Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

Agence France Presse
Dec 14 2004

France refers to Armenian massacre as “genocide” for first time

PARIS, Dec 14 (AFP) – The French government on Tuesday used the word
“genocide” for the first time in relation to the 1915-1917 massacre
of Armenians during the end of the Ottoman Empire, risking further
angering a Turkey already frustrated in its bid to join the European
Union.

Foreign Minister Michel Barnier told parliament that France would ask
many questions, “notably that of the Armenian genocide,” in EU-Turkey
negotiations on the membership issue.

Up to now, the French government had avoided the word “genocide”,
preferring the term “tragedy”, although the parliament voted in 2001
to qualify the events as a genocide.

Turkey, which formed the nucleus of the former Ottoman Empire, has
disputed the scale and nature of the killing of Armenians, and railed
against the term “genocide” used by surviving Armenians and their
descendants.

An estimated 1.5 million Armenians are believed to have died between
1915 and 1917 in the last years of the Ottoman empire.

Barnier, responding to an MP’s question about Turkey and its
ambitions of joining the EU, said Tuesday: “We will ask all the
questions — notably that of the Armenian genocide, notably that of
Cyprus — all through the negotiations.”

He said the bloody events “are a wound that does not heal,” and
added: “This issue is at the very heart of the European project,
which is based on reconciliation.”
From: Baghdasarian

EU-Ottoman Comparison
by MEHMET KAMIS

Zaman Online, Turkey
Dec 9 2004

Historians say that it is better to evaluate each period from its
own perspective, but from time to time we should look at history from
the viewpoint of today. The Ottoman Empire used to resemble today’s
European Union (EU). We could possibly define the Ottoman geography
as the EU of its era even though it covered a different region. The
empire stretched from the Balkans through the Middle East to Africa.
Over 40 countries today fill the vacuum left after the collapse of
the empire. Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Bosnia,
Serbia, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Romania and Hungary all now seem
foreign to each other, even though once they sheltered under the same
roof. If we look at them through the eyes of today, millions of Turks,
Bosnians, Palestinians, Serbs, Arabs, Greeks, Hungarians, Romanians,
Bulgarians, Armenians and Jews would have been trading in this region
as an economic union, without any customs control.

Had it not been for the mismanagement of imports and British tricks,
the Ottoman Empire would have survived, and would have prevented
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Balkan wars and the ongoing
conflict in Iraq. Turkey is now surrounded by countries, which had
lived in peace as part of the Ottoman Empire, but whose history since
then has been unhappy and desperate. These countries once again are
in dire need of a larger roof.

Again through the eyes of today, it is certain that the Ottomans were
more liberal than the EU on human rights. The EU has not attained
Ottoman standards especially with regards to the freedom of thought
and protection of the rights of subjects, to let them wear their own
religious and traditional dresses and speak their own languages.

Today’s EU does not protect freedoms as the Ottomans did. The Ottomans
were very successful in accommodating differences and providing
freedoms, when compared to the EU, and always had a liberal attitude in
protecting the identities of various nations and religions. The empire
never embraced the imperialist ideal that the ruled must resemble
their rulers, and refrained from imposing a lifestyle on them. The
EU Turkey demands are more severe and its judgment more negative,
showing that the EU is afraid of anything that does not resemble
itself. On the other side, the Ottoman Empire’s structure was one in
which many different ethnic and religious groups were able to live
together without any problems. My question is this: Which is more
contemporary and democratic, the Ottoman Empire, which recognized the
differences, allowed them live together and provided everyone freedom
on religious and traditional issues without assimilation; or the West,
that wants to assimilate everything and is afraid of differences?
From: Baghdasarian

The New York Sun
November 30, 2004 Tuesday

Off-Key Comparison

by Hillel Halkin

An American friend just sent me an e-mail containing an article that
appeared yesterday, in the November 29 British daily the Guardian.
Written by the Guardian’s Israel correspondent Chris McGreal, the
article deals with an incident that took place on November 9 and was
widely reported last week in the Israeli and international press. In
this incident, Israeli soldiers at a West Bank check post near Nablus
made a Palestinian violinist play his instrument in front of them
before giving him permission to pass.

Of all the recent revelations of the “routine dehumanizing treatment”
of Palestinians by the Israeli military, Mr. McGreal wrote, including
an Israeli officer’s “pumping the body of a 13-yearold girl with
bullets” in the Gaza Strip, “none so disturbed” Israelis as this one,
because of its associations with the Holocaust. As an example, the
Guardian cited the Hebrew writer Yoram Kaniuk, the author of a novel
about a Jewish violinist forced by the Nazis to play marches in
Auschwitz as Jews were taken to the gas chambers. Mr. Kaniuk was
quoted as saying:

“This story….negates the possibility of the existence of a Jewish
state. If the military does not put these soldiers on trial, we will
have no moral right to speak of ourselves as a state that rose from
the Holocaust.”

My concerned friend asked for my opinion.

It’s a bit complicated, my opinion. It’s actually several opinions.

There is no doubt that the phenomenon of Israeli soldiers brutalizing
and humiliating Palestinian civilians, let alone killing them without
justification, is shameful. What is even more shameful, as Mr.
McGreal rightly points out, is that in the vast majority of these
cases the perpetrators have either been lightly punished or have gone
scot-free Although, in the situation of extreme animosity that
currently exists between Israeli and Palestinian societies it is
impossible to avoid such incidents entirely, they could certainly be
decreased if the higher echelons of the Israeli army were determined
to prevent them. It is reprehensible that they do not seem to be.

At the same time, not every incident that is reported as a case of
brutality or humiliation is one, as we know from the infamous story
of Mohammed Durra, the Palestinian child whose supposed martyrdom at
the hands an Israeli sniper in the year 2000 turned him into an
international icon even after clear evidence showed that he was
killed by Palestinians. In itself, after all, there is nothing wrong
with Israel soldiers at a checkpoint asking a young Palestinian to
play his violin as a way of making sure it is not stuffed with
explosives. Palestinians have been caught in the past with explosives
in bags, in belts, in knapsacks, briefcases, in underwear, in what
appeared to be the pregnant stomachs of women. What makes a violin
above suspicion?

Nor, studying the photograph of the incident published in the Israeli
press, can one identify any would-be humiliators. Neither of the two
soldiers directly in front of the violinist, one talking on a cell
phone and the other checking documents, is even looking at him, much
less taking pleasure in the situation. Whoever it was who ordered the
young man to play his instrument certainly didn’t do it as a show for
their benefit.

Yet the facts of this specific case are perhaps beside the point. Are
Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints often treated badly? The answer
is yes. Should everything possible be done to stop this? Yes, again.
Are the checkpoints nevertheless necessary? Yes, once more. (They
have saved many Israeli lives, and Israelis will have to be excused
for thinking that a humiliated Palestinian is better than a dead
Israeli.) Is it legitimate to compare such incidents, or any other
aspect of the Israeli presence in the occupied territories, to the
Holocaust? Absolutely not. Under no conceivable circumstances.

Imagine, if you will, the following dispatch in The Guardian in 1943:

“As the German dehumanization of Eastern- 846 1078 919 1090European
Jews grows worse, a new height of sadism has been reached: Jewish
violinists have been forced to play their violins in front of jeering
German soldiers.”

Would that the Holocaust had been a matter of humiliated violinists.
Would that it had been a matter of humiliated Jews. Would that it had
been a matter of the occasional killing of innocent Jews by German
soldiers.

But of course, it was none of these things. It was the successfully
systematic murder of the Jewish people. Which is why, whenever
anyone, Jew or Gentile, Israeli author or English journalist,
compares Israeli actions in the occupied territories to those of the
Germans or their allies in the Holocaust, something vile and
intolerable has been done. The descendants of the victims of the
Holocaust have been turned into the perpetrators of another one.

In order to make such a comparison, one has to be either (1) totally
ignorant of what happened in the Holocaust; (2) totally ignorant of
what is happening in the occupied territories; (3) totally
indifferent, in one’s eagerness to bash Israel and Jews, to the
historical facts in either case. Compare Israeli actions, if you
will, to those of the French in Algeria. (The French were in reality
a hundred times worse.) Compare them, if you must, to those of the
Americans in Vietnam. (The Americans were incredibly more brutal.)
Compare them to anything you want – except the Holocaust.

This isn’t because the Holocaust isn’t comparable to other things. It
is. But it is comparable only to other mass exterminations: That of
the Armenians by the Turks in World War I, that of Cambodians by the
Khmer Rouge in the 1970s, that of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1995.
It is not comparable, ever, to anything Israel has done or is doing
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Any such an analogy should
automatically be beyond the pale of acceptable human discourse.

That’s my opinion.
From: Baghdasarian

AZERBAIJAN DEMANDS THAT GEORGIA COMPLY WITH THEIR AGREEMENT BANNING
RAILROAD TRANSIT TO THIRD COUNTRIES

TBILISI, NOVEMBER 30. ARMINFO. Azerbaijan demand that Georgia comply
with their summer agreement banning transit of railroad cargoes to
third countries. “Most probably the cargoes going to Georgia were
stopped in Azerbaijan because part of them is imported into Armenia,”
says Azeri Ambassador to Georgia Ramiz Gasanov.

“Imagine if we start supplying fuel into Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Is
it against Georgia’s national interests? I think yes it is,” says
Gasanov noting that Azerbaijan and Georgia have mutual understanding
of the problem.

Azeri customs commissioners are coming to Georgia today to discuss
what to do with each carriage stopped on Azeri border.

Georgian PM Zurab Zvania says he does not see any drama in the
situation. “We are working with the Azeri side and I am sure that
there will be no problems here,” he says.

To remind, Azerbaijan has sharply cut railroad transit of
Georgia-bound cargos. Some 889 carriages have been stalled in
Beyukiasik (3 km of Georgian border) in Nov alone. Meanwhile th
Georgian side makes no secret of its delivering cargoes from Central
Asia to Armenian border – but they say this is because Georgia is a
transit country.
From: Baghdasarian

Azeri pundit points to similarities between Karabakh, Middle East problems

Yeni Musavat, Baku
29 Nov 04

Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on
29 November headlined “Karabakh is becoming a tiring problem” and
subheaded “Leyla Aliyeva: The West wants to make people forget about
the problem”

It was impossible to break the deadlock in the Karabakh peace talks
this year either. The outgoing year of 2004 could be regarded as the
most passive and unsuccessful (wasted) one in the history of the
conflict settlement. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs do not conceal
this either.

However, some garrulous “analysts” were extremely upbeat in 2003 and
said that there would be a U-turn in the conflict settlement
immediately after the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidential elections
and after new leaders enter their offices. This was not the case. The
idea of “starting talks from scratch” suggested by [Azerbaijani
President] Ilham Aliyev to show off was a fiasco.

The only positive memorable point about the issue this year was the
Baku government’s initiative to put the issue on the agenda of the UN
General Assembly. Unfortunately, the discussions were not successful
and failed to meet our national interests. A draft resolution [on the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan] was not adopted. The vote was
postponed indefinitely. However, we learnt an expert opinion about the
importance of the initiative and the consequences it might have.

Commenting on the UN discussions, political analyst Leyla Aliyeva said
that an analysis of the recent developments had produced some negative
results.

“Watching the peace process, one can conclude that someone wants to
put the Karabakh problem on the back burner. I can also observe that
they have stopped mentioning Karabakh at conferences and
meetings. They are Europe and the USA in the first place. They want
the parties to the conflict to gradually integrate and cooperate,” she
said.

>From this standpoint, the political analyst highly assessed the
putting of the issue on the UN agenda.

“We should always keep the issue in the focus of the international
community. In particular, we should take into account the fact that
Armenians are being settled on our occupied lands. This is a very
dangerous process. Because it will be rather difficult to return those
lands after Armenians settle there. This has been the case in the
Middle East.”

Incidentally, the political analyst stressed that the same scheme and
approach were being taken both on the Nagornyy Karabakh and Middle
East problems at the moment.

“The conflict has been continuing in the Middle East for 40
years. Jews settled on the occupied territories and this has emerged
as an additional problem now. Of course, we do not need such a
problem. Therefore, the UN General Assembly discussions might be
regarded as positive. But it would be wrong to expect major and
practical results from these discussions. I do not think that they
will act as an important incentive for the peace process. This is good
tactics as a PR campaign.”

Commenting on reasons for the negative stance of leading western
states and of the US envoy [presumably, the USA’s Karabakh mediator
Steven Mann] to the Karabakh discussions in the UN, Leyla Aliyeva said
that they did not want the issue to be a subject of discussions in a
larger framework. Because they think that the sides can find a common
language within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group more
easily. They think that it would be wrong to hinder in any way the
talks based on making mutual compromises that have been under way
within the framework of the Minsk Group for a long time. The mediators
think that the discussion of the issue in the UN precisely hinders the
talks and creates tension.
From: Baghdasarian

YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY MOVES TO NEW BUILDING

ArmenPress
Nov 26 2004

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 26, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Robert Kocharian
praised today the companies that have built the new building of the
Yerevan municipality, saying after a stroll that he was satisfied
with both the quality of the work and the speed with which it was
accomplished.

Speaking to reporters, Kocharian said the municipality staff should
work now more effectively to tackle the citizens’ problems without
red tape and delays. “The idea of one window should be implemented
in the municipality that has to ensure uninterrupted function of
all city services,” the president said, adding that complains that
the municipality does not have good conditions for work will be
unjustified.

The construction of the building was started yet in 1980 but was
suspended after 1991 and resumed only in 2003. The new municipality
building will also house the Yerevan History Museum.

The new five-storey building has a total of 13,500 square meters of
space. It cost is 3.1 billion drams.
From: Baghdasarian

Genocide plays tricks on Turkey
By Chaja Zeegers

Trouw (Dutch newspaper)
November 24, 2004

Turkey never recognized the genocide on the Armenians of 1915. This
sensitive issue matters in the consideration for the accession of
Turkey to the EU. This month, for the first time, Turks and Armenians
in the Netherlands openly discussed the genocide in a debate.

The majority of the Christian Armenian minority in the Ottoman Empire
was brutally exterminated during World War I. The rest formed a
Diaspora. Armenians in Europe want Turkey to recognize the Armenian
genocide before she can become a member of the European Union. Today,
in Parliament, Minister Bot and State Secretary Nicolaï of Foreign
Affairs will discuss the political requirements for the accession
of Turkey. On December 16, the EU-Summit in Portugal under Dutch
presidency will decide whether Turkey can become a fully fledged
member of the European Union. Recognition of the genocide is not a
precondition, but it can be taken into consideration.

For the first time, Turks and Armenians in the Netherlands held
an open debate on this issue, which has stirred emotions for
almost ninety years. The Armenian genocide is a notion among
Armenians and the international community. But Turks are unwilling
to accept this. Speaking openly of this subject in Turkey is
still a taboo. Calling what happened a genocide is even liable to
punishment. With the discussion concerning Turkey¹s accession to the
European Union, Armenians in Europe see their chance for bringing this
issue under international attention again. “Turkey in the EU, recognize
the Armenian genocide now!”, is the slogan of the Armenians. They
want recognition by the candidate member before promises are made by
the European Union for accession.

The conflict goes back to the year 1915, when within just months
between 800,000 and one million Armenians were massacred in the east
of modern Turkey. If they were not killed directly then they died of
disease, thirst and exhaustion on the forced, excrutiating marches to
the desert in the south. Armenian women and girls were kidnapped and
raped. Moreover, children were taken to be turned into Turks. Churches
of the Christian Armenians were destroyed and Armenian possessions
disappeared into Turkish hands.

What remained of the Armenian society was disrupted. By now historians
have provided proof that it concerned a systematic approach, conducted
from above. Three ministers of the governing committee for Unity and
Progress in the Ottoman Empire, predecessor of the modern Turkish
state, took the initiative to eradicate the Armenians and had control
over its implementation.

Other minorities also fell victim to this policy, even if not always
on the same large scale as the Armenians.

Initially nobody in Turkey made secret of what had happened in 1915
and even a trial took place. That attitude changed in 1923 when,
under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk, the Republic of Turkey
was established. The state philosophy of this new Turkey was
based on a strong nationalism that offered no space for a less
heroic past. Successive Turkish governments continued to deny the
genocide. The Turkish population was raised with this incorrect version
of history. As such, historical facts were minimized and the genocide
was presented as a civil war with victims and perpetrators on both
sides. In the worst case the Armenians were not considered victims,
but were presented as perpetrators. By now, more than one generation
of Turks have been raised with this distorted image of history.

In recent years, however, some changes have taken place in this
attitude. Since the 1980s much more historical research has been
carried out on the factual events of that period.

The debate was opened since a number of Turkish scientists recognized
the Armenian genocide. According to Ton Zwaan of the Center for
Genocide and Holocaust Studies even in Turkey the phase of complete
denial is over, even as the denial and the distortion of reality
continue to echo.

This month, Turkish journalist Ragip Duran was in the Netherlands
for a debate on the accession of Turkey to the European Union. He
was once in prison in his own country for what he had written. His
experience is that journalists have a little more freedom in their
work nowadays. However, in practice there are still restrictions, for
example on articles on the Kurdish minority and on the Armenian issue.

Internationally there is political support for the Armenians. A number
of countries have already officially recognized the Armenian genocide.
Furthermore, the European Parliament already stated in 1987 that what
happened to the Armenians on Ottoman territory during the first world
war according to the definition of the United Nations of 1948 was
indeed a genocide. This is not unimportant, as Turkey wants become
a fully fledged member of the European Union. The agreement is that
Turkey can only join the European Union if it fulfills the Copenhagen
political criteria. That means that stable institutions must guarantee
democracy, legal order, human rights and respect for the protection
of minorities. Although much has changed for the better already, on
these points the end stop has not yet been reached. The question is
just how heavily these political criteria will weigh when the European
Union evaluates the accession of Turkey next month in Portugal.

That the Armenian issue is also alive in the Netherlands was obvious
in 2000, in Assen. A local Armenian asked for authorization to erect a
memorial at the local cemetery for his ancestors and his compatriots
who died during the genocide. A major demonstration by the Turkish
community broke out when they learned of this project. Especially
the word genocide did not go down very well with the Turks.

Certainly in view of the above, it is positive that a number of
progressive Dutch Turks had the courage to come to De Balie in
Amsterdam this month to speak with Dutch Armenians. These Turkish
participants are actually convinced that Turkey should recognize
the genocide in the long run. They feel the discomfort that is
prevalent among Turks over this issue. Privately it is discussed,
but not publicly. According to Hatice Can-Engin changes in this
area will happen slowly. ³Look at the discussion on honor killings;
it has only been going on for three years.²

Zeki Arslan of the multicultural Institute Forum calls on Turkish
organizations in the Netherlands to be outspoken on the Armenian
genocide and not hide behind fear. ³We must show compassion with
the Armenian community². But contrary to Armenians, the Turkish
participants do not want a knife to be put on the throat of the
candidate member. ³Then the nationalist tendencies will only try to
keep Turkey outside of the European Union and we will be even worse
off”, according to Arslan.

The Dutch Turks have good hope that Turkey will be positively
influenced by herself through contact with Europe and that eventually
recognition will come. Although the discussion ran quite smoothly,
protest from the overwhelming Armenian audience was to be heard. The
Armenians absolutely do not dare trust that everything will be well and
want tough requirements. According to them, first recognition should
come and only then accession, and not the other way around. You can
set requirements now, but not after accession.

Arie Oostlander, former Euro parliamentarian for the CDA (Christian
Democrats) and monitor for the candidate member, also believes
that recognition must come before Turkey joins the European Union
definitely, but he knows how sensitive this subject is. A direct
approach does not work, he says. At the same time this recognition
must be the final chapter of the Europeanization process. According to
him, there is a tremendous amount of guilt-feeling around the whole
taboo atmosphere of the issue. It is a great disadvantage that the
Turkish state is a product of ethnic cleansing. A few years ago, he
once openly asked the Turks whether they see themselves as less than
the Germans. After all, they have amply expressed their regret for
the holocaust during the World War II. No direct answer was given.
Oostlander’s statement has also been incorporated in a resolution
which has been adopted by the European Parliament. ³We must work
towards a point where Turks can be proud of having come to terms with
their past², Oostlander points out.

³With that, however, it is of utmost importance for the Turks not to
suffer from losing face. It is all a question of honor.² The former
Euro parliamentarian assumes a positive but strict approach. He
believes that the European and Dutch governments should not be too
gentle in persevering their requirements. Otherwise one will be faced
with the consequences later. But many European politicians and parties
want to approach Turkey enthusiastically because she tries so hard to
do her best. Oostlander does not think this is a right approach. As
monitor he has seen that Turks take him very seriously, because he
stands by his job. Soft behaviour does not earn respect.

Ton Zwaan of the Center for Genocide also believes that it is
important for Turkey to account for the negative sides of its
history. Recognition of the Armenian genocide can improve the relations
with neighboring country Armenia. Just like for the Jews after the
World War II, it is important for the millions of Armenian descendants
throughout the world to be able to heal from their past. But it is
also important for the Turkish democracy and for the lessening of the
pain under groups of Turks. They have also suffered from a distorted
democratization which involved much force and violence in which many
peoples got trapped.

It is crucial for the Turkish population to have the ability to
speak openly about the violent treatment that ethnic minorities have
suffered in the past. This freedom to speak about the past fits within
the Western democratic model.

According to Oostlander Europe should therefore tell Turkey now what it
comes down to, instead of expecting that this country will understand
it after seven or eight years. In the approachment between Turkey and
Europe, there is a chance for the entire Turkish society to organize
democracy in a different way.

³But”, Zwaan points out, ³he who denies the past remains imprisoned
in it, and he who recognizes the past can be released from it².

Copyright: Zeegers, Chaja

–Boundary_(ID_Buwoof22OiAgVbcKwoRWTw)–
From: Baghdasarian

Telethon paves the way
By Mark R. Madler, News-Press and Leader

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Nov 26 2004

Armenia Fund raises millions in annual event for highway linking
villages and economic growth.

GLENDALE – With hours to go in Thursday’s telethon for the Armenia
Fund, pledges surpassed the amount raised in 2003.

The fund had a goal of $10 million, to go toward the completion of
a 105-mile highway in the Karabakh region of Armenia.

As of 6 p.m., the telethon had raised $8.7 million.

Gagik Kirakosian, the counsel general of Armenia, said the highway
was important in the creation of economic development of the region.

“As a strategic project, it’s the best way of connecting all of
Karabakh,” Kirakosian said.

Originating from Glendale Studios, the 12-hour telethon reached
45 million households in 25 cities across the country. It was also
shown in other parts of the world such as Europe, the Middle East
and Australia, said Sarkis Kotanjian, a public relations consultant
for Armenia Fund.

Through phone records, organizers are able to track which speakers and
entertainers were most effective in getting viewers to donate money,
Kotanjian said.

“The quality of the telethon has improved with the use of more
professionals, instead of all volunteers, and it shows,” he added.

About 500 volunteers participated in the telethon. Even with its
global reach, there were still many area participants, such as Armenian
clubs from local schools.

Arno Khachikyan, a senior at Burbank High School, was at the telethon,
along with Burbank Unified School District board Vice President Paul
Krekorian, who presented a $500 check.

The school is in the process of setting up an Armenian Club that will
continue to do fundraising, Arno said, who is the Burbank High School
school board representative.

“Hopefully, it will be an annual thing with the club doing fundraisers
and presenting a check to the Armenia Fund,” Arno added.

–Boundary_(ID_4tslo7nJDqI5rGgwvKcQ/A)–
From: Baghdasarian

Soviet papers preserved
by Karen Brownlee, Leader-Post

The Leader-Post (Regina, Saskatchewan)
November 23, 2004 Tuesday
Final Edition

Doukhobor ancestors will soon be able to search centuries back into
their families’ histories to their Soviet homeland thanks to the
years of work of one of their own.

“I feel fairly strongly about documenting and preserving Doukhobor
history and making it available to other Doukhobor Canadians,” said
Jon Kalmakoff, a Regina-based researcher and genealogist.

Kalmakoff had around 3,000 documents unearthed from archives in the
Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, and Armenia and sent to Canada. They were
then translated from archaic Russian script to modern English.

He is making the documents available in a series of books, the first
of which will be available in a few weeks through Kalmakoff’s Web
site

“Taken all together, they allow most people of Doukhobor ancestry
to trace their families back to the early 19th century and the late
18th centuries,” said Kalmakoff, who is also making the copies of
the original Russian documents available in a special collection at
the Saskatchewan Archives .

The documents include census lists and tax lists, which “give us
a snapshot of what any particular family looked like at that time
period”, said Kalmakoff. Family names, their villages and in some
cases, occupations, are among the details listed.

Much of early Doukhobor history is obscure. They transmitted their
history through oral stories, rather than written records. Many at
that time were illiterate.

“It comes as quite a surprise, not only to find these records,
but that so many actually exist,” said Kalmakoff, who has used the
records to track his family history back to the 1600s.

“It’s quite a feat because unlike Anglo-Saxon genealogy, there just
isn’t the same number of records.”

Kalmakoff found the records after developing contacts with employees
at the archives where the documents were found. He personally funded
the searches for the documents.

“A lot of it was taking a shotgun approach just knowing certain records
were supposed to have been taken by the Russian Tsarist officials,”
he said.

“If we did find it existed, then arrangements were made for copies
to be made to be shipped over here,” he said.

The Russian peasants were persecuted for having political beliefs
different from their government in the late 18th century. They were
allowed to emigrate in the late 19th century.

Around 7,500 came to Canada and settled in Saskatchewan. Saskatoon,
Blaine Lake, Wadena, Watson, Buchanan, Canora, Kamsack and Veregin are
modern communities that coincide with the original areas of settlement,
said Kalmakoff.

A large group of the original settlers moved to B.C. after a dispute
over homestead titles with the federal government in the early
1900’s. Today, between 30,000 and 50,000 Doukhobor ancestors live in
western Canada, he said.
From: Baghdasarian

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 23, 2004
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

CONGRESS FINALIZES FY2005 FOREIGN AID BILL

— Reverses Administration’s Effort to Break
Military Aid Parity for Armenia and Azerbaijan

— Earmarks $75 Million in Economic, $8.75 Million
in Military Aid to Armenia; an Additional $3 Million
for Nagorno Karabagh

— Fails to Include Schiff Amendment on the Armenian Genocide

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Congress this past weekend adopted an
Omnibus spending measure including several provisions of special
interest to Armenian Americans – including the reversal of a White
House proposal to tip the balance of U.S. military aid toward
Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA).

The Bush Administration, in the budget it submitted to Congress in
February of this year, had proposed sending four times more Foreign
Military Financing to Azerbaijan ($8 million) than to Armenia ($2
million). The final version of the foreign aid bill, adopted on
November 20th during a lame duck session of Congress, sets the
total military aid figures, including three quarters of a million
dollars in International Military Education and Training, for both
nations at $8.75 million. “It is absolutely critical that the U.S.
maintain parity in military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan,”
commented Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI).
“This is as important as ever, particularly in light of the ongoing
dangerous comments by Azeri leaders. I am fully committed to
ensuring that this policy continues.”

The Congress – at the urging of Senator Mitch McConell (R-KY) and
Rep. Knollenberg, both of whom serve as senior members of their
respective chamber’s foreign aid subcommittees – earmarked at least
$75 million in economic aid for Armenia and an additional $3
million for Nagorno Karabagh. Subcommittee member Steve Rothman
(D-NJ) welcomed the final numbers, stating “Armenia, as an emerging
democracy with a developing free market economic system, needs
continued U.S. assistance to accomplish its objectives: regional
peace and stability, a successful transition to a free market
economy and a flourishing democracy. I will continue to work with
the Administration to push Azerbaijan and Turkey to lift their
blockades against Armenia, which are placing oppressive and
unjustifiable obstacles in the path of Armenia’s continued growth
and development.”

“Armenian Americans value the foresight and vision of Congress in
restoring military aid parity, setting a $75 million earmark for
Armenia, and continuing direct aid to Nagorno Karabagh,” said ANCA
Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Senator McConnell, Congressman
Knollenberg and all our friends deserve a great deal of credit for
their tireless efforts on this spending measure. We were, at the
same time, disappointed that Congressional leaders failed to
respect the clearly expressed will of the U.S. House in adopting
the Schiff Amendment. In failing to include this provision in the
final version of the bill, the Congress missed an opportunity to
send a clear message to Turkey that the U.S. government will not
tolerate its shameful denial of the Armenian Genocide.”

The restoration of military aid parity by the Congress was
identified by the ANCA in early 2004 as a major legislative
priority following the President’s budget request breaking the
standing agreement between the White House and the legislative
branch that military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan remain
equal. Following the bill’s passage Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank
Pallone (D-NJ) cited the importance of maintaining military aid
parity. “Even though the President waived Section 907 in FY 2002,
its principles and the commitments that were made at that time
still remain fundamental to U.S. policy towards the South Caucuses.
Moreover, because Azerbaijan continues its blockade of Armenia, it
is more important than ever for maintaining Foreign Military
Funding parity between these two nations.”

The House version of the foreign aid bill, adopted this July,
included a strongly worded amendment, authored by Rep. Adam Schiff,
on the Armenian Genocide. This measure, approved as an amendment
by voice vote on the House floor, aimed to restrict the government
of Turkey from using any of the aid it receives from this
appropriation to lobby against the adoption of the Congressional
Genocide Resolution. The Senate version did not include a
counterpart to the Schiff Amendment, nor did the final text that
emerged from House-Senate deliberations. Rep. Schiff commented on
the removal of the provision from the final bill stating:

“Generations of Americans have long waited for Congress to condemn
the murder of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children. Even
though the Schiff amendment was not enacted into law, its passage
by the House in July was a seminal moment in the effort to
recognize the Armenian Genocide. While I had hoped that this would
be the year Congress would formally speak against the evil
perpetrated against the Armenian people almost ninety years ago, we
will redouble our efforts in the next year to pass the Schiff
Amendment as well as legislation recognizing and condemning all
genocides.”

#####
From: Baghdasarian