Book Review: "Denial" Book Ignores UK & US Genocide Crimes

"DENIAL" BOOK IGNORES UK & US GENOCIDE CRIMES

MWC News
Nov 6 2008
Canada

"Denial. History betrayed" by Tony Taylor (Melbourne University Press,
Melbourne, 2008) is a very well written, well annotated and well
referenced book that deals with the phenomenon of "holocaust denial"
and, in general, the denial of horrendous abuses of humanity. This
is an important book that should certainly be read by everyone and
should be in every library.

However inevitably "Denial" can be criticized and the most fundamental
criticism is that this otherwise excellent Mainstream Anglo book,
published by a prestigious Mainstream Anglo publisher, itself ignores
major 20th century and ongoing 21st century holocausts and genocides
due to Anglo-American imperialism.

Holocaust denial is wrong and utterly repugnant for 3 major reasons:
(1) it is falsehood; (2) it is profoundly offensive to the memory of
the victims, survivors of such atrocities, their loved ones and indeed
to all of decent humanity; and (3) it increases the probability of
repetition of such awful crimes – history ignored and history denied
yields history repeated. Indeed one supposes that it is for these
sorts of reasons that Germany recently proposed a measure for the
EU that would criminalize not only those who deny or diminish the
Jewish Holocaust but those belittling any relatively recent genocide,
mass murder, war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

Already denial or minimization of the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust
is a criminal offence attracting up to 10 years of imprisonment in
Austria and custodial punishment in many other European countries,
Indeed denial of the Armenian Genocide (up to 1.5 million Armenians
murdered in Turkey in the period 1915-1923) is an offence in both
France and Belgium. However such criminalization of "opinion" disturbs
many intellectuals because of the implicit threat to "free speech"
and scholarly investigation. Thus, as related in "Denial" (p168),
outstanding Jewish American scholar Professor Noam Chomsky (MIT)
defended the right of free speech of a Holocaust-minimizing French
academic, and Jewish American academic Professor Deborah Lipstadt
(Emory University) (famous participant in the David Irving versus
Penguin defamation trial in London) thought that Holocaust denial
should not be criminalised because of the seriousness of repression
of free speech in a democratic society.

Free speech is absolutely vital for scholarly research and for Rational
Risk Management to minimize risk to Humanity. Indeed Rational Risk
Management (which, for example, has made passenger aviation extremely
safe and can be generally applied to situations from child safety in
schools to operating nuclear power stations) successively involves (a)
accurate information; (b) scientific analysis (involving the critical
testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses); and (c) systemic
change to minimize risk, However Rational Risk Management is typically
perverted by (a) denial, ignoring, lies, slies (spin-based untruths),
deceit, intimidation and censorship; (b) anti-science spin involving
selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position;
and (c) cover-up or blame and shame, with the latter in its most
appalling realization involving war and genocide. It is unfortunate
that "Denial" (written by an Australian Humanities academic) does not
really deal with this core Scientific Risk Management issue (crucial
in my perception as an Australian Science academic – shades of C.P
Snow’s "Two Cultures") that is most simply summarized by the adage,
deriving in many versions from George Santayana, that "History ignored
yields History repeated".

In the interests of free speech, scholarship and Rational Risk
Management there should be "no-penalty" criminalization of holocaust
and genocide denial. The most important aspect of a "No-penalty
Genocide Denial Criminalization" (NGDC) system would be the public,
judicial examination of the evidence for gross human rights abuses. It
is public exposure of Genocide and Human Rights Abuses that will help
to protect Humanity in a Rational Risk Management sense. Accordingly,
Holocaust Deniers and Genocide Deniers should be prosecuted and their
views tested by an expertly-informed, public judicial process – but the
punishment would simply be the ignominy of public conviction for Lying,
Denial, Holocaust Denial and Genocide Denial. However, compromising
Free Speech by punishment of Genocide Deniers by anything more than
the public disgrace of conviction will increase the risk to Humanity
(see my article on MWC News entitled "Genocide denial – No-penalty
criminalization required now").

"Denial" commences with a snappy Introduction subtitled "The Pathology
of Historical Denial". It is concerned with the psycho-social basis
of the phenomenon, including "Holocaust denial" but, as indicated
above, does not deal with the core risk management issue. The
book then deals with 6 specific areas of holocaust and holocaust
denial. The term "holocaust" with the lower case "h" is used in the
present review to denote horrendous events involving huge loss of
life in contradistinction to the upper case "H" term "Holocaust",
which is generally used (as in "Denial") as synonymous with the
WW2 Jewish Holocaust or "Shoah" (6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from
deprivation). This narrow use of the term "Holocaust" involves
effective Denial of the WW2 Western Theatre Holocaust in general
(30 million Slav, Jewish and Roma dead) and the WW2 Eastern Theatre
Holocaust (35 million Chinese dead in the Japanese war on China,
1937-1945 and 6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death by
the British in the man-made Bengal Famine atrocity, 1943-1945 –
indeed this latter atrocity in British India was the first WW2
atrocity to be described as a "holocaust" (see Jog, N.G. (1944),
Churchill’s Blind-Spot: India (New Book Company, Bombay; see also
the 2008 edition of my 1998 book "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of
British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis
in biological sustainability"" (see: here ).

The subsequent chapters successively deal with 6 examples of 20th
century holocaust or genocide commission and denial, noting that the
international legal definition of "genocide" (alluded to in "Denial")
is given in Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention as "acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic,
racial or religious group" (sustained, remorseless killing, as for
example in the 1990-2008 Bush Wars, being clearly "intentional")
(see: here ). It is the detailed, documented descriptions of holocaust
commission and holocaust denial, genocide commission and genocide
denial in "Denial" that make this a very important book that everyone
should read and which should be in every institutional library.

That said, from a dispassionate scientific perspective and as amplified
further below, "Denial" (a) errs on the side of conservative death
toll estimates and (b) ignores the non-violent avoidable mortality
(excess mortality, excess deaths, avoidable deaths, deaths that should
not have happened) which is a fundamental parameter for assessing the
consequences of human action and inaction (see "Body Count. Global
avoidable mortality since 1950", G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007:
). Indeed the term "excess deaths"
is used once – and then inaccurately – in "Denial" (p194) : "Russian
excess deaths under Stalin (deaths caused by internal state actions,
and not by war)."

With the foregoing criticisms and comments in mind, the following is a
very brief summary with salient comments of the 6 core phenomenological
chapters of the book.

Chapter 1, "Under Western Eyes: Armenian Massacres and Turkish Denial",
describes Turkish genocide commission and continuing Turkish Armenian
Genocide denial. The upper estimate is of 1.5 million Armenians
killed. Not mentioned is the recent refusal of the US Congress to
acknowledge the Armenian Genocide for fear of offending Turkey, which
is crucial for US conduct of the Iraqi Genocide (Apartheid Israel has
a similar "diplomatic" policy of ignoring the Armenian Genocide and
the notorious US Israel Lobby recently lobbied against Congressional
recognition of the Armenian Genocide).

Chapter 2, "Frauds and Fanatics: The Pathology of Western Holocaust
Denial", deals with the more notorious deniers or minimizers
of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust. Some major themes and works are
unfortunately absent from this analysis, notably the ideological
link between Western European racist, genocidal colonialism and
Nazi German lebensraum-driven industrial genocide (see: Lindqvist,
S. (1992), Exterminate All the Brutes (Granta Books, London, 2002);
the insidious "normality" aspect of the rise of Nazism (e.g. see
Ella Blum’s remarkable perspective as an ordinary German girl "I was
a Billionaire’s Daughter", Fast Books, Sydney, 2007); Gitta Sereny’s
"The German Trauma. Experiences and Reflections, 1938-2001" (Penguin,
London, 2001); and the estimate from outstanding Jewish history and
20th century history expert Professor Martin Gilbert that 1 in 6 of
the 6 million dead died from deprivation, this being very important
for contemporary comparative purposes (see Gilbert, M. (1969), Jewish
History Atlas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London).

Gilbert, M. (1982), Atlas of the Holocaust (Michael Joseph, London)).

Chapter 3, "A Culture of Denial: explaining the Politics of Remembrance
in Modern Japan", deals with Japanese war atrocities in China 1931-1945
and subsequent, continuing "denial". The horrendous overall loss of
Chinese lives is not stated. According to the "official" Chinese
position as enunciated in the China Daily article "Remember role
in ending fascist war"): "the China’s resistance against Japanese
aggression lasted for 14 years – longer than any other major power
in the world. The first six years following the Mukden Incident of
1931 was a period of local resistance, while the eight years after
the Lugouqiao Incident of 1937 was a time of full-scale national
struggle for independence and dignity … In the eight years of tough
resistance, the Chinese made great sacrifices. More than 35 million
Chinese military personnel and civilians were killed or wounded. In the
Nanking (Nanjing) Massacre alone, some 300,000 Chinese were slain by
the Japanese invaders." Upper estimates are of 15-20 million violently
killed but we must also acknowledge non-violent deaths from deprivation
due to social disruption (thus the ratio of violent/non-violent excess
deaths in Occupied Iraq is about 1) – accordingly, total excess deaths
due to the Japanese invasion and occupation are about 35 million.

Chapter 4, British Communism and Two Decades of Denial: From
Moscow 1936 to Budapest 1956, deals with the immense crimes of
Soviet Communism and the "denial" of British Communists. This is
arguably the best chapter of the book. I was pleased to see that
about a page was devoted to my grandmother’s cousin Dr Edith Bone,
a correspondent for the London Daily Worker abusively imprisoned in
solitary confinement for 7 years as told in her remarkable book about
her mental and physical survival (Bone, E. (1957), Seven Years’
Solitary (Hamish Hamilton, London)). Not mentioned were that,
not surprisingly, she gave up on Communism after this experience
and the lack of action of British Governments to rescue a (Jewish,
Communist) British citizen. The magnitude of the death toll under
Stalin (including the Ukrainian Famine or Holodomor) is understated
– some place this as similar to the total of 20 million who died
during WW2 (for cogent discussion on this and other holocausts see a
further book unaccountably missing from "Denial", namely Chalk, F. &
Jonassohn, K. (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses
and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven)). The atrocious
"ends justify the means" "denial" of the British Communists must be
compared to near-comprehensive contemporary Western media, politician
and academic Establishment "denial" of Anglo-American atrocities in
the Bush Wars (1990-2008 excess deaths 9-11 million).

Chapter 5, "Tales of Heartless Denial from the Balkans: Serbian
Victimhood and Marxist Conspiracy Theories" deals with the atrocities
of the Balkans War. The Serbian atrocities are deservedly singled
out for greatest attention. However lacking is a balanced view of
the shocking blame attaching to US and EU complicity in this utterly
avoidable tragedy that was compounded by US bombing of Serbia. The
happy secession of Slovenia is described but the mechanisms involved
in avoidance of carnage (adoption of a huge amount of Yugoslavian
debt and Austrian guarantees) are not mentioned. A further remarkable
omission from the book was DrakuliÄ~G, S. (2004), They Would Never
Hurt a Fly. War Criminals on Trial in The Hague (Abacus, London).

Chapter 6, "Failing the Scholarly Test: Australian Denial and the Art
of Pseudohistory", deals with the so-called "History wars" between
the revisionist historian Keith Windschuttle (supported by historian
Professor Geoffrey Blainey, right-wing Australian PM John Howward and
right-wing media such as Quadrant magazine and the right-wing Murdoch
national newspaper The Australian) versus mainstream historians of the
Aboriginal Genocide (notably Robert Manne, Henry Reynolds and Stuart
Macintyre). An extraordinary omission is reference to the work on
the Aboriginal Genocide by outstanding World and Australian expert
on Holocaust and Genocide, Professor Colin Tatz (e.g. see Tatz,
C. (2003), With Intent to Destroy. Reflecting on Genocide (Verso,
London)). Further major omissions from "Denial" are the avoidance of
the R word (Racism) and the G word (Genocide) by new Australian PM
Kevin Rudd in his otherwise excellent "Sorry" Speech to the Aboriginal
Stolen Generations and avoidance of discussion of the ongoing
Aboriginal Genocide (e.g. 9,000 Indigenous avoidable deaths annually;
90,000 Indigenous avoidable deaths under the Coalition Government;
bipartisan race-based exclusion of Northern Territory Aboriginals
from the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act) (see MWC News article
"Stolen Generations. Australian Aboriginal Genocide"). My primary
objection as a scientist to BOTH sides in the History Wars is that
they both concentrate on "violent deaths" whereas the (upper estimate)
realities were 6,000 Indigenous Tasmanians in 1803 (First Settlement
of Van Dieman’s Land) but ZERO "full-blood" Tasmanian aborigines
with the death of Truganini in 1876 and about 1 million Australian
Aborigines in 1788 (First Settlement at Sydney) but only about 0.1
million by about 1890 – these Genocides being due to a combination of
violence, introduced disease, dispossession and deprivation (see Polya,
G. (2007), Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950 (Polya,
Melbourne) and Polya, G.M. (1998 and 2008 editions), Jane Austen and
the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial
and the crisis in biological sustainability (Polya, Melbourne)).

The book ends with a Coda that summarizes the contents of "Denial" and
also considers contemporary denial in relation to Zimbabwe, HIV/AIDS in
Southern Africa and the ongoing atrocity in Burma (Myanmar). However,
remarkably missing from this summary is any consideration of the
extraordinary contemporary denial in the Western Murdochracies,
including White Australia. By way of example, I recently sent a
Letter to about 3,000 Australian journalists, politicians, Humanities
academics and other influential people telling them of HUGE realities
that are ignored in Australian public life e.g. the Climate Emergency
that acutely threatens 6 billion people with untimely death before the
end of the century; 1 in 3 Australian women have been sexually abused
as children; and Australian complicity in the ongoing Iraqi Genocide
(post-invasion excess deaths 2 million, post-invasion under-5 infant
deaths 0.6 million, 6 million refugees), the ongoing Afghan Genocide
(post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 4-6 million,
post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million, 4 million refugees)
and the ongoing Aboriginal genocide.

Just one part of this Letter is worth repeating here: "Holocaust
ignoring & "history ignored yields history repeated". Few Australians
would be aware of the following atrocities involving Great Britain
that have been largely deleted from British history: the Great Bengal
Famine (1769-1770, 10 million victims), the man-made World War 2 Bengal
Famine (1943-1945, 6-7 million victims) and the real 9-11 atrocity, the
9-11 million avoidable deaths associated (so far) with the Bush Wars
(1990-2008). While 3 major histories published recently in Australia
utterly ignore the WW2 Bengal Famine, in 2008 this atrocity was exposed
in a BBC broadcast involving myself, 1998 Economics Nobel Laureate
Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars. Denial of the World War
2 Jewish Holocaust (6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation)
attracts 10 years in prison in Austria."

The Letter ended with a plea "Please inform everyone you can" (see:
"Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to
Eminent Australians over Public Honesty"). How many of these variously
influential Australians responded by indicating that they would inform
others? A mere 0.2%. Denial indeed.

Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political editor, published some
130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge
pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive
Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003),
and is currently writing a book on global mortality — Other articles
by this author

–Boundary_(ID_3t06h/0DlvIwp6a8/dJ4XA)–

http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya

Armenian President And Belgian Prime Minister Underscore Boosting Of

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT AND BELGIAN PRIME MINISTER UNDERSCORE BOOSTING OF ARMENIAN-BELGIAN RELATIONS

ARMENPRESS
Nov 6, 2008

BRUSSELS, NOVEMBER 6, ARMENPRESS: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan met
today with Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme. In a briefing followed
after the meeting the Armenian president said that during the meeting
they discussed a wide-range of issues presenting mutual interest. Serzh
Sargsyan said that Belgium is a very important country for Armenia
and one of the most important trade partners within the frameworks
of EU. For a small country like Armenia trade turnover exceeding 250
million USD, the majority part of which falls on diamond processing,
is essential. Armenian president and Belgian prime minister agreed
to expand this direction and also expand partnership in other spheres
as well.

According to the president, Armenia wishes to be closer to the EU
and in this respect bilateral relations with European countries are
very important. Serzh Sargsyan said that the Belgian prime minister
expressed readiness to support reforms in Armenia and it is expected
that in near future agreements on cooperation in justice sphere will
be signed.

The president said Armenia wants to facilitate contact with the
European countries and in this respect the existence of relevant
documents which will facilitate visa regime is very important. The
sides came to a general conclusion that it is necessary to expand
Armenian-Belgian cooperation. During the meeting they also spoke
of regional issues. With the request of the Belgian prime minister,
Serzh Sargsyan presented Armenia’s position over Karabakh conflict
regulation issue.

Armenian president invited the Belgian prime minister to visit Armenia
which was accepted with gratitude.

Yves Leterme, on his part said he is glad for receiving Armenian
president, at the same time underscoring Armenian-Belgian relations
as well as the role of the Belgian Armenian community in boosting
bilateral relations.

According to him, they referred to a number of very important issues,
particularly cooperation in trade, economic spheres. The Belgian prime
minister said that the tendency of boosting of ties has been registered
by the establishment of Belgian-Armenian Trade Chamber. He said that
they are aware about the economic growth in Armenia and the Belgian
side is also planning to participate in that process.

Leader Of Armenian Pan-National Movement [APNM]: Victory Of Democrat

LEADER OF ARMENIAN PAN-NATIONAL MOVEMENT [APNM]: VICTORY OF DEMOCRATS TO BECOME NEW IMPULSE FOR ALL THE WORLD PROCESSES

ArmInfo
2008-11-05 14:00:00

ArmInfo. ‘The victory of the democrats in the USA will become a new
impulse for all the world processes’, – chairman of the APNM board
Ararat Zurabyan told ArmInfo correspondent.

He thinks US foreign policy will not change much after the presidential
election.

As for recognition of the Armenian genocide by the USA, Zurabyan
said many candidates for president touched on this problem in their
electoral programmes but did not keep word. ‘I think we should arm
ourselves with patience and wait a little’, – Zurabyan advised.

Europe’s Next Trouble Spot

EUROPE’S NEXT TROUBLE SPOT
By Patrick O’Brien

Washington Post
Nov 3 2008

Imagine it’s February, 2008. Kosovo’s declaration of independence
from Serbia is imminent. International analysts are warning about
reactionary moves by other breakaway regions. They say that South
Ossetia and Abkhazia would become more daring in making official
their already de facto independence from Georgia. They also say that
after the successes of these regions-turned-states, we shouldn’t
be surprised by the appearance on the map of independent republics
called either Transnistria (in Moldova), Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)
or Republika Srpska (Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Eight months on, those predictions are still prescient. The "who
started it" question in Georgia is, in a way, irrelevant. All
the players played their roles quite well, and foreordained
result was Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
independent states. It’s important to remember that Russia gave a
very clear warning in February, just before Kosovo’s declaration. But
neither is any major power supporting self-determination across the
board. Without a common framework agreed upon by the major powers
(the U.S. and Russia, of course, but also China and a united EU),
traditional alliances and strategic concerns will determine who
recognizes whom. The result could be a map of Eastern Europe with a
lot more dotted lines where there were once solid lines.

So what’s the next trouble spot? Bosnia is a good
bet. Bosnia-Herzegovina has a federal system uniting two autonomous
entities: half of the country is made up of Bosnians and Croats, the
other half by Serbs. The latter, called Republika Srpska, has recently
been moving toward more autonomy within the federal system. For 13
years the Dayton Peace Accord has embodied the spirit of power-sharing
between these groups, and it has been enforced by a western military
presence (NATO until 2004, when it was succeeded by the EU).

But recent strains between Haris Silajdzic, the senior President of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Milorad Dodik, prime minister of Republika
Srpska, can only work to strain the confederacy. Local elections
held nationwide this month gave a boost to ethnic parties of all
stripes. Now recall that in February, some politicians in Republika
Srpska said that Kosovo’s cessation would be the green light for their
immediate cessation from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, "immediately"
in diplomatic language may mean years, but eight months without such
a declaration is no reason to feel complacent. The English-language
media has been largely mute on Bosnia lately, except for a warning
in The Guardian by Richard Holbrooke, the architect of Dayton, to
wake up and smell the Turkish coffee. If Holbrooke is right and the
Bosnian Serbs are positioning themselves to declare independence,
America’s and Europe’s reaction isn’t clear.

Unlike in the 1990s, when America was at the height of its relative
power and thus able to extend security over the region, America is
now fighting two wars in the Middle East and is preoccupied with the
financial crisis. Europe is still divided on its interpretation of
Kosovo and is severely dependant on Russia for energy. The question of
the day in the 1990s — "Why should I be a minority in your country
when you could be a minority in mine?" – is surfacing again. And
to ethnic separatists, post-Kosovo, there is no longer a satisfying
answer.

Armenian Expert: Declaration Signed In Moscow Is More Regarding The

ARMENIAN EXPERT: DECLARATION SIGNED IN MOSCOW IS MORE REGARDING THE RELATIONS OF ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN AND RUSSIA THAN THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

ArmInfo
2008-11-03 15:40:00

ArmInfo. Declaration signed in Moscow is more regarding the relations
of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia than the Karabakh conflict, at
least because there is no signature of the NKR representatives under
the document, director of Civil Society and Regional Development
Institute Agavni Karakhanyan told ArmInfo correspondent.

‘In fact, it is a trilateral agreement in which the main directions
are fixed, which regulate the relations between the three states
in different fields within the frames of existing status-quo’,
– she said. She is waiting for more specific steps for changing
the contents of the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan for
restoration confidence and certain steps for establishment of economic
relations and activation of contacts on the level of civil society.

Balancing Hearts and Heads

From: "Katia M. Peltekian" <[email protected]>
Subject: Balancing Hearts and Heads

Newsweek
Nov 1 2008

Balancing Hearts and Heads

Turkish Americans typically vote Republican. This time, they are
divided over which White House candidate should get their ballot.

By Bahar Kader and Melis Ã-zpinar | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 1, 2008

Engin Inel Holmstrom, a Turkish-born American citizen, has made up her
mind: she will vote for Barack Obama. Holmstrom, a 72-year-old retired
sociologist, has been living in the United States for about 50
years. She supports the Democratic candidate, she says, because the
world needs peace and America has to face its mistakes in Iraq. To
her, a John McCain-win would mean the continuation of the current Bush
administration and serve as a recipe for disaster.

Not all Turkish Americans are as certain as Holmstrom. For the first
time, the community’which has typically tended to vote Republican’is
divided over which candidate to choose. On the one hand, they feel
closer to the Republicans because they feel the GOP has a more
balanced approach to Turkish arguments on issues such as the Armenian
genocide allegations and the dispute over Cyprus. On the other, they
believe a Democratic leader will be better placed to solve the
financial crisis and work toward achieving a more peaceful world. Call
it a case of heads for McCain, hearts for Obama. "Economic improvement
can only be achieved with Obama," says Suduman Curbuz, president of
the North Texas Turkish American Association. Nonetheless, he says,
his group eventually decided to back McCain because of the candidate’s
support for Turkey.

Almost 400,000 Turkish American live in the U.S., about 100,000 of
them are expected to vote on Nov. 4. For many, say Turkish community
leaders, the candidates’ views on the Cyprus and Armenia issues will
be decisive. Pro-McCain Turks say that Obama has made more promises to
Armenian, Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbies than previous Democratic
presidential contenders’among them, supporting passage of a
U.S. Congressional resolution stating that the Ottoman Empire carried
out genocidal attacks against Armenians in 1915. They also reject
Obama’s reference to Turkey as an "invader" of Cyprus after Ankara’s
1974 military intervention on the island. "If Obama is elected
Turkish-US relations can be fundamentally damaged," says Kayaalp
Buyukataman, the president of Turkish Forum, a grassroots organization
with 300,000 members worldwide. Buyukataman, a McCain supporter,
believes the 2008 White House election will be very important for
future Turkish-U.S. relations.

Kaya Boztepe, president of the Federation of Turkish-American
Associations based in New York, also believes that most Turkish
Americans will continue to tilt Republican. However, other members of
the community argue that this bloc will be less solid than in the
past. Among them is lawyer Ayla Simon, who feels that Obama will step
back from his support of the Armenian genocide resolution if he wins
the vote. "The White House makes those who are elected to live there
realistic for political reasons," says Simon. "Obama will also support
Turkey [to promote] world peace." Lincoln McCurdy, president of the
Turkish-American Coalition (TCA), is also among those who are not
concerned about Obama’s comments on Turkey’s need to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. "[Former U.S. president Jimmy] Carter had also made
comments against Turkey in his General Assembly meeting speeches; but,
when he came to the White House he was reluctant to make similar
comments and he worked to lift military sanctions."

While the Turkish vote may not play a decisive role in any of the
battleground states, Turkish Americans are flexing their political
muscle in other ways. The community donated close to a billion dollars
to the candidates during the primaries and is becoming increasingly
active in its lobbying of the Congressional caucus on U.S.-Turkish
relations led by Florida Democrat Robert Wexler. According to McCurdy,
this is the first time Turkish Americans have played such a strong
political role. "Two states where the highest amount of donations
obtained from Turkish Americans during the primaries were Texas and
South Carolina," he says. "It is not a coincidence that 10 of the
senators in the Turkish Caucus came from Texas and nine from South
Carolina." Turks may not have drawn as much attention in the U.S. as
ethnic blocs like Jews and Greeks, he says, but that could change
after this election.

This article was adapted from a feature in the inaugural issue of
Turkiye NEWSWEEK, which launched in Turkey as NEWSWEEK’s newest
local-language edition on Oct. 27, 2008. Turkiye NEWSWEEK is published
in collaboration with the Ciner Media Group.

© 2008

http://www.newsweek.com/id/166813

Energy, Coming Through

Energy, Coming Through

November 1, 2008

By Sanobar Shermatova
Special to Russia Profile

Peacemaking efforts by Turkey and the Minsk group of the OSCE aimed at
settling the Karabakh conflict have an obvious energy motive.

The recent visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Armenia is not
only a small revolution in Turkish-Armenian relations. It is gives hope
that the Karabakh problem will be solved. It is widely known that
Ankara, which maintains friendly connections with the ethnically close
Azerbaijan, has not forgiven Yerevan for the war over Karabakh. It has
specified the return of this territory to Azerbaijan as a condition for
normalizing the relationship with Armenia (it is a known fact that as a
result of a bloody war in the early 1990s, Armenia conquered not only
the territory of Karabakh, populated by ethnic Armenians and an
Azerbaijani minority, which formally belonged to Azerbaijan, but also
some adjacent Azerbaijani territories that Yerevan calls `the safety
zone’). The Armenian side, in turn, not only refused to meet Turkey’s
demand halfway, but also demanded acknowledgement of the Armenian
genocide in Turkey in 1915-1916. Thus, the meeting of Abdullah Gul and
Serge Sargsyan implied if not an armistice, then a new ideology for
this part of Eurasia.

Upon his return home, the Turkish president made a press statement at
the airport: `Armenia promised to withdraw from the occupied lands of
Azerbaijan!’ Armenia’s President Serge Sargsyan did not refute his
Turkish counterpart’s words, but his phrasing was slightly different:
`Gul said that he is willing to assist in regulating Armenia-Azerbaijan
relations, and I gladly accepted the offer, because only an abnormal
person can refuse to accept assistance.’ This broached the new round of
the big players’ struggle over Armenia’a country that has been isolated
since the early 1990s.

A key to Nabucco?

A Turkish expert from the Center for Strategic Studies, Sinan Ogan, is
convinced that adding Armenia to the Nabucco pipeline project is `one
of the main goals of the U.S. and the EU policy in the region.’ This
project, according to Ogan, was also discussed during the recent visit
by American Vice President Dick Chaney to Azerbaijan. However, this
plan, just like any others, depends on the regulation of the problem of
Nagorno-Karabakh, which was seized by Armenians in the early 1990s. In
the past, the United States had put a lot of effort into involving
Armenia in the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, but did not succeed. The
territory in question is the stumbling block for any economic
initiatives in the region.

The Nabucco gas pipeline is supposed to circumvent Russia and connect
Europe with Central Asia. According to the plan, a pipeline is to be
laid on the bottom of the Caspian Sea; it is expected to deliver
natural gas from Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Russia to
Europe. The Western portion of the main will stretch from Georgia’s
western border through Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary into
Austria. There might be a southern branch connected to this gas
pipeline, originating from Iraq and the countries of the Persian Gulf,
and, possibly, from Iran. The nearest possible date of gas going
through the line is 2012. The length of the pipeline will total 3,300
kilometers. The overall cost of the Nabucco project is estimated at
?¬5.8 billion. Some of the project’s participants are Austria’s OMV,
Bulgarian Bulgargas, Hungarian MOL, Romanian Transgas and Turkish
Botash. The possibility of working together with Russia’s Gazprom is
also considered.

A Baku-based political analyst, Rasim Musabekov, noted that it is
doubtful that Nabucco, which is aimed at circumventing Russia, will
pass through the territory of Armenia, given the current level of
animosity in the Azerbaijani-Armenian relationship. `It is impossible
to realize this project without Azerbaijan, while it is possible to
realize it without Armenia. This is why until the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict is resolved, I rule out the possibility of passing the
Trans-Caspian gas pipeline through the territory of Armenia,’ he said.

Whose Karabakh is it?

Thus, the EU’s plans to achieve energy independence from Russia
directly depend on a small territory that Armenia and Azerbaijan are
fighting over. Countries participating in the regulation of the
conflict, as well as Turkey, speak about the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. But in reality, Karabakh’s return to Azerbaijan looks
utopian: Armenia had made the acknowledgment and the projection of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, founded by Armenians, the cornerstone of its
foreign policy.

Recently, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian made a
statement in which he said that `the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict is possible only through recognition of the Artsakhi people’s
right to self-determination.’ Thus, it is obvious that the Armenian
side is not ready for any concessions. What is there to agree about,
then? Azerbaijani political experts think that the maximum of what can
be considered is the return of seven districts around Karabakh,
occupied in the early 1990s, to Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction. And in
return for this, Armenia is expecting some concessions.

Maybe the counter-offers will be connected with the removal of
Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s blockade of transport routes. The Armenian
economy is in desperate need of this: today, Armenia’s path out to the
`big world’ lies through Georgia, whose border with Russia has been
blocked for many months now. Meanwhile, as a result of the recent
conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi, the bridge connecting the two
republics was blown up. This caused damage to the Armenian economy
estimated at a minimum of $60 million.

Blessed are the peacekeepers

Turkey, who is trying on the cloak of a peacekeeper, will also gain
from this. The resolution of the old Karabakh problem (even if only
partial) might `unseal’ the Southern Caucasus for economic projects,
which Ankara is in a dire need of. Moreover, removing the Karabakh
problem might also bring Turkey some significant political
dividends’its role in this region will increase dramatically.

The peace initiative brought forward by Ankara was not met with
understanding in the United States. The Turkish Daily News noted that
Washington exhibited a very cold reaction to the initiative on creating
a regional security platform. The newspaper quoted a statement made by
the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, a
facilitator in the process of regulating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict;
he admitted that he was surprised by this suggestion made by the
Turkish side.

Observers note the fact that Turkey’s behavior during the five-day war
in Georgia caused hardly concealed resentment in Washington. It is not
accidental, as experts are convinced, that at the height of the West’s
diplomatic attacks on Russia, the influential Wall Street Journal
published an article with a very expressive title: `Will Turkey Leave
NATO?’ The author of this article is Zeyno Baran, the director of the
Center for Eurasian Policy of the Hudson Institute, an ethnic Turk and
the wife of the afore-mentioned Matthew Bryza. She wrote that Turkey is
faced with the need to make a choice. Either it sides with its NATO
allies and allows the ships to pass into the waters of the Black Sea to
aid Georgia, or it chooses Russia, and not the NATO countries, as its
main ally.

`Actually, Ankara was not intending to leave the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. The appearance of the article that couldn’t go unnoticed
was obviously connected to the irritation that Turkey’s sluggishness
caused in Washington,’ noted a source in Turkish diplomatic circles who
wished to remain anonymous.

Observers are having a tough time trying to conjure up an explanation
for the fact that Turkey really did slow down and extend the
negotiations on allowing American ships access to Georgian shores. The
majority agree that the sluggishness was explained by Ankara’s
reluctance to lose its established connections with Russia. `It is
clearly obvious that a normal relationship with Russia is a key
condition for Turkey to be able to build the Platform of Security and
Stability,’ a source in a Russian expert community close to the Kremlin
said. `At the beginning of the conflict with Georgia, Russia’s Ministry
of Foreign Affairs even included Turkey in a not-for-publication list
of countries that theoretically might recognize the independence of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That list was presented to the highest
authorities in the Kremlin, and although the hopes of Russian diplomats
were not realized, Turkey’s reluctance to spoil its relationship with
Russia is absolutely obvious and undeniable.’

It is definitely not accidental that Turkey’s initiative caused
increased activity by the Minsk OSCE group; it did not want to hand its
powers and privileges over to Ankara. And this is despite the fact that
the relations between the two co-chairs of the Minsk group’the United
States and Russia’became very strained after the war in South Ossetia.
After Washington stated that it will work together with Russia only
after the latter withdraws its armed forces from South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, the only remaining co-chair still capable of functioning was
the third one’France. Today, however, this co-chair is doing all the
work for three: in the last few months, French representatives have
visited Armenia and Azerbaijan on numerous occasions, working to reach
the main goal of the Minsk group’finding a peaceful resolution to the
Karabakh problem.

Enter the small guy

With the `battle’ for Karabakh still going on in the background,
Azerbaijan is looking for alternative ways to export its energy
resources, bypassing the unstable Georgia. Presently Azerbaijan is
negotiating with Moscow, trying to increase the capacity of the
Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline. The pipeline can be used to deliver Caspian
oil to the Black Sea and further on to Western Europe through Russian
territory. It is a known fact that the pipeline has still not reached
its projected estimated capacity, which is supposed to add up to five
million tons per year.

During the five-day war in the Caucasus, Azerbaijan pumped its oil
through the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline; it is also called the Northern
Route. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which passes through Georgia into
Turkey, was stopped even before the start of the conflict in Georgia
due to a fire on Turkish territory; the responsibility for this fire
was claimed by Kurdish separatists. Today, Baku-Ceyhan is again
functioning at full capacity, while the residual volumes of the oil
belonging to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) are
being pumped north. Why does Baku need the northern route? The
President of SOCAR, Rovnag Abdullayev, explained in an interview to the
Azerbaijani press that the country is trying to achieve a
diversification of raw material supplies to the world’s markets; this
is why all potential delivery lines should be maintained in working
order. This is exactly why Azerbaijan is interested in Russia’s taking
the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline up to its projected capacity.

This story reflects the real state of affairs in the Southern Caucasus.
Azerbaijan (and Armenia) cannot depend on just one country’whether it
is the United States, Russia or somebody else. This is why sooner or
later, the interests of the big players will come to a certain balance.
There is another trend that surfaced as a result of the five-day war.
The fact that `small’ players, which stayed out of this business until
now, are becoming involved in the peacemaking initiatives indicates
that they no longer wish to play somebody else’s game. This was clearly
stated by Turkey. Following its example, Iran also wants to join the
process of regulating the Karabakh problem; Iran is one of the few
countries that have always supported Armenia in this conflict. This
intention was first announced by Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs
Manouchehr Mottaki during his visit to Georgia in September. Iran’s
ambassador in Azerbaijan, Nasir Hamidi Zare, stated in an interview to
the ANS Television Company that Teheran is starting negotiations with
Baku and Yerevan to become a facilitator in the regulation of their
conflict: `Iran aspires to resolve the Karabakh problem within the
scope of international legal norms¦ .’ The activity of this country,
which has extremely large reserves of oil and gas, points not only at
political, but also at energy-connected hidden motives. Originally the
Nabucco Project, developed by Europeans, was designed to transit
Iranian gas to the markets of the Old World.

Sanobar Shermatova is a columnist for the Gazeta newspaper.

Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia To Discuss Nagorny Karabakh

AZERBAIJAN, ARMENIA, RUSSIA TO DISCUSS NAGORNY KARABAKH

RIA Novosti
13:35 | 29/ 10/ 2008

MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) – The presidents of Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Russia will meet in Moscow on Sunday to discuss the
Nagorny Karabakh conflict, the Kremlin press service said on Wednesday.

"Under an agreement, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan will meet in the presence of Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on November 2 to discuss a settlement to
the Nagorny Karabakh conflict," the statement reads.

Medvedev announced plans to invite his Azerbaijani and Armenian
counterparts to the negotiating table in Moscow while on a visit to
Yerevan last Tuesday.

He said Georgia’s August attack on South Ossetia had underlined the
need to settle complicated issues only on the basis of international
principles and negotiation.

In his inauguration speech on Friday, Aliyev said he categorically
opposed independence for Nagorny Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with
a largely Armenian population. The region declared its independence
from Azerbaijan to join Armenia in 1988 and has been a source of
conflict ever since.

Alieyv, who was reelected for the second term on October 15, said
however, that talks could lead to a fair settlement.

Sargsyan said Armenia was ready to continue talks on the basis of
the Madrid principles which allow for the recognition of Nagorny
Karabakh’s independence.

Russia’s Vremya Novostei daily said on Wednesday the meeting involving
the three presidents, which have all been inaugurated this year,
would be particularly interesting.

"The five-day war between Russia and Georgia has moved this conflict
from the frozen-conflict category to the more dangerous category of
conflicts set to ‘defrost’ quickly or even ‘reheat,’" the newspaper
said.

Ankara Concerned Over Medvedev’s Proposal Of Armenian, Azerbaijani A

ANKARA CONCERNED OVER MEDVEDEV’S PROPOSAL OF ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI AND RUSSIAN TRILATERAL MEETING
By Hakob Chakrian

AZG Armenian Daily
24/10/2008

Regional

It casts doubt on appropriateness of Turkish initiative to create a
"Caucasian stability and cooperation platform"

"The August events showed that every knotty problem should be solved
based on Principles of International Law, through negotiations. What
about the settlement stage, it is hard to maintain the level of
agreements reached up to now. Anyhow, I hope that in the nearest
future the meeting of the three presidents will take place in the
capital of Russia in order to continue discussions of the issue",
Russian President said October 21 in Yerevan at a joint press
conference with RA President Serzh Sargsian.

Turkish press touched upon Medvedev’s visit to Armenia from the aspect
of the initiative to settle Karabakh conflict and strengthening of
positions in the South Caucasus. It underlined the possibility of the
trilateral meeting of the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian presidents
in Moscow.

In its October 22 issue Turkish "Radikal" threw light on Russian
President’s visit under heading "Demand for Armenia increases".

New York turkishny.com website mentioned that Medvedev organizes a
meeting to settle Karabakh issue.

Turkish Public TV also touched upon the visit without going into
details.

According to "Radikal", Medvedev’s visit to Armenia was qualified
in the Russian press as a manifestation of "Calling Armenia to
order". According to the Turkish newspaper, after settling accounts
with Georgia, Russia gets down to a peacemaking mission between
Armenia and Azerbaijan in order to weaken the influence of the West
in the Caucasus.

"Radikal" also concentrates attention on the circumstance that
Medvedev’s visit took place after Gul’s visit to Yerevan, also several
visits of the US diplomats -Mathew Bryza, Daniel Fried.

On these grounds, the Turkish newspaper supposes that because of
the South Ossetia War Armenia was compelled to find a new ally,
and because of the Armenian neutrality Armenian-Russian relations
stagnated. And Medvedev’s visit aim’s at weakening of the West’s
influence on Armenia underlining that Yerevan’s only friend is Russia.

In order to substantiate the above-mentioned suppositions "Radikal"
quotes passages form Russian newspapers.

Turkishny.com website also attaches particular importance to the
proposal of Medvedev on trilateral meeting of the Armenian, Azerbaijani
and Russian presidents.

It may be explained by failure of Turkish Prime Minister Receb Tayyip
Erdogan’s initiative to create a "Caucasian security and cooperation
platform", as Medvedev’s proposal is quite realistic in contrast to
Erdogan’s initiative, and Russia has the potential to realize it.

5 Out Of 6 Current Mayors To Retain Their Posts By Preliminary Resul

5 OUT OF 6 CURRENT MAYORS TO RETAIN THEIR POSTS BY PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF OCTOBER 19 LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN LORI REGION

Noyan Tapan
Oct 20, 2008

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN. According to the preliminary results
of the October 19 Mayor’s elections of town of Vanadzor, Lori region,
current Mayor, RPA member Samvel Darbinian has received maximum
votes. 25 493 voters have voted for him. The other 5 candidates have
received the following votes: RPA members Edward Khlghatian 8 402,
Gagik Ghazarian 1 357, member of the Progressive United Communist
Party of Armenia Senik Evinian 2 464, Zharangutiun (Heritage) party
member Garnik Sahakian 3 411. 46 197 out of the general number of 94
102 voters of the town took part in voting. 2 035 ballot-papers were
invalidated. The number of inaccuracies is 679.

According to the preliminary data of Mayor’s elections of the town
of Stepanavan, the same region, current Mayor, RPA member Sargis
Gharakeshishian has recevied maximum votes. 5 156 voters have voted
for him.

The other candidates have received the following votes: non-partisans
Seryozha Arakelian 2 513, Vachagan Baghdasarian 607 votes.

According to the preliminary data of elections of towns of Tashir
and Tumanian, the only candidates, current Mayors, non-partisan Nshan
Soghoyan and RPA member Levon Zavarian have been elected.

According to the preliminary results of elections of Akhtala Mayor,
RPA member Haykaz Khachikian has received maximum votes defeating
the current Mayor, RPA member Suren Tamazian.

According to the preliminary data of elections of Shamlugh Mayor,
current Mayor, RPA member Lendrush Bezhanian has received maximum
votes defeating his only rival, ARFD member Samvel Shakhkian.