Author: Chakrian Hovsep

RISE IN PRICES FOR ESSENTIAL GOODS AROUSES DISCONTENT

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 29 2007

YEREVAN, October 26. /ARKA/. The rise in prices for a number of
essential products in Armenia has not only aroused natural discontent
on the part of population, but also cause criticism of the government
policy.

Against the background of the rise in prices for grain, which caused
a rise in the price for baked goods, vegetable and animal fats in
many countries, phenomena going beyond the laws of market economy
are occurring in Armenia.

The uptrend in the prices for essential products observed late in
the summer was caused by external factors. A survey of internal
and external influence on the food market conducted by the ARKA
News Agency in September, as well as experts’ comments, suggested a
conclusion that the rise of prices for a number of food products was
mainly accounted for by external factors.

Since Armenia has no high-level food self-sufficiency, it cannot rule
out the influence of external factors on influence with large imports
of essential food and agricultural products recorded.

This September, 102.7% consumer price index was recorded in Armenia
compared to last September, with the index of prices for food products
(alcohol and tobacco inclusive) being 103.8%. In January-September
2007, 3.8% inflation was recorded compared to the corresponding period
last year. The index of prices for food products was 104.8%.

However, negative phenomena were recorded in September, when, taking
advantage of the global trends, Armenia’s economic entities entered
into an anticompetitive collusion, which caused an unnatural 60%
rise in the prices for vegetable oil and butter.

The RA State Commission for protection of Economic Competition, also
called antimonopoly commission, guided by the results of monitoring
conducted in August-October, revealed the fact of indirect agreements
on an unjustified rise in prices between 20% of legal entities
operating on the market of butter and vegetable oil.

As a result, about 50 Armenian businessmen were fined, fines imposed
on them being 2% of the proceeds from the products in question in 2006,
but not more than 300mln AMD.

Despite the rise in prices on the world market, the prices were at
least doubled in Armenia. Specifically, the average purchasing price
of one liter of sunflower oil was 556 AMD in August and 950 AMD in
October, while the customs value remained the same, said Head of the
Commission’s Analytical Department Armine Hakobyan.

The opposition immediately responded to the situation and expressed
its concern at the next four-day session of the RA Parliament on
October 22-25. "The price rise has become a social disaster for all
the sections of population. The companies getting super-profits from
the monopoly on the import of some products to Armenia are worsening
the situation for hundreds of thousands of our compatriots," said Mher
Shahgueldyan of the opposition parliamentary faction Country of Law.

According to him, the authorities are not taking any measures. "Of
course, the rise in prices is global, but, for example, Russia,
Ukraine and Georgia are taking measures to protect their citizens.

The Government must bear responsibility to the population and wage
a more active struggle against negative processes," Shahgueldyan said.

He proposed the abolition of monopolies and creation of competition,
especially on the food market.

The member of the opposition faction "Heritage" Armen Martirosyan
proposed the adoption of a special law to regulate the behavior of
economic entities and government bodies in case of price rise. "Under
the country’s Constitution, the Central Bank is supposed to ensure
price stability. Everybody must deal with this important problem and
take strict preventive measures," he said.

The Members of Parliament representing the pro-governmental Republican
Party of Armenia (RPA) addressed the subject as well.

Eduard Sharmazanov said that the major task is to reform the mechanisms
of responsibility applied to unprincipled economic entities.

He added that the fines imposed on them are too small to "put them
off repeating such scenarios".

In this context, talks about increasing fines imposed on economic
entities have been heard in Armenia. Chairman of the Protection of
Consumers’ Rights NGO Abgar Yegoyan proposed raiding the fine for
anticompetitive agreements from 2% to 5% of annual turnover and
reducing the payment terms to 15 days.

In the second ten-day period of October the problem of rise in prices
for food products reached its climax in the form of excitement on
the sugar market.

Rumors about a rise in price for sugar made the population purchase
large amounts of this product. Retailers took advantage of the
situation and raised the price 2-3 times. Some shops sold sugar at
600-700 AMD ($1.84-$2.15) for a kilo.

This market is monopolized in Armenia. The Salex Group company,
owned by the member of the Armenian Parliament Samvel Alexanyan,
covers 84% of the country’s sugar market. Many experts immediately
pointed out the problem of monopoly on the food markets, but after
the importer reduced the price down to 220 AMD in his supermarkets,
everybody accused retailers.

Commission Chairman Ashot Shahnazaryan convened a special sitting of
the Commission on October 23 and stated that the rise in sugar price
was artificial.

"The excitement over the allegedly expected deficit of sugar and the
resultant rise in the price was created artificially," he said.

According to Shahnazaryan, the excitement played into the hand of
the owners of small shops as ten-day amount was sold within a day.

The Commission continues monitoring the market, but stable prices
have been set on the sugar market – 230-240 AMS for a kilo.

The market study showed that Armenia is provided with sugar for the
next six months, and no changes in the price policy are expected
during one year.

RA Minister of Territorial Administration Hovik Abrahamyan said that
the Government will carry out consistent work to prevent a price rise.

He pointed out that artificial excitement on the food market affects
the authorities first of all as it causes public discontent on the
threshold of presidential election.

At present, the Central Bank of Armenia (CBA), by means of its monetary
policy and interest rates, is maintaining stable prices on the consumer
market in conformity with law.

In his earlier interview to ARKA, CBA Chairman Tigran Sargsyan stated
that the CBA is concerned the world prices for imported wheat, grains
and sugar.

He expressed the confidence that, despite the unfavorable situation
on the world markets, the CBa will manage to maintain inflation within
the planned 4% (±1,5%) in 2007.

–Boundary_(ID_0In/si9dq19hy96UT5pNoQ)–

OFFICIAL BAKU HOPE ARMENIAN’S POLICY TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

TREND News Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 29 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend corr. K.Ramazanova / It does not matter who
will be the President of Armenia. The main issue is that the country’s
policy is conducted on the base of international law, Khazar Ibrahim,
the Foreign Ministry’s pres-secretary, said on 20 October. "We hope
the present and future government will function within the framework
of the international law," Ibrahim said.

According to the press-secretary, the results of Co-chairs’ visit
will be announced in the near future.

Tribute to the victims of October 27

armradio.am
27.10.2007 14:08

The leadership of the National Assembly, members of Government,
Deputies and Staff laid flowers at the memorial to the victims of
October 27, paying tribute to the memory of the victims of the terrible
events at the National Assembly eight years ago.

`Eight years have passed after the tragedy, when we lost our best
friends, but I think the pain and regret have not reduced during these
years. We have only one consolation: the aims we cherished together are
being realized, the problems are being solved, and the country we
wished to have is being built step-by-step. This is what can further us
and somewhat relieve the pain,’ NA Speaker Tigran Torosyan told
journalists.

Tigran Torosyan noted that he does not share the opinion that the path
of the republic changed after October 27. He said the step-by-step
realization of the purposes is an achievement of the Republican Party
and the Armenian authorities as a whole.

As for the revelation of the organizers of the crime, NA Speaker
expressed hope that everything has been done to fully disclose the
crime. However, in any country it may take many years and decades to
disclose some crimes. `Thus, I think that only those who are aware of
the details of the case can give assessment to the disclosure of this
grave tragedy. But I want to underline once again that I’m hopeful
everything has been done to unveil the case.’

Let us remind that on October 27 NA Speaker Karen Demirchian, Prime
Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, NA Vice-Speakers Yuri Bakhshyan and Ruben
Miroyan, MPs Michael Kotanyan, Armenak Armenakyan, Henrik Abrahamyan
and Minister Leonard Petrosyan fell victims of the bloody tragedy.

SHIFT TO WINTER TIME ON OCTOBER 28

armradio.am
26.10.2007 15:33

October 28 at 3 a.m. the pointers of the clock must be drawn an hour
back, marking the end of "summer time."

RA Deputy Minister of Trade and Economic Development Garnik Badalyan
told Armenpress that the "summer time" which comes into force on
the last Sunday of every year, was created artificially to make
more efficient use of the sunny days and reduce the load of the
energy sphere.

The real working time in our republic is the "winter time," which
comes into force on the last Sunday of October.

AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTRY CONTROLS ARMENIANS’ EVENT IN CALIFORNIA ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF NAKHCHIVAN

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 26 2007

Azerbaijan Foreign Ministry and Consulate General in Los-Angeles keep
event Armenians want to hold in Glendale city of California regarding
historical monuments of Nakhchivan on November 11 under control,
vice-consul of Azerbaijani Consulate General to Los-Angeles Elman
Abdullayev told the APA’s US bureau.

The event Armenians want to hold in Glendale exposes their
aggressiveness.

"Moreover Armenians prove that they pretend to ancient regions of
Azerbaijan with this step and insidious propagation. Armenians
territorial claims to Nakhchivan should draw attention of world
community interested in peace and tranquility in South Caucasus
region. Such groundless ideology damages stable future of Caucasus.

Azerbaijani Consulate General in Los-Angeles carries out talks with
Foreign Ministry regarding this issue and keeps process under control,"
he said.

THE CLINTON/PELOSI FAULT LINE
By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris

Politico, DC
Oct 25 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the two most prominent
women in American politics today – powerfully united by intense disdain
for George Bush’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

The Democratic antipathy toward Bush, however, disguises a variety of
tensions and cracks that could grow in the months ahead if Clinton
becomes her party’s nominee, and could become even more interesting
if there is another Clinton administration in January 2009.

Clinton’s and Pelosi’s differences of detail cumulatively add up
to something large – two distinct strands of thinking about where
threats to U.S. national security lie and how aggressive to be in
confronting them.

Liberal Democrats will have to get over it: Clinton is an authentic
hawk. Her support for the Iraq war resolution five years ago this
month, whether motivated by politics or principle or some of both,
was not an aberration. Nor is her tough talk against Iran.

Assuming she wraps up the Democratic nomination over the next couple
of months, she will almost certainly emphasize these interventionist
views.

The temptation for many commentators has been to dismiss Pelosi’s
ventures into foreign policy as blunderbuss moves by a new speaker
unseasoned on the world stage. She was hammered for her visit to
Syria earlier this year to talk peace. She was recently forced by her
own members to surrender on the "Armenian Genocide" resolution after
Turkey, a U.S. ally with a critical supply line to Iraq, re-called
its ambassador in protest.

But Democratic foreign policy experts in the think tanks along
Massachusetts Avenue will also have to get over it: Pelosi
is authentically representing the mainstream of her party when it
comes to America’s role in the world. She opposed the Iraq war with
vehemence from its conception. (And, unlike many of the denizens of
those think tanks, she has not had to explain or rationalize her old
views in light of the sorrowful events that followed

Is the Democratic Party big enough for a Clinton wing and a Pelosi
wing?

Maybe. One indication of Clinton’s surprising skills as a presidential
candidate comes by looking at a once-big problem now in her rearview
mirror. At the start of this year, it was assumed she would have to
forthrightly apologize for the 2002 Iraq vote or risk the wrath of
the anti-war left. In fact, she has resisted such a statement and
still managed to mobilize a considerable amount of anti-war support.

Her navigating of the apology issue has been of a piece with her
strategy on every turn. She has been relentless in preserving as
much political and substantive flexibility for herself as a general
election candidate and future president, in a campaign that she and
her advisers believe will hinge on perceptions of national security
strength much more than a backward-looking debate about who was more
right or wrong about Iraq in 2002 or even in 2007. Clinton’s team never
forgets the context in which voters will decide 12 months from now:
A hundred thousand or more troops still will be in Iraq, Iran will
remain a growing menace, Pakistan will be unsettled and Afghanistan
will be as unpredictable and periodically bloody as ever.

Two examples show her strategy at work: her refusal to vow there would
not be U.S. troops in Iraq in 2013 if she were elected president,
and her recent support for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
a terrorist organization.

The Democratic left went bonkers on both. But there is no indication
yet this is a serious obstacle in the primary fight. And, despite the
criticism, the indications are that Clinton knew exactly what she was
doing. On Iran, for instance, the independent voters that Clinton’s
team is focused on do not share the widespread Democratic concern that
Bush is bracing for a new war. A Pew poll released in 2006 found that,
by 53 percent to 34 percent, respondents were more concerned that
the United States would wait too long, rather than act too quickly,
in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

But the balancing act within the party may become harder, not easier,
if Clinton becomes the nominee. As one of several presidential
candidates, Clinton can plausibly claim to be speaking only for
herself.

She does not have to speak for the Democrats as a whole – and she
does not face intense pressure to either embrace or repudiate the
statements of other Democratic leaders.

In a general election context, Clinton would face the enormous public
pressures of questions such as: Does she agree or disagree with
Pelosi’s efforts to propitiate Armenian-Americans in her district
with a genocide resolution, even if doing so alienates Turkey and
undermines the U.S. mission in Iraq? What does she think about
fellow Democrat John P. Murtha’s support for a war tax, at a time
when Clinton is trying to convince voters that Democrats will not
raise taxes on anyone but the rich? She would be hard-pressed to skate
around uproars such as the one Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) caused when
he suggested that U.S. troops in Iraq "get their heads blown off for
the president’s amusement."

For now, however, the Clinton/Pelosi fault line rumbles below the
surface. Foreign policy scholar Walter Russell Mead sees in the
Clinton/Pelosi tension two distinct motivations at work. "Pelosi is a
grass-roots politician who is interested in making policy out of the
views of the base," Mead explains. "Hillary Clinton is a national
politician who is interested in formulating good policy and then
selling that to the base."

David Paul Kuhn contributed to this story.

[Transcript Excerpt]

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
October 23, 2007

ARMENIA

Secretary Rice’s Meeting with Armenian Prime Minister
Iranian President’s Visit to Armenia / Possible Pipeline Agreement

***

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Secretary’s meeting with the
Armenian Prime Minister? I know it’s coming up, but what do you plan
to discuss? Why is it important?

MR. MCCORMACK: All a matter of relations, I think. We have a
significant bilateral assistance program with Armenia and we’ll talk
about that, talk about their continuing process of political and
economic reform. I expect the Secretary will also touch on the issue
of Nagorno-Karabakh and where that — where the process stands in
bringing about a resolution to that conflict.

QUESTION: And what about the genocide resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not on the agenda from our side.

QUESTION: Same subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: The President of Iran has been in Armenia for the last
couple of days and reports about that visit suggest that they have
extended a pipeline agreement and that they’re going to build a joint
— this is Armenia and Iran —

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: — build a joint refinery. Given Armenia’s generally
pro-Western orientation, are you sort of disappointed with this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I understand that there hasn’t been a final
agreement that has been signed. Often — very oftentimes, you will
have these circumstances where Iran working with other governments
will try to engage in a series of preliminary agreements to lend the
perception that all is normal and well in terms of dealing with Iran
when, in fact, the truth could not be further from that kind of
perception.

We have counseled the Armenians, as we have counseled others who have
entertained entering into these sort of oil and gas agreements with
Iran against doing so. We don’t think the time is right to even be
entertaining the idea of concluding these kinds of agreements. It is
not business as normal with Iran for all the reasons that we have
talked about so very often in this room.

So we will continue to counsel them against entering into any sort of
oil and gas agreements and of course, if there are any applicable laws
that are triggered by any actions taken by any entities, we will take
a look at the agreements with respect to U.S. law.

Source: tm

GOP DEBATE: FOX VIEWERS SAY RON PAUL WON LARRY FESTER

USA Daily
679
Oct 22 2007

The Fox News Republican Presidential debate in Orlando Florida revealed
that the GOP nomination is still up for grabs. According to Fox News
Viewers text voting after the debate, Ron Paul won with 34%, Huckabee
came in second with 27%, and Giuliani third with 11%.

The Republican debate also revealed that the Republican contenders
think America is going bankrupt if spending policies are not changed.

Debate Highlights:

Fred Thompson touted his "100% pro life voting record" and said
"Our basic rights come from God not government". Thompson tagged
Rudy Giuliani for supporting "Sanctuary Cities" and "federal funding
for abortion" and he "sides with Hillary Clinton" speaking of when
Giuliani was New York City Mayor.

Thompson hit on a theme that all of the Republicans seemed to agree
on and that is that out of control spending is bankrupting America,
‘We’re spending the money of our grand kids and kids yet to be born".

Thompson said,

Warning about Democrats raising taxes Thompson joked, "To the
Democrats, everybody that works for a living is rich".

Thompson also promoted indexing govt. benefits to costs.

Giuliani accused Fred Thompson of being the "biggest obstacle to tort
reform". Giuliani touted his record as New York City Mayor, said,
"I brought down crime 60%", and called for school choice.

Giuliani took some shots at Hillary Clinton saying, "America can’t
afford you".

On Foreign policy, Giuliani said that we should engage Russia but
consider expanding NATO to include Australia, Japan, and Eastern
Europe.

Referring to Iran Giuliani said, "We will not allow them to go
nuclear".

Mitt Romney said he "supports a constitutional defense of marriage
amendment". Romney promoted a market approach to healthcare, "I don’t
want the guys that did the clean up for Katrina running healthcare".

Romney said, "We’re not going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the
White House by acting like Hillary Clinton".

Regarding healthcare Ron Paul said that "managed care isn’t working"
and that "drug companies lobby for managed care". Paul said, "We could
take care of these poor people if we weren’t trying to maintain an
empire overseas".

Ron Paul hit on his theme of military non-interventionism, "70% of
Americans want war over with and are sick and tired of big government
at home and overseas". They want their "civil liberties and not allow
government to spend endlessly and bankrupt us".

Ron Paul said "the founders advised non interventionism, the war is
spreading, the war is likely to spread into Iran. We don’t need to
go looking for trouble; we don’t need another cold war". Paul was
referring to increased tensions with Russia.

Paul said that, "government is not very good at central economic
planning". Paul said he would allow young people to opt out of the
social security system.

Ron Paul an opponent of the Federal Reserve said that "a dollar
today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal
Reserve got in," stating that was a main reason why the country is
going bankrupt.

Paul said, "If we don’t believe in the Constitution and personal
liberty we lose".

Mike Huckabee defended the "sanctity of human life, it is one
of the defining issues of our culture" and on healthcare promoted
"personalization not privatization. We do not have healthcare system
we have a maze. It’s a healthcare crisis".

Huckabee also brought up sovereignty and the Law of the Sea Treaty,
warning that Hillary Clinton is a danger to U.S. sovereignty.

Duncan Hunter pushed for a "mirror trade policy", warned that there is
an "800 billion dollar trade deficit", and connected trade deficits
to Social Security problems. Hunter pointed out that $75,000 a year
jobs are being lost and replaced with $20,000 a year jobs where people
pay much less into the Social Security system as a result.

John McCain spoke against wasteful spending and took issue with Mitt
Romney saying, "You’ve been spending the last year trying to fool
people about your record, I don’t want you to fool people aboutmine".

McCain promoted his military experience and said, "I’ve been involved
with every national crisis since Beirut". When asked if the war in
Iraq was a winning issue McCain answered, "I don’t know and I can’t
be concerned. I would much rather lose a campaign than a war". He
continued, "I lead, I don’t manage for profit, I lead for patriotism.

McCain said he supported a missile defense system.

Tom Tancredo said that he had the "highest conservative rating" among
all the candidates running. He promoted market reforms in healthcare
and said the Federal government should not be involved. Regarding
Social Security benefits, Tancredo supported Health Savings accounts
and said, "People should be able to control their own money like in
a 401k".

Tancredo lamented, "There’s a plan to give social security benefits
to illegal aliens," stating that illegal immigration is draining
infrastructure. Tancredo said that he supported importing cheaper
drugs from Canada.

Tancredo had harsh words for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

He said the "Armenian genocide bill inflamed problems with Turkey"
and Kurds in Iraq. Tancredo said that Pelosi was a terrible House
speaker but would make a worse Secretary of state. (Discuss the
election on

ARMENIAN, IRANIAN LEADERS HOLD ONE-TO-ONE MEETING

Public Television of Armenia
Oct 22 2007

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad paid an official visit to
Yerevan today. Following an official reception at the presidential
residence, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Ahmadinezhad held
one-to-one meeting.

The meeting between the leaders of the two countries is under way
at the moment. Later on the meeting will be resumed in the expanded
format with other officials in attendance. Then the two presidents
will conduct a joint news conference.

Within the framework of his visit, Ahmadinezhad will met the Armenian
Speaker, and pay visits to the memorial of genocide victims, the
Armenian genocide museum, Yerevan’s State University and the Blue
Mosque. The Iranian president will also meet members of the Iranian
community in Yerevan.

TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Claude Salhani, [email protected].

Khaleej Times
Oct 21 2007
United Arab Emirates

THERE are two ways of looking at the diplomatic tug-o-war currently
being fought in Washington over the question of the Armenian
genocide. One can either decide with his heart, taking the side of
the Armenians, and vote, yes, the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians
was genocide. End of story.

Or, one can vote with his mind, and oppose the notion. Either way
the United States will upset a close ally in the region.

While mulling over the issue, the question for the Bush administration
and for the Congress is the following: from a national security
perspective, which of the two countries – Turkey or Armenia – is more
important to the US war effort in Iraq, and which one contributes
more towards what President Bush calls "the war on terror."

My guess is Turkey and by a long shot.

The fact that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide in the
slaughter of Armenians around the time of World War I is not in
question. The massacres did take place. The killing of Armenians
is well documented. There are images, films, as well as firsthand
accounts – the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of survivors
who managed to escape and tell their stories. The killings did happen.

Other than a few hard-line Turks, few are those who contest the facts:
Armenians were killed, slaughtered by the tens, by the hundreds,
by the thousands, until more than 1.5 million died. The killings
followed a pattern that appeared to fit the definition of genocide:
The "systematic killing of a people with the intent of eliminating
that particular ethnicity."

The fact that those acts of massive killings are labelled "mass
murder," "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is a matter of pure
semantics.

Regrettably, the dead are dead; changing the tactical name of how it is
they came to die is not about to bring them back to life. Nor would it
change how they died. What it will accomplish is possibly help their
memory and somewhat sooth the sufferings of their descendants. But in
so doing, it risks producing a major geopolitical upset, accompanied
by strategic alliances being reviewed at a time when the United States
needs all the friends it can get, particularly in such a sensitive
part of the world.

Both Armenia and Turkey are important US allies. Turkey is a NATO
member. But Turkey also plays an important role of mediator between
the West and Central Asia. Alienating Turkey at this juncture could
have grave consequences, not least for the US military fighting in
Iraq. Turkey provides the use of some of its military bases close
to the Iraqi border to US air force planes. A vote recognising the
Armenian genocide as such would result in these bases being closed
to the US military.

Incirlik Air Base serves as a hub for military material going in to
both Iraq and Afghanistan. About 74 per cent of air cargo into Iraq
transits Incirlik. Six US military C-17 aircraft based at Incirlik
move the amount of cargo it took 9-10 military aircraft to move
from Germany, saving $160 million per year, according to Anthony H
Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"Americans need to understand that the Turkish government and Turkish
military have provided substantial support to the US in Iraq since
the fall of Saddam Hussein," said Cordesman in a report.

Another question the US government can ask itself is why bring up the
matter now? None of those responsible for the killings of Armenians
are still living. "Sanctioning Turkey today for atrocities committed
against the Armenians in 1916, would be equivalent of punishing
the son for crimes committed by the father," said Alon ben Meir,
a professor at New York University.

"Tragic as the fate of the Armenians may have been in the aftermath
of World War I, the fact remains that the issue is more than half a
century old," said Cordesman.

What is desperately needed between Turkey and Armenia is to promote
reconciliation – if that is at all possible – rather than enact
non-binding resolutions which will only widen the schism and further
distance a precious US ally.

Turkey, who wants admittance into the European Union, could close the
chapter on the Armenian genocide by admitting that what happened in
1916 was indeed genocide, however, stressing that the crimes were
committed by an entity predating the modern Turkish Republic, which
after all, bears no resemblance to its forerunner. For the sake of
maintaining stability in the region, Ankara can issue an apology
to Yerevan, and while making it clear that modern Turkey is not
financially or morally liable for the crimes of their fathers.

And if despite the protests and advice the US Senate passes the
resolution anyway, the Turkish parliament can always reciprocate by
recognising the genocide of Native Americans by the white settlers.

It should have about as much political weight as Washington recognising
the Armenian genocide.