Author: Yeghisabet Arthur

Sunday’s Zaman, Turkey
March 7 2010

The price of harmony

by MICHAEL KUSER

Last week I noticed three new or refurbished wig shops on TarlabaÅ?ı
Boulevard. This struck me as I had thought of the old wig shops as
historical oddities. Is this tiny sector booming on the strength of
the number of transvestites moving into the neighborhood?

A journalist has to keep his eyes open, observe everything. A friend
of mine has a theory about television news — the most interesting
stories are in the little snippets that run on the ticker, not in what
the presenter is talking about. I wasn’t sure of that, partly because
I don’t like to read those flashing banners. They are equivalent to
the producers admitting that this news segment may not be fully
engaging your attention, so try thinking about this at the same time
to keep your brain busy.

To test it out, I turned on Bloomberg TV, a particularly vile specimen
of information overloading. The lower right side of the screen told me
that the South African market was trading sideways, that the yen/euro
exchange rate was so and so¦ plus they had a real ticker tape running
across with New York Stock Exchange quotes, in alphabetic order.

Then on the left I saw another headline: `Wild Alice Roosevelt Was
Famous Wit, Dad’s Decoy.’ I have to say this was on Sunday, usually a
slow news day in business or any other journalism. But is the daughter
of Teddy Roosevelt really news, under any circumstances?

My laptop sat on the table right next to me, so I went online and
found the story, which began, `She smoked, smuggled whiskey in white
gloves and took potshots with her revolver from the back of a speeding
train.’ Sounds wild, all right.

The story by Lewis Lapham said he had interviewed James Bradley,
author of `The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War,’ a
book about the diplomatic mission that President Roosevelt sent to
Asia in 1905 and for which Alice acted as hostess. My first thought
was for the author: What a curious little corner of history you have
bedded down in.

At the very bottom of the Web page the editors explained that Lapham
hosts `The World in Time’ interview series for Bloomberg News. So the
whole thing was nothing but a promo spot, a teaser. Oddly enough, the
Web page had active links to Lapham’s magazine, Lapham’s Quarterly, to
the man himself, to the author and his book, but none to the show
being promoted.

The choice of using that book to highlight an interview show struck me
as curious, for a few reviews led me to perceive it as an uneven work,
a blanket indictment of Teddy Roosevelt and all acts of American
imperialism following the Spanish-American War. The author brings his
condemnation of US foreign policy full circle there, for a hundred
years before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, some
Americans were condemning US soldiers’ use of water-boarding against
Filipino insurgents.

Bradley’s father was one of the soldiers who put up the flag on Iwo
Jima in World War II. The younger Bradley wrote about it in `Flags of
Our Fathers’ and resents Teddy Roosevelt for laying the groundwork for
Japan’s militancy and later attack on Pearl Harbor by giving the
Japanese a free hand in Korea in exchange for leaving Hawaii and the
Philippines alone.

William James wrote of the move to empire that he was astounded how
America could puke up its ancient soul in five minutes¦ but all
Bradley can do is whimper. He takes political correctness to extremes
in that he strives too hard to be a contemporary liberal, seeing
nothing but greed and stupidity in US foreign policy.

Considering the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign
Affairs vote on the Armenian issue, maybe he’s got a point. But
Bradley goes too far in condemning Teddy Roosevelt and all his works.
After all, didn’t the man father the wild Alice?

As a Washington hostess, Alice had a needlepoint pillow on her couch
that read, `If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right
here by me.’ And I wonder, what would Alice say about these new wig
shops on TarlabaÅ?ı Boulevard?

07.03.2010
/sunday/yazarDetay.do?haberno3567

Aliyev’s 12-Year-Old Son Owns Property in Dubai Worth $44 Million? How?

18:11 – 05.03.10

In just two weeks early last year, an 11-year-old boy from Azerbaijan
became the owner of nine waterfront mansions, reports The Washington
Post.

The total price tag: about $44 million USD – or roughly 10,000 years’
worth of salary for the average citizen of Azerbaijan. But the preteen
who owns a big chunk of some of Dubai’s priciest real estate seems to
be anything but average.

His name, according to Dubai Land Department records, is Heydar
Aliyev, which just happens to be the same name as that of the son of
Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev. The owner’s date of birth,
listed in property records, is also the same as that of the
president’s son.

Officials in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, declined to comment on
how the president’s son – or at least an Azerbaijani schoolboy with
the same birth date and the same name as the son’s – came to own
mansions on Palm Jumeirah, a luxury real estate development popular
with multimillionaire British soccer stars and others with cash to
burn.

Ilham Aliyev’s annual salary as president is the equivalent of
$228,000 USD, far short of what is needed to buy even the smallest
Palm property.

Azer Gasimov, the president’s spokesperson, declined to discuss the
Dubai real estate purchases. "I have no comment on anything. I am
stopping this talk. Goodbye," he said when contacted by telephone and
told about the names on the property records. Gasimov did not respond
to requests for further comment sent by fax, e-mail and cellphone text
message.

Azerbaijan has sent troops to support U.S. democracy-building efforts
in Afghanistan and Iraq but at home has retreated steadily from
democratic practices, according to diplomats and experts on the
region. Transparency International, in a 2009 survey of global
corruption, ranked Azerbaijan among the worst at 143 out of 180
nations.

In addition to recording nine properties owned by Heydar Aliyev, the
now-12-year-old schoolboy, Dubai’s Land Department also has files in
the names of Leyla and Arzu Aliyeva. President Aliyev has two
daughters with the same names and roughly the same ages. Their exact
dates of birth could not be established, but various reports indicate
Leyla’s birthday is the same as that of the Azerbaijani woman who
figures in the Land Department records.

In all, Azerbaijanis with the same names as the president’s three
children own real estate in Dubai worth about $75 million, property
data indicate. Dubai real estate dealers with knowledge of some of the
transactions said the purchases were made by a buyer representing
Azerbaijan’s ruling family. The dealers said the properties were paid
for upfront.

Tert.am

Breaking Global News
March 6 2010

Turkey ` Armenian Genocide?

Written By: Jonathan Baxter on February 28, 2010

The U.S. congressional panel has recently decided to pass a resolution
(voted 23-22) calling the 1915 killing of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey
a genocide (as it did back in 2007). The issue is a hotly contested
topic that has been debated for over 90 years, but amidst a lack of a
historical joint convention, fabricated documents all around, and an
interpretation of what exactly constitutes a `genocide’ ` there has
been no final word on the matter. It is time to re-examine this
crucial topic that seems to have gotten no closer to closure as years
have passed.

Was there an Armenian genocide?

Anywhere from 300,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed during this
turbulent period of internal struggle and collapse of the Ottoman
Empire ` and even Turkey agrees that many Armenians suffered and died
as a result of violent massacres. The question therefore lies with
whether there was a systematic precondition and plan to terminate all
Armenians. This is where different opinions emerge.

20 countries as well as many historians and famous political figures
(including President Obama) have deemed that the available evidence
supports that the 1915 killings constituted genocide. On the other
hand, even more countries (including the UK,USA,Israel) believe either
a)it was not a genocide b) no clear decision can be made at the time
or the most prevalent c) this is matter that needs to be decided by a
panel of historians.

Why still so much uncertainty of the issue?

The question of the Armenian killings of 1915 is naturally the most
important issue regarding the Armenian diaspora, regardless of how
many years has passed by. Similarly for Turks, even tough the country
was formed years after the 1915 killings by their Ottoman ancestors,
it still doesn’t do justice to them or their ancestors to have such a
heavy tag labeled on them forever by foreign countries. Turks believe
the final word on the matter deserves to be made by historians alone,
especially since the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Turks
also perished during those chaotic times.

In both countries there are laws prohibiting the issue to be openly
discussed, but the matter has recently been opened up in Turkey where
historical archives have been opened and a call has been made for a
historical panel to decide whether or not a genocide has really been
committed.

So far Armenians have failed to accept any doubt on the events of 1915
` and consider any slight discussion on the topic a huge insult to the
brutal deaths of their ancestors. In France also, it is now against
the law to deny that what happened in 1915 is genocide.

This is the setting that has produced a deadlock for dozens of years.
But recent matters have a re-sparked the flames of this debate.

US’s effect on Turkey-Armenia relations

The US congress, backed by powerful Armenian-American lobby groups in
California, have brought this 90 year old cross Atlantic issue onto
the forefront of American politics, causing scandals from many sides.
Turkish lobbyists have immediately backfired and have pressured the US
to not take action on this non-binding resolution ` and they will most
likely succeed as they did back in 2007 during the Bush
administration.

Nevertheless, Turkey is unhappy that Americans (with their personal
questionable history) can make such accusations when it has been such
an important ally ` and in a manner so frivolous with a single vote by
congress members balancing the fate of a historic decision important
to so many.

Armenians are going through mixed feelings with American Armenians
most likely happy to have brought this issue onto global headlines and
a small shot at progressing in what some say their final goal is to
receive reparations and perhaps some land in Eastern Anatolia.
Armenians in Turkey and Armenia might feel like the recent events will
slow the recent progress that Armenia-Turkey relations were seeing
including talks of opening up the borders between the two counties
(brokered largely by Hillary Clinton).

US president Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and
many US companies and people on the other hand are worried that this
issue can do irreversible damage to US-Turkey relations, which have
been on the forefront of Obama’s foreign agenda. Turkey’s Incirlik
base has helped Americans in their Middle East war efforts, and Turkey
despite their inconsistent attitude towards the US, remains a strong
geo-political ally as well as a model Muslim secular state that Obama
hopes other Muslim nations can emulate.

As can be seen, the Turkey Armenian `Genocide’ debate is far from
simple and an issue that affects a wide range of people in different
ways. What most can agree on however, is for Armenia and Turkey to
finally drop the grudges against each other ` irrespective of what
word is used to describe the events of 1915 ` and move towards a
relationship that helps the lives of people living today.

Palestine Note
March 6 2010

Israel lobby switch on Armenian genocide

Ha’aretz reports that Israel’s ultra-right foreign minister, Avigdor
Lieberman, believes the US embargo on Cuba is a good model for dealing
with Iran.

Lieberman said Thursday that he doubted the United Nations would
follow through with Western demands for harsher sanctions over Iran’s
contentious nuclear program, and urged the United States to impose its
own embargo similar to the one it has held on Cuba for the last 50
years.

The 50-years part is quite telling. The United States embargo on Cuba
has utterly failed in every conceivable way, unless its goal was
harming the people of Cuba and not the Castro government. In fact,
the news out of Havana this week was that Fidel Castro himself — who
has survived the embargo and 11 American Presidents — is back in
charge again, more than three years after supposedly relinquishing
power to his brother Raul.

So the Cuba model is unlikely to scare the Iranian government much.
If a tiny and poor island 90 miles from Florida can survive US
sanctions for 50 years, the huge and oil rich Iran, 6,000 miles away,
should do even better.

Tom Garofalo, a consultant to the New America Foundation’s U.S.-Cuba
Policy Initiative, writes in the blog Havana Note, that Lieberman’s
position is utterly hypocritical.

For starters, Lieberman believes that the Cuban model works best if it
includes an international aspect, such that the United States would
‘shun foreign firms that continue to do business with Iran.’ That
extraterritorial component was added to our Cuban Embargo in 1996 with
the passage of the Helms Burton act. But, perhaps unbeknownst to
Lieberman, it has been dutifully waived every six months since, at the
behest of our allies.

Lieberman may also be surprised to know that one of the first
countries to suffer the consequences of such a shunning would be
Israel, a leading investor in Cuban agriculture. The USDA reports that
Israeli capital has driven a reinvigoration of Cuba’s citrus sector,
to such an extent that an Israeli-Cuban joint venture now produces a
third of the total citrus grown on the island. (Well, if they can make
the desert bloom, why not Cuba?)"

No doubt, Lieberman does not know any of this. He is basically
illiterate on foreign policy matters. And, even if he did, it
wouldn’t change his views. Besides, he spends most of his time not on
foreign policy but on avoiding indictment. And that is the good news.
His tenure is likely to be short.

Of course, when it comes to foreign policy, hypocrisy is more the norm
than the exception.

For example, yesterday the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the
Armenian genocide resolution. That is the bill, kicking around for
years, that recognizes the Armenian genocide as precisely that —
genocide. The Turkish government has always strongly opposed the
resolution, arguing — unconvincingly, in my opinion — that the
slaughter of the Armenians occurred in the context of war and was not
an attempt at their intentional eradication.

I never understood why the Turks care so much. The current democratic
Turkish Republic was not even in existence during the Armenian
slaughter. It is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire under which
the killing took place. The current Turkish government is no more
responsible for the Armenian genocide than the current German
government is responsible for the Holocaust.

Nonetheless, the Turks vehemently oppose using the term "genocide" to
describe the events of 1915.

And successive American administrations have deferred to the Turks by
opposing Congressional bills "commemorating" the "Armenian genocide."

It is no different this year. The Obama administration lobbied
against the resolution because it believed that enacting it would
disrupt our relations with Turkey, a fellow NATO member and one of our
most important allies in the Middle East. It also argued that passing
the bill now would disrupt negotiations now underway between Turkey
and Armenia.

It passed anyway and the Turks immediately called its ambassador home.

But here is where it gets really interesting. The following comes
from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Associated Press of the Jewish
world. JTA writes:

In the past, the pro-Israel community [i.e. the lobby], has lobbied
hard against previous attempts to pass similar resolutions, citing
warnings from Turkish officials that it could harm the alliance not
only with the United States but with Israel — although Israel has
always tried to avoid mentioning the World War I-era genocide.

In the last year or so, however, officials of American pro-Israel
groups have said that while they will not support new resolutions,
they will no longer oppose them, citing Turkey’s heightened rhetorical
attacks on Israel and a flourishing of outright anti-Semitism the
government has done little to stem.

That has lifted the fetters for lawmakers like Berman (Chairman Howard
Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee), who had been loath to
abet in the denial of a genocide; Berman and a host of other members
of the House’s unofficial Jewish caucus have signed on as co-sponsors.

Get that. The lobby has always opposed deeming the Armenian slaughter
a genocide largely because Turkey has (or had) good relations with
Israel. And the lobby, and its Congressional acolytes, did not want to
harm those relations.

But, since the Gaza war, Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated.
The Turks, like pretty much every other nation on the planet, were
appalled by the Israeli onslaught against the Gazans. And said so.

Ever since, the Netanyahu government has made a point to stick it to
the Turks. Most famously, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon seated
the Turkish ambassador in a kindergarten chair during a meeting, and
"forgot" to put a Turkish flag on the table alongside the Israeli
flag. He then called the Israeli photographers in and said to them in
Hebrew (so the Turkish ambassador wouldn’t understand), "The important
thing is that they see he’s sitting lower and we’re up high and that
there’s only one flag, and you see we’re not smiling."

News of that episode so enraged the Turks and humiliated the Israelis
that Ayalon had to apologize three times, in progressively more abject
terms, or face a rupture in Israeli-Turkish relations.

That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are
trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes
the House, it will not be for purely compassionate reasons, but
rather, to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its
lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.

And, just maybe, the United States will pay it, too.

ive/2010/03/05/israel-lobby-switch-on-armenian-gen ocide.aspx

Today, Azerbaijan
March 5 2010

Turkish MP says there will be no winners on Armenia vote

05 March 2010 [15:41] – Today.Az

Turkey will definitely not be a loser and there will be no winners,
Mercan said.

Chairman of the Turkish Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee,
Murat Mercan, said Friday the voting that took place in the U.S. House
of Representatives’ Foreign Relations Committee on the incidents of
1915 on Thursday was nothing but a "great comedy" ever witnessed in
the world.

In a press conference held at the Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C.,
Mercan thanked all Turkish deputies from both the ruling and
opposition parties, Ambassador Namik Tan, distinguished members of the
Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C. and all lobbyists who all worked
to convey Turkish position on the incidents of 1915 prior to
Thursday’s voting on a resolution at the Foreign Relations Committee
of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I had a phone conversation with the Turkish Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Ahmet Davutoglu, and our minister told me to convey his
thanks and appreciation to all that worked against the resolution on
the incidents of 1915, Mercan stressed.

As we have witnessed here, regardless of political backgrounds, the
Turkish nation is one that comes together and unites during tough
times, Mercan underlined.

No matter how the resolution ends in the near future, Turkey will
definitely not be a loser and there will be no winners, Mercan said.

The only entity that won due to Thursday’s voting was a handful of
Armenian diaspora members who have undermined the good will and
stability in the (Caucasus) region, Mercan underlined.

The result at the U.S. committee has neither increased nor decreased
the number of things we must do, Mercan reminded.

Meanwhile, a Turkish deputy from the north-western province of
Istanbul, Sukru Elekdag, said that, if the protocols signed by Turkey
and Armenia come to the Foreign Affairs Committee at the Turkish
Parliament, the protocols may not be approved or the committee may
behave in a similar fashion as of the Armenian Constitutional Court.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Relations
approved the resolution on Armenian allegations on Thursday.

The committee approved the resolution on incidents of 1915 –which
took place shortly before the fall of the Ottoman Empire– with 23
votes against 22.

The resolution was proposed by Democrats Adam Schiff and Frank Pallone
and Republicans George Radanovich and Mark Kirk, all important figures
for the Armenian lobby in the U.S..

Turkey strongly rejects the genocide allegations and regards the
events as civil strife in wartime which claimed lives of many Turks
and Armenians.

Every year between March 4 and April 24 alarm bells ring for relations
between Turkey and U.S., two close allies for decades.

The Armenian lobbies in the U.S. pressure the U.S. legislators to pass
a resolution urging the President to recognise the events as genocide.

Turkish legislators and officials pay visits to U.S. House and hold
meetings with senior U.S. officials and businessmen to prevent the
resolution from being adopted.

A similar resolution was adopted with 27 votes against 21 in 2007 but
as a result of former President George W. Bush’s intervention, the
resolution was not brought to the House floor.

/World Bulletin/

URL:

Reuters, UK
March 5 2010

Turkey says U.S. genocide vote endangers Caucasus peace

Zerin Elci
ANKARA
Fri Mar 5, 2010 12:31pm EST

(Reuters) – Turkey said on Friday chances of its parliament ratifying
peace protocols with Armenia were jeopardized by a U.S. congressional
panel vote that labeled as "genocide" the massacre of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks in 1915.

World | Turkey

Turkey and its fellow Muslim ally, Azerbaijan, saw the U.S. vote
undermining efforts to stabilize the South Caucasus, a volatile region
with pipelines taking oil and gas to the West.

"This decision will not bring peace to the Caucasus," Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu told a news conference hours after Turkey recalled its
ambassador from Washington.

Turkish leaders reacted with fury after the House of Representatives
Foreign Affairs Committee narrowly passed a non-binding resolution
that tarred their grandfathers with the same crime as Nazi Germany.

President Barack Obama had made a last ditch attempt to get the House
panel to drop a resolution that would anger a valuable NATO ally,
whose support was important for U.S. interests in Iran, Afghanistan
and the Middle East.

Some European leaders have discouraged Turkey’s bid for EU membership.

Analysts said this new slap from the United States ran a risk of
further alienating Turkey, at a time when there were concerns that its
warmer ties with neighbors Iran and Syria, and Russia too, marked a
shift away from the West.

A U.S. envoy in Ankara distanced the administration from the panel’s
vote after being invited for talks by Turkish officials.

"We believe that Congress should not make a decision on the issue. We
are against new action," U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey told reporters.

It was unclear whether the bill would be considered by the full House
or become enshrined in official U.S. policy.

Davutoglu said Turkey’s efforts to resolve disputes with Christian
Armenia, rooted in ethnic and religious enmity, would go on. But, he
went on to warn that ratification by parliament of peace protocols
signed last year to open the border was now in greater doubt due to
the U.S. lawmakers action.

"Yesterday’s decision has brought the risk of not delaying but halting
the process for the ratification of protocols," Davutoglu said.

FLASHPOINT

"This resolution pours petrol on the fire," said Hugh Pope, an analyst
for the International Crisis Group. "It hands the discussion back to
the nationalists on both sides."

For its part Armenia applauded the U.S. vote and indicated desire to
move forward in relations with Turkey.

"At the current time, there is no single political reason for official
Yerevan to change its position with regards the normalization of
relations with Turkey," said Galust Sahakyan, parliamentary leader of
the Republican Party of President Serzh Sarksyan.

But fallout from the vote reverberated around the fractious nations of
the South Causcasus.

The parliament in Azerbaijan, a friend of Turkey and foe of Armenia,
said the vote could destroy efforts to resolve the conflict over the
breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region.

"The adoption of the resolution … could reduce to zero all previous
efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem," the Azeri parliament
said in a statement.

The vote, it added, "damages efforts to restore peace and stability in
the region."

Late last month Azerbaijan warned that a "great war" in the South
Caucasus was inevitable if Armenian forces did not withdraw.

Ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, backed by Armenia, threw off
Azeri rule in fighting that broke out as the Soviet Union headed
toward collapse in 1991. An estimated 30,000 people perished before a
ceasefire was agreed in 1994.

Turkey had also sought an Armenian withdrawal as one of the conditions
for ratifying the protocols.

DISTRACTION

Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman
Turks but denies that up to 1.5 million died and that it amounted to
genocide — a term employed by many Western historians and some
foreign parliaments.

The outcry could prove a distraction from political crises brewing at
home following the detention of dozens of military officers suspected
of planning a coup in 2003.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamic-leaning government is also at
odds with the judiciary, which alongside the military is a stronghold
of Turkey’s old guard of conservative, nationalist secularists.

(Additional reporting by Hasmik Lazarian in Yerevan and Afet
Mehtiyeva in Baku; writing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

STRE6241BN20100305

LYNN WOOLSEY: I’VE BEEN WAITING 18 YEARS FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION TO BE ADOPTED

PanARMENIAN.Net
04.03.2010 23:01 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ I’ve been waiting 18 years for Armenian Genocide
resolution to be adopted, Florida Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey said.

"Denial of Armenian Genocide means denial of the victims’ memory. Some
Congressmen maintain this is not the right time to take the decision.

When is the right time, then?" Lynn Woolsey questioned at the hearing
of U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

"US has to join in the ranks of 42 American states and 11 states of
NATO who’ve recognized the Armenian Genocide," Florida Congresswoman
emphasized, adding "We have to protect human rights."

The Armenian Genocide resolution (H.Res. 106) was submitted to the
House of Representatives by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), on
January 30, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. It was
a non-binding resolution calling upon the US 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 for other purposes. Upon
its introduction it was referred to United States House Committee
on Foreign Affairs where it passed a 27-21 vote and was sent back
for a full house vote. On October 26, 2007, in a letter addressed
to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, four key sponsors of the bill,
requested a debate on the bill in full House to be postponed.

The resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian
Genocide (H.Res.252) was formally introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives by Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-CA), George Radanovich
(R.-CA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-NJ), and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill) in 2009.

It currently has 137 co-sponsors.

ARFD COMMITTEES INTEND TO ACHIEVE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FULL RECOGNITION BY U.S. CONGRESS

PanARMENIAN.Net
05.03.2010 15:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The question of international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide can not be traded. This recognition is a moral
obligation for all countries in the world, Armen Rustamyan, chairman
of the Standing Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Affairs, member
of the ARFD Supreme Body told a press conference in Yerevan.

In his opinion, the Armenian-Turkish Protocols impede the process of
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

"Turkey must not hope that may hinder our just struggle. All the ARF
structures will continue working towards a full recognition of the
Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress," Armen Rustamyan said.

He added that the adoption of resolution 252 on the Armenian Genocide
Committee of the House of Representatives important, but inconclusive
victory, and stressed that Armenia must mobilize all its forces for
the adoption of a resolution by Congress.

According to Armen Rustamian Armenia must ratify them only with
reservations. This, according to him, would not contradict to Armenia’s
obligations under international agreements.

Turkey, turning from preconditions to open threats and blackmail,
today stimulates the possibility of renewed war in the Karabakh
conflict zone.

ARFD is actively working with the Social Democratic Party of Sweden
to achieve the Armenian Genocide recognition by the Swedish Parliament.

Voting in the Swedish Parliament will be held on March 11.

On April 24 the U.S. President, on the pretext of Armenian-Turkish
normalization again, can avoid the "Genocide" term in his speech. "The
Committee’s decision has no legal effect and does not obligate the
U.S. president to anything," Manoyan said.

On March 4 the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign
Affairs adopted Armenian Genocide resolution (H.Res.252) by 23 votes
"in favour" and with 22 votes "against". After the vote in the
appropriate committee, the resolution will be sent to the House of
Representatives for a final vote.

The resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian
Genocide (H.Res.252) was formally introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives by Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-CA), George Radanovich
(R.-CA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-NJ), and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill) in 2009.

It currently has 137 co-sponsors.

TATUL HAKOBYAN’S KARABAKH BOOK OUT IN TRANSLATION

=/go/article/2010-03-02-tatul-hakobyan-s-karabakh- book-out-in-translation&pg=2
Tuesday March 02, 2010

Yerevan – Tatul Hakobyan published a Russian translation of his
Green and Black: Artsakh Diary, a critically-acclaimed book about the
Karabakh conflict that first appeared in Armenian in the fall of 2008.

In recent weeks, Mr. Hakobyan presented the book to readers in Hadrut,
Stepanakert, Shushi and Yerevan, and will next go to Tbilisi. The
Russian translation was supervised by journalist and editor Naira
Hayrumian.

According to Mr. Hakobyan, the English version of the book is currently
being edited and is due out in the next several months.

A former Armenia correspondent for The Armenian Reporter, Mr. Hakobyan
is now an analyst for the Civilitas Foundation in Yerevan.

Below is a review of Mr. Hakobyan’s book first published by The
Armenian Reporter on January 30, 2009.

A book of life and death

by Arsen Kharatian

Green and Black: Artsakh Diary is a comprehensive collection of facts,
analysis, and documents on the Karabakh conflict, starting from the
late 1980s until today. The last chapters of the book describe the
background of the conflict, taking us back to the beginning of the
20th century.

The book discusses the connections of various global and regional
events, people, and processes to the subject of the conflict. It
analyses internal and external political factors affecting Armenia
and Azerbaijan, as well as the impact of the parties involved in
the conflict as interested parties in a peaceful settlement (Russia,
Turkey, Iran, European states, and the United States).

The author, Tatul Hakobyan, approached the topic as an investigative
journalist. The effort he made to gather facts through scores of
interviews is innovative for Armenian-language non-fiction writing.

(Mr. Hakobyan is a senior correspondent with The Armenian Reporter.)

Stories in the book connect the reader with figures involved in the
war and peace process. Targeted to Armenian audiences, the book seeks
to confront stereotypes about public figures and events.

Interviews with state and public officials from Armenia and Azerbaijan
and information drawn from their previously unpublished personal
diaries present the book’s "heroes" in new, more personal light.

The discussion of Boris Kevorkov – the ethnic Armenian Soviet
Azerbaijani official who was in charge of Karabakh before being
dismissed in 1988 – is one such example. While Mr. Kevorkov died in
Moscow in 1998, interviews with his wife (an ethnic Azerbaijani)
and information from his unpublished memoirs offer unprecedented
insight into Mr. Kevorkov’s attitude toward the conflict.

Another widow interviewed by Mr. Hakobyan is Rima Demirchian, the
wife of Karen Demirchian, who was the Soviet Armenian leader (also
dismissed in 1988) who in 1999 became Speaker of Armenia’s National
Assembly and was assassinated later the same year. Mrs. Demirchian
offers her reflection on the events of late 1980s, also not discussed
anywhere before.

The book juxtaposes diaries and interviews of well-known intellectuals
and Karabakh movement figures like Silva Kaputikian, Zori Balayan,
and Igor Muradian, to those of Soviet leaders, particularly Mikhail
Gorbachev.

Mr. Hakobyan also notes the evolving attitudes of individuals involved.

In one such example, Mr. Hakobyan refers to Ms. Kaputikian’s diary,
where she wrote: "Back in 1988 when we met with Gorbachev, he asked
whether the Armenian leader at the time Demirchian was capable of
controlling the internal political situation in the country. My answer
was negative. If I was given a chance again I would definitely have
a different answer." The latter comment reflected Ms. Kaputikian’s
support for Mr. Demirchian’s political comeback in the late 1990s.

Looking at the conflict through the prism of individual lives and
experiences of common people from both sides brings an important
emotional mood to the text. And while discussion of war is about
losses – human, material, and sometimes moral – the book also refers
to a number of entertaining episodes from the war period.

One such episode is about informal talks conducted by Heydar Aliyev,
then the leader of Nakhichevan (and later president of all Azerbaijan)
and officials in Yerevan in May 1992 as the war raged in Karabakh. Mr.

Aliyev called the Armenian president’s chief national security adviser
Ashot Manucharian, in an effort to secure Armenia’s noninterference
with air traffic bound to and from Nakhichevan.

(Tom De Waal previously described some of these conversations in his
2003 book Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War."

-Ed.)

On one occasion Mr. Aliyev called Mr. Manucharian at home and heard
his mother pick up the phone. She offered to relay a message to her
son as "he is not at home at the moment."

The message was as follows: "Auntie Lena could you please tell your son
that Heydar Aliyev called and asked for permission for an airplane to
fly through the Armenian air space." To which Mr. Manucharian’s mother
answered: "You can safely fly, I will inform my son about the matter."

Another story was related by Suren Zolian, who was a member of the
Armenian parliament and participated in negotiations with Azerbaijan
in the early 1990s.

In 1993, the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations arrived in Rome
before the Karabakh delegation did. At the airport the delegates from
Karabakh were met by Armenian delegation members.

Next morning before talks formally began, Mr. Zolian asked
his Azerbaijani counterparts: "If you claim that Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh are your citizens, why then were you not meeting
them at the airport?"

In a return demarche, the Azerbaijani negotiating team called for
moving the Karabakh delegates from the hotel where Armenians were
staying to the one with the Azerbaijanis.

Such stories can only do so much to lighten up the heavy mood of a
war filled with acts of brutality, human deaths and displacement.

In Green and Black, standing for the green of military uniforms and
the black worn by mourning mothers, Mr. Hakobyan seeks to highlight
feelings common to people on both sides of the conflict, such as
sadness that mothers share together when waiting for their sons taken
prisoner or missing.

The book is a major collection of historical facts and documents,
including agreements and resolutions relating to the Karabakh conflict,
which will be of great interest for political and media organizations
and interested parties around the world.

Although targeted to the local Armenian audiences, Green and Black
should be translated for non-­Armenian readers as well, especially
those in Azerbaijan.

To improve the ease of reading, locating footnotes on each page or at
the end of each chapter could be helpful. And while some chronological
disorder in the text may seem to make the reading more complicated,
in the end the stories tie up as one whole.

Most importantly, Green and Black seeks to establish the facts of
Armenia’s modern history rather than expound on political propaganda
so common to writings about conflicts.

Although this book does not seek to offer solutions to the conflict,
mindful of the human losses and broken families generated by the war,
Mr. Hakobyan – probably like most of his readers – wishes the conflict
to have a peaceful outcome.

Tatul Hakobyan, Kanach u Sev: Artsakhian Oragir [Green and Black:
Artsakh Diary]. 584 pp. in Armenian. 2008.

TURKISH-ISRAELI STADOFF OPEN UP NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARMENIA

;nid= 2356
03 March 2010

The interview of the director of "Noravank" Scientific-Educational
Foundation Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo news agency

Harutyunyan, standoff between Israel and Turkey is gradually going
forward. How advantageous is it for Armenia in the light of the
observed progress in the direction of the recognition by Israel the
Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire?

In the long-term outlook this recognition is quite possible. The
standoff has really existed since 2002, when scandal connected with
the avionics for helicopters broke between Israel and Turkey. Today the
relations between them have become even more aggravated and there are
real economic and geopolitical reasons for it. The primary reason is
the Kurdish issue in the form of Iraqi Kurdistan where the influence
of Israel is strong. All those elements plus the new mission of Turkey
in the world contradict to the interests of Israel and US.

But the relations between two states in the modern world, in fact,
are a complex of pluses and minuses. In case with Israel and Turkey
a number of other signs are indicative of the deterioration of the
relations. Among them is the policy of the Jewish lobby in American
Congress saying about the necessity to put forward the issue of the
Armenian Genocide in the House of Representatives of the US, and in
Israel such tendencies are also present. But at the same time I would
like to mention that it is considered in the strategy that the threat
is more effective than its implementation. That is why it is not clear
yet whether that threat will bring to its implementation both on part
of the US and Israel. I do not think that under such conditions Armenia
can influence those processes essentially, but the scenario, according
to which this standoff can turn to our favour, is rather possible.

What is the new mission of Turkey, you mentioned, and how does it
coincide with the logics of the Israeli-Turkish standoff?

The so-called New Turkey of Gul and Erdogan has its prehistory,
which formally began after the accession to power of Erbokan’s
fundamentalist-Islamic party "Prosperity" (by the way the incumbent
prime-minister Erdogan was his associate) in that country in 1996.

Erbokan, particularly, called to exit from NATO and distance themselves
from the US for what he, of course under other pretext, was put under
house arrest and his party was banned. That was a signal for the US,
especially after 9/11, to try to redirect the Islamist movement in
Turkey to more moderate direction in the spirit of their political
traditions. Here the "neocons" who had strong stance in the Bush
administration did their best and the theoretical basis was provided by
RAND "think tank", which particularly, published the conceptual work
"Building Moderate Muslim Networks". Let us mention that the moderate
Islamists represented by Erdogan and the Justice and Development
Party (JDP) who came to power after the elections in 2002 are rather
adequate to the tendencies which are characteristic of Turkish society
today. For example, in 2007 the public opinion poll was carried out
among those who voted for the Republican People’s Party (RPP) and
JDP and it turned out that more than 80% of the supporters of the
JDP considered themselves both Muslims and Turks at the same time,
while only 60% of those who voted for the RPP considered themselves
Turks and 40% considered themselves Muslims.

Today when the world is multi-polar Turkey is searching its place and
the Turks get carried away by this process and try to take leading
stance in the region and Muslim world competing Iran. Digressing from
the theme, I would like to mention that there is an impression that
Turkey has inferiority complex in regard to Iran which is a nuclear
power and in this context it is remarkable that both Turkey and Iran
take the leading positions in the world as for the growth of the
number of scientific publications. That is why, it is quite possible
that the hidden programme of the Islamists headed by Erdogan and Gul
is becoming the nuclear country and the projects of Turkey to build
the nuclear plant attest to it.

Besides, today rather interesting developments in ideological plane
can be observed in Turkey: among them we can mention the formation of
neo-Ottomanism, the attempts to Turkishize the Eurasianism conception,
the revival of pan-Turkism and etc. But there is a kind of system in
that chaos: all those trends are of distinct expansionist character.

Besides, we also know about the so-called Caucasian platform; the
idea of creation of such a platform was sounded after the five days
war on 08.08.08. Today the American influence on our region weakened
a little, and that is why even Azerbaijan allows itself to behave a
little independently. And this intermediate vacuum which formed in the
South Caucasus after the partial departure of the Americans and the
so-called arrival of the Russian is tried to be filled by the Turks.

This happens not only in regard to the relations with Armenia which
are added up to the diplomatic scrapes, but also in regard to Georgia
where Turkey increases its influence and tries to take necessary
positions. As for Azerbaijan the Turks believe that there is nothing
it can do, and this is true in principle whatever Baku do demanding
from Ankara "to return" Karabakh". I think that such an offensive
policy fraught with unpredictable consequences firstly for Turkey.

How does the aspiration of Armenia to open the border with Turkey
coincide with our interests taking into consideration the Turkish
policy of neo-Ottomanism you spoke about?

This is rather complicated issue especially at the background of the
policy of relaxation between the US and Russia and the UE at some
extent. They all realize that there are enough risks and challenges
in the modern world and they all aspire to relax the situation, and
of course each of them in accordance with it own ideas. Thereafter,
there is a kind of consensus on the issue of opening Armenian-Turkish
border and the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I believe that
Armenia will benefit mostly not from the opening of the border from the
point of view of economics or the deterioration of Azerbaijani-Turkish
relations but from the fact of beginning relations with Turkey without
preconditions. I think that Turkey is de-facto part to the conflict
in Nagorno-Karabakh that is why that will be a precedent that one
of the parts to the conflict will embark on the negotiations with
Armenia without preconditions. And it is important that the initiative
is taken by Armenia: the well-known decision of the Constitutional
Court is of great importance; the visit of Robert Kocharyan to Iran
which allowed us to enlist Tehran’s support both in the processes
connected with Turkey and developments round Nagorno-Karabakh is also
crucial. Besides we made rather interesting statements on those two
issues. These and the speeches of the Deputy Head of the RA president
Apparatus Vigen Sargsyan in the US and Turkey, as well the programme
address of President Serj Sargsyan in London which made a strong
impression not only on the politicians and analysts in the West but
also on our society.

So, can it be supposed that the superpowers took pro-Armenian stance
in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue?

I think that at given stage – yes. This is proved by the fact that
the Russian leadership strictly and distinctly separated the NKR
issue from the Armenian-Turkish diplomatic relations and the US
initiated the consideration of the Armenian Genocide in the Congress,
thus indirectly, but rather transparently expressing its attitude
towards the Armenian-Turkish process. In this context, of course,
I am not sure that the Protocols will be ratified soon but there are
good chances for that.

What was the aim of President Sargsyan’s visit to London, and what
is the reason of such an attention of Anglo-Saxons towards Armenia?

There has always been an interest towards Armenia and region in
general on behalf of the British. The "wicked tongues" say that the
English "comrades" were at the bottom of the "colour" revolution in
Armenia. Even more, many believe that the British are the moderators
and the brains centre of the American policy in the region. I think
that the main reason of the visit of president to London was the
opportunity to express the position of Armenia on the NKR and Turkey
issues on the authoritative ground of Chatham House where, by the way,
last year Aliyev made an address. The British analytical community
took Sargsyan’s speech rather adequately, so I think that this visit
can be considered as rather successful.

Recently the ambassador of Iran to Armenia said that his country in
fact had recognized the NKR long ago, because it is the country which
had a common border. The other day the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Iran Mottaki said in Baku that his country recognized the territorial
integrity of the AR. Which of those two statements reflects the real
stance of Iran?

I think that both stances are acceptable. The truth is that Tehran is
really interested in the normalizing of the relations with Baku and
they have already lifted the visa regime and etc, but at the same time
it is sure that the status-quo in regard to the NKR cannot be changed.

Actively broadcasts its TV channels in Azerbaijan…

It proves that Iran gradually enters Azerbaijan.

In this context what role does the threat of American invasion to
Iran play?

American military doctrine supposes that the US can fight efficiently
no more than on two fronts, that is why the Americans by themselves
will never start the operation against Iran, especially if we take into
consideration rather complicated situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
only scenario acceptable for the US is the delivering surgical strikes
to Iran. At the same time it is very risky scenario.

Both Iran and Israel are theocratic states. For the political elites
of such countries sometimes the principles are of more importance
than pragmatic considerations and this causes great concern. I am
sure that Iran possesses nuclear weapon. And both the Americans has
spoken about it and the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed
Forces Baluevsky mentioned it 7 years ago. It means that the there
is rather big possibility of retaliatory blow of Iran to Israel and
that would be disastrous for the entire region, including Armenia.

Interviewed by David Stepanyan 26.02.10 ArmInfo