Miami Herald
Aug 14 2005
PROFILES IN DESIGN
Cachet personified
Interior designer capitalizes on life’s unexpected twists
BY DAISY OLIVERA
If life experience can influence one’s creativity, then Courtney
Cachet is true to her word that she can deliver any style of interior
decor. From clean-lined modern to bold, colorful whimsy to
multilayered ethnic, she does it all with the panache.
The bubbly New York native is also a general contractor who speaks
several languages and has appeared on home and garden television
shows.
”Everything in my life has happened unexpectedly,” she says. She
grabs every opportunity that life puts in her path, made possible by
her rich background. ”Life is the best education,” she says with a
wink.
”I’m first-generation American. My mother was born in Dublin,
Ireland, and my father, who has an Armenian background, was born in
Marseilles in the south of France,” she explains.
ON WALL STREET
Cachet’s family spent Christmases and summers in France and by early
childhood she had traveled all over Europe. At 20, she decided to
switch from college to Wall Street, where she worked as a stockbroker
and commodities broker.
She made the switch out of boredom. ”I needed more of a challenge
because I was always business-minded and good at sales even though I
was always into art and design,” Cachet says.
Ten years ago, another opportunity led to three months of modeling
while living in Japan, adding to her roster of languages, which now
include Spanish, French and Armenian.
Five years ago, wanting to return to her financial roots, she sent
her resume to what she thought was a financial company in Miami.
”When I showed up for the interview, I realized my colossal error.
They were starting a contractor referral company which pre-screened
contractors to take the guesswork out of choosing one. I apologized
for misunderstanding and left,” she says.
They offered her the job anyway. She accepted, reminding herself that
she had grown up with her ”grandfather and father building and
fixing anything and if I taught myself languages, I can teach myself
anything.”
Cachet met with clients on high-end commercial and residential
projects throughout South Florida, including million-dollar homes in
Pinecrest, Coral Gables and Aventura. She coordinated big additions
like family rooms, master bedroom suites and bath redos, even
terraces and landscaping. ”I can kill a plastic plant, but I know
what looks good,” she deadpans.
FREE ADVICE
Cachet found that clients were asking her opinion on the interiors.
“After giving away a lot of free advice, I created Cachet Home
Remodeling Consultants,” which she calls “a one-stop shop from the
remodeling to the decorating.” She also took and passed the general
contractor’s exam in 2003.
Yet another twist would take Cachet into television. In 2004 she got
a phone call from HGTV. ‘They were looking for a contractor to redo
homes in the D.C. area for a show about home projects gone wrong. I
said, ‘I can do that!’ ”
She auditioned and was immediately cast. One show turned into half a
dozen more. After taping three episodes, as often happens, the show
was put on hold indefinitely. That experience led to Cachet appearing
on Telemundo (speaking Spanish like a native), the DIY Network and
close to 20 appearances on the South Florida Today Show on NBC-6
giving do-it-yourself tips.
“I realized my calling was to be a decorator, but the contractor
knowledge is a good base to have,” she says. To date, Cachet’s work
has snowballed just from word of mouth, with a niche created from
the burgeoning condo market.
“I have the most fun when the client only has a couple thousand dollars
for a room. I can structure a design plan from the very low to the very
high end. Good design is now available to everyone in different price
ranges. Everyone can have a beautiful home and I can help them do it.”

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Aug 13 2005
FOREIGN MINISTER RECEIVES GERMAN DELEGATION
[August 13, 2005, 20:21:23]
Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov has met today with
the delegation of the German Federal Intelligence Service headed by
August Hanning, FM’s press service said.
Informing the guests on the democratic reforms implemented in
Azerbaijan, Minister E. Mammadyarov noted his county’s foreign policy
was oriented towards integration into the European and Euroatlantic
structures. In this connection, he mentioned Azerbaijan’s cooperation
with NATO in the framework of the Partnership for Peace Program,
as well as the country’s involvement in the European Union’s New
Neighborhood Policy.
The Foreign minister dwelt on the existing problems including the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the current
state of the peace process. He described the occupation factor as
inadmissible in the 21st century characterized by rapid development
of democratic societies.
Speaking of socio-economic development in Azerbaijan, Minister E.
Mammadyarov provided the members of the German delegation with
detailed information about the course of implementation of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars
large-scale energy and transport projects touching on the
projects-related security issues.
Afterwards, the parties exchanged views on the situation in the
Middle East, Iraq and South Caucasus, fight against international
terror and Islamic factor and a number of other issues.

History News Network, WA
Aug 14 2005
Series: What America Needs to Do to Achieve Its Foreign Policy Goals
.. Dealing with Terrorism (4).
By William R. Polk
Mr. Polk taught at Harvard from 1955 to 1961 when he was appointed a
member of the Policy Planning Council of the US State Department. In
1965 he became professor of history at the University of Chicago
and founded its Middle Eastern Studies Center. Subsequently, he also
became president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International
Affairs. Among his books are The United States and the Arab World,
The Elusive Peace: The Middle East in the Twentieth Century,
Neighbors and Strangers: the Fundamentals of Foreign Affairs and
the just-published Understanding Iraq. Other of his writings can be
accessed on
What is now being done about terrorism has proven ineffective. We
begin with misunderstanding what “terrorism” is.1 It is not a thing,
a place or a group. To speak of waging war on it is vacuous. It is
simply a tactic which is used in desperation by those who do not
have power comparable to those they regard as their enemies. It is
the weapon of the weak.
There are several reasons for our failure to develop a strategy to
counter it. The fundamental reason is that large numbers of people
believe that it is their only means of action. Most believe themselves
to be under alien occupation and are fighting desperately to liberate
themselves. In Iraq the struggle is against our occupation. In what
is left of Palestine it is against the Israeli occupiers (who most
non-Americans see as American surrogates) . In Cecnya it is against the
Russians. This form of nationalist struggle is age old. Our ancestors
used terrorism in the mainly guerrilla war we call the American
Revolution; the Armenians used it against the Ottoman Empire in the
first decade of the 20 th century; the Irish used it for centuries
against the British; various underground resistance movements in
Europe used it against the Germans during the Second World War. In
recent times, it has been played out against the British ( Kenya
and elsewhere), Belgians (The Congo), French ( Algeria) and Chinese
( Tibet and Sinkiang or ” Turkistan”). When we approved the cause of
any one of these groups, we regarded them as “freedom fighters.” When
we did not, we called them “terrorists.”
A second kind of motivation arises when groups of people regard
their governments as corrupt, anti-national and/or unreligious. The
predominant current example is the collection of different ethnic
groups we lump together as al-Qa cida and believe to be controlled
by Usama bin Ladin. These groups target us because they believe that
we are the upholders of regimes they regard as tyrannical. Having
despaired of secular nationalism, these people have espoused religious
fundamentalism – they think of their movement as salafiya.
The word means both to “return” and to “advance.” It is roughly the
mindset of the European and American Puritan movement which similarly
adopted the notion that they were delegated by God to cleanse the
world. Its beliefs are strikingly similar, with the change of a few
names and dates, to religious fundamentalism among Hindus, Buddhists,
Jews and Christians.
The nature of the groups that participate in this form of violent
theology and/or violent politics is complex. In my study of all the
major examples of guerrilla warfare since the Second World War, I
concluded that in every episode, it was possible and useful to identify
five major groups. The first, obviously, was made up of combatants or,
as the French called them in occupied France and colonial Algeria,
resistants. They are necessarily few in number. In the Algerian war,
they never numbered over about 13,000 at any given time; in occupied
France that was about the number before the German collapse; in Iraq,
the number is about the same today. In the Palestine Mandate, they
are far fewer. They are the people the great practitioner of guerrilla
warfare, Mao Zedong, referred to as the “fish.”
Supporting them are people Mao called “the sea.” While they carry
on their normal functions in society, they supply, hide and give
information to the combatants. They also are the recruiting ground
from which killed or captured combatants are replaced. This group
numbers many times the actual fighting force. Its numbers vary with
the intensity of the conflict but usually can be estimated to at
least 20 times the number of combatants.
The third group is an opportunistic criminal element which is
given scope by the breakdown of public order that is an inevitable
consequence of guerrilla warfare. It is usually quite small but
overlaps with and is tolerated or encouraged by the combatants both
because it distracts their enemies and because it often is a source
of funds. Occasionally, it merges into the ranks of the combatants.
Armenian terrorists in Istanbul occasionally robbed banks; the IRA has
done the same; and, in Iraq today, criminal gangs kidnap people from
whom ransoms can be collected. In Afghanistan, Cecnya and Colombia,
drug dealing plays a similar role.
The fourth and largest group is made up of those who simply want
to be left alone. They can be radicalized by the policies of the
occupying power, by nationalism or by religion but, as a group, they
are generally passive victims. The fifth group is made up of those
who support the regime. In the American Revolution, these people
were called “Loyalists” and in Algeria they formed the basis for the
French-empowered harkis (auxiliary or light troops). In the defeat
of the dominant regime, they are usually forced into exile as the
Loyalists were to Canada and the harkis and others were to France.
It does not appear that the American government fully understands
what motivates these separate groups or how they interact.
In Iraq, the major American thrust has been against the combatants.
This tactic has never worked. As individuals are put out of action,
jailed or killed, others replace them. Consequently, terrorism or
guerrilla warfare can last for centuries (as it did in Ireland and
has in Cecnya). America and other powers have been operating at the
wrong end of the challenge. Even if the repression is absolutely
brutal, as practiced by the British in Kenya, the French in Algeria,
the Russians in Cecnya ( Chechnya) and the Israelis in Palestine,
the more hatred is generated and the more people move from the group
that is passive to the group that is supportive of the combatants.
History shows that the only way to stop the fighting is to dry up
the “sea.” That is, when enough of the society believes that it has
achieved a satisfactory result of the struggle, it ceases to support
the combatants. That is not the result of such gimmicks as “civic
action” or even of genuine aid projects but only when the irritant,
the outside power, leaves. The sequence is: sovereignty comes before
security, not, as we are attempting in Iraq, to achieve security
before according sovereignty. That is what happened in Ireland in 1921,
in what became Israel in 1948, in Algeria in 1962. Northern Ireland,
in Cecnya, Occupied Palestine and Iraq illustrate what happens when
the dominant power attempts to reverse the order: the war continues.
In short, it is evident that terrorism or guerrilla warfare arises
from political motivations and therefore must be addressed in
those terms. Unless the dominant power is willing to engage in
genocide, as the Romans did against the Britons, (occasioning
Tacitus’s famous remark that the Romans “create a desolation and
call it peace”) it cannot be defeated by military means. Indeed,
the more powerful and pervasive the military suppression, the more
members of the “sea” become “fish.” We see this in Iraq. There,
virtually the entire non-Kurdish population is made up of people who
have lost relatives, friends, neighbors and their property in the
counter-guerrilla/terrorist war. The numbers illustrate the point. In
2003, American intelligence estimated the active combatants at a few
hundred; in early 2004, the estimates had risen to a few thousand;
today they stand at 15-20 thousand.
The longer the clash lasts, the more profound its aftereffects. A
prolonged clash inevitably distorts, wounds and dehumanizes both the
dominant power and its opponents. The chaos it creates breeds warlords,
gangsters and thugs as we see so clearly today in Afghanistan and
Cecnya. Algeria still has not recovered from the brutal war it fought
against colonial France from 1830 to 1962.
Worse, in fighting the inevitably dirty war, the dominant power engages
in tactics that corrupt its own values. The very civilization of France
was nearly ruined by the Algerian war; the early Zionists would be
horrified by what is happening to the Israelis in their occupation of
the Palestinians; and I shudder to think of the effect of American
tactics (and individual fear) on the young Americans engaged in
Iraq. Humiliating actions, torture, even murder become habitual.
The American government, forgetting our own “freedom fighters,”
proclaims terrorism irredeemably evil. But, understandably, it does not
always and everywhere oppose terrorism. We and the British supported
attempts at terrorism against the occupying Nazi forces in various
parts of Europe during the Second World War. We were intimately
involved with terrorist groups in Central America during the Reagan
Administration. More recently, it appears the US government is giving
covert arms assistance to a Colombian anti-FARQ paramilitary group
which it has labeled terrorist.2 This is dangerously short-sighted
as was our condonance of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels and Guatemalan
death squads.
What America needs to do is to align its policies in accord with
President Woodrow Wilson’s proclamation on self-determination of
peoples. We live in a world of states but there are many nations
that have not achieved statehood. That is, they are communities
which are linked by culture, ethnicity and neighborhood but live in
states where they are regarded and regard themselves as alien. Most
of the tumult so evident in our times is a result of this anomaly:
the politically deprived groups struggle to achieve self-determination.
The histories of the Kurds, Palestinians, Cecens are only the more
familiar of the experiences of dozens of unfulfilled nations. Once,
America was a beacon of hope for them. We should aspire to become
that again. But, above all, we must avoid actions that others will
see as an attack on their sense of nationhood. That is where we must
begin the “war on terrorism.”
1 Although partly for reasons different from mine, this is the point
made by the former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke
in Against All Enemies ( New York: Free Press, 2004).
2 Frank Smyth, “US Arms for Terrorists?” (The Nation, June 13, 2005.)

Newsday, NY
Aug 14 2005
WHO’S COOKING
NANCY
KHACHADURIAN
Office manager for her husband’s orthopedic surgery practice. Lives
in Old Westbury and East Hampton with her husband, Varvartkes. They
have three adult children, Peter, Jennifer and Lori.
What is your ethnic heritage?
My husband and I were both born in Cuba. The Armenians migrated there
in the ’20s, since they couldn’t come into this country. My parents
lived in a small Armenian community in Santiago for about 25 years. I
came to the U.S. in 1943, when I was 3 weeks old. My husband,
coincidentally, was also Armenian and grew up on the other end of
Cuba in Victoria de las Tunas. He came here in 1948, when he was 13.
When my husband went to medical school in Italy, he met my brother
there. It so happens they were both Armenian and from Cuba. Talk
about fate. We’ve been married 39 years.
How has your ethnic heritage influenced your cooking?
We had two cultures growing up – the Cuban and the Armenian cultures.
Our Christmases are always celebrated in the Cuban style. We have
fresh ham with black beans, white rice, fried bananas, yuca with
garlic, lemon and olive oil. Some of the Armenian dishes my husband
and I make are shish kebab and pilaf for Easter, tabbouleh, bulgur
and baba ghanoush, which we make from eggplant we get at the
farmstand. We grew up with yogurt and cucumbers mixed with fresh
garlic, which also was good. We make baklava a little different from
the Greeks. We use walnuts and ours is not as sweet. Something else
that you won’t find in the recipe books that we were brought up with
is yaglee. It’s got many layers of phyllo on top and curd cheese in
the center. You have to eat it warm and sprinkle it with granulated
sugar.
When you’re not cooking, where do you like to go out to eat?
Radici in Carle Place. I’ve been there at least six times, and it’s
been great. I had the swordfish last night and my husband had the cod
with black beans on the side and julienne lettuce on top. They come
around with a complimentary tablespoon of soup and sorbet. The
presentation there is always beautiful. Out East, we go to Bostwick’s
in East Hampton and Dave’s Grill in Montauk, when we can get
reservations. We like fish; nothing fancy.
What’s your favorite sandwich?
I love panini sandwiches. We have a panini machine and we make them
with the ciabatta bread and olive oil. My husband likes to buy
expensive olive oil. He’s a simple person and never buys himself
anything, but when it comes to buying oils, he likes that. We make
our panini with mozzarella, tomato and some nice basil from the
garden.
What do you like to nosh on?
I love pretzels, French fries, pasta, rice and potatoes. I’m a carbo
nut.
Yalanche
(Stuffed Grape Leaves)
1 cup olive oil
3 pounds onions, coarsely chopped
1 cup uncooked rice
1/2 bunch Italian parsley, stemmed, washed and chopped
2 tablespoons fresh chopped dill
3/4 cup pignoli nuts
Juice of 3 lemons, divided
1 small can tomato sauce
1 small can tomato paste
Salt and pepper to taste
1 jar grape leaves, rinsed, drained and stems removed
Sliced lemon for garnish
1. In large heavy pot, heat olive oil over medium. Saute onions until
translucent, about 15 minutes. Remove from heat.
2. To pot, add rice, parsley, dill, pignoli nuts, juice of 2 lemons,
tomato sauce, tomato paste, salt and pepper. Mix well. Allow to cool.
Place in refrigerator.
3. Place a grape leaf on a flat surface, shiny side down. Put 1
teaspoon of cooled filling and wrap like cigar, folding ends in and
rolling. Repeat with 40 to 50 leaves, about half the jar.
4. Line bottom of pot with unused leaves to cover. Neatly place layer
of rolled leaves on top. Repeat, making neat layers until all leaves
are used up. Pour about 3 cups water mixed with remaining lemon juice
over leaves. Place heavy plate on top. Cover pot.
5. Cook over medium heat slowly for 30 to 40 minutes, until rice
is cooked. Allow to cool. Remove plate and place leaves on platter.
Garnish with lemons. May be refrigerated several days. Makes about
20 appetizer servings.

Turkey’s enthusiasm for EU membership declining
By Seth Rosen
The Washington Times
Aug 14 2005
ANKARA, Turkey — Turks are becoming increasingly disillusioned with
the European Union’s stringent stipulations for membership and are
rethinking entering a club they have yearned to join for 40 years.
After the initial jubilation in December 2004 of securing an October
date to begin accession talks, the need to make concessions on
politically sensitive issues has engendered a tide of uncertainty in
this expanding nation of 70 million.
In a poll conducted in May, 63 percent of the Turks who responded
said that they would like to see their country attain membership —
down from 75 percent in December.
“The general enthusiasm about membership is eroding, and as the EU
demands become clearer, the public will shy away more and more,”
said Hasan Unal, a professor of international relations at Bilkent
University in Ankara.
French and Greek officials called last week for Turkey to recognize the
Greek Cypriot government in Cyprus or risk derailing its EU bid. This
is part of a mounting list of demands from EU members that challenge
Turkish identity and fundamental values, politicians and analysts
here said.
[Visit a blog post related to this article:
blog.wpherald.com/wphblog/?p=58]
“Europeans don’t fully understand the limits to patience on this
side,” said Suat Kiniklioglu, director of the Ankara office of the
German Marshall Fund of the United States. “We’re not yet counting
on Plan B, but the euphoria is gone.”
Expectations were raised after the December decision, as Turks
anticipated an immediate flood of foreign investment and a decrease
in unemployment. A disappointment has permeated the nation as no real
benefits have accrued to date, said Emine Sirin, an independent member
of Parliament.
Since December, many Turks have seen a significant change in the
attitude of Europeans. As public opinion in most EU countries has
crystallized against Turkish accession, European politicians have
started taking a firmer stance as well.
One of the central reasons cited for the rejection of the European
constitution in France and the Netherlands in May was disgruntlement
with past and future enlargement of the bloc, especially for
predominantly Muslim Turkey.
More worrying for Turkey is the German election scheduled for
September, in which the Christian Democrats are favored to win. Their
leader, Angela Merkel, is an adamant opponent of Turkish membership and
instead advocates a “privileged partnership.” French President Jacques
Chirac has vowed to hold a separate referendum on Turkey’s membership.
This is part of an increasingly unjust treatment of Turkey’s
application, said Onur Oymen, the vice chairman of the Turkey-European
Union Joint Parliamentary Committee, who points out that French
citizens did not vote when Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania applied.
Some European politicians, emphatically led by the French, have called
on Turkey to recognize the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman
Turks in 1915 as “genocide,” a red line for all Turkish politicians.
“People are disappointed with the double standards we are facing,”
said Hasan Ali Karasar, a researcher at Ankara’s Center for Eurasian
Strategic Studies. “What they ask for is against our tradition,
culture, history and strategic location.”
Others are more cynical and think that the European Union is meddling
in Turkey’s internal affairs to dissuade it from continuing with
negotiations.
“What the EU is trying to do is frustrate us with unacceptable
demands so that Turkey will say ‘We give up and don’t want to be a
member,’?” said Mr. Unal, the professor at Bilkent University. “This
way, they don’t have to turn us down.”
A growing chorus of pundits in Turkey, frustrated with perceived EU
interference in internal matters, is beginning to see a “privileged
partnership” as an attractive measure. A special status would pull
the country closer economically to the European Union but allow it
to retain its sovereignty.
It would also restore a sense of balance to Turks, who currently
possess little leverage in their discussion with the European Union,
Mr. Unal said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Union Leader, NH
Aug 15 2005
Collage celebrates Queen City
By JOHN CLAYTON
Union Leader Staff
[parts omitted]
I also love it when I get good news about old friends and in this
case, the friend in question is the lovely and talented Cecile
Keshishian.
Folks around town may remember her best for her work as president of
the Catholic Medical Center Associates and the New Hampshire Medical
Society Auxiliary, but her list of international involvements – many
of them linked to her Armenian heritage – is testament to a woman
who, more than just an energetic volunteer, is a force of nature when
it comes to an important cause.
That’s why Cecile recently received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor,
which “is awarded to distinguished American citizens who exemplify
the ideal of living a life dedicated to the American way while
preserving treasured values of their heritage . . . and also achieve
a level of distinguished service to humanity.”
Since the awards were first presented in 1986, the list of recipients
represents a stunning cross-section of America, ranging from
Presidents (like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) to
soldiers (like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf) to actors (like Anthony
Quinn, Claudette Colbert and Kirk Douglas) and others who transcend
categories, like Frank Sinatra, Paul Simon, Lee Iacocca, Johnny
Bench, Jack Valenti, Gay Talese, Chita Rivera and Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer.
It’s an amazingly diverse group, and speaking as one who has been
enthralled by the dinner table conversation at the Keshishian
household, I guarantee you that Cecile could hold her own on any
topic with any of the other previous honorees.
Although Cecile and her husband, Dr. Kevork Keshishian, now make
their home in Los Angeles, their legacy of service still lives on
here In The City. She was much deserving of this tremendous honor,
and I’m honored to call her my friend.

Antiwar.com, CA
Aug 15 2005
‘The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now’
An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
by Christopher Deliso
balkanalysis.com
In this brand new interview conducted last week, we find the
indefatigable Sibel Edmonds as spirited as ever and determined to
press on with her legal cases, in her attempt to alert the American
people of high-level criminal behavior and corruption in and around
the U.S. government.
The interview concentrates on her new appeal to the Supreme Court,
reactions to the recent Vanity Fair article in which she was featured,
some thoughts on the AIPAC-Larry Franklin investigation, more details
on high-level global criminal activities – and on what kind of
officials are involved in them.
Current Developments: Petitioning the Supreme Court
Christopher Deliso: It’s nice to talk with you again, Sibel. A lot
has happened since we last spoke, for the first Antiwar.com interview
last July. What’s the latest on your case?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, now we are trying to get the Supreme Court to
take my case. My lawyers and the ACLU are trying, and we have had
several meetings about this.
CD: Do you think they will they agree to hear the case?
SE: You know, I’m not very optimistic. They take less than 10
percent of the cases that are requested of them, maybe 75-100 cases
they take. And look at the make-up of the current Supreme Court –
it’s tilting towards the Bush administration. But my lawyers are
more optimistic.
CD: If they reject your case, are they obliged to tell you why,
from a legal point of view, or otherwise?
SE: As far as I understand, sometimes they do, other times no. They
can just say, “sorry we refuse.” And that’s it.
CD: Now, I understand that it’s an involved process, but do you have
any established timeline for when we can expect to hear yea or nay?
SE: The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case or not in
mid-October. But in the meantime, the government – that is, the DOJ
and FBI – will file their response to our Supreme Court petition by
the first week of September.
Further, we’ll also be getting an amicus filing in support of our
Supreme Court petition from 9/11 family groups, government watchdog
organizations like POGO, GAP, the Center for Constitutional Rights,
and more. This will all take place in early September too. So things
are going to be getting busy pretty soon!
CD: Wow, it will be exciting for us to watch it all unfold. But tell
me, what if the Supremos refuse to take the case? Then what?
SE: If that happens, not only this suit but all my other cases will
be dead – the State Secrets Act will kill them all together.
CD: Then what?
SE: We will have to consider other options.
CD: Aha! Evasive action?
SE: There’s a chance we could try for an independent prosecutor,
and an open hearing about these issues –
CD: Like another “Bulldog” Fitzgerald, you mean?
SE: Yes, perhaps. We have to continue until there is some
accountability and the American people know what kinds of things
their elected officials are involving themselves [in] again – things
directly contrary to national security.
The Media: Barking Up the Wrong Tree
CD: Well, I don’t know if we can say a critical mass has been reached,
but you are appearing more and more frequently in the media, and I
think people are starting to take notice of whistleblower cases like
yours. Just the other day there was the story about the Pentagon
procurement whistleblower criticizing Halliburton, after all.
SE: Yes, okay, but the media is focusing on the wrong angle of these
stories – especially concerning my case.
CD: How’s that?
SE: They are focusing too much on the whistleblower angle and not
enough on the state secrets one. They’re saying, “oh, look at the
poor whistleblower, she lost her job for coming forward.” That’s
not important. The important thing is, why are they using this State
Secrets Act – which has almost never been used? What are they trying
to hide?
CD: I see.
SE: I mean, come on, I wasn’t some big diplomat or official or
secret agent or something – I was just a lowly translator! So what
could possibly be so dangerous about letting me speak? Why are they
covering this up?
You know, I found out the other day that there has been no person in
the history of the United States to have had as many gag orders as
I have. So when I say I am the most gagged person in history, I mean
it. They are terrified of letting me speak, and just why they might be
terrified – well, this is what the media should be concentrating on,
not that the poor whistleblower got fired.
CD: So can you tell me, if the State Secrets Act is wheeled out so
rarely, why did they have to use it? Wasn’t there a less drastic
measure they could have taken to prevent you from talking?
SE: Yes, and do you know what is the ironic thing about this? If there
had been an ongoing investigation, all they’d have to do is say so! To
shut me up, all they needed to do would have been to go into the court
and say, “Judge, you can’t let her speak because we have an ongoing
investigating into these things she wants to talk about.” That’s all!
CD: So the point is –
SE: The point is, there was no ongoing investigation! They decided
to block all investigations! They could have quieted me very easily
from the beginning – but that would have meant they were taking my
allegations seriously –
CD: And thus you wouldn’t have had to make them in the first place,
if they were already being investigated.
SE: Exactly! Very paradoxical. They had all the info – detailed
information, names, and everything else, so they can really launch
an investigation. What are they waiting for? But they are not
interested. And because they refuse to investigate – their only
remaining option to silence me is this “State Secrets” nonsense.
CD: That’s an interesting way to look at it. I was not aware of
that procedural difference. So considering that the congressmen you
testified before agreed that you were credible and raised serious
concerns, why have there been no investigations?
SE: The fact that there are no investigations – I will give you an
analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a “war on drugs,” but said in
the beginning, “right, we’re only going to go after the young black
guys on the street level.” Hey, we already have tens of thousands of
them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never
to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels…
It’s like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas
and Hamdis – but never touch the guys on the top.
CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys,
and where?
SE: Oh yeah, they know.
CD: So why don’t they get them?
SE: It’s like I told you before – this would upset “certain
foreign relations.” But it would also expose certain of our elected
officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs-
and weapons-smuggling – and thus with the criminal underground,
even with the terrorists themselves.
Renewed Scrutiny
CD: On that note, why don’t we discuss the recent Vanity Fair article
in which your case was discussed. This is the first time any possible
official associated with illicit activities related to your case was
named. The author cites sources familiar with your testimony and
speculates that Dennis Hastert took bribes to squash the Armenian
genocide resolution –
SE: You know, that was such a surprise to me. I had no idea what the
final article would look like, but when I opened the magazine and
read this – well, it was a surprise.
CD: Why?
SE: Look, if you read the article you will see they mentioned
that there were several other officials suspected of crimes. It’s
interesting because they mentioned the Department of State and the
DOD – but they didn’t get into it.
CD: And maybe some of these others were more important than Hastert?
SE: Of course they were more important! But they went with the
Armenian angle.
CD: Now, I understand because of your gag order, you were not the one
giving the author his information. He was getting it from the other
sources familiar with your testimony. So maybe this angle they took
seemed like the most important because they didn’t have all the facts –
SE: I really don’t know.
A Pyrrhic Victory?
CD: So what have been the initial reactions to this article? I don’t
think Hastert was particularly fazed. He said something like, “Next
they’ll blame me for the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston breakup.”
SE: Well, it’s caused more problems for me than for him, obviously. I
have been getting some very angry letters from Turkish people – now
they think I’m an agent of the Armenian lobby! And so of course this
guy from the ATC, [American-Turkish Council President James] Holmes,
played on this. Because some of my allegations involved the ATC, he
loved getting a chance to blacken me as some Armenian collaborator in
the Turkish media – and at the same time made up outrageous claims,
such as that the government investigated my claims and decided that
I was lying about everything. So now I’m hated in Turkey.
CD: That’s crazy. But doesn’t the media there know any better? I mean,
haven’t they been focusing on your case for a long time?
SE: Yes, but for people with power and prestige such as Holmes, it’s
easy to smear someone. As you know, sensitivities are very strong
for both Turks and Armenians on this issue. So ironically even if it
[Hastert’s alleged bribe-taking and the Armenian genocide issue]
was just a sidebar to the real focus of my case, by connecting my
name with the Hastert allegations, it just damaged my credibility
for Turks everywhere.
CD: This sounds like an absolute disaster.
SE: And it’s just too bad, because none of this [my allegations]
has to do with the current government in Turkey.
CD: So do you mean the previous one was more corrupted, or involved
with these issues?
SE: I didn’t say that. I just said that the current Turkish
government had nothing to do with any of these illegal activities I
documented. But still the campaign against me goes on in the media
in Turkey. It’s very sad.
Who’s in Charge Here?
CD: That’s terrible. I have some thoughts based on what you just said,
but first let’s talk about something else. For us on the outside, it
is very hard to know what is really going on in the government. And
with all of the governmental manipulation and deceit that things like
your case, as well as the whole Iraq War deception, show, critical
people have come to suspect that the government is more often than
not feeding us lies and working in our worst interests. And you talk
about good, honest agents as well as bad and criminal ones.
So, that said – how can we explain the case of Larry Franklin?
SE: Do you mean how the case came about, or how it is being conducted?
CD: I want to say this: the Turkish lobby might be powerful, but the
Israeli lobby is by far the most powerful in Washington, at least with
the current administration. So considering that the pro-Israel neocons
are in power, how was it possible that this AIPAC investigation – which
apparently started way back in 1999 – could have continued all these
years, and didn’t end up getting squashed like your investigation was?
SE: I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see how far they
pursue it – whether they will be satisfied just to make an example
out of the fairly low-level guys they’re looking at now, or want to
keep going higher.
CD: When you were at the FBI, did you have any colleagues who were
working on this case, investigating the Israelis?
SE: Look, I think that that [the AIPAC investigation] ultimately
involves more than just Israelis – I am talking about countries,
not a single country here. Because despite however it may appear,
this is not just a simple matter of state espionage. If Fitzgerald
and his team keep pulling, really pulling, they are going to reel in
much more than just a few guys spying for Israel.
CD: A monster, 600-pound catfish, huh? So the Turkish and Israeli
investigations had some overlap?
SE: Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one,
an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator,
stumbled over one piece of it.
But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of
ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include
multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear
sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course
a lot of people from abroad are involved. It’s massive. So to do this
investigation, to really do it, they will have to look into everything.
CD: But you can start from anywhere –
SE: That’s the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You
can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all
end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same
nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group.
And they are very dangerous for all of us.
State Department the Source of All Evil?
CD: I know you can’t name names, but are there any government agencies
in particular that you can single out as being more corrupt or more
involved with the substance of your allegations?
SE: The Department of State.
CD: What, the most corrupt?
SE: The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major
government agencies.
CD: That’s interesting. I sometimes think of the State Department
as being fairly emasculated, relatively speaking, of course not the
“good guys,” but surely not as evil as certain other agencies… but
you have some personal experience that tells you otherwise?
SE: You asked me before about the good FBI agents and bad, which
group is really in control. I can tell you, in my case, the decision
to terminate the investigation and bury my allegations, this decision
was not made by the FBI. It came directly from the Department of State.
CD: Really! I didn’t know they had the power to interfere with
FBI work.
SE: Oh, of course they do! And the agent that handled the case I was
working on, that person was so frustrated. It was all stopped because
the State Department was dictating to us.
CD: So while John Ashcroft looked like the bad guy, for coming down
on you with the State Secrets Act –
SE: Look, according to Vanity Fair, in 1999 the FBI even wanted to
bring in a special prosecutor, to investigate – but guess what,
after Bush came to power, they pulled the plug. And how was this
request thwarted? By direct order of the Department of State!
CD: Wow. So what other powers did they have over you?
SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level
officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they’re even prevented
from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department
of State just comes in and says, “Leave it.”
You know, it’s funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there
was “no information-sharing” between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and
this is why the terrorists pulled it off – as if we didn’t want to
cooperate. No information-sharing? That’s the biggest BS I ever heard!
CD: So you’re saying that the whole process of sorting through the
intelligence you received, executing investigations, and getting
information where it needed to go was prevented by the State
Department?
SE: Several times, yes.
CD: And again, because of the “sensitive foreign relations” excuse?
SE: Well, yes, obviously all of these high-level criminal operations
involve working with foreign people, foreign countries, the outside
world – and to a certain extent these relations do depend on the
continuation of criminal activities.
Countries to Consider
CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?
SE: It’s interesting, in one of my interviews, they say “Turkish
countries,” but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is,
Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the ‘Stans, including Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan.
All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have
been talking about.
CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?
SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It’s amazing
that in this whole “war on terror” thing, no one ever talks about these
issues. No one asks questions about these countries – questions like,
“OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?”
CD: But of course, you’re not implying…
SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we’ve
been putting military bases in –
CD: I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
SE: You know how they always talk about these Islamic charities
funding the terrorists, right?
CD: Yes…
SE: Well, and this is not a firm statistic, just a sort of
ratio… but these charities are responsible for maybe 10 or 20
percent of al-Qaeda’s fundraising. So where is the other 80 or 90
percent coming from? People, it’s not so difficult!
How It All Works
CD: So tell me something, say, in the case of drugs from Central
Asia to Europe to America. When they come through Turkey, what is
the procedure?
SE: Well, I am not an expert on this. I know some of it gets to be
processed in Turkey and travels in the Balkans. I know Holland is
very important. But you might know better than me, being over there.
I only know from this end, in North America.
CD: Okay, so when the drugs –
SE: Not only drugs.
CD: Okay, so when whatever kinds of criminal contraband enter the U.S.,
then what happens to it?
SE: They are circulated by huge front companies. Of course, these
companies often have a legitimate side to their businesses; maybe
even the majority of their business is aboveboard. In this way,
they arouse less suspicion. Say if it was, I don’t know, a textiles
company in Delaware. The stuff comes into port, and when it comes
off the boat they open it up, and –
CD: “Hey, great, more textiles!” Something like that?
SE: Sure. And then it gets sent everywhere, through other companies
in other cities, other front companies under different owners or
even different branches of the same company. They could be anywhere,
Denver, Detroit, San Diego, and everywhere in between.
CD: It sounds very sophisticated.
SE: Oh, it’s so sophisticated and so big, you can’t imagine… and
not only can they bring the stuff in, they can send it out. And do
you think for a second the government doesn’t know?
CD: Can you give any specific examples of such an operation?
SE: Well, not from my case, but there is quite a lot of public
information about such things. A good example was the piece in the
L.A. Times –
CD: The black-market nuclear parts one?
SE: Yes, by Josh Meyer. From last year. That article gives a very
good example of how such a scheme works.
CD: But that report came out of an official government investigation
taking apart the smuggling ring, right?
SE: Yes it did, but that doesn’t mean the business was ended.
CD: No?
SE: I think one of the guys involved, Asher Karni, got a short
sentence. But the other guy, the big guy, Zeki Bilmen? He got off
completely – nothing.
CD: How?
SE: It’s beyond logical explanation. Maybe it was decided in high
places that no one would touch him.
CD: And we’re talking about people who are trading in nuclear
black-market goods with terrorists and countries like Pakistan?
SE: And anyone else who’s willing to pay, for that matter. Zeki
Bilmen is Turkish, but of Jewish background. He has a company, Giza
Technologies in New Jersey, and everyone who works there is Turkish.
He’s worked closely with the Israelis. And business – well, business
is good.
They have many shipments going out, coming in, all day long. To places
like Dubai, Spain, South Africa, Turkey. They have branches in all
these places. Yep, they’re sailing along very smoothly.
CD: So if we are talking about suspected nuclear proliferators here,
how can the government be protecting them when at the same time
they’re talking about Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons?
SE: Exactly! You tell me!
Zeroing In
CD: It must be very frustrating for you, not to be able to speak
about what you know.
SE: Yeah, really, it’s so frustrating.
CD: So since you are still gagged, is there anything you hope for,
aside from getting heard before the Supreme Court? I mean, is there
anything people can do?
SE: I hope that if anything comes of this new media attention,
they [congressmen] might say, “You know what, one name is out there
already,” and maybe people will start to say the others.
Because enough people in Congress know who is involved and what the
stakes are. It’s not necessary for me to do it; any number of people
can step forward. They just need to be a little more brave, and –
yes, more patriotic. Because like I told you before, these kind of
criminal acts some of our leaders are involved in do not have any
benefit for 99.9 percent of the American people. And in fact they’re
actually very harmful for American and world security.
CD: So what do you hope for from the media? I mean, I know you
suggested the media should concentrate on the State Secrets aspect
rather than the “poor whistleblower” one. That’s clear. But of course
we would love to know more details, even general ones.
For example, can you give any kind of insight into where to look? I
know some of these “semi-legitimate organizations” you’ve mentioned
and how they operate. You discussed that at length in our first
interview. But what about individuals? What is the profile of your
average high-level crook?
SE: Well, you can piece things together fairly well, I think, and
not just from what I have to say. A lot of information is already
out there. Things like the L.A. Times article I mentioned, they give
a lot of context. But generally, look at what we discussed here.
CD: You mean where such officials are to be found?
SE: Yes. Watch the Department of State. Watch people who are involved
with the countries I mentioned above. Watch their careers, where
they were stationed, what jobs they held, what were their areas of
expertise, where these interests overlap. Were they involved with
weapons procurement ever? Would anything in their resume indicate
knowledge of and experience in not one, but several of these countries
I have mentioned?
Because you know, it is not very often you can find someone with the
requisite linguistic and cultural training necessary for working with
several countries simultaneously, as well as the acumen and right
mindset for these kinds of adventures. There can’t be many.
Look out for the organizations they’re involved in. Look at where
these memberships overlap. Two major lobby groups that have come
out in one way or another have been the American-Turkish Council and
AIPAC. They’re not the only ones, but you can start with them. Look
at their members, their leaders past and present. Look at where these
names overlap with the qualities I mentioned above.
CD: Yes, that is good for background, but at the end of the day to
have anything “real” it basically has to come down to what the guy
had for breakfast that day.
I mean, even the Vanity Fair “revelation” had to admit that there
was no way of proving Hastert was ever given $500,000 to scupper the
Armenian genocide bill. So obviously he could just laugh it off. It
ended on a very deflationary note.
SE: Yes, you have a point. But making specific charges in specific
cases, no one in the media can ever do that without explicit evidence
from someone very close to the investigation or activity.
What I am telling you is that this network is visible, and it is
possible to grasp what’s going on. And I think to a certain extent it’s
obvious that some of your neocons will be involved in these criminal
activities. You don’t need me to tell you that. But too often, they
[the media] have looked in the wrong places.
CD: An example?
SE: Well, I’m wondering why in this “war on terror” they aren’t taking
a look at the role of banks in Dubai, banks in Cyprus – they’ve always
concentrated on banks in places like, say, Switzerland. They almost
never look at these two other huge areas for money-laundering.
A Hypothetical
CD: Finally, Sibel, I was curious to ask you one sort of hypothetical
question.
SE: Okay.
CD: Do you ever look back and wish you had done things differently? I
mean, maybe you could have “played dumb” and stuck around a couple
months longer in the FBI, and collected more “smoking gun” evidence,
no? Like in some action/suspense movie.
SE: This is a very interesting question. But you know, I didn’t have
the luxury to think about it. I didn’t have time to make a conscious
decision.
CD: Why?
SE: Well, the biggest reason I started to talk and to push for an
internal investigation was because my family was already under threat.
CD: You are referring to the period after you refused Can Dickerson’s
offer to work with her illegally?
SE: Yes. I knew that the [Turkish] person under investigation had
already been given all my details, and at that point they were trying
to make problems for my younger sister back in Turkey. And Senator
[Chuck] Grassley was helping us to get asylum for her.
CD: So basically, my question is irrelevant.
SE: Well, how can you play it cool when your family is under threat?
CD: Indeed. So finally, even despite the total obstruction you have
faced just to be able to get your day in court, do you feel like it
has been worthwhile? And that there is something still that can be
done to change things?
SE: Yes. I believe, and everyone who is concerned about their safety
and security should know it is in their best interests to get this
information out and let the chips fall where they may. And since
this level of crime is so massive, it doesn’t affect only Americans
– people in many countries have an interest in this too. The stakes
are too high for us to stop fighting now.

Azerbaijan Public TV to Broadcast Programs in Armenian
Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
Aug 15 2005
Published: 15.08.2005
Trend, Baku, 14.08.2005 — Azerbaijan’s newly established Public
TV and Radio (PTR) Company will broadcast TV programs in Armenian
for Armenian speaking population of Azerbaijan, first time since
Azerbaijan got independence.
“We will prepare these programs to keep the Azerbaijani citizens of
Armenian origin living in Karabakh informed about processes taken
place in the country and call on them to peaceful coexistence in the
composition of Azerbaijan,” said Ismayil Omarov, the Director General
of the PTR.
The broadcasting of programs in Armenian by the Public TV & Radio
(PTR) is expedient, Akif Nagi, the chairman of the Karabakh Liberation
Organization (KLO), told Trend. Nagi considers broadcasting of programs
in Armenian right decision from this point of view.
“It is necessary to convince Armenians that their rights won’t
be violated in Azerbaijan and they became puppets in the hands of
aggressors,” Nagi said.

Call to back UN genocide reform

Oxfam has urged the US, Russia, India and Brazil to support a UN
reform that would require the organisation to act quickly to prevent
genocide. The international charity accuses the four countries of
blocking UN plans designed to stop atrocities such as the 1994 Rwanda
genocide happening again. Oxfam says the proposal would oblige the
international community to take action if governments failed to do so.
Its statement comes ahead of a UN summit next month to discuss
reforms. Oxfam says that while US officials publicly back the planned
reform, in principle they are seeking to water it down.
Other countries opposing the move include Syria, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan,
Egypt and Algeria, the charity said.
‘New standard’
The current draft statement says the UN has a “shared responsibility
to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner” to “help
protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity”.

Oxfam says it is essential the agreement remains this strongly worded,
if UN members are to prevent future genocides happening.
Such a reform would establish a new standard, the charity says, and
oblige the international community to act when required.
Oxfam’s spokeswoman in New York, Nicola Reindorp, said: “We’ve taken
the step of exposing the governments blocking the agreement so people
around the world can call on them to change their minds.
“We urge these governments to urgently reconsider their position and
agree to protect civilians from mass murder and atrocities.
“The international community must never again allow genocide or mass
murder to go unchecked.”
Governments supporting the call for strong language in the draft
statement include Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya,
Chile, Peru, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea,
Singapore, Canada and the EU.
However, opposition from the would-be blockers could still dilute the
commitment and so make it meaningless, Oxfam warned.
“Those supporting the responsibility of states to protect civilians
must stick to their principles and those opposing it must think
again,” Ms Reindorp said.
“Brazil, India, Russia and the US must play their part in helping to
stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2005/08/14 02:37:35 GMT

Fri Aug 12 08:08:18 2005 Pacific Time
Five New Universities Asked to Submit Proposals for Curriculum
Enrichment as Part of Carnegie Corporation’s Initiative on Journalism
New York, Aug. 12 (AScribe Newswire) — Vartan Gregorian, president of
Carnegie Corporation of New York announced today that five additional
journalism schools at major research universities have been asked to
submit proposals for curriculum enrichment and to join an initiative
begun this year to revitalize journalism education. The five schools,
which will present proposals for the approval of the Corporation’s
board, are the College of Journalism and Communications, University of
Florida; Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland;
Missouri School of Journalism, University of Missouri; S.I. Newhouse
School of Public Communications, Syracuse University; and the School
of Communication, University of Texas at Austin.
At the launch of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of
Journalism Education in May 2005, the deans of leading journalism
schools at four of America’s top research universities-Berkeley,
Columbia, Northwestern and USC-in partnership with Carnegie
Corporation of New York, laid a foundation for developing their vision
of what a journalism school can be at an exemplary institution of
higher education. The goal of this curriculum enrichment is to
encourage experimentation within the journalism school and to forge a
greater integration with other departments in order to offer students
the riches of the larger university community. While training
tomorrow’s reporters, editors, writers and producers, the initiative
is focused on attracting and preparing top students to become the
journalism leaders of tomorrow, prepared for a more complex and
intellectually challenging world and news business.
“Schools of journalism at exemplary American research universities,
where the academic disciplines still coexist, are positioned to draw
upon the full intellectual and educational resources of the university
environment to help produce the skilled, responsible, expert,
knowledgeable and highly proficient journalism leaders that our
society-indeed the world-has need of, especially in these complex and
challenging times,” said Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie
Corporation. “Our democracy depends on journalism to keep its
institutions challenged and responsive to the public’s needs, and the
quality of the profession demands the best a university can offer.”
The Corporation, under Gregorian’s leadership, has made journalism
education, one of its key priorities and it will invest in the
initiative over the next three years. Schools invited to become part
of the initiative must reflect the following criteria: – Freestanding
journalism programs at research universities. – Schools with graduate
programs. – Schools with established deans. – Universities that have
the institutional and financial commitment of the president to support
this project.
The initiative is expected to include more journalism schools in
curriculum enrichment efforts by the fall of 2006. The five schools
currently submitting proposals for consideration will be able to
receive up to $250,000 for two years for expanding, and developing
specific courses that offer students a deeper understanding of issues,
content and context. The university must agree to underwrite the third
year of the enrichment program.
“A key feature of this curriculum enrichment focus is to offer
students a deep and multi-layered exploration of complex subjects like
history, politics, classics and philosophy that will undergird their
journalistic skills,” said Susan King, vice president, public affairs
at the Corporation and national director of the Carnegie- Knight
Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education. “The Corporation
hopes to encourages journalism schools to go beyond their current
boundaries-to be expansive about the kind of courses and information
their students should absorb while attempting to raise the profile of
journalism education and its place within the university.”
The five universities announced today will not be part of a second
element of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism
Education: News 21 Incubators, which are annual national investigative
reporting projects overseen by campus professors and distributed
nationally through both traditional and innovative media. The
invitation to submit curriculum enrichment proposals likewise does not
convey immediate membership in the third part of the Initiative: The
Carnegie-Knight Task Force, which is focusing on research and creating
a platform for educators to speak on policy and journalism education
issues. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is partnering with
Carnegie Corporation of New York in supporting both News 21 and The
Carnegie-Knight Task Force. Information about the Initiative can be
found on the Corporation’s web site, and on the
Knight Foundation’s web site,
Carnegie Corporation of New York was created by Andrew Carnegie in
1911 to promote “the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and
understanding.” As a grantmaking foundation, the corporation seeks to
carry out Carnegie’s vision of philanthropy, which he said should aim
“to do real and permanent good in the world.” The Corporation’s
capital fund, originally donated at a value of about $135 million, had
a market value of $1.9 billion on September 30, 2004.
The Corporation awards grants totaling more than $80 million a year in
the areas of education, international peace and security,
international development and strengthening U.S. democracy.
Contact Information:
Carnegie Corporation of New York Office of Public Affairs 212-207-6273