Paradise Post, CA
Nov 9 2004
‘New’ Turkey, mostly Asian, eyes Europe
By Lowell Blankfort
Statues of Kemal Ataturk, hero of Turkeys resurgence after the post
World War I loss of its vast Ottoman Empire, adorn every Turkish city
and town. As dictator for 15 years, he undercut the power of Islam,
founded modern secular Turkey. This statute is in Istanbul.
OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION
11/9/2004
– In Texas, Bright Lights, Small City
– A Troubadour Pays Homage
– Lawyers delay Sanford trial
– On a mission to trace California’s past
– Book Family Farm
– With love from Germany
– With love from Germany
The Middle East’s largest country and straddling both Europe and
Asia, crucial U.S. ally Turkey is undergoing big changes. Lowell
Blankfort, a prize-winning writer and former Post co-owner, and his
wife April have just returned from a three-week reporting trip there.
This is the first of a series of articles.
The past has vanished.
Everything that was uttered belongs there.
Now is the time to think of new things.
– Jelaluddin Rumi,
Turkish poet (1207-1273)
Viewed from a cruise ship’s deck, my first sight of Turkey is a huge
black statue on a fog-shrouded hillside, barely discernible amidst
the early-morning mist that shrouds the small Aegean Sea port of
Kusadasi.
The statue’s right arm points northeastward, toward our ultimate
destination this morning, the ruins of ancient Ephesus, now 12 miles
inland but Asia Minor’s greatest port 2,600 years ago. Before
tide-carried silt deposits separated it from the sea, Ephesus was the
gateway of European traders venturing eastward to seek access to the
wandering tribes and riches of long-ago Asia.
Today, Turks are trying to reverse that process. A poor nation 99
percent Muslim and 93 percent in Asia, Turkey is looking westward,
seeking to join the 25-country “club of Christian nations,” the rich
European Union. Calling this “a reconciliation between
civilizations,” Turks hope membership will open up trade
opportunities for Turkish firms, invite more foreign investment,
enhance the nation’s prestige, boost incomes that are barely a fifth
of Europeans – and facilitate Turkey becoming a “bridge” between
Christian Europe and an increasingly restive Arab Muslim world beset
with hate-spewing fundamentalists.
Europeans are hardly unanimous in their eagerness to accept the
Turks. But there’s no doubt that the Turkish national hero honored in
that hillside statue would have welcomed the effort – and most
(though not all) of the profound and positive changes already
occurring in a Turkey of 71 million people revolutionizing itself to
meet European standards.
General Mustafa Kemal – renamed simply Ataturk, “Father of All Turks”
by Parliament in the 1920’s – salvaged today’s
bigger-than-Texas-sized Turkey from the ruins of its defeated Ottoman
Empire after World War I.
Gone was a vast empire that lasted longer and at its peak was larger
than either the Roman or British empire – and had held sway over the
entire Balkans, all of North Africa and the entire Arab Middle East
for 450 years.
Ataturk, who overthrew the once-omnipotent sultan, said Turkey lost
its empire because it was obsessively religious and old-fashioned.
He vowed to remake the new Turkish Republic into “a normal modern
nation” and one “modeled on Europe.”
During his 15 years as dictator-president, secularism became Turkey’s
new religion.
Ataturk moved the capital from Istanbul, the former Constantinople
redolent with mosques and religious history, to Ankara, a small city
hundreds of miles east of the Islamic power structure. He shut down
the dominant Muslim caliphate, put its imams on the government
payroll to better control what they preached, banned religious
headscarves for women and fezzes for men, converted the alphabet from
Arabic into Latin, and moved the day of rest to Sunday from the
Muslim Friday.
Today, ironically, Turkey’s attempt to fulfill Ataturk’s secular,
European dream is being led by a devout Muslim. When Prime Minister
Recep Rayip Erdogan (pronounced Ehr-duh-won) was mayor of Istanbul,
he was jailed in 1999 and banned from public life for three years for
reciting in public a poem that talked of Muslim minarets as bayonets
– deemed an incitement to a religious uprising.
But only three years later, fed up with corrupt politicians and a
sick economy, Turkish voters gave a huge victory to Erdogan’s new
Justice and Development Party, ostensibly secular but many of whose
leaders were those of a more militantly Muslim party deposed by the
army in 1997.
Aided by the votes of newly politicized devout rural Muslims who were
swarming into the cities, Erdogan’s party, in a multi-party election,
won 38 percent of votes and almost two-thirds of legislative seats.
Paradoxically, because he was still on probation, Erdogan had to wait
several months after his party’s victory before assuming the prime
ministry. Moreover, because his wife insists on wearing headscarves,
she is barred from attending government functions.
Still, to all Turks, religious or not, almost three quarters of a
century after his untimely death from alcoholism in 1938 at the age
of 57, Ataturk remains a virtual deity. Large photos of him bedeck
every classroom, huge statues of him dominate public squares in every
city and town, portraits of him on glass or on plates or in oil or
watercolors decorate walls and mantelpieces throughout the country.
It is slightly before dusk, the end of an ordinary September weekday,
at Ankara’s massive two-square-block Ataturk Mausoleum and Museum.
But even this late the crowds are huge and the lines are long to view
his coffin. Many on line have come from the provinces and are dressed
very formally, as if going to visit the great man himself, rather
than simply his coffin.
I think back to when I viewed the preserved waxed bodies of Lenin in
Moscow and Mao Zedong in Beijing.
There the crowds are hustled along by guards after a quick look.
But here, even though there is no body to see, those on line pause
long and solemnly before the coffin, to think some thoughts, be in
touch with their own feelings, as they savor the moment. Many have
cameras, and husbands take pictures of wives, and wives of husbands,
and then of the children, before the coffin that was the resting
place of the remains of Turkey’s greatest hero.
Some simply stand and stare, their eyes visibly swelling up with
tears.
In a nation of uncertain ethnic identity for most, Ataturk had little
patience for the problems of ethnic minorities or disputes over where
Turks came from.
To him, every resident of the Turkish Republic should simply consider
himself a Turk. And those who weren’t were kicked out in 1920’s
exchanges of population (except in cities) — even though the
families of many, like those of Greek ancestry, had lived in Turkey
for hundreds of years.
Same for the Armenians who had been the target of a genocide or at
least a massacre a decade earlier. Ataturk was hardly a devotee of
democracy.
He ruled with a heavy hand, backed up by a military lionized by the
population for having retaken a lot of Turkish land lost during World
War I.
He did not hesitate to be tough or torture or execute his political
enemies. Turkey did not have an election for more than a decade after
he assumed office and remained a one-party state, Ataturk’s party,
until 1946, some 23 years after he took power and eight years after
his death.
Ataturk’s constitution provided a special role for the military, as
guardians of the nation’s secularism and stability. Under it, the
military forcibly overthrew elected (and corrupt and unpopular)
governments in 1960, 1970 and 1980, and forced the resignation in
1997 of a coalition government headed by an avowedly devout prime
minister.
But the European Union insists on tight civilian control over the
military.
So, officially at least, the Turkey’s conscripted military, half a
million strong, this year was defanged – with its consent, the
constitution was changed to take away its majority and chairmanship
of the all-powerful National Security Council.
Still, many Turks view the military favorably, noting that even under
the sultans its officer corps attracted Turkey’s best and brightest,
that it has been a hedge against corrupt and inept leaders, and that
when it has seized power, it has relinquished it to civilians after
relatively short periods.
The military’s declining influence is costing it money. This year,
for the first time in modern Turkey’s 81-year history, the nation
will spend more on education than on defense.
It also proved costly to the United States which last year wanted to
use Turkey as a base for 62,000 troops to invade Iraq from the north.
Insiders say the Turkish military backed the U.S. request and in the
old days would have gotten its wish.
But, mindful that Turkish public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed,
the Turkish Parliament turned down the Americans (by one vote).
Turkey first applied for European Union membership in 1987 but let
its application languish because tariff-protected Turkish companies
were reluctant to abide by European free-trade rules.
But when, with its economy faltering, it revived its application in
2001, the EU made clear that Turkey would have to start cleaning up
its act if it were to be considered.
To comply, Parliament in September adopted an entirely new, more
humane penal code. It reduced hundreds of draconian sentences,
outlawed torture (long a staple of Turkish police interrogations),
banned the death penalty, wiped out censorship laws and restrictions
on free speech, eliminated barriers to expressions of ethnic identity
and required juveniles who break the law to be treated in juvenile
courts until 18 (before, they were treated as criminals as young as
15). Gone too were laws that provided more severe penalties for abuse
of virgins than non-virgins.
“Nowhere in the world have so many laws that affect you from the day
you are born until the day you die been passed in such a rush,” said
Sezgin Tankirikulu, Bar Association president in Dyarbakir, a
stronghold of the long-persecuted Kurdish minority, about the new
penal codes and civil codes rushed through to meet European Union
deadlines.
Unfortunately, he added, the codes don’t allow a lot of time (a month
for the civil code, six months for the penal one) for judges and the
public to easily adapt.
But many Turks are delighted.
“The best thing about our EU application,” said a prominent Turk who
asked to remain anonymous “isn’t that it will open up a huge market
for our products or that we’ll get economic support to elevate our
standard of living. That’s all years away. The best thing is that
they’ve pressured us into doing the things that we should have been
doing on our own initiative decades ago.”
But some people aren’t so sure.
Professor Muntaz Soysal is a man of principle. That’s why we’re
interviewing him in his tiny office in a small newspaper where he is
a columnist; he used to be a columnist for Turkey’s biggest newspaper
but the owner fired him, he said, because he refused to use his
political contacts to further the owner’s business dealings.
And principle is why, at 75. he is founding a new political party.
He thinks that his previous party, the junior party in a two-party
parliament, in its eagerness to embrace the EU, is betraying
Ataturk’s principles.
But the allegedly betrayed principle that the four of us interviewing
Soysal found most curious (my wife and I were joined on the reporting
trip by Professor Richard Feinberg, a former member of President
Clinton’s National Security Council, and his wife) was Soysal’s
defense of a military establishment that imprisoned him for a year
and a half after its 1970 coup.
Soysal explained he was dean of the faculty at Ankara University when
military officers accused him of “subverting youth” – because, he
explained, they objected to the university curriculum that included
readings about the world’s communist regimes.
Nevertheless, Soysal, son of a naval officer says, “The military is
one of the few progressive forces in Turkey that, despite its
occasional mistakes and the fact that it can be cruel, has very
little corruption compared with other sectors, is a force for
progress and enjoys the respect and confidence of the people.”
Soysal says the Erdogan government is using the European Union as an
excuse to undermine the military.
He is not necessarily opposed to Turkey joining the EU, he says, but
as a Turkish nationalist follower of Ataturk, he is opposed to its
emphasis on globalization and business privatization – he believes
the Turkish people are better off with Turkey’s government, not
profit-seeking companies and particularly not foreign ones, in
control of its crucial resources and economic sectors. He also
objects to the EU’s stress on the rights of ethnic groups and
minorities.
Turkey’s application to join the European Union got a boost last
month when the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, ruled
that Turkey had made enough progress toward fulfilling EU standards
to merit beginning long-term negotiations, taking 10 to 15 years,
toward eventual membership.
In a ringing endorsement, the commission’s president, Italy’s Romano
Prodi, said, “We cannot imagine a Europe in which Turkey is not
firmly aboard.”
But the decision survived some harrowing moments when, in adopting
the new penal code, the Erodogan government inserted a clause to
criminalize adultery.
It said legal punishment (three years in prison) for adultery would
diminish “honor killings” still sometimes imposed in rural Turkey by
relatives against women whose extra-marital sexual activities are
frowned upon.
Faced with opposition from women’s groups and from legislators, large
numbers of whom Turkish newspapers said had mistresses (Islam permits
up to four wives, though Turkish law doesn’t), the government
capitulated when EU officials declared that criminalizing adultery
would contravene European standards – i.e., be a deal-breaker.
Still, the Financial Times said the adultery proposal underscored a
major problem in Turkey joining the European Union – “Turkey is
becoming a re-religious society in a post-religious Europe.”
If this is true, it would undercut a major reason of Europeans
favoring Turkey’s EU entry – that it would be an example to
fundamentalist-leaning Middle East countries that secularization
offers economic advantages and international acceptance.
Next month, on Dec. 17, the European Parliament will make a final
decision on whether to begin serious negotiations with Turkey. One
big problem Europe faces is the disparity in Turkey’s economy – the
European Union subsidizes its poorer countries to bring about mutual
prosperity; with a European’s average annual income now over five
times a Turk’s $4,000 per person, this could become expensive.
The income gap was even greater only three years ago when Turkey’s
economy was in chaos. It’s less now but, if they act quickly, foreign
visitors can still enjoy a unique pleasure, a hangover from the bad
old days.
Wanna feel like a millionaire, spend like a millionaire? It’s pretty
easy in today’s Turkey. The country has the world’s
highest-denomination banknotes,
Simply exchange $10, for example, and instantly you have 1,500,000
Turkish lira. That’s enough to buy a decent American breakfast in a
good restaurant along Istanbul’s up-scale Istiklal Boulevard,
including tip and some Turkish touches like feta cheese, olives and
yogurt. If you’re into Turkish carpets, you could even feel like a
billionaire. A thousand-dollar carpet, for example, comes to 1.5
billion lira.
That’s because decades of runaway inflation saw prices escalating as
much as 70 percent annually over many years.
But, thanks to belt-tightening measures that the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded in return for big loans, the annual
inflation rate has tumbled to below 10 percent – lowest since the
early 1930s. That’s good news to Turks whose salary increases
constantly was lagging behind price increases but bad news for those
who like to continue to feel like millionaires or billionaires.
Convinced the currency is now stable, the government on Jan. 1 will
issue new currency knocking off the last six digits on lira notes;
thus 15,000,000 lira will become simply 15 lira. But it will require
the same $10 to buy the same breakfast.
Before the IMF bailout, the Turkish government in 2001 owed so much
money that it faced bankruptcy.
In return for the loan, the IMF offered – indeed ordered-tough
love…a slash in government expenses that included many employee
layoffs, government takeover of banks loaded with uncollectable
loans, opening the Turkish market to foreign companies, ending
Ataturk-legacy protectionism, privatizing many state-owned
enterprises, enforcing tax laws long collecting dust on the shelves
but not collecting money for the treasury.
Not all of these measures are fully operative, and some have
increased unemployment but their start and the consequent currency
stability has sent the Turkish stock market soaring and interest
rates tumbling, encouraging a whopping 8 percent growth in the
economy this year.
Interest rates, 70 percent at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, in
18 months have dropped by almost two-thirds, to below 25 percent. The
Iraq war has helped.
Turkey, bordering Iraq, is the world’s biggest overland conduit for
Iraqi food and other supplies.
Despite several tragic killings and hostage-taking of drivers, almost
a thousand Turkish trucks, traveling in convoys, regularly funnel
goods to Iraq.
At the start of the last century, Turkey was called “the sick man of
Europe.” Though its Ottoman Empire still held most of the Balkans,
Turkey by then had lost Greece as well as Egypt, the Balkans were
restive, Russia armies were nipping at its heels, and its economy was
collapsing.
Today, Europeans who question Turkey’s European Union overtures
wonder whether Turkey, sick or not, is even European, in fact and at
heart.
Former French President Giscard d’Estaing, for example, says Turkey
is not a European country and its EU membership would mean “the end
of Europe.”
Only 7 percent of its land lies in Europe and, questioners contend,
its legacy of torture, militarism, executions and disrespect of human
rights indicate a lack of European values.
They also wonder whether the European Union should extend itself to
the very borders of troubled Middle East countries like Iran, Syria
and Iraq, all of which abut Turkey, or whether, on the other hand,
this might influence these important resource-rich nations positively
in a democratic non-fundamentalist direction.
But, with or without Turkey, Europeans will have no choice in
interacting with Muslims, integration supporters point out.
About 20 million Muslims already live in Europe, and with low
European birth rates presaging a severe future labor shortage,
demographers say Europe could well have a majority Muslim population
by the end of this century. So can it much longer call itself a
Christian continent?
Meanwhile, though, Turkey’s shadow looms large. With 71 million
people and growing, it will soon be more populous than any single
European country.
Under the EU’s proposed population-based weighted voting system, it
thus could be decisive in forming alliances with other countries to
become the biggest factor in determining European political and
economic policies.
The European Parliament will weigh all of these factors Dec. 17. Even
as European leaders assure their own dubious people that it would be
a long time before Turkey is admitted (and at the time would be
subject to referendum in some countries), those close to the scene
expect Turkey to get the unanimous go-ahead that is required to start
serious talks.
“It’s irreversible,” said Ozdem Sanberk, over coffee in our Istanbul
hotel. Sanberk was Turkey’s ambassador to Great Britain for 10 years
and is now a think-tank leader and TV personality. He added, “It is
impossible to continue to hold Turkey in uncertainty in perpetuity.”
And if Turkey is rejected – if not on Dec. 17, some time later?
Some say, I note, that Turkey’s rejection would be viewed by Arab
terrorists as confirming their view that the West is anti-Muslim and
even anti-Arab (though Turkey is not an Arab country).
“It is difficult to foresee the consequence once hope is lost,”
Sanberk replied. “A surge of anti-western activity in Turkey? A
turning of the Turks to Arab nations? An internal battle between the
middle class and the religious? A breakup of the country into
something like the Arab emirates?
Once Pandora’s box is opened, the repercussions are severe. But I
don’t foresee anything bad happening.
Turkey is pinning its hopes on Europe and I don’t think the Europeans
will let us down.”
***
Next: Turkey and the U.S: Old buddies, new realities.
,1413,292~30280~2522444,00.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

REHABILITATION CENTER: CURRENT AND FUTURE PLANS
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
09 Nov 04
It cannot be denied that the rehabilitation center of Stepanakert
develops and expands its sphere of activities. The organization
operates on state financing but there are also many programs brought
into being owing to benefactors.
On the means provided by the London office of the Armenian General
Benevolent Union on October 3-10 a trip to Armenia was organized
for 10 disabled receiving treatment in the center. According to the
director of the center Vardan Tadevossian, more trips are going to
be organized. “We aim to pay more attention to disabled children. In
this case we must also involve their parents which will bring about
more expenses but, I think, the idea is worthwhile, and we must
fulfill it at any price (of course, with the help of sponsors),”
said the director of the center.
NVARD OHANJANIAN.
09-11-2004

NEXT DESTINATION AMSTERDAM
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
09 Nov 04
Landing at the island of Saint Lazarus, Venice, the crew of the Armenian ship
â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~] making its maiden voyage continued their pilgrimage on the
land.
Their visit to Artsakh was even more important in this context. Besides the top
officials of NKR the staff of Artsakh State University also had the
opportunity to meet with the crew of the ship. On November 4 the crew of the
â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]
visited the University. The full hall proved that many of the staff of the
university kept track of the voyage of the â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]. The fact that
famous
writer and publicist Zory Balayan was also member of the crew promised that the
talk was going to be interesting. After the meeting we had a talk with Zory
Balayan. â~@~S Why especially â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]? â~@~S Because among the
Armenian states sea had
vital importance only for the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia. The kingdom had a
fleet, prospering port towns. The aim of this undertaking was to revive the
tradition of our ancestors. Being highlanders they were not afraid of the sea.
The ship â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~] is the exact reproduction of the ships of that time.
This
undertaking is not unique. Representatives of many other nationalities have
tried to recall the techniques of the past and repeat what their ancestors did
in
the past. It is also an original way of paying tribute to them. â~@~S What was
the mission of the â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]? â~@~S We made our voyage under the flags
of the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Nagorni Karabakh. The very fact can
underlie the mission of â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]. With only 85 square metres of surface
â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]
is a bit of the homeland which visited its children spread all over the world.
This was especially a great joy for those whose age and health do not allow
them to visit Armenia at east once. All the Armenians irrespective of their
belief, party affiliation, see their homeland in â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]. On the other
hand,
it turned out that by this voyage we assumed another mission as well. The
survey conducted among the youth revealed that unfortunately 90 per cent of our
young people is not only unaware but also indifferent towards their own history.
We hope that the voyage of the â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~] will have a positive effect in
the
sense that it will increase their interest in our historical past. Partly this
aim will also be pursued by the â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~] and my work entitled
â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~]
where I will include information on the history of Cilicia. â~@~S Such an
undertaking
must have a continuation. â~@~S I think it will. We have already talked to RA
president Robert Kocharian about it and we have returned to him the tricolor
under which the â~@~Kilikiaâ~@~] sailed. We have also talked to the RA prime
minister
and Catholicos of All Armenians. We have the plan of the voyage which will start
from the island of Saint Lazarus, and the destination will be Amsterdam.
NORAIR HOVSEPIAN.
09-11-2004
–Boundary_(ID_i64ppxPoOt0pFeji1wO6Rg)–

K-TELECOM LIKELY TO START OPERATION IN 2005 AUGUST
ArmenPress
Nov 9 2004
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 9, ARMENPRESS: Armenian justice minister David
Harutunian reasoned today against claims accusing the government
of lack of transparency and integrity, prompted by a swift bidding
called and administered during a weekly cabinet meeting last week
that announced K-Telecom, a subsidiary of Karabagh Telecom, as an
alternative mobile phone operator in Armenia. During a briefing
with journalists today the minister said that granting a license to
K-Telecom was ultimately a strategic and political decision, but not
“a choice of the best operator.”
The minister went on to argue that Karabagh-Telecom was not just
a mere mobile phone operator, but a company ensuring the country’s
defense. “The company provides excellent communication, including
also mobile phone communication, across the entire territory of
Nagorno Karabagh, which is of key importance,” he said, adding also
that Nagorno Karabagh was facing problems when Azerbaijan started an
international campaign to recognize Karabagh Telecom as an illegally
operating company. “The decision to grant the license to K-Telecom is
to help Nagorno Karabagh people not to feel isolated,” the minister
said.
He said the new operator is likely to start full operation in
2005 August, since ArmenTel needs some time to vacate some of GSM
frequencies, now all dominated by it, for the new operator.
Karabagh Telecom is a subsidiary of a Lebanese-owned firm that has
exclusive right on Nagorno-Karabakh’s telecommunications sector. It
is managed by Lebanese nationals Pierre Fattouch and Ralph Yirikian,
who say they have invested $10 million in the entire Karabakh phone
network. The mobile phone tariffs in Nagorno Karabagh are much lower
than in Armenia.

A1 Plus | 17:33:33 | 09-11-2004 | Politics |
PACE N1405 RESOLUTION CRITICIZED
Partnership for the Sake of Open Society initiative staged a round
table on Tuesday to discuss the PACE recent resolutions and reports
on how Armenia is fulfilling its CE commitments.
The PACE resolution N1405 adopted at the PACE fall session and Teri
Davis report were criticized by the round table participants.
They noted either the report or the resolution was ill-disposed
toward Armenia and could have adverse consequences for the republic,
especially if taken as basic documents by the CE.
The initiative members expressed their opinion saying the resolution
didn’t reflect the real situation.

GOVERNMENT DECISION ON ARMENTEL SPARKS PROTESTS
A1 Plus | 20:01:36 | 09-11-2004 | Social |
Telephone stations workers intend to go on strike to express their
attitude toward Armenian government’s recent decision giving ArmenTel
sole control over IP telephony.
Amendments to the company license gave it unrestricted powers, said
Mushegh Militonyan, one of the initiators of the strike, at a news
conference held Tuesday.
The strike initiators fear the government decision will pose threat
to market free competition and will hobble information technologies
development in the republic.
According to their predictions as many as 250 companies will stop
functioning and 10,000 people will lose their jobs. The government
move will strike hard at low-income families, they said.
Mushegh Militonyan said IP centers are working on licenses providing
a right to convey sound signals.
Artem Khachatryan, director of Center for Analysis and Study of
Labor, finds justice minister David Harutyunyan’s statement that
the government step is taken to retain balance in consumer prices an
absurd idea.
He is convinced consumer prices will go up. Per-minute price for talk
with the U.S. residents will leap from 60 and 80 drams to 500.

ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF CANADA
3401 Olivar-Asselin
Montréal, Québec
H4J 1L5
Tél. (514) 334-1299 Fax (514) 334-6853
——————————————————————————–
PRESS RELEASE
08 November 2004
Contacts: Shant Karabajak 514-334-1299
Roupen Kouyoumdjian 514-336-7095
Aris Babikian 416-497-8972
For immediate release:
THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF CANADA HONOURS SEN. MARCEL PRUD’HOMME
Montreal – The Armenian National Committee of Canada hosted a cocktail event at
the Armenian Community Center of Montreal in honour of Sen. Marcel Prud’homme’s
40th anniversary of political life. Among the guests were the Senator’s close
circle of friends and colleagues, as well as representatives of the Armenian
organizations who had known the Senator for a long time.
The Senator was presented with a picture from Armenia, made entirely with flower
petals, depicting an Armenian scene. Presenting the present was Dr. Girair
Basmadjian, president of the Armenian National Committee of Canada who said
“When our community was still young Sen. Prud’homme was our only friend in
Parliament, and was always present at all our events and commemorations of the
Armenian Genocide.”
Deeply moved by this display of gratitude, Sen. Prud’homme, in his speech,
thanked the members of the community as well as his family members who have
always supported him in his endeavours. He then added, commenting on the
sizeable representation of the Armenian Youth Organization of Canada present at
the event, that it is important for the youth to be prepared to lift the torch
and continue the struggle for justice.
At the end of the evening, the honourable Senator was also presented with a
large poster congratulating his 40 years of service and bearing the signatures
of all who were present, including municipal councilors Ms. Noushig Eloyan, Mrs.
Hasmig Belleli and Mrs. Marie Deros.
-30-
Comité National Arménien du Canada
3401 Olivar-Asselin
Montréal, Québec
H4J 1L5
Tél. (514) 334-1299 Fax (514) 334-6853
——————————————————————————–
Communiqué de Presse
08 Novembre, 2004
Contacts: Shant Karabajak 514-334-1299
Roupen Kouyoumdjian 514-336-7095
Aris Babikian 416-497-8972
Pour diffusion immédiate:
Le Comtié National Arménien du Canada honore le Sen. Marcel Prud’Homme
Montr̩al РLe Comit̩ National Arm̩nien du Canada a organis̩ une r̩c̩ption au
Centre Communautaire Arménien de Montréal, à l’honneur du 40ième anniversaire de
la vie politque de l’honorable Sen. Marcel Prud’Homme. Parmi les invités étaient
présents les proches et la famille du Sénateur, ainsi que les représentants des
diverses organisations arméniennes ayant travaillé avec le Sénateur pendant
plusieurs années.
Le président du Comité National Arménien du Canada, Dr. Girair Basmadjian,
présenta au Sénateur un tableau d’un peintre arménien symbolique de la culture
arménienne. Dr. Basmadjian ajouta que “Sen. Prud’Homme, fut notre premier ami
sur la scène politique canadienne à l’époque où notre communauté était encore
jeune. Il était toujours présent à tous nos évènements et à toutes les
commémorations du Génocide Arménien.”
Visiblement ému, Sen. Prud’homme a pris la parole en remerciant la communauté
ainsi que les membres de sa famille qui l’ont toujours encouragé. Touché par la
présence des jeunes en grand nombre Hon. Marcel Prud’homme souhaita que ceux-ci
prennent la relève et luttent toujours pour la justice.
À la fin de la soirée, l’honorable Sénateur a recu aussi une grande affiche,
recouvert par les signatures de tous les invités incuant les conseillères
municipales Mlle Noushig Eloyan, Mme Hasmig Belleli et Mme Marie Deros,
félicitant ses 40 ans de vie politique.
-30-
–Boundary_(ID_Oaqeh61qOYjgcqC8xZAhEg)–

INVESTIGATION CAN BE RESUMED IF NEW EVIDENCE EMERGES
A1 Plus | 21:10:29 | 09-11-2004 | Politics |
“All sourced of information have already exhausted”, said Tuesday
members of the crew investigating the October 27 terrorist act
committed in 1999 in Armenian National Assembly building and proposed
to close the isolated case on the crime masterminds. And the case
was dismissed…
Aram Sargssyan, Republic party leader and brother of the then
prime minister Vazgen Sargssyan killed in the terrorist attack,
said commenting on the case closure at a news conference there was
nothing surprising to him in it. In his opinion, the authorities
acted this way thinking it will settle the whole matter. “But they
are wrong about that: gap between them and people will widen now
and public scepticism will run high”, he said. He pointed out that,
contrary to Kocharyan, many Armenian officials, including PM and a
number of ministers, believed there were masterminds.
Ashot Sargssyan, the attorney of another victim of the terrorist
action, the then parliament speaker Karen Demirchyan, thinks the
decision to dismiss the case is completely groundless.
The investigation crew head Marcel Matevossyan said at the news
conference that the case closure doesn’t mean the investigation cannot
be resumed in the event that new pieces of evidence emerge.

Behind the breakthrough
Baltimore Sun
November 9, 2004
By Harry J. Gilmore
Fifteen years ago today, determined throngs of East Berliners breached the
Berlin Wall, and the United States and its allies helped facilitate the
safe
movement of Berliners through the wall that historic night. This story is
being told for American readers for the first time.
With the defeat of the Nazi regime, the victorious Allies divided Germany
and Berlin into four zones (sectors, in the case of Berlin). The victors
were unable to agree on Germany’s future, and two German states were
created, the Federal Republic of Germany in the west and the German
Democratic Republic in the east. Although the Soviet Union made its sector
of Berlin the East German capital, the United States and its allies did not
recognize East Berlin as part of East Germany and zealously insisted on
their four-power rights in Berlin, including the right to maintain
garrisons
in the city.
The allied ambassadors to Germany retained the residual authority of the
former military occupation commanders and high commissioners, and each
allied sector in Berlin was headed by a commandant. Each commandant had a
civilian deputy. I was the U.S. minister and deputy commandant that
historic
night. The United States held the rotating allied chairmanship that
November, so I was Governing Mayor Walter Momper’s point of contact with
the
Allies.
In the months before Nov. 9, 1989, there had been a steady crescendo of
peaceful and increasingly massive demonstrations for freedom in East
Germany, especially freedom of travel. Shortly before 6 p.m., East German
press spokesman Guenter Schabowski emerged from an emergency leadership
meeting to announce new travel regulations, making it possible for East
Germans to travel abroad at any time, via any checkpoint. Asked when these
new regulations would take effect, Mr. Schabowski vainly searched his
briefing materials for guidance and then indicated they were valid
immediately.
His statements were broadcast throughout Berlin and East Germany. Soon,
East
Berliners began to gather at the checkpoints along the wall. At Bornholmer
Strasse, they shouted that they had heard Mr. Schabowski and were
determined
to cross into West Berlin. The guards had no instructions, and about 10:30
p.m. let the most vociferous of them cross. This news was immediately
broadcast to virtually every household in Berlin and East Germany, and the
ranks of those seeking to cross spread like wildfire. By 11:30 p.m., the
East German border guards let everyone pass. Soon, all of the Berlin
checkpoints were open and legions of East Berliners were flooding into West
Berlin.
Mayor Momper and his staff had been monitoring the situation closely since
Mr. Schabowski’s news conference. After meeting with his government to
review preparations for a large influx of East Berliners and other East
Germans, Mr. Momper made a brief live TV appearance and drove to the
busiest
area of the wall.
He urged West Berlin Police President Georg Schertz to take every
measure to
bring order to the surging crowds, including the cluster of West Berliners
who had climbed onto the wall at the Brandenburg Gate. Mr. Schertz reminded
Mr. Momper that the West Berlin police were not permitted to approach the
sector boundary or the wall. This was because the wall had been carefully
constructed to stand just inside East Berlin. At that point, Mr. Momper
telephoned me to request urgent Allied authorization for the West Berlin
police to approach the wall and control the checkpoints.
In accordance with established procedures, and because of the acute
political sensitivity of West Berlin police encroaching or crossing the
sector boundary, I should have consulted our British and French allies and
higher U.S. authority before responding to Mr. Momper’s request. But this
would have taken far too much time.
From frequent conversations about possible contingencies, I knew that the
U.S. commandant, Maj. Gen. Raymond Haddock, would favor immediate positive
action. I also was sure that the U.S. ambassador to Germany, Vernon
Walters,
and President George H. W. Bush would want us to do everything possible to
ensure the safety of the tens of thousands of Berliners seeking to pass
through the wall. I was confident, too, that our British and French allies
would share this view. I therefore assured Mr. Momper on the spot that the
Allies would take immediate steps to provide greater latitude to the police.
When I hung up, I called General Haddock, who immediately concurred. I then
gave appropriate instructions to the public safety adviser, Frank Collins,
our official liaison with the West Berlin police. Within minutes, we had
given the police the flexibility they needed to establish order at the
wall.
Amid the teeming, surging crowds, no one was seriously injured at the wall
that night.
Our British and French counterparts gave their full support. Although I
would have preferred to inform my Soviet counterpart in East Berlin
personally and immediately, I decided not to risk complicating the already
delicate situation. He and I were in regular contact before and after the
wall opened, and he had indicated that the Soviets, under Mikhail S.
Gorbachev, intended to keep their troops away from demonstrators and crowds
so long as they were not provoked.
I am telling this story now because I want to put it on the record while I
can. I look back on our role that historic night with deep satisfaction. I
think of heroic Berlin Governing Mayors Ernst Reuter and Willy Brandt as
well as President John F. Kennedy and Gen. Lucius Clay, father of the
1948-49 Berlin Airlift. I also think of the many American soldiers, airmen
and civilians who stood firm over the nearly 50 years of our commitment to
the divided city.
The words of Mr. Brandt in the days after the wall fell still ring in my
ears: “What belongs together is now growing together.”
Harry J. Gilmore, the first U.S. ambassador posted to post-Soviet
Armenia, was U.S. minister and deputy commandant of Berlin from 1987 to
1990.
,1,3886468.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: George Shirinian
DATE: November 5, 2004 Tel: 416-250-9807
AGBU Toronto and Zoryan Institute Host Two Lectures on Karabagh’s
Independence
Toronto, Canada – The AGBU of Toronto and the Zoryan Institute jointly
hosted an evening of two lectures on Nagorno Karabagh on October 29, at the
AGBU Alex Manoogian Cultural Centre, covering its history of independence
and its current status in light of international law and politics, as it was
time for a new, up-to-date assessment.
The issue of Karabagh’s independence, which caused a war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, became a critical subject in international politics during the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. The essence of the conflict was the
priority of the self-determination of the people of Karabagh, an autonomous
republic, versus the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as
a nation-state incorporating the Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR). Since the
1994 ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the conflict has dropped from
the headlines, and much of what has been written on the subject in the west,
particularly in English, has generally been pro-Azeri and anti-Armenian. The
exceptions have been the publications of the Zoryan Institute, such as The
Karabagh File, The Sumgait Tragedy, and The Making of Nagorno-Karabagh: From
Secession to Republic, as well as those by a few others.
Prof. George Bournoutian, Senior Professor of History at Iona College, spoke
on “The Armeno-Azeri Academic Conflict over Karabakh.” His lecture was
particularly timely as it coincided with the appearance of his new book, Two
Chronicles on the History of Karabagh, which has just been released by Mazda
Publishers. The book documents, through two Muslim, Persian language
chronicles of the 18th and early 19th centuries, respectively, the existence
of Karabagh as an unquestioned Armenian territory. It clearly refutes modern
Azerbaijani historians, who falsify primary source materials in order to
deny the existence of the Armenians in their ancestral homelands.
Mr. Vardan Barseghyan, Permanent Representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic in the United States, spoke on “The Current Situation Regarding the
Independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and International Law.” He noted that the
population of Nagorno Karabagh never saw itself as part of Azerbaijan, as
Karabagh had never been part of Azerbaijan, and Stalin’s forced separation
of Karabagh from Armenia in 1923 remained a source of continued protest and
international conflict.
Mr. Barseghyan described how, in August 1991, Azerbaijan announced it was
seceding from the Soviet Union. Two days later, in compliance with then
existing Soviet law, which gave the right of self-determination to
republics seceding from the Soviet Union, the NKR declared its independence
from the newly established Azerbaijan Republic. This was followed in
December 1991 with a referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of
Karabagh’s population voted for independence. A principle was being
challenged: if the Republic of Azerbaijan had the right to secede from the
Soviet Union, then the Autonomous Republic of Nagorno Karabagh had the right
to secede from Azerbaijan.
Mr. Barseghyan explained how the NKR meets international criteria for
sovereignty.
1. Effective control over a defined territory.
2. A permanent population.
3. Regular armed forces, which are under civilian control.
4. A democratically elected government with executive, legislative and
judicial branches.
5. Effective conduct of its foreign affairs.
The NKR seeks three main points in its negotiations with Azerbaijan.
1. The existence of Karabagh.
2. Peer-to-peer relations between Azerbaijan and Karabagh.
3. International guarantees for the NKR.
“The most important prerequisite for negotiations,” stated Barseghyan, “is
security and stability in the region, which can not be achieved without
stability in each state..The NKR seeks a political end to the war.Democratic
Karabagh can not be subordinated to Azerbaijan, which violates the rights of
its own citizens.” He explained his government’s position, that in order to
resolve the conflict, the reasons for the conflict have to be addressed,
before the consequences can be eliminated. Karabagh’s status is at the heart
of the conflict. The consequences include the displacement of people on both
sides, creation of a security belt around Karabagh, and the detrimental
impact of the war on the parties’ respective economies. Barseghyan stressed
that had Azerbaijan succeeded in its attempt to crush Karabagh’s assertion
of its freedom, Karabagh would have been the victim of another genocide. “If
Karabagh were to concede any of Azerbaijan’s demands unilaterally,” he
stated, “without any concessions in return, we are convinced that, having
improved their military position at virtually no cost would embolden
Azerbaijan to consider renewing military action.”
Barseghyan pointed out that the Azerbaijani government implemented policies
designed to effect the “ethnic cleansing” of the Armenians from Karabagh.
These policies included economic and cultural discrimination, and the
encouragement of Azeri settlement in Karabagh. After the outbreak of
violence, they also included government-sponsored falsification of the
region’s history.
This view was supported by the main theme of Prof. Bournoutian’s lecture.
Bournoutian described several examples of how, since 1988, Azerbaijani
historians have falsified primary sources by removing all mention of Armenia
and the Armenians from them, in an attempt to deny Armenians’ ancestral
claims to this territory. “Historians have a duty to facts,” Bournoutian
emphasized. “Such desperate acts not only reduce Azeri historical claims to
Karabagh, but strengthen the Armenian case,” he remarked.
The reason it seems that most of the publications in the west are very pro
Azeri, he observed, is that “Azerbaijan, as well as its staunch supporter
Turkey, give lots of grants to western writers. Armenians are not producing
enough books and articles giving a more balanced point of view. There are
very few academics who deal with modern Armenian history; universities
discourage them, feeling it is too political. In this regard, I must say
that there are very few organizations or individuals who address this
critical problem, but I must acknowledge the efforts of the AGBU, the Zoryan
Institute, the National Association of Armenian Studies and Research, and
Mr. Kourken Sarkissian.”
“The political impasse and neglect of the Karabagh issue is somewhat
surprising,” commented K.M. (Greg) Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan
Institute. “The recent secessionist movements in East Timor in South East
Asia, and Eritrea in Africa, for example, are vivid examples of how the
Karabagh conflict could be resolved by the international community. In both
cases, history shows us that two distinct cultures can not be forced into a
successful union. Therefore,” he continued, “it is essential to understand
this conflict not just from an Armenian perspective, but to know the larger
history surrounding it, as well as the international legal and political
realities. We hope that through such analytical and informative lectures, we
are able to provide people with an understanding of the situation in
Karabagh from a universal perspective.”