Author: Khondkarian Raffi

ISTANBUL INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA FORUM

Bianet
cs/3384-armenian-deportation
14 August 2009, Friday

Armenian Deportation

The official decision for DEPORTATION (Exile) was taken in May 27th
of 1915. The Ottoman government had decided to force a number of its
subjects, depriving them of their possessions and property, to exile
to hundreds of kilometers away to Deyr-uz Zor.

Tayfun MATER Istanbul – .17 Ocak 2002, Perþembe Armenians are a
group of people who have historically lived in the East, Southeast and
Central Anatolia and in the present Armenia. The Armenian Civilization,
which rose out of the remains of the Errata Kingdom in the 500s (BC),
reached the peek of its power in the 50s (BC). During the following
centuries, the Armenians were caught in between the rivalries among
the great empires.

Armenians, following their conveersion to Christianity in 300 BC,
fell under the Byzantium rule. Later, in 653 they fell under the
Arab rule. They were faced with the invasions of Turks in the 11th
century, and of Mongols in the 13th century; in the 16th and 17th
centuries Armenians were successively trapped between the Ottoman
and Iranian rule.

The Armenian rebellions in the Ottoman land started at the end of the
18th century in the Kucukdaglik village Zeytun of Maras (a southern
city of present Turkey). These rebellions, which interruptedly
continued until 1915, comprised a vital element in the Armenian
national movement. The Russian expansion into the Caucasus during
19th century, and the "Enlightenment" in Europe and the revival of
the Armenian culture, may be listed among the factors that invigorated
the Armenian National Movement.

The "ARMENIAN PROBLEM" was for the first time recognized in the
international arena with the Ayastefanos Agreement that was signed
after the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War. This agreement was handing
the control of the Ottoman Armenia over to Russia, though it proved
abortive.

Revolutionary organizations emerged in 1887 such as the Marxist-
centralist Hinchaq (Bell), and in 1908 nationalist- socialist
Tashnaq (Alliance) committees were founded. These committees,
which in the future would grow into political parties, schemes of
merger for broader political regrouping remained unsuccesful. Some
major actions organized by these committees organized between 1890
and 1905 were: 1. Erzurum (a town in present eastern Turkey) Event
(June 1890) 2. Kumkapi (a district in Istanbul) Demonstration (July
1890) 3. Merzifon, Kayseri, Yozgat (towns in present central Turkey)
Events (1892-93) 4. First Sasun Rebellion (August 1894) 5. Bab-ý
Ali (a section of Istanbul with publishing houses) Demonstration
(September 1895) 6. Zeytun Rebellion (November 1895) 7. Van (a town
in present eastern Turkey) Rebellion (June 1896) 8. Attack at the
Ottoman Bank (August 1896) 9. Second Sasun Rebellion (April 1904)
10.A bomb attack at Abdulhamit, at Yýldýz (a district of Istanbul)
(July 1905) The committees acted together with the Committee of
Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki) for a while. Following the
declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy in Istanbul in 1908, they
gained legal recognition. Even though these committees declared that
they would only engage in political activities, the events in Adana
(a town in present southern Turkey) in March 1909 dampened the spirit
of peace and they parted ways with the Ittihad ve Terakki.

The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) freed itself from Abdulhamit
with the March 31st Rebellion. The Committee condoned the murder of the
Grand Vizier Mahmut Sevket Pasha, and used this murder as an excuse to
attack the opposition. Now, reporters were being killed on the Galata
Bridge (in Istanbul), oppositional intellectuals were being exiled to
Sinop (a town in present northern Turkey), and the Ottoman Empire was
starting to head towards its collapse under the dictatorship of one
party. With almost no written documents and along with the deception of
"shall head to TURAN", Teskilat-I Mahsusa (Special Organization) was
being founded. This criminal organization has survived up till today
as counter guerilla and as the Susurluk gang. The Susurluk incident
is named after a car accident that occurred in November 1996, close
to Susurluk (a town in western Turkey). In the car there was a famous
ultra nationalist, a parliamentarian and a police officer. The close
relations am!

ong the three brought to light the concept of "deep state", which
up till today has constituted a serious issue of worry, debate and
research in Turkey.

While the I. World War bells were ringing in Europe, Tasnak Party held
a congress in August 2-14, 1914, in Erzurum. The CUP sent a delegation
to the congress. The delegation made a proposition of alliance to the
Armenians against Russia, in case of a possible warfare. The delegation
further proposed an autonomous Armenian administration. Armenian
leaders preferred to have a policy of neutrality.

The Russian Armenians, who received a similar proposal from
Russia, accepted this offer and started to build their volunteer
groups. Even though they were only some 4-5 thousand people, these
groups would become the pretext of the Ottoman government’s deportation
policy. With the start of the war, Eastern Anatolia fell into a serious
chaos. Armenians ran away from the army and put up a resistance. The
Special Organization troupes along with the Hamidiye troupes composing
of Kurds, busted and burned down villages, under the pretext of chasing
the runaways. These were the first indicators of the deportation.

Following the rebellion of the Armenian people of Van (a town in
present eastern Turkey) in April 1915, the Armenian intellectuals
in Istanbul were arrested, on April 24th , and were sent off to
Ankara. Nothing further was heard from these some 700 people. The
MASSACRE had gone into effect. Interior Minister Talat Pasha was
its executioner.

The official decision for the DEPORTATION (Exile) was made on May
27th 1915. The government was prevalently sending a part of its
subjects, depriving them of their possessions and properties, to
exile to hundreds of kilometers away to the Iraqi deserts, to Devr-uz
Zor. These subjects were the civilians, children and old people,
who were supposedly under the responsibility and protection of the
government. The Special Organization troupes, which were composed
of convicts released from the jails, were attacking and plundering
the convoys and were killing people. As a result of dehydration and
hunger and diseases, death was awaiting those who reached the deserts.

It is yet to be found out how many people died due to the
deportation. The official historians of the Turkish Republic claim
that the number of deaths was 300,000. There are foreign resources
that increase this number to 1 million. Germany, who was the ally
of the Ottoman government at the time, was silently supporting
the deportation. On August 31st 1916, Talat Pasha, addressing the
representative of the German Embassy, said, "There is no Armenian
problem."

In 1919, the Istanbul Court of Martial Law, by default, tried those
people who were responsible of the deportation. The half of the
10-12 people accountable for the deportation was in various European
countries and in Russia. They ended up being killed by the Armenian
Committee members. The rest faced capital punishment in 1926, issued
by the Istiklal Court, following the attempt to assassinate Mustafa
Kemal (the founder of present Turkish Republic) in Izmir (a town in
present western Turkey).

TSAHKADZOR HOSTS PAN-ARMENIAN YOUTH CONFERENCE

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
11.08.2009 15:21 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ This year’s conference which has brought together
young people from Armenia, Javahk and Diaspora, will last from 10
to 15 August. Opening ceremony was attended by Deputy Minister of
Diaspora Stepan Petrosyan.

In his welcoming speech, Petrosyan said the event would contribute
to development of bilateral ties between young people from Armenia
and Diaspora, enabling the latter to get a better understanding of
different processes taking place in our country.

Stepan Poghosyan wished participants fruitful work and success in
their initiatives.

Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a ‘No Show,’ Bombshells Under Oath

UPDATES INCLUDE: CONGRESS MEMBERS NAMED IN ESPIONAGE, BRIBERY, SEXUAL
BLACKMAIL SCHEMES; NEW BREWSTER JENNINGS / VALERIE PLAME DISCLOSURE…

‘State Secrets’ privilege NOT asserted by DoJ; FBI whistleblower
answered ALL questions under oath on Turkish infiltration of U.S.
Government…

The BRAD BLOG
By Brad Friedman on 8/8/2009

Live blogging coverage of the Sibel Edmonds deposition at the National
Whistleblowers Center in Washington D.C. For background see previous
coverage:

* 8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to ‘Break’ Gag Order
* 8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case
* 8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: DoJ Pressures Ohio Election Commission to Block Edmonds Testimony

[Updates at bottom…]

8:00am PT (11:00am ET): The deposition has now begun inside the
National Whisteblowers Center, and has not, apparently, been blocked by
an assertion of the "state secrets" privilege by the DoJ.

The BRAD BLOG has some folks covering outside the testimony this
morning, and I just spoke to some of the folks on the ground outside
the NWC, just before the deposition was set to begin, including David
Krikorian, who flew in last night from Ohio.

Krikorian said that he hadn’t yet seen anybody from the DoJ there, and
both he and Edmonds confirmed that there hadn’t been any new action
(that they knew about) since the late-night legal back and forth
between the DoJ and OEC on Friday night. Though Krikorian added that he
"wouldn’t be surprised" if someone from DoJ showed up. We’ll find out
later today if they did.

He said his team intended to ask detailed questions on the three major
points they’d described in their press release [PDF] issued earlier
this week, focusing on whether and how "The Government of Turkey had
illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government
institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the
Department of Defense, and individual members of the United States
Congress."

Krikorian did not seem dissuaded by the FBI’s and then the DoJ’s
attempts to block Edmonds’ testimony, and that they intended to be
thorough in their deposition. "That’s pretty much the whole point of
this exercise," he told me.

Schmidt (R-OH)’s attorney is Bruce Fein, the one-time Assoc. Deputy
Attorney General in the Reagan Administration who has, over the past
several years, become a fierce critic of the George W. Bush
Administration. He believed the deposition would not take long, though
Krikorian’s people may have a differing opinion there.

There are apparently a handful of mostly independent and foreign media
outlets present outside the NWC. No corporate MSM, from the reports
I’ve gotten. Independent TV/media, an Armenian English language weekly,
and press attache representatives of some foreign governments are among
those present.

8:40am PT (11:40am ET): During a break, Edmonds and the attorneys stepped outside.

DoJ still a no-show, so the questioning has proceeded, and Edmonds has
been able to say "everything that she hasn’t been able to say so far,
implicating many members of Congress in a criminal conspiracy,"
according to interviews with Fein and others.

Edmonds’ attorney, Michael Kohn said: "The Justice Department decided
not to show. Therefore, the deposition has gone much more smoothly than
we had anticipated."

Edmonds told me in a brief phone conversation during the break: "Bruce
Fein is raising objections to everything," though that’s to be
expected. She said she’s been asked, and has answered, questions on Dan
Burton (R-IN), Dennis Hastert (R-IL) (who is now a lobbyist for
Turkey), and Stephen Solarz (D-NY), as well as other questions on those
high-ranking officials and lobbyists in her "State Secrets Gallery."

She added that "somebody said the FBI was given the wrong time, for
11:30 instead of 10:30," though she didn’t see how that could be, given
that the time for the start of the deposition has been well publicized.
In any case, it’s now 11:45am ET, so we’ll see if they showed up during
this break. They have now gone back into session…

9:41am PT (12:41pm ET): Another break…Edmonds still being questioned
under direct. Fein believes his cross-examination will last two hours
or so once he begins. They are now breaking for lunch. DoJ/FBI still
have not shown up.

The deposition is being videotaped and Edmonds hopes that it can be
released as soon as possible after the deposition, though there have
been some objections about releasing the video tape…

10:09am PT (1:09pm ET): Wow… just had lengthy conversation with
Krikorian about Edmonds’ testimony. Just wow… coming momentarily…
….
Spoke to Edmonds, who says she’s "tired, gotta put some sugar into her
system," but that she’s satisfied with what’s being put on the record
so far. "Things we have never discussed outside before."

A lengthy conversation then, with Krikorian, may give you some idea of what she’s referring to.

Here’s Krikorian, directly quoted. Hang on to your seats…

From my opinion, if I’m some of the current members of Congress,
I’d be very very worried about the information that’s going to come out
of this. There are current members of Congress that she has implicated
in bribery, espionage. It’s not good. It’s crazy, it’s absolutely
crazy. For people in power situations in the United States, who know
about this information, if they don’t take action against it, in my
opinion, it’s negligence.

[Which current members have been implicated?]

[Dan] Burton (R-IN), described as basically accepting bribes and
involved in espionage for the Turkish government…she could not
discuss the extremely illegal activities that Mr. Burton committed
against U.S. interests, as she put it.

Also, a current female Democratic [ed note: I misheard, he later
said he didn’t know if she was Dem or Rep] member of Congress who has
been blackmailed by the Turkish Government…called a ‘hooking
exercise’…she’s apparently bi-sexual and they bugged her apartment,
she’s married with children, and they set up a relationship with
another female who went in and had sexual relationships with her. And
they had all the episodes bugged within this current Representative’s
home and they blackmailed her. … She wouldn’t give her name, but her
photograph [is the one with the question mark on it in the "Sibel
Edmonds Rogue Gallery." ]

The context of the discussion was that this particular
Representative was amenable to passage of the Armenian Genocide
Resolution. And then based on this ‘hooking’ operation, changed her
position. She was reluctant to put this person’s name on record.

[CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION FROM EDMONDS, 4:26pm PT (7:26pm ET):
After reviewing our coverage, Edmonds clarifies that she did not
discuss the specific voting record of the Congresswoman in question
discussed above, because she didn’t, and still doesn’t, know her record
on that particular issue. As Krikorian’s quote above may have been
inadvertently misleading on that point, she wanted to correct that
record. – BF]

[Other people implicated included] Livingston (R-TX), Hastert
(R-IL), Dick Gephardt (D-MO), other non-Congressional members, people
like Brent Scowcroft, other appointed members of the U.S. government.

One of the reasons we sought her testimony is especially for these
reasons. I can tell you that counsel for Schmidt has been objecting to
much of the testimony. I stopped counting the number of objections that
were raised. But, she’s an extremely credible witness, she knows a lot
about what happened. She’s implicated Turkish organizations operating
in the U.S. with both overt and covert operations.

[Q: Which ones?]

ATC, ATAA, TACA…She talked about how she was recruited to join
these operations, she talked about the fact that the Inspector
General’s report exonerated her, she talked about the circumstances
around her dismissal, she talked about the fact that these Turkish
American operations were, she said in her words, ‘all receiving support
from the Turkish government.’

She talks about one of the main lobby issues is suppressing U.S.
media coverage of the Armenian Genocide and preventing the Armenian
Genocide resolution in Congress from passing. She said very very
strongly that is one of their major issues.

She also attested there is no credible opposition to the historical
facts of the Armenian genocide, that it’s only coming from Turkey.

[Ed note: Edmonds was raised in Turkey, though is a U.S. citizen.
Krikorian is of Armenian descent. Schmidt is neither, but she is
co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus.]

Did not have very flattering things to say about former U.S. House
Speaker Dennis Hastert. … Actually, I stopped taking notes because I
was o fascinated by what she was saying. … She talked about the Rand
Corp., Brewster-Jennings, nuclear secrets…

Frankly it’s disappointing that things like this are happening in
the land of the free and the home of the brave. Is it a huge surprise?
No. Should it be tolerated? Absolutely not. I can’t imagine George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson allowing this sort of thing to go on in
the Republic that they created. I cannot imagine it.

We’re talking about High Crimes against the United States
government. If the Government is aware of these High Crimes and doesn’t
prosecute them, I’m not sure what can be said about this.
…
[Q: Do you predict problems with Democrats whose support you will need when running against Schmidt as a Dem in 2010?]

Problem with Democrats…?

Well, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Solarz are no longer Representatives of
the U.S. House of Representatives. I think it would be extremely naive
and the height of folly for the Democratic leadership to suggest for a
moment that Democrats aren’t also corrupt. I don’t mean as an entirety,
but that there aren’t corrupt members of the Democrat caucus. I think
there was a recent Democrat down south somewhere who was found with
thirty thousand dollars cash in his freezer, or whatever.

If Democratic National Committee or the DCCC [Democratic
Congressional Campaign Comm.] came out and said, ‘hey, we’re entirely
clean and there’s no fault on us,’ I think the American public would
laugh at them. So, this is not an indictment of one party or the other.
This is about standing up for what’s right for the country, and what is
right for the citizens of our country.

Again, I ran as an independent last time [in 2008]. I’m running as
a Democrat [in 2010] because I think right now they’re probably the
better of the two parties. But nevertheless, I don’t necessarily buy
into the fact that they’re without blood on their hands…

[Q: Did she implicate any sitting Democrats?]

She did not indicate any names of any currently serving Democrats
that I’m aware. [Though he wasn’t certain if the unnamed female
Representative was either Democratic or Republican.]

Krikorian went on to say that he expects to release the video of the
deposition, which, along with the transcript, is the property of his
legal team. says "There will be…This could be a 10 part YouTube video
segment, that we’ll put out there."

He doesn’t yet know when a transcript will be available.

The cross-examination of Edmonds, by Schmidt’s attorney Fein, is still in progress…

12:24pm PT (3:24pm ET) Apparently the proceedings are now wrapping up.
It’s believed that Edmonds and Krikorian and the attorneys will speak
to whatever media are outside the NWC. Will cover…

12:56pm (3:56pm ET) Okay, I believe this will be the final update. But
it will end with a BANG. Big time…Read to the end…really…

The attorneys and Krikorian and Edmonds all had a media avail after the deposition completed.

Bruce Fein, the attorney for Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) — who began all
of this with her complaint at the Ohio Election Commission against
David Krikorian, claiming he made "false statements" by alleging she
took "blood money" from Turkish interests to suppress a vote in the
U.S. House on the Armenian Genocide resolution — was confronted by a
reporter with Armenian TV who asked if it wasn’t the "cornerstone of
free speech" for candidates to talk about freely about these matters.

Fein became very defensive, said that Krikorian "can say whatever he
wants about the Armenian Genocide, but what he’s not allowed to do is
state lies. We don’t want to close anybody’s mouth when it comes to
taking about the Armenian Genocide…What we’re trying to do is promote
freedom of speech. Some versions are trying to harass individuals who
are trying to dispute history."

The reporter, Elizabeth Chouldjian, freelancing coverage today for
Armenian Horizon TV, is also with Armenian National Committee of
America, and she continue to press her points, and asked Fein if he
didn’t have a conflict of interest in this case. She had earlier told
me that Fein was a Board member of the Turkish Coalition of America,
Turkish American Legal Defense Fund and legal counsel for Assembly of
Turkish American Associations. She wondered if it was appropriate for
Fein to represent Schmidt, since he himself could be called to testify,
as a witness on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.

Chouldjian had told me that he’s been flying around the country,
essentially trying to deny that the genocide ever occurred, has sued
the state of Massachusetts to put Armenian genocide "denialist"
material in text books, is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for
putting out an article last year called "State of Denial" which, she
says, focused on Turkish interests trying to block Armenian Genocide
resolution from being passed.

Fein left very quickly thereafter, so I didn’t get a chance to ask him
if he, himself, recognized what he called, several times, "the Armenian
genocide."

Chouldjian later told Edmonds of Fein’s connections to those
organizations, several of whom came up in the deposition, apparently.
Edmonds had no idea Fein was allied with those organizations.

Michael Kohn, Edmonds attorney, working on behalf of the National
Whistleblower Center made his statement to say he’s "glad her testimony
has finally count out…It’s been many years in the making. We’re
delighted that the Justice Department did not intervene and allowed the
testimony to go forward." He said it was "a breath of fresh air from
the previous administration." He didn’t "think it would have happened
with the previous administration."

He was not sure when the transcript of the session would be released.
New information today, he said, including naming persons by name and
with a great deal of specifics. NWC would review the testimony and
disseminate it publicly as soon as possible.

Krikorian stated: "We came here to get the sworn testimony of a very
very credible witness in defense against a current Congresswoman. And
then, beyond that, doing what is right for the country, which is why
I’m running. I plan to win this case, and I plan to win this election,"
he said.

He said there is an Ohio Election Commission preliminary meeting on
Aug. 13th, and a hearing on Sept 3rd, and that he would look at
releasing both video and transcript thereafter.

Edmonds, however, seemed to suggest that the video tape, at least, might be released in full sooner.

Here comes a bombshell or two…

At the venue, Edmonds said that she named names and details on all of
the Congress members noted on her "State Secrets Gallery" page. And
then some.

She said she told them about "Mr. [Marc] Grossman and Brewster
Jennings…And the real story about them, not the crap they got from
the media."

I was unable to follow up that statement with a question, before she
got into a cab, but was able to track her down on her cell thereafter.

First, I asked if she specified whether the sitting bi-sexual, married
Congresswoman who had been taped sleeping with a woman, without
knowing, and then bribed by Turkish interests with the tape, to vote
against the Armenian Genocide resolution had been a Democrat or a
Republican. She said she is a Democrat, and that she testified to that
during her deposition. (See Krikorian’s long statement above for more
details on that woman.)

Second, I asked about the "real" story on Brewster Jennings, as opposed
to the "crap…from the media" as she mentioned at the venue.

"Basically," she said, "I told them how [third-ranking State Dept.
official in the Bush Admin and former Ambassador to Turkey] Marc
Grossman disclosed" that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front company to
the target of an FBI investigation. "And it was under oath and that
some lives may have been lost."

"Novak has nothing to do with it. Wilson has nothing to do with it.
Valerie Plame has nothing to do with it. The whole operation has to do
with something totally different and it had to do with the American
Turkish Council and the Turkish clients who were about to hire Brewster
Jennings as an analyst … and Grossman found out about it, and tipped
off his diplomatic contact who was a target of the FBI
counter-intelligence, and that person notified the ISI [Pakistani
intelligence agency], etc."

She says that Brewster Jenning was then "dismantled as soon as the FBI
notified the CIA," after which "FBI requested CIA to do a damage
assessment, to see if lives would be lost."

All of this, she re-iterated, was "long before, three years before,"
Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in his newspaper column.

Brewster Jennings was "absolutely" dismantled in August of 2001.

"Grossman and [Richard] Armitage, they are the only two people
involved. Later on Cheney and his people may have used it, but it had
nothing to do with those other things, [Brewster Jennings] was
completely destroyed and gone by the summer of 2001."

For those not fully up on Edmonds’ story, her job at the FBI was to
listen to wiretaps in the counter-intel department, to translate
foreign targets caught on those taps. Presumably, that’s where her
details on the destruction of Brewster Jennings comes from. She was
hired by the agency shortly after 9/11.

Bombshell enough for ya? Let’s see if anyone in the corporate media
bothers to agree, and/or pick up on this — now that it’s officially
"on the record" and, as Edmonds took pains to point out: under oath!

Here endeth today’s live-blogging session. We hope to be hitting the
road this afternoon (we were supposed to go on "vacation" today, but
have had to put things off for this), so if anyone feels like tipping
us some gas money, to make up for three hours sleep and today’s
marathon coverage, we’d much appreciate it!

MEMORANDUM BETWEEN VIVACELL AND SIX UNIVESITIES

17:51:25 – 07/08/2009
LRAGIR.AM

Today at the Company’s Headquarters a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed between the Company, represented by its General Manager Ralph
Yirikian and six universities of Armenia, represented by their
respective Presidents. Those high educational institutions are the
Information Technologies Center of Gyumri, Armenian State Linguistic
University after V. Bryusov, Yerevan State University of Economics,
State University of Gavar, State University of Goris and Cavendish
University.

The major directions of mutual cooperation outlined in the Memorandum,
are the following: organization of master’s thesis internship for
graduate students in VivaCell-MTS, organization of specialty lectures
for students delivered by the respective specialists of the Company
acting as course instructors, implementation of joint scientific
research, master’s thesis research and curriculum development projects
jointly with the faculty, involvement of the Company’s specialists as
Master’s thesis supervisors and mentors. In their turn, according to
the Memorandum, the universities provide VivaCell-MTS with their
high-performing students according to the quota and the list of
specialties submitted by the Company. The lucky students will have an
opportunity to get specialty internship in specific areas such as
commercial law, finance and accounting, marketing and sales,
information technologies, customer service, etc.

ASSASSINATIONS WERE CRUCIAL FOR ERGENEKON MISSION, DOCUMENT SHOWS

Today’s Zaman
Aug 7 2009
Turkey

An internal memorandum of the Ergenekon organization that was included
in the third indictment against the group, accepted by the court
hearing the case on Wednesday, explains to members why assassinations
are crucial for reaching their aims.

The document, titled "The Restructuring, Management and Development
Project," reveals the cruelty Ergenekon was willing to resort
to in order to realize its ultimate goal of fomenting chaos and
overthrowing the government. The organization, which refers to itself
as Ergenekon in the text, sees it as a primary mission to destroy
all politicians that it deems to "have an ideology that goes against
the regime," according to the document. The document also says it
is an inevitable necessity that "assassination and disinformation"
be employed as primary tactics to this end. The document, which
states that all systems in the world that have managed to perpetuate
their existence have relied on this path, says, "The only way to stop
politicians who deem every method to be viable to reach their target
is assassination." It also says that another inevitable necessity
is cooperating with domestic and international illegal organizations
that fight for similar ideals. The document puts forth the idea that
Parliament should be composed of politicians who have similar opinions,
saying this would make Parliament more effective and functional. If
the structure of Parliament is closer to the stated ideal, then
"assassination operations" would not be necessary, states the document.

The document describes its structure as "an organization comprised
of some valuable Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) members … as well
as intellectual civilians of all professional backgrounds that are
loyal to Kemalism." The document recommends that the organization,
which it says has been a late initiative, be developed as quickly as
possible. "Ergenekon, with its civilian staff, which will be composed
of the elite of all professional backgrounds, will increase its
effectiveness significantly in both its domestic and international
operations," it says. The text also emphasizes that Ergenekon is a
"very special formation" and calls on taking the utmost care in the
recruitment process of civilian members. It points to young officers in
military academies and first and second year students in universities
as a "positive source" for possible recruitment.

The document also states that JÄ°TEM — an illegal organization formed
in the early 1990s inside the gendarmerie force under the guise of
anti-terrorism efforts, but which turned into an illegal structure
terrorizing the predominantly Kurdish Southeast in that decade with
the help of martial law in place in most of the region’s cities —
has been a good example of how civilians employed in such causes can
be useful. "Ergenekon has acquired adequate experience with the JÄ°TEM
reality," the document says.

The third indictment in the Ergenekon case, which was accepted by
Ä°stanbul’s 13th High Criminal Court on Wednesday, says that many
assassinations previously thought unrelated to Ergenekon were the
result of the organization’s work. The indictment claims that an attack
in 1993 by a fundamentalist mob in Sivas at a hotel where visiting
Alevi poets and intellectuals were staying was also orchestrated
by Ergenekon.

The 1,454-page indictment also includes a breakdown of the
assassinations and attacks planned for the future by the
group, based on organizational documents acquired during the
investigation. According to this, the group was planning to assassinate
members of the higher judiciary, Armenian Patriarch Mesrob Mutafyan and
Minas Durmaz Guler, head of the Sivas Armenian Community. Other targets
of the group included Ali Balkız, chairman of the Alevi-BektaÅ~_i
federation and the federation’s secretary-general, Kazım Genc,
both very important figures in the Alevi community. The prosecution
also claims that the group had plans to assassinate journalist
and author Fehmi Koru, Turkish Nobel laureate author Orhan Pamuk,
Democratic Society Party (DTP) leader Ahmet Turk, Diyarbakır Mayor
and DTP politician Osman Baydemir and DTP deputy Sebahat Tuncel. The
indictment also notes that Selim Akkurt, one of the hit men recruited
for these assassinations, was arrested shortly after a conversation
between him and Ergenekon suspect Fikri Karadag was heard by the police
monitoring the conversations, in order to avoid an "unwanted incident."

The assassinations were to be carried out through a structure
established by Ä°brahim Å~^ahin, the founder and later deputy chief
of the National Police Department’s Special Operations Unit.

The prosecution’s allegations against Å~^ahin include the formation of
a structure called S-1, which would include teams of police officers
with experience in special operations.

RUBEN HAKOBYAN: BORDER OPENING PROCESS DID NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE FROM THE OUTSET

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
06.08.2009 19:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "Armenian-Turkish normalization process can be said
to have entered a deadlock. In general, the process did not inspire
confidence from the outset," Ruben Hakobyan, Head of Armenian Center
for Analytical Studies, told a PanARMENIAN.Net correspondent.

Turkey cannot open the border without preconditions related to NKR
problem, the expert said, adding that Turkey is a parliamentary
country where the decisive word belongs to the Prime Minister. The
speaker also noted that during the whole process of Armenian-Turkish
ties normalization Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed the
importance preconditions.

With regard to RA President Serzh Sargsyan’s recent statement on his
going to Turkey only in case the border is opened or real steps are
undertaken towards lifting blockade, the expert said he didn’t attach
importance to that, as the border may be opened for a short time and
then be closed again.

RAPPROCHEMENT BETWEEN TURKEY AND RUSSIA CAN POSITIVELY AFFECT NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT: FORMER ANALYST OF TURKISH NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 6 2009

Former analyst of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization
considers that rapprochement between Turkey and Russia can positively
affect the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.

"I think that Erdogan and Putin will discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict behind closed doors and rapprochement between Turkey and
Russia can positively affect the solution of the conflict," former
analyst of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization, Mahir
Kaynak, told Trend News by telephone from Ankara on August 6.

The Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin is on a visit to Turkey
today, Turkish CIHAN news agency reported.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
lost all of Nagorno-Karabakh except for Shusha and Khojali in December
1991. In 1992-93, Armenian armed forces occupied Shusha, Khojali and 7
districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed
a ceasefire in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia,
France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Kaynak considers that non-settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
is an obstacle for Turkey’s policy in Caucasus.

Turkey proposed to establish Caucasus Stability and Cooperation
Platform to ensure stability and cooperation in the Caucasus on the
backdrop of the Georgia-Russia conflict in Aug. 2008.

"Turkey’s balanced policy towards Azerbaijan and Armenia in Caucasus
is accepted by both sides with jealousness," Kaynak said. He considers
that Turkey’s success in its Caucasus policy is possible only after
the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Do you have feedback? Contact our journalist at: [email protected]

NEW NATO CHIEF NOT TO CHANGE CAUCASUS POLICY

Asbarez
new-nato-chief-not-to-change-caucasus-policy/
Aug 5, 2009

BAKU-NATO policy regarding the South Caucasus countries will not change
dramatically after the new Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
said an official representative of NATO, James Appathurai.

"Rasmussen certainly has not announced any major changes," Appathurai
said by telephone from Brussels on August 4.

"I don’t think that you should expect to see any great changes."

The new Secretary General has expressed his strong commitment to
fundamental principles of NATO with regard to its partnerships,
mentioning specifically the South Caucasus, Appathurai said.

"He demonstrated commitment to partnership and to autonomy and
independence of sovereign states in that region [South Caucasus],"
Appathurai said.

NATO cooperation with the South Caucasus countries – Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Armenia – is mainly carried out within Partnership
for Peace Program, Individual Partnership Action Plan, as well as
Process of Analysis and Planning Program. These documents define
the objectives and intentions of the partner countries to hold
consultations with NATO regarding reforms in the spheres of defense,
security and military policy.

Cooperation of the South Caucasus countries with NATO is regarded
as a step towards European integration and security and stability in
the region.

New Secretary General’s commitment to fundamental principles of NATO
includes the rejection the idea of the spheres of influence, when the
big countries imposing their will on smaller countries that might be
in the neighborhood, Appathurai said.

Dane Anders Fogh Rasmussen came to the post of NATO Secretary General
on August 1, replacing in this post Dutch Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,
who spent five years in office.

As to NATO co-operation with Muslim countries, Appathurai said that
NATO has strong history with Muslim countries in two ways.

"One way is the operational way: we have as an alliance defended
Kosovo population, which is principally Muslim. Of course, we are
defending Afghans from the extremists in Afghanistan," he said.

In terms of partnership with many Muslim countries in the Mediterranean
dialog, the Istanbul cooperation initiative, NATO has very good
partnerships, Appathurai said.

"Rasmussen wants to build on that. And he made as a priority for
himself, demonstrating his respect for and commitment to deeper
partnership with Muslim countries," Appathurai said.

Rasmussen was elected head of the North Atlantic Alliance at the
anniversary summit of NATO in April. Whether he would come to the
post was unclear by the last moment.

"YEREVAN IN PHOTOS" EXHIBITION TO OPEN IN YEREVAN HISTORY MUSEUM

ARMENPRESS
Aug 4, 2009

YEREVAN, AUGUST 4, ARMENPRESS: "Yerevan in Photos" exhibition will
open August 5 in Yerevan history museum. The director of the museum
Armine Sargsyan told Armenpress that about 200 photos kept in the
museum picturing Yerevan from the late 19th century till the first
half of the 20th will be presented.

A. Sargsyan said such an exhibition is being held for the first time:
the photos of Yerevan kept in the museum have never been presented
completely.

The museum is planning to conduct "Yerevan’s Urban Issues" exhibition
in December which will present photos, maps, plans, personal things
of outstanding architects, miniature of North Avenue.

Within the frameworks of Yerevan Day celebrations, in October
exhibition of works of contemporary fine artists dedicated to Yerevan
will be presented. After the exhibition the works will be donated to
the museum.

PRESS RELEASE
The Civilitas Foundation
One Northern Ave. Suite 30
Yerevan, Armenia
Telephones: +37494.800754; +37410.500119
email: [email protected]
web:

Vartan Oskanian’s interview (translation below) to Radio Free Europe (FM
102, Yerevan) was aired on Saturday, August 1, 2009

RFE/RL: On debating members of the Armenian National Congress

VARTAN OSKANIAN: I have no problem debating anyone. I’m happy to debate
any issue, but that debate must serve a purpose. Specifically on the topic
of Nagorno Karabakh, I see no reason to engage in that debate because the
opposition’s issue is not with me, but with the administration. So the
opposition’s invitation to debate should be directed to the administration,
to those conducting negotiations today. Of course we can sit and talk about
history, about the past, about the last 17 years. Civilitas convenes such
discussions. Perhaps in the coming months it will be possible to convene one
on the topic of Nagorno Karabakh and all those who wish to participate can
come and do so. But right now, there would be no purpose to my debating the
opposition. Their fundamental target should be today’s government.

On being responsible for the Madrid Principles

Each administration is responsible for its period in history. Today, there
has been a change in administration, there is a new administration, and they
have decided to continue the negotiations from where we left off. Therefore,
today, the authorities are responsible and the debate should be between the
administration and the opposition. I think that for 18 months, the
opposition hasn’t understood this and it continues to try to conduct a
debate with the past administration. I think it would be more useful if the
administration and the opposition actually did debate the issues which
concern our people.

On the Madrid principles.

During the whole of the Nagorno Karabakh negotiations process, all
comprehensive solutions have been based on four fundamental principles.
Those have never changed. The first is the status of Nagorno Karabakh, the
second is the return of territories, the third is the return of refugees,
and the fourth is security guarantees. I want to repeat this: from the
first day all comprehensive proposals have been based on these principles.
I
assure you that it will be the same in the future. In other words, if Madrid
fails – and we’re already talking about the Krakow principles, if they fail
– and in the future, there are new documents, they too will be based on
these same principles. If the Armenian side would really rather not see the
return of territories or the return of refugees in future documents, in
other words, if we are to be lead by the `not an inch of land’ principle
which, really, of course, would be a great solution, and in that case I have
nothing to add, then at that time, either Armenia or Nagorno Karabakh or
both, as the Armenian side in the negotiations, must reject negotiations.
If, however, we are engaged in negotiations, then these principles will be
there.

As for negotiated proposals, the content of the Madrid principles is
disproportionately advantageous in comparison with that of all previous
proposals. On this, there is no doubt and no argument. As regards the status
of Nagorno Karabakh, in the past, the worst proposal was high autonomy
within Azerbaijan, and the best was a horizontal link between Nagorno
Karabakh and Azerbaijan within a common state, but the content of the Madrid
principles specifically offers self-determination for the people of Nagorno
Karabakh, and this naturally and obviously means Nagorno Karabakh
independence or reunification with Armenia. So, the Madrid principles in
comparison with those which came before are disproportionately better,
without doubt. And I would hope that you would agree with me that I’m one of
the very few people who is thoroughly familiar with all previous documents
and can make such a comparison.

As to the other principles – territories, refugees and security – I can say
the same. The formulations are such that they offer the opportunity, when
the details are negotiated prudently, to truly arrive at an outcome that is
advantageous for us.

Principles are, of course, important but more important are the details that
must be negotiated. We did not succeed in arriving at an agreement on the
details with the Azerbaijani side because Azerbaijan’s demands were
unacceptable for us, and our demands were unacceptable for them. There was
no common ground. We had our benchmark, based naturally on our national
interests, and we were unable to arrive at an agreement within range of that
bar.

Today, the focus, the debate should be about that benchmark. Today’s
leadership is not the same. Serzh Sargsyan is not Kocharian, Nalbandian is
not Oskanian. There are clear policy changes. I am frequently blamed for
criticizing foreign policy just because I was foreign minister for 10 years.
Yes, I was minister, but the administration has changed. Certain policies
being implemented today re fundamentally different from the policies we
implemented, so there is room for criticism. When there are things with
which I disagree, I criticize. That’s why today I will repeat, and in fact I
call on the opposition as well, that their task today is to clarify what the
benchmark is. Our bar was high. I have concerns about where the bar is
today. Azerbaijan says whatever it wants to say, Bryza talks about the
return of six or seven territories, Aliyev rules out the independence of
Nagorno Karabakh – and our leadership is silent. This is my concern. This is
what the opposition should be worried about today, and our public too. And
we must specifically challenge the authorities, raise questions and ask that
they clarify where that bar stands today, to quell our concerns. The
opposition’s issue isn’t with me, but with the authorities.

On Matt Bryza’s explanation that Nagorno Karabakh’s non-participation in
Nagorno Karabakh talks was the result of a decision by the Armenian side

Bryza does not appear to be thoroughly informed. He’s probably unaware of
the background. Nagorno Karabakh’s participation was interrupted in March
1997, when the Minsk process itself stopped. In other words, when I was
appointed foreign minister, Nagorno Karabakh was no longer in the process.
But there was an ongoing process between presidents, ministers and meetings
between the advisors of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It’s true,
in those days, we were faced with a choice – to continue the
Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, or to raise the Nagorno Karabakh
participation issue. It was decided that we would continue to negotiate,
because the alternative was that the talks generally would be stalled. So
the decision was about whether to continue or not, and not whether Nagorno
Karabakh would participate or not. That’s absurd. So the truth is that
Nagorno Karabakh’s participation was interrupted in 1997.

Today, of course it’s desirable that Nagorno Karabakh return; everyone
understands that without Nagorno Karabakh there cannot be a final agreement.
So the sooner Nagorno Karabakh enters the process, the more engaged they
become and their wishes taken into consideration, their consent on a final
agreement will be more likely. Presenting the Nagorno Karabakh authorities
and people with a fait accompli will make it much more difficult to bring
them on board. There’s no doubt and Azerbaijan too must realize this – that
the sooner Nagorno Karabakh enters the process, the more the process will
benefit.

On an assessment of the 1998-2008 negotiations period

In 1996, there was the Lisbon statement by the OSCE Chairman-in-office. It’s
true it’s not a binding document, and only a statement, but it was done in
the name of all OSCE member states, with the exception of Armenia. In
1997-98, it was very difficult for us to break down that wall because those
countries were convinced of a Lisbon-based solution. The documents of 1997
regarding the Nagorno Karabakh resolution, especially the first one which
was comprehensive and referred to the status, was completely based on the
Lisbon principles. President Ter-Petrossian categorically rejected that
proposal. Later, when it was clear that agreement on the status would be
complicated, they brought forth a step-by-step proposal, about which
Ter-Petrossian made a public statement, wrote an article, and the rest is
history. But that the notion of autonomy was reinforced among states was
unequivocal. When I say we were struggling against that, it was not against
a document that we were struggling, but against that perception. We did, in
fact, succeed in changing that perception. I’m not in competition with the
former administration. I believe that between 1998 to 2008 Armenia’s
diplomacy succeeded to break down that wall on autonomy and reach
codification of the right of self-determination that we have today.

I consider that a success. When I hear these arguments which target
individuals or former administrations, I think sometimes we are blinded by
these arguments and motivated by revenge and don’t think about what we’re
saying and doing. I say this with great conviction – if we lose this one
principle, the principle of the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to
self-determination, it will be very difficult to revive it. Indeed, the
negotiations can go off in a completely other direction and the principle of
territorial integrity may be reinforced. Today, we are at an advantage over
Azerbaijan, specifically because of the existence of the self-determination
principle, and that is why we must be cautious in our statements and
criticism.

I want to repeat this – we must understand how far we can go in our
concessions, because without concessions there will be no resolution, since
the situation now is more complex than in the past, and this complication is
the consequence of our miscalculated foreign policy. Today, the
Armenia-Turkey situation affects the Nagorno Karabakh issue, pressure has
increased, so all seem to be in a hurry on the Nagorno Karabakh issue, in
order to make it possible to also resolve the Turkey-Armenia border
issue. Under
that pressure, it is possible to take steps that are not necessarily in our
national interests, especially since during this year and a half this
administration has taken such steps, that is why there is room for concern.

On the Turkey-Armenia process and the seeming absence of an Armenian agenda

In my time, there was a clear agenda. I think there is one today as well.
But to what extent the Armenian side can bring on discussion of that agenda,
or impose that agenda, that’s another matter. There’s always been an agenda,
I’m sure there is one today. The problem is that Turkey was able to make its
own agenda more prevalent during this time. In other words, as of today,
Turkey has gotten what it wanted from this process. I don’t know what will
happen in the future, but the Armenian side has so far gotten nothing. From
the first day, I said there was clear miscalculation here. And more and
more, we are convinced of this. The president’s last statement does not
correct the situation. The president continues to leave a window open. I
believe the president should state more clearly that if the border is not
open by the time the football game takes place, then I can’t go to Turkey.
But he has still left this window open and that’s exactly what Turkey wants.
They’ve received what they wanted, they continue to reap dividends, and I
don’t know when our leadership will be convinced that the Turkish side is
exploiting the situation. They should been convinced of this long ago and so
long as the process continues the way it’s been, the Armenian side will
continue to lose.

On the `artificial’ and `false’ nature of Armenia’s democracy

If government is not formed through free and fair elections, then we will
never be able to create the right checks and balances within our political
system. Without such balance, we can’t solve our problems, and impose the
rule of law. Fair and free elections are necessary but not sufficient
conditions for democracy. There is no doubt about this. I’m not saying
anything new: this is the international practice and the experience of
democratic countries. Without normal elections, your democracy is
incomplete, and not serious. So our focus should be on that and we need to
find the mechanisms to make that happen.

On national mobilization in the context of domestic tensions, reciprocal
distrust and a deficit of legitimacy

In my statement at the Stepanakert conference in July, I said that the same
factors that make mobilization imperative also obstruct such mobilization.
Here the authorities have a huge role to play. I believe they must take
minimal but specific steps to improve the political environment in the
country, to inspire hope that something will change and to create clear
mechanisms to solve problems. Under such circumstances it may be possible to
collaborate on our most pressing problems.

There seems to be an impression that independent of everything, however bad
the situation internally, however much we may be opposed to each other, when
there are external threats facing the state, we will come together. In
extreme situations, I am convinced that is indeed the case. But we must also
recognize that we are also faced with political threats. The situation may
become such that there will not be war but that there may be efforts to
impose on us conditions that go counter to our national interest. So we must
recognize that there are not-so-obvious internal and external political
threats and dangers around which we must also rally together. The
authorities must take a leading role in this and recognize that there are
such issues. Because, at the end of the day, it is the rule of law, a
healthy political environment and appropriate checks and balances, that will
make it possible for us to solve our problems.

Armenia is a very politicized country, everything is politicized and we have
problems everywhere. And as much as those problems may be social, at the
end, everything is political. So the solution to these problems must be
sought in the political arena. We will only succeed in solving them if we
can create the right political mechanisms. Recently, I proposed creating a
second political pole, commensurate to the existing power pole. I believe
that’s the right path. Both the administration and the opposition should
think about that because that is in our national interest. The authorities
must support this, or at the very least, not obstruct it, in order for such
a pole to emerge.

On March 1, 2008 and accusations about willfully re-interpreting that day

I disagree. That day I had nothing to gain or lose. That day I took upon
myself a great responsibility, more than could be expected of a foreign
minister. I sensed the dangers of that day and it was with that awareness
that I spoke out. It would have been easy to refuse a press conference that
day, but that would not have been the responsible thing to do. If only other
political figures, from both sides, who were the key players that day, had
also demonstrated such responsibility. If each had done what he could, I am
convinced we might have avoided one of the blackest days in our nation’s
history. My conscience is clear that I did my part. It didn’t succeed. But I
stood before our people and called on the authorities and the opposition to
sit and talk.

On entering the political arena

In my interviews, my statements, I am already perceived as someone who is in
the political arena. That has not been formalized by a declaration or an
organization. Nevertheless, I am in politics. I can’t be indifferent to the
events that transpire in Armenia today, and I will do everything to be able
to have input and become useful, especially to help form a healthy political
environment in our country, and to work with everyone, to reach at least a
bi-polar political system – one that would noticeably reinforce our
democratization processes.