AGBU PRESS OFFICE
55 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone (212) 319-6383
Fax (212) 319-6507
Email [email protected]
Webpage
PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, November 2, 2004
AGBU HOSTS 83rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND WORLD CONFERENCE IN ARMENIA
MEMBERS WITNESS FIRST-HAND AGBU’S CONTINUING SUPPORT OF ARMENIA &
KARABAKH
On the occasion of its 83rd General Assembly, which took place from
October 1-7, 2004, in Yerevan, over 350 AGBU members and supporters
from 25 countries convened in Armenia’s capital to attend a multitude
of events and activities: including a three-day World Conference,
visits to AGBU’s Armenia projects, the Biennial General Assembly
meeting, and cultural evenings. Delegates also paid an official visit
to Karabakh from October 7-9.
Welcoming representatives from around the world, AGBU provided
simultaneous four-language (English, French, Spanish and Armenian)
translation for all participants that attended the Opening Session,
the General Assembly, and the Conference meetings.
During Saturday’s Opening Session, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme
Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, applauded the
organization’s continued dedication to Armenians during his
blessing. “Today, parallel to their mission in the Diaspora, the
activities of the Armenian General Benevolent Union, as well as of all
the other national and religious institutions, should be aimed at the
development of the Motherland, the strength of which will make the
Diaspora even stronger.” President of the Republic of Armenia, Robert
Kocharian, and President of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, Arkady
Ghoukassian, sent messages of support and praise.
Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vartan Oskanian noted AGBU’s
long history of service to the Armenian people and its unwavering
dedication to its mission, “in reality from the very beginning of the
century until World War II and beyond, and today, AGBU in every
instance has demonstrated its ability to adapt to any given situation
and has been able to make the right decisions for the betterment of
our people.”
AGBU’s record of support to Armenia goes back as early as the 1920s,
when its donors contributed towards the construction of an eye clinic,
maternity hospital, several schools and the town of Nubarshen. From
these early years, the organization had established deep roots in
Armenia in furtherance of its mission and since its independence there
has been a renewed sense of commitment in the country.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
AGBU delegates traveled to the Nork AGBU Soup Kitchen and Children’s
Center and personally observed its accomplishments in the eastern
district of Yerevan. The Nork Center educates over a thousand young
talents and the Soup Kitchen provides daily meals for hundreds of
senior citizens. Combined, AGBU’s six Soup Kitchens serve 1,200 people
daily and three Children’s Centers instruct over 3,500 children and
teenagers.
Members were also treated to a showcase of music, dance, and gymnastic
feats performed by the students. Since their inception in 1993, the
Centers, a joint project of AGBU and the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, have
provided training in the arts, language, history, gymnastics, and
computers to thousands of youth.
NURTURING THE SPIRIT
Sunday, AGBU members participated in the Divine Liturgy at Holy
Etchmiadzin and met with His Holiness Karekin II, where they were
welcomed to a reception in their honor. Before arriving at
Etchmiadzin, the AGBU group paid a brief visit to the Holy Trinity
Church being constructed in southwest Yerevan with funds provided by
an AGBU donor. In Holy Etchmiadzin, AGBU donors are also providing the
finances for various projects including the construction of clergy
housing and the renovation of the residence of the Catholicos.
AGBU delegates were on hand for the official dedication of the
AGBU-sponsored dormitory at Vaskenian Seminary on Lake Sevan. The
inaugurated facility includes staff rooms, offices, library and living
quarters for a hundred seminarians. The building is part of the larger
campus that provides religious education and training to clergy who go
on to serve Armenian communities throughout the world.
EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
With 30 day and Saturday schools around the world, AGBU’s dedication
to scholastic excellence is unparalleled among Armenian
organizations. Two AGBU-initiated projects have contributed to quality
post-graduate education in Armenia.
Beginning in 1992, AGBU partnered with the University of California to
establish the American University of Armenia (AUA), an institution
dedicated to the education of the country’s future leaders with
graduate degrees in business management, engineering, law, public
health, political science, and computer and information sciences.
AGBU delegates also attended AUA’s commencement ceremony where 133
graduates eagerly awaited their diplomas. Dr. Haroutune Armenian,
President of AUA, officiated the ceremony and captured the spirit of
AGBU, “Over its close to a hundred year history, this organization has
been able to turn beautiful dreams into reality…AGBU has been at the
forefront of creating opportunities for future generations of
Armenians…”
Another AGBU-initiated educational project in Armenia, which plays a
key role in the country’s medical community, is the AGBU Ultrasound
Center. Founded through a partnership with Philadelphia’s Jefferson
Ultrasound Research and Education Institute, the Center is a
state-of-the-art diagnostic facility and housed on the Yerevan State
Medical University campus. Made possible with funds provided by an
AGBU donor, the project was established through the dedication of
Dr. Levon Nazarian, who spoke to delegates about the facility and
noted that doctors from Russia, Ukraine, India and China study at the
center because of its quality instruction. In addition to these
projects of higher learning, AGBU also supports the Yerevan State
University, which is the country’s leading undergraduate institution.
83rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION
Monday’s General Assembly at the Armenia Marriott Hotel was chaired by
AGBU President Berge Setrakian and attended by AGBU members and
supporters.
The AGBU president reviewed the accomplishments and activities for
2002 and 2003, noting that AGBU cannot rest on its laurels. “We must
live up to our collective responsibilities of promoting and preserving
our common heritage…As we look to the horizon, to our Centennial and
beyond, I ask each and every one of you to consider what you can do
today that will make a difference in the life of an Armenian
tomorrow.”
Central Board Member Sinan Sinanian presented the organization’s
2002/2003 Biennial Financial Report, which was distributed to all
members and available in four languages, pointing out that AGBU’s
program expenditures for 2002 and 2003 totaled nearly $57 million,
which represents an increase of over $12.5 million when compared to
1992 and 1993. During the last ten years, AGBU’s net assets increased
by nearly $100 million to $250 million.
Motions to approve the Financial Report, re-elect Central Board
members and other organizational business were unanimously approved.
AGBU members, Hratch Manoukian of Cyprus, Berdj Terzian of Egypt and
Hrant Bardakjian of Canada, received recognition for their longtime
service to the organization and their respective communities.
MEETING FUTURE CHALLENGES
Built on the success of the 2002 Worldwide Convention in New York, the
Yerevan Conference sessions at the Armenia Marriott Hotel and the AUA
Business Center, began on October 4th.
Cognizant of the major population shifts that have taken place in
Armenia and the Diaspora which dictate new realities and complexities,
the Conference addressed current needs and future challenges facing
the Armenian nation and AGBU.
Taking to heart Mr. Setrakian’s message that together, “we can make
certain that a hundred years from now, another President of AGBU will
be reporting on AGBU’s current activities and will take great pride,
as I do, in knowing that there is a past filled with a rich history
and a future filled with tremendous promise.” District and Chapter
Chairs discussed and evaluated AGBU’s programs, including the
importance of addressing the needs of Armenian youth in the
twenty-first century, and ensuring that established projects continue
to serve their purpose.
The participants also listened intently to a keynote speech by Nagorno
Karabakh President, Arkady Ghoukassian, who briefed the delegates on
various aspects of life conditions in Karabakh, as well as the present
geo-political issues. He described AGBU’s various projects in
Karabakh, which include the construction of one of the largest streets
in Stepanakert, the construction of an apartment building for war
veteran families, the renovation of a school, the construction of the
village of Norashen, and the funding of the Karabakh Chamber
Orchestra.
“In my opinion, if other pan-Armenian organizations had the same
devotion and enthusiasm, many of our problems would have been solved
by now,” President Ghoukassian said in his remarks.
Other speakers included Noubar Afeyan and Ruben Vardanian of Armenia
2020 and Arpi Vartanian of the Armenian Assembly of America.
In a special session with President Kocharian, AGBU Central Board
members and District Chairmen discussed issues of mutual concern and
the ongoing challenges faced by Armenians not only in Armenia, but
throughout the Diaspora. President Kocharian particularly praised
AGBU’s vital role both in Armenia and the Diaspora and paid tribute to
its past and present leadership.
CULTURE OF THE CAPITAL
AGBU ensured that guests were able to partake in the riches that have
once again become part of the city’s artistic life thanks in part to
AGBU’s support of excellence in the arts. At the Armenian State Opera
House, participants attended the National Theatre of Opera and
Ballet’s performance of “Anoush”. The production was made possible by
a grant from AGBU, and marked the first time in years that the classic
Armenian opera was mounted.
AGBU hosted an official reception in the medieval wing of the National
Gallery of Art on Republic Square that was attended by 1000 guest,
including government officials from Armenia and Karabakh, foreign
ambassadors, leading cultural figures, representatives of various
organizations and institutions and AGBU supporters. His Holiness
Karekin II, Karabakh President Arkady Ghoukassian, Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian, and former President of the Republic of
Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian were among the distinguished guests in
attendance.
The Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra, which has been financially
supported by AGBU since 1992, performed a concert at the Khachaturian
Concert Hall dedicated to AGBU’s 83rd General Assembly, and included
music by Khachaturian and Tchaikovsky.
THE ROAD TO KARABAKH
At the conclusion of the General Assembly and World Conference in
Yerevan, a hundred AGBU delegates journeyed to Karabakh for a more
in-depth look at the organization’s projects and met with the
Republic’s elected leaders, including President Arkady Ghoukassian and
Foreign Minister Ashot Ghoulian.
After paying respects to the Alex Manoogian memorial (dedicated to the
Honorary Life President of AGBU) built on a street that bears his
name, AGBU supporters also visited the Karabakh War Memorial to
remember the fallen soldiers buried there. Some of the group continued
from these morning tributes onto the medieval monastery of Gandzasar
north of the capital, while many chose to brave the still war-ravaged
roads to Norashen-a village repopulation project spearheaded by AGBU
France and adopted by AGBU’s Central Board as a centennial
project. Norashen is home to 22 families and is the first of a cluster
of villages to be built in Karabakh.
Returning to Stepanakert, the AGBU group was officially received by
President Arkady Ghoukassian in the National Assembly building, where
they asked questions about the continuing work to rebuild the Republic
and heard the president’s evaluation of their progress. The event was
followed by a performance of the 26-member Karabakh Chamber Orchestra,
which was recently founded through AGBU funds.
A RENEWED COMMITMENT
Like any young democracy, Armenia faces many challenges and
obstacles. Independence has brought greater responsibilities not only
for the elected leaders of Armenia, but also for the entire
Diaspora. With a clear understanding of its Armenia programs, AGBU
members left with a renewed enthusiasm to confront new challenges with
innovative ideas, or as Mr. Setrakian noted during the General
Assembly session, “rather than employ old strategies to meet new
realities, we must evaluate what is working and what is not, and seek
out new programs that will attract and excite the next generation of
Armenians.”
With AGBU’s centennial fast approaching, the organization will
continue its quest to meet the challenges of tomorrow and provide
meaningful programs that improve the lives of Armenians across the
globe.
AGBU is the largest non-profit organization in the world and reaches
400,000 Armenians annually in 34 countries through its educational,
humanitarian and cultural projects. For more information, pictures and
the full text of speeches presented at the General Assembly and World
Conference, please visit

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Oct 30, 2004
FROM THE MARGINS
On two arguments and seven visions

PATRICK AZADIAN
Sergei Paradjanov’s “Seven Visions” accompanied Shota to the cemetery
every time.
Shota Kaladze considered himself an American, but felt a common bond
with the mysterious Soviet-Armenian artist. The two men had been born
in the Caucasian city of Tbilisi. Shota had made it his mission to read
the scenarios of the Georgian-born master, until he made some sense of
the complex literary scenarios.
On the snake-like Forest Lawn Drive, the paperback always occupied the
passenger seat. As usual, it oscillated on the leather surface until it
conquered the forces of friction and escaped into the crack in between
the chair and the door. “Seven Visions” would be resting to prepare for
an intense reading session by Shota at the park.
A moral dilemma had been on Shota’s mind. His thoughts were occupied by
a conversation he’d had with his favorite half-Georgian redhead,
Endzela.
Endzela and Shota shared a somewhat similar ethnic background. She had
been born in the Ukrainian city of Lvov to a Georgian father and a
Russian mother. Just a few days ago, the two had been engaged in a
conversation on why people do things for others. According to Endzela,
people ultimately did things for themselves, and there was no room for
altruism.
Endzela was passionate about her point of view: “I cannot believe some
of the things I used to do for my ex-boyfriend. I used to comply
without question. You know me; I am not the submissive type. Now, I
realize I did all those things for myself. Doing things for him made me
happy.”
Shota’s response was muted: “That’s discomforting.”
Endzela continued: “But it’s true. Let’s say, I am sick and call a
friend for help. Either he will come and help, and in the process
strengthen our friendship, or he doesn’t want to come, but since he
needs me as a friend, he will show up. Either way, he’ll be doing it
out of self interest.”
Shota could not put his finger on what was wrong with the argument:
“But there may be a third derivative. Let’s say, your friend cares for
you deeply, and you call him for help.”
“Da.” Endzela responded in Russian.
“And before he has time to process the information, and determine what
is in his interest, he drops everything and comes to you.”
Endzela had a response ready: “That sounds like love and I don’t
believe in it. If couples are lucky, love evolves into ‘like and
friendship’ and if not, they end up with ‘hate and resentment.’ Yours
is a special case … ”
Shota continued: “I see some holes in your theory. Speaking of love,
you know of Paradjanov?”
“Of course.”
“He had a much more optimistic view on love. I think he wrote:
‘I can compare you to satin,
But in time it wears out.
I could compare you to a flower,
But it withers in an hour.
I could compare you to a doe,
But then everyone would know.
My words take wings like a dove,
What can I say o my love.’ ”
Endzela was rarely impressed: “He must’ve written that in the onset of
a relationship. What most people call ‘love,’ I call infatuation.”
“Coming back to my ‘derivative,’ when you care for someone, selves can
be so intertwined that you don’t give yourself time to figure out why
you’re doing certain things. The border between your own self interest
and the other person’s interests can become blurry. Do you know what
your name means in Georgian?”
“Yes ‘Snow drop.’ I was a very pale but pretty child.”
“And modesty is not one of your virtues, is it?”
“Sincerity is. Modesty is often a fake virtue.”
“It’s a pretty name; it goes with the face.”
Shota pulled into the parking lot at the cemetery to review the choice
of flowers. He rotated through the Snapdragon colors at each visit. He
had already gone through white, red, orange, pink and yellow. It was
the turn of lavender to rest its feathery weight on Mr. Kaladze. Shota
eventually parked at curbside and began walking to his destination in a
pattern of half-squares. He tried to avoid stepping over the
gravestones. Armenian surnames had always caught his eyes during this
short walk to chat with his father. He had always been fascinated with
Georgia’s southern neighbors. He was glad Mr. Kaladze was among old
friends.
Shota threw down his blue towel, knelt down and began his report to his
father: “I am doing well … ”
His short briefing was followed by a reading from Paradjanov and
concluded in a verse: “The poet is dead, but his muse lives on …”
On his way back home, Shota’s thoughts snapped back to the half-Russian
redhead. Why had he come to the cemetery? For whom? For whose benefit?
He was only sure of one thing: He simply wanted to be there. He dialed
Endzela: “Endzela?”
“Yes.”
“It’s Shota.”
“Yes, I know.”
“Can I get you to have coffee with me?”
“Yes, but come here. I’ll make coffee. I’ve had a little accident, I
can’t leave the house.”
“I’ll be there in a few; what happened…”
– PATRICK AZADIAN lives and works in Glendale. He is an identity and
branding consultant for the retail industry. Reach him at
[email protected].

CONCERNS RELATED TO SPITTING INCIDENTS
Armenian Patriarchate of St. James, Jerusalem
OFFICE OF ECUMENICAL AND FOREIGN RELATIONS
Contact person: Bishop Aris Shirvanian
Tel: 972-2-6282331
Fax: 972-2-6282331
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website:
<; OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUÉ Jerusalem, 31 October 2004 The wide-scale media coverage of spitting by a young Jewish Yeshiva student in the Old City of Jerusalem upon Archbishop Nourhan Manougian, the Grand Sacristan, and the processional Cross during a solemn procession to the Holy Sepulchre Church, generated a positive sequence of events. The Patriarchate received numerous calls from Jewish Rabbis and other dignitaries expressing abhorrence and regrets over such an offensive phenomenon. The Patriarch, His Beatitude Archbishop Torkom Manoogian, wrote letters to the President of Israel, His Excellency Mr. Moshe Katzav, and the Prime Minister, His Excellency Mr. Ariel Sharon concerning this issue and asked them to take the necessary measures to bring to a halt similar disrespectful anti-Christian acts by some extremist religious Jews. His Beatitude appreciated the condemnation of such acts by His Excellency Mr. Abraham Poraz, Minister of Interior. In a letter to His Beatitude leaders of Simon Wiesenthal Center, Museum of Tolerance of Los Angeles, California, expressed their outrage over the contemptible spitting attack and pledged to redouble their efforts to prevent such incidents. Also the Vatican issued a Statement on October 19, 2004, by the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, stating: "Jerusalem has a sacred character for all the children of Abraham.. We call on all relevant authorities to respect this character and to prevent actions which offend the sensibilities of religious communities that reside in Jerusalem and hold her dear." "We call on religious authorities to protest publicly when actions of disrespect towards religious persons, symbols and Holy Sites are committed, such as the desecration of cemeteries and the recent assault on the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. We call on them to educate their communities to behave with respect and dignity towards people and towards their attachment to their faith." On October 21, the Mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. Uri Lupolianski, met with His Beatitude and Bishop Aris Shirvanian, Director of the ecumenical and Foreign Relations of the Patriarchate, and apologized for the spitting assault by the yeshiva student. He pledged to talk to Rabbis to combat this type of behavior through education. He also stated that he would appoint an advisor for Christian Affairs to serve as a contact with Christian Churches. His Beatitude appreciated the Mayor's gesture. On October 26, representatives of Christian Churches met with the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel Yona Metzger on his invitation at the Chief Rabbinate Office. This was a first historic meeting of its kind in Israel for which Christian leaders expressed their appreciation. Present were bishops and priests of the Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian and Russian Orthodox Churches, Latin, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic and Lutheran Churches. Bishop Aris Shirvanian represented the Armenian Patriarch. Also Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and officials of the Ministry of the Interior and of Religious Affairs were in attendance. The Chief Rabbi welcomed all. He strongly condemned the disrespect to members of other faiths noting that they all were created "in the image of God" and therefore they should mutually be respected in spite of different religious beliefs and customs. Furthermore he announced that he would instruct rabbis to teach their faithful in the synagogues to refrain from offensive acts towards Christians and to respect them. Bishop Aris emphasized that the spitting incident that was reported two weeks earlier was not an isolated one. Since then there had been two other instances by extremist religious Jews. He stated that such acts are not committed just by Jewish men, but even by women and children who need to be educated by their rabbis. However, he noted that most Jews were respectful towards Christian clergy. The meeting was concluded by all the participants signing a declaration in which as leaders of Jewish and Christian religions they called upon their followers "to increase their tolerance, respect and understanding for members of different faiths." DIVAN OF THE ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE

Media Monitors Network
Oct 30, 2004
Choose your Neo-con poison
by Ahmed Amr
(Saturday 30 October 2004)
“The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC’s foreign policy `experts’ don’t seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs.”
————————————————————————
“We’re not going to beat George Bush by being Bush Lite. The way to
beat George Bush is to give the 50% of Americans who quit voting
because they can’t tell the difference between the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party – give them a reason to vote again.”
— Howard Dean
If the polls are anywhere near the mark, George Bush has an even chance
of polluting the White House for four more years. Given his record, the
only reason Dubya remains a viable candidate is John Kerry.
Until a few months ago, the `Anybody But Bush’ movement was gathering
enough momentum to guarantee that any randomly chosen Democrat could
land Dubya on the unemployment line. It now appears that any old
Republican can lick Kerry.
After 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that nothing would ever be the
same again. This election proves that America is back to doing business
as usual. This is certainly true of the election business. Let the
record show that in the year 2004, 290 million Americans could only
spare two Skulls and Bones alumni for the most important government
position in the world.
One thing is certain – 9/11 didn’t change the Democrats. After making
their best effort, their party came up with a Gore clone. Both nominees
share the same exact political DNA because they rolled off the same
production line that manufactured `electable candidates’ a generation
ago. The only difference these days, is that the big boys in the back
room wheel and deal in smoke free environments.
Kerry was nominated because he was not Howard Dean. To be more precise,
Dean was pushed aside when he assaulted the Holy of Holies and
described the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as the `Republican
wing of the Democratic Party’.
Dean didn’t do himself any favors with DLC insiders by suggesting that
the United States should pursue an `even-handed’ policy in the Middle
East. After that `gaffe’, Ira Forman, executive director of the
National Jewish Democratic Council noted that `For some small group in
the Jewish community, Dean’s appointment of David Ben-Gurion, Golda
Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon to his foreign
policy team would still be met with scorn.”
Who are these Democratic Leadership Council people? Consider them the
phantom candidates who are running for co-President of the United
States. The former chairman is none other than Senator Joseph
Lieberman, Israel’s point man in the Senate.
The DLC promotes a philosophy they call `progressive internationalism’
– a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war,
the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush’s march to war.
Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the
DLC’s think tank, led the charge. In an article titled `Making the Case
On Iraq’, he laid out the `progressive internationalist’ position on
the war.
`For starters, Democrats need to resist the argument that only the
discovery of new evidence against Saddam — the acquisition of nuclear
weapons or clear involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism — would justify
action against the dictator. That reasoning implies that a statute of
limitations has expired on Saddam’s long catalogue of past crimes. What
we already know is bad enough: Saddam is a serial aggressor — he’s
attacked no fewer than four neighboring countries — and an implacable
enemy of the United States who is desperately seeking nuclear weapons
to complement his deadly arsenal of biological and chemical weapons.
Democrats should make it clear to the public that the status quo is
intolerable, that the old policy of containing Saddam has failed, and
that leaving him free to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk that neither
we nor or the civilized world can afford to take.’
Marshall’s article was published in Blueprint Magazine – a plagiarized
edition of Commentary. Now you would think that these `progressive
internationalists’ would be chastened by the turn of events in Iraq.
But Marshall not only remains an adamant supporter of the war; he is
now a militant proponent of escalation.
Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on
January 8, 2004.
`What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a
comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a
strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies.
But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them
in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The
administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the
greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century.
That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing
the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative
government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a
motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam’s security and
intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet
the timing of the administration’s troop cuts seems dictated by the
campaign calendar, not strategy.’
Notice that Will Marshall never bothers to suggest that Iraq was part
of the `war on terror’. Even though he repeats the neo-con’s outlandish
claims about Saddam’s non-existent WMDs, he makes it clear that the DLC
didn’t need illicit weapons or an Al-Qaida link to justify a
`pre-emptive’ war against an emaciated Iraqi army. Like other DLC
fellow travelers, Marshall was certainly aware that Saddam Hussein was
fully contained. But he couldn’t resist the urge to indulge in a little
bit of old fashioned imperialism and tinker with `regime change’ to
transform the `Greater Middle East’.
Now that his neo-con wet dreams have resulted in a tenacious native
insurgency against the foreign occupation forces, Marshall proposes to
up the ante. Instead of taking pause and reflecting on how much blood
and treasure have already been squandered at the neo-con roulette
table, he suggests we ignite other fires in the region. For Marshall,
`the job starts in Iraq’. When and where does it end? That’s for the
neo-cons to know and the rest of the world to find out.
Like the Bush administration, the DLC and Marshall still subscribe to
the idiotic notion that Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists are at
the core of this insurgency. As the intelligence community has often
pointed out, very few `foreigners’ have been found among rebels
arrested by the Anglo-American occupation forces. Besides, Iraq was
home to millions of immigrants from other Arab countries. They are the
Iraqi equivalent of permanent residents – very much like the Green Card
holders in the US military who serve their country without the benefit
of citizenship. As a fully integrated part of the population, it is not
surprising that some of these Arab `foreigners’ have joined the Iraqi
resistance. Moreover, the insurgents are hardly Saddam loyalists. While
they have often demanded the release of Iraqi prisoners – they have
never once bothered to ask for Saddam Hussein. And one suspects that
the deposed president would fight extradition to Fallujah or Najaf. The
only part of Saddam the insurgents might want is his head.
The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC’s foreign policy `experts’ don’t seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs.
Marshall and his merry warmongers at the DLC like to posture as
`progressive’ zealots on a mission to modernize and liberate the lesser
people of the Middle East. In that regard, they are just imposters
imitating the diabolical Wolfowitz of Arabia. On both sides of the
political divide, the neo-con actors performing this charade have a
long and disgraceful history of being apologists for Israel’s bloody
repression of the Palestinians. So, it seems improbable that they are
now possessed with a sudden passion to spread the blessings of liberty
to Mesopotamia. More likely, their goal is to give Ariel Sharon a free
hand in shaping the future of the whole region. These
`neo-imperialists’ are not interested in American Empire; they are
motivated by an obsession to fulfill their Likudnik real estate
fantasies. Their one item agenda is to create a Greater Israel – not a
Greater Middle East. If in the process, we end up with a Lesser
America, it will not disturb their sleep patterns.
Marshall’s Progressive Policy Institute functions like an imbedded
think tank implanted in the heart of the Democratic Party. It is a
mirror image of the American Enterprise Institute – the neo-con
Likudnik bastion that served as a launching pad for Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other weapons of mass deception.
Blueprint Magazine, The official publication of the DLC, regularly
hosts articles from another think tank – The Saban Center for Middle
East Policy at the Brookings Institution. On it’s pages, one can find
the stale neo-con mantras of war party hawks like Kenneth Pollack, the
author of `The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq’. That
book was credited with convincing many reluctant Democrats to join the
march to war.
The DLC’s web site also promotes the foul produce of Bernard Lewis, a
rabid anti-Arab racist who was convicted in French courts of
intellectual dishonesty on account of his denial of the Armenian
Holocaust. Incidentally, Lewis has also served as a private part-time
personal tutor for Dick and Lynn Cheney to bring them up to speed on
the `dysfunctional Arab mindset’.
Martin Indyk is the resident DLC guru on the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. The former AIPAC president who served as ambassador to Israel
in the Clinton administration is now employed as the director of the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is
a fervent supporter of the Iraq war and regime change. In an article
titled `A Squandered Opportunity’ that appeared in Blueprint Magazine
last November, Indyk wrote `There is nothing in itself wrong with
promoting a little instability.’ Indyk had effusive praise for Bush.
`The president argued correctly that if we achieved regime change in
Iraq, it could help our efforts to make Israeli-Palestinian peace,
reform the Arab world, and pressure the rogue states to end their evil
ways.’
If the DLC’s in-house think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute,
their offshore operations are sub-contracted to Martin Indyk’s Saban
Center, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli/American media
tycoon who was the largest Democratic Party donor in 2002. After
dropping $5 million into the party’s coffers, Haim had enough change
left over to pony up another $7 million for the new Democratic National
Committee building.
Now, what percentage of the rank and file are aware that a right wing
Likudnik neo-con think tank resides in the inner sanctums of the
Democratic Party? And how many party activists have any clue that Haim
Saban plays a crucial role in shaping their party’s foreign policy
agenda?
The sad political reality is that John Kerry is not an independent
candidate. He comes with DLC strings hard wired to his soul. The
Senator is fully aware that he wouldn’t even be in this race if the DLC
had not succeeded in crushing Howard Dean’s insurgency.
As a Senator, Kerry never had the option to resist the DLC `guidance’
to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Now that he is the DLC anointed
candidate, Kerry will is obliged to support escalating Bush’s
`preemptive’ war. If you listen carefully to his recent speeches – you
will find that Kerry’s views are now perfectly aligned with those of
Will Marshall and Martin Indyk. Kerry is not promising an exit strategy
in Iraq but `a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy’. He is not
saying this was an unnecessary war of choice – he is just promising to
fight a `tougher and smarter’ war by convincing our continental allies
to contribute a little European blood and treasure to the quagmire in
Iraq.
Because of his liberal domestic track record, Kerry was never the DLC’s
first choice. That honor went to Joseph Lieberman whose piss poor
performance in the primaries demonstrated that the DLC’s neo-con
ideology has no constituency among the party’s rank and file. No
matter. Neo-cons aren’t particularly fussy about the democratic
process. They now have a candidate they can live with in the White
House. John Kerry will do just fine as a neo-con Trojan horse. Of
course, the neo-cons got one hell of a ride on Dick Cheney’s pony. So,
they won’t be entirely disappointed if Bush gets a second term.
The sad truth is that the Democratic Party’s foreign policy has been
auctioned off to the Israeli Lobby. There is nothing Bush Lite about
the DLC. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Haim Saban and the DLC. This
coming Tuesday, you will be invited to choose your neo-con poison. In
the next four years, we will all discover that diluted neo-con Kool Aid
is just as toxic.

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Oct 30, 2004
Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia
The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern on October 30
regarding, as Moscow put it, Georgia’s `delay’ to grant entry visas to
the Russian servicemen, who are expected to be deployed in the Russian
military base in southern Georgian town of Akhalkalaki.
`We think that the delay in granting of visas to Russian servicemen and
their families is unjustified and politically motivated. We hope that
official Tbilisi will take a constructive position in this regard,’ the
Russian Foreign Ministry information note issued on October 30, reads.

`Granting of visas needs particular time,’ the Georgian Foreign
Ministry official told Civil Georgia. Official said that the Ministry
will make a statement regarding the issue on November 1.

Reportedly, over 400 servicemen, currently deployed on the Russian
military base in the Armenian city of Gyumri, are waiting for the
Georgian entry visas.
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s information note, Georgia
explains delay in issuing visas with the fact that the number of
Russian servicemen, which will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, exceeds the
number of those soldiers, which will be replaced.
Deputy Commander of the Headquarters of Group of Russian Troops in
Trans Caucasus, Col. Vladimir Kuparadze told Russian daily Nezavisimaya
Gazeta that in previous years there were less soldiers at the
Akhalkalaki military base than it is considered with the agreement
between Russia and Georgia.
`Now more soldiers will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, but their numbers
will not exceed those envisaged by the agreement,’ Col. Kuparadze said.

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 30, 2004
Symbolism in Rome and the Vatican’s Anger
We met a Catalan family on the downtown train from Leonardo da Vinci
airport who were on the way to visit their children who study
architecture in Italy. They have scholarships from the Erasmus student
exchange program, which was launched to help build a European identity
and has benefited over three million students. The Catalan father was
aware that the visit coincided with the signature ceremony of the
European Constitution on a historic day for the European Union (EU).
However, he has not yet decided about his vote in the referendum on the
agreement, signed by 25 member and four candidate countries.
The Constitution guarantees the territorial integrity of the members in
answer to one of the most important concerns of those who have
reservations over the EU in Turkey. In essence, the signed document
reflects the balance between those who wish to see the EU as a super
power like the US and those who want to preserve their national
sovereignties. Foreign politics remain unaltered by leaving defense and
taxation to the member states, but it provides many symbolic openings
such as Council President, Foreign Minister and legal entities by
reducing the power of veto.
The pleasant weather in Rome seemed to join in with the crowning of the
success of EU, ending the 50-year separation of Europe by accepting 10
new members in May 2004 and having transformed the seemingly eternal
Franco-German rivalry into friendship after World War II. However,
religious messages disturbing those who wanted to interpret this as a
divine celebration were coming from St. Peter’s, a few hundred meters
from the historic Campidoglio where the summit was being held. To
underline this, the crisis caused by Italian Commissioner Rocco
Buttiglione, who is very close to the Pope, between the Commission and
European Parliament in Brussels is still fresh.
The Vatican Foreign Minister Giovanni Lajolo criticized the historic
step’s endorsement of a secular Europe calling it a “Europe born with
no spirit”. Meanwhile, at the Sala and Orazi Curiazi Hall where the six
founder countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands,
and Luxembourg) had signed the Rome Convention forming the core of
today’s EU, the leaders were very pleased. There are still the outcomes
of referenda in at least nine of 25 countries to affirm the
Constitution. It is feared that referenda will turn into debates on
Turkey and affect the start-date of the negotiations, especially in
France. As a matter of fact, no referral to Christianity in the
Constitution leaves the door ajar for Muslim Turkey. For this reason,
in the statements issued by the Vatican, instead of rejecting Turkey a
call is made for taking Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Croatia and even
Armenia as the descendants of a great antique heritage. The Pope
emphasizes that Turkey has never treated Christians properly in the
past, but that we should look to Turkey’s actions in the future.
Ordinary people had their own daily concerns. A taxi driver in Rome
reflected this by saying, “I’m not interested in the Constitution but
in money and food.” It is worth noting that even the serious newspapers
in Rome, on the day before the historic summit, didn’t put even a
sentence about it on their front pages.
As Italians usually have warm thoughts of Turkey, it was surprising to
meet those to whom the difference of religion was an issue. It was
shocking that an Italian we met while we were looking for a hotel said
that if we wanted to get into the EU, we’d have to convert. For this
reason, the purpose of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, who attended this historic excitement by
only signing the final bill, affected public opinion in Rome about
Turkey. Erdogan took a stand against discrimination in interviews with
Italian media inviting the EU to keep its promises. The three leaders
of Italy, Spain and Great Britain were the most supportive of Turkey’s
bid. Erdogan gave the message, “let the first inter-governmental
conference start in March or April 2005” to avoid the confusion about
the start date at the three-party summit in Berlin.
10.30.2004
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
Rome

Persian Journal, Iran
Oct 30, 2004
Iran, Russia discuss regional issues

Iran’s representative for Caspian Sea affairs Mehdi Safari conferred
here Thursday with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Savolsky on
issues of mutual interests.
The two officials voiced opposition to foreign intervention in the
Caspian sea affairs and underlined expansion of mutual and regional
cooperation in Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian sea.
Other topics to discuss in the meeting were security issues, expansion
of economic and political cooperation as well as north-south corridor
for transit of goods and commodities.
The two sides underlined the need for continued talks between Azeri and
Armenian officials to resolve their conflict.
Savolsky emphasized the need for expansion of mutual cooperation on
implementation of joint economic projects in Central Asia.
The two sides called the Caspian sea the sea of peace and stability and
underlined that they are against presence of foreign countries in that
region.

Kurdistan Observer, MI
Oct 30, 2004
Turkey and European Union
By: Amed Demirhan
Oct 30, 2004
In recent months there have been an on going serious debate about
Turkey’s membership application to European Union. In principle, I
always have been supporter of Turkeys membership to European Union (EU)
and North Atlantics treaty (NATO) because I believe this two
organizations are gate ways to Western civilization and it’s in Kurdish
national interest as well. However, in current condition, instead of
Turkey adapting to the EU, it seems EU is willing to grants Turkey
specially statues and accommodating to its racist, anti-Semitics, and
xenophobic regime with out any change. This is very dangerous for every
one. Turkish history is the best witness for this; therefore European
should not repeat Arab-Muslim mistakes.
History records that Arab and Muslim greatly contributed to the global
civilization from 7th century to the 13th century in many areas like:
Mathematics, physic, astronomy, medicine, poetry, literature,
architecture, philosophy by translating classical Greeks, and Roman’s
literatures. After Turkish Memluks (States Slaves: Children of the
state with Turkish origins) and Ottomans tribes took over Muslim
countries, the Muslim civilization rapidly declined and become symbols
of dictatorship and brutality in three continents. One cannot find a
trace of civilization from Muslim world from 14th century to today
because of Turkish dominance, therefore one wouldn’t want EU and
Western civilizations become another victims of the Turkish regimes and
state culture (Not Turkish people).
When one looks to Turkish media, which strongly controlled by the
state, still insist on one language, one religion, and one race idea of
the state. It strongly oppose to the EU classification of the Kurds and
Alavis (a radically different sect of Islam, by some it considered
unorthodox) as minority. Interestingly both Alavis and Kurds rejects
they are minorities. Kurds are majority in Kurdistan areas of the
country that consist of one third of the country’s’ geography and they
are about 20-30 % of population. The Alevis are about 20-30 % of the
population and consist among different ethnics groups but majority are
Kurdish, and they like to be treated as equal with the Sunni majority
however, not as minority.
On the other hand the Kemalist and Fundamentalist Turks argue that
Turkey only recognized the non-Muslims as minorities: Jewish, Armenian,
and Greeks in accordance of July 24, 1923 Lausanne Treaty. However, no
one is or willing to say in Turkish press why these three groups were
considered minorities and not Muslims? The answer is simple because
these three groups during the Ottoman- Ittihat Teraki regime were
subject to genocides and so called Muslim in theory and in accordance
with Muslim laws considered equal citizens. This was Turkish
representatives defense about Muslims in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1924.
However, one should remember the Turkish government still hasn’t
implemented Lausanne treaty. Contrary to the treaty it has prohibited
Kurdish Language and has many restrictions on Greeks and Armenian
cultures, properties, and still refuse it committed genocide against
Greek, Armenians, and Kurds.
One of the basic requirements for EU membership is the acceptance of
the so-called Copenhagen criteria of 1993,
) and Turkey is
far away from implementing this treaty. The most important thing is
that Turkey should become an European country, but Europe shouldn’t
become a `Turkey’. All public surveys show people in both EU and
Turkey are favoring that Turkey should become European by adopting the
EU standard not other way around.
Amed Demirhan

Silver Chips Online, MD
Oct 31, 2004
A little history lesson…and the case for Bush

by Armin Rosen, Page Editor
10/31/2004
The use of historical precedent often times ignores the nuances of the
event that is being used as an example. Take for instance the popular
comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. The two are alike in that they are wars
in which the United States fought; yet the nature of the conflicts
could not be less similar.
But, the presidential election of 1896 and the election of 2004 have a
number of major parallels.
In 1896, the United States was struggling to define its place in the
world. The slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the soldiers of the
Ottoman Empire sparked debate over America’s humanitarian
responsibilities. And whereas expansionism had been an unquestioned
aspect of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century, the
prospect of expansion in Cuba through intervention in the Cuban civil
war (which was estimated to have killed almost a quarter of the
island’s population) became a passionate campaign issue, as
expansionists and anti-expansionists argued over the morality of an
imperialistic foreign policy. And in 1896, America was occupying a
foreign country rich in resources. That country was Hawaii.
In 1896, the economy was coming off a crippling recession. The markets
were down, unemployment soared, and the economic debate was, as it is
today, dominated by taxation. The previous year, the Supreme Court had
ruled the progressive tax an unconstitutional assault on property
rights; the incumbent party (the Democrats in this case) was
subsequently criticized for its failure to tax high earners and
regulate big business.
And in 1896, a single controversial issue irreconcilably divided the
country: the mineral standard for American currency after the
contraction in the gold supply. William Jennings Bryant, the Democratic
nominee, supported a silver standard for the dollar; to the Republican
supporters of William McKinley, this was tantamount to theft, as the
inflation of the dollar (silver was in vast supply in those days) would
threaten the intricate system of borrowing and lending that supported
the economy of the late nineteenth century.
It is worth noting that this issue faded from the public conscience
soon after Bryan’s defeat. Historians now believe that the currency
issue was simply a flashpoint for the polarity of the times; indeed,
things became so bad that newspapers wrote of a “new sectionalism,”
creating a parallel between the political bitterness of the 1890s and
that of the old “sectionalism” that eventually led to civil war.
Yet the national crisis of conscience seemed more and more absurd with
every successive year of the McKinley administration. What did America
do right? We resisted the urge to elect a populist to the highest
office in the world.
Some more history
Today, similar to 108 years ago, the United States has been forced to
choose between a man of dubious vision and a man of ignominious
populism. In 1896, and again in 1890, William Jennings Bryan, with his
opposition to imperialism, flat income taxation and central banking,
fell into the latter category. Now, in 2004, Kerry has campaigned on
similar topics of broad appeal to the working class, casting his
opponent as an unabashed panderer to the interests of oil companies,
drug companies, defense contractors and big business in general.
During his first term (his second was cut short by an assassins bullet
in 1901), McKinley used American troops to end humanitarian disasters
in Spanish-controlled Spain and British-controlled China and
successfully established independent China as a free trade zone. These
actions stabilized the world, helped the U.S. economy, expanded the
United State’s influence in world affairs and severely limited the
influence of Europe’s two greatest imperial powers.
Today, India holds many of the same economic opportunities that China
had 108 years ago; according to Congressional Quarterly Researcher,
India will export $50 billion in technology by 2008 and currently has a
middle class roughly equal in population to that of the entire United
States. Kerry’s protectionist policy on outsourcing certainly satisfies
the minority of workers in the tech service sector that could
potentially have their jobs outsourced but will, in the long run,
threaten our ties to a country that is on the way to becoming an
invaluable economic partner of the United States.
Indeed the outsourcing debate is a microcosm of almost all populist
economics. Populists claim that anything that helps big business harms
the worker, but the health of big businesses benefits the working-class
employees of those businesses through wages, benefits and pensions,
which are often stock options in the company they work for.
Expansion into Puerto Rico and Hawaii were issues every bit as
polarizing as our present military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan;
however the voters realized that that the assertion of American power
and the strength and resolve in areas of international affairs were two
of the greatest assets a president could bring to the job.
Kerry, like Bryan 108 years ago, brings neither. Indeed, in his book A
Call to Service, Kerry writes, “In contrast to the dangerous mix of
isolationism and unilateralist that characterizes the Republicans, [I
support] speaking from a position of strength on international
issues-the multilateral cooperative tradition of democratic
internationalism forged in the course of two world wars and the cold
war.” Kerry views foreign policy in the context of multilateralism and
internationalism; the populists of the 1890s viewed it through
isolationism.
By 1900, isolationism seemed an absurdity after America’s successful
military and diplomatic campaigns in Cuba, China, Nicaragua (McKinley
used the threat of military action to protect American interests
there), Hawaii, Guam (another target of expansionism) and to a certain
extent the Philippines (which were ceded to the United States by Spain
after the war in Cuba) tipped the balance of power in the early
twentieth century. “Democratic internationalism” is by no means absurd.
But to base an entire foreign policy on “democratic internationalism”
when so many recent successes in American foreign policy, including
economic sanctions against Cuba, the unilateral demand for negotiations
to end the Bosnian civil war in 1995, the invasion of Panama in 1989
and our ongoing support for the State of Israel, have been
fundamentally unilateralist, would be simply myopic. And it is simply
erroneous to assume that America can “speak from a position of
strength” while ceding at least some of its diplomatic power to other
countries.
Indeed, Kerry believes in internationalism so adamantly that The
Washington Post quoted him as saying in 1994, in respect to the
possibility of deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia that, “If you mean
(American soldiers) dying in the course of the United Nations effort,
yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally
going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome,
the answer is unequivocally no.”
There is a word for scaring the working class with stories of abusive
big business (which, ironically, pays the salaries of most members of
the working class) and for pursuing a foreign policy downplaying
America’s ability to assert its self: populism. Bush, like McKinley 108
years ago, promises us a visionary plan for the revival of our economy
and peace overseas. Recently the columnist David Ignatius compared the
Bush administration’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein to the revolutionary
sparks that led nineteenth century Europe towards democratic and social
reform. Today, there are four times more democracies in the Middle East
than there were four years ago, as Bahrain, Israel, Afghanistan and
Iraq provide hope that democratic ideals can thrive in the Middle East.
Change in the Middle East is well under way, thanks to the
administration of George W. Bush.
Bush is also in the process of moving our country further towards an
“ownership society” where low taxation and personal savings can
eventually replace government handouts. Kerry has criticized Bush for
recommending a plan for privatizing Social Security that would cost
taxpayers over $2 trillion during the transition of Social Security
from government to private control. But at least Bush has presented a
plan that will provide for the permanent solvency of Social Security by
eliminating the program’s dependency on taxpayer dollars. This is the
kind of thinking that does not permeate with the majority of America,
which thinks that government control is the only guarantee of the
survival of Social Security. But populism will not prevent the run on
Social Security that may doom the system during the next several
decades. Again, in the realm of reality, populism fails.
In conclusion…
Previously, I referred to Bush’s vision for the world as “dubious.”
Bush’s vision is limited by his shortcomings as an individual and as a
leader, and his hesitance to admit and rectify past mistakes should
worry Democrats and Republicans alike.
But consider this: Lewis L. Gould, a history professor at the
University of Texas, wrote that “McKinley was a President who acted
decisively in going to war with Spain, asserted great presidential
authority over his cabinet and generals and understood the link between
foreign markets and national prosperity.” If history teaches us
anything, it is that strong, resolute leadership and a worldview that
might reject certain popular opinions in lieu of strategic long-term
goals trumps any defects in personality. That is why it is imperative
that America elect George W. Bush on November 2nd: because we, as a
nation that is now mired in a crisis of conscience, cannot afford to
embrace the popular route while disregarding the necessary one.

Persian Journal, Iran
Oct 31, 2004
Royal Road, Connecting Imperial Capitals of Persia
Persian Empire
According to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (5th
century BCE), the road connected the capital of Lydia, Sardes, and the
capitals of the Achaemenid empire, Susa and Persepolis. From cuneiform
texts, other royal roads are known.
Herodotus describes the road between Sardes and Susa in the following
words [History of Herodotus 5.52-53].
As regards this road the truth is as follows. Everywhere there are
royal stations with excellent resting places, and the whole road runs
through country which is inhabited and safe.
1. Through Lydia and Phrygia there extend twenty stages, amounting to
520 kilometers.
2. After Phrygia succeeds the river Halys, at which there is a gate
which one must needs pass through in order to cross the river, and a
strong guard-post is established there.
3. Then after crossing over into Cappadocia it is by this way
twenty-eight stages, being 572 kilometers, to the borders of Cilicia.
4. On the borders of the Cilicians you will pass through two sets of
gates and guard-posts: then after passing through these it is three
stages, amounting to 85 kilometers, to journey through Cilicia.
5. The boundary of Cilicia and Armenia is a navigable river called
Euphrates. In Armenia the number of stages with resting-places is
fifteen, and 310 kilometers, and there is a guard-post on the way.
6. Then from Armenia, when one enters the land of Matiene, there are
thirty-four stages, amounting to 753 kilometers. Through this land flow
four navigable rivers, which can not be crossed but by ferries, first
the Tigris, then a second and third called both by the same name,
Zabatus, though they are not the same river and do not flow from the
same region (for the first-mentioned of them flows from the Armenian
land and the other from that of the Matienians), and the fourth of the
rivers is called Gyndes […].
7. Passing thence into the Cissian land, there are eleven stages, 234
kilometers, to the river Choaspes, which is also a navigable stream;
and upon this is built the city of Susa. The number of these stages
amounts in all to one hundred and eleven.
This is the number of stages with resting-places, as one goes up from
Sardes to Susa. If the royal road has been rightly measured […] the
number of kilometers from Sardes to the palace of [king Artaxerxes I]
Mnemon is 2500. So if one travels 30 kilometers each day, some ninety
days are spent on the journey.
This road must be very old. If the Persians had built this road and had
taken the shortest route, they would have chosen another track: from
Susa to Babylon, along the Euphrates to the capital of Cilicia, Tarsus,
and from there to Lydia. This was not only shorter, but had the
additional advantage of passing along the sea, where it was possible to
trade goods. The route along the Tigris, however, lead through the
heartland of the ancient Assyrian kingdom. It is likely, therefore,
that the road was planned and organized by the Assyrian kings to
connect their capital Nineveh with Susa. Important towns like Arbela
and Opis were situated on the road.
It is certain that the Assyrians traded with Kanesh in modern Turkey in
the first half of the second millennium BCE. The names of several
trading centers and stations are known and suggest that the route from
Assyria to the west was already well-organized. This road was still in
existence in the Persian age.
A traveler who went from Nineveh (which was destroyed by the Medes and
Babylonians in 612) to the west, crossed the Tigris near a town that
was known as Amida in the Roman age (and today as Diyarbekir). This was
the capital of a country called Sophene. Further to the west, he
crossed the Euphrates near Melitene, the capital of a small state with
the same name, which may have been part of the Persian satrapy Cilicia.
It is probable that the ruins of the guardhouse mentioned by Herodotus
are to be found near Eski Malatya.
The border between Cilicia and Cappadocia was in the Antitaurus
mountain range. The last town in Cilicia, and probably the place of the
‘two sets of gates and guard-posts’ mentioned by Herodotus, was at
Comana, a holy place that was dedicated to Ma-Enyo, a warrior goddess
that the Greeks identified with Artemis.
The route continued across the central plains of modern Turkey, a
country that was called Cappadocia. The exact course of the road is not
known, but it is likely that it passed along the capital of the former
Hethite empire, Hattuas.
The Halys was crossed near modern Ankara -which may well have been a
guard-post- and the next stop was Gordium, the capital of another
kingdom that had disappeared in the Persian age, Phrygia. Passing
though Pessinus, a famous sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Cybele,
and Docimium, famous for its pavonazetto marble, the Royal road reached
Sardes.
At Persepolis, many tablets were found that refer to the system of
horse changing on the Royal road; it was called pirradazi. From these
tablets, we know a lot about the continuation of the road from Susa to
Persepolis -23 stages and a distance of 552 kilometers- and about other
main roads in the Achaemenid empire. No less important was, for
example, the road that connected Babylon and Egbatana, which crossed
the Royal road near Opis, and continued to the holy city of
Zoroastrianism, Rhagae. This road continued to the far east and was
later known as Silk road.
Herodotus describes the pirradazi -for which he uses another name- in
very laudatory words: There is nothing mortal which accomplishes a
journey with more speed than these messengers, so skillfully has this
been invented by the Persians. For they say that according to the
number of days of which the entire journey consists, so many horses and
men are set at intervals, each man and horse appointed for a day’s
journey. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness of night prevents
them from accomplishing the task proposed to them with the very utmost
speed. The first one rides and delivers the message with which he is
charged to the second, and the second to the third; and after that it
goes through them handed from one to the other, as in the torch race
among the Greeks, which they perform for Hephaestus. This kind of
running of their horses the Persians call angareion.
[History of Herodotus 8.98]
To the Greeks, this was most impressive. There is a story by Diodorus
of Sicily that between Susa and Persepolis, even greater communication
speeds were reached:
Although some of the Persians were distant a thirty days’ journey, they
all received the order on that very day, thanks to the skilful
arrangement of the posts of the guard, a matter that it is not well to
pass over in silence. Persia is cut by many narrow valleys and has many
lookout posts that are high and close together, on which those of the
inhabitants who had the loudest voices had been stationed. Since these
posts were separated from each other by the distance at which a man’s
voice can be heard, those who received the order passed it on in the
same way to the next, and then these in turn to others until the
message had been delivered at the border of the satrapy.
[World history 19.17.5-6]
We can not establish whether this is true. If it is, it is the ultimate
tribute to the Persian talent to organize this; if it is a mere
fantasy, it is a beautiful compliment.
The road, although without the pirradazi? system, was still in use in
Roman times. The bridge at Amida (modern Diyarbakir in Turkey) is an
illustration.