Author: Badalian Vardan

Azeris protest at Armenian plan to hold youth forum in Karabakh
ANS Radio, Baku
27 Sep 04
Armenia plans to hold another international forum in Nagornyy
Karabakh. The Pan-Armenian Youth International Centre Foundation
non-governmental organization intends to hold a forum on human rights
and democracy on 15-19 November.
The centre reported that it would cover all the costs of the forum,
adding that its members decided to hold their forum in Karabakh because
Nagornyy Karabakh was in a blockade and its youth had difficulties
in establishing relations with the internaitonal community. The forum
will help expand ties between Karabakh’s youth and the outside world.
A group of Azerbaijani residents have already sent an appeal to the
UN regarding this plan.

European Centre for Minority Issues(ECMI)
Schiffbrücke 12, D · 24939 Flensburg, Germany, [email protected]
tel: +49 (0) 4 61 – 1 41 49 – 0, fax: +49 (0) 4 61 – 1 41 49 – 19
23 September 2004
ECMI Working Paper #22
Wheatley, Jonathan. Obstacles Impeding the Regional Integration of the
Javakheti Region of Georgia. September 2004, 41 pp., appendix.
This working paper is a consolidated and condensed analysis of a longer
field report originally carried out as part of ECMI’s action-oriented
project “Defusing interethnic tension and promoting regional integration
– the Javakheti Region of the Republic of Georgia”. Both the original
field report, and this resulting analysis aim to provide an insightful
overview of the current social, economic and political situation in two
rayons (districts) of Georgia; Akhalkalaki rayon and Ninostminda rayon;
which together combine to form a geographical area better known as the
Javakheti Region in southern Georgia. By identifying and providing
information about the current problems impeding the regional integration
of Javakheti, this working paper will act as a guide for defining
priorities and ensuring more informed intervention in the area.

Xinhua, China
Sept 26 2004
Armenian president arrives in Beijing
BEIJING, Sept. 26 (Xinhuanet) — Armenian President Robert
Sedrakovich Kocharyan arrived here Sunday evening, starting his
five-day state visit to China at the invitation of Chinese Presidenet
Hu Jintao.
It’s the first state visit to China by Kocharyan as president.
Kocharyan will hold talks and meet with Chinese top leaders
during his stay in China’s capital. Besides Beijing, he will also
visit China’s financial hub Shanghai. Enditem

Turkish Daily News
Sept 24 2004
Foreign Minister Gul Meets His Armenian Counterpart
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News 24/09/2004 17:36
Talking about the solution process, Oskanyan interpreted the goal of
a recent meeting of foreign ministers in Prague was to arrange talks
between the two countries’ presidents
Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan told a news conference in
Yerevan they have never lost hope of normalizing relations with
Turkey, the Anatolia news agency reported.
Oskanyan said he would meet Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on
the sidelines of the ongoing United Nations General Assembly meetings
in New York. “Our expectations from this meeting will be the same
again: to gain a positive development for furthering relations,”
Oskanyan was quoted as saying.
Talking about the solution process, Oskanyan interpreted the goal of
a recent meeting of foreign ministers in Prague was to arrange talks
between the two countries’ presidents. Oskanyan said the Armenian and
Azeri presidents, Robert Kocharyan and Ilkham Aliyev, could not reach
a new understanding in their meeting in Astana on Sept. 15. “Contrary
to expectations, neither president gave their foreign ministries any
orders to begin the second stage that is far closer to a settlement
of the problem,” Oskanyan said.
On the other hand, Armenian President Kocharyan also made a statement
in Yerevan about the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Kocharyan said the
Armenian directorship in Nagorno Karabakh was legal and all related
parts, including the Armenian directorship, should be able to attend
the negotiations for finding a solution to the conflict.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a 13-year-old dispute, which has dragged on since
a 1994 cease-fire ended fighting that killed more than 30,000 people
and drove a million from their homes. Azerbaijan refuses to negotiate
directly with the Karabakh Armenians and Turkey refuses to establish
diplomatic relations with Armenia. Turkey closed its gate with
Armenia and severed its diplomatic ties a decade ago, in protest of
Armenia’s occupation of the Azeri territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan held a trilateral
meeting earlier this year to discuss a “phased approach” under which
Armenia would gradually withdraw from the occupied Azeri territories
and Ankara would normalize its ties, in phases, with Yerevan in
return. But no concrete progress has yet been achieved.

The definition
History
The Times Literary Supplement (London)
September 17, 2004
Page 13
Book Review
Peter Balakian
“The Burning Tigris”
The Armenian genocide
474pp. Heinemann. 0 434 00816 8
US: HarperCollins. 0 060 19840 0
By Andrew Mango
It is easy to understand the anger and anguish of Armenian
nationalists. They gaze at their terra irredenta, historic Armenia
which lies almost entirely within the borders of the republic of
Turkey, and which is dotted with the ruins of monuments bearing
witness to the high culture of Armenian kingdoms before the Turkish
conquest from the eleventh century onward. But there are no irredenti
– no unredeemed Armenians – in historic Armenia or elsewhere in Asia
Minor. Nor are there any prospects of a reconquista. The population
of the small landlocked Armenian republic in the southern Caucasus has
fallen from over three million at the time of the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to an estimated two million today. One-fifth of the
territory of the neighbouring republic of Azerbaijan, which the
Armenians have occupied, lies largely empty after the flight of close
on one million of its Azeri inhabitants. There are not enough
Armenians to hold on to recent conquests, let alone to people their
terra irredenta in Turkey. Why have things come to such a sorry pass?
In his campaigning book, Peter Balakian seeks to persuade liberal
Americans in general, and members of the United States Congress in
particular, that the Turks alone are to blame, and that, for reasons
of realpolitik, the Christian West has failed to bring their crimes
home to them. In Balakian’s account, Muslim Turks have always
oppressed Christian Armenians. Oppression turned to unprovoked
massacre in the 1890s in the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, and
peaked in genocide when the Young Turks deported the Armenians from
Asia Minor in 1915 during the First World War. It was, he argues, the
first genocide of the twentieth century and a model for the Jewish
Holocaust. The historical record does not support Balakian’s thesis.
For eight centuries – from 1071 when the Seljuk Turks defeated the
Byzantines at Manzikert, in historic Armenia, to the congress of
Berlin in 1878 when the Armenian Question entered the agenda of
international diplomacy – the Armenians lived as a self-governing
religious community perfectly integrated into the mosaic of Ottoman
society. They provided the Ottoman State with most of its craftsmen –
from humble farriers to imperial architects, from potters to
jewellers, and in modern times, mechanics, train drivers and
dentists. Not only did many, if not most, of them adopt Turkish as
their mother tongue, but in a rare linguistic phenomenon, the grammar
of the Armenian language was affected by Turkish morphology. The
Armenian contribution to Turkish culture was immense: they set up the
first modern Turkish theatre, they published books in Turkish, they
devised Turkish translations for new Western terms and concepts, they
were prominent in Turkish music, both as composers and performers.
Like other non-Muslim communities, the Armenians were among the main
beneficiaries of the nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms which
proclaimed the equality of the Sultan’s subjects, regardless of
creed. The prosperity which the Tanzimat brought in its train drew the
Armenians from their harsh homeland on the eastern Anatolian plateau
to the great commercial centres of the Empire – to Trabzon, Istanbul,
Izmir and the market towns of Asia Minor, where, together with the
Greeks, they accounted for the bulk of a new middle class. The
Armenians had always been renowned as merchants and bankers; under the
Tanzimat many became senior civil servants. Right up to 1914 there
were Armenian ambassadors and Cabinet ministers serving the Ottoman
State. Balakian does not mention them. Of course, the Armenians had
grievances, particularly in the mountainous areas of eastern Anatolia,
where they were subject to the depredations of Kurdish tribes and of
destitute Circassian refugees, not to mention venal Ottoman
officials. But most Muslims were much worse off.
As a result of Armenian emigration and the immigration of Muslim
refugees fleeing from successive Russian advances in the Caucasus,
Muslims came to outnumber the Armenians by a large margin in historic
Armenia. There were prosperous Armenian communities everywhere, but
they were not in the majority in a single province. This posed the
biggest problem for Armenian nationalists, when they began to agitate
for autonomous government. In his celebrated essay, “Minorities,” Elie
Kedourie described how ideas originating in the West destroyed the
Armenian community in Asia Minor and the Jewish community in Iraq. In
the case of the Armenians, these ideas came through two channels –
from the Russian Empire where Armenian nationalism was born in the
revolutionary ferment opposition to the rule of the Tsars, and from
American missionaries whose schools produced the unintended effect of
alienating the Armenians from their Ottoman environment. Kedourie
relates how Armenian nationalist terrorism was the pretext for the
anti-Armenian pogroms of the 1890s – the first major inter-communal
clash between Muslims and Armenians, who had earlier been known to the
Ottomans as “the faithful nation.” Even if one disregards the
exaggerated figures put out by Armenian nationalists, and reduces the
number of people killed to the more likely figure of 20,000″30,000,
the pogroms were bad enough. But worse was to follow.
It was the decision of the Young Turks to enter the Great War on the
side of Germany against Russia and the other Allies that sealed the
fate of the Armenians. By 1914 there were roughly as many Armenians in
the Russian as in the Ottoman Empire. Torn between two warring sides,
the Armenians were bound to prefer the Christian Russians. One can
argue about the extent of the threat posed by Armenian irregulars to
the Ottoman army, which was trying to contain a Russian advance in
eastern Anatolia in 1915. In the words of the American military
historian Edward Erickson, “It is beyond doubt that the actuality of
Armenian revolts in the key cities astride the major eastern roads and
railroads posed a significant military problem in the real sense.”
But it is hard to argue that the problem justified the decision of
Enver Pasha and the other Young Turk leaders to deport almost the
entire Armenian population of Asia Minor (outside Izmir and, of
course, Istanbul). The Young Turks issued a sheaf of orders and
regulations which, in theory, were meant to ensure the humane
evacuation and transport of deportees. But as Erickson points out,
“Enver Pasha’s plans hinged on non-existent capabilities that
guaranteed inevitable failure.” An earlier military historian, Gwynne
Dyer, wrote: “I believe that historians will come to see [the Young
Turk leaders] not so much as evil men but as desperate, frightened
unsophisticated men struggling to keep their nation afloat in a crisis
far graver than they had anticipated, reacting to events rather than
creating them, and not fully realizing the extent of the horrors they
had set in motion.”
The horrors involved, according to the careful calculations by the
American historical demographer Justin McCarthy (whom Balakian does
not mention), the loss of some 580,000 Armenian lives from all causes
– massacre, starvation and disease. The fact that Muslim losses were
much greater in the same theatre of operations does nothing to detract
from the extent of the Armenian tragedy. Was it a genocide” Bernard
Lewis was sued in a French court for saying sensibly that it all
depends on the definition of genocide. But, whatever the definition,
Balakian’s insistent comparison with the Jewish Holocaust is
misleading. The Turkish Armenians perished in the course of “a
desperate struggle between two nations for the possession of a single
homeland,” in Professor Lewis’s words. For the Turks, Lewis wrote,
“the Armenian movement was the deadliest of all threats;” to yield to
it “would have meant not the truncation, but the dissolution of the
Turkish state.” The Jews posed no such threat to the
Germans. Religious fanaticism was a factor in the Armenian tragedy,
racism was not. There is a much closer parallel with the eviction of
Circassians and other Muslim mountaineers from Russian Caucasus in the
nineteenth century. The figures are of the same order as those
relating to the Armenians: some 1.2 million Muslim Caucasians left
their Russian-conquered homeland; 800,000 of them lived to settle in
Ottoman domains.
“The Burning Tigris” fits in with the campaign waged by Armenian
nationalists to persuade Western parliaments to recognize the Armenian
genocide. It is not a work of historical research, but an advocate’s
impassioned plea, relying at times on discredited evidence, such as
the forged telegrams attributed to the Ottoman interior minister,
Talat Pasha, which were produced at the trial of his assassin in
Berlin. Some of Balakian’s assertions would make any serious Ottoman
historian’s hair stand on end. Like other similar books, it is replete
with selective quotations from contemporary observers. Turkish
historians have drawn from many of the same sources for material to
rebut Armenian accusations. It would be better if, rather than ask
parliaments to pass historical judgments, historians from all sides
came together to research the horrors of the war on the Ottomans’
eastern front. But it is better to lobby parliaments than to
assassinate Turkish diplomats, as happened in a previous campaign by
genocide-avengers, which Peter Balakian, to his credit, regrets. At
present, Armenian nationalists refuse to engage in a dialogue with
Turkish historians unless there is preliminary recognition of their
genocide claim. Refusal is in their eyes tantamount to the crime of
Holocaust denial. But acceptance would be a denial of the freedom of
historical research, not to say of free speech.
Andrew Mango is Research Associate at the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London. His books include “Ataturk”
(1999), and “Turkey: A delicately poised ally” (1975).
Letters to the TLS editor can be sent to the following
address:
The Times Literary Supplement
Admiral House
66-68 East Smithfield
London E1W 1BX
United Kingdom
Or via
Telephone: +44 020-7782 3000
Fax: +44 020-7782 3100
Email: [email protected]
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

St Albans observer
22 Sept 2004
Christmas charity appeal for Eastern Europe
A CHARITY is appealing for people in the St Albans area to donate toys send
to disadvantaged children in Eastern Europe this Christmas.
Christian relief project Operation Christmas Child delivered more than one
million shoeboxes filled with toys to the children last year, over 4,000 of
which came from the St Albans and WelwynGarden City and Hatfield areas.
The shoeboxes are distributed to underprivileged children in countries
including Armenia, Poland, Romania and Kyrgysztan. This year the charity
will also deliver the toys to children in Mozambique.
Area organiser Sheila Heaton said: “Many people in this area did a fantastic
job contributing last year, and our aim is to do better if we possibly can.
The tremendous impact that a shoebox containing some simple gifts has upon a
child with nothing – and their family – cannot be over-emphasised.”
The charity running the project, Samaritan’s Purse, issues guidelines on
what gifts to send, and asks for a £2 donation with each box to assist with
the cost of transport and distribution. To find out how to participate in
Operation Christmas Child telephone 0870 0112002 or visit

WEST-EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY WISHES ESTABLISHMENT OF SAFETY ON CAUCASUS
AzerTag
September 22, 2004
On September 21, Chairman of Milli Majlis Murtuz Alaskarov has
received the vice-president of Assembly of the West-European Union,
the rapporteur of the Organization on questions of stability and
safety in the Caucasian region, the deputy of Italian Parliament Marko
Zakkera.
As provided by AzerTAj, M. Alaskarov, having noted, that as a result
of purposeful policy carried out by the national leader of Azerbaijan
people Heydar Aliyev in 1996, between our country and the European
Union has been established cooperation, the contract was signed, has
emphasized, that our relations and would develop
henceforth. Delegations of the European Union repeatedly have visited
Baku and negotiated on various questions. We hope, that this visit
will play important role in expansion of cooperation.
Then, Chairman of Parliament has in detail informed on reforms
conducted in the country, on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh
conflict.
Marko Zakkera, having expressed gratitude for cordial welcome, has
transferred to Murtuz Alaskarov greetings of the Chairman of the
Italian Parliament. He has told, that the purpose of his visit is
gathering detailed information on situation in the region, carrying
out of negotiations about ways of solution of the conflict and
preparation of the report. You know, that as against the Council of
Europe, the West-European Union is engaged in questions of defense,
stability and safety. The Assembly of the West-European Union pays
special attention to the countries of Southern Caucasus, including
Azerbaijan. Therefore, it cannot remain indifferent to resolution to
the conflicts.
Marko Zakkera, having noted, that after Azerbaijan, he will visit
Georgia and Armenia, has emphasized, that the report will be
objective, and the document reflect realities.
The parties had comprehensive exchange of views on other questions
representing mutual interest.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Sept 13 2004
RUSSIA INTERESTED IN PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS
[September 13, 2004, 14:58:35]
It was told by the first deputy chief of the Staff on Coordination of
Military Cooperation of the CIS Ivan Babichev in his interview to
correspondent of AzerTAj, speaking on the military cooperation of the
member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is
carried out both on bilateral, and on multilateral basis. As he said,
the states of Commonwealth make a decision in what format to
cooperate with other countries of CIS, while the Staff on
coordination of military cooperation of the CIS states coordinates
the efforts of the states in this field.
I. Babichev also informed that Azerbaijan is not the participant of
the Organization of the Agreement on Collective Safety however, there
are common problems for all space of the CIS from which it is
impossible to remain aside. In particular, it is a common system of
air defense, which interests all states, and this is creation of
common system of communications, system of radiating chemical safety
for settlement of environmental problems and a number of others,
concerning all state of Commonwealth. “Though Azerbaijan also does
not enter this Agreement, nevertheless, and it participates in work
of development of common systems”, Ivan Babichev has told.
Answering the question on the position of Azerbaijan on non-alignment
to this Agreement and how is estimated it in the Staff on
Coordination of Military Cooperation of the CIS, that this military
block includes Armenia, the state conflicting with Azerbaijan
occupying a part of the Azerbaijan territories, I. Babichev has
stated that Russia stands on the position that any conflicts on space
of Commonwealth were not, and does very much that two fraternal
people were friends, found contacts points for this friendship.
Answering the question on escalating of military – technical
cooperation between Russia and Armenia, the Russian military has told
that “Here, it is impossible to say that Russia and Armenia increase
military – technical cooperation as Russia is open for all states, we
welcome all sides”. As he said, it is simple for those states, which
have signed the contract about military – technical cooperation, and
there are some advantages in sphere of purchase of the Russian
military technical equipment. The states, which have signed the
mentioned Agreement, can get the Russian technical equipment on the
in-Russian prices, and it is very favorable to many states of
Commonwealth.
Concerning settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, the Russian officer has told, that Russia is interested
that there were peace on the Caucasus, and considers, that for the
settlement of the said problem, it is necessary to continue
negotiating process. “It is necessary to do everything to solve the
problem in a peace way”, has emphasized I. Babichev.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Foreign Minister sends protest note to Russia
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 13 2004
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has sent a note of protest to
Russia with regard to participation of Russian arts figures in
the event arranged in the self-proclaimed Upper Garabagh Republic,
Azerbaijan’s land under Armenian occupation.
Mammadyarov presented the note of protest at a reception party
organized on the occasion of completion of Russian Ambassador to
Azerbaijan Nikolay Ryabov’s diplomatic mission in the country.*

Khatami: Armenians have a great impact on human civilizations
IRNA, Iran
Sept 8 2004
Yerevan, Sept 8, IRNA — President Mohammad Khatami here Wednesday
said that Armenia`s long history as well as its talented, diligent
and self-confident people have had a great impact on the human
civilizations.
Speaking to reporters, he referred to Iran`s glorious civilization of
the past eras and the Armenians` pivotal role in its development and
said that even today the Iranian Armenians keep on attempting towards
Iran`s independence and progress along with their Muslim compatriots.
“We respect our neighbors and are keen to cooperate with them.
We place special focus on Iran-Armenia ties, which can serve as a
model for those countries intending to establish relations on the
basis of mutual respect.
“Given our commitment to collaborate with Armenia following its
independence, bilateral relations have been improving since 1991,”
he added.
The president referred to the agreements signed mutually on Wednesday
and said that they are beneficial to both sides and will serve to
further broaden cooperation.
The chief executive reiterated the need to promote security and
tranquility in Iran and Caucasus and said that security and stability
in the two sensitive regions will guarantee scientific and cultural
development.
President Khatami voiced Iran`s intention to broaden its economic
and technical cooperation with the world countries and expedite
the development trend by making use of the affordable facilities
and potentials.
He referred to the great number of commonalties between Iran and
the Caucasus and said that it can overshadow some of the differences
of opinion.
The president said that most of the inked documents focused on energy
and communications and their exchange.
“Given that Armenia is located along the North-South Corridor, the
closer the communication between the two countries, the better we
can serve the entire region and the global economy,” he added.
For his part, Armenian President Robert Kocharian referred to President
Khatami`s trip to Armenia as the first visit by an Iranian president
to the country and said that it is therefore a significant historical
event.
He noted that his talks in today`s meeting with his Iranian counterpart
mainly focused on economic matters including energy and added that
based on Armenia`s infrastructures and expertise in the field,
broader cooperation is possible.
President Kocharian expressed confidence that joint projects will
soon assume regional significance.