Author: Vorskanian Yeghisabet

BULGARIA READY TO SHARE EU INTEGRATION EXPERIENCE WITH ARMENIA

international.news.bg, Bulgaria
Oct 30 2007

Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, who is currently in
Bulgaria, met with Bulgaria’s President Georgy Parvanov.

President Parvanov estimated highly the Armenian-Bulgarian relations.

The two heads of states discussed regional development and cooperation
within international organizations.

Minister Oskanian informed about the domestic situation in Armenia,
correlation of political forces after parliamentary elections and
the process of economic reforms.

Bulgaria’s President stated that the country is ready to share the
European integration experience with Armenia.

Vartan Oskanian met with representatives of the Armenian community
in the Armenian Embassy in Sofia.

Russia & CIS Presidential Bulletin
October 26, 2007

ALIYEV MULLS KARABAKH SETTLEMENT WITH MINSK GROUP COCHAIRMEN

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev received co-chairmen of the OSCE
Minsk group in Baku on Friday, Interfax was told by the presidential
administration.

They discussed matters related to the talks on the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict.

Meanwhile, U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bryza has
not ruled out the possibility of a gentlemen’s agreement between Baku
and Yerevan on the Nagorno Karabakh settlement principles.

In his opinion, such an agreement may be signed before the
presidential elections, Bryza told the press in Baku on Friday.

Such an agreement will bind the sides to stick to the settlement
principles after the elections in Armenia, he said.

Bryza said that at the meeting with co-chairmen in Yerevan, Armenian
President Robert Kocharian did not rule out the possibility of such a
gentlemen’s agreement before elections.

Baku lost control over Nagorno Karabakh and adjacent seven districts
in a bloody Armenian-Azeri conflict in the early 1990s. The problem
is being settled with international mediation, with the mediation of
the OSCE Minsk group representing the United States, Russia and
France.

Knight Ridder Washington Bureau
October 26, 2007 Friday

History shows Armenia resolution faces tough odds

By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON _ Armenian genocide resolutions such as the one that
collapsed this week confound congressional leaders and presidential
candidates alike.

Promises come easily, and are politically alluring. Delivery is
difficult, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has learned the hard
way. Failure brings second-guessing and no guarantee of when the
resolution might return.

"We’ll continue to stay focused on this," said Rep. Jim Costa,
D-Calif., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "We’ll
await our time."

The resolution declares that "the Armenian genocide was conceived and
carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923" and "1,500,000
men, women and children were killed."

Turkish officials say the resolution twists history, and they spent
$300,000 a month lobbying against it. Bush administration officials
say the resolution undermines relations with a country that borders
Iraq and Iran.

Late Thursday, resolution supporters asked Pelosi to put it off until
a "more favorable" time. Translated: They lack the votes. Publicly,
supporters say they can still win before the 110th Congress ends next
year.

"We’re going to be working this really hard," Rep. Adam Schiff,
D-Calif., said Friday. "When we bring it up, we want to be absolutely
confident we have the votes."

Skeptics _ some of them resolution co-sponsors _ are doubtful. One,
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said Friday that there was "zero" chance
of reviving the measure next year.

"Democrats aren’t going to bring it up," Nunes said. "They’ve got
shaky feet."

Nunes speculated that the letter sent by Schiff and others to Pelosi
late Thursday afternoon amounted to political cover, a concession of
defeat also designed to shield the Democratic leader from criticism
about letting the bill die.

Undeniably, the genocide resolution puts lawmakers in a bind, and
Pelosi wasn’t the first leader to get entangled in it.

As candidates, George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush,
endorsed the Armenian genocide characterization. They did so in
statements to Armenian-American voters, a political force in certain
regions.

As presidents, both subsequently repudiated the term. Neither used it
in annual commemorations of the 1915-23 Ottoman Empire horrors.

"These are not the Ottomans," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. "What we have
tried to do instead is to get the Turks and the Armenians to work
together to look to their future."

President Clinton likewise avoided the Armenian-genocide phrase. The
rhetorical hesitancy, said Elizabeth Chouldjian of the Armenian
National Committee of America, "is not a Republican or a Democratic"
trend. Instead, it reflects the difference between a candidate
seeking domestic votes and a governmental leader on the world stage.

The same conflict, between politics and governance, can trip up
congressional leaders.

Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert reportedly pledged in 2000 that
he’d bring a genocide resolution to the floor. He made the promise
while campaigning for Republican incumbent James Rogan, challenged by
Schiff in a district with many Armenian-American voters.

At the last minute in October 2000, Hastert pulled the bill at
Clinton’s behest.

Pelosi’s turn came this month, after the House Foreign Affairs
Committee approved the genocide resolution by 27-21.

"I said if it comes out of committee, it will go to the floor,"
Pelosi said Oct. 11. "Now it has come out of committee, and it will
go to the floor."

She left no wiggle room. But behind the scenes, her lieutenant, Rep.
John Murtha, D-Pa., was advising her that the resolution was a losing
idea. In barely a week, 14 members of the House of Representatives
withdrew their co-sponsorship.

The defections left the resolution with 211 co-sponsors and showed,
Nunes said, whom the Armenian-American community can really depend
on. But there are other Capitol Hill lessons, too.

Pelosi, for instance, didn’t press for a vote despite her insistence
Oct. 11 that "there was a need to speak out" on genocide.

"Pelosi’s pragmatism has trumped her ideology many, many times," said
Marc Sandalow, the author of a forthcoming Pelosi biography titled
"Madame Speaker." "She is loath to take losing votes; she never wants
to reveal weakness."

The fight further showed how personal relationships are key. When
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., was asked why he originally backed the
resolution that he later rejected, he said that "Adam Schiff asked me
to." Timing is crucial, too One former resolution supporter, Rep.
Allen Boyd, D-Fla., explained that many lawmakers sign resolutions
"when it’s not presented as having any downside."

But as a vote neared and Turkish soldiers mobilized to fight Kurdish
guerrillas in northern Iraq, abstract principles suddenly became a
real-world problem.

"In part, we’re dependent upon the facts on the ground," Schiff said.

theTrumpet.com
Why Turkey Matters
>From the November 2007 Trumpet Print Edition »
Turkey’s increasing significance is arresting the world’s attention. Here’s
why it should arrest yours. By Joel Hilliker

Suddenly, Turkey is all over the headlines.
Most Americans would tend to underestimate its significance. But why, in the
midst of October, did an outburst of public discussion center on whether to
call the World War i-era Turkish killing of Armenians a `genocide’? Why did
Congress raise the issue, and why did the White House scramble to squelch
it?
The crux of debate rested on the potential for losing Turkey’s help in the
war in Iraq. Its role as vital supply route for U.S. troops took center
stage. In fact, some analysts suggested that the Democrat-led Congress
pushed the `genocide’ issue to alienate Turkey in an underhanded effort to
spite the president and torpedo the Iraq war.
Is it really possible that this nation – about which few Americans concern
themselves – could make the difference between victory and defeat in Iraq?
Who knew Turkey was so important?
At the Crossroads
The instant clamor surrounding that single issue is a meaningful symbol of
just how much this historically pivotal nation is rising again to prominence
in modern geopolitics.
Turkey sits right at the crossroads of a developing clash of civilizations.
Its population is almost wholly Muslim, but its constitution is staunchly
secular. It is a democracy and a constitutional republic, yet since 1960 its
military leaders have overthrown four duly elected governments for being too
religious. It is anchored to the Middle East as a member of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, yet welded to the West within the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization. On top of that, a pillar in its foreign policy for a
generation has been its bid for membership in the European Union.
The U.S. is not alone in trying to come to grips with this complex
geopolitical puzzle. Nations across the globe are coming to see that, for
all its contradictions, and after decades of quiet since the Ottoman Empire
collapsed at the end of World War i, Turkey is shaping up to be an extremely
significant global player. As the world increasingly fractures into regional
blocs – the United States, the Middle East, Europe, Asia – Turkey remains a
distinct entity whose value to all of these powers is rapidly rising.
This exceptional position, which we can witness developing right before us,
appears to be setting Turkey up perfectly for the unique role it plays in
end-time biblical prophecy.
Why the World Is Taking Note
Turkey is attracting interest for a number of reasons.
First, its economy is on fire – it is one of the fastest-growing on Earth.
Since 2002, under the leadership of the Justice and Development Party (akp),
the economy has transformed. It is now the largest Muslim economy, and the
largest in the region. Turkey is a member of the G-20, a gathering of the
world’s 20 largest economies. It is playing its cards wisely, reducing
restrictions on trade with Muslim states while simultaneously cultivating
relationships with European and other nations.
As Dr. George Friedman put it, `The ability of Greece, Armenia, Syria, Iraq
and Iran to remain hostile to Turkey decreases as the Turkish economy grows.
Ideology and history are very real things, but so is the economic power of a
dynamic economy’ (Stratfor, July 31).
Of course, a large Turkish economy means a large Turkish military. Already
it is nato’s second-largest armed force after the U.S., with over 1 million
uniformed personnel. This reality has several ramifications regarding the
balance of power in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Second, Turkey is comfortably stepping into a ready-made role as a vital
energy hub linking Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.
This is one of the most geographically strategic countries in the world – a
literal bridge between continents. On its west, Turkey borders Greece and
Bulgaria – EU nations; on its south, Syria, Iraq and Iran – Middle Eastern
Muslim states; and on its east, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan – former
Soviet republics. It connects to the Mediterranean, Black and Aegean seas,
and encompasses the vital Bosporus and Dardanelles sea gates, linking
Central Asia to the Mediterranean. In a world increasingly driven by energy
politics, its unique location translates into valuable energy transit routes
for more and more nations.
With Russia aggressively taking over global oil and natural gas markets,
uncomfortable customers, particularly those in Europe, are actively seeking
energy from other sources. Turkey is in the right place at the right time,
with major oil pipelines being built across its soil, circumventing Russian
territory altogether. It is proving itself a worthy middleman for energy
from not only former Soviet republics Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, but also
Iraq and Iran. In addition, Turkey, in conjunction with foreign investors
and companies, is building new oil refineries that will increase its worth
even more. Analysts say the nation’s refining capacity should double within
only a few years.
This reality seems tailor-made to suit Ankara’s foreign-policy interests,
because the entity hungriest for non-Russian energy happens to be the very
one Turkey has been working so hard to pretty itself up for: Europe.
Naturally, the whole situation also deeply concerns Russia, whose
monopolistic energy tendencies are undercut by Turkey’s activities. On top
of that, Russia is robustly fighting a strong Islamist incursion on its
southwestern border, particularly against Muslim separatists in Chechnya – and
it possesses proof that Turkey has financially supported and trained Chechen
terrorists in their struggle for independence.
A third reason for Turkey’s growing relevance – as became abundantly evident
in October – is its role in the unfolding drama surrounding the future of
Iraq.
A Strained Alliance
The Iraq war has created bad blood between the U.S. and Turkey. The Turks
have long struggled with a restive Kurdish population in their southeast
region, driven by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk). This terrorist group
seeks to carve an independent Kurdish state out of territory in southeast
Turkey, as well as parts of Syria, Iraq and Iran. Whatever differences these
four nations have, they are united in their determination to stop Kurdistan
from materializing.
The fact that the U.S. empowered the Iraqi Kurds by eliminating Saddam
Hussein rocked the American-Turkish alliance. In 2003, Ankara simply refused
to let the U.S. invade Iraq from Turkish territory – a major snub from a nato
ally. Add to that a turning of the historic tables: With a growing economy
and military, Turkey simply isn’t as dependent on the U.S. as it once was.
In fact, since the U.S. has gotten entrenched in Iraq, it has come to depend
deeply on Turkey: 70 percent of its Iraq-bound air cargo and 33 percent of
its fuel passes through Turkey, and it heavily uses the Incirlik Air Base
for refueling operations and cargo flights to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The upshot is, Turkey feels very comfortable with ignoring Washington’s
wishes and doing what it feels it must to protect its own interests.
Recent events highlight just how monumental this change is.
In an October attack, pkk rebels killed 13 Turkish soldiers; the people of
Turkey angrily demanded retaliation. The government bombed and shelled
northern Iraq, and then the parliament approved plans to launch a ground
invasion.
All this fuss puts the U.S. in an awkward spot. The Kurdish north has been
the most stable part of Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s ouster in 2003, and
Washington would rather nothing upset that. Supporting Turkey could well
alienate the Kurdish allies the U.S. has built there, and the whole
situation may further destabilize Iraq – something U.S. and Iraqi leaders are
desperate to avoid.
But the amazing thing is, the Turks just don’t care. `We don’t need anyone’s
advice on northern Iraq and the operation to be carried out there,’ Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan said. Reuters reported that the crowd in Istanbul
cheered this pronouncement, and cheered again when he said that the U.S.
`came tens of thousands of kilometers and attacked Iraq without asking
anyone’s permission.’
Amid these developments, the timing couldn’t have been worse for the U.S.
congressional committee’s `genocide’ resolution. Turkey bristled at the
news, recalling its ambassador in the U.S. and threatening to close its
doors to American troops. Anti-American demonstrations spilled into the
streets, according to the Jerusalem Post. `All prospects look bad … and
relations with the U.S. have already gone down the drain,’ Turkish foreign
policy expert Semih Idiz said.
The White House responded by going into full damage control mode: It issued
public statements condemning the measure, it essentially apologized to
Turkey’s leaders, and it finally convinced Congress to kill the resolution.
The fervor of the response revealed just how desperately the U.S. needs
Turkey’s cooperation in order to resolve the crisis in Iraq in a manner
suited to its own national interests. But the U.S. isn’t the only country in
that situation. So is the other primary external player in this theater:
Iran.
An Islamic Shift
In practical terms, as Washington contemplates reducing its presence in
Iraq, its primary concern is to try to prevent Iran from simply taking
over – not just Iraq but virtually the entire Middle East. In Turkey, it sees
the closest thing it has to a regional counterbalance to Iran.
Unfortunately, it so happens that all this friction between Ankara and
Washington has strengthened Turkey’s historically wary relationship with
Iran.
Something else that could strengthen this relationship – and markedly change
the balance within several of the precarious situations in which Turkey
plays a role – occurred on August 28, when Turkish parliamentarians elected a
former Islamist as president.
The new president, Abdullah Gül, is a bit of a puzzle. He was a cabinet
member in one of the Islamic governments the military ousted in the
1990s – yet he has been a leading supporter of his nation’s EU membership bid.
His devotion to Europe certainly placates the nation’s generals and military
commanders, but his religion still chafes against their fierce loyalty to
the secularist ideals institutionalized in 1923 by the nation’s founder,
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. His political party, the akp, has an Islamist
pedigree and maintains pan-Islamic ties throughout the region. Turkey’s
secularist military suspects that it retains a masked Islamist agenda.
Stratfor noted that, because the president chooses judges and hence
dominates the judiciary, having Gül as president means that `for the first
time since the founding of the Turkish republic more than 80 years ago, a
political force rooted in Islamism essentially controls all of the key
civilian institutions of the state’ (August 29, emphasis mine). Stratfor
expects the akp to seek to use its new power as a beachhead to move the
nation away from secularism and toward the freer expression of religion in
public life; it anticipates drama ahead as the akp is forced `to balance
pan-Islamic issues with Turkish nationalist objectives’ (ibid.). Though this
analysis probably overstates how much Turkey will change under President
Gül, we would not be surprised to see the nation proceed with a more
sympathetic economic and foreign policy toward the leading Arab and Muslim
energy producers in the region.
Any shift within Turkey away from secularism and toward Islam could help
alter the balance of power in the Middle East – most notably, in favor of
Iran.
A Nightmare for Israel?
In 1996, Turkey inked a mutual defense deal with Israel that, for years,
analysts credited with contributing to the relative stability of the region.
The Islamic Affairs Analyst went so far as to say that Israel’s enemies
respected Turkey enough that the Jewish state’s national survival was all
but assured as long as the deal stood.
Events in the past couple of years, however, have shown that whatever
deterrent effect Turkey once had has already weakened to some degree: Iran
and Syria have unleashed forces in Lebanon and within Israel against the
Jewish state with few qualms. But, given Turkey’s new Islamic leadership,
this trend could get worse.
Any further weakening of Turkey’s restraining influence on Iranian power is
a nightmare for Israel, which Iran has committed itself to eliminating.
Tensions between Washington and Ankara over Iraq have already opened a door
for the Islamic Republic. Suspicion between Turkey and Iran has thawed in
recent years, and ties have improved. The fact that Turkey is now ruled by a
Muslim – albeit Sunni – rather than a secularist certainly doesn’t hurt.
The more cooperative these two nations are, the more latitude the Turks are
likely to give Iran without feeling directly threatened as Tehran pursues
its regional ambitions.
Watch for that cooperation to increase – and for Iran to become even more
brazen.
Unrequited Love
What does Turkey get out of the deal? If nothing else, it gets Iranian
energy – energy it can pass on to Europe.
The two countries have just completed an oil pipeline that will pump 500,000
barrels of Iranian oil a day into Turkey. And the Turkish Petroleum Corp.
has announced plans to invest $3.5 billion in Iran’s South Pars natural gas
field. This project would include building the means to transport Iranian
gas through Turkey to Europe. The U.S., though flatly opposed to the deal,
can do little to stop it.
Ultimately, even under an Islamic president, it appears Europe is who Turkey
most wants to please. Ankara simply sees Iran as a workable partner in
increasingly procuring the energy that Europe desperately wants. Radio Free
Europe reports that for decades to come, Iranian gas may be Europe’s most
viable source of non-Russian gas. Nothing Turkey could do would strengthen
its value to the EU more than its growth as an energy hub.
Even the slippage in Turkey’s relationship with the United States is driving
it more toward Europe, according to Semih Idiz. Speaking of the Iraq crisis,
Idiz said, `Having its relations with the U.S. `electrified,’ Ankara will be
more and more eager to grab hold of the EU anchor’ (Turkish Weekly,
September 1).
President Gül has strongly emphasized his intent to forge ahead with plans
to join the European Union, plans that will require further economic reforms
and constitutional amendments. His ally, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, also from the Justice and Development Party, has outlined a
five-year program to increase individual freedoms, further boost the
economy, and, above all, strengthen the nation’s case for EU membership.
Biblical prophecy indicates, however, that although Turkey will remain
committed to its romance with Europe, all these efforts are doomed to
fail – just as they always have.
Turkey’s Image Problem
>From the time Atatürk himself famously admonished his countrymen to `turn
toward Europe,’ Turkey has labored, to varying degrees, to cast itself in
the image of the West. For the past decade, it has worked overtime.
Still, for every obstacle Turkey hurdles, the EU throws up another. Since
1987, when Turkey applied for full membership, 15 other states have cut to
the front of the line and been accepted: Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. The Turks have watched the Union
swell from 12 states to 27, while they remain peering through the window
from the outside.
Now, the prospect of becoming an energy bridge to the Continent has inflamed
Turkey’s hopes of finally convincing the EU to return the love.
Those hopes are wasted. Try as it may to overcome it, Turkey clearly has an
image problem among Europe’s decision makers – and even its voters. Just this
year, France elected a president – Nicolas Sarkozy – who campaigned on
opposition to Turkish EU membership.
Why? Why is Europe so opposed to considering Turks European citizens? Only
one major issue separates Turkey from all the other nations being granted
their pass into the Union: religion.
The fundamentally Roman Catholic continent simply has no intention of
incorporating 70 million Muslims in one swoop. And Turkey – with its Ottoman
history, which at one time threatened Catholicism’s very existence – has
particularly negative associations in European minds. As Bernard Lewis
expresses it, `[T]here is still a reserve of mistrust, and even at times of
hostility [toward Turks], with roots deep in the European Christian past’
(From Babel to Dragomans).
The election of an openly Islamic president has only solidified Europe’s
unspoken yet inflexible resistance to embracing Turkey. Still, given this
nation’s growing strategic value to Europe, watch for the EU to continue to
dangle carrots and incentives to keep the Turks onside. And as Europe grows
in power in the time ahead, Ankara’s devotion to the European cause will
only grow along with it.
Thus, Turkey is destined to remain suspended between worlds – always
searching, ever more desperate to please.
A Shocking Betrayal
These trends become far more significant in light of the Bible’s description
of Turkey’s place in end-time events. It is only with the revelation of God’s
Word that we can understand why Turkey truly matters.
The biblical prophecies regarding events in the Middle East are clear: A
Muslim-Jewish war is about to erupt – initiated by Islamic forces clearly
unrestrained by Turkey or anything else. That conflagration will trigger a
series of events leading to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
When the Muslims move to sack Jerusalem, it will provoke a united European
bloc of nations to intervene. This bloc will set up armies around
Jerusalem – appearing like a `peacekeeping force’ – but quickly transforming
into a deadly war machine (Luke 21:20). It won’t be just Arabs or Muslims
that suffer at their hands; this European power will turn its full force on
the nations of Israel – including America and Britain. This horrifying
double-cross is discussed in Ezekiel 23. Many in the Jerusalem area will be
trapped!
The Prophet Obadiah recorded an extraordinary prophecy about `Edom,’ whose
modern descendants are the Turks. (Request a free copy of the Trumpet’s
December 1997 article `Turkey: An Act of Revenge!’ for a detailed
explanation of this prophecy.) It shows how Turkey, possessing the escape
route via land – the Cilician Gates mountain pass – will actually betray those
Israelis, Americans and British who are trying to escape, delivering them
into the hands of their conquerors. This is one last act, true to present
form, of Turkey attempting to curry favor with Europe!
The description of these events reveals several things that illuminate the
meaning of present-day headlines.
One, the fact that those escapees look to Turkey strongly indicates that
Turkey’s alliances with the U.S. and with Israel will remain, at least in
name.
Two, the betrayal may mean we can expect still more friction to develop
within these alliances, like that which has arisen over the `genocide’
question and the Kurd condition in Iraq. Though the U.S. still enjoys the
support of Turkey’s secularist military, anti-Americanism is rampant and
growing within Turkish media and among the Turkish people – a fact that the
U.S., as desperate as it is to retain Turkey’s help, is willing to overlook.
Three, for Turkey, relations with Europe will continue to trump all other
foreign-policy considerations.
Thus, based on biblical prophecy, in the end the Trumpet expects recent
events that have thrust Turkey into the headlines only to cement the unique
position this nation already occupies in modern geopolitics. They may tax
Turkey’s agreements with the U.S. and Israel, but will not destroy them.
They may increase Turkey’s cooperation with Muslim states, shifting the
balance of power in favor of Iran, but that cooperation will fall short of a
full-scale alliance. And most importantly, they will strengthen Europe’s
resolve to keep Turkey at arm’s length, but do nothing to diminish Turkey’s
undying resolve to get into Europe’s bed.
And as Obadiah’s prophecy reveals, that nation’s willingness to do anything
to serve this ambition – including betrayal – will lead to its ruin.

NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR ACCEPTED HIS DUTIES
Laura Grigorian

Azat Artsakh Tert, Nagorno Karabakh Rep.
Oct 25 2007

On October 22nd, the Prime Minister A.Haroutyunian presented the
newly elected mayor Vazgen Mikhaelian to the chairmen of the separate
subdivisions and acting structures of Stepanakert’s municipality.

Congratulating Vazgen Mikhaelian in connection with his new post,
the Prime Minister pointed, that the elections of local authorities
of October 14th,2007 once again confirmed, that the country steped
forward by democratic way. Touching upon the unsolved problems of the
capital, the Prime Minister pointed, that Stepanakert needed aid that
day.A. Haroutyunian wished V.Mikhaelian fruitful activity in that high
and responsible work and expressed readiness for collaborating and
assisting him.V. Mikhaelian expressed gratitude to the NKR authorities
and people for confidence and assured, that he would justify hopes
of the leaders of the republic and population.

EVANSTON FAMILY HOSTS ARMENIAN CHURCH LEADER
By Ravi Baichwal

ABC7Chicago.com, IL
amp;id=5724875
Oct 25 2007

October 24, 2007 – A very special honor was given to an Evanston
family. They are hosting the leader of the Armenian Church. His
holiness Catholicos Karekin II was in the Chicago area for several
events Wednesday.

For Armenians, having the Armenian leader come to the area is like
the pope from on high. He is their spiritual leader, and for them,
he brought a message that faith, family and the church will never
abandon them.

Karekin consecrated the new doors at the church at 6700 W. Diversey
and told the faithful the church is assuring they will survive. His
Holiness said the Armenian struggle is one of survival.

"The church is the house of God. The people we provide, when they are
in the house of God, with prayer and with the light with God," he said.

It is a message that resonates with these Americans, the descendants
of people who have been conquered and subjugated and survived.

"I’m thrilled, honored, even scared, and it’s very, very fortunate
something like this happened while we’re still living," said Mary
Ipjan.

"He is the head of the church of eight million people. Eight other
million people besides us. So we are quite honored," said John Ipjan.

To underscore the theme of this pontifical journey, he comes for a
traditional ceremony not done by someone at his station.

Four generations of a family and friends crowded in for the
once-in-a-lifetime event, the blessings of a pontiff brought to life
within suburban walls.

"I’m lucky. I’m happy," Mary Ipjan said.

Some 500 people came to the church to hear from the pontiff. He is
expected at 7 p.m. Wednesday for an ecumenical service that will
include services from other religious communities.

Karekin arrives in a controversial time. The House of Representatives
is debating a motion on whether Turkey committed genocide against
the Armenians when about 1.5 million Armenians died in the aftermath
of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The pontiff said he is happy
certain congressmen are willing to pursue truth and justice.

DIRECTOR OF OSCE’S OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

National Assembly of RA
Oct 25 2007
Armenia

On October 24 Mr. Tigran Torosyan, President of the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia received the delegation led by Mr. Christian
Strohal, Director of OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (ODIHR). Ambassador Mr. Sergey Kapinos, the head of OSCE
Yerevan Office attended he meeting.

At the meeting the sides discussed the reforms of the Electoral
Code and the importance of recording the successes stipulated in the
parliamentary elections during the presidential elections. Mt. Tigran
Torosyan, NA President, touching upon the joint effective work
through many years, stressed the continuation of the cooperation
for the improvement of the electoral processes. The NA President
noted that the draft of the amendments to the Electoral Code had
been put into circulation, and the parliament has a difficult task
to make amendments till the presidential elections during the short
period of time, already at the beginning of November. Mr. Torosyan
expressed regret that the OSCE/ODIHR conclusion was presented late,
which also became a reason for the delay of the draft, and in that way
that has become a tradition, there is no possibility to send the draft
for expertise. However, there are also no deep amendments, and there
have been rather continuous and voluminous debates with the experts
that there is likely any provision to put the reforms under doubt.

The NA President referred to the report regarding also the
parliamentary elections, noting that 4 months had passed but it was
not possible to avoid the wrong formulations, in particular, those on
which there are proposals but they aren’t in the Code. Mr. Torosyan
expressed regret that according to an agreement, there was no
opportunity primarily to get introduced with the draft of the report
in order to exclude the mistakes made in working order, and the sides
would have beneficial situation during cooperation.

Mr. Christian Strohal, Director of OSCE/ODIHR Office considered
the goal of his visit the deepening of cooperation, following the
process of the observations made during the previous elections and
the preparation of the upcoming elections. Recording the success of
the parliamentary elections, which has been a serious step forward,
MR. Strohal stressed their continuation in case of presidential
elections. As he assessed, it’s very important that the good law
is carried out in a good way, for this purpose it’s necessary to
increase the role of the National Assembly in the aspect of the
oversight of the administration of the law. Mr. Strohal stressed the
necessary preparation of the members of the electoral commissions
for the success of the elections, the organisation of the process of
the voting, the creation of equal opportunities for the candidates
through mass media at the pre-electoral period.

Mr. Tigran Torosyan reminded that as a result of constitutional reforms
the citizens got an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court
and the experience of the past one and a half year testifies to
the fact that it is really a functioning mechnaism, which created
the National Assembly in the aspect of fulfilling the oversight of
implementing the law. In the aspect of administering the law, the
citizens’ full legal awareness was also stressed. It was noted that
a series of remarks on the previous elections by the suggesting
amendments to the Electoral were eliminated. Touching upon the
assistance to the works of the National Assembly, Mr. Torosyan
stressed the importance of giving a new quality to the cooperation,
as all preconditions for that have already been created.

ADORING FANS CHERISH ARMENIAN POPE’S SPECIAL VISIT TO WISCONSIN
By Paul Sloth

Journal Times, WI
ocal_news/doc471ece8608605298333190.txt
Oct 24 2007

Armenian religious leader last visited Racine 47 years ago

MILWAUKEE – A group of boys crowded around a small window peering
out onto the tarmac of Signature Flight Support, a small airstrip
adjacent to Mitchell International Airport.

Sun poured into the room as the boys, several of them from Racine,
jumped up and down off of the folding chairs waiting to catch a
glimpse of the small plane carrying the Armenian pope.

They were among the roughly 60 people from around Racine and
Milwaukee gathered at the airport to greet His Holiness Karekin II,
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians. Many call him the
"Armenian pope."

It was a special visit that many consider a once-in-a-lifetime
experience. It has been 47 years since an Armenian religious leader
has visited Racine. For some Racine Armenians, like Joe Gabrielian
and Michelle Ouzounian, they were too young to remember the last pope
who visited.

Gabrielian hoped his son Jacob understood the significance of such
a visit.

"He knows this is something important, but I don’t know if he knows
this may never happen again," Gabrielian said.

Jacob Gabrielian, 8, a third-grader at Racine’s Dr. Jones Elementary
School, prepared himself to greet the religious leader, an honor he
shared with two others.

"I’m not nervous. I’m happy," Jacob said shortly before the pope
arrived.

Jacob and Zaven Ouzounian, who both attend Racine’s St. Mesrob Armenian
Apostolic Church, helped welcome Karekin with a traditional Armenian
offering of bread, salt and flowers.

The boys were chosen because they had the best Sunday school
attendance.

Zaven, 8, a third-grader at Gifford Elementary, was just as excited
to be a part of Tuesday’s event. He looked forward to telling his
classmates about how he spent his day off from school.

Shortly before 2 p.m. Tuesday Karekin II’s plane touched down, and
as he stepped from the plane, the group cheered. As he walked toward
the crowd he invited them to gather around him, where he greeted them
in Armenian.

During a short news conference afterward, Karekin II said he was
proud to visit America.

"I’m very happy to see in their hearts is living the love of God and
the church and their spiritual father," Karekin II said. "And that
the Armenian life is vibrant here. I’m very proud of my people."

The Rev. Yeprem Kelegian, a pastor at St. Mesrob, said Tuesday’s visit
was significant for local Armenians, including the 284 members of
his church, because Karekin II chose to include Racine in his visit,
which includes larger cities like Chicago and Detroit.

"I’m excited for them. It’s an exciting event," Kelegian said. "It’s
going to be inspirational that he’s coming to their church."

Kelegian said many local Armenians have been active in helping Karekin
II with one of his outreach efforts in Armenia – building homes with
Habitat for Humanity International.

The churches in the diocese that includes Racine planned to donate
roughly 100 homes in connection with the pope’s visit.

For Charles Hardy, 68, a deacon at St. Mesrob, it was another chance
to greet the leader of his church. Hardy, a lifelong Racine resident,
was a high school student when His Holiness Vaken I visited.

During that visit, Hardy gave two recitations in Armenian during a
reception at The Racine Hotel.

Tuesday was a proud moment for local Armenians like Hardy, whose
parents emigrated from Armenia. Hardy was honored that Karekin II
would visit his church later Tuesday evening and that other members
of his church would share in the experience.

"This church is one of the oldest churches in the diocese," Hardy
said. "It’s exciting to me to see their excitement. It is a real
blessing for all the (Armenian) people in the Midwest."

CONGRESS MUST REPEAL EXECUTIVE USURPATIONS

Oakland Tribune, CA
7256588
Oct 23 2007

IN recent days much has been made of Congress’ proposed resolution
condemning the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

It seems, however, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes
to pass the perennial resolution.

Over the years, the Armenian genocide resolution has taken different
forms with similar results.

It has been particularly noteworthy this time around because Turkey
is one of our few allies in the region.

Turkish officials dispute the genocide claims.

The 2007 version of the resolution states: "the Armenian genocide
was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923."

An estimated 1.5 million Armenians died, the resolution states,
while 500,000 were expelled, resulting in "the elimination of the
over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland."

Like its predecessors, the Bush administration, opposes the measure,
calling it an insult to a key ally.

Moreover, strategic reasons also play into the president’s thinking,
as an estimated 70 percent of U.S. military cargo bound for Iraq goes
through Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic
ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital
support for our military every day," the president opined at a press
conference last week.

The president is absolutely right! And since there clearly are not
enough votes for the resolution to pass, Congress should indeed get
on with more important work.

For starters, they could begin the process of returning our government
to the pre-9/11 days where there were three equal branches of
government in its actual implementation, which would augment what we
currently have today – the mere premise of such.

Under the leadership of the vice president, the Bush Administration has
made good on its efforts to expand the powers of the executive branch.

Since taking office, the Bush Administration has made it their mission
to reclaim the power, usurped by Congress, as a result of Vietnam
and Watergate.

Using the 9/11 attacks and fear in the most Machiavellian sense,
the administration enacted legislation, passed by Congress, to
become more powerful, more secretive, and worse, more dismissive of
Congressional oversight.

They created what historian Arthur Schlesinger coined, "The Imperial
Presidency."

The process began when Vice President Dick Cheney was allowed to
create energy policy behind closed doors.

But that was merely the tip of the iceberg. Subsequently, the
Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus and the Constitution itself have
been demoted to ideals better suited when one is not engaging in a
perpetual war on terror.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act, which is anything but, justified the type of
domestic spying unimaginable even to Orwell.

Last month, a U.S. District Court judge struck down two provisions
of the Patriot Act, ruling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA), as amended by the Patriot Act, was unconstitutional because
they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause,
thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.

The judge’s ruling has restored some equilibrium to our checks and
balances system; but Congress must go further.

It is dangerous to the republic if Congress fails to roll back the
power the president amassed immediately following 9/11.

And this must be done before the next president takes the oath of
office in 2009.

The human condition, whatever station in life, has demonstrated
throughout history difficulty in placing limits on its own power.

No president, regardless of party, will volunteer to relinquish
authority. Power is prone to bipartisan corruption.

I can’t help but speculate if whether Democrats, who now control
Congress, are feeling a Democrat will also reclaim the White House.

This is the amoral aspect of politics that is beyond the ability of
elected officials to self-regulate.

It is equally difficult for those aligned with a particular party to
demand such change.

Republicans could not do it and there is no reason to suspect that
Democrats will fair any better if they are temporarily given the
reigns of controlling Congress and the White House.

However important it may be to publicly acknowledge Armenian genocide,
it is more important that we put our own house in order now.

Byron Willilams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail
him at [email protected] or lea ve a message at (510) 208-6417.

–Boundary_(ID_oAd2ZJ7zNdEyBcSSJZlHBA)
Content-type: message/rfc822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-description:

From: "Katia M. Peltekian" <[email protected]>
Subject: Congress must repeal executive usurpations
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

Oakland Tribune, CA
Oct 23 2007

Congress must repeal executive usurpations
Article Last Updated: 10/23/2007 08:04:38 AM PDT

IN recent days much has been made of Congress’ proposed resolution
condemning the Armenian genocide in Turkey.
It seems, however, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes
to pass the perennial resolution.

Over the years, the Armenian genocide resolution has taken different
forms with similar results.

It has been particularly noteworthy this time around because Turkey
is one of our few allies in the region.

Turkish officials dispute the genocide claims.

The 2007 version of the resolution states: "the Armenian genocide was
conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923."
An estimated 1.5 million Armenians died, the resolution states, while
500,000 were expelled, resulting in "the elimination of the over
2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland."

Like its predecessors, the Bush administration, opposes the measure,
calling it an insult to a key ally.

Moreover, strategic reasons also play into the president’s thinking,
as an estimated 70 percent of U.S. military cargo bound for Iraq goes
through Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a
democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing
vital support for our military every day," the president opined at a
press conference last week.

The president is absolutely right! And since there clearly are not
enough votes for the resolution to pass, Congress should indeed get
on with more important work.

For starters, they could begin the process of returning our
government to the pre-9/11 days where there were three equal branches
of government in its actual implementation, which would augment what
we currently have today ? the mere premise of such.

Under the leadership of the vice president, the Bush Administration
has made good on its efforts to expand the powers of the executive
branch.

Since taking office, the Bush Administration has made it their
mission to reclaim the power, usurped by Congress, as a result of
Vietnam and Watergate.

Using the 9/11 attacks and fear in the most Machiavellian sense, the
administration enacted legislation, passed by Congress, to become
more powerful, more secretive, and worse, more dismissive of
Congressional oversight.

They created what historian Arthur Schlesinger coined, "The Imperial
Presidency."

The process began when Vice President Dick Cheney was allowed to
create energy policy behind closed doors.

But that was merely the tip of the iceberg. Subsequently, the Geneva
Conventions, habeas corpus and the Constitution itself have been
demoted to ideals better suited when one is not engaging in a
perpetual war on terror.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act, which is anything but, justified the type of
domestic spying unimaginable even to Orwell.

Last month, a U.S. District Court judge struck down two provisions of
the Patriot Act, ruling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA), as amended by the Patriot Act, was unconstitutional because
they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable
cause, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.

The judge’s ruling has restored some equilibrium to our checks and
balances system; but Congress must go further.

It is dangerous to the republic if Congress fails to roll back the
power the president amassed immediately following 9/11.

And this must be done before the next president takes the oath of
office in 2009.

The human condition, whatever station in life, has demonstrated
throughout history difficulty in placing limits on its own power.

No president, regardless of party, will volunteer to relinquish
authority. Power is prone to bipartisan corruption.

I can’t help but speculate if whether Democrats, who now control
Congress, are feeling a Democrat will also reclaim the White House.

This is the amoral aspect of politics that is beyond the ability of
elected officials to self-regulate.

It is equally difficult for those aligned with a particular party to
demand such change.

Republicans could not do it and there is no reason to suspect that
Democrats will fair any better if they are temporarily given the
reigns of controlling Congress and the White House.

However important it may be to publicly acknowledge Armenian
genocide, it is more important that we put our own house in order
now.

Byron Willilams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail
him at [email protected] or lea ve a message at (510) 208-6417.

256588

__________________________________________ ________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

–Boundary_(ID_oAd2ZJ7zNdEyBcSSJZlHBA)–

‘THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE’
Orhan Tung, Press Counsellor, Turkish embassy in London

New Statesman, UK

Oct 23 2007

The Turkish Embassy’s Orhan Tung responds to the Armenian ambassador
on the question of the 1915 genocide

Contrary to the Armenian allegations, in fact, there is no consensus
among the historians and legal experts to qualify the events of 1915 as
"genocide".

There is a legitimate historical controversy concerning the
interpretation of the events in question and most of the scholars
who have propounded a contra genocide viewpoint are of the highest
calibre and repute, including Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, David
Fromkin, Justin McCarthy, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone, Kamuran Gurun,
Michael Gunter, Gilles Veinstein, Andrew Mango, Roderic Davidson,
J.C. Hurwitz, William Batkay, Edward J. Erickson and Steven Katz.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. A good number of well-respected
scholars recognize the deportation decision in 1915, taken under
World War I conditions, as a security measure to stop the Armenians
from co-operating with the foreign forces invading Anatolia.

On the legal aspect, the elements of the genocide crime are strictly
defined and codified by the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9
December 1948. However, Armenians, claiming that "the evidence is so
overwhelming", so far have failed to submit even one credible evidence
of genocide.

While the position of the British Government is clear on the issue
– that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us
that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the
1948 UN Convention on Genocide – the attempt to present some British
documents, particularly the infamous Blue Book, as they are confirming
"genocide" is a typical example of the Armenian way of misleading
the international community.

The following quotation from Arnold Toynbee, British historian and
co-author of the Blue Book, which is claimed to "leave no doubt about
what was taking place", clearly shows the extent of Armenian false
propaganda and how they come up with fabricated evidence:

"…Yet at the very time when the agreement (Sykes-Picot Agreement)
was being made, I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government
in a ‘Blue Book’, which was duly published and distributed as war
propaganda. The French Government made use of the Armenians in a
different way. They promised to erect an autonomous Armenian state,
under their aegis, in the Cilician part of their Anatolian Zone and
the promise brought them several thousand Armenian volunteers, most
of whom were enrolled in the Legion d’Orient and served for the rest
of the War" (Toynbee, Arnold J., The Western Question in Greece and
Turkey, Howard Fertig, Inc. Edition, New York, 1970).

Hovhannes Katchaznouni’s (The First Prime Minister of the independent
Armenian Republic) remarks in his report entitled "Dashnagtzoutiun
Has Nothing To Do Anymore" submitted to the 1923 Dashnagtzoutiun
Party Convention, gives an idea about the truth:

"…Are we not capable of doing in the Soviet Armenia what we did in
the Turkish Armenia, for tens of years? We certainly are. We might
establish a base in the Iranian Qaradað and send people and arms
to the other side of Araxe, (just as we did in Salmas once). We
might establish the necessary secret relations and armed "humbas"
in the Sunik and Dereleghez mountains just as we did in the Sasun
mountains and the Chataq stream (in eastern Turkey). We might provoke
the peasants in some far off regions to rise and then we might expel
the communists there or destroy them. Later we might create great
commotion even in Yerevan and occupy a state building at least for
a few hours just as we occupied the Ottoman Bank or we might explode
any building. We could plan assassinations and execute them just as we
killed the officials of the Tsar and the Sultan…; in the same way,
just as we did to Sultan Abdulhamid, we could plant a bomb under
Myasnikov’s or Lukashin’s feet. …when we created a great hubbub
in Turkey, we thought we would attract the attention of the great
powers to the Armenian cause and would force them to mediate for us,
but now we know what such mediation is worth and do not need to repeat
such endeavours…"

After the World War I, the Armenian allegations were investigated
between 1919-1922 as part of a legal process against the Ottoman
Officials. 144 high ranking officials were accused of "massacres" and
deported for trial by Britain to the island of Malta. The information
which led to the trial was mainly given by the local Armenians and the
Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta,
The British occupation forces in Istanbul, with absolute power and
authority, looked everywhere to find evidence in order to incriminate
the deportees. At the conclusion of the investigation, no evidence
was found that could corroborate the Armenian claims.

Turkey is of the view that parliaments and other political institutions
are not the appropriate forums to debate and pass judgments on disputed
periods of history. Taking one-sided and biased decisions on this
disputed period of the history can not be considered as a right and
ethical approach. Also, such kind of issues should not be abused for
the sake of the internal political concerns.

Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to the
historians. In order to shed light on such a disputed historical issue,
the Turkish Government has opened all its archives, including military
records to all researchers. On the other hand, Armenian state archives
in Yerevan and archives in some third countries including the Dashnak
Party archive in Boston are still being kept behind the closed doors.

In 2005, Turkey proposed to Armenia the establishment of a Joint
History Commission, which will be composed of historians and experts
from both sides and third parties in order to study the events of
1915 in their historical context and share the findings with the
international public. The fact that this proposal is yet to receive
a positive answer from the Armenian authorities, when considered
together with their rejection to open all the relevant archives to
the historians, gives a clear idea about their confidence in what
they claim. On the contrary, Turkey has no reason to be afraid of its
past and is ready to accept whatever the findings of this proposed
commission will be.

It should be emphasized that Turkey has always been keen to normalize
its relations with Armenia. In line with its vision towards Southern
Caucasus, Turkey, recognised Armenia on 16 December 1991 and has
produced a consistent policy of efforts to develop good-neighbourly
relations with this country. Due to the difficult economic conditions
it encountered after its independence, Turkey has extended humanitarian
aid to Armenia. Turkey has also facilitated the transit of humanitarian
aid to this country through its territory. Turkey supported Armenia’s
integration with the regional organisations, international community
and the western institutions, and invited Armenia to the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organization as a founding state. Additionally,
Turkey took a series of unilateral steps that would help creating a
favourable climate in the region. In this regard, some of Turkey’s
recent unilateral gestures towards Armenia are as follows:

Armenian citizens are welcome to visit Turkey through visas issued
at the entry points valid for 30 days. In stark contrast, this is not
the case for Turkish citizens who intend to visit Armenia. Thousands
of Armenian citizens reside primarily for employment in Turkey.

Turkey opened two air corridors for facilitating the international
flights, which amount in excess of hundred over-flights every month
and Turkish and Armenian air charter companies operate between Istanbul
and Yerevan on a regular basis, up to 4 times a week.

Transit trade towards Armenia or from Armenia towards abroad,
via Turkey is not subjected to any restriction or hindering. These
unilateral steps clearly show Turkey’s will for the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations.

However, these good-will gestures are not reciprocated by Armenia.

Instead, Armenia, passed a new bill on 4 October 2006, which makes
it impossible for any Armenian citizen, or third party in Armenia,
to voice dissent about the "genocide"; refused to issue visa for
the Turkish election observation team comprising eight academics,
who were to be deployed at the Election Observation Mission (EOM) set
up by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) prior to the Armenian parliamentary elections scheduled for
12th May 2007; rejected the inclusion of a Turkish officer to the
NATO/PfP team that would conduct a working visit on border security
in Armenia in July 2007.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to the desperate plight of the
people of Armenia, suffering from the dire economic conditions in
the country which is self-isolated as a result of the intransigent
attitude of the wealthy diaspora. I believe that the Armenians
have become captive to their own lie of "genocide" and every single
support to the baseless Armenian allegations from the third parties
will further cut their connection with the truth and prevent their
integration to the West.

–Boundary_(ID_8uZ6SPN0jxJuITc719XNBA)–