ERDOGAN SAYS RECOGNITION OF GENOCIDE BY TURKEY A ‘DREAM’
PanARMENIAN.Net
06.09.2006 15:11 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ At a joint press conference conducted after a
meeting with the Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, referring
to the call of the European Parliament to recognize the Armenian
Genocide, Erdogan said that for the implementation of the decisions
of the Council of Europe the recognition of the Armenian genocide by
Turkey is not necessary, it is just a dream, reported Zaman.
TURKEY MUST MEET EU DEMANDS OR RISK HALT OF TALKS: EU LAWMAKERS
Playfuls.com, Romania
Aug 5 2006
The European Union will put the brakes on accession talks with Turkey
if the bloc’s demands on faster reforms and normalization of ties
with Cyprus are not met, a key European lawmaker said Tuesday.
"We hope and expect that Turkey will do now what it failed to do
in the last two years," said Camiel Eurlings, a Dutch conservative
member of the EU Parliament whose report on Turkey was adopted late
Monday by the assembly’s foreign affairs committee.
"Turkey must re-start reforms vigorously or otherwise risk a halt of
negotiations," said Eurlings in remarks to Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
Eurlings’ report warns Turkey once again that current membership
talks with Turkey are "open-ended" and that Ankara’s entry into the
25-nation club is by no means guaranteed.
It says that as a condition for EU membership, Turkey must acknowledge
the genocide against Armenians in World War I.
It also slams Ankara on a deteriorating human rights record and
slow reforms.
"It is important that the reforms be given impetus from within the
country by the authorities themselves and are not merely the result
of pressure from outside Turkey," EU lawmakers stressed.
Referring to growing public unease at the EU’s eastward expansion,
the report highlights that the bloc’s "capacity to absorb Turkey while
maintaining the momentum of integration is an important consideration."
EU lawmakers in the past have never vetoed any accession bid.
However, the parliament’s biggest and most influential conservative
group favours a so-called "privileged partnership" with Turkey.
The report will be submmitted for vote to a plenary session of the
European Parliament at the end of September.
Parliamentarians’ concerns are also likely to be raised when
chief Turkish EU negotiator Ali Babacan meets with EU enlargement
commissioner Olli Rehn on Wednesday.
Rehn has warned of a "train crash" in Turkey’s EU negotiations when
he delivers a crucial progress report scheduled for October 24.
The EU last week told Turkey that its continued refusal to open
harbours and airports to ships and planes from EU member Cyprus could
cause a crisis in the talks.
The EU has often told Turkey that if it maintains the current ban on
Cyprus, Ankara’s EU membership negotiations regarding crucial single
market issues could be derailed.
Turkey began negotiations aimed at EU membership last year. Talks
are expected to take up to 15 years.
MONTH OF INTERNET-TECHNOLOGIES TO BE HELD IN ARMENIA IN SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Sept 4 2006
YEREVAN, September 4. /ARKA/. A month of Internet-Technologies will
be held in Armenia in September-October, Director of the Incubator
of Enterprises Fund (IEF) Bagrat Yengibaryan informed ARKA Agency.
"Work on informing and raising interest of the people towards the
IT-sphere will be carried out for holding this event", he told.
At the same time Yengibaryan informed that within the framework
of Armenia-Diaspora September forum an international symposium on
IT-sphere would be held, dedicated to WI MAX and RFID technologies.
Besides that, On October 6-8, Digitec-2006 international exhibition
of the IT-sphere’s achievements will be held in Yerevan, in which
representatives of different countries will take part. He told that
Digitec-2006 is mainly aimed at demonstrating achievements of the
IT-sphere of Armenia both to the Armenian public and world community,
representatives of different companies.
"The exhibition will also help us to deliver to our country
achievements of foreign companies. We organize it every year and it
gradually obtains international and regional character", he said,
emphasizing that more than 100 organizations from all over the world,
will take part in the exhibition, 30 of which have already got
their pavilions. A representative delegation from Sun Microsystems,
Mitsubishi, Microsoft companies will visit the exhibition as well.
Meantime Yengibaryan emphasized that in the second half-year of 2006,
a course of short lectures will be held, and a number of programs in
cooperation with institutes will be implemented in Armenia.
ITALIAN MARINES LAND IN SOUTHERN LEBANON
By John Kifner The New York Times
International Herald Tribune, France
Sept 4 2006
BEIRUT Hundreds of Italian marines and their armored vehicles landed
in southern Lebanon on Sunday, the first large foreign contingent
of what is to become a reinforced United Nations buffer force on the
border with Israel.
A spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force said that about 1,000
Italian troops were expected to be ashore by nightfall, including
a small vanguard that arrived in choppy seas on rubber dinghies and
helicopters Saturday.
With the 250-man French contingent that arrived last week – mainly
engineering troops who set to work repairing bombed-out bridges
and roads – and the 2,000 troops already in place from the previous
peacekeeping contingent, the Italians raise the number of troops on
the ground to roughly 3,250 out of a projected goal of 15,000.
The international force, officially known as the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, is supposed to help the similar-sized
deployment of the Lebanese Army as the only legitimate armed group in
the area, securing an uneasy cease-fire after a monthlong war between
Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
But under a kind of "don’t flaunt, don’t search" arrangement between
Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the army does not intend to
attempt to disarm Hezbollah.
Neither will the UN forces, officials have said, although they will
have a somewhat tougher mandate – enabling them to use force if
threatened – than the generally ineffective previous Unifil force,
in place since a previous Israeli invasion in 1978.
On armored personnel carriers newly painted with white UN initials,
Italian soldiers wearing blue berets drove through wrecked villages
bedecked with yellow Hezbollah flags, prompting locals to wave and
make victory signs.
Eventually, Italy intends to deploy 2,450 ground troops – the largest
single contingent – in four phases spread over two months and assume
command early next year.
The current French commander of Unifil, Major General Alain Pellegrini,
told reporters in Tyre that the new version of Unifil "is strengthened
with stronger rules of engagement."
"We have more people, more equipment, and we will have more possibility
to use force to implement our mission," he said.
But the efforts to fill out the full 15,000-troop deployment is still
hampered by the reluctance of many countries to join in what could
be a dangerous mission.
Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, announced that it
would send 1,000 troops after Israel withdrew objections to its
participation. Turkey is also weighing participation, although
Lebanon’s tiny Armenian minority has issued objections because of
massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1915.
Israel has announced that its troops, still on the fringes of
Lebanese territory, had located and blown up several Hezbollah weapons
caches. The United Nations has said that the Israeli forces should
fully withdraw over the border as soon as the international force
reaches 5,000 troops.
"The cease-fire is holding for the moment," Pellegrini said. "But
it’s fragile. Any incident can escalate."
Berlin delays deployment
Germany put on hold its planned naval deployment for the UN
peacekeeping mission in Lebanon on Sunday, saying it had yet to
receive a formal request from Beirut to take part, Reuters reported
from Berlin.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the cabinet could not give approval for
the deployment on Monday, as had been expected, since it had not yet
received the request from Lebanon.
She said Germany remained willing to take part in the UN operation,
but wanted its role to be clear.
Germany has said it was prepared to patrol the Lebanese coast to
prevent weapons being delivered to Hezbollah guerrillas, but ruled
out sending ground troops.
"There is still discussion in Lebanon and between Lebanon and the UN
on the request for naval security," Merkel said on ZDF television.
"We can only decide when we have such a request at the UN and the UN
then asks us," she said. "And so, out of responsibility toward our
servicemen, we have said we cannot take a cabinet decision tomorrow."
In addition to supplying naval ships to patrol the coast, Germany
has said it was considering providing support for the Lebanese police
and border guards.
"The German offer remains, but prudence must come before speed here,
and therefore we will consult further with the UN on how a deployment
can be achieved, but only when the conditions are really fulfilled."
Earlier Sunday, a government spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, said Germany
would deploy troops only under "orderly conditions and with Lebanon’s
clear readiness."
BEIRUT Hundreds of Italian marines and their armored vehicles landed
in southern Lebanon on Sunday, the first large foreign contingent
of what is to become a reinforced United Nations buffer force on the
border with Israel.
A spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force said that about 1,000
Italian troops were expected to be ashore by nightfall, including
a small vanguard that arrived in choppy seas on rubber dinghies and
helicopters Saturday.
With the 250-man French contingent that arrived last week – mainly
engineering troops who set to work repairing bombed-out bridges
and roads – and the 2,000 troops already in place from the previous
peacekeeping contingent, the Italians raise the number of troops on
the ground to roughly 3,250 out of a projected goal of 15,000.
The international force, officially known as the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, is supposed to help the similar-sized
deployment of the Lebanese Army as the only legitimate armed group in
the area, securing an uneasy cease-fire after a monthlong war between
Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
But under a kind of "don’t flaunt, don’t search" arrangement between
Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the army does not intend to
attempt to disarm Hezbollah.
Neither will the UN forces, officials have said, although they will
have a somewhat tougher mandate – enabling them to use force if
threatened – than the generally ineffective previous Unifil force,
in place since a previous Israeli invasion in 1978.
On armored personnel carriers newly painted with white UN initials,
Italian soldiers wearing blue berets drove through wrecked villages
bedecked with yellow Hezbollah flags, prompting locals to wave and
make victory signs.
Eventually, Italy intends to deploy 2,450 ground troops – the largest
single contingent – in four phases spread over two months and assume
command early next year.
The current French commander of Unifil, Major General Alain Pellegrini,
told reporters in Tyre that the new version of Unifil "is strengthened
with stronger rules of engagement."
"We have more people, more equipment, and we will have more possibility
to use force to implement our mission," he said.
But the efforts to fill out the full 15,000-troop deployment is still
hampered by the reluctance of many countries to join in what could
be a dangerous mission.
Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, announced that it
would send 1,000 troops after Israel withdrew objections to its
participation. Turkey is also weighing participation, although
Lebanon’s tiny Armenian minority has issued objections because of
massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1915.
Israel has announced that its troops, still on the fringes of
Lebanese territory, had located and blown up several Hezbollah weapons
caches. The United Nations has said that the Israeli forces should
fully withdraw over the border as soon as the international force
reaches 5,000 troops.
"The cease-fire is holding for the moment," Pellegrini said. "But
it’s fragile. Any incident can escalate."
Berlin delays deployment
Germany put on hold its planned naval deployment for the UN
peacekeeping mission in Lebanon on Sunday, saying it had yet to
receive a formal request from Beirut to take part, Reuters reported
from Berlin.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the cabinet could not give approval for
the deployment on Monday, as had been expected, since it had not yet
received the request from Lebanon.
She said Germany remained willing to take part in the UN operation,
but wanted its role to be clear.
Germany has said it was prepared to patrol the Lebanese coast to
prevent weapons being delivered to Hezbollah guerrillas, but ruled
out sending ground troops.
"There is still discussion in Lebanon and between Lebanon and the UN
on the request for naval security," Merkel said on ZDF television.
"We can only decide when we have such a request at the UN and the UN
then asks us," she said. "And so, out of responsibility toward our
servicemen, we have said we cannot take a cabinet decision tomorrow."
In addition to supplying naval ships to patrol the coast, Germany
has said it was considering providing support for the Lebanese police
and border guards.
"The German offer remains, but prudence must come before speed here,
and therefore we will consult further with the UN on how a deployment
can be achieved, but only when the conditions are really fulfilled."
Earlier Sunday, a government spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, said Germany
would deploy troops only under "orderly conditions and with Lebanon’s
clear readiness."
LEGISLATORS AID RECOVERY OF ARMENIANS’ ASSETS
by E.J. Schultz Bee Capitol Bureau
Fresno Bee (California)
August 30, 2006 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
Lawyers seeking to recover millions of dollars in bank deposits for
Armenian genocide victims are getting some help this week from state
lawmakers.
A class-action lawsuit filed against two German banks seeks the
return of cash, bonds, gold jewelry and other assets that lawyers
believe are owed to an estimated 2,000 heirs of genocide victims,
including some possibly living in the San Joaquin Valley, home of
thousands of Armenian-Americans.
Senate Bill 1524 by Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, and Sen. Jackie
Speier, D-Hillsborough — both of Armenian decent — would extend
the statute of limitations for such claims until 2016. It passed the
Assembly on Monday on a 77-0 vote and will likely pass the Senate
before the session ends Thursday.
Gov. Schwarzenegger supports the bill, according to his office.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this year on behalf of several Armenians
living in Southern California. Lawyers have argued that the plaintiffs
are free to sue under current law, but attorneys for the defendants
have replied that the statute of limitations prohibits the action,
said Vartkes Yeghiayan, a Los Angeles-area attorney representing
the Armenians.
If the bill were to become law, it "would certainly fortify our
position," Yeghiayan said.
Deutsche Bank A.G., one of the two banks sued, did not return a call
for comment. The other bank sued is Dresdner Bank A.G.
The bill has already cleared the Legislature once this year. But it
was tied to another bill that would have allowed Mexican-American
victims of a 1930s deportation campaign to seek damages for being
forcibly sent back to Mexico. The repatriation was sometimes violent,
as immigrants were taken across the border on trucks, buses and trains,
according to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
which backed the bill.
Schwarzenegger vetoed the Mexican deportation bill last week, arguing
that it would have allowed "private litigation of potentially thousands
of claims against the state, local governments and private citizens."
The governor did not act on the Armenian bill, allowing lawmakers to
pull it back and remove the hook to the Mexican bill. Sen. Joe Dunn,
D-Santa Ana, who led the effort to link the two bills, criticized
Republicans for supporting the Armenian bill but rejecting the
Mexican bill.
"I have been consistently concerned about the hypocrisy that has shown
up on the Senate floor from my Republican colleagues on these two
bills," said Dunn, who supports the Armenian bill. "The unfortunate
continuing injustice here is that the handful of surviving victims of
the illegal deportation of the 1930s still do not have an opportunity
for their day in court."
Poochigian said the bills never should have been linked because
"they are completely different issues." The Armenian bill, he said,
deals with breaches of contract by private entities, rather than
claims against the state of California.
The Armenian genocide refers to the period between 1915 and 1923,
when Armenians were driven from their homeland in the Ottoman Empire
by means of torture, starvation and murder. The Armenian community
says that 1.5 million people died.
The effort to recover bank deposits comes on the heels of a successful
drive to secure millions of dollars in unpaid insurance claims owed to
genocide victims. New York Life Insurance Co. and heirs of about 2,400
policy holders agreed on a $20 million settlement in 2004, followed
by a $17 million settlement between French life insurance company AXA
and about 5,000 people and charities, according to published reports.
The deals were made possible as a result of Poochigian-authored
legislation that extended the statute of limitations for insurance
claims until 2010. The current bill allows genocide victims or heirs
living in the state to go beyond insurance policies and seek bank
deposit claims until 2016.
"It rights a terrible wrong dating back to the beginning of the last
century," Speier said.
There are no firm estimates on how much money and assets could be
recovered, but "all indications are it’s enormous," said lead attorney
Mark Geragos in a phone interview last week.
Geragos — an Armenian-American whose family name is Geragosian —
has emotional ties to the case. His grandparents fled the genocide and
settled in Fresno, where they ran a grocery store on Belmont Street,
he said.
The famed Los Angeles attorney has handled a number of high-profile
cases and his client list has included the likes of Michael Jackson,
Scott Petersen and, most recently, the trainer for Barry Bonds.
But the Armenian case, Geragos said, has the "greatest personal
significance of any of the cases I’ve ever been associated with."
The reporter can be reached at [email protected] or (916)
326-5541.
AZG Armenian Daily #167, 02/09/2006
World press
THE IRANIAN `CRISIS’
The United Nations Security Council deadline for Iran to stop
producing enriched uranium expires on 31 August, and UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annnan arrives in Tehran on 2
September. Washington demands UN sanctions against Iran if it doesn’t
stop, and hints at air strikes against Iranian nuclear installations
if sanctions don’t happen or don’t work. Welcome to the crisis.
The media love a crisis, but this one seriously lacks credibility. In
June John Negroponte, US Director of National Intelligence, told the
BBC that Iran could have a nuclear bomb ready between 2010 and
2015. But he said "could", not "will", and only in five or ten years’
time. So why are we having a crisis this autumn?
The US government’s explanation is that President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
threatened in May to "wipe Israel off the map," and that nuclear
weapons are the way he plans to do it. (Any that are left over would
presumably be given to terrorists.) As proof of Iran’s evil ambitions,
it points to the fact, revealed in 2003, that Iran had been concealing
some parts of its so-called peaceful nuclear energy programme from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for eighteen years.
But there are a number of holes in this narrative, and the first is
that Ahmedinejad never said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map."
This is a strange and perhaps deliberate mistranslation of his actual
words, a direct quote from the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the
font of all wisdom in revolutionary Iran, who said some twenty years
ago that "this regime occupying Jerusalem (i.e. Israel) must vanish
from the page of time."
It was a statement about the future (possibly the quite far future) as
ordained by God. It was NOT a threat to destroy Israel. Attacking
Israel has never been Iranian policy, and a few days later the man who
really runs Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, publicly stated that Iran
"will not commit aggression against any nation." While Ahmadinejad
continues to say nasty things about Israel, he too has explicitly
rejected accusations that Iran plans to attack it.
Of course it doesn’t. Israel has had its unacknowledged nuclear
weapons targeted on Iran since Ahmadinejad was a small boy. Even if
Iran were eventually to get some too, it could not realistically hope
to catch up with Israel’s hundreds of weapons and sophisticated
delivery vehicles. (Israel can strike Iran with aircraft, with
ballistic missiles, and possibly with Harpoon missiles fired from its
German-built Dolphin-class submarines and refitted to carry nuclear
warheads.)
If Iran doesn’t have a serious nuclear weapons programme, why did it
hide two of its nuclear facilities from the IAEA for eighteen years?
Eighteen years before 2003 was 1987, at the height of Saddam Hussein’s
US-backed war against Iran, with Iraqi missiles falling daily on
Iranian cities. They had conventional explosive warheads, but the
Iranians suspected (rightly, at that time) that Saddam was working on
nuclear weapons as well.
So the Iranians probably decided to revive the Shah’s old nuclear
weapons programme, and hid the plans for the new facilities to keep
them off Saddam’s target list and to avoid an early confrontation with
the IAEA. Then the war ended, and work on Iranian nuclear weapons
stopped too, at the latest after UN inspectors dismantled Saddam’s
nuclear programme in the early 1990s. We can be sure of this because
Iran would have had nuclear weapons long ago if it had wanted them
badly enough: it doesn’t take over eighteen years for a country with
Iran’s resources.
The undeclared nuclear facilities remained secret because it was
embarrassing to admit that Iran had concealed them, but no great
effort went into finishing them. (In fact, President Ahmadinejad
finally opened one of them, the heavy water facility at Arak, only
this month.) But the fact that Iran hid them for so long is the only
reason that anybody has for doubting the legitimacy of its current
actions, since it is quite legal for a signatory of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop the technologies and facilities
for enriching nuclear fuels for power plants.
Iran probably does now intend to work steadily towards a "threshold"
nuclear capability (the ability to break out of the NPT and build
nuclear weapons very rapidly if necessary) because it is surrounded by
nuclear weapons powers: India and Pakistan to the east, the Russians
to the north, Israel to the west, and US forces on both its western
and eastern borders in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a threshold nuclear
capability is still perfectly legal, and many countries that have
signed the NPT have achieved it already.
Iran’s actions are not worth a real crisis, and the situation is
certainly not very urgent. Iran’s reply to the Security Council
offered further negotiations on the issue, though it will not agree to
stop enriching uranium as a precondition for talks. In these
circumstances, neither Russia or China, two veto-holding powers, will
vote to impose serious sanctions on Iran, nor will a number of the
non-permanent members of the Security Council. So if the Bush
administration truly believes that this is important and urgent, it
will have to act alone and outside the law.
Would it really do such a foolish thing again after the Iraq fiasco?
Unfortunately, it might.
By Gwynne Dyer
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO OPINE ON VERSIONS OF ARMENIA’S NATIONAL ANTHEM
Yerevan, August 30. ArmInfo. Armenian President Robert Kocharyan is not
going to opine on the versions of the national anthem of the Republic
of Armenoia, says the spokesman of the president Viktor Soghomonyan.
He says that, of course, Kocharyan has his preferences but if he
expresses his opinion this may be regarded as pressure on the expert
commission. The commission includes professionals, the versions will
be discussed by wide public and in the parliament, so everything is
going on normally, says Soghomonyan.
FORMER MINISTERS DISMISS REPORT ON ARMENIAN ARTUR BROTHERS AS COVER-UP
The Nation, Kenya
Aug. 30, 2006
The report into the scandal of the Armenian Artur brothers was
yesterday dismissed as a cover up by two former Cabinet ministers –
and as a waste of time and public resources by the country’s leading
lawyers.
Former ministers Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka claimed the report,
presented to President Kibaki on Monday, was tailored to clear
suspended CID chief Joseph Kamau of any responsibility and to shift
the blame elsewhere.
And for the Law Society of Kenya, council member Evans Monari said:
"Nothing has been achieved. It is a waste of time. They have told us
what we already knew."
Asked whether the MPs committee on the Administration of Justice and
Legal Affairs should continue with its investigations, Mr Monari said
yesterday there was no need for further investigations and that the
matter should be left to the police and courts for action.
They were reacting to an exclusive story in yesterday’s Daily Nation
which reported the comments of people who had read the report before
it was presented to the President.
The report was said to have cleared CID director Mr Joseph Kamau,
who is suspended from duty, of any blame and recommended that he be
given back his job.
It was also said to criticise police commissioner Mohamed Hussein
Ali for ignoring the police chain of command.
Mr Kamau welcomed the commission’s reported findings saying, "they
reflected the reality."
"I’m happy the commission cleared my name," he said.
Asked why he did not appear before it, Mr Kamau said: "If no witness
gave any evidence associating me with the Armenian brothers or
implicated me in any wrongdoing, what was I supposed to go there
and say?"
"In the eyes of the commission, I was an accused person and it was
upon the accuser to bring evidence against me. No evidence was adduced
and that confirms that I was wrongly suspended," he said.
Mr Kamau denied any association with the foreigners.
Maj Gen Ali declined to comment, saying he had not read the report.
Mr Musyoka said by telephone yesterday: "Any attempts to clear the
suspended CID chief and implicate police commissioner Mohamed Hussein
Ali would be blocked at all costs."
He added that although he had nothing personal against either Mr
Kamau or Maj-Gen Ali, the police commissioner handled the Arturs
affair properly.
"He took the right decision," the Mwingi North MP said.
Mr Musyoka promised to issue a comprehensive statement later, while
Mr Odinga said he would address a Press conference on the Kiruki
report today.
Previously Mr Odinga claimed Mr Kamau was a frequent visitor to the
house rented by the Arturs, in the upmarket Nairobi suburb of Runda –
claims that were denied by Mr Kamau.
The Lang’ata MP has also claimed the Arturs were connected to people
holding high offices in Government and with influence in Government
circles, in which connection he named political activist Mary Wambui.
Both Mr Odinga and Mr Musyoka said they would not appear before the
Kiruki commission when it was formed by President Kibaki in July.
They dismissed it as "comprised of the President’s friends", and Mr
Odinga dismissed it as a "whitewash and a waste of tax payers’ money"
the moment it was appointed.
People who have read the commission’s report said it criticised Maj Gen
Ali for apparently ignoring the usual chain of command by appointing
Mr Osugo, the then deputy provincial CID boss, to take charge of the
Arturs affair, bypassing Mr Kamau and the then Nairobi provincial
CID head, Mr Sammy Githui.
Mr Osugo was ordered to investigate claims by Mr Odinga and Mr Musyoka
that the Armenian brothers were mercenaries and that they had been
hired by the Government to assassinate them.
Maj-Gen Ali had acted in a manner suggesting he had no faith in Mr
Kamau and then Nairobi provincial CID chief Sammy Githui by overlooking
them and dealing directly with Mr Osugo, their junior.
The report indicated incompetence and in some cases collusion by
Government workers who allowed the two Armenians to break the law
and shame the country.
The police came under fire for failing to act on Interpol tips exposing
the Arturs as fraudsters and international criminals travelling on
forged and stolen passports, say those who read the report.
The police raid on the Arturs home in Runda came four hours after
an alert was sounded, giving the two time to conceal or tamper with
evidence, it states.
The sources also say the report censures the handling of the search
at the Arturs’ home, branding it "amateurish" and claiming police
failed to respond promptly to an alert by the Kenya Airports Police
Unit to arrest the brothers after a security breach at JKIA.
Meanwhile, questions were being asked as to why the two MPs and a
number of other social and business associates of the Artur brothers
were not called to give evidence to the inquiry.
Those who were mentioned at the inquiry and were never called include
Mr Kamau, Maj Gen Ali, Ms Winnie Wangui, a civil servant who is the
daughter of Ms Wambui, and even Mr Osugo.
Also not summoned was Official Opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta, who
had called a Press conference and stated that he had information that
the Artur brothers had twice visited State House in February this year.
Others not summoned include Mr Alois Omita and Mr Julius Maina who
were business associates of the Artur brothers.
Ms Wangui, along with Mr Omita and Mr Maina were named at the inquiry
as co-directors of Kensington Holdings Ltd, a company said to have
been involved in a series of forgeries.
Mr Maina was earlier named as a man who claimed to be from State
House on the day the Artur brothers stage-managed a Press conference
at JKIA so it appeared as though they had just flown in.
The Boston Globe
Armenians try to stall appointment of US envoy
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | August 30, 2006
When John Evans, the US ambassador to Armenia, last year described the
deaths and forced exile of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians early in
the last century as genocide, the local Armenian community rejoiced.
The Bush administration has described the events in Ottoman Turkey as
“horrific" and a “tragedy," but not as genocide. Turkey, an
important US ally, strongly objects to that description, calling the
deaths and deportations the outcome of a civil conflict with bloodshed
on both sides.
But even though he retracted the comments, Evans, a 35-year State
Department veteran, was recalled from his post in May, a move many
Armenians contend was punishment for his characterization of Turkey’s
role.
Now, Armenians and their backers in Congress are trying to hold up the
appointment of the man President Bush wants to succeed Evans, Richard
E. Hoagland, who has declined to describe what happened as genocide.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has delayed its consideration
of Hoagland’s appointment because of the controversy. At a June
confirmation hearing, senators grilled Hoagland, who said he wanted to
avoid “getting stuck in the past and vocabulary."
US Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat who represents
Watertown, home to a longstanding and vocal Armenian-American
community, said, “I don’t think he should be confirmed until
President Bush publicly states that there was a genocide and allows
his new ambassador to make that same statement."
The committee plans to meet Sept. 7 to decide Hoagland’s
fate. Congressional aides said the vote on whether to recommend that
the full Senate approve the nomination will be close.
If the senators reject Hoagland, Bush could make a recess
appointment. Armenian communities across the country will be watching
closely.
“We would be disappointed if he were appointed without an
acknowledgement of genocide," said Bryan Ardouny, executive director
of the Armenian Assembly of America , a Washington-based citizens
advocacy group.
After Evans was recalled, Markey sent a letter to the administration,
cosigned by 59 other House members, questioning the apparent
dismissal. US Senators John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy,
Massachusetts Democrats, sent a similar letter.
In response, a State Department assistant secretary wrote that “all
US ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President and as advocates
of the President’s policies," and he denied Evans was being removed
under pressure from the Turkish government.
The controversy over Evans and Hoagland is the latest of many battles
that have consumed Armenian communities.
In a lawsuit now pending in US District Court in Boston, a teacher and
a student from Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School and the Assembly
of Turkish American Associations have demanded that the state
Department of Education include dissenting views in a state curriculum
guide on the topic.
Armenians and their supporters say including those views is like
endorsing the stance of Holocaust deniers.
Harvey Silverglate, a First Amendment lawyer who has argued that
excluding the dissenting views is a violation of the principle of free
speech, said “every American citizen has the right to state his or
her view as to whether or not this was a genocide."
But, he added, “if somebody is officially representing the United
States and the US government has a certain position, it is reasonable
for the administration to insist that the official convey the official
US position."
Yvonne Abraham can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
LESSONS OF "PEOPLES’ LEADERS" OR HOW KARABAKH WILL ELECT PRESIDENT
Melik Avanyan
Lragir.am
29 Aug 06
The question of election of a new president of Nagorno Karabakh
in 2007 stirred the public and political life in this country,
which has not been recognized yet. As it could have been expected,
this important problem has given rise to peculiar moods among the
government and the public. The NKR public, used to making their own
decisions since the very first days of the Karabakh movement, became
less alert in the post-war years having gone through the difficulties
of war. Decision making on important issues for the state went to a
narrow circle of leaders and the government of Armenia.
This produced its consequences. The reality of the unrecognized
republic began irritating people, who had paid such a high price
for their freedom. Many began to realize that if this reality
does not change, their country may lose its future. With regard to
this there are different opinions, and the reasons for problems are
evaluated differently. There is a question, however, which is accepted
unanimously: the society must form government. The time of passive
waiting for "miracles from the outside" is over.
Therefore, everyone is concerned about the election of the new
president. What can be more crucial than this fact. The present
president appears not to accept the reality – it is somewhat
unusual. It is possible to understand him. Very few people around are
able to divide the public life from the private life. Everyone is used
to viewing public life through their I. This is the problem of all
the post-Soviet societies. "Who needs the success of the state if I am
not the leader," thinks everyone who has had the opportunity to rule.
This is not the biggest problem of the situation, however. In one or
two months President Ghukasyan will realize that he has to quit. The
next president will be elected, and the country will go on. The
biggest problem is the Karabakh society. Public problems have become
complicated, and their rational perception does not keep up with the
time. Although it is already apparent that the active part of the
society realizes that urgent problems of the time.
The problems that occur in a public debate are given a rational
evaluation. The role of the society in the current situation is also
perceived. The evidence to this is the wish of the public to hold
public debates on the new candidate of NKR president. Public opinion
surveys, online forums and publications show that the society perceives
the current problem rationally.
It appears, however, that there is a lot to tackle with in the
fossilized thinking from the previous years. There are still a
number of people (by the way, quite literate), who have difficulty
understanding the logic of changes, and shift it into plane of "good"
and "bad" leaders. The Soviet ideology is so deeply rooted in the
consciousness of people that it even survived the war. Democratic
reforms are perceived as slogans, not an effective mechanism of
governance, change and settlement of problems.
This circumstance can hinder the advance of the country for a long
time.
Well, the public in Karabakh is not so experienced. It is not easy for
everyone to understand that democrats set forward the idea of election
and terms of office to get rid of the "ballast" that accumulates in
a definite period of governance and anti-social phenomena within the
government and the society. The leaders are changed not because they
are good or bad but in order to clear space for the use of potential
of the public. The change of leader is the only way of change and
improvement of the system of governance. The legal replacement of
an elected person is also a mechanism of getting rid of leaders,
who are not wanted.
Most leaders and their teams know this, therefore they do not want to
quit on time. God be with you, time finds other ways of making them
quit. The opinion of other people is more interesting. For people
who do not perceive this core principal of democracy look for the
cause of trouble in the wrong place. It is evident that changes of
concepts are occurring in a crucial period for NKR. This needs a
scrutiny. The recent speech of Murad Petrosyan, a famous figure in
the society of NKR is notable. It is interesting that as one of the
ardent supporters of the moral and political revival of NKR, in his
interview on TV Petrosyan tried to "revise" the theory of statehood
in the aspect under consideration.
If this were done at another time, or during some seminar, we could
simply argue his opinion. But when the country is facing an election
of a new president, announcing that the change of the president is
not important, it is important that for running a third term Arkady
Ghukasyan needs to carry out a fundamental reform and manpower policy
changes means at least arousing doubts about one’s competence.
It is difficult to believe that Murad does not know the real purpose of
Ghukasyan’s manpower policy over the past 9 years, especially during
his second term. It is difficult to believe that Murad refers to the
negative manpower policy and social policy as one of the "mistakes"
of Ghukasyan. At least he should know that the manpower policy is a
consequence of a determined action, which proceeded from Ghukasyan’s
perception of the state, the government and his role in this state. And
he did not invent anything new compared with his counterparts in the
post-Soviet space. Although he had to invent for the simple reason
that NKR has not reached its major goal – international recognition
and sustainable security.
And now Murad is proposing him in the tenth year of presidency to
invent something to continue his own presidency instead of the state.
Why? There can be a number of opinions. It is also possible that the
puspose and essence of the democratic change of power is not clear to
Murad Petrosyan. He may believe in "good" leaders, and he suggests
that the "bad" ones, whom he says 90 percent of people dislike,
simply become "good" for their personal interests. Here serious
reflection is necessary. I do not think that the problem is only
waiting on President Ghukasyan. The problem is the false belief that
is harmful for psychology. This way of thinking is more harmful for
the state than servility.
There is a story which was placed at the basis of a film. The film
tells about the tragedy of the wife of a Soviet functionary whom the
Commissar of Internal Affairs had forced into sexual slavery. The wife
hang herself after begging her husband for help, for her "devoted
defender" did not understand her. It was a serious incident for the
Soviet times, an "extraordinary incident".
At that time Stalin personally decided to deal with the incident,
visiting the mourning tchekist at home.
After giving his condolences, the leader nevertheless enquired
whether the "soldier" was disappointed with the party’s policy. He
said nothing could make him doubt the Party and the Soviet country. At
that time, history says, the great leader said the important words,
"As long as we have people like you, the country has no future."
There is hardly a more educative story which shows the old truth,
"The servant is not superior to the lord". If the tyrant is surprised
at the way of thinking of his "soldier", such a country in fact cannot
have future. Fortunately, we do not have tyrants and "soldiers" in
NKR. However, the dictate of harmful logic and false beliefs is hihgly
dangerous. But I think that this country could have future because
times have changed. Murad Petrosyan’s mates can explain him that it is
not appropriate to speak to the public that way, even if one thinks so.