“NAIRIT FACTORY” CJSC RESUMES PRODUCTION

YEREVAN, JANUARY 24. ARMINFO. One of the world leader of the chemical
industry – Armenian “Nairit Factory” CJSC will resume the production
of synthetic rubber within the nearest two days, Director of the
factory Rouben Saghatelyan told ARMINFO.

According to him, the enterprise standing idle since August of 2004
has resumed the production of hydrate of sodium, liquid chlorine for
purification of drinking water and other non-basic production from the
beginning of 2005. Saghatelyan noted that the enterprise was
transferred to management the Armenia’s Ministry of Energy, but he
refused to inform the terms of the transfer.

Earlier, in the Armenian Parliament, Prime-Minister Andranik Margaryan
stated that “after two failed attempts of selling the factory the
Government undertook its management and decided to resume its activity
itself to increase the investment attraction”. He added that Armenia’s
Government will look for an investor for resumption of rubber
production on butadiene base for which from 10 to 12 mln USD will be
need.

To note, the accounts of “Nairit factory” CJSC were arrested in the
summer of 2004 because of payables. The sum of factory’s debts total
about 30 mln USD. -R-

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
01/21/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1) US Assistant Secretary of State Apologizes for Statement About Karabagh
2) ANCA Congratulates President Bush on His Second Inauguration
3) Turkey Begins Self Reflection over Armenia
4) Community Honors California State Senator Charles Poochigian

1) US Assistant Secretary of State Apologizes for Statement About Karabagh

YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)–Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told the Armenian
public on Friday that US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones has
conveyed her apologies for a recent statement on Mountainous Karabagh.
In an interview on Armenian Public Television, Oskanian said that Jones
assured him that she was not referring to Mountainous Karabagh and its
authorities when saying “criminal secessionists” must be removed from power.
During a January 13 video conference with journalists in US Embassies in
Moscow, Rome and Bratislava, Jones, in discussing US bi-lateral relations with
Russia, called for increased engagement in resolving regional conflicts in the
former Soviet Union, stating:
“It is in Russia’s interest for these areas, for Transnistria, Abkhazia,
South
Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, for these areas to be stable, for corruption to end
there, for the criminal secessionists who rule there to be removed. It is not
appropriate for this kind of instability and criminality to exist right in the
middle of Europe.”
The statement caused a wave of protests in Armenia and in Armenian
communities
abroad.
Azbarez has also learned that the US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans also
appeared on TV in Armenia to clarify the US position on this matter. The exact
nature, however, were not yet known as we were going to press.

2) ANCA Congratulates President Bush on His Second Inauguration

Calls for stronger ties, constructive dialogue between White House and
Armenian American Community

WASHINGTON, DC–The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
congratulated President George W. Bush on his inauguration to his second term
as President of the United States, wishing him well as he prepares to lead the
nation for the coming four years.
The ANCA, in a letter to the President, welcomed his second Administration as
an opportunity to build strong ties between the White House and America’s one
and a half million citizens of Armenian heritage, to strengthen US-Armenia
relations, constructively address outstanding issues of concern to the
Armenian
American community, and to reinforce the longstanding friendship of the
American and Armenian peoples.
During the course of the hard-fought and closely contested 2004 Presidential
election campaign, Armenian Americans demonstrated an unprecedented level of
activism – as voters, party activists, policy advocates, and financial
contributors. Armenian American contributions to federal-level Republican
candidates and committees totaled well over $1,500,000 during the 2004
election
cycle, with more than $350,000 going directly to the Bush-Cheney re-election
effort. An additional $430,000 was raised for the Republican National
Committee; $140,000 for the National Republican Congressional Committee, and;
$24,000 for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In addition to these
figures, Armenian Americans contributed over $550,000 directly to the
campaigns
of Congressional Republicans.

3) Turkey Begins Self Reflection over Armenia

ISTANBUL (AFP)–While an exhibition in Istanbul devoted to the daily life of
the Armenians in Anatolia at the start of the 20th century is breaking
attendance records, Turkish society is beginning to reflect on the Armenian
question, erased from official history for the past 90 years.
According to organizers, The exhibition “My Dear Brother,” which opened on
January 8, has attracted 6,000 visitors in 12 days–a record for local
galleries.
Through 500 postcards from the period, the exhibition seeks to portray, city
by city and with supporting figures, how omnipresent Armenian communities were
across the Ottoman territory and their role in society.
“In Turkey, history has always been taught about one people–the Turks, as if
there had never been any other people on the territory. When we speak of
Armenians, they are not described as an integral group of society, but as a
source of problems,” explains exhibit director Osman Koker.
“It’s to fill this void, because I have an 11-year-old daughter who is
getting
this kind of education at school, that I have decided to publish a book and
put
on this exhibition,” said Koker, a historian turned editor.
“Without this realization, it will remain impossible to discuss the events of
1915,” he said, referring to the Armenian massacres committed between 1915 and
1917 by the Ottoman armies.
Convinced of Turkish society’s growing curiosity about its past, Koker,
nonetheless acknowledges that any change in mentality will take time.
“A majority of the public, especially in the rural areas, consider the simple
word ‘Armenian’ an insult,” he said.
Even if a handful of academics and amateur historians have attempted to
re-examine Turkish history, it is not easy to break the deep taboo which has
been deeply ingrained in the general consciousness by official history.
“Until 1980, Turkish school textbooks quite simply didn’t mention the
Armenian
massacre,” explained Fabio Salomoni, author of a book on the Turkish education
system.
“With the first acknowledgments of ‘genocide’ by Western governments and the
increasing number of attacks by Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia (ASALA), a paragraph was then added excluding all Turkish
responsibility for the deaths of Armenians, explaining [their deaths] in the
context of a war…” he said.
Even if Turkey acknowledges the massacres, it objects to the term ‘genocide’
and the figures of 1.2 to 1.3 million killed, and estimates the numbers to be
between 250,000 to 300,000.
Even though Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently opened an
Armenian museum in Istanbul–just before the European summit in Brussels which
gave a date to Ankara to start negotiations for joining the European
Union–there is no question of overturning the existing orthodoxy concerning
the Armenians.
Several [Turkish] state-subsidized organizations continue to conduct research
aimed at showing that if there was a genocide, it was more likely committed by
Armenians against the Turks.
“We can’t talk of a major change at the level of the state,” said Tarin
Karakasli, of the Armenian newspaper Agos. Even though “an evolution has
occurred amongst the elite intellectuals who are starting to openly discuss
the
subject and to encourage the publication of alternative books”.
Karakasli congratulated the EU and the role it has played in “breaking the
Armenian taboo” by encouraging the democratization of Turkey–but criticized
the position of France, which has sought to make acknowledgment of the
genocide
a precondition for joining the EU.
“These pressures will achieve nothing, the question can only be resolved by
internal dynamics,” she said.
“The Turkish population has still not fully acknowledged the problem; in this
context, imposing a solution can only provoke hostile reactions,” said Etyen
Mahcupyan, an Armenian from Istanbul and writer for the daily newspaper
Zaman.

4) Community Honors California State Senator Charles Poochigian

On January 13, 2005, Armenian-American community leaders, activists and
philanthropists from all over Southern California gathered at the Universal
Sheraton to honor one of California’s favorite Armenians sons, State Senator
Charles Poochigian. Over 600 people gathered to thank the Senator for his
years
of service in two Governors’ administrations and as a prominent and highly
respected State Senator. Boardmembers of the Armenian National Committee of
America–Western Region, ARF Central Committee members, as well as the
Armenian
Cultural Foundation and a number of other civic and philanthropic
organizations
turned out to support the Senator who is a candidate for state wide office.
The
evenings guest speakers were former Congressman Kuykendallband former Governor
George Deukmejian.

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.

Global Politician, NY
Jan 24 2005

EXPERT INTERVIEW: Caucasus is No Longer the Source of Discord for
Russia and Turkey

By GP Interview Staff

Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. is a Professor of International Relations at
Acharyan University in Yerevan, Armenia. He’s also the Director of
the Department of Turkish Studies at the Armenian National Academy of
Sciences. In the past, he served as a Counselor of the Armenian
Embassy in Germany and was the Deputy Director of the Department of
Political Analysis for the Office of the President of Armenia.

Mr. Safrastyan, the results of the visit of Vladimir Putin to Ankara
and the following visit of Turkish Prime Minister R. T. Erdogan to
Moscow testify that Russian-Turkish relations have become closer.
Only the fact that 600 Turkish businessmen accompanied Erdogan
testifies much. How great is the potential of political rapprochement
of Turkey and Russia in your opinion? Or the observed processes come
to lobbying of the interests of Russian business in Turkey?

Well, as regards 600 Turkish businessmen, it is an absolute record.
Usually, prime ministers take with them some 200 people. Of course,
it testifies that the Turkish business circles are rather interested
in Russia. The volume of Turkish investments in Russia is rather
great, at present. The economic interests prevail on the part of
Russia as well. In general, Putin’s Administration has marked the
economic direction as a priority, as I understand. In this
connection, I’d like to mention the statement of Anatoliy Chubays
about the liberal empire, which, by the way, made enough fuss in
Armenia as well. Anyhow, it is evident that both Russia and Turkey
are interested in development and deepening of the economic component
of the cooperation in various spheres. It is the most important, but,
at the same time, just one side of the medal.

The second factor is that both Russia and Turkey are not enough
satisfied with their present positions in the world. These states are
dissatisfied with the fact that they are not the leading players in
the world arena, and this dissatisfaction makes them closer, to some
extent. The changes which took place in the foreign policy of Turkey
during the last years connected with worsening of its strategic
relations with the USA, and, which is the most important, worsening
of the Turkish-Israeli relations, testify to a new direction in the
Turkish policy. That is, aspiration for more independence. The same
concerns Russia. Moscow tries to use the privileges gained during the
last years due to high prices for oil not only in the economic
sphere, but also to make it a certain strategic unit. Thus, the two
super powers dissatisfied with their role in the world try to find
their new place, a new niche in the world policy. In this background,
rapprochement of Russia and Turkey is possible not only in economy,
but also at a strategic level. The declaration on the results of
Putin’s visit to Ankara contained such a concept as multilateral
cooperation for the first time. In the course of Erdogan’s last visit
to Moscow, the strategic cooperation was already in question, though
it was not put on paper. Meanwhile, the term `multilateral
cooperation’ was not only fixed, but also was perceived and presented
by the parties to the world as a new degree in the bilateral
relations. It is necessary to pay attention to another circumstance.
Putin stated in Astana that quite unexpectedly for him Turkey had
displayed an interest in Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(Kazakhstan, China, Kirgizistan, Russia and Uzbekistan are included
in SCO – ed.). The Shanghai six is known to try to lay a foundation
of a new union of states, which will play a considerable role in that
region in future, as SCO leaders think. Russia and China are mainly
in question. The fact that Turkey has displayed an interest in SCO is
an evidence of rather serious changes in the foreign policy of that
country. In this connection, it is necessary to mention the concept
presented by Erdogan’s adviser for foreign policy, Professor Ahmet
Davutoglu in his book entitled `Strategic Depth’ in 2000. The term
strategic depth itself belongs to military science and characterizes
an interest of a country that its strategic facilities are in the
depth inaccessible for a possible rival. However, during the last
decades, several states, in particular, Pakistan, Israel, applied the
given concept to general political and strategic issues. It was just
in this light that Professor Davutoglu tried to apply the given
concept to Turkey perceiving the strategic depth not only in the
spatial, but also historical expression. He speaks of Turkey like a
country having a historical depth and entering the 20th century
alongside with seven empires controlling over the big regions in the
world. At the same time, he draws a conclusion that Turkey must play
a great role in the world arena and it must not be treated as a small
European country. According to the concept, all the territories once
included in the Ottoman Empire are strategically important
territories for present day Turkey and it must play a special role
there. In the special expression, the strategic depth is interpreted
by Davutoglu as establishment of not only good-neighbored relations
with the direct neighbors of Turkey, but also an aspiration that
these states enclose the greatest part of their policy in Turkey. For
example, for Georgia and Bulgaria cooperate through Turkey. In this
connection, Davutoglu is perceived in Turkey as a supporter of
neo-Ottomanism.

Giving an analysis to the Party Justice and Development (PJD) ruling
in Turkey, we arrive to a conclusion that it tried to put the
aforementioned concept into practice. Today Turkey exerts great
efforts to improve the relations with its neighbors. For example, at
the end of the 20th century, Turkey was in disagreeable relations
almost with all its neighbors, both in the Arab world and in the
Caucasus and with Iran. The picture is different at present. One
should not ignore the Eurasian subject matter either. The program of
the PJD mentions the Eurasian subject matter as well. An agreement of
cooperation in Eurasia was signed between Turkey and Russia in New
York in 2001. According to this document, task groups at a high level
were formed, which would coordinate the policy of the two countries
in the Eurasian space. Despite the fact that these groups gathered
some three of four times in that period of time, the attempt to
coordinate geo-strategies between Turkey and Russia in the Eurasian
space testifies much.

As a result, if one studies the conceptual basis of the existing
Russian-Turkish relations, the following two concepts go into it:
strategic depth and Eurasian subjects. In this aspect, the existing
trends can be characterized as an aspiration of the two regional
super powers to deaden regional cooperation, which, of course, still
remains, to strengthen economic cooperation and gradually begin to
solve geo-strategic tasks.

Let us suppose that Russia and Turkey are dissatisfied with their
positions in the world arena and try to coordinate their acts to
increase their rating. How will the USA and Europe response to it? It
is right to consider the rapprochement with Russia an alternative for
Turkey in the issue of joining the EU, taking into account the
tension in the relations of Russia with the EU?

I shall start with the last question. In the course of his visit to
Ankara, Putin, in particular, said the following: you needn’t
admission to the European Union; you’d better deepen the cooperation
with us. If Turkey becomes a EU-member, it will be more difficult for
it to cooperate with Russia. It was in early December. By the way,
these words of Putin arouse a negative response of Turkey. However,
already on December 17, the situation changed. In the course of
Erdogan’s visit to Moscow, Putin made a cardinally opposite statement
coming to the following: it is very good that the EU has made a right
decision and Turkey will be admitted to the EU. As a result, our
cooperation will even more strengthen.

There are rather influential forces in Turkish elite, which thinks
about the following: Europe is a good think, indeed, and we should
become part of it, but to be respected, we must have a reliable and
influential rear. And the greater is the influence outside the EU,
the more influence we shall gain inside it. Thus, Turkey, of course,
will do everything to use the privileges gained during the last
two-three years in the aspect of the increase in its influence and
reputation in the eyes of Europeans, including though development of
relations with Russia. It is the meaning of a group.

These is also a pro-American group sure that Turkey should aspire for
maintenance of special relations with the USA, and that aspiration
for the EU and the relations with Russia are of secondary importance,
in the given case. At present, this group is ousted from big
politics, but it is still very strong. The Eurasian group, which is
marginal, belongs to the third wing. It is for the necessity of
deepening relations with Iran, as well as with Russia and China,
including, within the frameworks of SCO.

As regards the top ruling over Turkey at present, one should not
forget that these people belong to the traditional Turkish elite.
There is a very interesting opinion that today Turkey is coming back
to the very natural appearance it must be in. It is connected with
the fact that the ruling party expresses the aspirations and
interests of the greatest part of the population unlike all the other
Turkish rulers, starting from Young Turks, who implanted definite
concepts contradicting to the Turkish mentality. In this aspect, the
greatest part of the Turkish elite does not perceive seriously the
people who are in power at present. The first think that Turkey must
not exceed the frameworks of the traditional policy, as it is
stronger in an alliance with the USA. Thus, anti-Americanism in
Turkey cannot bring any considerable political dividends, though, at
the same time, the country itself is one of the most anti-American
ones, as to public sentiments, leaving behind the same Iran. It is
this public anti-Americanism that is used by the PJD ruling in
Turkey. They play on it and it is part of their very big internal
popularity.

What do you think of Moscow’s position on the Cyprus problem,
especially in the light of the failure of UN Secretary General’s
plan?

After the Turkish part of Cyprus voted for Kofi Annan’s plan,
Vladimir Putin stated that it is absolutely senseless and foul to
continue isolating the Turkish part of Cyprus. Of course, Turks were
pleasantly surprised with the words of the Russian President. Judging
by the official reaction of the Greek and Cyprian parties, they have
seen no real sign of a change in Moscow’s policy in this issue yet.
The EU is known to prepare for presentation of a new plan of
resolution to Cyprian problem, however, as I know, Russia is for
Annan’s plan and it will not support that of the EU. I think, the
fact that Turks provided Russia with an opportunity to occur in the
internal gas, oil and now energy markets of Turkey played a definite
role here. The privatization of Turkish energy distribution networks
is in process, with Russia displaying an interest in it. Besides, a
possibility of laying electricity transmission lines along the bottom
of Black Sea is currently under consideration. It is most probably
that Russia also gave its agreement on the construction and even
financing of the Trans-Thracian oil pipeline. Construction of a gas
terminal in the port Ceyhan is supposed to become the largest Russian
investment program abroad, though no official announcements have been
made in this connection.

It is necessary to assess as another factor that 40,000-strong
Turkish army is dislocated in Cyprus, which is favorable for the USA
as Cyprus is close to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and, which is the most
important, to Ceyhan. Factually, in the strategic aspect, Cyprus
protects Ceyhan, i.e. the uninterrupted supply of oil from Ceyhan
terminal. Americans plan to construct a military base in Cyprus,
where they have a tracking base, which is the largest in the Middle
East controlling over the South Caucasus, Middle East and Arab
states. As regards Europe, it is also favorable for it that Cyprus be
restored as a united state. If Annan’s plan were accepted, Europe
would have to allocate over $20 billion for its implementation.

Still, how real is Turkey’s full membership at the EU? Whether
Europe’s response will be in favor of Ankara in this connection?

I do not think the prospect of a positive response so simple. Turkey
may receive a negative answer as well. In my opinion, the European
public is not satisfied with the decision to start talks for Turkey’s
admission to the EU adopted on December 17. In their turn, France and
Austria stated that they would announce a referendum on the given
issue. Meanwhile, it is a factual rejection to Ankara taking into
account the existing realities. Evidently, there is a great field for
bargaining here and the result will depend on Turkey’s state. Let’s
think of the issue seriously. Europe feels no need in Turkey. Just
one geo-political factor can be a clear answer to it – EU with Turkey
is one thing, while EU without Turkey is quite another. On the other
hand, I have grounds to suppose that Armenia will become a EU
member-state sooner than Turkey.

In the course of Russian-Turkish negotiations in Moscow, the issues
of the Armenian agenda, including Karabakh problem and the blockade
of the Armenian-Turkish boundary, were also in question. What do you
think, whether the rapprochement of Russia and Turkey is able to
influence the position of the Russian party on the Karabakh problem
or become a reason for an unfavorable shuffle of the Armenian cards?

Before answering the question, I’d like to draw your attention to
data of a survey carried out by the Russian Center for Public Opinion
Studies (VCIOM) on the attitude of Russians to Turkey. According to
these data, 71% of Russians display a positive attitude to Turkey,
51% consider it a reliable trade-and-economic partner, and 16% think
it a fraternal country. The Gallop International in Georgia asked a
similar question. The following data were fixed: only 7% of Georgians
consider Turkey a reliable partner, another 13% see some danger in
that country. To compare, only 3% of Russians think that Turkey is an
enemy country and a probable rival.

Deepening of political cooperation of Russia with Turkey is in the
background of a factual closure of Turkey’s approach to the South
Caucasus. I think the spring of 2002 a crucial point in this respect.
Then Americans made a decision to dispatch a limited contingent of
military instructors to Georgia. As I know, dispatch of Turkish
specialists to Georgia was considered initially. However, in future,
Washington refused from that idea. Probably, Turkey’s role as a
junior partner, assistance of the USA in its expansion to the South
Caucasus, is brought to the minimum at present. Though, we
mechanically keep considering Turkey the major guide of US policy. It
is not so. I think, establishment of new type mobile bases of the USA
in Georgia is a question of time, but probably it will happen in
Azerbaijan at first. So, in this respect, in the Caucasus, Turkey is
no longer dangerous for Russia. That is, the Caucasus, which was an
apple of discord for the two empires for centuries, is
no longer the same. It should be noted that at the beginning of the
last century, the Caucasus was divided between Soviet Russia and
Kemalist Turkey, in the first half of 90s when Russia’s withdrawal
resulted in vacuum in the Caucasus, Turkey tried to fill that vacuum.
Then Russia began returning and Turkey withdrawing again. But, then
occurred the USA, which neglected both Russia and Turkey in the same
way and acted as it thought fit. Hence, the geo-political rivalry of
Russia and Turkey in the Caucasus has been brought to the minimum,
which made their deeper cooperation possible, on the whole. In this
background, of course, the Turkish party each time raises an issue to
Moscow concerning the pressure on its ally, Armenia, to make it
release the territories. Turkey raised this issue in the course of
Putin’s visits to Ankara and to Moscow recently. However, to all
appearances, Russia each time rejects it. Speaking at a press
conference, Putin stated rather exactly that Russia had no intention
to exert pressure on any country; it would limit itself with the role
of a mediator and a guarantor of fulfillment of the agreements to be
signed by the parties. Sergey Ivanov stated almost the same in the
USA. That is, I do not share the concerns of definite political
circles of Armenia that Russia will expert pressure on us in the
issue of Karabakh in favor of Turkey. There are no real grounds for
it. Russia and Turkey have many other spheres to go on compromises.
But, I repeat, at the present level of Russia-Turkey and
Russia-Armenia relations a pressure on Yerevan on Karabakh problem is
ruled out.

Is it possible that Moscow exerts pressure both on Armenia and
Azerbaijan demanding resolution of the issue in the nearest future?

Turkey is not a country able to affect the process of Karabakh
conflict’s resolution within the framework of OSCE Minsk Group. It
can influence the process as it did one or two times torpedoing
almost ready agreements in 90s using all its influence on Azerbaijan.
At the given stage, Turkey is unable to influence Russia in order
that it, in its turn, influences Armenia. Moscow will not go on it.

A decision to start negotiations with Turkey for its admission to the
EU was made on December 17. Naturally, the process will last long.
What do you think, how heavy factor of pressure on Turkey by Europe
can become the Armenian Clause?

At first, Armenia does not perceive adequately what has happened. The
Armenian Clause is included into the agenda of the big European
politics. That is, it has happened what Armenians aspired for
decades. It is a fact, which Armenia is not fully aware of. By the
way, it does not mean that this issue cannot be in the same agenda.
Yet at the beginning of the last year, Chirac said although the fact
of the Genocide was adopted by the French Parliament, the issue of
recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey must be solved by
Ankara and Yerevan; but, everything changed by the end of the year.
It was not only Chirac that pointed out the necessity of raising the
issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, but also one
of the leading politicians N. Sarkozy and Foreign Minister M.
Barnier.

One should not forget that Armenia is a sovereign state, which is
able to play a definite role and does it. At the same time, for me
personally, dividends can be exclusively moral. Recognition of the
Genocide by Turkey is my duty to the annihilated generations. What is
the policy of the European Union? These are political decisions
adopted by bureaucratic structures of the EU and the EU
member-states. However, not only pragmatic calculations and political
interests, but also public opinion influence the adoption of these
decisions. It is a very strong resource of influence on the policy of
the EU in the Armenian Clause. I think Armenia does not use it fully.
I think diplomacy is diplomacy, but the public resource must be used.
Today Turkey exerts great efforts to protect its interests in the
issue of Genocide. At the end of December, the Foreign Minister of
Turkey, Abdullah Gul, met MPs and stated, in particular, the
following: the issue of admission to the EU comes to that of
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. That is, as to the remaining
issues, compromises can be found. Meanwhile, there is no compromise
in the issue of the Genocide, either Turkey recognizes it or not. I
think Europe will be adherent in this issue. Meanwhile, one should
not hope for Diaspora, but to express its position exactly and insist
on it.

What do you think, whether the crisis in the American-Turkish
relations is able to lead to recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
Turkey, taking into account Washington’s statements that Turkey
should not forget about the events of the beginning of the last
century when raising the issue of Kirkuk? It is necessary to mention
that 30 States have recognized the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian Diaspora of the USA has rather wide lobbying activities.
However, I think that it made a very big fault. In the course of the
last presidential election in the USA, it supported John Kerry only
and has practically broken its ties with Republicans unlike the first
elections. Definite attempts of diversifications are currently made,
however, the positions of the Armenian lobby in the USA have become
considerably weak. Even without taking it into account, I do not
think that the Republican Administration of the White House will go
on recognition of the Genocide. In my opinion, neo-conservatives just
dislike Armenians.

Today the Armenian public is concerned for the possibility of
Armenia’s being bypassed by the new project to build a railroad
connecting Turkey with Georgia and Azerbaijan. Do you see any good
grounds in the urges for abandoning the idea of the Armenian Genocide
recognition in order to avoid the lot of a deadlock country for
Armenia?

I don’t accept such a formulation. There can be no 100% benefit or
detriment from one or another decision. As for concerns, they are
inspired by Turkey and come to one single formula – cooperation or
deadlock. Meanwhile, Armenia has a big advantage over the other South
Caucasian states. We have preserved our territorial integrity unlike
Georgia and Azerbaijan, which, according to the well-known concept,
is the first feature of a full-fledged state. Armenia has been
controlling big (in regional dimensions) territories for ten years
already managing in the meantime to enhance its economic growth.

These two factors alone show that Armenia cannot be a deadlock
country. On the contrary, today we are the dominating center of this
geo-political area and being in the center both geographically and
geo-politically one cannot simply get in a deadlock. This is an
axiom. Of course, Turkey and Azerbaijan may want to bypass Armenia.
But I don’t think that Georgia might want the same. The real actors
on the global arena, such as the US and Russia, will nonetheless be
guided by geo-political ends in the first place. It’s not a
coincidence that Armenia has been officially included in the
`North-South’ international transport corridor. As for the
above-mentioned Kars (Turkey)-Akhalkaki (Georgia) railroad, this idea
was first expressed by Shevardnadze while Saakashvili signed the
agreement already. As you may know Saakashvili has an idée fix to
make Batumi a big transport center with an airport of international
importance. To have a free hand he needs to connect Batumi with Kars
– this project is part of his plan. In any case, I don’t see any big
threat for Armenia – if the South Caucasian borders are opened we
will be able to join this road at any moment.

The interview was originally conducted by the Regnum News Agency and
provided to the Global Politician by Prof. Safrastyan.

Ramallah Online, Palestine
Jan 24 2005

Harry the Nazi

by Brady Long, Ramallah Online Columnist

I will be the first to express my indignation at the choice of
costume by Prince Harry.

But what troubles me is the righteousness coming from various world
leaders, including Israelis, as if this costume and symbol are alone
in their representation of evil of the 20th century. The European
Union would like to see this symbol banned. Is it time to put the
Nazi atrocities including the holocaust into the context of 20th
century genocides?

During the program, Dateline London, BBC, one of the guests asked if
there would have been a similar outcry if the Prince had costumed
himself as Stalin, Hirohito, Mussolini, Mao, Mugabe, the Young Turks
circa Turkey 1915, etc. The Jewish guest reacted swiftly by stating
that there was no comparison to what Hitler did to the Jews to any
other figure of the 20th century. During a conversation with a close
friend, he echoed a similar response by referring to the ghastly
images of the trains, the crematoria, and the snarling dogs. In one
sense I agreed but then again if nobody witnesses the falling of a
tree does it diminish the falling of the tree? This reality has
spurred me on to search out past and, in some cases, present
holocausts/genocides.

Whereas the holocaust was horrific, it pales to what Stalin inflicted
on the five to seven million Ukrainians, murdered by starvation, the
Chechnyans, the Cossacks and many others. From 1917 to 1987, the
Communist government murdered about forty-one million.

Ask the relatives of the five million Poles who also were killed by
the Nazis if they had received preferential treatment when they were
forced into the gas chambers or summarily executed.

The first holocaust of the 20th century occurred in what is now known
as Namibia; this was the first genocide of the 20th century. Some
Hereros have suggested that the Nazi Holocaust was patterned after
this genocide some three and a half decades later. `Germany ruled
Namibia from 1880 to 1915. In 1904, Herero warriors were angered at
the German settlers who had enslaved their people, lynched their men,
and stolen their land, cattle and women. On Jan 12, they massacred
about two hundred German civilians. Although the uprising ended on
1904-Aug-11, the German army continued to exterminate the Hereros
until 1907, resulting in the deaths of perhaps 65,000 persons. As is
usual in these mass slaughters, the number of victims is unknown. The
Herero population alive at the time range from 50,000 to 120,000.
About 15, 000 survived.’ ( )

“The [Christian] Armenian genocide of 1915-1916 effectively wiped out
the Armenian population of Turkey, claiming some 1.5 million victims.
Perhaps 75,000 Armenians endure in Turkey today, most of them in
Istanbul. The Armenian Genocide occurred in a systematic fashion,
which proves that it was directed by the Turkish government — the
Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire. First the Armenians in
the army were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then
killed. Then the Armenian political and intellectual leaders were
rounded up on [1915-] April 24 and killed. Finally, the remaining
Armenians were rounded up, told they would be relocated, and then
marched off to concentration camps in the desert between Jerablus and
Deir ez-Zor where they would starve and thirst to death in the
burning sun…The authorities in Trebizond, on the Black Sea coast,
did vary this routine: they loaded Armenians on barges and sank them
far out at sea. Three current and past governments of Turkey have
denied that the genocide actually happened. On January 18th 2001,
France passed a law branding as genocide the mass murder of Armenians
at the hands of the Ottoman Turk.’ (This information has been taken
from the following sources,
“The Armenian
Genocide,” at: )

Croatia, 1941 to 1945, was the arena of another holocaust whose
intent was racial purification.

`These atrocities were perpetrated by the Ustaša regime, the
Independent State of Croatia, which was established in power by the
Nazi government of Germany during World War II. They fiercely hated
Serbs, Jews, Communists and all other non-Catholics. Their goals were
to convert Croatia into a pure Croatian and Roman Catholic
independent state. On July 22nd, 1941 Dr. Mile Budak, the Ustaša
Minister of Education and Cults, said: “The movement of the Ustashi
is based on religion. For minorities-Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, we have
three million bullets. We shall kill one part of the Serbs. We shall
transport another, and the rest of them will be forced to embrace the
Roman Catholic religion. Thus, our new Croatia will get rid of all
Serbs in our midst in order to become one hundred percent Catholic
within ten years.” (“The embodied devils: Who was who in NDH?” Balkan
Repository Project, at: )

Other examples of ethnic/ideological cleansing in the 20th century
include:

Nanking, China- December 12th, 1937 – 320 thousand
China-1949 to1987 – 35million.
Cambodia-1975 to1979 – 2 million.
East Timor-1975 to1999 – 200 thousand.
Rwanda – 1994 – 800 thousand.
Bosnia/Herzegoviana-1975 to 1999, – 200 thousand.
Kosovo- 1998 to 1999 – deaths unknown.
Democratic Republic of Congo- 1997 to the present – 3 to 5 million.
Indonesia- 1965-1966, 1972 – 500 thousand.
Burundi- 1972 – 100 to 200 thousand.
Palestine- 1947 – 2005 ????????????
Before we jump to the conclusion that all of these holocausts were
the result of totalitarian regimes, look at the following examples of
pre-20th century holocausts closer to home.

….`For about 300 years, during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance
periods, the Christian church was directly or indirectly responsible
for the arrest, torture and execution of persons believed to worship
Satan or express heretical religious ideas. Civil courts, not by the
Catholic Church, passed most of the death sentences. However, the
church was indirectly involved: It provided the theological
foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts. It
created a false and unsupportable belief that large numbers of
worshipers had sold their soul to Satan and were committing evil and
homicidal acts. Belief in Witches gradually dissipated during the Age
of Enlightenment, as people began to question the reality of many
long-held religious beliefs. Estimates on the number of victims range
from 3,000 (from a Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (from various
Neopagan sources).’

`…For his second voyage to the Americas, Columbus took the title
Admiral of the Ocean Sea and proceeded to unleash a reign of terror
unlike anything seen before or since. When he was finished, eight
million Arawaks — virtually the entire native population of
Hispaniola — had been exterminated by torture, murder, forced labor,
starvation, disease and despair. Later European Christian invaders
systematically murdered additional tens of millions of Aboriginal
people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. The exact number
is unknown. Natives were murdered by warfare, forced death marches,
forced relocation to barren lands, intentional and accidental spread
of disease, poisoning, the promotion of suicide through the
destruction of their cultural and religious heritage, etc. Even
today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide of any population
group in the world.’ The genocide against American Aboriginals is one
of the most massive, and longest lasting genocidal program in human
history.

`… The European invasion of Australia started in 1788. The population
of Aboriginals in the country was approximately 750,000. By 1911, the
number had been reduced to 31,000. Diseases introduced by the
invaders decimated most, against which the Aboriginals had no
defense. Some 20,000 were murdered. In those days, “The Sydney Herald
claimed that blacks had ‘bestowed no labor upon the land-their
ownership, their right, was nothing more than that of the Emu or the
Kangaroo.’ Courts rejected Aboriginal evidence, because
non-Christians could not swear oaths, and white killers used ‘the
defense that Aboriginal morality did not exist’. The extermination of
Aboriginals in Tasmania was particularly brutal; many white settlers
would shoot them on sight. In 1830, the remaining 300 Aboriginals
were ethnically cleansed from Tasmania. They were captured and
transferred to Flinders Island. They signed a treaty, which
guaranteed their later return. It was never honored. By 1843, only 50
remained alive. The atrocities continued into the 20th century.
Between 1910 and 1970, between one in three and one in ten indigenous
children were forcibly removed from their families. They were placed
with white families in order to absorb these people into the general
population. Aboriginals were finally granted citizenship in 1967.
They still await an apology from the Government of Australia.’

Why is it that we gravitate to the persecution of the Jews but not to
the millions of other victims? One answer may be ignorance while the
other is ominous in its prejudicial nature. The following excerpt
from the archives of MacLean’s may shed light upon the latter.

`It was not possible to get very close to the Russians nor to find
out anything much about them. They were a dumb, passive lot, knowing
no language but their own and quite devoid of intelligence for the
most part. ‘(Canadian POW/WW1 speaking about a fellow Russian POW)
One reality that is irrefutable is that Jewish persecution is the
longest in human history, (not the longest genocidal program-
American Aboriginals-) but that fact must not diminish the suffering
of all peoples who have and are being persecuted. The city of
Montreal, Canada came up with a novel idea

‘There are many monuments dedicated to various particular Human
tragedies in the world. In 1998 however, the City of Montréal was
innovative in this field by erecting a monument called La Réparation
– Monument á la mémoire des victimes de génocides, created by artist
Francine Larivée. This monument was dedicated to all victims of
genocides in the 20th century”, says the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.
La Presse, 1998.
Sadly Sharon and Bush, his chief ally, refuse to reflect on the past
and have chosen to do to the Palestinians what many are saying is
another attempt at ethnic persecution and in some cases ethnic
cleansing. Also, Bush and his coalition of the willing are
spearheading a war, not on terror, but on a crusade against Islam.
The first attempt took place one thousand years past and ended in
tragedy; this crusade is reaping the same results.

To conclude, if Prince Harry’s choice of the swastika is to be banned
and he should be forced to go to the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz and repent, should not the bearers of the
Star of David and the Star Spangled Banner be subjected to a similar
fate and be forced to go to the many places upon which they have
inflicted death and destruction and should many of us who have
ignored the plight of the Palestinians, and so many others, be made
to do the same?

;file=article&sid85

Moscow trying to get Azerbaijan in military bloc, political analyst says

Yeni Musavat, Baku
24 Jan 05

Text of report by Elsad in Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 24
January headlined “Lavrov comes to ‘pressure’ Azerbaijan” and
subheaded “Moscow wants to get Baku in its military-strategic orbit”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s expected visit to Azerbaijan
[on 2-3 February] has raised some questions. Even, some speculate that
Moscow is trying to take over the initiative in the region in the
run-up to the Iran operations to prevent US plans to use Azerbaijani
territory. Moscow is believed to be sending Lavrov to Baku to get
Azerbaijan aligned with the CIS Collective Security Treaty. The fact
that the Russian president openly spoke about it in his last expanded
news conference was a herald of this intention of the [Soviet]
empire’s successor. Undoubtedly, if Moscow, which is against the Iran
operations, manages to have Baku agree to join this treaty, there will
be problems for the USA in using Azerbaijani territory.

Stressing that a proposal of this kind has been made [on Azerbaijan’s
membership of the Collective Security Treaty], political analyst [and
former head of the Azerbaijani presidential secretariat] Eldar Namazov
has however said that this is not taken quite positively in
Azerbaijan. “It would be ridiculous for Azerbaijan to be in the
military bloc with the occupying country. I do not think anybody can
see Azerbaijan in that bloc before Armenia liberates the Azerbaijani
territories.”

The expert recalled that Lavrov will visit Azerbaijan for the first
time against the background of the recent developments in the CIS,
namely in Georgia and Ukraine. “Therefore, it will be an interesting
visit for all. Namely, does Russia have any corrections over the
recent developments in the CIS? We will find an answer to this
question during Lavrov’s visit.”

“A revolution has turned into an actual threat in Russia. I already
see a lot of young people among protesters. From this viewpoint,
Moscow should end playing with our fate,” another political analyst
[and former presidential advisor on foreign policy issues] Vafa
Quluzada has said. It is “inadmissible” for Azerbaijan to follow
Russia, he believes. “It is possible to maintain relations with Russia
after a normal government is established there.” Quluzada believes
that Lavrov is coming to pressure official Baku to ensure that
Azerbaijan joins the Collective Security Treaty.

“Visits of this kind will not have negative results if Azerbaijan does
not join the treaty. If otherwise, adverse results for our national
interests are inevitable.”

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep
Jan 24 2005

Armenian Coalition To Mull Proposed Deal With Opposition

Leaders of the Armenian parliament’s pro-government majority promised
on Friday to consider an unexpected opposition offer to reach a
compromise agreement on constitutional amendments put forward by
President Robert Kocharian.

Parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian told a senior opposition
lawmaker, Victor Dallakian, that he will begin `political
consultations’ with fellow majority leaders over three constitutional
changes demanded by the Artarutyun bloc and the National Unity Party
(AMK).

The changes would empower the National Assembly to endorse
prime-ministerial candidates nominated by the president, seriously
limit the latter’s controversial authority to appoint and sack judges
as well as make the mayor of Yerevan an elected official. The two
opposition groups have indicated that they will endorse Kocharian’s
package of draft amendments if their proposals are incorporated into
it.

Dallakian told reporters that Baghdasarian promised to finish the
consultations within ten days. `We put forward a package proposal,’
he said. `If two coalition parties accept but the other rejects them,
we will not participate in this process.’

The opposition has previously rejected Kocharian’s constitutional
amendments as undemocratic and vowed to scuttle his efforts to push
them through a referendum expected this summer. Leaders of the three
parties represented in Kocharian’s government reacted positively to
the softening of the opposition stance.

`We will consider that proposal,’ said Gagik Minasian of the
Republican Party (HHK), the biggest parliamentary force.

`Most of the [opposition] proposals are quite sound ones,’ said Armen
Rustamian of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun).

The coalition parties had offered the opposition the right of veto in
the reform process, in an unsuccessful attempt to stave off a
campaign of anti-Kocharian street protests last spring. Both Minasian
and Rustamian told RFE/RL that the offer may no longer be on the
table.

`It is strange that they are reacting to that offer now,’ said the
HHK representative.

`I am glad that our colleagues now accept our offer made at that
time. But there is a problem of missing the right moment,’ said
Rustamian. `The political situation makes some things possible at one
point and problematic at another. The situation has changed a bit. So
has our mood.’

Global Politician, NY
Jan 24 2005

Kurds and the Kurdistans

1/23/2005

By Antero Leitzinger

Western thinking leads us to figure out nations on the basis of a
common language or religion. According to the principle of
nation-state, each nation must have a homeland. But are the Kurds one
united nation, or rather a heterogeneous group of various nations in
the same way as, for instance, the Scandinavians [Swedes, Danes,
Norwegians, Icelanders] or the Baltic Finns [Finns, Estonians,
Karelians, Ingrians, Veps, Livonians]?

The Kurds speak several languages and confess even more religions.
Equally big differences prevail between Kurdish languages as between
them and Persian. If Gurani and Luri are just dialects of one and
same language, then are not also Sorani and Kurmandji dialects of
Persian? If the Kurds still need a state separate from other Iranic
nations, would there next be a liberation movement of Zazakistan
within independent Kurdistan?

There are several Kurdistans, “lands of the Kurds”, in the world –
not only because the traditional territory inhabited by Kurds is
divided between at least six states, but also because each Kurdish
party has their own idea of the borders, governance and future of
their ideal state. The Kurds have dozens of nationalist parties, and
besides, many Kurds support cross-country parties that exceed ethnic
boundaries in those countries where free party activity is legal at
all.

In Iran, there is a province called Kordestan, rooted in medieval
times, but the Kurdish state that declared independence in 1946 was
not located in Kordestan, but in the province of Western Azerbaijan.
In Iraq, the Kurdish region is divided into three parts: the stripe
governed by the Baath party, and the territories of the competitor
Kurd parties KDP and PUK. The “Red Kurdistan” that officially belongs
to Azerbaijan, is presently ruled by Armenia. Part of Syria’s Kurds
have lacked citizenship and civil rights for four decades already. In
Turkey, the position of Kurds is better than in any of her
neighbouring countries, but still it is the Turkish Kurds, whose
human rights are usually covered by international media.

Whose Kurdistan is the right one? The Iraqi Kurds are under the
protection of the NATO, but the PKK considers NATO their enemy.
Founding a national state in the Middle East has its model in Israel,
but the idea was once agitated by the Soviet Union. The Kurdish
national identity is often shaped among the immigrants in Europe, and
under the influence of controversal political programmes. The problem
touches Europe, but is it necessarily a problem?

——————————————————————————–

KURDS AND THE KURDISTANS

The Kurds and Kurdistan – a nation and a state? Western line of
thinking leads us to the idea of nation-state, but can it be suited
to the reality of Middle East? What is a nation? Does every nation
need a state on their own? Does one Kurdistan exist, or are there
several of them?

ENVIRONMENT: THE MIDDLE EAST

Before we concentrate in the Kurds, it is a good idea to pay some
attention on their bigger neighbour nations: the Turks, the Arabs,
and the Persians.

– The Turks are linguistically and culturally a very united nation.
They inhabit a very wide zone from Cyprus to the Great Wall of China.
Only about half of the world’s Turks are living in Turkey. The core
area is Turkestan, “land of the Turks”, in Central Asia. It is
divided by at least seven states. When Turkish nationalism developed
in the 1800s, it adopted the model from Europe, but this
European-modelled national idea has still not yet spread very deep
into east.

– The Arab nation is divided into dozens of states, among which none
was entirely independent hundred years ago. Arab nationalism was
connected with Arab socialism, but still failed in its attempts to
unite the Arab world in the 1900s. What remained was a lot of
bitterness and chronical problems of international politics.

– The Persians belong to the Iranic peoples. They have their nominate
state Iran, which was earlier called Persia abroad. Also Tajikistan
and Afghanistan are Iranic states.

The relationship between Iran and Turkey is interesting. Every fourth
Iranian is ethnically Turk. In Iran’s Southern Azerbaijan there are
more of Turkish “Azeris” than in the formally independent Northern
Azerbaijan. Iran also has Turkmen population larger than
Turkmenistan. These Turkish tribes differ from each other about as
much as Savonians and Karelians [two Finnish tribes].

Azerbaijan and Kurdistan are in many ways like mirror images of each
other. Both were promised independence at the end of the World War I.
Both got to taste Soviet-styled independence after the World War II.
Ten years ago, Northern Azerbaijan and Southern Kurdistan became free
from the occupation of Russia and Iraq, but their independence is
still weak. On the other hand, Iran, now surrounded by newly
independent states, fears more than ever before that her Western
parts would split up.

The world around the Kurds is not whole and not simple. The problems
are common.

LANGUAGE

Are the Kurds one, united nation, or are they a group of Iranic
tribes? Can the difference between a nation and a tribe be
objectively defined?

According to the Persians, the Kurds speak various dialects of
Persian. According to others, Kurdish is a distinct relative language
to Persian. The boundary is soft, and Luri might be as well a Persian
dialect as a Kurdish language. After all, the choice is political:
which group one wants to be identified with.

Between Kurdish dialects or languages there are so big differences
that they must be taken into consideration in interpretation. The
differences are bigger than between German and Danish or between
Spanish and Portuguese.

In Iran, three important Kurdish languages are spoken:

– Gurani is the liturgical language of the “People of Truth”
(Ahl-i-Haqq). They constitute an old religious group, which lives in
the historical core of Kurdistan, in the area of the medieval khanate
of Ardalan.

– Sorani is the most studied and best-known Kurdish language. It has
an official status in Iraq, where it is spoken by the Kurds living
around Suleymania. They, too, believe that they descend from the
Ardalan Khanate.

– Kurmandji is spoken in all the Kurdish homelands. In Northern Iraq,
the Kurmandji area is governed by the Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP), which uses Arabic script. The Turkish Kurmandjis use Latin
alphabet of the Turkish model. In the Soviet Union, Kurmandji was
also written with Cyrillic letters.

The fourth important Kurdish language is Zaza or Dimili, which is
spoken in Turkey. Many Zazas aim at forming a special area of
Zazakistan, instead of independent Kurdistan. Despite their
geographic distance, Zaza and Gurani are closer to each other than to
Sorani or Kurmandji. This is due to the fact that Kurdish settlement
has spread westwards with rapid and long pulses.

Linguistic disunity is not as such a hindrance to united national
feeling. Nationalism has often been based on a hardly common written
language. In the neighbourhood of the Kurds, the Georgians and the
North Caucasians have proved this. Also Italian language and the
Slavonic languages of the Balkan countries were only created in the
1800s to support the ideas of national unification and political
independence.

The Kurdish languages are strongly based on Arabic loan words. So
were also Persian and Turkish based on Arabic loans before the
linguistic reforms of the 1900s, in which the written language was
“cleaned” of “alien” elements. When the differences between the three
great linguistic groups of the Middle East were emphasised, the
Kurdish languages fell in between. In a way, the Kurds were born in
the vacuum left by the narrow interpretation of the dominant
cultures.

One Kurdish dictionary has been published in Finnish, by Lokman
Abbas. The Kurdish in it is Sorani. In Sweden one has published a
pocket dictionary in Kurmandji. Also in other European languages
there are Kurdish vocabularies, but the quality differs. Kurdish
literature is plentiful but developing a useful written language
still takes its time. Culture cannot be ordered like a home pizza;
one has to toil for it devotedly, and there must be lasting need for
it.

RELIGION

Besides language, religion can be used to unite or separate nations.

Most of the Kurds are Sunnite Muslims of the Shafi discipline.
Disciplinary differences are however that small that they do not
relevantly separate the Kurds from their Hanafi neighbours, the Turks
and the Arabs.

As Sunnite Muslims, most Kurds are separated from the Shi’ite Islam,
which is the state religion of Iran. Yet the Iraqi Feilis are Shi’ite
Kurds. Besides, many sects with Shi’ite origin are represented among
Kurds, and many of these sects also have strongly non-Islamic
influences.

Many believe that the most genuine Kurds are the Yesids, whose
religion is a strange mixture of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and
Zoroastrianism. On the other hand the Yesids feel deep distrust at
all outsiders, and often they are not even classified as actual
Kurds.

Nowadays the Assyrian Christians of Northern Iraq declare they are
Kurds. The Jewish Kurds were once evacuated to Israel. So, there are
Kurds belonging to every main religion of the region.

The Kurds cannot be exclusively defined by language, religion or any
single cultural feature. Even the spring celebration Nevruz, which
the Kurds will celebrate after two weeks at the time of the spring
equinox, is an old all-Iranian tradition. It is also celebrated by
Central Asian Turks.

The Kurdish culture changes in time. Some “age-old Kurdish
traditions” were in fact born in Germany in recent decades. This is
nothing unusual, as many nations without state have found their
identity in exile, in Diaspora.

The strength of the Kurds and the vitality of Kurdish culture are in
their ability to create new, and to combine traditions of the Middle
Eastern dominant cultures and numerous minorities. The variety and
flexibility of expression, typical for spoken language, the religious
plurality, and the whole wide scale of culture are not necessarily
weaknesses splitting up the community, and by no means they are
reasons for shame. The Kurds have not succeeded in imitating European
nationalism of the 1800s, but they have succeeded in what today’s
Europeanity is dreaming about: unity in variety.

PARTIES

A nation without state may feel orphan or homeless. In that case,
however, the state has been given tasks that it could hardly fulfil.

The main Kurdish parties are all state-centrist, their background
being hard-line socialist. The KDP and its Iranian brother party were
founded in Stalin’s protection. In that time the Kurds were hailing
Stalin as “the liberator of small nations”.

When the KDP was released from the Soviet Union’s guidance in the
1960s, the PUK was founded to defend fundamentalist Marxism. The
Kurdish section Komala was split up from the Iranian Communist Party.

By time, the number of Kurdish parties was increased by splitting.
Those shocked of the collapse of Soviet power founded Workers’
Communist Party (WCP) in Iraq and Iran. This party has spectacular
presence in the virtual reality, in internet.

Also “Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse Tung’s thought” gained supporters
among Kurds. They founded the Kurdish Workers’ Party, PKK, which is
internationally the best-known, but by no means the only, Kurdish
organisation.

There are dozens of specially Kurdish parties. Many of them are
one-man enterprises or stages of the main parties. All in all, they
share a common belief in the idea that a state on their own would
solve all the problems of the Kurds, and the problems are understood
as basically economic exploitation.

Because the Kurds have many but dear parties, also the goals of
independence are rather party politics than national projects. There
is no consensus on Kurdistan’s borders, form of government and
symbols like flag. Each party has its own Kurdistan. Each party also
has its own army, its schools, and its health system. The parties
have adopted many tasks of tribes. Membership in a party is often
strategic allegiance of family and tribe, not free and ideological
choice of the individual.

Each party has its international sponsors: PUK has historically
leaned at Syria, and KDP at Turkey. PKK has leaned at both Syria and
Iraq. Exploitation has been mutual.

The Kurdish parties are fighting each other. For three years now, KDP
and PUK have respected their ceasefire, mainly due to external
pressure, but meanwhile, PKK has fought against both these Iraqi
Kurdish parties.

In democracy it is natural that parties disagree. Usually they do,
however, agree on large-scale national questions, and in the times of
war they act under common war command. For example, the Chechens
demand independence before all, and only secondarily come the
questions of the country’s future systems of justice and economy. The
Finnish Jäger [Finnish freedom fighters trained in Germany before the
independence] included Red and White, Monarchists and Republicans.
Among the Kurdish parties, such agreement is missing.

REGIONS

Kurdistan has been founded many times and in many places.

In Iran, the Kurds declared independence in 1946, but it happened in
the city of Mahabad, not in the actual province of Kordestan.

The Kurdish autonomy in Iraq, recognised by the Iraqi government in
1970s, the de facto independent regional administration of Kurdistan
since 1991, and the no-flight area controlled by NATO, do not
entirely coincide in coverage. Besides, KDP and PUK have divided
their interest spheres along the dialect boundary.

In Turkey, Kurdistan has never been profoundly defined. It has been
at its best a vague anthropological conception, a bit like the “wolf
zone” in Finland [expression of periphery].

In the World War I, the European colonial powers Russia, France and
Britain were seizing new colonies by sharing the Middle East between
each other. They planned to found two newly old Christian
protectorats in Eastern Turkey: Armenia and Assyria. Both these
regionally overlapped with Kurdistan. Hatred was incited between the
Christian groups and the Islamic Kurds. This resulted massacres, for
which it is nowadays fashionable to blame Turkey, while the guilt of
the European counterparts is forgotten.

Turkey’s enemy in the World War I [Russia] as well as the fanatic
bandit groupings of the different parties have apparently got
absolution from their sins. Instead of Armenia and Assyria, Kurdistan
has appeared on the maps. It has traditionally had dangerous results
when European powers [like Russia and France] have started to redraw
Middle Eastern maps.

Today, Turkey’s Kurdistan could be defined in accordance with those
provinces that have state of emergency. However, most Turkish Kurds
live outside that region – many of them in the Turkish metropoles far
west from Kurdistan. For them, cultural autonomy would sound more
sensible than regional privileges.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Separation of the three dominant cultures of the Middle East left the
Kurds in between. As the Kurds were not “good” Arabs, and all of them
did not become “proper” Iranians or Turks, they were pushed aside and
they had to search for their own identity.

This has not always been the case and it need not be so forever. An
American journal appointed as “the man of 12th century” the Kurdish
chief Saladin, who led Islamic troops against the Crusaders. Saladin
is also the Arabs’ hero, and a historical regent admired by even his
European enemies. He was known for his religious tolerance and the
nobility of his character. Saladin was not profiled as rebel or
terrorist leader, but as the one who united the Middle East.

Kurdish nationalism and political activity is for a great part a
reaction to the policy of the states in the region. When the Kurds
have been respected, they have produced great statesmen like Saladin
for the honour of the whole Middle East. When the Kurds have been
despised, they have corroded the structures of all the states in the
region.

The most miserable situation prevails in Syria, where most of the
country’s Kurdish population has lacked all citizen rights for 40
years – literally.

Iraq’s situation is formally decent, but what value do laws and
contracts have, if the government cannot be trusted? In 1988, Saddam
Hussein’s troops murdered with gas raids estimated 200’000 Kurds
within only half a year. Is it then a wonder that the Iraqi Kurds
want to establish a humanitarian refuge for themselves and their
families in Europe, anticipating the worst?

When Armenia conquered territories from Azerbaijan, thousands of
Muslim Kurds were murdered and expelled from their home villages.
Only the Yesids got mercy from Armenians.

Guerrilla war took place in Iran and Turkey in 1980s and 1990s. In
both countries 40’000 people were killed, in Iran probably more.
Leaders of Iranian Kurds were assassinated in Europe, but for some
reason the Western press has been mainly interested in the arrest of
the Turkish PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, two years ago.

Yet Öcalan is about the worst possible example of a typical Kurd.
Öcalan speaks Turkish. The emissaries of the PKK in Europe speak
Turkish with each other. Öcalan has not for a single day fought as a
guerrilla, but still he has ordered death penalties to traitors,
deserters, school teachers and dissidents of his party. Öcalan’s
original idols were Che Guevara and Pol Pot. A Kurdish activist
hiding in Germany, Selim Cürükkaya, published a book named `PKK’ four
years ago. In his book, Cürükkaya describes the horrible ways of
discipline, paranoia and personal cult prevailing in the PKK. The
fanaticism of the supporters, child soldiers and suicides by burning
have caused immense damage to the reputation of the Kurds and their
cause. It is not without reason that Germany, France, Britain and the
United States have prohibited the PKK as a criminal organisation.

Hikmet Cetin, who has acted as the chairman of the Turkish parliament
and even as the acting president, is not at all less a Kurd than
Öcalan, even though he condemns the PKK. Every fifth parliamentarian
in Turkey is a Kurd. Also in Iran, the Kurds are represented in
government, police and army. All Kurds do not support specially
Kurdish parties and they do not demand a special Kurdish state. In
the violence of Turkey and Iran, there have been features of a
Kurdish civil war.

Iraq’s Kurds have their own great leaders. The deceised Mulla Mustafa
Barzani was virtuously leading his guerrillas, the “peshmergas”, in
the mountains of four countries for 30 years. Barzani’s son and
colleague are now leading opposite parties.

An average Kurd, however, is not a politician and not even
politically persecuted. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds are living in
Europe, a couple of thousands of them in Finland. Most of them are
ordinary, honest and hard-working immigrants, in whose home villages
the emigration started as early as in 1960s. They try to earn their
living and secure the future of their families. They want to save
their mother tongue, their religion and their customs on the level of
ordinary life. As citizens of Finland they are faithful to their new
fatherland, although Kurdistan remains in their memories and dreams.

Many nations without state have to keep nationality apart from
citizenship.

ENVIRONMENT: EUROPE

Nobody denies that the Kurds as individuals would deserve full human
rights and that these rights have been violated in many countries.
However, are the Kurds also a nation? According to the British
researcher David McDowall, the Kurds became a nation at the end of
the World War I. Many other researchers are still confused at the
question.

Who has the right to represent a nation? Are there some particular
“collective rights” that belong to a nation or its representatives?

Unfortunately we do not even know the actual number of Kurds, because
all the estimations appearing in the literature are based on other
estimations made decades ago. A nation without state is like a soup
without case – it slips out of hands and avoids attempts to define.

“Kurdistan” is a word that raises passions. Many governments are
allergic to it. On the other hand, many European politicians and
journalists are connecting rather romanticised ideas with Kurds.
Superficial and sensational supply of information is presenting
things in a simplistic form.

Europe has had the bad habit of playing hypocrite with human rights.
Minorities have been used as tools in superpower politics, but in
critical situations the minorities have been betrayed and abandoned.
The Kurds have gained selective publicity, whenever European powers
have wanted to avoid speaking about Basques or Bretons. The Turkish
idea of understanding all citizens of Turkey as “Turks” does not
differ from the similar conception of nationality in France and
Spain.

The Kurds have also been employed as examples of the Marxist theory
of empoverishment. The Australian Paul J. White, who published a book
on Kurds last year (`Primitive Rebels or Revolutionary Modernizers’),
still in our times describes the Kurds as Turkey’s “proletariat”.
This is artificial, condescending and insultive. Equally well the
Savonians and Karelians could be branded as Finland’s discriminated
proletarians, who is suffering in Helsinki’s suburbs. All Kurds would
not like to be characterised as eternal losers and they do not want
to mourn their fate and beg for sympathy.

Sometimes national identity is being interpreted in so purpose-bound
ways and so widely that it is hard to be taken seriously. A Turkish
Arabic-speaking Christian declares himself as a Kurd, because he
feels different and discriminated in his home country. If he becomes
unemployed, his bad luck is easy to explain as “persecution”. Is
anybody a Kurd if he feels loser?

According to an increasing point of view, the Kurds are present
Europe’s nomads, wandering asylum-seekers. But is this really only
due to difficult circumstances in the coutries of origin, or is it
rather due to the reluctant immigration policy of Europe, which
prefers sharing social support to admitting work permissions? To what
extent do the European countries encourage to apply and wait for an
asylum instead of giving equal treatment and fair chance to work and
embrace one’s own culture?

The Kurds are an inseparable part of the whole Middle East’s cultural
heritage. In them, also the best sides of Turkey, Iran and the Arab
countries are combined. Far too often the European discussion
connects the Kurds with problems, and presents the Kurds as evidence
of the social undevelopment of the Middle Eastern countries. This
only strengthens the negative attitudes in these countries.

Kurdistan is situated where Turkey, Persia and Arabia meet. Whether
it is a point of friction or a meeting-point, a gap or a bridge, is a
crucial question for the Kurds and their home countries still for a
long time for future.

The Kurds also belong to Europe. They are permanently present among
us.

Europe has always been involved in the Middle Eastern affairs, and
thus she cannot avoid her responsibility when things are entangled
into troubles. Responsibility calls for knowledge and knowledge
demands research. The Kurds still deserve even more research and from
broader views. Also difficult questions most be discussed without
fervour.

The edition is based on Antero Leitzinger’s lecture in the University
of Helsinki, in the Studia Generalia series “Crisis Kettles and
Religions in World Politics”, part “Nations without State” on March
8, 2001. The article was originally written around the same time.

Antero Leitzinger is a political historian and a researcher for the
Finnish Directorate of Immigration. He wrote several books on Turkey,
the Middle East and the Caucasus.

PERMANENT MISSION OF ARMENIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Contact: Dziunik AGHAJANIAN
Minister-Counsellor
Deputy Permanent Representative
119 East 36th Street, New York, NY 10016, USA
Tel: 1-212-686-9079
Fax: 1-212-686-3934
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

January 24, 2005

PRESS RELEASE

MINISTER OSKANIAN ADDRESSES UN SPECIAL SESSION

Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian was among a select
group of foreign ministers who addressed the UN 28th Special Session, on the
60th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Nazi Concentration Camps. The
session was held just a few days before the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, by Soviet troops, near the
end of World War II.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke about the role of the UN, which was
founded immediately following the Second World War. The massive violations
of human rights during the war were an impetus for the formation of this
international institution, 60 years ago, he explained.

The Secretary General was followed by Holocaust Survivor, writer, Nobel
Prize Winner for Peace, Professor Elie Wiesel, and former UN Undersecretary
Sir Brian Urquhart. Elie Wiesel evoked images of the horrors that
concentration camp inmates had to endure, and repeatedly expressed amazement
at humanity’s capacity for such evil, and for such indifference. Sir Brian,
then a member of the Allied Forces that liberated the camps, stressed
humanity’s collective responsibility in the prevention of genocides and in
bringing to justice the perpetrators.

They were followed by Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister of Israel, the
Special Representative of Poland, Mr. Bronislaw Geremek, Vladimir Lukin, the
Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation, Paul Wolfowitz, US
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Jean Asselborn, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Luxembourg, on behalf of the European Union, and Marcello Pera, Speaker
of the Italian Senate.

Together with Minister Oskanian, also on the rostrum were other foreign
ministers: Joschka Fischer, Germany, Michel Barnier, France, Pierre
Pettigrew, Canada, Ilinka Mitreva, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as
well as representatives of Greece, Romania, Norway, Austria, Hungary, the
Netherlands and Great Britain.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer

Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

HIS HOLINESS ARAM I RECEIVES THE DELEGATION

OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES USA

Antelias, Lebanon – On Saturday, January 22, 2005, His Holiness Catholicos
Aram I received a delegation of the National Council of Churches USA at the
Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias-Lebanon. The representatives of
the Middle East Council of Churches and His Grace Bishop Nareg Alemezian
(Ecumenical Officer) were also in attendance. The delegation is visiting the
Middle East to be acquainted with the situation more closely and to express
its solidarity to the peace process.

His Holiness shared with his guests the emerging religious, social and
political concerns in Lebanon and the Middle East and underlined the
importance of overcoming violence and establishing a peaceful society
enhanced by Christian-Muslim long-standing co-existence.

His Holiness spoke about the challenges facing the ecumenical movement and
identified areas where the Churches should co-operate and support each
other. His Holiness underlined that ecumenical advocacy and solidarity
should be expressed through the tangible actions and continuous support of
Churches towards each other. “We do not live in isolation. Global, regional
and local challenges are inter-connected and we need to adopt a policy of
facing them together and responsibly. In this respect, the role of the
Churches should be expressed as bridge-builders and promoters of dialogue
and collaboration, and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is strongly
committed to this principle” underlined His Holiness.

Referring to the situation in Iraq and Jerusalem, His Holiness reminded all
the Churches and especially the USA Churches to encourage their governments
to work for peace and justice all over the world and to embark on the
establishment of communities living in an atmosphere of mutual respect and
trust. “The Armenians in the Holy Land and Iraq are integral part of the
population of these countries who are the focus of our prayers and
attention. We are sharing all the difficulties in the region and
contributing to the peace process with a firm commitment to the
Christian-Muslim co-existence and the promotion of the common values that
have sustained us for centuries,” stated His Holiness.

The delegation expressed its gratitude for this opportunity and invited His
Holiness to address the National Council of Churches USA Board meeting in
October, in New York.

##

View printable pictures here:

***********

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.
From: Baghdasarian

PERMANENT MISSION OF ARMENIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Contact: Dziunik AGHAJANIAN
Minister-Counsellor
Deputy Permanent Representative
119 East 36th Street, New York, NY 10016, USA
Tel: 1-212-686-9079
Fax: 1-212-686-3934
Mobile: 1-917-940-5665

STATEMENT
by H.E. Mr. Vartan Oskanian
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
to the 28th Special Session
of the UN General Assembly

Mr. President
Your Excellencies
Dear Friends,

On behalf of the people and government of Armenia, and as a descendant of
genocide survivors, I feel compelled to be here today, to join other
survivors and descendants, of both victims and perpetrators, to take part in
this commemoration. I am also duty-bound to urge us all to confront more
effectively the threat of genocide anywhere, at any time, regardless of cost
and political discomfort.

The liberation of Auschwitz is, indeed, cause for commemorative celebration.
However, in this commemoration, with each uttering of the name Auschwitz, we
are forced to reflect: to look back, look around, look deep, look at the
other, but also look inward, at ourselves.

After 9/11 and reacting to the unusually high number of victims of a
singular event, an editorialist proclaimed “We are all Americans”. Sympathy,
solidarity, anxiety, and indignation bound us together. How much more
intense our feelings about Auschwitz and the singularity of its horror, its
synonymity with the technology of death-making, its eerily ordinary
commitment to efficiency, to pragmatic, effective, result-oriented
administration.

After Auschwitz, we are all Jews, we are all Gypsies, we are all unfit,
deviant and undesirable, for someone, somewhere. After Auschwitz, the
conscience of man cannot remain the same. Man’s inhumanity to men, to women,
to children, and to the elderly, is no longer a concept in search of a name,
an image, a description. Auschwitz lends its malefic aura to all the
Auschwitzes of history, our collective history, both before and after.

In the 20th century alone, with its 15 genocides, the victims have their own
names for places of infamy. What the French call ‘les lieux infames de
memoire’ are everywhere. Places of horror, slaughter, of massacre, of the
indiscriminate killing of all those who have belonged to a segment, a
category, an ethnic group, a race or a religion. For Armenians, it is the
desert of Deir-El-Zor, for Cambodians they are the killing fields, for the
children of the 21st century, it is Darfur. For the Jews and Poles and for a
whole generation of us growing up after The War, it is Auschwitz.

Mr. President,

Just as we all were, or are, or might be victims, we all were or are or
might also be guilty. It is only through the engagement of those who have
seen and done the unimaginable, and who have had the dignity, the grace, the
sensitivity, the decency and courage to acknowledge wrongdoing, that we may
achieve the requisite collective political will and its expression.

This is not as naïve, unrealistic, idealistic as some might wish to label
it, perhaps in order to dismiss it. Genocide is not about individuals who
act insanely, do evil, commit crimes, perpetrate irrevocable wrongs.
Genocide is the undertaking of a state apparatus, which must, by definition,
act coherently, pragmatically, with structure and organization.

Thus, this is not a plea to reform human beings, but an appeal to take
conscious account of the role of our national institutions and international
institutions must play to insure that no one can expect to enjoy impunity.

After Auschwitz one would expect that no one any longer has a right to turn
a blind eye or a deaf ear. As an Armenian, I know that a blind eye, a deaf
ear and a muted tongue perpetuate the wounds. It is a memory of suffering
unrelieved by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition. The catharsis
that the victims deserve, which societies require in order to heal and move
forward together, obligates us here at the UN, and in the international
community, to be witness, to call things by their name, to remove the veil
of obfuscation, of double standards, of political expediency.

Mr. Presidents,

Following the Tsunami-provoked disaster, we have become painfully aware of a
paradox. On the one hand, multilateral assistance efforts were massive,
swift, generous and without discrimination. But, when compared and
contrasted with today’s other major tragedy, in Africa, it is plain that for
Darfur, formal and ritual condemnation has not been followed by any
dissuasive action against the perpetrators.

The difference with the Tsunami, of course, was that there were no
perpetrators. No one wielded the sword, pulled the trigger or pushed the
button that released the gas.

Recognizing the victims and acknowledging them is also to recognize that
there are perpetrators. But this is absolutely not the same as actually
naming them, shaming them, dissuading or warning them, isolating or
punishing them.

If these observations signal a certain naiveté that overlooks the enduring
structures of our political and security interests, then, on this occasion,
when we have gathered to commemorate this horrible event, then allow me this
one question: if not here and now, then where and when?

Mr. President,

The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, who has been quoted here,
admonished us to remember the past, or be condemned to repeat it. This
admonition has significance for me personally, because the destruction of my
people, whose fate in some way impinged upon the fate of the Jews of Europe,
should have been viewed more widely seen as a warning of things to come.

Jews and Armenians are linked forever by Hitler. Who, after all, speaks
today of the annihilation of the Armenians? said Adolf Hitler, days before
he entered Poland.

Hitler’s cynical remembrance of Armenians is prominently displayed in the
Holocaust Memorial in Washington because it is profound commentary about the
crucial role of third parties in genocide prevention and remembrance.
Genocide is the manifestation of the break in the covenant that governments
have with their peoples. Therefore, it is third parties who become crucial
actors in genocide prevention, humanitarian assistance and genocide
remembrance.

We are commemorating today, because the Soviet troops marched into Auschwitz
60 years ago. I am here today because the Arabs provided sanctuary to
Armenian deportees 90 years ago.

Third parties, indeed, can make the difference between life and death. Their
rejection of the behaviors and policies which are neither in anyone’s
national interest nor in humanity’s international interest, is of immense
moral and political value.

What neighbors, well-wishers, the international community can’t accomplish,
is the transcending and reconciling which the parties must do for
themselves. The victims, first, must exhibit the dignity, capacity and
willingness to move on, and the perpetrators, first and last, must summon
the deep force of humanity and goodness and must overcome the memory of the
inner evil which had already prevailed, and must renounce the deed, its
intent, its consequences, its architects and executors.

Auschwitz signifies the worst of hate, of indifference, of dehumanization.
Remembrance of Auschwitz and its purpose, however abhorrent, is a vital step
to making real the phrase “Never Again”.

Thank you.