“If Turkey Enters Europe, Won’t It Turn Out That We Are Blockaded By EU?”

Azg/am
30 Oct 04

Armenian Ambassador interview to La Padania

Gagik Baghdasarian, RA ambassador to Italy, gave an interview to the
Italian La Padania daily and expressed an idea that “Turkey isnâ~@~Yt
ready to begin negotiations with the EU yet. The issue of recognizing
the Armenian Genocide is still open. This is one of the most important
issues, as it isnâ~@~Yt acceptable that a country carries such a
heavy weight. But there are many other issues, as well.”

Ambassador brought the issue of the Armenianâ~@~STurkish borders
among the ones he mentioned. “It has been ten years that Turkey keeps
the borders blocked, hindering any communication of Armenia with the
outer world. If Turkey enters Europe, wonâ~@~Yt it turn out that EU
puts Armenia in blockade?”, he said.

The reporter of La Padania, in his turn, pointed out: “Turkeyâ~@~Ys
entrance to Europe by Old Continentâ~@~Ys virtual consent
will arise another unsolved “moral issue” with heavy diplomatic
developments. According to that frightening supposition, the country of
semi-moon will become the South-Eastern edge of Europe, and the Turkish
borders, which in that case will be considered European borders, will
become the last bastion of Brussels for the country that suffered
from Turkey and is considered the enemy of the Turks till now. Thus,
the Turkeyâ~@~Ys attitude full of hatred and threats towards the
Armenians, in some respect, will become Europeâ~@~Ys position”.

–Boundary_(ID_vbYDkm1lXY/GmIQUmaLjng)–

KERRY IS DETERMINED IN RECOGNIZING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Azg/am
30 Oct 04

Even With the Cost of Losing an Ally

In its coverage of the US elections, Azg Daily constantly wrote about
Americaâ~@~Y s Armenian and Turkish votersâ~@~Y moods concerning the
candidates. We have mentioned John Kerryâ~@~Ys pro-Armenian activities
in the Senate and concluded that this fact will keep Turkish voters
out of polling for him. Yet, it seems that George W. Bushâ~@~Ys
Iraqi policy seems to Turkish voters more terrifying than senator
Kerryâ~@~Ys pro-Armenian stance and the possible acknowledgment of
Armenian Genocide in case the latter takes the office.

It seems that there is no unity among the American Turks as to future
US president. Neither official Ankara seems to take anyoneâ~@~Ys
side. Turkish Radical searches for answers in the October 27 issue:
“Ankara is concerned that Americans will not leave Iraq and that Iran
will possibly become a target if Bush remains in the White House. But
Kerry speaks of withdrawing the American army from Iraq and does not
threaten Iran. Therefore his candidacy is more preferable for Ankara”.

Turkish political observers think that for Ankara the results of
the US elections are less important than the situation in the Middle
East. They think Kerry wishes to withdraw from Iraq, and Turkey wants
to see Iraq more or less stable otherwise, if the crises deepens,
Turkey may interfere.

Amidst all these calculations, American Turks and Ankara never leave
out Kerry â~@~Ys determination to recognize the Armenian Genocide
from their spotlight.

While the American-Turkish Congress sent a letter to John Kerry signed
by president Erjument Q?l?nchi demanding that he consider US interests
and affirm Zamanâ~@~Ys words that “he (Kerry) hasnâ~@~Yt said anything
for the Armenian genocide for the last 10 years”, the Turkish embassy
to the USA alongside with the Turkish-American Union met with some of
Kerryâ~@~Ys advisers, Madlen Albright, Richard Holbrook and Fillip
Gordon, to tell how anxious they are about Kerryâ~@~Ys genocide
“trick”.

Turkish Miliet writes in October 28 issue that John Kerry did
not respond to American-Turkish Congressâ~@~Y letter and perhaps
disappointed American Turks. Ankaraâ~@~Ys political circles, in their
turn, are disappointed in Livingston Group, a lobbying organization
that is supposed to defend Turkeyâ~@~Ys interests in Washington.

October 28 issue of Zaman informs that the Livingston Group is run
by Bob Livingston, former Republican leader in the Congress. This
is an interesting detail but Livingstonâ~@~Ys explanation given to
Zaman is even more interesting. He said: “I fear that the American
Genocide policy will undergo serious changes if Kerry is elected. His
undeniable statements over the issue are binding. Kerry, who is
tremendously supporting the Armenian Cause, may perhaps think of
breaking his promise, but Iâ~@~Ym nor sure he will do that”.

Zeyno Baran, director of International Security and Energy Programs
of the Nixon Center, added to Livingstonâ~@~Ys words. To Milietâ~@~Ys
question “whether it is possible that Kerry as a president will neglect
his promise given the Armenians?” she answered: “We have different
circumstances this time. Kerry differs from all previous candidates
as he is a senator from Massachusetts. There is a rather powerful
Armenian community there, and Kerry always supported Armenians.
Thus, in case Kerry wins Turkey has to come to terms with the
Armenian Genocide because initiatives for Armenian-Turkish dialogue
unfortunately didnâ~@~Yt bring any serious success. If Kerry is given
the chance then Turkey perhaps will arrive at a common conclusion
with the Armenians, or, as your prime minister says, the issue will
be handed over to historians to study. Only Turkeyâ~@~Ys new approach
will make it possible to suppress the formula adoption in April”.

Livingstonâ~@~Ys and Baranâ~@~Ys clarifications evidence that
Kerryâ~@~Ys victory in the presidential run will put Turkey face to
face with the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide acknowledgment
formula. The only way for Turkey to avoid this is to secure the
republican majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

In this case, the republican majority can obviously turn the formula
down without consulting with the president. The Armenian Genocide is
a powerful instrument of influence and Genocide acknowledgement will
mean renouncing this instrument.

By Hakob Chakrian

–Boundary_(ID_/n4Aqe29/h4ctXXWLfd95w)–

BAKU MARKS SUCCESS IN KARABAKH ISSUE

Azg/am
30 Oct 04

OSCE Minsk Group Does Not Welcome Azerbaijan’s Initiative

Azerbaijan constantly attempts to divert international community’s
attention from the key issue of Nagorno Karabakh conflict – the status
of Karabakh.

General Commission of the October 27 UN General Assembly gave down an
order of including the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered territories’
present status” in the agenda. Out of 28 countries 9 voted for the
offer, 14 abstained and none was against it. Turkey, Ukraine, Iran,
Pakistan, Malaysia were among those voting for the issue to be included
in the agenda.

A letter sent by Azerbaijan’s permanent representative in UN telling
that the OSCE Minsk group didn’t manage to achieve any result,
lay as a reason for discussing the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered
territories’ present status”. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s ambassador
to UN informed that Azeri territories alongside Karabakh are being
illegally inhabited, thus artificially shifting the demography.

Hamlet Gasparian, press secretary of Foreign Ministry of Armenia, said
before the Azeris’ initiative got approved that Azerbaijan always had
groundless accusations about inhabiting. “Armenian side always refuted
suchlike accusations and invited international observers to come and
see. Azerbaijan itself used to turn our offer down. We declare for
one more time that Armenia has no state policy of inhabiting these
territories”, he said.

Gasparian also noted that “there are only few refugees from Shahumian
and Getashen”. “We repeat that secondary issues derived from the
Nagorno Karabakh status that bother Azerbaijan the most, must be
discussed with Nagorno Karabakh authorities directly. From this
perspective, we think that Azerbaijan’s last initiative at the UN
has nothing to do with Armenia”, he said.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry’s press release of October 28 after
it became clear that Azeris marked a success at the UN reads: “The
General Commission of the UN General Assembly ordered to include
the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered territories’ present status”
in the agenda of the 59th sitting. We view Azerbaijan’s step as the
next attempt to distract international community’s attention from
the issue of Nagorno Karabakh’s status, the key issue of the conflict”.

The Ministry quoted France’s representative who spoke on behalf of
the OSCE Minsk group and said that the General Assembly’s sitting is
not the appropriate forum for discussing the issue.

The French diplomat stated on behalf of Russia and the USA that the
issue’s discussion at the sitting may hinder the efforts for finding
a peaceful and permanent solution for Karabakh conflict.

Armen Martirosian, Armenian ambassador to the UN, reminded in his
speech that the former Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh always
was and is inhabited by Armenians. Martirosian noted that Armenia
conquered Karabakh’s contiguous Azeri territories in a war imposed
by Azerbaijan. He also said that Armenia implements no policy of
inhabiting any territory but Karabakh.

Regardless official Yerevan’s explanation, it’s a fact that
Azerbaijan succeeds in presenting to international organizations
aspects in Nagorno Karabakh issue of secondary importance. The UN
General Assembly’s formulae are not obligatory but are important from
political and propaganda angles.

The UN Security Council accepted 4 formulae concerning Karabakh issue
in 1993, and Ilham Aliyevâ~@~Ys administration spares no effort to
make them come true.

By Tatoul Hakobian

–Boundary_(ID_ojq3U4kKnPTbugAxN+kOnw)–

Thursday, October 28, 2004
***********************************
THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE
******************************************
I once heard a Jewish comedian say, he did not care for the Ten Commandments because they stressed the negative.
*
Why were Charents and Bakounts tortured and killed by our commissars? Because they were perceived as a negative influence on Soviet society.
*
Hagop Baronian was betrayed to the Turkish authorities by his fellow Armenians in Istanbul because he too was perceived as negative.
*
Freud saw in Christianity “a distorted form of obsessional neurosis,” and Karl Marx as “the legitimator of exploitation.” They did not much care for the Ten Commandments either.
*
What’s positive and what’s negative? It depends on where you stand. My enemy is negative, my friend positive, and my enemy’s enemy is my friend because two negatives make a positive. To paraphrase the African chieftain quoted by C.G. Jung in his memoirs: “If I steal my enemy’s wives, it’s positive. If he steals my wives, it’s negative.”
*
When I sit down to write, it never even occurs to me to choose between being negative or positive…especially if my house is on fire.
*
At the height of the British Empire, Matthew Arnold wrote: “The world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, [contains] neither joy, nor love, nor light, nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain.” As far as I know, no one has ever accused Arnold of stressing the negative at the expense of the positive.
*
A CRITIC’S JOB
**************************
I read the following in Kenneth Tynan’s posthumously published diaries: “A critic’s job is to make way for the good by demolishing the bad.”
*
A PARABLE
***************************
Once upon a time there was a man who lived in a beautiful house on a hill. Upon his return from work one day, he saw from a distance that his house was on fire. On noticing a passerby with a cell phone, he said: “Please, call 911 for me.” And the passerby said: “Why should I?” “Because my house is on fire,” said the other. “That’s the bad news,” said the passerby. “What’s the good news?”
Much later the man, whose house had gone up in smoke, found out that the passerby with a cell phone was an Armenian.
*
AN ARMENIAN DECALOGUE
***********************************
I. Thou shalt not confuse the god of our priests with God.
II. Thou shalt not consider intolerance a virtue.
III. Thou shalt not blame foreigners for all our misfortunes.
IV. Thou shalt not entertain the ambitions of a commissar of culture.
V. Thou shalt not resent those who expose the Turk in you.
VI. Thou shalt not practice or promote Ottomanism in the name of Armenianism.
VII. Thou shalt not believe every word you utter as if it were the word of God.
VIII. Thou shalt not pretend to be as infallible as the Pope of Rome, as fearsome as Stalin, and as magnificent as Suleiman.
IX. Thou shalt not parade your ignorance as if it were the latest word in wisdom.
X. Thou shalt not reject the validity of these Commandments on the grounds that they stress the negative and ignore the positive.
#
Friday, October 29, 2004
*************************************
ON THE POSITIVE SIDE
*********************************
It has been said that reality is often stranger and more brutal than any fiction. But in reality, whenever a door is closed, there may be ten or even a hundred other doors waiting to be opened. Just because we cannot see these doors, it does not mean they are not there. Very often, that which is nearest to us is also the least visible.
*
ON NATIONALIST HISTORIANS
***********************************
It is not at all unusual for a nationalist historian to be objective when it comes to other nations and turn into a pathological liar when it comes to his own. This is true not only of Turkish historians but of all historians in general. I wish I were in a position to say that our own historians are an exception to this rule.
*
THE RED AND THE WHITE
**********************************
The difference between a “red” and a “white” massacre is that, a red massacre is perpetrated by wolves and jackals, and a white massacre is perpetrated by sheepdogs and shepherds.
*
QUESTION / ANSWER
***************************
Why is it that under the repressive, not to say, murderous, regimes of the Red Sultan and Stalin we had literary giants, and under our own bosses, bishops, and benefactors, we don’t even have midgets. My guess is: a combination of ignorance, prejudice, intolerance and envy can be more deadly than an army of jihadist imams and commissars with a license to kill.
*
A THOUSAND AND ONE DOUBTS,
ONLY ONE CERTAINTY
****************************************
Unlike some of my self-righteous and chauvinist detractors, I am more than willing to concede that nothing I say is certain and the chances that I may be wrong are very high. I am willing to go further and say that I may even be wrong 99% of the time. But on one point I can assert 100% certainty: namely, in my defense of free speech. I wonder, how many of our self-appointed neo-commissars, who have at one time or another advocated silencing me, have had anything remotely favorable to say about free speech, which happens to be a fundamental human right.
*
ZARIAN AND GARABENTS
**********************************
The two authorities I would like to quote at this point are Zarian and Garabents.
Zarian: “Our political parties have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech.”
Garabents (Jack Karapetian): “Once upon a time we fought and died for freedom. We are now afraid of free speech.”
*
ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE
*********************************
If, in an Armenian environment, a door is closed, you can be sure of one thing: a trap door will open beneath your feet.
*
MEMO
*****************
Expect the worst and you will not be disappointed.
#
Saturday, October 30, 2004
***********************************
BUSHWHACKED
************************
We are a people like any other people, I am reminded repeatedly, “with our own share of honest men and charlatans.” If true, consider some of the insults, slogans, headlines, and graffiti directed at Bush, only a small fraction of which are quoted in BUSHWHACKED: LIFE IN GEORGE W. BUSH’S AMERICA, by Molly Ivins and Lou Debose (New York: Random House, 347 pages, 2003).
*
BUSH IS PROOF THAT EMPTY WARHEADS CAN BE DANGEROUS.
*
LET’S BOMB TEXAS, THEY HAVE OIL TOO.
*
IF YOU CAN’T PRONOUNCE IT, DON’T BOMB IT.
*
ONE THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, AND ONE DIM BULB.
*
WAR IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE.
*
$1 BILLION A DAY TO KILL PEOPLE -WHAT A BARGAIN.
*
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND GOD? HE MIGHT FORGIVE BUSH, BUT I WON’T.
*
SMART WEAPONS, DUMB PRESIDENT.
*
PEACE TAKES BRAINS.
*
IT’S NUCLEAR, NOT NUCULAR, YOU IDIOT!
*
Because I have been paraphrasing and expanding on these slogans in reference to our own leadership, I am perceived as a hostile witness and an enemy that should be silenced. My question is, if you disapprove of our leaders, what have you done to expose their blunders? But if you approve of them, what right do you have to tell me to recycle your own particular brand of pro-establishment crapola?
*
CRITICS, MEDDLERS, AND COMMISSARS
**************************************************
After criticizing me, a reader writes: “I am not a critic.” Zarian is right. “We don’t have critics. What we have are meddlers.” And more often than not, may I add, meddlers with the ambitions of commissars of culture who miss the good old days when they had a license to kill.
*
EMPEROR MURPHY
*****************************
If the massacres can be blamed on the bloodthirsty disposition of the Turks and the double talk of the Great Powers; if the exodus from the Homeland and the high assimilation rate in the Diaspora can be blamed on social and economic conditions beyond our control; the question we must ask is: What the hell do we need leaders for? If so far they have been of no use to us when we needed them most, why don’t we get rid of them and consider ourselves perennial subjects of Murphy and his inflexible law, that says: “If things can go wrong, they will go wrong at the worst possible time.”
*
IN PRAISE OF HUMILITY
********************************
In a book of Anatolian travel impression by Lord Kinross (who is also the author of a mammoth biography of Ataturk), I remember to have read about his encounters with old Turks who bragged to him on having taught the Armenians a lesson they will never forget.
They brag about having massacred us, and we brag about our survival. May I suggest the world would be a far better place if we, all of us, realize we have nothing to brag about and a great deal to be humble about. Besides, if we brag about our survival, what do we do about the millions who did not? Do we plead amnesia? Do we ignore them? Do we pretend, out of sight, out of mind?
#

VISIT TO NKR

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
29 Oct 04

The public organization “Project on Transitional Democracies” and
the German Foundation of Marshal implement a joint program aiming,
according to the chairman of organization Bruce Jackson, to convey
the importance of the South Caucasian countries and urgency for
a rapid settlement of the conflicts to the leaders of the Atlantic
countries. On October 26 the delegation formed of influential statesmen
and diplomats of a number of European countries, the chairman of
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a member of the French parliament,
the former foreign minister of Spain, the former advisor to the
president of Greece, representatives of the newspapers “Financial
Times”, “Figaro” and “Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung” arrived in
Stepanakert. The delegation was headed by Bruce Jackson who is the
representative of the USA Committee on NATO. Speaking about the aims
of the project, Bruce Jackson mentioned that each delegate has his
goals, and they will present their impression from the visit and
their suggestions to the leaders of their countries. Bruce Jackson
said all of them share the opinion that promotion of democracy
in the South Caucasus is becoming increasingly important for the
security of Europe. He mentioned that it is especially important in
the context of involvement of the South Caucasian countries in the
program “Wider Europe: New Neighbourhood” and recognition of the
South Caucasus as the chief factor for stability in Europe by NATO
at the summit in Istanbul. This speaks for the necessity of a rapid
settlement of the Karabakh and other South Caucasian conflicts. Bruce
Jackson also mentioned that this necessity is dictated by the changes
(related to the elections) which may take place in the government of
the USA, as well as the European structures in the near future. The
visit of the delegation began at Baku, continued in Yerevan and
Stepanakert and will end in Tbilisi, South Osia and Abkhazia. The
members of the delegation meet with the top officials, presidents and
defence ministers of these countries, as well as representatives of
public organizations. In Karabakh the delegation visited the border
area and witnessed the ravage there. The head of the delegation
mentioned that their impression from the visit to the borderline
will be another argument for the rapid settlement of the issue,
which they will convey to their governments. Bruce Jackson refused to
answer the questions referring to his personal attitude towards the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict saying that it is not within the
competence of the delegation. He pointed out that they will try to
cut the red tape on the problem of the Karabakh conflict among other
South Caucasian issues, and have it included among the priorities of
the American and European leaders. Besides, the aim of the program is
to prepare the international community for the possible settlement of
the conflict. In reference to the question of participation of Nagorni
Karabakh in talks Bruce Jackson said he could not see why Karabakh was
left out of the talks and pointed out that the settlement will be more
effective if the opinion of the people is taken into account. The visit
of this delegation to the South Caucasian region means much. Obviously
the USA and Europe have decided to attend to the issues of the region
seriously and expedite the peacemaking processes there. It is not known
yet whether the Karabakh conflict sides will have to make compromises,
they will be offered to create a South Caucasian federation after the
example of the European Union or there will be other solutions. One
thing is clear that the imposed settlement is not too far. And God
forbid that the settlement be like that in Kosovo or Cyprus.

AA. 29-10-2004

THERE ARE MANY SPIES IN ARMENIA

A1+
29-10-2004

“Unambiguously USSR was a dictatorship and the political prisoners made
a part of it. Only 70 members of ‘Union of National Self-Determination’
were political prisoners during the Soviet years”, Paruyr Hayrikyan,
Chairman of UNSD announced at a press conference.

October 30 is the Day of Political Prisoners of USSR. According to
Hayrikyan, in the 1970’s to come out of the international isolation
the leaders of Soviet Union announced they accepted Helsinki Agreement
of Europe Security and Cooperation underlining protection of human
rights. Agreement demanded that there would be no political prisoners
in a country.

But Hayrikyan says the Soviet leaders kept announcing to the world
that those arrested are criminals and not political prisoners and
supplementing the army of political prisoners.

Mr. Hayrikyan thinks there aren’t political prisoners in Armenia but
the number of spies causes concern. “Imagine a state where the majority
of Parliament members make spies and the rest are the people depending
on them. Since the owners of the spies know that their ‘activity’ –
establishment of the spy network is illegal, they try to lay their
hands on everything possible in a lawful way”, he stated.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkey has no intention to change

Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004

If Turkey enters the EU the percentage share of EUâ~@~Ys Muslim
population will increase from 2% to 20%. Public opinion polls show
that 75% of EU population is against Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the
Union. Is it possible that Turkey will change after it enters the
European Union? How will Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership affect the EU? How
will it affect Armenia? We interviewed ARF Boardâ~@~Ys officer in
charge of political affairs Kiro Manoyan.

KM: The assumption that Turkey will change after EU membership is
absolutely wrong. And EU shares this position. Europe will not accept
Turkey until it changes. The opinions voiced in Armenia that Turkey
will change once it becomes E U member are absolutely ungrounded. If
Turkey does not change before EU accession and enters the Union as
it is now, I think the EU itself will change.

Once Turkey enters the EU there will be far less leverages to influence
it because then it will become an equal member, even more than equal
because in terms of the population, Turkey will be the second largest
EU member after Germany. This means that it will have the corresponding
influence at all levels of EU decision making. In other words, once
it is accepted into the Union Turkey will have no incentives and
reasons to change.

The European Commission report states that even if accession
negotiations with Turkey are launched, the final outcome will
not necessarily be membership in the EU. These negotiations can be
suspended at any time if Turkey deviates from the standards prescribed
by the EU. All this shows that Turkey will have to change before it
can be considered for membership.

Q: What has Turkey done so far in this respect? Is the EU likely
to overlook certain issues and make a political decision based on
its interests?

A: It is obvious that EU decisions do have political implications. The
European Commission report that recommended to launch accession
negotiations with Turkey stated that Turkey had fulfilled certain
requirements in terms of legal reforms but the adopted laws arenâ~@~Yt
properly implemented.

In other words, the decision to launch accession negotiations was based
on a significant reservation. As to the recent law adopted in Turkey
criminalizing any mentioning of the Armenian Genocide or withdrawal
of troops from Cyprus, the European Commission report stated that it
is necessary to amend this law.

These issues will be clarified when the European Council makes its
final decision at the EU Summit on December 17. There is another
approach that holds that irrespective of how much Turkey changes it
cannot enter the European Union because it has a completely different
culture and represents a different civilization.

Q: Viewed from this perspective, how will Turkeyâ~@~Ys accession to
the EU affect the European civilization?

A: Those who are against Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership put forward several
issues â~@~S civilizational and cultural differences, economic
problems, etc. Even if we imagine for a second that one day Turkey
will meet all the requirements in terms of its political system and
will join the EU, it will be a huge burden for the union from the
financial and economic perspectives because Turkeyâ~@~Ys economy lags
far behind the economies of other EU member states.

The EU will have to allocate money paid by its taxpayers to support
the Turkish economy and assist it to reach the economic development
level of the EU members. On the other hand, Turkish citizens will
get access to EU member states. They will flood the European labor
market and will be able to influence the policies of EU member states.

Q: Is the opinion that Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the EU is favorable
for Armenia grounded? How can Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the European
Union affect recognition of the Armenian Genocide, resolution of
Nagorno Karabagh conflict and the development of the Armenian-Turkish
relations?

A: First of all, as I already mentioned, there are no grounds for
expecting Turkey to change after it joins the EU. The opinion holds
that Turkey will change, and Armenia will be bordering the European
Union. I think itâ~@~Ys too early to speak about this.

It is possible that the EU will accept Turkey for different reasons
without further insisting on accomplishing changes in that country. In
this case I think Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership will not have any favorable
aspects for Armenia because in this case, Turkey will no longer have
any reasons for taking Armenia seriously.

Even the most optimistically minded observers believe that Turkeyâ~@~Ys
membership in the EU is a matter of at least one decade. If Turkey
persists with its current position on Armenia and the Armenians,
I think the EU will find itself in a somewhat awkward position by
accepting this country. The EU hopes that Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in
the Union will have a positive impact in terms of interaction with the
South Caucasus and establishing the EUâ~@~Ys influence in this region.

But at the same time, the EU wants Turkey to settle its problems
with Armenia, to reconcile with its history and to stop the blockade
of Armenia. In other words, EU understands that in order to have any
positive potential for the Union Turkey has to normalize its relations
with Armenia.

One thing is clear â~@~S once Turkey joins the EU it will be very
difficult to influence it. At the same time, the major factor in this
respect is USAâ~@~Ys pressure to accept Turkey into the EU in order
to show to the Muslim world that it is possible to be Muslim while
at the same time being progressive.

The Turkish president noted in response to the American presidentâ~@~Ys
remark that US views Turkey as moderate Islamic country that Turkey
is not an Islamic but a secular state. The Americans and Europeans
do not seem to understand this approach. It is possible that the
Islamic forces within Turkey will turn to the Islamic world if Europe
rejects Turkey.

Interview by Karine Mangassarian

–Boundary_(ID_coBN2kIbD27S/HxL7dKxow)–

Armenia should counter Azerbaijan’s hysteria by insisting on self-determination

Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004

The options for resolution of Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are regularly
discussed by the Armenian political circles. However, a certain
deficit of proposals exists among our political leaders and analysts.

What do our politicians think about the options of resolution of
Nagorno Karabagh conflict? We asked some of our political leaders
the following questions: 1. The status quo is preserved and the
negotiations do not seem to yield any tangible results. What should
Armenia do in this context? 2. In case the negotiations result in a
consensus and some of the liberated territories are required in return
for Karabaghâ~@~Ys self-determination, what should Armeniaâ~@~Ys
response be to this situation?

3. What if the negotiations end in a deadlock and peace is
threatened? If Azerbaijan starts a war what should Armenia do both
at the external front and in terms of its domestic policies?

We interviewed Armenian Revolutionary Federation Bureau member ,
vice-speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian.

1. When speaking about these issues we have to clarify certain
things at the outset. For instance, when we consider the option of
negotiations ending in a deadlock and Azerbaijan preparing for war,
we should keep in mind that even now when the negotiations are still
in progress Azerbaijan is already preparing for war.

As to the preservation of the status quo, we need to have a clear
understanding of it. There is no such thing as status quo. Some things
are constantly changing and we need to see where those changes can
take us. There is no such thing as static state of affairs. Static
assessment of the existing situation can result in the wrong outcomes
in the future.

Thus, we should try to see those tendencies that can potentially
determine the development of the existing situation in the
future. There are two major tendencies in this respect â~@~S first,
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys attempts to increase international pressure on Armenia
and second, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys exploitation of its oil potentials. From
this perspective, the above-mentioned two tendencies do not predict
favorable changes for Armenia especially taking into consideration
that Azerbaijan does not exclude the possibility of another war.

Moving from this starting point we can further clarify possible
scenarios of what Armenia should do. There are three main things
that we have to accomplish. Firstly, Armeniaâ~@~Ys internal social,
human and economic development must be ensured.

I am referring to the establishment and consolidation of civic
institutions and democratization of the society that will eventually
increase the populationâ~@~Y s confidence in the leadership of the
country and its defense capabilities.

This trust is a powerful resource for unifying the nation in case
of external threats. The population participates in the political
processes only if the authorities succeed in ensuring social justice.

We have to understand that if another war breaks out, for us it will
be a patriotic war. However, there are too many people in Armenia who
are disappointed with their homeland and the idea of independence
for different reasons. The government, the countryâ~@~Ys political
leadership must correct this. If we fail to do, that will be the
failure of the political leadership of the country.

Secondly, we must look for alternative transportation routes even
if we have to exert a certain degree of political flexibility for
that purpose. As to the pressure by the international organizations
agitated by Azerbaijan, this is political pressure that aims at
devaluing self-determination and human rights by stressing territorial
integrity without taking into consideration the historical injustice
that fixed the borders determining territorial integrity. We have
to concentrate our efforts on the international arena on presenting
correctly the legal grounding for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys status in
order to counter the arguments put forward by Azerbaijan.

In other words, we have to distinguish between the concept of autonomy
and state borders. It might seem that this is a theoretical speculation
but it will eventually yield practical results. As soon as Azerbaijan
recovered from the defeat in the war it took up an aggressive position
and started speaking about territorial integrity. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys
position on the proposals put forward by OSCE Minsk Group derives
from this approach.

We have to understand that the world is not a stage for playing
out political or religious affiliations. Such affiliations do
not affect decision making. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys hysteria should
be countered by insisting on the concept of autonomy and national
self-determination. We can find allies that will share such an approach
if it also reflects their state and national interests.

2. When negotiations become more active the possible options for
consensus start being discussed. Armenia was correct in that it
included all the phase-by-phase options into one package. Why? Because
all the issues should be considered comprehensively.

Consensus should be reached in several issues including transportation,
territories, demilitarization, etc. As a result if such a consensus
a different status quo will emerge that will guarantee the security
of Nagorno Karabagh Republic.

Many people characterize todayâ~@~Ys situation as dangerous. However,
it has succeeded in guarantying Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys security for
ten years. What is the main factor that made it possible to maintain
the cease-fire for ten years? It is todayâ~@~Ys borderline because
this borderline was created with the purpose of ensuring Karabagh
populationâ~@~Ys security.

Karabagh armed forces had push out the Azeri army. This made
Azerbaijan sign the cease fire because it realized that the border
could move further into the country. A consensus can be made only if
commensurate security guarantees for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys population
are ensured. What can guarantee security?

The status of Nagorno Karabagh Republic. Sometimes the possibility
of stationing peacekeeping forces is discussed. But peacekeeping
forces cannot be a sustainable solution. If the option of exchange
of territories is discussed all these details must be taken into
consideration. Thatâ~@~Ys all I wanted to say connected with this
question since ARF continues to support the document adopted by the
previous parliament.

We have to find a balance of security guarantees. And we have to
look for this balance in all spheres. By saying balance I mean the
following. For instance, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys opening road connections
cannot be considered a commensurate concession to giving away a single
square meter of land because they can always close the roads again
but lands can be returned only at the expense of our lives.

3. I want to repeat that Azerbaijan is always preparing for war. Even
when they were pretty close to serious progress on Key West proposal,
even at that time they were speaking about war.

They are constantly preparing for war and we should not wit for their
attack. What countermeasures should we undertake? I think Armenia as
the security guarantor for Nagorno Karabagh Republic will naturally
be involved in any developments related to Karabagh. I think we need
to unify our efforts. Wars can be different.

A war conducted by large scale military forces is not efficient and
cannot solve the problem. The problem can be solved through small but
mobile military troops that will make the war so problematic for the
enemy that they will simply have to stop it.

Interview by Karine Mangasarian

–Boundary_(ID_iVcgXKdcdp05hX8Dt0cjXA)–

Third European Socialist forum over

Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004

The Third European Socialist Forum was held in London on October 15-17.
Regional socialist forums have been organized every year since the
Global Socialist Forum in Porto Allegre, Brazil in 2001.

More than 30 000 people from different countries participated in the
Third Forum. Representatives of labor unions, socialist, communist,
anti-war parties and organizations, organizations lobbying for human
rights, environmental issues, womenâ~@~Ys and refugees rights attended
the forum in London. The forum participants shared a common concern
with the current globalization processes in the world.

Alida Guevara, Ernesto Che Guevara’s daughter, British MP George
Galov, Indian writer Aronda Roy, leader of the Irish Shin Fin party
Jerry Adams, ATTAC leader Bernard Kassen and others attended the forum.

Several seminars, discussions and workshops were held on issues such as
struggle against genocide and fascism in Europe, the future of Europe,
the role of Muslims in the civilized world, the future of Palestine,
the situation in Iraq, etc.

Armenian Revolutionary Federationâ~@~Ys Youth Organization delegated
six members to participate in the forum. The delegation included
participants from Armenia, France and Great Britain. ARFâ~@~Ys
delegation participated in several debates including discussions on
Turkish troops in Cyprus, violations of the rights of Kurds in Turkey
and Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the European Union.

ARFâ~@~Ys delegation met the members of the Turkish delegation. The
latter stated that they recognize the Armenian Genocide and believe
that Turkey must officially recognize it.

The Armenian delegation members also met the representatives of the
European Council of Organizations of Socialist Youth and attended
the camping event organized by ECOSY.

ARFâ~@~Ys Youth Organization is a member of ECOSY. The members of
ARFâ~@~Ys delegation met representatives of other organizations
attending the forum. The Armenian delegation distributed leaflets
with information on the Armenian Genocide.

On the last day of the forum, a protest demonstration against
intervention in Iraq and discrimination and injustice in the world
was organized in London. Over 50 000 people participated in the
demonstration.

ARFâ~@~Ys Youth Organization had attended the First and Second
European Socialist Forums in 2002 and 2003 as well as the First
Socialist Forum of North and South Americas held in 2004 in Ecuador.

–Boundary_(ID_WTcBb5jNViLvj+RE0QkY+Q)–

Po-Turkish activities of Philip Morris

Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004

Recently, Philip Morris was engaged in a financial scandal and in this
connection the company was ordered to declassify its correspondence
of past few years. The following is an interesting letter revealed
due to declassification.

PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
1341 G STREET, N.W., SUITE 900,
WASHINGTON, D.C., 20005

TO: Guy Smith
FROM: Jim Dyer
SUBJECT: Armenian Genocide
DATE: October 17, 1989

Senator Bob Dole’s recent trip to Soviet Armenia has helped rekindle
his long standing support for a resolution commemorating the purported
genocide committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1911.

This is an extremely sensitive issue in U.S.-Turkish relations and,
if passed, it would severely damage those relations. At present,
all of the action is in the Senate, although Representative Bonior
(D-MI) has introduced a resolution in the House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 8 to 6, reported an
Armenian Genocide resolution today. Senator Dole has told the
Administration that he will keep the bill off the Senate floor
until next February, at the earliest. At that time, I expect Senator
Robert Byrd (D-WV) to put a hold on the bill, thereby, delaying its
consideration further.

There are a number of things that can be done to kill tiffs
resolution, including: — getting a strong veto statement out of
the White House. — using Senator Byrd’s opposition (his son-in-law
is Turkish). getting the Members and Senators with strong defense
interests to speak out about the dangers of damaging U.S.-Turkish
relations. drafting substitute language that condemns genocide world
wide, yet takes the focus off Armenia. I shall continue to have
conversations with all interested parties. However, I am sensitive
to our need to do nothing to upset Senator Dole.

He is too valuable a friend to alienate over this issue. So is David
Bonior Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has finally come out in
opposition to the resolution. This opposition comes despite an apparent
Bush campaign pledge to somehow “recognize the Armenian genocide”. NSC
Administrator Scowcroft, Defense Secretary Cheney, and Secretary of
State Baker will strongly oppose the resolution within the White House.

Representatives of tile Turkish government have contacted Philip Morris
International asking for us to weigh in against the resolution. We
have advised them we are aware of the problem, understanding of their
concern, and confident that this resolution will not be enacted. I
shall keep you abreast of any further developments.