Author: Emil Lazarian

Today, Azerbaijan
April 22 2006
Elmar Mammdayarov: “It is difficult to expect any new offers on the
NK conflict in Washington”

22 April 2006 [16:30] – Today.Az

New proposals are unlikely to be heard during Washington’s
discussions on resolution of Armenian-Azeri conflict.

“Positions of Azerbaijan on which we were standing on last 15 years
remain the same. We always stated and keep stating that the problem
shall be resolved in compliance with the international law and
resolutions issued by UN Security Council and OSCE. There is no doubt
that if we want to resolve the conflict once and for all, the
resolution shall be based on legislation alone. Arbitrators are
trying to find contact points to get us closer,” Trend reports
quoting Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, who was speaking in
Moscow commenting the forthcoming official visit of Azeri President
to the USA.
Speaking on self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh population,
Mamedyarov said it didn’t imply any breach of territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan. “Self-determination of nation or a national minority
is performed under the territorial integrity, and Azerbaijan, in
turn, is eager to provide the highest level of autonomy to Armenian
minority within Nagorno Karabakh. This practice is well-known and is
utilized worldwide,” Foreign Minister said.
Mammadyarov said also of a broad range of issues regarding mutual
cooperation, as well as international and regional development, to be
spoken of during the forthcoming visit of Azeri president Ilham
Aliyev to the USA. The minister said one of the main topics would be
conflict resolution on Caucasus. During the visit presidents will
also speak of power security, fight against international terrorism
and Azerbaijan’s participation in anti-terrorist coalition.

URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Memories must live on for Armenian genocide victims
by ART TONOYAN, guest columnist
Baylor University The Lariat Online, Texas
April 20 2006
April 24 marks the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide in the
Ottoman Empire — the first genocide of the 20th century, which has
come to be described as the “century of genocide.”
Some 90 years ago, the ruling elites of the Ottoman Empire put into
motion a plan to homogenize their empire and thus save it from imminent
collapse due to a number of internal as well as external factors like
economic mismanagement and resurgent nationalisms among the empire’s
subject ethnic minorities.
A nationalist and a racialist ideology known as Turkism was adopted,
which while elevating the Turkish ethnos, defined the subject
nationalities as malicious and cancerous entities actively contributing
to the demise of the empire.
This ideology subsequently provided grounds for the establishment
of a distinctively Turkish national economy, effectively putting an
end to the traditional multiethnic mercantile strata of the empire
composed mainly of Armenians, Jews and Greeks.
One of the folk sayings circulating around at the time went something
like “Trust a snake before a Jew; trust a Jew before a Greek; but
never trust an Armenian.” Their stories were boycotted in a load of
cases, and in many other cases their businesses were increasingly
becoming subject to frenzied mob attacks and looting. Yet this was
only the beginning.
Armenians, who had gained prominence in the empire over the centuries,
not the least because of their fiscal competence, became increasingly
vulnerable to this kind of harassment.
It did not help them that they were religiously and geographically
in close proximity to their Russian neighbors to the north with whom
the Ottoman Empire was in a state of war.
In response to the increasing discrimination and violence against them,
the Armenian minority began agitating for the betterment of their
condition. The response from the government was swift, calculated
and cruel.
Rendering the Armenians economically defenseless was only part of
the plan.
Now they were defenseless existentially.
The European powers as well as the U.S. did not intervene on their
behalf in any significant fashion that went beyond condemnatory,
if symbolic, enjoinments.
And on April 24, 1915, nearly all Armenian intellectuals in the empire
were arrested and executed without a trial.
After the bulk of the Armenian leadership was put to death and the
viability of resistance was reduced to nil, the Ottoman government
under the guise of World War I began systematic deportations and
massacres of the Christian Armenians en masse.
Armenian villages and churches were burned down, and a large number
of women and children were killed with indescribable cruelty. Over
the course of three years, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians became
victims of indiscriminate massacres.
Their crime? Their distinct national and religious identity.
Despite the enormity of the atrocities and the cruelty wrought upon
the victims, virtually all of the perpetrators were spared punishment.
As time went on, political expediency coupled with business interests
in the newly formed Turkish Republic would make sure that the victims
and their plight would be remembered no more. But as it turned out,
not everybody was as forgetful.
In 1939, having the benefit of historical hindsight, Adolph Hitler —
while planning genocide of his own against the Jews and the Poles —
urged on his generals, who may have displayed reservation at this
plans, to carry them out nonetheless by saying: “What the weak western
European civilization thinks about me does not matter. Thus for the
time being I have sent to the East only my ‘Death Head Units’ with
the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children
of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the
living space we need. Who still talks nowadays of the annihilation
of the Armenians?”
Czech novelist Milan Kundera had once remarked that “the struggle
against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”
It has become human, all too human, to hit the imaginary delete button
and send tragic events like the Armenian genocide, the Jewish Holocaust
and countless others into the Orwellian “memory hole.”
In the case of the victimized Armenians, Jews, Rwandans and others,
it may be too late to be our brothers’ keepers.
Yet in keeping their memories alive we may very well keep ourselves
alive in an age of insanity and endless amusement.
And let us never forget that genocide is ours to commit and ours
to prevent.
Art Tonoyan is a doctoral candidate in the J. M. Dawson Institute
for Church-State Studies.
tion=story&story=40334
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenia supports Karabakh’s right to self-determination
Interfax-Religion, Russia
April 20 2006
YEREVAN. April 20 (Interfax) – Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian said that Yerevan is ready to discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement with Baku, should the Azerbaijani authorities recognize
the right of the breakaway republic to self-determination.
“Armenia is ready to discuss all issues linked to overcoming the
consequences of war with Azerbaijan, should Baku recognize Karabakh’s
right to self-determination and should Baku not impede Karabakh
residents to define the status of Nagorno-Karabakh,” the minister
said at a press conference on Thursday.
“Our stance is that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh should decide for
themselves on the status they need,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA
April 20 2006
Generations after genocide
By Melody Hanatani/ Staff Writer
Thursday, April 20, 2006
When Belmont resident Lois Malconian had twins, she thought it was odd.
She asked her father, “How could this happen? It’s not in our
family.” Her father replied that his grandmother had three sets of
twins, all of whom were killed in the Armenian genocide.
As the 91st anniversary of the genocide approaches, Malconian,
a third-generation Armenian-American, is commemorating the tragedy
with her family and her community this week.
She remembers growing up in Belmont hearing stories about the genocide
from her grandparents who immigrated to the United States in the
1920s when they were still children.
She and her husband Ron, whose grandparents also came to the United
States around the 1920s, have passed on the stories to their own
three children.
Ron Malconian recalls how his grandmother refused to cut her
hair because women shaved their heads during the genocide to look
unattractive in order to avoid rape.
“To her it was something precious,” he said.
Lois recalled how her grandmother would become angry and cry when
she talked about the genocide.
“Your great-grandparents went through a lot,” Lois has told her
children.
As a 10-year-old, Lois would hear emotional stories about the genocide
from her grandmother. Lois’ children say their learning experience
was less emotional.
Vicky Tomasian, a first-generation Armenian-American whose parents
both survived the genocide, said it was difficult for the immigrants
to talk about their experiences.
Tomasian, who grew up in Watertown and now lives in Belmont, said the
younger generation of Armenian-Americans seem to be more knowledgeable
about the genocide because there are more books and articles published
about the subject.
“So much has happened in the last 30 years,” she said. “I know more
now than I did growing up.”
Staying together
Many Armenian immigrants arrived in Watertown around the early 1900s
and began working at the former Hood rubber plant, according to Marc
A. Mamigonian, director of programs and publications at the National
Association for Armenian Studies and Research, located in Belmont.
“Like any other [ethnic] community, others tend to follow,” he said.
There are numerous Armenian churches in Cambridge, Watertown and
Belmont. Though religion helps bring the community together, Mamigonian
said it also serves as a divider because of the different denominations
within the Armenian community. The main one is the Armenian Apostolic
Church, he said.
Tomasian said family and religion are important to the Armenian
community in and around Belmont.
She stays connected to her culture through her church, and through
the Armenian Women’s Educational Club, which was co-founded by her
grandmother who immigrated to the United States more than 80 years
ago. Tomasian is the president of the club today, and her mother also
once headed the organization.
The club awards about four college scholarships each year to
Armenian-American high school seniors from Metropolitan Boston.
External factors also unite the ethnic group.
According to Mamigonian, the current Turkish government’s denial of
the Armenian genocide has helped unify the local Armenian-American
community.
“That is certainly something that holds the community together,”
he said. “Whether that is a good thing or not is a different story.”
Generational divide
Lois and Ron Malconian have never been to Armenia, but their eldest
daughter, Sarah, visited in 2004 as part of the Cambridge-Yerevan
Sister City Secondary School Partnership Program, an exchange program
to promote democracy, which brings high school students from Belmont
and surrounding communities to Armenia each year.
Now a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
Sarah said she sensed a cultural rift between herself and the native
Armenians during her stay.
She said she was chastised because she could not speak Armenian.
Sarah said she definitely values her camaraderie with her fellow
Armenians and Armenian-Americans.
“A big part of being Armenian is keeping the Armenian bond alive,”
she said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TREND Info, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006
Armenian FM’s statement is constructive and shows commitment to
peaceful conversation – Azeri Foreign Ministry
Source: “Trend”
Author: S.Agayeva
20.04.2006
Last statements from Armenian Foreign Minister V. Oskanyan are
constructive and show the commitment to the peaceful conversation
process, Trend reports quoting Tair Tagizadeh, head of information
and press, Azeri Foreign Ministry.
On April Oskanyan reportedly said “f Azerbaijan recognizes
Nagorno-Karabakh’s people’s right for independent identification of
their future status, Armenia is ready to make serious conversations
on resolution of war consequences”. And two days back he said the
following: “In case Azerbaijan agrees that Nagorno-Karabakh’s people
have the right for self-determination that may be embodied not today,
but in the future, Armenian side is ready to discuss the most important
war issues today – grounds, refugees and so on”.
“This statement witnesses Armenians’ intention to actively participate
in peace conversations on resolution of Armenian-Azeri conflict, –
said Tagizadeh, – This statement is de facto the evidence of commitment
to stage-by-stage resolution. It is known that stage-by-stage process
stipulates Armenian forces withdrawal from grounds surrounding Nagorno
Karabakh. It also includes a mass of accompanying elements like mine
clearing, communications recovery, return of forced migrants and
ensuring their safety. And second issue is definition of Nagorno
Karabakh’s status”.
As to self-determination, Tagizadeh said, it is quite possible even
within the state. “This is the very highest autonomy status we are
talking of”, – he concluded.
Tagizadeh.also shared an opinion on Oskanyan’s statement regarding
Armenia’s joining Trans-Caspian gas pipeline and supposed conversations
with the USA. “Armenia may not talk to the USA alone for a number of
reasons. One of them is that no regional project is executed without
Azerbaijan either as an exporter or a transit country. We may consider
cooperation with Armenia possible only upon completion of resolution
and elimination of its consequences”, – Azeri official underlined.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU supports peaceful settlement of Nagorno Garabagh conflict
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006
[ 20 Apr. 2006 15:57 ]
“The European Union supports peaceful settlement of the Nagorno
Garabagh conflict, and is ready to render all-round assistance to the
sides to solve it,” EU Troika delegation leader, Austrian Foreign
Ministry State Secretary Hans Winkler stated (APA). He said the delay
of settlement poses great obstacle to the development of the region.
“Only the conflicting sides can find the way out of the problem. If
they ask our assistance, we’ll provide it immediately,” Mr.Winkler
said.
Commenting on the opening of Armenia-Turkey border, and Turkey’s
recognizing the so-called “Armenian genocide”, Winkler said that the
European Union wants that Armenia and Turkey have normal relations.
/APA/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

New Anatolian, Turkey
April 20 2006
Sensoy: Turkey will act responsibly to help defuse Iran issue
The Associated Press / Washington
Turkish Ambassador to Washington Nabi Sensoy late Tuesday dismissed
speculations that the Iranian nuclear standoff could create a crisis
between Turkey and the U.S., saying that Ankara will act as a
responsible member of the international community on the Iranian
issue.
Addressing Turkish-U.S. relations in a speech at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a leading U.S.-based
think tank, Sensoy said that there may be nuanced differences in
policies followed by the two countries towards Iran, but the goal is
the same.
“During their talks with Iranian leaders, Turkish officials should
pressure them to voice their real intentions about their nuclear
activities in order to convince the international community,” said
Sensoy, underlining that Turkey favors a diplomatic solution to the
dispute between Tehran and the West over Iran’s nuclear program.
—————Ara Baslik————–
‘Turkey wants to take Britain’s role in US-EU relations’
Sensoy expressed Turkey’s goal of taking over Britain’s powerful role
as a bridge between U.S. and European Union relations following its
accession to the 25-nation bloc.
“Ankara is trying to bring its foreign policy and security
initiatives in line with those of the EU. It is also working to share
common values and goals with the U.S.,” said the Turkish ambassador,
stressing the importance of good U.S.-EU relations for Turkey. “NATO
is the backbone of transatlantic relations, and cooperation between
Turkey, the EU and the U.S. under the umbrella of NATO will be
crucial to respond to new security threats,” he added.
Sensoy stated that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured
him that there is a political will to protect and develop strategic
partnership between the two countries, adding that two “hiccups”
appear to have damaged the relations. “One of them is the movie
‘Valley of the Wolves Iraq,’ and the other is the surprise visit of
the Hamas delegation to Turkey [in February]. I call these events
‘hiccups’ because they are too tiny to damage well-established
bilateral relations” he said.
“Valley of the Wolves not only tatters the image of Turkey in the
U.S., but it also negatively affects Turkish psychology. Ankara
conveyed not only the international community’s but also Turkey’s
requests and expectations from Hamas during their visit,” he added.
‘PBS documentary one-sided’
Sensoy lashed out at the U.S. public television network PBS for
airing a controversial documentary about the Armenian genocide
claims, saying that the documentary was one-sided since it gave
little opportunity for scholars who don’t support the Armenian thesis
to have their say.
“Instead of accepting the Armenian genocide claims as an unresolved
issue, the documentary aimed to silence legitimate discussion on the
controversial issue. In contradiction to the thesis of the
documentary, Armenian genocide claims have never a found historical
or legal basis,” Sensoy said.

Turks & Azerbaijanis to protest Armenian demonstration in USA
Hurriyet, Turkey
April 20 2006
Turks and Azerbaijanis living in the USA will protest the
demonstration the Armenians are planning to stage in Washington D.C.
on April 24th, the anniversary of the so-called genocide. Around 600
Armenians, who will gather in front of Turkish Embassy in Washington
D.C. between April 21st and 25th, will carry banners and stage
demonstrations protesting the so-called genocide.
On the other hand, Turkish and Azerbaijani communities in the USA
will stage a counter demonstration to support Turkey’s theses.
Turkish diplomats have warned the two communities to stay calm and
~Snot to be provoked.~T
Security measures will be tightened in front of the embassy building
during the demonstrations. The secret service and Washington police
will be responsible for ensuring the security.
USA’S STANCE
On the other hand U.S. President George Bush is not expected to use
the term ~Sgenocide~T in the speech he will make on April 24th.
There are actually three drafts, acknowledging the so-called genocide
allegations, at the Senate and House of Representatives. Two of them
were passed by the congressional committees. According to diplomatic
sources, the drafts may be adopted in case they are broughtto the
full House of Representatives and Senate.
White House and State Department executives have assured Turkey that
the drafts will not be taken up. However, one of them may be annexed
to any regulation debated at the Senate, and be passed by a ‘fait
accompli’. Therefore, Turkish diplomats are closely monitoring the
developments at the U.S. Senate.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkey- Friend or Foe?
By Gene Rossides
Hellenic News of America
April 20 2006
The surfacing last year in Turkey of virulent anti-Americanism and
anti-Semitism raises the question of what should U.S. relations with
Turkey be in the interests of the U.S.?
To answer this question we need to answer the following first
Is Turkey a reliable ally?
What is Turkey’s strategic, political and economic value to the U.S.?
Is Turkey a friend or a foe of the U.S. (or somewhere in-between)?
I submit that Turkey is not a friend of the U.S.; that Turkey’s
interests basically are not compatible with U.S. interests; that
Turkey is of minimal strategic value to the U.S. and that Turkey is
clearly and fundamentally an unreliable ally.
Let’s look at the record.
Is Turkey a reliable ally?
The evidence is overwhelming that Turkey is an unreliable ally whose
actions damaged the U.S. during the Cold War decades and more
recently in the 21st century.
I have written previously regarding Turkey’s traitorous conduct
during the Cold War when Turkey actively aided the Soviet military to
the serious detriment of the U.S. Let me repeat three examples.
1. During the 1973 Mid-East War, Turkey refused the U.S. military
overflight rights to resupply Israel and granted the U.S.S.R.
overland military convoy rights to resupply Syria and Iraq, and
military overflight permission to resupply Egypt. A member of the
Turkish Foreign Policy Institute in Ankara wrote:
During the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, Moscow’s overflights of Turkish
airspace were tolerated. On the other hand, during the same Middle
East conflict, Turkey refused to allow the United States refueling
and reconnaissance facilities during the American airlift to Israel.
(Karaosmanoglu, “Turkey’s Security and the Middle East,” 52 Foreign
Affairs 157, 163, Fall 1983.)
2. In the 1977-78 conflict in Ethiopia, Turkey granted the Soviets
military overflight rights to support the pro-Soviet minority of
Ethiopian communist insurgents, led by Colonel Mengistu, who
eventually prevailed and established a Marxist dictatorship directly
dependent upon the Soviet Union. Giant Soviet Antonov-22 transport
aircraft ferried Cuban troops, Soviet weapons and other assorted
needs to Ethiopia through Turkish airspace. By late December 1977,
17,000 Cuban troops were in Ethiopia. The Cuban troops were
immediately moved to the fighting front against Somali and
anti-communist Ethiopian forces. They effectively turned the tide in
favor of the communists. (C. Meyer, Facing Reality- From World
Federalism to the CIA 276-80, 1980.)
3. Over NATO objections, Turkey allowed three Soviet aircraft
carriers, the Kiev on July 18, 1976, the Minsk on February 25, 1979
and the Novorosiisk on May 16, 1983, passage rights through the
Bosphorous and Dardanelles Straits into the Mediterranean in
violation of the Montreux Convention of 1936. The Soviet ships posed
a formidable threat to the U.S. Sixth Fleet.
Most readers I assume are aware of Turkey’s unreliability as an ally
on March 1, 2003, when the Turkish Parliament voted not to allow U.S.
troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Saddam
Hussein’s dictatorship.
That negative vote was maneuvered by the Erdogan government and the
Turkish military and was aimed at extracting another $6 billion over
the $26 billion irresponsibly offered to Turkey by then Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz for use of bases in Turkey.
A U.S. administration official involved in the negotiations called
Turkey’s negotiating tactics “extortion in the name of alliance.”
What is Turkey’s strategic, political and economic value to the U.S.?
The U.S. defeat of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003 without
Turkey’s help demonstrated conclusively that Turkey is of minimal
strategic value to the U.S. in the region.
The Turks did not allow the U.S. to use Incirlik airforce base in
southeastern Turkey in the Iraq war. It is not needed by the U.S.
today and should be shut down and U.S. taxpayer money saved. Its
primary use was to patrol the Iraqi Kurd no-fly zone against Saddam
Hussein’s government.
In the early years of the Cold War, the U.S. placed nuclear warheads
on Turkish soil. In 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis with the
Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy secretly removed the U.S.
nuclear missiles from Turkey as part of the deal in which the Soviet
Union removed its nuclear missiles from Cuba.
>>From the time of the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in 1962 to
the end of the Cold War in 1990, Turkey was of minimal strategic
value to the U.S. And as stated above, Turkey actually aided the
Soviet military to the detriment of U.S. interests.
After the end of the Cold War, Turkey’s proponents in the State and
Defense Departments and its paid U.S. foreign agents, came up with
the argument that Turkey, a 99.9% Muslim country, is a democracy and
can be a model for other Muslim nations in the Middle East and a
bridge between the East and West, particularly in Central Asia. That
allegation was false then and is false today. And Turkey’s alleged
value to the U.S. in Central Asia was a complete failure. That
argument did prolong military and economic aid to Turkey for several
years at U.S. taxpayer expense.
The U.S. has minor trade and commercial relations with Turkey.
Whatever they are now or in the future they should not interfere with
U.S. support of the rule of law and democratic values in our
relations with Turkey.
Freedom House in its annual report does not list Turkey as a
democracy! It is listed as a partial democracy. It lacks freedom of
speech; it lacks religious freedom and is openly against Eastern
Orthodox Christians and Jews; it regularly conducts ethnic cleansing,
crimes against humanity and genocide against its 20% Kurdish
minority; and its human rights violations against its citizens in
general is extensive.
Turkey’s military is not under civilian rule and Turkey is an
aggressor in Cyprus and continues to illegally occupy 37.7 of Cyprus,
now in its 32nd year.
Turkey continues to blockade Armenia over U.S. objections. And Turkey
refuses to acknowledge its genocide against the Armenians in
1915-1916 and the massacres against the Armenians in 1894-1896.
Turkey is hardly a model for Muslim nations or anyone.
Is Turkey a friend or a foe of the U.S. (or somewhere in-between)?
Based on the record of the past several decades, there is no
substantial evidence to
justify calling Turkey a friend of the U.S. Turkey’s interests and
aims are in most cases not in accord with or compatible with those of
the U.S.
While I believe the evidence makes it clear that Turkey is not a
friend of the U.S., I do not believe the evidence is adequate to call
Turkey an outright foe of the U.S. Turkey’s actions have done
substantial damage to the U.S. over the past 50 years from its
support of the Soviet military; its invasion of Cyprus and continuing
occupation of 37.3 % of Cyprus; its blockade of Armenia; its crimes
against its 20% Kurdish minority; its actions against the Iraqi
Kurds; its substantial drug trafficking and its “No” vote of March 1,
2003.
These actions and others by Turkey bring Turkey close to the line of
being a foe but not over that line yet.
However, Turkey’s conduct and history are such that the U.S. in its
relations with Turkey should treat Turkey at arms length and should
apply forceful pressure to achieve U.S. aims.
Words are definitely not enough in dealing with Turkey to achieve
U.S. goals. For example, the U.S. seeks a Cyprus settlement based on
a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a state with a single
sovereignty and international personality, incorporating norms of a
constitutional democracy embracing key American principles, the EU
acquis communautaire, UN resolutions on Cyprus and the pertinent
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the other
European Courts.
If the U.S. acted forcefully with Turkey using the full range of
diplomatic weapons, including economic sanctions, the withdrawal of
trade benefits, and pressure from international financial
institutions, the Cyprus problem could be solved in short order.
I reject the British argument that the Cyprus question is a difficult
problem to solve. It is a problem of aggression and occupation. The
British started the problem during their colonial rule by pitting an
18% minority against an 80% majority for Britain’s selfish interests.
The two communities have proven they can live and work together
peacefully.
The U.S. could go a long ways to solving the problem by publicly
calling for the demilitarization of the island, the removal of the
Turkish barbed wire fence separating the communities and the return
of Turkey’s 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers/colonists to Turkey and
stating that if Turkey does not cooperate the full range of
diplomatic actions will be utilized.
In taking such action the U.S. should move multilaterally with other
nations through the UN Security Council.
Similar action should be taken against Turkey regarding full
political and human rights for the 20% Kurdish minority and for full
religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the return of
church properties taken by the Turkish government and the reopening
of the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology.
Talking to Turkey has not and will not resolve these problems. State
Department officials misled the Greek American community for years by
saying they will speak to the Turkish government on our issues
knowing that their comments would have no impact on Turkey.
Turkey will only respond to forceful action. Turkey paid the several
hundred thousand dollars court judgment in the Loizidou case after
several years only when the Council of Europe threatened expulsion on
a specific date if the judgment was not paid.
Write to President Bush and Secretary Rice and urge them to apply
forceful pressure on Turkey to solve the above problems in which
Turkey is the cause:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Tel. 202-456-1111 (Comments)
202-456-1414 (Main Switchboard)
Fax: 202-456-2461
E-mail: [email protected]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
The State Department
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Phone: 202-647-4000 (Main Switchboard)
Fax: 202-647-2283
Gene Rossides is President
of the American Hellenic Institute and
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri official on new Garabagh proposals
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006
Baku, April 19, AssA-Irada — Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz
Azimov has said new proposals and concessions are essential in the
settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict.
“But the outcome should not be aside from the basic framework [for
conflict resolution],” he said, when commenting on a statement by the
Russian co-chairman of the mediating OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov
that the intermediaries’ new suggestions “concern some principles of
the conflict settlement”.
Azimov said the internationally-accepted autonomy models are currently
being studied.
“We may hear some statements concerning new proposals and concessions,
but whether or not this will yield specific results will be clear in
further meetings. The point is that there are specific frames, and
constructive and swift efforts should be made to settle the conflict
within them.”
The official said the existing international models differ and
various status options of self-administration are applied in Europe
and other regions of the world. “However, these alternatives are
used considering the location of territories and with respect for
the territorial integrity [of countries]. We have stated this on many
occasions. If we are talking about advancing within this framework,
Azerbaijan is ready for this,” Azimov added.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress