Author: Taslakhchian Andranik

PHALANGE, TASHNAG AGREE TO RESOLVE ISSUES THROUGH DIALOGUE
By Elias Sakr

Daily Star staff
Daily Star – Lebanon
Thursday, October 15, 2009

Phalange, Tashnag agree to resolve issues through dialogue BEIRUT:
The Phalange and the Armenian Tashnag Party said Wednesday they had
opened a new page of cooperation in order to overcome the upcoming
difficult political phase and to preserve Lebanon’s best interests
through dialogue. During a meeting between delegations of the Tashnag
and Phalange parties respectively headed by Hovig Mekhitarian and
Amin Gemayel at the latter’s resident in Bikfaya, the attendants
agreed to form a joint committee to promote cooperation and resolve
disagreements.

"The relation between the Tashnag and the Phalange is positive despite
previously going through a difficult period, but we are currently
planning the future foundations of cooperation," Mekhitarian said.

Mekhitarian added that both parties were aware of the need to tackle
conflicting issues, particularly in the current period of uncertainty
which necessitates dialogue among all Leba­nese political forces.

Similarly, Gemayel underscored the positivity that characterized ties
between both parties, adding that they long shared several mutual
interests and principles.

"We hope that this meeting would set the basis for a future phase
of cooperation to rebuild Lebanon’s constitutional institutions
and restore national sovereignty as well as promote democracy,"
Gemayel said.

"We turned the page on the negative past for the best interest of
Lebanon’s youth and its future," he added.

However, when asked if the meeting was a step toward a political
alliance, Gemayel denied the fact, saying that each party adopted a
different political position, and adding that the meeting aimed to
solve controversial issues through dialogue.

Gemayel also stressed his party’s openness toward all other political
forces including the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), "but based on
practical steps."

He added that the Phalan ade some progress.

Tensions between the Tashnag and Phalange parties broke out in 2007
as they traded accusations following the Metn 2007 by-elections.

Gemayel accused the Tashnag of fraud and unacceptable practices while
Mekhitarian described Gemayel’s statements as racist.

The accusations followed the loss by Gemayel in the polls in which
the Armenian vote, dominated by supporters of the opposition-allied
Tashnag party, was seen as playing the role of kingmaker, swinging
the election in favor of FPM candidate Camille Khoury.

Gemayel demanded a rerun in Bourj Hammoud, on account of what he
called voter fraud, adding that nonresidents of the area as well as
deceased had cast votes.

BOSNIA: WEIGHING THE OPTIONS
Marko Attila Hoare

Bosnian Institute News
Tuesday, 13 October, 2009

As Bosnian leaders meet to discuss constitutional changes under US and
EU tutelage on a military base near Sarajevo, this analysis examines
the real options facing the country.

These days, even the most ardent Bosnian patriot or foreign friend
of Bosnia-Hercegovina finds it difficult to be optimistic about the
country’s future. In its current constitutional form, Bosnia is a state
that does not and cannot work. No conceivable solution appears very
good, while even bad solutions appear unachievable. Yet the status
quo appears worst of all. I have been defending Bosnia-Hercegovina
for seventeen years – ever since I campaigned on its behalf when
the war broke out there in 1992. In this article, however, I shall
weigh up Bosnia-Hercegovina’s different options and prospects as
cold-bloodedly as possible.

The Dayton Peace Accords of 1995 established a Bosnia-Hercegovina that
was more partitioned than united. For every year that it exists, the
constitutional arrangement for Bosnia established by Dayton brings
Bosnia another step closer to full and complete partition. Every
year, Republika Srpska further consolidates itself as a de facto
independent state; the Office of the High Representative declines in
power and authority; the international community’s will and ability
to coerce the Republika Srpska are that much weaker; the already dim
prospect of Bosniaks and Croats returning to Republika Srpska recedes
further; and the share of the Bosnian population that can remember
the unified, multinational country that existed before 1992 becomes
smaller. Despite apparent steps toward reintegration taken while
the Office of the High Representative was headed by the energetic
and determined Paddy Ashdown, subsequent high representatives have
lacked either the will or the international support to continue down
Ashdown’s path, with the result that Bosnia has further unravelled in
recent years. However monstrous the injustice that Bosnian partition
would represent, with every year that passes, the injustice is
further forgotten by the world and full partition – like death –
draws nearer. We need only look at the other injustices that have
become realities on the ground: the three-way partition of Macedonia
in 1912-13; the dispossession of the Armenian population of Anatolia;
the dispossession of the Palestinian population of present-day Israel –
these are realities on the ground. The partition of Bosnia is steadily
becoming as irreversible as the partition of Macedonia.

Consequently, the best strategy for Bosnian Serb nationalists who
want to achieve an independent Republika Srpska is simply to continue
the existing constitutional arrangement while quietly chipping away
at Bosnia from within. Ironically, however, the present arrangement
may serve the interests of the Bosnian Serb political classes at the
present time better than a full partition. A unified, homogenous Serb
nation embracing the Serb populations on both sides of the River Drina
is a myth; the dominant historical thrust of Bosnian Serb nationalism
is toward an independent Bosnian Serb state rather than toward
annexation to Serbia. Thus, for the Bosnian Serb political classes, the
existing arrangement, whereby the Republika Srpska increasingly enjoys
complete de facto independence, may be preferable to a full partition
that would threaten them with being swallowed up by Serbia. One day,
the Serb population of the Republika Srpska may cease to support
annexation to Serbia, as the Greek population of Cyprus has ceased
to support enosis with Greece. Until then – and until international
conditions are fully favourable to the disappearance of Bosnia –
Republika Srpska’s leadership might sensibly desire to stay put.

Conversely, the best hope for supporters of a unified Bosnia
may be for Milorad Dodik’s increasingly arrogant regime to
continue and escalate its present policy of rocking the boat,
inciting Serb-nationalist passion and baiting the Bosniaks and
the international community. Eventually, we may hope, Dodik might
become sufficiently stupid actually to attempt unilateral secession
prematurely, or some other such outrage that would provide Bosnia
and the world with a legitimate pretext to overturn the Dayton order
and reintegrate Republika Srpska with the rest of the country. This
is not a wholly dim prospect, as recent antics on the part of the
leaderships of both Serbia and the Republika Srpska highlight the
continued Serb-nationalist propensity to self-destructive nationalist
confrontation. Earlier this month, Dodik issued a gratuitously
offensive denial of the Tuzla massacre of 1995. This followed hot on
the heels of Serbian president Boris Tadic’s recent act of provocation
against Bosnia, when he visited the Bosnian Serb entity without
Bosnia’s permission, to open a new school named ‘Serbia’ in Pale,
the former Bosnian Serb rebel capital outside of Sarajevo.

At this point, we should be clear about what partition would
mean. Partition might be appealing for those Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian
Croats who would be able to unite with Serbia and Croatia respectively,
exchanging their citizenship of a dysfunctional state for citizenship
of states that function. But for the Bosniaks, partition would cement
their confinement to what is effectively a ghetto comprising the two
territorial enclaves around the Sarajevo-Zenica-Tuzla triangle and
Bihac respectively. The EU’s recent extension of visa-free travel to
Serbia, following on from Croatia, thereby in practice to Bosnian
Serbs and Bosnian Croats but not to Bosnia and the Bosniaks, is
evidence that this is indeed a ghetto. An ‘independent’ Bosniak entity
comprising these enclaves would be non-viable, while its embittered
and demoralised population would fall under the influence of the most
reactionary form of conservative Islamic politics. Bosniaks would be
fully justified in choosing war before accepting such a grim fate.

A territorially fairer form of partition – which one or two of my own
Bosniak correspondents have suggested to me – would envisage both
Republika Srpska and the Bosnian Croats giving up territory to the
Bosniaks in exchange for the right to secede, resulting in a separate
Bosniak entity comprising somewhat less than half of Bosnia, with
roughly a third going to the Serbs and a fifth to the Croats. This
would represent a great injustice to the Serb and Croat inhabitants
of the transferred areas, who would suddenly find themselves ethnic
minorities in a Bosniak national state. The Republika Srpska, at
least, would find such a solution unacceptable, so it would have to
be imposed unilaterally – involving, in effect, a new war and ethnic
cleansing. This is not something that twentieth-century Europe can
sanction.

Any form of outright partition, furthermore, would destabilise Bosnia’s
neighbours: Serbia, Croatia and those further afield. Serbia and
Croatia have slowly and painfully democratised over the past decade,
turning their back on aggression and expansionism. In Serbia,
in particular, the struggle between pro-European reformists and
aggressive nationalists is far from over. The acquisition of new
irredentas would mark a huge setback for this process: the newly
expanded states would be unstable as they struggled to integrate the
new populations; their party systems would be further fragmented; the
expansionist nationalists would be vindicated and revived. Serbia,
in particular, would be encouraged by such an annexation to pursue
further expansionist goals – possibly against fragile Macedonia or
even NATO-member Croatia. Ultimately, what Serbia needs to prosper
is to be kept firmly within its existing legal state borders. The
reason why Bulgaria and Romania entered the EU before Serbia is that
they were fortunate enough to have lost World War II and to have been
confined to their own borders, with no prospect of further territorial
expansion. Serbia, which came out of World War II ambiguously – neither
wholly as victor nor as vanquished – and which appeared to have some
prospects for territorial expansion in the 1990s, has paid a heavy
price. The last thing Serbia needs is to be tempted off the wagon.

The redrawing of international borders and partition of a sovereign
state would encourage those elements in the Balkans that wish to
partition Kosovo and Macedonia as well. Partitioning Bosnia outright
could open a Pandora’s box, with unforseeable consequences. Yet
as we have seen, the status quo – the Dayton system – represents
not an alternative to outright partition, but de facto partition
with the likelihood of full de jure partition at some point in the
future, when circumstances are more favourable to the Bosnian Serb
nationalists. In the meantime, the Bosniaks have the worst of both
words. Not only have they been squeezed into a ghetto and forced to
inhabit a dysfunctional state, but their energies must be expended in
permanent political conflict with Serb and Croat politicians who do
not want the state to cease being dysfunctional. The Bosnian Croats,
meanwhile, suffer as the minority party within the Bosnian Federation,
permanently squeezed by the embittered Bosniak majority. The Republika
Srpska leadership, by contrast, should feel wholly satisfied with the
existing order, which grants it all the cards except one: the right
to secede formally one day without complications. Republika Srpska’s
lack of the right to secede comprises the only strong card in the
hands of supporters of Bosnian unity, though the card is unlikely to
remain strong indefinitely.

The Western alliance should have cause to regret the rise of Republika
Srpska, which may be relied upon to undermine its interests in South
East Europe. In May, Dodik unilaterally withdrew Bosnian Serb soldiers
from Bosnia’s participation in NATO exercises in Georgia, which he then
boycotted, in a move attributed to pro-Russian sentiment. Nebojsa
Radmanovic, the Bosnian Serb member of the Bosnian presidency,
recently stated that most Bosnian Serbs oppose NATO membership,
and mooted the possibility of a referendum on NATO membership in
Republika Srpska. A de jure or de facto independent Republika Srpska
will obstruct the Balkans’ Euro-Atlantic integration and serve as a
bridgehead for Russian influence in the region.

Supporters of a unified Bosnia-Hercegovina, both inside the country
and internationally, must act now if Bosnia-Hercegovina is to be
saved. Highlighting the fact that the Dayton system is leading
inexorably toward the outright partition of Bosnia-Hercegovina,
they must campaign for an end to this system and the restoration of
a unified, functioning Bosnian state, through the reintegration of
Republika Srpska with the rest of the country. This should not involve
the entity’s outright abolition; rather, it should involve the transfer
of all meaningful power to the central government in Sarajevo, leaving
Republika Srpska a de facto administrative entity. Justification for
such a move may be found in numerous places: Dodik’s repeated calls
for Bosnia-Hercegovina’s dissolution; his continued denial of the
Srebrenica genocide, in disregard of the verdict of the internatio ts;
the Serb failure to arrest Ratko Mladic as the Dayton Accords required;
the Republika Srpska’s failure to permit the return of Bosniak and
Croat refugees. This is not a good option, but it is the least bad
of the possible options.

If they do not wish to or are unable to campaign on this platform,
Bosnia-Hercegovina’s supporters might as well give up and accept
that at some point in the future, Bosnia-Hercegovina is likely to
disappear from the map of Europe.

This article was published in Bosnian by the independent Sarajevo
weekly BH Dani, 9 October 2009, and is reproduced here from the
author’s Greater Surbiton weblog

LEON PETROSYAN ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF DYNAMIC GAMES

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
13.10.2009 15:30 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences
of Armenia Leon Petrosyan was elected the chairman of the International
Society of Dynamic Games (ISDG).

Leon Petrosyan has headed the Department of applied mathematics
– processes of development of St. Petersburg University for 35
years. Until recently he also acted as president of Russia’s office
of the International Society of dynamic games. A prominent scientist
Leon Petrosyan is the author of more than 200 scientific articles,
20 monographs. His writings have been translated and published in
the United States, Britain and China. Leon Petrosyan works closely
with the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia and the scientific
and educational institutions of Armenia

AFGHANS PREPARE FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Antoine Blua

Eurasia Insight
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL
ticles/pp101109.shtml
10/11/09

The Bamiyan Valley is nestled among green fields, ochre cliffs,
and eroded geological wonders in Afghanistan’s central highlands.

In recent history, it is best-known for the Taliban’s destruction of
the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001. The dynamiting of the two giant statues,
carved into sandstone cliffs along the ancient Silk Road in the sixth
century, sparked an international outcry.

But tourists continue to be attracted to the site’s cultural riches
and ancient ruins that remain, including the network of caves dug
into the rock face by Buddhist monks.

Another attraction is nearby Band-e Amir, a series of deep blue
lakes that became the centerpiece of Afghanistan’s first national
park earlier this year. The park is home to the ibex goat and to the
urial sheep, along with the Afghan snow finch, the only bird found
exclusively in Afghanistan.

But continued instability and violence in the country and the lack of
proper infrastructure is certainly not helping the tourism business
in Bamiyan, a remote but generally safe place.

"For foreigners, the security situation is not good in
Afghanistan. Bamiyan itself is peaceful; but, you know, there’s
no direct flights from foreign countries, so everybody must [come
through] Kabul by road," says Hiromi Yasui, the owner of Hotel Silk
Road Bamiyan.

"It’s very bumpy [and it takes] around eight-nine hours. In 2007,
we had some tour groups from Japan, America, England, but after that
the situation [got] very bad."

Yasui arrived in Afghanistan in the 1990s, taking on work as a
freelance photojournalist and as tour leader for a Japanese travel
company.

In 2002, she and her Afghan husband, with the help of a Japanese
investor, purchased a plot of land in the central city of Bamiyan to
build a hotel that is now in its second year of business.

With rooms costing at least $100 a night, Hotel Silk Road Bamiyan
attracts mainly foreigners working in Afghanistan, including workers
for nongovernmental organizations, diplomats, and United Nations
officials.

Returning To Bamiyan

During the 1960s and 1970s, Afghanistan was a destination for foreign
visitors ranging from archaeologists and ethnographers to Western
youth looking for adventure.

Three decades of fighting slowed the inflow to a virtual halt, but
the situation is showing some signs of life.

The Bamiyan central highlands today draw thousands of Afghan tourists
annually (as well as foreigners living and working in the country). And
the nonprofit Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) is implementing a
program to help local people to welcome foreign visitors back.

The Bamiyan Ecotourism Program, funded by the government of New
Zealand, got under way this year. It involves the preparation
of brochures and a website, as well as the training of local
guides. Training will also help establish private guesthouses and
upgrade the quality of services at hotels and restaurants.

A tourist information office has also been established, which,
in cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), organized a workshop in late
September on the protection of monuments and the promotion of tourism
in the region.

Bamiyan Governor Habiba Sarabi attended the launching ceremony of
the workshop, in which 35 officials, elders, and UN representatives
participated.

"If we keep our monuments, tourism could develop and it will be very
valuable for the next generations. Sarabi told RFE/RL’s Radio Free
Afghanistan.

"And it is very important that the local residents, police, and all
other administration understand the importance of tourism and try
preserve historical monuments."

The Bamiyan Valley was added to UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in
Danger in 2003.

Rediscovering Afghanistan

Besides Bamiyan, AKDN runs a similar eco-tourism program in the remote,
peaceful northeastern Wakhan Corridor, sandwiched between Pakistan,
China, and Tajikistan.

Adventurous travelers can explore the valley of the upper Amu Darya
River, surrounded by some of the highest mountains of the Hindu Kush,
by vehicle, by horse, by yak, or by foot. They can camp in yurts in
the high summer pastures of Kyrgyz nomads.

Getting to Wakhan takes more than three days and involves a
propeller-plane flight from Kabul, a trip by vehicle, and trekking
by pony over a mountain pass.

Visitors can also get to the valley via Ishkashim, a border crossing
from Tajikistan’s eastern Gorno-Badakhshan region.

The AKDN, which supports an eco-tourism program in the Tajik Pamirs,
hopes that tourists visiting Tajikistan will make an excursion into
Afghanistan.

Areas that have generally remained safe are feeling the violence
spreading across Afghanistan. In recent months, Taliban militants
have been increasingly active on Bamiyan’s provincial borders, but
Yasui remains optimistic.

"This is like a gamble. In the future, peace will come to Afghanistan
and Bamiyan [will become] a very, very touristic place," she says.

"Before the war, every day 2,000 or 3,000 tourists came to Bamiyan. So
we are dreaming that, in the future, who wants to come, come[s] again."

Editor’s Note: RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan contributed to this
report.

SERZH SARGSYAN WILL EAT KEBAB AND CHESTNUTS IN BURSA

Tert.am
13:45 13.10.09

Today the main news in the Turkish newspapers was devoted to Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan’s coming visit to Bursa. As reported by
Turkish paper Sabah today, preparations have already begun in the
town. Officials have even decided that Sargsyan will be served kebab
and chestnuts in Bursa.

Turkish officials stated once more that the police will strengthen
security measures and confirmed that Turkish fans will not be allowed
to bring flags of other countries into the stadium grounds: referring,
of course, to the Azerbaijani flag.

As reported by Tert.am’s correspondent from Bursa, the town is already
preparing for the match. During the game, 1,500 police officers inside
the stadium alone will be on duty.

RUSSIA WELCOMES, WHILE AZERBAIJAN DISSATISFIED

Aysor.am
October 12, 2009

As it was expected Azerbaijan performs sharply negative reaction to
signed Armenian-Turkish protocols, confirms Russian MK newspaper.

"To normalise ties between Armenia and Turkey ahead of withdrawal of
Armenian armed forces from occupied Azerbaijani territory opposes our
interests and overshadows the spirit of brotherly relations between
Azerbaijan and Turkey," quotes MK statement made by Azerbaijan’s
Foreign Ministry.

In his turn, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who attended
the sighing ceremony in Zurich, welcomed this establishment:

"Russia is ready to support this process especially in sphere of energy
and transport communications. Inter UES Company participates in supply
of electricity from Armenia to Turkey. Russia’s Railways is ready
to provide transit between the two countries through border-crossing
Dogukapi-Ahuryan," quotes MK.

Recall that late on October 10 Armenian and Turkish foreign
ministers set to sign protocols in Zurich to normalise ties and seek
reconciliation.

IMF FORECASTS 15% GDP FALL IN ARMENIA IN 2009

ArmInfo
2009-10-12 15:19:00

ArmInfo. According to assessments of specialists of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), GDP fall in Armenia in 2009 will make up
about 15%, IMF Executive Director Ambroise Fayolle said at today’s
press-conference in Yerevan.

According to him, the global economic crisis ‘heavily stroke at
Armenia’s economy’. He also said the foreign receipts and tax revenues
reduced and weakened the balance of payments and the state financing
system. Such development of events created additional difficulties for
Armenia’s population. He expressed satisfaction with the authorities’
work in crisis conditions. ‘The authorities decided not to reduce
the budget expenditures and, at the same time, increase the expenses
for development of the infrastructure due to attraction of foreign
borrowings, and we agree to such a policy’, Fayolle said. He added
that in March, IMF approved extension of credits to Armenia to the
sum of $540 mln to overcome the crisis consequences, and it increased
financing in June to $823 mln.

IMF representative also said that Armenia’s financial system is still
stable, and inflation meets the scheduled 4% +1,5% target level.

According to him, a group of IMF specialists have arrived in Armenia
(six executive officers of IMF) to get acquainted with the country’s
economic situation and discuss the ways pout of the crisis, together
with the authorities.

FRANK-WALTER STEINMEIER: ARMENIA AND TURKEY OPEN NEW CHAPTER OF RELATIONS

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
12.10.2009 12:56 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter
Steinmeier welcomed rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia.

"Turkey and Armenia opened a new chapter of relations. I welcome
this courageous step, it deserves our respect and acknowledgment. The
agreements offer prospects for good-neighborly relations on the basis
of communication and confidence. The course the countries took up
will contribute to security, stability and cooperation in the entire
Caucasus region. Now, soonest ratification and implementation of
the Protocols is needed. We call on all political forces in Turkey
and Armenia to use the moment to normalize relations," he said in
a statement.

PRESS RELEASE
ChinaHAY
Skyline Commercial Center #1201-12F
71-77 Wing Lok Street
Sheung Wan
Hong Kong
Tel.: +852.6793.6410
Email: [email protected]
Web:

October 9, 2009

Statement by the Armenian Community of China on the Proposed Protocol
Between Armenia and Turkey: Top Two Questions Everyone Should Ask and
Why the Protocol Should Not Become Law

On behalf of the 200 some Armenian families of China, we would like to
issue this statement of our views on the proposed Protocol between
Armenia and Turkey. Much has already been stated about the Protocol in
well thought out articles, statements and commentary issued by many
political and national organizations, journalists and private citizens.
Rather than re-stating what has already been said, we would like to set
forth below certain comments that do not appear to have previously
entered the public forum on the Protocol and each independently support
our position that the Protocol should not become law.

1. Is Armenia and Serge Sarkisian Surrendering to the Nazi
French Occupation Government a Week Before D Day?

When the United States upholds President Obama’s promise to withdraw
from Iraq and a conflict longer and more expensive than World War II,
the autonomous Kurdistan created by the United States in Northern Iraq
is likely to secede from Iraq just as the provinces of Serbia and
Croatia seceded from the former Yugoslavia.

The more than 50 million Kurds living in Eastern Turkey, Iraq and
elsewhere comprise the world’s largest group of people without a nation.
For the first time in modern history, they have self-rule and a rule
making parliament in elections sanctioned by the United States, United
Kingdom and other nations supporting the Iraqi government. Autonomous
Kurdistan in Iraq is allowed to negotiate or approve certain oil deals
for Kurdistan. When and if Kurdistan is independent, the frightening
question for Turkey will be how much of the Kurdish provinces of Turkey
comprising Kars, Ardahan, Van and much of Eastern Turkey, including
Mount Ararat, will be annexed to Kurdistan.

With the United States now over debt-burdened and debating on whether to
support and pay for a continuing occupation of Iraq, and the President
trying to make good on his promise to withdraw from Iraq, Kurdistan and
the possible beginning of the dismemberment of Turkey could begin within
the next 12 – 36 months.

With Kurdistan being on the verge of being created, why would one
negotiate, acknowledge and cede Armenian claims to Kars, Ardahan, Van
and Ararat when Turkey may not even control those lands at the end of
this decade? Surrendering or ceding the claims now may seem about as
prudent as a French town surrendering to the Nazi French occupation
government a week before the Allies invaded Europe in Normandy to help
liberate France and the rest of Europe.

In summary, no, we do not think that the Protocol should become law or
that the Turkish border and Armenian claims for the restoration of lands
in Eastern Turkey should be ceded to Turkey until the next period of
history passes and we find out whether Kurdistan becomes independent as
the United States withdraws from Iraq, which all observers and
principals expect to happen within the next 12 – 36 months. At a
minimum, we have to keep in mind that the current American President,
who distinguished himself from his political competitors by stating that
he was against the War in Iraq and for a rapid withdrawal, does not
expect to go to the American electorate and ask for re-election in 3
years with what will be another 5,000 dead American soldiers and another
US $700 billion spent on the Iraq war. To the extent the Protocol
relinquishes claims to one square meter of claims to Armenian lands in
Eastern Turkey before it becomes clear whether there will be an
independent Kurdistan and whether its creation de-stablizes and annexes
Eastern Turkey, the Protocol is flawed and should not become law.

2. Does Serge Sarkisian Remember the 1972 Olympic Gold Medal
Game Between the United States and the Soviet Union?

In the 1972 Olympic gold medal game between the United States and Soviet
Union, America’s Doug Collins sank two free throws with 3 seconds on the
clock to put the United States ahead 50 – 49 at the end of the game. At
that moment, the Soviet coaches charged the scorers’ table saying that
they called a timeout at the point of the shot and play should have been
stopped. The officials decided to restart play with 3 seconds remaining
on the clock. However, when play resumed, the clock had not been reset.
At the moment it became clear that the Soviets could not score in the
remaining 3 seconds, the officials again sounded the buzzer to give the
Soviets a third chance to win the game. On each of these first two
times the buzzer was sounded, the American players stormed the court
with tears of joy as they believed that they won. When the clock was
restarted to replay the last 3 seconds and the Soviets had their third
opportunity to win the game and gold medal, the Soviets made their
inbound pass from the opposite side of the court and scored, handing the
Americans its first and only loss in Olympic basketball history.

One of the many points about the Protocol that is disturbing is that
Serge Sarkisian is agreeing to discuss the legitimacy of the Armenian
Genocide again with Turkey. We note three of the more significant
findings or legal conclusions on whether the events of 1915 comprised
genocide or crimes against humanity below:

(a) in 2003, the U.S. State Department funded and sponsored the
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. The Commission purchased a
legal opinion issued by the International Center for Transitional
Justice. The opinion was that the facts of the Armenian massacres of
1915 "viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the
elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the [1948 Genocide
Convention]";

(b) in 1984, the Permanent People’s Tribunal in Europe
concluded after deliberation that the Armenian massacres of 1915
comprised genocide; and

(c) in the 1920s, a German court exonerated Soghomon Telerian
because, in short, Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Minister of the Interior,
committed crimes against humanity.

We are concerned that, like the Soviets and their sympathetic
Soviet-block officials in 1972, it is the intention of the Turks to
replay and litigate the issue of whether the events of 1915 comprise
genocide again-and-again until they find the one finder of fact, or
biased set of rules and procedures, that enable a conclusion to be
reached that the events of 1915 comprise nothing more than an internal
disturbance of a few hundred citizens.

On this point we note that the Protocol requires that there be "an
impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives to
define existing problems". We are concerned that there will either be
no due process or fairness in such an examination of the events of 1915,
or that the Turks, now tired of losing every objective examination of
the events of 1915, might simply require there be a vote of participants
in this scientific examination. We note that in the Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission, the Armenians were outnumbered by Turks, 4-5.
So, if there had been a simple vote with majority ruling, the Commission
would have likely ruled that the events of 1915 did not comprise
genocide. For this reason, we believe that the Protocol is flawed and
should not become law.

Thus, no, we do not believe that the Protocol should become law unless
the Protocol or any future protocol contains a provision whereby the
Turkish government expresses acknowledgment for the Genocide or
eliminates any indirect references to it entirely.

* * *

We can be contacted for further queries or comments on this topic.

The Armenian Community of China

UEFA.com

Advocaat begins Belgium reign with victory
Saturday 10 October 2009

Match report by Berend Scholten from Stade Roi Baudouin

Dick Advocaat made a winning start as Belgium coach as two Emile
Mpenza goals sent Turkey to defeat on the night their 2010 FIFA World
Cup hopes ended.

Turkey out
Turkey’s elimination was confirmed before kick-off as
Bosnia-Herzegovina clinched second place in Group 5 with a 2-0 victory
in Estonia. And they lost by that scoreline in Belgium’s first
competitive win since beating Armenia by the same scoreline here
almost exactly a year ago.

Belgium ahead
Advocaat, whose appointment was brought forward three months so he
could oversee Belgium’s last qualifiers, gave Logan Bailly his senior
debut in goal and appointed defender Thomas Vermaelen the new
captain. Bailly was quickly tested by a shot from Ceyhun Eri?Å?, but
on eight minutes Belgium were ahead, Mpenza sent through by Roland
Lamah and confidently striking past Volkan Demirel. Demirel did punch
away a Kevin Mirallas effort and the Turkey goalkeeper was also equal
to another run from Mpzena. The visitors threatened too, Bailly
stopping Nihat Kahveci’s header.

Victory secure
The tempo dropped in the second half and although Demirel saved with
his feet from Daniel Van Buyten, he was beaten again by Mpenza with
six minutes left. Van Buyen played the ball from deep to Eden Hazard,
who touched on to send Mpenza clear to double the lead. Having ended a
run of five straight qualifying defeats, fourth-placed Belgium go to
Estonia on Wednesday for their final pool game while Turkey, in third,
play Armenia.

?©uefa.com 1998-2009. All rights reserved.