Author: Hambardsumian Paul

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

The Irish Times
October 10, 2007 Wednesday

Today the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee will
pass a resolution calling on President Bush "to accurately characterise
the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians
as genocide".

The killings, whose scale and character are fiercely contested by
Turkey, were carried out by Ottoman troops beginning in 1915. While
Ankara is prepared to acknowledge a "tragedy" it insists that those
who died on both sides of the bloody conflict were victims of war
and it deeply resents an implied analogy with Nazi war crimes.

The Turkish government has been lobbying heavily to block the
resolution which is sponsored by some 226 of 435 members of the
house. In the past it has succeeded in getting such motions shelved
by leaning heavily on administration concerns not to offend a most
loyal strategic partner and member of Nato.

Similar resolutions were approved by the house in 1975 and 1984 but
did not make it through the Senate. A 1990 resolution was blocked
by a Senate filibuster. This time there have been calls from Prime
Minister Tayip Erdogan to Bush, who has spoken out against the motion,
and to Bill Clinton, urging him to use his influence among Democrats.

Erdogan has warned that the political fall-out could be long and
lasting, fuelling nationalist anger and potentially jeopardising
important links.

Dan Fried, the state department’s top Europe official, warned last
week it could "hurt our forces deployed in Iraq, which rely on passage
through Turkey . . . We have to be mindful of how much we depend
and how much our troops and the Iraqi economy depend on shipments
from and through Turkey". Turkish diplomats argue the motion could
stymie tentative moves towards a rapprochement between Turkey and
Armenia. The latter is sceptical.

In terms of historical fact there is some case for the recognition
of a monstrous injustice, although what purpose exactly is served by
the diplomatic equivalent of a sharp poke in the eye is arguable.

What is more important to Turkey’s friends in Europe, however, is
the perception that the country remains unable still to debate this
neuralgic issue domestically in a manner that respects democratic
norms. Those writers and intellectuals who try to raise it face
possible prosecution under the notorious Article 301 of its penal
code that makes it a crime to insult Turkish national identity.

Despite a willingness last week at the Council of Europe from
President Abdullah Gul to countenance Article 301’s repeal, his
AKP party has made it clear its priority is the debate on a new
constitution. Unfortunately today’s motion is likely to reinforce
rather than change that prioritisation.

PRESIDENT GUL WARNS BUSH ON POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF ARMENIAN BILL

Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 10 2007

President Abdullah Gul has sent US President George W. Bush a letter
warning of the repercussions from the possible passage of the so-called
Armenian genocide bill in the US Congress.

A statement issued by the Presidential Press Center in Ankara noted
that Gul’s letter to Bush focused on the likely ruptures that would
occur in Turkish-US relations if the US Congress were to approve
the bill regarding allegations made by the Armenians that a genocide
occured in Turkey around 1915. While Gul reportedly thanked Bush for
his efforts in regards to blocking the passage of the bill up until
now, the President also touched on the "serious problems" which would
emerge if the bill were to be approved.

THE ATTACK ON MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
By Dan Lieberman

CounterCurrents.org
http://www.counterc urrents.org/lieberman081007.htm
Oct 8 2007
India

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, arrived in the United
States with a baggage of alleged demagoguery. He didn’t have to
bring demagoguery here; the U.S. media showed it has enough to stock
the world.

Ahmadinejad is not a leader who appeals to progressive persons. He
is faithful to the more extreme interpretations of the Koran. He
inflicts his religious convictions on the Iranian masses, has agents
aggressively monitor violations of Iran’s dress code and remove
satellite dishes, is dishonest in many of his remarks and has been
accused of involvement in assassinations in the Middle East and Europe.

With all this in mind, the United States media had an opportunity to
examine the motivations of a well-educated and important Iranian –
after all he is president – who, although not a cleric gained a high
Iranian position, and represents the third world opposition to U.S.

and Israel’s common policies. Instead of stimulating a dialogue,
the U.S. media engaged in demagoguery, sarcastic baiting, insult,
insolence and diversions from meaningful arguments. The meetings
and interviews with Iran’s president had a common focus – discredit
him with ridicule and prevent him from presenting reasons why he
contradicts U.S. and Israeli policies.

The right wing fringe started it all with their usual extreme and
disarming rhetoric of attempting to associate anyone who criticizes
Israel with being either a reincarnation of Hitler, a Nazi, a Holocaust
denier or an anti-Semite.

CBS reporter Scott Pelley, in a 60 Minutes interview with the Iranian
president, defined the media thrust to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit.

Pelley leaned forward in his seat and, with a smirk on his face,
asked embarrassing questions to which he already knew the answer and
which were only meant to annoy the Iranian president. Examples:

"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most
sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that
visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans."

"It is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian
know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on
your hands. Why?"

"For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the
world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer
you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?"

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger continued the unwelcoming
tirade with an insulting introduction that left any decent, cordial and
open-minded person in gasps. Bollinger’s counter-productive comments
lacked grace and knowledge. He could ask himself some simple questions:

"Why was Iran President Ahmadinejad not treated as cordially as
Pakistan President Musharaff, who is a known dictator?"

"Is President Ahmadinejad more deceptive, cruel or petty than U.S.

President George W. Bush?"

"Would it be accepted that a forum for George W. Bush, or any
President, be preceded by an equally insulting introduction?"

Some of Lee Bollinger’s "questions," with rebuttals.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel
dictator."

How has President Ahmadinejad, elected by an overwhelming majority
of the Iranian people, exhibited "signs of a petty and cruel dictator?"

Compare his few nasty occurrences with Olmert’s daily pulverizing of
the Palestinian people and Bush’s slaughtering of the Iraqi people.

"…the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.

Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments
about the ‘debate’ over the Holocaust defy historical truth…."

Ahmadinejad made clear he has not denied the Holocaust’s existence.

He feels history is being gathered from preferential sources and
being used to justify Israel’s oppressive actions. If Bollinger
feels the research is ended, why doesn’t he complain about the daily
media reports of the Holocaust, fifty years after the event and be
concerned that the first international conference on the Holocaust
was held in Spain during the same week that Ahmadinejad arrived in
the United states? Israel’s Yad Vashem’s International Institute for
Holocaust Research (IIHR) organized the conference. Slavery, genocide
of the American Indians and all other historical events are still
gathering information. Why exclude the World War II genocide from
additional research? Doesn’t this attitude generate suspicion? The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially denied the Armenian Holocaust.

Was it because Israel has good relations with Turkey and the ADL didn’t
want to disturb those relations? Here we had an absolute denial for
possible political reasons. Why no slurs against the ADL?

"Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue
its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have
delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you
said that Israel "should be wiped off the map."

There is no question that President Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped
off the map. So, do all other Middle East nations, including many
considered to be America’s friend. Nevertheless, the Iranian president
has qualified his remarks; he wants regime change in Israel, and for
good reason – the present regime is oppressing the Palestinians and
is prepared to seize all of Jerusalem, an Islamic holy site. Compare
Ahmadinejad’s ramblings, not backed up by force, with U.S. and Israel’s
aggressive rhetoric that demands regime change in Iran and threatens
wholesale bombings. Unlike Iran, its antagonists also have the weapons
to carry out their threats.

"It’s well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that
funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

None of the mentioned groups, except for one or two ancient and
unverifiable actions, have actually been responsible for terrorism
against the United States. Bollinger must have known that and also
realized that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran’s military and
foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can’t answer? Where is
it well documented that Iran "is a state sponsor of terrorism?" As
a matter of fact, Iran has suffered greatly from terrorism, much
of which the U.S. has sponsored. Iran has been a consistent enemy
of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Compare it’s minimal support for Hezbollah
and Palestinian groups to U.S. overwhelming support for Israel. Iran
feels it is supporting groups battling against a perceived oppression.

"Your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding,
arming and providing safe transit to insurgent forces."

Again! Bollinger must have known that Ahmadinejad has no control
of Iran’s military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question
he can’t answer? No proof has been offered for Bollinger’s remark,
while the Iraq government has praised Iran’s efforts. Actually, the
Iraq government has expressed concern that the U.S.is now "arming
and providing safe transit to (Sunni) insurgent forces."

"There are a number of reports that also link your government with
Syria’s efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government
through violence and political assassination."

Which verified reports?

"Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq
by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"

Has this been verified? Even if there were no Iran nation, wouldn’t
the war in Iraq continue?

"Frankly, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual
courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in
itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical
mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do."

Bollinger must have been looking into a mirror when he composed this
salutation. Ahmadinejad’s biggest mistake was not to walk out.

After creating a tense atmosphere for President Ahmadinejad,
intensified by tense questions that led to tensions, the Washington
Post added a ridiculous coda to the discordant theatrics. A headline
stated:

IRANIAN LEADER FAILS TO EASE TENSIONS

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be a demagogue and not beneficial to the
Iranian people. Nevertheless, he neither has the authority nor the
following to be of any danger to the United Sates. The U.S. media and
public demagogues revealed themselves as only interested in silencing
criticism of the U.S. and Israel (USrael) and promoting an agenda
that is not beneficial to U.S. interests. That was the most revealing
feature of this shameful episode.

Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics for many years.

He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based
newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle East
conflicts. [email protected]

SCITUATE | Community Briefing

DEBATE DUE ON NO PLACE FOR HATE – The Board of Selectmen at its
meeting on Tuesday is set to discuss a proposal by Selectman John
Danehey that the town terminate its participation in the
Anti-Defamation League’s No Place for Hate program. If the board
approves, Scituate would join several other communities that have
opted to drop No Place for Hate in protest over the ADL’s stance not
to clearly label as genocide the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by
Turks during World War I. Selectmen briefly took up Danehey’s proposal
when he first offered it on Sept. 25, but opted to more fully discuss
it at Tuesday’s meeting, which will be held at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.
Danehey, whose wife is half-Armenian – her grandparents survived the
genocide – said last week he believes his proposal will help prompt
the ADL "to do the right thing, which is to recognize the Armenian
genocide. The ADL is responsible for being an advocate for all peoples
that have suffered genocide, holocaust, or massacres. . . . So my
thought was by failing to do so, they are turning their backs on the
Armenians." – John Laidler

Source: 07/when_yelling_fore_isnt_enough/?page=4

Monday, 08 October 2007

Six reprisals for the so-called bill

Ankara will make six reprisals if the US House of Representatives
passes the Armenian bill.

The permission for the passage of logistic needs for the US military
will not be extended. When the USA begins to withdraw soldiers from
Iraq, it will not be permitted to doso using Turkey. Turkey will slow
down cooperation in NATO.

Prime Minister Erdoðan, who will go to the USA in November, plans to
give the message that Turkey will implement strict sanctions on the
USA if the Armenian genocide bill passes.

The Armenian lobby is struggling to ensure the Armenian genocide
claims are accepted in the US Congress, meanwhile, Turkey is
discussing the actions to be taken if the bill passes. PM Erdoðan will
go to the USA in November and will give the message that the
relationship between the two allies will be negatively affected if the
bill passes.

Turkey will bring on such sanctions as not extending the decree for
permitting the passage of logistic needs of US soldiers from the
Ýncirlik Air Base; permitting the use of the Ýncirlik Air Base as well
as the US’ use of Turkish land when withdrawing soldiers from Iraq; a
slowing down of the cooperation in NATO; an agreement with Iran on the
natural gas issue as well as seeking new agreements, the cancellation
of the US Joint Strike Fighter Planes project and ending the role of
balance in Washington’s Middle East policies.

Source: 1655BB3846.html

AZERBAIJANIS BURN BUSH EFFIGY, US, ISRAEL AND UK FLAGS

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 5 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Ò corr I. Alizaeh / A group of residents of Baku’s
Nardaran and Sabunchu settlements held a protest action in the Imam
Hussein Square on 5 October as a response to the International Day
of Jerusalem. Their slogans were anti-US and anti-Israel.

The US and Israel are responsible for all the problems Muslims are
facing around the world, Haji Alikram Aliyev, an elderly man of
Nardaran and former Chairman of the Azerbaijan Islam Party, said. "
Israel’s Zionism torments all Muslims," he said.

The US has been occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and an end should be
put to it as soon as possible, another elderly man of the settlement,
Haji Hajiagha Nuriyev, urged. According to him, Azerbaijan’s sending
its peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan and Iraq is a mistaken policy.

The US wants to divide Iraq into three parts – Sunnis, Shiites, and
Kurds. The West occupies those countries the same way Nagorno-Karabakh
is occupies and they want to tear those lands off Azerbaijan.

According to the protest’s participants, Shiism (one of two major sects
of Islam, recognizes only the Holy Koran rejecting any supplements)
is oppressed in Azerbaijan. The protestors voiced slogans in favour
of Iran. An effigy of US President Bush, as well as American, Israeli,
and British flags were burnt.

–Boundary_(ID_2W6flOUB0acMbBG6IEbKUw)–

NICOLAS SARKOZY AND SILVIE VARTAN ARRIVE IN BULGARIA
Magdalena Rahn

Sofia Echo, Bulgaria
Oct 4 2007

Photo by Magdalena Rahn
Official fanfare and a motley crowd waving the tricolore greeted French
president Nicolas Sarkozy on his first official trip to Bulgaria.

His day-long visit began with him being welcomed by President Georgi
Purvanov a little after noon on October 4 in front of Alexander Nevski
Memorial Cathedral in Sofia. The two placed a wreath on monument to the
unknown soldier, accompanied by Franco-Bulgarian singer Sylvie Vartan,
who was influential in spurring the release of the seven Bulgarian
medics and Palestinian doctor from their eight-year imprisonment
in Libya.

Vartan, who was born in Bulgaria and whose father was Bulgarian of
Armenian descent, had created an online petition in which she called
on people to take it onto themselves to help the Bulgarian nurses
in Libya. In December 2006 she sent an open letter of support to the
Bulgarian nurses who were being held in Libyan jail on the accusation
of deliberately infecting 400 children with HIV.

Sarkozy’s visit, too, is in relation to his and his wife Cecilia’s
decisive role in helping to free the medics. The day’s schedule
includes a lecture at Sofia University, a meeting with Prime Minister
Sergei Stanishev, and much speculation about the positive future of
French-Bulgarian economic relations.

ALL FILMS ABOUT LOVE
Karine Ohanyan The Demo Newspaper

Karabakh Open
Oct 4 2007

There is a dialogue in an old Russian film "Mimino": "What is this
film about? Again war?" "Nay, it’s about love." In fact, even if a
film depicts war, it is about love. Because every film should raise
universal issues and make the viewer think about the most important
things in life, good and evil, love and hatred. And the message of
a film should be love, no matter what it is about.

For two years now young journalists from Karabakh and Azerbaijan
involved in the Dialogue Through Films Project have been making
films about the war and not only. They make films with the help of
Internews Armenia and Internews Azerbaijan, which express their view
on war and peace, the conflict and the post-conflict situation. The
participants of the first stage of the project made 10 documentary
films, each made five. Soon these films will be shown on TV and a DVD
will be produced. In the second stage, in which five journalists from
Karabakh and five journalists from Azerbaijan are participating, both
individual and joint films will be made by the experienced participants
of the project. Recently the participants of the Dialogue Through Films
met in London to watch and discuss the new films, two by each party,
as well as the old films. The films were watched at London Institute of
Modern Art. There were representatives of international organizations,
participants of the conference on Karabakh which was held in London
on those days, the representatives of diasporas, as well as viewers
who bought tickets to cinema. Six films were shown, three by Karabakh
journalists and three by Azerbaijani journalists: "13 Years Later",
"Hard Nut", "Beetle Eaters", "Gone with Life", "Revival", "A Karabakh
Tale". All these films tell about the war, the hardships it caused,
and the new life that started after the cease-fire. The display
of the films was initiated by Conciliation Resources which aims to
help settle conflicts in the world. The director of the project and
the representative of CR Jonathan Cohen said each of the films is a
mirror which shows the other side and oneself. The young journalists
show through these films how the war in Karabakh changed the life of
common people, the films tell about refugees, the disabled of the war,
not only with pain but also with humor to help understand the pain
and experience of people living on the other side better, he said.

At the end of the film "Revival" about the Azerbaijani soldier
who lost his eyesight in the war answers yes after a pause to the
question if he would fight if the war started again. Applause was
heard in the hall, and it became clear what the discussion would be
like. The speeches showed that the hall was "occupied" by young,
educated, well-groomed Azerbaijanis who felt obliged to announce
once again about 20 percent of territories, one million refugees,
Karabakh as a native Azerbaijani territory, Armenians as aggressors,
and the like. It turned out that this group of boys sponsored by
the son of an Azerbaijani oligarch, frequents similar events and
enriches them with patriotic moods. BBC’s Tom de Waal who attended
another similar show of films wrote in his "Black Garden" there were
a group of young Azerbaijanis in the hall who said to have come there
to fight for Karabakh. The paradox is that their generation is more
aggressive than the generation of soldiers who fought in Karabakh,
and the Azerbaijani media have shaped a monochromatic image of the
Karabakh conflict and incited hostility among them, he wrote. After
the display of films one of the Azerbaijani students told him they are
fighting with the Russians and not the Armenians. When he told him
about the assistance of the Soviet army to Azerbaijan in 1991-1992,
the Koltso operation and the fourth army, the young man looked
amazed. He was unaware of the recent past of his country.

Almost every second Azerbaijani in London said they come from Shushi.

They all spoke aggressively, and were reluctant to hear others’
opinion. Meanwhile, the Armenians and the representatives of the
international NGOs sighed, bored with this continuous annoying
rhetoric. One of the Armenians said after the discussion, "We are
nevertheless different" and "Do the representatives of international
NGOs see these differences when they tell us to live together?"

The project of films is aimed to make the journalists making films
think and make others think that war is bad. And even though we are
so different, we have to live side by side, and being different does
not necessarily mean fighting and destroying each other.

One of the recent films made by journalists from Karabakh is entitled
"All Films about Love". It is the story of an Azerbaijani woman who
married an Armenian man from a Karabakh village and they still live in
her husband’s village and love each other. They suffered a lot, their
daughter was killed by a jealous Armenian before the war, and their
son was killed by an Azerbaijani during the war… But like in all
the good films, love and humanity are stronger than evil and hatred.

What are the personages and authors of the films of the Dialogue
through Films project who survived the war and hardship going to
discuss? Will they be able to overcome insult and hatred? Perhaps
they will. Because the films made in the framework of this project
are not about the war. They are about revaluation, values, good and
beauty. It means they are about love…

WORLD CHESS TOURNAMENT TEENAGERS STARTED IN YEREVAN

Lragir, Armenia
Oct 3 2007

Today the ceremony of opening of the World Chess Tournament Teenagers
was held in Yerevan at the Center of Chess.

Over 150 chess players from 50 countries, including Russia, Ukraine,
India, the United States, Chile, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela,
Australia, France, China are participating in the tournament. The
Armenian team includes 12 boys and 10 girls. The tournament will last
till October 19 and will be held in 13 rounds. The president of the
Chess Federation of Armenia, Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan leads the
organizational committee, Armen Nikoghosyan is the main referee.

TURKEY’S INTRIGUES

Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Oct 2 2007

As we know 8 US Ex State Secretaries have recently addressed a letter
of request to the Spokeswoman of the House of Representatives Nancy
Palosy, with an appeal to thwart the discussion of Resolution #
106 on the Recognition of Armenian Genocide during the plenary session.

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan, in his turn addressed a
responsive letter to Nancy Palosy, which runs the following, " With
indignation I familiarized myself with the statement saying that
the Resolution can harm Armenian -Turkish relation. It is really
regrettable that eight experienced diplomats yield to Turkey’s
intrigues.

I regret to mention that there is no process that might have promoted
the regulation of the relations between Armenia and Turkey.

And to express concern about damaging a process that doesn’t exist
is simply an artificial process.

Moreover, not only there is no process, but I must also confess we
don’t even hope that Turkey will be seriously involved in any process,
as a result establishing minimal regular relations with Armenia. My
pessimism is based on the fact that, any time we agree to a meeting
with turkey, the meeting itself is used by Turkey to torpedo the
processes in the USA or other countries of the world.

Dear Spokeswoman, Armenia has always been ready for establishing normal
relations with Turkey. However Turkey has denied any initiative by
Armenia for the normalization of the relations. Instead the latter has
been continuously advancing preconditions. Turkey makes proposals,
which are nothing more than a claim for endless talks, without any
sign of serious commitments to achieving minimal regular relations
with their neighbors. Their appeal to set up a committee of historians
aimed at discussing those lamentable historical events is not serious,
considering that freedom of speech and the issues under discussion are
restricted by the Criminal Code, as well as the unfriendly atmosphere
that Turkey has created by keeping the borders with Armenia close.

To observe acknowledging the truth as a hindrance to the political
relations is cynical. A resolution that touches upon human rights
and Genocide issues can’t harm bilateral relation neither yours with
Turkey nor ours. I appeal to you and your colleagues, as well as the
Ex State Secretaries stating that the same geo-political concerns
must push all of us to do our bests to open the borders, instead of
rewarding intolerance."