Author: Toganian Liana

MASSIVE FIRE OF TURKEY SERIOUS THREAT

Panorama.am
13:58 16/08/2007

Eruption of wood fire poses a serious threat to the biggest health
resort town of Turkey, Izmir. According to foreign media, the fire
has approached the town and the streets are filled with smoke.

Russian Public TV reports say the fire has damaged 300 hectares
of forests. Strong wind and unprecedented hot weather in Turkey
contributed to the spread out of flames. The average temperature is
above 40 degrees in Celsius in Turkey now.

Residents of three nearby villages have been evacuated for
security purposes already, however, the town authorities do not
find it necessary to massively relocate the tourists yet. Aviation
techniques are used to extinguish the fire with volunteers assisting
professionals.

Armenian Rescue Service told Panorama.am that no reports have been
received from Armenia’s borderline areas on possible threat from
the fire to our country so far. In case of a threat, the service is
prepared to take up necessary measures.

OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION

Azat Artsakh Tert, Nagorno Karabakh Republic
Aug 14 2007

Harvesting works are going on in the Republic .By August 13th
condition, it was cropped 43546.1 hectare, which compiles 92.2 per
cent of sowing area exposed to harvesting, 48.72 thousand ton of grain
was thrashed. Average crop yield of a hectare compiles 11.2 centner ,
moreover in Askeran region- 10292.1 hectare, 10.28 thousand ton, 10.0
centner, in Hadrut- 6591.0 hectare, 8.82 thousand ton, 13.4 centner,
in Mardakert- 6159.0 hectare, 6.69 thousand ton, 10.9 centner,
in Martouni- 15087.0 hectare, 15.04 thousand ton, 10.0 centner, in
Shahumian – 62.0 hectare, 0.1 thousand ton, 17.4 centner, in Shushi
– 305.0 hectare, 0.21 thousand ton, 7.1 centner and in Kashatakh
regoin-5050.0 hectare, 7.57 thousand ton, 15.0 centner.

Crop yield of grain cultured plants in 2006, in comparison with
July 31 index (11.7 centner), was decreased by 4.6 percent or 0.5
centner.(NKR National Statistical Service).

ORGANIZERS OF BANNED ANTI-ISLAM MARCH TO SUE BRUSSELS MAYOR

De Standaard website, Groot-Bijgaarden
14 Aug 07

[Report by "ty, wov": "Organizers of Banned March Want to Take
Thielemans to Court"]

The organizers of the demonstration against Islamization are going
on the defence against Mayor Thielemans and the PS [French-speaking
Socialists].

The organization Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE) wants to take
Brussels Mayor Freddy Thielemans (PS) to court. That was announced
yesterday [13 August] by the German Udo Ulfkotte, one of the movement’s
pioneers and founder of Pax Europa. Last week, Thielemans decided
to not give the organization permission to demonstrate on Tuesday,
11 September in Brussels against the advancing practice of Islam
in Europe.

SIOE does not acknowledge defeat. It has called in a Belgian lawyer
and gone before the Council of State to dispute the decision.

SIOE is also now challenging Thielemans personally, on two
grounds. First of all, the mayor is blamed for violating the
antidiscrimination law. In his reasoning for banning the march he
mentioned the threat of violence by participants from the extreme
right. Udo Ulfkotte does not accept the identification with the far
right. "Our organization is democratic and peaceful, and has expressly
rejected any link with the extreme right and with political parties,"
he says.

Second, Ulfkotte, who is Catholic, feels offended in his religious
belief because Thielemans offered his table companions champagne on
the death of Pope John Paul II. The mayor afterward apologized for the
"little joke."

Ulfkotte also has his sights on Emir Kir, state secretary in the
Brussels regional government and of Turkish origin. "Thielemans’ PS
supports this man, who has questioned the genocide of the Armenians
by the Turks. In Germany and also in Belgium, denying a genocide is
punishable," the German says.

Kir signed a petition in 2003 that argued for the abolition of a
memorial stone for the victims of the genocide. He himself says he
does not remember ever having given his signature. There were also
reports that he was present at a demonstration that denied the mass
murder. Kir filed a complaint against the reports, which was rejected
in the first instance.

In an opinion piece in De Standaard today [14 August], LDD [Dedecker
List] Chairman Jean-Marie Dedecker once again condemns the ban by
the Brussels mayor. In it Dedecker interprets freedom of speech very
broadly. Among other things, he argues "that someone who does not
want to rent his house to a gay couple must not be criminalized." In
recent weeks a battle has been under way between List Dedecker and
Flemish Interest for the title of "champion of freedom of speech."

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 11 2007

Dialogue channels between Ankara, Paris reopening

Bilateral relations between France and Turkey, which have
deteriorated since France passed a bill making denial of the
so-called Armenian "genocide" a crime, will be revived with a
high-level visit to Ankara next month.

The secretary general of the French Foreign Ministry will pay an
official visit to Ankara in early September to restart annual
political consultations at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign
Ministry’s undersecretary, Ertuðrul Apakan.
In October of last year, the French Parliament approved a bill that
made it a crime to deny that the Ottoman Turks committed "genocide"
against Anatolian Armenians during World War I, despite Ankara’s
protests and a warning that this would "poison" the deeply rooted
relations between the two countries. Later in the year, the Turkish
military announced that its ties with France had been suspended after
the French legislature’s approval of the so-called genocide bill. In
late May, France’s new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, dispatched an
envoy to Ankara in hopes of opening dialogue. Turkey is in turn
concerned by Sarkozy’s firm objections to Turkey’s accession to the
European Union.

The visit, by Jean-David Levitte, a former French ambassador to
Washington, took place just 72 hours after a telephone conversation
between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and Sarkozy.
Erdoðan phoned Sarkozy a day after the newly elected French leader
reiterated his objections to Turkey’s entry into the EU, requesting
direct talks to discuss and resolve problems. A second telephone
conversation took place when Sarkozy called Erdoðan after the July
elections to welcome "his remarkable victory." Sources close to the
prime ministry told Today’s Zaman that an official visit by Erdoðan
to the French capital in the next few months was on agenda. The visit
is likely to take place before the planned EU summit at the end of
2007.

Sarkozy has suggested that instead of joining the EU, Turkey should
play a central role in a "Mediterranean Union." Turkey, a candidate
to join the EU since 1999, rejects outright the idea of any
privileged partnership in place of full membership in the 25-nation
bloc, first mooted by German conservatives, including German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, and has since found supporters amongst
other opponents to Turkey’s bid.

11.08.2007

SÜLEYMAN KURT ANKARA

THE REAL MEANING OF THE TURKISH ELECTIONS (2)
By Richard Falk*

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 8 2007

In these respects, what remains uncertain in Turkey after the
elections is the nature and future of Turkish democracy, whether
its discriminatory and repressive characteristics will be removed
by stages or, on the contrary, will be now reinforced by a harsh and
unpopular renewal of military activism.

PM Recep Tayyip Erdoðan (R), and FM Abdullah Gul, salute cheering
supporters of their AK Party, outside headquarters in Ankara. The AK
Party won parliamentary elections by a big margin on July 22.

Such a renewal would be extremely unpopular with the public that
supports the policy agenda of the AK Party. It would also almost
certainly send the Turkish stock market into a tailspin, scare away
foreign investors and likely cause the decline of the lira and the
return of high inflation. These latter circumstances may inhibit
reliance on extreme tactics by opposition forces. In the past, it
could at least be argued that military intervention served the cause
of political and economic stability in the country. Under present
circumstances, even most secular conservatives would agree that any
military intervention would result in dangerous and unpredictable forms
of political instability. At the same time, it is hard to envision at
this point either side backing down on the presidential nomination. The
very problematic nature of any interference with the governing process
by the military would almost certainly cause a populist backlash,
which in turn would likely intensify its repressive character.

Beyond these defining issues of inclusiveness and the civilianization
of Turkish constitutionalism, there exists the shape of Turkish
nationalism. As with headscarves, the 1982 Constitution and
accompanying legislative enactments were extremely restrictive when
it came to freedom of expression and thought. Penal Code Section
301, criminalizing any assertions deemed by prosecutors to "insult
Turkishness" and used to indict such eminent cultural figures as
Orhan Pamuk and Elif Safak, stand before the world as a decisive
demonstration that Turkish nationalism contradicts fundamental human
rights associated with liberal democratic norms and practice. As
long as 301 remains a part of Turkish law, the European opposition to
Turkish EU membership rests on defensible grounds (although several
EU members seem unashamed of their somewhat similar anti-defamation
laws). Part of the promised effort by the Erdoðan leadership to revive
the Turkish campaign for EU membership is a much needed and desired
constitutional overhaul that is much more supportive of freedoms for
the Turkish citizen.

Democracy can only flourish if the citizens are free to speak their
mind and social and political truth allowed to emerge from the
marketplace of ideas. When using the word "genocide" gives rise to
potential criminality and even assassination, the political culture
needs to be restrained by the receptivity of the rule of law to free
speech, however distasteful to parts of the society. As it happens,
the recent World Court decision denying Serbian responsibility for
genocide in Bosnia suggests Turkish nationalists need not be so afraid
of opening the Armenian issue to fuller debate.

Further in the background are several foreign policy concerns. Part
of the reality of the deep state is associated with control over
Turkey’s strategic relations with the United States and Israel. From
a democratic perspective, it seems clear that Turkish sympathies
are much more responsive to the Palestinian struggle than official
diplomacy conducted by Ankara would suggest. Even a constructive
initiative designed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Hamas as the
elected representative of the Palestinian people was rebuffed by
the secular establishment fronting for the military. And it was only
the responsiveness of the Turkish Parliament to public opinion that
saved the Erdoðan government from disastrously backing the American
invasion of Iraq back in 2003. For Turkey’s democracy to mature fully,
its strategic relationships need to better reflect its political
identity and democratically determined national interests, but such
goals will not be attained without a long and hard campaign.

In the short term, Europe and the United States have strong reasons
of their own to avert a Turkish crisis of the sort that could unfold
in the months ahead. In this sense, the general impression caused by
the insistence of the global media that the July elections should
be seen as Islam vs. secularism are extremely unhelpful, throwing
oil on a simmering fire. What could be helpful would be governmental
and diplomatic assertions by foreign leaders of confidence in the AK
Party, a more forthcoming European attitude toward the EU accession
negotiations and the advocacy of a more balanced approach to Cyprus,
especially renewed support for the Annan plan and a UN role.

Of course, the winners in the elections can do their part to help
avert the looming crisis by being tactically cautious without losing
sight of their strategic goals relating to democracy and nationalism.

What this means concretely is difficult to specify. It would certainly
imply an approach to the election of a president that gives the
military an opportunity to move gracefully away from their earlier
stand of implacable opposition. The AK Party exhibited this sort of
intelligent prudence when it refrained last spring from organizing
counter-demonstrations that would certainly have been larger and more
impressive than those of the old secular forces, but also dangerously
more polarizing of the country and destabilizing.

Nowhere in this panorama of concerns does the issue of political Islam
appear as a genuine concern even in its diluted form of interpreting
the election as a victory of "moderate Islam" set off against the
modernist secularism of the Euro-American variety. The banner of Islam
is being waved not by Islamists but by those increasingly isolated
opposition forces in Turkey that see no constitutional path that
leads them back to their former position of hegemony in relation
to government, market and societal mores. In these circumstances,
confusing the terms of struggle depends on a strategy of tension
that creates some impression that only a military takeover can avoid
a Turkish descent into chaos. Such a strategy seems ill-conceived
considering the level of support that the AK Party currently enjoys,
which includes the confidence of both the business world and the
Turkish masses. When I asked a non-religious private car driver
employed by a secular family who he favored in the elections, his
response was revealing: "Am I stupid?" This was his way of saying that,
of course, he gave his vote to the AK Party. One can only wish that
there are similar responsible voices in the military, the opposition
and abroad that are also not stupid!

* Lecturer at Princeton University on Political Science and
International Relations 08.08.2007

–Boundary_(ID_1Ev7azcrtponLTMsP0HTDA) —

GAZPROM SAYS IT HAS NO MONETARY COMMITMENT TO GEORGIA

Panorama.am
18:19 07/08/2007

Gasprom has refuted information that it owes USD 2 mln to
Georgia. Georgian Oil and Gaz Corporation General Director Alexander
Khetagurin had told reporters recently that transit of gas to Armenia
continues through Georgian territory, however, "Georgia has not
received its share for three months already" saying Gasprom owes
Georgia USD 2 mln.

Gazprom has commitments to pay 10 percent of transit gas to Georgia
but Gazprom sources told Ria Novosty that according to agreement the
company must pay for transit services in natural gas and no arrangement
has been made about monetary payments.

BY-ELECTION LEAVES LEBANON’S CHRISTIANS DEEPLY DIVIDED
Scheherezade Faramarzi

AP Worldstream
Published: Aug 06, 2007

Lebanon’s Christians were more divided than ever Monday after the
opposition narrowly won a bruising election pitting two of the
community’s most prominent leaders against each other.

The results of the parliamentary by-election underlined how neither
side in Lebanon’s political crisis _ the anti-Syrian government and
the pro-Syrian opposition _ has been able to decisively swing the
Christians to their camp.

Shiite Muslims, led by Hezbollah, are overwhelmingly behind the
opposition, while Sunnis form the backbone of support for Prime
Minister Fuad Saniora’s ruling coalition.

But Christians, around a third of Lebanon’s 4 million people, have
shown no such cohesion, splitting nearly evenly along ideological
lines. The split was made clear in Sunday’s parliamentary by-election
in the Christian stronghold of Metn, in Mount Lebanon north of Beirut.

The pro-government candidate, Amin Gemayel, a former president and the
head of one of Lebanon’s most powerful Maronite Christian families,
conceded defeat Monday after officials announced his rival had won
by a slim margin of 418 votes.

His opponent was a little known candidate, Kamil Khoury, who had the
backing of the most prominent Christian leader in the opposition,
Michel Aoun.

The result "reaffirms the existing stalemate," said analyst Rami
Khoury with the Issam Fares think tank at the American University
of Beirut. "It shows a very polarized Christian community, which is
not surprising because it reflects the situation in the rest of the
country and in the rest of the Middle East."

It also foreshadows what many expect to be a dangerous deadlock later
this year, when parliament must choose a new president to replace
pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose term ends. Under Lebanon’s
division of power among its sects, the presidency must be held by a
Maronite Christian, but no Maronite leader can boost his bid among
lawmakers by claiming to represent the entire community.

Gemayel’s loss is a setback for his potential as a candidate.

The 65-year-old was running in his home district and had an implicit
endorsement by the powerful Maronite patriarch. He was seeking to
replace his son, Pierre Gemayel, who was gunned down in November in
an attack that government supporters blamed on Syria.

Gemayel got more of the Maronite vote than his rival _ 75 percent,
according to press reports. But Aoun’s candidate made up for it by
getting other Christians’ votes.

Aoun has said he will stand for the presidency. But the slim margin
of victory Sunday damages Aoun’s attempts to present himself as the
top Christian politician.

"Aoun is still a formidable figure but cannot really present himself
as the leading Maronite figure anymore. That’s probably the single most
significant element in the election," said Rami Khoury, the analyst.

Gemayel supporters blamed his loss on the large ethnic Armenian
community in the Metn district _ represented by the Tashnag Party _
saying Khoury was not representative of the Maronites, who form a
majority in the district.

Armenians are largely Catholic or Orthodox Christian. Maronites
are the largest Christian sect in Lebanon and once dominated the
country’s politics.

Many fear the stalemate may lead to the formation of competing
governments if parliament fails to elect a new president by the
Nov. 23 deadline, when Lahoud has to step down.

Saniora’s backers are hoping to finally put in place an anti-Syrian
figure in the presidency to strengthen their power. They rose to
control the government after Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon
in 2005, ending Damascus’ decadeslong control of Lebanon. But the
political struggle with the Hezbollah-led opposition has since sapped
the anti-Syrian movement’s power and paralyzed the government.

Another by-election was held Sunday lawmaker Walid Eido, a Sunni
Muslim who was killed in a June car bombing there. A pro-government
candidate, Mohammed al-Amin Itani, won that race easily.

With the elections, Saniora still holds a slim five-seat majority in
parliament, but still unknown is whether the two winners will be able
to take their posts.

The by-elections were held despite Lahoud’s refusal to give his
approval for them, as required by the constitution, and his ally
parliament speaker Nabih Berri has said he will not recognize the
results. Moreover, parliament has been unable to meet for months
because of the political standoff.

DEMOCRATIC, SECULAR TURKEY IN BEST INTEREST OF U.S. AND WEST
By R.L. Schreadley

Charleston Post Courier, SC
Aug 6 2007

The recent electoral victory of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (the AKP) received cheerful
endorsements from both the liberal New York Times and the more
conservative Wall Street Journal. This sentiment was expressed in
many other learned journals as well.

"The impressive re-election victory scored by Turkey’s conservative
Muslim ruling party is a tribute to the growing maturity of that
country’s politics and an inspiration for the cause of democracy
in the broader Muslim world," the Times said in an editorial. The
Journal was only slightly less effusive in its editorial, as well as
in a news item datelined Istanbul that opined: "The election victory
here of the ruling center-right party with Islamic roots paves the
way for more pro-Western and business-friendly policies, even as the
party faces growing pressure from resurgent nationalists and from
Turkey’s secular elite."

Let’s hope all this works out well, that it is not so much whistling
in the dark. One of the very worst things that could happen to
Western interests in the Middle East would be to have Turkey embrace
Islamic radicalism of the sort that triumphed in Iran (with help from
democracies in the West), is resurgent in Afghanistan, and threatens
U.S. nominal allies in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Ever since the Western powers, at the end of World War I, carved up
what remained of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has been an outpost of
sanity in what seems a peculiarly insane part of the world. It is
a full-fledged member of NATO, even though its strategic interests
would seem to have little to do with the North Atlantic basin. Its
borders are with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Bulgaria and Greece. Not exactly a quiet neighborhood.

Turkish troops fought bravely alongside our troops in the Korean War.

It is host to a large U.S. military base (Incirlik). By some estimates,
three-fourths of air cargo destined for U.S. forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan utilizes Turkish airspace.

True, Prime Minister Erdogan’s government refused to allow the
United States use of Turkish territory as a staging area for a planned
northern front in the war to unseat Saddam Hussein. That left an entire
U.S. Army division stewing on ships in the eastern Mediterranean at
a crucial moment in the war.

But this most likely had less to do with displeasure over our clumsy
failure to secure Turkey’s assent in advance of our troops arriving
off its coast than it did with Erdogan’s, and the Turkish army’s,
concern that a potential breakup of post-war Iraq might well lead to
an independent Kurdistan. This remains a sore point today. Turkey has
a large Kurdish minority, and the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party
(the PKK) uses Iraqi territory to launch terrorist attacks that have
taken, and are taking, many hundreds of Turkish lives.

The Kurds are our only reasonably reliable Iraqi partners and thus
far the United States has done little more than jawboning to curb
the PKK’s cross-border raids.

Earlier this year, a Pew Center poll produced some startling numbers.

Five years ago, before Prime Minister Erdogan assumed power, the
Turkish people were strongly pro-American, more so than any other
Muslim country in the world. Now, according to Pew, it is the most
anti-American. Only 9 percent of Turks say they have a favorable
opinion of the United States, and the percentage of Turks who "hate"
the United States is said to be higher than the percentage among
Palestinians. (Palestinians?!)

Much of this shift in sentiment, of course, is due to the
overwhelming unpopularity of the war in Iraq. Much is due to the
Kurdish situation. Still more is a growing awareness within Turkey
that a much-coveted membership in the European Union is not in the
books, at least anytime soon, and that the United States has done
nothing to persuade the EU otherwise.

Since the days of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Turkish army has been
the guardian of last resort for the secular state he created.

Military intervention to overthrow an elected government is anathema
in much of the civilized world, and rightly so.

It is not, however, beyond the realm of possibility in Turkey today,
should the Islamists press their agenda too far. Indeed, the army
there has acted more than once in the post-World War II period to
preserve what we in America take for granted – separation of church
and state. (And yes, I know you won’t find those words in the U.S.
Constitution.) A key moment for Erdogan’s AKP will be when it announces
its nomination for president. The Turkish presidency, which holds
the power to veto legislation, traditionally has been held by a
secularist. The AKP’s prior nomination of an Islamist, vigorously
opposed by secularists and, menacingly, by the army, was tossed out
on a technicality by the Turkish high court. It led Erdogan to call
the election that now has confirmed him in office with 47 percent of
the vote cast.

It is very much in the West’s interest that Turkey remain both
democratic and secular. Democracy and Islam, however, have proven at
best to be uneasy bedfellows, and at worst totally incompatible. What
must Ataturk, in his secular paradise (if indeed there is one) be
thinking as he views his handiwork from afar?

R.L. Schreadley is a former Post and Courier executive editor. He
has traveled extensively in Turkey over a period of many years.

AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone: 212.319.6383, x118
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
Website:

PRESS RELEASE

Monday, August 6, 2007

Baroness Cox, Champion of Karabakh, Feted by AGBU Montreal &
High-Ranking Canadians

AGBU Montreal launched a series of special programs, receptions, and
exciting events during the weekend of May 18-21 in connection with its
sponsorship of Nor Jraberd, the third village of the AGBU Karabakh
Repopulation Project, which seeks to rebuild villages for refugees who
lost their lands and homes during the Karabakh war. Baroness Caroline
Cox, speaker of the British House of Lords and avid crusader for the
Armenians of Karabakh, was the celebrity guest during the gala
weekend.

On Friday, May 18, 2007, amid the fanfare of the AGBU Montreal Scouts’
marching band and scouts in uniform, crowds came out to greet the
baroness at St. Gregory, Illuminator Cathedral in Montreal,
Canada. After an inspiring concert in the church, the Primate of the
Armenian Diocese of Canada, His Grace Bishop Bagrat Galstanyan,
officially welcomed the baroness and presented her with a hand-carved
glass khatchkhar (a traditional Armenian cross stone).

Immediately following, a reception was held in the Marie Manoogian
Hall of the cathedral. The baroness spoke about her fond memories of
girl guiding in England and her parents’ longtime friendship with Lord
Baden Powell, the founder of the worldwide scouting movement. As a
token of friendship, she gave the AGBU scouts a precious, historical
wedding photograph of her parents taken in the basement of scouting
headquarters in East London, in the presence of Lord Baden Powell.

President of the AGBU Scouts’ Council, Aline Egoyan-Pederian, praised
Baroness Cox and declared her an honorary member of the worldwide AGBU
scouting movement. Sossie Nahabedian-Rezian, Group Leader, presented
her with a neckerchief with the AGBU badge and a silver hand-crafted
woggle.

The evening concluded with the presentation of a medal to the
baroness. In recognition of her inspirational role for youth and for
her long service with the Girl Guides of the UK, the official
delegation of the Metropolitan Montreal Scouts and members of the
Board of Directors of the Association of Scouts of Canada declared
Baroness Cox a "Knight of the Scouting Honorary Society," the highest
distinction in scouting.

A PERSONAL PORTRAIT

On Saturday, May 19, a crowd of smiling parents and students gathered
for an interview with Baroness Cox and the announcement of the winners
of a student essay contest organized by two area Armenian schools at
Tekeyan Cultural Center. An interview with the baroness, entitled "Up
Close and Personal," conducted by Armenian Canadian journalist Levon
Sevunts, was one of the highlights of the afternoon.

During the interview, the baroness spoke candidly about her personal
life. She shared memories of her childhood, her great love of the
nursing profession and her husband Dr. Cox, her work as a teacher and
author, and her dedication to freedom and defending the oppressed in
the world.

She explained that her involvement with human rights began when she
helped bring medical assistance to Poland during the Communist
era. She described her association with the Andrei Sakharov Foundation
and how, during her many trips to Karabakh, she witnessed firsthand
the monstrous treatment of Armenians by Azeris and forged a deep bond
with the Armenians of Karabakh in their struggle to be independent.

After the question-and-answer period, Mego Malkhassian, director of
the Nor Jraberd project team, invited Pat McGeachy, a member of the
essay jury, to address the pupils from various Armenian schools who
competed in the contest. The theme of the essay was "Karabakh and
Caroline Cox’s Humanitarian Assistance." Certificates of participation
signed by Baroness Cox were presented to each of the young
students. Due to the difficulty of judging the many excellent essays,
more time was needed by the jury. Winners were to be announced at a
later date.

On Sunday, May 20, the third day of the gala weekend honoring Baroness
Cox, the baroness attended Divine Liturgy at St. Gregory the
Illuminator Armenian Apostolic Cathedral and also at Soorp Hagop
Apostolic Church. Following church services, the public gathered in
A. Aharonian Hall of the Armenian Center to attend a book exhibition
featuring the baroness’ most recent publication, "This Immoral Trade:
Slavery in the Twenty-First Century." The book was based on her
research during her many visits to Sudan, Uganda, and Burma.

Present were His Grace Archbishop Khajag Hagopian, Dr. Vagharsh
Ehramjian, representative of the Central Committee of ARF Canada,
Vicken Afarian, a representative on behalf of ARF, representatives of
Armenian National Committee of Canada and sister organizations, as
well as Mgrdic Mgrdician, head of the Toronto branch of Hayastan
All-Armenian Fund.

After the presentation of the book by Raffi Bujikanian, manager of the
Montreal office of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, the
baroness spoke about the obligation of Christians to stand up against
slave-owning and she urged the Christians in the West to contribute
more funds toward this cause. Speaking about the Artsakh conflict and
her ties to Armenians there, she said, "I feel glad and blessed
because I have been on the sacred soil of Artsakh [Karabakh] and have
sisters and brothers there."

A FUNDRAISER FOR A NEW VILLAGE

Sunday’s festivities culminated in an official banquet held that
evening at AGBU’s Jirair & Elise Dervishian Hall. After the singing of
the Armenian, Canadian, British, and Karabakh national anthems, Nor
Jraberd project director Mego Malkhassian welcomed the impressive
assembly of guests and dignitaries. Master of ceremonies Vicken
Attarian introduced His Grace Bagrat, primate, AGBU Trustee Karnig
Yacoubian, and AGBU Board Member Carol Aslanian. Malkhassian also
recognized high-ranking Canadian government and Armenian individuals,
including the representative of Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper,
Republic of Armenia charge d’affaires Arman Hakobian, Armenian Doctors
Association of Quebec (AMAQ) President Dr. Lena Terjanian, Mgrdic
Mgrdician, and guest of honor, Baroness Cox, whom he referred to as
the "Angel of Karabakh."

The baroness’ speech was impressive, reflecting the strength of her
Christian faith, particularly her love and devotion for the Karabakh
people. Having seen Karabakh during its darkest days, she spoke also
of the miracles during the course of her 61 trips to the
country. "Artsakh is a holy land," she said. She explained that no
matter how much Artsakh is attacked, it will become reborn.

After the pledging of gifts from young people and generous individuals
to the ongoing Nor Jraberd project, Baroness Cox was presented with a
copy of the three-volume "Heritage of Armenian Literature" edited by
Agop Hacikyan, Nourhan Ouzounian, the late Gabriel Basmadjian and
Edward Franciuk. After prolonged applause and a standing ovation,
Master of Ceremonies Attarian concluded the memorable evening by
thanking the baroness.

RECEPTION IN OTTAWA

The gala weekend’s festivities honoring Baroness Cox concluded on
Monday, May 21. The baroness attended a special reception, which was
dedicated to the 89th anniversary of the founding of the First
Republic of Armenia. Present at the gathering held in the Armenian
Embassy in Ottawa were Canadian Member of Parliament Jason Kenney and
Archbishop Khajag Hagopian, prelate of the Diocese of Canada. Other
honorary guests included Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)
Canada Central Committee members; executive committee members of the
Armenian Relief Society (ARS); members of the Armenian General
Athletic Union (AGAU); members of the National Council;
representatives of the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Canada;
and representatives of AGBU Montreal.

Arman Hakobian, the first charge d’affaires of the Armenian Embassy,
welcomed the distinguished assembly of guests and invited Baroness
Cox, the main speaker, to address the group. She acknowledged the
remarkable faith and heroism of the Armenian people. The baroness
hailed Kenney as one who has always lent a helping hand to all nations
and peoples in fighting for human rights, regardless of race or
religious background.

Nor Jraberd is a collaborative effort of AGBU Montreal, AGBU Toronto
and other Armenian communities in Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary to
rebuild a village and name it Nor Jraberd (new water fortress) in the
Mardakert region of Karabakh–the third village in AGBU’s Karabakh
Repopulation Project. For more information, please visit

Established in 1906, the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) is
the world’s largest non-profit Armenian organization. Headquartered in
New York City with an annual budget of $34 million, AGBU
() preserves and promotes the Armenian identity and
heritage through educational, cultural and humanitarian programs,
annually serving some 400,000 Armenians in 35 countries.

AN UNREASONABLE U.S. CONCERN: ARMENIAN-IRANIAN COOPERATION
By Michael G. Mensoian

om08040701.htm
August 4, 2007

Recently, the United States Charge d’Affairs in Yerevan, Anthony
Godfrey, indicated that Washington had concerns regarding the degree
and direction of Armenian-Iranian cooperation, especially relating to
energy resources. For the past 30 years Iran has been the principal
adversary of the United States in the Middle East and its client state
Israel. Its determination to develop nuclear technology for peaceful
or alleged non-peaceful purposes or, again, its support of what is
described in the Western media as radical Islamic groups is beyond
the purpose of this discussion. However, what is important is that
Armenia and Iran enjoy a symbiotic relationship that both nations
have assiduously nurtured since Armenia’s independence. It should
be noted that there are several hundred thousand Armenians in Iran;
most having lived there for generations.

Although the United States has a right to question Armenia’s
relationship with Iran, that concern must be evaluated within the
context of the close economic and military ties Washington maintains
with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan,
which loom large in the strategic interests of the United States, have
adopted policies whose sole purpose is to weaken Armenia. Georgia,
a third recipient of United States military and economic largess,
maintains a cooperative stance in its relations with Armenia, yet it
does not hesitate to enter into agreements with Turkey and Azerbaijan
that are inimical to Armenia’s economic interests. Far out weighing any
economic and humanitarian aid Armenia receives from the United States
are the close ties that bind Ankara, Baku and Tbilisi to Washington’s
policy of challenging Russia and Iran for the energy resources of
Central Asia and the Caucasus. As a result, Armenia has been left,
literally, to its own devices. So much for that.

As one of 44 land-locked countries in the world, Armenia’s relationship
with its neighbors must be placed in a special category. Georgia’s
interest in Armenia is primarily pragmatic; the type and volume of
trade, transit concerns, the degree and purpose of Armenia’s military
cooperation with Russia and the political interaction between Yerevan
and the Javakhk Armenians. Its economic and political viability
does not depend on Armenian cooperation. Armenia, however, has a
strategic interest in Georgia. That country represents the only land
route to the Black Sea ports of Batumi and Poti through which most
of Armenia’s imports and exports pass. Similarly the pipeline that
delivers gas from Russia to Armenia transits Georgian territory. It
is obvious that there is no parity in their relationship. This lack of
symmetry emboldens Georgia to participate in economic ventures without
regard for their adverse impact on Armenia. With Armenia excluded,
Georgia’s strategic importance to Turkey increases exponentially
as the only practical land connection to Azerbaijan and ultimately
to Central Asia across the Caspian Sea. One only need look at the
route of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline as well as the proposed
Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railroad which will replace the existing line that
passes through Gyumri in Armenia that Turkey boycotts. Both of these
Turkish sponsored ventures were meant to harm Armenia and exclude her
from the potential economic benefits that the region will experience.

Paradoxically, economic development in which all countries share is
a goal that the United States claims is vital to creating political
stability within the region. Yet the pipeline route was supported
by the United States knowing that it would have an adverse impact
on Armenia. As for the projected railroad, the United States again
exerted no pressure on Turkey to reopen the existing line through
Gyumri. The tepid response from Washington was that no financial
aid would be provided if it by-passed Armenia. With the wealth that
Turkey and Azerbaijan have at their disposal, financial support from
the United States was never a determining issue.

The geostrategic interest of the United States in the Caucasus and
Central Asia not only benefits Turkey and Azerbaijan, but paradoxically
has elevated the importance and strategic role of Iran vis-a-vis
Armenia’s national objectives. In March of this year, ceremonies
were held at Agarak, Armenia, to inaugurate the opening of the gas
pipeline from Iran to Armenia. From Agarak the pipeline connects to the
Armenian gas distribution net at Kajaran. This is a major development
that should have greater significance in the future. Presently, any
gas that is imported from Iran must be used to generate electricity
which will then be "sold" to Iran. An ancillary benefit is that the
villages in the southern Syunik district will have access to gas
for domestic purposes for the first time. In an emergency situation,
should deliveries from Russia via Georgia be cut-off, Armenia will
be able to draw on this new supply of gas.

On the main highway north from Megri in southern Armenia, any casual
observer will notice a steady stream of Iranian trucks which carry an
estimated 500,000 to 600,000 tons of goods annually. At an economic
summit in Yerevan this July, Armenian and Iranian officials met to
discuss a wide range of economic issues. As reported by Armenpress,
Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki indicated that several joint
ventures were being considered. These included building a hydropower
facility on the Arax River, a refinery in Armenia to process Iranian
oil to gasoline for export to Iran, and a new railroad link between
the two countries. He reported that trade between Armenia and Iran
had reached $200 million annually with the potential for reaching $1
billion annually.

Although it doesn’t have a contiguous border with Armenia,
its fifth neighbor is Russia. Both countries do depend upon
each other, but Armenia is the "junior partner" so to speak in
this relationship. Presently, Armenia is a "captive" of Russia’s
Gazprom: a quasi-state run enterprise that supplies a significant
part of its energy needs at prices that are not set at "arms length"
negotiations. One can seriously question the desirability of join
ventures by the two countries or, especially, the ownership of any
segment of Armenia’s economic infrastructure by Russia. The Russian
garrison in Armenia does provide a stabilizing influence along the
Turkish-Armenian border. Armenia reciprocates by providing Russia
with its last foothold south of the Caucasus.

In the long term, Russia and Iran are adversaries both in the Caucasus
as well as in Central Asia. However, in the short term their objectives
coalesce to prevent Turkey from dominating the Caucasus and extending
its influence into Central Asia. Present United States policy
seeks to exploit the energy resources of Central Asia and control
its movement into international markets. For the present at least,
Turkey and Azerbaijan are willing partners.

Armenia has a crucial if passive role to play in thwarting this
expansion of Turkish influence. As mentioned earlier, Russian
military units stationed in Armenia represent a major deterrent to any
ill-advised Turkish military venture. The presence of Russian forces
is a reminder that she has not abdicated her historic interests in
the region or her support of autonomy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia
in Georgia. Additionally, Armenia represents the only route for a
potential pipeline for the delivery of Iranian gas to Georgia–an
important bargaining chip in future Georgian-Armenian cooperation. An
alternative source of gas would lessen Georgia’s future dependence on
Russia as well as on Azerbaijan, whose ability to meet her increasing
demands is questionable.

Present United States policy is a direct response to the disintegration
of the Soviet Union and the transformation of the several Soviet
republics into independent nations. To fill the resulting political
vacuum, the U.S. Congress passed the Freedom Support Act in 1992. Its
underlying purpose, shorn of its altruistic rhetoric, was to challenge
Russia in the Caucasus and to extend U.S. influence into Central
Asia with its vast deposits of oil and natural gas. Turkey was a
key component of this strategy. However, the official objective of
the Freedom Support Act was to provide economic and humanitarian aid
and to promote democratic institutions in these recently independent
countries. This objective ran counter to Russia’s official policy,
which was to regain hegemony over its Near Abroad, the former soviet
republics.

In recognition of Armenia’s position vis-a-vis Azerbaijan, Title 9,
Section 907 of the Act stated that "United States assistance…may
not be provided to the government of Azerbaijan until the President
determines and so reports to Congress that the government of Azerbaijan
is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive
uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh."

In every year since its passage, President Bush has waived Section 907
which lifted restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan. According
to the Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, the
waiver was necessary "…to support United States efforts to counter
international terrorism" [and] "…to support the operational readiness
of the United States Armed Forces…to counter international terrorism;
[it] is important to Azerbaijan border security; and will not undermine
or hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between
Armenia and Azerbaijan or be used for offensive purposes against
Armenia."

Coupled with these annual waivers, it is instructive to look at
President Bush’s latest recommendations for the fiscal year 2007
budget as reported in a press release by the ANCA. Contrary to
an agreement struck with Congress in 2001 to maintain parity in
U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan, the President proposed
"…cutting…economic aid to Armenia from…[the 2006] appropriation
of $74.4 million to $50 million, a nearly 33 per cent reduction." For
Azerbaijan, the figure was $28 million and $58 million for Georgia. The
Foreign Military Financing proposals were $3.5 million for Armenia,
$4.5 million for Azerbaijan and $10 million for Georgia.

With respect to the President’s recommendations for International
Military Education and Training the figures are $790,000 for Armenia,
$885,000 for Azerbaijan and $1,235,000 for Georgia. The President’s
fiscal year 2008 budget seeks 20 percent more in military aid to
Azerbaijan than to Armenia. So much for parity.

The Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues formed in 1995 has been
instrumental in protecting Armenia’s interests. However, the role of
the present administration should indicate the importance it places
on the Turkish-Azerbaijan-Georgia triumvirate. United States influence
within these countries is the key objective in its attempt to counter
Russian influence and to achieve its goal to control the exploitation
and movement of energy resources to global markets. The $1.5 billion
in humanitarian and technical aid received by Armenia since 1992 from
the United States masks the inequity between the aid given to the
"triumvirate" and Armenia when Armenia is added to the equation.

During this same period, Armenia has endured the adverse economic
effects caused by the blockade imposed by Turkey and its ally
Azerbaijan, contrary to the requirement that the waiver will
not be granted "…until the President determines…that the
government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all
blockades…against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh." Failure to meet
this requirement has not dampened the President’s enthusiasm to waive
this prohibition each year.

For the United States to ignore the effect of its pro-Turkish policy
begs the question as to what should Armenia’s response be with
respect to Iran? A key component of Armenia’s economic and political
viability depends on maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship
with its southern neighbor. Its cooperation with Iran in no way affects
United States interests. It could well be that the ideological and
strategic objectives of the United States and Iran are so great as
to defy any immediate meaningful accommodation. However difficult
that may be for the United States, Armenia must be left to develop
its relationship with Iran in a manner that enhances its legitimate
national objectives. Rather than question Armenian-Iranian cooperation,
the United States should reconsider the aid given to Azerbaijan and
Georgia and increase its support to Armenia if only because it is
the one emerging democratic nation in the Caucasus region, a key
objective of the Freedom Support Act.