Author: Chalian Meline

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Armenia

armradio.am
19.10.2007 16:36

October 22-23 President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad will arrive in Armenia on an official visit, RA President’s
Press Office informs.

Presidents of Armenia and Iran Robert Kocharyan and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
will have a face-to-face meeting followed by consultations in an
enlarger format. The parties will sign documents on bilateral
cooperation.

The Presidents of Armenia and Iran will give a joint press conference.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will meet with the Speaker of RA Nnational Assembly
Tigran Torosyan and will make a speech at the Armenian Parliament.

The President of Iran will visit the memorial to the Armenian Genocide
victims and the Genocide Museum Institute. In the Yerevan State
University he will meet with students and faculty. Mr. Ahmadinejad will
visit the Blue Mosque and will meet with representatives of the Iranian
community of Armenia.

The delegation headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will leave Yerevan on
October 23.

Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Oct 19 2007

No way to treat a friend
BY CHRIS PATTEN

19 October 2007

FOR the third year in a row, Turkey’s annual hurdles on the winding
path of convergence with the EU – a progress report early next month
and the European Council in December – are likely to be bruising.

Doubters will seize on gridlock over Cyprus and a pause in
legislative reform to allege that Turkey is not changing and should
be pushed back outside the EU’s gates. They will point to Ankara’s
response to US efforts to declare the 1915-23 killing of Armenians a
genocide, and the political push for an incursion into northern Iraq
to deal with cross-border terrorist attacks, as evidence that Turkey
is not ready to join the club. So it is worth stepping back and
considering why Europe needs Turkey.

Turkey was critical to Europe in the cold war. For 40 years, it stood
lonely guard on the south-eastern third of Nato’s frontline, paying
the price in military-heavy government and delayed development. There
was little carping about its Muslim identity then, and a cultural
variety that included Turkey was considered a European strength.
After communism’s collapse, Turkey kept contributing to Europe’s
security, giving troops and legitimacy to EU-backed missions in
Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Balkans, and even Congo. If EU-Turkish
relations had not stumbled (for which all sides are responsible), it
would likely be supporting a force for Darfur.

The process of convergence has been strongly in Europe’s interest as
well, especially the golden period between 1999 and 2005:
wide-ranging reforms fashioned a more European political system;
peace and cooperation replaced friction with Greece; annual economic
growth of 7.5 per cent benefited European companies; Turkey’s new
trust in the EU brought a turnaround on Cyprus that nearly solved the
problem; and basic freedoms of religion and expression improved. The
EU won credibility as a fair-minded player in the Muslim world.

But the sum of these many parts is not seen by European publics and
politicians, consumed by doubts about enlargement, immigration and
their own economic security. Election campaigns – notably those of
Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel – featured a demeaning of the
Turkish "other" and proposals that Europe drop its promise of
membership. Conservative EU politicians admit privately that Turkey
is more benefit than threat, but that to say so out loud would be
political suicide.

Fears about instant membership are misplaced. Nobody suggests Turkey
will be ready for a decade or more. Incomes are less than half the EU
average, and EU norms are far from implemented.

Most important for both the EU and Turkey is to relaunch the process
of convergence that has brought so much benefit to both sides.
Turkish voters have shown their faith in this process, returning the
pro-reform AK party to power. It has gone straight back to work,
tackling in an open spirit one of the key problems in Turkey’s
democratisation: the 1982 military-era constitution.

As EU leaders prepare for the annual debate over how much reform
Turkey has done and how much it should do, they should do all they
can to renew Turkey’s trust in the EU. The cost of restoring the
motivational goal of membership is not high, and the reward great.
Turkey is not fundamentally different to Greece, Spain and Portugal,
where EU leaps of faith were essential to a transition from military
authoritarianism to stability and democracy.

Lord Patten, the former European commissioner for external relations,
is chairman of the board of the International Crisis Group
Crisisgroup.org

BUSH RIGHT ON TIBET; PELOSI WRONG ON TURKEY

Wheeling News Register, WV
Oct 19 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has ignited a firestorm with
her push for Congress to approve a resolution condemning the World
War I-era massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Turkey.

The killings occurred nearly a century ago at a time when Turkey was
not ruled by the comparatively tolerant government it has now.

Pelosi’s move angers Turks, who are key U.S. allies, unnecessarily.

But President Bush now is being criticized because he has questioned
the wisdom of Pelosi’s action – while angering China by praising the
Dalai Lama. His action is hypocritical, claim critics.

No, it is not. Pelosi’s resolution has nothing to do with the present –
other than, again, to anger Turks. But the Dalai Lama is a symbol of
Tibetans’ desire for freedom, which is being denied them right now
by the Chinese government.

That was then, this is now, in other words. Pelosi’s resolution can
accomplish nothing worthwhile – while Bush’s support of the Dalai
Lama may help pressure the Chinese to ease up on repression in Tibet.

Bush’s critics either can’t understand that – or don’t want to do so.

ail/id/501136.html?nav=511

MOD PRESS SECRETARY TO VISIT MOSCOW

armradio.am
18.10.2007 17:20

October 23-25 the Press Secretary of RA Ministry pf Defense, Colonel
Seyran Shahsuvaryan will visit Moscow.

Press Service of the Ministry pf Defense informs that Colonel Seyran
Shahsuvaryan will participate in the meeting of the task force on
issues of information and public relations envisaged by the 2007
cooperation plan of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia
and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

ABOUT 50 FOREIGN COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE IN "DIGITECH 2007" EXHIBITION-FORUM

Noyan Tapan
Oct 18 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 18, NOYAN TAPAN. About 50 foreign companies,
state and educational institutions will participate in the third
international exhibition-forum of information and communication
technologies "DigiTech 2007". NT correspondent was informed by Karen
Vardanian, the executive director of the Union of IT Enterprises of
Armenia (UITA) – the event’s organizer that 34 local companies and
universities and 12 foreign ones took part in the forum last year.

According to him, the number of participants in this year’s exhibition
would be greater if as previously, the event were held at K. Demirchian
Sport and Cultural Complex. Digitech 2007 will be held in one of the
halls (10/1 Ayasi Street) of the Hrazdan Fair in Yerevan. According
to the executive director of UITA, this circumstance highlights the
necessity of having a modern center for exhibition-forums in Armenia.

K. Vardanian attached importance to the fact that this year the
exhibition-forum will be held under the aegis of the Armenian prime
minsiter, which bears evidence of the attention that the Armenian
authorities pay to the information and communication sector.

He said that during DigiTech 2007, the forum-meeting "Business
Solutions", a series of seminars "DigiLife", and the forum "Electronic
Government" will be organized. While preparing for the forum-meeting
"Business Solutions", UITA conducted surveys of nearly 2 thousand
Armenian companies in order to find out what information and
communication technologies (ICT) solutions they need. Based on the
responses, meetings with respresentatives of ICT companies proposing
the appropriate solutions will be organized.

During the exhibition, the Armenian government will display electronic
governance sector’s services and programs at a special pavilion. Mika
Armenia Trading company – the main sponsor of the exhibition will
present the experience of using IT by Armavia. K. Vardanian also
underlined the importance of the first participation of IBM company
(without a pavilion) – one of the world’s IT sector leading companies
in DigiTech, which marks the entrance of IBM into the Armenian
market. Until now IBM was operating in the Armenian market through
its representatives.

According to the executive director of UITA, DigiTech 2007 will differ
from the exhibitions held in the previous years in that almost all
participants will present new IT production and services and that
only one company will present computer hardware.

TRAINING COMPENSATION TO BE GIVEN TO PUPILS LEARNING AT NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS’ DEPARTMENTS

Noyan Tapan
Oct 16 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 16, NOYAN TAPAN. At the October 11 sitting, the RA
government made a decision to intend introduction of state order into
national instruments training at Armenian music and art schools. As
Noyan Tapan was informed by the RA government Information and Public
Relations Department, a compensation for training payment at national
instruments’ departments has been established in Yerevan to the amount
of 7018 drams and in RA regions to the amount of 5539 drams.

It was mentioned that the decision will help to make state assistance
in that sphere more concrete, to contribute to increase of the number
of pupils learning at national instruments’ departments, which in
its turn, will promote preservation and development of national music
and national performing art, as well as socially insecure families’
children’s getting a professional education.

Explosive potential of Turkish raid

As Turkey’s parliament considers military action against Kurdish
guerrillas in northern Iraq, BBC world affairs correspondent Nick
Childs looks at the tensions the move is causing and the possible
regional implications of military action.

Already, ahead of time, the move in the Turkish parliament is
prompting a new flurry of diplomacy – and maybe that is the main
intention.

But Ankara knows Iraq’s central government has little clout in the
largely autonomous Kurdish north of the country.

The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has played down the
prospect of any imminent action. Western military sources also say
there are no obvious preparations under way for anything big.

But such action would be popular in Turkey. Any major incursion would
clearly have significant implications.

The Turkish military might limit itself to small raids, even possibly
just air strikes, which might have limited repercussions.

American anxiety

Yet they too would carry risks. Anything which looked like presenting
a threat to the city of Kirkuk and its nearby oilfields could provoke
a major crisis, which could suck in Iraqi forces, the Americans, maybe
even the Iranians.

Clearly, Washington is worried. It does not have the resources to take
on further military challenges in Iraq. It is also hugely dependent on
Turkish support for its presence there anyway.

And Turkish-US relations are already going through a very difficult
phase, complicated by a vote in a US congressional committee
condemning the mass killing of Armenians in Turkey in World War I as
genocide.

Perhaps conscious of the risk of a rupture in relations between
Washington and Ankara, support for the motion in Congress now seems to
be waning.

It is a complicated set of calculations for the authorities in Ankara,
too, as they try to position themselves in what is a region in flux.

Published: 2007/10/17 11:27:46 GMT

(c) BBC MMVII

Source: 30.stm

STUNG BY ARMENIAN RESOLUTION, TURKEY MULLS OPTIONS
By Gareth Jenkins

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Oct 16 2007

Stung by the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s October 10 approval
of a resolution characterizing the massacres and deportations of
Armenians by the Ottoman authorities during World War I as a genocide,
Turkish politicians and journalists are unanimous that Turkey needs
to react. But there is no consensus on how it should respond. Indeed,
since the motion was approved, newspaper commentators have spent
considerably more column inches criticizing the decision or trying
to analyze why it happened rather than thinking through specific
responses and their possible repercussions.

The only substantive measure that has been widely discussed is the
possibility of Turkey abrogating the agreement whereby the United
States currently uses the airbase at Incirlik in southeast Turkey
to provide its forces in Iraq with non-lethal supplies. However,
most of the advocates of abrogating the agreement appear to be more
interested in punishing Washington for the motion than changing U.S.

attitudes and policies (Radikal, October 12). Nevertheless, there
is little doubt that the closure would have the support of the
overwhelming majority of the Turkish people, including, according to
a survey conducted by CNNTurk, of both Turkish employees at Incirlik
and the local tradesmen who are dependent on the US presence at the
base for their livelihood (CNNTurk, October 15).

On October 14, in an interview with the daily Milliyet, Turkish Chief
of Staff General Yasar Buyukanit described the approval of the motion
as the United States "shooting itself in the foot," and warned that
it would harm bilateral military ties (Milliyet, October 14).

However, on October 15, in his column in the same newspaper, Semih
Idiz, who had recently returned from U.S., reported that the many
people in Washington believed that the Turkish threats were mere
bluff. Idiz called on the Turkish authorities to take concrete
measures to prove the doubters wrong, although he did not specify
what the measures should be (Milliyet, October 15).

Turkish school textbooks teach children to identify themselves not only
with the present, but also with the past. The Turkish authorities have
long suppressed open debate about what happened to the Armenians. As
a result, few Turks are aware of the extensive evidence and eyewitness
reports of the killings and deportations, but they are bombarded with
photographs and accounts of the relatively small number of revenge
massacres by Armenians against Muslims.

Consequently, given the majority of Turks’ limited knowledge of what
actually happened, from the Turkish perspective the resolution was
regarded not just as a distortion of history but as a gratuitous
insult.

The Turkish-U.S. Business Council has already announced that it has
cancelled a planned conference in the United States. Turkish Foreign
Trade Minister Kursad Tuzmen has declared that he has indefinitely
postponed a scheduled trip to the U.S. (Turkish Daily News, October
15).

However, several columnists have noted that even if the Turkish
authorities add substantive sanctions to such gestures of disapproval,
the most long-lasting impact of the October 10 resolution is likely
to be on the Turkish public’s perceptions of the United States (Ferai
Tinc, Hurriyet, October 12). Sami Kohen, the doyen of Turkish foreign
policy commentators, entitled his column in Milliyet on October 15 "How
the U.S. lost Turkey." He predicted that, regardless of any specific
measures taken by the Turkish government, the greatest damage to the
U.S. would be that Washington would no longer be able to count on
Turkey as a reliable ally. Meanwhile, the ultranationalist Yeni Cag
has announced that it will run a serialized analysis entitled "The
U.S.: The Enemy that Appears to be a Friend" (Yeni Cag, October 15).

However, other journalists have concentrated more on trying to
understand why they believe the U.S. has now turned against Turkey.

Tufan Turenc in Hurriyet noted that even long-time supporters of Turkey
had begun to have second thoughts about the country’s reliability after
the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) hosted Hamas leaders in
Ankara in 2006 (Hurriyet, October 15). Umit Enginsoy commented that
Jewish Americans, who were once among Turkey’s leading supporters
in Washington, had now turned against Ankara and that seven of the
eight Jewish members of the Foreign Affairs Committee had voted for
the October 10 resolution. While Milliyet observed that, with the
exception of a statement by 460 Azeri NGOs condemning the resolution,
none of what Turkey used to describe as its "sibling nations" in the
Caucasus and Central Asia had reacted publicly and that the Azeri
response was hardly surprising, seeing that 20% of the country’s
territory is currently occupied by Armenia (October 15).

But, amid the outrage and fury, some members of the Turkish media
are prepared to admit that those in the United States who believe
that all Washington has to do is ride out the storm may have a point.

Radikal newspaper observed that there was widespread public outrage
when the French parliament passed a similar resolution in 2000,
including a consumer boycott of French goods and the exclusion of
French companies from Turkish military tenders. However, not only
did the anger rapidly fade, it had little long-term impact on French
interests. In 2000, when the resolution was passed, annual Turkish
imports from France stood at $3.5 billion, dropping to $2.3 billion
in 2001 before rising to $3.1 billion in 2002, $6.2 billion in 2004,
and $7.2 billion in 2006 (Radikal, October 12).

However, even if the measures do not have any long-term impact,
public feeling in Turkey is so strong at the moment that the AKP
government will have to do something. The only question is whether
it will implement substantive sanctions or whether it will restrict
itself to symbolic gestures in the hope that the resolution can be
prevented from ever coming before the full House.

DEBATE OVER WORD OBSCURES TURKEY’S NEED TO FACE TRUTH
By Richard Cohen

San Jose Mercury News, CA
Oct 16 2007

It goes without saying that the House resolution condemning Turkey
for the "genocide" of Armenians in 1915 will serve no earthly purpose
and that it will, to say the least, complicate if not severely strain
U.S.-Turkey relations. It goes without saying, also, that the Turks
are extremely sensitive on the topic and since they are helpful in the
war in Iraq and a friend to Israel, that their feelings ought to be
taken into account. All of this is true, but I would feel a lot better
about killing this resolution if the argument wasn’t so much about
how we need Turkey and not at all about the truthfulness of the matter.

Of even that, I have some doubt. The congressional resolution
repeatedly employs the word "genocide," a term used by many scholars.

But Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish emigre who coined the term in
1943, clearly had what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in mind. If
that is the standard – and it need not be – then what happened in the
collapsing Ottoman Empire in 1915 was something short of genocide. It
was plenty bad – maybe as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished,
many of them outright murdered – but not all Armenians everywhere in
what was then Turkey were as calamitously affected. The substantial
Armenian communities in Constantinople, Smyrna and Aleppo were largely
spared. No German city could make that statement about its Jews.

Still, by any name, what was done in 1915 is unforgivable and, one
hopes, unforgettable. Yet it was done by a government that no longer
exists – the so-called Sublime Porte of the Ottomans, with its sultan,
concubines, eunuchs and the rest. Even in 1915, it was an anachronism,
no longer able to administer its vast territory – much of the Middle
East and the Balkans. The empire was crumbling. The so-called Sick
Man of Europe was breathing its last. Its troops were starving
and both in Europe and the Middle East, indigenous peoples were
declaring their independence and rising in rebellion. Among them were
the Armenians, an ancient people who had been among the very first to
adopt Christianity. By the end of the 19th century, they were engaged
in guerrilla activity. By World War I, they were aiding Turkey’s enemy,
Russia. Within Turkey, Armenians were feared as a fifth column.

So contemporary Turkey is entitled to insist that things are not so
simple. If you use the word "genocide," it suggests the Holocaust –
and that is not what happened in the Ottoman Empire. But Turkey has
gone beyond mere quibbling with a word. It has taken issue with the
facts and in ways that cannot be condoned. Its most famous writer,
the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk, was arrested in 2005
for acknowledging the mass killing of Armenians. The charges were
subsequently dropped and although Turkish law has been in some ways
modified, it nevertheless remains dangerous business for a Turk to
talk openly and candidly about what happened in 1915.

It just so happens that I am an admirer of Turkey. Its modern leaders,
beginning with the truly remarkable Ataturk, have done a Herculean
job of bringing the country from medievalism to modernity without,
it should be noted, the usual blood bath. (The Russians, for instance,
never managed that feat.)

Furthermore, I can appreciate Turkey’s palpable desire to embrace
both modernity and Islam and to show that such a feat is not
oxymoronic. (Ironically, having a dose of genocide in your past –
the U.S. and the Indians, Germany and the Jews, etc. – is hardly not
"Western.") And I think, furthermore, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
should have spiked the House resolution in deference to Turkey’s
immense strategic importance to the United States. She’s the speaker
now, for crying out loud, and not just another House member.

But for too long the Turks have been accustomed to muscling the truth,
insisting either through threats or punishment that they and they alone
will write the history of what happened in 1915. They are continuing
along this path now, with much of official Ankara threatening this
or that – crossing into Iraqi Kurdistan, for instance – if the
House resolution is not killed. But, it may yet occur to someone
in the government that Turkey’s tantrums have turned an obscure –
non-binding! – congressional resolution into yet another round of
tutorials on the Armenian tragedy of 1915. Call it genocide or call it
something else, but there is only one thing to call Turkey’s insistence
that it and its power will determine the truth: unacceptable.

RICHARD COHEN is a Washington Post columnist.

ci_7191011

New York Times
October 16, 2007

Key Democrats Oppose Armenian Bill

By REUTERS

Filed at 6:39 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Key Democrats in the U.S. House of
Representatives on Tuesday joined Republicans to warn that a
resolution calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turks
genocide could harm U.S. strategic interests.

But despite the rebuff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California
Democrat, did not back away from plans to hold a full House vote
sometime this year.

Pelosi also came under more pressure from President George W. Bush,
who had publicly criticized the resolution last week before it passed
a House committee. Bush telephoned Pelosi on Tuesday and asked her not
to bring the resolution to the House floor, her office said.

"The president and the speaker exchanged candid views on the subject
and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House
for the resolution," a Pelosi spokesman said.

The nonbinding, largely symbolic resolution passed the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on Thursday despite opposition from the White House,
Pentagon and former secretaries of state from both parties. It
infuriated NATO ally Turkey, which hinted it might halt logistic
support to U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan if the bill
passes.

Turkey calls the resolution insulting and rejects the Armenian
position, backed by many Western historians, that up to 1.5 million
Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during World
War One. Turkey has recalled its ambassador for consultations over the
matter.

Democrats, including Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a longtime
member of Pelosi’s inner circle, urged her not to bring the proposal
to the floor and Republicans called the resolution another
"irresponsible" foray into foreign policy.

When she traveled to Syria in April, Pelosi drew withering criticism
for visiting a country the State Department accuses of sponsoring
terrorism. The Armenian resolution prompted criticism from analysts
and editorial writers, too.

"I’ve known about their position for a long time," Pelosi said when
asked whether the resistance from Murtha and another leading Democrat
on defense matters, Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, would cause her to
reconsider.

The resolution was introduced earlier this year by Democratic Rep.
Adam Schiff, a Californian with a strong Armenian-American presence in
his district.

SIMILAR PROPOSALS

Armenian-Americans have been pushing for passage of similar proposals
for years. Ronald Reagan, a Californian, was the only president to
publicly call the killings genocide. Others have avoided the term out
of concern for Turkey’s sensitivities.

Murtha’s office announced he would join other Democrats at a news
conference on Wednesday to explain why they opposed a vote on the
resolution. Through a spokesman, Murtha stressed the importance of
Turkey’s role in U.S. Middle East efforts.

"From my discussions with our military commanders and foreign policy
experts, I believe that this resolution could harm our relations with
Turkey and therefore our strategic interests in the region," Murtha
said.

The United States is highly dependent on Turkey’s Incirlik air base.
About 70 percent of the U.S. military air cargo into Iraq transits
that base, according to the Defense Department.

House aides said Murtha had written to Pelosi in February arguing
against bringing the resolution to the floor.

Skelton, Armed Services Committee chairman, last week added another
concern — that the resolution could hinder a U.S. pullout from Iraq,
a goal of many Democrats including Pelosi.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday it was drafting plans to bring supplies
into Iraq and Afghanistan from other locations, but it would be more
costly than supplying through Turkey.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, reacted
angrily to suggestions that the resolution was part of a Democratic
plan to pressure Bush on Iraq by sowing tensions with Turkey, saying
there was "zero truth in that."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page suggested Pelosi might be
seeking to "take down" U.S. policy in Iraq with the Armenian genocide
resolution. Some analysts said Congress was shooting itself in the
foot with the bill.

(Additional reporting by Kristin Roberts and Randall Mikkelsen)

Source: -turkey-usa-armenia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin