Iran, Armenia finalize gas accord

IranMania News
April 3 2004

Iran, Armenia finalize gas accord

TEHRAN, April 2 (IRIB) – Negotiations with Iran regarding the
construction of a gas pipeline to Armenia reached the final stage,
Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsesyan said.

The sides have already reached accords on the main technical
parameters of the pipeline. Iranian oil minister is expected to
arrive in Yerevan in early April to sign an agreement on building of
a gas pipeline, Movsesyan said.

According to the minister, the construction, due to begin later this
year, will last 20 months and to be completed in 2006. Either country
will be fully responsible for laying its stretch of the pipeline.
According to preliminary estimates, the Armenian section will cost
dlrs 100 million to lay, and the Iranian stretch, slightly more.

According to the draft agreement, Iran will deliver gas to Armeniain
amounts sufficient only for the country’s domestic consumption,
Movsesyan said. The question of extending the pipeline farther to
carry Iranian gas to Europe was not considered, contrary to
allegations by some mass media.

The gas pipeline from Iran will ensure continuous gas supply to
Armenia and enhance its energy security.

BAKU: Ombudsman of Azerbaijan receives return mail from Hungary

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
April 3 2004

OMBUDSMAN OF AZERBAIJAN RECEIVES RETURN MAIL FROM HUNGARY

Commissioner on Human Rights in Azerbaijan Republic Elmira
Suleymanova has recently sent a letter to Ombudsman of Hungarian
Republic to ask the latter to ensure rights of Azerbaijan military
officer Ramil Sarfarov detained in Budapest for murder of the
Armenian servicemen on February 19, promote unbiased investigation
and keep the issue under control. The letter also clued up on the
roots of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and infamous actions of the
Armenian aggressors including the Statement issued on the occasion of
the 12th anniversary of Hojali genocide resulted in mass annihilation
of innocent people.

In his return mail, Ombudsman of Hungarian Republic Albert Takashin’s
has expressed gratitude for the confidence to his office, and noted
in particular that the information provided in the letter had made
him think. `This detailed information will facilitate investigating
authorities to take fair decision,’ the letter said. Mr. Albert
Takashin pointed out that although the Hungarian law on Ombudsman did
not empower him to directly interfere the investigation, however, he
had sent all the documents to Prosecutor General, who had invited him
to monitor the process, receive information on the facts established,
and hear out the complaints from the suspect.

The Ombudsman of the Hungarian Republic assured his Azerbaijan
colleague that representatives of his office would regularly visit
Ramil Safarov to keep him informed of the efforts being taken by his
country to help him, and to learn of his needs and problems.
From: Baghdasarian

Home-grown terrorism: A reporter suggests lax laws…

The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
April 3, 2004 Saturday Final Edition

Home-grown terrorism: A reporter suggests lax laws and haphazard
security make Canada a haven for terrorists

by Jeff Lee

COLD TERROR: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around The
World

By Stewart Bell

John Wiley & Sons, 288 pages (36.99)

Stewart Bell is unapologetic, if nothing else, in his contempt for
what he sees as a Canadian bureaucracy that condoned and fostered the
establishment of terrorist organizations.

But Bell, the author of an unvarnished look at how Canada became a
haven for terror groups, raises valid questions about why the country
failed to act, time and again, in identifying and expelling the bad
guys.

In his book Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism
Around The World, Bell argues that Canada has contributed, albeit
indirectly, to the deaths of innocent people, and that it is
incapable at this point of mounting an effective counter-terrorism
campaign.

Everyone now recognizes Al Qaeda as the preeminent terrorist
organization around the world. But Bell points out that Al Qaeda’s
forerunners and cousins had been established in Canada long before
the Sept. 11 attacks levelled New York’s World Trade Center towers.

Bell, a former Vancouver Sun reporter who now writes for the National
Post, recounts how more than 25 years ago terrorists looked above the
49th parallel and found a place from which to raise funds for their
causes. He takes us back to what he believes was the first true act
of Canadian terrorism, an assassination attempt in 1982 by Armenians
wanting to avenge the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of Turks.

This was not something Canada was used to. Factional disputes between
ethnic neighbourhoods were one thing; attempts at political
assassination were another. Then the bloody 1985 attack on an Air
India passenger jet raised Canadian culpability in terrorism to a new
level.

And yet, Bell suggests, Canada did little to prevent the incursion
and development of terrorist organizations on its soil. The result,
he says, was a conscious understanding by groups such as the Tamil
Tigers of Sri Lanka, Sikh separatists, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda that
the could operate from here with impunity.

“The list of specific government failures is extensive, from an
immigration system seemingly incapable of deporting even known
terrorists, to laws that have proven ineffective at shutting down
charities and ethnic associations fronting for terror,” he writes.
“But it all stems from a political leadership unwilling to take a
stand and secure Canadians and their allies from the violent whims of
the world’s assorted radicals, fundamentalists and extremists.”

Bell uses a network of security sources, both named and unnamed, to
spin stories demonstrating his thesis that Canada has long lacked the
chutzpah to stop terrorists. He also points out that Canadian
citizens have partaken in terrorist attacks abroad, from the 1993
World Trade Center truck bombing to the bombing of a Bali nightclub
in 2002 and the bombing of Western housing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a
year later.

“Canadian terrorists spill blood around the world,” he writes
harshly, as if somehow we should have expected otherwise.

In the end, Cold Terror is little more than an argument for tougher
laws and a tougher strategy for combating terrrorism.

Here, in suggesting Al Qaeda is governed by “irrational religious
zealots,” is Bell’s entire premise:

“What is needed to combat such fanaticism is a forceful security and
intelligence response that seeks to dismantle the terror networks
within Canada, coupled with an overseas military strategy that
attacks the dens of terror. That cannot happen as long as the
government is in denial and fails to recognize that terrorists have
declared war on our values, our way of life and our society.”

GRAPHIC: Photo: Istsuo Inouye, Associated Press Files; The Bali bomb
blast in October 2002 is an example of Canadian involvement in
terror.; Photo: COLD TERROR: How Canada Nurtures and Exports
Terrorism Around The World By Stewart Bell, John Wiley & Sons, 288
pages (36.99)

Armenia lauds Russian-Armenian military cooperation

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
April 3, 2004 Saturday 7:20 AM Eastern Time

Armenia lauds Russian-Armenian military cooperation

By Tigran Liloyan

YEREVAN

Armenia considers the Russian-Armenian military cooperation to be
“part of the country’s national security and believes that the
presence of the Russian military base in the Armenian territory is
right and essential for Armenia,> said Armenian Defence Minister and
National Security Council Secretary Serzh Sarkisyan who received a
group of Russian journalists on Saturday.

He explained that Russia’s military presence promoted stability in
the region.

Armenia is interested in military cooperation with Russia because its
armed forces are armed with the Soviet or Russian weapons, Sarkisyan
told Russian journalists.

He said Armenia purchased spare parts for military hardware in Russia
and added that many problems in this area had been solved as a result
of favourable conditions created for Armenia within the framework of
the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

Armenian officers receive training in Russia free of charge. The
defence minister said 700 Armenian citizens studied in Russian
military schools and academies.

Armenia’s DM satisfied with CIS air defence system

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
April 3, 2004 Saturday

Armenia’s defence minister satisfied with CIS air defence system

By Tigran liloyan

YEREVAN

The Commonwealth of Independent States’ (CIS) Joint Air Defence
System is capable of fulfilling any task, Armenian Defence Minister
Serzh Sarkisyan said at the meeting with Russian journalists on
Saturday. He said he would like that system to be armed with
state-of-the-art combat means.

The minister said, “Armenian air defence troops are mission capable
and they have proved it in the course of joint exercises at the
Russian air defence test range Ashuluk.”

“The armed forces are the main guarantor of the country’s security.
They have all the necessary means to protect the borders of their
homeland,” the minister said. Mechanised units led by career officers
with vast combat experience form the bulk of the Armenian armed
forces, the minister said.

“The important component of Armenia’s national security is the
Russian military base,” he stressed.

Karabakh problem should be solved by peaceful means – DM

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
April 3, 2004 Saturday

Karabakh problem should be solved by peaceful means – DM

By Tigran Liloyan

YEREVAN

Armenian Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan said it is necessary to
solve the Karabakh problem by peaceful and political means.

Sarkisyan told Russian journalists on Saturday, “I believe that the
main thing is to prevent the resumption of armed actions” in the area
of the Karabakh conflict.

“There were no winners,” the minister stressed.

“We believe that the Karabakh problem should be solved by peaceful,
political means and it is necessary to hold talks and reach a
compromise,” Sarkisyan pointed out.

The defence minister said Armenia considers military cooperation with
Russia “part of the country’s national security and believes that the
presence of the Russian military base in the Armenian territory is
right and essential for Armenia.”

He explained that Russia’s military presence promoted stability in
the region.

Armenia is interested in military cooperation with Russia because its
armed forces are equipped with the Soviet or Russian weapons,
Sarkisyan said.

The minister noted that Armenia purchased spare parts for military
hardware in Russia and added that many problems in this area had been
solved as a result of favourable conditions created for Armenia
within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

Sarkisyan said 700 Armenian citizens studied in Russian military
schools and academies.

On Armenia’s air defence, Sarkisyan said the CIS Joint Air Defence
System is capable of fulfilling any task. The minister said he would
like that system to be armed with state-of-the-art combat means.

He stressed, “Armenian air defence troops are mission capable and
they have proved it in the course of joint exercises at the Russian
air defence test range Ashuluk.”

“The armed forces are the main guarantor of the country’s security.
They have all the necessary means to protect the borders of their
homeland,” the minister said. Mechanised units led by career officers
with vast combat experience form the bulk of the Armenian armed
forces, the minister said.

“The important component of Armenia’s national security is the
Russian military base,” Sarkisyan pointed out.

Armenian Genocide Quotes

Hellenic Resources Network
Saturday, 3 April 2004

Armenian Genocide Quotes

Mustafa “Ataturk” Kemal

Founder of the modern Turkish Republic in 1923 and revered throughout
Turkey, in an interview published on August 1, 1926 in The Los Angeles
Examiner, talking about former Young Turks in his country…
These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made
to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly
driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the
Republican rule.

Adolf Hitler

While persuading his associates that a Jewish holocaust would be tolerated
by the west stated…
Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

Yossi Beilin

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister. April 27, 1994 on the floor of the Knesset
in response to a TV interview of the Turkish Ambassador
It was not war. It was most certainly massacre and genocide, something the
world must remember… We will always reject any attempt to erase its
record, even for some political advantage.

Gerald Ford

Addressing the US House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, with mixed emotions we mark the 50th anniversary of the Turkish
genocide of the Armenian people. In taking notice of the shocking events in
1915, we observe this anniversary with sorrow in recalling the massacres of
Armenians and with pride in saluting those brave patriots who survived to
fight on the side of freedom during World War I. – Congressional Record, pg.
8890

NATO Expansion: More Muscle for U.S. To Flex

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
02 April 2004

NATO Expansion: More Muscle for U.S. To Flex

Summary

On March 29, NATO took in seven new member states. The
enlargement ensures that the NATO of the future will work as a
reliable arm of U.S. policy.

Analysis

At a 1999 summit in Washington, D.C., the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization welcomed its first new members of the post-Cold War
era: the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The expansion was
broadly hailed in Europe and the United States as a bridge-
building effort to seal the Cold War rift. Moscow did not agree,
and the expansion condemned Russian-Western relations to the deep
freeze for three years.

Once the brouhaha of the summit died away, however, there were
some uncomfortable questions that NATO’s supporters had to deal
with. The alliance was formed to defend Europe from the Soviet
Union; what would it do, now that the Soviet threat no longer
existed? The answer from the new members was simple: Soviet =
Russian. The answer from the Russians was equally simple: Disband
NATO. Others felt that NATO should evolve into a political talk-
shop, a peacekeeping force, a military adjunct to the European
Union or some other nebulous confidence-building organization.

Five years later — 15 years after the Berlin Wall fell — it is
a different world and a different NATO. On March 29, the alliance
admitted the three remaining former Soviet satellites (Bulgaria,
Romania and Slovakia) and three former Soviet republics (Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania), as well as a piece of the former
Yugoslavia (Slovenia).
But the expansion did more than add 50 million people and
rationalize NATO’s eastern border.

For the most part, the confusion of 1999 is gone; with the 2004
expansion, NATO knows exactly what it is — even if some members
are not happy with the outcome. NATO is an instrument for Western
(read: U.S.) influence globally. The alliance now has troops
operating in long-term missions in Afghanistan, and soon will
have troops in Iraq. Because the United States remains the pre-
eminent power in the alliance — and in the world — it is
Washington that calls the shots.

Core NATO members such as France and Germany certainly disagree
with this turn of events, but have lacked the influence to stop
it. That has become — and will continue to be — the case
because of the admittance of NATO’s newest members. All of the
fresh blood can be safely grouped into the “new Europe” that U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld so charmingly coined in the
lead-up to the Iraq war. These states all share historical
experience in betrayal by France and domination by Germany and
Russia. It is only natural that such states would search further
abroad for allies to help guarantee their security. In the 1999
Kosovo war, the United States was able to use NATO to generate a
veneer of international respectability for actions that it could
not get the United Nations to sanction. From Estonia to Bulgaria,
the United States now has 10 new — or newish — states within
NATO that Washington can count on for support when such a state
of affairs surfaces in the future. The 2003 Iraq war is a prime
example; Bulgaria practically led the charge at the United
Nations for Washington.

Russia might not be thrilled with this development, but it is
certainly glad NATO’s eyes are casting about the planet and are
not riveted solely on the East. Further smoothing Russian-NATO
relations is the fact that — although U.S. influence over the
alliance is stronger than ever — NATO forces in Europe are
weaker than ever and are only expected to be further downsized.
Germany, long the European bugaboo, has cut its military forces
to the point that it has next-to-zero power projection capacity,
while the United States is openly discussing pulling troops out
of bases across Europe (much to the Berlin’s chagrin, we might
add).

NATO’s home front is not merely secure, it is not even a front
anymore. The only spot on the European continent that requires
forces is the Balkans, and even this is child’s play compared to
the tasks of NATO’s past. Places such as Kosovo will be a
headache for at least a generation, but such brushfires do not
threaten NATO’s core — or even new — members. That has changed
the very nature of NATO from a defensive (or offensive, depending
on your politics) military alliance to a tool of global
influence.

NATO’s Neighbors

On the surface, Russia’s strategic situation is miserable. All
its former satellites — plus three of its former republics —
are in an alliance with a nuclear first-strike policy that was
formed to counter the Red Army. Its only reliable allies are an
incompetently led Belarus and militarily insignificant Armenia.
Russian military spending is well up from its late 1990s lows,
but failed nuclear exercises earlier this year and the 2000 Kursk
submarine sinking are real reminders that even the once-feared
Soviet nuclear arsenal is only a shadow of its former self. The
question at the top levels of the Russian government is how to
manage the military decline; they are not yet to the point of
asking how they can reverse it.

In this regard, NATO’s 2004 expansion is a symptom of a much
deeper issue: Russia’s endemic decline. Putin spent the bulk of
his first term simply asserting control over the levers of power.
Now, with a tame Duma and a relatively loyal government at his
beck and call, Putin is focusing Russia’s energies on halting
(and hopefully reversing) Russia’s not-so-slow-motion collapse.
Attempting such a Herculean task will take nothing less than 200
percent of the Russian government’s time and attention, assuming
everything goes perfectly — and in Russia things rarely proceed
perfectly.

In the meantime, Moscow simply lacks the bandwidth to seriously
address anything going on in its neighborhood, much less farther
abroad. Attempts to counter what it considers unfriendly
developments will be flimsy and fleeting. Witness the recent
violence against Serbs in Kosovo: Russia sent a few harshly
worded press releases and some humanitarian aid, and that was the
end of it. The fact that the Baltics made it into NATO with so
little Russian snarling — or that Georgia transitioned to such
an anti-Russian government so easily — is testament to Moscow’s
distraction.

It is also a harbinger of things to come as Russia’s
introspection creates opportunities for power groups far more
aggressive than NATO:
* Uzbekistan hopes to become a regional hegemon, and will
capitalize on its indirect U.S. backing to extend its influence
throughout eastern Central Asia, particularly vis-a-vis Russian
allies Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
* Militant Islamist groups will deepen their influence in the
southern former Soviet Union, particularly in the Caucasus.
* China will continue quietly encouraging its citizens to
populate eastern Siberia while working to lash Kazakhstan,
traditionally Russia’s playground, to it economically.
* India is planting flags in the energy-rich Caspian basin,
particularly in Kazakhstan, while its intelligence services flow
anywhere Kashmiri militants might travel.
* Turkey is deepening its political, economic and military ties
with Georgia and particularly with Azerbaijan where Turkish
military forces often patrol the Azerbaijani skies.
* Japan is looking to carve out the resources of Siberia for
itself and is steadily expanding its economic interests in the
Russian Far East.
* The European Union is pressing its economic weight across the
breadth of Russia’s western periphery. As it brings the former
Soviet satellites into its own membership, Russian interests will
find them cut off from their old partners and markets.
* The United States is making inroads whenever and wherever it
can.

The question is not whether Russian influence can be rolled back
in the years ahead, or even where — it is by how much.

NATO’s Future

Diplomatically, the second post-Cold War expansion was not as
loud an affair as the first. The 1999 expansion also occurred
during the run-up to the Kosovo war. Within a two-month period
Russia saw the three most militarily powerful of its former
satellites join an opposing alliance with a nuclear first-strike
policy, while its most loyal European ally suffered a bombing
campaign, courtesy of that same alliance. Russia fought tooth and
nail in diplomatic circles to prevent the expansion, and quite
rightly felt betrayed. One of the deals made by the
administration of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush in the
last days of the Cold War was that Moscow would allow Germany to
reunite and remain completely in NATO, so long as the alliance
did not expand eastward.

Stratfor does not expect NATO’s next enlargement, likely within
the next five years, to be particularly troublesome. If Russia
had a red line, it drew it at the Baltics — three of its own
former republics — or Kaliningrad, a Russian Baltic enclave that
NATO’s new borders seal off from direct resupply. The next
enlargement is likely to take in the Balkan states of Albania,
Croatia, Macedonia and perhaps Bosnia. All fall behind NATO’s new
eastern “front line” and would not threaten Russia at all.

The only expansion in the near future that might elicit a rise
would be one that included Finland — which considered submitting
an application in the late 1990s — but even this would not be as
traumatic to the Russians as the now-official Baltic entries.
There is even the possibility that Austria, another of Europe’s
traditional neutrals, might someday join NATO. Vienna is already
more active in NATO exercises than are several full members. Any
serious discussion of a second across-the-Russian-red-line
expansion will be put off until well after 2010, although by that
point Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine could shape up as
possibilities.

NATO certainly has challenges ahead of it. The strain and
political arm-twisting that are likely to precede the expected
Iraq deployment could well reopen wounds that only recently
closed, and competing visions of what NATO should be will
certainly hound it for years. Ironically, this divergence of
perception is part of what will keep NATO powerful, present and
relevant to U.S. policymakers.

While several Western states — and Stratfor — no longer view
NATO as a true military alliance, that view is not shared
uniformly. It is a simple fact that many European countries feel
threatened by the political or military strength of Germany or
Russia. The age-old adage of NATO that it existed “to keep the
Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down” was always
far more than a clever turn of phrase. Many European states still
see this as a core NATO raison d’etre. Such belief is not an
issue of wealth — Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway are just
as pro-NATO and pro-American as Latvia, Hungary and Bulgaria —
it is an issue of place. These countries, by virtue of their
proximity to large neighbors with a past predilection for
domination, want a counterbalance.

So long as that is the case, a majority of NATO’s membership will
be enthusiastic about the alliance as an alliance. Even the
dullest of U.S. administrations will be able to translate that
energy into international influence in Europe — and beyond.
=================================================================

STRATFOR SERVICES NOW AVAILABLE:

Join decision-makers around the world who read Stratfor for daily
intelligence briefs, in-depth analyses and forecasts on a wide
range of international security, political and economic affairs.

Stratfor Premium is our flagship product providing comprehensive
global intelligence including daily analyses, special reports,
intelligence alerts, premium analyses, situation reports, country
and regional net assessments as well as Stratfor’s sought after
Annual and Quarterly Forecasts. Corporate or multi-user volume
discount packages available. Visit this web page for details:
;c=c

Stratfor Basic offers daily analysis, situation reports and
ongoing coverage of global events. Also available with this
package is a pay per view service for many of our premium reports.
Visit this web page for details:
;c=d
………………………………………………………..

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Product inquiries, partnership, and sales: [email protected]
Subscription and customer service issues: [email protected]
Comments and/or information for analysis: [email protected]
Media services and trade show requests: [email protected]

=================================================================
(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&amp
http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&amp
http://www.stratfor.com

Western Quotes on the Armenian Genocide

Hellenic Resources Network
Saturday, 3 April 2004

Various Western Quotes [on the Armenian Genocide]

Henry Morgenthau, Sr.
U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, 1919

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they
were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this
well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt
to conceal the fact. . . . I am confident that the whole history of the
human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres
and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the
sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.

British Viscount James Bryce
October 6, 1915, speech

The massacres are the result of a policy which, as far as can be
ascertained, has been entertained for some considerable time by the gang of
unscrupulous adventurers who are now in possession of the Government of the
Turkish Empire. They hesitated to put it in practice until they thought the
favorable moment had come, and that moment seems to have arrived about the
month of April.

Count Wolff-Metternich
German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire July 10, 1916, cable to the German
Chancellor

In its attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by
the destruction of the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to
be deterred neither by our representations, nor by those of the American
Embassy, nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the Allied
Powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the West representing
one-half of the world.

Theodore Roosevelt
May 11, 1918, letter to Cleveland Hoadley Dodge

. . . the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the
failure to act against Turkey is to condone it . . . the failure to deal
radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the
future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.

Herbert Hoover
The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, 1952

The association of Mount Ararat and Noah, the staunch Christians who were
massacred periodically by the Mohammedan Turks, and the Sunday School
collections over fifty years for alleviating their miseries – all cumulate to
impress the name Armenia on the front of the American mind.

Jimmy Carter
May 16, 1978, White House ceremony

It is generally not known in the world that, in the years preceding 1916,
there was a concerted effort made to eliminate all the Armenian people,
probably one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell any group. And there
weren’t any Nuremberg trials.

Ronald Reagan
April 22, 1981, proclamation

Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the
Cambodians which followed it, . . . the lessons of the Holocaust must never
be forgotten.

George Bush
April 20, 1990, speech in Orlando, Florida

[We join] Armenians around the world [as we remember] the terrible massacres
suffered in 1915-1923 at the hands of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire. The
United States responded to this crime against humanity by leading diplomatic
and private relief efforts.

Turkish Quotes on the Armenian Genocide

Hellenic Resources Network
Saturday, 3 April 2004

Various Turkish Quotes, beginning with multiple quotes from the 3 rulers of
wartime Turkey, Cemal Pasha, Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha.

Enver Pasha
One of the triumvirate rulers publicly declared on 19 May 1916…

The Ottoman Empire should be cleaned up of the Armenians and the Lebanese.
We have destroyed the former by the sword, we shall destroy the latter
through starvation.

In reply to US Ambassador Morgenthau who was deploring the massacres against
Armenians and attributing them to irresponsible subalterns and underlings in
the distant provinces, Enver’s reply was…

You are greatly mistaken. We have this country absolutely under our control.
I have no desire to shift the blame onto our underlings and I am entirely
willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken
place.

Talat Pasha
In a conversation with Dr. Mordtmann of the German Embassy in June 1915…

Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate
(grundlich aufzaumen) its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians,
without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.
After the German Ambassador persistently brought up the Armenian question in
1918, Talat said “with a smile”…
What on earth do you want? The question is settled. There are no more
Armenians.

Cemal Pasha
To a German officer upon seeing the deportations in Mamure said…

I am ashamed of my nation (Ich schame mich fur meine Nation)

Cemal
Minister of the Interior of Turkey publicly declared on March 15 that on the
basis of computations undertaken by Ministry Experts…

800,000 Armenian deportees were actually killed…by holding the guilty
accountable the government is intent on cleansing the bloody past.

Prince Abdul Mecid
Heir-Apparent to the Ottoman Throne, during an interview…

I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever
disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and
Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went
to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true that
they intended to recommence the massacres which had been our shame and
disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from him was: ‘It is
decided. It is the program.’

Grand Vezir Damad Ferid Pasha
Equivalent rank in the US would be head of the cabinet I think. He described
the treatment of the Armenians as…

A crime that drew the revulsion of the entire humankind.

Mustafa Arif
Minister of Interior stated on 13 December 1918…

Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian
Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation… it is incumbent upon
a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders,
imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a
manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits.
They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.