Author: Boshkezenian Garik

Athens News Agency
April 25 2005
Memorial service in Athens commemorates 90th anniversary of Armenian
genocide
Athens, 25/4/2005 (ANA)
A memorial service in commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the
Armenian genocide was held on Sunday under the auspices of the Athens
prefecture, and with Interior and Public Administration Minister
Prokopis Pavlopoulos representing the government.
“Such anniversaries do not just affect only those that fell; they do
not only affect those people who, for national reasons, remember all
that occurred in the past … Such anniversaries affect all of us,
all countries and all of the world’s peoples,” Pavlopoulos said.
Among others, brief addresses were made by the Armenian ambassador in
Greece, Vahram Kazhovan, and former Parlia-ment president Apostolos
Kaklamanis.
After the memorial service a wreath was laid at the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier for the estimated 1.5 million victims of the Armenian
genocide.

Tageblatt, Luxembourg
Dimanche, 24 Avril 2005
Des dizaines de milliers d’Arméniens à Erevan devant le monument du génocide
Des dizaines de milliers d’Arméniens se sont recueillis dimanche à
Erevan devant le monument aux victimes du génocide de 1915, pour le
90e anniversaire des massacres perpétrés par les Turcs.
En pleurs ou en silence, ils ont déposé des fleurs devant le monument
aux victimes, sur une colline de la capitale arménienne, comme le
président Robert Kotcharian, alors qu’une prière était récitée par le
catholicos Karékine II, chef de l’Eglise apostolique arménienne.
»Cela fait déjà trente ans qu’en ce jour, je viens tôt le matin au
mémorial. J’y dépose six tulipes, autant que le nombre de morts dans
ma famille au temps du génocide», témoigne dans la foule recueillie
Mikhitar Haroutounian, en s’approchant du monument sur lequel a été
suspendue une grande affiche avec les photos de 90 survivants du
génocide.
Comme beaucoup, le vieil homme de 74 ans dit être venu pour »rappeler
au monde ce crime pour lequel personne jusqu’ici n’a répondu et ne
s’est excusé», alors qu’Ankara refuse de reconnaître le terme de
génocide malgré les demandes répétées d’Erevan.
»Qui se souvient aujourd’hui du génocide des Arméniens?», s’interroge
un peu plus loin dans la foule Achot Arevian, venu avec sa femme
Asmik.
»Si à l’époque le génocide arménien avait été condamné, il n’y aurait
pas eu d’Holocauste» des juifs pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale,
ajoute-t-il.
Une minute de silence a été observée à travers tout le pays à 19H00
locales (14H00 GMT), après une messe oecuménique célébrée dans la
cathédrale Saint-Grégoire d’Erevan, avec des prières récitées par des
représentants des Eglises catholique, anglicane, grecque et russe
orthodoxe.
Le 24 avril 1915, en pleine Première guerre mondiale, les autorités
turques avaient arrêté 200 leaders de la communauté arménienne,
donnant le signal de ce que l’Arménie considère comme le début d’un
génocide planifié.
Il y a 90 ans de cela, »a été commis un crime sans précédent dans
l’Histoire de notre peuple et de toute l’Humanité», a déclaré le
président Kotcharian dans une adresse à la nation.
Il a cependant fait un geste en direction de la Turquie en assurant
que l’Arménie était »prête à construire des relations naturelles avec
la Turquie», avec laquelle Erevan n’a toujours pas établi de
relations diplomatiques.
»Cependant la dénégation de la Turquie suscite non seulement notre
perplexité, mais celle de la communauté internationale toute
entière», a-t-il ajouté.
Ankara rejette catégoriquement la thèse d’un génocide, estimant qu’il
s’agissait d’une répression dans un contexte de guerre civile et
limite son estimation du nombre de victimes arméniennes à entre
300.000 et 500.000 morts.
Le 90e anniversaire du génocide arménien intervient dans un contexte
de pressions accentuées pour que la Turquie reconnaisse le génocide:
le Parlement polonais, à l’instar de 15 autres pays, notamment
européens, vient de qualifier le massacre de génocide et un débat a
été ouvert au Parlement allemand.
Et le président du parti de centre-droit français UDF François
Bayrou, présent à Erevan, a annoncé le dépôt d’une résolution devant
le Parlement européen pour que soit reconnu le terme de »génocide
arménien», évoquant sa reconnaissance par la Turquie comme une
condition à son éventuelle entrée dans l’Union européenne.
Alors que des milliers de membres de l’importante diaspora arménienne
était venus à Erevan, quelque 350.000 personnes ont manifesté en
France. Ils étaient plus de 500 à Athènes et d’un millier à Lviv,
dans l’ouest de l’Ukraine.
Le chiffre d’1,5 million de manifestants attendu dimanche à Erevan
par les organisateurs était impossible à évaluer en raison de
l’absence d’estimation officielle du nombre de visiteurs au monument
du génocide.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Macomb Daily
Apr 25, 2005
Justice denied until genocide acknowledged
Mitch Kehetian
Growing up in southwest Detroit, I shared a common bond with many of
my school pals: Our ethnic roots went back to Armenia, a parcel of land
best known for Mt. Ararat, where many believers say Noah’s Ark came to
rest after the great flood.
We also shared a bond of family tragedies. Our aunts, uncles and
grandparents perished in Turkey’s 1915 genocidal measure to settle the
Armenian claim to autonomy by ridding the Ottoman Empire’s eastern
provinces of Armenians.
By the time the killing ceased, it was estimated that more than 1
million Armenians had died by the close of World War I.
But the survivors found new life in new lands, and built new
churches and community centers to retain an ethnicity that dates their
roots to 500 B.C.
As the years passed, I read more and more about my massacred
relatives and learned why I had only one grandparent, and only a few
aunts and uncles.
In my teens I began to mount a personal campaign to tell the plight
of my ancestors, and to develop a response to the questions, `Why do you
Armenians carry a grudge over something that took place in 1915? Why
can’t you forgive and forget?’
I still get that question, and my stock answer remains the same.
The past governments of Turkey, and today’s ruling government deny
the action against Armenians was genocide. They contend it never
happened, and that the Armenians triggered clashes with the Turkish
government by seeking autonomy.
In essence, the government in Ankara says the Armenians got up on
April 24, 1915, to leave their historical homeland and wandered off to
their graves in the desolate deserts of Syria.
When the Turkish government condemns what happened in 1915, then I
can learn to forgive and forget. Until then, justice remains denied.
In 1968, I journeyed to the historic homeland of my ancestors. Even
now I remain chilled by the failure by the present-day Turkish
government’s attitude about condemning past rulers for committing a
crime against humanity.
In my journey of despair, made possible by the help of U.S. Rep.
Lucien Nedzi and Secretary of State Brandon Rodgers, I experienced what
no person should be forced to endure and then be told `it never
happened.’
On my return, my then publisher, Ben Nathanson of the East Side
Newspapers, asked my impression.
I told him it was as though I had walked through a cemetery, but I
couldn’t find grave markers to tell me the Armenians lived there for
thousands of years. All I found were the ruins of their churches and
homes.
Ben urged that I not give up in the fight for justice. My publisher
was of Jewish faith and championed the rights of all suppressed peoples.
Through the years, Presidents Reagan, Ford, Clinton and George W.
Bush have addressed the massacres.
In his April 24, 2002, statement on the Armenian genocide, Bush
said, `Today we commemorate an appalling tragedy of the 20th century,
the massacre of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile
and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.’
But Turkey says it wasn’t genocide. It was the result of internal
fighting in its eastern provinces.
When you can eradicate 1.5 million people through forced exile from
their ancestral homeland, it’s genocide. It happened then, and it’s
happening now in Sudan.
Until acknowledged, the `appalling tragedy of the 20th century,’
will stain the present Turkish government sitting in Ankara.
Mitch Kehetian is Editorial Page editor of The Macomb Daily.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

HOPES FOR RECOGNITION OF CRIMES OF OTTOMAN TURKEY BY “EUROPEANIZED”
TURKEY ARE BASELESS: ANDRANIK MIHRANYAN
YEREVAN, APRIL 25. ARMINFO. Hopes for recognition of crimes of Ottoman
Turkey by the “Europeanized” Turkey are baseless, stated politologist
Andranik Mihranyan at the Round Table organized by “Voice of Russia”
Russian State Radio Company, Apr 24.
In his opinion, the fact of Turkey’s accession to the EU in itself
means neither recognition nor repentance, it only delays the problem
and makes the case more neglected. As an example Mihranyan noted
Latvia and Estonia conducting the most undisguised discrimination
policy of considerable part of their countries’ population when be a
member of the EU. Chairman of Armenians Union of Russia and
International Congress of Armenia Ara Abrahamyan stressed that,
moreover, recognition of Genocide means for Armenia the guarantee of
its further security. Presenter and Chairman of “Voice of Russia”
Armen Hovhannissyan especially accented attention of both his
interlocutors and listeners to the circumstance that the problem of
1915 Genocide concerns not only Armenians but it is common to all
mankind. In his words, this first Genocide of the 20th century had not
been condemned by the world community, thus, became a prologue for
next bloody crimes.

AZG Armenian Daily #073, 23/04/2005
Armenian Genocide
‘EITHER WE WILL ENTER EU AND WILL BECOME A HEALTHY PEOPLE OR WILL REMAIN
ILL’
Turkish Scientist Says
Daily Azg has informed readers about the participation of Turkish scientists
Murat Belge, professor of comparative literature at Bilgi University, and
Baskin Oran, professor at the faculty of political science of Ankara
University, in the “Ultimate Crime, Ultimate Challenge: Human Rights and
Genocide” international conference. Only one of them, Mr. Belge, gave a
report at the conference.
He said that he bears no responsibility for the Genocide nor do the future
generations but still is a citizen of a country where it was carried out and
will feel responsible as long as his state denies the fact. “I am coming
from a country where individuals have no memory, the state tells us what to
remember and what to forget and we specialize in forgetfulness. Events are
no more a secret for anyone. People certainly new about that all but that
generation passed away and connection between the generations blurred”, he
said.
Afterwards Belge spoke of creation of modern Turkey, said that the society
is being shaped from above as in Soviet regime. He noted that the allies did
not remind of nor condemned the year of 1915 as long as Turkey was valuable
for NATO. Therefore the end of the Cold War was beneficial for the Armenians
but not for Turks. He thinks that Turkey still lives with the Cold War
feeling and, having no practice, is unable to establish normal relations
with neighbors. The allies pose painful questions, including ones about the
Genocide. In such situation Armenians turn into traitors for Turkey. He
added at the end: “However, times have changed, Turkish society entered
adulthood, lest there should be no barriers. Either we will enter EU and
will become a healthy people or will remain ill”.
Baskin Oran in his turn drew parallel between the two peoples and said that
their unity is not only limited to geographical location; they both have
painful issues: for Turkey it is Northern Cyprus, for Armenia it is Nagorno
Karabakh. “But they have common Western allies who tell the Armenians vote
for us and we will adopt your resolution and tell us do as we say in order
to get our denial of the resolution”, he said.
Oran expressed appreciation of Richard Hovhannisian’s speech and noted that
it said everything and there is nothing to add, afterwards he urged
Armenians not to allow third parties to intervene because it stirs up
opposition in Turkey and hinders activities of progressive Turkish
intelligentsia who selflessly try to unveil before the Turkish society the
suffering that the Armenian people underwent in early 19th century.
Rounding off Oran added: “Turkey has many sins but it deserves praise as it
has Akcam, Berktay, Belge, Dinq and Mahtchupian. How many Armenians are so
diligently studying Turkey as they studied Armenia? Do not let the third
party to intervene and try to help us”.
By Hakob Chakrian

A Message from Washington to Ankara
By ALI H. ASLAN
Zaman Online, Turkey
April 21 2005
The three things that American diplomats who deal with Turkey most
object to hearing: Number one, citing cooperation in the Korean War
and back in the Ottoman period as evidence that Turkish-American
relations are healthy; Number two, the claim that there is no
anti-Americanism in Turkey; Number three, the claim that there are no
problems in Turkish-Israeli relations.
Despite all our warnings, almost all Turks who visit Washington still
repeat the same clichéd messages. The latest in line was
Undersecretary Ali Tuygan of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Sick and
tired of trying to explain the situation through diplomatic language,
the Americans this time chose to speak directly.
Washington has expressed its concerns repeatedly, but Ankara insists
on closing its eyes and ears to the message. I think Tuygan and his
delegation must have understood the seriousness of the situation
after receiving the same message from each and every U.S. official.
I feel sorry that we were unable to receive the message through
polite and indirect ways. Why is Ankara unable to take the hints; why
does it live in its own world and how can it fail to determine
appropriate messages for its addressees? And how could one of our
top-level bureaucrats find himself in such a difficult situation in
front of his foreign counterparts?
On the other hand, I am happy that Americans have finally done it.
Ankara would have no chance of coming up with the right formulas for
the Turkish-American relations unless they accept the size and
intensity of the discontent in Washington. If the Speaker of the
Turkish Parliament Bulent Arinc, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan repeated these messages that
Americans are tired of hearing in their anticipated visits, relations
could get even more stuck. Furthermore, I hope that now us
journalists, researchers and members of the Embassy who have been
reporting the ill-ease in Washington might be cleared of the charge
of exaggerating or even lying.
I am sure that Mr. Tuygan will report back to the top of the State in
Ankara the scale of Washington’s displeasure, especially over the
rising waves of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in Turkey and the
Turkey-Syria-Iran rapprochement. He will also explain that Americans
officials had pretended that they were not already aware of the
request from Erdogan and Gul to meet with Bush and Rice. Tuygan must
convey that the US expects a strong public campaign on the level of
the Prime Minister Erdogan to reach the masses to emphasize the
significance of Turkish-American relations and to condemn
anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Without this clear public
initiative, he will say, Turkey should not expect US encouragement
for a high-level political meeting, for the opening of a second
border gate to Iraq and for action against the Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) in Northern Iraq.
I do not know how Ankara will receive this message. To me, if the
recovering the bilateral relations is “necessary” for the US, it is
even more important for Turkey so Turkey should take the first steps.
If the government has received the message and believes that Turkey’s
interests require the avoidance of a confrontation with the US, they
should begin with the good-will gestures promptly without waiting for
a move from the other side. For instance, the official announcement
of the decision already taken on US use of the Incirlik airbase for
humanitarian operations should not be held back until Washington
gives its verdict on the alleged “Armenian genocide”.
I see no possibility for the President George W. Bush to acknowledge
the so-called genocide on his message on April 24. For the executive
wing to put pressure on to prevent adoption of a resolution by
Congress on the allegations, however, will depend on Ankara’s
cooperation with the Bush administration on areas of conflict.
It is obvious that Iraq is the area which has most disrupted the
nature of Turkish-American relations and requires the highest
cooperation. I agree with the evaluations of Michael Rubin in his
latest article published in the Turkish Policy Quarterly about
reciprocal errors and things to do: “Continued Turkish
anti-Americanism might be popular and even politically expedient as
Turkish politicians again approach elections, but with issues like
the status of Kirkuk unresolved and key Iraqi constitutional debates
yet to come, the U.S.-Turkish partnership is simply too important to
lose. If Turkish and American politicians and diplomats do not
acknowledge and put aside their past mistakes, bilateral relations
will continue to sour, impacting not only the once special
relationship, but also Turkey’s security and the future shape of
Iraq.”
Let’s see whether Ankara will get the message this time…
–Boundary_(ID_6/jFHOyHTLtpQfpeveqoyQ)–

RIA OREANDA
Economic News
April 21, 2005 Thursday
The Armenian 1915-23 genocide issue can reflect on the Turkey-EU
talks
Yerevan. On Sunday, Armenia will pay respects to the 1.5 million
people killed from 1915 to1923, which it considers the result of a
genocide against the Armenians conducted by the Ottoman Empire.
Armenia thinks that the Ottoman empire was exterminating Armenians
during and after World War One, and that the modern Turkey must
acknowledge the actions of the Ottoman Empire as genocide: Turkey
rejects the fact of genocide, asserting that the Armenians killed in
the war, in the course of which many Turks were also killed.
The controversy surrounding this issue has been going on for a long
time, but the fact that Ankara will start talks on joining the EU on
October 3 has put the issue into the center of the European political
arena. I have no doubt that the genocide issue will be on the agenda
of the EU talks, said the Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian.
Of course we would like for the EU to make it a condition for the
joining by Turkey for it to acknowledge the genocide, he added. Some
European politicians, in particular in France, where around 400 000
Armenian immigrants live, share this point of view.
Armenia thinks that is matter of national security to make Turkey
accept the fact of genocide. If Turkey does not accept the fact of
genocide and does not accept that it was wrong, we will not be able
to trust our neighbor, which commands a large military force,
Oksanian said. Turkey has the second-largest army in NATO, after the
United States, Reuters reports.
Ankara has not had diplomatic relations with Yerevan and in 1993
closed its border with Armenia, in protest of the occupation by
Armenia of Nagorny Karabakh territory which earlier formed part of
Azerbaijan. Russian supplied Armenia with a military contingent
numbering 5000 people for help in the patrolling of Turkish-Armenian
border. At the same time the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict increased
the tension in its relations with Turkey, which takes part in
training of Azeri troops.

Two die in rockfall at gold mine in northeastern Armenia
AP Worldstream
Apr 20, 2005
Two miners died in a rockfall at a gold mine in northeastern Armenia,
emergency officials said Wednesday.
The miners died Monday in a rockfall at the Mergadzor gold mine some
60 kilometers (40 miles) north of the capital Yerevan, a spokesman
the Emergency Situations Ministry said. One of the miners was killed
on the spot and the other died on the way to a local hospital.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Portsmouth Herald News, NH
April 16 2005
Genocide, Holocaust focus of poetry reading
KITTERY, Maine – Haley Farm Gallery, at 178 Haley Road, will hold an
afternoon of poetry and verse readings from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on
Sunday by Diana Der Hovanessian and Scott-Martin Kosofsky, nationally
recognized and award-winning authors.
The readings will commemorate the 90th and 60th anniversaries,
respectively, of the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust and
complement Haley Farm Gallery’s continuing exhibit “Survival Through
Creativity.”
Der Hovanessian is the author of 22 books of poetry and translations,
including “Anthology of Armenian Poetry” and her latest, “The Burning
Glass.”
Der Hovanessian’s poems are often aired on National Public Radio. She
has conducted workshops in poetry, translation and the poetry of
human rights at various universities. She is president of the New
England Poetry Club and was a Fulbright professor of American poetry
at the Yerevan State University in Armenia in 1994 and 1999.
Kosofsky is the author of “The Book of Customs: A Complete Handbook
for the Jewish Year,” which was inspired by his discovery of the
once-popular literature of Yiddish customs books. He is co-editor of
the forthcoming new edition of “The Jews of Boston” and co-author,
with Brandeis historian Jonathan Sarna, of “Great Occasions in
American Jewish History,” which will be published by Yale in 2006.
For details, contact Haley Farm Gallery at (207) 439-2669.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 15, 2005, Friday
DIVORCE COMPLETE: WHAT NEXT?
SOURCE: Trud, April 13, 2005, EV
by Professor Alexei Malashenko, Carnegie Moscow Center
There are two attitudes to the CIS: it’s either a “civilized” form of
divorce for the former Soviet Union, or a creative form of
establishing something different. If the CIS is viewed as a form of
divorce – a system which has divorced former Soviet republics
relatively painlessly, with minimal conflicts and no wars – then I
think the CIS has fulfilled its function. Our divorce is complete.
What is the current state of the CIS? As a system for coordinating
mutual political efforts, it barely functions at all. The meetings of
CIS presidents have essentially turned into a kind of formal and
informal club. They discuss problems and express opinions, but they
are all perfectly well aware that this is just a curious form of
social gatherings for heads of state and their close associates.
Indeed, how can there be any political coordination when there is a
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, for example? There is
tension in Russian-Georgian relations. Russia’s relations with
Moldova are deteriorating. Russian-Ukrainian relations are strained
as well. Turkmenistan has practically dropped out of the CIS, in
terms of political and economic participation. None of the member
states know their political goals, so the CIS as such does not
address these goals.
As regards economic cooperation, hundreds of decisions have been
approved – but only 30 to 40 of them have been implemented. To put
the problem in a nutshell, the economic interests of the post-Soviet
states are fairly contradictory. The chances of establishing a Common
Economic Area (EEP) seem slim. Essentially, this project will only
result in closer relations between Russia and Kazakhstan, and hence
closer relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan (if its new government
is relatively pro-Russian). That’s about all. The remaining contacts
are on a bilateral basis.
The most recent attempt to provide some sort of common axis for
economic relations between post-Soviet states was made two years ago.
Anatoly Chubais started talking about a “liberal empire” and real
cooperation among many industry sectors, under Russia’s aegis, across
the CIS. To some extent, he was right; but it’s impossible to argue
that such an alliance could become the dominant economic factor.
There is a great deal of talk about the CIS being useful in security
matters. But there’s no clear definition of security here: does it
mean security against external threats, or fighting terrorism, or
countering internal destabilizing forces? There is the CIS Collective
Security Treaty, but of late this has been reduced to bilateral
cooperation only, and is gradually becoming irrelevant.
Here’s another factor that has a negative impact on the CIS: the
emergence of new, alternative organizations. How they emerge is
another question entirely; but interest in these organizations is
constantly growing. There’s the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), which has proved fairly effective – unfortunately, this
effectiveness is due to the presence of China, not Russia. There is
renewed discussion of the somewhat vague GUUAM organization, made up
of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. A few years
ago, this was presented as an alternative to the CIS, but then it
rapidly retreated into the shadows, and was apparently forgotten. But
now, in the wake of new developments in Georgia, Ukraine, and
Moldova, this idea is starting to be revived – and I get the
impression that there are plenty of politicians and business leaders
in those countries who want to revive GUUAM. Naturally, the West
would also have a hand in that.
To some extent, Moscow’s own policies are working against the CIS.
Moscow still can’t determine its own role in the former Soviet Union.
On the one hand, it’s obviously attempting to interfere in the
internal affairs of its neighbor-states. On the other hand, there are
the declarations that we’re not interfering at all – let them do as
they please. Russia’s own internal problems play a significant role
in this. It would be an advantage for the CIS to have a leader-nation
that is strong, wealthy, and prepared to offer material assistance.
But our neighbor-states don’t experience a rush of enthusiasm when
they look at what is happening in Russia itself: from the Kremlin’s
efforts to build a hierarchy of governance, to an economy mostly
dependent on high oil prices. Russia is the largest, most powerful,
and most problem-filled state in the CIS. Ten years of war in
Chechnya have shown how difficult it is for Moscow to solve its own
security problems. Obviously, this doesn’t make the CIS any more
authoritative.
In Russia, it has been said recently that the CIS might serve as a
framework for a unified humanitarian and cultural expanse. That’s
debatable. The organization and its subdivisions must have some sort
of positive, concrete activity – but at present this is not the case.
I get the impression that the CIS is doomed, and Russia needs to find
some qualitatively different ways of organizing the former Soviet
Union, based on national interests. If Russia can succeed in solving
its own economic and political problems, it could gain an entirely
lawful right to leadership.
Translated by Grigory Malyutin