Category: News

Nagornyy Karabakh Deputy Foreign Minister dismisses PACE resolution on Karabakh as “entirely negative”
Mediamax news agency
10 Feb 05
Yerevan, 10 February: The authorities of Nagornyy Karabakh think that
the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] resolution
adopted after David Atkinson’s [ PACE rapporteur on Nagornyy Karabakh]
report is “entirely negative”.
This was announced by Nagornyy Karabakh Deputy Foreign Minister Masis
Mailyan in reply to questions from MPs of the National Assembly of
the republic during the “parliamentary hour” at a plenary session of
parliament, Mediamax news agency reported.
Mailyan said that the emergence of the resolution became possible
because Karabakh deputies had not been invited to the PACE hearing
on the Nagornyy Karabakh problem in January.
Speaking about the Karabakh settlement process, Masis Mailyan stressed
that the current format of negotiations in which only Armenia and
Azerbaijan are taking part, does not fully reflect the real situation.
The NKR deputy foreign minister reconfirmed Stepanakert’s [Xankandi]
position, according to which it is impossible to resolve the problem
without the participation of Nagornyy Karabakh in the negotiations
and without taking into account the opinion of its people.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

This Crisis Should be Resolved Too
By EKREM DUMANLI
Zaman, Turkey
Feb 10 2005
One cannot deny the long-term crisis in Turkish-American relations.
The tension, which began with the objection to the March 1
deployment, deepens a bit at every opportunity.
Turkey has many concerns about the developments in Northern Iraq.
Turkey’s expectation of an operation against the Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK) has turned into disappointment. Kurdish leaders make
provocative statements on the Kerkuk (Kirkuk) issue and the US
usually foots the bill. The idea that Iran will benefit the most from
a new Iraqi state with a Shiite majority is cause for concern…
The problem is not just limited to Iraq. The US position and Turkey’s
official discourse conflict with one another on the ecumenical
debate. Turkey wants to play a role in the Middle Eastern peace
process, but it also explicitly accuses Israel of “state terrorism.”
This position brings Turkey head to head with US foreign policy.
The magic of the diplomatic profession becomes apparent during
difficult times like these.
Turkey should continue its relations with the US on good terms and
also maintain balance in the rest of the world. Although policies
based on continuous tension straighten out over time, scars usually
remain. Diplomatic foresight allows intervention before tension
peaks.
Last week, I had the opportunity to chat with people in many places,
in particular at The Washington Post. Being in Washington was a big
advantage for a journalist just days before US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to visit Turkey. Almost everyone was
busy making preparations; almost everyone had questions; almost
everyone had their own interpretation regarding the visit.
Apparently, the US wants to get rid of its negative image that was
created during the Iraqi war and is therefore looking for solutions.
It is also clear that they want to have a closer relationship with
other countries in the world (particularly with Europe) during Bush’s
new term in presidency. The worldwide spread of anti-Americanism is
cause for tremendous concern. Anti-Americanism in Turkey has reached
80 percent according to a British Broadcast Company’s (BBC) public
survey. This finding also concerns the US.
It is hard to believe that this public survey is correct. The Turkish
public is not an enemy to the US, but it is clear that there is
concern about US policies in the Middle East. The Turkish public has
not forgotten the cooperation of Muslims and Americans in Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Somalia, the US help in the seizure of PKK leader
Abdullah Ocalan, the direct US support for European Union (EU)
membership, etc. The chain of incidents that began with the March 1
motion, however, keep tensions running high. Being on scathing terms
sometimes strengthens conspiracy theories as well. As in the famous
sack incident [when US soldiers put bags over the heads of Turkish
soldiers in Iraq], there are other incidents such as being unable to
do anything about the PKK in Northern Iraq that ferment
misunderstanding and anger.
To be honest, US-Turkey relations may face a more difficult period in
the upcoming months. For instance, the “Armenian genocide bill,”
which may ward off a final attack at any minute, might harm Turkey. A
Turkish deputy’s description of US activity in Iraq as “genocide” was
discussed and passed over by Turkish interest groups. That the US
feels unbelievable discomfort is clear enough. A deputy’s remarks are
not, in fact, binding to the Turkish government, but since relations
are built on tension, a new crisis could emerge from almost any
issue.
There are critical issues that both countries have put in the deep
freeze. These issues should be dealt with using clear minds and
diplomatic courtesy. Of course, various possibilities could bring
some opportunities to Turkey, but Turkey cannot give up its role as
America’s “strategic partner.” Turkish diplomacy has solved many
crises skillfully, and it should solve this, too. I hope Rice’s visit
to Turkey becomes a significant step toward normalized relations.
–Boundary_(ID_AtEjL18vvyiGA5r5nYt4gw)–

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Feb 10 2005
OCCUPIED AZERBAIJAN TERRITORIES USED FOR NARCOTIC TRAFFICKING
[February 10, 2005, 10:51:27]
The delegation of International Assistance Department of the Ministry
of Customs and excises of the Great Britain has arrived with visit to
Azerbaijan with a view of studying opportunities of rendering of the
technical aid in the field of customs and excise of Azerbaijan.
At the meeting of delegation taken place on February 9 with the first
vice-president of the State Customs Committee, the general-lieutenant
of customs service Aydin Aliyev, was presented information on the way
of development passed by the Azerbaijan customs service. It has been
marked that among the western countries the Azerbaijan Customs
Committee has signed the first document with the Great Britain.
Having noted that the Regional Educational Center of the World
Customs Organization locating in Baku and the Center of Cynology
function today on the basis of the principles of work fully complying
the world standards, Aydyn Aliyev spoke of the effective work
directed on combat against illegal circulation of drugs. He has
declared, that through occupied by the armed forces of Armenia the
uncontrollable Azerbaijan territories, which have stayed now away
from the international monitoring, drugs are taken across to Europe,
that the said territories are used for drag trafficking.
Highly having estimated the done work, the visitors – Andrew Argil,
Nagara Harginder and Ms. Kelly Veryard have taken interest also in
what the State Customs Committee of Azerbaijan requires in the field
of the technical aid.
Speaking about the technical assistance received within the framework
of cooperation with authoritative international structures, Aydyn
Aliyev has noted that the boats given to Azerbaijan are suitable for
coast guard, besides, there is necessity for special devices and
equipment for more exact and operative detection of drugs.
Then, the British customs officers have familiarized with the
Regional Educational Center of WTO in Baku and the Center of
Cynology.

Saakashvili Addressed the Nation, Parliament
By Giorgi Sepashvili, Civil Georgia / 2005-02-10 13:32:59
Civil Georgia, Goergia
Feb 10 2005
In his first-ever state of the nation address to the Parliament on
February 10 Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said that the
country has made the step from being a failed state into becoming a
state since the 2003 Rose Revolution.
In his one-hour long annual report to the Parliament and nation,
the President spoke about Georgia’s domestic and foreign policy,
as well as the achievements made and those “numerous challenges”
Georgia faces ahead.
In the address, which has already been described by the opposition
New Rights parliamentary faction as “a stage-show,” the President was
mainly appealing to the ordinary citizens of Georgia. Representatives
from various professions, including “successful” teachers, soldiers
and patrol police officers, were invited to attend the parliamentary
session. Saakashvili thanked each of them separately for their
activities in an attempt to add a more emotional element to the
address.
Achievements
Mikheil Saakashvili started his speech by listing the successes which
the country’s new government achieved over the past year. He listed
the reintegration of Adjara, curbing of corruption and smuggling,
creation of a people-friendly Patrol Police and the creation of
the Financial Police, designed to fight smuggling, as the major
achievements of the government.
He emphasized the process of “building a new, not large, but
well-trained armed forces,” as well as the launch of training of the
reserve forces.
“To gain peace we need to be a strong nation and a strong army is
the major component in this process,” he said.
He also listed the privatization process launched last year among
those successful initiatives begun by the country’s leadership. “We
need privatization in order to attract investment and to create jobs,”
Saakashvili said.
The President stated that the energy sector, education, the healthcare
system and defense will be the sectors that the government intends
to allocate revenues received from this privatization process.
He said that the government “could cover all the pension and salary
backlogs,” as well as increase revenues. In this regard he stressed
the role of Finance Minister Zurab Nogaideli, whom the President
recently nominated for the position of Prime Minister.
“This was the major reason why I decided to nominate Zurab Nogaideli.
The person who could increase revenues and repay the entire pension
and salary backlog needed to be promoted,” Mikheil Saakashvili said.
Problems, Road Ahead
Saakashvili said that despite these achievements, the country faces
“numerous challenges ahead.” He listed unemployment, reform of the
judiciary and education systems and self-governance among them.
He said that “the government failed to create new jobs in the private
sector and establish a European-style economy.”
“Yes, we have fired many officials from the governmental structures
and it was an irreversible process but at the same time we could not
create new jobs in the private sector,” he said.
Saakashvili stated that development of services and tourism is one
of the major priorities for the government. “But development of
infrastructure is necessary first,” he added.
Saakashvili said that there should be no set backs in the process of
reforming the education and judiciary system.
“We should achieve a real independence for the judiciary branch,
which does not exist now. Kote Kemularia [Chairman of the Supreme
Court, who has been nominated as the new Justice Minister] will work
hard over this issue at his new post,” Saakashvili stated.
The President said he is not ready “to appoint all the officials in
the region from the center.”
“Mayors of all the cities should be elected starting next year,”
he said.
Saakashvili did not specify, though, whether these elections should
be direct or whether the mayors should be elected by members of
elected councils.
President Saakashvili also said that the number of parliamentarians
should be reduced from the current 235 to 150, as it was decided by
the national referendum carried in November, 2003.
“2,300,000 voters said that the number of MPs should be no more than
150 and if we fail to implement this, it will be humiliating for these
voters. There should be at least 50 MPs elected in the single-mandate
constituencies [instead of the current 75], and MPs elected through
party-list should also remain,” Mikheil Saakashvili said.
He said that a two-chamber Parliament should be established; however
he did not specify when this may occur.
Foreign Policy
President Mikeil Saakashvili said that Georgia “has turned into an
attractive country for the rest of the world.”
“And this has not happened because Georgia is just a corridor,” he
said, referring to the word frequently used to describe Georgia’s
role in the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
and the TRASECA transport corridor begun by Eduard Shevardnadze’s
administration.
He said that Georgia “has ideal relations with its neighbors,” listing
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. “And we should care for these ideal
relations,” Saakashvili added.
He stressed that “another state in the post-Soviet space has emerged
recently with aspirations similar to those of Georgia – Ukraine.”
But the President emphasized that there are still problems with
Russia. He called on Russia for mutual compromise.
Saakashvili said he is ready to travel to Moscow and again extend
a hand of friendship, “which has been hanging [in the air] for one
year,” to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Last February, when President Saakashvili traveled to Moscow and met
President Putin, the Georgian President said he visited Moscow in order
“to extend his hand of friendship” to Putin.
“We face particular problems in our relationship with Russia; however
this mistake should be corrected through mutual compromises. This
should occur on the basis of defending bilateral interests,” Mikheil
Saakashvili said.
He reiterated once again that Georgia will not host military bases
of third countries on its soil.
–Boundary_(ID_ZsaJrfnX38Q02i9O6SbfmQ)–

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Feb 10 2005
Clerical leaders to discuss Garabagh conflict
The Upper Garabagh problem will be in focus at a meeting of religious
figures in Moscow on March 10.
Ways of preventing the conflict’s turning into the Islam-
Christianity confrontation and the role of religious figures in the
conflict resolution will be discussed.
The event to take place within the Moscow conference of CIS clerics
will be attended by the Caucasus Clerical Leader Sheikhulislam
Pashazada, the Russian Patriarch Aleksi II and the Armenian Catalicos
Garegin II.
While in Moscow, the religious leaders are also expected to meet with
the Russian President Vladimir Putin.

ReliefWeb (press release), Switzerland
Feb 10 2005
White House Proposes Maintaining Armenia-Azerbaijan Military
Assistance Parity
ANCA welcomes recognition of the role that military aid parity plays
in regional stability
WASHINGTON, DC–In a move welcomed as a contribution to regional
stability and the search for peace, the Bush Administration’s Fiscal
Year (FY) 2006 budget proposal, released February 7, called for
maintaining parity in military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan,
reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). This
decision represents a break from the last year’s widely criticized FY
2005 budget request, which, although later reversed by Congress,
initially proposed providing four times more military aid to
Azerbaijan than to Armenia.
“We are gratified that the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget calls
for parity in military aid appropriations to Armenia and Azerbaijan,”
said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “We welcome this request
as a contribution toward regional peace, and want to extend our
appreciation to Congressman Knollenberg, Senator McConnell and the
other key legislators who impressed upon the Administration the
wisdom of this course of action.”
The budget request includes $5 million in Foreign Military Finance
(FMF) assistance and $750,000 in International Military Education and
Training (IMET) for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The FY 2006 White
House proposal also includes a $55 million earmark for Armenia, $7
million less than the figure proposed by the Administration last
year, and $20 million less than the actual assistance appropriated by
Congress for 2005. Azerbaijan and Georgia have been budgeted $35
million and $67 million, respectively. The overall foreign aid budget
for the former Soviet Union is $482 million, a $74 million reduction
from last year.
For the first time, the budget document also makes specific reference
to ‘Nagorno Karabagh,’ citing that a portion of a $48.5 million
allocation for Eurasia would include funding for humanitarian
assistance to Mountainous Karabagh Republic.
“We were pleased that the Administration’s request, for the first
time, specifically cited humanitarian aid to Nagorno Karabagh,”
continued Hamparian. “We were, however, troubled by the White House’s
proposed reduction in aid to Armenia. We will, in the coming weeks
and months, work with Congressional appropriators in support of an
increased allocation for Armenia.”
The Foreign Operations Subcommittees of the Senate and House
Appropriation Committees will now review the budget and each draft
their own versions of the FY 2006 foreign assistance bill.
The agreement to maintain parity in US military aid to Armenia and
Azerbaijan was struck between the White House and Congress in 2001,
in the wake of Congressional action granting the President the
authority to waive the Section 907 restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan.
The ANCA has vigorously defended this principle, stressing in
correspondence, at senior level meetings, and through grassroots
activism, that a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would
destabilize the region, emboldening Azerbaijan’s leadership to
continue their threats to impose a military solution to the Nagorno
Karabagh conflict. More broadly, the ANCA has underscored that
breaching the parity agreement would reward the leadership of
Azerbaijan for walking away from the OSCE’s Key West peace talks, the
most promising opportunity to resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict
in nearly a decade. Finally, failing to respect the parity agreement
would, the ANCA has stressed, undermine the role of the US as an
impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Kathimerini, Greece
Feb 10 2005
Film classics at the Trianon
Organized by the Greek Film Center, tribute takes place on Saturday
afternoons and runs to April 23
Lovers. Eiji Okada and Emmanuelle Riva in Alain Resnais’s 1959 drama
‘Hiroshima Mon Amour.’ The film will be screened at the Trianon
Filmcenter on April 9.
A multitude of new films may be released at cinemas around Athens
every week, but there are still chances to watch old classics. Once
more, the Greek Film Center presents the “Appointment with the
Classics” series at the Trianon Filmcenter, a program which began
last November and will run to April 23.
Screenings take place every Saturday at 4.30 p.m. and the program for
the coming weeks is as follows: this Saturday, February 12, features
Polish filmmaker Jerzy Kawalerowicz’s 1961 film “Matka Joanna od
aniolow” (Joan of the Angels), set in the 17th century, in which a
Catholic official is summoned to exorcize a nun in a convent in a
small town. The film stars Lucyna Winnicka and Mieczyslaw Voit. Five
shorts by Alain Resnais will be screened on February 19, including
“Nuit et brouillard” (Night and Fog), a 1955 short which proves that
cinema is not just about viewing but also about memory.
A love story that unravels the legends and the pace of life in an
Armenian village is next on the agenda, in Sergei Parajanov’s 1964
film “Tini zabutykh predkiv” (The Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors),
starring Ivan Mikolajchuk and Tatyana Bestayeva, which will be shown
on February 26, while Krzysztof Zanussi’s “Bilans Kwartanly” (A
Woman’s Decision) of 1975, a film where the director seeks the truth
in the face of a woman who tries to halt the ravages of time, will be
screened on March 5. Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1972 documentary “Chung
Kuo-Cina” (China) will give the audience a taste of China on March
19, to be followed by Dziga Vertov’s “Chelovek s kinoapparatom” (The
Man with a Camera) of 1929 on March 26, considered one of cinema’s
most modern films, in which a man goes around the city with a camera
on his shoulder and documents urban life.
Saturday, April 2’s screening will feature Grigori Kozintsev and
Iosif Shapiro’s take on “Hamlet,” in their 1964 “Gamlet,” starring
Innokenti Smoktunovsky in the lead role; Alain Resnais’s 1959 drama
about love and memory, “Hiroshima Mon Amour” (Hiroshima My Love),
starring Emmanuelle Riva and Eiji Okada, a film that was also shown
in open-air cinemas last summer, will be screened on April 9.
The series will end with Leo McCarey’s classic 1933 comedy “Duck
Soup,” featuring the Marx Brothers, on April 16, and Pier Paolo
Pasolini’s “Mamma Roma” of 1962 on April 23, the story of a
middle-aged prostitute in Rome who decides to quit and stars the
striking Anna Magnani.
The Trianon Filmcenter is situated at 21 Kodringtonos, tel
210.822.2702.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“Aztag” Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: [email protected]
Revolution and Genocide: An Interview with Robert Melson
By Khatchig Mouradian
February 10, 2005
“All victims of disasters think their disaster is unique in the world. It’s
a bit like having someone very close to you die in your family; you really
don’t want someone rushing to you saying, “I’m sorry this person died, but
let me tell you that somebody else also died!” says Robert Melson in this
interview.
As a survivor of the Holocaust, Melson has reason to feel that the suffering
of his people was unique. However, trained in comparative politics, he also
finds it important to draw parallels between the Holocaust and other
Genocides. “If you’re going to have some understanding, you have to
compare,” he notes. In his book “Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of
the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust” (University of Chicago Press,
1992), Robert Melson does exactly that.
For him, “uniqueness does not mean incomparabilty, and comparability does
not mean equivalence.”
Robert Melson has received his PhD in Political Science from MIT (1967). His
research covers genocide and ethnic conflict in plural societies. Currently,
he is the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
His book, “Revolution and Genocide” won the PIOOM Award from Leiden
University for the best book in the field of Human Rights for 1993 and was
also nominated for the Grawemeyer award. His other publications include,
“False Papers: Deception and Survival in the Holocaust” and “Nigeria:
Modernization and the Politics of Communalism” (with Howard Wolpe).
In this interview, conducted by phone on January 13, 2005, we discuss a
number of issues related to genocide.
Aztag-You define genocide as “a policy initiative that uses massacre and
other means to eliminate a communal group or social class from a social
structure.” This definition is, as you yourself have noted, both wider than
the UN definition and narrower. Why did you opt for this specific
definition?
Robert Melson- Well, what I was trying to do is to solve the problem of the
UN Convention (on Genocide). Many argue that the UN definition is too
narrow, because it doesn’t include political and socio-economic groups. It
is also argued that the definition is too broad because it doesn’t make a
distinction between genocide in whole and genocide in part. My definition
takes into consideration both criticisms. However, I’m not fixated on
definitions; What I’m really interested in is the process, the reality of
what leads to genocide and what stops genocide. Genocide, to me, is a
planned wide-scale destruction of innocent human beings in its largest
sense, and what I was doing in the book was trying to be scholarly and more
exact as far as definitions are concerned, but it’s not the most important
thing.
Aztag- In one of your lectures, you say, “My parents began to discover the
truth about what had happened to the jewish people, but it was knowledge
without understanding.” Was it the need to “make sense of the insensible”
that shaped your research interests?
Robert Melson- Yes, I think that’s a good way of putting it. I’m trained as
a political scientist, and as I was doing political research I found that on
the one hand I was practicing my profession and on the other hand, what was
uppermost on my mind and what was most worrying to me was my past; the
Holocaust, the destruction of my family. So the personal solution for me was
to bring my research and my thinking in line with my interest and that’s
what I did; I have to say that it took a number of years to work this out.
Aztag- And why is this “understanding” important for a survivor of genocide?
Robert Melson- That’s a very good question. Understanding doesn’t bring
anybody back to life, I’m not even sure understanding helps to prevent
future genocides –although people have stressed that without understanding,
prevention is not possible. At its most fundamental psychological basis,
without understanding you’re at the mercy of the past; you feel that you
have no control over it, you feel that you’re victimized by it. Although
understanding does not start a process of rebuilding the past, or bringing
back the people who are victimized, but at least it gives you some control
over your own thoughts. Understanding is, in a way, a selfish process, it’s
a way of dealing with your own crisis. I guess the analogy would be someone
who has a serious illness –let’s say cancer– and knows it’s a terminal
cancer. One of the things he would do is to try to understand cancer; this
won’t make the cancer go away, but the understanding helps him to deal with
it. Maybe that’s as good as an answer as I can give you.
Aztag- What about comparing?
Robert Melson- I’m not a historian, I’m not a sociologist and i’m not a
psychologist; I do comparative politics. So I naturally use the methodology
and the approaches that I’ve been trained with, and I happen to think that
it’s the best way. I think that is the way; if you’re going to have some
understanding, you have to compare. Comparison is, in a way, the basis of
all science. Without it, you can’t understand or even measure something! You
have too have a reference point; how big is the lamp that is on my desk? The
question is, “compared to what?”
Aztag- And being a Holocaust survivor and a researcher of the Holocaust,
there is the sensitive issue of uniqueness, which can make comparison a
harder endeavor, can’t it?
Robert Melson- I guess all victims of disasters think their disaster is
unique in the world. It’s a bit like having someone very close to you die in
your family, you really don’t want someone rushing to you saying, “I’m sorry
this person died, but let me tell you that somebody else also died!” You’re
not in the mood for that; it’s not appropriate. However, if you’re a
physician and you’re trying to understand a disease, you look for different
cases of this disease –again going back to the notion of comparison–to be
able to see under what conditions does this disease manifest itself.
Some parts of the Jewish community have been sensitive to the issue of
comparison, both because the Holocaust was recent and so many people were
affected by it, but there is another reason the uniqueness issue came up for
the Jews; very often they were told “Well, yes, it’s terrible that there was
Holocaust, but many other people have suffered, so don’t make such a big
fuss about it, be normal like everybody else.” And the honest reaction has
been “Give us a chance to grieve a little bit! Give us a chance to bury our
dead before you tell us to become normal.” So there was a kind of an
emotional reaction toward the comparison. But by now – we’re not in 1955 –
by 2005, with the Cambodian and Rwandan Genocide and with increased
awareness on the Armenian Genocide, I think most people do recognize that
there are more things in the world than one particular people being
destroyed.
Aztag- Can you please briefly explain the argument you present in
“Revolution and Genocide”?
Robert Melson- The main points are both in the introduction and the
conclusion of the book. I was trying to compare the Armenian Genocide and
the Holocaust, and I was trying to look not only into the ideology of the
Young Turks or of the Nazis, but also the circumstances under which both of
these Genocides occured. A revolutionary transformation that occured in the
Ottoman Empire with the coup against Abdul Hamid, and the circumstances were
WWI. And then if you look at the Holocaust, it was the coming to power of
Hitler which was also a kind of a revolution – he made it quite clear that
he was a revolutionary and that the Nazis were revolutionaries – and the
circumstances were WWII. So in both cases you have revolutionaries coming to
power and then a genocide occuring during wartime.
And then a question comes up: Why? What is it about revolution and wartime
that can, under certain circumstances, lead to genocide? I think the simple
idea behind it is that revolutionaries try to transform their societies in
profound ways, and one way to transform a society is to eliminate groups
that don’t fit into the identity that the revolutionaries would like their
society to have. And what war does is that it enables these radical measures
to take place, because wars close off societies and they call for military
solutions to social problems. Now it’s not true that every revolution leads
to genocide – the American Revolution didn’t lead to genocide, the English
Revolution didn’t lead to genocide – but under some conditions, some
revolutions do lead to genocide. Similarly, not all genocides are products
of revolutions. The destruction of Native Americans and the destructions of
peoples in Africa were products of Imperialism, not revolution.
Aztag- When I was reading your book, I kept thinking about other cases of
genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide…
Robert Melson- Yes, I just wrote and article about this in the book “The
Specter of Genocide” edited by Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan. In that
chapter, what I do is extend the analysis from the Armenian Genocide and the
Holocaust to Rwanda. And again we have the pattern of revolution in the
1950s – the revolution in 1959 – and the Hutu coming to power, displacing
the Tutsi, articulating a racialist ideology, the Hamitic ideology claims
that the Tutsis were not originally a part of the nation, that they had come
from Somalia or Ethiopia and, therefore, they ought not to have any power
and they ought to be demoted from any postions that they have; very soon
after, massacres occured. When you talk to people in Rwanda, they tell you
that the genocide did not start in 1994, noting that the process of the
genocide started in 1959. The war was the war between RPF (the Rwanda
Patriotic Front) starting in 1990. Therefore, again, in Rwanda you have the
conditions of revolution and war leading to genocide.
Aztag- What about Darfur? The events that have lately caused the
displacement of more than a million people and the death of thousands of
others; many are calling what is happening there genocide, others are
falling short of using the word.
Robert Melson- Again, I know that president Bush and the US Congress have
used the term “genocide”, then again, if you go back to the UN definition,
it talks about genocide in part and genocide in whole. Genocide in whole
means extermination; this is what happened to the Tutsis, the Armenians, and
the Jews in Europe. I think in Darfur there is genocide, but it’s more like
ethnic cleansing, it resembles more what happened in Yugoslavia, where
people were being driven out and were being “punished” for political
activities; this is not a planned extermination, but it’s bad enough! Tens
of thousands people have been killed already, and if there’s not enough
support, more people will be killed, so it is a genocide in part, but it is
not the kind of extermination that I wrote about.
Aztag- When talking about the causes of the Armenian Genocide, Dadrian and
Suny do give a minimal credit to the “provocation thesis”, according to
which the actions of the Armenians caused the perpetrators to react with
violence, but you completely dismiss it.
Robert Melson- I think the difference between Dadrian and Suny and me is a
matter of emphasis. We all recognize that there were Armenian bands, that
Russian troops committed atrocities against Turkish villagers in the Eastern
Vilayets and so on. The real question is: Did these provocations cause
genocide? Bernard Lewis and Turkish “explainers” argue that the provocations
were the basis of genocide. My argument was rather simple, in any
provocation, whether it’s the Armenian genocide or when you’re provoked by a
colleague at work, how you react doesn’t depend on the provocation, it
depends on you– what you are thinking , what your attitude is towards your
colleague. Your action is not an automatic reaction to the provocation. If
you’re walking down the hall, and a colleague accidentally bumps into you,
and you push him hard, your reaction is not automatically a product of his
action. It’s a product of you being mad that morning or disliking that
person or being an aggressive person yourself. Consequently, to understand
the actions of any person who is conducting violence you have to understand
what motivates that person; it’s not enough to look at what the victim has
done. The victim might have done something, or the victim might have done
nothing. That’s it, that’s really the basis of the argument. So what I was
trying to argue is “let’s look at what was happening to the Young Turks,
what was going through their minds, rather than what the Armenians were
doing.”
Aztag- You say in one of your papers that people sometimes emphesize the
nationalism of the Armenians without looking at the nationalism of the
Turks.
Robert Melson- Exactly. I mean, sure, there was nationalism – the Dashnaks,
the Henchaks- yeah, there were nationalist movements. but what about the
Turks?
Bernard Lewis’s book “The Emergence of The Modern Turkey” is a wonderful
book, a great book, but when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, his
treatment is very strange. It’s as if somehow the Turks became some kind of
an automatic pilot, and had no conceptions of their own, no ideology of
their own. Their ideology was nationalism, of course.
Aztag- What are your research interests currently?
Robert Melson- Well, since then, I’ve thought about the Rwandan Genocide and
I wrote that article on that. I’ve also written a memoir of my family’s
experiences during the war, it’s called “False Papers.”
Lately, I’ve been thinking about prevention. At some point, one has to
think, “This analysis should be helpful, it should lead to helpful
policies”. Therefore, in terms of the study of genocide, I’ve become
interested in the question of prevention and the question of resistance.
These are two questions I’ve been thinking about, and, probably, will write
about comparatively, using the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the
Rwandan genocide.
I teach a course here on the Holocaust and Genocide, and very often, one of
the questions the students ask me is: “Why didn’t these people resist being
killed?” And my answer is: “Because they were not prepared to resist. They
were not an armed population, and they were being attacked by an armed
organisation; usually it takes a while to organise resistance, and by the
time that while has passed by, it’s too late, most of the people are already
dead.
Aztag- What cases of resistance do you have in mind?
Robert Melson- Exactly. For example the resistance at Van, or the resistance
at the Warsaw Ghetto, the resistance in parts of Rwanda. In some cases there
was resistance, in many cases there was none! And very often what the
victims do is they blame themselves, or they blame their culture.
The very same generation that suffered the Holocaust has been accused of
being too aggressive, too armed, and too expansive. On the one hand, it’s
too passive, on the other hand it’s too aggressive. so I don’t think that
cultural explanation is very good, I think a better explanation is the
situational/structural explanation; people who don’t expect to be killed are
not prepared to resist, and therefore, they won’t resist! And it’s a kind of
a waste of time to look at the culture and try to explain, in that context,
why they don’t resist. So that’s my thesis.
There have been heavy-duty studies of Jewish cultures, of how, for
centuries, the Jews looked the other way while violence was meted out to
them, because they had no chance to resist, just like the Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire.
The fact of the matter is that, if people can get organised, and if they can
get weapons, they resist.
Aztag- This can also make the provocation thesis less and less sustainable,
doesn’t it?
Robert Melson- That’s a good way of putting it. If people are so
provocative, why didn’t they resist? And that’s right! I mean, that’s a very
good point that you’re making, at the same time people are accused of
provoking the genocide, and they’re also accused of being passive and not
resisting. The other thing is this whole issue of denial. They provoked the
genocide, they were too passive, but of course, there was no genocide! It’s
a wonderful package of demonizing and humiliating the victims all over
again. First they’re killed, then they’re told they were killed because they
provoked the killing, then they’re told they should have resisted, then
they’re told they weren’t killed! It’s a great package!
Aztag- Historians and political scientists often speak about comparative
genocide as a way of understanding and then being able to prevent genocide.
But the fact of the matter is that we say “Never Again” and then we have it
again and again and again, so how helpful is it? Isn’t everything in the end
about real politics? One might think: “No matter how much you compare and
analyze, you won’t change much, because everything boils down to real
politics and the interests of superpowers.”
Robert Melson- Well I think there’s a grain of truth in what you’re saying.
In Samantha Power’s book “A problem from Hell: America and the age of
Genocide”, the basic argument is that it’s not an accident that the United
State does not prevent genocide; it doens’t want to prevent genocide, unless
its interests, as you put it, are immediately hurt. It doens’t want to risk
its people, it doens’t want to risk its wealth. We have beautiful words, we
have beautiful sentiments but nothing much happens, and the best example of
that is Rwanda, because the Holocaust occured under conditions of World War,
and so did the Armenian Genocide and it was very hard to intervene. However,
in Rwanda, a few battalions of US Marines could have prevented the whole
business. The Real Politic played an important role.
I guess scholars and researchers contribute a little bit, but they cannot
substitute their decision making for the decision making of people in power.
I think what they can show is that there are signs, that a genocidal
situation is developing, and that prevention in an early stage is not that
expensive. It’s not necessarilly the sending in of troops and of having a
loss of life on the part of those people who are saving others. For example
in the Rwandan Genocide, there was call for genocide on the radio and the US
and the UN didn’t want to jam that radio for example. There were public
statements made by people in power threatening genocide, no one reacted to
it, no one said “look, we’re going to impose severe sanctions on you, we’re
going to freeze your external balances, bank accounts”.
There are many things that can be done if people pay attention to signs, to
warning signs, and I think that this is where scholars can be useful. What
are the some warning signs that a genocide is about to occur? I do think
that if you have a deeply divided society that’s undergoing a revolution,
heading into war, I think those are warning signs; people can pay attention
to it or not pay attention to it, but at least as a scholar, you can say
“look, why don’t you pay attention to that early and not before it’s too
late?” That’s where you can be helpful, but of course, our influence is
limited. I’m a professor, I type! I don’t command armies!
Aztag- And you might also help create greater awareness…
Robert Melson- Sure, sure. The world is complicated, it’s not only real
politique. Out there, there is a worldwide human rights sensitivity, people
do react to, for example, the Tsunami. You have the tsunami in Indonesia and
Sri Lanka, the world got mobilized around this right away, millions of
dollars were spent to help people and so on…Why wasn’t this mobilization
there for when Rwanda occured? So there is a human rights movement, it’s
almost like an anti-slavery movement in the 19th century, in the 20th and
the 21st century there are lot of people around the world who are concerned
about these things and they can be mobilized for action and they should be
mobilized for an action, but there’s also Real Politique; people who are in
power define things narrowly, and they pay attention to public opinion, they
pay attention to the costs of actions, and if the actions are expensive in
terms of money and lives they won’t do it. If the actions are not so
expensive, and there was public pressure to do something, they might do
something, I’m stressing the obvious here, I think.
–Boundary_(ID_ooAlgermr6kV3gSq8sQcyQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Bush seeks funds for Iraqi partners
UPI, United Press Int’l
February 9, 2005 Wednesday 3:43 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President George W. Bush will ask Congress for
$400 million to help the military capability of some nations helping
in Iraq, the White House said Wednesday.
The funding would be part of the $81 billion supplemental funding
request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan he was to
send to Capitol Hill soon.
It was not immediately clear, however, if the $400 million would be
wrapped into the $81 billion figure or added to it.
“The nest hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom
in all the world,” a news release quoted the president. “Our closest
partners agree. For many of these partners, now vibrant democracies
and staunch allies, the tragedy of tyranny is a painful chapter in
their own receipt histories.”
Some 28 nations have troops in Iraq. Among them are former Soviet
satellite states such as Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia and Armenia —
all countries with limited military resources. Their contingents
range from a few dozen soldiers to Poland’s 2,400, of which 800 are
being withdrawn soon.
The United States has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and Britain more
than 8,000. The total multinational force is about 29,000.

Armenia DM talks on Caucasus, bilateral relations in Iran
By Konstantin Kazeyev
ITAR-TASS News Agency
February 9, 2005 Wednesday
TEHERAN, February 9 — The situation in the Caucasus and issues of
bilateral relations were in the focus of attention at talks Armenian
Defence Minister and National Security Secretary Serzh Sarkisyan held
with Iranian officials.
Sarkisyan arrived in Teheran on a visit on Tuesday and held talks
with President Mohammad Khatami, Secretary of the Supreme National
Security Council Hasan Rowhani and Chairman of the Expediency Council
Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
The regional current problems could be solved without interference
of outside states, the sides stressed at the talks. Iran expressed
readiness to undertake a mediator mission in the Karabakh crisis
settlement that should be resolved peacefully, the Iranian leadership
is certain.
Cooperation between Yerevan and Teheran is aimed at ensuring security
at stability in the region, Khatami stressed.
The sides gave major attention to cooperation in the transport sphere,
in particular, to the project of connecting the two countries’
railway networks.
The Iranian president emphasised the importance of creating the
North-South transport corridor important for the development of
regional integration.
The sides stated the intention to accelerate the implementation of
projects on the transportation of Iranian gas and Iranian electric
power supply to Armenia.