Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • GagruleLive
  • Armenia profile

Parliament speaker emphasizes development of the Armenian-Bulgarian relations, highlights the cooperation in terms of Armenia-EU relations

July 4, 2017 By administrator

armenia bulgaria relationThe Speaker of Armenia’s Parliament Ara Babloyan received on Tuesday Maria Pavlova Tzotzorkova-Kaymaktchieva, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Bulgaria to Armenia.

As the Parliament release reads, welcoming the Ambassador in the Armenian National Assembly, Ara Babloyan has underlined the old friendship and cultural connections formed between the two countries, which is a basis for the development of the Armenian-Bulgarian relations.

Ara Babloyan highlighted the role of the parliamentary diplomacy in the strengthening of bilateral relations and deepening of cooperation.

The RA NA Speaker stressed the importance of the activities of the parliamentary Friendship Groups and noted that Jemma Baghdasaryan will lead the National Assembly Armenia-Bulgaria Friendship Group in the near future.

The Head of the parliament touched upon the Constitutional reforms implemented in our country, noting that Armenia had passed onto a system of the parliamentary government. Ara Babloyan also emphasized the cooperation with Bulgaria in terms of Armenia-EU relations.

Regarding the regional problems the RA NA Speaker highlighted the balanced position of Bulgaria in the peaceful settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict in compliance with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ and EU common position.

Thanking the NA Speaker for the warm reception, Ambassador Maria Pavlova Tzotzorkova-Kaymaktchieva highly assessed the relations existing between the two countries. She especially highlighted the role of Bulgaria’s Armenian community in strengthening of bilateral relations. The Ambassador assured that during her diplomatic mission she will continue to do his bestfor further developing and deepening the formed relations. Evaluating the cooperation between the parliamentary Friendship Groups and deepening of cooperation on the international different parliamentary platforms, Maria Pavlova Tzotzorkova-Kaymaktchieva noted that Bulgaria-Armenia Friendship Group has already been formed.

The interlocutors emphasized the further expansion of cooperation between the two countries and the development in the political, economic, cultural, educational and other spheres, the source added.

 

Source Panorama.am

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Armenia, Bulgaria, relation

John Kerry: United States deeply values its warm friendship with Armenia

September 19, 2016 By administrator

kery-armenianThe U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has issued a statement in connection with the Independence Day of Armenia. The statement reads as follows:

“On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I want to extend my congratulations to the people of Armenia as you celebrate the 25th anniversary of your nation’s independence on September 21.

The United States deeply values its warm friendship with Armenia and with all of you. In the past quarter century, Armenia has made great progress, and my government looks forward to continuing to work closely with you in support of shared prosperity, strong democratic institutions, the rule of law, and regional peace. We appreciate Armenia’s consistent support for effective international peacekeeping operations and its leading role in responding to the Syrian refugee crisis. We are also grateful for the presence in the United States of a vibrant and highly-accomplished Armenian-American community.

On this special day, I offer best wishes to all Armenians for a peaceful and prosperous year to come.”

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Armenia, John Kerry, maintaining friendly relations, relation, united state

Turkey reEstablishing Relation with Israel hoping “Intelligence cooperation” on Kurds that U.S did not provide

August 19, 2016 By administrator

turkey-isral relationRecently, a draft agreement on normalization between Turkey and Israel was submitted to the Turkish parliament. It is expected to be approved in the coming days.

According to the document, within 25 days, compensation to the tune of $20 million will be paid to the families and relatives of those killed on the Mavi Marmara ship during a conflict on May 31, 2010.

This move will relieve the legal and criminal responsibility from the Israeli troops involved in the operation. The Mavi Marmara case will be closed.

In an interview with Sputnik, Turkish political analyst Ozlem Tur said Ankara wants to normalize ties with Israel in a bid to break the regional isolation of Turkey.

“Why did Turkey come up with such an agreement? I think the reason is the situation in the region. Turkey is seeking ways to break the isolation provoked by its foreign policy. This agreement is very important for Ankara,” she said.

Moreover, the Turkish government believes that Israel is interested in cooperation with Turkey, especially in energy.

At the same time, for a long time the Israeli government insisted it had no need for cooperation with Turkey since it had “alternative options.”

However, after Ankara sent a clear signal of normalization, Israel accepted the offer, partially because of the need to find new partners in the region.

“Ties between Turkey and Israel will be based on mutual benefits, with respect to the interest of each country. And only time will tell how far this cooperation could go. What is also important, it will depend on the situation in Syria because Turkey-Israel normalization is part of the regional security,” the analyst pointed out.

Another key factor in the process is the Kurdish problem. Turkey is likely to ask Israel for help, including sharing intelligence data.

“I think the initial impulse for normalization was not energy but the security situation in the Middle East,” she added.

“Intelligence cooperation is very important for Turkey’s policy towards Kurds. Tel-Aviv’s assistance is of strategic importance for Ankara. Turkey wants the assistance it hasn’t receive from the United States, from Israel. Cooperation with Israel will help Turkey prevent undesired scenarios in the Kurdish problem,” she said.

Normalization with Israel is geo-strategically important for Turkey despite criticism from the Arab world because cooperation with Tel-Aviv would help resolve such priority issues as the Syrian crisis and the Kurdish problem, the analyst concluded.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160819/1044444137/turkey-israel-normalization.html

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Israel, Kurd, relation, Turkey

Hitler, Ataturk and the Turkish-German Relations by Edward Kanterian

July 10, 2016 By administrator

hitler ataturkThe following interview with Stefan Ihrig, author of Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler [Justify Genocide: Germany and the Armenians of Bismark Hitler], whose publication was held in December 2015, was conducted by Edward Kanterian, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Kent. Ihrig is a member of the Teachers College at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

Edward Kanterian- Mr. Ihrig, we know that Mussolini was truly a model for Hitler. But much less known, Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic, was another major source of inspiration for Hitler. You recently published a book that explores this topic. Why Hitler is it interested in Ataturk?

Stefan Ihrig- all goes back to the early 1920s; Germany was still reeling from the lost war and the fear of a punitive treaty imposed by the Agreement. In an atmosphere of nationalist depression, events began to move into Anatolia that inspired passion and dreams to German nationalists. Led by Mustafa Kemal, the Turks resisted “their” particular Versailles Treaty, the Treaty of Sevres. They faced the Agreement and the Greek army up to challenge their own government in Constantinople. What happened in Anatolia was like a dream come true for many in the nationalist Germany, and especially for the Nazis, who thought that Germany should copy what were the Kemalists. Hitler was much inspired by Ataturk and the idea of a ‘government of Ankara’ for its project to create a government against Munich, he would impose his coup of 1923. In retrospect Beerhall in 1933, he recalled Ataturk and the Kemalists as the ‘shining star’ in the dark 1920s the Nazis and Hitler, in a political sense, grew up with Turkey and Ataturk. It was a fascination that will never disappear and that turned into a kind of cult during the Third Reich.

EK: The main attraction was the fact that Ataturk had withstood the Entente?

If yes. Resist the Agreement and revise a peace treaty of Paris fascinated the Nazis. But that was not all. There was also the fact that Turkey was stripped of most of its minorities, first the Armenians during the First World War, and secondly, most Greeks by the population exchange the Treaty of Lausanne . And in the end, to the Nazis, what happened in Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s was a successful restructuring of the country to the nationalist and racial lines. For them it was an example of what a purely national state could succeed with a strong leader.

EK – Turkey who “got rid” of the Armenians was of course Turkey Turkish Young, whose regime ended in 1918 and in which Ataturk played only a minor role, she was going up the Nazi fascination young Turks? Can we think they were impressed by the design centric Turkish Turkish state Turkish Youth and Kemal, an opposite conception to the idea of multi-ethnic society which had hitherto existed in the Ottoman Empire? Is there a direct link between population policies and exclusion of Ataturk and those of the Nazis?

SI- The Young Turks did not matter much to the Nazis. But ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the Armenian Genocide before the War of Independence had been for the Nazis, a major precondition for the success of Ataturk in this war. And the expulsion of the Greeks was the vision of the Nazis, a second prerequisite for further success Turkey reconstruction on a national basis. Wholesale and somehow it was for the Nazis a whole provisions’. For them, it was important that ethnic minorities – those that they and other German nationalists saw as “the Jews” – are eliminated. In the vision of the New Turkey for the Nazis, this would not have been possible if Turkey had not stripped of minorities. In this way, the Nazis and other German nationalists were able to make Nova Turkey Ataturk, the idea of a racial ethnic full-scale reconstruction of a test that allowed them to measure the power of a new national state purged of minorities, a test that not only reaffirmed their own belief in the power of the states after ethnic cleansing, but taught different methods on how to do so.

EK: To what extent the ideology of Kemalist state she was an inspiration for the Nazis? Presumably they ignored the fact that Ataturk was the creation of a republic in which a parliament representing the people, was the main source of power?

The SI-Nazi vision of the New Turkey Ataturk was very selective. Almost everything found himself in conflict with the ideals and objectives Nazis was either mitigated or ignored. The emancipation of women was one of these points; it was mentioned, but it was considered unnecessary to linger. The rather peaceful foreign policy of Ataturk was deliberately misinterpreted. Regarding method of government, under Ataturk, the Nazis saw him as a strong leader supported by a single party, which for them was the only viable alternative to what they perceived as a decadent Western democracy.

EK: What was the position of the Nazis has vis-à-vis the “Armenian Question” in Turkey?

SI- In the discussion of the Turkish war of independence, the Armenians did not take a large square. Again, the Nazis had their own vision of the power and the time of Ataturk. Which exceeded in importance for them everything was Turkey after 1923, they were only to mono-ethnic paradise image. They simply refused to see them still remaining minorities such as the Kurds, and conflicts still existed within the Turkish state. What gave the Armenians, by cons, this importance in the Nazi speech on the New Turkey Ataturk was the specifically German tradition of seeing in them “the Jews of the East”.

EK: Can you give some examples of the manifestations of this vision of Armenians as the Jews of the East in the German discourse? Is that a fact emerged after World War II or were there before?

SI- This German tradition appeared in the late 19th century. At about the same time that appeared modern anti-Semitic racism, the perception of Armenians as racially similar or equivalent to the Jews of Central Europe, as they were described in the antisemitic discourse developed. In this perception, the Armenians were typically described as merchants exploiters enjoying the nice and hardworking Turkish population. This perception portrayed through the parasite, cheater, and non-productive Armenians. Armenians are in all kinds of crafts and trades – many of them, for example, are fermiers- was simply ignored in these speeches. In racial and racist literature increasingly large between the late 19th century until the 1930s, the Armenians were described as a parent or sister race of the Jews, often of them were said to be ” worse than the Jews. “ This creates a particular base course for the German perception of the 1915-1916 events, especially when we know the way things take history in Germany.

EK: That brings us to your last book you just finished, Justifying Genocide, to be published by Harvard University Press later this year. How did you decide to write this book?

SI- During my research on the Nazis and Turkey, I discovered that a great debate took place on the Armenian Genocide. This debate began in the early 1920s and it is totally forgotten today. But it was still one of the biggest debates on the genocide of the twentieth century. It was truly a debate on the “genocide” even before Raphael Lemkin coined the word has, because he was on the intent and scope of the “annihilation of a nation.” I tried to reconstruct this debate and why it lasted so long. Consider a discussion of four and a half years, including the first discussions after the war what had happened, the lively reception given to the Foreign Office documents published on the Armenian Genocide already in 1919, a heated exchange between those condemning what had happened, the “murder of a nation,” and the other denying it. In addition, there were murders, that of Talaat the first in 1921 and then those two prime Young Turks in 1922, all of which took place in Berlin and resumed extensively in the press of the time. Jai held to establish which came from the bottom of critical analysis employed in these discussions, and that is how I explored the German relations Ottoman Armenians since the late 1870. It appears, from the already time of Bismark, that Armenians suffered a foreign policy very cynical Germany [the real politik, already! ndt]. They were regularly sacrificed to allow Germany to obtain political advantages and a more favorable position in the Ottoman Empire. This continual sacrifice of another Christian people led a German discourse that justified the massacres already in the 1890s, and reached the tops with the propaganda of the Great War and the sickening justifications of the early 1920s.

EK: The rhetorical question Hitler “Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians”, asked in August 1939 in a speech on the war of annihilation that he would commit to the east, is well known. She suggested that Hitler was at least inspired by the Armenian Genocide. In your new book, you cling to demonstrate that the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide were linked far more than previously thought. Is it correct ?

SI- The ongoing debate on recognition and denial held the Armenian Genocide hostage for almost a century and has also led to reduced often to a footer mark in the history of accounts and analysis European and world of that time. But it was immensely important at this time, also, and perhaps particularly in Germany. Not only Germany was tied there as close as state and ally of the Ottoman, but it was the case of many people, diplomats, officers and soldiers. The fact that the Ottoman Empire had to this point concerned the German public and the German political sphere already before 1915 Germany joined the Armenian Genocide more. And finally the great debate on the genocide in Germany in the early 1920s brings this topic to a single decade of the rise to power of Hitler. The Armenian Genocide was chronologically and geographically closer to Germany and the Third Reich as is usually assumed; my book is an example in many aspects.

EK Few German historians worked on the Armenian Genocide. What could be the reasons?

SI- continuously is attributed to the subject of the difficulties and potential dangers. If you are a historian working on the Turkish and Ottoman history, you do not want to offend the people you need to reach your sources. Another reason is that many sources of German military archives were lost during World War II. Then there was the suspicion that many of the discussions on the Armenian Genocide and its links with Germany might be used to relativize the Holocaust. And finally, the official Turkish denial campaign has created a lasting impression or rather created confusion by suggesting that the subject is too difficult and unapproachable. However, in recent years many have worked on the German side, proposing new studies on particular aspects and also providing new evidence. I am sure that we will reach a critical mass in this area and that soon a broader reassessment of the Armenian Genocide will be made in history, German, European and world.

Edward Kanterian

October 30, 2015

Interview with Stefan Ihrig To Armenian Weekly

Translation Gilbert Béguian

Sunday, July 10, 2016,
Stéphane © armenews.com

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: ataturk, german, hitler, relation, Turkish

Russia presented Documents on Turkey-ISIS relations presented to the UN

April 2, 2016 By administrator

Turkey Azerbaijan massaging terroristNEWS DESK – ANF

Russia presented documents on Turkey-ISIS relations to the UN Security Council. The documents shed light on the illegal transfer of arms and ammunitions from Turkey to the parts of Syria under ISIS occupation.

Vitaly Çurkin, Russia’s Permanent Representative at the UN, presented the documents on the illegal transfer of arms and ammunitions from Turkey to the parts of Syria under ISIS occupation. According to these documents, Turkey sent chemicals and explosives worth 2 million US dollars to Syria mainly through Reyhanlı, Azez, Qamişlo and Jarablus.

Below are some of the statements made in the documents presented to the UN Security Council:

“Turkey is the main arms and military technology dealer to ISIS. The Turkish Intelligence uses illegal organizations and orchestrates the smuggling of arms. Cars and humanitarian aid convoys are used for the smuggling.”

“Turkish intelligence agents provided militants from the Damascus Front with RPG-7 rocket propellers and 7,62 mm and 12,7 mm caliber arms in mid-August. The Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms sponsored the delivery of 55 tons of food supplies to ISIS militants on January 25. Beşar Foundation is the main sponsor of these deliveries.”

“As the most effective institution in the delivery of military equipments and arms, Beşar Foundation sent 50 convoys of supplies to Bayırbucak and Kızıltepe Turkmens. Although the foundation lists private individuals as its main donors, it receives funds from the Turkish Intelligence Agency. The foundation opens bank accounts inside and outside Turkey with the help of the government.”

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: document, ISIS, relation, Russia, Turkey

One Hundred Years of Competition: History of Russo-Turkish Relations

December 21, 2015 By administrator

Turkish 1915 Dictator Enver Pasha, the Minister of War of the Ottoman Empire

Turkish 1915 Dictator Enver Pasha, the Minister of War of the Ottoman Empire (Armenian Genocide) instigator

To those who know Russian history, Ankara’s hostile move in Syria has come as no surprise: over the past hundred years Turkey and Russia have been involved in a longstanding geopolitical competition.

Incredible as it may seem it was Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany who urged Sultan Mehmed V of Turkey to unleash a “Holy War” (Jihad) against the Russian Empire, Britain and France during the First World War (1914-1918).

On November 14, 1914, Mehmed V declared Jihad against the enemies of the German Reich and the Ottoman Empire.

Besides religious matters, the Ottoman Empire had certain geopolitical interests in gaining control over Russia’s Caucasus, the Central Asian and the Volga regions.

Interestingly enough, the Turkish spiritual emissaries made every effort to engage Russian Muslims in the “jihad” against the Russian Empire, but largely in vain. Turkish pan-Islamists had been repeatedly spotted in the Caucasus on the eve of the First World War promoting the anti-Russian sentiment. They also tried to convince the Russian Tartar population to take the side of the Ottoman Empire.

The German leadership in its turn also added fuel to the fire by launching an ideological propaganda campaign and publishing “El-Jihad” newspaper. The outlet addressed Russian Tatars POWs and urged them to join Kaiser Wilhelm II, the self-proclaimed protector of all Muslims.

However, only 1,500 of almost 50,000 Russian Tatar POWs enlisted in German diversionary battalions.

Meanwhile, Enver Pasha, the Minister of War of the Ottoman Empire, developed an ambitious plan aimed at capturing Russia’s Kars province.

On December 22, 1914 a 150,000-strong Turkish military group launched an offensive against the Russian Caucasian Army in the Kars region. Unfortunately for Enver Pasha, the Turkish advance resulted in the disastrous defeat of the Ottoman military forces at the Battle of Sarikamish in January 1915. Russia’s victory brought the Turkish dream to stir up the Turkic inhabitants of Russia’s southern regions to an end.

However, it is only a part of the story. Russo-Turkish relations thawed in the early 1920s after the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in October (November) 1917. The First World War dealt a heavy blow to the Ottoman Empire leading to the country’s partitioning. In April 1920 Turkish national leader Mustafa Kemal Pasha (dubbed later Ataturk) sent an official request to Vladimir Lenin, the head of the Bolshevik Party, asking to establish diplomatic relations between Soviet Russia and Turkey. Needless to say, Lenin met the proposal with enthusiasm — the Soviet government was at the time seeking new geopolitical allies.

The Soviets helped the Turkish state to delineate the borders between Turkey and Armenia and Iran.

In accordance with the Kars Treaty signed on October 13, 1921, between Turkey, Soviet Azerbaijan, Soviet Armenia and Soviet Georgia, Kemal Pasha received the infamous Kars region, Ardagan and Artvin. The treaty was preceded by a similar agreement signed by the Kemalists and Soviet Russia. The Soviet government also provided the Turks with considerable financial aid in gold. In August 1921 General M.V. Frunze assumed the post of a Soviet Ambassador to Turkey and became Ataturk’s close military adviser.

In order to support Turkey in its war against “imperialist powers” the young Soviet Russian Republic supplied to the country about 39 000 rifles, 327 heavy machine guns, 54 big cannons, 63 million bullets, 147 000 artillery shells as well as necessary raw materials and powder. Soviet military experts and instructors were deployed to Ankara.

However, relations between the states started deteriorating in 1936 during negotiations over the status quo of the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles. The Straits were placed back under the control of Turkey. Moscow believed that Ankara would provide it with additional preferences given the close cooperation between the countries during the Turkish War for Independence. Alas, the Soviet government’s wishes had not been met.

Indeed, in the late 1930s, after the death of Ataturk, Turkey adopted a new political course and turned to its old ally — Germany. In the 1930s Nazi Germany became Turkey’s major trading partner.

On June 18, 1941, after the Second World War began, the German-Turkish Non-Aggression Pact was inked in Ankara by German ambassador to Turkey Franz von Papen and Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Sukru Saracoglu. Under an agreement signed in September 1941 Ankara sold Chromite ore, a strategic metal, to Nazi Germany up until 1944. Furthermore, Ankara allowed German warships to cross the Straits under the official guise of commercial vessels during the course of the war.

Although then-Turkish president Ismet Inonu proclaimed a policy of neutrality, a considerable number of Turkish senior nationalist policymakers raised their voices urging Ankara to start “crusade” against the USSR and Bolshevism.

The supporters of the so-called Pan-Turanian movement dreamt of establishing control over Soviet Central Asia and the Volga region inhabited by Turkic population and most notably the rich oilfields of the Caucasus. In a word, nothing had changed much since the First World War. Needless to say, Nazi Germany courted the Turkish Pan-Turanists.

Interestingly enough, the Turkish “wish list” included not only the USSR’s territories, but also northern Syria, Aleppo and Mosul.

Historians call attention to the fact that according to an additional secret agreement to the Turkish-German non-aggression pact Turkey was expected to enter the war against the USSR when Nazi Germany captured the Soviet strategic city of Stalingrad. In mid-1942 twenty-six Turkish divisions were concentrated on the border with the Soviet Union.

Turkish 1923   the Ethnic cleansing  Dictator Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

Turkish 1923 the Ethnic cleansing Dictator Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

However, the Soviet advance against Nazis dealt a blow to Pan-Turanists’ plans. In 1944, Ankara changed its political vector again, and cracked down on Nazi-supporters inside the country. Furthermore, in February 1945 Turkey officially declared war on Nazi Germany, however not taking part in any fighting.

During the Cold War era Ankara continued to pursue anti-Soviet policies. In 1952, Turkey joined NATO and took part in the CIA’s clandestine Operation Gladio aimed against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Turkey’s Counter-Guerilla forces, including Turkish nationalists Grey Wolves (Bozkurtlar), carried out paramilitary training of the Turkish youths, conducted terror acts against the Kurdish left parties and spread anti-Soviet sentiment. Turkish nationalists proclaimed the creation of Great Turan and the dissolution of the USSR as their primary objective.

After the collapse of the USSR, Turkish nationalists once again attempted to spread their influence over former the Soviet Republics and regions — the Caucasus, the Central Asia, the Volga region and Crimea. As for Ankara’s Middle Eastern policies, its ambitious plans predictably include the Iraqi Mosul, where Turkish troops have been recently deployed, and northern Syria.

History clearly shows that Turkey’s principal geopolitical agenda has not changed. 

Source: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151220/1032050373/history-of-russo-turkish-geopolitical-competition.html#ixzz3v0xUKh7K

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: Armenian, Genocide, relation, Russo-Turkish

Obama and Putin See Closer Ties With Armenia

September 21, 2015 By administrator

JOTI6IMODESDTJ74-fill640x320Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin spoke of Armenia’s deepening relations with the United States and Russia respectively as they congratulated the South Caucasus nation on the 24th anniversary of its declaration of independence from the Soviet Union marked on Monday. “Armenia is an important partner with which we share a dynamic and expanding agenda,” Obama said in a congratulatory message to President Serzh Sarkisian.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Armenia, Obama, Putin, relation

Albuquerque Journal: Relations between Baku and New Mexico senators look like quid pro quo

July 25, 2015 By administrator

new-mexico-AzerbaijanNewspaper Albuquerque Journal has again referred to the Azerbaijani lobbying in the State of New Mexico.

According to the article, one might be able to argue that Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen is simply naive when she says those paying for the 10-day, 14,000-mile trips expect nothing in return.

At the very least, the trips have earned the Azerbaijani government inofficial state legislative memorials.

The authors remind that at least 25 New Mexico legislators attended a convention in Baku in 2013, the trip being surreptitiously financed by Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company.

Papen said she is comfortable with being feted by “countries out there that are trying to be democracies and are friends with the United States.”

But, according to the newspaper, the efforts of the country’s ruling party to foster a true democracy are rather debatable. The examples are apparent: Azerbaijan is listed as one of the 10 most censored countries in the world. And Amnesty International says the government there has imprisoned journalists and political activists.

“New Mexico is hardly the only state legislature on Azerbaijan’s guest list,” the newspaper writes, noting that in 2013 Azerbaijan spent more than $2 million lobbying in the United States.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Albuquerque, Azerbaijan, quid pro quo, relation, Senators

The visit of the Armenian Prime Minister in Tbilisi confirmed the good relations between Armenia and Georgia

May 19, 2015 By administrator

arton112002-480x270The visit by Prime Minister of Armenia Hovik Abrahamyan on May 17 in Tbilisi was intended to reaffirm the good relations between Armenia and its neighbor Georgia, which have strengthened their cooperation since the departure of Georgian President Saakashvili. During his working visit for a day in the Georgian capital, Hovik Abrahamyan met with his Georgian counterpart Irakli Garibashvili, with whom he discussed the prospects of enhancing bilateral cooperation, especially in the economic field, as well as several issues of regional and international order.

The stated objective of this brief visit was to address the Georgians, and especially the supporters of the Georgian opposition, as well as Armenians and other peoples of the region, a clear message about the state of relations between the two countries who intend to remain excellent despite the diplomatic discomfort caused by the recent meeting between the President of the Armenian Parliament, Galust Sahakyan, and Anatoly Bibilov, his counterpart from the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which has, like Abkhazia, the political and military support of Russia recognized the independence of both territories in August 2008.

The meeting took place on the sidelines of the visit Mr. Bibilov had at the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the mission to observe the parliamentary elections that took place there. This had earned a reprimand from the Ambassador of Armenia in Georgia Yuri Vardanyan, the Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Gigi Gigiadze, which had expressed “deep concern” about the meeting in Tbilisi which authorities Armenian had however indicated that it was a “private” character. The Georgian Foreign Ministry had said in a statement that the meeting was against the spirit of friendship which traditionally governs the relations between Georgia and Armenia, and that it violated the bilateral relations.

Similarly, Armenia did not appreciate that his Georgian neighbor does not participate in the ceremonies of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan, the Georgian Parliament has also rejected a resolution on the recognition of this genocide. These incidents do not contribute to facilitate relations between the two neighbors, who chose divergent political and economic policies, Georgia have signed an association agreement with the European Union while Armenia has waived its European Integration rally since January 1st Eurasian Economic Union led by Russia, with which Tbilisi is still latent conflict because of its support for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The two countries pledged to strengthen their cooperation within the limits of their respective integration processes.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015,
Gari © armenews.com

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: armenain, Georgia, PM, relation

Al-Sisi refuses intervention amid Egyptian-Turkish turmoil

March 2, 2015 By administrator

By Aya Nader,

BothAs the Egyptian and Turkish heads of state fly to Saudi Arabia for talks with King Salman bin Abdulaziz, media reports suggest a Saudi brokered reconciliation between the two clashing countries.

Appearing on television the night before his meeting with the Saudi King, President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi said that his and Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s presence at the same time in Saudi Arabia is a mere coincidence. Al-Sisi demanded that Erdoğan stop intervening in Egypt’s internal affairs.

Saudi Arabia had previously attempted to harmonise Egypt’s relations with Qatar, another country in conflict with Egypt. The Gulf nations, with the exception of Qatar, have been supportive of Egypt’s government since the overthrow of former president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013. Egyptian-Qatari relations witnessed a slight improvement by the end of the year, followed by improvement of relations between Egypt and Turkey. report daily news

It appears, however, that Turkey is “retreating”, as reported by Egypt’s state-run newspaper Al-Ahram. The recent change in Qatar’s foreign policy towards Egypt was a direct factor for Turkey, Chairman of the International Relations Bureau of the Turkish Workers’ Party Yunus Soner told Daily News Egypt. The Turkish government is taking slow but certain steps to strengthen relations with Egypt, he said.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry had declared its support for the normalisation of relations between Turkey and Egypt under certain conditions, which occurred under economic and US pressure to do so. This comes following Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç’s calls for establishing relations with Egypt on intact grounds, yet still referring to the current regime as a “military coup”.

Ministry Spokesman Tanju Bilgiç declared turning to normal relations was possible if in Egypt the people’s will would again be reflected in the political and social life, and if the country returns to full democracy.

In the ensuing crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood leaders and supporters following President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s rise to power, Turkey has emerged as a sympathiser to the now outlawed group. The two countries have been exchanging accusations since former president Mohamed Morsi’s ouster in 2013. “Gulf countries have attacked Turkey for its policy towards Egypt,” said İsmail Hakkı Pekin, former Intelligence Department of the General Staff head. Pekin, who had been imprisoned for an attempted coup against Erdogan’s regime, added: “All Arab countries are rooted in what Egypt does.”

However, Pekin said that even if Qatar had not changed its policy toward Egypt, Turkey would still have changed its own policy. Qatar, like Turkey, was against Morsi’s ouster, and Egyptian-Qatari ties have been strained since then, resulting in the withdrawal of ambassadors in both countries.

“Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood was an incorrect Turkish policy. Turkey must accept Al-Sisi as president,” Pekin said. “Egypt, Turkey and Syria all have terrorism problems. They need to get together to make peace.”

Egyptian media mirrors Turkey as a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now banned in Egypt, and has been listed as a “terrorist organisation” since December 2013.

Looking at the bigger picture, Soner said: “Turkey is under big pressure from the US. With the current US dollar exchange rate and its economic conditions, it is now forced to have better relations with its neighbouring country.”

One of Egypt’s latest measures against Turkey was the tightening of travel permits to the country, which led to tourism companies cancelling their trips.

Erdogan has made comments on Egypt’s internal situation on different occasions, and said in February that Turkey would not recognise the Egyptian interim authorities. He said it was “a regime that has undertaken a military coup”, calling then-minister of defence Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, a “coup maker”.

Egypt, in turn, replied to Turkey’s statements by accusing Erdogan of spreading lies and “flagrant intervention” in Egypt’s internal affairs. In November, both countries expelled each others’ ambassadors, officially downgrading diplomatic ties between the nations.

“Turkey needs Egypt; otherwise there will be problems with Eastern-Mediterranean countries. Without Egypt, all the Middle East countries cannot solve their problems,” said Pekin.

Pekin expects the Turkish-Egyptian relations to improve in all fields, specifically terrorism and respecting the decisions of Egyptian people.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Al-Sisi, Erdogan, relation

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Support Gagrule.net

Subscribe Free News & Update

Search

GagruleLive with Harut Sassounian

Can activist run a Government?

Wally Sarkeesian Interview Onnik Dinkjian and son

https://youtu.be/BiI8_TJzHEM

Khachic Moradian

https://youtu.be/-NkIYpCAIII
https://youtu.be/9_Xi7FA3tGQ
https://youtu.be/Arg8gAhcIb0
https://youtu.be/zzh-WpjGltY





gagrulenet Twitter-Timeline

Tweets by @gagrulenet

Archives

Books

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Judge Dismisses $500 Million Lawsuit By Azeri Lawyer Against ANCA & 29 Others
  • These Are the Social Security Offices Expected to Close This Year, Musk call SS Ponzi Scheme
  • Breaking News, Pashinyan regime has filed charges against public figure Edgar Ghazaryan,
  • ANCA’s Controversial Endorsement: Implications for Armenian Voters
  • (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, has invited Kurdish Leader Öcalan to the Parliament “Ask to end terrorism and dissolve the PKK.”

Recent Comments

  • administrator on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • David on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • Ara Arakelian on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • DV on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • Tavo on I’d call on the people of Syunik to arm themselves, and defend your country – Vazgen Manukyan

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in