TheMoscowTimes.com om/stories/2004/09/24/101.html
Specter of Genocide
Five new books on Armenia reveal a country focused on its past and a
future yet to be decided.
By Kim Iskyan
Published: September 24, 2004
Reading about contemporary Armenian history is like bearing witness to a
dreadfully mismatched boxing match: Just watching the underdog as he gets
batted about the ring hurts.
For much of the past century or so, Armenia has been the scrawny, bloodied
white guy in the ring, suffering a pummeling at the hands of a range of
foes, from earthquakes to the Ottoman Turks. In the context of the litany of
death, turmoil and pain that has plagued Armenia, that the country is still
standing — as a nation, culture and society — is an impressive feat in
itself.
That, at least, is one of the messages of this impressively depressing
selection of books about contemporary Armenia. Whether Armenia will continue
to stand on its own is another issue altogether.
Any exploration of modern Armenia inevitably begins with the so-called
Armenian Question, as the fate of the Armenian Christian minority living in
19th-century Ottoman Turkey was termed. The solution was a series of mass
killings and massacres of Armenians in the 1890s, leading up to the Armenian
genocide, in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians (compared with a
present-day population of roughly 2.5 million) were slaughtered by Ottoman
Turks between 1915 and 1923. One of the aims of Peter Balakian’s “The
Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response” is to showcase
another side to the story by describing the genocide as the first
international human rights cause in the United States.
Balakian’s narrative slips seamlessly from the Ottoman Empire to scenes of
outrage in the United States, primarily among groups of do-gooder northeast
American liberals who were appalled at the human capacity for violence as
displayed in Ottoman Turkey. Although his occasionally florid efforts to
evoke the breathless aura of the era grow a bit tiresome, Balakian does a
fine job of illustrating how the treatment of the Armenians — a small,
inconsequential people on the other side of the world (at a time when
distance mattered, and implied more than mere kilometers) with few links to
the New England upper crust — became a cause celebre.
The passion described by Balakian of the advocates for Armenia seems almost
quaint in the context of the cynicism and ignorance of American — or
European, or Russian, for that matter — society toward human rights
tragedies today. Few people outside of the country have any notion of
Armenia including, perhaps most of all, Russians, who view all of the
Caucasus through the same dark prism. (Even fewer care about, for example,
the ongoing genocide in Sudan.) Balakian’s United States — at least the
narrow slice of activists he addresses — cared about injustice in the world
enough to do something about it.
HarperCollins
The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response
By Peter Balakian
HarperCollins
496 Pages. $23.95
Given the highly emotive nature of the genocide for members of the Armenian
diaspora (of which Balakian is a prominent member), it’s not surprising that
the narrative seems a bit less sure-footed and evenhanded when it comes to
the Turkish side of the equation. One of the undercurrents of “Burning
Tigris” — as well as of Micheline Aharonian Marcom’s devastating “The
Daydreaming Boy,” a novel about, in essence, the impact of genocide on the
individual — is the continued denial by Turkey that any genocide took
place. To Turkey, the event that Armenians call genocide was the unfortunate
function of an environment of conflict in which Christians and Muslims alike
died. Modern-day Turkey would have to overcome generations of indoctrination
to concede officially that its forefathers were racist murderers. Moreover,
Turkish recognition of the genocide could expose the country to the risk of
massive financial (as well as land) reparation claims, similar to those
faced by Germany and German companies.
Balakian frequently equates the Armenian experience with the most undeniable
genocide of all: the Holocaust. The strategy of the Committee of Union and
Progress — the so-called Young Turks who rose to power in Ottoman Turkey in
1908 — was “not unlike the way the Nazi Party would take control”; the
Young Turks’ program of nationalist indoctrination is compared to Adolf
Hitler’s efforts for German youngsters; the cattle cars of the Anatolian and
Baghdad Railways were the predecessors of the mechanism by which the Nazis
deported the Jews. Then there is Hitler’s own comment in August 1939, in
support of his plans to exterminate the Jews (the veracity of which is also
fiercely debated in some quarters): “Who today, after all, speaks of the
annihilation of the Armenians?”
The description of the United States’ ultimate betrayal — opportunistic,
cynical and craven enough to make any reader holding a blue passport with an
eagle imprimatur cringe — of Armenia and the Armenians is taut and
well-paced. In a short epilogue, Balakian points out that U.S.
acknowledgment of the massacre is still held hostage to grubby, ugly
political realities: Despite years of promises (and pressure from the
powerful Armenian-American lobby), the U.S. government has yet to officially
recognize the Armenian genocide for fear of offending Turkey, a critical
NATO ally. In a transparent effort to pander to the Armenian-American lobby,
U.S. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has pledged that his
administration would officially recognize the genocide — then again, so did
George W. Bush, who later backed down in the face of Turkish pressure.
(Balakian, a professor at Colgate University in New York, was recently
instrumental in bringing about a change in the editorial policy of The New
York Times, which now refers to the “Armenian genocide” — rather than, say,
“the tragedy” or “Turkish massacres of Armenians in 1915.”)
Riverhead Books
The Daydreaming Boy
By Micheline Aharonian Marcom
Riverhead Books
212 Pages. $23.95
“Burning Tigris” is rigorously researched and annotated, and certainly more
fair and evenhanded than it could have been. But Balakian seems more at home
in “Black Dog of Fate,” his excellent 1997 book about a journey to
rediscover his Armenian roots. His passionate perspective on Armenia and the
genocide is more effective as personal history, a format in which he doesn’t
need to pull any punches.
Marcom’s “The Daydreaming Boy” uses fiction as a sledgehammer to hit home
the micro-level impact of the trauma of genocide. Vahe, a middle-aged member
of the Armenian community in Beirut in the 1960s, is comfortably going about
his business when bits of his thoroughly repressed past — being abandoned
by his mother during the genocide, a brutal childhood spent in an orphanage,
the other Turkish-Armenian boy who took his place as the orphanage’s
resident rag doll — leak into his consciousness like so much buried toxic
waste. Marcom wraps Vahe’s downward spiral in layers of sweeping metaphors
involving an ape at the local zoo, the peasant maid in the apartment below,
and the sea, all underscoring the extraordinary sense of emptiness and loss
that Vahe and, by association, all of Armenia, experienced. Vahe’s own
forgetting — or “unremembering” — is an apparent reference to genocide
denial, but “The Daydreaming Boy” is brilliant writing, with or without the
political context.
University of Virginia Press
“Starving Armenians”: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After
By Merrill D. Peterson
University of Virginia Press
216 Pages. $24.95
Following in the footsteps of “Burning Tigris,” Merrill D. Peterson’s
“‘Starving Armenians’: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and
After” cites many of the same sources and uses some of the same quotations
as Balakian. Peterson’s book is a solid effort, particularly given that the
author is an academic focused on U.S. history of the 19th century. Peterson
went off to Yerevan (copy of Balakian’s “Black Dog” in hand, he reports) as
a Peace Corps volunteer in 1997, only to be sent home a month and a half
later due to poor health. From this experience, it appears, stems his
interest in Armenia.
Readers with little background in the Armenian genocide who are looking for
a more easily digestible account of American involvement with Armenia would
be well served by Peterson’s account. But there are some odd gaps, and
Peterson’s lack of background in Armenia sometimes shows through. His
description of the events of April 24, 1915, the date usually cited as the
beginning of the genocide, when several hundred prominent Armenians in
Constantinople were arrested and killed, is mystifyingly brief. A mention of
the Nagorny Karabakh conflict — the 1991-94 war between Azerbaijan and
Armenia over an enclave in western Azerbaijan — refers to warfare between
Armenians and the Tatars, which is at best an unusual term for Azeris. Some
transliterations into English from Armenian are a bit off. Niggling points
all, though together they raise questions about the accuracy of other
dimensions of the book.
University of California Press
Armenia: Portraits of Survival and Hope
By Donald E. Miller and Laura Touryan Miller
Univ. of California Press
248 Pages. $29.95
For “Armenia: Portraits of Survival and Hope,” Donald E. Miller — a
religion professor at the University of Southern California — and his wife,
Lorna Touryan Miller, who is of Armenian descent, interviewed 300 Armenians
in 1993 and 1994 to develop an oral history of the country in the late ’80s
and early ’90s. The four major chapters focus on survivors of the December
1988 earthquake, which killed upward of 25,000 people and destroyed 40
percent of the country’s industrial base; refugees from Azerbaijan who fled
the pogroms that were the precursors to the Nagorny Karabakh conflict; the
impact of the Nagorny Karabakh war; and the incredible deprivation of the
winters in the early 1990s, when Armenia had virtually no power and no heat.
The result is a compelling but overwhelmingly grim collection of anecdotes.
History tends to focus on the broad strokes, while paying short shrift to
the grinding agony of those who are involved in, caught in the crossfire of,
or — most often — innocent bystanders to conflict and tumultuous change.
The Millers’ book is populated with stories of rape and murder, war in all
its cruelty, and children who didn’t know the meaning of the word “meat”
because they had never eaten it.
Particularly depressing are the winters of extreme cold, which sound more
like the medieval world than a country that, just a few years prior, had
been part of the other global superpower. Armenia’s nuclear power plant —
situated not far from a fault line — was shut down in the wake of the 1988
earthquake due to fears of another quake causing a nuclear accident.
Meanwhile, an economic blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan prevented other
sources of energy from entering the country. As a result, citizens stripped
trees bare in the search for anything that could be converted to heat, and
sometimes slept under — rather than on — mattresses in an effort to be
warm. Friends of mine in Armenia — people in their 20s and 30s, not ancient
babushkas retelling family lore — still speak in slightly hushed tones
about the period, and the Millers’ treatment of the topic makes it clear
why.
Many of the underlying messages of “Survival and Hope” are relevant
throughout the former Soviet Union. The evidence of so-called progress —
Pringles in every corner kiosk, construction cranes poking through the
skyline, BMWs competing with Ladas for road real estate — is cosmetic at
best. The tides of change have left behind huge swaths of the population as
a small number of well-connected opportunists grow wealthy at the expense of
everyone else.
For Armenia, in particular, the message is bleak. Roughly 20 percent of the
population (as usual, that segment with the highest levels of experience and
intellect) has emigrated since 1990. Roughly half — or closer to 43
percent, if the latest government figures are to be believed — of the
country labors under crushing poverty. The economic blockade of Armenia by
Turkey and Azerbaijan continues, and the country remains at the mercy of its
wobbly nuclear power plant.
New York University Press
Black Garden:
Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War
By Thomas de Waal
New York University Press
328 Pages. $20
On a more positive note, Armenia and Azerbaijan are not currently at war
over Nagorny Karabakh — the conflict that is the subject of Thomas de
Waal’s compelling and very readable “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan
Through Peace and War.” Blending history, political science and travelogue,
de Waal meticulously sets the stage for the war, then leads the reader
through a compelling blow-by-blow account, all carefully put into context
and interwoven with fascinating insights and anecdotes.
It is virtually impossible to discuss the Armenian genocide without being
partisan, as the mere use of the word “genocide” immediately defines the
writer’s position. But de Waal proves that mention of the Nagorny Karabakh
conflict has yet to reach that level of shrillness, offering a discussion so
fair and finely balanced that even the most partisan of readers would find
little to criticize. That de Waal has no Armenian or Azeri blood connections
helps, although more to the point is his gift for smooth, engaging
narrative.
The crux of the struggle, de Waal writes, was “the economics and geography
of Azerbaijan on one side … against Armenian claims of demography and
historical continuity,” and that was enough to turn neighbor against
neighbor. One Azeri fighter speaks of his fear that one day he would catch
his childhood Armenian friends in the sights of his rifles. De Waal spends a
fascinating chapter trying to understand how neighbors could so suddenly
become enemies, and comes to the grim conclusion that “no one felt they
personally were to blame.”
Where next for Armenia, given its mosaic of misery over the past century,
its poor current prospects, and the simmering possibility that the Nagorny
Karabakh war flares up again? Part of the answer could be through what the
Millers call a “new type of charity, a new philanthropy” from the vast and
powerful Armenian diaspora, one that would “create jobs, rebuild the
economic infrastructure of the country, and nurture responsible democratic
institutions.” Indeed, today’s Armenian diaspora sends home remittances
equivalent to upward of 10 percent of GDP, secures Armenia developmental
funds, and provides critical expertise to and investment in the Armenian
economy.
But the priorities of the Armenians abroad — such as Turkish recognition of
the 1915 Armenian genocide and the funding of one-off infrastructure
development projects that do little to support long-term economic growth and
development — often conflict with the present-day realities and needs of
the country. The key reference point of the Armenian diaspora is still the
genocide. They are unwilling to forget, and won’t forget. “The past is
always unspoken heavy and ever-present like some invisible unfurled ribbon
and we entangled in it as we are in our own blood,” Marcom writes. But
unless Armenia stops focusing on its painful past, and concentrates more on
improving the prospects for its future, it may not survive many more rounds
in the ring.
Kim Iskyan was based as a freelance journalist in Yerevan, Armenia, from
2002 until earlier this year.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

channel4.com
23 Sept 2004
Vodka Lemon
90 minutes
France/Italy/Switzerland/Armenia (2003)
PG
starringRomen Avinian , Lala Sarkissian , Ivan Franek , Armen Marutyan ,
Astrik Avaguian
directed by Hiner Saleem
VODKA LEMON FILM REVIEW
A group of Kurdish villagers face an ever-escalating struggle to survive in
the wake of Communism’s fall. Quirky and moving drama from Armenia
Opening with the surreal sight of a musician towed through a snowy landscape
in his own bed, Vodka Lemon is a quietly ironic portrait of survival in a
post-Communist world. It’s a theme that’s been addressed in films like Good
Bye Lenin! and Since Otar Left, but here the tone is much darker, the story
following lost souls trapped in a country where everything comes down to
what you’re prepared to sell.
The location is a snowbound Armenian village, slowly dying thanks to the
absence of any subsidies from the local government. The Kurd inhabitants
find that freedom from socialism means they’re trapped in an even more
meagre existence than before. With job opportunities drying up and most of
their young relations moving away, they either drown their sorrows in the
bittersweet taste of vodka lemon, or make money by methodically selling the
relics of their past – everything from furniture to their prized army
uniforms.
The main thread of the film concerns elderly Hamo (Avinian) and his daily
visits to the local cemetery where he tends the grave of his wife and tells
her all his news – none of which is ever good. Between his family’s
arguments and the constant disappointments of having to sell his possessions
for a fraction of their true value, life finally begins to look up for Hamo.
Through a charming sequence of shared glances, he builds a hesitant
relationship with Nina (Sarkissian), a beautiful widow whose visits to the
cemetery always coincide with his own.
There may be a soft centre to this line of the plot, but the rest of the
film doesn’t flinch from depicting the despair of the characters’ situation,
from the piano-playing daughter who turns out to be prostituting herself, to
an arranged marriage that goes horribly wrong. The landscapes around the
characters are stark and unforgiving, endless plains of snow that the
director uses as a stage to give the exterior scenes a magical, theatrical
tone.
There are welcome moments of deadpan humour heavily reminiscent of Finnish
director Aki Kaurismäki, but the story struggles against the deliberately
slow pacing, while the gradual escalation of tragedy eventually overbalances
the film. Brilliantly performed by local Armenian actors, it’s a tale that
touches the emotions, but the bleak tone is only slightly rectified by a
dreamlike, optimistic ending that suggests hope will never truly die.
Verdict
Like the titular drink, Vodka Lemon mixes sweet with sour. The downbeat mood
and the offbeat, magical realist style mean it’s a cocktail that’s unlikely
to please everyone.

World postal body deems Karabakh stamps illegal – Azeri official
Turan news agency
23 Sep 04
Baku
Since the so-called “Nagornyy Karabakh Republic” has printed postage
stamps, Azerbaijan’s permanent mission to the UN and other
international organizations in Geneva has appealed to the Universal
Postal Union (UPU), Matin Mirza, head of the Foreign Ministry press
service, told a briefing today.
He said that the UPU, which includes 190 states, has sent a circular
to all the member countries of this organization, saying that it is
inadmissible to print postage stamps for illegal entities such as the
“Nagornyy Karabakh Republic”.
Apart from that, a statement by the Azerbaijani side about the
illegality of printing postage stamps for the Karabakh separatists was
read out at the 23rd congress of the UPU in Bucharest.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Le Figaro, France
Vendredi 24 septembre 2004
CAUCASE Visite d’Etat de Romano Prodi en Azerbaïdjan, en Géorgie et
en Arménie
Caucase : l’Europe tend la main à ses «nouveaux voisins»
Bakou, Tbilissi, Erevan : de notre envoyée spéciale Alexandrine
Bouilhet
Alors que Bruxelles s’agite autour de la candidature de la Turquie,
Romano Prodi vient d’effectuer une visite d’Etat significative pour
ceux qui s’interrogent encore sur les futures frontières de l’Union.
Le président de la Commission européenne s’est rendu ce week-end en
Azerbaïdjan, en Géorgie et en Arménie, trois pays stratégiques,
instables et inquiets, à qui il a tendu une main rassurante au nom de
toute l’Europe. «Vous êtes maintenant nos nouveaux voisins», a répété
Romano Prodi dans les trois capitales. «Nous vous offrons, non pas
l’adhésion à l’Union, mais un partenariat renforcé très ambitieux qui
vous permettra, à terme, de tout partager avec Bruxelles, sauf les
institutions.»
Intégrés aux forceps dans la «politique de voisinage» de la
Commission, en juin, les trois pays du Sud Caucase n’ont pas bien
réalisé ce qu’impliquait, dans le détail, ce partenariat. Mais en
voyant Romano Prodi venir à la fin de son mandat, ils ont compris
l’essentiel : la Turquie sera bel et bien membre, un jour, de l’UE.
Sinon, pourquoi évoquer avec insistance le nouveau «voisinage» entre
Bruxelles et Bakou ? Le message est d’autant plus fort qu’il émane du
président de la Commission, appelée à se prononcer d’ici au 6 octobre
sur l’opportunité d’entamer les négociations d’adhésion avec Ankara.
Les plus inquiets de cette perspective sont évidemment les Arméniens.
«Comment pouvez-vous accepter de faire entrer la Turquie, alors
qu’elle n’a toujours pas reconnu le génocide arménien ?», ont demandé
les étudiants de Erevan au professeur Prodi. «Comment pouvez-vous
tolérer qu’un pays futur membre de l’Union européenne ferme sa
frontière avec l’Arménie ?» Autant de questions embarrassantes pour
Romano Prodi, qui a laissé entendre qu’une résolution de ces
différends était envisageable dans le cadre des négociations avec
Ankara. «Cette fermeture des frontières entre la Turquie et l’Arménie
me préoccupe. Je ferai de mon mieux pour y remédier», a-t-il promis,
dimanche, à Erevan. Le règlement du contentieux turco-arménien
pourrait figurer dans le rapport sur la Turquie, au chapitre des
recommandations de la Commission aux Etats membres.
Plus complexes à résoudre sont les conflits régionaux qui minent les
rapports entre Bakou, Erevan, Tbilissi et Moscou. Autant de sources
d’instabilité qui transforment la région en une poudrière, menaçant
la sécurité de l’approvisionnement en matières premières. La victoire
des Arméniens contre les Azéris dans la guerre du Nagorno-Karabak, en
1994, n’a toujours pas été acceptée par Bakou, qui réclame à
l’Occident une solution pour son million d’habitants déplacés. C’est
la principale revendication des autorités azéries, qui monnayent
chèrement l’accès au pétrole et au gaz de la mer Caspienne. «A part
votre aide pour le règlement du Nagorno-Karabak, nous n’avons pas
vraiment besoin de votre assistance, vous savez… Nous allons sortir
d’un milliard et demi de tonnes de pétrole ici !», a lché le
président Aliev à Romano Prodi. «Avec le pétrole vous pouvez vous
enrichir, c’est vrai, mais aussi mourir !», lui a rétorqué le
président de la Commission. Les experts européens redoutent que les
revenus à venir du pétrole ne soient utilisés par Bakou pour s’armer
et repartir en guerre contre l’Arménie. Un scénario catastrophique
pour la région, alors que se termine la construction d’un oléoduc
reliant Bakou à Ceyhan, au sud de la Turquie, sans passer par la
Russie.
En attendant la manne offerte par ce nouvel oléoduc, qui devrait
fonctionner à partir de 2005, la Russie fournit toujours 55% de
l’énergie de l’Union européenne. Cette donnée de base interdit à
Romano Prodi de critiquer trop ouvertement la politique de Vladimir
Poutine lorsqu’il se rend en Géorgie, où la tension avec Moscou est à
son paroxysme depuis la tragédie de Beslan. «Nous sommes très
inquiets de l’évolution actuelle de la Russie», a-t-il simplement
affirmé, en faisant allusion aux réformes institutionnelles à Moscou.
«Nous sommes conscients des difficultés, c’est comme de cohabiter
avec un éléphant, ou plutôt avec un ours…», a-t-il calmement
répondu à la présidente du Parlement géorgien, qui redoute les
frappes préventives annoncées par Poutine. Si la Russie met ses
menaces à exécution, que pourra faire l’Union européenne ? En quoi la
politique de voisinage protégera-t-elle la Géorgie ? «L’Europe n’a
pas d’armée», déplore un étudiant de Tbilissi. «Il n’y a que l’Otan
qui puisse nous aider !», lance-t-il à Prodi. «Je trouve qu’à votre
ge, vous êtes un peu trop obsédé par les armes», rétorque le
dirigeant européen en vieux sage. «L’Europe n’a pas d’armée, c’est
vrai. Cela prendra beaucoup de temps. Vous la verrez peut-être un
jour, moi pas», concède-t-il. «Mais, en attendant, l’Europe vous
offre autre chose que vous ne devez pas sous-estimer : «la soft
security»», explique-t-il aux jeunes Géorgiens. «Si vous êtes
intégrés à l’Europe par un partenariat fort, plus personne n’osa vous
menacer.» Leitmotiv de Romano Prodi, de Tbilissi à Bakou, le concept
de «soft security» n’est pas facile à vendre dans le Caucase, où
Moscou dispose de bases militaires.
Les conflits latents entretenus par les Russes en Ossétie du Sud, ou
en Abkhazie, peuvent exploser à la moindre étincelle. «Nous ne sommes
ni en paix ni en guerre, mais c’est une région explosive», a expliqué
le patriarche de Géorgie à Romano Prodi, silencieux. «Ce qui se passe
dans le Sud Caucase a des répercussions directe au Nord Caucase. Si
vous nous aidez à mettre fin au conflit en Abkhazie, le problème
tchétchène sera réglé.»
En quittant cette région en proie à des haines que l’Europe ne peut
pas régler sans prendre Moscou de front, Romano Prodi a senti toute
la distance qui séparait Bruxelles de Tbilissi. Il a aussi compris
l’urgence qu’il y avait à inclure le Sud Caucase dans la sphère
d’influence de l’Europe.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Sud Ouest
22 septembre 2004
Enfants de choeur
MONT DE MARSAN
CHANTS. Samedi, Sol Mi Douze organise une première audition en vue de
la création d’un choeur d’enfants
Une chorale de grande qualité vocale, pour monter des pièces du
répertoire classique, populaire, religieux ou jazz, et destinée
exclusivement aux 9-16 ans, tel est le projet de la chorale montoise
Sol Mi Douze.
“Avec ce choeur, nous allons répondre à une réelle attente des
Montois et des Landais car, tous les ans, au forum des associations,
de nombreux parents nous demandent d’ouvrir le chant choral aux plus
jeunes.”, résume Marie Claude Courtois, la présidente de Sol Mi
Douze. Et le succès du film “Les choristes” avec Gérard Jugnot a, à
coup sûr, accentué cet engouement.
Sous la direction de Garik Djagarian, professeur de chant depuis cinq
ans à Mont-de-Marsan et originaire d’Arménie, le travail avec les
enfants sera basé sur l’apprentissage des techniques de respiration
et sur la reproduction des harmonies. L’autre partie de la séance,
plus ludique, sera réservée au chant à l’unisson, à deux puis trois
voix. Au rythme de deux répétitions par semaine, d’1 h 30 chacune,
l’objectif est, à terme, de créer un répertoire propre à ce choeur de
jeunes afin de participer à des concours nationaux et internationaux.
“Nous souhaitons donner à ce choeur l’esprit d’une “maîtrise”, au
sens de groupe vocal durable ayant une exigence de qualité qui puisse
représenter notre département à l’extérieur. Nous avons d’ailleurs
prévu de les faire participer à des rencontres, avec des choeurs
d’enfants d’autres pays, organisées par le mouvement international À
Coeur Joie”, explique Marie-Claude Courtois. Le répertoire pourra
aussi bien intégrer des chants traditionnels landais, que des
chansons du répertoire étranger.
École de la vie. Outre le travail de la voix et le plaisir de chanter
ensemble, la chorale est un excellent moyen de vaincre sa timidité,
et d’être plus à l’écoute de l’autre. “Au fil des mois, le groupe va
se construire une identité et des relations amicales vont naître.”,
ajoute Marie-Claude Courtois. Reste maintenant à dénicher nos futurs
chanteurs en herbe.
Pour cela, une première audition aura lieu ce samedi, puis une
deuxième le jeudi suivant. Dix minutes par candidat seront
nécessaires au chef de choeur et aux membres de Sol Mi Douze pour
évaluer le potentiel de chacun. Le passage se composera d’un
entretien de motivation et d’un exercice de mémorisation des rythmes
basiques. Les parents sont invités à assister aux auditions, qui
seront filmées. Au total, 50 à 60 voix seront sélectionnées.
Renseignements et inscriptions pour les auditions au 05.58.06.86.52.

A1 Plus | 17:53:04 | 23-09-2004 | Social |
CRIMINAL CASE FOUND
The criminal case instituted on the facts of violence committed
towards Anna Israelyan, correspondent of “Aravot” Newspaper and
“Photolur” photographer Mkhitar Khachatryan, was found.
The legal proceedings will take place in the First Instance Court of
Kotayq District. The first day of the trial will be set next
week. Gagik Stepanyan is the case defendant.

The Armenian Genocide was a Jihad
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
by _Ibn Warraq_ (;field-author=3DIbn%25 20Warraq/103-9556480-7979849)
ISIS: the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
_Recent Additions to the ISIS Site_ ()

9-15-04
By Andrew G. Bostom
The Greater Boston Armenian Genocide Commemoration Committee, issued a
press release, April 7, 2003, noting that April 24, 2003 marked the
88th “anniversary” of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the
Turkish Interior Ministry issued an order authorizing the arrest of
all Armenian political and community leaders suspected of anti-Ittihad
(`Young Turk’ government), or Armenian nationalist sentiments. In
Istanbul alone, 2345 such leaders were seized and incarcerated, and
most of them were subsequently executed. The majority were neither
nationalists, nor were they involved in politics. None were charged
with sabotage, espionage, or any other crime, and appropriately
tried.1 As the Turkish author Taner Akcam recently acknowledged,
`Under the pretext of searching for arms, of collecting war levies, or
tracking down deserters, there had already been established a practice
of systematically carried-out plunders, raids, and murders [against
the Armenians] which had become daily occurrences’2 Within a month,
the final, definitive stage of the process which reduced the Armenian
population to utter helplessness, i.e., mass deportation, would
begin.3
A True Genocide
Was the horrific fate of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian minority, at
the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in particular, during
World War I, due to “civil war”, or genocide ? A seminal analysis by
Professor Vahakn Dadrian published last year validates the conclusion
that the Ottoman Turks committed a centrally organized mass murder,
i.e., a genocide, against their Armenian population.4 Relying upon a
vast array of quintessential, primary source documents from the World
War I allies of the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austria- Hungary,
Dadrian obviated the intractable disputes surrounding the reliability
and authenticity of both Ottoman Turkish, and Armenian documents. He
elucidated the truly unique nature of this documentary German and
Austro-Hungarian evidence:
“During the war, Germany and Austria-Hungary disposed over a
vastnetwork of ambassadorial, consular, military, and commercial
representatives throughout the Ottoman Empire. Not only did they have
access to high-ranking Ottoman officials and power-wielding
decision-makers who were in a position to report to their superiors as
locus in quo observers on many aspects of the wartime treatment of
Ottoman Armenians. They supplemented their reports with as much detail
as they could garner from trusted informers and paid agents, many of
whom were Muslims, both civilians and military”5
Moreover, the documents analyzed possessed another critical attribute:
they included confidential correspondence prepared and sent to Berlin
and Vienna, which were meant for wartime use only.6 This
confidentiality, Dadrian notes, enabled German or Austro-Hungarian
officials to openly question the contentions of their wartime Ottoman
allies, when ascertaining and conveying facts truthfully to their
superiors in Europe. Dadrian cites the compelling example of the
November 16, 1915 report to the German chancellor, by Aleppo Consul
Rossler. Rossler states, “I do not intend to frame my reports in such
a way that I may be favoring one or the other party. Rather, I
consider it my duty to present to you the description of things which
have occurred in my district and which I consider to be the truth” 7
Rossler was reacting specifically to the official Ottoman allegation
that the Armenians had begun to massacre the Turkish population in the
Turkish sections of Urfa, a city within his district, after reportedly
capturing them. He dismissed the charge, unequivocally, with a single
word: “invented”. 8 Amassed painstakingly by Dadrian, the primary
source evidence from these German and Austro-Hungarian officials-
reluctant witnesses- leads to this inescapable conclusion: the
anti-Armenian measures, despite a multitude ofattempts at cover-up and
outright denial, were meticulously planned by the Ottoman authorities,
and were designed to destroy wholesale, the victim population.
Dadrian further validates this assessment with remarkable testimony
before the Mazhar Inquiry Commission, which conducted a preliminary
investigation in the post-war period to determine the criminal
liability of the wartime Ottoman authorities regarding the Armenian
deportations and massacres. The December15, 1918 deposition by General
Mehmed Vehip, commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Third Army, and ardent
CUP (Committee of Union and Progress, i.e., the “Ittihadists”, or
“Young Turks”) member, included this summary statement:
“The murder and annihilation of the Armenians and the plunder and
expropriation of their possessions were the result of the decisions
made by the CUP These atrocities occurred under a program that was
determined upon and involved a definite case of willfulness. They
occurred because they were ordered, approved, and pursued first by the
CUP’s [provincial] delegates and central boards, and second by
governmental chiefs who hadpushed aside their conscience, and had
become the tools of the wishes and desires of the Ittihadist society
“9
Dadrian’s own compelling assessment of this primary source evidence is
summarized as follows:
“Through the episodic interventions of the European Powers, the
historically evolving and intensifying Turko-Armenian conflict had
become a source of anger and frustration for the Ottoman rulers and
elites driven by a xenophobic nationalism. A monolithic political
party that had managed to eliminate all opposition and had gained
control of the Ottoman state apparatus efficiently took advantage of
the opportunities provided by World War I. It purged by violent and
lethal means the bulk of the Armenian population from the territories
of the empire. By any standard definition, this was an act of
genocide”10
Jihad: A Major Determinant of the Armenian genocide
The wartime reports from German and Austro-Hungarian officials also
confirm independent evidence that the origins and evolution of the
genocide had little to do with World War I “Armenian
provocations”. Emphasis is placed, instead, on the larger pre-war
context dating from the failure of the mid-19th century Ottoman
Tanzimat reform efforts.11 These reforms, initiated by the declining
Ottoman Empire (i.e., in 1839 and 1856) under intense pressure from
the European powers, were designed to abrogate the repressive laws of
dhimmitude, to which non-Muslim (primarily Christian) minorities,
including the Armenians, had been subjected for centuries, following
the Turkish jihad conquests of their indigenous homelands. 12
Led by their patriarch, the Armenians felt encouraged by the Tanzimat
reform scheme, and began to deluge the Porte (Ottoman seat of
government) with pleas and requests, primarily seeking governmental
protection against a host of mistreatments, particularly in the remote
provinces. Between 1850 and 1870, alone, 537 notes were sent to the
Porte by the Armenian patriarch characterizing numerous occurrences of
theft, abduction, murder, confiscatory taxes, and fraud by government
officials.13 These entreaties were largely ignored, and ominously,
were even considered as signs of rebelliousness. For example, British
Consul (to Erzurum) Clifford Lloyd reported in 1890, “Discontent, or
any description of protest is regarded by the local Turkish Local
Government as seditious”14
He went on to note that this Turkish reaction occurred irrespective of
the fact that “..the idea of revolution..” was not being entertained
by the Armenian peasants involved in these protests.15
The renowned Ottomanist, Roderick Davison, has observed that under the
Shari’a (Islamic Holy Law) the “..infidel gavours [“dhimmis”,
“rayas”]” were permanently relegated to a status of “inferiority” and
subjected to a “contemptuous half-toleration”. Davison further
maintained that this contempt emanated from “an innate attitude of
superiority”, and was driven by an “innate Muslim feeling”, prone to
paroxysms of “open fanaticism”. 16 Sustained, vehement reactions to
the 1839 and 1856 Tanzimat reform acts by large segments of the Muslim
population, led by Muslim spiritual leaders and the military,
illustrate Davison’s point.17 Perhaps the most candid and telling
assessment of the doomed Tanzimat reforms, in particular the 1856 Act,
was provided by Mustafa Resid, Ottoman Grand Vizier at six different
times between 1846-58. In his denunciation of the reforms, Resid
argued the proposed “complete emancipation” of the non-Muslim
subjects, appropriately destined to be subjugated and ruled, was
“entirely contradictory” to “the 600 year traditions of the Ottoman
Empire”. He openly proclaimed the “complete emancipation” segment of
the initiative as disingenuous, enacted deliberately to mislead the
Europeans, who had insisted upon this provision. Sadly prescient,
Resid then made the ominous prediction of a “great massacre” if
equality was in fact granted to non-Muslims. 18
Despite their “revolutionary” advent, and accompanying comparisons to
the ideals of the French Revolution, the CUP’s “Young Turk” regime
eventually adopted a discriminatory, anti-reform attitude toward
non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. During an August 6, 1910 speech
in Saloniki, Mehmed Talat, pre-eminent leader of the Young Turks
disdainfully rejected the notion of equality with “gavours” , arguing
that it “is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat
[Shari’a] and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims”.19
Roderick Davison notes that in fact “..no genuine equality was ever
attained..”, re-enacting the failure of the prior Tanzimat reform
period. As a consequence, he observes, the CUP leadership “soon
turned from equality to Turkification”20
During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Turks massacred
over 200,000 Armenians between 1894-96. This was followed, under the
Young Turk regime, by the Adana massacres of 25,000 Armenians in 1909,
and the first formal genocide of the 20th century, when in 1915 alone,
an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians were slaughtered.21 The
massacres of the 1890s had an “organic” connection to the Adana
massacres of 1909, and more importantly,the events of 1915. As Vahakn
Dadrian argues, they facilitated the genocidal acts of 1915 by
providing the Young Turks with “a predictable impunity.” The absence
of adverse consequences for the Abdul Hamid massacres in the 1890s
allowed the Young Turks to move forward without constraint.22
Contemporary accounts from European diplomats make clear that these
brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad
against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of
dhimmitude by seekingequal rights and autonomy. For example, the Chief
Dragoman (Turkish-speaking interpreter) of the British embassy
reported regarding the 1894-96 massacres:
[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the
prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if
the “rayah” [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign
powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their
Mussulman [Muslim] masters, andfree themselves from their bondage,
their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of
the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to
overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially
England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a
righteousthing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the
Armenians”23
The scholar Bat Ye’or confirms this reasoning, noting that the
Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their “legal status,” which
involved a “contract” (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers). This
breachrestored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to
kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their
property24 An intrepid Protestant historian and missionary Johannes
Lepsius, who earlier had undertaken a two-month trip to examine the
sites of the Abul Hamid era massacres, traveled again to Turkey during
World War I. Regarding the period between 1914-1918, he wrote :
” Are we then simply forbidden to speak of the Armenians as persecuted
on account of their religious belief’? If so, there have never been
any religious persecutions in the worldWe have lists before us of 559
villages whose surviving inhabitants were converted to Islam with fire
and sword; of 568 churches thoroughly pillaged, destroyed and razed to
the ground; of 282 Christian churches transformed into mosques; of 21
Protestant preachers and 170 Gregorian (Armenian) priests who were,
after enduring unspeakable tortures, murdered on their refusal to
accept Islam. We repeat, however, that those figures express only the
extent of our information, and do not by a long way reachto the extent
of the reality. Is this a religious persecution or is it not?…”25
Finally, Bat Ye’or places the continuum of massacres from the 1890s
through World War I in an overall theological and juridical context,
as follows:
“The genocide of the Armenians was the natural outcome of a policy
inherent in the politico-religious structure of dhimmitude. This
process of physically eliminating a rebel nation had already been used
against the rebel Slav and Greek Christians, rescued from collective
extermination by European intervention, although sometimes
reluctantly.
The genocide of the Armenians was a jihad. No rayas took part in
it. Despite the disapproval of many Muslim Turks and Arabs, and their
refusal to collaborate in the crime, these masssacres were perpetrated
solely by Muslims and they alone profited from the booty: the victims’
property, houses, and lands granted to the muhajirun, and the
allocation to them of women and child slaves. The elimination of male
children over the age of twelve was in accordance with the
commandments of the jihad and conformed to the age fixed for the
payment of the jizya. The four stages of the liquidation- deportation,
enslavement, forced conversion, and massacre- reproduced the historic
conditions of the jihad carried out in the dar-al-harb from the
seventh century on. Chronicles from a variety of sources, by Muslim
authors in particular, give detailed descriptions of the organized
massacres or deportation of captives, whose sufferings in forced
marches behind the armies paralleled the Armenian experience in the
twentieth century”26
Conclusions
The Ottoman Turkish destruction of the Armenian people, beginning in
the late 19th and intensifying in the early 20th century, was a
genocide, and jihad ideology contributed significantly to this decades
long human liquidation process. These facts are now beyond dispute.
Milan Kundera, the Czech author, has written that man’s struggle
against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.27 In his
thoughtful analysis of the Armenian genocide,`The Banality of
Indifference’, Professor Yair Auron reminds us of the importance of
this struggle:
`Recognition of the Armenian genocide on the part of the entire
international community, including Turkey (or perhaps first and
foremost Turkey), is therefore a demand of the first
order. Understanding and remembering the tragic past is an essential
condition, even if not sufficient in and of itself, to preventing the
repetition of such acts in the future.’28
Notes
1. Uras E., The Armenians and the Armenian Question in History, 2nd
ed., (Istanbul, 1976), p.612
2. Akcam T., Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question,
(Istanbul, 1992), p. 109.
3. Hovanissian R., Armenia on the Road to Independence, (Berkeley, CA,
1967), p. 51.
4. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians as Documented by the Officials of the Ottoman Empire’s World
War IAllies: Germany and Austria-Hungary’, International Journal of
Middle Eastern Studies, (2002), Vol. 32, Pp. 59-85.
5. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians’ , p.60.
6. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians’ , p.76
7. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians’ , p.76, with specific primary source documentation, p.84
n.109.
8. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians’ , p.76, with specific primary source documentation, p.84
n.109.
9. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the
Armenians’ , p.77, with specific primary source documentation,
Pp.84-85 n.111.
10. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of
theArmenians’ , p.77.
11. Davison R., “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim
Equality in the Nineteenth Century”, The American Historical Review
(1954), Vol. 54, Pp. 844-864.
12. Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam,
(Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996) 522 Pp.
13. Dadrian V., Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian
Conflict, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999), p. 39.
14. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of
theArmenians’ , p.61, with specific primary source documentation p.79,
n.11
15. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of
theArmenians’ , p.61, with specific primary source documentation p.79,
n.11
16. Davison R., “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim
Equality in the Nineteenth Century”, p.855.
17. Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam,
Reports by British Diplomats [1850-1876], Pp. 395-433.
18. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of
theArmenians’ , Pp.61-62, with specific primary source documentation,
p.79 n.14.
19. Dadrian V., `The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of
theArmenians’ , Pp.61-62, with specific primary source documentation,
p.79 n.15.
20. Davison R, “The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914”, The American
Historical Review, (1948) Vol. 53, Pp. 482-483.
21. Dadrian V., The History of the Armenian Genocide, (Providence, RI:
Bergahn Books, 1997), Pp. 155, 182, 225, 233 n.44; Auron Y., The
Banality of Indifference, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers,
2000), p. 44.
22. Dadrian V., The History of the Armenian Genocide, Pp. 113-184.
23. Dadrian V., The History of the Armenian Genocide, p. 147, with
primary source documentation p. 168 n.199.
24. Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, (Cranbury,
NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985) Pp. 48,67, 101.
25. Gabrielan M.C., Armenia: A Martyr Nation, (New York, Chicago:
Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1918), p. 269.
26. Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam,
p. 197.
27. Kundera M., The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, (New York, NY:
Harper Collins, 1999)
28. Auron Y., The Banality of Indifference, p. 56.
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an Associate Professor of Medicine at
Brown University, and freelance writer on the history of jihad and
dhimmitude.

Religion at heart of debate over Turkey’s EU bid
By Ayla Jean Yackley
ISTANBUL, Sept 23 (Reuters) – The chime of St. Anthony’s church bells
mingles with the mosque’s call to prayer in the heart of old Istanbul,
but it is a mere echo of the medley of religions that once prospered
in Turkey’s greatest city.
“There are many churches, but few Christians left to fill them. We are
all but dead and gone,” said an elderly man after finishing his
prayers in the neo-Gothic Franciscan church.
Nominally 99 percent Muslim, this nation of 70 million is also home to
tiny communities of Christians, Jews and others.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. The fiercely
secular Turkish Republic, born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in
1923, was founded on a pro-Western path and rejects the religious rule
governing some Muslim countries.
Yet religion is at the crux of the debate over whether a Muslim EU
candidate belongs in mainly Christian Europe.
While Islam is not an official barrier to EU entry, breaches of
religious freedom will likely be included in the European Commission’s
Oct. 6 progress report on Turkey’s reform efforts.
“The EU is looking at religious rights. Steps have been taken, but
there is not enough progress,” said one EU diplomat.
At the turn of the last century, Istanbul’s non-Muslims outnumbered
Muslims in the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire.
In the upheaval of World War One and the ensuing War of Independence,
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed and a million people
deported in a population exchange with Greece.
Others have fled only recently. Syriac Orthodox, who speak a form of
Aramaic, the language of Christ, abandoned their homeland in
southeastern Turkey in the 1990s amid separatist violence. A handful
have moved back but observers say they have little incentive to return
to the poor, deeply Muslim region.
“If Turkey is to join the EU, it ought to see (religious minorities)
as a cultural treasure,” said Andrew Palmer at SOAS in London. “The
government should be saying ‘Turkey is proud to have the Syriac
community in its midst, and we are doing everything to keep them there
and this ancient culture alive’.”
Syriacs and others do not have the official minority status of
Armenians, Jews and Greek Orthodox. For all, ownership rights are
unclear, making even simple repairs to buildings difficult.
Less than 3,000 Greeks remain, but the ecumenical patriarch is still
based here. The patriarchate sees the re-opening of the Halki
seminary, shut in the 1970s, as vital to its future.
Evangelical Christians, mostly converts from Islam, complain of
harassment by police who raid homes where they gather to study the
Bible. Some have been detained for proselytising.
ISLAM ALSO RESTRICTED
Experts estimate just four percent of Turks are Islamic radicals, but
keeping fundamentalism at bay means some religious expression among
Muslims must be controlled, secularists argue.
Devout women in the Islamic-style headscarf cannot attend university,
preventing many from entering professional life.
The state strictly regulates worship at the country’s 75,000
mosques. Imams are trained by the state, and the weekly sermon is
scripted at the religious affairs directorate in Ankara.
The staunchly secular military regularly purges officers, without
redress, who are suspected of Islamist leanings.
Rights groups say non-Sunni Muslims face official bias. Up to a fifth
of Turks are Alevi, a sect with loose ties to Shi’ism in which men and
women worship together and prayer includes dance and poetry.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s remark last year that “Alevism is not
a religion” has fed the claim of discrimination.
EU diplomats, while disappointed over a lack of dramatic progress,
acknowledge maintaining Turkey’s own brand of secularism as it expands
rights is a delicate balancing act.
09/23/04 04:52 ET

‘Russian formula’ contradicts Azerbaijan’s interests
AzerNews
23 Sept 04

Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents held meetings in Astana,
Kazakhstan within the summit of the CIS heads of state last
Wednesday. The first meeting was attended by the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia), Steven Mann (USA) and Henry
Jacolin (France), who informed the two leaders of the work recently
done in this area.
The Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov told journalists after the
meeting that the two presidents discussed issues agreed upon in Prague
earlier. “One of the proposals made concerns liberation of regions
adjacent to Upper Garabagh, the return of displaced persons home and
ensuring their security.” Baku and Yerevan are now expected to forward
their proposals to the co-chairs which will outline the future
activity of the OSCE MG. “The ideas discussed by the presidents are
within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”,Merzlyakov
said.
The Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders held three-hour talks in private
followed by a trilateral meeting attended by Russian President
Vladimir Putin. President Ilham Aliyev gave a positive assessment to
the meeting. “I believe that the meetings of the two countries’
foreign ministers held on a permanent basis with participation of the
(OSCE) Minsk Group are positive.” Aliyev admitted that the two
presidents cannot say anything specific as to what they had discussed
behind closed doors. “We always have to confine ourselves to
verygeneral phrases, and there will be no exception today, because the
process is extremely important.” The Armenian leader Robert Kocharian
told journalists that the meeting was ‘quite interesting’ and that the
presidents have clarified certain positions and standpoints. “Now we
have to take time to find out where we stand”, he said. The process of
negotiations concerning the resolution of the Upper Garabagh conflict
is “underway,” Kocharian said. He admitted, however, that “we can’t
boast of anything special.” The Armenian President said that the two
sides approach the dialogue “with patience”. “We are discussing
complex problems that we have inherited”, he said. Russian President
Vladimir Putinassessed the meeting as a step forward and expressed his
confidence that the two countries’ presidents will arrive at common
decision on the issue. Influential Russia media reported that the
talks, which besides the conflicting sides, involve the Russian
President, are more efficient. Azeri pundits say that the so-called
“Russian formula” of the conflict settlement does not meet the
country’s interests at all, as it envisions withdrawal of Armenian
troops from Azerbaijan’s territories adjacent to Upper Garabagh in
exchange for referendums on the status of both Garabagh alone and
throughout the country. Local experts reasonably believe that the
outcome of a separate referendum in Upper Garabagh will be far from
authentic. Moreover, these results, no matter how turn out, would not
have any political consequences or force, as the issue of altering
Azerbaijan’s borders is the country’s own prerogative. The status of
Upper Garabagh can be determined only through a referendum held all
over Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, the presence of the Russian formula is
more favorable than the stalling peace talks that have persisted for
over a decade. It is for this reason that President Ilham Aliyev said
that any course of developments in this direction could promote
conflict settlement.
Opinion Moscow considers the talks held by the Azerbaijani, Armenian
and Russian Pesidents as “useful and constructive”, Russian
President’s administration spokesman said following the
negotiations. “It is evident that the parties are ready to continue
dialogue and search for a compromise”. It is common knowledge that
this is an extremely complex and persistent problem, and its
resolution will take time, serious efforts and mutual concessions,
Russian media reported. “Aliyev and Kocharian aim to seek exclusively
political ways of untangling the Garabagh problem”, the same Russian
official said and pointed out that the two presidents confirmed
“observance of ceasefire obligations”. “Such intentions give a hope
that the conflict will be done away with despite existing problems.”
Russia, along with the two other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group,
USA and France, is ready to provide all the necessary assistance in
this area. “Russia is ready to support a conflict settlement that
would suit all sides involved, and, if necessary, act as a guarantor
for mutually acceptable agreements. Such an approach was approved by
the parties”, the Russian representative added. Moscow believes that
the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents should “agree on their own”,
but Russia “can contribute to developing and deepening the dialogue”
between Baku and Yerevan. Russia certainly understands that the
results of two referendums would be contrary to each other and no
miracle will take place, as residents of Garabagh will vote for its
independence, while voters in Azerbaijan – for its return to Baku’s
control. Nonetheless, Russian politicians believe that the start of
the conflict settlement process will most likely relieve tensions
between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Moreover, Russia will assert its
desired role of becoming a key peacemaker in the conflict.

EU to follow authorities-opposition dialogue
AzerNews
23 Sept 04
The European Union is ready to cooperate with Azerbaijan within the
European Neighborhood Policy both in the political and economic
fields, the European Commission (EC) President Romano Prodi told a
press conference following his meetings with Azeri
government officials in Baku on Friday. Prodi visited Baku as part of
his tour of the South Caucasus region on September 16-17. The EC
President saidhe discussed the next steps following the EU’s recent
decision to include Azerbaijan in the program with President Aliyev,
Prime Minister Rasizada, Parliament Speaker Alasgarov and Caucasus
Clerical Leader, Sheikh Pashazada.
“We would like to see the benefit of extended Europe both for
ourselves and the “new neighbors.” Prodi noted that Azerbaijan will
“experience the advantage of entering the European Union’s 500
million-people market”. He added that implementation of the mentioned
policy is possible not exclusively for any country in the region but
only for all regional countries. “The EU has expressed a very clear
and firm position: by the “new neighborhood policy” we imply all the
three regional states – Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.”
Progress
The European Commission President Prodi said with regard to democratic
reform ongoing in Azerbaijan that the European Union believes that the
country has achieved considerable progress in this area. “We openly
state that important progress has been achieved in Azerbaijan in the
area of democracy and it needs to be further developed.” Prodi said
that in his meeting with President Ilham Aliyev “a full range of
issues on freedoms, democratic development and transparency of
elections was discussed”. “Our position is unequivocal and clear:
these are our priorities, which are very important, as the EU is based
on them”, the EC President said. He said the EU will follow the
relations between the authorities and the opposition in
Azerbaijan. “There is no democracy without opposition and the EU will
definitely keep in spotlight the relations between the authorities and
opposition and trends for their getting closer.”
Prodi underlined, however, that “in all South Caucasus countries, we
(European Union) did not fully agree with the results of elections,
which raised our concerns from various standpoints”. Touching upon the
Upper Garabagh conflict settlement, he said the European Union
supports a dialogue between the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of
Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, the EUhas no plans to interfere with
the negotiations. Nonetheless, the EU is ready to assist in
establishing peace and providing assistance to refugees if the
conflicting sides reach an agreement.
EC offers assistance
The EC President Prodi said in a meeting with teachers and students of
the Baku State University on Friday that conflicts in the Caucasus are
unacceptable. Prodi stated that resolution of the Upper Garabagh
conflict depends on the conflicting sides. He said he supports the
peaceful settlement and that such conflicts have also arisen among the
European Union member-states in the past and were resolved within the
framework of economic reforms. In a meeting with Prodi on the same
day, Sheikhulislam Allahshukur Pashazada said that Armenia tried to
misinform the international community that its conflict with
Azerbaijan started on a religious basis. Pashazada pointed put that
this was not true and said the fact that Azerbaijanis are not willing
to live side by side with Armenians is the latter’s delusion. “25,000
Armenians are living in Azerbaijan today. However, there is not a
single Azerbaijani living in Armenia,” Pashazada stressed. Prodi said
that his visit to Baku aimed to put forward new proposals on
cooperation and pointed out that not only economic and but also
political relations between the EU and Azerbaijan will expand. “The
European community is open to your community. The involvement of
religion in this dialogue is therefore necessary,” Prodi said and
added that the EC could assist in solving conflicts in the region.