Author: Tatoyan Vazgen

OSKANIAN MEETS IRANIAN LEADERS
By Emil Danielyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Dec 18 2006

Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and other top Iranian officials on Sunday during a one-day visit
to Tehran which officials said focused on bilateral relations and
regional security.

Official Armenian and Iranian sources reported few details of the
talks, citing only the two sides as reaffirming their commitment to
strengthening political and economic ties between the two neighboring
states.

According to the official IRNA news agency, Ahmadinejad said those ties
"contribute to peace and security in the region," adding that "all
available resources should be exploited to realize their potential."

Oskanian, according to the Foreign Ministry in Yerevan, stressed the
importance of the "special relationship" binding Armenia and Iran,
saying that it is based on their "centuries-old friendship and
cultural-historical similarities."

A ministry statement said he discussed a "broad range of bilateral
and regional issues," including the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, at a separate meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki. The two men praised the ongoing construction of
a pipeline that will supply Armenia with Iranian natural gas and a
third transmission line that will link the two countries’ power grids,
the statement said.

Another Iranian news agency, Fars, reported in that regard that
Ahmadinejad "stressed the need to speed up" work on the pipeline’s
first Armenian section which is financed from a $35 million Iranian
loan.

Armenian officials said earlier that it will be complete by December
20. But speaking to journalists after talks with Oskanian, Mottaki
was reported to say that the 40-kilometer section will not come on
stream before next March.

It is not clear if the two ministers discussed the Armenian
government’s plans to incorporate the pipeline into a
Russian-controlled company that runs Armenia’s gas distribution
network. Iranian diplomats in Yerevan have said that this can not
happen without Tehran’s consent.

Oskanian also met with Iranian parliament speaker Gholamali Haddad
Adel and Ali Larijani, a top security official in charge of the
Islamic Republic’s controversial nuclear program criticized by
the West. Larijani was reported to brief Oskanian on "the latest
developments relating to Iran’s nuclear program."

"At Ali Larijani’s request, Minister Oskanian presented the current
phase of negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict," the statement
said.

Azad Hye
December 15, 2006

In 1994 the Parochial system was introduced into the life of the Armenians
residing in Kuwait and the Arab Gulf countries. Since then three consecutive
elections took place (1994, 1998, 2002). Time has come for the fourth
elections. Besides our best wishes we would like to take the opportunity to
point out to the following:

– It is expected that, after having three previous experiences, the
forthcoming elections would go ahead smoothly enough. Thus we expect that
the election date would be announced very soon and proper circular would be
sent to the Armenians. On the other hand enough time should be given to the
candidates to orient themselves and take this task seriously. The collection
of the national taxes should not be left to the last one or two weeks, etc.
It is recommended to take advantage of this occasion to organize a series of
informative activities emphasizing the importance of the participation in
the public life and highlighting the meaning of the elections and their
influence in our life.

– It is recommended that the candidates provide a written accord regarding
the policies they intend to follow in the coming period (in case they are
elected), making it clear, in the first place, why they want to be elected.
The electors have the right to know about the priorities of the candidates,
their plans and concerns. It would be a good idea if candidates publicize
their pre-election declarations at least two weeks in advance.

– The official parochial report on the activities of the last four years
should be availed to the electors. It is not logical to ask the public to
take part in the elections if the majority is not aware about what has been
going on in the last four years. The elector should have an idea about the
existing difficulties, how effective were the implemented plans, what parts
were not materialized, what ideas were suggested in the course of action.
Only with such an approach an elector would really know the value of his
vote and will understand that he is part of a larger community.

– Meeting people: Of course it is a very healthy phenomenon to do the
elections, but officials should meet with the public not only during the
election time. The UAE Armenian community is getting larger and larger every
day. There are several hundred newly arrived Armenians who live scattered in
many cities in the Emirates without having any record about them. It is a
great challenge to find them and communicate with them. But why not accept
the challenge and proceed to do what is necessary to establish contact with
them, using all advanced technology in this context? Of course this step
means to alter the type and nature of the activities that we are used to
offer to the audience. Not doing so, the newly added members will feel that
they are wasting their time.

– It is very much appreciated if an Armenian networking event takes place at
least once a month in any suitable location in the city. We should invite
all the members of the community to such meetings, especially those who have
settled in the Emirates in the last few years. Our community has a different
structure than the traditionally known Armenian communities: the percentage
of the bachelor professionals (or those who live away from their families)
is big compared to the other Middle Eastern societies. Only by getting to
know each other we can achieve progress.

– The daily school: Behind the curtains there is much talk nowadays about
the school. For 25 years the weekly Armenian school served and continues to
serve the community. The new challenge is to change the school to a daily
one. What is lacking to materialize this project? Willingness! It is a fact
that establishing a school requires sacrifices, but when was the Armenian
hesitant to go ahead with opening a school, especially that the financial
means are almost secured and the number of the students is sufficient? It is
totally different thing that some of those who are occupying positions in
the Armenian community are not convinced about this step. If – in principle
– they have suspicions about the mission of the school, they should tender
their resignations. Preserving the Armenian identity was not always related
to "practical considerations". The elections will enable the emergence of
those who believe in the idea of the daily school.

– Embassy of Armenia: It is a fact that since the year 2000 the Embassy of
Armenia is operating in Abu Dhabi. Supporting an Embassy is a very noble
act. The Armenians of the UAE have assisted the Embassy from the first
moment. In about one year time the new building of the Embassy will be
completed. We must be happy for this achievement, but we should not think
about it as our direct mission. An Embassy before anything else needs
respect. For example, a new website has been recently introduced dedicated
to the monitoring of the construction of the Embassy building, but the
Ambassador was not counseled about it. Patriotism should not take the form
of show-off. Embassy – community relationships should be clear and
transparent, in order to avoid some of the bitter experiences recorded in
other communities.

– Other challenges: In the future we will refer to other issues such as how
involved are the citizens of Armenia in the community life, what are the
cooperation prospects between people of different ideological backgrounds
and sympathies in our community, what are the opportunities for propagating
the Armenian cause in the Gulf countries, etc. It is pity to confirm that we
are going to the elections without having the slightest idea about the above
mentioned issues.

See Armenian text at:
Id=621dzk41

REHABILITATING PAMUK
By Suat Kiniklioglu

Turkish Daily News
December 13, 2006 Wednesday

It first started with interviews conducted by Hadi Uluengin and then
Yasemin Congar in the U.S. Then, most of our media followed suit.

These days not a day passes by without a news piece about Pamuk.

Pamuk arriving in Turkey; Pamuk waiting for his luggage at the airport
or Pamuk leaving Turkey for Sweden. Even Pamuk paying his airport
exit tax (just like every Turkish citizen has to) became worthy of
the news. It appeared as if someone pushed on a button and asked our
media to facilitate the rehabilitation of Orhan Pamuk in Turkish public
opinion. With the exception of Hurriyet’s Oktay Eksi I could not see
any comment that exhibited some honesty about what was going on.

Regardless of how hard Turkey’s dominant media outlets try; in the
eyes of most Turks Pamuk remains suspect. That is rightly so.

Because, as Pamuk himself knows as well, his infamous comments to the
Swiss Tagesanzeiger damaged Turkey’s reputation considerably. I think
Pamuk is a very creative writer. I have read some of his books and
found them extremely good. The New Life was truly breathtaking for
me. I remained under its influence for weeks. There is no doubt that
his more recent books have helped attract more international interest
in Istanbul and Turkey. He is also very successful in conveying the
tensions felt by many Turkish intellectuals the vagaries of a dual
life between East and West. For all of these I have great respect
for the man.

Yet, since his infamous remarks there is a shadow upon him, his work
and his intellectual honesty. A shadow I most felt when he was on
CNN Turk where he in a most apologetic manner repeatedly noted that
he was "misunderstood". I could not understand what he was trying to
explain. After all, he claimed to be one of the few people in Turkey
who "dared" to say that we killed one million Armenians and thirty
thousand Kurds. I was truly perplexed. Admittedly, I would have had
more respect for him if he had dared to tell us Turks as well what
he had said to the Tagesanzeiger. Although I do not agree with him,
at least he would have had exhibited some intellectual honesty and
consistency.

I criticized Article 301 when it put the kinds of Elif Safak and
Orhan Pamuk in front of a court for what they said or wrote. To this
day, such cases remain incompatible with our democracy and constitute
embarrassing road blocks for our EU ambitions. Furthermore, we do not
need court cases or articles in the penal code to win the argument
on the Armenian issue. We will win this debate intellectually, not
through court cases. We will continue to argue that the unfortunate
events of 1915 can only be understood by putting them into a proper
context. We will provide the intellectual evidence for the case that
the losses were common during those existential days in the eastern
front of World War I. Our own intellectual honesty will undoubtedly
appreciate the tragic losses suffered by the Ottoman Armenians. We
acknowledge that Anatolia’s social fabric has yet to recover from the
relocation of them to the southern provinces of the Empire. However,
we also commemorate the losses of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman
Muslims while defending their homeland against invading Russians and
nationalist Armenians who genuinely believed they could set up an
independent Armenia just like the Serbs and Bulgarians managed to do.

What is most distasteful about Pamuk is that to this day he does
not seem to understand that his irresponsible comments did not help
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. On the contrary, they embellished the
Armenian narrative and are being effectively used by those Armenians
who believe that the only way to further their nationalist agendas is
to force Turkey to recognize what they define as "genocide". This is
what is so offensive to us Turks. To those hundreds of thousands who
have lost their loved ones in the eastern front. To those hundreds
of thousands who were pushed out from every corner of the Ottoman
Empire. To those who had to leave their lives, memories and properties
in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East. To those who were
ruthlessly cleansed in Greece, Crete, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania,
Macedonia, the Caucasus and could only find refuge in impoverished
Anatolia. True, we were not able to narrate our tragic experiences
effectively. We also failed to articulate the context and events
of 1915 in a proper manner. Yet, that does not mean we have not
experienced them.

What troubles me most is that Pamuk had no illusions about what
his words meant and how controversial they could be. Watching his
performance at the Nobel Academy he seems to have finally understood
he has no place and credibility to talk about the Armenian issue. His
repeated comments that he "belongs to Turkey" or "does not want to
talk about politics" surely reflect newly acquired wisdom. It has
dawned on him that when the dust settles he will dwell among millions
of deeply offended Turks. No wonder he wants to bring his human side
to the fore and is distancing himself from his infamous comments.

However, the damage has been done and it will be extremely difficult
for him to recover from this. Pamuk may have conquered the world
of literature but in the eyes of the Turkish nation he will remain
tainted with the shadow of his comments. In his Nobel lecture Pamuk
referred to "patiently discovering our secret wounds". While leaving
him alone with his conscience it might be best for him to recognize
the true extent of "our common wounds".

U.S. SENATE SENDS BACK HOAGLAND’S CANDIDATURE

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Dec 13 2006

WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 13, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The
U.S. Senate sent back on December 8 Richard Hoagland’s candidature
as the Ambassador to Armenia to President George Bush. As the
Armenian National Committe of America states it was done according
to the order that all the candidatures not affirmed by him before
the Congress holidays must be returned and again presented after
the holidays. The Congress will restart its work in January. Richard
Hoagland’s candidature was stopped on December 12 by New Jersey Senator
Robert Menendez after Hoagland’s refusal to obviously recognize the
Armenian Genocide.

According to the same source, President Bush has the following possible
variants to act: again to present Hoagland’s candidature in January,
to present a new candidate, to appoint Hoagland as the Ambassador
during the Congress holidays (that’s, passing round the Senate),
or simply to leave vacant the chair of the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH STARTS REFERENDUM ON CONSTITUTION

ITAR-TASS, Russia
Dec 10 2006

YEREVAN, December 10 (Itar-Tass) – Nagorno-Karabakh starts a referendum
on a Constitution of this self-proclaimed republic. A total of 278
polling stations opened at 08.00 local time in the republican capital
Stepanakert and in all Nagorno-Karabakh districts.

The only polling station outside the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh
republic (NKR) was set up in Yerevan.

Ballot papers contain only one question: "Do you agree with the
adoption of the NKR Constitution?"

Election lists contain 90,000 voters out of 137,700 people, living
in the republic, Itar-Tass learnt at the Central Commission on the
Referendum. The Constitution will be pronounced valid if at least a
third of registered voters approve it, however, no less than half of
those who go to the polls.

Observers from various countries as well as from breakaway entities
over the post-Soviet space, including Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
the Dniester republic, with which the NKR cooperates, arrived in
Stepanakert on the occasion of the referendum.

"The presence of a Constitution is one of the most important conditions
for building a law-abiding state, and opinions of all political forces
concur on this question", said NKR President Arkady Gukasyan.

"The constitutional referendum is another important stage in the
process of establishing our independent statehood and further
development of democracy in the country," claimed chairman of the
Central Commission on the Referendum Sergei Nasibyan.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has not been recognized by a single
state in the world, including Armenia which renders it military aid
and grants annually financial assistance.

Azerbaijan, in whose territory the NKR enclave is located, flatly
denies any independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh, stating its
territorial integrity.

KILLING OF ARMENIAN BOY OUTSIDE MOSCOW SOLVED – PROSECUTOR

Interfax, Russia,
Dec 8 2006

MOSCOW. Dec 8 (Interfax) – The Moscow region prosecutor’s office has
solved the murder of 15-year-old Armenian citizen Narek Kocharian in
Ivanteyevka, outside Moscow, on November 11.

Four young people, two of them teenagers, have been arrested as
suspects in the murder, a prosecutor’s office spokesman told Interfax
on Friday.

"They have been charged with conspiracy and premeditated murder,"
he said.

"APPROACHING THE LAST PHASE OF THE TALKS"
by Tamara Ovnatanjan

Source: Novoye Vremya (Yerevan), November 30, 2006, EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 6, 2006 Wednesday

RESULTS OF THE TALKS BETWEEN PRESIDENTS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN: A
VIEW FROM YEREVAN; The Azerbaijani-Armenian talks: no progress is made.

The meeting between presidents Robert Kocharjan (Armenia) and Ilham
Aliyev (Azerbaijan) took place within the framework of the CIS summit
in Minsk. The meeting did not differ from the two previous earlier
this year in terms of information on the talks. It is only possible
to make guesses over what transpired at the meeting on two comments –
by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan and Aliyev himself. What
their comments revealed inevitably leads to the conclusion that could
be drawn even before the meeting, the conclusion that the third round
of the talks failed to produce any breakthroughs.

Oskanyan appraised the outcome of the negotiations as "positive".

"Agenda of the talks was centered around the issues that have defied
a solution so far," the Armenian diplomat said referring to some
document the president had allegedly discussed. Asked to comment on
the future of the talks, Oskanyan made a reference to the forthcoming
elections (in 2007 in Armenia and 2008 in both countries). Oskanyan
said he didn’t think that the elections would disrupt the talks. "I’m
convinced that the negotiations will continue," he said.

Oskanyan’s vague optimism was supplemented by Aliyev’s unexpected
openness with the Azerbaijani media.

"Some serious talks took place. We discussed moot points. A whole
number of issues were settled. There are, however, some principal
matters on which our opinions differ, and we discussed them at the
latest meeting," Aliyev said.

The president added that negotiations within the framework of the
Prague Process had been under way for more than three years. A lot
of meetings took place. "We are approaching the final phase of the
talks," Aliyev said.

"We want the problem solved with territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
honored," Aliyev summed up Azerbaijanis’ stand. "UN resolutions must
be observed. Azerbaijan lands have to be freed from occupiers for the
return of more than 1 million Azerbaijanis. We are pleased with the
latest activities of international organizations. They also insist
on observation of the territorial integrity principle."

If anything is to be concluded from the comment, it is that
Azerbaijan’s stand has not changed. And since it is so, why the
Azerbaijani president believes that the "final phase" is approaching
is anybody’s guess. Final phases stipulate a compromise, at the
very least.

Contours of the probable compromise may be glimpsed in the latest
statement of American negotiations, Matthew Bryza, to the effect that
the negotiations are currently centered around two problems: return
of the territories forming the security belt and Nagorno-Karabakh’s
status. It is logical to assume that even if Armenia agrees to make
a concession in the matter of land, it will only do so in return for
the status concessions from Azerbaijan. What the Azerbaijani president
said, however, does not imply readiness for compromises.

"Territorial integrity should be restored, and Nagorno-Karabakh will
enjoy broad powers of an autonomy," Illarionov firmly said.

Kocharjan explained Armenia’s position during a visit to Germany a
week ago. "Try as we might, we cannot recall a single precedent where
a nation would abandon sovereignty after 15 years of enjoying it.

Nobody intends to do so in Karabakh’s case. We are talking
irreversibility of changes in people’s conscience," he said addressing
the Bertelsmann Foundation.

In any case, the negotiations in Minsk were entirely a waste of time
and effort. This time, the Azerbaijani side did without military
rhetoric always deployed both before and after previous meetings
within the framework of the Prague Process.

The mediator countries’ and particularly America’s stand on the matter
might have played its part. All these countries are convinced that the
conflict in question cannot be solved by military means. On the other
hand, other factors including economic ones could also persuade the
Azerbaijani leadership to change the concept. The Baku-based newspaper
Zerkalo even published a not exactly pro-Azerbaijani speech of Wayne
Mery at the John Hopkins University.

This expert and prominent diplomat put it bluntly: Azerbaijan couldn’t
hope to win a war launched to settle the conflict.

In any case, Official Baku decided to abandon military rhetoric for
the time being and turn to Russia. Its reasoning is apparently the
following, "If President Vladimir Putin puts Kocharjan under pressure,
then Aliyev may play ball and meet the demands from Moscow not to
help Georgia with gas and electric power." In fact, this hypothesis is
promoted by the daily Kommersant that makes references to its sources
in Azerbaijan. Kommersant even maintains that Kocharjan and Ilham
Aliyev may meet soon again in early December, in Moscow. Armenian
sources do not confirm it.

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER OSKANIAN: WE RECOGNISE THE TREATY OF KARS

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Dec 5 2006

* Armenian FM Vartan Oskanian gives exclusive interview to TNA,
Turkish daily

* Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said that Armenia doesn’t
see the "genocide issue" as a precondition to normalize relations
with Turkey, but called on his Turkish colleagues to remove all their
preconditions too.

* As a successor of the Soviet era, said Oskanian, Armenia recognizes
all treaties including the Treaty of Kars, but he claimed the Turks
are the ones violating the agreement by keeping the border closed.

* Oskanian also pointed to the historical city of Ani as a good step
for mutual cooperation and asked Turkey to open the border at least
for visitors to the city. Oskanian also told us that Orhan Pamuk’s two
most recent books are on his desk and he will start reading them soon.

Our appointment with Foreign Minister Oskanian was on the day after
our appointment with Yerevan State University students was cancelled
by the personal initiative of University Rector Aram Simonyan, so when
Oskanian brought up the Armenian press’ great interest in our visit,
I had to tell him about the cancellation too. Here’s what Armenia’s
top diplomat had to tell us during our interview in his office in
the Foreign Ministry building:

OSKANIAN: From what I see in all the newspapers, you’ve become a star
in Yerevan!

TNA: Well I doubt it, because yesterday I was supposed to meet
with journalism students at Yerevan State University but the rector
cancelled our meeting.

OSKANIAN: Why?

TNA: From what I heard, he finds my opinions a "virus" that I could
infect the students with, so he cancelled the meeting.

OSKANIAN: Well, I’m sorry to hear that and certainly that isn’t good,
and I don’t think he made the right decision.

Missed opportunities

TNA: So thank you very much for your kindness in receiving me here for
a second time, because back in 2001 I had another chance to interview
you. But I can’t say that I see much change in Turkish-Armenian
relations. What’s your view of this?

OSKANIAN: That’s a pity and it’s very unfortunate really because
we’re missing huge opportunities with every passing day. Turkey
is classically not raising any option to see those opportunities
and unfortunately doesn’t want to establish diplomatic relations
equally with all three Caucasus nations and play a more constructive
role. So that opportunity was missed. The second opportunity
has come out as closer cooperation with the European Union. At
the same time that Turkey is negotiating its EU accession, today
Turkey has the opportunity to play a role as a bridge between the
Caucasus and Europe. That opportunity is also is being missed,
but the biggest opportunity that we’re missing is the interaction
between our two peoples. Fifteen years have passed (since Armenia
declared its independence in 1991), and no interaction is seen on
the border. Our peoples don’t know each other well and old memories
are being reinforced, our focus today is the wrong focus. We’ve got
to focus on new relations, open borders, establishing diplomatic
relations and that’s what I mean by saying missed opportunities.

TNA: Recently some people in Turkey have said that the government
should seek arbitration in an international court on the issue of
the events of 1915. What do you think of this?

OSKANIAN: For us, there’s no court case, we’ll never talk about
this, because we grew up with the real evidence, our parents and
our grandparents. That living evidence of this tragedy, survival
of genocide, I’m the son of one them. So for Armenians there has
never been an issue where we ourselves have to prove this by going
to court, that this genocide happened. The question for us is to get
a political solution. Because the issue is neither historical nor
legal, it’s political. And Turkey has politicized this by pursuing
a policy of denial at the state level. So the real issue isn’t legal
but political and it’s between the governments of Turkey and Armenia.

Genocide recognition no precondition

TNA: Last week after your President Robert Kocharian visited Greek
Cyprus, I read your statement to Agence France Press saying that the
genocide issue would no longer be an obsession or dominant issue for
Turkish-Armenian relations. Could you elaborate on that?

OSKANIAN: I’ve always said and will continue to say that. Genocide
recognition isn’t a precondition. It’s an issue that’s there and
won’t go away, it’s our moral obligation to pursue recognition. But
that shouldn’t impede the normalization of our relations. As long as
the Armenians don’t say that unless Turkey recognizes the genocide we
won’t normalize our relations, Turkey shouldn’t say the reverse, that
Armenia should drop the complaint of genocide. Neither side should put
any preconditions. We pursue recognition; Turkey is pursuing policies
of denialism. I really cannot see the reason why the borders cannot
be opened, so that our people would interact. That certainly would
create more favorable conditions, so that we can address those issues
in a more constructive manner at the government level and create new
memories that certainly will create a more constructive manner.

TNA: But do you think it’s democratic to punish someone who argues
against the genocide thesis?

OSKANIAN: But is it democratic to punish those in Turkey who say the
events of 1915 are genocide?

Article 301

TNA: Do you think it’s a crime to say this in Turkey?

OSKANIAN: But the law is there, Orhan Pamuk, Hirant Dink (a
famous novelist and an ethnic Armenian writer-editor both charged
under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, TCK, for "insulting
Turkishness"), and the others. What I’m trying to say here are two
things: One, Turkey isn’t in any position to criticize the French
Parliament’s decision (in September, passing a bill criminalizing
denial of the genocide allegations), second, the French Parliament’s
decision is a reaction to the Turkish denialism. It is as simple as
that. That has come as a community request, so that the law will be
passed. But the French parliamentarians did it in reaction. If you
listened to the arguments before the vote, the main issue was your
Article 301. I was listening to the debate, and every single speaker
said it’s because there’s Article 301 in Turkey. So it’s a reaction.

Because the frustration among the Armenian people is the fact that
the events 1915 are denied. And every Armenian would say that it’s a
fact that genocide denial hurts. And it’s natural that Armenians will
react the way they were reacting. They will go to the parliaments of
the countries they’re living in and try to past these similar laws, and
some parliaments will listen to their citizens and the laws will pass.

TNA: Do you think the wording is that important, even though everyone
thinks that 1915 was a real tragedy and everyone must be sorry
for that?

OSKANIAN: No, certainly it’s, it’s important… We’ve got to call
things by their names, you can’t just devalue what happened. Because
as we speak, there are similar acts that are being committed. That
is a whole study, if you say that this is a criminal act, then there
would not have been the scholarship on genocide. It’s a convention,
it has a clear definition and it has become a science.

TNA: Even Turkish journalists are very critical of Article 301. If
it were changed or eliminated altogether, do you think it would
be positive?

OSKANIAN: You know the positive step will be when Turkish scholars
will step out, and once they are all outspoken and have no more fear
to call things by their names, we will see it. That will make for
more healthy discourse without fear of punishment between Turkish
scholars. So there will be more exchanges of ideas, more seminars,
more conferences, and Armenians will be invited too. So that taboo
will be removed when 301 is removed. I’m not saying that without
recognition the Armenians will be satisfied, but we will create
the normal conditions. We have to find a democratic environment for
this discourse.

Pamuk’s novels

TNA: Have you read any of Orhan Pamuk’s novels?

OSKANIAN: Well, actually I have "Istanbul: Memories and the City"
and "Snow" on my desk so I’m planning to read them soon.

TNA: But they haven’t been translated into Armenian, so will you be
reading them in English?

OSKA: I think they will be translated soon, but for now I’ll be
reading them in English.

TNA: When we were talking about positive steps to be taken, some in
Turkey say that the Armenian Constitution has articles referring to
your Declaration of Independence which speaks of "Western Armenia,"
meaning Turkish territories. And they also bring up how the Armenian
Republic has yet to recognize the Treaty of Kars (which defines the
Turkish Republic’s eastern borders).

OSKANIAN: The Treaty of Kars is in force as far as I’m concerned.

Because Armenia is a successor in recognizing the Soviet treaties.

And as long as any treaty hasn’t been renounced officially or replaced
by a new one, it has been in force. But the problem is that the
agreement has been violated so much by the Turkish side. If a legal
expert looks at this agreement and the way it’s been implemented,
I’m not sure if the legal experts would conclude that this is a
valid treaty. The violation is from the Turkish side, (because of)
having closed its borders with Armenia, and this is a violation of
the Treaty of Kars.

Armenian Constitution

TNA: And what of the Armenian Constitution referring to the Declaration
of Independence?

OSKANIAN: First of all let’s be correct, it’s not the Constitution,
but the Constitution makes reference to our Declaration of
Independence. The Declaration of Independence has one phrase that if
we look carefully I don’t think it reflects what you think it does.

If you read it carefully, word for word, maybe you should look at it.

It’s a general statement about our past, not necessarily a statement
about our future claims.

TNA: Earlier this year I visited Akhdamar Island in Van and had the
chance to see the perfectly renovated Armenian church there. Do you
think the Ani ruins in Kars could also be renovated through a joint
initiative? Our culture minister told me they don’t have the budget to
do this, but that the Armenians wouldn’t allocate money either because
they have their own economic difficulties, and the Armenian diaspora
wouldn’t be interested because they have other issues to deal with,
meaning their efforts to provoke world parliaments against Turkey.

OSKANIAN: Tell me if the Turkish government will agree to make Ani
a common visiting ground for Armenians and Turks. The money would
certainly come from international organizations. That would be an
ideal confidence-building measure between Armenia and Turkey, an
ideal cooperation between our two peoples. It’s a common history.

It’s on your territory; it’s been our historic capital. It can be
a common visiting ground for tourists from both sides. I’ve been
suggesting this to the Turkish governments. Open the borders, so that
at least we can visit Ani. We can simply start with no Armenians
or Turks, but with foreign visitors who carry foreign national
passports. Imagine, you have tourists from America coming to Turkey
and they can come to Ani, cross the border and go to Armenia and
vice versa is possible too. But there’s a wall there, an imaginary
wall that Turks have erected, and that’s very unfortunate. Ani can
be a symbol of our cooperation and we call on Turkey to revise its
position on this issue, but there’s been no response.

TNA: If there isn’t even agreement among the world’s leading historians
and experts on the 1915 tragedy, what was wrong with Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan’s call last year to set up a joint committee of
historians and experts to deal with the issue together?

OSKANIAN: I’ve got to be very honest with you here, we think it’s
not a genuine proposal, it’s a smokescreen for Europeans to think
that Turkey has made a positive step. Let me explain why we think
it’s a smokescreen.

Because of three reasons. One, there’s already such a commission like
many Turkish scholars, Armenians and foreign scholars have debated
the issue, they have discussed the issue and they have declared their
position. Those scholars wrote a letter to Prime Minister Erdogan
when he issued this invitation and they said: Mr. Prime Minister,
that issue has been already studied by different scholars and the
conclusions are very clear. It is a genocide, so there’s no need
for further discussion. And second, with the law within Article 301,
you can’t be serious about such recommendations. I guess that if your
scholars are on the commission, study this topic, they can’t accept
that it’s a genocide. This is what it is. You have 301, that says if
you say there’s a genocide or even discuss the issue of the events of
1915, you can be punished. It’s not compatible. Then today there’s a
vacuum between the Turkish and Armenian governments, between those
two states, because there’s no diplomatic relations. The border is
even closed. So how do you imagine creating that commission among
historians? How will they meet? Where? How will they interact? So
there are many problems to be dealt with correctly.

TNA: Do you believe that someday a Turkish government will admit that
Turks once committed genocide? If not, and if this issue remains a
stubborn obstacle freezing Turkish-Armenian relations, do you see
any way out in the future?

OSKANIAN: The way out isn’t to set preconditions before each other.

This is the way out. The rest will run in its normal course. Turkey
is willing to become an EU member so all those laws, limiting society
will be eliminated eventually, so the path towards a more healthy
discourse will be opened, even to discuss the genocide. So now the
task isn’t to put forth any preconditions. And it’s very unfortunate
that many opportunities are being missed. So that we can’t normalize
our relations.

TNA: You’ve had many face-to-face meetings with our Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, so why do you think no concrete steps have followed?

OSKANIAN: We started very well with him but then things backtracked
because of the preconditions. Karabakh, genocide and the rest of it.

Once Turkey understands that its strategic interests are more
important than their narrow ethnic interests, I believe things will
change. Today unfortunately Turkey is being guided by Azerbaijan’s
demands, by their Azerbaijani brothers’ narrow ethnic interest,s but
Turks don’t understand that there are broader interests, regional
interests that are good for Turkey, good for the region and good for
Europe. Turkey uses these opportunities to become a bridge between
East and West as it always claimed to be. Between the East and West,
between the Caucasus and Europe.

TNA: The last time I was here I came across a long line in front of
the American Embassy and I learned that every day dozens of families
are leaving Armenia. Now, coming back here five years later I asked
about the situation, but some people joked that there aren’t many
people left in Armenia so there aren’t any lines. How do you see the
future of your country?

OSKANIAN: I’m very optimistic about Armenia’s future and that the
future can be achieved much quicker if we have normal ties with Turkey
and Azerbaijan.

TNA: Would you also like to say some words about Nagorno- Karabakh
and why the UN resolutions on it haven’t been implemented by your
government?

OSKANIAN: The UN resolutions are absolutely unhelpful. First there’s
no UN resolution yet and if it happens I believe it will hurt the
process. But if you mean the Security Council resolutions, which put
obligations on both sides, I believe that Armenia has done much more
on behalf of itself, but I can’t say the same for the Azerbaijanis.

TNA: So do you have any message to the man on the street in Turkey?

OSKANIAN: We have to change this status quo, we have to normalize
our relations without any preconditions.

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT BANK RATES HIGH PRIVATIZATION IN ARMENIA

Panorama.am
14:35 05/12/06

"European Development Bank has rated 4 out of maximum 5 points the
privatization implemented in Armenia," Karine Kirakosyan, state
property management department head affiliated to the government,
said at the National Assembly today.

The parliament discussed amendments in the bill on program
2006-2007 on privatization of state property today. According to
government submitted draft, several economic entities are proposed
for privatization among them Hrazdan Complex, Bagavan and Laser
Techniques. Two other companies are suggested to be excluded from
the list on privatization.

The committee on finance and crediting, budget and economic issues has
given a positive assessment to the bill. Hermine Naghdalyan, member
of Armenian Republican Party (HHK) also encouraged the deputies to
vote for.

Aram Sargsyan from Justice Block said it is "imprudent" to include
the mentioned companies in the list of privatization. Kirakosyan
reassured that only shares will be sold.

Documenting Truth: An Interview with Carla Garapedian
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
December 2, 2006

The LA Times has described film director Carla Garapedian’s work as
"documenting truth in dangerous places." After documenting truth in
different parts of the world, Garapedian has returned to her roots, and
explores the continued denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey and its
allies in "Screamers," a documentary that will premiere in Los Angeles on
Dec. 8.

"Screamers" tells of how the world’s major powers continually turned away
when genocide was being committed, whether in the Ottoman Empire, Rwanda or
Darfur. Multiple platinum selling rock band System of a Down partners with
Garapedian and producer Peter McAlevey to send a powerful message through
the band’s music and activism. Also featured in the documentary are Pulitzer
Prize winning scholar Samantha Power, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and
Genocide survivors.

Garapedian earned her Ph.D. in international relations from the London
School of Economics. After working as a correspondent for NBC, she served as
a director and anchor at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Her
documentaries include "Lifting the Veil," "Children of the Secret State,"
"Iran Undercover," and "My Friend the Mercenary."

I talked to her by phone from Watertown, Mass., on Wednesday, Nov. 29.

A.W.-You have filmed various documentaries on crimes against humanity and
human rights abuses in Chechnya, North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan. Your
most recent documentary "Screamers" tackles the issue of the Armenian
Genocide. For the first time, it seems, you travel to the past, and explore
how the destruction of the Armenians in 1915 remains a pressing issue today.
Tell us about this journey.

C.G.-Yes it’s certainly the first time that I tackled a historical subject.
In fact, I really did not want to do it to begin with because there had been
some very good documentaries made about the Armenian Genocide and I didn’t
know how I was going to add any value. In fact, I worked on a couple of such
documentaries by the acclaimed filmmaker Michael Hagopian ["Voices from the
lake" and "Germany and the Secret Genocide"].

When I talked to [System of a Down lead vocalist] Serj Tankian initially, he
said that what interests him is the politics of denial and doing a
documentary that would intersect with the band’s work. Eventually, we made a
political film, and that was something I was more familiar with. In turn,
the BBC was interested in how something that happened in history had become
current politics. There was interest in Turkey’s bid to join the EU, and in
that context, the issue of the Armenian Genocide was being raised in
Turkey-by the likes of novelist Orhan Pamuk-and in Europe. Also, System of a
Down (SOAD) was an interesting phenomenon for the BBC because the band had a
worldwide following and young people were becoming aware about the Armenian
Genocide through the band. There was also the fact that the issue of the
Genocide was still being debated in the U.S. and there was this scandal
surrounding [former Speaker of the House] Dennis Hastert [over his refusal
to bring the Genocide Resolution to the floor]. For all these reasons, the
BBC gave me the initial green light to make the film and I was lucky to have
that.

A.W.-Most of your previous work also deals with crimes against humanity and
human rights violations. Was your Armenian background a catalyst for that?

C.G.-My family was always involved in community events as I was growing up
here in LA. They had a very strong sense of being Armenians in America. So I
grew up with the feeling that our genocide was not being recognized and it
motivated me to look at other peoples’ suffering-war crimes in Chechnya that
were not recognized as war crimes, for instance. I also did a film about
North Korea ["Children of the Secret State"] in a time when America was
trying to contain North Korea’s nuclear issue and not talk about the human
rights violations there. As an Armenian, these issues resonated with me;
these people were victims and their voices were not being heard. Looking
back, I have been motivated by a sense of injustice and it made me want to
help other people get their story out.

A.W.-Talk about how you chose the title of your new documentary.

C.G.-Samantha Power uses the term "screamers" in her Pulitzer Prize winning
book [A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide] when referring
to people who speak up when genocide is taking place. In turn, Serj told me
that when the band first started, major label people approached him and
said, "You guys are really talented, but if you keep screaming and growling
the way you do, you probably won’t get signed by a major label." Serj
thanked them for their advice and kept doing what they were doing. Later on,
when I was interviewing him, Serj told me that in politics, too, we should
all be screamers. That’s how the title of the film came about.

A.W.-When I talk to genocide scholars, I often ask them whether we really
ever mean it when we say "Never Again." What do you think?

C.G.-We don’t mean "Never Again." What I try to do is identify that
hypocrisy because by identifying it we can then move on to say, "OK, so we
don’t mean it, and how does that reflect on us and what we want to achieve
in our foreign policy?" Maybe our policy is always non-intervention, maybe
it is always about how we perceive our national security interests. And in
genocide, what happens is that leaders think intervention is not worth it. I
think that part of the answer is how you define what your national interests
are. I think our national interest should be stopping genocide in the world.
Let’s just say that you do not define intervention by morality or the right
thing to do, but by national security. I think it is in our national
security to stop genocide wherever it’s happening, because it creates
pockets of hate, violence and vengeance, and that backfires. How can we live
peacefully in this world while we allow the most awful thing civilization
has ever known to occur?

I truly believe that genocide is an idea, a belief. And we can change
beliefs. It is like slavery. In the past, we believed that slavery was
perfectly all right and now we know better. We used to believe that it was
OK to make children work in mines and we don’t believe that anymore. If
there are enough people who are indignant and morally outraged about
genocide, they will do something about it, too.

People do get involved when awareness is created. When the tsunami happened
in Indonesia, people here in America donated millions of dollars to help the
victims, sometimes without even knowing where that place was. They thought,
"That could happen to me. I could be sitting in my home and suddenly this
tidal wave comes and takes my whole family away."

A.W.-Television and the media had a role in that, in the sense that people
thought "These are real people just like us" and the same is true in the
case of genocide.

C.G.-Of course, in the case of the Armenian Genocide, there were many
missionaries and diplomats from different countries of the world, which is
why it was very well documented. What makes it hard to tell the story is
that we have the still pictures, but not the moving pictures. I do think
people would feel differently if we had the kind of pictures that we have
for the Holocaust. Yes, television is critical. A friend of mine, a
photographer who was in Sudan, was telling me how difficult it is to get to
places where the atrocities are taking place, and that when you get to the
burnt villages, the atrocities have already happened, so you see the
aftermath but you don’t see it when it’s happening. But still the images are
powerful enough to move people.

A.W.-Let’s talk about the experience of working with SOAD.

C.G.-When I first saw them perform-jumping around and screaming-I was a
little intimidated. When I first heard their music I thought, "Oh my God,
how am I going to work with them?" I was turning the volume down when they
screamed. And when I heard Serj sing the beautiful melodic parts of the
songs, I would then turn the volume up again-there’s an Armenian sound in
their music here. The more I listened to it the more I thought, "I can do
something with this." Now I listen to their music and I don’t know what was
I thinking at first. I didn’t understand it back then. The more I listened,
the more I got used to it.

So at first I was intimidated. Then I was worried about what happens when
one is around a rock group. Am I going to be able to take all these fans,
all these groupies? But they [SOAD] are nice Armenian boys, and I’m a nice
Armenian girl [laughs], so they knew that they had to treat me like a
relative. They tried to be very helpful to me and they knew that I was a
little bit intimidated by the experience of being around them so they tried
to "protect" me.

They are very nice people, and humble, and they haven’t been spoiled by
success at all. The thing that surprised me about them most was that they
are pure musicians. They are not into the publicity or selling the music.
They are very much into the music, and try to be the best musicians they
can, and that surprised me. I used to think that rock musicians were these
kind of crazy, drugged out guys who don’t care and go on stage and pluck a
few notes on the guitar and wonder off. These guys are not like that at all.
They are serious musicians. They put everything into their concert and they
totally exhaust themselves. So I was impressed by that. Working with them
was a very positive experience and I feel changed by it. I will never again
be judgmental about rock bands and musicians. I’m not saying they’re all
like that but I realized I was being judgmental.

I was also being judgmental about the young generation. I thought they only
cared about material things-their clothes, getting the most expensive tennis
shoes, and whether they are going to get the best jobs. The fans I met were
just the opposite. They do care about what is happening in the world, and
they do want to make a difference.

Now, I even understand some of the head banging. It’s kind of a tribal
thing. They get together and they have a sense of community and they also
feel like they are rebelling.

A.W.-What are your plans for the documentary?

C.G.-The first showing of the documentary will be on Dec. 8 in LA-home of
the band. Starting in January, the film will be shown in New York, Boston,
Chicago and Washington. We hope every Armenian shows up and brings a friend,
so that we have the core audience we need to send the message out. In recent
years, more people are going to the movie theatres to see documentaries, and
we are riding on that wave. Watching "Screamers" is also a sort of
entertainment. The people who watch it in the theatres will come out feeling
that they have been to a movie and not just a documentary that they may have
seen on TV. The reason we are having these theatrical screenings is to raise
political awareness. We wanted to do these screenings because the media will
cover it when it’s in the theatres.