Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia: Erdogan Cannot Be Allowed to Act as Turkish Premier Anymore. Part I

In a previous article entitled "Turkey – Azerbaijan – Armenia: Documents Incriminating Erdogan, Still Hidden in Turkey"
(http://www.pennsylvaniachronicle.com/articles/view/94901), I illustrated some of the reasons for which the theologically extremist, politically Islamist, historically ignorant, intellectually gullible, and diplomatically inexperienced prime minister of Turkey has to be removed in an effort to limit liabilities ensuing from his ridiculous targets, unrealistic dreams, and – above all – dramatic apathy in front of, if not tragic and calamitous compliance with, the colonial powers’ complot against Turkey.

In support of my approach to the (well hidden by the Western mass media and the Erdogan administration) subject of the forthcoming dissolution of Turkey, I brought to surface a critical document that remains widely – and catastrophically – unknown in Turkey, namely the Report presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with respect to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Submitted in November 2004, the Report "The Conflict Over the Nagorno-Karabakh Region Dealt With by the OSCE Minsk Conference" demonstrates clearly that the countries with which Turkey has been allied, and the major powers involved in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, drastically prevent Turkey from implementing policies pertaining to the interests of Ankara and Baku that are identical; even worse the Erdogan – Gul administration is fully compliant with these powers.

Acting in full concordance on the subject, England and France have induced their unsusceptible partners in the European Union to follow in their footsteps when it comes to the explosive Caucasus crisis. This will prove to be detrimental for Italy, Germany and Poland – to say the least. The same – hidden from most but fully active – axis, pursuing typical 19th century colonial trickeries, has maneuvered Russia into a maelstrom of anti-Islamic and supposedly pro-Christian policies in the Caucasus region in order to manage that Moscow properly defends the ailing tiny state of Armenia, and effectively prevents both, Azerbaijan’s national reunification and Turkey’s merge with the reunified Azerbaijan.

The scheme is similar to what occurred before 100 years when the tsar idiotically considered the Ottoman Empire as his enemy, and thus he achieved to fail first to reach Jerusalem (his final target in the Middle East) and second to survive. Russian naivety cost the tsar his head, and the same will happen with the tyrannical and militaristic regime of the combined interests Putin (Moscow’s anti-Western lobby and the Soviet Secret Srvices) and Medvedev (Zionist capital of the Jewish Diasora), but this is not the point to analyze how Russia would outmaneuver the Anti-Russian trickery of London and Paris.

What matters for Turkey is that the same axis pursues against Turkey their traditional anti-Ottoman policies geared to destroy the Ottoman Empire. It is pure naivety to either imagine otherwise about the Anglo-French interests or assume that any cooperation with them could possibly have no disastrous effect on Turkey.

The colonial machination against Turkey uses Iran, Armenia, the so-called Kurdish leaders, Israel, and the Arabic tyrannies. Obviously, not all of these elements are conscious perpetrators of their policies; many are maneuvered through bribery and colonial style promises (Armenia, the so-called Kurdish leaders, and the Arabic tyrannies) whereas others (Iran) are manipulated and maneuvered without direct contact involved only to be systematically driven to pre-calculated (by the Anglo-French) reactions.

Of course, the first tool of colonial policy toward Turkey is the inducement (I should say seducement) to enter the European Union. Turkey has European vocation but has no European interests; the secular political, academic, financial, military establishment correctly approved of Turkey’s political orientation toward European Union in the 60s and the 70s because this was the correct step in a bi-polar world whereby Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan were merely parts of the USSR. The European dream is not valid anymore for Turkey.

The Anglo-French axis, carefully and artificially divided into supposedly pro-Turkish and supposedly anti-Turkish parts (in fact, they are all anti-Turkish), attracts therefore the current Turkish administration to an invalid dream that means nothing for Turkey. Europe is a trash that will never unite except under a tyranny far worse than that of Hitler – whereby Turkey has great chances, if Ankara stops every negotiation now, not be a member – victim like all the rest.

The Anglo-French bias takes the form of inducement for something that presupposes Turkey’s destruction in order to be achieved. To become admitted in the European Union, Turkey should be democratized – they say. Certainly, this is a fallacy; what the Anglo-French elites truly mean by demanding "democratization" is the final demolition of the real, deep, Turkish state.

One may suggest that this sort of administrative machine, the real, deep state, does not correspond to a Western democracy, and this is true, but only in theory. There is real, deep state in England and France as well, simply it is prohibited for anyone there to speak about it, and if some truthful denouncers do so, first their voice is not allowed to be possibly heard, and second they are discredited – through shamefully immoral use of all the existing pejorative terms against them.

There is a point; the real, deep state in France and England is not made of the visible English and the French political, academic, financial, military establishments as such, as is the case in Turkey; for a very simple reason. In England and France, the real, deep state is far deeper and far stronger than in Turkey, and therefore omnipotent and unseen. This does not mean effectively invisible.

Nothing perpetrated by a human being can assuredly go undetected by another human being; for the greatest secret there is always the moment of the de-codification. This is inevitable.

In England and France, the real, deep state consists in the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that rules in a totalitarian way, imposing their policies by illegally occupying (and therefore hiring) all the important public and private administration positions in every sector. By secretly arranging full implementation of the solidarity rules among their members, they set up a frame within which two people, already known to one another and identified as "brethren" within their secret lodges, establish in public (within a ministry, a university, the army or a company) a cooperation the beginning of which is unknown to the rest; in this way, the secret purpose of the cooperation of the two persons remains unknown to their colleagues, superiors or subordinates, who are kept in mysteries about the agenda that is thus being implemented without any hindrance.

Wherever there is Freemasonic secrecy there cannot be a functional democracy. The existence of a Freemasonic lodge automatically cancels the essence of Democracy, as the will of the many becomes the victim of the secrecy of the few.

To make a comparison, I can merely say, something that is widely known, that several Turks managed effectively to rise in the academia and in the finance, in the army and the public administration, without believing in the ideals of Kemal Ataturk; under Turkey’s secular establishment – provocatively characterized by the Anglo-French as anti-democratic – many Turks, who were opposed to Kemal Ataturk’s ideas, managed to rise in power.

This does not and cannot happen in France and in England; who dares speak in today’s England and France – and further on, throughout the European Union – against the Freemasonic establishment and its vast, immense, deep and ominous apparatus in terms used before 140 years by Popes? No one. Who dares oppose the evil models of social and daily life that have been tyrannical imposed by the puppet regimes of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge on the Western societies? Who dares denounce the materialism, the conventionalism, the relativism, the conformism, the consumerism, the evil pan-sexism that all have befallen (been imposed) on the Western societies through the secretive techniques of massive insanity, performed by the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge?

Certainly the present article does not consist in an analysis of the Western societies. What I merely wanted to say is this: it is better to live in a sane environment whereby you are not allowed to openly express your opinion for a few subjects because of an apparently non tolerant regime than to be forced – in your unbeknownst – to survive in an insane environment whereby you are allowed to openly say anything you like because all you can say is nonsensical idiocy unable to hit the foundations of the monstrously and inhumanly tyrannical regime that dictatorially transformed all its citizens to besotted beings.

The Anglo-French bias had to be implemented by a fully ignorant and obviously idiotic dreamer who thought himself and his equally besotted friends as possibly able to first work for some time with the Anglo-French, until they get the political control over the real, deep state of Turkey, and then dissociate themselves from the colonial West that they inherently hate.

Erdogan’s back thoughts and anti-secular, anti-laic and anti-democratic schemes have been denounced even before the 2007 elections.

What became recently evident is Erdogan’s vicious anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli hatred, as explicitly manifested in Davos, which merely testifies to his anti-Western complex, being only one of its many emanations.

Even more recently, Erdogan’s rapprochement with Armenia and his government’s expressly anti-Azerbaijan position let us see more clearly; Erdogan’s Islamists are ready to sacrifice Turkey’s national interests (that are automatically aligned with those of Azerbaijan) because they simply do not bother about them. These interests are not part of their agenda that involves the dissolution of Turkey and the merge of Turkey’s territory with a huge Islamic state to be made out of many Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking states, Iran, and Pakistan.

By saying this, I don’t mean that Erdogan and his Islamists are in line with all the other projects and agendas providing for the formation of an Islamic state in the Middle East; they merely represent one of the agendas, and to this agenda of theirs has to be added the calamitous Turkish – Syrian, Turkish – Iraqi, and Turkish – Iranian rapprochements. Certainly Erdogan does not believe that the opening of the Turkish – Armenian borderline will be calamitous for Turkey; neither does he imagine the extent to which he has been cheated by Talabani and Barzani. But 75 millions of Turks will pay in blood for his "mistakes"…….

But this is nothing new; the French and the English colonized Egypt, following Napoleon’s arrival (1798), saying that they do not intend to rule the country, and that the country would be ruled by the Viceroy (Khedive) of the Sultan; only to attack the Ottoman city of Jerusalem 119 years later – from Egypt……

Before that, useless to add, the Viceroy (Khedive) of the Sultan greatly contributed with all the resources of the previously Ottoman province to all the points and details of the colonial Anglo-French agenda.

This was the reason for the invasion of Egypt, and that’s why the Anglo-French deployed a great effort to permanently appease the Sultans, as they appease now Erdogan with the fake promise of the EU acceptance of Turkey.

In fact, thrice and in very brief time, Erdogan’s government betrayed Azerbaijan, which means automatically that Turkey’s government betrayed Turkey itself.

First, with the Iranian rapprochement. Turkey’s interests after 1991 impose the immediate dissolution of Iran at all costs, the subsequent merge of Turkey with South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan, other (occupied by Iran) lands of oppressed nations, notably Lorestan, Bakhtiaristan, Gilan, Mazandaran, and then Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan into a vast multicultural Union of Turkic Nations.

Second, with the Armenian rapprochement. Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s interests are identical. It is impossible for Turkey to enter into discussion with Armenia before the full Armenian withdrawal from Nagorno Karabakh that the Armenians invaded through use of Russian soldiers, and kept under their control with the help of Russian threats against Azerbaijan. In fact, there was no Armenian victory in Nagorno Karabakh; there was an Anti-Turkish and Anti-Azeri conspiracy orchestrated by England and France that promised help to Russia’s Yeltsin in case of immediate Russian support of the Armenian thugs.

Third, with the biased stance in the case of the Nabucco pipeline. The issue is certainly vast, but I will further expand in forthcoming articles. Here, I have to simply state that Ankara’s current indifference for the triangular relationship Turkey – Armenia – Azerbaijan only underscores Erdogan’s Islamist lunacy and evil intention to turn the Ayasofya Museum to a mosque and Istanbul to the capital of a transvestite pseudo-caliphate.

As I promised, I continue with the republication of parts of the critical document that was kept hidden from all the inhabitants of Turkey. In a forthcoming article, I will explain what means for Turkey, and for the current illegitimate administration of Ankara, the stance of the Council of Europe concerning the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Conflict Over the Nagorno-Karabakh Region Dealt With by the OSCE Minsk Conference

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Doc. 10364
29 November 2004

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm

Table of Contents

Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur

- Introduction

- Historical background

- The efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group

- Other efforts to settle the conflict

- International legal dispute

- Essential conditions for a sustainable settlement

Possible action by the Council of Europe and its member states

Appendix I - Maps of the conflict area used by the United Nations

Appendix II - Programmes of visits in preparation of the report

Appendix III - Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

Appendix IV - Background paper prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs for the seminar "Youth and conflict Resolution" (Strasbourg, 31 March – 2 April 2003)

III. Explanatory Memorandum by the Rapporteur

Introduction

1. Until 31 August 2004, Mr Terry Davis was rapporteur on this subject. On 1 September, Mr Davis took up his duties as Secretary General of the Council of Europe and left the Parliamentary Assembly. After several meetings with the parties concerned and several visits to the region, he had submitted a draft report to the Committee before that date, which was discussed at the meeting of the Political Affairs Committee in Paris on 14 September 2004. On 14 September 2004, I was appointed to succeed Mr Davis as rapporteur. This document contains the draft report together with my changes.

2. The title of this report is the "conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference" and concerns the armed conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the Nagorno-Karabakh1 region and its surrounding districts which are under occupation by Armenian forces.

3. The conflict area comprises the territory of the former Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the total or partial territory of eight surrounding districts of Azerbaijan. The former Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh is not adjacent to the territory of Armenia and is separated from Armenia by other districts. (see Appendix I – map used by the United Nations).

4. For most of the past 15 years, the attention of European states has been focused on conflicts in other regions, and the conflicts in the South Caucasus have not received enough attention and understanding. During the preparation of this report, this situation has changed. Several governments outside the region have launched programmes which can be described as confidence building measures. However, some people in the region have expressed their concern that these efforts need to be coordinated by an international organisation such as the Council of Europe.

5. The conflict concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh region is really a conflict between two principles: territorial integrity and self-determination. On the one hand, the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. On the other hand, the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh (the majority even before "ethnic cleansing" in 1992-1994) claim the right of self-determination. They are supported by Armenia.

6. According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area.

7. The conflict is long-standing and rooted in history. It became an armed conflict in 1992, and the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis did not stop until 1994.

8. During the conflict and preceding events, hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. More than a decade has passed, and they have not been able to return to their homes. These people often live under miserable conditions. Beyond this pressing humanitarian need, there is also the latent danger of a new outbreak of armed hostilities. This report, the draft Resolution and draft Recommendation are intended to raise awareness of the conflict and assist the efforts for its peaceful settlement.

9. The OSCE2 started dealing with this conflict in 1992 and decided to hold a conference in Minsk on the terms of the final settlement of the conflict. In May 1994, it succeeded in obtaining a cease-fire agreement which stopped the war. Although the subsequent negotiations have not yet succeeded in obtaining a settlement, I pay tribute to the Co-Chairs3 of the OSCE Minsk Group for their tireless efforts. This Rapporteur has great respect for their work.

10. In preparation of this report, the Rapporteur has visited Armenia and Azerbaijan twice and met the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on four separate occasions. Thanks are due to all the authorities involved in these visits and meetings for their good will and co-operation. The programmes of these visits are attached (Appendix II).

Historical background

11. To understand this conflict, it is helpful to look briefly at the history of the area and the situation before the fighting broke out. In fact, history is an important factor. It has frequently been painful for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, and historic events have been widely used in order to justify ethnic hatred, violence and claims over territories in this region. However, this report does not attempt to report exhaustively on the history. It is rather intended to draw attention to a few key facts.

12. From 1987 onwards, ethnic violence increased and coincided with bilateral tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan within the USSR. With the dissolution of the USSR, the hostilities developed into large-scale military actions, which resulted in the death of thousands and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Following these events, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe made a Declaration on 11 March 1992 condemning the violence and attacks directed against the civilian population. After Armenia and Azerbaijan had become participating states in the OSCE in 1992, the OSCE began to deal with this conflict.

13. In the meantime, ethnic Armenians had established a "government" in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its "capital" in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This "government" is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this "government".

14. A more detailed explanation of the background and history of this region is reproduced in a separate Appendix (Appendix IV in English only) to this document. This Appendix consists of a background paper which was prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe and was used for a Council of Europe seminar on "Youth and Conflict Resolution" organised in Strasbourg in April 2003. Also attached for information is the written response by the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe.

The efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group

15. Unfortunately, but understandably, the OSCE Minsk process has been confidential and limited to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, very little information is available to the public in both countries. However, some positions discussed at the bilateral meetings under the OSCE Minsk Group have become the subject of rumour and speculation. It is thus widely believed that the negotiations of the two governments were close to an agreement following the initiatives by the Co-Chairs in 1997, 1998 and 2001, with meetings of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Paris and Key West (USA). The proposed settlements differed from each other, but covered the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the withdrawal of military forces and subsequent security guarantees, as well as the return of refugees and displaced persons.

16. The year 2003 saw virtually no progress in the bilateral negotiations under the Minsk Group as a result of parliamentary and presidential elections in both Armenia and Azerbaijan ending with the presidential election in Azerbaijan in October 2003.

17. At the time of the Rapporteur’s visit to the region in February 2004, the situation could only be described as stalemate. A meeting between President Kocharyan and President Aliyev in November 2003 had not even resulted in a date to meet again. However, there has been a lot of activity since February with another meeting of the Presidents in Warsaw on 28 April 2004 and several meetings of the Foreign Ministers in Bratislava on 18/19 March, Prague on 16 April, Strasbourg on 12/13 May, Prague on 21 June and Istanbul on 28/29 June 2004. At separate meetings with the Foreign Ministers and the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group in Strasbourg on 13 May, the Rapporteur had the impression that, although an agreement could not be described as imminent, the negotiations had gained a new momentum.

18. The current population of the Nagrono-Karabakh region is not included in the negotiation process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk process. The President of Armenia, President Kocharyan, was the first "president" of the self-declared but internationally not recognised "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" and thus may have the confidence of the ethnic Armenian population in that region. However, his successor and the other representatives of the political forces in the region regard themselves as the representatives of the people there and thus want to be involved in any settlement agreement. During the Rapporteur’s visits to Baku, it became clear that the Azerbaijani authorities were only willing to include representatives of the political forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh region if they renounced their desire for secession. The exclusion of these political forces is a weakness of the current process, because in the end, a solution cannot be imposed on them against their will.

Other efforts to settle the conflict

19. During the armed conflict, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) (see Appendix III). These Resolutions called upon Armenia and Azerbaijan to restore peace, protect civilians and liberate the territories occupied in the course of the conflict. The latter applied in particular to Armenia. Regrettably, major parts of these Resolutions have not yet been implemented.

20. Some people argue that the United Nations should become more active in dealing with this issue because it damages the authority of the Security Council for its Resolutions to be ignored. However, the Security Council has resisted all suggestions of becoming more involved and has simply supported the mediation activity of the OSCE.

International legal dispute

21. There is another UN route which could be used by the parties to the conflict if the negotiations sponsored by the Minsk Group do not result in an agreed settlement. Article 36 of the United Nations Charter clearly states that legal disputes should, as a general rule, be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice. As member states of the United Nations, Armenia and Azerbaijan are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice under Article 9, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter. Both states could, therefore, take their case to the International Court of Justice as another way of achieving a peaceful settlement of a conflict.

22. There is another option. As has already been noted, the conflict resulted in the expulsion of ethnic Azerbaijanis from the occupied territories and the expulsion of ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan and ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia, a large number of refugees and internally displaced persons are living far away from their homes. These people have the right to enjoy their property or receive compensation for the deprivation of this right under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of Loizidou v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights awarded compensation to an applicant who was judged to have been unlawfully displaced from her home in the course of an armed conflict. Parallels with the persons displaced from the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding territories are obvious.

Essential conditions for a sustainable settlement

23. A sustainable settlement of the conflict must, of course, go beyond a legal settlement. It must be emphasised that this dispute has a second dimension: a conflict between legality and reality. The majority population of the Nagorno-Karabakh region is ethnic Armenian, and this was the case before the conflict. The Azerbaijani population of this region was a minority, and a future Azerbaijani population would probably remain a minority. In addition, there is wide-spread, deeply rooted and strongly propagated and developed distrust between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. This distrust cannot be overcome by a court judgment or legal settlement alone.

24. Any settlement would also face the democratic dilemma, which requires the political leadership of both countries to respond to public opinion. The current public opinions in both countries may not yet be ripe for a settlement based on compromise.

25. The often terrible humanitarian conditions of the refugees and displaced persons must also be addressed. These people have a right to return to their homes, but many people do not want to return (especially ethnic Azerbaijanis formerly living in Armenia and ethnic Armenians formerly living in Azerbaijan). The former population of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent districts is more likely to want to return because these areas had only been populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis and are nearly depopulated at present. Those refugees who do not want to go back need the means to integrate into the communities in which they have been living since their flight. Where displaced persons want to go back, large efforts are needed for the reconstruction of their destroyed homes. The reconstruction of houses will have to go hand in hand with economic reconstruction and development. In this respect, the international community will be called upon to provide support.

26. If the eventual settlement of this dispute does not envisage immediate secession of Nagorno-Karabakh form Azerbaijan, everyone accepts that Nagorno-Karabkh must have a high level of autonomy. In this connection, the Rapporteur draws attention to the Assembly’s Resolution 1334 (2003) and Recommendation 1609 (2003) on positive experiences of autonomous regions as a source of inspiration. In a detailed report on this subject, Mr Andreas Gross comes to the conclusion that regional autonomy with a high degree of self-government may be a better solution than secession and independence.

27. The conflict has exacerbated a widespread and deeply rooted ethnic hatred and even fear. The historic feelings of distrust and fear have been made worse by the personal experiences of many people on all sides during the armed conflict and the preceding events. For Armenians and Azerbaijanis to live peacefully together, or at least side by side, requires a certain degree of reconciliation. The Council of Europe has developed confidence building programmes and guidelines for action against racism, intolerance and ethnic hatred through its European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as well as in the media and education sectors. Successful events have been launched by the Council of Europe against hate language in the media in other regions. Such action in this region is desperately needed

28. A peaceful cohabitation of both ethnic groups will also require a high presence of security and police forces at the initial stage. In the Rapporteur’s opinion, it will require an international presence which takes into account the experience of such efforts in other parts of Europe.

Possible action by the Council of Europe and its member states

29. For the Assembly, the key question will be how the Council of Europe and its member states can contribute to the settlement of the conflict and its humanitarian consequences.

30. The Council of Europe has great experience in promoting and pursuing confidence building measures. The confidence of everyone living in Armenia and Azerbaijan is essential for positive political progress in the future. Confidence-building measures should therefore become a priority for the Council of Europe.

31. In its country-by-country analysis, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) is responsible for dealing with Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, various sectors of the Council of Europe have developed guidelines and action programmes for more tolerance and mutual understanding. The work of ECRI and the assistance and co-operation programmes of the Council of Europe should be coordinated and reinforced.

32. The Council of Europe is not a humanitarian aid organisation. However, the Council of Europe Development Bank can give loans for projects required for the peaceful settlement of the conflict as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, member states of the Council of Europe could coordinate their bilateral support through the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Note
Picture: Turkey will enter into war with Iran under any circumstances whatsoever; it will be either now, which means under favorable conditions for Turkey, or later, when the Anglo-French trickery has fixed the event, which means under unfavorable conditions for Turkey. In fact, Turkey mobilizing the South Azeris, the Loris, the Gilanis, the Qashqais, the Turkmen, the Bahtiaris and the Mazandaris can invade the entire Western half of Iran, merging with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and eliminating any land access to South Iraq for the Shia Persians.