Zaman, Turkey
June 1 2005

Official Apology from MasterCard
By Yasin Tuncer
Published: Wednesday 01, 2005
zaman.com

Distributed for the UEFA Champions League final match on May 25,
the Istanbul city guide’s main sponsor MasterCard apologized for
the insults relating to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk and Turks.

A statement issued by “MasterCard International” on Tuesday, May 31,
defends that MasterCard had no opportunity to intervene in the content
of the booklet. The statement reminded that negative reactions stemmed
from the Lonely Planet’s Istanbul Guide. MasterCard apologized to the
Turkish public for the unfortunate developments and for the fact that
they did not detect the controversial text beforehand.

They also noted that they were shocked by the excerpts in the book,
said MasterCard Southeast Europe Director General Ozlem Imece,
admitting that she had not read the guide prior to the news report
that Zaman prepared and brought to the headlines on Monday. Claiming
their reasons as they were busy with the preparations ahead of the
final game; they paid tremendous attention to efforts for the positive
promotion of Turkey for the foreign guests and that they had provided
an unforgettable Istanbul journey for them, added Imece. She said
their web site was hacked by the protesters.

Leaders of self-proclaimed FSU republics may meet by end June

Interfax
June 1 2005

MOSCOW. June 1 (Interfax) – The leaders of the self-proclaimed
republics of Abkhazia, South Osetia, Transdnestria and Nagorny
Karabakh may meet before the end of this month, Eduard Kokoity,
president South Osetia, said at Interfax’s head office in Moscow.

PRAVDA< Russia
May 31 2005

Former USSR states aimed to diminish Russia’s role as peacekeeper
05/31/2005 11:08

Russia will have to tackle quite a few problems if Ukraine means to
turn GUAM into an instrument for pursuing its foreign policy

Second inter-parliamentary assembly of GUAM, a group comprising
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldavia, was held in the city of
Yalta last Saturday. The members of the group made fresh statements
about their intentions to join NATO. They also agreed to step up
their cooperation with the EU, OSCE, and NATO. The GUAM members are
planning to join forces for “settling conflicts and fighting against
separatism and extremism.” The implementation of the plans can
diminish the role of Russia as a main peacekeeper in the former
Soviet Union.

Addressing the participants of the assembly, Ukrainian President
Viktor Yushchenko said he was confident that GUAM would play a big
role in the “prosperity of democracy in the Caspian and Black Sea
region.” Lately GUAM has been in “a state of anabiosis”, but its
activity levels are going to rise dramatically from now on, according
to the Speaker of Ukraine’s parliament Vladimir Litvin. Mr. Litvin
promised to create “an area of democracy, sustainable development and
security within the bounds of a unified Europe.”

He pointed out that Ukraine was not going to turn its back on
Ukraine’s friends in the East and South after setting course for the
integration into the European Union. According to him, Kazakhstan,
Turkey, Armenia, and other countries located around the Black Sea,
Caspian and the Baltic Sea may as well join the GUAM project “that
looks promising.” Russia and other key players of the region will be
also involved because in a world of economic globalization “you
should be a part of the game, otherwise decisions will be taken for
you by somebody else.”

Russia will have to tackle quite a few problems if Ukraine means to
turn GUAM into an instrument for pursuing its foreign policy. Ukraine
was unusually persistent in recent talks with Russia for the
demarcation of the Azov-Kerch water area and the Black Sea.

Russia objects to demarcation of the Kerch Strait on the basis of
Soviet-era administrative boundaries. Russia would lose control over
two thirds of the Kerch Strait in this case. Consequently, Russia
would have to pay political and financial costs. Kiev accused Moscow
of applying double standards to the issue. Ukraine reminded Russia
that the latter requested to acknowledge the former internal Soviet
boundary as a state border between Russia and Estonia in the Gulf of
Narva and the Gulf of Finland. Ukraine has been pressing for the
demarcation of the Kerch Strait in a similar way “in line with the
international law.”

“An algorithm of the Ukrainian foreign policy has not yet shaped up,”
said Victor Nebozhenko, a Ukrainian political analyst. Ukraine is
unlikely to become a top player in the anti-Russian game because of
the high percentage of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, according
to Mr. Nebozhenko. Speaking to Vremya Novostei, Mr. Nebozhenko said
that Ukraine was putting pressure on Russia in the talks on the Kerch
Strait demarcation in an attempt to resolve the issues relating to
the Transdniestre region, an huge area rife with murky business deals
and smuggling going on in close proximity to the Ukrainian borders.
“Ukraine is extremely interested in getting Russia’s help for
resolving the Transdniestre issue,” said Mr. Nebozhenko.

Top Putin Aide Discusses Russian-Armenian Ties In Yerevan

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
June 1 2005

01/06/2005 09:34

The chief of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s staff met President
Robert Kocharian and other Armenian leaders in Yerevan on Tuesday
for talks which officials said focused on ways of ways of shoring up
economic relations between the two nations.

Kocharian was cited by his press service as telling Dmitry Medvedev
that Russian-Armenian business ties are seeing “dynamic development.”
He said it was made possible by an increase in Russian investments
in the Armenian economy. No other details were reported.

Russia’s share in Armenia’s external trade has steadily declined over
the past decade and stood at a modest 12.5 percent last year. The
overall volume of bilateral trade fell by 13 percent to about $250
million in 2004.

A lack of rail communication between the two countries, which have no
common border, is seen as a key reason for the drop. That communication
was only partly restored with launch last March of a regular rail
ferry service between Russian and Georgian Black Sea ports.

According to official press releases, issues related to the functioning
of the ferry link were on the agenda of Medvedev’s separate meetings
with Kocharian’s chief of staff Artashes Tumanian and Defense
Minister Serzh Sarkisian. The latter is also a co-chairman of the
Russian-Armenian inter-governmental commission on economic cooperation.

According to Kocharian’s office, Tumanian and Medvedev also discussed
practical modalities of revitalizing five Armenian enterprises that
were handed over to Russia in 2003 in payment of Yerevan’s $100 million
debt. Armenian officials are increasingly frustrated with Moscow’s
failure so far make promised multimillion-dollar investments in those
industries. The issue provoked heated debates during a May 17 meeting
in Yerevan of a Russian-Armenian commission on inter-parliamentary
cooperation.

The ongoing construction of a pipeline that will pump Iranian natural
gas into Armenia was also on the agenda of the meeting between the
two top presidential aides. But there was no word on what specifically
the two men discussed. Russia’s state-run Gazprom monopoly is directly
involved in the construction work and had reportedly made sure that the
future pipeline is not extended to third countries, notably Georgia.

Officials said Medvedev, who is one of the most powerful figures in
the Kremlin hierarchy, also discussed the ongoing series of cultural
events held within the framework of the Year of Russia in Armenia
that was officially inaugurated during Putin’s visit to Yerevan last
March. Medvedev is the head of the Russian organizing committee for
those events.

Turkish Press
June 1 2005

F.M. Gul Comes To Bahrain

MANAMA (AA) – Turkish Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Abdullah Gul arrived Sunday night in Manama, Bahrain for a two-day
visit. Gul responded to questions of journalists on the plane to
Manama.

-TCK-

Referring to the debate on the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), Gul said that
parliaments were the decision-making bodies in democratic societies
and that everybody should respect the decision made by parliaments.

When asked if the government urged an amendment in TCK (about Koran
courses) Gul said “no, this is not the case. Parliaments are not always
under the control of the governments. They have their own identity.”

-TURKEY’S EU BID-

Upon questions on Turkey’s EU bid, Gul stressed that Turkey would be
successful in its EU bid as a result of broad participation of all
its state institutions, NGOS, trade unions, universities etc.

Gul stressed that a very qualified group should be formed to carry
out the negotiations with the EU . “The EU bid means Turkey’s total
transformation and improvement of the living standards of the Turks,”
said Gul.

-POSTPONEMENT OF CONFERENCE ON ARMENIA-

Regarding the postponement of the conference on Armenian claims that
would be held in Bogazici University , Gul said that the government
didn’t suggest or urge its postponement.

“As long as people don’t incite violence in their speeches, they can
express their ideas,” said Gul.

Upon a question about a planned visit of a group of Turkish deputies
to Armenia, Gul said that Turkey was a country which recognized Armenia
diplomatically. Noting that there were contacts and cultural activities
between the two countries, Gul said he hoped those activities and
contacts will help in settlement of the problems through dialogue.

-TURKEY’S ECONOMIC GROWTH-

Regarding Turkey’s economy, Gul said that Turkey reached an economic
growth of 25 percent in the last three years.

Referring to the recent success of a Turkish company in winning the
tender to construct subway network in Dubai, Gul confirmed that he
supported and promoted that (Turkish) company during his visit to
United Arab Emirates as the subway construction was a very big project.

Erdogan Receives U.S. Senator Hagel

Turkish Press
June 1 2005

ANKARA (AA) – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan received
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel on Monday.

Turkish National Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul and Gen. Charles Wald,
Deputy Commander of Headquarters U.S. European Command, also attended
the meeting.

Hagel told reporters after the meeting that they discussed common
issues which concern Turkey and the United States.

Hagel said that after Turkey, they will visit Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Armenia and Ukraine.

When asked whether they discussed fight against PKK terrorist
organization in the north of Iraq, Hagel said that they especially
discussed Iraq issue.

Hagel noted that Erdogan informed him about visit of Iraqi Premier
Ibrahim al-Jaafari to Ankara.

Upon a question, Hagel said that they also discussed Cyprus issue,
adding that he conveyed the stance of the United States about this
issue.

Hagel said that positive response of Turkish Cypriots to Annan Plan
shows how much Turkey will be a reliable partner within the EU.

He added that U.S. administration supports Annan Plan.

Sources said that Hagel stressed the strategical partnership between
Turkey and the United States during the meeting.

Erdogan said that there is an important strategical partnership
between two countries, adding that Turkey is determined to pursue
its contribution to regional peace.

Erdogan recalled his visits to Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine as
well as Turkey’s undertaking the command of International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) for the second time. He said that these are
all signs of Turkey’s contribution to regional peace.

Erdogan said that Turkey’s contribution to democratization process
in Iraq will continue.

Noting the importance of fight against terrorism, Erdogan said that
Turkey suffered from PKK terrorist organization for years and is
still fighting against it.

Erdogan said that Turkey gave nearly 40,000 victims to terrorism,
adding that joint fight against terrorism is important.

Regarding Cyprus issue, Erdogan said that Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus (TRNC) voted ‘yes’ to Annan Plan in a referendum last year,
but it also became the punished side. He added that Greek Cypriot side
that rejected the plan in the referendum was awarded and joined the EU.

Stressing that Turkey-EU and Turkey-U.S. relations complete each other,
Erdogan expressed his pleasure over rejection of so-called Armenian
genocide claims at U.S. Congress.

Sources said that Hagel stressed in the meeting that the visit of
U.S. delegation to TRNC is a sign which shows the importance attached
to Turkey. He said that he agrees with Turkey regarding so-called
Armenian genocide claims. He noted that the issue should be researched
by scientists, social scientists and historians, adding that everybody
should bear the results of these researches.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPE ESCHEWS ‘UNION’: RETURN OF THE TRIBES
By RALPH PETERS

New York Post, NY
June 1 2005

June 1, 2005 — TODAY, the Dutch vote on the proposed European
Union constitution. They’re expected to reject it, as the French
did Sunday. But whatever the result of the referendum, something’s
happening in Europe that international elites swore was impossible.
Tribes are back.

In Europe, they’re called nations, which sounds more distinguished.
But the French voters who refused to submerge their identity in a
greater European state behaved as tribally as any Hutus or Tutsis in
central Africa – or any Arab clan in Iraq.

Certainly, there are practical issues at stake. The French fear an
invasion of their welfare state by hardworking East Europeans. They
dread hints of a market economy and Turkey’s prospective membership
in the EU. The Dutch are still reeling from the failure of their
multicultural experiment and the grisly rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

But the underlying cause of the voter shift from continental
integration to the nouveau chauvinism erupting from Paris to Moscow
is far cruder and more explosive: the undiminished importance of
group identity, of primal belonging.

If anything should strike us about this turn from Greater Europe back
to a Europe of competing parts, it’s how wildly the intellectuals
were wrong and how ineffectual elite power monopolies proved in the
end. For a half century, Europe’s approved thinkers insisted that a
new age had begun, that historical identities were dying. The wealth
and power of a borderless Europe would rival, if not exceed, that of
the United States.

Instead, we see a squabbling, grasping continent. Far from feeling
solidarity with their Polish or Hungarian counterparts, French
farmers view them as the enemy. Labor unions in Germany and France
have turned Slavic job-seekers into bogeymen who’ll rob the daily
bread from the native-born.

The Dutch feel doubly under siege, invaded by an immigrant community
that rejects their values, while simultaneously in danger of being
gobbled up by a leviathan Europe that would seize control of their
destiny.

For Europe’s political elites – accustomed to docile, bought-off
populations – the turn against further EU integration has been an
enormous shock.

The German vote that thumped Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder last month
was a vote against globalization and a European meta-identity. In
his first public appearance after Sunday’s “Non!” vote, President
Jacques Chirac looked like a walking corpse.

Satisfying to watch? You bet. But the pleasure we can take in the
humiliation of Schroeder and Chirac masks the fact that, for all
their rhetoric and anti-American posturing, they were do-nothing,
status-quo leaders whose authority never rose above the nuisance
level. We may come to miss their fecklessness and gourmet-level
pandering as nationalism swells among their electorates.

Whenever Europe’s nationalist tide flows back in, the innocent drown.

The EU is far from Europe’s first attempt at integration. The medieval
church exercised transnational authority until the Reformation
galvanized German identity. The multicultural Habsburg empire split
in two, thanks to primitive nationalism. After the Great War, its
Austro-Hungarian remnant shattered under nationalist pressures.

Group identity is indestructible. Despite genocide, Armenia rose
again. Poland’s back. The phony Yugoslav identity died in a storm of
bullets, leaving behind antique nations. The Soviet empire dissolved
into bloody nationalism. Irish pubs have conquered the world, but
it’s hard to find an EU-themed watering hole.

Forget the genetic arguments against racial purity. Ignore the
historical facts. What matters is who men and women think they are.
Belief is always stronger than truth. It certainly would appear
rational for Europeans to bury their differences and subscribe to a
greater, unified identity. But humankind isn’t rational. That’s been
the crucial lesson of our time.

What man or woman on that old, bloodstained continent says, “I’m a
European” with the same conviction he or she says “I’m French” or
“I’m Polish” or “I’m Russian”? The last time we heard that Europe
had overcome its national identities was on the eve of World War One.

France may not invade Germany this summer, but we need to escape the
illusion of a new, pacifist Europe too sophisticated to repeat past
errors. This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic
cleansing, the source of history’s grimmest wars.

Europe may be good for some ugly surprises as its states struggle with
faltering economies, declining birthrates, angry Islamic minorities
and a lack of opportunity for the young that resembles the plight of
the developing world. Expecting Europe’s nationalities to behave is
as foolish as hoping to beat the house in Vegas.

We may discover that Europe has changed less than any other part of
the globe, that all the bureaucrats in Brussels can no more suppress
the local tribes than could the Roman legions. For all of our concern
about a European super-state, we may live to regret the return to a
Europe of nations.

Ralph Peters’ next book is “New Glory: Expanding America’s Global
Supremacy.”

New Republic , D.C.
June 1 2005

WHY THE FRENCH VOTE WAS GOOD FOR EUROPE.

For Better
by Efraim Karsh

On Sunday, Europe’s “grand political project,” as Romano Prodi,
former president of the European Commission, has termed it, took
a major beating when French voters decisively rejected the new EU
constitution. The defeat followed a scare mongering campaign by pro-EU
politicians across Europe on the dangers of voting no. While Jacques
Chirac merely threatened his constituents that their neighbors
were bound to regard a no vote as a French rejection of Europe,
other politicians went further. Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter
Balkenende warned that rejection of the constitution could lead
to a new Holocaust. “I’ve been in Auschwitz and Yad Vashem,” he
said. “The images haunt me every day. It is supremely important for
us to avoid such things in Europe. We really ought to think about that
more.” Sweden’s European commissioner Margot Wallstrom followed suit in
a speech on the sixtieth anniversary of V-E Day at the Theresienstadt
concentration camp in Prague. “There are those today who want to
scrap the supranational idea,” she warned. “They want the European
Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing
things. I say those people should come to Terezin [Theresienstadt]
and see where that old road leads.”

But in truth, France’s vote against the constitution is an important
victory for European unity, because the document posed a serious threat
to the great European experiment in peace and prosperity. What began 53
years ago as an idealistic attempt to use economic cooperation to heal
a war-torn continent has deteriorated with the passage of time into
a gigantic imperial machinery that has largely eroded the democratic
values and objectives for which it was originally established.

As the European Coal and Steel Community evolved (in 1957) to
the European Economic Community and then (in the mid-1980s) to the
European Union, and as its membership expanded from the original six
to a staggering 25, the organization’s vision of a confederation of
states collaborating on an equal footing was increasingly replaced
by the reality of an empire in the making–a consensual empire, yes,
but an empire all the same, one in which a metropolitan center run by
a new kind of bureaucratic political elite is responsible for more
and more European decision-making and increasingly determined to
remove control of lawmaking from member state governments. As Czech
president Vaclav Klaus has warned:

The dangers are that Europe is departing from the foundations of
democracy and liberty. I cannot imagine a democratic society without
a nation state. I do not mean an ethnically pure nation state, which
I reject. Democracy needs an identifiable state as its base–otherwise
we are in a post-democracy and the European Union is a post-democratic
institution.

The distinction between this outlook and that of Chirac and his
likeminded EU supporters is hardly a matter of academic sophistry. It
is the difference between individualism and universalism, between
independent paths of development and the expansionist impulse–in
short, the difference between nation and empire.

Taking their cue from a dominant post-World War II school of thought,
the so-called pro-Europeans hold nationalism to be the scourge of
international relations and the primary source of conflict and war;
and they regard a tightly unified pan-European super-state as a
panacea. In fact, there is nothing inherently ugly or violent about
the desire of a specific group of people, sharing attributes including
a common descent, language, culture, tradition, and history, to live
their lives as they see fit in a territory they consider to be their
historical or ancestral homeland.

Rather, the real problem is imperialism, which has constituted the
foremost generator of violence throughout world history. The desire
to dominate foreign creeds, nations, or communities and to occupy
territories well beyond the ancestral homeland contains the inevitable
seeds of violence. The worst atrocities in human history–from the
exile of entire nations by the ancient Mesopotamian empires, to the
decimation of the native populations of North and South America,
to the Armenian genocide of World War I, to the Holocaust–have been
carried out by imperial powers seeking regional or world mastery. Even
some of the worst outbursts of recent violence, from the Middle East
to Rwanda to Kosovo to Chechnya, are remnants of the bitter legacy
of longstanding imperial domination.

Notwithstanding its universal pretense, each and every great empire
throughout history has been dominated by a specific religious, ethnic,
or national group, which has viewed its preeminence as a vehicle
for the promotion of self-serving interests and the assimilation of
attributes and value systems in the subject populations. This is how
the great monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam expanded
well beyond their original habitats to become world religions, and how
so many languages–Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and French,
to mention but a few–transcended their origins to be assimilated by
numerous countries and communities.

The same rule applies to the EU. It is no mere coincidence that the
initiative for the coal and steel community came from two former
great European empires–France and Germany–both of which have
subsequently provided the main impetus behind its steady expansion.
Beginning with Charles De Gaulle, French leaders, left and right,
have viewed the European Union as a central tool for the restoration
of imperial grandeur and influence. “We have to recognize,” explained
former French Euro Commissioner Pascal Lamy, in 2003, “that [within the
EU] there are some countries which remember that they were once great
world powers and which believe that this was not an accident–that they
still have special qualities that deserve recognition.” Given these
sentiments, it is hardly surprising that the EU’s smaller nations have
remained wary of anything that smacks of imperialism–or that they have
generally expressed greater affinity for the United States than France.

Indeed, Lamy should have added that many of those who support further
European political integration–beginning with ratification of the EU
constitution–do so because they see it as the best way to counter
U.S. global predominance and establish the EU as a major challenger
to the United States in the international arena. One of Chirac’s
foremost arguments for a yes vote in the referendum was that Europe
needed a much deeper level of integration as it was “faced with this
great world power.” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was even
blunter when he argued in April 2005, in a speech at the Institute of
Political Science in Paris, that France must vote for the Constitution
because otherwise “you run the risk of negating the hope for a better
Europe and for a greater balance in the world. … Some American
neoconservatives are also hostile to the constitution precisely because
they are see it as a sign of a new rise in Europe’s power.” So not
only does the frenzied rush toward integration risk turning the EU
from an egalitarian community of states into an imperial ogre, but
it predicates the organization on a negative footing–challenging
U.S. global power–rather than giving it a positive rationale. Should
their resounding non lead to a more modest EU, French voters will have
done their continent a favor. For if history tells us anything it is
that imperial overextension is a recipe for disaster–a destroyer,
rather than a guarantor, of peace and unity. The version of the EU
constitution voted down on Sunday was an imperial document, not a
democratic one. Europe and the European Union are both better off
without it.

Efraim Karsh is the head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at
King’s College, University of London.

Armenian Diaspora in Britain and the Armenian Question
By Dr. Sedat LACINER

Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 1 2005

Introduction[1]

The Armenian diaspora in Britain is relatively small when it is
compared with those in the United States or in France. Although there
is no consensus some Armenian sources claim that the Armenian
population in Britain is about 11-19.000, mostly living in London and
Manchester.[2] The recent developments showed that the Armenian
community in Britain has influenced the British public opinion beyond
their population. As will be discussed in this study, the historical
experiment about the Armenians in Britain also shows that this is not
a new trend; for instance in the 19th century the Armenians, though
their number was less than a thousand in England, could success to
create an anti-Ottoman public opinion in this country. In this
framework, this study first explores the secrets of the Armenian
diaspora in Britain in affecting (sometimes manipulating) the British
public opinion and press.

Second, the author of this article believes that the Armenian and the
Turkish diasporas in Britain[3] can play a crucial role in solving
the Armenian problem since both should be open to dialogue, and both
diasporas are far away from the problematic territories, namely the
Caucasus. As a result of this belief the article examines the
possible contributions of the Armenian diaspora in Britain to the
possible solution of the Armenian question.

Finally, third aim of this study is explore the present situation of
the Armenians in the United Kingdom.

I. Armenian Community in Britain: People and Institutions

Today the Armenians mainly live in London and there is a small
Armenian community in Manchester. The Armenian population in London
is estimated about 7.000-12.000 although the figures are not
reliable. The London Armenians concentrate in the boroughs of Ealing,
Hounslow, Brent and Haringey. The first serious Armenian immigration
to the UK was experienced 150 years ago and the immigration continued
in the 20th century. The Armenian immigrants are mainly from the
former Ottoman Empire territories (Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Iraq),
Iran and Russia. Recent arrivals have fled because of the economic,
social and political problems from the former Soviet Union republics,
including Armenia.[4]

The early comers are relatively wealthy people and it can be argued
that now they have no serious economic problems. The most formidable
problem the Armenian community confronted is identity crisis. The
homeland cannot provide a model for the diaspora and the Armenian
identity is under the threat of the Western culture. Moreover,
because the Armenians in the United Kingdom have come from a variety
of different countries, there are different communities within the
community. An Armenian from Iraq or Lebanon, for example, might have
different cultural needs to an Armenian from the former Soviet Union
or Iran. That is why religion and the historical tragedies are used
in order to strengthen the relations among the Armenians. However,
exaggeration of the religious feelings and the historical events
cause extremism and hate against other ethnic groups. In other words,
the Armenian ethnic identity is established on the historical hatred
and hostility against the other ethnic groups notably against the
Turks by this approach. As a result of this not only the relations
between the Armenians and the other ethnic groups have been damaged,
but also the Armenians themselves have suffered from the extremism.
The Armenian youth in particular has faced pressure from their
parents and the community. The elderly Armenians want to create an
old – type Armenian youth, while the young people prefer to be a
‘normal’ part of the British society. For example, ‘instead of
celebrating the traditional Armenian Christmas on 6 January, many
young Armenians prefer to celebrate Christmas on 25 December, because
they do not want to be different from their peers’.[5] The Armenian
youth organisation RBO’s ‘ideal London’ clearly shows the social
pressure on the Armenian youth:

‘A world which exists to provide the Armenian youth of London what
truly deserve. A world not polluted with daily drubbings over
politics and religion. A world, to do the things that young people
do. You can even swear and kiss in public without the fear of being
judged by another… It’s time to be young again.'[6]

These words prove that the British Armenian youth want to be
depoliticised and to be a normal part of the British society.

Apart from the problems discussed above, the recent arrivals face the
most serious problems. Many of them have come from the former Soviet
Union and their main problems are employment, accommodation and
social adaptation. Finally, the common concern of the Armenian
community is the economic and political problems in Armenia. Some
radical groups (nationalist or revolutionary left) in particular
perceive themselves as a part of the politics in Armenia although
they live in Great Britain and they are British citizens.
Surprisingly they, with the other radical groups from the other
Armenian diasporas, influence the balance of power in Armenia. As has
been witnessed in the last presidential elections, the support of the
diaspora Armenians helped to replace the moderate previous Ter
Petrosian with the more strict and radical Kocharian. It can be
argued that the Armenian diaspora, including those in Britain,
increases tension and radicalism in the Armenian politics.

In brief, the British Armenians do want to help the homeland country,
but they do not know how to do so, and as will be discussed, they
damage the Armenian national interests by deepening the hostility
between the Armenian and the Turkish people and by increasing
radicalism in Armenia, although the Armenian Republic desperately
needs stability and it needs to improve its diplomatic, political and
economic relations with its biggest neighbour, namely Turkey.

Armenian Organisations in Britain

Social and Education Organisations: The British Armenians have three
one-day schools in Eastern and Western Armenian languages. The
Tantanian Sunday School was one of the first examples. In the 1980s,
the Armenian Saturday Language and Studies School was established.
Later the Martiza Soghnalian Armenian School was began in Kensington,
London. The Armenian Community Playgroup was founded in May 1987. The
Ealing Council, the Centre for Armenian Information and Advice (CAIA)
and the London Armenian community have financially supported the
organisation. The CAIA also runs the Armenian Community Pre-School
Group, which was established in 1987. The school provides Armenian
language courses four days a week.

The London Armenians also have their own cultural –
religious societies, youth groups, senior citizen club and ladies
committees.

The Armenian Community Centre: Opened on 27 November 1988 at

West End Road
, Middlesex. Sport facilities are impressive.

The Centre For Armenian Information and Advice (CAIA): In Acton,
West London. It was formally opened in 1986. The CAIA was funded by
the London Borough Grants Scheme. It has set up an Armenian
playgroup, Armenian language classes for adults and children. It is
compiling a telephone directory of Armenians in the Britain. The
Centre started Hayashen Community Centre project in 1994. Now it aims
to establish an Armenian – English Library in London.[7] The Armenian
broadcasts from Armenia can be watched in the centre.

Homenetmen London: London branch of Homenetmen international
organisation. Founded in 1979. Organises social and sportive events.
Furthermore it organises political events with other organisations
like its sister organisations HOM and Hamazgayeen.

RBO: Founded in 1995 by two Armenian young people. Aims to unite all
Armenian youth in London. They further want more freedom for and less
social and religious pressure on the London Armenian youth. RBO
organises parties and concerts. They have organised about 20 ‘HOKIS
events’,[8] with an average attendance of over 100 youth.

The Branches of the International Armenian Organisations In Britain:
Some European, American and Canadian Armenian organisations and
political parties also have branches in London because the capital is
one of the important, if not the most, political lobbying centres in
the world. Some of these organisations work under subsidiary
organisations to curtain their real names and aims. It is unfortunate
that most of these organisations are political and extremist. They
focus on the Armenian question and Turkish-Armenian relations rather
than concentrating on the Armenian diaspora’s social, economic and
cultural problems. Another effect of these organisations is that they
politicise the diaspora. They speak before the British public and
media in the name of the British Armenians though their
representative power is quite low.

Churches: There are two important Armenian churches in Britain: St.
Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church (Kensington, London) and Holy
Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church (Manchester). Both serves as a
cultural, social and religious centres.

Other Organisations: Some of the other important Armenian
organisations in Britain can be listed as follow;

– ACPG, Armenian Community Pre-School Group.

– Aid Armenia, Land and Culture Organisation

– Anahit Association, London.

– The Armenian National Committee.

– Armenian Rainbow Coalition (London)

– The Armenian Relief Society of Great Britain (ARS).

– The Armenian Revolutionary Federation UK (The radical political group’s UK branch).

– Armenian Rights Group.

– Barbara Melinski Fund.

– The British Armenian Community.

– Church Council.

– Committee for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide (CRAG)

– Hamazkayin.

– Hayashen Armenian Youth Club.

– Hayastan All-Armenian Fund (Manchester).

– K. Tahta Armenian Community Sunday School.

– Manoukian Charitable Foundation.

– Organisation for the Preservation of Armenian Schools and Churches in India (London).

– Social Democratic Hunchag Party

– Tekeyan Cultural Association, London.

– Tekeyan Trust.

Press: The Tekeyan Cultural Association publishes Erobouni, a
bi-weekly Armenian – English newspaper. Gotchnag is another Armenin
publication. It is published by the Nor Seround Cultural association
affiliated with the radical Hinchak Party.

Aregak (1964-1966) and The London Monthly (1974-1976)
were two good examples for the Armenian press in the United Kingdom.
Another radical publication was Kaytzer (1978-1988) published by the
London Branch of the Union of Armenian Students. Kaytzer defended
armed struggle and terrorist methods against the Turkish diplomats to
realise its political aims, and in order to get popular support it
tried to terrorise the Armenian community in the country. For Kaytzer
the Armenians had to support all illegal Turkish, Kurdish or Armenian
groups against the Turkish state.

The Centre For Armenian Information now publishes
Armenian Voice quarterly. The Centre delivers the magazine free of
charge. Its circulation is about 3.000 copies.

Table 1.

Armenians in Britain

Manchester and North West 3000-5000

London and the South 7000-12.000

Other regions 1000-2000 (?)

Total 11-19.000

Source: Armenian Voice; Exile; The Institute for Armenian Research

II. Historical Background

Early Years

It is known that there were some Armenians in the British
Isles as early as the 7th century though they were less than ten
people. These people were a small part of the immigrants from
Caucasia who escaped from the Mongol attacks. The first political
contacts between the Armenians and English experienced during the
Crusades. In these wars, the Cilician Armenians openly supported the
occupying Christians against the local Muslims and the other peoples
of the region.[9] The letters exchanged between King Henry III and
the Armenian King Hetoum, who called for assistance when the
Crusaders were passing through Cilicia, proves this co-operation.[10]
It is also noted that the Armenian King Leo IV and King Richard
Lion-Heart met in 1191 in Cyprus and this co-operation continued in
the following years.

According to the British Orthodox Church, the first
Armenian Bishop came to Britain in 1250 after the Tartar
invasion.[11] Though we do not have reliable evidence, it is also
claimed that many Armenians settled in the Southern England, near
Plymouth during the time of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). The
similarity between ‘Armenian’ and ‘Arminian’ raised doubt whether
these people were Armenian or not. According to the story Cromwell
was passing through the Armenian quarter and his interest were raised
by the people who lived there and called themselves ‘Armenians’. He
asked the head whether they were Royalist or Nationalist. The head
replied they obeyed the law of land, and the answer annoyed Cromwell,
and these people had to leave all their houses and returned to
Amsterdam, the Netherlands where they had come from.[12] In brief, it
is difficult to speak of a serious Armenian existence in Britain
before the 17th century. In the 17th century, the Armenian traders
became important in trade between East and West. These traders were
Christian and spoke Eastern languages, like Turkish, Arabic, Persian
and Indian, all were great advantage to them in the East-West trade.
Many Armenian traders established an extensive network of commercial
contacts in Britain, Iran and India. As a result of these economic
relations, many Armenians visited England, and some settled there.
Yet, their number was still tiny and they were far away from forming
a significant community in Britain. The Armenians in India were
crucial to English, because the English were trying to colonise
India, and the Armenians were one of the Christian minorities of
India who were very desirous to help the English against the Indians.
Apart from the political co-operation, the Armenian merchants had
come India before the English and they had trade bases in Calcutta,
India. During the 17th century the Armenian merchants became one of
the dominant traders in the route of Calcutta – Middle East – Italy
and Manchester. As a result of their service to Britain the famous
Armenian merchants were granted the status of Free Citizens of
England in 1688 by a Royal Charter.[13]

The next major Armenian settlers came from the Ottoman
territories as the Armenians dominated trade between the British and
Ottoman Empires with the Greeks. They were mainly from Ýstanbul,
Ýzmir and Selanik. The majority of them settled in London, Manchester

2005-06-01 08:37:18

–Boundary_(ID_58dhxH3aR0gVxh3lhO9rQQ)–

Armenian Diaspora is Egoist
View: Sedat LACINER

Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 1 2005

Armenian people is one of the ancient tribes. They created a great
civilization and contributed to the humanity and other civilizations
a lot. They established kingdoms and states as well. However as they
settled mainly on the crossroads of the civilizations, religions,
sects, races and great kingdoms, they could not maintain their
independence. As a result they have generally lived under the other
nations’ sovereignty. Iranian Empire, Byzantium Empire, Russian
Empire, Arab Kingdoms, Seljuk and Ottoman Empires and Soviet
‘Empire’. They enjoyed great freedom under Seljuk and Ottoman Empires
however many Armenians were tortured and deported by the Byzantium
Emperors dueto the religious disputes. Most of the time, they could
not become soldiers or governors. In short the main problem for the
Armenian peoples was lack of a state. When the French Revolution
triggered the nationalist movements in the world, the Armenians were
not ready for such a radical change:

The Ottoman Armenians were enjoying a great religious freedom and
they were among the most wealthiest class in the empire. Many
Armenian bankers, businessmen, doctors and intellectuals were very
close to the Palace. The Ottoman Armenians in the towns and rural
areas were mostly bankers, businessman or craftsmen. The Armenians
with the Ottoman Greeks dominated the Ottoman export and import.
Moreover the Ottoman Armenian population was not majority in any
region. About 1 million Armenians were scattered around the huge
Ottoman territories. In another word the Ottoman Armenians were not
ready for a separatist nationalist revolt. They were actually happy
with the existing system. The Church in particular had great
privileges before the Ottoman State and a great power over the
Armenian citizens.

Under these circumstances, the Armenian nationalism was developed in
diaspora: In Switzerland and Georgia. Tashnak and Hnchak ‘parties’
were established in Tbilisi and Geneva. The leading Armenians were
very young and inexperienced in politics. They had no enough power
and financial support to struggle against the Empires. Apart from
these, the young Armenian idealists set a formidable task for the
Armenian nationalism:

To unite all Armenians in the Ottoman, Russian, Iranian Empires and
other Armenians in the region under a separate Armenian State. So,
they needed foreign assistance, and the great imperial powers were
very eager to ‘undermine’ the Ottoman Empire.

The British, French and Russian Empires gave a great encouragement to
the Tashnaks (ultra-nationalist Armenians) and other Armenian groups.
However they did not fully keep their promises and when they reached
agreements with the Istanbul Government the Armenian nationalists
failed. Furthermore the Armenian nationalists were encouraged but not
fully supported when needed. Another problem was that the Ottoman
Armenians did not strongly join the Armenian nationalists. Many
Armenians in the Ottoman towns were against the Armenian militants.
Therefore the first target to be destroyed was seen as the Ottoman
Armenian leaders. Many Armenian leaders were murdered by the Tashnak
and other Armenian militants. They accused all Armenian opposition of
being traitor. The Armenian terrorism killed more Armenians than the
Muslims in the beginning of the 20th Century. The Armenian
businessmen were threatened and forced to give ‘tax’ to the illegal
Armenian groups. The Tashnak militants transferred a huge amount of
weapons, provided by Russia and Britain, to the Ottoman towns. They
were preparing a war and revolt against the Istanbul Government. They
organized many terrorist attacks against the politicians and
institutions. In 1876 the Armenian militants attacked the Ottoman
Bank and exploded bombs before the bank. They further organized an
assassination against the Sultan (Head of State) II. Abdulhamid.

When the First World War erupted, the Armenian extremists saw the war
as an opportunity and the co-operation between the Armenians and
Allied States increased. The Russian, British and French Empires who
were in war against the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austrian Empire,
considered the Christian minorities as a tool against the Ottomans.
Thus the Armenian nationalists were encouraged for more terrorist
attacks, revolts and weapon transfers to Anatolia. The Van Revolt was
one of the most vivid examples for the Armenian Revolts. The Tashnaks
in the Van Revolt aimed to ‘clean the region from the Muslims’.
Thousands of Muslims were killed or forced to leave the region. At
the end the Armenians declared their independence in Van province and
then handled the city to the Russian occupying forces.

The Armenian nationalist ‘adventure’ ended with a disaster and a
tragedy which cost 500.000 Muslim and more than 110.000 Armenian
lives. Most of the Armenians in the Eastern and Central Anatolia were
relocated, and many Armenians died due to the war circumstances.

The Armenians had rioted against the Government in many towns and
attacked their Muslim neighbors with the French, Russian and British
encouragement. However the occupiers did not keep their promises and
with the end of the war the Armenians could not return their homes.
Many immigrated to the European and North American states. The cost
of the revolt was very high for the Armenian nationalism.
Nevertheless they could establish a tiny state in Caucasus under the
Tashnak rule. It is unfortunate that the Tashnaks could not learn
anything from the Ottoman Armenian experience and they started a
‘revenge campaign’ (NEMESIS) against the newly-established Turkish
State. As a matter of fact that the last thing Independent Armenia
needed was a ‘revenge conflict’ with the Turks. Armenia was a
‘country of dead’ at that time. Armenian population was suffering
from famine and epidemic diseases, and more than 200.000 Armenians
died under these circumstances in the Tashnaks’ Independent Armenia.
However the Armenian ‘leaders’ did not focus on the economic
development, social and cultural problems and political relations
with the neighboring countries while the newly Turkey’s Government
sole dealt with the political and economic problems. The Armenian
terrorists killed many former Ottoman ministers. But the Tashnak
attacks not only killed the Turkish targets but also ended the
independence of Armenia. Armenia lost its independence and became a
Soviet Republic under Moscow rule.

Armenians once more had to immigrate to the West (Second
Relocation).They suffered a lot from lack of an independent state.
They had no reasonable leader who could lead them under the realistic
and pragmatic principles instead of purely naïve emotional
motivations.

Under the lack of leadership, Armenians were exposed the great powers
national interests and extremist Armenians unrealistic radicalism.
Moscow, Washington, Paris and London with the radical Armenian
irredentists abused the Armenian issue.

Armenia gained its independence in 1991 after the decades when the
Soviet Empire collapsed. It is unfortunate that the Diaspora
Armenians and Tashnaks just focused on their own interests instead of
saving the newly-established Armenia. Tashnaks played a crucial role
in declaring war against the Azerbaijanis.

The Diaspora encouraged more wars to capture the so-called ‘lost
territories’ in Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. While the other
former republics tried to decrease their dependency on Russia,
Armenia more and more became a ‘Russian orbit’ in the region. When
Russia lost its military bases in Azerbaijan and Georgia, Armenians
invited the Russians to their country.

The new Armenian nationalists and Diaspora saw Turkey the most deadly
enemy, though Turkey was one of the first states who recognized
Armenian independence. Actually Turkey considered Armenian State as
an opportunity to normalize the Turkish-Armenian relations. However
Armenian Diaspora seriously reluctant in normalizing the relations
because it established the Armenian identity on anti-Turkishness. The
1915 Legacy and anti-Turkish accusations have been the only uniting
factor in the diaspora. They feared that if Turkey and Armenia
normalized the relations, the assimilation of the Armenians in the
West could be accelerated. The Church and the political parties used
the Turkish-Armenian problems in cementing the non-homogenous
Armenian society. Moreover anti-Turkish Armenian Case was financial
and prestige source for many Armenians and Diaspora institutions. In
another word the Diaspora Armenian abused the problem with Turks for
their personal and institutional interest at the cost of Armenia.
Their priority was not State of Armenia but the Diaspora. They knew
that the land-locked and relatively poor Armenia had to solve its
disputes with Turkey in order to survive. However they sacrificed
Armenian state once again as they did in 1918.

To conclude, the foremost priority for the whole Armenians must to
protect and survive the young Armenia, instead of strengthening the
Armenian diaspora. Armenia should not be part of the adventurous
games of its Diaspora and Russia.

Revised edition
———————————————–
Dr. Sedat LACINER: Director, International Strategic Research
Organization (ISRO)

–Boundary_(ID_ET b9Kn7i0GD8Se1qaV6N8A)–