AntiMonopoly Commission To Consdier Statement On Service Price Incre

ANTIMONOPOLY COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STATEMENT ON SERVICE PRICE INCREASE OF "ARMENIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS"

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
June 25 2007

YEREVAN, June 25. /ARKA/. The RA State Commission on the Protection of
Economic Competition (SCPEC) entertained the statement on increasing
prices for some services of the Company "Armenia International
Airports" (exploited as "Zvartnots" Yerevan Airport).

The Commission’s press service reported that the execution of the
issue was based on the statement of the "Hatuk kap" CJSC ("Special
communication"), implementing transportation of top secret state
documents and registered parcels.

The Company "Armenia International Airports" permits the "Hatuk kap"
CJSC to enter the territory of hangars and transport cargos through
"Zvarntots" airport.

In its statement the "Hatuk kap" CJSC asks the SCPEC to consider the
legality of increasing the tariffs up to AMD 1.2mln monthly ($3.5ths
by current exchange rate) against $600 in 2005.

The statement points out that despite the corresponding message from
the RA Ministry of Transport and Communication, the Company "Armenia
International Airports" did not reduce the price for this service,
that is why the "Hatuk kap" CJSC was induced to sign the agreement
on more severe terms.

The case of service price increase will be considered by the State
Commission on the Protection of Economic Competition during the
coming week.

The Company "Armenia International Airports" exploits "Zvartnots"
airport in accordance with 30-year concession management provided
by the Armenian Government in 2001. New York Holding Company owns
the Company, 100% shares of which belong to Argentinean of Armenian
origin Eduardo Eurnekian.

ARF Hay Dat Committee Of Greece Visits Chile Embassy

ARF HAY DAT COMMITTEE OF GREECE VISITS CHILE EMBASSY

Yerkir.am
June 22, 2007

A delegation of the ARF Hay Dat Committee of Greece visited on June
20 the Chilean embassy in Greece to welcome the Chilean Senate’s
adoption of an Armenian Genocide resolution.

The delegation was received by Chilean Ambassador Sophia Pracio
and thanked her on behalf of the Armenians. Amb. Pracio note the
courageous position of the country to kept to the justice and truth,
quoting the denialist stance of the Turkish government.

Taking into account that the Armenian Genocide will go to the president
for signing after being adopted by the Senate, the issue remains to
be in focus of political circles.

Chile is the fourth Latin America country, after Uruguay, Venezuela
and Argentina, to have recognized the Armenian genocide.

During the one-hour meeting, the Armenian delegation had an opportunity
to brief the Chilean officials on the committee’s activities, speak
about the situation in Armenia, Turkey’s blockade of Armenia and
detail them about the Armenian cause.

Pracio, in turn, told about the political situation in Chile.

RA Defense Minister, NATO Special Representative Discuss Armenia-NAT

RA DEFENSE MINISTER, NATO SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE DISCUSS ARMENIA-NATO RELATIONS

ArmRadio.am
22.06.2007 15:20

RA Defense Minister Michael Harutyunyan received the Speacial
Represnetative of the NATO Secretary General for South Caucasus and
Central Asia Robert Simmons. The meeting was attended by RA Ambassador
to NATO Samvel Lazarian, RA Defense Minister’s Pres Secretary,
Colonel Seyran Shahsuvaryan informs.

Mr. Simmons first congratulated Michael Harutyunyan on assuming office
and spoke about Armenia-NATO relations. Stressing the importance of
Armenia’s participation in the international peacekeeping mission, he
highly appreciated our partnership especially in Kosovo, where Armenia
has become a serious guarantor together with other peacekeepers. The
parties also turned to the perspectives of involving Armenian doctors
in the NATO and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, which will have an
exceptionally humanitarian character.

The parties exchanged views on the process of reforms envisaged by
the Individual Partnership Action Plan, involvement of civilians in
the defense sphere, the transparency of the activity of the sphere,
improvement of the information field and other issues. Reference was
made to the Military Doctrine, which is pivotal in the development
of bilateral cooperation.

Robert Simmons noted that the partnership will not compete with any
other security system, be it Russia or the Collective Security Treaty
Organization. On the contrary, all the efforts are directed at the
defense of interests of partner states, including Armenia.

At the end of the meeting the parties turned to regional developments.

Representatives Of Armenia Participate In Gintarine Viltis 2007 Mane

REPRESENTATIVES OF ARMENIA PARTICIPATE IN GINTARINE VILTIS 2007 MANEUVERS

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.06.2007 13:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Gintarine viltis 2007 ("Amber Hope 2007) military
exercises launched in Lithuanian seaport town of Klaipeda, Spokesman
for the RA Ministry of Defense colonel Seyran Shahsuvaryan told the
PanARMENIAN.Net. This is already the 8th exercise from the series since
1997. Currently units from 11 NATO member-countries and the states,
which cooperate with the alliance in the framework of "Partnership for
Peace" program participate in maneuvers (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Finland,
Germany, Great Britain, USA, Canada, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia,
Poland). Totally more than 1 800 troops participate in the exercises.

Russia, Moldavia, Byelorussia and Ukraine are represented as observers.

The major task of the exercises is to prepare participation of armed
forces from various countries to NATO’s possible responses in crisis
situations, as well as to work out cooperation between troops of
different countries. All participants in the framework of the war
games will be divided into three multinational battalions, which are
headed by representatives of Lithuania, Finland and Great Britain.

The peculiarity of this exercise is the fact that for the first time
all kinds of troops -ground, air and marine forces will cooperate with
each other. That’s why unlike before, when the exercises from this
series were being held in the Lithuanian Rukla military borough, this
time they are conducted in the training ground of Klaipeda. Maneuvers
will last two weeks and consist of two stages. During the first stage
commanders will work out actions aimed at keeping peace and stability
-reconnaissance and patrol, work in action stations, neutralization
of gangs and so on.

Staff trainings are also scheduled here. In the second stage from
June 25 till 29 troops will demonstrate their just acquired knowledge
and skills during improvised operations aimed at keeping peace and
stability.

Lithuania has the largest number of troops in these maneuvers (about
1 200 servicemen and civilians).

Finland has about 300 soldiers and officers, Great Britain -165, Latvia
-120 and Poland -60. Armenia is represented by Major Mkrtich Minasyan
and Captain Rouben Papyan. The exercises will finish on July 1.

Azeri MOD: Azerbaijan Ready To Resolve The Karabakh Conflict In A Mi

AZERI MOD: AZERBAIJAN READY TO RESOLVE THE KARABAKH CONFLICT IN A MILITARY WAY

ArmRadio.am
20.06.2007 16:07

The Armed Forces of Azerbaijan are equipped and trained enough to
resolve the Karabakh issue via force. Only the order of the President
is needed for that. However, not all the opportunities of settlement
have been exhausted.

We consider the peaceful way to be the best means for liberating the
occupied territories," Head of the Press Service of Azeri Ministry of
Defense Eldar Sabiroghlu told "Novosti Azerbaijan," commenting on the
statements of Azerbaijani public figures on the necessity of resolving
the Karabakh conflict in a military way voiced after the meeting of
the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Saint Petersburg.

Sabiroghlu considers that the analytical reports asserting that
the Azeri army is week and is not ready for military actions are
groundless.

"These statements have a political cover and do not reflect the
reality.

Our army is equipped with modern armaments, the level of military
order and the moral spirit of servicemen is high in the army," Head
of the Press Service of Azeri MOD declared.

EDM on GUAM Summit: parts I and II.

Eurasia Daily Monitor

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 — Volume 4, Issue 120

SUMMIT TAKES STOCK OF GUAM’S PROJECTS, INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

by Vladimir Socor

On June 18-19 in Baku, the GUAM countries’ annual summit reviewed the
state of implementation of the group’s policies, projects, and institutional
development. Presidents Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, Viktor Yushchenko of
Ukraine, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and Moldovan Prime Minister Vasile
Tarlev (substituting for President Vladimir Voronin who was attending
top-level meetings in Brussels that day) were joined by Presidents Traian
Basescu of Romania, Valdas Adamkus of Lithuania, and Lech Kaczynski of
Poland, in keeping with the flexible GUAM-Plus formula of cooperation with
the group’s partner countries.

Participants focused on policies that constitute GUAM’s strategic
raisons d’etre — namely, Caspian oil and gas transit to Europe and efforts
to resolve the secessionist conflicts. The summit also focused on the
institutionalization of GUAM, which aims to attain the status of an
international organization and recognition as such (GUAM summit communiqués,
June 18-19).

Energy Transit

GUAM’s role as an energy bridge between Central Asia and Europe
inherently depends on Kazakhstan’s and Turkmenistan’s cooperation and on the
European Union’s policy on Caspian oil and gas. The signals are negative
from both directions. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev turned down an
invitation to attend the Baku summit, offered to send a minister or deputy
minister instead, and ultimately did not send anyone. Turkmen President
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov simply ignored Baku’s invitation to attend.
Austria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, invited to represent the lead country
of the Nabucco gas transport project at this summit, also declined to
attend.

Such responses may be seen as corollary to these three countries’
recent agreements with Russia on energy supplies and transit, which, if
implemented, could kill the trans-Caspian westbound transport projects via
GUAM countries to Europe. Their responses reflect — as did their May
summits and agreements with Russia — an unraveling of Western policies on
Caspian energy and corresponding advance of Russian energy monopolism there.
The European Union — putative beneficiary of energy transit projects
through GUAM countries and a focus of their reform programs — did not deign
to take up the invitation to attend the GUAM summit.

Peacekeeping Force

The proposal to create a GUAM peacekeeping battalion dates back
several years and was reactivated at GUAM’s Kyiv summit. Yushchenko and
Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko subsequently commissioned the Ukrainian
Armed Forces’ General Staff to draw up the plans for such a battalion. Kyiv
is the main promoter of this idea in a bid to demonstrate Ukrainian capacity
for regional leadership.

The General Staff Chief, Col.-General Serhiy Kyrychenko, unveiled the
plan’s outline just days before the Baku summit. It envisages a 500 to
600-strong unit, including 150 to 200 Ukrainians. A police element could be
added. Each of the four national components would be based in the respective
countries and be called by the chiefs of general staffs for annual exercises
in one of the four countries (Interfax-Ukraine, June 15). According to
Yushchenko shortly before the Baku summit, the battalion could be used for
intervention in ongoing conflicts, conflict-prevention, or humanitarian
operations mandated by the United Nations or the OSCE in any locations,
potentially including GUAM member countries (ANS TV [Baku], June 14; Echo
[Baku], May 16).

However, Georgia would reserve the creation of a GUAM peacekeeping
battalion for the final stage of GUAM’s institutional development —
implying a delay of several years — and would not favor its use on the
territories of GUAM countries. Meanwhile, Georgia plans to double the number
of its soldiers in NATO- and U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
the Balkans and could hardly spare resources for additional commitments such
as a GUAM battalion. For its part, Moldova declines outright to participate
in the proposed battalion, citing Moldova’s status as a neutral state (an
unconvincing argument, given that some neutral and nonaligned countries do
participate in international peacekeeping operations).

At the Baku summit, Ukraine alone proposed going ahead with a GUAM
peacekeeping battalion or at least returning to the issue later on. The
summit’s final documents do not mention this subject.

UN Resolution on the Protracted Conflicts

The four GUAM countries have drafted a resolution on the protracted
conflicts on their territories for submission to the United Nations General
Assembly during the ongoing session. The draft resolution condemns armed
separatism, external support for it, and the resulting threat to
international peace and stability. The document underlines the principle of
territorial integrity of states and inviolability of internationally
recognized borders as the basis for resolution of all these conflicts.

Russia (with Armenia in tow) has campaigned against this draft
resolution at the UN and threatened to invite Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Transnistria, and Karabakh to attend the General Assembly meeting that might
discuss the GUAM draft resolution. The United States initially supported the
draft resolution, but has recently taken a more cautious position, claiming
for example that official U.S. support for the draft resolution might cast
doubt on Washington’s impartiality as a mediator in the Armenia-Azerbaijan
conflict. (In contrast, Ukraine is very far indeed from claiming that its
participation would cast doubt on Kyiv’s impartiality as an official
`mediator’ in the Transnistria conflict).

The undeclared but crucial political and tactical consideration is
timing. With the United States and many of its allies seeking recognition of
Kosovo’s independence at the United Nations during the ongoing session, the
timing of GUAM’s draft resolution has become inopportune. GUAM countries are
considering the possibility of delaying the submission of their draft
resolution until the end of the current General Assembly session
(technically in early September) or to the next session, possibly depending
on the process of negotiations over Kosovo.

Institutionalization

GUAM can not yet claim the status of an international organization
because its institutionalization is faltering. GUAM’s Ukrainian chairmanship
(May 2006-June 2007) has mishandled this issue as well, and Moldova has
added some pinpricks of its own, admittedly proportionate to its weight.

The Ukrainian and Moldovan parliaments have failed for more than a
year to ratify the GUAM Charter. In Ukraine’s case, the reason for this
failure is protracted chaos in parliament as well as dislike of GUAM by a
sizeable number of deputies (though some in the Party of Regions may
ultimately vote for ratification). In Moldova’s case, the parliament
operates in an orderly manner with a stable majority controlled de facto by
the president. There, the president and his team feel that Moldova has
little to gain from membership in GUAM but has much to lose from irritating
Russia through active participation in GUAM.

Moldovan petty objections have also delayed GUAM decisions on staffing
and financing the Kyiv-based GUAM General Secretariat for many months (Anton
Dogaru, `Moldova Risks Losing the Friendship of GUAM Countries,’ Timpul
[Chisinau], May 21). However, Ukrainian authorities bear the main
responsibility for the delay. The General Secretariat’s Kyiv headquarters,
allocated in May 2006 to accommodate a staff of eight, is still being
renovated and may be ready for use by November 2007, a full year and a half
after that decision. GUAM’s Secretary-General, designated a year ago for a
four-year term, was only able to take up his post in Kyiv this month, albeit
not yet in the headquarters. The holder of this post, Valery Chechelashvili,
is one of Georgia’s most distinguished diplomats, hitherto first deputy
minister of foreign affairs.

At GUAM’s Baku summit, expectations are that Chechelashvili’s
effectiveness and Azerbaijan’s chairmanship of GUAM in the next twelve
months can energize the process of GUAM’s institutionalization.

–Vladimir Socor

GUAM AT TEN

by Vladimir Socor

Heads of state and governments of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and
Moldova — the GUAM group of countries — met June 18-19 in Baku, together
with the presidents of Romania, Poland, and Lithuania. The meeting marks the
tenth year of GUAM’s existence. The anniversary summit was not a
celebratory one, however, as GUAM is still a group in search of a specific
role and mission.

Ten years ago, the presidents of these four countries (at that time
Eduard Shevardnadze, Leonid Kuchma, Haydar Aliyev, and Petru Lucinschi) met
during a Council of Europe summit in Strasbourg in October 1997 and decided
to establish a consultative forum of the four countries, effective
immediately. Together, those four presidents attended the 1999 NATO summit
in Washington, where Uzbekistan joined this group, turning it temporarily
into GUUAM.

The venues chosen for those meetings symbolized these countries’
aspirations to develop ties with the West as a counterbalance to Russian
`integration’ efforts through the CIS. The United States strongly supported
GUAM from the outset, politically through the State Department as well as
financially through a $44 million grant from the U.S. Congress for GUAM
economic projects. For its part, Russia (irrespective of any U.S.
intentions) has misrepresented GUAM all along in Moscow’s official rhetoric
and the controlled mass media as an anti-Russian project.

Since GUAM’s inception, the secessionist conflicts and foreign troops
on the territories of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova have topped the
agenda of shared concerns among GUAM countries. Although the group is ten
years old officially, its unofficial creation — including the acronym
GUAM — dates to 1996, and the founding father is Azerbaijan’s Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs Araz Azimov. In that year, Azimov put together
the first GUAM group during debates at the OSCE in Vienna on the
implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, foreign
troops on GUAM countries’ territories, and the secessionist conflicts.
Azimov took over the chairmanship of the GUAM National Coordinators’ Council
at the summit in Baku.

GUAM held its first official summit in June 2001 in Yalta, Ukraine,
adopting a Charter and resolving to advance to the status of an
international organization. From that point on, however, GUAM went through a
prolonged eclipse when Ukraine reverted to a `double-vector’ policy and
Moldova to a pro-Russian one. The Congressional funds for GUAM remained
largely unused for lack of convincing projects. Uzbekistan suspended its
membership in 2002 and quit the group officially in April 2005, citing GUAM’
s lack of specific goals and achievements.

After a four-year hiatus, GUAM met again at the summit level in April
2005 in Chisinau, amid hopes generated by regime change in Ukraine and an
orientation change among Moldova’s leadership. Dubbed the GUAM Revival
Summit, it was, however, derailed by Ukraine’s surprise announcement of an
ill-conceived plan to settle the Transnistria conflict, outside the summit’s
agenda and to objections from most participant countries at the event (see
EDM, April 20, 21, 25, 26, 2005). That summit merely decided to create the
post of GUAM National Coordinator in each of the participant countries and
adopted a symbolic declaration on GUAM’s course toward European integration
and the creation of common security, economic, and transport spaces.

Institutionalizing GUAM was the goal of the Kyiv summit in May 2006
(see EDM, May 25, 2006), which augmented the group’s official title to
Organization for Democracy and Economic Development–GUAM. That summit
adopted a GUAM Charter, created a GUAM Secretariat under a secretary-general
with headquarters in Kyiv, and established an annual sequence of meetings
(the heads of state to meet once a year, the ministers of foreign affairs
twice a year, the national coordinators four times a year). In addition, the
Kyiv summit considered the possible creation of a GUAM peacekeeping
battalion and decided to create a GUAM Free-Trade Zone through convergent
legislation in the four countries.

Institutionalization would enable GUAM to advance from the status of
an informal group to the status of an international organization. However,
the institutionalization agenda and other Kyiv summit decisions remained
unfulfilled in their most important respects by the time of the Baku summit.

The idea of enlarging GUAM’s scope through associate memberships or
other formal and informal procedures is also a legacy of the Chisinau and
Kyiv summits. Presidents Traian Basescu of Romania and Valdas Adamkus of
Lithuania took an active part in those two summits and again in Baku, where
President Lech Kaczynski of Poland represented that country for the first
time at a GUAM summit.

These three European Union member countries share with GUAM and
promote within the EU the goals of facilitating Caspian energy transit to
the EU and resolving the secessionist conflicts on terms consistent with EU
values and interests in this region. The EU remains almost demonstratively
aloof from GUAM as a group, however, and the Baku summit was the third one
to which the EU Commission turned down invitations to attend.

To the GUAM countries’ delighted surprise, Japan has recently showed
interest in developing relations with GUAM as a group. The Japanese
government announced this concept in policy-setting speeches by Minister of
Foreign Affairs Taro Aso in November 2006 and March 2007, most recently
published in the government’s Blue Book. The policy outline envisages
Japanese support for the creation of an `Arc of Freedom and Prosperity’
stretching from Central Asia to the Caspian and Black Sea basins to Ukraine
and potentially farther northward.

The Japanese government has recently discussed its initiative with the
EU in Brussels and it delegated Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mitoji
Yabunaka to the GUAM summit in Baku. A new format of meetings, GUAM-Japan,
was inaugurated at this summit. This format is due to continue with a focus
on Japanese investment in energy production and transport and mutual
political support in international organizations (GUAM summit communiqués,
June 18-19).

–Vladimir Socor

Arkady Ghukasian: Assistance Of Canadian Armenian Community Is Of In

ARKADY GHUKASIAN: ASSISTANCE OF CANADIAN ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IS OF INVALUABLE POLITICAL AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR NKR’S DEVELOPMEMT

Noyan Tapan
Jun 18 2007

STEPANAKERT, JUNE 18, NOYAN TAPAN. During the June 16 meeting of the
president of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Arkady Ghukasian and the
chairman of the Toronto branch of the "Hayastan" All-Armenian Fund
Mkrtich Mkrtchian, the interlocutors addressed the process of several
programs being implemented in the NKR with efforts of the Armenian
community of Toronto.

Pointing out the traditional active participation of the Canadian
Armenian community in overcoming the problems facing Artsakh,
A. Ghukasian noted that the existing cooperation is of invaluable
political and moral significance for the social and economic deelopment
of the NKR.

On the same day A. Ghukasian received the delegation of Armenian
businessmen headed by Chairman of the Union of Manufacturers and
Businessmen of Armenia Arsen Ghazarian.

Welcoming the businessmen’s efforts aimed at strengthening the links
with the NKR, A. Ghukasian attached importance to involving Armenian
investors in the develoment of the country’s economy. He said that
the NKR authorities are taking the respective steps in order to
reduce investment risks, including improvement of administration and
implementation of a flexible tax policy.

Peter Semneby Changed His Route Halfway To Karabakh And Made Back Fo

PETER SEMNEBY CHANGED HIS ROUTE HALFWAY TO KARABAKH AND MADE BACK FOR YEREVAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
16.06.2007 20:24

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus
Peter Semneby changed his route halfway to Stepanakert and made back
for Yerevan. The causes of diplomat’s decision are not known yet. His
associates will probably visit Nagorno Karabakh, IA Regnum reports.

Meanwhile, sources in Karabakh told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter that it
was decided that Mr Semneby’s associates will visit Karabakh instead
of him.

In Stepanakert the EU Envoy was expected to meet with President Arkady
Ghukassian, Foreign Minister Georgy Petrosian and representatives
of NGOs.

The Failed Sunni Army Solution

THE FAILED SUNNI ARMY SOLUTION
By Franklin Lamb

CounterPunch, CA
June 15 2007
Tripoli, Lebanon

Blowback Across Lebanon

Whoever killed anti-Syrian Lebanese MP Walid Eido Wednesday knew
Syria would be blamed and that the country would move closer to civil
war. Pro-government factions turned out in force along Beirut’s
Roauche sea front chanting anti-Syrian and anti-Hezbollah slogans
but no serious fighting has been ignited yet.

Another consequence may be to breathe new life into chances for
a US backed Northern Sunni Army to confront Hezbollah and the
Palestinians. The Northern Sunni Army, seemed doable-at least a couple
of years ago-during Plan "B"-then Plan "C"-which became Plan "D"
sessions of the Welch Club to decide who was going to control Lebanon.

For the Club, comprised of David Welch, Samir Geagea, (Lebanese Forces)
Walid Jumblatt (Druze PSP militia) and chaired by Saad Hariri, (Future
Movement) plus some allies, like current Prime Minister Fuad Siniora,
the choices were black and white simple: Lebanon’s future will be
controlled by Israel and the US or Lebanon will be controlled by
Syria and Iran.

What role will be played by the Lebanese themselves would depend on
‘variables’. Among which were the need for a Bush administration
victory in Iraq, destroying Hezbollah, leader of the Lebanese
resistance and nationalist movement, and preventing Israel,
increasingly seen in the Pentagon as teetering, as history’s judgment
approaches, from virtually collapsing.

When some bright graduate student writes a Doctoral dissertation
entitled : Who lost Lebanon? the thesis may well argue that effects
of the historic events now unfolding including Nahr al-Bared and
simmering in Ain el Helweh, and Lebanon’s other ten Palestinian
Refugee Camps. This, in addition to the blowback from the debacle
of the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq which unleashed
a horrific Shia/Sunni conflict and civil war. Within 9 months of
the invasion of Iraq, fear of the ‘Shia rising" phenomenon quickly
created panic in Washington, Riyadh and Amman. Both Kings Abdullah
explained to all who would listen that a dangerous Shia Crescent was
taking form that would arc from Iran, across Iraq to Lebanon.

The Bush administration listened, and never creating a Middle East
problem it didn’t have a solution for, followed the lead of the
Neocons and Ziocons in their ranks and advised their Sunni allies of
yet another new project.

"It was a truly ‘ epiphanous, spiritual awakening’" one American
University of Beirut student recently called it. The obvious solution
to check the increased regional influence of Iran and Syia, was to
quickly create a Northern Sunni Army to confront a Southern Lebanese
Shia army (Hezbollah). The murder of Rafic Hariri, and those seven
Lebanese opinion makers assassinated since, accelerated the project.

North Lebanon appeared to be the perfect recruiting ground for
Lebanon’s newest army because the area is overwhelmingly Sunni,
pro-Hariri, has high unemployment with many able young men willing
to be recruited and the community feels left out of economic advances
to their south.

In addition, North Lebanon has a well situated airport at Keilaat,
which, according to this scenario, could be converted to US base
which would include a training facility for the new force.

>From interviews with members of Fatah Intafada, Fatah al-Islam,
Jund al Sham, Osbat al Ansar, Jund Allah and many PLO factions, plus
residents in all 12 of Lebanon’s Palestinian Refugees Camps, as well
as various NGO’s and long time camp observers, one fact seems quite
clear. Those who were imported into Lebanon to be the catalyst of
the new force proved more interested in fighting Israel than fighting
Hezbollah or the Palestinians and appeared to take seriously the late
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi counsel that fighters should go to the border
of Palestine and fight.

Moreover, the widely held view here is that Al Qeada has arrived
in Lebanon with a vengeance and Fatah al-Islam is just the tip of
the iceberg. The ‘cells’ are throughout Lebanon and are organizing
broadly and not just in the Palestinian Camps, where they are resisted
by Hamas, Fatah Arafat, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, as in Shatilla and Burj al-Baraneh Camps.

Practically every day witnesses Lebanese security forces finding all
sorts of explosives, car bombs, arms stores( 6/14/07 another large
stash six blocks from Nahr al-Bared) and receiving information
from Fatah al-Islam, Jund al-Sham and other Salafist detainees,
concerning dozens of planned operations from bombing the American
Embassy, large hotels, malls and attacking UNIFIL forces. As Robert
Fisk reported recently, Hezbollah officials have assured the French,
Spanish and Italian Embassy’s that Hezbollah will watch UNIFIL’s back
and try to stop Al Qeada from attacking them. A "hit list" with 30
names was reported on 6/13/07, just hours before MP Wadid Eido,one
of the names on the list, was murdered.

The UN, also to be targeted, according to Internal Security reports,
is on high alert. One reliable source advised this observer on 6/14/07
that Hezbollah men are actually discretely leading UN convoys along
the 75 mile blue line, sort of riding shotgun, in front of them and
with the electronics they are known for. Hezbollah intelligence,
which checkmated Israel during the July 2006 war, is believed by the
UN to be just as solid today and the UN appreciates the help.

Seymour Hersh uses the word ‘acute’ to describe the concern in the
White House regarding the Shia renaissance.

As a result, Hersh claims the Bush administration is no longer acting
rationally in its policy. "We’re in the business of supporting the
Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shiite. … "We’re in the business
of creating … sectarian violence." And he describes the scheme of
funding Fatah al-Islam as "a covert program we joined in with the
Saudis as part of a bigger, broader program of doing everything we
could to stop the spread of the Shiite world, and it just simply
– it bit us in the rear". That the Bush administration Welch Club
Arranged for Al Qaeda affiliates and kindred spirits to enter Lebanon
and received help from local ‘club members’ is widely believed in
Lebanon. The US Embassy in Beirut and the CIA will neither confirm
nor deny involvement in the plan to use Al Qeada to confront Hezbollah

Everything seemed to be falling neatly into place. Much like the
US/Saudi supported Osama Bin Laden operation in Afghanistan during the
Soviet occupation, cash was committed (apparently it did not dawn on
the Welch Club that history sometimes repeats itself and that their
creation may not be easily returned to Pandora’s Box). In addition
there were other deep pockets that could be tapped. As Forbes magazine
documents, the Hariri family fortune skyrocketed from a measly 4.1
billion in 2002 to 16.7 billion and counting, as of early last year-
a stellar performance even by Saudi standards.

Surely some seed money was in order and Bahia Hariri wasted no time
in funding Fund al Sham in the Taamar neighborhood just outside
of Ain el Helweh, whose PLO factions objected to the group inside
its ‘jurisdiction’ while her nephew arranged funding for Fatah
al-Islam and already existing Sunni Salafist groups including Osbat
al Ansar and Jund Allah, both mainly staffed by Lebanese and beefed
up with outsiders brought in for the purpose. Mohammad Kobanni, the
Grand Sunni Mufti and Hariri aide, is accused of chipping in with
"religious scholar visas" to ease entry into Lebanon of al Qeada
affiliated Salafists Hezbollah is the mortal enemy of al Qeada,
who considers Shia apostates. In return, Hezbollah acuses al Qeada
of subverting the Koran and conducting terrorism, as they made clear
in their denouncements of Al Qeada following 9/11. But many observers
here do not expect them to fight each other.

When the Welch Club decided to move Fatah al-Islam from the Southern
Sidon base at Ein el Helweh, to the North Lebanon Nahr al-Bared
camp, Ms. Bahia Hariri admlits that she paid for the transplantation,
according to Arab Monitor of 6/6/07. Given the disaster that happened
when Jund al-Sham’s unruly twin ambushed the Lebanese Army on May 20,
Mrs. Hariri feels awful and has generously arranged with the Army to
provide full scholarships to all the children of the killed soldiers,
61 as of June 13, 2007, for an average of 2 per day killed, with five
times that number wounded and more than 80 civilians killed.

Both Jund al-Sham and Fatah al Islam are joined together by friendship
and family with al-Sham supplying some of the initial fighters for
establishing FAI. It is also why so many checkpoints have now been set
up along the Sidon to Tripoli road, which funnels men and material
in both directions. The June 4, 2007 attack by JAS in Sidon’s Ein
el Helwe camp against the army was in direct response to the Army
increasing pressure on FAI in Nahr al-Bared.

JAS has admitted ties to the Hariri family and both JAS and FAS
were funded from the same spigot of Washington/Riyadh/Hariri (Welch
Club) money. The March 14th group, but particularly Saad Hariri, is
now calling for the complete destruction of both these Welch Club
creations, as is the Palestinian Authority envoy, Abbas Zaki, who
wants increased recognition for Palestinians and better conditions in
Lebanon for the 420,000 Refugees. Zaki also wants policing authority
for all of the 12 Palestinian camps in Lebanon. The Welch Club objects
to Zaki’s proposal because they fear the Palestinians will become
too powerful and may even demand representation in Parliament!

On May 22, 2006 the Welch club got orders from the White House to pull
the plug on the North Lebanon Sunni army project following the horrific
slaughter of May 20 when it became obvious that the Salafists were out
of control, more interested in fighting Israel than Hezbollah or the
Palestinians, and too many questions were being asked about who they
were, how they got into Lebanon and who arranged and eased their entry
and for details about one of the strangest " bank robberies" ever to
occur. On June 11, 2007, Michel Aoun, leader of the largest group of
Christians in Lebanon demanded a thorough investigation of the whole
Nahr al-Bared conflict and the involvement of the Siniora government.

As recently as May 2007, Al-Akbar (Algeria) reminds us, that the Welch
Club was bad mounting the Lebanese army claiming it was too sympatric
to Hezbollah, had too many Shia in its rank and file and may not be up
to the job of protecting Lebanon, not from Israel of course but from
‘internal dangers’.

The Bush Administration was in no hurry to help the Army. That has
all changed since the events of May 20 and Fatah al-Islam’s attack on
the army which condemned to futility the Northern Sunni Army project.

No way could these compromised Sunni Salafist groups be used by their
sponsors as the catalyst of the Northern Sunni Army, hence the new
US interest in the Army of the Republic of Lebanon.

Hence the Bush administration joined every would-be patriotic group
in Lebanon which supports the army publicly. The Bush administration
speeded up already paid for spare parts and ammunition for the Lebanese
army. In the coming months more than $230 million is to be directed
to Lebanon for the army from Washington with financing available,
not gifts.

The new Bush administration largess for Lebanon’s army should be
kept in perspective and not confused with military and economic aid
to Israel . Over the past 10 years average US aid to Lebanon (mainly
for reconstruction following Israeli attacks with US weapons) has been
approximately $ 33 million per year. Compared with $ 15.1 million per
day to Israel for an annual average of 5.7Billion. Indeed, Israel ,
slightly larger than Lebanon, makes up roughly 0.06% of the Worlds
population but receives more US aid than all of South America, Central
America and Africa (minus Egypt) combined. Of total US foreign aid
to the other 195 countries members of the UN, Israel gets more than a
quarter of the entire US foreign aid budget. Or looked at another way,
each Israeli family receives approximately $ 6,000 in US aid per year,
American families $3,300 and Lebanese families $ 12.

The Palestinians get 29 cents per family.

According to Beirut press reports of 6/12/07, a Lebanese Army official
stated during an interview with the Daily Star, "We (the Lebanese Army)
also suspect that the U.S. is putting pressure on other Western and
Arab countries to not supply us with weapons, and to only provide us
with ammunition and vehicles for logistical support."

He said that a military aid package pledged by Belgium late last year,
which included 45 Leopard-1 tanks, 70 armored personnel carriers and
24 M109 self-propelled guns, had suddenly gone to another country
with no clear explanation from Brussels.

"Officials in Belgium had made the pledge… and we had made all the
needed arrangements before they suddenly changed their minds and said
they sold the weapons to another country," said the official.

A Belgian Ministry of Defense official said June 8 that ´the donation
of equipment was canceled because of the Belgian government’s worries
about the political-military situation in Lebanon" Translation:
The Bush administration worries it may be used against Israel.

The same Bush Administration shackling of the Lebanese army occurred
with the nine French Gazelle attack helicopters donated by the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) which can be seen daily whizzing along the campus
of the American University of Beirut up the coast to Nahr al Bared.

The Gazelles arrived with 20mm machine guns but without HOT
antitank missiles. The Lebanese army states they were told that"
the missiles were not included because they were old and needed
replacing" According to former long time UNIFIL, spokesman, Timur
Goksel, now lecturing at AUB, it’s a simple and quick matter to
stick on the missiles". Nevertheless, without the missiles the LAF
sends the Gazelles into action against Fatah Al-Islam in the Nahr
Al-Bared refugee camp with machine guns, basically to chase snipers
off rooftops.

Many in Lebanon believe that the Lebanese army is being designed by
Washington and Tel Aviv to be an internal Welch Club police force
with the capability to fight the Palestinians or Hezbollah if need
be, but definitely not to be given arms necessary to protect Lebanon
from Israel.

The past three weeks have seen numerous arrests of Palestinians by
the Lebanese army outside of Nahr al Bared and between Tripoli and
Beiut with reports of torture. Human Rights Watch condemned these
practices yesterday and if they don’t cease the Army may lose much
of the goodwill it has been receiving from the public.

Two weeks ago Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nassrallah warned
the need to respect a ‘red line’ on attacks on the Army as well as
entry into Nahr al-Bared. Criticized at the time in some quarters,
Nassrallah appears to have been correct in his counsel in light of
the high casualties and humiliation being suffered by the army and
the destruction of al-Bared and civilian casualties.

A just released study by the Fafo Institute for Applied International
Studies focused on the socio-economic profile of Nahr al-Bared and
concluded that approximately "half" of the employed residents of Nahr
al-Bared may lose their jobs and incomes as a result of the conflict.

"Unlike other refugee camps in Lebanon , the majority of the refugees
in Nahr al-Bared worked within the camp," Age A. Tiltnes, the study’s
researcher and Middle East coordinator, reported.

Prior to the conflict, 63 percent of the labor force in Nahr al-Bared
worked inside the camp. The study lists "physical destruction" as
the main difficulty refugees will face when trying to resume their
previous jobs. Two thirds of the businesses will be prevented from
functioning because of the copious destruction: demolished buildings,
including offices, workshops and stores, as well as ruined roads and
a broken sanitation and electricity infrastructure.

"They will have no jobs and no livelihood once they go back," said
Tiltnes, adding that "investments and external help" will be needed to
get the displaced back on their feet. With most of the schools in Nahr
al Bared destroyed, some 5,000 school children are without classrooms
(a third of the residents of al Bared are younger than 15 and nearly
half under 20).

Further fallout from the failed "Sunni army" project includes
increasing evidence that the Bush administration is playing the same
role in Lebanon as it is in Iraq. The Iraqi Shia leader Moktada Sadr
claims the US is behind the sectarian violence in Iraq and the schism
between Iraqi ethnic groups and the country’s economic hardships. He
is calling for a "cultural resistance" against US influences and what
he called the US attack on Islam.

Sadr’s views are resonating in Lebanon where increasingly the various
confessions are realizing that the Bush administrations "great support
for Lebanon’s young Democracy" may be short lived and quickly abandoned
if the Lebanon continues to resist Israel.

In Iraq , where the Islamic Army is one of the strongest and
best-organized Sunni armed groups, responsible for dozens of attacks
on American forces, and at odds with al-Qeada, both groups appear
to have settled their differences and have united against the Bush
administration occupation. It appears quite likely that, despite
yesterdays attack on the Shia Imam el-Askary Mosque Sunni and Shia
groups in Lebanon will be able to avoid continued internecine warfare.

In Lebanon , evidence of Sunni, Shia, and Christian mutual tolerance
was heard in last Sunday’s Sermon (6/10/07) by the Maronite Patriach
Nasrallah Sfeir, in east Beirut.

The Maronite Patriarch sounded conciliatory towards the Muslim
population including Hezbollah, appearing mindful of the positive
Shia-Christian friendship and cooperation which was encouraged
by the vanished Imam, Musa al-Sadr, who worked with the Christian
leadership in the Sidon area, sometimes delivering sermons in Churches
and participating in a Christian wedding. The Maronite Patriach is
aware that during the July 2006 war there were many occasions when
Christians gave refuge to Shia neighbors during the Israeli attacks.

Cases such as in Aita al-Shaab when following days of Israeli artillery
and bombing some of the residents were able to emerge from shelters and
make their way to the nearby Christian village of Rmeish where they
were sheltered. Israel sometimes appears to avoid bombing Christian
villages except in cases like Qana. Shia protection for Christians
includes efforts during the 1860’s Druze massacres of Christians
in the mountains east of Beirut to help the latter move to safety
in South Lebanon, as well as the Shia Fatwa issued at the time of
the Turkish massacres of Armenians in 1906 stating that it was the
religious duty of Muslims to aid and protect the Christians.

One of the lasting impressions of some Americans from the July 2006
war in Lebanon was the site of Muslim Hezbollah soldiers, protecting
Christians seeking shelter, from Israel soldiers and bombs, inside
their Holy Grotto at Qana where according to Christian tradition,
the Virgin Mary asked her son Jesus to make wine for poor villages
who gathered from surrounding villages to watch the event.

Some of us forget the two millennia of close friendships among
all religions in the "northern holy land" of Lebanon where Jesus
frequently visited friends to escape the hostility of the Sarihedrin
to the South and to enjoy the villages and the sea at Tyre and Sidon.

When Pope Benedict spoke with President Bush the other day and
expressed his concern over the safety of Iraq’s Christians, it included
his angst over the 18,000 Iraqi Christians estimated to have been
killed by US bombs and artillery. Many Iraqi Christians are making
their way to Syria and Lebanon given these countries traditions of
religious tolerance.

And the blowback continues….

Franklin Lamb’s recent book, The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century
of Israel’s use of American Weapon’s against Lebanon (1978-2006) is
available at Amazon.com.uk. Hezbollah: A Brief Guide for Beginners is
expected in early summer. Dr. Lamb can be reached at [email protected].

b06152007.html

–Boundary_(ID_LjdHdB3RBpFq/jvWgr2 mIA)–

http://www.counterpunch.org/lam

ANKARA: Call For Talks Amid Turks, Armenians

CALL FOR TALKS AMID TURKS, ARMENIANS

Turkish Daily News, Turkey
June 15 2007

An appeal calling for tolerance, contact and cooperation between
Turks and Armenians, signed by 53 Nobel laureates of various fields,
was issued on April, 9 2007 by The Elie Wiesel Foundation based in
New York. The appeal calls for Armenians and Turks to encourage their
governments to open the Turkish-Armenian border, generate confidence
through civil society cooperation, improve official contacts, allow
basic freedoms and to address the gap in perceptions over the "Armenian
Genocide". On the initiative of The Institute for Armenian Research
of The Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies (ASAM), a reply to the
said appeal was prepared on June, 12 2007 and signed by 86 Turkish
scholars, writers and retired ambassadors the names of whom are to
be found in the appended list. The reply states, in summary, that the
Nobel laureates call was received positively, is viewed as a doorway
facilitating a process of dialogue between the two peoples and that
fostering relations between civil society organizations constitutes
the most appropriate way forward in this regard. Here below the ‘tete
beche’ of both of the statements and the full names of the undersigners

An appeal calling for tolerance, contact and cooperation between
Turks and Armenians, signed by 53 Nobel laureates of various fields,
was issued on April, 9 2007 by The Elie Wiesel Foundation based in
New York. The appeal calls for Armenians and Turks to encourage their
governments to open the Turkish-Armenian border, generate confidence
through civil society cooperation, improve official contacts,
allow basic freedoms and to address the gap in perceptions over the
"Armenian Genocide".

On the initiative of The Institute for Armenian Research of The Center
for Eurasian Strategic Studies (ASAM), a reply to the said appeal was
prepared on June, 12 2007 and signed by 86 Turkish scholars, writers
and retired ambassadors the names of whom are to be found in the
appended list. The reply states, in summary, that the Nobel laureates
call was received positively, is viewed as a doorway facilitating
a process of dialogue between the two peoples and that fostering
relations between civil society organizations constitutes the most
appropriate way forward in this regard. Here below the ‘tete beche’
of both of the statements and the full names of the undersigners.

Nobel Laureates call for tolerance, contact

We, the undersigned Nobel laureates, issue this appeal directly to
the peoples of Turkey and Armenia. Mindful of the sacrifice paid by
Hrant Dink, the ethnic Armenian editor of Agos in Turkey, who was
assassinated on January 19, 2007, and whose death was mourned by both
Turks and Armenians, we believe that the best way to pay tribute to
Mr. Dink is through service to his life’s work safeguarding freedom
of expression and fostering reconciliation between Turks and Armenians.

To these ends, Armenians and Turks should encourage their governments
to:

– Open the Turkish-Armenian border. An open border would greatly
improve the economic conditions for communities on both sides of the
border and enable human interaction, which is essential for mutual
understanding. Treaties between the two countries recognize existing
borders and call for unhampered travel and trade.

– Generate confidence through civil society cooperation. Turks and
Armenians have been working since 2001 on practical projects that
offer great promise in creatively and constructively dealing with
shared problems. The governments should support such efforts by,
for example, sponsoring academic links between Turkish and Armenian
faculty, as well as student exchanges.

– Improve official contacts. Civil society initiatives would be
enhanced by the governments’ decision to accelerate their bilateral
contacts, devise new frameworks for consultation, and consolidate
relations through additional treaty arrangements and full diplomatic
relations.

– Allow basic freedoms. Turkey should end discrimination against ethnic
and religious minorities and abolish Article 301 of the Penal Code,
which makes it a criminal offense to denigrate Turkishness.

Armenia also should reverse its own authoritarian course, allow free
and fair elections, and respect human rights.

Turks and Armenians have a huge gap in perceptions over the Armenian
Genocide. To address this gap, we refer to the 2003 "Legal Analysis on
the Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to Events which Occurred
During the Early Twentieth Century," which corroborated findings of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

It concluded that, "At least some of the [Ottoman] perpetrators knew
that the consequences of their actions would be the destruction,
in whole or in part, of the Armenians of eastern Anatolia, as such,
or acted purposefully towards this goal and, therefore, possessed the
requisite genocidal intent. The Events can thus be said to include all
the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention." It
also concluded that, "The Genocide Convention contains no provision
mandating its retroactive application."

The analysis offers a way forward, which addresses the core concerns of
both Armenians and Turks. Of course, coming to terms will be painful
and difficult. Progress will not occur right away. Rather than leaving
governments to their own devices, affected peoples and the leaders of
civil society need to engage in activities that promote understanding
and reconciliation while, at the same time, urging their governments
to chart a course towards a brighter future.

The full list of Nobel Laureates signatories

Peter Agre Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2003) Sidney Altman Nobel Prize,
Chemistry (1989) Philip W. Anderson Nobel Prize, Physics (1977)Kenneth
J. Arrow Nobel Prize, Economics (1972)Richard Axel Nobel Prize,
Medicine (2004)Baruj Benacerraf Nobel Prize, Medicine (1980)Gunter
Blobel Nobel Prize, Medicine (1999)Georges Charpak Nobel Prize,
Physics (1992)Steven Chu Nobel Prize, Physics (1997) J.M. Coetzee
Nobel Prize, Literature (2003)Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Nobel Prize,
Physics (1997)Mairead Corrigan Maguire Nobel Prize, Peace (1976)Robert
F. Curl Jr.

Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)Paul J. Crutzen Nobel Prize, Chemistry
(1995)Frederik W. de Klerk Nobel Prize, Peace (1993)Johann Deisenhofer
Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1998)John B. Fenn Nobel Prize, Chemistry
(2002)Val Fitch Nobel Prize, Physics (1980) Jerome I. Friedman
Nobel Prize, Physics (1990)Donald A. Glaser Nobel Prize, Physics
(1960)Sheldon Glashow Nobel Prize, Physics (1979)Roy J. Glauber
Nobel Prize, Physics (2005)Clive W.J. Granger Nobel Prize, Economics
(2003)Paul Greengard Nobel Prize, Medicine (2000)David J. Gross Nobel
Prize, Physics (2004)Roger Guillemin Nobel Prize, Medicine (1977)Dudley
R. Herschbach Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1986)Avram Hershko Nobel Prize,
Chemistry (2004)Roald Hoffman Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1981)Sir Harold
W. Kroto Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)Finn E. Kydland Nobel Prize,
Economics (2004)Leon M. Lederman Nobel Prize, Physics (1988)Anthony
J. Leggett Nobel Prize, Physics (2003)Rudolph A. Marcus Nobel Prize,
Chemistry (1992)Daniel L. McFadden Nobel Prize, Economics (2000)Craig
C. Mello Nobel Prize, Medicine (2006)Daniel Kahneman Nobel Prize,
Economics (2002)Eric R. Kandel Nobel Prize, Medicine (2000)Robert
C. Merton Nobel Prize, Economics (1997)Marshall W. Nirenberg
Nobel Prize, Medicine (1968)Sir Paul Nurse Nobel Prize, Medicine
(2001)Douglas D. Osheroff Nobel Prize, Physics (1996)Martin L. Perl
Nobel Prize, Physics (1995)John C. Polanyi Nobel Prize, Chemistry
(1986)Stanley Prusiner Nobel Prize, Medicine (1997)Aaron Klug Nobel
Prize, Chemistry (1982)Edwin G. Krebs Nobel Prize, Medicine (1992)Nobel
Prize, Peace (1996)Richard J.

oberts Nobel Prize, Medicine (1993)Wole Soyinka Nobel Prize, Literature
(1986)Elie Wiesel Nobel Prize, Peace (1986)Betty Williams Nobel Prize,
Peace (1976)Kurt Wuthrich Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2002)

Turkish Scholars and Writers reply the Call

We, the undersigned Turkish scholars and writers, welcome the call of
‘The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity’ issued on April 9, 2007.

We view this call as a doorway to opening a process of dialogue
between Turks and Armenians and as a stepping stone which will work
to keep that door open facilitating the culture of peace to bear
fruit. We would like to state that we are willing to do our part to
make positive contributions to this end.

It can not be refuted that Turks and Armenians have been living closely
together under the Turkish Republic, as was the case during the time
of the Ottoman Empire, as a result of which they have developed common
cultural values. We believe these values may form the basis for the
development of future relations.

We are cognizant of the great suffering endured by the Armenians,
Turks and other peoples residing within the Ottoman Empire as a
result of the tragic events of the First World War, and believe that
all responsible individuals alike must actively engage themselves to
preclude such suffering from being inflicted upon mankind once again.

We are prepared to work constructively to this end. In this regard
it should be noted that while acknowledging the loss incurred by
a certain population it would be unfair to selectively neglect the
irrefutably documented loss of another population residing within the
same geography. We maintain that such dogmatic approaches and disregard
for differing views lay at the root of the ongoing conflict of our day.

We evaluated the proposals expressed in the call issued by The
Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. We are of the opinion that
increasing mutual confidence by fostering relations between civil
society organizations shall constitute the most constructive way
forward. We believe that the restoration of the Akhdamar Church and
the participation of Turkish alongside Armenian officials to its
opening was rewarding and hope that such contacts shall increase.

Air travel between Turkey and Armenia is open. The many citizens of
the Republic of Armenia residing in Turkey as guest workers carries
with it the potential of cultivating close friendship and ties between
the citizens of both Republics. The border gate between both countries
will surely be opened once those factors which led to it being closed
are removed. No doubt, the clear and official affirmation on the part
of Armenia to the effect that it recognizes the border between the
two countries and does not demand that it be changed shall contribute
to the establishment of official diplomatic relations. That part of
Turkey’s territories is defined as Western Armenia in the Armenian
Declaration of Independence raises concerns regarding Armenia’s
possible future irredentist policies.

Turkey does not evaluate the tragic events of 1915 which befell the
Ottoman Armenians as genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. For an event to legally
constitute genocide, a competent court must establish the intent
to kill in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group solely because they were part of that group (dolus specialis).

After evaluating various documents several academics, both Turkish and
foreign, have arrived at the conclusion that the requisite genocidal
intent was not present with respect to the Ottoman Armenians. We
view that differing accounts expressed by a given committee or other
groups on this matter should not be seen as anything other than
the practice of the freedom of expression. We would like to declare
that we are prepared to discuss this issue within the frame of joint
committees together with Armenian historians and all those interested;
we believe that engaging in dialogue is the only way forward to solve
our outstanding problems.

On this point one should not overlook how Turkey officially proposed
to Armenia in April 2005, to establish a Joint History Commission
comprising Turkish, Armenian and third party specialists for the
purpose of conducting historical research on the events prior to
and following 1915. To facilitate this proposal Turkey has made it
known that all its archives have been opened. We have faith that
organizations such as The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity shall
help to establish forums where views can be mutually exchanged and
welcomed whereby the level of tolerance and cooperation called for
can be attained.

TURKISH SCHOLARS AND WRITERS WHO SIGNED THE REPLY

Prof. Dr. Tahsin AKALP Prof. Dr. Secil KL AKGUN Prof. Dr. Þahin AKKAYA
Rtd. Ambassador Gunduz AKTAN Prof. Dr. Ali AKYILDIZ Assoc.

Prof. Dr. Gulþen Seyhan ALIÞIK Prof. Dr. Deniz Ulke ARIBOÐAN Assoc.

Prof. Dr.Yavuz ASLAN Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ýbrahim Ethem ATNUR Prof. Dr.

Yusuf AVCI Prof. Dr. Suheyl BATUM Prof. Dr. Taner BERKSOY Prof. Dr.

Suleyman BEYOÐLU Prof. Dr. Gulay Oðun BEZER Prof. Dr. Ali ATIF BÝR
Prof. Dr. Naz CAVUÞOÐLU Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sadi CAYCI – Prof. Dr.

Mehmet CELÝK Prof. Dr. Kemal CÝCEK Ercan CÝTLÝOÐLU Prof. Dr. Sebahat
DENÝZ Rtd. Ambassador Filiz DÝNCMEN Prof. Dr. Uluð ELDEGEZ Prof. Dr.

Vahdettin ENGÝN Prof. Dr. Ýsmail ERUNSAL Prof. Dr. Yavuz ERCAN Prof.

Dr. Ahmet ETUCE Prof. Dr. Suat GEZGÝN Prof. Dr. Mufit GÝRESUNLU Prof.

Dr. Ufuk GULSOY Prof. Dr. Nurbay GULTEKÝN Prof. Dr. S. Selcuk GUNAY
Prof. Haluk GURGEN Prof. Dr. Erhan GUZEL Prof. Dr. Yusuf HALLACOÐLU
Assoc. Prof. Dr.Oðuz ÝCÝMSOY Prof. Dr. Mucteba ÝLGUREL Dr. Erdal
ÝLTER Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet ÝNBAÞI Assoc. Prof. Dr.Kamer KASIM
Prof. Dr. Fahri KAYADÝBÝ Prof. Dr. Mustafa KECER Prof. Dr. Selami
KILIC Assoc. Prof. Dr. Murat KOC Prof. Dr. Enver KONUKCU Prof. Dr.

Kemalettin KOROÐLU Prof. Dr. Nuri KOSTUKLU Prof. Zekeriya KURÞUN
Assoc. Prof. Dr.Sedat LACÝNER Rtd. Ambassador Faruk LOÐOÐLU Rtd.

Ambassador Omer Engin LUTEM Prof. Dr. Nurþen MAZICI Prof. Dr. Hasan
MERÝC Prof. Dr. Ozcan MERT Rtd. Ambassador Tansu OKANDAN Prof. Dr.

Besim OZCAN Prof. Dr. Hikmet OZDEMÝR Prof. Dr. Necdet OZTURK Prof.

Dr. Nihat OZTOPRAK Prof. Dr. Bayram OZTURK Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bilgehan
PAMUK Prof. Dr. Mesut PARLAK Assoc. Prof. Dr. Said POLAT Prof. Dr.

Omer Asým SACLI Prof. Dr. Huseyin SALMAN Prof. Dr. Gunay SARIYAR
Assoc. Prof. Dr.Sema SOYGENÝÞ Assoc. Prof. Dr.Orhan SOYLEMEZ Rtd.

Ambassador Omer ÞAHÝNKAYA Prof. Dr. Hale ÞIVGIN Rtd. Ambassador Bilal
N. ÞÝMÞÝR Prof. Dr. Ahmet ÞÝMÞÝRGÝL Rtd. Ambassador Pulat TACAR Prof.

Dr. Mehmet Þukru TEKBAÞ E. Buyukelci Sanlý TOPCUOÐLU Prof. Dr. Korkut
TUNA Prof. Dr. Muammer UÐUR Prof. Dr. Sema UÐURCAN Prof. Dr. Þafak
URAL Rtd. Ambassador Necati UTKAN Prof. Dr. Mustafa Cetin VARLIK
Prof. Dr. Halil YANARDAÐ Prof. Dr. Þenay YALCIN Prof. Dr. Emine
YAZICIOÐLU Prof. Dr. Ýbrahim YUSUFOÐLU Rtd. Ambassador Erhan

–Boundary_(ID_TPBGh2d5uofJ5DBhCu43gA)–