Author: Andres-Papazian

A DAY TO REMEMBER: CROWDS GATHER AT CEREMONIES ACROSS THE REGION TO HONOR FALLEN TROOPS
Christopher Cadelago

Glendale News Press
,0,3842238.story
June 1 2010
CA

Nine months have passed since Lance Cpl. Pedro Barboza Flores, of
Glendale, was killed when a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle
in southwestern Afghanistan.

For the hundreds of people who gathered at Memorial Day ceremonies
across Glendale, Burbank and Montrose, Barboza Flores’ life was
celebrated among the names of fallen service members, bagpipes,
benedictions, patriotic hymns and roses.

Barboza Flores, 27, a recipient of the National Defense Service
Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, was less than
two months into his first tour with the Marines when the improvised
explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

“This year has been especially hard for our family,” said his sister,
Aurora Alamillo. “He missed his first Christmas, his first Mother’s
Day. Even though he was already in his mid-20s when he joined, he
was still my little brother.”

Born in Zacatecas, Mexico, his family moved to the United States when
he was 1. A student at Glendale High School and Glendale Community
College, “Pete” joined the Marine Corps in March 2008, was promoted to
lance corporal in December and was crewman in a light-armored vehicle.

He was deployed in June to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring
Freedom, and died July 11 alongside Master Sgt. Jerome D. Hatfield,
36, of Axton, Va. Barboza Flores was stationed at Camp Lejeune
in North Carolina, where he was assigned to the 2nd Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion in the 2nd Marine Division for the II Marine
Expeditionary Force.

His bereaved family joined hundreds of people Monday at Isabel Street
and East Broadway in Glendale. Master of Ceremonies Larry Zarian,
noting the historically large crowd, recognized a large contingent
of veterans on hand before turning his attention to families who lost
loved ones.

“I cannot begin to tell you how thankful I am, how appreciative I am,
on behalf of our committee and on behalf of the veterans that are
here today,” Zarian said. “There are veterans out in the audience that
are injured from their time in the service. And there are those that
would rather be here today, but they’re not, and their names are on
the walls instead.”

Mayor Ara Najarian followed the color guard, flag salute and
prisoner-of-war/missing-in-action memorial, presented by retired Lt.

Col. Dave Worley, of the U.S. Air Force, with a special note to a
group of veterans whose uniforms had an unusual look.

“These are Armenian veterans who fought in World War II with the Soviet
Union,” Najarian said. “Now for those of you who are not up to date on
the history, we were allies with the Soviet Union during World War II,
and these soldiers had a valiant fight on the Eastern Front fighting
the Nazis. They lost many, many men, and paid dearly with their lives.”

The men said they attended the memorial to commemorate the lives of
American troops — not who gave their lives, but whose lives were
taken from them too soon.

A veteran, as Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich told
residents of La Crescenta and La Cañada Flintridge at the Vietnam
War Memorial in Montrose, is someone who wrote a blank check made
payable to the United States of America for an amount up to and
including their life.

The Crescenta Valley High School Charismatics struck up several
patriotic renditions as members of the high school’s Air Force Jr.

ROTC program took part in the laying of the roses.

At Forest Lawn-Glendale, the 95th annual Memorial Day March began at
the Little Church of the Flowers and proceeded to the burial site of
a soldier who served in the Civil War.

Burbank’s annual exercise in remembrance was an opportunity to reflect
on the lives of those who never returned from World War I, World War
II, Korea, Vietnam and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, more
than 5,400 U.S. troops have died while serving in the two countries,
584 of them from California, according to records kept by the Los
Angeles Times.

Hundreds of residents joined troops and elected officials at
McCambridge Park for the city’s official ceremony, where members
of the Veterans Commemorative Committee read the names of nearly
300 local troops who died serving in World War II, Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), after visiting injured troops in Germany
on a recent trip to the Middle East, spoke of the struggles many go
through when being away from home. He referenced a soldier who was
abroad when his 3-year-old child drowned. And state Sen. Carol Liu
implored visitors to observe a national moment of silence at 3 p.m.

Boy Scouts placed roses atop memorials, and a musical prelude gave
way to a flyover by the Condor Squadron.

For many, including chairman of the Veterans Commemorative Committee
Mickey DePalo, the renaming of Pacific Park in honor of Marine Cpl.

Larry L. Maxam spoke plainly to the city’s commitment to its fallen
sons. Maxam was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by President
Nixon for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his
life above and beyond the call of duty” in the Vietnam War.

Army Sgt. Kevin Christoffersen, one of a handful of young veterans
honored by the city, returned last year after 13 months in Iraq. He
spoke of his heroes, reading a poem about Memorial Day.

Among Mark Ehrhardt’s military heroes is his father, Elmer, 95.

Elmer Ehrhardt, of Cincinnati, served in the U.S. Army railway
transportation battalion in Iran during World War II. He was among
a group of about 50,000 servicemen in Iran who supported America’s
lend-lease program with the Soviet Union, helping to move goods
through the Persian Gulf.

“After 9/11 I felt it was important to attend these ceremonies and
publicly announce my support of the men and women in our military,
especially when you start to take note of their tremendous sacrifice,”
Mark Ehrhardt said. “We should never take that for granted.”

From: A. Papazian

TURKISH JIHADISTS ATTACK ISRAEL
Phyllis Chesler

FrontPage Magazine

June 1 2010

One may describe Hitler as a “vegetarian” (which he apparently was)
but he was still a genocidally exterminationist Jew-hater whose
relentless racism and imperial ambitions led to the death of more
than 60 million people.

One may also describe the Turks on board the “freedom flotilla”
(Orwell himself could not have suggested a better logo) as
“humanitarian activists.” But they are still pro-terrorist Turkish
jihadists whose mission was to kill Jews, one way or the other. This
was a mission which aimed to further demonize the already shamefully
tarnished reputation of the Jewish state. This mission planned to
force a violent confrontation; were Israeli soldiers to dare defend
themselves and if Muslims are therefore martyred–even better public
relations, even better for international lawfare against the Israel.

The so-called “humanitarians,” at least on one boat, came armed with
metal bars and knives. They were fighters, not pacifists, and they
called out traditional Islamic battle cries: “[Remember] Khaibar,
Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!” According to
Palestinian Media Watch:

“Khaibar is the name of the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s
army in 628. Many Jews were killed in that battle, which marked the
end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a
precursor for future wars against Jews. At gatherings and rallies of
extremists, this chant is often heard as a threat to Jews to expect
to be defeated and killed again by Muslims.”

“This video shows Israeli soldiers being beaten with long and heavy
metal rods on one of the Turkish boats. Jeff Dunetz (“YidWithLid”)
has a series of disturbing and informative videos in which we can see
the planned nature and intensity of the Turkish-Palestinian violence
against Israeli soldiers–an attack which involved stabbings, beatings,
firebombing attempts, throwing soldiers overboard, etc.”

Earlier today, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said
that the Turkish-led flotilla was: “An armada of hate and violence
in support of Hamas’ terror organization and was a premeditated and
outrageous provocation. The organizers are well known for their ties
with global jihad, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas. They have a history of arms
smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons
prepared in advance and used against our forces. The organizers
intent was violent, their method was violent, and the results were
unfortunately violent. Israel regrets any loss of life and did
everything to avoid this outcome.”

Indeed, the death count currently stands at an estimated nine (mainly
Turkish) dead and 34 wounded. Predictably, the Arab, European,
and liberal media are viewing Israel as the vicious aggressor; as
committing “obscene” acts. Al-Jazeera’s website calls what happened
“a massacre.” They refer to the dead as “martyrs.”

Some say that the Israeli commandos could have used taser guns, rubber
bullets, or simply sent far more soldiers onto each boat. But the
Israelis initially boarded the boats armed with paintball guns. And one
wonders: How many Israeli soldiers can fit on a boat? One Israeli now
suggests that Israel should have surrounded all the boats, stopped
them dead in their tracks, shot out their motors.

Said I: And then done what with them?

Said he: Negotiate.

Said I: Are you crazy? Negotiate with terrorists? And then feed them,
house them, coddle them–terrorists who would not even agree to bring
food and a note to Gilad Shalit? Incredibly, Israel has been doing
just that, treating the wounded terrorists in Israeli hospitals and
preparing to intern the remaining “activists” in air-conditioned
tents in Ashdod.

Said he: There should have been better military planning.

I am sure that Monday morning quarterbacking is always more ingenious
than what happens in the moment of battle. The problem is that, once
again, the Israelis are being attacked for having defended themselves
and the jihadists are still being seen as “martyrs.”

Why did Turkey attack Israel? How much Iranian support did they have?

Turkey was once a haven for Jews in flight from the Christian
Inquisition.

Once, long ago, Muslim Turkey gave asylum to Dona Gracia HaNasi,
the noble and generous leader of the Jews who had fled from Christian
Spain and Portugal. Dona Gracia, a widow, was the wealthiest Jew of her
time and, after living in Italy, found final refuge in Constantinople
in 1552. Some wealthy Jews still live in Turkey today–yes, despite
the bombing of two Turkish synagogues in 2003. I wonder how safe they
are and for how long.

As to women? Locked up in harems–but if they were lucky/most unlucky,
perhaps in the Sultan’s own harem or seraglio. For example, in 1784,
a French girl, Aimee Dubucq de Rivery, was kidnapped on the open seas
by Algerian pirates who sold her into the Turkish Sultan’s harem. Aimee
became known as “Naksh,” The Beautiful One, for her fair skin, blue
eyes, and blonde hair. Improbably, incredibly, Aimee became the mother
of the next Sultan, whose name was Sultan Mahmoud II, the Reformer.

Some see the influence of the Sultan Valideh (The Veiled Sultan)
in Selim’s letter of friendship to King Louis XVI–and in other
pro-European gestures and customs.

Myths die hard. People still believe that Jews, Christians and other
infidels lived safe and happy lives in Muslims lands. This is a
Big Lie.

As a matter of historical fact, the Turks have a long and bloody
history of cruelty and genocide. They colonized the entire Middle
East, forced conversions or murdered those who resisted. Islamic
gender and religious apartheid flourished.

To this day, the Turks continue to deny the Armenian genocide. And,
the days of Kemal Ataturk are long gone. In the early 1920s, Ataturk
imposed a secular democracy upon the Islamists and unveiled the women.

Now, the Islamists are winning again: Women are veiling, honor killings
are on the rise (both in Turkey and among Turks in Europe).

Recently, a father and grandfather heartlessly buried a 16-year-old
daughter and granddaughter alive for the “crime” of presumably talking
to boys. I have also written about a great Turkish feminist hero,
my friend Seyran Ates, here; Ates was shot for her work among Turkish
immigrant girls and women in Berlin. Her 15-year-old client died.

Ates, a lawyer, was left for dead–but miraculously survived.

And we nearly admitted Turkey into the European Union. One wonders
if they would have intensified their anti-Israel Islamism had they
been accepted as “Europeans,” or whether their candidacy was merely
a calculated move in tandem with pre-existing pro-Iranian plans. For
years, Turkey has opposed sanctioning Iran for its nuclear program.

Turkey was among the first to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his
re-election victory. During 2009, Turkey improved its economic ties
to Iran.

I am waiting for the United Nations and for the United States to
condemn this unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

From: A. Papazian

CANCELLATION OF ERDOGAN’S ARGENTINA TRIP IS THE PRICE TURKEY PAYS FOR GENOCIDE
By Harut Sassounian Publisher, The California Courier

Noyan Tapan

Not satisfied with its neo-Ottoman policies of regional domination,
Turkey has decided to extend its influence far and wide, to the four
corners of the globe.

While making inroads into the Islamic world by pretending to
sympathize with Palestinian suffering, Turkey has alienated Israel,
its long-standing political and military partner, and its NATO allies.

Encouraged by his much publicized recent visit to Iran with Brazil’s
President, and anxious to counter growing recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by South American countries, Prime Minister Erdogan embarked
last week on his first trip to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

In paving the way for that visit, Turkey’s Ambassador in Argentina had
worked diligently with local officials to allow Erdogan, accompanied
by seven ministers and 300 businessmen, to inaugurate the installation
of Kemal Ataturk’s bust in a major Buenos Aires park.

ã~@~@ In response to the Turkish Ambassador’s lobbying efforts,
the local Armenian community launched a counter-attack, placing paid
announcements in two major newspapers and asking Buenos Aires City
officials not to honor Ataturk, blaming him for continuing the genocide
initiated by the previous Young Turk regime. Armenians also objected
to Erdogan’s visit, accusing him of heading a denialist government.

ã~@~@ Buenos Aires officials responded positively to Armenian concerns,
because of long-standing cordial ties with the local community.

Moreover, in recent years, the city government had published two
textbooks on the Armenian Genocide, which are used in city schools.

Importantly, these books include references to Ataturk’s role in
continuing the genocidal activities of his predecessors.

ã~@~@ Ultimately, what caused the collapse of the Turkish scheme
was the discovery that Turkey’s Ambassador had attempted to deceive
Buenos Aires City officials. He had falsely claimed that he was
merely requesting permission to replace Ataturk’s bust, which had
been supposedly missing for several years. The Ambassador had asked
for a prompt decision from city officials in order to have Ataturk’s
bust unveiled during Prime Minster’s visit to Argentina on May 31.

ã~@~@ Upon review of the Turkish Ambassador’s demands, Buenos Aires
officials discovered that there had never been a bust of Ataturk in
that park. The missing bust actually was that of a well-known Egyptian
human rights activist. Argentina’s large Arab community was extremely
unhappy learning that the Turkish Ambassador, using false pretenses,
was trying to replace their beloved hero’s missing bust with that
of Ataturk.

ã~@~@ Turkey’s envoy must have intentionally misrepresented the facts,
knowing full well that city officials would not agree to pass a law
allowing the installation of Ataturk’s bust. The Ambassador tried to
trick them by requesting a permit simply to replace the “missing” bust.

ã~@~@ When Erdogan found out that there would not be an installation
of Ataturk’s bust, he asked Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner
to overrule city officials. However, Kirchner explained that she
was not empowered to take such action, because Buenos Aires had an
autonomous government and any attempt to interfere in local matters
would violate Argentina’s democratic constitution.

ã~@~@ Despite the fact that Erdogan is an Islamist and not an Ataturk
admirer, he had no choice but to defend “the honor” of Turkey’s revered
founder and national hero. Otherwise, the Prime Minister would have
come under severe attack back home from Turkish nationalists and
the powerful military. Recent polls show that his party (AKP), for
the first time since coming to power, has fallen slightly behind the
opposition Kemalist Party (CHP), which could spell trouble for the
Prime Minister in next year’s parliamentary elections. Under these
circumstances, Erdogan was forced to cancel his much-touted trip
to Argentina, after visiting Brazil. Not surprisingly, the Turkish
foreign ministry angrily denounced the Armenian community of Argentina
for undermining Prime Minister’s critical visit.

ã~@~@ This is the first time that the Prime Minister of Turkey has been
forced to cancel an overseas trip due to the vigilance of an Armenian
community. Argentinean-Armenians must be commended for their effective
activism. Armenian communities worldwide should follow their footsteps
by taking legally appropriate actions to cause cancellation of visits
by Turkish officials, annulment of military and commercial contracts,
and disruption of diplomatic relations with Turkey, including the
recall of its ambassadors.

ã~@~@ Turkey’s leaders should be constantly reminded of the massive
crimes committed by their predecessors. As long as the Turkish
government does not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide and make
appropriate amends, it should be made to pay a heavy political and
economic price for years to come!

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER’S OFFICIAL VISIT TO CANADA STARTS

NOYAN TAPAN
JUNE 1, 2010
OTTAWA

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who had arrived in Canada
on an official visit on May 31, met with Canadian Minister of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Lawrence Cannon.

E. Nalbandian said Armenia attaches great importance to the further
deepening and strengthening of bilateral relations with Canada. In
his words, in the 21st century a georgaphical remoteness cannot become
an obstacle to expansion of cooperation, and Armenia intends to take
efficient steps for developing its friendly cooperation with Canada.

The two ministers continued their dialog on bilateral ties,
international and regional problems that began almost two years
in Quebec, during a summit of the Francophonie international
organization. In the context of discussions on the development of
trade and economic links, E. Nalbandian expressed satisfaction that
about 20 companies with Canadian capital operate in Armenia and their
number may increase thanks to joint efforts.

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Canada addressed the issue of
establishing closer cooperation within the framework of international
organizations, as well as the problems related to promotion of security
and stability in the South Caucasus.

The interlocutors discussed Armenia’s steps on establishment of
Armenian-Turkish relations and the latest developments in this
process. E. Nalbandian said that process will move forward if the
Turkish side is prepared to honor the agreements: to ratify and
implement these agreements without preconditions.

For his part, L. Cannon stated that Canada welcomes all efforts that
will lead to the establishment of normal relations between Armenia
and Turkey and the opening of the border.

During the meeting with Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons
Peter Milliken, the sides discussed in detail the current state of
Armenian-Canadian relations and the oppostunities of their expansion,
as well as interparliamentary cooperation and the contribution of
parliaments to encouragement of bilateral cooperation. They also
exchanged views on the Armenian-Turkish normalization.

E. Nalbandian thanked the Canadian parliament for recognition of the
Armenian Genocide.

In the Canadian parliament, E. Nalbandian met with members of
various political forces of Canada-Armenia parliamentary friendship
group. He said that parliamentary diplomacy is an important format
of developing relations between states and welcomed the activities
of MPs of the Canadian House of Commons aimed at further deepening
of Armenian-Canadian ties.

According to the RA MFA Press and Information Department, on the same
day E. Nalbandian had a meeting with representatives of the Canadian
Armenian community at the Armenian embassy in Canada. He spoke about
the meetings he already had in Ottawa as well as further meetings
and answered numerous questions about Armenia’s foreign policy.

From: A. Papazian

ABEL AGHANBEKYAN EXPRESSED READINESS TO SUPPORT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC’S ECONOMIC COMLEX

NOYAN TAPAN
JUNE 1, 2010
STEPANAKERT

On 31 May President of the Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan received
famous economist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Abel
Aghanbekyan and accompanying him persons.

A wide range of issues related to the current situation and development
prospects of different spheres of the republic’s vital activity was
discussed at the meeting.

Abel Aghanbekyan expressed readiness to support further development
of the republic’s economic comlex in every way possible. Central
information department of the office of the Artsakh Republic president
reported NT.

Vice-premier, finance minister of the Artsakh Republic Spartak
Tevosyan, other officials, as well as writer and publicist Zori
Balayan partook at the meeting.

From: A. Papazian

‘BETTER TURKISH-RUSSIAN RELATIONS TO CREATE ATMOSPHERE MORE CONDUCTIVE TO PEACE’

news.az
June 1 2010
Azerbaijan

Paul Kubicek News.Az interviews Paul Kubicek, chair of the Department
of Political Science, Oakland University, Michigan.

Do you share an opinion that the US is not playing so active role in
the CIS region as it used to play in a recent past?

I don’t think the West has lost the light completely. Obviously,
Russian influence has increased, but that does not mean that Russia
is the final “victor” in this geopolitical competition. I don’t think
Yanukovych’s victory in Ukraine puts that country in the “Russian”
camp, as it still has European aspirations, and Georgia obviously
wants to remain a US ally. I would expect more Russian interest in
Azerbaijan (e.g. investments in oil and gas, inducements to ship oil
through Russia), but nothing like in Georgia or Kyrgyzstan.

Do you think that Russia might agree with membership of Azerbaijan
or even Georgia in NATO?

No, I do not. I think NATO membership for these states would disturb
Moscow, although whether Russia could actively prevent it as another
question. However–and Azeris may not like this–I do not foresee
NATO membership for Azerbaijan for at least 10-15 years, at best.

It seems that US forgot the Karabakh settlement and has changed it
for support Armenia by various means (economic assistance, pushing
Armenian-Turkish border issue etc). Is it happen because of influence
of Armenian lobby or there are any other reasons?

I think the US wants to reward both Turkey and Armenia for resolving
their issues, hence more aid to Armenia. The Armenian lobby may play
a role in this, but obviously it is not so strong that the US is
recognizing the genocide of 1915.

Do you think that Russia may use the “Georgian scenario” in Karabakh,
other conflict zone in the South Caucasus?

Because Karabakh does not border Russia, this seems unlikely. Plus
Azerbaijan is not causing Russia as much trouble as Georgia did.

However, if Azerbaijan were to try to take Karabakh by force, Russian
intervention might be possible.

Russia and Turkey has been developing a close collaboration, especially
during the last 2 years. What is your opinion, may this collaboration
be fruitful for the stability in the South Caucasus region?

That is a good question, and I am not sure that this cooperation is
directed at the South Caucasus. However, if relations between the
two sides improves, they might be able to work together on regional
issues like Karabakh. My sense is that better ties between Moscow
and Ankara should be welcomed in the region.

Turkey wishes to be a mediator in the Karabakh conflict. Do you believe
that Armenia might agree with this and what kind of role can Turkey
play in the peace process?

I do not think that Turkey–by itself–can be the peacemaker. Armenia
would want someone else (e.g. Russia) involved as well. Hence, better
Turkish-Russian relations would create an atmosphere more conducive
to peace.

Iran recently expressed a wish to be involved in the Karabakh
settlement. What do you think about such proposal from Iran, which
is a great regional state but has it own big problems?

I think Iran is looking for a way to say that it is solving problems,
not creating them. I do not take this proposal seriously.

From: A. Papazian

NEWLY APPOINTED MILITARY ATTACHE OF RUSSIAN EMBASSY INTRODUCED TO ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTER

NOYAN TAPAN
JUNE 1, 2010
YEREVAN

Armenia’s Defence Minister Seyran Ohanian on June 1 received the
Russian Ambassador to Armenia A.

Kovalenko in connection with the end of the Military Attache, Colonel
Alexander Frolov’s term of office and the appointment of a new military
attache – Colonel Yevgeny Vasilyev.

The press service of the RA Ministry of Defence reported that thanking
A. Frolov for his contribution to the development of Armenian-Russian
military cooperation, S. Ohanian expressed confidence that this
cooperation will further deepen during Colonel Yevgeny Vasilyev’s
term of office.

From: A. Papazian

KARABAKH SETTLEMENT REQUIRES ‘TRANSFORMATION OF STEREOTYPES’

news.az
June 1 2010
Azerbaijan

Phil Gamaghelyan News.Az interviews Armenian-born Phil Gamaghelyan,
managing editor of the Journal of Conflict Transformation.

What is the likelihood of progress in the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict in the near future?

Unfortunately, I do not think it is realistic to expect a resolution
of this conflict in the near future. In the last 20 years the conflict
has metastasized. Even if the governments sign an agreement tomorrow,
implementation will not be easy and might lead to a new crisis and
possibly violence: the problem is that the sides are not making any
preparations for peace. In fact, they are actively preparing for war.

Serious preparation is needed to successfully implement a peace
accord. The difficulties will include the composition of peace-keeping
forces, the reintegration of the two communities, the absence
of infrastructure, the absence of any alternative to the hostile
literature and mindset that have brainwashed entire generations into
hating each other. So we need to make progress in a number of areas
before we can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Having said this, I have some hope that there might be a solution,
as there are, indeed, positive developments in a number of areas. The
geopolitical environment today is more conducive to resolution than
it ever was. All the major players in the region – Russia, the USA,
Turkey, the EU – find a resolution to be in their interests (though
for different reasons). The Track II work has visibly intensified
following the Moscow declaration of 2008, which may lay a foundation
for the future coexistence of the two peoples. The scholarship on the
subject of a Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution has been gradually
increasing, which can provide the necessary knowledge and become the
foundation upon which policy makers can base their decisions and move
toward a sustainable resolution to the conflict.

To summarize, I think there are some positive developments, but
they are not enough to resolve the conflict in the near future. The
resolution of the conflict requires a multi-track approach, and we
need a longer-term and coordinated effort from our politicians and
international actors, but also journalists, social scientists and
educators, to settle this conflict.

The Azerbaijani and Armenian people suffer more than the politicians
from the Karabakh conflict – the two nations lived side by side for
many years. So how would you comment on former Armenian President
Robert Kocharyan’s statement that Armenians and Azerbaijanis are not
able to coexist in principle?

I think one of the major reasons we are not registering any serious
progress is the very radical rhetoric from our leaders. The leaderships
on both sides couch the conflict in exclusivist terms, which leads
to the view that neither of the sides can possibly be safe, should it
find itself a minority in the other side’s state. This is exactly what
makes this conflict a zero sum game. It is, I believe, impossible to
find a sustainable solution until our societies, the language we use
when talking about one another, become more inclusive.

There are no two peoples that ‘are not able to coexist in principle’.

The inability to work through the consequences of mutual violence,
negative propaganda, brainwashing through the media and education
create conditions when two peoples indeed are not able to live side by
side until the relationship between the sides is transformed. French
and Germans, Germans and Jews, Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland, and many others had periods when they could not coexist. Some
of these conflicts ran very deep and had a much longer history than
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But these conflicts have been resolved
and reconciliation has been achieved (or at least they are on track
for resolution). Armenians and Azerbaijanis most definitely can live
side by side, but certainly not while our political and education
systems and our media are doing everything possible to prevent it.

Might public diplomacy play its role in improving relations between
Azerbaijanis and Armenians?

There cannot be a sustainable resolution without extensive public
diplomacy, as relations between the Azerbaijani and Armenian societies
cannot be improved without public diplomacy. At the same time,
public diplomacy alone cannot resolve the conflict. Resolution of the
conflict will require simultaneous progress on a number of levels,
including on the level of people to people contacts.

What was the influence on the Karabakh settlement of the process of
normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey?

I think the improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations can have a
positive impact on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. A lot has
been said and written about the geopolitical consequences of the
improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations, so I want to look at it
from another angle. I think the closing of the Turkish border with
Armenia created divisions in the Caucasus that are not conducive to
the improvement of relations or resolution of conflicts, and only
reinforce the conflict lines. As I said before, I find the improvement
of relations and breaking down of stereotypes extremely important
for the sustainable resolution of this conflict and for creating
conditions when the two sides can peacefully coexist.

As Tom de Waal noted in his book ‘Black Garden’, the negative attitudes
between Azerbaijanis and Armenians developed against the background
of two master narratives, the Armenian one focusing on a history
of massacres and discrimination by the Turks, and their perceived
local Azerbaijani proxies, and the Azerbaijani narrative focusing on
discrimination and massacres by Russians and their perceived Armenian
proxies. The improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations, supported by
Russia, will lead to increased regional cooperation between Russia,
Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and can help to alter these master
narratives, challenging and transforming the major stereotypes and
laying the ground for peaceful coexistence in the Caucasus.

Do you think that the USA and Russia are really interested in the
Karabakh conflict and do their best to resolve it?

For a long time, the Karabakh conflict was characterized in the
international relations literature as a ‘captive’, when the competing
interests of great powers made it impossible to resolve it. I think
right now, a quick resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is in
the interests of both Russia and the US. The war in Georgia contributed
to this dynamic. And this is a quite unusual situation not only in
the Caucasus, but anywhere in the world. So for the first time, we,
the sides of the conflict, are actually in a position to resolve
this conflict without worrying that one or another superpower will
sabotage the process. We had better use this opportunity. It will
not last long. Any shift in the geopolitical arena might reverse
this equation, and we might not have control over our destinies for
an indefinite time again.

Iran recently offered to mediate in the Karabakh settlement. What do
you think about this rather unexpected offer and how can you explain
Armenia’s rejection of it?

On your question about the Armenian position, I have made a number
of inquiries; I saw the Russian official position, but was not able
to find any confirmation that Yerevan rejected the proposal. It is,
therefore, hard for me to answer the second half of the question. If,
indeed, there was a rejection, I would assume it would be because the
Minsk Group negotiations are on track and the sides might not see a
need for an alternative.

On Iran, Iran was one of the countries that tried to mediate this
conflict very early in the game, in 1992-93. It has a great interest
in this conflict, and especially the consequence of its outcome. The
composition of a potential peace keeping force, possibly consisting
of a NATO country’s forces right on Iran’s border, the potential
renewal of violence and potential effect it might have on the large
Azerbaijani minority in Iran, and the potential consolidation of
a pro-western orientation of the entire South Caucasus in case of
a successful resolution of the conflict are all issues of great
concern for Iran. So Iran has an interest in this conflict, and has
been rather passive, not because it chooses to be, but because the
USA-France-Russia mediation does not leave it much choice but to stay
away. So I think it should be expected that Iran would want to play
an active role in the process, if and when it becomes possible.

Phil Gamaghelyan is the managing editor of the Journal of Conflict
Transformation: Caucasus Edition; co-director of the Imagine Center
for Conflict Transformation and a fellow at the International Center
for Conciliation.

From: A. Papazian

ESTABLISHMENT OF ATATURK MONUMENT IN BUENOS AIRES INSULTS ARGENTINEAN SOCIETY

PanARMENIAN.Net
June 1, 2010 – 15:47 AMT 10:47 GMT

Establishment of Ataturk monument in Buenos Aires insults not
only Argentina’s Armenian community but also Argentinean society,
a statement issued by Hay Dat office in South America said.

“Ataturk continued with the policy of extermination of Armenians; he
is the one responsible for Armenian Genocide negation policy practiced
until today by Recep Tayyip Erdogan-headed Turkish government.”

Hay Dat office in South America welcomes the decision by Buenos
Aires city officials to call off an event inaugurating a monument
to Ataturk. “Turkish Prime Minister is responsible for cancellation
of Turkish delegation’s official visit to Argentina, which proves
Erdogan’s intolerance and lack of interest in development of relations
with the country.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cancelled the Argentina
leg of his tour of Latin America.

It came after city officials in Buenos Aires called off an event
inaugurating a monument to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The Turkish foreign ministry blamed “hostile” interference from
Armenian pressure groups in Argentina.

President Cristina Kirchner is reported to have telephoned Mr Erdogan
to express her understanding of his position, but to explain that the
central government could not reverse the city government’s decision,
BBC News reported.

From: A. Papazian

RUSSIAN OFFICIAL PLAYS DOWN MPS’ KARABAKH TRIP

news.az
June 1 2010
Azerbaijan

Svetlana Orlova A Russian parliamentary official has stressed that
the visit by Russian MPs to monitor elections in Karabakh was private,
not official.

The deputy speaker of the Azerbaijani parliament, Valeh Alasgarov,
described the decision of Russian deputies to attend elections in the
unrecognized republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as a sin, while the deputy
speaker of Russia’s Federation Council, Svetlana Orlova, said that
this was a personal initiative by members of the Duma rather than an
official delegation.

Elections to the national assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh were held on
23 May. The elections were observed by more than 110 international
observers, who described them as ‘free, independent and transparent’.

The Central Election Commission of Azerbaijan said the elections
were ‘illegitimate’, while the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry on 26
May declared five Duma deputies personae non grata for their role
as election monitors. The black list includes Konstantin Zatulin,
Igor Chernyshenko, Kirill Cherkasov, Tatyana Volozhinskaya and Maxim
Mishchenko. The list also includes citizens of France, Germany,
Argentina, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and other countries.

‘It is outrageous, of course, this is unacceptable, but it’s a sin
on the souls of those who do not think about Azerbaijan, they do
not think, I am quite sure, even about the interests of Russia,’
Alasgarov told RIA Novosti yesterday.

He said that ‘the actions of individuals, whoever they may be,
citizens of Russia or not, cannot have an adverse affect on relations
between the Azerbaijan Republic and the Russian Federation or between
our parliaments.’

‘I shall confine myself to this, although I do have something to say,’
the Azerbaijani politician said.

In turn, the vice-speaker of the Federation Council said that the
deputies had gone at their personal initiative, and Russia had not
sent an official delegation.

‘Russia did not send an official delegation and the visit by some
deputies is a matter for their conscience,’ Orlova said.

From: A. Papazian