Month: October 2006

October 14, 2006
REGNUM
Viktor Yakubyan: Tbilisi is preparing double strike against Moscow and
Yerevan

The Russian-Armenian inter-governmental commission on economic cooperation
met in Moscow a few days ago. The same day the press reported the sides to
have agreed on how to alleviate the impact Russia’s economic sanctions
against Georgia is having on Armenia. To remind, the sanctions were imposed
after the arrest and release of Russian officers in Georgia and,
particularly, concern the sphere of transport, particularly, motor and rail
transportation. This measure has put Armenia in as hard a situation as
Georgia.
"The transit of cargoes from Armenia via Georgia to Russia and vice versa
will not be stopped," the Secretary of the National Security Council of
Armenia, Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan said after the Moscow meeting. His
colleague, the Russian co-chair of the commission, Russian Transport
Minister Igor Levitin appeared with quite a sensational statement. He said
that "the cargoes from Russia to Armenia and vice versa will be transported
via the port of Samsun (Turkey), from there to the port of Kavkaz (Russia)
and then to Poti (Georgia)." The ministers assured that two train ferries
will be launched between Kavkaz and Poti by the end of this year. Sargsyan
said that, presently, there is one train ferry between the ports that can
carry 20 cars.
All they said implies that the Kavkaz-Poti-Armenia route will not be used
hereinafter. Russia has stopped almost all cargo operations with Georgia and
is now forced to search for quite original ways to communicate with Armenia.
It should be noted that the direct transport communication between Armenia
and Turkey was stopped the moment Armenia proclaimed independence and will
hardly be resumed in the near future.
Thus, Russia is planning to send its cargoes from Kavkaz to Samsun and then
almost back to Batumi or Poti and only then to Armenia. Thus, Turkey is
becoming the second go-between (Georgia remains one in any case) in
Armenian-Russian commodity turnover.
We should take this project with certain skepticism as the point here is not
even in political or technical difficulty but in the lack of any sense and
logic. Such a long way round will be by far more expensive for Russian and
Armenian companies than the long-trodden Poti-Ilichevsk (Ukraine) route and
they will hardly give the latter up. Even without Samsum, Kavkaz-Poti is no
rival to the Ukrainian route due to its low capacity. Presently, its train
ferry can carry only 18 cars at one go.
However, the point is even not that the Russian and Armenian authorities
have "felt" some "original" way out the present situation. In fact, by
offering a Turkish transit route to Armenia, the Russian authorities make it
clear that their sanctions against Georgia will last for long. And it seems
that the other possible way-out for Armenia – via the Caspian Sea and Iran –
is not being considered.
In Moscow Armenian DM Serzh Sargsyan had a number of meetings, particularly,
with the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Russian sources
report that the sides discussed the aggravation of Georgian-Russian
relations and the ways for Armenia to come out of the present deadlock.
Naturally, under the current economic pressure, the Georgian authorities are
also considering certain scenarios. Some sources say that Georgia is
actively consulting with the US, Azerbaijan and Turkey about its further
actions. First of all, the Georgian leadership is getting ready for a rise
in the Russian gas price. The sources say that starting from Jan 1 2007 the
price will be raised to $250 per 1,000 c m. Georgia will respond in a
counter-ultimatum: the transit tariff of Russian gas to Armenia will be
raised from $30 to $75 per 1,000 c m (after the first rise of the gas tariff
for Georgia from $55 to $110, Tbilisi raised the transit tariff for Armenia
from $15 to $30). Certainly, Gazprom will reject Georgia’s proposal, but the
Georgian authorities will not be "surprised" and will start the practice of
illegal "siphoning" of the gas meant for Armenia.
Meanwhile, as early as Jan 20 Georgia is planning to get the first gas from
Azerbaijan via Baku-Erzurum pipeline. This will mark the beginning of the
plan, reportedly, approved by Washington: Turkey will give its share of the
Azeri gas to Georgia, and this will allow Tbilisi to say that it no longer
needs the Trans-Caucasian gas pipeline, which supplies gas from Russia to
Armenia via Georgia. This will put an end to Gazprom’s plans to privatize
the pipeline – the plans that the US strongly objects to.
Thus, the winter 2006 will mark the introduction of new game rules in the
South Caucasus. It will be a kind of test not only for Georgia, who has
become a target for Russia’s economic sanctions, but also for Armenia, who
has become an involuntary hostage to the Russian-Georgian contradictions.
Yerevan’s only hope is the Iran-Armenian gas pipeline, to be launched by the
end of this year.
Viktor Yakubyan, expert on South Caucasus

October 14, 2006
REGNUM » We are not afraid of war,.
We are not afraid of war, but we don’t want it: Interview with Armenian
Defense Minister

The Secretary of the presidential National Security Council, Defense
Minister of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has given an interview to REGNUM news
agency (Russia) and El Pais newspaper (Spain)
Mr. Minister, what do you think about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?
There is a view that Armenia is unwilling to cede Nagorno-Karabakh but is
unable to develop it. Is it true?
This may be just one of the numerous personal views that do not reflect the
real situation. What do they mean: Armenia is developing or not developing
Nagorno-Karabakh? Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state and its
economic growth is quite comparable with that of Armenia. In Armenia the
annual GDP growth is 12%. Of course, we seek even better results but, you
must agree that not all post-Soviet republics have such a rate.
Perhaps, those who express such a view think that Armenia should more
actively support Nagorno-Karabakh? I don’t dispute that. And
Nagorno-Karabakh residents, people who live in NKR, certainly, think
likewise. However, you should understand that the situation "neither peace
nor war" is not attractive for investors and businessmen. On the other hand,
Nagorno-Karabakh is steadily developing. The situation you could see some
few years ago is quite incomparable with what you can see now. The
difference is obvious.
You have qualified the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as "neither peace nor
war." For how long can this situation last now that Azerbaijan is quite
actively strengthening its economy?
The Azeri economy is really developing, but in 2005 Armenia had bigger
economic growth. This year, due to growing oil revenues, Azerbaijan is
developing a bit more actively.
However, it would be wrong to say that the economic growth in Azerbaijan may
force the Armenian side to capitulate. On the contrary, it may urge us to
work better and to seek improvement not only in the economy but in other
sectors – to become a developed state with a modern, highly efficient army.
Only this will allow us to effectively oppose Azerbaijan in case of new war.
I would like to say that one can’t built an efficient army on money only.
Besides, Azerbaijan does not have an overwhelming economic advantage over
Armenia. It will take Azerbaijan several decades to attain the advantages it
had in the early 1990s. As you remember, even then, despite its big
advantages, the Azeri side lost the war. So, I would like to advise all
those relying on money to come to their senses and to consider the lessons
of the war Azerbaijan has once unsuccessfully unleashed against the
indigenous population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, can we say that today Nagorno-Karabakh is supported by Armenia’s
national budget?
To tell the truth, I can’t say exactly how much Armenia has subsidized to
Nagorno-Karabakh for 2007. At the same time, we should not forget that
Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent republic, who can freely dispose of its
incomes. I mean that NK’s budget consists not only of Armenia’s subsidies
but also of own incomes: tax revenues and other payments. The greater part
of the humanitarian assistance comes from the Diaspora – Armenians living
outside Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh lives the life all
democratically developing states normally live.
In one of you interviews you have said that Armenia has 45,000-strong army
and it is much for the country. How much does Armenia budget for its army?
In 2007 Armenia plans to spend 3.5% of its GDP on military needs – some
$270mln-280mln, depending on the rate of the national currency – AMD. This
may be much for Armenia, but, compared with some other countries, this is
not enough for building a modern efficient army. As they say, everything is
relative.
Do you think that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem can be resolved by peace?
Of course, it can. Perhaps, my comparison is a bit primitive but – any peace
agreement implies agreement of the sides. This is like marriage. There is no
marriage without mutual agreement. So, if we seek to solve the problem,
while Azerbaijan – not, we can’t help it. We believe that this problem must
be solved exclusively peacefully on the basis of compromise.
What kind of compromise will it be? Can you imagine the return of refugees
from Azerbaijan to Nagorno-Karabakh?
When we say peaceful resolution, we mean stable peace. Of course, at some
time in the future I see some possibility of the refugees’ return. After
all, we can’t isolate our countries from each other, we can’t build "a Great
Wall of China" and say that we will not contact with Azerbaijan any more,
can we? History has shown that we can’t. We have had conflicts and wars
before but we still continued our contacts: after some time, Armenians and
Azeris returned and began living together.
However, now that the problem is yet unresolved, now that people have not
yet healed the wounds they got during the war, the return of refugees is
impossible.
You know, the compromise is not about this. The people who left
Nagorno-Karabakh 14-15 years ago have long settled down in new environments
and are hardly prepared to leave everything they have there and to go back
to Nagorno-Karabakh. The compromise is about something quite different –
about Azerbaijan’s recognizing the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh people to
live independently, so they can feel themselves really secure and no longer
rely on the security zone. There are other important components, too. The
compromise must concern security – only then it will lead to stable peace.
Why does Armenia strongly object to the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict to the UN. Aren’t you interested in discussion?
Armenia objects to the transfer of the problem to any instance from the
format of its present discussion. What can this transfer give us, after all?
We have OSCE Minsk Group, whose members are all on the UN Security Council.
What will the transfer change? Do you really believe that people
representing, say, Somalia or some other far-away country are sufficiently
competent of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem to give us sensible advice? I
think that the whole point is that we should not prevent the work of the
OSCE MG who is expert in the matter.
Azerbaijan is trying to involve GUAM in the peace process. You in Yerevan
say that, by doing it, Azerbaijan is leading the negotiating process into a
deadlock. Do you think that under such conditions Nagorno-Karabakh may be
involved in the process and at what stage?
Nagorno-Karabakh’s involvement in the negotiating process will be beneficial
at any stage.
Then why isn’t it involved in the talks?
Azerbaijan does not want it to. They say that, if Nagorno-Karabakh is
involved in the talks, they will stop the negotiating process. We had to
choose: either to negotiate without NK or not to negotiate at all. Judge
yourselves what is better. You know, when there are no negotiations, the
situation is fraught with new war. I have repeatedly said that we are not
afraid of war, but we do not want it to resume. We do not fear this war, but
we realize what catastrophic consequences it may have for both nations.
Is war possible in the coming five years?
I have always said and am saying now that Defense Minister, especially the
Defense Minister of Armenia, must be always ready for war and must show high
responsibility for his country’s security. On the other hand, I believe that
there will be no war in the near future. First, I am deeply convinced that
today the Azeri army is not capable of waging a large-scale war. Second, the
world community will strictly react to such actions as, in fact, a new war
in Nagorno-Karabakh will spur up new wars in very many other places. We must
know it and must think about security.
What exactly has the OSCE MG achieved, so far? Does it have any
achievements?
Of course, it has. For 12 years already there has been truce in the region –
there is no war. And this is the most important thing. What the
international community wants is to prevent the resumption of the conflict,
to prevent people from killing each other. And we have it. Second, once we
were very close to solution. This problem is so difficult that one shouldn’t
expect a magician to come, wave his magic wand and solve it. One should work
hard to solve it. The people involved in the peace process should be well
informed of the situation.
Could you specify when exactly the sides were close to solution?
I think we were close to solution in Bucharest, in Paris, then, there was
Key-West. One can’t say that today Armenia or Azerbaijan reject the MG’s
proposals pointblank. On the other, show me any single person who really
believes that the problem will be solved the moment it is put on the UN
agenda. If there are such people, let’s listen to them.
You mean if there is no war, it is already good?
Of course, it is.
The Turkish and Azeri sections of Armenia’s state border are blocked. It is
clear that Azerbaijan will not open the border until the Nagorno-Karabakh is
resolved. And what about Turkey? Has Armenia negotiated this problem with
the Turkish side?
We have repeatedly and firmly said that we are ready to establish diplomatic
relations with Turkey with no preliminary conditions. I think that
diplomatic relations are established exactly like that. However, the Turks
are setting some conditions, avoiding dialogue – what can we do?
Unfortunately, the initial talks have been stopped, and we still have no
diplomatic relations.
Do you have any contacts now?
No, we have no serious official contacts. In the last three-four years there
have been several contacts between our foreign ministries but these were
once-time actions that can hardly be qualified as state relations.
Why is Ankara so persistently refusing to establish relations?
You know, it is a thankless thing to comment on the questions that are
beyond my competence. Obviously, they in Turkey will give you a clearer
answer, though, speaking personally, I have not heard anything specific from
them, so far.
I think that we must express our position and the Turks theirs and the
international community should judge who is right and who is wrong. The
international community should decide who complies with the principles of
the European community and who does not. I would like to say once again –
our position is very clear: Armenia is ready to establish relations with
Turkey with no preliminary conditions. Even more, we believe that the talks
for Turkey’s admission into the EU may be useful for Armenia. You know, we
want to have predictable neighbors.
Today the situation over Iran is quite controversial. What consequences may
its aggravation have for Armenia?
Naturally, this will have negative consequences for Armenia. I don’t even
want to think about it as the situation will be really hard. First, Iran
borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Second, for Armenia, Iran is
an outlet into the outer world. So, any instability there is quite
undesirable for Armenia.
Armenia has good relations with Iran. How can you explain this – what is the
formula of these relations? Are the tensions over Iran having any direct or
indirect influence on the atmosphere of Armenian-Iranian relations?
There is no such influence. Concerning our relations, I have already said
that Iran immediately borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.
Besides, Iran is Armenia’s key economic partner. It is rich in energy
resources and it is extremely important for Armenia to effectively plan its
energy security.
On the other hand, Armenia is signatory to the agreement on nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and strictly complies with all of its
requirements. That’s why our priority in relations with Iran is economic
cooperation, while, in security, we just exchange views and regular visits.
We always remember that, though being an Islamic country and an OIC member,
Iran shows restrained position on our conflict. Few countries in the OIC
show similar stance.
Could it be otherwise?
Of course, it could. We should be realistic.
Will the blockade of Iran exacerbate the blockade of Armenia?
Of course, it will. If this happens, we will have only the Georgian road
left.
And what if the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia worsens.
It will be very bad, too. Any instability in Georgia is a threat for
stability in Armenia. Our main road runs via Georgia. As a matter of
principle, landlocked countries often get in such situations.
Will Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO have any impact on Armenian-Georgian
relations or, particularly, on the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement?
I don’t think that Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO will have any impact on
the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Besides, I don’t think that we should tell Georgia which security system to
join or how to ensure its national interests. I hope that, whatever security
system Georgia joins, it will preserve friendly relations with Armenia. I
think we are very close neighbors. Besides, Georgia is home to quite many
Armenians who are citizens of that country.
Do you have similar arguments for Azerbaijan’s joining NATO?
I would like to say once again – Armenia welcomes the predictability of the
policies and values of its neighbors. I see nothing bad in our neighbors’
aspiration to join an organization propagating human values. The richer our
strategy the better.
Do you recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia?
We have long recognized Georgia as a state, exchanged instruments,
demarcated borders.
I mean in the light of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is Georgia’s business.
Do you mean it is Georgia’s internal affair?
We do not permit ourselves to give any assessments of the matter. We are not
involved in those processes, and I see no sense in talking about them.
Does Armenia expect any advantages from its participation in the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?
This organization is exactly for giving its members advantages. This is a
collective security treaty, which means that its signatories should
collectively oppose the challenges each of them may face. On the other hand,
the signatory states are not yet fully prepared for sending their troops to
each others’ territories should any of them suffer from aggression or face a
challenge.
If Azerbaijan attacks Armenia, will you ask the CSTO for help? Will they
help?
I think you better ask this question to the heads of the CSTO states – they
may give you an exhaustive answer. I can’t answer in their stead. In any
case, one can hope that if he is a member of some organization, he has the
right to rely on its partners. In the modern world, one can’t build its
security on one’s own. Even a strong country like the US does not act alone
and leans on its partners. We all know that.
That’s why one can’t ensure one’s security without integration and
collective efforts. Do you really think that 45,000 soldiers can ensure
Armenia’s security. Of course, they can’t. By the way, we will shortly
complete a strategy of national security. An inter-department commission has
been working on it for already a year. Its basic principles have been
approved by leading professional world centers, particularly, by the
Academic Committee of the US National Defense University and was considered
by a NATO international expert commission. Shortly, we will send the
document to Moscow for the consideration of an expert group of the Russian
State Administration Academy. Armenia’s National Security Strategy clearly
says that international integration is a guarantee of Armenia’s security.
Do you mean integration on the Caucasian level?
I mean both regional and global integration, cooperation in the widest
possible context.
Is it possible for Armenia to integrate with Azerbaijan and Georgia on the
Caucasian level?
Why not. Integration with Azerbaijan will be possible only after the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Until our soldiers are
confronting each other in trenches, we can hardly speak about any serious
integration. On the other hand, we can see some signs of integration within
international organizations. For example, joint participation in BSEC and
the CIS. With Azerbaijan and Georgia we are also integrating in the
framework of NATO, particularly, under the IPAP. All the three countries are
involved in some groups and indirectly cooperate within peacekeeping
actions. However, full integration will be possible only after the
resolution of the conflict, when we will stop regarding each other as
enemies. As regards Georgia, we already cooperate on very many issues.
Being CSTO member, Armenia actively cooperates with NATO. Experts see some
contradiction in it. What is your position on the matter?
You know, if I thought that these two directions contradict each other, I
would not be hear. I take part in this process and consider that it is very
important.
Judge yourselves, why can Finland be outside NATO but, at the same time, be
EU member and have normal relations with Russia? By the way, members of the
PACE monitoring commission visited us yesterday and one of them was from
Finland. One more example is Austria. Of course, I don’t say that in
development and expenses Armenia is on the same level with developed
European countries, but we will reach their level some day.
Under the NATO IPAP we plan to raise our armed forces to the world standards
by 2015. Why should we think that we can’t do it. If we go back to the
1990 – then people could not even imagine that Armenia might some day have
an army it has today. We are receiving very favorable reports about our
forces in the Balkans and Iraq. We have to bring our whole army to this
level.

Armenia memorial stolen in France
A bronze statue commemorating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Armenians in Turkey has been stolen from the Paris suburb of Chaville.
Police say the monument may have been taken to be sold as scrap metal.
But some are connecting the theft to last Thursday’s vote by the French
parliament making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered "genocide".
Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915-
a claim strongly denied by Turkey.

The 300kg (660lb) sculpture was cut off its pedestal in the suburb of
Chaville 13km (8 miles) from Paris some time between Friday night and Saturday
morning, local officials said.
But the site in front of Chaville’s train station had otherwise not been
vandalised and there was no graffiti.

One motive may have been money with the monument, which was erected in 2002,
being taken to be melted down and sold on as scrap.
But Stephane Topalian, a member of the Armenian church council in Chaville,
said that was unlikely.
"Police say it might have been stolen for the metal, but it seems too much of
a coincidence that this should have happened just after parliament voted the
Armenia bill," he told Reuters news agency.
Turkey condemned the French vote which would make it a crime to deny that
Armenians suffered "genocide" at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Ankara, which said the move was a serious blow to relations, threatened
sanctions. The vote was also criticised by the EU.
The bill still needs to be approved by the Senate and the president to become
law.
France has a large Armenian community, with up to 500,000 people of Armenian
descent.
There are more than 30 memorials to Armenian victims across France.

Story from BBC NEWS:
/6051242.stm

Published: 2006/10/14 15:08:42 GMT

© BBC MMVI

The Independent (London)
October 14, 2006 Saturday
First Edition

Let me denounce genocide from the dock

ROBERT FISK

This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I’m talking about
those who wilfully lie about the 1915 genocide of 1.5 million
Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turks. On Thursday, France’s lower
house of parliament approved a Bill making it a crime to deny that
Armenians suffered genocide. And, within an hour, Turkey’s most
celebrated writer, Orhan Pamuk – only recently cleared by a Turkish
court for insulting "Turkishness" (sic) by telling a Swiss newspaper
that nobody in Turkey dared mention the Armenian massacres – won the
Nobel Prize for Literature. In the mass graves below the deserts of
Syria and beneath the soil of southern Turkey, a few souls may have
been comforted.

While Turkey continues to blather on about its innocence – the
systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of male Armenians and of
their gang-raped women is supposed to be the sad result of "civil
war" – Armenian historians such as Vahakn Dadrian continue to unearth
new evidence of the premeditated Holocaust (and, yes, it will deserve
its capital H since it was the direct precursor of the Jewish
Holocaust, some of whose Nazi architects were in Turkey in 1915) with
all the energy of a gravedigger.

Armenian victims were killed with daggers, swords, hammers and axes
to save ammunition. Massive drowning operations were carried out in
the Black Sea and the Euphrates rivers – mostly of women and
children, so many that the Euphrates became clogged with corpses and
changed its course for up to half a mile. But Dadrian, who speaks and
reads Turkish fluently, has now discovered that tens of thousands of
Armenians were also burned alive in haylofts.

He has produced an affidavit to the Turkish court martial that
briefly pursued the Turkish mass murderers after the First World War,
a document written by General Mehmet Vehip Pasha, commander of the
Turkish Third Army. He testified that, when he visited the Armenian
village of Chourig (it means "little water" in Armenian), he found
all the houses packed with burned human skeletons, so tightly packed
that all were standing upright. "In all the history of Islam,"
General Vehip wrote, "it is not possible to find any parallel to such
savagery."

The Armenian Holocaust, now so "unmentionable" in Turkey, was no
secret to the country’s population in 1918. Millions of Muslim Turks
had witnessed the mass deportation of Armenians three years earlier –
a few, with infinite courage, protected Armenian neighbours and
friends at the risk of the lives of their own Muslim families – and,
on 19 October 1918, Ahmed Riza, the elected president of the Turkish
senate and a former supporter of the Young Turk leaders who committed
the genocide, stated in his inaugural speech: "Let’s face it, we
Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians."

Dadrian has detailed how two parallel sets of orders were issued,
Nazi-style, by Turkish interior minister Talat Pasha. One set
solicitously ordered the provision of bread, olives and protection
for Armenian deportees but a parallel set instructed Turkish
officials to "proceed with your mission" as soon as the deportee
convoys were far enough away from population centres for there to be
few witnesses to murder. As Turkish senator Reshid Akif Pasha
testified on 19 November 1918: "The ‘mission’ in the circular was: to
attack the convoys and massacre the population??? I am ashamed as a
Muslim, I am ashamed as an Ottoman statesman. What a stain on the
reputation of the Ottoman Empire, these criminal people???"

How extraordinary that Turkish dignitaries could speak such truths in
1918, could fully admit in their own parliament to the genocide of
the Armenians and could read editorials in Turkish newspapers of the
great crimes committed against this Christian people. Yet how much
more extraordinary that their successors today maintain that all of
this is a myth, that anyone who says in presentday Istanbul what the
men of 1918 admitted can find themselves facing prosecution under the
notorious Law 301 for "defaming" Turkey.

I’m not sure that Holocaust deniers – of the anti-Armenian or
anti-Semitic variety – should be taken to court for their rantings.
David Irving is a particularly unpleasant "martyr" for freedom of
speech and I am not at all certain that Bernard Lewis’s one-franc
fine by a French court for denying the Armenian genocide in a
November 1993 Le Monde article did anything more than give publicity
to an elderly historian whose work deteriorates with the years.

But it’s gratifying to find French President Jacques Chirac and his
interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy have both announced that Turkey
will have to recognise the Armenian death as genocide before it is
allowed to join the European Union. True, France has a powerful
half-million-strong Armenian community.

But, typically, no such courage has been demonstrated by Lord Blair
of Kut al-Amara, nor by the EU itself, which gutlessly and childishly
commented that the new French Bill, if passed by the senate in Paris,
will "prohibit dialogue" which is necessary for reconciliation
between Turkey and modern-day Armenia. What is the subtext of this, I
wonder. No more talk of the Jewish Holocaust lest we hinder
"reconciliation" between Germany and the Jews of Europe?

But, suddenly, last week, those Armenian mass graves opened up before
my own eyes. Next month, my Turkish publishers are producing my book,
The Great War for Civilisation, in the Turkish language, complete
with its long chapter on the Armenian genocide entitled "The First
Holocaust". On Thursday, I received a fax from Agora Books in
Istanbul. Their lawyers, it said, believed it "very likely that they
will be sued under Law 301" – which forbids the defaming of Turkey
and which right-wing lawyers tried to use against Pamuk – but that,
as a foreigner, I would be "out of reach". However, if I wished, I
could apply to the court to be included in any Turkish trial.

Personally, I doubt if the Holocaust deniers of Turkey will dare to
touch us. But, if they try, it will be an honour to stand in the dock
with my Turkish publishers, to denounce a genocide which even Mustafa
Kamel Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state, condemned.

Turkish Laureate Criticizes French Legislation

By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: October 14, 2006

ISTANBUL, Oct. 13 – Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish novelist who won the
Nobel Prize in Literature this week, went on television Friday to
criticize the French parliamentary vote that would make it a crime to
deny that the Ottoman Turks’ mass killing of Armenians constituted
genocide.

In a telephone interview broadcast live on the private television
network NTV, Mr. Pamuk, who faced criminal charges for his statements
acknowledging the massacre, said France had acted against its own
fundamental principles of freedom of expression.

`The French tradition of critical thinking influenced and taught me a
lot,’ he said. `This decision, however, is a prohibition and didn’t
suit the libertarian nature of the French tradition.’ The legislation
was approved by the lower house of Parliament, but it is uncertain
whether the upper house will concur.

In any case, Mr. Pamuk urged his compatriots not to let their
frustration with France get out of hand. He used a Turkish proverb to
get his point across. Roughly translated, it means `Don’t set the
blanket on fire for a flea.’

Some analysts fear that widespread anger against the French
legislation may turn more Turks against joining the European Union. A
Turkish opinion poll released in July showed a decline in support, to
58 percent from a high of 74 percent in 2003, in part because of the
prolonged road to admission.

Mr. Pamuk’s statement came after some in the country voiced suspicions
that the award was politically motivated. Mr. Pamuk owes part of his
celebrity in Europe to his criticism of Turkey’s stance on the
Armenian genocide. Many in Europe feel that Turkey should acknowledge
that the mass killings during and after World War I were genocide, and
the country’s refusal may complicate its attempts to join the European
Union.

Some of Mr. Pamuk’s supporters called it unfortunate that the prize
was awarded on the same day as the French parliamentary vote. They
fear that Turks will see the two events as more evidence that Europe
is treating their country unfairly.

Bulent Arinc, the speaker of the Turkish Parliament, challenged
Mr. Pamuk on Friday to tell the world what he thought about the French
legislation, which Mr. Arinc said `massacres freedom of expression.’

Mr. Pamuk was charged last year with making `anti-Turkish’ remarks
when he called attention to the Armenian genocide during an interview
with a Swiss magazine. Turkish nationalists initiated the criminal
case using a law that makes it a crime to insult Turkish
identity. Europeans and others who decried Mr. Pamuk’s treatment said
Turkey was violating his freedom of expression. After much outside
pressure, the charges were dropped on a technicality.

While the French legislation drew mostly negative reaction here,
Mr. Pamuk’s award inspired praise as well as criticism. Newspaper
writers and some other authors showered him with praise. But others
were more critical.

An arts critic, Ozdemir Ince, implied that Mr. Pamuk had won only
because he presented the view of Turkish history that many Europeans
wanted to hear. `Pamuk, who is given the Nobel Prize, accepts the
Armenian genocide,’ Mr. Ince said. `Turkey has been put on sale, and
Turkish history has been sold in an auction at the lowest price.’

Alev Alatli, a novelist, criticized Mr. Pamuk during an interview on
NTV.

`One of the most powerful institutions of the diaspora Armenians is in
Sweden, and they are very powerful there,’ she said. `Can you imagine
that one could have been even nominated without being in good terms
with these circles?’

Sema Munuklu, 38, a restaurant owner, said: `I don’t think that he
didn’t deserve it. After all, he is a great writer. But I can’t help
thinking that things he said might have been an influence on the
prize.’

Ms. Munuklu said the French Parliament’s action displayed European
hesitancy in accepting Turkey into the European Union.

Ibrahim Unseli, 55, who runs an electronics shop, said he was as
appalled by the French Parliament’s attitude as he was by Mr. Pamuk’s
position on the Armenians and added that he hoped that Turks would
boycott French goods

The Giant Camel of Thamudd
2006/10/08

Mathaba.Net, UK

The camel was so huge that grazing sheep fled from it in fright.

By Dr. Sahib Mustaqim Bleher

I read with interest that Swiss scientists had discovered an ancient
giant camel or dromedary in Syria. Professor Jean-Marie Le Tensorer
of the University of Basel said the camel’s shoulders stood three
meters high and it was around four meters tall, as big as a giraffe or
an elephant, adding "nobody knew that such a species had existed."
standing a good three meters tall. They also found bones of early
humans who appeared to be somewhere between the categorizations of
Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. The researchers suggested that their
find indicated that a group of humans killed the large animal when it
was drinking from a spring. Could this be the she-camel of the people
of Thamudd referred to in the Qur’an?

The Thamudd are an ancient Arab people thought to be the descendants
of the Arab tribe of ‘Ad. They had an impressive civilization, carving
houses out of rocks, some of which can still be seen in the region to
the North of the Arabian peninsula and today’s Syria. Their prophet
Salih gave them a she-camel as a sign which he instructed they had to
share their drinking space with and forbade them from harming
her. Instead they hamstrung her and brought upon themselves the doom
of total annihilation. The land once known for its abundance of water
returned to being a desert, exactly as the researchers from Basel
describe it.

According to Islamic folklore the camel was created by the prophet as
a sign from a rock and was so huge that grazing sheep fled from it in
fright and even cattle would keep their distance. As a one-off miracle
it would be unique rather than a remnant of an extinct
species. Further analysis should prove most interesting if the results
will be shared with the public. We are still waiting for the results
of the exploration of Noah’s ark on mount Judi in the Greater Ararat
range in Eastern Turkey (Western Armenia) which once excited
archaeologists, but has gone strangely quiet over the years.

— Dr. Sahib Mustaqim Bleher is a German living in England, a Muslim
and a pilot – in the oppressive neo-fascist climate of today, this
means walking a tight rope. And it requires speaking out. He has done
so through articles, pamphlets and books, many of which are available
via his FlyingImam web site which you can visit at FlyingImam.com.

Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey agree on major railway project
14.10.2006, 19.02

BAKU, October 14 (Itar-Tass) -Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey have
reached an agreement on key issues concerning the railway route from
Kare (Turkey)to Baku via Akhalkalalki (Georgia) and Tbilisi (Georgia).

`In the course of trilateral talks held in Baku yesterday, the drafts
of three important documents were considered: a framework agreement on
the project, the Georgian side’s obligations to allot land for the
constructionof the railway road, and a credit agreement between
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey, and on the whole an understanding was
reached,’ Azerbaijani Transport Minister Ziya Mamedov told journalists
on Saturday.

The three countries will finalise the document within a month and
resubmit them. `The main corrections will have to be made in the
credit agreement,’ the minister said, adding, `Each party has its own
project financing proposals.’

According to Mamedov, Turkey has no objections and is ready to start
implementing the project on its territory at the beginning of 2007.
`We are now working with the Georgian side to make sure it can start
building the railway road on its territory in the same period of
time,=80=9D Mamedov said.

He believes Georgia has an interest in this two-year project.

The new railway route is estimated at 422 million U.S. dollars. It
envisages the construction of a 105-kilometre road, including 29
kilometres in Georgia and 76 kilometres in Turkey, as well as the
modernisaiton of a 150-kilometre section of the Georgian railway road.

In the initial stage, the road will transport up to five million tones
of cargos a year. But Mamedov says the new road will be of interest
also to Kazakhstan and China, which are seeking to deliver their
cargos to Europe by the shortest route.

Thursday, October 12, 2006
****************************************
People who say, “It can’t be done,” are either opportunistic cowards or apologists for the status quo. Avoid them. What cancer is to the body, they are to creativity and daring. It is better to fail on your own terms than to succeed on theirs.
*
On the day you find your right path, success and failure, greatness and mediocrity, misery and joy will become irrelevant concepts.
*
The license of a preacher who does not practice what he preaches should be revoked. To say, “Do as I say, not as I do” is to legitimize abuse.
*
To speak of abuse in our environment means to succeed only in uniting the abusers against you.
*
Orhan Pamuk was awarded the Nobel Prize for two reasons: (one) in addition to being a good writer, he enjoyed Turkish popular support, and (two) he exposed the lies of Turkish propaganda. You may now guess why so far no Armenian writer has been awarded the Prize.
*
If we don’t betray them to the authorities, we beat them up or silence them. For Armenians divide themselves only against their enemies…. If you read the biographies of our greatest writers… What am I saying? There are no biographies of Oshagan or Zarian.
#
Friday, October 13, 2006
*****************************************
TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
*******************************************
The first says our leaders are our saviors, and the second, they are our dividers and destroyers. If you subscribe to the first school, you are a dupe of our propaganda; if you subscribe to the second, it means you trust the judgment of our writers (from Khorenatsi and Yeghishe in the 5th Century to Massikian and Zarian in the 20th) more than the charlatanism of our wheeler-dealers – sorry, I meant to say, our political leaders, bosses for short.
*
LITERATURE AND PROPAGANDA
************************************************
Propaganda is more popular than literature because disoriented people prefer lies that validate their prejudices and fallacies. Those who say Blacks are savages and Jews are rats will never think of themselves as swine. What Blacks and Jews are to racists and anti-Semites, Turks are to us. Turks are what binds Armenian to Armenian. They are our glue. Delete Turks from our consciousness and our communities will collapse like a house of cards. Literature is less popular because it exposes contradictions and charlatans who speak with a forked tongue.
*
CRITICIZING CRITICS
***********************************
If you are in the business of exposing contradictions, your critics will detect contradictions in everything you say; and if you say you are against A, B, and C, they will accuse you of all three aberrations plus X, Y, and Z.
*
ASSUMPTIONS AND AMBITIONS
*******************************************
Because we come from a long line of victims, we cannot be victimizers, or so we would like to believe. It is more accurate to say, however, that as perennial victims we think of progress only in terms of how soon we can behave like the opposition, even if it means victimizing our own brothers.
#
Saturday, October 14, 2006
*******************************************
APOLOGISTS OF THE STATUS QUO
*******************************************
Very much like our self-appointed Turcocentric
pundits, they are a dime a dozen and they come in
all sizes, shapes, and colors of the rainbow, and
they operate on the assumption that they know
things you don’t know because they have sources
of information available to no one but
themselves. Even more to the point, unlike you,
they love and understand their country and fellow
countrymen. Theirs is therefore a superior brand
of patriotism. And their reasoning goes something
like this: our problems are not ours alone; we
did not invent them; rather they are an integral
part of the human condition; they will be found
even in the most prosperous, progressive, and
developed democracies in the world, including the
United States of America. Internecine divisions
and conflicts, corruption in high places,
catastrophic policy blunders, fraud, mafias, drug
trafficking, homelessness, unemployment,
destitution, prostitution…these things have been
with us since time immemorial and they will
probably be with us as long as there is life on
earth.
*
What these apologists neglect to tell you is that
the overwhelming majority of nations around the
world did not experience six hundred years of
Ottoman oppression followed by its equally
nefarious Soviet variant, neither were they
serial victims of massacres and a genocide which,
according to the perpetrators and their allies,
may well be a figment of our imagination.
*
True, the majority of uncivilized as well as
civilized nations have had their share of
traitors and collaborators with the enemy, but,
with the possible exception of Ireland, treason
and betrayal are not an integral part of their
collective experience and identity.
*
All people tend to blame their problems on
others, but they do not adopt the blame-game as
their favorite national sport. Furthermore, no
other nation is experiencing the same high rate
of alienation, assimilation, and emigration.
*
Somewhere Avedik Issahakian (not a dissident or
critic, but a poet) has said: “We have been
thrice cursed with earthquakes, bloodthirsty
neighbors, and brainless leaders.” He should have
added “and brainwashed apologists and
opportunistic academics and monomaniacal pundits,
all of whom enjoy the support of Big Money and
are united only in stifling criticism and
dissent.”
*
Speaking of Big Money, in this morning’s paper I
read the following quotation by Jack Welch
(retired chairman of General Electric): “You are
the last person to know who the jerks are,
because they are all putting on a face for you.”
#

esctoday.com, Netherlands
Oct 13 2006

Too many participants? what would happen

Eurovision Song Contest full?

With all 37 participating countries at the 2006 Eurovision Song
Contest almost certain to return in Helsinki next year, and with both
Serbia and Montenegro stating their intention to enter the
competition following the disengagement and independence of the two
states, we are already set to have 39 countries participating in
2007. Today, esctoday.com spoke to Svante Stockselius, EBU’s
Eurovision Song Contest Executive Supervisor, to confirm what would
happen if more than 40 countries enter and for his interpretation of
the rules.
Mr. Stockselius confirmed to esctoday that 40 is the maximum number
of participants that will be allowed to enter the Eurovision Song
Contest. If all 37 participating countries from 2006 return to the
Eurovision Song Contest in 2007, and Serbia and Montenegro return as
separate countries after their withdrawal in 2006, there would only
be one remaining spot for a new or returning country at the
competition.

With Czech and Georgian television interested in joining the
competition, the possiblility that Lebanon will seek to enter next
year (if they can agree to broadcast the Israeli song), and the
possibilty that Austria, Italy and Hungary may return, there could be
a situation where 44 countries will apply to participate in Helsinki.

With only a month to go before countries must submit their decision
on participation to the EBU, esctoday.com today contacted Svante
Stockselius to confirm what would happen, should this scenario unfold
before confirming the news that Montenegro will participate in
Helsinki!

Mr.Stockselius confirmed that the current rules do provide for a
solution: "First we will look at the countries’ participation over
the last five years, if that did not give the answers, we would move
to a draw".

What does this mean?

Should this scenario occur, Austria would definitely return to the
competition if they enter, and would not take part a draw because
they have participate in four of the last 5 years.
Both Serbia and Montenegro should be included because they have
partiipated in the competition twice in the last five years, albeit
as one joint pariticipant in 2004 and 2005.
So, if Serbia, Montenegro and Austria all apply, they would join last
year’s participants at the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest. No debut
countries would be able to enter.
However…

Matters would become complicated if Italy was to return. Although
this seems unlikely in 2007, it would be very popular with fans of
the Eurovision Song Contest. Italy would also have a case to join the
‘Big 4’ as part of a new ‘Big 5’ because they are one of the primary
contributors to the EBU. This means that should they return,
Armenia’s place at the contest may be in jeopardy because they have
only participated once and they may be forced out of the competition.
If Italy do not enter, Serbia and Montenegro both enter as separate
countries and Hungary applies to return to the Eurovision Song
Contest, a draw would be needed to select the 40th participant
between Hungary and Armenia who have both participated once in the
last five years. No new participants would then be able to enter in
2007.
Without Italy, but including Serbia and Montenegro as separate
countries and the return of either one of Austria or Hungary,
Georgia, Czech Republic, Lebanon and any other country looking to
enter the Eurovision Song Contest would be turned away.
Should none from Austria, Hungary or Italy return and Serbia and
Montenegro both participate, if Czech Repulblic, Georgia and Lebanon
or any other debut country enter, a draw would be held to select one
final participant in Helsinki.
Until the deadline for entry submissions passes, this will be a topic
of debate for fans of the Eurovision Song Contest. In November, we
will know which countries will participate in the 2007 Eurovision
Song Contest.

Associated Press
Oct 13 2006

Turkish Group Boycotts Some French Goods

ISTANBUL, Turkey – The Turkish Consumers Union announced a limited
boycott of French goods Friday in reaction to a French law that would
make it a crime to deny that mass killings of Armenians in Turkey was
genocide.

The non-governmental group, which seeks to educate and advocate for
Turkish consumers, said the boycott would begin with the French oil
products company Total, and that the union would publicize a new
French company for Turks to boycott each week.

"From today on, every week we are going to boycott a French brand,
and show our reaction in a language that France can understand,"
group chairman Bulent Deniz said.

"By adopting the bill on making denial of the so-called Armenian
genocide a crime, the French National Assembly expressed its
opposition to freedom of thought."

He said the boycott would continue until the law was defeated or
annulled.

Total trade between the two countries last year stood at nearly $10
billion. Turkey imported goods from France worth nearly $6 billion.

On Thursday, French lawmakers _ in a 106-19 vote _ approved a bill
that would criminalize denying the mass killings of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I amounted to genocide,
but the bill still needs to be approved by the French Senate and the
president to become law.

Turks were outraged by the decision, which was widely viewed as a
hostile measure. The European Union on Friday said the bill was
"counterproductive."

Turkey acknowledges that great numbers of Armenians were killed in
fighting and mass expulsions, but does not accept the label of
genocide.

In Istanbul, customers at some retail centers were being urged by
salespeople not to purchase French goods as a reaction to the French
lawmakers’ vote.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had called on Turks Thursday to
be moderate in their response, and the Foreign Ministry said it would
do everything it could to ensure the law was not passed.

On Friday, a Turkish parliamentary commission charged with EU
harmonization called on France to reject or retract the law. "Our
commission condemns this unjust decision and hopes that France will
succumb to common sense and turn back from this mistake," the
statement said.