Author: Chatinian Lara

Pan Armenian News
SYSTEM OF A DOWN READY TO PERFORM IN TURKEY IN CASE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON
STAGE GUARANTEED
24.05.2005 06:10
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ «It is beyond all understanding when a country aspires to
accession to the EU and does not wish to address its own history,» stated
vocalist of System Of A Down (SOAD) famous American rock band Serj Tankian
in an interview with Laut German Internet newspaper. In his words, many
countries today acknowledge the crime against Armenians, however not
considering it a genocide. By now the SOAD has not performed a single
concert in Turkey in spite of having fans in that country. «We had the
opportunity to play in Turkey, however were there along with Slayer band. At
that time we wanted to play only having stipulated that we will have full
freedom of speech on the stage,» Tankian stated. «No one wished to guarantee
it to us, thus we did not play. However, we would gladly perform in Turkey
for the sake of the principle,» he noted. SOAD members come for not allowing
oblivion of the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The rule of Young Turks that came
to power in 1908 started with arrests, exiles and murder of Armenians. Up to
today the Turkish Government refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
On April 24, the day of commemoration the Armenian Genocide victims, the
SOAD performs a concert each year. Today more and more people speak of the
Armenian Genocide again, to all appearance also due to the System Of A Down.

HRANT KHACHATRIAN: SOCIETY SHOULD KNOW ITS “HEROES”
YEREVAN, MAY 23, NOYAN TAPAN. It’s envisaged to establish professional
commissions within the newly-established Interparty Consultative
Body. Hrant Khachatrian, Chairman of the Constitutional Right union,
said in his interview to Noyan Tapan’s correspondent that he proposed
establishing a commission that will gather information about using
representatives of criminal world in political processes. Hrant
Khachatrian said that 35 parties that signed the document against
participation of criminal elements in political processes approved of
this proposal and he and Aram Sargsian, Chairman of the Democratic
Party of Armenia, were assigned to coordinate this work. “The
necessity to form this commission was caused by the circumstance that
the law-enforcement and judicial bodies don’t fulfil their
functions. People want to have reliable data, in many cases the names
of those ordering or committing a crime are known but even in these
cases the society needs reliable information,” the chairman of the
Constitutional Right union declared. According to Hrant Khachatrian,
both the party headed by him and other parties accumulated a great
number of facts on such cases, they know the data of persons
participating in them, even have their photos. This information should
be gathered, systematized and presented to the society, which should
know its “heroes.” According to the Constitutional Right Union
chairman, in particular, they can create an Internet site where their
photos will be placed.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
Armenian version:
HIS HOLINESS VISITS CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICE CENTERS IN TEHRAN
His Holiness Aram I visited the St. Asdvadzadzine Church and complex of
Tehran with Archbishop Sebouh Sarkissian, primate of the Diocese of Tehran,
on May 21. His Holiness also visited the “Vatche Hovsepian” cultural center
and the newly built museum in the complex, which will soon host
centuries-old ecclesiastic antiquities belonging to Diocese of Tehran.
His Holiness met with the committee of the church and inquired about the
activities held in the church. A reception was organized in the “Agounk”
center for Armenian underprivileged children, located in the same complex.
The students of the center had prepared a special program for his Holiness.
Aram I praised this tangible example of the humanitarian service of the
church. He commended the teachers and the administrators of the center,
wishing them patience and vigor in their difficult mission.
His Holiness paid a visit to the center of the women’s church union also
located in the complex and got acquainted with the social service activities
of the center.
His Holiness presided on the funerary procession of the well-known Armenian
artist, painter and sculptor Avedis Hagopian (Avo) of Tehran the same day.
He granted the Armenian artist the “Saint. Mesrob Mashdots” Medal after his
death.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
Armenian version:
HIS HOLINESS COMMENDS IRAN FOR RENOVATING ARMENIAN HISTORICAL MONUMENTS
His Holiness Aram I held an official meeting with Seyed Masjed Jamey, the
minister of culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran on May 18.
Aram I highlighted the positive role of culture in a multi-ethnic and
multicultural society. He considered culture to be a bridge between
religions: “It is not possible to separate religion from culture. Religion
acquires its shape and flourishes through culture, and therefore the
dialogue of cultures can greatly contribute to the dialogue of religions,”
said His Holiness.
His Holiness commended Iran’s financial and moral support for the renovation
of historical Armenian monuments in Iran.
“The cultural genocide continues till today, when Armenian churches in
Turkey are deliberately destroyed, cathedrals and cultural monuments are
turned into cafés or used for other purposes. Armenian khatchkars are
destroyed by azeris on the other side of the Araxes River, while on this
side of the river, in Iran, the government sponsors the renovation of
Armenian historical monuments and the reconstruction of destroyed churches
as humanistic cultural values,” said His Holiness.
Minister Jamey expressed great satisfaction for Aram I’s visit and hoped
that the Catholicos’ pontifical visit would provide a new opportunity for
cooperation and the development of relations between religions.
Speaking about the Armenian community of Iran, the minister said: “We have
historical ties with the Armenians living in Iran. We have lived side by
side and shared their grief and joy.” The minister shared Aram I’s concern
about the ongoing cultural genocide. “We condemn all genocides and specially
the ones which where committed during the last, civilized century and which
include the Armenian Genocide,” said the minister.
The minister informed His Holiness about a number of projects that would
further contribute to the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue.
His Holiness also visited the embassy of Lebanon and met with Ambassador
Adnan Mansour on May 18. The ambassador organized a luncheon in his house in
honor of His Holiness. The ambassadors of Palestine, Bahrain, Armenia and
Syria, as well as senior Iranian officials and representatives of the
Armenian community were also invited to the luncheon.
##
Picture here:
*****
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
18. Mai 2005
Nationale Ehrensache;
Eine Armenien-Kommission liegt im turkischen Interesse
Die Motive, die Turkei seit 1959 an das sich integrierende Europa
heranzufuhren, waren komplexer Art. Naturlich war der Marktzugang
wichtig. Es ging aber auch darum, andere europäische Staaten durch
die Verhandlungen mit der Turkei zum Beitritt zu animieren. De Gaulle
betrieb das antiamerikanische Projekt eines “großen Europa”. Adenauer
wollte eine stabile Verbindung zu einem Arbeitskräftereservoir des
deutschen Wirtschaftswunders. Hinzu kam, daß Deutschland in der EWG
nur von ehemaligen “Feindstaaten” umgeben war. Mit der Turkei wurde
ein Land an die Gemeinschaft herangefuhrt, gegenuber dem Deutschland
nicht mit einem Schuldkomplex belastet war. Auch nach dem Ersten
Weltkrieg, als Deutschland ebenfalls moralisch stigmatisiert war,
wurde ein Freundschaftsvertrag mit der Turkei geschlossen, im Jahre
1924 – fur das Reich ein wichtiger Schritt auf dem Weg zur
Normalisierung seines Status in der Volkerfamilie.
Die Rechnung, durch die Aufnahme der Verhandlungen zwischen der EWG
und der Turkei 1959 andere Staaten zum Beitritt zu animieren, ist
aufgegangen. Neunzehn Staaten sind seitdem beigetreten, nur die
Turkei noch nicht. Anders als in den funfziger und sechziger Jahren
werden heute immer neue Argumente angefuhrt, warum die Turkei nicht
zu Europa gehoren konne. Einige davon, wie die Berufung auf das
Fundament der Antike oder die exklusive christliche Tradition
Europas, werden auch von den Beitrittsgegnern nicht mehr ohne
Einschränkung vertreten. In den Vordergrund ist, nicht allein aus
kalendarischen Grunden, ein geschichtspolitisches Thema getreten: der
Massenmord an den Armeniern. Der Umgang der Turkei mit der Erinnerung
an dieses dunkle Kapitel ihrer Geschichte wird immer häufiger als
Beleg der angeblichen Europa-Untauglichkeit der Turkei angefuhrt.
Es mutet allerdings merkwurdig an, wenn dies von Deutschen mit
besonderem Nachdruck herausgestellt wird. Als Deutschland in Europa
integriert wurde, waren die Maßstäbe weniger rigoros. Im Gegenteil,
in den funfziger und sechziger Jahren sahen sich die europäischen
Nachbarn der Bundesrepublik sowohl in der Bonner Zentrale als auch in
manchen diplomatischen Vertretungen der jungen Republik mitunter mit
Repräsentanten konfrontiert, die sie noch aus der Zeit der
nationalsozialistischen Besetzung ihrer Länder kennen konnte. In der
Bundesrepublik selbst herrschte damals ein “kommunikatives
Beschweigen” der jungsten Vergangenheit vor. Noch 1963, als Fritz
Bauer den Auschwitz-Prozeß anstrengte, reagierten weite Teile der
Offentlichkeit mit Ablehnung.
Aber die Zeiten haben sich geändert, und an die Turkei werden heute
andere Maßstäbe angelegt. Einiges spricht dafur, daß die offizielle
Turkei sich bereits auf einen produktiven Weg begeben hat. Zunehmend
setzt sich die Ansicht durch, daß das Thema schon aus Grunden der
internationalen Reputation historisch bearbeitet werden muß. Wenig
hilfreich fur das kunftige Ansehen der Turkei ist jedoch die
gelegentlich geäußerte Ansicht, man konne die Sache ganz den
Historikern uberantworten und damit gewissermaßen aus Politik und
Gesellschaft auslagern. Gänzlich kontraproduktiv fur das Ansehen der
Turkei ist es, wenn hohe Repräsentanten das Kapitel fur abgeschlossen
erklären. Die Begrundung, es gelte, nicht immerfort alte Wunden
aufzureißen, sondern sich der Zukunft zuzuwenden, verfängt nicht. Die
Opfer und ihre Nachfahren, die durch die Traumatisierung von
Großeltern und Eltern, durch das Schicksal der Emigration und den
Verlust von Teilen ihrer Familien und ihres Volkes Opfer bleiben,
haben ein Recht auf Aufklärung und Erinnerung. In einer freien
Gesellschaft steht es dem Staat nicht zu, ein Thema fur erledigt zu
erklären. Wer einen Schlußstrich fordert, macht sich verdächtig.
Daher muß die turkische Regierung den Prozeß der Aufklärung selbst
aktiv befordern. Die Turkei sollte die Defensive verlassen und die
Initiative ergreifen. Sie sollte Armenien und die armenische Diaspora
einladen, die Ereignisse von 1915 bis 1917 durch eine gemeinsam
berufene Historikerkommission aufzuklären. Ministerpräsident Erdogan
hat sich jungst diesen Vorschlag zu eigen gemacht und dafur prompt
das Lob Bundeskanzler Schroders geerntet. Die Kommission solle “die
Vorgänge, die seinerzeit stattgefunden haben, fair aufarbeiten, so
wie sie der historischen Wirklichkeit entsprechen”. Langfristig
konnte auch eine gemeinsame Schulbuchkommission nach dem Vorbild der
polnisch-deutschen und franzosisch-deutschen Kommissionen angestrebt
werden. Sollte sich die armenische Seite, wie jungst gelegentlich
angedeutet, mit dem Argument verweigern, die Ereignisse seien bekannt
und bedurften keiner Aufklärung, mußte die turkische Regierung zum
Nutzen des Ansehens ihres Landes dennoch diesen Weg wählen.
Die Weltoffentlichkeit wurde schon die Berufung der Kommission
kritisch beobachten. Der Eindruck, daß gefällige Historiker benannt
werden, die sich durch regierungsnahe Positionen empfohlen haben,
darf nicht entstehen. Nur beispielshalber zwei Namen: Der turkische
Historiker Halil Berktay genießt auch jenseits der turkischen Grenzen
hohe Wertschätzung, und der Publizist Rolf Hosfeld hat jungst die
Verstrickung des Deutschen Reiches in den Massenmord an den Armeniern
herausgearbeitet (Operation Nemesis, 2005). Aber hier sind
Personalvorschläge wohl verfruht. Eventuell konnte man sich bei der
Berufung geeigneter Mitglieder der Hilfe des “International Committee
of Historical Sciences” versichern.
Damit der politische Wille zur historischen Aufarbeitung glaubhaft
wird, muß eine großzugige finanzielle Forderung von seiten der
turkischen Regierung einhergehen mit vollständiger Freiheit der
Forschung und Zugänglichkeit der Archivbestände. Hinsichtlich der
moglichen Ergebnisse darf es keine Restriktionen geben. Das heißt
auch, daß die Phobie gegenuber bestimmten Begriffen wie “Genozid” und
“Volkermord” uberwunden werden muß. Die grundsätzliche Entscheidung
zur Aufarbeitung darf nicht durch Willkur vor Ort beim Zugang zu den
Archivalien oder durch Willkur auf der unteren Verwaltungsebene
konterkariert werden. Optimale Arbeitsbedingungen in den Archiven
sollten den Willen zur Aufarbeitung bestätigen.
Japan taugt nicht zum Modell: Daß der Ministerpräsident vor der
internationalen Offentlichkeit die Verbrechen der Vergangenheit
zugibt, während gleichzeitig achtundsiebzig Mitglieder der
Regierungspartei demonstrativ verurteilte Kriegsverbrecher ehren,
kann keinen Gewinn an nationaler Reputation bringen. Die Arbeitsweise
des turkischen Gremiums konnte sich an der 1996 unter der Leitung von
Jean-Francois Bergier berufenen Schweizer Kommission orientieren,
welche die Verstrickung der Schweiz in deutsche Verbrechen während
des Zweiten Weltkrieges untersuchte. Zu den Problemen, welche eine
solche Kommission zu bearbeiten hätte, wurde insbesondere auch die
historische Kontextualisierung der Ereignisse zwischen 1915 und 1917
gehoren: Gab es fruhere Massaker und Aufstände im Osmanischen Reich?
Welche Ursachen hatten sie? Und welche Rolle spielten die
europäischen Mächte? Hier wäre eine moglichst lange Perspektive zu
wählen.
Wenn die Turkei ernsthaft die Tendenz zur apologetische Behandlung
der eigenen Geschichte uberwinden will, so hat sie den großen
Vorteil, daß die Auseinandersetzung mit den Taten von 1915 bis 1917
von ihren Eliten nicht mehr als Selbstkritik verstanden werden muß.
Auch in Deutschland ging die Distanzierung vom “Dritten Reich” Hand
in Hand mit der Selbstfindung der Bundesrepublik. Deutsche
Großunternehmen, die sich aufgrund ihres Verhaltens während der
Nazizeit international vom Boykott bedroht sahen, traten die Flucht
nach vorne an, ließen ihre Geschichte von unabhängigen Historikern
ohne Vorgaben aufarbeiten. Andere Unternehmen, Institutionen und
Verbände folgten, um Wettbewerbs- und Imagenachteile zu vermeiden.
Heuten gelten die einst diffamierten Lokalhistoriker als Pioniere.
Die bekannten Zeitgeschichtler Deutschlands von Hans Mommsen uber
Norbert Frei bis zu Gotz Aly wirken heute, ohne daß sie jemand dazu
bestellt hätte, als Botschafter eines seine Geschichte
reflektierenden Deutschland. Durch ihre Arbeit verburgen sie
glaubhaft, daß weder die deutsche Politik noch die Mehrheit der
deutschen Gesellschaft das von Deutschen in der Vergangenheit
begangene Unrecht verleugnen will.
Vor einigen Wochen ist Ministerpräsident Erdogan ein Offener Brief
der “International Association of Genocide Scholars” zugegangen. Der
letzte Satz des von Robert Melson, Israel Charny und Peter Balakian
unterzeichneten Schreibens verweist auf das deutsche Beispiel: “Wir
glauben, daß es im Interesse des turkischen Volkes liegt, sofern es
in Zukunft mit gleichem Recht und gleichem Stolz am internationalen
demokratischen Diskurs teilnehmen mochte, die Verantwortung einer
fruheren Regierung fur den Genozid am armenischen Volk anzuerkennen –
genauso wie die deutsche Regierung und das deutsche Volk es im Fall
des Holocaust getan haben.”
In absehbarer Zeit wird auch der amerikanische Kongreß wie schon die
franzosische Nationalversammlung und der Deutsche Bundestag des
Massenmordes an den Armeniern gedenken. Die turkische Regierung
sollte sich, statt in einer fremdbestimmten demutigenden
Ruckwärtsverteidigung zu verharren, zu einer kreativen, offensiven
und moralisch unanfechtbaren Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit
durchringen.
WOLFGANG BURGDORF
Der turkische Ministerpräsident Erdogan hat sich unter dem Beifall
von Bundeskanzler Schroder den Vorschlag zu eigen gemacht, eine
internationale Historikerkommission mit den Armeniermorden von 1915
zu befassen. Der Munchner Historiker Wolfgang Burgdorf benennt
“essentials” fur die Arbeit einer solchen gelehrten Schiedsstelle.
–Boundary_(ID_6hL+ilEXfyhUx9dyjo8uQw)–

COOPERATION BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ITALY DEVELOPS
[May 16, 2005, 23:15:22]
Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
May 16 2005
On May 16, minister of justice of the Azerbaijan Republic Fikret
Mammadov has met with delegation led by the minister on regional
affairs of Italy Enriko la Lojia.
At the meeting, has been given detailed information on democratic
reforms carried out in the Republic, with satisfaction was marked
dynamical development of relations of friendship and cooperation
between two countries, underlined the role of the important documents
signed during official visit of the President of Azerbaijan of Ilham
Aliyev to Italy on February 24-26 this year. The attention of visitors
also has been involved in the Nagorno Karabakh problem.
Having expressed deep gratitude for the warm attitude, Mr. Enriko la
Lojia highly has estimated the reforms carried out in Azerbaijan and
their positive results and, having noted available ample opportunities
for deepening of cooperation between two countries, has touched
concrete spheres, has with satisfaction recollected the meeting with
Minister of Justice of Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe in 2003
and the carried out useful exchange of views.
The delegation of Italy has familiarized with the museum of Heydar
Aliyev created in the ministry.

RA AMBASSADOR TO USA QUESTIONS FRANKNESS OF ERDOGAN’S INITIATIVE IN THE “WASHINGTON TIMES” ARTICLE
WASHINGTON, MAY 18, NOYAN TAPAN. The attention of the American
political and diplomatic circles remains fixed to prospects of the
Armenian-Turkish relations which is connected both with the 90th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocde and the letters exchanged by
the Prime Minister of Turkey and the RA President. The Turkish Prime
Minister’s initiative concerning a joint study of the history that is
even presented as an historic opportunity gave cause of enthusiasm
to many people, and was mentioned by some Congressmen and in the
USA President’s April 24 statement. Going farther, in the article
published on May 3 in the “Washington Times” daily, Logoglu, the
Ambassador of Turkey in Washington, attempted to further support the
Turkish viewpoint and even to orient the proposed process of so called
studying the history. In the article, the Armenians are ascribed
as pretending to a monopoly of presenting their own and one-sided
interpretation of the 1915 events. Also, the Armenian Genocide
victims are put on a level with Muslims allegedly slaughtered during
the World War I. As Noyan tapan was informed from the RA Foreign
Ministry’s Press and Information Department, on May 15, 2005,
in the “Washington Times” daily, the article titled “A Promising
Start?” by Tatoul Markarian, the RA Ambassador to the USA, was
published which touched upon peculiarities of the present stage of
the Armenian-Turkish relations. The article explaines that Erdogan’s
initiative on studying the history can not be enough to reach a
progress in the Armenian-Turkish relations. Not pretending to give
final estimations to the initiative of Turkey’s Prime Minister, the
RA Ambassador points out the problems: establishment of diplomatic
relations and opening of the border. The solution of these problems
would be the evidence of frankness and seroiusness of Turkey’s
intentions. The article puts forward questionings about frankness
and efficiency of the Turkish party’s initiative taking into account
numerous legal and political obstacles present in Turkey tow
ards impartial study of the history. Responding Turkey’s Ambassador’s
public attempt to predestine this process towards a distorted result,
the RA Ambassador distinctly mentions that steps of the Turkish
party to justify the Armenian Genocide for war actions or other
reasons are imadmissible. The complete text of Tatoul Markarian’s
article submitted by the RA Foreign Ministry is presented below:
“A Promising Start? As the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
approached last month, Turkish Prime Minister Receip Tayyip Erdogan
came up with an initiative in a letter to Armenian President Robert
Kocharian, proposing creation of a joint commission to address the
history. In response, Mr. Kocharian called on Turkey to establish
diplomatic relations and open its border with Armenia without
preconditions, and to form an intergovernmental commission to address
all bilateral concerns. No matter how unconventional this type of
public communication may be between leaders of two neighboring
nations, it is tempting to see Turkey may really open up for
serious dialog. Mr. Erdogan’s initiative, assuming its sincere aim
is normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations, still raises many
questions. A genuine effort by the Turkish government to allow
the Turkish scholars to investigate the dark chapters of Turkish
history would be worthy, though much belated. Such a move by the
Turkish government would undoubtedly be applauded by our nations’ true
friends, as it would indeed begin a process of alleviating the burden
of history in our region. Armenia would be the first to welcome such
a move by the Turkish government. This would allow Turkish scholars
to reveal the truth and help its political leadership accept and
condemn it. Let us hope, however, that Prime Minister Erdogan’s call
to concentrate on addressing the past will not deflect from addressing
pressing issues of the present and the future and that this will not
deepen still further the division on both sides about what happened in
1915. Yet, as long as there are political taboos and legal obstacles
to the free discussion and comprehension of this issue in Turkey,
including criminal penalties in the new Turkish Penal Code for mere
assertion of the term genocide, any investigation mandated by the
Turkish government will have a pre-determined outcome. A Turkish
newspaper, Zaman, noted on April 23 that the Turkish Government
should “lift all legal and other obstacles to the free investigation,
discussion, and comprehension of ‘What happened in 1915?’ ” Also, we
witness the dangerous temptation of modern-day Turkish officials to
present the extermination of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population
as a result of World War I. We want to remind all that it was the
exact hope, argument and calculation of the perpetrators that the
massacres and deportations of Armenians would pass unnoticed under
the cover of World War I. Neither war nor anything else can explain or
justify the murder of 1.5 million innocent Armenian children, women,
and men in the Ottoman Turkey. Turkish officials claim Armenians
alone define the history of those days. First, the historical record
is both rich and well-documented. The process for establishing the
truth started in the wake of World War I, as the Turkish military
tribunal sentenced the perpetrators of the massacres and deportation
of Armenians to the death penalty in 1919. That fact is deliberately
bypassed by governments in modern-day Turkey. This process has
progressed very far, especially in the last decade, with a growing
number of countries properly recognizing and strongly condemning
the events of 90 years ago. Turkey coming to terms with its past
has become a test of its willingness to embrace human rights and
fundamental values. And it is Turkey that is “missing the bus,” at
a cost of credibility and time. Second, we should not be blamed for
defining the history alone: Ever since its independence, Armenia has
consistently proposed, without preconditions, establishing diplomatic
relations, opening the border and allowing the people to inte!
ract free ly, thus helping create the proper environment for
a discussion of all issues of bilateral importance. However,
Turkey’s denial of history has not been the only problem. Turkey
has persistently refused to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia, imposed a blockade on the Turkish-Armenian border and
prioritized ethnic solidarity with Azerbaijan over Turkey’s
international obligations, instead of helping settle the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. Thus, Turkey’s rejection of not only the past
but also the present left Armenians with no choice but to pursue its
quest for justice — both historical and contemporary — within the
international framework. Armenia is firm on its intent to seize on
the opportunity presented by the exchange between our two countries’
leaders. However, caution is also inspired by the fact Prime Minister
Erdogan’s letter was hurriedly circulated to European capitals and
the United States Congress prior to the April 24 Commemoration Day and
even before Armenian President Kocharian had an opportunity to respond
formally. This left an impression the initiative may not have been
mainly directed at Armenia. Could it have been a tactical maneuver
intended to upstage the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
or to sidetrack European and other inquiries? We are interested in
concrete steps and results, never in a vague process for the sake
of process. That is why we proposed and are proposing again the
establishment without preconditions of normal relations between
Armenia and Turkey. As President Kocharian mentioned in his reply,
that will allow an intergovernmental commission to meet and discuss
any and all outstanding issues between our nations, with the aim of
resolving them and reaching an understanding”.

Visiting Turkish general, Azeri speaker discuss Karabakh conflict
Space TV, Baku
18 May 05
[Presenter] Armenian nationalists who have invaded Nagornyy Karabakh
should give up their dirty intentions, Turkish Deputy Chief of Staff
Gen Ilker Basbug has said at a meeting with Azerbaijani Speaker
Murtuz Alasgarov.
[Correspondent] The chairman of the Milli Maclis [Azerbaijan’s
parliament], Murtuz Alasgarov, spoke of the high level of development
of Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. Touching on the Nagornyy Karabakh
problem, Alasgarov said that Turkey has always backed Azerbaijan in
the issue of territorial claims laid by Armenia.
[Alasgarov speaking at the meeting] However, there is still no
result. But I believe that soon – with the participation of brotherly
Turkey, international organizations and the leading countries – this
problem will be resolved on the basis of provisions of international
law, that is the principle of territorial integrity.
[Correspondent] The speaker also said that the Milli Maclis has sent
a letter of protest to international organizations regarding fake
Armenian genocide claims.
Nagornyy Karabakh and the neighbouring districts have been brutally
invaded by the Armenians, Gen Ilker Basbug said and stated once again
Turkey’s position on the issue.
[Basbug, speaking in Turkish] In particular, Turkey is determined to
resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh issue and that of the occupied adjacent
territories as soon as possible. Turkey will continue its efforts
in this regard with the same determination because nobody is able to
put forward an excuse or explanation for the inhumane occupation of
this territory.
Some one million Azerbaijanis have fled the region and are currently
facing difficult living conditions. We especially saw that on the
outskirts of Baku. This is really an inhumane condition.
[Correspondent] The Turkish general also said that there are two
issues on which Turkey and Armenia cannot agree. One of them is the
Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh and the second are
the groundless genocide claims made by Armenia against Turkey. Only
after Armenia gives up both claims may Turkey’s relations with this
country become normal, Basbug said.

Zaman Online, Turkey
May 13 2005
‘Karabag Gesture’ Clears Way for Erdogan-Kocharian Meeting
By Suleyman Kurt
Published: Friday 13, 2005
zaman.com
Ankara expects concrete steps to be taken for the solution of
Azeri-Armenian conflict prior to a possible meeting between Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Armenian President Robert
Kocharian during the European Council summit in Warsaw on May 16-17.
The plan is for Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian
President Kocharian to meet in Warsaw before the Erdogan-Kocharian
meeting, though neither meeting is confirmed yet. Ankara expects
concrete steps from Yerevan during the Aliyev-Kocharian meeting over
withdrawing from Upper Karabag (Karabakh). Indications reaching
Ankara, however, reveal that this is unlikely to be the case.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, who came to Turkey during
the week, said that Armenia has repeat its offer to disengage from
seven regions in Upper Karabakh and in return demands Azeri
withdrawal from Lacin, which is the corridor between Azerbajan and
Nahcevan, and Kelbece, which surrounds Karabakh, after which it will
withdraw from the other regions. Azeris are opposed to a step by step
withdrawal and want Armenia to unconditionally withdraw from all
these regions at once. The withdrawal process is expected to be
negotiated during the possible meeting in Warsaw.
Both parties spoke cautiously about the Erdogan-Kocharian meeting and
have left the issue open-ended. Neither Ankara nor Yerevan has made
official demands for a meeting. The sources note that the meeting is
also dependent on the “last minute” developments. Even if the
possibility of a conclusive agreement is low for the Aliyev-Kocharian
meeting it is stressed that the two leaders may agree on some kind of
road map. It is emphasized that positive developments in
Azeri-Armenian relations will automatically improve those between
Turkey and Armenia and the first fruit of this may be
Erdogan-Kocharian meeting. The Armenian President has previously met
with former President Suleyman Demirel in Yalta in 1998 and with
former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit in Istanbul in 1999.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ZNet, MA
May 13 2005
The CIA’s New Client in Sudan

……… by David Baake May 12, 2005

It was Woodrow Wilson who called the Armenian Holocaust `sad, but
necessary to quell an internal security threat.’ Today it appears
that the Bush administration, only eight months after former
Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that Sudan’s pro-government
militias were committing genocide, has changed its mind and now is
once again ignoring victims of genocide and allowing a government to
quell a `security threat.’
The Las Angeles Times recently reported that the US government and
the Sudanese government responsible for over 180,000 deaths are
forming a close intelligence partnership, and that government in
Khartoum is becoming a `surprisingly valuable ally of the CIA’ in the
war on terrorism, as surprising as that would seem to anyone aware of
the fact that Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda a decade
ago and that Sudan’s dictator retained ties with other groups
classified as terrorists by the US government after Al Qaeda left
Sudan.
The Times’ report on the US’ new ally shows very clearly the
opportunistic nature of the `war on terrorism’ paradigm, which in
reality has nothing to do with stopping violence or promoting peace
but is merely a new justification for continuing with the imperialist
program that the US has pursued since the Second World War. The
article is full of completely contradictory messages from US
government officials, and it is difficult to imagine how an
establishment reader could make sense of them without resorting to
the use of doublespeak. The first few paragraphs explain that Sudan
has been charged with committing genocide by the US government, once
welcomed bin Laden, and has been described as “an extraordinary
threat to the national security” by the Bush Administration.
Paragraphs later, the readership is told that `”American intelligence
considers [Sudan] to be a friend” by a senior official in the
Sudanese government, and that Sudan could become a `top tier’ ally of
the CIA by a State Department official. In addition, the Bush
Administration has recently normalized relations with Sudan in light
of this recent cooperation.
According to these interviews with US and Sudanese intelligence
officials, in recent collaborative efforts partaken by the two
governments Sudan has expelled Islamic `extremists.’ This leads one
to wonder, have they banished themselves from the country? Among
their other services, they detained Al Qaeda suspects, members of the
Iraqi insurgency, and other terrorist operatives and gave them to the
US for interrogation. Unfortunately, no members of the Janjaweed,
the pro-government militia committing genocide against the civilians
of Darfur have been detained or disarmed.
Why has the relationship between Sudan and the US shifted so
suddenly, and why is the Sudanese government so interested in helping
the US government hunt down extremists that it used to fund and give
sanctuary to? Why is the US so ready to normalize its relationship
with a country involved in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, as
the UN calls it, or genocide, as the Colin Powell called it?
Washington’s radical reversal of relations with Sudan undoubtedly has
quite a bit to do with Sudan’s oil, the majority of which it had been
selling to China. Washington has been looking for a way to gain
control over Sudan’s oil fields for a long period of time. It is
likely that the US helped train the two largest rebel groups whose
attacks elicited the government’s counter-insurgency campaign, the
Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army, in an
attempt to weaken Sudan’s government at a time when it was developing
closer ties with China. When the atrocities began to escalate in
Darfur and the US Sate Department officially labeled the killings in
Darfur `genocide’, it seemed the US was considering invading Sudan on
a platform of ending the genocide, disposing of the dictator who made
the mistake of giving China access to its oil fields, and replacing
him with a leader who would allow US corporations to funnel oil from
Sudan.
However, now that Sudan has proved willing to cooperate with the US,
new questions arise. Why would Sudan be dealing so comfortably with
Washington unless it knew that it would not be held accountable for
its own atrocities in any real sense?
It doesn’t seem altogether unfeasible for the governments of Sudan
and the US have made a pact stating that the US would use its power
to prevent action against the genocide in Darfur, in exchange for aid
in countering `terrorism’ and, at some point, access to untapped oil?
It is hard to think of another explanation for the sudden friendship
of the two regimes. The US has been considering an attempt to repeal
the sanctions placed on Sudan, a move favored both by Khartoum and by
US oil companies.
Once again, it seems the US is being complicit with genocide and
making deals with the war criminals responsible, just as previous US
administrations were complicit with the rise of the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia which was engaged in a battle with the North Vietnamese by
allowing Thailand (then a US client state) to sell arms to Pol Pot
while he exterminated 1.7 million of his own people. Just as the US
was silent during the Rwandan genocide and instead focused on the
bombing of Yugoslavia, the US is again ignoring a massive tragedy in
Sudan in favor of perusing its immediate imperial interests and
destroying the resistance in Iraq.
Of course, just because ties have increased between Khartoum and
Washington doesn’t mean that the US wouldn’t abandon the Sudanese
government if the US feels the alliance is no longer politically
expedient or if Sudan is insubordinate, but right now it seems like
the alliance is a win-win situation for both governments; the only
losers of course being the citizens of Darfur experiencing living
hell.
The situation in Darfur is still one the of the worst humanitarian
catastrophes in the world with nearly 200,000 dead, either due to
violence or famine, and 2 million displaced. The pro-government
militias continue to raid the towns of Darfur, killing men, raping
women, and plundering entire villages, often abducting young women
and using them as sex-slaves. It is clear that rapid action is
necessary to save innocent lives and end the mass slaughter.
The solution to the tragedies in Darfur is most certainly not an
American or NATO military intervention; such an imperial intervention
would only augment the suffering felt in Sudan. To protect the human
rights of Sudanese civilians, it would be necessary for the UN to
launch a major peacekeeping mission or for the world to come together
to fund the African Union’s peacekeeping campaign. The AU has
already launched a peace keeping mission, and AU peace keepers have
been effective in stopping violence in areas where they are
dispatched. However, the AU does not have the resources to sustain
the kind of mission necessary to bring any degree of peace to Sudan,
and has only been able to deploy 3,000 troops to Darfur, a region the
size of France. In addition to enduring vicious campaigns of
violence, the people of Sudan are also in dire need of humanitarian
aid and are experiencing a great shortage in food, medicine, clean
water, and other life essentials.
If the international community does not work together to build a
peacekeeping campaign and the humanitarian aid campaign, the Oxfam
aid agency predicts that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan will
continue until October 2006, most likely bringing hundreds of
thousands of additional deaths. However, it seems the US may present
an obstacle to such campaigns, as it does not want to offend its
terrorist ally in Khartoum.