Author: Nahapetian Lilit

National Public Radio (NPR)
October 17, 2007 Wednesday
SHOW: All Things Considered 8:00 PM EST

U.S. Lawmakers Defect from Genocide Resolution

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

As we mentioned, support on Capitol Hill is weakening for a
resolution that would label the killing of more than a million
Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 as genocide.

Under heavy pressure, about a dozen cosponsors of the resolution in
the House have withdrawn their backing this week. Democratic
Congressman Hank Johnson from Georgia is among them.

Representative HANK JOHNSON (Democrat, Georgia): I have not changed
my opinion as to whether or not it was genocide or not. But I have
changed my opinion as to the timing of this resolution. And I think
it’s a very practical response to the realities that we face as far
as our security in this country.

BLOCK: What are your fears about timing on this?

Rep. JOHNSON: Well, I think that it already has had a negative impact
on our relationship with a strong ally, Turkey, which, by the way,
was not even a nation at the time this genocide occurred. Whenever
there’s a possibility that our withdrawal from this war in Iraq would
be hampered by our inability to use the resources that our ally,
Turkey, has to offer us at this time, I think it gives pause for any
responsible legislator to reconsider what they’re doing at this time.

BLOCK: You know, Congressman, I think people who support this
resolution will look at this and say, look, the terms are no
different. The conditions are no different now than when people
signed on to this resolution in the first place in terms of timing.
And if people are forming an exodus away from this genocide
resolution it’s because they’re being pressured. There’s a lot of
lobbying, a lot of money going into this.

Rep. JOHNSON: I’ve not had one single lobbyist to call me about this
issue, not one.

BLOCK: Mm-hmm.

Rep. JOHNSON: But I have talked with people who lived in the Fourth
District, who are of Turkish ancestry. They feel pretty strongly
about it and they have helped to educate me as to their position on
it. And meanwhile, it’s clear that Turkey is taking measures that
could destabilize the security in that troubled region of the world.
The security of our troops is at issue.

BLOCK: Congressman Johnson, have you heard from any Armenians in your
district?

Rep. JOHNSON: I’ve not heard from a single person who is of Armenian
ancestry from my district.

BLOCK: I’m sure that they would argue just the other case that…

Rep. JOHNSON: Well, I’m sure that they would. But I would have to
balance both sides, look at the United States’ security interest at
the current time and then make a decision.

BLOCK: I’d like to get your reaction to something that was written in
an editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week on this topic. And
they said, the real mark of courage is speaking truth when it’s
inconvenient. What do you think about that?

Rep. JOHNSON: Well, I mean, to utter those pronouncements is pretty
easy. To sit in a judgment when your country’s security is at stake,
gives you a different perspective. This genocide took place 90 years
or so ago. This issue has languished this long. In my opinion, now is
not the best time for this resolution to come forward.

BLOCK: And when might there be a better time for this resolution, do
you think?

Rep. JOHNSON: When the security situation improves over in that
region of the world.

BLOCK: That could be some time from now.

Rep. JOHNSON: Well, it could be, and I hope that it won’t take 90
years for security to be established in that area. We can’t afford to
wait that long.

BLOCK: Congressman Johnson, thank you very much for your time.

Rep. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

BLOCK: That’s Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson. He represents the
Fourth District of Georgia.

Belapan news agency, Minsk
Oct 19 2007

Belarusian, Armenian defence ministers sign 2008 cooperation plan

Minsk, 19 October: A cooperation plan for 2008 between the defence
ministries of Belarus and Armenia was signed in Minsk on 19 October.

Belapan learnt this at the Belarusian Defence Ministry’s press
service.

The document was signed by the two countries’ defence ministers,
Leanid Maltsaw and Mikayel Harutyunyan. Harutyunyan arrived in
Belarus on a three-day official visit on the evening of 18 October.

Maltsaw and Harutyunyan also held talks on the development of
bilateral military cooperation today. Details of their meeting and
the plan signed have not been reported.

On 19 October, the Armenian delegation will visit the Barysaw
medicines plant, the 72nd United Training Centre for training warrant
officers and junior specialists of the Belarusian armed forces and
the State Military-Industrial Committee for talks with its chairman,
Mikalay Azamataw.

National Public Radio (NPR)
October 18, 2007 Thursday
SHOW: Tell Me More 9:00 AM EST

Armenian-American Singer Weighs in on Turskish-U.S. Relations

Mr. SERJ TANKIAN (Lead Vocalist, System of a Down): I’ve been talking
about the recognition of the Armenian genocide within Congress for
many years now. And that to me is even a personal issue because my
grandfather is a survivor of the Armenia genocide.

MARTIN: That’s Serj Tankian, an Armenian-American best known as the
front man for the rock group System of a Down. We’ve been talking to
Serj about his latest CD – an interview will bring you in the coming
days. But he’s also an outspoken social critic.

To help you better understand that sometimes fierce debate over the
word genocide, here’s a short outtake from our recent interview.
You’ll hear more for him next week. But I asked him to talk about the
dispute over language that he says isn’t a dispute at all.

Mr. TANKIAN: It’s a source of great tension. It’s not a matter of
historical dispute because, you know, it’s been accepted worldwide as
a genocide. But it seems to be a contention of experience having to
do with certain governments that are allied with Turkey like the
United States. And so, you know, the United States uses the genocide
issue – the G issue – as a way of bartering with Turkey having to do
with Iraq or having to do with the Kurdish issue, which is really
sad. The military-industrial complex, the Turkish government,
Condoleezza Rice and the administration, you name it. Everyone’s kind
of stacked against the truth.

MARTIN: I understand it, but I’m just saying that the use of the word
genocide to describe this historic event is a matter of great dispute
– it’s a matter of political dispute. And as you mentioned, there are
all kinds of issues caught up with that. And I – clearly, it means a
very great deal to you. I just wanted to talk to you about how you
take on an issue like this as an artist, which – is it most important
to you to expose the issue to people who may not be aware of it or
will what?

Mr. TANKIAN: Yeah, I mean besides past tragedy, it’s also a current
tragedy. Genocide is something that whole planet is suffering from –
in Darfur right now. And it still continues because we obviously
haven’t learned the lessons of what is a true intervention or reason
for intervention or what is a time that we need to get involve in
these things. You know, with Sudan we’ve made a lot of concession
because they had intelligence on al-Qaida apparently, so we didn’t
push them. The Chinese have their oil interest et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, you know, when its genocide, everything’s got to stop. And
the United Nations should go, okay, everything stop. Not- business is
not as usual. This is a genocide. We need to go. You know, and
that…

MARTIN: Why do you think…

Mr. TANKIAN: …hasn’t been happening.

MARTIN: I’m sorry. Why do you think it’s so important to have the
United States among other countries recognize this historical event
and call it genocide? Why do you think that’s important?

Mr. TANKIAN: Well, ultimately, the important thing is to gain justice
by the descendants of the government that committed the atrocity,
which is the Turkish government. And the United States has a very
close allied relationship with Turkey and it would – whether it’s
overtly or discretely, there would be diplomatic pressure in dealing
with that country having to do with them committing this crime.

MARTIN: What – this is an area where I do believe some, which – I’m
not speaking from a government, but I’m saying that they are those
who would argue that the American national security and diplomatic
interests are complicated and vary. And here is an area where I think
some might argue that they’re – whatever compromises they are making
are appropriate in light of the responsibility of government
officials to protect the country, to balance competing American
interest. And what would you say to that?

Mr. TANKIAN: Well, I think that’s a sellout, you know, kind of
democracy in my opinion. I mean, anytime that you’re taking the truth
and you’re using it as an experience issue for geopolitical or
economic interest then you can’t really call yourself an honest
democracy. I think…

MARTIN: Well, forgive me, I think this an area where some might argue
that they are more qualified to assess these matters than you are,
and that is, I think, the question.

Mr. TANKIAN: Well, to me, qualification is truth. You know, when
you’re dealing with the truth, that’s the important thing. It doesn’t
matter whether someone has military experience over my knowledge of
foreign policy. The genocide is the genocide. You shouldn’t – you
know, you can’t go to Germany and say, you know, if you want to back
us up in Iraq, well, forget about the holocaust. How would that go?
You know, that doesn’t work. You know, not if you want to call
yourself a democracy. We have to deal with foreign policy in honest
way. We can’t deal with it by selling genocides or denying things
that are in our own archives.

MARTIN: Okay.

Mr. TANKIAN: That’s wrong.

MARTIN: That was Serj Tankian, an Armenian-American activist and lead
singer for the group System of a Down. His hopes for a passage of a
congressional resolution are looking dimmer right now. A number of
House Democrats have dropped their support because of concerns that
the resolution would seriously damage relations with Turkey.

BUSH CALLS ON TURKEY TO REFUSE FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTHERN IRAQ

armradio.am
18.10.2007 15:10

US Presidnet George Bush has called on Turkey, its NATO ally, not to
car out military operations in Northern Iraq. "We are making it very
clear to Turkey that we don’t think it is in their interests to send
troops into Iraq," the embattled US President told the journalists
Wednesday. He said Washington understands Turkey’s concerns connected
with Kurdish rebels, "but there is a better way to solve the issue."

The US President also expressed his opposition to the plans of Congress
to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution. "The Congress must not be
engage din studying the historic archives of the Ottoman Empire,"
Bush underlined. In his opinion, "the resolution on the mass killing
of Armenians from 1915 is counter-productive."

SUPPORTERS OF ARMENIANS
By Yilmaz Oztuna

Turkish Press
Oct 17 2007

TURKIYE- Legislatures in 20 separate countries, out of 200 independent
countries worldwide, have passed resolutions claiming that the Ottomans
committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915.

These resolutions have no sanction, but do serve to show political
stances and benefit Armenians interests. Which 20 countries? There
are many kinds, let’s take a look:

Our NATO allies: Belgium, France (in its lower house, but not yet
the Senate), Germany, the Netherlands, Greece and Italy – all also
members of the European Union. Let’s add to them Canada, another NATO
ally. There are other Europeans: Sweden and Switzerland … The head of
the Catholic world the Vatican … Russia and its former satellites
Slovakia, Lithuania and Poland … Southern Cyprus … They are
very far from us, but include small Armenian communities: Australia,
Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela … And finally, one neighboring
country, Lebanon …

Add to these 20 countries Scotland (in the form of the Edinburgh City
Council). As if they have nothing to do besides debating Armenian
issues …

And to complete the picture: In the US, 38 out of 50 states have
passed Armenian resolutions, at a rate of one or two each year.

And now, strenuous efforts are being carried out to pass such a
resolution in US House of Representatives and then the Senate.

We haven’t even added up the Turks who were slaughtered in the
Balkans, the Caucasus and Anatolia. We couldn’t make our kin living
abroad conscious of this. We haven’t even noticed the hard efforts
and victories of a handful of Armenians in so many countries …

GENOCIDE? WHAT GENOCIDE?
By Mark Krikorian

National Review Online , NY
Oct 16 2007

Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has passed a non-binding resolution
recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and Turkey is in a tizzy. A few
thoughts.

First of all, it is simply inarguable that the Ottoman Empire tried
to eradicate the Armenian people under the cover of World War I.

Despite the Turkish government’s efforts to purchase a different
historical narrative (by, for instance, using government funds to
endow chairs in Turkish Studies at American universities), genocide
denial is finding an increasingly small audience. As the International
Association of Genocide Scholars has put it, "to deny its factual
and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but
in propaganda."

But that, of course, doesn’t give House members much direction in
considering whether to vote for the actual resolution that will soon
reach the House floor. It wouldn’t matter much one way or the other if
Congress were voting on whether to condemn the Mongols’ extermination
of 90 percent of Persia’s population in the 13th century, for instance,
because that doesn’t have much political saliency. But, for whatever
reason, the modern Turkish Republic has adopted a monomaniacal
position of genocide denial, similar to the ChiComs’ insistence on
the fiction of "One China," or the Greeks’ obsession with FYROM,
or the Arabs’ demand that we pretend Jerusalem is not the capital of
Israel. This is despite the fact that the genocide was the policy of a
long-defunct state and its architects were actually condemned to death
in absentia by Turkish military courts specifically for committing
the genocide. The smart thing would be to simply acknowledge the
crimes of the ancien regime, and move on.

Nonetheless, Turkey will brook no argument. Simply asserting the
existence of the Armenian Genocide there is a criminal offense,
and just yesterday two Turkish-Armenian journalists were convicted
on such charges, including the son of another journalist murdered
earlier this year for asserting the reality of the genocide.

As a result of the House committee vote, Turkey has temporarily
recalled its ambassador and Washington fears that if the genocide
measure passes the full House, Turkey will limit our use of an air
base in southern Turkey used to supply troops in Iraq. They may well
make good on their threat, though the Turkish government’s pique is
likely to be short-lived, since they need us more than we need them.

And we’ve coped just fine with earlier efforts at Turkish obstruction
of our efforts in Iraq; in 2003, Turkey refused to allow U.S. troops to
pass through on their way to overthrow Saddam. What’s more, Turkey is
moving toward sending its own troops to invade Kurdistan, the only part
of Iraq that isn’t at war, in order to flush out separatist guerrillas.

The context for Turkey’s reaction to the House resolution is the fact
that Turks are the most anti-American people on Earth. A 47-nation
Pew survey earlier this year showed that ordinary Turks had the
least favorable view of the United States, more negative than even
the Palestinians or Pakistanis. Mein Kampf is a bestseller there,
and the luridly anti-American and anti-Semitic film Valley of the
Wolves – Iraq drew record audiences and thumbs-ups from Turkey’s
political leadership. The Turkish people’s deep-seated hatred of
America obviously wouldn’t get any better because of passage of the
genocide resolution, but it couldn’t get any worse.

Back home, it’s particularly amusing to see opposition to the genocide
resolution from those who want to use American foreign policy to
promote human rights abroad. If you’re going to stick your nose
in other people’s business, and tell Burma’s junta how to behave,
and pass judgment on every nation’s commitment to religious freedom,
etc., this is what you’re going to be stuck with. In other words, once
you start moving along the spectrum toward foreign-policy Idealism,
don’t be surprised when this sort of thing happens.

If there’s any real problem with the genocide resolution it’s
precisely that it feeds into an excessively idealist view of foreign
policy. While its many findings are largely restatements of facts
in the public record, its "Declaration of Policy" states that "The
House of Representatives – (1) calls upon the President to ensure
that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate
understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States
record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the
failure to realize a just resolution." Our foreign policy is already
reflects inordinate "sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights" – we hardly need more of it.

None of this would have happened if subsequent presidents had simply
followed Ronald Reagan’s lead in commemorating the Armenian Genocide
along with the Holocaust, without lots of specific "findings,"
without declarations of policy, without even mentioning Turkey or
the Ottomans. Our policy toward modern Turkey should have nothing
whatsoever to do with acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. But
caving to Turkish pressure never to use "Armenian" and "genocide" in
the same sentence is what has given the current resolution its impetus.

Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here. This
isn’t even a matter of the polite fictions necessary to international
diplomacy. Denying the Armenian Genocide is simply a lie, and a lie
propagated at the behest of a foreign power. It’s unworthy of us.

– Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies.

http://article.nationalrevie w.com/?q=ODdhNWYwNTI5NzI4ODE0NjFjNTgwNzUwOGYwNDVkM GQ=

THE CONGRESSMAN’S BURDEN: RESOLUTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
By Jason Lee Steorts

National Review Online, NY
Oct 16 2007

Occasionally the world reminds us that it is evil.

I am not saying this in the obvious way, that the world is full of
blood, death, arbitrary destruction, and gratuitous cruelty – though
that is surely true. It is also true that such evils often allow
reasonably precise moral reckoning, at least where human agency is
concerned: If I murder you, I have committed an evil; if my nation
wages an unjust war, it has committed an evil; and so on. Such cases
are morally ambiguous when they turn on questions whose answers evade
mere mortals: Did I kill you in self-defense? Did my nation wage war
in response to an intolerable threat, and was war the only remedy?

But the questions have right and wrong answers, and if we knew them
we could assign blame with justice and precision.

What I have in mind, rather, is the possibility that one might (a)
be forced to act, (b) possess perfect information about each possible
course of action, and (c) discover that all of them are immoral. The
contemporary philosopher Thomas Nagel has used the term "moral blind
alley" to describe such circumstances.

I believe the House of Representatives may have gotten itself into a
moral blind alley by taking up the question whether to recognize as
genocide the massacre of Armenians in eastern Anatolia between 1915
and 1917.

No one denies that the government of the Young Turks ordered the
deportation of their Armenian minority. The Armenians were dispossessed
of their property and driven from their homes, and when the dust
settled an appalling number had also been slaughtered.

(Estimates vary widely: 300,000, according to the modern Turkish
government; the Armenian government says 1.5 million.)

What is debated is whether these massacres are properly called
genocide. The conventional wisdom is that yes, an order to exterminate
the Armenians proceeded from the highest levels of Ottoman rule. The
government of Turkey denies this claim, and argues that the massacres
were an unintended consequence of the deportation policy. And some of
the evidence in favor of the traditional view is open to question. (For
details, consult this article from the Middle East Quarterly; this
one too.)

I will attempt no resolution of the genocide question (though I wish
to note in passing that, even if there was no order to exterminate,
the Young Turks were still guilty of a horrific crime). Instead, I
would like to assume for the sake of argument that the conventional
view is correct. This will help us see how the House might have turned
down a moral blind alley.

***

The congressman’s dilemma is this: If the resolution passes, it
will enrage the Turkish government, which will retaliate in a manner
harmful to the interests of the United States. It has threatened to
deny the U.S. access to Incirlik Air Base, an important re-supply
hub for military operations in the Middle East. It would also adopt a
more cavalier attitude toward the potential dispatch of its military
to Iraqi Kurdistan in pursuit of fighters from the Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK), which is responsible for a long campaign of separatist
violence in Turkey. The United States has labeled the PKK a terrorist
organization, but it opposes Turkish incursions into Iraq on the
grounds that they would destabilize that country.

The problem for a U.S. congressman is not just strategic: for there
are very good moral reasons to want the U.S. to achieve its military
and foreign-policy objectives in the Middle East. These reasons are
consequentialist: that is, the failure of American objectives would
risk bringing about morally undesirable outcomes. A collapse of
Iraq’s democratic experiment, or an attenuation of U.S. power that
strengthened the hand of Islamists, would increase the suffering of
multitudes in the Middle East (or so, I believe, it can be persuasively
argued – though I do not make that argument here). It would also leave
Americans more vulnerable to attack. While a setback in U.S.-Turkish
relations would not force these outcomes, it would make them more
likely. To the extent, then, that lawmakers have a duty to prevent
misery generally and the misery of Americans in particular, they have
grounds to vote against the House resolution.

Yet there are also moral considerations in favor of the resolution’s
passage. These reasons do not concern the consequences of defeating
the bill, but are, rather, deontological: They turn on the idea that
to vote "no" is to treat persons in a way that is wrong, no matter
the consequences. The persons in question are the remaining survivors
of the Armenian genocide (if it was that) and the descendents of its
victims. One might also include the victims themselves, though it is
hard to articulate how the dead can be wronged.

To understand why voting "no" would wrong these persons, imagine that
your mother has been stabbed to death by a mugger; that I witnessed
the crime; and that, fearing recriminations, I refuse to answer
investigators’ questions about what I have seen. Imagine further
that there are other witnesses, and that their testimony will be
sufficient to convict the murderer. Finally, imagine that my refusal
is partly motivated by ethical reasons of the consequentialist sort:
I am a researcher on the brink of discovering a cure for a type of
cancer, and I fear that, should I denounce your mother’s murderer,
I will have to abandon my work and flee.

If you knew all of this, would you feel that my silence wronged you
(and your mother)? I believe you would. For my silence contains the
implicit judgment that you (and your mother) do not matter enough
for me to acknowledge, when called upon to do so, the awful injustice
that you (and she) have suffered.

Or consider an example involving Holocaust denial. Imagine a slightly
different world in which Germany denied its genocide of European
Jews and all manner of dire consequences might follow from angering
Germany. We should feel morally uneasy with those who refused to
acknowledge what happened in the death camps, even if they had their
reasons for refusing, and even though acknowledging the Holocaust
would do nothing to resurrect its dead.

Let us return now to the Armenians. Congressmen might be tempted to
escape the moral blind alley by arguing as follows: "Declining to
recognize that something happened is different from denying that
it happened. By voting ‘no,’ I affirm nothing more than that the
institution of which I am part should keep silent."

Such reasoning could perhaps be refined into a sound argument
against introducing the genocide question before the House: just
as I, the brilliant cancer researcher, might have sufficient reason
not to volunteer my testimony against your mother’s killer. There is
no obligation to utter impolitic or dangerous things simply because
they are true. Once the genocide resolution was introduced, however,
the moral stakes changed: Now congressmen were being called upon to
declare their position, as was the House taken collectively. This
is analogous to the point at which investigators knock on my door to
ask about your mother.

***

The idea of a moral blind alley is more philosophically radical
than it might at first seem. It is different from the much simpler
problem of apparently conflicting duties within a single type of
ethical thought – for example, a case in which you must kill to
save your life or the life of a loved one. Such apparent conflicts
dissolve when we adequately define the duties in question: The duty
not to murder is defined as including an allowance for self-defense,
but not a permission to harvest my neighbor’s kidneys and give them
to my dying daughter.

Moral blind alleys seem rather to be cases in which two wholly
different ethical perspectives collide. One perspective rests on the
feeling that some things are simply wrong to do to people, no matter
the consequences. Another perspective rests on the feeling that some
consequences simply should not be allowed. Put thus schematically,
the potential for conflict is obvious enough. The real question is
whether human beings are indeed susceptible to both kinds of moral
feeling, and if so what they should do about it.

One answer is to cue the philosophers: "Our intuitions are muddled;
kindly devise a system of rules for us to follow instead." This
approach is very far from life as lived, and I do not believe it can
satisfy actual human beings, though it may please such computers
as Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. I say this in full knowledge
that the skeptical Nagelian alternative largely reduces ethics to a
descriptive project.

If there are moral blind alleys in this world, it is politicians who
are most likely to get stuck in them. Holding public office requires
one to contemplate the consequences of one’s choices on masses of
people, even while remaining subject to all the usual feelings about
how persons should treat one another and how institutions should
treat persons. It is work for those who are wise and brave enough
to grapple with the contradiction; foolish enough not to see it;
or cynical enough not to care.

MyZWQ5NTk5Njc0MTkzMmIzN2I1ZmJhMTU0ZmE=

ARMENIAN CHESS PLAYER FIRST IN EUROPEAN COMPETITION

Panorama.am
20:56 15/10/2007

Armenian chess player Avetik Grigoryan, after the completion of the
11th round, was in first place in the European chess youth competition
with 7.5 points.

Ivan Popov and Vang Haun have the same number of points. Ahmet Adlin
slipped from first place with 7 points, sharing the 4-6 spot with
Dmitri Andreikin and Ahbijet Guptan. Arman Pashikyan has 6.5 points.

As informed by the Armenian chess federation, in the girls’
completion, with 8.5 points, areVera Nebolsina, Harika Dronovali,
Javatska Yolandan. Our players with 7.5 points are Diana Harutyunyan
and Anahit Kharatyan, and with 6.5-6 points are Tatev Aprahamyan and
Nune Darpinyan.

We remind that the youth competition began on October 3 and will
continue until October 17. Participating are 150 sportsmen from
50 countries.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version: nian.htm

"AS A COMMUNITY OF VALUES,
HOW EUROPE CAN ACCEPT IN ITS FOLD TURKEY"

SAID HIS HOLINESS ARAM I

Brussels – "Europe is not a continent based only on political and economic
interests. Its identity, unity and vision are deeply rooted in human values.
These cultural, religious, social and educational values constitute the
solid basis of Europe" said His Holiness Aram I, in his keynote address to
the Second Assembly of the Armenian Communities and organizations in Europe,
taking place in Brussels, from 15-18 October.

In a long address delivered in French, His Holiness Catholicos Aram I, first
outlined the characteristic features of Europe as a continent which has the
sense of history and tradition. He then identified three challenges facing
Europe today.

According to the Pontiff, "The consolidation of European Unity is a vital
necessity. This Unity must be based on European common values and
aspirations, with the active participation of civil society". Acknowledging
the importance and political interests, Aram I emphasized "the crucial
importance of enduring values as a common source for unity".

The Second challenge according to the Armenian Catholicos integration is an
urgent matter in Europe: "Europe today is a multiform continent. Pluralism
is a dominant reality in all aspects of society in Europe. If we don’t deal
realistically with this situation, it may generate conflict of values, the
signs of which became evident in the last few years. Therefore Europe needs
a serious and comprehensive integration policy", stated His Holiness.

As a third challenge, His Holiness Aram I stressed the need to develop "a
common vision for Europe, a vision that highlights the common values,
deepens the internal unity, enhances closer intra-European collaboration and
gives more efficiency to the role of Europe in international community".

In the third part of his lecture, His Holiness Aram I raised the question of
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and expressed his great
appreciation to all organizations, the churches, the parliaments, including
the European Parliament, which have formally recognized the Armenian
Genocide, and he said:

"This process must continue with renewed pace". In this context, His
Holiness referred to the membership of Turkey in European Community by
raising some basic concerns in the form of questions: "How a community of
values can accept a country into its membership whose values are
incompatible with its civilized values? How the European community which is
governed by democratic principles can accept into its fold a country which
is democratic in form but non-democratic in essence and practice? How a
Community that fully respects the human rights, will make a country an
integral part of its family, which not only does not respect the human
rights, but persecutes and put in prison those who defend the human rights?
And finally, how a country which is not ready to accept the truth and
reconcile with its past, will become member of a community, which has the
courage to punish the authors and defend the victims of genocides". His
Holiness called the Armenian Communities of Europe to re-organize
themselves, by bringing more active participation in the struggle of Europe
for deeper unity, greater integration and common vision.

**
Read excerpts from the address of His Holiness Aram I in French here:
seng.htm#8
##
View the photos here:
c/Photos/Photos44.htm
http://www.armenianorthodoxc hurch.org/v04/doc/Photos/Photos45.htm
*****
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician
Catholicosate, the administrative center of the church is located in
Antelias, Lebanon.

TURKISH GOVERNMENT GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION IN NORTHERN IRAQ
By Peter Schwarz

World Socialist Web Site, MI
o15.shtml
Oct 15 2007

The Turkish government has given the army a green light to cross the
border and conduct a military action in Iraq. A crisis group chaired
by President Abdullah Gul gave permission October 9 for the military
to intervene against the separatist Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK)
in neighboring northern Iraq.

The office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that,
in addition, the government had given a command that "all legal,
economic and political measures, including cross border operations,
be employed in order to terminate the existence of the terror group
in neighboring countries." The government is applying to parliament
October 15 for full powers to go to war.

Just a few weeks after its success in parliamentary elections and the
elevation of its candidate, Gul, to the post of president, the AKP
(Party for Justice and Development) has bowed down to pressure from
the generals, who have long been demanding a free hand to conduct
operations in northern Iraq. The head of the Turkish general staff,
Yasar Buyukanit, who took part in the crisis meeting, has been calling
for such powers since May.

With its green light to the generals, the moderate Islamic AKP
government has also strengthened the hand of the military with regard
to domestic policy. In recent months, the military had been forced
to accept a number of significant blows to their power.

Prime Minister Erdogan and Gul, his foreign minister at that time,
had initially opposed pressure from the general staff led by Yasar
Buyukanit, for cross-border operations. When the military tried
to prevent the election of Gul with the threat of a putsch, the AKP
called new elections and notched up an impressive success. Many voters
supported the AKP because they regarded the latter as a democratic
counterweight to the power ambitions of the army. Now, such hopes
have proved to be completely unfounded.

In fact, by giving the military a free hand for military action in
Iraq, the AKP has made itself virtually a hostage of the army. "This is
a very dangerous charter, which could create severe problems for Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan," was the comment by the Suddeutsche Zeitung.

It still remains unclear when and to what extent the Turkish army
will intervene in northern Iraq. Any large-scale actions, however,
would have far-reaching consequences for Iraq, Turkey and the entire
Middle East. The decision by the Turkish government means further
suffering for the refugees and inhabitants in northern Iraq as well as
the Kurdish people in the east of Turkey. It strengthens the position
of the military in Turkish political life and will directly plunge
the country into the bloody carnage in Iraq.

NATO member Turkey has the biggest army in the region, but until now
has conducted a relatively restrained foreign policy. A more active
military role on the part of Turkey will intensify the rivalry with
other regional powers for supremacy in the Middle East, which has
been thrown into turmoil by the Iraq war.

The Turkish generals want not merely to crush the PKK, which is
estimated to have around 3,000 fighters stationed in the Iraqi
mountains. They want to also prevent the emergence of a de facto
independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq-a development that
has become more likely in the wake of the debacle of the American
occupation. They fear that such a state could encourage separatist
tendencies among the Kurds in the Turkey and threaten the territorial
integrity of the country.

A Turkish invasion could lead to a direct confrontation with units of
the northern Iraqi regional government under Massoud Barzani. Barzani
and other representatives of the northern Iraqi Kurds had threatened
months ago to use their troops to resist a Turkish incursion.

The US government has for some time sought to dissuade Turkey from
intervening in Iraq. The Iraqi Kurdish leaders are amongst the most
reliable props of the American occupation, and the north of Iraq was
regarded up to now as relatively stable. A Turkish invasion, on the
other hand, could open a new front in Iraq.

Relations between Ankara and Washington have cooled considerable in
recent years. Despite promises made, neither the US nor the Kurdish
regional government has proceeded against the PKK, while for domestic
reasons the Iraqi Kurdish leaders are unable to resort to force in
expelling the PKK. In addition, in order to destabilise the regime
in Tehran, the US supports the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan
(PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish organisation that is alleged to have close
links to the PKK.

The immediate cause for the change of course on the part of the
Turkish government was the heaviest attack carried out by the PKK in
the last 12 years. Some 15 Turkish soldiers died last weekend as a
result of attacks launched by the PKK. One week before, 12 villagers,
including several so-called "village protectors," had been shot in a
minibus-although the PKK denied responsibility for this latter attack.

The right-wing Turkish media and parties reacted to the attacks with a
broadside of chauvinism. Daily papers appeared with death notices on
the title page. The tabloid Hurriyet banged the drum for an invasion
into Iraq. Thousands took part in the funeral services for the dead
soldiers, and in Ankara and Trabzon, professors and student organised
silent marches. There were also demonstrations in Istanbul.

The anti-American tone of this campaign was very evident. Deniz
Baykal, the leader of the Kemalist CHP (Republican People’s Party),
accused the US of using the PKK to split Turkey. The leader of the
fascist MHP (Nationalist Movement Party), Devlet Bahceli, called for
a popular referendum over an invasion of northern Iraq.

The passing of a resolution by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
US House of Representatives, terming the massacre of Armenians by
Turkey 92 years ago as "genocide," only served to further inflame
antagonisms. The resolution is next to be subject to a vote by the
full House.

For Turkish nationalists, the massacre of Armenians is a taboo issue.

Anyone using the word genocide must reckon on legal persecution
resulting in a prison sentence, or even with death threats.

In order to hinder the passing of the resolution, threats were made
in Ankara to close the military base at Incirlik, which serves as a
vital supply route for the US occupation of Iraq. US President George
W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary
Robert Gates all tried to prevent the acceptance of the Armenia
resolution, in order to avoid any escalation of tensions with Ankara.

In Washington, an increased foreign policy engagement by Turkey is
widely seen as a chance for the US to expand its own interests in
the region.

An article in the July-August edition of the influential magazine
Foreign Affairs stated: "After decades of passivity Turkey is now
emerging as an important diplomatic player in the Middle East." If the
country is "treated correctly…it could be a chance for Washington and
its western allies to use Turkey as a bridgehead to the Middle East."

However, such a move is conditional-the article continues-on taking
seriously Turkish concerns over the role of the PKK.

In this respect, American foreign policy confronts a profound
dilemma. It must decide between the Turkish military and the Kurdish
nationalists, whose support is so important for the US in Iraq. If
the US gives the Turkish army a free hand to act against the PKK. the
result would be the inevitable destabilisation of northern Iraq. For
its part, the Turkish army is adamant in its opposition to any
concessions to the Kurdish nationalists in the Iraq.

Regardless of the conflicts between the government and military, Ankara
is increasingly developing its own interests, which are at odds with
those of Washington. The Turkish government agrees with Washington over
the necessity to oppose an Iranian nuclear programme but seeks the
collaboration of both Tehran and Syria to resolve its long-standing
conflict with the Kurds. Both Iran and Syria are home to substantial
Kurdish minorities and fear the consequences of a separatist movement.

Turkey is also increasing its economic collaboration with Iran.

Against the will of the US, the Turkish government is seeking to
include Iran and its reserves of natural gas in a major project-the
planned Nabucco pipeline, which will connect the Turkey via the
Balkans with western Europe.