Author: Emil Lazarian

TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 6 2006
Armenia Should Change its Attitude if it wants to Present Itself as a
Worthy Partner of International Community – Azeri FM Dep. Chief
Source: Trend
Author: A.Ismaylova
06.10.2006
If Armenia wants to present itself as a worthy partner of the
international community, then it should change its attitude, the Head
of the Press & Information Department of the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry Tahir Tagizade told Trend, commenting on Armenia’s efforts
to put up obstacles in the monitoring of Azerbaijan’s fire-affected
territories by the OSCE Expert Group.
He stressed that the statement of the Armenian side that these
territories are under their jurisdiction is senseless. These
territories belong to Azerbaijan. Armenia is attempting to legalize
Azerbaijan’s territories which have been captured by force, Tagizade
added.
“The Azerbaijani Government has its regional approach to the fires.
Armenia should refrain from this attitude otherwise it will be proof
of what Armenia holds in the region,” Tagizade stressed.

NZZ OnlineNeue Zurcher Zeitung
4. Oktober 2006, 22:49, NZZ Online
Wirbel um Ã~Dusserungen Blochers in der Turkei
J3G-12.html
Anti-Rassismus-Strafnorm kritisiert
Bundesrat Christoph Blocher hat am Mittwoch in der Turkei Vorbehalte zur
Schweizer Rassismusstrafnorm geäussert. Seine Aussagen lösten in der Schweiz
zum Teil heftige Kritik aus. Hintergrund sind die Verfahren in der Schweiz
gegen zwei Turken wegen Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern.
(ap) Die Turkei sei seines Erachtens zu Recht uber das Strafverfahren in der
Schweiz gegen den Historiker Yusuf Halacoglu wegen Verletzung der
Rassismusstrafnorm erbost, sagte Blocher in einem in Ankara aufgezeichneten
Interview von Schweizer Radio DRS. Gegen den Professor und Präsidenten der
Turkischen Historischen Gesellschaft wurde ein Strafverfahren eröffnet, weil
er am 2. Mai 2004 in einem Vortrag in Winterthur den Völkermord an den
Armeniern geleugnet haben soll.
Hinweis auf Meinungsfreiheit
Blocher machte einen grossen Konflikt zur Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit aus.
Unabhängig von diesem Verfahren werde in seinem Departement intern
untersucht, was man bezuglich der Rassismusstrafnorm tun könne. Vor
turkischen Medien soll Blocher laut dem Radio-Korrespondenten gesagt haben,
die Rassismusstrafnorm bereite ihm Bauchschmerzen.
Kein guter Stil
Der Präsident der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus, Georg Kreis,
bezeichnete es als problematisch, wenn ein Mitglied der Exekutive sich zu
einem laufenden Verfahren einer richterlichen Behörde öffentlich äussere.
Zudem entspreche es nicht gerade gutem Stil, wenn man eine beabsichtigte
Gesetzesrevision im Ausland ankundige.
SP-Präsident spricht von ”Skandal”
Es sei inakzeptabel, wenn ein Justizminister die eigene Rechtsordnung im
Ausland kritisiere, sagte CVP-Vizepräsident Dominique de Buman im Radio.
SP-Präsident Hans-Jurg Fehr sprach in der ”Tagesschau” des Schweizer
Fernsehens von einem Skandal und von einem unglaublichen Vorgang. Er
erinnerte daran, dass die Strafnorm in einer Referendumsabstimmung vom Volk
gutgeheissen worden war. Fur die FDP stehe die Strafnorm nicht zur
Disposition, sagte Fraktionschef Felix Gutzwiller. Man sollte auch davon
ausgehen, dass Ã~Dusserungen im Ausland mit dem Aussenministerium abgesprochen
wurden. ”Diese Wiederholungstat macht offenkundig, dass Blocher in der
Landesregierung fehl am Platz ist”, teilten die Grunen mit.
Kein direkter Kommentar Calmy-Reys
Bundesrätin Calmy-Rey wollte die Aussagen ihres Bundesratskollegen zur
Rassismusstrafnorm in der Turkei nicht kommentieren. In der Fernsehsendung
”Galerie des Alpes” des Schweizer Fernsehens verteidigte sie jedoch das
Antirassismusgesetz. Der Präsident der Aussenpolitischen Kommission des
Ständerates, der Thurgauer Ständerat Philipp Stähelin (cvp.), ärgerte sich
daruber, dass sieben Bundesräte Aussenpolitik betreiben. Er forderte eine
”Aussenpolitik in einem Guss.”
Langjährige Belastung der Beziehungen
Die Armenienfrage belastet das Verhältnis zwischen den beiden Ländern seit
Jahren. Besuche von Micheline Calmy-Rey und Joseph Deiss waren zuvor
gescheitert, so dass mit Blocher erstmals wieder ein Schweizer
Regierungsmitglied die Turkei offiziell besuchte. Der EJPD-Chef nahm am
Mittwoch auf Einladung des turkischen Justizministers an einem Symposium zum
80-jährigen Bestehen des turkischen Zivilgesetzbuches teil, fur das das
schweizerische ZGB Vorbildcharakter hatte.
Mehr zum Thema:
Kommentar: Solotour in Ankara
Schweiz-Turkei: Verbale Annäherung
Diesen Artikel finden Sie auf NZZ Online unter:
html
Copyright © Neue Zurcher Zeitung AG
–Boundary_(ID_dwjiqMzR1PKcvoq/+3Sr7Q)–

Genocide Education Network of Illinois
PO Box 220,
Arlington Heights, IL 60006-0220
Tel. (917) 428-1918
Fax (718) 651-3637
Email: [email protected]
Internet: genocideeducationnetwork.org
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 2, 2006
Contact: Karine Birazian
Email: [email protected]/ Phone (917) 428-1918
Meeting the Mandate in Illinois by Teaching the Other Genocides
Lisle, IL- Over two hundred social studies teachers attended the annual
Illinois Council for the Social Studies (ICSS) conference September 29
and 30th visiting various exhibitors and attending numerous sessions
allowing for personal and professional development for educators
reported the Genocide Education Network of Illinois (GENI).
This year’s conference entitled Literacy and the American Mind had over
forty 60-minute sessions and several 2-hour workshops, as well as an
exhibition of over one hundred groups. Present at the conference as an
exhibitor and presenter was the Genocide Education Network of Illinois
(GENI), a newly created organization in response to the Illinois
mandate on teaching genocide that came into affect in August of 2005.
Sharing the booth with GENI was the “Xeniteas,” the Pontian Society of
Chicago, Distributing folders of materials on
educating teachers about the Armenian Genocide and Pontian Genocide,
the conference also gave members and volunteers of GENI to speak one
on one with history teachers and promote their upcoming teachers’
seminar on October 20th, 2006.
Co-founder of GENI, Karine Birazian, and members from the Armenian
community in Glenview, Silva Bedian and Mourad Meneshian volunteered
their time and efforts to help out at the event. George Mavropoulos,
Thomas Mantzakides, Savvas Koktzoglou, and Soula Skoupas from Pontian
community also helped at the conference along with Ron Levitsky
from Sunset Ridge School in Northfield, Illinois. Displaying at
the booth the different resources available for teachers, including
materials from the Genocide Education Project, CHOICES, and Facing
History and Ourselves, Levitsky commented: “conferences like these
offer teachers an excellent opportunity, not only to gain background
information on the Armenian Genocide, but to access valuable resources
and teaching tools. The more help teachers can be given, the more
likely they are to teach about the Armenian Genocide, and to teach
about it effectively.”
The afternoon concluded with a 2-hour session called The Other
Genocides, where members from GENI and the Pontian community presented
on the Armenian and Pontian Genocide. Afterwards, Levitsky, 2006
recipient of the Aharonian Award awarded by the Genocide Education
Project for excellence in teaching the Armenian Genocide, reviewed
various lesson plans teacher can take back to their classrooms.
Birazian presented on history of the Armenian genocide and Mantzakides
presented for the first time in front of educators the history of
the Pontian Genocide. “We were very pleased to meet with teachers
who are interested in including genocide education as part of their
curriculum,” said George Mavropoulos, President of “Xeniteas”,
“this is an important first step in educating students and teachers
alike on this sadly overlooked tragedy that took the lives of so many
people and for all intents and purposes…” Birazian also commented,
“This was our first time presenting and exhibiting not only at ICSS
but with the Pontian Society of Chicago. We are very grateful
with the support we receive from the Armenian community as well
as Illinois history teachers. Because the mandate is not funded,
our organization has been working to raise money to attend these
conferences and hosting seminars.”
The Genocide Education Network of Illinois is a non-profit initiative
founded in 2006 in response to the passage of Public Act 094-0478,
mandating the expansion of genocide instruction in the public schools
to include the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the Ukrainian Famine
Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide, the Rwandan
Genocide, the Darfur Genocide and others.
The Genocide Education Network of Illinois,
is a volunteer-based organization
dedicated to assisting educators identify genocide education resources
and make them accessible, obtain the training needed to effectively
teach about genocide, create a forum for educators to network,
sharing their, and experiences to develop new materials and methods
####
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SABANCI: FANATICS IN TURKEY AND ABROAD SHOULD NOT DETERMINE OUR AGENDA
By Economy News Desk
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 5 2006
Discussions are still taking place about Turkey’s future membership
in the European Union, an organization that started accession talks
with the Turkish government on October 3, 20005.
Omer Sabanci, head of the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen
Association, or TUSIAD, reiterated the point of Turkey having the
utmost willingness to join the European Union, as formalized in its
decision dated Oct. 3.
There are extremists both in Europe and in Turkey setting the agenda
for us, complained Sabanci, but pledged full support to the Turkish
government in its march towards the European Union.
There is a tendency among most Europeans not to want further
enlargement, a situation worsened with the publication of some
demeaning pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, with the terrorist attacks,
and with Muslims living in Europe as a minority with difficulties
in adapting to the European way of life, said Sabanci at a panel
discussion in Europe. “The European Union is now a playmaker in the
Middle East. Turkey’s resolve to send troops to Lebanon was a sign
of its cooperation with the European Union. The European Union has
to count on Turkey for provision of security, with energy as well as
of elasticity in demand.”
Sabanci restated the need to remove Article #301 from the Turkish
Penal Code as a clause that restricts freedom of expression in Turkey
when he said, “There’s a marked contradiction between the Turkish
government wanting to improve freedom of thought and the French
government attempting to restrict freedom of expression.”
Sabanci characterized this kind of attitude as belonging to a country
that does not want to face facts.
Kursad Tuzmen, Turkish State Minister, was also on the panel.
Tuzmen spoke of a draft bill scheduled for parliamentary discussion in
France on Sept. 12 that penalizes denial of the so-called Armenian
genocide, and went over the point of Turkey never having a mass
execution in its history.
“The 1915 Ottoman cabinet had two ministers of Armenian origin, who
remained in the cabinet even after the forced emigration. If there
had really been a mass execution of Armenians, they would not have
remained in the cabinet. Even a look at Russian history would tell
us that there were not any mass executions at that time,” said Tuzmen.
“I hope the French parliamentarians will be listening to common sense
in their evaluation of this proposal from the Socialist Party. I have
the self-confidence to argue that there was not a mass execution
of Armenians. I would like to raise this question: How can French
historians and academicians ever do free research on this alleged
mass execution of Armenians if the bill receives parliamentary
approval? I’m a Turkish State Minister. Will I go to prison as a
minister when I come back after Sept. 12 and deny the alleged mass
execution of Armenians? Or, will I be fined for it? That’d be a
disaster on a global scale.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

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 ARAM I HAS BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF “RELIGIONS FOR PEACE”
GLOBAL INTER-RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
Meeting in Kyoto, Japan (August 26-29, 2006) for its Eight Assembly,
the Religions for Peace, the global inter-religious organization has
elected His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, as one of its
honorary presidents.
Founded in 1970 as an international, nonsectarian organization,
Religions for Peace is now the largest coalition of the world’s
religious communities.
The Religions for Peace Eighth World Assembly returned to Kyoto, the
site of its historic first Assembly in 1970. Since then, Religions
for Peace World Assemblies in Louvain, Belgium (1974), Princeton,
New Jersey, USA (1979), Nairobi, Kenya (1984), Melbourne, Australia
(1989), Rome, Italy (1994) and Amman, Jordan (1999), have brought
the world’s religious communities together to address the critical
global challenges of our time from a faith perspective.
The Religions for Peace Eighth World Assembly was the world’s
largest and most diverse multi-religious assembly. More than 800
high level delegates came from the Religions for Peace network
of more than 70 national and regional affiliated inter-religious
councils and groups. It also included Buddhist, Christian, Hindu,
Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian and Indigenous
leaders. Representatives of governments, development agencies and
civil society also attended the Assembly.
The Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi welcomed the religious
leaders at the opening ceremony. In his message, the UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan wrote, “By standing together in multi-religious
alliances, you are well-placed to be effective agents for peace”.
Due to the situation in Lebanon, His Holiness Aram I was not able to
attend the Assembly. Commenting on the Assembly, Catholicos Aram I
said: “Religions must become the avant-garde of global struggle for
peace with justice”.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates
of the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the
history and 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.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Armenian National Committee – Western Region
104 North Belmont Street, Suite 200
Glendale, California 91206
Phone: 818.500.1918 Fax: 818.246.7353
[email protected]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PRESS RELEASE+++ PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Contact: Lerna Kayserian
Tel: (818) 500-1918
Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation to Build a Genocide Memorial
in Sacramento
Glendale, CA – The Armenian National Committee of America –
Western Region welcomed the signing of AB 1210, which calls for the
construction of an International Genocide Monument in Sacramento’s
State Capitol Park.
The California State Legislature took the first step this year
in working to construct an International Genocide Memorial in the
State’s Capitol. Authored by State Assembly member Lloyd Levine,
AB 1210 was introduced in 2005 and is currently in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. The bill establishes the International
Genocide Memorial Commission and authorizes the construction of a
memorial to California’s genocide survivors in the Capitol Historic
Park. However, AB 1210 prohibits the expenditure of state funding
for both the Genocide Memorial Commission and the construction of the
memorial. Funding for the construction will only be provided through
private contributions.
“We should never forget the inhumanity and brutality of genocide,”
said Governor Schwarzenegger. “The construction of this memorial will
help all Californians remember the unimaginable suffering genocide
survivors endured.”
The State of California has a longstanding history in protecting the
rights, history and culture of all its citizens, including those
who are survivors and descendents of genocide and crimes against
humanity. Just last week, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1524,
“Armenian Genocide Bank and Looted Assets Recovery Act”. This bill
will allow victims and heirs recovery – through California Courts –
of assets looted by banks and financial institutions operating in
the Ottoman Empire and Turkey during the Armenian Genocide which have
been wrongfully withheld since the Genocide.
An International Genocide Monument in the State Capitol would not
only serve as a symbol for remembrance of past genocides, but also as
a tool to educate thousands of students who visit the State Capitol
annually for class trips.
“The establishment of a memorial to the Armenian Genocide as well
others marks the State’s indelible recognition of the Armenian Genocide
and the need for modern Turkey to finally come to terms with its
history,” said ANCA-WR Chairman Steven Dadaian.
The ANCA-WR commends Governor Schwarzenegger and Assembly member Levine
for their leadership in creating an enduring symbol of remembrance and
recognition in California for all victims of genocide and injustice.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SPY SPAT HAS A COUNTERPUNCH
By M K Bhadrakumar
Asia Times Online, Hong Kong
Oct 5 2006
When spy author John le Carre’s Our Game appeared more than 11 years
ago, the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall had come down and British
intelligence had apparently put its operatives out to pasture.
Thus le Carre had to plow an altogether new furrow in the exotic
setting of Ingushetia and Ossetia in the Caucasus by weaving a plot
around a people suppressed by the White tsars and their Red
successors. By doing this, le Carre made an important point, that
spies never truly retire. Indeed, the conspiracies of stupendous
scope unfolding in the ramparts of the Caucasus mountains could be
straight out of a le Carre plot – taut and suspenseful.
Last week in Georgia, the security services detained four Russian
senior military officers for “illegal intelligence gathering”
concerning Georgia’s cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). Simultaneously, the Georgian police cordoned off
the headquarters of Russian troops in Tbilisi, ostensibly to nab yet
another fugitive Russian spy who had taken shelter there.
Georgian authorities threatened to remand the detainees in custody
for two months and then put them and 10 Georgian accomplices on public
trial. Moscow was not amused.
Amid acrimonious verbal exchanges between Moscow and Tbilisi,
Russia began retaliating in calibrated moves. Protesters besieged the
Georgian Embassy in Moscow. Moscow recalled its envoy in Tbilisi and
evacuated its diplomatic personnel and their families based in Georgia;
announced it was closing travel routes to Georgia; and suspended postal
services. Moscow further hinted it might suspend banking operations
and money transfers between the two countries.
If the Russian moves, firmly dismissive of the Georgian allegations of
spying charges, were meant to remind Tbilisi about the facts of life,
they indeed worked, considering that the remittances by the 300,000
Georgian workers in Russia alone make up about 4% of Georgia’s gross
domestic product and Russia is Georgia’s number one trading partner.
At any rate, on Monday evening, Tbilisi handed over the four Russian
officers at the heart of the spy scandal. At which point, however,
the plot began to thicken.
Over the weekend, Washington effectively stonewalled a Russian
diplomatic offensive directed against Tbilisi in the nature of a
resolution by the UN Security Council in New York calling for the
urgent release of the Russian officers.
This provoked the Kremlin to bring out into the open the
hidden “American hand” in the plot. President Vladimir Putin,
while addressing the Russian Security Council on Saturday over
developments in Russian-Georgian relations, reportedly said, “These
people [Georgian authorities] think that under the protection of their
foreign mentors, they can afford to feel comfortable and secure. Is it
really so? Evidently, there are forces that specialize in provoking new
crises, estimating that it may distract attention from old problems.”
Putin then gave some advice to both Washington and Tbilisi: “Probably
in a short-term perspective, it [provoking Russia] may have such an
effect [of distracting attention], but such attempts will not for
sure help in solving the old and rather serious crises in the world.”
The Kremlin was making clear its sense of indignation in being
subjected to humiliation by Washington’s close ally, Georgian President
Mikhail Saakashvili. It rankled in the Russian mind that Saakashvili
would make faces at the Kremlin solely on the basis of his confidence
of American protection from any Russian retaliation.
Russi’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov,
describing Tbilisi’s spy charges as “absurd”, accused some unnamed NATO
countries of illegally selling weapons to Georgia. “Some members of
NATO – shall we say, the ‘younger generation’ – are supplying Georgia
with arms and ammunition of Soviet vintage,” Ivanov was quoted as
telling a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council of defense ministers in
Slovenia last Friday.
Ivanov was indirectly alleging that some of the pro-American
Baltic States and eastern European countries acting at the behest
of Washington were encouraging Georgia to adopt a confrontationist
attitude toward Russia.
Washington seemed to have read the Kremlin’s barely disguised warnings
of the implications of a likely hardening of Russian attitudes apropos
such festering American wounds as the Iraq war and the Iran nuclear
issue, where the US dependence on Russian cooperation is becoming
critical. (Nicholas Burns, the US under secretary of state for
political affairs, claimed as recently as Monday that Washington
had won a united front with Moscow and Beijing in pushing for UN
sanctions against Iran if the latter did not agree to suspend its
uranium-enrichment activity within this week.)
Over the weekend, therefore, Washington swung into action, dispatching
the chief of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), Karel De Gucht, to Tbilisi on a mediatory mission to resolve
the diplomatic row. He later said that after negotiations with all
parties, including with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
that Georgian leadership had agreed to hand over the Russian “spies”
to the OSCE and that they had been returned to Russia on Monday night.
For Washington, it was a “win-win” situation. Washington shrewdly
calculated that maximum propaganda mileage could be squeezed out of
the episode designed to show Russia as a bully in its behavior toward
a tiny neighbor. And from now on, the law of diminishing returns would
be at work, whereas, with a bit of timely, demonstrative goodwill as
a well-meaning mediator, it might be possible to earn some reciprocal
Russian gesture elsewhere.
But Moscow has shown no hurry to acknowledge the apparent US “goodwill”
in resolving the standoff with Tbilisi. Asked about the usefulness of
“mediators”, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sarcastically remarked
on Monday that third countries were already “energetically involved”
in Russia-Georgia relations. He elaborated: “We have many times drawn
the attention of those third parties, you may call them ‘sponsors’ –
those who supply weapons to Georgia and blocked a resolution at the
UN Security Council – to the problem.”
If anything, Lavrov continued the diplomatic offensive. He said,
“The actions of the Georgian leadership have unquestionably become
consistently anti-Russian” and that the current developments were
“not the culmination but a reflection” of the hostile policies pursued
by Tbilisi toward Russia.
Lavrov said that Moscow had warned Western countries about the danger
of conniving with the policies pursued by Saakashvili, but instead
Georgia received promises of closer cooperation from NATO.
(Washington recently announced additional financial support of
US$10 million for bringing the Georgian armed forces closer to NATO
standards.)
“It is clear by now that Saakashvili’s main goal is accession to
NATO. He is hoping to resolve all other problems through this route,”
Lavrov observed.
Meanwhile, a Kremlin press release said that in a telephone
conversation on Monday, Putin warned US President George W Bush about
Georgia’s “destructive policy”. Putin reportedly highlighted that
“any actions of third countries that Georgia’s leadership could
interpret as encouraging its destructive policy were unacceptable
and dangerous for peace and stability in the region”.
Russian commentators uniformly believed that Saakashvili acted with
Washington’s prior knowledge and approval. They saw a pattern in the
sequence of events during the past three months following Saakashvili’s
visit to Washington.
During this period, Georgia deployed its troops in the Kodori Gorge
in Abkhazia, apparently taking one step further toward seeking a
“military solution” to the political separatism in the breakaway
province; Saakashvili ordered a crackdown on opposition political
figures who were mounting an increasingly effective campaign against
the power structure in Tbilisi, allegedly for their “pro-Russia”
stance; Tbilisi commenced a process of “intensive dialogue” between
Georgia and NATO (which is a stipulated prerequisite as per the
NATO charter for new members’ accession); and last but not least,
Saakashvili precipitated with great deliberation a totally unnecessary
crisis by detaining the Russian military officers.
Thus, Russian commentators saw last week’s developments as falling
within the overall context of Russian-American rivalry for influence
on the territories of the former Soviet republics. They visualized
that the US geopolitical objective was to force Russia out of the
Caucasus as part of Washington’s agenda of effecting the Atlantic
integration of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, and, specifically,
of replacing all traces of Russian military presence in any corner
of the region through which the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline and a future trans-Caspian pipeline run.
Now that the “color revolutions” have receded, Russian-American
rivalry in Eurasia is taking a new form in the nature of intensified
attempts by the international community to settle the so-called
“frozen conflicts” in Moldova and South Caucasus.
Russia is viewing with growing concern Anglo-American attempts in
recent months to orchestrate discussions over these conflicts within
European institutions.
Britain, Poland and Lithuania are leading a campaign at the European
Commission and the European Parliament for the EU to adopt a Caucasus
Project. Alongside, the pro-American GUAM (a regional grouping of
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) is also being encouraged
by Washington to adopt a coordinated position on issues such as the
“frozen conflicts”, Russian-Georgian relations, and the continued
presence of Russian peacekeeping forces in the breakaway republics
of Trans-Dneister, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Washington hopes to incrementally evolve a common strategy and
solidarity between the US and the EU concerning relations with Russia
within the overall framework of Euro-Atlanticism. But there are wheels
within wheels. In essence, Britain, in league with the pro-American
bloc of countries of “New Europe”, is striving within the European
institutions to hedge French and German policies toward Russia.
The UK and the US share a sense of deep disquiet over Russian, German
and French integration in the energy sphere. The Anglo-American concern
is that with the passage of time, if the present trends strengthen,
increased cooperation in the energy sphere will inevitably bring
Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Hungary, etc to act in concert
on major areas impacting European security and stability, such as the
status of Ukraine, NATO’s future expansion, or Russia’s legitimate
politico-security interests in the Trans-Caucasus.
At the same time, Britain and the US appreciate that the eastern
European countries of the erstwhile Warsaw Pact and the Baltic
republics harbor strong anti-Russia bias while they remain engaged in
the process of consolidating their European outlook. The Anglo-American
attempt has been to harness this “critical mass” of animus against
Russia already available within the European institutions.
Part of the Anglo-American strategy is to calibrate the irritants
in relations between the GUAM member-countries and Russia. The
virulently anti-Russia bloc of countries in eastern Europe (Poland
and the Baltic states) within the EU has been playing the role of
inciting the GUAM countries against Russia. The tactic enables the
US and Britain to stay in the background and avoid complicating their
bilateral relations with Moscow.
The “frozen conflicts” present themselves as a convenient topic to
ratchet up tensions between Russia and its GUAM neighbors. But it
is not as if the US or Britain can offer any viable solutions for
settling the conflicts in Moldova and the South Caucasus. In fact, as
the Nagorno-Karabakh problem illustrates, there are no easy solutions
to these regional conflicts in the foreseeable future.
The geopolitical complexities of the region are such that the US
and Britain need to work hard to consolidate the GUAM positions. For
instance, within GUAM, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan do not consider
it expedient to share Georgia’s passion for ganging up against Russia
(even though they may share an interest in sequestering their energy
communication links from Russian domination).
To be sure, the US objective is nonetheless to nudge the GUAM countries
toward a common platform on as many fronts as possible so as to create
a new political reality in Eurasia that Russia has to learn to live
with, and to encourage the GUAM countries to play an increased role
in the security sphere.
The political developments in Ukraine in the recent months leading to
the unraveling of the so-called “Orange” alliance no doubt constituted
a temporary setback to the US’s GUAM strategy, but Washington would
harbor the hope that in the medium and long term Kiev would revert
to its GUAM moorings and assume a leadership role in the community
of democratic nations in Eurasia.
All the same, Washington has no illusions that GUAM alone can ever
muster the capacity to solve security issues in the region. In
the US perception, the need exists for the active involvement of
the international community. For this reason, the question of GUAM
countries’ accession to NATO has become a priority.
In fact, the entire US strategy in the region revolves on NATO’s
expansion in the Caspian and Black Sea regions and in South Caucasus.
That is the reason why Washington even advocates that the eligibility
bar for NATO accession should be lowered for Ukraine and Georgia at
the cost of degrading the alliance’s defense, political and economic
standards.
France and Germany, however, do not share the Anglo-American interest
in NATO expansion, in priority terms. Neither France nor Germany has
taken an unequivocal position on the subject, either.
Washington hopes, arguably, that episodes such as the current
Russian-Georgian spy scandal show up Russia in poor light as a country
impeding conflict resolution and occupying the territories of other
countries (Georgia and Moldova) on the pretext of peacekeeping
operations, while in reality carrying out subversive activities
against the regimes in power, apart from blatantly using energy as
an instrument of foreign policy.
In Washington’s estimation, such an argumentation would convince the
doubting Thomases within the trans-Atlantic community, especially
in Paris and Berlin, regarding the “reality” of the threats posed
by a resurgent Russia and the imperative of NATO expansion in the
prevailing situation.
In immediate terms, the Anglo-American strategy is to force Russia
to withdraw its peacekeeping forces in Georgia and Moldova, as then
only will these countries become eligible for NATO accession. One
way of pressuring Russia will be to transfer the agenda of conflict
resolution in the Caspian and Black Sea regions and in the Caucasus
to the arena of the United Nations.
We may see signs of this happening in the coming months. Russia seems
ready to pre-empt the US design to create an utterly unfavorable
situation for it by orchestrating a GUAM move (preferably in tandem
with a common EU position) in the UN in the near future that may
hold the potential to snowball into focused international scrutiny
of Russia’s policy toward its smaller neighbors.
Thus, on Tuesday, despite the previous day’s release of the Russian
military officers by Tbilisi (significantly, under OSCE auspices,
which in itself amounts to “internationalization” of Russian-Georgian
relations), Moscow decided to submit a draft resolution in the UN
Security Council calling for the withdrawal of Georgian troops from
the Kodori Range. The resolution demands that Tbilisi honors all its
international obligations, including the mandate for the Commonwealth
of Independent Countries’ peacekeeping operations in Georgia, and
avoids any precipitate steps aggravating the problem of the breakaway
republic of Abkhazia.
The resolution specifically seeks an extension of the UN mandate for
the Russian peacekeeping forces in Abkhazia until April 2007. The
Russian resolution is due to come back for an open vote at a Security
Council meeting next week.
Moscow is also attempting to checkmate the Anglo-American gameplan on
NATO expansion by harping on the trend-setting nature of the referendum
in Kosovo (and Montenegro) recently held with EU endorsement and US
support on the province’s separation from Serbia.
Moscow has argued that what the West considers acceptable in Kosovo
(or Montenegro), namely, the right of self-determination, should
be equally acceptable to Trans-Dneister, Abkhazia or South Ossetia
(the breakaway regions of Moldova and Georgia).
Moscow is confidently asserting an important point of principle,
comfortable in the knowledge that the overwhelming popular opinion
in these breakaway regions of Moldova and Georgia is for close ties
with Russia. Of course, if a string of newly independent states with
pro-Russia outlook were to appear in Eurasia, that would throw NATO’s
expansion plans into disarray.
Speaking at a news briefing in Slovenia on Friday against the backdrop
of a joint meeting with NATO defense ministers, Ivanov gently reminded
Washington that taking all factors into account, Russia was not short
on options if driven into a corner.
Ivanov said: “We should not forget that 90% of the population
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian citizens. They were
never citizens of Georgia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the local population in the region, which was then holding Soviet
passports individually, sought formal Russian citizenship. And we
issued passports and granted citizenship rights not only to the
citizens of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic but also
to the residents in all other former Soviet republics.
“Millions of people opted for Russian citizenship. That was their
right and prerogative”.
All in all, therefore, the “frozen conflicts” when applied to
the post-Soviet scenario, while appearing to lend themselves as
a convenient lever for Washington to purge Russian influence from
Eurasia, could in reality turn out to be a historical trap. For the
fact remains that to resolve the conflicts they need to be “defrosted”
first. And no one can foretell with certitude the consequences of
such a step.
The point is, present-day ethnic conflicts in the region
began historically with a process of development of national
consciousness a long time ago in the run-up to the collapse of
the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires. The ideology of
national self-determination is still alive in those regions and may
have, arguably, become even stronger in the post-Cold War era.
Indeed, the list is long: Armenian enclaves in Georgia, Crimea,
Trans-Dneister, Gaguzia, Transylvania, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Kurdistan, etc.
Speaking on the subject in May, Putin called on Washington to
understand that given the complexities of sub-nationalism and ethnicity
in the region, geopolitical rivalries should not assume the nature of a
“sports competition”.
“I believe,” Putin said, “we all can, and should, cooperate to
draft common rules and uniform approaches … otherwise, there will
be chaos.” Emphasizing that “Russia has never raised the issue of
annexing any territories outside its present borders”, Putin, however,
cautioned, “when we hear that one approach is possible in one place
but is unacceptable in another, it becomes difficult to understand,
and is even more difficult to explain to people”.
Putin pointed out that similar processes were underway in Europe,
too, and Russia was seriously concerned about it. He was underlining
that Russia would share common interests and concerns with Europe
apropos conflict resolution in Eurasia – unlike the US, which was
busy consolidating its trans-Atlantic leadership role in the post-Cold
War era.
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador
to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

US CONGRESSMEN CALLED ON GEORGE BUSH TO EXPAND ENGAGEMENT WITH KARABAKH
Today, Azerbaijan
Oct 5 2006
Congressional letter, signed by 77 members has been sent to the
White House to call on George Bush to expand relations with Karabakh,
PanArmenian came to know from the NKR Representative Office in the U.S.
The letter claims the continuation of Azerbaijan’s “destructive”
policy, which threatens peace and stability in the region and “goes
against U.S. interests”.
The letter said in part: “The United States can and must expand its
engagement with the lawfully and democratically established Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. These ties should not be dictated by outside forces
but rather should be guided by the shared values of our two nations.”
Taking a stance on the letter, Public Affairs Officer of the US embassy
in Azerbaijan, Jonathan Henick stressed that the Congress is another
part of the democratic system in the USA, APA reports.
“Congressmen often send such letters to the President. US president
determines foreign policy of the US. Official Washington doesn’t
share the same opinion with the letter authors.”
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IRAQ’S CHRISTIANS AT RISK OF ANNIHILATION
By Charles Tannock
The Japan Times, Japan
Oct 5 2006
Ancient Communities Persecuted
LONDON — The world is consumed by fears that Iraq is degenerating
into a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But in this
looming war of all against all, it is Iraq’s small community of
Assyrian Christians that is at risk of annihilation.
Iraq’s Christian communities are among the world’s most ancient,
practicing their faith in Mesopotamia almost since the time of
Jesus Christ. The Assyrian Apostolic Church, for instance, traces its
foundation back to 34 A.D. and St. Peter. Likewise, the Assyrian Church
of the East dates to 33 A.D. and St. Thomas. The Aramaic that many
of Iraq’s Christians still speak is the language of those apostles —
and of Christ.
When tolerated by their Muslim rulers, Assyrian Christians contributed
much to the societies in which they lived. Their scholars helped usher
in the “Golden Age” of the Arab world by translating important works
into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. But in recent times, toleration
has scarcely existed.
In the Armenian Genocide of 1914-1918, 750,000 Assyrians — roughly
two-thirds of their number at the time — were massacred by the
Ottoman Turks with the help of the Kurds.
Under the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, the Assyrians faced persecution
for co-operating with the British during World War I. Many fled to the
West, among them the Church’s patriarch. During former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein’s wars with the Kurds, hundreds of Assyrian villages
were destroyed, their inhabitants rendered homeless, and dozens of
ancient churches were bombed. The teaching of the Syriac language was
prohibited and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic
names in an effort to undermine their Christian identity. Those who
wished to hold government jobs had to declare Arab ethnicity.
In 1987, the Iraqi census listed 1.4 million Christians. Today,
only about 600,000 to 800,000 remain in the country, most on the
Nineveh plain.
As many as 60,000, and perhaps even more, have fled since the beginning
of the insurgency that followed the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Their
exodus accelerated in August 2004, after the start of the terrorist
bombing campaign against Christian churches by Islamists who accuse
them of collaboration with the allies by virtue of their faith.
A recent U.N. report states that religious minorities in Iraq “have
become the regular victims of discrimination, harassment, and,
at times, persecution, with incidents ranging from intimidation to
murder,” and that “members of the Christian minority appear to be
particularly targeted.”
Indeed, there are widespread reports of Christians fleeing the country
as a result of threats being made to their women for not adhering
to strict Islamic dress codes. Christian women are said to have had
acid thrown in their faces. Some have been killed for wearing jeans
or not wearing the veil.
This type of violence is particularly acute in the area around Mosul.
High-ranking clergy there claim that priests in Iraq can no longer
wear their clerical robes in public for fear of being attacked by
Islamists. Last January, coordinated car-bomb attacks were carried
out on six churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk; on another occasion, six
churches were simultaneously bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Over the
past two years, 27 Assyrian churches have reportedly been attacked
for the sole reason that they were Christian places of worship.
These attacks go beyond targeting physical manifestations of the
faith. Christian-owned small businesses, particularly those selling
alcohol, have been attacked, and many shopkeepers murdered. The
director of the Iraqi Museum, Donny George, a respected Assyrian,
says that he was forced to flee Iraq to Syria in fear of his life,
and that Islamic fundamentalists obstructed all of his work that was
not focused on Islamic artifacts.
Assyrian leaders also complain of deliberate discrimination in the
January 2005 elections. In some cases, they claim, ballot boxes did
not arrive in Assyrian towns and villages, voting officials failed to
show up, or ballot boxes were stolen. They also cite the intimidating
presence of Kurdish militia and secret police near polling stations.
Recently, however, there are signs the Iraqi Kurdish authorities are
being more protective of their Christian communities.
Sadly, the plight of Iraq’s Christians is not an isolated one in the
Middle East. In Iran, the population as a whole has nearly doubled
since the 1979 revolution; but, under a hostile regime, the number of
Christians in the country has fallen from roughly 300,000 to 100,000.
In 1948, Christians accounted for roughly 20 percent of the
population of what was then Palestine; since then, their numbers
have roughly halved. In Egypt, emigration among Coptic Christians is
disproportionately high; many convert to Islam under pressure, and
over the past few years violence perpetrated against the Christian
community has taken many lives.
The persecution of these ancient and unique Christian communities,
in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, is deeply disturbing. Last
April, the European Parliament voted virtually unanimously for the
Assyrians to be allowed to establish (on the basis of section 5 of
the Iraqi Constitution) a federal region where they can be free from
outside interference to practice their own way of life. It is high
time now that the West paid more attention, and took forceful action
to secure the future of Iraq’s embattled Christians.
Charles Tannock is vice president of the Human Rights Subcommittee
of the European Parliament and British Conservative foreign affairs
spokesman. Copyright Project Syndicate 2006 ()
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EXPERT QUESTIONS BLOCHER ANTI-RACISM REMARKS
Swissinfo, Switzerland
Oct 5 2006
Justice Minister Christoph Blocher should have defended and not
criticised the Swiss anti-racism law during a trip to Turkey, according
to a leading law expert.
Marcel Niggli, professor of law of Fribourg University, told swissinfo
that it was strange that Blocher should have made the comments made
during an official visit abroad.
Blocher unleashed a storm of political and media protest at home after
he remarked on Wednesday that part of the law gave him a “headache”. He
referred to a “stress relationship” between anti-racism legislation
and the freedom of speech.
On Thursday Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin said that Blocher’s
remarks were “unacceptable”.
For his part, President Moritz Leuenberger said he was surprised,
adding that the cabinet would meet to discuss the issues arising from
Blocher’s comments shortly.
Current Swiss law, dating from 1994, has led to investigations
against two Turks in Switzerland for allegedly denying the 1915
Armenian massacre.
“No one would have imagined that this law would have resulted in
proceedings against a prominent Turkish historian,” he said, following
talks with his Turkish counterpart, Cemil Cicek.
Blocher said his ministry would examine ways to prevent a recurrence
of such a situation, adding that it was up to the government and
parliament to decide on any changes.
swissinfo: Christoph Blocher said that the anti-racism law was in some
respects in conflict with freedom of speech in Switzerland? What is
your view on that?
Marcel Niggli: That’s not correct because the European Court of
Human Rights has decided in many cases already that… racism is not
protected by the freedom of speech.
Professor Marcel Niggli (RDB)
swissinfo: How strange is it for a justice minister to say that
article 216 bis of the Swiss penal code gives him a headache?
M.N.: To me that sounds very strange especially if someone does so
abroad. Basically, if you have a headache about the law you discuss
the law and try to make a proposal nationally to [change it], but as
the law has not been changed it stays as it is.
swissinfo: It strikes me that as justice minister, Blocher should be
defending the law, shouldn’t he?
M.N.: That’s correct because that law has been discussed, voted on
by the [Swiss] people and accepted. The party to which the minister
belongs [Swiss People’s Party] has at different times tried to abolish
the law and always failed in the end, so basically it’s clear that
the prevailing will at the moment in this country is that this is
law and hence he should defend that, yes.
swissinfo: How much do you think that Christoph Blocher was bowing
to the will of Turkey when he said his remarks?
M.N.: I think he did that to a certain extent, as many other people
also do, because Turkey has insisted for many decades that there has
not been a genocide [of Armenians]. Basically the question whether
there has been a genocide or not is ridiculous because [according to]
all the legal criteria we have… it’s apparently evident that this
was a genocide.
swissinfo: What repercussions do you think this will have for Blocher,
if any?
M.N.: I don’t think there will be important consequences because the
federal councillor [Blocher] has behaved in that way many times.
There have always been protests and discussions but there have never
been any consequences.
swissinfo: So you don’t think if there are calls for him to step down
that he will do so?
M.N.: I don’t think so. What he did in Turkey is the same as he’s
done already [before]. He’s representing more the opinion of his
party than of the government as a whole.
swissinfo: Isn’t that a bad situation in Switzerland?
M.N.: If you have a government consisting of seven people it is a very
good idea that if they don’t find consensus, they shouldn’t show this
externally. If the justice minister goes abroad to discuss [Swiss]
national laws, it’s certainly not a very happy situation.
swissinfo-interview: Robert Brookes
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress