Perhaps Armenian Lobby Knew That Hoagland’s Price Is Resolution

PERHAPS ARMENIAN LOBBY KNEW THAT HOAGLAND’S PRICE IS RESOLUTION
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir, Armenia
Aug 15 2007

There is a joke about the witch and the Armenian peasant. After reaping
his wheat field the peasant sits down to have some bread and cheese
when suddenly an old woman appears from out of nowhere and starts
weeping and begging for something to eat. The peasant gives her all
his food. The old woman tells him she is a witch and can fulfill three
wishes. The peasant agrees. His first wish is national-heroic. "I
wish one of our national heroes, say Vardan Mamikonyan, passed across
my field." The witch fulfills his wish, and Vardan Mamikonyan passes
by with his sword in the hand. The peasant is fascinated and wishes
that one of our national heroes, say Vardan Mamikonyan, passed by
closer. The old woman fulfils his second wish and Vardan Mamikonyan
passes by him more closely. The peasant who is so delighted that he can
hardly speak wishes to have a closer look at the hero and to hear his
voice. The witch fulfils his third wish, and when Vardan Mamikonyan
crosses the field for the third time, the peasant hears him shout:
"You asshole, don’t you know another hero?"

Was it too long, dear reader? Never mind. Our history is long,
what can we do? The Armenian people have been living in this sinful
world for a long time now. Nevertheless, having lived for so long the
Armenians are unable to replace morality with reality. With a history
of several thousands of years behind, the Armenian people, at least
the Armenian elite, are unwilling to leave alone Vardan Mamikonyan
and his moral victory. And if Vardan shouts to the peasant to think
of another hero, he should shout to the elite to think about another
victory than the moral one. Again it is too long but it is difficult to
speak short about history that lasts long, such as the debates at the
U.S. congress over the affirmation of Richard Hoagland’s nomination as
ambassador to Armenia. Eventually Bush withdrew Hoagland which enabled
the peasants of the Armenian diplomacy and propaganda to declare it
was the victory of the Armenian lobby. To sound clear I will remind
that the Armenian lobby was against Hoagland’s nomination because he
did not utter the word genocide and denied the genocide.

In this sense, Hoagland’s withdrawal is a real moral victory, and
when the Armenian peasant again stood a chance of fulfillment of his
three wishes after feeding the witch, instead of Vardan Mamikonyan
he could wish to see and to admire the Armenian lobby. After the
withdrawal of Hoagland the deluge. If the new nominee states that
not only there was no Genocide but the opposite, and the Congress
affirms his nomination, the heroic image of the Armenian lobby will
not suffer. After all, our lobby cannot defeat endlessly, especially
Bush, who reaches for high-precision missiles whenever he gets into
trouble. However, it means that if George junior withdraws Hoagland,
it is highly probable that the price will be another failure of
the resolution on the Armenian Genocide at the congress. In other
words, in this case the U.S. president makes a compromise with the
legislature. It is clear, however, that it does not tarnish our moral
victory. After all, there cannot be two victories at a time. We know
this from our first victory. Vardan knew that but he took that step
because he was a real hero. Perhaps the Armenian lobby also knew that
Hoagland’s price is the resolution but it took that move not only
because it was a real hero but also because it perceived the right
moment. In this case, the failure of the resolution at least has an
excuse. They will say it failed because it was impossible to defeat
the political establishment of the United States twice within a year.

After all, the lobby is a serious thing and requires serious financial
reports for everything done and undone. Meanwhile, a very old Armenian
saying runs the undone relies on the done.

"If Raffi Hovhannisian Isn’t Defeated On August 26, He Stands A Goo

"IF RAFFI HOVHANNISIAN ISN’T DEFEATED ON AUGUST 26, HE STANDS A GOOD CHANCE TO BECOME PRESIDENT"

Panorama.am
20:18 16/08/2007

Today panorama.am asked People’s Power president Manuk Kasparyan if
there was in fact an oppositional member whom he would not support
if the member became a united candidate, taking into account there
are those in the opposition he doesn’t always agree with.

Referring to this, Kasparyan says he is ready to accept any
candidate agreed upon by the opposition. To the question of whether
he considers himself as a possible candidate, being he is free of the
burdens some in the opposition carry, he said, "I don’t see that as a
possibility. Freeing ourselves of this regime is the only alternative."

As to the question of who he sees winning against the government
candidate, Kasparyan preferred not to state his opinion, as he is
preparing to participate in a meeting of oppositional leaders, and
that it wouldn’t be appropriate to give anyone’s name at this point.

Even though not wanting to offer any name, when talking about Raffi
Hovhannisian, he said, "If Raffi Hovhannisian doesn’t see defeat in
the August 26 election in District 15, he stands an excellent chance
of becoming president."

Publisher From Diarbekir Speaks About Armenians And Assyrians Displa

PUBLISHER FROM DIARBEKIR SPEAKS ABOUT ARMENIANS AND ASSYRIANS DISPLACED IN 1915

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Aug 10 2007

ISTANBUL, AUGUST 10, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The Turkish
"Birgun" daily newpaper has published an interview with Ahmed Chakmak,
the editor of the "Yearatan" literary newspaper of Diarbekir. The
Daily "Marmara" attracts attention on that part of the interview,
where Chakmak touches upon the displacement of Armenians and Assyrians
from Diarbekir.

"This city watched with indifference how the homes of our Armenian
and Assyrian neighbours were destroyed for this or that reason,
those neighbours, with whom we had lived for hundreds of years, it
saw how they disappeared on the displacement ways and how those,
who survived, lived in homesickness. And the most tragic thing
is that most of these poor people handed their valuable things to
their reliable friends with the hope that they would return sooner
or later. The grandchildren of those neighbours are still waiting
for handing those things to the representatives of their owners."

Sergei Markov: Azerbaijan Is Growing Ever More Frustrated And Disapp

SERGEI MARKOV: AZERBAIJAN IS GROWING EVER MORE FRUSTRATED AND DISAPPOINTED WITH MOSCOW’S SUPPORT OF ARMENIA
S. Rzayev
Translated by A. Ignatkin

Agency WPS
Defense And Security (Russia)
Source: Ekho (Baku), August 3, 2007, EV
August 8, 2007 Wednesday

Political Scientist Sergei Markov: Baku’s Stand With Regard To The
Russian Federation Is Expected To Stimulate A Shift Of Preferences
>From Armenia To Azerbaijan

An exclusive interview with Sergei Markov, prominent Russian
political scientist and Public House member convinced that a war for
Nagorno-Karabakh is still a grim possibility.

Question: One of the Russian TV networks was ordered off the air in
Azerbaijan not long ago. Negotiations over another TV network are
under way now and they are not exactly easy. What do you think of
this whole situation?

Sergei Markov: Russian TV networks encounter problems in Azerbaijan
due to the anti-Russian policy promoted by Baku. There are several
motives involved here.

First, Azerbaijan is gradually losing sovereignty and succumbing
to American turnover. It is American global geopolitical projects
that Azerbaijan is frequently involved in these days. The US Army is
quartered de facto on the Azerbaijani territory. American military
bases are installed under different names that do not really fool
anybody. Moreover, energy export from Azerbaijan follows American
scripts more often than not.

Second, the Azerbaijani leadership is getting ever more frustrated and
disappointed with Russia which it thinks is more pro-Armenian in the
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh than it is neutral. The whole policy
of Baku these days is calculated to stimulate a shift of Moscow’s
preferences and sympathies from Armenia to neutrality, if not to
Azerbaijan. I do not think Baku is correct to do this. Turning
off Russian broadcasts or making anti-Russian statements is not
a way of encouraging a shift to Baku on Moscow’s part. It’s an
error of strategic magnitude. Azerbaijan’s alliance with Georgia,
participation in projects like GUAM and others cannot help Baku with
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is a mistake, it is movement away
from the solution and not towards it.

Question: Are you saying that Russia has been maintaining a
balanced and neutral policy in the matter of the conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh? Russia retains a military contingent in Armenia
that has occupied a part of the territory of Azerbaijan.

Sergei Markov: If I were asked to give the ratio of Russian
preferences, I’d put it at 60 to 40 in Armenia’s favor. But Russia
is also trying to retain the status quo and whatever progress has
been made so far. Plunge the region into a major war again, and
nobody will be better off. Russia is aware of it. Moscow’s policy
is centered around the disinclination to make things worse than they
already are. It follows that the Azerbaijani leadership is mistaken to
regard Moscow’s position as pro-Armenian. Of course, Russia listens to
Yerevan with more attention, but that’s because Armenia participates
in the projects initiated by Russia. Projects like the CIS Collective
Security Treaty Organization. Azerbaijan, on the contrary, becomes
involved in the openly anti-Russian GUAM. I’d even say that Baku is
all but begging to shift the ratio of Russian preferences to 70 to 30.

Question: What do you think the existing dynamics of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict settlement promises? Official Baku does
not rule out the possibility of a solution to the problem by sheer
strength of arms. It points at the ever growing military budget of
Azerbaijan and implies that the existing state of affairs cannot be
tolerated much longer. Do you think the hostilities may be renewed
again? What will Moscow do? Can Armenia count on Russian support?

Sergei Markov: I do not think anything will change in the immediate
future. Given time, with the economic development of Azerbaijan
continuing unchecked and the rift between Baku and Yerevan widening,
the Azerbaijan leadership will succumb to the temptation to settle
the matter with one bold strike and certainly try it. War over
Nagorno-Karabakh remains a possibility. We cannot say how it will
work out. We only see for the time being that Azerbaijan’s economic
superiority over Armenia keeps growing and that it will become colossal
at some future date. Armenia on the other hand boasts of its combat
prowess and claims that it will always be Azerbaijan’s better from the
military standpoint. In any case, I suspect that once Azerbaijan has
accumulated sufficient resources, some politicians or others in Baku
will certainly want to use these resources for a military solution
to the problem. As for Moscow’s positions, surely it will depend on
the then relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Question: Is it possible to say that Armenia can safely count on
Russian support in any case?

Sergei Markov: Hard to say. Azerbaijan is not yet in the hole
anti-Russian forces have been pushing it into.

Matthew Bryza: "Decision On Karabakh’s Future Status Is Not My Task

MATTHEW BRYZA: "DECISION ON KARABAKH’S FUTURE STATUS IS NOT MY TASK AS MEDIATOR"

PanARMENIAN.Net
07.08.2007 17:50 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "There exist three major principles, which
will influence on the talks around the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement: refusal from the use of force, recognition of the right to
territorial integrity of countries and the right of nations to national
self-determination. I think, in any conflicts, let it be in Georgia,
Moldavia or Caucasus, if people are looking for a peaceful solution
it is possible to find a compromise between those principles," OSCE
Minsk Group American Co-Chair, US Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew
Bryza stated.

He said the United States has been founded by separatists. "After
some time several countries recognized our independence, this is
normal. We reached the right to self-determination. And then -in the
XVIII century, after several years other former colonies of Spain also
needed our help; we were asked to recognize their independence. But
we said, "No, thanks, it does not proceed from our interests!"

However, we put in every case all approaches differ from each other,"
M. Bryza said. The American diplomat underlined that the search
of compromises is the objective of leaders. He thinks the right to
self-determination can reach independence or autonomous status. "And
as a mediator I cannot determine what status we will have at the
end. It is not my mission. Perhaps, representatives of the nations
will decide in future that it would be better for Karabakh to be
independent? Or they may decide that the disputed region must be
a part of Azerbaijan with a high level of independence? However,
this is not my task… Negotiations are on the way, we are looking
for compromises. But I’d like not to comment on details of the
discussion between the two presidents. According to the Constitution
of Azerbaijan, the referendum must be held with the participation
of citizens of Azerbaijan. If so, what would it mean for the status
of Karabakh, what will be the result of it? And now the Armenian
side thinks over it, what is better for him, what will mean that
referendum if the Azeri side entirely participates in it? Or perhaps
we will have another definition, another word, which would reflect
the number of votes or residents or former residents of Karabakh who
can participate in the voting. And this is a question for presidents,
not for me," Bryza underlined.

At the same time he thinks there exists a right for all refugees to
return, this is a principal issue.

"But we cannot force a solution to this issue. The presidents
themselves must decide and resolve it: when, how, on what conditions
and so on," the OSCE MG American mediator said, "Vremya Novostei"
reports.

Government Of Armenia And ALROSA To Sign Agreement On Cooperation

GOVERNMENT OF ARMENIA AND ALROSA TO SIGN AGREEMENT ON COOPERATION

SKRIN Market & Corporate News
August 6, 2007 Monday 10:47 AM GMT

On August 6, 2007 the Government of Armenia and ALROSA will sign an
agreement on cooperation in the jewellery industry. The document will
be signed during a one day visit of President of ALROSA S.Vybornov
to Yerevan.

As it became known to SKRIN, a meeting of S.Vybornov with President of
Armenia R.Kocharyan and Prime Minister S.Sarkisyan had been scheduled
to discuss the further cooperation.

Richard Hoagland Himself Asked To Withdraw His Nomination As US Amba

RICHARD HOAGLAND HIMSELF ASKED TO WITHDRAW HIS NOMINATION AS US AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
07.08.2007 13:51 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Activities of the Armenian community of the United
States do not contradict RA’s foreign policy, this opinion does not
have anything in common with the reality, head of "Hay Dat" Office
Giro Manoyan stated to journalists in Yerevan. He said official Yerevan
has never exerted pressure on Armenian communities abroad. "The White
House’s decision to withdraw the nomination of Richard Hoagland as US
Ambassador to Armenia is the internal affair of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the US Congress. Hoagland himself has written a letter to
US President’s administration asking him to withdraw his candidacy,
since he is sure that the Senate will not approve it," Manoyan said
adding that the next US Ambassador to Armenia must have a clearer
stance on the issue of the Armenian Genocide.

Giro Manoyan also underlined the issue of Hoagland’s disapproval
totally lies in political field. "It is the second time in the
US history that the Senate does not approve the White House’s
nomination. First time it was John Bolton, US Ambassador to the United
Nations. Then President Bush appointed Bolton passing over the Senate
using his right to nominate ambassadors during Senate recess. But the
administration decided not to repeat the same thing with Hoagland,"
the head of "Hay Dat" Office noticed.

On August 3 the White House withdrew Richard Hoagland’s candidacy as US
Ambassador to Armenia after New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez twice
placed a hold on his nomination, since R. Hoagland did not recognize
events of 1915 as genocide during his confirmation hearings before
the Senate.

Lebanon By-Election Highlights Christian Disunity

LEBANON BY-ELECTION HIGHLIGHTS CHRISTIAN DISUNITY
By Nadim Ladki

Reuters
06 Aug 2007 09:36:42 GMT

BEIRUT, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Lebanon’s Christians emerged on Monday
from a by-election split down the middle after opposition leader
Michel Aoun’s candidate narrowly beat former President Amin Gemayel,
a pillar of the Western-backed government.

Both sides took comfort from Sunday’s contest in the Metn area
north of Beirut, but the outcome offered no clear pointers to the
forthcoming presidential election or a way out of a nine-month-old
deadlock paralysing Lebanon’s ruling institutions.

"It does not close the house of Gemayel or deliver Aoun to the
presidency," political analyst Samir Constantine said.

Aoun is the only declared candidate for president, always a Maronite
Christian under the sectarian power-sharing system.

Choosing a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud is the next
political battle for the anti-Syrian forces behind Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora and the opposition that groups Aoun with Hezbollah and Amal,
Shi’ite factions backed by Damascus.

"The Metn elections ended politically without a victor and a
vanquished.

There was a loser, but there was no winner," said former Prime Minister
Selim al-Hoss, a Sunni elder statesman.

"If the contest was a contest of sizes, then both competitors were
effectively down-sized."

Aoun’s candidate, Camille Khoury, took the seat by 418 votes out of
about 79,000 cast, but that margin undermined the former general’s
claim — based on the results of parliamentary elections in 2005 —
to enjoy 70 percent Christian support.

"They just can’t beat me," said Aoun after the result.

SLAIN SON

Gemayel, contesting a seat that fell vacant when his son Pierre
was assassinated in November, ran an emotional campaign in which he
accused Aoun of seeking a return of Syrian tutelage.

But the dent in Aoun’s popularity, perhaps due to Christian dismay
at the accord he forged with Hezbollah in 2006, is small comfort for
the defeat Gemayel suffered in his own backyard.

Gemayel leads the Phalange Party founded by his father Pierre in
the 1930s.

Its Maronite militia played a major role in Lebanon’s 1975-90 civil
war, but the party is now aligned with anti-Syrian Sunni, Druze
and Christian factions led by the son of assassinated former Prime
Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

The ruling coalition is supported by the United States, France and
Saudi Arabia.

In a Sunni district of Beirut, a by-election for slain anti-Syrian
lawmaker Walid Eido produced an easy win for a pro-government candidate
who had no significant opposition.

Headlines in Lebanese newspapers reflected their partisan
interpretations of the result in the Metn.

"Two-thirds of Maronites vote for Gemayel, their seat goes to Aoun
by 418 votes," said the pro-government Al-Mustaqbal, contending that
Armenian voters had swung the vote Aoun’s way.

The pro-opposition As-Safir said: "The Metn democratically defeats
Amin Gemayel and with him the ‘majority’."

The English-language Daily Star lamented that the election campaign
had been "shockingly devoid of serious discussion of policy issues"
and had done nothing for national reconciliation.

Hoss said the by-elections had proved again that "democracy in Lebanon
is an illusion where money and emotions rule".

Voting was generally peaceful, but troops broke up several brawls
between rival Christians. Two people had gunshot wounds.

Siniora hailed the vote as a civilised response to political killings.

"Democracy in Lebanon will defeat terrorism," he said.

Gemayel and his allies accuse Syria of orchestrating the assassinations
of Pierre Gemayel, Eido, Hariri and other anti-Syrian figures. Damascus
denies any involvement.

Genocide tourism: Tragedy becomes a destination

Chicago Tribune, United States
Aug 5 2007

Genocide tourism: Tragedy becomes a destination

By Steve Silva | Special to the Tribune
August 5, 2007

Since visiting the former Nazi death camp at Dachau in 1997,
Dermansky, a 40-year-old from Santa Monica, Calif., has seen the
killing fields in Cambodia, walked through mass grave sites in Bosnia
and stood among human remains in Rwanda. She is, in her own words,
obsessed.

"Why go to Club Med," Dermansky, a photographer, asks, "when you can
witness this kind of history?"

She is not alone. An increasing number of tourists are traveling to
places of horrific human catastrophe. In Rwanda, Bosnia and Armenia,
travelers pay their respects to victims of genocide at popular
memorials and cemeteries. Even Kurdistan in Iraq, scene of an ethic
cleansing campaign during the 1980s, is promoting its horrible past
with a genocide museum. Tragedy has become a destination.

Nearly a million tourists visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum in
2005, up from half that the year before. Other former death camps
have seen a similar increase in recent years.

Lately at Auschwitz, the growth in tourism has made for some odd
juxtapositions. Visitors dine in a newly renovated cafeteria built
within the large room where thousands of Nazi victims were processed
upon arrival at the camp. This blending of modern tourist convenience
and the apparatus of organized death disturbed Dermansky.

"It’s a tourist jungle," she says.

While they are perhaps the best known, the concentration camps
scattered across Germany and Eastern Europe are not the only genocide
sites seeing an increase in visitors.

To accommodate the swelling tourist trade, the Cambodian government
last year hired a Japanese firm to build a visitors center and hotel
adjacent to the Choeung Ek killing field near Phnom Penh. When the
visitors center opens next year, the new company will charge a $3
admission fee rather than the current 50 cents. The town of Anlong
Veng in northwest Cambodia is building a genocide museum in the
renovated houses of former Khmer Rouge officials to attract tourists.

Tourism Cambodia, a private travel company based in Phnom Penh,
offers an assortment of tours specifically geared to genocide
tourists. In addition to Choeung Ek, the company highlights
excursions to the Tuol Sleng Museum, a school-turned-prison where
some 17,000 people were killed between 1977 and 1979; the Kamping
Puoy Reservoir, a Khmer Rouge work project made famous by the late
Haing S. Ngor in his book "Survival in Cambodia’s Killing Fields";
and the civil war museum in Siem Reap. The Tourism Cambodia Web site
warns that these sites are "not for the squeamish."

Bosnia on the list

Sarajevo, Bosnia, is another center for genocide tourism. According
to the Bosnia-Herzegovina Tourism Board, visits to the country were
up 25 percent in 2005 from the previous year and are running nearly
20 percent ahead this year.

"We’ve come to terms that there are places in our country that
attract tourists because of war history," Arna Ugljen, the tourism
board’s director of public relations, said.

Teri-Lynn Spiteri is one such visitor. She was deeply moved by the
plight of Bosnians during the war in the 1990s, especially the
massacre of 8,000 civilians at Srebernica in 1995. Watching the news
at the time, Spiteri, who has been to the former Nazi death camp at
Dachau twice, was reminded of the Holocaust.

"I recalled hearing over and over during history class in high school
how ‘nothing like this will ever happen again’ and ‘those who forget
the past are bound to repeat it,’" she says.

Spurred by the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Srebernica and
compelled to see for herself the impact of the events she’d witnessed
on television, Spiteri, 42, traveled to Sarajevo in 2005. Her friends
and family didn’t understand why she needed to go. And although
Spiteri regularly traveled alone, they were also concerned for her
safety. Seeing the anniversary coverage on the news, Spiteri’s mother
was convinced that the war was ongoing and tried daily to talk her
into staying home.

"Once I left," she says, "I had to call every day, and if I missed a
day I paid dearly for it on my next call home."

While she did not get to Srebernica on that trip — NATO peacekeepers
she met in Sarajevo warned her that something was "brewing" in the
area — Spiteri did encounter a Serbian general being interviewed by
Italian television. Speaking through an interpreter, the general
expressed his surprise that she was a tourist.

A need for reflecting

For Spiteri, the trip to Bosnia was the culmination of a decade of
fascination with the struggle and recovery of the local people. She
says she worries that other travelers bent on visiting genocide sites
might not be so reflective.

"If you are going just for thrill seeking, hoping to find ‘remains,’
or perhaps get a kick out of others’ misery, I’m disgusted by that,"
she says.

Not everyone is sanguine about the development of genocide tourism.
Tessa Somerville of the Kurdistan Development Corporation, a private
commercial investment firm working with the Kurdish government, is
repelled by the idea of dark tourism.

"How can people vacation when mothers are giving birth to babies who
are affected by the chemicals which rained down during Saddam’s Anfal
Campaign and there are many people still searching for loved ones who
have disappeared?" she asks.

Some in the travel industry are ambivalent about the spread of
genocide tourism.

"To each their own," says travel agent Steve Murphy of Kumuka
Worldwide in New York. "I guess people wouldn’t offer it if there
wasn’t a market for it, whatever your own decision on it."

Murphy is afraid that genocide tourism exploits the local population
while enriching a few tour operators.

‘He cried like a baby’

Rajan Tiwari, director of Kiboko Tours & Travel in Kilgali, Rwanda,
shares some of Murphy’s feelings about genocide tourism and prefers
to point out more conventionally uplifting attractions — like a
temperate climate and endangered gorillas.

"The genocide was and still is painful," he says, "Personally I feel
it is quite important that visitors visit to understand the Rwandans
better, and they do."

Tiwari remembers an American accountant who while at the genocide
site in Ntaramta broke down and collapsed in Tiwari’s arms. "He cried
like a baby," he recalls.

For Tiwari the genocide exists in two worlds — a heartbreaking past
that lingers each day and a future that holds the promise of
understanding and recovery.

Standing in a church in Rwanda where Hutus murdered 5,000 ethnic
Tutsis in 1994, Dermansky faced a similar quandary. As she surveyed a
scene of horror — disintegrating clothing and shoes scattered among
bones and other scraps of human remains — she thought about the
visitors who would come after her.

If the local authorities cleaned up — or "sanitized," in her words
— this place, would future visitors feel the same sense of horror
that she felt? Was she being selfish in her desire to witness such
devastation?

Dermansky is already planning her next trip. It’s simply a matter of
where to go next.

"Nowhere has a monopoly on injustice," she says.

New Fronts In Old Battles

NEW FRONTS IN OLD BATTLES
Robert Hanks

The Independent – United Kingdom
Published: Aug 03, 2007

When Norman Stone was professor of modern history at Oxford, Sir
Edward Heath is reported to have said of him, "Many parents of Oxford
students must be both horrified and disgusted that the higher education
of our children should rest in the hands of such a man." The Oxford
University Students Union passed a motion condemning him, after he
wrote a newspaper column opposing the idea of homosexual marriage,
as a "racist, sexist, homophobe".

The horror ran both ways: asked, on his departure from Oxford, why he
was taking a post at a Turkish university, Professor Stone told the
press that the students there were "less smelly and more attentive".

>From which you will gather that he is a great maker of enemies,
and of memorable lines. Both gifts are evident in his latest book,
World War One: a short history (Allen Lane, pounds 16.99), and in some
reactions it has already inspired. In 157 pages (plus maps, discursive
bibliography and index) he sets out a brief, easily digested narrative
of the First World War that is studded with epigrams, many apparently
designed with the sole intention of starting arguments.

"With the Ukraine, Russia is a USA; without, she is a Canada –
mostly snow."

"It is a strange fact of modern European history that Italy, weakest
of the Powers, brings the problems to a head: no Cavour, no Bismarck;
no Mussolini, no Hitler." Discuss. There have been plenty of histories
of the First World War before, but as Stone himself says, quoting
the historian JH Plumb, "There’s always room for a new book on a
good subject." Over the years, he has kept his eye on the burgeoning
literature. This new book incorporates recent insights into the way
warfare changed over the four years of fighting. New knowledge about
the origins of the war – as Stone puts it, "It’s pretty clear now
that it was a German plot" – rubs shoulders with an account of the
importance of railway timetables that clearly owes a lot to AJP Taylor.

He mentions Taylor as one of three writers he used to be able to
quote whole paragraphs of by heart: the others being Orwell and,
less predictably, Malcolm Muggeridge. The new revisionism – in which
Haig is rehabilitated as a tactically astute and caring war leader –
is tempered by old-fashioned contempt for his donkey-like leadership
in the early years. The book is disfigured by some very silly errors
("Alfred Einstein" is mentioned). But Stone offers what few British
historians can: the view from elsewhere, a sense of what the war
looked like outside the Western Front.

A few years ago, in an admiring review of a book by Noel Malcolm,
Stone wrote: "Usually, when people can read 20 languages, they lose
the ability to write their own." I wonder if this was a subtle piece
of self-deprecating humour, because his own facility with languages
is famous. He says not; he would never compare himself with Malcolm,
who "can even do Norwegian!".

Nevertheless, he admits to being able to read "about 11 or 12
[languages], and speaking a bit less." He started off learning French
and German at Glasgow Academy, a "remorseless" machine. Then he went
to Cambridge on a modern languages scholarship, switching to history
shortly after he arrived because "I couldn’t handle the literature
at all."

After graduation, he spent a couple of years in Vienna grubbing
in the archives of the Austro-Hungarian empire. While there he met
his first wife, the daughter of a minister in "Papa Doc" Duvalier’s
government of Haiti. He proudly notes the fact that their son, Nick
Stone, is now a successful thriller writer. Back in Cambridge on a
research fellowship, having failed to complete a doctorate, he was a
beneficiary of an initiative to get more people in higher education
speaking Russian: "It was in response to what was alleged to be Soviet
progress – in 1959, Macmillan wrote in his diary ‘There’s no doubt
the Russian standard of living will be far higher than ours in 10
years time.’" Stone pauses to guffaw at length. He learnt Russian,
and started teaching Russian history.

The international perspective that his facility with languages gave
him was reflected in his first book in 1975, which made his name: The
Eastern Front, 1914-17. It remains the standard English-language work,
"To which," he remarks, "I can only say ‘Alas’." A few years ago,
Penguin reissued it and asked him to look through it. "I can remember
on a hot afternoon in Ankara going through it, and when I read chapter
one, about the Russian army, really almost suicide country – because
I thought, ‘I’ll never write anything as good as this again.’ And
then I reached chapter three, about the October 1914 campaign, and
I cheered up: it’s more or less unreadable."

One thing that book didn’t offer, and the new book does, is an emphasis
on the Turkish dimension to the war. "It’s something people tend to
forget about… it looked as if it was a sort of side-show, and in
some ways it was what the war was about." Turkey, Stone argues, was
the big prize for the European powers: a large but unstable empire,
which controlled access to the world’s greatest oilfields, and between
the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

He has taught in Turkey for 12 years now, having originally gone
to attend a conference on Bosnia. "I remember arriving in Istanbul
thinking, I sort of smelt in the air, ‘Hmm, good country’. I liked
the place, I liked the people." At this point, he was on the verge
of taking early retirement after an unhappy decade at Oxford – the
unhappiness being, it must be said, mutual.

Academics tended to dismiss him as a lightweight: since The Eastern
Front he had produced a well-regarded textbook and a shrewd, lively
biography of Hitler, but nothing substantially original. He had also
flaunted his Tory politics in a column, and even acted for a while
as foreign-policy adviser to Mrs Thatcher. He recalls as one of his
achievements that "I got her to be pro-German for a week". This
did not go down well at the university that voted to withhold an
honorary doctorate from her. Among students, his stock was higher:
he has always been a vastly entertaining talker, and takes a great
interest and pride in the achievements of his pupils.

When offered the chance to run the new Russian-Turkish centre at
Bilkent University in Ankara, he jumped at it. The decision was,
he says, "more than eccentric", but right: "There’s a lot to be
said for just picking up your traps and finding a new horizon." He
speaks admiringly of his students, and thinks that living in Turkey
has given him a new perspective on Europe, particularly Russia, as
"when you realise that Tatar-Turkey dimension, you understand the
thing an awful lot better."

But even in Turkey his talent for making enemies has not deserted
him. These days, his main antagonist is what he jovially calls "the
dear old Armenian diaspora". In 2004, Stone reviewed unfavourably a
book on the subject of the Armenian massacres – "a terrible rubbishy
book," he recalls, "the sort of book to be read out in a funny voice"
– in The Spectator, and derided it further in The Times Literary
Supplement. Since then, he has been a magnet for Armenian anger over
what they see as, in effect, Holocaust denial. In fact, Stone has
never denied that vast numbers of Armenians were slaughtered during
forced deportations from Turkey in 1915; he does not even dispute the
possibility that there was genocidal intent. What he does dispute is
that there is unequivocal evidence of such intent, and in the absence
of a smoking gun, prefers to stick to "massacres".

He has been smeared a number of times as a paid apologist for
Turkey. When I mention these attacks, he makes a disgusted moue:
"It’s just dotty, it’s dotty and it’s demeaning." An even more
convincing defence came from a correspondent in The Spectator:
"Norman may have his faults, but he has always been entirely prepared
to bite the hand that feeds him. Often quite hard, if he thinks it
necessary." In the new book, he has been quite careful how he describes
the Armenian massacres. The tactic hasn’t been entirely successful,
to judge by a negative review already on Amazon.co.uk, accusing Stone
of "indifference" to genocide. Indifference to genocide, I doubt;
indifference to what people think he ought to say – there, I think,
he would plead guilty. And enjoy doing it.

Biography

NORMAN STONE

Norman Stone was born in Glasgow in 1941, and educated at Glasgow
Academy and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. After research in
Vienna and Budapest, he returned to Cambridge as lecturer in German
and Russian history, and was professor of modern history at Oxford,
1984-1995. Since 1995 he has been director of the Russian-Turkish
Centre at Bilkent University, Ankara. The Eastern Front, 1914-17
(1975) won the Wolfson Prize; other books include Hitler (1980),
Europe Transformed (1984) and the new World War One (Allen Lane);
he is completing a history of the making of new world orders since
1945. In 1999, he made his fictional debut as model for "Fluke"
Kelso, the academic hero of Robert Harris’s Archangel. Married twice
(divorced once), with three children, he divides his time between
Oxford and Turkey.