Month: November 2006

UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR TALKS ABOUT HIS BOOK ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Conrad Wilson
Minnesota Daily, MN
Nov 14 2006
More than one million Armenians died between 1915 and 1923 during a
devastating genocide.
ore than one million Armenians died from 1915 to 1923 during a
devastating genocide. Today, the demise of a people is debated
throughout Turkey, the epicenter of the once-powerful Ottoman Empire.
University professor Taner Akcam’s new book released this week,
“A Shameful Act,” examines the genocide and the degree of Turkish
responsibility.
Akcam is a professor at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
Where did the idea for the book come from?
The idea was to discuss the problems around the international
criminal law and criminal court. The history of establishment
of the international criminal court goes back to the Paris Peace
Conferences. The Armenian genocide and the problem of trying the
perpetrator on an international criminal court was one of the major
problems in Paris. I suggested to research the problem of the Armenian
genocide.
What does the book highlight about the Armenian genocide that is
otherwise unknown?
The question of the implementation of the genocide: How different
government organizations and the party in power cooperated and
organized the genocide. Based on new Ottoman documents, I reconstruct
the implementation of the genocide.
I explicitly showed in my book that the attitude of the founder of
Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal, on the events of 1915 is just the
opposite of the denialist attitudes of current Turkish politics. His
viewpoint toward the Armenian genocide has now been deliberately
forgotten and deleted from Turkish collective memory. This is what
needs to be revised and renewed in our history.
What major elements from the genocide do you highlight in the book?
Between 1918 and 1923, the political decision-makers were grappling
with two distinct, yet related issues; the answers to which determined
their various relationships and alliances.
The first was the territorial integrity of the Ottoman state.
The second was the wartime atrocities committed by the ruling Union
and Progress Party against its own Ottoman Armenian citizens.
Although everyone agreed that these war crimes could not be left
unpunished, there was uncertainty about the scope of the penalty.
Emilie Richardson Taner Akcam, a professor in the Holocaust and
Genocide Studies department, releases his book, “A Shameful Act,”
today. The book focuses on the Armenian Genocide of 1915.One group
advocated for the trial and punishment of the first-hand criminals
as well as some of the top Union and Progress leaders.
Another group advocated for the trials of individual suspects, casting
the net as widely as possible, and for the punitive dismemberment of
the Ottoman state into new states created on its territory.
The book is quite critical of the Turkish government in regards to
their role in the genocide. What criticism, if any, have you received?
First there were attacks in Turkish press, especially because
of the title of the book. This is a quotation from Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk, founder of the (Turkish) Republic. I was attacked as a
liar and falsifier of his words in main media. The next day, they
all apologized.
The publication of the book was the main topic in Turkey between Oct.
30 and Nov. 2, not only because of Ataturk’s words, but because of
Orhan Pamuk’s blurb (a Nobel Prize-winner author) at the back of
the book.
What is the “Turkish responsibility” in the Armenian genocide?
There is a very strong moral responsibility because Turkey’s
establishment as an independent state has very strong links to what
happened to the Armenians.
I showed in my book that there is continuity between the Armenian
genocide and the foundation of Turkish Republic. The party – Union
and Progress Party – which organized the genocide, was the party which
organized the resistance movement in Anatolia against the British and
French occupation. An important number of party members who committed
crimes against the Armenians were also very active in the Turkish
liberation movement.
Additionally, today’s Turkey sits on the Armenian properties and
lands left by Armenians.
As a general rule, would you agree that national and ethnic groups
tend to focus on their pains, rather than the pains they have inflicted
upon others? How does this fit into the framework of the book?
This is a very true statement. Every ethnic group has a selective
memory and remembers only the pain that is inflicted to them by others.
My book is a call for a break with this tradition. There is a
fundamental principle in genocide research that I would like to repeat:
If societies do not want a repeat of these types of macro crimes,
it is necessary for each group to think first and foremost about the
things that they themselves have done and to discuss and debate them.
As long as this is not done, the probability of such events repeating
themselves remains quite high, because every collective carries
the potential for violence within its very structure, and when a
situation appears in which the right conditions manifest themselves,
this potential can easily become a reality, and on the slightest of
pretexts. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Does this book tackle any issues as it relates to Turkey’s application
for membership within the European Union?
Of course. Without facing its history, without coming to terms with
the past, Turkey cannot be a member of European Union.
The expectation from Turkey is that it faces the historic wrongdoings
and acknowledges its moral responsibility.
There are at least six to seven different resolutions of European
Parliament asking Turkey to acknowledge the genocide.
Is there a particular passage from the book that conveys your overall
message?
The legacy of Haji Halil to whom I dedicated my book.
This book is dedicated to Haji Halil … Eight members of his mother’s
family were kept safely hidden for some six months in Haji Halil’s
home under very dangerous circumstances. Any Turk protecting an
Armenian was threatened with being hanged in front of his house,
which would then be burned.
I was deeply moved by the story, by the humanity that triumphed
over evil … The memory of Haji Halil reminds us that both people,
Turks and Armenians, have a different history on which they can build
a future.
4/69878

ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN FMS WANT PROGRESS ON KARABAKH ISSUE
ITAR-TASS, Russia
Nov 14 2006
BRUSSELS, November 14 (Itar-Tass) – Ministers of Foreign Affairs
Vartan Oskanyan of Armenia and Elmar Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan told
a joint news conference here on Monday night that they are intent on
achieving progress in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue at their
upcoming talks here.
Action Plans are to be signed here on Tuesday within the framework
of the policy of neighbourhood between the European Union and three
Southern Caucasus countries — Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
Following the signing of those documents, the Foreign Ministers of
Azerbaijan and Armenia are to meet for bilateral talks. Both Ministers
expressed confidence that the signing of the Action Plans would
provide a fine opportunity for progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
Vartan Oskanyan emphasized that the Action Plans “contain a common
vision of the situation in the region”. “After they are signed, we
shall move to another room to discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh problem —
this will be a basically new phase of the negotiating process. We
shall do our best to achieve progress and prepare a meeting between
our Presidents on the problem”.
Elmar Mamedyarov, for his part, referred to the frozen conflicts as
“the main challenge to the Southern Caucasus countries”. He shared
the optimism of his Armenian counterpart but stressed that one must
make headway in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh problem in an “utterly
careful way”.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH PRESIDENT DISPUTES FIRES AND NUMBERS, OIL AND UN, IN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH INNER CITY PRESS
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee, Correspondent at the UN
Inner City Press, NY
Nov 14 2006
UNITED NATIONS, November 13 — Of the so-called frozen conflicts
in the world, the one in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in Azerbaijan,
claimed by Armenia, heated up this Fall — literally.
In August and September 2006, Azerbaijan and Armenia traded volleys
of draft resolutions in the UN General Assembly, about a series of
fires in the Nagorno-Karabakh region which on most maps is Azerbaijan,
but is not under Azeri control.
The subtext of the fight was that Azerbaijan wants the dispute to
be addressed in the UN General Assembly, while Armenia prefers the
ten-year process before the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, the OSCE. In the UN General Assembly these frozen conflicts
are often treated as footnotes, particularly to a press corps which
covers the Security Council in the most minute detail, at the expense
of most other activities undertaken by the world body.
Last week Inner City Press sat down for an interview with the president
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Arkady Ghoukasyan, and asked him
about the fires, about the UN and other matters.
“The fires were provoked by Azerbaijan firing,” Mr. Ghoukasyan
said. “They used special bullets that would ignite wheat fields.”
In the UN, “the countries of the Islamic Conference are present and
Azerbaijan is hoping to use their support,” said Mr. Ghoukasyan. He
added that most countries in the UN know little of the Karabakh
conflict, so “Azerbaijan can try propaganda in the United Nations,”
in a way that it can’t with the OSCE “experts.”
By contrast, the situation in Abkhazia is routinely put on the UN
Security Council agenda by Russia, with representative of Georgia
often excluded from the meetings and resorting to sparsely-attended
press conferences outside, most recently on October 12.
President, flag & correspondent
On Nagorno-Karabakh, UN observers see Turkey backing Azerbaijan, while
the NKR is represented, if one can call it that, by Armenia. The
interview, originally scheduled for a hotel across from UN
Headquarters, was moved six blocks south to the Armenian mission
in a brownstone on 36th Street, to a second-story room with the
Nagorno-Karabakh flag on the table. Through a translator, Mr.
Ghoukasyan argued that no negotiations that do not involve
representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh can solve the problem. “The
prospects are diminishing, without Nagorno-Karabakh involvement,
it’s just impossible to come to a resolution,” he said.
Hot Words From Frozen Conflicts
Inner City Press asked Mr. Ghoukasyan to compare Nagorno-Karabakh
to certain other so-called frozen conflicts, two of which are before
the OSCE: Transnistria a/k/a Transdnestr, and South Ossetia, where a
referendum was held on November 12, the results of which no country
in the world recognized.
“We already had our referendum,” Mr. Ghoukasyan said, “back in 1991. We
would only hold another one if Azerbaijan and the co-chairs of the
OSCE group agreed in advance to recognize its results.”
Mr. Ghoukasyan said he had come to the U.S. less to build
political support or to propose a referendum than to raise funds for
infrastructure projects in Nagorno-Karabakh, mostly from “different
circles of Armenians in the United States.” He is on a whirlwind tour:
“Detroit Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and maybe Fresno, we
are still finalizing our West Coast program,” he said. A highlight
will be a telethon from Los Angeles on November 23.
Speaking of funds, and of infrastructure, Inner City Press asked
about the impact of the Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline
on the conflict.
“Azerbaijan is trying to get maximum political dividends from fact of
this pipeline,” said Mr. Ghoukasyan. “Since the West is interested in
undisruptible oil, Azerbaijan tries to beef up their price for this
stability. This emboldens Azerbaijan, making it more aggressive and
less willing to come to agreement.”
What would an agreement look like?
“In any resolution, we think that Karabakh should have physical land
connection with Armenia,” said Mr. Ghoukasyan.
At a press conference about the BTC pipeline earlier this year,
the Azeri Ambassador told Inner City Press that twenty percent of
Azerbaijan’s territory has been occupied by Armenia.
On the disputed numbers of displaced people, Mr. Ghoukasyan quipped,
“I always suspected they are bad in mathematics.”
He estimated it, “maximally,” to be 13%, and put the number of
displaced Azeris at “only” 650,000, rather than the one million figure
used by Azerbaijan. Mr. Ghoukasyan admonished, “There is information
in books.”
And so to the library went Inner City Press. Therein it is recounted
that while “in 1989, the Armenian Supreme Council made Nagorno-Karabakh
a part of Armenia, this decision was effectively annulled by NKR
declaring its independence in 1991. Whether the decision to declare
independence was made cooperatively with Yerevan is not yet known.”
The UN’s role is dismissed: “with one exception the UN never
condemned the capture of Lachin, the strategic link between Armenia
and Nagorno-Karabakh. The UN passed Security Council Resolutions 822,
853, 874 and 884… Each UN resolution reiterated the international
body’s support for the OSCE Minsk Group process.”
Going back, some pundits blame the conflict on Stalin: “he took a part
of Armenia and gave it to Azerbaijan, and now so many people are dying
while trying to correct his foolish mistake. Now redefining the borders
is as painful as cutting someone’s flesh when that person is alive.”
Fast forward to 1977, when the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast’s
first secretary from 1973 to 1988, Boris Kevorkov, told visiting
journalists that Karabakh Armenians were happily separated from the
Armenian republic, saying that “the history of Nagorny (Mountainous)
Karabakh is closely interwoven with Azerbaijan’s… By contrast,
the region is close to Armenia geographically but is separated by
high mountains, which were an insuperable barrier in the past for any
extensive contacts.” (Quoted in Claire Mouradian’s “The Mountainouse
Karabagh Question”).
Also found are rebuttals, including from Azeri poet Bakhtiyar Vahadzade
in his 1988 Open Letter, that “since 1828, our people have been
divided into two parts,” and that both Azeris and Karabakh Armenians
“emanate from the same ethnic stock: the Caucasian Albanians.” Others
say Turkey always takes the Azeri side. There are references to the
shoot-down of an Iranian C-130 aircraft in 1994 as it crossed the
Azeri-Karabakh line on contact, and of Iran’s demand for an apology.
Going back, a volume by Mazda Publishers in Costa Mesa, California
entitled “Two Chronicles on The History of Karabakh,” contains
the full texts of Tarikh-e Karabakh (History of Karabakh) by Mirza
Jamal Javanshir and of Karabakh-name by Mariza Adigozal Beg. In the
introduction, translator-from-Persian George A. Bournoutian reports
that “Armenian historians maintain that all of Karabakh was, at one
time, part of the Armenian kingdom and that the disputed region of
Nagorno-Karabakh has had an Armenian majority for several hundred
years. Azeri historians assert that the region was never part of
Armenia and that the Armenian population arrived there from Persia
and the Ottoman empire after the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828) when,
thanks to the Russian policy that favored Christians over Muslims, the
Armenians established a majority in what became Nagorno-Karabakh.” In
a footnote he addresses nomenclature: “Nagorno-Karabakh is the Russian
designation. The Armenians call is [sic] Artsakh or Gharabagh and
the Azeris Karabag.”
Finally, on the question of numbers, Arif Yunosov in “The Migration
Situation in CIS Countries” opines that the conflict has caused
353,000 Armenia refugees and 750,000 Azeris — less than the one
million figure used by Azeri President Aliev, but large, and 100,000
larger than acknowledged in the interview. And a more solid figure than
Aliev’s 20%, but more than was acknowledged, is 13.62 percent. The
search for truth continues. If the comparison is to the original,
Soviet-defined Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, it must be noted
that NKR is claiming, beyond the Oblast, the territory of Shahumian.
By the end of the interview, Mr. Ghoukasyan was focusing on two
regions of the old Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast over which now
Azerbaijan has de facto control: Martakert and Martuni.
While Mr. Ghoukasyan’s point was that these should be subtracted from
the 13 percent, they raise a larger question, that of break-aways
from break-aways.
The analogy, to Inner City Press, is to the serially-opening or
“nesting” Russian dolls. Inside one republic is another, but inside
the breakaway is another smaller portion, that either wants to remain
with the larger, or to itself be independent.
Northern Kosovo comes to mind, and the portion of Abkhazia into which
a Tbilisi-based government is trying to relocate.
How small can these Russian dolls become? And how will the UN-debated
status of Kosovo, now frozen into 2007, impact or defrost other frozen
conflicts? Developing.
Feedback: editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA Tel: 212-963-1439
kh111406.html

PILGRIMAGE TO CONSTANTINOPLE
Catholic Online, CA
America ()
Nov 14 2006
With the exception of his appearance before his old faculty at the
University of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI’s travels have been
quiet affairs. Even a trip to Spain last July, which threatened to
erupt into controversy over policy differences with that country’s
Socialist government, transpired so uneventfully that some Vatican
officials were surprised. The pope’s upcoming trip to Turkey,
Nov. 28-30, may be a different matter. It will be his first visit to
a Muslim country, where hostility toward Christianity has been growing.
In the last year, one priest has been killed in Turkey and at least
two others attacked. Various individuals have threatened the pope’s
life if he persists in his mission. Earlier this month a gunman was
arrested for firing at the Italian consulate in protest of the visit.
Memories of the pope’s public opposition, when he was a cardinal,
to Turkey’s admission to the European Union on the grounds that
it does not share Europe’s culture are still raw; and his use of
a controversial quote about irrational violence in Islam in his
Regensburg lecture has unfortunately further inflamed those who oppose
the visit. Still, the Turkish government has continued to extend its
invitation, and the pope has bravely held to his commitment.
A principal purpose of the trip is to strengthen relations with the
Orthodox Church and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I by attending the
celebration of the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle (Nov. 30), patron
of the see of Constantinople. How fraught with difficulty the journey
may be is evident from the tensions between the Turkish government and
the patriarchate over constraints Turkey has imposed on the religious
freedom of the Greek Orthodox Church. Following a recent meeting, the
North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation identified
several of the difficulties faced by the ecumenical patriarchate.
The group’s statement declared: “By decisions reached in 1923 and 1970,
the government imposed significant limitations on the election of the
Ecumenical Patriarch. Even today, the Turkish state does not recognize
the historic role that the patriarch plays among Orthodox Christians
outside Turkey. The Turkish government closed the patriarchate’s
theological school on the island of Halki in 1971 and, in spite of
numerous appeals from governmental and religious authorities, still
does not allow it to reopen, severely limiting the patriarchate’s
ability to train candidates for the ministry.”
Pope Benedict’s pilgrimage offers an opportunity not only to express
solidarity with the Orthodox in their straitened circumstances,
but for all sides to find ways out of these historic difficulties.
The Turkish situation is not, as some wrongly imagine, a
straightforward Islam-versus-the-West scenario. Turkey is a bridge
between Europe and the Middle East – and not just geographically. It
is an Islamic country with a moderate Muslim party now leading the
government, but its constitution, vigorously upheld by the military,
involves an especially stringent form of Turkish secularism that
struggles to hold down religious fundamentalism among the population.
Since the time of Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder and first
president (1923-38), the country has struggled to modernize – that
is to say, Westernize – by adopting European fashions, technology
and economics as well as the forms of parliamentary government; but
it has often fallen short of adopting the deeper Western values of
respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Among Turkey’s elites there is profound fear of political and
cultural fragmentation, particularly of secession on the part of the
sizable Kurdish population. Intellectual dissent from the standards
of official Turkish identity – by acknowledging, for example, the
Armenian genocide-remains a criminal offense. Though members of the
Greek Orthodox Church make up only a minuscule group, Turkey, as heir
to the Ottoman Empire, clings to a centuries-old enmity toward Greece
and in particular the Greek Orthodox Church, as the custodian of the
Hellenic soul.
The pope deserves credit for supporting the Orthodox Church on such
hostile terrain. In choosing to visit Turkey, he has taken on a
Herculean challenge that combines Turkish-European, Muslim-Christian
and Orthodox-Catholic relations. At the heart of each problematic
relationship lie questions about the status of human rights and
religious liberty.
God willing, even if the trip provides no immediate breakthroughs,
the pope’s journey will prepare the way for peaceful progress on
these issues in the future.
– – –
See also this week’s America book reviews “Everyday Renewals,” on the
book District and Circle: Poems, by Seamus Heaney, “The Maturation
of Medical Ethics,” on the book Health Care Ethics: A Catholic
Theological Analysis, by Benedict M. Ashley, OP, Jean deBlois, CSJ,
and Kevin D. O’Rourke, OP.
id=21982

RAILA: ARTUR IS BACK
By Cyrus Ombati and Ayub Savula
Standard, Kenya
Nov 14 2006
Lang’ata MP Raila Odinga has sensationally claimed that one of
the Artur brothers is back in the country as part of a hit squad
assembled to complete “the unfinished business of assassinating top
ODM-Kenya leaders”.
“One of them is back to complete their unfinished dirty business,”
the MP charged shortly before recording a statement at Kilimani Police
Station, Nairobi, on Monday.
The MP also named eight prominent personalities he claimed are
co-plotters in a “conspiracy” to take out the Opposition politicians
ahead of next year’s General Election.
He named one of the Artur brothers, a senior Cabinet minister, a
Member of Parliament for a Nairobi constituency, a political activist,
a senior police officer, two unfamiliar people and a recently retired
senior police officer.
Video footage showing the meetings took place
Raila said Good Samaritans present at the meeting gave him the list –
which reads like who is who in the Armenian brothers’ saga.
Lang’ata MP Raila Odinga with ODM-Kenya leaders Mr Musalia Mudavadi
(left), Mr Mutula Kilonzo (centre) and Mr Orwa Ojode after recording
a statement on assassination claims in Nairobi on Monday. Picture by
Jacob Otieno
And the intrigues around the assassination claims deepened late
Monday when independent police sources disclosed “the politicians
could actually be in possession of video footage showing the meetings
to plan the alleged killings actually took place”.
An agitated Raila said: “Early this year, I said there were mercenaries
in the country and some people laughed, even mocked me. I went further
and directed them to the house in Runda where they lived. They were
found, but what did the Government do? They had better also take me
seriously on this one…
“Present at the secret meeting were very senior people in Government
and a person resembling one of the mercenaries supposedly expelled
from this country.
“We have concrete evidence that the purpose of the meeting was to
hatch a plan to assassinate some top ODM-Kenya leaders to weaken
the Opposition”.
International criminals on the run
If Raila’s allegations are true, then Kenyans have cause to worry
as this would imply senior Government officers – some specifically
tasked with the country’s security – are breaking the law.
Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargasyan, both believed to be international
criminals on the run, were reportedly deported by the Government last
June 9 – and declared persona non grata – after a gun drama at the
Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.
The deportation marked the height of an acrimonious sojourn in
Kenya that wound up with a commission of inquiry into their conduct,
activities and associates.
But the Shedrach Kiruki-led commission of inquiry amounted to nothing
other than a public relations exercise gone awry after it failed to
summon key personalities believed to have important information.
They included Raila and Mwingi North MP, Mr Kalonzo Musyoka, both of
whom were ready to tell what they knew about the fugitives.
As Raila reeled out the names in an exclusive interview with The
Standard on Monday just hours before appearing before the Nairobi Area
CID boss, Mr Isaiah Osugo, he warned that he should be taken seriously.
Team constituted to investigate the matter
He told police to investigate individuals implicated in the plot. The
latest meeting by the plotters was allegedly held in Kilimani last
week, said Raila.
Osugo later briefed Police Commissioner, Maj-Gen Hussein Ali, on the
contents of the recorded statement.
A team of police officers is understood to have been constituted late
Monday to investigate the matter.
Raila was accompanied by ODM-Kenya leaders Mr Musalia Mudavadi,
Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr Mutula Kilonzo, Mr Otieno Kajwang’, Mr Reuben
Ndolo, Mr Paddy Ahenda, Mr Orwa Ojode and Mr Gideon Ndambuki.
Others were Mr Gor Sunguh, lawyers Mr Peter Maanzo, Mr Amolo Otiende
and Mr Tom Kajwang’. Mutula and Kajwang’ attended the one-hour
recording session at the Kilimani Police Station.
Uhuru and Ndambuki later left for a Kanu National Executive Committee
meeting.
The leaders had driven to Kilimani where Raila recorded the statement
at 10.30am. Addressing the Press after Raila recorded the statement,
Mutula complained the Government was harassing ODM-Kenya leaders.
Repeated summons to police stations
He said what they told the police was reliable, and asked for action
on the information.
“We did this in pursuance of and belief in law and order. However,
we are unhappy with the continuous harassment (against us) by police,”
he said.
He said ODM-Kenya leaders were being harassed by repeated summons to
police stations, and demanded they be left alone. He also demanded
that Internal Security minister John Michuki be compelled to record
statements following his claims that his life was in danger.
Mutula said some Cabinet ministers should also be asked to record
statements with the police for “being involved in crime-related
incidents”.
Michuki has repeatedly claimed his life is in danger following a
shooting incident outside his Kangema compound a fortnight ago. The
gunmen killed Michuki’s neighbour – a chief – in the incident that
later saw the entire local security team shuffled.
On Monday, Mutula said his client had recorded a statement as a
witness and not a suspect in the investigations.
Raila urged the Government to provide all ODM-Kenya leaders with
adequate security because their lives were in danger.

FORMER DIRECTOR’S TENURE MARKED BY MISTRUST, FALLOUT
Story By Stephen Muiruri
The Nation, Kenya
Nov 14 2006
Mr Joseph Kamau’s exit from the CID today comes in the background of
a major fallout between him and police commissioner Mohamed Hussein
Ali which culminated in his suspension in June.
State House officials watched from the sidelines as the country’s
two policemen went for each other without raising a finger.
Maj Gen Ali and Mr Kamau enjoyed a good working relationship for
several months after their appointment by President Mwai Kibaki on
April 5, 2004.
They frequently appeared at crime scenes together either to lead the
war on crime or commend the officers.
It first happened on April 22, 2004, when Maj Gen Ali and Mr Kamau
personally led the hunt for gunmen who had shot dead two policemen
in a Nairobi slum.
The two led hundreds of General Service Unit and regular police into
action, combing the dense Lunga Lunga-Mukuru kwa Njenga slums minutes
after the killing.
The commissioner and Mr Kamau again successfully coordinated a Flying
Squad search for police killer Daniel Kiptum Cheruiyot which ended
after he was shot dead on January 27, 2005.
Cheruiyot died under a hail of police bullets under the watch of Mr
Kamau. Maj Gen Ali visited the scene soon after the man was gunned down
in Nairobi’s Zimmerman estate. He had killed CID officer Christopher
Karue at Imara Daima and constable Maina Cheserem in Parklands.
Their unity paid dividends when they united in May 2005 and convinced
President Kibaki to fire director of public prosecutions Philip Murgor,
whom they at the time regarded as a common enemy.
The police chiefs had charged Mr Thomas Cholmondeley with shooting
of KWS warden Samson ole Sisina at the Delamere family’s Soysambu
ranch at Gilgil on April 19, 2005. Mr Sisina was killed while on an
undercover operation on the sale of game meat.
Though Mr Murgor was acting attorney-general Amos Wako’s instructions,
Maj Gen Ali and Mr Kamau took their battle to State House where they
accused Mr Murgor of frustrating their work.
They were joined by Internal Security minister John Michuki.
Mr Murgor was sacked a few days later and replaced with Mr Kerioko
Tobiko.
But cracks started emerging between the country’s two policemen when
Maj Gen Ali started being suspicious of the CID chief because of his
closeness with Mr Michuki and the media.
At one time, there was a strong talk that the Government would sack
the commissioner for unknown reasons.
But when Maj Gen Ali sought clarification from Mr Michuki during one
of the functions at Harambee House, the minister denied it and asked
him to carry on with his duties.
Maj Gen Ali viewed the CID chief with suspicion and saw him as an
enemy within.
During the Kanu regime, former President Moi created several centres of
power in the force and received regular briefs from the commissioner,
CID director, GSU commander and a cable of influential officers.
This created a mistrust among senior officers and Mr Moi exploited it
for political reasons and to get a wider picture on what was happening
in the country.
In fact, commissioners who served under Mr Moi and President Kenyatta
were regarded as hostages of the CID director and the GSU commander
of their time.
But when President Kibaki took over, he restored a clear chain of
command where all officers were supposed to be directly answerable
to the commissioner and not outsiders.
The commissioner was also supposed to be answerable to the Internal
Security minister.
However, this did not work out as the President intended.
Mr Kamau and other well-connected officers have been accused of
disregarding the force’s chain of command by side-stepping Maj Gen
Ali and taking orders from people outside the force.
On his part, Maj Gen Ali has been having an icy relationship with Mr
Michuki because, according insiders in the force, the commissioner
was uncomfortable being answerable to a minister who is a civilian.
He argues that since he was still a serving military officer, he
should be directly answerable to the president, who is the commander
in chief of the armed forces.
But Mr Michuki and Maj Gen Ali’s management styles of are almost
similar-both are dictatorial.
Mr Michuki found Maj Gen Ali too rigid to work with an opted to deal
with Mr Kamau directly.
And it’s for that reason that the minister, the top spy and other
top Government officials plotted the Standard raid behind Maj Gen
Ali’s back.
It brought to the open a boardroom row which had been simmering
between Maj Gen Ali against the minister and Mr Kamau for a long time.
It also created a rift between Mr Kamau and the commissioner splitting
the force into two camps.
An attempt by Maj-Gen Ali to force Mr Kamau to resign due to the raid
flopped when the later declined to step down arguing he was acting
under the instructions of top Government officials. Mr Michuki had
to step in to save the CID chief.
The golden opportunity for Maj Gen Ali to edge out Mr Kamau came
after the two Armenian brothers caused a breach of security at the
Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on June 7.
The incident involved Mr Artur Margaryan and Mr Artur Sargsyan who
brandished guns when challenged to open their luggage by customs
officials.
Instead of being charged, they were quietly deported, prompting claims
they were receiving top-level protection.
The two Armenians had first came to public attention during the
Standard raid and it was alleged that they took part in the invasion.
The row between Maj Gen Ali and Mr Kamau impacted negatively on the
war against crime.
Ironically, President Kibaki appointed the two after sacking the then
commissioner Mr Edwin Nyaseda and CID chief Daniel Ndung’u amid public
concern over soaring crime.
Mr Nyaseda and Mr Ndung’u, who were appointed three months after
President Kibaki took over power, were shown the doors after serving
a year in office.
At the time they were sacked, vicious gangs on a mission to kill, steal
and destroy were on the rampage and the police seemed to be powerless.
Kenyans were quickly getting impatient with the Kibaki administration,
which had promised to improve security.
In an attempt to stamp his authority in the force, Maj Gen Ali
rendered the CID almost impotent as he waged war against key elite
units attached to it.
Officers perceived to have been close to Mr Kamau were transferred
while the elite units were rendered ineffective after being starved
of money to buy information from the underworld.
This crippled the entire force’s ability to detect and immobilise
dangerous criminals.
The fighting was blamed for the increase in violent crime in various
parts of the country.

REMEMBER THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF
Story By Macharia Gaitho
The Nation, Kenya
Nov 14 2006
There was a Shepherd Boy who tended his sheep at the foot of a mountain
near a dark forest. It was lonely for him, so he devised a plan to
get a little company.
He rushed down towards the village calling out “Wolf! Wolf!” and the
villagers came out to meet him. This pleased the boy so much that a
few days afterwards, he tried the same trick, and again the villagers
came to his help.
Shortly after this a wolf actually did come out from the forest. The
boy cried out “Wolf!, Wolf!” louder than ever before. But this time
the villagers, who had been fooled twice before, thought the boy was
again lying, and nobody came to his aid. So the wolf made a good meal
of the boy’s flock.
I really wonder whether Mr Raila Odinga has ever heard of the above
fable. He has cried wolf so often about alleged plots on his life
that if some day he has good reason to raise the alarm about an
actual threat, God forbid, it might be taken as just the usual
political theatre.
Well, at least Mr Odinga finally abandoned his defiance and agreed
to record a statement with the police yesterday. We presume that the
information he gave is credible and complete enough for the police
to act on, and not just the product of a fertile imagination or
irresponsible political grandstanding.
Threats to life and limb are not issues to be taken lightly. Mr Odinga
holds a record of sorts in Kenyan politics for the number of times
he has claimed that his life is in danger.
Whether the threats are real or he is just seeking attention, the
onus falls on the Government to thoroughly investigate each and every
reported threat and take the necessary action.
This action may involve identifying and prosecuting the plotters,
if the information pans out, and also providing adequate security
for Mr Odinga and all others who fear their lives may be in danger.
By the same token, anyone making false reports of such nature should
expect to face the consequences according to the law.
Any reports which may be false not only cause unnecessary political
tension, it also diverts much-need police resources from those who
really need enhanced security – the poor of Kibera, for instance –
to stroking the egos of publicity-seeking politicians.
Whatever the case, no reported threats can be dismissed without
thorough investigations. It is easy to say that the era of political
assassinations ended with the installation of President Kibaki’s
government.
But we cannot fail to acknowledge that any administration has its
hotheads who might erroneously imagine they are doing the system a
favour by getting rid of a troublesome political foe.
If this administration has in its ranks, and in its bands of
supporters, reckless characters who hold such thinking, they must be
isolated and neutralised, for, ultimately, they are a danger to the
very system to which they pledge fealty.
Meanwhile, with Mr Odinga’s claims about the threat on his life,
came an issue that must be addressed soonest if this Government is to
retain a shred of credibility – the mystery of the deported Armenian
brothers Margaryan and Sargasyan.
Mr Odinga is always keen to crow that he was the first one to warn
about the presence in Kenya of the alleged mercenaries. He also
points about, correctly, that the Government opted to do nothing
despite wasting our time and resources with a commission of inquiry.
Indeed, the commission chaired by former Police Commissioner Shedrach
Kiruki turned out to be no more than a cover-up. And Mr Odinga became
part of that cover-up when he declined to testify before the inquiry,
a decision which also stripped him of the right to point any fingers.
But all the same, the commission completed its work and duly handed
in its report and recommendations to the authorities. We were told
it would take President Kibaki only a few days to study the report
and take the necessary action.
Days have turned into weeks and weeks have turned into months and
still no word from either State House or the Attorney-General.
The inescapable conclusion is that somebody very powerful decided,
to apply local parlance, to sit on the report.
This action, or inaction, only lends credence to the belief that the
Artur brothers were operating in concert with people very close to
the seat of power.
Maybe the fellows were neither mercenaries nor assassins. The
possibility is that they were just common thugs who happened to
mesmerise some people close to high office and sought to use those
connections to set up a criminal network.
Whatever the case, Kenyans deserve to know the truth and also deserve
to see any individuals who may have misused public office to abet
criminal activities punished. This issue will not go away.
——————————————- ————————————-
We saw in graphic detail the other day images of people walking across
the floor of what used to be Lake Nakuru.
We are informed that our most famous Rift Valley lake is drying up
due to massive destruction of one of the most important water-towers
in eastern Africa, the Mau forest system.
Shortly into its tenure, this Government sought to undo the damage of
the Moi years by evicting thousands who had been allowed to illegally
settle in the Mau.
But along the way, there was a change of heart and efforts to restore
the Mau forest were abandoned.
What more evidence do we need now of calamities have been visited on
us due to the destruction of water catchments?
We are currently hosting a major international conference on climate
change, and the effects of deforestation have been high on the agenda.
The delegates should take time out of the gabfest and cocktails to
do something much more practical – a boating trip on Lake Nakuru.
Perhaps the collective outrage that must ensue may shame the Government
into action.
We must realise that we are not just talking about saving one lake and
its famous flamingoes, but an entire ecosystem on which, ultimately,
the lives of millions depends.
Mr Gaitho is the Nation’s managing editor in charge of special projects.

TURKEY TRIES TO ESCAPE ITS HISTORY
By Dikran Ego Eastern Star News Agency
Assyrian International News Agency
Nov 14 2006
Stockholm — While the negotiations between Turkey and the EU are
proceeding, something that Turkey doesn’t want to know about has
happened. On October 19th, 2006 the news about the discovery of a mass
grave in the village of Dara, outside Nusaybin, came out. When locals
were digging graves for some deceased villagers, an underground cave
was found. It turned out to be a mass grave.
The Turkish military, which came to the site, did their investigation
and as soon as they were done with it they attempted to silence down
the discovery and to forbid all spreading of information about it.
Despite this ban the news paper “Ulkede Ozgur Gundem” reported about
this discovery on October 19th 2006, with pictures of the mass grave.
Turkish authorities tried with every means to keep it from becoming
widely known. But the news paper that published the news dug further
into it and they come in contact with professor David Gaunt at
Sodertorn University in Stockholm. David Gaunt has done a lot of
research about Seyfo — the Assyrian genocide. The first results of
this research are now ready. He has published them in his first book
about Seyfo. David Gaunt has in his research used many different
sources but also Turkish sources that confirm this genocide.
Concerning the mass grave that was found David Gaunt has the following
theories:
If most of the bodies are male, this can indicate that they are the
remains of Assyrians and Armenians that were gathered in Nusaybin’s
prison on June 13th, 1915 and then murdered on June 15th, 1915.
If the bodies turn out to be mostly women, then they are most probably
the remains of catholic Armenians, that were victimized in a mass
murder on June 28th, 1915.
If the bodies are mixed of different genders and ages it is most
likely that they are the remains of Assyrians from Nusaybin.
Apart from these theories there are other possible answers to who is
buried in the mass grave.
The grave is located quiet a bit away from Nusaybin, but it is located
right outside the village of Dara, which was populated by Assyrians
and Armenians during Seyfo.
Because of the mass grave’s location the bodies are most likely the
remains of the 120 Assyrian and 150 Armenian heads of families that
were gathered on June 14th, 1915 and murdered outside the village.
IHD, Insan Haklari Derneði, a Turkish organisation working with human
rights issues, has in an open letter to the ministry of the interior
demanded an investigation of the mass grave discovery and answers to
the following three questions:
To establish if the mass grave has something to do with the deportation
of Assyrians and Armenians during the year 1915.
To clarify if the bodies belong to Assyrians and Armenians.
To clarify this, a group of experts consisting of historians, forensic
physicians and independent scientists has to be appointed.
It remains to be seen how the Turkish authorities will manage this
issue. Will Turkey dare to face its dark history?
–Boundary_(ID_8iZ7fIzUdWEz2WDvf4AODA)–

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS TO VISIT NAGORNO-KARABAKH REGION IN NOVEMBER
Author: E.Huseynov
Today, Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry informed Trend that the OSCE
Minsk Group Co-chairs on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh will be visiting the region from 21 –
23 November 2006.
A relevant agreement has been recently reached in Brussels at a meeting
of the Azerbaijan and Armenian Foreign Ministers, Elmar Mammadyarov
and Vardan Oskanian, as well as Minsk Group co-chairs.
The mediators are keen to visit Yerevan and Baku and hold talks with
the leadership of these countries to discuss the final initiative to
be taken to settle the problem.
Within the visit it is planned that the organization will arrange
the next meeting in the near future of the Presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FINNISH FOREIGN MINISTER:
PEACEABLE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS IS MAJOR PRIORITY OF ACTION PLAN OF EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY FOR SOUTH CAUCASUS
Author: A.Mammadova
Today, Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
Trend’s excusive interview with Mr. Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Finland, who also heads the European Union’s Troika
for South Caucasus Countries
Question: How do you estimate the results of EU Troika visit to the
South Caucasus? What importance does EU attach to the cooperation
with the South Caucasus countries and especially with Azerbaijan –
the leader in the region?
Answer: The EU Troika visit was very timely and successful. The key
result was the political agreement on the ENP Action Plans. They are
now finalized and can be adopted formally between the EU and each of
the South Caucasus countries. I’m especially happy that we succeeded in
finalizing them during the Finnish EU Presidency. The Action Plans are
ready for implementation. Now Azerbaijan has a chance – and a challenge
– to take next steps with the implementation of the Action Plan.
The South Caucasus is important to the EU for several reasons. It
is also in our interest that Azerbaijan, as well as the rest of
our neighborhood is stable and prosperous, and with the ENP we aim
exactly at this: it is a powerful tool for the EU and Azerbaijan to
work together towards these goals, based on our common values. We
are also interested in the Southern Caucasus region from a commercial
perspective, and I see good opportunities for cooperation there.
Energy issues are also very high on all agendas nowadays, and we look
forward to cooperating closely with Azerbaijan in the energy field
in the future. I’m happy that the Memorandum of Understanding on a
strategic partnership between EU and Azerbaijan on energy issues is
also ready for signature early November.
Question: How could the adoption of the ENP Action Plan bring together
the EU and Azerbaijan? Which items of the ENP Action Plan do you
regard as the most important? When and where will the ENP Action Plan
be finally approved?
Answer: The Action Plan means a significant step towards a closer
relationship between the EU and Azerbaijan. EU’s enlargement towards
the East has brought the South Caucasus closer to EU borders and we see
the possible potential of your region. We are ready to contribute to
the development and stabilization of the region, also with increased
financial assistance. The Action Plan sets priorities for concrete
actions in order to bring the EU and Azerbaijan closer.
The core idea of European Union itself, and also of our Neighbourhood
Policy, is integration on the basis of shared values, enhancing
cooperation in all spheres, as well as contacts between people. We
believe this will bring about democracy, stability and prosperity. I
would say the peaceful settlement of conflicts and enhancing
regional cooperation are among the most important priorities of
the ENP Action Plan for Azerbaijan – as well as for Armenia and
Georgia. The unresolved conflicts still remain the biggest impediment
for development in the whole region. We are preparing discussion
within the EU on how the ENP can be developed further to make it more
efficient in enhancing regional cooperation.
Some areas were we see possibilities in the short term are cross
border cooperation in the fields of energy, transport and environment.
The formal adoption of the ENP Action Plans will take place in the
Cooperation Council meetings between EU and Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia in Brussels on 14 November.
Question: The representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Azerbaijan stated their readiness for signing with the EU a memorandum
on bilateral cooperation in the different spheres, including education
and health. At present the development of the draft energy memorandum
is coming to an end. Is the EU going to conduct talks on other spheres,
including the humanitarian sphere?
Answer: We have noted the Azerbaijani interest in developing memoranda
of understanding on strategic partnerships in other fields as well,
besides the energy memorandum. The Commission is studying how we could
best reply to the interest. The areas Azerbaijan has suggested for
new strategic partnerships have been included in the ENP Action Plan,
and will be treated as priorities anyway.
Instruments for cooperation in these fields exist already.
Question: During the visit to the region the representatives of the
EU Troika declared that adoption of the ENP Action plan will help
to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Could these initiatives
influence on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Answer: The Action Plan as such is not a tool for conflict settlement,
and doesn’t have anything to do with the Minsk process.
The EU continues to fully support the Minsk Group and the work of the
Co-Chairmen. With the help of the ENP, the EU can also indirectly
contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
by for example supporting regional cooperation and encouraging
people-to-people contacts, promoting the active involvement of the
civil society, supporting demining and assisting refugees and IDP
etc. The EU will also intensify its own diplomatic dialogue with
the parties. Our Special Representative to the region, Mr. Semneby,
can also contribute to the peace process.
Question: During his official visit to Helsinki this summer the
Azerbaijani Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed different aspects
of cooperation between Azerbaijan and Finland. What concrete steps
will be taken in this direction?
Answer: Due to the Finnish EU Presidency, cooperation between Finland
and Azerbaijan has also been mostly discussed in the EU framework
during the last several months, but we do have an intensive dialogue
going on also bilaterally. Our trade, for example, has increased
considerably in the last few years. Finland has high technological
know-how and Azerbaijan has important natural resources – factors
which create lots of possibilities for our cooperation in the future.
Our Ministries of Defence have cooperated in the field of training on
crisis management and peacekeeping, and we hope for this cooperation
to continue. There are several bilateral agreements already in
force. Azerbaijan has recently ratified the tax agreement between
Finland and Azerbaijan. Negotiations on a road transport agreement
are going on, and we have agreed to start negotiations on customs
duty cooperation after the Finnish EU Presidency.
In addition to your Foreign Minister Mammadyarov’s visit to Finland in
late June this year, there have also been other bilateral high-level
contacts lately. Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland
visited Azerbaijan in 2005 and naturally, a return visit to Finland
by your President Aliyev and possibly a business delegation is being
planned in due course.