Category: News

SSC professor aims to debunk myths about Holocaust in book
By Jack Butterworth
Monday, April 19, 2004
PEABODY — Salem State College History Professor Christopher Mauriello
had a warning for those attending the Holocaust Center Boston North’s
annual Holocaust commemoration ceremony Sunday afternoon, especially
the 14 local survivors of the persecution and murder of 6 million Jews
that occurred from 1933-1945, which he called “one of the most
important moments in history.”
The survivors sat in the front center rows of the Peabody
Veterans Memorial High auditorium during the 90-minute ceremony, which
also included remarks by center President Robert McAndrews, Mayor
Michael Bonfanti and Jewish Federation of the North Shore officer
Merritt Mulman, music by the Gordon College Women’s choir and Shir
Shalom Children’s Choir, an interfaith service led by the Rev. Louise
Mann of Swamspcott, Rabbi Ilana Rosansky of Salem, Cantor Sam
Pessaroff of Peabody and Holocaust survivor Sonia Schreiber Weitz and
Harriet Wacks’ presentation of the Holocaust Center Service Award to
Sandy Weitz, center clerk and daughter of Sonia Weitz.
A large art display in the high school lobby included the work of
students and Peabody artist Apo Torosyan, whose relatives were caught
up in the Armenian Genocide and who presented his display, “My Story,
Everybody’s Story.”
Mauriello, who has a book in progress called “Nazi Myths,” said
the Holocaust is undergoing in-depth study by historians – not the
revisionists who deny the Holocaust ever happened, whom he dismissed
with a wave of his hand – but by researchers whose findings may force
the survivors and their families to let go of some of the feelings and
memories they carry.
“There is anxiety about this,” he admitted, “but historians have
to insist on accuracy in place of myths and misconceptions.” He said
his talk and the myths he plans to bring forward are based on
“consensus among historians” – in fact, he has asked German historians
to review a draft of his book for accuracy.
He offered four popular myths about the Holocaust, which he has
heard from students taking his course on the subject over the past
seven years: Adolf Hitler and the Nazis invented anti-Semitism and
brainwashed Germany with anti-Semitic propaganda; Hitler and the Nazis
were dominated by the notion of a Master Race; Hitler’s evil
imagination created the blueprint for the Holocaust; the Holocaust was
run by a ruthless, technocratic, centralized Nazi regime.
In fact, Mauriello told his audience, anti-Semitism has long,
deep roots in Europe, with spikes in persecution when there were
plagues, wars or other social strife. From 1933-1939 the Nazis were
careful not to alienate their political allies, the Conservatives, in
a Germany where Jews were as integrated as any in Europe. “It wasn’t
until the invasion of Poland that war made racial cleansing possible,”
he said.
As for the Master Race, Mauriello said a pseudo-science of racial
purity called Eugenics swept America as well as Europe in the early
20th Century, when county fairs gave prizes to families whose blond
hair and white skin denoted a high rate of racial purity.
Furthermore, there was no blueprint for the Holocaust, which
evolved from 1933-1939 as the Nazis grew more opportunistic. Poland
became a laboratory for racial cleansing as the Nazis tried
deportation, then ghettoization and finally racial cleansing.
Instead of a ruthless centralized regime, Hitler issued vague
orders and his bureaucrats, eager for status, credibility, promotions
and pay raises, competed to find innovative ways of making those
orders happen.
“There is no smoking gun linking Hitler to genocide,” Mauriello
said, but he didn’t let the lack of an arch-villain give his audience
any peace. “This can happen again.”
the Daily Item of Lynn and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.

On the denial of genocide
Jerusalem Post
Bret Stephens
Apr. 15, 2004
In April 1998, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the UN
Genocide Convention, a “Statement by Concerned Scholars and Writers”
was published by the Armenian National Institute. Its purpose was to
“commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915” and “condemn the Turkish
government’s denial of this crime against humanity.”
“Denial of genocide is the final stage of genocide,” the statement
read. “In a century plagued by genocide, we affirm the moral necessity
of remembering.”
The statement garnered more than 150 signatures, including those of
William Styron, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Kurt Vonnegut, Seamus
Heaney, John Updike and Daniel Goldhagen. Also signing was Ben
Kiernan, a professor of history at Yale and director of its Genocide
Studies Program. And therein lies a tale.
In 1994, Kiernan, an Australian, was awarded a $500,000 grant by the
US State Department to establish the Cambodian Genocide Project, the
purpose of which was to gather precise data on Khmer Rouge crimes in
order to bring its leaders to justice. But Kiernan’s scholarship, it
turned out, was blemished by his past attempts to whitewash those
crimes.
“Did the new government [of Cambodia] plan and approve a systematic
large-scale purge?” asked Kiernan in the pages of the Australian
Outlook in December 1976. “There is little evidence that they did.”
Elsewhere, he had claimed at the height of the killing that
“photographs of alleged atrocities are fake” (The Age, March 2, 1977)
and that “there is ample evidence in Cambodian and other sources that
the Khmer Rouge movement is not the monster that the press have
recently made it out to be” (Melbourne Journal of Politics, 1976).
Kiernan’s appointment elicited outrage in some quarters, particularly
in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal and in Commentary
magazine. But the Clinton State Department ignored calls to have the
grant rescinded and Kiernan proceeded as planned. In 1997, Yale made
Kiernan a full professor. In 2002, he was awarded the Critical Asian
Studies Prize. He is currently at work on a history of genocide from
1492 to the present.
In fairness, from the 1980s onward Kiernan became a tireless
chronicler of Khmer Rouge atrocities. But this was only after those
atrocities became impossible to deny. What’s significant, at any rate,
is that Kiernan is hardly the only scholar still active today who came
to the Khmer Rouge’s defense while the killing fields were in full
bloom.
In June 1977, The Nation – the flagship publication of the American
Left – ran a lengthy review of three books dealing with contemporary
events in Cambodia. The reviewers, Noam Chomsky of MIT and Edward
Herman of the University of Pennsylvania, cast aspersions on the
reliability of one book alleging Khmer Rouge atrocities while
lavishing praise on a volume which gave “a very favorable picture of
[the Khmer Rouge’s] programs and policies.” As with Kiernan, Chomsky
and Herman noted “repeated discoveries that massacre reports were
false.” And in a chilling echo of classic Holocaust denial, they gave
credence to the view that the death toll in Cambodia was mainly
attributable to sickness, not slaughter.
PERHAPS IT is not surprising that Kiernan, Herman and Chomsky were Pol
Pot apologists. It was in the late Seventies, after all, that Chomsky
was coming to the defense of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, while
Kiernan was a disciple, and apparently remains an admirer, of the
Australian Stalinist Wilfred Burchett.
But three points are significant. First, all three vehemently deny
their past sympathies. So much for “the moral necessity of
remembering.” Second, in sympathizing with the Khmer Rouge when they
did, they hardly traveled alone: Efforts to deny the existence of the
killing fields were widespread at the time, particularly in Europe,
and certainly not beyond the pale as far as the editors of The Nation
were concerned. Third, Kiernan, Chomsky and Herman are representative
of a broader phenomenon, namely, the tendency among self-styled
progressives and human-rights activists to willfully ignore, or
tacitly acquiesce in, some of the worst human-rights abuses of their
era.
Why? Among the oft-made arguments of people like Chomsky and Herman
is that Western policy makers focus only on the human-rights abuses
committed by their enemies, not their friends. Why, for example, was
so much Western attention and outrage devoted to goings-on in
Communist Cambodia, instead of East Timor, which was then under the
thumb of US-allied Indonesia? Why obsess about the sins of the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua, but not those of the Pinochet regime in
Chile? It’s a legitimate point. But what has been true of some
quarters of the Right has been at least as true of parts of the
Left. In their 1977 review, Chomsky and Herman did not merely point
out hypocrisy in Western attitudes; they systematically attempted to
shred the evidence that the Khmer Rouge was guilty of “autogenocide”
(the killing of their own people). Furthermore, they repeatedly argued
that most of Cambodia’s suffering was either the direct or indirect
consequence of American actions. Thus, in discussing photographs of
Cambodian civilians pulling plows in a field, they first alleged the
photos were faked, then suggested that if people rather than oxen were
in fact pulling plows, it was because “the savage American assault on
Cambodia did not spare the animal population.”
The proclivity to deny was not unique to the Cambodian situation.
Walter Duranty, the New York Times’s Pulitzer-winning Soviet
correspondent in the early 1930s, completely failed to report the
forced famine of the 1930s, which killed an estimated 10 million
peasants, mostly Ukrainian. This was not out of ignorance. Instead, it
stemmed from his conviction that “within five years or less [peasants]
will benefit enormously from being forced to accept a modern form of
agriculture [i.e., collectivization].” For him, the key question was
not the human toll, but “whether the Soviet drive to Socialism is or
is not successful irrespective of costs.”
A more recent case of genocide denial occurred 10 years ago this
month. In April 1994, as eyewitness evidence mounted that Hutus in
Rwanda were methodically exterminating hundreds of thousands of
Tutsis, the US State Department assiduously avoided use of the term
genocide. As described by Samantha Power in her article “Bystanders to
Genocide” (The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001), then-secretary of
state Warren Christopher instructed his spokesmen and deputies to
speak only of “acts of genocide,” a legalism that would, he believed,
avoid triggering US obligations under the Genocide Convention to
intervene. Power quotes the following remarkable exchange between
State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly and Reuters reporter
Alan Elsner.
Elsner: How would you describe events taking place in Rwanda? Shelly:
Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we
have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in
Rwanda.
Elsner: What’s the difference between “acts of genocide” and
“genocide?” Shelly: Well, I think the – as you know, there’s a legal
definition of this… clearly not all of the killings that have taken
place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply the label… But
as to the distinctions between the words, we’re trying to call what we
have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence,
we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.
Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make a genocide?
Shelly: Alan, that’s just not a question I’m in a position to answer.
UNLIKE CHOMSKY, Kiernan and Herman, the Clinton administration did not
attempt to deny the unfolding reality in Rwanda. And unlike Duranty,
the administration did not wink at the mass killing as the necessary
price to be paid for achieving some prospective greater good. Their
motives were purely political. The US had been badly burned by events
in Somalia six months earlier and the appetite for another African
humanitarian assistance mission was slight.
Yet the administration, and particularly Clinton himself, did have at
least one thing in common with Chomsky, Kiernan and Herman: They
sought to obscure their past actions. On a visit to Rwanda in March
1998, Clinton confessed “that we in the United States and the world
community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to
try to limit what occurred.” Yet as Power points out, “this implied
that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In
reality the United States… led a successful effort to remove most of
the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked
to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements.”
Clinton’s post facto handwringing notwithstanding, there were at least
intellectually defensible reasons for the US to stay out of Rwanda
when it did. To begin with, there was no compelling strategic
rationale to intervene, no vital material interests at stake in
Rwanda. Furthermore, Rwanda’s was hardly the only African tragedy in
the 1990s: assorted wars in Somalia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and
Ivory Coast collectively took approximately three million lives.
Why should one tragedy deserve intervention, and not the other? And
how does a single intervention put a stop to concurrent or future
genocides or massacres? Absent compelling answers to such questions,
the natural tendency is to do nothing. Of course, the Genocide
Convention is meant to compel great powers to act, whatever the
tangled moral dilemmas or strategic considerations.
Yet as Canadian scholar Michael Ignatieff has noted, in the case of
Rwanda the Convention did at least as much to hamper an effective
response to the genocidaires as it did to deter them. There were
limited measures the US and other countries might have taken in Rwanda
against the Hutu militia, such as jamming Hutu radio. One reason they
failed to take them is that the Convention condemned the US and other
countries into an all-or-nothing approach. Either a genocide was
taking place, in which case maximum efforts had to be undertaken to
stop it; or it wasn’t, in which case the situation in Rwanda was a
matter for Rwandans to resolve themselves. Confronted by such options,
denying the genocide, and doing nothing to help the massacred Tutsis,
seemed the counsel of prudence.
The instinct to do nothing, however, does not apply only to hardheaded
practitioners of realpolitik. In the face of atrocity, pacifists and
human-rights activists also tend to counsel inaction or measures not
likely to bring about a swift end to the atrocities. For example,
Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth argued recently that the war
in Iraq was “not a humanitarian intervention,” since despite the
uncontested awfulness of Saddam’s regime “it is possible to imagine
scenarios even worse.”
Many others in the so-called peace camp also tend to apply the
precautionary principle when it comes to military intervention, on the
theory that waging a war to end a bad regime might impose greater
hardship on the tyrannized population than the tyranny itself. Thus
the anguished predictions, prior to the Iraq war, of tens of thousands
of civilian casualties and up to two million dead as a result of food
shortages, water contamination and so forth.
WHAT ASTONISHES one most, looking back on some of this sordid history,
is not so much that so many genocides or mass killings were “allowed”
to happen.
Rather, it is that the reasons for shielding ones eyes from the
killing are so many, and the reasons for “doing something” are so few
and weak.
The hard Left represented by Chomsky looked the other way in Cambodia
because it could not believe that a “progressive” regime could be
responsible for such horror. The Durantys of the world understood that
killing was taking place on a mass scale, but thought it was a
worthwhile price to pay for the sake of realizing utopia. For Clinton,
interfering in Rwanda was not worth the prospective cost in American
lives or political capital.
For those who marched against invading Iraq, war is worse than
tyranny. For the so-called realists, a foreign policy based on
human-rights considerations is a bottomless swamp of open-ended
commitments and moral hazards into which no responsible power can
allow itself to wade. Anyway, if Hutus want to exterminate Tutsis –
indeed, if Tutsis put themselves in a position where it is possible
that they may be exterminated – that’s nobody’s fault but theirs.
Monday is Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel. Sirens will blare,
traffic will come to a halt, and for a minute or two an entire nation
will stand in silence. They will do so behind the shield of a mighty
army – so far, the only proven remedy for collective helplessness.
[email protected]

The United States , NATO and the European army
Pol De Vos 18/04/2004
URL : ;object_id= 3D22573
Peace NATO The United States , NATO and the European army Dr. Pol De
Vos (Belgium) Anti-war Coordination Stop United States of Aggression
( ) 18 th of April of 2004
1. Globalisation of the economic crisis
Over the last twenty years, we have witnessed gigantic waves of
capital concentration on a world scale. Currently, a dozen of
multinationals control the various sectors of the world economy. The
world’s two hundred major multinationals represent 25% of the world’s
manufacturing value. A few thousands of multinationals (on a total of
65,000) own the major part of the means of production and set them in
motion for the single purpose of realising a maximum of profits for
the shareholders.
Everywhere exploitation is intensifying. The number of workers is
being reduced, while productivity is drastically increased. The
workers are overexploited and underpaid. The vast majority of the
world population is kept outside of modern industrial
production. Developing countries are groaning under the burden of
2,500 billion dollar in debts, while privatisation has allowed
American and European multinationals to take over most of their wealth
and enterprises.
Overproduction and crisis have become a generalised phenomenon. In
twenty years of neoliberal globalisation, short-term cures to the
crisis have run out.
In spite of all `gains’ achieved, the United States has been
confronted with the most serious crisis of its entire history. The US
superpower now placesits bets mainly on the `military globalisation’,
on its overwhelming military superiority, in order to save its
multinationals, at the expense of the rest of the world. They try to
boost the economy through massive arms production, while ensuring a
worldwide hegemonic position and grabbing sources of raw materials and
markets. Also the European Union (EU) has become an imperialist
bloc that is able to compete with the United States in the economic
and financial fields. The Euro is challenging the position of the US
dollar as the only international reserve currency. A transfer to the
Euro of a significant part of the current world reserves held in
dollars would provoke an economic earthquake. The same holds true if a
major part of the oil trade, now in US currency, would shift to the
Euro.
2. Concentration of arms production in the USA and Europe The
worldwide concentration of capital also took place in the military
industry. From 1990 to 1998, a series of mergers and acquisitions in
the USA led to the establishment of four large producers in the
aerospace sector: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and
Boeing. From 1998 to 2002, the rate of concentration among large
companies slowed down, but the process continued at the level of
subcontractors. Concentration reduced the number of ‘prime
contractors’ – the end producers of major weapons systems –
dramatically throughout the 1990s. In the USA for instance, in 1990 13
suppliers of tactical missiles were operating. By 2000 they had merged
into 3 major companies.
While the process of concentration and consolidation in the US arms
industry has been predominantly national, the arms industries in the
Western European countries have continued the process of concentration
beyond the national level, as a consequence of their domestic
`markets’ and their national procurement budgets being smaller. Since
the late 1990s there have been a number of major mergers and
acquisitions, and the formation of joint ventures in Europe . One
result of this is the evolution of three major Western European arms
producing companies: BAe Systems, EADS and Thales. While they were
integrating most major arms producing capacities in the market
segments of their respective home countries under one roof, they were
also acquiring arms production assets abroad.
Governments supported the concentration through the establishment of a
wide array of joint armaments programmes, the signing of letters of
intent and framework agreement s, and support for the creation of
joint ventures.
The transatlantic dimension of this internationalisation is more
limited because of a range of issues related to technology transfer
and – mainly – preferences for domestic procurement in the context of
Euro-American competition.
The concentration in military production in Europe is – like in theUS
– part of a more global militarisation of the economy, as an essential
element of the construction of military Europe . Different organs have
been put in place.
In 1993, the COARM was founded, which is the group of
`conventionalarms exports’, depending directly on the European
Council. Its objectiveis to coordinate the exports to third
countries. In 1995 follows the POLARM, the`European arms policy’
group, also linked to the European Council. Its experts are tasked to
develop a common strategy. On November 12, 1996 , the Common
Organisation for Cooperation in the field of Armament (OCCAR) is
created, on the initiative of the four largest countries of the Union
: France , Germany , United Kingdom and Italy . It has the objective
to coordinate their military industrial policies. After Boeing bought
McDonnell Douglas in 1997, the European leaders feared to see their
military industry overwhelmed by their American competitors.
Airbus was in danger. In December 1997, the heads of state of Germany
, France and the UK signed a joint declaration. They confirmed that `
France, Germany and the UK have a same essential political and
economic interest in ensuring that Europe has an efficient and
competitive industry in the field of aerospace and defence
electronics. This will make possible for Europe to improve its
commercial position in the world, to reinforce its security and to
ensure that it plays its full role in its own defence. We agreed on
the urgent necessity to reorganise the industry in the field of
aerospace and defence electronics.
This process should include, in the aerospace sector, civil and
military activities, and lead to a European integration based on an
equilibrated partnership.’ 1 On March 27, 1998 , the presidents of
the societies participating in the Airbus project (DASA, British
Aerospace and Aérospatiale) proposed to develop an integrated
company, the European Aerospace and Defence Company (EADC). The
agreement was signed in December 1999. EADC controls 80% of Airbus,
which represents 50% of its sales turnover, 100% of Eurocopter, 62.5%
of Eurofighter, 25.9% of Arianespace, 75% of Astrium, 46% of Dassault,
etc. The (French) group Lagardère and the (German) group Daimler
(this means the Deutsche Bank) dominate EADC.
The European concentration leads to the constitution of some very
powerful groups. Besides EADC there is BAe Systems, the new name for
British Aerospace, which became the first defence industry in the
world, after taking over the activities of systems control of Lockheed
Martin. Its president defined his society as ` the first American
society in Europe and the first European society in the US ‘ 2. Its
weight is more important in the US than in Europe .Which is – together
with coinciding oil interests – an important element to explain the
British eagerness to participate in the US war against Iraq . EADS
became the `real’ European pole, but it is strongly linked to BAe
Systems.
These industrial developments – in the US and in Europe – induce a
worldwide arms race. According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, about 80% of the world’s total military equipment
is produced by NATO members (figures of 1996). The following NATO
members are among the world’s top ten military producers: the US , the
UK , France , Germany , Italy and Canada .The US , the UK and France
alone accounted for about 70% of the world’s total arms production for
that year.
3. NATO’s changing strategy Yugoslavia 1999: `the new strategic
concept’ After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw
Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant as a defensive
alliance. With the purpose of using the Alliance for its worldwide
ambitions, the United States pushed towards a redefinition of the NATO
doctrine. NATO should not only serve for the defence of the
territorial integrity of its members but also for `humanitarian
interventions’ outside its territory.
This new strategy was put into practice in the war against Yugoslavia.
There, for the first time, NATO intervened outside the territory of
the Treaty.
This `new strategic concept’ was ratified afterwards at a summit in
Washington at the end of April 1999. NATO’s so-called “humanitarian
war” in Yugoslaviawas sold to the public as a means of settling
conflicts between ethnic groups, while its real purpose was to expand
the spheres of influence of its member states and their corporate
allies.
Recent escalation of ethnic contradictions in Kosovo (March 2004)
shows the complete failure of NATO’s `humanitarian’ occupation.
Kosovo’s remaining minorities have no freedom of movement, live in
ghettos and face continuous terrorist attacks and the destruction of
their property.
`NATO Response Force’ and NATO’s involvement in the `war on
terrorism’ The Prague summit of November 2002 reinserted NATO in the
United States ‘ evolving strategy of world domination, now called
`war on terrorism’ . NATO is now being transformed from a
`defence’ organisation (1949) over a `defence and security’
organisation (1999) towards an `anti-terrorism’ organisation.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson described the Prague decisions
as ` a new capacity plan with strong national commitments to
ensure the most urgent needs; concrete proposals to improve NATO’s
defence capabilities against biological and chemical weapons; a
package of anti-terror measures that obliges the Alliance to intervene
where and when needed; internal reforms which ensure that the enlarged
NATO will remain an effective and flexible organisation. ‘ In
this context the ` NATO Response Force’ (NRF) is created, with the
objective of ensuring mobile and flexible interventions outside NATO
territory. This army for rapid worldwide combat interventions will
dispose of 21,000 soldiers by 2006. 3 The concrete content of this new
strategy was officially accepted during a NATO meeting in Brussels ,
in June 2003. Through this fundamental reform of NATO, the alliance is
clearly preparing itself to wage wars all over the world to ensure the
neo-colonial order. Secretary General Robertson explained: ` This
is a new NATO. A NATO able to meet its commitments when times get
tough, from the Straits of Gibraltar through the Balkans to southern
Turkey . A NATO now preparing to take on a demanding stabilisation
mission in the Afghan capital. In short, a NATO transforming its
membership, its relationships, its capabilities and its missions. ‘ 4
He was very clear on NATO’s objectives: it wants to play a central
role in the strategy to counter all attempts of resistance and
opposition against worldwide dominance and hegemony under US
leadership.
Robertson gave some examples for 2003: `We have recently ended the
deployment of surveillance aircraft, missile defence systems and
nuclear, biological and chemical protection units to Turkey . We
continue to conduct extensive anti-terrorism maritime operations in
the Mediterranean . We remain decisively engaged in the Balkans. From
August, NATO will take the leading role in the International Security
Assistance Force in Kabul , Afghanistan . And last week, NATO agreed
to Poland ‘s request for Alliance support in the role that it is
taking on this summer in the stabilisation of Iraq .’ More money for
weapons, less money for social security and health’ The `peace and
stability’ that NATO pretends to defend is nothing but ensuring world
hegemony by all means necessary. The reform of 2003 containsfour
central points, as Robertson explained. First of all, a more flexible
command structure will take the lead of the alliance: ` All
operational commands will be under the control of the new Allied
Command Operations, based at SHAPE in Mons , Belgium ‘. Second, all
member countries made a series of concrete commitments to enhance
their military capacities, mainly their air and marine forces.
This will necessarily lead to an important increase of the defence
budgets of all NATO member states. Third, there is an agreement on `
the creation of a key new tool, the NATO Response Force. This will be
a robust rapid reaction fighting force that can be quickly deployed
anywhere in the world. It couldhave an early operational capability by
autumn this year’ . And finally, asRobertson explained, there is an `
important progress on missile defence, andour terrorism and nuclear,
biological and chemical defence packages ‘.
These reforms will be implemented rapidly, and Robertson is
optimistic: ` The world has changed fundamentally, to become more
complex and even more dangerous than before. But NATO has kept
pace. It has proved its resilience, strength and determination. It is
a decisive factor in our security and in wider stability. A force for
the future, already working for peace today .’ As part of the
`NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative’, NATOmember states have
committed themselves to increase their military abilities for
`power projection, mobility and increased interoperability’. This
will require significant additional military expenditures. European
NATO countries have already increased their expenditures for military
equipment by 11% in real terms since 1995.
Through NATO, the US is pushing Europe towards higher military
expenditure, while ensuring their dependence on the US . The US
military budget reached almost 400 billion dollar in 2003, while the
military expenses of its NATO allies totalled 165 billion dollar.
During the NATO summit of December 2001, Secretary General Robertson
insisted on an increase of these budgets. Italy announced an increase
from 1.5% to 2% of its GDP and France would increase its budget for
the acquisition of new equipment (+1.7%). In January 2003, the French
Parliament decided on an investment of 14.6 billion Euro over 5 years.
Belgium and Germany were criticised by NATO for using only 1.5% of
their GDP for military expenses. Germany decided to spend 7.8 billion
Euro per year for its defence by 2010, compared to 4.4 billion
today. (+ 78%).
Meanwhile, military budgets in the US and Canada have also increased
continuously over the past years. The military budgets of NATO
countries amounted to about 60% of the world’s total military spending
(US$798 billion) for the year 2000.
4. NATO’s future involvement in Iraq has already been decided Step by
step, NATO is taking up a position as an occupying force in countries
colonised by a US aggression. In Afghanistan , NATO has taken over the
final responsibility of the occupation. This was a new qualitative
step in NATO development. In December 2003, US Secretary of State
Colin Powell confirmedthat all NATO allies had unanimously agreed on a
higher degree of involvement in Iraq . ` Not one NATO-member was
against it or gave reasons not to participate’ , Powell said, ` not
even France and Germany ‘ . 5 Today, 18 of the 26 NATO members have
some kind of military presence in Iraq .
In February 2004, US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns spoke about
` a strong political will in the Alliance to do more in Iraq
‘. Washington suggested that NATO should take over the command of the
divisions in South-Central Iraq that are currently under the command
of Poland . But Burns added that the increase of NATO’s military
presence in Afghanistan would be central in the discussions in the
coming months. ` I think it is too early to discuss formally within
NATO on a formal role in Iraq . That discussion will come later, maybe
in spring or early summer’. 6 Following the pledge of Germany ,
France and Belgium , NATO will only be involved after the formal take
over of political power by the Iraqi’s at the end of June this
year. Even if the new Iraqi government will be a puppet regime
completely dependent on the United States, such a façade government
would open the way for a UN resolution giving a mandate to NATO for a
so-called `peace mission’. By the end of 2004 or early 2005, NATO
could be on the ground. Europe really wants to participate in a
(peaceful) occupation. Not because of its desire to restore peace and
sovereignty for the Iraqi people, but to ensureits part of the profits
for `our’ multinationals Of course, the actual developments
in Iraq will surely and decisively influence when and how NATO is to
participate in the occupation. But the decision has been taken. Only a
growing strength of the Iraqi resistance, and (also) the mobilisation
capacity of the peace movement all over the world and especially in
Europe , could still prevent this from happening.
5. United States versus Europe : growing contradictions Beyond any
doubt, the US is today’s only superpower with the strategy, the means
and the policy for ensuring and maintaining world hegemony. For the
United States , NATO remains an instrument to ensure this global
hegemonic order.
The US uses NATO to ensure its control over Europe and to prevent all
attempts of insubordination to its plans. In 1995 the Pentagon stated
that `NATO is the most important instrument for long lasting American
leadership over the European security situation’ 7. Steven Metz, an
expert of the US Army, alerted that ` (t)he US objective has to be
that the European defence capacity develops as a complement, while the
leading role of the NATO remains intact’. 8 Through NATO, the United
States continues to involve its allies in wars of aggression, like in
Yugoslavia , Afghanistan and Iraq . Even if the Secretary General of
NATO is always a European, the US only accepts to work with people who
ensure that this policy be put into practice. Former NATO Secretary
General Lord Robertson, for example, confirmed at the Defence Industry
Conference in London , on October 14, 2002 , that ` even in 2015, and
despite` indeed, in part because of – a more powerful Europe , the
US will provide the indispensable core around which most military
coalitions will be built ‘. 9 Current NATO Secretary General, the
Dutch former Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, will need all his
persuasion power to rebuild transatlantic relations damaged by a row
between the United States and France and Germanyover the US-led war in
Iraq . But the US is confident: de Hoop Scheffer has always been a
very strong transatlantic. `If anyone from the transatlanticcamp would
be good at building bridges with France , he would ‘, a diplomatic
source told Reuters. 10 De Hoop Scheffer was welcomed with open arms
in the White House early 2003 for having lend Dutch political support
to the US-led war in Iraq . He is avery suitable candidate for the
Americans, but he is still acceptable to the Germans, the French and
the Belgians, as the Netherlands did not support the decision to go to
war in a military sense but only politically (even if afterwards they
sent troops to support the occupation). He is mainly an expression of
the existing power balance in NATO: Europe has no option but accepting
US rule.
The recent (and ongoing) war on Iraq shows serious contradictions
between the United States and the European Union. They are a clear
expression of the growing rivalry between the two Western economic
powers. This rivalry has been growing since 1989, when the fall of the
Soviet Union ended the sacred union against the communist
enemy. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt explained in February of
2003: ` As long as the divisions of the Red Army could reach the Rhine
in 48 hours, it was evident to maintain a blood band with our American
cousins. But today the Cold War is over, and the contradicting
viewpoints can be expressed more openly. From an economic point of
view, Europe became a world power. At the international level, Europe
takes an own profile, develops its own projects and shows its own
ambitions. That’s also what explains the tensions that appeared within
in Atlantic Alliance .’ 11 The differences of strategy between both
economic blocs arise from the necessity for Europe to win a more
important place in the domination of theworld, which can only be
achieved at the expense of the United States . The United States is a
declining economic power, caught up and even overtaken by the global
economic power of the European Union. But US military power remains
incomparably superior. In the end it is on this unequalled destructive
force that US imperialism is betting in order to maintain and
reinforce its domination and exploitation to the utmost. Europe ,
which is progressing only very timidlyin the construction of its Euro
Army, is trying to prevent the United States from playing its military
cards. Not because of Europe ‘s dislike of weapons, but because of its
lack of weapons.
The militarist objectives of the European oligarchy was already made
clear in September 1991, three months before the Maastricht summit,
when the European Round Table made its evaluation of the 1991 Gulf
War: `The Middle East crisis of 1990 has shown the difficulty to
transpose our technical and economic developments on the political
scene: there you have the European paradox, an economic giant but a
political dwarf. Europe had interests to defend in the Gulf, and ideas
on what was to be done. But when force was to be used, Europe had no
decision mechanisms nor the means that would have made it possible to
intervene. It is today an anachronism to pretend that the Union can
manage its economic questions in a satisfactory way while leaving the
questions of foreign policy to others’ . 12 Pro-free market New York
Times journalist Thomas Friedman showed clearly how the global economy
is linked to the war, when in March 1999, during the war against
Yugoslavia , he wrote: ` The hidden hand of the market willnever work
without a hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell
Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the
world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United
States Army, Air Force and Marine Corps .’ 13 It is not superfluous to
recall that the European Union has seen itself as an institution at
the service of its own multinationals, andthat ` if McDonald’s needs
McDonnell, Danone also needs Dassault ‘. 14 Being a military dwarf,
Europe has to bet on the economic card to enter the Middle East . For
instance, Germany ‘s exports to Iran went up from 1.6 billion in 1999
to 2.33 billions in 2001. During the first five months of 2002, they
increased by 17% over the previous year. Germany has become the
biggest importer in the world of Iranian products, oil excluded.
Europe would also like to get rid of regimes that are too independent,
too attached to their sovereignty, too jealous of their own
development. It would like to set up pro-European regimes in Iraq ,
Iran , Syria and elsewhere by political means, in other words by
strengthening the pro-European opposition groups, the so-called `civil
society’. At the same time, however, the majority of European
countries are aware they cannot yet do without US military
power. Through the experience of Yugoslavia and – more sharply – the
actual contradictions in Iraq , the European Union is more and more
convinced of the necessity of having its own army.
Nevertheless, NATO remains the only framework in which Europe can
intervene militarily on a large scale in the world today.
Therefore most European states, even if they oppose the aggression
against Iraq , gave support to the US war efforts in Iraq in various
ways. The US army was allowed to use all the ports, airports and other
infrastructures of the NATO countries.
6. NATO’s expansion to the East After NATO’s annexation of the Czech
Republic , Hungary and Poland some years ago, the membership of
Bulgaria , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , Romania , Slovakia and
Slovenia recently accelerated NATO’s expansion to the East.
NATO’s expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is a means of
integrating the military forces of those countries under NATO (and
largely US) control.As military units within NATO, the armed forces of
the new NATO member states must submit to the demands for
standardisation of military training, weapons and other military
equipment. Requirements that new members standardise their military
equipment to NATO’s exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to US
and European military industries, that will benefit greatly from these
expanded export markets.
New NATO member states also loose sovereignty over other important
aspects of their armed forces, such as the command, control,
communications and intelligence functions, which also risk being
subsumed under the auspices of NATO standardisation.
The reasons for NATO’s eastward expansion are largely economic. For
instance, NATO’s military access and control over Eastern Europe helps
Western European corporations to secure strategic energy resources,
such as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia . The US and Western
European corporations will greatly benefit from NATO’s control of the
oil corridor through the Caucasus Mountains . NATO wants its troops to
patrol this pipeline and to dominate the Armenian/Russian route to the
Caspian Sea . The Caucasus also links the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku
pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in the former
Soviet Central Asia republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan . Billions
of dollars in oil may someday flow through these corridors to Western
Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.
This NATO enlargement has an important influence on the internal
contradictions within NATO. From Estonia to Bulgaria , the United
States now has 10 new — or newish — states within NATO that
Washington can count on for support when contradictions US-European
contradictions intensify in the future. These countries’ membership in
NATO strengthens the US relative to Germany and France, US
imperialism’s `Old Europe’ rivals. It puts US forces near Russia ‘s
border, with air bases only five minutes away from St. Petersburg
. And young workers in these countries are an additional source of
cannon fodder for US military occupations. They are already stationed
in Iraq , Afghanistan and Yugoslavia .
15 But Washington had other reasons for this enlargement. Before 1989,
the people living in seven new member states were part of the
socialist camp. Bulgaria and Romania were independent
countries. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania were republics in the Soviet
Union . Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia . Slovenia was the richest
republic of Yugoslavia . The people in all those countries had access
to free education, medical care and nearly full employment. Pay
differences were relatively small. Now education, medical care and
everything else is subject to the `free’ market, dominated by the
Western monopolies. The few very rich people are rich because of their
connections with those monopolies.
There are many unemployed and otherwise very poor workers. Living
conditions, especially for women workers, have deteriorated
sharply. The governments, who accepted all the requirements for
entering NATO, want the alliance membership for future protection
should the working class in their countries revolt.
7. A growing pressure for a European Army The European army is at the
order of the day, because the European superpower wants to play a role
in the struggle for the redivision of the world that was started when
the USSR disappeared.
The `war on terrorism’ is the pretext of a common struggle where
`Americans and Europeans are partners in common values that are beyond
discussion’ 16. No European government doubts the necessity of
NATO. Even those who are most` European’ know that, for the defence of
their common interests, they still need – for many years – NATO and
its infrastructure. Verhofstadt explains his concept of the European
army as a `European pillar within NATO’. He adds: ` The
solidarity within the Alliance risks to disappear because of its lack
of equilibrium: one superpower and 18 states, mainly European, without
a common line on defence matters, and of which some still think of
being a superpower, while compared to the US, they do not weigh much.’
But for France and Germany (and Belgium ), the European pillar of NATO
is only a phase towards the construction of an independent European
army comparable to that of the United States . Thus, in certain
regions, those who are considered `terrorists’ for some, are not
necessarily the`terrorists’ for others.
The states that ensure the oil and gas for the European continent are,
in many occasions, in conflict with Washington . These `rogue
states’, in the definition of the White House, ensure 27% of
European oil. And this is without counting the 14% of Russia , the 3%
of Algeria and the 2% of Venezuela , all of them countries that do not
have very good relations with US imperialism.
This is an essential point on which European and US interests risk to
increasingly diverge in the future. The Middle East and Central Asia
are more important for the oil provision of Europe than for the US
. In this way, this part of the world is strategic for Europe (and for
Japan , and for China , the rest of Asia and Russia ). Therefore, the
fact that the US is interested to control this region is an
affirmation of its desire of hegemony. While at the same time, it is
`the’ place where this supremacy could be challenged.
The confrontation on Iraq during 2002-2003 shows the growing
contradictions between US and European imperialism. Clearly, this has
less to do with `weapons of mass destruction’ than with the
organisation of a new order in the Arab world.
Thus the demand to accelerate the setting up of a European military
force, capable of defending the interests of the European monopolies
whenever these diverge from those of the US or another rival or
enemy. Ten years ago, France and Germany already developed the Euro
corps in which Belgium , Luxemburg and Spain are likewise
participating. It was seen as the start of the future European
army. Since then, the pillar of common foreign and security policy
(CFSP) has been introduced in the Maastricht Treaty (1993). 17 During
the Koln summit of June 1999, one month after the war against
Yugoslavia , it was decided thata European `rapid intervention
force’ of 60,000 soldiers had to be created.
But contradictions remain and are growing since the Iraq war. While
the UK clearly seas the European army as `a pillar of NATO’,
France and Germany (and Belgium) support the constitution op a
`European vanguard’ composedof the countries that want to
accelerate the development of a `European Security and Defence
Policy’.
8. Conclusion The French-German-Belgian axis affirms that the
constitution of a European army is a necessity to develop a
counterweight to the hegemonic policy of the US . They present Europe
as a humane, social, ecological and multilateral alternative to the US
. Verhofstadt: `The European Union has a moremoderate profile in the
world than the United States , without being inferior to it. Europe is
presented as an example of multilateral cooperation. Europe is seen as
a continent sensible to social and ecological problems, as a continent
that understands that its own wealth is vulnerable if most of the
people of the world are suffering from hunger.’ 18 We do not agree
with this statement. The European Army is not a solution for the US
war policy. It is also an imperialist army, in the service of economic
interests of the European monopolies. Its creation increases the
danger of war, leads to the militarisation of the economy, the
explosion of the military budgets and the breakdown of democratic
rights.
If the ` Europe of the monopolies’ speaks about diplomacy,
dialogueand multilateralism, it is mainly because it has not yet the
means to impose its views against US military power. The European past
in Africa , Latin America , Algeria or Asia shows the ferocity of
European imperialism when and where it was dominant. The European army
will only accelerate the rivalry and the dangerfor a major world
war. The more this army will be able to develop its capacity for
foreign interventions, the more it will reinforce the political
capacity of the EU, the more it will make possible an independent
European policy in favour of the European multinationals, the more it
will offer the possibility to the EU to defend its zones of influence
against eventual competitors, e.g. the US. This can lead to important
conflicts, as has been seen in the two previous world wars.
One final comment. Undoubtedly, the crisis over Iraq has severely
divided NATO. But towards the Middle East , the common interests of
Europe and United States are – in the current situation on the ground
in Iraq` overwhelmingly more important than what opposes US and
EU. Both want to ensure a `stable’ Middle East region. The US is
being forced by reality to let its partners get into the business. And
Europe is eager to do so. Notwithstanding all the rancour that might
still exist within the alliance, NATO is undergoing a profound
transformation into an organisation ` whose main missions are
collective security and crisis management and whose main centre of
activity is increasingly located in the Muslim world. NATO now
provides security in Afghanistan . And beyond that, NATO is now
preparing to move into the Middle East .’ 19 If and how NATO will
enter Iraq will depend on the resistance the Iraqi people develop
towards their occupiers. ` Although NATO’s current priority is
Afghanistan and it is reluctant to enter Iraq unless the members
united behind the idea, the principle of engaging the Middle East is
not the subject of an argument. Rather the question is how to do so,
i.e. the modalities of this engagement. In fact, NATO is clearly
moving to create a stronger basis for its relations with the Middle
East . NATO’s new plan, a so called `Greater Middle East
Initiative’, will be unveiled at its forthcoming Istanbul summit in
June .’ 20 To block the US war preparations and to preserve world
peace, the peoples of the world are right to demand the withdrawal of
the US occupation troops from the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq , the
dissolution of NATO and the dismantling of all US military bases
abroad. The worldwide antiwar movementis growing, while enhanced US
aggressivity and NATO’s complicity will help us to reinforce its
anti-imperialist character.
We oppose any increase of military budgets, any development or
production of new weapons. Not one cent, not one man for the
imperialist army. No money for imperialist war, but for education,
health and employment. We support the right of oppressed nations to
defend themselves. We struggle for non-aggression pacts, with the
purpose of preserving the sovereignty and the collective security of
the nations.

United Nations Development Programme Country Office in Armenia
14, Karl Liebknecht Street, Yerevan 375010, Armenia
Contact: Aramazd Ghalamkaryan
Tel: (374 1) 56 60 73
Fax: (374 1) 54 38 11
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
UNDP COUNTRY OFFICE IN ARMENIA
19 April, 2004
UNDP ENHANCES TECHNICAL CAPACITIES OF MUNICIPALITIES
Yerevan, Armenia
Today the Ministry of Territorial Administration of the Republic of
Armenia and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) held an
event to discuss financial decentralisation and hand-over computer
hardware and databases to municipalities. Mr. Vache Terteryan, the
Deputy Minister of Territorial Administration, Mr. Seyran Avagyan, Head
of the Local Self-Government Committee at the Presidency and Ms. Lise
Grande, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative
presided over the event.
In addition to providing technical support to 12 Yerevan districts and
the Yerevan Municipality, UNDP is handing-over key databases including
one on conditions in 914 communities and a second database on the
National Human Development Survey, which was conducted in 2003 and
covered 170 rural and 44 urban communities. UNDP will also provide
special software to the municipalities and the Ministry, helping to
strengthen their capacity in statistical analyses.
According to Ms. Grande: `During last few years UNDP has initiated and
successfully implemented several projects to support the process of
decentralisation and community development in Armenia. Very soon, from
May 7 to 14, UNDP Armenia will help to organise a Community Week to
raise public awareness about ongoing legislative and other reforms
affecting communities and contribute to discussions on community-related
issues.’
Mr. Terteryan noted: `The cooperation between the Ministry of
Territorial Administration and UNDP Armenia Office has a long history
and is highly successful. The Government of Armenia has adopted an
approach to delegate more authority to our communities, but we want to
ensure that the communities are ready to accept and fully implement
those rights and authorities for the benefit of the population. In this
respect, it is highly important to enhance the technical capacities and
to strengthen human resources of municipalities. We are grateful for
UNDP’s attention and ongoing support to our efforts in this area, and we
are confident that our successful cooperation will continue in future.`
Country Background: In 2002, the Government adopted a new Law on Local
Self-Government, recognising communities as legal entities and
transferring land and property to them. As part of a on-going commitment
to fiscal decentralisation, communities have also been granted a share
of the income and profit tax as well as nature protection fees. In
addition, 100 percent of property and land tax revenues have been
transferred to communities.
***
UNDP is the UN’s global development network. It advocates for change and
connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people
build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with
them on their own solutions to global and national development
challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of
UNDP and our wide range of partners.
***
For further information, please contact Mr. Aramazd Ghalamkaryan, UNDP
Armenia at [email protected].
***
This and all previous press releases by UNDP Country Office in Armenia
are available at If you do not want to receive the
subsequent press releases by UNDP Country Office in Armenia, please send
a message to [email protected] containing ‘unsubscribe your-email-address’ in
the subject line.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
Armenian version:
A HIGH-RANKING DELEGATION FROM RWANDA WILL TAKE PART IN 24TH APRIL
COMMEMORATIONS IN ANTELIAS
Antelias, Lebanon – On the occasion of 24th April, the Armenian Martyrs’
Day, a series of commemorations and activities will take place in the Armenian
Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias, Lebanon. This year, in addition to
religious and political functions, an international conference on “Genocide,
Impunity and Justice” will take place in Antelias which is organized by the
Catholicosate of Cilica under the auspices of His Excellency General Emile
Lahoud, the President of the Republic of Lebanon. Several university
professors, lawyers and special guests will take part in this conference.
The representative of the president of Rwanda together with a high-ranking
delegation will also take part in this event. The representative of the
president of Rwanda will address the conference.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

Canada’s Digital Collections
ALBERTANS
Maria Chrzanowska: Polish Education Takes Root in Edmonton
by Andrzej M. Kobos
Maria Chrzanowska (née Agopsowicz, of a polonized Armenian family)
was born in 1913 in Kuty, near Stanislawów, in Galicia. In 1932 she
graduated with honours from the Teachers’ College in Lwów and
taught at a school near Kuty. In 1938 she married Jan Chrzanowski,
also a teacher. In September 1939, when the Second World War broke
out, Jan, who was a reserve officer, was called to active duty. After
Poland’s defeat by the Germans and the Soviets, through Romania and
France he reached Britain where he served in the Polish Army.
When the Soviets occupied the town of Kuty in 1939, Maria’s parents
were deported to a remote area of the Soviet Union where they
perished. She and her infant son were miraculously spared from being
deported because the outbreak of the German-Soviet war in June 1941
prevented the new wave of Soviet deportations. Maria and her small
son lived in Kuty throughout the war, until they were transferred to
western Poland in 1945. A year later, she managed to escape to the
West to join her husband in Scotland. In 1948, the Chrzanowski family
immigrated to Canada and settled permanently in Edmonton, where Jan’s
brother, Czeslaw, had lived since 1927. Their son, Zbigniew, became a
physician and their daughter, Teresa, a nurse. Jan was active in
several Polish organizations including the Canadian Polish Congress
whose Treasurer he was for many years. Maria became the driving force
in Polish education in the city.
After a few abortive efforts to teach Polish children in Edmonton
before, during, and after the Second World War – notably in 1947 by
Józef Kaczmarek and Wladyslaw Zientarski1 – a permanent Polish
school was established in Edmonton in 1954 by Rev. Dr. Tadeusz
Nagengast, Wanda Buska, Zofia Hedinger, Janina Jankowska-Zygiel,
Mieczyslaw Janusz, Zygmunt Majkowski and Jan Sowa. The school was
named after Henryk Sienkiewicz, the 1905 Polish Nobel Prize winner in
literature. Since its inception, the school has had support from the
Polish community. Mieczyslaw Janusz organized many fundraising social
events.
In 1956, Maria Chrzanowska began teaching at the Henryk Sienkiewicz
School. She has always had a passion for teaching. In 1964 she became
the school’s principal, a post she retained until her retirement in
1987. During those years she reorganized the school, which soon became
one of the best Polish schools in Canada and a model for bilingual
ethnic schools. Maria found appropriate accommodation for the school
which operated on Saturdays. She engaged a dedicated and professional
teaching staff, among them several Polish priests and nuns, who have
played a very important spiritual role at the school, and a former
flying instructor, who was an invaluable asset in teaching young
boys. She arranged for a fruitful collaboration with the parents’
committee. She was instrumental in securing government grants for the
school from the Multiculturalism programs. The 1980s brought a large
influx of Polish immigrants related to the “Solidarity”
movement. These were mainly young families and as a result the
enrollment at the Henryk Sienkiewicz School increased
considerably. (In 1987 there were 240 students.) Maria Chrzanowska
managed to find new, well-trained staff members among the new
immigrants. Apart from teaching, Maria Chrzanowska was the key person
organizing extracurricular activities for the students, such as
amateur theatre with Polish repertoire, choir and dance assemblies,
and exhibitions of Polish art and children’s art work. Children’s
activities crossed the school boundaries, e.g. they frequently
performed in Polish folk costumes at different Polish and
multicultural festivals and celebrations, always to great
applause. Her students competed successfully with several thousand
Polish ethnic school students in Canada.
Over the years, about 3,000 children of Polish immigrants have passed
through this school where they were taught Polish language, history,
and culture. Years later they still joyfully remember the school and
“Pani Maria,” their teacher and principal. They also gratefully
acknowledge that this fine school and Pani Maria were crucial to their
maintaining the Polish language and customs. As Maria put it: “Knowing
more than just the local language and retaining one’s heritage gives
life a treasured richness.” Maria once wondered: “Will all that we
wish to pass on to our students – our beautiful language, the basic
knowledge about Poland, that is, her l,000-year-old history, and
culture – will all these strengthen their pride in belonging to the
great Polish nation?” Clearly, Maria’s dream to uphold Polishness
among Polish children has been fulfilled and it was appropriate to
recognize Maria Chrzanowska’s inspiration, dedication, and lasting
contribution to maintaining the Polish heritage by naming the second
Polish school in Edmonton, which opened in November 1991, “The Maria
Chrzanowska Polish School.”
Maria Chrzanowska was also active in the Alberta Ethnic Language
Teachers’ Association (later named the Northern Alberta Heritage
Language Association) and in its Board of Directors. Within this
organization she shared her experience with other teachers and helped
them with their problems. For all her years of service, Maria
Chrzanowska, The First Lady of Polish Education in Edmonton, received
the Alberta Achievement Award from the Alberta government in 1974, and
the Heritage Language Development Award in 1986, for her service in
preserving and developing language education. In 1990, she was
presented with a Special Recognition from the Northern Alberta
Heritage Language Association.
Since 1956, Maria Chrzanowska has participated in several Polish
organizations in Edmonton. Maria was also an active member of the
Polish Scouting movement in Edmonton. For a long time she was
responsible for youths’ affairs in the Canadian Polish Congress,
Alberta Branch. From 1961 to 1995, Maria Chrzanowska directed the
Polish radio program at Edmonton’s CKUA.2
=.=passage omitted =.=.=.
Sources
Information provided by Maria Chrzanowska; Maria Chrzanowska; ,
“Nieznana karta z dziejów polskiej szkoly,” in Towarzystwo
Polsko-Kanadyjskie (Edmonton) 1927-1987 [Polish-Canadian Society,
1927-1987], Maria Carlton ed. (Edmonton: TPK, 1987); Maria Chrzanowska
“Wspólpraca parafii Matki Boskiej Rózancowej ze szkola polska
im. H. Sienkiewicza,” in History of the Holy Rosary Parish in Edmonton
1913-1988, ed. John Huculak (Edmonton: Holy Rosary Parish, 1988);
Maria Chrzanowska, “Zakonczenie roku szkolnego w szkole im. Henryka
Sienkiewicza,” Dialogi, no. 8, Edmonton 1986.
Reprinted from Polonia in Alberta 1895 -1995: The Polish Centennial in
Alberta (Edmonton: Polish Centennial Society, 1995) eds. Andrzej
M. Kobos and Jolanta T. Pekacz, with permission of the Canadian Polish
Congress Alberta Branch.
Note: there is a considerable number of AGOPSOWICZ and AGOPYANS now
accross Canada

Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts
47 Nichols Avenue
Watertown, MA 02472
617-926-1918
[email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
April 19, 2004
Contact: Suzan Ekizian
[email protected]; 617-926-1918
ANC OF EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS SPONSORS FUNDRAISER
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE KOUTOUJIAN
WATERTOWN, MA–The Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Eastern
Massachusetts recently held a fundraiser-reception in honor of State
Representative Peter Koutoujian. The event was hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Bedros
and Arev Der-Vartanian at their Belmont residence.
During the evening reception, members of the Armenian American community had
an opportunity to discuss various issues with the fourth-term State
Representative. Among the topics discussed were the November Presidential
elections, Rep. Kotoujian’s upcoming trip to Armenia, and the 2004
Homenetmen summer athletic games being held in Greater Boston.
“Rep. Koutoujian has been a champion and longtime advocate of many issues of
particular concern to the Massachusetts Armenian American community. We are
extremely grateful for his leadership and organized this event to honor his
efforts,” remarked ANC of Eastern Massachusetts representative Ivan
Ardhaldjian.
During the gathering, Rep. Koutoujian addressed the audience on a number of
local and state issues, the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, and the
importance to introduce non-Armenians to our rich heritage and culture.
Koutoujian underscored that he would continue to do everything in his power
to positively contribute to Armenia’s rebuilding process.
The Massachusetts State Representative represents the tenth Middlesex
district, which includes parts of Newton, Waltham, and Watertown. Rep.
Koutoujian currently holds the position of House Chairman of the Joint
Committee on Health Care. He holds a Masters degree in Public Affairs from
the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Throughout his tenure in office, Rep. Koutoujian has pursued a number of
issues to help benefit Armenia. In the field of democracy, he was selected
by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to observe
the May 2003 Parliamentary elections in Armenia.
In the field of health care, he hosted a forum at the Massachusetts State
House with Armenian Health Minister Dr. Norayr Davidian and Massachusetts
Department of Public Health Commissioner Christine Ferguson. During the
forum, Rep. Koutoujian pledged to further cooperation between Massachusetts
and Armenia in the healthcare sector. He also recently offered to share
smoke reduction programs, which have been successfully implemented in
Massachusetts, with Armenia.
Additionally, Rep. Koutoujian is an annual host of the Massachusetts State
House commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian National Committee is the largest Armenian American grassroots
political organization in Massachusetts and nationwide. The ANC actively
advances a broad range of issues of concern to the Armenian American
community.
####

New word to replace Holocaust wins favor
Palm Beach Post (Florida)
Sunday, April 18, 2004
By Charles Passy ([email protected]), Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
When George Lucius Salton tells of his experience as a survivor of the Nazi
concentration camps, there’s no confusion about the details. The fear of
being executed at any moment. The joy of being liberated. The making of a
new life in America.
And so Salton, a retired electrical engineer who lives in Palm Beach
Gardens, says there should be no confusion about how to refer to this
seminal event in modern Jewish history, the systematic murder of an
estimated 6 million Jews by a ruthless German regime.
“‘Holocaust’ is understood as the term referring to the destruction of the
Jews,” he says.
Or is it?
In recent years, many Jewish and non-Jewish leaders in the religious,
academic and cultural communities have begun embracing “Shoah,” a Hebrew
word for “destruction,” as the term for the Nazi-led genocide of 1933-1945.
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg chose it as the name for his foundation that
documents the stories of survivors. The Vatican used it in its report, We
Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, recounting the Roman Catholic Church’s
response to the mass slaughter.
And locally, Rabbi David Goldstein, who heads Temple Beth David in Palm
Beach Gardens, goes so far as to remove most references to “Holocaust” in
synagogue literature.
“We’re trying to substitute ‘Shoah’ across the board,” he says.
The result is nothing short of a linguistic quagmire, particularly as Jews
throughout the world gather today, designated on the Jewish calendar as Yom
Hashoah, or Day of the Destruction, to remember the tragedy of the World War
II era.
But what is it they’re remembering — the Holocaust or the Shoah?
The knock against “Holocaust” is twofold. Many object to the word, derived
from ancient Greek, because it translates as “burnt offering” — in the
sacrificial religious sense, according to select scholars. And that leads to
a horrific connotation when speaking of the atrocities committed against the
Jews, who were often driven to the gas chambers, then cremated. How could
their fiery end be considered a sacrifice?
“If it’s a burnt offering to God, then I don’t want to know the God at the
other end,” says Michael Berenbaum, a leading scholar based at the
University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
But the linguistic issues go deeper. As “Holocaust” seeps into the
vernacular, the term has become attached not only to other genocides and
mass slaughters — in Armenia, Cambodia and elsewhere — but also to a range
of other events and movements. In an article for a Jewish publication, Diana
Cole cited such examples as a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’
“Holocaust on Your Plate” exhibit and SiliconeHolocaust.org, a Web site for
“breast implant victims.”
Maybe better, but realistic?
In the process, many argue, all sense of meaning is lost.
“It has been trivialized so much,” says Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, the
Jewish author and concentration-camp survivor who popularized the term
‘Holocaust’ in the early ’60s through his writings.
By contrast, “Shoah” is a word without negative connotations. And its Hebrew
connection gives it a special significance, some contend.
“The way in which you can keep the particularity of the Shoah as a Jewish
event is to use a Jewish word,” says Zev Garber, a Jewish scholar based at
Los Angeles Valley College who co-wrote a paper, Why Do We Call the
Holocaust ‘the Holocaust,’ which helped spark the pro-“Shoah” movement.
Garber envisions a day when “Shoah” will be as universal as “Holocaust” is
today. “Give it a quarter of a century,” he says.
To which others say: Be realistic.
“With all due respect, it’s not going to happen,” says Berenbaum, who helped
found the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
It’s not that Berenbaum and others don’t recognize the problems with
“Holocaust.” It’s that it’s simply too late to alter the linguistic
landscape, they say.
Consider all the “Holocaust” institutions and groups already in existence,
including the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and countless state and
regional Holocaust museums. Even Alan Berger, a leading Jewish scholar at
Florida Atlantic University who says he’s troubled by the term, occupies a
chair in — what else? — “Holocaust studies.”
In other words, there may be too many nameplates to change.
Imperfect but understood
“‘Holocaust’ has been the accepted word,” says Rabbi Alan Sherman, community
chaplain with the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County. “It’s not perfect,
but when it’s used everyone knows what it refers to, which is the important
thing.”
That’s a point echoed by survivor Salton, who wrote a book, The 23rd Psalm,
about his experience in the concentration camps. “If somebody opened a
‘Shoah’ museum, it wouldn’t be understood,” he says.
And Rositta Kenigsberg, who heads the North Miami Beach-based Holocaust
Documentation and Education Center and is leading the effort to establish a
South Florida Holocaust museum, goes one step further: If the Jewish
community gets too caught up in this linguistic fracas, they risk losing
sight of the real issue — the memory and lessons of the event itself.
“I think we’re making more of this than there should be,” she says.
But as far as Rabbi Goldstein is concerned, “when you continue to make a
mistake, you compound the problem from that mistake.”
“To continue using the word ‘Holocaust,’ we let stand those who want to see
it as a punishment for the Jews,” Goldstein says. “When we take away the
burnt offering concept, we’re left with man’s inhumanity to man.”
Still, others say the “burnt offering” religious concept isn’t necessarily
the correct interpretation. True, “holocaust” appears in the Greek
translation of the Old Testament (or, as some now prefer to call it, the
Hebrew scriptures). But “holocaust” was also employed before that to denote
pagan sacrifices, removing it from the Judeo-Christian framework, researcher
Jon Petrie has noted.
And in the 20th century, “holocaust” took on variety of meanings before it
became forever wedded to the crimes of the Nazi era. Often, it simply
signified a great fire. In his writings, Petrie goes so far as to quote a
1940 advertisement in the pre-state of Israel Palestine Post for a show by
one Mandrake the Magician, promising “a flaming holocaust of thrills.”
Right word may not exist
In the early years of the Cold War, “holocaust” was far more likely to be
used in conjunction with the threat of nuclear disaster. Petrie has argued
that it was such usage that prompted Jewish writers, including Wiesel, to
co-opt the term when referring to Hitler’s dreaded “Final Solution.”
“American Jewish writers probably abandoned such words as ‘disaster,’
‘catastrophe’ and ‘massacre’ in favor of ‘holocaust’ in the 1960s because
‘holocaust,’ with its evocation of the then actively feared nuclear mass
death, effectively conveyed something of the horror of the Jewish experience
during World War II.”
For his part, Wiesel says he used the word for its poetic effect. And while
he says he was fully aware of the connection with religious sacrifice, he
thought of it more in metaphysical terms. “This might have been a huge
cosmic burnt offering,” he says.
In any case, by the ’70s, “Holocaust” fully entered into the American
lexicon, especially after a TV miniseries of the same name drew 120 million
viewers. In the same year, President Jimmy Carter established a Commission
on the Holocaust, which led to the creation of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum.
In the end, Wiesel says, we may have to accept that when talking about death
on such a massive scale, words ultimately fail us. He recognizes the issues
surrounding “Holocaust,” but he says that “Shoah” isn’t a perfect fit,
either, noting the word was in use before the death camps. (It was often
employed in reference to the feared demise of Europe’s Jewish population.)
So how does Wiesel speak of the unspeakable? He thinks back to the most
infamous of the camps.
“I use the word, ‘Auschwitz,’ ” Wiesel says. “It is something singular
and specific.”

EUCOM leaders meet with Black Sea officials
Stars and Stripes (European edition)
Sunday, April 18, 2004
By Ward Sanderson
Officials from several Black Sea nations met with military leaders at
U.S. European Command headquarters Friday as part of an annual defense
brain trust tour.
They discussed their region, America’s role there and the weave of
treaties and security agreements the United States maintains with
countries whose coasts are lapped by the Black Sea.
The program – sponsored by Harvard University and paid for by the
Carnegie Foundation and the Defense Department – brought together some
30 generals,
diplomats, intelligence experts and scholars from Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine.
Despite tensions in the region, participants in the annual Black Sea
Security Program typically don’t hash out their differences right then
and there, though officials admit regional conflicts do tweak
perspectives. Nonetheless, the sessions tend to be more an academic
series of briefings than debates.
“This isn’t the forum where anyone is going to air any dirty laundry,”
said Air Force Capt. Sarah Kerwin, spokeswoman for the U.S. headquarters
in Stuttgart, Germany.
The program visited the headquarters for the first time last year.
“Obviously it went well, because they’re here again,” Kerwin said.
According to Harvard, the group visited Bulgaria’s capital of Sofia
earlier in the week and was to fly to Washington, D.C., on Saturday.
There, they will speak with security specialists from the Pentagon,
Congress and the National Security Council.
In Stuttgart, the entourage listened to briefings on just what the
European Command is and does. Some tend toward astonishment at the sorts
of programs in which the United States is engaged in their countries,
such as humanitarian demining.
“They are not necessarily the same individuals we have regular contact
with,” said Army Lt. Col. Rosemarie Warner, the headquarters’ branch
chief for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. “Oftentimes, the programs even
come as a surprise to them.”
Relations between the Black Sea players and the United States have been
boosted by a heavy American effort to develop and modernize the
militaries there since the Berlin Wall fell.
“We have a good relationship with all of these countries,” Warner said,
“and I think they see EUCOM as a major player in the region and a
representative of the United States.”
The tweedy university feel of the program doesn’t preclude politics
entirely.
“We try to be very clear about the types of activities that we do in the
region and in our overall focus we have a couple of things that are
primary, and one of them is the war on terror,” Warner said. “We’re
trying to get everyone in the region together to have the same focus.”
The other big issue is the broad topic of security cooperation among the
Black Sea neighbors and the United States. The American headquarters
would prefer that all the players plug into the same sort of security
cooperation framework. The Harvard visit could help, U.S. officials hope.
“It encourages open dialog where they can talk to one another,” said
Navy Cmdr. Denise Newell, EUCOM’s Russia desk officer.
Cooperation can take work in the ancient neighborhood: Armenia and
Azerbaijan still are trying to stitch the wounds of an ethnically
charged territorial war during the 1990s. Moldova grapples with
separatists in Transnistria. The new Georgian government faces tension
with Russia over semi-autonomous regions with strong ties to Moscow.
Turkey and Greece long have stared at one another across the Aegean,
both distrustful of the other over the final status of disputed Cyprus.
Warner said these broilers affect participants’ views but are largely
shelved for the sake of exchange.
“For the most part, it’s a very jovial, congenial group of folks.”

A1 Plus | 20:08:29 | 19-04-2004 | Politics |
CONFESSION EXTRACTED
Edgar Arakelyan, a young man from Armenian town of Lusakert, who
participated in the peaceful demonstration the last week Monday and resisted
police’s ominous assault on innocent demonstrators by throwing a plastic
bottle at armed policeman, as it was shown on Armenian state-owned H1 TV, is
charged with one count of seizing power by force.
Procecutor’s Office says he has already pleaded guilty.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress