VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAK #2139/01 3541523
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 191523Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8264
INFO RUEHYE/AMEMBASSY YEREVAN PRIORITY 1345
RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL PRIORITY 5129

UNCLAS ANKARA 002139 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, ECA/P/C, EUR/SE, EUR/CARC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL PREL PGOV AM TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY RESTORING ANCIENT ARMENIAN CITY OF ANI 
 
¶1. (SBU) Sensitive but unclassified.  Not for internet 
distribution. 
 
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY. The excavation, preservation and 
restoration of the ancient Armenian city of Ani continues 
with renewed emphasis since President Gul's July 2008 visit 
there.  The Culture Ministry (MOC) is working in partnership 
on the project with Turkish universities and other local and 
foreign experts, including the Global Heritage Fund. 
Ministry officials and project directors emphasized their 
intent to proceed deliberately on Ani, focusing first on 
stabilization, and then restoration, but only with original 
excavated materials.  The MOC is concerned by blasting at 
stone quarries only hundreds of meters across the border from 
Ani that has disturbed the foundation of some structures -- 
already at risk in an earthquake zone -- and spoiled the 
surrounding scenery.  While there are no Armenians serving 
presently on the project advisory committee, the MOC has 
relayed its concerns to the GOAM through the Turkish MFA and 
through recent contacts with Armenian experts at 
international symposia.  The blasting has since diminished 
and our contacts believe they will be able to work more 
directly with Armenian counterparts in the not-too-distant 
future, political circumstances permitting.  The MOC 
suggested an interest in partnering with the U.S. on the Ani 
project, which might also offer an avenue for future 
Turkey-Armenia joint programming.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶3. (SBU) CAO and poloff met with Culture and Tourism Ministry 
Deputy Director General Okkas Daglioglu and Department Head 
Serhad Akcan December 18 to discuss the ministry's ongoing 
work in Ani, the ancient Armenian city located just on the 
Turkish side of the border with Armenia.  We were joined by 
an enthusiastic group of young project and sub-project 
directors.  Daglioglu informed us that the restoration of Ani 
commenced in 1992.  The visit of President Gul in July 2008 
renewed GOT efforts on the project, which is being carried 
out directly by the MOC, with the participation of 
universities and other local experts, along with some outside 
participation, including stabilization work carried out by 
the French Sorbonne and stabilization and topographical 
survey work by the Global Heritage Fund.  A small 
non-governmental advisory committee advises the MOC, which 
has set short, medium and long-term goals for the site, 
prioritized by how urgently key structures require 
stabilization.  (NOTE: While the MOC maintains a robust 
oversight of all cultural preservation projects in Turkey, it 
is somewhat unusual for the ministry, with an annual budget 
of only $8 million, to take direct ownership of excavation 
and restoration work at one of the thousands of Turkish 
registered historical sites; local and foreign universities 
or foundations often take the operational lead.  This might 
be explained by the political sensitivity of the project and 
that Ani, until recently, was located in a highly-restricted 
security zone.  END NOTE.)  Ani is not a UNESCO World 
Heritage Center (there are nine other such centers in 
Turkey), but there is interest within the GOT in pursuing 
such a designation. 
 
¶4. (SBU) According to Daglioglu, blasting at Armenian stone 
quarries just across the border and only hundreds of meters 
from Ani has damaged the foundation of some structures and 
spoiled the surrounding scenery.  (NOTE: Visibly scarred 
hilltops on the Armenian side were evident in a slide show 
our hosts presented.  END NOTE.)  He informed us that Turkey 
conveyed its concerns to the GOAM via diplomatic note from 
the MFA (presumably passed through the Turkish Embassy in 
Tbilisi), as well as through UNESCO officials and recent 
contacts at international conferences.  Daglioglu was pleased 
to report that the blasting has diminished.  Asked if he 
thought it might be efficacious for Armenian experts to 
participate on the advisory committee and thus open new 
channels of communication with Turkey on the project, 
Daglioglu said he did not think it feasible at this stage, 
but that it might become so in the future.  He emphasized 
that the work is not politically driven and that Turkey 
intends to restore the region's heritage regardless of 
whether it is Turkish or Armenian , Muslim or Christian. 
Akcan told us Ani belongs to the people who live on both 
sides of the border and looked forward to both peoples being 
able to own it and enjoy it. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Our hosts presented to us a slide show highlighting 
key stabilization, excavation and restoration projects, 
including the famous cathedral and Tigran Honents Church. 
They emphasized that stabilization and use of excavated 
materials -- not renovation -- is the preferred approach, 
showing us some examples, including of a Selcuk-era 
Kervansaray, that did not benefit from the addition of 
non-excavated material in its earlier "renovation."  The 
importance of stabilization was underscored by slides 
demonstrating how, in recent decades, a number of prominent 
structures were badly damaged or destroyed by lightning and 
earthquake.  (See the recently updated MOC website at 
www.ani.gov.tr for photos and news of the project (in 
Turkish).) 
 
¶6. (SBU) Upgrading the tourist infrastructure of Ani is 
another key component of the project.  Presently there is a 
small, spare visitors' center and toilet facility, and no 
cafe. The MOC does not intend to disturb the sanctity or 
natural beauty of Ani, but an upgraded welcome center, with a 
small museum, gift shop and conference room is planned.  The 
location is a 1.5 hour drive from Kars, the nearest city with 
an airport and hotel lodging.  The road to Ani is being 
upgraded, and the small village of Ocakli, along the road, 
will get a facelift.  The MOC hopes that Ocakli residents can 
benefit economically from growing tourism and learn to 
respect and value Ani (the town was only founded in the 
1960s); limiting animal grazing is a key challenge.  Updating 
signage -- currently basic and only in Turkish and English -- 
is another priority; the MOC plans for the updated signage to 
be also printed in Armenian, as with the Akdamar church 
restoration in Van. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
¶7. (SBU) Despite the political sensitivities of Ani, the 
MOC's enthusiasm for the project suggested to us a 
willingness to partner with the USG, with whom it has 
partnered on other projects.  Increased tourism could provide 
the impoverished Kars region a substantial economic benefit. 
We offered no specific suggestions, but we may wish to 
consider if and how we might participate, perhaps by 
partnering with the Global Heritage Fund 
(www.globalheritagefund.org), which already has experience in 
Ani and which completed a cultural revitalization of an 
Ottoman district in near-by Kars.  The project might also 
offer the potential for promoting engagement between Turkish 
and Armenian archaeologists and other cultural preservation 
experts.  Indeed, if the borders are eventually opened, as 
hoped, and if the Armenian side is confident the restoration 
was carried out with its concerns in mind, Armenians might 
one day be among the largest group of visitors to Ani.  Our 
next step will be to continue discussions on Ani with Turkish 
university contacts participating in the project, exploring 
further any potential U.S. role. 
 
Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turk ey 
 
Jeffrey