Author: Aram Torosian

Turkish Scholar Freed After Two-Month Arrest In Armenia
By Emil Danielyan and Ruzanna Khachatrian
RFE/RL – YEREVAN, 08/16/2005: Yektan Turkyilmaz, a Turkish scholar
who was arrested in Armenia two months ago, walked free from a court
in Yerevan on Tuesday after being given a two-year suspended prison
sentence for attempting to illegally take old Armenian books out of
the country.
The court in the city’s Malatia-Sebastia district convicted Turkyilmaz
of two counts of smuggling but chose not to imprison him at the
last-minute request of state prosecutors that cited his partial
acknowledgement of his guilt and cooperation with investigators. The
doctoral student of the U.S. Duke University will have to stay in
Armenia until the verdict’s formal entry into force on August 31. He
will then be free to leave the country and visit it again.
“I’m now free, right?” an incredulous Turkyilmaz asked journalists
that surrounded him immediately after the announcement of the ruling.
“I am happy to be free,” he said after hearing a positive answer. “I
now want to concentrate on my doctoral dissertation. I was, I am and
I will remain a friend of the Armenians.”
The presiding judge, Karen Farkhoyan, also upheld the confiscation of
88 secondhand Armenian books which Turkyilmaz bought in Yerevan and
wanted to take with him to Istanbul. All of those books were published
more than 50 years ago, with four of them dating back to the 17th and
18th centuries. Under an Armenian law that took effect last January,
they can not be taken abroad without a written permission of the
Ministry of Culture.
Turkyilmaz had no such permission when customs and security officers
at Yerevan’s Zvartnots airport found and confiscated those books on
June 17. Both during his arrest and throughout his short trial he
insisted that he was unaware of the requirement. Nonetheless, he was
charged under an article of Armenia’s Criminal Code that envisages
between four and eight years’ imprisonment for the contraband of
“cultural-historical values,” narcotics and weapons.
“I believe that the accusations leveled against the defendant are
absolutely substantiated,” the trial prosecutor, Koryun Piloyan,
said in his concluding remarks.
Piloyan dismissed the defendant’s arguments that the books, most
of them relating to the activities of Armenian nationalist parties
in the Ottoman Empire, were needed for his doctoral studies at the
prestigious U.S. university. “I don’t want to discuss his doctoral
dissertation or events that took place in Anatolia from 1908-38,”
he said. “We are investigating a criminal case regarding smuggling.”
The prosecutor then cited “mitigating circumstances” such as
the defendant’s young age and his “at least partly truthful court
testimony” to invoke another clause in the Criminal Code that envisages
largely symbolic prison sentences.
“I regret what happened and accept that as a result of my inconsistency
and indifference, I did not know legal requirements existing in the
Republic of Armenia and failed to obtain permission for the books
in a manner defined by the law,” Turkyilmaz send in his final court
speech which he delivered in Armenian.
“As I said earlier, I never sought to violate the laws of the Republic
of Armenia or to cause any damage to the Republic of Armenia and the
Armenian people,” he added. “I therefore ask the court to be forgiving
to myself and apply the softest possible punishment.”
Turkyilmaz’s release was welcomed by Orin Starn, a representative
of Duke University who attended the trial. “Duke University is very
pleased that Yektan has been given his freedom,” Starn told RFE/RL.
“The books that Yektan collected were a reflection of his interest
in Armenia. I know that Yektan will do wonderful work that will help
us to understand the history of this region and the facts of the
Armenian genocide.”
The Duke University president as well as over 200 U.S., Turkish
and Armenian scholars have sent open letters to President Robert
Kocharian calling for the release of their colleague. They said the
punishment initially sought by Armenian prosecutors is too strict and
unjustified. It is not clear if their protests have played a role
in the prosecutors’ eventual decision not to seek the imprisonment
of the Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin. Officials in Kocharian’s
press service could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
Individuals accused of smuggling have rarely ended up in prison in
Armenia. This fact raised questions about reasons for the severity of
the charges brought against Turkyilmaz. The latter’s interrogations by
officials from the National Security Service (NSS), which conducted
the pre-trial investigation into the case, reportedly focused on his
academic work and political beliefs.
The electronic copies of his research material collected at Armenia’s
National Archive were also confiscated and closely examined by NSS
investigators. The Malatia-Sebastia court ordered them to return the
CDs to the scholar.
Turkyilmaz, who has repeatedly visited Armenia since 2003, became last
May the first Turkish national who asked for and was granted access
to the Armenian state archives. He said on Tuesday that despite his
two-month ordeal he wants to conduct more research at the archives
and may again visit them as early as this week.
“I have not yet finished my work there and am glad that I will stay
in Yerevan for 15 more days,” Turkyilmaz told reporters. “I love
this city.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Georgian-Russian rail link again on negotiation table
By M. Alkhazashvili
The Messenger, Georgia
July 20 2005
Georgia is abuzz with talks on the possible revival of the rail
line through Abkhazia. And although the reopening has still not
been finalized, Russia is already proudly touting the railway as a
diplomatic victory.
On Tuesday July 19, Georgian, Russian and de facto Abkhaz officials
met in Sokhumi where they agreed to create a 41-person commission
to study the current condition of the long-defunct rail line linking
Russia and Georgia.
The Abkhaz news agency Apsnypress reported that the group will begin
activities on August 1 and take 45 days to collect information before
reporting back on October 1, the first step in a long awaited effort
by Sokhumi to renew the rail link.
On July 14 in Moscow, the de facto president of Abkhazia Sergei
Bagapsh presented his conditions for the opening of a railway via
Abkhazia. According to him this will be only a transit route to Armenia
and as a result of this, the Abkhaz people demand a significant tax
increase on transit fees. At the same time, Bagapsh demands 1,200
Russian railway specialists to be stationed in Abkhazia to maintain
and operate the railway.
His statements on the issue only renew concerns by Tbilisi that Russia
is invited to become more and more active in the region. If enacted
these conditions would likely further separate Georgia from Abkhazia
and Georgian media have been quick to criticize Bagapsh’s statements.
“Some high-ranking officials speak about the positive effects of the
railway opening. They say that this will restore the trust between
Georgian and Abkhaz governments. What trust we are speaking about,
when Baghabsh demands Russians to be stationed in Abkhazia and
he intends to levy serious taxes on transit as well,” says Paata
Davitaia, a refugee from Abkhazia and the former Minister of Justice
of the Abkhaz government-in-exile, to the newspaper Akhali Taoba,
“Thus the rumors about the fact that the railway opening will improve
Georgian-Abkhaz relations are just absurd.”
Tbilisi had once proposed that Georgians would be employed on the
railway in Abkhazia, and Bagapsh’s move creates another point of
contention.
As for Tbilisi’s insistence that if the railway opens, Georgian
refugees in the Gali region of Abkhazia must be able to return,
it is important to note that the majority of them have already gone
back but still face everyday insecurity.
Georgian authorities have not given their unconditional approval
to the railway rehabilitation via Abkhazia even though the railway
restoration is an issue of active discussion in Russia and Armenia.
The Transport Minister of Armenia Andranik Manukian declared
that Armenia is ready to participate in the work of rehabilitating
Abkhazia’s railway. At the same time, he said, Armenia can help only
technically – not financially.
According to Manukian, Georgia and Russia would allot USD 150
million for the railway restoration, but he admits that the Georgian
authorities have not discussed his suggestion yet reports the newspaper
Akhali Taoba.
The agreement on Tuesday to study the state of the railway creates
additional momentum to rehabilitate the link and Georgia must
be prepared to argue its position on both how the railway will be
operated and what must be done before this can happen.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GEORGIAN OFFICERS SHOOT AN ARMENIAN
A1plus
| 12:35:33 | 27-06-2005 | Social |
On June 25 in the Tsalka region an emergency case took place. In the
Greek village Holeanq the soldiers of the Georgian Ministry of Internal
Affairs special detachment in Tsalka shot the 26-year-old Armenia
resident of the Armenian village Ghzlqilisa Vladimir Nazaretyan.
Together with his friends, Vladimir Nazaretyan passed in a car through
the village Holeanq, “A-Info” reports. The soldiers of the special
detachment stopped the car, asked the nationality of the passengers
and learning that they are Armenians forbade them to pass through
the village.
The Armenians ignored the illegal demand of the Georgian soldiers,
after which the soldiers shot the car and gravely injured
V. Nazaretyan. He was taken to Tbilisi; according to the doctors,
his life is in danger.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The New York Sun
June 22, 2005 Wednesday
Democracy for Lebanon
by Nibras Kazimi
‘Lebanon has plenty of freedom, but very little democracy,” the adage
goes, suggesting that no one should mistake the holding of
parliamentary elections in that country as a democratic exercise. But
still, there are hopes for better, democratic days to come.
And here’s why: Two seismic developments occurred in the last two
staggered phases of the Lebanese elections during late May and early
this month that will eventually set that battered country up for a
real functioning democracy. The first occurred when a maverick
ex-general by the name of Michel Aoun unexpectedly took over the
leadership of the Maronite Christian minority by trouncing his
political contenders in the Maronite bible bubble of Kisrawan, and
putting up a good fight elsewhere in mixed Christian-Muslim
constituencies. The other happened when the traditional and powerful
feudalists lost in the north of the country. Both are indicators that
the Lebanese people are ready to change the old established political
routine.
In Lebanon, the individual is beholden to the luggage of sectarian
identity and history. Individual ambitions have no room for
expression beyond the stringent and narrow categories of what god one
prays to, and who’s your grandfather. Even the grand equalizer of
striking it big in the realm of finance translates into communal
leadership rather than national leadership. This system was set in
place by traditional power elites that milked the country – and its
entrepreneurial spirit – for all it had. However, as long as you
don’t question the setup, you are free to do as you please.
The French colonial administration that drew up Lebanon as an
enlargement of the Maronite enclave, and gave the Maronites the reins
of power, created a very curious mistake. Those borders also included
Sunnis, Shias, Greek and Catholic Orthodox Christians, Druze, and a
smattering of other minorities. Lebanon became the incubator of a
Middle Eastern contradiction: how to reconcile several thousand years
of history and a multitude of identities that constitute the larger
picture of the Middle East with modern, homogenizing ideologies. Not
one single Middle Eastern country (all drawn up in one way or another
by 20th-century colonial powers) can claim to have a homogenous
ethnic or religious make-up. In such a country, and in such a region,
can all the intricacies of history be dismissed in the face of a
dominant, uniform Arab Islamic identity?
Lebanon paid a price tag of 150,000 dead in its 15-year civil war to
come up with an answer: No. The tension leading up to the civil war,
and still pervading the political atmosphere to this day, was how to
reconcile on-the-ground diversity in the face of the pan-Arab
nationalism sweeping the Middle East in the 20th century. In the wake
of nationalism’s decline, a new all encompassing ideology has emerged
in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, increasingly led by Al
Qaeda-type Salafi-Wahhabists and a sympathetic and well-funded
religious establishment in Saudi Arabia. But would such an ideology
succeed where nationalism failed, and where would that leave a
country with the heterodox makeup of Lebanon?
Just north of the heart of Beirut, which is traditionally the bastion
of affluent Sunnis and Greek Orthodox, is the Armenian neighborhood
of Bourj Hammoud that is populated by the descendants of victims of
Turkey’s first round of experimenting with nationalism in the waning
days of the Ottoman Empire. Their forefathers and mothers had escaped
the wrath engendered in response to Armenian nationalism that sought
to create a homeland in eastern Anatolia during the First World War.
They ended in slums then situated on the outskirts of Beirut’s
coastline. Today, in that neighborhood, there is a very curious
sight: the local branch of the Arab Bank has its marquee up in
Arabic, English, and Armenian.
A little farther north of Bourj Hammoud, the steep ridges of mountain
ranges interrupt the coastline and abruptly descend into the sea at
the Dog River. Over the millennia, many visitors to Lebanon have
remarked on this geographical statement, and conquering armies, from
the Babylonians through the Crusaders and down to the French, have
left markers to show that they had passed through this point. Beyond
it lies Kisrawan, where the visitor is immediately welcomed by a
giant, arms-outstretched statue of Jesus Christ.
Southward along Beirut’s coast, one runs into the Shia shantytowns
teeming with those that escaped the fighting between the Israelis and
the Palestinians three decades ago in their southernmost heartland of
Jebel Amil, where Shi’ism had been holding on against many oppressive
odds since the schism that divided the early Muslims into Sunni and
Shia some 1,400 years ago. Keep going along the coast, and then take
a sharp turn left up the Shouf Mountains, where the Druze, a
secretive sect of Muslims that went beyond the accepted bounds of
orthodoxy a thousand years ago, hide out among enchanted forests of
pine and a few surviving cedars, the latter needing a couple of
thousand years to reach maturity.
There has to be a different kind of ideology that makes sense of a
country like Lebanon, and provides a workable model for the rest of
the Middle East, and that can only be democracy. One indigenous
Lebanese model, called the National Covenant of 1943, was a verbal
agreement among the traditional leaders of the various communities to
share power: the presidency for the Maronites, the premiership of the
cabinet to the Sunnis, and the speaker’s post of the parliament to
the Shias. And what goes for the top posts devolves down the chain of
bureaucratic hierarchy; even the 30 jobs at the fire department of
Beirut International Airport are divided up along similar sectarian
patterns. Should one need a job in government, and even if a remote
village needed asphalt for a road leading to it, then the only place
to go is to the respective leader of one’s community, which suited
the traditionalists just fine and cemented the power that they sought
to inherit to their sons.
But this model is a farce and is continually challenged and
reformulated when the demographic trends of the various populations
change. There are fewer Maronites as a proportion of the population
than there were 60 years ago, and more Shias. The Lebanese need to
come up with something different or they will always be beholden to
the legacy of strife and civil war, something that turns incredibly
messy and bloody within its natural and historical patchwork of
communities.
The journey toward democracy involves moving away from disparate
sectarian identities into a unifying Lebanese one. The language for
that is oddly encapsulated in the Ta’if Accords of 1989 that brought
an end to the civil war. It calls for the annulment of sectarian
politics and power-sharing and provides the first step: a new
electoral law that allows the Lebanese to vote on nonsectarian lines
for the parliament. The signatories of the Ta’if Accords were the
ossified icons of the old way of doing business, the traditional
leaders, and they conveniently kept this clause on ice. Now is the
time to bring it forth and use it to cajole the Lebanese into taking
their first steps toward both freedom and democracy.
President Bush could help by appointing a special presidential envoy
for democracy in Lebanon. He should pick someone of Lebanese descent
(there are an estimated 1.5 million Americans who fill this category)
and untainted by the past “status quo” policy of dealing with the
Middle East. General John Abizaid of Centcom would be the ideal
candidate, or otherwise the yardstick. The task of this envoy would
be to sit down with the new parliament and get them to pass laws that
facilitate the emergence of a new Lebanese identity. For example,
there are about 150,000 households in Lebanon of mixed marriages
between sects. In order to get a marriage license, a mixed-marriage
couple needs to go to Cyprus or Europe. They are prevented from doing
so in their own country. Legalizing same-citizenship marriages should
not be such a hurdle and would find a supportive constituency.
A new electoral law needs to be cobbled together that takes into mind
the sensitivities of the traditionalists but charts the path forward.
The Ta’if Accords suggest the formation of a House of Lords where all
the sectarian chieftains can hold court and put on airs but not
disrupt or corrupt the functions of government. New electoral
districting can be drawn to map out enclaves of sectarian uniformity,
thereby ensuring that those who get elected actually represent their
sectarian communities, which is not the case under the current law.
In order to get the ultra-insecure Maronites on board, the Lebanese
Diaspora still holding on to Lebanese citizenship – overwhelmingly
Christian – should be allowed to vote, and that costly logistical
process could be underwritten by American financial aid. The Shias
who are increasingly transforming themselves from a dispossessed and
marginal sect into the comforts of the bourgeoisie, and who are
closely watching the Shia-American alliance in Iraq, must be
encouraged to give up their support for Hezbollah by allaying their
fears of armed Palestinians, usually seen as the shock troops of the
Sunnis. Saad Hariri, now leading the Sunnis, should be tasked with
getting the U.N.-mandated disarmament of the Palestinian militias
done as a prelude to disarming the Lebanese Hezbollah.
General Aoun has illusions and aspirations of being a national leader
and can deliver the Maronites at this stage. In an effort to
dismantle the sectarian edifice of government, he can be allied to
the smattering of democrats who defeated the traditionalists in the
north. This is a golden opportunity coming out of a creaking and
unsustainable structure, and the beginning of a grassroots challenge
to the arcane traditional idea of a “free yet undemocratic” Lebanon.
There is a lot more to be done, but only America can re-enter the
Lebanese scene to push democracy forward. If democracy succeeds in
Lebanon, then the rest of the Middle East has an answer as to what
form of government and spirit of governance would suit their
multidimensional and confusing region. Otherwise, Islamic
fundamentalism becomes the only contender for a future vision.
America would have to attempt to intervene on behalf of all the
Lebanese, rather than following the model of the French, Saudi,
Syrian, and Iranian interventions and getting involved on behalf of
one Lebanese client community. If America can help make a success
story of a thriving democracy out of a contradictory and wounded
country, then the rest of the people of the Middle East will take
notice as they grapple with similar questions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Russian MP hails polls in Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR]
Arminfo, Yerevan
21 Jun 05
STEPANAKERT
The [19 June parliamentary] elections in Nagornyy Karabakh were held
in line with democratic standards and without any incidents, the
director of the [Moscow-based] Institute of CIS [and Diaspora Studies]
and a member of the Russian State Duma, Konstantin Zatulin, has told
journalists. Zatulin monitored the parliamentary elections in the
Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR] as an observer.
Zatulin pointed out that he had been at six polling stations, Arminfo
correspondent reported from Stepanakert. “Of course, conditions at
some of them leave much to be desired in terms of equipment, but then
electoral lists were hanged on the walls everywhere, which is not the
case in Russia and which we could also practise,” he said.
Zatulin said that people voted for individual candidates and parties,
but in the end they voted for democracy. He believes that the mixed
system of elections, which has spurred the process of creating new
parties, is a step forward.
“The people of Karabakh have not only demonstrated that they are
faithful to democratic processes and democracy, but they have also
proven that they live in a real country. These elections will also
undoubtedly impact on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict,” Zatulin said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ankara Haunted by Armenian Massacre
Deutsche Welle, Germany
June 17 2005
Armenians honor the 1.5 million victims of Turkish violence
When the German parliament condemned the mass killing of Armenians by
Turks 90 years ago, it sparked angry protest from Ankara. But if it
wants to be taken seriously by the EU, it needs to face up to its past.
In a vote Thursday, Germany’s main parliamentary parties joined forces
to deplore the systematic murder of 1.5 million Armenians between
1915 and 1916. Berlin is now urging Turkey to set up an independent
committee of Turkish, Armenian and international historians to document
what happened.
The resolution looks set to test relations between Ankara and Berlin.
So far, the German government has been a key supporter of Turkish
EU aspirations.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul described the resolution as
one-sided and “provocative,” and said German lawmakers had ignored
repeated warnings of the harm the resolution would do to bilateral
ties.
Time for reconciliation
Faruk Sen is the director of the center for Turkish studies in Essen
in Germany. He feels disapointed by the Turkish Foreign Minister’s
harsh criticism of the resolution, and says Turkey has to look forward.
“80,000 Armenians live in Turkey,” he told DW Radio. “Each year,
more than 100,000 come to Turkey to work there. It is time for
reconciliation. I think to look back on 90 years of history doesn’t
help at all. Turkey and Armenia need good relations today.”
Genocide?
Turkey is worried that it will come under mounting pressure to
recognize the killings as “genocide” after it starts EU entry talks
in October. Other European nations, including Poland and Greece,
have also passed resolutions condemning the genocide.
President Jacques Chirac of France, home to Europe’s largest Armenian
diaspora, said failure by Turkey to recognize the genocide could harm
the country’s EU bid.
Faruk Sen, however, is critical of the EU’s stance.
“If that’s the opinion of the EU, it is a shame,” he insisted.
“Because then, Turkey and the EU cannot negotiate anymore. The EU
would have to do without Turkey.”
Turkey gets impatient
The German resolution comes at a time when the EU is already displeased
with Turkey over its dragging human rights and judicial reform.
Faruk Sen says the EU has tested Turkey’s patience.
“People in Turkey are increasingly against the EU and now the Armenia
debate has been added to Turkey’s obligations to join the EU. I think
if the EU-membership fails because of the Armenia-issue, the people
in Turkey won’t be too sad.”
Turkey denies the claims that 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
in a systematic genocide between 1915 and 1923 as the multi-ethnic
Ottoman Empire collapsed. It accepts that hundreds of thousands of
Armenians were killed, but says even more Turks died in a partisan
conflict in which many Armenians backed invading Russian troops.
Ignorance and taboos
But political theorist Ahmet Insel pointed out that the reason so
many Turks deny the extent of the massacre has nothing to do with
nationalistic or racist sentiment — it’s simply ignorance.
“Generations of Turks have grown up never learning about this
tragedy,” he said. “Now that it’s being discussed, they’re realizing
how little they actually know. At the moment, we’re experiencing a
time of complete confusion.”
He explained that much of the population is appalled by the wave
of recent media reports depicting the crimes perpetrated by their
forefathers.
“The cat is out of the bag,” he said. “Turkish society is finally
beginning to talk about these matters. We have to come to terms with
our past, and the first step is to face up to our history.”
DW staff (jp)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MOSCOW FIRST VICE-MAYOR BECAME YEREVAN HONORARY CITIZEN
Pan Armenian News
16.06.2005 04:17
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Moscow First Vice-Mayor Vladimir Resin became
honorary citizen of Yerevan. This rank is awarded to him due to
the contribution to the development of public and economic ties and
cooperation between Moscow and Yerevan, Russia and Armenia, Itar-Tass
reported. Yerevan Mayor Yervand Zakharyan also mentioned Resin~Rs
contribution to the organization and implementation of restoration
and construction works in Armenian regions, which suffered from the
earthquake in 1988. 30 dwelling houses were build under the direct
guidance of Vladimir Resin in the calamity zone in 1989-1992. The
subject of talks of Mr. Resin in Yerevan includes the building of
the House of Moscow. The agreement on it was made during Moscow Mayor
Yuri Luzhkov~Rs visit. The building will be jointly designed by Moscow
and Armenian architects.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DISCUSSIONS WITH US SENATOR
A1plus
| 21:15:52 | 31-05-2005 | Official |
Today Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan met with member of
the commission for foreign relations of the US Senate, republican
Norm Colman, Vice President of the Armenian Congress of the US and
the Gafeschyan Fund John Waters accompanied by Regional Director of
the Armenian Congress of the US in Armenia Arpi Vardanyan and Director
of Armenia TV Company Bagrat Sargsyan.
The Armenian Premier highly evaluated the activities of the
Armenaian-American interparliamentary commission, which had held its
recurrent sitting in Yerevan this year and is going to hold another
one at the end of the year in the US. The parties also touched
upon political cooperation. Andranik Margaryan thanked the American
legislators for consistent efforts targeted at the Armenian Genocide
recognition and normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Senator Colman noted that the purpose of his visit is to get
familiarized with the problems available and render assistance in
their resolution.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANCA AND AFRICA ACTION CALL ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE DECISIVE ACTION ON DARFUR GENOCIDE AT WHITE HOUSE VIGIL
WASHINGTON, MAY 30, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenian Americans from the Greater
Washington DC area joined with local student leaders and community
activists last week to protest the ongoing Genocide in Darfur,
Sudan. Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
was among speakers at the May 25th White House vigil, organized
by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). Rep. Pallone
thanked attendees for calling attention to the situation in Darfur,
Sudan, and went on to draw parallels between Armenian and Darfur
genocides. “It’s very reminiscent of what happened in the case of
the Armenian Genocide,” stated Rep. Pallone. “There were people
that were speaking out that were not listened to. In the case of the
Turks, they were out there in the fields, constantly killing people
and moving people into the desert. While there were those who were
speaking out [about the Armenian Genocide], the Western powers really
weren’t doing anything about it. We don’t want to be in that situation
again here in the United States.” During the vigil, representatives
of the ANCA, Africa Action, the Armenian Youth Federation, Genocide
Education Project, Armenian American activists and supporters gave
impassioned remarks about the importance of continued activism to press
for decisive action by the Bush Administration to end the violence
in Darfur. Among the speakers joining Rep. Pallone and Nahapetian
were ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian; Communications Director
Elizabeth Chouldjian; Africa Action Executive Director Salih Booker,
Director for Public Education and Mobilization Marie Clarke Brill,
and Program Associate Akenji Ndumu; Genocide Education Project
Education Director Sara Cohan; Armenian American activist Sylvia
Parsons; and AYF member Megan Young. Hamparian expressed concern
about the U.S. Government’s inaction following a September, 2004,
statement properly characterizing the killings and rapes in Darfur
as “genocide”. “By using the term genocide – and not acting on our
legal and moral obligations, our invocation of the term genocide
is hollowed of meaning. Our commitment to the Genocide Convention
is undermined. Those whose lives it was within our power to save
are abandoned,” explained Hamparian. The ANCA has participated in
previous Darfur vigils, protested outside the Sudanese Embassy,
spoken at genocide prevention conferences, and generated support –
both at the grassroots level and in Washington, DC – for Congressional
legislation aimed at ending the slaughter in the Darfur region. Up to
400,000 people have already died and more than 2,000,000 dislocated
in Darfur over the past two years. Recent reports confirm that the
situation on the ground is deteriorating, and the humanitarian crisis
is reaching desperate proportions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 25 2005
Turkish PM Shelves Annan Plan
Zeynep Gurcanli
The New Anatolian/ Ankara
The first stroke comes during Council of Europe meeting: Foreign
Ministry officials are shocked to hear the PM telling the Greek
Cypriot leader that the ‘Annan plan would not be the basis’ for
future negotiations on Cyprus
The second stroke is more open: Talking about his recent forays into
the Armenian issue, Erdogan associates his ‘successful’ policy with
‘not listening to Foreign Ministry bureaucrats’
Despite Erdogan’s claims of success in both issues, TRNC president
accuses Erdogan of being ‘cheated’ by Greek Cypriots. Moreover, the
Greek Cypriot press calls the Papadopoulos-Erdogan meeting a
‘victory’
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent foreign policy
declarations have created very deep concerns within the Foreign
Ministry. Turkish diplomats were first shocked by Erdogan’s
statements on the future of Cyprus negotiations, which were
fundamentally against Turkey’s current policy on Cyprus, and stated
his intent to abandon the Annan plan. The second shock was more
direct and blunt: Erdogan openly stated that he had succeeded with
his Armenian policy by not listening to Foreign Ministry bureaucrats.
Diplomats learned of the “Cyprus shock” during the Council of Europe
summit meeting in Warsaw, Poland last week. Both Turkish and Greek
Cypriot diplomats were shocked to hear the Turkish prime minister say
that the “Annan plan would not be the basis” for future negotiations
on Cyprus, during his discussion with Greek Cypriot leader Tassos
Papadopoulos.
Despite last year’s rejection by the Greek Cypriots of the Annan plan
in a referendum, Ankara chose a policy of insisting on the plan for a
future solution. Since last year, all Turkish politicians, even
Erdogan, have underlined the importance of the plan during their
meetings with concerned parties. But Erdogan’s words were interpreted
as a clear shift from Turkey’s Cyprus policy, which called for a
solution based on the plan prepared by UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan.
While Turkish diplomats chose to remain silent about Erdogan’s words,
the Greek Cypriot press characterized the meeting between the prime
minister and Papadopoulos as a “victory” for the Greek side, which
has been eschewing the Annan plan since the referendum.
But the Turkish Cypriot side was not as happy as the Greeks. Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) President Mehmet Ali Talat
reproached Erdogan for his words, claiming that the Turkish premier
had “been cheated” by the Greek Cypriots.
Second stroke: Armenian policy
Erdogan’s second shock came more openly. Talking about his recent
forays on the Armenian issue, Erdogan associated what he
characterized as “successful results” of his policy of “not listening
to Foreign Ministry bureaucrats.”
During Sunday’s AK Party Executive Board meeting, Erdogan underlined
that the AK Party government would use “Cyprus tactics” against
countries whose Parliaments have passed decisions recognizing the
so-called Armenian genocide.
Recalling that Foreign Ministry bureaucrats had suggested a “calm
approach,� and “not raising the tension,” Erdogan replied that
he would not take such warnings into consideration. “How can we be
calm while we’re losing our grip on our nation?” he asked. “To always
be defensive is not a good policy with such problems.”
But, despite Erdogan’s claims of success in both the Cyprus and
Armenian policies, Ankara has not yet found solutions to either of
the problems.
Against all expectations, Erdogan did not meet with Armenian
President Robert Kocharian during the Warsaw summit, where it was
thought they would discuss making progress on the so-called genocide
issue.
On the Cyprus problem, Ankara was criticized by its natural ally the
TRNC, but praised by the rival Greek Cypriot administration.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress