Author: Torosian Aram

NATO’S EVIL TWIN?
By Evgeny Morozov

TCS Daily, DC
June 8 2006

“I find it passing strange to bring a leading terrorist nation in the
world into an organization that says it’s against terror”, said Donald
Rumsfeld in Singapore last week, elevating the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) to the fore of media attention.

“OPEC with bombs”, as a commentator in one Canadian newspaper dubbed
SCO, is now the official bogeyman of the month. Ever since its
inception in 2001, SCO lingered in total media blackout, but Rumsfeld
gave its forthcoming summit in Shanghai the best PR it could hope
for. Bloggers — both liberal and conservative — have also recently
picked on the subject, mostly portraying SCO as a militaristic behemoth
aspiring to counterbalance American supremacy in Asia.

Becoming of a bogeyman, SCO is depicted in a rather bellicose manner
redolent of the Cold War era. Touted as Russia and China’s response
to NATO, SCO appears even more threatening, especially when plotted
against Pentagon’s fretting about China’s military expansion. And
now Iran — that perpetual bogeyman — aspires to join too. Global
security, if not the world order, seems to be at stake.

Are such fears justified?

The organization’s past and present do not seem to warrant all the
bad press. SCO launched to deal with security and confidence-building
issues (border conflicts, terrorism, and militant Islam), and since
then has expanded to the matters of economics, transportation,
culture, disaster relief, and law enforcement. So far, SCO sounds
short of NATO-type of tasks, doesn’t it?

A closer examination reveals that SCO aspires to be neither a new
NATO nor a new Warsaw Pact. At least, not yet and not officially. Its
charter has no reference to collective defense of its member by
others in the event of an outside attack (well, it does stipulate for
collective resistance to big armed gangs or international terrorists
if they cross the border of a member country — but NATO troops hardly
fall under that category). SCO has even developed a promising mechanism
for conflict resolution: i.e. last year when China suggested bringing
in Pakistan as an observer, Russia insisted that India be invited
too. As a result, both now cooperate within SCO’s framework.

In a move characteristic of the proposed cooperation under the SCO
auspices, China has extended loans worth of $900 million to other
SCO members so that they can buy Chinese exports. In another move,
Russia has recently agreed to help Tajikistan improve its border
security and fight drug-trafficking. SCO’s activities might not sound
extremely pacifist, but they do not sound belligerent either.

Set against the background of the rising violence in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the fact that Asian states cooperate in combating
terrorist threats is hard to reprimand. Even Rumsfeld agreed that
the increasing military cooperation between Asian countries bodes
well for the region’s stability. So, what’s all the fuss about?

Perhaps, the Pentagon hawks are fixating on the wrong organization —
they would be much wiser to look at the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, which comprises all of the SCO member states plus
Belarus and Armenia minus China. This is a true anti-NATO alliance in
the post-Soviet space, and it hardly concedes its real intentions
(which are obvious from the name). Yet how often have you seen
this organization in the press? (Perhaps, it is because Iran is not
joining it.)

Has SCO appeared threatening in the past? Partly. The only instance
when it flexed its muscles was at its Astana summit in 2005, when
members asked US troops to provide a deadline for their withdrawal
from Central Asia. However, it was an exercise in PR rather than
an exhibit of military strength. In the past, such statements would
have originated from some Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
institution — would anybody in their right minds ever accuse CIS of
presenting a threat to the international security?

Today as SCO’s clout in the region grows, Iran feels a strong urge
to become a member. The application to join was submitted by the
President Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor. Now the latter appears
firmly committed to cement Iran’s place in the SCO. Unlike most of
Ahmadinejad’s other desires, this one is hardly outlandish.

Sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq and facing grave problems
with its tumultuous minorities, Iran wants to step up its efforts
in preventing potential terrorist threats. The recent unrest of its
Azeri minority over a cartoon published in a local newspaper was an
alarming sign of how unruly things might soon become (four people
were killed and 70 injured, while the whole Azeri community in the
region was watching the evens with great uneasiness).

Acquiring membership in SCO would be a logical way to alleviate
Tehran’s concerns and ensure “collective resistance to big armed
gangs”. No matter whether it is Ahmadinejad or any other more
democratically elected leader ruling the country, reining in Iran’s
minorities is a top priority for the US, and Iraq is not the last
reason for that (Iran’s Kurds and Sunni Arabs might yet play their
own card in Baghdad). As an extra tool to prevent ethnic tensions in
the region, SCO might not be that bad.

So, why not capitalize on Iran’s vulnerability, and factor in
Ahmadinejad’s fears and SCO ambitious in all policy calculations?

Well, that’s easier said than done; Moscow and Beijing have tasted the
lucre of horse-trading and, depending on which official you talk to,
are sending mixed signals about their eagerness to embrace Iran in SCO.

Their stance is changing symmetrically in response to the US
position. The more vocally US oppose Iran’s membership in SCO, the
more strongly Russians and Chinese appear to want it. However, in the
rare moments that the White House skirts the issue, the Russians and
the Chinese oppose Iran’s membership themselves.

Thus, in early April Zhang Deguang, the Secretary General of SCO stated
that the organization would consider application for full membership
from observers. Just a few weeks later, Sergey Ivanov, Russia’s
minister of defense, expressed skepticism about any forthcoming
enlargements of the SCO. A few weeks later Gleb Pavlvosky, the
Kremlin’s spin doctor, said that “the consideration of this issue
was planned a year ago, and if Iran is still interested and if no
insurmountable obstacles are put by the SCO member-states or Iran
itself, this might well happen”.

Approximately at the same time, Russian foreign minister Sergey
Lavrov stated that the SCO is in the process of negotiating a possible
membership with Tehran.

To add to the controversy, on May 29 the Secretary General changed
his mind, saying that the organization’s charter does not provide
for the inclusion of new members (he obviously did not know when he
spoke in April). Nevertheless, an invitation to attend SCO’s 2006
summit was sent to Ahmadinejad; he agreed to come.

Seen through the prism of international relations, the opposition by
the two of SCO’s founding and dominating members to Iran’s membership
does not square well with their rhetoric of geopolitics. If Beijing
and Moscow believe in their own stories about the multipolar world,
they should jump at the opportunity to handle Iran’s crisis; having
it in the SCO will only strengthen the multipolarity they crave. Up
till now, however, their support for Iran’s bid to join SCO has been
rather “muted”.

To see why, suppose the US lifts its opposition to Iran’s membership
in SCO. Will it be the end of the unipolar world and the US military
supremacy? Or rather the end to Russia and China’s horse-trading with
the West? The second option is much more likely, so Iran’s ambition
to SCO should be used as an opportunity rather than a threat by the US.

The moment Iran joins SCO — if Russia and China ever allow that to
happen — both Moscow and Beijing will start panicking: none of them
wants to be responsible for Iran’s loony statements about Israel or
its nuclear program. They would also need to stop naysaying at the
UN Security Council and engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran,
something they’ve started forgetting how to do. They would also
become more involved in joint negotiations with the EU and the US,
since they would have their international credibility to lose should
Iran go nuclear while member of their warm club.

But since the US has already expressed its condemnation of Iran’s
membership in SCO both Russia and China stand to benefit more from the
current stand-off than from having Iran in SCO. Any further escalation
of the situation around Tehran’s nuclear plans only increases the price
that the US and EU would have to pay for Russia’s and China’s eventual
capitulation at the UN. And both of them have a lot to ask from the
West. Just ask Russia about the prospects of its membership in WTO.

What do the US and EU gain if they seize the initiative and green-light
Iran’s membership in SCO?

First of all, such would disarm SCO of whatever evil intentions —
if any — it has harbored. With Iran on board, the block would hardly
dare voicing any belligerent rhetoric. It would be a very awkward
conglomeration, which might actually focus on subjects like border
cooperation, in the absence of any other spicier topics. Neither
Russia nor China is silly enough to discuss alternatives to the US
domination in the region with Ahmadinejad present in the room; it
would be a total media disaster.

Secondly, Iran’s membership in SCO could finally put the burden of
global leadership on Russia and China who have largely shunned away
from their responsibilities as members of the Security Council. Iran
presents them with a good opportunity to prove that they are mature
actors on the international scene and deserve their global status
(this is especially relevant for Russia, which chair G8 this year).

Through SCO they will have to be extra cautious guarding Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, because, indirectly, they might be implicated in
the consequences too. It would be much easier to take both Beijing
and Moscow to task if they have some leverage and connection with
Iran in SCO. That either of them will instigate, not deter, Iran from
developing its nuclear potential is nonsense; both countries are too
dependent on the US and EU to engage in such dangerous schemes.

Therefore, the policy of the US and the EU regarding Iran’s membership
in SCO should focus not on blocking it, but rather on persuading China
and Russia to use SCO as a carrot to obtain certain concessions from
Iran. In order to incentivize them, the US and EU might, indeed,
require more and more carrots. But, perhaps, it is better to waste
a few carrots on China and Russia than waste all of the Middle East
with one stick.

0806A

ARMENIAN APPOINTED TO POST IN GOVERNMENT OF STAVROPOL TERRITORY

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
June 05 2006

STAVROPOL, JUNE 5, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. By the order of the
Stavropol territory Governor, Vladimir Minosiants was appointed Deputy
Head of the Staff of the Stavropol territory Government. According to
the Yerkramas (Territory) newspaper of Armenians of Russia, before
this appointment Vladimir Minosiants held the post of Assistant to
the Stavropol territory Governor.

THERE WAS GOOD ATMOSPHERE IN TALKS OF AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS IN BUCHAREST
Author: E.Huseynov

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
June 5 2006

There was a good atmosphere during the meeting of Armenian President
Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Bucharest
on June 4, and there was held a detailed discussion of the ways of
resolving the conflict, Trend reports quoting an interview of Steven
Mann, the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE’s Minsk Group, to the radio
“Svaboda” (Freedom). Mann said that the presidents spoke for 2 and
1/2 hours.

Russian Minsk Group co-chair Yury Merzlyakov said the fact that the
presidents decided to meet was significant: “Russia’s position is
that a settlement cannot be imposed on the two parties. They should
reach it themselves, with the help of mediators. I think it is clear.

The parties themselves bear the main responsibility for reaching
a settlement.”

HRANT MARGARIAN: PROSECUTOR GENERAL HAS NO EIGHT TO FOUND POLITICAL PARTIES
Editorial

Yerkir.am
June 02, 2006

Speaking to the Radio Liberty, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)
Bureau representative Hrant Margarian said the prosecutor general
has no right to found political parties, directly or indirectly,
referring to the news that Armenia’s Prosecutor General Aghvan
Hovsepian stands behind the foundation of the Union for Armenia Party,
Noyan Tapan reported.

He also said that some people in Armenia think they are “a feudal”
of a marz (province). “I am speaking about the Aragatsotn marz,”
Margarian added.

He also mentioned he would not seek a presidential nomination in the
2008 presidential election but did not rule out he would be included
in the ARF list in the parliamentary election due in 2007. He also
noted several businessmen will also be included in the list.

Margarian said he did not consider the Prosperous Armenia and the
Union for Armenia parties as ARF’s rivals in the elections.

Speaking of the political situation after the Orinats Yerkir party left
the ruling coalition, Margarian said nobody was pleased by that fact.

“The coalition is currently made up of the ARF, Republican Party and
the president,” he concluded.

SPEECH AT THE SUMMIT OF THE BLACK SEA FORUM FOR DIALOGUE AND PARTNERSHIP

Lragir.am
05 June 06

Your Excellency, President Basesku,

Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First of all, let me thank President Basesku for initiating this
Forum and for the extended hospitality.

Countries of the Black Sea region have rich and at the same time
dramatic history of co-existence. The Black Sea has always been a
center of strategic interest. This lead to many devastating wars
that have formed its current political map, ethnic and religious
diversity. However, this all has also resulted in substantial
interrelation of our cultures and traditions. Partially that is
why there are so many similarities in the process of transformation
underway in our countries. This is true in case with the internal
transformation, aimed at deepening of democracy and transparency of
the society. This also influences the shaping of new types of foreign
interactions in the context of the changing world.

We are present at the formation of new dynamic processes, changing
the region, forming new perceptions about it. Two objective questions
come across: how possible is a common direction of development of the
region? Will this lead to the formation of the new regional identity,
based on a common interest and inherited cultural interaction? Our
Forum is called to address these challenging issues.

We shall first evaluate the level of motivation in each country of
the region. Secondly, we shall work out approaches increasing our
mutual will for partnership.

For Armenia, with limited natural resources and emphasized
entrepreneurial mentality of the people, the choice was clear.

Transformation for us primarily meant the liberalization of economy,
open trade regimes, and a competitive environment. These reforms
substantially changed the structure of Armenian economy. Today over 85
per cent of GDP is produced in private sector, with over 40 per cent
of it being produced in small and medium businesses. Annual growth
of GDP during last five years has averaged at above 12 per cent. It
is natural, that we watch openness and regional cooperation as the
most effective way for our development.

Only lazy people do not speak about benefits of regional cooperation.

It is an axiom, which however comes across many obstacles, which are
often of a subjective nature. There is a need for pragmatic evaluation
of the positive and negative realities.

Let us first assess what unites us:

– Commitment to a common system of values and readiness to play along
the same rules.

– Obvious, tangible economic benefit of regional integration processes.

– Common challenges and threats to the stability and security caused
by the increasing transnational crime, extremism and terrorism.

Meanwhile, we are divided by:

– Unresolved ethnic conflicts,

– Certain deficit of trust, caused by the negative experiences of
the history of the region.

I am confident that we shall concentrate on those elements which unite
us. We shall take steps to harmonize our reforms, achieve unification
of trade regimes and transportation tariffs. There is a need for joint
investment projects in the infrastructures of the region. First of all,
for energy and transportation projects, covering the entire Black Sea
basin, and increasing its economic attractiveness. This will create
favorable environment for resolution of existing conflicts. Through
cooperation to the settlement, through communication to a bigger
trust – that is the best formula for overcoming the controversies,
based on a search for a common interest.

In this context we are ready to continue dialogue with Azerbaijan
for the settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict and with Turkey
on establishing relations without any preconditions.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I would like to briefly touch upon the Nagorno Karabagh conflict and
our vision for its settlement.

The people of Nagorno Karabagh have implemented in practice the right
for self-determination. It was done fully in line with the requirements
of international law. Results of the referendum on independence were
later defended in the war forced on that people.

These events developed in the timeframe of global changes, related
to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. That situation is classical
for cases of self-determination through secesion.

Now for fifteen years Nagorno Karabagh Republic continues to prove its
right for independence by own achievements in effective statecraft. A
whole generation grew up there, which watches itself as possessors
and defenders of that statehood. We believe that there is a need for
effective efforts for a full-scale integration of the Republic in
the international society.

Dear colleagues:

We have an organization – the BSEC, which is the platform for
exploration of the economic potential of our region. I am confident
this Forum and the Declaration we intend to adopt will become a good
stimulus for BSEC’s further activities. They are called to signal
the existence of political will at the highest level for furthering
our partnership.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank the organizers of
the Forum. I hope it will contribute towards strengthening stability,
security and cooperation in the Black Sea region.

Thank you for your attention.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
June 3, 2006 Saturday 09:25 PM EST

Winners in World Chess Olympiad to become known Sun

by Alexei Bukalov

The 37th World Chess Olympiad draws to a close in Turin. Winners of
the competitions, which were held according to the Swiss system of 13
rounds in Turin’s Oval Palace of Sports, are to be announced on
Sunday.

The competitions involved a record-high number of chess players: 148
men’s teams and 108 women’s ones, 1,320 sportsmen, all in all. More
than 450 accredited journalists from various countries have covered
the competitions. Three hundred volunteers assisted the organisers in
conducting the chess Olympiad.

After two weeks of competitions, the men’s team of Armenia (with
Levon Aronyan, 23,making a splendid showing at the first chessboard)
is confidently in the lead with 34 points, followed up by the teams
of France and China (31.5 points each), as well as Russia (31
points). Ukraine’s chessplayers lead in women’s tournament.

ARAMAYIS GRIGORIAN ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF NA STANDING COMMITTEE ON
DEFENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. By the results of the
secret ballot held at the parliament, independent MP Aramayis
Grigorian was elected the Chairman of NA Standing Committee on
Defence, National Security and Internal Affairs. 72 out of 131 MPs
took part in the voting. There were 71 ballot-papers in the
ballot-box. 70 MPs voted for A.Grigorian, 1 voted against.
A.Grigorian was born on October 6 1965 in the village of Avshar,
Ararat region.

In 1988 he graduated from the Institute of Light Industry of Saint
Petersburg (RF), he is an engineer-technologist by speciality. He
started his working activity in 1987 at the factory of knitted wear in
Ararat. Before being elected an MP on May 25 2003 he held the post of
the Director General of Avshar wine factory. At present he is the
owner of the same factory. He was elected an MP by a majoritarian
system, from Ararat electoral district N 25. He is non-partisan. He
is married, has three children.

The Daily Telegraph (LONDON)
June 3, 2006 Saturday

Armenia in the ascendant

by Malcolm Pein

ARMENIA look unstoppable now after a 10th round win over their
nearest rivals, China, at the 37th Chess Olympiad in Turin. Armenia
increased their lead to two points with three matches to play.

The holders, Ukraine, saw their chances of gold medals disappear
after a 1-3 loss to Russia. Peter Svidler and Evgeny Bareev won.

The United States and France drew 2-2 after Etienne Bacrot defeated
Gata Kamsky, but Laurent Fressinet, the French hero against Russia,
let Hikaru Nakamura escape with a draw in a lost endgame two pawns
down.

Scotland had a good result in defeating Australia 2.5-1.5, although
John Shaw lost his unbeaten record and their reward was an 11th round
match against England. That is not the only all-British tie in the
next round because Guernsey are playing Jersey.

England lost 1.5-2.5 to Belarus. Danny Gormally was beaten again
after outplaying his highly rated opponent with black, but going
wrong near move 40. He has lost his last three and is flying home
early.

With the Fide presidential election imminent, both “The Right Move”
ticket, led by Bessel Kok, and the incumbent, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov,
were campaigning hard. There have been allegations of irregularities
already, with the Afghanistan delegation being replaced at the start
of the event.

The supermodel Carmen Kass, who is president of the Estonian
federation, jetted in, apparently to replace her Fide delegate, who
it was thought was going to vote for Ilyumzhinov.

Leaders: 1 Armenia 29; 2 China 27; 3-4 Russia, Czech Republic 26.5; 5
France 26; 6 US 25.5; 39 England 22.5; 47 Scotland 22; 53 Ireland
21.5; 92 Wales 19; 133 Guernsey 15; 135 Jersey 15; 148 teams.

P Svidler – A Volokitin

37th Olympiad, Turin (10)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5
8.0-0 Nf6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.b3 0-0 11.Bb2 c5 12.Rad1 Bb7 13.Na4 (Odd, but
it avoids any possible pawn d5-d4 with tempo followed by e6-e5 and
prepares to play pawn c2-c4. Also the Bb2 is opened up) 13…Qc7
(13…c4!? 14.bxc4 Qa5 15.e5 Nd7 16.Nc3 d4 17.Ne4 Nxe5 18.Bxd4 is
good for White) 14.exd5 Nxd5 (14…exd5 15.Rfe1 is annoying because
if 15…Rfe8 16.Bxf6 forces gxf6 because of the bank rank. If
14…Bxd5 15.Be5 Qc6 16.f3 threatens c2-c4 trapping the bishop and if
16…Qb7 17.Qe3 intending Bxf6 and c2-c4 with an edge) 15.Be5! Qc6
(15…Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.c4 Nf4 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Qe3 Nxg2 20.Rxd6
Nxe3 21.fxe3 Kxh7 22.Nxc5 with total domination, 22…Rab8 23.Rb6)
16.Be4 f6 (16…Nf4 17.Qg4! wins) 17.c4! Rfd8 (17…fxe5 18.cxd5 and
Black cannot recapture; or 17…Nf4 18.Bxf4 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Bxe4 20.Bd6
wins a pawn) 18.Qh5! fxe5 (18…g6 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Qxg6+ Kh8 21.Rd3)
19.Qxh7+ Kf8 20.cxd5 exd5 21.f4! exf4 (21…dxe4 22.fxe5+ wins)
22.Bg6 (Threat Qh8 mate) 22…Qe6 23.Qh8+ Qg8 24.Rxf4+ Bf6 25.Rxf6+!
1-0

Volokitin

Svidler

Final position after 25.Rxf6+! and if 25…gxf6 26.Qxf6+ Qf7 27.Qxf7
mate

Hürriyet, Turkey
June 2 2006

Orhan Pamuk pressed for “political” answers during Moscow press
conference

Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, in Moscow for ceremonies marking the
publishing of his books “Snow” and “Istanbul” in Russian, was pressed
yesterday at a press conference for answers on the Armenian claims of
genocide by Armenian journalists present in the audience.

During a question and answer section of Pamuk’s press conference, an
Armenian reporter asked him “Are you planning on soon visiting
Armenia soon to publicly recognize the Armenian genocide and
apologize to the Armenian people?” In response, Pamuk said “I did not
come to Moscow to engage in politics. Your question is very
political. Not only that, but the subject you are talking about is
one which concerns Turkey and Turkish people. I came to the Russian
capital to help publicize my books.” Following this exchange, the
Russian director in charge of the press conference warned journalists
to keep their questions limited to the topic at hand.

But the politically-charged questions at Pamuk’s press conference did
not end there. Following the Armenian journalist’s question, an Azeri
reporter stood and asked Pamuk “Do you plan on soon writing a book
explaining that the Armenian claims are all lies?” To this, Pamuk
replied “I have been to Azerbayjian. I have spoken there many times
about my books. But I have spoken only about my books, and I have no
intention of telling anyone what my future books are going to be
about.”

Pamuk, who leaves Moscow for further book publicity in Saint
Petersburg, told reports that he was very happy to be taking the
train from the Russian capital to Saint Petersburg, saying “I will
make my journey by night train, like Anna Karenina. I have always
dreamed of doing this. In the end, my dream has come true.”

A DISCUSSION ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS

A1+
[07:16 pm] 01 June, 2006

The Armenian Genocide continues to be the key issue of the American
press. An editorial referring to the Armenian Genocide was published in
the “New York Times” on May 17, 2005 critisizing the Turkish refuting
policy which puts the issue of the Turkey integration in the European
Union in question.

The statement of Nabi Sensoy, Turkish Ambassador to the USA was
published in the same paper on May 24 in which the Turkish official
notes that there are no legal warrants and evidence to prove the
Genocide and the historical studies are not satisfactory in this
context.

Referring to the incompatible claims of the Turkish Ambassador’s letter
Armenian Ambassador to the USA Tatul Margaryan released a letter to
the “New York Times” daily which was published on May 31.The press
service of the Foreign Ministry presents the letter fully.

“Regardless of the claims of the Turkish Ambassador that history must
be left to historians’ speculations and study, the Turkish authorities
make the history a precondition for establishing intergovernmental
ties with Armenia.

Turkey must first of all take into consideration its own history and
must eliminate all the vetoes and cease the pursuit of the Turkish
historians who ventured to study the events of 1915. Only in that
case the Turkish historians will have a chance to study the abundant
historical data including the verdict of the Military Tribunal of
1919 according to which the initiators of the Armenian Genocide were
condemned and sentenced to death.

The number of countries which have to interfere into the matter
because of the Turkish refuting policy and express their positions
on this score gradually increases.

The historians and lawyers including Rafael Lemkin who defined the term
Genocide and put it in usage as well as the International Union of the
Genocide specialists have already recognized that the events of 1915
fully go in line with the criteria of the Genocide Convention of 1948.”