GEORGIAN OMBUDSMAN DISCUSSES RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TSALKA

Prime News Agency, Georgia
March 21 2006

Tbilisi. March 21 (Prime-News) – The Tuesday session of the Council
on Ethnic Minorities of the Ombudsman’s Office of Georgia was
dedicated to the recent developments in the town of Tsalka of the
Samtskhe-Javakheti region.

MP Van Baiburt, Zinaida Bestaeva, State Minister for Civil integration
and Davit Darchiashvili, Executive Director of Open Society Georgia
were attending the session.

According to Sozar Subari, Ombudsman, it is necessary to facilitate
dialogue between the parties. The murder in Tsalka was a pure crime,
but the following developments made it clear that that there are
serious problems in the region with regard to relationship of the
different ethnic groups, that might stir ethnic conflicts. That factor
makes attention by the government and society more necessary.

MP Van Baiburt said that some problems with regard to relation of
different ethnic groups definitely contribute to the ongoing tension.

He also surveyed the problems with regard to governance and said that
the tension must be eradicated by the central government, as the local
residents of Georgian origin do not discredit ethnic minorities in
the region.

The members of the Council also discussed negligence by the
Establishment, saying that the local population of the region lives in
extremely harsh economic conditions and there are no state programs
implemented in the region that could contribute to civil integration
of the ethnic minorities.

The members of the Council said that the issue on language for
record keeping was one of the most urgent. According to them, special
programs must be elaborated to sea to teaching of Georgian language
to the local residents, but it can take 5 or 10 years.

The representative of the Ministry of Interior Affairs of Georgia
also discuss the murder of the young man of Armenian origin in Tsalka
and said that the law enforcements are doing their best to eradicated
violation of human rights for ethnic reasons and are ready to cooperate
with the Office of Ombudsman.

The members of the Council on Ethnic Minorities are to visit the
region, which is mainly populated with Armenians, and will study the
issue on the spot.

RAISE OF GAS PRICE WILL CAUSE INSIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF ENERGY TARIFFS (ARMENIA)

Regnum, Russia
March 21 2006

Increase of natural gas price will cause insignificant increase of
energy tariffs for domestic users, only on $0.8 or 15%, stated Deputy
Head of Public Services Regulation committee of Armenia Nikolai
Grigoryan on March 21. He said that Armenian power plants produce
only 25% of the country’s energy, so raise of cost price will not
lead to serious increase of gas price for the population.

As a REGNUM correspondent informs, Grigoryan noted that Hrazdan power
plant already presented its application in the committee that must be
considered before June. And because Hrazdan and Yerevan power plants
will suffer losses, the committee will revise energy tariff in the
beginning of 2007.

In his turn, MP Manuk Gasparyan said that Hrazdan power plant is
Russian property, and Armenia must cease using its energy. “They
can export their energy to Georgia, Iran, but we don’t need such
expensive energy,” he said. According to Gasparyan, Russia must
modernize Hrazdan power plant to lower the price.

It should be notes, that Hrazdan power plant has been transferred to
Russia in the framework of an Armenian-Russian inter-governmental
agreement on Armenian debts repayment. Russia bought Hrazdan power
plant for $31. It is the only way to supply energy from Armenia
to Georgia.

THE EU AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Today, Azerbaijan
URL:
March 21 2006

/

To guarantee its own security, the EU must become more engaged in
resolving the conflicts in the South Caucasus lest they ignite into
full-fledged wars in Europe’s neighbourhood.

“Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role”, the latest
report from the International Crisis Group, examines the EU’s efforts
to address tensions over Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
and points out how the EU can do more.

“Greater engagement is a challenge Brussels has only just begun
to address”, says Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group’s Caucasus Project
Director. “There have been a few promising steps, but there is a long
way to go”.

Thus far, others have taken the lead in promoting conflict settlement
in the region, but over a decade of negotiations led by the UN in
Abkhazia, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) in Nagorno Karabakh and South Ossetia, have not produced
comprehensive peace agreements. With its reputation as an “honest
broker”, access to a range of soft and hard power tools, and the lure
of greater integration into Europe, the EU has a greater role to play,
and offers added value to compliment the UN and the OSCE.

To avoid instability on its borders, the EU seeks a ring of
well-governed countries around it. It is further interested in the
South Caucasus to ensure access to Caspian oil and gas, develop
transport and communication corridors between Europe and Asia, and
contain such threats as smuggling, trafficking and environmental
degradation.

As the EU is unlikely to offer membership to Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan any time soon, it must identify innovative means to
impose conditionality on its aid and exercise influence. European
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans are being finalised. These offer
a chance for the EU to enhance its role especially if the peaceful
resolution of the conflicts are defined as commitments.

The new EU Special Representative should observe ongoing negotiations
for the Abkhazian, South Ossetian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. The
Commission has allocated significant funding to rehabilitation in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It should assess how it can start doing
more in and around Nagorno Karabakh.

“The EU is trying to define its role in a new neighbourhood which is
neither at war nor at peace”, says Nicholas Whyte, Director of Crisis
Group’s Europe Program. “If the EU fails to implement its strategic
vision for a secure neighbourhood, its credibility in the region, and
generally vis-a-vis Russia and the U.S., will suffer. More troublingly,
if the South Caucasus conflicts continue to deteriorate, the EU may
find itself unprepared for responding to wars among its neighbours”.

STATUS OF U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA QUESTIONED
By Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau

Los Angeles Daily News
Pasadena Star-News, CA
March 21 2006

WASHINGTON – Members of California’s congressional delegation are
questioning reports that the U.S. ambassador to Armenia is being
recalled because he referred to the 1915 massacre of Armenians in
Ottoman Turkey as a genocide.

In separate letters sent to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice,
Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena and Grace Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs,
demanded answers about Ambassador John Marshall Evans’ status. Both
strongly opposed recalling him.

Schiff said he reiterated that message last week in a closed-door
meeting with State Department officials.

“I expressed my opposition to any disciplinary action being taken
against the ambassador for speaking the truth,” Schiff said. “I made
it very clear I thought any action taken against him would merely
compound the erroneous policy of the administration.’

A State Department spokesman insisted that Evans has not submitted
his resignation nor told to return. That, however, hasn’t quelled
persistent rumors in California’s sizable Armenian-American community.

“It’s a big issue here. It’s very concerning and very upsetting,”
said Zaku Armenian, a member of the Armenian National Committee’s
board in Glendale.

“The word that we have is pretty clear that this is in the works,”
Armenian said about Evans’ recall. “It’s clear that the State
Department is bowing to pressure from Turkey.”

Evans attracted wide attention in Armenian-American communities
last year when he unequivocally called the massacre of Armenians in
post-World War I Ottoman Turkey a genocide.

“I think it is unbecoming of us as Americans to play word games
here,” Evans said in February 2005 during a stop at the University of
California at Berkeley. “I will today call it the Armenian genocide.”

In doing so, Evans became the first U.S. administration official to
use the loaded word in an Armenian context. The Bush administration,
like its predecessors, refers to the killings as a massacre and a
tragedy, but never genocide.

“It felt like a breakthrough moment,”

Armenian said. “It felt like we were getting somewhere.”

Armenians contend the Ottoman Empire began a centrally planned
slaughter in 1915 under cover of World War I in which about 1.5
million Armenians were killed. Turkey, a key U.S. and NATO ally,
strongly opposes the genocide label.

Tuluy Tanc, minister counsel at the Turkish embassy in Washington,
D.C., called the killing and deportation of Armenians “terrible
events.” But, he said, it was precipitated by Armenians taking up
arms in eastern Anatolia and siding with invading Russian troops.

“For genocide to occur, there has to be a plan to annihilate a people
based on their ethnicity. That was not the case at all,” he said.

Tanc called Evans’ comments “personal views” and not a reflection
of U.S. policy. He said he did not have any knowledge about Evans
being recalled.

But Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National
Committee of America, said the State Department already is quietly
vetting a new ambassador to replace Evans in late spring or early
summer.

“I think it’s pretty clear he’s being ushered out the door,” Schiff
said.

Evans, for his part, has sidestepped questions about his tenure in
Armenia. In response to a query during a press conference last week,
he replied, “I serve at the pleasure of the president. Period.”

NAGORNO-KARABAKH: THE LONG SHADOW OF JOSEPH STALIN
Written by Rene Wadlow

Toward Freedom, VT
March 21 2006

The president of Azerbaijan, Ilhan Aliyev, son of the long-time
president Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian, president of Armenia,
met outside Paris, in Rambouillet February 10-11, 2006 to discuss the
stalemated conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Rambouillet had also been
the scene for the last-chance negotiations on Kosovo just before the
NATO bombing of Serbia began in 1999.

During the two years of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, 1992-1994,
at least 20,000 people were killed and more than a million persons
displaced from Armenia, Azerbaijan and the 12,000 square miles
of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Armenian forces now control the
Nagorno-Karabakh area – an Armenian-populated enclave within
Azerbaijan. Since 1994, there has been a relatively stable
ceasefire. Nagorno-Karabakh has declared its independence as a
separate state. No other state -including Armenia – has recognized
this independent status, but, in practice, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de
facto state with control over its population and its own military
forces. Half of the government’s revenue is raised locally; the other
half comes from the government of Armenia and especially the Armenian
diaspora, strong in the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Russia.

In addition to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian forces hold seven small
districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, some 5,500 square kilometres that
had been populated by Azeris and that are considered as “occupied
territory”. One of the ideas being floated during these negotiations
is an Armenian withdrawal from these occupied territories accompanied
by international security guarantees and an international peacekeeping
force, probably under the control of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which has been the major forum for
negotiation on the Nagorno-Karabkh conflict.

The USA, France, and Russia are the co-chairmen of a mediating effort
called the “Minsk Group” after an OSCE conference on Nagorno-Karabakh
which was to have been held in Minsk, but then indefinitely postponed
as there was no clear basis for a compromise solution. Part of the
negotiating guidelines of the Minsk Group meetings is that no official
report is made on the negotiations, so that analysis is always an
effort at putting pieces together from partial statements, leaks,
and ‘off-the-record’ interviews with the press. This blackout on
direct statements opens the door to highly partisan analysis in both
countries where the press has always been hard line. There are those
who believe that both presidents are ‘ahead of their people’ in their
willingness to compromise and to move beyond the current “no war,
no peace” situation which is a drain on economic and social resources.

However, in both countries, the media is under tight control of the
respective governments so that the militaristic tone of the press
is not against government policy. The blackout on press statements
is also due to the monopoly on both sides of a small, tight group of
people responsible for the negotiations. Informal, Track Two, meetings
are very difficult and the few held were met by general suspicion or
hostility. There is a need for a broader-based peacemaking public to
counter the current narrow militant rhetoric.

The Nagorno-Karabakh issue arises from the Post-Revolution-Post-Civil
War period of Soviet history when Joseph Stalin was Commissioner for
Nationalities. Stalin came from neighboring Georgia and knew the
Caucasus well. His policy was a classic ‘divide and rule’ carried
out with method so that national/ethnic groups would need to depend
on the central government in Moscow for protection. Thus in 1922,
the frontiers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were hammered out
in what was then the Transcaucasian Federative Republic.

Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian majority area, was given a certain
autonomy within Azerbaijan but was geographically cut off from
Armenia. Likewise, an Azeri majority are, Nakkickevan, was created
as an autonomous republic within Armenia but cut off geographically
from Azerbaijan. Thus both enclaves had to look to Moscow for
protection. This was especially true for the Armenians. Many Armenians
living in what had been historic Armenia but which became Turkey had
been killed during the First World War; Armenians living in “Soviet
Armenia” had relatives and friends among those killed by the Turks,
creating a permanent sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Russia
was considered a historic ally of Armenia.

These mixed administrative units worked well enough or, one should
say, there were few criticisms allowed until 1988 when the whole
Soviet model of nationalities and republics started to come apart.

In both Armenia and Azerbeijan, natioanlistic voices were raised, and
a strong “Karabakh Committee” began demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be
attached to Armenia. In Azerbaijan, anti-Armenian sentiment was set
aflame. Many Armenians who were working in the oil-related economy
of Baku were under tension and started leaving. This was followed
somewhat later by real anti-Armenian pogroms. Some 160,000 Armenians
left Azerbaijan for Armenia and other went to live in Russia.

With the break up of the Soviet Union and the independence of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, tensions focused on Nagorno-Karabakh. By 1992, full
scale conflict broke out in and around Nagorno-Karabkh and went on
for two years causing large-scale damage. The Armenian forces of
Nagorno-Karabakh helped by volunteers from Armenia kept control of
the area, while Azerbaijan faced repeated political crises.

The condition of “no peace, no war” followed the ceasefire largely
negotiated by Russia in 1994. This status quo poses few problems to
the major regional states who are preoccupied by other geo-political
issues. Informal and illicit trade within the area has grown.

However, interest in a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has grown as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline opened in May 2005.

The pipeline is sheduled to carry one million barrels of oil a day
from the Caspian to the Mediterranean by 2009. The pipeline passes
within 10 miles of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The crucial question for a settlement is the acceptance by all
parties and by the wider OSCE of an independent ‘mini-state’. An
independent Nagorno-Karabakh might become the ‘Liechtenstein of the
Caucases’. After 15 years of independence, Karabakh Armenians do not
want to be at the mercy of decisions made in distant centers of power
but to decide their own course of action. However, the recognition
of Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent states raises the issue of the
status of other de facto mini-states of the area such as Abkhazia
and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova and Kosovo in
Serbia. Close attention must continue to be paid to the potential
restructuring of the area. Can mini-states be more than a policy of
divide and rule? The long shadow of Joseph Stalin still hovers over
the land.

#####

Rene Wadlow is editor of the online journal of world politics
and an NGO representative to the
UN, Geneva. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of
the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.

For a good analysis of Stalin’s nationality policies see Helene
Carrere d’Encausse “The Great Challenge: Nationalities and the
Bolshevik State 1917-1930” (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1992, 262pp.)

For the need to have a wider peace constituency for negotiations
see Laurence Broers (Ed). “The limits of leadership: Elites and
societies in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process.” (London: Conciliation
Resources, 2006, 104pp.)

Comments READING FEW BOOKS!

Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 07:37:21
—————————————– —————————————
Rene deserves thanks for attempting to raise awareness about the
Karabakh issue. Yet, a lack of knowledge about the details of the
conflict is apparent.

During the Soviet Union, Nakhichevan remained an autonomous region
within Azerbaijan, not Armenia! It is still an Azerbaijani exclave
located between Armenia, Turkey and Iran – thus separated from
Azerbaijan proper.

Moreover, Azerbaijan was an independent state between 1918-1920,
and its territories included not only Karabakh and Nakhichevan but
also Zengezur, which was later transfered to Armenia by the Soviet
Central Government.

Yes, Soviet did carved out the Armenian populated regions within
Azerbaijan and granted that region an autonomy. But th phrase “was
cut off Armenia” misleads the reader as if Karabakh was a part of
Armenia and was cut off by the Soviet – which is not the case.

Karabakh has always been an integral part of Azerbaijan and was a
part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918-1920.

Stalin was nobody when the decision was made about Karabakh autonomous
status. A little closer examination will reveal that it is not really
Stalin’s fault.

Myths about Karabakh Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 12:28:40
—————————————– —————————————
Myth #2: Stalin gave Karabakh (Qarabagh) to Azerbaijan.

This is a gross falsification; the truth is quite the opposite. After
the Soviets took over Azerbaijan in 1920, right from the beginning,
Azerbaijan began losing territory to Armenia [see the map of the
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), e.g., one prepared in 1920
by Russian MFA or the one presented in Versailles Peace Conference
(France) in 1919]. Azerbaijan’s territory was reduced from 114,000
sq. km. during ADR (1918-1920) — which was, along with Armenia, de
facto recognized by the League of Nations in those borders in 1920 —
to its present size of 86,600 sq. km., which is actually less now
because of the Armenian military occupation.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), inside Azerbaijan, was
created in July 1923, after years of intense debates and opposition
from the Azerbaijani people to its transfer. An oblast, the Russian
term for “province,” was purely a Soviet administrative division,
which meant that in all aspects it was subordinated to the union
republic, Azerbaijan SSR.

Unlike an “oblast”, such as Karabakh (NKAO), Naxcivan, for example, was
an “autonomous republic” (ASSR within Azerbaijan SSR), which had much
broader rights, its own parliament, constitution and other privileges.

Carving out enclaves in the various Soviet republics exacerbated ethnic
tensions and was deliberately practiced. It served the Soviet Union
well by distracting the republics from seeking their own independence
because they were always occupied with ethnic tensions brewing inside
their own borders.

Myth #3. Stalin gave Naxcivan (Nakhchivan) to Azerbaijan.

The truth is that Nakhchivan, just as Karabakh, is historically part
of Azerbaijan. After Soviets gained power (1920), the foundation
stone for the autonomy of Naxcivan was laid by the Moscow and Kars
international treaties of March 16, 1921 and October 13, 1921,
respectively. These treaties are still in force. They stipulated
that Naxcivan remain within Azerbaijan, a legal fact that prevented
the Soviets from giving Naxcivan to Armenia. This did not, however,
prevent from giving small bits of territory to Armenia in the 1920s
and 1930, as well as occupation of the Kerki village in the north of
Naxcivan by Armenia in 1990. The status of Naxcivan Autonomous Republic
(ASSR) within Azerbaijan SSR was established in 1924.

Naxcivan used to be “connected” to the rest of Azerbaijan by the
Zangezur district, which was given to Armenia in December 1920.

Effectively, assigning this strip (46 km) to Armenia separated
Azerbaijan in two sections cutting off Turkey from the other
Turkic-speaking peoples in Central Asia.

Zangezur was continuously emptied of its indigenous residents.

According to the official Russian censuses, in 1897 its population
was 51.7% Azerbaijani but by 1926, the population had declined to
6.4%. During the same period, the ratio of Armenians increased from
46.1% to 87%! Tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis had to flee for their
lives in much the same way as they have had to do in the 1990s.

By the way, as more documents see light and archives get open, the
researchers have discovered shocking USSR Council of Ministers decrees,
dated 23 December 1947 (No. 4083) and 10 March 1948 (No.

754), signed by Stalin himself, with advise from top officials L.

Beria and A. Mikoyan, ordering a forced “resettlement” of more than
100,000 Azerbaijani nationals from Armenian SSR to Azerbaijan SSR in
the period of 1948-1951 (half of them died in the process). Settling
in their homes were to be incoming Armenian expatriates from abroad….

view/773/

POPE VOICES DESIRE TO MEND A 1,500-YEAR SPLIT

Zenit News Agency, Italy
March 21 2006

Promotes Unity With Armenian Apostolic Church

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI signals
his desire to promote unity with the Armenian Apostolic Church,
a Christian confession that separated from Rome in the fifth century.

The Pope expressed his desire for unity today when he received in
audience His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni, Catholic patriarch
of Cilicia of the Armenians, Lebanon, with members of the patriarchal
synod and a group of pilgrims.

The Mideast-based patriarch leads 600,000 Catholic faithful in
communion with Rome, assisted by 120 priests and about 90 women
religious, according to Vatican Radio.

By contrast, more than 90% of the Armenian Christians are under the
Armenian Apostolic Patriarchate, which separated from Rome after
the Council of Chalcedon in 451. A key step toward overcoming this
division was taken in 1996 when Pope John Paul II and Patriarch
Karekin I signed a joint declaration on the nature of Jesus.

Benedict XVI, in his address to guests of the Armenian Catholic Church
in communion with Rome, recalled the sufferings of the Armenian people
“in the name of the Christian faith.”

At the same time the Holy Father manifested his satisfaction because
in recent years “a cordial and fruitful dialogue” has begun among
the Armenian Christians for unity with Rome.

“I encourage this renewed fraternity and collaboration hoping that it
may give rise to new initiatives for a joint journey towards full
unity,” he said, “with its own hierarchy, in fraternal interior
harmony and full communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

Benedict XVI concluded: “We all wish to be instruments at the disposal
of Christ. May he — who is the Way, Truth and Life — enable us to
continue with all our strength, so that, as soon as possible, there
may be one flock with one pastor.”
From: Baghdasarian

AMERICAN PROFESSOR: ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS BRITISH PROPAGANDA

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
March 20 2006

Renown U.S. historian and expert on Ottoman affairs, Professor Justin
McCarthy said allegations of Armenian genocide are British propaganda.

Professor Justin McCarthy, speaking at a conference in London,
said that a source known as the “Blue Book” chosen by Armenians to
prove their claims of genocide is one of the products of British war
propaganda bureau’s efforts of misinformation during first world war.

The Blue Book written by Viscount Bryce and Arnold Toynbee has been
used as proof that Armenians and the victims of the Jewish Holocaust
suffered the same fate in history. This book has been said to be a
product of British intelligence designed to promote and promulgate
lies during World War I. Britain had set up the war propaganda
bureau at Wellington House for the sole purpose of promoting lies and
misinformation on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The British were
in full co-operation with American missionaries in Anatolia and the
American Embassy in Istanbul conjured a so called Armenian genocide
based on gossip, hear-say and erroneous information.

The real purpose behind this exercise was to create and strengthen
an image in the minds of British military officers that the Turk were
evil, horrible and untrustworthy McCarthy adds.

PROFESSOR JUSTIN MCCARTHY…

HISTORIAN AND EXPERT ON OTTOMAN AFFAIRS

All documents at the Wellington House where the British carried out
their propaganda were destroyed when the war ended. One document that
survived, however, was the Blue Book (it is documented that many more
of these books were published and copied for other countries). This
book is currently being used around the world as a legal document on
the genocide.

AMERICAN HISTORIAN PROVES THE FACTS

The American historian and expert on Ottoman affairs was a recent
speaker at the London School of Oriental and African Studies. He
commented on a few of the stomach churning activities of the British
during the first world war. He stated, When the war began, a secret
propaganda unit was set up at Wellington House, London (on September
2, 1914). This units sole aim was to provide support for Britain,
smear Britains enemies, obtain support for the British view through
the use of Americans, and to keep British morale high during the war.

This unit was headed by Charles Masterman a Liberal m.p. He was a
close friend of Lloyd George. There also was an American intellectual
named Viscount Bryce working in this bureau who had many influential
friends in the U.S. Arnold Toynbee, young historian, meanwhile was
one of Bryces close friends at the time.

SEVEN MILLION DOCUMENTS

At the end of the war all documents and records of work at the war
propaganda bureau were destroyed, and its existence was only admitted
in 1935. However, the sources of the propaganda bureau were discovered
due to one records book surviving until present day.

Publications prepared in this bureau and the existence of seven
million documents which were very efficiently sent to the United States
after the war were also exposed. Many famous authors of the time as
Arnold Bennett and John Buchan were also employed by the Wellington
House, where they published brochures, books and statements for the
war effort.

GERMANY, THE ACTUAL TARGET

Although Germany was the actual target of activities at Wellington
House, the Ottoman Empire, having sided with Germany during the war
received its fair share of false propaganda. No matter how sympathetic
the British officers felt towards their Turkish compatriots, the
image that Turkish officers were bad, evil and untrustworthy was
strengthened by such slanderous data.

NON-REAL NAMES

Work carried out by those at Wellington House on Ottomans involved many
so called authors and writers whose existence could not be verified
and thus, the information remains unconfirmed. For example, there
was apparently a Syrian member of the Ottoman Committee of Union and
Progress Party, named Faiz whose memoirs are mentioned in publications
of the Wellington House. This persons existence is totally make-belief
and his statements on Talat Pasha, a complete fallacy since he never
existed. Wellington House also proves the close co-operation which
existed between them and the American diplomats and missionaries based
in Turkey during that time. Since it is documented that these groups
were close to the Armenians in Turkey, their so called information
from Turkey is a total fabrication.

BLUE BOOK ORDERED BY LLOYD GEORGE

Public law and order was severely disrupted as a result of Armenians
revolting against Ottoman authority in eastern Anatolia, which led
Bryce and Toynbee to concoct material to document alleged atrocities
committed by Ottomans. Lloyd George asked to collect these documents
in the Blue Book. This document was later submitted to the British
parliament and has since been used as a classic documentation by
radical nationalist Armenian groups.

TOYNBEE WAS AN ANTI-TURK

It is thought that Toynbee believed in the authenticity and
truthfulness of material received from American missionaries in
Anatolia. However, he also added some spice to these imaginary stories,
since it was his country that was at war with Turkey and he thought
it would be right to lie in his reports. As was proved in his late
career, Toynbee was indeed an avid Turk hater, but was too far away
from the events of eastern Turkey in 1916 to document anything.

It is easy to see far away from such events Armenians living in
Turkey were and in looking at Toynbees data. Toynbee also seems to
have exaggerated their relýabýlýty for they turned and fought against
their former protector for promises made by outsiders. For example
so many anecdotes mentioned by western observers are not by western
travelers but by a local Armenians travelling only short distances.

One tenth of the anecdotes do not even have a source of any kind.

Other sources are generally hearsay and have no witnesses who can
attest to the so called crimes.

NO REACTIONS FROM TURKEY

All propaganda against Germany by Wellington House has been forgotten,
yet unfortunately Bryce – Toynbee documents have been recognized
as true in Britain and U.S. These documents have always been used
by radical militant Armenians to pursue their goals. There is no
information at hand about whether Turkey has shown any reactions
against the impact of these documents. The mentioned Blue Book has
been published more then once. Ara Sarafian who is to publish the
book for the third time does not mention the fact that the books
contents were prepared at Wellington House and that its sources are
untrustworthy. Thus, propaganda carried out by the British during
World War I continues to spread its venom against all Turkish people
living around the world.

–Boundary_(ID_O4/CBmpEje8KUOb4VLSTbg)–

TALAT PASHA RALLY HELD IN BERLIN

Anatolian Times, Turkey
March 20 2006

BERLIN – Thousands of Turkish people attended the rally organized
by the Talat Pasha Movement in German capital Berlin on Saturday to
protest a decision made by the German parliament to recognize the
so-called Armenian genocide.

The rally started from An der Urania avenue and ended in Ernst
Reuter Square.

Speaking at the rally, Workers’ Party leader Dogu Perincek said,
“no one can accuse Turkish people of massacring Armenian people. The
recent decision made by the German parliament will play havoc with
the friendly relations between the two countries. We call on German
authorities to correct this serious mistake.”

Nearly 5 thousand Turkish people were in attendance at the rally.

They carried banners and photographs of Turkish diplomats who were
killed by Armenian terrorists.

THE TURKISH DILEMMA
By George Gregoriou

Greek News, New York
March 20 2006

At a party the other day a French woman who was connected with the
United Nations said to me “Turkey will not be in the European Union”.

I said “I will not loose any sleep over it. If Turkey does change she
does not deserve to be in the EU”. Maybe the cynical among us will
not loose any sleep. But, Washington and London will, and the Turkish
corporate interests and the left, who want to move in the direction of
Europe. Official Athens and Nicosia also want Turkey to be in Europe. A
more civilized Turkey will be a better neighbor in the Aegean, even
settle the Cyprus problem in a way which is acceptable to the Greek and
Turkish Cypriots. At least, this has been the official line from the
moment Ankara became a candidate for membership in the European Union.

Not all Turks want to join the European Union. Not just nationalists
and Islamicists. Secularists are not eager, especially if Turkey
will pay a price for membership in the EU. PM Embarkan, PM Erdogan’s
predecessor/head of the Islamist movement, wanted to redirect Turkey
towards the Islamic Middle East, even form an Islamic “NATO”. He
was booted out of power by the military. PM Erdogan has managed to
tip-toe around this issue, maintaining his Islamic credentials but
maneuvering in the direction of the EU, for the economic benefits.

The recent crisis over the trial and possible jailing of the prominent
novelist Orhan Pamuk is only the tip of the iceberg. Pamuk is not the
real issue. Turkey is on trial, stated Oli Rehn, the EU enlargement
commissioner. The charge against Pamuk is over his statement in an
interview with Das Magazin, a Swiss publication, that the Ottoman
Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915.

Over a million Armenians were massacred. The Kurds, who were “promised”
Armenian land and property, hand a hand in this massacre, until
Ataturk turned his guns on these “mountain Turks”. Pamuk’s other
“crime” was his statement that thousands of Kurds were killed in
the war against the separatist P.K.I. in the 1980s. These comments
“denigrate Turkishness”. Any criticism of the state, the army, or the
founder of the Turkish Republic, Kemal Ataturk, are crimes which can
send one to prison. Pamuk is not the first to be charged. According to
the NYTimes(12/17/05) nearly 60 intellectuals have been charged with
this crime. On his way to court Pamuk was confronted by protestors
hurling eggs and insults “Traitor Pamuk!”

The Islamic religion in Turkey is not the only issue. Those who
brought the charges against Pamuk are known secularists who brought
charges against women wearing the shroud, which violates the Ataturk
legacy of modernization. So, if we were to add the Islamists and the
nationalists/secularists who will defend Turkish “honor” against
free speech and democratic rights, who among the 70 million Turks
is eligible to be in the EU at a time when the wave of anti-Muslim
attitudes is on the increase throughout Europe?

The Pamuk trial was so hot, the political and criminal establishment
postponed the case until February 7. Turkey’s trajectory into the
EU is at risk. If Pamuk is found not guilty in February the penal
code is invalidated. If he is guilty, more ammunition is given to
those opposing Turkey in the EU, a slap in the face of the Bush-Blair
regimes promoting. Turkey’s accession talks for geopolitical reasons,
to control the Middle East and Central Asia for their oil and natural
resources.

Turkey’s trajectory into the EU will be very bumpy. The Pamuk case
involves admission by the Ankara regime for the crimes committed
against Armenians and Kurds, which is common knowledge throughout
the world. The worse scenario would be demands for reparations by
the descendants of the Armenians massacred. The Turkish state seems
to be good at taking, not giving or paying its dues, even offering an
apology for crimes committed 90 years ago. Money is the real problem,
but there is more to it. Pandora’s box will be opened. A flood will be
cascading into the faces of those Turks hiding behind the fig leaf of
“honor” to deny the barbarism within the Turkish civilization.

If official Ankara cannot admit to the massacre of Armenians and
Greeks at the turn of the last century, how can it admit to the crimes
committed against the 15 million Kurds, persecuted since the days of
Ataturk. Ataturk’s policy was, those who could be Turkified could stay
in Turkey, those who could not, be eliminated. The fate of millions
of Greeks, Armenians, and Jews in Asia Minor is well-known to Turks
in the street, but not to the all the regimes in Ankara since WWI.

This Turkish barbarism is not just the legacy of the past. The war
on the Kurds continued throughout the 20th Century. It continues
today in Eastern Anatolia and Ankara’s current policy towards the
Kurds in northern Iraq. It continues in Cyprus as well. The invasion
and ethnic cleansing in 1974 has been in place for 31 years. 200,000
Cypriots were forced to leave the northern part of Cyprus, to make
room for 130,000 settlers from Anatolia. This is the Turkish method of
settling disputes, settlers to change the demographics and an army of
occupation to guarantee that the facts on the ground created by the
invasion are irreversible. There could be a settlement of the Cyprus
problem between the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus within 24 hours if
the settlers and the Turkish army were to go back to Turkey.

Ankara is not alone in this crime. Washington and London are its
co-conspirators.

The Turkish dilemma is real. If Ankara cannot admit the massacre of
the Armenians and is prosecuting one of Turkey¹s best known novelist,
Orhan Pamuk, how can it deal with the Kurdish and Cyprus problems
if it is serious and wants to be in the EU? Nicosia, Athens, and
other European capitals may have the last word: a veto over Turkey¹s
membership in the European Union.

*** George Gregoriou Professor, Critical Theory and Geopolitics
Department of Political Science The William Paterson University Wayne,
New Jersey 07470 e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.greeknewsonline.c om/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid= 4248&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

–Bo undary_(ID_LKYnrIq3TAjI2VLZJ/I9dA)–

TURKS IN GERMANY, FRANCE PROTEST ARMENIAN CLAIMS

Journal of Turkish Weekly
March 20 2006

Some 5,000 Turks rallied under the slogan “Take your flag and come
to Berlin” over the weekend in Berlin to urge the German Parliament
to reverse its decision to acknowledge Armenian genocide claims.

The Talat Pasha movement, responsible for the rally, was initiated by
Workers’ Party (IP) leader Dogu Perincek and former Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) President Rauf Denktas. Many representatives
from Turkish political parties and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) participated.

The participants in the rally marched from Berlin’s An der Urania
Street to Ernst Reuter Square chanting “Long live Turkish-German
friendship,” “We didn’t commit genocide, we defended the country,” and
“The genocide lie is a U.S. game.” While they carried signs showing
photos of Turkish diplomats killed by Armenian terrorists, they also
called on the German Parliament to denounce the genocide claims.

During the rally, the crowd stopped at Steinplatz where Talat Pasha
was assassinated in 1921 and sang the Turkish national anthem.

Delivering a speech to the crowd, Perincek said, “Nobody can bring
us to our knees by accusing our nation of massacre.” He also lashed
out at the decision of the German Parliament making Turks out to be
“butchers,” saying, “The German Parliament has stabbed Turkish-German
friendship in the back with this decision.” He also urged the
Parliament to annul the earlier recognition.

Stressing that an erroneous decision by Germany should not be included
in German textbooks, Perincek said, “Don’t put hatred and antagonism
in textbooks. Don’t make Turks and Germans enemies.”

Perincek also lambasted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s undertakings
to ban the rally, saying, “Merkel should speak in German, not in
American.” The IP leader also claimed that the Armenian genocide
claims serve the U.S.’ Greater Middle East Initiative (GME), adding
that the recognition of the claims is not for the benefit of Germany.

At the head of the rally, Denktas laid flowers where Talat Pasha
was assassinated. Sunday, a general assembly to commemorate Talat
Pasha was held in Berlin. Last year, the same group held another
demonstration to mark the 82nd anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne.

During that rally, Perincek lashed out at a decision by Switzerland
to punish those who deny the Armenian genocide claims, saying,
“The Armenian ‘genocide’ is an international lie,” after which the
prosecutor from Winterthur opened an investigation into Perincek
and the incident turned into a diplomatic crisis between Turkey
and Switzerland.

Turks in Lyon protest inauguration of Armenian monument

Turkish associations in Lyon, France organized a rally over the
weekend to protest the Lyon Municipality’s decision to dedicate a
monument commemorating the so-called Armenian genocide.

The rally began at Place Bellcour with the members of various Turkish
associations participating while carrying Turkish and French flags.

Some 1,500 Turks participated in the rally and chanted slogans
against the inauguration of the monument. The rally ended at the Lyon
Municipality Building, where protestors laid a black wreath at the
front door.

French police used teargas to disperse a number of Armenians who were
trying to provoke protesters as a means of preventing a dangerous
escalation of tension between Turks and Armenians.

The Lyon Municipality made its decision in 2004 to dedicate a monument
to commemorating the alleged Armenian genocide. They also decided
to make a 45,000 euro contribution towards the total cost of 130,000
euros for the monument and ceremony.

Certain French NGOs together with UNESCO opened a lawsuit against
the construction of the monument, claiming that it will violate the
district’s aesthetics. Some 150,000 Armenians live in Lyon.

In 2001, the French Parliament recognized the Armenian genocide claims,
a move which created a diplomatic row between Ankara and Paris.