Month: April 2007

EFFORTS ARE RISING TO GET THE U.S. TO RECOGNIZE THE DEATHS OF 1.5 MILLION ARMENIANS
Tammy Krikorian, Tribune

East Valley Tribune, AZ
April 24 2007

When my great-grandparents left their Ottoman Empire home for America
in 1913, it was to escape a pending genocide that would claim the
lives of their entire families.

Today marks the 92nd anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide
that killed 1.5 million and forced an additional 500,000 through the
desert and away from their ancestral homeland.

Lessons from the first genocide of the 20th century remain relevant
today, as a modern-day genocide ravages the Darfur region of Sudan,
and as the Turkish government continues to deny the crimes committed
against Armenians in its Ottoman past.

A Christian minority in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians suffered
massacres beginning in the mid-1890s, but the genocide is considered
to have begun April 24, 1915, when more than 200 Armenian leaders
were arrested in Istanbul and sent to join hundreds more in prison.

The majority were executed.

Over the next eight years, the Armenians were driven from the land
they called home for centuries and sent on a death march through
the Syrian desert. In what the Ottoman Turks called a deportation,
Armenians were forced from their homes and raped, robbed and tortured
along the way. Many who were not killed starved to death. The course
of the Euphrates was changed for a hundred yards because of thousands
of bodies lying dead in the river.

In his memoir, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau
Sr. wrote, "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these
deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole
race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with
me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact. … I am
confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such
horrible episode as this."

While the Armenian genocide has been well documented, the United States
government has yet to recognize the atrocities as a genocide in order
to protect its diplomatic relations with Turkey. Turkey continues
to deny a genocide occurred, and under Article 301, it is a crime to
"denigrate Turkishness."

When journalist Hrant Dink, a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent,
was assassinated in January, most Turks assumed it was because Dink
condemned the mass killings of Armenians. As thousands of Turks
took to the street to protest the shooting and promote freedom of
expression, Armenians around the world were hopeful that attitudes
in Turkey are changing.

But the Los Angeles Times reported last month that there has been
a backlash against Turkey’s intellectual community following Dink’s
assassination.

"Shadowy nationalist groups have issued chilling threats against
authors and thinkers who, like Dink, speak out against Turkey’s
official denial that the mass killings of Armenians beginning in
1915 constituted genocide, or on the power of the Turkish military,
or the status of minority Kurds," the article said.

Prominent Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk was tried in 2005 for
insulting Turkishness after he told a Swiss newspaper "30,000 Kurds
and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me
dares to talk about it." The charges were dropped on a technicality,
and in 2006 Pamuk became the first Turkish writer to win the Nobel
Prize in literature.

As Turkey continues to stifle freedom of speech and expression,
it only hurts itself. On one hand, it makes the nation’s efforts to
join the European Union more difficult. On the other, when prominent
Turks are charged, it brings international attention to the issue and,
hopefully, sparks dialogue among Turkish citizens about the genocide.

Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland
without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying "(W)ho,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

The Armenian genocide must be recognized, to honor the memory of
those who died, to help stop the genocide in Darfur, and to prevent
similar atrocities from being committed in the future.

The first step is to urge your senators and congressmen to sponsor
Senate Resolution 106 and House Resolution 106, which asks the
president "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States
reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues
related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented
in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and
for other purposes."

The full text of the resolution is available online at

Today, the local chapter of the Armenian Youth Federation is holding
a March for Humanity beginning at 3 p.m. in Patriots Square Park
at the corner of Central Avenue and Washington Street in Phoenix,
ending at the state Capitol.

Following the march, a remembrance program will be held at 4:30 p.m.
at the Wesley Bolin Plaza.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DISPUTE ERUPTS AT LAT
Kevin Roderick

LA Observed, CA
April 24 2007

A dispute that has been quietly bubbling in the Times newsroom went
public today when the publisher of the California Courier demanded
that LAT managing editor Doug Frantz be fired for blocking publication
of an article on the Armenian genocide by senior staff writer Mark
Arax, who is of Armenian origin. According to Harut Sassounian, a
widely quoted leader of the Armenian American community, Frantz feels
Arax is biased on Armenian issues. Arax has lodged a discrimination
complaint and threatened a federal lawsuit, says Sassounian. Arax,
who lives in Fresno and writes for West magazine, told me he couldn’t
comment, but I’ve confirmed there is an internal investigation at
the paper. Frantz emailed LA Observed:

I put a hold on a story because of concerns that the reporter had
expressed personal views about the topic in a public manner and
therefore was not a disinterested party, which is required by our
ethics guidelines, and because the reporter and an editor had gone
outside the normal procedures for compiling and editing articles. My
actions were based solely on the journalistic ethics and standards
that we follow to ensure that readers of Times news coverage are not
affected by the personal views of our reporters and editors.

Here is Sassounian’s piece, which cites emails between Frantz and Arax:

When a company discriminates against an employee on the basis of his
or her ethnic origin, it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 which prohibits "employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex and national origin."

It appears that such a breach of the law took place when Douglas
Frantz, the Managing Editor of the Los Angeles Times, blocked the
publication of an article on the Armenian Genocide written by Mark
Arax, a distinguished journalist of Armenian origin, who has worked
at the Times for 20 years.

On April 11, 2007, in an e-mail to Arax, Frantz accused him of having
"a conflict of interest that precludes you from writing about the
Armenian genocide, and particularly about an ongoing congressional
debate about it. …Your personal stance on the issue, in my view,
prohibits you from writing about the issue objectively."

To justify his discriminatory action, Frantz used the pretext that
Arax and five other reporters at The Times had signed a joint letter
in September 2005, reminding the editors that the newspaper was
not complying with its own policy of calling the Armenian Genocide,
a genocide. The editors, at that time, had no problem with that letter.

On the contrary, they thanked all six reporters — five
Armenian-Americans and one Jewish-American — for the reminder and
pledged to comply with the paper’s policy on this issue.

To make matters worse, in his e-mail, Frantz falsely referred to the
above-cited letter as a "petition," and on that basis accused Arax of
taking "a position" on the Armenian Genocide. He thus implied that all
six letter-writers — Mark Arax, Ralph Vartabedian, Robin Abcarian,
Greg Krikorian, Chuck Philips, and Henry Weinstein — were political
activists rather than independent journalists.

By "prohibiting" Arax from writing on the genocide issue, Frantz,
by implication, was also prohibiting all six journalists, among them
a Pulitzer Prize winner, of ever reporting on this subject. In other
words, Frantz was not just blocking one particular article and its
author, but all future articles on the Armenian Genocide that may be
written by any of these six journalists, thus practically issuing a
gag order that silences all Armenian Americans working at the Times.

By the same logic, Frantz is implying that Latinos will be barred
from writing on illegal immigrants, African American journalists
from covering civil rights, Jewish-American reporters from writing
about the Holocaust and Asian-Americans covering issues peculiar to
their community.

Sadly, Frantz’s misrepresentation of the joint letter as a "petition"
initially helped convince other editors at The Times that Arax had
an ethnic bias, thus gaining their support in his decision not to
run his article. Only days later did these editors take the trouble
to investigate the matter and discovered that they were misled by
Frantz. Jim O’Shea, the top editor of the Los Angeles Times, in a
meeting with this writer last week, said that the letter signed by
the six journalists was not a "petition" at all, and that there was
nothing improper about it. In fact, he admitted that the letter upheld
existing L.A. Times policy.

Amazingly, even after discovering the truth, rather than reversing
themselves and publishing the Arax story, The Times’ editors continued
to endorse Frantz’s censorship and compounded the discrimination. They
did this by assigning their Washington reporter, Richard Simon,
supposedly to update Arax’s story. Even though Frantz, in his April
11 e-mail told Arax that he had "no questions" about his "abilities
as a reporter and writer," he did use the excuse that Arax and
Washington editor, Bob Ourlian, had gone around the "established
system for assigning and editing stories." Obviously, this was a
red-herring. The editors in the chain of command both in Washington
and Los Angeles were aware of Arax’s article and none of them had any
questions or complaints about procedure or content. In fact, not even
Frantz himself cited a single factual or bias problem with the story.

The only problems he did point to were that Arax had taken a
"personal" stand on the Armenian Genocide, which allegedly led him
to have a "conflict of interest," presumably because of his Armenian
heritage. Arax has written countless major investigative stories over
the course of his 20 years at the Los Angeles Times, including several
on the Armenian Genocide, but never had a single one of them "killed"
by any editor. But that was before Frantz entered into the picture,
moving from Istanbul to Los Angeles to become the newspaper’s Managing
Editor in November 2005.

The thrust of Arax’s story was not only about the clash between
Turks and Armenians over the congressional resolution on the Armenian
Genocide, but also about the split in the Jewish community between
those who sympathize with the victims of the Armenian Genocide and
those who put a higher premium on Israel’s strategic alliance with
Turkey.

Richard Simon, on the other hand, proceeded to write a completely
different story which was published in The Times on April 21. His
article covered the conflicting political pressures affecting the
adoption of the Armenian Genocide resolution by the Congress and its
"uncertain" chances of approval. There was no reason to kill the Arax
story to run Simon’s. Both articles could have been published, one as
a sidebar to the other. In a vain attempt to appease Arax and defuse
a looming controversy that is sure to anger the half-a-million strong
Armenian community in Southern California, a handful of paragraphs
from Arax’s article were incorporated into Simon’s story. The editors
told this writer that they were dismayed that Arax refused to have
his name jointly appear on the byline for Simon’s story. Even then,
despite Arax’s justified protests, the editors added a tagline at
the end of the article, stating that Arax "contributed to this report."

An investigation of this matter in the past two weeks has led this
writer to believe that rather than Mark Arax having an ethnic bias,
Douglas Frantz himself seems to be the source of the problem. Based
on discussions with individuals familiar with various aspects of
this controversy, conversations and meetings with top executives at
the Times, and a contentious phone call with Frantz himself which
he initiated, it appears that he has strongly held personal views on
Armenian-Turkish issues which have clouded his professional judgment,
causing him to take actions which are improper and possibly illegal:

1) In a discriminatory e-mail, Frantz falsely accused Mark Arax and
five other Times’ reporters of signing a "petition" on the Armenian
Genocide. This accusation was used as a pretext to block Arax’s story
on the Armenian Genocide.

2) Frantz has reportedly made comments to at least one co-worker at
The Times that he personally opposed the congressional resolution
on the Armenian Genocide. He also said he believes that Armenians
rebelled against the Turks, an argument used by Turkish denialists
to justify the genocide.

3) Frantz was stationed for several years in Turkey, first working
for the New York Times as Istanbul Bureau Chief and then for the
Los Angeles Times during which he may have developed very natural
friendships with Turkish individuals and officials.

4) The Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles has reportedly bragged
about his close friendship with Douglas Frantz and said that he turns
to him whenever he has a problem with The Times.

5) This writer was told by the editor of The Times, Jim O’Shea, who has
known Frantz for many years from their time together at the Chicago
Tribune, that Frantz has a very abrasive personality. No wonder he
was short-tempered and abrupt during a phone conversation that he
initiated, falsely accusing this writer of threatening him, when in
fact he was simply being told that the controversy regarding the Arax
article might upset the Armenian community, if it turned out that
the story was blocked due to the Armenian background of the journalist.

6) Frantz is scheduled to moderate a panel at a conference in Istanbul,
May 12-15, on "Turkey: Sharing the Democratic Experience."

The panelists are asked to discuss: "Can the Turkish experience be
emulated by other countries in the region and beyond?" Among the
speakers at the conference are the President, Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister of Turkey. One of the participants on the panel
chaired by Frantz is none other than Andrew Mango, a notorious
genocide denialist. Despite being sponsored by the International
Press Institute, the conference does not cover the lack of freedom
of speech in Turkey, the jailing and killing of journalists such as
Hrant Dink, and draconian laws on "denigrating Turkishness." O’Shea
told this writer that the Los Angeles Times will be paying Frantz’
airfare to participate in this conference. Would The Times pay for
Frantz’s trip, if he were moderating a panel that included David
Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist?

Arax has filed a discrimination complaint with The Times against
Frantz. He is also considering a Federal lawsuit for the possible
violation of his civil rights. The Times executives are expected to
make a decision this week on what action, if any, they would take
against Frantz.

The Publisher of The Times, David Hiller, and the Editor, Jim
O’Shea, reassured this writer last week that they would not tolerate
any executive who has a bias against the Armenian Genocide and
discriminates against Armenian-American employees. Once the internal
investigation is complete, the expectation is that the top management
of The Times would do the right thing and find an appropriate way of
eliminating the hostile working environment created by Douglas Frantz
at one of the nation’s greatest newspapers.

It is hard to imagine how Frantz could continue working at a newspaper
in a community where more than half a million Armenians reside, given
his unfavorable actions against his Armenian-American colleagues and
his negative views on the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian community highly values the special relationship it has
developed in recent months with the publisher and other executives at
the Los Angeles Times. The opinion column written by Matt Welch, the
Times’ assistant editorial page editor, published on Sunday, April 22,
is another indication of the newspaper’s solid position on the facts
of the Armenian Genocide. The Frantz episode is an aberration and
has to be dealt with as such. His continued presence at the highest
echelons of this venerable newspaper would only serve to antagonize
the Armenian community and all those who care about the upholding
of equal rights for all employees regardless of their race, color,
religion, sex and national origin.

/armenian_genocide_dispute.php

NAGORNO-KARABAKH SUPPORTED BY THE DIASPORA
By Selahattin Sevi

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
April 24 2007

[IMPRESSIONS FROM OCCUPIED LANDS-1]

* Nagorno-Karabakh supported by the diaspora

* Davit Melkumuyan is a representative of a Nagorno-Karabakh-based
civil society organization. He was expecting an invitation from the
European Commission.

With the invitation, a visa is required and his hometown of Hankendi
(Stepanakerd) in Nagorno-Karabakh needs to be listed. However, Brussels
sent the invitation to Baku as the European Commission — just like
Azerbaijan and many other countries — recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh
as Azeri territory.

The Armenians of Karabakh, however, declared independence after a
referendum in 1991, which was boycotted by Karabakh Azerbaijanis. In
the subsequent war, Armenia occupied Karabakh and five other adjacent
districts disconnecting Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Twenty
percent of Azeri territory has been under Armenian occupation since
then.

Despite negotiations supervised by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) after the cease-fire in 1994, no
significant progress has been made in getting past the deadlock.

Davit’s current problem is perhaps the most concrete indicator of
the long-standing Nagorno-Karabakh impasse.

Access to Nagorno-Karabakh is possible only through Armenia.

Traveling time for the 330-kilometer-long Yerevan-Hankendi highway
takes six hours. After traveling the Armenian part of the trip, we
approach Lacin, the Azerbaijani city under occupation which serves
as a buffer zone between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Vehicles are
stopped by traffic police. It turns out the road is temporarily closed
to traffic because of a military drill for Armenian troops.

Even this alone signals the tension in the region. The commander
directing the drill from his comfortable jeep pushes the troops to
their limits with his orders.

After passing through the Lacin valley, the first thing we see is
a military control point which marks the beginning of the occupied
zone. There is no serious border check. Nobody asks for either
passport or permit. Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied zones seem to
be extensions of Armenian territory. There is a seemingly abandoned
village a few miles away near a brook. This is Zabuk (Aðavnok)
village which Azerbaijanis left after the war. The village is
dilapidated. However, the presence of bee hives tells us there are
people living down there.

The first person we met there is Griþa who told us she came from
Georgia in 1995 and hesitated to give her last name. Asked why she
came here, Griþa responded: "An Armenian is not asked why he or she
is here. An Armenian is born in somewhere, grows up somewhere else,
migrates to another place and dies in a totally different place."

Griþa had to leave her original home. She now lives in a house
abandoned by the Azerbaijanis. She was followed by other 40 families
who did almost the same thing. They asked for no permission. Nearly
120 people live in the village at the moment.

Sonya is the second person we talked to. A teacher in the village
school which has 30 students, Sonya migrated from Taþkesen in
Azerbaijan nine years ago. She has had no news about her home there.

But she misses Baku a lot. Asked if she wants to live in Baku someday,
Sonya responds asking, "Do you believe everything will be fine?"

* After Lacin (Lacin) was destroyed

Lacin is five kilometers ahead of Zabuk. The same situation prevails
there. Public buildings include a post office, a museum and a theatre;
all are in abject condition. The partially usable ones were transformed
into police station and hospital. No Azeri trace is left in the
city. Even civilian buildings were seized.

We hit the road to arrive in Hankendi before it gets dark. We
traveled 40 kilometers in one and a half hours. Soon we realized
why this region is called Nagorno-Karabakh; impassable mountains,
deep valleys and steep roads that make you dizzy. But green plateaus
and a nice spring evening await us in Hankendi after this tiring trip.

Hankendi, Karabakh’s largest city with a population of 140,000,
features classical Soviet architecture which can be observed in a
large square, wide streets, multiple floor social residences and
public buildings. The impact of the Armenian diaspora is felt on the
streets of Hankendi. Armenians abroad gave large sums for restoration
and reconstruction works in the city, including the renovation of the
schools and the construction of social buildings and roads. The newly
erected public buildings openly display names of American-Armenian
millionaires who sponsored the construction work.

The statue of Alek Manukyan, the benefactor known for his generosity
to Karabakh who died in 1996, adorns the city’s main square.

According to Karabakh’s unrecognized foreign minister, Georgi
Petrosyan, monetary aid provided by the diaspora reaches $9-10
million every year. diaspora aid makes up the third largest portion
in Karabakh’s annual budget.

We were amazed when we saw Turkish goods sold in the stores. Local
people show great interest in these products shipped to Karabakh
via third countries. Turkish products marketed in Hankendi include
virtually all the basics, from tomatoes to tea, from socks to fridges.

To be continued..

–Boundary_(ID_XCqIDtYHVLvWgsQBfAjiwg )–

ARMENIAN MARTYRS’ DAY

Jawa Report, TX
April 24 2007

April 24th is the day we remember the victims of a forgotten genocide.

On April 24, 1915, turkish soldiers arrested 250 Armenians in the
first of hundreds of raids designed to wipe out the Armenian population
of turkey.

Armenian villages were rousted one by one, and the men ordered to
leave at once and serve the turkish army. Boys as young as 9 or 10,
and men as old as 70. Many never made that far, as turkish soldiers
often took these "new recruits" not to the army camps but out to
the woods, where they were summarily executed. The women and girls,
thus undefended, were easy prey for the turkish soldiers.

Those who remained behind were forced from their lands, homes, and
belongings, and force-marched to "settlement camps" in remote areas.

Many died along the way from exhaustion, starvation, and exposure
to the elements. According to French scholars Joel Kotek and Pierre
Rigoulot, there were up to 25 such camps.

But the Armenian’s plight was nowhere near as unknown, even in that
day, as it is now. Despite the lack of internet, video cameras,
and TV screens, in 1915 the plight of the Armenians was a worldwide
topic of discussion. US Consular officials, as early as July of 1915,
were concerned enough to beg the US government to step in.

No less than Winston Churchill, then Britain’s First Lord of the
Admiralty noted, "the clearance of race from Asia Minor was about as
complete as such an act could be…There is no reason to doubt that
that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons. The
opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian
race opposed to all Turkish ambitions." And he was then in the midst
of the "war to end all wars" against Germany!

During 1915, the New York Times paper published 145 articles about
the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the massacre as
"systematic, "authorized" and "organized by the government." In 1918,
Theodore Roosevelt called it "the greatest crime of the war."

But today, no one even knows it happened

Denialists of all stripes, from US and EU officials who find turkey’s
past "annoying", to the turks themselves who believe such raids were
justified to "pick up deserters" (yeah, little old men, deserters.

right.) have managed to decrease the general public’s awareness
of these atrocities. But they happened. There was no Photoshop in
1915. All of the horrible pictures you see here are real.

Despite missions from the US and UK, Austria, France, and others,
the plight of the Armenians faded off the radar screen as war in
Europe intensified.

Looks a lot like Germany around 1942, huh?

In fact, Adolf Hitler said of the Armenian Genocide: "Who, after all,
speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"as his justification
for the atrocities carried out on the Jews and others during the
Nazi’s reign over Germany.

We did not forget. We do not forget. We will always remember.

My previous remembrances here. This stays on top all day.

For photos:

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIANS REMEMBER OTTOMAN EMPIRE KILLINGS

Hindu, India
April 25 2007

Yerevan, Armenia, April 25 (AP): Tens of thousands of Armenians marked
the 92nd anniversary of mass killings in the Ottoman Empire Tuesday,
again calling on Turkey and the world to recognize the slayings
as genocide.

Grim-faced mourners waving flags marched through Yerevan to lay
flowers at a large hilltop granite memorial.

"We came here to pay tribute to the victims, so that our neighbors
wouldn’t for a minute think that we could forget about this, so that
this wouldn’t happen in the future," said acting Defence Minister
Michael Arutyunian.

The April 24 anniversary marks the day in 1915 when Turkish authorities
executed a large group of Armenian intellectuals and political leaders,
accusing them of helping the invading Russian army during World War I.

Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by
Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, an event widely viewed
by scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey denies
the deaths constituted genocide, saying that the toll has been inflated
and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

EVENTS MARK ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Margarita Kiaou

Athens News Agency, Greece
April 22 2007

The 92nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide by Turkey was observed in
Greece on Sunday through events organised in Athens and the northern
Greek city of Thessaloniki by the Armenian National Committee of
Greece.

The main speaker at the events in Athens was New Democracy MEP Ioannis
Varvitsiotis, who stressed that Turkey’s refusal to recognise the
genocide of the Armenians was a political issue. He noted that
it had recently also reached the United States in the form of a
Congress resolution that would define the mass killings of 1.5 million
Armenians during World War I as genocide, sparking heated debates as
its sponsors try to seek a House vote in the face of opposition from
the White House.

Varvitsiotis pointed out that the European Parliament had recognised
the genocide in 1987, while at the same time appealing to Turkey to
begin negotiations with the Armenian people and was continuing to exert
pressure in this direction. He stressed that it was an obligation that
Turkey had to cover since it was seeking to join the European Union.

Brief speeches were also made by Deputy Development Minister Anastasios
Nerantzis, who represented the Greek government and MP Fotis Kouvelis,
the chairman of the Greek Parliament’s Greece-Armenia friendship
group, who represented the Parliament President Anna Psarouda-Benaki,
among others.

Central speaker at the events organised in Thessaloniki was Cypriot
MEP and former Cyprus foreign minister Ioannis Cassoulides, who said
that MEPs had succeeded in making Ankara’s recognition of the Armenian
genocide before its EU accession included in reports concerning Turkey.

Caption: Greek MP Sylvana Rapti deposits a wreath at the tomb of the
Unknown Soldier to commemorate the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian
genocide on Sunday, April 22, 2007.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GREEK-TURKISH MILITARY ALTERCATIONS EXPECTED AS CYPRUS READIES FOR OFFSHORE OIL EXPLORATION
By Ioannis Michaletos and Christopher Deliso

Balkanalysis.com, AZ
April 22 2007

A major military face-off between perennial rivals Greece and Turkey
is looming, motivated by Turkish alarm over the imminent plan of the
Cypriot government to explore for oil in the Mediterranean Sea. The
showdown will reach a peak sometime between May 20-July 20, according
to Greek media reports, now confirmed by high-level sources in Athens
and in Western Europe.

This violence will most likely come about through yet another
provocative encounter between military aircraft over the eastern
Aegean, as was witnessed with last summer’s F-16 collision that left
one Greek pilot dead. The Greek fighter planes encountered Turkish
planes near the island of Karpathos, well within Greek territory. The
majority of simulated dogfights, which take place on a regular basis
and have one positive result (of giving the pilots some real-life
training), however take place closer to Turkey and the Aegean coast
where several islets disputed by Turkey lie. The closest Greece and
Turkey came to war was a decade ago, over such an islet near Kalymnos.

The summer 2006 altercation occurred, Greek media widely speculated,
because of intense Turkish interest in state-of-the-art Russian-made
mobile anti-aircraft units in place in the Lassithi prefecture of
eastern Crete. This suspicion was quickly confirmed by military
sources in Athens. The question now is whether Turkey’s level of
interest would exceed that of last year, in relation to the emerging
situation in Cyprus.

Nicosia’s bold initiative to explore for oil, with the assistance
of multinational oil companies, has brought the Turkish military to
near-panic mode. A successful find and subsequent investment would
dramatically increase the Greek Cypriot government’s foreign support
and thus bargaining position with Turkey over the divided island.

Cyprus’ geopolitical value, even preliminary to hydrocarbons, lies
in its strategic location, between three continents, near Israel and
a stop en route to Suez. During the Israeli-Lebanese conflict last
summer, thousands of foreign tourists, including many Americans, were
evacuated quickly to Cyprus- a fact gratefully acknowledged by the US
government when it sent a naval vessel to Cyprus on a goodwill visit
meant to recognize the Cypriot contribution to securing the safety
of Americans during the fighting.

Until now, the international community has tended to view Cyprus only
in terms of its perennial security problem, resulting from the 1974
Turkish invasion and occupation, in an operation called Attila (1
&2). However, 2007 looks likely to be the year in which Cyprus takes
the first steps towards becoming an energy hub- if the government’s
plan to proceed in exploiting the rumored hydrocarbon reservoirs
deep beneath the Eastern Mediterranean Basin are allowed to go on
unimpeded by military provocations further north.

In December 2006, the first media reports came out of Nicosia revealing
the intention of the Cypriot government to search for oil assumed to
be found offshore, southwest of the island. Moreover, Cyprus then
signed agreements with Lebanon and Egypt so as to draw lines in
relation with the zones allocated to each state.

In late January 2007, the Turkish leader of the self-proclaimed
Republic of North Cyprus, Mehmet Ali Talat, stated that an
unpredictable situation might occur should Cyprus go along with its
initial plan. Basically, the Turkish leader formulated a threatening
scenario backed by the government of Turkey, considering that it was
soon followed by a warning from Ankara to Beirut and Cairo not to
proceed along with Cyprus in exploiting oil deposits in the region.

When the Cypriot announcement was made, Turkey seemed to be caught
off-guard diplomatically; it had assumed Cyprus would not be able
to initiate such a dramatic decision that could alter the political
realities in the Eastern Mediterranean should oil is found. Greece
has not voiced full support for Cyprus yet, deciding not to inflame
the already delicate Greek-Turkish relations.

However, behind the scenes the Greeks are taking great care to ensure
that the situation does not escalate, and if it does, that the military
is prepared. According to information received by Balkanalysis.com
from high-level military sources in Athens, the Greek army went on
an emergency footing on April 7, in anticipation of a new Turkish
provocation in the eastern Aegean. This source also cited the period
of greatest danger as being roughly between May 20-July 20.

Among the likely spillover effects of this will be to dramatically
alter the discussions that will take place on the sidelines at NATO’s
upcoming round-table discussion, set for late June in Ohrid. While
most of the private discussion between officials (delegations are
expected from dozens of countries) is expected to center around
NATO enlargement, energy security and the Kosovo issue, a breakout
of hostilities between Greece and Turkey would put these issues on
the back burner, at least temporarily.

For the first time in its history, perhaps, Cyprus is with the
oil issue formatting a policy that will empower its diplomatic
arsenal without having to rely on Athens. Of course, this does not
mean any breakdown in the traditional alliance and common national
bonds between these two states populated by the same nation. What
is essential, though, is that the entrance of Cyprus into the EU,
and the overall economic dynamism of the island have enabled it to
become more resilient in promoting its national interests. A first
consequence of this new confidence would be the ability of Greece
to concentrate its efforts around Greek-Turkish relations in a more
advantageous level than before. Simply put, if Cyprus is strong enough
to look after itself on its own, Greece will have more resources to
spare on other fronts relating to Turkish territorial claims that
have led the two countries towards conflict, as was seen in 1955,
1964, 1974, 1987 and 1996.

Following the oil announcement, the Turkish Navy reportedly patrolled
the area in question, even though no concrete date on its activities
could be found. During the past few months, quite a few Turkish
analysts, journalists and public officials have proclaimed a looming
crisis in case Cyprus becomes an oil-producing country, thus creating
the perfect framework by which the European Union could accuse Ankara
of not conforming to European norms. This would, of course, hinder
Turkey’s ability to seek an eventual entrance in the union

On the purely business level, the possibility of oil underneath
Mediterranean Sea in a period of global concern on energy
security; has attracted the attention of most of the world’s oil
multinationals. Large oil companies from the USA, Russia, UK and China,
Norway, France and Germany seem to be interested in investing in the
assumed hydrocarbon reserves offshore Cyprus.

Despite Turkish opposition, Cyprus has already begun the process of
initiating a bidding procedure for the aforementioned oil fields. 11
areas off of southern Cyprus will be the first where the tests for
oil will begin. The total surface area is around 70,000 sq. km,
and there are also good indications of discovering natural gas as well.

French consultants employed by the Cypriot government have already
stated that at depths in excess of 3,000 meters there is also a high
probability of discovering gas fields as well.

Cyprus has already stated that it will issue three types of permit
in relation to the oil fields. The first will be for tests covering a
one-year time-frame, the second for three years and lastly a 25-year
development license according to which the companies will be able to
produce and process oil and gas. As part of its marketing endeavors,
from now until mid-July (when the first permits are set to be issued),
the Cypriot government plans to organize trips across the major oil
capitals of the world in order to market the new riches of the island
to prospective investors.

The Americans, who traditionally have placed more weight on the special
relationship with Ankara than with Nicosia, have expressed a neutral
position and the US Ambassador to Cyprus, Ronald Schilcher, has stated
in Cypriot media that it is a sovereign right of the Cypriot Republic
to conduct any kind or research on its territory.

Currently, American interests dictate a wide interest in every new
oil field that could produce adequate amounts of oil, so as to secure
the West from either Russian or Arab control. Therefore, if Cyprus
is a country abundant with that resource, the US would be more than
happy to support its initiatives and of course to gain a percentage
through their own oil conglomerates. Cyprus could thus be considered
to be traveling a course towards a NATO entrance, since the alliance
has apparently been reincarnated as an armed safeguard of Western
‘energy security’ vis-a-vis Russia.

What is most interesting is the absence of any Greek interference
during the past few months, even at the level of mere rhetoric,
against Turkey’s aggressive threats to Cyprus. Even though there are
still quite a few incidents between Greece and Turkey due to continuous
airspace violations by Turkish fighter planes, and a sense of stressful
relations between the two states; Greece did not take advantage of
this situation to bash Ankara in Brussels, or to protest before the
international community about Turkey’s hardline attitude against Cyprus
(a nation with 1/100 of its population). Most probably, the Greek
government wants to let international interests make their intentions
known – a process that will unfold over the coming months and until
July – before it makes a statement. That is, unless the anticipated
showdown in the Aegean occurs, and forces Athens’ hand in advance.

Western consulting firms to the oil and gas industries have had their
hands full with the Cyprus dossier for the past several months.

According to one consultant closely related with the American
intelligence establishment, "some of the companies interested are
leery about the risk of potential violence, which we have been aware
of and relayed to them." And so, the source states, oil interests find
themselves trying to decide whether the anticipated riches outweigh
the reward.

Relevant to this is another side effect of possible Turkish
aggression, about which the Greek intelligence services are not
entirely unaware. That is the specter, on the other side of the
Turkish frontier, of an increase in activity from the Kurdish PKK
and intensified activity on the Turkish-Iraqi border. Whether such
activity could be orchestrated by Greece as a defensive mechanism,
or materialize simply as a Kurdish tactic for taking advantage of a
moment when Turkey’s military is looking westward rather than eastward,
is unclear (Greece did, of course, support former PKK leader Abdullah
Ocalan surreptitiously in the 1990’s). In either case, however, it
is likely that in the case of violence in the Aegean within the May
20-July 20 time-frame, Kurdish insurgents will try to take advantage of
the situation and fighting in eastern Turkey is expected to increase.

Turkey indeed feels immensely pressed by four very challenging
factors. Firstly, the Kurdish affair interrelates with American and
Israeli strategies in the Middle East, and Turkey finds itself in
a most unpleasant situation, since its interests do not harmonize
with those of these others. Further applicable issues show why the
industry analysts and defense experts on the region are concerned
about the potentially chaotic and unpredictable outcome of the next
few months in Turkey.

A declaration of an independent Kurdish state that would act as
a bulwark against Iran and Syria and, most importantly, become a
staunch ally in the post -Saddam Iraq for the Americans would be a
disaster of staggering proportions for internal Turkish politics.

Roughly 20 percent of Turkish citizens have Kurdish descent and the
prospect of a future disintegration of the southeastern provinces
could not be excluded in such a case. Secondly, the Presidential
elections in Turkey have once again revealed the wide chasm between the
secular Kemalist classes against the populist Islamist one associated
with the AK Party of Prime Minister (and presidential candidate)
Erdogan. Further, the always doubtful prospect of successful accession
negotiations between Brussels and Turkey is fading, and with it the
major justification from the Turkish political class for internal
‘pro-Western’ reforms. Since the Cypriot initiative to search
for oil might result in a diminishing of Turkish influence in the
East Mediterranean and promote Cyprus to the status of an oil-rich
country protected by the all-powerful global corporations, Turkey
is understandably nervous about the future of an island which its
generals like to refer to as a ‘dagger pointed at the heart of Turkey.’

Related Issues: the French, British and Germans Eye Cyprus

In 1960, with the creation of an independent Cypriot Republic,
Greece, Turkey and the UK were identified as the guarantors of the
island, and under that pretext Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974. Since
then Cyprus has developed strong relations with the USA, Russia and
surprisingly, over the past few months with France. The war in Lebanon
last summer gave a tremendous boost to the bilateral relations of the
two states. France is the guarantor power for the Lebanese Maronites
and has played over the centuries an active role in the region. Cyprus
was an integral base that secured the evacuation of more than 150,000
refugees from the war-torn area, which led to a program of cooperation
with Paris on a technical and military level (on a symbolic level,
perhaps this new friendship was hinted at it when Cyprus selected a
French-language song as its Eurovision entry for 2007).

In late February 2007, the two states signed a defense agreement that
is of profound importance for all countries involved in the Cyprus
quagmire. The agreement details exchange of information, military
training, joint naval exercises and cooperation in S&R missions as
well as with issues concerning illegal immigration, terrorism and
organized crime. Furthermore, France was allowed to use the military
base situated in Pafos in order to deploy its naval and air force
units when necessary.

The Cypriot minister of foreign affairs has noted that "the crisis in
Lebanon gave both countries the chance to cooperate in the military
field with benefits not only for both countries but mainly for Middle
East countries. I wish and hope that just as Cyprus proved to be a
factor of stability in the Middle East region, the solution to the
Cyprus problem and Cyprus’ reunification will prove that Cyprus can,
be reunited with the cooperation of all partners such as France,
help in peace and stability in the region."

A key factor now, therefore, is the likely extension of French
influence in the most strategically critical state in the region,
and the results that this will have for the position of the United
Kingdom. In comparison to Greece and Turkey; the UK does not
have ethnological or historical ties with Cyprus, apart from its
80-year stint as a colonial (and unpopular) administrative power. A
French-British rivalry played out in Cyprus over the coming years
thus becomes likely. And this will involve some regional alliances
and antipathies as well.

Turkey, for its part, has long experienced strained relations with
Paris due to the latter’s suspiciously timely decision to recognize the
so-called Armenian genocide of 1915-1921 The French electorate is also
rather opposed to Turkish EU membership and a Sarkozy presidential
victory could further chill relations. Through Cyprus, the French
have finally found a way to expand their influence in the Eastern
Mediterranean, with or without Turkish assistance. The British, by
contrast, have been far more conciliatory to the Turks, with the Blair
government one of the strongest supporters of Turkish EU membership.

2/greek-turkish-military-altercations-expected-as- cyprus-readies-for-offshore-oil-exploration/

GENOCIDE RESOLUTION GETS SECOND CHANCE

Modesto Bee, CA
April 22 2007

Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, expected the House to pass
a long-debated resolution he sponsored in 2000 to recognize the
Armenian genocide almost a century ago. But President Clinton,
citing concerns about Turkey’s security, stepped in. Seven years
later, the resolution’s backers believe they stand a better chance
of winning passage.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKS STAGE DEMO IN US AHEAD OF APRIL 24

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 23 2007

The Federation of Turkish-American Associations (TADF) and the Young
Turks Association held a joint rally titled "An End to Armenian Lies,"
in a show of protest against Armenian allegations of genocide days
before April 24, when Armenians mark the anniversary of what they
claim was the beginning of a systematic genocide campaign at the
hands of the late Ottoman Empire.

Addressing more than 500 participants ahead of the four-hour long rally
on Saturday, TADF President Atilla Pak called on the US administration
to be fair, while also saying that their primary goal was to give
accurate information about the alleged genocide.

"Bringing up allegations of genocide spells hiding the truth. Today
unfortunately truths are being denied and facts are being distorted.

Turks have never committed genocide along their thousands year long
history," Turkey’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Baki
Ýlkin, who also attended the rally, told reporters for his part.

Meanwhile, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once more declined to
meet with a group of Turkish parliamentarians who were lobbying in
Washington a resolution based on Armenian allegations of genocide,
as she did with two other Turkish parliamentarian group in the
recent past.

The resolution was presented to the US House of Representatives
earlier this year, though the timing of the vote has yet to be
decided. Turkey has warned that passage of the resolution would harm
strategic relations with the United States and undermine cooperation
in key regions across the world, in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

During a February visit, Pelosi refused to meet Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul as well.

–Boundary_(ID_NcCD3wQMSvPyc91sUdREIA)–

ARE ARTURS ‘CLONES’ OF 1988 BROTHERS? HOW MAGHARIANS BROUGHT DOWN A MINISTER

Kenya Times, Kenya
April 22 2007

INVESTIGATIVE KENYAN journalists, Police and Intelligence agents will
be interested to hear of (or be reminded about) the very heavily
documented case of a second set of Armenian brothers bearing the
surname Magharian who as long ago as 1988 precipitated the biggest
corruption, drugs, gold and gunrunning money-laundering scandal in
Switzerland’s post-World War II history and in the process caused the
downfall of the then Swiss Minister for Justice, Police and Customs,
Mrs Elisabeth Kopp.

Barkev Magharian was 35 and his brother Jean 44 in 1988 – which would
make them 54 and 63 years old respectively today – when they were
arrested and jailed and Mrs Kopp, aged 52 at the time and scheduled
to succeed to the Swiss Presidency in 1990, lost her job.

Artur Margaryan (note the difference in the spelling of the surname)
and Artur Sargasyan are the two Armenian brothers whose antics in Kenya
have not dissimilarly been linked to underworld activity, including
massive amounts of unaccounted-for cash, weapons caches, paramilitary
gear and raids and sensational allegations that touch on the integrity
and reputations of a number of high ranking personalities, including
Cabinet ministers.

The Arturs claim to be aged 33 and 36 this year and so would have
been 14 and 17 in 1988.

It would be interesting to find out whether the Magharians and the
Margaryans have known each other and, or are related in any way. Also
intriguing is the very real possibility that the younger set of alleged
Armenian brothers in fact merely apes the international exploits of
the 1980s of Barkev and Jean – to the point of impersonating them
and offering their legendary services to unsuspecting "clients".

Emerging evidence would seem to point at the probability that whoever
brought the Margaryans to Kenya for whatever reason – good, bad,
mad or dangerous – was massively hoodwinked into thinking that he or
she was retaining the world-famous services of the Magharian brothers.

For the two Arturs do not feature anywhere on the radar of open-source
Intelligence, police, media or Internet resources, including the
Google search engine’s more than eight billion pages of data, images
and graphics, before they turned up in Runda, Nairobi, Kenya.

It would also be instructive to find out whether international
confidence tricksters from Armenia, a wretchedly poor country of only
3 million people which has a Diaspora (4 million) that is larger than
the homeland population, specialise in passing themselves off as pairs
of brothers in much the same way that Nigerians, for instance, are
known to have patented some scams. Two sets of Armenian brothers with
echo-chamber surnames 20 years apart specialising in what looks like
an underworld template perfected in their Diaspora, right down to a
fondness for highly controversial special arrangements at international
airports, is too much of a coincidence.

It will be interesting to hear from the voluble Arturs on the
subject of Barkev and Jean Magharian, especially why there are so
many parallels in their sagas.

Intensive research into the large literature on economic crime, drug
dealing, gunrunning and money laundering, both print and online,
comes up with no mention of the Margaryans – before they came to
this country – who have so mesmerised sections of the Kenyan media
and consumers of their content.

However, a single reference in the formidably well-researched 1999
book Patriots & Profiteers, subtitled On Economic Warfare, Embargo
Busting and State-Sponsored Crime, by R. T. Naylor, is hugely
intriguing and may in fact provide the key to the seeming mystery
of the two Arturs and their antics in Kenya. It is about the truly
extraordinary exploits of almost 20 years ago of the second set of
Armenian brothers named Magharian.

In Part Six, Chapter 16, under the heading "Trouble on Oiled Waters,
Arms and the Ayatollah", on pages 235 and 236 of the paperback
McClelland & Stewart Inc (M&S), the Canadian publisher’s edition,
Naylor narrates:

". . . A year before that arrest, an Armenian from Turkey had
purchased a ticket on a Pan Am flight from Los Angeles to Europe and
attempted to check in two large suitcases, only to face a demand for
overweight luggage charges. After a brief altercation, the man agreed
to pay. But his belligerence had stamped his face in the ticket agent’s
memory. When she saw him, a few minutes later, buying a ticket for
a Europe-bound KLM flight, she was alarmed. However, in his checked
luggage police found not a bomb but $2 million in small bills from
the local cocaine trade. The courier confessed that the money was
destined for a Zurich money-changing firm run by two Armenian brothers.

When, the next year, the police at the Italian-Swiss border arrested
. . . traffickers with [a] truckload of morphine and heroin, they
found a business card bearing the same names.

The Magharian brothers had begun business in Aleppo , moved to Beirut
because of Syrian exchange controls, then shifted during the Lebanese
civil war to Switzerland . There they came under the sponsorship of
Mohammed Sharkachi, whose firm of bullion and exchange dealers had
four marks of distinction. It had created a small gold bar especially
popular among Middle Eastern smugglers; it had sold the CIA at least 25
million Swiss francs worth of Afghan and Palestinian currency at black
market prices to make its Afghan war budget go further; it had briefly
welcomed as a client a Turk who later fled Switzerland just ahead of
an arrest warrant for heroin trafficking in the Pizza Connection case;
and it had a prominent, politically connected vice-president who had
intervened to get the firm’s bank accounts unfrozen after the identity
of that client had been revealed.

Mohammed Sharkachi was also a man with a conscience when it came to
assisting fellow refugees in Lebanon . He had lent the Magharians
use of his courier network, which had direct access to the tarmac at
Zurich airport without passing Customs; gave them a start-up loan;
and provided introductions to the big Swiss banks. It was more than a
labour of love. The Magharians were the largest Swiss recipient of the
masses of banknotes smuggled via Bulgaria from Istanbul’s ‘Takhatele
Central Bank’, while Sharkachi’s firm was one of the main suppliers
of the gold being smuggled back into Turkey along the same route.

When news of the investigation reached the Swiss Minister of Justice
and Police, she telephoned her husband, the vide-president of the
Sharkachi firm, to advise him to resign in a hurry, precipitating
the greatest political scandal in Switzerland’s post-war history and
costing her her job."

It would be intriguing to find out whether the very definitely
Big League Magharian brothers who brought so much scandal to First
World Switzerland are related in any way, even merely as members
of the same mob, to the Armenian brothers who now style themselves
Margaryan and have brought such an embarrassing circus to Kenya. What
is most likely the case is that the Arturs have based themselves on
the Magharian brothers and probably pass themselves off as that Big
League pair to unsuspecting "clients". If this is indeed the case,
then a number of very high ranking and well-connected Kenyans who
failed to do their international homework have been taken on a huge
ride. And the tragedy of it all is that the con continues. . .

Meanwhile, the following are a selection of contemporary news and news
analysis reports of the late 1980s scandal of the Magharian brothers
and the Swiss Cabinet minister. A New York Times report datelined
December 18, 1988, and headlined "Out of the Cabinet" observed:

"In Switzerland, where women were not granted the right to vote in
national elections until 1971, Elisabeth Kopp has been a pioneer. She
was the first woman to enter the seven-person Swiss Executive, known
as the Federal Cabinet, in 1984. A recent poll named her the most
popular Cabinet member, and under the country’s rotating executive
system, she was to become Vice President in February and President in
1990. But last week the 52-year-old Mrs. Kopp resigned as the Minister
of Justice and the Police. The reason: She had advised her husband,
Hans, to resign from a company that was later disclosed to be involved
in a money-laundering investigation. Attributing her resignation to
‘unbearable pressure’, Mrs. Kopp said, ‘I wouldn’t like one to think
that I could have committed or tolerated wrongdoing.’~R

Seyyed Mehdi Sahraeean, an Iranian scholar from Shiraz once popular
among the young generation of Iranian elites and students, alleged
that an independent investigation of the Magharian-Kopp scandal
indicated that 80 per cent of the judges of the Swiss Supreme Court
were on the payroll of the Medelin and Cali cocaine cartels.

Time, the global weekly newsmagazine, in its Monday, April 24, 1989,
story on the Swiss scam, headlined "Crackdown on the Swiss Laundry",
by Christine Gorman, said: "Behind every successful drug syndicate
lies a complex mechanism for recycling bundles of tainted cash
into respectable assets. But until two years ago, when Los Angeles
narcotics officers seized three Zurich-bound suitcases stuffed with
$2 million in currency, there was little hard evidence to implicate
the venerable granite-walled banks of Switzerland in such schemes.

Since then Swiss banks have been chastened by the disclosure that their
accounts were used in a billion-dollar money-laundering operation. The
resulting political scandal, in which the Justice Minister was forced
to resign, ranks as the worst in modern Swiss history.

In response, the Swiss government has promised to draft tough
anti-laundering legislation by mid-May. Last week the federal banking
commission announced that it will introduce stiff regulations on
bank-note trading to prevent drug traffickers and other criminals from
using the country’s famed secret bank accounts. The commission also
published a 28-page report that faulted Credit Suisse, which handled
the bulk of the money in the billion-dollar scheme, for inadequately
supervising its accounts.

Money laundering is not a crime in Switzerland unless it can be
shown that the cash flows from criminal activities. Yet Switzerland
is a magnet for money launderers because of its legitimate
multibillion-dollar trade in foreign bank notes. As much as 3,000
lbs. of foreign currency arrives daily at Zurich’s Kloten airport.

Much of the cash represents earnings from tourism, which each country’s
banks exchange for local currency. Swiss authorities are investigating
charges that Lebanese currency dealer Barkev Magharian, 35, and his
brother Jean, 44, both of whom are now in custody, took advantage
of that market by laundering around $1 billion, a sum that allegedly
included drug profits. At least some of the proceeds were reportedly
sent back to drug kingpins in Los Angeles.

In a report last year on the money-laundering affair, Swiss Federal
Prosecutor Dick Marty mentioned the Zurich currency-dealing firm
Sharkarchi Trading. The company denies any involvement in money
laundering. Shortly before publication of the prosecutor’s report,
Hans Kopp, a prominent Zurich lawyer and husband of Justice Minister
Elisabeth Kopp, resigned his positions as a director and vice-chairman
of Sharkarchi. Mrs. Kopp later resigned after admitting that she had
warned her husband of the impending scandal. A criminal probe will
determine whether she violated official strictures of secrecy. The
laundering affair has focused attention on the need for other Swiss
banking reforms. One possible target: the absence of requirements
for full, consolidated financial statements.

Most Swiss banks use evasive but perfectly legal bookkeeping
thateliminates disclosures about the performance of parts of their
holdings. What remains to be seen is how vigorously the banks will
defend themselves against the reform wave and whether their reputation
for probity and prudence will survive the fray.

The August 16, 2002, issue of Executive Intelligence Review tied Mrs
Kopp’s husband to, among other things, the Bank of Credit and Commerce
International affair, an international scandal that also impacted on
Kenya, where BCCI had branches, when it observed:

"… On GeoPol’s board sits Elizabeth Kopp (nee Ikle, a cousin
to Pentagon eminence grise Fred Ikle), former Justice Minister of
Switzerland. She was forced to resign in 1988 after she was caught
tipping off her husband, Hans W. Kopp, to an ongoing Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) narcotics money-laundering investigation targeting
the company Shakarchi Trading, on whose board Hans Kopp sat. Kopp,
with Alfred Hartmann of the Swiss branch of the London Rothschild
banking house, was also implicated in the scandals of the Bank of
Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and BNL. Both BCCI and BNL
were involved in massive illicit arms trade, drug money-laundering,
financing of terrorism, and Intelligence operations."

For those who may be interested in further research, Mr Naylor has
the following reference-packed footnote:

Pierre Auchlin and Frank Garbely, Contra-Equete, Lausanne: 1990,
Chapter 2; Le Hebdo,11/11/88, 15, 29/12/88, 19/1/89, 2,16/3/89,
Le Monde, 21, 26/2/90; Daniel Zuberbuhler, Enquete de la commission
federale des banques dans l’affaire Magharian/blanchissage d’argent
"Libanon Connection", Bern: Weltwache, 1989; Catherine Duttweiler,
Kopp & Kopp: Aufsteig und Fall der ersten Bundesratin, Zurich: 1990.

The minister [Mrs Elisabeth Kopp] was fully absolved (Le Monde,
2/2/92, 5/5/92).