CLASH OF CULTURES IN FRANCE
Winnipeg Sun, Canada
March 19 2006
LYON, France — French youths protesting against a new employment law
ended up in an unexpected clash with Turks demonstrating against an
Armenian memorial when their separate marches crossed paths yesterday.
Riot police used water cannon to separate the two groups after
about 2,500 Turks opposed to the construction of a memorial in the
city centre to Armenian victims of a 1915 massacre attacked the
demonstrating youths, police said.
Officials said some youths protesting the employment law were
apparently of Armenian origin.

TALAT PASHA RALLY BEGINS IN BERLIN
Anatolian Times, Turkey
March 19 2006
Turks In Lyon Protest Erection Of So-Called Armenian Genocide Monument
BERLIN/LYON – The “Berlin Talat Pasha Movement” rally to protest the
decision of the German parliament on the so-called Armenian genocide
has begun today in Berlin.
Over 5,000 Turks attended the Berlin rally.
Meanwhile, Turks living in Lyon, France have protested the erection
of a monument on the so-called Armenian genocide in Lyon. Turkish
demonstrators held Turkish and French flags in their hands.

ARMENIANS BECAME A TOOL FOR KILLING MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MUSLIMS, MCCARTHY
Anatolian Times, Turkey
March 19 2006
ISTANBUL – American historian Justin McCarthy has indicated that
unfortunately, Armenians became a tool for killing millions of innocent
Muslims who had lived in the lands of Ottoman Empire.
Different aspects of Armenian issue during and after the First World
War were discussed at an international conference on “New Approaches
to Turkish-Armenian Relations” at the Istanbul University.
McCarthy said that Armenian people caused a threat for Ottoman people
because they were spies of Russia during the Russian occupation.
Noting that Armenian people aided Russia during this period, he
said that they contributed significantly to the losses of Ottomans
and became a tool for killing millions of innocent Muslims. McCarthy
added that Ottomans were right in their efforts to take under control
the insurrection of Armenians.
Taking the floor at the conference, the main opposition Republican
People’s Party (CHP) Istanbul deputy Sukru Elekdag has indicated that
all facts showed that “Blue Book” was a good example of forgery and
falsification. Recalling that in the meeting held on April 13th, 2005,
Turkish parliament decided that Turkey and Armenia should establish
a joint commission, make public their archives and results of their
studies. Elekdag noted that it was a peaceful initiative, stating
that Armenians should accept this initiative.
Elekdag stated that the parliament sent letters regarding the book to
British House of Commons and House of Lords, asking them to apologize
to Turkey for mistakes in the book. “The book written by James Bryce
and Arnold Toynbee includes 150 documents and reports. Eyewitnesses
were mentioned in the book with their code names and they are not
real persons,” Elekdag stressed.
Noting that documents in “Blue Book” were groundless and false,
he said that now Armenians only have this false book.
On the other hand, Ara Sarafian, the editor of Gomidas Institute,
claimed that documents in the book could not be ignored.
Turkish History Institution Chairman Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu offered
Sarafian that a joint project could be conducted. “Let’s conduct a
project. What happened to Armenians in Anatolia? If there are any
mass graves, we can excavate them. If such a project is conducted,
many demagogical matters will be removed. We should search losses of
Turks as well.”
Sarafian said that he accepted the offer.

WHAT’S A CIVILIAN, DEMOCRATIC SOLUTION?
By Hasan Celal Guzel
Published: 3/18/2006
Turkish Press
March 19 2006
RADIKAL- Following the Armenian conference financed by the Soros
Foundation, a conference on ‘Turkey’s Kurdish Issue – Civilian and
Democratic Searches for Solution’ was organized by the Helsinki
Citizens’ Assembly and Empathy Group at Bilgi University last
weekend. The supporters of Kurds with known strategies and tactics
were well intentioned, but unrealistic intellectuals, some of whom
only accepted the Western thesis, revealed their thoughts without
any pressure. Then they ended the meeting without finding a civilian,
democratic solution. Certain mistaken policies have been followed since
the early years of the republic on the Kurdish issue. The realistic
policies followed by Ataturk during the years of national struggle
couldn’t be continued, the meaning of Turkish citizenship and Turkish
identity – the upper identity – weren’t explained well, sub-ethnic
identity wasn’t accepted under the policy of ‘homogeneity,’ and until
recently prohibitions dominated the issue of mother tongues. However,
everybody who has reason, mind and conscience should see that Kurds
have never been treated like second-class citizens or minorities
but have always enjoyed all the rights and possibilities of Turkish
citizens. The poverty and underdevelopment which has nothing to do
with ethnic differences isn’t seen only in southeastern Anatolia. It
should be stressed that the mistakes which were made in the past
aren’t continuing anymore.
The mistakes of certain intellectuals, malevolent separatists and
the West derive from the fact that they consider Turkey a country
where conditions from a quarter-century ago still exist. It’s easy
to talk about a civilian, democratic solution and it sounds nice. Who
would want armed conflicts and war? So we should ask how a civilian,
democratic solution would work. Those who claim to seek this kind of
solution have never made a concrete suggestion which wouldn’t harm
Turkey’s integrity and unity. The aims of the Kurdish separatist
movement, supported by the terrorist PKK, are known:
1. Firstly, paint the separatist Kurdish movement in Turkey as a
‘peaceful’ movement seeking a civilian, democratic solution
2. Pressure the political rulers by accelerating the PKK’s terrorist
activities
3. Ensue an amnesty for the end of terrorist activities
4. Try to establish an ‘autonomous administration’ in the political
field
5. Establish a ‘federative administration’
6. Finally, establish Kurdistan with the regional Kurdish
administration in northern Iraq
Those who make these calculations depend on the PKK’s terrorist
actions, the appeasement of populist politicians, the support of
intellectual dreamers, the protection of European Union circles and the
expectation that US forces in Iraq will act in their favor. These are
all mistaken calculations. The public knows the actual wishes of the
people. The government and state cannot make any more concessions over
Kurdish separatism, which has turned into terrorism. Our nation would
never let someone make concessions from sovereignty or territory –
not even under the threat of being excluded from the EU or the Western
world completely. If a civilian, democratic solution is expected on
the Kurdish issue, firstly, the terrorist PKK should disband, and such
political movements as the Democratic Society Movement (DTH) should be
cleansed of terrorist elements and put on the political platform. It’s
a must for the PKK to be disarmed towards this end. Only then we can
talk about such formulas as amnesty and political representation.

FIVE OPTIONS TO DIVIDE THE JERUSALEM CAKE
By Nadav Shragai
Daily Star – Lebanon
March 20 2006
Some Israeli political parties have openly discussed the transfer of
Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority.
But when it comes to the Old City and the Temple Mount, there is
still reticence to challenge public conventions regarding what all
agree are the most emotionally charged places in the world.
Nevertheless, Ruth Lapidoth is heading a team of experts under
the auspices of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS),
to suggest options for a settlement of this holy and disputed area
known as the “historic basin of Jerusalem” – the Old City and its
adjacent territories.
Lapidoth and her team are not the first to offer solutions for the
Old City and Jerusalem. On various occasions, concerned parties have
floated the idea of expropriating all political sovereignty from
Jerusalem within the walls, seeing it as a holy place belonging
to no one, to be governed by a joint council of Jews, Muslims and
Christians. However, the current JIIS report abandons, to a large
extent, the idea of areas devoid of sovereignty. In the majority of
its options it proposes a return to old-style partition. The five
options were recently presented to acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and the chairman of the Likud and Labor parties.
The first option proposes full sovereignty and control of the basin
by Israel, while granting some autonomy to Palestinian residents,
and perhaps also determining a special status for Christian and
Muslim holy places. The proposal essentially institutionalizes the
existing situation, as Muslims and Christians currently operate their
institutions autonomously. This option also proposes the possibility of
granting international immunity to the holy places or to the clergymen
serving in them.
The second option is the exact opposite: Full sovereignty and control
by the Palestinians throughout the basin, with autonomy for the Jewish
residents (for instance in the Jewish Quarter) and special status
for Jewish holy places. This option would perhaps be acceptable to
the vast majority of Palestinians, but one may safely assume that
Israel would reject it out of hand, just as the Palestinians would
reject the first option.
The third option proposes a territorial division between the sides,
with international supervision. In this option, following an agreement
on boundaries, each side is sovereign and the source of authority in
the territory allocated to it. The territorial division of the basin
between Israel and Palestinians could be implemented on the basis of
a wide variety of alternate borderlines, which the team lays out in
five sub-options:
First, the Jewish and Armenian Quarters under Israeli sovereignty,
the Muslim and Christian Quarters under Palestinian sovereignty,
and the Temple Mount included under Israeli sovereignty.
Second, the Jewish and Armenian quarters included under Israeli
sovereignty, the Muslim and Christian quarters under Palestinian
sovereignty and the Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty.
Third, the Jewish Quarter under Israeli sovereignty and the other
three quarters and the Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty.
Fourth, the Jewish, Armenian and Christian quarters, and the Temple
Mount, under Israeli sovereignty, and the Muslim Quarter under
Palestinian sovereignty.
Fifth, each of the above options, with territorial division of the
Temple Mount between Israel and the Palestinians.
The issues raised by this third option are complex, and some seem
irresolvable at first glance: for example, the request for freedom
of Jewish ritual on the Temple Mount, the issue of supervision
of construction, human rights, preservation of antiquities,
border-crossing conditions, restrictions on security matters, the scope
of judicial and criminal jurisdiction of each side over citizens from
the other side who enter territory under their control.
On the basis of this option, the two sides would grant surveillance
and oversight authorities to an international body. This body, which
would function as an “observer,” would have to examine whether the
sides carried out the directives of the arrangement.
A fourth option proposes joint management, and a division of authority
between the two sides with international backing. The Old City basin
would operate as a single unit, and the sides would share the majority
of administrative and policing authorities in the basin.
The international body would be responsible for authority in areas
in which the joint operation would, for whatever reason, fail. The
agreement could determine a period of time upon the conclusion of
which the international body would have to restore to the different
sides those authorities that it assumed.
In the fifth option, similar to the fourth, the historic basin would
“usually” be administered as a single unit, although this would be
carried out by the international body itself, and not by the parties.
Nevertheless, it is possible that relatively small areas, primarily
those holy places on which there is no dispute, would be divided
among the sides on a territorial basis. According to this plan,
which would essentially mean internationalization of the holy basin,
the international body would retain not only supervision and oversight
authorities; it would also be responsible for administering the holy
basin, and would constitute its source of authority and control.
One of the more interesting questions is who would operate
the international body? Here, again, the team lays out several
sub-options: an international organization such as the United Nations;
a multinational organization that would be established especially
for the purposes of this task; or a country such as the United States
or Switzerland.
The permanent settlement team of the JIIS did not expressly recommend
any of these options, but it does favor some sort of international
involvement in administration of the Old City, mainly in the areas
of security and preservation and supervision of the holy places. The
bottom line of the new report states: “It is especially complicated
to plan and put into place a special regime for the historic basin,
but it may be assumed that there is no other solution that could gain
the agreement of the two sides and of the international community.”
Nadav Shragai is a correspondent for Haaretz. THE DAILY STAR publishes
this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

ALIYEV THREATENS TO SUSPEND GARABAGH TALKS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 17 2006
Baku, March 16, AssA-Irada
President Ilham Aliyev has reaffirmed official Baku’s intransigent
stance with regard to the long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
over Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh.
“If the occupied territories are not freed, Azerbaijan may reconsider
its participation in peace talks with Armenia. If we see that Armenia’s
involvement in the peace process is just an imitation, we will suspend
the talks,” Aliyev told the second congress of World Azerbaijanis in
Baku on Thursday.
Upper Garabagh, which is internationally recognized as part of
Azerbaijan, has both Azerbaijani and ethnic Armenian population. It was
occupied by Armenia in early 1990s, along with seven other Azerbaijani
districts, after large-scale hostilities that killed up to 30,000
people and forced over a million Azeris out of their homes.
The ceasefire accord was signed in 1994, but peace talks have been
fruitless so far and refugees remain stranded.
The commander-in-chief said that although the ceasefire was reached
12 years ago, the negotiations carried out so far have been fruitless
due to Yerevan’s inappropriate position.
“We can take part in the talks if we believe in their results. But
how long? This can’t go on forever. The patience of the Azerbaijani
people and authorities is getting exhausted.”
Aliyev reminded that Upper Garabagh is a historic Azerbaijani land
and Armenians came here only in mid-19th century. “They came to the
region as visitors, but afterwards acquired the quantitative majority
and paved the way for separatist sentiments,” he said.
“Official Baku will never accept the occupation of Azerbaijani
territories. The Armenian invading forces must pull out, while
Azerbaijani citizens must return to the land of their forefathers.
Only after this can normal relations be forged between Azerbaijan
and Armenia. And this is the only way to achieve a peace accord,”
the president said.

ARMENIANS’ VISIT NOT ELABORATED
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 17 2006
Baku, March 16, AssA-Irada
Three Armenian representatives joined an event of the European security
body in Baku on Thursday.
It is still unclear how the three employees of Armenia’s ministries of
foreign affairs and transport, as well as another government official,
succeeded in coming to Azerbaijan to attend the 14th economic forum
of the OSCE.
Commenting on the matter, Deputy Prime Minister Abid Sharifov said
the visit was paid through the OSCE, but declined to elaborate in
which Azeri embassy the Armenians had acquired their visas. “Do I
have to report to you?” he enquired in reply to journalists’ questions.
Sharifov noted that the Azeri government does not interfere with the
conduct of events on the level of OSCE. He said that although Azeris
and Armenians have attended the same conferences before, it would
be wrong to interpret this as cooperation with the aggressor nation,
which is out of the question.
“I repeat that the fact Armenians attended the same conference does not
mean cooperation. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are OSCE member states.”
Frank Geerkens, head of the OSCE Chairmanship Unit, said Armenia’s
participation at the forum as an OSCE member is “natural”.
“Today’s event pursued economic goals. As for the Upper Garabagh
conflict, the OSCE representatives visited Armenia and Azerbaijan last
month. The organization is interested in the conflict settlement and
is making efforts to achieve this,” Geerkens said.
The head of the OSCE Office in Baku, Maurizio Pavesi, stated that the
permission to visit Baku was provided by the Azerbaijani government
proper and advised journalists to approach officials with this
question instead.
The hard-line Garabagh Liberation Organization (GLO) strongly condemned
Armenians’ attendance. Its members staged a protest, trying to disrupt
the discussions. But the police prevented the attempt, detaining four
of them.
In a statement, the organization said it considers the fact the
government did not prevent the visit as an insult to the memory of
those who died in battles for Garabagh and a severe blow dealt upon
the Azerbaijani people’s interests.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN MINISTER TRYING TO DERAIL PEACE TALKS, AZERI OFFICIAL SAYS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 17 2006
Baku, March 16, AssA-Irada
An Azeri presidential administration official has accused Armenian
Foreign Minister of attempting to derail efforts to settle the
long-standing Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict, following the latter’s
outrageous statement.
“Vardan Oskanian is trying to disrupt peace talks. As I understand,
his latest statements signal that he wants to negatively affect
the entire peace process,” the head of the President’s Office
international relations department, Novruz Mammadov said, while
commenting on Oskanian’s statement that Upper Garabagh “has never been
part of Azerbaijan and is Armenian land”. The Armenian minister also
maintained that if Baku does not recognize the independence of the
self-proclaimed republic, the occupied land would “never be returned”.
“Azerbaijan reserves the right to free its land from under the
aggressor country’s occupation and this is in line with international
law,” Mammadov said. He added that Armenia has recently been under
pressure with regard to the conflict resolution.

AZERBAIJAN, ARMENIA SEEKING TO CONTINUE TALKS – US OFFICIAL
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 17 2006
Baku, March 16, AssA-Irada
The talks on settling the long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper
(Nagorno) Garabagh conflict are not stagnant, Armenian media quoted the
US Department of State Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian
Affairs Daniel Fried as saying.
Fried told a news briefing in Yerevan that judging by the meetings
held between the two countries’ leaders so far, it could be concluded
with confidence that the peace process will continue.
“The two presidents are decisively defending their national interests,”
said Fried.
The discussions held by the two leaders in the French town of
Rambouillet in February turned out fruitless, as the parties failed
to iron out issues of principle, which was followed by mutual threats.
The US official went on to say that prior to his visit to the region,
he and the American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group brokering the
conflict settlement, Steven Mann, met with the two other mediators
from Russia and France and obtained their full support. The Assistant
Secretary dismissed the assumptions that there are discrepancies
among the intermediaries.
Steven Mann speaking at the news briefing concurred that the Azeri
and Armenian heads of state are interested in moving the peace process
forward. “The United States is ready to support their efforts by all
means,” he added.

EU ENVOY CITES HIGH CHANCES FOR AZERI-ARMENIAN ACCORD IN 2006
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 17 2006
Baku, March 16, AssA-Irada
The newly-appointed European Union envoy on the South Caucasus has
cited high chances for an Armenia-Azerbaijan accord on Upper (Nagorno)
Garabagh, despite the latest unsuccessful round of presidential talks.
“If I did not believe in the conflict resolution, I would not have
taken up my new appointment,” Peter Semneby said during his visit
to the Armenian capital Yerevan. Semneby said he would be regularly
in touch with the mediating OSCE Minsk Group to make sure all the
initiatives aiming to the settle the long-standing dispute are
properly coordinated.
“Considering that the last meeting of the two presidents did not
justify expectations, it is difficult to say how real these hopes
are. To become closely familiar with the situation, I have to visit
Azerbaijan and Armenia and exchange views with the co-chairs.”
The discussions held by the two leaders in the French town of
Rambouillet in February turned out fruitless, as the parties failed
to iron out issues of principle, which was followed by mutual threats.
The Swedish diplomat noted that one of the priorities in his activity
would be to facilitate settlement of “frozen conflicts” persisting in
the region. Semneby added that the European Union will face daunting
tasks after these disputes are resolved.