U.S. CONFIRMATION ROW SHOWS POWER OF DIASPORA LOBBIES
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Aug 2 2006
By Julie A. Corwin
The U.S. Senate on August 1 decided once again to postpone
its confirmation of the man designated to serve as the new U.S.
ambassador to Armenia. Richard Hoagland has raised concern among some
lawmakers because of his refusal to characterize the mass killings
of Armenians by Turks in the early 20th century as genocide.
WASHINGTON, August 2, 2006 (RFE/RL) — U.S. Senator Joseph Biden,
recommending that Hoagland’s confirmation be postponed until a future
date, summarized his doubts about the official White House stance on
the genocide debate.
“I know that the administration’s not likely to change their policy,”
he said. “But there was genocide in Armenia, and it’s very difficult
to deny history.”
Issues & Influence
In all, nine of the 18 members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee have pressed Hoagland to clarify U.S. policy on the Armenian
genocide debate.
It might seem surprising that so many U.S. lawmakers are prepared to
weigh in on the politically loaded debate over whether the Ottoman-era
killing of Armenians by Turks constitutes genocide.
The prominence of the issue is due in large part to the efforts of
two powerful lobbying groups — the Armenian National Committee of
America (ANCA), and the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA).
The logo of the Armenian National Committee of America (courtesy
graphic)There are lobbying groups representing the concerns of nearly
every diaspora community in the United States. The Armenian lobby is
one of the most successful.
Bryan Ardouny is the executive director of the AAA. He says the issue
remains high on the group’s agenda.
“We will continue to press forward with the ultimate goal of having the
United States, on record, reaffirming the Armenian genocide,” he says.
Record Of Success
The Armenian lobby has scored other victories as well.
Both the AAA and the ANCA were instrumental in persuading lawmakers
to block U.S. financing for a proposed railway that would link Turkey,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan but circumvent Armenia.
They also played a role in legislation passed in 1992 that excluded
Azerbaijan from a list of former Soviet republics available for U.S.
aid.
The exclusion, meant to censure Baku for what was termed “offensive
use of force” against Armenia and the ethnic Armenian exclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh, remained in force until 2002, when U.S. President
George W. Bush granted the first in a series of annual waivers of
the provision.
Fingerprints Not Required
Aram Hamparian, the executive director of the Armenian National
Committee, says his lobby also helped remove Armenia from a U.S. list
of countries considered sources of potential terrorists.
“A few years ago the Justice Department placed Armenia on a [terrorism]
watch list,” Hamparian says. “This meant citizens from Armenia would
need to register and be photographed and fingerprinted and all the
rest. And we were successful in just the course of a couple of days
in getting Armenia taken off that list.”
So what makes the Armenian lobby so successful?
Yerevan, to a greater degree than Baku, is dependent on the largely
loyal U.S. lobby groups to advance its agenda in Washington.It’s
not a matter of strength in numbers. There are fewer than 2 million
Armenian-Americans living in the United States, a country with a
population of nearly 300 million.
But diaspora members like Hamparian say the community is bound by a
common belief in the power of political participation.
And although the majority of Armenian-Americans are concentrated on
the East and West coasts of the United States, Hamparian says the
community is represented and active in almost every congressional
district across the United States.
A Study In Contrasts
The success of the Armenian lobby runs in sharp contrast to that of
Armenia’s South Caucasus neighbor, Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan, like Armenia, has its own congressional caucus — a group
of U.S. lawmakers who pursue common legislative objectives.
But while the Armenian caucus is highly active, its Azerbaijani
counterpart is considered far less effective.
The Azerbaijani lobby’s biggest victory to date has been the annual
presidential waiver on U.S. aid restrictions. Beyond that, however,
it has had little influence.
Facing The Giant
Glen Howard is the director of the Jamestown Foundation, a public
policy group that monitors developments in the former Soviet Union.
He compares the Azerbaijani and Armenian U.S. lobby groups to David
and Goliath — but says there’s reason to believe Azerbaijani-Americans
will catch up.
“The Armenians have been practicing and organized for a very long time,
much longer than the Azerbaijanis,” Howard says. “But then again,
the Turks 40 years ago did not have a lobby, and it took them quite
a while. But they eventually reached a level stage where they can
compete and hold their ground with the Armenians.”
Just as the Turkish lobby squares off against the Armenians on the
genocide issue, many Azerbaijani-Americans would like to increase
their influence in the debate over Nagorno-Karabakh.
But while the Armenian diaspora comprises several generations and
maintains close, nationalistic ties with Armenia proper, the U.S.
Azerbaijani community is less rooted — many Azerbaijani-Americans
are first-generation. They are also more diverse, with many coming
not from Azerbaijan, but Iran.
Divergent Views
Bedir Memmedli, a member of the Washington-based Azerbaijan Society
of America, says the views of the Azerbaijani diaspora diverge on
some points — but do come together on a few key issues.
“There are a lot of common issues we all share — for example, the
occupation of Azerbaijan by our neighboring Armenia. There is also
the oppression of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran, cultural discrimination
against Azerbaijanis in Iran,” Memmedli says.
“These are common issues that we are all concerned about. But there
are also some specific issues — for example, those Azerbaijanis
from the Republic of Azerbaijan, they usually ask or try to have
their voices heard regarding such issues as putting more investment
in Azerbaijan’s economy.”
Lobbies Vs. Leaders
The Azerbaijani lobby may be struggling for influence with U.S.
lawmakers. But Washington is somewhat more receptive when it comes
to the Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev.
The logo of the Azerbaijan Society of America (courtesy
graphic)Aliyev, who presides over an ascendant oil-fed economy and
geographic proximity to Iran, in April visited the White House for
talks with President Bush.
Aliyev’s Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharian, has yet to receive
a similar invitation. Yerevan, to a greater degree than Baku,
is dependent on the largely loyal U.S. lobby groups to advance its
agenda in Washington.
How To Help?
Richard Giragosian, an independent security analyst and regular
contributor to RFE/RL, says the two diaspora communities have “very
different” perceptions about ties to their home government.
“From a political standpoint, the diaspora for Armenia is seen as
a pillar of support for the state, and for the regime, in terms of
lobbying leverage. And the diaspora, for the Armenians, is almost an
element of state power, or an element of foreign policy,” he says.
“Interestingly, in Azerbaijan’s case, it’s the exact opposite, where
Azerbaijan seeks to co-opt its diaspora, because it basically sees it
as a potential threat to the regime — the youth, and the diaspora.
And it seeks basically to co-opt any potential for revolutions of fruit
or flower” — a reference to the Orange, Rose, and Tulip revolutions
in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.
It isn’t a guarantee that Azerbaijan will benefit from a U.S. lobby
that acts in lockstep with Baku. Giragosian says officials in Armenia
sometimes feel the nationalistic zeal of the Armenian-American lobbies
leaves Yerevan with less leverage in terms of foreign policy.
This is particularly true on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, where, he
says, Yerevan sometimes feels the diaspora has been “more a liability
than an asset.”

CENTRAL BANK: THREAT TO 3-PERCENT INFLATION RATE LOOMING LARGE IN ARMENIA
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Aug 2 2006
YEREVAN, August 2. /ARKA/. Threat to 3-percent inflation rate retaining
are looming large in Armenia, the Central Bank of Armenia said Tuesday
in its report.
At the same time, taking into account economic developments in the
country, the CBA finds double-digit economic growth is very likely.
The bank mentioned higher-than-expected oil and metal prices, possible
further weakening of dollar and geopolitical situation deterioration
in the world among outside risks. “Imported wheat prices may grow
because of the poor crop expected this year in Russia and Ukraine”,
the report says.
Besides outside risks, there are inside ones, the CBA board members
say in their report.
Faster-than-expected growth in construction and services areas can
constitute risks for 3-percent inflation as well.
The Central Bank also pointed out that the state budget large-scale
expenditure will have lag impact on inflation growth and will be seen
in the first half of 2007.
Increased consumer prices for water, in turn, may negatively impact
inflation rate within 12-month period.
That’s why the bank doesn’t rule out additional changes in interest
rates in coming months.
In particular, the central Bank decided Tuesday to raise refinancing
interest rate by 0.25 percentage points to annual 4.25%.
National Statistical Service of Armenia says inflation in Armenia
was recorded at 3.6% in July 2006, compared with December 2005.
Consumer prices index made 106.8% in July 2006, compared with the
same month a year earlier, and 100.8% in Jan-July, compared with the
same period of 2005.
State budget has planned 3-pecent inflation rate for 2006. M.V.-0—

DATE OF MEETING BETWEEN AZERBAIJANI, ARMENIAN FMS OR PRESIDENTS NOT
DEFINED YET – FOREIGN RELATIONS CHIEF WITH PRESIDENT’S ADMINISTRATION
TREND Information, Azerbaijan –
Aug 2 2006
The date of next meeting between presidents or foreign ministers of
Azerbaijan and Armenia is not defined yet, Novruz Mamedov, foreign
relations chief with President’s Administration, told Trend in an
exclusive interview.
Commenting ended visit of US co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza to Azerbaijan, Mamedov said this was just a familiarization
visit to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict region, aimed at repeat studying
the parties opinions and following “taking certain steps”.
“In this connection Mr Bryza held talks with president and foreign
minister of Azerbaijan and then with their peers in Armenia. After
that, having learned the parties positions, he is going to discuss
the matter with his colleagues in Paris”, said Mamedov.
Regardless of that last time OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs performed with
different statements, the main position is that the conversation
process linked to the conflict settlement is to be continued,
he concluded.

KARS PARLIAMENTARIAN ZEKI KARABAYIR: “AZERBAIJANI NATION SHOULD KNOW
THAT TURKEY WILL NOT ACT AGAINST ITS CONCERNS”
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug 2 2006
“Opening of Turkey-Armenia border is not work of Gars municipality
head, government, even state.” This statement was given to Turkey
bureau of APA by AKP Gars parliamentarian Zeki Karabayir.
Expressing attitude to the opinion of Naif Alibayoglu “Turkey should
open borders with Armenia”, Gars municipality head said that Armenia
has not followed the rules pursued against it. “Armenia has not
withdrawn from their claim that means that it has not freed the
territories occupied. Besides it, through Diaspora it made impact
on Turkey for recognizing alleged “Armenian genocide”. Opening of
the borders is significant composition of government and even state
policy. This is not the work within responsibility of municipality
head.” Zeki Karabayir added: “How much can Armenia with 3,5 mln
population impact on foreign trade turnover of Turkey … As concerns
the opinion of Turkey’s losing Russia market , it is not true. Our
trade turnover with Russia increases year after year without Armenia.
For example, in 2005, trade turnover between Turkey and Russia was
16 milliard dollars, increase of this figure is considered to be 25
milliard dollars in 2008. Azerbaijani nation should know that the
state of Turkey will not act against concerns of Turkey.”/APA/

ARMENIA’S FOREIGN TRADE IN 1H06 UP 12.6% Y-O-Y
RIA Novosti, Russia
Aug 2 2006
YEREVAN, August 2 (RIA Novosti) – Armenia’s foreign trade grew 12.6%
year-on-year in the first six months of 2006, to reach $1.39 billion,
a national statistics service said Wednesday.
Armenia’s exports totaled $437.7 million, while imports reached $951.2
mln, resulting in a trade deficit of $513.5 mln.
Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Russia are among the major
buyers of Armenian exports, while most imports come from Russia
($156.5 mln), Belgium ($79.3), the United States ($63.25 mln), Iran
($54.87 mln) and Ukraine ($54.34 mln).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THERE WERE NEVER SO CLOSE TIES BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA – VICE-SPEAKER
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Aug 2 2006
During the unofficial visit of Lithuanian delegation headed by
vice-speaker of Seym Gintaras it held several meetings and saw some
historical places of Azerbaijan, Mr Stepanavichus told Trend in his
exclusive interview.
“We wanted to know Azerbaijan better and see its realities. Last
time ties between our countries got deeper, we developed mutually
beneficial cooperation. I think Azerbaijan and Lithuania have share
common aims. In this connection our visit to Azerbaijan is not
occasional”, he said.
“In autumn Lithuania is opening its embassy in Azerbaijan. We also
know Azeri embassy is opening in Lithuania next year. Probably these
issues will be discussed and solved during Azeri president’s visit
to Lithuania”, he added.
At the same time Mr Stepanavichus said Lithuanian public knows a
little about Azerbaijan. “Time to time some news appear, their number
bigger with time due to increase of mutual cooperation”, he said.
Vice-speaker also mentioned Azeri diaspora’s passivity in Lithuania.

IS THE US TRYING TO PUSH RUSSIA OUT OF THE OSCE MG? NAGORNO-KARABAKH PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
Aug 2 2006
OSCE Minsk Group
The Nagorno-Karabakh peace process has not changed much since 1992,
the former advisor of the NK president, the expert of the Caucasus
analytical center Manvel Sargsyan said during the seminar “The Role
of the Expert Community in the Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process” in
Yerevan. “When the OSCE MG co-chairs ‘removed the brackets’ from
the negotiating process, people saw that almost nothing has changed
therein in the past 14 years,” Sargsyan said. Today there is only
one global problem on the agenda – to coordinate the positions of
Yerevan, Baku and Stepanakert on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
“Until this problem is solved, there will be no sense to speak about
progress in the talks,” Sargsyan said. (ARKA).
The OSCE MG co-chairs are going to hold one more consultation in
Paris in early August, reports Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov. The
key objective of the meeting is to consider the results of US co-chair
Matthew Bryza’s visit to the region. Merzlyakov says that the co-chairs
do not know yet what decisions they will make and if they will discuss
organizing the next rounds of the talks. “We will decide this when
we meet. I don’t know what assessments the US co-chair will make. By
then he will have had his last contacts and will have talked with the
presidents and he will probably make some assessments. We’ll see and
decide,” says Merzlyakov. (Trend).
OSCE MG US co-chair Matthew Bryza will visit Yerevan and Baku for
discussing new proposals for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh problem,
Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov said during a press-conference. “We have
been told that he has some new elements and wants to discuss them with
us,” Mammadyarov said. He said that Bryza will visit the region from
July 31 to August 1. He said that if Azerbaijan sees any chance for
progress in Bryza’s proposals, it may agree to the next round of the
FM talks. “We have been working on the key principles for two years
already. We have coordinated many of them, but we have some serious
problems left, and if Bryza brings some new ideas that will be able to
set things moving, we will agree to continue the process. If need be,
we may organize a new meeting,” Mammadyarov said. (Day.Az).
The new OSCE MG co-chair from the US Matthew Bryza seems to be planning
a small revolution in one separate Nagorno-Karabakh negotiating
process, says Golos Armenii. The daily notes that for already a
month this young co-chair has been appearing with statements and
interviews almost every day and has been actively torpedoing (not to
say terrorizing) the slow negotiating process. In late July tireless
Bryza is going to visit the region once again. We doubt that he
will reverse the situation… but who knows. “Merely arithmetically,
7 months have passed since the beginning of 2006. This is a fact,
but only on the one hand. On the other hand, Bryza has been co-chair
for just a month yet, but people are already talking about him and
about what he says more than they ever have talked about any co-chair
before. They are even discussing his private life. And there are still
5 months left till the end of this year. And what if Bryza goes on
at the same speed?”
One should not pin great hopes on the visit of OSCE MG US co-chair
Matthew Bryza to the region, the charge d’affaires of Russia to
Azerbaijan Pyotr Burdykin says to APA. He says that his visit and talks
will just help him to get deeper insight into the situation in the
region: “The visit may well be followed by a new meeting of the FMs.”
Political expert, the member of the board of Soros Foundation
Azerbaijan Ilgar Mamedov gives an interview to Echo daily.
“Which side loses more from the OSCE MG co-chairs’ proposals?
The proposals the new US co-chair made public of late had been
long known to analysts in Yerevan and Baku. They say nothing new in
principle. That is, the very fact of agreement is more important than
the content of the last OSCE MG statement on the key principles. The
co-chairs’ proposals give no clear answers to the sides’ questions.
They fail to answer the key question: whether Nagorno-Karabakh stays
within Azerbaijan or is given some status in the future. And this
is the only key question that separates the sides! On all the other
questions they may agree in some few days. The co-chairs demand that
this problem be solved by the presidents. In fact, these proposals
do not lesser the acuteness of the problem.
Some people say that the parties to the negotiating process are
being pressured. Who is pressured more – Baku or Yerevan? What kind
of pressure is this?
I can say that there is no tough pressure on the conflicting parties.
In fact, no less pressure is put on the OSCE MG itself. This pressure
comes from various academic, semi-academic structures and NGOs. They
demand that the OSCE MG comply with their own standards and principles
– principles that are often unrealistic and abstruse. One such
structure is the International Crisis Group.
Can we say that today the negotiating process is in the worst ever
crisis or there were even worse times?
There have been other crisis times, one of them even ended in
the shooting at the Armenian parliament. The present stage is not
fully critical. New war is hardly possible in the present situation
and, if the OSCE MG helps, will be absolutely impossible. Due to
BTC, Azerbaijan will earn huge money in the coming years and will,
certainly, spend much of it on its fighting capacity in order to regain
control over the occupied lands in the future. Armenia understands
this and is very much interested in resuming war in order to ruin
Azerbaijan’s oil contracts. At the same time, Armenia can’t resume
war itself as it is not sure that it will avoid total defeat.
How will the negotiating process develop in the near future?
Nothing special will happen. In fact, the key objective is not to
allow the resumption of war. I think it is impossible to resolve the
conflict and to sign a peace agreement now. Besides, they in Armenia
have almost started electoral campaign and any peace agreement Robert
Kocharyan will be ready to sign should reflect electoral pre-electoral
plans. Consequently, he cannot sign a document Armenia will not fully
accept. This means that it should be contrary to Azerbaijan’s national
interests, but this is something we will not accept.
You have mentioned the prospect of military resolution of the conflict,
but the general opinion in Azerbaijan is that however much we arm
and threaten, we will not start war, that Azerbaijan is too small
a country…
However, in its time, even smaller Armenia was allowed to do all it
wanted. The people saying that are too static, while the international
situation is dynamic, and there are always chances for military
resolution. I think that Azerbaijan, too, will get such a chance in
the future.
That is, in a new international situation Azerbaijan will always be
able to get a chance to solve the Karabakh problem in military way.
(Echo, with abridgements).
Everything that happened in the Karabakh peace process at that
time: the co-chairs’ statement that they have run out of fantasy,
the statement of Matthew Bryza, the fact that the co-chairs’ report
was placed on the site of the US Embassy in Armenia, but not on the
site of the US Embassy in Azerbaijan – all this seems to be poorly
coordinated steps, political expert Suren Zolyan says to Azg. He says
that if the goal of the co-chairs was to liven up the peace process,
they have failed because the process has died. By saying that they
have nothing more to do and now everything depends on the presidents,
the co-chairs have shown that they lack experience. Zolyan advises them
to go back home so the problem is tackled by those ‘who can.’ At the
same time, he notes that the format of the peace process will hardly
change, and hardly any other structure will say it wants to undertake
such a responsibility as very contradictory signals are being received
from the region. Concerning Bryza, Zolyan says that by his steps he has
proved that he is actually implementing the policy of the US president.
Fourth Power daily believes that by saying that they are stopping
their mission, the OSCE MG co-chairs are most probably blackmailing
Armenia and Azerbaijan: they have let them know that if they continue
wrecking their peace initiatives, they will leave them to deal with
more rigorous UN and NATO. Still, the co-chairs are obviously not
going ‘to wash their hands.’ The daily means the forthcoming visit of
Matthew Bryza to the region. ‘Though this may well be exclusively the
US’ initiative.’ The daily reports Azeri sources to say that during
the visit Bryza will analyze the primary situation and consider the
possibility of a breakthrough in the negotiating process.
Washington has started secret talks with Moscow and Paris for enlarging
the OSCE Minsk Group, Radio Liberty reports Ayna daily (Azerbaijan)
as saying. Referring to diplomatic sources, the daily says that the
US wants to involve the UK, Germany and Turkey in the MG. If the
talks are successful, the conflicting parties will be informed. At
the same time, Ayna doubts that the talks will give any results in
the near future as ‘even though Azerbaijan supports the idea of MG
enlargement, the Armenian side rejects it pointblank.’
Asked by Haykakan Zhamanak daily if there actually are such talks
underway and if the Armenian side is taking part in them, the acting
spokesman for the Armenian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Karapetyan said:
‘We doubt that this information is true. The membership of the MG
can be changed only with the consent of the conflicting parties.’
Karapetyan said that nobody has told the Armenian side anything about
that. However, the strangest thing is that it was not the only report
about possible change of the MG. RIA Novosti has reported the director
of the US and Canada Institute in Russia Sergey Rogov to say that
the US is seeking to push Russia out of the MG.
Views of the sides
The OSCE MG’s proposals could be acceptable were it not for
Azerbaijan’s aggressive policy, Armenian Prime Minister, the leader
of the Republican Party Andranik Margaryan said during the party’s
10th extraordinary congress. Azerbaijan is trying to pressure Armenia
by making bellicose statements and increasing its military budget.
Margaryan confirmed the RPA’s commitment to the peaceful resolution of
the conflict. He specified which settlement principles are important
for his party: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic must be recognized by the
international community, NK cannot stay under Azerbaijan’s control,
NK’s security must be guaranteed, NK must have a common border with
Armenia, change of borders is not a solution to the conflict, NK must
be involved in the peace talks as an equal party. Margaryan said
that the resolution of the conflict should be acceptable for all the
sides. (News-Armenia).
‘The proposed settlement scenario is not acceptable for us, on
the whole, as it mentions the yield of territories and does not
appropriately mention the self-determination right. However, since
Azerbaijan refuses to accept it, we will not say anything either,’
the member of the ARFD Bureau Kiro Manoyan says in an interview
to 168 Zham. Should Aliyev sign the agreement and Kocharyan give
back the territories, ‘Mr. Kiro threatens to exert pressure on the
president.’ Manoyan says that one way to do that will be rallies.
APA reports Azeri Defense Minister Safar Abiyev to say during his
meeting with EU Special Representative to the South Caucasus Peter
Semneby that ‘some people have artificially created the Armenian-Azeri
conflict’: ‘On the one hand, Armenia has occupied the Azeri lands, on
the other, it wants to create an atmosphere of mutual confidence with
Azerbaijan. We do not trust Armenia. If Armenia wants to attain mutual
confidence, it must withdraw its troops from the occupied Azeri lands,
refugees must be allowed to go back to their homes, infrastructure
of the occupied territories must be restored. This conflict must be
resolved within Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.’
‘Aliyev understands that the document that Nagorno-Karabakh should
belong to Azerbaijan will never be signed. The only way to get NK
is war. But does Azerbaijan need war now?,’ wonders the ex DM of
Armenia, the leader of the National-Democratic Union Vazgen Manukyan.
While speaking in the Partark discussion club, he said that to be
two and even three times stronger does not mean to win a war. When
one starts a war he does not know if he will win it or not. Second,
the Azeri clans are very well to do, they earn billions of dollars from
oil. ‘Why should they risk this all and start an unpromising war? This
does not mean that they will not start it at some time in the future,
but today one should not take this seriously. We should cold-bloodedly
negotiate and develop our state,’ Manukyan said. He believes that all
these years time has been serving Karabakh as everybody understands
that a state living independently for 15 years cannot be annexed to
another state. Things may start moving if Azerbaijan finally admits
that Karabakh cannot be its part, Manukyan said. Asked by Aravot:
‘Which one do you advocate: early settlement or status quo?,’ Manukyan
said: ‘I advocate early settlement but on condition that Azerbaijan
admits that Karabakh cannot be its part.’ ‘All the other issues can
be agreed on. Still, I don’t think we should haste the settlement
process because Azerbaijan refuses to admit this fact,’ Manukyan said.
“The efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict must be continued
in the framework of peace talks. In this context, the Armenian side
must stop making non-constructive statements concerning the talks and
must put up with the fact that the modern world does not accept the
occupation policy and the policy of ethnic cleansing. As regards,
the summit-level meetings, if the question is about the presidential
meetings, I can say that presently the sides are negotiating in
the framework of the “Prague peace process” – uncoordinated issues
are submitted for the Presidents’ discussion after coordination
by the FMs. Unfortunately, Armenia’s non-constructive position on
some issues, particularly, the return of refugees to their homes,
hinders the negotiating process. Positive resolution requires time. The
international law and international conventions clearly recognize the
right of displaced persons to go back to their permanent residencies,”
Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov says in an interview to Trend news agency.
“Today they say that Nagorno-Karabakh will join in the talks only
when the Armenian and Azeri presidents agree on something, but
I wonder why can’t NK join in at any moment? Bilateral format is
violation of the OSCE decisions,” the foreign political advisor of
the NK president Arman Melikyan says in an interview to Caucasian
Knot. He says that today’s talks are not “Minsk Process” – the two
presidents are just holding consultations. “We have repeatedly said
that without considering NK’s position the sides will not be able to
attain long-term peace. I am sure that no solution can be implemented
without NK’s consent,” says Melikyan.
Melikyan notes that according to Nagorno-Karabakh’s position, NK is an
independent state and this fact must be recognized by the international
community and, first of all, by Azerbaijan. The conflict comes from
Azerbaijan’s unwillingness to recognize the right of the NK people
to build its own state even though two equally legal states have been
formed in the territory of the former USSR: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
and Azerbaijani Republic. The difference is that the international
community has actively promoted the building of the Azeri state and,
on the contrary, hindered the building of statehood in NK. “We want
this difference to be eliminated, and I think that this is quite
natural. At the same time, our position is getting increasingly
audible at international organizations,” says Melikyan.

ANOTHER TURKISH WRITER FACES PERSECUTION
World War 4 Report, NY
Aug 2 2006
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Wed, 08/02/2006 – 01:55.
We have noted a growing number of Turkish writers to face prosecution
for their words. The latest is, especially perversely, charged in
connection with a work of fiction. From The Guardian, July 24:
In Istanbul, a writer awaits her day in court
Bestselling novelist Elif Shafak is the latest writer to face trial
for “insulting Turkishness”. She tells Richard Lea about her work,
the charges that have been brought against her, and how the Turkish
language has become a battleground.
“Nobody was expecting this,” says bestselling Turkish novelist
Elif Shafak. A decision in Istanbul’s seventh high criminal court
earlier this month reopened her prosecution on charges of “insulting
Turkishness”. She faces a maximum jail term of three years if
convicted.
Shafak joins a roster of more than 60 writers and journalists to
be charged under Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code since
its introduction last year. University professors, journalists and
novelists such as Perihan Magden, Orhan Pamuk and now Shafak have
been charged under legislation drawn so broadly as to criminalise a
wide range of critical opinions. Writers not only face the prospect
of a three-year jail term, but the prosecutions also lay them open to
a campaign of intimidation and harassment waged by rightwing agitators.
“The protests are maybe even more unnerving than the actual trial,”
Shafak told the Guardian today from her home in Istanbul. “Although
their number is very limited they are very aggressive, very
provocative.” She describes crowds of protesters slapping and jostling
defendants both inside and outside the courtroom, shouting and throwing
coins and pens.
The charges against Shafak open up new ground. She is not accused of
“insulting Turkishness” because of her campaigning journalism or her
academic work, but for remarks made by a fictional character in her
latest novel, The Bastard of Istanbul.
The novel, which was originally written in English, was published in
a Turkish translation in March 2006 and quickly became a bestseller.
The novel follows four generations of women, moving between Turkey and
the US to tell the story of an Armenian family and the descendants
of a son left behind during the deportations, who converts to Islam
and lives as a Turk. It is perhaps the first Turkish novel to deal
directly with the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated
the country’s Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule.
Initial reactions to the book were mostly positive, and it went on
to sell over 50,000 copies in less than four months. “I gave numerous
readings, talks and book signings all over Turkey,” explains Shafak.
“Although the novel was difficult to digest for some people, in
general the reception has been very positive.”
But in June a nationalist lawyer called Kemal Kerincsiz filed a
complaint in Istanbul’s Beyoglu district court against Shafak, her
publisher, Semi Sokmen, and her translator, Asli Bican. Shafak and
her publisher argued during interrogation that the book was a work
of literature and that comments made by fictional characters could
not be used to press charges against an author.
“The interrogation went on for some time and eventually the prosecutor
decided there was no element of insult and he dropped the case,”
says Shafak. But her relief was short-lived. Earlier this month the
same lawyer took the case to a higher court, and ultimately managed
to have the decision overturned. She is now confronted with a long
and daunting legal process. A trial, with all the unwelcome attention
from rightwing groups which that entails, is now inevitable.
It could not have come at a worse moment – she is six months
pregnant. “From now on it is a long legal battle,” she says. “The
later stages of the pregnancy will probably coincide with the first
stages of the trial.”
Peter Ayrton, founder of Serpent’s Tail, a publisher deeply committed
to literature in translation, was unsurprised by the news of Shafak’s
prosecution. “Most writers that are any good would get into trouble
with the Turkish authorities,” he explains. “She’s a very acerbic
voice. Her novels are lively, episodic and innovative. She’s obviously
a feminist, and her work is obviously rooted in contemporary social
conditions in Turkey.”
Perhaps the time she spent abroad has given her a different perspective
on Turkish life. She was born in Strasbourg, France in 1971 and spent
her teenage years in Spain, before returning to Turkey to study social
sciences. Four years ago she moved to the US, spending a year at the
University of Michigan before her appointment as assistant professor
at the University of Arizona. She now divides her time between the
US and Turkey, where she has been touring the country to promote her
new novel.
Shafak herself believes the charges were brought for two reasons:
“The overt reason is my latest novel and the critical tone of the
book. The latent reason is deeper and more complex. I have been active
and outspoken on various ‘taboo’ issues, critical of ultranationalism
and all sorts of rigid ideologies, including those coming from the
Kemalist elite, and I have maintained a public presence on minority
rights, especially on the Armenian question. It is a whole package.”
Indeed, her fiction has always focused on social issues which Turks
prefer to keep hidden, explains sociologist Muge Gocek, who translated
the first of Shafak’s novels to appear in the UK, The Flea Palace. “But
she does so with humour, with grace, and without ever letting her
characters lose their nobility of spirit,” she adds.
The way Shafak deals with Turkey’s past is also unique, continues
Gocek, “both in terms of her knowledge of religious heterodoxy as well
as her use of Ottoman words – these elements add layers of depth to
her novels.”
According to Shafak, language has been at the heart of the process of
creating a new nation state, with words of Persian, Arabic or Sufi
origin being purged from the language in an attempt to break away
from the Ottoman past. “In the name of modernisation our language
shrunk tremendously,” she says.
“As a writer who happens to be a woman and attached to Islamic, as well
as Jewish and Christian heterodox mysticism, I reject the rationalised,
disenchanted, centralised, Turkified modern language put in front
of me,” she declares. “Today in Turkey, language is polarised and
politicised. Depending on the ideological camp you are attached to,
for example Kemalists versus Islamists, you can use either an ‘old’
or a ‘new’ set of words.”
It is a choice she refuses to make, filling her writing with both “old”
and “new” words. She says her fiction is like “walking on a pile of
rubble left behind after a catastrophe. I walk slowly so that I can
hear if there is still someone or something breathing underneath. I
listen attentively to the sounds coming from below to see if anyone,
any story or cultural legacy from the past, is still alive under the
rubble. If and when I come across signs of life, I dig deep and pull
it up, above the ground, shake its dust, and put it in my novels so
that it can survive.”
Catheryn Kilgarriff, co-director of her British publisher Marion
Boyars, was also drawn to her use of old Turkish language, as well
as her use of allegory and fable. “She’s an extraordinary writer,”
she says, and an extremely exciting prospect for the future. “She’s
only 35 now and she’s already mastered one or two different voices
in her fiction. There’s more to come.”
It’s a body of work which is building her a formidable reputation
overseas. “She’s doing astoundingly well,” adds Kilgarriff, pointing
out that Shafak’s books have been taken up by the large chains and
offered in three for two promotions – unusual treatment indeed for
literature in translation.
Shafak has been published in Turkey, the US and Britain, though only
two of her six novels are available in the UK at the moment. Since
writing The Flea Palace, which was shortlisted for the Independent
Foreign Fiction prize in 2005, she has begun writing in English –
an act which has been seen by Turkish nationalists as a “cultural
betrayal”.
It was a choice motivated more by her passion for language, by the
search for new modes of expression. “There are certain things I’d
rather write in English, certain others I’d rather write in Turkish,”
she explains. “English, to me, is a more mathematical language, it
is the language of precision. It embodies an amazing vocabulary and
if you are looking for the ‘precise word’, it is right out there.
Turkish, to me, is more sentimental, more emotional.” English seems
more suited for philosophy, analytical writing or humour, “but if I
am writing on sorrow I’d rather use Turkish.”
This is something that nationalists fail to understand, she says. “It
is always us versus them, this or that. Nationalists cannot understand
that one can be multilingual, multicultural, cosmopolitan … without
feeling obliged to make a choice between them once and for all.”
It is perhaps this instinct which lies at the heart of the wider
conflicts taking place in contemporary Turkish society. An increasingly
urban Turkey has seen a broad cultural renaissance over the last three
decades, which has been consistently under-reported in the west. Voices
in literature, academia and the arts have begun to examine subjects
which have long been taboo, to raise questions about uncomfortable
issues such as the role of women or the history of Turkey’s Armenian
minority.
But as this cultural resurgence has gained strength it has been met
by a nationalist reaction.
“On the one hand there are the ones who want Turkey to join the EU,
democratise further and become an open society,” says Shafak, but
on the other “are the ones who want to keep Turkey as an insular,
xenophobic, nationalistic, enclosed society. And precisely because
things are changing in the opposite direction, the panic and backlash
produced by the latter group is becoming more visible and audible.”
There are those who think that the prosecutions of leading writers
under Article 301 are a sign that nothing is changing in Turkey, but
Shafak thinks it is just the opposite: “Article 301 is being used
more and more against critical minds precisely because things have
been changing very rapidly in Turkey. The bigger and deeper the social
transformation, the more visible the discomfort of those who want to
preserve the status quo and the louder the backlash coming from them.”
It’s a reaction which has already cast doubt on to Turkey’s accession
into the EU. Earlier this month the European commissioner in charge
of negotiations with Turkey urged the Turkish authorities to amend
Article 301, reminding them that freedom of expression “constitutes
the core of democracy” and is a “key principle” in determining a
state’s eligibility to join the EU.
It is too early to say what effect the trial will have on Shafak. She
is determined that it will not influence her writing. “Next time I
start a novel, I do not want to have qualms, fearing this or that
topic might cause me yet another trouble,” she says, adding that
she is “much more daring” in her fiction than in her daily life:
“While I am writing the urge to go on with the story outweighs any
other concern that might cross my mind.”
A date for her trial has not yet been fixed. For the moment all she
can do is wait.
The Bastard of Istanbul will be published in the US by Viking/Penguin
in 2007
Elif Shafak’s The Gaze was published in the UK earlier this month
by Marion Boyars at £9.99
–Boun dary_(ID_+eZnzo6BRILg56xv10Vjpg)–

ARTHUR RASIZADE: “NAGORNO KARABAKH IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF AZERBAIJAN”
Today, Azerbaijan
Aug 2 2006
“Azerbaijan is ready to give the highest status to Karabakh
Armenians. But Armenia does not give chance to solution of the
conflict.”
As APA reports, this statement was issued by prime minister of
Azerbaijan in the meeting with delegation of large scale composition of
Tatarstan who is on a visit in Azerbaijan. Stating Nagorno Karabakh
the biggest problem of Azerbaijan, prime minister said that at
present, Azerbaijanis do not only live in this region but also in
the neighboring countries under occupation of Armenia.
Rasizade stated that more than 1 million of Azerbaijani population
is refugee and internally displaced people.
According to the PM considering it big figure for the Azerbaijan with
8 mln population, this couldn’t bother only China having about half
milliard population.
Rasizade said that at present, works are implemented on liquidation
of DP camps, and by the end of the next year he stated that there
will not be any DP camps in Azerbaijan.
URL:

Assyrians and Australians will assemble to honour an Australian soldier
Assyria Times, CA
Aug 2 2006
By Gaby Kiwarkis
The Assyrian RAF Levies
[email protected]
On the 31st of August at Kew cemetery in Victoria leaders of Assyrian
and Australian organisations together with the Australian Army will
conduct a wreath ceremony in honour of Lieutenant General Sir Stanley
George Savige.
As Captain Savige AIF in 1918 he was attached to Dunsterfoce, a
“hush hush” detachment comprised of the elite members of British and
colonial forces, their objective was to make contact with Christian
Allied elements in the Caucuses. A rigorous selection proses was
undertaken to ensure those selected had the “right stuff”. Captain
Savige was selected for his courage and determination, he joined the
Australian Army in 1915 as a private, in the same year at Gallipoli was
awarded a field commission and commanded the rearguard party during
the evacuation of Gallipoli, he was one of the last to evacuate the
peninsula, in 1917 he was promoted to Captain and was awarded the
Military Cross for his part in the battle of Bullecort. As a young
man his ambitions was to become a Church minister but fate altered
his ambitions to become a prominent figure in Australian military
history and a saviour of Assyrian refugees.
On the 5th of July 1918 the following letter from Major General
Dunsterville was delivered by plane to General Agha Putros commander
of Assyrian and Armenian Forces at Urmia, the pilot Captain Pennington
made a daring flight from Miana, the furthest out-post held by the
British, to Urmia. Headquarters Dunsterforce
Ksavin, July 5th 1918.
To Agha Petros, comm. Urmia.
Compliments from the General commanding British forces in Persia.
The British Government with a sincere and earnest desire to help you
and your people in your heroic struggle for liberty against the savage
Turks, are sending twelve Lewis [automatic] guns, with seventy thousand
cartridges for these guns, also forty thousand cartridges for French
[Lebel] rifles to you. These guns and cartridges are now on their way
from Hamadan to Bijar, and they will be sent on to Sain Kaleh where
a party of your people under a trustworthy and responsible officer
should meet the British party and receive the guns.
You must first expel the Turks from Sauj Bulagh so that the road to
Sain Kaleh may be open to you. I am relying on you to do this and you
must understand that the British force cannot go beyond Sain Kaleh
to meet you.
As soon as you receive this letter you should send a reply stating on
what date your representatives will be at Sain Kaleh. As soon as this
is known, the British party will advance from Bijar to Sain kaleh to
meet your representative and hand over the Arms to him. I wish you to
understand that the British Government will endeavour to help you in
every possible way. You should communicate with me whenever possible
and inform me of the state of affairs in Urmia and let me know what
further assistance you require.
In addition to the ammunition mentioned above about thirty thousand
rounds of ammunition for Russian “three line” rifles is been sent to
you. Also five tins of special petrol for aeroplanes, which should
be carefully kept in case the aeroplane sent with this message has
no sufficient petrol to fly back with.
Major general
Commanding British forces Persia Agha Putros replied on the 7th July
and set a date for the rendezvous at Sain kaleh to be the 22nd of July
1918. General Dunsterville replied on the 12th of July agreeing to
the date of the meeting and warned in his reply “I am sure you will
not even think of leaving your country to the ravages and cruelty of
the enemy, which might result in the massacre of all your people”.
Here it must be said that even though Agha Petros was a brilliant
strategist in gorilla warfare he made two serious mistakes in dealing
with a regular Army. Firstly his defeat of the Turkish forces at Sauj
Bulagh was brilliant as described bellow but failed to allow for the
time needed to defeat the enemy and arrived at the rendezvous eleven
days late. Secondly, after his victory, he failed to detach a force
necessary to keep the road open from Urmia to Sain Kaleh and send a
small detachment to secure the supplies from the British, instead he
moved south with all his troop leaving the way open for the Turks to
return to their previous positions and cause havoc among the refugees.
After carefully mapping out his route and drafting his plans,
Agha Putros decided that he would move south in three columns,
each separated by some miles of rough country. It was then decided
to attack during the night, and force the enemy to fall back on his
base, and into the hands of the mounted force. The whole plan worked
without a hitch. The column moving without mishap, got into touch with
the Turks and formed a line, and in the dead of night, the whole line
moved forward to the accompaniment of in­tense rifle fire and shouts of
victory. The Turks were bewildered at this unexpected attack at such an
unexpected time. Their stand was feeble and they were forced to retire
in a disordered state to Suldaz, to find waiting for them a mounted
force in such positions that the Turks were completely annihilated.
The British force assigned to meet the Assyrians contained two
detachments, a supply column comprised of mostly ANZAC’s [Australian
and New Zealanders] of which Captain Savige was a senior officer,
and an escort of British Cavalry the 14th Hussars commanded by Colonel
Bridges. This force left Bijar on the 18th of July and arrived at the
rendezvous on the 23rd [a day late]. Not hearing from the Assyrians
they decided to wait in the hope of receiving some news. On the
25th the British Colonel commanding the Cavalry decided to withdraw
complaining that his horses were running low on feed, his duty was to
escort the supplies until relieved by Agha Petros. His decision to
abandon the Assyrians roused indignation among the ANZAC’s, Captain
Savige protesting that “they were not giving the Assyrians a chance”,
his troop volunteered to the last man to ride forward and meet the
Assyrians at lake Urmia, the Captain stating that “they would survive
on dry rice if they had to”. This proposition made by Captain Savige
was denied and were ordered to mount and withdraw, with troubled
thoughts the ANZAC’s obeyed orders. The idea of reaching the Assyrians,
as Savige later stated had never left him; he continued to make his
objections to the British Colonel until he finally agreed to a plan of
making camp at Takan Tepe fifty miles south of the rendezvous point
and raise a local Levy force to reach the Assyrians. General Putros
in the meantime arrived to meet the British detachment at Sain Kala
eleven days late, only to find they had retired, knowing he could not
return to Urmia empty handed he continued to Taken Tepe and arrived
there on the 3rd of August.
The first meeting as described by Captain Savige: On August 1st we
were told by a native who had ridden down from the north that he
had heard that the Assyrians and Armenians were fighting the Turks
in a great battle south of Lake Urmiah. We pretended to be quite
ignorant of the existence of any such people, but knew that this was
the first move on the part of our friends. At dawn next morning the
whole camp was dis­mantled, gear was packed and the whole party, in
high spirits in the knowledge that the show had not fallen through,
were on the road once more. That day we travelled until late in the
afternoon. On arrival at a stream we pitched our camp, with the idea
of moving forward with the first streak of dawn. The tents had hardly
been erected when away ahead, through the long valley, a cloud of
dust could be seen, which grew in proportion as it neared us. Within
a mile or so of our tented camp, a group of horsemen rode ahead, one
of whom car­ried a large red banner with a white cross worked on its
face. On reaching the rise over our camp they dismounted and scanned
us for some little time through their field glasses. We signalled to
them that we were friends, and although not ap­parently sure, they rode
towards the camp. Their fears were soon set at rest when we shouted to
them that we were the English. One galloped back to the main party,
while the others rode into camp. As some of them could speak English
they ex­pressed their delight at joining us in no half-hearted manner.
Shortly after this their leader, Agha Petros, rode into the camp,
and there we awaited the arrival of his forces. Of all the sights
that one was privileged to see, these horsemen winding along the
valley was one never to be forgotten. They came along in an orderly,
soldierly fashion, split up into groups of about equal size to
our own troop of cavalry. Ahead of each group rode the leader, and
behind him, came his standard bearer, who carried a large red flag
across which was worked a white cross, the flag of Agha Petros, the
Commander-in-Chief, being the gaudiest of all. It was made of silk,
fringed with gold with the usual white cross in the centre, over
which was worked the Assyrian words, “Trust God and Follow the Cross!”
At dawn, the entire troop, the Assyrians and ANZAC’s rode north for
Urmia towards dusk the first day they negotiated the last of the
hills on the south sides of Sain Kala, then swung off the road to the
poplar groves and orch­ards near the river where they had decided to
camp. Captain Savige was riding with two other officers at the head
of the column. On ar­rival at the camping ground they saw a crowd
of people dressed differently from those they had seen in the town
before. Amongst them were a number of women clothed in bright print
dresses, without face coverings-an unheard of thing in Mohammedan’s
lands. they were at a loss to explain their existence in that part of
the country. Shortly after­wards Agha Petros rode up. On seeing these
people his face blanched. For a moment or two he was unable to speak.
Then turning in his saddle, he said, ‘.My God! Here are my people!
What calamity has happened during my absence?”
On questioning the refugees, sufficient information could not be
obtained from them as to the reasons for leaving Urmia. Troops were
left behind to protect the refugees whilst Captain Savige, Agha Petros
and Assyrian and ANZAC troops rode forward to recce the situation. On
witnessing thousands of refugees scattered as far as the eye could see
it became apparent that Urmia had fallen and the whole nation was on
the move. An erroneous decision at this point was made by officers
in charge; with night falling they decided to camp and tackle the
situation at first light, forgetting they had in their charge irregular
troops not disciplined to regular Army methods. The Assyrian troops
became restless and objected to been ordered to rest opting for riding
forward and searching for their families. This decision caused the
Assyrian command structure to brake down and the Army to disperse.
At first light, the ANZAC’s [six men] and Agha Petros could only
muster 50 men to accompany them to the rear of the refugee column. On
meeting an Assyrian Doctor they had learned from him the reason for the
collapse of the front in Urmia, Captain Savige explains “That night an
Assyrian doctor rode in and told us the whole story of the evacuation.
It appeared that there were fifty or so Russians who had remained
behind after the Russian evacua­tion. These were chiefly officers and
men who knew that if they returned to Russia with its new government,
they would have a very short shrift. The Armenians had been driven back
to Lake Ur­miah from Lake Van and thousands of Christians had flocked
into the town from the surrounding sent for­ward mounted messengers
with orders to ride back when it was ascertained that Agha Petros
and his forces, who were chiefly Assyrians, had broken through the
Turkish army and opened up the road that led to the British. This
news was sent back to the conspirators, who immediately took steps
to evacuate the town.
Dr. Shed, the American Missionary, had been left behind to conduct
affairs in the absence of Agha Petros. He noticed that the Armenians
were evacuating their line north of the city. When questioned as to
the reason of their strange be­haviour, they stated they were simply
moving from their camp to a more healthy position. This did not seem
at all feasible to Dr. Shed, who told them that he thought they were
lying and that their intentions were to desert the Assyrians. They
as­sured him that this was not the case, and after his asking them
if they contemplated such an act, to remain for at least four days,
he rode back to the city, on their giving him their promises. They
apparently waited till nightfall and then continued their march
southwards, with both the Russians and mountaineers. The Turks very
soon received intelligence of the fact that the northern portion of
the line, held by the Armenians, was unoccupied, and, together with
the Kurds, moved down on the city.
Small parties of Assyrians moved out to inter­cept them and delay
their advance until the inhabitants had sufficient time to load
their wagons with supplies of food for the journey together with what
valuables they had. Even after all the mistakes made by both British
and Assyrians, the Assyrians at Urmia could still have held on if not
for the above unpleasant incident. It was here that Captain Savige
faced with this appalling situation made a decision that only a man
of his calibre would make.
His orders were to supply the Assyrian Army and not risk his supplies
to fall into enemy hands, confronted with this dreadful state of
affairs many officers would have simply returned to the safety of
British lines, they would have done their duty, what was expected
of them!
Captain Savige was no ordinary soldier; he was not only courageous
but companionate as well, accompanied by six of his men and fifty
Assyrian Cavalry he rode to the rear of the refugee procession,
described as been thirty miles long and one mile wide, he defended the
rear for six weeks placing his command in grave danger and holding on
to defensive positions for as long as he possibly can until almost
surrounded, before extracting his command only to place himself
in another position, he repeated this action time and time again,
loosing one of his men did not deter him from his humane mission. By
his actions he gave the refugees [those that were able] sufficient
time to flee. “We could not save them all” he said, with lumps in our
throats we ignored the cries of the helpless in our endeavour to save
as many as we could”.
Captain Savige was awarded the D.S.O. For conspicuous gallantry and
devotion to duty during the retirement of refugees from Sain Keleh
to Tikkan Tappah between 26th and 28th July 1918; also at Chalkaman
on the 5th and 6th August 1918. During WWII he was promoted to Lt
General and commanded the Australian forces in New Guinea, post WWII
he founded the Legacy foundation to assist War widows in Australia
and was knighted for his efforts.
Our ceremony at his final resting place in Kew, Victoria is in a small
way of saying thank you for his part in protecting Assyrian refugees,
and for being a witness to the slaughter. At 8.30 A.M on the 31st
August we will hold a wreath laying ceremony in his honour; guests
include Australian and Assyrian community leaders, the Returned
Services League and the Australian Army. The Late General was a
witness to the exodus.
ws/article.php?storyid=3230
–Boundary_(ID_fTKBNd mAERQLO5p70/IrVg)–