Sargsyan Discusses Armenia-Diaspora Relations With French-Armenian A

SARGSYAN DISCUSSES ARMENIA-DIASPORA RELATIONS WITH FRENCH-ARMENIAN ARTIST JANSEM

Tert.am
16:30 ~U 10.03.10

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s official visit to France
continues. This is Sargsyan’s first visit to the Republic of France
after taking the position of president, reads a press release issued
by the president’s press office.

RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Diaspora Affairs
Hranush Hacobyan, and head of the NA Armenia-France Friendship Group,
MP Ara Babloyan, as well as other officials accompanied Sargsyan
during his visit.

On March 9, the first day of the visit, Sargsyan paid a visit to
the Galerie Matignon in Paris and met with renowned 90-year-old
French-Armenian artist Jean Jansem.

"Our people are truly proud of you and highly praise your work. Living
in another country, you have become more well-known for our people,
distributing the Armenian nation’s good reputation around the whole
world," said Sargsyan.

Sargsyan and Jansem then discussed issues related to preserving
Armenian identity and strengthening Armenia-Diaspora ties.

"One of the reasons the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs was created was
to support the preservation of Armenian identity of our compatriots
living in other countries, We, as the leaders of an independent
Republic of Armenia, must work to create such a country where each
of our compatriots with an Armenian identity and living in another
country can be proud of their Homeland," said Sargsyan.

During Sargsyan’s official visit, he will meet with French President
Nicolas Sarkozy at the Palais de l’Elysee (Elysee Palace), the French
president’s official residence.

BAKU: PACE Renews Committee On Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

PACE RENEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT

Azerbaijan Business Center
March 9 2010

Baku, Fineko/abc.az. On 11-17 March, the Azerbaijani Milli Majlis
(parliament) delegation is to take part in a session of the Bureau
and committees of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

According to Milli Majlis, the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee
for International & Inter-Parliamentary Relations, Samed Seyidov,
and MP Aydin Abbasov have left for Paris with this purpose.

"Within the framework of the meeting the PACE Bureau is expected to
renew its special committee on Resolution 1416 about Armenia-Azerbaijan
Nagorno Garabagh conflict," it was reported.

The session will cover matters of protection of rights of national
minorities, household violence in respect to children, results of
presidential election in Ukraine, and implementation of commitments
undertaken by Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Moldova when entering
the Council f Europe.

Discussion Of Armenian-Turkish Protocols To Be Held In Moscow

DISCUSSION OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROTOCOLS TO BE HELD IN MOSCOW

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
08.03.2010 13:05 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The fourth meeting of Armenian Youth Community of
Intellectual Interaction SIVAM Discussion Club will be held in Moscow
on March 13 and will be dedicated to the topic of Armenian-Turkish
Protocols. Two speakers – opponents, Vardan Marashlyan and Henry
Sardaryan, will address their speeches and will try to convince the
audience their positions each.

Armenian Youth Community of Intellectual Interaction SIVAM jointly with
the Armenian Community of Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations
(MGIMO) are organizers of the event, Miasin.Ru reported.

The Protocols aimed at normalization of bilateral ties and opening of
the border between Armenia and Turkey were signed in Zurich by Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet
Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, after a series of diplomatic talks
held through Swiss mediation. On January 12, 2010, the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia found the protocols conformable to
the country’s Organic Law.

Turkish Airlines Finalizes Boeing 737 Order

TURKISH AIRLINES FINALIZES BOEING 737 ORDER

Seattle Post Intelligencer
March 8 2010
WA

Turkish Airlines has finalized an order for 20 Next-Generation 737
airliners — 10 737-800s and 10 737-900ER (Extended Range) jets —
Boeing announced Monday.

"The 737-800 is the backbone of the Turkish Airlines fleet and proves
its value on a daily basis offering unmatched levels of efficiency
and reliability," Marlin Dailey, vice president of Sales, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, said in a news release. "The 737-900ER will fit
seamlessly into Turkish Airlines’ operations, sharing the same pilots,
systems and nearly 100 percent spares commonality with the airlines’
current Next-Generation 737 fleet."

The 737s will features the 787 Dreamliner-based Boeing Sky Interior.

The order, which Boeing previously posted to its Orders & Deliveries
Web site as from an unidentified customer, is worth $1.6 billion at
current list prices, although airlines generally get steep discounts.

Turkish Airlines currently operates 66 Boeing airplanes, including
58 Next-Generation 737s. The carrier announced an order for 20 Airbus
A320 aircraft, with options for 10 more, in January.

Such deals are why Boeing President, Chairman and Chief Executive Jim
McNerney signed onto a letter last week saying a proposed U.S. House
of Representatives resolution condemning the 1915 Turkish massacre
of Armenians as "genocide" was a bad idea because it would jeopardize
U.S. exports to Turkey.

Defiant US lawmakers pass Armenia ‘genocide’ bill

Agence France Presse
March 5, 2010 Friday 7:04 AM GMT

Defiant US lawmakers pass Armenia ‘genocide’ bill

washington, March 5 2010

Turkey has furiously recalled its ambassador after US lawmakers voted
to brand as "genocide" the killing of Armenians by Ottoman forces
during World War I.

Despite strong opposition from Turkey and the White House, the House
Foreign Affairs Committee passed the symbolic resolution on Thursday,
albeit by the slimmest 23-22 margin, and set the stage for a full vote
in the House of Representatives.

The Turkish government, which had sent its own lawmakers to Washington
to lobby US congressmen and warned of serious repercussions over the
vote, responded by recalling ambassador Namik Tan to Ankara for
consultations.

"We condemn this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a
crime it has not committed," it said in a statement.

President Abdullah Gul also expressed his anger, saying the resolution
had "no value in the eyes of the Turkish people" and warning it would
deal a blow to fledgling efforts to end decades of hostility between
Turkey and Armenia.

"Turkey will not be responsible for the negative ramifications that
this vote may have in every field," he stressed.

The non-binding resolution calls on President Barack Obama to ensure
that US foreign policy reflects an understanding of the "genocide" and
to label the mass killings as such in his annual statement on the
issue.

Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kin were killed during World
War I by their Ottoman rulers as the empire was falling apart, a claim
supported by several other countries.

Turkey argues 300,000 to 500,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks
died in what was a civil strife when Armenians rose up for
independence and sided with invading Russian troops.

The United States has traditionally condemned the 1915-1918 killings,
but refrained from calling them a "genocide," anxious not to strain
relations with Turkey, a NATO member and a key Muslim majority ally in
the Middle East.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had urged the committee not to
press ahead with the vote for fear it might harm reconciliation moves
between Armenia and Turkey and said she hoped the bid would progress
no further.

"We do not believe the full Congress will or should act on that
resolution," Clinton told reporters in Costa Rica.

Following US-backed bridge-building talks, Turkey and Armenia signed a
deal in October to establish diplomatic relations and open their
border.

But the process has already hit the rocks, with Ankara accusing
Yerevan of trying to tweak the terms of the deal and Yerevan charging
that Ankara is not committed to ratifying the accord.

Clinton, who had called committee chairman Howard Berman on Wednesday
to try to persuade him to shelve the vote, defended an apparent U-turn
on the matter by the president.

Obama pledged during his campaign that he would recognize the events
as genocide, but disappointed Armenian-American supporters when he
refrained from using the term in his message last year to commemorate
the killings.

"The circumstances have changed in very significant ways," Clinton
said, explaining that it became clear after the administration took
office that the reconciliation process was a "very worthy one that we
intended to support.

"I do not think it is for any other country to determine how two
countries resolve matters between them to the extent that actions that
the United States might take could disrupt this process."

In his opening remarks Thursday, Berman, the Democratic chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, said "nothing justifies Turkey’s
turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide.

"At some point, every nation must come to terms with its own history.
And that is all we ask of Turkey," he said, urging his fellow
lawmakers to support the legislation.

Ankara also recalled its envoy from Washington in 2007 when a
congressional committee passed a similar text.

But then-president George W. Bush stopped the resolution from going to
the full House, wary over reports that Ankara would block US access to
a key air base essential for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.

Book: Giving Turkey a hard second look

The International Herald Tribune, France
March 6, 2010 Saturday

Giving Turkey a hard second look

by JOSEPH O’NEILL

ABSTRACT

In "Rebel Land. Unraveling the Riddle of History in a Turkish Town,"
Christopher de Bellaigue makes a courageous reappraisal of Turkey.

FULL TEXT
Rebel Land. Unraveling the Riddle of History in a Turkish Town. By
Christopher de Bellaigue. Illustrated. 270 pages. The Penguin Press.
$25.95; £20.

In 2005, Christopher de Bellaigue, a British journalist, installed
himself in a remote, forbidding Turkish town and, by so doing,
acquired an anguished intimacy with the region’s peoples and their
secret and mythic pasts. This extraordinary intervention – which can
be read as old-fashioned Orientalism or, more generously, as a
globalized conscience courageously at work or, most accurately, as a
bit of both – has a reflexive subplot, namely Mr. de Bellaigue’s own
intellectual and moral odyssey, which is of an unusually vulnerable
and romantic character.

As Mr. de Bellaigue freely explains in ”Rebel Land,” a love affair
drew him to Turkey in 1995, whereupon ”the love affair ended but
Turkey captivated me.” He stayed (in Ankara and Istanbul, writing for
The Economist), learned to speak Turkish fluently and, immersed in a
Westernized environment, more or less unwittingly became a Kemalist,
which is to say, a subscriber to the ”foundation myths” promulgated
by Kemal Ataturk and holding sway in Turkey ever since.

Notable among these are the notions that the Turkish republic is a
nation-state containing no subgroups with valid claims to ethnic or
political differentiation, let alone autonomy; that the country has a
European and secular essence and destiny; and, more emotionally, that
the achievement of Turkish nationhood was an enterprise reflective of
a righteous people who to this day remain victimized by the
self-interested incomprehension of the West.

Mr. de Bellaigue in 2001 wrote an article for The New York Review of
Books containing a blandly pro-Turkish account of the fate of the
Ottoman Armenians. To Mr. de Bellaigue’s somewhat surprising surprise,
this excited a furious response. The controversy led the writer to a
searching, shameful examination of his sources and his soul: ”I had
been charmed by the Turks, and perhaps intimidated by their blocking
silence” about the Armenians. ”I had helped to keep Turkey’s past
hidden.”

It may strike some as odd that a leading authority on modern Turkey
should be capable of such a blunder; an honest scrutiny of the
plentiful and detailed accounts of the 1915 events provided by
(overwhelmingly Christian) bystanders and survivors makes the case for
an Armenian genocide hard to resist. On any view of the available
materials – the Ottoman archives remain largely forbidden to scholars
– the Armenians suffered a comprehensive and horrifying ethnic
cleansing from their ancient homeland.

But Mr. de Bellaigue had failed to scrutinize these materials, for the
simple reason that he had, more or less literally, gone native. It was
only after he left Istanbul for Tehran (prompted by another, happier
love affair, with an Iranian who is now his wife) that his Turkish
ties began to shrivel and he came to realize he was ”no longer a
Turk.” By 2005, he was ready to make amends for his offenses against
history, even if he would thereby go behind Turkey’s back ”and betray
it.”

The betrayal took the form of repeated visits to ”a little place in
the middle of nowhere” named Varto, and in this way Mr. de Bellaigue
climbed ”down from the crow’s nest of history” to a place where
”the science of history has been so abused and neglected … that it
barely exists.” Varto, we learn, is an exceedingly complicated place.
Situated in Turkey’s beautiful, mountainous far east, in the early
20th century it was controlled in short succession by the Ottomans,
Russian invaders, Armenian nationalists and Kurdish rebels. Nowadays
the town and surrounding district are populated by Kurds, a very few
vestigial Armenians and a small minority of Turks.

This ethnic complexity is aggravated by tribal divisions (among the
Kurds) and by an unruly spillage of religions. Most Varto Kurds are
Sunni Muslims, others are members of the oppressed Alevi sect; ditto
the Turks. The Armenians of Varto are Muslims (their Ottoman ancestors
having prudentially converted from Christianity). Local speech is also
a hodgepodge.

Mr. De Bellaigue responds with outstanding energy and courage. Lodging
at Varto’s Teachers’ Hostel, he is tailed by the police and military
intelligence and suspected of being a spy. Nonetheless, he perseveres,
talking to, on the one hand, the captain of the gendarmerie, the
police chief and the district governor and, on the other hand,
herdsmen and Kurdish guerrilla fighters. He tracks down descendants of
famous and infamous figures in Varto history, and in Germany, he
speaks to exiled Kurdish nationalists. He constructs an unflinching
and painstaking history of the local Armenian apocalypse and
deconstructs the Kurds’ inevitably shaky versions of their past.

If one thing becomes clear, it’s that the region, indeed Turkey
itself, is buried in a thick ethnographic and historical cloud that is
only deepened by its various inhabitants, who, in this regard, are
helpless particles of fog. The people of Varto are smothered by the
official narratives of the Turkish state, credulous of family and
tribal lore and guerrilla propaganda, subdued by censorship and
hypersensitized by inherited and actual grievances. Their sense of
themselves and their neighbors is built on vagueness, prejudice,
misconceptions, hearsay and, above all, fear. Fear is general all over
Turkey.

Mr. De Bellaigue investigates this mess brilliantly and evenhandedly
(if occasionally emotively). Analytically, however, he can be abrupt.
He describes Varto as ”a place under occupation” before concluding,
a little too tersely, that the ”Kurdish movement in Turkey … is a
mirage.”

With regard to that hottest of potatoes, the Armenians, he deplores as
”a travesty of history and memory” the divisive obsession with the
question of genocide: ”What is needed is a vaguer description for the
events of 1915, avoiding the G-word but clearly connoting criminal
acts of slaughter, to which reasonable scholars can subscribe,”
thereby promoting ”a cultural and historical meeting between today’s
Turks, Kurds and Armenians.” This is an important and potentially
attractive suggestion, but Mr. de Bellaigue declines to elaborate its
moral and philosophical foundations; a pity, since he has earned the
reader’s trust.

It’s a sense of trust, though, that ”Rebel Land” ultimately
bequeaths – a rare, remarkable feat, given the treacherousness of the
terrain. Mr. de Bellaigue concludes his personal story with the
information that, having wandered restlessly among ”the tall stalks
of identity,” fatherhood has returned him to England and to a new
appreciation of his citizenship. That may be so; but whatever his
protestations to the contrary, his heart remains part Turkish. And
Turkey, however much it may not like it, is lucky to have Christopher
de Bellaigue. This book ought to be compulsory reading from Batman to
Bodrum.

Ankara reste decide a normaliser ses liens avec Erevan

L’Express, France
5 Mars 2010

Ankara reste décidé à normaliser ses liens avec Erevan
Par Reuters, publié le 05/03/2010 à 15:08 – mis à jour le 05/03/2010 à 20:15

ANKARA – La Turquie a fait savoir vendredi qu’elle restait déterminée
à normaliser ses relations avec l’Arménie, indépendamment de la
décision de la commission des Affaires étrangères de la Chambre des
représentants américaine de qualifier de "génocide" le massacre des
Arméniens durant la Première Guerre mondiale.

Ankara a rappelé son ambassadeur aux Etats-Unis "pour consultations" Ã
la suite du vote, par 23 voix contre 22, des membres de la commission
autorisant le président Barack Obama à utiliser le terme de génocide
pour évoquer le massacre, décision saluée par le gouvernement
d’Erevan.

Le vote de la commission des Affaires étrangères n’entraînera pas "Ã
ce stade" un vote en séance plénière, a déclaré un responsable
démocrate souhaitant garder l’anonymat.

La Turquie reconnaît le massacre de chrétiens arméniens par les
Ottomans, mais elle nie qu’il ait fait plus de 1,5 million de morts et
qu’il s’agisse d’un génocide, un terme utilisé par un grand nombre
d’historiens occidentaux et des parlements étrangers.

"Nous sommes déterminés à continuer la normalisation de nos relations
avec l’Arménie", a déclaré vendredi le ministre turc des Affaires
étrangères, Ahmet Davutoglu, au lendemain du vote de la commission des
Affaires étrangères de la Chambre des représentants.

La Turquie et l’Arménie ont signé l’an dernier un accord historique
prévoyant la réouverture de leur frontière commune, mais il doit
encore être ratifié par les parlements d’Ankara et d’Erevan.

Toutefois, le président turc Abdullah Gül, à l’origine du
rapprochement avec l’Arménie à la faveur d’une visite à Erevan en 2008
pour assister à un match de football, a déclaré que l’initiative
américaine fragilisait la stabilité du Caucase.

Le Premier ministre Tayyip Erdogan a quant à lui estimé que le
"partenariat stratégique" entre Washington et Ankara, pièce importante
du puzzle de l’Otan, pâtiraient de ce vote, que le président Obama
aurait voulu éviter.

Prié de dire si Ankara entendait prendre des mesures de représailles
envers les Etats-Unis, Davutoglu a déclaré qu’il était prématuré de se
prononcer.

Pour sa part, le parlement d’Azerbaïdjan a dénoncé le vote des
représentants américains, estimant qu’il portait atteinte à la
stabilité régionale et nuisait aux efforts de règlement du conflit du
Haut-Karabakh.

Selon le gouvernement de Bakou, allié traditionnel de la Turquie, une
telle marque de soutien ne peut que renforcer l’intransigeance de
l’Arménie au sujet de l’indépendance de cette enclave azerbaïdjanaise
peuplée en majorité d’Arméniens.

tualites/2/ankara-reste-decide-a-normaliser-ses-li ens-avec-erevan_853184.html

http://www.lexpress.fr/ac

BAKU: No ‘extraordinary formulae’ on Karabakh settlement

news.az, Azerbaijan
March 5 2010

No ‘extraordinary formulae’ on Karabakh settlement
Fri 05 March 2010 | 06:32 GMT Text size:

Alexey Vlasov News.Az interviews Alexey Vlasov, director of Moscow
State University’s analytical centre on post-Soviet states.

How would you describe the current state of the Karabakh settlement process?

The current state of the Karabakh process can be described as
discrepant. The sides have not managed to find the support point which
would promote small but definite achievements in the resolution
process. This is because of the difference between the approaches of
Baku and Yerevan whose positions have not been reconciled at all
recently and the sense of the limited resources and capabilities of
the main moderators and co-sponsors of the peace settlement.
Therefore, some experts have a feeling that the mediators in the
Karabakh conflict settlement would prefer to leave the situation
frozen, as they have no real chance to change the situation for
better.

At a joint news conference on negotiations with Russian leader Dmitry
Medvedev, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated the intention of
Paris and Moscow to work closely on resolution of the Karabakh
conflict. Does this mean that France and Russia have additional
mechanisms to reconcile the conflict parties?

I do not think that Paris and Moscow have any extraordinary formulae
for the conflict settlement. It refers more to an attempt to ‘add
potential’ which Moscow and Ankara have been doing recently and now
Paris may get involved too. But it is not clear what the ‘added value’
of French participation may mean. Probably, this will become clearer
after the meeting of the Armenian and French leaders, for example in
terms of France’s influence on Armenia’s foreign policy and the
existence of the influential Armenian diaspora there. But this
underscores presumptions that can be confirmed or dismissed only
through experience.

How can you explain the fact that Russia and France are currently more
active in mediation, while previously it was the United States that
was active?

It is clear that Washington has serious problems in other regions,
considering the upcoming withdrawal of troops from Iraq and possible
conduct of operations against nuclear facilities in Iran. I suppose
this is the real cause of Washington’s passivity, not only on the
Karabakh conflict but also in other US policy areas in the post-Soviet
space. Hillary Clinton’s ambitious statements have not yet been
confirmed by real capabilities of the State Department to have more
active influence on the situation. The more significant role of Paris
and Moscow is primarily filling the influence vacuum that developed as
a result of Washington’s gradual withdrawal from the mediation
process. But I would not hope now for a final withdrawal of the United
States, because they might return, though it is unclear what they
would bring.

The Azerbaijani side says that if the negotiations on the Madrid
principles enter deadlock, the potential for negotiations may be
considered exhausted. Baku would then have no alternative but to opt
to liberate its land by force. Do you think a settlement by force is
possible?

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe in settlement of the
conflict by force. However, I understand that the patience of the
Azerbaijani side has a definite limit. Yet, I am confident that the
foreign powers will not let the conflict enter a hot phase. None of
the mediators is interested in this now. In addition, the experience
of the August conflict of 2008 showed that local conflict can be short
and last a maximum of four to five days in the current conditions. I
think neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan have enough power to meet these
terms.

The Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan told a recent news conference
that such conflicts should be settled by the mediation of regional
states. He said that the Minsk Group format was ineffective because
each co-chairing state pursued only its own interests, which was why
the conflict had not been settled for 18 years. Is he right?

The Iranian ambassador’s statement certainly prompted a serious
reaction, but I would like to ask the same question ` what formulae
different from the positions of the Minsk Group can Tehran propose? To
be honest, this is not their first statement about the need for the
more active involvement of regional powers in the conflict settlement.
Turkey also has the same position, but it has not made any significant
achievements. But the fact that Iran’s mediation seems to start with
Baku’s approval shows that hopes have been placed on Iran which
recently has had quite close relations both with Yerevan and Baku.
Undoubtedly, this is a new plus in terms of new opportunities. But,
anyway, Tehran’s mediation will not replace the Minsk Group. It will
supplement it. This format of interaction seems more substantiated and
probably more effective to me.

Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az

Genocide terming was voted by Congress to Armenians mass killing

ecPulse
March 5 2010

Genocide terming was voted by Congress to Armenians mass killing by
Ottoman Turks

"Genocide" is now the word, that the Congress officially describes the
killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks 95 years ago. The House of
Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday voted 23-22 in
favor of the non-binding resolution for identifying the 1915
slaughter, when an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the
Ottoman Turks, as genocide against the Armenian people, and calls upon
President Obama to ensure the U.S policy to formally refer to it as
that.

The matter triggered immediate reaction from Turky; where Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan recalled Turkey’s ambassador to the U.S. for
consultations in light of the decisions; Turkey admits to the mass
deaths but doesn’t coincide with the number of victims and refrains to
use the word genocide.

This matter could obstruct the progressed pressed towards peace from
Turkey and Armenia. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a
news conference today "We are determined to press ahead with
normalization of relations with Armenia".

Also, it will strain the ties between Ankara and Washington, where
they are pressing against this vote going to the House floor. A
similar resolution has already passed the House Committee in 2007 yet
then-President George W. Bush urged Congressional leaders in concern
over the ties with Turkey not to table the vote.

Despite President Obama’s request to avert the voting, the panel voted
in favor of the term to describe the tragic event. They clarify the
decision by the necessity of Turkey to admit to their past mistakes,
as in the case of Germany with the Holocaust and the U.S. recognition
of slavery.

2010/03/05/congress-vote-genocide-turks-armenia-/

http://www.ecpulse.com/en/politicalnews/

House Panel Votes to Recognize Armenian Genocide

Democracy Now
March 5 2010

House Panel Votes to Recognize Armenian Genocide

In other news from Washington, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has
approved a non-binding resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.
Turkey has long opposed passage of such a measure, which refers to the
World War I-era massacre of Armenians by Turkish troops. Republican
lawmaker Dan Burton of Indiana opposed the measure, saying it would
alienate an important Mideast ally.

Rep. Dan Burton: `We have sympathy for the people that suffered during
that time. We understand tragedies occurred. We understand horrible
atrocities occurred. There’s no question about that. But we’re in the
twenty-first century. We have troops in the field, and we run the risk
of losing a base of operation¦in Turkey.’

After the vote, Turkey announced it would recall its US ambassador in
protest. Meanwhile, Armenian National Committee chair Kenneth
Hachikian praised the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Kenneth Hachikian: `We’re very gratified that the House Foreign
Affairs Committee chose to prevent Turkey from imposing a gag rule on
US foreign policy and decided to stand up for truth and justice and to
bring forward the truth of the Armenian genocide. Clearly the members
of the committee were under incredible pressure from the Turkish
government, and even as late as last night apparently from the
administration, to not do this, and so we applaud the bipartisan
endorsement of what occurred, and we look forward to moving this
forward on the House floor.’

Although many progressives have long called for recognizing the
Armenian genocide, there’s been speculation around the motives for the
vote. Critics say lawmakers strongly backing the Israeli government
are punishing Turkey for its opposition to the Israeli assault on and
blockade of the Gaza Strip.

ines/house_panel_votes_to_recognize_armenian_genoc ide

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/5/headl