So far, 17,100 people and 3,400 representatives from 136 countries including Turkey have confirmed their participation in SPIEF.
The organizers of the Forum note that participation indicators have reached pre-Covid levels: the period of restoration of economic activity is over, and the Forum is in a growth phase. As a communication tool, it is in demand by the global business community.
Today, SPIEF is one of the sovereign centers for the development of Europe, which is a historical restructuring that implements the mission of maintaining the global balance of power and building a multipolar international system. It also provides conditions for development based on the continental and constructive development of the day, dictated by the national interests of the Russian Federation. The forum has become a full-fledged institute for national growth.
The business program covers a wide range of issues: from the development of international economic relations and technological transformations to priority science research the studies of the modern society. The headline of the 27th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is “The basis of multipolarity causes the growth of new centers.”
On the eve of SPIEF, several conferences are held annually in different countries. This year, the final session took place in the capital of the Republic of Costa Rica – San Jose. The location was not chosen by chance – it was Costa Rica that became the first country in Central America to establish official diplomatic contacts with Russia back in 1872. Over the more than 150-year history of relations, a strong bond has been established between the two governments.
In Russia, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will be held from June 5 to 8.
In reality, the problem that lies at the root of the Cyprus problem and needs to be solved is the problem of ‘trust’.
The number of Turkish Cypriots who sincerely trust the Greek Cypriots and Greeks is almost negligible.
The roots of this mistrust go back to the early 20th century, but if we leave the past in the past and return to the present, we see that nothing has changed since then.
As you know, the Greek Cypriots prevent all kinds of initiatives that will mention the name of the TRNC, that will bring the TRNC to the top and that will give the Turkish Cypriots a breath of fresh air. This includes touristic visits, economic and scientific activities.
The Greek Cypriots are doing their best to isolate from the world the state that the Turkish Cypriots, who were subjected to a genocide between 1955 and 1974, similar to the genocide in Gaza today, managed to establish – as a result of their liberation in 1974 with the help and support of the motherland Turkey -.
The Greeks, who have been terminating the negotiations that have been going on since 1968 to establish a so-called common state with the Turkish Cypriots, each time with a megalomaniacal attitude and with lame excuses, overturning the table and leaving, today, as if they were not the ones who left the negotiation table, they are trying to get the Turkish Cypriots to sit at the table, they are travelling from door to door and trying every way to put pressure on Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots.
Recently, they did everything in their power to prevent our President Ersin Tatar from travelling to Australia and meeting with Australian local administrators and government members.
They tried to do so, but this time they were not successful and for the first time a TRNC President was welcomed, hosted and visited Australia as ‘President’, even if not officially.
The Greek Cypriots, who prevented the Turkish Cypriots from participating in international sports competitions, prevented the Turkish Cypriots from connecting to the world with direct flights, prevented the Turkish Cypriots from becoming an ‘observer’ member of the Organisation of Turkic States established by states of Turkish descent, and plotted all kinds of intrigues to prevent the Turkish Cypriots from establishing academic, commercial, industrial, social and cultural ties with the states of the world, have run out of credit, and it has become impossible for them to expect love and respect from the Turkish Cypriots.
Although the UN representatives meet with the anti-TRNC people in the TRNC and present them as the general opinion of the Turkish Cypriots, the vast majority of the Turkish Cypriots do not want to establish a common state with the Greek Cypriots, who have been carrying out armed, economic and political attacks to destroy them for the last century, and where they will be relegated to minority status like the Maronites, Armenians and Latins after a while.
The inhumane practices of the Atlantic Alliance, which isolates them from the world and does not recognise laws and rules, has been a great lesson to the Turkish Cypriots about who they can trust.
The Atlantic Alliance, which has been providing financial and arms support to the terrorist formation operating under the names of PKK, YPG and similar names in the territory of North East Syria for years, is now trying to give legal status to their existence by supporting them to hold local elections illegally, but unfortunately, it has not imposed any sanctions to be taken seriously on the rulers of the ‘Hellenic Republic of Cyprus’, Greek Cypriots and Greece, who declared the ‘Hellenic Republic of Cyprus’ by overthrowing the internationally recognised ‘Republic of Cyprus’ by staging a coup d’état in Cyprus on 15 July 1974 and declared the ‘Hellenic Republic of Cyprus’ and announced the annexation of the island of Cyprus to Greece the next day. (Turkey, which saved the Turkish Cypriots from genocide and extinction, was subjected to an ‘arms and financial embargo’ immediately after the 1974 Peace Operation). In the United Nations Organisation, of which they are the protector and founder, they took the decision dated 18 November 1983 and numbered 541, which is a disgrace to humanity, isolating the Turkish Cypriots from the world.
Now, while they are trying to illegally create a terrorist state in North East Syria, which will be completely under their control, I leave it to you to interpret the aim of bringing together two communities that have fought each other and whose anger has not subsided on the island where the world’s longest-lasting conflict is taking place, and giving the administration to the Greeks. Here, there is a 41-year-old state with all its institutions – not counting the Federated State – and there is an attempt to have terrorists establish a state there!
What kind of global justice is this? Who, why and how should we trust?
Prof. Dr. (Civil Engineer), Assoc. Prof. Dr. (UA. Relations) Ata ATUN
Member of the Advisory Board of the TRNC President
On 24th April each year Yerevan issues its standard message commemorating the “Armenian Genocide” of 1915. This is usually a matter of routine. But not this year. The statement issued by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has led to him being called a “denialist” by the Armenian diaspora and the Genocide industry in the US and elsewhere in the West.
Here are the relevant parts of Pashinyan’s statement that have attracted the ire of those with a stake in the Genocide accusation:
“Dear people, dear citizens of the Republic of Armenia,
Today we commemorate the memory of 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Meds Yeghern, who were put to the sword in the Ottoman Empire since 1915 for being Armenians.
This large-scale tragedy took place during the years of the World War I, and the Armenian people, who had no statehood at the time, having lost their statehood centuries ago, had essentially forgotten the tradition of statehood, and became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises, lacking first of all a political mind capable of making the world and its rules understandable.
Meds Yeghern became a nationwide tragedy and grief for us, and without exaggeration, is now a predetermining factor for our socio-psychology. Even today, we perceive the world, our environment, ourselves under the dominant influence of the mental trauma of the Meds Yeghern, and we have not been able to overcome that trauma.
This means that… we often relate and compete with other countries and the international community in a state of mental trauma, and for this reason, sometimes we cannot correctly distinguish the realities and factors, historical processes and projected horizons confronting us.
Maybe this is also the reason why we receive new shocks, and relive the trauma of the Armenian Genocide as both a legacy and as a tradition… When talking about the Armenian Genocide, the Meds Yeghern, we always talk to the outside world, but our internal conversation never takes place on this event.
What should we do and what should we not do in order to overcome the trauma of genocide and exclude it as a threat? These are questions that should be the key subject of discussion in our political and philosophical thinking, but this kind of point of view of dealing with the fact of the Meds Yeghern is not common among us.
This is an imperative, an urgent imperative, and we must evaluate the relations between the Meds Yeghern and the First Republic of Armenia, we must relate the perception of the Meds Yeghern with the vital interests of the Republic of Armenia, our national statehood…
We must now stop the searches for a “national homeland” because we have already found that homeland, our Promised Land, where milk and honey flow. For us, the commemoration of the martyrs of the Meds Yeghern should not symbolize the “lost homeland”, but the found and real homeland, in the person of the Republic of Armenia, whose state… policies can prevent a repetition.
Never again! We should not say this to others, but to ourselves. And this is not an accusation against us at all, but a point of view where we, and only we, are responsible for the directing of our destiny and we are obliged to have enough mind, will, and depth of knowledge to carry through that responsibility in the domain of our sovereign decisions and perceptions.
May the martyrs of Meds Yeghern and all our other martyrs be consoled in their permanent sleep by the Republic of Armenia.
And long live the Republic of Armenia.”
It has been noticed that in his statement of April 24th, 2024, the Armenian Prime Minister chose to continually refer to the event the diaspora has been promoting for the last 50 years as “the Armenian Genocide” as Meds Yeghern or “the Great Crime”. He used the Genocide term extremely sparingly, almost in derogatory fashion against its diasporan promoters. Meds Yeghern is the term that Armenians used until the 1940’s to describe the events of 1915 before the term Genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin and applied by the Armenian diaspora in its campaign for reparations against the Turkish state since the 1970s. Since then, there has been an insistence that the proper and legal term that should be used is “Genocide” or Tseghasbanoutyoun, in Armenian.
What Pashinyan seems to be suggesting is that Armenia should stop its myth-making and deal with the realities of situations as they present themselves. In other words it should stop treating propaganda as fact because propaganda is a poor basis for policy and Armenia’s recent disasters are very much connected with this tendency. In line with this he has suggested, in line with Azerbaijan President Aliyev’s demand, that Armenia adopt a new constitution deleting the references to “Artsakh” and “the Armenian Genocide”.
One of Pashinyan’s top lieutenants’ has also made the suggestion of making a list of all “1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide”. This has been seen by the Armenian diaspora as an indirect way of questioning the veracity of the “Armenian Genocide” and part of a policy of appeasment toward Azerbaijan and Turkiye.
The Lemkin Institute, horrified that its raison d’etre has been questioned by the Armenian Prime Minister, no less, issued a very lengthy and detailed statement saying:
“While we do not generally involve ourselves in domestic affairs of states unless there is an internal threat of genocide, we must address concerns stemming from recent statements made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan that appear to diverge from fundamental principles of genocide prevention, genocide recognition, and transitional justice, and that directly relate to issues of Armenian national security.”
The Lemkin Institute statement then seeks to refute Pashinyan’s own statement published on April 24th:
“Perhaps most striking about Pashinyan’s statement on the genocide was the absence of any mention of aggressors. In paragraph three, for example, Pashinyan — discussing the period in the Ottoman Empire leading up to the 1915 genocide — cryptically asserted that “…the Armenian people, who had no statehood, had lost their statehood centuries ago, and essentially had forgotten the tradition of statehood, became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises, lacking first of all a political mind capable of making the world and its rules understandable.” This statement seems to assert that Armenians mysteriously experienced genocide due to their own witlessness. By asserting that Armenians were solely “victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises,” Pashinyan further disregards the long-term and multi-layered historical oppression of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as well as the deep and visceral contempt for Armenians among members of the Committee of Union and Progress, the ruling party during the genocide. In other words, Pashinyan’s statement fails to recognize the role played by the ethnic, religious, and cultural animosity for Armenians in the Turkic supremacist campaign of extermination that targeted Armenians during World War I.
Furthermore, instead of attributing blame for the genocide to the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Pashinyan redirects attention towards Armenians, and specifically their apparent incapacity to understand politics at the time. He appears to be referencing the actions of the Russian Empire and Western powers during that era, who promised to protect Armenians but did not follow through, which aggravated the Ottoman leaders’ sense of external threat to the empire and drew negative attention to the Armenians as ‘foreign agents’. However, he does not state this outright; instead he seems to believe that Armenians brought the genocide upon themselves by misunderstanding the political terrain. Pashinyan’s talking points in this passage seem ironic, given that he has himself embraced Western offers to save Armenia from its hostile neighbors. Yet, his talking points also echo the official position of Türkiye regarding the Armenian Genocide which justified it by contracting “against an onslaught of external invaders and internal nationalist independence movements”. By parroting the Turkish narrative of the events of 1915-1923, the Armenian Prime Minister risks absolving Türkiye of its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, downplaying all previous acknowledgment efforts. Further, it may substantially hamper the continuing work on international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Turkish accountability – something that the worldwide Armenian diaspora, as well as genocide scholars and activists, have been fighting for.
Pashinyan’s argument that “Armenian people, who had no statehood, had lost their statehood centuries ago, and essentially had forgotten the tradition of statehood” inexplicably plays into the denialist agenda of Türkiye and Azerbaijan by obliquely mischaracterizing Armenian efforts to gain equal rights and human security in the Ottoman empire with foolish attempts to exercise a quest for independent statehood for which they had no capacity. The vast majority of Armenians under Ottoman rule were not seeking secession, but rather security and justice. Pashinyan’s words directly echo the official Turkish view of the Armenian people as rebellious “traitors” who collaborated with hostile European powers to bring about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and who therefore betrayed the country. In fact, in this passage, Pashinyan seems to be making the case that Armenians can only avoid future genocides by capitulating to present-day Türkiye’s expansionist designs.”
It must be admitted that the Armenian Prime Minister has a better understanding of Armenian history than the propagandists in the Genocide industry.
Just after the Great War of August 1914 began in Europe a delegation of Young Turks attended the 8th Dashnak Congress held at Erzurum, in Ottoman eastern Anatolia. There they made an offer to the Armenians to secure their loyalty in the event of the War coming to the Ottoman territories – so as to preserve stability in the territories in which the Armenians lived.
That the Ottomans should have hosted the Dashnak Congress as the Great War was beginning reveals something about the good intentions of the Committee of Union and Progress (New/Young Turks). For most of the previous decade the Dashnaks had sat in the Ottoman parliament, Armenians had been Ottoman ministers and there had been genuine attempts at reform, which were to be supervised by International inspectors, in the eastern vilayets where the Armenians mostly lived.
At this Congress the Ottomans offered the Dashnaks the thing they had been struggling for over the previous 30 years – autonomy.
The Ottoman Government sent a delegation of 28 CUP members, representing all the ethnic groups of the Empire, including important individuals like Behaeddin Shakir and Naji Bey, to make an offer to the Armenians – who were observed to be moving toward supporting a Russian assault on the Empire.
There is a detailed account of the offer made to the Dashnaks at their Congress in Erzurum in a book written by Morgan Philips Price, a pro-Armenian British Liberal, who later became a Labour M.P. He acted for C.P. Scott as The Manchester Guardian’s Caucasus correspondent during the Great War:
“At the outbreak of the European war the Committee of Union and Progress became all-powerful, and all reform schemes and reconciliation plans fell to the ground. The Armenian party, “Dashnaktsution”, happened to be holding a conference at Erzerum when the war began. Turkey had not yet entered; but at the beginning of August Hilmi Bey, Behadin Shekir Bey, and Nedji Bey were delegated by the Committee to make certain proposals to the Armenians in the event of war with Russia. These delegates arrived at Erzerum at the end of the month, and their first proposal was that the Armenians should observe complete neutrality, the population of Armenia and the Trans-Caucasus doing its military duty, to whatever Empire it owed allegiance.
This the Armenians accepted, and all seemed to point to an agreement. But a few days later the Turks suddenly made another proposal. Turkey, they said, could never be secure until there was a chain of buffer States between her and her arch-enemy, Russia, and they claimed that, if war broke out, the Armenians should assist them in carrying out their plan. They then produced a map of the Middle East in which the following political divisions were made. Russia was to be pushed back to the Cossack steppes beyond the main range of the Caucasus. Tiflis and the Black Sea coast, with Batum and Kutais, were marked as belonging to an autonomous province of Georgia. The central part of the Trans-Caucasus, with Kars, Alexandropol and Erivan, were to be joined to the vilayets of Van, Bitlis, and East Erzerum, as an autonomous Armenia. Eastern Trans-Caucasia, including Baku, Elizabetopol and Dagestan were to become an autonomous province of Shiite Tartars. The Armenians, feeling the impossibility of the Ottoman Empire ever being able to realize such a grandiose scheme… refused to have anything to do with the proposal. So the Young Turk delegates, unable to make any impression in Erzerum, proceeded to Van, where they met with no greater success.
According to statements made to me during 1915 by prominent Van Armenians, it is clear that the action of the Tiflis Dashnakists, about which the Committee of Union and Progress had doubtless been informed by the end of August, was the principal cause of these Turkish demands. Early in August 1914 the Tiflis Armenians seem to have decided that a Russo-Turkish war was inevitable, and thereupon the Dashnakist leaders there at once offered 25,000 volunteers to assist the Russians in conquering the Armenian vilayets.
This offer was made before the outbreak of the war with Turkey, and in the interval the volunteers were busy training and forming at the various centres in the Caucasus. At the end of October, when Turkey came into the war, preparations had been so far advanced that Andranik, the famous revolutionary leader from Turkey, at the head of the first volunteer battalion, took part with the Russians in the advance through North-west Persia, capturing Serai early in November. Meanwhile five more battalions had been formed and were ready to leave for the front, as soon as they could get rifles and equipment. Fifty per cent, of these volunteers were Armenians who had left Turkey, Bulgaria and Roumania since the outbreak of the European war, and had come to the Caucasus to offer their services.
There can be little doubt that this volunteer movement, started under the auspices of the Caucasus Armenians, was the cause of the Young Turk demands on the Armenians of Erzerum, Van and Bitlis for a similar volunteer movement against Russia, and of the subsequent persecution when this demand was refused. Prominent Armenians, whom I met in Van, told me how the attitude of Djevdet Pasha towards them and their people became much more unfriendly as soon as the news arrived that Armenian volunteers were on the front fighting against the Turks. He at once demanded the return of a number of Armenian deserters, whose absence had hitherto been winked at. He accused them of going over to the volunteers with the Russians, and commenced the policy of forcing the Armenians into special labour battalions, where they had very hard work and bad food. Thus the Van Armenians were at the mercy of the Turks, who avenged on them all the rash acts of their kinsmen in the Caucasus.
That their conduct was keenly resented by the Turkish Armenian refugees in the Caucasus, was made clear by some articles in the Van Tosp, the organ of the Van Armenians in Tin as early in 1916. In its issue for January 9th, 1916, Professor Minassian took the Dashnaktsution party to task for having entered into negotiations with the Russian authorities without consulting its kindred societies in Turkish Armenia. It had spread, he said, baseless rumours of a Russian promise of autonomy for Armenia, and then had proceeded to organize volunteer battalions, regardless of the effect that this would have on their kinsmen in Turkey, whose position under the nose of the Turks was very precarious and required tactful handling. He denied that there was any serious negotiation with the Russian Government about Armenian autonomy, and said that the Dashnaktsution leaders of the Caucasus were pretending to represent responsible opinion, whereas they really only represented a group. The Orizon, the organ of the Dashnaktsution in Tiflis, defended itself by saying that the massacre would have happened in any case, and that Prince Vorontsoff Dashkoff had not only verbally promised Armenian autonomy in return for the service of the volunteers, but had actually signed a document to this effect. Whether this document ever existed is however exceedingly doubtful.” (War and Revolution in Asiatic Russia, pp.243-6)
The Armenians turned the Ottoman offer down and instead joined the Tsarist invasion and mounted an insurrection against the Ottoman state. That proved to be a fateful effor with the most tragic of results.
The CUP mission offered the Armenians autonomy in 2 and a half vilayets of East Erzurum, Van and Bitlis plus “Russian Armenia” in return for service in the Ottoman army in the event of war and support from their brethren in Russian territory, who would then, in the event of victory, be part of the larger autonomous region. The offer would be guaranteed by the German Government. The CUP delegation proposed that the Dashnaks aid the Ottoman State by mounting attacks on any Russian invasion behind the lines in Transcaucasia, where an autonomous Armenian state could be founded.
In the 2 and a half vilayets of Turkish Armenia this would have placed around 1 million Muslims under the authority of an autonomous Armenia containing only around 400,000 Armenians. So it was undoubtedly a generous concession on the Ottoman side (see Justin McCarthy, Turks and Armenians: Nationalism and Conflict in the Ottoman Empire, p.10) According to the 1897 Tsarist figures the Armenian population of the autonomous area would have been increased by another 1 million from the Kars, Erivan and Alexandropol Russian guberniyas (although this area would have also contained a sizeable amount of Muslims. By 1917 the Russians counted 1.4 million Christians in Russian Armenia and 670,000 Moslems).
So, an Armenian autonomous region, with “Russian Armenia” included, under Ottoman sovereignty would have perhaps been made viable by a small majority of Armenians – something that all the Armenian territorial claims were incapable of delivering without the extensive ethnic cleansing of Muslims.
This was the concrete realisation, to all intents and purposes, of the deal the Dashnaks had concluded with the Young Turks in 1907. It was more realistic and realisable than the choice the Dashnaks subsequently took in throwing in their lot with Russian expansionism and British Imperialism.
It could be said that the Dashnaks backed the wrong horse, believing it to be the more powerful one, more likely to win. They were taken in by the promises and propaganda of the Triple Entente – Britain, France and Russia – and paid an awful price for it.
Prime Minister Pashinyan, therefore, has a point. Armenians should grasp this historic opportunity to forget altogether about the myths around “Greater Armenia” and instead concentrate all efforts in improving the lives of Armenians living in the actual Armenia. The ideology of “Greater Armenia” and the “Armenian Genocide” combined, at the collapse of the USSR, to impel Armenia to seize a large portion of Azerbaijan where there was a sizeable Armenian population and which Armenian history had taught was a part of “historic Armenia”. In the course of this conquest there were fearsome massacres of Azerbaijani civilians and over 750,000 were driven from their homes to become internally displaced persons in other parts of Azerbaijan. And the US diaspora volunteeers, led by Monte Melkonian, conducted the notorious Khojaly massacre.
The seizure of Karabakh and the surrounding regions and ethnic cleansing of its population was justified not only on irredentist grounds but with reference to the events of 1915. Azerbaijani Turks could not be allowed to live in Karabakh because these “Turks” were, after all the same Turks as 1915!
The “Armenian Genocide” narrative also chained Armenia to its Russian “protector” after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Armenia was in need of a “protector” after what it did in Karabakh in the early 1990s and Moscow was indeed happy to oblige. This had a consequent retarding effect on Armenia’s post-Soviet national independence and development when the route to the West went through Turkiye. Pashinyan is very aware of this.
One of the first acts of the current US President upon coming to power was to recognise the “Armenian Genocide.” And now that same “caller out” of genocides is the essential facilitator of the clearest case of attempted genocide seen in modern times.
Perhaps that is concentrating the mind of the Armenian Prime Minister and making him into something of a statesman.
In a lengthy article published in the Irpmedia.irpi.eu in Italian on March 27, 2024, titled, “How Vatican helped legitimize the Aliyev autocracy in Azerbaijan,” Simone Zoppellaro exposes Vatican’s pro-Azerbaijan tilt due to financial donations, despite Armenia being a Christian nation, while Azerbaijan is Islamic.
On Feb. 22, 2020, the autocratic leader of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, and his wife, Mehriban Aliyeva, the country’s Vice President, paid a state visit to the Vatican. They were received officially by Pope Francis, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and Secretary for Relations with States Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher. Mrs. Aliyeva was at the Vatican to receive the highest honor awarded to a lay person by the Holy See: “The Grand Cross.” The award is proposed by the Diocesan Bishops “as a sign of appreciation and gratitude for services to the Church or to society reserved for Heads of State, ministers, ambassadors, and royalty.” However, the driving force behind Vatican’s interest in Azerbaijan is the financial support provided by the Heydar Aliyev Foundation.
Ironically, despite Azerbaijan’s intolerance of minorities, dissidents and other religions, the Holy See expressed its appreciation to “Azerbaijan’s openness and peaceful attitude towards different faiths.”
Fearing the loss of Azerbaijan’s donations, the Vatican has been reluctant to allow any criticism of Baku, particularly by its own clergy. “Father Georges-Henri Russyen was expelled from the Pontifical Oriental Institute because he was critical of those who did not want to use the formula ‘Armenian genocide.’”
Given the expectations of benefiting from Azerbaijan’s “Caviar Diplomacy,” the Vatican has not been willing to say anything more substantial than emphasizing “the importance of intercultural and inter-religious dialog in favor of peaceful coexistence among different religious and ethnic groups,” meaning Armenians and Azeris. The Pope prayed for the inhabitants of Karabakh, hoping “that the talks between the parties, with the support of the international community, will foster a lasting agreement that will end the humanitarian crisis,” Even during the 2020 War, “the Church was unable of going beyond generic appeals for moderation ‘to all the parties involved and to the international community’ to ‘lay down their weapons.’”
On October 24, 2023, Prime Minister Nikol Pahinyan received from the Apostolic Nuncio José Avelino Bettencourt the same award given three years earlier to Aliyeva, Azerbaijan’s Vice President. However, there was a major difference. While Aliyeva received her award directly from the Pope, Pashinyan was honored by an Apostolic Nuncio. There were also other differences which “helped consolidate the power of the Aliyev family, despite human rights violations in Artsakh.”
“Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, honorary president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Culture and chairman of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology, is the highest Vatican official who has made the most efforts to open a dialog with Azerbaijan.” He was awarded the Order of Friendship in 2013 by the Azerbaijani authorities — a high honor offered for a “special contribution to the development of friendly, economic and cultural relations between Azerbaijan and a foreign state.”
Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti is considered “the protagonist of the privileged channel” established between the Vatican and Baku. “Highly educated and polyglot, ambitious and lover of power, Cardinal Gugerotti has known the Aliyev family since 2002, when Pres. Heydar Aliyev, in power since 1969, was still alive.”
“In the early 2000s, Gugerotti met with the Azerbaijani authorities as Nuncio for the Southern Caucasus, a position he assumed in 2001. Before then this nunciature for the Holy See included only Georgia and Armenia. Those were the years in which Russia guaranteed a ceasefire in the region, after Armenia had defeated Azerbaijan in the first conflict. The ethnic hatred that is still fuel for the conflict was beginning to settle, but Nuncio Gugerotti called Azerbaijan a ‘country [that] is a symbol of peaceful coexistence between people of different religions.’”
“Ten years after he began his mission as Apostolic Nuncio in 2011, Gugerotti signed the historic agreement which, for the first time, regulated relations between Baku and the Catholic Church. At the time of ratification, recalls a 2019 book produced by the Foundation for the Promotion of Moral Values from Baku entitled ‘Christianity in Azerbaijan,’ Gugerotti expressed gratitude to the (Azeri) government for creating the conditions that made possible [the agreement], emphasizing that our country always remained committed to the principles of tolerance, and noting that the agreement was the first document of its kind, because the Vatican had never signed such an agreement with any state before.”
According to Gugerotti, “Azerbaijan has once again demonstrated its tolerance. Now the whole world is witnessing it. I am sure that this document will receive a positive response in the international world and will be remembered as a great historical event. The reaction of the press from day one proves us right. On behalf of the Holy Throne and the Crown, I extend my deep thanks for all this to President Ilham Aliyev and the Government of Azerbaijan.”
Since 2009, the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, headed by Mehriban Aliyeva, has funded various activities in the Vatican: restoration projects, exhibitions and concerts. Other projects funded by Azerbaijan included: the Roman catacombs, the Vatican Museums, the Vatican Apostolic Library, and Catholic churches in France and Azerbaijan. These donations amount to one million euros.
In 2013, Gugerotti received the Movses Khorenatsi Medal — the highest Armenian honor — from the then president Serzh Sargsyan for his important contribution to Armenian studies, but also the effort aimed at strengthening relations between Yerevan and the Holy See.
The author of the article concluded that the close relationship between the Vatican and Azerbaijan has had the effect, perhaps unintended, of strengthening the hegemonic role of the Azeri autocracy… which may contribute to a diplomatic normalization that would put in the background, or erase, crimes and aggressions committed by the Azeri autocracy.
Recently, a number of official sources have published the information confirming that the National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan has purchased a multi-channel VARAN complex from Seven Hills LLP. The VARAN system is mainly known for wiretapping phones, intercepting and jamming any radio signals. Nothing could seem extraordinary at first glance, given the deal value at modest 340K tenge (800 USD).
However, regardless the most possible scenario that the supply is going to be on a regular basis, it is not the prices that draws attention to the deal, but the sides involved in it. The manufacturer and chief executor of the contract is the Ukrainian company Ualeks (www.ualeks.com) that produces similar equipment for the Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.
One may wonder why such important and needed equipment in the war-torn country is being sold abroad, and why do the Ukrainian authorities allow it? Needless to say, that Ukraine has been fighting desperately with almost no resources of its own. The aid from the Western countries that was generous at first months of the special military operation is now very limited, as the United States may no longer support Kyiv due to many other strategic operations it is pursuing in the Middle East.
Ukraine is better to tight up the belts and concentrate on its national tasks rather than search for blur profit and support by former CIS countries in return of technologies. At the moment, Ukraine needs them more. Unless the country’s government is only interested in getting quick money and short-term profit.
Blinken’s second letter to Congress facilitates and serves Turkey to permanently challenge Greek sovereignty over islands and islets
25.02.2024 • 22:03
The Biden administration with not one, but two letters from the US Secretary of State Blinken to the Congress on the guarantees of the sale of F-16s to Turkeyfacilitates and authorizes it to permanently and completely question the Greek sovereignty over islands, islets and islets in the Aegean, with the Mitsotakis government not having realized the deadly/disastrous trap for Greek sovereignty in the Aegean and the opposition parties being in a criminal nirvana, which leads to a division of Greek sovereignty in the Aegean.
The letter on the restrictions on the sale of F-16s to Turkey was presented journalistically as a Greek success, and this because none of the government or the competent experts understood the phrase “internationally recognized sovereignty“. US Secretary of State Blinken sent his first secret letter to Congress on the approval of the sale of spare parts and new F-16s to Turkey, involving the Turkish F-16s with the Greek F-35s “to maintain the balance of power”.
However, motivated by the pre-election period in the USA and the fierce votes of the Greek and Cypriot lobby, a group of American senators around Senator Bob Menendez and Greek-American actors demanded a second letter from Blinken to Congress, with the aim of making clear and clearly visible Turkey’s commitments to do not use the F-16s against Greece.
This was the occasion for the State Department, with the cooperation and assistance of the pro-Turkish Legal Service of the US Department of State, at this time, to formulate the second Blinken letter to Congress, giving the right and authorization to Ankara from the US to fragment Greek sovereignty and all national Greek interests within the Athens FIR. A fact that allows Turkey to return to the era and actions of 1996, with the Declaration of Athens now looking like… rag paper.
In particular, in this second letter Blinken states verbatim: “…If a NATO ally commits repeated violations within the internationally recognized borders of another ally, the US will try to resolve the situation diplomatically.” If the situation cannot be resolved through normal diplomatic channels, the US will use additional political and economic tools to resolve the situation. With the fancy term “internationally recognized borders” between NATO allies, in this case Greece and Turkey, the US is striking directly against Greek sovereignty at 10 p.m. of the national airspace in the Aegean, against Greekness and Greek sovereignty over the islets and rocky islets of the Aegean, while rendering the Athens FIR non-existent.
In other words, they offer another gift to Erdogan, in his aspirations and claims against Greek sovereignty and Greek interests in the Aegean, now openly and directly supporting Turkish positions at the expense of Greece. And, in fact, through an official letter to Congress, which aimed to prohibit Turkey from using the American-made F-16s it will receive at the expense of Greece.
Secret document ‘nullifies’ Athens FIR and 10 miles of national airspace
It is noted that the second Blinken letter:
Firstly, it takes advantage of the fact that Greece from the mouth of the Evros to the east of Kastellorizos has no continuous sea border with Turkey, only the middle line between the Greek islands and the coast of Turkey.
But even this middle line is not agreed upon between Greece and Turkey both through fault and because of Turkey’s views. However, between Samothraki and Lemnos, Lemnos and Lesvos, Lesvos and Chios, Chios and Samos, Rhodes and Kastelorizo, etc. there are no Greek-Turkish borders at all, nor can they ever be defined, since the distances from the Turkish coasts to the Greek islands are greater than the territorial waters of the two countries (6+6=12 nm) and there is no middle line.
With the American wording-Trojan horse, which is misleadingly presented as protection of Greek sovereignty, “within internationally recognized borders”, Turkey is granted the right to enter the Aegean with the American F-16s unchecked through international airspace, e.g. between Lemnos and Lesvos and without filing a flight plan, to thresh in the international airspace of the Aegean, and to exit the international sea and the international airspace between Rhodes – Kastellorizos, thus having operational control (with all Turkish military aircraft) throughout the international airspace of the Aegean and the Mediterranean.
And this is because according to the Blinken letter and pursuant to this letter, Turkey does not violate internationally recognized borders, given that the international sea and international airspace do not constitute recognized borders under International Law. At the same time, with regard to military aircraft – namely the American-made F-16 – the Athens FIR, which is not a recognized Greece-Turkey border, is also abolished.
Secondly, according to the Chicago Convention and the Law of the Sea, but also the statements of Mitsotakis – Gerapetritis that Greece has 6 nautical miles. sovereignty, it is proved that the islands of Samothraki, Lemnos, Lesbos, Rhodes, Kastellorizo, etc. they have internationally recognized sovereignty at 6 nautical miles, which NATO also accepts and applies.
Thus, with the second Blinken letter, the airspace on the islands beyond 6 n.m. ( 6-10 n.m.) is not internationally recognized Greek sovereignty, with the result that Turkish F-16s and UAVs can fly at 6-9 n.m. from the islands, “approaching” Greek sovereignty, without any compensation for the Mitsotakis government and much more for Greece.
Thirdly, Turkey’s disputes and claims against Greece, as a single and continuous event, and against Greece’s sovereignty and national interests are a controllable and manageable problem. However, they turn into a dangerous threat when the Mitsotakis government cannot legally and indeed in an international context – support Greek sovereignty itself.
In particular, Turkey questions the Greekness of a large number of islets and islets in the Aegean. He even sent a letter to the UN, in which he questions the sovereignty over islands, islets and islets in the Aegean. However, the Mitsotakis government has been found incapable of ensuring the Greekness of islets and islets in the Aegean.
This is proven by the fact that the Mitsotakis government sent a reply letter to the UN under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dendias, in which it is stated that islets and rocky islets in the Aegean were granted to Greece by the Lausanne and Paris Treaties. However, in these two Treaties, nowhere is it written that the islets and islets were granted to Greece by the Treaties, nor do they even mention the words “islands” and “rock islets”.
This fact constitutes a criminal indifference on the part of the government to the detriment of Greek sovereignty, since the islets and islets, although they are completely Greek, the government, whether out of indifference or weakness or purposefulness (?), does not legally support them, with the result that country to become internationally resilient and reduce Greek sovereignty in the Aegean. And this is because the Greekness of the rocky islands is not stated in the Treaties, but in international agreements signed by Turkey, which, unfortunately, the government does not bother to identify, in order to ensure Greek sovereignty in the Aegean.
Based on the second letter, the US government ensures Greek sovereignty from Turkish F-16s only from the mouth of the Evros to Didymoteicho, because there is a Greek-Turkish border, internationally recognizing Greek sovereignty based on the Treaty of Lausanne. From Evros to Kastelorizo, the US is putting the Aegean at the mercy of Erdogan, because there is no sovereignty in the international sea.
Blinken’s second “carmaniola” letter about Greek sovereignty and national interests in the Aegean cannot be a surprise, as it follows to the letter the Report of the Congressional Research Directorate on US-Turkish relations in 2023. This pitiful report, to which the Greek government did not react at all, officially characterizes Greek islands in the Aegean as non-Greek, but disputed, arguing that Turkish overflights do not violate Greek sovereignty over the islands, because they are not Greek, but disputed.
In the relevant Map of the Congress Report, cited by the “Sunday democracy” as a presumption for the Biden administration, from 2023 the islands, islets and islets are not Greek (in pink on the Map):
In the area of Crete: Gavdos, Chrysi, Koufonisi, Dia, Dragonada, Elassa.
In the area of Karpathos: Astakida, Zafora, Pacheia, Makra.
As well as the islets and rocky islets of Stefania, Pontikousa, Giali, Imia, Pserimos, Lipsi, Farmakonisi, Arkioi, Agathonisi, Agrelousa, Hatapodia, Melabioi, Donousa, Kalogeri, Antipsara, Oinuses, Tzourafa, Strogyli and Khina.
Namely, 29 Greek islands, islets and rocky islets according to the Biden administration and Turkey, at the same time do not have Greek sovereignty, they are disputed and stray, without ownership status, since they do not belong to either Greece or Turkey. And this second Blinken letter to Congress is a second godsend to Erdogan, who is “liberated” to fragment Greek sovereignty with the thumb of the Biden administration.
On the map of the Report of the American Congress, 29 of our islands are colored pink and are marked as disputed. On the same map we see the almost daily violations of Greek sovereignty by Turkish UAVsTurkey continues to run almost daily with UAVs undisturbed through Greek sovereignty in the Aegean, from Rhodes to Thassos, and back, occupying Greek islands, islets and rocky islets, issuing the relevant illegal international notice in the Athens FIR (see map ).
