National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: All Things Considered 8:00 PM EST
October 12, 2006 Thursday
Once Resented, Pamuk Takes Solace in Nobel
MICHELE NORRIS, host:
>From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I’m Michele Norris.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
And I’m Robert Siegel.
The winner of the Nobel Prize for literature was announced today. It
went to Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk’s most recent novel is
called Snow. His previous novels include The White Castle and The
Black Book. He is a writer who took Turkish fiction out of the
village and into the city, specifically into his city, Istanbul.
NORRIS: Last year, a Turkish prosecutor charged Pamuk with the crime
of insulting Turkishness. That was for remarks he made about the
Armenian genocide. The charges were later dropped. Some Turkish
reaction today mixed pride in the recognition of a Turkish writer
with some lingering resentment of those remarks.
When we reached the new Nobel Laureate this morning in New York City,
Orhan Pamuk was in no mood to talk about politics.
SIEGEL: Mr. Pamuk, thank you for joining us and congratulations on
your Nobel Prize.
Mr. ORHAN PAMUK (Winner, Nobel Prize in Literature): Thank you very
much.
SIEGEL: You know, when you were on this program back in 1995 talking
about your novel, The Black Book, you talked about coming from one of
those countries, your phrase was on the periphery of the Western
world where the art of the novel was developed, and being one of
those writers who is grabbing that art from the center to the
periphery and then producing something new to show the world. Is it
still a fair characterization of what you’ve been doing?
Mr. PAMUK: Yeah, probably. But then, now perhaps Turkey’s getting
away from the periphery and joining towards Europe, of course in a
troubled way. But I think Turkey’s not at the periphery any more,
moving towards the center of the world, going towards the European
Union and West. That was Turkey’s history for the last 200 years
anyway.
SIEGEL: You’ve described yourself as really the first novelist to
write about modern, urban Istanbul, a city that you watched grow in
your own lifetime.
Mr. PAMUK: Yeah, Istanbul is my city, my kingdom. My stories are
about Istanbul. And I accept this honor, this prize, as a celebration
of my culture, my language and my town. Istanbul. The town I come
from. The town whose stories I’ve been telling for the last 30 years.
SIEGEL: Now, I want you to talk about something that is said in
Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey today. There are those who still are
upset with your remarks about the Armenians and also about the Kurds.
Mr. PAMUK: Yeah, but this is not a day for politics for me. This is a
day for celebrating. This is a day for peace, happiness for me.
SIEGEL: But the question that’s been raised is is the Nobel Prize for
literature in some cases tinged with politics? You don’t see it that
way.
Mr. PAMUK: I don’t know. That’s not the point today for me, really.
SIEGEL: You related a story back in The Black Book some years ago
that I always loved. It was about the man who made perfect mannequins
of Turks in Ottoman Turkey. You recall the story?
Mr. PAMUK: Yes. That story was in Black Book, which is one of my
early books perhaps, which I painstakingly found my style and my
subject matter, whether that story or others is the painful
combination of things that are coming from tradition, the Western
world, and things that come from West Europe.
My whole book, my whole life, is a testimony to the fact that East
and West actually combine, come together gracefully and produce
something new. That is what I have been trying to do all my life,
trying to prove.
SIEGEL: While you have been writing with that intent, others have
been theorizing about clashes of civilizations.
Mr. PAMUK: I don’t believe in clashes of civilizations. I think that
was a fanciful idea which, unfortunately, is sometimes coming to be
true. But no, I think that East and West meet. I think that my whole
work is a testimony to the fact that we should find ways of looking,
combining East and West without any clash, but with harmony, with
grace, and produce something new for humanity.
SIEGEL: Do you think that that award of the Nobel Prize to you, a
Turkish novelist, might assist not only you, but other Turkish
writers?
Mr. PAMUK: Of course.
SIEGEL: In gaining the respect in Turkey that you’re allowed to,
example, voice unpopular opinions and shouldn’t be thrown into court
for it.
Mr. PAMUK: First, I look at this. That it will encourage all the
aspiring young authors, all the young people who want to write in
remote corners of the world where readership is rather small. But of
course, I believe in that.
SIEGEL: What are you working on now?
Mr. PAMUK: I’ve been working on a love novel for the last four years.
The title is Museum of Innocence, but I may not find some time to
finish it these days, but I’m very optimistic. This prize will never
change my working habits. I will work ten hours a day, as I have been
doing the last 32 years.
SIEGEL: Ten hours a day.
Mr. PAMUK: Not much, you know? A day is 24 hours.
SIEGEL: Mr. Pamuk, thank you very much for talking with us.
Mr. PAMUK: I thank you.
SIEGEL: Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, winner of this year’s Nobel Prize
for literature. He spoke to us from New York City. In that interview
I mentioned the story that he related years ago in a book about a
great mannequin maker in Istanbul, a character who ran afoul first of
religion and then of fashion. Elsewhere in the program, you can hear
a reading of that passage.

Critics’ Forum
Music
Elements of a Universal Alphabet
By Sam Ekizian
The musical forms known as folk-fusion and folk revival have often
served as the vehicles of creative expression for performers seeking
to adapt, translate, and modernize traditional musical styles. The
new folk-fusion scene draws inspiration from widespread and
multicultural sources, a process that often entails the
popularization of previously non-mainstream music, the adaptation of
folk styles to pop and rock structures, and the introduction of new
instruments.
Within the Armenian music community, performers such as Arto
Tuncboyaciyan, Gor Mkhitarian, and Armen Chakmakian have already led
critically acclaimed forays into the folk-fusion scene. With the
recent debut of its full-length album, “Yev O Phe,” Element has
navigated into this emerging but still somewhat forbidden genre.
The band includes Ara Dabandjian (keyboard, guitar, accordion), Saro
Koujakian (vocals and guitar), Gars Sherbetdjian (vocals), Shant
Mahserejian (violin), and Jeremy Millado (bass). Dabandjian is
also the band’s arranger as well as creative and musical director.
Element performs traditional Armenian folk songs as well as more
contemporary compositions laced with its own sensibilities, some of
them distinctly non-Armenian. The band’s members are aligned in
their determination to elevate their cultural heritage through
music, while paying homage to South American and Mediterranean
traditions – the band’s stylings are variously embossed with the
sounds of Flamenco, Tango, Rembetika, as well as more contemporary
influences.
This commingling of cultures has been the source of much debate.
After all, it tests the bounds of Armenian cultural identity and
seems to present a considerable obstacle to the adaptation of
traditional Armenian music. Therefore, precisely because fusion
presents fertile ground for artistic exploration, it may find itself
bound by a number of powerful cultural constraints, including
anxieties about assimilation. As a result, the growing influence of
fusion may be viewed by some as the dilution of an otherwise pure
sound and a deep-seated cultural memory.
But that view conveniently ignores the fact that much of Armenian
music has developed precisely as a result of its interaction with
outside elements and its rich fusion of disparate influences. After
all, Gomidas Vartabed himself, an ordained monk and
ethnomusicologist, spent the early 1900s initiating a renaissance of
traditional Armenian folk music by visiting far-flung provinces and
villages to take record of the varied traditions of native songs and
dances found there.
Gomidas’s quest clearly suggests that Armenian music is an
undeniably fecund source of musical expression and adaptation. The
characteristic palette of this expression, both musically and
lyrically, manifests itself in rural songs of yearning, spiritual
songs of remembrance, and other traditional expressions of longing,
lament, and rebirth. The recent popularity of folk-fusion and folk
revival reminds us that these musical styles, like traditional
Armenian music itself, succeed when they manage to remain true to
the intrinsic features and inherent values of the various musical
influences they bring together.
“Yev O Phe” delivers Element’s unique expression of folk-fusion by
seamlessly incorporating deft instrumentation, lush vocal harmonies,
and rich multi-ethnic musical styles. And nowhere in the album does
the band impose embellishments otherwise foreign to its core musical
material. The songs are not weighted down by deliberate rock
inflections or plodding digital treatments. The album also manages
to retain the purity of the folk elements and various instruments it
brings together. And throughout, the sound somehow remains
undeniably Armenian.
“Yev O Phe” is elevated by Dabandjian’s hypnotic arrangements and
his superb command of several different instruments, as well as
Koujakian’s deeply soulful vocals. In fact, the most alluring
tracks on the album are those featuring this combination’s
performances. Dabandjian’s talents are on full display on the
album’s fifth track, “Yar Ko Parag Boyin Mernem,” which manages to
make a powerful emotional impact while retaining an understated
delicacy. Koujakian’s masculine yet smooth vocals take center stage
on “Mardigi Yerke” and “Anoush Hayrenik,” without overpowering the
songs. All in all, “Yev O Phe” represents a powerful fusion of
fervent rhythms and infectious melodies, rippled through with multi-
layered and multi-ethnic influences.
It is worth mentioning that Element is an accomplished live act.
There is an immediacy and improvisational aspect to the band’s live
performances that lend themselves well to its particular adaptation
and re-imagination of the fusion genre. During a recent show at the
Ford Amphitheatre, Element’s soulful performance enveloped the
audience and drew it inescapably into the music being performed on
stage. This captivating quality of Element’s music is due in no
small part to the band’s repertoire, at once intimately familiar and
distinctly different, allowing listeners to celebrate their own
cultural heritage while embracing a more universal perspective.
Element has already acquired a diverse and loyal fan base. But it is
too early to declare whether the band has brought Armenian folk
music back into our collective consciousness or successfully bridged
geographic, linguistic, and multi-cultural divides. What is
undeniable, however, is that Element has cast aside deep-seated
cultural constraints and adopted a more progressive musical register.
In the current era of globalization, music has become the
indispensable mode of communication and integration, a modern and
universal vernacular. Fusion provides opportunities to use varying
elements of this vernacular to stretch creative boundaries and to
spread indigenous music to wider audiences, a crucial stage in the
evolution of the world music scene and of Armenian music itself.
Element’s rendering of folk music is nothing more than an extension
of this evolution, the adoption of a genuinely universal alphabet.
All Rights Reserved: Critics Forum, 2006
Sam Ekizian has been involved with the Armenian cultural and music
scene for over two decades and has helped introduce artists to West
Coast audiences.
You can reach him or any of the other contributors to Critics’ Forum
at [email protected]. This and all other articles published
in this series are available online at To
sign up for a weekly electronic version of new articles, go to
Critics’ Forum is a group created to
discuss issues relating to Armenian art and culture in the Diaspora.

PanARMENIAN.Net
Natural and Climate Conditions, Not Arson Caused Fire
in NKR
14.10.2006 13:19 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ October 13 Secretary of the Council
of National Security at the President of Armenia,
Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan met with head of the
OSCE Office in Yerevan, Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin.
Responsible for Economy and Environment of the OSCE
Office Janette Clotzer was also present at the
meeting. As Spokesperson of the Armenian MOD, colonel
Seyran Shahsuvaryan told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter,
Pryakhin presented the outcomes of the investigation
held with mediation of the OSCE. According to it fires
in some NKR territories were due to natural and
climate conditions, not arson. Thus, Azeri party
accusations on arson are groundless. International
environment organizations believe an anti-fire system
should be created in these zones. Besides, Pryakhin
presented the process of work within the second phase
of the program on elimination of rocket propellant of
melange type. As a result the melange is processed
into an environmentally clean fertilizer. At the end
of the meeting Serge Sargsyan awarded V. Pryakhin and
Janette Clotzer Marshal Baghramyan medals due to
effective organization of works to eliminate melange,
as well as on the 15th anniversary of Armenia’s independence.

PanARMENIAN.Net
Mammadyarov Not Going to Be «Too Optimistic» in Karabakh Issue
14.10.2006 14:23 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov expects that during a
meeting with Armenian FM Vartan Oskanian the parties will have an
opportunity to find common points in most complicated matters of
settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. «Within that context
the meeting in Moscow was useful. Though, when proceeding to details,
unexpectedly one finds out that there are many problems. I am not
going to be too optimistic, at the same time I want to assess the
situation realistically. New elements appeared, as well as a new field
for work over these,» Mammadyarov remarked.
Answering the question «why these «common points» were absent
before,» the Azeri FM said, «A poignant search for opportunities
is underway. It is necessary to find a fragile balance to make
positions closer. Given polar, opposite viewpoints, it is very hard
and laborious to reduce these to a common opinion, taking into account
how sensitive is the NK issue both for us and Armenia. Within this
context of course our task is to work for making positions closer. It
is hard to say whether we will succeed or not. I do not want and,
maybe, I cannot look far forward. However, in principle it is
undoubted that we have that desire. Now everything is so subtle that
I would not speak of a break,» Azeri FM said.

PanARMENIAN.Net
Armenian MFA Concerned over Nuclear Tests in North
Korea
14.10.2006 14:31 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian MFA has issued a
statement over the nuclear tests in North Korea. The
statement specifically says, «Abiding by the
principles of the Republic of Armenia on
non-proliferation, the MFA is expressing concern over
nuclear tests in North Korea, as it threatens the
security of this region, as well as undermines
international efforts on non-proliferation. The
Armenian MFA hopes that the North Korean authorities
will come to terms with the international community
and the problem will be solved via talks, thus
prevention further arms race.»

PanARMENIAN.Net
France: Vandals Profaned Armenian Genocide Monument
14.10.2006 15:02 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Two days after the vote of the
French Parliament adopting the text of the bill
penalizing the Armenian Genocide, the memorial set up
in the town of Chaville, close to Versailles, was
deteriorated in the night from the 13 to October 14.
In fact, two plates engraved in bronze, dedicated to
the victims of the Armenian Genocide were torn off
from the base, forming a case in the background of the
work of art. The police undertook an investigation
immediately, independent French journalists Jean
Ackian told PanARMENIAN.Net. The monument itself
consists of a tangle of the letters of the Armenian
alphabet, which form a cross in the center.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

October 14, 2006
REGNUM
Viktor Yakubyan: Tbilisi is preparing double strike against Moscow and
Yerevan
The Russian-Armenian inter-governmental commission on economic cooperation
met in Moscow a few days ago. The same day the press reported the sides to
have agreed on how to alleviate the impact Russia’s economic sanctions
against Georgia is having on Armenia. To remind, the sanctions were imposed
after the arrest and release of Russian officers in Georgia and,
particularly, concern the sphere of transport, particularly, motor and rail
transportation. This measure has put Armenia in as hard a situation as
Georgia.
“The transit of cargoes from Armenia via Georgia to Russia and vice versa
will not be stopped,” the Secretary of the National Security Council of
Armenia, Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan said after the Moscow meeting. His
colleague, the Russian co-chair of the commission, Russian Transport
Minister Igor Levitin appeared with quite a sensational statement. He said
that “the cargoes from Russia to Armenia and vice versa will be transported
via the port of Samsun (Turkey), from there to the port of Kavkaz (Russia)
and then to Poti (Georgia).” The ministers assured that two train ferries
will be launched between Kavkaz and Poti by the end of this year. Sargsyan
said that, presently, there is one train ferry between the ports that can
carry 20 cars.
All they said implies that the Kavkaz-Poti-Armenia route will not be used
hereinafter. Russia has stopped almost all cargo operations with Georgia and
is now forced to search for quite original ways to communicate with Armenia.
It should be noted that the direct transport communication between Armenia
and Turkey was stopped the moment Armenia proclaimed independence and will
hardly be resumed in the near future.
Thus, Russia is planning to send its cargoes from Kavkaz to Samsun and then
almost back to Batumi or Poti and only then to Armenia. Thus, Turkey is
becoming the second go-between (Georgia remains one in any case) in
Armenian-Russian commodity turnover.
We should take this project with certain skepticism as the point here is not
even in political or technical difficulty but in the lack of any sense and
logic. Such a long way round will be by far more expensive for Russian and
Armenian companies than the long-trodden Poti-Ilichevsk (Ukraine) route and
they will hardly give the latter up. Even without Samsum, Kavkaz-Poti is no
rival to the Ukrainian route due to its low capacity. Presently, its train
ferry can carry only 18 cars at one go.
However, the point is even not that the Russian and Armenian authorities
have “felt” some “original” way out the present situation. In fact, by
offering a Turkish transit route to Armenia, the Russian authorities make it
clear that their sanctions against Georgia will last for long. And it seems
that the other possible way-out for Armenia – via the Caspian Sea and Iran –
is not being considered.
In Moscow Armenian DM Serzh Sargsyan had a number of meetings, particularly,
with the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Russian sources
report that the sides discussed the aggravation of Georgian-Russian
relations and the ways for Armenia to come out of the present deadlock.
Naturally, under the current economic pressure, the Georgian authorities are
also considering certain scenarios. Some sources say that Georgia is
actively consulting with the US, Azerbaijan and Turkey about its further
actions. First of all, the Georgian leadership is getting ready for a rise
in the Russian gas price. The sources say that starting from Jan 1 2007 the
price will be raised to $250 per 1,000 c m. Georgia will respond in a
counter-ultimatum: the transit tariff of Russian gas to Armenia will be
raised from $30 to $75 per 1,000 c m (after the first rise of the gas tariff
for Georgia from $55 to $110, Tbilisi raised the transit tariff for Armenia
from $15 to $30). Certainly, Gazprom will reject Georgia’s proposal, but the
Georgian authorities will not be “surprised” and will start the practice of
illegal “siphoning” of the gas meant for Armenia.
Meanwhile, as early as Jan 20 Georgia is planning to get the first gas from
Azerbaijan via Baku-Erzurum pipeline. This will mark the beginning of the
plan, reportedly, approved by Washington: Turkey will give its share of the
Azeri gas to Georgia, and this will allow Tbilisi to say that it no longer
needs the Trans-Caucasian gas pipeline, which supplies gas from Russia to
Armenia via Georgia. This will put an end to Gazprom’s plans to privatize
the pipeline – the plans that the US strongly objects to.
Thus, the winter 2006 will mark the introduction of new game rules in the
South Caucasus. It will be a kind of test not only for Georgia, who has
become a target for Russia’s economic sanctions, but also for Armenia, who
has become an involuntary hostage to the Russian-Georgian contradictions.
Yerevan’s only hope is the Iran-Armenian gas pipeline, to be launched by the
end of this year.
Viktor Yakubyan, expert on South Caucasus

October 14, 2006
REGNUM » We are not afraid of war,.
We are not afraid of war, but we don’t want it: Interview with Armenian
Defense Minister
The Secretary of the presidential National Security Council, Defense
Minister of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has given an interview to REGNUM news
agency (Russia) and El Pais newspaper (Spain)
Mr. Minister, what do you think about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?
There is a view that Armenia is unwilling to cede Nagorno-Karabakh but is
unable to develop it. Is it true?
This may be just one of the numerous personal views that do not reflect the
real situation. What do they mean: Armenia is developing or not developing
Nagorno-Karabakh? Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state and its
economic growth is quite comparable with that of Armenia. In Armenia the
annual GDP growth is 12%. Of course, we seek even better results but, you
must agree that not all post-Soviet republics have such a rate.
Perhaps, those who express such a view think that Armenia should more
actively support Nagorno-Karabakh? I don’t dispute that. And
Nagorno-Karabakh residents, people who live in NKR, certainly, think
likewise. However, you should understand that the situation “neither peace
nor war” is not attractive for investors and businessmen. On the other hand,
Nagorno-Karabakh is steadily developing. The situation you could see some
few years ago is quite incomparable with what you can see now. The
difference is obvious.
You have qualified the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as “neither peace nor
war.” For how long can this situation last now that Azerbaijan is quite
actively strengthening its economy?
The Azeri economy is really developing, but in 2005 Armenia had bigger
economic growth. This year, due to growing oil revenues, Azerbaijan is
developing a bit more actively.
However, it would be wrong to say that the economic growth in Azerbaijan may
force the Armenian side to capitulate. On the contrary, it may urge us to
work better and to seek improvement not only in the economy but in other
sectors – to become a developed state with a modern, highly efficient army.
Only this will allow us to effectively oppose Azerbaijan in case of new war.
I would like to say that one can’t built an efficient army on money only.
Besides, Azerbaijan does not have an overwhelming economic advantage over
Armenia. It will take Azerbaijan several decades to attain the advantages it
had in the early 1990s. As you remember, even then, despite its big
advantages, the Azeri side lost the war. So, I would like to advise all
those relying on money to come to their senses and to consider the lessons
of the war Azerbaijan has once unsuccessfully unleashed against the
indigenous population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, can we say that today Nagorno-Karabakh is supported by Armenia’s
national budget?
To tell the truth, I can’t say exactly how much Armenia has subsidized to
Nagorno-Karabakh for 2007. At the same time, we should not forget that
Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent republic, who can freely dispose of its
incomes. I mean that NK’s budget consists not only of Armenia’s subsidies
but also of own incomes: tax revenues and other payments. The greater part
of the humanitarian assistance comes from the Diaspora – Armenians living
outside Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh lives the life all
democratically developing states normally live.
In one of you interviews you have said that Armenia has 45,000-strong army
and it is much for the country. How much does Armenia budget for its army?
In 2007 Armenia plans to spend 3.5% of its GDP on military needs – some
$270mln-280mln, depending on the rate of the national currency – AMD. This
may be much for Armenia, but, compared with some other countries, this is
not enough for building a modern efficient army. As they say, everything is
relative.
Do you think that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem can be resolved by peace?
Of course, it can. Perhaps, my comparison is a bit primitive but – any peace
agreement implies agreement of the sides. This is like marriage. There is no
marriage without mutual agreement. So, if we seek to solve the problem,
while Azerbaijan – not, we can’t help it. We believe that this problem must
be solved exclusively peacefully on the basis of compromise.
What kind of compromise will it be? Can you imagine the return of refugees
from Azerbaijan to Nagorno-Karabakh?
When we say peaceful resolution, we mean stable peace. Of course, at some
time in the future I see some possibility of the refugees’ return. After
all, we can’t isolate our countries from each other, we can’t build “a Great
Wall of China” and say that we will not contact with Azerbaijan any more,
can we? History has shown that we can’t. We have had conflicts and wars
before but we still continued our contacts: after some time, Armenians and
Azeris returned and began living together.
However, now that the problem is yet unresolved, now that people have not
yet healed the wounds they got during the war, the return of refugees is
impossible.
You know, the compromise is not about this. The people who left
Nagorno-Karabakh 14-15 years ago have long settled down in new environments
and are hardly prepared to leave everything they have there and to go back
to Nagorno-Karabakh. The compromise is about something quite different –
about Azerbaijan’s recognizing the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh people to
live independently, so they can feel themselves really secure and no longer
rely on the security zone. There are other important components, too. The
compromise must concern security – only then it will lead to stable peace.
Why does Armenia strongly object to the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict to the UN. Aren’t you interested in discussion?
Armenia objects to the transfer of the problem to any instance from the
format of its present discussion. What can this transfer give us, after all?
We have OSCE Minsk Group, whose members are all on the UN Security Council.
What will the transfer change? Do you really believe that people
representing, say, Somalia or some other far-away country are sufficiently
competent of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem to give us sensible advice? I
think that the whole point is that we should not prevent the work of the
OSCE MG who is expert in the matter.
Azerbaijan is trying to involve GUAM in the peace process. You in Yerevan
say that, by doing it, Azerbaijan is leading the negotiating process into a
deadlock. Do you think that under such conditions Nagorno-Karabakh may be
involved in the process and at what stage?
Nagorno-Karabakh’s involvement in the negotiating process will be beneficial
at any stage.
Then why isn’t it involved in the talks?
Azerbaijan does not want it to. They say that, if Nagorno-Karabakh is
involved in the talks, they will stop the negotiating process. We had to
choose: either to negotiate without NK or not to negotiate at all. Judge
yourselves what is better. You know, when there are no negotiations, the
situation is fraught with new war. I have repeatedly said that we are not
afraid of war, but we do not want it to resume. We do not fear this war, but
we realize what catastrophic consequences it may have for both nations.
Is war possible in the coming five years?
I have always said and am saying now that Defense Minister, especially the
Defense Minister of Armenia, must be always ready for war and must show high
responsibility for his country’s security. On the other hand, I believe that
there will be no war in the near future. First, I am deeply convinced that
today the Azeri army is not capable of waging a large-scale war. Second, the
world community will strictly react to such actions as, in fact, a new war
in Nagorno-Karabakh will spur up new wars in very many other places. We must
know it and must think about security.
What exactly has the OSCE MG achieved, so far? Does it have any
achievements?
Of course, it has. For 12 years already there has been truce in the region –
there is no war. And this is the most important thing. What the
international community wants is to prevent the resumption of the conflict,
to prevent people from killing each other. And we have it. Second, once we
were very close to solution. This problem is so difficult that one shouldn’t
expect a magician to come, wave his magic wand and solve it. One should work
hard to solve it. The people involved in the peace process should be well
informed of the situation.
Could you specify when exactly the sides were close to solution?
I think we were close to solution in Bucharest, in Paris, then, there was
Key-West. One can’t say that today Armenia or Azerbaijan reject the MG’s
proposals pointblank. On the other, show me any single person who really
believes that the problem will be solved the moment it is put on the UN
agenda. If there are such people, let’s listen to them.
You mean if there is no war, it is already good?
Of course, it is.
The Turkish and Azeri sections of Armenia’s state border are blocked. It is
clear that Azerbaijan will not open the border until the Nagorno-Karabakh is
resolved. And what about Turkey? Has Armenia negotiated this problem with
the Turkish side?
We have repeatedly and firmly said that we are ready to establish diplomatic
relations with Turkey with no preliminary conditions. I think that
diplomatic relations are established exactly like that. However, the Turks
are setting some conditions, avoiding dialogue – what can we do?
Unfortunately, the initial talks have been stopped, and we still have no
diplomatic relations.
Do you have any contacts now?
No, we have no serious official contacts. In the last three-four years there
have been several contacts between our foreign ministries but these were
once-time actions that can hardly be qualified as state relations.
Why is Ankara so persistently refusing to establish relations?
You know, it is a thankless thing to comment on the questions that are
beyond my competence. Obviously, they in Turkey will give you a clearer
answer, though, speaking personally, I have not heard anything specific from
them, so far.
I think that we must express our position and the Turks theirs and the
international community should judge who is right and who is wrong. The
international community should decide who complies with the principles of
the European community and who does not. I would like to say once again –
our position is very clear: Armenia is ready to establish relations with
Turkey with no preliminary conditions. Even more, we believe that the talks
for Turkey’s admission into the EU may be useful for Armenia. You know, we
want to have predictable neighbors.
Today the situation over Iran is quite controversial. What consequences may
its aggravation have for Armenia?
Naturally, this will have negative consequences for Armenia. I don’t even
want to think about it as the situation will be really hard. First, Iran
borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Second, for Armenia, Iran is
an outlet into the outer world. So, any instability there is quite
undesirable for Armenia.
Armenia has good relations with Iran. How can you explain this – what is the
formula of these relations? Are the tensions over Iran having any direct or
indirect influence on the atmosphere of Armenian-Iranian relations?
There is no such influence. Concerning our relations, I have already said
that Iran immediately borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.
Besides, Iran is Armenia’s key economic partner. It is rich in energy
resources and it is extremely important for Armenia to effectively plan its
energy security.
On the other hand, Armenia is signatory to the agreement on nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and strictly complies with all of its
requirements. That’s why our priority in relations with Iran is economic
cooperation, while, in security, we just exchange views and regular visits.
We always remember that, though being an Islamic country and an OIC member,
Iran shows restrained position on our conflict. Few countries in the OIC
show similar stance.
Could it be otherwise?
Of course, it could. We should be realistic.
Will the blockade of Iran exacerbate the blockade of Armenia?
Of course, it will. If this happens, we will have only the Georgian road
left.
And what if the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia worsens.
It will be very bad, too. Any instability in Georgia is a threat for
stability in Armenia. Our main road runs via Georgia. As a matter of
principle, landlocked countries often get in such situations.
Will Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO have any impact on Armenian-Georgian
relations or, particularly, on the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement?
I don’t think that Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO will have any impact on
the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Besides, I don’t think that we should tell Georgia which security system to
join or how to ensure its national interests. I hope that, whatever security
system Georgia joins, it will preserve friendly relations with Armenia. I
think we are very close neighbors. Besides, Georgia is home to quite many
Armenians who are citizens of that country.
Do you have similar arguments for Azerbaijan’s joining NATO?
I would like to say once again – Armenia welcomes the predictability of the
policies and values of its neighbors. I see nothing bad in our neighbors’
aspiration to join an organization propagating human values. The richer our
strategy the better.
Do you recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia?
We have long recognized Georgia as a state, exchanged instruments,
demarcated borders.
I mean in the light of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is Georgia’s business.
Do you mean it is Georgia’s internal affair?
We do not permit ourselves to give any assessments of the matter. We are not
involved in those processes, and I see no sense in talking about them.
Does Armenia expect any advantages from its participation in the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?
This organization is exactly for giving its members advantages. This is a
collective security treaty, which means that its signatories should
collectively oppose the challenges each of them may face. On the other hand,
the signatory states are not yet fully prepared for sending their troops to
each others’ territories should any of them suffer from aggression or face a
challenge.
If Azerbaijan attacks Armenia, will you ask the CSTO for help? Will they
help?
I think you better ask this question to the heads of the CSTO states – they
may give you an exhaustive answer. I can’t answer in their stead. In any
case, one can hope that if he is a member of some organization, he has the
right to rely on its partners. In the modern world, one can’t build its
security on one’s own. Even a strong country like the US does not act alone
and leans on its partners. We all know that.
That’s why one can’t ensure one’s security without integration and
collective efforts. Do you really think that 45,000 soldiers can ensure
Armenia’s security. Of course, they can’t. By the way, we will shortly
complete a strategy of national security. An inter-department commission has
been working on it for already a year. Its basic principles have been
approved by leading professional world centers, particularly, by the
Academic Committee of the US National Defense University and was considered
by a NATO international expert commission. Shortly, we will send the
document to Moscow for the consideration of an expert group of the Russian
State Administration Academy. Armenia’s National Security Strategy clearly
says that international integration is a guarantee of Armenia’s security.
Do you mean integration on the Caucasian level?
I mean both regional and global integration, cooperation in the widest
possible context.
Is it possible for Armenia to integrate with Azerbaijan and Georgia on the
Caucasian level?
Why not. Integration with Azerbaijan will be possible only after the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Until our soldiers are
confronting each other in trenches, we can hardly speak about any serious
integration. On the other hand, we can see some signs of integration within
international organizations. For example, joint participation in BSEC and
the CIS. With Azerbaijan and Georgia we are also integrating in the
framework of NATO, particularly, under the IPAP. All the three countries are
involved in some groups and indirectly cooperate within peacekeeping
actions. However, full integration will be possible only after the
resolution of the conflict, when we will stop regarding each other as
enemies. As regards Georgia, we already cooperate on very many issues.
Being CSTO member, Armenia actively cooperates with NATO. Experts see some
contradiction in it. What is your position on the matter?
You know, if I thought that these two directions contradict each other, I
would not be hear. I take part in this process and consider that it is very
important.
Judge yourselves, why can Finland be outside NATO but, at the same time, be
EU member and have normal relations with Russia? By the way, members of the
PACE monitoring commission visited us yesterday and one of them was from
Finland. One more example is Austria. Of course, I don’t say that in
development and expenses Armenia is on the same level with developed
European countries, but we will reach their level some day.
Under the NATO IPAP we plan to raise our armed forces to the world standards
by 2015. Why should we think that we can’t do it. If we go back to the
1990 – then people could not even imagine that Armenia might some day have
an army it has today. We are receiving very favorable reports about our
forces in the Balkans and Iraq. We have to bring our whole army to this
level.

Armenia memorial stolen in France
A bronze statue commemorating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Armenians in Turkey has been stolen from the Paris suburb of Chaville.
Police say the monument may have been taken to be sold as scrap metal.
But some are connecting the theft to last Thursday’s vote by the French
parliament making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered “genocide”.
Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915-
a claim strongly denied by Turkey.
The 300kg (660lb) sculpture was cut off its pedestal in the suburb of
Chaville 13km (8 miles) from Paris some time between Friday night and Saturday
morning, local officials said.
But the site in front of Chaville’s train station had otherwise not been
vandalised and there was no graffiti.
One motive may have been money with the monument, which was erected in 2002,
being taken to be melted down and sold on as scrap.
But Stephane Topalian, a member of the Armenian church council in Chaville,
said that was unlikely.
“Police say it might have been stolen for the metal, but it seems too much of
a coincidence that this should have happened just after parliament voted the
Armenia bill,” he told Reuters news agency.
Turkey condemned the French vote which would make it a crime to deny that
Armenians suffered “genocide” at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Ankara, which said the move was a serious blow to relations, threatened
sanctions. The vote was also criticised by the EU.
The bill still needs to be approved by the Senate and the president to become
law.
France has a large Armenian community, with up to 500,000 people of Armenian
descent.
There are more than 30 memorials to Armenian victims across France.
Story from BBC NEWS:
/6051242.stm
Published: 2006/10/14 15:08:42 GMT
© BBC MMVI

The Independent (London)
October 14, 2006 Saturday
First Edition
Let me denounce genocide from the dock
ROBERT FISK
This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I’m talking about
those who wilfully lie about the 1915 genocide of 1.5 million
Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turks. On Thursday, France’s lower
house of parliament approved a Bill making it a crime to deny that
Armenians suffered genocide. And, within an hour, Turkey’s most
celebrated writer, Orhan Pamuk – only recently cleared by a Turkish
court for insulting “Turkishness” (sic) by telling a Swiss newspaper
that nobody in Turkey dared mention the Armenian massacres – won the
Nobel Prize for Literature. In the mass graves below the deserts of
Syria and beneath the soil of southern Turkey, a few souls may have
been comforted.
While Turkey continues to blather on about its innocence – the
systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of male Armenians and of
their gang-raped women is supposed to be the sad result of “civil
war” – Armenian historians such as Vahakn Dadrian continue to unearth
new evidence of the premeditated Holocaust (and, yes, it will deserve
its capital H since it was the direct precursor of the Jewish
Holocaust, some of whose Nazi architects were in Turkey in 1915) with
all the energy of a gravedigger.
Armenian victims were killed with daggers, swords, hammers and axes
to save ammunition. Massive drowning operations were carried out in
the Black Sea and the Euphrates rivers – mostly of women and
children, so many that the Euphrates became clogged with corpses and
changed its course for up to half a mile. But Dadrian, who speaks and
reads Turkish fluently, has now discovered that tens of thousands of
Armenians were also burned alive in haylofts.
He has produced an affidavit to the Turkish court martial that
briefly pursued the Turkish mass murderers after the First World War,
a document written by General Mehmet Vehip Pasha, commander of the
Turkish Third Army. He testified that, when he visited the Armenian
village of Chourig (it means “little water” in Armenian), he found
all the houses packed with burned human skeletons, so tightly packed
that all were standing upright. “In all the history of Islam,”
General Vehip wrote, “it is not possible to find any parallel to such
savagery.”
The Armenian Holocaust, now so “unmentionable” in Turkey, was no
secret to the country’s population in 1918. Millions of Muslim Turks
had witnessed the mass deportation of Armenians three years earlier –
a few, with infinite courage, protected Armenian neighbours and
friends at the risk of the lives of their own Muslim families – and,
on 19 October 1918, Ahmed Riza, the elected president of the Turkish
senate and a former supporter of the Young Turk leaders who committed
the genocide, stated in his inaugural speech: “Let’s face it, we
Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians.”
Dadrian has detailed how two parallel sets of orders were issued,
Nazi-style, by Turkish interior minister Talat Pasha. One set
solicitously ordered the provision of bread, olives and protection
for Armenian deportees but a parallel set instructed Turkish
officials to “proceed with your mission” as soon as the deportee
convoys were far enough away from population centres for there to be
few witnesses to murder. As Turkish senator Reshid Akif Pasha
testified on 19 November 1918: “The ‘mission’ in the circular was: to
attack the convoys and massacre the population??? I am ashamed as a
Muslim, I am ashamed as an Ottoman statesman. What a stain on the
reputation of the Ottoman Empire, these criminal people???”
How extraordinary that Turkish dignitaries could speak such truths in
1918, could fully admit in their own parliament to the genocide of
the Armenians and could read editorials in Turkish newspapers of the
great crimes committed against this Christian people. Yet how much
more extraordinary that their successors today maintain that all of
this is a myth, that anyone who says in presentday Istanbul what the
men of 1918 admitted can find themselves facing prosecution under the
notorious Law 301 for “defaming” Turkey.
I’m not sure that Holocaust deniers – of the anti-Armenian or
anti-Semitic variety – should be taken to court for their rantings.
David Irving is a particularly unpleasant “martyr” for freedom of
speech and I am not at all certain that Bernard Lewis’s one-franc
fine by a French court for denying the Armenian genocide in a
November 1993 Le Monde article did anything more than give publicity
to an elderly historian whose work deteriorates with the years.
But it’s gratifying to find French President Jacques Chirac and his
interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy have both announced that Turkey
will have to recognise the Armenian death as genocide before it is
allowed to join the European Union. True, France has a powerful
half-million-strong Armenian community.
But, typically, no such courage has been demonstrated by Lord Blair
of Kut al-Amara, nor by the EU itself, which gutlessly and childishly
commented that the new French Bill, if passed by the senate in Paris,
will “prohibit dialogue” which is necessary for reconciliation
between Turkey and modern-day Armenia. What is the subtext of this, I
wonder. No more talk of the Jewish Holocaust lest we hinder
“reconciliation” between Germany and the Jews of Europe?
But, suddenly, last week, those Armenian mass graves opened up before
my own eyes. Next month, my Turkish publishers are producing my book,
The Great War for Civilisation, in the Turkish language, complete
with its long chapter on the Armenian genocide entitled “The First
Holocaust”. On Thursday, I received a fax from Agora Books in
Istanbul. Their lawyers, it said, believed it “very likely that they
will be sued under Law 301” – which forbids the defaming of Turkey
and which right-wing lawyers tried to use against Pamuk – but that,
as a foreigner, I would be “out of reach”. However, if I wished, I
could apply to the court to be included in any Turkish trial.
Personally, I doubt if the Holocaust deniers of Turkey will dare to
touch us. But, if they try, it will be an honour to stand in the dock
with my Turkish publishers, to denounce a genocide which even Mustafa
Kamel Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state, condemned.