“EUROPE, TURKEY AND ARMENIAN CAUSE” DISCUSSIONS AT TOURSKY THEATRE IN
MARSEILLES
Azg/arm
27 Nov 04
More than 1000 Armenian and French citizens gathered at the hall of
Toursky Theater in Marseilles on November 24 “rehearsing” for a rally
against Turkey’s accession to EU scheduled on December 17 in Brussels.
The protest action was organized by Regional Committee for Defense
of the Armenian Cause that unites Liberal Democratic Party, Armenian
Revolutionary Party, CCAF and CRAAM.
Speakers of the day, Mr. Jijikan (Paris Kurdish Institute),
Mr. Davityan (lawyer), Mr. Alexy Gyovjian (LDP), expressed views
not only on Turkeys anti-Armenia lobby in Europe but also on Jacques
Chirac’s recent pro-Turkish statements that disagree with the will
of French people who resists Turkey’s accession as a country that
refuses to acknowledge Armenian Genocide.
Mr. Maui, eminent leader of President Chirac’s UMP party, Guy
Desien president of Defense Committee of the National Assembly, Rudy
Sales deputy chairman of the National Assembly, deputies Frederick
Dudua, Henry Jibreel, Kristof Mass, Karo Hovsepian, Sylvie Medrion,
Jean-Pierre Berberian made brilliant pro-Armenian speeches. They
all spoke against the Turkey which implements nationalistic policy,
violates human rights and neglects Armenian Genocide, and mentioned
that its accession will bring new flows of unemployed emigrants to
Western Europe.
Deputies representing the most influential parties of France
expressed readiness to take part at the rally launching December 17
in Brussels. A train will be waiting to transport thousand of people
to Brussels from Marseilles.
By Hamo Moskofian in Marseilles

Alleged Mercenaries Convicted in Coup Plot
By RODRIGO ANGUE NGEUMA MBA
The Associated Press
11/26/04 15:25 EST
MALABO, Equatorial Guinea (AP) – A court in Equatorial Guinea convicted
30 accused European and African mercenaries and opposition leaders on
Friday and sentenced them to prison for an alleged coup plot in the
oil-rich nation, but it waived the death penalty for two top figures.
The court’s rejection of death penalties requested by prosecutors
potentially strengthens Equatorial Guinea’s bid to extradite an
alleged financier of the plot: Mark Thatcher, son of the former
British Margaret Thatcher.
President Teodoro Obiang’s 25-year regime accuses Thatcher and other,
mostly British, financiers of commissioning scores of mercenaries
in a takeover plot in the isolated West African nation which is the
continent’s third-largest oil producer.
The financial backers intended to install an opposition figure as a
puppet leader, Equatorial Guinea claims. The alleged plot was exposed
by South African intelligence services in March, days before it was
to have been carried out, leading to the arrests of roughly 90 alleged
mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe.
On Friday, 21 shackled, handcuffed defendants listened in a
chandelier-hung courtroom converted from a conference center as
Judge Salvador Ondo Nkumu read out verdicts and prison sentences,
without elaboration.
South African arms dealer Nick du Toit, accused by prosecutors of
leading an advance team for the coup plot, was sentenced to 34 years
in prison despite Attorney General Jose Olo Obono’s repeated demands
for the death penalty.
Du Toit, a stooped, graying, sadly smiling man who like all the
defendants had lost scores of pounds since arrest in March, had
provided the bulk of prosecutors’ case – testifying to meetings with
Thatcher and others around Africa, and alleging detailed plans to
move men and materiel into place.
But Du Toit repudiated his testimony last week, saying he agreed
to a fake confession to try to save himself and his co-defendants,
after one defendant was tortured to death in Malabo’s notorious Black
Beach prison shortly after his arrest in March.
Equatorial Guinea says the man, a German, died of malaria. Rights
groups cite witness accounts of wounds from torture.
Du Toit’s sentence effectively means life in Black Beach – a tiny
penitentiary built on the black volcanic rocks between Obiang’s
Spanish-colonial palace and the gray Atlantic.
The court also sentenced Severo Moto, the opposition figure who
the coup plotters allegedly intended to install as president, to 63
years. Moto was the only other defendant facing the death penalty. He
is living in exile and was sentenced in absentia.
Eight other opposition figures, also living exile, were each sentenced
to 53 years.
Six other alleged South African mercenaries were sentenced to 17
years each; six Armenian pilots were sentenced to between 14- to 24
years each, and two Equatorial Guinea citizens were ordered jailed
for one to four months.
Six defendants – three Equatorial Guineans and three South Africans –
were acquitted.
Obiang’s regime, with one of the world’s worst human rights records,
is accused by the International Bar Association and others of routine
torture and extensive interference in the justice system. Obiang,
speaking to reporters in August, stated the defendants’ conviction
as a given.
The decision to spare du Toit the death penalty was seen at least
in part as a message to South Africa, where Thatcher, a 51-year-old
businessman, is now facing separate prosecution in connection with
the alleged plot.
South Africa opposes capital punishment and was unlikely to send
Thatcher to Equatorial Guinea if he risked the death penalty.

VAHAGN DADRIAN AND STEPHEN FEINSTEIN REBUT GENOCIDE DENIAL IN TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT
Azg/arm
27 Nov 04
The following letter was published in the November 19, 2004 issue of the
Times Literary Supplement
Armenia in history
Sir, – The seemingly persistent attempts of Norman Stone from Ankara’s
Bilkent University to question the historical reality of the Armenian
genocide during the First World War are dismaying indeed (Letters,
October 15, November 5). A cursory examination of his use of source
materials may in part explain the nature of the problem. Professor
Stone insists, for example, that the provinces of Ardahan, Kars
and Batum “were not ceded to Turkey”. In the text of the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk, however, Article Four, paragraph iii, reads: “Russia
will do all within her power to insure the immediate evacuation of
the provinces of eastern Anatolia . . . . The districts of Ardahan,
Kars, and Batum will without delay be cleared of Russian troops
. . . “. This can be interpreted only as Russia ceding control over
these areas (Jane Degras, ed, Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy,
Volume One, 1917â~@~S24; 1951, p53).
Stone likewise keeps insisting that, according to “the transcript
of the German court case”, the Naim-Andonian documents were
“discarded”. But on more careful reading he may recognize the critical
difference between a conscious decision not to question the central
message of the documents, on the one hand, and a decision to “discard”
them, on the other. (Tessa Hofmann, Der Völkermord an den Armeniern
vor Gericht: Der Prozess Talaat Pasha, 1985).
Moreover, Robert Kempner, a prominent German jurist who served as
Deputy to Justice Jackson – the chief American prosecutor at the
Nuremberg Trials, and who as a young law student had attended the
Talaat Pasha murder trial in Berlin, in a noted law journal identified
the jury’s verdict as a recognition and condemnation of the “gross
human rights violations caused by a government, especially genocide
perpetrated against the Armenians” (“Sixty Years Ago – A German Jury
Trial: The Genocide of the Armenians” [in German], Recht und Politik,
Volume Three, 1980, p167).
Professor Stone persists in questioning the veracity of the 1939
statement, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the
Armenians?”, attributed to Hitler, by discounting evidence that is
compelling. After some meticulous research, the author Edouard Calic
established the fact that, already eight years earlier, Hitler twice
had spoken in the same sense (Unmasked: Two confidential interviews
with Hitler in 1931, 1971, p154).
Perhaps the most authoritative validation in this respect issues
from University of North Carolina’s Gerhard L. Weinberg. Following
his extensive research in the archives of the British Foreign Office
and the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and
1971, Professor Weinberg, in his book The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s
Germany, and subsequently in the New York Times (“Hitler’s Remark
on Armenians Reported in 1939”, June 18, 1985), gave credence to
the authenticity of the document containing Hitler’s statement. He
found it in the secret notes Admiral Canaris, the head of German
counter-intelligence, had taken during Hitler’s August 22, 1939,
speech, delivered to the German generals in Obersalzberg. As to
Professor Heath Lowry, Stone’s principal source for disputing
much of the Armenian genocide, he, Lowry, characterizes American
Ambassador Morgenthau’s “wartime dispatches and written reports . . .
submitted to the US State Department” as “the real”, i.e. authentic
material – as compared to his subsequently published book (The Story
behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Istanbul, 1990, p. 91).
Well, here is then “a proper account” Stone stipulated as a condition
for conceding the Armenian genocide. In a nine-page “Private and
Confidential” letter Morgenthau sent to the US Secretary of State
Robert Lansing on November 18, 1915, he wrote, “I am firmly convinced
that this is the greatest crime of all ages . . . . The war was
a great opportunity to put into effect their long cherished plan
of exterminating the Armenian race . . . ” (US National Archives,
R.G.59.876.00/798 1/2, pp7…8).
All this casts in stark relief Norman Stone’s purported “neutrality”
on the subject. Should he need to overcome this, he might obtain
special inspiration from the 126 Holocaust scholars, including the
Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, who at the thirtieth anniversary of
the Scholars’ Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches held
in Philadelphia, issued a declaration. That statement, published
in the June 8, 2000, issue of the New York Times, and subsequently
in the Jerusalem Post, declared that: “The Armenian genocide is an
Incontestable historical Fact”.
By Vahagn Dadrian and Stephen Feinstein, Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota
–Boundary_(ID_zmDSdxqjNtncQnBL+tKp/A)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IRAN’S JEWS, ARMENIANS CRITICISE “INSULTING” TV PROGRAMMES
Shargh web site, Tehran
24 Nov 04
The Jewish Community of Tehran and the Armenian Apostolic Bishopric
of Tehran have both sent open letters to Zarghami, head of the Voice
and Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRIB) in protest at what
they describe as the ignoring of the rights of the minorities. The
Armenian Apostolic Bishopric of Tehran protests against one of the
programmes aired on Id al-Fitr on IRIB’s Channel Three in which a
person who said that he was Armenian claimed that he was unable to
pay the heavy cost demanded by Armenian Apostolic Bishopric of Tehran
for his father’s burial and asks for help. The Armenian Apostolic
Bishopric of Tehran clarifies that charges for burial at the Armenian
cemeteries are much lower than the amount stated on Channel Three,
adding that destitute people are not asked to pay at all. The Council
expresses surprise that IRIB aired these remarks without following
up the matter to ascertain whether the allegations were true.
In its open letter, the Jewish Community of Tehran protests against
two television series–one called “Conspiracy” and the other “Blood
in Unleavened Bread”–and writes: “In the IRIB’S programmes, Jewish
clerics and the Jews’ monotheistic religion are thoughtlessly and
repeatedly ridiculed, insulted, and denigrated without the least bit
of attention being paid to protests by the Jewish Community. It is
surprising how the Jewish clerics’ anti-Zionist demonstrations and
their condemnation of the massacring of Palestinians are repeatedly
broadcast on IRIB while, at the same time, Jewish clerics and what
they represent are ridiculed.”
The letters by both the Jews and the Armenians conclude by expressing
hopes that IRIB will adopt a serious stance against the officials
of the organization and will prevent topics and programmes that are
insulting to the minorities from being broadcast.

ABSENCE FROM NATO EVENT DUE TO BAKU’S FAILURE TO GUARANTEE SECURITY, ARMENIAN MP
Ayots Ashkhar, Yerevan
26 Nov 04
Excerpt from Vaan Vardanyan report by Armenian newspaper Ayots Ashkhar
on 26 November headlined “The most important thing is to achieve the
goal, not the means”
The participation of two Armenian deputies in the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly seminar that will take place in Baku is becoming almost
impossible. Azerbaijan is not giving any security guarantees. The
chairman of the defence, national security and interior affairs
commission of the National Assembly, Mger Shakhgeldyan, comments on
the current situation.
(Ayots Ashkhar correspondent) How significant is the participation
of Armenian representatives in the seminar?
(Mger Shakhgeldyan) This seminar was initiated by the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly. There will be discussions on the regional
developments and it would be desirable to express the views of the
Armenian party there.
(Correspondent) Does Azerbaijan not agree to your visit?
(Shakhgeldyan) Azerbaijan gave its general consent to the holding of
the seminar, taking account of all participants. But our situation
is different, there are a number of negative precedents connected
with our servicemen’s visit to Baku.
(Passage omitted: Shakhgeldyan said the hotel in Baku where
Armenian servicemen lived was attacked, they were denied visas at
the Azerbaijani embassy in Georgia and an Armenian journalist from
Bulgaria was arrested in Baku and then deported)
(Correspondent) The chairman of the National Assembly sent a letter
to his Azerbaijani counterpart in this connection. Has he replied?
(Shakhgeldyan) Artur Bagdasaryan (National Assembly chairman) really
sent a letter in which he suggested that the Azerbaijani party provide
security guarantees. There is no reply, although we have booked two
Moscow-Baku air tickets for me and MP Aleksan Karapetyan. Incidentally,
the seminar has already started and will last for three days. So if
we do not get an answer today, there will be no point in going to
Baku as the seminar will have ended.
(Correspondent) The Azerbaijani party has disseminated information
in the Internet that Aleksan Karapetyan and you participated in
the Karabakh war and have Red Cross awards. Is this an attempt to
substantiate the refusal?
(Shakhgeldyan) I do not rule this out. Incidentally, I served in the
Soviet army and did not take part in the Karabakh war, and I have no
such award, although I would be very proud to have it. Thus, this is
not the reason. We expect an official reply.
(Passage omitted: The Karabakh conflict should be settled on the
basis of the Karabakh people’s right to self-determination)

UN resolution on Right of Peoples to Self-determination
Daily News – Lk
27 Nov 04
The United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee, dealing
with social and humanitarian issues, adopted by consensus a draft
resolution on the “Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples
to Self-determination.”
The resolution has consistently been adopted by the General Assembly
since 1981. Pakistan has always been the lead sponsor of the
resolution. Pakistan also makes a statement in the Third Committee’s
General Debate on this item, states the High Commission of Pakistan,
Colombo.
The resolution reaffirms the universal right of peoples to
self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter and international
covenants on human rights. It welcomes the progressive exercise of
this right by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation
and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence.
In its operative part, the resolution calls upon those States
responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in
and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts
of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment, in
particular the brutal and inhuman methods reportedly employed for
the execution of those acts against the peoples concerned.
The resolution was co-sponsored by a large number of countries from
Asia and Africa. Besides Pakistan, the co-sponsors included: Algeria,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Brunei,
Darussalam, Cameroon, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya,
Malaysia, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia,
Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.
The resolution requests the Commission on Human Rights to continue to
give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially
the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military
intervention, aggression or occupation. It also requests the Secretary
General to report to the 60th Session of the General Assembly on
this question.
The resolution will now go to the Plenary of the General Assembly
for adoption before end of the current session.

Armenia Fund, Inc
111 Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91205
818.243.6222
Contact: Sarkis Kotanjian
[email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 26, 2004
Armenia Fund’s Annual Thanksgiving Day Telethon Raises Over $11Million
Glendale, CA (November 26) – Armenia Fund, Inc. (AFI) set a fundraising
record on Thanksgiving Day by raising over $11 million (final total
pending) during its live, 12-hour international broadcast event –
Telethon 2004 Make It Happen.
Airing Thursday, November 25 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 pm, the telethon
raised funds to complete the crucial North-South “Backbone” Highway and
provide for vital infrastructure projects in Armenia and Karabakh. “We
are truly grateful for the support and commitment the international
Armenian community has shown. Telethon 2004 was a grassroots,
world-wide community effort that will help secure a prosperous future
for Armenia and Karabakh,” said Maria Mehranian, chairperson, AFI.
Telethon 2004 was broadcast to over 45 million households in 24
cities throughout the United States and Canada, as well as to major
capitols and cities in Europe, South America, the Middle East, the
CIS and Armenia.
Detailed information/photos/interviews about Telethon 2004 will
be released. For more information call 818.243.6222 or visit
Armenia Fund, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation,
is the US West coast affiliate of the “Hayastan” All-Armenia Fund
(HAAF). Established in 1994 to facilitate humanitarian assistance
to Armenia and Karabakh, HAAF has administered over $100 million in
humanitarian, rehabilitation and construction aid through the united
efforts of Armenian communities internationally.
###

POLITICAL FIGURES COMMENTING ON KARABAKHI CONFLICT
A1+
26-11-2004
“Karabakhi issue is politicized so much that it reached a deadlock”,
Aram Gaspari Sargssyan, Chairman of “Democratic Party of Armenia”,
said at the discussions on Karabakhi conflict. He supports the idea
of changing the political line – Karabakh returns to the negotiation
table.
“Justice” Bloc member Shavarsh Kocharyan is sure that the territories
where the Armenian Forces are located are considered occupied just
because of moving Karabakh out of the negotiation process.
Political figure Albert Baghdasaryan wondered whether Armenia and
Karabakh adopt the policy to support NK independence or NKR joining
Armenia. He answered his own question – “No”.
He doesn’t believe that the issue is settled inside Armenia. “It is
necessary to invite Russian Chairman of Minsk Group, to listen to
him and to find out at what price our ‘strategic partner’ will sell
our historical land”, he says.
Khosrov Harutyunyan, Chairman of Christian and Democratic Union
wondered if we want to solve the problem. “We must do everything
possible that the conflict is viewed as the Azerbaijani-Karabakhi
one. We must be guarantors of arrangements”, he announced.
However, Khosrov Harutyunyan, Shavarsh Kocharyan and Aram Gaspari
Sargssyan are sure that a legitimate power is necessary for the
country to settle the NK conflict.

AZERI LEADER TELLS OSCE ENVOY ARMENIA TRYING TO DELAY KARABAKH SOLUTION
Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
26 Nov 04
Armenia is trying to delay the Karabakh peace process again,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev told the visiting OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly rapporteur on Nagornyy Karabakh, Goran Lennmarker, today.
Saying that Armenia is not taking serious steps towards resolving the
conflict, the head of state added that this was why the negotiations
between the two countries’ presidents and foreign ministers are
yielding no fruit.
Ilham Aliyev said the Council of Europe and other international
organizations are closely involved in the process of settling the
conflict and expressed the hope that the OSCE Minsk Group would step
up its effort as well.

Azeri paper slams OSCE mediators for not condemning Armenia as aggressor
Zerkalo, Baku
25 Nov 04
Excerpt from R. Mirgadirov and M. Yasaroglu report by Azerbaijani
newspaper Zerkalo on 25 November headlined “The stances of Armenia
and the co-chairs coincide” and subheaded “Both are against discussing
the Karabakh problem outside the OSCE Minsk Group”
The 59th session of the UN General Assembly in New York discussed
the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan on 24 November.
[Passage omitted: debates in the UN on Azerbaijan’s draft proposal
on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict]
In essence, Armenian officials do not even try to hide their concern
regarding the discussion of the Karabakh issue outside the OSCE Minsk
Group. The vice-speaker of the Armenian parliament, Tigran Torosyan,
was rather outspoken on this issue when he presented the outcomes of
the 17 November Paris session of the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe] political committee. He said that there are
no obstacles to including the Karabakh issue in the agenda of the
PACE winter session.
He said that the Nagornyy Karabakh resolution which was passed at
the emergency session of the PACE political committee contained some
points which were unfavourable and had to be changed. In particular,
they include a sentence which turns the previous call to the
Azerbaijani authorities to establish ties with Nagornyy Karabakh’s
political leadership into a call to establish ties between the two
communities. In this connection, the head of Armenia’s PACE delegation
said it is important to conduct active work in this regard.
So, it is time to answer the question why Armenia would lose out if the
Karabakh conflict is discussed outside the framework of the OSCE Minsk
Group. It is very simple. The OSCE, including the Minsk Group which it
has created, is tackling the practical aspects of settling the Karabakh
conflict on the basis of the mandate, or more precisely, the four UN
Security Council resolutions on the issue. The co-chairs of the OSCE,
namely Russia, America and France, have long and well forgotten about
the basic demands of those resolutions and are in effect engaged in
“creative activities” by proposing various solutions to the conflict.
But the most important point is that since the Minsk Group is a
temporarily created OSCE structure to act as a mediator to resolve the
Karabakh conflict, it is unable to give an internationally recognized
political and legal assessment of the actions of the sides to the
conflict.
This situation absolutely suits Armenia. When proposing various
solutions to the conflict, the OSCE co-chairs always hint that
Azerbaijan will at any rate have to make major concessions, considering
the “current realities”, that is to put it simply, the occupation of
a chunk of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia. They did not even hold
the fact of the occupation of an independent state against Armenia.
Now, with a cease-fire regime which is more than 10 years old, when
the Karabakh conflict is discussed in organizations outside the reach
of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, it becomes necessary to answer the
foremost question: who has occupied 16 per cent of Azerbaijan, which
is in itself a flagrant violation of international legal norms? And
every time, regardless of sympathies or antipathies, the international
community has to unequivocally reply – Armenia! Consequently, this
results in the condemnation by the international community – be it the
UN or PACE – of the fact of aggression against a sovereign state and of
the occupation of its territories with all the ensuing ramifications.
Incidentally, such a course of events does not suit the interests of
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs. A clear definition by the international
community of the fact of aggression and occupation of territories
by Armenia deprives the co-chairs, who have their own geopolitical
interests in the region, of the room for manoeuvre. Because in
this case it will become difficult to “pressure” the victim of the
aggression and demand that in order to resolve the conflict it make
concessions that would go against its sovereignty.