Month: March 2007

Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:

PRESS RELEASE
March 15, 2007
CONTACT: Karoon Panosyan
E-mail: [email protected]

KEY SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON THE DARFUR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Armenian Assembly Submits Testimony

Washington, DC – Today on Capitol Hill, a key House Subcommittee held
a hearing on the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
(H. R. 180). The bill, spearheaded by Representative Barbara Lee
(D-CA), prohibits U.S. government contracts with companies that
conduct business operations in Sudan, with the purpose of exerting
economic pressure against the government of the Republic of Sudan for
its human rights abuses and participation in the crime of genocide.

The Armenian Assembly submitted testimony for the record in support of
current efforts to bring legitimate pressure on the government, to
affect change in its domestic and international conduct, toward
addressing the dire humanitarian situation in Darfur, and preventing
future violence in that region.

The Assembly’s testimony said in part, "Armenian-Americans, as
descendants of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide, cannot remain
indifferent to the suffering of the people of Darfur. Inaction is not
an acceptable course of action." 

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues.  It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership
organization.

###

NR#2007-038

Below is the full text of the Armenian Assembly’s Testimony:

Testimony of Bryan Ardouny
Executive Director of the Armenian Assembly of America
Before the
House Financial Services Committee
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and
Technology

March 20, 2007

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act

Chairman Guiterrez, Ranking Member Paul and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing on this
compelling human rights issue. The Armenian Assembly of America is
pleased to offer testimony in support of H.R. 180, the Darfur
Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.  We would also like to take
this opportunity to commend the sponsor of the legislation,
Congresswoman Barbara Lee.  H.R. 180 prohibits U.S. government
contracts with companies that conduct business operations in Sudan,
with the purpose of exerting economic pressure against the government
of the Republic of Sudan for its role in, and responsibility for, the
continuing grave abuses of human rights on the territory of its Darfur
province, including the crime of genocide, and with a goal to stop the
atrocities.

This legislation sets forth a laudable precedent of taking practical
action against the financial and economic interests of a regime
engaged in the systematic killing of an entire people. The
implementation of this measure will provide for important further
steps toward identifying and undermining the financial nexus of the
genocidal war in Darfur, and toward bringing long-sought stability,
relief and rehabilitation to its people.

The United States has a proud record of humanitarian intervention in
various parts of the world, to save lives and bring relief to millions
of people – victims of crimes against humanity.  In the early 20th
century, the U.S. led the humanitarian effort to save the survivors of
the Armenian Genocide.  In fact, the Honorable Henry Morgenthau,
U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and
led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of
the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide. Ambassador
Morgenthau explicitly described to the Department of State the policy
of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as "a campaign of race
extermination," and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by Secretary of
State Robert Lansing that the "Department approves your procedure
… to stop Armenian persecution."

Our interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia helped arrest the ethnic
cleansing associated with these wars and helped bring stability and
rehabilitation to the Balkans. International action in Kosovo and
Bosnia, however, came largely as a result of the bitter lesson learned
in an earlier crisis in Rwanda, where the tragic inaction of the world
community led to the commission of some of the most heinous crimes
against innocent populations.

H.R. 180 answers in part the questions raised about Darfur by actor
and activist Don Cheadle in his testimony in February of this year
before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law: 
"I ask you what will be done – not what can be done, for that question
has been asked ad nauseam and contains within it connotations of
powerlessness and surrender.  What will be done is a very different
query."

The U.S. can and should do everything it can to stem the loss of life
and end the cycle of genocidal violence. Nicholas Kristof, of The New
York Times, who has written extensively, passionately and with
clear-sighted pragmatism on this matter enumerated in his November 29,
2005 editorial, "What’s To Be Done About Darfur?" six policy
recommendations (a copy of this article is attached) and concluded
that "Finding the right policy tools to confront genocide is an
excruciating challenge, but it’s not the biggest problem.  The hardest
thing to find is the political will."

Armenian-Americans, as descendants of the survivors of the Armenian
Genocide, cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of the people of
Darfur. Inaction is not an acceptable course of action.  Therefore, we
support the current effort to bring legitimate pressure on the
government of Sudan, to affect change in its domestic and
international conduct, toward addressing the dire humanitarian
situation in Darfur, and preventing future violence in that region. 

The Armenian Assembly of America strongly endorses the Darfur
Accountability and Divestment Act, and urges all parties of good will
to follow its recommendations in full.

Thank you.

What’s to Be Done About Darfur? Plenty
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

29 November 2005
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.

In 1915, Woodrow Wilson turned a blind eye to the Armenian
genocide. In the 1940’s, Franklin Roosevelt refused to bomb the rail
lines leading to Auschwitz. In 1994, Bill Clinton turned away from the
slaughter in Rwanda. And in 2005, President Bush is acquiescing in the
first genocide of the 21st century, in Darfur.

Mr. Bush is paralyzed for the same reasons as his predecessors. There
is no great public outcry, there are no neat solutions, we already
have our hands full, and it all seems rather distant and hopeless.

But Darfur is not hopeless. Here’s what we should do.

First, we must pony up for the African Union security force. The
single most disgraceful action the U.S. has taken was Congress’s
decision, with the complicity of the Bush administration, to cut out
all $50 million in the current budget to help pay for the African
peacekeepers in Darfur. Shame on Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona
— and the White House — for facilitating genocide.

Mr. Bush needs to find $50 million fast and get it to the
peacekeepers.

Second, the U.S. needs to push for an expanded security force in
Darfur. The African Union force is a good start, but it lacks
sufficient troops and weaponry. The most practical solution is to
”blue hat” the force, making it a U.N. peacekeeping force built
around the African Union core. It needs more resources and a more
robust mandate, plus contributions from NATO or at least from major
countries like Canada, Germany and Japan.

Third, we should impose a no-fly zone. The U.S. should warn Sudan that
if it bombs civilians, then afterward we will destroy the airplanes
involved.

Fourth, the House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability
Act. This legislation, which would apply targeted sanctions and
pressure Sudan to stop the killing, passed the Senate unanimously but
now faces an uphill struggle in the House.

Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about
Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He
should wear a green ”Save Darfur” bracelet — or how about getting a
Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with
ideas for action, from .) He can call Hosni Mubarak
and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He
can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.

Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special
envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III
would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer
out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff
like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist
who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights
First.

So far, peace negotiations have failed because they center on two
groups that are partly composed of recalcitrant thugs: the government
and the increasingly splintered rebels. But Darfur has a traditional
system of conflict resolution based on tribal sheiks, and it’s crucial
to bring those sheiks into the process.

Ordinary readers can push for all these moves. Before he died, Senator
Paul Simon said that if only 100 people in each Congressional district
had demanded a stop to the Rwandan genocide, that effort would have
generated a determination to stop it. But

Americans didn’t write such letters to their members of Congress then,
and they’re not writing them now.

Finding the right policy tools to confront genocide is an excruciating
challenge, but it’s not the biggest problem. The hardest thing to find
is the political will.

For all my criticisms of Mr. Bush, he has sent tons of humanitarian
aid, and his deputy secretary of state, Robert Zoellick, has traveled
to Darfur four times this year. But far more needs to be done.

As Simon Deng, a Sudanese activist living in the U.S., puts it: ”Tell
me why we have Milosevic and Saddam Hussein on trial for their crimes,
but we do nothing in Sudan. Why not just let all the war criminals
go. When it comes to black people being slaughtered, do we look the
other way?”

Put aside for a moment the question of whether Mr. Bush misled the
nation on W.M.D. in Iraq. It’s just as important to ask whether he was
truthful when he declared in his second inaugural address, ”All who
live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not
ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.”

Mr. Bush, so far that has been a ringing falsehood — but, please,
make it true.

CT_liotta18_03-18-07_HA4R2LF.1e842c4.html

Provide nce Journal

In Darfur, ‘Never again’ means again

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, March 18, 2007

P. H. Liotta

EIGHTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, the poet T. S. Eliot began his masterpiece "The
Waste Land" with the line that "April is the cruellest month." Although
Eliot was writing about madness – including the madness that was the
First World War – his lines resonate today for very different reasons.

Specifically, as we approach yet another April we might do well to
remember that, aside from being National Poetry Month, April is also the

month when some of the most extreme cases of genocide took place in the
last century. Thirteen years ago, beginning in April in the African
nation of Rwanda, 800,000 people died in the course of 100 days. Many
who died were cut down by people they knew, neighbors and sometimes even

former friends. During those 100 days, the United States stood by as the

slaughter unfolded. The United Nations, meanwhile, proved diplomatically

hobbled and failed to mandate effective intervention by U.N.
peacekeepers in Rwanda.

Eighty-two years ago, countless numbers died following the April arrest,

and subsequent deportation and murder, of Armenian intellectuals during
the last days of the Ottoman Empire. Even today, in reference to these
events, the word "genocide" is never used in Turkey. During a February
2005 interview, for example, Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk stated that
"Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these
lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it." In a subsequent BBC
article he was quoted as saying, "What happened to the Ottoman Armenians

in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation; it
was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past." As a result

of these statements, charges were brought against Pamuk for "insulting
Turkishness." These charges were eventually dropped, but the sting of
speaking of forbidden topics remains.

When genocidal events took place in the 20th Century – the Holocaust,
the killing fields of Cambodia, the al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds
in Iraq, the brutal disintegration of Yugoslavia – major powers stood by

as thousands, and sometimes millions, died. Powerful states often took
the frail excuse that intervention in such events was not in the
"national interest." While failing to militarily intervene, these same
powerful states also failed to exert effective political, diplomatic, or
economic pressure on offending parties; when states did act,
unfortunately, it was often too little, too late – and safer.

In every case of horrendous human-rights atrocities in recent history,
state leaders and the international community have loudly proclaimed in
the aftermath, "Never Again" – never again should such abuses be allowed
to take place without the world taking action.

Yet another genocide is taking place in the world today: in the Darfur
region of western Sudan. Since the campaign of state-sponsored violence
began, hundreds of thousands have died and 2½ million people have been
displaced. An undermanned and under-resourced African Union peacekeeping
force has faced immense challenges in Darfur, waiting for an already
authorized U.N. force to deploy. Humanitarian aid is frequently
obstructed as famine drives mortality rates to frighteningly high
levels. Violence against the people of Darfur includes gang-rapes,
torture, and executions where children have been beheaded or thrown
alive into fires and tossed down wells.

Some advocates speak openly today of "human security," wherein
individual citizens be accorded sovereign rights and privileges in the
same manner that states have been accorded sovereignty since the
Westphalian system took hold centuries ago. Human security is about
protecting people; equally, human security provides peoples the
opportunities for progress – through education, disease reduction, clean

water, and livable communities. In short, human security is the
cornerstone and the building block for stability, security, and
sustainability.

The classically Western argument that democracies protect, promote, and
enforce human rights is sorely tried when conflicts such as genocide
take place in our globalized, interconnected, and often interdependent
lives. When powerful states, such as the United States, fail to act in
any meaningful way when gross human atrocities take place, Americans
undermine their very legitimacy as a global leaders.

It is now approaching three years since former Secretary of State Colin
Powell declared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that
events in Darfur amounted to genocide. Since then, little actual
movement to change the course of events has taken place. Yet necessary
action does not entail just military intervention or peace enforcement.
(While it is true that 5,000 peacekeepers could have stopped the
genocide in 1994 in Rwanda, a country the size of Maryland, military
forces alone cannot compel a better outcome today in Darfur, which is
the size of California.) States must also leverage political,
diplomatic, and economic power.

The good news is that individual citizens can, and do, make a
difference. Student-led groups such as STAND (an anti-genocide
coalition) and the Genocide Intervention Network, and faith-based,
humanitarian, and human- rights organizations such as "Save Darfur,"
have worked doggedly to generate attention and pass on knowledge. Simple

acts such as writing letters and calling a congressman can help change
the way things are.

In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, some White House officials in
the Clinton administration commented that they did not hear from the
American public. The voice of outrage today, however, is louder.
Political leaders need to choose to hear that voice.

It is time we remember what happened in Rwanda – and what is still
happening today in Africa and elsewhere. Perhaps it is also time that we
be honest with ourselves as to why powerful states and international
entities always fail to act when the time comes for action. Until we do,

"Never Again" will mean only "Again and Again."

P. H. Liotta, an occasional contributor, is executive director of the
Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve
Regina University. Those interested in attending the public screening of
the film Darfur Diaries on March 25 at the Jane Pickens Theater, in
Newport, should contact the Pell Center at (401) 341-2927 or
[email protected], as seating is limited.

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian National Committee of Toronto
45 Hallcrown Place,
Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Y4
Contact: Marianne Davitjan
Tel: (416) 491-2900,
Fax: (416) 491-2211,
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

This year marks the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, a year in
which important strides have been made to further international
recognition of the Genocide. The Armenian National Committee of Toronto
(ANCT) is determined to make 2007 stand out as one of action. ANCT’s
focus this year is on The Georgetown Boys, survival and perseverance.

The ANCT is hosting the Genocide commemoration on Sunday, April 22nd 2007
and supporting the events listed below, which we urge you to attend and
publicize enthusiastically within your circle of friends and colleagues,
in order for the Armenian Cause to extend beyond the confines of the
Armenian community.

We would appreciate it if you could make a concerted effort to be present.

Event: Toronto Armenian Youth Candle light vigil
Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Location: Queens Park

Event: Genocide Commemoration, Key Note Speaker: Ms. Hilda Choboian,
Chairperson, European Armenian Federation for Justice and democracy.
Date: Saturday April 21st, 2007
Time: TBD
Location: ACC of Hamilton. 191 Barton St. Hamilton Ontario

Event: Commemoration of the 92nd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
Organized by ANC Toronto.
Date: Sunday April 22nd, 2007
Time: 2:30 pm
Location: Armenian Community Centre, 45 Hallcrown Place. (Victoria Park
and Hwy 401)

Event: Commemoration of the 92nd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
Organized by ACC Cambridge
Date: Sunday April 22nd, 2007
Time: 3:00 pm
Location: ACC of Cambridge. 15 International Village Drive, Cambridge
Ontario

Event: Rally in front of Parliament followed by a demonstration in front
of the Turkish Embassy, Organized by ANC Canada
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2007
Time: 12:00 noon, departure at 6:30 am from the Armenian Community Centre,
45 Hallcrown Place, Toronto, Ontario
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Parliament and Turkish Embassy

Additional details will be e-mailed in the upcoming weeks. To be added to
the mailing list and receive the latest news and upcoming events, go to
, bottom right corner of the page submit your email.

The ANCT a chapter of the ANCC, the part of the largest and the most
influential Canadian-Armenian grassroots political organization. Working
in coordination with a network of offices, chapters, and supporters
throughout Canada and affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCC
actively advances the concerns of the Canadian-Armenian community on a
broad range of issues.

The Richest Georgians of the World

Georgian Times

2007.02.19 12:20

For the past 12 years the Georgian Times has been conducting an annual
business rating to reveal the best companies and businessmen of the year.
This time we made up a top 80 rich Georgians of the planet on the basis of
the data provided by independent experts and famous businessmen (who
requested anonimity).

The capital of the wealthiest Georgians reflects the volume of assets and
liabilities, business and the market share that these people are holding.

The list of the richest Georgians of the world is being published for the
first time and may contain some minor inaccuracies which will be improved in
the future.

The winner of the rating is the person who has the biggest capital. The
richest people of the world are usually ranked according to their activity
on the stock exchanges. Unfortunately, we cannot apply the same method as
most of the people on the list do not show transparent record of their
wealth.

The reason why we are publishing the list is simple: almost every country in
the world ranks their rich according to their property. We have the same
motivation to do the ranking. It is not up to us to judge how these people
have amassed their fortune. We believe that the more wealthy Georgians we
will have, the better for our country.

All the people on this list are of Georgian origin. All of them can be a big
potential for future investments for Georgia. We urge the government to
improve investment climate and conditions for doing business to make this
happen.

Here is the list of the richest Georgians of the world. The figures are
given in the US dollars.

1) Badri Patarkatsishvili (Georgia) 12 billion

2) Bidzina Ivanishvili (Georgia) 8 billion

3) Turgai Jiner (Turkey) 7 billion

4) Tariel Vasadze (Ukraine) 5 billion

5) Nihat Gogeit (Gogitidze) (Turkey) 4 billion

6) Ismat Ajar (Ajar Holding) (Turkey) 3 billion

7) Temur Sepiashvili (the US) 3 billion

8) Davit Iakobashvili Wimbildan (Russia) 3 billion

9) Tengiz Arshba (Russia) Evraz Holding 2.5 billion

10) Zurab Tsereteli (Russia) 2 billion

11) Davit Zhvania (Ukraine) 1 billion

12) Aslan Abashidze (Russia) 1 billion

Gia Jokhtaberidze (Georgia) 1 billion

13) Anzor Kikalishvili (Georgia) 1 billion

14) Soso Orjonikidze (Russia) 1 billion

15) Kakha Bendukidze (Georgia, Russia) 1 billion

16) Vasil Baghdavadze (Russia) 1 billion

17) Tamaz Somkhishvili (Russia) 700 million

18) Abram Nanikashvili (Israel) 700 million

19) Davit Bezhuashvili (Georgia) 600 million

20) Vika Gelovani (Moscow) 500 million

21) Shota Boterashvili (Russia) 500 million

22) Buta Eliava (Russia) 500 million

23) Levan Vasadze (Russia) 500 million

24) Roman Pipia (Russia) 500 million

25) Temur Karchava (Russia) 500 million

26) Badri Kakabadze (Russia) 500 million

27) Mikheil Mirelashvili (Russia) 500 million

28) Shota Boterashvili (Russia) 500 million

28) Tariel Oniani (Spain) 400 million

29) Mamuka Khazaradze (Georgia) 400 million

30) Aleksandre Ebralidze (Russia) 300 million

32) Pantiko Tordia (Georgia) 250 million

33) Irakli Okruashvili (Georgia) 250 million

34) Kibar Khalvashi (Georgia) 200 million

35) Temur Chkonia (Georgia) 200 million

36) Giorgi Ramishvili (Georgia) 200 million

37) Valery Meladze (Russia) 200 million

38) Sandro Mezhevidze (Georgia) 160 million

39) Kakha Okrishvili (Georgia) 150 million

40) Zaza Okuashvili (Georgia) 100 million

41) Maia Rcheulishvili (Georgia) 100 million

42) Paata Kurtanidze (Georgia) 100 million

43) Zura Kinikhadze (Russia) 100 million

44) Levan and Soso Phkhakadzes (Georgia) 100 million

45) Valery Gelashvili (Georgia) 100 million

46) Roman Tskhvirashvili (the US) 100 million

47) Gocha Zasokhov (Georgia) 100 million

48) Vano Chkhartishvili (Georgia) 100 million

49) Pridon Injia (Georgia) 100 million

50) Zurab Noghaideli (Georgia) 75 million

51) Zaza Nishnianidze (Georgia) 70 million

52) Laura Ghachava (Georgia) 60 million

53) Temur Ugulava (Georgia) 60 million

54) Gogi Topadze (Georgia) 50 million

55) Kote Gogelia (Russia) 50 million

56) Nugzar Shevardnadze (Georgia) 50 million

57) Lasha Papashvili (Georgia) 50 million

58) Vano Zodelava (Georgia) 50 million

59) Ilia Kokaia (Austria) 50 million

60) Ilo Mosiashvili (Israel) 50 million

61) Gogi Liparteliani (Georgia) 50 million

62) Elguja Bubutaishvili (Georgia) 40 million

63) Tamaz Gaiashvili (Georgia) 40 million

64) Kakhi Kaladze (Georgia) 40 million

65) Gia Sheradze (Georgia) 30 million

66) Levan Pirveli (Austria) 22 million

67) Kako Chkhaidze (Georgia) 20 million

68) Avtandil Tsereteli (Georgia 20 million

69) Guram Akhvlediani (Georgia) 20 million

70) Nika Chikovani (Georgia) 20 million

71) Avtandil Jorbenadze (Georgia) 20 million

72) Melor Tkeshelashvili (Georgia) 20 million

73) Jemal Inaishvili (Georgia) 20 million

74) Temur Apsadze (Austria) 20 million

75) Archil Gegenava (Georgia) 15 million

76) Irakli Iashvili (Georgia) 15 million

77) Zaza Sioridze (Georgia) 15 million

78) Aleko Gotsiridze (Georgia) 10 million

79) Niko Lekishvili (Georgia) 10 million

80) Levan Gachechiladze (Georgia) 10 million

AHMADINEJAD’S COPTER UNABLE TO LAND IN ARMENIA, RETURNS TO IRAN DUE TO BAD WEATHER

Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
March 19 2007

A helicopter carrying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a border town
in Armenia to inaugurate a newly constructed pipeline could not land
due to bad weather.

The Iranian president and his Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharyan,
were scheduled to inaugurate today the landmark pipeline that is to
transfer Iranian gas to Armenia.

According to reports, the copter carrying President Ahmadinejad and
his retinue turned back to the Iranian border city of Marand, from
where they will travel to Armenia by land.

The Iranian president is accompanied by Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki, Minister of Energy Parviz Fattah and Oil Minister Kazem
Vaziri-Hamaneh in this trip.

President Ahmadinejad and his Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharyan,
are to preside over the inauguration ceremony shortly.

The 110-km pipeline, 70km of which is within Iranian territory,
is 40km from the Armenian border to the city of Kajaran.

Some 10 million cubic meters of Iranian gas will be delivered per
day through the 110-km gas pipeline to Armenia when the pipeline
starts operations.

The pipeline, which was due to be completed in 930 days, was finished
in 650 days due to its importance.

Test operations on the project have been conducted. The project is
to be delivered to Armenia within the next few months.

The pipeline has an approximate cost of USD 33 million, 85 percent
of which was financed by the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI)
with the remaining 15 percent put up by Yerevan.

PRESIDENT DEPARTS TABRIZ FOR ARMENIA TO INAUGURATE GAS PIPELINE

Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
March 19 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on a stopover in Tabriz, capital of
Azarbaijan province, left this northeastern city Monday morning for
Yerevan, capital of the Republic of Armenia, where he is to attend the
inaugural ceremony of the newly completed Iran-Armenia gas pipeline.

The Iranian president, before his departure, had a short talk with
the governor general of Tabriz at the city’s airport.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister of Energy Parviz Fattah
and Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh are accompanying the president
in this trip.

The pipeline is to be inaugurated in Armenia today with the presidents
of the two countries as the main guests.

Some 10 million cubic meters of Iranian gas will be delivered per
day through the 110-km gas pipeline to Armenia when the pipeline
starts operations.

The pipeline, which was due to be completed in 930 days, was finished
in 650 days due to its importance.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AHMADINEJAD ARRIVES IN ARMENIA TO INAUGURATE GAS PIPELINE

Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
March 19 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has arrived at an Armenian border town
for the inauguration of a newly constructed pipeline that will transfer
Iranian gas to Armenia.

The Iranian president and his Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharyan,
will preside over the inauguration ceremony within the next few
minutes.

The 110km pipeline, 70km of which is within Iranian territory, is
40km from the Armenian border to the city of Kajaran.

Test operations on the project have been conducted. The project is
be delivered to Armenia within the next few months.

The pipeline has an approximate cost of USD 33 million, 85 percent
of which was financed by the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI)
with the remaining 15 percent put up by Yerevan.

AHMADINEJAD OPEN FIRST STRETCH OF ARMENIAN GAS PIPELINE FROM IRAN

The Associated Press
International Herald Tribune, France
March 19 2007

YEREVAN, Armenia: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his
Armenian counterpart on Monday formally opened the first Armenian
section of a natural gas pipeline linking the two countries.

Ahmadinejad and Armenian President Robert Kocharian inaugurated the
40-kilometer (25-mile) section in the town of Meghri, just over the
border from Iran.

"This is more proof of our friendship," Kocharian said at the ceremony,
which was delayed by hours because rain and fog prevented a helicopter
flight that was to transport Ahmadinejad. He arrived by road.

Under the first stage of the project, Iran is to deliver up to 400
million cubic meters (14 billion cubic feet) of gas a year; when the
pipeline is completed and extends to the capital, Yerevan, the volume
could rise to 2.5 billion cubic meters (88 billion cubic feet) a year.

The project was launched in 2004 after more than a decade of
negotiations.

Russia, which supplies most of Armenia’s gas, had objected to the
project. Armenian officials said last year they were discussing the
prospect of Russia’s natural-gas monopoly Gazprom purchasing the
Armenian section of the pipeline from Iran.

Landlocked Armenia has developed its relations with Iran amid
economic troubles caused by the closing of its borders with Turkey
and Azerbaijan in the wake of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,
a region of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian and ethnic Armenian
Karabakhi forces.

Iran has also sought projects and influence in other parts of the
former Soviet Union, mostly in Central Asia.

Last year, Ahmadinejad opened an Iranian-financed tunnel improving
connections between impoverished Tajikistan’s north and the capital
region. Tehran has focused mostly on transport and infrastructure
projects and restoring historically close cultural ties.

TURKEY’S POWER LIES IN ITS HISTORICAL DEPTH
By Bulent Kenes

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 19 2007

Aware of its strategic depth since the years of the Cold War era,
and using every opportunity to turn this asset into a profit in the
international power markets, in recent years Turkey has been rapidly
gaining consciousness as regards its cultural and historical depth.

The fact that Turkey’s history is not limited to 85 years and that
it is in reality profound and straddles a colossal geography is
now becoming embedded in the national consciousness, signaling
reconciliation with the past.

Up until a few years ago neither the Malazgirt Victory of the Seljuk
Turks in 1071, which opened the gates of Anatolia for the Turks,
nor the conquest of Ýstanbul on May 29, 1453, which began a new
era in world history, nor other great victories of the Ottoman era
were as recognized as they deserved to be and were not celebrated in
a way befitting their glory. A weird historical understanding that
limits Turks’ history to that of the Turkish Republic — which can be
considered very short in comparison to the vast history of the Turks —
and that disregards the pre-republic Turkish history was prevalent.

This approach, which had a principle of sullying and denigrating
Turkish history before the republic at every opportunity and which
ignored it when it was unable to denigrate it, was an elitist one
denying its roots and descent. As the effect of this misconstrued
understanding started to wane in recent years the familiarity of the
Turkish people with their history, of which they should be proud, and
with their cultural depth, a natural concomitant of such consciousness,
began to increase. Also as the new generations reclaimed the historical
victories the self-confidence of the Turkish people grew stronger
and in turn they started endeavoring to secure themselves a more
deserving place in the balance of international power. Nor would it
be meaningless to evaluate Turkey’s heading forward in the recent
years from this perspective.

For instance until several years ago the anniversary of the Canakkale
Victory, which gave a whole new direction to world history, would be
passed off with insipid celebrations. While the fact of how profoundly
this victory had affected world history was confined to a couple of
titles existing only on the unlovable pages of history coursebooks
that students were made to memorize, we would watch with envy the
dawn services on the Gallipoli Peninsula held enthusiastically by an
annually growing number of the children and grandchildren of Anzacs,
whose nonsensical adventures, into which they had been dragged by
their colonial rulers, ended in a crushing defeat. During those years
the memorial cemeteries of Anzacs were well maintained whereas ours
were forlorn, alone and doleful.

As the Turkish people delved further back into the depths of their
historical greatness, which had long been kept from them with great
care on the pretext of a "revolutionary reasoning," the tide turned;
the Canakkale War Memorial was visited by some 3 million Turks in 2006,
whereas this figure was a mere 300,000 only a couple of years ago.

With a desire to see the lands where their ancestors, most of whom
were very young, had sacrificed their lives in a selfless manner
that changed the flow of the world history forever by stopping the
Allied Forces that attempted to take Canakkale with an incomparably
greater number of soldiers and arms, some 3 million people converged
on Canakkale. They offered prayers to the spirit of their grandfathers.

As people visited the tombs of their grandfathers the ideals of these
sublime-spirited people visited and filled the minds and hearts of
the visitors. The state did not turn a blind eye to this sensitivity
and improved the war cemeteries and completed infrastructural works
to make these sites more accessible.

Turkey will grow stronger to the extent it leans on the power springing
from the depths of its history. Actually in recent years we have
come to realize that reducing Turkish history to an Independence War
and the history of reforms, however important they may be, serves no
one. How saddening it is to see that the Turkish education system’s
"imprisoning" Turkish history and the developments during World
War I in a few titles chosen with great care in an attempt to keep
emotions against other nations in check while ignoring very important
pages in history provides Armenians with an advantage in their fight
to extract an ferocious national identity from their enmity against
Turks. How strange it is that they have started pressurizing Turkey
with their unsubstantiated genocide claims which they "over decorated"
with historical lies!

The pre-republic era did not cease to exist by being considered
non-existent. On the contrary the responsibility stemming from their
historical and cultural depth did not leave Turks, although they
attempted to escape it. Is there any among you who cannot see the new
responsibilities loaded on the back of Turkey by each new development
of the last 15 years in the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Middle East?

–Boundary_(ID_i4rvNVoS4T+1V3rDH/SyDw)–

BAðýþ: BARZANI SHOULD ‘DO HIS HOMEWORK FIRST’
Yonca Poyraz DoÐan

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 19 2007

The Turkish prime minister’s foreign policy advisor has said if
Iraq’s leader of the regional administration deals with the separatist
terrorist PKK members in his territory and delivers them to Turkish
justice, then warmer relations might be possible.

AK Party deputy Egemen Baðýþ said Massoud Barzani, the leader of
Iraq’s autonomous region, should do his homework. "If he cannot
exercise any control in the northern part of Iraq, then he should
not consider himself the leader of that part of Iraq," Baðýþ said.

After Barzani called on Turkey for face-to-face talks to end
high-running tensions over Kurdish terrorists based in northern Iraq,
the question of whether or not Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdoðan will have direct talks with him came to the fore.

Baðýþ said in order to protect Turkey’s national interests and the
peace around Turkey, Turkey will talk to anyone, but Barzani should
first capture PKK terrorists and deliver them to Turkey to expect
such a rapprochement from Turkey.

In our "Monday Talk," Baðýþ spoke more about PKK terrorism and Iraq,
plus Turkish-American relations in regards to the Armenian genocide
resolution pending in the US Congress.

How would you explain the importance of the disputed Armenian genocide
resolution for Turkey in terms of Turkish-American relations?

This is a very sensitive issue. Turkey and the US have numerous mutual
projects going on in many different areas. We have common interests in
terms of energy resources and their distribution channels. We have also
common interests in the Middle East peace project. We have common goals
toward bringing more democracy and filtering it through the Middle
East. We have common goals in the Balkans, Caucasus and the Black Sea
regions. We have a common approach toward solving the Cyprus issue,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and so forth. And we have $11 billion
worth of trade, but more importantly 80 percent of the logistical
goods that US troops use in Iraq go through Turkey. Sixty percent are
Turkish-made. Turkey is the second country with the highest casualties
in Iraq after the US. Although we don’t have any troops in Iraq,
Turkish truck drivers, engineers, construction workers and contractors
lost their lives, about 150, in the efforts to rebuild Iraq. So when
you have so many joint projects going, insulting the Turkish nation
with a genocide that their ancestry did not commit would be hard to
digest. We will not be able to explain this to Turkish public opinion.

What do you mean exactly?

Unfortunately, because of the pictures coming from the war in Iraq,
from Fallujah, from Abu Ghraib prison, Turkish public support for US
foreign policy according to the German-Marshall Fund study is down to 7
percent. In the IRI’s [International Republican Institute] latest poll,
the number one threat to Turkey, according to those who participated,
is the president of the US. Adding the genocide allegation on top of
the current bad situation, it would be like adding insult to injury. It
would make things much more complicated.

It would put the government into an awkward situation. Not only because
it will hurt our personal feelings as members of the government, but it
will also have a binding effect on us because it is a democracy that we
live in. In democracies, governments cannot ignore public opinion. At
a time when public reaction is so strong, the Turkish government will
have to take measures that will in a way represent the aspirations
of the nation that has brought us to govern them. So we are hoping
that those lawmakers in the US understand the implications of this
resolution, which they think is a local issue and has no binding on
Turkey, but it is more than that. It can really inflict long-lasting
damage to the relationship. Explaining the issue directly to the US
decision makers has an effect.

So you say maintaining a direct dialogue has been helping.

Yes. Recently I was in Brussels along with other members of the
Turkish Parliament for the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting,
and there was a US delegation. It was a meeting that took place for
three days. On the first day, when we told them about the Armenian
issue, they didn’t take it seriously. They said this is just a simple
non-binding resolution. They said, ‘Why are you making a big deal
out of it?’ But by the third day, when we explained to them that this
can have implications, all the congressmen were saying, ‘As soon as
we go back, we’ll meet with [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, and we
will ask her to revisit the issue and change her opinion.’ So talking
and explaining does matter. That is why Foreign Minister [Abdullah]
Gul’s visit to Washington was very important. Both his visit and Gen.

[Yaþar] Buyukanýt’s visit were influential in sharing with their
counterparts what the sensitivities of the Turkish government are,
both at the civilian and military levels. And I am sure that they
have conveyed the message to the fullest.

What do you think will happen in the end?

I am optimistic. I don’t expect this resolution to pass. I always
say the American lawmakers are smarter than that, and they are not
going to make the historic mistake of passing this resolution.

What would you say about the Democrats in Congress, now they are
in majority?

That is one of the complications. The Democrats have taken the
leadership of both the House and the Senate after a 14-year gap. So
for the last 14 years, the Democrats didn’t have much international
sensitivity because the Republicans had to deal with international
issues. So for the Democrats, it is just a local issue to please
their Armenian constituency, but now that they are in and are hoping
to run for leader of the free world in two years’ time, they have to
learn very quickly the importance of the international sensitivities
and their implications. That’s why I think they will, in the end,
do the right thing.

How would the resolution in Congress affect the relationship between
Turkey and Armenia?

Passing resolutions of this sort is just going to make things more
complicated in terms of having rapprochement between Turkey and
Armenia. The prime minister has made a call to the Armenian government
through independent committees of historians and scholars for opening
archives and also inviting scholars from third countries to contribute
with their own archives. But the Armenian government has rejected
the prime minister’s call. Erdoðan was the first Turkish politician
ever to say ‘I am ready to face my own history if the Armenians are
ready to face their own history,’ but I guess the Armenian leadership
wasn’t ready.

Is there a chance for dialogue?

There are approximately 40,000 Armenians from Armenia in Turkey. I am
not talking about Armenians of Turkey, who have found themselves a safe
haven in Turkey. I am talking about the ones who are here as illegal
immigrants, and they are mostly nannies taking care of children. So
if there was any sort of hatred in the hearts of the Turkish people,
they would not trust these Armenian nannies with the most valuable
members of their families, their children. This, by itself, shows
that there is an opportunity for dialogue between the two nations.

Nowadays, the future of relations with Iraqi leaders, especially the
Kurdish Iraqi leaders, in light of PKK terrorism, is dominating the
Turkish media. Is the Turkish prime minister considering starting a
dialogue with the Iraqi Kurdish leaders?

A lot of people are confused about the Iraqi Kurdish leaders. The
president of Iraq happens to be a Kurdish gentleman, Mr. Talabani. He
is the president of all of Iraq. So his natural counterpart is our
president, Ahmed Necdet Sezer. Mr. Sezer has the option of talking
with him. Our prime minister’s counterpart is the Iraqi Prime Minister
Nuri el Maliki, with whom he has a very open dialogue. If needed,
he [Erdoðan] can talk to Mr. Talabani and he has actually talked
to Mr. Talabani. When Mr. Talabani got sick, Prime Minister Erdoðan
called him and wished him well. One should not confuse Talabani with
Barzani. Barzani is the leader of a regional administration within
the larger concept of Iraq, and his counterparts are obvious. He can
meet with the local representatives of Turkey or with his counterparts
in Turkish foreign affairs, and so forth. So let’s not confuse one
from another. In order to protect Turkey’s national interests and
the peace around Turkey, Turkey will talk to anyone.

So do you think that Mr. Erdoðan would talk with Barzani?

Before coming to Mr. Erdoðan, there are many other levels that Mr.
Barzani should first contact and show his good will before he has
a chance to talk. Yes, Mr. Barzani has been received at the White
House, where he met with the US president because of the good will he
has demonstrated to the United States. If he shows good will [toward
Turkey], deals with the PKK, captures all members of the PKK in his
territory and delivers them to Turkish justice, then we will consider
at what level he will be received here in Turkey. But it is too soon
to consider that. First, he has to do his homework. He has to work on
initiatives to start a better relationship with Turkey. But different
levels of our government have been in touch with him in the past,
and will be in touch with him in the future as well, depending on
Turkey’s national interests and requirements. In the end, no option
is off the table. Turkey has lost more than 30,000 lives because of
PKK terrorism. So nobody should expect us to forget or ignore that.

In his statements, we hear that he has no control over PKK members
in northern Iraq…

If he cannot have any control in the northern part of Iraq, then he
should not consider himself as the leader of that part of Iraq.

About the support from the United States to eliminate the PKK threat,
there is a lot of skepticism in Turkey. Is there any improvement in
that regard?

Historically, the United States was the first ally of Turkey
to declare PKK as a terrorist organization. The US helped us to
convince most of our European allies to regard PKK as a terrorist
organization. The US helped us to capture the leader of that bloody
organization, who had found himself a safe haven at the Greek Embassy
in Kenya. The US has been one of the supporters in trying to hinder
the financial capabilities of PKK in Europe. Also the US helped us
to provide documentation to Danish authorities that ROJ TV is linked
to the PKK. So traditionally and historically the US has been one
of our staunchest supporters in fighting PKK terrorism. But since
the war in Iraq started, because of the sensitivities in central and
southern Iraq, the US troops have been mostly deployed in those areas,
rather than the north. And as the north has been a quiet part of Iraq,
the US feels hesitant in terms of doing anything that can change the
environment there. But the fact that both governments have appointed
high-level representatives to counter PKK terrorism is an indication
that there is a will to deal with this issue.

Then, why do you think there is so much skepticism when it comes to
the US helping Turkey in that regard?

Because Turkish public opinion is sick and tired of seeing more and
more casualties because of the PKK. The PKK members who have found
themselves safe haven in northern part of Iraq, they infiltrate into
Turkey, they place mines and mobile-phone remote-controlled bombs,
they explode them and cause casualties. That is why the Turkish people
are naturally angry and they want our allies to do something about
it. They want to see some real action taken against the PKK.

And there is nothing more natural than that.

Do you think Turkish and US policies toward Iran have been a match?

As of now, there is no match in terms of having a similar dialogue. I
hope the US will have more dialogue with Iran. Turkey and Iran have
been neighbors for ages and we will continue to have that kind of
relationship. The two nations had the concept of their own states
more than a thousand years. So both nations have a deep understanding
of statehood, both nations have experiences in dealing with each
other. The oldest border between any two countries in the world is
the border between Turkey and Iran. Last year, we’ve had more than
$6 billion worth of trade with Iran. This is a significant figure.

Having said all that, I must add the belief in Iran’s right to conduct
nuclear research for energy purposes, for humanitarian purposes. Of
course, we would not want to see any of the countries in our region
have nuclear weapons. That would be a threat to our nation as well. We
would not want to see nuclear weapons in any countries in the Middle
East. We would not want, as a matter of fact, nuclear weapons in any
country in the world. And we could encourage our neighbors, including
the Iranians, not to work to make nuclear weapons. And in our talks
with our Iranian friends, we always told them to cooperate with the
international atomic agency, to be more transparent and to cooperate
with the rest of the world.

—————————————— ————————————–
Egemen Baðýþ

Elected to the Turkish Parliament in November 2002 from the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party), Egemen Baðýþ represents Ýstanbul.

He is also foreign policy advisor to the prime minister.

An active member of the Turkish-American community within the US, Baðýþ
was president of the Federation of Turkish-American Associations, the
New York-based umbrella organization of Turkish-Americans. To date,
he is the only president who has been elected by unanimous vote for
two consecutive terms. He also served as a member of the Advisory
Board on Turkish Citizens Abroad, a government body.

His other titles include chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Subcommittee on Transatlantic Relations, the Turkish delegation’s
deputy chairman to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, chairman of the
Turkish Parliament’s Turkey-US Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Caucus
(a counterpart organization to the Turkey caucus in the US Congress).

Baðýþ was born in the eastern Turkish city of Bingol. His family
hails from the neighboring province of Siirt, where his father had
served as mayor.

–Boundary_(ID_Uu1bQUdDiZrt45UI1JnCMw)–