Arkady Ghukasyan: Matthew Bryza’s visit is a good opportunity to present our positon
ArmRadio.am
25.07.2006 16:25
“I don’t think the mediators have new suggestions. Anyway the visit
of the US Co-Chair is a good opportunity to present our position,
NKR Presidnet Arkady Ghukasyan said commenting upon the upcoming visit
of Matthew Bryza to the region, “ArmInfo” reports. Arkady Ghukasyan
considers that the participation of Nagorno Karabakh in the settlement
process is necessary. “Earlier or later Nagorno Karabakh will
certainly participate in the process, since without the resolution
of the issue without considering the opinion of NKR people. When
will it occur?… I don’t think that today Azerbaijan is ready for
a dialogue with Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan avoids holding talks
with us, since its position is non-constructive, ” NKR President noted.
In response to the question of holding the second referendum on the
status of Nagorno Karabakh, Arkadi Ghukasyan remarked that Nagorno
Karabakh has already conducted a referendum on the issue and the
results of it are known to everyone. “If today there were guarantees
that the international community will recognize tomorrow’s referendum,
we’ll think about it,” NKR President underscored.

Grand Master of Armenia Lilit Lazarian plays a draw with ex-World Champion Maya Chiburdanidze
ArmRadio.am
25.07.2006 13:10
Today Grand Master of Armenia Lilit Lazarian played a draw with
ex-World Champion Maya Chiburdanidze of Georgia in the first round
of the “Ural Cup – 2006” international chess tournament held in
Krasnoturinsk, Russia.12 leading woman chess players are participating
in the tournament, including ex-World Champion Antonetta Stefanova
of Bulgaria, Chzyu Chen of Qatar and Viktoria Chmilite of Lithuania.

DOES HMAYAK UNDERSTAND SERGE OR SIMPLY MAKES UNDERSTAND?
Lragir.am
25 July 06
Member of Parliament Hmayak Hovanisyan, political scientist, told Serge
Sargsyan July 25 at the Pastark Club that he does not understand. The
minister of defense was not at the Pastark Club, of course, and Hmayak
conveyed his worries to him indirectly. However, the message of worries
about the fate of the defense minister teaches a good lesson. According
to Hovanisyan, the present goal of the government is to get over the
mistrust of the public towards the government, and “it was supposed
that by taking up a leading position in the Republican Party Serge
Sargsyan would enable getting over this public mistrust.”
“He must give serious signals that he has decided to change the
situation inside the Republican Party fundamentally, politicize
this political party, involve serious political figures, push them
forward. What do we have now? People become members of the council,
who enter the parliament to beat people and get away with it. Well,
what problem is being solved? In my opinion, the consequences will be
heavy, it will be very difficult for the country. The opposition does
not have anything to worry about. It is an exceptional chance for the
opposition,” says Hmayak Hovanisyan. According to him, Serge Sargsyan
could remain non-partisan but in fact control 90 percent of forces
which have just entered the parliament, and remain a non-political
factor.
“Serge Sargsyan chose a path which will fairly politicize the upcoming
parliamentary election. The target was highlighted. For instance, you
are dissatisfied with building, you are dissatisfied with injustice,
you are dissatisfied that the problem of savings was not settled,
you are dissatisfied that the right for property is violated, some
people kill people in broad daylight and get away with it. These 73
people are responsible for everything, these are people’s enemies,
they torture the country, they plunder the country, they must be
uprooted to heal the situation,” Hmayak Hovanisyan marks the possible
approach of the opponents of the Republican Party. They are surprised
why Serge Sargsyan chose the path of becoming a target.
“Serge Sargsyan said this is my team and joined in with this
conglomerate including only oligarchs, the business elite, persons
whom people consider the plunderers of their property, why did he go
in this situation, I cannot understand, for it was pointless because
he directed it at any rate,” says the political scientist.
He believes that Serge Sargsyan’s way is not the way Vazgen Sargsyan
passed. Hmayak Hovanisyan said Vazgen Sargsyan realized that the
oligarchs were to be isolated, “He wanted to lock them in a trunk”.
According to Hmayak Hovanisyan, he understood that it was necessary for
his reputation. The political scientist thinks there are a number of
positive people, with whom Serge Sargsyan could cooperate and change
his image, and it is not clear why he did not do. It is unclear for
Hmayak. “The oligarchs must be used, not shown, they are not fit for
showing,” says Hmayak Hovanisyan. According to him, Serge Sargsyan did
not need insurance from internal foes in the country, because there are
no such, says Hmayak Hovanisyan. He thinks that there are no serious
opponents of Serge Sargsyan in Armenia. The political scientist thinks
Serge Sargsyan should have tackled external challenges, whereas his
step may intensify challenges, Hmayak believes.
“In the countries where there is an immense gap between the public
and the government, let alone deep hatred for the government,
there is possibility under the influence of serious political
centers of international politics, under a geopolitical center,
this dissatisfaction, this hatred for the government will allow home
political changes, revolutionary changes. This is an axiom,” says
Hmayak Hovanisyan, adding that the society is waiting for external
assistance.
“This is the consequence of the approach “nothing compares with
us”, which will become a boomerang and strike the administration,
the government, the stable elite, who do not understand they need
to change their reputation in the eyes of the people,” announces
Hmayak Hovanisyan.

11 Armenian films to be screened in Sao Paolo
ArmRadio.am
25.07.2006 17:00
In the framework of celebration of the 15th anniversary of the
independence of the Republic of Armenia September 19-24 a week of
Armenian films will be held in the largest cultural complex of Brazil –
the Sao Paolo Cultural Center.
Press and Information Department of RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs told
” ArmInfo” that 11 films of Sergey Parajanov, Harutyun Khachatryan,
Vigen Chaldranyan, Albert Lazarian Ruben Kochar, Hnri Vernoy and
Robert Keshishyan will be screened.
At the suggestion of the Brazilians, “My Sardarapat” musical film
will be shown as well. The event is being organized by joint efforts
of the Chief Consulate of Armenia in Brazil, RA Ministry of Culture
and Youth Affairs and the San Paolo Secretariat of Culture.

FEAR MAKES THEM COMMIT A CRIME
Aravot.am
22 July 06
Communist Khoren Trchuni Sargsian says.
Mr. Sargsian, in your opinion, why are the authority powers so active
and what do you think about the Defense Minister party selection?
Indeed, the authorities act more actively than the opposition does
and if we analyze this situation it will become clear, that when
the opposition was active before, the authority won but now the
authority is active, consequently the opposition will win. Some signs
are already visible. As regards Serge Sargsian’s party selection I
must say that have been with each other since 2000. Which is the aim
for being together? If the authorities knew they would be reelected
by their done work, they wouldn’t take this step. They took this
step to keep their seats warm in the NA and authority. I connect
the future of the country with the elections, which must be fair,
nothing else must be: certainly the authority will do its best to rig
the elections. God forbid if they manage to stay in the authority,
in that case Armenia will probable empty. The Armenian people flee
to Armenia because of the war in the Arabic war hoping to have a
shelter in their homeland. But they will be disappointed soon, will
find anywhere else and will leave our country. Don’t you think the
oppositionist parties are too passive? Yes, I do; if anybody commits
a crime, for example he want to steal money to eat and the master of
the house sees him, the thief feels fear and commits another crime by
killing the master of the house, then fires him, committing the third
crime and so on. Now the same happens to these authorities: the fear
of hiding their committed crimes makes them commit a new one. How do
you explain RPA-“Prosperous Armenia” relations and do you believe
that the first one acts for Serge Sargsian and the second one acts
for Robert Kocharian, are there discrepancies between them? Of course,
no. Serge Sargsian-Robert Kocharian discrepancies are invented, there
is no discrepancy; they pretend so to rise the role of them. As regards
” Prosperous Armenia”, perhaps Gagik Tsaroulian’s goal is to keep his
property from these authorities. I regard it in this way. Can the NK
conflict escalation make some people resign? I have replied to that
question a year before and I have said what will happen. Certainly
my prediction happened sooner. I have said that everything will be
strained in September when they will call the NA chairman back. Then
they will make the Prime Minister send in his resignation to appoint
their official in that post. The NA chairman after the President’s
resignation will refuse to lead the country before the elections in
40 days and the PM will lead the country. It’s the same line as it
was in 1998. It’s the same handwriting. Let’s speak about communistic
party. What does happen inside it? Speaking about the Communistic Party
of Armenia I feel pain in my heart and I won’t allow anyone to lift
his hand against the party as the Comcus of Armenia has always been
national and thanks to it we exist on this square. Our party wants
to stop exploitation people by people, to restore social justice.
I’m obliged to unify all communistic parties but if they don’t, it
will be easy for me to register the Republican Communistic Party of
Armenia, hold a session and for a new power.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PROBLEMS OF COMMUNITY AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
24 July 2006
On July 21 Edward Aghabekian, the mayor of Stepanakert, gave a news
conference and presented a report on the activities of the City Hall in
the first half of 2006. The receipts of the community budget totaled
over 120 million as on July 20, whereas in 2004 receipts totaled
103 million. According to the mayor, it was enabled by anti-shade
actions, namely the collection of tax on land and tax on property was
improved. “The growth of return on tax was viewed in the context of
reduced government subsidies (by 30 percent). The rate of growth of the
GDP is rather high,” said the mayor of Stepanakert. Edward Aghabelyan,
informing that the volume of building went down, because they had
to direct additional funds to summer salaries of teachers. Over the
past five years the collection of public duties (notary registration,
civilian registry) has gone down. The problem is that government
agencies are assigned to collection of public duties, which are only
then transferred to the community budget. The mayor believes that
collection of public duties will grow if collection of public duties
is decentralized, which would enable more transparency. Another
important problem for Stepanakert is water supply. June draught
gave rise to serious problems. “Last year five artesian wells were
dug and two were repaired, which supply over 9000 cu m water to the
community. We have estimated that if the infrastructure is improved,
the entire population of Stepanakert can be supplied with running
water, if not 24 hours than at least during half of the day,” said
the mayor of Stepanakert. At present an additional pumping station
is prepared for operation in Aygestan. There are also problems with
the pumping stations inside the city. Every pumping station has one
pump instead of two. Besides, the pumps are not powerful enough. The
reserve fund of the government allocated 18.5 million drams to buy
new pumps. The mayor said a City Hall official has gone to Moscow,
and the new pumps will be delivered to the community within this week
and will be operated in August or in September.
NVARD OHANJANIAN. 24-07-2006

Eurasia Daily Monitor
Monday, July 24, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 142
SUMMIT PRESCRIBES CIS LITE; PUTIN BLINKS BEFORE SAAKASHVILI; VORONIN
STANDS UP TO PUTIN
by Vladimir Socor
Devalued by an unusually low attendance — only eight out of twelve
presidents — the CIS informal summit in Moscow on July 21-22 marks the
official transition of this organization to a `lite’ version of its former
self. With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s acquiescence, Kazakh President
Nursultan Nazarbayev presented a set of proposals to reduce the CIS to a few
functions, mainly in the sphere of social projects. Moreover, Putin blinked
before the absent Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, by eschewing a
discussion on Russian `peacekeeping’ in Abkhazia, even though the Kremlin
itself and all of Russia’s officialdom insisted all along that this issue
belongs to the CIS competency.
The summit’s agenda included a CIS `assessment of world
developments’ — the usual exercise to line up the presidents behind a
Kremlin-drafted statement on international issues — as well as CIS reform.
In view of the low attendance, however, the Kremlin decided to drop the
joint statement at the last moment on July 21. The following day, Putin
asked Nazarbayev to present proposals for CIS reform that Nazarbayev had
been authorized to prepare in his capacity as chairman of the CIS Council of
Heads of State.
Nazarbayev’s report explicitly acknowledges that the CIS does not meet
the requirements of an integration organization, having failed to create
even a free-trade zone, let alone a customs or monetary union or a common
security policy. He proposes that the CIS henceforth focus on harmonizing
member states’ policies on five issues: a) regulating migration; b)
developing transport links; c) promoting exchanges in the sphere of
education; d) dealing with cultural and humanitarian issues [often a
euphemism for maintaining a Russian-language cultural environment]; and e)
tackling trans-border criminality.
Under this proposal, CIS decisions are to be adopted by unanimous
consent and to be deemed obligatory once adopted. This mechanism seems a
recipe for weak and even meaningless decisions. It gives each country not
only the possibility to withhold its consent but actually an incentive to
withhold consent if necessary to avoid obligatory decisions that contravene
its interests.
Moreover, Nazarbayev proposes continuing cuts in the personnel of
Moscow-based CIS structures and transferring their functions to `national
coordinators’ who would reside in the member countries’ capitals. Reducing
the budget and personnel of CIS offices in Moscow is a trademark Nazarbayev
idea, and it is partly thanks to his insistence that those structures have
been cut radically in recent years. Any further cut would almost certainly
bring their final demise. The proposed institution of nationally based
coordinators seems inspired by the GUAM model. Although GUAM is not yet
functional, its national coordinators at least provide a flexible and
cost-effective mechanism for development and implementation of policy
decisions.
The report was circulated belatedly and could not be seriously
discussed at the summit. It has on the whole been accepted as a basis for
further discussion, and the presidents are to submit suggestions to
Nazarbayev for further development of the proposals. Nazarbayev will retain
his chairmanship of the presidents’ conclave (temporarily suspending the
rotation in that chair) in order to finalize his report. He concluded,
`Everyone knows that the CIS states are unhappy about the work of this
organization, and some are very unhappy . . . The CIS has actually turned
into a club for the presidents’ meetings’ (NTV Mir, July 22).
The club function is supposed to enable the presidents to hold
bilateral or small-format meetings on the summit’s sidelines. However, even
the club function is questionable with only eight presidents in attendance,
and Putin declining to meet bilaterally with the two presidents who had
wanted such meetings: Georgia’s Saakashvili, who was refused one day before
the summit, and Moldova’s Vladimir Voronin who was denied a bilateral
meeting with Putin while the summit was in progress.
The gist of what Voronin might have told Putin can be gauged from the
Moldovan president’s interview with the liberal Ekho Moskvy radio — one of
the few Moscow media outlets still open to him — on the summit’s opening
day, when he was still hoping for a bilateral meeting with the Russian
president. Voronin pointed to Russia’s recruitment of Transnistria’s leaders
`in the Siberian Taiga and [Soviet] Riga special police [reference to these
leaders’ actual backgrounds]; called for replacement of Russia’s
`peacekeeping’ operations with an international mission of observers, both
military and civilian; ridiculed Moscow’s claim that Transnistria’s
authorities `do not permit’ Russia to remove its arsenals and troops from
the area (a claim repeated on July 20 by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs
Sergei Lavrov); protested against Russia’s politically motivated embargo on
Moldovan wines (50% market share in Russia prior to the recent ban); and
deplored Russia’s `destruction’ of what Voronin described as traditional
Moldovan good will toward Russia (Ekho Moskvy, July 21).
Putin pointedly expressed his `thanks to those who found it possible
to come to Moscow.’ Among those who did not find it possible, Turkmen
President Saparmurat Niyazov is often absent from CIS summits; this time,
however, he is openly in conflict with Moscow over the price of Turkmen gas
deliveries to Gazprom.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko canceled his attendance with
less than 24 hours’ advance notice, citing the complicated political
situation in the country. A presidential communiqué went out of its way to
assure Russia and Putin personally of the `sincerity of Ukraine’s relations
with Russia as well as of the fact that Russia is a strategic partner of
Ukraine’ and invited Putin to visit Ukraine. A further invitation will
follow by official letter from Yushchenko, his office announced
(Interfax-Ukraine, July 21). This marks at least the fifth public and
somewhat supplicating invitation from Yushchenko to Putin to visit Ukraine.
Yushchenko previously issued such invitations in August, November, and
December 2005 and January 2006 publicly, and was also hoping to receive
Putin in Ukraine ahead of the March 26 parliamentary elections.
Armenian President Robert Kocharian was set to attend and likely to
meet with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev in Putin’s presence at this
summit. However, Kocharian canceled his attendance at the summit only hours
before its opening on July 21, citing a viral respiratory problem. In any
case, he faces an internal political problem, as Defense Minister Serge
Sarkisian seems set to launch a bid for supreme power.
(Interfax, Khabar, Mediamax, Arminfo, July 21, 22)
–Vladimir Socor
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
“Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund
Governmental Building 3, Yerevan, RA
Contact: Anush Babayan
Tel: 3741 52 09 40
Fax: 3741 52 37 95
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
25.07.06
Himnadram reconstructs sport facilities
In 2006 `Hayastan’ All-Armenian Fund launched the second stage of
reconstruction in Yerevan sport facilities. It includes entire
reconstruction of Olympic Gymnastic School after Hrant Shahinyan and
State College of Olympic Teams, as well as construction Yerevan School
for Young Shooters.
At the beginning of 2006 the design works were carried out. In May
reconstruction works started in Olympic Gymnastic School after Hrant
Shahinyan and State College of Olympic Teams. Completion of works is
slated for October-November months of this year.
On July 13, tender was conducted for construction of Yerevan School for
Young Shooters. Works will start very soon.
At present around 20% of works are accomplished in Gymnastic School
after Hrant Shahinyan. A boiler-house has been already constructed for
the first block. Internal decoration will be carried out. In the second
block the heating system has been installed, doors and windows have been
placed.
In State College of Olympic Teams about 17% of works are done. The roof
has been repaired, now the doors and windows are being placed.
The first stage of this project was completed in 2005. The
`Hayastan’ Fund is also implementing a similar project in
Tsakhkadzor.

ZNet | Israel/Palestine
Lebanon between Truth and Justice
by Khatchig Mouradian; July 24, 2006
I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.
I’m for justice, no matter who it’s for or against.
Malcolm X
On July 12 2006, fighters from the armed wing of the Lebanese political
party Hizbollah launched a cross-border attack on Israel killing and
injuring a number of Israeli soldiers and capturing two. The operation was
dubbed `True Promise’; months ago, Hizbollah had promised in public to
capture Israeli soldiers to exchange them with Lebanese prisoners
languishing in Israeli jails, some for more than 25 years.
The very day the soldiers were captured, Sayyed Hassan Nasralla, the
secretary-general of Hizbollah, declared that there was no intention on his
part to start a full-scale confrontation, and that the only way to free the
Israeli soldiers was through indirect negotiations leading to an exchange.
Israel, however, immediately launched a wide-scale military campaign, dubbed
`Just Reward,’ to free the two soldiers. Hizbollah first retaliated by
shelling military positions in Israel’s north and, eventually, as the
Israeli Army started bombing Lebanese infrastructure and targeting
civilians, Hizbollah started shelling civilian targets as well.
Israel has thus far `justly rewarded’ the three runways and fuel depots of
Beirut International Airport, all its seaports, most highways and roads
connecting various parts of the country as well as those leading to Syria,
tens of bridges in Lebanon’s south and east, factories, trucks, ambulances,
TV transmission installations, thousands of buildings and houses. More than
360 civilians have been, again, `justly rewarded’ by getting slaughtered,
and more than a thousand received lesser `rewards’ by being sent to
hospitals and some 700 thousand (an estimated 15 percent of the country’s
population) have been `rewarded’ with refugee status. President Bush said
that Israel had the right to defend itself and, to date, the US has blocked
all attempts by the international community to put a ceasefire in place.
Hizbollah, in turn, has tried to impose what the Arab media and experts are
calling a `balance of terror’ by bombing northern Israel –most notably the
port city of Haifa– and causing a number of deaths and injuries among
Israeli soldiers and civilians.
While United Nations relief coordinator Jan Egeland was saying that Lebanon
was suffering a `major’ humanitarian crisis and that Israel was violating
`international humanitarian law,’ the US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, heading to the region on July 23, did not seem to be in a rush. `We
have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not
going back to the old one,’ she said.
What started as an operation to liberate the 2 Israeli soldiers (if one is
naïve enough to believe that) is now a US supported war to forge a `new
Middle East.’ If this renovation is anything in the same breath as the
`Greater Middle-East’ plans that are being implemented from Afghanistan to
Iraq to the Palestinian territories, then Lebanon has just started to walk
down the long road that the Bush administration sees as that of freedom,
democracy, and security, and, if the country is lucky enough, three years
from now, it will be as free, democratic and safe as, say, Iraq and
Afghanistan are today.
What needs to be done? Attempts to wipe out, or even defeat Hizbollah, are
in all probability doomed to fail. With the degree of `pinpoint accuracy’
the Israeli army is displaying, the entire Lebanese people will be cleansed
much before the rooting out of Hizbollah.
Implementing UN Security Council resolution 1559 and disarming Hizbollah by
force are doomed to fail as well. Whether the US administration, the West in
general, some `moderate’ Arab states, and even many in Lebanon like it or
not, Hizbollah has a broad grassroots support not only among the Shiites,
the largest minority in Lebanon, but also among some Christian, Druze, and
Sunni Muslim political circles, who are extremely angry at Washington’s
overall pro-Israeli bias, and at the fact that the Bush administration is
ignoring the UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which were
declared to be at the core of the international initiative launched in
Madrid in 1991.
Any initiative to solve the immediate crisis in Lebanon must involve an
exchange of prisoners between Lebanon and Israel (and probably in the
Palestinian territories as well), Israel’s handing down of the maps of
landmines that the Israeli army had planted in southern Lebanon before its
withdrawal in 2000, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Shebaa farms–
which, according to the Lebanese government and Hizbollah, is Lebanese soil.
Even after all that, it is an illusion to believe that a comprehensive and
lasting solution can be achieved without finding a true and just solution to
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Khatchig Mouradian is a Lebanese-Armenian writer, translator, and
journalist. He is an editor of the daily newspaper Aztag, published in
Beirut. He can be contacted at [email protected]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
The Washington Diplomat
July, 2006
Turkey, Looking to Future,
Battles Its Past With Armenia
by Sanjay Talwani
Most nations involved in conflicts try to remain forward-looking. But
for Turkey, the recurring 90-year-old question of what happened in
Armenia at the hands of Ottoman Empire troops will not go away, and it’s
led to a renewed series of diplomatic squabbles.
For Armenians and many others, there is no question: The Ottomans
slaughtered 1.5 million Armenian civilians between 1915 and 1923, and
the world-especially Turkey, which has no normal diplomatic relations
with Armenia-should recognize it officially as genocide.
Turkey says the historical record is different and in any event,
historians not governments and politicians should address the issue-but
around the world, governments and politicians are weighing in.
In France, legislation was proposed to make denial of the Armenian
genocide a criminal offense-a hate crime along the lines of European
laws prohibiting denial of the Nazi Holocaust.
The bill was blocked in the French Parliament, but not before Turkey’s
ambassador went back to Ankara-not in protest, he later said in a letter
to the International Herald Tribune, but for consultations on the issue.
He also fought back against charges that his nation is afraid to discuss
the issue and suppresses free speech.
In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly acknowledged the
genocide in May. In response, Turkey recalled its ambassador, but
similarly, the Turkish government said that move too was neither a
“withdrawal” nor a “protest,” but a consultation. Turkey also declined
to participate in military exercises this spring in the western province
of Alberta.
The diplomatic tiff hit American airwaves and editorial pages this
spring as well. In April, PBS broadcast “The Armenian Genocide,” which
Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, Nabi Sensoy, called “a
blatantly one-sided perspective of a tragic and unresolved period of
world history.”
“Its premise is rejected not only by my government, but also by many
eminent scholars who have studied the period in question,” Sensoy said
in a statement. “Instead of acknowledging that this issue remains
unresolved, the program reflects a self-serving political agenda by
Armenian American activists who seek to silence legitimate debate on
this issue and establish their spurious orthodoxy as the absolute
truth.”
Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, Tatoul Markarian, responded
in a letter to the New York Times. “The Turkish government makes history
a precondition for normalizing interstate relations with Armenia,” he
wrote. “Turkey needs first of all to reconcile with its own history, and
it must remove all taboos and stop persecution of Turkish authors who
dare address the 1915 events. Turkish scholars will then be able to
examine the rich historical record.”
In the United States, a bill to recognize the genocide nearly passed
Congress in 2000 before President Clinton intervened to avoid a crisis
with Turkey.
Last year, then-U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans was reassigned
because, say some Armenians and their allies, he acknowledged the
genocide in a speech. On June 7, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Edward
Kennedy (D-Mass.) wrote U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
demanding an explanation for Evans’s recent dismissal from the State
Department, and on June 12, the Armenian National Committee of America
launched a national campaign urging members to call Congress on the
matter. A few days later, about 60 members of the House wrote Rice to
urge Turkey to acknowledge the genocide, end its military control in
Cyprus, and drop what most call Turkey’s “blockade” of Armenia. The
letter also asked Rice to address “concerns” about Turkey’s prospective
European Union admission.
Turkey, however, sees conditions on the ground differently. “There is no
blockade of Armenia,” Tuluy Tanc, minister-counselor at the Turkish
Embassy, told The Washington Diplomat. Tanc said the main reason for the
closure is that Armenia does not recognize the border, including Mount
Ararat in Turkey, which is seen as a national symbol. As a result,
although there is air travel between the countries, the land border is
closed.
The U.S. State Department calls the border closure, as well as the
closure of the Armenia-Azeri border, “devastating” to the nascent
Armenian economy-its growth in such areas as the diamond trade
notwithstanding.
The issue’s latest emergence comes when some see a lull in Turkey’s
enthusiasm for EU membership and when its relationship with the United
States is just now recovering from the divisions of the Iraq war.
In March 2003, just weeks before the war in Iraq began, Turkey’s
parliament voted to prevent the U.S.-led coalition from passing through
the country, and then on July 4 of that year, a rogue band of Turkish
soldiers were captured by U.S. forces in Iraq and harshly treated in an
episode largely forgotten about stateside but that outraged Turkish
citizens. Meanwhile, Turkey remains threatened by separatist Kurds in
Iraq and within its own borders.
With Turkey’s decision not to allow the coalition forces in their
country, the United States became much more dependent on Kurdish groups
in northern Iraq, said Henri Barkey, a longtime Turkey scholar and
chairman of the Department of International Relations at Lehigh
University in Bethlehem, Pa. “In a way, Turkey dealt itself out,” Barkey
said. “And for the Turks, the Kurdish issue is vital. They are
completely paranoid about the Kurds.”
Following a June 2005 visit to the United States by Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and an April 2006 visit to Turkey by Rice,
armed with a fresh initiative to talk more with Ankara, relations are
improving somewhat.
Marc Grossman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey (1994-97), told The
Diplomat that Rice’s visit was already changing the tone. “The two sides
should sit down together and write what she called a ‘vision statement’
about what the United States-Turkey relationship is about and should be
about,” Grossman said, describing Rice’s plan. “I think this is a great
idea.”
“If you don’t pay attention to the relationship every day-on both sides,
in Washington and in Ankara-it’s subject to a certain amount of drift,”
added Grossman, who is now vice chairman of the Cohen Group, an
international consultancy headed by former Defense Secretary William
Cohen.
Grossman, a 29-year career diplomat who served as undersecretary of
state for political affairs, said Ankara should end the Armenia
blockade, but the best thing Turkey can do is be more vocal and clear in
its support of the new Iraqi government. “No one is going to benefit
outside of Iraq from a secure, stable, prosperous Iraq [more] than
Turkey,” he said.
Michael Rubin, a former advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority
in Baghdad who is now with the American Enterprise Institute, is less
optimistic. “There is not a great deal of trust left in U.S.-Turkish
relations,” he told The Diplomat by e-mail from Iraq. “Our diplomats say
nice words about dialogue, but the quality of talk is not there.
There is also growing frustration in the White House that Erdogan
blatantly tries to use his U.S. visits as an election ploy. He likes to
imply endorsements where none exists.”
However, few people regard the issues with Armenia as essential to
Turkey’s EU admission or its relations with the United States.
“Turkey regards this as a side issue, but they certainly understand that
their would-be partners regard it as a stumbling block,” said James
Holmes, president and chief executive officer of the American Turkish
Council, a business group. He noted that the genocide seems to be more
of an issue with the Armenian Diaspora than the Armenian government.
“For the Armenians, it’s their raison d’etre,” Barkey said, adding that
the issue offers no good choices for Turkey. “If they say yes, they
would be branded as someone who committed genocide…. But if they admit
guilt, then they are guilty-90 years of purgatory notwithstanding.”
He argues that Turkey has something of an identity crisis, ignoring
warts of its Ottoman past and celebrating its imagined glories. “There
is a little bit of denial in Turkey about the Ottoman Empire.”
Sanjay Talwani is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.