Author: Kamalian Hagop

ARMENIAN BILL MAY HURT TURK-U.S. MILITARY TIES
By Umit Enginsoy And Burak Ege Bekdil

DefenseNews.com
Oct 21 2007

WASHINGTON and ANKARA – Rising U.S.-Turk tensions over Iraq and an
Armenian genocide bill pending in the U.S. House of Representatives
may damage the countries’ military and diplomatic relationships but
probably won’t dent arms trade, officials and defense analysts said.

On Oct. 10, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a
resolution calling for U.S. recognition of World War I-era killings
of Armenians in the Turkish Ottoman Empire as genocide.

One week later, Turkey’s parliament authorized military raids into
neighboring northern Iraq to fight separatist Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK) militants, who recently stepped up attacks on Turkish targets.

U.S. officials consider the PKK a terrorist group but staunchly oppose
an incursion, calling instead for a diplomatic solution.

U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration strongly opposes the
genocide legislation, which is backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and the Democratic Congress leadership. It remains unclear whether
the resolution will come to a House floor vote.

"Whether it will come up or not and what the action will be remains
to be seen," Pelosi told reporters Oct. 17.

Said one defense analyst in Ankara, "As long as Turkey and the United
States nominally remain allies and the status of their relationship
does not become a hostile one, which is unlikely, U.S. arms exports
to Ankara through Foreign Military Sales [FMS] should not be affected
adversely."

In the three largest examples of U.S. FMS deals with Turkey, Ankara
plans to buy 100 next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
worth about $11 billion over the next 15 years, has signed a contract
for the purchase of 30 modern F-16 Block 50 fighters worth $1.85
billion in the shorter term, and is having more than 200 of its older
F-16s upgraded for $1.1 billion.

Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Md., the world’s largest defense company,
is leading all three efforts.

Neither Washington nor Ankara has given any indication that such
large-scale FMS deals might be derailed by political problems.

But if the U.S.-Turkish relationship worsens, U.S. defense exports
through Turkey’s commercial deals, in which American companies compete
with other international rivals, likely would suffer.

In that case, an immediate casualty could be Sikorsky Aircraft, a
contender in Turkey’s ongoing utility helicopter competition for 52
platforms, including 32 military and 20 civilian ones, worth more than
$700 million, the Ankara-based analyst said. A Turkish procurement
official refused to comment.

Sikorsky, maker of the S-70 Black Hawk International, is competing
with European rivals.

Also, U.S. firms may suffer or choose not to take part in some
smaller-scale, non-FMS Turkish commercial deals, the analyst said.

On the military relations front, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
repeatedly has said that if the Armenian genocide resolution passes
in a House floor vote, Turkey likely would retaliate by cutting
U.S. supply lines for American forces in Iraq.

About a third of American fuel supplies pass through Turkey, Gates
says, as does about 70 percent of American air freight and 95 percent
of mine-resistant armored military vehicles set for delivery to Iraq.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the Turkish General Staff, warned Oct.

16 that "our military relationship may never be the same."

Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations at the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said Oct. 16 that the Pentagon already had begun to seek
alternatives to the Turkish route. He said the United States would
be able to find other options, albeit with more difficulty and at a
much higher cost.

Ham also warned that a Turkish incursion into northern Iraq likely
would halt gas and other supplies.

"If the flow of those materials were to be disrupted, it would have
not only a significant effect on the U.S. military operating in Iraq,
but it would have a significant effect commercially to Iraq as well,"
he said.

Still, the U.S. Defense Department remained optimistic even after
the Turkish parliament’s move for authorization for an incursion,
saying the Turks likely would not choose that option.

"I don’t think there is any willingness or any urgency or desire to
have to solve this through military action, through a cross-border
incursion into that area," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told
reporters Oct. 17.

"The Turks are clearly frustrated, they’re clearly angry, but I
also do not think there is a great deal of appetite to take this
next step," he said. An incursion "would be an enormous step, it
would have enormous implications not just for us but for the Turks,
and I don’t think there is any rush to war on the part of the Turks."

The Pueblo Chieftain, Colorado CO
Oct 19 2007

Genocide Vote strikes raw nerve with Turks, Armenians

By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

When a House committee approved a nonbinding resolution this month
denouncing Turkey for alleged genocide in the death of possibly 1.5
million Armenians during World War I, lawmakers touched a raw nerve
with both Turks and Armenians, who remain bitterly divided over what
happened 90 years ago during the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

"Turks understand that many Armenians died in this tragedy, but so
did many Turks," said Huseyin Sarper, a Turkish engineering professor
in Pueblo. "But to call this a genocide? There was no plan to
exterminate the Armenians. I don’t believe that. No one wants to be
compared to the Nazis (in Germany). That’s why we care about this
resolution in Congress."

Turkey is a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, allowing war supplies
to be sent to U.S. troops in Iraq through air bases in Turkey. So
that nation’s anger over the congressional resolution drew the
attention of House lawmakers this week.

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will bring the genocide
measure to the floor for a vote, some key Democrats, such as Rep.
John Murtha, D-Pa., have said it lacks the votes to pass and support
is dwindling as Turkey’s supporters urge the House to back away from
the divisive measure.

"Why Congress thinks that now is the time to address this, I don’t
know," said political science professor Robert Lee of Colorado
College. "Certainly, Turkey still has to come to terms with what
happened to the Armenians. Right now, anyone who talks about Armenian
genocide in Turkey can be arrested."

At issue is what took place in eastern Turkey between 1915-18, during
World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany and
Austro-Hungary in fighting Russia, France, Great Britain and later,
the U.S.

Historians agree that Sultan Hamid authorized the deportation of
Armenians from their traditional home in eastern Turkey, afraid the
Christian minority would join ranks with the Russians on that border.

Armenian refugees and European observers said the deportations turned
into massacres as refugees were driven from their homes toward the
desert country of what would become Iraq.

Henry Morganthau, the U.S. ambassador in Istanbul at the time, sent
dispatches to the State Department in 1916, saying he was getting
witness reports of thousands of Armenians being massacred in the
east. Similar dispatches were received by the British government. An
Internet search on the topic Armenian genocide will produce Web sites
devoted to photographs and personal accounts of the victims, which
Armenians have labeled the First Genocide of the 20th Century.

Morganthau, in his autobiography, called it the "murder of a nation."

Sarper said the West overlooks the fact that Turkey was engaged in
fighting Russia in the east, and Britain on the Gallipoli coast and
in Palestine. "The Armenians were not just helpless victims. They
were armed and were in revolt. That’s how Turks feel about what
happened. It was a tragedy for both sides."

President Woodrow Wilson wanted to establish a large Armenian nation
in eastern Turkey following World War I, but the post-war national
government of Mustafa Kemal did not allow it. The current Armenia, on
Turkey’s northeast border, has cold relations with Turkey and the
border usually is closed. Small Armenian terrorist groups killed
Turkish diplomats in the 1970s.

Mark Gose, an associate professor of international relations at
Colorado State University-Pueblo, was an Air Force political adviser
in Europe in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
He said Turkey is extremely sensitive on the subject of Armenia.

"Just look at what happened last year when France approved a
resolution recognizing the genocide and making it a crime to deny
it," Gose said. "Turkey cut off some major business relationships
with France and a sizable number of Turks are now soured on the idea
of joining the European Union."

Gose said the U.S. depends on air bases in Incirlik and Izmir,
Turkey, to provide support to forces in Iraq. To jeopardize that
supply route with a congressional resolution on the Armenian genocide
right now seems "asinine" to Gose.

"You noticed the Turkish Parliament this week voted to authorize
military attacks into northern Iraq against Kurdish rebel groups," he
said. "We certainly don’t want that to happen but I think the Turks
are using this confrontation to get our attention."

Earlier this year, an association of Turkish historians announced
their intentions to meet with their Armenian counterparts in order to
review the historical facts around what happened. Gose said the
country is trying to come to terms with what was done to its Armenian
minority during the first world war.

Lee noted that Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, winner of the 2006 Nobel
Prize for literature, was charged with insulting the nation when he
told a Swiss interviewer that Turkey had killed 1 million Armenians.

"Turkey is a society where this can’t be discussed yet, but it is
moving that way," he said.

Sarper, who grew up in Instanbul, said Turks are not taught about the
Armenian deportation in school.

"Turks should be but we aren’t," he said. "The U.S. did things that
were terrible, too, such as slavery and how Indians were treated. But
the difference is, Americans talk about that. We can do that in this
country."

Photo: A boy pauses in front of a wall-sized poster depicting the
faces of 90 survivors of the mass killings of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire, in Yerevan, Armenia, in this April 20, 2005, photo.

2

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 19 2007

Armenia committed to peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

YEREVAN, October 19. /ARKA/. Armenia remains committed to a peaceful
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by means of compromises.
Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan stated at his meeting with US
Vice-President Richard Chaney.

The press and public relations department, RA Government, reports
that during his meetings with US high-ranking officials, the RA
Premier expressed hope that the discussions and negotiations within
the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) will produce desired results.

Richard Chaney pointed out the USA’s interest in the improvement of
the Armenian-Turkish relations and settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, and the country’s support of the efforts made by the OSCE
Minsk Group.

The Karabakh conflict broke out in 1988 when Nagorno Karabakh, mainly
populated by Armenians, declared its independence from Azerbaijan.

On December 10, 1991, a few days after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, a referendum took place in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the majority
of the population (99.89%) voted for independence from Azerbaijan.

Afterwards, large-scale military operations began, as a result of
which Azerbaijan lost control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven
regions adjacent to it.

On May 12, 1994 after the signing of the Bishkek cease-fire
agreement, the military operations were stopped.

Since 1992, negotiations over the peaceful settlement of the conflict
have been carried out within the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by the
USA, Russia and France.-0–

PanARMENIAN.Net

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arriving in Armenia Oct. 22
19.10.2007 16:22 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is arriving in
Armenia October 22, reported the RA leader’s press office.

Mr Ahmadinejad is scheduled to meet with Armenian President Robert
Kocharian to discuss prospects of cooperation.

He will also attend Yerevan State University to meet with students and
teaching staff.

DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 19, 2007 Friday

AMERICA’S CAUCASUS BRIDGEHEAD;
Why Washington is determined to elbow Russia out

Fyodor Yermakov

HIGHLIGHT: THE UNITED STATES CHALLENGES RUSSIA’S POSITIONS IN THE
CAUCASUS; Analysis of Washington’s efforts to strengthen its
positions in the Caucasus.

It is clear that Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are in the focus of
the United States and NATO’s attention because of Caspian oil and
gas, new hypothetical export routes, and their closeness to Russia
and Iran. Russian military-political interests in the Caucasus are
governed by the necessity to ensure the security of the country from
the problematic southern direction. There is one other nuance that
enhances the importance of this (southern) part of the Caucasus.
Control over the region will enable the United States to cut Russia
off the transport corridor connecting Asia and Europe via the
Caucasus, one where Azerbaijan and Georgia are playing such an
important role.

Georgia is singled out for a special role in NATO designs aimed to
boost its clout with the countries of the region. Like other
countries, Georgia is being used to put Russia under
military-political pressure and secure for NATO the territory of
untold military-strategic and economic value.

Georgian corridor

The border with Russia is what makes Georgia so special from the
geopolitical standpoint. Some parts of the Georgian-Russian state
border harbor extended ethnic conflicts (Georgian-Ossetian and
-Abkhazian ones). On the one hand, these conflicts generate friction
in the relations between the two neighbors. On the other, they offer
the Alliance at least a hypothetical opportunity to boost the discord
existing in the region to international proportions. Economically
speaking, the territory of Georgia is simply a corridor for oil
transportation from the Caspian region to Turkey and on to Europe and
America.

NATO leadership views Georgia as the country of the Caucasus
critically important for the plans of the Alliance, one that may
contribute a lot to the war on terrorism once it has modernized its
Armed Forces. Brussels regularly accentuates the respect it has for
the "territorial integrity of Georgia and the necessity of its
defense." From Russia’s standpoint, however, Georgia is an important
buffer state on the southern flank of the Alliance.

There is more to the current deterioration of relations between
Tbilisi and the "runaway territories" than preparations for an
attempt to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia by sheer
strength of arms. The same deterioration offers a perfect excuse for
the activization of contacts with NATO. The Alliance in its turn
never abandons attempts to use the territorial discord as a
smoke-screen for its own efforts to stiffen control over the Caucasus
and Central Asia. The establishment of the office of NATO’s special
representatives in the Caucasus and Central Asia and the ultimatum
demand to Russia to pull out its military bases from Georgia and the
Trans-Dniester region are elements of this particular campaign.

Tbilisi views the restoration of territorial integrity as the first
priority. President Mikhail Saakashvili wouldn’t mind seeing
conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia resolved by sheer strength
of arms. The odds are, however, that this turn of events will result
in an international scandal and force Tbilisi to seek military
assistance in the Alliance. On the other hand, Iran issued a warning
in the middle of 2003 that the deployment of American troops and
troops of their allies in Azerbaijan and Georgia would compel it to
deliver preemptive strikes at the infrastructures and military sites
on the territories of these two countries. Iran serves as a kind of
equalizer nowadays, something preventing the unchecked proliferation
of NATO’s clout with the southern parts of the former Soviet Union.
It is clear as well that this is (among other things, of course) is
what makes Iran the target for all sorts of destructive efforts on
the part of the United States and its allies.

Stoking the fires of the latent conflicts in Georgia, Saakashvili’s
government foments regional destabilization. The idea is to establish
a conflict zone on the Russian border. Coupled with the problem of
Chechnya and friction between different peoples of the Caucasus, all
of that leaves the impression that the Alliance may even undertake to
disrupt the situation in Russia itself.

Base for NATO

The geopolitical importance of Azerbaijan in the eyes of the United
States and NATO stems from its oil fields and its location on the
Caspian shore. Its territory is perfect for improvement of the
Alliance’s positions in the Caucasus and Central Asia and for
addressing all sorts of military-strategic tasks in the region. All
of that makes Azerbaijan a convenient bridgehead where the United
States and NATO may stage aircraft involved in the operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, a bridgehead from which Washington and Brussels may
keep Iran under constant military-political pressure. Also
importantly, it provides a convenient staging area for protection of
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. From Baku’s standpoint meanwhile,
the presence of NATO troops on the territory of Azerbaijan may
solidify its international standing.

Some reports indicate that the Pentagon intends to use airfields in
Azerbaijan to keep an eye on the airspace of Iran, Iraq, and even
China. There are lots of suitably located airfields in Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan itself on the other hand views the presence of US and NATO
contingents on its territory as a blessing because it may help it
with Karabakh conflict settlement and facilitate modernization and
reorganization of the regular army of Azerbaijan which official Baku
claims has already made a transition to NATO standards.

Azerbaijani and NATO leaders discussed prospects of mutually
beneficial cooperation on many occasions throughout the 1990s. The
threat posed by Afghanistan that eventually led to the international
counter-terrorism operation in this country nevertheless persuaded
Washington and Brussels to concentrate on Central Asian countries
then. Georgia’s turn came soon after that. The situation is different
now, of course. Actions of the counter-terrorism coalition in Iran
and Washington’s threats to Tehran call for a deeper and more
energetic involvement of Azerbaijan in the US and NATO’s plans.

Azerbaijan is an ideal area of deploying the attack aviation needed
for the still hypothetical military operation against Iran.
Kyurda-mir and Nasosnaya, former bases of the Soviet AF, are
particularly convenient from this standpoint. Capable of housing 90
to 100 aircraft, these airfields are quite close to Iranian sites the
Americans will certainly want to take out. Along with everything
else, the United States needs Azerbaijan as its ally from the
standpoint of securing commercial and transportation routes. The
safety of the transport corridor connecting the East and the West and
detouring Russia (which is what makes it so valuable) is not to be
endangered.

Relations with Turkey are the closest and warmest Azerbaijan has in
all of the Alliance. Turkish military instructors have been training
the Azerbaijani regular army for years now. It was in September 2000
that Azerbaijan first suggested the establishment of a NATO base on
the Apsheron Peninsula and its own participation in Turkey’s
framework of defense. Alekperov, chairman of the national parliament,
said two years later that Azerbaijan was prepared to host Turkish
military bases on its territory and to make the Turkish army
eventually privy to data from the Gabala radar monitoring all of the
Southern Hemisphere for ICBM launches. The statement was made barely
a month after the Gabala radar status treaty signed by the presidents
of Azerbaijan and Russia (one that proclaimed the radar itself
property of the Republic of Azerbaijan leased to the Russian
Federation for $7 million per annum for the following ten years).

Rapidly advancing US-Azerbaijani military cooperation enters a wholly
new level nowadays. Priorities of this bilateral cooperation include
the complete transition of the regular army of Azerbaijan to NATO
standards, betterment of the Azerbaijani Navy and its capacity to
secure the national borders, and standardization of the national
airspace systems. According to Baku, the United States is willing to
promote military cooperation with Azerbaijan in the following
spheres: the exchange of experience; provisional deployment of mobile
formations of the US Army in Azerbaijan; and personnel training.
Among other considerations, Baku’s interest in close cooperation and
interaction with Washington is fuelled by expectations of support in
the Karabakh conflict settlement.

The safety and security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is what
the potential US military presence in Azerbaijan will be mostly
centered around. On the other hand, whatever American troops may be
deployed in this country will also be supposed to keep Russia and
Iran wary. The establishment of US military bases in Azerbaijan will
open the way to the industrially developed Ural region of Russia for
the Pentagon.

Rear area

Small in terms of territory, Armenia is vastly important as a
geopolitical factor. It is a country whose importance for the
Caucasus and Middle East is way above its weight in international
affairs.

Armenia is Russia’s least problematic partner, both in bilateral
relations and at the international level. Moreover, it is essentially
Russia’s rear area on the southern strategic frontiers of the
Commonwealth. Moscow and Yerevan are allies, whose partnership is
centered around military-strategic cooperation that ensures both
their security and collective security within the framework of the
CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization. The Russian military
base in Gyumri is playing a mayor part in this cooperation.

Armenia has always been suspicious of Turkey and regarded it as a
source of external threat. The lack of diplomatic relations between
Armenia and Turkey makes economic problems for other countries
involved in joint projects with either Yerevan or Ankara. It has a
particularly negative effect on the realization of major transport
and energy projects. Armenia’s distrust of Turkey originated in what
it calls the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

As for Washington, it is doing what it can to establish military
cooperation with Armenia.

* * *

Russia is instrumental in the maintenance of peace, stability, and
mutually beneficial cooperation in the Caucasus. Peacekeeping
missions under way in Abkhazia and South Ossetia constitute major
elements of this policy. Advancing relations with countries of the
region and with the Caucasus in general, Russia should be aware of
the fact that its role there is going to become even more important
in the future. Economic aspects of Russia’s activity play a
particularly important part. It is necessary to convince the general
public, first and foremost in Georgia and Azerbaijan, that Russia is
a successful economically advanced state. It is probably the only
thing that may persuade these countries to revise the strategic and
geopolitical priorities of their foreign policies.

Source: Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier, No 39, October 10 – 16, 2007, p.
3

France is decisive in its opinion: Turkey must not join the EU

armradio.am
19.10.2007 15:07

`We are very proud that France has officially recognized the Armenian
Genocide. Still in 1998 the City Council of Marseilles decided to
support the initiative and have a pro-Armenian position,’ the Mayor of
Marseilles, Senator Jean-Claude Gaudin told the journalists today.
According to him, France is decisive in its opinion: Turkey must not
become a member of the European Union.

`Now France has a new President, who has been repeatedly declaring that
Turkey cannot be part of Europe,’ the Mayor of Marseilles noted.

U.S. CONGRESS COMES UP WITH A DANGEROUS FOREIGN-POLICY TURKEY
By Cal Thomas

Salt Lake Tribune, Utah
Oct 18 2007

Just as it appears the United States may have turned an important
corner in Iraq with the reported disabling of al-Qaida, Turkey is
threatening to invade northern Iraq in an attempt to stop attacks by
Kurdish rebels on Turkish territory.

House Democrats added fuel to the combustible situation when the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 10 passed a resolution that
recognizes as genocide the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman
Empire during World War I. The resolution is opposed by the Bush
administration, not necessarily because it disagrees that genocide
occurred nearly a century ago, but because such a resolution will
inflame passions at a time when there are passions enough in the
neighborhood.

Democrats, who control Congress, are playing a dangerous game that
might severely damage America’s foreign policy, further diminish
President Bush, hand over a weakened presidency to his successor
and put more of our troops in jeopardy. That reality apparently
began to reach the Democratic congressional leadership by midweek,
as supporters of the resolution began a retreat and senior Democrats
urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to drop her support for the measure.

Since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, Turkey has been
threatening to invade northern Iraq to settle old scores. Turkey has
the provocation it believes it needs in the killing of 30 Turkish
soldiers and civilians by members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party,
known as the PKK, in just the last two weeks.

Writing in the publication Insight, Gallia Lindenstrauss notes,
"(Turkish) President Abdullah Gul accused American politicians of
sacrificing big issues for petty games of domestic politics." That
sounds about right. Are Democrats so cynical that they would stir an
already boiling pot in hopes that it would negate whatever success
America may finally be having in quelling terrorist acts in Iraq? One
would hope that is not the case, but given their leadership’s rhetoric
about the war already being lost and their refusal to acknowledge even
the slightest progress in Iraq as positive lest it reflect well on
the Bush administration, cynicism about their cynical actions might
be justified.

If Turkey will not be dissuaded from entering Iraq to root out the
rebels, the Bush administration might consider helping the Turks do the
job quickly and as painlessly as possible so that they might hastily
return to their side of the border. If the Kurds wish to continue
with their prosperous and more peaceful lifestyles, they will help
locate and expunge the rebels among them. The last thing the region
needs is to inflame Islamic fundamentalists, who, despite tensions
that have long threatened to topple Ankara’s secular government,
have so far managed to peacefully coexist with moderate Muslims,
as well as secularists.

A senior commander of the rebel group, Duran Kalkan, was quoted in
an Associated Press story as saying the Turkish military will suffer
a serious blow if it launches a cross-border offensive and would be
"bogged down in a quagmire."

Another quagmire is precisely what is not needed in Iraq. Oil prices,
which have increased in recent days in anticipation of Turkish military
action, would go even higher should another front be opened in Iraq.

There should be no rush to condemn a genocide that took place more
than nine decades ago (and the very word "genocide" is in dispute
as a description of what happened). Politically it might play well
for Democrats, but it could backfire and have severe repercussions
for American foreign policy, American forces in Iraq (supply lines
could be disrupted) and American interests in Iraq and throughout the
region for years to come. The next president cannot possibly enjoy
long-term benefits from such shortsightedness by House Democrats.

Whatever immediate political gain Democrats might hope to extract
from this misguided and ill-timed resolution will be overcome by the
long-term pain it generates. Apparently there are limits beyond which
even Democrats are not willing to go in their pursuit of political
gain. There are some issues that ought to transcend partisanship and
this is one of them.

—

NARCISSISTIC AND RECKLESS ARROGANCE: PELOSI AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

Blogger News Network
Oct 18 2007

There is nothing that so cries out for justice as the forgotten who
are slaughtered and whose deaths are left in thunderous silence of
receding history. The pain for families only barely eases with the
passing of decades or even centuries. This last 150 years has seen
mind-twisting inhumanity. The Holocaust weighs on us with a pressure
that has barely eased since the end of World War II. And yet, in the
same war there was a holocaust visited upon the Serbs, which some Serbs
called a term a stolen holocaust, so little light has ever shone on it.

The massacre of Armenians in 1915, and at other periods after 1885,
is another agony of mass death that is little known to most people.

Taking place during the death throes of the Ottoman Empire, the
slaughter-termed a genocide by the Armenians-has been the subject of
critical debate in the last years. The Turks, descendants of the last
Ottomans and inheritors of their state, argue that Armenian deaths
were the result of civil war, and that there were massive casualties
on both sides. There are reliable contemporary accounts to bolster
both arguments.

On the Ottoman side: According to Bernard Lewis, scion of American
Middle Eastern studies, "What happened to the Armenians was the result
of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks. … The
massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding
to what had been done to them." Dr. Lewis was subsequently charged
with and convicted of denying the genocide by a French court, which
fined him a symbolic one franc.

On the Armenian side: Henry Morgenthau, Sr., the American ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire, wrote, in a memoir dated 1919: "When the Turkish
authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely
giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well,
and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt
to conceal the fact." Many of the Armenians died during forced
deportations, deportations now being considered a crime against
humanity.

It’s even more complicated than the diametrically opposed viewpoints
of fine historians. When the EU started making noises about demanding
that Turkey "accept responsibility" for the Armenian genocide (which,
in fact, the current country did not commit), Prime Minister Erdogan
asked that the United States and Russia both open their sealed archives
to historical review. Both refused. Complicity on the part of the
United States has been documented to some extent already. But it’s the
suspected Russian involvement in Armenian acts of terrorism against
the Ottoman Empire over a period of nearly 80 years that Russians
most certainly don’t want exposed. To the casual observer with no
axe to grind, declarations made without access to all the pertinent
archives certain smacks of a railroading for political purposes,
a seeking of illegitimate leverage with half the facts concealed.

But it’s worse than that, because the Armenian genocide, in which 1.5
million people may have, doesn’t hold a candle to another genocide
happening during the very same time period.

The mass murdering of the Congolese in the Belgian Congo between
1878 and 1910 is a genocide with none of the detractions of the
Armenian-Ottoman tragedy. The death toll is variously placed between
eight and 30 million, depending upon the time period assessed,
and the means of assessment. However, what is certain is that this
genocide was about clearing the Congo of its entire native population,
for the purpose of handing over to Belgian King Leopold II and his
administrators an entire country belonging to other people.[2] Adam
Hochchild’s King Leopold’s Ghost [3] details this travesty, and Joseph
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness provides the visual backdrop of the terror
that was visited upon a completely innocent native population.

However, we don’t find the U.S. Congress and Nancy Pelosi banging
on the royal doors of Belgium for an apology to be forwarded to the
descendants of the slaughtered of a black African nation.

Why not? Because there are too few Congolese in Nancy Pelosi’s
district. Is that why we find no resolution for the good of the
Congolese, who lost some 5 to 25 times as many people during the same
general time frame? Do they count less because they’re black? Do the
Armenians count more because they are white and have many numbers in
Pelosi’s district?

Some have suggested that Pelosi’s arrogant, reckless act of political
narcissism is something of grand Machiavellian plot: that having been
able to raise no passable resolution to end the Iraq war, she instead
engineered a declaration of genocide against an American ally in order
to elicit Turkey’s cutting off America’s ability to feed, clothe,
enable with energy, and heal with medicines that routinely make their
way into a war zone from the air bases and protected Kurdish trade
routes through Turkish cities and air fields. If this be true, Nancy
Pelosi is guilty of treason, as well as of usurpation of executive
authority and Congressional authority by manipulation of a house panel.

But the truth is likely both more and less horrifying than this
possibly. Because it is very like that Nancy Pelosi, in her almost
unbested capacity for gross incompetence and mirror-staring, is simply
so foreign-policy ignorant and so utterly incompetent that she actually
tried this bit of grandstanding for Armenian votes in her district-and
publicity, without which she apparently cannot continue to breathe
oxygen for a period of 24 hours.

What needs to happen next is that Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed
as the Speaker of the House by Democrats who would still like to win
the next election.

This toying with the Middle East, as if she had any clue what is
doing, follows on the heels of her hijab-wearing photo-op with Bashir
al-Assad, an egregious blunder that was cheered by al-Jazeera,
al-Arabiya, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizbollah. Yes, what a
positive movement when women in Saudi Arabia will be charged with
adultery and stoned to death were they to do the same thing. The
Islamists cheered Pelosi’s actions as a symbol of their supremacy
over U.S. foreign policy, not as a victory of U.S. attempts to ‘win
the hearts and minds.’

Michael Rubin’s comments in National Review, in the best article
written on this matter this week,[4] should sober everyone
about Pelosi reckless incompetence. Referencing Pelosi’s fawning
visit with al-Assad, he writes: "Basking in the glow of Pelosi’s
headline-garnering visit to Damascus – again in contravention of a
State Department request – Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad upgraded
his support for Hezbollah and his nuclear dealings with North Korea."

Pelosi’s lust for the power of the presidency or of the entirety of
Congress and not just her individual part must be contained for the
good of the country. For if she had succeeded this week, the cost
of American and Iraqi lives would have been laid securely at her own
feet. She should be grateful the President and the Congress grounded
her little flight toward the sun before her candle-wax wings melted
and caused her crash to be worse even than it is.

Someday, after the Russian and American files are opened, a full
history of the Armenian tragedy should written-by University
professors, not House committees, as Rubin also points out.

And while they are at it, they should have a look at the Belgian
atrocities in The Congo and the extermination of so many of the
world’s indigenous populations by European states greedy for wealth
and avaricious for the saving of souls.

But when all of it is said and done, it is a matter for the fullness
of government to decide, not the province of a narcissistic, reckless,
incompetent and dangerous pool-gazer bent on fame and political gain.

Morgaan Sinclair has written for The Weekly Standard and The New York
Post and is a Fellow of Gracen Intelligence

[1]

[2]

[ 3]
pold-book-review.html

[4]http://article.nationalr eview.com/q=MTMzZjVkNTFjMzg1ZjIwNWFjZTlmMWM2MmQzND ZlMTU=

RA DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER RECEIVES EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S REPORTER ON SOUTH CAUCASIAN ISSUES

Noyan Tapan
Oct 17 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 17, NOYAN TAPAN. Armen Bayburdian, the RA Deputy
Foreign Minister, receiving the delegation led by Lidia Polfer,
European Parliament’s Reporter on South Caucasian Issues, on October
17, attached importance to the role of the European Parliament in
development of relations between Armenia and European Union. He
also said that the European Parliament was the first authoritative
institution, which condemned the Armenian Genocide in 1987, as well
as spoke against barbaric extermination of Armenian medievel unique
monuments, Jugha khachkars (cross-stones) in 2006.

According to the report provided to Noyan Tapan by the RA Foreign
Ministry Press and Information Department, the parties touched upon
problems of regional cooperation at the meeting. It was mentioned
that the European Neighborhood Policy is a good ground for creation
of not only an atmosphere of confidence, but also a common system of
values for regional countries. At the guests’ request A. Bayburdian
presented the current state of Nagorno Karabakh peaceful settlement,
as well as Armenian-Turkish relations.

RA DEFENSE MINISTER TO VISIT BELARUS

armradio.am
16.10.2007 16:58

Upon the invitation of the Defense Minister of Belarus, the delegation
headed by RA Minister of Defense Michael Harutyunyan will pay an
official visit to the Republic of Belarus October 18-21.

During the visit Michael Harutyjnyan is expected to have meetings
with his counterpart, Colonel-General Leonid Maltsev. The Defense
Ministers of the two countries will discuss issues of reciprocal
interest, the military cooperation plan for 2008 will be signed.