US CONGRESSMEN CONGRATULATE NKR ON THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDEPENDENCE
ArmRadio.am
04.09.2006 17:45
The flow of congratulations on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of
declaration of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic continues. The message of
US Congressmen Frank Pallone and Joe Knollenberg says, in particular,
“On September 2, 1991 the people of Nagorno Karabakh expressed its will
to have own independent state. With this declaration the heroic people
of Artsakh expressed its decision to live free. You defended your right
of living free though successfully resisting the military aggression
of Azerbaijan. Many courageous sons and daughters of your nation
sacrificed their lives for the victory of liberty on Artsakhi land.
During the past 15 years the Nagorno Karabakh Republic proved its
commitment to the values of freedom, peace, democracy and human
rights defense.
We have always been with you in your struggle for independence and we
continue to support you in your fair aspiration to reach international
recognition.
We believe that in the future we’ll continue supporting the
reinforcement of NKR security and development and we are looking
forward to the day when the flag of Artsakh will proudly flutter in
the world as a sign of fulfillment of dreams.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FAREWELL TO AGASSI!!!
ArmRadio.am
04.09.2006 16:30
World known tennis player, Armenian in Origin Andre Agassi left the
ended his career. He was one of the five sportsmen to win the four
big tournaments.
Andre Agassi’s 20-year career ended in a 5-7 7-6 (7-4) 4-6 5-7 defeat
to German qualifier Benjamin Becker at the US Open on Sunday.
The 36-year-old was clearly affected by the chronic back injury,
which hastened his decision to retire.
Backed by a fiercely patriotic crowd, Agassi battled courageously
but Becker’s power proved too much.
The American legend fought back tears as the Arthur Ashe crowd,
along with Becker, rose to applaud him.

THE ONLY HOPE IS THE VICTORY OF NORWAY
A1+
[01:59 pm] 04 September, 2006
The Armenian Youth football team beat the Youth team of Norway 1:0
in the “Hanrapetakan” stadium of Yerevan within the framework of the
European Football Championship 2008.
Before that the Armenians had lost the first match to Bosnia. The
latter are to play with Norway on September 6.
If Norway beat Bosnia 1:0, Armenia will pass on to the next phase. In
case of any other result Armenia will disqualify from the tournament.

THEY KILL PEOPLE IN MOVIES TOO
A1+
[03:08 pm] 04 September, 2006
“Public order is preserved better in Armenia than in a number of
countries which are a lighthouse for Armenia in this respect”, said
Vladimir Pryakhin, the head of the OSCE Yerevan office in an interview
with “A1+”.
How can we say that human rights are protected in Armenia if innocent
people become victims of criminal activities? Asked this question,
Vladimir Pryakhin notes that he is sorry for that, “but not a single
country is insured against such criminal activities, even the most
developed ones”.
RA Ombudsman Armen Haroutyunyan is of the same opinion. Of course
he does not think that the protection of human rights is at the same
level in Armenia as in developed countries. Nevertheless, according
to him, even the citizens of Western countries become victims of
criminal activities.
“Don’t you see what they show in movies?” Armen Haroutyunyan stated.
And still, there is one thing Armen Haroutyunyan is convinced in:
there is still much to be done in the sphere of the protection of
human rights in Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GUL HAS POSTPONED HIS VISIT TO ATHENS. HE IS GOING TO WASHINGTON INSTEAD.
Sabah, Turkey
Sept 4 2006
Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul is entering into intensive
diplomacy traffic. On September 13th, Gul will visit France. Gul’s
goal for this trip is to promote relations with France, which has
prepared a draft bill that supports so-called Armenian genocide. On
September 14th, Gul will be on his way to New York to attend the UN
General Assembly. Gul will spend a week in the States then he will
return back to Ankara. In his previous agenda, Gul was planning to
visit Athens on October 2nd. Gul has postponed his trip to Athens and
has decided to go to Washington instead in order to solve the Middle
East and PKK terrorist organization problems.

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

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

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

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

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