PRESS RELEASE
ARMENIAN AMERICAN VETERANS ORAL HISTORY PROJECT, INC.
489 MOUNT AUBURN STREET
WATERTOWN, MA 02472
Contact: Gregory H. Arabian
Tel (617)926-8600
Fax (617)926-8822
Email: [email protected]
Myron Khederian took a year to give up his story. Combat engineer,
rifleman and flame thrower in WWII, he claimed he `never did anything
worth mentioning.’
When his Armenian American AMVETS Post asked him to participate in
its Oral History, Myron’s family, reading the Newsletter, urged him to
tell his story without success. One day, just before a meeting, Oral
History Director and Judge Advocate Major Greg Arabian cajoled
Myron. He persuaded him to `just tell us a few things’ about his
military experience. Myron gave an Oral History that later proved
invaluable to his family who never knew about it. A year later, Myron
died. At church, fellow veteran Arthur `Libby’ Arakelian presented the
family with Myron’s Oral History taken a few months before. Myron’s
family was flabbergasted, surprised and thankful – all at the same
time. In a letter to Major Arabian, they described how they urged him
to participate, how he repeatedly and stubbornly refused, and now, how
indescribably valuable and precious it was for them to have this
permanent taped record of his amazing military history.
`It’s always the same,’ says Arabian. `Great veterans with great
stories who won’t talk about it unless and until you cajole, persist,
insist, and gently draw it out of them. It is a gentle art.’ In less
than two years, Arabian completed over 55 Oral Histories of a Post of
mostly Armenian American combat veterans, at no charge, at no cost to
the veteran. At the expense of his professional time, he travels from
his small law office to his Post, coordinating his time with days when
these elderly veterans can make it. Every veteran receives a copy of
his Oral History in less than a week. `We lose over 1000 veterans a
day, ` says Arabian. `That means that as every day that goes by, we
lose over 1000 Oral Histories that never made it. That is why I had to
do more.’
Supported by the Veterans History Project of the Library of Congress,
Arabian now conducts Oral Histories of all Armenian American veterans
of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He
has enlisted the support of a videographer, purchased camera and
recording equipment, practiced the latest techniques and refined Oral
History to an art far beyond his initial dreams. He looks everywhere
for new recruits, will go anywhere within reason to get them, and
takes great pleasure in his ever improving techniques. He simply likes
veterans. Those who know anyone of the dying breed of the Greatest
Generation and especially now, those veterans who have a story to tell
would do our country a great service by contacting him at The Armenian
American Veterans Oral History Project, 489 Mount Auburn Street,
Watertown, MA 02472 or contact him at [email protected]. You will be
pleasantly surprised.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 375033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 1) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 1) 52.48.46
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:
June 25, 2004
ACNIS Releases Opinion Polls on Karabagh:
Society Weighs In on Peace, Security, Status
Yerevan–The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS)
today issued the results of both a public survey and a specialized
questionnaire on “Regulating the Karabagh Conflict,” which it conducted
between May 27 and June 18 in Yerevan and all of Armenia’s regions. The
announcement and accompanying analysis were made during a roundtable
discussion at ACNIS headquarters which assessed the present phase of the
Mountainous Karabagh peace process, compared and contrasted expert and
public perceptions of the issue, and summarized its possible outcomes.
ACNIS founder Raffi Hovannisian greeted the invited guests and public
participants with opening remarks. “These twin surveys, in which 50 policy
analysts and 1,950 citizens from across Armenia respectively took part,
provide a solid basis for recording, interpreting, and evaluating public
attitudes in the light of more specialized opinions. It is our hope that the
relevant republic-wide institutions will draw appropriate conclusions for
the charting of Armenian national policy,” Hovannisian said.
ACNIS legal and political affairs analyst Stepan Safarian presented “The
Aims, Methodology, and Results of the Survey,” focusing in detail on the
findings of the expert and public opinion polls. Accordingly, 60% of the
surveyed experts assert that the Karabagh question is the priority issue for
Armenia today, 32% are of the opposite opinion, while 8% find it difficult
to answer. In the public opinion poll, these indices read 64.9%, 22.1%, and
13%, respectively.
Since the raising of the Karabagh question (1988-2004), 82% of respondent
experts consider the greatest achievement to be independence and
sovereignty, 8% guarantees of physical security, 4% confidence in our own
abilities, and 4% enhancement of territory. As for the public survey, 49.7%
think that the most important accomplishment is independence, 6% guarantees
of physical security, 10% confidence in one’s own abilities, and 12.8%
enhancement of territory. 54% of responding specialists see the status of
Mountainous Karabagh as a part of Armenia, 32% as an independent and
sovereign republic, while 10% find it acceptable for Karabagh to be an
autonomous part of Azerbaijan. Among the broader public, these figures are
59.7%, 38.6%, and 1.1%, respectively.
What destiny awaits the liberated territories? In response to this question,
6% of experts suppose they will completely be united with Mountainous
Karabagh, 20% expect their union with Armenia alongside Karabagh, 40%
believe it fair to yield the liberated territories, except Lachin and
Kelbajar, to Azerbaijan as the result of compromise, 20% are for ceding the
liberated territories to Azerbaijan, save Lachin, under the same conditions,
and 8% think that they will completely be attached to Azerbaijan. The public
also is concerned about the future of the liberated territories. 30.3% of
responding citizens are for their union with Karabagh, 45.5% opine that they
should be united with Armenia alongside Karabagh, 11.2% are for dividing
these territories among the parties to the conflict, leaving Lachin and
Kelbajar to Armenia, and 1% conclude that they should be attached to
Azerbaijan.
In this connection, 50% of the polled experts think that the Armenian
parties might make territorial compromises only in the case of Azerbaijani
recognition of Karabagh’s independence or its union with Armenia, 4% in case
of Azerbaijan’s opening of roads leading to Armenia and Mountainous
Karabagh, and 20% upon signing a peace accord with Azerbaijan and ruling out
war with it, while 26% find that liberated lands cannot be subject to mutual
concessions and bargaining, even if that means the resumption of military
operations. The public opinion poll looks like this: 40.7% would agree to
compromises only in case of Azerbaijani recognition of Karabagh’s
independence, 6.4% in case of Azerbaijan’s opening of roads leading to
Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh, and 14.1% upon signing a peace accord with
Azerbaijan, while 32.4% will concede nothing even if that means the
resumption of war.
The majority of experts, 86%, are against the return of Azerbaijanis to
their places of former residence in Karabagh and the liberated territories,
and only 14% are for it. As for the circumstances under which they would
agree to such a return, if necessity dictates, 42% think it is possible only
after final regulation of the Karabagh issue, 18% simultaneous with
resolution if this can help promote the process, 26% are opposed in all
cases, while 8% believe it should turn on an equivalent step taken by
Azerbaijan and Turkey. The figures received from among the rank-and-file
citizens differ a bit here. 21.3% of polled citizens would agree to the
refugees’ return only after the final resolution of the Karabagh question,
14.7% think it should be conditional on an equivalent step taken by
Azerbaijan and Turkey, while 41.9% are unequivocally opposed.
40% of the experts are completely dissatisfied with the Karabagh negotiation
process, 32% are more dissatisfied than satisfied, 14% are more satisfied,
4% are completely satisfied, while 10% find it difficult to answer for lack
of information. In contrast with the private analysts, the members of the
public are in a more optimistic mood. Only 13.5% are completely dissatisfied
with the negotiation process, 37.9% are relatively dissatisfied, 22.6% are
relatively satisfied, and 3 % are completely satisfied, whereas 23% find it
difficult to answer for lack of information. To the extent the negotiation
process is deemed unsatisfactory, 18% hold accountable the former
administration, 42% the current administration, 8% mediating organizations,
8% the international community, 10% Armenian society, and 8% all Armenians.
In considerable measure, expert opinions and citizen attitudes do not
coincide on this question as well. 29.5% of the latter blame the former
administration, 34.6% the current administration, 1.7% Armenian society, and
3.6% all Armenians.
70% of the questioned specialists are dissatisfied with the activities of
the OSCE Minsk Group, whereas 54% of citizens are not even familiar with
them. 60% of experts believe that the position of none of the co-chair
countries in the OSCE Minsk Group corresponds with those of Armenia and
Karabagh, 18% think the United States position to be more in line with the
Armenian ones, 10% appreciate Russia’s position, and 10% mark France. As for
the public poll, the corresponding findings are 36% (none), 2.8% (USA),
28.8% (Russia), and 25.7% (France).
The overwhelming majority of experts, 90%, are convinced that the Karabagh
problem can be solved peacefully and without resort to renewed war, and only
8% think that the solution can be achieved by force of arms. In this regard
the citizens again are the more optimistic: 86% of them believe in a
peaceable resolution of the conflict, while 14% conclude that military might
is the only way. It is noteworthy that 67.7% of the public respondents are
ready to participate to their utmost in the defense of Mountainous Karabagh
in the event of a fresh outbreak of hostilities.
What do the figures reveal? Davit Petrosian, political analyst for Noyan
Tapan news agency, offered a critical intervention entitled “An Alternative
Comment on the Poll Results.” Petrosian maintained that one of the most
valuable accomplishments reflected by the surveys is that both responding
experts and citizens hold Armenia’s independence in high esteem, and this is
an encouraging affirmation. There also are, however, painful results. “We
may deduce from many of the answers that the public does not trust the
Karabagh problem to the current administration, and to be more exact only
2.5% trust it,” he said.
The formal presentations were followed by contributions by Supreme Council
Deputy Club chairman Ruben Torosian; Avetik Ishkhanian of the Armenian
Helsinki Committee; Yerevan State Linguistic University professor Hrach
Tatevian; Armen Aghayan of the “Protection of Liberated Territories” public
initiative; Artsrun Pepanian, political analyst for AR television; ACNIS
analyst Hovsep Khurshudian; Ruzan Khachatrian of the People’s Party of
Armenia; National Press Club chairperson Narine Mkrtchian; National State
Party chairman Samvel Shahinian; Tamara Vardanian of the Noravank
foundation; Karabagh analyst Alvard Barkhudarian; Slavonic University
professor Rosalia Gabrielian; and several others. Most speakers underscored
the importance of the information and supporting analyses uncovered by the
surveys in terms of facilitating a comprehensive and objective understanding
of the Karabagh challenge.
All 50 professionals who took part in the focus poll are from Yerevan. 90%
of them are male, and 10% female; 8% are 30 years of age or below, 40%
31-40, 42% 41-50, and 10% 50 or above. All of the experts surveyed have
received higher education: 20% are candidates of science (PhD), 76% hold a
Master’s degree, while 4% have earned solely a Bachelor’s degree. As for the
1,950 citizens polled, 50% of them are male and 50% female; 30.5% are 30
years of age or below, 45.2% 31-50, 20.6% 51-70, 3.7% 71 or above. 45.7% of
the responding citizens have received higher education, whereas 11.2%
incomplete higher, 17.3% specialized secondary, 21.6% secondary, and 2.4%
incomplete secondary training. Urban residents constitute 60.7% of the
citizens surveyed, and rural residents make up 39.3%. 34.3% are from
Yerevan, and 65.7% from all of Armenia’s regions.
Founded in 1994 by Armenia’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs Raffi K.
Hovannisian and supported by a global network of contributors, ACNIS serves
as a link between innovative scholarship and the public policy challenges
facing Armenia and the Armenian people in the post-Soviet world. It also
aspires to be a catalyst for creative, strategic thinking and a wider
understanding of the new global environment. In 2004, the Center focuses
primarily on public outreach, civic education, and applied research on
critical domestic and foreign policy issues for the state and the nation.
For further information on the Center or the full graphics of the poll
results, call (3741) 52-87-80 or 27-48-18; fax (3741) 52-48-46; e-mail
[email protected] or [email protected]; or visit

Middle Israel: Talking Turkey
Jerusalem Post (Online Edition)
June 24, 2004
By Amotz Asa-El, [email protected]
“Our forefathers, at their strongest time in history, opened up their
hearts to the Jews who had been driven out of Spain at the time of the
Inquisition and opened up their hearts and homes to the Jews. Jews were
the victims at that time.
Today, the Palestinians are the victims, and unfortunately the people of
Israel are treating the Palestinians as they were treated 500 years ago.
Bombing people – civilians – from helicopters, killing people without
any considerations – children, women, the elderly – razing their
buildings using bulldozers.
When I explained all this to your minister of energy, his response was
‘only a friend can be this sincere and talk this openly.'”
Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Haaretz, June 4, 2004
********************
Mr. Prime Minister
You may have expected world Jewry to regard your recent remarks
concerning the Jewish state’s conduct of its current war, and your
government’s recalling of its ambassador from Tel Aviv for
consultations, with awe; after all, yours is a major power, and its
place among the familiar choir of anti-Israeli pontiffs is not natural.
In fact, you have accomplished the opposite, raising doubts about
your own historical insights, personal integrity, and diplomatic
reliability.
Fortunately, your Islamic party has proven itself happily modernist,
a movement that once in power embraced the separation of church and
state, promoted market economics, courted Europe as feverishly as its
secularist predecessors, and inspired moderation in Cyprus.
And yet you have just launched a vicious attack at us, and it would
be useful for you to fathom its severity now rather than lament its
impression later.
FIRST, THERE is the moral aspect.
You appear to believe that you carry some moral weight with which you
can reprimand us while we fight a war that has been much more vicious
than anything your countrymen have faced in more than 80 years. Yet
the fact is that, with all due respect to your tentative release of a
handful of Kurdish dissidents recently, you remain hostile to their
general cause, arguing that they should never have a state. Not only
do you deny that nation the right of self-determination in your land,
you also deny it elsewhere. A Kurdish autonomy in Iraq, you recently
told Newsweek, would not be “healthy,” as it would “bother” Syria,
Iran, and Turkey.
Now truthfully, Mr. Prime Minister, how do you want the Jews to take
seriously your hectoring about their treatment of the Palestinians
when this is what you have to offer a nation that, unlike the
Palestinians, has existed for centuries, has its own language, and
numbers at least 30 million people? Forgive us for suspecting that
behind your high-minded talk about justice is actually a cynical
concern for power and disregard of other people’s rights, in line
with your country’s historic mistreatment of myriad nationalities,
from Greece in the west to Armenia in the east.
Forgive us also for reminding you that your criticism conveniently
ignores the fact that we Jews have offered the Palestinians a state,
half of our historic capital, and even a foothold in our religion’s
most sacred site.
Please understand that as long as you have not displayed even a
fraction of such pragmatism in your dealings with your own
adversaries, you are in no position to preach to us on these issues,
certainly not in a way that will make us reconsider our attitudes.
Yet a Jew’s qualm about your attack is not only about its morality,
but also its factuality.
Your portrayal of our military activity is almost childish. What are
you insinuating, that Israeli gunships routinely take to the air and
indiscriminately spray the humanity beneath them? Maybe you can get
away with spreading such Arabian Nights stories in the despotic
Middle East that you prefer to see conserved, and in the Europe you
are so eager to join. Here in Israel, sir, the citizenry is the army.
No one can tell us stories about what our army does and doesn’t do,
certainly not you. The army here is not some remote entity, or, as
you suggest, “the government”; the Israeli army is us, our families,
our neighbors, our friends and our colleagues. And the way we see it,
our army is surgically targeting the people who let our children’s
blood. And when innocents die for having been at the wrong place at
the wrong time, as always happens in wars – even ones fought by
Turkey – we regret it at least as much as you do. To blame us for
fighting a war we did not start is like blaming a surgeon for drawing
blood.
Yet even more perplexing is your abuse of our history.
First, one is at a loss to decide whether your statement that the
Jews are now doing what the Inquisition once did to them, is more
abusive or ignorant. Are you suggesting that we are putting hundreds
of thousands of people on boats and shipping them into the horizon,
or that we burn heretics in weekly auto-da-fes at Rabin Square? Give
us a break, Mr. Prime Minister. Europe has changed, and joining it no
longer requires blood-libeling the Jews.
There is something very touching, and sincere, about your nostalgia
for your ancestors’ hospitality toward ours, and your emulation of
that tolerance, as expressed by your visit to the Turkish chief rabbi
after the Istanbul synagogue bombings. Yet we Israelis have no
pretension of emulating the Jews of 15th-century Istanbul, whose
formula for Jewish survival boiled down to seeking non-Jewish
benevolence.
We, the sober survivors of centuries of abuse, prefer to survive
thanks to our own actions, and as such are determined to never again
be slaughtered with impunity. We prefer to be scolded abroad rather
than murdered at home, even if you protest that our murderer was “a
spiritual leader.”
And as for that minister of ours, who in response to your spitting in
his face and ours, could only bring himself to tell you that “only a
friend can be this sincere and talk this openly” – all I can say is
that only idiots like me could have voted for an idiot like him.
;cid=1088046780466

Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School Class of 2005
A Sampling of the Power in Our Youth
June 25, 2004
Cosmic Ray Division – Armenia
Contact: Anahid Yeremian
Stanford, California
650 – 926 – 4444
[email protected]
As I sat at my desk, pondering the simulation results for a particle
accelerator injector design, our secretary put an envelop on my desk,
“Are these Armenian characters?” pointing to the first line of the
return address. “Yes,” I said, “That’s the Rose and Alex Pilibos
Armenian School. I was there two weeks ago to talk about cosmic ray
science and the cosmic ray stations in Armenia.” The Cosmic Ray
Division (CRD) is the group of scientists in Armenia who conduct
world-class research on top of Mt. Aragats and we, the Diaspora, have
been supporting them and proudly following their progress.
I am always delighted when young people take the time to write to me
after my visits to their schools. It shows that they were interested,
it shows that they are polite, it shows that they know how to network.
So I eagerly opened the envelop and read the letter. In its short 6
lines it had already brought me to tears of joy and pride by the time
I got the “Sincerely”. It showed all the things I said above, but it
also showed that these students have compassion and are willing and
able to take on responsibility. I want to share this letter with you,
so you too can be proud of our next generation.
“Dear Representative of CRD friends,
It was truly an honor and a pleasure to have you as a guest speaker at
our school. We learned much about your helpful projects, which
rekindled an even stronger love and respect for our homeland.
To lend our humble support, enclosed please find $180.00 which we, the
students have collected. We wish you success in your future endeavors
and hope to meet you again, this time on the steppes of Aragatz.
Sincerely,
Eleventh Grade Students of
Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School ”
I wondered, “how many lunches did they have to skip, or which pleasure
they gave up to save these funds to help their fellow Armenians in
Armenia?” I was so overwhelmed with pride for them, that I began to
miss them immediately. I called the school to thank them, but they
were already gone for the summer, and the accumulated tears in my eyes
flooded down my cheeks.
Class of 2005 at Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School, if you are
reading this article, know that I am extremely proud of you, and I
thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Anahid Yeremian

Turkish Daily News
25 June 2004
‘Good neighborly ties should be precondition for Turkey’s EU entry’
Armenian President Kocharian says Turkey and his country should start
building relations in practical areas
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News
Armenian President Robert Kocharian has said good relations with its
neighbors should be a precondition set by the European Union in order to
accept Turkey as a member, the Anatolia news agency reported.
Speaking at a session of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly in
Strasbourg earlier this week, Kocharian called on Turkey to build bilateral
ties with his country by beginning to cooperate in practical areas.
Kocharian said Armenia had no preconditions for establishing relations with
Turkey but, in a veiled reference to Azerbaijan, added that third countries
should not intervene in this type of process.
Turkey and Armenia do not enjoy diplomatic relations due to both a
territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region, originally a part of Azerbaijani territory but now under Armenian
occupation, and Armenian claims of a genocide allegedly committed by the
Ottomans.
The Armenians claim that during the final days of the Ottoman Empire their
ancestors were executed for allegedly helping the invading Russian army
during World War I. Turkey, the heir of the Ottoman Empire, rejects the
genocide claim, insisting that the Armenians were killed in civil unrest
during the collapse of the empire.
Referring to the alleged genocide, Kocharian said relations between Turkey
and Armenia should emerge from the shadow of the past.
In a reference to the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, Kocharian claimed that
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh were
constituted as two separate independent states, legimitimizing the Armenian
invasion of the area.

New York Post
THE WRONG WAY FOR KURDS
By AMIR TAHERI
June 25, 2004 — WITH the end of the 14-month period of occupation, Iraq is
likely to be faced, once again, with some of the problems it has had ever
since it was put on the map as a nation-state in 1921.
The most complex of these concerns the Kurds, whose leaders are playing a
game of bluff and counterbluff in the hope of exacting maximum advantage in
a period of uncertainty.
Both Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the two most prominent leaders of
the Iraqi Kurds, have hinted that they might decide to “part ways” if their
demand for a Kurdish veto on some key national decisions is not included in
the new constitution.
This may be a bluff. But the threat of Kurdish secession has already met
with two different reactions from Iraq’s non-Kurdish leaders,
Some Arabs are horrified at the thought of the Kurdish problem dominating
the nation’s agenda once again. They are prepared to do all they reasonably
can to satisfy Kurdish demands within a multiethnic pluralistic system.
Others manifest frustration: “The Kurds have been the source of all our
national miseries from the start,” one Iraqi Arab leader told me, on
condition of anonymity. “We became involved in several wars because of them.
We also had to submit to dictators because we believed they would prevent
the Kurds from secession. But now that Iraq is free, why should we return to
the failed policies of the past just to keep the Kurds under our flag?”
Many Iraqis, and some policymakers in Washington, see Kurdish secession as
the worst-case scenario for the newly liberated nation. Barzani and
Talabani, arguably the most experienced politicians in Iraq today, know this
and try to exploit such fears.
In fact, there is little chance for a breakaway Kurdish state in northern
Iraq, for several reasons.
To start with, Iraqi Kurds don’t constitute a single ethnic entity, let
alone a “nation” in the accepted sense of the term. They speak two different
(though mutually intelligible) languages, with each divided into several
sub-dialects, with distinct literary and cultural traditions.
Iraqi Kurds are also divided into half a dozen religious communities,
including different brands of Sunni and Shiite Islam, Zoroastrianism and a
number of heterodox creeds. Some of the people labeled “Kurdish” are, in
fact ethnic Lurs and Elamites, with their distinct languages, cultures and
histories.
And the predominantly Kurdish area is also home to some non-Kurdish
communities, including ethnic Arabs, Turcomans, Assyrians and Armenians. To
make matters more complex, at least a third of Iraqi Kurds live outside the
area that might one day become an independent Kurdish state. (E.g: There are
more than a million Kurds in greater Baghdad.)
So the creation of a breakaway Kurdish state could trigger a process of
ethnic cleansing, population exchanges and displacements that could plunge
the whole region into years of conflict.
A Kurdish mini-state in northeastern Iraq might not even be viable. It would
be landlocked and will have few natural resources. Almost all of Iraq’s
major oilfields fall outside the area under discussion – and its water
resources would be vulnerable to manipulation from Turkey and Iran, where
the principal rivers originate.
What about a greater Kurdistan? After All, there are millions of people who,
despite the objective diversity of their languages, histories and ways of
life, feel themselves to be Kurds. Such a state, including parts of Syria,
Turkey, Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Iraq, would have a
population of 30 million in an area the size of France.
But to create this greater Kurdistan, one would have to reorganize a good
part of the Middle East and re-draw the borders of six states, including the
region’s largest: Turkey and Iran. And the greater nation would still be a
weak landlocked state with few natural resources, and surrounded by powers
that, if not hostile, would not go out of their way to help it.
Such a greater Kurdistan would face numerous internal problems also. Which
of the four alphabets in use for writing the various Kurdish languages would
it adopt as the national one? Turkish, since almost half of all Kurds live
in Turkey? But the bulk of Kurdish historic and cultural texts are written
in the Persian alphabet, itself an expanded version of the Arabic.
What would be the capital? The city with the largest number of Kurdish
inhabitants is Istanbul – Turkey’s cultural and business capital is home to
more than 1.6 million ethnic Kurds.
In a greater Kurdistan, the intellectual elite would come from Iran, the
business elite from Turkey. It’s hardly likely they’d allow Iraqi Kurds to
provide the political elite. Barzani and Talabani, now big fish in the Iraqi
pond, could end up as small fish in a much bigger pond.
So Barzani and Talabani have no interest in the disintegration of Iraq. Nor
do a majority of Iraqi Kurds have an interest in leaving Iraq, now that it
has, for the first time, a real opportunity to build a state in which Kurds
can enjoy full autonomy plus a leading position in national power
structures.
The experience of the 3.5 million Iraqi Kurds who have lived a life of full
autonomy thanks to U.S.-led protection since 1991 is a mixed one. The area
was divided into two halves, one led by Barzani, the other by Talabani,
showing that even limited unity was hard to achieve in a corner of Iraq, let
alone throughout the vast region where the Kurds live.
The two mini-states developed a complex pattern of shifting alliances in
which, at times, one allied itself with Saddam Hussein against the other.
They even became involved in numerous battles, including a full-scale war
that was stopped, thanks to U.S. pressure.
Like pan-Arabism, Kurdish unification is easy to talk about, but hard to
implement even on a small scale.
Barzani and Talabani should stop bluffing about “walking away.” Other
Iraqis, meanwhile, should realize that a shrunken Iraq, that is to say minus
its Kurds, would be a vulnerable mini-state in a dangerous neighborhood. The
preservation of Iraq’s unity is in the interests of both Kurds and Arabs. It
is also in the best interest of regional peace.
At the start of the 21st century, the Kurds cannot pursue their legitimate
aspirations through the prism of 19th-century romantic nationalism, which
has mothered so many wars and tragedies all over the world.
The Kurds, wherever they live, must be able to speak their languages,
develop their culture, practice their religions and generally run their own
affairs as they deem fit. These are inalienable human rights, and the newly
liberated Iraq may be the only place, at least for now, where Kurds can
exercise those rights.
In other words, this is not the time for the Kurds to think of leaving Iraq
– nor for other Iraqis to deny the legitimate rights of their Kurdish
brethren. E-mail:
[email protected]

ARMENIA THIS WEEK
Friday, June 25, 2004
ARMENIAN OFFICERS ATTEND NATO EVENT IN BAKU AMID SECURITY ‘LAPSES’
Col. Murad Isakhanian and Sr. Lt. Aram Hovanisian of the Armenian Defense
Ministry attended this week a final planning conference for NATO’s
Partnership for Peace exercises set to take place in Azerbaijan this
September. Azeri officials prevented Armenian officers from attending the
first planning event held in Baku last January. The exercises dubbed
Cooperative Best Effort (CBE) – 2004 will test interoperability of NATO and
partner militaries in a potential peacekeeping operation. Georgia and
Armenia hosted similar games in 2002 and 2003.

As the Azeri Deputy Defense Minister Araz Azimov revealed this week, his
government was forced to acquiesce to the Armenian presence or “risk
cancellation of the exercises and cooling of relations with NATO.” Following
the January incident, the Armenian government and organizations, including
the Armenian Assembly, urged NATO officials to make sure that Armenia could
take partner as a full-fledged NATO partner or move the exercise to another
country. Alliance officials ultimately succeeded in winning Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev’s pledge that Armenians could take part. Following last
February’s brutal murder of an Armenian officer by an Azeri at another NATO
event in Hungary, security was expected to be tight.

However, radical Azeri groups linked to the country’s hard-line Ministry of
National Security succeeded in repeatedly disrupting the conference as it
got underway on Tuesday. Both Armenian and Azeri commentators questioned the
reasons behind police failure to provide adequate security. Azeri television
footage showed several protestors breaking into the hotel conference room,
disrupting the NATO event underway, with no police posted outside. One of
the perpetrators told the local daily Ekho that they were able to enter the
room twice and succeeded in “scaring” the NATO officers “who were afraid
that we might bring in explosives.” Police subsequently detained half a
dozen radicals, with some of them receiving two-month sentences for
“hooliganism.”

The same groups of radicals had earlier attacked Azeri peace activists, whom
the government accuses of “betrayal” of national interests and demanded that
they stop meeting with Armenian counterparts.

Most Azeri officials and commentators appeared embarrassed over the
incidents. Rauf Mirkadyrov, a leading commentator for daily Zerkalo, wrote
that while “our glorious police never had a problem quashing mass opposition
protests, [in this case] it failed to stop a few dozen protestors.” Foreign
Minister Elmar Mamediarov said that Azerbaijan must implement its
international obligations and “not fear” the Armenian military’s
participation. Member of the President’s staff Ali Hassanov criticized the
attack and insisted that “Azeris are cultured and civilized” people.

U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish urged Baku to improve security
measures, especially during the actual exercises in September. Deputy
Defense Minister General Artur Aghabekian said that Armenia agreed to scale
back its participation in the September CBE-2004 from a full-fledged
peacekeeping platoon to “five to seven officers,” in an apparent compromise
deal with Azerbaijan. (Sources: Armenia This Week 1-16; AAA Press Release
1-30; Ekho 6-22, 23, 24, 25; R&I Report 6-22; RFE/RL Armenia Report 6-22,
24; Zerkalo 6-22, 23, 25; Azg 6-23; Yeni Zaman 6-24)
ARMENIA REAFFIRMS KARABAKH POLICY
President Robert Kocharian told the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE) this week that Nagorno Karabakh (NKR) is an
established state and all Azerbaijani claims on its territory are without
basis. Kocharian reminded PACE members that Nagorno Karabakh had legally
seceded from Soviet Azerbaijan at the time the latter became independent in
1991 and then succeeded in defending that choice on the field of battle.

“The solution shall emerge from the substance of the conflict and not from
the perception of possible strengthening of Azerbaijan through future ‘oil
money’,” Kocharian said. The remarks were in reference to the recent claim
by Azeri President Ilham Aliyev that he was not in a hurry to settle the
conflict and would use Caspian oil profits to strengthen the country’s
military. “[This] approach is a formula of confrontation and not of
compromise,” Kocharian added. He further recalled that had Baku agreed to
the most recent peace proposals, it could have regained most of the formerly
Azeri-populated districts now held by Karabakh.

Meanwhile, a survey made public this week by a leading Yerevan think tank
revealed that Armenians are nearly unanimous on Karabakh’s independence from
Azerbaijan. Of 1,950 citizens surveyed by the Armenian Center for National
and International Studies (ACNIS) throughout the country, just over 1
percent would agree to Karabakh’s autonomy within Azerbaijan. Almost 60
percent want Karabakh united with Armenia, while 39 percent agree for it to
be independent. Some 41 percent said that they would agree to ceding some of
the territories outside NKR only in exchange for determination of its final
status, while another 32 percent are opposed to any territorial concessions.
68 percent said that they would be ready to “do their utmost” in defense of
Karabakh should fighting resume. (Sources: Armenia This Week 2-13; Arminfo
6-23; 6-23; 6-25)
Visit the Armenia This Week archive dating back to 1997 at
A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY THE ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA
122 C Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-3434 FAX
(202) 638-4904
E-Mail [email protected] WEB
Call to readers: The humanitarian situation in the Sudan continues to
deteriorate. Learn more at and .
_doctors_group_asserts_sudan_is_practicing_genocide
The Boston Globe
June 24, 2004
After visit to refugees, doctors’ group asserts Sudan is practicing genocide
Says world response needed now in Darfur
By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Correspondent
The violence in the Darfur region of Sudan includes systematic killings,
rape, pillaging, and destruction of villages that ”are clear indicators of
genocide,” according to a report issued yesterday by Physicians for Human
Rights.
A delegation from the Boston-based advocacy group visited the neighboring
country of Chad last month and interviewed non-Arab refugees from the Darfur
region, who gave firsthand accounts of being assaulted and chased while
their wells were poisoned, livestock stolen, and villages burned by an Arab
militia known as the Janjaweed, working with the Sudanese government.
”What we determined, based on a number of testimonies, is that there are
clear indicators of genocide,” investigator John Heffernan said. ”The main
point here is a consistent program of targeting non-Arabs.”
Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which the United States has signed, any member country is
obligated to stop or prevent genocide if it is identified. The international
genocide convention, adopted in 1948, defines genocide as actions intended
to destroy a racial, national, religious, or ethnic group.
There is widespread agreement that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur demands
urgent action, but a coordinated international response is coming too slowly
for many critics. The physicians’ group said that by presenting evidence of
genocide, it hoped to instigate a more serious international response.
”Those countries which have signed on to the genocide convention are
committed to prevent and punish those who are perpetrating it,” Heffernan
said.
Darfur has been the center of escalating violence as the Arab-dominated
central government has fought non-Arab rebel groups over the past 18 months.
In April, a UN official called the conflict ”ethnic cleansing.”
The physicians’ group’s report noted that non-Arabs were consistently
attacked while neighboring Arab villages were spared. ”The Janjaweed
attacked us, and then the government helicopters attacked us. They want to
attack all the black people in Sudan, so that Sudan will be for the Arabs
only,” a refugee is quoted as saying.
Tens of thousands of people have died, and roughly 1 million people have
been displaced within Darfur. Most of these displaced people lack food,
clean water, and medical care and some are even living in ”prison
enclaves,” according to Heffernan. For the refugees in Chad, those
conditions will only worsen as the rainy season begins, making transport of
food or other humanitarian aid impossible, the report said.
The study outlines assault methods it said were intended to annihilate the
non-Arab group. They cite systematic attacks on villages, using coordinated
air and land forces.
The Arab militia worked with the Sudanese government’s troops to destroy
property and pursued fleeing villagers in order to kill, rape, or rob them,
the report charges.
The report called on the Sudanese government to halt the violence, and on
the international community to intervene.
A spokesman from the United Nations said yesterday that although the
secretary general is not prepared to call the atrocities ”genocide,” the
flagrant human rights violations occurring in Darfur are a major concern to
the UN.
”The idea is not to wait until it gets to that point,” said Jemera Rome, a
Sudan researcher at Human Rights Watch. ”The Security Council does not need
genocide in order to act.”
She said that the UN should invoke its Chapter VII authority of the UN
charter, which permits the Security Council to take all actions necessary,
including sending a military force, to ”maintain or restore international
peace and security.”
The US government has so far not taken a view on whether the violence
amounts to genocide. In a June 11 interview with The New York Times,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, ”I’m not prepared to say what is
the correct legal term for what’s happening. All I know is that there are at
least a million people who are desperately in need.”
Carolyn Johnson can be reached at [email protected].

Armenian defence chief meets diaspora leader from USA
Arminfo
25 Jun 04
YEREVAN
The secretary of the security council under the Armenian president and
defence minister, Serzh Sarkisyan, today met the chairman of the board
of directors of the Armenian Assembly of America, Anthony Barsamyan,
and the regional director of the assembly, Arpi Vardanyan.
The press secretary of the Armenian defence minister, Col Seyran
Shakhsuvaryan, has told Arminfo news agency that during the meeting,
they touched upon the current level of US-Armenian relations and
prospects for their development. The sides also discussed the
domestic political situation in Armenia and the expansion of ties
between Armenia and the state of Kansas.

Armenian parliamentary delegation to visit Bulgaria
BTA web site
25 Jun 04

SOFIA
A delegation of the Armenian National Assembly, led by its Chairman
Artur Bagdasaryan, begins [on] Monday [29 June] a four-day official
visit to Bulgaria, the press office of the Bulgarian National Assembly
said [on] Friday.
On 29 June the Armenian guests are scheduled to confer with Bulgarian
National Assembly Chairman Ognyan Gerdzhikov and the leadership of the
parliamentary foreign policy, defence and security committee.
On 30 June the Armenian delegation will be received by President
Georgi Purvanov. Later on Wednesday the guests will travel to Plovdiv,
southern Bulgaria, where a twinning agreement between Plovdiv and
Gyumri will be signed. The delegation will visit the local Armenian
Church of St Kevork.
On the last day of their visit, the Armenian officials will be
received by Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg and the deputy chair of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and head of the
Bulgarian delegation to it, Yunal Lyutfi.

Armenian prosecutor, foreign envoys discuss ties
Arminfo
24 Jun 04

YEREVAN
Armenian Prosecutor-General Agvan Ovsepyan and the US ambassador to
Armenia, John Ordway, today discussed Armenian-US cooperation in the
fight against organized crime, trafficking and international
terrorism.
The press service of the Armenian Prosecutor-General’s Office has told
Arminfo news agency that among the issues discussed was the setting up
of an independent expert centre in Armenia with the US government’s
assistance.
On the same day, at a meeting with German ambassador Hans-Wolf
Bartels, the prosecutor-general touched upon the arrests of violators
of public order at opposition rallies and their trials. He assured the
ambassador that the country’s law-enforcement agencies and courts had
acted according to the law and within their authorities.
Ovsepyan and the ambassadors expressed their confidence that such
meetings would promote cooperation between the law-enforcement
structures of their countries.