ARMENIA CONSIDERS RELATIONS WITH NATO AS MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ITS EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
YEREVAN, May 23. /ARKA/. Armenia considers relations with NATO as
the most important part of its European integration, Armenian Prime
Minister Andranik Margaryan said Tuesday answering the questio9ns
placed on Azg newspaper’s site.
He said Armenia is trying to drive its relations with Northern Atlantic
Alliance to higher level without seeking NATO membership.
The premier stressed the importance of ties with NATO saying
that Armenia is always participating in the alliance-led regional
programs.

2ND SESSION OF COMMISSION ON COOPERATION BETWEEN MOSCOW AND ARMENIAN GOVERNMENTS TO BE HELD MAY 25 IN YEREVAN
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
YEREVAN, May 23. /ARKA/. The second session of the commission on
cooperation between Moscow and Armenian governments is to be held on
May 25 in Yerevan.
Armenian Government’s press service says a delegation headed by Sergey
Baydakov, the head of Moscow central district, will come to Yerevan
for this session. Makar Naapetyan, the head of Yerevan Municipality
representative office in Moscow, will be Armenian Co-Chair.
Further steps and programs of cooperation between the governments
will be discussed at the session. The delegation will meet Armenian
Regional Administration Minister Hovik Abramyan and Yerevan Mayor
Yervand Zakharyan.

KOCHARYAN CONGRATULATES CHARLES AZNAVOUR ON HIS BIRTHDAY
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
YEREVAN, May 23. /ARKA/. The President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan
congratulated world-known French singer Charles Aznavour on his
birthday.
According to the Press and Information Department of the RA President,
Kocharyan sent a congratulating message to Aznavour wishing him sound
health, long and fruitful creative life.
“Your image of a unique art figure and great Armenian inspires and
gives power to many people. You are the pride of our nation, many
generations admired you songs and patriotism”, the Message says.
Famous French singer, composer and actor Charles Aznavour was born
in France in a family of Armenian immigrants on May 22, 1924.

ARMENIA, NATO DISCUSS COOPERATION PROSPECTS
ITAR-TASS, Russia
May 23 2006
YEREVAN, May 23 (Itar-Tass) – Armenian President Robert Kocharian and
the NATO Secretary-General’s Representative for the North Caucasus and
Central Asia, Robert Simmons, have discussed Armenia-NATO cooperation,
the Armenian presidential press service told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.
Relations with NATO are discussed in the context of Armenia’s European
integration, Kocharian said.
The interdepartmental commission was set up to coordinate work with
different European institutions, he said.
“Our goal is not to lag behind the schedule, but to move by leaps
and bounds and translate into reality joint programs,” Kocharian said.
Simmons hailed the implementation of the plan for Armenia-NATO
partnership. It is necessary to launch defence reform and strengthen
democracy in Armenia, he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EXPOSING THE MYTH OF LASTING IRANIAN-TURKISH AMITY
By Soner Cagaptay and Duden Yegenoglu
Daily Star (Lebanon)
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, DC
May 23 2006
With Iran’s nuclearization a hot button issue, analysts are asking
how Turkey, the only NATO country bordering Iran, would respond if
the United States imposed sanctions on Tehran or chose a military
option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. There is one
answer that American policymakers will hear in Ankara: Turkey should
not confront Iran because Turkey and Iran have been good neighbors
since the 1639 Treaty of Kasri Sirin (also called the Treaty of
Zuhab). Turkish policymakers assert that the two countries have
neither fought nor changed their mutual border since that date.
The “Myth of Kasri Sirin” suggests four centuries of amicable ties
between Turkey and Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Turkey and Iran have repeatedly fought since 1639, and since the 1979
Islamic Revolution Iran has supported terror groups inside Turkey to
undermine governments there.
First, some history: The Ottoman and Iranian empires have fought
many wars since Kasri Sirin. A full-scale war broke out in 1733 when
the Persians attempted to take Baghdad from the Turks. The Persian
siege of Baghdad and the accompanying battles ended in 1746 with the
Treaty of Kurdan, signed between the new Zand Dynasty of Persia and
the Ottoman Empire.
Soon after, in 1775, the Zand Dynasty attacked the Ottoman Empire
again and captured Basra. The invasion lasted until 1821, at which
time another war started between the Ottoman Empire and the new
Qajar Dynasty of Persia. The war ended in 1823, with the First Treaty
of Erzurum.
Rivalry over Muhammarah region (Iran’s modern-day Khorramshar) deepened
the conflict between the two empires by adding a new dimension to
the conflict. Persians and Ottoman Iraqi governors clashed over its
control, bringing the two empires to the brink of war in 1840. The
British intervened, establishing a boundary commission composed
of Iranian, Turkish, British, and Russian diplomats. As a result,
the Persian and Ottoman empires signed the Second Treaty of Erzurum,
reconfiguring the Iranian-Ottoman border.
Troubles between the two countries extended well beyond the Ottoman
era. Fighting also took place across the Turkish-Iranian border during
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s rule in Turkey. In 1930, when some Kurds
launched a rebellion around Mount Greater Agri (Ararat) in Turkey,
Kurdish bands armed by Armenian nationalists entered Turkey across
the Iranian border to support the rebellion.
This was no small skirmish. Turkey used airplanes in a counterattack
and mobilized 15,000 troops to suppress the incursion. In the end,
the Turkish Army was able to put down the border infiltration, though
with great difficulty, and only after losing several planes. In 1931,
Ankara asked Iran for a border rectification that put Mount Lesser
Agri, the base of the 1930 incursions, inside Turkey.
Volatility along the border became an issue again when the terrorist
Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) launched a campaign against Turkey in
1984. Iran’s theocratic regime, diametrically opposed to Turkey’s
secular, pro-Western society, saw the PKK as a useful tool to wreak
havoc in Turkey. Accordingly, Tehran allowed PKK bases such as Haj
Umran, Dar Khala, Benchul, Mandali, and Sirabad in its territory. Ali
Koknar, an expert on terrorism, writes that in 1995 the PKK “maintained
about 1,200 of its members at around 50 locations in Iran.” Throughout
the 1980s and the 1990s, the PKK crossed from these bases into Turkey,
attacking the Turkish military as well as killing civilians.
Iran has supported not only the PKK but also Islamist terrorist
cells. Since the 1979 revolution, Iranian-backed cells have killed a
number of secular Turkish intellectuals and journalists considered
offensive, including theologian Bahriye Ucok, a female Islamist
modernizer, and journalist Cetin Emec.
Interestingly, Iran’s policy of war by proxy, the use of the PKK and
Islamist terrorists to undermine Turkey’s secular system, has recently
come to a strategic halt. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Tehran
has been feeling an increase in American-imposed isolation. To break
this policy, Iran has launched a policy of courting Ankara. Iran
now aims to win the Turks’ hearts. In this regard, Tehran is taking
advantage of American inaction against the PKK’s Qandil terror enclave
in northern Iraq — a fact that is planting seeds of resentment in
Turkey toward Washington — by launching attacks against Qandil and
the very PKK camps Iran allowed in the 1990s.
While these steps are helping Tehran build a positive image in Turkey,
the fact is that Tehran is far from the benevolent neighbor the “Myth
of Kasri Sirin” implies. Turkey and Iran have fought many times since
1639, repeatedly changing their mutual border, including as recently
as 1931. Lately, Tehran has fought war by proxy against Ankara. Yet,
like all other myths, the “Myth of Kasri Sirin” satisfies a real need:
So long as the U.S. ignores Turkey’s battle against the PKK in Iraq,
the future holds out the possibility that Ankara may be closer to
Tehran than to Washington.
Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, an Ertegun professor at Princeton University,
and chair of the Turkey Program at the State Department’s Foreign
Service Institute. Duden Yegenoglu is a research assistant at
the Washington Institute. This commentary first appeared at
bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter presenting
contending views of Arab or Middle Eastern affairs.

ARMENIA LIGHTS A PATH TO A BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR HIV AND AIDS MEMORIAL DAY
Source: World Vision Middle East/Eastern Europe office (MEERO)
Reuters AlertNet, UK
May 23 2006
‘Lighting the Path to a Brighter Future’ was this year’s theme for
International AIDS Candlelight Memorial Day, and events were held in
Armenia focusing specifically on young people.
‘Today we are not only remembering those who died, but reinforcing
our resolve to fight against HIV and AIDS,’ said Mark Kelly, World
Vision Armenia National Director.
More than 300 university students, journalists, government and NGO
representatives attended an event at the Chamber Music Theatre in
Yerevan, the capital. Young singers, youth choirs and orchestras
communicated their message on HIVprevention through their performances.
Red candles were lit in the hall forming a red ribbon, the symbol of
HIV awareness. Brochures and booklets on HIV and AIDS were distributed
to all the participants of the event.
‘It is very important for young people to learn about HIV in order to
protect themselves from this dangerous virus,’ says Ofelia Karapetyan,
a student from Yerevan.
Candles were lit during the events – held in Yerevan, and in Lori and
Tavush regions, north-eastern Armenia – to symbolise the 83 lives,
including those of two children, which have already been lost to AIDS
in Armenia.
Renate Ehmer, the UNAIDS Inter-Country Coordinator for Southern
Caucasus, stressed that the Candlelight Memorial Day is not only a day
for commemorating friends and family members, but also a day of hope,
because there is treatment that helps people with HIV live longer
and healthier life, and because there are ways to stop the epidemic
by raising knowledge on HIV and fighting stigma and discrimination.
Several factors, such as poverty, economic and social insecurity and
migration to the high prevalence countries, contribute to the spread
of HIV in Armenia. There are 378 registered HIV carriers although
the actual number is estimated to be up to 3,000 – a considerable
figure for a country with a population of three million. Although
Armenia still is a low-prevalence country, only joint efforts by the
government, NGOs, church, mass media and the general public can help
to slow down the rates of HIV infection and prevent an HIV epidemic.
The Candlelight Memorial takes places every year on May 21, in more
than 4,500 communities in 93 countries. The purpose of this global
action, initiated by the Global Health Council, is to remember those
who died of AIDS and contribute to the prevention of HIV.
World Vision in partnership with UNAIDS, the National Centre for AIDS
Prevention, ‘Real World, Real People’ and ‘Force’ NGOs coordinated
events for the third time.
Through its programme focused on HIV prevention, World Vision helps
to educate people in Armenia about HIV and to fight discrimination
related to HIV and AIDS. For the past four years, World Vision
facilitated training sessions and distributed educational materials,
organised children’s theatre performances and television programmes
on HIV issues. With World Vision support, school children and young
people from Armenia participated in global actions, such as ‘Lesson
for Life’, AIDS Memorial quilt and other worldwide campaigns.

OSCE MONITORING IN AZERI-ARMENIAN FRONTAL LINE HELD WITHOUT CAUSALITIES
Author: E.Javadova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
The OSCE monitoring held in the contact lime of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani armed forces near Kuropatkino village of Khojavand District
on Tuesday held without causalities, Ilgar Verdiyev, the spokesman
for the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry announced.
Andjey Casprzyk, the special envoy of the OSCE chairman-in-office,
and his field assistants Peter Key will hold monitoring in the
Azerbaijani side of the frontline.
Imre Palatinus, Harry Eronen and Yuri Aberle, the special envoy’s
field assistants, are in charge of monitoring in the Armenian side
of the contact line.

KAREL DE GUCHT: “I AM NOT PESSIMISTIC, HOWEVER, NOT EXCESSIVELY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT CURRENT YEAR”
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
“I am not pessimistic, however, not excessively optimistic about
Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement in 2006”, OSCE Chair-in-Office,
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht said, ArmInfo reports quoting
RFE/RL.
According to Karel de Gucht, OSCE is doing its best to bring the
conflict parties to a general resolution of the Karabakh issue. OSCE
Chairman-in-Office suggests that all efforts should be exerted
to find the settlement of the frozen conflict till the end of the
current year. “Everything depends both on Armenia and Azerbaijan;
they should arrive at understanding, while OSCE can only help them
in the matter”, Karel de Gucht stressed.
He also remarked there often were some side obstacles to the frozen
conflicts’ settlement, one of which is the closed Armenian-Turkish
border that hampers the problem’s solution. As for the settlement’s
outlooks, OSCE Chair-in-Office believes we should be optimistic.
“Unless one is optimist he has nothing to do in politics”, he stated.

PACE RAPPORTEUR ON MONITORING OF CULTURAL MONUMENTS, EDWARD O’HARA’S VISIT TO AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA DELAYED
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
PACE rapporteur on monitoring of cultural monuments, Edward O’Hara’s,
British parliamentarian, visit to Azerbaijan and Armenia which was
considered on May 28, delayed, Azerbaijani delegation member to PACE,
Rafael Huseynov has told APA.
According to him, mission headed by O’Hara had been considered to
begin the visit from Azerbaijan: “Today we were informed that O’Hara
has delayed the visit. I will clarify the matter. But presumably the
visit was cancelled by the wish of Armenian side.”
It should be noted that PACE planned to send a mission to region
headed by parliamentarian from Great Britain, on May 28. It was
considered that the mission will prepare report on ancient Alban
historic monuments claimed to be in Nakhchivan, historical monuments
of Azerbaijan and Armenian in Georgia, as well as historical cultural
monuments of Azerbaijan in Armenia, as well as in the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan by Armenians, investigating historical and
cultural monuments in Shusha.

THE YELLOW BADGE OF DENIAL
American Thinker, AZ
May 23 2006
Controversy still swirls over allegations that Iran’s government plans
to require non-Muslims to wear identifying clothing. The Canadian
National Post has retracted its May 19, 2006 report about a putative
Iranian Law requiring non-Muslim minorities-Jews, Christians, and
Zoroastrians-to wear color-coded strips of cloth attached to their
garments, to distinguish them from Muslims. Mr. Amir Taheri, author
of the article, is standing by his report.
Possible overzealous reporting by The National Post aside, the
plausibility of such a law being implemented should not be dismissed
based on the living legacy of Shi’ite religious persecution of
non-Muslims in Iran since the founding of the Shi’ite theocracy in
(then) Persia under Shah Ismail, at the very outset of the 16th
century. Inchoate dress code proposals for non-Muslims apparently
made in the Khatami era are consistent with the original story, and
an Iranian source still maintains “Mr. Taheri was correct in saying
this measure is being discussed and considered.”
Deep Roots
During the intervening half millennium (since 1502), the profoundly
influential Shi’ite clerical elite have emphasized the notion of the
ritual uncleanliness (najis) of not only Jews, but also Christians,
Zoroastrians, and others, as the cornerstone of inter-confessional
relationships towards Iran’s non-Muslims. Non-Muslims’ spiritual
impurity was linked in concrete and indelible ways to their physical
impurity. Professor Laurence Loeb’s seminal analysis of dhimmi Jews
in Shi’ite Persia/Iran (“Outcaste- Jewish Life in Southern Iran,”
1977 ), documents the social impact of najis regulations, beginning
with the implementation of a badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol
which marked someone as a najis Jew and thus to be avoided. From the
reign of Abbas I [1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required
to display the badge.
With regard to dress, specifically, the stipulations of Al-Majlisi
(d. 1699)-perhaps the most influential Shi’ite cleric of the Safavid
theocracy in Persia-from his late 17th century treatise on non-Muslims
(revealingly entitled, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews”), are
consistent with the requirements purportedly under discussion by the
contemporary the Iranian Parliament (although, the “color-coding”
differs): it is appropriate that the ruler of the Muslims imposed upon
them clothing that would distinguish then from Muslims so that they
would not resemble Muslims. It is customary for Jews to wear yellow
clothes while Christians wear black and dark blue ones. Christians
[also] wear a girdle on their waists, and Jews sew a piece of silk
of a different color on the front part of their clothes.
The bizarre, humiliating, and enduring nature of the dress regulations
imposed upon the Zoroastrian community of central Iran (Yezd) were
captured in this eyewitness account by Napier Malcolm, (Five Years
in a Persian Town, New York, 1905, pp. 45-50) published in 1905:
Up to 1898 only brown, grey, and yellow were allowed for the qaba
[outer coat] or arkhaluq [under coat] (body garments), but after that
all colors were permitted except blue, black, bright red, or green.
There was also a prohibition against white stockings, and up to
about 1880 the Parsis [Zoroastrians] had to wear a special kind of
peculiarly hideous shoe with a broad, turned-up toe. Up to 1885 they
had to wear a torn cap. Up to 1880 they had to wear tight knickers,
self-colored, instead of trousers.
Following a relatively brief hiatus under Pahlavi reign (marked
by efforts at both secularization and Pre-Islamic revival, from
1925-1979), the Khomeini-inspired restoration of a Shi’ite theocracy
in Iran has been accompanied, predictably, by a revival of najis
regulations. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly, “Non-Muslims of
any religion or creed are najis.” The Iranian Ayatollah Hossein-Ali
Montazeri further elaborated that a non-Muslim’s (kafir’s) impurity
was, “a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the
followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred
toward those who are outside Muslim circles.”
This “hatred” was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt,
i.e., non-Islamic, thoughts.
The dehumanizing practical impact of najis regulations were
again observable at points of contact between Muslims and
non-Muslims-wherever non-Muslims owned or operated businesses or
manufacturing facilities whose personnel or products might “pollute”
Muslims (see here, p. 137). For example (see this), shops that sold
sandwiches or bakery goods (foodstuffs associated with minorities)
were forced to display signs stating “especially for minorities.”
Eliz Sanasarian’s important study of non-Muslim religious
minorities during the first two decades after 1979 provides a
striking illustration of the practical impact of this renewed najis
consciousness:
In the case of the Coca-Cola plant, for example, the owner
(an Armenian) fled the country, the factory was confiscated,
and Armenian workers were fired. Several years later, the family
members were allowed to oversee the daily operations of the plant,
and Armenians were allowed to work at the clerical level; however,
the production workers remained Muslim. Armenian workers were never
rehired on the grounds that non-Muslims should not touch the bottles
or their contents, which may be consumed by Muslims.
Thus, if formal badging requirements for non-Muslims were now to be
implemented, these measures would simply mark the further retrogression
of Iran’s non-Muslim religious minorities, completing in full their
descent to a pre-1925 status.
Invoking the Nazis?
Many people have reacted to these reports with a comparison to
Nazi requirements of Jews to wear a yellow Star of David on their
clothing. Major Jewish organizations, including both The Simon
Wiesenthal Center (in an almost apoplectic statement by Rabbi Marvin
Hier, “This is reminiscent of the Holocaust…Iran is moving closer
and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.”
and The American Jewish Committee,
“…the story, with its chilling echoes of the Shoah, is another
heinous example of the Iranian regime’s contempt for human rights”
have followed this rhetorical path.
I sent my original background essay on this sad state of affairs
to ranking officials in the Wiesenthal Center, and the American
Jewish Committee (AJC). Their responses were neither edifying nor
reassuring. The Wiesenthal Center official acknowledged that my essay
raised an “historical and Islamic context” which “factored in”, but
was (apparently) trumped by this non-sequitur observation, i.e., the
“…proliferation of Iranian websites and blogs that are appearing
in the last two months that specifically embrace and promote Nazism”.
The official from the AJC rebuked me for even discussing
“…legislation that to the best of our knowledge at this time does
not exist.”
In response I posed the following five questions to the AJC official
(and they certainly apply to the Wiesenthal Center as well), which
remain unanswered:
~U Why doesn’t the American Jewish Committee (AJC) discuss…what
najis is, how najis (practices) have been restored under Khomeini (and
continued under his successors), and thus why the initial report of
“badging” was plausible?
~U Why didn’t the AJC include this clear statement from Prof. Laurence
Loeb’s study of the Jews of Iran (Loeb lived there to do his
anthropological field work) published in 1977, as appropriate
background?
[the] badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol which marked someone
as a najis Jew and thus to be avoided. From the reign of Abbas I
[1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required to display
the badge
~U What does any of this have to do with “Nazism”?
~U Why can’t AJC and the other major Jewish organizations speak
honestly based upon the real (and sadly living) history of
such sanctioned Islamic doctrines-najis, the dhimmi condition,
discriminatory badging, etc.-and their implementation for centuries
(in Iran)?
~U What is to be gained by such denial and obfuscation other than
further isolating us (i.e., Jews-I was writing as a Jew, albeit a
“lapsed” Jew) as a tiny minority from the rest of the victims of jihad
hatred (in this case the Christians and Zoroastrians also targeted
by the putative dress regulations)?
While memories of the Holocaust are fresher and more widely held than
memories of traditional Islamic oppression of Jews, such comparisons
should be avoided. To invoke the Holocaust blinds us to the far
longer and much more deeply-rooted traditions in the Islamic world
which predate the rise of Nazism by well over a millennium.
In our struggle to defend our civilization and our freedoms, we must
understand our enemy. Those who insist that anti-Semitism be seen
exclusively through the lens of Nazism and the Holocaust divert our
attention and hobble our understanding of the forces against which
we defend ourselves.
It is my fervent hope that I receive serious, informed responses
to the five queries posed to the AJC so as not to squander this
“teachable moment.”
Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad.
p?article_id=5519