Author: Boshkezenian Garik

RUSSIAN, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SIGN RANGE OF JOINT STATEMENTS

ARMENPRESS
MAY 18, 2010
KIEV

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovich signed a range of bilateral documents Monday at the end
of their talks in Kiev, Armenpress reports citing Itar-Tass.

In part, the two heads of state signed joint statements on European
security, on settling the conflict around Moldova’s much-troubled
Dniester region, and on security measures in the Black Sea littoral
area.

Medvedev and Yanukovich endorsed the final protocol of the third
session of the Russian-Ukrainian interstate commission.

In the presence of both presidents, Foreign Ministers Sergei Lavrov of
Russia and Konstantin Grishchenko signed an agreement on demarcation
of the Russian-Ukrainian state border.

The director of Russian Space Agency /Roskosmos/, Anatoly Perminov,
and the director general of the Ukrainian national space agency,
Yuri Alexeyev, signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation
in the use and development of Russia’s global navigation satellite
system GLONASS.

The Ministers of Education, Andrei Fursenko and Dmitry Tabachnik,
signed an agreement between the two ministries on priority measures
in cooperation in the field of education and science for the period
of 2010 through to 2012.

Russian Minister of Culture, Alexander Avdeyev, and the Ukrainian
Minister of Culture and Tourism, Mikhail Kulinyak, put their signatures
under a program of cooperation for the years 2010 through to 2014.

The Russian bank VTB and Ukreximbank signed an agreement on inter-bank
cooperation. The document carries the signatures of the two banks’
CEO’s, Andrei Kostin and Nikolai Udovichenko.

ARMENIA’S SURVIVAL DEPENDS UPON DELICATE DIPLOMACY

Gulf News
menia-s-survival-depends-upon-delicate-diplomacy-1 .628143
May 18 2010
UAE

In a region plagued with conflict, the tiny nation continues to reach
out in harmony

By Jumana Al Tamimi, Associate Editor Published: 00:00 May 18, 2010

Yerevan Armenia, which changed hands throughout its long and troubled
history, has learnt that maintaining a "balanced" relationship with
all nations is essential to its survival.

On the ground, the smallest country in the region is in the heart of
an area marked by conflict.

Its northern neighbours Russia and Georgia are in conflict, yet both
have good relations with Yerevan.

To the south Armenia has a "pragmatic" relationship with Iran, which
is listed as one of Armenia’s best trade partners.

Yet Iran is in dispute with international community over its nuclear
programme.

Both Armenia’s eastern and western boundaries are closed because of
border disputes with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

"We are a small [country], and we want to have good relations with
our neighbours," Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister, Arman Kirakossian
said in the UAE recently.

"Keeping balance is number one priority for Armenia’s foreign policy.

"Keeping that balance is not only from today but from ancient times…

That is why we survived as a small nation."

Today, Armenia, which was once under the rule of the Ottoman Empire,
is eagerly awaiting the day its borders with Turkey will be opened.

Only then would Armenia start to think "larger and without boundaries",
Armenian officials said.

However, political problems needed to be overcome before normal
relations with its powerful western neighbour could begin.

"Our desire to normalise relations [with Turkey] remains a candid
one," Armenian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Territorial
Administration Armen Gevorgyan said.

Late last month, Yerevan announced the "temporary suspension" of the
ratification of a peace accord with Turkey, in a move described by
many analysts as a political tactic designed to put more pressure on
Turkey to endorse the peace proposals.

Turkey responded by reinstating its commitment to the rapprochement
process.

The two countries agreed late last year to establish diplomatic
relations and to open their borders — closed since 1993 when Armenia
and Azerbaijan went to war over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Turkish-Armenian-signed protocols received the blessings of the
US, Europe and Russia.

But they are yet to be endorsed by their respective parliaments.

Many Armenians, mainly in the diaspora, have asked for Turkish
recognition of the killing of more than one million Armenians during
First World War, calling it "genocide".

But Turkey refuses to recognise the killings, saying the number has
been exaggerated and those who were killed died in warfare.

Until today, calling the killings genocide has appeared to be a
problem for other countries too, including the US.

Despite pressure from Armenian activists and lawmakers, US President
Barack Obama described the mass killings in his statement to mark
Armenian Remembrance Day on April 22, as "one of the worst atrocities
of the 20th century".

He stopped short of using the word "genocide".

Turkey, a key US ally, has warned that it would badly damage the two
countries’ relationship if the US government tried to "politicise
history".

Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Washington earlier this year after
the US House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a nonbinding resolution
calling the killings "genocide".

"I don’t think someone is using this to pressure Turkey," Kirakossian
said.

Courageous and fair

However, some Arab analysts believe that the Western powers are
using the Turkish-Armenia issue as a pressure tool against Ankara,
especially after Turkey’s positions vis-a-vis Arab-Israeli peace
process were praised by many Arabs as "courageous and fair".

But at the same time, Kirakossian expressed hope that the international
community, including the US and the EU, could play a role in pushing
the peace process between Turkey and Armenia forward, describing
their role as "important".

Asked whether Armenia had its eyes on financial compensation from
Turkey at a later stage, Armenian parliamentary speaker Hovig
Aprahamian said: "I believe this is not an issue to be discussed at
the moment".

Surely, better relation with Armenia increases the chances of Turkey
being admitted to the European Union.

But it would equally benefit Armenia, since being open with Turkey
would give the country access to Turkey’s ports and larger markets.

Today, there are only chartered flights between Yerevan and the
Turkish capital of Ankara.

Yerevan, which has not put any conditions on its ratification of
the peace process with Turkey, has been blaming Ankara for putting
obstacles in the way.

Turkey has denied this.

Armenia rejected the Turkish request to link the ratification
of last year’s protocols with finding a peaceful solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, with Turkish ally Azerbaijan.

Aprahamian stressed that his country was seeking "peaceful solution
to all problems in the region," including with Turkey and Azerbaijan
on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenia, he said, was "ready for compromise, which means concessions
on both sides," on the disputed enclave.

Until then, the open borders with Georgia to the North and Iran to
the South would be some compensation to the closure of Armenia’s
West-East border closures with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

The survival of the 19-year-old independent Republic of Armenia,
sandwiched between allies and rivals, hinges on adopting a delicately
balanced foreign policy.

To its north, Georgia and Russia, which were locked in a military
conflict in 2008, are important partners for Armenia.

Each accuses the other of starting the conflict, on August 7.

That day Georgia tried to retake control of South Ossetia following
a series of clashes.

Russian forces quickly repelled the assault and pushed into Georgia.

But after five days of war, a ceasefire was reached, and the Russian
troops pulled back, but maintain a military presence in both South
Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The conflict left thousands of people from both sides displaced.

It also put a stop to shipments of natural gas from Russia to Armenia
through Chechnya and then Georgia.

"More than 70 per cent of our transit goods go through Georgia’s
territories… It is a very important country [for Armenia], and we
are with peaceful settlement to their problem and we also try to play
the mediator because it is very important to open the routes between
Georgia and Russia," Kirakossian said.

While the former Soviet Union republic kept its strong bonds with
Moscow — a former foe of Washington — Armenia has been receiving
$1.8 billion in aid a year from the US since early 1993 according to
Freedom Support Act.

Russia today has a military base in Armenia, and its troops are
jointly patrolling the borders with both Iran and Turkey.

Washington’s diplomatic mission in Yerevan, according to some
Armenians, is significant — a sign that considerable attention is
being paid to the republic that had one of the first nuclear power
plants of the Soviet Union era.

Armenia also has good relations with Iran in various fields including
trade and tourism. But not in the nuclear field, Armenian officials
stressed.

"There is no cooperation with Tehran in the nuclear field," Armenian
Energy Minister Armen Movsisyan said.

Even Kirakossian stressed, "Absolutely, there is no nuclear cooperation
with Iran".

"We have traditionally and always good and friendly, positive
relations with Iran and I think no one could object to cooperation
that is beneficial to the peoples [of two countries]," Gevorgyan said.

Iran had the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes,
as Armenia was doing, officials said in Yerevan.

But developing nuclear weapons was "unacceptable", since the region
was "fragile" and marked by conflict, officials said.

Imposing new economic sanctions on Iran — as Western powers are
currently discussing due to uncertainty about Tehran’s possible
nuclear ambitions — would constitute the "worst case scenario",
Gevorgyan said.

"We have interest in the settlement of this issue without further
tension," he said.

Western powers have accused Iran of planning to develop nuclear weapons
and not cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Passive

Tehran has denied the accusations and insists its programme is
non-military.

Debate over Iran’s nuclear programme, among other reasons, has led
to a tension in the Arab-Iranian relations.

However Armenia’s tendency towards good relations has been demonstrated
in Arab countries in both the Gulf and the Middle East — even Israel.

"We have diplomatic relations but Israel doesn’t have an embassy in
Armenia, the relations are in a very passive state. We have some
cooperation in agriculture and health fields, but nothing else,"
Kirakossian said.

Armenia’s good relations across the region can be attributed to the
country’s diaspora.

"Arabs, first of all in Syria receive Armenians in Deir Al Zor who came
from Ottoman Empire ruling in Turkey," Kirakossian said in reference
to the Armenians who arrived to Arab countries during and after the
First World War.

Apart from Syria, Armenians lived in Lebanon, Jordan and Occupied
Jerusalem and many moved to France, Canada and the US.

LA TURQUIE A TENTE DE PRESENTER SES REVES COMME UNE REALITE
Stephane

armenews
19 mai 2010
ARMENIE

Hayots Achkhar, Azg et Hayastani Hanrapetoutioun rapportent en
bonne place les propos d’un ancien conseiller du Departement d’Etat
americain, David Phillips, selon lequel tout au long du processus
de normalisation des relations armeno-turques, la Turquie a tente de
presenter ses reves comme une realite. La Turquie croyait, selon lui,
que la signature des protocoles relancerait le travail du Groupe de
Minsk et entraverait le processus de la reconnaissance internationale
du genocide armenien. Les deux attentes etaient, d’après lui, des
souhaits denues de bases realistes. Le conflit du HK n’a aucun rapport
avec les protocoles armeno-turcs, a-t-il dit, precisant que la Turquie
a fait montre d’une attitude peu serieuse en posant le règlement du
conflit du HK comme prealable a la ratification des protocoles.

SERZH SARGSYAN: ARMENIA-CZECHIA ECONOMIC RELATIONS HAVE SERIOUS UNTAPPED POTENTIAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
May 17, 2010 – 20:34 AMT 15:34 GMT

Armenian President expressed hope for Czech Prime Minister’s visit
to trigger further development of bilateral collaboration.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan met with Czech Prime Minister Jan
Fischer on May 17.

Welcoming his guest, Armenian President expressed hope for Czech
Prime Minister’s visit to trigger further development of bilateral
collaboration.

Armenia-Czechia economic relations have serious untapped potential,
RA leader added.

Jan Fischer emphasized the importance of collaboration with South
Caucasus states, giving high assessment to cooperation prospects
with Armenia. The Prime Minister specifically noted the necessity
of strengthening economic ties, with Armenia-Czechia business forum
contributing to their further development.

The parties also touched upon Karabakh conflict settlement issue,
Jan Fischer emphasizing Czechia’s support for its peaceful settlement
within OSCE MG framework, presidential press service reported.

AKCAM, J. M. HAGOPIAN FEATURED IN JEWISH WORLD WATCH EVENT

FDD7720-61A5-11DF-92720003FF3452C2
Monday May 17, 2010

Discuss Armenian Genocide and its denial

Taner Akcam, Hovnan Derderian, Rabbi Harold Schulweis and J Michael
Hagopian.

Rabbi Harold Schulweis Dr. J Michael Hagopian May 6 2010 .

Encino, Calif. – "I don’t want to be silenced. I want to tell the truth
while I live," Dr. Taner Akcam, a former political prisoner in his
native Turkey and one of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge
and openly discuss the Armenian Genocide, told a group of more than
300 mostly Jews and Armenians, who came together at Valley Beth Shalom
synagogue on May 6 for an evening of fascinating film and discussion
about the Armenian Genocide.

Akcam, a scholar and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide
and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, traveled to Los Angeles
from Worcester, MA, to join with award-winning documentary filmmaker
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian, a survivor of the Armenian Genocide, to tell
stories of survival, courage, conscience and compassion regarding the
Armenian Genocide of 1915 and its long and complicated history. The
two men, who have known each other for 20 years, are among the world’s
leading authorities on the history of genocide.

The evening was sponsored by Jewish World Watch, a five-year-old
anti-genocide organization, a coalition of 64 Los Angeles synagogues
working together to combat genocide and other egregious violations
of human rights worldwide. JWW Co-Founder and VBS Rabbi Harold M.

Schulweis led the evening, and was joined by His Eminence Archbishop
Hovnan Derderian, Primate, Western Diocese of the Armenian Church
of North America, and Armenian Consul General Grigor Hovhannisyan,
as well as clergy from the Armenian and Jewish communities.

Akcam focused much of his talk on the "founding legends" of the
Turkish state, explaining the "myths" now protected by laws of the
land. The fourth legend is: "The Armenian Genocide is a complete lie.

It never happened." Akcam said that until the year 2000 there was no
law in the Turkish penal code protecting this legend, because until
recently, "absolutely no one in Turkey questioned it." However, in the
year 2000 the Turkish government passed the "infamous Article 301,"
making it a crime to talk about the Armenian Genocide as ‘genocide’."

"The most important reason [for the continued denial of the Armenian
genocide] is that we [Turks] have a lack of historic conscience,"
Akcam explained to the captivated audience. "If a community has to
recognize that its founding fathers, instead of being heroes, have
been perpetrators, who violated the cultural premises of their own
identity, reference to the past is indeed traumatic. The community
can cope with the fundamental contradiction between identity claims
and recognition only by a collective schizophrenia, by denial, by
decoupling or withdrawal.

"As long as the act of perpetration is not consciously accounted for,
all peculiarities of this event will live on in the unconscious,"
he added.

Hagopian, co-founder of the Armenian Film Foundation and JWW’s first
"I Witness" Award recipient in 2007, screened "The River Ran Red," the
final cinematic chapter in his "Witnesses" trilogy, which chronicles
the death marches of the Armenians to the Euphrates through haunting
eyewitness testimony. The two other films in the trilogy: "Germany
and the Secret Genocide" and "Voices from the Lake," were screened
previously at Valley Beth Shalom.

"These were to become films that someday might be used in a world
court to prosecute the Armenian Genocide," Hagopian told the audience,
adding that if the crimes committed against Armenians were ever to
be prosecuted, there would be no survivor voices left, creating a
need for his films and archives for eyewitness testimony. Between
1968 and 2004, Hagopian filmed nearly 400 testimonies of Armenian
Genocide survivors and witnesses.

Schulweis told the group that although he had not seen Hagopian’s
documentary before Thursday night, "I know it. As a Jew, I know it. I
know its bones, I know its scars, I know its wounds, I know its people.

"We both know what it’s like to be locked in a chamber in which no
sound is allowed to escape," he continued. Addressing the question of
some Jews: "What does the Genocide have to do with our Holocaust,"
Schulweis answered: "We will not play the sorrowful game of
one-downsmanship. No one’s blood is redder than the rest.

"We must leave here not with a broken heart, but with a spine that
is stiffened. The important thing is that we understand, with all
our might, never again!," Schulweis said.

About Jewish world watch Jewish World Watch, a Los Angeles-based
human rights organization, is a coalition of 64 synagogues working
together to combat genocide and other egregious violations of human
rights worldwide. Since its founding five years ago, JWW has achieved
significant success within its three mission goals: education, advocacy
and humanitarian relief, having allocated almost $4 million in direct
assistance to the survivors of genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Efforts have
recently expanded to the Democratic Republic Congo, as the group is
working for policies that will help women and girls there who have
been victims of mass atrocities.

RA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, RF STATE DUMA SPEAKERS DISCUSS ONCOMING CSTO SUMMIT IN YEREVAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
May 17, 2010 – 21:10 AMT 16:10 GMT

Armenian National Assembly and Russian State Duma speakers, Hovik
Abrahamyan and Boris Gryzlov had a telephone conversation on May 17.

Conversation focused on May 31 CSTO summit in Yerevan as well as
interparliamentary collaboration-related issues, RA NA press service
reported.

ANOTHER ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT ATTACK CONVICT DIES IN PRISON
Arman Hovannisian, Ruzanna Stepanian

rticle/2044912.html
17.05.2010

Armenia – Footage of the October 27 terrorist act in the Armenian
Parliament, Yerevan, 27Oct, 1999

One of the seven men convicted in a 1999 deadly attack on Armenia’s
parliament was found dead in his prison cell at the weekend. Armenian
prison authorities said they have launched an investigation to
ascertain the cause of Hamlet Stepanian’s sudden death.

They did not announce any results of the inquiry as of Monday evening.

Stepanian was serving a 14-year prison sentence which he had received
for allegedly helping five gunmen burst into the National Assembly and
spray it with bullets on October 27, 1999. The then Prime Minister
Vazgen Sarkisian, parliament speaker Karen Demirchian and six other
officials were killed in the shooting spree that thrust Armenia’s
government into turmoil.

The gunmen led by Nairi Hunanian, an obscure former journalist,
surrendered to police after overnight negotiations with then President
Robert Kocharian. All of them were tried, together with Stepanian,
and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2003.

In a short statement, a Justice Ministry department managing Armenia’s
prisons said Stepanian died in his bed in Yerevan’s Nubarashen jail
late on Saturday. It said an initial examination of his body found no
"traces of violence." An ongoing official inquiry involving detailed
forensic examinations will determine the exact cause of the convict’s
death, added the statement.

As part of that inquiry, four members of a non-governmental council
monitoring prison conditions in Armenia were allowed to be present
at an autopsy conducted by state forensic experts. One of them, Laura
Galstian, suggested on Monday that Stepanian died of a heart attack.

Armenia – Nairi Hunanian, a former journalist, the ringleader of the
group that committed the terrorist act of October 27, 1999

"We found no other suspicious facts," Galstian told RFE/RL’s Armenian
service. "This is our preliminary conclusion, but we will wait for
the final results of the forensic-medical examinations."

Galstian, who herself is a doctor, cited prison medics as saying
that Stepanian had no history of serious heart trouble. "The same was
confirmed by his relatives, including a cousin whom we have met," she
said. "She last visited him with a parcel ten days ago, she kept in
touch with him by phone, and he did not voice any [heart] complaints."

Galstian said she and the three other members of the monitoring council
have also talked to 16 other inmates at Nubarashen who shared the same
prison cell with Stepanian. "They told us that they jointly had dinner
[with Stepanian on Saturday evening] and that half an hour later he
said he is feeling unwell and has to go to bed. Then his prison mates
heard a wheezing sound but were unable to help him."

Speaking to RFE/RL’s Armenian service, Aghasi Atabekian, a lawyer
who defended Stepanian in the 2001-2003 trial, pointedly declined
to exclude the possibility of his former client’s murder. Atabekian
pointed to the past deaths of two other parliament attack suspects.

One of them, Norayr Yeghiazarian, was found dead in pre-trial detention
in 2000, several months after being charged with supplying weapons
to the gunmen, among them Hunanian’s younger brother Karen and uncle
Vram Galstian. Law-enforcement authorities said at the time that
Yeghiazarian, an electrician by profession, accidentally electrocuted
himself to death while using a heating stove in his cell.

And in 2004, Vram Galstian was found hanged at Nubarashen. The prison
administration claimed that he committed suicide.

Both prison deaths fuelled more allegations of a high-level cover-up
of the parliament shootings by relatives and supporters of the
assassinated officials. Some of them still suspect Kocharian and the
current President Serzh Sarkisian (no relation to Vazgen), who was
Armenia’s national security minister in October 1999, of masterminding
the killings to eliminate increasingly powerful government rivals.

Hunanian insisted throughout his marathon trial that the decision
to seize the National Assembly and change what he denounced as a
corrupt and undemocratic government had been taken by himself without
anybody’s orders. But many in Armenia believe that the ringleader and
his accomplices had powerful sponsors outside the parliament building.

GOVERNMENT TO EASE CONDITIONS OF FLATS FOR YOUNG FAMILIES: KARAMYAN

Tert.am
17.05.10

A government-implemented mortgage project Flats for Young Families
facing problems in practice, Deputy Minister of Sport and Youth
Policy of the Republic of Armenia, Arsen Karamyan said at a press
conference today.

"We have said after the program was launched that it should be
considered a pilot one," said he, adding that the program needs
some changes.

According to Karamyan, as soon as those changes are made, the
beneficiaries will be offered easier terms. The new terms will refer
to the prepayment, payoff deadline and age restrictions. Particularly,
the government will offer the beneficiaries to pay 25% prepayment
instead of the current 30%; as well we extend the time for the payoff
from 10 years to 15 years.

"There will be more applicants as soon as the term is eased," said
Karamyan, adding that about 20 families have been given flats, while
the 60 applications are still under review.

The Atlantic and its Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War by
Norman Stone Norman Stone has produced a lively and idiosyncratic
account of the cold war that is none the worse for an occasional
tendency to ramble, says Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Geoffrey Wheatcroft
The Observer,
Sunday 16 May 2010

1957: tanks rumble across Moscow’s Red Square to mark the 40th
anniversary of the Communist rule in Russia. Photograph: ©
Bettmann/Corbis

Who won the cold war, and how, and why? The obvious answer to the
first question is that the west won, the United States and its western
European allies. But this wasn’t a victory for armed force like the
preceding defeat of Germany and Japan. Nato was arguably the most
successful military alliance there has ever been; and yet when the
Soviet Union imploded 20 years ago it still possessed a full nuclear
arsenal and, unlike the German army in the woefully misleading phrase
nationalists used after 1918, the red army really was "undefeated on
the battlefield", at least in the west.

The Atlantic and Its Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War by
Norman Stone 712pp, Allen Lane, £30.00 Buy The Atlantic and Its
Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War at the Guardian bookshop
In 1992 Francis Fukuyama published The End of History. Although it
wasn’t a stupid book, the title was hubristic even at the time and, as
Norman Stone says in The Atlantic and Its Enemies, "even funnier
afterwards". Any idea that liberal democracy and market capitalism had
swept away competitors would seem painfully presumptuous as the new
century opened amid a wave of nationalist and sectarian violence.
Never mind who won, what went wrong?

And how did it begin? When the greatest and most terrible of wars
ended 65 years ago, only one of the victorious powers had fought from
start to end, and, not surprisingly, was exhausted. The cold war thus
began what Stone calls "the war of the British succession" between the
Americans and the Russians.

In Churchill’s phrase, an iron curtain descended across Europe as
Russia took over one country after another by force or fraud, and the
process was, as Stone says, very ugly indeed. He knows central Europe
better than most historians, and has no sympathy with the
"revisionist" claim that the west started the conflict, or that both
sides were equally to blame.

With bewildering rapidity, the communist absorption of eastern Europe
was followed by Mao’s triumph in China, the explosion of a Russian
atomic bomb, the creation of Nato, and the Korean war, a warning that
cold war could quickly turn hot. Stalin died in March 1953, but a year
before he had proposed a reunited but neutralised Germany. Those Stone
inelegantly calls "anti-cold war historians" have adduced this as
evidence that Stalin sincerely wanted peace, a view that Stone
(presumably pro-Cold War) derides. But there is a difference between
the internal character of a regime, however loathsome, and its
legitimate national interests, and Stalin might just have meant it.

Although no real war troubled Europe during the four decades or more
of the cold war, that certainly didn’t mean the world was at peace. In
one of the predictions in Nineteen Eighty-Four that he hasn’t been
given proper credit for, Orwell said the superpowers would avoid
direct confrontation while waging proxy wars in African and Asia, and
this was what happened. But neither the Americans nor the Russians
understood what they were doing in those distant climes, where what
had begun as a conflict between communism and liberal democracy became
far more complex when national and religious passions were ascendant.

We then return home to "the British disease", where Stone not so much
flies as flaunts his colours as one who thinks the Iron Lady rescued
us from the abyss. British economic and industrial decline was indeed
an historical fact, and there’s no denying the grave condition in
which the country found itself in 1979, although Stone as so often
paints with a broad brush: "The country was about one third as well
off as Germany, and in parts of the north there were areas that even
resembled communist Poland." Some of his other statements are not so
much sweeping as highly dubious (can it really be true that the Ford
motor factory at Dearborn had an annual workforce turnover of 900%?).
At any rate, after a lengthy discursion on Chile we return to Europe
and the history which didn’t end after all.

All of this is told in a lively or even rollicking fashion, and the
word "personal" in Stone’s subtitle is an understatement;
idiosyncratic or downright eccentric might be more like it. The author
is one of the great academic characters of our time. Born and bred in
Glasgow, he was educated at Cambridge and taught there after various
adventures in central Europe which he describes here, including a
stretch in a Slovak prison.

Some contemporary historians have achieved not only fame but literary
immortality. The paradox-mongering hackademic in Alan Bennett’s The
History Boys sounds very much like Niall Ferguson, and readers of
Robert Harris’s Archangel have suspected that the bibulous historian
"Fluke" Kelso (who inspires the best fictional description of a
hangover since Lucky Jim) has more than a hint of Norman Stone.

>From 1984 to 1997 Stone was a professor at Oxford in succession to
Richard Cobb (no Perrier addict himself), and there was something
heroic about his sojourn there. To have neglected his duties and shown
open disdain for his colleagues, while continuing to refresh himself,
would have made him unpopular enough among the bleating dons, but to
have been an "out Thatcherite" as well showed pluck beyond the call of
duty.

Anyone who thought Fluke, I mean Stone, would one day mellow was
mistaken. After Oxford he took himself off to Ankara, from where he
has tried to persuade us that, even if the Armenians didn’t quite have
it coming in 1915, there was no "genocide". However that may be, Stone
writes informatively about the country where he now resides.

He may not realise it, but no one who reads these pages can possibly
think that Turkey will join the European Union in any foreseeable
future, even were the Cyprus dispute to be resolved. Here again, Stone
takes an unfashionable line, if not defending, then not condemning the
Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974. Its consequences were
brutal, and the subsequent partition may well be permanent, but when
the Turkish-Cypriot leader Rauf Dentkas said that his people had
thereby avoided the fate of the Gaza Palestinians, he might have had a
point.

Having made his name 35 years ago with a scholarly and fascinating
study of the eastern front in the great war, Stone wrote a readable
general history of Europe from 1878 to 1919, to which this is a kind
of delayed coda. Most of what Stone has written is worth reading, and
The Atlantic and Its Enemies displays its author’s merits, as well as
his faults. I was reminded of what Isaiah Berlin said of his friend
Lewis Namier: according as whether one was or was not interested in
the subject on which he was discoursing, he could be the most
interesting man alive or the most boring. Some of these pages are
repetitious, or rambling, or simply unstoppable, and on occasion one
has the feeling of being trapped in the bar by the club raconteur.

Then again there are many very vivid passages, and Stone in his
anecdotage can be good fun, even if some of his turns of phrase –
"Khrushchev was not the only Communist leader to be showing off: Mao
had his own remarks to pass" … "Progress happened" … "a terrible
cocktail, superbly written up" – are so colloquial as to be obscure.
And Stone is welcome to tweak lefty noses, but when he says of the
Vietnam war that "Johnson was very anxious to spare civilians," one
must add that, in that case, he was not anxious to much effect.

When the fall of communism comes, Stone’s knowledge of eastern Europe
is once again invaluable, although he rubs in the fact that few in the
west foresaw that fall, even confessing his own error. There is a nice
line from the late Philip Windsor, the international relations scholar
at the LSE, who said that it was "the end of an empire" – not the
Soviet one, but political science. But then amid the triumphalist
crowing on the right 20 years ago nor did many foresee what Russia
would be like today, or the longer consequences of the
American-sponsored resistance to the Russian war in Afghanistan, or
where financial deregulation and the cheap-mortgage boom would lead
the west, or what the new revolt of Islam portended.

No, there is only one generalisation about history to be made with
absolute confidence: you never can tell.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: DAILY PRESS BRIEFING: QUESTION: LIKE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?
Philip J. Crowley

/141816.htm
May 13, 2010

Assistant Secretary Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

INDEX: DEPARTMENT

Secretary Clinton’s Meeting With Afghan Female Ministers / Supporting
Women Leadership Secretary Clinton at U.S. Institute of Peace /
Conversation with President Karzai Readout of Secretary Clinton’s
Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu U.S. – China Human
Rights Dialogue is Underway / Dialogue Led By Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Mike Posner and Chinese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs Director General for International Organizations Chen
Xu Russian Adoptions USAID Administrator Raj Shah in Nairobi / Will
Also Travel to Sudan Assistant Secretary Phil Gordon in Macedonia/ Will
Discuss Bilateral Issues U.S. Has Joined The Alliance of Civilizations

CHINA

Human Rights Dialogue Underway / Internet Freedom / Google

IRAN

Secretary Clinton Conversation With Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu
regarding Iran Tehran Research Reactor / Uranium Enrichment

UNITED KINGDOM

Secretary Clinton to Meet With British Foreign Minister Hague Tomorrow

SOUTH KOREA

High Level Meeting with South Korean Officials Tomorrow/Expect to
Discuss Regional Security Issues

TUNISIA

Under Secretary Burns and Assistant Secretary Shapiro Meeting with
the Tunisian Defense Minister

THAILAND

Demonstrations In Thailand

RUSSIA

Russian Adoption Agreement/U.S. Interagency Team Continues to Meet
with Russian Counterparts in Moscow

JAPAN

Meetings Between U.S. And Japan

CHILE

Chile Investigation

TRANSCRIPT:

12:18 p.m. EDT

MR. CROWLEY: Okay, the Secretary – and I know we’re a little pressed
for time – the Secretary will be meeting with some Afghan female
ministers this afternoon, underscoring our support for Afghan women.

Our goals are to improve the security of women in institutions that
serves women, supporting women’s leadership in the public and private
sectors, promoting women’s access to formal and informal justice,
enforcing existing law and constitutional rights of women, improving
women and girls’ access to education and health care, strengthening and
expanding economic development opportunity for women, especially in
agriculture, and increasing women’s political participation. And I’m
sure she will talk to them about reintegration and stress that Afghan
women’s rights will not be sacrificed as reintegration efforts move
forward and that there is a commitment to have at least 25 percent
of the membership of the upcoming peace jirga be women.

QUESTION: How many ministers is that? That she’s meeting with?

MR. CROWLEY: She’ll be meeting with the minister of labor, social
affairs, martyrs and the disabled; the acting minister of health; the
director of gender and human rights at the ministry of foreign affairs.

QUESTION: How many ministers is that? Two?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s three.

QUESTION: No, no, I don’t think the director of —

MR. CROWLEY: All right.

QUESTION: It’s three officials but only two ministers.

MR. CROWLEY: You’ll see them at the camera spray upstairs in a few
minutes.

QUESTION: Right. But are those the only two women in the cabinet?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a good question. I’ll – they’re the two that are
here. I’ll take that question.

And then the Secretary moves over to the U.S. Institute of Peace,
where she will have a conversation with President Karzai, moderated
by good friend Ambassador Bill Taylor, and that will be live-streamed
on USIP.org and be covered live on C-SPAN. And I think many of you
probably will be going over there.

The Secretary this morning spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister
Davutoglu regarding Iran. During the call, the Secretary stressed that,
in our view, Iran’s recent diplomacy was an attempt to stop Security
Council action without actually taking steps to address international
concerns about its nuclear program. There’s nothing new and nothing
encouraging in Iran’s recent statements. It has failed to demonstrate
good faith and build confidence with the international community, which
was the original intent of the Tehran research reactor proposal. It
has yet to formally respond to the IAEA. She stressed that the burden
is with Iran and its lack of seriousness about engagement requires
us to intensify efforts to apply greater pressure on Iran. Now, that
was the primary purpose of the conversation. They briefly touched
on other subjects, including Middle East peace and the relationship
between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is underway. You’ll recall that
President Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed during their November
2009 meeting that we would organize another session. Assistant
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Mike Posner and
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for International
Organizations Chen Xu are leading the dialogue. Rule of law, religious
freedom, freedom of expression, labor rights, and other human rights
issues of concern will be raised over a two-day period.

Moving to Russia, our teams finished a second day of meetings on
adoptions. We’re committed to reaching an agreement to increase
safeguards for inter-country adoption between Russian – Russia and
the United States. We shared our views on existing difficulties and
discussed ways to resolve them. In fact, the detailed discussions
and very complex issues were such that they stayed over and will have
another round of consultations tomorrow.

Raj Shah has arrived in – or will be arriving in Nairobi today on the
first leg of his travel throughout – to Africa and to Kenya and Sudan.

Phil Gordon departed Macedonia today for – I’m sorry, departed Kosovo
for Macedonia, where he’ll discuss bilateral issues.

And finally, the United States has decided to join the Alliance of
Civilizations. We recognize the value of the Alliance of Civilizations
as an important initiative seeking to improve understanding between
cultures and peoples. We will be the 119th[i] member country or
international organization in the alliance’s group of friends. And on
May 28 and 29, the Government of Brazil will host the next Alliance
of Civilizations’ Forum in Rio de Janeiro and the United States
will attend this forum – our first event as a member of the group
of friends.

QUESTION: Why hadn’t you been a member before?

QUESTION: You’re not civilized?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I think going back to the previous
administration had a particular (inaudible) to joining an international
organization.

QUESTION: Why, though?

MR. CROWLEY: You’ll have to ask them.

QUESTION: No, no. Why – I mean, there were concerns about this group,
were there not?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it was created in 2005 and we think the alliance
activities complement President Obama’s vision of more active U.S.

engagement with other nations and international organizations to
advance America’s security interests and meet the global challenges
of the 21st century.

QUESTION: Are you convinced now that the group is not going to be
promoting things hostile to Israel?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we believe that – I mean, the focus – the agenda
of this organization, we think, is very consistent with what we’re
trying to achieve in our relations with a broad range of countries.

QUESTION: Did you discuss it with Israel before announcing you’d
join it?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. I mean, we pursue our own national
interests. We don’t normally ask other countries permission to do
what we think is in our interest.

QUESTION: I don’t believe she said "ask permission."

MR. CROWLEY: You feeling all right? I heard a rumor you were —

QUESTION: My daughter. That’s all (inaudible). Quickly on China Human
Rights Dialogue, you didn’t mention internet freedom in the list that
you went down. Is that going to come up generally, and is the issue
of Google going to come up specifically?

MR. CROWLEY: Internet freedom is a dimension of our pursuit of
freedom of expression. That segment of the discussion will happen this
afternoon and it wouldn’t surprise me if a range of issues regarding
internet freedom comes up.

QUESTION: Including Google?

MR. CROWLEY: I can’t predict. This is – this component of the dialogue
will occur this afternoon.

QUESTION: And one other thing. Have you yet gotten a response, let
alone a satisfactory response, from the Chinese Government to your
inquiries about Google?

MR. CROWLEY: It goes back several weeks. I do not know that we
have received any indication of the – of any investigation that we
called for.

QUESTION: Can I ask about the Davutoglu? You said that she doesn’t
think any of the recent Iranian diplomacy amounted to anything new.

Was she referring to that dinner they hosted or to the conversations
that she’s had —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean —

QUESTION: — that they’ve had with the Iranians and the Brazilians?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, Iran has been very busy in recent weeks having
conversations with a range of countries. Part of that conversation did
occur last week in the dinner in New York. And not only – during the
conversation in New York, not only did Iran not offer any new, Foreign
Minister Mottaki indicated during the dinner that notwithstanding
any potential agreement on the Tehran research reactor, they would
continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which we – which is of
great concern to us and violates their obligations under the IAEA.

So they had initially, when they announced they were going to enrich
uranium to 20 percent, they claimed at the time that it was for the
Tehran research reactor, but it’s obviously part of a broader agenda.

And that’s what we are concerned about. That’s why we continue to
pursue the sanctions resolution as part of our pressure track.

QUESTION: Was there a specific reason for the timing of this call? I
mean, why today? Why now?

MR. CROWLEY: We have maintained very close contact —

QUESTION: Did the Turks come out and say something that – I don’t
know —

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: The Brazilians are going this weekend, I think with the
Turks?

MR. CROWLEY: Well —

QUESTION: Tauscher’s there now, right?

AMBASSADOR VERVEER: Hmm?

QUESTION: Tauscher is there now in Turkey, right? Is her visit in
any way —

QUESTION: On the 16th.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: What — what is the purpose of her visit to Turkey at this
time? Larijani is in Turkey, too.

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that question. I’m not up on her travel.

QUESTION: You said that the Turks were, or that the Secretary was
satisfied what she heard from the Turks in response to her comments
today?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have an ongoing conversation. Obviously, at
some point in the next few weeks, we expect to table a resolution in
New York, and at that time, Turkey will have a decision to make in
terms of whether or not to support that resolution. We’ve had many,
many discussions with Turkey and Brazil and others who are deeply
engaged in this process. You are quite right that President Lula will
be going to Tehran this weekend. Foreign Minister Davutoglu has been
personally to Tehran multiple times trying to convince Iran to be
more forthcoming, and so we have just kept in regular contact.

QUESTION: So the answer is no, she was not – she doesn’t feel like
she was able to convince them of anything?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure she necessarily intended to convince
them. I mean, ultimately, Turkey will make a judgment based on its
own self-interest and its own international obligations. We are
in conversation with Turkey, Brazil, many other countries that are
part of the Security Council and will be required to judge what the
consequences of Iran’s failure to respond or engage seriously are.

QUESTION: Does she have any plans to talk to Lula or Amorim before
the trip, before –

MR. CROWLEY: If she does, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: And just one thing you said —

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware – I don’t know. You can talk to the White
House in terms of whether the President plans to talk to President
Lula before the weekend. But if we tee up a call with Foreign Minister
Amorim, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: And you said that she saw nothing new nor encouraging
in Iran’s recent statements. Does she think that the Turkish and
Brazilian diplomatic efforts are pointless?

MR. CROWLEY: No. We have a two-track strategy. The – Turkey and
Brazil have made a substantial commitment to try to make progress
on the engagement track. We have in the past as well. We obviously
continue to welcome any efforts that – any steps they can take to
try to convince Iran to change course. We ourselves are skeptical
that Iran is going to change course. And certainly, coming out of
President Lula’s trip to Tehran this weekend, we look forward to
hearing the results of that discussion and any others that might
occur. And at that point, I think we’ll understand where – what Iran
is either willing or unwilling to do. And at that point, we believe
that there should be consequences for failure to respond.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that Lula – Lula is sort of the last
opportunity for them to be responsive to —

QUESTION: In this phase?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we are – we continue to move forward on a
sanctions resolution, and we have a sense of urgency about this. We
want to get this done as quickly as possible. But our view remains
that we are doubtful that Iran is going to change course absent the
kind of significant pressure that comes with a resolution and the
consequences that come with them.

QUESTION: There seem to be all different options, though, on how this
Tehran research reactor deal could proceed. And I wonder, how flexible
is the U.S. being? Did she give Davutoglu any red lines about what
the U.S. would accept in this?

MR. CROWLEY: In – regarding the TRR, it was put on the table last fall
to build confidence with the international community about the true
intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. We have drawn conclusions from
Iran’s failure to even respond – much less engage constructively –
even respond to the proposal formally to the IAEA. She stressed to
Foreign Minister Davutoglu again today that it’s not about the public
statements that Iran makes. If Iran wishes to engage in – regarding
the TRR, come up with alternatives that meet the fundamental intent
of the proposal, then they can pick up the phone and call the IAEA,
which is something they have failed to do.

QUESTION: P.J., Lula is going to Moscow before going to Tehran. Has
he discussed any specific ideas with State that he might be discussing
with the Russians before going to Iran about the nuclear fuel swap?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we are significantly engaged with Russia on
this process and we would anticipate that that discussion would be
consistent with our stance, which is that Iran has to either respond
or face the consequences of a UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: P.J., the Secretary meets William Hague tomorrow. Is she
comfortable with the fact that his coalition partner is very clear
that they regard the Iraq war as having been illegal, that they’re
seeking a full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity
into rendition, and they’ve ruled out force against Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: She looks forward to the discussion tomorrow. She
has met William Hague before. I think, as was indicated in London
yesterday with the discussion by Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy
Prime Minister Clegg, there are lots of things that have been said
during a campaign, but now you have a coalition government. And I
think, as Prime Minister Cameron said yesterday, he seeks to maintain
a secure and effective relationship with the United States. And we
look forward to hearing from Foreign Secretary Hague about how he
sees the future of the relationship.

QUESTION: Does that security and an effective relationship depend to
some extent on rolling back on the Lib Dems’ part from both —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, these are judgments that the new British Government
is going to have to make. I mean, we recognize in this country that
there are things said during a campaign and then they have to put
together a program to govern.

QUESTION: Like Armenian genocide?

MR. CROWLEY: As the President said yesterday, this is an
extraordinarily special relationship. It is one of the most important
strategic relationships in the world. We have a shared vision of
the world, a shared agenda. I’m confident that that will be the
primary topic of conversation tomorrow, including the situation in
Afghanistan. I don’t know if Iraq will come up. It wouldn’t surprise
me if perspective on the current steps being – aggressive steps being
taken in Europe to deal with the economic crisis.

So I’m confident there will be a full discussion. There will be a
press availability tomorrow and you’ll have a chance to ask him that
question yourself.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you expect the – that you expect them
to not follow through on their —

MR. CROWLEY: I think, given —

QUESTION: That politics is politics, and politicians lie to get
elected?

MR. CROWLEY: No. Well, hang on a second. I mean, given —

QUESTION: Is that —

MR. CROWLEY: Given the statements made yesterday, I think the release
of – I think there was a release of kind of the basis of the coalition
government. We will look forward to seeing how the government plans
to govern over the next five years. We look forward to the discussion.

QUESTION: If they do go ahead – well, you’re not worried about a
criminal inquiry if it comes to pass?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not – I’m just going to say we look forward to the
meeting tomorrow and —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you say that was the last administration had
nothing —

MR. CROWLEY: We look forward to the meeting tomorrow and we’ll hear
what Foreign Secretary Hague has to say about what their agenda is.

QUESTION: Another meeting tomorrow, there’s going to be a preparatory
2+2 with the South Korean Government taking place here at the State
Department. Do you have any agenda, logistics of that meeting?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t have a specific agenda in front of me, but as with
any high-level meeting with our South Korean allies, I would expect
there will be bilateral discussions. We are making adjustments on the
military front. We will, of course, discuss regional security issues,
including North Korea. I would fully expect bilateral and regional
issues to be – to dominate the discussion.

QUESTION: Do you expect a preview of the Cheonan investigation?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are involved in and fully supportive of the
ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Regarding the human —

QUESTION: The never-ending, ongoing investigation. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Regarding the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, will there
be – religious freedom issue will be addressed? And will —

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: — (inaudible) issue will be included?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Falun Gong issue will also be included?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that Falun Gong will be a specific topic.

I’m not ruling it in or ruling it out. The dialogue just got underway.

You’ll have, I think, a briefing tomorrow afternoon with Assistant
Secretary Mike Posner at the conclusion of the dialogue and you can
ask him what specific issues came up.

QUESTION: Very briefly on this, the alliance, who is going to go to
this meeting in Rio? And might I suggest that it would make a lovely
stop after a return from Asia —

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: — if you really want to show how committed you are and send
a high-level representative. It is a ministerial meeting, isn’t it?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. I will —

QUESTION: Two days in Rio?

MR. CROWLEY: I will provide your recommendation to the Secretary
of State.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on the meeting of the Tunisian
defense minister and Under Secretary Burns and Assistant Secretary
Shapiro today?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll see if we can get you something, Samir.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: The Human Rights Dialogue is here, isn’t it?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: The human rights dialogue is here?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. Deputy Secretary Steinberg addressed the – both
groups – both teams at the start of the dialogue first thing this
morning.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. side raising the names of specific political
prisoners or specific cases?

MR. CROWLEY: We frequently do that with meetings that we have with
high-level individuals or delegations from China. That’s a good
question to ask Mike tomorrow.

QUESTION: But do you know?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know what the particular items to be discussed
will be.

QUESTION: Do you have a reaction —

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I’m sure there could well be, in the course of
a broad discussion, some specific cases that we bring up that are
illustrative of the concerns that we have.

QUESTION: How concerned are you about the violence in Thailand and
the decision by the government to shelve elections in November?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are very concerned. We’re watching it very
closely. It has had an impact on our embassy operations. We continue
to believe and we continue to encourage both sides that violence is
not the route to resolve these issues. Ultimately, the government
and the demonstrators have to get back together again and to find –
reach agreement on a path forward. And we are aware that a senior
general affiliated with the protestors has been shot and wounded today,
so we are very concerned about the ongoing violence.

QUESTION: Are you concerned about the violence or about the – because
it was a two-part question about the election.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’re concerned about both. I mean, there was an
understanding, whether it had been a formal agreement or not, on a
way forward to elections. It would appear as though that agreement
has collapsed and we would like – there’s no route to a solution
through violent confrontation. The government has to continue to have
a dialogue with the demonstrators and they need to reach an agreement
on a path forward.

QUESTION: Are there broader implications for democracy in that
country? I mean, are you thinking about these possible implications?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I’m not sure that now is the time for kind of
sweeping statements. There is – there are fundamental fissures within
Thai society, and the only way to resolve this and to develop a civil
and inclusive society is through peaceful negotiation.

QUESTION: What’s the effect on your embassy? You said it was affected.

MR. CROWLEY: I think it’s closed to only essential operations – let
me see, give me a second. It is closed and American citizens services
will be available for emergencies only.

QUESTION: When you say it’s closed, do you mean it’s closed —

MR. CROWLEY: I think essential personnel right now are —

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: — manning the embassy, but it’s not open.

QUESTION: Is that because of a specific threat or just because —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think the embassy sits on the fringe of this
containment area where some of the violence has taken place.

QUESTION: Are you close to a Russia deal? Are you close to a Russia
deal on adoptions? You sounded like it was —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we have a good understanding of the issues.

We are – we’ve agreed to pursue an agreement and looking at a wide
range of steps to improve the security of these adoptions. I think
we’re confident that we will be able to reach an agreement, but
these are complex issues. I think actually getting the agreement,
which can have legally binding obligations on both sides, will take
some time to finalize.

QUESTION: On Futenma. There was a meeting between U.S. and Japan
yesterday. Do you have any readout of that?

MR. CROWLEY: It was a good meeting, but we continue our dialogue
with Japan.

QUESTION: How did the U.S. react to the Japanese proposal?

MR. CROWLEY: There are ongoing discussions about what to do and we’re
not done yet.

QUESTION: Anything new on the Chile investigation?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s progress from last week?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have been engaged with Japan for,
obviously, many months. We continue to share ideas back and forth. I
think we’re hopeful that we can reach an understanding soon, but
there’s still work to be done.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:45 p.m.)