Turkey is centrally positioned between the Caucasus, the Near East and Europe but since the end of World War I, the game of the powers has cut Turkey’s way to any development within the three regions. In the past Turkey tried to use its Muslim culture to turn to the Arab States but met with rejection. Turkey had hoped to profit from the USSR collapse to turn to Turkish speaking countries in Central Asia, but the Pentagon hindered this. Currently, though Turkey wishes to, first of all, join the European Union, Ankara spares no diplomatic efforts towards the rest of the neighboring regions, taking into account, above all, that the Turkish are finding partners among the Arabs as a result of their separation from Israel and Washington.
In January, 2004, Bachar el Assad came to Turkey with the purpose of trying to improve relations - tense for long decades ago because of a territorial conflict on the Hatay province, which Syria still claims. That visit also realized a reconciliation coming from the common opposition of both countries to the invasion of Iraq. Last week, Turkish President Ahmed Necdet Sezer traveled to Damascus, and that arouse Washington’s rage, which tries to isolate the Syrians by using Lebanon.
The Daily Star - a Lebanese newspaper affiliated to The New York Times, opened a debate on the interpretation of that visit. Participants, however, seemed to agree right from the start on quieting Washington down. For Professor Philip Robins, the Turkish President’s visit to Damascus had no significance. It was about an apparent rapprochement due to a U.S. diplomatic indiscretion. In opposing that visit too much, the Bush administration did nothing but favored it. If Washington feigns greatest respect towards Turkey, everything will come back to normal. Omer Taspinar from the Brookings Institution, and Emile-el-Hoyakem from the Henry L. Stimson Center do not want to trim down the issue to a simple diplomatic incident. A rapprochement would effectively have a strategic significance for both countries: The Kurdish issue. If Washington encourages the Kurdish separatism in Iraq, there will be an important reconciliation between those countries and Syria will break up its isolation. If, on the contrary, the new Kurdish President Jalal Talabani shows himself at ease and the Turkish bonds with the European Union develop, Damascus will face isolation again. Once more, the Atlantic authors perceive the European Nature as a means of attracting some States to «The West».

However, the Turkish adhesion to the European Union has as a condition the acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide.
This affair also makes the relations between Turkey and Armenia difficult and is brought up again on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the triggering of that deadly deportation. In Die Welt, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian demands that Europe set up the acknowledgement of the genocide as a condition for the admission of Turkey. In the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, the Council of Foreign Relations’ analyst David L. Philips rejoices in the face of the pledge proposed by the Center for Transitional Justice, the aim of which is having Turkey acknowledge the genocide and Armenia renounce to claiming any reparations at the same time. Such an arrangement does not seem to be proper to the director of the Armenian Center in Moscow, Smbat Karakhanian, who recalls the Armenian territorial pretensions on the Gazeta SNG. He also denounces the Turkish occupation of the historically Armenian territories and demands that Moscow break with the 1921 Treaty, signed along with Mustafa Kemal, which recognizes Ankara’s sovereignty over those lands. Four days later, on that same newspaper, the author analyzes the importance the Caucasus has for the United States in view of a future offensive against Iran. He draws attention to the deployment of U.S. troops in Azerbaijan and the organization of elections in that country by specialists in the so-called «revolutions of colors». The United States could also favor its own establishment in Armenia using the U.S. influence on Turkey as an exchange currency with a view to settling a number of problems.

Georgia, another Turkey’s neighboring country, was one of the first to witness the so-called «revolutions of colors», which the western media presents as a great democratic progress. Today, however, the first supporters of such movements express their disappointment. Previously associated to Mijail Saakashvili in the revolution of the roses, the Georgian Labor Party leader Shalva Natelachvili comments on Vremya Novostyey about the George W. Bush’s visit to his country, foreseen for May 10. He asks that the U.S. President not be shown too much together with Saakashvili - a president whom the author describes as a worse dictator than Chevarnadze. The text is published in the days where the relations between the Georgina Presidency and the Bush Administration have become tense owing to the Georgia’s decision to integrate their own economy to that of Russia. On next May 16, Shalva Natelachvili will have the opportunity to renew his call to the United States before the Nixon Center.

In the United States, the White House is having difficulties in the approval of its nominations for key posts in the new administration. After the imbroglio around the nomination of Tom Ridge’s substitute as head of the Nation Security Department, the approval by the Senate of John Bolton’s appointment as U.S. ambassador to the UN grew complicated. The controversial diplomat is helped by his political friends on the newspaper. His former USAID colleague, George W. Bush’s former special emissary in Latin America, Otto Reich, is scandalized in front of the U.S. Senate’s attitude (which censured him when the Bush administration wanted to make him Secretary of State for the hemisphere issues). On the Wall Street Journal, Reich asks for an amendment in the nomination process without defining which method he advises to avoid «political debates».
However, for John Bolton’s supporters, such texts basically constitute a moment to recall his opposition to an international system, which enhances the U.S Imperialist expression. For Franck Gaffney, the senators have to remember, above all, that John Bolton is loyal to George W. Bush’s policy and that he will defend that policy in the UN, as he did in the State Department. The Depart of Justice’ former officials Eric A. Posner and John C. Yoo go even further ahead - Bolton’s mission will be destroyed by the UN. They considerer that this organization is serving too often as an international political forum against Washington’s policy and regards all countries as being equal - what they believe a political crime of lese majesty. Bolton should proclaim this goal clear and strong and stop hiding behind consensual and politically right assertions to obtain the approval of the Foreign Relations Commission.
This assistance from the media has not been enough since the Senate decided to put off its decision.