Author: Karagyozian Lena

Pan Armenian News

TURKEY CANNOT BECOME DEMOCRATIC WITHOUT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELATIONS WITH
ARMENIA

12.05.2005 05:26

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian Assembly of America called the House
International Relations Subcommittee to hold additional hearings on the
state of U.S.-Turkey relations to take into account several key
Armenian-American concerns. Assembly leaders said the hearing included
presenters who expressed only pro-Turkish views and that such an imbalance
could not provide for an honest assessment. `While we hoped today’s hearing
would provide a critical review of needed changes in Turkish policy with
respect to human rights, treatment of its minority populations, denial of
the Armenian Genocide and its future aspirations to the European Union, we
are deeply concerned that these issues were overlooked,’ said Assembly
Executive Director Bryan Ardouny. In a letter to a Subcommittee Member, the
Assembly outlined several fundamental issues of concern, namely Turkey’s
failure to lift its twelve-year blockade of Armenia and its continued denial
of the Armenian Genocide. `Turkey cannot become the plural, democratic and
European Union-integrated state it aspires to be without opening the last
closed border of Europe, establishing full relations with Armenia without
preconditions and dealing with its genocidal Ottoman legacy,’ added Ardouny.

Assa-Irada. Azerbaijan
May 11 2005

3 Armenians killed in ceasefire breach

Baku, May 10, AssA-Irada
Armenian military units, from their positions in the occupied
Yusifjanly, Shikhlar and Bash Garvand villages of Aghdam District,
fired at the positions of Azerbaijani troops located in Chiragly,
Mirashelli and Orta Gishlag villages of the same district with
machine guns and submachine guns from 22.30 on Monday till dawn on
Tuesday.
An armored vehicle exploded on the Armenian side of the frontline,
reportedly after running into a landmine, TV reports said.
Besides, three Armenian servicemen were killed while the Azerbaijani
military units were preventing Armenia’s attack on Chiragly village,
the reports said.
Armenian military units, from their positions in the occupied
Seysulan, Javahirli and Sarijaly villages of Aghdam, fired at
Garadaghly village of the district from 22.35 till 23.35 on Monday,
the Ministry of Defense said.*

Moldova foreign min announces Uzbekistan withdrawal from GUUAM

11.05.2005, 21.59

CHISINAU, May 11 (Itar-Tass) – After sending a statement about its
quitting the GUUAM Group (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia and
Moldova), Uzbekistan has automatically discontinued its membership in
that organization. Tass learned this from the Moldovan Ministry for
Foreign Affairs and European Integration. After the GUUAM summit in
Chisinau, Moldova assumed the chairmanship of the organization.

`Under the GUUAM regulations, Moldova, chairing the organization, must
inform the leaders of Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan of Uzbekistan’s
decision,’ the ministry noted.

Uzbekistan’s President lslam Karimov sent the message about the
withdrawal of his country from GUUAM to Moldova’s president Vladimir
Voronin on May 3. In the letter this decision is explained by the fact
that `because of its geographic position Uzbekistan sees no ways for the
realization of its interests in the areas of economy and security in the
framework of the new initiatives and projects announced by GUUAM.’

Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova formed GUAM on October 10, 1997
at the summit of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In April 1999, at
the meeting of GUAM states in Washington, during the celebration of the
50th anniversary of NATO, Uzbekistan was admitted into the organization,
and it was named GUUAM. In June 2002 Uzbekistan stated that it remains
within GUUAM as an observer and reserves the right not to participate in
some functions.

The Uzbek leaders have stayed away from the GUUAM summit in Chisinau in
connection with the fact that, in Tashkent’s opinion, GUUAM has turned
into a `political organization.’ Thus, Georgian president Mikhail
Saakashvili made a call at the Chisinau summit for `a third wave of
revolutions’ in the post-Soviet space.

Bush surveys ex-Soviet terrain

FT.com site
May 10, 2005

The trip to Moscow by George W. Bush, the US president, will be
portrayed in Russia as an expression of support for his host,
president Vladimir Putin, write Stefan Wagstyl and Guy Dinmore. But
his itinerary may be seen as something of an insult.

Before arriving in Moscow, Mr Bush will visit Latvia and, after
attending Mr Putin’s second world war commemorations, will fly to
Georgia. Washington sees both countries as fighters, both in the
global war for democracy and in the regional battle against Russian
reassertion in the former Soviet Union.

Latvia, along with neighbouring Estonia and Lithuania, led the way in
the revolts that precipitated the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. In
Georgia, the 2003 Rose Revolution, which brought president Mikheil
Saakashvili to power, has launched a new wave of democratic protest in
the region. In particular, the Georgian demonstrators helped inspire
the crowds that this year brought president Viktor Yushchenko to
office in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. The Ukrainian precedent, in
turn, influenced protestors in Kyrgyzstan, who in March drove
president Askar Akayev from power.

Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush’s national security adviser, has said the trip
was not intended to send any message to Moscow. Others see it
differently. “This visit is a clear message . . . for the Russians
that the cold war is over,” says Gocha Tskitishvili, a Georgian
political analyst.

For Mr Bush, promoting the new order in the former Soviet Union
includes encouraging further democratic change. As Condoleezza Rice,
his secretary of state, made clear on her recent visit to eastern
Europe, top of Washington’s list is Belarus. US officials see an
opportunity for the ousting of dictatorial president Alexander
Lukashenko in elections next year. The Kremlin has warned Washington
against interfering in Minsk but the US seems undeterred.

American officials see the democratic changes in the former Soviet
Union as the fruits, to some extent, of US labours to promote civil
society. A former senior official, saying one reason the military
refused to fire on demonstrators in Ukraine was US training, adds:
“The more you can develop a very firm foundation of responsibility and
right s of the individual in civil society, the more you can push
through the argument that free elections count.”

However, the US administration balances the drive for democracy with
other priorities, notably its need for oil supplies and the fight
against Islamic terrorism. Criticis m of the authoritarian rulers of
oil-rich Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, where western companies are making
big investments, is muted. In the poor states of Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan and, to some extent, Kyrgyzstan, concerns exist that
political unrest could open the way for Islamic fundamentalism. Also,
with Afghanistan lying close to the south, there are fears of
promoting regional instability and violence.

Robert Barry of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington says the US is not putting special emphasis on
democratising central Asia. “We have emphasised the geopolitical side
of this area more than democratisation.”

For Moscow that is a crumb of comfort because it, too, worries about
Islamism and instability. But the Kremlin will be angered by Mr Bush’s
efforts to promote democracy elsewhere. The US president may have
agreed to stand on the podium in Red Square on Monday but that will
not stop him marching about the former Soviet Union pretty much as he
wishes.

‘Musa Dagh: Betrayed Heroes’ presented in Rome

10.05.2005 17:13

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – Ruben Shugarian, Armenian Ambassador to Italy,
participated on May 6 in the presentation of the book “Musa Dagh:
Betrayed Heroes” by Italian journalists Marco Tosatti and Flavia
Amabile.

The event, dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
was held at the Levonian school in Rome and was attended by
journalists, Italian foreign ministry officials, histortians and
representatives of the Armenian community.

Historian Marco Impaliazio, the authors of the book, and Ambassador
Shugarian addressed the audience.

uecker_land/10947358.html

Osnabrücker Land 10.05.2005

Die Türkei und die Chancen als EU-Mitgliedsland
Belm (sfe)
“Die Türkei – ein künftiges Mitgliedsland der Europäischen Union?” Der
CDU-Kreisvorsitzende Prof. Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering sprach sich bei seinemVortrag
vor der Senioren-Union Osnabrücker Land in Belm deutlich dagegen aus.

“Die Türkei ist Deutschland gegenüber sehr aufgeschlossen und ein wichtiger
Partner im nordatlantischen Bündnis”, hob Pöttering hervor. Eine Mitgliedschaft
in der EU lehnte der Fraktionsvorsitzende der Christdemokraten im
Europäischen Parlament aber derzeit ab: Sie berge zu viele Risiken.Die Europäische Union
befinde sich aktuell in einer Phase der Konsolidierung. Zwar hätten gerade die
kürzlich aufgenommenen mitteleuropäischen Länder einen “deutlichen Zugewinn
an Kultur und Meinung” in die EU gebracht, doch nun müsse das um zehn Staaten
gewachsene Gebilde erst zusammengebracht werden, betonte Pöttering. Nur auf
Basis eines “klar definierten Wertefundaments und einheitlicher Verfahren” sei
dies möglich, bekräftigte er. Verwirklicht würden diese Forderungen in der
Europäischen Verfassung, die demnächst verabschiedet werden solle. Sie beruhe auf
den seit der Antike gewachsenen Werten Humanismus, Aufklärung und Christentum.

Die Türkei könne daher nicht zu den Aspiranten gezählt werden. Zu
unterschiedlich seien vielfach die Wertvorstellungen. Pöttering merkte an, dass Folter,
Ehrenmorde und Zwangsheirat, wie sie in der Türkei immer noch auf der
Tagesordnung stünden, nicht toleriert werden dürften. Solange sich die Türkei zudem
nicht mit ihrer Vergangenheit auseinander setze und etwa den Völkermord an den
Armeniern anerkenne, sehe er keine Möglichkeit, sie in ein von Frieden, Freiheit
und Demokratie geprägtes Gebilde aufzunehmen. “Es darf in der EU keine
Tabuthemen geben”, mahnte Pöttering an.

Ein weiteres Problem sehe er in der “Überdehnung der EU”. Wenn man die Türkei
aufnehme, deren Staatsgebiet nur zu drei Prozent auf europäischem Boden liege
– Wie solle man dann nordafrikanische Staaten wie Marokko ablehnen? “Nur wenn
wir uns als Einheit präsentieren, bleiben wir handlungsfähig”, bekräftigte
Pöttering.

The thorns in Georgia’s rose

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 10, 2005
The Guardian

President George Bush will publicly congratulate the people of Georgia
on their peaceful “rose revolution” in November 2003 when he addresses
a crowdof up to 100,000 in Freedom Square, Tbilisi, today. But his
private message to President Mikhail Saakashvili is likely to be more
nuanced. He will remind the Georgian leader that democracy means more
than elections, and further reforms are essential if the former Soviet
republic is to fulfil its EU and Nato membership ambitions.

Stephen Hadley, the US national security adviser, highlighted
Washington’s concerns about simmering disputes in the separatist
regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia prior to Mr Bush’s
arrival. Georgia’s attitude to its Russophile, Azeri and Armenian
minorities and the rule of law were also seen as key tests of future
progress, he suggested. The US is anxious that an argument with Russia
over the timetable for closing two Soviet-era military bases in
Georgia should not rekindle broader tensions with the Kremlin. Despite
ongoing talks, Mr Saakashvili cited the problem as his reason for
boycotting yesterday’s VE Day celebrations in Moscow.

Mr Bush has been quick to respond to a recent statement by the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was
“the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”.

He said at the weekend that post-1945 Soviet domination in eastern
Europe and central Asia was “one of the greatest wrongs of
history”. He warned Mr Putin to eschew further interference in
neighbouring countries while reserving that right for the US. His next
target is Belarus.

But the US needs Mr Putin’s cooperation on issues ranging from Iran to
oil. It shares Moscow’s concern about the use of Georgian territory
by Islamist extremists attempting to destabilise Chechnya and the
northern Caucasus. The US recently instituted a $50m (£27m) military
training programme in Georgia but has renounced any intention of
replacing the Russian bases with Nato installations.

In other words, Washington will support Mr Saakashvili with words,
advice and financial assistance – as long as he does not upset more
important apple carts.

“There is still some optimism about the rose revolution but it is
tempered by greater realism,” said Professor Charles King, an expert
on US-Georgia relations at Georgetown University in
Washington. “Democratic assistance isall very well – but you have to
have a functioning country first.”

Continually blaming “the nefarious designs of the Russian Federation”
for Georgia’s ills was counterproductive, Prof King said. “In time
even Georgia’s friends may come to wonder whether a country with
fictitious borders and noplan for making them real is a country worth
helping.” This increased sense of caution, teetering on
disillusionment, is reflected in opinion polls indicating a 25% fall
in Mr Saakashvili’s approval ratings.

Street protests over electricity and water shortages, controversial
anti-corruption measures, and mutterings about Mr Saakashvili’s
“arrogance”have prompted speculation that Georgia’s rose is beginning
to wilt.

“This is the very same wave of social discontent that propelled the
rose revolution and brought down [former president] Eduard
Shevardnadze,” said Jaba Devdariani, writing in Transitions On
Line. “The government should worry lest the unrest turn into an
explosion.” This was unlikely at present, Mr Devdariani
admitted. Georgia’s leader retained 38% support in the face of a
fragmented political opposition.

Prof King said Mr Saakashvili had made progress in some areas, notably
in Adjaria and in improved tax collection.

But if Mr Saakashvili did not put his weight fully behind systemic
reforms, popular counter-revolution was not entirely out of the
question, Prof King said. “Saakashvili needs to listen to what is
called ‘the shout from the streets’ or he could go the way of
Shevardnadze. After all, he created the template.”

The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 9 2005

Erdogan in Moscow for 60th Anniversary of VE Day

SENEM CAGLAYAN
The New Anatolian/ Ankara

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday flew to Moscow to
participate in the 60th anniversary of VE Day. May 8 commemorates the
end of fighting in Europe during World War II.

His trip came a few days after Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc
postponed a trip there in protest of Russia’s decision to recognize
the so-called Armenian genocide claims.

Arinc’s office said the speaker was postponing his upcoming trip to
Russia following last month’s decision by the Russian Duma, or lower
house of Parliament, which had recognized the Armenian claims of
“genocide.” Arinc was scheduled to travel to Russia around mid-June.

The United Nations last year declared May 8 and 9 as Remembrance and
Reconciliation Days, but they also have a special national meaning
for Russia.

Erdogan’s visit comes at a time when Turkey’s close ally, the U.S.,
and Russia are at odds due to escalating tensions over the U.S.’
pressure on Russia to own up to its wartime past. In Russia, victory
in the “Great Patriotic War” is treasured as an unvarnished triumph,
while many of its Eastern European neighbors regard the Red Army’s
success to be the start of 50 years of brutal Soviet oppression.

Anger over that unacknowledged history remains particularly potent in
the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which were
annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 and won independence just 14
years ago.

U.S. President George W. Bush has promised that such matters, part of
Washington’s broader concerns about Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s commitment to democracy, will come up when the two meet —
first formally, then over dinner with their wives — at the Russian
leader’s dacha.

Putin retorted that U.S. has no business criticizing Russia’s
domestic affairs because the U.S.’ system of electing presidents,
including the Electoral College, is not without flaws.

Erdogan reciprocates Putin’s visit

Erdogan’s visit is the first to Russia since Putin’s two-day visit to
Turkey last year.

Last September, Putin visited Ankara some three decades after the
last visit by President of the Soviet Union Nikolay Podgorny in 1973.

Although Turkey and Russia no longer share a border, following the
collapse of the Soviet Union, they continue to have common strategic
interests. The two countries still overlap in the “near abroad”
regions, i.e. the Caucasus and Central Asia, where some degree of
geopolitical competition is inevitable.

Christian Science Monitor
May 3 2005

Early gambit to fill Putin vacuum

Several men, including chess great Garry Kasparov, are vying to
succeed him. But Putin may stay in office.

By Fred Weir

MOSCOW The effort to succeed Russian President Vladimir Putin is
getting started three years early, with a gaggle of unlikely candidates
lining up at the starting gate.

They include a disgraced former prime minister, a world chess
grandmaster, the current Minister of Defense, and the pro-Kremlin
speaker of Russia’s parliament, the Federal Assembly. Although the
Constitution bars him from seeking a third term, many experts say Mr.
Putin cannot be counted out.

Russians are calling it the “2008 problem.” Putin has constructed an
increasingly autocratic system that depends largely on his personal
control. Unless a trusted successor takes the helm, some fear that a
change in leadership could provoke conflict among Russia’s fractious
elites.

A law passed last month by the State Duma, Russia’s powerful
pro-Kremlim chamber of the Federal Assembly, will create a Public
Chamber, a citizens’ assembly made up of representatives handpicked by
Putin. Experts say it could be the launchpad for a new constitutional
project that might extend the president’s term or return him to office
under a new system of power.

Putin weaker

Putin, elected to a second four-year term by an electoral landslide
last March, seemed unassailable just a few months ago. But a series
of political shocks, including a democratic upheaval in neighboring
Ukraine and an ongoing wave of protests by impoverished Russian
pensioners, have unnerved the Kremlin and inspired a few opponents
to position themselves as presidential candidates.

“A number of disastrous mistakes of the authorities have led to a very
serious crisis of power,” says Andrei Piontkovsky, director of the
independent Center for Strategic Studies in Moscow. “The main problem
is a dramatic loss of confidence in Putin by the power elites. This
has plunged the system into instability, and brought new challengers
into the open.”

The would-be candidates for Putin’s job include former Prime Minister
Mikhail Kasyanov, fired by the Kremlin a year ago. He has made
several statements slamming Putin’s authoritarian drift. And he’s
hinted that he might lead a democratic revolt such as the one that
overturned a fraudulent election and vaulted former Prime Minister
Viktor Yushchenko into Ukraine’s presidency late last year.

“The main thing is not who it’s going to be,” Mr. Kasyanov said
recently. “The main thing is that whoever comes to power spearheads
a movement toward democratic values.”

In March, Kremlin critic Garry Kasparov, arguably the strongest
chess player in history, quit the game to nurture what many experts
say may be his own presidential run. “I’ve done everything in chess
that I could,” Mr. Kasparov said. “Now I intend to use my intellect
and strategic thinking in Russian politics.”

While few experts take Mr. Kasparov’s challenge seriously, some say
Kasyanov could be a key contender. “Kasyanov has calculated it well,”
says Alexander Konovalov, director of the independent Institute
of Strategic Assessments in Moscow. “The fact they’ve started
campaigning now suggests the present authorities may not have three
years. Something may happen soon.”

Russia’s largest democratic liberal party, Yabloko, which failed to
win the votes needed to enter Federal Assembly in 2003, announced
recently that it aims to build a broad democratic coalition to serve
as a springboard for anti-Putin forces in the 2007 Duma elections
and the presidential polls in 2008.

“We need to unite everyone who believes Russia has a chance to be a
European country, with democracy, press freedom, and a competitive
economy,” says Alexander Shishlov, a member of Yabloko’s governing
bureau. “We must move into action now.”

Experts say the Kremlin has ordered two Putin confidantes, Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov and Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov, to raise their
public profiles as potential presidential heirs in 2008.

But the failure of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma to secure
his own successor through fixed elections last year may have the
Kremlin doubting its ability to carry off a similar operation.

“The events in Ukraine scared Russia’s authorities,” says Alexei
Makarkin, deputy director of the Center for Political Technologies
in Moscow. “It showed the system of control, though stable now,
has its limits.”

Former President Boris Yeltsin, seriously ill and hobbled by corruption
scandals, kept everyone guessing until the last moment about his plans
for the succession. He went through a string of prime ministers –
the legal heir under Russian law – before appointing Putin in August
1999. Four months later, Mr. Yeltsin abruptly resigned, giving Putin
time to consolidate his grip as acting president before having to
face elections.

A likely scenario, many experts suggest, is that the Kremlin will do
an end run around all its opponents by reworking Russia’s Constitution
to keep Putin himself in office after 2008.

“A new group of oligarchs has come to power under Putin” who stand
to lose a lot if he leaves, says Dmitri Oreshkin, an expert with the
Merkator Group, a political consultancy. “Putin himself has developed
a taste for power. It would be difficult for him to part from it.”

‘Public Chamber’

The Public Chamber will be a kind of parallel parliament, proposed by
Putin after last September’s terrorist siege in Beslan to “increase
citizens’ participation in government.”

All delegates to the 126-member body would be appointed by the
president or his representatives. The Chamber could put forward
sweeping constitutional revisions by the end of this year.

“The Public Chamber can put forward the initiative to change the
Constitution, and it will seem to have come from the public,” says
Mr. Pribylovsky. He says Putin has the necessary backing in the Duma
and Russia’s regions to impose a new charter, which could include
a third term for the president or a whole new system of power, but
needs to get started now to have changes in place by 2008.

The idea of rewriting fundamental law to suit one man may sound
odd to Americans, but Russian Constitutions have frequently been the
playthings of individual leaders. Every major head of state since Czar
Nicholas II has produced his own, including Vladimir Lenin in 1924,
Joseph Stalin in 1936, Leonid Brezhnev in 1978, and Boris Yeltsin in
1993. The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was working on his
version when the USSR collapsed in 1991.

“Putin’s citadel has weakened,” says Mr. Oreshkin. “The idea at the top
now is that they should do everything to stay in power, at any cost.”

VIEW: A day of liberation –Michael Mertes

Daily Times – Site Edition Sunday, May 08, 2005

The way people see the past tells us more about their present attitudes
than about the past itself. This is what the term “politics of memory”
is meant to indicate. A violent conflict in the past may survive as
a war of memories in the present, as can be observed in the current
dispute between China and South Korea on one side, and Japan on
the other

When I was seven years old, in 1960, my grandmother Angelica opened
my eyes to the meaning of May 8, 1945, the day when Nazi Germany
surrendered and World War II ended in Europe. We were spending our
summer holidays in Normandy where the liberation of Europe from Nazism
had started on D-Day, June 6, 1944. One evening, I listened to my
parents and my grandmother talking about the past. I have forgotten the
details of their conversation, but I can still hear my grandmother’s
sigh of relief when she said: “Thank God we lost that war!”

>From a child’s perspective, it wasn’t self-evident that losing was
a good thing. But of course, my grandmother was right to equate
defeat with liberation. The more I have thought about the lesson she
taught me 45 years ago, the clearer I have seen another, less obvious
dimension in what she said: It is “we” who lost the war. Collectively,
the Germans had not been the innocent victims of a small gang of
criminal outsiders called “Nazis” — Nazism had been an inside ideology
supported by millions of Germans, and every German was liable for
its atrocities whether or not he or she had adhered to it individually.

In today’s Germany, an overwhelming majority subscribes to the
proposition that May 8, 1945 was a day of liberation — not only
for Europe, but also for Germany itself. Compared to public opinion
in 1960, that’s certainly an enormous progress. But paradoxically,
it may also contain an element of forgetfulness, because it tends to
conceal the fact that liberation required a military defeat. To use
my grandmother’s parlance, it is not “us” who were the liberators,
but “them”.

The way people see the past tells us more about their present attitudes
than about the past itself. This is what the term “politics of memory”
is meant to indicate. And this is why it doesn’t matter whether the
relevant events happened 60 years ago (as World War II), 90 years
(as in the case of the Armenian genocide) or even 600 years (such as
the battle of Kosovo in 1389). A violent conflict in the past may
survive as a war of memories in the present, as can be observed in
the current dispute between China and South Korea on one side, and
Japan on the other. A war of memories, in turn, may sometimes lead
to a violent conflict in the future.

Former perpetrators often try to de-legitimise their former victims’
moral superiority by claiming they were victims themselves. Therefore,
the 60th anniversary of the firebombing of Dresden by Allied forces
on February 13, 1945 has probably been a more crucial moment in terms
of the German “politics of memory” than the 60th anniversary of May 8,
1945 is going to be.

Far-right groups infamously dubbed the attack by which at least 30,000
people were killed “Dresden’s Holocaust of bombs”. Fortunately,
their propaganda campaign has been a failure. Although it is true
that thousands of the civilians killed in Dresden and other German
cities were innocent at an individual level, there can be no doubt
it was morally imperative that Germany be defeated collectively.

On the left side of the German political spectrum, the proposition
that May 8, 1945 was a day of liberation remains unchallenged.
However, it is sometimes repressed that the massive use of force
had been necessary to achieve that result. Left-wing pacifism tends
to overlook this simple fact. Its slogan “Never again war!” is only
half the truth — the other half is “Never again appeasement!” May 8,
1945 was not “zero hour”, as a popular saying in Germany goes. It had
an antecedent, that is, a lack of pre-emptive resistance at home and
abroad to the threat that built up in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

There is yet another lesson to be learnt. Yes, May 8, 1945 was a day
of liberation to which the Soviet army contributed decisively. But
for millions of Central and East Europeans, liberation was followed
by Stalin’s oppressive regime.

The current war of memories between the Baltic republics and Russia,
with regard to the international celebration in Moscow on May 9,
this year, reminds Germany of a special historic responsibility. The
German-Soviet non-aggression treaty, the so-called Hitler-Stalin pact,
concluded in August 1939, had been supplemented by a secret appendix
dividing the border states — Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Romania — into spheres of interest for the two parties. But
excusing Nazi atrocities by pointing to Stalinist crimes is an
intellectually and morally unacceptable stratagem. When Chancellor
Schröder travels to Moscow for the Red Square celebrations, he should
bear in mind Nazi Germany’s contribution to the Baltic tragedy.

On May 8, this year, public speakers will remind us how important it
is not to forget. They will stress that if the lessons of history are
not learnt, history is bound to repeat itself. All this is perfectly
true. But personally, I will also remember my grandmother’s sentence
“Thank God we lost that war!” Thank God — and thanks to all those
brave Allied soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the sake of
Europe’s liberty. –DT-PS

Michael Mertes was national security and foreign policy adviser to
former German chancellor Helmut Kohl

–Boundary_(ID_Qf4F7KxYp104w505aEFDdQ)–