Author: Andres-Papazian

news.az, Azerbaijan
July 30 2010

Heirs of so-called “Armenian genocide” file claims against Turkey
Fri 30 July 2010 | 08:40 GMT Text size:

Los Angeles Armenians have filed a claim against the Turkish
government and two big Turkish banks-Central Bank and Agricultural
Bank.

Armenian mass media, reported that the heirs of the victims of
“Armenian genocide” demand compensations of several billions of
dollars for property and real estate lost in the early 20th century as
well as for amounts kept on banking accounts.

According to Armenia, the initiators of the claim were resident of Los
Angeles Garbis Davunyan and resident of New York Hrayr Tovmasyan.
Lawyers say this is the first case when the claim is directly filed
against the Turkish government.

1news.az

From: A. Papazian

news.az, Azerbaijan
July 30 2010

Georgia detains ship with cargo for Armenia
Fri 30 July 2010 | 09:06 GMT Text size:

The coast guard of Georgia detained Ukrainian Akkord dry cargo ship on July 29.

Lenta.ru reports that the reason of the detainment was the illegal
entering the water territory in Abkhazia, according to the police: the
ship was in Sukhumi in June of 2010.

The ship was coming from Rostov-on-Don, there was a grain cargo on its
board carried to Armenia. The dry cargo ship was towed to the fine
mooring in Georgian Poti.

The Akkord crew-11 Ukrainian citizens and a Russian – were accused of
violation of shipping rules in Georgian territorial waters. The case
will be considered in the court in the coming days.

1news.az

From: A. Papazian

Aysor, Armenia
July 30 2010

The intellectuals protest against amendment of law on Language

`Armenian was the state language in Armenia under the Soviet Union, so
why shouldn’t Constitution’s Article 12 adopted through referendum
work in independent Armenia? The very article does not permit to amend
the law On Language. Therefore we are at least bewildered that the
Prime Minister and Minister of Education and Science are discontent
that the very law hinders opening of foreign-language schools in
Armenia, instead of combating illegal opening of many foreign-language
schools and foreign-language advertisement and notice boards all
across the country. As the law On Language was adopted to keep our
language. If our high-ranking officials do not understand or pretend
not to understand this elementary thing, it is them and not the law
that should be replaced, since the mentioned amendment adopted by the
National Assembly in first reading is nothing else but treason,’
members of writers’ and journalists’ unions, lecturers and
public-political figures mentioned in their letter to the Public
Council Chairman.

The authors of the letter trust the resolute position of the Public
Council in this issue expressing confidence that the Public Council
will prevent second reading of the law in the parliament. They stress
that they are not against creation of high-class schools meeting
international standards, only provided that teaching in schools should
be in our state language, Armenian, the intellectuals address to
individuals initiating opening of Dilijan international school.

Prioritizing preservation of Armenian identity the authors of the
letter say they will never stop fighting for the sake of it, for the
sake of protection of Armenia’s independence and Constitution.

From: A. Papazian

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $40 million in
assistance for Armenia

July 30, 2010 – 20:30 AMT 15:30 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations approved the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill.
The Committee recommended $40 million in assistance for Armenia, which
is $1 million below last year’s level of $41 million, and equal to the
Administration’s request of $40 million, Armenian Assembly of America
(AAA) reported.

“In light of Turkey’s ongoing blockade of Armenia, and its refusal to
normalize relations without preconditions, the importance of U.S.
assistance to Armenia cannot be understated,” said Congressional
Relations Associate Bianka Kadian-Dodov.

The Senate Committee action comes after the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
adopted its version of the bill last month, which included $44 million
for Armenia and $10 million in assistance to Nagorno Karabakh.

“The Assembly will continue to work with both the Senate and House to
ensure the best possible outcome for Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh,”
said Assembly Executive Director Bryan Ardouny.

The Senate Bill also called for “confidence-building measures and
other activities in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of
conflicts” for the “Southern Caucasus region.” In addition, the Bill
provided $25.5 million “to support people to people reconciliation
programs, which bring together individuals of different ethnic,
religious and political backgrounds from areas of civil strife and
war.”

The Committee also required a report regarding Section 907 of the
Freedom Support Act directing the “Secretary of State to submit a
report not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, analyzing
the effectiveness of the restrictions on assistance for the Government
of Azerbaijan as contained in section 907 of Public Law 102-511, and
the exceptions to such restrictions on assistance provided under this
heading, in furthering a resolution to the conflict between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. Such report shall also include specific
recommendations for increasing opportunities for reconciliation
between parties.”

Funding for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International
Military Education Training (IMET) were not delineated for Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Given Azerbaijan’s escalating military expenditures and
its continued war mongering, the Assembly in its congressional
testimony, “urged” appropriators “to cease military assistance to
Azerbaijan.” The Committee’s report also expressed concerns “with
repression of independent journalists in Azerbaijan” and directed the
Secretary of State to “seek improvements in freedom of expression in
connection with assistance for the central Government of Azerbaijan.”

Further action on the Senate and House bills will continue in
September when Members of Congress return from the August recess.

From: A. Papazian

Russia will show what role it has?

10:34 pm | July 30, 2010 | Politics

International affairs expert, Deputy Director of the Caucasus
Institute Sergey Minasyan considers Russian President Dmitri
Medvedev’s upcoming official visit to Armenia very important for
Armenia for different reasons.

“The first is the military-political block. I think the sides will
sign important documents and of course, there will be talks on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” said Minasyan.

Minasyan doesn’t believe that there will be a turning point in the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, but it is clear that Russia will show
that it is the number one role-player in the conflict settlement.

The talks on economic cooperation, particularly the energy sphere,
will also be of importance for Armenia.

“In the long run, the most important issue for Armenia’s political and
economic development is that of the nuclear power station in addition
to the Armenia-Iran railway, energetic projects and Armenia’s military
security.

Minasyan finds that though Armenia is a country that is rich with
water resources, life has shown that it is impossible to maintain an
economy without an nuclear power station.

“The presence of a nuclear power station will allow Armenia to export
energy to neighboring countries. In that sense, the nuclear power
station is of great significance and under these conditions, it would
be hard to find any other country besides Russia to take on the
implementation of the financial and technical project because it has
an absolute monopoly of building an nuclear power station in our
region,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

DOES THE SOUTH CAUCASUS NEED RECALIBRATION OF GERMANY’S AND EU`S
POLICY UPON THE PATTERN OF MR. MEISTER?

30.07.2010

Armen Martirosyan
A.Martirosyan – Ambassador of Armenia to Germany

Recently, on July 7th the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
organized a discussion on the report presented by Mr. Stefan Meister,
during which the author introduced the outlines of his study
(Recalibrating Germany`s and EU`s policy in the South Caucasus).
Several participants, including me, approached critically some of his
assumptions and conclusions. However, later on, having read the full
document, I felt myself compelled to present some comments in written
form, which I do hope will contribute to more objective comprehension
of the issues concerned.

If bias and predisposition of diplomats could be justified, the
obvious prejudice of expert aspiring to elaborate on the multifaceted
policies of the leading international actors in any region seems
irrelevant, diminishes the value of analysis and undermines the
relevance of conclusions.

The very beginning of the paper, where the author reproaches the
European Union for `inability of its member states to develop a common
policy toward the post Soviet space’ had caused my initial perplexity.
The mentioned `vice’ is as old as the EU is and for very obvious
reasons it concerns not only the post Soviet space but goes far
beyond. Afghanistan and Iran, reform of UN Security Council and
membership of Turkey to the EU, the problems of Polisario and Kosovo –
are few examples of pluralism among the member states of the European
Union. But is it a flaw of the EU or a trait inherent to the Union of
independent states? I would rather choose the second option. Whether
we like it or not, quite often the legitimacy of any international
organization or union of independent states comes at the expense of
its efficiency and its ability in getting things done. In the meantime
it allows to ensure a legality of EU`s actions or inaction, thus
making the Union not only attractive for the states of the South
Caucasus but mostly welcome external actor.

The distinguished author in fact calls upon the EU in general and
Germany in particular to replace an obsolete `darling’, and namely
Georgia, with a new one – Azerbaijan, because `by focusing on
relations with Azerbaijan, Europe could increase its relevance in both
the South Caucasus and in Central Asia, as well as become a more
competitive economic player within these markets, which cumulatively
represent more than 100 mln consumers’. Having read this sentence, I
involuntarily recalled the resignation of the former Federal President
of FRG Mr. Köller, whose interpretation of Germany’s engagement in
Afghanistan was interpreted by the public as non consistent with
essentials of German foreign policy. One could hardly find more
irrelevant argument for the appeal to review the policies of EU than
consumer based statistics. I have no doubts that the distinguished
author is aware that various external actors put too much emphasis on
prudent geo-economic considerations which deprived these very states
of the role of honest broker in the regional affairs. To my
understanding, the author pursues the opposite role, and wants to see
the EU and Germany in particular as proactive players in various
regions worldwide. Two core elements of German foreign policy –
multilateralism and the culture of restraint, balance between interest
based and value oriented policies have allowed Germany to be viewed as
an honest international actor both in global and regional politics for
decades. The involvement of Germany in the South Caucasus, in
particular, is the best manifestation of such paradigm of German
foreign policy.

Conclusion that `EU`s ability to impact change in this region will
come mainly from engagement in economic and energy issues, as opposed
to democracy and human rights’ causes my irritation. Does Mr. Meister
talk about China or the European Union!? Since the paper is rich with
this kind of comments and observations and it is impossible to comment
on all of them, I would rather concentrate on the issues directly
linked to my country, Armenia.

Armenia has never been an isolated country as the author claims by
reproducing Azeri rhetoric. Nor my country is `desperately searching
for alternative allies to avoid dependence on Russia.’ Since its
inception, the independent Armenia, unlike its neighbors, has never
played on the contradictions and discords between various external
actors. It has allowed us to synchronize our interests and harmonize
our bilateral relations with Russia and the United States, with CIS
and EU, with OCST and NATO. We enjoy fruitful cooperation with our
other two neighbors – Georgia and Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore,
blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey on Armenia, while impeding
the development of the region, as a whole do not serve their goal to
isolate Armenia.

On Turkey, which is the subject of Mr. Meister`s many references, I
would like to elaborate in details. Armenia was not only `keen to
restart its negotiations with Turkey’, but initiated a policy of
reconciliation. And it was not Armenia but Turkey that `abandoned this
policy’, as author claims. From the very beginning, when the Turkish
Minister of Foreign Affairs inaugurated his policy of Zero problems
with neighbors, I thought of it as either declarative and unrealistic
or demagogical. Having learnt more about Mr. Davutoglu`s academic
background, I became personally inclined towards the first option: his
plans had not taken into consideration some realities of our region,
particularly, related to the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. Many
experts and practitioners of foreign policy within Armenian political
establishment and outsiders likewise still believe that the government
of Turkey was candid and sincere in its wishes to normalize non
existing bilateral diplomatic relations. The opponents claim that
Turkey being very well aware of Azerbaijan’s uncompromising opposition
to the process of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, has intended to use
that process for its own interests.

Developments following the signing of protocols in October 2009
strengthened the arguments of the second camp. On the very same day
when the documents were signed, Turks, although unsuccessfully,
undertook the first attempt to condition openly the process of
normalization of the bilateral relations by the resolution of Nagorno
Karabagh issue, thus violating the fundamental principle of the
ongoing negotiations. Since then, the rhetoric has not changed and the
Turkish side has continued to stipulate the normalization of our
bilateral relations by the progress in NK dispute. Therefore, one can
draw two conclusions. First, either the Turkish government had made a
miscalculation, which allowed Azeris to exercise their veto right in
the domestic policies of Turkey, or, second, the government of Turkey
was cunning when it had announced its readiness to normalize the
bilateral relations with Armenia without any preconditions.

Irrespective to the causality, the process of Armenian-Turkish
reconciliation has stalled and mistrust between Armenians and Turks
has deepened. (Nevertheless this did not prevent Minister Davutogly
from winning various honorary titles abroad.) In Armenian society the
authority of international brokers, which sincerely have been
mediating this thorny process for years, had staggered. Hopefully such
outcome would not have a negative effect on the whole notion of
international mediation in dispute resolution. Had Turkey conducted
its policy as a regional power in the interests of the region, we
would have a different geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus.
However, Turkey has put its ethnic affiliation with Azeris ahead of
its interests as a regional power, thereby proving unfoundedness of
its pretensions and claims for a broker in Nagorno Karabagh dispute.

The author extensively attempts to elaborate on this problem and does
not leave me a choice but to make my own comments regarding this
painful regional issue.

First, though a few years ago at a stretch one could reflect on the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict `as the key conflict of the South Caucasus’,
after the August war in 2008 and the following recognition of South
Ossetia`s and Abkhazia’s independence by Russia and some other states,
one could hardly regard the NK dispute as a primary one for further
resolution of other disputes in the region. Talking about the
consequences of war unleashed by Azeris in early 1990s with unexpected
outcomes for Azerbaijan itself, the author repeatedly labels one of
these outcomes as `Armenian occupation.’ No doubt, such rhetoric will
please author’s like-minded persons from Azerbaijan, but it would
never contribute to the peaceful solution of the problem. Instead of
courting Azeris, it would have been more productive had the author
impartially looked at the causality of the conflict. Only such deep
insight and unbiased interpretation of all fundamental principles of
international law might have presented more thorough and deep analysis
of the Nagorno Karabagh dispute. The fact that the European expert in
its attempt to approach the regional affairs in an innovatory manner
does not even mention such fundamental principles of international law
as non-use of force and the right of people to self- determination,
seriously questions the theoretical value of the paper, let alone its
practical one.

Respected author illustrates an erroneous comparison on the role that
the Armenian and Azerbaijani states play in their national economies.
In case he is not aware, I want to inform that the share of the state
in GDP of Armenia comprises less than 10%, while in Azerbaijan the
same indicator is around 16%. No doubt, neighboring Azerbaijan has
demonstrated quite impressive growth of economy, even though, as the
author admits, 60% of its GDP is produced exclusively from the export
of hydrocarbons. In the meantime, according to the latest report of
the UNDP, the Human Development Index (HDI) of Armenia is still
highest in the region, and it is a manifestation of the quality of
economic growth and institution building in Armenia.

I do not aspire in this paper to elaborate thoroughly on the role that
EU and Germany can play in the region. But I do believe that effective
realization of the Eastern Partnership initiative would bring
qualitative changes to the region. Regrettably, Mr. Meister had not
found it expedient even to mention The association agreement and The
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement aimed at strengthening
relations between the EU and South Caucasus states. Both tools indeed
require recalibration of activities of the EU as well as Germany in
the region and Armenia attaches utmost importance to the comprehensive
realization of the above mentioned European initiative.

Berlin, July 16, 2010

—————————————————————-
Another materials of author

WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD[28.07.2008]
PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE SHOULD CHOSE[29.05.2008]

From: A. Papazian

No, Mr. Evren, a bullet does not solve anything!

Zaman
30 July 2010, Friday
BÃ`LENT KENEÅ? [email protected] Columnists

Ex-president and former Chief of General Staff Gen. Kenan Evren, one
of the masterminds behind the military coup of Sept. 12, 1980,
recently explained what he will do if the constitutional amendment
package including the abolishment of provisional Article 15 of the
Constitution is approved in the referendum, eventually allowing the
subversive generals to be tried.

As told by Rahmi Turan of the Hürriyet newspaper in his column, Evren
told his relatives in Yalıkavak, Bodrum, several days ago what he had
told then Hürriyet Editor-in-Chief ErtuÄ?rul Ã-zkök almost a year ago.
`I cannot accept such a situation. A bullet in my gun is enough to
finish everything off. Only a bullet! Boom! I will handle my business
on my own. I will not give them the pleasure of trying me. History
will judge us all,’ he said.

Speaking to Ã-zkök on June 26, 2009, Evren, who had also served as
president after the coup, had demanded that a referendum should be
held on his trial, and he would commit suicide before being tried if
the referendum produces a `yes.’ `Do you want me to be tried? Go and
ask the people. Hold a referendum. Ask, `Should Evren Pasha be tried?’
If the people say, `Yes, he should be tried,’ then I promise everyone,
and the nation is my witness, that I will not leave this job to the
court. I will commit suicide. [¦] Yes, let me say it clearly once
again: I will commit suicide because I cannot live with that stain,’
he had said.

While Evren may regard being tried as a `stain’ on his `honor,’ let us
see to what extent he was respectful toward the honor, dignity and
right to life of other people. These figures may be part of
statistics, but they are actually not. They are the lives terminated
one by one at the hands of the subversive generals and the ensuing
trauma experienced by millions of people who are relatives of the
victims. Therefore, please regard the following figures as
representative of the people whose lives were either terminated or
darkened.

The inventory of the sins committed by Evren — who had professed that
they had tried to strike a balance between two groups by hanging equal
numbers of leftists and rightists, irrespectively of their guilt or
innocence — and his cronies is hard to bear: After the coup,
1,683,000 people were categorized according to their ideological
views; 650,000 people were detained; 230,000 people were tried;
prosecutors sought the death penalty for 7,000 people; 517 people were
sentenced to death; 50 were executed — 26 on political charges, 23 on
criminal charges, and one for being a militant of the Armenian Secret
Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA).

Only Parliament could halt the processing of the dossiers of 259 whose
execution was sought by the military rule. A total of 98,404 people
were tried on charges of membership in illegal organizations; 388,000
people were denied the right to own a passport; 30,000 people were
laid off on accusations of being undesirable; 14,000 people were
denaturalized; and 30,000 people fled to foreign countries as
political refugees. Three hundred people were suspiciously killed
during this period; 171 were documented fatalities of torture; 937
films were banned; 230,677 associations were prohibited from
operating; 3,854 teachers, 120 university lecturers and 47 judges were
dismissed. Prosecutors sought 4,000 years in prison in total for 400
journalists. They were sentenced to 3,315 years and six months in
prison. Thirty-one journalists were jailed; three journalists were
killed by firearms; 299 prison inmates died of unfavorable prison
conditions and ill-treatment; 14 people died in hunger strikes
launched in protest of torture and ill-treatment; 16 people were
reportedly killed as they fled from `law enforcement’; 95 people were
killed in armed clashes; 73 people who suspiciously died in prison
were given medical reports certifying they died a natural death; 43
people were reported to have committed suicide. And the list goes on.

Now, Mr. Evren, tell me, will a single bullet be sufficient to clear
so many crimes or, to put it in your own terms, `solve’ them?

There is more. I have not even mentioned the offense of causing the
deaths of thousands of young people in clashes between leftist and
rightist groups, which were arranged to pave the way for the military
coup of Sept. 12, 1980 just like more recent conspiracies such as the
Sledgehammer (Balyoz) coup plan, the Cage (Kafes) action plan, the
anti-reactionaryism action plan and many more. No, Mr. Evren, you are
wrong. One bullet cannot compensate for so many crimes, offenses,
sins, murders, tortures, sufferings and victimizations. Unfortunately,
there is no way to make up for such nefarious and inhuman practices.

Yet, we may perhaps discuss some methods which may give some comfort
to the poor people of this country who long for democracy and the rule
of law. Of course, it is up to retired Gen. Evren to make up his mind
about committing suicide. But since I cannot bear the death of any
person, I prefer his being tried at the court and facing the
accusations about the coup. I would love to see the court punish him
in the heaviest way possible. We don’t have to implement this penalty.
No one will be satisfied by seeing a 90-year-old man serve his prison
term.

But only trying Evren on coup charges should not be enough. All
people, dead or alive, who are responsible for the e-memorandum of
April 27, 2007, the postmodern military coup of Feb. 28, 1997, the
military coup of Sept. 12, 1980, the memorandum of March 12, 1970 and
the bloody military coup of May 27, 1960 must be tried and penalized
for the inhuman, antidemocratic and unlawful offenses. Natural death
or suicide cannot be a way to get rid of the blame of the nefarious
offenses committed against this nation.

In short, these terrible offenses committed against the Turkish nation
and democracy must be tried and punished, and the results of these
trials must be told in history textbooks. In this way we must make
sure that military officers who dream of coups know that they will be
damned in the eyes not only of the current generations but also of the
future ones. To the list of who will be tried in reality or
symbolically, you can add those who were responsible for the incidents
of Sept. 6-7, 1955 against non-Muslim minorities in Ä°stanbul, the 1937
Dersim massacre and the suffering that occurred during the forced
deportation of Armenians in 1915. You can be assured that these trials
will certainly be held some day, if not today.

From: A. Papazian

1915, 1934, 1955, 1978, 1993, 2010…

ORHAN KEMAL CENGÝZ
[email protected]
Columnists

Zaman
30 July 2010, Friday
ORHAN KEMAL CENGÝ

There were two tragic incidents in two small towns in Turkey this
week. In Ýnegöl and Dörtyol “angry crowds” wanted to lynch some
Kurdish citizens.

They destroyed shops and buildings, they clashed with security forces,
burnt down official vehicles, attacked police stations to get the
“suspects,” who were believed to be Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
members. In these two small towns, events seemed to have started for
different reasons but they progressed in almost identical patterns.
“Nationalist Turks” wanted to lynch Kurds and scare them away from
their neighborhoods.
All my senses and gut feelings tell me that these incidents and other
possible provocations that may follow them are neither incidental nor
spontaneous; they had been prepared for some time.

Since 1915 not a single mass provocation or massacre has developed
spontaneously on this soil. They all had been prepared quite
masterfully and diligently. Armenian massacres in 1915, anti-Jewish
pogroms in 1934, anti-Greek and Armenian pogroms in 1955, the Alevi
massacres of 1978, the Sivas massacre of 1993, they all were carefully
planned and organized by the deep state elements in this country.
Since Turkey has never had a full confrontation with these tragic
events, with this lynching culture or with the institutional mentality
which created the necessary infrastructure for these incidents to
occur, this human eating machine has been passed from one generation
to another.

At this point I would like to share with you a quite irritating
attitude of some Westerners with regard to atrocities in Turkey. Some
Westerners are quite ready to believe whatever you say about the “deep
state” which destroyed and massacred non-Muslims in Turkey; however,
when it comes to Ergenekon and recent provocations they seem to
believe that your explanations are just “urban legends.” A
schizophrenic Western mentality appears when dealing with Turkey’s
past and present. They do not want to see that those who carried out
all these massacres and the so-called modernizing forces of Turkey
were exactly the same people. They do not want to see the continuation
between the Turkification of Anatolia and the modernization of Turkey.

In one of my recent articles I tried to explain the provocative role
of the Hürriyet daily in the 1955 pogroms. From this historical
perspective, do not underestimate the psychological link between
Hürriyet columnists’ “innocent call” to question whether Turks and
Kurds must live together and these angry Turkish citizens’ efforts to
send Kurds “back” to the Southeast. Hürriyet’s writers have always
been quite inspired to show angry Turks where they can unleash their
“intense” feelings.

Who are these “angry Turks”? Most of them are “grey wolves,” namely
Turkish ultranationalists. Exactly as they had played their roles in
the massacres before 1980, now they are also quite active among the
masses who tried to lynch the Kurds. Before 1980, the Turkish Gladio
used these ultranationalist groups and I am 100 percent sure that if
it is investigated thoroughly these people’s connections with deep
state elements, like their ancestors’ connections before the 1980
coup, will also be revealed. I would not be surprised if it is found
out that the local press and media had been playing quite a
provocative role for some time in these regions.

Today, a civil war between Kurds and Turks would be a panacea for the
return of the deep state to its full strength and for the restoration
of military guardianship. I know this is also seen by some circles as
a kind of paranoia but I have no doubt that between some segments of
the PKK and the Turkish deep state there are quite strong connections
and channels. It was not and would not be a surprise to witness PKK
attacks in regions which are most ready for these kinds of mass
provocations. Abdullah Öcalan, from his maximum security cell, had
foreseen that “there might be some clashes between Kurds and Turks in
some regions of Turkey.” So we can guess the PKK will intensify its
attacks in these sensitive regions.

Just before the referendum for the constitutional amendments and at
exactly the same time that the court ordered the detention of 102 high
ranking military officers for allegedly being part of a coup plan
against this government, nothing is happening for nothing.

We will witness these well-known stories more and more: “All these
terrible things happening because of the Kurdish opening and so-called
democratization efforts,” “The Turkish military cannot fight against
the PKK efficiently because they are extremely demoralized due to this
Ergenekon investigation and recent arrest waves,” “All we need is to
restore the old system,” “After all, Ergenekon and other such
‘fantasies’ were produced to weaken the secular structure of Turkey,”
“If only we could get rid of this government,” and so on.

Our story is 100 years old. Can we get rid of this monster, the deep
state? Yes, if only we could stop being deceived by the fairytales
that are constantly being told on this soil. So, be alert out there,
everything depends on your awareness.

From: A. Papazian

Kosovo Ruling `Pandora’s Box’ for Caucasus

States and self-declared republics divided by international court
ruling that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was legal.

By Karine Ohanian, Shahin Rzayev, Anaid Gogoryan, Nino Kharadze – Caucasus
CRS Issue 552,
30 Jul 10

Politicians in the South Caucasus were stunned by a ruling by the
International Court of Justice, ICJ, that Kosovo’s declaration of
independence was legal, with one observer saying it opened a Pandora’s
box for the troubled region.

The South Caucasus, according to most maps, consists of just three
countries. But there are in addition three self-declared states – all
of them largely or entirely unrecognised by outside powers.

The ICJ in The Hague had been asked by the United Nations Security
Council, acting on a request from Serbia, to decide whether “Is the
declaration of independence by Kosovo’s provisional government in 2008
was in accordance with international law. The court ruled on July 22
that the declaration `did not violate general international law”.

The ruling delighted the governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
which claim independence from Georgia, and that of Nagorny Karabakh,
the Armenian-controlled territory which according to international law
is still part of Azerbaijan.

Like Serbia, which insists that Kosovo legally remains part of its
territory, Georgia and Azerbaijan were far from pleased.

`I would not say the principle of territorial integrity retreats into
second place following the decision by the Hague, but it’s a fact that
the decision has opened a Pandora’s box,’ Rasim Musabekov, an
influential political analyst and columnist in Azerbaijan, said. `Now
separatists of all kinds will leech off this decision.’

The ICJ specifically stated that its ruling addressed only Kosovo’s
declaration of independence, not the question of independence itself,
and also that it applied only to the former Serbian province, not to
other regions of the world.

However, the reaction in Karabakh, which broke free of Baku’s rule in
a bloody post-Soviet war, more than confirmed Musabekov’s concerns.

`This decision is of the utmost legal, political and moral
significance, as well as serving as a precedent,’ a statement from
Karabakh’s foreign ministry said. `It cannot be limited only to
Kosovo.’

Bako Sahakyan, president of the republic, confirmed this belief that
the precedent should apply to Karabakh, saying, `We will continue our
efforts to obtain international recognition of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, but now in a new political situation, and there will be new
developments in our lives.’

The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Separatist forces in the
two entities defeated Georgian troops in the early post-Soviet years
and declared independence. Their aspirations to sovereignty were
largely ignored until 2008, when Russia intervened to block a Georgian
attempt to regain control of South Ossetia, and then surprised the
world by recognising both as independent states.

Only three countries have followed Moscow’s lead. United States
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton last month upheld the Georgian
position by referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as `occupied’.

Now the governments of the two republics are hoping the ICJ ruling
will prompt more countries to recognise them.

Abkhazian prime minister Sergei Shamba concedes, however, that the
precedent might not be accepted internationally.

`In view of the double-standard policies pursued in the West, if
Abkhazia appealed to The Hague, I couldn’t be certain that a similar
decision would be reached,’ he said. `And this is despite the fact
that we have no fewer – if not more, in fact – historical, legal and
moral grounds and arguments in favour of recognition.’

The ICJ’s decision will now go to the UN General Assembly for
discussion. Politicians in South Ossetia hope their own claims to
independence will be raised in the same forum.

`Although the international court’s decision is only consultative in
nature, it has created a relevant precedent in international law,’
deputy foreign minister Kazbulat Tskhovrebov told the South Ossetian
state news agency Res.

`In my opinion, such a decision can be seen as indirect recognition of
Kosovo’s independence, and will prompt other countries to recognise
it. I would like to hope that the declarations of independence by
South Ossetia and Abkhazia will also be examined within the walls of
the United Nations, and that we too will have a chance to show that
South Ossetia’s declaration of independence does not violate the
standards of international law.’

In Tbilisi, politicians ruled this prospect out completely, saying the
situation in Kosovo and in their own breakaway territories had nothing
in common. They insisted that the hundreds of thousands of Georgians
expelled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be given the right to go
home before the disputes could be resolved.

According to Akaki Minashvili, chairman of the Georgian parliament’s
foreign relations committee, `These are diametrically opposed
situations. In Kosovo, the international community intervened to stop
ethnic cleansing committed by the Milosevic regime against the
Albanians. In our case, the Russian Federation and occupying armed
forces committed ethnic cleansing against the Georgians.’

Minashvili noted that the ICJ ruling said that when the UN Security
Council had condemned other declarations of independence in the past,
it was because they resulted from the unlawful use of armed force or
other grave violations of international law.

`Russia recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia so
as to legitimise ethnic cleansing and the alteration of borders,’ he
said.

If Caucasian leaders took clear stances on the ICJ ruling – hailing it
as a precedent or denying its relevance to them, according to which
side they were on – Moscow appeared to be placed in a difficult
situation.

On the one hand, Russia has generally upheld the principle of
territorial integrity, citing this as justification both for its own
wars in Chechnya and also for backing its ally Serbia’s claims on
Kosovo. On the other, it has recognised the right of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia to secede from Georgia.

A carefully-worded statement from the Russian foreign ministry avoided
mentioning Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying only that `our position
on the recognition of Kosovo remains unchanged’.

The statement argued that the ICJ ruling covered only the legality of
Kosovo’s declaration of independence, and that it `stated specifically
that it did not consider the wider question of the right of Kosovo to
separate from Serbia unilaterally’.

In the circumstances, perhaps the most realistic assessment of the
significance of the ICJ ruling came from Alfred Grigoryan, a
68-year-old taxi driver in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorny
Karabakh. He expressed a clear-eyed recognition of the differences
between the South Caucasus and the Balkans.

`If we were located in Europe, then they’d recognise us as well,’ he
said. `But as things are, we are the only ones interested in our
conflict, and we must fight for international recognition of our
independence, just as we fought for independence itself.’

Karine Ohanyan is a freelancer in Stepanakert, Shahin Rzayev is IWPR
country director in Azerbaijan, Anaid Gogoryan is a correspondent for
Chegemskaya Pravda in Sukhum, and Nino Kharadze is a reporter for
Radio Liberty in Tbilisi.

From: A. Papazian

Events in Turkey From 1915 Find Way to Los Angeles Federal Court

July 30, 2010, 12:05 PM ET
WSJ on the cases, trends and personalities of interest to the business
community.

By Ashby Jones

In recent years, most of the debate in this country concerning the
events that led to the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 has
revolved around whether they should be classified as genocide on the
part of Turkey.

But a lawsuit filed on Thursday in Los Angeles asks a different
question: whether the heirs of the Armenians whose property was
allegedly seized should be able to recover for their losses.

The suit was filed on behalf of two men of Armenian ancestry: Garbisn
Davouyan of Los Angeles and Hrayr Turabian of Queens, NY, and seeks
compensation for property allegedly seized by Armenians, along with
bank deposits and property.

The lawsuit claims the government of Turkey agreed to administer the
property, collect rents and sale proceeds from the seized assets and
deposit the receipts in trust accounts until the property could be
restored to owners.

Instead, the government has `withheld the property and any income
derived from such property,’ the lawsuit said.

The defendants: the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish banks. Click
here for the AP story; here for the complaint.

Undoubtedly, there are some potential difficulties to suing over
activities that began about 100 years ago, namely a statute of
limitations.

The plaintiffs attempt to head this off entirely, arguing in their
complaint that the statute has yet to begin to run because, due to
`fraudulent concealment’ on the part of the defendants, plaintiffs
were unable to bring their suit until now. Plaintiffs also claim the
`Defendants misconduct is ongoing.’

The lawyers bringing the case include Brian S. Kabateck and Richard L.
Kellner of the Los Angeles-based firm Kabateck, Brown & Kellner and
Mark Garagos of Las Vegas-based Geragos & Garagos.

A message left by the AP with the Turkish Consul General’s office in
Los Angeles was not immediately returned. E-mails seeking comment from
both banks were not immediately returned.

Comments (5 of 5)View all Comments »

2:25 pm July 30, 2010
Kiazer.Souze wrote:
Turks are genocidal muslims. Look at how they occupy Cypruss to this
day. See how they blockade Armenia. They are bent on waging a soft
Jihad against its American master.

2:15 pm July 30, 2010
ahem wrote:
America is where people go to leave behind, fights over who did what
in 1915. The US courts ought to toss the suit. Its not our issue and
we ought not to make it one. People who think it is and ought to be
fought out here made the Old world so unstable. Always refighting the
squabbles of generations past. Let it go. Or deal with it somewhere
else. Nor should US taxpayers be underwriting this fight: its bad
enough that immigration cases are clogging our courts and adding to
the judiciary’s budget. People who live here and pay taxes to raise
families and run businesses here should not be underwriting a
historical fight involving Turkey.

1:25 pm July 30, 2010
James wrote:
The issue will not go away until Turkey acknowledges its past. As the
international scholars of Genocide put it, it was Genocide.. Now its
time for Turkey and modern Turks to accept it so we can all move on.

12:51 pm July 30, 2010
Mert wrote:
As a Turk I believe Armenian Genocide was a terrible tragedy. We
should accept it and we should understand the pain of the Armenians. I
believe we should also pay reparations. But why doesn’t America set a
precedent by paying reparations to American Indians and African
Americans?

12:33 pm July 30, 2010
the truth will never be forgoten wrote:
immagin if germans today said the jewish holocost is an alagation by
the jewish diaspora and america did everything to be on the sides of
germans. Committing a genocide is one ting, spiting on the victems
face and calling them liears is another shame on the uneducated money
hungry ppl who are duing this! Btw as we kno the jewish loby after all
they went threw for economic and poletical reasons do everiting to
crush the issue, I guess historry didn’t teach them a leson yet they
chose to take part in denying 1.5 million peopls deaths. It really is
a tragedy how hiumans do this things
Search Law Blog About Law BlogFollow us: RSS twitter facebook

From: A. Papazian