ITALIAN MARINES LAND IN SOUTHERN LEBANON
By John Kifner The New York Times
International Herald Tribune, France
Sept 4 2006
BEIRUT Hundreds of Italian marines and their armored vehicles landed
in southern Lebanon on Sunday, the first large foreign contingent
of what is to become a reinforced United Nations buffer force on the
border with Israel.
A spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force said that about 1,000
Italian troops were expected to be ashore by nightfall, including
a small vanguard that arrived in choppy seas on rubber dinghies and
helicopters Saturday.
With the 250-man French contingent that arrived last week – mainly
engineering troops who set to work repairing bombed-out bridges
and roads – and the 2,000 troops already in place from the previous
peacekeeping contingent, the Italians raise the number of troops on
the ground to roughly 3,250 out of a projected goal of 15,000.
The international force, officially known as the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, is supposed to help the similar-sized
deployment of the Lebanese Army as the only legitimate armed group in
the area, securing an uneasy cease-fire after a monthlong war between
Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
But under a kind of “don’t flaunt, don’t search” arrangement between
Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the army does not intend to
attempt to disarm Hezbollah.
Neither will the UN forces, officials have said, although they will
have a somewhat tougher mandate – enabling them to use force if
threatened – than the generally ineffective previous Unifil force,
in place since a previous Israeli invasion in 1978.
On armored personnel carriers newly painted with white UN initials,
Italian soldiers wearing blue berets drove through wrecked villages
bedecked with yellow Hezbollah flags, prompting locals to wave and
make victory signs.
Eventually, Italy intends to deploy 2,450 ground troops – the largest
single contingent – in four phases spread over two months and assume
command early next year.
The current French commander of Unifil, Major General Alain Pellegrini,
told reporters in Tyre that the new version of Unifil “is strengthened
with stronger rules of engagement.”
“We have more people, more equipment, and we will have more possibility
to use force to implement our mission,” he said.
But the efforts to fill out the full 15,000-troop deployment is still
hampered by the reluctance of many countries to join in what could
be a dangerous mission.
Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, announced that it
would send 1,000 troops after Israel withdrew objections to its
participation. Turkey is also weighing participation, although
Lebanon’s tiny Armenian minority has issued objections because of
massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1915.
Israel has announced that its troops, still on the fringes of
Lebanese territory, had located and blown up several Hezbollah weapons
caches. The United Nations has said that the Israeli forces should
fully withdraw over the border as soon as the international force
reaches 5,000 troops.
“The cease-fire is holding for the moment,” Pellegrini said. “But
it’s fragile. Any incident can escalate.”
Berlin delays deployment
Germany put on hold its planned naval deployment for the UN
peacekeeping mission in Lebanon on Sunday, saying it had yet to
receive a formal request from Beirut to take part, Reuters reported
from Berlin.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the cabinet could not give approval for
the deployment on Monday, as had been expected, since it had not yet
received the request from Lebanon.
She said Germany remained willing to take part in the UN operation,
but wanted its role to be clear.
Germany has said it was prepared to patrol the Lebanese coast to
prevent weapons being delivered to Hezbollah guerrillas, but ruled
out sending ground troops.
“There is still discussion in Lebanon and between Lebanon and the UN
on the request for naval security,” Merkel said on ZDF television.
“We can only decide when we have such a request at the UN and the UN
then asks us,” she said. “And so, out of responsibility toward our
servicemen, we have said we cannot take a cabinet decision tomorrow.”
In addition to supplying naval ships to patrol the coast, Germany
has said it was considering providing support for the Lebanese police
and border guards.
“The German offer remains, but prudence must come before speed here,
and therefore we will consult further with the UN on how a deployment
can be achieved, but only when the conditions are really fulfilled.”
Earlier Sunday, a government spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, said Germany
would deploy troops only under “orderly conditions and with Lebanon’s
clear readiness.”
BEIRUT Hundreds of Italian marines and their armored vehicles landed
in southern Lebanon on Sunday, the first large foreign contingent
of what is to become a reinforced United Nations buffer force on the
border with Israel.
A spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force said that about 1,000
Italian troops were expected to be ashore by nightfall, including
a small vanguard that arrived in choppy seas on rubber dinghies and
helicopters Saturday.
With the 250-man French contingent that arrived last week – mainly
engineering troops who set to work repairing bombed-out bridges
and roads – and the 2,000 troops already in place from the previous
peacekeeping contingent, the Italians raise the number of troops on
the ground to roughly 3,250 out of a projected goal of 15,000.
The international force, officially known as the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, is supposed to help the similar-sized
deployment of the Lebanese Army as the only legitimate armed group in
the area, securing an uneasy cease-fire after a monthlong war between
Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
But under a kind of “don’t flaunt, don’t search” arrangement between
Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the army does not intend to
attempt to disarm Hezbollah.
Neither will the UN forces, officials have said, although they will
have a somewhat tougher mandate – enabling them to use force if
threatened – than the generally ineffective previous Unifil force,
in place since a previous Israeli invasion in 1978.
On armored personnel carriers newly painted with white UN initials,
Italian soldiers wearing blue berets drove through wrecked villages
bedecked with yellow Hezbollah flags, prompting locals to wave and
make victory signs.
Eventually, Italy intends to deploy 2,450 ground troops – the largest
single contingent – in four phases spread over two months and assume
command early next year.
The current French commander of Unifil, Major General Alain Pellegrini,
told reporters in Tyre that the new version of Unifil “is strengthened
with stronger rules of engagement.”
“We have more people, more equipment, and we will have more possibility
to use force to implement our mission,” he said.
But the efforts to fill out the full 15,000-troop deployment is still
hampered by the reluctance of many countries to join in what could
be a dangerous mission.
Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, announced that it
would send 1,000 troops after Israel withdrew objections to its
participation. Turkey is also weighing participation, although
Lebanon’s tiny Armenian minority has issued objections because of
massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1915.
Israel has announced that its troops, still on the fringes of
Lebanese territory, had located and blown up several Hezbollah weapons
caches. The United Nations has said that the Israeli forces should
fully withdraw over the border as soon as the international force
reaches 5,000 troops.
“The cease-fire is holding for the moment,” Pellegrini said. “But
it’s fragile. Any incident can escalate.”
Berlin delays deployment
Germany put on hold its planned naval deployment for the UN
peacekeeping mission in Lebanon on Sunday, saying it had yet to
receive a formal request from Beirut to take part, Reuters reported
from Berlin.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the cabinet could not give approval for
the deployment on Monday, as had been expected, since it had not yet
received the request from Lebanon.
She said Germany remained willing to take part in the UN operation,
but wanted its role to be clear.
Germany has said it was prepared to patrol the Lebanese coast to
prevent weapons being delivered to Hezbollah guerrillas, but ruled
out sending ground troops.
“There is still discussion in Lebanon and between Lebanon and the UN
on the request for naval security,” Merkel said on ZDF television.
“We can only decide when we have such a request at the UN and the UN
then asks us,” she said. “And so, out of responsibility toward our
servicemen, we have said we cannot take a cabinet decision tomorrow.”
In addition to supplying naval ships to patrol the coast, Germany
has said it was considering providing support for the Lebanese police
and border guards.
“The German offer remains, but prudence must come before speed here,
and therefore we will consult further with the UN on how a deployment
can be achieved, but only when the conditions are really fulfilled.”
Earlier Sunday, a government spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, said Germany
would deploy troops only under “orderly conditions and with Lebanon’s
clear readiness.”

DAMNED IF THEY SAY NO, DAMNED IF THEY SAY YES!
by Huseyin Bagci
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Sept 4 2006
Opinions
Huseyin Bagci takes a look at Turkish history and finds the roots
of the Turkish dilemma over sending troops to Lebanon: New players
are introducing themselves to the Mideast should Turkey stay out,
he explores
There is reasonable certainty that the government motion on sending
Turkish troops to Lebanon will be approved by Parliament tomorrow.
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s principal differences with the
government on the issue still remain, but the government now is
stronger in its position through many intellectuals’ direct support
from across the political spectrum.
Yet, there are still many opposed to sending troops to Lebanon under
UN mandate, but in all the debates last week one could see that
the government decision is now more and more widely accepted among
the public.
In his Address to the Nation, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
was not at all convincing.
His rhetoric was a bit aggressive against those who oppose the
government’s decision. However, the main idea that Turkey should be
present in the Middle East was the key message, and it reached its
goal. Opposition parties are against sending troops to Lebanon, but
their arguments do not convince the public. There’s an impression
now that actually they would act in the same way if they were in
the government.
Their criticism mainly aims to weaken the Justice and Development
(AK) Party government because they can’t criticize the government’s
economic policies. Indeed, the AKP government will get more points by
this decision in the long run and many wise men in Turkish politics
support the government now, in stark contrast to the situation before
the March 1, 2003 motion.
Erdogan knows that he can control his party and that sending troops
to Lebanon is not only the decision expected by the world but also
an imperative of his proactive Middle East policy from his four
years in power. One should neither exaggerate nor make too much of
this decision.
But more importantly, Erdogan knows exactly what he wants and no doubt
he shows an example of leadership par excellence for Turkish history.
Why is this so?
First, Turkey is a part of the region’s history by nature. Turkey
could only stay ignorant or indifferent to the region in the first two
decades of the republic during the interwar period (1923-45). Both
Kemal Ataturk and Ismet Inonu, first and second presidents of the
young republic, could stay away because they were the founders of
modern Turkey and were acutely aware that the European states like
France and Great Britain, in the form of colonization, dominated
the region. However, parliamentary records show the secret debates
of Parliament in the ’30s and how the Republican People’s Party
(CHP, the only party established and allowed by Ataturk) was more
enthusiastic to “get back” all the lost territories of the Ottoman
Empire. There were neo-Ottomans in the early years of the republic.
After World War II, Turkey was one of the founding members of the
UN. Turkey was the only Muslim country to recognize Israel in 1949
when Inonu was president. Throughout the ’50s Turkey wanted to play
a big brother role in the Middle East within the Cold War conditions:
it took the side of the Western bloc and even sent some 29,000 troops
to the Korean War in order to help the UN operation. Turks have always
supported UN resolutions, and up to today Turkey has lost over 700
soldiers in fighting in UN-led operations. Even today the Korean
syndrome is still there, but the result was that Turkey joined NATO
and the South Koreans still remember what the Turks contributed to
their freedom from communist North Korea.
The establishment of the Baghdad Pact in 1955 was the real involvement
of Turkey in the Middle East. Lebanon was the first country visited by
Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. Arab nationalism, which was supported
by the Soviet Union at that time, was the biggest problem for Turkey.
Turkey’s Middle East policy gained further momentum in the ’60s and
’70s when it started to participate in meetings of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference (OIC). The Cold War forced Turkey again to join
the side of the U.S., and the Lebanese civil war in the ’70s, which
was not only destructive for the Lebanese but also the Israeli-Arab
conflict, was also another dimension. Just a few years after the
beginning of the Lebanese civil war, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat
signed the peace treaty with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin
in 1978 in Camp David with U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Sadat paid
for his political act with his life when he was assassinated in 1981.
Turkey also supported the Palestinians very strongly, and since
1979 there has been a PLO representative, presently at the rank of
ambassador, in Turkey.
It was actually Turgut Ozal who started Turkey’s involvement in the
Middle East through an economic dimension. In the ’80s and ’90s Turkey
discovered the Middle East as an economic area, and Turks met, for
the first time, with many Arabs as tourists in Turkey in the mid-’80s.
Turkey’s closeness to the Middle East also turned into a political
problem when the Kurdish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorism
emerged. The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon and the PKK camps in Syria created
a very negative image of Arab countries. However, today Syria is one
of Turkey’s best friends beside Iran and some other Arab countries.
Lebanon was also considered a source of evil by many Turks because
Turkish leftist terrorists were educated in Lebanon when Turkey
had almost a civil war situation in the ’70s. Later on, PKK founder
Ocalan was also living there and many Turkish leftist journalists
and politicians visited him there. The Lebanese image is also very
bad because the Lebanese Parliament recognizes the so-called Armenian
genocide, although in Lebanon the majority is Muslim.
But now the AKP government has continued this active involvement in
the Middle East, and Lebanon is also important as a key economic
country. It is a political reality that Israel destroyed a great
part of the country and UN troops have to be deployed there. Turkey,
for its part, cannot remain an outside player. There is also the new
fact that the European Union is getting heavily involved there. Thus,
our involvement will have impact on Turkish-EU relations. In the case
of the Middle East, the EU will replace the classical actors of the
Cold War, the U.S. and Russia, and the “political vacuum” will be
filled by the EU. Is this good for Turkey? The answer is yes. The
fact is that since the ’50s there are new players, but Turkey is
always present in political calculations.
Erdogan is just continuing the traditional Turkish presence in the
Middle East under the UN mandate.
The visit of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan this week is the
confirmation of Turkey’s presence in the Middle East. The debate over
whether there will be a permanent peace is an open one. But if Turkey
doesn’t follow this UN call, then this might have negative consequences
for the country. After weighing all the worst-case scenarios, in the
end Turkey should make a choice whether it is indeed part of this
political, cultural and religious world there or not. The future
of the Middle East may be not so shiny but without Turkey it would
more problematic.
Turkey as a founding nation of the UN is also obliged to rehabilitate
the reputation of the organization. If you’re not at the table,
than you have nothing to say in the post-conflict formula. Turkey
should stay at the table of the Middle East despite many risks. Prime
Minister Adnan Menderes formulated this in the early ’50s when he
made the decision to send troops to Korea. It’s a similar situation
to the one that confronts Erdogan. But it’s also a domestic political
decision for his party whether he is indeed a leader or not. The
members of the AKP have to prove tomorrow whether they will stay
with their leader or not. Any failure would have consequences both
for the party and the country.
A difficult choice for all. Damned if they decide to, and damned if
they decide not to!
This is the dilemma of the government and Parliament.

BACK CORRIDORS: ROUND 2 FOR THE MARCH 2003 MOTION
by Ayla Ganioglu
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Sept 4 2006
Opinions
Lebanon troop deployment motion, set to start tomorrow at 3:00 p.m.,
will be round two for the March 1, 2003 motion on sending troops
to Iraq.
The Bush administration, which got a negative response to the 2003
motion, must be expecting a positive response this time around.
Before it came to power, the ruling Justice and Development (AK)
Party promised the U.S., behind closed doors, to support its Iraq
operation. But this promise turned out to be empty, as around 100
deputies from the AK Party voted against the motion that would have
allowed the U.S. to open a front on Turkish soil for its Iraq invasion.
The rejection of the motion strained Turkish-U.S. relations.
The motion regarding Turkey’s contribution to the international
peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon, following Israeli attacks
in July and last month’s cease-fire, will be voted on tomorrow. This
vote will be a critical turning point for Turkish-U.S. relations.
This vote, in fact, seems to be significant for relations between
the AK Party and Bush administration, rather than for U.S.-Turkish
relations. Speculations in the backrooms indicate that if Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants a successful visit to the U.S. in
October, the motion should be passed. The speculations also indicate
that Erdogan’s eagerness to send Turkish troops to Lebanon since
the very beginning of the debates is an attempt to mend the damaged
relations with the U.S. following the 2003 resolution.
While these debates are going on behind closed doors, Democratic Left
Party (DSP) leader Zeki Sezer was the first figure to speak openly
on the issue. “The AK Party took power having promised to serve the
interests of global forces,” said Sezer. “It considers the support
of these forces essential for its staying in power. In this regard,
the AK Party wants to send troops to Lebanon to get foreign support
so it can stay in power.”
The second round of the March 2003 motion will take place tomorrow. If
the motion on Lebanon is passed, Turkey will open its bases and ports
to foreign armed forces, although it didn’t do that three years
ago. The most important part of the motion seems to be this. Will
the AK Party government be able to block the use of these bases and
ports for other countries (maybe Iran and Syria) as well in the future?
Armenians’ approach
Before the arrival of Turkish troops, AK Party Sakarya Deputy Suleyman
Gunduz traveled to Lebanon. Going there as a member of the “Ground
Doctors group” following the declaration of the cease-fire, Gunduz
tried to assess its problems regarding health and made promises to send
medicine and other medical supplies. Following his arrival in Turkey,
Gunduz started to meet with the Health Ministry and civil groups,
trying to obtain these supplies.
Gunduz said that around 1 million internally displaced people are in
public buildings and face grave health problems. He also said that
epidemics may break out in the country and there are very serious
problems in importing medicines and medical supplies. Gunduz pointed
to the problems in finding a number of medicines and particularly
antibiotics.
In northern Beirut, Gunduz came across Turkish-speaking
Armenians. After having a close dialogue with these Armenians, most
of whom migrated there from Turkey, Gunduz argued that the Armenians
won’t oppose Turkish troops’ taking part in the international
peacekeeping force.
“The area that I stayed in was predominantly populated by Armenians,”
said Gunduz. “None of them objected to us. Around 90 percent of the
Armenians that I spoke to were immigrants from Turkey. The area is
also one where the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA – an Armenian terrorist group that killed a number of Turkish
diplomats) originated from.
While I was there, the issue of Turkey’s sending troops to Lebanon
wasn’t certain yet. But I think the Armenians there won’t oppose the
Turkish troops.”
News agencies reported last week that a group of Armenians demonstrated
against Turkish troops in Beirut, though not very many.
However, Gunduz is making plans to improve the dialogue he established
with Lebanese Armenians in the coming years. Arguing that there are
thousands of people in Turkey who came from Armenia to work, Gunduz
said that he will make a project regarding diaspora Armenians if he is
able to stay in politics following the next elections. “I will propose
developing friendship between Turkey and diaspora Armenians and not
passing on a historical mistake to the generations to come,” said
Gunduz. “I will also suggest that the problem be resolved within the
citizenship framework.” Under Gunduz’s proposal, diaspora Armenians
who have migrated from Turkey will be given the chance to become
Turkish citizens.
Turkish friend of PKK envoy
One of the figures who views with suspicion the new model of fighting
terrorism through the U.S and Turkey’s appointing Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK) envoys is CHP deputy head and former diplomat Onur Oymen.
Oymen argues that the aim of appointing envoys is a political
solution. “The U.S. doesn’t want the elimination of PKK through the
full use of force,” said Oymen. “It isn’t moving militarily against the
PKK and doesn’t want Turkey to do that. If there had been a military
fight, a liaison officer would be appointed. But an envoy seeks a
political solution. It doesn’t matter is the envoy is a military
man. If the military man appointed is retired, his task is political.”
Former Gen. Joseph Ralston, the U.S.-appointed PKK envoy, is a figure
Oymen knows very well.
“Ralston is my friend,” Oymen said. “While I was serving as the
permanent representative to NATO (1997-2002), he was the Supreme
Allied commander Europe. He’s a very good soldier. He used to say that
he has warm feeling for Turkey. But this is one thing, and being an
envoy is another.”
Oymen argued that it’s not important that the U.S. administration
announced Ralston won’t meet with the terrorist group. He said that in
diplomacy this is called indirect or proxy negotiation. According to
Oymen, the process will unfold as follows: “Ralston won’t travel
to Mt. Kandil in northern Iraq to meet with PKK leader Murat
Karayilan. Ralston will meet with the Iraqi government. The Iraqi
government will talk to [Kurdish region leader Massoud] Barzani,
and Barzani will communicate the demands to the PKK. This is called
proxy negotiation. The PKK will be told to lay down its arms and
a threatening message will be sent. The PKK, meanwhile, will draw
up a list of demands, including a general amnesty and political
participation. The U.S. will put pressure on Turkey to accept the
PKK’s demands.”
Oymen argued that if Turkey resists the PKK demands, the U.S. will
say in the end that they did their best but Turkey didn’t help at all.
“So the U.S. will protect itself from blame,” Oymen said.
As for the other option, the deputy said, “If Turkey accepts these
demands, we can’t know what the consequences will be.”
As an example of the model of political efforts against terrorism,
Oymen referred to the U.S.
appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as an envoy for the
negotiations between the IRA and the British government.
Oymen pointed to how the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK) claimed
responsibility for the latest terrorist attacks in southern Turkish
tourist resorts, arguing that reaching an agreement with the PKK
won’t end terrorism.
“They will say that a splinter group established the TAK, ending the
PKK’s responsibility for terrorist attacks,” Oymen argued. “On the
one hand, Turkey will make concessions to the PKK to end terrorism,
and on the other, terrorism will continue under different names.”
Key words
In an interview with daily Sabah, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
was very angered by a question on an alleged secret plan for the
elimination of PKK forces, and said that asking such a question
amounted to treason.
Erdogan’s attitude indicated that the government will stay silent about
the model-in-preparation of fighting terrorism through envoys. But
some key words will signal the stage that the new model is here. The
most important key word, in this regard, is cease-fire.
If the terrorist PKK declares a cease-fire, this will mean that the
first stage in the talks through envoys was successfully completed. The
PKK cease-fire will likely be for a limited time, with set dates.
If the terrorist group declares a cease-fire for an indefinite period,
that means the process is about to be concluded. We should assume
that the AK Party won’t remain silent anymore in this case.
If the government passes a secret or open amnesty law in the coming
months, that means the talks are at a critical stage, which can be
considered the most difficult stage for the government.
The amnesty model suggested back in 1993 by then President Turgut
Ozal to Ahmet Turk, now Democratic Society Party (DTP) head, was very
comprehensive. According to Turk, Ozal suggested that the terrorist
group members submit a petition including the crimes they committed
in a sealed envelope and these petitions would be destroyed if they
didn’t commit any more crimes in the next five years.
Right now the AK Party government sees an amnesty as impossible. Under
the “secret plan” Sabah published, the AK Party doesn’t consider an
amnesty possible for the time being but will allow the administrative
ranks of the terrorist group to silently return to Turkey. These
administrators will then go to northern countries.
We’ll see whether the key words will work this time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ORPHAN; TEEN PENS; HER LIFE’S JOURNEY
by Katrina Jones
The Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia)
September 2, 2006 Saturday
Main Edition
Words Of Inspiration
MARSHA Nicole Woods has lived a life worth writing about.
At just 17, the high school student decided to do just that, publishing
a book entitled A Hope and a Future.
Nicki’s story begins in Russia when she was left at an Armenian
orphanage as a baby.
After her third birthday, she was adopted by American missionaries
and moved to Japan.
Nicki was immersed in Japanese for six years, and also studied English.
With her parents, she moved to missions in Ethiopia and Hong Kong
before arriving in Sydney on her 10th birthday.
In January last year, Nicki and her family moved to Reedy Creek.
And, while the journey can be summed up in words, life for the Year
10 Hillcrest Christian College student has been far more complex.
“I’ve lived an interesting and different life to most people my age,”
said Nicki.
“And I just wanted to write about it to be encouraging and to tell
people that your life is never boring.”
One period she recalls in the book was her time at the orphanage.
“I was worried I would get turned out because most kids were kicked
out of the orphanage at three,” she said.
“In my brain it was a scary thought.
“Then I was taken in by a family and it was so nice to have a mum
and a dad teaching me right from wrong and amazing to have a brother.”
The teenager said she was glad her parents did not conceal her
adoption.
“I’m so glad they were open and honest.
“Even as a kid, they would tell me again and again how much they
loved me, and were grateful to God for leading them to me.
“To know that my birth mother did the right thing in taking me to an
orphanage rather than just abandoning me somewhere and it makes me
appreciate Mum and Dad all the more as they had to work so hard to
make me their daughter.
“As Dad says, ‘Nicki, you weren’t expected; you were selected’.”
Nicki said she was encouraged by family and friends to write her story.
“Friends told my dad he should write a story of my life but he said
it needed to come from me.
“When it was suggested, I thought, ‘Well, yeah, I could do that’.
“So I sat down one day, wrote a bit, showed my parents who encouraged
me to keep at it.”
Eighteen months later, Nicki had a finished item.
But it wasn’t all easy.
“Trying to remembering the beginning of my life was hard and I had
to get a lot of information from parents.
“Each week I had to set aside time to write and put it together.
“I really had to make it part of my weekly schedule.”
A Hope and a Future is available from Hillcrest Christian College or
online through Amazon for $9.95.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH TO SEEK INTL RECOGNITION – PRESIDENT
Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS General Newswire
September 2, 2006 Saturday 8:36 PM MSK
Nagorno-Karabakh has a “supertask” of achieving international
recognition for its de facto independence, the president of the
Armenian-speaking enclave, which is marking the 15th anniversary of
its breaking away from Azerbaijan, announced on Saturday.
“Independence does not in any way mean that all the difficulties have
been overcome. Nagorno-Karabakh faces two supertasks: first of all,
to achieve peace, and, in this context, an agreement with Azerbaijan on
the settlement of the conflict; and, secondly, to achieve international
recognition for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I believe that we are
in a position to carry out both tasks,” Arkady Gukasian told reporters
in the regional capital Stepanakert.
“We have achieved our goal of winning the war, we have built and are
building up a state. We have realized that we have not been wrong
because the proclamation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was the
only salvation for Nagorno-Karabakh,” he said.
He also said “there are no Nostradamuses to give an exact answer to
the question whether there will be a war or not” but argued there
were no political, economic or psychological reasons for war today.
“I am absolutely sure that the resumption of hostilities would not
be in the interests of the international community today,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LEGISLATORS AID RECOVERY OF ARMENIANS’ ASSETS
by E.J. Schultz Bee Capitol Bureau
Fresno Bee (California)
August 30, 2006 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
Lawyers seeking to recover millions of dollars in bank deposits for
Armenian genocide victims are getting some help this week from state
lawmakers.
A class-action lawsuit filed against two German banks seeks the
return of cash, bonds, gold jewelry and other assets that lawyers
believe are owed to an estimated 2,000 heirs of genocide victims,
including some possibly living in the San Joaquin Valley, home of
thousands of Armenian-Americans.
Senate Bill 1524 by Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, and Sen. Jackie
Speier, D-Hillsborough — both of Armenian decent — would extend
the statute of limitations for such claims until 2016. It passed the
Assembly on Monday on a 77-0 vote and will likely pass the Senate
before the session ends Thursday.
Gov. Schwarzenegger supports the bill, according to his office.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this year on behalf of several Armenians
living in Southern California. Lawyers have argued that the plaintiffs
are free to sue under current law, but attorneys for the defendants
have replied that the statute of limitations prohibits the action,
said Vartkes Yeghiayan, a Los Angeles-area attorney representing
the Armenians.
If the bill were to become law, it “would certainly fortify our
position,” Yeghiayan said.
Deutsche Bank A.G., one of the two banks sued, did not return a call
for comment. The other bank sued is Dresdner Bank A.G.
The bill has already cleared the Legislature once this year. But it
was tied to another bill that would have allowed Mexican-American
victims of a 1930s deportation campaign to seek damages for being
forcibly sent back to Mexico. The repatriation was sometimes violent,
as immigrants were taken across the border on trucks, buses and trains,
according to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
which backed the bill.
Schwarzenegger vetoed the Mexican deportation bill last week, arguing
that it would have allowed “private litigation of potentially thousands
of claims against the state, local governments and private citizens.”
The governor did not act on the Armenian bill, allowing lawmakers to
pull it back and remove the hook to the Mexican bill. Sen. Joe Dunn,
D-Santa Ana, who led the effort to link the two bills, criticized
Republicans for supporting the Armenian bill but rejecting the
Mexican bill.
“I have been consistently concerned about the hypocrisy that has shown
up on the Senate floor from my Republican colleagues on these two
bills,” said Dunn, who supports the Armenian bill. “The unfortunate
continuing injustice here is that the handful of surviving victims of
the illegal deportation of the 1930s still do not have an opportunity
for their day in court.”
Poochigian said the bills never should have been linked because
“they are completely different issues.” The Armenian bill, he said,
deals with breaches of contract by private entities, rather than
claims against the state of California.
The Armenian genocide refers to the period between 1915 and 1923,
when Armenians were driven from their homeland in the Ottoman Empire
by means of torture, starvation and murder. The Armenian community
says that 1.5 million people died.
The effort to recover bank deposits comes on the heels of a successful
drive to secure millions of dollars in unpaid insurance claims owed to
genocide victims. New York Life Insurance Co. and heirs of about 2,400
policy holders agreed on a $20 million settlement in 2004, followed
by a $17 million settlement between French life insurance company AXA
and about 5,000 people and charities, according to published reports.
The deals were made possible as a result of Poochigian-authored
legislation that extended the statute of limitations for insurance
claims until 2010. The current bill allows genocide victims or heirs
living in the state to go beyond insurance policies and seek bank
deposit claims until 2016.
“It rights a terrible wrong dating back to the beginning of the last
century,” Speier said.
There are no firm estimates on how much money and assets could be
recovered, but “all indications are it’s enormous,” said lead attorney
Mark Geragos in a phone interview last week.
Geragos — an Armenian-American whose family name is Geragosian —
has emotional ties to the case. His grandparents fled the genocide and
settled in Fresno, where they ran a grocery store on Belmont Street,
he said.
The famed Los Angeles attorney has handled a number of high-profile
cases and his client list has included the likes of Michael Jackson,
Scott Petersen and, most recently, the trainer for Barry Bonds.
But the Armenian case, Geragos said, has the “greatest personal
significance of any of the cases I’ve ever been associated with.”
The reporter can be reached at [email protected] or (916)
326-5541.

IRAQ’S NEW PAPER TIGER
By Adnan R. Khan
Maclean’s, Canada
September 4, 2006
Launching a newspaper is tough enough, even without the insurgency
A new voice has entered the media fray in Iraq, one with a Canadian
twist. Soma, meaning “perspective” in Kurdish, is a biweekly
English-language digest published out of Iraqi Kurdistan. It’s headed
by a Canadian whose vision is to transform journalism in Iraq. And,
says editor and founder Tanya Goudsouzian, “It’s been a challenge.”
Indeed. Goudsouzian is a 29-year-old Montreal native of Armenian
descent who speaks no Kurdish and only very basic Arabic. She launched
the paper in February 2006 with the help of Hiro Ibrahim Ahmad,
the wife of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. And the road to her
cramped office in Sulaymaniyah, a city 275 km north of Baghdad and
the regional headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK),
the political party headed by Talabani, has been anything but smooth.
After graduating from McGill in 1998, Goudsouzian moved to Washington
to work at a magazine focusing on Middle Eastern issues. She left in
2000, moving to Cairo, then landing a staff position at Gulf News
in Dubai. She covered Afghanistan and Iraq, where she met Ahmad,
who worked in journalism before her husband became the Iraqi leader.
Since its launch, Soma has been pumping out 4,000 issues every two
weeks, with website traffic surpassing 100,000 hits. Also remarkable
is the fact that it is distributed nationally. “We print out of
Baghdad,” says Goudsouzian. “Every issue has to be sent south for
printing and distribution and then issues have to be flown back to
Kurdistan. The main reason we send the paper south is I want it to
have a national appeal. It’s geared for the English-speaking community
and English-speaking Iraqis throughout Iraq, not just Kurdistan.”
Soma must contend with a journalistic mindset still firmly rooted
in the Baathist era. For the most part, the Iraqi media remains a
mouthpiece for those in power, only now there are more mouths. In
Kurdistan, Iraq’s most democratized region, only one of dozens of
publications is fully independent: the weekly Hawlati. And, says its
editor, Twana Osman, 31, “There are certain subjects you just can’t
touch. We’ve had journalists arrested for criticizing the government,
for example. I’ve been formally charged for criticizing the Kurdish
regional prime minister.”
Soma has been pigeonholed as a PUK organ, Goudsouzian complains. “I
know it sounds like a contradiction, the wife of the president funding
a newspaper,” she says, “but Hiro is genuinely interested in a free
press.” There are, after all, very few people with money in Iraq who
are not associated with a party. “So if you receive funding at all,”
Goudsouzian says, “it’s likely you’re receiving it from someone with
party affiliations.”
Soma does not consider itself a political watchdog. Goudsouzian
admits she tries to avoid taboo subjects, such as censuring certain
powerful individuals. “I don’t want it to be filled with yellow
news-style personal attacks,” she says, noting that tendency in other
publications. “I want to change things. I take young journalists to
interviews so they see how it should be done. I’m training these guys
on how to report, how to construct a story.” Injecting professionalism
into an underdeveloped journalistic community is idealistic, and
difficult. But, Goudsouzian says, “You’re taking part in the rebuilding
of a civilization. You have to be an idealist or you’d go nuts. I
don’t plan on being here forever. But I plan on leaving my mark.”
GRAPHIC: Photo, SOMA EDITOR Goudsouzian, a McGill grad, sits in front
of heroin seized by Kurdish police, PHOTOGRAPH BY IANOS ATHANASIADIS
From: Baghdasarian

ARAM’S CHOICE
Judith Constantinides
School Library Journal Reviews
September 1, 2006
THE BOOK REVIEW; Preschool to Grade 4; Pg. 197
SKRYPUCH, Marsha. Aram’s Choice illus. by Muriel Wood. 81p. map.
further reading. glossary. index. Web sites. CIP. Fitzhenry & Whiteside
2006. Tr $14.95. ISBN 1-55041-352-X ; pap. $8.95. ISBN 1-55041-354-6
. LC C2005-907263-6.
Gr 2-4 -This easy chapter book tells the story of a group of Armenian
refugee boys who made the journey from Corfu, Greece, to Georgetown,
Canada, after the Armenian genocide in the early 1900s. The story,
based on the experiences of one of these boys, describes a trip of
sadness, anxiety, and hope from a child’s point of view. The actual
genocide is briefly and gently explained in a historical note at the
end. Realistic color illustrations on most pages, some of them spreads,
add authenticity to the narrative. Covering an incident little known
in the United States, this work would be of particular interest in
areas where Armenian immigrants live, but it could also underline
a general discussion of humanitarianism.-Judith Constantinides,
formerly at East Baton Rouge Parish Main Library, LA.

SAHAKYAN’S BELIEF SAVED SERGE FROM “ADDITIONAL” TROUBLE
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
04 Sept 06
Yes, the great combinator had not got such a strong blow before. The
Council of the Republican Party unanimously decided not to support
Galust Sahakyan’s son in the election of the mayor of Ajapniak
community. It was not unexpected because it was said that Arman
Sahakyan’s resignation from the post of deputy mayor to run in the
local election made the Council of the Republican Party, namely its
“pro-Serge” part angry because Sahakyan had made the decision to become
head of the community on his own. However, it was not Sahakyan’s fault,
it was Serge Sargsyan’s fault, for after the extraordinary assembly of
the Republican Party he announced that they were starting a process,
which would produce fruits in three or four months. Let us count:
from July to August is one month, September is two, October is three,
November is four. The Sahakyan family did this simple calculation. They
combined it with the period of local election, October, the end of
the “third” month, they calculated that the roundup of the election
would be in early November, because the election day is October
29. And arrived at the period of the promised fruits. Whoever were
in Sahakyan’s place, they would also think that they would surely
“harvest” Ajapniak this year, for Serge Sargsyan had promised the
victory.
However, the minivan of the Sahakyans did not reach Ajapniak.
Although the belief complied with all the rules; not only did they see
first to believe but also touched “the side of the crucified”. At
the extraordinary assembly only Hovik Abrahamyan was closer to
Serge Sargsyan than Galust Sahakyan. And maybe Hovik was enough for
Sahakyan Sr. to mix the sides and touch something he should not have
touched. Meanwhile, he believed, and the society assured that the had
touched even the “nail”, and not only the Republican but also the other
political forces would defend Sahakyan Jr. Man is amazing, he never
insists on something as strongly as on what he hears from others. They
believed the minister of defense and remained with nothing: neither
the City Hall, nor the municipality, and the underground is open
until 11 o’clock. There remains only one place in the minivan. But
what can we do, sometimes you should doubt what you hear.
Well, let us suppose Arman Sahakyan was young and inexperienced, but
his father is not new on the Armenian political sphere, especially in
the government. Well, even if they were unable to calculate the steps
in advance, the fatherly instinct should have prompted that there is
no fruit in November, or what should the fruit of November, only six
months old, taste? For Sahakyan had experienced, seen and benefited
from all this. He and his friend Andranik Margaryan. He did not even
consult him, though they were friends. But most probably Andranik
Margaryan did not forgive Galust, who was sitting so close to Serge
Sargsyan. He did not forgive and signed the resignation of his son,
although he could have prompted for the sake of friendship that it was
not worthwhile to stake steps without consulting first. On the other
hand, in fact, the prime minister did not have the moral right to, for
Galust Sahakyan would ask why he wanted to have Galust’s son consult
if his son Taron had not consulted anyone before becoming head of the
local government. The prime minister did not have the answer to this
question, therefore he signed Arman Sahakyan’s resignation silently,
and afterwards voted in the Republican Council against supporting
him or in a “where should I know, what do you want” manner. Moreover,
Galust was not even going to ask the prime minister how his son became
head of the community. He was not going to ask because he knew how,
and he wanted to have his son become head of the community similarly,
therefore he was sitting next to Serge Sargsyan, and perhaps he had
been shy to ask if he could.
Not if he could sit, but if he could make his beloved son a mayor,
who was treated so unfairly in 2003.
It was a shame to ask. What is power for if they have to ask what
they can do and what they cannot do. They might as well die.
Moreover, to ask Serge Sargsyan. Why did he become a member of the
party then? He came to enable every Republican not to ask anymore
what they can do and what they cannot do. He came to make impossible
possible, and such a question might offend a man with “super”
possibilities. No questions, no more questions after July 22.
It appeared that there are always questions, and after July 22 they
do not disappear but become more, and acquire a more complicated
content. And not only the Sahakyan family but also the other “families”
of the Council of the Republican Party should realize this. We need
to understand that the problem is not the independent decision of
the Sahakyans, and the reason is not self-made decisions that the new
head of the Council of the Republican Party is reluctant to support
Sahakyan Arman. In fact, it was good luck for Serge Sargsyan that Arman
Sahakyan made a decision on his own, otherwise if he asked the defense
minister for permission, the latter would have to refuse. Moreover,
he would have to explain why he refused otherwise, the others would
doubt his almightiness. However, if there was an explanation, the
doubts would be inevitable.
It seems to the Sahakyans that they failed because of hastiness. Yes,
the reason was hastiness, not theirs but Serge Sargsyan’s, who
hurried to act as the “deity of victory” of the Republicans, Zeus the
almighty, whom everything was allowed, and there was nothing beyond
his power. They saw that there is, and in a matter which seemed not
to require too much power. Sahakyan would lose, and the words “Akela
missed” would fly around the party, and though he would assert that
the political party is not a pack of wolves, they would nevertheless
demand to change the chief.

TO FLOTSAM AND JETSAM
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
04 Sept 06
The retreat of the Republican Party in Ajapniak appears to be a
tactical step, or a claim for a “great sailing”. In other words, “we
do not need communities, we’ll take the whole country.” Good voyage,
we would tell the Republican Party, but it is not by our word that
their voyage is going to be good or bad. The Republican Party, which
kick-started its assembly with the bishop’s blessing and repeating
the name of God twice in their program, should have known better that
the word of God was before our and generally any word. And since God
utters a word only once but for the rest of the life, it can be broken
or forgiven only once, and what is more, forgiven not for all the rest
of the life. And the Republican Party has already broken the word
of the lord once – it gave false testimony against Serge Sargsyan,
demanding his resignation in 2000, accusing him of hampering the
fair investigation into October 27. Six years ago the Republican
Party also did not do unto others as it would have others do unto
it. Andranik Margaryan would hardly like Tigran Torosyan considered
to be his friend to come to a separate arrangement with the president
and take his post of prime minister like Andranik Margaryan had done
unto Aram Zaven Sargsyan.
It is becoming apparent that the Republican Party broke the work
of God at least twice, therefore it is pointless to consider once
again what kind of voyage is awaiting the Republican Party. But
since they have already launched the ship, they cannot turn it
back to land because they are unable to conduct a ship, and have
always relied on a “legionary” captain since Ashot Navasardyan, the
“builder” of the ship died. First Vazgen Sargsyan blew the sails of
the Republican Party’s sail, then Serge Sargsyan. And since they rely
on the captain, the decision on moving the ship forward or backward
depends on him. However, they can demand not to endanger their life,
of course, and the ship will nevertheless land, since life is sweeter
than death, especially that capital punishment in Armenia has been
replaced by life imprisonment.
It appears, however, that there will be no need to make Serge Sargsyan
lead the ship to the land. He seems to have decided so. The defense
minister probably feels that the idea to seize the office of president
is not supported publicly. Perhaps he realized more that the idea of
office of the president is not supported publicly either.
And this was apparently the reason why several days ago the minister
was offended by people who had envied his “happiness” and wanted
to get to the “top” of power. Serge Sargsyan was even on the verge
of performing a public scene of self-criticism when he announced
that he gets sardonic smiles from those who want to become leaders,
then he remembered that he wants the same and announced that there
is nothing bad about it, and the problem is the methods.
In fact, the methods are highly important in politics, especially in
public politics. In this case, the question occurs what methods the
minister of defense may use to get to the “top” of power.
Unfortunately, the chess Olympiad ended soon, and the next will be
too late. Fortunately, the other types of sport are not in a good
state, otherwise Tsarukyan might become a serious opponent. However,
methods do not multiply from the lack of an opponent. Consequently,
the search for methods should go on.
The customs officer Vereschagin from the film “The White Sun of the
Desert” sang, “If you’re unlucky in battle, you will be lucky in
love”. They only need to carry on the search, for we already have the
“Sun of the Desert”. Tata Simonyan had charity concerts in Armenia
and Karabakh and thanked personally Serge Sargsyan for sponsoring
the concert, and in the end there was a thunder of applause in the
Republican Stadium, in front of thousands of audience and hundreds
of thousands of viewers who watched the live concert on TV. I do
not know whether it occurred to them that it was not a concert but
a musical method. If it did not occur to them, it means the method
failed. “And the bell sounded for the last time”.
The public did not get it. Because in public perception Serge Sargsyan
is a defense minister and the maximum he can do is to sponsor concerts
in military units on some holidays. If Serge Sargsyan has nothing to
do in the post of the defense minister, he may quit office and sponsor
arts. None of the six posts he occupies is related to concerts. And it
is interesting to know on what money the defense minister sponsors the
concert, which was, by the way, organized rather professionally. At any
rate, it is interesting to know how the defense minister sponsored the
concert, on the money or assets of the army, Yerevan State University,
the Federation of Chess, the Armenian-Russian Government Commission,
the Council of National Security or the Council of the Republican
Party. How? On what money was the method searched for, which, by the
way, was not found and will not be found? For as the poet said, the
person does not look for a method, the method finds the person. And
the later it is found, the more suitable it is.