Author: Emil Lazarian

Media Monitors Network
Dec 5 2004
Anglo-American “democratic imperialism” and 0.9 billion infant deaths
by Gideon Polya
“The British, in addition to their invasive contributions in South
America, Africa, Central Asia, East Asia, South East Asia, the
Pacific and the Middle East, left the South Asian subcontinent
crippled by colonialism and helped impose a further burden of
militarization, economic exclusion, debt and war. The total post-1950
under-5 infant mortality in South Asia has been 281.5 million.”
An aggressive, militaristic, imperial US dominates the new world
order
There is a new world order that is dominated by one superpower, the
US. This US hegemony is backed by its Anglo-Celtic cousins, Australia
and the UK. It is vitally important for the world to consider the
human cost of this régime.
The Anglo-American Coalition commenced war against Iraq in 1991,
conquered Afghanistan in 2001 and finally occupied all of Iraq in
2003. The human cost has been horrendous – the `excess mortality’
(avoidable mortality) in Iraq has been estimated from UN data to be
1.5 million since 1991 and about 0.3 million since the US invasion in
2003, these estimates being consonant with estimates of under-5
infant mortality there totalling 1.2 million since 1991 and about 0.2
million since the final invasion. The `excess mortality’ and under-5
infant mortality in Afghanistan have been 1.2 million and 0.9
million, respectively, since the invasion in 2001.
The obscenity of such impositions by fabulously wealthy countries on
wretchedly poor, fragile countries is illustrated powerfully by the
following UNICEF statistics: in 2001 the under-5 infant mortality was
1000 in Australia (population 20 million), 109,000 in Iraq
(population 24 million) and 277,000 in Afghanistan (population 22
million). In 2002 these statistics were 1000, 108,000 and 283,000,
respectively.
What more can the world expect from this Anglo-American Coalition
that is evidently picking up from where the brutal British Empire
left off? A good guide can be obtained from an analysis of post-1950
under-5 infant mortality that is made possible by detailed statistics
publicly available from the UN and UNICEF. These statistics provide a
`smoking gun’ for an immense crime that has been committed over the
last half century – the largely avoidable death of about 0.9 billion
infants throughout the world. This effective mass murder of innocents
has gone unreported by Anglo-American-dominated world media.
Decent humans love kids
A commonality among decent human beings is affection for children.
Thus even in some relatively violent, male-dominated societies there
are conventions prohibiting male violence against other men in the
presence of women and children. Further, young children such as those
under the age of five are utterly blameless – they have not yet
developed the disagreeable attributes of so many adults. At the very
worst, such kids could be a nuisance by demanding too much love and
affection from their families.
The bottom line is that ill-treatment or murder of infants is utterly
unacceptable to decent humans. Historically, mass mortality of
infants was associated with the genocidal European invasions of North
America, South America, Australasia and the Pacific in which
introduced disease was more important than conventional violence in
decimating native populations. In the last century explicit, violent
mass murder of infants (as well as of adults) occurred repeatedly,
for example during the genocides applied to the Hereros of Namibia,
the Armenians of Anatolia, the Jews of Europe, the Tutsis of Rwanda
and the Cambodian civilian victims of the Khmer Rouge.
Whether a child dies a violent death or dies of deprivation or
malnourishment-exacerbated disease, the end result is the same.
Accordingly, to this list of infanticidal horrors of the last century
we should add the victims of enormous man-made famines in Russia (the
early 1920s), the Ukraine (early 1930s), British-occupied Bengal
(during World War 2) and China (during the Great Leap Forward). Major
wars such as the Japanese invasion of China, World War 1 and World
War 2 have been major killers of civilians through the accompanying
social and economic dislocation. Notwithstanding the creation of the
UN after World War 2, there has been immense avoidable infant
mortality over the last half century that is closely linked to First
World-derived militarization and war.
The global post-1950 under-5 infant mortality totals over 900 million
Using publicly-available UN and UNICEF data on populations, birth
rates, death rates and under-5 infant mortality rates, it has been
possible to simply calculate the total number of children under the
age of 5 years who have died in virtually every country of the world
since 1950. The results are horrendous – the global post-1950 under-5
infant mortality totals over 900 million.
In order to simply present and compare the data it is useful to use
some abbreviations and transformations. Thus for the major `overseas’
European colonies (the US, Canada, Israel, Australia and New Zealand)
the post-1950 under-5 infant mortality totals 5.3 million
(abbreviated as `5.3m’). The post-1950 under-5 infant mortality is
4.1% of the total mortality in these countries since 1950 (`4.1%
mort’) i.e. in these rich countries under-5 infant mortality has been
a very small proportion of overall mortality. Expressed as a
percentage of the total present day population of this grouping of
countries, the post-1950 under-5 infant mortality is 1.5% (`1.5%
pop’) or 1.5 dead infants for every 100 people alive today in these
countries i.e. very few people in this group carry the traumatic
burden of an infant death. For simplicity I will summarize the
post-1950 under-5 infant mortality statistics for this group as `5.3
m, 4.1% mort, 1.5% pop’.
With rounding-off of the data, the total post-1950 under-5 infant
mortality has been 912 million, this being made up of the following
components:
`Overseas’ European countries [5.3m, 4.1% mort, 1.5 % pop],
Western Europe [6.8m, 3.4% mort, 1.7% pop],
Eastern Europe [12.7m, 7.3% mort, 3.7% pop],
Latin America and Caribbean [51.9m, 32.0% mort, 10.0% pop],
East Asia [199.4m, 35.1% mort, 12.9% pop],
South East Asia [70.9m, 32.2% mort, 12.9% pop],
Turkey, Iran & Central Asia [40.0m, 46.2% mort, 17.1% pop],
Arab North Africa & Middle East [46.7m, 44.4% mort, 15.6% pop],
South Asia [281.5m, 42.8% mort, 20.0% pop],
Pacific [1.1m, 31.9% mort, 13% pop], and
Non-Arab Africa [195.9m, 52.9% mort, 29.1% pop].
You will immediately see that for the various groupings of European
countries the post-1950 under-5 infant mortality is on the average
about 3-7% of the total mortality within each group and less than 4%
of the current population. However for the non-European world the
post-1950 under-5 infant mortality is on average about 32-53% of
total mortality and 10-29% of total current population for the
various regional groupings.
Thus in European countries post-1950 under-5 infant mortality has
been a very small proportion of deaths whereas in non-European
countries it represents a very high proportion. Similarly, in
European countries on average only several under-5 infant deaths have
occurred for every 100 people alive today – whereas on average such
infant death has been tragically commonplace in the various regions
of the non-European world.
At this point a European neo-con will declare that surely such
elevated infant mortality is only to be expected for non-European
countries that are typically tropical or semi-tropical, fecund,
`backward’ and incompetently governed by authoritarian governments
i.e. that elevated infant mortality is `normal’ for such countries.
However many examples throughout the world demonstrate the fallacy of
such intrinsically racist assertions. Further, closer examination of
the data country-by-country reveals that the First World bears a
major responsibility for this largely avoidable infant mortality.
Many examples can be given to illustrate First World involvement in
this carnage and Anglo-American involvement in particular.
Anglo-American hegemony and militarism is linked to global mass
infant mortality
Latin America plus the Caribbean (i.e. the Americas minus Canada and
the US) has been dominated by the US for over a century. The
post-1950 under-5 infant mortality statistics for Latin America plus
the Caribbean [51.9m, 32.0% mort, 10.0% pop] present a dismal picture
but communist Cuba [0.3m, 9.6% mort, 3.1% pop] is a remarkable
exception because of high literacy and excellent primary health care
– notwithstanding 4 decades of US hostility, threats and sanctions.
It can be readily calculated that if the outcome for Cuba {3.1% pop)
is applied to the whole Latin America and the Caribbean grouping then
the post-1950 under-5 infant mortality would be reduced by 36 million
– US hegemony is thus a major factor in this appalling infanticide.
The British (as well as the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians,
Germans and Italians) conquered, enslaved and exploited Africa for
centuries and left a crippled continent in a neo-colonial nightmare
of militarization, debt, economic exclusion, corrupt governments and
war that is presently compounded by HIV/AIDS. However the post-1950
under-5 infant mortality in peaceful, democratic Afro-Indian
Mauritius [0.08m, 21% mort, 6.3% pop] has been a lovely exception –
if the `6.3% pop’ stat is applied to all of non-Arab Africa then
notionally 153 million infants would have survived.
The post-1950 under-5 infant mortality in the modestly endowed but
peaceful and democratic Muslim country of Malaysia has not been too
bad [1.2m, 20.2% mort, 4.7% pop]. If the Malaysian stat of `4.7% pop’
is notionally applied to the Muslim countries of Turkey and Iran
(subject to massive US interference), formerly Soviet-occupied
Central Asia and Afghanistan (subject to UK, Russian and thence US
intervention) then we can calculate a `saving’ of 29 million infant
lives since 1950.
Similar country-by-country quantitative analysis indicates major US
contribution (through interference, threat, militarization and war)
to the horrendous post-1950 under-5 infant mortality in East Asia
(notably in China, North Korea, South Korea and Mongolia), in South
East Asia (notably in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and East
Timor) and in Arab North Africa and the Middle East (notably in
Libya, Iraq and in Israel’s neighbours). The post-1950 under-5 infant
mortality in all of Israel’s immediate neighbours totals 16.6
million.
The British, in addition to their invasive contributions in South
America, Africa, Central Asia, East Asia, South East Asia, the
Pacific and the Middle East, left the South Asian subcontinent
crippled by colonialism and helped impose a further burden of
militarization, economic exclusion, debt and war. The total post-1950
under-5 infant mortality in South Asia has been 281.5 million.
Australia as a genocidal junior imperialist
Australia, having historically been involved in the decimation of the
indigenous populations of Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and the
South Pacific, is proud of its 2 century record of military service
throughout the world for the British Empire `on which the sun never
set’. Since 1950 Australia has been militarily involved in UK and/or
US military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia,
East Timor, Korea and Indo-China and hence complicit in the
horrendous infant mortalities in those countries.
The South Pacific is Australia’s `patch’ and the post-1950 under-5
infant mortality in the Pacific has been 1.1 million, with 0.9
million of this contributed by the former Australian colonial
possession of Papua New Guinea. The unilateral retention by Australia
of most of East Timor’s off-shore oil and gas reserves will ensure
continuing poverty and elevated infant mortality in that much-abused
country.
In 2004 the present Australian Government indicated that if deemed
necessary it would engage in pre-emptive strikes against neighbouring
countries and has refused to sign a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
that bans such attacks and which is adhered to by the Association of
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and various East Asian powers.
Australia has certainly learned well from its big Anglo-American
cousins.
Boycotting the Anglo-American Coalition to end global mass
infanticide
Peace is the only sensible way forward. Indeed violent opposition to
the US has brought appalling civilian suffering. Thus the under-5
infant mortality in Iraq since 1991 and in Afghanistan since 2001
totals 2.1 million as compared to about 1100 US military deaths in
combat in those theatres – a death ratio of about 2000 Muslim infants
per US soldier. This arises because major Anglo-American casualties
are unacceptable in domestic politics and accordingly any target must
be bombed and shelled from a distance before occupation – but at the
cost of enormous civilian casualties. Thus Fallujah has been
`destroyed in order to liberate it’ with over 0.2 million of its
former citizens now refugees in their own land.
The world must apply sensible feedback to halt the carnage. The
military-industrial complexes of the US and the UK have benefited
enormously from massive global military expenditure that now totals
$800 billion per year (with half of this being that of the US alone).
The extra funding of the US military-industrial complex since 9/11
has been about $400 billion and it is evident that the endless `War
on Terror’ in response to jihadist atrocities (5000 Western deaths in
the last 20 years) will continue to be immensely profitable to the US
and UK war industries. Feedback through economic boycotts would seem
appropriate for stopping imperial wars fought for economic benefit.
The world can only respond sensibly to continuing Anglo-American
Coalition war crimes by exposure, condemnation, boycotts, sanctions,
legal actions and bans applied to Coalition countries – and by making
“ethical purchases” from and “ethical investments” in non-involved
countries such as China, France, and Germany. Already formal
complaints over Coalition war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have
been made to the International Criminal Court. The sheer magnitude of
the continuing Anglo-American crimes against the innocent must be
kept before the world – it is inconceivable that this mass
infanticide can continue unabated. Silence kills. Silence is
complicity. Inform everyone. Save the children.

IN JANUARY-OCTOBER, NUMBER OF ECONOMIC CRIMES DOUBLES IN ARMENIA
YEREVAN, December 3 (Noyan Tapan). In January-October 2004, 237 crimes
against economic activities were registered in Armenia, which is about
twice as many as the number of such crimes in the same period of
2003. According to the RA National Statistical Service, 37 cases of
selling, manufacturing and keeping fake money and securities were
registered (42 cases in January-July 2003), and 200 cases of other
crimes against economic activities, including false and illegal
entrepreneurship.

DURING NINE MONTHS OF THIS YEAR NUMBER OF TOURISTS VISITING ARMENIA
INCREASES BY 30% IN COMPARISON WITH LAST YEAR’S INDEX
YEREVAN, December 3 (Noyan Tapan). In Jan-Sept of 2004, the number of
tourists arriving in Armenia increased by 30% in comparison with the
same period of last year and made 181,602 persons. 36% of tourists
arrived from the CIS countries. According to the RA National
Statistical Service, 173,580 persons left the republic during the same
period. It is more by 31.5% than the index of Jan-Sept.

Centre Daily Times, PA
Dec 4 2004
Who will speak for the victims, and what shall be said?
What will we say for them? When there are no more survivors of the
Holocaust, what will we speak in their spirit?
What will we say in their voices through our voices? How will we make
them live, when most of them are dying, now, or have died before
their time? How can we make them live for all time, this generation
that is dying?
Noted historian Howard Zinn says this of the Holocaust: “The greatest
gift the Jews could give the world is not to remember Hitler’s
genocide for exactly what it was, that is, the genocide of Jews, but
to take what that horrible experience was for Jews and then to apply
it to all other things that are going on in the world, where huge
numbers of people are dying for absolutely no reason at all.”
Then we must ask, if given back their life, their health, their
energy, their hunger for understanding and peace, what would the
victims of the Holocaust say of the holocausts of today, of the
anti-Semitism of today, and what would they say, of the words that
are now spoken for them, of the words their memory brings?
Indeed, it is true today that the world is experiencing a new wave of
anti-Semitism, unmatched, some could say, since the Holocaust itself.
This new energy in anti-Semitic feeling has sometimes been attributed
to Holocaust denial, Holocaust forgetting, and it is more than ironic
that along with passionate anti-Semitism, a new wave of Holocaust
interest has emerged, particularly in the United States, where as
many as 140,000 Holocaust survivors immigrated after 1948.
Because a people dead, a generation dead, voices gone or never heard,
are things very easily manipulated.
First, why is the Holocaust unique? And why does it continue to
affect us?
Noted perhaps for its technological thoroughness, it is obviously a
horror of our time, but certainly, not the horror of all times. Have
we not seen such disregard for human life in the Armenian genocide,
in the Cambodian killing fields, in the slaughter in Bosnia and
Rwanda, and most recently, and perhaps most relevantly, in Israel’s
occupation of Palestine?
And to make Americans blush, can we not forget that Hitler’s own
inspiration lay in his knowledge, in what he believed was the
absolute genocide of Native Americans by the growing United States,
and the absolute forgetting of this? Can Americans not see the loss
when something like this is forgotten?
We must imagine what Holocaust survivors would say about any of these
terrors — Holocaust survivors of course meaning more than Jews —
because we know that gypsies, Russians, homosexuals, the disabled and
more perished under the Nazis. But what we are really asking is what
exactly is it that a victim would say to another victim?
Would they not just give knowing glances and wish, wishing very hard,
that maybe that their own personal terror really had been unique?
That with their suffering, perhaps it was the end to all needless
suffering. Perhaps this thought process is naive, but I think some
victims, and all who remember victims well, emerge a bit naive, a bit
idealistic perhaps, a bit wonderfully, idealistic.
Finkelstein speaks firmly of how he believes the Holocaust is
exploited, through political and class interests, along with the
insistence of portraying Jews as the sole victims. And more
importantly, he believes the Holocaust is being generally used today
to rationalize Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians.
He stipulates further that the Holocaust was met mostly with
indifference in the United States, only until Israel became fully
entrenched as a U.S. ally after the 1967 war when Israel began
occupying Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights.
We must ask then how Holocaust victims themselves would feel about
having the memory of their suffering exploited in such a way, in the
interest of deflecting criticism of Israel. How despite a common
heritage with this nation, we must hope — no, we must have absolute
faith — that these survivors would, have, and will (if there are any
still alive and able) speak out against any atrocity they see.
Albert Camus said that it is the job of the thinking people not to be
on the side of the executioners. If anything, being a victim or being
in any way influenced by the Holocaust, or by any holocaust, should
produce this identity, not necessarily an identity as a victim, but
to have an identity that is based on the ability to identify and act
out against oppressors.
We must continue to insist that the victims and survivors of the
Holocaust, and the victims of any holocaust, would be most pleased,
most honored, most correctly spoken for when and in the day that we
will denounce all violence.
We must apply their voices and their suffering into defending all who
will ever be threatened with such cruelty.
And we must know that the fact that the Jewish people were
slaughtered and oppressed by the Nazis cannot ever be used to
legitimize any violence or hostility toward other nations (for
example, Palestine).
We should restore Holocaust interest to either scholarly or
humanitarian. And we should always remember cases like this — cases
for example, when Israeli Justice Minister Yusef Lapid, a Holocaust
survivor himself, looked upon a picture of an old Palestinian woman
sitting on the rubble of what used to be her home, and Lapid admitted
quite candidly that it reminded him of his own grandmother in the
Holocaust.
We must remember this, and realize where the real connections lie,
not in race or ethnicity, but in bonds of understanding and a belief
in a common good.
Grace Kredell is a student in the State College Area High School
Delta Program. This essay won first place for 11th-grade students in
the recent Voices of the Holocaust Essay Contest sponsored by the
State College Choral Society.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANSA Notiziario Generale in Italiano
December 4, 2004
MINISTRO FINI, VUOLE L’EUROPA O L’EURASIA? ;
INTERVENTO SULLA PADANIA
ROMA
(ANSA) – ROMA, 4 DIC – “Personalmente, credo che lei, signor
ministro, abbia in testa un’Eurasia, piu’ che un’Europa”. Lo
scrive in un intervento su LA PADANIA Alessandro Ce rivolto al
ministro degli Esteri Gianfranco Fini. “Lei afferma in modo
perentorio – dice l’esponente della Lega – che la Turchia
costituira’ un valore aggiunto all’Europa. Credo che questo
giudizio dipenda dal tipo di idea di Europa che si ha: se si
pensa cioe a un’Europa tradizionalmente intesa o a un’Eurasia.
(…) La Turchia non ha riconosciuto lo sterminio degli armeni.
E noi apriamo un percorso di adesione all’Unione europea senza
che la Turchia abbia effettuato tale riconoscimento? (…) Ci
sono questioni culturali sulle quali (lei) ha sorvolato: in
Turchia non e’ garantita la liberta’ di professare una
religione. E’ garantita all’interno delle chiese, ma non puo
dirsi lo stesso al di fuori delle medesime e noi stiamo aprendo
un percorso di adesione della Turchia nell’Unione europea. Vi
sono questioni identitarie fondamentali: la Turchia, nel 2015,
quando probabilmente sara’ entrata in Europa, avra’ 90 milioni
di abitanti, tutti islamici. Vogliamo un’Europa che abbia ancora
un qualche riferimento ad una matrice cristiana oppure un’Europa
islamica? Tale questione non e’ stata assolutamente affrontata
dal governo”.(ANSA).

TURKISH SPEAKING ARMENIANS WITH NO OTHER INDICATION OF ARMENIANHOOD BUT
ORIGIN
Azg/arm
4 Dec 04
Armenians in Ankara
“If you want to find Armenians in Ankara you should go to the French
Catholic church of the city. Armenians gather there every
Sunday. There are around 1 thousand Armenians in Ankara, most of them
are Catholics and Turkish speaking” Arsen Avagian, Armenian
representative to the Organization of the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation (BSEC) in Istanbul, said.
So, if anyone wants to find Armenians of Ankara he should find the
French church first of all. Though the French embassy is in Ankara’s
downtown, the French and other Christians have to go to the trade
district of Ulus to reach the only church. After circling through all
ins and outs of the city we finely found the so-called French
church. What they called a church was a large room with arched windows
on the first flour of a many-storeyed building. It was early in the
morning when the first members of the flock appeared.
A dark-haired, black-eyed gentleman together with many others entered
and took his seat in front of us. At first sight, he seemed to be
Armenian. He was apparently plunged in his thoughts and didn’t notice
people around him.
People gradually filled the church. No one else seemed to ever have
had Armenian ancestors.
The service began. It was hard to believe that a French church
conducts service in Turkish.
People began leaving the church in an hour. Getting out of the church
we stopped the gentleman that drew our attention. It turned out that
Henry Osterzi is Armenian indeed but knows no word in Armenia. Henry
was 51, Catholic and used to attend the French church since his
childhood “to study the Bible”.
An old man came up to us apparently upon hearing our conversation and
uttered, “Martiros Arat, I am Armenian too”, he said displaying all
his knowledge of Armenian. Then Martiros told that he spent 76 years
in Ankara and that he is not a Catholic at all but an adherent of
Armenian Apostolic Church.
While Martiros was warming up, Henry was silently listening speaking
only when asked. Martiros Arat told that years ago his father moved to
Ankara from the neighboring village of Nallhanl.
“My father spoke Armenian, he had finished an Armenian school. But I
know only few words”, he said. He has 2 children and 4
grandchildren. His son, Daniel, is in Moscow engaged in supplying
food. His children married at the French church and grandchildren were
also baptized there.
Henry also has two children. Armenian tongue has not sounded at their
home for a long time, they have nothing Armenian, they don’t cook
Armenian dishes either.
Martiros’ family still observes the tradition of cooking Armenian
dishes. “Though I don’t speak Armenian I do want my children to learn
it. Armenians don’ t speak Armenian in Ankara but they may need it in
Istanbul. If we had a school here children would attend it. My younger
brother speaks Armenian well enough but he learnt it in Istanbul”,
Martiros explained.
But it was all the same for Henry whether his children speak Armenian
or not. “Nowhere here can we use Armenian, there is even no school
here. Armenian would give my children nothing”, he said.
The two Turkish citizens had no ties with Armenia. They don’t even
relate to the Armenian community in Istanbul. Only occasionally an
Armenian priest is sent from Istanbul to serve a liturgy during
holidays. Speaking of the Turks’ attitude towards Armenians in Ankara
they both assured that they have no problems because of their origin
and said that live a good life.
Henry’s and Martiros’ knowledge of Armenia and Karabakh didnot reach
further than hardly recollected name of Stepanakert.
They both were indifferent as to what is happening in their
neighboring fatherland and in the Diaspora all over the world.
So they live in Ankara, Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, and they
recall their roots only when they are reminded. And Armenian language
is measured by market’s yardstick where national identity may easily
be thrown away if it’s an obstacle in your daily life.
By Aghavni Harutyunian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

La Padania, Italia
venerdì 3 dicembre 2004
Trapelano le condizioni che l’Unione Europea potrebbe porre il 15
dicembre per l’avvio dei negoziati
Ue: Ankara riconosca le minoranze

ANKARA – L’Unione europea chiederà ad Ankara di risolvere «al più
presto possibile» i problemi ancora aperti con le sue minoranze
etniche e religiose, come curdi, ortodossi ed aleviti, e di
normalizzare le sue relazioni con l’Armenia in vista dell’apertura
del suo negoziato di adesione, la cui data di avvio, nel 2005, sarà
decisa al prossimo vertice europeo di Bruxelles del 17 dicembre.
A mano a mano che procede il conto alla rovescia in vista del
vertice, si precisa sempre meglio il ventaglio delle condizioni che i
capi di stato e di governo dell’Ue si accingono a porre ad Ankara fra
15 giorni per dare effettivo avvio al negoziato. Secondo alcune
rivelazioni dei giorni scorsi, i Paesi membri dell’Ue sarebbero
decisi a menzionare esplicitamente la possibilità di un futuro
cambiamento di oggetto del negoziato, riservandosi di poter offrire
in futuro alla Turchia un partenariato speciale in alternativa alla
piena membership, nonchè a chiedere un riconoscimento della
Repubblica di Cipro.
Ma ieri due quotidiani turchi – `Cumhuriyet’ e `Milliyet’ – hanno
sottolineato che tra le condizioni di Bruxelles c’è anche la
soluzione dei problemi delle «minoranze» turche (curdi,
cristiano-ortodossi e aleviti, che la Turchia non riconosce come
tali) e l’avvio di una normalizzazione delle relazioni bilaterali
della Turchia con l’Armenia.
CURDI: L’Ue, secondo i due giornali turchi, sembra orientata a
chiedere ad Ankara «passi più attivi» e «negoziati con le
organizzazioni curde», al fine di mettere definitivamente termine al
conflitto con il Pkk, che oggi attraversa una fase di bassa intensità
dopo quella acuta iniziata nel 1974, costata 36 mila morti e durata
15 anni fino al 1999, quando il leader del Pkk, Abdullah Ocalan fu
catturato in Kenya. Secondo il quotidiano `Cumhuriyet’, l’Ue si
spingerebbe fino a chiedere «un accordo di cessate il fuoco con il
Pkk» (che oggi si chiama Congra-Gel): una cosa che – secondo gli
analisti – difficilmente la Turchia potrà mai accettare in quanto,
tra l’altro, il Pkk è incluso nella stessa `lista nera’ europea delle
organizzazioni terroristiche.
GRECO-ORTODOSSI: Per quanto riguarda i cittadini turchi di religione
ortodossa, che sono circa 2.000, l’Ue chiede ad Ankara di riaprire la
scuola religiosa ortodossa di Hebeliada (un’isola vicino Istanbul)
chiusa dal 1971 e alla cui riapertura si oppongono gli ambienti
islamici ortodossi che hanno influenza sull’attuale governo turco. In
particolare la Turchia non riconosce al patriarca di Costantinopoli,
Bartolomeo II, il titolo di `ecumenico’, cioè di capo di tutte le
chiese cristiano ortodosse.
ALEVITI: Per gli aleviti, che in Turchia, secondo la stessa Ue, sono
«da 12 a 20 milioni» e che si considerano «una religione separata
dall’Islam» ma che lo Stato turco continua a catalogare come
musulmani, l’Ue intende chiedere un «riconoscimento» della loro
identità separata, in quanto «minoranza non musulmana», con le
conseguenze che ciò comporta. Gli aleviti vogliono inoltre
l’abrogazione del Direttorato generale per gli affari religiosi, uno
pseudo-ministero che «basa le sue politiche sulla falsa affermazione
che in Turchia il 99,8% della popolazione sia musulmana» ed è
«egemonizzato perciò dai musulmani sunniti».
ARMENIA: Quanto ai rapporti con l’Armenia, con cui la Turchia non ha
relazioni diplomatiche ed ha solo contatti aerei quattro volte la
settimana, l’Ue chiede, come misura urgente, l’apertura almeno di un
passaggio di confine alla frontiera, oggi chiusa. Chiede inoltre un
avvio di normalizzazione delle relazioni tra i due Paesi, avvelenate
dal rifiuto di Ankara di riconoscere il «genocidio» degli armeni del
1915 ad opera degli ottomani e dalle conseguenze della guerra tra
Armenia ed Azerbaigian (alleata di Ankara anche perchè turcofona) del
1988-1994 per l’enclave conteso del Nagorno Karabakh, oggi passato
alla sovranità di fatto armena. L’Armenia non pone più come
precondizione per un negoziato il riconoscimento turco del
«genocidio» del 1915, ma non rinuncia a porlo sul tavolo negoziale
come vorrebbe Ankara.
IL GOVERNO TURCO REPLICA: Lo Stato turco, sulla base del Trattato di
Losanna del 1923, non riconosce come «minoranze» né i curdi, né gli
aleviti, ma solo ebrei, cristiani e armeni. Inoltre il governo di
Ankara non riconosce all’Ue il diritto di porre «nuove condizioni»
per l’apertura del negoziato, oltre ai cosiddetti criteri di
Copenaghen. «I criteri di Copenaghen sono la sola condizione per dare
avvio al negoziato per la piena membership della Turchia», ha
ribadito ancora ieri a Lubiana (Slovenia) il ministro degli esteri
Abdullah Gul aggiungendo che «Ankara non riconoscerà la Repubblica di
Cipro prima che sia stata trovata una soluzione alla divisione
dell’isola».
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Moscow mayor visits Armenian capital to sign cooperation memo
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
2 Dec 04
[Presenter] Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov arrived in Yerevan a few hours
ago. He will sign with his Yerevan counterpart a three-year programme
of cooperation between the Russian and Armenian capitals.
[Correspondent over video of welcome ceremony at airport] The mayor of
Yerevan, Yervand Zakaryan, met his Moscow counterpart at the
airport. Yervand Zakaryan said that Yerevan is cooperating in various
spheres with Moscow companies. The latest example of this is the
construction of the new building of the Yerevan mayor’s office.
[Yervand Zakaryan, captioned] We have old, friendly and economic
relations. This is the result of active cooperation, especially in
the economic sphere, between Moscow and Yerevan.
[Yuriy Luzhkov, captioned in Russian with Armenian voice-over] The
purpose of my visit is of economic and cultural importance. I shall
meet the leadership of the country. We shall discuss serious
cooperation between Moscow and Armenia. After my last visit to your
country the turnover between Moscow and Armenia doubled.
[Correspondent] The two mayors will sign a memorandum of cooperation
between the two capitals for 2005-07 in various spheres, within the
framework of this year’s discussions and agreements.
Ayk Ovanesyan, Vagram Stepanyan, “Aylur”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Messenger, Georgia
Dec 3 2004
Stronger economy may lead to reintegration
Italian analyst hopes that stronger Georgian economy will facilitate
peaceful resolution of conflicts
By Keti Sikharulidze
Political Advisor to the Italian Center for High Defense (CASD),
Pietro Ecole Ago, was in Georgia on December 1-2 to study the
situation in Georgia’s frozen conflict zones in preparation for a
round table seminar on frozen conflicts in the territories of the
former Soviet Union to be held by CASD’s diplomatic committee in Rome
in January.
Speaking at a press conference on December 2, Ago stressed the need
for a peaceful resolution of the conflicts, and his belief that this
could be brought about by strengthening the Georgian economy.
This was Ago’s fifth visit to Georgia, and his fourth since the Rose
Revolution, and he stressed the changes he has seen during the past
year. “There have been lots of changes of course. There have been
good changes from the economic side, but they must intensify the
reorganization of the economy and should cooperate with international
economic organizations in order to strengthen the economy, because
this will also affect the separatist regions.”
He described those regions as among Georgia’s poorest and expressed
his hope that spreading economic prosperity will help strengthen
relations with the separatist regions in a peaceful manner.
Ago stressed that he supports only the peaceful resolution of the
conflict. “We should push settlement through as soon as possible
because conflict resolution is very important for the development of
the region, but from the international point of view, the settlement
of the conflict must be peaceful.”
Ago noted the role played by Russia in the zones of conflict, and
said that official Russia has formally always maintained that these
territories belong to Georgia and admitted the territorial integrity
of Georgia, and said that a solution must be found which satisfies
both reintegration and the desires of the local populations of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia.
“It is very important for Russia to retain this official position,
because Russian has Chechnya, which is their territory, and if they
annex Abkhazia then how could they explain their position on
Chechnya? We hope that the electoral revolution in Abkhazia will open
a greater possibility of discussion of this problem,” stated Ago.
While in Georgia, Ago met with Minster for Conflict Resolution Goga
Khaindrava, Minister of Defense Giorgi Baramidze, and Gocha
Lortkipanidze from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as
parliamentarians and representatives of the OSCE.
Ago visited not only South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but also frozen
conflict zones in other post-Soviet countries, including neighboring
Armenia and Azerbaijan. He will present his findings at the CASD
seminar in January.
He told The Messenger that the seminar would be attended by embassies
of several countries, although they would not formally participate in
it.
“They will be able to ask questions, but they will not debate the
questions. Only Italian politicians and journalists will debate the
questions that will be asked there,” Ago stated.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian court considers sending contingent to Iraq
.c The Associated Press
YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) – Armenia’s Constitutional Court has begun
considering the president’s plan to send non-combat troops to Iraq, an
initiative that has been sharply criticized by the opposition groups
in the Caucasus Mountain nation.
The court opened a session to consider the request Tuesday, but
adjourned almost immediately because Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian,
who was to speak in favor of the plan, could not attend. He was
hosting security talks with officials from other former Soviet
republics.
President Robert Kocharian pledged 50 troops in September, but the
decision requires the approval of the Constitutional Court and the
parliament. The troops include bomb disposal experts, doctors and
transport specialists.
Last week, opposition parties said they would interrupt their boycott
of parliamentary sessions to oppose sending the troops in parliament,
arguing the move would endanger the 25,000-strong Armenian community
in Iraq.
The leader of a pro-government faction in parliament also expressed
opposition to the proposal last week, saying it would not be backed by
the Armenian people. Kocharian has sought to portray the decision to
send troops to Iraq as a way to boost ties with Europe.
12/02/04 01:09 EST
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress