!âJĞ="justify"> I am sure you know about it. The new Armenian President Serj Sarkisyan invited President Gül to Yerevan some time ago. The occasion is the Word Cup qualification game to be played between Turkey and Armenia on Sept. 6. 

  Ankara has yet to make up its mind about this invitation. Nor has the Foreign Ministry announced its views on the matter.  As you might have guessed, the idea of our president going to Armenia in response to an invitation from their president has made some hairs stand on end. Awakened fears and suspicions as well as patriotism began to take over. 

  The capital of ‘our enemy':

  Some said, “That is impossible. The Turkish president cannot go to the capital city of our biggest enemy...” An increased number of people spread fear out of various concerns... “We cannot let them swear at our president...they will try to assassinate him...they will throw eggs...”

  Cool-headed reflection, however, will show that it would be very appropriate for President Gül to go to that game.

  I don't think that I need to explain to you at length the tight corner that Turkey happens to be in on the international scene.

  The genocide allegations have been accepted by a great majority of Western countries. Furthermore, we have not been able to supply any tangible or convincing evidence to refute these allegations. All Ankara does is try to buy some time. That's why it suggested forming a commission of international historians, which did not please the Armenians at all. According to them, the genocide wins a lot more acceptance each day, and there is no need to jeopardize this “fact” by establishing a commission. Both Turkey and Armenia are bidding for favorable international public opinion. Each one wants to get its own view accepted by looking as sweet and justified as possible. It was in the midst of such circumstances that Armenia's president issued this invitation to Yerevan, maybe as a tactic or a genuine gesture for rapprochement.

  Yerevan has thrown out this invitation. Now I ask you: Would it be better to go or not to go?

  Let's start with the easier option. Not to go would not come as a surprise to anyone. This is the impression of Turkey that Armenians are trying to promote, which many countries have already accepted as true:

  A country that looks down upon and intimidates this tiny Armenia and punishes it by closing its border gate in addition to having mistreated as well as killed so many Armenians; a country that even refuses to accept having effected a genocide.This being our image, nobody will be surprised if we refuse this invitation to go to Yerevan, for that is exactly what Ankara is expected to do. A country that pushes away all Yerevan's attempts for reconciliation... 

  If Gül goes:

  On the other hand, everybody will be surprised if President Gül does accept this invitation to go to Yerevan. This unexpected gesture will lead them to listen to what Turkey has to say instead.They may think, for the first time, that Turkey might be acting in good faith. They might, also for the first time, recognize the good intention behind the suggestion to form an international commission. Word will spread that Turkey's objective is not to harass Armenia, but to look for a compromise.

  Then there's the Turkish team to consider... To see their president on the tribunes is bound to build up their morale and provide them with extra support during this game that they will probably be playing in a hostile atmosphere. Furthermore, dramatic as they may be, such developments could really lead to a rapprochement or a dialogue between the two countries or even to a solution of this alleged genocide situation. Sports have always played a part in diplomatic relations. Games have been known to lead to diplomatic discussions that in turn have led to agreements. This opportunity must not be missed on account of a cheap show of patriotism. What's more, President Gül has the capacity to make the most of this opportunity. Finally, Armenia must not be refused even if none of these expectations were to come true. 

  Why get mad at Parris?

  The words of Mark Parris, America's former ambassador to Turkey, caused a storm last week. Returning to Washington after having consulted political observers and local foreign experts in Turkey, Parris conveyed his impressions and answered questions at a conference at the CSIS, or Center for Strategic and International Studies.

  Parris had apparently read Ankara well, for his impressions as well as his predictions were right on target.

  The gist of what he said was that despite the still strong possibility of the AKP's closure,  the last few weeks had brought some change of atmosphere, in the way that other alternatives were also being mentioned. 

  Was he wrong? He was dead right...

  He then said that the Constitutional Court would probably announce its decision during the first half of August and on a Friday to avoid upsetting the stock exchange.

  Wrong? Aren't we making the same predictions? Well, you'd think that all hell had broken loose.How come the American knew all that?... Americans were telling us what to do... The ambassador was dictating a date to Ankara... He was being disrespectful to the Constitutional Court... 

  However, we do all that, too. I fail to understand the reason for all that anger toward Parris. It must originate from our “this country is run by America, the Americans know everything” complex...We tend to forget that Parris is an expert that knows Turkey best and has good relations with a number of sound sources. Isn't it as natural for him to state his views as it is for us to make these predictions?