Month: June 2005

Middle East Media Research Institute, DC
Special Dispatch Series – No. 919
June 8 2005
Founder and Chairman of Leading Turkish Think Tank: The U.S.-Turkish
Strategic Partnership is Long Gone
In an interview in the Turkish business daily Referans on May 30,
2005, [1] Kemal Koprulu, Founder and Chairman of the ARI movement, a
leading Turkish think tank, reviewed U.S.-Turkish relations. In the
interview, Koprulu discusses the activity of the delegation of ARI
representatives who visited the U.S. in April 25-30, 2005, and
conducted a series of meetings in Washington with the White House,
State Department, members of Congress, and the National Security
Council, as well as many American NGOs and think tanks. According to
Koprulu, the strategic partnership between Turkey and the U.S. is
over, despite the Turkish government’s claims to the contrary.
The interview is followed by an Appendix, which is a political poster
denouncing the U.S., signed by eleven public associations.
The Turkish Government’s Claim that There Are No Problems with the
U.S. Prevents an Accurate Diagnosis
Question: “What are your impressions of the talks you conducted in
Washington?”
Kemal Koprulu: “Turkish-American relations have been in a process of
erosion for a long time. The strategic partnership is long over. And
after it ended, unfortunately no effort was made to redefine our
relations. We [at ARI] decided to do that. […] With the aim of
re-defining and strengthening the [bilateral] relations, we first had
a round-table discussion […] and then as a delegation we spent a week
in meetings in Washington.
“To apply a cure to an illness one must first properly diagnose the
disease. The Turkish government’s constant claim that there are no
problems in its relationship with the U.S., and that the strategic
partnership continues, prevents an accurate diagnosis.”
Question: “Does that mean that the Turkish public opinion is misled?”
Koprulu: “Exactly. People are being misinformed on the issue of
Turkish-American relations. Our goal is to bring truthful information
to the public attention. We went to Washington and had 30-35
successive meetings in a short time. In general, we conduct about
one-third of our meetings with the White House, the State Department,
and the National Security Council. We try to meet with Republican,
Democratic, and Independent groups, and of course with members of
Congress, senators, as well as with their advisors…”
The Pentagon No Longer Plays a Role in Relations with Turkey
Question: “Is it necessary to redefine Turkish-American relations?”
Koprulu: “Yes. There’s a real paradigm change in these relations, as
I mentioned in my article in TPQ [Turkish Policy Quarterly]. [2]
First, contrary to the official statement, we no longer have a
strategic partnership. […] In the past, on the subject of
Turkish-American relations and whenever a decision had to be made
regarding Turkey, whether political or military, the Pentagon would
be involved, preserving Turkey’s point of view as well.
“The Pentagon no longer plays a role in the relations with Turkey; it
has transferred all matter of relations to the State Department. […]
This means that whereas before there were five people in the
Pentagon, five in the National Security Council, and five in the
State Department who considered the relations with Turkey, now there
are no more than five people [altogether]. That is because the U.S.
has no strategic partnership with Turkey. This is the first fracture
[in our relations].
“The second fracture took place in the attitude of various U.S.
government institutions towards Turkey. Previously, the U.S.
government – the Cabinet, Treasury, Pentagon, National Security
Council, etc. – looked warmly to Turkey. Now there’s a negative
atmosphere in these institutions, especially in the Pentagon.
“In contrast, whereas previously there was a generally negative
stance towards Turkey in the Congress due to the influence of the
Greek and Armenian lobbies, now there is a relatively positive one.
This is due in great part to the Turkish Friendship Group […], whose
members know Turkey well; they visit Turkey and our area in some
capacity annually, and update and increase their knowledge.
“Whereas before they used to allow us 10-15 minutes, each of the
members of Congress and senators we met with gave us an hour this
time, and we saw that they have a strong grasp of what is happening
in Turkey, Cyprus, and Northern Iraq. Turkey needs to better evaluate
this advantageous situation in Congress.”
The Pentagon Has Not Forgotten March 1, 2003
Question: “So, what is the stance of the Pentagon?”
Koprulu: “[The] Pentagon has not forgotten March 1. [3] The facts
that the vote was taken with three weeks delay, the [U.S. military’s]
best units to be kept waiting at sea unable to join the military
effort, Turkey’s refusal to open a northern front in Iraq have caused
a very negative view of Turkey. Thinking militarily, they go to war,
they need their allies, they draw a road map with them but at the
last minute one of their allies refuses their road map. They could
not digest these events.
“We also found out that there’s a negative view towards Turkey among
the top-ranking military leaders in Washington. For the first time in
a long while there is a military command in Washington that thinks
negatively about Turkey. This is a very serious fracture.”
U.S. Secretary of State Rice: “Our New Partner in the Balkans is
Greece”
Question: “What about the State Department?”
Koprulu: “[…] Other units of the [U.S.] government, I mean especially
the ‘neo-cons,’ are at a [completely] different place. In a few of
our meetings they told us that they were observing a new trend of
foreign policy in Turkey. They said that in the last six months
against its traditions of going along with the western alliance,
Turkey has turned towards a different axis and has been seeking other
alliances with some Middle Eastern countries.
“If Turkey has a new foreign policy doctrine it wants to follow, they
[the Americans] would want to understand it and define their own
approach accordingly. They also expressed that if [Turkey’s] new
doctrine is to build relationships with some other countries, not
taking [the U.S.] into account, then Turkey will not be on anyone’s
side, but no one will be on its side either.
“You may have noticed that recently Condoleezza Rice said that “our
new partner in the Balkans is Greece.” This is a big change, for
previously the most important U.S. ally in the Balkans was Turkey
[…]. Now there is Greece in the Balkans, not Turkey. In fact, there
is no Turkey in the Middle East, either. Where are we?”
The Jewish Lobby Stands Behind Turkey but No Longer Goes Out of its
Way
Question: “What is the stance of the Jewish lobby?”
Koprulu: “The Jewish lobby in the U.S. is, as always, very sensitive
to the matter of Turkish-American relations. Of course we must not
forget that from their point of view the subject is two-dimensional:
Turkish-American relations and Turkish-Israeli relations. Therefore
they are twice concerned. […] They worry that in its foreign
relations Turkey will slide over to a different axis.
“When we consider the events of recent months, such as our prime
minister’s negative comments about Israel, his accusing Sharon of
terrorism, etc., we can say that some negative steps have already
been taken. But still, the Jewish lobby in the U.S. stands behind
Turkey, but no longer goes out of its way in doing so.”
Question: “Does Turkey have different foreign policies?”
Koprulu: “First let’s explain that the prime minister often prefers
to consult his non-official advisors instead of the officials in the
Foreign Ministry, who are indeed very well informed. In foreign
countries, he does not consult with our ambassadors. This becomes an
issue in Washington, as it presents problems in communication and
coordination. […]
“For example, before March 1, [2003,] there were contacts made on
economic, political, and other issues. Yet none of these are on
record, because they were done behind the scenes, even in people’s
homes. If you follow this road, you must be very careful, because
when you don’t have certain pieces of information, you may make
inaccurate decisions.”
Question: “Do you think that America’s foreign policy, known as the
Bush Doctrine, will be permanent for this region?
Koprulu: “It is certain it will be permanent in the Middle East. Even
if there is a Democratic president in 2008 or a heavily Democratic
Congress, the foreign policies will not change suddenly. Only their
approach might change. Bush also changed his approach and is trying
to act more multilaterally. For example, he has come to agreements
with the European countries on Syria, with Russia and even with
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and he has been successful to a
point. On Iran they are acting together with Europe, but the
diplomatic initiatives there don’t seem very successful so far.
“In conclusion, yes, they’ll stay in the Middle East. There have been
indications to this effect. When Paul Wolfowitz came to Turkey in
July 2003, he said he wanted to cooperate with Turkey not only on
Iraq, but in the whole region. Then the expectation was that this
process would last five or even fifteen years. In Turkey many people
thought that these people would only enter Baghdad, end Saddam’s
rule, and go back to their homes. It’s not like that. The U.S. will
probably stay in the Middle East for 25 years, but of course as
things are, not together with Turkey. They are looking for new
partners.”
The White House Kept the Turkish PM Waiting 70 Days for a Meeting,
Just as the PM Kept the U.S. Ambassador Waiting 70 Days for a Meeting
Question: “What can the Turkish side expect from the June visit [of
the Turkish prime minister] to the White House?”
Koprulu: “Believe me, nothing much will result from the June visit.
And anyway, it will be a very short meeting. There are several
reasons why our prime minister was made to wait for two months [for a
meeting in] the White House.
“First there is the Edelman issue. Just like the [Turkish] prime
minister kept Edelman waiting for 70 days, the White House made our
prime minister wait for 70 days.
“Another reason is the foreign policy doctrine. The White House and
political circles around it are seriously worried, wondering in which
direction Turkey is going. If I’m not mistaken, the PM will be asked
this Question:. The AKP [officials] have not been giving Washington’s
message to the prime minister, or if they have, the reaction has not
been forthcoming. For a year now, Washington has tried to send these
messages, but now believes it has been unsuccessful, so in this
meeting they plan to ask the prime minister directly.
Question: “Have the civil organizations and the business world been
able to remain outside of these fractures?”
Koprulu: “For the first time there is a multi-faceted fracture in our
relations with America: in politics [between the governments], and in
the military. In all meetings emotions come forth on both sides on
the subject of March 1 and July 4. There has also been a serious
falling out with the media; our media attacks theirs, and their media
attacks ours. There has been acrimony among the bureaucrats too. In
all negotiations, in all meetings, hurtful words were exchanged,
which no one easily forgets.
“What remain are the non-governmental organizations and the business
world. There’s still business being conducted; I believe up to eight
billion dollars’ worth. There doesn’t seem to be a problem between
the non-governmental organizations, and the channels of dialogue are
still open.
Question: “Did you let the American side know about our concerns?”
Koprulu: “We always do that, but we do not use harsh words or an
extreme attitude. This time we emphasized the matters of Cyprus and
of the PKK, and explained that the fact that the U.S. does not
adequately support Turkey on these issues has also harmed our
relationship. On Cyprus, they will take some steps soon, but we’ll
have to wait and see whether these will be to our liking. But we have
to let them know what we would like.
“On the PKK Question, they are well aware of our concerns. We
stressed to them that it makes no sense to fight a global war on
terrorism on one hand, and to refrain from intervening in a
well-established terror organization on the other.”
The U.S. Wants Democratization in the Middle East; Turkey Acts as if
it is Worried about Changes in the Status Quo
Question: “How does the U.S. see Turkey’s stance vis-à-vis the
efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East?”
Koprulu: “[…] The U.S. wants democratization in the Middle East. […]
Turkey acts as if it is worried about changes in the status quo of
the Middle East. As the ARI movement, we believe quite the opposite.
We believe that the development of democracy among Turkey’s neighbors
will have a positive effect on Turkey’s security and on its business
ties with them.
“As an organization, we [ARI] want to improve representative
democracy in Turkey and to provide the possibility to those of
opposing views to have a platform for expressing their views. To this
end our first concrete step will be the International Conference on
the Democratization of the Greater Middle East (to use NATO
terminology), which we are organizing for June 23-24 in Istanbul.”
Appendix
In early March 2005 an announcement poster was displayed extensively
throughout the streets of Istanbul as well as the lobbies and
hallways of public buildings, inviting the public to a large scale
anti-US demonstration, scheduled for March 19, 2005. The poster
depicted the US as a giant octopus whose long tentacles strangled the
globe. The signatories were the most prominent national
organizations, trade and labor unions and professional associations
of Turkey, each of them representing millions of members.
Signatories (at the bottom of the poster) were:
TURK-IS: Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions
HAK-IS: Confederation of True Trade Unions of Turkey (Islamic)
DISK: Confederation ofProgressive Trade Unions of Turkey (Leftist)
KESK: Confederation of Public Service Employees’ Trade Unions
TMMOB: The Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects
The Union of Turkish Dentists
Turkish Pharmacists Association
Turkish Medical Society
The Union of Turkish Veterinarians
TURMOB: Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Turkey
Istanbul Bar Association
[1] Referans (Turkey), May 30, 2005.
[2] Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol.4 No.1 Spring 2005.
[3] On March 1, 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected a resolution
that would allow U.S. troops to open a northern front against Iraq
from Turkish soil.
;Area=sd&ID=SP91905

Ekklesia, UK
June 8 2005
Religions called to honesty, peace and common action -08/06/05
In the face of religiously motivated conflict and division, the need
for the world’s religions to undertake a “critical and realistic self
assessment” while making “overcoming violence in all its forms” an
“urgent priority” was stressed by the World Council of Churches’
(WCC) moderator, Catholicos Aram I, speaking in Geneva today.
His Holiness Aram I is head of the See of Cilicia of the Armenian
Apostolic Church (Antelias, Lebanon) and has been moderator of the
WCC Central Committee since 1991.
In a keynote speech opening the WCC-sponsored ‘Critical moment in
interreligious dialogue’ conference being held at the Geneva
Ecumenical Centre from 7-9 June 2005, Aram I emphasized that dialogue
alone is not enough.
Religious communities are called to work together in order to move
towards common action, he said. Moreover, in the midst of the “moral
vacuum” of today’s globalized world, this active cooperation must be
grounded in common values.
“Values, not interests, must be the guiding principles of
interreligious collaboration”, Catholicos Aram I stressed.
The programme of religions’ common action starts by promoting mutual
understanding and building peace with justice. While recognizing that
they have always had their “own share in the emergence of the culture
of violence,” and needed to deal with that, religions must firmly
commit themselves “to peace and non-violence,” he emphasized.
The need for common action was also stressed by WCC general secretary
the Rev Dr Samuel Kobia in welcoming the 130 conference participants
from ten world religions.
After almost 35 years of involvement in dialogue, the Council has
“come to realize the interreligious truth of an old ecumenical
principle: that which we can do together we should not do
separately,” he said.
Kobia also emphasized that, as a consequence, “interreligious
relations and dialogue should no longer be at the margin of the WCC
but at its centre. It has become a core issue for us and this
conference is one way of saying it”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Global Exchange Human Rights Program
Contact: Ted Lewis, Director
Tel: 415.575.5533
Email: [email protected]
2017 Mission Street, Suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tel: 415.575.5553
Fax: 415.255.7498
Email: [email protected]
Web:
June 7, 2005

Global Exchange, a San Francisco based human rights organization, is sending
a delegation of independent human rights observers to Nagorno-Karabagh (NKR)
this month during its upcoming parliamentary election. Tom Miller, Human
Rights Attorney and General Counsel of Global Exchange, and Chris Michael,
Coordinator of the Global Exchange Democracy Program, will lead the
delegation. They will be joined by Dan Shartin and Leontina Hormel, both of
Worcester State College (WSC), and its Center for the Study of Human Rights.
The delegation will arrive in Nagorno-Karabagh the week prior to the June
19th parliamentary elections.
Global Exchange is an international human rights organization with a long
history of promoting democracy and social and environmental justice around
the world. Founded in 1988, Global Exchange has worked to increase global
awareness among the U.S. public while building partnerships around the
world. Its Political and Civil Rights Campaigns include the monitoring and
reporting on human rights as well as elections observation. Global Exchange
has supported civil society and democracy movements in Mexico, Haiti,
Guatemala, South Africa, Indonesia, and numerous other countries. In 2004
Global Exchange invited observers from around the world to observe the
November Presidential election in the United States (see:
).
³We look forward to this opportunity to observe human rights conditions and
political processes in an area of the world most Americans know very little
about. Peace and democracy in the Caucuses region is of vital international
importance. We view the deepening involvement of international civil and
non-governmental organizations in the region as critical both to better
understanding and hopes for just resolution of ongoing conflicts there,²
said Ted Lewis, Global Exchange¹s Human Rights Director.
The Massachusetts-based Center for the Study of Human Rights at Worcester
State College was recently cited by the Massachusetts State Senate for
³contributing to the advancement of human rights through community and
academic education². Dr. Henry Theriault, The Center¹s coordinator, said,
“Professors Shartin and Hormel bring much to the table in terms of expertise
and a deep commitment to human rights and democracy.²
###
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RF EMBASSY IN ARMENIA CONGRATULATES RUSSIAN CITIZENS IN ARMENIA ON DAY
OF RUSSIA
YEREVAN, June 8. /ARKA/. The RF Embassy in Armenia congratulates all
Russian citizens living in Armenia on the Day of Russia, says a press
release of the RF Embassy in Armenia. The RF Embassy wished the
Russian citizens good health, prosperity and success in all their
businesses, and thanks everybody for congratulations addressed to the
RF Embassy. On June 12, the Russian people mark Day of Russia.
Fifteen years ago, the 1st Congress of People’s Deputies of the RSFR
adopted a declaration on state sovereignty of the Russian Federation.
Since 1994, under a decree of the RF President this date has been
marked as a sate holiday. On February 1, 2002, this holiday received a
new official name, Day of Russia.P.T. -0–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Daily Star, Lebanon
June 9 2005
Hizbullah chief urges political ‘reconciliation’ in Lebanon
By Majdoline Hatoum
Daily Star staff
Thursday, June 09, 2005

BEIRUT: Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah called for
political “reconciliation” and urged Lebanon’s politicians to put
“the past behind” them. Nasrallah’s remarks came as he urged Shiites
to support Hizbullah’s decision to put up a candidate for Sunday’s
Mount Lebanon polls on the electoral list of Druze leader Walid
Jumblatt and former foes, the right wing Christian Lebanese Forces.
Hizbullah’s leader said: “Our alliance is based on forgetting the
past. I am calling for gathering around a slogan said by late
president and Phalanges leader Bashir Gemayel during the civil war,
the slogan of ‘Lebanon is 10,452 square meters.'”
Lebanon remains under international pressure to disarm Hizbullah
which last month claimed it had 12,000 rockets aimed at northern
Israel.
Washington insists the resistance group a terrorist organization, but
Hizbullah’s believes its clean sweep in last week’s round of voting
is proof of public support for the group’s right to maintain its
arms.
The Mount Lebanon polls are shaping up into a tight battle between
Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun and his arch rival
Jumblatt, but with Hizbullah’s support, Jumblatt is looking the
likely victor winning the majority of the 10 seats up for grabs.
Last night Aoun’s battle became more difficult as the opposition
factions agreed to stand on a single list in Mount Lebanon’s
Kesrouan-Jbeil district.
Aoun is standing for a seat in Jbeil. But until last night Aoun was
facing a divided opposition running on separate lists offering him a
good chance of securing most of the seats.
Last night’s announcement make Aoun’s chances of securing a seat for
himself more difficult since the opposition vote will not now be
split.
The new opposition list, which gathers most factions of Lebanon’s
opposition, including the Christian Qornet Shehwan Gathering, the
Phalanges Base, National Bloc and the Lebanese Forces, was announced
by opposition MP Fares Soueid, who will be competing with Aoun on the
Maronite seat for Jbeil.

During the announcement of
the list, which witnessed the presence of the wife of jailed LF
leader Strida Geagea, Carlos Edde, head of the National Bloc, said
the list tried to “maintain the unity of the opposition, national
unity and coexistence.”
But Aoun campaigned against the rest of the opposition, asking people
to vote for his lists around Mount Lebanon.
Addressing supporters in Dbayeh, he said: “Don’t sell out your votes,
your votes will bring on change to the Lebanese political arena.”
Aoun had met during the day with pro-Syrian politician Suleiman
Franjieh, who said following the meeting their alliance in Lebanon’s
North was being “finalized.”
Aoun had also met with the Armenian candidate in Mount Lebanon, Hagob
Pakradonian, after which an alliance between the two was announced.
Pakradonian, who is holding another alliance with pro-Syrian Deputy
Speaker Michel Murr in the area, said he was working to build an
alliance between Aoun and Murr, who was the main official figure to
prosecute Aoun’s FPM during the past 15 years.
Pakradonian said: “I believe we will know the final decision within
24 hours.”
During a rally for the LF, Geagea gave out the names of the LF
candidates in Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon, stressing that their
alliance with the rest of the opposition goes beyond elections.
She said: “Our alliance came to fold the pages of the past for good,
and to work on building a new future for Lebanon, a future of
coexistence and democracy.”
Geagea will stand for a seat in Bsharri on a list with Saad Hariri
and other opposition factions.

Canadian Jewish News, Canada
June 8 2005
Germany struggles with its Nazi past
By SHELDON KIRSHNER

ixty years after Adolf Hitler blew his brains out in a Berlin bunker
and Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies in World War
II, Germans are still grappling with the protracted, painful process
of coming to terms with their past.
Yet they are doing it better than anyone else. Japan still refuses to
acknowledge the enormity of the atrocities it committed in China,
while China tiptoes around the crimes of fanatic Maoists during the
Cultural Revolution. Italy has not fully faced up to the fascist
period and France has only begun to look fearlessly at the Vichy era.
Until quite recently, Romania steadfastly denied Jews had been
murdered on its soil during the Holocaust and for decades, Austrians
insisted they were merely victims of Nazism rather than also willing
collaborators.
Germany, however, has not flinched from its historical
responsibilities.
Successive German chancellors, beginning with the conservative Konrad
Adenauer and extending to his current social democratic successor
Gerhard Schroeder, have vowed to keep alive the memory of the Nazi
genocide.
More recently, in light of a 1985 landmark speech in which
then-German president Richard von Weizsacker warned his nation that
`anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present,’
Germany’s elite has pledged to incorporate Nazi crimes into its
national identity.
On a practical level, Germany has tried to repent by funnelling
billions of dollars of restitution payments to Holocaust survivors,
fighting neo-Nazism and seeking a Europe-wide ban on Nazi insignia,
encouraging the growth of a new Jewish community in Germany, forging
a strong relationship with Israel, preserving former concentration
camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald and building an array of sombre
monuments dedicated to the Jewish victims of National Socialism. The
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, which was opened in Berlin
last month after years of passionate debate regarding its size and
form, is but the latest concrete expression of remembrance and
Germany’s first national Holocaust monument.
That there are Germans who complain of Holocaust fatigue, of the kind
archly described by prominent writer Martin Walser in the late 1990s,
is beyond doubt. Micha Brumlik, the director of the Fritz Bauer
Institut in Frankfurt, which studies the impact of the Holocaust on
German society, said that more 50 per cent or Germans no longer wish
to be reminded of the 12-year interregnum that tarnished their
country’s honour and integrity.
This phenomenon goes hand in hand with clever but transparent
attempts to `relativize’ the Holocaust and, by implication, to wipe
the slate clean. Last year, Martin Hohmann, a parliamentarian from
the Christian Democratic Union party, claimed there is no essential
difference between the horrors perpetrated by Jewish communists
during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the horrors carried out by
the Nazis after 1933. Hohmann’s analogy brought to mind the so-called
`historians’ debate,’ which roiled Germany in the 1980s. The basic
but subliminally subversive question it raised was whether the crimes
of the Nazis were indeed unique and whether they were comparable to
Stalin’s reign of terror or the slaughter of the Armenians.
Nevertheless, judging by a survey published in a recent edition of
the newsmagazine Der Spiegel, a plurality of Germans believe that,
due to Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies, they bear a special
responsibility toward Jews.
For approximately the first 10 years after the war, western Germany –
notwithstanding its decision to compensate Jews for their suffering,
to prosecute some Nazi war criminals and to dabble in de-Nazification
– did not seriously deal with what was commonly referred to as the
`unresolved past.’ By contrast, the Communist regime in eastern
Germany, which collapsed with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
exploited the Nazi epoch within the context of Cold War tensions.
In a new book published by Harvard University Press, Beyond Justice,
author Rebecca Wittmann, a University of Toronto historian, argues
that Adenauer’s priorities were economic recovery and political
democratization rather than a judicial confrontation with the Nazi
legacy.
Repression gave way to full-throated debate in the late 1950s. German
students in Karlsruhe, the seat of the Supreme Court, mounted an
accusative exhibition on the complicit judiciary during Nazi times.
The Diary of Anne Frank galvanized an angry, questioning generation.
Public figures ranging from novelist Gunter Grass to student leader
Joschka Fischer, now Germany’s foreign minister, demanded a frank
accounting.
According to Wittmann, Germany’s first difficult confrontation with
its past coincided with the 1963 Frankfurt trial of 20 former
Auschwitz guards. The trial and execution of Nazi functionary Adolf
Eichmann, plus the Six Day War, were also events of lasting
importance in consciousness raising.
In 1968, a university student named Beate Klarsfeld caused a
sensation by slapping Georg Kiessinger, the German chancellor who had
been a member of the Nazi party. Two years later, his successor,
Willy Brandt, raised eyebrows by kneeling at the Warsaw ghetto
memorial in Warsaw. The 1979 U.S. television miniseries Holocaust
left a deep impression, as did Steven Spielberg’s’ 1993 award-winning
film Schindler’s List.
As a result of these developments, Germany is intensely and
resolutely conscious of its historical obligations, probably far more
so than any other country, save for Israel.
Last month, as I was strolling down Berlin’s Unter den Linden on an
unseasonably cold morning, I caught sight of a blue banner draped on
a grey building on the campus of Humboldt University. It read: `We
thank the Allies for liberating us from the Nazi dictatorship.’
Across the road, at Babel Platz, opposite the faculty of law, there
was a plaque attesting to Nazi book burning. Nearby, strung on a
wrought-iron gate, was a sign: `Sixty years since the end of the war.
What have we learned?’
While exploring a gentrified corner of eastern Berlin known as the
Hackische Hoefe, I literally walked on several small commemorative
brass plates fixed flush with the pavement. The work of Cologne-based
artist Gunter Demnig, they memorialize German Jews deported and
murdered by the Nazis. By all accounts, there are 3,000 such
stolpersteine throughout Germany.
Although Germany has compensated Jewish property owners for their
losses, new cases pop up periodically.
Last year, the descendants of the Wertheim family, which lost its
department store fortune under Nazi Aryanization laws, won a pivotal
court battle that sets the stage for further legal wrangling. Four
months ago, in a parallel case, a judge in Berlin ruled that a Jewish
woman who had been forced to flee Germany was entitled to be
compensated for furnishings in a medical clinic expropriated from her
late parents.
Similarly, reparation payments are a jolting reminder of former days.
Last month, after talks with the Conference on Jewish Material Claims
Against Germany, the German government announced it would compensate
Jews who had been incarcerated in North African labour camps for at
least six months. Vichy France, an ally of Germany, established some
30 camps in Morocco and Algeria in 1941 and 1942. When Germany
occupied Tunisia in 1942 and 1943, 32 camps were set up.
In the wake of this announcement, Germany agreed to add an additional
payment of $11 million (US) to meet the home care needs of survivors
in 17 countries.
Most Germans who personally or administratively killed Jews during
the Holocaust have passed on. But occasionally, newly found
perpetrators, all in their 80s and 90s, are arrested, thus reminding
Germans of their ever-present past. Nearly a year ago, an
unidentified man was taken into custody in Munich, charged with
having organized a massacre of Czech partisans and civilians. In
Gottingen, meanwhile, prosecutors opened an investigation against a
former SS officer, identified only as Hans F., who participated in
the mass shootings of Jews in Ukraine.
Since 1945, 100,000 or so German citizens have been investigated for
participation in war crimes, but only 6,487 have been convicted. Of
these, 13 were executed, 163 sentenced to life imprisonment, 6,197
given temporary prison terms and 114 subjected to fines.
Not surprisingly, the past is also an issue in Germany’s foreign
ministry. In March, after Fischer banned posthumous tributes in the
ministry’s in-house magazine for diplomats who had been Nazi party
members, he created a commission to study the matter.
Clearly, the spectre of the Third Reich continues to haunt Germany.

Baku, Yerevan Differ On Resolution Ahead Of Talks
RFE/RL Armenia Report
Wednesday, 08 June 2005
Prague, 8 June 2005 (RFE/RL) — Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov told journalists in Baku on 7 June that “a great deal will
depend” on the outcome of his meeting with his Armenian counterpart
Vartan Oskanian in Paris on 17 June, echo-az.com and day.az reported on
8 June.
Mammadyarov again said that the two sides are discussing between seven
and nine issues related to a peace settlement, and that those issues
have to be addressed in a specific order, with each made secure before
the following one is added, “like pearls knotted on a silk thread.”
Mammadyarov said Azerbaijan insists on the liberation of the seven
districts currently occupied by Armenian forces, and that the two sides
are discussing which countries or organizations could provide
peacekeeping forces to be deployed on those territories after their
liberation, according to day.az.
He also said that “after the frontiers are opened we must revive trade
links and transport.” Echo-az.com quoted Mammadyarov as saying that the
two sides are discussing both the “phased” and the “package” approaches
to resolving the conflict.
But a senior Armenian Foreign Ministry official told “RFE/RL Newsline”
on condition of anonymity that the final agreement will be a package
one, although its various provisions may be implemented one after the
other, rather than simultaneously.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RIA Novosti, Russia
June 8 2005
Russian experts arrive in Tbilisi to draft agreement on bases’
pullout from Georgia
19:39
TBILISI, June 8 (RIA Novosti, Marina Kvaratskhelia) – A group of
military experts headed by Russian Foreign Ministry ambassador at
large Lev Mironov arrived in Georgian capital Tbilisi on Wednesday to
draft an agreement on the pullout of Russian bases from Georgia.
The group’s task is to implement the statement which the Russian and
Georgian foreign ministers signed on May 30. It implies the
withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia in 2008,” Mironov
said.
Now we should draft a relevant agreement, he added.
There are no contradictions with the Georgian side on the pullout, he
said.
According to the Georgian Foreign Ministry, Deputy Foreign Minister
Merab Antadze will head the Georgian delegation.
Russian Foreign Ministry ambassador at large Igor Savolsky will join
the Russian delegation on June 10.
On May 30, Russian and Georgian Foreign Ministers Sergei Lavrov and
Salome Zurabishvili agreed that the withdrawal of the Russian bases
from Georgia will be completed in 2008.
Both sides had to make concessions during the talks. At first,
Georgia proposed 2007 for the final withdrawal and Russia – 2009.
In compliance with the Lavrov-Zurabishvili statement, in 2005 all
military facilities except the bases in Batumi (a port on the Black
Sea) and Akhalkalaki (on the Georgian-Armenian border) will be handed
to the Georgian side. Military hardware will be withdrawn from
Akhalkalaki in 2006 and the base will be closed in 2007. Military
hardware will be pulled out from Batumi in 2008 and the base will be
closed the same year.

U.S. Newswire (press release), DC
June 8 2005
Armenian Foreign Affairs Minister to Hold Press Conference in
Washington June 10
To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor
Contact: Peter Hickman, 202-662-7540 or 301-530-1210, or
[email protected], for the National Press Club; or Arman
Israelian of the Embassy of Armenia, 202-319-1976 or
[email protected]
News Advisory:
Vartan Oskanian, the minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Armenia, will hold a “Noon Newsmaker” news conference on Friday, June
10, at Noon in the National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th St.,
N.W., in Washington, D.C.
Oskanian will discuss “Developments in the South of Caucasus,
including the Nagorno Karabakh Peace Process and Armenian-Turkish
Relations.”
On this Washington visit, Minister Oskanian is scheduled to meet with
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security advisor
Stephen Hadley, other Bush Administration officials and members of
Congress to discuss these and other issues, including Armenian forces
in Iraq as part of the multinational coalition.

News from Washington University in St. Louis (press release),
Washington
June 8 2005
America has big stake in supporting democracy in former Soviet
Republic of Georgia, suggest international studies expert
June 8, 2005 – As Americans celebrate independence this July 4, they
may wish to consider the plight of another democracy – one that is
young and struggling and whose continued success could have a
dramatic impact on the world economy, the price of gasoline and other
critical U.S. interests, suggests James V. Wertsch, director of
International and Area Studies at Washington University in St. Louis.

Given America’s obsession with war and terrorism in the Middle East,
it is countries such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan that may come
first to mind. However, by focusing on this troubled region, the
United States is missing an opportunity to partner with a nation
where Americans are actually welcomed with open arms; one where the
fate of a struggling democratic system could have huge ripple effects
around the globe. That country is the former Soviet Republic of
Georgia, says Wertsch, the Marshall S. Snow Professor in Arts &
Sciences at Washington University.
Why is Georgia so important to the U.S.?
Part of the answer, Wertsch contends, lies in the pipelines running
across Georgia’s territory that carry oil and gas to the West.
Georgia provides a new route to the oil riches of the Caspian. This
is a route that avoids Russia and Iran at America’s insistence, as
well as Armenia, at the insistence of Azerbaijan, which is the source
of the oil. In particular, Georgia is the transit country for the new
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline running from Azerbaijan to the
Mediterranean coast of Turkey. This pipeline, which is just beginning
to pump oil, will eventually carry a million barrels of crude a day
to the West.
Dependence on foreign oil is an issue of obvious importance to most
Americans and it should be especially compelling for those anguishing
over the cost of fueling up for traditional Independence Day driving
excursions. However, as Americans celebrate their own love of freedom
and democracy, they should realize, says Wertsch, that it is these
same institutions that underlie the real strategic value of Georgia
to the United States.

James Wertsch
Wertsch points to the tumultuous welcome that thousands of Georgians
gave President George W. Bush when he visited in May to support his
assertion. The visit’s purpose was to cast a spotlight on democratic
developments following the “Rose Revolution” of November 2003, the
nonviolent popular uprising that overturned the corrupt Georgian
government of post-Soviet president Eduard Shevardnadze. Even the
subsequent discovery of a grenade in the area where Bush addressed a
huge crowd in Tbilisi did little to dampen positive impressions on
both sides, he says.
Wertsch says the United States should redouble its efforts to support
and strengthen the emerging democratic movement in Georgia because
what happens there may be a bellwether for the fate of democracy in
nations across much of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
“The ramifications of the Rose Revolution extend well beyond
Georgia’s borders,” says Wertsch, the co-editor of the journal
Caucasus Context and the 2005 volume Enough! The Rose Revolution in
the Republic of Georgia. “The attention it has garnered has made
democratic upheaval thinkable in places like Ukraine, a country where
Georgian flags sprouted in the massive rallies of the “Orange
Revolution” of last winter. And it is commonly brought up in
discussions of Kyrgyzstan’s “Tulip Revolution” of this spring and
even in talk about potential upheaval in Russia.”
During his visit Bush was effusive in his praise of Mikheil
Saakashvili, the youthful president of Georgia who led the Rose
Revolution. This praise is warranted, suggests Wertsch, but the mark
of true friendship is the ability to speak frankly about problems
others may wish to ignore, and today Georgia definitely is in need of
a friend.
“The afterglow of the Rose Revolution has now faded,” Wertsch notes.
“Corruption remains a major problem, disruptions in electricity and
water services have re-appeared, and Georgians are becoming
increasingly frustrated with the lack of jobs and economic
development. Thanks to weak opposition, Saakashvili’s presidency is
not in danger at this point, but his approval ratings have gone into
steep decline. In short, he has largely used up the political capital
he acquired from the Rose Revolution, and the country stands at a
juncture where a new style of leadership is required.”
“What Georgia needs now is solid, day-to-day leadership, but
Saakashvili has continued to rely on populist gestures that all too
often appear, at best, impulsive,” says Wertsch.
“There are all too many parties who would love to see the Georgian
experiment in democracy and civil society fail. America needs to see
it succeed,” says Wertsch. ” As true friends of Georgia, we need to
stress that the days of populist revolution are over, and the time
for steady, solid leadership and governance has arrived. In the end,
Georgians are the only ones who can provide such leadership. The U.S.
should stand ready to help in any way possible, starting with
ongoing, frank assessments of the problems facing the country today
and the steps required of a responsible leadership to address them.”
—————————————————————-
Regional outlook
Georgia’s regional neighbor Uzbekistan has been in the news as the
result of a May 13 anti-government protest that was put down by Uzbek
troops in what some describe as a massacre of citizens fed up with
the nation’s repressive post-Soviet government.

Map source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
Wertsch suggests that the volatile situation in Uzbekistan is
noteworthy in part because it shows just how that nation is following
a much different path than Georgia.
“To be sure, some folks in Uzbekistan looked to Georgia as a model
for what they wanted to create there,” says Wertsch “I have discussed
this with Uzbeks for over a year. However, what happened there is
quite different for some pretty identifiable reasons, and the result
is that no democracy has emerged in Uzbekistan and more trouble is
inevitable in the future.”
“Ukraine is the best follow-on case, and Kyrgyzstan and especially
Uzbekistan are very different. The Russians have a vested interest in
portraying all of these “color revolutions” as the same – illegal
putsches that are bound to lead to instability and failure, but there
is some pretty critical discussion going on in Moscow about how this
might be the wrong way to look at things.”
;ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=armenia+OR+armenian+OR+armenians+OR+karabakh+OR+Qarabagh+OR+Garabagh+OR+karabagh&btnG=Search+News