Author: Virabian Jhanna

OpEdNews, PA
Oct 20 2007

Worthy and Unworthy Victims: The Armenian Genocide

by Justin Finney

The Turkish government’s furor over the House Foreign Relations
Committee’s recent passage of HR106, a bill which recognizes and
condemns the Armenian genocide by the Turkish Ottoman Empire almost a
century ago, has cast a spotlight on a lesser known genocide to the
public at large.

The earliest references to genocide, defined as the `deliberate and
systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or
cultural group,’ date back to the bible: `However, in the cities of
the nations the Lord your God is giving you as inheritance, do not
leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them – the
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites – as
the Lord your God has commanded you. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17.)’

Much later in history, and coincidentally also biblically inspired,
Christopher Columbus sparked the subjugation of Native Americans that
would lead to eventual genocide under the guise of national progress
in the Manifest Destiny. Though some scholars argue that the largest
portion of Native Americans killed under colonialism died from
disease more than conflict, the numbers are still staggering.
According to David E. Stannard in his book: American Holocaust:
Columbus and the Conquest of the New World: in the first 400 years
after Columbus discovered natives on the Bahaman Islands `the native
population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100
million people.’

In the last century alone, there have been a handful of state
sponsored mass killings that come close to fitting the description of
genocide if not being universally accepted as such. Genocides that
fall into the former category have occurred in countries like Chile,
Guatemala, Argentina, East Timor, and more recently, the Darfur
region in Sudan. Genocides that fall into the latter category – those
universally accepted – include the Jewish Holocaust, the Armenian
Genocide, the Khmer Rouge sponsored Cambodian Genocide, and the
Rwandan Genocide.

Of the universally accepted instances of genocide, the Jewish
Holocaust stands out as the most documented and presented case to the
public, with the Armenian and Rwandan Genocides probably tied for
garnering the least amount of public awareness. Though ironically,
during the time of the Armenian genocide initially, there was a large
amount of public awareness in the United States and even support for
a mandate to recognize the Republic of Armenia after World War I.
Republicans ultimately voted down the mandate, and the discovery of
oil in Turkey changed the US tune, thus destining the Armenian
Genocide to the memory hole.

Some of the genocide imbalance undoubtedly stems from the uniquely
American perspective of world history that students are indoctrinated
with in US public schools. That is, the perspective where the United
States is portrayed as fighting for the freedom of its inhabitants or
mercifully liberating people denied freedom elsewhere. The liberation
of the Jews in World War II epitomizes the crux of this storyline.
The only problem is that it isn’t true.

The United States didn’t enter World War II until the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor. London had already been bombed to the stone-age by
Germany, and tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by the time
the US `came to the rescue.’ In fact, Jewish refugees had even been
denied entry into the United States, as was the case for 937
passengers aboard the St. Louis. And in an even more shameful act,
the US congress turned away 20,000 Jewish German children by letting
the Wagner-Rogers bill expire in committee. Even when war was
declared it was only against Japan.

But these events don’t take up much, if any space in school
textbooks, nor do genocides where the US didn’t come to the rescue.
The ideological story-line of the United States’ benevolence and
assistance to the Jews in the holocaust serves as partial reason for
the public’s myopia on the largest genocides in the past century.

Another likely contribution to this myopia is depictions of genocides
in film and television, overwhelmingly the two greatest sources of
public news dissemination over the last fifty years. According to
Annette Insdorf’s Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust,
considered the standard on the subject, 442 holocaust films have been
made as of 2002. By comparison, Yale University’s Cambodian Genocide
Program lists 11 films on its subject, the Internet Movie Database
lists 20 on the Rwandan Genocide, and according to Jerry Papazian of
the Armenian Film Foundation, there are two feature films on the
Armenian Genocide.

Inequalities in these numbers point to a bias in Hollywood that leads
some to develop conspiracy theories of the media being controlled by
`Jews.’ Though, the most likely cause behind the lopsidedness in
Hollywood is probably due to a culture of taste that’s shaped by the
same ideological storyline of the United States as rescuer that
permeates school textbooks. Hollywood is utmost concerned with its
bottom line as opposed to educating the public. Movies about the
Jewish Holocaust have proved a wise marketing decision since they
satiate desires to understand the worst and best of humanity, while
allowing Americans to feel emotionally vindicated as the `rescuers.’

Finally, when considering the imbalance of public awareness
concerning different genocides, one can’t overlook the factor of
lobbying power in Washington. Though the Armenian lobby appears to
have persuaded a tenuous majority in congress to support official US
recognition of its holocaust, its influence is dwarfed by that of the
Israel lobby, AIPAC. While Turkey’s denial and threats to invade
northern Iraq may ultimately thwart the Armenian Genocide resolution,
the Israel Lobby received recognition of its genocide, and rightly
so, decades ago. It would be unthinkable to imagine a scenario where
congress would equivocate on condemning any aspect of the Jewish
Holocaust because it wasn’t politically expedient. Rightly or
wrongly, the close relationship between the US and Israel attributes
to the American perception of the importance of different genocides.

Despite all these reasons listed for unevenness in public awareness
of genocides, there is one which stands out most important amongst
them all. And that is the United States own hand in committing
genocide. It has directly done so in Vietnam, Japan, its own backyard
during colonial times, and now in Iraq. To be sure, there are
differences that critics will highlight. But whether the dead are
lined up and shot or the unfortunate victims of `collateral damage,’
the effect is the same: destruction of human lives on a massive
scale. And until life abroad is valued equally with life at home,
imparity over recognition of different genocides will not only
continue, but genocide itself will.

Justin Finney is a writer and activist living in Austin Texas. When
not mulling over the serious political and ecological conumdrums of
the day, he practices French, jogs, and meditates – but not nearly
often enough.

Help That Hits Home

The Washington Post
By David S. Broder
Thursday, October 18, 2007; A25

The House of Representatives, which has a penchant for spending time
on issues such as the Armenian genocide of 1915, actually did
something useful last week. It passed a bill to create an Affordable
Housing Trust Fund, a measure that, if it becomes law, will add 1.5
million badly needed units in the next decade.

The bill has been sought by advocates for housing and the homeless;
local governments; and their allies for the better part of a decade.
It was endorsed by the National Association of Realtors and the
National Association of Home Builders. Its champions in the House
included Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Democratic Financial
Services Committee chairman, and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who
heads the housing subcommittee.

The measure, which passed the House last Wednesday, would create a
separate Treasury account, similar to the Highway Trust Fund, that
could be used only to build, repair or rehabilitate affordable rental
units and assist first-time home buyers with their down payments. The
funds from the trust would be distributed to states and local
communities, which would allocate money to people on the basis of
need. The first priority would be those who are struggling hardest to
find decent shelter for their families.

Sadly, their numbers have been increasing. The Joint Center for
Housing Studies at Harvard reported that in 2005, the latest year for
which records are available, 2.3 million more households faced housing
costs that consumed at least 30 percent of their incomes — bringing
the total of such burdened households to 37.3 million. More than 8.9
million renters and 8 million homeowners had "severe" housing burdens,
meaning more than half their incomes went for that purpose.

In addition, on any given night, about 750,000 people were homeless.

If it is created, the new fund is expected to have between $800
million and $1 billion a year to distribute. The money would come from
a 1.2 percent charge on the value of mortgages held by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, two government-chartered, privately owned financial
agencies, and a similar contribution from the reserves of the Federal
Housing Administration.

Some Republicans argued that this is a backdoor way of taxing some
home buyers to benefit others, but Frank insisted that no one’s
mortgage payments would rise as a result of the bill.

The other Republican objection was bureaucratic — an argument that
this fund should be made part of another, smaller program already
running at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But the
other program depends on annual appropriations, while this one would
have an assured source of money not subject to the vagaries of the
congressional budget process.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican who spoke in
favor of the bill, noted that her state, like several others, has a
housing trust fund of its own and said she welcomed the aid that the
federal fund could provide — with great flexibility on its use.

The bad news is that prospects for Senate action are uncertain, in
part because Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Frank’s counterpart on
the Senate’s banking and housing committee, is preoccupied with his
campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And the Bush administration has warned that the measure could face a
presidential veto if it gets that far in anything like its present
form. An Oct. 9 memo from the White House Office of Management and
Budget, which said it would recommend a veto, argued that the trust
fund proposal would "disrupt the appropriations process" and might
even lead the FHA to "ration credit."

The spending issue is the same one that has caused the president to
strike down the proposed expansion of the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program.

The bill creating the Housing Trust Fund passed 264 to 148 — 26 votes
short of the maximum two-thirds majority needed to override a veto but
with 23 members absent and uncounted.

Housing is not a sexy issue for presidents or presidential candidates.
The House action drew almost no newspaper coverage. But housing is as
important to people as food and drink — and life itself. Will the
Senate act? Will the president recant? I will keep reporting this
story.

***

In my Oct. 14 column, I attributed to the Congressional Budget Office
the estimate that the Wyden-Bennett health-care plan, if enacted,
would save the country $336 billion over the next 10 years. The
estimate actually came from the Lewin Group, a private consulting
firm. The CBO has not scored the legislation.

[email protected]

Source: le/2007/10/17/AR2007101702116.html?sub=AR

Jerusalem Post
Oct 19 2007

Column One: Idle talk, reckless talk
By CAROLINE GLICK

Apparently US and Israeli leaders think that idle chatter is risk
free. Last week, the Democrats in the US Congress decided to take on
the Ottoman Empire. Acting boldly, the House Foreign Relations
Committee condemned the empire (which ceased to exist in 1917) for
committing genocide against the Armenians in 1915.

The Democrats’ goal is clear. They wish to use the Armenian genocide
as a way to embarrass the Bush administration, which like its
predecessors over the past 92 years, has yet to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. And they have succeeded.

The administration that lobbies and begs the Turks not to invade
Iraqi Kurdistan in response to the terror attacks carried out inside
Turkey by PKK terrorists based in Iraqi Kurdistan; the administration
that lobbies and begs the Turks to continue to allow US forces to use
Incirlik air base to move troops and materiel into Iraq; the
administration that is searching for a way to build proper relations
with a Turkey that has now twice elected the pro-jihad AKP party to
lead it – that administration has been duly embarrassed.

But the Democrats’ petty political achievement has come at a
devastating cost for America. The Democrats’ declaration induced the
worst crisis in US-Turkish relations in recent memory. Turkey has
recalled its ambassador from Washington. On Wednesday, the Turkish
parliament overwhelmingly approved an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan.
And Turkish military commanders are threatening to bar the US from
using the air base in Incirlik.

THIS TALE of the consequences of empty rhetoric should serve as a
warning for Israel and the US as the Olmert government moves forward
in its "peace" negotiations with Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas ahead
of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s planned "peace"
conference at Annapolis.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s ability to conduct negations with Rice
and Abbas regarding the partition of Jerusalem, the surrender of
Judea and Samaria and the establishment of an armed Palestinian state
in the areas that Israel vacates owes much to his coalition partners
in Shas and Israel Beiteinu’s preference for empty rhetoric over
action.

On Sunday, Shas leader Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai told Rice
that Shas opposes partitioning Jerusalem. Yishai warned Rice, "If the
sides return from [Annapolis] with a signed document and a done-deal,
this could destabilize and end the tenure of the government."

Given that Rice didn’t miss a beat in speaking forcefully of her
ardent commitment to establishing a Jew-free Palestinian state in
Hamas-dominated Gaza, and Hamas-ascendant Judea and Samaria and
Jerusalem, Yishai’s statement clearly failed to impress her.

For his part, Avigdor Lieberman’s rhetoric is increasingly
incoherent. Last week, after blaming the Left for all of Israel’s
woes, Lieberman joined its ranks by calling for a partition of
Jerusalem. It works out that this paragon of supposedly "hard-line"
rightist ideals supports surrendering the Arab neighborhoods
surrounding the Jewish neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze’ev, Neveh Ya’acov,
Ramot, Arnona, Gilo, Armon Hanatziv and Har Homa to Hamas.

But then this week, Lieberman suddenly remembered that he has voters
to consider. And so Sunday he announced that he opposes Olmert’s
attempt to reach an agreement regarding Jerusalem’s partition with
Fatah.

LIKE THE Democrats’ condemnation of the Ottomans, Lieberman and
Yishai’s empty rhetoric targets a domestic audience. And like the
Democrats’ condemnation of the Ottoman Empire, while their statements
will have no impact on government policy, the consequences of those
statements for Israel are far reaching and dangerous.

Yishai and Lieberman talk because they don’t want to take the only
step open to them if they truly wish to prevent damage to the
country. That step of course is resignation from the Olmert
government and support for new elections. And Olmert knows this.

It is because he understands their ardent desire to remain in office
that Olmert feels he runs no political risk by negotiating away
Israel’s survivability to Abbas. Yishai and Lieberman’s vacuous
pronouncements enable Olmert to move forward toward national
capitulation.

Additionally, their empty declarations of opposition to Olmert’s
moves lull the public into complacency. They make us believe that
they are curbing Olmert’s urge to capitulate and so mitigating the
dangers to the state. But as Olmert’s repeated statements regarding
the partition of Jerusalem make clear, as long as they are inside the
government they exert no influence over him.

Even if Yishai and Lieberman resign in the aftermath of the
conference at Annapolis, their move will come too late to make a
difference. The damage to Israel’s security will already have been
wrought. This is clear because even before a date has been set for
the conference, we already know how it will end, if it is convened,
and we already know the basic contours of its aftermath.

We know with near absolute certainty that the conference will end in
failure. The conference will fail because there is no offer that
Israel can make that Abbas can accept. Abbas, who doesn’t even
control his own Fatah terrorists – let alone Hamas and Islamic Jihad
– has no real support among Palestinians. He already lost the
Palestinian elections and Gaza to Hamas. Abbas cannot accept any
offer from Israel after his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, chose to go
to war rather than make peace.

Statements by both Hamas and Fatah leaders over the past several
weeks also make clear what will happen after the summit collapses. As
was the case after the failure of the Camp David peace conference in
July 2000, in the aftermath of the Annapolis conference, Fatah and
Hamas will reunite and the Palestinians will open a new round of
jihad against Israel. And in light of Egypt’s open and stalwart
backing of Hamas, and given Hamas’s subservience to Iran, it is
impossible to assume that the coming war will be limited to the
Palestinian arena.

Today a rare Right-Left consensus has emerged in Israel which
recognizes that Olmert has no public mandate for making far-reaching
concessions to Abbas. In light of this, it is argued with some
justification that even if Olmert offers Abbas far-reaching
concessions regarding Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he will be
unable to implement them. Noting this, many government and Kadima
officials claim that there is no reason for concern about the talks
Olmert is holding with Rice and Abbas. But this is untrue.

In July 2000, then-prime minister Ehud Barak conducted negotiations
with Arafat at Camp David after his government lost a no-confidence
vote in the Knesset. In the fall of 2000, Barak conducted further
negotiations with Arafat at Taba where he expanded the concessions he
had offered at Camp David. Those negotiations took place after
Barak’s government had already fallen and elections had been called
for January 2001.

In December 2000, outgoing US president Bill Clinton presented his
Middle East peace plan, which essentially codified the concessions
Barak offered at Taba. Clinton announced his plan despite the fact
that George W. Bush, who had been elected the month before, had
expressed deep misgivings about the by-then-defunct
Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

When Ariel Sharon and Bush succeeded Barak and Clinton, both asserted
that the Israeli offers at Camp David and Taba and the Clinton peace
plan were no longer on the table. But to their discredit, neither
leader took any steps to translate those statements into reality. And
so today, seven years later, Barak’s offers are being used by Olmert
and Abbas as the starting point for their negotiations. Indeed,
according to Palestinian spokesmen, it was Olmert who insisted on
basing today’s negotiations on Barak’s offers.

What we learn from this is that offers made by an Israeli government
bereft of both a public mandate and popular support remain
perpetually on the table. As a result, even though Olmert and Abbas
will fail to reach an agreement at Annapolis, the offers that Olmert
will make there will survive long after he and his government leave
office.

All of this demonstrates the dire consequences of Yishai and
Lieberman’s preference for idle chatter over action. By remaining in
the government they do two things: They enable Olmert to participate
in a "peace" conference that will lead to war. And they enable Olmert
to place Israel’s existence in long-term jeopardy. If his proposed
concessions are ever implemented, they will render Israel
indefensible while enabling the establishment of a terror state with
its capital in Jerusalem. And even if they are not implemented today,
those concessions will remain on the table and form the basis for
future talks.

YISHAI AND Lieberman are Olmert and Rice’s enablers. But it is Rice
and Olmert who lead us down the road to disaster. What accounts for
their reckless behavior?

By any objective standard, Rice has failed in office. On her way to
Israel, she and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Moscow,
where they were publicly humiliated by Russian President Vladimir
Putin.

Under Rice’s stewardship, the US failed to foresee or reckon with
Russia’s abandonment of the West. Consequently, today the US has no
coherent policy for contending with the Kremlin. The same is the case
with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Kim Jung-Il’s North Korea and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad’s Iran. And this is Rice’s fault.

As the clock ticks toward the end of Bush’s time in office, Rice
fears history’s impending verdict. And so she seeks a singular
achievement. Like her failed predecessors, she has turned to Israel.
Like so many others before her, Rice hopes to force Israel to make
concessions that will lead to war only after she is safely ensconced
at Stanford University.

In her race to a signing ceremony, Rice ignores the fact that through
her actions she is destroying America’s international credibility.
Her genuflection to the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole on
the one hand and her open hostility and moral condemnation of Israel
on the other destroy US credibility twice. First, by ignoring all of
Bush’s previous demands for the Arabs and the Palestinians to abjure
terror and accept the Jewish state’s right to exist, Rice is making
clear that countries will pay no price for supporting terror and
jihad. Second, by running roughshod over Israel, Rice shows that
there is no advantage to be had by being a loyal ally of America.

Then there is Olmert. When not engaged in surrendering Hebron and
Jerusalem to Hamas, Olmert faces his police investigators. As the
subject of three separate official criminal probes, Olmert’s desire
to divert attention away from the fact that he is unfit for office is
so great that he is willing to give up Israel’s right to defensible
borders and to its capital city.

Like the Democrats in Congress, Yishai and Lieberman demonstrate the
deleterious consequences of empty talk. For their part, Rice and
Olmert show us how reckless talk born of personal arrogance can sink
the ship of state. Both instances show us the deadly consequences of
misused rhetoric. What will it take for these petty politicians to
understand this?

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
Oct 19 2007

NEW CHAIR OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH SUPREME COURT PRESENTED TO STAFF

October 18 the head of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic President’s
administration Marat Musaelian presented new Char of NKR Supreme
Court Ararat Danielian to the staff.
According to the information DE FACTO received at the Central
Department of Information under NKR President, NKR Minister of
Justice had presented Ararat Danielian’s candidature to Master
Council; then, being approved by the Council, the candidature was
presented to NKR President. In his turn, NKR President proposed
Ararat Danielian’s candidature for the Republic National Assembly’s
consideration. According to the NA decision, October 17 Ararat
Danielian was appointed Chair of Nagorno-Karabakh Supreme Court.

CONGRESS SHOULD NOT MORALIZE ABOUT PAST

Arizona Republic, AZ
Oct 17 2007

The proposed congressional resolution declaring the Ottoman Turks
guilty of genocide against Armenians during World War I is an exercise
in reckless arrogance.

Congress has not been made the official arbiter of genocide. Nor does
Congress have special historical or moral standing to render such
a judgment. Congress is a committee of politicians, not historians
or moralists.

If Congress declares what happened in Turkish territory during World
War I a genocide, that does not make it so. And if Congress fails to
make such a declaration, that does not mean that it wasn’t one.

What Congress is supposed to do is act in the best interests of
the people of the United States, and this resolution is a manifest
abdication of that responsibility.

Turkey, which takes great offense at the resolution, matters, and in
ways far more important than the tactical considerations being cited
regarding U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Turkey is important to the effort in Iraq, both in providing supply
routes and showing forbearance in taking the fight against Kurdish
separatists attacking Turkey into Kurdish Iraq.

However, in reality, the U.S. has a higher stake in the success of
Turkey than in the success of Iraq.

One of the Bush administration’s ambitions in Iraq was to demonstrate
the compatibility of Islam with democratic and secular governance. In
fact, it is Turkey that offers the best hope of demonstrating that
compatibility.

An Islamist party was elected there in 2003. It has improved the
country’s economic performance through market-oriented reforms. Under
the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the economy
grew at a 7 percent annual clip and both corporate and individual
income taxes were cut.

Earlier this year, it won a broader mandate, resolving a stand-off with
the military over appointing one of its own as president, traditionally
considered the symbol and defender of the country’s modern secularism.

Some suspect the party of biding time before striking against
secularism and instituting more religious rule. Erdogan and other
party leaders have made disturbing statements in the past about
democracy being a tool to gain power, not an enduring system of
governing the country.

However, party leaders today, and Erdogan quite emphatically,
profess to have abandoned that strategy and promise to respect
secular governance. So far, their actions have been in accord with
that profession.

Erdogan’s government must deal with manifold complications,
domestically and internationally. The military, which regards itself
as the protector of secular governance and has toppled four civilian
regimes since 1960, still views the Islamists warily.

Turkey would like to join the European Union, and the Erdogan
government has tried very hard to move that effort forward. However,
France is committed to blocking it, so Turkey’s ambitions to be more
integrated into the West appear thwarted.

Turkey lives in a difficult neighborhood. Historically, it has had
tense relations with Iran and Syria but lately has sought some degree
of rapprochement and constructive interactions. It recently signed
oil-exploration and natural-gas agreements with Iran.

President Bush believes that, for the United States to be free from
the threat of terrorism, the world needs to be remade through the
spread of democratic capitalism, particularly in Islamic and Arab
countries. Moreover, the United States should be a forceful agent of
such a transformation.

In reality, a U.S. policy of trying to force or expedite such a
transformation increases, rather than abates, the terrorist threat.

However, an organic movement toward democratic capitalism in the
Islamic world would be an extraordinarily important and welcome
development.

Turkey is where that movement is most advanced and most deeply
rooted. However, its durability is far from certain.

Perhaps today’s Turks shouldn’t care about what Congress opines about
events nearly a century ago. But they do, deeply. And it can cloud
the perception of Turkish self-interest, which today is moving in a
direction that might be highly beneficial to the United States and
the world.

Congress should stick to its job of legislating and leave the judging
of historical events in other lands to the historians and moralists.

ic/opinions/articles/1017Republic50TemplateLibrary A90.html

RECOGNIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
by Austin Bay

Strategy Page
Oct 17 2007

It’s an old phenomenon: When the dispossessed get clout, the
past becomes a battleground. Often the stakes in the present are
extraordinarily high.

An exemplary skirmish over very bad history is taking place in the
U.S. Congress — in this case, the World War I slaughter of Armenians
by Ottoman Turkey.

Whether or not the Ottomans’ mass deportation and murder of Armenians
in 1915 and 1916 reaches the formulaic, industrial magnitude of the
Nazis’ genocide or Stalin’s decimation of Ukraine is a debating point
for lawyers and apologists. The Ottoman "Young Turk" government
took a systematic approach that stinks of classic tribal "ethnic
cleansing." The Ottomans disarmed Armenian soldiers and removed them
from the ranks of the Turkish army. Suspect loyalty and connivance with
the Orthodox Christian enemy, Russia, was the ostensible rationale.

After confiscating Armenian guns, Ottoman knives appeared. Mobs
murdered Armenian intellectuals and leaders — killing communicators
silences a community. Then the deportations began, featuring long
marches where starvation and sunstroke killed as many as the attacks
of "thieves and raiders." One-and-a-half million Armenians (out of
a population of approximately 2.5 million) died in this directed chaos.

Darfur and the Congo are contemporary examples of this hideous
technique.

WWI ended. After a bout of internal chaos and a war with Greece,
republican Turkey emerged from the Ottoman wreckage. Its political
architect, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, launched political and cultural
revolutions, creating a secular Turkey and with it a possible Islamic
bridge to modernity. Turkey adopted Latin script, a visual, literary
break with the Ottoman Empire and caliphate. It’s one reason al-Qaida
fanatics despise Ataturk more than they do George Bush.

Modern Turks can make a case they aren’t the Ottomans.

Diaspora Armenians, however, now have influence and a voice. The
once dispossessed have earned it. Armenians have had extraordinary
political and economic success in Western Europe and the United States.

Only the heartless would dismiss their desire to recognize the great
wrong. Yet historical verification and vindication aren’t the only
goals — the U.S. House resolution backed by Armenian-Americans
demands punishment of the perpetrators.

The perpetrators, however, are long dead. The Turkish government thus
sees the resolution as a political attack on Turkey — one that could
raise compensation issues.

At a less volatile moment one can imagine Congress passing the
nonbinding resolution. I would support it, particularly if it promoted
Turkish and Armenian reconciliation.

But find the less volatile moment. The Clinton administration judged
the year 2000 as too volatile to pass the House resolution. President
Clinton valued U.S.-Turkish relations, and the United States needed
access to Turkish airbases to enforce the U.N.-mandated northern
no-fly zone that helped protect Iraqi Kurds from Saddam. Clinton got
then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert to kill the resolution.

Those Turkish bases now supply and support U.S. troops in Iraq. No
matter one’s opinion on Iraq, antagonizing Turkey when it provides
air and logistical bases supporting U.S. troops actively deployed in
a combat zone is foolish and craven. A Turkish decision to shut down
these facilities would cut a major coalition supply line. U.S. troops
in Iraq would face increased risks.

This is reason enough to delay passing the resolution. There are
others. For two years, Turkey has threatened to invade northern Iraq
in order to destroy Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) bases. The Iraqi
government and Washington have both promised Turkey they will "act
against the PKK." Turkey says it is tired of waiting — and has an
army on the Iraqi border prepped for action.

Cynics suggest Turkey has been waiting for an opportunity to slip
U.S. calls for military restraint and launch a decisive attack
to finish off the PKK. The resolution provides Ankara with just
this opportunity. Conceivably, Washington could "trade" a deferred
resolution for a Turkish promise to restrict its operations in Iraq to
"hot pursuit" situations, special-forces actions and surveillance.

Diplomats on both sides might structure such a transparent but useful
give and take.

Note I said deferred resolution. 2015 may be as volatile as 2007.

Historical horrors like the Armenian genocide really don’t have
anniversaries or centennials, or at least they shouldn’t. They do
deserve recognition and remembrance as instructive history, but
recognition should not do damage to the present. 2015 — a hundred
years after the Armenian massacre — strikes me as the perfect time
to pass the resolution.

2007101623627.aspx

DEPUTIES OF THE BUNDESTAG OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

National Assembly, Armenia
Oct 16 2007

On October 17 the members of the Parliamentary Friendship Group
Germany-South Caucasus of the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of
Germany (FRG) headed by Mr. Steffen Reiche will arrive in Yerevan.

On October 18 Mr. Tigran Torosyan, President of the National
Assembly of the Republic of Armenia will receive the delegation in
the parliament. Meetings in the NA Staning Committee on European
Integration, members of the factions of RPA, PAP, ARF Dashnaktsutyun,
Zharangutiun/Heritage, Orinats Yerkir/Country of Law are scheduled.

On the same day meetings with the ambassadors of the European Union
member countries accredited in the Republic of Armenia, and Mr. Armen
Baibourtian, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia
are scheduled.

On October 19 the members of the Parliamentary Friendship Group
Germany-South Caucasus of the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of
Germany will be in Holy See Echmiadzin. On the same day the meetings
of the delegation with German organisations and with the Minister of
Finance and Economy of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Vardan Khachatryan
are scheduled.

TURKISH AIRSPACE IN QUESTION

EarthTimes, UK
Oct 17 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 Supplying the U.S. military in Iraq will cost
more and take longer if Turkey closes its airspace, The Wall Street
Journal reported Tuesday.

Diplomatic relations between Turkey and the United States are strained
by Turkey’s steps that appear to signal plans to invade northern
Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels and a U.S. House of Representatives
resolution accusing Turkey of genocide against Armenians following
the World War I.

If Turkey closes its airspace, 70 percent of the air cargo entering
Iraq through Turkey would need to be rerouted through Jordan, which
has no major U.S. air base, or Kuwait, where U.S. ports and bases
are overburdened, the Journal reported.

Turkey has been a close ally of the United States, allowing enormous
quantities of food, fuel, vehicles, ammunition, spare parts and
medical supplies to enter Iraq through the Incirlik Air Base in
southern Turkey.

MINISTER OSKANIAN ADDRESSED THE 2ND CONVENTION OF EUROPEAN ARMENIANS

armradio.am
16.10.2007 10:23

October 15 in Brussels RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian participated
in the 2nd Convention of European Armenians. Catholicos of the Great
House of Cilicia Aram I, Vice-President of the European Commission,
Commissioner for Justice Franco Frattini and Chairwoman of the European
Armenian Federation Hilda Tchoboyan addressed the opening ceremony.

The two-day convention held at the European Parliament features
delegates of Armenian communities form about 30 EU member states,
Switzerland, Norway, Russia and Middle East.

Minister Oskanian addressed the first sitting of the
convention. Speaking about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide
by the European Parliament in 1987, the Minister drew parallels
with the discussions on the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the US
Congress. The Minister turned to the recent criticism and threats of
Turkey, presenting Armenia’s approaches to the discussions in the
US Congress and the comments on the issue. Mr. Oskanian noted that
still 20 years ago the European Parliament took a decision which
is as urgent today. It enabled to present the Armenian Issue in an
international European context.

The film "Screamers by director Carla Garabedian was screened during
the first day of the Convention of European Armenians.

Today speeches will be delivered by EU Special Representative for
the South Caucasus Peter Semenby, French Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group Bernard Fasssier, International Crisis Group Director for Europe
Sabine Freizer.

PELOSI VOWS TO PUSH AHEAD WITH GENOCIDE MEASURE

NewsMax.com, FL
genocide/2007/10/14/40796.html
Oct 15 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she’d bring to a vote
a resolution condemning the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey
nearly a century ago as genocide, despite warnings that the action
could damage U.S.-Turkey relations.

On Wednesday, a House committee OK’d a nonbinding resolution declaring
the killings as genocide. Appearing Sunday on "This Week," Pelosi
states: "I’ve said if it passed the committee that we would bring it
to the floor."

About 1.5 million Armenians were killed, starting in 1915, as the
Ottoman Empire crumbled. The current Turkish government objects to
the word "genocide." It insists that while hundreds of thousands of
Armenians died, they died as a result of war.

When asked Sunday if forcing a vote on the resolution might endangers
U.S. troops in Iraq, Pelosi said:

"Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values –
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture. Our troops are well-served when we
declare who we are as a country and increase the respect people have
for us as a nation."

She also pointed out that President Reagan referred to the killings
as genocide.