Turkey’s Killing Fields

Turkey’s Killing Fields
By GARY J. BASS

New York Times Book Review
December 17, 2006

A SHAMEFUL ACT
The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.
By Taner Akcam. Translated by Paul Bessemer.
483 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company. $30.

In July 1915, the American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire sent Washington
a harrowing report about the Turks’ `systematic attempt to uproot peaceful
Armenian populations.’ He described `terrible tortures, wholesale expulsions
and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by
frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder, turning into massacre.’ A
month later, the ambassador, Henry Morgenthau – the grandfather of the
Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau – warned of an `attempt to
exterminate a race.’

The Young Turk nationalist campaign against the empire’s Armenian subjects
was far too enormous to be ignored at the time. But decades of
government-backed denial have created what amounts to a taboo in Turkey
today. Instead of admitting genocide, Turkish officials contend the
Armenians were a dangerous fifth column that colluded with Russia in World
War I; many Armenians may have died, they say, but there was no organized
slaughter. Turkish writers who challenge this line, like the novelists Orhan
Pamuk and Elif Shafak, have risked prosecution for insulting Turkish
identity. And on the diplomatic front, when Turkey should be polishing its
credentials for eventual European Union membership, it is mired in
historical fights; this May, for instance, it pulled out of a NATO military
exercise to protest the Canadian prime minister’s acknowledgment of the
genocide.

`A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish
Responsibility,’ by Taner Akcam, is a Turkish blast against this national
denial. A historian and former leftist activist now teaching at the Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, Akcam is
often described as the first Turkish scholar to call the massacres genocide,
and his impressive achievement here is to shine fresh light on exactly why
and how the Ottoman Empire deported and slaughtered the Armenians. He
directly challenges the doubters back home, basing his powerful book on
Turkish sources in the old Ottoman script – including the failed Ottoman war
crimes tribunals held after World War I. Although he bolsters his case with
material from the American, British and German archives, he writes that the
remaining Ottoman records are enough to show that the ruling party’s central
committee `did deliberately attempt to destroy the Armenian population.’

Akcam closely links the 1915 genocide with World War I. The Unionists, as
the nationalist leaders were known, dreaded the partition of their empire by
the European great powers. Not only did they suspect the Armenians of
dangerous disloyalty, Akcam writes, but massacres of Muslims in Christian
regions of the faltering empire before World War I had fostered a desire for
vengeance.

While never excusing the atrocities, Akcam does argue that the Turkish
leaders chose genocide in a mood of stark desperation. Staggered by a series
of early military defeats, and by the Allied onslaught at Gallipoli, they
fully expected their empire – driven out of so much of its vast territories
over the past two centuries – to collapse. The Turkish heartland of Anatolia
was threatened – as was Constantinople.

The fiercest Ottoman enemy was Russia, which had nearly seized
Constantinople in a bloody 1877-78 war and had a storied history of trying
to foment uprisings against Ottoman rule. The Turkish nationalist line puts
great weight on the internal menace of pro-Russian Armenians. But Akcam
argues that there was little real danger from the Armenian uprisings, which
were limited and directed mostly against the deportations. (British
officials considered the Armenians militarily useless and thus refused to
encourage the uprisings.) Akcam allows that the evacuation of Armenians may
have been justified by military necessity in areas where the Armenian
revolutionaries were strong – but not throughout the empire.

The killings were a colossal undertaking. Paramilitaries and Interior
Ministry gendarmes slaughtered Armenians en masse, while the Interior
Ministry under Talat Pasha, who coordinated the campaign, arranged for the
deportation of untold thousands more to the blazing Syrian deserts. Many of
the deportees were massacred along the way, and those who survived were left
without food, shelter or medicine, in what Akcam calls `deliberate
extermination.’ Akcam cites Ottoman Interior Ministry papers that chillingly
call for keeping Armenians to less than 5 or 10 percent of the population. A
postwar Turkish investigation found that some 800,000 Armenians perished.

After the war, Britain pressured the defeated Ottoman government into
setting up its own war crimes tribunals. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk himself, the
founder of the present Turkish republic, once said that the Unionist leaders
`should have been brought to account for the lives of millions of our
Christian subjects ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and
massacred.’ Today, those who deny the genocide have to dismiss these trial
records as mere victor’s justice. Akcam uses the records as important
evidence, though he frowns on Britain’s imperialist ambitions and cultural
biases.

This dense, measured and footnote-heavy book poses a stern challenge to
modern Turkish polemicists, and if there is any response to be made, it can
be done only with additional primary research in the archival records. In
1919, a British general hoped the Ottoman war crimes trials would `dispel
the fog of illusions prevailing throughout the country.’ Eighty-seven years
later, the murk still lingers.

Gary J. Bass, the author of `Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War
Crimes Tribunals,’ is writing a book on humanitarian intervention.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Yerevan Press Club Weekly Newsletter – 12/14/2006

YEREVAN PRESS CLUB WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

DECEMBER 8-14, 2006

HIGHLIGHTS:

SECOND FINAL ISSUE OF "PRESS-CLUB+": PARTIES, EXPERTS AND AUDIENCE DISCUSS
DOMESTIC POLICY

TESEV HOSTED BY YPC

LITIGATION ON INSULT OF "ALM" HEAD STARTED

PACE DRAFT RESOLUTION STRESSES THE NEED TO ENSURE BROADCAST MEDIA PLURALITY
FOR ELECTIONS

PRESS DOING ITS BEST TO WIGGLE OUT

WINNERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANTICORRUPTION COMPETITIONS ANNOUNCED

SECOND FINAL ISSUE OF "PRESS-CLUB+": PARTIES, EXPERTS AND AUDIENCE DISCUSS
DOMESTIC POLICY

On December 12 the last "Press Club+" talk show in 2006 went on the evening
air of "Yerkir-Media" TV company. The program was dealing with domestic
policy and was one of the two final issues of 2006 (the first one on
December 5 focused on foreign policy of Armenia). Its participants – experts
and audience – discussed the stances of the parties that were the guests of
"Press-Club+" in September-November on such hot topics as elections, social
conditions in the country, corruption, good governance and democracy.

Unfortunately, "Yerkir-Media" company without notifying YPC changed the time
of the program and did not ensure its quality broadcast. Due to this, on
December 13 in "Yerkirn Aysor" newscast the TV company made an apology to
the viewers and informed that this issue of "Press-Club+" will be repeated
on December 15 at 19.30.

On December 19 (next Tuesday) at 21.00, "Yerkir-Media" will air the final
"Press-Club" TV show.

TESEV HOSTED BY YPC

On December 9 Yerevan Press Club hosted a meeting with Turkish journalists
and researchers who visited Armenia under the project of the Turkish
Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) "Normalization of
Turkish-Armenian Relations". From Armenia representatives of Yerevan Press
Club, "Aravot", "Azg" dailies, Public Radio of Armenia, "Bnagir" online
magazine took part in the meeting, from Turkish – TESEV, "Referans",
"Turkish Daily News", "Zaman", "Yeni Safak" newspapers, Istanbul University
of Culture, Middle East Technical University and Galatasaray University. The
relations between Armenia and Turkey and the potential role of media in
their normalization were discussed.

LITIGATION ON INSULT OF "ALM" HEAD STARTED

On December 14 the court of primary jurisdiction of Center and Nork-Marash
of Yerevan started hearing the case of a professor of Yerevan State
Institute of Cinema and Theater, theater director Armen Mazmanian, charged
with libel and insult of the head of "ALM" TV company Tigran Karapetian. The
criminal proceedings were instituted on August 23, 2006 by the Prosecutor’s
Office of Yerevan basing on the appeal of Tigran Karapetian submitted to the
General Prosecutor’s Office on July 21. The reason for the address was the
statements of Armen Mazmanian to the address of Tigran Karapetian that the
latter qualified as libelous and insulting. The statements were made in the
program of "ARMENAKOB" TV company "The Word with No Tie On", aired on July
18, 2006. According to the charges made, Armen Mazmanian called the head of
"ALM" "a populist parrot, semi-literate, a pickpocket" and announced that
while residing in Volgograd Tigran Karapetian was convicted for "sexual
abuse of minors". The appeal of Tigran Karapetian had a videotape of the
program enclosed. The investigation on the case was completed on October 23.
Armen Mazmanian was charged with Part 1, Article 135 ("Libel") and Part 1,
of Article 136 ("Insult") of the RA Criminal Code, stipulating penal
sanctions.

At the session of December 14 Armen Mazmanian’s attorney Haik Halumian
addressed the court with a motion to give him time to study the case
materials. The motion was secured.

The next session is scheduled for January 12, 2007.

PACE DRAFT RESOLUTION STRESSES THE NEED TO ENSURE BROADCAST MEDIA PLURALITY
FOR ELECTIONS

On December 13 in Paris at the session of the Monitoring Committee of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe the Draft Resolution on
Armenia’s honoring of its obligations and commitments to the CE was adopted.
The Draft was approved on the basis of the report, developed by PACE’s
Armenia Co-rapporteurs George Colombier and Mikko Elo, to be debated at PACE
plenary session in January 2007. At the meeting it was stressed that "simply
passing legislation is not enough to implement democratic reforms in the
country. The laws must be applied". A proof of Armenia’s progress on the way
to democracy and European integration, in the opinion of Monitoring
Committee, will be the upcoming elections that "must comply with European
standards for free and fair elections, and media coverage of the election
campaign and the elections must be pluralist and unbiased".

The need to ensure the pluralism of broadcast media is also stressed in item
6.2 of the Draft Resolution of PACE. It notes, in particular, that
"equitable access to the electronic media by all political parties is an
absolute prerequisite for the holding of free and fair elections". The
adopted amendments to the RA Constitution made it possible to ensure the
greater independence of the bodies, regulating the broadcast media; however,
the Draft Resolution notes, subsequently the draft law package on
broadcasting was developed by the Government without first consulting the
representatives of media and CE and was strongly criticized, not least
concerning the formation of the National Commission on Television and Radio
and appointment of its members. The need to hold consultations with CE
experts and take their recommendations into account before the adoption of
the amendments to the broadcast law is stressed (item 6.2.1). Armenian
authorities are also urged to adopt an open, transparent process of
appointment of members of the Council of Public Television and Radio
Company, as recommended by the Venice Commission (item 6.2.2). "Apart from
reforming the legislation, the Armenian authorities must take steps to
ensure the freedom and pluralism of public television and radio on a
day-to-day basis", item 6.2.3 says. The next item, 6.2.4, expresses full
backing to the monitoring of TV and radio programs with a view to assessing
their independence and impartiality, as provided for in the action plan to
support the parliamentary elections in Armenia in 2007, approved by the CE
Committee of Ministers following a request by the Armenian authorities.

As to print media, "which are reputed to be free and pluralist but play only
a minor role in the provision of public information on account of their
small circulation", item 6.3 of the PACE Draft Resolution notes with
satisfaction that "no criminal libel proceedings have been instituted
against journalists for some years now". "Since the reform of the Criminal
Code in 2004, libel has been punishable by a prison sentence only in the
event of a repeat offence", the Draft says. At the same time, the Armenian
authorities are urged to decriminalise libel and abolish Article 318 of the
RA Criminal Code "Insult of the Representative of Power".

PRESS DOING ITS BEST TO WIGGLE OUT

The paper shortage that occurred in early December at "Tigran Mets"
publishing house, printing about three dozens of newspapers, endangered
their publication and induced the press to look for alternative ways of
overcoming the crisis. As it has been reported, the problem was due to the
stoppage of Ilyichevsk (Ukraine)-Poti (Georgia) ferry: hundreds of railway
carriages intended for Armenia, including those with print paper, gathered
in the Ukrainian port (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, December 1-7,
2006). As "Tigran Mets" Director Vrezh Markosian announced, the paper
arrival was expected by this week-end. At this point, not to cease
publishing, the press is doing its best to wiggle out. This, however, did
not tell on the prices, despite the increased publishing expenses of, say,
"Azg" and "Golos Armenii". From December 9 to 13 these newspapers were
printed in "Noyan Tapan" publishing house on a more expensive paper.
Besides, the technical facilities of "Noyan Tapan" did not allow "Golos
Armenii" to retain its standard volume (8/A2 pp.), and the newspaper was
published in 8/A3 pp. A number of other national dailies had to move to
other publishing houses, too. Thus, the official "Respublika Armenia" is
temporarily published in "Gandzapress" publishing house, "Novoye Vremya" and
"168 Zham" – in "Gind".

WINNERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANTICORRUPTION COMPETITIONS ANNOUNCED

On December 12 in Yerevan the award ceremony of "Environment and
Urbanization" competition was held. The competition was organized by OSCE
Office in Yerevan, "Environmental Survival" NGO and the Aarhus-Center of
Yerevan.

In "TV journalism" nomination the first award was granted to Nelli Danielian
("Yerkir-Media" TV company) for the film on mining industry issues in Teghut
village of Lori region. The second prize was received by Vahe Ghazarian
("Kentron" TV company) for the film on Yerevan green zones. The third prize
was conferred on Lilit Davtian ("Shoghakat" TV company) for film on forests
of Tsaghkadzor, and on Seda Grigorian ("Lusalik" TV company, Charentsavan)
for film on green zones of Charentsavan.

In "Press" nomination the first prize went to free-lance journalist Ashot
Gareginian for articles raising the issues of illegitimate wood cuts, the
Yerevan green zones and the mining industry in Teghut village of Lori
region. The second prize was received by Galust Nanian ("Hayastani
Hanrapetutiun" daily) for articles on air pollution in Yerevan and the
environmental situation around the Yerevan Lake. The third award was
received by a journalist of Vanadzor Naira Bulghadarian for an article on
illegitimate wood cuts in Lori region, published by "Hetq Online".

Encouraging prizes in both nominations were granted to films of Haik Kbeyan
("VEM Media Arts" studio) and Armineh Sukiasian ("Shant" TV), publications
by Marianna Grigorian ("ArmeniaNow" online weekly), Ruzanna Bisharian
("Golos Armenii" newspaper) and Susanna Shakhnazarian ("Ban u Gorts"
newspaper, Goris).

Earlier, on December 8, the winners of the anticorruption competition of the
OSCE Office in Yerevan and the Writers Union of Armenia were announced. The
award for the best verse was granted to the Chief Editor of "Loru Marz"
newspaper (Vanadzor) Manvel Mikoyan. The member of Journalists Union of
Armenia Armenak Manukian (Arman Amrikian) was awarded for the best story,
the Chief Editor of "Grakan Tert" Samvel Kosian for the best drama. The
prizes for publicism were conferred on writers Margo Ghukasian, Board member
of Journalists Union of Armenia, and Hrachia Matevosian. The competition
jury acknowledged Nikita Zarobian’s publications on corruption.

When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
Press Club is required.

You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
[email protected]

Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]

Editor of YPC Newsletter – Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
_____________________________________ _______
Yerevan Press Club
9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
0002, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+ 374 10) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
Fax: (+374 10) 53 56 61
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site:
From: Baghdasarian

www.ypc.am

MediaDialogue Newsletter – 12/15/2006

Yerevan Press Club presents web site, featuring the
most interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest updates on the site are
weekly delivered to the subscribers.

************************************ ***************************************

NEW YEAR’S GAS CRISIS LOOMS FOR RUSSIA’S NEIGHBORS

| "Turkish Daily News" newspaper (Turkey) | Stephen Boykewich, AFP |
15-Dec-2006 |

As a Jan. 1 deadline looms for Belarus and Georgia to either strike new
deals for Russian gas or face possible supply cuts, Minsk is showing
defiance and Tbilisi is lining up alternatives, but Moscow seems to hold all
the cards, analysts said.

Generous Russian gas subsidies to its former Soviet neighbors have fallen
like dominoes in recent years as state gas giant Gazprom has sought to hike
prices nearly to European levels — currently averaging $235 (177 euros) per
thousand cubic meters (TCM).

It has been a bitter pill to swallow in countries like Ukraine, which was
paying about $50 per TCM just a year ago, and had its gas supplies cut when
it resisted Gazprom’s demand for a more than fourfold increase.

Now Georgia and Belarus are facing similar demands, and though each is
resisting in its own way, both are running up against the hard reality of
Russia’s new energy policy: Moscow sets the terms, and its partners "take it
or leave it," Alfa Bank analyst Chris Weafer said.

"No matter how you look at it, the cards are all stacked heavily in Russia’s
favor and against Belarus and Georgia," Weafer told AFP.

After witnessing the January cutoff to Ukraine and Russia’s hardball tactics
to gain state control of the foreign-run Sakhalin-2 energy project — using
environmental pressure to threaten a project shutdown — "both countries
know the game very well," Weafer said.

"They will be under no illusions that Russia will cut gas supplies to get
what it wants."

What Russia wants in the case of Belarus is what it wanted in countries such
as Ukraine and Armenia — control over valuable gas transport
infrastructure, analysts said.

Armenian gas prices are set at $110 per TCM to the end of 2008, Gazprom
spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov told Echo of Moscow radio in a recent interview,
in exchange for ceding control of its gas distribution network.

"It’s a package deal in which we strengthen our position in Armenia, we get
assets that interest us," Kupriyanov said.

Minsk is trying hard not to give up control over its own pipeline network,
including transport pipelines to Western Europe that are "its last trump
card in bargaining with Russia," Belarussian analyst Tatyana Manenok told
AFP.

Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko has threatened to break relations
with Moscow if Gazprom does not back down from its current demand of either
$200 per TCM of gas or 50 percent control over Belarussian pipeline company
Beltransgas.

But Moscow has already dealt Minsk a blow with yesterday’s decision to
introduce steep tariffs on its oil exports to its traditional ally.

Factor in Minsk’s reliance on cheap gas to prop up its manufacturing sector,
and "the Belarussian economy, which is Soviet and unreformed, is set for
collapse," Manenok said.

Georgia has more leeway and is moving fast to secure enough gas from
neighboring Azerbaijan, as well as Iran — which has left Washington less
than happy — in an effort to become completely independent from Russia.

Georgian energy officials will hold talks with Azerbaijani, Turkish and
Iranian officials over the next several days to see if Georgia can cover its
2007 needs for at least 1.7 billion cubic meters of gas even if Gazprom
turns off the taps, an energy ministry spokesman told AFP.

The catch, Alfa Bank’s Weafer said, is that Georgia’s alternative gas
sources are likely to cost close to the $230 per TCM Russia is demanding.

However painful Russia’s neighbors are finding Gazprom’s new pricing policy,
"they’ve enjoyed a subsidy that was appropriate for the Soviet Union and was
extended for 15 years."

Now, "they’re between a rock and a hard place," Weafer said.

MANVEL SARGSYAN:NEITHER OF SOUTH CAUCASIAN STATES CARES OF NEIGHBORS

| PANArmenian.Net News Portal (Armenia) | 14-Dec-2006 |

Supposed changes in the balance forces in the region and optimistic
statements on the possible settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh problem by the
end of 2006 have revealed new directions and distribution of the power
vector. External factors and first of all strengthening of the U.S. and
European structures in the region and Russia’s retreat from the dominant
positions is being observed in the region. Analyst of Kavkaz center Manvel
Sargsyan comments on the situation to PanARMENIAN.Net.

How do you assess the balance of forces in the region?

In fact there are no special moves in the intention to engage the South
Caucasian states into a unified new system of new quality, which is being
declared both by the states of the region and the international community.
In this regard efforts of individual activity are observed. Georgia tries to
settle its relations with Russia with harsh methods and integrate into the
European structures. The President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev put forward a
program of total isolation of Armenia, hoping that he will be able to enlist
support of international community. Armenia attempts to balance its
relations between the West and Russia. Neither of the states of the region
has time for its neighbors.

Such an individual activation strengthens the dependence of regional states
from this or that foreign factors. More and more the interests of foreign
powers come in contact with this or that country in the region. Compromise
between the conflicting sides becomes more and more complicated. For
example, the more the Armenian leadership speaks about its readiness to
serious compromises in the Nagorno Karabakh issue, the more the Azeri
authorities strengthen their military calls. An appetite to get all but not
a part through bargaining with foreign powers occurs.

The states of the region stake not on compromise, but on exclusive foreign
support for their own intentions. In this view, Azerbaijan’s speaking of
military solution of the conflict, which totally is put in a wider circle of
necessary means, is needed to ‘return the territories’. In October Ilham
Aliyev stated that "if there is no progress in negotiation process any
variants will be discussed, stressing it means that here Baku must think
about military operation". It means that he, more precisely than earlier,
pointed that military operation is the last possible step. It needs time
which, in his opinion, works for Azerbaijan’s favor.

What exactly did the Azeri President mean?

Ilham Aliyev has already announced of the necessity of total information,
communicative, political and economic blockade of Armenia. He eyes such a
program as an instrument to force Armenia to accept Azerbaijan’s conditions.
Aliyev’s reiterates Azerbaijan’s intention to press for the construction of
the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway bypassing Armenia as well as to
establish high-level relations with all those states Armenia enjoy good and
even friendly relations (for example with Iran). He also speaks of the
intention to efficiently struggle against the Armenian lobby by opening
consulates in the states with most active Armenian Diaspora. There are also
plans to keep on pushing the Karabakh issue into the agenda of international
organizations. That is to say, to fight at all fronts.

However the problems of the region are not restricted to these two states.
There also exist the EU’s interests, especially after the signing of the
Action Plan with all of three South Caucasian states.

There are separate activity lines in the South Caucasus. It is the already
mentioned EU program, that is the problem of engagement of the South
Caucasian states into the European Neighborhood Policy. Here I have to
underline the fact of separate communication vectors between the EU and
regional states. Europe also has been lured by the predilections of
individual initiatives of the states of the region. There is no smell of
regional integration in South Caucasus, instead tendencies of separate
integration lines are observed between EU programs and the regional
countries. In the current period of global changes the civilized world goes
to any experiments for the sake to preserve universal stability and
encourage the growth of political quality throughout the globe.

The old principles of stability ensuring work get worse and worse and it is
necessary to find methods to transform global order on the basis of less
destructive processes to prevent appearance of different uncontrollable
territories. We notice that these issues occupy bigger and bigger place in
the geopolitics of Western states. The South Caucasus, in this regard, is
not the biggest problem. We should not also forget about the chain of
disruptiveness – Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. The Caucasian problems are more
local.

Still there is one more moment – the relationship of the South Caucasian
states with Russia. For example, Russia has already set a task to Armenia –
make your choice. Its meaning is difficult for comprehension, not only for
the people of our region but also for Russia herself. I do not think that
anybody fully understands what is right, what is not. The work is going on
as a habit, and the characters of reciprocal demands do not display
well-shaped logic: this is the specific character of period of changes. From
time to time we notice that the presidents of regional countries just do not
understand how to behave, what others want from them. There is no iron logic
– there are only amorphous approaches and bad knowledge of own interests.

Nagorno Karabakh has adopted the Constitution. How can it influence on the
political situation in the region?

With the adoption of the Nagorno Karabakh Constitution a new factor occurred
in the region, which different international bodies and Azerbaijan can use.
This factor gives a lot of possibilities both to Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh. The referendum can remain unrecognized, but it is not easy to
ignore the fact of collective will of the people of this territory. At least
the referendum is the leading law of this territory, and to qualify it as
illegal is not easy. Nobody can do it – the world has not seen anything more
legal than the national law. After all we can qualify as illegal all the
legal acts of Azerbaijan but it makes little sense.

Nations live their life. All the others can define their attitude towards
the actions of this or that nation. They can recognize their right. The
other nations can also try forcefully to lead away a nation from its own way
with disdain. If a nation has chosen its way it must prove to itself and all
the others the effectiveness of that very way and be able to defend its
choice. Up till now the NKR was able to do that: time will show if there is
a will to continue that initiative. And the world always recognizes those
who deserve it.

GEORGE BUSH "DEFINED" THE PLACE OF AZERBAIJAN

| "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) | R. Mirkadirov | 14-Dec-2006 |

He calls on us to get integrated in EuroAtlantic Space

Many media, commenting on the statement made by President George Bush when
giving credentials to the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to
USA Yashar Aliev and disseminated by the channels of "Azertaj" state news
agency, emphasized the support expressed by the Head of the White House for
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Public recognition and support of
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by US President is undoubtedly a
notable event, though it is this part of his statement that Bush viewed as a
protocol phrase revealing the position of the current American
administration on Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Meanwhile, when
communicating with the new ambassador of Azerbaijan, George Bush made more
implicative statements as to the long-term plans of US on Azerbaijan.

In general, we should note at the outset that during the ceremony of
granting nine other credentials, US President paid quite large attention to
Azerbaijan, which by itself is a significant factor. Still it is not a
matter of the "mass quantity" but the content of these statements.
Emphasizing the big role of Azerbaijan in fighting terrorism, George Bush
qualified our country as a "reliable partner" of USA, "The future of
Azerbaijan is linked to the EuroAtlantic community, and USA will be
supporting the efforts of Azerbaijan in the sphere of developing ties with
NATO and EU".

This is what we should have considered right away. The Head of the White
House, as straightforward and sincere as only an American can be, clearly
defined the future place of Azerbaijan in military-political system of
international security. In his opinion, it turns out that our place is in
NATO, which makes the author of these lines quite happy. It would be good if
official Baku on its behalf also gets determined on the foreign policy line
of our country.

It is not very hard to understand US President. Today, Russia and USA have
one "outpost" each in the South Caucasus – Armenia and Georgia. While, the
"outpost" is still not a reliable and integral "front line", it is a sort of
a "stronghold". As for Azerbaijan, it is still wary of "falling under the
trumpets", and therefore is still in doubts. Meanwhile, without Azerbaijan
it is impossible to create a reliable "front line". For this reason, George
Bush has to encourage official Baku by stating that "USA will be supporting
the efforts of Azerbaijan in developing the relations with NATO and EU",
similarly to the situation in Georgia.

The Head of the White House does not even conceal the reason why USA
attaches vital importance to an integral "front line" on the border with
Russia. As reported by "Turan", George Bush thinks that Azerbaijan plays a
key role in the energy corridor to Europe as a supplier of energy resources
and a transit country. In the coming years, the significance of this
corridor will be growing. USA supports economic and political reforms of
Azerbaijan, which aim at ensuring long-term security and stability. In other
words, the West and USA in the first place is to control the sources of the
energy carriers and the routes of their supply to Europe, especially in the
light of the recently increased "energy blackmail" by Russia.

It is not accidental that George Bush views the necessity of settling
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict from the point of ensuring regional security,
since it is only thus that the situation in the South Caucasus countries may
fully be delivered of the Russia’s control.

Referring to Karabagh conflict, Bush stated that this issue keeps disrupting
the regional security in the South Caucasus. He called on Azerbaijan to
continue seeking peaceful ways of conflict settlement. He also mentioned the
necessity of searching for the paths of establishing trust between the
nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, he expressed obvious
support for territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. USA as one of the OSCE
Minsk Group Co-chairs keeps working with the leaders of Azerbaijan and
Armenia to speed up peaceful resolution of the conflict.

In other words, paying more attention to Azerbaijan than it is due by
protocol, in the conversation with our ambassador George Bush clearly
defined the goals of American policy on our country and the methods of their
achievement. Thus, the Americans do not have "incomplete missions". In case
of a problem emerged, they act on the principle "who if not us". If it is
good or bad is another matter.

However, USA clearly knows what is needed for meeting the goal set, which
unfortunately is not true for Azerbaijan. We should just remember certain
steep turns, which were traced in the foreign policy line of official Baku
all through 2006. For instance, the year was started from almost brotherly
relations with Russia, while by the end of the year they became rather tense
to put it mildly. It should have been expected. We should have kept in mind
that "being friends" with Russia is costly as a rule, since the latter more
frequently puts the proposals which are impossible to agree. This time it
was the same. Russia suggested that Azerbaijan become a participant of the
"crusade" against Georgia and torture to cold death the "orthodox Georgian
brethren", "disloyal" to the Kremlin. May be Baku really did not expect such
an outcome but they really could not show solidarity on this issue with the
Kremlin. It is not only that they would have to leave "brother" Georgia
alone in cold winter, with almost 500 thousand Azerbaijani residents, with a
Baku-Ceyhan oil and Baku-Erzrum gas pipelines passing via its territory. The
problem is that they would have to doom to freezing the Georgia, which today
is the only reliable "outpost" of USA in the South Caucasus. While this is
what official Washington would not forgive to official Baku.

In other words, Azerbaijan had no choice. Official Baku, placed between the
"devil and the deep sea", chose the least of the two evils.

The problem is of a different type. The threats and challenges of the
Russian imperial policy on CIS space, especially in the South Caucasus, are
almost constant. They do not disappear and are unlikely to in the near
future. They simply vary depending on who is at power in Baku or Moscow. It
is for this reason that Azerbaijan needs to quickly understand what should
be its military political system for ensuring security, as Mr. Bush
suggests. It is to be done not out of big love for USA or the West at large
but at least for the sake of the primitive "self-preservation instinct".

Indeed, in this case certain difficulties will emerge, related to the
hostile attitude of Russia and Iran. However, it would be much better to
"provoke" such aggravation in a so-called "peace time", which is
"convenient" for us, than to act in the time of trouble after crisis
situation have emerged. The crisis situations need to be treated through
ensuring maximum security of own, supported by clear international legal
commitments.

ONE MORE UNRECOGNIZED REFERENDUM

| "24 Saati" newspaper (Georgia) | Dmitry Avaliani | 12-Dec-2006 |

Karabagh Joins the Race

The parade of separatist referenda on the post-Soviet space is still
underway. On Sunday, the Mountainous Karabagh voted for adoption of the new
Constitution, in accordance with which Mountainous Karabagh is an
independent state. The results of the referendum were not recognized by the
international community. Baku thinks that the referendum held is a part of
the performance staged by Moscow.

The referenda parade was a specific consequence of the address by Russian
President Vladimir Putin. Several months ago to resolve Georgia’s
territorial problems, he proposed to the country’s authorities holding
referenda in the self-proclaimed Republics. At the same time, he brought the
example of Chechnya, where the referendum was held after forced
establishment of Moscow’s jurisdiction. Following this statement of the
Russian President, the referenda on the issue of independence were held in
Pridnestrovie (in October, already seventh time), South Ossetia (in
November, second time). While in Karabagh, it is the first Constitution that
the authorities decided to put to public debate.

In accordance with the results announced, 98 percent of Mountainous Karabagh
population voted for the Constitution and independence as an outcome. The
process was monitored by about 150 observers from the self-proclaimed
Republics, representatives of Russian and European NGOs. The Secretary
General of the Council of Europe Terry Davis, as it was expected, stated
that the referendum organized by the authorities of Mountainous Karabagh is
illegal, and its results will not be recognized by the international
community. He thinks that the political decision on Mountainous Karabagh
status may be achieved only during the negotiations between the Presidents
of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The Chairperson of the Sub-committee on Mountainous Karabagh of the CoE
Parliamentary Assembly Lord Russell Johnson on his behalf stated that the
referendum in Mountainous Karabagh should be conducted in accordance with
the interests of the conflicting sides, while the Sunday referendum violated
this principle. The European structures gave the same evaluation to the
referendum in South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie, and will naturally refuse to
recognize the results.

"The referendum held in Mountainous Karabagh has no legal force and is
illegitimate", Azerbaijani Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar Mamediarov
stated. Naturally, the President of the self-proclaimed Republic Arkady
Ghukasian keeps to a different point of view and thinks that the new
Constitution will have a positive impact on the settlement process.

In a special address Armenian President Robert Kocharian congratulated the
Karabagh population on adopting the Constitution. R. Kocharian noted that in
the referendum the Karabagh people fixed their striving for freedom. He
thinks that in compliance with international standards, adoption of the
Constitution became one more basis for building Karabagh statehood.

According to the Azerbaijani political scientist, Head of the Department of
Conflict Management and Migration of the Peace and Democracy Institute Arif
Yunusov, the Karabagh referendum is only a "follow up of the parade of
referenda, which were held this year on the post-Soviet space by Moscow’s
order". In his opinion, these are the trump cards of Russia in the struggle
against the Western states. "Simply that in this game Karabagh, South
Ossetia and Pridnestrovie are only pawns", Yunusov said.

At the Karabagh referendum, unlike that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and
Pridnestrovie, there were no observers from the official structures of
Russia, the Russian Duma. Overall, recently Russia paid Karabagh little
attention as regards the support of separatist regimes. The Karabagh
government was quite passive in the issues of the joint activities with the
governments of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pridnestrovie.

"Russia’s position on Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pridnestrovie does not differ
from its position on Karabagh", member of the State Duma Constantine Zatulin
stated. In his opinion, he opts for Russia’s recognition of the
sovereignties. Probably, Russia will be driven towards support of
Mountainous Karabagh through tension in the relations with Azerbaijan, which
in its turn is conditioned by Baku’s refusal to be involved in the
anti-Georgian energy blockade.

************************************************ ***************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
or by sending a message to the Editor: [email protected].

For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].

www.mediadialogue.org
www.mediadialogue.org

Robert Fisk: Different narratives in the Middle East

Robert Fisk: Different narratives in the Middle East
No, Israelis are not Nazis. But it’s time we talked of war crimes
Published: 16 December 2006

Oh how – when it comes to the realities of history – the Muslims of
the Middle East exhaust my patience. After years of explaining to Arab
friends that the Jewish Holocaust – the systematic, planned murder of
six million Jews by the Nazis, is an indisputable fact – I am still
met with a state of willing disbelief.

And now, this week, the preposterous President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad of
Iran opens up his own country to obloquy and shame by holding a
supposedly impartial "conference" on the Jewish Holocaust to repeat
the lies of the racists who, if they did not direct their hatred
towards Jews, would most assuredly turn venomously against those other
Semites, the Arabs of the Middle East.

How, I always ask, can you expect the West to understand and accept
the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 men, women and children from Palestine
in 1948 when you will not try to comprehend the enormity done the Jews
of Europe? And, here, of course, is the wretched irony of the whole
affair. For what the Muslims of the Middle East should be doing is
pointing out to the world that they were not responsible for the
Jewish Holocaust, that, horrific and evil though it was, it is a
shameful, outrageous injustice that they, the Palestinians, should
suffer for something they had no part in and – even more disgusting-
that they should be treated as if they have. But, no, Ahmadinajad has
neither the brains nor the honesty to grasp this simple, vital
equation.

True, the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shook hands with
Hitler. I met his only surviving wartime Palestinian comrade before he
died and it is perfectly true that the intemperate, devious Had
al-Husseini made some vile anti-Jewish wartime speeches in German, in
one of which he advised the Nazis to close Jewish refugee exit routes
to Palestine and deport Jews eastwards (why east, I wonder?) and
helped to raise a Muslim SS unit in Bosnia. I have copies of his
speeches and his photograph hangs in the Yad Vashem Museum. But the
downtrodden, crushed, occupied, slaughtered Palestinians of our time –
of Sabra and Chatila, of Jenin and Beit Yanoun – were not even alive
in the Second World War.

Yet it is to the eternal shame of Israel and its leaders that they
should pretend as if the Palestinians were participants in the Second
World War. When the Israeli army was advancing on Beirut in 1982, the
then Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, wrote a crazed letter to
US president, Ronald Reagan, explaining that he felt he was marching
on "Berlin" to liquidate "Hitler" (ie Yasser Arafat, who was busy
comparing his own guerrillas to the defenders of Stalingrad).

That courageous Israeli writer Uri Avneri wrote an open letter to
Begin. "Mr Prime Minister," he began, "Hitler is dead." But this did
not stop Ariel Sharon from trying the same trick in 1989. By talking
to the US State Department, Arafat was "like Hitler, who also wanted
so much to negotiate with the Allies in the second half of the Second
World War", Sharon told the Wall Street Journal. "… Arafat is the
same kind of enemy."

Needless to say, any comparison between the behaviour of German troops
in the Second World War and Israeli soldiers today (with their
constantly betrayed claim to "purity of arms") is denounced as
anti-Semitic. Generally, I believe that is the correct
reaction. Israelis are not committing mass rape, murder or installing
gas chambers for the Palestinians.

But the acts of Israeli troops are not always so easy to divorce from
such insane parallels. During the Sabra and Chatila massacres – when
Israel sentits enraged Lebanese Christian Phalangist militias into the
camps after telling them that Palestinians had killed their beloved
leader – up to 1,700 Palestinians were slaughtered. Israeli troops
watched – and did nothing.

The Israeli novelist A B Yehoshua observed that, even if his country’s
soldiers had not known what was happening, "then this would be the
same lack of knowledge of the Germans who stood outside Buchenwald and
Treblinka and didnot know what was happening".

After the killings of Jenin, an Israeli officer suggested to his men,
according to the Israeli press, that, with close quarter fighting,
they might study the tactics of Nazi troops in Warsaw in 1944.

And I have to say – indeed, it needs to be said – that, after the
countless Lebanese civilian refugees ruthlessly cut down on the roads
of Lebanon by the Israeli air force in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and
again this summer, how can one avoid being reminded of the Luftwaffe
attacks on the equally helpless French refugees of 1940? Many
thousands of Lebanese have been killed in this way over the past 25
years.

And please spare me the nonsense about "human shields". What about the
marked ambulance of women and children rocketed by a low-flying
Israeli helicopter in 1996? Or the refugee convoy whose women and
children were torn to pieces by an equally low-flying Israeli air
force helicopter as they fled along the roads after being ordered to
leave their homes by the Israelis?

No, Israelis are not Nazis. But it’s time we talked of war crimes
unless they stop these attacks on refugees. The Arabs are entitled to
talk the same way.

They should. But they must stop lying about Jewish history – and take
a lesson, perhaps, from the Israeli historians who tell the truth
about the savagery which attended Israel’s birth.

As for the West’s reaction to Ahmadinajad’s antics, Lord Blair of Kut
al-Amara was "shocked" into disbelief while Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert responded with more eloquent contempt. Strangely, no one
recalled that, the holocaust deniers of recent years – deniers of the
Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians in 1915, that is –
include Lord Blair, who originally tried to prevent Armenians from
participating in Britain’s Holocaust Day and the then Israeli foreign
minister, Shimon Peres, who told Turks that their massacre of the
victims of the 20th century’s first Holocaust did not constitute a
genocide.

I’ve no doubt Ahmadinajad – equally conscious of Iran’s precious
relationship with Turkey – would gutlessly fail to honour the Armenian
Holocaust in Tehran. Who would have thought that the governments of
Britain, Israel andIran had so much in common?

Oh how – when it comes to the realities of history – the Muslims of
the Middle East exhaust my patience. After years of explaining to Arab
friends that the Jewish Holocaust – the systematic, planned murder of
six million Jews by the Nazis, is an indisputable fact – I am still
met with a state of willing disbelief.

And now, this week, the preposterous President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad of
Iran opens up his own country to obloquy and shame by holding a
supposedly impartial "conference" on the Jewish Holocaust to repeat
the lies of the racists who, if they did not direct their hatred
towards Jews, would most assuredly turn venomously against those other
Semites, the Arabs of the Middle East.

How, I always ask, can you expect the West to understand and accept
the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 men, women and children from Palestine
in 1948 when you will not try to comprehend the enormity done the Jews
of Europe? And, here, of course, is the wretched irony of the whole
affair. For what the Muslims of the Middle East should be doing is
pointing out to the world that they were not responsible for the
Jewish Holocaust, that, horrific and evil though it was, it is a
shameful, outrageous injustice that they, the Palestinians, should
suffer for something they had no part in and – even more disgusting-
that they should be treated as if they have. But, no, Ahmadinajad has
neither the brains nor the honesty to grasp this simple, vital
equation.

True, the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shook hands with
Hitler. I met his only surviving wartime Palestinian comrade before he
died and it is perfectly true that the intemperate, devious Had
al-Husseini made some vile anti-Jewish wartime speeches in German, in
one of which he advised the Nazis to close Jewish refugee exit routes
to Palestine and deport Jews eastwards (why east, I wonder?) and
helped to raise a Muslim SS unit in Bosnia. I have copies of his
speeches and his photograph hangs in the Yad Vashem Museum. But the
downtrodden, crushed, occupied, slaughtered Palestinians of our time –
of Sabra and Chatila, of Jenin and Beit Yanoun – were not even alive
in the Second World War.

Yet it is to the eternal shame of Israel and its leaders that they
should pretend as if the Palestinians were participants in the Second
World War. When the Israeli army was advancing on Beirut in 1982, the
then Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, wrote a crazed letter to
US president, Ronald Reagan, explaining that he felt he was marching
on "Berlin" to liquidate "Hitler" (ie Yasser Arafat, who was busy
comparing his own guerrillas to the defenders of Stalingrad).

That courageous Israeli writer Uri Avneri wrote an open letter to
Begin. "Mr Prime Minister," he began, "Hitler is dead." But this did
not stop Ariel Sharon from trying the same trick in 1989. By talking
to the US State Department, Arafat was "like Hitler, who also wanted
so much to negotiate with the Allies in the second half of the Second
World War", Sharon told the Wall Street Journal. "… Arafat is the
same kind of enemy."

Needless to say, any comparison between the behaviour of German troops
in the Second World War and Israeli soldiers today (with their
constantly betrayed claim to "purity of arms") is denounced as
anti-Semitic. Generally, I believe that is the correct
reaction. Israelis are not committing mass rape, murder or installing
gas chambers for the Palestinians.

But the acts of Israeli troops are not always so easy to divorce from
such insane parallels. During the Sabra and Chatila massacres – when
Israel sentits enraged Lebanese Christian Phalangist militias into the
camps after telling them that Palestinians had killed their beloved
leader – up to 1,700 Palestinians were slaughtered. Israeli troops
watched – and did nothing.

The Israeli novelist A B Yehoshua observed that, even if his country’s
soldiers had not known what was happening, "then this would be the
same lack of knowledge of the Germans who stood outside Buchenwald and
Treblinka and didnot know what was happening".

After the killings of Jenin, an Israeli officer suggested to his men,
according to the Israeli press, that, with close quarter fighting,
they might study the tactics of Nazi troops in Warsaw in 1944.

And I have to say – indeed, it needs to be said – that, after the
countless Lebanese civilian refugees ruthlessly cut down on the roads
of Lebanon by the Israeli air force in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and
again this summer, how can one avoid being reminded of the Luftwaffe
attacks on the equally helpless French refugees of 1940? Many
thousands of Lebanese have been killed in this way over the past 25
years.

And please spare me the nonsense about "human shields". What about the
marked ambulance of women and children rocketed by a low-flying
Israeli helicopter in 1996? Or the refugee convoy whose women and
children were torn to pieces by an equally low-flying Israeli air
force helicopter as they fled along the roads after being ordered to
leave their homes by the Israelis?

No, Israelis are not Nazis. But it’s time we talked of war crimes
unless they stop these attacks on refugees. The Arabs are entitled to
talk the same way.

They should. But they must stop lying about Jewish history – and take
a lesson, perhaps, from the Israeli historians who tell the truth
about the savagery which attended Israel’s birth.

As for the West’s reaction to Ahmadinajad’s antics, Lord Blair of Kut
al-Amara was "shocked" into disbelief while Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert responded with more eloquent contempt. Strangely, no one
recalled that, the holocaust deniers of recent years – deniers of the
Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians in 1915, that is –
include Lord Blair, who originally tried to prevent Armenians from
participating in Britain’s Holocaust Day and the then Israeli foreign
minister, Shimon Peres, who told Turks that their massacre of the
victims of the 20th century’s first Holocaust did not constitute a
genocide.

I’ve no doubt Ahmadinajad – equally conscious of Iran’s precious
relationship with Turkey – would gutlessly fail to honour the Armenian
Holocaust in Tehran. Who would have thought that the governments of
Britain, Israel andIran had so much in common?

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Documentary on the Armenian Genocide screened in Brussels

Documentary on the Armenian Genocide screened in Brussels

ArmRadio.am
16.12.2006 11:32

December 13 in one of the halls of the Brussels University Laurance Jourdan’
s film `The Armenian Genocide’ (Le Genocide Armenien) documentary was
screened.

The screening was followed by a workshop, featuring officials of the
Brussels Government, scientists, NGO representatives.

During the discussions Turkey’s denialist policy was criticized, views were
exchanged on Turkey’s accession to the EU and the current Armenian-Turkish
relations.

The event was organized with the assistance of the Armenian Embassy in
Brussels.

Tigran Torosyan’s official visit to India completed

Tigran Torosyan’s official visit to India completed

ArmRadio.am
16.12.2006 12:22

The official visit of the delegation to India was concluded with the
meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Muterjee. Mr. Muterjee
characterized the Armenian-Indian relations as a regular continuation
off relations of two ancient civilizations, which has broad
perspectives of cooperation. Thanking for reception, Tigran Torosyan
noted that during two days he managed to have a number of meetings. He
turned to the development of Armenian-Indian relations during the past
two years, mentioning that the mutual visits of the Armenian
President, the Vice-President of India and Chairman of the upper
chamber of the Parliament create good bases for reinforcement of ties.
Mr. Torosyan emphasized India’s balanced approach to the sensitive
question of Nagorno Karabakh, noting that Armenia has the same stance
on the Kashmir issue.

The parties pointed out another field of cooperation, i.e. the fight
against terrorism. Turning to the cooperation within international
organizations, Mr. Muterjee expressed gratitude for the assistance of
Armenia, considering a foundation stone for the development of
relations. Other questions of mutual interest were discussed as well.

Peter Semneby to visit Armenia

Peter Semneby to visit Armenia

ArmRadio.am
16.12.2006 12:31

December 18 EU Special Envoy for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby will
arrive in Armenia in the framework of a regional visit. RA MFA Press
Secretary Vladimir Karapetyan informs that the EU Special Envoy id due
to meet with the leadership of Armenia. During the meeting with
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian the accomplishment of the Action Plan
in the framework of the European Neighborhood Policy, and a whole
range of bilateral relations will be discussed. Reference will be
made also to the recent developments in the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, considering the enlarged mandate of the Special Envoy (Peter
Semneby is entitled to be get more deeply involved in the Karabakh
settlement process). RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian had met with
Peter Semneby during his visit to Brussels December 3-4. According to
Vladimir Karapetyan, the meeting in Armenia will be the logical
continuation of the previous one.

Kocharyan: There will be no active talks in the pre-election period

Robert Kocharyan: There will be no active talks in the pre-election period

ArmRadio.am
16.12.2006 13:07

`There will be no active negotiations on the Karabakh conflict
settlement before the parliamentary elections. The main reason is as
follows: I think it immoral to use the Karabakh issue in the election
campaign, and even the best suggestion will be criticized in case it
is discussed in a pre-election period,’ RA President Robert Kocharyan
said in an interview to three Armenian TV Channels.

According to RA President, for this reason it will be correct to turn
the process passive and reactivate it after the elections. `I don’t
wish the Karabakh issue to become the captive of pre-election moods,
where it is impossible to anticipate impartiality,’ said Robert
Kocharyan, noting that there are people we cannot restrict themselves
during different meetings, clearly hinting that the President will be
obliged to go to certain concessions on the Karabakh issue, and they
will use this in the election campaign.

Robert Kocharyan also turned to the issue of `colored revolutions,’
noting that nothing of this kind is expected in Armenia. `This wave
passed through several CIS countries, not leaving good memories among
people.’ He advised ` the sponsors of new revolutions’ not to spare
means in vain.

Ambassador Ruben Karapetian Hands Credentials to President of Sudan

AMBASSADOR RUBEN KARAPETIAN HANDS HIS CREDENTIALS TO PRESIDENT OF SUDAN

KHARTOUM, DECEMBER 15, NOYAN TAPAN. On December 12, Ruben Karapetian,
who is also RA Ambassador in Egypt, handed his credentials to
President of Republic of Sudan, Omar Hasan el-Bashir. During the
tete-a-tete talk that followed the ceremony, the President of Sudan
highly estimated the historic relations of peoples of Armenia and
Sudan and as a bright evidence emphasized the existence of the small
Armenian community having high features. The President of Sudan and
the Ambassador of Armenia exchanged opinions on issues of development
of bilateral trade and economic cooperation, in particular, in spheres
of agriculture, high technologies, science, education and culture.
According to the report submitted to Noyan Tapan from RA Foreign
Ministry Press and Information Department, on December 11, Ambassador
Karapetian handed the copy of his credentials to Foreign Minister of
Sudan Lam Akol. The interlocutors spoke about development prospects of
bilateral relations attaching importance to necessity of development
of trade and economic cooperation. Ambassador Karapetian also touched
upon historic and modern relations of Armenia and Arab-Mohammedan
world, as well as the process of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. The same day the Ambassador visited the Armenian
church of Sudan and met with representatives of the Armenian
community.

H Margarian: Necessary to Conduct Organized Fight Against Corruption

HRANT MARGARIAN: IT IS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT ORGANIZED FIGHT AGAINST
CORRUPTION, SHADOW ECONOMY AND PROTECTIONISM

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 15, NOYAN TAPAN. "There is still enough time until
the elections to the RA National Assembly but some forces started
distributing from state resources, others have opened widely thier
purses, and finaly some speak with a new inspiration about death and
destruction around." Hrant Margarian, representative of the ARF
Bureau, stated this at an event dedicated to the 116th anniversary of
the party on December 14 in Gyumri. According to the ARF press
service, in his speech H. Margarian addressed the issue of the ARF’s
activities in the RA power system. "Although we formed part of the
power for the main national issues, at the same time we strived to
succeed as much as possible in the solution of social and democratic
issues. We succeeded in national issues because we had the president’s
support. We did not succeed in social and democratic issues because in
these issues we were alone," the ARF Bureau representative
underlined. According to him, the ARF does not have "the whole power"
but is part of the power with 11% confidence vote of the people.

"Tt was not our power. We don’t avoid responsibility or regret being
part of the government. We have succeeded in implementing quite a lot
in this period but we have done what has been possible in these
conditions rather then what is in our program," he added. The speaker
pointed out that it is necessary to conduct an organized and
programmed fight against corruption, shadow economy, atmosphere of
impunity and protectionsm. "The class differences, which are polarized
today, should be mitigated through state intervention. There should be
no poverty in Armenia," H. Margarian stated.