Author: Emil Lazarian

NEW SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IS NOT READY FOR 5-DAY ACADEMIC WEEK
Lragir.am
28 Aug 06
The new 12-year school education allows directors of schools choose
whether children will go to school for 5 day or 6 days a week. The
directors of 22 schools confessed in a consultation with the mayor
of Yerevan that they are not ready to replace 6-day week by 5-day week.
The latter believe that with the present load of the curriculum and
standards 6-day education will continue at schools. The first deputy
mayor of Yerevan Kamo Areyan announced about this common approach
of teachers.
Kamo Areyan said the Motor Vehicle Inspectorate has already been
instructed to guarantee security in the first ten days of September,
besides the City Hall is worried about electricity supply and the
Electricity Networks also received instructions. Yerevan Water Company
received instructions on the water supply of schools. The City Hall
also instructed the Health Department of the City Hall of Yerevan to
control medical stations at schools.
In the beginning of the academic year in 2006 the number of first-grade
pupils in Yerevan is 9081 but the statistics will be more precise on
September 5 because admittance to schools continues.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PROPORTIONAL VOTING IS THE SOLUTION, FORCES OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT STATE
By Karine Mangassarian
Yerkir.am
August 25, 2006
We will be having parliamentary and presidential elections in the
coming two years. There is still a lot of time before the elections
but the pre-election campaigns have already started.
New parties are created as always before the elections. Before
any elections, the Electoral Code appears in the midst of heated
debates. What can we do to have free and fair elections that would
correspond to European standards?
Europeans try to help us with this issue. They advise us as to how
to form electoral commissions, whether or not to ink the voters’
fingers, whether or not to have video cameras in the voting sites.
There are very many questions and the political forces in the
parliament were discussing the Venice Commission’s recommendations
on the amendments to the Electoral Code before the parliament left
for its summer recess.
There were some disagreements between the political forces. As
National Assembly Speaker Tigran Torossian informed this week no
final agreement has been reached on five articles of the Electoral
Code. One of the disagreements concerns the debate over proportional
and majoritarian voting.
The majority of political forces in the country insist that the only
solution to relieve the extreme “politicization” in Armenia is full
transition to proportional voting. Those opposing this approach note
that there might be people who do not share the ideologies of any of
the parties but want to be in the parliament and protect the rights
of their electorate.
A draft set of amendments to the Electoral Code developed by NA deputy
Victor Dallakian will be discussed in the National Assembly in addition
to the existing Electoral Code amendments. Dallakian proposes to hold
elections only with proportional voting even though he was elected
to the parliament under majoritarian vote.
Political forces outside the parliament also believe that majoritarian
voting cannot contribute to a healthy political atmosphere in the
country. It cannot contribute to the formation of the National Assembly
as a political body.
Leader of the Armenian Liberal Progressive Party Hovhannes
Hovhannissian notes that majoritarian voting system is no longer used
in other countries.
He believes majoritarian voting does not contribute to the proper
formation of the political atmosphere at the same time claiming that
the support voters show towards deputies elected under majoritarian
vote directly depends on the volume of the election bribe which has
nothing to do with politics.
Meanwhile, ideology should be the tool of politicians, something
which we cannot observe in this case.
Leader of National Conciliation Party Aram Harutyunian also supports
proportional voting system. However, he notes that the Constitution
states that every person has the right to be elected even if he/she
is not a member of any party.
Therefore, Harutyunian believes that if a fully proportional voting
system is used this constitutional right would be violated. Harutyunian
believes ensuring equal conditions for all parties is crucial to
ensure fair and free elections. He proposes that members of all
parties participating in the elections should be included into the
electoral commissions instead of only proxies.
This proposal might be worth discussing but this might be impossible
in a situation when several dozens of parties want to participate in
the elections.
Leader of the New Communist Party Yura Manukian assures he has
always supported the fully proportional voting. “We are for a
political parliament. There should be only proportional voting,
in other words the voters should make their choice based on the
parties’ ideologies. The vision of the country’s development should
be formed based on parties’ ideologies and not arbitrary will of
certain individuals,” Manukian states.
“The situation we have observed with the majoritarian voting leaves no
room for support for majoritarian system,” Manukian notes. Commenting
on the situation when someone might have the support of the voters
even if he/she is not a member of any party Manukian joked, “If someone
wants to be elected under majoritarian vote because he does not share
the views of any political parties this means that we simply don’t
know the name of that party.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Iran Report
Vol. 9, No. 32, 28 August 2006
A Review of Developments in Iran Prepared by the Regional Specialists
of RFE/RL’s Newsline Team
******************************************** ****************
HEADLINES:
* IRAN AVOIDS DIRECT ANSWER, BUT READY FOR ‘SERIOUS TALKS’
* IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEMANDS YIELD VARIOUS RESPONSES
* IRAN MARKS RELIGIOUS DAY
* SUPREME LEADER’S ADVISER DISCOURAGES NUCLEAR CONCESSIONS
* IRAN TESTS MISSILES DURING WAR GAMES
* U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON IRAN FOUND LACKING
* IRAN SEIZES ROMANIAN OIL RIG IN PERSIAN GULF
* HIZBALLAH ENVOY IN IRAN SAYS GROUP WON’T LEAVE SOUTH OR DISARM
* PARLIAMENT PASSES ANTICORRUPTION LEGISLATION
* IRAN SEEKS INVOLVEMENT IN NORWEGIAN ENERGY SECTOR
* GASOLINE IMPORTS REACH IRAN
* HUNDREDS OF ISFAHAN TEXTILE WORKERS CLAIM BACK WAGES
* JAILED WRITER’S CONFESSION HAS A FAMILIAR RING TO IT
*********************************************** *************
IRAN AVOIDS DIRECT ANSWER, BUT READY FOR ‘SERIOUS TALKS.’
Iran responded on August 22 to an international proposal on
Tehran’s disputed nuclear program by saying it is ready for
“serious talks.” Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary
Ali Larijani gave representatives from China, Russia, Britain,
Germany, France, and Switzerland (representing U.S. interests) a
written response to an international incentives package at a meeting
in Tehran. The proposal is aimed at persuading the Islamic republic
to abandon its controversial uranium-enrichment program and other
sensitive activities.
Details have not yet emerged of the statement that Larijani,
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, gave to diplomats. But Mohammad
Saidi, a top official in the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
provided strong hints at the nature of the response.
Saidi said today that the international proposal has
“fundamental and serious ambiguities.” He added that although
suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment is no longer an
appropriate precondition, Tehran is willing to hold talks, Mehr News
Agency reported. Saidi also criticized aspects of the proposal that
emphasize deterrence and ignore nuclear cooperation.
Iran has also rejected the possibility of suspending uranium
enrichment, Fars News Agency reported. Iranian officials have been
saying the same thing for months. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid
Reza Assefi gave a strong hint at the Iranian stance in his August 20
press conference, when he said Iran is not considering suspension of
its enrichment activities.
Larijani also reiterated that Tehran sees moves to take its
case to the UN Security Council as “illegal.”
Consistent Line
The offer from the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) plus Germany was followed in late July by Security Council
Resolution 1696, which calls on Iran to halt sensitive nuclear
activities by the end of August or face the possibility of economic
and political sanctions.
Iran thus finds itself in a position that it has avoided for
years through a combination of diplomacy and deception. This
situation can be attributed to the hard-line ideology of President
Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s administration and the support it is
receiving from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The hard-line sentiments were strengthened when Ahmadinejad
announced on April 11 that Iranians have “enriched uranium to the
enrichment level required by nuclear power plants,” state television
reported.
More recently, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on
August 21 that “arrogant powers, led by America,” fear Islamic
countries’ progress and are trying to block Iran’s scientific
and technological development, state television reported. Therefore,
he continued, Iran will continue its nuclear pursuits.
What Was Offered
European Union High Representative for Common Foreign and
Security Policy Javier Solana gave the proposal to Iranian officials
in Tehran on June 6. The proposal called on Iran to cooperate fully
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “suspend all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,” and “resume
implementation of the Additional Protocol [of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)].”
In exchange, the six countries would suspend Security Council
talks on the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, they would back
Iran’s right to have a peaceful nuclear program that conforms
with its NPT obligations. Construction of light-water reactors in
Iran, furthermore, would be backed. Future cooperation would include
a nuclear cooperation agreement between Iran and Euratom, cooperation
on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, and
assistance in nuclear-related research and development. Other issues
included assurances on the provision of nuclear fuel, including
enrichment at a joint facility in Russia.
The June proposal mentioned political and economic
incentives, too. There would be a regional security conference. Iran
would be fully integrated into the international economy — including
membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) — and there would
be a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU. Restrictions would
be lifted on the sale of European and U.S. manufactured parts for
civilian aircraft. A long-term Iran-EU energy partnership would be
created, and restrictions on the use of U.S. telecommunications
equipment in Iran might be eliminated. There would be cooperation in
the high-technology and agriculture sectors, too.
Where To Now?
If Iran continues its uranium-enrichment activities and does
not comply with Resolution 1696, the Security Council could impose
commercial or diplomatic sanctions — per Chapter 7 of the UN
Charter. The overseas travel of Iranian officials could be restricted
and their assets frozen; there could be restrictions on Iranian
sports teams’ participation in international competitions; and
there could be major economic embargoes.
It is unlikely that there will be much enthusiasm on the
Security Council for any serious sanctions. Resistance will come
primarily from Moscow and Beijing — in part due to their
geopolitical competition with the United States. China, furthermore,
gets much of its energy from Iran. European powers get oil from Iran,
and the country is a significant market for European goods.
There is concern that Iran would respond to sanctions by
restricting oil exports. Indeed, Iran accounts for some 10 percent of
global oil reserves and is OPEC’s second-largest producer. Yet
Iran is heavily reliant on its oil revenues, which account for 40-50
percent of the state budget and 80-90 percent of total export
earnings. Petroleum Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh has dismissed use
of the so-called oil weapon, although other officials have mentioned
it.
Iranian withdrawal from the NPT is another possible response
by Tehran. President Ahmadinejad hinted at this possibility in
February, and doing so now would conform to his confrontational
foreign policy style. Alaedin Borujerdi, chairman of the
legislature’s national security and foreign policy committee,
said on August 21 that NPT compliance would no longer apply if
pressure on Iran continued, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA)
reported.
Military action against the Iranian nuclear program is a
remote possibility. Tehran has responded to this risk with a new
doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Iran also reportedly has links with
Iraqi insurgents who could act against coalition forces.
Additionally, Tehran believes U.S. forces are already overstretched
with Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot commit to another military
confrontation.
Iran also has engaged in saber-rattling, although this may be
intended to reassure a domestic audience rather than frighten a
foreign one. Iran displayed the new Fajr-3 missile, torpedoes, and
other weapons during war games in the Persian Gulf, Straits of
Hormuz, and Sea of Oman in late March and early April. These
exercises allowed Iran to show its naval forces’ area-denial
capabilities. Iran is currently holding five-week long military
exercises in 16 provinces.
Where Did Things Go Wrong?
The Iranian nuclear program got under way even before the
Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, and it has taken a long time for it to
reach the stage of a UN Security Council resolution.
It was not until August 2002 that an opposition group
revealed the existence of a uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and
a heavy-water plant at Arak; it was not until June 2003 that the IAEA
said Iran is not in compliance with the NPT. Yet in the following
years, Iran continued to negotiate with Europe and avoid referral to
the Security Council.
No international consensus on the gravity of the situation
emerged until September 2005, when the IAEA confirmed that Iran had
resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
The current situation can be attributed to the newfound
emphasis on ideology in foreign policy, according to Hojatoleslam
Hassan Rohani. Rohani is currently the supreme leader’s
representative on the Supreme National Security Council, and for 16
years he was the council’s secretary. In that position, he was
Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator from October 2003 until his
replacement in August 2005.
Rohani said in late July that the country is paying a heavy
price at the moment, and he spoke out against critics of the
diplomatic process who failed to understand the value of the
concessions Iran was receiving from Europe, “Etemad” reported on July
23.
Rohani met with President-elect Ahmadinejad for the first
time shortly after the 2005 election. Asked later if there are any
differences between the incoming administration and that of President
Mohammad Khatami, Rohani conceded that there might be “some
differences of opinion” regarding the suspension of uranium
enrichment, “Sharq” reported on July 14, 2005. Nobody opposes talks
with Europe, he continued, “but there may be some differences of
opinion…with some other issues.”
In the 2005 interview with “Sharq,” Rohani stressed that Iran
must avoid worrying other countries and isolating itself. “We have to
interact with the world for the sake of our country’s
development,” he said. “If what we envisaged for the next 20 years is
to see a developed Iran ranking first in the region from the
scientific, technological, and economic aspects, can we achieve this
objective without interaction with the industrial world?”
Rohani went on to note the significance of Europe, Russia,
Japan, China, and other industrialized states, and he emphasized the
importance to Iran of diplomacy and the danger of isolation.
By now, it is obvious that Rohani’s advice was ignored,
and he is not impressed. Several months ago, Rohani referred to
“upstarts that have no experience and track record,” “Etemad”
reported on June 15.
How the Ahmadinejad team reacts next will color Iran’s
relations with the world for years to come. (Bill Samii)
IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEMANDS YIELD VARIOUS RESPONSES. Supreme National
Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said on August 24 that the
Iranian response two days earlier to an international proposal meant
to resolve the controversy over its nuclear program should eliminate
the other side’s concerns and also protect Iran’s
self-perceived right to use nuclear energy, IRNA reported. Larijani
said Iran is amenable to the resumption of negotiations and
anticipates the views of its interlocutors.
Official details on the Iranian response have not been made
available yet, but Larijani said, “Iran’s response partly deals
with the favorite topic of the 5+1 group [China, France, Russia, the
United Kingdom, the United States, plus Germany], namely the security
arrangements of the region.” He added, “Given the present sensitive
conditions of the region, Iran is prepared to assist promote
sustainable peace in the region.”
When Tehran submitted its official reaction on August 22, it
expressed a readiness for “serious talks,” even though it refuses to
meet one of the prerequisites for talks, namely, stopping enrichment.
This has yielded various reactions in different capitals.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on August
23 in Paris that Iran must cease the enrichment of uranium if it
wants to resume the nuclear negotiation process, LCI Television
reported. Douste-Blazy said, “I want to reiterate France’s
readiness to negotiate, but I repeat, as we’ve said before and as
Mr. Larijani knows full well, that a return to the negotiating table
is tied to the suspension of uranium-enrichment activities.”
The White House made clear on August 23 that it is
underwhelmed by the Iranian response to the international nuclear
proposal, RFE/RL reported. “The response,” White House spokeswoman
Dana Perino said, “falls short of the conditions set by the Security
Council which require the full and verifiable suspension of all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.” Perino said the
White House will consider the Iranian response, nevertheless, and it
is “closely consulting with the other members of the Security Council
on the next steps.” Anonymous “U.S. and European officials” said the
Iranian response does not fulfill UN Security Council Resolution 1696
— which calls for a cessation of uranium enrichment and reprocessing
activities — either, “The Wall Street Journal” reported on August
23. Their countries are deciding if they should push for sanctions
against Iran.
An anonymous Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said on
August 23, “China has always believed that seeking a peaceful
resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic talks is
the best choice [to solve the issue] and in the interests of all
parties concerned,” Xinhua reported. In Tehran on August 23, Foreign
Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said his country’s response
to the international proposal contains “very positive and transparent
signs,” IRNA reported.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in
Moscow on August 23 that the Iranian response to the international
proposal deserves careful attention, according to the ministry’s
website (). He referred to
possible “nuances” and “constructive elements.”
Also on August 23, a delegation of Iranian officials arrived
in order to inspect Russian nuclear facilities, RFE/RL and “The
Moscow Times” reported. The delegation includes Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran official Mahmud Jannatian, and it is expected to
visit the Kalininskaya nuclear power plant, located in the city of
Udomlia between Moscow and St. Petersburg. The power plant utilizes
the VVER-1000 reactor, which is the model installed at Bushehr in
southwestern Iran. Among the topics of discussion will be personnel
training and nuclear-fuel deliveries. The Iranians are expected to
visit Kalininskaya for two days and then go to another reactor
outside Moscow, RFE/RL reported. (Bill Samii)
IRAN MARKS RELIGIOUS DAY. Iran’s official Islamic Republic News
Agency (IRNA) congratulated the Iranian people on August 22, the day
of Mab’ath, which is the anniversary of the day that the Prophet
Muhammad had the first of his revelations. Some Iranians mark the
holiday by gathering in mosques and other holy places. August 22 also
coincides with Mi’raj, the day when the Prophet ascended to
heaven on a winged horse named Buraq.
Princeton University scholar Bernard Lewis noted the
religious significance of August 22 in an editorial in “The Wall
Street Journal” on August 8 in which he also noted it was the date by
which President Mahmud Ahmadinejad promised a response to the nuclear
proposal submitted to Iran by the international community. “This
might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending
of Israel and if necessary of the world,” Lewis wrote. He added a
cautionary note, however, saying, “It is far from certain that Mr.
Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22.”
(Bill Samii)
SUPREME LEADER’S ADVISER DISCOURAGES NUCLEAR CONCESSIONS. Former
Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who now serves as Supreme Leader
Ali Khamenei’s foreign policy adviser, said on August 22 that
Iran’s nuclear accomplishments are more important than the
adverse publicity they have garnered, the Iranian Students News
Agency (ISNA) reported. He therefore dismissed the international
pressure Iran faces, and he added that this is inevitable, saying,
“You can be sure that whatever we try to do in the sphere of advance
technology will be confronted by influential states in the world.”
Iran should disregard international pressure, he said, adding that
the nuclear issue is not open to “international debate.” (Bill Samii)
IRAN TESTS MISSILES DURING WAR GAMES. The Zarbat-i Zolfaqar war games
began on August 19 in Iran and are scheduled to take place in 16
provinces in the south, southwest, and west, RFE/RL and other news
agencies reported. The exercises could last up to five weeks,
Military Chief of Staff Brigadier General Musavi told state
television on August 17.
General Alireza Afshar, deputy commander for cultural affairs
and defense propaganda at the general headquarters of the armed
forces, said on August 17 that “the reason for conducting these war
games is to deter the enemy from daring to threaten or put pressure
on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Fars News Agency reported.
On August 20, spokesman Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari
told IRNA that the 250-kilometer-range Saqeh surface-to-surface
missile was tested successfully.
Brigadier General Mohammad Hussein Dadras, commander of the
regular ground forces, said in Zahedan on August 21 that the war
games are going well, IRNA reported. Ground forces are engaging
airplanes and helicopters, and unmanned aircraft have been used for
this as well. Speaking in Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Dadras said
other stages of the exercises will take place sequentially in 15
other provinces. Dadras went on to say that the Iranian military can
assess the strengths and weaknesses of its opponents, and it can
counter attacks with a variety of missiles. Turning to the nuclear
issue and the possibility of sanctions, Dadras said Iran owes its
current capabilities to the earlier imposition of sanctions. (Bill
Samii)
U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON IRAN FOUND LACKING. There are “significant gaps
in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern
about Iran,” according to an August 23 report from the U.S. House of
Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
( PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf).
Among the areas of interest, the report mentions Iran’s nuclear
weapons program, the question of chemical and biological weapons, and
the ballistic-missile threat. The report also considers Iranian
destabilization of Iraq and support for terrorism outside Iraq. The
report recommends improving analysis, improving coordination on
Iran-specific issues, and improving coordination on
counterproliferation issues. It calls for enhanced human intelligence
capabilities and augmented linguistic capabilities (“More staff who
speak Farsi at a native or professionally proficient level”). Other
recommendations are stronger counterintelligence efforts, the
definition of goals, and the development of metrics. (Bill Samii)
IRAN SEIZES ROMANIAN OIL RIG IN PERSIAN GULF. An Iranian naval vessel
opened fire on an offshore drilling rig belonging to the Romanian Oil
Services Group (Grup Servicii Petroliere; GSP), on August 22 and
arrested the crew, Rompres reported. The crew comprised 19 or 20
Romanian oil workers and seven Indian catering staff.
GSP press officer Radu Petrescu said the seizure relates to a
dispute over payment of fees. “For almost two years now we have been
operating with two oil rigs in the Persian Gulf for the Iranian oil
company, but in the last six months, our beneficiary defaulted on his
contractual clauses, specifically he failed to issue a new bank
letter of credit for the current year,” Petrescu said. The attack
came after the Romanians terminated the contract. Petrescu added that
a second rig, “Fortuna,” was towed to Sharjah safely a few days ago.
Petrescu said later that Iranian soldiers and police were
aboard the rig, as were representatives of the firms with which there
is a dispute — Oriental Oil and PetroIran.
Still later the same day, Iran’s ambassador to Bucharest,
Ali Akbar Farazi, was summoned to the Romanian Foreign Ministry and
told that the use of force to resolve a commercial dispute is
unacceptable, Rompres reported. Farazi said he has not succeeded in
obtaining information from Iran because of the national holiday.
Romanian presidential adviser Sergiu Medar said, “This is a
trade litigation, to which Iran has responded too toughly,”
Bucharest’s “Gandul” newspaper reported on August 23. GSP
Chairman Gabriel Comanescu said his firm will sue PetroIran,
“Evenimentuel Zilei” reported on August 23.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said on
August 23 that the affair has not been reported accurately, IRNA
reported. He said the Romanian company illegally removed some
drilling equipment, and the police foiled its plan to conduct “its
second robbery.”
An editorial in Bucharest’s “Ziua” daily on August 23
referred to “the first large-scale act of terrorism against our
country.”
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his Romanian counterpart,
Traian Basescu, held a telephone conversation on August 23 in which
they discussed the incident, state television and IRNA reported on
August 24. The two officials reportedly agreed that occasonal
misunderstandings of this sort are inevitable, and they also concured
that the incident will not harm the two countries’ relations.
Ahmadinejad reportedly assured his coutnerpart that this is merely a
commercial misunderstanding and is not an act of hostility against
Romania, Rompres reported.
According to Iranian television, GSP wanted to lease the oil
rig at rate that surpassed the existing contract, whereas PetroIran
claimed the three-year lease obviates a price hike. (Bill Samii)
HIZBALLAH ENVOY IN IRAN SAYS GROUP WON’T LEAVE SOUTH OR DISARM.
Speaking in Tehran on August 20, Lebanese Hizballah envoy Seyyed
Abdallah Safi-al-Din said his organization will disarm only when the
Lebanese government can guarantee that Israel will never attack
Lebanon again, Mehr News Agency reported. “But, so far no such
guarantees have been given,” he added. Several UN Security Council
resolutions call for the disarmament of all Lebanese militias.
Safi-al-Din said the most recent UN resolution — 1701 — is
“unjust.” The resolution also requires that only the Lebanese Army
and UN peacekeepers should be in southern Lebanon, but the Hizballah
envoy dismissed this, saying, “The deployment of the Lebanese army in
the south of the country will not prevent the presence of Hizballah
in the south.”
Safi-al-Din went on to mention the objective of destroying
Israel and said, “The Zionist regime is not a legitimate regime; its
government did not come into being in normal ways.” He said the
justification for Israel’s existence is its service as
America’s regional policeman, but its existence is no longer
justified because Israel was defeated in its conflict with Hizballah.
Lebanese Tourism Minister Joseph Sarkis, a member of the
Christian Lebanese Forces, believes Iran is discouraging Hizballah
from disarming, Argentina’s “La Nacion” newspaper reported on
August 22. Sarkis said Hizballah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah
should return his arsenal to Iran or make it part of the Lebanese
army. Sarkis said the Lebanese people oppose war — “Only Hizballah
wants it, and that is because Iran wants it.” He added, “[Hizballah]
destroyed the country with its war and now, with money from Iran, is
replacing the government and the State.”
Sheikh Nabil Qawuq, the Hizballah official in charge of the
Southern Lebanon region, thanked Iran on August 18 for “supporting
Lebanon’s right to resist,” Al-Manar television reported.
Speaking at a funeral for two Hizballah combatants and 27 civilians
in the village of Qana, he added, “We are proud that Iran stands by
the Lebanese people who are defending their land.”
The same day in Tehran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza
Assefi said, “The Iranian government’s cooperation with the
Lebanese government and that country’s resistance movement is
quite transparent and in accordance with the international norms and
relations among governments,” IRNA reported. Assefi said Iranian
support for Hizballah is “merely of humanitarian, spiritual, and
political nature, and that movement is needless of other types of
assistance.” (Bill Samii)
PARLIAMENT PASSES ANTICORRUPTION LEGISLATION. Legislation passed on
August 23 requires all state officials — including legislators,
managing directors, and judicial officials, as well as members of the
cabinet, Guardians Council, Expediency Council, and Assembly of
Experts — to submit annual financial statements to the State
Inspectorate, Radio Farda reported. Noted Iranian human rights
activist and lawyer Mehrangiz Kar told Radio Farda the measure seems
superficial, because the judiciary already has the authority to
prosecute corruption cases. She added that it is a sign of how bad
official corruption has become in the country. (Bill Samii)
IRAN SEEKS INVOLVEMENT IN NORWEGIAN ENERGY SECTOR. Iranian Deputy
Petroleum Minister Hadi Nejad-Husseinian met in Stavanger on August
21 with Norwegian Petroleum and Energy Minister Odd Roger Enoksen to
discuss the possibility of Iranian involvement in Norway’s oil
and gas sector, IRNA reported. Enoksen reportedly expressed a similar
interest in the Iranian energy sector. Norwegian firms such as Norsk
Hydro and Statoil are already developing Iran’s oil and gas
fields, while Norwegian energy-services firms are heavily involved
there, too. Helge Lund, Statoil’s chief executive officer, said
on August 21 that the South Pars gas field is his firm’s main
interest in Iran, Dow Jones Newswire reported. (Bill Samii)
GASOLINE IMPORTS REACH IRAN. The National Iranian Oil Company’s
managing director, Gholam Hussein Nozari, said on August 22 that a
$2.5 billion shipment of gasoline has reached Iran and this should be
enough for five months, Mehr News Agency reported. The Iranian
government recently decided against the imposition of gasoline
rationing despite heavy subsidies to keep gasoline prices low. (Bill
Samii)
HUNDREDS OF ISFAHAN TEXTILE WORKERS CLAIM BACK WAGES. Ebrahim
Fathian, who represents Isfahan Province workers, said on August 23
that 300 employees of the Rahimzadeh textile factory in Isfahan are
owed six months wages and benefits and 500 workers at the Simin-i No
textile factory in Isfahan have not been paid or received benefits
since March 21, the Iranian labor News Agency (ILNA) reported.
Fathian said the Rahimzadeh textile factory has not been able to pay
wages, buy raw materials, and resume production, because it has not
received the 15 million rial ($1,700) credit it was promised —
presumably by the central government. Fathian attributed the
situation to privatization and a downturn in the textile business.
(Bill Samii)
JAILED WRITER’S CONFESSION HAS A FAMILIAR RING TO IT. Iranian
officials say prominent writer and philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo has
confessed to pursuing nonviolent revolution in the country.
Colleagues and human rights activists had expressed concern when
Jahanbegloo was arrested in late April that he might be coerced into
a confession. Their fears were realized on August 17, when Iran’s
prosecutor-general was quoted as saying Jahanbegloo admitted to
plotting a “velvet revolution” and apologized for his “mistakes.”
This method has been used in the past by the Islamic republic in
order to discredit its critics.
Harvard- and Sorbonnes-educated Ramin Jahanbegloo is the most
prominent intellectual to have been arrested in Iran in the past
year.
A researcher on Iran for the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW),
Hadi Ghaemi, tells RFE/RL that the country’s judiciary is trying
to silence critics by charging Jahanbegloo with plotting against the
establishment: “The goal is to create fear among activists and
intellectuals in Iran so that they know that even someone like
Jahanbegloo — who was not involved in political issues — can be
charged with instigating a velvet revolution. They want others to be
careful.”
For many, Jahanbegloo’s detention and his “confessions”
in custody are reminders of a familiar pattern in the Islamic
republic’s clampdown on critics. Activists, journalists, and
intellectuals are jailed and denied access to lawyers or family
members.
Within a few weeks or months, they issue purported letters of
confession or appear on state television to confess and repent. Their
crimes often include attempting to overthrow the Islamic
establishment and maintaining ties with unspecified “enemies” of
Iran.
But many observers have questioned their authenticity. And
right advocates have rejected them as a farce.
Iranian activists have also come forward to expose the nature
of such “confessions,” drawing on their own experiences. They have
said that they were forced to make false confessions under extreme
duress.
Political prisoners have also claimed they were pressed into
writing letters incriminating themselves or confessing to charges as
dictated by their interrogators.
One case included several online journalists who were
arrested in 2004.
Weeks later, they appeared on television to say they had been
encouraged by foreign enemies to tarnish Iran’s image.
Five days later, in a meeting with government officials, they
retracted their confessions. They said they had been made were under
physical and psychological pressure.
Journalist and blogger Omid Memarian was among those who
withdrew their confessions. He tells RFE/RL that confessions by
prisoners under duress, and who are denied contact with the outside
world, are worthless: “Especially for intellectuals like journalists
and professors, prison is very destructive — their statements [under
custody] have no weight. They would say anything in order to free
themselves from the conditions they are facing. In solitary
confinement, individuals reach a point where they believe things can
never be normal again, so they repeat whatever the interrogators say.
I think that until Jahanbegloo is freed in a normal situation,
whatever he says has no legal value.”
News of Jahanbegloo’s “confessions” was first reported by
hard-line publications, including the newspaper “Resalat.”
That daily suggested in late July that a tape of the
confessions was being shown in what it described as “cultural
circles.”
“Resalat” claimed Jahanbegloo said he was in contact with
individuals in Canada and that he was on a mission to participate in
a Czechoslovak-style “velvet revolution” in Iran.
Weeks later, Prosecutor-General Qorbanali Dori-Najafabadi
announced in mid-August that Jahanbegloo had acknowledged his
involvement in a revolutionary plot.
Some have speculated that Jahanbegloo’s confessions might
be shown on television.
A spokesman for Iran’s hard-line judiciary, Jamal
Karimirad, recently suggested as much to journalists.
Prosecutor-General Dori-Najafabadi then claimed that
Jahanbegloo had agreed to the broadcasting of his confessions. He
added cryptically that “whether they are [actually] broadcast or not
is another matter.”
Journalist and former prisoner Memarian insists Iranian
officials are testing the waters: “As in past years, news of the
confessions is first spread through certain circles; then they check
with society to gauge reactions. Then, based on those reactions and a
calculation of its pros and cons, they broadcast it. It’s the
same now. It seems that officials who are behind [Jahanbegloo’s
confessions] have not learned their lesson. The topic of coerced
confessions has really lost its effect, and people don’t believe
it. I think it actually harms the judiciary.”
Human Rights Watch’s Ghaemi says he thinks broadcasting
the confessions will further damage Iran and its credibility on human
rights issues: “I think there are individuals inside the Iranian
[establishment] who know that these confessions do not solve any
problem. In fact, it has been proven that they are not credible and
have no validity. So maybe those who think about it logically know
that no one will be convinced — it will only damage the human rights
situation in Iran and the way [Iran] is viewed abroad.”
Jahanbegloo’s arrest has been condemned by human rights
groups, who have called for his release.
The European Union and Canada have expressed concern over his
fate.
Activists in Iran, the United States, Britain, and several
other countries held a three-day hunger strike in July to call for
the immediate release of Jahanbegloo and all of Iran’s political
prisoners.
Jahanbegloo is a noted scholar who has published books in
several languages on issues that include modernity in Iran, and
Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi and his teachings on
nonviolent resistance. He also has interviewed international figures,
including the Dalai Lama. (Golnaz Esfandiari)
************************************* ********************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.
The “RFE/RL Iran Report” is a weekly prepared by A. William Samii on
the basis of materials from RFE/RL broadcast services, RFE/RL
Newsline, and other news services. It is distributed every Monday.
Direct comments to A. William Samii at [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at
Technic al queries should be e-mailed to: [email protected]
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
Send an e-mail to [email protected]
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE
Send an e-mail to [email protected]
NEWS BROADCASTS ONLINE
Listen to Radio Farda broadcasts daily on our website:
PERSIAN-LANGUA GE BROADCASTS ON SHORTWAVE. Local shortwave broadcast
frequencies are available on the Persian Service website:
_______________ ______________________________________________
RAD IO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
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:
In a letter to the UN General Secretary
“THE PRESENCE OF TURKISH PEACEKEEPERS IN THE SOUTH OF LEBANON
IS MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE”
Said His Holiness ARAM I
Expressing the concern of the Armenian community of Lebanon in a letter
addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of the United Nations,
His Holiness Aram I strongly questiond the presence of Turkish forces as
part of the UN peacekeepers in south of Lebanon. He said “How can a state
play a peacekeeping role when the culture of massacre and the ruthless
killing of innocent women and children are part of its political culture?
How can a nation that denies its illegitimate occupation of one part of
Cyprus come to defend the land and the people of Lebanon?”. His Holiness
considers the Turkish participation in a peacekeeping mission “morally
unacceptable”.
His Holiness has reminded the General Secretary that the Armenian community,
which was settled in Lebanon after the Armenian Genocide in 1915, will never
accept “the eligibility of the army of a country that has a profoundly
negative record on implementing justice and human rights”.
##
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

California Courier Online, August 31, 2006
1 – Commentary
Exploiting Israel’s Attack on Lebanon
Turks Unleash Anti-Semitic Statements
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
2 – AUA to Mark 15th Anniversary
With Nov. 12 Banquet in L.A.
3 – Shahnazarian is Inducted into RV Hall of Fame
4 – Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
Meeting Plans Joint Educational Programs
5- AMAA Acquires New Headquarters in Yerevan
6 – Area Residents Oppose AGBU High School
7 – USC Armenian Institute Hosts
Eye-Opening Judges’ Forum
8 – Sept. 12 Discussion in Glendale
Focuses on Armenia’s Economy
9 – Luna Playhouse to Open in Glendale
With Lilly Thomassian’s New Play
********************************************* *********************
1 – Commentary
Exploiting Israel’s Attack on Lebanon
Turks Unleash Anti-Semitic Statements

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Israel’s month-long attack on Lebanon has justifiably angered most people
around the globe. There has been an almost universal condemnation of Israel’s
massive and often indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Lebanon.

In some countries, however, anti-Semites have exploited this human tragedy to
vent their fury, not just at Israel, but Jews in general. In Turkey, for
example, where there has been widespread and long-lasting anti-Semitism among
large segments of the population, Turkish leaders and commentators not only
criticized the Israeli attacks, but went further, comparing Israel’s actions to that
of Hitler and even questioned the veracity of the Holocaust.

The Turkophile British magazine, The Economist, in its August 5 issue,
reported the upsurge of anti-Semitism in Turkey. The article quoted the finding by
the Pew Global Attitudes Survey that “only 15% of Turks look kindly upon Jews,”
which reflects the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism, not limited to the views
of a few Turkish crackpots and racists.

According to The Economist, an increasing number of Jews say “they no longer
feel secure in Turkey, and recently, some community leaders have received
death threats. Fears began growing after Turkish suicide bombers with links to
al-Qaeda blew up two synagogues in Istanbul in 2003. Anti-Semitic literature,
including Hitler’s Mein Kampf, has recently appeared in many bookstores across
Turkey.

Here are a few quotations from the thousands of such anti-Semitic statements
published in the Turkish press in recent weeks:
— Israel is carrying out state terror and genocide, turning Palestine into a
concentration camp, and doing what Hitler did to the.” (Sami Hocaoglu in Yeni
Shafak, July 14);
— Calling Jews “animals would be an insult to animals — they are creatures
lower than the animals.” (Hasan Karakaya in Vakit, Aug. 1);
— “This racist, selfish, greedy, crazed, pervert state [Israel] is a tragic
bad luck for the world. There is no sin that they have not committed, no
massacre that they haven’t carried out, no evil that they haven’t done, no piece of
earth that they haven’t sown seeds of mischief.”(Ibrahim Karagul in Yeni
Shafak, Aug. 1);
— “The terrorist Israeli state, the whore of the USA in the Middle East,
displays scenes of atrocity. Will you bring democracy to the Middle East with the
Israeli Terror Organization which in fact is the bastard of Hitler?” (Mehmet
Ocaktan in Yeni Shafak, Aug. 2);
— The Israelis “have turned into a fascist, racist and Nazi executioner,
while once they themselves were the victims.” (Umur Talu in Sabah, Aug. 3);
— “Even Adolf Hitler did not conduct the monstrous acts displayed by Israel.
If an anti-Semitic wave rises in the world, it will be the Zionist Jewish
monsters and their overseas boss responsible for it.” (Selahaddin Cakirgil in
Vakit, Aug. 3);
— “It is Jewish propaganda that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. It is a lie by
Zionist Jews. If Hitler were resurrected he would say: ‘It was a lie that I
killed innocent Jews. You look at what they are doing now. Wouldn’tt it have
been better if I totally exterminated the ancestors of these monsters?” (Ali
Eren in Vakit, Aug. 3);
— “The cruelty and inhuman acts of Israel in the Middle East has outdone the
cruelty of Hitler.” (Huseyin Tanriverdi, Parliament member representing Prime
Minister Erdogan’s ruling party, in Yeni Shafak, Aug. 3);
— “Israel is taking the revenge of the Holocaust by Hitler from the innocent
people in the region.” (Mehmet Elkatmis, representing the ruling party and
Chairman of the Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, in Hurriyet, Aksam, and
Zaman, Aug. 4);
— Jews are carrying out “more atrocities on poor Palestinians than Hitler
did on Jews. Israel is a small, but malign tumor spreading to all humanity by
metastasis.” (Huseyin Uzmez in Vakit, Aug. 8).

The above statements clearly expose the Turkish government’s lie that Turkey
is a friend of Israel. As the Pew survey showed, 85% of the Turkish public
harbors hostile feelings towards Jews. By feigning friendship with Israel,
Turkish leaders have succeeded in getting some Jews to lobby for Turkey’s interests
in the U.S. Congress.

Israeli officials and American-Jewish leaders have long been aware of the
prevalence of anti-Semitism in Turkey and have even criticized it both publicly
and privately from time to time. However, instead of taking strict measures to
condemn and counter Turkish anti-Semitism, these Jewish leaders have
shamelessly continued to do the bidding of the Turkish government in lobbying on behalf
of Turkey in Washington.

Amazingly, Barry Rubin, a former lobbyist for the Israeli government and
editor of the Turkish Studies journal, as recently as two weeks ago, wrote: “One
of the greatest achievements of the Israel lobby, on an issue which often does
not get high-profile attention, is to push for a pro-Turkish policy in the
United States.”

If, after all of the above racist Turkish statements, Israeli and American
Jewish officials continue to brag about their lobbying efforts on behalf of
Turkey, then they are just as guilty in the propagation of anti-Semitism as the
Turkish anti-Semites themselves!
************************************* *************************************
2 – AUA Will Celebrate Anniversary
With Nov. 12 Banquet in L.A.
LOS ANGELES – The American University of Armenia will celebrate its 15th
anniversary with a Gala Banquet Nov. 12 at the Sheraton Universal Hotel in Los
Angeles.
Former California Governor George Deukmejian will be honorary chair for an
eventful day of celebration.
The Gala honors Jerry and Pat Turpanjian, and Vartkes and Jean Barsam. The
program chairman is AUA Trustee Sinan Sinanian.
The weekend commences on Saturday morning with a Board of Trustees meeting,
gaveled by Dr. Rory Hume, new Senior Vice President and Provost of the
University of California and incoming AUA Board of Trustees Chairman.
The AUA is sponsored through the generosity of the AGBU and by private
contributions from concerned individuals around the world, who understand the
importance of western education to the future of Armenia.
Fifteenth Anniversary sponsorship opportunities, which will be acknowledged
in program announcements and booklets, are available by contacting Maggie Mead
at 510-987-9125.
************************************************** ***********************
3 – Shahnazarian is Inducted into RV Hall of Fame
By Marilyn Odendahl
The Truth
ELKHART, IN – Leon Shahnasarian introduced modern refrigerators to the
recreational vehicle industry at a time when most manufacturers were still
installing heavy insulated boxes that were cooled with large blocks of ice. Showing
trailer and motorhome makers the new appliance as well as how to properly install
it, he brought a technological advancement to the industry that, in turn,
attracted more families to the RV lifestyle.
His contribution should have earned him induction into the RV/MH Hall of Fame
in the 1980s but somehow he was never nominated and many in the new
generation now running the RV industry are not familiar with the work of the lanky
Armenian.
But Shahnasarian is not angry. These days he and Mary, his wife of 53 years,
live in a quiet neighborhood in a house filled with treasures they’ve picked
up from their travels around the world. Hearing a rap of knuckles on the front
door, the couple will warmly welcome any visitor into their home for an
afternoon of conversation, games and music.
“That’s what my life was, enjoying as much as we can,” Shahnasarian said.
Shahnasarian will receive the long overdue recognition when he is formally
inducted into the RV/MH Hall of Fame. He is among the 12 members in the Class of
2006.
“He did great things,” said Al Hasselbart, historian at the Recreational
Vehicle/Manufactured Housing Museum and Hall of Fame. “He is a deserving giant
from Elkhart.”
Shahnasarian was a young immigrant in his late 20s when he founded the
company Instamatic and started traveling around his new homeland peddling a
wall-mounted water heater. It was a device he had become familiar with while living in
Germany and when he and his family settled into a coldwater flat in
Providence, R.I., in 1950, he saw a potential market for the water heaters.
His salesman duties brought him to Zolinger Camping Trailers in Elkhart,
where the owner of the company told him the recreational vehicle industry needed
better refrigerators than the iceboxes that were being used.
The young man enlisted the help of his father, George, and the two began
searching for gas and gas-electric refrigerators that could be used in RVs. They
soon signed a 10-year contract with the Electrolux Co., which extended the
father and son business team three months of credit.
The Swedish company named the refrigerator Dometic and from 1957 to 1967, the
Instamatic-Dometic company served the RV industry. Selling the product was
not enough. Shahnasarian noted he sent employees all over the country to teach
the manufacturers how to place the unit inside the RV so it was level and the
air circulated properly.
Shahnasarian noted he sent employees all over the country to teach the
manufacturers how to place the unit inside the RV so it was level and the air
circulated properly.
Shahnasarian attributed his company’s ability to build a customer base in
part to the three-month credit agreement. The unusual beginning to the business
relationship came about because of the “excellent reputation” his father had
earned among European companies.
Recalling his father and his family’s “escapes” from Stalin’s and Hitler’s
armies still takes Shahnasarian to the brink of tears. After the Shahnasarian
family fled its home near the Black Sea to the Baltic region following the 1917
Russian Revolution, George Shahnasarian joined his brother-in-law’s automobile
distributorship and became general manager of the operation.
The family had to flee again in the mid-1940s when the Soviet appeared poised
to invade the Baltic States.This time they landed in Germany and a couple of
years later they sailed to America.
When the 10-year contract with Electrolux came due, Shahnasarian sought to
renew but the firm wanted the new American market all to itself.
With a payroll of over 100 employees in Elkhart, Shahnasarian dropped the
Dometic name, reinstated Instamatic and, with his cousin, the late Edward
Shahnasarian, built refrigerators along with roof-mounted air conditioners, gas
heaters and wall-mounted water heaters for RVs.
“We had customers; we had commitments so I decided to start producing
myself,” Shahnasarian said.
Eventually, he sold Instamatic to Magnavox.
At 82 years old, Shahnasarian now spends his days with his wife and family
and friends. He also keeps a small digital camera close at hand so he is always
prepared to snap a photo of a moment he does not want to forget.
****************************************** ********************************
4 – Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
Meeting Plans Joint Educational Programs
LOS ANGELES – The Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches of the Western United
States held their regular meeting at St. Mary’s Coptic Orthodox Church in
Eagle Rock on Aug. 14.
Participating in the meeting were Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate,
Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, Primate, Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox
Church, Archbishop Mor Clemis Eugene Kaplan of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and
members of the clergy order. Also present was Bishop Nareg Alemezian,
Ecumenical Officer of the Holy See of Cilicia, who was in Los Angeles for a brief
visit to the Western Prelacy.
Among the items on the agenda was the possibility of future joint ventures.
It was decided that a one-day spiritual gathering for Sunday School students
would take place under the auspices of the Oriental Orthodox Council Bishops.
The gathering is to be held on Oct. 28, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at Archangel
Michael Coptic Orthodox Church.
Students ages 8-15 will participate in the gathering, where there will be a
joint morning services, and an educational program, among other activities.
In the past, the Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches has organized joint
Holy Mass, seminars, and the Sunday School Bible competition that took place on
May 13, hosted by Archbishop Mardirossian at St. Mary’s Armenian Church in
Glendale.
********’****************************** ***********************************
5 – AMAA Acquires New Headquarters in Yerevan
YEREVAN – A major transaction was consummated recently when the Armenian
Missionary Association of America (AMAA) purchased the former U.S. Embassy
building in Armenia from the U.S. State Department.
Plans are already underway to convert the existing buildings into the AMAA
central headquarters for all of Armenia, Karabagh, Georgia, and Russia.
Negotiations had been in progress for more than a year and a half when AMAA
Executive Director Andrew Torigian made a special trip to Armenia to seal the
purchase agreement.
The embassy complex occupies almost an acre of prime land on Baghramian
Street. Known also as Embassy Row, Baghramian Street is Yerevan’s equivalent of
Fifth Avenue.
The office of the Armenian President is but a few blocks away.
Transforming the embassy buildings to AMAA’s needs will require considerable
effort and cost. For example, an existing auditorium will be redesigned to
serve as an Armenian Evangelical church, as well as for secular events.
In the meantime, however, it will be the site of a major celebration marking
the 160th anniversary of the Armenian Evangelical Church.
In addition to offices, the complex will house the AMAA Evangelical
Theological Academy and the Nerses and Arpine Aynilian Medical Center, serving all
needy Armenians without charge. Further, the AMAA will administer all of its
orphan and needy child support programs, currently serving more than 2,800
children throughout Armenia, plus its milk program which helps nourish over 1,000
infants.
Ample space will be designated for Christian education programs, Bible study,
and the coordination of AMAA’s several humanitarian projects for Armenia and
Karabagh.
*************************************** ***********************************
6 – Area Residents Oppose AGBU High School
By Cortney Fielding
Pasadena Star-News
PASADENA – Negative reaction to a new Armenian high school in Pasadena has
organizers asking “What’s so bad about a school?”
Residents in the Victory Park area have mobilized against the Armenian
General Benevolent Union High School, which they say will bring significant noise,
traffic and other disruptions to their neighborhood.
Members of the Mountain Park Villa Condominiums Homeowners Association
contend the AGBU kept them in the dark about plans to open Sept. 12. They are now
questioning the organization’s right to operate on a site originally approved as
a church elementary school.
“Teenagers are not little kids – they can cause a lot of noise and mischief,”
said former association board member Loraine Bernstein. “I’m very hesitant.”
Fifty students in grades nine through 11 are already registered for the
private college preparatory school’s inaugural year, school officials said.
Administrators say they anticipate adding a 12th grade and expanding to 100 students
in upcoming years. The school’s permit allows for up to 200 students.
The AGBU, a national social and educational organization that promotes
Armenian heritage, has owned the land at 2495 E. Mountain St. for more than 10
years, but has rented much of the space to the Living Waters Christian Fellowship,
which operates an elementary school. They’ve thus far used the building for
social gatherings and group functions.
At a meeting with residents Monday night, AGBU Chairman Vahe Imasdounian said
he wanted to build excitement for the private school, which he said will add
to the quality and value of the neighborhood.
In addition to cleaning out and remodeling the building, Imasdounian said the
school will also see extensive landscaping, in addition to being gated.
“Whatever it takes,” he said. “We want to make this neighborhood better and
better.”
But tensions mounted when neighbors peppered him and other AGBU members with
questions about where cars would park, where parents would drop and pick up
students, and how they would control teenagers from walking through their
property and causing disruption.
Residents also cited a decade-old incident that occurred on-site during an
AGBU party, when a fight resulted in reported gunfire, and a security guard had
to be hospitalized.
The incident, Imasdounian said, occurred “so long ago, and a lot has changed
since then.”
He vowed to ensure the school, which will eventually cost $12,000 in annual
tuition, runs smoothly and causes no disruptions.
“Discipline comes first at our school,” he said.
After the meeting, AGBU director Haig Messerlian asked homeowners association
president Karen Lindsey what was wrong about starting a school in a
neighborhood.
“The residents don’t want a high school here,” she replied.
But Lindsey also said the meeting was a positive step toward opening
communication, and she would continue to work with the group. “It’s a start,
definitely,” she said.
******************************************** ******************************
7 – USC Armenian Institute Hosts
Eye-Opening Judges’ Forum
LOS ANGELES – Over 150 guests were present on Aug. 13 at the USC campus
where, hosted by the USC Institute of Armenian Studies and the Armenian Bar
Association, an Armenian-American Federal Judges’ Forum was presented by a panel of
six Armenian-American District Court and Superior Court Judges.
Senior Federal District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian moderated the panel
that included Federal Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, of the US District Court,
Illinoism US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian, Central District of California;
L.A. Superior Court judges Zaven V. Sinanian, Alice E. Altoon, and Ronald M.
Sohigian.
Present in the audience were members of the Armenian Bar Association,
Armenian-American attorneys, undergraduate and law students, and members of the
Armenian community.
Welcoming the attendees were Charles Ghailian, Chair of the Institute of
Armenian Studies Leadership Council, and Frank Zerunyan, Chair of Armenian Bar
Association’s Board of Governors.
At the end of the proceedings, USC College Dean Peter Starr and his wife,
Judge Alice Hill, were introduced by USC Institute of Armenian Studies Director,
Professor R. Hrair Dekmejian. Dean Starr acknowledged the impressive
accomplishments of the Institute in a very short time and expressed his full commitment
to its future endeavors.
Issues addressed during the presentations included some of the major concerns
of the Armenian community, including immigration, gangs, elder abuse, ethnic
assimilation and careers in the legal profession.
Among the notable topics were Judge Sinanian’s discussion regarding
misperceptions about incarcerated Armenians and the need for empirical evidence; Judge
Altoon’s recommendation to provide mentoring to younger gang members of
Armenian descent; and Judge Chooljian’s comments about elder abuse and the need for
counseling programs. Judge Sohigian’s suggestion that the Institute determine
an appropriate public position with regard to ethnic generalizations was very
relevant as the next generation assimilates into the American culture. Judge
Der-Yeghiayan’s comments about the importance of Armenian leadership and
student involvement could not have been stated to a more receptive audience.
The Judges’ Forum concluded with a reception.
The USC Institute is committed to providing future venues of research on the
matters discussed at the Forum in order to confront problems facing the
Armenian community.
The Institute’s next major event will be AGBU – In its Second Century – A
Centennial Symposium, to be presented by the AGBU Southern California District
Committee in cooperation with the USC Institute, on October 28, at the USC Town
and Gown.
For more information on all Institute’s events, contact 213-821-3943 or
[email protected]
************************ **************************************************
8 – Sept. 12 Discussion in Glendale
Focuses on Armenia’s Economy
LOS ANGELES -The Armenian Engineers and Scientists of America, ARPA
Institute, Armenian Professional Society, and Friends of Armenia will host a Sept. 12
discussion on advancing Armenia’s economy through science and technology
development, at the Glendale Central Library in Glendale, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
The event will feature presenters from the National Foundation of Science
and Advanced Technologies (NFSAT) of Armenian and the U.S. Civilian Research &
Development Foundation (CRDF).
Featured speakers include: Dr. Harut Karapetyan, Chairman, NFSAT. As the
only independent institution working on science & technology issues in Armenia,
NFSAT has distributed more than $3 million via merit-based grant competitions
since 1997 to strengthen the science and technology sector in Armenia and to
reform how research and development is supported; John Modzelewski, Program
Director, CRDF. A congressionally-authorized nonprofit organization based in
Arlington, VA, CRDF has worked to promote Armenia’s science and technology
development-the centerpiece of which has been nearly a decade of cooperation with
NFSAT.
Contact Areg Gharabegian for more information about this event at (626)
440-6047, [email protected]
********************* ************************************************** ***
9- Luna Playhouse to Open in Glendale
With Lilly Thomassian’s New Play
GLENDALE – Having overcome all difficulties – including the necessity of
building four toilets for a 40-seat theatre – the directors of Glendale’s newest
theatre are about to open the doors of Luna Playhouse on San Fernando Road
(corner of Brand Blvd.)
This theatre will serve as a progressive and vibrant center for performing
arts in Glendale. It will cater for all of the population of the area around it
by producing plays in English, Armenian, Spanish, Farsi, Russian, and any
other language in which actors perform plays. There will also be a company
attached to the playhouse specializing in Irish drama.
There will also be poetry readings, book events, music, singing and dance.
The first play, to open in early September, is “THIRST” by Lilly Thomassian.
It is a drama set in a mythical land, that deals with the subject of war- the
reasons why it happens and the effects it has even on its most committed
supporters.
The play is designed and directed by the second of Luna Playhouse directors
Maro Parian.
The next play in the program is the political satire “In the Name of the
People and the Fatherland” by Gevork Sarkissian. It is adapted and directed by
Aramazd Stepanian. The Armenian version will open in late September and the
English version by October, 2006.
For additional information on Luna Playhouse, contact: Lilly Thomassian (818)
261-7127.
*************************************** ***********************************
The California Courier On-Line is a service provided by the California
Courier. Subscriptions or changes of address should not be transmitted through this
service. Information in that regard should be telephoned to (818) 409-0949;
faxed to: (818) 409-9207, or e-mailed to: [email protected]. Letters to the
editor concerning issues addressed in the Courier may be e-mailed, provided it
is signed by the author. Phone and/or E-mail address is also required to verify
authorship.
************************************* *************************************

Nuclear Iran
The Atlantic recently asked a group of foreign-policy authorities about
Iran’s nuclear quest
The Atlantic Monthly
September 2006
The Agenda
Poll
Special extended Web version
Do you believe there is any set of incentives and economic sanctions
that could persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear weapons?
63%Yes
37%No
`Yes. Economic pressure can have a major impact on Tehran’s calculations,
given the demands of a young population. Such pressure would have to
include a ban on investment in the energy sector, and possibly an oil
embargo, to have the desired effect. And it would have to be coupled to a
clear economic and diplomatic rewards to provide the right incentives.’
`Yes, sort of – that is, I think they would be prepared to suspend [their
nuclear program], but hold on to enough capabilities to hedge against
unfavorable developments and restart it.’
`Yes. Iran is likely to insist on keeping a ‘research’ program that
preserves a small-scale, low-grade enrichment capability. But the right
package can forestall Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons.’
`If the question is to persuade Iran to permanently abandon their quest,
the answer is no. If the question is to persuade Iran [not to seek]
nuclear weapons capability now (but with a capacity to move in that
direction in the future), I think the answer is yes.’
`A grand bargain with the United States might persuade Tehran to stop just
short of building the bomb. But neither [Iranian President Mahmoud]
Ahmadinejad nor the mullahs will sign any deal that requires Iran to shut
down its nuclear program. And any grand bargain will require Washington to
recognize Tehran as a major regional player.’
`Yes. There is a fifty percent chance that a grand bargain that includes
all carrots and sticks could persuade to postpone not give up – [their
nuclear program] for a period, say 5 years after which [it will be]
another issue.’
`Yes, but I think the important part of a package would be incentives,
including some form of security guarantees. I doubt that the threat of
economic sanctions is going to be all that much of a motivating force for
the Iranian leaders. The rest of the world is unlikely to be able to
boycott Iranian oil with much effect.’
`Give up? No. Postpone or delay? Yes. While a few countries, [having] once
embarked on the quest for nuclear weapons, have indeed decided to abandon
that quest when they concluded it was not in their interests. This
certainly includes Sweden, South Africa and Libya. Others have decided
that circumstances made it in their present interest to delay or postpone
an effort, but not to forsake forever such a quest. These countries,
Japan, Brazil and a few others, have kept the option available, usually
under the guise of a peaceful nuclear power program. Iran, at best, can be
moved to this second category of states.’
`Yes or no answers are difficult for these questions. My ‘Yes’ answer for
this question is very tentative. An absolutely solid set of highly
restrictive economic sanctions applied by all, or nearly all, nations
would over time force Iran to its knees. But it is highly unlikely that
such sanctions would ever be universally agreed or applied. The threat of
military action could work if it came from an alliance of nations
including the US, the UK, France, Germany, and Russia (or most of the
above). But the threat would have to be credible, and used if necessary.
Again, the ability to put such an alliance together is nil – at least at
this time.’
`No. However, a set of very strong incentives could lead Iran to slow the
program considerably to avoid further provocations. Tehran would still
seek nuclear weapons, but the problem would be put off for a while.’
`No, nothing to give up its quest but they may be willing to suspend
indefinitely or to maintain a highly inspected and monitored research
capability.’
`No, not with this regime.’
`No. I don’t believe the Europeans would make sanctions credible enough to
convince the Iranians that there’s really an ‘or else’ out there.’
`No. Iran has too much invested in its nuclear program. Even if, like
North Korea, it signed an accord, it would violate it.’
`Yes. (I note, however, that you have ‘loaded the question’ by assuming
that Iran is on a ‘quest for nuclear weapons’. There are other possible
explanations for what is going on, including prestige, regional influence,
a belief in the ‘right’ to be scientifically advanced, and getting our
goat – although you may indeed be right. Making that assumption at this
point necessarily pushes analysis in particular directions). The
incentives? In addition to the prospect of a lifting of all sanctions and
re-admission into the league of civilized nations, incentives should focus
on a U.S. offer of security guarantees for Iranian good behavior, the
latter defined in terms of a) no bomb; 2) open inspections; and 3) no more
support for Hezbollah or other terrorist groups. The fact that we will not
make such an offer (and ignored credible Iranian feelers on a ‘grand
bargain’ in 2003 – an event only marginally covered in the US press and
dismissed out of hand by the Administration) has dismayed the Europeans,
who have set as a key goal getting us to make this offer. Would it work?
Who can tell until we try; and if it does not, then we will be better able
to build genuine support among the Europeans for sanctions, etc. Indeed,
the fact that we will not put the security issue on the table only plays
into the hands of those in the Iranian leadership who would like to get
the bomb, if only for deterrence purposes. Economic sanctions? That would
just arm those in Teheran who would like Iran to thumb its nose at the
West and go hell-bent for a bomb.’
If Iran were to build nuclear weapons, do you think it would likely do any
of the following:
A. Support terrorism more aggressively, from behind a nuclear shield, with
the goal of further spreading the Islamic revolution?
58% Yes
42% No
`No. Iran’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons is driven principally by a
defensive need to deter attack and secondarily by the desire to be
recognized as a major regional power.’
`No. I think they will make that calculation whether or not they have
nuclear weapons.’
`No. They are already supporters of terrorism. Possession of nuclear
weapons is unlikely to give them an added ability to do so.’
`Doubtful, that is, ‘no.’ The Islamic Revolution is pretty much played
out, and you don’t spread revolution through the barrel of a (nuclear)
gun. It doesn’t work. And opponents can use counter techniques that stay
below the level at which an Iranian bomb could rationally be employed.’
`We need to find them an excuse to NOT pursue nuclear weapons [using]
diplomatic, security, economic, and energy incentives!’
`Yes. However, Iran’s goals would range from reducing U.S. influence to
engaging in a strategic rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Spreading the
revolution would be one goal of many, and not the most important one.’
B. Seek to drive up oil prices by bullying other OPEC members, closing the
Strait of Hormuz, or taking other actions for its economic gain?
65% No
35% Yes
`No. They are unlikely to be able to ‘bully’ enough other OPEC members to
have significant influence on oil prices.’
`No. I don’t think nuclear weapons will change their basic economic
behavior vis-à-vis oil production and transportation.’
`No. If Iran were to come to the conclusion that higher oil prices were in
its national interest we have given it far less risky options to
accomplish this. The failure of the US to put in place any national energy
policy other than convincing producers to hold US Treasuries and keep
pumping has left us with an oil market that will continue to teeter on the
brink of higher prices and lurch from one supply crisis to another. It can
do this now. If it has chosen not to do so, it is because it has learned
the lessons of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, – sudden surges in oil prices can be
as destructive to the societies of producers as to the economies of
consumers. And the lessons of Gazprom that addiction gives you more real,
continuing power – and even a German Chancellor – whereas a naked display
of that power can be costly.’
`Doubtful. Iran has to live in the same world with the other oil
producers, it has an interest in a stable market place (at a high price
for oil, of course), and a bomb will not protect it from economic and
other countermeasures.’
`Yes. But only in response to coercive measures undertaken by the
international community.’
`Yes. Iran might bully OPEC members or be more aggressive in its foreign
policy. Closing the Strait [of Hormuz] would hurt Iran tremendously,
however, and it would not do this except in very dire circumstances.’
`Yes, of course. Simply posturing about nuclear weapons is a big economic
gain for Iran because it drives up oil prices.’
C. Use its nuclear weapons offensively, either by directly attacking other
countries or by passing the weapons to terrorist groups?
86% No 14% Yes
`I would say no to all three of these possibilities, unless we attack
them.’
`No, but I am not as certain as I would like to be.’
`No. Iran can be deterred from doing so by the certain knowledge of
devastating retaliation.’
`No. They will face very credible nuclear deterrence from the US and
Israel.’
`No. Iran has had chemical weapons for twenty years now and has not passed
them to terrorists – upping the stakes and passing a nuclear weapon would be
highly unlikely.’
`No. I think they will closely parallel the Chinese approach to nuclear
weapons – as the ultimate symbol of superpower status and political might,
but not as a war-fighting asset. I think we can deal with a nuclear Iran
through traditional methods of deterrence.’
`No. Nuclear weapons will make Iran more confident and perhaps more
influential, but not necessarily more irresponsible. Certainly that has
not been the effect of such capacity upon any other nuclear power. The
U.S. will be able to deter Iran from any use of its nuclear capacity
against the U.S. and its allies. Of course Iran will to a much lesser
degree also be able to deter the U.S.’
`The questions miss the point. Iran would attempt to exploit the
possession of nuclear weapons for purposes of prestige, rather than any
immediate concrete or exceptionally well-defined objectives.’
`No. Nobody even halfway rational and the Iranians are not irrationals
going to pass nuclear weapons to anyone else, much less a terrorist group
that might just attack the country that gave it the bomb. Offensive use of
the bomb would be ridiculous, even as a cover for a non-nuclear attack,
because Iran would be destroyed in the process. And who would let it get
to the point that it would have a true second-strike deterrent? Let’s face
it: for Iran, a bomb would be a political white elephant just as Qaddafi
concluded except perhaps to show it could build the bomb and to exert some
more influence in the region. But it would become even more of a pariah
state, it would be surrounded by Sen. John Warner’s ‘ring of deterrence,’
and it would find that it had got itself a bad deal. I do not want to live
in a world where Iran has the bomb, if only because of the uncertainties
that that would pose; but that is different from saying that a bomb would
free Iran from all constraints to behave within very severe limits in a
part of the world where reasonable behavior is a price for doing
business.’
`Yes. [Iran] is not building nuclear weapons as Christmas tree ornaments.’
`Yes – the real fear is [for Iran] to, at some point at least, give
nuclear know-how and equipment to terrorist allies. This might fall short
of “passing the weapons to terrorist groups” but falls long on the scale
of danger.’
`This is the real question! Most analysts will say that history shows that
possession of nuclear weapons makes states more risk adverse and
interested in stability. Classic case is the loss of revolutionary zeal in
China after it crossed the threshold. But the real question is whether
Iran is like all other states or does it believe that it has a divine
mission whose accomplishment may well require massive destruction – even its
own. The awful truth is that no one knows the answer to this question. We
do not know it, not because we have a broken intelligence service that is
incapable of penetrating Tehran’s inner sanctums – although that is probably
true. We do not know the answer to this question because it is a battle
that is on-going in Iran itself and the answer belongs to the unknown
future not to the hidden, secret present. This leads me to the conclusion
that YES it is possible that Iran might indeed might in one way or the
other directly, actually use its nuclear weapons that we must do
everything in our power and interests to delay, postpone and deny it the
acquisition of these weapons.’
`Once again, your choices do not exhaust the possibilities. Would it
increase Iranian influence and stature? Yes. Would it tend to make them
bolder and more assertive in foreign policy in ways that may not be
predictable? Yes. Will it have the effect of making other powers in the
region seek to shore up their own arsenals? Yes.’
`No to all three, but frankly, the questions as stated miss the point.
Whether it is likely to do so or not (more than a fifty percent chance) is
less important than whether there is a reasonable chance that it might
(zero to fifty percent) and the answer to each is yes. That makes it a
sufficiently serious threat. Moreover, it could act aggressively in other
ways not contemplated in the question that should concern us – e.g. meddling
in Iraq more, funding and supporting Palestinian extremists more
aggressively [from] behind a nuclear shield without broader intent to
foment Islamic Revolution, or transferring technology (but not actual
weapons) to others that are equally threatening to US interests.’
`The biggest negatives of Iran succeeding in realizing their nuclear
ambitions are: First, triggering a ‘cascade of proliferation’ as imagined
in the recent UN high level commission report, where countries like Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, and Syria would form a multi-party arms race in the Middle
East certain to increase instability in an already-unstable region and
would likely to lead to some use of nuclear weapons. Second, the risk that
in a semi-stable regime with multiple, competing power groups such as
Iran’s, one would believe that it could transfer warhead to terrorists
without fingerprints. Third, that Israel – the state for which this is the
most urgent existential threat – attacks Iran to prevent them from getting
the bomb, leading to retaliation against not only Israel, but the US which
will be blamed as well, even if Bush administration tries to distance the
US from Israel’s actions.’
`Yes or no answers are difficult for these questions. Iran might decide to
use any of the courses of action described above, depending on how the
leadership estimated the likely response. The action that most worries me
is ‘passing the weapons to terrorist groups’. That would provide the
Iranians with the best cover for its actions.’
PARTICIPANTS (38): Kenneth Adelman, Graham Allison, Ronald Asmus, Samuel
Berger, Max Boot, Stephen Bosworth, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Daniel Byman,
Richard Clarke, Eliot Cohen, Ivo Daalder, James Dobbins, Lawrence
Eagleburger, Douglas Feith, John Gaddis, Robert Gallucci, Leslie Gelb,
Marc Grossman, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Bruce Hoffman, Robert Hunter, Tony
Judt, Robert Kagan, David Kay, Andrew Krepinevich, Charles Kupchan, John
Lehman, James Lindsay, William Nash, Joseph Nye, Carlos Pascual, Thomas
Pickering, Kenneth Pollack, Joseph Ralston, Susan Rice, Wendy Sherman,
James Steinberg.
Not all participants answered every question.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Dr. Oya AKGONENC: No troops to the Lebanon war zone
Turkish Daily News
Aug 26, 2006
Finally, after long negotiations and delays, a cease-fire was announced
on the Lebanese-Israeli front. There were a number of violations of
the cease-fire soon after its start. The United Nations is calling
for a peacekeeping force to help stabilize the situation in the
region. About 30,000 U.N. soldiers are needed for the operation, of
which 15,000 were expected to be provided by Lebanon and the rest by
the international community.
Israel declared that they will not pull their troops out of southern
Lebanon until the U.N. force is in place on the Lebanese soil. This
force is not ready, and from the delays it won’t be ready for a while.
Many European and Asian states have been indicating their willingness
to send troops to the U.N. peacekeeping force. France was the first
one to show willingness to lead the forces and contribute a relatively
large contingency.
Yet, within a week’s time and after much discussion in France it
reduced its commitment to 200 military engineers. (Author’s note: on
Aug. 24, 2006, President Jacques Chirac again changed his mind and
announced the French contingency as 2,000 troops, after receiving
additional guarantees and further details of the mandate from the
United Nations. A little bit of competition from Italy may also have
been a factor in this quick volte-face). Likewise, Germany was equally
careful about its commitments. Germany was concerned about the memories
of World War II clouding the relations and the peacekeeping efforts
in the region. Thus, Germany clearly refused to send combat troops
but offered some other form of help.
Although at the beginning a number of European states demonstrated
willingness, presently less enthusiasm is forthcoming from these
groups. Israel suggested Italy to lead the U.N. troops. At first,
Italy was enthusiastic about the idea, yet within days Italy began
to ask for clarification of the U.N.
mandate and possibly a new U.N. resolution clearly stating the rights
and obligations of the U.N. force as well as the rules and conditions
of violation of the cease-fire. Other European Union nations showed
hesitancy in sending troops to Lebanon under the present conditions.
Some Middle Eastern and Asian countries such a Malaysia, Indonesia,
Bangladesh and others also indicated willingness but have not committed
themselves so far. There is a lot of pressure on Turkey to send troops
to Lebanon as well.
There was news in the American and Israeli press indicating the
willingness of the Turkish government and even suggesting as many as
5,000 troops to be committed to the cease-fire. Yet so far no official
decision has been made on the issue. Even though this topic was on
the agenda of the National Security Council (MGK), no clear decision
or even a suggested road map came out of this meeting.
Pros and cons of such a commitment for Turkey:
Turkish people were deeply affected by the scenes of war and
destruction and indiscriminate loss of life caused by Israeli
bombing. The public came to dislike very strongly the indiscriminate
and disproportionate use of force by Israel and showed their
protest to such behavior though public rallies, photo exhibitions,
demonstrations and public declaration. Public speakers called for
ending the hostilities and stopping the unlimited destruction of the
cities, towns and the infrastructure in the region.
Turkey has historical and cultural ties with the region and its people.
Turkey cannot be expected to be indifferent to the needs and problems
of the region and tolerate the destruction of the inhabitants of the
region regardless of their sects or religion.
On the other hand Turkey is a strategic partner of Israel and allows
Israel to use the airspace over the Konya plateau for their air
force maneuvers.
Turkey is considered as an important player in Middle Eastern
politics. The United States had encouraged and pressed Turkey into
closer political and military ties with Israel. Thus, under all these
conditions it would be better for Turkey to keep its troops away from
the war zone to keep its neutrality and credibility in the area.
The rules of the U.N. mandate are not so clear in U.N. Resolution 1701.
Articles such as 8 and 11 clearly indicate that only Lebanese and
UNIFIL forces will be allowed to carry arms and that all other armed
forces in Lebanon will be disarmed in accordance with the rules laid
down earlier with Taif implementations and the rules of resolutions
1559 and 1680.
All different parties, be they Shia, Sunni, Druze or others, don’t want
Hezbollah forces to be disarmed for the security of Lebanon. Besides,
Hezbollah is part of the present Lebanese government. So what would be
the clear and precise role and duty of the international peacekeeping
force and how will they implement these rules? Turkey has to know
clearly what the conditions are before deciding on committing itself
to the troop deployment.
There are other considerations to be reckoned with, such as the
opposition of the Armenian Dashnak organization in Lebanon, to the
participation of Turkish troops. There are other local groups that are
uncomfortable with Turkish troops in the Middle East. An open letter to
the prime minister of Turkey has been sent from an important think tank
in Beirut asking him not to sent troops. Lebanon is the host country,
and one has to take into consideration the view of the country where
the troops will be stationed.
On the other hand while being a strategic partner with Israel,
how will Turkey diplomatically win over the confidence of the Arab
states? Turkey has to weigh the results of each step it takes in
regards to the different interest groups and interested parties in
the region.
More important of all, by participating in the peacekeeping force,
would Turkey be trapping itself in an upcoming war with Iran, despite
its desire to keep out of such a struggle? Turkey has to be doubly
careful to see where each step it takes will lead.
On the domestic front there is much opposition from various groups
within the entire spectrum of political parties, from left to right,
from intellectuals and writers, unions and NGOs who oppose the presence
of our military in the Lebanese-Israeli war zone. It is seen by most as
siding and helping Israel and its main supporter, the United States,
to change and damage the region by their declared goal of redrawing
national boundaries. One wonders whether despite such strong internal
opposition the Turkish government should or would still insist on
sending troops to Lebanon.
Their final decision is yet uncertain. Yet there are regional,
international and especially domestic forces at work that will
influence the decision.
Turkey should consider other forms of help and contributions to
peace in the area such as sending help in the reconstruction of
the infrastructure, medical help such as drugs and doctors, food
and clothing, yet stay away from military commitments just as most
European states are presently doing.
Associate Professor Oya Akgonenc is a former deputy of the Saadet
(Happiness or Contentment) Party (SP). She can be contacted at
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Genocide Memorial to be Erected in Las Vegas
By Anka, Nevada
Zaman Online, Turkey
Aug. 26, 2006
zaman.com
As the Armenian diaspora in the U.S. continues its political efforts
to make the so-called genocide allegations recognized, the Armenian
Genocide Memorial Committee has mobilized to build a genocide memorial
in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Following the meeting between Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and
Armenian representative Lois Tarkanian, Goodman announced the
municipality will allocate land in downtown Las Vegas for the erection
of the memorial.
The committee’s website said Goodman promised Armenian representatives
that the memorial would be erected.
A budget of $150,000 has been allocated for the memorial.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

US, UK Pushing Europe Into the Bog They Created
Robert Fisk, The independent
Arab News, Saudi Arabia
Aug. 26, 2006
First, it was to be a 15,000-strong foreign army to reinforce the
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. Now it is to be
about 7,500. And it will not disarm Hezbollah. And anyway, Hezbollah
refuses to be disarmed.
The French would send 200 men; then they sent 400. Then the
Italians would send 3,000. Then the French would send another 2,000,
making their total contribution 2,600, including the company that
has remained in UNIFIL since the French were hurled out of the
peacekeeping organization back in 1986 after fighting Shiite militias
in the Lebanese village of Marrake (of which no mention will be made,
any more than it is on the BBC). And now the Belgians might send 700.
And the Turks? Well, the Lebanese Armenians are objecting to their
contribution on the grounds – perfectly accurate, though the BBC will
not tell you this – that the Turkish Army perpetrated the genocide
of one and a half million Christian Armenians in 1915. Oh, what a
wondrous plot we weave when first we practice to deceive.
This, of course, applies to everyone in the Lebanese swamp.
Self-deception – or self-delusion – has become a cancer throughout
both the Middle East and the West; and amid the EU countries that
are now bidding to send their young men to sacrifice their lives
in Lebanon. They are going to preserve peace, we are told; they are
going to maintain a cease-fire; they are going to save lives.
So a big Ho-Ho-Ho from the world of reality. The enlarged NATO/UNIFIL
force is not going to preserve “peace.” It is going to maintain a
“buffer” zone to protect Israel after the latter’s dismal failure to
destroy, disarm and liquidate the Iranian-armed Hezbollah guerrilla
army over the past seven weeks. The UN may deny that it is a buffer
zone for the Israelis – but if it was a buffer zone to protect Lebanese
(the numerically higher victims of this latest war), it would be based,
surely, inside the Israeli frontier.
But no, it is there to protect Israel.
Note how the Arabs have accepted this. Note how we have accepted this –
how we have sublimely gone along with the idea that Israel’s security
and happiness are more important than the security and happiness of
the millions of Muslims also living in this region. Our soldiers are
to be deployed to protect Israel.
Do we really think that the Arabs don’t realize this? And do we think
that our Western governments don’t realize this when they huff and
puff over whether to send soldiers to the Middle East? Needless to say,
the Americans and the British want no part of this mess.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no stomach to defend Israel,
let alone Lebanon. Their job is to push the European masses into the
bog they have created by their injustice and cowardice in the Middle
East. President Bush promises “intelligence” assistance to the UNIFIL
force – which means Israeli “intelligence,” and we all know how good
that is – while Lord Blair of Kut Al-Amara offers not a single hero
to give his life, which is as well after his outrageous sacrifice of
British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But while Europe’s other political masters dithered this week, BBC
World Service laid down a familiar narrative for its listeners. “It
seems,” said their man on The World Today, that the Europeans – how
I hate these cheap cliches – “are prepared to talk the talk but not
walk the walk.” In other words, those bloody Wops and Frogs and Boche,
not to mention the Dagos and the ungrateful Finns and Norwegians,
were gutless little chicken shit when it came to standing by their
European principles.
Those principles, it is now clear, are supposed to be the sacrifice of
their soldiers’ lives for the latest UN Security Council Resolution
cooked up by America and France (and, a bit, by Lord Blair) in New
York. But the BBC got it completely wrong. The Europeans are not
nervous about military losses or unclear mandates.
They had plenty of both in Bosnia.
What is happening in Europe is that a growing number of states that
had nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration or the Sykes-Picot
agreement or the 1948 Middle East war or the 1967 Middle East war or
the 1973 Middle East war or the 1982 Middle East war in Lebanon or the
1993 Israeli bombardment of Lebanon or the 1996 Israeli bombardment
of Lebanon or the latest 2006 bombardment and “petit” invasion of
Lebanon (after Hezbollah’s outrageous provocation by crossing the
international frontier) are simply sick and tired of clearing up the
dirt after these filthy Arab-Israeli wars.
Most of Europe had no part in the Balfour Declaration. Much of Europe
had an unforgivable role in the Jewish Holocaust. But the decades pass
by, and the generations now being asked to sail to the Middle East
do not even have parental guilt to absolve for the genocide of the
Jews of Europe, any more than modern Turks can be proclaimed guilty
for their grandparents’ rape and murder of one and a half million
Armenians. The Europeans, to put it mildly, are tired of being asked
to atone for the sins of their grandparents. Maybe it is time, they
are asking, for the Israelis and Arabs to pay for their own sick wars.
There is nothing immoral in this. President Bush claims that
the Israelis won their war against the Hezbollah and humbled the
organization’s supporters in Iran and Syria. Yet not even the Israelis
claim this.
Now the Europeans – and perhaps the Turks, and certainly the poor
old Lebanese Army – are supposed to achieve all Israel’s failed
objectives. And when they fail – as they assuredly will, because
NATO is not going to go to war with Islam – Israel will accuse them
of abandoning poor little Israel.
The French will be reminded – as they were under the first UNIFIL
mandate – that Vichy France handed its Jews to the Nazis, and
the Belgians will be reminded (no doubt) that half their country
was pro-Nazi and the Italians will be reminded that they elected
fascism into power, and the Spaniards will be reminded that Franco
was a fascist.
And the Arabs will sit silently by and watch the Europeans betray
them all over again. And the winners? Syria. Iran. And all those
enraged by the injustice and hypocrisy of our “democracies.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan has purchased from Ukraine and Belarus mortars produced
during the Great Patriotic War
Regnum, Russia
Aug. 26, 2006
“The Azerbaijani army has got into very sad situation,” independent
analyst Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan stated on August 25 during his
press conference in Yerevan.
According to him, Azerbaijan’s statements on its budget’s increase
should not frighten Armenia. “Azerbaijan purchased armaments for
$900mln, which is nothing else but scrap metal. They bought tanks for
$1,200,000, mortars, produced in 1941, cars, which are written of by
Russian army, etc.” the analyst maintains, adding that “according to
some date, 5,000 servicemen die annually in Azerbaijan.” According
to Mr. Melik-Shakhnasaryan, “none of Caucasian Turks is now at power
in Azerbaijan.” “Mainly Kurds, Lezgins govern Azerbaijan now, trying
to maintain the stable situation,” he stressed.
“Azerbaijan has lost hope to settle Karabakh conflict in military
way,” the analyst resumed. However, according to him, Armenia should
use time in its own interests. “Armenia should strengthen its army,
in order to be ready to settle conflict in military way, during the
period of lull,” he stressed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress