Author: Nargizian David

EDUARD SHARMAZANOV: DRASTIC CHANGES IN KARABAKH PROCESS UNLIKELY

PanARMENIAN.Net
May 4, 2010 – 15:47 AMT 10:47 GMT

Secretary of the Republican Party of Armenia parliamentary groupEduard
Sharmazanov said that drastic changes in the Karabakh conflict
settlement process are possible only if Azerbaijan recognizes
independence of Nagorno Karabakh.

"However, progress is unlikely as long as Azerbaijan keeps up warlike
rhetoric," Mr. Sharmazanov told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

As for the possibility of resumption of hostilities by Azerbaijan, he
noted that Azerbaijan willnot dare plunge intoa militaryadventure,due
to its previous "bitter experience."

"Launching new aggression against Karabakh will be fatal for
Azerbaijan," Mr.Sharmazanov said, adding that Armeniastands for
peaceful resolution of theconflict but is not afraid of a war.

ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES CHOOSE THE WORST OPTION OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROCESS DEVELOPMENT, EX-FOREIGN MINISTER OF ARMENIA THINKS

ArmInfo
2010-05-03 16:37:00

ArmInfo. Out is about ten possible options of Armenian-Turkish process
development the one chosen by the Armenian authorities is the worst,
ex-foreign minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan said in an interview
with "Yerkir media" TV channel.

He thinks that in the created situation it would be more correct
not to take anything, as in that case pressure would be imposed upon
Turkey. ‘But to choose an option which is practically equal to having
done nothing, but at the same time it was officially announced about
freezing of the process, means that at present Turkey was given a free
hand’, – Oskanyan said and added that over the past 18 months Armenia
did not manage to fulfill the tasks put against it, but Turkey managed
to reach implementation of the two out of the three pre-conditions put
forward and is working for implementation of the third one. ‘Having
reached nothing, we gave Turkey what it wanted: the tension in the
relations between Armenia and Diaspora appeared and the society of the
country has been separated in this matter. Moreover, I think we already
have negative tendencies in the Karabakh issue. There is a document
on the negotiating table which is not beneficial to us. It is for the
first time that Azerbaijan says it does not accept the content of this
document. The main reason of all this is the Armenian-Turkish dialogue
and involvement of Turkey in this (Karabakh) process’, – Oskanyan said.

At the same time Oskanyan is sure that the criteria and imagination
of the world community about the Karabakh conflict and the
Armenian-Turkish process are not in line with the interests of
Armenia. ‘For this reason, this is a very dangerous tendency when the
authorities present the world community welcoming the policy conducted
by us. This will lead us to nothing good’, – Oskanyan concluded.

IF THERE WAS EVER TO BE ANOTHER WAR BETWEEN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN THIS IS GOING TO BE A MUCH MORE DESTRUCTIVE AND CRUEL WAR THAN WE HAVE EVER SEEN IN THE CAUCASUS
Oksana Musaelyan

ArmInfo
2010-05-03 15:58:00

Interview of Dennnis Sammut, executive director of links with ArmInfo
news agency

Officials of Azerbaijan vocally threatened Armenia of the risk of war.

In particularly, in the course of the recent meetings with the
representatives of NATO PA delegation, the Defence Minister Safar
Abiyev stressed "that Azerbaijan could hit all areas in Nagorno
Karabakh and in Armenia proper. If Armenia decided to attack Azerbaijan
‘s energy production facilities, Azerbaijan would strike Armenia
‘s nuclear facility". These threats of Azerbaijani minister sounds
like a description of a certain plan of a new war. How real, in your
opinion, is a renewed war in Karabakh?

It is very unfortunate that officials on both sides keep making
harsh warlike statements at a time when we know that the Presidents
are engaged in very delicate discussions on the possible peaceful
settlement of the conflict.

However there is one aspect of General Abiyev’s statement that I find
very important. He reminds us that if there was ever to be another
war between Armenia and Azerbaijan this is going to be a much more
destructive and cruel war than we have ever seen in the Caucasus. Both
countries have modern sophisticated weaponry and every part of the
territory of the two countries will be effected. In August 2008 we
saw a small example of what this means in the short war between
Russia and Georgia. The fighting may have started in Tskhinvali,
but soon it was on the outskirts of Tbilis, in Gori, Poti, Senaki
and elsewhere. That is why we need to focus on peace.

In your mind, what is the reason Azerbaijani officials claimed their
threats of war vocally to NATO delegation. Do they count on NATO’s
support to Azerbaijan in case it starts war in Karabakh?

NATO officials on many occasions have made it clear that they
support the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan,
like Armenia, is a valued member of the NATO Partnership for peace
programme. In that sense it is natural for the Azerbaijan Defence
Minister to meet and express his concerns to a visiting NATO
delegation.

Armenia-Turkey process. Do you think there are any perspective for
any progress of the Armenia-Turkey normalization process considering
the recent developments, in particular Ankara to consistently bonding
the process with the issue of Karabakh?

I think both Armenia and Turkey remain committed to the process of
normalisation of relations. The reason is very simple. It is in the
interest of both countries that these relations are normalised, that
diplomatic relations are established and that the borders are open..

This does not mean that it is easy for either country to navigate the
complicated domestic political situation that exists in both Armenia
and Turkey. The baggage of history is also very heavy.

Ofcourse the Karabakh issue, even if it is not directly connected,
is in the background and it is not realistic to say one can simply
ignore it. That is why if we have progress in the Karabakh peace
negotiations this will help the Turkish-Armenian rapproachment.

How would you comment on the President of Armenia freezing the
ratification of the Protocols in the Parliament. Is this a constructive
step from the Armenian side? Will it somehow have an effect on the
process generally?

I read the President’s speech with great interest. It was a calm and
level headed speech even though the topics were very emotional. I
welcome that. This is no time for hysterical statements. The speech
was welcomed by the US, Russia, the European Union and others because
it showed a constructive Armenian approach to very difficult problems.

The work that has been done in the last two years should not be wasted.

What impact could EU have on the Turkish-Armenia relation in this
situation?

The European Union is increasingly involved in the South Caucasus
region. A few days ago Commissioner Stefan Fule, the EU Commissioner
for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, when addressing the European
Parliament, said, to use his own words, that the "EU was ready to step
up a gear" in its relationship with the region. During and after the
Georgia-Russia War in August 2008 the EU realised that what happens in
the South Caucasus can have implications for the whole continent. The
EU has welcomed and supported the Turkish-Armenian normalisation of
relations process and has tried to help. But in the end the decision
is with the Turkish and Armenian leaders.

Turkey always claims, that foreign Parliament’s decision on the
Armenian Genocide resolution have a negative impact on the relations
of Armenia-Turkish relations. What in this respect does Israeli Knesset
motion to hold hearings on the Armenia genocide mean for Turkey?

Turkish-Israeli relations are even more complicated than
Turkish-Armenian relations. It is not in Armenia’s interest to get
embroiled in that process.

New York Times

Op-Ed Contributor

Who Lives in Sheik Jarrah?

By KAI BIRD
Published: April 30, 2010

AS a boy, I lived in Sheik Jarrah, a wealthy Arab neighborhood in East
Jerusalem. Annexed by Israel in 1967 and now the subject of a conflict
over property claims, my former home has come to symbolize everything
that has gone wrong between the Israelis and Palestinians over the
last six decades.

Despite talk of a slowdown in Israeli construction in East Jerusalem,
Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s mayor, toured Washington earlier this week and
told officials that the expansion into Arab neighborhoods is going
ahead at full speed.

As a result, `The battle line in Israel’s war of survival as a Jewish
and democratic state now runs through the Arab neighborhoods of
Jerusalem,’ writes David Landau, the former editor of the Israeli
daily Haaretz. `Is that the line, at last, where Israel’s decline will
be halted?’ I hope so.

My family lived in Israel from 1956 to 1958, when my father, an
American diplomat, was stationed in East Jerusalem. We lived in the
Palestinian sector, but every day I crossed through Mandelbaum Gate,
the one checkpoint in the divided city, to attend school in an Israeli
neighborhood. I thus had the rare privilege of seeing both sides.

At the time Sheik Jarrah was a sleepy suburb, a half-mile north of
Damascus Gate. One of my playmates was Dani Bahar, the son of a Muslim
Palestinian and a Jewish-German refugee from Nazi Europe. Before the
establishment of Israel in 1948, such interfaith marriages were
uncommon, but accepted. Another neighbor was Katy Antonius, the widow
of George Antonius, an Arab historian who argued that Palestine should
become a binational, secular state.

The Sheik Jarrah of my youth is gone; Mandelbaum Gate was razed by
Israeli bulldozers right after the Six-Day War in 1967 that united
Jerusalem. But the city remains virtually divided. Few Jewish Israelis
venture into Sheik Jarrah and the other largely Arab neighborhoods of
East Jerusalem, and few Palestinians go to the `New City.’

Today East Jerusalem exudes the palpable feel of a city occupied by a
foreign power. And it is, to an extent – although much of the world
doesn’t recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to halt the construction of new
housing units for Jewish Israelis in the Arab neighborhoods.
`Jerusalem is not a settlement,’ he recently told an audience in
Washington.

Not all Israelis agree with this policy. For over a year, hundreds,
sometimes thousands, of Israelis and Palestinians have been gathering
in Sheik Jarrah on Fridays to protest the expulsion of Palestinians
from their homes. Israeli courts have deemed these nonviolent
demonstrations to be legal, but this has not stopped the police from
arresting protesters.

In a cruel historical twist, nearly all of the Palestinians evicted
from their homes in Sheik Jarrah in the last year-and-a-half were
originally expelled in 1948 from their homes in the West Jerusalem
neighborhood of Talbieh. In the wake of the Six-Day War, Israeli
courts ruled that some of the houses these Palestinian refugees have
lived in since 1948 are actually legally owned by Jewish Israelis, who
have claims dating from before Israel’s founding.

The Palestinians have stubbornly refused to pay any rent to these
`absentee’ Israeli landlords for nearly 43 years; until recently,
their presence was nevertheless tolerated. But under Mr. Netanyahu, a
concerted effort has been made to evict these Palestinians and replace
them with Israelis.

This poses an interesting question. If Jewish Israelis can claim
property in East Jerusalem based on land deeds that predate 1948, why
can’t Palestinians with similar deeds reclaim their homes in West
Jerusalem?

I have in mind the Kalbians, our neighbors in Sheik Jarrah. Until
1948, Dr. Vicken Kalbian and his family lived in a handsome
Jerusalem-stone house on Balfour Street in Talbieh. In the spring, the
Haganah, the Zionist militia, sent trucks mounted with loudspeakers
through the streets of Talbieh, demanding that all Arab residents
leave. The Kalbians decided it might be prudent to comply, but they
thought they’d be back in a few weeks.

Nineteen years later, after the Six-Day war, the Kalbians returned to
4 Balfour Street and knocked on the door. A stranger answered. `He was
a Jewish Turk,’ Dr. Kalbian said, `who had come to Israel in 1948.’
The man claimed he had bought the house from the `authorities.’

That year the Kalbians took their property deed to a lawyer who
determined that their house was indeed registered with the Israeli
Department of Absentee Property. Under Israeli law, they learned, due
compensation could have been paid to them – but only if they had not
fled to countries then considered `hostile,’ like Jordan. Because in
1948 they had ended up in Jordanian-controlled Sheik Jarrah, the
Kalbians could neither reclaim their home nor be compensated for their
loss.

The Kalbians eventually emigrated to America, but their moral claim to
the house on Balfour Street is as strong as any of the deeds held by
Israelis to property in Sheik Jarrah.

If Israel wishes to remain largely Jewish and democratic, then it must
soon withdraw from all of the occupied territories and negotiate the
creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East
Jerusalem as its capital. And if not, it should at least let the
Kalbians go home again.

Kai Bird is the author of `Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age
Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956-1978.’

SOUTH CAUCASUS RAILWAY IS SWITCHING TO ‘SUMMER TIME’

ArmInfo
2010-04-29 18:54:00

ArmInfo. South Caucasus Railway is switching to summer regime of
passenger operations – for the first time in Armenia, Director General
of SCR Shevket Shaydullin said during a press-conference today.

He said that by May the company will approve traffic schedule for
2010-2011. The speed of the trains will be raised, more locomotives
will be put into service. Some 2.1bln AMD will be spent on this
activity. 8 cars worth 700mln AMD will be imported from Voronezh
(Russia) for "Armenia" de luxe passenger train travelling from Yerevan
to Batumi in the summer. 5 electric locomotives will be brought from
Tbilisi. Presently, the company is repairing Yerevan Railway Station.

Almost 100mln AMD has been allocated for this purpose.

This year, unlike 2009, "Armenia" will travel on a daily basis. "In
order to make the trip more comfortable, we have decided that the
train will depart from Yerevan at 02:10 PM rather than in the evening.

In such case, it will reach the Armenian-Georgian border at 08:30 PM
and the passengers will no longer have to go through customs procedures
late at night. The arrival time will move to early morning which is
also better for the passengers," Shaydullin said.

He added that the passengers will also be offered a variant for
choice – twice a week an ordinary train will leave Yerevan late in
the evening and arrive in Batoumi by 5 pm. "The difference will be in
tariffs, and passengers will have an opportunity to make a choice",-
said Shaydullin. The travel cost in a sleeping-car of Armenia express
will be 22.4 thsd AMD, in a compartment – 10,6 thsd AMD, in a couchette
car – 6,4 thsd. For an ordinary passenger train tickets will cost 18,8
thsd AMD, 10,8 thsd AMD and 6,3 thsd AMD. The childrens’ tickets will
cost 60% of the ordinary ticket. Shaydullin added that in accordance
with the trends of passenger flow, seasonal indices for the ticket
value have been introduced. In July and August ticket prices will grow,
but in September the prices will return to their previous level.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND TURKEY: THEN AND NOW
Vicken Cheterian

Policy-Examiner~y2010m4d26-President-Obama-breaks- his-promise-to-recognize-Armenian-Genocide-again
2 4 April 2010

The destruction of the Ottoman Armenians began on 24 April 1915.

Almost a century later the contemporary political relevance of the
"great catastrophe" remains undiminished, says Vicken Cheterian.

About the author Vicken Cheterian is a journalist and political analyst
who works for the non-profit governance organisation CIMERA, based
in Geneva. For Armenians everywhere, 24 April is a day of special
commemoration. It marks the beginning of the genocide of 1915: the
uprooting or killing by the leading figures of the Ottoman state of
almost all the 2.2 million Armenians who lived in historic Armenia,
using the circumstances of Europe’s "great war" as a pretext.

The ninety-fifth anniversary on 24 April 2010 finds the issue
as potent as ever in the global consciousness as well as in the
Armenian world. It is discussed in the international arena at all
levels of political, diplomatic, historical and cultural life;
its recognition as a historical reality has become a factor in the
deliberations of many legislative bodies, such as the United States
house of representatives’ foreign-affairs committee and the Swedish
parliament (both in March 2010).

This reflects a shift in the balance of argument about the genocide.

The outright negation of its truth is becoming rarer; more often,
those who oppose official recognition of the genocide tend tacitly to
admit that it did happen but that it would be politically inconvenient
to say so as this would anger Turkey – an increasingly powerful
and influential country, an important Nato member, and a strategic
partner of the west (albeit one more than ever inclined to follow
its own course) (see Carsten Wieland, "Turkey’s political-emotional
transition", 6 October 2009). The implication is that it is still,
ninety-five years later, too soon to face reality.

A related but distinct case is that what happened in 1915 belongs to
the past and should be left to historians.

Both the "too soon" and the "too distant" cases are wrong, as brave
voices in Turkey too are beginning to affirm (see "Turks urged to mark
Armenia’s ‘great catastrophe’ in Istanbul", RFE/RL, 22 April 2010).

The debate about the Armenian genocide is about politics, and about
people living today. In this short article, I make four points that
underline the contemporary political relevance of the genocide.

The closed frontier

The first point is the very existence, almost a century later, of the
Armenian diaspora: the grandchildren of the genocide survivors. Their
persistent mobilisation in search of recognition and justice is fuelled
by the continuous denial of the Turkish authorities (alternating with
assertions that if there were deportations and massacres, it was the
fault of the Armenians themselves).

This generation is not going to disappear, forget, or be silenced.

They will not be at peace until modern Turkey – the successor state
of the Ottoman empire – recognises its responsibility (see The Great
Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of
the Ottoman Armenians [Oxford University Press, 2005]).

The second point is that the shadow of the genocide of 1915 is
still hanging over the contemporary politics of the Caucasus. When
in 1988, during the last years of the Soviet Union, the Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh – the enclave inside Azerbaijan – raised the peaceful
demand to be transferred from (Soviet) Azerbaijan to (Soviet), the
result only weeks later was an anti-Armenian pogrom in the Azerbaijani
town of Sumgait. It was followed by half a dozen others, from Kirovabad
(now Ganja) to Baku. The message was clear, and sometimes explicit:
both the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis understood it as a reminder
of 1915, and a warning of its possible repeat.

In the troubled era of the Soviet Union’s slow disintegration, the
fear on one side and the threat on the other re-emerged. If by that
stage Turkey had recognised its responsibility in the destruction of
the Anatolian Armenians, the political conflict over Karabakh might
in principle have been solved in a non-violent way. In the event,
the conflict erupted into open war in 1992-94, following the Soviet
collapse; this was won by the Armenian side, despite Turkey’s military
assistance to its Azerbaijani ally and its subsequent blockade on
Armenia in an effort to squeeze both its economy and its support for
Karabakh (see Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan
Through Peace and War [NYU Press, 2004]).

This is the last closed frontier of the cold war, and an unresolved
conflict that could yet explode once more. The "protocols" signed
by Armenia and Turkey in Zurich on 10 October 2009 agreed that
the neighbours would normalise diplomatic relations and open the
border between them (see Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, "Armenia and Turkey:
forgetting genocide", 12 October 2009) Since then, the process has hit
a series of obstacles, among which Turkey’s insistence on Armenian
concessions over Karabakh (which is not included in the protocols)
ranks high. In response, Armenia on 22 April 2010 suspended the
parliamentary ratification process.

The Azerbaijani leadership today continues to threaten Armenia with
military action to regain the territories lost in the 1990s. The
Azerbaijani defence minister has even declared: "If the Armenian
occupier does not liberate our lands, the start of a great war in
the south Caucasus is inevitable." Again, if Turkey recognised the
genocide – and took a neutral position in the Karabakh conflict – this
would greatly ease tensions and decrease the risk of yet another war
in the Caucasus (see War and Peace in the Caucasus: Russia’s Troubled
Frontier [C Hurst & Columbia University Press, 2009]).

The opened book

The third point that highlights the genocide’s contemporary political
relevance is about Turkey itself. After the vast majority of the
Armenians were eliminated, the Republic of Turkey from its foundation
in 1923 pursued a strictly unifying ideology that turned an intolerant
(and often violent) face towards internal minorities and dissidents:
Kurds, Assyrians, Greeks, Alevis, trade-unionists, human-rights
activists. Some of the most intense violence came during the conflict
between the Turkish military and the (Kurdish) PKK guerrillas in the
1980s, when as many as 3,000 villages in eastern Turkey were destroyed
and their inhabitants forced to migrate west to major cities.

This one-party system, historically dominated by the military (and
often mistakenly described as "secular") is today crumbling, and in
a way that opens the possibility of democracy and pluralism (see Bill
Park, "Turkey and Ergenenkon: from farce to tragedy", 10 March 2010).

In this struggle, the Armenian question has again become a subject of
public debate – in great part thanks to journalists, scholars (such as
Taner Akcam) and activists who have risked their lives to challenge
official taboos. Some have paid a heavy price for this audacity;
not least the journalist Hrant Dink, assassinated in January 2007 in
the street outside the offices of his newspaper (Agos) in Istanbul.

More recently, the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
has raised the rhetorical stakes and engendered new fears in his
response to the Swedish parliament’s resolution, when he spoke
about expelling "100,000 Armenians" from Turkey (see "’There can be
no talk of genocide’", Spiegel Online, 29 March 2010). Once more,
Turkey’s recognition of the genocide of 1915 would be a great step
towards erasing the fear and violence that has long characterised
Turkey’s internal political life (see Taner Akcam, A Shameful Act:
The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility
[Henry Holt, 2007]).

The fourth point is that the official acknowledgment of the Armenian
genocide is about everyone, not just Armenians and Turks. For it
raises the crucial question: how is it possible to talk about the
transformation of international relations and the peaceful resolution
of 21st-century conflicts if the first major genocide of the 20th
century is denied?

KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS ACTIVE WITHIN OSCE MINSK GROUP: SWISS FM

news.am
April 28 2010
Armenia

Both Turkey and Armenia must be applauded for the strong political will
leading to the signing of Protocols last October, Federal Councilor
and Head of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Micheline
Calmy-Rey said at the PACE spring session.

She pointed out that any step forward in Armenia-Turkey relations
should be considered in the context of normalization.

Switzerland also chairs the CE Ministers’ Committee, thus both
Armenian and Azerbaijani MPs asked Calmy-Rey questions concerning
Nagorno-Karabakh.

Karabakh peace process is actively going on within the OSCE Minsk
Group, she stated, emphasizing the necessity for encouraging meetings
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders. According to her,
the OSCE Minsk Group is actively working to settle the conflict.

Responding to the Azeri parliamentarians’ questions about "20 per
cent of Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenians", Azerbaijani
refugees’ hopeless situation, the Minister said that "the issue is
within the jurisdiction of OSCE Minsk Group."

FROZEN PROTOCOLS…AND WARMED OVER OBAMA STATEMENT
By Harut Sassounian Publisher

The California Courier
Panorama.am
13:21 27/04/2010

Politics

Two developments on Armenian-Turkish issues spilled a lot of ink last
week. Neither one was significant, but assumed significance because
of extensive international media coverage.

On April 22, exactly a year after the release of the roadmap,
ostensibly to normalize Armenia-Turkey relations, and six months
after the infamous Protocols were signed by the two countries with
great fanfare, Pres. Serzh Sargsyan announced their suspension.

There was actually nothing new in this announcement. It has been
crystal clear for months that Turkey’s leaders never intended to
ratify the Protocols. They simply wanted to exploit them in order to
extract further concessions from Armenia. Turks repeatedly announced
that unless Armenia turned over Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan,
the Turkish Parliament would not ratify the Protocols. As time went
by, Turkey added more inane demands, such as reversal of the Armenian
Constitutional Court’s decision, and withdrawal of genocide resolutions
from Parliaments of other countries. Since Armenia had repeatedly
announced that it would not be the first to ratify the Protocols,
the accords were already frozen for months, if not stillborn.

Even though some may view Pres. Sargsyan’s decision as a bold
move, it would have been far more preferable for him to withdraw
his country’s signature from the Protocols, since they were dead
in the water anyway. He could have easily blamed their collapse on
Turkey’s intransigence. He did acknowledge in his last week’s public
announcement that he decided to suspend the Protocols, after Russia,
France and the United States asked him not to abandon them completely.

Now that Armenia has blinked first, Turkey is blaming it for causing
the collapse of the Protocols. Armenia has thus helped Turkey to
wiggle its way out of the intense international pressure it was
subjected to in recent months for its failure to ratify them.

Moreover, as long as the Protocols are not completely discarded,
Turkey will continue to exploit them by cleverly claiming that it is
still committed to their ratification under the "right" conditions,
and will use them as a viable tool to defeat all initiatives by third
countries on the Armenian Genocide.

Regrettably, Turkey is not the only country exploiting the Protocols.

Pres. Obama, after pressuring Armenia not to reject the Protocols,
dodged the term "Armenian Genocide" once again in his annual
statement. He used as an excuse the non-existent "dialogue among
Turks and Armenians."

Just as he had done last year, Pres. Obama substituted the term "Meds
Yeghern" [Great Calamity] for the Armenian Genocide and used the same
worn out euphemisms and shameful word games for which, as a Senator
and presidential candidate, he had condemned Pres. George W. Bush.

The overwhelming majority of Armenian-Americans, who had supported
Obama’s candidacy and trusted him, now feel disillusioned and
deceived. He ran his campaign on the promise of change, only to
adopt the same immoral position of his predecessors, even though he
keeps saying that he has not changed his mind regarding his pledge
to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide!

In a column I wrote last year after Pres. Obama first broke
his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide, I stated that
Armenian-Americans do not need to beg him to acknowledge the Genocide.

Thirty years ago, Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation
referring to the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, Armenian-Americans
see no special advantage in a repeat statement by Pres. Obama. By
not keeping his word, however, Pres. Obama succeeded in undermining
his own reputation and credibility with the American people and world
public opinion.

It is simply mind-boggling that the President of the United States
would go out of his way to issue a statement that would alienate the
very people he is trying to accommodate.

Just imagine what the outcry would be had Pres. Obama referred to the
Holocaust as a massacre or a tragic event. Yet, this is exactly what
he has done on the Armenian Genocide by using a series of euphemisms
in his April 24 statement: "Dark past," "Dark moment in history,"
"painful history." "awful events of 1915," " a devastating chapter,"
"one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century," "murder," and
"terrible events." Pres. Obama’s aides could have spent their time
more usefully by reading a history book rather than a dictionary
of synonyms.

The only new idea in Pres. Obama’s April 24, 2010 statement is the
following brief sentence: "I salute the Turks who saved Armenians
in 1915." This is a commendable notion which unfortunately becomes
devoid of any meaning, in the absence of who or what exactly these
Armenians were saved from!

We all hope that the solemn commemorations next April 24 would not
be tarnished either by the Protocols (frozen or thawed) or by Pres.

Obama’s offensive statement!

TRILATERAL MEETING OF RUSSIAN, AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS HELD IN BAKU

ARMENPRESS
APRIL 26, 2010
BAKU

BAKU, APRIL 26, ARMENPRESS: A trilateral meeting of the religious
leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia was held today in Baku.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill I stated at the meeting
that there is a progress in Nagorno Karabakh conflict regulation.

"I think that Nagorno Karabakh conflict regulation has registered
a notable progress, and Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents Ilham
Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, as well as the religious leaders of the
two countries have greatly contributed to that," the patriarch said.

According to him, "the religious leaders are not political figures,
but they can contribute to consolidation of peace with their prayers
and calls."

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church attached great importance
to conduction of a suchlike trilateral meeting in Baku within the
frameworks of the forum of the religious leaders of the world. He
noted that this is the first meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian
religious leaders, which is held with his own participation.

Head of the Caucasus Muslims Department Allahshukur Pashazade
expressed gratitude to Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia Kirill
I for the mediatory efforts exerted in regulation of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

AZERBAIJANI POLITICAL ANALYST NAMED THE MAIN SCENARIO OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS IN THE UPCOMING 6 MONTHS

Today
770.html
April 26 2010
Azerbaijan

"Those in Armenia and Turkey were aware what would the requirement
for U.S. President Barack Obama to recognize the Armenian "genocide"
end up with," Azerbaijani political expert Rasim Agayev said.

"It was clear that he will not utter this word. This is a political
plot of Washington, with which it encourages Armenians and bends
Ankara in its will. This game has lasted since 1970s. It took a lot
of money, effort and statements. But everything remains on almost
about the same level," he said.

"Obama said what he said last year. This is a millimetre-step towards
the Armenians. But Armenians should blame themselves for this. The
expression "Metz Yeghern" ("Great Tragedy") was used by Armenians
themselves as an equivalent to the word "genocide". But if this is
not equivalent, it is their fault," the political expert said.

"The same thing will happen in future as well. The United States will
continue to exert pressure so that the Armenian-Turkish normalization
will be success. I think this will be the main scenario of the upcoming
half-year term. The U.S. will do everything so that Ankara and Yerevan
will normalize relations. I think borders will open and diplomatic
relations will be established gradually," Agayev added.

"When all this happens, it will require some time to finalize
settlement of the Karabakh conflict. If at least two of the
Armenian-occupied regions are liberated without prejudice to other
terms of the settlement of the conflict, it can advance resolution of
the conflict in the near future. But if there is no such a prospect,
the Karabakh conflict settlement will be bound with a later period,"
the expert noted.