Turkey-Armenia: The Freeze in Relations

Fulya Inci writes for EA:

The reconciliation process in Turkey-Armenia relations seems to be frozen after the resolutions of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs and Swedish Parliament in early March calling the events of 1915 as “genocide”. The Turkish Government reacted loudly to the decisions, and the two neighbouring countries now blame each other for not taking concrete steps to political resolution.

The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee resolution on 4 March declaring “genocide”, supporting the Armenian case, stunned Turkish officials because they thought they had conducted an effective lobbying campaign. Committee members voting against the resolution indicated that they approved the finding of genocide but that the timing of the declaration was wrong. They mentioned that it would damage the Turkey-US alliance, especially in Afghanistan, and the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia.


However, the resolution passed by a 23- 22 vote, and Turkish ambassador Namık Tan was soon recalled by Ankara. Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized President Obama for his late intervention. Tan is still in Turkey, and his return subject to a "clear stance" of Obama demanded by Erdogan.

A similar resolution was approved by the Swedish parliament in a 131-130 vote on 11 March, alleging genocide of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks at the same time. Although Swedish senior officials said that they do not support the bill, diplomatic tensions have risen.

Now the Turkish-Armenian protocols signed in October are in limbo. Armenia has made the recognition of genocide a pre-condition for further development of relations while Turkey insists on a resolution of Azeri-Armenian conflict, including over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Turkish Parliament has not ratified the protocols. Erdogan's interview with BBC Turkish Service during his last visit to London, with remarks of “deporting 100.000 Armenians living illegally in Turkey...in case the normalization process does not work", has been condemned.

Turkey on Tenterhooks: Update on the Coup Stories

Aysegül Er writes for EA:

For almost two years, there has been talks about conspiracies and a possible military coup in Turkey, with the "ultra-nationalist" Ergenekon organization providing the base for the overthrow of the Government. Ergenekon was alleged to include plotting journalists, soldiers, and politicians, with the finds of caches of arms, even in Ankara.

On Thursday, there was the claim of the interception of a truckload of arms. Two soldiers, with formal service documents, explained that they are going to the Ankara district of Gölbaşı to the command headquarters, but police forces confiscated the truck and questioned the soldiers and driver for eight hours before releasing them.

Muğla Provincial Gendarmerie Commander Colonel Salih Karataş announced that the weapons and grenades in the truck belong to the Turkish Army. “All the munitions belong to the TSK. They have the required documents for the transfer. They also have serial numbers on them. All the munitions are registered to the TSK inventory,” he emphasized.

Some other military sources told, “This is a routine practice. We prefer such methods of transfer of explosives in order to avoid risks.” Others in the military, however, gave a different story, saying that the Army does not any connection to the discovered weapons and munition.

There is further confusion because, under the Regulation on Transfer of Explosives, the armed forces should request a police escort for transfer of large amounts of munitions from one city to another. However, no such request was received by the Ankara Police Department, police sources reported. The Muğla Police Department also announced that they had no prior information about the truck and the munitions and “no one requested an escort for the truck from us”.

Cold Cash: Europe's Complications over the Iceland Bank Crash

Aysegül Er writes for EA:

After the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 2008, there were other bank collapses. One of these was of an Iceland bank, Icesave, which held substantial accounts from overseas clients, including in Britain and the Netherlands.

The British and Dutch Governments eventually agreed with Icelandic officials that Reykjavik would repay money to depositors. In December 2009, Iceland's Parliament approved Bill to reimburse more than 3.8 billion Euros. However Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson refused to sign the Bill. On Sunday, a public referendum was held to decide whether Iceland should repay.

The voters --- by a margin of 93 to 2 percent --- said No.



The Icelandic Government declared “There is widespread frustration over the claim on ordinary citizens in Iceland to pay the price for the irresponsible behavior of reckless bankers.” It added, somewhat wishfully, that it had “clearly stated its intention to honor its international obligations and remains fully committed to implementing the bilateral loan agreements with the UK and the Netherlands".

Foreign Minister Össur Skarphedinsson took a tougher line alongisde the referendum, arguing that the two creditors should heed the cry of defiance delivered by Icelanders and agree to soften the terms of repayment. He added reason for manoeuvre, saying that the December legislation being voted had already been superseded by a recent offer from Britain and Netherlands to lower the 5.5 per cent interest rate.

Beyond the conflict is Iceland’s application to join the European Union. This month, the European Commission recommended proceeding with accession talks, but support is needed from all 27 member states for Iceland's membership. Dare Britain and Netherlands withhold their Yeses in response to the No of the Iceland voters?

Europe Watch: French Warships to Russia

On Wednesday Russia, fulfilling an agreement in principle reached four weeks ago, announced that it plans to buy four Mistral-class warships from France.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that, with the first deal between a NATO member and a former Soviet state, he wanted to turn the page on the Cold War; Russia must be a partner, not a threat. Sarkozy added that the deal will build trust at a time when West is seeking Russian support on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme:

Can we say to President Medvedev in the morning, "Ah, I trust you, vote with us at the Security Council, work with us on the same resolution against Iran," then in the afternoon, tell him, "No no, excuse us, as we don’t trust you and we don’t work together — we won’t send you the Mistral?

The Mistral-class ships can deploy 16 helicopters, four landing barges, and up to 70 armoured vehicles, including 13 battle tanks, and 450 troops.

Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania expressed their concerns about Russia’s intentions. Estonia’s military chief of staff, Lieutenant General Ants Laaneots, said, "We don't know what they are going to do with a Mistral, are they going to keep them in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the northern fleet?" Harri Tiido, the undersecretary for political affairs at the Estonian Foreign Ministry, argued, “Definitely, it would not add to the security of the region. And I think the nations around the Baltic Sea in that case would have to see what they have to do to change their defense planning, maybe; but also, it could influence the defense planning of NATO." Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili declared that the sale is a threat for his country and Eastern Europe.

Some concerns emphasized Russia's new strategic doctrine on NATO, which labels the expanded alliance a threat, and a Baltic war-games scenario last year that included a pincer operation cutting off Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Francois Heibourg, an adviser at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, while noting that Russia's demand is understandable, assessed, “The Mistral is a considerable strategic tool: Russia's power projection capability will be much increased in the Black Sea, the Baltic, and even far into Asia."

War Crimes & Bosnia: Karadzic Testifies at International Criminal Tribunal

Fulya Inci writes for EA:

After boycotting his trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for months, Radovan Karadzic, the former President of Republika Srpska (the Serbian Republic in Bosnia) has finally delivered his opening statement. He claimed that his goal was to keep Yugoslavia together rather than pursuit of a war, a goal he described as “just and holy”.

Karadzic refused to attend the presentation of the prosecution's introductory arguments last October and asked for a postponement of the trial. His request was denied by the court. After he was told that his right of defense would be taken away if he refused one more time, Karadzic gave way.

The prosecution has accused Karadzic of 11 crimes, including the genocide in Srebrenica of Bosnian Muslims and the killing of about 10,000 people during the 43-month siege of Sarajevo siege from 1992 to 1995. Karadzic responded that Bosnian Muslims had “the Islamist goal” to take full power in Bosnia and that was unacceptable for Bosnian Serbs. He also accused the Western countries of raising tensions by recognizing Bosnia’s independence.

Karadzic rejected the specific charges, alleging that the prosecution wanted to make a secret agreement with enemies of Serbs. He said that their need to paint him as a monster stemmed from a lack of evidence against him.