Author: Emil Lazarian

CIS, EURASEC, SCO, CES AND OTHERS: GENESIS OF POST-SOVIET INTEGRATION PROCESSES
Regnum, Russia
June 25 2006
A session of EurAsEC Interstate Council presided by Byelorussian
President Alexander Lukashenko convened in Minsk on June 23. The
agenda has been announced beforehand: the heads of states discussed
Uzbekistan’s access to the organization, creation of the Customs union,
and the concept of EurAsEC’s international policy were discussed.
EurAsEC is an international economic organization whose functions
are to form common external custom borders of its founding countries
(Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan),
developing a common foreign economic policy, tariffs, prices, and
other constituents of common market functioning. A treaty on EurAsEC
foundation was signed on October 10, 2000 in Kazakhstani capital
Astana by presidents of Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,
and Tajikistan. In May 2002, a EurAsEC observer status was granted to
Moldavian and Ukrainian leaderships on their request, later Armenia
also received the status.
EurAsEC is an open organization. It could be accessed by any state
that will not only take on responsibilities defined in the Convention
on the foundation of the Community and other conventions effective in
the framework of the Community, but will also take efforts to meet
these obligations. EurAsEC observer status is granted to a state or
an international (intergovernmental) organization on their request.
EurAsEC is a successor of the CIS Customs union that is fully
consistent with the UNO principles and international legal norms. It
is designed to effectively promote the process of creating by the CIS
Customs union member countries of a Common Economic Space (CES) and
coordinating their approaches to the integration into international
economic and trade system.
Among the top near-term EurAsEC priorities are:
1) transport: solving the problem of common tariffs, increasing
commodity traffic, simplifying customs rules, completing internal
official procedures on the signed conventions, and creating
transnational forwarding corporations;
2) power industry: joint exploration of hydro-energy complexes in
Central Asia, solving the problem of energy and water supplies,
and creating a common energy budget;
3) workforce migration: assuring migrants’ social protection, creating
an effective system of regulation and control of workforce migration,
combating migration-related crime, solving problems due to migrants’
and their employers’ taxpaying;
4) agro-industrial complex: coordinating agricultural policies of
EurAsEC member countries, creating a common grocery market of Community
member countries, reducing transporting expenses, and establishing
new market institutions in the field.
Interestingly, EurAsEC creation and functioning is considered one of
the most successful projects within the CIS. On June 7 2006, Community
Secretary General Grigoriy Rapota said that the Minsk session would
become decisive in EurAsEC formation and development.
He also informed that a Customs union contractual base of 12 agreements
had been developed on the expert level, 16 more agreements still were
to be adopted. Discussing access of EurAsEC member states to the WTO
was also planned to be discussed at the meeting. “How the Customs union
can be married to accessing WTO? There are several options,” Rapota
said. “First is to create a Customs union, with its eventual access to
WTO. Another option is to join WTO independently, coordinating member
countries’ positions with all others, thereby minimizing possible
‘damage.'” Rapota also said that almost everything was ready for
the Customs union establishment; time schedules and development pace
remained to be set.
The CIS has essentially accomplished its historical mission. And the
fact that a number of CIS member countries – seriously or jokingly –
announced their intent to exit the organization since the beginning of
2006 is yet another evidence of the trend. Nobody is questioning such
intentions; in fact, Russia’s authorities themselves openly admitted
that the CIS had been created for the “civilized divorce” of the former
union republics. They also pointed out to the fact that it is thanks
to the CIS that former Soviet republics managed to escape repeating
the Balkan-style “blood-bath divorce” on the post-Soviet space.
A lot of CIS “subsidiaries” have been created right inside the CIS
all along its existence: Customs union, Central Asian union, Eurasian
union, the Russia-Belarus Union State, and, of course, GUUAM-GUAM.
For different reasons, the only effective structure within the CIS is
CSTO which is a military, military-political, and military-technical
rather than economic cooperation organization. In other words, at
least for the six CIS member countries, the set of challenges and
risks of the current period appeared to be a better unifying factor
than the desire to join efforts catching up with economic development
of the world “economic locomotives” and improving welfare of their
own peoples.
That is why, frankly speaking, as early as when the projects on
EurAsEC and CES creation started to emerge, they were envisioned
as prototypes of some political and economic future of CIS and all
the integration structures that were created within it. Only with a
greater accent on purely economic aspects, rather than military and
military-related ones, due to the necessity of developing cooperation
in such a sensitive field as establishing national security of member
countries from the viewpoint of joint resisting the attacks of the
terrorist “international.”
The year 2006 is, however, a decisive one in many respects. May be that
is why we sense the tension and hear public apprehension voiced in a
number of western capitals, related directly to the efforts to take
steps towards further EurAsEC development? All the more so, toward the
development of SCO that is, we believe, is also one of the integration
structures that arouse within the CIS, despite the Chinese membership?
The western creature (some argue that it is a purely a U.S.-Turkish
strategic project) in the face of GUUAM kicked the bucket after
the so-called “Andijan events,” when the Uzbekistani leadership got
disappointed in the U.S. tutelage over the “democratic processes”
in Central Asia. First, the leadership almost immediately drew the U.S.
military base out of the Uzbekistani territory. Second, it also did
not hesitate to withdraw from GUUAM, which automatically returned
the bloc to the embryo state. Third, on January 25, it formalized
Uzbekistan’s full-fledged membership in EurAsEC. This was how the
initiative to create and raise a U.S.-Turkish Trojan horse within the
CIS to counterweight the growing Russian influence on the Eurasian
space collapsed.
True, instead of GUUAM-GUAM, the CIS public received a set of two odd
symbiotic structures: the Organization for Democracy and Economic
Development-GUAM (ODED-GUAM) and the notorious Commonwealth of
Democratic Choice (CDC). If one looks at them closely, they will
notice that “geographically speaking,” the only aim of creating
these quasi-structures (whose member countries have very little in
common economically) is imposing strict limits on Russia’s room for
maneuver in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, as well as fencing
these reservoirs from other CIS countries who decided not to put
bets on the openly anti-Russian integration structures created in
the post-Soviet space.
It is hard to believe that the proposed ODED-GUAM and CDC projects
would create “alternative” to Russia suppliers or transit zones of
energy carriers in the post-Soviet space, as is apparently desired
by the Washington gurus of the “Baltic-Black Sea union.” For all the
projects put forward by Baltic, Ukrainian, and Georgian spokespeople
could be at best described as economically unprofitable from the
start. Indeed, they are not at all economic in their nature: they
just broadcast of the anti-Russian political trend that has become so
popular today to the west, north-west, and south-west of the modern
borders of the Russian Federation.
The senseless strategic projects are not viable, no matter how many
states were pushed in their boundaries by the authors of the projects,
and how much money was assigned for the waste paper.
Speaking frankly, today, both the patrons of ODED-GUAM and CDC and the
heads of member states of these structures do not have as much time as
they used to have in the 1990s when foundations for the anti-Russian
strategic projects were laid in the post-Soviet space.
Really well-grounded Eurasian projects mentioned above, like EurAsEC,
CES, and, of course, the SCO are a different story. In fact, CSTO
and SCO have started cooperation, at least, in the issue of joint
resistance to the international terrorism.
Today, it is becoming ultimately clear that in some of their aspects
the original plans of EurAsEC, CES, and CSTO creators also crashed,
since it was assumed that, sooner or later, Ukraine would become
a qualified member of these integration projects. As we can see,
the “revolutionary” leadership of the modern Ukraine is even ready
to induce the emergence of intra-national “demarcation lines,” as
long as it “breaks away” and becomes the updated “sanitary cordon”
designed to “restrain” Russia and her allies. As for the Ukraine’s
desire to trench herself all along the Russian-Ukrainian border, it
is reminiscent of a swift-flowing episode of regressive schizophrenia,
just as the revived talks about Kievan Rus being a historical precursor
of Ukraine, not of Russia.
Therefore, we must give up the hope that the Ukrainian leadership at
some last moment will “jump on a departing train,” realizing that
all the western roads, except for the one to NATO, are blocked by
exactly economical barriers richly seasoned with political reasoning
about the Constitution of the United Europe not being ratified. In
this case, perspectives of EurAsEC and CES, rather than of CSTO,
are more interesting, although these days in Minsk issues are being
discussed at the CSTO, not CES Heads of states’ council.
If we manage to resolve issues impeding activities of EurAsEC member
countries, then, keeping in mind that the Community is in its essence
an expanded CES option, we should also remember that the structure
still remains open for new memberships, i.e., to everyone, including
states that have never been CIS or former USSR members. Comparing
the levels of interstate negotiations, especially for the last 6-8
months, one will notice that countries that have never been former
USSR members are interested not only in SCO but also EurAsEC.
Opinions have already been voiced that the Ukraine itself (apparently,
the country will soon also depart from its observer status in the
Community) could be replaced in the margins of the structure by
Iran who already has an observer status in the SCO and continues to
develop ties and cooperation almost with all the CIS member countries
bordering it.
Thus, the Minsk summits will really become decisive ones. But not
only for the EurAsEC further development. Essentially, the issue at
stake is about what the geopolitical layout in the post-Soviet space
may become on the eve of G8 summit in St. Petersburg coming July.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA’S NON-CONSTRUCTIVE STANCE DOES NOT ALLOW RESOLVING CONFLICT
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
June 25 2006
Speaking at the graduation ceremony at Heydar Aliyev high
military school President Ilham Aliyev said that resolution of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the number one
problem for Azerbaijan.
“Unfortunately, there is no progress in this sphere. Indeed, the
talks are going on; the talks are being held within some framework.
However, they are all not effective because we cannot achieve any
results” said President Ilham Aliyev in his speech.
According to the Head of State, Azerbaijan’s commitment to the
negotiations for over ten years demonstrates its constructivism.
Despite occupation of Azerbaijani lands and the fact that over 1
million Azerbaijan became refugees and IDPs because of the Armenia’s
policy of ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijan, our country is trying
to take advantage of all the available opportunities for peace.
Therefore, Azerbaijan’s stance in the negotiations is very
constructive. Unfortunately, Armenia’s non-constructive stance does
not allow us to resolve this conflict.
“I reiterate that we highly appraise the efforts of the international
community, their decisions including the activity of the OSCE
Minsk Group. Indeed, they try to secure an agreement. Armenia’s
non-constructive stance, disregard for the international legal norms
do not allow to settle the conflict. In this case, Azerbaijan should
make some corrections in its policy. Our patience is not endless,”
added the President.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GREEK CYPRIOT AMBASSADOR WAS NOT WELCOME IN AZERBAIJAN
Mehtap Cicekcar (JTW) With Hurriyet 23 June 2006
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 25 2006
Greek Cypriot Ambassador to Moscow, Leonidas Pantelides, met with
frustration on a trip he took two days ago to the Azerbayjianian
capital of Baku to attempt to block decisions made in support of
Northern Cyprus at a meeting of Islamic Conference Organization
(IKO-ICO) foreign ministers. Pantelides was reportedly unable to
receive a hotel room in Baku, and spent the night going between bars,
restaurants, and the streets of the capital. The Greek Cyprus has
made efforts to prevent any co-operation between the European Union
and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan had started direct flight to the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) last year.
According to sources in Turkey, Ankara had known that the Greek
Cypriots would be sending a representative to the ICO meeting,
and had contacted Baku authorities to ask that the Greek Cypriot
representative be blocked from the meeting.
When in fact the Greek Cypriot authority did send Pantelides, the Azeri
leadership told him that they would not extend accreditation to him for
the ICO conference, and that all the hotels in the capital were full.
At a previous IKO conference in Yemen, a Greek Cypriot ambassador did
succeed in entering into proceedings, even attempting to participate
in a commemorative group photograph, though he was discovered by the
Turkish delegation at the last moment.
Meanwhile, one of the results from the ICO conference in regards to
Northern Cyprus was a firm proclamation in support of the entity, with
a stress on the necessity of lifting current isolationary blockades
on the northern side of the island.
It is also reported that Azerbaijan is not happy with the close
relations between Greek Cyprus and Armenia. Both states signed
aggrements including military and intelligence co-operation.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ISRAEL NEEDS A PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST IRAN
By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency, Israel
June 25 2006
Evidence of Iran building nuclear weapons.
After Iran stated that it will “wipe Israel off the map” Israel must
now act to defend herself.
Jerusalem —– June 24…… One of the best ways to ensure the world
doesn’t get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although
Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international
problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our
survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.
In 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland the allies appeased
him, even though they could have been in Berlin in two weeks. In 1938
they once again let him off the hook, even though the allies could
have been in Berlin within two months. Shortly after the appeasement
of Munich, Russia signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, setting
the stage for what it hoped would be his defeat of the West, which
would pave the way for Russian domination of Eurasia, from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Now we have Iran, a country led by Ahmadinejad, an equally deranged
and evil maniac. He is driven by an ideology combining elements of
Nazism and Mahdism, with a tad of Maoism as well, a lethal cocktail
of three of the most evil ideologies of human political history.
By most current intelligence estimates, by 2008, exactly 70 years
after Chamberlain announced on his return from Munich he had achieved
“peace in our time”, the Iranian Islamo-Nazi regime will have succeeded
in developing an atomic bomb. Although it seems that the international
community has belatedly begun to awaken to the danger, it is still far
from certain that this will actually lead to concrete and concerted
steps to ensure this doesn’t happen.
Moreover, even if the West does get its act together, three is no
guarantee that Russia will not revert to course, enacting a repeat
performance of the Molotov-Ribbentrob pact. Putin seriously mulling
double crossing the West.
This week new and highly disturbing evidence came to light that this
is exactly what Russia is doing. According to a western intelligence
report published earlier this week, satellite images showed large
volumes of heavy Russian weaponry heading towards Iran. The weapons
belonged to Russian military units evacuating Georgia, as part of
the Russian-Georgian agreement signed in March, which calls for all
Russian troops to be withdrawn from Georgian soil.
The Russians were evacuating their two big Soviet-era military bases
in Georgia on the shores of the Black Sea – the 12th base in Batumi
and the 62nd at Akhalkalaki to the north, 19 miles from the Turkish
border. The mages revealed the retreating Russian units moving along
not one but two routes. The first showed small groups of Russian
officers and soldiers heading out of Georgia carrying only their
personal kits, the second was jammed with convoys of trucks loaded
with weapons and logistical systems, radar and ammo.
Freight trains were also pressed into service. This route wound out
of Georgia and headed into Armenia where the vehicles halted at the
Russian base near Gyumri. A Russian military spokesman explained this
relocation by stating that “the property of the 62nd (Akhalkalaki),
Georgia, would be reassigned to replenish Russia’s 102nd base in
Gyumri, Armenia.” He added: “The transfer of this property to any
other party is not envisioned.”
However Armenia was not the “the property’s” last stop. The close
watch on the Russian supplies convoys continued and, lo and behold,
a third route surfaced, this one heading out of the 102nd base in
Armenia and into Iran.
Western military sources have traced the route these weapons took.
>>From Gyumri, the trucks and trains rolled on to the Armenian capital
of Yerevan. There, they were offloaded onto Armenian and Iranian
trucks and trains, which turned south to the Iranian border. The
freight crossed the border and halted at the Iranian town of Sadarak.
Its next stop was the Iranian-Azeri town of Naxcivan and then on to
Tabriz. Subsequent shipments by truck and rail followed the same route,
They included APCs, heavy artillery, Grad rockets, BM-21mm missiles
and anti-aircraft systems.
So far this year, Iran has purchased over $7 billion for arms from
Russia, including anti-air, nuclear-capable Tor-M1 cruise missiles,
considered by experts the most advanced of its kind in the world.
Iran has purchased these missiles to secure the Bushehr atomic reactor
and other nuclear sites. These sources say that Teheran is using the
Georgian weapons deal as bait, to get Moscow to part with weapons
and technologies it has so far refrained from passing over to the
ayatollahs, specifically technology transfers enabling Iran to begin
domestic production of the sophisticated Russian X-5518 nuclear cruise
missiles, known also as Kh-55 or AS-15s.
Tehran already has a dozen of these missiles, which have a 3,000km
range and are capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. They
were purchased on the black market of Ukraine in 2005. Teheran
has reportedly promised to significantly increase its purchase
of conventional weapons from Russia, if it agrees to the missile
technology transfer.
Despite the uncertainty as to whether Russia (and possibly China as
well) would cooperate with the West regarding Iran, the conventional
wisdom has remained unchanged, namely that Iran is an international
problem, being dealt with accordingly by the international community,
and that Israel should therefore take a back seat.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The world needs to understand
very clearly that Israel cannot and will not allow a Holocaust
-denying regime that openly calls for its destruction to wield a
nuclear bomb. Israel needs to make it very clear that the consequence
of it having to face a nuclear Iran by itself will be a preemptive
strike against Iran.
The more the international community gets the message that the
consequences of appeasement will be worse than those of action,
the better the chances of action. The growing evidence of Russian
perfidy makes it even more important that there be no room for
misunderstandings in this regard. The best way to get that message
across is to make it very clear that if Israel is faced between an
Iran nuclear bomb, or having to launch a preemptive nuclear strike
to prevent that eventuality, it will opt for the latter.
The world must be told loud and clear by Israel that the only way to
avoid the first nuclear strike by a nation since Nagasaki is to take
whatever actions are required to ensure Iran doesn’t get the bomb,
and to prevent an Iranian conventional weapons build up to the point
where a preemptive nuclear strike becomes the only option for dealing
with the rogue ayatollah regime.
Jonathan Ariel, was an advisor to the South African government and
is a former editor-in-chief of the Israel on-line Maariv International.
He has filled numerous positions with well known Israel and
international media organizations such as Maariv, Makor Rishon,
Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, The International Herald Tribune, Israel
Radio, SABC and the Independent Foreign Service. These include
Managing-Editor of Makor Rishon and Editor-in-Chief of Maariv
International. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading media
organizations such as the LA Times, The Economist, The Guardian,
The New York Sun, Times of India, The Australian, Sunday Times and
the BBC. His articles have been translated into over a dozen major
languages, including German, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian,
Spanish, French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese. He has degrees
in Political Science and Journalism. He speaks English and Hebrew at
mother tongue level, French, Dutch (Afrikaans) fluently.
aelnuclearariel3890624.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN GEORGIA: INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS
Regnum, Russia
June 25 2006
“Armenians love Tbilisi but they don’t like Georgians. The city
and the people are two absolutely separate concepts,” concluded
Tamara Vardanyan at an academic conference organized by the Noravank
Foundation. Tamara Vardanyan has recently come back to Yerevan from
Georgia where she researched the conditions of ethnic Armenians and
their level of integration in the community life. REGNUM publishes
abstract from Tamara Vardanyan’s presentation.
She said that there are problems both at the level of integration
of Armenians in Georgian economic, social, and political life and
at the level of Armenian community itself. “In Georgia, Armenians
are stereotyped as being employed as barbers, taxi drivers, or
shoemakers,” she observed. Most of the Armenians residing there do
not want to leave the country; however, their motto is “integration,
not assimilation.” What about the attitude of Georgians to their
neighbors, the situation is complicated by their “historical memory”
on which it is inscribed that Armenians are aliens on the Georgian
land, and by the Nagorno Karabakh conflict that is impeding solving
the Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts.
As for the Georgian-Russian relations, “Armenians do not support the
anti-Russian policies of the Georgian authorities, as well as the
Georgian society itself.”
The Armenian community in Georgia is “very weak: it lacks internal
will and both economic and political elite,” Vardanyan said.
“Armenians are incapable of seeing the danger of being assimilated as
an ethnical minority on the Georgian territory.” This is the reason
why almost no ethnical Armenians are present in the Georgia’s public
sector. To be employed in the Georgian public sector, an Armenian
would need first to change his last name. As for the private sector,
people with their last names ending on -yan, are far lesser paid than
their Georgian colleagues.
Separate issues are education of the Armenian youth in Georgia and
preserving Armenian cultural and spiritual heritage.
On September 1, 2006 only two of eight previously working in Georgia
Armenian schools will be opened for children. Besides, it is not
even yet clear if they will remain Armenian in their curricula or be
reformed. The reason of the change alleged by the Georgian government
is that they decided to close all schools whose number of students
is below 700, based on some “voucher system.” And Tbilisi enjoyed
a total of eight schools with 700 Armenian students. Of the eight
schools only two were wholly Armenian; other schools included both
Armenian and Russian sectors.
Today, the Georgian government decided to introduce the system of
“bilingual education” where, starting in secondary school, exact and
natural sciences will be taught to Armenian students in Georgian.
Vardanyan said that research study conducted in this regard shows
that 15 percent of Armenian children are now studying in Georgian
schools. Their parents hope that this would help their kids be later
employed in the Georgian public sector.
Armenian applicants to Georgian higher education establishments will
also have to face new challenges. Armenian and Russian enrollees will
hold examinations designed previously only for children who graduated
from Georgian high schools, which decreases chances of minorities’
children to be enrolled.
As for preserving cultural and spiritual heritage of Armenians in
Georgia, many problems here arise from the absence of the law on
religion. There are two Armenian churches in Tbilisi, Surb Gevorg
and Echmiadzin. They, however, do not have any official status, for
they are not legally registered in any agency and their jurisdiction
is not defined. Vardanyan said that, although Georgian churches are
in a similar position, Georgians are more religious and go to church
more frequently than Armenians. “Georgians have an impression that
Armenians are not Christians at all, that they are adherents of some
satanic sects,” Vardanyan said.
Vardanyan said that almost all the burden of Armenian problems in
Georgia rests on non-governmental organizations. Most abundant are
Armenian NGOs (67), they are followed by Azerbaijani and Ossetian ones
(20), Russian (15), Jewish (10), Lithuanian (6), Yazidi (5), Chechen
(4), and one German organization.
Armenian NGOs, according to Vardanyan, do not cooperate closely. The
only event that could mold them together is a meeting before
the Turkish embassy to Tbilisi on April 24, the Day of Memory of
Victims of Armenian Genocide. “If in 2002-2003, Armenian NGOs were
mostly preoccupied with organizing cultural events like exhibitions
and musical concerts, today politics is becoming their priority,”
Vardanyan said. Most of Armenian non-governmental organizations are
financed by European international structures.
According to the information of Armenian embassy to Georgia, about
350, 000 Armenians reside in Georgia today; 100, 000 of them live
in Tbilisi.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ILHAM ALIYEV LOST TRUST IN PEACE TALKS AND MEDIATORS ON NAGORNO KARABAKH
Regnum, Russia
June 24 2006
“We have been loyal to negotiation process for more than 10 years,
which is the evidence of our constructiveness,” Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said on June 23 in Baku.
Ilham Aliyev reminded that UNO has issued four resolutions on
Nagorno Karabakh, pointing out that Azerbaijani land should be
liberated without any conditions. Additionally, there are decisions
of other international organizations such as the Council of Europe,
Organization of the Islamic Conference, GUAM, etc. Nevertheless,
according to the head of state, Armenia does not fulfill them.
“We do not hope any longer for international regulation mechanisms.
We can not bear with this situation. We well never accept loosing of
land. We will never allow separating Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan;
it is not subject for talks. We will only negotiate of the restoration
of Azerbaijani territorial integrity and guaranteeing security for
all peoples living in the region. No agreements are possible outside
these limits,” the president stressed.
“How long will we participate in the talks? How long will we wait?
Our patience is limited. Today, Azerbaijan is a quickly developing
country. Armenia is not able to compete with us from neither
economic, nor political, nor military point of view. Armenians
should imagine where will be Azerbaijan and where will be Armenia
in one, in three, and in five years. Armenia does not have any
resources for development. They are excluded from all international
regional projects. Their abilities for economic development are very
restricted. About half of their population left the country.
According to our information, they are experiencing difficulties
even guarding the border due to the lack of servicemen,” Ilham Aliyev
asserted.
According to Aliyev, Azerbaijan lives in the state of war; in which
case much attention should be paid to army development. “Our military
expenditures have increased four times for the last three years. They
totaled $135mln in 2003 and $700mln – in 2006. We are going to further
increase them,” Ilham Aliyev said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

WRITE ABOUT CYPRUS AND A GREEK RESPONDS
By Nevval Sevindi
Zaman Online, Turkey
June 24 2006
When I wrote my latest article, “Reality Behind Greek Cypriot
Mischief.” There was no round of applause for me as a hero, nor did
letters pour in from patriotic souls.
No sooner was the English translation of the column was placed on
the web’ an avalanche of derogatory letters from the Greeks began to
pour in. “When will you talk about Turkish mischief?” some said, while
others called me a nationalist and a provocateur. How ironic it is that
these two traits are loved by our academicians and columnists! I was,
frankly speaking, moved by the “politeness” of the people who referred
to my column as “sounds of dog barking,” and others who offered the
advice: “Drinking and writing do not mix, you drunken writer.” I have
witnessed how the Greeks use the Armenian allegations of genocide as
weapon against Turkey. They attribute Turkey’s independence success
to assistance from Western countries rather than to the leadership
of Ataturk. Greeks must be suffering from amnesia, to not remember
that it was the Western countries that invaded Anatolia.
They are too vein to admit plain truths. I advise those who insistently
call Turks “nationalists,” to investigate the evidence of Greek and
Armenian nationalism.
One Greek claims, “Show me a country that borders Turkey, and is
not at war with Turks.” He is convinced that we are embroiled in
conflict with the Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians and Iranians. Our
refusal to take sides with the US, our 40-year allies, in the Iraq
war is ignored. As far as I understand, the Greeks, who referred to
the Ottoman state as “a bunch of murderers,” never think of critiquing
themselves, whereas, Westerners always tell us to face “the facts” in
the Armenian and Kurdish issues. There are those who claim we Turks
set Izmir on fire. Let’s read what American Donald Whitthal and the
commander of USS Arizona say on this subject, “From where I stood —
between customs building and Palace Hotel — I witnessed the killings
of thirty people with their hands handcuffed and on their heads. This
atrocity was the work of Greek soldiers…” They add, as soon as
Greek soldiers landed, they killed the civilians they came across. The
commander relating how civilians were stabbed with bayonets, states,
“Most of the cruelty took place while Turks were under arrest.”
A British officer notes in his report, “Greeks plundered Turkish
villages, killing villagers trying to escape.” The Allied Investigation
Commission states that Greek soldiers and civilians alike caused
chaos in the city, committing assaults, murder and robbery. The
Greeks attacked the Ottoman state without any legal grounds and
were defeated. Why are they angry? The Greek cruelty was not only to
Muslims but also to the Jewish population of Izmir. Since Jews were
seen as Turkish allies, many of them were killed or exiled while hatred
was fanned by anti-Semitic prejudices. It is an historical fact that
the Greeks at times raided Jewish camps searching for “child-eating”
Jews. Thanks to the British and other western allies, we have records
of these bloody events. The principal reason for the Cyprus conflict
is blunder committed by the European Union by admitting Greek Cyprus
to the union at the expense of its own laws. Without touching this
main reason, the EU is dancing syrtaki with the Greeks and wants us to
dance with them If the West so respects its laws, then why should it
grant membership to a ‘country’ beset with border conflicts? Because
it will serve to block Turkey’s entry to the union. Now, the EU is
beating around the bush.
It cannot steer clear to keep a straight path. An expert on hypocrisy
and double standards, the West is playing the three monkeys and not
keeping its promises.
Those who read-only my column superficially may conclude that Greeks
are our enemies, and that Turkey should not join the EU. These are
emotional reactions. The fact is that we are not enemies of anyone and
have an optimistic view of things, but we pay a heavy price for our
good intentions. Secondly, joining EU is our right, thus we should do
so. It is now the Union’s move, after long years of our sacrifice to
meet the criteria put to us, including customs agreement. However, if.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBERT GUEDIGUIAN SUR LA TERRE ARMENIENNE
La Croix , France
24 juin 2006
Pour son nouveau long metrage, Robert Guediguian quitte les docks
de Marseille. Dans Le Voyage en Armenie, le cineaste a choisi de
se tourner vers l’Armenie de ses origines. L’idee lui a ete offerte
par sa femme, l’actrice Ariane Ascaride, qui a imagine une histoire
autour d’un père brouille avec sa fille (elle tient d’ailleurs ce
rôle). Se sachant gravement malade, ce dernier souhaite revenir sur
la terre de ses ancetres et en leguer quelque chose a sa fille. Le
realisateur a saisi l’occasion, sans doute influence par un recent
sejour en Armenie, lors d’une retrospective de ses films. La-bas, les
Armeniens lui avaient reclame une oeuvre sur leur pays, signifiant leur
“besoin d’etre visible, d’exister”.
–Boundary_(ID_iOE8eU5ZC5nTgnVsR 7gwrw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LES NEGOCIATIONS ENTRE L’UNION EUROPEENNE ET LA TURQUIE SONT-ELLES UN JEU DE DUPES ?
L’analyse d’Alexandrine Bouilhet
Le Figaro, France
24 juin 2006
Les negociations entre l’Union europeenne et la Turquie ont franchi une
etape decisive, la semaine dernière, a Luxembourg. Les deux parties
contractantes ont clos le premier chapitre – consacre a la science
et a la recherche – des negociations d’adhesion.
Techniquement, le pas est insignifiant. Ce domaine comporte très
peu d'”acquis communautaire”, c’est-a-dire peu de lois europeennes
a transposer dans le droit national turc.
La Turquie participe deja aux programmes scientifiques communs, comme
Euratom ou Eureka ; elle peut deja utiliser les fonds de Bruxelles
alloues a ces projets. Son merite en la matière est donc reduit.
“C’est comme si on faisait passer un examen d’anglais a quelqu’un
de parfaitement bilingue”, resume-t-on a Bruxelles. Lors du Conseil
europeen, Jacques Chirac a minimise l’evenement. “On a ouvert un
chapitre, d’accord, mais les negociations pourront toujours etre
remises en question si la Turquie ne remplit pas ses obligations…”,
a-t-il commente. N’en deplaise aux turco-sceptiques, la Turquie
a marque un point important sur le plan legal et politique. L’UE
est avant tout une communaute de droit. Après neuf mois passes dans
l’antichambre, la Turquie peut se targuer d’etre entree dans le vif du
sujet communautaire. A Luxembourg, elle a mis ses pions sur la première
case du vaste jeu de l’oie europeen, qui compte 35 cases ou chapitres,
correspondant aux 80 000 pages de legislation. A la fin du jeu, quand
toutes les cases sont remplies, le pays candidat entre, en principe,
dans l’UE. Pour la Turquie, qui n’a jamais ete consideree comme un
candidat comme un autre, s’agit-il de veritables negociations ou d’un
jeu de dupes ? A Bruxelles comme a Ankara, rares sont ceux qui ne se
posent pas la question, au moins en silence.
D’autant que le fin mot de l’adhesion turque reviendra, on le
sait, aux Francais, appeles a approuver, par referendum, tous les
futurs elargissements de l’Union, a l’exception de la Bulgarie,
de la Roumanie et de la Croatie. Le premier test pour la Turquie,
comme pour l’Europe, sur le serieux des negociations, interviendra
a l’automne quand seront examines les chapitres “marche interieur”
ou “transports”, qui exigent la libre circulation des biens et des
personnes. Si Ankara refuse toujours d’ouvrir ses ports aux bateaux
greco-chypriotes, l’UE va-t-elle interrompre d’un coup ses pourparlers
avec la Turquie ? C’est un risque que le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, semble pret a prendre, a en croire ses dernières declarations
a Istanbul. Lorsqu’ils ont ouvert les negociations d’adhesion avec
Ankara le 3 octobre 2005, les Vingt-Cinq ont exige une normalisation
des relations turco-chypriotes avant la fin de l’annee 2006. Si
le blocage persiste, le Conseil europeen de decembre se saisira du
dossier. La question chypriote, plus que la reconnaissance du genocide
armenien, pèse lourdement sur la candidature de la Turquie. En cas,
probable, de non-reconnaissance de Chypre dans les six prochains mois,
Bruxelles se prepare a interrompre les negociations au moins sur les
chapitres concernes : marche interieur, douanes, transports. L’examen
des autres chapitres continueraient, laissant la porte ouverte a
la Turquie.
“Techniquement, nous nous arrangerons pour que le train soit toujours
sur les rails, mais politiquement ces negociations deviendront de
plus en plus difficiles a vendre a l’opinion”, pronostique un expert
bruxellois. Avec son droit de veto, Chypre peut tout faire derailler.
Arbitre des negociations, la Commission est le plus fidèle allie de la
Turquie. “Parfois, elle en rajoute meme un peu trop !” plaisante un
diplomate italien. A Bruxelles, le “desk” Turquie est pilote par un
Suedois, turco-enthousiaste, lui-meme chapeaute par un Britannique,
Michael Leah, pour qui l’elargissement reste la meilleure et la plus
moderne des politiques de l’Union, garante de paix et de prosperite
sur le continent. Parmi les Vingt-Cinq, la Turquie peut compter sur
l’appui de nombreux pays et pas des moindres : la Grande-Bretagne,
la Suède, la Finlande, la Belgique, l’Italie et tous les nouveaux
Etats membres. Meme si elle se doit de rester neutre, la presidence
finlandaise de l’Union, qui commence le 1 er juillet, devrait tout
faire pour eviter la rupture sur la question chypriote. Et la Turquie,
membre eminent de l’Otan, peut toujours s’appuyer sur Washington,
comme elle l’a fait le 3 octobre 2005. Face a ce bloc solide, le
camp “anti-Turquie” est plus faible et plus fluctuant. Bruxelles y
range l’Autriche, les Pays-Bas, le Danemark, Chypre et la France de
l’après-29 mai. Pourtant, la ligne francaise reste ambiguë, partagee
entre l’Elysee, favorable a l’entree de la Turquie pour des raisons
strategiques, et le Quai d’Orsay, souvent plus sceptique. Pour Jacques
Chirac, la Turquie doit entrer dans l’Europe pour que celle-ci ne
reste pas un “club chretien”. Pour nombre de diplomates francais au
contraire, l’adhesion de la Turquie risque de “denaturer” le projet
europeen. Cette attitude double rend la position francaise souvent
illisible par l’opinion, sauf pour les experts du dossier qui ont
appris a decrypter le jeu de Paris. “En coulisse, les diplomates
francais sont les plus pinailleurs, avec les Chypriotes, constate un
negociateur. Ils font monter la pression jusqu’au bout, mais dès qu’on
frôle la rupture, ils se rangent en faveur d’Ankara. Du coup, Chypre se
retrouve isolee, seule contre tous, et elle doit ceder.” Dans le jeu
diplomatique europeen, la France est moins decisive que l’Allemagne,
qui a toujours vote en faveur de la Turquie. “En Allemagne, la
Turquie est un dossier de politique interieure plus que de politique
etrangère”, note un diplomate, en faisant allusion aux 2,7 millions
de Turcs qui vivent en Allemagne, dont 550 000 avec le droit de
vote. En France, la Turquie restera un dossier de politique etrangère,
jusqu’a ce qu’elle entre dans le champ du referendum, attendu dans
dix ans au minimum, c’est-a-dire a la fin du jeu de l’oie europeen.
–Boundary_(ID_YQkut46D/NGmFlOU7NQTrQ)- –

NEW DANISH DOCUMENTS ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Nouvelles d’Armenie, France
3446
June 25 2006
Documents From The Danish National Archivies
Distributed with permission of the principal researcher, Matthias
Bjørnlund
========================== ==================================
DOCUMENT 1
1915-07-03-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. LXX [70]
Constantinople, July 3, 1915.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In my earlier reports I have already several times had the opportunity
to mention the hatred that the Young Turk government has been showing
with less and less ambiguity against the aliens in Turkey since
the beginning of the war and the abrogation of the capitulations,
and particularly against the Christians.
In spite of the repeated promises that the Grand Vizier has given
to the Apostolic delegate [Monseigneur Angelo Marie Dolci] and to
the mission chiefs, many of the monasteries and other religious
institutions that have been seized have not yet been reopened, and
they are still being treated with the utmost arbitrariness, often
under the pretext of military necessity.
The Catholic church in Bebek by the Bosporus has even been placed
at the disposal of the local Muslims, who have converted it into
a mosque ; and property belonging to the Holy See in Kadikeui,
near Constantinople, has been taken over in order to establish a
Muslim school.
All of these violations, though, amount to nothing compared to a
very vital step, that I have learned today has been taken by the
government to remove the protected status which the Catholics have
enjoyed in Turkey from old times.
The government has established a non-clerical council, made up of 12
Catholic Ottoman subjects – naturally chosen among followers of the
government – who must choose a chairman among themselves.
This council is supposed to administer the Catholic church in Turkey
(i.e., the Latin, not the Greek, Armenian, etc.), and will thus become
some sort of a new Patriarchate.
This way, the representative of the Papal delegate and of the
countries that have Catholic interests in Turkey will be robbed of any
opportunity of attending to such interests and that all monasteries and
churches, and everything that the Catholic church owns in this country,
will be administrated by this new council and seized by the Caliphate.
Not surprisingly, the Papal delegate has refused to receive the 12
newly appointed gentlemen in corpore.
In Catholic circles, there had been hope that under these circumstances
the German ambassador, who represents so many millions of Catholics,
and the representative of the “Apostolic king” [i.e., the Austrian
ambassador Johann Pallavicini] would have a moderating influence on
the Young Turk government, but this seems not to be the case.
The German ambassador says that it must be due to a misunderstanding
if one thinks that Germany or any other power has any influence
here, because the Turkish government disregards the daily efforts
he makes to direct its attention to the many unwise acts by which it
makes itself still more hated, and the Austrian-Hungarian ambassador
expresses himself in a similar way, in that he, among other things,
complains about the arrogant way the Turks try to give the impression
that the advancement of the Austrian armed forces first and foremost
is caused by the Turkish victories against the allied forces at the
Dardanelles and elsewhere.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 2
1915-09-04-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. CXIII [113]
Constantinople, September 4, 1915.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In continuation of my most respectful reports No. LXXVIII [78] of
July 22, No. LXXXVII [87] of July 31, and No. IC [99] of August 18,
I have the honor of reporting that the persecutions of the Armenians
are continuing with great intensity, in spite of the promises made
by the government here, and of which I have already reported.
At the reception Monday the 16th of August, the German ambassador
once again brought up these persecutions with the Grand Vizier,
and asked him to induce his government to cease, – especially when
it comes to the Armenian Catholics who have never participated in
revolutions or interfered with politics and still are subjected to
the most persistent persecutions.
Even the Gregorian Armenians, who have distanced themselves from
all nationalist ideas to the extent that they have abandoned their
mother tongue and have embraced the Turkish language as their own,
are being persecuted.
The promises which the Grand Vizier gave to the German ambassador
were not kept, and when the persecutions and killings continued, His
Holiness Monseigneur Paul Pierre XIII, the Armenian-Catholic Patriarch,
turned to the resident Spanish minister and asked him, in the name of
Catholic Spain, to try to turn once more to the Grand Vizier to obtain
that at least the safety of the Catholic Armenians were respected.
The Spanish minister, who consented and, using the words of the
Patriarch, objected to the Grand Vizier at the reception last Monday,
tells me that His Highness, after having listened to him, showed his
surprise about what had happened, and that he, when the minister
firmly claimed that he had proof that the cruelties mentioned had
actually taken place, noted it and promised to immediately order that
the Armenian Catholics were spared.
However, both the minister and the Patriarch are convinced that these
terrible persecutions will not cease, among other things because the
central government has no power over the provincial authorities,
who, when it suits them, do not obey the orders they receive from
Constantinople, and – last not least – because the Germans in their
opinion only pretend to protest against the persecutions and killings.
It is obvious, they say, that the Germans are interested in the
extermination of the Armenians and in the Greeks fleeing, who fear
that the same thing should happen to them, so that they (the Germans)
without effort can take over Turkey`s trade and become the only
Europeans with a foothold here.
The authorities in the provinces and the Young Turks, they say, do
not consider the German ambassadors’ application to the government
as serious.
I shall briefly allow myself to give an account of the important and
sad communications of the latest developments, that has been given
to me by completely reliable and truthful source, and which is of
such a nature that it will cause general regret everywhere in the
Christian world.
The Turks are vigorously carrying through their cruel intention,
to exterminate the Armenian people.
In Brussa they have forced the well-to-do Armenians to pay the police
300 Turkish pounds (approximately 5000 Danish kroner) a person to be
allowed to stay in the city, and yet the next day they have banished
them from the city with their wifes and children.
Where these unfortunate people are now, and what fate they have met
after they have had to leave their homes, it is not possible to learn
even for the closest family.
In Adana the governor has ordered the posting of a proclamation which,
in a French translation I have received from the Patriarchate, goes
as follows :
“1) Jusqu`a la fin du mois courant les armeniens se trouvant dans la
ville meme d`Adana doivent avoir ete expedies au fur et a mesure et par
groupes. 2) Les proprietaires des fabriques sises a Mersina et a Adana,
ainsi que les employes de celles-ci qui travaillent pour le compte
du Departement Militaire, son exemptes pour le moment : ils ne seront
pas expedies et seront employes comme auparavant dans leur travaux.
3) Les familles dont les soutiens ou les maris sont en service
militaire ne seront pas expedies.
4) Tout le monde doit, a partir d`aujourd`hui, regler et mettre en
ordre ses affaires et se tenir pret a l`ordre de monter en chemin
de fer.
5) Il ne sera fait aucun cas de recours, qui seront faits faits pour
une demande de prolongation de delai ou d`autres empechements. 6)
L`expedition se fera quartier par quartier. 7) Il ne sera permis
pour chaque famille que le transport d`une quantite de meubles de
150 kilos seulement.
8) Pour les familles composees de plus 6 personnes, grandes ou petites,
il sera permis le transport de 200 kilos de meubles.
9) La population musulmans de la ville et de la banlieue est obligee
de fournir, pour cette expedition, les moyens de transport.
10) La commission nommee pour s`occuper des moyens de transport,
a commence deja ses travaux.
11) Les familles qui se seraient procure elles-meme leur moyens
de transport, sont autorisees, en vertu des pièces qui leur seront
delivrees par les Commissaires de Police, a se rendre directement a
Badjou et de la a Alep.
12) Par le train qui sera prepare le samedi 15 du mois courant,
seront expedies les quartiers de Akdje, Nesjid, Saradjen, Kharab,
Bagtche, Tchoukour, Kassab Bekir, Yarbachi, Tcinanli et Karan.
13) A partir de demain la population de ces quartiers devra absolument
s`adresser a la Commission d`inscription placee sous la presidence de
Adil Bey dans le Commissariat de Police et après s`etre fait inscrire,
devra prendre une pièce scellee et legalisee.
14) Ceux qui d`après l`inscription de leur etat civil, sinon du nombre
des habitants de ces quartiers et qui actuellement resident ailleurs,
leurs domiciles actuels ne seront pas pris en consideration, mais
ils seront obligee d`aller se faire inscrire avec les habitants des
quartiers auxquels ils appartiennent, et de partir, dans la meme
journee, avec les habitants de leur quartier d`origine.
15) Pour l`expedition soit des familles de militaires, soit des
personnes qui se trouveraient habitant dans d`autres quartiers, il
sera tenu compte, pour principe d`operation, de l`enregistrement de
leur etat civil.
16) Toutes les operations qui ne seront pas faites par inscription,
ne seront pas prises en consideration.
17) La population de ses quartiers devra, au matin du jour designe
ci-haut a 12 heures a la turque, avec ses bagages, tel qu`il est
dit a l`Art. 7 et avec les membres de la famille, se trouver a
la Nouvelle Station. 18) On doit se rendre a Alep par la voie de
Osmanieh-Radjou. 19) Une Commission speciale etant envoyee a Osmanieh,
sur la presentation des pièces, conformement a l`Art. 13, distribuera
a chaque famille, dans la mesure possible, des moyens de transport
et organisera les expeditions par groupes.
20) A l`arrivee a Osmanieh la susdite Commission fera diligence pour
l`installation et le bien-etre des groupes : par consequent chaque
quartier devra faire par l`intermediarie de leur Mouhtar respectif,
recours a la susdite Commission.
21) La quantite des personnes employees dont le sejour a ete decide,
avant etre notifie aux bureaux de la Police et de la Gendarmerie,
il sera procede, par les dits bureaux, a la separation et au maintien
de ceux-ci.
22) La sera delivre par la direction de la police, aux personnes
ainsi exemptees, des documents reguliers et legalises, concernant
leur maintien.
23) Si parmi la population des quartiers qui ont ete avisees, il se
trouvait des personnes, qui, a partir de demain, ne se presenteraient
pas et ne se feraient inscrire, ou qui ne se trouveraient pas
presentes a la Nouvelle Station au jour indique pour le depart soit
le samedi 15 du mois courant a l`heure indique ou qui chercheraient a
trouver des ruses ou des pretextes, les Mouhtars et les Conseils des
vieillards sont obliges de prevenir les Autorites et si les habitants
et le Mouhtar auraient contrevenu a tout cela, ils seront consideres
comme ayant agi contre l`Autorite Militaire et les ordres de l`etat
de mobilisation et seront immediatement deferes a la Cour Martiale
et dans les 24 heures une sentence sera donnee et executee.
24) Les ordres formelles, comme il convent, ayant ete donnes a tous les
bureaux. Il est preferable de travailler a completer ces preparatifs
plutôt que de perdre du temps a chercher des pretextes et a faire
des demarches inutiles. Août 1915.
In a letter received here from the bishop of Erzerum, Monseigneur
Melchisedechian, it is stated that the parish of Khodirtchour, which
was made up of 12 villages, has been completely evacuated, and that
no one knows what has happened to the vanished population.
That same prelate, on July 17 this year, reported that he himself
had been forced to set out for an unknown destination, and nothing
has been heard of him since.
The former bishop of that same district, Monseigneur Ketchourian,
at the same time travelled to Constantinople, but disappeared along
the way.
The bishop of Karput, Monseigneur Israëlian, on June 23 reported to
the Patriarchate that he had been ordered to leave the town for Aleppo
with all of his parishioners within 48 hours, and it has later been
learned that this bishop and all the clergy that accompanied him have
been attacked and killed between Diarbekir and Urfa at a place where
approximately 1700 Armenian families have suffered the same fate.
The whole of the population in the abovementioned parish are considered
lost.
The population in the parishes of Diarbekir and Malatia has also been
driven out of their villages, and it is not known what has happened
to the bishops Tchelebian and Khatchadourian and their parishioners.
The sad message has also been confirmed that the archbishop of Mardin,
Monseigneur Maloyan, and approx. 700 of his Catholic parishioners
have been killed, and that the population in the town of Tallermen,
which was purely Catholic, has been completely exterminated.
Reports are completely lacking on what has happened to the bishop
of Mouch, Monseigneur Topuzian, and his parishioners, but there is
reason to believe that they too have been killed.
It is feared that a similar fate has befallen the clergy and
parishioners of Gurin.
In the parish of Sivas, the only village to have been spared is
Pirkinik, where the archbishop, Monseigneur Ketchedjian, has escaped
to. He, and one cleric that accompanied him, are the only survivors.
Trebizond, Samson, [illegible], Marsivan, and Amassia have been
completely evacuated, and there is no knowledge of what has happened
to the 47 clerics of these towns.
Tarsus, Hedzin, and Mersina have suffered the same fate.
In Angora, all of the men have been abducted from the town, and the
women have been forced to marry Muslims ; approximately 6000 men,
approximately 70 clerics, and the bishop, Monseigneur Gregoire Bahaban,
have been shot on the road to the place of banishment.
In the city of Ismid, the government has ordered that the Armenian
Catholics who had been banished to Eskicheir should be allowed to
return to their homes, but the governor would not let them enter
the city, and sent them back. The same thing has happened in many
other places.
Even here in Constantinople Armenians are being abducted and sent to
Asia, and it is not possible to get information of their whereabouts.
The Patriarchate has calculated that half of the Armenian-Catholic
hierarchy has been lost ; 7 bishops, approximately 100 priests, 70
other clerics, and thousands upon thousands of their parishioners
have disappeared.
The Church formerly consisted of 16 districts (Constantinople, Mardin,
Diarbekir, Karput, Malatia, Sivas-Tokat, Mouch, Erzerum, Trebisond,
Angora, Cesaree, Brussa, Adana, Marache, Aleppo, and Alexandrie [=
Alexandrette]), and according to the latest information only Marash,
Aleppo, and Cesaree have been spared outside of Constantinople.
The fate that thus has befallen the Catholic Armenians, have with
even greater cruelty befallen all the other Armenians, in that the
aim of the government, as I have already had the honor to report,
is to completely exterminate the Armenian people.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 3 1915-09-22-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office,Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. CXXV [125]
Constantinople, September 22, 1915.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In my earlier reports I have already tried to demonstrate how H. M.
the Sultan rules, and how the Committee is managing.
I have tried to demonstrate that Turkey has been incautious in giving
up its neutrality, given that the country`s position will be very
difficult if the war ends with a victory of one of the groups of
Great Powers.
Regarding the fate of the country if the Entente powers win, Mr.
Foreign Minister is far better informed than I ; the matters that I
have the opportunity to observe will only have a minor influence in
the event of such an outcome, and I therefore prefer to deal with
the question of what will happen in the event of a victory for the
Central Powers.
If the Central Powers are victorious, and the Balkan coalition is
not being reformed against the “German danger,” Turkey will in all
probability be faced with the choice of either giving up the major
parts of its political and economic independence to the benefit of
Germany, who will then gain firm ground here, or to enter into a
probably rather hopeless struggle for independence against its mighty
ally, and when this choice is to be made, the matters that I observe
daily could be decisive.
There is already full awareness in the German embassy here, that a
serious conflict between Germany and Turkey, who in a future union
undoubtedly will demand an equal status, hardly will be avoidable,
even at best, if the chauvinists remain in power. Some remarks made
to me recently by the embassy`s advisory specialist in Balkan policy
is certainly indicative thereof.
When I, after having expressed my admiration for the great and
outstanding achievements of the German diplomatic and military missions
to the benefit of Germany`s interests, added that I still found it
hard to forgive German Balkan policy that it, by strengthening and
flattering the Committee, has helped bring about its arrogance and
xenophobia to such an extent that the government here has become
thoroughly intractable, he answered that, from the German position,
this was readily regretted.
“But you must not forget,” he said, “that we had no other option ;
we needed Turkey`s help – it was for us a matter of life and death,
and we had to let things slide.”
By and large, there can therefore hardly be much doubt about where
it goes from here ; since the foreign warships (station ships) left
the roadstead of Constantinople, the presumptuousness of the Young
Turks has been ever increasing, and there can probably be no talk of
moderation in thought and principles before the ships return.
A thorough study of the prospects in the event of a victory for the
Central Powers, though, faces many difficulties, since it is almost
impossible to obtain reliable information about the composition and
practical circumstances of the true, but irresponsible, government
of the country – the Committee. The history of the Committe has not
yet been written, and the persons who know it dare not speak out.
Considering the topicality of the subject, I will still try to give,
based on what I learn here, a short description of the Committee
and its men – who make up a kind of directorate, consisting of 15-20
members, that decides the actions of the government – and of the change
in its policy since July 1908, when it intervened for the first time
in the fate of the country with a firm grip and, measured with the
standards of this country, [became] a uniquely thorough organization.
The distinctive feature of the Young Turk Committee has always been,
and still is, its organizational strength. Without this firmness,
the Committee would not have been able to withstand being persecuted
by despotism, and to even grow in strength to such an extent that
it could topple the old regime. This organizational firmness, which
the Committee created in its earliest days when it toiled with its
great work of liberation, it has kept since that time, for better
or for worse, and when in power it has, aided by that firmness,
been able to get away with unpunished abuses similar to that of
the toppled despotism, [and,] aided by it, it could regain power by
determined action when it had been dethroned. And the Committee is
not only equipped with this organizational strength, it also is and
has always been the only Turkish political organization in possession
of this quality ; all the other parties, that have been formed since
the introduction of the constitution, have lacked it – and they have
quickly succumbed.
An effect of this state of things is that the top positions of the
Committee are no longer held by the theorists who originally drew
up the program of the Committee, but by its political-organizational
leaders, those men who have worked in the service of the organization
from the beginning, not as great idealists or founding statesmen,
but as organizers who use all means to further the well-being of their
organization. This fact also explains that the Committee now, albeit
under much the same leaders as in its earliest years of struggle,
actually fights for a completely different program than then it had –
it is not the ideals, but power that has been and is being fought for.
Among the men in the leadership of the Committee, one first of all
has to mention the present leader of the government, interior minister
Talaat Bey, without doubt a significant politician.
Talaat Bey, former telegraphist in the provinces, was working for
the Committee from its earliest days, and he came to the forefront
immediately after the revolution as one of the leaders of Turkish
politics, but only after 1909 did he and other Young Turk leaders
become direct members of the government – Talaat Bey as interior
minister – to replace the old Pashas, who still for some time had
been allowed to remain in office as puppets. It was Talaat Bey who,
when the Committee had been toppled by “the liberating officers”
(in the Spring of 1912), led the secret effort of the Committee
to regain power, and he who, together with his friends, in effect,
by nationalistic demonstrations, forced Kiamil [Kamil] Pasha, the
then Grand Vizier, to engage in the unfortunate war against the
Balkan states (the end of 1912), instead of accepting to effectively
implement the reforms demanded by the Powers. And once again, it was
Talaat Bey who, together with Enver Pasha, was the leader behind the
new coup d`etat, that once again brought the Young Turks to power –
in accordance with Talaat`s plan at the exact moment when the Kiamil
cabinet sent the note to the Great Powers, where it gave up Adrianople
as a result of the urgent requests of those Powers. Kiamil Pasha`s
abandonment of the holy Adrianople would have put the men of the coup
d`etat in a more flattering light as national liberators who toppled
the cabinet that had unnecessarily surrendered parts of the country,
but, as chance would have it, the toppled cabinet had not delivered
the note of reply to the Powers (it had been sent, but because of an
editorial error it was called back before the delivery to the Austrian
ambassador), and it was the new Young Turk ministry that was left with
responsibility for the decision. It was luck – the internal struggle
of the Balkan states – and not foresight that saved Talaat and the
Committee`s power and regained Adrianople for Turkey.
Since then, Talaat has more and more become the centre of the Young
Turk Committee. The military members – and especially Enver Pasha
– have had to focus on the defence of the country, and the entire
government has slipped into the hands of Talaat Bey, who actually is
both minister of the interior, of finance, and of foreign affairs.
Close to Talaat is his friend Halil Bey, chairman of the deputy chamber
and of the Committee, Bedri Bey, prefect of the security police in
Turkey (in the Spring of 191[ ?] he had been condemned to death for
having shot a military police officer, had later escaped from prison,
been pardoned, and made chief of public security), Nazim Bey, the
Committee`s chauvinist secretary general and leader of the daily
administration of the Committee, Midhat Chukri Bey and Behaeddine
Chakir Bey, also pronounced chauvinists, Hussein Djahid Bey, former
editor of the Committee`s organ “Tanin,” and Djavid Bey, the former
finance minister, who took care of the great loan in France in 1914,
from a Jewish family that converted to Islam, originally school
inspector in the provinces, etc., etc.
A person completely preoccupied at the moment by the military events
is Enver Pasha, the officer who, together with Niazi Bey who was
killed shortly after, in June 1908 raised the rebel banner with his
troops in Albania, and thereby originated the revolution itself,
after which he became military attache in Berlin, a nomination that
surely has had a great impact on the relationship between Germany and
Turkey. After having returned to Turkey he became chief of staff for
the 10th Army Corps, was an active participant in the coup d`etat in
1913, and led the triumphant expedition to Adrianople. As a reward
he was, albeit relatively late, made minister of war in January 1914,
and thereby gained all of Turkey`s military power in his hand, after
the Committee had fired all the old generals and high ranking officers,
who enjoyed popularity with the troops, and replaced them with Enver
Pasha`s new proteges.
Another influential military member of the Committee was until lately
Enver Pasha`s co-suitor to the military leadership, Djemal Pasha, the
former military commander of Constantinople, named Pasha the same day
as Enver, decorated with the Osmanieh Order at the same time as Enver,
and finally, on Enver Pasha`s advice, made traffic minister to limit
his influence, but later, after urgent request, made marine minister,
a capacity in which he worked with great force on the renewal of the
fleet right until the beginning of the war, when he left Constantinople
as chief of the army that was sent to Egypt. From this time on, Djemal
Pasha has naturally been unable to participate in the governing of
Turkey, and the Marine Ministry too has been in the hands of Enver.
Among other people who have left their mark on the work of the
Committee during the past time, besides from the “liberator” Mahmoud
Chevket Pasha who was murdered in June 1913, must be mentioned Azmi
Bey, who, together with the then military commander of the city,
Djemal Pasha, and in connection with Talaat Bey, led the terror
regime as Chief of Police in the capital after the killing of Mahmoud
Chevket Pasha, but who on the Russian embassy`s firm demand was sent
to Konia shortly thereafter as governor, furthermore Hadji Adil Bey,
the present governor in Adrianople, mentioned in my report No. CXXIII
[123] of yesterday, and finally 2 men, who have eventually distanced
themselves from the Committee because they could not follow it in its
lust for power and its abuse : Rahmy Bey, the governor of the vilayet
Aidin (Smyrna), who, as also mentioned in my earlier reports, several
times has opposed the Committee`s orders when he found them unjust,
and Ahmed Riza Bey, who became the only important opponent of the
Committee`s autocracy in the last parliamentary session. Riza Tevfik
Bey, an influential member in the early days of the Committee as the
original intellectual protagonist of the Committee, and very esteemed
by all sides, also by the opponents of the Committee, was already at
an early stage repulsed by the way the rulers realized his ideals,
and was already in 1910 among the opponents of the Committee.
The Committee for Union and Progress took control under the motto :
Equal rights for all Ottomans. But to achieve the unity, that was at
the beginning of the Committe`s title, in the vast and ethnographically
tangled empire, there had to be created both an Ottoman sense of unity
shared by all peoples of the empire, and be raised guarantees that
this new “Ottomanism” would also be led by the Young Turk members
of the Committee in the future, both be created equal rights for all
Ottoman citizens, without consideration for nationality and religion
(the idealistic demands of the revolution), and made sure that the new
Ottomanism would still become a purely Turkish movement. The struggle
between these demands lasted for some time, until the Committee
immediately after the end of the Balkan war threw one of the demands
(equal rights for all Ottomans) overboard and decided to go forward
along the road of Turkification, the road that is characterized by
the anti-Greek boycott in the Spring of 1914 that affected those
Greeks who were Ottoman subjects just as well as the Greek subjects,
the simultaneous persecutions of the Greeks in Asia Minor and Thrace,
and, later that same year – with German assistance – the declaration
of Jihad, which was favoured by the World War and the subsequent
abrogation of the capitulations, and which finally has led to the
xenophobic and nationalistic policy, whose effects I have lately looked
closely upon several times in my reports, and whose main purpose at the
moment is the extermination of the Armenian population of the empire.
Mr. Foreign Minister will maybe realize from this account, in spite of
its faultiness, that it does not seem to be men with great political
refinement and experience, or with good knowledge, who now rule Turkey,
but people whose foolhardiness and irrepressable force of will and
action has replaced the former inertia, which was the strength of
the old Pashas before 1908, and Germany, should the occasion arise,
will have to realize that they are not manageable.
They are chauvinists and xenophobes, more or less true fanatics and
enthusiastic desperados ; for some of them there can be no doubt about
their integrity, but the common perception is that it will continue
down that same road that has already led to so many serious conflicts.
After the Greeks and the Armenians, the Jews and the Germans will most
likely be next, and it is very probable that the present government
will, at a given moment, prefer to play va banque and put everything on
the line, rather than understand that wise compliance and a compromise
for practical reasons can be preferable to a policy that almost can
be characterized as national suicide.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 4
1916-04-27-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. N, No. 1, “Armenia”
No. LXXXXVIII [98]
Constantinople, April 27, 1916.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
The Papal minister [Angelo Marie Dolci] yesterday turned up in the
local Spanish legation [in Constantinople] accompanied by a German
Catholic priest who had arrived here from the Turkish Vilayet of Angora
in Asia Minor, where he has witnessed the treatment that has befallen
the local Armenian Catholic congregation, and which he introduced to
the [Spanish] minister, whom they asked to intervene and protest to
the Porte in the name of Catholic Spain.
The reason for their turning to the Spanish legation, they said, was
because the German and Austrian embassies had such a relationship
with the Turkish government that they, in order not to [offend]
it, had to show so much consideration that they really could not
energetically plead the cause of the Armenians.
When one bears in mind that the two embassies mentioned represent
24 and 34 million Catholics respectively, and that the leader of the
Catholic Centrum of the German Reichstag [Matthias Erzberger] in these
very days is here in Constantinople on an official visit as a guest
of the Turkish government, and that the local German ambassador,
Count Metternich, himself is a Catholic, one can conclude by this
request how careful the German diplomacy in Turkey is now acting,
and the extent to which it weighs Germany`s political considerations
over all other considerations.
Even though, as it appears from my report No. CXIII [113] of September
4 last year, 13 of the 16 Catholic congregations that existed among
the Armenians in Turkey outside of Constantinople have disappeared
completely, without anyone having knowledge of what has happened to
all of the clergy, the Catholic Centrum of the German Reichstag does
not seem to dare to attempt any forceful intervention on behalf of
its unfortunate, persecuted co-religionists.
While describing the state of things, I shall not refrain from adding
that it is very possible that even a vigorous German diplomatic
intervention on behalf of the Armenians would not move the Turkish
government to refrain from its project, because the great effort that
the local American embassy, which does not have to show the same
kind of consideration as the German and Austrian embassy, has done
to save the Armenians, has, the American Charge d`Affaires [Phillips]
tells me, been fruitless, and this has in all probability, after what
I only later have learned, also been one of the contributing factors
to the departure of the American ambassador [Henry Morgenthau].
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
———————————————- ———————————-
DOCUMENT 5
1916-03-14-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. N, No. 1, “Armenia”
1 enclosure.
No. LVIII [58]
Constantinople, March 14, 1916.
Mr Foreign Minister,
In continuation of my report No. LIV [54] dated the 10th of this
month concerning the persecutions of the Armenians, I have the honor
to report that the latest pieces of information received here state
that the general removal of the Armenian population, which has already
taken place in all the other Vilayets of Asia Minor except for the
Vilayet Aidin (Smyrna), has now also begun in the Vilayet of Castamuni,
in which the Armenians hitherto have not been disturbed.
The governor of the Vilayet of Castamuni, who has not used the
authority given to him to have the Armenian population removed,
has been dismissed, and in his place the governor up till now of the
Vilayet of Angora, who has been more zealous, has been appointed.
I use the opportunity to send an enclosed official announcement from
today concerning the execution of 4 Armenians, who were hanged in
Stambul yesterday morning.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
Enclosure : “Lloyd Ottoman”, March 14, 1916 :
Pendaisons
Du commandement de la place :
Par decision de la cour martiale sont condamnes a la peine capitale
: Les nommes Horen veledi Hatchadour Beremian, forgeron habitant
la quartier Kouyoumdji a Adapazar, Kirkor veledi Ohannès, Kabian,
locataire de l`hôtel Ararat et du casino habitant dans le quartier
Abdal de la meme ville, le bijoutier Karabet veledi Ohannès Patokian,
du village Bagdjedjik (Ismidt), convaincus d`avoir fait partie du
comite revolutionnaire armenien et d`avoir neglige de remettre,
durant le delai prescrit, aux autorites les bombes cachees dans leur
maison ; ainsi que le converti Mehmed Chakir bin Minas alias Abdullah,
de Brousse coinvancu d`avoir complote contre le gouvernement ottoman
et d`avoir fait l`espionnage contre le gouvernement pou le compte du
gouvernement Anglais et le nomme Adem effendi de Monastir, agent de
police, convaincu d`avoir assassine par premeditation Ali Riza bey,
merkez m’mour du poste Tcinili a Scutari.
Cette decision de la court martiale ayant ete sanctionnee par irade
imperial, l`execution a eu lieu hier matin. Les quatre premiers
condamnes ont ete pendus sur la place de Bayazid et l`agent de police
Adem effendi pres du debarcadère de Scutari.
# # #
———————————————– ———————-
Translations of reports from the archives of the Danish foreign
ministry documenting the Armenian genocide were by Matthias Bjørnlund.
Copyright Matthias Bjørnlund and Wolfgang Gust,
website :
email : [email protected].
–Boundary_(ID_rwZ53vZAMhF /il0yEaQK7Q)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress