Я периодически разговариваю с моими либеральными камрадами о прессе. Западной. В последнее время - об английской. Либеральные камрады меня убеждают, что английская пресса - белая и пушистая, что она выдерживает баланс, несмотря на то, что интересы BP завязаны на Турции и Азербайджане, и что это я такой лох, что не понимаю, и никогда не пойму как там Запад устроен. Они отрицают существование генеральной линии партии, послиху Великобритании в Армении публично отрицающую Геноцид, отрицают программы микрогрантов, раздающиеся на политические цели и мероприятия. Всего этого нет. И не было. Потому что я не понимаю.
А я очень хочу понять. Ну просто сил нет как хочу. Кушать не могу - хочу понять.
Вот опять я прочел - и не понял. Пришло по Грунгу - поэтому линка нет.

Turkey and Armenia
Genocidal follies
Oct 4th 2007 | ISTANBUL AND YEREVAN
From The Economist print edition
The trouble that might flow from an American congressional resolution
A RECENT evening in Istanbul, Turkey's (and Europe's) biggest city.
Armenia's leading musician, Djivan Gasparyan, is playing his duduk, an Anatolian-style clarinet, as Yavuz Bingol, an ethnic Kurd, belts out Turkish folksongs. The event symbolises a budding rapprochement between ordinary Turks and Armenians. But America's Congress may now torpedo this fragile process by voting for a bill calling the mass slaughter of up to 1m Ottoman
Armenians in 1915 a genocide.

Turkey has squashed previous attempts to pass such a bill by exploiting its strategic significance and its clout as NATO's only Muslim member. This time officials fret that not only will a congressional committee approve the resolution but also it may pass on the House floor. Turkey says that this would plunge relations with America into deep crisis. "Placing the Turks in
the same category as Nazis is intolerable for us," says one official.
Possible retaliatory measures might include denying the Americans the use of the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey, which is a hub for the supply of non-combat materiel for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey could also seal its land border with Iraq. With positive Turkish views of America at a low of only 11%, according to a recent German Marshall Fund
poll, such moves might give nationalists in Turkey a big boost.
Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, whose Californian district includes many rich Armenians, is unswayed by pleas to back down. Eight former secretaries of state have written to her to argue that, besides endangering "our national security interests", the bill would kill "some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging each other". Vartan Oskanian, Armenia's foreign minister, retorts that "expressing concern about a process that doesn't exist is disingenuous". His own recent meeting with his Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan, in New York got nowhere.
Turkey has no diplomatic ties with Armenia and refuses to open its border with the landlocked ex-Soviet republic. This was sealed in 1993 after Armenia occupied a chunk of Azerbaijan in a vicious little war. Air links have been restored, however, and recently Turkish diplomats have hinted at a more dramatic move: formalising ties, over the objections of a vocal Azeri
lobby in Turkey, not to mention those of its hawkish generals. In exchange Armenia would have to recognise its border with Turkey and make some conciliatory gesture towards Azerbaijan.
Armenia counters that it wants to restore relations "without preconditions". That is because of a widespread suspicion that Turkey is feigning change merely to derail the genocide resolution. If Turkey were sincere, say the Armenians, it would scrap article 301 of the penal code, under which intellectuals have been prosecuted for daring to call the Armenian tragedy a genocide. On October 3rd Turkey's new president, Abdullah Gul, duly called for changes to article 301 in a speech to the Council of Europe.
Turks claim that they want to delink the issues. As one official puts it, "we strongly believe in decoupling our ties with Armenia from the genocide bill and feel that over time the relationship will flourish on its own merits." Should the bill be adopted in Congress, though, a change in policy would become impossible because of the nationalist passions it would stoke. These worries are shared by Turkey's Armenians, still reeling from the murder in January of an ethnic Armenian newspaper editor, Hrant Dink. Mr Dink's lawyers claim that the nationalist teenager who shot him was acting under orders from rogue elements within the security forces.
David Shahnazarian, a former chief of Armenia's National Security Council, complains that Western countries are using the genocide issue to promote their own agenda. "In the case of France, it is to keep Turkey out of the EU," he says. The massacre of a million civilians is a matter in which Turks should arrive at the truth on their own. But as Mr Gul has partly conceded, that may necessitate an end to article 301's restrictions on free speech.


Не понимаю, как резолюция по Геноциду в Конгрессе повредит армяно-турецкому диалогу?
Не понимаю, почему репортер озвучивает только турецкую версию армяно-турецких проблем?
Не понимаю, почему упоминание об принадлежности к националистическим кругам убийцы Гранта Динка вложено в уста адвоката представляющего интересы Динка?
Не понимаю, почему из великого множества экспертов по Турции в Армении выбран Давид Шахназарян, с его АОД-овской позицией по всем этим вопросам?
Не понимаю, почему я НИКОГДА не видел такую же сбалансированную в армянскую сторону статью в британской прессе?
PS Огромное спасибо arzuni за наводку

Tags: Армянская политика, НЕРиторические вопросы, Прикладная демократия, СМИ, Турция