Daily Illini: Campus remembers Armenian genocide

Daily Illini, IL
April 25 2005

Campus remembers Armenian genocide

Candlelight vigil on Quad honors 1.5 million killed in genocide 90
years ago

By Gina Siemplenski

The Armenian Association (ArmA) held a candlelight vigil on the Quad
Sunday night to remember the 90th anniversary of the Armenian
genocide by the Turkish military.
About 20 attendants remembered the annihilation of 1.5 million
Armenians in Ottoman Turkey and the deportation of almost the entire
Armenian population from its ancestral lands in the Asia Minor that
began on April 24, 1915.
Selected readings, poetry and prayers were read in addition to a
90-second moment of silence. A song called “Krunk” was also played on
a violin by ArmA treasurer and business major Lauren Buchakjian. The
song was composed by a victim of the genocide.
Zaruhi Sahakyan, president of ArmA, said there were two purposes for
the ceremony.
“First, we want to remember those innocent victims in 1915 and the
years after. Second, if we do not learn from the past then we are
doomed to repeat it,” Sahakyan said.
Controversy continues to surround the mass killings. While virtually
everyone acknowledges that the massacre happened, Turkey disputes
that it was planned and carried out by the state – thus the label
“genocide” does not apply, it says.
“The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and not just in the American
archives,” said Robert Krikorian, professor at George Washington
University in Washington, D.C.
However, more and more countries, regions and cities recognize the
Armenian genocide, Sahakyan said.
“This is an important development since a greater acknowledgement of
genocide by the community of nations will serve the purpose of
preventing and condemning a genocide in the future and will
ultimately promote the understanding of the issue in Turkey itself,”
Sahakyan said.
Sahakyan asked that the world community heed the lessons of the
Armenian Genocide.
“First to recognize the early ‘seeds’ of genocide and act speedily to
prevent a full-blown genocide and secondly, to resist and rebuke the
deniers of genocide because denial will only encourage rogue states
to attempt genocide in the future,” Sahakyan said.

Many people believe that because the international community did
nothing to punish Turkey for its crimes in Armenia, Hitler became
more confident that he could successfully carry out the massacre of
six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, Sahakyan said.
“Hopefully one day humankind will be freed of the scourge of genocide
once and for all,” he said.
The vigil drew many people of Armenian heritage, including Jacob
Portukalian, freshman at Vincennes University in Vincennes, Ind., to
attend the ceremony.
“I would like to think of this as an opportunity to remember what
happened to my people and reflect on their tragedies,” Portukalian
said.
The vigil’s goal was to offer prayers for the soul, but today a more
academic approach will be taken to understanding the historic event,
Sahakyan said.
Students who want to know more about the Armenian killings are
encouraged to attend the seminar “American Genocide and Historical
Memory,” delivered by Krikorian. It is at 2:00 p.m. at the Illini
Union, room 210.

London: Armenians ask Turkey to recognise genocide 90 years on

Armenians ask Turkey to recognise genocide 90 years on

The Independent – United Kingdom
Apr 25, 2005

Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor

Hundreds of thousands of people have marched through the Armenian
capital, Yerevan, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian
genocide.

As Armenians across the world marked the grim anniversary, a British
genocide prevention charity urged the Government to recognise the
genocide, and to encourage Turkey to do likewise.

Up to 1.5 million Christian Armenians were slaughtered during the
First World War by the Ottoman government in what was then Turkish
Armenia.

Although France, which is home to 400,000 Armenians, and eight other
European states have officially recognised the massacre as genocide,
Turkey has refused to do so.

The German parliament is to consider a resolution which calls on
Turkey to recognise the genocide and which admits to German
co-responsibility, as Turkey’s ally in the war.

‘Partly through approval and through failure to take effective
preventive measures, there was a German co-responsibility for this
genocide,’ said Chancellor Gerhard Schrýder’s spokesman, Gernot
Erler. ‘The Bundestag asks the Armenian people for their forgiveness.’

James Smith, the chief executive of Aegis Trust, a British charity,
said: ‘We understand that Turkey is an important ally within
Nato. However, the time is long overdue for the British Government to
encourage Turkey to come to terms with its past, and to join other
European states in giving the Armenian genocide the recognition it
deserves.’

The Turkish government, which is pressing to join the European Union,
refuses to recognise the figure of 1.5 million dead and says Armenians
were among many victims of a partisan war that also claimed many
Muslim lives from April 1915.

The commemorations in Yerevan began on Saturday night when thousands
of people held a torchlight vigil at a granite obelisk on a hilltop
where a flame has burned since 1965.

Armenia and its neighbour, Turkey, do not have diplomatic relations.

NKR Union of Journalists Appeal to International Journalistic Orgs.

NKR UNION OF JOURNALISTS URGES INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISTIC
ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE TO RECOGNITION OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN
TURKEY AND AZERBAIJAN

STEPANAKERT, APRIL 23. ARMINFO. In connection with the 90th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the Union of Journalists of
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic makes an appeal to the international
journalist organizations.

According to ARMINFO’s special correspondent to Stepanakert, the
appeal, in particular, says that denial of the Armenian genocide by
Turkey is a challenge to acknowledged legal and moral norms. Lack of
juridical and political assessment of the tragic events in Ottoman
Turkey in 1915-1923 by the international community has become a
precedent for the Azerbaijani authorities waging constant policy of
ethnic purges, which led to massacre and deportation of the Armenian
population of that country at the end of the 20th century, says the
appeal. NKR Union of Journalists urges all the journalistic
organizations in the world to contribute to the international
recognition of the crimes committed in Turkey and Azerbaijan, as facts
of genocide, calling it a pledge of refusal from the policy of ethnic
purges in the world and establishment of tolerant relations between
the states and the peoples.

German parliament calls on Turkey to face up to Armenian massacre

German parliament calls on Turkey to face up to Armenian massacre

Agence France Presse — English
April 21, 2005 Thursday

BERLIN April 21 — German MPs from across the political spectrum
appealed to Turkey on Thursday to accept the massacre of Armenians
as part of its history and suggested doing so would help it become
a member of the European Union.

Armenia says up to 1.5 million of its people were slaughtered between
1915 and 1917 as the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern Turkey,
was falling apart.

Turkey counters that 300,000 Armenians and thousands of Turks were
killed in “civil strife” during World War I when the Armenians rose
against their Ottoman rulers and sided with invading Russian troops.

During an often impassioned debate in the German Bundestag lower house
of parliament, Friedbert Pflueger, the foreign affairs specialist
for the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said: “Turkey
should face up to the truth.”

However he said putting pressure on Turkey would not lead to Ankara
recognising what had happened.

“We do not want to incriminate and we do not want to embellish,”
Pflueger added.

Fritz Kuhn of the Greens, which form the governing coalition with
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats, said the debate had
taken on increased importance because “we want Turkey to be an EU
member one day”.

Turkey is set to start EU accession talks on October 3.

The French parliament adopted a controversial law in 2001 which states
that “France publicly recognises the Armenian genocide.”

Armenia will commemorate the 90th anniversary of the massacres this
weekend.

Turkish Dams Violate EU Standards and Human Rights

Turkish Dams Violate EU Standards and Human Rights

Assyrian International News Agency
April 21 2005

Plans for large dams in southeast Turkey including the discredited
Ilisu dam project may yet go ahead in spite of adverse impacts on
cultural and environmental rights, according to a new report by the
National University of Ireland, Galway and the Kurdish Human Rights
Project.

The report provides new evidence from hydroelectric dam projects
planned for the Munzur, Tigris and Greater Zap rivers.

The study, a report of a fact-finding mission to the region carried
out by Maggie Ronayne, Lecturer in Archaeology at the National
University of Ireland, Galway, demonstrates how archaeology in
particular supports the case of thousands of villagers adversely
affected by these projects, most of whom do not appear to have been
consulted at all about the dams and many of whom want to return to
reservoir areas, having already been displaced by the recent conflict
in the region….

The overwhelming response in particular from women and their
organisations is one of opposition to the negative impact on them and
those in their care; yet women have been the least consulted sector.

The reservoirs would submerge evidence for hundreds and potentially
thousands of ancient sites of international importance, including
evidence of our earliest origins as a species, the beginnings of
agriculture, and the remains of empires including those of Rome and
Assyria.

The heritage of Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians and others from the last
few hundred years and holy places from several traditions within the
Muslim and Christian faiths, many still used in religious practices
today and some dating from over 1000 years ago, will go under the
reservoir waters.

According to report author Maggie Ronayne: ‘The GAP development
project of which these dams are part is destroying a heritage which
belongs to the whole of humanity and contravenes the most basic
professional standards. Governments and companies involved with these
projects are ignoring its serious implications: the destruction of
such diverse cultural and religious heritage in a State with a
history of severe cultural repression. Turkey’s progress on cultural
rights for the Kurds and others has been an object of scrutiny in
recent years; the EU must consider cultural destruction on this scale
in that context.’

One of the major findings of the report is that there is a new
consortium of companies coming together to build the discredited
Ilisu Dam which would displace up to 78,000 mostly Kurdish people,
and would also potentially cut off downstream flows of water to Syria
and Iraq.

The ancient town of Hasankeyf, culturally important to many Kurdish
people and of international archaeological significance, will not be
saved by new plans to build the dam despite the promises of the
Turkish prime minister and the would-be dam builders.

In any case, the cultural impacts of Ilisu are much greater than this
one very important town.

>>From 2000 to 2002, campaigners, human rights and environmental groups
and affected communities successfully exposed fundamental flaws in
project documents and plans for Ilisu, which contributed to the
collapse of the last consortium of companies planning to build it.
But the basis for the project this time remains essentially the same.

Kerim Yildiz, Executive Director of the Kurdish Human Rights Project
commented: ‘It seems that the Turkish State has not learned the
lessons of Ilisu: the report finds that a range of international laws
and standards are not being adhered to. EU standards in particular
are met by none of the projects. The study also shows that while
there have been some improvements and legal reforms, torture remains
an administrative practice of the State. If this is the climate in
which people are to be consulted about the dams, then we can only
conclude that any fair outcome for the public appears most unlikely.
The GAP development project examined in this study raises serious
questions regarding Turkey’s process of accession to the EU.’

Contact:

Maggie Ronayne, Department of Archaeology, National University of
Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Tel: 00 353 91 512298 or 00 353 (0) 87
7838688 (mobile) Email: [email protected]

Kerim Yildiz / Rochelle Harris, Kurdish Human Rights Project, London,
Tel: +44 (0)207 287-2772. Email: [email protected]

www.khrp.org

Ultimate Crime, Ultimate Challenge,Conference Closing Speech by Fore

PRESS RELEASE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:

Ultimate Crime, Ultimate Challenge
An International Conference on the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
Closing Address

By Vartan Oskanian
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Armenia

On behalf of the National Commission, I wish to publicly express
our sincere appreciation to everyone who has participated in this
conference. I want to thank the Zoryan Institute for their professional
and organizational counsel. I especially wish to thank the scholars,
writers, professors ­ all with serious work and time commitments
­ who traveled to Armenia to be here with us at this time, this
year. The symbolism is not lost on anyone. We are here 90 years later
calling for recognition and prevention so that in 2015 we can gather
together only for remembrance.

Over these two days, each of our speakers has found various eloquent
ways of saying the following:

Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity. It is the extreme
abuse of power. It is a betrayal of the responsibility of custody
by the very people entrusted with insuring the security of their own
population. The human rights challenge facing all of us is to be able
to recognize that a government has the capacity for such immorality
and inhumanity, and that particular governments have indeed committed
genocide.

There is no national history in a vacuum. No nation can escape its
history entirely, it can only transcend it. But to transcend, one
must confront history, both internally and in relation to others. And
those others, too, must also jointly confront theirs.

In other words, Armenia and Turkey must confront their histories.
Individually and together. Armenia believes Turkey must put excuses
aside and enter into normal relations with a neighbor that is neither
going to go away nor forget its history.

We are not the only neighbors in the world who have had, and who
continue to have, a troubled relationship. Troubled memories, a
tortured past, recriminations, unsettled accounts and the enduring
wounds of victimhood, plague the national consciousness of peoples on
many borders. In our case, some distance between our two countries
might have allowed us to put distance between our past and our
future. But we have no such luxury. There is no space, no cushion,
between us. We live right here, close by, reminded at all times of
the great loss that we incurred. Yet it is because we live right next
door that we must be willing and prepared to transcend the past.

But we can only do so if the demons of the past have been rejected by
our neighbor, too. You notice, I didn¹t say ~Lby the perpetrator.¹
Armenians are able to distinguish between the perpetrators and
today¹s government of Turkey. Two-thirds of the Armenian population
of the Ottoman Empire were massacred or deported between 1915 and
1918. Today¹s Republic of Turkey must be able to condemn these acts
for what they are. The evidence is overwhelming, clear, unavoidable.

Armenians were one of the largest minorities of the Ottoman
Empire. Where did they go? Is it possible that all our grandmothers
and grandfathers colluded and created stories? Where are the
descendants of the Armenians who built the hundreds of churches and
monasteries whose ruins still stand in Turkey? Is US Ambassador Henry
Morgenthau¹s account of the atrocities that he witnessed a lie? Why
was a military tribunal convened at the end of World War I, and why did
it find Ottoman Turkish leaders guilty of ordering the mass murder of
Armenians? How does one explain the thousands and thousands of pages
in the official records of a dozen countries documenting the plans
to exterminate the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire? If it
wasn¹t genocide and they were simply ~Lwar time deportations¹ of
so-called rebellious Armenian populations near the eastern border with
the Russian Empire, as Turkish apologists sometimes claim, why were
the homes of Armenians in the western cities looted and burned? Why
were the Armenians of the seacoast towns of Smyrna and Constantinople
deported? Boatloads of people were dumped in the sea ­ is that what
deportation is all about? Could rounding up scores of intellectuals
on a single night and killing them be anything but premeditation?

When a government plans to do away with its own population to solve
a political problem ­ that¹s genocide. At the turn of the 20th
century, the Ottoman Empire was shrinking, it was losing its hold
over its subjects along the periphery of the empire. For fear that in
Anatolia, too, the Armenian minority would agitate for greater rights
and invite foreign powers to exert pressure, the Ottoman leadership
used the cover of World War I to attempt to wipe out the Armenians,
beginning with the leadership, following with the men, and finally
deporting women, children and the elderly.

This fits neatly into the definition of genocide: The perpetrator did
cause a multitude of deaths; these persons did belong to a particular
national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The perpetrator
intended to and in fact did destroy, in whole or in part, that
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and this destruction
followed a consistent pattern. In fact, US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau
called what he witnessed, the Murder of a Nation. Others called
it ~Lrace murder¹. They did so because there was no term Genocide
yet. When the word was finally coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, it
was done with clear reference to genocidal acts prior to that date,
the Armenian Genocide included. There is no doubt that if the word
genocide had existed in 1915, every one of the hundreds of articles
in the NY times or elsewhere, would have used the term. Look how
frequently the word ~Lgenocide¹ is used today to describe events and
cases where the scale and depth of the atrocities are incomparable.
Armenians continue to live with the memory of suffering unrelieved
by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition.

On the contrary, Turkey spends untold amounts to deny, dismiss, distort
history. Not just money, either. Today, their continued insistence on
rejecting and rewriting history costs them credibility and time. One
does not knock on Europe¹s door by blindfolding historians and
gagging writers. Especially when the subject at hand is one as grave
and consequential as genocide. The Turkish parliament¹s recent call to
revisit, review, revise the documents gathered by Arnold Toynbee and
James Bryce for the British Blue Book series brought the revisionist
efforts to a new low. Turkey has moved on from trying to rewrite its
own history to thinking it can convince others to rewrite theirs. This
only frustrates the process, exacerbates the emotions and refuels the
fury. Worse, such cynical moves embolden those who do not believe in
reconciliation, understanding its great risks and costs.

Elie Wiesel has said that denial of genocide is the final stage of
genocide because it ³strives to shape history in order to demonize
the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators.² That is what Turkey
­ not the people but the government ­ is trying to do. Today¹s
Turks do not bear the guilt of the perpetrators, unless they choose
to defend and identify with them. Armenians and Turks, together with
the rest of the modern world, can reject the actions and denounce
the crimes of the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey must also de-link history from politics. The excuses about
what might follow genocide recognition are just that ­ excuses.
Why are they surprised that Ararat is on our state seal? Armenians have
lived on these lands for thousands of years, and Armenia¹s borders
have changed a great deal over the millennia. That¹s a historical
fact. The Armenian kingdom stretched from sea to sea. That¹s a
historical fact. The last change came at the beginning of the 20th
century. That, too, is a historical fact. By the provisions of the
Treaty of Sevres, the territory of Armenia was ten times what it is
today. That is a historical fact as is the fact that Turkey defied
the treaty which had been signed by its own government, and by force,
created a new de facto situation, which led to the signing of another
agreement, without the same signatories. This new agreement delineated,
more or less, today¹s borders. That too is historical fact.

But it is a political reality that both Turkey and Armenia exist today
in the international community with their current borders. It is a
political reality that we are neighbors and we will live alongside
each other. It is a political reality that Armenia is not a security
threat to Turkey. And finally, it is a reality that it is today¹s
Armenia that calls for the establishment of diplomatic relations with
today¹s Turkey.

For these reasons, anything beyond genocide recognition has not been
and is not on Armenia¹s foreign policy agenda.

Yesterday I was being interviewed by a Turkish television crew. I was
surprised at the amount of misinformation that they had. They were
surprised that the Armenian-Turkish border is open from the Armenian
side, that it is Turkey that keeps it closed. They were surprised that
Armenia has no pre-conditions for establishing diplomatic relations
with Turkey. They were highly surprised that even the recognition
of Genocide is not a precondition. They were also surprised that
the Kars Treaty has not been denounced or revoked by the Government
of Armenia. Now I¹m surprised that official Turkish propaganda has
taken over and blurred the views of many.

There¹s another misunderstanding. By default, people assume that
we¹re opposed to Turkey¹s membership in the EU. They¹re wrong
on this one too. Of course we would like to see Turkey become an EU
member. Of course we¹d like to see that Turkey meets all European
standards. We¹d like to see that Turkey resemble Belgium, Italy
and others. We¹d like to see Turkey become an EU member so that our
borders will be open, so that our compatriots and Turkish scholars
will speak more freely about Genocide. We would like to see Turkey
as a member so that our churches and properties will be protected
and restored.

Armenia believes that, at exactly this time, when Turkey is having to
reconsider human and civil rights, freedom of expression and religion,
it must be encouraged, and persuaded, to acknowledge its past. Such
encouragement and persuasion must come from both outside ­ and
more importantly, as Hrant Dink stressed yesterday ­ from within
Turkish society.

Turkish writers and politicians have begun that difficult process of
introspection and study. Some are doing so publicly and with great
transparency. We can only assume that Europe will expect that a Turkey
which is serious about EU membership, which is indeed able to juggle
the complex relationships that EU membership entails, will have to
come to terms with its past.

In this context, it is essential that the international community
doesn¹t bend the rules, doesn¹t turn a blind eye, doesn¹t lower its
standards, but instead consistently extends its hand, its example,
its own history of transcending, in order for Armenians and Turks,
Europeans all, to move on to making new history.

Thank you.

–Boundary_(ID_tZZYx0OI9CAfpQ3Z9meoAw)–

http://www.ArmeniaForeignMinistry.am

The Unrequited Past

The Unrequited Past
By Raffi Hovannisian

Moscow Times, Russia
April 21 2005

The Armenian genocide and its final act turn 90 this week. The lack of
recognition, redemption, and closure of this defining watershed for
Armenians and Turks alike has been driven by power politics and the
hedging of history, aggressive revisionism and a strategic incapacity
of the perpetrators, the victims and the generations that followed
them to call it like it is and move beyond.

The lessons, risks and dangers flowing from the genocide and its
contemporary continuation are all the more poignant because the
Armenian case was not only the physical murder of most of the people
making up the nation, but also the violent interruption of their way
of life and the forcible expropriation of the homeland they had lived
in for thousands of years. This pivotal distinction constitutes a
primary source — different from that of the Holocaust — for the
denialist demeanor of the Ottoman Empire’s successor regime, the
quest for justice and personal integrity of the battered and scattered
Armenian survivors, and the vicissitudes of international diplomacy.

The legal, ethical, educational, material and territorial components
of this landmark catastrophe have proved too complex a challenge for
any party or power to meet.

It is the truly unique underpinning of the Armenian experience that
accounts in large measure for why a historical, world-documented
nation-killing remains in limbo to this day and continues to serve
as an instrument for polemics, politics and a variety of “national
interests.”

Absence of a meeting of modern Turkish and Armenian hearts and minds
means a history that is off limits but ever present, a frontier that
is undelimited but closed, and a relationship — or lack thereof —
that is hostage to the heritage of homeland genocide. It is this very
relationship, between Turkey and Armenia and their constituencies,
that is the key to creating a brave new region where the interests of
all players converge to form a single page of security and development.

And it is this relationship, if honestly and efficiently forged,
that would become the foundation for the strengthening of respective
sovereignties, for cooperation in matters of education, culture and
historical preservation, for an enduring peace in Nagorny Karabakh,
Nakhichevan and the broader neighborhood, for open roads, skies
and seas, and for the guaranteed choice of a rightful return of all
refugees and their progeny to their places of origin. As it stands,
however, an unrequited past still doubles as an unsettled present,
leaving unchecked and unpredictable the many future impediments to
peace, stability and reconciliation.

How long can this commingling of tenses go on? How can all concerned
frame a process for a resolution of substance?

Can the heirs to the Turkish perpetration translate self-interest
into seeking atonement, and can the descendants of the great Armenian
dispossession agree to move on? Will we, or our children, ever see
the light, let alone reflect back from the heights, of a post-genocide
world?

Turkey’s and Armenia’s initially separate paths to European integration
might provide them one, perhaps penultimate opportunity, against
their own odds, to assume history, draw the line, and embrace a
promising epoch as sound, if unlikely, partners in regional and
global affairs. New benchmarks and new leaders and a new discourse
are in order.

Raffi Hovannisian, formerly Armenia’s foreign minister, is founding
director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies
in Yerevan. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

ANKARA: Israel’s support to Turkey

ISRAEL’S SUPPORT TO TURKEY

Turkish Press
April 20 2005

Press Scan

CUMHURIYET- Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom met important
members of the Jewish institutions in the US and asked for support to
Turkey against the US resolution on Armenian genocide claims. Israeli
diplomatic sources said that Shalom warned that the adoption of the
resolution by the US Congress would harm the ‘special relations’
among the US, Turkey and Israel.

Change comes to Syria’s Lebanon ‘home’

Change comes to Syria’s Lebanon ‘home’
By Sebastian Usher

BBC News
April 20 2005

BBC News, Anjar in Lebanon — The road leading to the Syrian border in
Lebanon’s Bekaa valley is usually full of dilapidated trucks wheezing
pollution as they struggle towards Damascus.

But in the past few weeks, it has seen another, swifter kind of traffic
as Syrian army vehicles rush backwards and forwards across the border,
carrying the accumulated baggage – military and otherwise – of their
30-year presence in Lebanon.

Anjar has been the Lebanon home of Syria’s feared intelligence service

If you trace the vehicles back to their point of departure, you are
likely to arrive in the lovingly tended, palm tree-lined main avenue of
the small town of Anjar, just a few kilometres from the Syrian border.

Squeezed up against a rocky hillside – beyond which lies Syria –
Anjar’s main claim to fame is a ruin from the early Islamic Omayyad
dynasty, rising in gentle arches on the edge of town.

Armenian legacy

The other focal point is an Armenian church at the end of the main
street, from where you can look across to the other side of the Bekaa
valley, whose mountain tops are still white with snow.

Next to the church is a modernist memorial to the heroic last stand
of Armenians at Moussa Dagh in Turkish Armenia against the Ottoman
Empire in 1915.

It was from there that the town’s inhabitants were finally brought
to Anjar by French troop ships in 1939.

The transplanted Armenians turned what was then a swamp into a town –
though at a heavy cost, with many dying of malaria.

It is a history that the town’s current inhabitants are intensely
proud of, showing visitors the original plan of the town and the deed
to its ownership on the slightest pretext.

The Armenian identity of Anjar remains intact, with street signs in
three languages – Arabic, French and Armenian.

Intelligence base

But in the past 30 years, the town has had another, less
tourist-friendly face.

SYRIA IN LEBANON

Military intervention began in 1976 30,000 troops in Lebanon during
1980s, currently 14,000 Syrian forces helped end Lebanese civil war
in 1990 and maintain peace Calls for Syrian withdrawal increased
in 2000 after Israeli pull-out from southern Lebanon UN resolution
calling for foreign forces’ withdrawal in Sept 2004

Q&A: Syria in Lebanon

The Syrian army chose it as one of its main military bases in the
Bekaa and – more disturbingly in the eyes of most Lebanese – as the
headquarters of its feared intelligence services.

The people of Anjar have grown to accept and even to benefit from the
Syrian presence in the town, but their dread of Syria’s intelligence
operation has never gone away.

It provides its own sinister focal point – to match the Omayyad ruins
and the Armenian church – in a nondescript-looking house, guarded
by an unsmiling phalanx of unshaven Syrian intelligence agents –
mukhabarat in Arabic – in cheap leather jackets.

An Armenian jewellery maker in Anjar’s main restaurant, al-Shams –
still frequented by Syrian officers – was loath even to say the name
of the best-known inhabitant of the house.

But he squeezed it out in the end with a defensive laugh: Rustum
Ghazzali, Syria’s head of intelligence in Lebanon and a man who has
made the country’s political elite quail before his threats.

Deserted checkpoints

Driving around the town with a young student from Anjar and his friend,
I asked to take a photo of the house. They kept promising that I could,
but by the time they felt it was safe, the intelligence HQ was just
a dot in the distance. Anywhere closer, they were scared the Syrians
might spot us.

Like the Syrian soldiers, large numbers of Syrian workers in Anjar
have been packing up

But they did show me the Syrian troop positions speckled around Anjar,
even hard up against the Omayyad ruins.

They pointed out various houses that the Syrian top brass had
requisitioned from locals – usually without payment or compensation.

Outside one, a removal truck was loading up. The Syrian military
presence in the Bekaa has already become desultory.

Most of the checkpoints they used to man – aimed, most Lebanese
believe, simply at bullying the locals – are now deserted.

But the mukhabarat were still operating on the streets of Anjar,
watching and waiting.

The people of Anjar are ambiguous about the Syrians leaving.

At their height, there were about 2,000 Syrian troops there – about
half the town’s population.

The soldiers are poorly paid, so they have not been the greatest of
customers for the more upscale local businesses, but they have been
essential for the hundreds of small shops that line the road towards
the Syrian border. Many of those are now closing down.

Syrian labourers

Even more important for the local economy have been the thousands of
Syrian labourers, who have worked the fields and built the houses of
Anjar for a fraction of what Lebanese workers would be paid.

Many are now leaving with the troops, fearful of their future in
Lebanon.

This was brought home to me while I sat in the office of the chief
official in the town, community leader Haroutian Lakissian.

One of his Syrian workers came in to share his troubles. A friend of
his had just gone back to Syria after receiving threats, and he was
thinking about doing the same.

But in the end, he told Mr Lakissian he would rather be beaten in
Lebanon than be penniless in Syria.

Just then there was a phone call for Mr Lakissian. A Syrian
acquaintance wanted to know if it was safe to drive into Lebanon with
Damascus number plates.

Lebanese forces are starting to deploy in the town

The Mr Lakissian reassured him, then expressed his anger that Syrians
ready to spend good money in Lebanon should be scared off.

Later, in the dark, cramped room of one of his Syrian workers,
plastered with pin-ups of Lebanese female pop singers, a garage owner
told me his workforce was leaving too.

The numbers are vague, but several people in Anjar told me that about
40% of the Syrian workers had now gone. The effect, they told me,
was likely to be devastating on this year’s harvest.

The people in Anjar have one other big concern about the Syrian
troops’ departure.

Loyal as they maintain they are to Lebanese nationhood, some still feel
that the Syrians have given them an important measure of protection
over the years.

I asked the jewellery maker in al-Shams restaurant what the locals
were afraid of.

Of Anjar’s Muslim neighbours was his answer – though he delivered it
in more colourful terms.

Others told me the same story. Their almost crime-free little paradise
of pristine streets and civic pride was now at risk.

‘Need for protection’

Mr Lakissian, the community leader, conceded to me that some of
the people in the surrounding countryside accused them of being
collaborators.

He said there was also a rising tide of rhetoric questioning the
right of the Armenians of Anjar to be in Lebanon at all.

“The town needs protection,” he said.

The Lebanese army was meant to move in the day after the Syrians left,
he told me.

I’d seen some Lebanese soldiers driving through Anjar earlier.
Apparently, they were scouting out the Syrian positions in preparation
for taking them over.

As I was leaving Anjar, one of the locals who had been showing me
around – a twentysomething with a computer shop on the road to the
border and a sideline as a DJ – told me that I should come back after
the Syrians had left, as people would feel much freer to talk then.

And he echoed what others in Anjar had said to me, that they were
glad to see the Syrian troops go, but equally anxious to see the
Syrian workers return.

“Perhaps in a month or two when things have calmed down,” he told me
as we both looked down the now darkened road to Damascus, lighted
up sporadically by one or two of the little shops that had stayed
open late.

Yerevan To Reply To Erdogan’s Letter

YEREVAN TO REPLY TO ERDOGAN’S LETTER

AZG Armenian Daily #070, 20/04/2005

Armenian Genocide

Press secretary of RA President, Viktor Soghomonian, informed daily Azg
that Yerevan will soon reply to Turkish prime minister’s letter. “We
received the letter on Saturday and will reply some day soon”,
Soghomonian said.

Turkish MP Recep Tayyip Erdogan applied to President Robert Kocharian
on April 13 with a suggestion to set a commission combined of Armenian
and Turkish parliamentarians to study historic facts of the Armenian
Genocide.

“If Armenia wants normal relations with Turkey then Kocharian will
reply to Erdogan’s appeal”, Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul
said during a special session at the parliament.

The Turkish press hurried to inform the next day that Kocharian turned
Erdogan’s offer down. The New York Times informed on April 17 that
high-ranking Armenian officials rebuffed the offer.

We can expect that Armenia, in the person of Robert Kocharian or Vartan
Oskanian, will indirectly answer Ankara’s offer at the conference on
Armenian Genocide on April 20-21.