Tag: Davutoglu

Turkey in fresh Israel warning over flotilla raid

AFP – Turkey’s foreign minister warned Thursday his country was entitled “to take any measure to protect the rights of civilians” in relation to Israel’s killing of nine people on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

On a visit to London, Ahmet Davutoglu was asked whether Turkey would be prepared to cut diplomatic ties with Israel following the deadly flotilla attack in May which killed eight Turks and a dual US-Turkish citizen.

“We expect Israel either to apologise … or to accept an international investigation. I think this is a just and fair request from Turkey,” he said after talks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in London.

“If they do not follow these two alternatives, then of course Turkey… have full rights to take any measure to protect the rights of civilians”.

Davutoglu added: “If Israel wants to improve relations with us, then they should accept accountability and do all the necessary actions to prevent deterioration of our relations.”

Turkey has also called for Israel to pay compensation for the deaths, which sparked an international outcry.

Davutoglu said on Tuesday that Turkey would “not stay indifferent” if its conditions for Israel were not met.

Israel has insisted it would “never apologise for defending its citizens”.

France 24

July 8, 2010
Turkish-Israeli Relations Deteriorate Further

Turkish-Israeli Relations Deteriorate Further

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 130

July 7, 2010

By Saban Kardas

Turkish-Israeli relations continue to worsen, despite attempts to heal the divisions caused by the flotilla crisis. Ankara has asked Tel Aviv to issue an official apology for the killing of its citizens, pay compensation to the victims’ families, accept an independent international probe into the incident, return the confiscated ships and end its blockade on the Gaza strip. Although Turkey threatened to sever ties if Israel fails to deliver, how far Ankara might go with its “punitive” actions has been a matter of controversy (EDM, June 7).

Thus far, the steps Israel has taken are far from meeting Turkish expectations, as acknowledged by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Burak Ozugergin (Anadolu Ajansi, June 30). For instance, Israel defied a UN-proposal to form an international commission and instead launched its own internal inquiry. The Israeli panel had only limited powers to examine “whether Israel’s Gaza blockade and the flotilla’s interception conformed with international law and also investigate the actions taken by the convoy’s organizers and participants.” Although the panel’s mandate was expanded slightly by the Israeli cabinet, Turkey continues to dismiss it (www.worldbulletin.net, July 4).

There has been no progress on compensation for the killings. Similarly, Israel has not taken any steps to return the three ships it confiscated during the raid. Although Tel Aviv announced some measures to ease the Gaza blockade, humanitarian aid is not flowing into the area freely. Therefore, the Turkish government has continued its criticism of Israel on various domestic and international platforms. During the G20 summit in Toronto, Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, labeled Israeli actions as state terrorism and vowed to pursue this issue until Israel changed its attitude on Turkey’s conditions (Anadolu Ajansi, June 28). Again, during his state of the union address, Erdogan continued with the same level of criticism against Israel (Anadolu Ajansi, July 1).

Nonetheless, a secret meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and Israeli Industry and Trade Minister, Ben-Eliezer, in Brussels altered the terms of the discussion (www.ntvmsnbc.com, July 1). Although the meeting was allegedly “secret,” the manner in which it entered the press demonstrated that both sides did not want it to remain secret. They probably sought to send signals that they were willing and able to discuss ways of overcoming the stalemate, despite the confrontational public rhetoric adopted by their leaders.

While government sources from both countries confirmed the meeting, it had significant reverberations on each side. In Israel, the meeting caused a major debate, as it turned out that Ben-Eliezer was acting in consultation with Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, while Israel’s hard-line Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was not informed.

The Turkish opposition also capitalized on this story, presenting it as an indication of the government’s “insincere” foreign policy. Opposition parties argued that while the government was lambasting Israel publicly for domestic political reasons, it continued dialogue with Israel behind closed doors. Responding to such criticism, Davutoglu ruled out any “inconsistency” in the government’s foreign policy and defended the meeting. He argued that, the meeting was requested by the Israeli side and he used that opportunity to state Ankara’s demands directly to Israeli officials (www.cnnturk.com, July 1).

However, subsequent exchanges between Turkish and Israeli sources showed that the parties were far from overcoming differences. In defiance of Turkey’s account of the secret meeting, Netanyahu argued that no compensation was discussed and the panel formed by Israel would satisfy the demands of the international community. Although expressing regret for the loss of life, Netanyahu ruled out any apology and compensation (www.cnnturk.com, July 3).

This statement prompted Davutoglu to issue further harsh remarks directed at Israel in an interview with Hurriyet, which appeared as an ultimatum: “Israelis have three options: they will either apologize or acknowledge an international impartial inquiry and its conclusion. Otherwise, our diplomatic ties will be cut off” (Hurriyet Daily News, July 4). Davutoglu also indicated that Turkey could not wait indefinitely and would continue to take measures to isolate Israel, which might include extending a flight ban on Israeli military aircraft over Turkish airspace to civilian flights as well.

In response, Israeli sources again rebuffed Turkey’s demands for an apology. Liberman and Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Yigal Palmor, slammed Ankara’s harsh rhetoric. “When you want an apology, you do not use threats or ultimatums… Everything leads us to believe that Turkey has another agenda in mind,” Lieberman maintained (AFP, July 5; Today’s Zaman, July 6).

Turkish-Israeli tensions have been an important issue affecting the course of Turkish-US relations, which also experienced recent turbulence. Since the Davutoglu-Ben-Eliezer talks took place after Erdogan’s meeting with the US President, Barack Obama, at the G20 summit, some speculated that Washington was behind this development. Moreover, Obama arguably sought to convince Erdogan to drop his demand for an international investigation into the flotilla incident (www.cnnturk.com, July 4). Davutoglu has rejected the suggestion that the meeting was held due to American pressure.

Although it might be difficult to confirm what role US diplomatic sources played in the latest meeting, US efforts to mend ties between Turkey and Israel are no secret. Since the parties started bickering immediately after the revelation of the “secret” meeting, it might indicate that they were encouraged by Obama to meet. Indeed, Turkish-Israeli ties were one of the items on the Erdogan-Obama meeting, where Erdogan extended his gratitude to Obama for his constructive role in the flotilla crisis (Anadolu Ajansi, June 28).

However, it seems Obama has been less successful in dampening the tension between the two allies in the Middle East and in convincing Erdogan to drop his critical rhetoric towards Israel. The row over the secret meeting, obviously seeking to bridge differences, demonstrated the depth of the Turkish-Israeli rift. As a final straw, it was announced that Turkey will not attend a US-Israeli-Turkish joint naval search-and-rescue exercise, scheduled in the Eastern Mediterranean next month. Dubbed “Reliant Mermaid,” the drill has been held regularly over the past decade (www.ntvmsnbc.com, July 5).

https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-israeli-relations-deteriorate-further/

July 7, 2010
The AKP’s Hamas Policy: “Us vs. Them”

The AKP’s Hamas Policy: “Us vs. Them”
By Soner Cagaptay
Hurriyet Daily News
July 5, 2010

At home, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has promoted the Islamist mindset of “us Muslims” in conflict with “the bad others” through the media and also by spreading Hamas’ views throughout Turkey, whether through official Hamas visits to Turkey or through AKP-supported conferences and fundraisers.

Recent changes in media ownership in Turkey under the AKP are closely related to the spread of anti-Western sentiments in the country. Turkey is a country with free media. Media independence in Turkey, however, is increasingly under threat.

The Turkish media remains free (in that it is not illegal to produce journalism), but the AKP is trying to curb media freedoms by transforming media ownership through legal loopholes. Such was the case in December 2005 when the AKP took over the Sabah-ATV conglomerate, which represents around 20% of the Turkish media market, selling this conglomerate to a media company of which Turkish Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak is the CEO.

The AKP has also brought a $3.2 billion tax fine against Dogan Yayin, a conglomerate that owns around 50 percent of the Turkish media. This excessive fine exceeds Dogan’s total net worth — is political, because Dogan’s news outlets promote secular, liberal and nationalist views that often criticize of the AKP.

The transformation of the Turkish media is not an esoteric issue, for it affects the future of Turkish democracy and also has a bearing on Turkish views of the world.

Where there is no independent media — as in Russia — there is simply no viable opposition to government. Whenever Turkey goes through a political spasm, analysts warn of the collapse of Turkey’s democracy. Despite this, Turkey has survived numerous crises in the past thanks to the balancing power of its fourth pillar.

As Turkish media becomes less free, there is a higher likelihood that it will become a tool for the government with which to shape an anti-Western public opinion. What is bad for secular liberal western Turks is bad for the West. Turkey’s free media needs to remain free because if it is all either state-owned or owned by pro-AKP businesses, anti-Western and anti-Israeli viewpoints will spread through the media, which we have been witnessing since 2002.

A recent show on Turkey’s publicly-funded Turkish Radio Television, or TRT, network is a perfect example. The debut of the series, entitled “Ayrilik” (Separation), came on the heels of Turkey’s cancellation of Israeli participation in the Anatolian Eagle exercises. TRT, whose head is appointed by the AKP, and which is entirely funded by Turkish taxpayer money, ran “Ayrilik,” a show with an anti-Israeli stance, including one which depicts an imagined situation in the Palestinian territories where a newborn baby is intentionally killed by Israeli soldiers.

What do 18-year-old Turks think of Israel now? They hate it, and they will do so because of images depicted in shows like “Ayrilik.” These are the images they have been seeing for the last seven years and this is what they’ll continue seeing. A Turk who has come of age under the AKP is now more likely than not to hate Israel and the West after seven years of such propaganda. Unlike Turks now in their forties or older who came of political age in a different Turkey, younger Turks in their twenties and thirties have more radical and negative views of the West as a result of what they see in government-controlled media as well as media owned by pro-government businesses.

Through Conferences
While government-controlled media promotes an evil image of the Israelis, international Hamas conferences in Turkey build legitimacy for Hamas and other extensions of the International Muslim Brotherhood movement. Before the AKP came to power, Turkey had never hosted a Hamas conference. Now, such conferences render the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood agenda more accessible to Turks, making Hamas’ violent struggle against Israel a part of daily political debate in Turkey.

In the last three years alone, there have been seven Hamas conferences and fundraisers in Istanbul. The first one of these, held in July 2006 and attended by one of the spiritual leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, was given the title “Muslims in Europe.” Qaradawi’s visit was funded by the British Foreign Office, and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood came to talk about Muslims in Europe, exposing Turks and European Muslims to Hamas and its ideology.

The list continues: other Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood conferences in Turkey include a November, 2007 conference called “Jerusalem Day,” co-organized by nongovernmental organization the Association of Turkish Volunteer Organizations, or TGTV, close to the AKP and Islamic Association of Muslim World Nongovernmental Organizations, or IDSB. This conference, entitled “Jerusalem Day,” called for “liberating Jerusalem through jihad from the Zionists.”

Other conferences followed in February 2009, April 2009, May 2009, and July 2009. What is interesting is that the frequency of these conferences has been steadily increasing, with four such meetings alone held in 2009.

Moreover, these meetings have started to espouse a violent agenda. For instance, at the February 2009 conference, Hamas members called for a jihad centered on Gaza. The April 2009 meeting was a “Masjid al-Aqsa symposium” which called to “liberate Masjid al-Aqsa” and it was organized by the Istanbul Peace Platform, or IBP, which includes a number of NGOs close to the AKP. The symposium called on all Muslims to liberate al-Aqsa through violence, if necessary, and also claimed that Israel has plans to demolish it. The “Palestine Collaboration Conference” in May 2009 called for “continued resistance to liberate Palestine.” Conference participants included former Sudanese President Mushir Sivar Ez-Zeheb, President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars Yousef al-Qaradawi, and Hamas Representative and Spokesman in Lebanon Usame Hamdan. In his speech at this conference, AKP deputy Zeyd Aslan said that Israel “commits genocide in Palestine.”

On the other hand, the “Environment Conference” in July 2009 was organized by the Earth Centre of Dialogue Partners in cooperation with the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the city of Istanbul, and the Fatih University in Istanbul. The conference, attended by al-Qaradawi, concluded with the declaration of a seven-year-action plan on climate change. The conference also served as platform to bring Hamas and MB members to Istanbul.

These conferences are organized by NGOs close to the AKP government. Although they appear to be civil society initiatives, the meetings are held in city halls of Istanbul or convention centers under the control of the AKP city government, which in essence means that taxpayer funds help pay for these events.

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute.

July 6, 2010
Clinton’s Visit to Genocide Monument Necessary but not Sufficient
During her visit to Armenia on July 5, U.S. Secretary State Hillary Clinton placed a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Monument at Tsitsernakaberd in Yerevan. Regrettably, however, the U.S. Embassy in Armenia issued a press release describing the visit as “private.” By using such a characterization, U.S. officials were trying to preempt any backlash from the Turkish government. In my opinion, the State Department mishandled Secretary Clinton’s visit to the Armenian Genocide Monument. Here are the reasons why:
- There was no need to downplay the visit by characterizing it as “private,” since such visits are standard procedure for foreign dignitaries visiting Armenia.
- Paying a visit to the Genocide Monument does not necessarily imply recognition of the Armenian Genocide, as all previous and current U.S. Ambassadors have visited this site every April 24.
- Secretary Clinton’s visit to the Genocide Monument could not have been described as “private,” since it was a part of her “official” visit to Armenia.
- The characterization of the visit as “private” was contradicted by the fact that the ribbons on the wreath she laid at the Genocide Monument carried the inscription: “From Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
- Clinton’s visit the day before to the “Alley of the Martyrs” in Baku was not described as “private,” creating the disturbing impression that U.S. interests in Azerbaijan’s oil weigh heavier than its humanitarian concerns for victims of genocide.
- Another double standard was Clinton not allowing any Armenian government officials to accompany her to the Genocide Monument in Yerevan, while she was accompanied to the “Alley of Martyrs” in Baku by a Deputy Minister of Azerbaijan!
- Clinton permitted neither the international press traveling with her nor the local Armenian media, except Armenian Public TV, to report on her visit to the Genocide Monument. Her action undermines her advocacy for media freedom.
- There was no reason for Secretary Clinton to be coy about Genocide recognition, since Pres. Reagan had acknowledged it in 1981, and the U.S. House of Representatives had recognized it in 1975 and 1984.
Even though the State Department downgraded Secretary Clinton’s visit to the Monument, Armenian officials did their best to publicize it as much as possible! This time they acted more decisively than last May, when Mevlut Cavusoglu — Turkish President of Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly — refused to visit the Genocide Monument. They insisted that the Secretary add to her itinerary a stop at the Genocide Monument. They then arranged for Armenian Public TV and other TV stations to repeatedly air the video of Clinton’s July 5 visit to the Monument.

In addition, the website of the State-owned Armenian Genocide Museum prominently featured Clinton’s visit by displaying photos of her wreath with ribbons that carried a visible inscription of her name and title, and an authentic medal issued by the American Near East Relief Committee that Museum Director Hayk Demoyan presented her.

Pointing across the Turkish border, Demoyan told Secretary Clinton that Mount Ararat is “a symbol of Armenia.” In addition to explaining the basic facts of the Armenian Genocide, Demoyan told her that the graves of heroes fallen in Artsakh (Karabagh) were located near the Monument, since Armenians consider that war to be a continuation of the Armenian Genocide. The Secretary was also given a historical photo in which Armenian children in the American orphanage of Alexandropol (Gumri) were standing in formation that spelled out the words: “AMERICA, WE THANK YOU.”

Clinton’s visit was both praised and criticized by Armenian-American organizations. The Armenian National Committee of America took Clinton to task for her “secret” visit to the Genocide Monument, while the Armenian Assembly of America commended her for the visit. Former U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, told The California Courier that “Clinton’s visit was a small, but positive step forward.” The last Secretary of State to have visited Armenia was James Baker in 1992, who did not, however, make a stop at the Genocide Monument.

In my view, Secretary Clinton should be commended for making such a positive gesture, but also blamed for going to such lengths to downplay her visit to the Genocide Monument. Why was she so concerned about offending Turks who have brazenly undermined every major U.S. foreign policy initiative in recent months? Unfortunately, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden and Pres. Obama have drifted far away from their campaign promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide! Clinton’s brief stop at the Genocide Monument on July 5 is a welcome first step that fell short of her solemn commitment to support recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

================== COMMENT —- YORUM ================================================

Democrats are in serious trouble. They need every vote they can get in November so that is why they are posturing around.
I would like to see the day when Turkey can care less and shrug off the American and Armenian clamors, resolutions etc about this farce of genocide.
Turkey and Azerbaijan should unite more and defy this idiotic nonsense..
Almost 80 million Turks being manipulated by a 2 million weakling nation and its masters in Washington…Disgusting….

.. Oya Bain [oyabain@gmail.com]
July 6, 2010
Hamas is a threat to the Palestinian cause

By RicHard Cohen

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

It’s a pity that Israel, while substantially loosening its grip on Gaza, will continue to enforce a blockade when, with just a little imagination, it could insist on a deal with the activists once again steaming its way: You can proceed to Gaza if, once you get there, you demand that Hamas cease the persecution of women, institute freedom of religion, halt the continuing rocketing of Israel, release an Israeli hostage, ban torture and rescind an official charter that could have made soothing bedtime reading for Adolf Hitler. This may take some time.

In fact, these demands would never be met. Gaza is a mean and brutal place with a totalitarian government steeped in a cult of violence and death. This hardly means that the government does not have a measure of popular support and did not, as some of the activists naively point out, come to power by democratic means. So did the Nazis.

The term “Islamic fascism” gets thrown around a lot. I initially recoiled from it because I prefer to reserve fascism for fascists. The term is too loosely employed — New York City cops were called fascists by Vietnam-era peace demonstrators — but Paul Berman, in his new book “The Flight of the Intellectuals,” makes a solid case that it can, with justice, be applied to Hamas.

Berman traces Hamas’s intellectual pedigree to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder, Hassan al-Banna, greatly admired Hitler, and to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who spent much of World War II in Germany cozying up to Hitler, organizing a Muslim SS unit and, on occasion, remonstrating with the Nazis for not killing enough Jews. (See also Robert S. Wistrich’s recent book, “A Lethal Obsession.”) It’s appalling not only that Husseini was granted sanctuary in Arab countries after the war but also that he continues to be revered as a Palestinian patriot.

The successor to both Banna and Husseini was Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), an Egyptian intellectual of uncontested importance whose influence can be found in the writing of the Hamas charter. Qutb was an indefatigable author (more than 20 books, some written while in an Egyptian prison where he was tortured), but the article that should interest the pro-Hamas activists the most is called “Our Struggle with the Jews.” It is a shocking and repellent work of anti-Semitism that, among other things, says the “Jews will be satisfied only with the destruction” of Islam. Qutb cites that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” for substantiation — suggesting that his status as an intellectual is somewhat due to heroic grade inflation.

The extremely useful term “useful idiots” was originally coined to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. But there is no reason it cannot be applied to so-called activists who wish to break the blockade, which is an increasingly untenable exercise that Israel, bit by bit, is loosening. That’s a good thing. But if Israel is expected to release its grip on Gaza, it’s entitled to a bit of reciprocity — at the very least the release of the hostage Gilad Shalit, who was captured not in Gaza but on the Israel side of the border. He has been held for four years now and has never once been visited by an outsider. How about maybe one ship in the approaching flotilla just for him?

Now is the time, I suppose, to say that Israel is not exactly perfect either. It continues to overreact, uses too much force and has often trampled on the rights of Palestinians. Still, Israel is Thomas Jefferson’s idea of heaven compared with Gaza, which could serve as a seaside Club Med for Jew-haters. One country is consonant with the Enlightenment; the other is a dark place of religious intolerance where the firmest principles of anti-Semitism — not anti-Zionism or pro-Palestinianism — are embedded in the Hamas charter.

The irony is that Israel is often called a colonialist power. In some sense, the charge is true. But the ones with the true colonialist mentality are those who think that Arabs cannot be held to Western standards of decency. So, for this reason, Hamas is apparently forgiven for its treatment of women, its anti-Semitism, its hostility toward all other religions, its fervid embrace of a dark (non-Muslim) medievalism and its absolute insistence that Israel has no right to exist. Maybe the blockade ought to end — but so, too, should anyone’s dreamy idea of Hamas. It’s not just a threat to Israel. It’s a threat to the eventual Palestine.

cohenr@washpost.com

July 6, 2010
Hillary Clinton: “The ball is in Turkey’s field”

Democrats are in serious trouble. They need every vote they can get in November so that is why they are posturing around.
I would like to see the day when Turkey can care less and shrug off the American and Armenian clamors, resolutions etc about this farce of genocide.
Turkey and Azerbaijan should unite more and defy this idiotic nonsense..
Almost 80 million Turks being manipulated by a 2 million weakling nation and its masters in Washington…Disgusting….

.. Oya Bain [oyabain@gmail.com]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

Armenia’s April decision was impressive and praiseworthy. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared at a joint press conference with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan today in Yerevan, when speaking about Armenian side’s decision to suspend the process of ratification of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

Speaking about the Armenian-Turkish normalization process Hillary Clinton reminded that she personally attended the ceremony of signing the Protocols. “It was a brave decision by the two Presidents aimed at complete normalization of relations,” Secretary of State mentioned meanwhile expressing concern over their non-fulfillment.

“You know that the signed documents have not been fulfilled yet, and there are some problems. I am happy that irrespective of the difficulties coming, certainly, from Turkey, Armenia is ready to continue the process,” Hillary Clinton declared. She mentioned that under the circumstances Armenia’s decision was impressive and praiseworthy, and they appreciate Armenia’s readiness to continue the process.

Using football terminology Secretary of State concluded: “The ball is now in Turkey’s field.” She also added that the American side also encourages Turkey to undertake some steps.

Source: Panor

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

Clinton: The Ball is in Turkey’s Field

Monday, 05 July 2010 16:20

Armenia’s April decision was impressive and praiseworthy, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared at a joint press conference with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian in Yerevan, when speaking about Armenian side’s decision to suspend the process of ratification of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

Speaking about the Armenian-Turkish normalization process Hillary Clinton reminded that she personally attended the ceremony of signing the Protocols. “It was a brave decision by the two Presidents aimed at complete normalization of relations,” Secretary of State mentioned meanwhile expressing concern over their non-fulfillment.

“You know that the signed documents have not been fulfilled yet, and there are some problems. I am happy that irrespective of the difficulties coming, certainly, from Turkey, Armenia is ready to continue the process,” Hillary Clinton declared. She mentioned that under the circumstances Armenia’s decision was impressive and praiseworthy, and they appreciate Armenia’s readiness to continue the process.

Using football terminology Secretary of State concluded: “The ball is now in Turkey’s field.” She also added that the American side also encourages Turkey to undertake some steps.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the US believes that the Armenian-Turkish normalization will bring peace, stability and prosperity to the region. The steps taken to this end will contribute to the normalization of relations between the two states, said Hillary Clinton during a joint briefing with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian in Yerevan.

“Though the Protocols have not been ratified yet, but President Sargsyan stated that Armenia is ready to continue talks with Turkey as soon as it makes a step forward, and we hail this statement. The US agrees with this point of view, and we estimate positively the Armenian leadership’s statement,” stressed Clinton.

For his part, Edward Nalbandian noted that Armenia is ready for a dialogue with Turkey without preconditions as soon as Ankara is ready for it.

‘Despite the fact that Turks were, and remain unready to establish relations with Armenia without preconditions, it is very important for us to feel the attitude of the US administration on the matter,’ RA President Serzh Sargsyan said during the meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He also expressed gratitude to President Barack Obama and the Secretary of State for their attempts to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations.

In her turn, Hillary Clinton thanked the Armenian leader for his personal contribution to the improvement of relations with Turkey.

News.am, PanARMENIAN.Net, Panorama.am

July 6, 2010