Author: Toneyan Mark

Glendale News Press
April 23, 2005
Only the truth can set us free
PATRICK AZADIAN
Years ago, one of my dear friends, Valerie, called me up and asked me to
write down a number. As she is also my client, I did not question her and
obliged. After giving me the number, she said: “Her name is Afsan, she is
beautiful, she’s got two PhDs, and she is very, very nice. Call her!”
I could not help but wonder what type of a name Afsan was. I asked Valerie
where she was from.
advertisement
She had not anticipated any further questions after giving me such a
glorious description of Afsan. But she responded that Afsan was from the
same place both our grandparents were from. Valerie is of Greek ancestry,
and like my paternal grandparents, they were forced to flee their homes in
Asia Minor during World War I.
My suspicions were true. Afsan was Turkish. A few days later, Valerie called
me up again and insisted I contact the girl. Afsan was at Valerie’s studio
in Beverly Hills, getting a makeover.
I was hesitant. After all, dating a Turkish girl would not be too different
from Margaret Thatcher meeting Che Guevara at the local Irish pub, or
Chairman Mao taking Mother Teresa out to a romantic, candlelight dinner. I
could not visualize a common ground, and if she had been brought up with the
Turkish government’s policy of denial, then there was probably a basic
difference in our core values.
Somehow, I was persuaded to call Afsan. I figured, if two human beings
cannot meet and have a civilized conversation in good faith, then we live in
a nasty world. I decided, for one day, I could be a world citizen, or better
yet, a person with no roots whatsoever.
I picked up Afsan at Valerie’s studio. Before any part of her anatomy had
actually touched the passenger seat, she said: “You look Turkish.”
I was tongue-tied for more reasons than one. Valerie had not been
exaggerating.
It was now official: I was going to be a world citizen for the next few
hours. Turkish-Armenian dialogue had been on ice for more than eight
decades; it could wait one more day.
As we sat on the rooftop of the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills, sipping
afternoon tea and munching on biscuits, we covered all the basics in the
first 10 minutes. My membership to the world citizenship did not last long.
Afsan asked me what I had tried to avoid as we first met: “What happened to
your people?”
I had taken a bite off the biscuit, and it had reached the halfway point in
my throat. Her question caught me off guard, and I started coughing and
choking on the biscuit. Tears started flowing down my cheeks. Afsan was
concerned, she put her hand on my back, leaned forward and said: “You are
crying. I am so sorry if I asked the wrong question.”
“No, no,” I answered. “I have biscuit stuck in my throat.”
“Oh!” she said and handed me the teacup; I was back to normal after a few
minutes.
Afsan insisted: “We don’t learn about this part of ‘our’ history in Turkey.
I want to know.”
I looked at her deep blue eyes and responded defensively: “If you want me to
say my great-grandmother and grandparents were not forced to flee their
homes in Van (southeast Asia Minor), and in the process lost at least eight
members of their family, I cannot.”
I was going to get this off my chest now and see if our friendship could
flourish.
I encouraged Afsan to do her own research if she really was interested in
the truth. With her academic background, it should not have been very
difficult for her to decipher between historical revisionism and reliable
historical records.
I left her with a few thoughts, before we went back to lighter topics.
“Ask yourself, as you already have, what happened to those people? How could
over 2,000 years of presence on those lands be terminated in a few years
without a systematic plan of action?
“But most importantly, ask yourself, what kind of a world would we have if
parents could abuse their children without any consequences and later blame
it on unruliness? What type of society would we nourish if every time when a
woman is raped, we claim there are two sides to a story? What sort of family
structures would we build if husbands could murder their wives and then
blame it on the fact that she was chatting with the grocer? And what are the
consequences of rewarding state genocidal policies by blaming the victims
and revising the past?”
To her credit, Afsan listened carefully. Last I heard, she had gone back to
help her homeland recover from a disastrous earthquake. I hope we were able
to agree on some core values as human beings. As cliché as it may sound,
truth can set us free, and that applies to all of us.
* PATRICK AZADIAN works and lives in Glendale. He may be reached at
[email protected]

Keralanext, India
April 24 2005
Armenians Mark 90th Anniversary of Mass Killings in Turkey

[World News] YEREVAN, Armenia – Armenians on Sunday marked the 90th
anniversary of the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,
vowing to press their case to have the killings recognized by Turkey
and the world as a genocide. Tens of thousands of people, waving
flags and carrying flowers, streamed through the Armenian capital and
marched up to a massive hilltop granite memorial to hear speeches and
prayers.
Weeping mourners filed into the circular block memorial, laying
carnations on a flat surface surrounding a flame. A choir in black
sang hymns as the crowd filed past, some carrying umbrellas against
the sun.
The country will observe a minute of silence at 7 p.m. and Yerevan
residents will place candles on window sills in memory of the
victims.
Ottoman authorities began rounding up intellectuals, diplomats and
other influential Armenians in Istanbul on April 24, 1915, as
violence and unrest grew, particularly in the eastern parts of the
country.
Armenia says up to 1.5 million Armenians ultimately died or were
killed over several years as part of a genocidal campaign to force
them out of eastern Turkey. Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of
Armenians died, but says the overall figure is inflated and that the
deaths occurred in the civil unrest during the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire.
France, Russia and many other countries have already declared the
killings were genocide; the United States, which has a large Armenian
diaspora, has not.
Turkey, which has no diplomatic ties with Armenia, is facing
increasing pressure to fully acknowledge the event, particularly as
it seeks membership in the European Union. The issue is extremely
sensitive in Turkey and Turks have faced prosecution for saying the
killings were genocide.
Ankara earlier this month called for the two countries to jointly
research the killings.

Kavkazcenter.com
Sun, 04 24 2005, 17:51 Djokhar Time
The Doomed Empire
Any empire arises on a messianic idea. It is a rule without exception. The
messianic idea is always aggressive, as the carriers of this idea a priori
consider it to be “sacred”, “fair”. Therefore imposing of this idea to
neighbor peoples, whole continents, and even the whole world in opinion of
adherents of the empire becomes “service to good”, “duty”, etc.
The USA believe that they have the mission to distribute values of democracy
and market liberalism for the whole world. The Great Britain , capturing
colonies worldwide, in opinion of ideologists of an empire, such as R.
Kipling, had a civilization mission, “the burden of a white person”. The
French empire justified the expansion by the slogan of Napoleon III: “The
Empire is the world”. The Austro-Hungarian Empire developed as an advanced
post against Osmanli Turks, as a stronghold of “the Christian world”.
Ottoman Empire arose under the motto of restoration of Halifat that is one
state for all Moslems.
If to go further deep into history it will be found out, that Romans
considered their laws to be the most fair and consequently worthy to be
imposed to the whole world with force of the weapon, so that the whole world
would become Pax Romana. The empire of Alexander the Great was created in
the atmosphere of the Sun as the Macedonian tsar considered himself to be a
descendant of solar deities and he perceived as his lawful property the
whole world shined by the Sun. Kir the Great, the founder of the Persian
empire, was an admirer of doctrine of Zaratushtra, according to whom
Ahuramazda (the center of light) by means of his true attendants should win
and subdue the lands of Ariman (elements of a gloom). Assyrian tsars, who
created the most ancient empire, left numerous inscriptions, in which the
gain and enthrallment of other people was declared to be “the will of
Ashur”, the most high deity.
Russia stepped onto imperial path in the XV century at Ivan III, who married
the niece of the last Byzantium emperor Sofia Paleolog. Sofia arrived to
Moscow accompanied by Greek court, which soon became the closest surrounding
of the Great duke. Then for the first time they began talking about Moscow
as about “the third Rome ” (“the second Rome ” was Constantinople , won by
Osmanli Turks, the old center of orthodox Christianity). The doctrine of
“the third Rome ” connected the idea of an empire to the idea of orthodox
sacral mission together. In other words, exile of Turks from Constantinople
and ruthless struggle against Islamic people became that “messianic idea”,
on the basis of which the Russian empire began to be built (first,
theoretically). Marriage of the Great duke with the Byzantine princess gave
necessary political legitimacy to this messianic idea.
Since then crosses on domes of Russian orthodox temples began to trample on
a Muslim half moon. And since then (instead of since the church split in
1666 or even later, since Peter’s I reforms) the orthodox religion turned to
an ideological instrument of the empire. We shall note, that the struggle of
adherents of “primordially Russian Orthodoxy” with supporters of “the Greek
innovations” is, as a matter of fact, a struggle of supporters of Russia as
a national state with newly appeared adherents of Russia as an empire.
Naturally, the imperial authority in every possible way supported the latter
and subjected the firsts to the most severe reprisals.
During subsequent centuries the doctrine of an empire was corrected,
modernized, acquired political and geopolitical (“expansion up to natural
borders”) terminology. But the initial anti-Turkish and, more widely,
anti-Islamic impulse incorporated in the messianic idea of “the third Rome”,
once and for ever defined the main vector of the Russian expansion – to the
south and southeast. And the cross, according to this idea, should have
trampled on a half moon not only symbolically on domes of churches, but also
in reality, with a gain of Muslim lands.
Peter I, dying, left his well-known Will to the future Russian emperors, in
which he designated a gain of Constantinople as the maximum sense of
existence of the Empire. Ekaterina II, according to her own recognition,
named one of her grandsons Constantine for the reason, that even at her life
she expected to give him the throne of Constantinople , revived as an
orthodox city. The whole history of imperial Russia is an infinite list of
Russo-Turkish wars. The Caucasus and the Balkans were the nearest approaches
to Turkey . These regions till now remain “powder kegs” of the planet owing
to that continuous waves of Russian expansion to the south was carried out
through these thresholds for centuries, sometimes rolling through them.
It will take a lot of time to tell this story. Therefore we shall be limited
with theses. Turkey was rescued by jealousy of other imperial “predators” –
England and France , which were not going to suppose that only Russia would
get the “Turkish inheritance”. Struggle for “the Turkish inheritance” or the
inheritance of “a sick person” (this expression is a publicist stamp of that
time) underlay the extremely confused “east problem”, in the atmosphere of
solving of which the majority of wars were waged in Europe of the XIX
century.
The Caucasian war is one of the “sectors” of this fierce struggle for “the
Turkish inheritance”. Then the West ( England and France) was extremely
interested in successes of the army of Chechen and Avarian myurids battling
against Russia , but the whole support of this struggle was reduced, as well
as today, to creation of “Chechen committees” in European capitals. Turkey
also stayed idle, causing fury of imam Shamil, and though they perfectly
realized in Istanbul , that a long war of Russia in the Chechen Republic and
Dagestan was, basically, a fight for destruction of the last barrier in the
way of intrusion to Turkey .
The revolution in Russia . Lenin’s union with Ataturk. Then – Stalin’s
accession. Overcoming of distempers. And again Turkey , as a delusion,
emerges in geopolitical plans of the USSR . Today it is precisely known,
that Stalin had plans of occupation of Turkey , the lands of which ground,
as it follows from memoirs of the son of Beria, were decided to attach
partially to Armenia and Georgia . It was not realized, for the Second World
War though began according to Stalin’s plans, but was waged according to
Hitler’s plans, and came to the end according to plans of the Anglo-American
alliance. The moment of revival by Stalin of an orthodox patriarchy and
imperial military attributes of old Russia is also interesting here. Again,
already during the war, churches with crosses placed on a half moon began to
operate, and officers and generals of the Soviet army received grades, gold
shoulder-strips and lampas of period of the Empire. And a gain of Turkey
again was in plans.
The communistic idea of an empire also, certainly, was messianic, and,
accordingly, aggressive. “World revolution”, “releasing of the oppressed
mankind”, “the great emancipating campaign of the Red army” was the slogans
coding of global plans to capture the whole world. But the Soviet Union was
ruined.
What is now? Now the successor of the USSR – the Russian Federation – has
remained. The Russian Federation is an empire by definition, as an empire is
when one people (according to the Russian terminology – the “title” one)
subordinate to themselves one or several other peoples. Certainly,
submission of the people is carried out not by the Russian people
themselves. It is carried out by the president of the Russian Federation ,
the government, the army, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB and so
on. Russian people finance these structures by taxes and provide them with
their support. If Russians and even representatives of other people vote
against separation of any national formation from the Russian Federation ,
for example, the Chechen Republic , they vote for preservation of an empire.
And on the contrary. But we are speaking not about it.
For the first time in its history the Russian empire has remained without
messianic idea. Certainly, there are Russian geo-politicians, who realize
how much it is dangerous to an empire to remain without a sacral, offensive,
aggressive idea. Without such an idea the empire is doomed to fail, for its
political form (enthrallment of other people) is deprived of the
corresponding ideological content (“the sacred idea”, which would motivate
this submission in opinion of Russians). But these “realizing” geopolitics
remain a small group of intellectuals, who do not have much influence on the
Kremlin.
If the Russian empire is kept, we shall say so, in a political formation,
but is deprived of “the offensive messianic idea”; “the pragmatic defensive
idea” will inevitably be used instead of it. And this idea is already used –
“preservation of integrity of the Russian Federation “. The words said by
Putin after Beslan are remarkable, “There is an intervention of the
international forces against Russia “. These words and the policy of
preservation of the “integrity of the Russian Federation ” prove that the
empire has finally passed to defense. That is, it has passed to the idea,
opposite to that on the basis of which it was built, developed, extended and
became stronger.
The popular today nationalist idea in Russia can not rescue the empire, as
the nationalism of one people pushes away from them other people and does
disintegration of an empire faster and more catastrophic. Nationalism is a
centrifugal idea, as the centripetal idea is necessary for stable existence
of an empire. The nationalism can sometimes be a constructive idea for a
mono-national state; however this ideology is always destructive for
multinational empires. But there are no other ideologies in modern Russia .
The sub-national communistic idea is compromised by shattering defeat of the
USSR in the cold war, and the religion in Russian people is eradicated by
communism (Stalin advances with Orthodoxy came to an end with Khrushchev’s
coming to power).
The defending empire perishes, breaks up, and ceases to exist. It is the
same insuperable law of life, as sea inflow and ebbs. It is a question not
of a defensive war, but about “ideological defense”. The USA has a
messianic, offensive idea: export of democracy and consequently the USA can
become an empire (or if someone likes another term, “the center of
globalism”). Russia does not have such an idea any more. And an empire
becomes senseless without such an idea, people will not be at war for its
safety with sincere belief in sanctity of the mission, believing, that they
bear “happiness for the mankind”.
However there is a variant of shattering falling of the empire, and there is
a variant of its peace dismantle. The Kremlin has chosen the first variant.
Therefore we shall see the Apocalypses show in the nearest future.
Idris Maigov ,
Chechenpress

Deutsche Welle, Germany
April 24 2005
Armenian Massacre Clouds Turkey’s EU Bid

Photo: Honoring the dead at Armenia’s national memorial on Sunday

Tens of thousands of Armenians including the president and top
officials filed through the towering Genocide Memorial in Yerevan on
Sunday to commemorate the 90th anniversary of mass killings by
Ottoman Turks.
A silent procession headed by President Robert Kocharian laid flowers
at an eternal flame as Armenia’s chief clergymen sang an emotional
Gregorian Apostolic requiem service beneath the baking sun.
The long line and pounding sunshine were too much for many ordinary
Armenians who came to pay their respects.
Women could be seen as they were carried out of the line leading to
the memorial half-conscious from sunstroke after having made the long
climb to the hilltop where it is situated above the capital.
Armenia wants Turkish acknowledgment
In the run-up to the anniversary, Armenia has pulled out all the
stops in an effort to make Turkey acknowledge the massacres as
genocide and officials have estimated that 1.5 million people will
visit the memorial through Sunday.
The events being commemorated are the mass expulsion and mass deaths
of Christian Armenians in what was then the Ottoman Empire during
World War I.
“For 30 years now on this day, I’ve come to this memorial early in
the morning. Here I lay six tulips, the number of deaths in my family
at the time of the genocide,” said Mikhitar Haroutounian, 74.
April 24 marks beginning of massacre
On April 24, 1915 the Ottoman Turkish authorities arrested some 200
Armenian community leaders in the start of what Armenia and many
other countries contend was an organized genocidal campaign to
eliminate ethnic Armenians from the Ottoman Empire.
Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kinsmen perished in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917 as the Ottoman Empire,
the predecessor of modern Turkey, was falling apart.
Ankara counters that 300,000 Armenians and thousands of Turks were
killed in “civil strife” during World War I when the Armenians rose
against their Ottoman rulers and sided with invading Russian troops.
Ninety years ago “a crime was committed that had no equals in the
history of Armenia or all of humanity, it did not even have a name,”
Kocharian said according to the presidential administration.

Apology, not compensation sought
He called on Turkey and the international community to condemn the
killings as genocide, adding that the former Soviet republic was
ready to build “natural” relations with its larger neighbor if it
faced up to its history.
A mass was to be celebrated later on Sunday in Yerevan’s Saint
Gregory cathedral, as well as in churches all over Armenia, and a
minute’s silence was to be observed throughout the country at 7 p.m.
Meanwhile, Kocharian (photo) made a conciliatory gesture towards
Ankara, saying his government would not ask for financial
compensation for the killings if Turkey recognized them as genocidal.
“We are not talking about compensation, this is only about a moral
issue,” Kocharian told Russia’s Rossiya television, which is also
broadcast in Armenia.
Pressure on Turkey ahead of EU talks
The row over whether or not to call the killings genocide has
embarrassed Turkey as it readies for the start of European Union
accession talks later this year.
On Friday, French President Jacques Chirac accompanied Kocharian to a
Paris monument for victims of the massacre, and in Germany members of
parliament from across the political spectrum appealed to Turkey to
accept the massacre of Armenians as part of its history, saying this
would help its EU aspirations.
On Tuesday, Poland joined a list of 15 countries that have officially
acknowledged the killings as genocide.
The decision has drawn protest from Ankara, where officials called it
“irresponsible,” and said it would hurt relations.
However, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (photo) recently
proposed the creation of a joint Armenian-Turkish commission to
review the issue, though officials expressed confidence that the
study would confirm Turkey’s current position.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BY NOW
By Diana Der-Hovanessian
for the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide by the Turks
By now we should have finished grieving.
By now we should have found some peace.
By now there should have been atonement
and the pain slightly eased.
By now witnesses are almost gone.
And the lies about our bones believed.
By now they thought we would be forgotten.
and our blood dried to dust and blown.
By now they thought the smoke and fire
would be either greened or stone.
By now they thought our stolen children
would have all turned into Turks.
By now they thought the aid money
sent back to America would do its work
in changing truth to lies:
that we were never here alive.
By now they thought the last survivors
and their children would be in graves.
They didn’t count on our children’s children
even angrier, and more outraged.
—
Diana Der Hovanessian is a Fulbright professor of American literature
at Yerevan State University in 1994 and 1999, she is author of 17
books and has published in American Scholar, Poetry, Harvard Review,
Nation, Paris Review, New Republic, and her poetry is regularly
published in the Christian Science Monitor. She has awards from the
Columbia Translation Center, P.E.N., Writers Union of America, and the
Writers Union of Armenia.

Armenian president wants “normal relations” with Turkey
RTR Russia TV, Moscow
23 Apr 05

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has said there are no relations
between Armenia and Turkey at the moment and blamed Turkey for
this. He added, however, that Armenia intended to build normal
relations with its neighbours, including Turkey.
In an interview on Russia TV channel on the eve of the 90th
anniversary of the genocide against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,
Kocharyan said: “Armenia simply does not have any relations with
Turkey at the moment and that is not our fault.”
Kocharyan told the presenter of the Zerkalo current affairs programme,
Nikolay Svanidze, that it was strange that “malice has been preserved
by the side responsible for the crime and not by the victim of that
crime”. The president went on to say that the Armenians viewed the
history of relations with Turkey “with bitterness but without hatred”
and that they could not quite understand Turkey which is not simply
denying its own past, but which is blockading modern Armenia.
Kocharyan said this situation could be explained by “the state of the
modern Turkish society and evaluation by the society of that difficult
period of its own history: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and very
many processes that occurred there because of that fall”. Kocharyan
confirmed that he had recently received a letter from the Turkish
prime minister, but added that the letter did not contain much that
would help tackle the problem of relations between the two countries.
Answering a question as to what the recognition of the genocide would
mean for the Armenians, Kocharyan said that his nation wanted justice
and not in the sense of some compensation, but first of all, in moral
sense. He added that there probably were legal grounds for seeking
compensation, but the world had moved on and that it was necessary to
look into the future and not into the past.

[Congressional Record: April 22, 2005 (Senate)]
[Page S4148-S4149]
>From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr22ap05-88]

90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, as in previous years, I would like
to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. This year
marks the 90th anniversary of the brutal campaign to eliminate
Armenians from the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
April 24 was chosen as the day of remembrance because on that date in
1915, more than 5,000 Armenians including civic leaders, intellectuals,
writers, priests, scientists, and doctors were systematically rounded
up and murdered. The systematic and intentional killing continued until
1923, leaving nearly 1.5 million Armenians dead.
There are those who attempt to deny that this atrocity ever occurred.
But there is no denying the overwhelming historical record and
eyewitness accounts that documented the appalling events of 1915-23,
which occurred during the time of the Ottoman Empire. The United States
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, stated at the time
that “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these
deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole
race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me,
they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact . . . I am
confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such
horrible episode as this.”
The annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide is not a condemnation
of our ally, the present day Republic of Turkey. But, our mutual
interest with our NATO partner and our friendship with, and respect
for, the Turkish people are not reasons to ignore historical fact.
Nobel Laureate writer Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of genocide
constitutes a “double killing” for it seeks to rewrite history by
absolving the perpetrators of violence while ignoring the suffering of
the victims.
During my time in the Senate, I have spoken about the Armenian
Genocide many times. It is important that we take time to remember and
honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors who are still with
us. In addition, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that
history is not repeated. This is the highest tribute we can pay to the
victims of any genocide.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to honor the memory of the 1.5
million Armenian genocide victims by recognizing that there are still
those in the world who will stop at nothing to perpetuate campaigns of
hate, intolerance, and unthinkable violence. We must do all we can to
stop atrocities, like those in the Darfur region of Sudan, from
occurring as well as continue to provide adequate recovery aid to
survivors. In doing so, we will truly honor the memory of genocide
victims and fulfill our responsibilities as a world leader.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 90th
anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th
century. One and a half million men, women, and children lost their
lives as a result of the violent massacres and extensive deportation
carried out by the Ottoman Turkish rulers against their Armenian
citizens. Today, as we remember the bravery and sacrifice of the
Armenian people in the face of great suffering, we renew our commitment
to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all humanity.
Nine decades have passed since the terrible blows that befell the
Armenian people in 1915. On April 24 of that year, more than 250
Armenian intellectuals and civic leaders in Constantinople were rounded
up and killed, in what was the first step in a systematic plan to
exterminate the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. After the
round-up, Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army were segregated
into labor battalions and brutally murdered. In towns and villages
across Anatolia, Armenian leaders were arrested and killed. Finally,
the remaining Armenian population, women, children, and the elderly,
were driven from their homes and deported to the Syrian Desert.
In reality, “deportation” was merely a euphemism for death marches.
Ottoman Turkish soldiers allowed brigands and released convicts to kill
and rape the deportees at will; often the soldiers themselves
participated in the attacks. Driven into the desert without food and
water, weakened by the long march, hundreds of thousands of Armenians
succumbed to starvation. In areas of Anatolia where deportation was not
deemed practicable, other vicious actions were undertaken. In the towns
along the Black Sea coast, for example, thousands of Armenians were
packed on boats and drowned.
The efforts to annihilate the Armenian population were well
documented in first-hand accounts, press reports, and other testimony.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey at the time, personally
made vigorous appeals to stop the genocide, calling it “a campaign of
race extermination” and “the greatest horror in history”. Leslie
Davis, a U.S. diplomat stationed in eastern Anatolia, had a similar
account, writing once to the State Department, “it has been no secret
that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the
methods used have been more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more
effective, than I had at first supposed.” Even Germany, Ottoman
Turkey’s own ally, condemned the Turkish “acts of horror.”
Despite the testimony from U.S. diplomats who were witness to the
events and the abundance of credible, international evidence
documenting the Armenian genocide, there are still those who refuse to
acknowledge its occurrence. To anyone who doubts this brutal history, I
would recommend a visit to the National Archives, where much of the
evidence collected by our diplomats, along with survivors’ accounts,
are stored.
I do not deny that coming to terms with history is a difficult and
painful process, as those who lived in South Africa and the countries
of the former Soviet bloc can tell us. But the challenge of acceptance
does not justify the distortion of truth. Falsifying history insults
the memory of those who suffered and threatens our very understanding
of justice and humanity.
We have a national interest in seeking that our foreign policy is
grounded in the same principles on which this Nation was founded, a
respect for the truth, the rule of law, and democratic institutions.
Clearly, this was in part the administration’s motivation for its
recognition last fall of the genocide in Darfur. In his testimony
before the
[[Page S4149]]
Foreign Relations Committee on September 9, Secretary Powell declared
that “the evidence corroborates the specific intent of the
perpetrators to destroy ‘a group in whole or in part’.” This begs the
question: if Darfur, why not Armenia? Did the Ottomans not seek to
destroy the Armenians to this same extent?
Although Americans of Armenian origin, many of whom came to this
country fleeing persecution and looking to rebuild, make up a
relatively small community among the multitudes that comprise our
Nation, they have enriched our national life beyond proportion to their
numbers, in the arts and sciences, in medicine, in business, and in the
daily life of communities across the Nation. I support Americans of
Armenian origin in calling for recognition of the genocide committed
against their relatives 90 years and just a few generations ago. In
recognizing this tragedy, we reinforce our commitment to building a
world in which history will not repeat itself.

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan Plot Expansion of BTC to Carry Kashagan Crude
Global Insight Perspective
World Markets Research Centre (WMRC) Daily Analysis
19 April 2005
By Andrew Neff
Significance
The heads of SOCAR and Kazmunaigaz have
voiced their support for a plan that would see the
1-million-b/d-capacity BTC pipeline expanded to 1.7
million b/d in order to serve as the main export
conduit for oil produced from the Kashagan field in
the Kazakh sector of the northern Caspian Sea.
Implications The plan would also entail a 700-km
pipeline link between the Kazakh port of Atyrau and
Baku, which – while solving Kazakhstan’s problem of
finding an outlet for the voluminous quantities of oil
to be extracted from Kashagan – will likely run into
environmental opposition from Iran and Russia,
especially in lieu of a multilateral agreement on the
division of the Caspian.
Outlook
In addition to the likely roadblock that
Russia and Iran present in opposing subsea pipelines,
there are a number of hurdles to implementing the
Kazakh-Azeri plan, including the issue of transit
tariffs and the participation of the BTC and Kashagan
stakeholder groups.
Expanding Co-Operation and Pipelines
Until now, talk of linking future Kazakh oil
production with the soon-to-be-operational BTC
pipeline, running 1,760 km from Azerbaijan to Turkey
(see ‘Related Articles’ below), was mainly limited to
government circles. Moreover, the talks focused on
securing somewhere in the region of 100,000 to 200,000
b/d of Kazakh oil output to pump via the
US$3.6-billion pipeline, with the emphasis on boosting
its utilisation in the initial years to improve its
profitability. The Azerbaijan International Operating
Company (AIOC)’s development plan for the
Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli (ACG) structure has left
available space in the pipeline until at least 2008.
Azeri government officials, knowing this and bolstered
by political support from the US government, courted
the Kazakh government to provide incremental oil to
supplement the BTC.
The Kazakh government has long been coy when it comes
to pipelines and the direction of exports for its
anticipated future oil boom. While attempting to
assuage Azeri and US policymakers, the Central Asian
republic has quietly continued to pursue additional
export opportunities, including expansion of the
Tengiz-Novorossiisk pipeline to Russia, a
trans-Kazakhstan pipeline to China, and even oil swaps
with Iran. The ‘western’ route for Kazakh oil via the
BTC was never really in doubt, but then it was never
really viewed as the ‘main export pipeline’ for Kazakh
producers either.
While Kazakh and Azeri authorities have continued to
try to hammer out an agreement on transit tariffs via
the BTC to ensure it carries some Kazakh oil when it
comes online later this year, the current discussions
between SOCAR and Kazmunaigaz,
the national oil and gas companies of Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan, respectively,
appear to give greater emphasis to Kazakh oil in the
pipeline. With the shift from the political to the
commercial arena, officials from both companies
confirmed that they are discussing a plan that would
entail a much larger volume of Kazakh oil – mainly
from the elephantine Kashagan field in the shallow
waters of the north Caspian – to flow to western
markets via the BTC. Furthermore, the plan under
consideration would see an actual 700-km pipeline laid
across the Sea, linking the Kazakh port of Atyrau with
Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, and an expansion of the
BTC to handle 1.7 million b/d.
BTC Shareholders
Company Share
BP 30.1%
SOCAR 25%
ChevronTexaco 8.9%
Statoil 8.71%
TPAO 6.53%
Total 5%
Eni/Agip 5%
Itochu 3.4%
ConocoPhillips 2.5%
Inpex 2.5%
Amerada Hess 2.36%
Shifting Commercial Winds
Previous discussions between Azeri and Kazakh
authorities envisioned a barge system of
transportation, carrying Kazakh oil across the Caspian
to be reloaded and exported via the BTC, with the
capacity of the controversial pipeline slated to
remain at 1 million b/d. So what has changed? Although
the political winds of change that have swept across
other former Soviet States have not hit Kazakhstan and
Azerbaijan, the commercial winds have shifted recently
in the two Caspian littoral states, perhaps altering
the outlook for greater trans-Caspian co-operation in
an oil transport system.
To begin with, Kazmunaigaz, after much protracted
discussion with Eni and the other Western oil
companies in the Agip North Caspian Operating Company
(Agip KCO), has finally secured its stake in the
development of the Kashagan field. BG Group’s 16.67%
stake in the field will be split, with Kazmunaigaz
gaining an 8.33% stake while five of the international
oil companies (IOCs) share out the remaining 8.33%.
The agreement allows the government, through
Kazmunaigaz, to ensure a direct state role in the
development of the country’s largest oil project.
Kashagan has estimated recoverable oil reserves of 7
to 9 billion barrels, and is expected to produce 1.2
million b/d of oil by 2016 at its peak.
Shortly thereafter, US supermajor ChevronTexaco, which
is the largest foreign investor in Kazakhstan,
announced its plan to acquire Unocal for US$18
billion. The acquisition will allow ChevronTexaco to
take on Unocal’s stake in both the AIOC and the BTC
consortium, giving the supermajor a timely pick-up as
AIOC begins ramping up production in advance of the
BTC’s commissioning. While not a stakeholder in Agip
KCO, ChevronTexaco is the operator of the
Tengizchevroil (TCO) consortium in western Kazakhstan,
and the fight over the expansion of the Caspian
Pipeline Consortium (CPC)’s Tengiz-Novorossiisk
pipeline has raised serious concerns for
ChevronTexaco’s ability to export its future output
from that project. Hence, the acquisition of Unocal
and its BTC stake gives the number-two US oil company
a measure of export security for its Tengiz output.
The decision by ExxonMobil and Devon Energy not to
export their share of AIOC oil via the BTC will free
up additional space in that pipeline, which
ChevronTexaco may be keen to secure for itself.
Outlook and Implications
Before contractors begin putting together proposals
for contracts to expand the BTC and construct a subsea
pipeline linking it with Atyrau, however, it should be
noted that a number of potential obstacles remain.
Firstly, there is still no firm guarantee from the
Kazakh government or Kazmunaigaz on the volume of oil
to be transported. SOCAR president Natiq Aliyev said
that, as of 2010, Kazakhstan would be transporting
500,000 b/d of oil from the Kashagan field via the
BTC, rising to 1-million b/d at peak production.
However, Kazmunaigaz’s managing director Kairgeldy
Kabyldin was notably less enthusiastic, although he
promised that an agreement would be signed by
September. Still, several previous timelines for
inking a Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan oil export/transport
agreement have lapsed.
Secondly, even a political agreement between the
Kazakh and Azeri governments likely will not be
sufficient to construct a subsea pipeline linking
Atyrau and Baku. In the absence of a multilateral
agreement on the division of the Caspian Sea and
clarification of its legal status, both the Iranian
and Russian governments have raised objections to
subsea oil and gas pipelines via the Caspian in the
past, ostensibly on environmental grounds. Russia’s
environmental objections ring hollow, however, as gas
giant Gazprom has already laid a gas pipeline across
the Black Sea and plans to lay another subsea pipeline
in the Baltic. Rather, environmental concerns mask the
true nature of Russian and Iranian disagreements over
trans-Caspian pipelines – the loss of oil and gas
transit revenue and corresponding influence. A
Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan pipeline link would deny both
Russia and Iran the chance to reap oil transit
revenues from Kazakh oil exports, as well as (at least
in the mind of Russian and Iranian policymakers) serve
as a de facto victory for the US government in the
‘Great Game’ of Caspian pipelines. Thus, united
Russian and Iranian opposition may derail any
potential Atyrau-Baku link – at least until the
Caspian littoral states agree on the division of the
Sea’s resources.
Thirdly, the expansion of the BTC and the inclusion of
Kashagan oil via the pipeline will require consent
from the stakeholders in both consortia. BTC
stakeholders – four of which are also Kashagan
shareholders (representing 15% of BTC’s ownership) –
may not have the stomach for additional investment in
the pipeline at this time after the cost overruns,
environmental headaches, and human rights
controversies that have surrounded the BTC thus far.
For their part, Kashagan shareholders (aside from
Kazmunaigaz at least) may not be so keen on mixing
their oil with Azeri Light via the BTC.
Given the questions surrounding alternative export
pipelines and the risks involved in relying on Russia
and China as markets, however, the Agip KCO consortium
members may look more favourably on the BTC transport
route, especially if they are able to secure transit
tariffs equivalent to BTC shareholders. Considering
that the main problems of building the BTC have
already been dealt with, BTC stakeholders may also see
the addition of Kashagan oil and the necessary
expansion of the pipeline as beneficial, as the
expansion of capacity on the BTC will be a relatively
simple affair of adding pumping stations.
Nevertheless, with the legal status of the Caspian
still in doubt and the BTC still not yet operational,
there are serious obstacles still to overcome to
expand the BTC and connect it to Atyrau; Kazmunaigaz
and SOCAR may have to wait to cross that Caspian
bridge when they come to it.

THE INTERCHURCH MOVEMENT SUPPORTS THE RIGHTS OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE
A1plus
| 17:21:42 | 22-04-2005 | Official |
In connection with the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide the
Middle East Church Council by means of its Secretary General has sent
a letter to the Catholicos Aram I. They have stressed the necessity
of recognizing the Armenian Genocide and supported the fair rights
of the Armenian Nation.
The World Church Council also in its announcement made inconnection
with the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide stresses the
historical reality of the Armenian Genocide and the necessity for
Turkey to recognize it.

BUNDESTAG TO DISCUSS RESOLUTION ON MASS SLAUGHTER OF ARMENIANS TODAY
Pan Armenian News
21.04.2005 05:18
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ German Bundestag will today discuss the Resolution
on Deportation and Mass Slaughter of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey
in 1915. As reported by German media, the document notes that some
1.2-1.5 million Armenians were killed in the course of “a planned in
advance deportation” realized during World War I. The resolution is
sponsored by Christian Democratic Union CDU/CSU of Germany. However,
according to Berliner Zeitung, the term “genocide” is “cautiously
avoided” in the three-page resolution. One of the MPs, who wished to
remain anonymous, reported that the resolution aims at reconciliation
of Turkey with Armenia. “We want to build a reconciliation bridge, not
to close the door,” he noted. In his turn Chairman of the Commission
for European Affairs of the Bundestag Matthias Wissmann stated that
“open and honest attitude towards the massacre of the Armenians
is a litmus test for the European trust to Turkey.” In his words,
“it is a high risk for the EU to accept such a country as Turkey,
which has such tense relations with its neighboring Armenia,” Regnum
news agency reported.