Month: November 2006

MANVEL SARGSYAN: EU-ARMENIA ACTION PLAN WILL HARDLY CHANGE THE ATMOSPHERE OF KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT
Public Radio, Armenia
Nov 19 2006
The signing of the Action Plan of the “Enlarged Europe: New Neighbors”
Program by Armenia will hardly change the atmosphere of the Armenian
Genocide recognition process, Manvel Sargsyan, ex-Adviser to NKR
President, analyst of the “Caucasus” center, said in “Friday”
Club today.
He reminded the statement of Council of Europe Secretary General
Terry Davis that “he is interested in people, not the territories.”
In Sargsyan’s opinion, this statement is the core of the policy of
the whole European community primarily targeted at the resolution of
humanitarian issues.
Manvel Sargsyan noted also that during the 10 years of its activity,
the OSCE Minsk Group has turned into a powerful mechanism, an
independent structure capable of resolving a number of issues.
Therefore, the attempts of Azerbaijan to transfer the Karabakh question
to another format will hardly succeed.

TURKEY’S KURDISH LEADER DEMANDS RE-TRIAL, CALLS FOR PROMOTING CEASE-FIRE
Roj TV, Brussels
17 Nov 06
[Presenter] The leader of Kurdistan Democratic Confederation [KKK],
Abdallah Ocalan, met his lawyers, on Wednesday, and assessed their
curriculum. Ocalan said that in order for him to be re-trialled, a new
case had to be forwarded to a special tribunal. He had linked his case
to the Kurdish issue and other cases in Turkey. Ocalan commented on
the cease-fire stage as saying that he could not carry out his duties
[towards cease-fire] for more than another few months.
[Reporter] Ocalan has said that a new case had to be opened in a
special tribunal in order for him to be re-trialled. He added that
there was a situation similar to the ban on the Roj TV at his prison
cell, the prison authorities were telling him that they were going to
repair his radio, but they had not. This seemed to be the [Turkish]
state’s game. However, listening to radios was a legal right.
Regarding his re-trial in the European Court, European Human Rights
Tribunal or in Rome, Ocalan reminded that he had exhausted all legal
means; therefore the duty of the European ministers’ committee had
become more important.
[Passage omitted, example of Greece case].
Ocalan added that his trial was not the trial of one person, it
was the trial of a nation. He said that his case was related to the
Kurdish issue and many other cases in Turkey.
Ocalan commented on the current cease-fire as saying that he had not
considered the current stage as a positive stage. He said that the
Turkish authorities assumed that he did not deserve a radio; they did
not deliver his letters; they continued [military] operations. He said
that the Justice and Development Party [known as AKP] did not carry
its duties. The AKP wanted to use this stage for its own benefits in
the next presidential elections.
Ocalan said that he would carry out his responsibility towards the
cease-fire stage. He added that if the Turks used this stage as a
[political] game and preparation for the massacre and displacement
of millions of Kurds, he would withdraw and told the Kurds to take
their decision. Ocalan warned that the current cease-fire was the
final change and had to be dealt with carefully.
[Passage omitted, parties should work for the success of cease-fire]
He said that Truth Commissions should be considered, because, it might
lead to permanent peace. [Passage omitted, Ocalan praises Democratic
Society Party leadership]
Ocalan commented on Cyprus crisis as saying that the European Union
[EU] was not serious in resolving the Kurdish issue. [Passage omitted,
Ocalan’s view on Cyprus]. He believed that there were agreements
between Turkey and the EU included ban on the Kurdistan Worker’s Party
[PKK], his prison condition, and deferment of his case in the European
Human Rights Tribunal. The EU had promoted the nationalist interests
in Cyprus whereas they ignored the Kurdish nationalist interests.
Ocalan said that there were plans, similar to that happened to
Armenians, for expelling Kurds. He said that they were against the
PKK because the PKK was considered as an obstacle for implementing the
plan. He added that the USA and many sides in Turkey were supporting
that plan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GOOD CAUSE FOR LIFE IN A SMALL CAR
By Karla Pincott
Sunday Herald Sun (Australia)
November 19, 2006 Sunday
FIRST Edition
LIVING in your car is usually a sign that you’ve hit rock bottom,
but for two young Californian women it was the way to snare some
money for pet charities.
And this was no roomy van, either. University of Southern California
students Dolce Wang and Anna Grigoryan spent five days in the US
version of a Holden Barina to win the Chevrolet Aveo Livin’ Large
contest.
During that time they ate, drank, slept, worked, partied, held events
and broadcast every minute of it to the world by webcam from the car.
They beat teams from several other universities in scoring the most
votes as having “lived largest” in the Aveo. They were allowed to
leave the car to attend classes and exams, and for 10-minute bathroom
“bio breaks”. But otherwise they had to be in continuous contact with
the car. During the five days parked in the university square, they
competed with the other teams in daily challenges such as shooting
a video or mounting a charity food drive — for rewards such as an
in-car massage.
They also held and performed in a concert, hosted a drive-in film
festival with movies produced by fellow USC students, decorated the
vehicle as an elephant for Halloween, and sported fancy dress —
including an inflatable fat suit that put even more stress on the
snug conditions.
Ms Grigoryan said they enjoyed most of their time in the car. “We
got our front yard going, our backyard, master bedroom, dining
table-cum-office (the dashboard),” she said. “Having only 10 minutes
for bio breaks led to us washing our hair in the bathroom sink or
pretty much just cutting it to reduce the mass.”
Ms Wang and Ms Grigoryan were judged by online voters to have been
the most entertaining team and won an Aveo each, plus one for their
university. Each of the young women is donating the cash value of
their car (about $15,000) — Ms Grigoryan to a group of families in
Armenia and Ms Wang to an organisation that funds a school in Ghana.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PM BALKENENDE SEEN AS FAVOURITE IN DUTCH ELECTION
by Frederic Bichon
Agence France Presse — English
November 19, 2006 Sunday 8:55 AM GMT
The Hague
The Netherlands will vote Wednesday in parliamentary elections after
a brief campaign that focused on the battle between sitting Christian
Democrat Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, popular for his economic
successes, and labour leader Wouter Bos.
Public debate in the Netherlands has focussed on immigration and
integration for the last four years following the 2002 murder of
populist leader Pim Fortuyn and the killing of filmmaker Theo van
Gogh by a Muslim radical in 2004.
But these issues were notably absent from the campaign for Wednesday’s
poll, even with the Dutch cabinet’s announcement on Friday of a bill —
denounced by Muslims as ill conceived and an infringement of religious
freedoms — banning face veils in public and semi-public places on
“security” grounds.
The major parties have all reached a consensus on the hardline policies
of Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, of the rightwing liberal VVD,
and the far-right movement is marginalized.
Another non-issue is international politics, including Europe, despite
the fact that the Netherlands last year voted overwhelmingly against
the EU draft constitution.
Over 61 percent of Dutch voters said ‘no’ to the constitution while
nearly all major political parties had lobbied for a ‘yes’.
A recent poll showed that if the vote were held again today, 64
percent would reject it again.
On Wednesday some 12 million voters will chose 150 members for the
parliament. After the elections the party with the most seats will try
to cobble together a ruling coalition as the system of proportional
representation makes it virtually impossible for one party to get an
absolute majority.
There will be only one round of voting with 24 parties participating.
Polls show that the Christian Democrat CDA and the PvdA labour party
could get enough votes to form a grand coalition together, as they
have done frequently in the post-war Netherlands.
The CDA party of Balkenende, who has been at the head of three
successive governments since 2002, looks set to remain the biggest
party, according to the polls. Its biggest rival the PvdA has seen
its popularity wane after initial success in local elections earlier
this year. However, the polls also indicate that up to one third of
the electorate is still undecided.
Another unknown will be how the tiny far-left Socialist Party (SP)
will do since some surveys now predict it could become the third
largest party. After four years of far-reaching social reforms the SP
has attracted a lot of protest votes. In the 2003 elections the SP was
also projected to make major inroads but that failed to materialize.
Balkenende, 50, with a safe Calvinist middle-class image whose side
parting and round glasses have earned him the nickname Harry Potter,
has led the country in a period marked by economic recession and
austerity measures.
While the reforms have seen his popularity-rating plummet in the past,
they are now credited with the economic turnaround.
The centre-right government largely privatised health care, the
energy and transport sectors and the economic markers are good: 5.2
percent unemployment from July to October, a predicted growth of 3.5
percent and a public deficit of 0.1 percent of GDP this year with a
tiny budget surplus expected next year.
Balkenende’s lack of charisma and natural authority, which his critics
blame for the fall of his government in June following a controversy
over the immigration minister, is actually an asset in a country that
values normalcy above all.
Compared to his 43-year-old rival Bos, a former Shell executive who
was briefly deputy finance minister from 2000 to 2002, Balkenende
has more government experience and can rest assured that since 1972
all incumbent prime ministers have been re-elected.
On top of that Bos has his own image problem: his good looks, media
savvy and promises to modernise the labour party helped his party
make historical gains in the 2003 elections but now he is widely seen
as slick.
His critics, including some within his own party, say Bos is
flip-flopping: in a recent example the PvdA removed two candidates
of Turkish origin from their list because they refused to acknowledge
the Armenian genocide but later Bos himself said genocide should not
be used to describe the World War I massacre.
This was seen as a move to try and win back voters of immigrant origin
whose votes account for at least five seats in parliament.
The first estimates based on exit polls are expected at 2000 GMT and
the first partial results will come an hour later.

THE 25 GREATEST SONGS YOU’VE NEVER HEARD
Newark Star Ledger, NJ
Nov 19 2006
They weren’t singles. They weren’t hits. But they should have been.
>From bluesy ballads to brilliant pop, Star-Ledger music critics pick 25
of their favorite obscure songs, including some of the most criminally
overlooked tunes of the last century. Using this list, you can put
together an eclectic-but-entertaining CD mix that will make you seem
the musical expert (copyright issues notwithstanding). CD availability
is listed at the end of each entry, although many of these songs can
be downloaded legally from iTunes and other Internet sources.
BRADLEY BAMBARGER
“He Calls That Religion,” The Mississippi Sheiks: A country-blues
fiddle band from the Delta, the Mississippi Sheiks had their biggest
hit for Okeh with 1930’s “Sitting on Top of the World,” covered
by Howling Wolf, Bob Wills, Cream and Bob Dylan, among others. But
their funniest, most pungent tune was recorded two years later in
Paramount Records’ Grafton, Wisc., furniture factory; it deplores
a philandering minister — “He calls that religion/ but I know he’s
going to hell when he dies.” Available on “Stop, Look and Listen,”
a 1992 Sheiks anthology (Yazoo).
“I’m Not Your Fool Anymore,” Tom Waits and Teddy Edwards: This jazzy
lament was written by the late L.A. saxophonist Edwards. Another of
his collaborations with Waits on vocals, “Little Man,” is included
on the singer’s new set of rarities (“Orphans,” see review Page 6),
but not this superior love-lorn number. As Edwards and a trumpeter
weave woozy lines around a supple rhythm section, Waits guts it out —
“I used to lie awake at night, cry the whole night through/ But now
I’ve found somebody new, to take the place of you.” Then he croons
his best falsetto as if persuading himself — “It’s all over, it’s
all over … I’m not your fool, not anymore.” Available on Edwards’
1991 album “Mississippi Lad” (Gitanes/Verve).
“Live With Me,” The Twilight Singers: While singer/guitarist Greg
Dulli is a compelling songwriter himself (first with the Afghan Whigs,
now with his Twilight Singers), he is also a master of interpretation
— usually taking his favorite pop songs down to the dark end of
the street. This blues-drenched cover of a recent Massive Attack
song features vocals from frequent Dulli ally Mark Lanegan (of
Screaming Trees and Queens of the Stone Age), whose sequoia of a
voice transforms what was a sleek romantic overture into a desperate,
soul-deep plea. Available on the new iTunes-only EP “A Stitch in Time”
(One Little Indian).
“Mother of Mine,” Djivan Gasparyan: One of Armenia’s most famous sons,
the 68-year-old Gasparyan is a virtuoso of the duduk. An ancient
double-reed, oboe-like instrument made of apricot wood, the duduk
makes a mournful sound in his hands. Gasparyan is also an affecting
singer; this quiet, almost a cappella tune starts with lonely duduk,
then has only low harmonium as backing. “Mother of Mine” doesn’t come
with a translation from Armenian, so it could be a tribute or a lament
for her passing. Regardless, his voice is almost impossibly tender
and moving, the song feeling as if it could go on as long as he has
breath. Available on Gasparyan’s Michael Brook-produced masterpiece
“Moon Shines at Night” (All Saints, 1992/Rykodisc, 2005).
“Nun Wandre, Maria,” Peter Pears and Benjamin Britten: Viennese
composer Hugo Wolf — who went insane and died from syphilis at
age 43 in 1903 — wrote this song, the saddest Christmas tune ever,
to an old Spanish poem translated into German. His desolate minor
key darkens Joseph’s beseeching words of “now onward, Mary” on the
hard journey to Bethlehem. As recorded live for the BBC in 1971,
Pears’ middle-aged tenor is full of plaintive character, enabling
the English singer to divine the song’s emotional core in a way
that eludes others. As a composer himself (and Pears’ life partner),
Britten is the ideal piano accompanist. Available on a 2000 anthology
that also includes Britten-led performances of Schubert (BBC Legends).
{the remainder is omitted}
ndex.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1163914247186420.xm l&coll=1
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NEW CONGRESS URGED TO CHANGE STANCE ON MASS KILLINGS OF ARMENIANS
Pasadena Star-News (California)
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
Whittier Daily News
November 18, 2006 Saturday
LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE Setrak Sheytanian died long ago, the victim of
a mass killing spree that many consider the first true genocide of
the 20th century.
For decades his family tried in vain to collect on his life insurance
policy, issued by New York Life nearly 100 years ago in Eastern
Anatolia, modern-day Turkey. They finally prevailed last year,
capitalizing on a California law that allows heirs of Armenians
killed by the Ottoman Turks during World War I to sue for unpaid
insurance claims.
No such law exists at the federal level, partly because Washington
has never said the mass killings perpetrated against the Armenians
constituted genocide. But that stance may soon change because of the
shift in power on Capitol Hill.
We now have a speaker-elect who supports recognizing the Armenian
genocide, said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, who along with San
Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi has co-sponsored legislation that
would officially label the killings as part of a campaign of ethnic
cleansing by the Turks. That is a tremendous ally to have.
The legislation, along with a similar bill sponsored by Schiff,
was moved forward last year by the House International Relations
Committee. Neither of the bills ever made it to the House floor because
of strong opposition from other members of Congress, including outgoing
Speaker Dennis Hastert.
But the stalled legislation has suddenly been infused with new life,
with Pelosi at the helm of a new, Democrat-controlled Congress.
Ms. Pelosi has pledged to support the resolution again in the 110th
Congress, said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for the San Francisco
congresswoman. However, no resolutions on Armenia are included in
Pelosi s list of top priorities for the first 100 days of the new
Congress, he added.
Armenians contend that up to 1.5 million of their countrymen died at
the hands of the Ottoman Turks between 1915 and 1923.
An official government recognition of the Armenian killings is long
overdue, said Martin Marutian, Sheytanian s nephew.
It is very important because we are recognizing genocides in Africa,
the Nazi Holocaust, but not the Armenian genocide, which was the
first one, said Marutian, 91, of La Cañada Flintridge. Newspapers,
including the New York Times, wrote about the genocide at the time.
But it seems like today the U.S. and Turkey have amnesia.
Marutian recounted the story of his uncle, who he said was killed
along with his wife and two small children when the Turks stormed
their small town of Kharpet in 1915. Marutian s mother had left
Turkey a year earlier for the United States to join her husband,
and Sheytanian had given her his policy to take with her.
For years, New York Life ignored the policy. But last year, a group
of lawyers including high-profile attorney Mark Geragos reached a
$20 million settlement with the company on behalf of scores Armenian
families, including the Marutians.
Geragos said federal recognition of the Armenian genocide might open
the way for similar suits over claims outside of California.
Hypothetically, if it were to happen federally, there are a number of
legal options that could open up, said Geragos, who has also recovered
$17 million for claimants from European insurance giant AXA. He linked
the AXA settlement with the recent action by the French Parliament
to formally recognize an Armenian genocide.
Geragos, who is of Armenian descent, also believes that federal
recognition of a genocide could eventually lead to the United States
acting as a mediator between Turkey and Armenia on the issue of land
and monetary reparations.
But others doubt that federal recognition of a genocide would lead
to any substantial results, let alone an about-face by Turkey on the
issue. Vartkes Yeghiayan, another of the lawyers in the New York Life
case, believes passage of the Schiff and Pelosi resolution would be
primarily symbolic.
The House of Representatives passed resolutions in 1974 and 1985 on
the genocide and President Reagan mentioned the genocide in 1981. And
what happened? Nothing, Yeghiayan said. The important thing is for
Turkey to recognize the genocide. I don t care who else in the world
recognizes it.
And even with Democrats in control of Congress, any Armenian genocide
resolution could still face considerable opposition.
We intend to move very quickly on this in the new session, but I
don t want to minimize the difficulty we face, said Schiff, who as
a state senator authored the legislation used by Geragos to sue New
York Life. The Bush administration has opposed recognition, many
in Congress are fighting it and Turkey has some of the best paid
lobbyists available.
–Boundary_(ID_6SS0KX95ufnwcI/lHOS+yw) —

AT HISTORY’S CROSSROAD: THE MAKING OF THE ARMENIAN NATION
Christopher J. Walker, The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard
November 27, 2006 Monday
The Armenians
>>From Kings and Priests To
Merchants and Commissars
by Razmik Panossian
Columbia, 442 pp., $40
In Xenophon’s Anabasis–“The March Up-Country”–there is a description
of the Armenian people. We learn of the clans and their chiefs. We
are also introduced to the popular custom of drinking beer through
a straw. Xenophon was writing in 401 B.C.
Today you can take a plane to Yerevan, capital of the Republic of
Armenia, not so far from the region that Xenophon was describing,
and you will meet the descendants of those whose lives were drawn
by the ancient writer. You’ll learn that Armenians have lived
there continuously, rising to establish great dynasties, falling
to subsistence, exile, or mass death, before becoming post-Soviet
citizens. In this fascinating and important book, Razmik Panossian
traces the connections across the centuries from the experience of
the past to the reality of the present. He delineates the course of
the roots that have fed the stems, leaves, and flowers visible today.
Modern Armenia is a child of World War I. When the great empires
of Europe and Asia collapsed in 1917-18, having hammered each other
prostrate in warfare, a host of nation-states took their place. One
of these was Armenia, which emerged as sovereign in May 1918–more
than a year after Czar Nicholas II’s abdication had set in train the
process towards the state’s independence.
In a sense, though, Armenia’s independence had been maturing for
centuries, and that course is charted here. We learn how the new
nation took shape: the processes of development, differentiation,
learning, understanding, and self-knowledge that stirred the spirit
of the people. Armenia, like other national cultures that developed
into states, had been clogged for centuries by the dark weeds and
oppressive mud of other people’s empires, before it found a current
with which to swim to the clear surface.
Until World War I, Armenia was divided between the empires of Turkey
and Russia. Its crises with its empires came relatively late. The
people were regimented and treated with disdain by their rulers,
but there was no emergency until the late 19th century. By this time
the population was on the way to emancipation and self-knowledge,
and had outgrown the restrictive bureaucracies that governed them. A
desire to loosen the bonds of empire was a natural corollary.
As Panossian informs us, a Catholic Armenian order of monks based in
Venice, known as the Mechitarists, was instrumental in pushing forward
much of the process of emancipation. From the early 18th century,
members of this order acted in a startlingly modern and critical
fashion, ably separating Catholic concerns from matters connected
with Armenian history and education. They retrieved the history
and language of the Armenians, collecting texts, sifting facts,
and building up a clear picture of the nation.
The people in the homeland were fortunate here, for the order was
quite possibly acting heretically. Compare the situation with Catholic
Hapsburg influence on the Czech nation. Compare the situation with
that of the Czechs, whose language and identity were being abolished
by agents of God and Emperor. The Jesuit Antonin Konias boasted
of burning 60,000 books in the Czech language, including the Czech
Bible. (The true figure is closer to 30,000–still huge.) Henceforth,
Latin, and then a bastardized form of German, were imposed on the
Czechs. Lands were confiscated and leading families were compelled
to leave. The peasantry, denied their reformed faith and resenting
the imposition of Catholicism, largely relapsed into paganism. Only
later, through the agency of antiquarians and historians of language,
did they start to relearn their own language and rediscover their true
identity–not as Jesuit-driven Hapsburgers, but as the Czech nation.
The perils that the Czechs had endured under the Hapsburgs attended
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1894-96, then those in Russia in
1903-05, and most seriously in Ottoman Turkey in 1915-16, when the
Armenian population from the Aegean coast to the Russian border was
driven out or exterminated in a totality and cruelty so vast as to
make the charge of genocide a valid one. (Anyone who questions the
reality of the Armenian genocide should read U.S. consul Leslie Davis’s
dispatches from Kharput.) Is there a thread running through empires,
which tends to make them, sooner or later, attack or destroy their
own subject peoples?
Razmik Panossian writes at length on the origin and nature of
nationalism, though one regrets his omission of the views of Hans Kohn,
an able and enlightened writer on the topic. Panossian discusses the
difference between the constructivists (who believed that national
identity is a construct) and the primordialists (who believe it was
always there, waiting to be discovered). From the facts he presents,
and from his use of the word “retrieve” in the context of Armenian
national identity, it would seem that he prefers a qualified version
of the primordialists–which certainly makes most sense in the light
of historical facts.
The process of becoming a modern and aware member of a national
group–a nation in the modern sense–seems best summed up in T. S.
Eliot’s words: To recover what has been lost / And found and lost
again and again. Intense theories about the construction of nationality
appear rather less smart and modern when one recalls that the Armenian
writer Grigor Tatevatsi, writing almost exactly 600 years ago,
declared that “a nation is divided from another nation by region, by
language, and by canon law.” His text was reprinted in Constantinople
in 1729. Maybe some of the disputes about modern nationalism amount
to little more than a barrowful of medieval scholasticism.
In the light of the facts of rule by empires, any general study of
the topic should consist less in theorizing about the development of
national identity than in exploring the dynamics within empires that
lead them to oppress and crush national communities. In other words,
we should study the empires more than the subject nationalities,
since the problem lies with them. The question to answer is: Why are
empires such a uniquely bad way of organizing human society? Why,
in their collectivity and tendency towards monopoly, do they end up
looking like the Soviet Union of about 1974?
It is odd that some new version of empire is championed as the way
forward today by thinkers such as Philip Bobbitt and Robert Cooper.
And it is hard to see how nations like Armenia might fit into such
a scheme, divided as the country was until 1918 between two empires,
each, to a greater or lesser extent, destructive. Poland was not better
off divided among three empires than as a unitary state. There was a
farcical situation in New Caledonia, the Pacific territory over which,
in colonial times, Britain and France perpetually quarreled.
This led to the requirement that the native people speak French one
day, and English the next.
Examples spring to mind from the Baltic countries. In Lithuania,
in 1861, the czarist governor Muraviev had said he looked forward
to a time 40 years hence when there would be no trace of Lithuania
or Lithuanians. The czarist authorities actually dynamited Catholic
churches in Lithuania. The Lithuanian language was forbidden. Anyone
caught even coming out of church with a Lithuanian prayer book was
punished. In Estonia and Latvia, the native people sought freedom
from both Germans and Russians, but the Russian paternalistic fanatic
Pobiedonostsev, a modern Grand Inquisitor representing the power
of extreme orthodoxy, declared that no czar possessed the power to
diminish his own authority!
What these few examples show is that nationalism–local pride–is often
little more than a common-sense response to the actions of empires:
an expression of ordinary local folk against an Orwellian nightmare of
giganticism; a struggle to retain a human face, an identity grounded
in town or neighborhood, when confronted by a governmental monster
grinding towards political monopoly. We saw this in the last months of
the Soviet empire (with Lithuania again in the forefront), and we have
been witnessing it in the steady maintenance of Tibetan nationalism
against the bullying nastiness of the Chinese empire. The British
in Ireland also edged into imperial terrorism, by acts of collective
punishment and, from 1831, by compelling children to speak English,
forcing a cruel contraption into the mouths of kids unable or unwilling
to do so.
Panossian’s book is a warning against the return of empires, and a
plea for localism. Few people in the world have endured more from
the lack of localism, and from the intrusion of grandiose, secretive
political conglomerates, than the Armenians. They, and other small
nations, look for a world order, perhaps untidy, of many voices.
Their history is an argument against big government. We are
reminded that the Armenian people have always worked hard, and been
self-supporting, and that from that work ethic has come a devotion
to their heritage.
Even the merchants, active across the world in late medieval and early
modern times, favored patriotic activities, building churches and
keeping in mind the historical, ecclesiastical, and cultural legacy of
their people, especially their unique alphabet. Financial success only
denationalized some of those in the Ottoman capital. The record of the
generous and patriotic Armenian capitalist extends to the present day.
Panossian’s study of the background to modern Armenia has a further
value. He informs us of the activities of the Indian Armenians,
who pioneered Armenian journalism in the 1770s and contributed a
major history of the homeland; this was when the monks in Venice
were working hardest. Their enterprise had been made possible by
the privileged position that Armenian merchants had been granted in
Iran in 1604. Local educational establishments were also set up in
the Caucasus. Enterprising and patriotic Armenians established an
academy in Moscow in 1815.
All these activities predated the arrival of American missionaries, and
Panossian proves the falsity of a malign theory about the Armenians,
proposed by Elie Kedourie and repeated by Maurice Cowling, that by
accepting modernization from U.S. missionaries (who first arrived in
1829), the Armenians prepared for their own disasters. The introduction
of Western values into an Eastern society, so the theory goes, created
an impossible marriage, and the Eastern society was driven to murder.
The Ottoman campaigns of extreme violence of 1894-06 and of 1915-16
were, in effect, a lengthy Armenian suicide. (Armenians in the Russian
empire lie outside this curious metaphysic.) Besides being constructed
around a spineless concept of political responsibility, the theory
ignores the point that development came from many more directions,
and at an earlier date, than just from American missionaries. Change
was more nuanced, and the Turks themselves had been moving towards some
modernization: scientific education, printing, and so forth. The ruling
elite was not terminally reactionary. So this theory is disproved by
historical facts, and cannot stand up by reason of its scant regard
for basic knowledge.
Two points need more extensive treatment than what Panossian offers
us. The presence of the Kurds in historic Armenia requires explanation:
Kurdish tribes, as Sunni Muslims, were introduced into western Armenia
by the Turkish sultan, following his victory over the Persians at the
Battle of Chaldiran in 1514. Their purpose was to guard the frontier
against the Shiite nation. This mandate lapsed with a treaty in 1639,
but the Armenians were thereafter compelled to share their land with
a privileged ethnicity, which was re-privileged in 1891 when the
sultan, sensing a spirit of Kurdish revolt, nipped it in the bud by
creating loyal Kurdish regiments, turning their threats towards the
Armenians. A brilliant and cynical imperial ruse.
The book could also benefit from a stronger awareness of the
international political situation. Though the Armenian nation has
never been large, the homeland is located on a pivotal part of the
earth’s surface, which has led to an excessive interest in Armenia by
outside powers that do not share the usual Armenian characteristics
of culture and self-limitation.
There is, perhaps, a third point: that the author himself shows some
of the partisanship that has divided the worldwide Armenian community
for almost 90 years. His fondness for the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, which has shown genuine and dedicated service and activity,
leads him to downplay the legacy of the scholarly and cautious Ramkavar
party: less noisy, more conservative, but with a deep understanding
of Armenia’s history, culture, and options.
A word about this book’s physical appearance. Columbia University
Press has done a fine job in producing a volume that, besides making
public a valuable text, is easily usable and attractive. The design
of the book and its evocative jacket owe something to Shaker art,
and something to the English Arts and Crafts movement–a classic of
book-making, an item for anyone who values fine books.
Christopher J. Walker is the author, most recently, of Oliver Baldwin:
A Life of Dissent.

“WHAT HAVE ARMED FORCES SUSPENDED WITH FRANCE?”
by Fikret Bila
Milliyet, Turkey
Nov 17 2006
Turkish paper details impact of freezing military ties with France
Ground Forces Commander General Ilker Basbug, after the French
parliament had passed a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide,
announced that they had suspended military relations with that country.
The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) thus took a clear stance immediately
following this decision by France.
Upon the orders of Chief of the General Staff General Yasar Buyukanit,
the TSK cancelled all of its military activities involving France. The
order was published within the TSK structure.
So what did the TSK suspend?
Plans halted
Turkey plans, on an annual basis, joint or mutual activities with
various countries, including France. The planning is done a year
in advance.
When France passed the Armenian genocide resolution, the remaining
activities of 2006 were cancelled upon orders of General Buyukanit.
The 2007 activities plan that was being drawn up was also halted.
What was cancelled?
Included among the activities that Turkey halted were bilateral
military studies of an academic nature. The programme of reciprocal
visits by military delegations was also frozen.
Also included among the important activities cancelled were joint
exercises. The exercises that the navies of the two countries were
going to conduct jointly in 2006 were cancelled, and the French naval
forces that were going to come for the exercises were told not to come.
Commander visit
It had been planned, on the basis of reciprocity, for Air Force
Commander General Faruk Comert to visit France in 2007. Following
the Armenian resolution, the commander’s visit was cancelled along
with the rest of the 2007 programme.
Yet another decision taken by the TSK against France was the halting
of bilateral activities by their military attaches. Turkey’s military
attache in France was ordered to take part in multilateral activities,
but not to participate in bilateral activities and contacts.
Likewise, it was decided that France’s military attache in Ankara
will be invited to multilateral activities, but will not be invited
to bilateral activities.
Return of decorations
In addition, the generals to whom France had given decorations returned
these decorations upon their own initiative.
Lieutenant General Hayri Guner, who was awarded France’s medal of
honour and who currently commands the corps at Gelibolu, returned
this decoration. Similarly, Sirnak Division Commander Major-General
Ahmet Yavuz also returned the French medal of honour.
Former General Staff Chief General Ismail Hakki Karadayi was also
among those returning this award.
Difficult to take part in bidding
France also seems to have lost the chance to take part in bidding on
contracts opened by the Defence Industry Undersecretariat in order
to meet the needs of the TSK.
In major purchase such as tank and helicopter contracts, it is now
virtually impossible for French companies to take part in the bidding.
Thus the military relations between Turkey and France have been frozen,
in the full sense of the word.
This decision taken by the military, and the reaction thus shown,
are seen as being of sufficient moment to be reflected in economic
relations in the civilian realm as well.
Thus, unless France prevents the resolution accepting the claim of the
Armenian genocide from becoming law and going into implementation,
and changes its stance on this topic, it is not expected that the
military relationship will return to normal.

ARMENIAN LEADER SUGGESTS SETTING UP COMMISSION TO DISCUSS DISPUTES WITH TURKEY
Mediamax News Agency, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
Yerevan, 17 November: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has said
that Armenia’s suggestion to set up an Armenian-Turkish intergovernment
commission to discuss all disputed issues remains in force.
Kocharyan said this while addressing the German Bertelsmann Foundation
on 16 November, a special Mediamax correspondent reported from Berlin.
The Armenian president recalled that in response to the Turkish prime
minister’s suggestion to set up a joint commission of historians,
he suggested setting up an intergovernmental commission last spring.
Historians cannot be responsible for bilateral relations because
governments are responsible for this, Robert Kocharyan said. “But
the intergovernment commission could have subgroups in one of which
historians of the two countries could be working together,” the
Armenian president said.
Robert Kocharyan also said that there is every reason to doubt
the sincerity of Turkey’s suggestions to set up a commission of
historians. He noted that these suggestions intensify when the question
of recognizing the Armenian genocide is discussed in this or another
country or when this issue is raised in the context of the talks on
Turkey’s membership of the European Union. “Thus, Turkey is trying
not to search for ways to solve the problem, but to distract the
international community’s attention from it,” Robert Kocharyan said.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INEFFECTIVE IN SOLVING KARABAKH ISSUE – AZERI LEADER
ANS TV, Azerbaijan
Nov 17 2006
[Presenter] The inefficiency of international organizations in
searching for a peaceful solution to the Karabakh problem diminishes
Azerbaijan’s confidence that the problem will be solved. Given this,
the situation in the region might become tense, Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said at the 8th summit of Turkic-speaking states.
He also said that any man-made problem would not foil the
implementation of the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway project. Ayaz
Nizamioglu reports from Antalya.
[Nizamioglu] The inefficiency of international organizations in
searching for a peaceful solution to the Karabakh problem diminishes
Azerbaijan’s confidence in the resolution of the conflict. Given this,
the situation in the region might deteriorate, Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said at the summit of Turkic-speaking states.
The president said that although international organizations like
the UN, the Council of Europe and the Organization of the Islamic
Conference have proved that Armenia is an aggressor and that
Azerbaijani territories are occupied, Armenia has taken no heed of
this. As a result, Armenian-occupied Nagornyy Karabakh is an area of
criminal activities by criminal groups, which poses a threat both to
Azerbaijan and the entire region.
The uncontrolled self-styled regime is being used for drug trafficking
and funding of terrorism. The president said that Azerbaijan believes
in the resolution of the problem at the international level. Saying
that the problem should be viewed seriously, the Azerbaijani president
cited as an example the khanate of Iravan and added that this khanate
was historically Azerbaijani land. But it is now under Armenia’s
control. Azerbaijan is loyal to the principle of inviolability of state
borders recognized by the international community. Later, the president
spoke about political and economic relations between Turkic-speaking
states, as well as energy and transport projects being implemented in
the region. Mr Aliyev spoke about the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway project
and stated that no man-made problem can prevent the implementation of
this project. This big project which will link Turkey to Central Asia
via Azerbaijan will definitely be implemented. Aliyev also noted the
importance of strengthening political relations between Turkic-speaking
countries and called for meetings to be held more frequently.
Other heads of state are now addressing the summit. The summit will
be held behind closed doors later. At the end, the presidents are
expected to sign a joint communique.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress