zone, 2.05 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone, and 1.9 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport.

    According to figures released by Foreign Trade Undersecretariat, trade volume of Istanbul Leather Free Zone was 3.06 billion dollars, while it was 2.1 billion dollars in Aegean Free Zone and 1.6 billion dollars in Istanbul Ataturk Airport in the first six months of 2007.

    Highest trade volume was recorded with OECD and EU countries with 4.9 billion dollars in the first half of 2008.

    Trade volume with 25 EU-states was 4.03 billion dollars, and 932.2 million dollars with OECD countries.

    Free zones take place within borders of a country, but regulations regarding customs, tax, foreign exchange, price, quality and standards are not applied in these zones. [link to article]

    HURRIYET ENGLISH:  Turkey seeks support of UN’s Ban for Council seat

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan asked U.N. Secretary General to support the country’s bid for a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, as he continued his lobby efforts in New York.

    Babacan met Ban in New York late on Wednesday.

     

    The U.N. Security Council is composed of five permanent members – China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent members. Turkey competes with Austria and Iceland for the term of 2009-2010.

     

    Ten non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election. Turkey held a seat in the Security Council in 1951-52, 1954-55 and 1961.
    The two also discussed Cyprus and Iraq in their meeting, as Babacan reiterated Turkey’s parameters for a solution in the Cyprus issue, the state-run Anatolian Agency reported.

     

    Ban said he closely monitored Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Iraq, and added his visit was a successful one.

     

    Erdogan paid earlier this month an official visit to Iraq to boost mutual political and economic relations, as the first Turkish prime minister to visit the neighboring country after 18 years.

     

    Babacan also held talks with the representatives of Jewish establishments in the United States, and informed them on the election procedure on non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the agency added. Jewish lobby traditionally are among the biggest supporters of Turkey.

     

    The representatives also told Babacan that they were closely following Turkey’s policies on Iran’s nuclear works.

     

    Turkish foreign minister also had meetings with representatives of Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in New York. The representatives told Babacan that they appreciated Turkey’s efforts for establishment of a prosperous Middle East. [link to article]

    XINHUA:  Iranian president to visit Turkey late August

    ANKARA, July 25 (Xinhua) — Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to pay a visit to Turkey next month at the invitation of his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, Turkish Daily News reported on Friday.

    Ahmadinejad’s potential visit has been on the agenda for a longtime but could not be finalized due to both the international crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and Turkey’s presidential and general elections that took place last year, according to the report.

    The two neighboring countries have boosted economic, trade, energy and security ties in recent years and the energy ministers of the two sides recently signed a preliminary agreement on transferring Iranian natural gas through Turkish territory and allowing Turkish companies to develop three Iranian natural gas fields in southern Iran.

    A couple of documents focusing on economic relations would be signed during the presidential visit, the report added.

    Turkey‘s close energy and trade ties with Iran are not welcomed by the United States, which argues that they would encourage Iran not to cooperate with the international community to solve the nuclear program issue.

    Turkey, on the other hand, says that its close ties with Iran allow it to dispatch the international community’s message to Tehran as openly as possible.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said earlier that Turkey has no formal mediation mission but described the country’s role as “one that is, in a sense, consolidating and facilitating” the negotiations between Iran and the six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

    Babacan will meet his Iranian counterpart Manuchehr Mottaki next week in Tehran on the eve of the summit of non-aligned countries. [link to article]

     

  • THE IRON SILK ROAD ADVANCES FURTHER

    THE IRON SILK ROAD ADVANCES FURTHER

     

     

     

    THE IRON SILK ROAD ADVANCES FURTHER

    By Vladimir Socor

    Friday, July 25, 2008

     

    Presidents Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, and Abdullah Gul of Turkey inaugurated on July 24 in Kars the construction work on the Turkish section of the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku (KTB) railroad. A project of inter-continental significance, connecting Europe and Asia through the South Caucasus, this “Iron Silk Road” is being built by the region’s countries through their own efforts.

    Azerbaijan is the locomotive in the KTB railroad, as in the region-wide energy projects. Baku single-handedly finances the railroad’s construction on Georgian territory, drawing on early oil revenues to invest in this strategic railroad. Azerbaijan rescued the project after the European Union, international financial institutions, and Turkey for various reasons had declined to finance the Iron Silk Road. According to Turkish Transportation Minister Bineli Yildirim, “If Ilham Aliyev had not demonstrated resolve, this project would not have been possible. Azerbaijan’s decision to finance the Georgian section is the most important step in the implementation of this project” (Trend Capital, July 14).

    The KTB project involves construction of 105 kilometers of new rail tracks from scratch, including 76 kilometers on Turkish territory to the Georgian border and 29 kilometers within Georgia. It also necessitates repair and upgrading of 183 kilometers of existing rail track on Georgian territory. The overall costs are estimated (in 2007 U.S. dollar terms) at $600 million, including $422 million for the railroad itself and nearly $200 million for associated infrastructure.

    The International Bank of Azerbaijan has provided a $200 million loan for the project on uniquely preferential terms: 25-year repayment period, at only 1 percent annual interest. Georgia will repay the loan by using part of the revenue generated by the railroad on Georgian territory.

    Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey signed the intergovernmental agreement on KTB in February 2007. Construction work on the Georgian section started in November 2007, with Azerbaijan’s Azerinshaat Service company acting as general contractor.

    Speaking at the inauguration of work on the Turkish section on July 24, Saakashvili remarked that Azerbaijan is acting in practical terms as a “guarantor of Georgia’s independence,” financing the railroad now after having supplied Georgia with low-cost gas during the Russian blockade of January-February 2006. “The Georgian people will never forget this,” Saakashvili commented (Kavkas-Press, July 24).

    The railroad is scheduled for completion in 2011. It is expected to carry 1.5 million passengers and 6.5 million tons of cargo per year during the first three years of operation. Traffic is projected to increase to 3 million passengers and 15 million tons of cargo per year until 2015. This could stimulate a substantial expansion in the capacity of Turkish State Railways, which currently handles 19.5 million tons of cargo annually (Anatolia Agency, Turkish Daily News, July 20, 21).

    Functionally interrelated with the KTB, though a distinct entity, is Turkey’s Marmaray project to build a railroad tunnel under the Bosporus. With completion expected by 2010, the tunnel will enhance the KTB railroad’s commercial attractiveness. Trains will be able to travel without interruption from any point in Europe (e.g., London) continuously to the Caspian Sea.

    On the eastern Caspian shore, Kazakhstan is interested in a trans-Caspian linkup with KTB’s terminal in Baku. The KTB railroad will open direct access for Kazakhstan to European Union territory for the first time. Kazakhstan plans a massive increase in its commodity exports to Europe, including grain exports. With this in mind, Kazakhstan is completing an 800,000-ton grain-handling terminal near Baku, for trans-shipment from barges to the railroad.

    Asked about Armenia’s absence from the KTB project, President Gul commented in general terms that countries wishing to participate in region-wide projects should respect the territorial integrity of their neighbors (Zaman, July 24). This diplomatic comment reflects the ongoing feelers between Turkey and Armenia about a possible high-level meeting to ameliorate relations (see article by Gareth Jenkins below). In fact, Yerevan had actively opposed the KTB project and worked with its allies in the United States and Europe to block international funding for it.

    Yerevan had hoped to force a change of route, diverting the KTB line from Kars to Gyumri in Armenia. This would have made no economic sense inasmuch as the Kars-Gyumri line (existent, but closed by Turkey due to Yerevan’s occupation of Azerbaijani lands) is a sideline, of merely local interest. Earlier, and similarly, Yerevan and allied groups in the West had unsuccessfully opposed the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

    Thanks to KTB, Azerbaijan and Turkey will be linked with each other by railroad for the first time, albeit through Georgia. In addition, Baku and Ankara intend to connect Nakhchivan, the Azerbaijani exclave, with Turkey’s railroad system. President Aliyev and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed during their recent meeting in Nakhchivan to go ahead with this project (Trend Capital, July 14).

    In a related development, Turan Air company in Baku inaugurated on July 21 regular direct flights between Haidar Aliyev International Airport and Kars (Day.az, July 21). Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey are beginning to form what amounts to a common economic region, increasingly connected with Europe and potentially with Central Asia, on either side of this region’s territory.

  • TURKEY AND ARMENIA: FROM SECRET TALKS TO “SOCCER DIPLOMACY”?

    TURKEY AND ARMENIA: FROM SECRET TALKS TO “SOCCER DIPLOMACY”?

     

     

    TURKEY AND ARMENIA: FROM SECRET TALKS TO “SOCCER DIPLOMACY”?

    By Gareth Jenkins

    Friday, July 25, 2008

     

    On July 24, the presidents of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan formally inaugurated the Turkish section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad, which will eventually provide the first ever rail link between the three countries. Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony, Turkish President Abdullah Gul declared, in an unmistakable reference to Armenia, that “this project is open to all countries in the region who wish to contribute to good, neighborly relations, peace and prosperity” (NTV, CNNTurk, July 24).

    Armenia and Turkey do not have any official diplomatic relations and the border between the two countries has been closed since 1993, following the war in Nagorno Karabakh between ethnic Armenians and the Azeri government in Baku. In recent years, hopes of an improvement in relations between Turkey and Armenia have been frustrated by continuing differences over the status of Nagorno Karabakh and—more intractably—the treatment of ethnic Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire, culminating in 1915-16 in the massacre and deportation of virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolia.

    As a result, Ankara has consistently excluded Armenia from its plans to make Turkey into an energy and transportation hub. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) natural gas pipeline both pointedly circumvent Armenia. The 76 kilometer (48 mile) Turkish section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad is currently expected to be completed in late 2010 or early 2011 at a total cost of $241 million. The initial target is for the railroad to carry 1.5 million passengers and 6.5 million tons of freight in the first year after it comes into service (Today’s Zaman, July 25).

    In addition to connecting Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, Ankara hopes that the railroad will form another link in a rail network that will eventually connect, via Turkey, China and Central Asia to western Europe. The Marmaray Project to bore a rail tunnel under the Bosporus and connect the Asian and European shores of Istanbul is currently scheduled for completion in 2011.

    Armenia opposed the building of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad, pointing out that there is already a railway running from Tbilisi to Kars via the Armenian town of Gyumri, although it has been out of use since the closure of the Turkish-Armenian border in 1993.

    It is currently unclear what concessions Gul envisaged when he apparently made Armenian participation in the new rail project conditional on Yerevan making a contribution to “good, neighborly relations, peace and prosperity.” For the moment at least, the respective positions of Turkey and Armenia on issues such as Nagorno Karabakh and the massacres and deportations of ethnic Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire appear so far apart as to be irreconcilable. Even if the two countries could reach some form of understanding over the latter, a solution to the problem of Nagorno Karabakh is beyond Turkey’s control as it depends on an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There is currently no indication that one is imminent.

    Nevertheless, there have recently been signs of a slight thaw between Turkey and Armenia. Even though the border between the two countries remains closed, there are now regular flights between Turkey and Armenia by both the privately-owned Turkish Atlas Jet and the Armenian state-owned carrier Armavia.

    On July 18, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan appeared to confirm rumors in the Turkish media that diplomats from Turkey and Armenia had met in Switzerland for several days of informal talks about ways of improving ties. “Such talks are held from time to time,” said Babacan. “We have problems about current issues and disagreements about the events of 1915. It is essential that these problems are handled through dialogue” (Today’s Zaman, July 19).

    The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also issued a statement admitting that in recent years there had been occasional informal contacts between Turkey and Armenia and noting that Turkey had been one of the first countries to recognize Armenia when it declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. “Meetings between members of the foreign ministries of the two countries are part of these contacts. We believe that no different meaning should be attributed to these meetings,” said the MFA statement (Today’s Zaman, July 19).

    A previous series of informal discussions in 2005 failed to produce any result. In recent years, hopes of an improvement in relations have been complicated by events such as the motion brought before the U.S. Congress in fall 2007 calling on the United States to recognize what happened to the Armenians in 1915 as a genocide and the racist murder in Istanbul in January 2007 of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.

    But, even if diplomats from Turkey and Armenia remain reluctant to be seen meeting with each other, the two countries will come together in the most public of ways later this year. On September 6, the Turkish and Armenian national soccer teams are due to meet in Yerevan in the first ever match between the countries after they were both drawn in the same group in the qualifying stages for the 2010 soccer World Cup in South Africa. Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan has already invited Gul to Yerevan to watch the match. Gul has yet to reply to the invitation. Given the often extreme mutual antagonism between nationalists in both countries, traveling to Yerevan would require Gul to display both personal and political courage; as it would for Sarksyan to attend the return match in Istanbul. But there is also little doubt that, even if it did not produce any immediate results, such “soccer diplomacy” could contribute to a further easing of tensions and perhaps lay the foundations for an eventual reconciliation.

  • Captive nations inside Russia

    Captive nations inside Russia

    Europe view no 90

    Europe.view

    Who’s captive now?
    Jul 17th 2008
    From Economist.com

    A question about Russia

    Each year since 1959, in the third full week of July, America has
    marked Captive Nations Week. The original Congressional resolution is
    worth reading. It highlights both what the drafter, the late Lev
    Dobriansky, saw as the success of the United States in “e pluribus
    unum” (making one nation out of many), and the failure of Communist
    empires to do the same. The continued celebration of the week is
    something of a totem for old cold warriors who believe that the
    victories of 1989-91 are still sadly unconsummated.

    Yet the resolution’s wording rings oddly. The list of “captive
    nations” reads: “Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia,
    Latvia, Estonia, White Ruthenia, Rumania, East Germany, Bulgaria,
    mainland China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North Korea, Albania,
    Idel-Ural, Tibet, Cossackia, Turkestan, North Viet-Nam, and others
    [sic, throughout]”.

    It is hard to find rhyme or reason in that, even in its original
    context. Cossacks are Russian patriots; their beastly treatment under
    Soviet rule does not equate to a desire for national independence.
    Others whose history gives them every cause for complaint, such as the
    Circassians, don’t appear at all. Is the aim of the resolution ethnic
    self-determination, or the destruction of communist rule? As it
    stands, the two are conflated.

    Moreover, the phrase “Communist Russia” is wince-making. Many Russians
    find it unfair or outright racist to link Soviet rule, under which
    more Russians perished than any other nationality, with Russia itself.
    From a Russian point of view, it can be argued that the motherland was
    the greatest captive nation of all, its destiny hijacked by murderous
    ideologues (many of them, incidentally, not Russians).

    A seminar this week in Moscow may mark the start of another push to
    have the resolution revised. One of the initiators, the
    Russian-American academic Edward Lozansky, believes that a differently
    phrased resolution could be the start of a real rapprochement between
    modern Russia and the countries of central and eastern Europe.

    But there are two snags. One is that Soviet rule, particularly in its
    latter decades, did indeed mix Russian chauvinism with proletarian
    internationalism. The forcible Russification policies in the Caucasus,
    the Baltic states and elsewhere have left lasting bitterness.

    Secondly, the Russian Federation is a work in progress. Around a fifth
    of the population are not ethnic Russians. Some are deeply integrated
    and count themselves as patriotic citizens of a common state. But
    others aren’t. The spectrum of discontent ranges from separatists
    pursuing their cause by violent means (so far, thankfully, confined to
    the Caucasus) to moderate demands for greater cultural autonomy.

    Bad government stokes such grievances, just as the rule of law and
    political freedom defuse them. America conquered the Sioux and the
    Cherokee, and treated its aboriginal population abominably for
    decades. But the political and legal systems at both state and federal
    levels, albeit imperfect, now work well enough to make separatism both
    fanciful and unnecessary.

    The pervasive feeling of injustice and voicelessness in the Soviet
    system stoked captives’ desire to be free, and fatally corroded a
    system already vulnerable because of its economic failure. But if
    Soviet legitimacy was based on phoney ideology, what of the new
    Russian state’s identity? Is it a Swiss-style federation of equally
    sovereign peoples? Or is it an ethnically Russian state in which
    non-Russians are outsiders, guests or immigrants? The first would
    require an unprecedented degree of tolerance from ethnic Russians. The
    latter would relegate the 20% of the population to permanent
    second-class status.

    Ever since 1991, the answer, usually unspoken, has been “don’t know”.
    Next week’s Europe.view will suggest some answers�”and, if anyone is
    puzzled, have more on the mysterious country of “Idel-Ural”.

    Europe View no 91

    For your freedom and ours
    Jul 24th 2008
    From Economist.com

    Captive nations inside Russia

    Is Cornwall a “captive nation”? As last week’s Europe.view noted,
    influential Russians are pushing for America to rewrite the resolution
    that marks its Captive Nations Week (the third week in July), to make
    it clear that communism, not Russia, is the target. An even trickier
    question is not what other former Soviet-ruled countries make of this,
    but of Russia’s own internal composition�”which includes places that
    some might also count as “captive”.

    Countries’ borders grow and shrink, partly by consent, but also by
    conquest. Nations�”defined, loosely, as people sharing a common
    language or culture�”may find themselves no longer masters in their own
    house. Some may despair. Others start plotting.

    Practicality is not the main determinant. In Cornwall, which lost its
    independence around 875AD, a doughty band of campaigners has revived
    the language and hopes to win back more rights. But compared to
    Scotland, where the separatist tide is running strongly, theirs looks
    like a lost cause. So does secession in Vermont, say, or Hawaii. In
    Russia, at least for now, those reviving, say, the Siberian language,
    or commemorating the short-lived and abortive independence of the
    Siberian republic in 1918, look a lot closer to Cornish nationalism
    than Scottish. But for how long?

    Since 1991 the state calling itself the Russian Federation has been a
    miniature, de-communised version of the Soviet Union, paying
    lip-service to multi-ethnicity, but withholding actual cultural or
    political freedom from non-Russians: when Tatarstan wanted to write
    the national language in the orthographically better-suited Latin
    alphabet, the Kremlin insisted that Cyrillic was the only script to be
    used officially in the Russian Federation, regardless of practicality.

    Since 1989, Russia’s Muslim population has increased by 40% to about
    25m. By 2015, Muslims will by some estimates make up a majority of the
    army, and by 2020 a fifth of the population�”by far the majority in
    some regions.

    How many of those Muslims will look to the tolerant “Euroislam”
    pioneered in the Tatar capital, Kazan, in the early years of the last
    century, or to indigenous Sufi forms, and how many may look abroad for
    more radical forms of Islam?

    Added to ethnic and religious discontent is a growing regional
    consciousness. The colossal bribe-collecting opportunities created by
    Putinism have heightened the divide between big cities (particularly
    Moscow) and the rest of the country.

    Heightened resentment does not mean that Russia is going to fall apart
    as the Soviet Union did. For now, no part of the Russian Federation
    looks remotely like being a viable independent state. Even the most
    ardent supporter of Captive Nations Week would not argue that the
    “Idel-Ural” that it cites (present-day Tatarstan, Bashkiria and their
    Finno-Ugric neighbours, briefly independent after 1917) has any chance
    of a Baltic-style breakaway.

    But if anything can upset the post-1991 apple cart it will be
    ethnic-Russian chauvinism and heavy-handedness. As Paul Goble
    chronicles in his “Window on Eurasia” bulletins (a must-read for
    anyone interested in the politics of post-Soviet ethnicity), the Sochi
    Olympics have fuelled the revival of national consciousness among the
    Circassians. For this far-flung ethnic group, scattered throughout
    Asia Minor and the Levant by near-genocidal Czarist brutality, seeing
    the Olympics being planned at the site of their greatest historical
    tragedy is hugely offensive: some compare it to how Jews would react
    to a big international sporting festival being held at Ravensbrück or
    Dachau.

    Russian ethno-nationalism, coupled with bad government, may
    disillusion Russians of all stripes with the lingering imperial
    features of Russian statehood. If talk of “captive nations” jars
    Russian sensibilities, the best answer is the great slogan of
    freedom-lovers in the Czarist empire: “for your freedom and ours”.

    Captive Nations Resolution (original)

    The original Captive Nations resolution of the U.S. Congress
    PUBLIC LAW 86-90

    Whereas the greatness of the United States is in large part
    attributable to its having been able, through the democratic process,
    to achieve a harmonious national unit of its people, even though they
    stem from the most diverse of racial, religious, and ethnic
    backgrounds; and

    Whereas this harmonious unification of the diverse elements of our
    free society has led the people of the United States to possess a warm
    understanding and sympathy for the aspirations of peoples everywhere
    and to recognize the natural interdependency of the peoples and
    nations of the world; and

    Whereas the enslavement of a substantial part of the world’s
    population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of
    peaceful coexistence between nations and constitutes a detriment to
    the natural bonds of understanding between the people of the United
    States and other peoples; and

    Whereas since 1918 the imperialistic and aggressive policies of
    Russian communism have resulted in the creation of a vast empire which
    poses a die threat to the security of the United States and of all the
    free people of the world; and

    Whereas the imperialistic policies of Communist Russia have led,
    through direct and indirect aggression, to the subjugation of the
    national independence of Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine,
    Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, White Ruthenia, Rumania, East
    Germany, Bulgaria, mainland China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North
    Korea, Albania, Idel-Ural, Tibet, Cossackia, Turkestan, North
    Viet-Nam, and others; and

    Whereas these submerged nations look to the United States, as the
    citadel of human freedom, for leadership in bringing about their
    liberation and independence and in restoring to them the enjoyment of
    their Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, or other religious
    freedoms, and of their individual liberties; and

    Whereas it is vital to the national security of the United States that
    the desire for liberty and independence on the part of the peoples of
    these conquered nations should be steadfastly kept alive; and

    Whereas the desire for liberty and independence by the overwhelming
    majority of the people of these submerged nations constitutes a
    powerful deterrent to war and one of the best hopes for a just and
    lasting peace; and

    Whereas it is fitting that we clearly manifest to such peoples through
    an appropriate and official means the historic fact that the people of
    the United States share with them their aspirations for the recovery
    of their freedom and independence:

    Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
    States of America in Congress assembled, That:

    The President of the United States is authorized and requested to
    issue a proclamation designating the third week in July 1959 as
    “Captive Nations Week” and inviting the people of the United States to
    observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities. The
    President is further authorized and requested to issue a similar
    proclamation each year until such time as freedom and independence
    shall have been achieved for all the captive nations of the world.

  • The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims

    The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims

    By Christopher Hudson
    Last updated at 11:46 PM on 24th July 2008

    Three days after the fall of France in 1940, Napoleon, lying in his marble tomb in Paris, received a visit from his greatest admirer.

    Adolf Hitler, on his one and only visit to the French capital, made an unannounced trip to the tomb in Les Invalides.

    In his white raincoat, surrounded by his generals, Hitler stood for a long time gazing down at his hero, his cap removed in deference.

    Dictator: Napoleon was responsible for thousands of executions

    He was said later to have described this moment as ‘one of the proudest of my life’.

    The next day, during his official sightseeing tour of Paris, Hitler again visited Napoleon’s tomb to salute him.

    Conscious that his hero was known to the world simply as Napoleon, Hitler boasted that he would not need a rank or title on his gravestone. ‘The German people would know who it was if the only word was Adolf.’

    Throughout the war, Hitler had sandbags placed around Napoleon’s tomb to guard against bomb damage.

    Wooden floorboards were laid across the marble floor of Les Invalides so that they would not be scarred by German jackboots.

    Until recently, the French would have been incensed by any comparison between Napoleon and Hitler.

    But to their rage and shame, new research has shown that France’s greatest hero presided over mass atrocities which bear comparison with some of Hitler’s worst crimes against humanity.

    These reassessments of Napoleon have caused anguish in France. Top politicians backed out of official ceremonies to mark what was possibly Napoleon’s greatest victory, the battle of Austerlitz, when Napoleon’s Grande Armee defeated the combined armies of Austria and Russia in just six hours, killing 19,000 of their adversaries.

    A street in Paris named Rue Richepanse (after Antoine Richepanse, a general responsible for atrocities in the Caribbean) has recently had its name changed to Rue Solitude.
    Hitler

    Admiration: Hitler had a great respect for Napoleon – and perhaps his killing ways, it has now emerged

    During his reign as Emperor, concentration camps were set up and gas was used to massacre large groups of people.

    There were hit squads and mass deportations. And all this happened 140 years before Hitler and the Holocaust.

    Claude Ribbe, a respected historian and philosopher and member of the French government’s human rights commission, has been researching Napoleon’s bloodcurdling record for some years.

    He accuses him of being a racist and an anti-Semite who persecuted Jews and reintroduced widespread slavery just a few years after it had been abolished by the French government.

    The most startling of these findings, the attempted massacre of an entire population over the age of 12 by methods which included gassing them in the holds of ships, relate to the French Caribbean colony of Haiti at the turn of the 19th century.

    In Ribbe’s words, Napoleon, then First Consul, was the man who, for the first time in history, ‘asked himself rationally the question how to eliminate, in as short a time as possible, and with a minimum of cost and personnel, a maximum of people described as scientifically inferior’.

    Haiti around 1800 was the world’s richest colony, a slave-powered export factory which produced almost two-thirds of the world’s coffee and almost half its sugar.

    The black slaves were lashed and beaten to work and forced to wear tin muzzles to prevent them from eating the sugar cane.

    If the slaves were fractious, they were roasted over slow fires, or filled with gunpowder and blown to pieces.

    When the slaves began to fight for their freedom, under the leadership of a charismatic African military genius called Toussaint L’Ouverture, Napoleon sent 10,000 crack troops under the command of his brother-inlaw, General Leclerc, to crush Toussaint and restore slavery.

    In 1802, a vast programme of ethnic cleansing was put in place. Napoleon banned inter-racial marriages and ordered that all white women who’d had any sort of relationship with a black or mulatto (person of mixed race) be shipped to France.

    He further commanded the killing of as many blacks in Haiti as possible, to be replaced by new, more docile slaves from Africa.

    The French troops were under orders to kill all blacks over the age of 12. However, younger children were also killed – stabbed to death, put in sandbags and dropped into the sea.

    The Haitians fought to the death for independence, which they finally declared in 1804.

    Prisoners on both sides were regularly tortured and killed, and their heads were mounted on the walls of stockades or on spikes beside the roads.

    Non-combatants, too, were raped and slaughtered. According to contemporary accounts, the French used dogs to rip black prisoners to pieces before a crowd at an amphitheatre.

    Allegdly on Napoleon’s orders, sulphur was extracted from Haitian volcanoes and burned to produce poisonous sulphur dioxide, which was then used to gas black Haitians in the holds of ships – more than 100,000 of them, according to records.

    The use of these primitive gas chambers was confirmed by contemporaries. Antoine Metral, who in 1825 published his history of the French expedition to Haiti, writes of piles of dead bodies everywhere, stacked in charnel-houses.

    Auschwitz victims: Did Hitler learn genocide from Napoleon?

    ‘We varied the methods of execution,’ wrote Metral. ‘At times, we pulled heads off; sometimes a ball and chain was put at the feet to allow drowning; sometimes they were gassed in the ships by sulphur.

    ‘When the cover of night was used to hide these outrages, those walking along the river could hear the noisy monotone of dead bodies being dropped into the sea.’

    A contemporary historian, who sailed with the punitive expedition, wrote that: ‘We invented another type of ship where victims of both sexes were piled up, one against the other, suffocated by sulphur.’

    These were prison ships with gas chambers called etouffiers, or ‘chokers’, which asphyxiated the blacks, causing them terrible suffering.

    Even at the time, there were French naval officers who were appalled at this savagery, claiming they would rather have braved a court martial than have forgotten the laws of humanity.

    But from the Emperor’s point of view, gassing was a way of cutting costs. Ships continued to transport prisoners out to sea to drown them, but corpses kept being washed up on beaches or tangled in ships’ hulls.

    Toussaint, who called himself the Black Napoleon, was kidnapped after accepting an invitation to parlay with a French general and shipped back to France in chains, where he died of pneumonia after being imprisoned in a cold stone vault.

    Guadeloupe, an island to the east, suffered a similar fate to Haiti’s.

    Once again choosing not to recognise France’s abolition of slavery, Napoleon in 1802 promoted a comrade of his, Antoine Riche-panse, to the rank of General, and sent him with an expeditionary force of 3,000 men to put down a slave revolt on the island.

    During his purge, General Richepanse slaughtered any men, women and children he encountered on his route to the capital. Then he worked through a plan of extermination apparently approved by the First Consul.

    A military commission was set up to give what followed a veneer of legality. Some 250 ‘rebels’ were shot in Guadeloupe’s Victory Square. Another 500 were herded down to the beach and shot there.

    Richepanse and Lacrosse, the former colonial governor now restored to power, thought of piling up the dead in vast mounds to intimidate the islanders, but gave up the plan for fear of starting a disease epidemic.

    Instead, using a technique which the French were to copy during the Algerian War, they sent death squads into every part of Guadeloupe to track down farmers who were absent from their homes.

    These men were treated as rebels. A bounty was promised for each black man captured, and the rebels were summarily shot or hanged. The ferocity of the repression sparked another uprising, which Lacrosse subdued with the most barbarous methods yet.

    ‘Being hung is not enough for the crimes they have committed,’ he said. ‘It is necessary to cut them down alive and let them expire on the wheel [prisoners were bound to a cart wheel before having their arms and legs smashed with cudgels].

    ‘The jails are already full: it is necessary to empty them as quickly as possible.’ In this he was successful, hanging, garotting and burning the rebels and breaking their limbs on the wheel.

    Lacrosse developed possibly the most fiendish instrument of slow execution ever created.

    The prisoner was thrust into a tiny cage and had a razor-sharp blade suspended between his legs. In front of him was a bottle of water and bread, neither of which he could reach.

    He was stood in stirrups, which kept him just above the blade, but if he fell asleep or his legs tired, he was sliced by the blade. Neither fast nor economical, it was pure sadism.

    After four months in Guadeloupe, the French lost patience with the islanders, and the ferocity of their repression reached new heights.

    Blacks with short hair were shot out of hand, since the expeditionary force considered short hair to be a sign of rebellion. Orders were given that ‘the type of execution should set a terrifying example’.

    The soldiers were encouraged ‘to cut open insurgents, to strangle and to burn them’. French officers spoke proudly of creating ‘torture islands’.

    In a letter to Napoleon, his brother-in-law Leclerc wrote: ‘It is necessary to destroy all the negroes of the mountain . . . do not leave children over the age of 12.’

    Ribbe, in his work in progress, sees continual affinities between Napoleon and Hitler. He argues that many of Napoleon’s actions were later echoed in Nazi Germany, right down to his enthusiasm for slavery reflecting the grim message ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ (‘Work Sets You Free’), which appeared over the gates of Auschwitz.

    Napoleon, like Hitler, also used his own army like cannon fodder when the occasion demanded.

    His retreat from Moscow in 1812 squandered the lives and courage of 450,000 soldiers of the Grande Armee; many of them were found frozen to death while embracing each other to harvest a last flicker of warmth, in what was one of the bitterest winters in living memory.

    Nothing shows more clearly the contempt the Emperor showed for his minions than the bulletin announcing the destruction of his Army.

    Napoleon blamed his horses and ended by declaring that his health had never been better.

    As theatres for Napoleon’s callousness, Haiti and Guadeloupe were too far away to attract much public notice, let alone condemnation.

    Syria was a different matter. In the war between France and the Ottoman Empire (most of it modern-day Turkey), Napoleon led the siege of the ancient walled city of Jaffa, whose harbour he needed as a vital shelter for his fleet.

    The city fell on the fourth day, whereupon Napoleon’s troops ran amok through the town, slaughtering Christians, Jews and Muslims indiscriminately.

    To escape the slaughter, part of the garrison locked themselves into a large keep.

    Napoleon sent his officers, who negotiated their surrender and marched them back to the French camp.

    Rations were short, so Napoleon now decided that he had been too magnanimous.

    For three days he kept the 4,000 mostly Turkish prisoners with their arms tied behind their back; then the massacre began.

    Somewhere between 2,500 and 4,000 men were slaughtered there and then, either by shooting them or by running them through with bayonets.

    Shortly afterwards plague broke out, decimating the troops on both sides. With real courage, Napoleon led his general staff on a tour of the plague-infested hospitals.

    It did not deter him from suggesting to the doctors that seriously ill French troops who could not be evacuated should be given a fatal dose of the opiate laudanum. The doctors forced him to back down.

    From Jaffa, Napoleon marched to Acre, a city constructed on a peninsula and therefore impregnable, given that there was British control of the seas. Napoleon launched seven major assaults; each one failed. Marching back to Cairo, Napoleon left 2,200 of his troops dead, and 2,300 more seriously ill or wounded.

    As far as Napoleon was concerned, these wounded were already dead men. Most of them he left behind, knowing that the Turks would cut off their heads as soon as his army left. They did their best to follow his retreat, crying out not to be abandoned.

    They straggled along, their throats parched in the debilitating heat, which reduced their cries to a croak. Injured officers were thrown from their litters and left to die in the dunes.

    Soldiers were abandoned in the cornfields, which were still smouldering in the devastation of crops and villages ordered by Napoleon. In all, some 5,000 Frenchmen lost their lives.

    If Hitler learned any lessons from Napoleon, one must have been that victory required callousness, not just in the leader but in those around him.

    ‘Like those working in the Nazi system, the French carrying out Napoleon’s killing did so with little thought to morality,’ Claude Ribbe says today. ‘There was no sense of good or evil: it was just a matter of getting a difficult job done. In the end, the killing methods had to be efficient and cheap.’

    So is Napoleon to be feted as a great leader or denounced as a dictator? A poll published in Le Figaro in 2005 found that nearly 40 per cent of Frenchmen regarded Napoleon as ‘a dictator who had used all means to satisfy his thirst for power’.

    However, considering what was done in Napoleon’s name in Haiti and Guadeloupe, there is one memorial which deserves to be added.

    Next to the unknown soldier at the Arc de Triomphe should be erected the Tomb of the Unknown Slave.

    • Le Crime de Napoleon, by Claude Ribbe (Editions Priv & Egrave;).

    Source: www.mailonsunday.co.uk, 24th July 2008

  • Bulgaria Nationalist Party Boycotts Parliament

    Bulgaria Nationalist Party Boycotts Parliament

    Friday , 25 July 2008

    Bulgaria’s Nationalist “Ataka” (Attack) Party is to leave parliament in protest against the ruling “criminal majority,” MP Desislav Chukolov reported Thursday.

    “We do not wish to become accomplices to the government and the laws and decisions it makes,” the party member added in an interview.

    “We are not running away but getting closer to the voters. We call on all opposition parties to follow our example and join us in the boycott. We are to start meeting with the people and try to deprive this cabinet of the possibility to rule,” Chukolov said.

    On Wednesday opposition political forces in Bulgaria filed the sixth no confidence vote against the governing three-way ruling coalition, comprised of socialists, centrists and the ethnic Turkish party, over its failure in adhering to the rules of the EU and in the absorption of EU funds.

    The move came along with a harsh report from the EC over Bulgaria’s progress in the judicial sphere and EU funds absorption.

    July 25, 2008 Sofia News Agency

    Source: The Journal of Turkish Weekly, 25 July 2008