Month: March 2007

The New Anatolian, Turkey
March 27 2007

French presidential hopeful Royal favors Turkey’s EU bid ‘in
principle’

Tuesday , 27 March 2007

French presidential hopeful Segolene Royal says in a new book that
she supports Turkey’s bid to join the European Union "in principle"
— but not until the 27-member bloc is revamped.

The comments in the book entitled "Maintenant" (Now), which hits
store shelves on Tuesday, make Royal the only candidate among the top
three contenders to express support for Ankara’s EU bid.

"I support it in principle but not now because Europe is stalled and,
before expanding, we have to restart it," said Royal, her firmest
remarks yet on the subject.

Royal had previously said that her position on Turkey’s bid was "that
of the French people," and acknowledged in the book that she had been
criticized for such vagueness.

Defending that stance, like conservative President Jacques Chirac,
Royal said French voters will have the final say on the Turkish bid
in a national referendum on the issue if the time comes.

Her two main rivals in the presidential race — conservative
candidate Nicolas Sarkozy and centrist Francois Bayrou — both
support a special partnership for Turkey with the EU but not full
admission. Far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, trailing fourth in
most polls, wants no special relationship with Turkey. The two-round
election takes place on April 22 and May 6.

Royal said incorporating Turkey in the EU would send a strong signal
for "a world haunted by a clash of civilizations." It would also
reinforce calls for the government to recognize the Armenians
genocide claims.

Turkey strongly opposes the claims that its predecessor state, the
Ottoman government, caused the Armenian deaths in a planned genocide.
The Turkish government has said the toll is wildly inflated and that
Armenians were killed or displaced in civil unrest during the
empire’s collapse and conditions of World War I. Ankara’s proposal to
Yerevan to set up a joint commission of historians to study the
disputed events is still awaiting a positive response from the
Armenian side. After French lawmakers voted last October to make it a
crime to deny that the claims were genocide, Turkey said it would
suspend military relations with France.

In October, Royal said Turkey must recognize the deaths of Armenians
as genocide if it hopes to join the EU.

Today, Azerbaijan
March 27 2007

Turkish and Azerbaijani diasporas’ mutual initiative culminates in
confederation

27 March 2007 [10:18] – Today.Az

Seeking ways to counter the intensifying attacks of the Armenian
diaspora, the Turkish and Azerbaijani diasporas have finally settled
on a well-crafted strategy, following the First Forum of the World
Azerbaijani and Turkish Diasporas Organizations held in Baku on March
9.

Mehmet Azeriturk, the secretary-general of the Federation of
Turkish-Azeri Associations, told Today’s Zaman that the Turkish and
Azeri diasporas have decided to set up an international body to unite
Azeri and Turkish nongovernmental organizations, the International
Confederation of Turkic Associations.

"As we can see from the so-called Armenian genocide claims, the
Turkish world has difficulties in expressing itself to the world,"
complained Azeriturk while providing information on the latest
initiative of the Turkish and Azerbaijani diasporas. "At the
international level, we cannot ensure proper cooperation among Turkic
republics."

"The surveys conducted in Turkey show that only 1 percent of Turks
know about the Nagorno Karabakh issue," Azeriturk noted. "While
Armenians have made the entire world accept their unjustified claims
relating to incidents that occurred 95 years ago, we have failed to
inform even the people in Turkey of the Armenian atrocities in
Karabakh," he said.

"Under these conditions, we had to unite the Turkish world along
their common interests. Inspired by our Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip
Erdogan] and Azerbaijani President [Ilham] Aliyev, we have taken our
first step," Azeriturk said, referring to Erdogan and Aliyev’s
leadership in organizing the forum, to which Turkish Cypriot
President Mehmet Ali Talat had been invited, as a sign of greater
cooperation among Turkish people in the international arena.

The confederation will reportedly be established by the
representatives of Turkish and Azerbaijani diasporas, but
nongovernmental organizations from other Turkic republics can also
join as members. Azeriturk was optimistic about the future and
outcome of this initiative: "Everything will get easier after this
stage. I hope this organization will be a unified voice for the
entire Turkish world in advocating Turkish interests in the
international arena."

A long road to take

On the road to setting up an international lobbying body to represent
the entire Turkish world, first the unification of Turkish and
Azerbaijan nongovernmental organizations in Turkey and Azerbaijan
will be ensured. Later, umbrella organizations will be established in
the US, Canada, Germany, Russia, Australia, France and other
countries to unite Turkish and Azerbaijani associations and
federations. Moreover, nongovernmental organizations in other Turkic
republics will be invited to participate in this unification
initiative. Ultimately, an international confederation will be
established. Its head office will be located in New York and it will
have representative offices all around the world.

While it will primarily deal with the most complicated issues of the
Turkish world, namely those related to Nagorno-Karabakh, Cyprus, and
the Meskhetian Turks, the confederation will also conduct lobbying
activities concerning other problems affecting the Turkish people
around the world. The New York-based Federation of Turkish-American
Association will reportedly provide support, assistance and guidance
to the association.

Heydar Aliyev’s dream

The mastermind behind an international confederation of Turkish NGOs
was President Heydar Aliyev, the founding father of Azerbaijan. He
first announced his idea in 2002. Although he repeatedly talked about
his idea in meetings with Turkic-speaking countries, it could not be
implemented during his lifetime. He even caused the Azerbaijani
Parliament to enact a law to this end, and before he died, he left
the realization of his dream to his followers. In line with his will,
an Undersecretariat of Cooperation with Azerbaijani People Living
Abroad was established in Azerbaijan.

A ministry in charge of the Turkic world was established during the
coalition government of the Democratic Left Party (DSP) and the
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in Turkey. When the Justice and
Development Party (AK Party) took power, this ministry was abolished
as part of the reorganization campaign. The ministry reportedly might
be revived or a similar organization could be created, which will be
led by State Minister Besir Atalay. Today’s Zaman

URL:

Manila Standard Today, Philippines
March 27 2007

Is Turkey European?

By Antonio C. Abaya

The average educated, urbanized middle-class Turk most likely
believes that Turkey is European and should be admitted into the
European Union, even if the average rural dirt farmer in Anatolia
probably couldn’t care less if it is or isn’t.

The average European, rural or urban, most likely believes that
Turkey is not European and should not be admitted into the European
Union, even if some European leaders – principally the United Kingdom
‘s Tony Blair, following the lead of the Americans – want Turkey to be
admitted into the EU.

This is the central issue that dominates the debates within the
European Union as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this month.

If the matter were put to a Europe-wide referendum, the NO vote would
win by a resounding majority.

This is so because there is a growing Islamophobia that has been
gathering steam in Europe, all the way from the British Isles to
generally neutral Switzerland to the teeming cities of Central and
Eastern Europe, even to the usually tolerant Scandinavian countries.

Rightly or wrongly, Islam is associated with terrorism, with a
medieval attitude toward women, with a tendency toward union of
Church and State, with obscurantist religious beliefs and practices
that are clearly out of synch with the generally secular way of life
in nominally Christian Europe. Islamic culture clashes with European
culture on all major interfaces: political values, social values,
religious values.

With its population of more than 70 million, 99.8 percent of whom are
Muslims, Turkey is seen by Europeans as a square peg in a round hole,
a nation that will never integrate successfully into the European way
of life.

If Turkey were to be admitted into the European Union, Europeans see
a mass migration of Turks into Europe in search of a better life.
This fear is well grounded. Turkey’s per capita gross domestic
product is only $8,200, way below that of new EU member Poland
($13,300), and way, way below those of original (and `poorest’) EU
members Portugal ($,19,300) and Greece ($22,200). While the presence
of Polish migrants is tolerated by Western Europeans, since they are
culturally akin, that of Muslim Turks would be resented.

Oppositors point to the millions of Turks who were allowed into
Germany in the 1970s and 1980s as gaestarbeiter or guest workers for
Germany’s wirtschaftwunder or economic miracle, most of whom have
stayed permanently and sired further generations of square pegs.
Similar situations exist in France and Spain, where former colonials
from North and Black Africa, mostly Muslims, populate the ghettoes,
unable to integrate even after decades of residency.

Aside from resistance on the grounds of religious, political and
cultural values, there is also the matter of geography. Where does
one draw the line? Only 3 percent of Turkey ‘s land mass is in
Europe, the remaining 97 percent is in Asia.

If Turkey is to be admitted into the EU, why not Israel,
which – culturally – is more European than Turkey ever will be? And why
not Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which together with Israel and Turkey
played key roles in the birth and spread of Christianity? And why not
Armenia and Georgia , which are 95 percent and 84 percent,
respectively, Christian? And why not the Philippines, which is 91
percent Christian and can claim to be a granddaughter of European
civilization?

And why not predominantly Muslim Morocco, which has actually applied
(and been rejected) for membership in the EU? Middle-class Moroccans
think they are Europeans just because they speak French and drink
French wines.

In the West, only the British and the American leaders support
Turkish membership in the EU. Both the outgoing French President
Jacques Chirac and the current German kanzler Angela Merkel (who is
the sitting president of the EU) are opposed to it.

The kind interpretation would be that Blair and US President George
W. Bush want to reward the Turks for their steadfast support of North
Atlantic Treaty Organization during the Cold War against the Soviet
Union when Turkey was a scimitar poised against the Soviets’ soft
underbelly.

A cynical interpretation would be that Bush and his lapdog Blair want
to punish the French and the Germans for their refusal to join the
Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, by having their borders threatened
by millions of Muslims from Turkey.

An amusing map of what Europe will be in 2015 has been going around
the Internet since last year and I wrote about it in my article
`Europe in 2015′ (Feb. 12, 2006).

In this map, which reflects Europeans’ fears – only half in jest, I
surmise – of being overwhelmed by their fast-growing Muslim
communities, while their own populations are actually decreasing.

According to this 2015 map, Russia has been overwhelmed by the Muslim
Chechens and has been renamed Greater Chechnya.

Germany has been renamed New Turkey. Bosnia and Herzegovina is now
the Bosnian Sultanate. And Belgium has been reborn as Belgistan.

The Netherlands, former Master of the Moluccas, is now known as
Euro-Indonesia. Italy, together with Sardinia and Sicily, has joined
with Muslim Albania (their major source of illegal immigrants) into
the Albanian Federation.

France, trying to head off the Muslim challenge with a ban on head
scarves, has given up and has become the Islamic Republic of New
Algeria. Spain recovers the ancient glory of the Caliphate of Granada
with its new name: the Moorish Emirate of Iberia.

Most amusing of all, the British Isles are renamed North Pakistan,
while the resort islands of Majorca and Minorca in the Balearics,
favorite haunts of British tourists, are the new and vastly
diminished British Isles.

The author/s forgot to rename Turkey. How about the New Ottoman
Empire? Inshallah.

Abaya_mar27_2007

The New Anatolian, Turkey
March 27 2007

Police detain BBP Trabzon head in Dink murder probe

TNA with wires
27 March 2007

Police late Sunday detained 10 people in Trabzon including Yasar
Cihan, the Grand Unity Party’s (BBP) Trabzon head, as part its
investigation of the January killing of journalist Hrant Dink.

It was not immediately known on what grounds the politician was
detained.

The detainees were brought to Istanbul Police headquarters following
procedures in Trabzon, and police said Cihan was detained in line
with testimony of the Erhan Tuncel, one of the key suspects. Halis
Egemen of the same party is also wanted by the police.

Shortly after Dink’s killing, Cihan allegedly assisted the family of
Yasin Hayal, said to be the inciter of the Dink murder, with YTL
1,000 when he was in prison. Cihan had admitted having given money to
one of the suspects’ families but had insisted it was part of charity
money he regularly donates to needy families.

‘Instigator well protected,’ claims Patriarch Mesrob II

Just hours before the police net, Patriarch Mesrob II, the spiritual
head of the Armenian Orthodox community in Turkey, criticized
authorities for failing to find those who ordered Dink’s killing. At
an Easter ceremony in Hatay, Mesrob Moutafian claimed, "The real
instigators of Hrant Dink’s assassination are well protected and
that’s why they haven’t been exposed."

Although confirming that police were interrogating Cihan and three
other party officials, the party’s leader, Muhsin Yazicioglu said, "I
don’t know why they have been detained after months passed in this
investigation but it’s also wrong to accuse everyone with murder that
has been detained."

Yazicioglu declined to make further comment on the issue, as it is a
judicial matter now.

Dink, the 52-year-old editor of the bilingual Agos newspaper and an
outspoken activist for minority rights and free expression, had been
brought to trial several times for allegedly "insulting Turkishness,"
a crime under Turkey’s penal code. He was killed outside the offices
of his paper, Agos, in Istanbul on Jan. 19. Prosecutors have pressed
charges against 10 suspects, including some former members of the
BBP’s youth wing. Most of the suspects are from Trabzon. Dink’s
killing prompted international condemnation as well as debate within
Turkey about free speech, and whether state institutions were
tolerant of militant nationalists.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
March 27, 2007 Tuesday

ARMENIA IN THE GREAT GAME

by: Avtandil Tsuladze, political scientist

The United States wants an Orange Revolution in Armenia; The Armenian
opposition might try to implement an Orange Revolution scenario in
the upcoming elections. Artur Bagdasarian is trying to make himself
the chief candidate for Orange leader. There are a number of
indications that the United States is keeping a close eye on him.

Armenia is one of Russia’s most important CIS partners, and its most
consistent ally. Will it retain its pro-Russian orientation in the
medium-term future?

Armenia’s presidential election in 2008 could be a political
watershed. President Robert Kocharian will not seek re-election, and
the successor problem is becoming increasingly pressing. A
parliamentary election is scheduled for May 12, 2007, and this will
largely determine the configuration of forces in the lead-up to the
presidential race. Twenty-seven parties and one election bloc have
applied to participate in the parliamentary election, which will use
a proportional voting system. There will be around 1,500 candidates
altogether.

Opinion polls indicate that two political forces are in the lead: the
ruling Armenian Republican Party (ARP) and the recently-established
Prosperous Armenia, headed by a business tycoon named Gagik
Tsarukian. Analysts regard Prosperous Armenia as a pro-government
party.

Support for the opposition isn’t very high. Only three opposition
parties have any real chance of making it into parliament: the
Law-Abiding Country party (led by Artur Bagdasarian), National Unity
(led by Artashes Gegamian), and the People’s Party of Armenia (led by
Stepan Demirchian). There is also the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, which is considered a pro-government party, but doesn’t
intend to support either the ARP or Prosperous Armenia; it has a
small but stable electorate and a good chance of making it into
parliament.

The suspense in this election focuses on which of the pro-government
parties will score more points. That’s if the election goes calmly,
within constitutional channels. But there’s no ruling out the
possibility that the opposition might try to implement an Orange
Revolution scenario. Artur Bagdasarian is trying to make himself the
chief candidate for Orange leader. There are a number of indications
that the United States is keeping a close eye on him. Bagdasarian’s
articles have been published frequently in the American media, and
during a recent visit to the USA he said a great deal about the need
to "build democracy" in Armenia. Bagdasarian’s main arguments
retransmit America’s political interests in the region. When he calls
on Armenians not to be "imprisoned by the past," he means the
genocide of 1915; he proposes normalizing relations with Turkey,
de-emphasizing the genocide. He also calls for normalizing relations
with Azerbaijan and "resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the
basis of reciprocal concession." Bagdasarian says: "Improving
relations with Azerbaijan is essential for our long-term energy
stability, which can only be achieved by diversifying our energy
policy." That reference to "diversification" is aimed against Russia.
So far, Bagdasarian is keeping quiet about how far the concessions
may extend.

Where do American interests come into this? The United States is
interested in the trade routes linking this region to the Middle East
and Asia. The frozen conflicts in the Trans-Caucasus are an obstacle
to establishing transit channels. On the one hand, Armenia is
effectively in a blockade: no communications with Azerbaijan, a
closed border with Turkey, and Georgia closed off since Russia
imposed anti-Georgian sanctions. On the other hand, Armenia may be
regarded as the territory that obstructs many communications in the
region. The American objective is to turn the Trans-Caucasus into an
integrated region controlled by the United States. That’s the point
of the Orange project in Armenia. That’s why Bagdasarian is
portraying himself as a "peacemaker."

It would be naive to think that the Armenian authorities and Armenian
society aren’t concerned about the blockade around their country. The
problem is the price to be paid for lifting it. Former president
Levon Ter-Petrosian was forced to resign after arguing for
substantial concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh and facing resistance
from public opinion and the political establishment. The present
administration, with the help of international mediators, is striving
to find a solution that doesn’t compromise Armenia’s national
interests.

Another sign pointing to the possibility of an Orange Revolution
scenario in Armenia is the fact that the opposition is pedalling the
issue of election fraud. But the configuration of political forces in
Armenia is such that the authorities simply have no objective motives
to rig elections; the pro-government forces are already certain to
win by a large margin. The opposition’s only chance of turning the
situation around in its favor is to claim election fraud. The
examples of Georgia and Ukraine have shown us how this technique can
work. In Georgia, the key factor was Eduard Shevardnadze’s
unpopularity (but Kocharian is the most popular politician in
Armenia); in Ukraine there was a split between the Western and
Eastern regions (but Armenia is a unified country). The opposition’s
only hope lies in the dirty techniques of an Orange Revolution
project.

Experts don’t rule out the possibility that the West (certain circles
in the West) may assist the Armenian opposition by organizing
appropriate media coverage, sending an impressive contingent of
election observers, and so on. A brigade from the BBC will arrive in
Armenia a week before the election. The forces being drawn into this
are substantial. Will they suffice to cause a social explosion in
Armenia? There is no sign of that as yet. But Russia, with an
interest in its stragegic ally’s stable development, needs to monitor
this situation closely. It should also provide Armenia with media
support and send election observers, facilitating legitimate
democratic processes. Armenia will also need our political support.

Source: Izvestia, March 27, 2007, p. 6

Translated by Elena Leonova

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Times (London)
March 27, 2007, Tuesday

Andranik Margarian

Andranik Margarian, Prime Minister of Armenia since 2000, was born on
June 12, 1951. He died of a heart attack on March 25, 2007, aged 55

Prime Minister of Armenia who was appointed to bring a degree of
stability to the country after a turbulent period

An electronics engineer by profession, Andranik Margarian was
appointed Prime Minister of Armenia in May 2000 at a tense period in
the country’s recent history as an independent state.

In October 1999 Armenia’s Prime Minister, Vazgen Sargsyan had been
among a number of politicians, including the Speaker, who were killed
when armed gunmen burst into the parliament building and opened fire
on members in protest against what they regarded as the corrupt
political leadership of the country.

In the aftermath of the gunmen’s surrender (they were later tried and
sentenced to life imprisonment) President Robert Kocharyan appointed
Vazgen’s brother, Aram, Prime Minister.

But amid a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the country’s economic
performance, Kocharyan replaced him with Margarian the following May.
Since then Margarian had been the leader of the Republican Party, the
largest grouping in the Armenian Parliament.

Although in Armenia the president is the head of the administration,
and the prime minister is, rather, an executant of policy, Margarian
was regarded as having played a stabilising role in Armenia in
difficult years. He had latterly been involved in developing economic
relations with Romania, to whose position as an EU member Armenia
attached particular importance for her own development.

Born in 1951, and educated at the Yerevan Politechnic Institute,
where he qualified as a computer engineer, Margarian had been active
in separatist politics from an early age under the Soviet regime. In
1968 he joined the illegal National United Party, which agitated
against Soviet domination of Armenia.

In 1974 he was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison for
disseminating anti-Soviet ideas. When Armenia declared its
independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 he became a member of the
new Republican Party, and became a deputy of the national assembly in
1995. He subsequently served as the party’s chairman.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 27 2007

Refutation of the Armenian resolution article by article-1

by

Prof. Dr. KEMAL ÇÝÇEK*

Turkey is concerned that the Armenian genocide resolution which has
been submitted to the US House of Representatives several times in
the past will pass due to Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic speaker of
the House.

However, I don’t think there is any major significance if the law is
passed or not. Firstly, similar resolutions have already been passed
in state senates. According to ANCA, 47 states have passed such
resolutions. Secondly, the bill cannot impose sanctions. The US
president is under pressure to say on April 24 that 1.5 million
Armenians were murdered. U.S Republican and Democratic presidents
have always used terms similar to the word `genocide’ when speaking
on April 24. I am not saying that Turkey should stop lobbying against
the resolution. Of course, Turkey should fight against this unjust
and biased legislation and try to prevent the genocide label from
being attached to the nation. Otherwise, those Turkish children who
read in textbooks that their ancestors were murderers will suffer an
inferiority complex and will become asocial in the countries in which
they live.

At the other end of the spectrum, the mentioned resolution that was
submitted to the US House of Representatives is laden with incorrect
historical information and material mistakes. It seems that those who
drafted the resolution were not very concerned about the facts. It
was prepared with the assumption that the representatives would
approve whatever was submitted and calls on the US president to
employ sensitivity to foreign politics regarding ethnic cleansing,
human rights and the Armenian genocide. The president is also asked
to declare April 24 a day to commemorate the `Armenian genocide.’
Certainly this call is intended to hamper Turkey-US relations. So
while the resolution lacks the authority to impose punitive
sanctions, it is very important because it could prevent Turkish-US
relations from moving forward in peace and cooperation. The
resolution will increase Turkish opposition to America and will
strike a blow to Turkish government efforts to mend relations between
the two countries.

While the previous genocide resolutions had indicated that the
genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire and not the Republic of
Turkey, the current one directly charges Turkey with being
responsible for genocide. The third article was removed from the
current resolution, which is why the history of the genocide was
extended to 1923. The Armenian lobbyists have extended their claims
of genocide because they want to hold the Turkish state responsible
and punish Turkey for the goods and property that were confiscated.
What’s worse is that the image of Turks in America will be damaged,
and this could affect business and cultural relations between the two
countries. Some intellectuals, writers and strategy experts say the
US will not offend Turkey in any way until, at least, the problems in
Iran and Iraq are resolved and do not expect the resolution to pass
in the Senate. However, we should remember that in recent years the
US has been guided by an unproductive and visionless administration.
Unfortunately, the administration draws its strategy and road map
based on the marginal groups of each country. Since the possibility
exists for the US administration to err and become confused, it is
very important that the American public and its administrative
departments are informed of the half truths in the bill.

Below you will find an assessment of the mistakes in the mentioned
bill.

(Article 1) The Armenian genocide was conceived and carried out by
the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of
nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and
children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their
homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year
presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

In the article under dispute, it was claimed that genocide was
carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. We know that V.
Dadrian and many other leading Armenian historians have claimed the
loss of the Armenian life during World War I due to the actions of
the Ottoman Empire was 1.5 million. Before we comment on these
exaggerated figures, we must emphasize that the Ottoman Empire had
exited the stage of history in 1923. This fact indicates that the
Armenian lobby is directly targeting the Republic of Turkey and aims
to keep Turkey from avoiding punishment for the refusal to
acknowledge its heritage. As for the figures, we may state with
certainty that the claimed number of Armenian victims is an
exaggeration. First of all, many independent researchers have
estimated that the Armenian population in 1914 ranged between
1,400,000 and1,700,000. Even such pro-Armenian scholars as Dr.
Johannes Lepsius do not accept the figures asserted by the
Patriarchate, at 2.2 million Armenian citizens in that area at that
time, and instead calculated the Armenian population to be around
1,845,450 (Der Todesgang des Armenischen Volkes, Potsdam 1919, p.
308). There is not a single source that would indicate the population
of the Ottoman Armenians was as high as 2 million. (See H. Özdemir
and others. Armenians: Exile and Migration, Ankara, 2004, p.49-50.)

The claim that 1.5 million Armenians were killed is also a myth. This
myth originated from the report of Leslie Davis, the US consul at
Harput. He wrote on July 24, 1915 — the 44th day after the order for
deportation — that `It is impossible to say how many Armenians have
been killed, but it is estimated that the number is not far from a
million’ (NARA 867.4016/269). Even Dadrian vouches for 1 million
survivors and estimates the number of Armenian victims at 1.1
million. During the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the Armenian
leader, Bogos Nubar Pasha, spoke about the deportation of 600-700,000
Armenians. In addition, the Patriarchate calculated in 1919 that the
total number of Armenians living in Anatolia was 644,000. A document
released by the League of Nations stated the number of Armenians in
1922 who originated from Turkey was 817,873 and states that `the
total given does not include the able-bodied Armenians’ who still
lived in Turkey. (NARA 867.4016/816) Last but not least, in a
memorandum sent to English and French embassies by the Patriarchate
in 1919, it claimed that `200,000 Armenians were buried alive or were
drowned in Van Lake, the Fýrat River and the Black Sea between 1914
and 1918.’ (Report presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference by
the Commission for the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and
on the Enforcement of Penalties, March 29, 1919). These figures
clearly demonstrate that the Armenian historians have exaggerated the
figures about the number of Armenian victims during the war.

(Article 2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France and
Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first
time ever another government of committing `a crime against
humanity.’

In the second statement in the proposed resolution, the Allied
statement of May 24, 1915 is mentioned, and it is asserted that the
Ottoman Empire carried out genocide, although they had been warned
before the deportation. The text of the resolution implies that the
Ottoman Empire planned and launched a systematic campaign to
annihilate the Armenians. It is true that there was such a statement
made by the Allies; what is left out is the fact that the states that
issued this statement were then at war with the Ottomans, and as we
know now, had signed treaties amongst each other to divide the
Ottoman Empire, which would complicate any claim they asserted about
the Ottoman Empire. What is also striking is that these countries
were overlooking their own `crimes against humanity.’ For instance
Russia was carrying out pogroms on the Jews in their country, and
England had already deported citizens of German origin to
concentration camps.

(Article 3) This joint statement stated `the Allied Governments
announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally
responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government,
as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such
massacres.’

As is stated above, these statements were the propaganda of the
Allies. As a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire, in its reply to the
statement issued by the Allies, stated that a massacre of the
Armenians in the empire was out of the question. There was also a
very interesting detail in the statement of the Ottoman Empire: The
sources of these slanders were English and Russian consuls in Romania
and Bulgaria. In fact, political propaganda offices for the
Taþnaksutyun [Armenian armed gangs] were present in the capitals of
those countries, and many reports about the massacres appearing in
the `Blue Book’ also originated from these offices.

*Head of Black Sea Technical University, Faculty of Arts & Sciences;
Turkish Historical Association, Armenian Desk

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Agence France Presse — English
March 26, 2007 Monday 2:29 PM GMT

Funeral for Armernian PM on Wednesday

YEREVAN, March 26 2007

A burial service for Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margarian, who
died at the weekend, will be held on Wednesday, the government said
as the president prepared to announce a successor.

Margarian’s body will lie in state at the Yerevan Opera House on
Wednesday afternoon so the public can pay their last respects to the
man who had led the Armenian government since 2000.

He will then be buried at the Pantheon in the heart of the city, a
site reserved only for the most illustrious Armenians.

As laid down by the Armenian constitution, the entire government
resigned following the death of the prime minister.

The head of state, President Robert Kocharian, has 10 days to name a
new prime minister who will be officially announced after Margarian
is laid to rest, according to the government’s press service.

Government sources requesting anonymity said that Margarian, who died
on Sunday, is likely to be succeeded by Defence Minister Serge
Sarksian, with whom he had led the main Republican Party in
government.

Kocharian met Monday with the politicial parties and "decided the
post of prime minister should continue to be held by a representative
of the Republican Party," a spokesman for the party, Edouard
Charmazanov, told AFP.

Sarksian, currently in Moscow, has cancelled an imminent trip to
China.

Meanwhile, doctors confirmed conclusively that Margarian had died
from a heart attack.

"Medical experts have established that Andranik Margarian died
following a cardiac arrest caused by problems with his coronary
circulation," a government statement sent.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 27 2007

Committee to vote on Dink resolution

The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has planned to vote on a
resolution Wednesday condemning the murder of Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink, calling on Turkey to abolish a penal code
article widely considered to be a barrier standing in the way of
freedom of expression, and asking Turkey to establish diplomatic,
political and economic relations with neighboring Armenia.

Authored by the committee chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat, the
resolution specifically cites that Dink "was prosecuted under Article
301 of the Turkish Penal Code [TCK] for speaking about the Armenian
Genocide," and urges the Turkish government to repeal the infamous
Article 301.

Dink was tried and handed a six-month suspended sentence for
"insulting Turkishness," a crime under Article 301. The editor in
chief of the bilingual Agos newspaper was gunned down outside his
office in Ýstanbul on Jan. 19.

The committee had delayed a planned vote on the non-binding
resolution three weeks ago when the ranking member of the committee
Richard Lugar objected to it and wanted the "Armenian genocide"
expression to be taken out of the resolution.

The delay had led to disappointment in the Armenian diaspora while
pleasing Ankara.

It is not clear yet whether or not the "Armenian genocide" expression
has been removed.

Ankara vehemently denies Armenian allegations that some 1.5 million
Anatolian Armenians were killed as part of genocide at hands of the
Ottoman Empire during World War I and calls for an objective
scientific study of the issue. In January of this year a resolution
for the official recognition of Armenian allegations was introduced
at the US House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, officials at the Turkish Embassy in Washington have been
constantly informing US lawmakers over "inappropriate expressions"
and facts in the resolution.

Ankara also believes that the international community appreciated the
Turkish leadership’s stance when faced with the murder of Dink as all
Turkish leaders, including the president and the prime minister,
harshly condemned the murder with strongly worded remarks.

Agence France Presse — English
March 27, 2007 Tuesday 5:53 PM GMT

Iraq violence slaughters nearly 80

by Mujahid Mohammed

MOSUL, Iraq, March 27 2007

A suicide bomber tricked soldiers into believing he was bringing food
supplies to a northern Iraqi town on Tuesday in the deadliest of a
spate of attacks that killed nearly 80 people nationwide.

The blast ripped through Tal Afar, unleashing carnage and destroying
buildings after a crowd of hungry Iraqis surrounded the vehicle that
residents and soldiers believed was a supply convoy following a week
of food shortages.

Just moments after being waved into the area by Iraqi soldiers, the
bomber detonated his cargo of flour and explosives, killing and
wounding those around just three days after a marketplace suicide
attack in the same town.

An Iraqi army officer told AFP that 55 people were killed and at
least 125 wounded in the truck bombing and a separate car bombing in
the same town of some 200,000 people, unable to specify a separate
toll break-down.

The US military, which scrambled helicopters to evacuate the wounded
to US medical facilities, said several buildings collapsed in the
explosion that blasted a 15-metre (50-foot) diametre crater out of
the ground.

Tuesday’s bombings raised further concerns about escalating
insecurity in the mixed Shiite-Sunni town after US President George
W. Bush last year held it up as a model for coalition efforts to
create a stable Iraq.

On March 20, 2006 Bush hailed the onetime militant stronghold as "a
free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq". Since then,
Iraqi violence has risen so high that even the Pentagon has cited
elements of civil war.

The Tal Afar attacks came just hours after US forces in Iraq said
they had arrested two leaders of a network suspected of killing about
900 civilians and wounding nearly 2,000 others in a campaign of car
bombings.

Haytham Kazim Abdallah al-Shimari and Haydar Rashid Nasir al-Shammari
al-Jafar were detained separately on March 21 in the north Baghdad
Sunni rebel bastion of Adhamiyah, the US military said.

Tuesday’s truck bomber mimicked tactics deployed in the south Baghdad
insurgent stronghold of Dura last Saturday when a bomber disguised as
a merchant bringing building supplies to a police station killed 20
people.

The bombings gave credence to US statements that while a new security
crackdown has seen a decline in execution-style killings, a hallmark
of Shiite militias, the big car bombs associated with Sunni militants
have carried on.

Over the past four years, tens of thousands of people have been
killed in the insurgent and sectarian violence, most of them in
Baghdad, triggering Washington to launch a last-ditch security
crackdown last month.

Elsewhere, bombings and mortar and small-arms fire killed another 23
Iraqis.

Two mortar rounds slammed into the Abu Chir district of Dura, where
Iraqi and US forces have been concentrated under the new security
crackdown.

Two children, a man and a woman were killed, while another 14 people
were wounded.

Gunmen opened fire in the capital’s biggest market killing two
civilians and wounding seven, a security official said.

A suicide bomber who blew up a vehicle near Baghdad’s Mustansiriyah
University killed one policeman and wounded three. College campuses
have become a frequent target for insurgent bombings.

South of Baghdad, four people died in Iskandiriyah when unidentified
gunmen opened fire on a Sunni funeral cortege, army officer Mohammed
al-Tahi said.

In the northern oil hub of Kirkuk, gunmen broke into the home of two
elderly Armenian women and shot the two longtime residents of the
city, police Captain Imad Jassim said.

One of the women was aged 80 and the other in her 60s, the officer
said.

Mass emigration has seen Iraq’s Christian communities slump to just
700,000 people among a total population of 27 million.