New Anatolian, Turkey
April 20 2006
Sensoy: Turkey will act responsibly to help defuse Iran issue
The Associated Press / Washington
Turkish Ambassador to Washington Nabi Sensoy late Tuesday dismissed
speculations that the Iranian nuclear standoff could create a crisis
between Turkey and the U.S., saying that Ankara will act as a
responsible member of the international community on the Iranian
issue.
Addressing Turkish-U.S. relations in a speech at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a leading U.S.-based
think tank, Sensoy said that there may be nuanced differences in
policies followed by the two countries towards Iran, but the goal is
the same.
“During their talks with Iranian leaders, Turkish officials should
pressure them to voice their real intentions about their nuclear
activities in order to convince the international community,” said
Sensoy, underlining that Turkey favors a diplomatic solution to the
dispute between Tehran and the West over Iran’s nuclear program.
—————Ara Baslik————–
‘Turkey wants to take Britain’s role in US-EU relations’
Sensoy expressed Turkey’s goal of taking over Britain’s powerful role
as a bridge between U.S. and European Union relations following its
accession to the 25-nation bloc.
“Ankara is trying to bring its foreign policy and security
initiatives in line with those of the EU. It is also working to share
common values and goals with the U.S.,” said the Turkish ambassador,
stressing the importance of good U.S.-EU relations for Turkey. “NATO
is the backbone of transatlantic relations, and cooperation between
Turkey, the EU and the U.S. under the umbrella of NATO will be
crucial to respond to new security threats,” he added.
Sensoy stated that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured
him that there is a political will to protect and develop strategic
partnership between the two countries, adding that two “hiccups”
appear to have damaged the relations. “One of them is the movie
‘Valley of the Wolves Iraq,’ and the other is the surprise visit of
the Hamas delegation to Turkey [in February]. I call these events
‘hiccups’ because they are too tiny to damage well-established
bilateral relations” he said.
“Valley of the Wolves not only tatters the image of Turkey in the
U.S., but it also negatively affects Turkish psychology. Ankara
conveyed not only the international community’s but also Turkey’s
requests and expectations from Hamas during their visit,” he added.
‘PBS documentary one-sided’
Sensoy lashed out at the U.S. public television network PBS for
airing a controversial documentary about the Armenian genocide
claims, saying that the documentary was one-sided since it gave
little opportunity for scholars who don’t support the Armenian thesis
to have their say.
“Instead of accepting the Armenian genocide claims as an unresolved
issue, the documentary aimed to silence legitimate discussion on the
controversial issue. In contradiction to the thesis of the
documentary, Armenian genocide claims have never a found historical
or legal basis,” Sensoy said.

Express India, India
April 20 2006
>>From the fringes: Votes without a voice
SHARMI ADHIKARY
Posted online: Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 0355 hours IST
A lone Portuguese, a handful of Armenians, a dwindling community of
Parsis, a relatively bigger but fast migrating population of Chinese.
Their numbers are not enough to tilt the scales, but they are all an
integral part of Kolkata. SHARMI ADHIKARY finds out what elections
mean to them
Chinese
There are about 1,500 Chinese in Tangra, and 60 per cent of them have
EPICs. They may have a vote, but most feel that they don’t have a
voice. ”The roads need repair, there should be more street-lights,
but who will listen to us? We do our duty, and go out and vote. But
since we belong to the Chinese community, no one cares,” says Ling
Liang, a teacher at the local Chinese school.
Portuguese
Leon Joseph Madeira, an undertaker by profession, is reported to be
the lone Portuguese in the city. He does not intend to vote, but
makes it a point to mention that his forefathers always exercised
their franchise. Madeira says no political leader today is fit to
shoulder any responsibility. ”Today’s leaders only know personal
benefits. I will not vote because no minister has ever helped me,”
he says.
Armenian
As per official records, there are over 100 Armenians in Kolkata. But
barring three of them, none are Indian citizens. And of the three,
two are still minors while the third is not on the electoral rolls.
“I still have my Chennai EPIC as I was residing there till six months
back,” says Michael Stephen.Father Oshagan Gulgulian of the Armenian
College would just like to see a cleaner Kolkata.
Parsis
Numbering about 650 in the city, the Parsis are determined to have a
say in the polls. ”Yes, I vote from Burrabazar constituency. Most of
our people vote. Why shouldn’t we? We are Indians after all,” says a
member of the community at the Zoroastrian Anjuman Atash Adaran.
Cyrus Madan adds: ”The government is moving on the right track and
should continue the same developmental work in infrastructure.”

Armenian-Americans commemorate genocide
Boston Globe, MA
April 20 2006
Armenian-Americans throughout the Boston area will gather this weekend
and next week to commemorate the genocide that resulted in the deaths
of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923.
Armenians mark Monday as the 91st anniversary of the night in 1915
when the Ottoman Turkish government arrested 200 Armenian community
leaders in Constantinople — the beginning of the campaign.
The events are seen by Armenians as pivotal in their people’s
history. The Turkish government has denied that the mass killings
were part of a government-sponsored campaign.
“It was one of the defining events in Armenian history and certainly
modern Armenian history,” said Marc Mamigonian, director of programs
and publications at the National Association for Armenian Studies and
Research. “It’s the reason most of us are living [in the United States]
in one way or another. Most everyone around here can trace a family
member to the Armenian genocide either as a survivor or someone who
was lost.”
Along with events in Boston, Cambridge, Worcester, and other
communities, three ceremonies will take place in the suburbs northwest
of Boston.
On Saturday, an Armenian Memorial Observation will be held in Lowell.
It will include a procession that will begin at the corner of John
and Merrimack streets at 10 a.m. and proceed to City Hall for the
raising of an Armenian flag, speeches, and a musical presentation.
On Sunday, there will be a remembrance ceremony at 3 p.m. at North
Andover High School, 430 Osgood St. The ceremony will consist of a
cultural presentation and requiem service.
On Wednesday at 7:30 p.m., the public is invited to gather in
the Goddard Chapel at Tufts University for a program by the Tufts
University Armenian Club titled “Beyond Genocide Recognition —
Our Next Challenge.”
Stephen Kurkjian, senior assistant metropolitan editor at The Boston
Globe and a Pulitzer Prize winner, will speak at the North Andover
and Medford events.
DONNA NOVAK

Iran’s Azeris or the Azeris’ Iran
By Cem Oguz
New Anatolian, Turkey
April 20 2006
[email protected] April 2006
A couple of years ago a close friend of mine, after coming back from
a long journey by car across northern Iran (or “Southern Azerbaijan,”
as it is referred to in nationalist Azeri literature), was telling me
how Iranian Azeris were undergoing a cultural revival. There was a
real boom in nationalist publications and a growing interest in both
Azerbaijan and Turkey among Iranian Azeris. A considerable part of
Azeris he spoke to said that they only watched Turkish TV channels.
The most popular songs playing on the streets of Tabriz were those of
Turkish singers.
This cultural revival (or transformation) has seemingly attracted
increasing interest from the U.S. administration that was recently
reported to be willing to foment ethnic-inspired unrest in Iran. It
is for this reason that the book by Brenda Shaffer, whom I happened
to meet in the second half of the 1990s when she was doing her Ph.D.,
has captivated the attention of many influential figures in
Washington. In the book, entitled “Borders and Brethren: Iran and the
Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity,” Shaffer, currently Harvard
University’s Caspian Studies director, challenges the popular
assumption that a broad Iranian national identity supersedes ethnic
identities and discusses the cultural reawakening among Iranian
Azeris.
The revival of nationalist sentiment among ethnic groups in Iran,
first and foremost among Azeris, is indeed a fact. But the question
henceforth should be what this phenomenon might lead to. Could it be
a catalyst for a regime change, as asserted by some circles in the
U.S.? To find a reliable answer to this question we need to elaborate
on the fundamental features of the Azeri community in Iran.
Until Ahmed Shah, who was replaced in 1925 by Reza Khan (Pahlavi),
Iran was mainly ruled by the Turkmen/Azeri Qajar dynasty. Historical
legacy thus had an important impact on the mentality of today’s
Iranian Azeris. Their feeling of affiliation with Iran and the
Iranian state is undisputable. One would not be surprised to even see
the most nationalist Iranian Azeris denounce aspirations of
separation, since, in their words, “Iran is theirs.” Given this
backdrop, Iranian Azeris, the total number of which is estimated to
be anywhere between 16 to 30 million, according to different sources,
are well-integrated into Iranian society. Presently some highly
influential figures in the establishment are of Azeri descent; even
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose native town is Ardebil, a mostly
Azeri-populated place in the western part of the province of Western
Azerbaijan in Iran, is rumored to come from an Azeri family. Azeris
also constitute a considerable part of people in Tehran.
An important factor that influences bi-communal relations, on the
other hand, is economics. Some among Persian nationalists question
why the oil-rich south should feed the relatively poorer northern
regions which are mostly populated by Iranian Azeris. Due to such a
line of thinking, Persian nationalism has gradually come to contain a
considerable level of anti-Azeri feeling. The Azeris, in turn, don’t
seem to be willing to renounce the wealth coming from the south’s oil
reserves.
The influence of nationalist leaders among Iranian Azeris is very
limited as well. This, in fact, should be well understood by the U.S.
authorities. A couple of years ago, Movement of National Revival of
Southern Azerbaijan head Mahmudali Chehregani, a prominent and
respected academic imprisoned for three years in the past for his
outspoken opposition to the regime, was invited to Washington. With
the help of Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican advocate of regime
change in Iran, he held various meetings with U.S. officials. The
main claim asserted by Chehregani was that his movement could spur
millions of its followers into protesting on the streets. However,
such public demonstrations never materialized.
No one can deny that Tabriz, the so-called capital of Southern
Azerbaijan, is at present the center of the most active student
democracy movement outside Tehran. Nevertheless the aspirations of
Iranian Azeris are more for cultural autonomy. In fact, their
ultimate goal is not at all different from the rest of the country:
More reforms and more rights.
In such an atmosphere, to assume that Iranian Azeris are ready to
rise up against the mullah-led regime in Tehran is not only
unreliable but also risky. Nonetheless, there are clear signs that
some circles in Washington are very eager to play the Azeri card up
to the last moment. It is in this regard, for instance, that three
years after his election Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has only
just now received an official invitation to visit Washington. His
meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush is set for April 28. The
two main issues to be discussed between both leaders, analysts argue,
will be the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Iran. There is no doubt
that Aliyev’s stance on the Iranian question will exercise a
considerable level of influence on the U.S.’ position over the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute as well as the future of
Azerbaijani territory still under Armenian occupation.
We will soon see how Washington’s attempts at influencing their
allies’ strategic calculations, as put in the U.S.’ new National
Security Strategy just recently, works.

Boston Globe, MA
April 20 2006
Armenians get allies in genocide teachings
Group stands up ‘against denial’
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | April 20, 2006
Leading politicians and groups from a range of communities are
joining with Armenians in their battle to ensure that the Armenians’
early-20th-century history be taught as genocide.
The Armenians are fighting a federal lawsuit that seeks to include
opposing views of the genocide in teaching materials for
Massachusetts high schools.
A new group, called kNOw Genocide, includes the Jewish Community
Relations Council, the Irish Immigration Center, the Massachusetts
Council of Churches, Rwanda Outlook, and the Cambodian Mutual
Assistance Association, among others. Standing with them will be
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey
— both gubernatorial candidates — and several state legislators.
A rally tomorrow at the State House is expected to draw
representatives from the diverse coalition, in a testament to the
political clout that the Armenian community has in Massachusetts.
”This allows our community, together with other communities, to
stand together against denial,” said Anthony Barsamian, a member of
the Armenian Assembly of America board, based in Washington. ”And
those who try to deny genocide will be beaten back.”
The coalition is being launched at a time of considerable debate over
events in Ottoman Turkey early last century. Several PBS stations
were criticized this week for airing a documentary called ”The
Armenian Genocide” and declining to air an accompanying panel
discussion that included scholars who have denied that a genocide
took place.
Those who believe that both views should be heard accused PBS
stations, including Boston’s WGBH, of bowing to pressure from
Armenians and their supporters.
Armenians and many historians have long maintained that the events of
1915 in Ottoman Turkey — in which more than 1 million Armenians were
killed and many more were driven from their homes — constituted
genocide.
In Massachusetts, home to about 30,000 Armenians, legislators
established a day of remembrance for victims.
But the Turkish government, and some historians, say what happened
should not be described as genocide because the deaths were part of a
civil war that resulted in the murder of innocent people on both
sides.
In the lawsuit, now pending at US District Court in Boston, a teacher
and a student from Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, and the
Assembly of Turkish American Associations, have demanded that the
state Department of Education include dissenting views on the
Armenian genocide in a curriculum guide on the topic.
A draft of that guide originally included the dissenting views, but
did not mandate that they be taught in Massachusetts schools. The
plaintiffs say the removal violates freedom of speech.
The attorney general, who is defending the state, argues that because
the curriculum guide is a government document, it is not bound by
free speech. Armenians and supporters say presenting opposing views
of the 1915 events is like denying the Holocaust.
The struggle has drawn support from other groups who say they speak
from their own painful histories of oppression.
”As members of the Jewish community, we identify with the Armenian
community in terms of the Armenian genocide, and it’s important to
fight denial,” said Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish
Community Relations Council of Greater Boston. ”We thought this was
a battle that had been won long ago.”
Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the
Department of Education suit, said his clients are not denying that a
genocide took place. ”We are not admitting it, we’re not denying it,
we’re taking no position,” he said. ”We simply want to open up the
avenues for honest debate and restore the censored articles to the
Massachusetts curriculum.”

Armenians mark 1915 genocide
By Alexia Saoulli
Cyprus Mail
April 20 2006
THE ARMENIAN community in Cyprus will mark the 91st anniversary of
the 1915 genocide in which one and a half million of their people
were killed by Ottoman forces.
Speaking to reporters at a news conference ahead of the April 24
anniversary, Kevork
Zeyeountsian said: “Today, 91 years after the genocide a lot has been
done in the direction of recognising the 1915 genocide.
“Everyone knows what happened in 1915 and a great number are aware of
the reason for the presence of Armenian communities in all four
corners of the earth.
“A great number of countries have already recognised the genocide,
while those governments that have not yet recognised it maintain this
position purely for political reasons and strategic interests, not
because they do not agree with justification of Armenians.”
The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the ‘Young Turk’ government
of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1916. Over a million Armenians were
killed, out of a total of two and a half million Armenians living
under the Ottoman Empire.
The Turkish government today denies that there was an Armenian
genocide and claims that Armenians were only removed from the eastern
“war zone”.
Zeyeountsian added: “Turkey – a European Union candidate country –
has a lot to do before it becomes an equal state with the rest of
Europe’s 25. A number of thorns await it along its course and the two
million Armenians who are today citizens of a united Europe have
every right and obligation to demand from Turkey to first repay its
historical debt to our people.”
To mark the anniversary the Armenian Community Memorial Committee has
organised a series of events on Sunday and Monday.
On Sunday April 23 there will be a photograph exhibition in Nicosia’s
Eleftheria Square between 10am and 7pm. This will be followed by a
memorial march along Armenias Avenue at 8pm followed by a memorial
service at 8.30pm at the Armenian Genocide monument. On Monday at
10am a Holy Mass followed by a requiem at 11am at the Armenian
Genocide monument.

Regnum, Russia
April 20 2006
Antagonism of Iran and Gazprom in the South Caucasus: interview with
Noravank Foundation expert Sevak Sarukhanyan
REGNUM: Mr. Sarukhanyan, it is known that in its analysis of
international and regional developments the Noravank Foundation gives
a special place to the processes over Iran. After the UN Security
Council’s relevant decision, the process has gone back into the
framework of the IAEA. But Iran firmly reiterates that it will never
renounce its nuclear program. Is there any way-out of this situation,
and what do you think of this process in general?
I would like to note from the very beginning that the international
community and, first of all, the UN SC will do their best to prevent
Iran from becoming a nuclear power and still have much time for that
– for, despite its great progress in the nuclear technologies, Iran
is yet very far from its first nuclear bomb. From this point of view,
2006 will be a period of active diplomatic talks and active
diplomatic pressure upon Iran. If by the UN SC’s meeting in late
April Iran fails to fulfill Security Council’s recommendation to stop
uranium enrichment, there is a very small possibility that the SC
will apply some sanctions – but more likely political than economic:
for example, the SC may restrict the movement of Iranian political
figures. But this possibility is very small. The SC may also set up
an ad hoc commission who will negotiate with Iran outside the
framework of the IAEA or will send back the nuclear dossier to the
IAEA for revision to consider it once again and, this time, possibly
to suggest much tougher sanctions. Still, I am sure that no economic
sanction can influence Iran’s policy unless it affects the country’s
oil sector. However, now that the oil prices are as high as never
before, the Western society simply can’t limit imports of Iranian
gas. And so, no economic sanctions outside Iran’s key export item can
actually force that country to abandon its plans to enrich uranium.
The global way-out of this situation is in some indirect agreements
between Iran and the US. The Americans should pledge that they will
not plot a coup in Iran and will not try to solve the nuclear problem
by war. But this is hardly possible: given US security guarantees,
Iran will turn into a regional leader and will gain strength in
Afghanistan and the Shi’a parts of Iraq – something Washington will
hardly agree to even if Iran agrees to certain concessions in the
nuclear issue. So, in the mid-term prospect, the present tensions
over Iran will be certainly preserved, if not escalated. It should be
noted here that seemingly fraught with war, such high tensions may,
at the same time, be pregnant with a political solution. In fact, the
conflict is not frozen, which is a good prerequisite for a
compromise. Theoretically, the US and Iran may even totally improve
their relations – this is scarcely, but possible.
REGNUM: You have said nothing about the full stoppage of Iran’s
nuclear program – is it absolutely impossible?
In principle, it is possible, especially as the very structure of
Iran’s uranium enrichment cycle gives nothing to it in economic or
military-political terms. Today Iran insists on being allowed to
enrich uranium in limited quantities. That is, the question is about
centrifuges that will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Iran will
stop the program only if it gets tangible guarantees and dividends
from the world community.
REGNUM: Much has been said about the possibility of joint ventures
for uranium enrichment in the territory of Iran. Is it possible that
the US will get a share in such projects for its companies?
This is hardly possible for the Americans but is quite possible for
the Russians and the Europeans. Recently Iran has offered such
cooperation to Russia, France and Germany, but, given the present
tensions, the latter two countries will hardly agree.
REGNUM: What was the reason for the last large-scale military
exercises in Iran, and what military potential does that country
have?
Despite the last 10-15 years’ progress, the military potential of
Iran is comparatively weak. Of course, it is stronger than that of
the Hussein-time Iraq, but it is still much weaker than those of
Turkey and Pakistan (even exclusive the latter’s nuclear capacities).
The military exercises in Iran were supposed to show that that
country is ready to give – if not full – but rather tough rebuff to a
possible attack by the US – a rebuff that may lead to quite serious
political and economic consequences. The key emphasis was on the
navy. Iran displayed its new project – anti-ship missiles to be
launched not so much against US ships as against oil tankers passing
the strait. Thereby, Iran has shown that the war can bring to ruin
the whole international energy security system and can put an end to
the oil imports from the Middle East – an end not only to the
supplies of Iranian oil but to the supplies of any fuel from the
Middle East. And this is a very serious threat for the world economy.
REGNUM: Europe is actively developing the idea of diversifying its
fuel import sources. In this project the South Caucasus and Armenia,
in particular, may play the role of a transit corridor. With its
present parameters, the Iran-Armenian gas pipeline cannot be used for
transit, but many say that a new wider pipe may be laid. Does this
mean that Iran and Russia will get into a tougher rivalry in the
South Caucasus?
In fact, the European vector of the Iranian policy and the Iranian
vector of the European energy policy are two very important factors.
By 2015-2020 the EU will face very serious gas shortages even if
Russia continues its gas supplies and even augments them due to the
new Northern-European gas pipeline. Given its growing demand for
natural gas, the EU is seeking not so much to diversify its gas
sources as to find new free gas resources in the Middle East, more
precisely, in Iran and Qatar. The latter is off-side because of its
geographical situation: one can’t lay a pipe from Qatar to Europe
bypassing the territories of unstable Iraq and also Saudi Arabia.
Iran is a special case. Since 2003, the EU Troika has negotiated with
Tehran not only about the nuclear problem but also about
trade-economic cooperation. Before the victory of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the EU proposed that it would become the key buyer of
Iranian gas if Iran gave up its nuclear plans.
The point with South Caucasus is that if before the “democratic
revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine Europe gave preference to the
Turkish route, now, after the victory of Mikhail Saakashvili in
Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine, the belt of the EU partners
has come very close to the Iranian borders. And so, loyal Ukraine and
Georgia and also the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline are a new gate for
Europe to the Iranian gas resources. And even though the presently
built Iran-Armenian gas pipeline is not able to transit gas, it is
certainly regarded as a technological and political basis for a new
stronger pipe.
REGNUM: At what price is Iran ready to sell its gas to Europe?
Iran wants to sell its gas to Europe at no less than the European
price. Let’s remember Nabucco 2003, a project planning that Turkey
would buy Iranian gas and resell it to Europe at a higher price. Iran
rejected the project and since then has raised its gas price for
Turkey by 25%. In fact, Iran does not want any country to resell its
gas and is interested in the South Caucasian route exactly because
the small countries of that region are less significant in the
international energy security system than Turkey.
Of course, Iran wants to be the key seller of its gas in the EU. But
it is also considering the possibility of consortiums with the
countries that will be en route to Europe. Last year Iran proposed
creating an Iranian-Armenian-Georgian-Ukrainian-Russian commission
for considering the expediency of a gas pipeline to Europe via those
countries. But recently Iran has tended to exclude Russia from this
project and to prefer laying the pipeline via the bottom of the Black
Sea. A gas pipeline from Iran to the Ukrainian territory will cost $5
bln – but only if connected to the already existing pipelines in
Ukraine. But the problem is that Ukraine’s pipelines have small
transfer capacities. Today they can pump 180 c/m of gas: they already
pump 115 bln cubic meters of Russian gas to Europe and can pump only
50 bln cubic meters more, while the above project is about 100-150
bln cubic meters. So, Europe, Iran and Ukraine will inevitably have
to lay new pipelines in the Ukrainian territory, which will cost them
a pretty penny.
Of course, the launch of Iran’s gas supplies to South Caucasus will
cut Russia’s energy influence on that region. But this is not so much
about Armenia, where Russia has a serious presence, as about Georgia,
where Russia’s gas supply monopoly is an effective economic lever for
Moscow to correct the radical policy of the local authorities.
REGNUM: Why then during the last energy crisis did Iran sell gas to
Georgia at a very unprofitable price? Does this mean that Iran is not
interested in the Georgian market?
The supply of gas to Georgia is by no means a political advantage for
Iran. Purely politically, Iran is not interested in Georgia.
Economically, it will be interested in Georgia only if it remains in
an export blockade – then it will welcome any buyer. But, even then,
it will not sell its gas to Georgia at $110. As regards the
preferential export of gas to Armenia, here Iran is, first of all,
interested in the electricity import and is, in fact, laying the
basis for a bigger transit route.
Iran does not want to lay a local pipeline and to supply cheap gas to
Georgia because it knows that this gas will not go farther than
Georgia. And the $233/1,000 cubic meters is a kind of a signal for
Georgia, and likewise for Azerbaijan: that Iran does not regard it as
a transit territory. The price for Georgia was a sing of certain
problems between Iran and Azerbaijan and also a response to the high
price Baku asked for the transit. The Armenian route is more
acceptable for the Iranians, but only if they start supplying gas to
Ukraine and Europe. The Georgian market as such is of no interest for
them.
REGNUM: Russia has got deeply wedged in the Armenian-Iranian “gas for
electricity” scheme. In fact, the gas received from Iran will be
turned into electricity at the Russia-owned 5th unit of the Hrazdan
Thermoelectric Power Plant and be later imported to Iran through a
Russia-owned network?
Unfortunately, Iran regards Russia’s presence in Armenia’s energy
system as a threat to its plans to export gas to Europe. The sale of
the 5th unit of the Hrazdan TPP to Russia can impact Iran’s readiness
to build a wider pipeline in Armenia (the diameter of the
Iran-Armenia gas pipeline is 700 mm – REGNUM). It is known that Iran
has laid a much wider pipe to the Armenian border. Yes, the Iranians
agreed with Armenia to get electricity in exchange for gas, and, in
fact, it should make no difference for them who will produce that
electricity. For Armenia its agreement with Iran is crucial for its
economic and energy security.
By late 2003, Russia was interested in the building of a wide
Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, but when the talks started, Gazprom left
the project, seeing some threat in it. It was exactly this project
that forced Gazprom to replace Itera as the key gas supplier to
Armenia and, thereby, to get levers for a more active policy. Gazprom
was against the project, first of all, because it was afraid to lose
its positions in Georgia.
Meanwhile, they in Armenia neglect the fact that Iran is afraid of
Gazprom’s further strengthening not so much in South Caucasus as in
Central Asia. Iran will try not only to supply its own gas to Europe
but also to ensure the transit of gas from Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, i.e. to slash Russia’s monopoly there. So, the key reason
for the present antagonism between Gazprom and Iran is exactly the
Central Asian gas. By 2010 Turkmenistan will produce 100 bln cubic
meters a year, which is a very attractive figure for Iran and the EU.
The Europeans would prefer to see this gas coming through Iran rather
than Russia, and this makes Central Asia a key frontline between Iran
and Gazprom. The tiny market of the South Caucasus, as it is, cannot
be an object for Iran-Gazprom rivalry, while as a transit route for
the Central Asian gas, it may well be.
REGNUM: Your words suggest a conclusion that the aggravation of
relations between the EU and Iran is good for Russia in any case:
Iran will not get a nuclear bomb and will not enter into gas and
transit dialogue with the Europeans…
In fact, Russia is certainly interested in a compromise in the
Iranian nuclear problem, but not in the compromise proposed by the
EU. A “Troika” agreement between the EU and Iran will lead to an
improved energy dialogue between Europe and Iran. This will make Iran
a rival to Russia on the European gas market. Today Moscow is trying
to take the initiative and to agree with Iran on its own. But Iran
perfectly understands what consequences it may face if it agrees with
Russia and not with the EU. That’s why despite its demonstrative
interest in the talks with Russia, Iran still prefers to agree with
Western Europe.
REGNUM: Could you specify what consequences Iran may face if it
agrees with Russia?
There will be the following consequences: though the West will no
longer be able to criticize Iran for its nuclear program as now
uranium will be enriched in the Russian territory, it will still have
problems with that country; though Iran will get cheap uranium, it
will lose its global political dividends. If Iran agrees with Europe,
it will get a serious economic and political carte branch. In other
words, an agreement with Russia will lose Iran its key trump with no
dividends instead.
REGNUM: What prospects does Russia have as an exporter of Iranian gas
or the operator of such an export to Europe?
In its time, Russia wanted to take part in certain gas projects in
Iran, particularly, in the development of the Southern Pars fields.
But then Iran used various bureaucratic levers to force Gazprom out
of its gas market. Moscow still wants to strengthen its positions on
that market but Tehran does not want that. Iran has opted for
independence in its gas policy and will by no means let Russia in.
The Iranians are quite ambitious here, they also want a share in
transit projects. Even the biggest international gas companies become
just ordinary, not very profitable construction companies in Iran. On
the other hand, Tehran is not against using the transit potential of
Russia and Gazprom, in particular, and is also considering creating
and having a big share in gas consortiums.
REGNUM: But is it right for Iran to act so in its present hard
situation? Isn’t this why Iran’s gas export is so low now that the
demand for fuel is so high? Does Iran have necessary political
resources for such ambitions?
Today Iran’s political resources are as strong as never before, and
this is due greatly to the US policy in the Middle East. The
overthrow of Hussein in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan has played
into Tehran’s hands. But, at the same time, it can’t be aggressive in
its gas policy – the political situation over Iran and in the whole
region does not allow that country to push its interests forth.
As regards joint projects by Iran and Gazprom, they are quite
possible, especially as the international gas market has absolutely
no organization. And so, Russia and Iran, the first and second gas
powers in the world, can well organize a kind of gas OPEC. Unlike the
oil sector, the gas one has no strict organization and, if founded,
it should be based on mutual respect of interests. If tomorrow the
conflict is over and Iran gets a chance to improve its energy
dialogue with the EU and to export its gas to Europe, objective
realities will make possible a Gazprom-Iran agreement in the South
Caucasus. But today, when the situation over Iran is tensed and the
country’s gas policy is unpredictable, the antagonism between Russia
and Iran will continue, and the South Caucasus will be one of the key
geographical grounds of their rivalry and misunderstanding.

President chides grave desecration claims
AzerNews Weekly, Azerbaijan
April 20 2006
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has called Armenia’s claims
concerning the alleged desecration of ancient graves in the Azeri
exclave of Nakhchivan as completely false.
“All cultural and historical monuments in Azerbaijan are under
state protection,” Aliyev said during his visit to the country’s
western regions last week. “As you know, some Armenian circles and
hypocritical politicians under the Armenian lobby’s influence have
claimed that Armenian tombstone crosses are allegedly being destroyed
in Nakhchivan. This information is an absolute lie and slander.”
The European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the alleged
desecration of the ancient gravestones in February, sparking public
outrage in the country. Aliyev said that all mosques, cemeteries
and monuments have been destroyed in the occupied Azeri land, which
was confirmed by a relevant fact-finding OSCE mission. The president
said there is religious tolerance and representatives of different
ethnicities peacefully co-exist in Azerbaijan. There is an Orthodox
church and a Jewish Synagogue in the country, while a Catholic church
is expected to be set up soon.

Montebello remembers Armenian genocide
By Pam Wight Staff Writer
Pasadena Star-News, CA
Whittier Daily News, CA
April 20 2006
MONTEBELLO – Talking about the 1915 Armenian genocide is not just an
abstract history lesson for Montebello resident Jack Hadjinian.
Thirty members of his family were murdered under the rule of the Young
Turks between the years of 1915 and 1917, when the Turkish government
killed 1.5 million Armenians. The Young Turks government was part of
Turkey’s multi-century Ottoman Empire, which fell in 1922.
Hadjinian’s grandfather – who was 13 at the time – escaped after
watching Turkish soldiers murder his father and uncle. His family
later made their way to Detroit and eventually to Montebello, home
to one of the largest populations of Armenians outside of Armenia.
This weekend, Hadjinian will join hundreds of other members of
Montebello’s Armenian diaspora to commemorate the 91st anniversary
of the genocide. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is scheduled to appear at
Sunday’s event, although his office had not confirmed the appearance
as of Wednesday, event organizers said.
State Sen. Chuck Poochigian will be the keynote speaker, and Sen.
Jackie Speier will act as master of ceremonies.
” means so much to me,” Hadjinian said. “My grandfather cried every
year at it. He witnessed the murder of his father and uncle.
“The Turkish soldiers pulled him out of his house, had him stand on
his knees and then made him look the other way while they shot his
father and uncle. My grandfather was 13.”

Turks & Azerbaijanis to protest Armenian demonstration in USA
Hurriyet, Turkey
April 20 2006
Turks and Azerbaijanis living in the USA will protest the
demonstration the Armenians are planning to stage in Washington D.C.
on April 24th, the anniversary of the so-called genocide. Around 600
Armenians, who will gather in front of Turkish Embassy in Washington
D.C. between April 21st and 25th, will carry banners and stage
demonstrations protesting the so-called genocide.
On the other hand, Turkish and Azerbaijani communities in the USA
will stage a counter demonstration to support Turkey’s theses.
Turkish diplomats have warned the two communities to stay calm and
~Snot to be provoked.~T
Security measures will be tightened in front of the embassy building
during the demonstrations. The secret service and Washington police
will be responsible for ensuring the security.
USA’S STANCE
On the other hand U.S. President George Bush is not expected to use
the term ~Sgenocide~T in the speech he will make on April 24th.
There are actually three drafts, acknowledging the so-called genocide
allegations, at the Senate and House of Representatives. Two of them
were passed by the congressional committees. According to diplomatic
sources, the drafts may be adopted in case they are broughtto the
full House of Representatives and Senate.
White House and State Department executives have assured Turkey that
the drafts will not be taken up. However, one of them may be annexed
to any regulation debated at the Senate, and be passed by a ‘fait
accompli’. Therefore, Turkish diplomats are closely monitoring the
developments at the U.S. Senate.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress