IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MODIFIES TURKISH STRATEGY AND POLICY

CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST
Wednesday / April 05, 2006

By Stephen Blank

Every analysis of the consequences of Iran’s nuclear and missile
projects has stressed that successful completion of those programs
would dramatically transform Eurasia’s security situation. We can
already begin to see this happening with Turkey which shares a border
with Iran and which has become increasingly nervous about Iran’s
nuclear and missile program. Turkey still seeks to join the EU, is
effecting a rapprochement with Russia, and is also simultaneously a
member of NATO. It also still has a substantive working relationship
with Israel, particularly among both states’ armed forces, and is
still insecure regarding Kurdish terrorism and aspirations to a
state. Iran’s activities threaten to transform the balance around
Turkey and have led to clear signs of new modifications in Turkish
policy.

BACKGROUND: Turkey has stated that it has sent messages to Iran asking
it to desist from building nuclear weapons. Indeed, as an aspirant to
membership in the EU it could do no less without enraging Brussels,
and the key members of the EU who are leading the negotiations with
Iran. But it has a delicately balanced relationship with Iran. Its
border with Iran has been quiet for centuries. Iran is also a major
source of Turkish energy imports, providing almost a fifth of Turkey’s
energy imports. Both Iran and Turkey also share common apprehensions
about Kurdish independence drives in their own states and in Iraq as
well as fears of re-emerging Kurdish terrorism in their two
states. And with a Muslim- led AKP government in power in Ankara,
Turkey undoubtedly is highly sensitive to charges about supporting
non-Muslim regimes against Iran.

Nevertheless, while it has made clear its apprehensions to Israel
about possible Israeli preemptive strikes against Iran through Turkish
air space, the Turkish government and military are clearly moving to
protect themselves against possible Iranian nuclearization. Turkey has
resumed bilateral military talks with Israel and is evidently
upgrading intelligence cooperation with Washington, not only to
counter Kurdish terrorism in Turkey but also to monitor developments
in Iraq. At the same time the Turkish government, acting on its
military’s urging, has now opened an international tender for anti-air
missiles which could also be used as anti-missile missiles to block or
deter potential Iranian attacks upon Turkey. Thus this tender has
stimulated competition among foreign suppliers to provide it with the
appropriate missiles and the main contenders appear to be America,
Israel and Russia. The Russian firm Almaz-Antey is gearing up to to
offer Turkey its S-300-PMU-2 missile known as Favorit, and Russia has
evidently approached Turkey about co-production of the S-300 missile,
perhaps in this variant. Such gestures are a part of the larger
Russo-Turkish rapprochement that has been effected since 2003 through
major gas sales, burgeoning trade and shared apprehensions about
American policy in Iraq and about the EU’s demands on both states for
reforms. Even if Moscow and Ankara claim to have also developed
common interests with regard to developments in the Caucasus, it
remains the case that for Ankara membership in the EU is the main
priority. Consequently it could not, even if it wanted to, go against
the EU on the sensitive Iranian issue. But this issue also clearly has
the potential to influence Ankara back toward collaboration with
Western powers like America and Israel.

IMPLICATIONS: Should Ankara gradually return to enhanced security and
defense cooperation with the West, the results would be seen in the
Black Sea and Caucasus areas as well as vis-à-vis Iran. Such an
outcome is by no means a certainty, but it is revealing just how
important Turkey is as a player in its various regions that Moscow is
again willing to raise Iranian ire by providing Turkey with these
missiles for after all, they would be intended primarily to deter
Iranian threats. This shows Turkey’s growing importance to Russia, if
not to other actors. In other words, should Iran continue with its
missile and nuclear programs, doing so would undoubtedly begin to
affect the postures and calculations of all the key players in
Eurasia. This means that the potential repercussions of an Iranian
program would be felt in Iraq, throughout the areas of Kurdish
habitation in Iran and Turkey as well, and in the greater Middle
East. But they would also resonate throughout the Caucasus and Black
Sea areas if not also throughout the Caspian and Central Asia. For
example, to the extent that Turkey can draw closer to the West and
possibly accelerate the negotiations over its entry into the EU, it is
also possible that some progress could be made with regard to the
Nagorno-Karabakh talks. Those deadlocked at the last bilateral meeting
of the principals in Rambouillet and at the meeting of the Minsk group
in Washington. But, as this author has argued elsewhere, Turkish entry
into the EU would obviously bring about a changed situation or place
pressure on Turkey to alter its posture vis-à-vis Armenia which could
then generate further movement toward resolving this war. Enhanced
cooperation with Russia, on the other hand, might result in less
financial support for Chechens coming from Turkey which would lead to
different possible outcomes in Eurasia. If Turkey is forced to
maintain a deterrent posture against a truculent Iran, this could also
force NATO to consider once again the question of defending Turkey, an
issue that generated a huge fiasco in 2003 and contributed to the
undermining of Turkish trust in its allies and in America. This time,
a more positive stance toward the issue of defending Turkey, not just
against missile attacks, but also against foreign-backed terrorism,
might go far to restore some of the previous warmth in Turco-Western
relations. Indeed, Prime Minister Erdogan alluded to this when stating
that NATO membership indicated Turkey need not worry of Iranian nukes.

CONCLUSIONS: Presently it is far to early to predict how Turkey’s
relationships with its most important interlocutors will evolve, and
it is in any case premature to make predictions as the way the Iranian
issue will unfold is unclear. Nevertheless it is important to realize
the issues involved and the stakes for all concerned with regard to
Turkish strategic options, because those will be crucially influenced
by the overall course of events with regard to Iran’s nuclear and
missile projects. Turkey is forced to balance its defense, energy,
trade, anti-terrorist and Kurdish concerns along with those of
relations among key players America, the EU, Russia, Israel, Iraq,
Iran, and the Caucasus as it tries to navigate among the potential
shoals of alternative solutions to the anxieties caused Iran’s
programs. Turkey’s answers to those issues, will in turn help define
the parameters of what is possible in all these volatile regions of
the world and its relationships with all these key actors. As the
Chinese ideogram puts it, crisis signifies both danger and
opportunity. The crisis generated by Iran’s missile and nuclear
programs constitutes both a crisis and an opportunity, not only for
Turkey, but also for all its partners.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Professor Stephen Blank, Strategic Studies Institute,
U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA. The views expressed here
do not represent those of the U.S. Army, Defense Dept. or the
U.S. Government.

leid=4136

THE KARS-AKHALKALAKI RAILROAD: A MISSING LINK BETWEEN EUROPE AND ASIA

CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST
Wednesday / April 19, 2006

By Taleh Ziyadov

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE)
natural gas pipelines have transformed the strategic realities in the
South Caucasus. As a result, the energy networks of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey have become more integrated, raising the
significance of the East-West Transport Corridor even more. Today,
these states are ready to take on a new challenge by building the
Kars-Akhalkalaki interstate railroad connection that will link the
rail networks of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and lay a foundation
for a potential China-Central Asia-South Caucasus-Turkey-European
Union transportation corridor. This project will not only boost
continental container trade between Asia and Europe via the South
Caucasus, but also further integrate the South Caucasus region with
Europe.

BACKGROUND: The idea of connecting the rail networks of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey was first discussed during the Joint Transport
Commission meeting in July 1993. The initiative was later integrated
into the Master Plan on the Trans-European Railway (TER) networks
sponsored by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE). In July 2002, the Ministers of Transport of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey signed a protocol confirming the route and at a
February 28, 2005 meeting the parties agreed to conduct a feasibility
study. UNECE lists this route among Priority 1 projects that could be
funded and implemented rapidly by 2010. The realization of this
project depends on the construction of a 98 km-long (60 miles) segment
of rail from Kars in Turkey to Akhalkalaki in Georgia (68 kilometers
in Turkey, 30 kilometers in Georgia, and the rehabilitation of the
Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi line). The estimated cost of the project is about
$400 million.

Today, there are two operational railroads in the South Caucasus,
which are part of the EU-sponsored TRACECA initiative that links
Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s transportation networks. These are the
Baku-Tbilisi-Poti and the Baku-Tbilisi-Batumi railways. There is,
however, no rail link between Georgia and Turkey. The construction of
the Kars-Akhalkalaki railroad will connect Georgian and Turkish
railroads and facilitate trade in the East-West direction. For
example, a cargo from China could be delivered to Aktau (Kazakhstan)
and then transported by railway ferries to Baku and shipped directly
to Istanbul and onward to Europe via the
Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars-Istanbul rail system. Likewise, a
shipment from Europe could be easily transported to the South
Caucasus, Central Asia or China. Hence, Kars-Akhalkalaki serves as a
rail connection that will eventually unite railway networks of
China-Central Asia-South Caucasus-Turkey and the European Union. The
governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan have already made
some progress in expanding the current TRACECA routes to Central Asia,
which will be extended to China. In December, 2005, a container truck
from Kazakhstan was sent to Georgia via Azerbaijan as a part of a
pilot program. A 3,850-km (2406 miles) long Kazakh rail system from
Aktau near the Caspian Sea to the city of Dostlik (Druzhba) near the
Kazakh-Chinese border is currently operational. The length of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars and the Kars-Istanbul sections are 826
km (516 miles) and 1,933 km (1208) respectively.

IMPLICATIONS: One of the major outcomes of the Kars-Akhalkalaki
railroad will be the increased continental trade through the East-West
Transport Corridor. There are various estimates regarding the volume
of potential cargo shipments through this route. Most forecasts
suggest that during the initial stage (the first two years of
operation), the volume of transport will reach 2 million tons and in
the following three years it could increase up to 8-10 million tons.

The construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki railway will also open
markets in the Mediterranean region and South-East Europe for
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Central Asian states. It will increase the
volume of container traffic through the South Caucasus and be a more
secure and shorter way of reaching Asia or Europe. Goods and products
from these countries could be shipped directly to Mersin, a costal
Turkish port at the Mediterranean Sea, from where they could be
transported by sea to the United States, Israel, Egypt or other North
African and South European states. Turkish rail networks will also
create an opportunity for uninterrupted rail shipments to and from
Southeastern Europe.

In addition, the project has significant geopolitical significance. As
was the case with energy projects, inter-state railways will bring
along questions regarding common security threats and will require
collaborative efforts to address these threats. Azerbaijan, Georgia
and Turkey will further integrate their security agendas to
accommodate Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s quest for the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) membership. The trilateral cooperation
between Ankara, Baku and Tbilisi will move the three states into a
more integrated transportation and security arrangements, thus
cementing their ties with Europe and the United States.

Since the Kars-Akhalkalaki railroad is a component of the East-West
Transport Corridor, both the United States and the European Union will
benefit from the realization of this project. Occasional attempts by
some U.S. and European legislators and officials, especially those
under the influence of Armenian lobbying groups that oppose the
construction of this railroad, could seriously damage American and
European national interests and their states’ role in the South
Caucasus. Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey could finance the
construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki project without external
assistance. Yet, U.S. and European political and financial backing
will strengthen their commitment to the regional development and
increase their presence in the region, as it was during the
construction of the BTC and BTE energy pipelines.

Armenia’s self-imposed seclusion by continuously rejecting to pull its
troops from occupied Azerbaijani territories will further detach it
from regional developments. Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly
stated that they will not consider the Armenia-backed initiative to
use the century-old Kars-Gyumri (Armenia)-Tbilisi railway unless
Armenia ends its occupation of Azerbaijani lands. At the same time,
Baku does not want to delay strategic and economic projects and wait
until Armenia and Azerbaijan come to an overdue agreement in resolving
the eighteenth-year old Karabakh conflict. Thus, the construction of
the Kars-Akhalkalaki project, which may start in the late 2006 or the
early 2007, is likely to advance regardless of developments in the
Karabakh peace process.

CONCLUSIONS: The construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki railroad will
address a missing link in the transportation networks connecting
Europe and Asia. It will increase the volume of continental trade via
Azerbaijan and Georgia and boost these states’ role as transit
countries. It will also move Azerbaijan and Georgia closer to the
Euro-Atlantic community and create new opportunities for American and
European engagement in the region. The project will accommodate the
EU-sponsored TRACECA initiative as well as the U.S.-backed East-West
Transport Corridor and make the region a crossroads for Trans-European
and Trans-Asian continental trade.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Taleh Ziyadov is an independent analyst, who holds an MA
form the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

leid=4170

PRESS RELEASE
California Assemblyman Dario Frommer
CONTACT: Karen S. Kim
(916) 319-2043
April 28, 2006

FROMMER’S BILL TO OFFER ARMENIAN CREDENTIAL FOR TEACHERS PASSES
ASSEMBLY EDUCATION COMMITTEE

(SACRAMENTO, CA) – The Assembly Education Committee late Wednesday
passed legislation by Assembly Majority Leader Dario Frommer
(D-Glendale) that would expand the single subject foreign language
California Subject Examination for Teachers to include the Armenian
language.

`Our state boasts the largest Armenian population outside of
Armenia, and yet we have no program available for teachers who want to
be credentialed in the Armenian language,’ Frommer said. `This bill
will not only better equip teachers in districts with large Armenian
populations, it will also allow all interested students to study the
Armenian language in elementary and high schools.’

Of the 1,064,578 English learners enrolled in California, 12,786
students said Armenian was their native language. In Frommer’s own
district, the Glendale Unified School District reported that it had
3,904 English language learners who speak Armenian primarily, making
up 49% of the districts total English language learner population. In
Los Angeles, there are 3,824 English language learners whose primary
language is Armenian.

Assembly Bill 2913’s expansion of the CSET’s single subject teaching
credential to include the Armenian language will permit high schools,
colleges and universities to offer the Armenian language as a course
in the curriculum and will guarantee that those courses will be taught
by teachers credentialed in Armenian. The first Armenian CSET must be
administered by September 1, 2009, according to the bill.

Frommer introduced the bill upon the request of constituent Saro
Nazarian. Groups supporting the bill include: the Armenian Assembly of
America, Armenian American Chamber of Commerce, Board of Regents of
Prelacy Armenian Schools, Glendale Community College and Glendale
Unified School District.

###

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Israel
Prof. Michael Stone and Dr. Sergio LaPorta

PRESS RELEASE
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem
Email: [email protected].
fax: +972-2-588 3658
Web:

91st COMMEMORATION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE HELD AT HEBREW UNIVERSITY

JERUSALEM— The Hebrew University of Jerusalem held its commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide on Wednesday 26 April 2006, two days after
Armenians officially mark the deportation and murder of 1.5 million of
their people between 1915 and 1917 by the Ottoman Turks. Close to 200
people, both Jews and Armenians, filled the library at Beit Belgia on
the University’s Givat Ram Campus in Jerusalem for the moving tribute
and remembrance.

Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Professor Steven Kaplan, officially
represented the University at event, which is initiated and organized
annually by the long-standing Armenian Studies Program of the
University headed by Professor Michael Stone.

Professors Kaplan and Stone addressed the audience as did the Armenian
Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Archbishop Torkom Manoogian, who
was accompanied by His Excellency Bishop Aris Shirvanian and members of
the Brotherhood of St. James, and His Excellency Mr. Tsolag Momjian,
Honorary Consul of the Republic of Armenia.

As in previous years, the commemoration of the Genocide coincided with
the State of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, which pays tribute to
the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis in World War II. The result
was children and survivors of the Holocaust sitting amongst children
and grandchildren of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, together
paying respect to its victims.

The keynote speaker for the evening was former Member of Knesset and
former Education Minister Yossi Sarid, a passionate campaigner for
Israeli recognition of the most tragic event. The State of Israel
unfortunately does not officially recognize the Genocide mainly due to
its relations with Turkey. Since Jews know the tragedy of genocide so
well, stressing the moral imperatives, Sarid said, `there is no
greater
educational mistake’ than to be silent while others suffer the pains
of
denial, even when one’s self interests are at stake.

His words were echoed in concluding remarks given by distinguished
Fulbright Scholar and Professor Abraham Terian who said the psychology
of denial in comparison to the Genocide itself sometimes `hurts just
as
much or more so.’ He added that Jews and Armenians understand this,
as
their histories are very similar and with a concerted voice, Armenian
people and the Jewish people should be in the forefront of decrying
such acts.

With the poignant yet positive evening of reflection and introspection
coming to an end, there was optimism that in the coming years, changes
will happen regarding the denial of the Armenian Genocide in all
countries, and even in Turkey, Sarid and Terian noted, some measure of
change can be discerned.

This electronic newsletter is sent to you by the Armenian Studies
Department of the Hebrew University. If you do not wish to receive
future issues send an e-mail message with your name and your full
e-mail address to [email protected].

If you have family or friends who would like to receive our electronic
newsletters please send their names and e-mail addresses to

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Armenian Genocide”
April 28, 2006

Ken A. Bode

“The Armenian Genocide,” which aired on most PBS stations on April 17
is a powerful indictment of the Ottoman Empire for its forced
relocation and systemic effort to eliminate its Armenian population.
Produced for Oregon Public Television by Andrew Goldberg of Two Cats
Productions, the hour-long documentary is an impressive gathering of
historical material interpreted by knowledgeable and respected
scholars, leading to the inescapable conclusion that in 1915, with
the outbreak of World War I, there was a brutal and methodical
campaign to slaughter and destroy Armenians, directed by the Turkish
authorities of the time.

That the present government of Turkey does not subscribe to these
conclusions is well known. The official Turkish position is that
local Armenians supported the invading Russian army and also engaged
in sporadic uprisings against Ottoman authorities. Indeed, many
Armenian Christians were killed, but so were many Muslims, in what
Turkey insists was a civil war. There were deportations, Turkey
admits, but no centrally directed genocide. Genocide denial is the
official position of the Turkish government today, backed by that
country’s criminal code.

In the documentary, the Turkish view of history is represented by the
head of the Turkish Historical Society, with testimony by Gunduz
Aktan, the former Turkish ambassador and by Prof. Justin McCarthy of
the University of Louisville, whose long-standing view is that there
was no centrally directed genocide. In a pre-broadcast letter to CPB,
David Saltzman, counsel to the Assembly of Turkish American
Associations, raised a number of questions about PBS motives and
responsibilities in promoting “a single version of the truth.”
Despite the presence of voices that support his country’s position,
the present Turkish ambassador, Nabi Sensoy, issued a post-broadcast
complaint saying that the show was “blatantly one-sided” and
reflected “a self-serving political agenda by Armenian American
activists.”

On the central question of whether there was a genocide, the
documentary agrees with the view represented by the International
Association of Genocide Scholars that, yes, there was. Samantha Power
addresses this issue in her 2002 Pulitzer prize winning book, “A
Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” Power devotes
the opening chapter to a review of the treatment of the Armenians in
1915, citing reports from the American Ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire Henry Morganthau who cabled Washington on July 10:

“Persecutions of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions.
Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt
to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary
arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations
from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent
instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to
bring destruction on them. These measures are not in response to
popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed
from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in
districts where no military operations are likely to take place.”
Morganthau warned Washington, “there seems to be a systematic plan to
crush the Armenian race.” In 1915, the New York Times devoted 145
stories to the Turkish horrors, and former President Theodore
Roosevelt joined in the unsuccessful effort to persuade the American
government to denounce the Ottoman Empire for the atrocities. Nothing
happened and eventually Amb. Morganthau resigned in despair.

In 1915, genocide was a crime without a name. Over the next three
decades, a Polish Jew named Raphael Lemkin conducted a one-man
campaign to create a universal jurisdiction whereby instigators or
perpetrators of attempts to wipe out national, ethnic or religious
groups would become an international crime that could be punished
anywhere, like slavery or piracy. Exhibit A in Lemkin’s campaign was
the Armenian episode. Lemkin appears in the documentary talking about
the genocide against Armenians.

A Number of Questions
Andrew Goldberg’s documentary pulls no punches on the question of
whether there was a genocide in 1915, and Coby Atlas, PBS senior vice
president, told the Washington Post that PBS considers the genocide
to be “settled history.” However, the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler,
wrote a thoughtful analysis ending as a skeptic on that point.
Perhaps, mused Getler, over time there will be “greater agreement and
acknowledgment about what happened in the years around 1915 than
there has been until now.” He adds that there is simply not the same
kind of evidence for genocide in Turkey as historians have assembled
to document the Holocaust during W.W.II. Getler concludes:

“Furthermore, the action is strongly denied and refuted by the
country involved, Turkey, and there are historians, as has been
shown, who question not whether terrible things happened but whether
there is enough evidence to use that powerful descriptor, Genocide.”
This evident disagreement between a top programming executive and the
network’s ombudsman affords greater relevance to the series of
pre-broadcast questions submitted by David Saltzman on behalf of the
Assembly of Turkish American Associations. Saltzman inquired how PBS
and CPB achieved the right to proclaim definite positions on historic
controversies. By what standards, he asks, are these judgments made?
What exactly is the PBS position on the Armenian genocide, and by
what process was this position adopted? Given Mr. Getler’s doubts
about whether genocide occurred, these are good questions.

In the opinion of Andrew Goldberg, the documentary producer,
unwillingness by the PBS ombudsman to apply the word genocide means,
in effect, that Getler chose the Turkish side. “If you don’t use that
word, you are enabling denial,” says Goldberg.

This brings us to the PBS decision to add a post-program roundtable,
“Armenian Genocide: Exploring the Issues.” The discussion was taped
at National Geographic studios in Washington, D.C., and moderated by
NPR’s Scott Simon. Consistent with the PBS position on “settled
history,” the objective of the panel was to “explore more deeply the
question of why the Turkish government and its supporters continue to
reject the genocide label.”

The very existence of this after-show generated considerable
controversy, including hundreds of e-mails on both sides and an
on-line petition against the discussion that drew thousands of
signatures. Predictably, Armenians opposed the panel discussion on
grounds that it would dilute the firm conclusions of the documentary.
Turks supported it as another opportunity to cast the events of 1915
as something short of genocide.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part of the agitation was that several
members of Congress got involved in urging PBS not to air the panel
discussion. As one party to the documentary put it, “They control the
appropriations. There is an implicit threat in their intervention.”

The panelists chosen to explore the issues in the after-show included
two scholars representing the Armenian side, Peter Balakian, author
of “The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s
Response,” and Taner Akcam, a professor from the University of
Minnesota. Both were featured as witnesses in the documentary,
Balakian with credits as an editorial consultant and writer.
Representing the Turkish view were Professor Justin McCarthy from the
University of Louisville and Turkish professor Omer Turan.

Organized as it was, the panel amounted to a quasi-academic version
of “Crossfire,” with Balakian aggressively accusing McCarthy of being
a paid agent of the Turkish government. Omer Turan’s facility with
English was so limited that the moderator, Scott Simon, admitted at
one point that he was lost. All in all, very little was accomplished
by this panel. That opinion was echoed by programmers in many PBS
venues who decided not to broadcast the panel or to do so at 3:00 or
5:00 a.m.

This is not to say that the idea of an after-show panel was a bad
one. This one did not work, but it may serve as a valuable lesson for
the future. The group should not have included members who already
had their say in the preceding documentary, and care should have been
taken to be sure that all participants had an adequate facility with
English.

With issues as deeply controversial as those treated in “The Armenian
Genocide,” it should be regular policy for PBS to sponsor and pay for
a panel of reputable, independent scholars able to step back and
offer intelligent perspective and commentary on what the viewers have
just watched. If the experts are chosen wisely, it can only add to
PBS adhering to the requirements of fairness and balance. Then, when
PBS arranges for an after-show, it should assure the quality of the
product and stand behind it with strong encouragement that affiliate
stations run the panel discussion immediately following the
documentary.

Finally, there is the matter of funding. At the beginning and end of
the documentary lengthy credits reveal that nearly all the support
for this project came from foundations, families or individuals with
Armenian surnames. PBS has assured its viewers that all donors were
properly vetted, though who knows what that actually means? Full
transparency is important, and the list does convey the unfortunate
impression that the documentary, “The Armenian Genocide,” was paid
for by one side of the argument.

Public skepticism about our business is so great that PBS should be
cognizant of impressions. For example, when KCET in Los Angeles–home
to one of the largest Armenian populations in America — decided not
to air the Goldberg documentary, it prompted this response from KCET
viewer Ruth Blandon:

“The word on the street is that you’ve been paid off by people
interested and invested in maintaining silence about the genocide.
Turkish money, perhaps? Republican money? Someone else’s money? The
word is out.

“There have already been many murmurs about corruption at PBS within
a different context. I don’t understand your programming choices
which only serve to add fuel to the fire. And I hope you reconsider
your poor choice not to air the Goldberg documentary as well as who
your audience is.

“Shame on you.”

My conclusion is that this was an excellent documentary, well
supported with historical fact and expert witnesses. It raised vital
issues that the nation of Turkey remains unwilling to deal with,
because, as Samantha Power suggests in the program, to acknowledge
genocide would put that nation in the sorry company of Adolph Hitler
and Nazi Germany. The contrary opinion of the ombudsman Mr. Getler
leaves PBS in a fog of ambivalence.

Armenpress

WORLD BANK ENDORSES SELLING FIFTH UNIT OF HRAZDAN
POWER PLANT TO RUSSIA

YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: A World Bank
official has endorsed today Armenian government’s
decision to sell the fifth unit of the biggest Hrazdan
power plant to Russia.
Rogers Robinson, World Bank resident
representative, said today the deal was very
beneficial to Armenia. He said the government of
Armenia promised to put the details of the deal on
discussion. Robinson downplayed fears that virtually
Armenia’s entire power grid is now in the hands of
Russia, saying having a powerful public services
regulatory commission is more important.
He said while talking about Armenia’s energy
production and energy fuel deliveries one has to keep
in mind that both nuclear fuel and natural gas are
shipped form Russia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenpress

RAINS AND MELTING SNOW CAUSE FLOODING ACROSS ARMENIA

YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Heavy rains coupled
with melting snow and drastic decline of temperatures
have caused emergency situations in virtually all
Armenian regions. the government-affiliated
emergencies department said on April 26 the flooding
water in Kasakh river has destroyed two bridges
connecting the town of Aparan with Saralanj and
Lusagyukh villages.
The province of Vayots Dzor has been affected too.
The swelling river of Arpa has flooded orchards in a
number of villages and destroyed a bridge. In Lori the
River of Pambak flooded a section of Vanadzor-Spitak
railway.
The river of Hrazdan covered with water tens o
hectares of land in Ararat province. Local authorities
are now trying to estimate the volume of damages and
eliminate the consequences.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Revaz Gachechiladze: Georgia Not Interested in Armenia’s Isolation

28.04.2006 23:24 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The cosio-economic problems of Samtskhe-Javakhetia
are like those the other mountainous regions of Georgia
experience. Despite all this, the Georgian government intends to spend
one third of the funds rendered by the MCC on the building of roads in
Javakhetia, Georgian Ambassador to Armenia Revaz Gachechiladze stated
in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net. In his words, schools are being
repaired in the region. `We are hopeful that the rich Armenian
Diaspora will make a contribution to the industrialization of
Javakhetia,’ he remarked.

The Ambassador also noted that the economic projects always bear a
certain political load. `Georgia is not interested in Armenia’s
isolation, via transport infrastructure, for example. You have never
heard Georgian journalist say something like `Armenia and Iran isolate
Georgia with Russia’s assistance’ in case the gas pipeline from Iran
has a small diameter and does not extend to the Georgian border, have
you?’ Revaz Gachechiladze underscored.

PanARMENIAN.Net

U.S. Not Going to Attack Iran, Turkish FM Assures

28.04.2006 23:42 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ `The U.S. doesn’t plan any military operations
against Iran. Washington just strengthens pressure upon this state in
relation to the UN,’ Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
stated. When commenting on the outcomes of his meeting with Secretary
of State Rice the Turkish FM remarked that his American counterpart
said the U.S. is not going to attack Iran. `Rice said launching of a
military operation against Iran is not the principal goal of the
United States. Nevertheless President Bush views military interference
as one of the possible variants.

At present we are thinking of formation of a serious coalition to
prevent Iran’s nuclear program. This coalition will force Iran to
cooperation,’ the Turkish FM said, reported APA.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Suspect of Armenian Youth Murder Released

29.04.2006 00:35 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Denis Kulagin, the pupil of one of the Moscow
schools, suspected of killing of an Armenian citizen, was
released. According to a source in the law enforcement bodies, the
schoolboy was released after the expiration of the 72-hour detainment
term authorized earlier by the court. `According to the law, he had
to be either articled or the detainment term had to be
prolonged. Since the accusation was not produced, the boy was
released,’ the source said. At that the11-former remains one of the
central suspects. Presently all the possible versions of the incident
are being investigated, the murder through national hatred included.

Meanwhile, several Russian newspapers say the suspect, Denis Kulagin,
17, has not committed the crime. In the words of the schoolboy’s
mother, she made him confess in the murder herself owing to threats of
the inspectors. Besides, the instrument of the crime is not found –
the knife, while the observation cameras did not shoot anything and
the inspectors have only the confession of the minor, who was
illegally interrogated for several hours without his mother’s or a
lawyer’s presence. Besides, the fact that two other teenagers were
wounded arouses doubts. They wounds were not serious but in the
opinion of the Armenian family’s lawyer, this fully refutes the
version of one single murderer.

To remind, April 22, 2006 near the Pushkinskaya subway station a fight
took place. As result, a student of one of the Moscow institutes,
Armenian by origin Vahan Abramyants was wounded with a knife and died.
Immediately after this the fight participants escaped. A criminal
case was initiated according to Article 105 (murder) of the RF Penal
Code.