2791) Open Letter To Turkish Embassy, Canberra, Australia

Re: Breaking-News-South-Australia

Your Excellency, Ambassador Ersavcı,

I wish to express my huge disappointment in connection with the above decision and request your intermediacy to relay my observations, and also my historical justifications to the concerned Parliament members or all other Press or Diplomatic entities, (ABC etc) as a reply of a Turkish citizen, defending need of “truths and ethics” over the world. . .

My father fought at Gallipoli; my uncle died there! When I had visited Australia exactly twenty years ago for about a month, including three days in Adelaide and Murray River region, I was indeed happy to enjoy a warm hospitality of polite and decent people without any trace of complexion or colonial superiority.

I do not know if it is the lack of our government and her representatives not teaching the Australian community on the values of Turks and a friendship unilaterally established over some historical or imperial confrontations!.

I have the impression that esteemed speakers, Messrs. David Ridgway and Bernard Finnigan, by standards of their education, profession and arbitration, or time devotion to the topic, fall much behind in accusing a large country on the other side of the World, as “criminals of genocide”. Given the image and friendly attitude towards Australians who visit their ancestors’ graves at Gallipoli every year, the “polished words of rude animosity and hatred” spoken out by the representatives are not ironic but pathetic for their essence of truth and proof!

I believe that the speakers and members in support, “thought that they were serving a noble humane cause,” by simply reading a short draft handed to them by some lobbyists, who gave visible preference to their past ethnicity instead of their present nationality, and diluted the clean sentiments of the Australian people, by stirring inside the dirt or their ignorance or historical beliefs, herewith contradicted by the annexed memo!

I am afraid that these gentlemen, have no knowledge of their own history on this subject and if they have ever read the book “The Destruction of Aboriginal Society” (ISBN 0708 106234) or even glanced the internet about Gallipoli, Armenia, Turkiye or if they have an average grasp of basic geographic information.

My competence on the subject is open on internet to the whole World, by my book “The Genocide of Truth”.

. But, if the honorable members have the authority but no time to read nearly 2000 verbatim references, then I would demand that they at least read Genocide-Lies-Need-No-Archives. and see what size of slander they have committed by believing in what they were told, but without the care to double or triple checking the validity of such information or assuming colonial or imperial authority. Sirs, this resolution is inferior even to “lynching mob justice” in so far that you have not asked the accused party to defend itself! I am sure that your concept of lawfulness will at least permit this minimal right of defense and that political bodies are not places where history, justice is discussed and settled in absentia of the accused by self-authority..

Gentlemen, I annex a “memo sheet” with verbatim excerpts proving that there “was never any genocide” and that even the little scenario of “Beirut orphans” is nothing but a distortion of a small fraction of a past drama, in which the Revolutionist Armenian Leaders (forerunners of ANCA) were responsible. The humanitarian Australian Relief was not even one spoon in the bucket of world wide relief sent to Christian – destitute Armenians, a large portion spent on arms and ammunition and a fraction embezzled by the collectors. Dear Sirs, you have made “sharp conclusions all by yourselves” without any documentation, justification, confrontation or opposition. Such an act of injustice “claimed to be in the name of humanity” is nothing but a cowardly shame and a huge insult to the memory of around 50.000 Anzacs who died at Gallipoli as aggressors attacking a nation in self-defense, without any valid reason! Gentlemen, you totally forgot the sufferings of your brave grand fathers and almost cursed their memories and souls by passing such an irresponsible resolution, for the country which protect their remains as you can watch in the video

ANZACS had developed an “understanding of fairness and chivalry” during a war of existence! The present parliament at peacetime, managed to smear fabricated dirt presented by some “advisors or beggars”, carrying their cunning and grudge qualities, all the way from the Near East,. ANZACS left their dead bodies in fighting an enemy they never knew, while the revolutionist Armenians embezzled donations and abandoned their own people..

Conclusion; Gentlemen, read the attached memo and show it to those lobbyists who have cheated on you and used your parliament as a means to express “their own grudges and hatreds”. I invite all historians, scholars, politicians, writers in the whole World to prove if any of my submitted irrefutable proofs is untrue. If attached evidence is correct, then your past decision is erroneous! Errors can be rectified by men of principle, honor and decency and even turned into an everlasting victory or strong compassion! Many would shy away trying to cover their past mistake, but few would have the courage. As confirmed in the annex, ANZACS had the “spirit and courage of heroism under appalling conditions” and they died for it. They are revered in Turkiye as “decent honorable warriors”. I want to have the same respect for the representatives of the great Australia! Am I asking too much? For the need of “honesty and truth defense” for a better world, you may please read my ideals expressed in my London Conference on Jan. 30th, 2009

This unfortunate experience exhibits how easy the democracy and benevolence of the people of Australia can be reversed into blank animosities by outside hearsay propaganda of those who indirectly abuse the freedom and wealth they cherish in Australia. Your Excellency, I am available to receive or reply any comments that may disagree with the contents of this OPEN LETTER submitting valid documentary evidence, to waive or belie given references on the annex. I express my apology for the sharpness of some of my explanations, but TRUTH CANNOT PREVAIL IF NOT SPOKEN OUT! Although I feel heavily insulted as a Turkish citizens with great respect for the Australians, I tried to be outspoken for best understanding.

The intermediacy and diffusion of my application to concerned parties and all communities, under my own responsibility, will be highly appreciated. You may please convey any replies, supported by valid documentation.

Yours cordially,
Sukru Server Aya, Istanbul

---

Annex - Memo For Explanations Of Points Raised

A) (p.42) “Why Armenia should be Free” G. Pastermadjian, Boston 1918

This decision of the Armenians cost them, the sacrifice of more than 1.000.000 men in Turkish Armenia, and complete devastation of their native land even in the first year of the war.

In spite of this terrible blow, the Armenians did not lose their vigor, and even though the autocratic Russian government, up to the time of the Revolution, created all sorts of obstacles to impede their activities, they still continued their assistance to the allied cause. In bringing about the failure of the three offensives in 1914 and 1915 the Armenians gave the allied cause important armed assistance, on both sides of the Turco-Russian frontier. (Note: Total number of deaths due to deprivations, epidemics was 300.000 plus 200.000 who died in Armenia under their New Republic 1919-1921 due to starvation and alike reasons. The word “sacrifice” is misguiding. Dependable documents belie 1.000.000 deaths.)

---

B) “What Really Happened at Paris Peace Conference 1918-1919” Charles Scriber Sons NY 1921

(p.46) `Directly, the United States is responsible for the present plight of the Armenians, by default of service. An essential weakness of our position in all Near Eastern affairs was that we had not declared war upon Turkey.

Hence we could not, in the period of the armistice, send troops into Turkish Armenia when such action might have saved many thousands of people from starvation. Not having declared war upon Turkey, we were always, during the period of discussion, outsiders, impotent to affect the actual course of the negotiations or put our own stamp upon the decisions taken.

(p.47) In March 1915, began a series of negotiations between the Allied Powers in respect to the disposition of Turkish territory in case of Allied victory. From these issued four international compacts. By the Sazonof-Paleologue Agreement of March 4, 1915, Constantinople and the control of the Straits were to go to Russia.

(p.47) In the spring of 1916 Russian troops had pushed for-ward into the four northeastern provinces of Turkish Armenia and were in military occupation of a large territorial area. Fear aroused among her allies by this Russian advance undoubtedly dictated the next step in the series of negotiations which, with our own failure to participate, made impossible the application of any modern or liberal policy in dealing with Turkey and rendered impotent at the peace conferences all those forces which worked for new and sounder methods of diplomatic treatment in settling the problems of the Near East. In May, 1916, it was secretly agreed that Russia was to acquire in sovereignty the four Armenian vilayets of Trebizond, Erzerum, Van, and Bitlis. British and French negotiations, conducted at the same time, roughly defined the respective area acquisitions or spheres of these two Powers by the ill-fated Sykes-Picot Treaty. Palestine, as then stipulated, was to be constituted as a separate state under a special international regime.

(p.49) At the Peace Conference the principal delegations from the Near East present throughout the protracted period of the peace negotiations were: the Greek, headed by Venizelos, shrewd, tireless, and innocent-looking; the Arab delegation, headed by Emir Feisal, a sincere young man, and a stately and attractive figure in his Arab head-dress and flowing robes; the Zionist delegation, led by Doctor Chaim Weizmann, with assistance from a number of able American and British representatives; two delegations of Armenians, that of Turkish Armenia, directed by the strange figure of Nubar Pasha, a wealthy Egyptian landowner, and that of the former subjects of Russian Armenia, under the leadership of a distinguished poet and novelist, Avetis Aharonian. There came, also, other committees whose stay was temporary. These had been sent to represent certain more localized phases of the separatist tendencies aroused amid the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by the new political evangelia of self-determination. Among them were the delegates of the Smyrna Greeks, demanding reunion with the mother country; of the Pontic Greeks headed by the archbishop of Trebizond, with the same Irredentist dream, or failing that, with a demand for localized independence as a Pontic Republic. The Kurds were there, claiming rights of independent statehood over an area that covered a large portion of the territory claimed by the Armenians of Turkey.

(p.50) The first of the Near Eastern claimants to appear at a hearing before the Council of Ten was the persistent and astute Greek premier, Eleutherios Venizelos. On February 3 and 4 of 1919 he presented the claims of Greece. He was the favored of France and Great Britain. In fluent French, and with an engaging appearance of frankness, he laid claim to southern Albania, Bulgarian and eastern Thrace, and the western coast of Asia Minor. One must recall that his claims could not be answered by two of the parties most interested and most directly affected by his patriotic dreams of a Greater Greece.

(p.50) They delivered the Turkish peasants to the tender mercies of Prussian drill-masters, who beat them into shape as soldiers. These soldiers starved or died of disease, chiefly cholera, typhus, and dysentery, literally by the thou-sand, while the wheat their people raised was shipped to Germany.

(p.50) It was the American belief that the crux in the question of the future welfare of the Near East lay in giving, for once in history, a chance to this peasantry of Asia Minor. The great majority of all westerners interested in and acquainted with the Near East missionaries, the British Freshfield and Whal merchant organizations, the American tobacco interests were opposed to granting Smyrna to Greece. Yet it was eventually done, though in compromised form.

(p.50) This was done on the morning of May 15, 1919, in open daylight, though the Turkish local authorities were assured repeatedly that it would be an occupation by Allied troops, including Greeks. Upon May 15 and 16 Greek troops and civilians massacred between 400 and 800 Turks in the city and its environs. In the next two weeks the killing of Turks, with all the horrible accompaniments of Near Eastern massacres, spread through the countryside roundabout as the Greek troops advanced. It is a moderate estimate to say that over 2,000 Turks men, women, and children were done to death unnecessarily by this decision of the War Council and the Council of Four.

(p.51)Knowledge of the Smyrna incident is necessary to an understanding of the elements which have made the Turkish negotiations at Paris and London and their re-sults, embodied in the Treaty of Sevres, entirely ineffective, especially in respect to their provisions for Armenian independence. For Armenia has been betrayed by the civilized world and thrown upon the tender mercies of Bolshevist Russia and the Turkish Nationalist forces.

(p. 51) News of the Smyrna massacres spread rapidly through-out the Near East. It caused terror and suspicion of the Allied intention, even in Syria. Great mass meetings of protest were held in Constantinople. Young Turk leaders had already fled into Asia Minor and were then attempting to organize, under the new name of the Tashkilat Milli, Turkish resistance to the disruption of the empire. The empire had meant to many of them official position, whether in the army or in civil service, which was their means of subsistence, with limitless opportunities of graft. The massacres gave life and purpose to their appeal to the Turkish peasantry, to defend them-selves against other massacres which would surely befall them when the Allied control should be established. It helped, no doubt, in destroying the confidence of the Allies in Venizelos, and in the possibility of a just rule by the Greeks over the Turkish population of Asia Minor. Venizelos continued to work tirelessly through the fall of 1919 and the spring of 1920, but his diplomatic skill could no longer meet the odds against him. In a last desperate cast against fortune he made promises in May of 1920 to defeat the forces of Mustapha Kemal Pasha in Asia Minor. He threw in additional Greek troops who advanced toward Constantinople and Ismid. The Turks retreated before them, fighting guerilla war-fare. In October of 1919 a Smyrna Greek confessed: "Smyrna will be the tombstone over the reputation of Venizelos."

(p.52) In December of 1919 the United States Government withdrew from active participation in the work of the Peace Conference. This removed the chief deterrent to the settlement of the Turkish problems, in the sense that no force opposed to the secret treaties was any longer represented in the meetings of the Supreme Council.

(p.52) The efforts of the two Armenian delegations at Paris were directed toward the ultimate end of establishing an independent state, including the Armenians of Russian Transcaucasus and the four northeastern vilayets of Turkey, stretching southwestward so as to embrace a part of Cilicia, and debouching upon the Mediterranean Sea at the Bay of Alexandretta. Their immediate desire was to obtain recognition of the Armenian Republic of the Transcaucasus as a de facto government, so that they might be in a position to obtain credits, money for food for the 400,000 refugees assembled in Russian Armenia, and for arms and ammunition with which they might defend themselves against Moslem Tartar and Turkish attacks and move the refugees back to their homes in Turkish Armenia! But the Armenian mountains have little to offer in exchange for help, except a brave, industrious, and broken people. `

---

C) “Near East Relief Report of US Congress-Senate”, April 22, 1922

(p.9) “The administration committee at Beirut, until the recent Cilician exodus, has been free from the more pressing problems of general relief until has been able to place large numbers of orphans in homes, thereby reducing the number of orphans in Near East Relief institutions in Syrian area to 6.775.” (Note: The Armenians who were relocated in the Syrian area, went back to their homes after the armistice, together with the British, later French armies,, resettled and started atrocities under French uniforms. People fought back, and French army had to evacuate the area under a new treaty of 20.9.1921 and the Armenians who had come back, decided themselves to abandon their homes. This is what is meant by “exodus”, involving some 150.000 to 200.000 people (American Relief Report says 300.000.. There was no war in Beirut area, the orphans referred in the Australian resolution are the orphans of the Armenian community, who were relocated in the Syrian area, some of them went back with Allied armies, and when France asked for peace, they decided to leave. Turks “asked them to stay, since they held all important professions” but they decided to leave and destroy the economic life”. Cician and Southern Anatolia

“There are still, however many orphans in Cilicia and it has been the hope and purpose of the Beirut committee to transfer these and all others in the Cilician and Southern Anatolia….”

(p.9)“”Throughout Anatolia, in the hear of the territory controlled by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, there are dozens of orphanages steadily assisted by American men and women representing the Near East Relief. These include 350 Armenians at Angora, the capital of the Nationalists; 3.190 in Caeserea; 5.176 at Harpoot; 813; at the area of port of Samsoun; 1.368 at Sivas; 465 at Marsovan and other offices and centers”.

(Note: These were all areas controlled by Turkish Nationalist Forces and show that Turks did not hinder the Relief Activities of American. There were several other Turkish orphanages under the special cares of Kiazim Karabekir Pasha in the Eastern Anatlolia and Djemal Pasha in Iraq-Syrian-Palestine region. There are books, photos by thousands for these orphanages, kept up owing to fodd scarcity of war and the fact that all ports were under Allied blockade”. The orphans who were taken care later after the exodus in Beirut, is just a spoon in the bucket. Your Armenian origin members, immediately connected this humane past drama, to “genocide” accusation, What a shame?”

---

D) “IMAGES OF GALLIPOLI”, P.A. Pedersen, Melbourne Univ. Press 1985

Facing stalemate on the Western Front, the Western allies looked for another way of bringing pressure to bear on Germany at the start of 1915. An attack on Turkey seemed the obvious choice. The appearance of a naval fleet off Constantinople, they thought, would quickly lead to a Turkish collapse and open up communications to beleaguered Russia. But the fleet failed ignominiously. The army tried next. On 25 April, it landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula to seize the shore defenses holding up the ships. Eight months and 265,000 casualties later, the army withdrew. The objectives it was to have taken on the first day were still in Turkish hands.

The hastiness and confusion surrounding its inception, the grudging material support it received, and the bungling by the senior allied commanders, make the Gallipoli campaign fascinating for connoisseurs of military incompetence. The soldiers were the victims of this muddle. Yet they performed heroically. The stoic endurance and unquenchable spirit of both sides under appalling conditions have enshrined Gallipoli as a byword for courage which time has not dimmed.

The photographs in this book, most of them published for the first time, give a vivid impression of what the Gallipoli campaign was like for those who fought in it. Most probably taken by a surgeon in the Royal Naval Division, they illustrate not just the fighting on land but the naval and aerial battle as well. Detailed captions explain the significance of each picture and contain a wealth of supplementary information. A penetrating introduction places the photographs in their correct historical setting and describes events as the photographer would have experienced them. Images of Gallipoli will appeal to the general reader and to the military historian alike as an outstanding pictorial record of a unique campaign.

Dr P. A. Pedersen is one of Australia’s leading historians of the First World War. He is a graduate of both the Royal Military College, Duntroon, where he won the Queen’s Medal, and the Australian Command and Staff College, and has served as a company commander of the Royal Australian Regiment.

(p.7) Private Horace Bruckshaw of the Plymouth Battalion wrote that the fire was ‘so hot that one dare not move the little fınger’. Anticipating a naval bombardment, the Turks withdrew at dawn on 26 April. Their opponents were retiring as well. Bruckshaw remarked: ‘This order we could not understand. .. for we could see absolutely nothing to warrant .

(p.10)… As Moorehead says, ‘These battles were so repetitive, so ant-like and inconclusive, that it is almost impossible to discover any meaning in them unless one remembers the tremendous hopes with which each action was begun.’ At Second Krithia, the exhausted troops went forward at about the same time every day-11 a.m. on the 5th, 10 a.m. on the 7th and 10.15 a.m. on the 8th, by which evening 6000 men, thirty per cent of the attacking force, had been lost for a gain of 600 yards. Murray, not too pleased that his brigade had been attached to the French, wrote on 6 May:

At dusk Murray, who led a charmed life, made his way back to the trench he had left near midday to find it three or four deep with bodies. They were slumped on the firestep and hanging over the parapet, some head first as they had died of their wounds or had been riddled with bullets as they were trying to make their escape. Of others, only their legs could be seen, their bodies Iying over the parapet.

(p.11) The attempt to advance at Helles had now cost the MEF nearly 60.000 casualties. But the attacks went on throughout. June-July,.The Turks losing almost 16.000 men themselves in counter-attacks, 28 June and 5 July.

Hunter-Weston, who had once remarked: “Casualties? What do I care about casualties?” mentioned that he had been glad of the change of “blooding the pups”. Having exhausted his army, he now collapsed from strain and sunstroke and left the Peninsula.

(p.14) Like most troops on the Peninsula, the RND had received little training in trench warfare. The Hawke Battalion, for example, had only had one day’s training in England on trench digging.Disadvantaging the MEF further was the lack of suitable equipment for trench combat, which spawned a frenzied spree of improvisation amply demonstrated in several of Taylor’s photographs.

(p.16) The heat was enervating for ail troops. By July it was averaging 84°F in the shade—if any could be found. Helles was ‘parched and dry and every blade of herbage had disappeared’. The Peninsula resembled a desert, brown and ankle-deep in dust. Between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. every trench and dugout became a furnace, which the occupants shared with scorpions, centipedes and tarantulas brought out by the heat. Whereas the Turks on the heights had abundant water supplies, shortages on the plain below were acute. Apart from one or two in Guliy Ravine, Helles was devoid of wells. Water had to be brought from Egypt, 700 miles away, pumped ashore and carried forward by mules

(p.17)…the flies are so thick that they are squashed in the process. One never sees the jam; one see a blue-black mixture of sticky, sickly flies. They drink the sweat on our bodies and our lips and eyes are always covered with them. As we wipe them away, we squash them, thereby making more moisture for the others that take their place. There is no escape from them. The hundred we eat do not seem to lesson the swarm. They are forever present, night and day

…a place where a burning sun had turned the bodies of the slam to a premature corruption, where there was no resting-place free from physical contamination, where the air, the surface of the ground, and the soil beneath the surface were alike poisonous, fetid, corrupt.

(p.18)The combination of depressing conditions, tiring work under shellfire, grossly inadequate spells out of the line, food that men would rather throw away than eat and, above all, the flies, made the onset of intestinal disease certain. By July the ‘Gallipoli Gallop’, or the ‘Gallipoli Trots’ as it was alternatively known, had reached epidemic proportions: ‘there was scarcely a man. . . who was not a victim’. With an average of over one thousand men being evacuated weekly, the disease was causing far greater losses than the Turks were.. Hamilton remarked on the overwhelming lassitude it engendered: ‘It fills me with a desperate longing to lie down and do nothing but rest…

(p.19) As always at Gallipoli, the change came late. J. G. Gasarich, who was a dysentery patient sent to Imbros in this period with dozens of others in like state, wrote: ‘we slept on the ground and were fed stew and tea which only made matters worse’ Bruckshaw reached Mudros on 27 October.

(p.20) In fact the attack had already failed. “All that remained was aftermath.”, says Rhodes James. It consisted of the hideously bloody fighting around Hill 60 which eventually linked the Suvla beach-head, six miles wide and three deep, with Anzac. The MEF had lost over 40.000 men in under three weeks.

(p.21) About 1200 men were evacuated with frostbite and exposure from Helles but almost 15.000 were afflicted at Anzac and Suvla. Most of the 280 deaths came from the northern enclaves. The Turks fared worse and, occasionally, both side stamped about trying to keep warm in full view of each other with few shots being fired.

(p.22) Kitchener reluctantly agreed when he visited Gallipoli in November. The last troops left Anzac and Suvla on 19-20 December. Murray was stunned: “Had we really admitted defeat? Had all the suffering been wasted and what of the dead?

(p.23) To which Murray’ final words might well be added: “The Turks did not beat us – we were beaten by our High Command. Total MEF casualties were about 265.000, including 46.000 dead. The Turks lost about 300.000.

---

E) THE ARMENIAN QUESTION Before the Peace Conference, Paris, Feb26, 1919 OFFICIAL MEMO

(p.4)



(p. 5)



(p.6)



Note: On page 12 of the memorandum, the Armenian delegation was requesting the victors not only to give them a huge portion of land between two the Black Sea and Mediterranean, half of the size of Anatolia, but they

Were also demanding that this area be evacuated:

a- By Turks – Tartars and similar non Christian elements who were 85% of the population in 1914
b- That all this population be stripped of their arms
c- To punish all that participated in massacres….

This memorandum was signed by A. Aharonian and Bogos Nubar on Feb.12, 1919

---

Questions That Need To Be Answered By Genocide Pipers:
1- If the Armenian population was all massacred as claimed in 1915, who was going to fill up this huge area of about 300.000 km2 or more?
2- What more evidence can any one ask, to claim innocence, when so much treason, barbarity is evident in submitted documents.
3- For MORE, please refer to my book here

---

Compiled by Sukru Server Aya, in Istanbul on March 30, 2009 as ANNEX to APPLICATION.

---

Read Full Post !

2790) Media Scanner Mar-Part 2 2009 (159 Items)

1. Letter From Turkkaya Ataov to Senator Feinstein
2. Turkey `Hawk' Touted As Obama's Man For Europe / Obama’s Istanbul Visit Could ‘Help Reduce Tensions’ Between Cultures Divides / Obama Aims At Revitalising Relations With Turkey During Upcoming Visit / If Obama Does Not Use / What Will Be After Obama Pronounces That Word
3. Confronting The Denialist Jewish Lobby: Mission Accomplished?
4. Turkey Changes Tactics On "Genocide"
5. Caucasus Knot
6. Turkish-American Relations Should Be Boosted, Turkish PM
7. Timely Testimony: Armenian Assembly Testifies To US Congress On Funding
8. Obama Visit Gets Media Attention: Opportunity Awaits For US President In Turkey / Obama’s Visit to Turkey & Relations Discussed / Obama & Turkish Leaders To Discuss Karabakh, Genocide, Armenia
9. Life In Turkish Prime Ministerial Bull’s-Eye
10. Obama’s Nominee Refuses To Call 1915 Events As Genocide / Obama Nominee Defies Senator’s Pressure To Criticize Turkey
11. Ezidis: Children Of Sun Living In Anatolia
12. Armenian, Greek Cypriot Ministers To Attend Civilizations Meeting
13. Between West & Kremlin
14. Obama To Woo Turks / Obama Visit: Risks & Opportunities
15. Pre-Emptive Gestures In Turkish-American-Armenian Triangle
16. "Ally Beyond Any Suspicion?"
17. Top 20 Tall Turkish Tales
18. What Is Main Aim Of Discourses On Border Opening
19. Armenian Council Of America's Letter To Clinton
20. Keynote Speech By Turkish President
21. Most Dangerous For Journalists
22. Genocide: Normalization Of Turkish-Armenian Relations Could Relieve Obama's Dilemma
23. Don’t Use Treaty To Discriminate
24. Parliament Prepares For Obama / Obama’s Genocide Dilemma: My Solution
25. Advantage Of Diaspora
26. Turkey: Impasse Negationism
27. Le Temps Des Avants by Aznavour
28. Taraf: Solution Package Soon
29. Recommendations On Armenia's Defense Strategy
30. Forbes:Armenia: 37th World Corrupted Country
31. Genocide: Ergenekon Linked To Sites On Internet
32. Obama Will Be President America Deserves?
33. Armenia & World: Interview With Nalbandian
34. Deciphering Turkey's Delay Tactics in Opening Border / Armenians Oppose Opening Border
35. Armenia Concerned At Russian-Turkish Relationship
36. Akcam: Obama Should Recognize Genocide & Liberate Turks & Armenians
37. Prof Cicek: "Bardakci Is Not Even Amateur Historian"
38. Remembrance Of Things Past
39. Pre-Emptive Gestures In Turkish-American-Armenian Triangle
40. Syrian Armenians' Last Chance To File Claims For Their Properties In Turkey
41. When Armenia Is Not Component In Armenian-Turkish Relations
42. Prominent German Historian Hilmar Kaiser Challenges Politically Motivated 1915 Arguments
43. Campaign Vow to Call Armenians' Deaths 'Genocide' to Be Tested
44. Foreign Desk @ New York Times: Maintaining Balance in Turbulent Times
45. Dialogue & Intrigue: Yerevan Forum & Visits Between Leaders
46. Second Blow To Diaspora
47. Armenian Issue Conference In Munich
48. "Mass Graves Should Be Showed To Obama"
49. London Symposium On "Remembering Adana 1909" Rescheduled For Istanbul
50. Against Falsification Of Armenian History
51. Online Armenian History Textbook To Be Launched
52. Corruption In Armenian Universities Terrifying
53. Russia Is Turkish Intelligence's Top Priority
54. No Congressional Vote On Genocide Soon
55. Department Of State Does Not Reflect USA's Position?
56. Turkey Belongs in Europe
57. US National Security Department Letter to CREW
58. Genocide Resolution
59. AKP Promised US Opening Armenian Border
60. Armenian Film Festival: Istanbul
61. Turkey Has 3 Problems:Cyprus, Kurdish, Armenian
62. Plans For Obama's Trip To Turkey
63. Turkey, U.S. Play Down Tensions Over Armenia Issue
64. Obama Visit Of New Era
65. Obama Gets Big Thumbs Up From Turks
66. U.S. To Host Conference On Diaspora Relations
67. If Obama Pronounces "Genocide", We Set New Tasks To Turkey
68. Obama & Genocide
69. Let Turkey & Armenia Work Out Differences
70. Affirmation Of US Record On Genocide
71. House Resolution 252
72. Text Of Resolution-Affirmation Of US Record On HR 252
73. Talaat Pasha’s Black Book Documents His Campaign Of Race Extermination:Ara Sarafian
74. Deciphering Turkey's Delay Tactics in Opening Border: Sassounian
75. Recognizing Opportunity: Obama Visit To Turkey Casts Doubt On Recognition
76. Chomsky: Obama Coming To Turkey For Energy
77. Obama Wavers On Pledge To Declare Genocide
78. Obama Likely To Refrain From Naming "Genocide"
79. Follow-Up “Anca Up Date” - Spread Some Honey On Words, Collect Cash To Attack With Swords!
80. Armenian Golgotha: Memoir Of Genocide,
81. "Armenia & Turkey Sign Contract This Year" ARF
82. Obama's Planned Trip To Turkey Is Opportunity, Armenian Assembly Supports Obama's Efforts
83. Genocide Scholars Issues Open Letter To Obama
84. Turkey’s Abkhaz Diaspora Dreams Of Home
85. Establishing Relations With Armenia Turkey Chooses Path Of Least Resistance
86. AP: Turkish Trip Intensifies Dilemma For Obama
87. What Price Should Armenia Pay For Turkish Border Opening?
88. Armenian Minister Upbeat On Turkish Ties
89. Open Letter To The President Of Armenia
90. Recognition of Armenian Tyranny by Ankara Equals Colonization of Turkey by Freemasonic EU – US
91. Frozen Relations Between Armenia & Turkey Showing Some Signs Of Melting
92. Recognition Redux: Waiting for April 24th
93. Identity Crisis: Diaspora-Armenians are Foreign Nationals in Armenia
94. Turks were Killed with Torture at Alaca, Cinis, Yes,ilyayla, Yan?k and Dere
95. Genocide Recognition Should Be Followed By Indemnity
96. OE Lutem: EP & Genocide Allegations
97. "Turkey: Land Of Fools" Ahmet Altan
98. Scandal: Presence of Armenian delegation to Erzerum
99. Armenia: Tyranny Kept Isolated by Turkey
100. Private Record Of One Of Armenian Genocide Instigators Made Public
101. The Armenian Reporter Talaat Pasha's Black Book Published
102. A Genocide, A Turkish Apology And An Armenian Thank You
103. Turkey May Establish Relations With Armenia To Gain Time To Settle `Genocide' Problem In Future: Experts
104. Armenian FM Nalbandyan: Nothing Can Question Fact Of Armenian Genocide
105. Turkish Foreign Policy Repairing The Bridge
106. Omnibus Bill Maintains Military Aid Parity To Armenia And Azerbaijan; Increases Aid To Nagorno Karabagh
107. Third Annual Anca / Genocide Intervention Network Capitol Hill Advocacy Days Set For April 22-24, 2009
108. Justice Minister Doesn't Permit B Oran & I Kaboglu Trial Under 301
109. State Departments' View On Hillary Clinton's Turkey Visit
110. Denialism In Perversion
111. Genocide Recognition A Priority: Letter To Obama
112. Obama In Turkey:Another Missed Opportunity?
113. I’m Concerned About My Safety about “ASALA”, I Call On All Armenian Soldiers To Flee Country"
114. "Beyond Genocide, Great Catastrophe"
115. Book Review: William Saroyan's Where The Bones Go
116. Turkish Writer Published Collection Of Documents Belonging To Talat Pasha
117. Sassounian: Turkish FM Should Never Be Welcomed In Yerevan
118. Kurdish Council President,Armenia: Turkey Still Committing Genocide
119. Armenian Lobby Increases Pressure
120. Armenians Problems:Syria
121. Oskanyan: America Should Recognize Genocide...
122. Turkish-American "Strategic Partnership":On Way To Rejuvenation?
123. Will Obama Risk Turkey's Wrath?
124. What Could Make Turkey Open Borders in 1,5 Years?
125. ATAA Commends Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson
126. Russian Finger Inside Capitol Hill
127. Turkish American Solidarity At Capitol Hill By Kirlikovali
128. Rep. Frank Pallone And . .
129. Highlighting Strategic Relationship With Turkey
130. Obama's Visit To Thaw In Relations With Israel
131. Genocide Recognition A Priority, CongressMembers Send Obama Letter
132. US Lawmakers Pressure Obama On Armenian Issue
133. TUSKON: Armenian Bill May Harm Rapprochement
134. Seven Topics Of Turkey-US Negotiations
135. Meeting Between Armenian & Turkish Students In Nevsehir
136. Canada:Students Follow A Course On Genocide Bold
137. Turkey Sees Greater Role in Obama's FP
138. Winners & Losers With "Genocide" Resolutions
139. Turkey, Armenia To Open Border Gates
140. Genocide: U.S. Congress Rep Warned Colleagues on Role of Turkey
141. Turkey:Clinton Presses ’Reset’ Button With Key US Ally
142. Bolstering Ties to Turkey
143. US Daily Slams Clinton On Turkey’s Human Rights Report
144. US Spokesman Faces Questioning On Obama Skipping Greece
145. Obama Visit To Turkey Significant
146. Obama’s Turkey Visit Message In Itself, Gül
147. We Used Dead Bodies As Bridges
148. Russian General’s Report On Genocide Against Turks By Armenians Published
149. What Were Armenian Officials Thinking, If They Were at all? Sassounian
150. “Obama To Make Turkey US Outpost”
151. Obama To Turkey:’Yes We Can’
152. Hillary Gets Personal On TV ChatShow / Clinton’s Surprises / Clinton Generates Lot Of Pr But No Real News / ’She Came, And We Were With Her’/ Clinton Tells How She Fell For Bill "Long Ago" / Turkey at Center Stage in US Policy / On Clinton's Travels, Duality in Style / Clinton Rolls Out Foreign Policy Approach In Trip / Turkey Warms To Clinton's Candor
153. Obama Won't Use ‘G'-Word, Pro-Armenian Congressman Says
154. Obama visit puts Turkey at center stage in US policy
155. Prof Questions Ethnic Conflict, Armenian Students To Genocide Denials
156. Letter to Clinton From American Hellenic Institute
157. Uruguay: Port Of Weapons & Genocide
158. Evening With Pamuk
159. "Let Garlic-Growing Armenians Beg to Join You"

---

Letter From Turkkaya Ataov to Senator Feinstein ( senator at feinstein.senate.gov )
Sent: March 27, 2009

Dear Honorable Senator Feinstein,
I am a Professor of International Relations, and I received my educational degrees from American schools, including a B.A., two Masters and a Doctorate (Syracuse University, 1959).

I devoted three decades of my life, inter alia, to the study of Armeno-Turkish relations, on which I published no less than eighty books/booklets. Three of the most recent ones were printed in New York. They are entitled: (1) Armenian Falsifications (2008), (2) What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians? (2006), and (3) The British Blue Books: Vehicles of War Propaganda, 1914-18. I shall do my best to mail to you a copy of each of the last-mentioned three publications.

You may also be interested in knowing that I am presently on a rather long speaking tour of the United States that will eventually total no less than thirty-six public addresses, mostly in various universities and a few meetings with some US Congress members, or their chief advisors.

I have in my possession now the draft resolution pertaining to the Armenians, prepared by a group of members of the House. I have also seen your reply to Mrs. Nisan Giftgi on the same question.

Both the text, prepared by Mr. Schiff and co-sponsored by some other House Members, and your private letter, reflect a totally one-sided and biased approach that omits crucial facts and presents a distorted picture that has no relation with the actual events in history. I have no intention to take this opportunity to reply to the inaccurate assertions, outright exaggerations and scandalous omissions. A proper response can only be expressed in book form. You may consider that I have done this in the eighty publications since the early 1980s.

I may underline here that it is the duty of scholarship to question the validity of a mainstream idea. The idea in this case happens to be a prejudiced attitude or the equivalent of a "trial" in your Congress, where you as "prosecutors" and "judges" are trying to pass through a "verdict", moreover in the name of the American people.

The draft resolution does not take into account any Turkish view. It does not seem to have taken into any consideration even Armenian confessions, expressed in memoirs, war histories, series of articles and official communications, all describing how armed Armenians, acting as independent units or in the ranks of Turkey's enemies, killed Turks and other Muslims. Those Armenian and some third party sources agree that both armed Armenians and their victims had reached six-digit figures. There exist a host of reliable documents and acknowledgements to this effect in published works as well as in the archives of the interested parties. A total disregard of this wealth of information goes to prove that the US Congress is not the place to pass a verdict on this topic.

The draft resolution is basically a product of the Armenian ethnic lobby, well-organized and well-to-do but already facing a complaint registered with the US Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.

I wish to come to your short reply to Mrs. Giftgy, in which you state the following: "We must remember and recognize this tragedy to ensure that it never happens again".

Your generalization, which misses the point entirely, is misleading in ways more than one. It is a rationalization that may comfort you but actually helps to hide the origins of genocide. Unless you are able to accept the correct diagnosis of the true source of this brand of crime, massacres will occur, thanks in part to such incorrect assessments.

I shall put aside the fact that you are virtually under the arrest of carefully-selected justifications, with absolutely no mention of opposing documentation. You have never become a part of scholarly debate on that issue. For instance, a prominent British source (Stephen Pope and Elizabeth-Anne Wheal, Dictionary of the First World War) recorded that between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians were living in Turkey in 1914, and that the Armenians "slaughtered an estimated 120,000 non-Armenians while the Turkish Army was preoccupied with mobilization." It adds that the armed Armenians attacked the Turkish quarters of the Ottoman city of Van in April 1915, and proclaimed there a government of their own, seceding in the process this province from the State. This was the beginning of Armenian massacres, pillage and rape directed against the non-Armenians.

Notable Armenians (such as the first Prime Minister of independent Armenia Hovhannes Katchaznouni, K. Serope Papazian), British functionaries (Captain C.B.Norman, A.G.Hume-Braman, Sidney Whitman) and men-of-letters (C.F. Dixon-Johnson, Bernard Lewis, Roderic Daveson, Andrew Mango, Norman Stone), Russian officers (General Mayevski, Lieutenant-Colonel Tverdo-Khlebov, Captain I.G. Plat, Dr.Khoreshenov), American academics (Dr. Cyrus Hamlin, William L. Langer, Stanford J.Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, Edward J. Erickson, Guenther Lewy), men from legal professions (Samuel A. Weems) and many others do not share the mainstream opinion about the "innocence" of the Armenians. You may kindly familiarize yourself with such sources. Fact-finding in history demands that all relevant parts of the truth is taken into consideration.

Let me come back to your misleading generalization that you intend to end genocide by punishing the Turks. I have to underline that genocide is a product of racism; and racism was born and rose in certain parts of the Western world. It is an offshoot of a particular level in the development of the capitalist society; it is the result of an advanced stage of a certain mode of production. It is like a hand and a glove with the process of colonial and imperialist exploitation.

One may believe to be "different" from the "other", in terms of racial, ethnical or religious background. But when this difference is regarded as innate and unchangeable, and moreover, justifying a sense of superiority over the other, then, one is confronted with a racist attitude or a set of beliefs, which also expresses itself in the practices, institutions and structures which help to justify it. Racism theorizes about human differences and things badly about another group. It proposes to establish an order, a permanent group hierarchy believed to reflect "laws of nature" or even God's preference. This is what the British, French, German, Spanish, Dutch and, the Americans have done in various parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Racism has two components: difference and power. It originates in the mind that regards "them" as different from "us", and the difference is supposed to be permanent and unbridgeable. Government-sanctioned segregation, colonial subjugation, exclusion, enslavement and genocide may follow that racist orientation. White supremacy, Christian selectivity, and anti-semitism are the result. The Blacks, the Muslims, and the Jews were tolerated as long as they stayed in "their place". In some Western societies, racism was fully worked out, elaborately implemented, and carried to its extremes.

There is no racism in the Turkish psyche. It has never been a part of the Turks' social, political, and psychological set-up. They are the ones who recognized the Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestants as separate peoples with the right to worship in their own way, built their own religious structures, elect their own representatives and be led by them, go anywhere within the large confides of the State, indulge in any kind of profession or work, and eventually join the State administration. This is known, dear Senator, as the famous "millet" system about which you give no hint of having accumulated sufficient knowledge. The Turks achieved all that when Europe was fighting religious wars, when Cromwell was pursuing his Catholics, the French butchering their Huguenots, and others subduing the Calvinists.

The Turks recognized the Armenians as a separate community as early as 1461 when the Christian centers virtually excommunicated this Gregorian people for centuries. Consequently, the Ottoman Foreign Minister only a year before the outbreak of the First World War was an Armenian – Gabriel Nouradoungian. Would Hitler appoint a Jew to be his Minister of Foreign Affairs? Did even the Weimar Republic do that? Antisemitism, thus, is a disease of the Western societies. Hitler did not learn anything from the Turks. There was enough racism accumulated in Germany, Austria, and in some other Western nation-states. They were the ones who gave to the world racist theoreticians – for instance, Gobineau in France, Chamberlain in Britain, Nietzche in Germany, and the Social Darwinists in the United States.

The Turks, on the other hand had saved the whole of European Jewry from total extinction during the Inquisition in 1492. Turkey was a place of refuge for all of those running away from Russian autocracy, the failure of the 1830 and the 1848 Revolutions, the setback of the progressive political movements in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere and of course the onslaught of Fascism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany. Likewise, the Turks made no contribution to racist theories, but presented to world civilization the celebrated Renaissance men such as Sinan the Architect, Yunus Emre the great humanist poet, and Ibni Sina whose book on medicine was utilized as the basic text book in all schools of medicine in Europe for 300 consecutive years.

But the Catholic missionaries from France and Protestant missionaries from the United States came to Ottoman Turkey to "teach" the Gregorian Armenians that they were "superior" to the Muslim Turks, by virtue of the fact they happen to be Christians. An American Protestant missionary (A.W.Williams) and the president of the Armenian Patriotic Alliance in New York (M.S. Gabriel), in their joint book, printed in Chicago as late as 1896, or only four years before our entry into the twentieth century, wrote the following on the Turks: "... the Turk is not a member of the best human race- the Indo-European, or Arian, like the Armenians. The Turk does not belong even to the next best of races, the semitic...the Turk is a wild beast to be caged. [We] beg pardon of the hounds, hyenas...and all wild beasts for using their names in simile or metaphor..." It is unfortunate that racist publications have become the teachers of a number of parliamentarians and conditioned them, along with the organized and politicized propaganda of the Armenian pressure groups who are so active in Washington, D.C.

However, such an assault on the Turks, and their views represents something like a lynch mob. One should note that such an attitude may well augur the advent of a new form of a totalitarian society.

You are merely helping the Armenians to redefine their identity as a group of "victims". In Freudian terms of psychology, this form of selection is called "the egoism of victimization" that totally disregards the bloodshed and the trauma that the so-called "victims" have caused to others. Such a distorted version of events contradicts what actually happened in history. Throughout the First World War there was a non stop news coverage in the Western Allied press on the Armenians. Non of the attacks, destruction, murder, massacre, theft, pillage, and rape by the Armenians were ever reported. There was even a law against such reporting, on the basis of "aiding the enemy". In the meantime, however, the Ottoman Armenians had joined hands with Turkey's enemies who provided that minority with weapons, ammunition, military training, uniforms, logistics, lines of communications, and money.

Self-styled leaders may try to convince themselves and mislead others that if their selected "scapegoat" is punished, things will be right. This will never be the case, so long as the actual breeding source of genocide, which is racism, remains as it is in some Western societies.

Best wishes,
Türkkaya Ataöv
Professor of International Relations
groups.yahoo.com/group/AmerikadakiAyYildiz

---

Turkey `Hawk' Touted As Obama's Man For Europe By Stefanos Evripidou, Cyprus Mail, Cyprus, March 28 2009
THE US Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave President Barack Obama's next `man in Europe' a grilling over his apparent `pro-Turkish' stance during his confirmation hearing on Thursday.

Obama nominated Philip H. Gordon, a Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, to replace Daniel Fried as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

However, during his hearing, Gordon came under fire from Democrat Senator Robert Menendez for his apparent pro-Turkish views, expressed during his career as academic and analyst, and his reported unwillingness to recognise Turkish occupation of a third of Cyprus.

The Senator also raised the issue of Gordon's opposition to US recognition of the Armenian Genocide, due to the crisis it would stoke in Turkey.

According to the Cyprus News Agency (CNA), the US Senator held a private meeting with Gordon before the hearing which failed to convince the New Jersey senator that his views in office would be impartial and not affected by the apparent pro-Turkish views expressed in the past.

Menendez referred to articles written by Gordon against US recognition of the Armenian Genocide, his reaction to the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004 and his views on Turkey's role in the world.

During the hearing, Menendez called on Gordon to say whether he agreed with the statement in Obama's pre-election campaign which referred to a political settlement of the Cyprus issue which will end the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus and correct the tragic division of the island.

Gordon replied that he agreed. However, he claimed that the view concerning occupation was expressed by the government of Cyprus and some experts.

He went on to claim that there is a Turkish presence in the northern part of Cyprus which is not accepted by the Cyprus government. This is an issue under negotiations for a solution which the US supports, he said.

According to CNA, when Menendez indicated that the occupation was included in Obama's declaration on Cyprus, Gordon said he has not changed his views on the matter.

Menendez invited Gordon to provide the committee with evidence on the funds which he and the organisations he worked for as analyst received and also whether they come from countries which will be under his jurisdiction as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

On the issue of the Armenian Genocide, Gordon talked about `a tragedy' that occurred to 1.5 million Armenians which must be recognised by Turkey. In the past, he has written that the US `should stand with Turkey in opposing efforts to punish modern Turkey for an Ottoman `genocide' against Armenians' while encouraging greater honesty about Turkey's past.

In his testimony before the committee, Gordon said the US had to show leadership in the Balkans. It also `must engage energetically on enduring conflicts in Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh; support the negotiations on a settlement in Cyprus; promote Turkey's EU aspirations while encouraging it to improve relations with Armenia, Cyprus and Greece; and vigorously promote the diversification of European energy supplies.'

Gordon noted his time under Bill Clinton on the National Security Council staff, where he was tasked with coordinating US policy toward NATO in the run up to its 50th anniversary. He described NATO as `the closest, most enduring, and most powerful alliance in history'

In contrast to earlier statements, the former analyst said, if confirmed, he looked forward to protecting `national sovereignty and territorial integrity' across the region and resolving the `enduring conflicts that cause needless suffering on a daily basis'.

Given Turkey's high profile NATO membership, its proximity to the some of the hottest crisis zones in the world, and the key role it plays in Europe's plans for energy supply diversification, there is little doubt as to Turkey's importance in US foreign policy.

In her introduction to the hearing, presiding committee chairman, Senator Jeanne Shaheen referred to the `critical relationship' between US and Turkey while noting that NATO relations would be high on Gordon's agenda.

`Dr. Gordon will also be responsible for managing our relations with Turkey, a valuable NATO ally with a predominantly Muslim population in a dangerous and geopolitically strategic location. How we define our relationship with Turkey over the next decade will have significant repercussions for our long-term interests abroad,' she said.

House President Marios Garoyian said yesterday as far as he knew, Obama's positions on Cyprus had not changed, suggesting Gordon had come `unprepared' to the hearing.

Government Spokesman Stefanos Stefanou, refrained from commenting, saying he had yet to be briefed on the matter.

Gordon has written extensively on Turkey's role in the world, most recently in a co-written book called: `Winning Turkey: How America, Europe, and Turkey Can Revive a Fading Partnership.'

The book presents a plan to restore the partnership between Turkey and the West where the authors suggest a series of efforts, including a political settlement in Cyprus and Turkish EU accession, to `anchor Turkey in the West'.

In 2007, Gordon published `Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World' where he suggests a paradigm shift in the `war on terror'.

One way of fighting the `right war', Gordon writes, is to `win Turkey back' which requires `new efforts to repair strained relations with Turkey, the most advanced democracy in the Muslim world'.

Regarding the need to make and maintain allies in the greater Middle East, Gordon wrote: `In this regard, no relationship is more important- or more at risk- than the one with the Republic of Turkey.'

On Cyprus, he wrote: `(The US) can make more of an effort to lessen the diplomatic and economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, who in 2004 courageously- and with Ankara's backing- supported a political settlement on the long-divided island that the Greek side rejected.'

In 2006, he wrote that Turkey was `on the brink' of a nationalist backlash, referring to growing nationalist frustration with the US and Europe.

Obama’s Istanbul Visit Could ‘help Reduce Tensions’ Between Cultures DividesJames Reinl, United Nations Correspondent March 29. 2009
NEW YORK // The eagerly anticipated arrival of Barack Obama at an intercultural summit in Istanbul would mark his first visit to a Muslim-majority country since becoming US president and shine a spotlight on the so-called clash of civilisations.

The UN’s Alliance of Civilisations, about Islam’s polarised relationship with the West, “is here to pave the ground, to work on the cultural dimension and reduce tensions so that international efforts by the Security Council and the process of peace building can have their impact”, Marc Scheuer, the organiser of the AOC, said.

Mr Scheuer described the AOC as a “trigger, catalyst, inspirer and coordinator” of projects that “reduce tensions across cultural divides that threaten to inflame existing political conflicts and trigger new ones”.

But critics say the meeting will amount to little more than a talking shop whether or not Mr Obama is there in Turkey. Commentators have called the meeting, to be held on April 6 and 7, an Iranian-backed “murky venue” for the president’s Islamic world debut and say it will only present another chance for conference stalwarts to push their agendas.

Even Mr Scheuer said the event would shy away from heavy political issues, such as the decades-old dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, that have spawned the civilisation rift.

The intractable debate over free speech and blasphemy, which made headlines during the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy, serves only to rehearse “entrenched positions” and is likewise off the agenda, Mr Scheuer said.

One initiative the AOC supports, Silatech, funded by Qatar’s royal family and headquartered in Doha, seeks to create jobs for the Arab world’s mushrooming population of young adults and prevent the radicalisation of jobless youth. While Mr Scheuer promises “concrete outcomes”, phrases from conference documents present clichéd goals such as “restoring trust”, “building bridges” and fostering “meaningful exchanges” that are intangible and difficult to measure.

Mr Obama’s expected attendance would complement a coterie of intercultural denizens, including Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general; Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish president, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister.

Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, UAE’s Foreign Minister, will be among about 50 government representatives to take part, flanked by Gulf brethren Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned of Qatar and Prince Turki al Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s former US ambassador.

In Istanbul, delegates will discuss eradicating racial stereotypes from television shows, making cities more multicultural and changing school curriculums to instil cosmopolitan views among future generations.

Such themes echo goals of other cultural initiatives, including Jordanian attempts to bridge gaps between Christians and Muslims, called “A Common Word”, and efforts by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to bring together leaders of rival faiths.

Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, is a veteran of intercultural seminars and said he was “very sceptical” about whether lofty debates could affect the views of ordinary people from Dubai to Detroit.

“You get one of two phenomena. Sometimes people show up and proclaim how committed they are to understanding each other without addressing any of the difficult questions that actually divide people,” Mr Ibish said.

“Otherwise, westerners just show up and talk about the problem of extremism in the Islamic world and Muslims talk about the problems of discrimination and stereotyping. They just talk past each other and don’t have any real dialogue.”

Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies questions Israel’s absence from the meeting and asked why a session on Islamic contribution to Europe is not mirrored with a discussion of European influences on Islamic culture.

Analysts have wondered whether such topics are added to conference schedules to placate delegates from the Muslim world before engaging them in countering the growth of Islamic extremism.

Ms Rosett traced links between the AOC and Iran and branded the event a “UN-approved Slush Fund for Advancing Iranian and Other Islamic Interests” that Mr Obama is unwise to attend. But Mr Scheuer insisted such allegations are “far-fetched” and described Tehran as an “important contributor to the alliance”.

“They do not dictate the agenda and are certainly not making a takeover bid.”
jreinl@thenational.ae

---

Obama Aims At Revitalising Relations With Turkey During Upcoming Visit, Mcdonough
White House Security Advisor Denis McDonough said U.S. President Barack Obama wanted to revitalise it's alliance with Turkey.

White House officials held a press conference Saturday and briefed reporters on Obama's upcoming trip covering England, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Turkey.

McDonough said Turkey was an important ally of the U.S. and a leading member of the NATO. He said the importance of Turkey for the U.S. stemmed from its leadership in the region and the role it played in talks between Israel and Syria.

McDonough pointed out that Turkey served as a real bridge between Asia and Europe adding that Obama was looking forward to focusing on these issues.

He said Obama who would arrive in Ankara on April 5th would meet Turkish President Abdullah Gül and Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and meet local and cultural representatives in İstanbul.

McDonough said Obama would address the youth in Europe and South East Asia with a video conference from a roundtable meeting to be held in İstanbul with the participation of the youth and press members.

McDonough said the event aimed at reshaping the U.S. image in the world.

"We want to reach as many people as we can. We've got a lot to tell," said McDonough.
29 March 2009, ANATOLIA NEWS AGENCY WASHINGTON

---

Richard Giragosian: If Obama Does Not Use Mar 27, 2009 "Genocide" Word, It Does Not Mean US Congress Will Not Recognize Genocide"

The Director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies Richard Giragosian says he is sure both Armenia and Turkey will have economic benefits from opening the closed border. According to Mr. Giragosian diplomatic relations will be established after the border is opened. Find below Mr. Giragosian's exclusive interview given to Panorama.am.

-Mr. Giragosian, do you think that the U.S. President Barack Obama will use the genocide world in his 24 April statement?

Despite the strong statements by the Obama campaign promising to recognize the Armenian genocide, recent developments suggest a shift in policy. Specifically, there is now a significance difference between Barrack Obama the candidate and Barrack Obama the president. In terms of US foreign policy, President Obama is challenged by three strategic needs: to improve US-Turkish relations, to encourage Turkey to cooperate with US plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, and to use Turkish influence in the Middle East.

Moreover, President Obama is under added pressure form Turkey, which is now arguing that this is "a sensitive time" for Turkish-Armenian relations, asserting that the current stage of diplomacy is "too delicate and fragile" for any move by the US on the Armenian genocide. Thus, I do not believe that President Obama will use the genocide word in his 24 April statement. But this does not mean that the US Congress will not recognize the genocide on its own.

- How do you treat Obama's visit to Turkey? Does it mean anything? How will that visit influence on Armenia-Turkey relations?

The Obama visit to Turkey represents US recognition that Turkey is now struggling with its deepest and potentially most disruptive degree of change, with a profound reexamination of the very tenets of its national identity, driven by a combination of internal reforms and external challenges. And most recently, there has been an equally significant strategic reorientation involving Turkey's role within the region and its future position in a broader international context. The depth and degree of change and redefinition in Turkey is also matched by a battle with itself, redefining itself and the very core of its identity.

- Do you have any expectations from the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan to Armenia? Will there be any developments?

Babacan's possible visit to Armenia also reflects the fact that recent developments have bolstered Turkey's position. For Turkey, this newly enhanced position stems from three key factors. First, Turkey's position within the problematic European Union ascension process was only refreshed and refurbished during the January 2009 visit to Brussels by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The premier's visit, his first in four years, reaffirmed EU ascension as a top priority for Turkey, demonstrated by the decision to form a new special ministry to manage with EU entrance talks and the move to launch a new Kurdish-language television station.

But the second factor contributing to greater Turkish weight goes beyond Ankara's new pledges to "step up" reforms in human rights and democratization. More specifically, Turkey's role as an "energy hub" for Europe was significantly enhanced in the wake of the recent Russian-Ukrainian dispute over natural gas transit. For the EU, the new imperative is to forge ahead with the $12-billion Nabucco gas pipeline project, which would transit Turkey and transport gas to Europe, overcoming Russian dominance of the region's energy infrastructure.

But while Armenian expectations from the new American leadership remain very high, in many ways, Turkey has assumed an even more essential role for the United States. In fact, it is the set of Obama Administration's stated policy priorities, topped by its withdrawal from Iraq and a planned expansion of operations in Afghanistan that serves as the third factor in enhancing Turkey's strategic position. In addition, Ankara's cooperation in both dealing with the post-Gaza conflict in the Middle East and for engaging Iran represents pressing needs for Washington.

- Do you think that the Armenian-Turkish closed border will be opened in 2009?

Despite the poor record of past initiatives, the potential benefits from even the most basic and rudimentary form of engagement are clear for each country. For Turkey, opening its closed border with Armenia would constitute a new strategic opportunity for galvanizing economic activity in the impoverished eastern regions of the country, which could play a key role in the economic stabilization of the already restive Kurdish-populated eastern regions and thus meet a significant national security imperative of countering the root causes of Kurdish terrorism and separatism with economic opportunity. Likewise, an open border with Turkey would offer Armenia not only a way to overcome its regional isolation and marginalization, but also a bridge to larger markets crucial for economic growth and development. In addition, the commercial and economic activity resulting from opening the Armenian-Turkish border would foster subsequent trade ties between the two countries that, in turn, would lead to more formal cooperation in the key areas of customs and border security. And with such a deepening of bilateral trade ties and cross-border cooperation, the establishment of diplomatic relations would undoubtedly follow.

Thus, the opening of the closed Armenian-Turkish border could not only bring about a crucial breakthrough in fostering trade links and economic relations, but may also serve as an impetus to bolster broader stability and security throughout the conflict-prone South Caucasus.

---

---

What Will Be After Obama Pronounces That Word
Let us assume that on April 24, the U.S. president Barak Obama recognizes the Armenian genocide and pronounces that word; what will happen afterwards? Few in Armenia expressed their opinion in this connection, though the answer to this question seems quite important. To this extent, perhaps, our collocutor was right when asking at a discussion of a narrow circle: "what will happen after Obama recognizes the genocide?" it is difficult to predict the U.S. next step be, the next step of Turkey, Russia, Kramnik, Anand or Aronyan. But the forecast of the Armenian next step is rather easy. The next step of Armenia will naturally be including Obama in the number of the saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and then Obama's birthday will be included in the church holidays' calendar, accompanying it with secular events. The following step will be naming a lot of streets, gardens, cultural centers and house-museums in all the region centers after Obama.

A TV report, for example, from a far village of the Shirak region will follow it, where the descendants of the survivals of the genocide call their twins Barak and Obama, adding that they would be happy if their children's godfather was Barak Obama. Jointly with all of this, Zori Balayan will rename the Kilkia ship and call it Kenya, and the history of our friend Kenya will be thought in schools. No doubt, sheep will be sacrificed in front of the U.S. embassy to Armenia, the Armenian children will thank on bended knees the U.S. embassy, sure if the author of this idea Alexander Givoev was alive, who did the same thing in front of the French embassy a few years ago. Unfortunately, Givoev is not alive now, though it should not be ruled out that his action is immortal and someone will assume that mission.

There may be other people, who, despite of this entire, will again ask "and then, what will happen after?" We may ask the same question for ever. Is not it enough what is going to be? After this, the whole world will be astonished and will envy Obama's luck, and Obama will be so much pleased that will keep pronouncing the word "genocide" not only on April 24, but on each 24 of every month expecting the same response.

This perspective in case of the genocide recognition seems so real as if it has already happened. "But, what else?" the question seems unanswered. The problem is said to be the restoration of the historical justice and this is the reason we look forward the genocide recognition. If a potential winner demanding a cash register receipt at a market or an envious seller who does not want to give the receipt to the potential winner thinks so, it is yet comprehensible, but if the State diplomacy thinks so, mildly speaking, it is weird. The genocide recognition, besides the historical justice, cannot but pursue a political goal, cannot but serve the Armenian political interest. Maybe it is wrong to aloud this but, there is no need either, as for everyone, and including the U.S. and Turkey, the presence of a political influence is evident.

Consequently, the appropriate steps of the Armenian government to the U.S. recognition of the genocide should be cleared out, if not on the level of an official but at least a public discussion. Does Armenia have anything else to return besides infinite thank? Under these two ways there are a lot of paths in which regard public discussions should be held, which are possible to enable the official Yerevan to make a decision, to work out a strategy or change the existing one, if there is such one. Whereas, today, we only hear discussions on "will he recognize or not" topic. It is also possible, that we may help Obama with our discussions too, which will launch the official Yerevan in a non-official way, in order to show Obama what we are ready to do, what we want and what are able to do besides sacrifices and giving names.
HAKOB BADALYAN 25/03/2009 Lragir.am

---

Confronting The Denialist Jewish Lobby: Mission Accomplished? 2009/03/28 By David Boyajian
By any objective measure, the two-year old campaign against the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) denial of the Armenian genocide has been a spectacular success. The ADL, the Jewish American community, Israel, and Turkey were taken by surprise and shaken to their roots. As shockwaves from the campaign spread, Turkey’s ambassador to Israel cut short his vacation to return to Tel Aviv to complain to Israeli leaders.

Grassroots Armenians in Massachusetts have flexed, and continue to flex, their political muscles as never before, targeting the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the elected officials and human rights commissions of 14 cities: Arlington, Bedford, Belmont, Easton, Lexington, Medford, Needham, Newburyport, Newton, Northampton, Peabody, Somerville, Watertown, and Westwood.

As a result, they have all ceased sponsoring No Place for Hate (NPFH), the alleged anti-bias program created, trademarked, and funded by the ADL.

Successful Results
Among campaigns initiated by Armenian Americans, only the Congressional genocide resolution has generated more exposure and controversy.

The campaign has spawned thousands of news reports, editorials, commentaries, radio interviews, and letters in non-Armenian media in the U.S. and around the world.

The battle against the ADL and NPFH has underscored to non-Armenians that the genocide issue directly affects them, their cities, and their schools.
Armenian Americans now have a louder voice in their communities. And those who deny the genocide have been put further on the defensive.

Exposing the ADL’s holocaust hypocrisy reportedly helped to push the House Foreign Affairs Committee into approving the genocide resolution two years ago.

The campaign is the main reason why recent news reports on the strained relations between Turkey and Israel refer to the Jewish lobby’s collusion with Turkey in genocide denial.

Other denialists, such as the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith, have also been exposed.

Armenian Leaders Fall Short
Sadly, outside Massachusetts, Armenians and lobbying organizations such as the Armenian National Committee of America and Armenian Assembly of America have done little to defend Armenians and others against the ADL denialism and programs. This is a major failure.

Even in Massachusetts, the Armenians who have been fighting the ADL are mostly grassroots activists and several ANCA leaders. With rare exceptions, our so-called Armenian leaders in politics, academia, business, journalism, law, medicine, and the church have remained shamefully silent and uninvolved. The reasons? Laziness and, in my opinion, an unwarranted fear of criticizing a Jewish organization.

The fact is that the Massachusetts campaign has drawn enormous support from non-Armenians, many of them Jews: human rights commission members, city officials, journalists, academicians, and more.

Armenians must not permit genocide denial, whether by a Turkish, Jewish, or any other kind of group.

The ADL and America
As Americans, Armenians have a wider responsibility to expose the ADL and similar organizations that falsely claim to espouse “human rights.”

ADL programs besides NPFH, such as World of Difference (WOD), have infiltrated thousands of cities, workplaces, law enforcement agencies, and public schools, the latter often attended by Armenian American children.

When Glendale’s Hoover High issued an invitation to WOD, the Armenian community put a stop to it, but only - only - because it was aware of the campaign in Massachusetts. WOD even tried to penetrate St. Stephen’s Armenian Elementary School in Watertown.

Were it not so damaging to society, it would be laughable that an organization that conspires with Turkey to cover up mass murder is strong-arming countless American citizens - children, teachers, workers, law enforcement officers, and ordinary citizens - into its “anti-hate” and “tolerance” training programs.

Some ADL members who conduct these programs may be well intentioned. But the national ADL leadership is not. It is clear, particularly given its collusion with Turkey, that the ADL is a political, not a civil or human rights, group. Its “human rights” programs are a cover - a way to influence and buy unsuspecting Americans who will later support, or at least not criticize, the ADL’s foreign and domestic agenda.

Incredibly, ADL agents have also conducted illegal surveillance of African Americans, Latinos, labor unions, and others. The police chief of Arlington, Massachusetts has even admitted that the ADL provides police with investigative intelligence that they cannot legally obtain themselves.

One can surmise, therefore, that the ADL may operate covertly against Armenian Americans.

Continuing the Campaign
There are compelling moral and practical reasons why Armenians must continue this campaign.

Human rights experts say that the Armenian genocide was - and denial of any genocide is - an offense against humankind as a whole. All people, therefore, Armenians included, have a responsibility to confront denialists.

Even Israelis acknowledge that Israeli - Turkish accords include an unwritten proviso that top Jewish lobbying groups such as the ADL work against Armenians on virtually every issue of concern to Armenian Americans, such as military aid to Azerbaijan and Turkey.

According to political analyst Harut Sassounian, for example, AJC and B’nai B’rith officials issued “a public pledge to help enact pro-Azeri and pro-Turkish legislation and counter Armenian and Greek initiatives in the U.S. Congress.”

Exposing the holocaust hypocrisy of the ADL and other organizations reduces their credibility and, therefore, their ability to damage Armenian American interests.

Even locally, ADL members have worked against Armenian interests. A top ADL officer and well-connected Boston figure, Peter Meade, has made himself the main opponent of the proposed Armenian Heritage Park - which includes a genocide plaque - on Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway.

Will Armenian Americans confront organizations that harm not just their interests, but also those of the wider American society? In Massachusetts, yes. Elsewhere, it remains to be seen.

The author is a freelance writer. Several of his articles are archived at Armenianpedia.org. http://hetq.am

---

Turkey Changes Tactics On "Genocide" Golos Armenii, Feb 21 2009, Yerevan
Armenia is losing in the "information war" against Turkey and Azerbaijan, says a columnist with the pro-government Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii. Turkey has recently changed its tactics to prevent international recognition of the Armenian genocide, Razdan Madoyan says. The Armenian language and literature have started to be taught at several universities in Turkey. The Turkish government has also decided to start "TV propaganda" in Armenian, Madoyan says in an article headlined "They have started to act..." He accuses the Armenian authorities of not doing enough to counteract Turkey. Subheading as given:

According to Turkish news agency reports, universities there have started to open departments of Armenian language and literature. They are almost competing with one another on this. Universities not only in Istanbul but in other places are also doing so. Thus recently Erciyes University in Kayseri province received the Turkish Higher Education Council's permission to open such a department.

[Passage omitted: the rector of the university says the faculty will be set up in two months and students for 2009-2010 will be enrolled].

A boom for tutors of the Armenian language has started in Turkey. There is a lack of such tutors. For this reason, the University of Nevsehir (another out-of-the-way place in Turkey), for example, cannot start enrolling students into the already opened department of the Armenian language and literature.

Under the conditions of the quite tense and mutually uncompromising Armenian-Turkish relations, regardless of the football diplomacy, this Turkish policy (this is a policy and not a private initiative) is of course explained not by altruistic motives but an urge to know a neighbour better, which can be welcomed per se.

Turkey understands that the mere denial of the Armenian genocide is already not enough; both countries not favourably disposed to it and its yesterday's friends and allies already do not believe it. The USA will use the fact of genocide in every possible way as a means of putting pressure upon it; Israel has proved by its behaviour that it needs Turkey's friendship as long as it benefits from this friendship, and will not refrain from throwing it in Turkey's face upon necessity. Turkey understands that it is impossible to stop the avalanche and tries to avoid it with minimum losses.

Turkey has comparatively recently said that the genocide did not take place, as it has no documents proving this in its archives. The archives are open for researchers, Turkish politicians said, and anyone can get convinced of this in person. However, the archive topic was no further developed. It is apparent that not all were allowed access [to the archives] and not to all materials. It is quite possible that Turkey is going to again announce the opening the archives, and ahead of this it wants to comb them out, in particular, to carry out a total check of Armenian materials; of course there should be many of those there. Their own reliable personnel are needed for this cause, and Turkish universities have been assigned to prepare those. It becomes clear that in such state of affairs why there is a lack of tutors: naturally those cannot be accidental people, invited from the side.

Turkey is shifting from the unproductive policy of denying the genocide to anti-propaganda, and this requires other types of means and other actions. Turkey's decision to start TV propaganda for Armenia in Armenian should be considered in this perspective. On the one hand, Turkey will try to break the stereotypes established in the Armenian public by presenting itself as a tolerant, democratic country, which is full of love for its neighbour. Much space will be allocated to cultural interference, which of course did take place; to stories how well they treat Armenia and Armenians in modern Turkey; maybe they will create soap operas. It will be, of course, done with great professionalism, and specialists of Armenian language and literature - Turks - are needed for this very purpose. Unfortunately, all this will look very attractive against the background of idiocy broadcast by Armenian TV channels.

Under the quickly changing conditions Turkey needs peculiar "rapid reaction forces" of propaganda, which would monitor the everyday situation in Armenia, drawing conclusions and submitting recommendations. This is another reason of the "boom" of Turkish love for Armenian things.

The Turks are not just good: they are great diplomats, and we get convinced of this again and again. They can turn even their military and economic defeats into diplomatic victories. In the contemporary world it is much more important to win in the information-political war than in the battlefield, moreover that the latter happens rarely.

Armenia has no TV propaganda against Turkey

We have been trying to make ourselves heard by our government, saying that we are losing in the information war with Turkic Azerbaijan, that it, as any war, cannot be let take its course, that it can't be won with the efforts of individual heroes, and that the state, and not bushfighters should wage this war. If the state of affairs at the second Armenian-Turkish front is a little better at present, this is due no to the Armenian state, but to the Diaspora. However, the Diaspora cannot take upon all the functions of a state.

In the days of [former President Levon] Ter-Petrosyan's junta, when every parvenu who had power shouted "I am the state!", the general staff of the ideological and information war was destroyed due to its being dangerous for the junta people, and the whole sector got under the control of their people. The second president [Robert Kocharyan] did not manage to, and rather did not want to change the state of affairs, the third one [Serzh Sargsyan] will do something but will he do it?

That's why one feels sick of the programmes of almost all Armenian TV channels, and the satellite ones are a disgrace. That's why we have not been able to take time and establish not a special channel for broadcasting for Turkey but even an ordinary 15-minute news bulletin in Turkish. That is why we do nothing but talk. If the Turks open their archives, no-one will be able to work there, as we do not have specialists of Ottoman [Turkish] language.

We are not preparing tutors or specialists of the Azerbaijani language while we have an opportunity to do this. We will have to do it from scratch in the future.

---

Caucasus Knot by Aleksei Makhlai, WPS Agency DEFENSE and SECURITY, March 27, 2009, Russia
WHAT PROMOTES TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE CAUCASUS, PARTICULARLY IN INGUSHETIA AND DAGESTAN?; Russia needs a precise strategy of security in the Caucasus.

Problems existing in the Caucasus might be divided into two categories: events in the Russian Caucasus and sources of threats and tension in Moscow's relations with foreign countries of the southern part of the region. One might recall August 2008, the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and its aftermath and corollaries. All of that affects the strategy of Russia's relations with foreign countries of the region. This strategy is also affected by the complicated situation in the Caucasus itself, a situation that never shows any turns for the better. The increase of terrorist activity in the region and particularly in Dagestan and Ingushetia compels the Russian leadership to design new approaches to the situation.

The Caucasus remains an area of never-ending hostilities. Terrorism against major objects in the region gave way to terrorism against individuals but it remains a tragic fact of life all the same.

This state of affairs is fomented by several factors like
- low living standards;
- chronic unemployment;
- corrupt ethnic elites; and
- low level of education.

Also importantly, federal laws are barely paid lip service in the region.

The Caucasus is in a deep economic decline. What remnants of the local economic infrastructure are still functioning were seized by the ruling clans for their own. Small businesses in the Caucasus are rarer than they are elsewhere in Russia.

The lack of stability is also bred by exodus of the Russian-speaking population from the region. It is Russian-speakers who served as a social and political "absorber" before the 1990s. The Russians were the fifth largest ethnic group in Dagestan in the early 1990s. In early 2000, they amounted to only one half of their numerical strength in this republic a decade ago. These days, the Russians account for only 3.5% of the population (80,000 men).

Performance and skills of local law enforcement agencies do not entitle the Russians to hopes for adequate defense of their lives and worldly assets. Islamic jamaats as parallel power structures mushroom in the region. Granted that not all of them promote terrorism or fundamentalist Islam, each and every one of them creates social and legal norms that challenge the officially existing ones.

Dagestan in the meantime is Russia's gateway to the Caspian region and key to stability in all of the Caucasus. Dagestani ports harbor the Caspian Flotilla, Moscow's principal instrument of military-political clout with all of the region. Dagestani coast with its infrastructure constitutes a considerable resource of influence with the Central Asian region.

Subjectively and objectively, the Caucasus is a region where Russian statehood and Russia as such are put to test, inadvertently or deliberately. Volatile in itself, the factor of the northern part of the Caucasus is augmented by the influence of the no less destructive factor of the southern part of the region.

There is one other potential source of threats and tension in Russia's relations with countries of the southern part of the region. The matter concerns the still unsettled Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Serious politicians in both capitals understand all too well that any effort to settle the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh by sheer strength of arms may and probably will spark an all-out war in the region. All the same, negotiations invariably fail to produce a coveted result because neither warring party wants to make successions in so serious a matter.

Foreign countries of the southern part of the Caucasus are interested in advancement of relations with Russia. It is also clear on the other hand that the shooting war last August did create some negative phenomena. The question that really matters is this: will Russia manage to return its relations with the Western partners to the plane of advancement of cooperation with interests of every state of the region taken into account?

---

Turkish-American Relations Should Be Boosted, Turkish Prime Minister Anadolu Agency, March 27 2009
ISTANBUL (A.A) - 27.03.2009 - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said late Thursday Turkish-American relations should be boosted.

Appearing on a TV program on private TV channel Show, Erdogan said that several matters including Turkey's position in the Middle East, withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and the role of Turkey in Afghanistan would be discussed during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Turkey.

The incidents of 1915, Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, problems between Russia and Georgia as well as Azerbaijan and Armenia would also be discussed during Obama's visit to Turkey, he said. The United States could play a leading role in putting an end to these problems, Erdogan said.

"I consider that the relations between Turkey and the United States should be enhanced," he said.

Obama's visit to Turkey will constitute a significant foundation for the future of relations, Erdogan said.

Replying to a question, Erdogan said Turkey was ready to do all it could for restoring of peace in the Middle East.

---

Timely Testimony: Armenian Assembly Testifies To Us Congress On Funding, Recognition As Obama Visit To Turkey Approaches By John Hughes
ArmeniaNow editor

In testimony before a US Congress appropriations subcommittee Thursday (March 26) the Armenian Assembly of America urged the Americans to allocated `not less than $70 million' for Armenia in its 2010 budget.

Last year the US budget included $48 million for Armenia. The Assembly request also calls for $10 million for Nagorno Karabakh, $4 million in Foreign Military Financing and $1 million for International Military Education Training.

Testifying as one of 12 witnesses that included other powerful advocacy groups, the Assembly was represented by board member, attorney Van Krikorian, who also raised issues of Armenian-Turkey/Turkey-US relations.

Krikorian pointed out during the hearing that Turkey is in violation of its treaty obligations to Armenia with respect to its ongoing blockade. "Ironically, the same treaty obligations which established the current border between Turkey and Armenia in the Treaties of Moscow and Kars also guarantee Armenia an open border with Turkey and 'free movement of persons and goods without any delays.' Turkey has been in breach of these treaty obligations for years now without repercussion."

In written testimony, the Assembly highlighted the effect of the blockades, which "cost Armenia hundreds of millions of dollars annually" and were "compounded by the economic losses incurred as a result of the Russia-Georgia conflict last year." Click here to read the entire testimony (English only).

As the United States under newly-elected President Barack Obama is entering the so-called `re-set era', in foreign relations, Krikorian pointed out the uniquely friendly relations Armenia shares with both Russia and the United States. The Assembly board member also expressed hopes that talks started last autumn between Turkey and Armenia will lead to further talks and improved relations between the estranged neighbors.

Krikorian's testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations and Related Programs (Subcommittee) comes just 10 days before Obama is scheduled to visit Turkey for talks there that are expected to include - among other matters -- discussions of Turkey's assistance as an exit point for a US withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Since his appearance in Washington as a senator, Obama has supported recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide, and his pledge to see an official recognition during his presidency is expected to be challenged during his April 5 trip to Ankara.

"President Obama's visit presents a unique opportunity for the President to hold Turkey accountable to the norms of international law, as well as his own statements reaffirming the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide to help liberate Turkey and the Turkish people from their own toxic legacy,' Krikorian told the subcommittee, adding that recognition would `make sure the rest of the world knows that the days of selective genocide prevention by the U.S. are over."

Kirkorian further stressed that `normalization of relations and Turkey's lifting of its 15-year-long blockade of Armenia should not be held hostage to U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide." Normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey or strengthening ties between the US and Turkey, he said: `should not come at the expense of rewriting U.S. history."

Senator Jesse Jackson Jr. (democrat from Illinois) raised concerns over funding the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) for Armenia - a multi-million dollar grant that has been frozen since accounts of fraud in last year's presidential election and subsequent violence in Armenia. In his written testimony, Kirkorian addressed the issue, saying:

`To be clear, the Armenian Assembly, the entire Armenian-American community, and citizens of Armenia want to see faster improvement in democracy, rule of law, an independent and fair judiciary, clean elections, removal of any questions over politically charged trials, security, and good governance. Armenians themselves recognize the stakes in these challenges, and accept that they will continue to be carefully monitored by the international community. In this regard, I would like to underscore the important work of Armenia's Human Rights Ombudsman and the constructive role he has played in Armenia's democratic system.'

---

Obama Visit Gets Media Attention: Opportunity Awaits For Us President In Turkey, By John Hughes Armenianow Editor

An analysis this week by Reuters news agency entitled `Obama to woo Turks, Armenian pitfall awaits', cites an Oxford University expert saying that `the Armenian issues is the thorniest' of matters facing US President Barack Obama on his visit to Turkey next week. According to the analysis of Reuters special correspondent Alistair Lyon: `Obama may unlock the kind of goodwill generated by former U.S. President Bill Clinton when he came to Turkey in 1999, but risks dissipating it all if he uses another G-word, genocide, to describe the fate of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.' Similar in tone to a piece that appeared in the Washington Post last week (see ??), the analysis points to regional relations from Irag, to Syria, to Iran, to Afghanistan to underscore the need for the US to have a friend in the middle east - specifically Turkey, which, among other issues, could serve as a staging ground for Obama's planned exit of US troops from Iraq.

The US president's visit will be scrutinized particularly by American-Armenian advocates of Genocide recognition, coming as a new recognition resolution (HR252) has just appeared before congress (see ??) and taking place less than three weeks before the president's expected address on Armenian Genocide Recognition Day (April 24). In Yerevan, the country director for the Armenian Assembly of America (www.aaainc.org), Arpi Vartanian, called Obama's visit `an extraordinary opportunity for President Obama to discuss, face-to-face, the well-documented fact of the Armenian Genocide with Turkish officials.' She also emphasized the fact that while there have been positive steps towards rapprochement, recognizing the Armenian Genocide is an issue that should in no way be held hostage to this or other issues, nor should the United States be intimidated by `what if?' scenarios that the Turkish government has used in the past.

---

President Obama’s Visit to Turkey and Turkish-America Relations Discussed on Atlantik Otesi – Beyond the Atlantic – with Bulent Aliriza, WDC

A Program on TRT 1, Thursday, March 27, 2009, 23:05 – 23:55 PM

The Red House defines the word ‘’otesi’’ as ‘’the rest,’’ or ‘’what follows.’’ The host of the new program on TRT 1, ‘’Atlantik Otesi’’, which I translated as ‘’Beyond the Atlantic’’, Bulent Aliriza in WDC, discussed the significance of US President Obama’s upcoming trip to Turkey and the new developments in the Turkish-American relations. His hosts were Former US Ambassadors to Turkey, Morton Amromowitz (1989 - 1991) and Mark Parris (1997 - 2000).

Both former ambassadors stated that the trip of President Obama during the first 100 days of his presidency is very significant and will be a milestone in the Turkish-American relations. The discussions centered around the very important Cyprus issue, the increasing role of that Turkey is playing in the region, especially in relations with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Both stated that, in summary, the US wants to work with Turkey along with Israel, in solving the issues that impact, not only the Middle East, but the US, Europe and the region.

President Obama will arrive in Ankara on April 6 and, before attending any meetings and addressing to the Turkish Grand National Assembly, he will visit the Ataturk Mausoleum. This in itself is very significant and will give a very strong message to the world that he considers Turkey as a secular state, still following in the footsteps of is founder and the great reformer of the 20th century.

Responding to the questions posed by the Cypriot born Bulent Aliriza aon a variety of issues, Mark Parris and Mortin Abromowitz both presented information on Turkish-American relations during their term in Turkey, both with ups and downs. They both explained the United States’ strong support of Turkey’s membership in the European Union. Following discussions on the importance of Turkey’s relations with all of its neighbors, including Russia, Mark Parris stated his belief that, in his historical speech at the Grand National Assembly, President Obama will address to the Islamic World since Turkey is a Republic with vast majority of her people being moslem.

The last discussion was on the most important foreign affairs issue between the United States and Turkey, that is whether the President will use the ‘’g’’ word in his message on April 24 and the House of Representatives will accept and vote for the Armenian Resolution, which has already been submitted by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Mark Parris stated that if the President recognizes April 24 as the remembrance of Armenian genocide day and the Resolution passes, the relations will not disappear but it will cool down. Mortin Abromowitz mentioned that everything that was discussed earlier will enter a difficult stage, including the help of Turkey in withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Everyone in Turkey is looking forward to seeing President Obama in Turkey which is bound to open a new chapter in the Turkish-American relations. One disappointment is the First Lady Obama’s decision not to accompany her husband in order to be with their two daughters during the Presidents trip to Europe and Turkey. I hope the two first daughters can convince their parents, as they did when they wanted dogs in the White House, to travel to Turkey with them, at least during the Turkey leg, which is getting ready to celebrate the ‘’Children’s Holiday on April 23’’ with young students from many countries, including the US .

Yuksel Oktay
26 March 2009
Istanbul

---

In Talks With Obama, Turkish Leaders To Discuss Karabakh, Genocide, Armenia Ties asbarez.com March 27, 2009
ANKARA (Combined Sources)--The Armenian Genocide, Turkish-Armenian relations, and ongoing peace talks around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be on the agenda of talks between Turkey's leaders and US President Barack Obama on his upcoming visit to Ankara early April, Turkish and Azeri news agencies reported on Friday.

Speaking in a televised interview on Friday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he would underscore several issues during Obama's visit, including Turkey's position on the Middle East, South Caucasus and Central Asia, the Azeri Trend News agency reported.

Erdogan's remarks come less than a week ahead of Obama's scheduled visit and only five weeks ahead of April 24, the day internationally commemorated as the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Obama's Ankara trip, which will take place between April 6-7, was announced on March 7 during an official visit to Ankara by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The LA Times reported on March 17 that Obama's administration has been soliciting Ankara's help on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and other security issues. Erodgan is expected to play up Turkey's ability to help the United States in confrontations and conflicts that stretch from Israel to Afghanistan -- via Syria, Iraq and Iran -- and from Cyprus to the Caucasus.

"I do not find the level of Turkey-U.S. relations adequate. I believe the relations between Turkey and the United States should be enhanced," Erdogan said.

According to Trend, Erdogan also said the talks would focus on, among other things, how the United States could play a leading role in resolving lingering conflicts in the Caucasus, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the impasse created by the Russian-Georgian war last August.

The Turkish Prime Minister was quoted by Trend as saying that a solution to the "problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia will help overcome the difficulties in relations between Turkey and Armenia."

The Turkish World Bulletin online news portal, meanwhile, reported that Erodogan said the "incidents of 1915" would also be on the agenda of talks with Obama.

Turkish President Gul also spoke on the issue in Brussels Friday, echoing his Prime Minister's sentiments and telling reporters that President Obama's visit to Turkey would underscore "Turkey's global importance."

"There are strategic and quite important relations between Turkey and the U.S. Those relations go beyond the issues concerning our countries," Gul told a press conference before leaving for Ankara. "Turkey and the United States hold perpetual consultations about regional and international developments from Afghanistan to the Middle East."

He said Turkey is pleased with Obama's decision to pay a visit to the country, and added this will enable the countries to hold mutual consultations on a range of issues.

Ankara and its hired lobbyists in Washington have argued that Turkey is a valuable ally to have as the new administration prepares to withdraw its troops from Iraq, to boost troops in Afghanistan and to seek peace in the Middle East. Official Ankara signaled last week that it would be willing to allow the transit of U.S. troops through the country.

But despite winds of optimism on the future of Turkish-American relations, the first fissure between the two governments has already emerged on the suspension of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) indictment of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. Turkey favors a deferral and looks set to vote in that direction if a vote takes place at the United Nations Security Council, despite requests to do the opposite from the Barack Obama administration.

---

Life In Turkish Prime Ministerial Bull’s-Eye
ANKARA - Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s anger lately has been focused on Hürriyet columnist Bekir Coşkun, who is known as Turkey’s greatest opposition writer. Not surprisingly, Coşkun has not been intimidated and has been criticizing what he sees as the government's wrongdoings . Through humor and his skill with words, Coşkun has held his ground firmly and has provided his readers with many fun-to-read articles.

For the past 25 years, Coşkun has made a name for himself with his incisive writing and recently with his involvement in a war of words with Erdoğan. This has come to a point where Erdoğan, in his rally to stop the Turkish public from buying Doğan newspapers, including this one, singled Coşkun out from the rest of the journalists. Erdoğan even claimed in one recent speech that Coşkun sleeps with dogs. But who exactly is this man who has been the target of the prime minister’s wrath?

The 64-year-old writer has been defined as Turkey’s grandest "anti" writer. Coşkun is aware of this. "I have always been anti. When I started my career as a journalist, I was opposing my editors, my boss. É Because I was opposing my camera, I never could take a decent photograph. I play the violin; I also oppose my violin. At home, I am [my dog] Postal’s biggest opposition because I react to him messing up our garbage can," he said.

Coşkun was born in the southeastern town of Şanlıurfa on Turkey’s Syrian border. His father was a government official, who, like Coşkun, frequently got into trouble because of his dissident stance toward the government’s policies. "He was exiled constantly, and I followed him around [different towns in Anatolia]," said Coşkun.

Coşkun’s column, "The Tenth Village," calls to mind the Turkish saying "who speaks the truth gets expelled from nine villages." The saying refers to the fact that people are bothered by someone who speaks the truth. In fact, for Coşkun the purpose of his column is to tell the truth. "Why is that column given to me? It is not so that I curry favor. It was given to me so that I can write about those things that should be criticized but that the people cannot voice," he said.

"This is important in societies that somehow cannot set themselves free, that are underdeveloped, where there is hunger, misery, poverty and ignorance, and where [the contemporary standards] in democracy and law have not caught on."

The veteran columnist believes that his decision to write the truth makes his life difficult. "I have a restless life; full of fear and concerns. É I cannot go to a cinema or theater, or to a restaurant just like anyone else. There is always the likelihood that someone will assault me. Is this something nice? Not at all," he said. "But if I give priority to my own life, it would mean I am not doing my job."

Coşkun is celebrated for his use of humor in his articles. "I do not use this much humor in my daily life," he said. "This is why I do not interfere with myself [when I write]. As a person, I am human. I might have troubles; my shoe may be pinching my foot, I may be hungry. É But when I sit in front of the computer and start writing, then I become someone else." He does not believe he has the right to write about his personal issues or worries in his columns.

Although Coşkun steadily opposes the government, he is also upset with Turkish society. He believes society itself is responsible for what happens to it. "I think that the biggest obstacle Turkish society faces is itself. Hunger, misery, poverty, ignorance, blood and tears É but the Turkish society itself is primarily responsible for these," he said.

"It is hard to believe that only 3-5 million [people] read newspapers in a society of 70 million. It is also hard to believe that a society is praying in a language it does not understand, it does not know what that prayer means, and is not even curious to know."

Coşkun said Turkish society always blames the politicians, the Constitution, the laws, journalists, but never itself. "Parliament has changed many times, there have been 59-60 governments, the Constitution has changed seven times, and there have been 11 different presidents. Everything has changed," he said. "The only thing that has not changed in this package is the voters, society itself. And in parallel to that, it is this unfortunate fate that has not changed."

Pako, the dog that left his mark
Coşkun is also known to be an animal lover, the "father" of Turkey’s most famous dog, the late Pako. He is also a violin player, and a man in love with the sea. His harsh, yet humorous criticism of the Turkish government as a journalist clashes with Coşkun as a person, a romantic, emotional man. "I judge myself, too, and tell myself to be more positive. That is when I play the violin," said Coşkun, who plays well-known Turkish classical music songs. "Or I play with Postal as I used to play with Pako," he said, referring to his dogs.

Pako, Turkey’s best-known canine, was a 13-kilogram ragged black dog. Using Pako’s point-of-view, Coşkun made programs for television, wrote columns and organized campaigns that yielded results in laws regulating hunting, animal rights and the preservation of forests.

"But the most interesting part was Pako’s death," Coşkun said. Upon Pako’s death, the head of the leading opposition party and health minister each issued a statement, the president had sent his condolences, thousands of people sent faxes expressing their sorrow, and Pako’s death became a news story in all newscasts and newspapers. "It was almost like a saint or a scientist had died. I was not aware either that Pako had become the voice of children, of women, of anyone with a conscience in Turkey," said Coşkun. "He had surpassed me."

Hobbies complementing work
The writer believes his hobbies and work complete each other. "While I play the violin, a piece I am playing can open the door for an article," he said. "Then the sea Ğ the sea is a philosophy. It taught me not to sink; it taught me how to stay on it, how to walk on the most slippery ground," said Coşkun, whose love for the sea started during his childhood.

"My father was stationed in the Harran Plain [on the Syrian border]. It was a place in the middle of a desert where water was drawn with a bucket from a 60-meter well. I had a colored comic book. In that book, an American family, father, mother, a boy, and a girl, sail off to the sea. The boat starts sinking so they take refuge in an island," said Coşkun.

"I had only one thing to read and that was that comic book. I kept reading it from beginning to the end. But there was one problem: Every time the brazier was lit at home, my book would lose some of its pages. At the end, only one page remained. It was a full page of a picture of the father and the son repairing the sailboat while the mother and the daughter lit a fire. That picture is where my love for the sea began.

"I dreamt that I would be a sailor when I grew up, that I would sail out to the sea. When I grew up, I came to Ankara for university. I bought an inflatable plastic boat with the first money I earned and took it to the lake here."

Coşkun sees carpentry, another of his hobbies, as one more element that completes his writings. "I believe all materials have an identity. Stone is very loyal. Stones wait by graves for 2,000-3,000 years. Iron is warrior-like. Tips of all weapons are made of iron. Earth is motherly; it tends to give. The material I hate the most is plastic. It is elusive and hypocritical; it will take any shape," he said. "But wood is not like that. It is very emotional. You see its veins as you caress it. It is a lover; it is love. All cribs are made of wood. Children grow up in wood, especially in poor societies. Most, if not all, of musical instruments are made of wood. That is why I love working with wood."

Coşkun thinks he had no other choice but to become a writer. "For me, expressing myself in a written manner was an absolute necessity. I cannot pronounce the letters ’s’ and ’z.’ And when I get angry, I cannot speak at all," said the columnist. He explained he would resolve issues with his parents or siblings through letters. "And I wrote long love letters to girls," he said. "It developed into expressing myself by writing."

Coşkun started his career as a photojournalist in 1974. He then became a reporter. "Being a newsperson was not for me. A man would tell me something off the record, and I would honor that. When I read that same story in other newspapers the next day, I decided I could not do this job," he said. "Or while writing a news story about a man who has betrayed his wife, I would think that maybe the man has a child that goes to school and that the child’s friends would read this. I would consider how the child would run crying to his mother. There have been many stories like this that I have decided not to report."

Coşkun found writing columns to be more honest. He likes the word "village" in his column’s name and considers himself to be a villager. "I like walking around in my socks, I do not like using silverware much, I like dipping my bread in the sauce of my food, I get confused when there are too many glasses on the table. I like sitting on the floor, creaking doors and leaking faucets. Because my wife is French, she tries to turn the house into an urban home. I spend time in the ’village’ part of the house in the basement," said Coşkun.

Coşkun believes the biggest problem of the media is that it is not independent. "Because newspapers and TV stations are entities that live on income from advertising, they are dependent on the capital sector. In the Western world, the media needs to be dependent on capital. But in Turkey, it also needs to be dependent on the government because laws are not very effective and justice is not very central and the future of the media is between the lips of the government. This is the case with [the government and] the Doğan Group recently," he said.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CLASH
The war of words between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Hürriyet columnist Bekir Coşkun has been ongoing for a while. Some highlights are as follows:

"The man scratching his belly" was the title of Coşkun’s article that angered Erdoğan. The article, published May 3, 2007, in the months leading to general elections, describes Justice and Development Party, or the AKP, voters as ignorant men, oblivious to what is going on in the world or to the protests by Kemalists. Coşkun also wrote in the article that democracy could not flourish in a society where "the man scratching his belly" is in the majority.

During a speech in the city of Sivas during the local elections rally Feb. 14, Erdoğan, without mentioning the columnist’s name, accused Coşkun of being a partisan writer for the opposition, citing the columnist’s "the man scratching his belly" article and saying: "These have beloved dogs. They sleep with their dogs." This was clearly referring to Coşkun, who is known for his love of animals. Coşkun replied to Erdoğan in his column the next day through the point of view of his dog Postal, expressing the dog’s disappointment in Erdoğan’s lack of love for animals and saying that such a love would be able to prevent wars. "This became very interesting Ğ for the first time in the history of Eastern media, a dog responded to the prime minister. Then the prime minister, realizing that he could not overcome Postal, did not comment," said Coşkun during an interview with the Daily News.

On Aug. 15, 2007, Coşkun wrote that with Parliament’s election of Abdullah Gül, who had served as foreign minister in the AKP government and who is a long-time close associate of

Erdoğan, as Turkey’s president would put an end to Turkey’s secular stance. He also wrote that Gül was elected by "the man scratching his belly" and could be his president but not Coşkun’s because the new president did not represent his sentiments.

Erdoğan replied to Coşkun’s "He will not be my president" article of Aug. 15 harshly, saying, "If he is not your president, then renounce your Turkish nationality." The columnist’s reply came in his Aug. 22 article, "I have nowhere to go," where he explained how he loved Turkey and had done all his duties toward his motherland.

The animal-lover in Coşkun took another political turn when Cihan, the horse that kicked Erdoğan off his back a couple of years before, died. In his article "We lost Cihan" on Dec. 30, 2007, Coşkun referred to Cihan as a valuable, respectful, sensitive and conscious horse that had never tried to curry favors but courageously did what was necessary. Moreover, Coşkun, wrote in his article that no one, including Erdoğan, had tried to punish Cihan for what he had done. This, argued Coşkun, was interesting in a culture where animals that bothered people were killed.
www.hurriyet.com.tr

---

Obama’s Nominee Refuses To Call 1915 Events As Genocide
WASHINGTON - Phil Gordon, nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Thursday declined to qualify World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as "genocide" during his confirmation hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Senate must confirm all senior administration officials.

During the confirmation hearing at the committee, pro-Armenian Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez complained that Gordon, in his articles as an expert, in recent years had written that congressional recognition of the Armenian killings would not be useful because of the backlash it would cause in Turkey. Menendez then asked Gordon his latest position on the Armenian killings.

Gordon qualified the deaths as a "terrible tragedy" that should be seen as such by everybody, including Turks. But he declined to use the word "genocide."

The term "terrible tragedy" does not satisfy U.S. Armenians, who strongly push for formal U.S. recognition of the killings as genocide.

Turkey warns that any U.S. genocide recognition will damage relations in a major and lasting way.

Cyprus
On Cyprus, Menendez asked Gordon if he qualified Turkey's military presence on the island as an "occupation." Gordon instead used the term "Turkish presence."

Menendez then said Obama had used the term "Turkish occupation" during last year's presidential election campaign.

Greek News, a New York-based U.S. Greek magazine, said in October last year that Obama, in a statement to Greek Americans, had called the Turkish military presence in northern Cyprus "Turkish occupation."

But no such statement was released by Obama's official Web site. Also an Obama position paper on foreign policy matters made no mention of a Turkish occupation. But at the same time the Obama campaign never denied the Greek News story. Gordon said Turkey had a major role to play in its region and that U.S.-Turkish relations should be improved.

If Gordon is approved first by the Foreign Relations Committee and later in a Senate floor vote, he will take over the job from Dan Fried, who has been former President George W. Bush's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs for the past four years.

During former President Bill Clinton's term, Gordon was European director at the National Security Council at the White House.

Gordon was a senior Europe expert at the Brookings Insti-tution, a major Democratic-leaning think tank here.
www.hurriyet.com.tr

---

Obama Nominee Defies Senator’s Pressure To Criticize Turkey
Philip Gordon, recently appointed by US President Barack Obama as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has refused to call Turkey's presence in Cyprus an "occupation" and insisted that any US move to back Armenian "genocide" claims would be counterproductive, despite pressure from a senator at a Senate committee.

At his confirmation hearing at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Thursday, Gordon was asked to comment on a pre-election statement by Obama outlining his foreign policy priorities in which he said "a negotiated political settlement on Cyprus would end the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus and repair the island's tragic division while paving the way to prosperity and peace throughout the entire region." When asked if he agreed with the statement, Gordon said "yes," but when Sen. Robert Menendez pressed him to say if he considered the Turkish presence on the island an occupation, he only said the Greek Cypriot government and a number of experts considered it an occupation.

Gordon was then criticized by Menendez for opposing past attempts in the US Congress to pass a resolution recognizing claims that Armenians were subjected to a genocide campaign at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Menendez then said he was concerned over whether Gordon would act in a balanced manner regarding this matter. Gordon, for his part, insisted that congressional measures on the issue would provoke a "nationalist backlash" in Turkey. To prove that he would take a balanced approach, Gordon talked of the need to "recognize that terrible tragedy took place," and said "more than 1.5 million people were driven from their homes and massacred."

Congress has recently introduced a new resolution calling on the US president to describe the killings of Armenians as genocide. Turkey says any such move would both harm Turkish-US relations and undermine the efforts between Turkey and Armenia to normalize their relations, severed, among other reasons, due to the dispute over history. Ankara denies the genocide accusations and says the killings were a result of civil strife.

In a sign of the importance attached to Turkey by the new US administration, Obama is expected to visit Ankara to discuss a wide range of issues including Iran's nuclear program, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked why good relations with Turkey were important by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Gordon noted that the US image in Turkey had deteriorated badly in recent years and added that it was "hard to get work done in a democracy when there is such skepticism about our country." He added: "We have a lot of work to do with them. Turkey is critical for the energy routes between the Caspian, the Middle East and the West. Turkey is a country that has borders with Greece, the Black Sea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Mediterranean. For that reason alone it's a critical strategic player in the world. And it is an aspirant to EU membership. The global symbolism of a majority Muslim country joining EU will be very powerful."

"We have a compelling national interest in working with Turkey, which is not to say we agree with them on everything," he also said.

Gordon, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, was nominated to replace Daniel Fried on March 11.
28 March 2009, Alİ H. Aslan Washington, Zaman

---

The Ezidis: Children Of The Sun Living In Anatolia by Vercihan Ziflioğlu
ISTANBUL - In Turkey there are only 400 members remaining of the Ezidis, one of the oldest communities in Anatolia. The largest Ezidi populations in the world are in Armenia and Germany, according to a research by a master student

Misunderstood for centuries, one of the oldest minority communities in Anatolia has lived in silence in Turkey, keeping their traditions alive through oral history and a religious caste system.

For centuries, many have claimed the Ezidis were Satanists, but Ezidis are a religious community with hundreds of years of oral history. They are monotheistic, have no place of worship and their holy scripture has been lost.

They have derogatorily been called "Yezidis," in reference to the belief that they descended from the Emevi emperor Yezid bin Muaviye, who killed the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson.

The name Yezidi was used to insult the group, forcing the Ezidis to hide their identity. They took shelter in Anatolia and have continued to exist in hiding for centuries. Unlike the assumption, they have never been Satanists. They stand facing the sun and have prayed to God for centuries.

Holy books
The "Kitab el Cilve" (Apocalyptic Book) and "Mishef-i Reş" (Black Book), the holy books of the Ezidis, were burned during attacks from Turkmenistan’s Bedrettin Lulu in Lales, their holy place in Iraq, in the 13th and 14th centuries. These holy books have been orally transferred from one generation to another for centuries.

Five years ago, Istanbul Bilgi University Department of History master’s student Amed Gökçen began research into the community, hoping to remove the prejudices against the Ezidis and reveal their centuries-old culture. As a result of research in the southeastern Anatolian cities of Mardin, Batman, Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa, Gökçen learned that the Ezidis population was only 400 in Turkey. He said the most important factor that enabled this community to survive against all odds is a caste system, similar to the one in India, which creates religious cooperation.

He pursued the migration routes of the Ezidis and extended his research from Syria to Iraq and from Armenia to Germany. He discovered that the largest Ezidi population was in Armenia and Germany. He wrote about their traditions, religious beliefs and legends, and collected 26 hymns and 21 folk songs.

Gökçen’s research was put up for sale last week by Kalan Music in a detailed book in the Ezidis’s Kirman language (a branch of Kurdish), English and Turkish, and on two CDs. "The Ezidis are a community that assimilate themselves," said Gökçen. "They hesitate to reveal their identity. They generally try to integrate into the societies where they live and try to get lost among them."

Difference between the German and Armenian Ezidis

Gökçen said he faced many difficulties during his research and that it was not possible to gather information about the community without the reference of a community member.

Speaking about his impressions during his research in Armenia and Germany, Gökçen said: "The Ezidis are being assimilated in Armenia. The Ezidis define themselves as a branch of Kurds everywhere else in the world but in Armenia they call themselves only Ezidikis."

Gökçen said the Ezidis of Germany live in very comfortable conditions. "In order to take advantage of special rights the German government grants to the minorities, those who are not Ezidis and who even called them Yezidis have introduced themselves as Ezidis," he said. There are 50,000 Ezidis living in Armenia and 300,000 in Germany, according to Gökçen.

The Collected Ezidi Mythology
The Ezidis date their bloodline back to Seyid Bin Cer, the first son of Adam and Eve. According to a legend, after God created Adam and Eve, he put their souls in jars to see which one was fertile. When he opened the jars 40 days later, Seyid Bin Cer was in Adam’s jar and all of nature’s insects and birds were in Eve’s. Since Seyid Bin Cer could keep the bloodline of humanity alive, God sent him a beautiful virgin, or Houri, from heaven. There is the concept of "clean blood" in the Ezidis because they consider themselves from the bloodline of Seyid Bin Cer and a houri from heaven. Therefore, Ezidis only marry other Ezidis. 26.03.2009 hurriyet.com.tr

---

Armenian, Greek Cypriot Ministers To Attend Civilizations Meeting
An international forum to be held in İstanbul next week will be a compelling event with high-profile participation from world leaders, while 30 foreign ministers had already confirmed their participation in the forum as of yesterday.

The Second Forum of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) will be held on April 6-7, coinciding with US President Barack Obama's visit to the Turkish capital, which is also expected to begin on April 6. The White House has yet to release a detailed agenda of Obama's visit, but he is expected to participate in the forum in İstanbul on its second day after wrapping up his talks in Ankara.

Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou, whose government is not recognized by Ankara, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, with whose country Turkey has no diplomatic relations with, and Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, whose country is still at odds with Turkey over disputes concerning the Aegean Sea, are among the at least 30 foreign ministers who will participate in a high-level brainstorming meeting within the framework of the UNAOC forum in İstanbul.

Among those expected to be present at the second forum is former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, whose earlier "dialogue of civilizations" initiative laid some of the groundwork for the UNAOC.

Iran, along with 82 other countries, is a member of the Group of Friends of the alliance. As of yesterday afternoon, the alliance secretariat had not yet received an affirmative or negative response from Tehran for the invitation extended to Iran at the foreign ministerial level. Forbes magazine on Thursday said, "Though the alliance this week would neither confirm nor deny, it's a good bet there will be representatives there from Iran."

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose probable candidacy for the top NATO post has led to a heated debate both in his country and abroad, will also be in İstanbul to participate in the UNAOC Forum, only a few days after a NATO summit on April 3-4 when the transatlantic body is expected to announce its next chief.

Rasmussen, along with Azerbaijani President İlham Aliyev, Bulgarian Georgi Parvanov, Slovenian President Danilo Türk, has already confirmed to Ankara his participation in the forum, diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Today's Zaman yesterday. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who will participate in a trilateral summit with the presidents of Turkey and Pakistan on April 1 in Ankara, is also likely to attend the forum.
The UNAOC held its inaugural forum in early 2008 in Madrid. 28 March 2009, Zaman

---

Between The West And The Kremlin by a.akcakoca todayszaman.com
It's not easy being a state of the former Soviet Union. Although Russia may have accepted that these nations will never again be part of its territory "proper," it still considers itself as having the right to influence what it calls its "near abroad."

However, the combination of the increasing geostrategic importance of this neighborhood and the desire of the countries concerned to broaden their horizons and integrate themselves further with the West has resulted in something of a tug-of-war beginning to take place between the West and Russia. Six states in particular -- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine -- find themselves in an increasingly undesirable situation of being caught in the middle. The two most troublesome have been Georgia and Ukraine. Both held color revolutions, allied themselves closely to the West through the election of pro-American anti-Russian presidents and pushed for closer integration with Euro-Atlantic institutions. Georgia has already paid the price and Russia successfully crushed the tiny nation following the events of August 2008. While the West declared that Russia should not be allowed to get away with its actions and that business as usual would be off the agenda until it complied with international law, six months later it seems that it is very much business as usual and Russia is more assertive than ever. The EU is back to business and the US is seemingly prepared to give the Russians a fresh start, too.

While Ukraine, on the other hand, may not have been crushed (yet), the country is down on its knees both politically and economically. Although its leadership is heavily to blame, there is no doubt that meddling from Moscow, including involvement in Ukraine's energy sector and extensive shady oligarch links are also a big factor. Then there is the hotspot of Crimea, which is basically a mini-Russia (Ukraine is home to the largest Russian-speaking minority of the former Soviet Union) and which could be used by Russia to stir up trouble for Kyiv at any given moment. Russia wants its nose in everything; earlier this week when Ukraine presented in Brussels a "master plan" to modernize its energy transit infrastructure, the Russians declared that both the Ukraine and the EU's energy security might suffer if the Kremlin was not consulted.

In addition, the NATO aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine have also been crushed. All the promises made to these fledgling nations have disappeared in a puff of smoke and I have serious doubts either will ever make it into NATO.

As for the others, Armenia and Belarus remain under Moscow's thumb. The West is attempting to woo Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, but hopes are not high as Belarus is heavily dependent on Moscow economically. Moldova still struggles with a frozen conflict -- backed by Moscow -- on its territory and attempts to play the West and Russia off each other. Only Azerbaijan finds itself in the somewhat privileged position of having a choice because of its extensive hydrocarbon reserves in the Caspian Sea, which both Russia and the West are fighting to get their hands on.

However, at the same time, the EU has finally woken up from its comatose position on this region and realized it needs to make some efforts to counterbalance Russia if it wants a stable, secure and prosperous neighborhood. At the recent EU summit, heads of state agreed to adopt the so-called Eastern Partnership. The Eastern Partnership aims to strengthen relations between the EU and these six countries through closer economic and political ties, including free trade and eventual visa-free regimes. This is something the EU should have done a long time ago, but as usual it always takes a crisis to spur them into action. The events in Georgia woke the EU up from its complacency and while there is still no desire for any of these countries to be allowed to join the EU, there is a realization that it is in their interests to promote closer economic and political relations with them, including helping them democratize and have increased respect for the rule of law and human rights.

Although Russia does not necessarily see the EU initiative as a threat in the way it views NATO enlargement, the Kremlin still remains wary of anything it sees as encroaching on their sphere of influence. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already accused the EU of something the EU usually accuses the Russians of -- trying to get these countries under its sphere of influence. However, the difference is that the EU goes about it in a different way. It is the free choice of the countries involved as to whether they engage with the EU. On the other hand, the Kremlin has other methods to keep these countries under its thumb. Nonetheless, I don't imagine the Russians really have much to worry about because of three things. First, the finance offer is peanuts -- 600 billion euros for all six countries. Second, the EU has no intention of offering any of these countries the prospect of membership. Without such a prospect it would seem highly unlikely that these nations would be able to muster the political will to carry out the reforms necessary to reap the benefits offered by the EU. Finally, for some in the EU, Russia will always take priority over the likes of Ukraine and Moldova.
25 March 2009,

---

Obama To Woo Turks, Armenian Pitfall Awaits
US President Barack Obama has created a chance to turn Turkey's role in the wider Middle East to maximum advantage simply by going there so early in his term.

Turkey, a sometimes prickly NATO ally, holds no magic solutions, but it can help the United States in confrontations and conflicts that stretch from Israel to Afghanistan -- via Syria, Iraq and Iran -- and from Cyprus to the Caucasus. Obama's April 5-7 visit is a nod to Turkey's regional reach, economic power, unrivalled diplomatic contacts and status as a secular Muslim democracy that has accommodated political Islam. "It's a symbolic piece of public diplomacy at a time maybe not of crisis, but great uncertainty in US-Turkish relations," said Philip Robins, a Middle East expert at Oxford University.

Turkey will not be the venue for Obama's promised major speech in a Muslim capital, but Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said his stop there was still a way to emphasize his message of reaching out to Muslims. Obama may unlock the kind of goodwill generated by former US President Bill Clinton when he came to Turkey in 1999, but risks dissipating it all if he uses another G-word, genocide, to describe the fate of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

"With the PKK [outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party] under control in Iraq and the Americans at least not confronting Iran at the moment, the Armenian issue is the thorniest," Robins said.

In his election campaign, Obama pledged to call the killings of Armenians genocide, and a resolution to so designate them was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week. A similar resolution two years ago was approved in committee but dropped after Turkey denounced it as "insulting" and hinted at halting logistical support for the US war in Iraq. Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks during World War I, but denies that up to 1.5 million died as a result of systematic genocide.

Ironically, Turkey and Armenia are perhaps as close as they have ever been to normalizing ties and reopening the border. Ömer Taşpınar, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that accelerating this process could relieve Obama's dilemma. "This is exactly what President Obama needs," he wrote, urging Turkey's ruling party to show "visionary statesmanship."

If the Armenian issue can be finessed, Obama has everything to gain from reinvigorated US-Turkish ties, particularly when he is making overtures to adversaries such as Iran and Syria. He has already sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Middle East envoy George Mitchell on visits to Ankara. "Turkey plays a pivotal role in this region," said Karim Makdisi, at the American University of Beirut. "If you are going down this route of cooperation and dialogue, countries that have open channels like Turkey are the ones you want to talk to."

Turkey, once on uneasy terms with many of its neighbors, now has ties that span fault lines in the Middle East and beyond. "Who else can go to Moscow and Tbilisi, to Tehran and Tel Aviv? Who else can speak to Hamas in Damascus and also to the Egyptians and have good relations with the Saudis on top of that?" asked Hugh Pope, an International Crisis Group analyst.

US-Turkish ties suffered badly in 2003 when Ankara opposed the invasion of Iraq -- and opinion polls show most Turks remain hostile toward Washington -- but former President George Bush's administration began to repair the damage five years later. "The US is now cooperating with Turkey over Iraq and that has had amazing consequences," said Pope, noting there had been no big clash for several months between Turkish forces and PKK, which has bases in northern Iraq.

Logistical support
Turkey, vital to Washington as a logistical hub for US forces that are set to ramp up in Afghanistan and draw down in Iraq, has its own vital interests in regional security. "The breadth of relationships and the involvement of Turkey is huge," said a Western official in Ankara, citing Turkish mediation between Syria and Israel among other examples. "The United States is working very closely in sharing intelligence against the PKK and supports contacts between Turkey and the Kurdish regional government."

President Abdullah Gül this week became the first Turkish head of state to visit Iraq in over 30 years. He won harsh words for the PKK from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and signaled Turkey's growing acceptance of the autonomy Iraqi Kurds enjoy.

Steven Flanagan, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the United States welcomed Turkey's stated willingness to play a bigger role in central Asia and help more in Afghanistan, where it has more than 800 noncombat troops.

"Turkey will also want to hear more about the US withdrawal plans for Iraq," he said.

Turkey declared this month it would consider mediating between Iran and the United States, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad later said there was no need for this. Reuters

Armenian parliament steps in for US ‘genocide’ resolution

It has emerged that a leading member of the Armenian National Assembly recently urged members of the US Congress to adopt a resolution that would declare the killings of Anatolian Armenians during World War I to have been genocide.

The resolution was introduced last Tuesday. A US-based Armenian news portal, www.huliq.com, reported yesterday that Armen Rustamian, chairman of the Armenian National Assembly's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed on Thursday his strong support for the US affirmation of the alleged Armenian genocide in a letter sent to Howard Berman, chairman of the US House of Representatives' Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In his letter, Rustamian suggested that US recognition would be the greatest contribution to the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations.

"I have the pleasure to write you upon the introduction of legislation recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and to share with you and your colleagues our complete support for the adoption of this measure affirming the commitment of the United States to the cause of genocide prevention," Rustamian was quoted as saying in the letter.

"I am confident that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the United States not only would not hamper, but on the contrary will contribute to the prospects of a thorough dialogue between Turkey and Armenia. A clear and principled stance by the US can only assist in developing awareness that the recognition of the Genocide is not at all a demonstration of anti-Turkish sentiments, but a necessity emanating from the need to condemn this crime against humanity," he wrote.

"Any durable improvement of Armenia-Turkey relations must rest upon a foundation of shared respect for truth and justice," he added in his letter. Today's Zaman 25 March 2009, Alistair Lyon Beirut Zaman

---

The Obama Visit: Risks And Opportunities s.kiniklioglu at todayszaman.com
President Obama's visit to Turkey next month promises to be a historic event in recent Turkish-American relations.

There is no doubt that even the news of the visit has already sparked such an atmosphere that the visit will be registered in the annals as an important step in "rebuilding the strategic partnership with Turkey." This is a phrase I borrowed from the Obama-Biden policy platform on Europe published before the election.

Apart from the niceties pertaining to the fact that a US president is engaging with Turkey early on at the highest level, there are many issues that are expected to be on the table. It is highly likely that Obama will ask Turkey to increase its contribution to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, something that is being discussed internally within the Turkish decision-making structure. Provided that other NATO members contribute equally, it is not too farfetched to contemplate Turkey sharing more of the burden there.

Turkey will ask President Obama to use US influence on Greek Cyprus to convey a clear message to Nicosia that there will be a cost to the failure of the UN-sponsored talks. This is a relatively cost-free policy issue for Washington, but it must be highlighted as the talks are extremely significant this time.

The issue of US troop withdrawal from Iraq, the future of Iraq as well as thorny issues such as Kirkuk will be discussed. Provided the appropriate modalities are mutually agreed upon, there appears to be little resistance to a US withdrawal among the parties in the Turkish Parliament. Obviously, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) issue in light of the recent rapprochement with the northern Iraqi authorities -- possibly leading to the final eradication of the PKK menace from northern Iraq -- will be discussed.

Continued US support for Turkey's EU drive will be reiterated. Reviving the Israel-Syria talks under Turkish auspices or joint auspices is likely to be talked about. Naturally, the issue of Israel-Palestine as well as views on the Middle East will be shared. Iran -- and how to deal with this complicated issue -- is certainly going to be high on the US agenda, particularly in consideration of Turkey's UN Security Council seat.

Last but not least, the only pressing short-term issue will be brought up: the Armenian resolution in the US Congress and the president's statement on April 24. On this issue there are divergent views. Some in Washington believe that it will be difficult for Obama to retract his campaign promises, while others argue that he will follow what every president has done before him and act responsibly. Regardless of what he and his administration feel about this issue, there is little doubt that the current normalization effort with Armenia will figure prominently in everyone's mind. The visionary diplomacy undertaken by the two sides is historic and we want to believe that all sides understand the sensitivity and the opportunity at hand.

Despite the risks that the Armenian issue poses for Turkish-American relations, they have the potential to develop in a fashion that would remind us of the strong partnership both nations enjoyed for five decades. The US and Turkey have common interests in the region, although they sometimes choose to emphasize different means. Obama made a great start with his message to Al-Arabiya and Iran on Nevruz. His visit to Ankara may even add to the positive momentum he has garnered. The Middle East and the wider Islamic world will be eagerly watching how the visit will unfold.
24 March 2009,

---

Pre-Emptive Gestures In Turkish-American-Armenian Triangle k.balci at todayszaman.com
Turkey is going to be the first predominantly Muslim country that US President Barack Obama will step foot in after assuming office. That is no privilege.

He could have easily chosen to start from Iraq, and while that wouldn't make Iraq the leader of the Muslim world, neither would it say anything about the future of Iraqi-US relations. The visit is exciting, indeed, but it becomes even more exciting when examined within its contextual setting.

Once the US secretary of state made known the plans of the US president to visit Turkey in April, Turkish diplomats tried to use this new opportunity in order to show that "there is nothing extraordinary in this since Turkey and the US have been strategic allies for over half a century"; the politicians usurped it in order to show that "our prime minister's manners in Davos are actually being implicitly supported by the US president." President Abdullah Gül has moved up from the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, and we have heard him adopting a more diplomatic line; Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's line is understandably political.

Neither line is objective.
Let it be known that the writer of this column is happy that the US president is coming to Turkey. I would have loved to see him come to Turkey even before he went to Canada as his first trip abroad. But I have a feeling that what makes this visit exciting is not the contrast between what Turkey did previously and the fact that the US president is still willing to come; it is more about the contrast between what the Americans are planning, or are feeling obliged to do after the visit and the fact that they wanted to pay this visit as a pre-emptive gesture in order to prevent the destruction of a probable Armenian genocide resolution may have on mutual relations.

Obama's visit will overlap with the Second Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations that will be held on April 6-7 in Istanbul. Spanish diplomats claim that Obama is actually coming to the forum. However, the United States is still not a member of the Group of Friends of the Alliance and it probably won't ever be as the Euro-centrism of the alliance is well-known and its reports about world peace have been loaded with implicit criticism of Israeli policies.

A better explanation for Obama's visit is the Armenian genocide resolution that will come to the US Congress. The US president is a prisoner of what he promised during his election campaign: legislative acknowledgment of the genocide claims. Capitol Hill knows very well how Turkey will retaliate. Let me just speculate: If the government does not close down İncirlik Airbase, the people will do so. That is not what I would like to see, but that is what a careless US administration will see. Turks won't let the Americans label our forefathers as "genocide perpetrators" without any historical insight and then continue to fly over this land.

Neither the Turkish government nor the Americans want that to happen. So the American president is coming to Ankara to make a pre-emptive gesture to Turkey in order to prevent the destructive effect of an Armenian genocide resolution that will most probably pass both the Congress and the Senate. The content of this gesture is open to speculation, and I am sure the Americans are still working on a better package rather than just guaranteeing the resolution won't be reflected in the administration's foreign policy decisions in any way whatsoever.

The Turkish government, on the other hand, is working on a "repelling pre-emptive" gesture: a further rapprochement package with Armenia that will include not only opening the borders between Turkey and Armenia, but also a future "road map" for the solution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial disputes. Foreign policy observers have been speculating that Turkey and Armenia would disclose the details of a deal during the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) meeting on April 16. Originally set for April 29, the meeting was moved to April 16, the observers claim, just to pre-empt the April 24 events and the resolution in the US Congress. Obama's visit may further push the agenda, and we may have a warm Turkish-Armenian spring before the Golden Age of Turkish-American relations.

If the US president is coming to Ankara in order to apologize for a yet to be made mistake, he will most probably be received by a surprise rapprochement bouquet that no genocide resolution can ever bring about.
24 March 2009

---

Pre-Emptive Gestures In Turkish-American-Armenian Triangle
US President Barack Obama, who is due to arrive in the Turkish capital on the evening of April 5, is expected to participate in the UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) forum scheduled for April 6 and 7 in İstanbul.

US officials in Ankara were not immediately available to confirm or deny Obama's participation at the second day of the UNAOC forum on April 7, since they were not able to make any confirmation on items on the agenda of Obama's trip to Turkey. However, they noted that the US president has expressed a desire to attend the event.

Obama's visit to Turkey will include time in both Ankara and İstanbul. Obama is to meet with President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on April 6, and Obama and Erdoğan are expected to fly to İstanbul together to attend the meeting of the UNAOC initiative on April 7.

The second forum of the UNAOC will see the participation of Erdoğan, in addition to Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, who is the high representative for the Alliance of Civilizations. The forum will be attended by heads of government and more than 50 ministers.

The İstanbul forum follows the success of the inaugural gathering, which was held in Madrid in January 2008. Officials said the İstanbul forum will be action oriented, with an emphasis on delivering concrete projects and practical outcomes. A number of high-profile initiatives will be presented, including Euro-Mediterranean projects aimed at restoring trust and rebuilding bridges in the region in the wake of the Gaza crisis.

There is also a project called the Alliance Fellowship Program that aims to facilitate the exchange of young leaders between a number of countries and establish working relationships between them.

The Global Model United Nations (GMUN) 2010, a world-class student diplomacy training program on the theme of the UNAOC, will take place in addition to a presentation of "Doing Business in a Multicultural World -- Challenges and Opportunities," a joint report of the UNAOC and the UN Global Compact showcasing a range of best practices and case studies for companies to use in responding to the diversity of today's business environments.

The forum will also see the launch of "Mapping Media Education Policies Around the World," a joint publication by the UNAOC and UNESCO on media education policies.

Obama expected to address Islamic world from Turkey
Obama's visit is seen as a sign of the Obama administration's willingness to work with Turkey on a number of key foreign policy issues, including the stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran's controversial nuclear program.

The Turkish government is likely to raise the issues of Armenian allegations of genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during World War I and cooperation in the fight against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Obama is also expected to address the Islamic world with a speech from Turkey.

The Financial Times, a daily in the United Kingdom, reported on Monday, "After that is the NATO summit in Strasbourg, where Mr. Obama will try and probably fail to get big European assistance for his 17,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, a stop in Prague for a meeting with European leaders and then a big speech to the Islamic world from Turkey -- Mr. Obama's first, much-awaited visit to a Muslim country."
24 March 2009, TODAY'S ZAMAN

---

"An Ally Beyond Any Suspicion?" By Jean Eckian 27 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
Frankly, how the international community can have confidence in a country which not only denies the reality of crime on Ottoman Armenians, will blow up the ears of Algeria (2007) that France should apologize for crimes committed during the Algerian war and supports a charge of crimes against humanity in the person of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, while criticizing Israel for its attack against Gaza? (even if it jusitfié)

If I wanted to be vulgar, I would say that it makes us bad ...

With its strategic position incontournable, he wipes his feet on the carpet synthetic West, wears day after day by return trips to the taste of gall, in defiance of human rights.

To Israel, which he made a court unrestrained while threatening to restrict the flow of water if the work of the Knesset resulted in the recognition of the Genocide of Armenians.

In the United States who need to land on its soil in the fight against terrorism, but just be disappointed by the position of increasing starry face the charge imposed by the UN Security against the Sudanese President, subject to the charge of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the EU to move forward while falling.

In the diaspora living overseas syndrome Mutafian (where compassion is needed for the disease that strikes him), because of the so called International Standard states. A trick in which the international community had plunged the feet together and with the descendants of genocide survivors will be the cost if the U.S. President, like his predecessors, is dedicated to this machine from top flight.

Yes, Armenians are the cocus of history. But perhaps for less time than previously thought. All will depend on the cohesion of the diaspora. In the meantime welcome the South Australia just to condemn the crime of genocide on the Armenian people.

---

Ahmet Davutoglu: Diaspora Armenia Condemns To Poverty 27 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
The Foreign Affairs Advisor of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Professor Ahmet Davutoglu gave a speech at Princeton University SUTR principles of foreign policy of Turkey. Commenting on relations with Armenia, Ahmet Davutoglu said the inappropriate attitude of the Armenian diaspora in the United States affects the Turkish-Armenian relations negatively. Asserting that Turkey is likely to have an agreement with Armenia, Professor Davutoglu said "the Diaspora is fighting for the recognition of the alleged Armenian genocide but it did not take into account the interests of Armenia. A Armenian who lives in San Francisco does no investment in Yerevan. Today, Armenia is the poorest country in the region. We hope to have more economic cooperation with our neighbors. We want rich neighbors because we believe this will make our region safer. "

Ahmet Davutoglu said that if the United States recognize the alleged Armenian genocide, not just the United States and Turkey in Armenia but also suffer. Declaring that the solutions of problems of Armenia with Turkey and Azerbaijan will benefit the United States, Ahmet Davutoglu said "if the United States lose Azerbaijan in the Karabakh issue, so this will mean that she lost the door east of the Caspian Sea. "

The Azeri opposition to Turkey recommends to be careful with regard to open borders with Armenia 27 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews

"Although the current government of Turkey has increased to some certain interests in our decisions, we must not abandon this country. We must maintain high-level," said the chairman of an opposition party party of the Azerbaijan Democratic Sardar Jalaloglu.

To justify Sardar Jalaloglu said that the Turkish Prime Minister announced some time ago that changes in policy regarding Armenia have been coordinated with the Government of Azerbaijan.

"Secondly, Turkey has its own interests and it must provide. Thirdly, I think that the policy of blockade of Armenia is not effective now," said the president of the ADP.

He said that the blockade by Azerbaijan on Armenia does not allow Armenia to participate in trans-regional projects. "This process is already finished. There is no plan now which Armenia can participate," said Sardar Jalaloglu.

Sardar Jalaloglu says that 3 million Armenians in Turkey maintain contacts with Armenia through different means. "The decision by Turkey to open its borders will result in formal mechanisms that operate informally so far. Unfortunately, Turkey should take into consideration that the Karabakh problem remains unsolved by taking such measures. If the authorities Turks say they have taken these measures taking into account the interests of the state, we can not say anything, "he said.

---

Top Twenty Tall Turkish Tales 2009/03/27 By Lucine Kasbarian
1.That Turks, who turned up in Anatolia from Central Asia thousands of years after the ancient Hittite, Urartian, Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine structures in present-day Turkey were constructed, are somehow responsible for having built them.

2. That Turks and Armenians lived in peace, brotherhood, and equality ever since the Seljuk Turkish invasions, and that the Ottoman Empire was a model of tolerance towards its subject peoples.

3. That the Ottoman massacres of hundreds of thousands of Armenian civilians in 1894-1897 and 1909 were simply examples of Turkish self defense.

4. That there was no Armenian Genocide. The deaths were just an unfortunate consequence of civil war or wartime conditions. But if there was a genocide, it was Armenians who committed it.

5. That US Ambassador Morgenthau, American and European diplomats, missionaries and others who witnessed and wrote about the Genocide were not credible since they disliked Turks. Even German eyewitnesses (allies of Turkey in World War I) were not credible since they disliked Turks too.

6. That the hundreds of historians and genocide experts who confirm that there was an Armenian Genocide have all been duped by Armenians.

7. That those peoples who “revolted” against the Ottomans or Turkey deserved whatever the Turks did to them because all such revolts were unjustified. (The Young Turks’ revolt against the Ottoman Sultan in 1908, on the other hand, was entirely justified.)

8. That the Armenian death toll was “only 600,000,” not 1.5 million, hence the deaths could not be considered a genocide.

9. That due to wartime necessity, the “deportations” were limited to Armenians from the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire (even though, in fact, Armenians from all parts of the Empire were “deported”).

10. That the Ottoman Turkish archives are fully open, haven’t been tampered with, and prove that Turkey did not commit the Armenian Genocide.

11. That the Genocide survivors and their descendants seek recognition, reparations, restitution, restoration, and return of their so-called historic homeland out of delusion and greed.

12. That the enormous amount of territory allocated to Turkey in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres was somehow inadequate.

13. That teaching and talking about the Armenian Genocide is a form of hate speech.

14. That Turkey and Armenia would be “reconciled” by now were it not for the malevolent Armenian Diaspora which, instead of acting in Armenia’s best interests, vilifies Turkey with baseless allegations. (Naturally, Turkey acts only in Armenia’s best interests.)

15. That Turkey’s proposal to hold a joint historical commission on 1915 — which would include denialist historians — is not a delaying tactic, but is sincere and would arrive at a truthful verdict.

16. That the Nagorno-Karabagh Republic (NKR) is not historically Armenian; that it was the Armenians in Karabagh who initiated pogroms against Azeris; and that NKR is not entitled to self-determination.

17. That Turkey is qualified to be a member of the European Union and should have been admitted years ago (even if it violates the human rights of its population, stifles free speech, and condones torture).

18. That Turkey is a loyal NATO ally (even if it threatens the United States and Europe and rejects US requests for military cooperation).

19. That if the Genocide resolution passes in the US Congress, Turkey will severely punish the United States.

20. That Turkey’s efforts to penetrate the Caucasus and Central Asia are not attempts to fulfill a longstanding ambition to create a Pan-Turkic empire.

Lucine Kasbarian is an Armenian-American writer. hetq.am

---

What Is The Main Aim Of The Discourses On Border Opening LRAGIR.AM 26/03/2009
The conversations on the Armenian and Turkish border opening are just the propaganda steps of the Turkish government which are aimed at the prevention of the genocide recognition on April 24, because of the U.S. president Barak Obama's promise in this regard. On March 26, this idea was brought up by the former speaker of the National Assemble Tigran Torosyan hosted at the Hayeli press-club. According to him, the conversations on this issue are determined by the fear of Turkey that Obama may fulfill his promise which is naturally undesirable for Turkey. The conversations on the border opening are circulated just in order to prevent the event development in this direction.

Tigran Torosyan brought into our attention the fact that Turkey has not issued an official statement on the border opening topic, the Turkish officials keep silence in this connection, and these discourses are represented by the "leakage" of the Turkish media, the aim of which is absolutely clear, stated Tigran Torosyan.

---

ACA addressed issues to Clinton concerning US relations with Armenia and Turkey

---

27.03.2009
The Armenian Council Of America (Aca) Sent U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton A Letter. In the letter, the ACA addressed several issues of concern regarding U.S.-Armenia and U.S.-Turkey relations.

Recently Secretary Clinton visited the Republic of Turkey, and President Barack Obama has an upcoming trip scheduled for April 5th. The letter stated, "President Obama’s upcoming visit to Turkey, especially in the month of April, is a unique opportunity for the United States to encourage the Republic of Turkey to rectify its historical past in order to develop a strong Armenian-Turkish relationship and for the future of Turkish nation itself." Secretary Clinton spoke on the telephone as well with Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan regarding current affairs.

This April will mark the commemoration of the 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and an anticipated annual statement is expected from the White House. "The Armenian Council of America appreciates the administration’s engagement on these issues and looks forward to positive statements and fulfillment of their pledges reaffirming the American record on the Armenian Genocide," stated ACA Board Member Peter Darakjian.

The full text of the letter is presented below:

“On behalf of the Armenian Council of America and the Armenian American community, we would like to thank you for your continuous support and interest in the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Armenia.

In light of your recent visit to the Republic of Turkey, your telephone conversation with Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan, and President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to Turkey, we would like to bring your attention to a few issues. We acknowledge and appreciate the United States supporting the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relationship and that you discussed this matter with Turkish Foreign Minister Babacan. We are encouraged that recently there has been some progress made on this front, and we support the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two neighbors and opening of the border.

However, acceptance of the Armenian Genocide should not be hindered in lieu of establishing relations between the two nations. The Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Israel have established diplomatic relations, while at the same time the German people and government has acknowledged the crimes of the Holocaust. Therefore, we do not understand the Turkish rgument of deterring acceptance of the Armenian Genocide and the American acceptance of this
tactic.

America as the bastion of democracy and champion of human rights should nurture these bilateral relations as well as the historical truth. President Obama’s visit to Turkey, especially in the month of April, is a unique opportunity for the United States to encourage the Republic of Turkey to rectify its historical past in order to develop a strong Armenian-Turkish relationship and for the future of Turkish nation itself. This will be beneficial for the United States in its approach of strengthening its and neighborly relations in the South Caucasus and the greater Near East.

The Armenian Council of America supports the U.S.-Armenia relationship and cooperation. We favor the continuation of the Millenium Challenge Account assistance program to the people of Armenia. The United States has always stood by the Republic of Armenia from the beginning of its independence in 1991. As we are in the United States, Armenia is also currently being affected by the global economic crisis. Any decrease in U.S. humanitarian and economic assistance would affect the livelihood of its citizens. As part of this relationship, we would like to encourage the United States to foster the growth of democracy and a civil society in Armenia. The 2008 Armenian presidential election and the subsequent clamp down on the opposition hindered the growth of these critical elements. Without these solid foundations, Armenia cannot truly develop into a democratic, prosperous, and free market nation.

The Obama Administration has been very dynamic in implementing its domestic and foreign policy changes. The Armenian Council of America and the Armenian American community look forward to this leadership standing by its pledge on acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. This will demonstrate the administration’s stance that genocide is not acceptable to the United States regardless of geopolitics.

We thank you and the administration again for your commitment in improving America’s relations and image abroad, as well as promoting peace throughout the world.”
Public Radio of Armenia

---

Keynote Speech By The President Of The Republic Of Turkey At The European Business Summit, (Brussels, 26 March 2009)

Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure for me to participate in the Seventh European Business Summit. I am confident that, the Summit will provide to the business community yet another occasion to address important problems that face Europe, at present.

Business people will better know that, the “fine line” between success and failure is the ability to shape perceptions according to changing conditions. I believe that the same applies to international affairs.

To influence global developments, we should be able to renew our perceptions about political, social and economic challenges.

The European Union was conceived by such visionary leaders as Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman: They have changed the perceptions about the future of Europe by launching the idea of a united continent.

This project started as a marriage of coal and steel. However, today, the same project has reached the dimension of a political, economic and social integration process. The dream of a “European Union” is today a reality.

Furthermore, the European Union is now poised to be a major force to run world affairs in the 21st century.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
While the EU is now a global economic and political powerhouse, it is not immune to global challenges.

Quite the opposite!
The most immediate challenge the EU, together with the world community, faces is the recent global financial and economic crisis. This is a testing time for Europe. But Europe has faced other challenges in the past. It has always succeeded in overcoming them. Europe should be confident in its capacity to overcome today’s ordeal and emerge from it even stronger.

The EU today draws its strength from the sense of common destiny, with its common values, policies and institutions. It is well equipped to face present challenges.

I have no doubt that at the end, thanks to the truly European spirit of debate and compromise, we shall emerge from this crisis stronger than before. Such a debate has already started to produce creative ideas.

The EU’s greatest achievements of the last decades, from the “Single Market” to “enlargement”, have all been the results of acting collectively and responsibly in an inclusive way. Today, the EU, employing the same principles and instruments, is finding the right path to its political and economic future.

No one can claim that, in the face of today’s economic, political and social crises, an inward-looking, divided, weak or smaller EU would be better off.

Distinguished Guests,
Turkey, as an accession country, a member of the G-20, and the sixth largest European economy, is uniquely placed to work hand in hand with the EU to overcome the global economic crisis which started out in the financial markets.

Turkey is ready to do its share in order to deal with this global economic crisis and to provide sustainable solutions. Indeed, Turkey went through such a financial crisis in 2001. We lost almost one fourth of our GDP. As a result, we made extensive structural reforms focused on strengthening the regulatory bodies. This proved to be an expensive but valuable lesson. At least today, our banking system is very sound.

We all know that the basis of economic activity is transparency and trust. Therefore, while reforming the financial system, this basic tenet must be upheld. We share the consensus view that governments, central banks and the business world must engage in strong collective action in this direction.

We must also stimulate economic growth while keeping inflation under control. Therefore, it is essential to support the real economy and at the same time promote social solidarity.

We need to give much thought to a new global financial architecture based on supervision and regulation. It is a positive development, that such issues are now being dealt with, not only at the national level, but also at the supranational level. In this direction, the World Bank, the IMF and other financial organizations need to be restructured to answer the requirements of modern economic times.

A well-regulated free market economy should definitely continue to be our main point of reference. We should never overlook the productivity brought about by private sector activity. Although the shares of some financial institutions have been or will have to be transferred to national treasuries, these shares should come back to the hands of the private sector whenever conditions permit.

Protectionism is also a dangerous trend. In the medium to long term, it is our own people, the consumers, who pay the price of protectionist policies. At the end of the day, such policies hurt everybody.

In this respect, Turkey is ready to cooperate with the EU at the G-20 and the Doha Round.

I hope that the EU will also stand up for the basic principles which have made it a great economy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let us consider some of the major challenges facing Europe today:

Economic recession; Unemployment; Demographic decline; Illegal immigration; Terrorism; Energy security; Climate change and others.

I am convinced that all of these challenges will be tackled much more effectively when the EU finally enlarges to Turkey. The ties that bind Turkey and the EU together are already strong and deep-rooted:

- Our common values, like democracy, rule of law and human rights,
- Our strong economic partnership framed by a highly successful Customs Union,
- Our shared interests on matters like energy security, good governance, effective regulation of the free market and the fight against poverty,
- Our joint objectives of expanding peace and stability in our region and beyond.

The interests of Turkey and the EU overlap in a vast geography and across many areas.
Turkey’s geography and its historical ties in a large region covering the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia give it unique opportunities. Out of the thirteen European Security and Defense Policy missions worldwide, seven are being conducted in Turkey’s neighborhood. Turkey is the largest non-EU contributor to ESDP missions.

On issues as diverse as Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kosovo and others, Turkey’s efforts directed at facilitating dialogue and compromise are clearly constructive. Just to cite a few examples:

- Israel and Syria began indirect peace talks under Turkey’s auspices.
- Turkey, together with Egypt, is actively working for inter-Palestinian reconciliation.
- My trips to Baghdad two days ago and to Teheran two weeks ago are indications of our efforts to contribute to international peace and stability.
- Next week, we shall bring together the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan together with their military and intelligence officials in Ankara.
- My first-ever trip to Armenia last year and our initiative for the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform have been part of our commitment to a better atmosphere in the Caucasus region.

In short, Turkey is a force for good in a number of the world’s principal pressure points. Clearly, increased synergy between Turkey and the EU will be to our mutual benefit.

Therefore, obstacles preventing benefits of such a synergy, like the Cyprus issue, should be removed before wasting more time and losing more opportunities. Turkey and Turkish Cypriots have already done their share for a peaceful settlement of this issue. We are committed to continue in the same line. Our vision is to create another strong pillar of Europe in the Eastern Mediterranean among Turkey, Greece and the island of Cyprus once a comprehensive settlement has been reached.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Energy is yet another area of interest for all of us. It is obvious that energy security is closely associated with prosperity and stability.

In this respect, let us not forget that Turkey is close to nearly 70 percent of the world’s energy resources. It has a strategic location along the main transport routes of the oil and natural gas resources of the Middle East, Central Asia and Caspian regions.

Turkey’s energy security strategy overlaps with the EU's policy of diversification of energy supply routes. Indeed, Turkey is aiming at becoming Europe’s fourth artery of natural gas after Russia, Norway and Algeria. Following the realization of the main projects of the East-West Corridor, we are now working with our partners to realize the Southern Energy Corridor which includes natural gas pipeline projects going through the territory of Turkey.

In this context, the Nabucco Project is a priority of our energy strategy. It will play a crucial role in moving gas further towards European markets.

Distinguished Guests,
I have outlined some of the main areas where Turkey is uniquely placed to help address the challenges faced by Europe. Turkey is a negotiating candidate country determined to join the EU. Turkey continues on its path to accession and an enormous transformation process is also taking place. The comprehensive political reforms enacted in the past six years have enhanced our democratic system. We are determined to take them further ahead.

We will continue the negotiations in good faith with the shared objective of accession as clearly stated in the negotiating framework of the EU. It is essential that Turkey’s accession process be continued objectively, fairly, in a foreseeable way and according to the rules of the game.

Distinguished Guests,
Strategic vision is no longer confined to military or geopolitical considerations alone. Strategic approaches now aim for common values, intercultural dialogue and mutual harmony. Such a strategic approach implies Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Turkey’s accession will carry within it some keys to solving many of the EU’s political, social and economic problems. I shall remind you that tomorrow’s Turkey will be a much different and stronger country compared to what it is today. When Turkey becomes a member, it will shoulder some of the burdens of Europe.

Turkey is proof that a well-functioning secular democracy in a predominantly Muslim society can prosper, preserve its traditional values and also be a part of Western institutions.

None of these are new concepts in defending the cause of Turkey’s accession to the EU. However, their importance increases as the challenges confronting us gain urgency with every day going by.

The case is a rather simple one: The world needs the EU’s soft power. And to become a global power, the EU needs Turkey. For such a successful “peace project” involving 500 million people, Turkey’s integration is the most viable way forward.

Distinguished Guests,
The EU needs to approach this matter with a sense of vision.

It must take the vision of its own Founding Fathers who aimed to eliminate barriers which divided Europe and not create new barriers. Therefore, I wish to recall the Czech Presidency’s motto: “Europe without barriers”.

Thank you for your attention.

---

Most Dangerous For Journalists 25/03/2009 Lragir.am
The Journalists' Defense Commission of New York issued the non-penalty index which includes those countries where journalists' assassination are committed and not revealed. The first in this list is Iraq which leads the list for the second year continually. Among the 14 countries of the list, Russia is the 9th. Sierra-Leona and Somali are the 2nd and the 3rd; Sri-Lanka and Columbia follow them. Philippines, India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Mexico, Bangladesh and Brazil are included in the list too. In addition, Brazil is the only newcomer in the list. In general, in 2008, 95 journalists were killed in the world.

---

Armenian Genocide: Normalization Of Turkish-Armenian Relations Could Relieve Obama's Dilemma PanARMENIAN.Net 25.03.2009
Barack Obama's April 5-7 visit is a nod to Turkey's regional reach, economic power, unrivalled diplomatic contacts and status as a secular Muslim democracy that has accommodated political Islam. "It's a symbolic piece of public diplomacy at a time maybe not of crisis, but great uncertainty in US-Turkish relations," said Philip Robins, a Middle East expert at Oxford University.

Turkey will not be the venue for Obama's promised major speech in a Muslim capital, but Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said his stop there was still a way to emphasize his message of reaching out to Muslims. Obama may unlock the kind of goodwill generated by former US President Bill Clinton when he came to Turkey in 1999, but risks dissipating it all if he uses another G-word, genocide, to describe the fate of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

"With the PKK [outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party] under control in Iraq and the Americans at least not confronting Iran at the moment, the Armenian issue is the thorniest," Robins said.

Ironically, Turkey and Armenia are perhaps as close as they have ever been to normalizing ties and reopening the border. Omer TaÅ~_pınar a fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that accelerating this process could relieve Obama's dilemma. "This is exactly what President Obama needs," he wrote, urging Turkey's ruling party to show "visionary statesmanship."

If the Armenian issue can be finessed, Obama has everything to gain from reinvigorated US-Turkish ties, particularly when he is making overtures to adversaries such as Iran and Syria. He has already sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Middle East envoy George Mitchell on visits to Ankara. "Turkey plays a pivotal role in this region. If you are going down this route of cooperation and dialogue, countries that have open channels like Turkey are the ones you want to talk to," Today's Zaman cited ," said Karim Makdisi at American University of Beirut as saying.

---

Don’t Use Treaty To Discriminate, Report
ANKARA - A Council of Europe report has warned Turkey against using a "wrong interpretation" of the Lausanne Treaty as a pretext for refusing to implement minority rights, it has been learned.

The 30-page report, which has not yet been published, highlights that minority rights are human rights and cannot be denied under the argument of reciprocity, European officials told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review yesterday. Article 45 of the Lausanne Treaty stipulates that the rights conferred by the relevant provisions on the non-Muslim minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Muslim minority in its territory.

The report says Turkey and Greece refer to the "reciprocity" and interprets the 1923 treaty in negative terms, while failing to observe the rights of their citizens who are members of the minorities protected by Lausanne.

On Tuesday, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or PACE, adopted the report on "Freedom of religion and other human rights for non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim minority in Thrace (Eastern Greece)."

The committee acknowledged that the topic was emotionally very highly charged and called on both Turkey and Greece to treat all their citizens according to the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights rather than invoking "reciprocity."

"The report is not about ignoring the Lausanne Treaty; it is a question of interpretation," an official who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Daily News. "The interpretation of the treaty is wrong. The Lausanne Treaty does not state that granting rights falls under the condition of reciprocity. It instead states that the rights which are for one minority are also for the other minority in another country, but they are not related to one another."

In a draft resolution, the committee termed the recurrent invoking by Greece and Turkey of the reciprocity principle as a basis for refusing to implement rights guaranteed to the minorities covered in the Lausanne Treaty "anachronistic," saying it could jeopardize each country's national cohesion. It also invited the two neighboring states to treat all their citizens without discrimination.

Discussions in June
The official said the resolution would probably be discussed in June at PACE, adding that the document was not binding and that if the countries failed to obey it, then the assembly could return to the issue and draft a new report in order to see if Turkey and Greece would keep the commitment.

Greece does not recognize its minority population in Western Thrace as "Turkish," labeling them "Muslims" instead. Turkey is still on the post-monitoring procedure of the Council of Europe, a human-rights watchdog whose reports are taken into consideration by the European Union.

The draft resolution keeps the definition of a 'minority' broad, saying that the diversity and existence of minority groups should be able to be expressed.

Article 10 of the resolution stipulates that generally speaking, the assembly fully shares the position of the Convention on Human Rights, according to which "freedom of ethnic self-identification is a major principle in which democratic pluralistic societies should be grounded and should be effectively applied to all minority groups, be they national, religious or linguistic," and the expression of which must be consistent with national unity.

"This means the draft is not only considering the groups officially characterized as minorities under the Lausanne Treaty," said the unnamed official. "It is much broader." Greeks, Armenians and Jews are the three groups officially listed as minority populations in Turkey.

The resolution further urges Turkish authorities to recognize the "ecumenical" title of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, to find a mutually agreeable solution to the reopening of the Heybeliada Greek Orthodox seminary and to ensure that the Orthodox Assyrian monastery of Mor Gabriel, one of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world, is protected in its entirety and not deprived of its land holdings. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/

---

Parliament Prepares For President Obama
Preparations have already begun for extraordinary safety measures that will be in place in Parliament during a visit by US President Barack Obama, who is expected to arrive in Turkey on April 5.

Officials said Parliament’s general meeting hall has been under close scrutiny when it comes to security since Obama is going to give an address there on April 6; he will be the second US president to give a speech in Parliament after Bill Clinton did so 10 years ago. US Secret Service agents together with Turkish police officers have begun to inspect all corners of Parliament, including the Mobile Electronic System Integration Project (MOBESE) -- an alarm system with integrated security cameras placed throughout the Parliament building.

During their inspection, Secret Service agents even took down huge chandeliers to check them. After ensuring that the chandeliers were steady and strong, they were remounted.

Extraordinary precautions will be in place when Obama enters Ankara, such as closing some of the streets to traffic and setting up checkpoints in certain locations in the capital.

No ceremonies are planned ahead of Obama’s entrance into Parliament for security reasons. No visitors will be allowed into the Parliament building on April 6, and no cars will be allowed to park in the Parliament parking lots. Deputies will be warned not to bring weapons into the building.

Other measures include preventing mobile phones from functioning in Parliament during Obama’s presence there and positioning sharpshooters on the roof of the building.

Meanwhile, an American cargo plane arrived in Ankara yesterday with nine truckloads of supplies to be used during President Obama’s visit. The supplies were taken with a police escort to the hotel where Obama will stay during his visit. A large number of Americans who got off the cargo plane left the airport aboard a private bus.

According to the program, which has not been finalized, Obama will be greeted in Parliament by Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan. US military and security personnel are expected to take seats in Parliament during Obama’s speech as was the case during Clinton’s address to Parliament in 1999.
26 March 2009, Zaman

---

Obama’s Genocide Dilemma: My Solution By * Simon Maghakyan 27 Mar 2009
In several days, Barack Obama will visit Ankara. In largely Muslim Turkey, America’s popular president is still a favorite. But how will Obama deal with a human rights issue he has long considered a matter of principle?

President Obama will undoubtedly be asked by journalists in Turkey of his views about a newly introduced Congress bill recognizing the WWI Armenian Genocide.

How will he react? How should he react?

Scenario A: Obama will avoid public questions about the genocide. Asked by reporters if he supports the congressional resolution, Obama will stay away from comment or say he doesn’t oppose it. This is what many Armenian-Americans hope for: if Obama stays out of the genocide resolution, it will pass. But by staying out from such a vibrant development, Obama will let Congress undermine his authority as foreign policy chief. He can’t afford Congress run the show.

Scenario B: Obama will acknowledge in his reaction the Armenian Genocide (like he did in 2005 in Baku when confronted by angry Azerbaijani journalists) and try to justify the move. Obama will have limited time and much pressure in his reaction. It won’t be a good articulation and he may regret the consequences. He can’t afford ruining a press conference in his first foreign policy trip.

Scenario C: Obama will say he doesn’t support the resolution, condemn the Armenian Genocide but use the most elegant linguistic exercise to avoid usage of “genocide” itself. If his does this, he will mimic George W. Bush. Obama can’t afford being George W. Bush.

Is there hope for genocide recognition without nationalist backlash in Turkey and without undermining the presidency in the US? Yes there is – but there may be one and only one option: Obama needs to be proactive.

Most scenarios on Obama’s handling of the Armenian Genocide issue are of reactive measure: how he will respond and what he will answer. Instead, Obama needs a proactive approach.

In his Turkey speech before the Q&A, Obama should talk about honor and genocide. He should say the following:

“I represent one of the best stories on earth, one of the best countries in history, and of the most proud places in the Universe. And the country I love more than anything else has its dark sides. You see, America was founded on the corpses of its native people who were subjected to genocide and destruction. Acknowledging this fact doesn’t make America a worse place. In fact, it is by recognizing history that Americans can claim greatness. It is my hope that the great people of Turkey will do the same – acknowledge and denounce the destruction of the Armenian community during WWI who, like Native Americans, saw genocide and destruction.”

Many Turks have justly noted that America should see its own problems before denouncing others’. If Obama recognizes the genocide of Native Americans in Turkey, he will maximize the chances of finding an audience ready to listen and accept. And after that speech, there won’t even be a need for a congressional resolution.
blogian.hayastan.com
* A graduate student at University of Colorado

---

The Advantage Of The Diaspora by Marcel Leart, 26 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
The Republic of Armenia, which had succeeded the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia, resurfaced really acquainted with the Armenian diaspora in the aftermath of its independence. Of course, links existed in Soviet times, but they remain limited to certain components of the diaspora and the intellectual - and this, in a very controlled. The population of Soviet Armenia is also itself the result of a symbiosis between Armenians of the Russian Empire and survivors from the Ottoman Empire, who were assistants, over time, especially in 1946 -- 1948, a wave of new migrants from the four corners of the diaspora. The real reunion of the two Armenian took place during the earthquake of December 1988 that destroyed the north-west, creating an unprecedented international mobilization. Within days, thousands of Armenians in the diaspora have organized around the world to bring relief to a country that most of them did not know. Isolated for decades, Armenia suddenly discovered a whole section of the Armenian nation with which it had previously as contacts "coordinated" by the Soviet regime. This tragic event occurred while the "Karabakh Movement" of Armenia, who campaigned for democracy and the attachment of Nagorno-Karabakh, shaking the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev for months. Despite the state of emergency imposed by Moscow and harassment of Soviet consular services were reluctant to issue visas, the Diaspora has undertaken across the board, in a vast enterprise of solidarity, which figure will probably Charles Aznavour (1).

This meeting between the two components of the Armenian nation marked the end of an era and the beginning of a lasting relationship. Until then, the term "diaspora" applied to the Armenian communities that had formed after the 1915 genocide, dispersing to the four winds the survivors, including the Near East, the United States and France. But the earthquake of December 1988, followed by conflict with Azerbaijan on the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, which must be added the economic crisis following the end of the USSR resulted in the three newly independent states of the South Caucasus a real disaster. Energy shortages, sudden drop in industrial production, dizzying decline in living standards have led to a terrible bleeding population: hundreds of thousands of Armenians were moved in the Russian Federation, particularly in the North Caucasus (region Krasnodar), in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where they are integrated into communities from the eighteenth century and especially during the Soviet era. A new diaspora has emerged before our eyes in less than twenty years. With almost two million souls, with its own benchmarks, it still retains a strong link with the families left behind.

When we speak of the Armenian diaspora, should be taken into account at least two of its components: the diaspora formed in 1920 from the survivors of 1915 and which was recently formed in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet bloc.

The dispersion is not a new phenomenon among Armenians. In the Middle Ages there have been massive migration to Central Europe (Crimea and Poland) and a unique case, the Cilicia, in the eastern Mediterranean, where the Armenian migrants have founded, the twelfth to the fourteenth century, an ally of State Crusader States. In the seventeenth century, Armenian merchants had established settlements in the major ports in Europe, especially in Venice (where the Armenian presence is older, related to trade between Venice and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia), in Livorno, Marseille , Cadiz and Amsterdam, where they built churches and houses. These same dealers have also established important institutions in India (Madras and Calcutta), the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and to China (Canton). But there can be no question of assimilating these establishments Armenian diaspora in the modern sense. The contemporary diaspora before the demise of the Soviet Union is primarily an effect of the dispersion of Armenian refugees expelled from their homeland in the Ottoman Empire.

We can at most indicate the early formation of a diaspora in Egypt, Bulgaria, Romania and the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, when the massacres and repression orchestrated by Sultan Abdulhamid in the 1890s led tens of thousands of Ottoman Armenians to flee to the heavens more lenient. There are 120 000 Armenian refugees in the United States on the eve of the First World War. Today, it is estimated that the Armenian diaspora represents a total of seven million people.

Quest and its reciprocal effect
History has separated these two entities: one is marked by the Russian presence in the Caucasus since the early nineteenth century, the other end of the Ottoman Empire, still bears the scars of violence organized by the mass Young Turk regime during the First World War.

In many ways, current experience is not unlike the waves of "return home": the survivors of genocide in the early 1920s, those organized by the Soviet power in 1936, after the Great Depression and in 1946-1948, after the Second World War, when tens of thousands of Armenians established in the West or the Middle East have been repatriated. The similarity is particularly striking that these demographic contributions have been extremely valuable to the Soviet Armenia, where much of the intellectual and scientific elite was recruited from among these newcomers cultures.

Armenian in the dyad, we on the one hand a state which has the prerogative to ensure the safety of its citizens and the socio-economic development of countries on the other, a diaspora whose roots lie in a country that is called Turkey and struggling for decades to receive compensation from this Turkey. Clashes have not failed to occur during the last twenty years between the two sides of the same reality, sometimes separated by a barrier of misunderstanding. But time has allowed the two entities Armenian get to know and to gradually bring about joint projects. The diaspora has come to be convinced that his mark is now the Republic of Armenia. As to the latter, it recognized that these diasporic Armenians had the right to be involved in the fate of Armenia. More prosaically, the authorities in Yerevan have understood that the Armenians established on all continents are carriers of knowledge and multiple skills and various highly useful for the development of the country.

It should also create mechanisms to foster a reconciliation taking into account the sensitivity of each group. Many initiatives have been taken. One of the first decisions of the Armenian State (1992) was the creation of an "Armenia" to raise money in the world to finance large projects. More than twenty branches have emerged in the United States, France, Argentina, Australia, Canada, etc.. This fund has contributed to the establishment of infrastructure essential to economic development, communication, water supply, irrigation, hospitals, schools. In recent years, an extensive program of development of rural areas has been achieved.

Also noteworthy is the role of the Western diaspora in the reconstruction of the disaster area by the earthquake in December 1988. In addition the Fund "Armenia", which the French, the Armenian Fund of France, has been particularly active, foundations as Lincy (offshoot of the financial empire of the Armenian-American billionaire Kirk Kirkorian) have injected hundreds of millions dollars to relocate the affected decently - an effort that the Armenian budget would have been hard to bear alone. Sectors of higher education and research, who were the first victims of the changes resulting from independence, have also benefited from the Diaspora to open relay abroad. Researchers in the exact sciences, physicians, social scientists have benefited from large transfers of knowledge. The medical associations of Armenia, as in France and UMAF AMIC globally enabled professionals to train in specialty previously unknown in the Soviet health system.

Countless initiatives or from small associations focused on agriculture, banking and, more generally, SMEs and SMIs. Thanks to the diaspora, Armenia has gradually caught up with international standards. The organization of professional forums opened the country to potential investors, most of the investments being made, however, by residents or citizens of Russia from Armenia, adapted to the social environment and local economy. Investors in the Western diaspora or Middle East are not so far away, even if they are more difficult to integrate the rules of the game Armenian.

The Turkish issue at the heart of relations between the Diaspora Arménieet
This inventory of areas of cooperation should not obscure a central foreign policy around which crystallize debates strongest. The recent history of the Armenians there is prominent, the contentious history with Turkey remaining in the heart of all discussions. If there is one issue on which Armenia can not be dead, it is that the sensitivity of its diaspora vis-à-vis the Turkish case. The first Armenian president, Levon Ter Petrossian, had chosen to freeze the bilateral dispute with Ankara in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations. His main concern was to defuse tensions with the powerful neighbor and to ensure the security of Armenia.

However, it was the same at the initiative of the foundation of the Museum-Institute of the genocide in 1995 in Yerevan. It is true that the acute economic crisis that affected then Armenia, against a backdrop of war with Azerbaijan, the dramatic shortage of energy resources (forests have been swallowed whole during the winters of 1992-1994) and external pressures it does not leave a choice. In Turkey, some politicians have even asked how Armenia still held upright in these conditions "inhuman", particularly since Ankara, which had closed its borders in 1993, filed its new neighbor with a land blockade. In other words, the pragmatic president has managed a crisis with the means at his disposal, while having to engage with diaspora still uninformed of the realities of Armenia and unaware of the constraints imposed by the survival of a state.

The signing in 1994, under the auspices of Russia, a cease-fire between the belligerents in the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, followed by the restart of the Medzamor nuclear power plant (taken as a precaution after the earthquake land and under pressure from environmentalists in 1989) have indeed returned to Armenia a few colors. But the terrible suffering endured by the population during the years 1992-1994 (one or two hours of electricity per day and almost no heat in a country where the thermometer down to -20 ° couramment winter) have had a lasting impression on our minds . At that time, the political class does not make criticism of the lack of enthusiasm with which the diaspora has mobilized to provide assistance to his brethren in Armenia.

In some circles diasporic also wanted on a charge the President Ter Petrossian's policy of helping hand to Turkey. Hand that was not enough to defuse Turkish nationalism, always ready to condemn the "enemy" Armenian and return appeasement of relations with Armenia to better days. The first president and his successor, Robert Kocharian (1998-2008), who was its first minister, had an analysis of the situation diametrically opposed. Levon Ter Petrossian was convinced that Armenia can not develop if they made concessions to obtain a lifting of the Turkish-Azeri. On the contrary, Robert Kocharian was convinced that economic recovery was possible without giving in to external pressures on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sequence of events seems to have proved the second. It was observed in 1999, a significant recovery in investment and a higher standard of living that may not have benefited equally to all social strata, but whose socio-economic effects were undeniable.

Robert Kocharian has obviously learned the lessons from the difficulties encountered by his predecessor and had to immediately clarify its position on Turkey. While reaffirming that Armenia was ready to establish unconditional diplomatic relations with his neighbor, he said that the issue of genocide was an integral part of the country's foreign policy. The Turkish response was swift. Ankara-attacked against proposing to Armenia the establishment of a "commission of historians' and 'opening of archives on both sides. It is with great skill that Turkey had communicated on the subject by giving the impression of political openness. Most Western media have taken the message without flinching ignored the Turkish and Armenian position. He has obviously never been to Ankara to sit at a negotiating table with Yerevan, but rather to maintain doubt about the nature of violence committed in 1915 by the Ottoman State and to a lengthy debate "landmark" that has long been settled by historians. The proposed "commission" was nothing but a smokescreen designed to conceal the intransigence of Turkey and to avoid a formal dialogue between the two states. Dialogue urged the European Union and the United States for years, but has difficulty to take shape.

It seems to return the situation and force Turkey to prove its intentions that the new president, Serge Sargsyan, has launched his famous invitation to President Abdullah Gül to attend a football match between the two teams in September last. However, the vehement reactions caused by this initiative have shown that on the question of relations with Turkey, the Armenian diaspora original Ottoman remained skeptical to say the least. How people who have fought for decades against a State which they accuse of covering the crime on which he built could they understand the requirements of diplomacy? They can criticize the instrumentalization of this informal meeting between two presidents whose States do not maintain diplomatic relations. They argue that it is for Turkey to make amends and take the lead in soothing gestures.

Of course, the principled position of the diaspora - there is some consensus on the Turkish question - not trying to take into account the regional situation and the reality of power. The most perceptive observers note that the current Turkish-nationalist kémalo remains dominant and that its intentions in respect of Armenia are not "benevolent". It is obvious that the Armenian dossier embarrasses Ankara that would benefit from its strong position in Yerevan to impose its interpretation of history. Or at least wishing that Armenia and Armenians are mute their demands in exchange, for example, the establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of the border. We are here facing a rare scenario where a small State, born in pain, must assume a heavy historical legacy of a powerful neighbor and self-confident regional ambitions to become more pronounced. The unequal struggle bother, in fact, everyone. It disturbs because it carries with it unwavering fidelity to the memory of victims of 1915 which is outside the political guns of our time, especially when it comes to national policy. It disturbs, also because it reminded the international community was unable or failed to impose a fair punishment for perpetrators Young Turks, as was underlined when Raphael Lemkin developed the concept of genocide. Armenia is to date one of the most advanced in the prevention against this type of crime supreme.

If the Copenhagen criteria do not specifically on Turkey to fulfill its past, this requirement is still a "political conditions" that will need to fill at one time or another hope integrate to the European Union. It is likely that the Eurocrats are aware of the sensitivities of the Turkish side, most often avoid to address this issue at the present stage of negotiations in order not to discourage Ankara. These same eurocrats barely hide their exasperation when they are challenged on the issue of genocide. But you can bet that the Armenian diaspora, especially one that is rooted in France, will not fail to weigh on this embarrassing. It will be supported in its efforts by an informed public opinion and European political circles of all stripes. In other words, Armenia and the diaspora are both stakeholders in the case of Turkey and can not escape from one another.

Diaspora and mainstream opinion about the Armenian State
The Armenian diaspora has experienced profound changes during the twentieth century. Paris has long been the political and intellectual development of Armenian refugees, before being supplanted in the 1960s through Beirut, and then by New York and Los Angeles in the 1980s. Wherever its location, the Armenian diaspora has a relatively homogeneous structure. It soon reconstituted his network of churches serving a population for which identity is combined with membership of the Armenian Church (2), including among agnostics. It is known, we are married and it is blessed before being buried.

The first Armenian refugees have also reshaped the political currents that had developed under Ottoman. But in their new environments, they quickly lost their respective social sensibilities to become vigilant guardians of memory and promoters of national identity. The inter-war years led to a "reconstruction of the nation through the education of tens of thousands of orphans in 1915 and rehabilitation of young women abducted. This recomposition of the "community link", which was based on a vibrant press, owes much to the tremendous work throughout the world by associations compatriots in writing to save the memory of the Armenian land, oral traditions, dialects , habits and all the regions of high Armenian Plateau drained of their population.

It is in this context that emerged from a major split within the Armenian diaspora. In the 1930s, the current diasporic left rather Communists and charities, such as the Armenian General Benevolent Union (3), are committed to the sides of the Armenian SSR: the first to have supported policy skillfully exploited by the Comintern, the second significant financial support to facilitate the construction of this new home, it was all Soviet. This resulted in tensions, especially with the circles of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (4), bears the main force claims against Turkey. This same phenomenon was accentuated when the Cold War spread to the Armenian diaspora in the early 1950s. These power struggles have left deep, so much so that one may wonder if the most radical have not projected their visceral anti independently on Armenia. It is the finger touches a taboo: the legitimacy of certain circles of the diaspora to be involved in the policy of the Armenian State on behalf of their historical antecedents.

To better assess these issues, the Armenian authorities have successively held three conference "Armenia-Diaspora" (1999, 2003 and 2006), attended by several thousand people from around the world. Addressing both issues of identity, education, culture and politics, especially these congresses have shown how difficult it was to overcome the misunderstandings and establish a constructive dialogue. However, they triggered a dynamic and allowed the elites of the two entities know each other better, learn to trust and to eliminate the remnants of the Cold War.

But the best cement is probably tourism. The journey in Armenia is developing very quickly. It is an opportunity for youngsters to discover one of the foundations of their identity became plural and focus on that country. Some even wonder about the possibility to settle permanently in Armenia or at least conduct professional activities. The interest of the diaspora to Armenia - to take the form of transfers of skills, investment or financial support - is a significant advantage in terms of development.

After years of declining population, Armenia has recently seen the return of Armenians of Russia, but also the installation of hundreds of members of diasporas Middle Eastern and Western. The phenomenon is probably known to increase. The recent establishment of a Ministry of Diaspora in Armenia indicates, in any case, qu'Erevan thinking seriously about this. Another decision was taken (following the 2005 referendum), which facilitates the acquisition of dual citizenship for Diaspora wishing to settle in Armenia. The issue is primarily established Armenians in Russia, which now form the largest diaspora, and whose future depends on developments in the Russian Federation. In the regional competition, including from Azerbaijan (which has energy resources to providing significant revenue until 2020) and Georgia (which is, by its unique geographical position, a country of transit must-read), the Armenia has is a trump card, which is not the only, but can contribute to regional balance, essential to establishing a lasting peace.

Among the factors likely to change the regional situation and influence the foreign policy of Armenia towards Turkey, the activities of the Armenian diaspora, especially in France and the United States, is not to be taken lightly. In France, the adoption by Parliament of the law of January 2001, recognizing the genocide of 1915, triggered a strong reaction from Ankara, with threats of a boycott of French companies. The vote on first reading a law penalizing the denial in October 2006, also caused a crisis in Franco-Turkish relations, without consequences on trade between the two countries. Recall that in 1987 the European Parliament, under pressure from the Armenian diaspora, adopted a resolution calling on Turkey to fulfill its past and the genocide of Armenians.

The conviction by the courts of Switzerland, in March 2007, at the initiative of the Association Switzerland-Armenia, a notorious Holocaust denier Turkish, Dogu Perinçek, on the basis of a universal law against racism and xenophobia - because it is the reason - has reminded Turkey that the enormous budget allocated each year to conduct anti-Armenian lobby is not enough to reduce the world to silence. Proof: For the first time in history, one of its citizens, now charged in the trial "Ergenekon" (5), was convicted of genocide denial in 1915, described as "a conspiracy of imperialism against Turkey. "

In line with the Franco-Swiss, the Armenian diaspora in the United States has succeeded on several occasions to obtain from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives, a vote for a positive motion is subject to these assemblies. But each time, the combined intervention of the State Department, Pentagon and White House allowed to stop at the last minute, the adoption of a resolution. The United States is, in fact, the last element of the dam to prevent the truth to light. Since the arrival of Barack Obama business, Ankara wondered if her old recipes, a mix of lobbying and blackmail, work again tomorrow. It is not safe, in fact, that the new administration - which al'exemple of Darfur under the eyes - continues to build a state with which it has since 1951, when Turkey's accession to NATO, of relations if not always harmonious. A record of the State Department made public recently, and sent to the International Tribunal in The Hague in 1952, reveals that U.S. diplomacy be used without restriction, the term genocide to describe the crimes committed against Armenians. In other words, the United States do no facts, they have simply been taken to avoid taking a public stand. If Team Obama is also no doubt that Turkey would hasten to start dialogue with Armenia, after reiterating the expression of its denial, became a slogan of local nationalism. In this case, the Diaspora will have nothing else to say.

During his first official trip to the United States as President of the Republic, Serge Sarkissian held about flattering to the Armenian-American community. But he recalled that it was relatively "fragile" and that she needed to find answers to their problems at the risk of identity disappear in the longer term (6). Through this message the President refers to the eternal problem of diasporas: ensure their survival. Survival all the more easily they can build on a strong and confident with an independent State.

The context appears today for the development and implementation of a concerted policy to help the diaspora to overcome its difficulties. The improvement of living standards, the establishment of a government better educated, the progress made in services give Armenia a real and attractive to the State a more broad. Serge Sargsyan has apparently joined the new order. Did he not opened his presidency by announcing that one of his priorities would be to develop a partnership with the diaspora? In this respect, one of the keys to success is the quality of expertise that the Armenian President will be eligible. With regard to issues as complex as diasporic phenomena, it is always difficult to establish a correct diagnosis. La jeune génération de chercheurs arméniens, souvent issue des meilleures universités occidentales, pourrait y contribuer à condition qu’elle soit associée à la nouvelle politique mise en musique par Serge Sarkissian.
www.politiqueinternationale.com

---

Turkey: The Impasse Negationism by Yves Ternon, 26 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
From April 1915 to July 1916, between 1 200 000 1 500 000 Armenians, or two thirds of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, is murdered. The Central Committee of Union and Progress Committee, the ruling party (whose members are called in the West the Young Turks), plans and orders, with the support of several government ministers, deportation and extermination of the population Armenian empire. Since 2 November 1914, the Ottoman Empire was engaged in the First World War, alongside the Central Powers. The killings were first reported, on 24 May 1915 by the Foreign Ministers of the Entente, who describe him as a "crime against humanity and civilization." Europe and America are informed in real time, of the facts, their mechanism and their nature.

In 1919 and 1920, after the fall of the Young Turk regime, the evidence that this plan was agreed at the highest levels of government is provided by the Ottoman courts during trials which are designed to fall on the Union Committee Progress and the responsibility for these crimes and allow the government to Istanbul to attend in better conditions before the Peace Conference held in Paris.

On 9 December 1948, when the UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ", the word" genocide ", coined by Raphael Lemkin (1), enters the vocabulary of international criminal law. It appears immediately evident that this term applies to the Armenian tragedy - a truth that all historians recognize freedom of expression (2). However, the Republic of Turkey, State arising in heir of the Ottoman Empire since 1923, rejects the characterization of genocide. If it does not deny the killings, she disputes the scale and tries to explain the dead by the military situation and a betrayal of the Armenians. This denial was gradually organized into a system of lies, now identified as a state of denial. It is necessary to the Turkish government as a political priority. Nearly a century after its implementation, because Turkey refuses to recognize and name it as such, this genocide is a unique news. Its recognition by Turkey has become an international policy issue.

Specificity negationism: discursive processes
The denial is still present after a genocide. One can say that this is the final phase of the crime, it continues and maintains. In the case of the Armenian genocide, it is both the act of a State that refuses to bear the burden of this crime, and that groups or individuals motivated by a racist or nationalist ideology to deny the obvious. "Every time, this violence planned by a State shall, at will and shooting, concealment, manipulation and lies" (3). The word "denial" was coined by Henry Rousso in 1987. It then designates the denial by the "revisionist" of the use of deadly gas chambers and, more generally, the reality of the genocide of Jews perpetrated by the Nazis. This semantics was to strip the "revisionists" of their pseudo-scientific arguments and describe their approach: Holocaust denial is a lie, a vicious and malicious maneuver, the deniers are counterfeiters. Comparative research on the genocidal violence in the twentieth century, initiated in the United States as part of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, extends the scope of this term to other events. These studies highlight the logic of negation, a real implementation of the denial system, "sui generis composed of lies and delusions ratiocination, is slipping syllogistic" (4), but the fact of applying the term "denial" so leads to a larger risk of commoditization.

If it is appropriate to expand the meaning of this word, it is also necessary to define the limits of his job to the negation of the Crime of Genocide, and especially the denial of genocides of the twentieth century proved a comparative approach aujourd ' now recognized by most social scientists. For historians who claim this approach, the suffix "ism" identifies a system, a practice codified in denial, which leads to propose a definition of denial: "The organization of a lie in a system whose purpose to escape to a direct or indirect responsibility in the commission of genocide. "As with the concept of denial in the genocide, and especially of genocides in the twentieth century, we are able to distinguish mechanisms of identified. Indeed, if each genocide is a singular event that falls within a specific historical context, its negation obeys general rules. One can isolate in denial about the four processes common discourse that give it coherence apparent rationalization, reduction, reversal, anamorphosis.

Rationalization is the usual ploy of the university introduced a controversy, accusing witnesses, search for a fault between the source and that allowed the administration of evidence an hypercriticisme. Reducing the number of victims by manipulating figures and statistics trivializes the event and drowns in a situation of extreme violence. The reversal of the charge is the argument most cynical negationism: the roles are reversed, the "alleged victims" of "supposed genocide" had betrayed and plotted against the state and have perpetrated massacres; if had killed them, they were asking for, it was a legitimate defense against life-threatening. Of these arguments, the book négationniste a distorted picture of reality, anamorphosis: the disappeared had emigrated or been displaced, the number of deaths is lower than announced, the evidence of the crime were manufactured by enemy propaganda, while n was qu'imposture and hoax.

We find these processes in the denial of the genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Here, however, the argument is centered on the rejection of the criminal intent element of the crime of genocide. Failing to prove that intent, we could not talk about genocide. The maneuver is to recognize some of the facts, to justify the war, so that the point of application negationism is moved a mass murder is acknowledged only is denied planning a murder mass. As denial is led by a sovereign state, there is presence of a singular phenomenon: a state of denial.

Genealogy Of A Denial
Fathers Criminals
From its conception to its execution, the crime is characterized by denial. He is denied even before it is committed. The first violence against the Armenians were victims are justified as a necessary response to a latent threat, the Armenians are likely to collaborate with the enemy. When the destruction process is initiated, it is not presented as a killing, but a deportation legitimized by a military situation. To understand the genesis of this denial, it must go back several centuries. From the birth of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century, the non-Muslim subjects of the empire multi-ethnic and multi are dhimmis, ie the protected subject of the sultan in return for this protection to a number of constraints, including equality before law. The calls for reform of the Ottoman Empire, demanded by Russia from the late eighteenth century, then by European powers, open Question d'Orient. Speaking to the Powers to get the reforms that they promised the Sultan without them, the Armenians introduce the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, an "Armenian Question", which becomes a component of the policy issues. This community is far more vulnerable emergence of Armenian revolutionary movements calling for independence. The Sultan responded by orchestrating, from 1894 to 1896, the massacres in the provinces inhabited by Armenians. The cycle of violence seems to be interrupted with the arrival in power in 1908 the Young Turks to restore the Constitution and give hope equal citizens of the empire, a "Ottoman". These promises of democracy are quickly forgotten in favor of an intolerant turquisme which is summarized in a formula: "Turkey for Turks" and a panturquisme planning to meet the Turks in Azerbaijan and Central Asia in a wide range the same language, same culture and even "race".

For the most fanatical of panturquisme, the entrance of the Empire in World War provides an opportunity to realize this dream. But early in their engagement, the Young Turks are accumulating threats: Loss of Sarikamich on the Caucasian front, where the Ottoman Third Army was destroyed; failure of an attack on the Suez Canal; threat of Anglo-French fleet in the Straits of Dardanelles. They fear, rightly, that if a State defeat Armenian is created by the victors and that part of eastern Anatolia, where Armenians are the largest minority and are often the majority, is attached to this state. It is primarily in this context, that of life-threatening for turquisme and the panturquisme, that the senior leaders of the Union and Progress - the Interior Minister, Talaat Pasha, the Prefect of Constantinople, Djambolat the heads of the Special Organization, Dr. Nazim, and Shakir - make the decision to clear the Eastern Anatolia of its Armenian population, with performances on the spot and deportations. The program was inaugurated on 24 April 1915 by the arrest and deportation of the Armenian intelligentsia of the capital. It continues from May to July, by eliminating the Armenians of the seven provinces of eastern Anatolia, according to a same pattern replicated in every city in every town: arrest and torture of the notables to make them confess to a conspiracy and caches weapons; order of deportation, separation of men who led roped, were murdered near their homes, starting in convoys of women, children and the elderly. Deportation is a disguised extermination. The convoys are regularly decimated. This first step accomplished - from May to July 1915 - This program is complemented by the deportation of Armenians from the rest of the empire (from August to December 1915) to Aleppo, where they join the few survivors of the convoy of Eastern Anatolia . In Aleppo, the main flow of deportees is run throughout the year 1916, along the Euphrates, a concentration camp to another (as mouroir) to Deir-es-Zor, scheduled completion of deportation. At the end of 1916, the last concentrations of deportees are destroyed. A group of about 120 000 people are sent to camps in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. The governor of these provinces, Djemal Pasha, keeps them alive in hopes of separate negotiations with the Entente. Thus, 2 100 000 Armenians identified by the Armenian Patriarchate in 1914, two thirds died. Only the Armenians have survived in the province of Van, which were released by the Russian army and have followed in his retirement, the survivors of the camps in Syria, women and children converted to Islam, the Armenians of Smyrna and Constantinople spared deportation, and small scattered groups in Anatolia.

The legacy of son
After the First World War, while the Allies are preparing a peace treaty that would dismember the Ottoman Empire - in Sevres treaty signed in August 1920 by the Ottoman government, but never ratified - the revolutionary movement that develops in Anatolia under the leadership Mustafa Kemal intends to preserve the achievements of the destruction of Armenians carried out by the Young Turks. The American project of a mandate on Armenia was quickly abandoned, an international commission sent on site had found that there were more Armenians in the eastern provinces of Anatolia. The Republic of Armenia, formed in Transcaucasia in 1918 after the Bolshevik Revolution (5), was attacked in December 1920 by the Kemalist army. The Bolsheviks are ahead of the Turkish Republic and include this in the future Soviet Union. The home established in Armenian Cilicia (under the protection of France) with the survivors of the camps in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine is rapidly evacuated in 1921 after agreements between the French and Turkish. The Greco-Turkish war ends with the destruction of the Armenian community in Smyrna. The issue of the Armenian massacres is not even mentioned in the Lausanne Conference is developed where the peace treaty between Turkey and the Allies. At the League of Nations, the idea of an Armenian household is quickly abandoned. From 1923 to 1929, the Republic of Turkey, founded in 1923, includes Armenian survivors remained in the provinces and deported to Syria under French mandate. From the ancient Armenia, which, for twenty-seven centuries, had survived many invasions, will remain with its identity, that the small community of Istanbul, consists of approximately 70 000 people. Armenian Question seems definitively resolved by oblivion.

The Republic of Turkey produces a representation of its glorious past. In the 1920s, the Turkish Historical Society writes a fantasy story of Turkey adapted to the image that Mustafa Kemal - Ataturk became the "Father Turk" - wants to give the world of this nation. This story removes inglorious episodes of the Ottoman period, which distorted the vision of a Turkish people courageous, generous and tolerant. It does not even Armenian presence in Anatolia, an area regarded as the home of the Turkish people since time immemorial. There are two other reasons for this "Armenian taboo": the fear that the eastern borders of Turkey can be challenged, and the fact that many leaders of the planned destruction of the Armenians were among the founders of the Republic. Indeed, the secretary responsible for organizing special - men who have, in the provinces, led and directed operations of killing - were ministers of the Turkish Government, one of them, Djelal Bayar, even became President of the Republic (6).

A denial of state: the structure
The introduction of the word "genocide" in the vocabulary of international criminal law in 1948 changed the situation. Turkey signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but it refuses to acknowledge that the Young Turks have perpetrated a. To make this refusal, it focuses its argument on the denial of criminal intent. The Armenian diaspora, almost entirely consisting of genocide survivors and their descendants gradually becomes aware that it previously identified as "major disaster" had been a genocide. This provision becomes the basis on which it bases its request for recognition. Denial facing any wording of this request is then experienced by the survivors, and especially their children and grandchildren, as a second death: they have to prove the crimes they were victims. Citizens of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia share the same outrage. On 24 April 1965 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the arrest of Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople, an event symbolizing the beginning of the genocide, the Armenian diaspora and Armenians in Soviet Armenia require Turkey to recognize the genocide and return the territories of Armenia (7). Surprised and forced to structure his denial, the Turkish government opened a new phase of denial. We can then talk about the emergence of a state of denial. Since then it has continued to tighten and adapt to changes in international politics.

Successive Turkish governments are rooted in the denial. This becomes an obsession and led from the start to excesses. Each time, somewhere in the world, the Armenian genocide is mentioned, Turkey rises niche. It threatens all those - individuals, governments, corporations, humanitarian organizations and politicians, including at the highest level - who rejected his version of events. The government is going to break off diplomatic relations with nations that have allowed or supported the Armenian community when he claimed to have been the victim of genocide. It even cancel contracts with companies (national or private) on the pretext that the leaders of countries to which these companies have only mentioned the Armenian Genocide!

The Ankara government not to yield any points. As he feels his position weakened before the work undermines historians who, stimulated by this denial, intensify their research and provide evidence about the devastating genocide, he said the maneuvers by grotesque - or, rather, that would be grotesque if the academic quality of their authors made them effective. Turkish universities open laboratories disinformation which refined the arguments of denial. These are organized in the directions defined since 1915: Armenian revolutionaries had prepared a plot threatening the security of the empire, the Young Turk government had to move the Armenian population; deplorable acts have certainly produced during these movements, but they were severely punished, and the dead that has been deplored are related to the difficult conditions of war, the documents presented by the Armenians are false, a tissue of distortions and lies. Development, this thesis is then exported denial in American universities. At UCLA (Los Angeles), Professor Stanford Shaw described the Armenians as privileged citizens of the Ottoman Empire (8). He says that evacuating the war zones, the Ottoman government has given the greatest care of their safety and their well-being. Justin Mac Carthy (9) manipulates the figures to reduce the number of victims. In 1982, an Institute of Turkish Studies is open to Princeton. The publications of the institute, headed by Heath Lowry, are summarized in a thesis: the Armenian genocide is a historical falsification. It is then shown that Lowry is in close relationship with the Turkish Embassy in the United States (10). When Bernard Lewis comes to France, on the occasion of the release of his book on the emergence of modern Turkey, he says there are two versions of events: Turkish and Armenian. The case can not be pleaded to criminal misconduct of a law on the denial of the Armenian genocide, the 1st chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris is captured by Armenian organizations and the League, under Article 1382 Civil Code, which states: "Anyone who has caused harm is required to repair it." Bernard Lewis is sentenced to pay the Forum of Armenian Associations sum of 10 000 francs and the League a total of 4 000. The court acknowledges that it has no mandate to mediate or settle the controversy or controversies of historical events can generate, or to decide what should be called this or that event in history. He adds that the historian has in principle a free exhibit, according to his personal views, actions and attitudes of those who participated in these events. But he fixed the bounds of the legitimate exercise of freedom necessary for acceptance of responsibility. When a historian as true the allegations patently false or that it fails to mention events or opinions that meet the accession of qualified persons, he shall assume responsibility towards the people affected by the denial or omission. The court finds that the thesis of Bernard Lewis is contradicted by the documents in the debate and that over them, he "failed in his duties of objectivity and prudence" (11). Indeed, without denying the reality of the massacres, Bernard Lewis only expressed a doubt about the intent of the Ottoman government and required to be satisfied, an irrefutable proof of that intention. The argument was subtle, historians can not present evidence that a decision taken in secret. Even if such evidence is sufficiently convincing to prove the premeditation of the crime, the Holocaust deniers deem inadequate. They follow this line to excess, beyond the limits of intellectual honesty ... until it should be admitted that these interlocutors are in bad faith, they do not respect the rules of the controversy and they do not recognize the obvious. Historians have come to adopt the rule defined by Pierre Vidal-Naquet: there is no discussion with Holocaust deniers. Because they can be settled among historians in good faith, recognition of the Armenian genocide, genocide proved, becomes a matter of international politics.

Genocide in international forums
For over forty years this question has ceased to be raised in politics. The controversy opens in 1967 when the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination against and for the protection of minorities - Subcommittee of the Commission on Human Rights, itself linked to the Economic and Social Council of the UN - began studying the prevention and punishment of genocide. The reference in a preliminary report to the Armenian genocide as the "first genocide of the twentieth century" triggers an orchestrated campaign of protests by Turkey. The report was buried in 1973. The end of inadmissibility raised by Turkey to the legitimate claims of Armenian causes, in reply, from 1975 to 1983, episodes of violence and terrorism Armenian increasingly blind (12). Although he contributed to the Armenian cause, this "advertising terrorism" is denounced in its excesses by Armenian Armenian cause and returned to a political and judicial.

The shift occurs in 1984 with the holding at the Sorbonne for a session of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, an independent organization composed of international personalities including several Nobel Prize winners. The Court recognizes that, under the law, the 1915 massacres constituted genocide (13). Having appointed a new Rapporteur, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination against and for the protection of minorities adopted in 1985, the Whitaker report which, in a paragraph dealing with genocide in history, mentions the Armenian genocide (14) . But the report was not forwarded to the Commission des droits de l'homme de l'ONU, several members expressed reservations about the reference. The question is posed to the European Parliament on 18 June 1987, recognizes the Armenian genocide, and a recommendation on Turkey, said that his denial would create a barrier to its entry into the European Community (15). In fact, recognition of the Armenian genocide by international and interstate as well as by the courts has been steadily growing since the 1970s (16). On 29 January 2001, France passed a law declarative taking an article: "France publicly recognizes the Armenian genocide of 1915." This result is obtained at the end of a marathon that saw Turkey, at each stage preceding the adoption of the text, put pressure on Parliamentarians and the Quai d'Orsay. Ankara did not hesitate to threaten to sever diplomatic relations, to cancel the contracts awarded by the French companies with Turkish companies and a boycott of French products. In vain.

Surrounded by the flood of recognition of the Armenian genocide, Turkey retreats into a defense of increasingly incoherent. It compensates for the thin beam of arguments available to denounce the "alleged genocide" by an increase in political and economic pressures. More proof of criminal intent is established as an evidence to inform policies on this mass murder, the more the Turkish denial is absurd. Finally, Turkey falls into the reverse direction: it is, it claims now that the Armenians committed a genocide of Turks (17).

When, at the Copenhagen summit in 2002, the European Union made an appointment in December 2004 for the opening of negotiations on Turkey's candidacy, it is invited to meet the criteria defined in 1983, especially respect human rights and minority rights. The resolution adopted on 18 June 1987, which made the admission of Turkey in what was then the European Community to several conditions, including recognition of the Armenian genocide, is retracted. With this diplomatic victory, Turkey shuts himself in his denial. In August 2002 a circular of the Turkish Ministry of National Education had imposed on secondary school teachers to treat of "baseless allegations of Armenian, Greek and Pontic Greek" and ordered the rewriting in the sense of textbooks. In April 2003, the Ministry issues a circular on the organization of conferences and essay competition on the subject in schools. 500 Turkish teachers refuse then the "racist" and "to provoke hatred" of new textbooks and create a monitoring group called "History for Peace". This is the first draft in Turkey to a movement of intellectuals seeking more information about the events of 1915 and 1916. Before the end of December 2004, Turkey threatened to retaliate if the EU refuses to open negotiations. Effective pressure as it gets satisfaction. Rather than tempering his rage denial, Turkey still hardens his positions.

Keeping radical positions of Turkey
In Turkey, the Islamist Party of Justice and Development Party (AKP), which are in power, and those committed to the preservation of the Kemalist legacy, agreed to refuse recognition of the Armenian genocide. Their disagreement concerns the question of secularism and Westernization of Turkey in the 1920s. This is why article 301 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment up to ten years for anyone who violated the "Turkishness" (Article liberticidal considered by the EU and the organizations defense of human rights) has not been removed: it concerns security, a problem that is primarily military. Hundreds of legal proceedings are brought, under section 301, against journalists, historians and writers, among others, have mentioned the Armenian genocide. Indeed, the only reference, as well as the occupation of the eastern part of Cyprus by the Turkish army, enough to launch a charge. Most of these procedures were abandoned before reaching trial.

It is in this context that the killing occurred in Istanbul on 19 January 2007, the director of the Armenian newspaper Agos, Hrant Dink (18). The event provokes an emotion unprecedented 100 and 000 to 200 000 people attend his funeral. The Nobel Prize for literature in 2006 Ohran Pamuk, who is, as Hrant Dink had been the subject of legal proceedings, took refuge in the United States, fearing for his life. On 30 April 2008, Article 301 is amended: the insult to "Turkishness" is replaced by "insulting the Turkish nation"; prosecution requires the prior consent of the Minister of Justice. However, procedures do not stop: they are targeting the writer Tanara Demirer, Ahmed Altan newspaper Taraf or Agos and its columnists.

Hrant Dink proposed a reading of the Turkish past. He claimed that there was no democracy without truth, without dialogue, without respect for others. He was killed because his Democratic threatening combat the extreme positions of the nationalist right. In March 2008, three people Kemal, whose columnist of Cumhuriyet daily, are accused of complicity with the Ergenekon network. This group of ultranationalists suspected of being linked to the "deep state" - a hidden power involving government ministers - was dismantled in January. He was accused of having planned the assassination of Hrant Dink and projected that of Ohran Pamuk (19).

Some Turkish historians acknowledge the reality of the Armenian genocide. Their purpose is different depending on whether they reside abroad - including Taner Akçam or Fuhret Adami - or in Turkey, as Hilel Berktay, a professor at Sabanci University in Istanbul. Increasingly, intellectuals asking the country to face this tragic page of history and overcome the issue of bias against the perception of two national memories. But instead, they believe that the adoption of a law criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide would be counterproductive. Nevertheless, this freedom of speech, developed especially by the Turkish organizations of human rights, is quickly countered by the government, which maintains its denial. The Turkish daily Taraf reveals, in an article published September 18 entitled "brainwashing before leaving," as students of the University of Marmara bound for Europe under the Erasmus program are forced to follow a Seminar on official Turkish theses on sensitive issues, including the Armenian genocide. The former director of the Turkish Institute of History, Yusuf Hacacoglu a fanatical denial, dealing with the Armenian question! A museum of the Turkish army was opened in Istanbul: it honors the memory of Talaat Pasha, architect of the Armenian genocide. As for the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Namik Tan, he went up to warn against an Israeli parliamentary possible recognition of the Armenian genocide: it would call into question the alliance Ankara-Baku-Jerusalem on delivery oil to the Jewish state.

Misunderstandings
In July 2001, a commission of Armenian-Turkish reconciliation (CRAT) was created with support from the U.S. State Department. Shortly after the publication of a study conducted by a Human Rights based in New York - International Center for Transitional Justice - who had concluded that the murder of one and a half million Armenians amounted to the internationally accepted definition of genocide, representatives of the Turkish CRAT decide to leave, leading to its dissolution. Turkish President Erdogan then proposed to Armenian President Kocharian to establish a joint commission composed of historians from both countries would be to study the events of 1915. He agreed to limit debate on the Armenian genocide in a dialogue between Turks and Armenians and go in the discussion, the existence of two theses, Armenian and Turkish. Kocharian said that the issue could be further off that diplomatic relations would be restored and open borders between the two countries. Today, his successor, President Sarkissian, seems to accept the principle of a joint commission of historians. He hoped that access remains difficult, the Ottoman archives would clarify certain points of history. But, like his predecessor, he said there was no question of returning to the qualification of "genocide." Moreover, in 2000, 126 specialists in the Holocaust, including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer, have officially declared that the Armenian genocide is an incontrovertible reality. That is why it affects all humanity and can not be limited to a dialogue between Armenians and Turks - dialogue that would, in effect, reducing as it would give the agenda the presentation of two versions Armenian and Turkish, for this event.

This is another misunderstanding offered in France, in December 2005, a group of historians, entitled "Freedom for history". The signatories of this call will make the laws known as "memory" and practice a mix between different texts adopted by the French Parliament, which the law declares the 2001 Armenian genocide. Of course, Parliament did not intend to legislate on historical events, but it makes laws to punish crimes. But as racism, Holocaust denial is not an opinion but a crime: it is a threat to values, it affects the public interest. In 2008, "Freedom for history" includes a large number of French historians. The group lobbied the French Parliament to encourage him to oppose the adoption of "memory laws" and the European Parliament to condemn a framework law proposing to penalize the denial of genocide recognized by States . The views of these "trouble-grief 'is partly explained by the reluctance of academics who fear that researchers dragged before the courts. But in fact, no historian working on the crime of genocide has never been prosecuted, if there is a threat, it is that created by the denial. Finally, if the member is not a historian, he remains a citizen like any other and, if he commits a crime, it is, like any citizen, the laws of the Republic. In Turkey today is not the negation but the affirmation of the genocide which is punishable by law! It should, in the case of Holocaust denial, to restore the balance and, in democracies, punish the crime of denial.

The American challenge
In 1951, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the reserves of some countries to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. The U.S. government had filed written observations and defined genocide as the "Turkish massacres of Armenians." This document remained unknown (20). More recently, when Turkey developed its business négationniste, successive U.S. administrations have kept to recognize the genocide, despite the promises made in 1980 by all the candidates then elected to the presidency of the United States. Yet, a majority of U.S. states have, independently of their government, recognized the genocide. Each of these recognitions caused a replica at Turkish diplomatic or government, whose level was set to the importance of a particular vote. On many occasions, especially at the April 24, when the commemoration of the genocide, a resolution calling for the recognition of Armenian genocide has been submitted to the House of Representatives or the Senate. Each time, Turkey has tried to block it. Indeed, if such a resolution was put to a vote, the outcome of it is no doubt. Thus, on 20 October 2000, for fear of Turkish reactions, the State Department is pressing the House to abandon to consider a draft resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. To justify the withdrawal of a text already on the agenda, the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, said that President Clinton is concerned that this resolution has a negative effect on events in the Middle East. In May 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, is thanked for having asserted that the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire were victims of genocide. After hearing before a committee chaired by the future vice-president of the United States, Joseph Biden, the Senate begins veto the nomination of Richard Hoagland - who refused to speak about the Armenian genocide - and then approve the appointment of Marie Yovanovitch . The position of the new U.S. ambassador to Armenia on this point is not clearly known. The U.S. administration, however, seems to evolve towards a recognition of the facts. In 2007, a Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, said in favor of recognizing the Armenian genocide. But the proposal has still not been submitted to a vote.

In January 2008, Barack Obama says during his campaign: "The United States deserve a president who tells the truth about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully against all genocides. I will be the president '(21). Erdogan was quick to react after the election of Obama. On 5 November, he congratulated the new president, while stating: "We hope that some argument in the election campaign will remain a part of the campaign (22).

In conclusion, the deadlock
Children are not responsible for the mistakes of their fathers, grandchildren still less, except to refuse to face the past and, by this refusal to take such errors. By collecting the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has accepted the assets and liabilities. But a historical evidence is not negotiable: on the Armenian genocide, no compromise is possible. The offense is called. The political, diplomatic subtlety of Turkey will do nothing: it is the Young Turks who planned and perpetrated this crime. Turkey has been misled in a deadlock. For his obstinacy to deny the obvious, it was enclosed in double round the dark room she could, however, leave at any time by saying a single word, an open sesame to him the ways of democracy. Within this nation, voices were heard calling this clarity, but they are still a whisper that cover the screams of hatred of nationalists and qu'étouffent government actions led by the AKP. Nations have the duty to help these bold and risky recognizing the facts with sufficient evidence that any politician can declare itself satisfied without having to go beyond its function and to encroach on the territory of the historian. These two levels of pressure - one from outside by the recognition of the genocide, the other, most importantly, from within, by word of Turkish defenders of human rights - that will a day of removing the obstacle of the denial of State and obtain from Turkey an objective reading of its past. Recognize that in this respect, Turkey is not the only one to receive lessons: Many democracies have yet to get past them ...
www.politiqueinternationale.com/

---

Le Temps Des Avants by Charles Aznavour, 26 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
It has not started very well
I look at the sun through dark glasses my glasses, in those rare moments of inactivity, I do not bother me. I do not get bored. Sometimes I think the son to person that I am, that Americans would call a survive. If everything is in front of me, I did not erase the past of mine, no, I keep it in a corner of my memory and now, having reached the age unhoped seventy-nine spring -- I should say fall - when I have nothing to do, I dream. Young people dream of their future, my future is widely consumed, I try to relax by immersing myself in my past - I should say our past because the past is never quite personal, it is contrary to the collective, especially to an Armenian family. I dream and I tell myself that I could very well never see this star. I could stay locked in liquefied semen with my father, sweating, struggling to stay alive in their long march, the bloody crossing of the desert between Istanbul and Damascus. The hordes of Kurds - who later suffered the same situation - and the gendarmes of the Ottoman nation chase and harass the poor to gain some wealth they took with them, such as gold teeth adorning their mouths . I kill you and an intellectual, and I t'empale a priest, you and I hanging decapitates you, and I'll violate a young or old woman, and I make out the head of a baby to hear the sound this is when it is projected violently against a tree ... Or I might have been low, miscarriage on the sand of the desert, while my poor mother would have continued its slow and painful march toward death, his legs covered blood that would have eliminated me leaving from this world where the new government "Young Turk" hoped to see both disappear. Eliminated, wiped out, goodbye, or rather the devil, the Armenians, and on its way to the final solution! Oh! The lovely phrase! Es Der Zor: cemetery nearly a million and half of mine, my parents, my ancestors, stolen, raped, murdered, on behalf of the race, in the name of religion, why, in truth, I ask you? On behalf of Enver and Talat (1), pashas crime, murderers lawless, performing at their convenience that the Koran does not justify these bloody acts. Talat is the only major criminal who has his statue in the middle of a place in Turkey.

Final Solution? Missed my bastards, you do not have me. And I still, however much still to some, a man of memory. I am not now provided a sworn enemy of the Turkish people, and now my dream is to visit the country of my birth mother, but ... but ... but.

They fell without really knowing why
Men women and children who did not want to live
With heavy gestures as drunken men
Maimed, massacred their eyes open with fear
They fell by invoking their God
On the threshold of their church or outside their door
In herds of desert stumbling in cohort
Floored by thirst, hunger, iron, fire

Well, I

I was born at the end of the trip to hell, where paradise begins is called migration. Misfortune had taken place both in those who had escaped the genocide, as my parents, that most of them avoided speaking of the ancestors, or spoke so little that my accomplice - my sister Aida - and I have managed to reconstruct, through our life, past fragments of the family: not much really. "Look where we come and where we are today ... In excess of modesty, or not to stir painful memories of our parents have very rarely spoke about the history of hundreds of thousands of Armenians scattered around the world, the flight up to the horror established in a host country. Some bribes wandering conversations between those who have lived and survived the same events we do have a vague idea of their exodus. What is certain is that they do not travel first class, with Vuitton bags filled with some much needed and superfluous, and in their portfolios essential credit cards.

Today, when I see bundles of the poor emigrants from all walks of life, tied somehow containing all their possessions - a miserable bric-a-brac, a pittance, so valuable to them, yet the last refuse-hand with disdain - when I see these heart-breaking, it gives me, although I do for nothing in their misfortune, shame and guilt.

When I see the unfortunate illegal immigrants who have come from I know not where, in search of a better life in our country they see as a land of plenty, I have a small pinch in the heart by imagining the journey of my uncles , aunts and grandparents who never returned from the "Club Med of horror."

How others have done to cope? God alone can tell. Here, precisely, where it was, it so often absent in these times? Allah, God, Jehovah, where were you? When we needed you, Turkey, Germany and Cambodia, where were you? Go to know.

I know
If any force in this world
Would be able to destroy this race,
This small tribe of unimportant people,
Habits all people and always
Fought and lost,
Whose structures have been fragmented,
Literature read, not listened to music,
And whose prayers have remained unanswered
Go destroy Armenia
See if you can do this,
Send his people in the desert
Without bread, without water,
Burn houses and churches,
See if they can not laugh
Sing, and play again
And see
When two of them meet
Anywhere in the world,
If they do not create

A new Armenia (2)

Today, France recognized the genocide of Armenians. It took eighty-five years for its consent. The reason of State, said. Finally it's done, but for my part, although I am proud and satisfied with the decision of my country, I will not triumphalism. I did indeed never shown virulent on the issue. To my parents, only the important recognition, and compensation for the restitution of land or houses were not major issues: they have no intention of returning to this country, a land of too many memories, some good, much more painful. Of course, this recognition is a first step, but as long as Turkey does not recognize the genocide, it will remain a recognition askew.

These few lines on the tragic past of Armenians seemed necessary to explain who we are and where we come from.

I opened my eyes to a sad furnished
Rue Monsieur-le-Prince in the Latin Quarter
In an environment of singers and artists
Qu'avaient a past, not tomorrow
Many wonderful people, a little fanciful
Who spoke Russian and Armenian and

But whatever some Turkish and Azeri journalists have been said or written in the past, I never - I repeat, never - parade in Paris or elsewhere April 24 to commemorate the massacre, I have not sent weapons or even to Kharabag organized a collection of money to buy arms during the war between Azerbaijanis and Armenians Kharabag. I have too much respect for the human being to commit me in a process to injure or kill women and children. I prefer to believe - perhaps naively - to diplomacy, goodness, intelligence and honesty of men, even if diplomacy, which is steeped in oil, has so far given that bad results.

My mother, Knar Bagdassarian had the knack to find filiations - it probably fills a void and a longing for a family she had not had. When encountering someone from the city where she was born, with the announcement of the name, she remembered the grandfather or grandmother. And even if they had been neighbors, they suddenly became almost parents. I used to call "my cousins walls:" Oh yes, he was a baker, or creamer ... "My mother was Turkish, since born in Turkey as I am French. It was Turkish of Armenian origin, born in Adapazari father of a tobacco expert. She had two brothers and one sister, all disappeared, God knows how, at the time of the genocide. My father, Mischa Aznavourian, Georgian of Armenian descent, was born in Akhaltzkha. The Armenians of Georgia did not suffer genocide. Both were artists, my mother an actress, my father singer with a voice that was telling Louiguy - composer successful Cerisier rose et pommier blanc among others - which implied days singing "I l ' impression that in your voice jumped a generation! "How my parents met there, where and when they were married, we do not know. It was the time when the Church kept the records of marriage, which took the place of civil status. Our churches, unfortunately, were looted, destroyed ... One thing is certain: I never caught my parents to vilify modern Turkey, they never were reared in hatred of this people. On the contrary, I've always heard them say that Turkey is a beautiful country, that women were beautiful, that their food was the best in the entire Middle East, and that, basically, we had many affinities with these people. If the genocide had not taken place - or at least had been - the dispute is not now so deeply rooted in the memory of the second and third generations of us.

Pursued, despite the Georgian passport of my father, my parents managed to Istanbul on board a boat Italian. My mother was already on board when a zealous military, ignoring the passport, blocked the road and heard my father speak hated. It is the commander who came to his rescue, shouting that the boat was international territory and that it could in no way prevent a passenger to board. A rich American of Armenian origin was proposed to pay for the trip of all the survivors who had the chance to climb aboard. The boat took the sea and landed the Armenians and Greeks in Salonika, where my sister was born. It gave him, to thank Italy, the name of an Italian opera - Aida - in fact a name of Egypt. A year passed and the time to learn Greek, and the mirage American head, my parents and my sister arrived in Paris via Marseille I suppose, where they gave Nansen passport, a kind of residence permit the need to repeat often. Then there were days waiting at the Embassy of the United States in the hope of obtaining a visa, the famous visa which would reach the promised land, the land of opportunity, where everyone can try his luck and may become rich and powerful (3).
www.politiqueinternationale.com/

---

Taraf Newspaper: Solution Package Very Soon 'Genocide' Survey Goes On
Turkish Taraf newspaper reported that Ankara will propose a normalization package for Turkey-Armenian relations just before the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama to Turkey. Taraf claimed that the first clause of the package is opening of border.

Taraf newspaper reported that the package that aims the normalization of relations with Armenia will be proposed within April. First step of the package for normalization is launching diplomatical relations with Armenia and opening of border. Other levels of the package will be actualized step by step. Package also includes establishment of a joint historians committee for discussion of 11915 events and Nagorno Karabakh problem.

According to the report of Taraf newspaper 'solution package' will form a change in 15 years old Armenia policy of Turkey and first step will be opening of diplomatical representation offices. Solution package is expected to include clauses over Nagono Karabakh problem and establishment of a joint historians committee.

Solution package that Armenia and Turkey had a deal over it, according to the report of Taraf, will be introduced to U.S. President Barack Obama. The Turkey visit of Obama has special importance since it is just before of discussion of so called Armenian genocide resolution in the U.S. Congress. On the other hand, TRT will start broadcasting of Armenian radio with the visit of Obama.

Armenia border of Turkey was closed after occupation of Nagorno Karabakh and seven surrounding region by Armenian armed forces in 1993. Another matter of dispute between Turkey and Armenia is different approaches of two country to the events that took place in 1915. But the main reason of lack of relations between two neighbour country, is invasion of another Turkic country Azerbaijan by Armenia. Ongoing occupation of Azerbaijan prevents establishing diplomatic relations and as it is stated by high level Turkish officials many times, opening of border and establishment of relations will be possible after an agreement over withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from Nagorno Karabakh.
http://historyoftruth.com

---

Expert Recommendations On Armenia's Defense Strategy Review armradio.am 24.03.2009
The recurrent sitting of the interdepartmental commission coordinating the Defense Strategy Review held its recurrent sitting at the Ministry of Defense. The sitting was presided over by co-chairs of the commission, secretary of the National Security Council Arthur Baghdasaryan and Defense Mnister Seyran Ohanyan.

Member of the international advisory expert group, expert of the US Department of Defense, Dr. Antonio Bernards, as well as experts from the Republic of Bulgaria, Mr. Ilya Nalbantov and Colonel Vladimir Milensky, were invited to participate in the sitting.

During the sitting discussed were issues related to the second stage of the defense strategy review. Dr. Bernards gave recommendation to members of the Commission on the methodology of the second stage.

An agreement was reached to hold the next sitting in June of the current year.

---

Forbes Reports Armenia To Be On 37th Horizontal Of World Corrupted Countries Panorama.am 25/03/2009
International Forbes magazine reports that Armenia is on the 37th horizontal of the world corrupted countries. According to the magazine the most corrupted countries of the world are Chad, Zimbabwe, Cambodia and Kyrgyzstan.

Burundi, Gambia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan follow the first four horizontals. Russia is on the 13th horizontal, Kazakhstan is the 17th and Ukraine - 20th. Armenia's neighbor country Georgia is on the 72nd horizontal, Poland, Lithuania and Turkey are on the 79th-81st horizontals.

According to Forbes non-corrupted countries of the world are Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Island, Canada and Australia.

---

Armenian Genocide: Ergenekon Is Linked To Sites On The Internet Negationist 25 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
A large number of websites offering professional literature nationalist and pseudo-scientific research against the thesis of Armenian genocide, against the existence of a Kurdish people in Turkey or opposed to religion in Turkey have been able to operate through the Ergenekon network, clandestine terrorist organization that tried to overthrow the Turkish government, according to the latest leaks in the Turkish press.

According to the Turkish daily Zaman these websites, which are updated frequently in Turkish and English, show the ultra-nationalist propaganda against the Greeks, Kurds and Armenians, as well as certain categories of the Muslim population of Turkey.

They are a professional and informative, videos, photographs and documents, without ever offering, however, possibilities of contact and made jourrégulièrement spreading so véhémante the official ideology in a broad range of issues and sometimes even information deemed confidential.

The investigation in recent months on the Ergenekon network and particularly the arrest of computer expert Yildirim Hüseyin Ataman allowed to know more. This was also the spokesman of the movement Biz Kaç Kisiyiz (How many of us) is a former naval officer. It is also the owner of a software company based in Istanbul called Naryaz.

Yildirim Hüseyin Ataman was also the administrator of the website 4000ler.trnet.com, who as members of retired military officers as members and reservists. One member is the Koramiral A. Feyyaz Ogutcu, which the Turkish secret services (MIT) was one of the founders of the Houses Karargah, which according to the Ergenekon investigation has revealed that they were used as venues for the army generals organizing a coup State as well as houses to hide the killers and ammunition. The Ergenekon investigation has recently revealed that 35 areas on the Internet with the same content and the same design have been made with the same company. These sites appear to have been created in order to format the public in accordance with the purposes of the Ergenekon organization. The sites comprising www.abdullahocalanakademisi.info, apopkk.com, armenianreality.com, cameria.org, gencizbiz.net, genclik.info, gnkur.net, greekmurderers.net, irtica.net, irtica.org, naksilik.com, nurse . info, pkkapo.com, pkkgercegi.com, terorveguvenlik.net, and turkatak.com turkeyturks.com.

---

Obama Will Be The President That America Deserves? 25 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
Info Collectif VAN - www.collectifvan.org - Washington intends to postpone the presidential statement to formally recognize the Armenian genocide: U.S. President Barack Obama would thus on its election promise, officially not to hinder the process of warming between Turkey and Armenia, informally, for fear of the dangers that such a declaration would put U.S. troops, if the aid of Turkey in Iraq were to be lacking. Turkey and Armenia may have relationships that they like to have: a genocide the values of humanity and its appreciation need not be linked to political, economic, diplomatic or otherwise. As strategic alliances with Turkey, especially in the context of the war in Iraq, they already existed during the American election campaign. They did not stop Barack Obama said: "The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or point of view, but a widely documented and supported by a large number of historical evidence. (. ..) America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully of the Armenian genocide and strongly condemns all genocides. I intend to be the president.. " Obviously, "intend" is not enough ... Collectif Van offers translation of excerpts from the article in the Los Angeles Times, published on 17 March 2009. Hesitant about Obama's commitment to recognize the Armenian genocide Excerpts

The administration plans to postpone a presidential statement on the Armenian genocide, because of problems it would risk using the Turkey in the Middle East.

By Paul Richter
17 March 2009
Live from Washington - The administration is reluctant Obama on a promised presidential statement, acknowledging that Armenians were victims of genocide in the early 20th century for fear of alienating Turkey when U.S. officials need of its aid.

Obama The President and other senior representatives of the administration have promised during the presidential campaign of genocide officially describe the massacres of Armenians committed by Ottoman Turks in 1915. (...)

But the administration has also sought assistance from Ankara on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and other issues including safety warnings stating that a Turkish official statement threatens U.S. assistance Turkey.

The representatives of the administration plan to postpone a presidential statement, citing the progress towards a thaw in relations between Turkey and neighboring Armenia. New signs of global warming - like the discussions to the reopening of the border - would strengthen the arguments that the U.S. statement could threaten progress.

"Right now, our concern is how to move that the United States can help Armenia and Turkey to work together to achieve a reconciliation with the past" - said Michael Hammer, a spokesman for the Council of National Security. He said that the administration was "encouraged" by the improved relations and believed it was "important that the two countries begin a dialogue open and honest about the past." (...)

For Obama, the controversy comes at a particularly sensitive. He went to Turkey on April 5 and its positions on the issue will attract global attention. Meanwhile, the Armenian-Americans insist on a statement from the White House April 24, annual day of remembrance. Supporters of the Congress projecting soon also represent the resolution on the genocide.

Obama's visit to Turkey has become risky for the administration, said Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. "To plunge the president there, is really up the stakes," said Parris, currently co-chair of the program on Turkey of the Brookings Institute. "Now it can not be ignored .... This would undermine its credibility. "(...)
Representatives of the Congress supporting the resolution on the genocide have expressed their frustration to this resistance.

"The argument that only now is the ultimate incarnation of the old worn refrain: 'we should recognize the genocide - but just not this year'," said Republican Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), one of the sponsors of the resolution.

Another lawyer, Republican Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said that although the strength of warnings from Turkey has been declining, the Turks remained influential with Congress who believe that the aid cutoff Ankara could harm U.S. troops. Sherman has designated this as "their last card down."
(...)
"The Turks are very good that the danger of the resolution (genocide) do not withdraw," said Bulent ALIRIZ, director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
paul.richter latimes.com 20 March 2009

---

Armenia And The World - Interview With Edward Nalbandian 25 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
driven by The drafting of International Politics

International Politics - Mr Nalbandian, you were appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in April 2008, after thirty years of work abroad. How do you see the world from Yerevan? And what is the position of Armenia in this world?

Edward Nalbandian - In truth, the world has become so small that it is difficult to separate the inside from the outside! It is quite impossible to live in isolation without seeing what is happening around you. This applies especially for Armenia and, more generally, for the South Caucasus. On the one hand, this region is seeking to integrate further the "great world" on the other hand, the "great world" which looks more and more to us. The present-day Armenia - which we call the Third Republic, the first being the period 1918-1920 and the second, which was part of the USSR, that of 1920-1991 - is the legacy of the past, with all the consequences. It now aspires to join up in global processes as predictable and reliable partner. That is why we do a lot of cooperation at bilateral level and play our full role in international structures, both European and regional.

You should know that, when we speak, only one third of our people lies in Armenia itself. Two thirds of our countrymen are scattered over a hundred countries of the world. Perfectly integrated into the societies in which they live, the members of the diaspora have largely retained the language and traditions of their ancestors, and a spiritual connection - and not just spiritual - with the mother. They are all united by the desire to see realized the dream of their parents and grandparents: a Prosperous Armenia. These people have created dozens of "Little Armenia" around the globe. The place of Armenia in the world is also defined by all of these "Armenia".

PI - When you say that Armenia has the legacy of previous realities, what are you referring exactly?

IN - This legacy is reflected in everything that is part of the construction of the state: the political system and legislation, we have quickly reformed and we are continuously improving, the economy and the social situation, the education system and ultimately, society itself with its mentality, its habits and aspirations. It is also evident, especially in complex political and security issues that still await their solution.

PI - these issues seem primarily related to Armenia - the Third Republic, as you say ...

FR - I would not want to entrust the role of the historian, but I remind you that it is impossible to understand the realities of today if it does not those of the past. For example, issues such as the Nagorno-Karabakh or the Armenian-Turkish relations are not new: they are the direct consequences of what happened between the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The consequences, in part, of the Bolshevik revolution. In Soviet times, these subjects were ignored, both for ideological reasons and because they had no place in the logic of the Cold War. This taboo has been lifted after the collapse of the USSR - even if the Soviet authorities had to take into account the opinion of the Armenian people and have allowed the building in Yerevan in the 1960s, of a monument to victims of the Armenian genocide. As for the decision to annex Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, it was taken in 1921 on the initiative of Stalin, by the Bureau of Caucasian Bolshevik party, but in a little strange to spread the Bolshevik ideology in the Muslim world of the Orient. Yet, for millennia, the Nagorno-Karabakh was an Armenian territory populated by Armenians! I leave you to judge the legitimacy and "rationality" of this political affiliation ...

PI - Armenians How did they react to the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan?

EN - The Armenians have never accepted this injustice. They have repeatedly appealed to the Soviet central authorities to ask them to reconsider this decision. Many activists of the Armenian cause were imprisoned, some have lost their lives ... but things have changed at the time of thaw gorbatchévien. In February 1988, taking advantage of "freedom" of perestroika on the Armenian authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh presented in Moscow, Baku and Yerevan to demand reunification with Armenia. Until the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Kremlin has not been able to propose solutions. Baku, for its part, has categorically rejected this demand. Azeri authorities have first removed the autonomy of Nagorno-Karabakh. Then they suppressed the people of this region - yet they say that it is "their own citizens - through against them under the pretext of strengthening the system of passports, a real ethnic cleansing, with the support of the army Soviet. And finally, they started the war! Armenia could not remain indifferent. Naturally, she came to the aid of the Nagorno-Karabakh. In this war that has been imposed and which has claimed tens of thousands dead on both sides, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh have managed to defend their independence. In 1994 a cease-fire was signed between all parties to resolve the issue through negotiations. That is the reality of the Third Republic had inherited. I gave these details of history to give you a clearer picture of the current situation.

PI - Exactly where are the negotiations on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh? Despite their efforts, the Minsk Group of OSCE and its three co-chairs - the United States, Russia and France - have not reported results so far and suffer the criticism, and rightly or not ...

EN - I do not share this analysis. Since May 1994, the ceasefire is respected - and that only through the commitment of the parties to the conflict, since no international force to maintain peace is present, which should be highlighted. Even if this situation of "neither war nor peace is unstable, it is essential that the ceasefire is respected. Firstly, because it has led to the loss of life, secondly, because it gave the parties an opportunity to focus on domestic problems of their respective countries, such as the establishment of State structures, economic and social reforms, and a host of other issues caused by the collapse of the USSR. If the cease-fire in Karabakh has been maintained, it is also thanks to the relative balance of military forces . Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues to increase steadily its military budget: it has more than a dozen times over the last six years ...

IP - What are the consequences of this attitude of Azerbaijan?

IN - This policy constitutes a flagrant violation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Yet it has not yielded an adequate response from other Member States of the Treaty. But the events around South Ossetia in August this year clearly show the danger of an excessive accumulation of arms. In Armenia, we are aware of this threat long ago. We tried to warn our friends and partners on the fact that the arms race in the region could lead to a resumption of military conflict. The situation is that of a classical piece: if, from the first act, there is a gun at the scene, the last act he must draw! In any case, we hope that the events of August have reminded everyone of the obvious: war is never a solution.

PI - How do you see the work of the Minsk Group?

IN - A year ago, during the OSCE Ministerial in Madrid, the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group submitted to the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan the proposals on the principles of a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. These principles could serve as a basis for further negotiations. Unfortunately, for months, the Azerbaijani side has ignored the existence of these proposals, and it was not until June of last year that the President of Azerbaijan eventually consent - during his interview, to St. Petersburg with President of Armenia - to continue the negotiations on the basis of Madrid. At the end of another meeting between the two presidents held in Moscow on November 2 at the initiative of President Medvedev, a statement was signed by the three heads of state. It stressed the need for a political settlement of the conflict. We thought that the Declaration of Moscow will open a new stage in the peace process. But a few days later, the Azerbaijani leadership said that the peaceful settlement was not synonymous with duty of non-use of force! They have even gone so far as to say that "the military option has never been, is not and will never be excluded as a means of resolving the conflict ... Although the Moscow Declaration proclaims that the solution of the conflict should be based on norms and principles of international law, Azerbaijan insists that the settlement is made on the basis of a single principle, that of respecting the integrity territorial states. Moreover, although the statement makes clear that the negotiation process should continue within the framework of the Minsk Group, Azerbaijan complicates things by discussing this issue, in parallel, in other instances.

PI - The OSCE has ruled once again on this issue at its last Ministerial Conference ...

EN - Yes. At the conclusion of the Ministerial Conference of the OSCE held in Helsinki on 2 December, the 56 foreign ministers of the Organization, to which Armenia and Azerbaijan, adopted a statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh . This statement makes clear that the regulation should be done only by peaceful means and the need to maintain the positive momentum created by the meeting of Presidents in Moscow and continue negotiations in cooperation with the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group to bring the parties' positions on the basis of Madrid proposals. In addition, in Helsinki, a joint statement, in the same direction, was made by the French and Russian Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernard Kouchner and Sergei Lavrov, and the Deputy Secretary of State Daniel Fried. Armenia fully shares this vision. To resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh, we must continue to negotiate in the spirit of the declarations of Helsinki and Moscow, is our certainty.

PI - specifically, about how the negotiations turn it? And on what principles are they based?

IN - Although the details of the negotiations are not yet announced, the principles are known. Much has been written on this topic. Today, negotiations are conducted on the basis of the principles of fundamental documents of the OSCE, including the Helsinki Final Act on non-use of threat or use of force, territorial integrity and the right to self-determination (1). The issue is the final status of Karabakh, the recognition and realization of the right to self-determination of its people and ensuring its security, in the broad sense of the term.

PI - Azerbaijan has placed the issue of "occupied territories" to the agenda of the UN General Assembly. Having "rescued" a resolution on this issue, he tries to change the format of the negotiations by saying that the Minsk Group is "ineffective." Moreover, as you pointed out, Baku does not preclude the use of military force if the matter behind. In such circumstances, how can we not question the effectiveness of the current negotiations?

IN - There are several explanations for this attitude of the authorities in Baku. Among others: 1) Azerbaijan seeks to put pressure on Armenia to get it over compromise. 2) It tries to put pressure on the Minsk Group. 3) This position responds to an internal logic.

What is certain is that Azerbaijan cherishes the illusion that you can easily convert its oil revenues into military superiority and resolve the issue in its favor. These are miscalculations that are dragging the conflict. The military balance on which exists today between Armenia and Azerbaijan still possible to secure a fragile cease-fire, while the arms race, it promises nothing good to anyone. The war does not solve anything, we have already seen. The rare cases of violation of the cease-fire - a few exchanges of fire that occur sporadically here and there - are a great danger, especially given the continuing militaristic propaganda of Azerbaijan. This propaganda has led nearly a third of the population that the military solution is the only path that would end the conflict. In contrast, Armenia, you will not find not even 1% of people who share this view! We are very vigilant on these issues and we call on the Azerbaijani side to deal with the same responsibility. Attempts to test the military capability of the other party are extremely dangerous: they may accidentally result in extensive military operations that will cost dearly to our peoples. Again, the case of South Ossetia has the unfortunate example.

IP - What are the consequences of the Azeri propaganda?

EN - I want to say that from my point of view, it would be reasonable to prepare societies of both countries to reconciliation! Unfortunately, Azerbaijan, the official propaganda anti-Armenian borders on the arménophobie. At such a point that tomorrow if we reach an agreement in negotiations, the Azerbaijani side will argue that his company will not accept it - it's already happened once, when after the agreement on the "Paris Principles "(2), Azerbaijan has stated that his opinion was not ready. I would add that the Azerbaijani propaganda also targeted the Minsk Group. This seems strange: on the one hand, our neighbors call the United States, France and Russia to play a role as mediators and on the other hand, they criticize! Result: 82% of Azeris are now opposed to mediation of the Minsk Group. You mentioned the draft resolution submitted by Azerbaijan to the UN General Assembly. I recall that this project has been formally approved by 39 of the 192 UN members. In addition, the vote showed another reality: the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group voted against it and the overwhelming majority of Member States - including all members of the European Union - refused to support this approach. For a simple reason: it was of a partial and non-constructive because it put forward only one principle of international law - territorial integrity - and ignored the other principles, starting with the right of peoples to self which is, in our view, irrevocable.

PI - Kosovo declared independence in February 2008, followed in August of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These events could be considered as precedents for the case of Nagorno-Karabakh?

IN - This question is often asked. We have always said that each conflict has its peculiarities and its own logic. It is true that we could use the precedent of Kosovo, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and to recognize ... then formally recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. In terms of international law, the arguments in favor of independence of these three parts are quite valid for Karabakh. I would say they are even more valid for the Karabakh! But today, I repeat, the negotiations around the Nagorno-Karabakh are underway and we hope to find a compromise solution.

PI - In spring 2008, Armenia has a new president: Serge Sarkissian succeeded Robert Kocharian. This change at the top of the State have changed the position of Armenia on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and, more generally, the foreign policy of your country?

EN - As President Sarkissian said in his inaugural speech, substantial changes are not expected in foreign policy. We continue to conduct an active foreign policy, multifaceted and multidirectional, which aims, as before, to reduce tensions in our region, to establish relations of cooperation and good neighborly relations with other countries in the area and to raise extensive international involvement. This international involvement will, we hope to consolidate stability, security, peace, development and prosperity in the Caucasus and beyond.

PI - Armenia is closely linked to Russia, which it regards as its best ally in the region of the South Caucasus. It was in Moscow that Mr. Sarkissian has made his first visit as president in June ...

EN - Russia is our strategic partner, even if some wish to see more nuances in the narrow Armenian-Russian relations, there is nothing to hide here. Our peoples are bound by an old friendship and deep mutual sympathy. And while there may be changes, it will be to consolidate further our relationship. Nevertheless, while remaining faithful to the obligations we have subscribed as allies, we want to strengthen our relations across the board we are determined to deepen our ties with the United States; to confirm our cooperation with the structures and European countries, to strengthen the relationship with our neighbors and establish new ones with all other States.

PI - What about Turkey? The issue of Turkish-Armenian relationship has always been particularly complicated. How do you see these reports in the future? What actions have you taken to improve them?

IN - In early June, President Sargsyan invited his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül to visit Yerevan to watch a football match between national teams of Armenia and Turkey. The President Gül has long thought before responding to this invitation. It is possible that the events of August around South Ossetia has weighed on its final decision. Nevertheless, a few days before the meeting, held on September 6, President Gül said that he accepted the invitation. We understand that for him it was not an easy decision, but it was certainly a wise decision.

This football match, the team of Armenia has unfortunately lost, but the "football diplomacy" has won. One can even say that this concept now has its place in the diplomatic vocabulary! The interview that the two presidents were on 6 September in Yerevan has created a favorable atmosphere. The foreign ministers of both countries have been asked to begin negotiations aimed at normalizing bilateral relations. Since then, with my Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan, we had many meetings that I think I can describe as very constructive and useful. Our last two meetings were held in Istanbul on 24 November, in the framework of the Organization of Economic Cooperation of Black Sea, of which Armenia is the President, and in Helsinki on December 4, in the framework of the Ministerial Conference of the OSCE.

PI - What do you mean by "normalization of bilateral relations"?

EN - specifically, we want the establishment of diplomatic relations and open borders. Armenia is ready to do so without any preconditions. We hope that Turkey is ready to do the same.

Here I wish to emphasize that it is not fair to present the possible opening of borders as a favor that the Turks would do to the Armenians. The Turkish side is not less interested than us! Similarly, none of us would do a favor to the other by accepting the establishment of diplomatic relations. The two countries also need. Such a development would be in the interest of our two nations. Everywhere in the world, many countries have differences, but still maintain normal relations. This allows them to discuss in good conditions of their disagreements peacefully and to consider all issues of mutual interest. Why would it be different between Armenia and Turkey?

PI - The Turks accuse you of having brought the issue of recognition of the Armenian genocide on the international scene, and make territorial demands against Turkey and Azerbaijan ...

IN - A genocide is a crime against humanity. As such, it concerns the whole of humanity and not just the people who had suffered. Moreover, the descendants of genocide victims are not only in Armenia but also in many countries around the world, and nobody can take away the right to memory, just as nobody can ask the Jews to forget the Holocaust. I want to emphasize - as I have done repeatedly - no personality official Armenian never asked and never asks the Armenian diaspora to waive the requirement for the international recognition of the Armenian genocide. It is absolutely impossible.

As for the territorial demands, it is simple: Armenia has never made any statement to that effect. Finally, with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh, I remind you that Turkey is also member of the Minsk Group. Therefore, it is obliged to remain neutral and to have an impartial and balanced approach to this issue.

My belief is that we must, in expectation of positive results, we engage in a constructive dialogue. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I believe in the future Armenian-Turkish reconciliation.

PI - The Armenian-Turkish issue is also addressed in the negotiations for Turkey's accession to the EU: Europeans call on Turkey to resolve its disputes with your country. How the Armenia Does the European perspective of Turkey? Do you think that Turkey should recognize the Armenian genocide before joining the European Union - as the French President Jacques Chirac during his visit to Armenia in September 2006? Or do you think that Turkey is not intended to join the Union, as stated by President Sarkozy?

IN - It is to the peoples and countries of the EU to decide whether a country meets the criteria or the EU. In any case, would not have a neighbor who fully shares the European values?

PI - You often talk about common interests of the South Caucasus. But gas and oil pipelines bypassing your country, the railways and roads are closed on three sides, and you do not have access to the sea ..

IN - In my opinion, this situation would be to anyone. Of course that Armenia is losing, but do you think that whoever wins? Even Azerbaijan and Turkey - which, for fifteen years, we impose a blockade - do not win, whether it soitau economic or political. It is through that pass Armenia railway linking Russia to Turkey and Iran (after passing through Georgia and Azerbaijan). But they do not work because of closed borders. As a result, Azerbaijan and Turkey are obliged to spend large sums to build more! Similar to major roads north-south through Armenia, they are not used for the same reasons. Armenia is the shortest and fastest transit of fuel ... and yet other states commit huge financial resources to go around!

Despite these obstacles, Armenia continues to grow. Our economic results speak for themselves: we recorded on average 12% annual growth over the past eight years. We are well integrated into the international community, which sees us as a reliable partner. In short, the embargo imposed on us had made no economic or political advantage to anyone. While open borders and freedom of movement for goods and people would be extremely beneficial to all countries of the region! Those who lose the most are the ordinary course.

Armenia has repeatedly proposed to Azerbaijan and Turkey to establish favorable conditions for economic cooperation and launch joint projects which not only contribute to the development of our country but in addition, decrease tension and promote the resolution of the most complex problems. All I can say today is that we remain on this same position.

PI - Another neighbor of Armenia, Iran, focused international attention. You maintain good relations with that country. Except error, an Iran-Armenia gas pipeline is currently under construction, and you have other projects in the field of energy. In the years of embargo and energy crisis, Iran has always been a vital supply route for you. The tension you are concerned about it?

IN - Of course it concerns us! We would like the issues around Iran's nuclear program are resolved through diplomatic channels. Regarding the South Caucasus, Tehran has always taken a balanced position, has tried to contribute, to the extent possible, to resolve existing conflicts. We appreciate it. Political and economic relations Armenian-Iranian are based on mutual interest. I recently traveled to Tehran, where I met the highest political authorities of the country. We discussed the prospects for deepening bilateral cooperation, particularly in the fields of energy and transport sectors, where major projects are planned.

IP - If the Iran-American conflict and deepen as the United States asked you for your support, what would be your response?

EN - I do not consider deepening the conflict. We support the peaceful resolution of conflicts. We will do everything in our power to ensure that this conflict does not degenerate.

PI - The three South Caucasus countries are included in the Neighborhood Policy of the EU, as well as in the Individual Action Plan for the Partnership (IPAP) and NATO (3). But, as regards regional organizations, the three states appear quite divided (4). At a time when Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh represent serious sources of tension, this dispersion is not too much for such a small area?

EN - Yes, without doubt. This fact shows that the reconfiguration of the South Caucasus after the collapse of the USSR has not ended. As you know, the Caucasus is one of the most sensitive of the world. Since ancient times, peoples, religions, cultures and civilizations co-exist. Today the danger of the emergence of dividing lines in the region is real. We do not encourage this development. The status and trends at work in the South Caucasus and neighboring countries require each of us a maximum restraint and responsibility.

PI - Given that the last fifteen years, Turkey keeps its border with Armenia closed, Iran and Georgia are the only means of communication in your country with the outside world. How have you reacted to the Russian-Georgian conflict of last summer?

EN - The fighting around South Ossetia, which have caused great damage and many human tragedies, we were obviously worried. Because of these events, the economy of Armenia has suffered losses that we estimate at 600 million. The supply of our country was severely disrupted. Armenia is probably one of the countries most interested in stability and security of our neighboring Georgia - not only because more than 70% of our trade is done through Georgian territory, but also because our two nations are linked by an old friendship.

IP - Regarding the events of last summer in Georgia, two opposing views: 1) the fact that Russia has to respond, so strong indeed, an irresponsible provocation of Georgian President, 2) Russia s is guilty of an unprecedented aggression against a sovereign member of the UN. Which of these two visions do you feel closest?

IN - This war was a terrible tragedy. The key now is to unite our efforts to prevent such a disaster happening again. The important thing is the future. We believe that the agreements reached through the efforts of French and Russian presidents are a basis for the peaceful solution of this problem. The position of Armenia on this issue was expressed in the Declaration of the Heads of States of the Organization of Collective Security Treaty, of which Armenia is currently the President.

IP - What is your view on the agreement signed between Russia and the EU in Moscow on September 8? Is this a victory for the EU (which ended the crisis) or Russia (who managed to ultimately endorse the secession of the two separatist regions of Georgia)?

EN - I do not think that in this situation, it is advised to try to determine who won and who lost. The bottom line is that the agreement works. The guns have fallen silent. There are no more victims and casualties. Now he is overseeing the implementation of this agreement, verifying that each party keeps its commitments, and ensuring that the negotiations in Geneva (which bring together all the parties to the conflict) may lead on outcomes.

PI - The region of Javakhk, Georgia, which is mainly populated by Armenians, is another source of tension in the region. The precedent of South Ossetia can encourage Armenia to challenge the frontiers inherited from the Soviet Union?

EN - I do not share your review about the tensions in Javakhk. It is true that the social and economic situation is bad in this region, but it is in recent times, the object of special attention of the Georgian authorities. And we consistently constructive discussions with them. Regarding the Armenian-Georgian border, let me be clear: we have never questioned.

PI - Russia should be seen as a threat to regional security?

IN - The policy that leads Russia in the Caucasus since the collapse of the USSR shows that would be wrong to ask the question in those terms. It should be remembered that it is precisely through the active intervention of a Russian cease-fire was established in 1994 to end the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Basically we believe that Russia is an important factor of stability, security and cooperation in the region.

PI - The situation in the Caucasus is particularly complex, and if your country is well illustrated. On the one hand, you are a member of the Collective Security Treaty - a military alliance in which Moscow plays a central role - and Russia has an important military base land to the north, and an air base not far Yerevan. On the other hand, Armenia is engaged in the program "Partnership for Peace" of NATO, military assistance receives significant U.S. and sent soldiers in Iraq. How you position yourself between Russia and the United States? Are you planning to become a member of NATO?

IN - You're right: the regional situation is anything but simple! The conflict of last summer in South Ossetia has shown that at the slightest imprudence, the Caucasus may become an explosive bomb! Everyone knows that. We are engaged in close cooperation with NATO. At the Armenia-NATO meeting in Brussels, the Alliance has been very pleased with the way we have completed the cycle of two years of the PISG. As we speak, the preparation of the next program is in its final phase. These good relations with the Alliance should not make you think that we are about to apply for membership. I say very clearly: the accession to NATO is not on the agenda of Armenian politics.

As for the Organization of Collective Security Treaty is a military structure and policy regulating the strategic relationship of member countries. Our membership in the CSTO helps to ensure our security.

PI - In this context, how have you reacted to the initiative of Turkey to form a platform of stability and cooperation in the Caucasus "(5)?

IN - In our region, cooperation and security are areas that need to be discussed continuously. Therefore, one can only welcome a project to improve cooperation, mutual trust and security - even if some issues remain to be clarified, including the format and mechanisms of this platform.

IP - What are your plans vis-à-vis the European Union?

IN - One of the priorities of our foreign policy is the rapprochement with Europe. This desire is in the close cooperation we have with European structures. As I said, we are actively participating in the Neighborhood Policy of the EU. During the visit of President Sarkissian in Brussels in November, and during the Armenia-EU cooperation in December, the Union has commended us for the quality of our implementation of the Action Plan. Armenia also welcomes the initiative of Eastern Partnership of the EU (6). We see an additional way to bring even greater Armenia in the EU.

PI - To end this interview, we would like to return to our first question: how Armenia will perceive it? For its historical and cultural roots, it has its place in European civilization, and is one of the first Christian nations, but throughout its history it was part of Persia, Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire, and Russia during the last two centuries. Finally, Armenia belong to the East or the West?

IN - It is true that, for our roots and our values, we see ourselves as Europeans. It is also true that history and geography have profoundly influenced our country. To summarize, there is a bit of everything here! I believe that this diversity is our wealth, and the uniqueness and charm of the Caucasus ...

---

Deciphering Turkey's Delay Tactics in Opening the Border with Armenia
By Harut Sassounian, Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine

While some Armenians are dismissing Pres. Obama's solemn campaign pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Turkish leaders have taken the president's promise very seriously.

Ankara has dispatched to Washington several high-level delegations, both before and after Obama's inauguration, with the express purpose of lobbying key decision-makers in the White House and Congress on this issue.

The Turkish scheme to induce Pres. Obama not to acknowledge the Genocide, however, was dealt a serious blow after Prime Minister Erdogan harshly criticized Israel's invasion of Gaza and angrily confronted Pres. Shimon Peres in Davos. Incensed by Erdogan's words, Israeli and American-Jewish leaders told visiting Turkish dignitaries that they would no longer oppose the pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide.

As April 24 gets closer, Turkish leaders have accelerated their two-pronged campaign, trying to block the congressional resolution as well as Pres. Obama's anticipated statement on the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Beyond Turkey's persistent efforts in Washington through its Ambassador, lobbying firms, and parliamentary delegations, Turkish leaders also pressured American officials passing through Ankara in recent weeks, such as U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After returning home from their lobbying junkets, Turkish officials said they were repeatedly told in Washington that unless Turkey opens the border with Armenia promptly, there is a good chance that Pres. Obama would use the term genocide in his April 24 statement. This may be the reason why Foreign Minister Ali Babajan admitted last week that there is a "risk" the American President would acknowledge the Armenian Genocide next month.

Why is Turkey then seemingly going against its interests by continuing to keep the border closed and risking a presidential acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide?

In my view, highly experienced Turkish diplomats are playing a sophisticated game of delay tactics to gain maximum benefit from the eventual opening of the border with Armenia.

The Turkish game plan is to block or dilute Pres. Obama's April 24 statement, either without opening the border at all or by delaying the opening as much as possible. Turkish officials create the impression that relations between Armenia and Turkey are steadily improving, as demonstrated by "secret" meetings which are then leaked to the press as well as publicized high-level meetings. Such encounters, including "football diplomacy," have scored public relations points for Turkey and given credibility to its claim that relations are indeed improving.

The Turks have several reasons for preferring to give the impression that they are about to open the border, without actually doing so.

First, any conciliatory move towards Armenia would damage Turkey's relations with Azerbaijan. Turkish officials have tried to manage this problem by making the return of Artsakh (Karabagh) to Azerbaijan a pre-condition for opening the border. Since the Armenian side appears to have rejected this proposal, Ankara has been forced to abandon any direct linkage between the border opening and the Artsakh conflict.

Second, by constantly repeating that they are engaged in "delicate negotiations" with Armenia, Turkish officials have sought to prevent other countries, particularly the United States, from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, even though these two issues are completely unrelated.
Third, Turkish officials realize that opening the border promptly would not be in their best interest. The more they drag the negotiations, the more concessions they hope to secure from Armenia -- a time-honored Turkish diplomatic practice!

Fourth, by delaying the border opening, Turkey also gains more time to negotiate with the Obama administration and reach a favorable understanding on both the congressional resolution and the President's April 24 statement.

Fifth, another important reason why Prime Minister Erdogan and his ruling party are using delaying tactics is that any deal with Armenia before the March 29th local Turkish elections would harm their standing in the polls.

Sixth, Turkish officials would probably wait until the first week of April, when Pres. Obama is expected to visit their country, to discuss directly with him the linkage between the border issue and granting transit rights to U.S. troops leaving Iraq, sending additional Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan, as well as blocking U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.
Even though Armenian-Americans can neither match Turkey's vast resources nor its powerful clout in Washington, they are naturally very concerned about these Turkish ploys and are hard at work to ensure that Pres. Obama carries out his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide.

Despite reports from reliable sources that Armenia and Turkey will be signing an agreement when Foreign Minister Ali Babajan visits Yerevan on April 16, one would hope that Armenian officials would delay signing any document with Ankara just before April 24. Otherwise, the Armenian leadership would not only desecrate the memory of the Armenian martyrs, but would also provide the perfect excuse to the Obama administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in April. After waiting for the opening of the border for 16 years, Armenia could well afford to wait a few more days!

---

Armenians Oppose Opening The Border
ISTANBUL – The majority of Armenians oppose opening the country’s border with Turkey, according to a public survey conducted in the Armenian capital of Yerevan, NTV television reported yesterday.

Seventy percent of respondents said they were against rapprochement with Turkey, while 20 percent said Turkey will give up on opening the border. Forty percent of the participants in another survey said the border will not be opened in the next three years.Hurriyet

---

Armenia Concerned At Russian-Turkish Relationship www.messenger.com.ge March 24
Ruben Megrabian from the Armenian Centre for Political and International Research thinks that improvements in Russian-Turkish relations might be a threat for Armenia. He points out that these relations are based on their attitudes towards the West and that the Armenian elite should consider this possibility. Megrabian thinks that both Russia and Turkey have their own particular interests and therefore might ignore the Armenian interest.

Megrabian thinks that Russia and Turkey will use Armenia to achieve their individual goals. For Russia this is preventing Armenia’s integration with the West. Turkey however seeks to build up its relations with Armenia to make concrete steps in the Western direction and resist Western pressure over this.

---

Akcam: Obama Should Recognize Genocide And Liberate Turks And Armenians By Khatchig Mouradian, editor The Armenian Weekly, 24 March 2009
WORCESTER, Mass. (A.W.)—On March 19, prominent Turkish-born genocide scholar Taner Akcam delivered his inaugural lecture at Clark University titled, “Facing History: Denial and the Turkish National Security Concept.” In 2008, Akcam was appointed the Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University.

Speaking to an audience that had packed the Tilton Hall of the Higgins University Center, Akcam sent a powerful message to U.S. President Barack Obama, asking him to liberate Turks and Armenians by properly recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Talking about the reluctance of Congress and some former U.S. presidents to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Akcam said, “[T]here’s an ongoing theatrical drama—perhaps ‘comedy’ would be a better term—that all the parties engage in every year, and that has started to grow old. It’s time to end this dishonorable play-acting.” He explained how every time a U.S. president or Congress has the issue of the genocide on their table, “Rhey end up denying for one day what they believe the other 364 days of the year.”

Akcam continued, “All of the parties involved know very well what the U.S. administration and Congress think about 1915. But Turkey asks them to tell a lie only for one day. I have never understood why the Turkish government extracts so much joy out of making the United States lie for one day. I also find it completely dishonorable. Not only does this lie fail to lead to a resolution, it needlessly locks up the debate.”

Hence, Akcam argued, the importance of official U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide—”if the United States declares what it believes to be the truth and stands behind it”—would not only gain it “some self-respect on the subject, but it will liberate Turks, Armenians, and itself in the process.”

Akcam ended his lecture by asking Obama to stand up for truth. “I believe that we will enter a new era where morality and real politik will not be considered mutually exclusive, if President Obama should put an end to this lingering problem and liberate everybody in the process by an official acknowledgment of genocide,” he said.

Obama, both as a Senator and a presidential candidate, was an outspoken advocate for proper U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide. He repeatedly called on former president George W. Bush to recognize the genocide and expressed reservations over the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans for his remarks recognizing that crime. In January 2008, Obama issued a campaign statement, noting that “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.”

The complete statement may be read at Barack Obama on the Importance of US-Armenia Relations

Last week, Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), George Radanovich (R-Calif.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) were joined by 70 of their House Colleagues in the introduction of Armenian Genocide legislation (H.Res.252) calling on the president to recognize the Armenian Genocide. That resolution is identical to the one introduced in the previous Congress, which was adopted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 27 to 21, and had over 200 co-sponsors.
----------------------

Barack Obama on the Importance of US-Armenia Relations
| January 19, 2008
www.barackobama.com/2008/01/19/barack_obama_on_the_importance.php
I am proud of my strong record on issues of concern to the one and a half million Americans of Armenian heritage in the United States. I warmly welcome the support of this vibrant and politically active community as we change how our government works here at home, and restore American leadership abroad.

I am a strong supporter of a U.S.-Armenian relationship that advances our common security and strengthens Armenian democracy. As President, I will maintain our assistance to Armenia, which has been a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and extremism. I will promote Armenian security by seeking an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America's founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination. And my Administration will help foster Armenia's growth and development through expanded trade and targeted aid, and by strengthening the commercial, political, military, developmental, and cultural relationships between the U.S. and Armenian governments.

I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics - displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter - that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915. I have visited Darfurian refugee camps, pushed for the deployment of a robust multinational force for Darfur, and urged divestment from companies doing business in Sudan. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

I look forward, as President, to continuing my active engagement with Armenian American leaders on the full range of issues of concern to the Armenian American community. Together, we will build, in new and exciting ways, upon the enduring ties and shared values that have bound together the American and Armenian peoples for more than a century.

---

Israel Continues Policy of Not Recognizing 1915 Genocide, [ 2009/03/25
The March 25 edition of The Jerusalem Post reports that the official Israeli position of not recognizing the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide hasn’t changed despite a serious strain with Turkey in recent months.

“Our position on this has not changed,” one senior Israeli diplomatic official told The Jerusalem Post. Israel’s position on this matter was last formally articulated in March 2007, when the Knesset shelved a proposal for a parliamentary discussion on the issue.

The diplomatic official said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vicious criticism of the IDF’s actions in Gaza had not altered Israel’s position on the Armenian genocide issue.

American Jewish leaders insist that “the relationships between Turkey, Israel and the United States remain very important,” said Conference of Presidents executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein. “Our position hasn’t changed,” added Jess Hordes, head of the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington office. The position currently states that that a congressional resolution on the issue would be “counterproductive.”

While the ADL has labeled what happened to the Armenians a genocide, Hordes noted, “this issue is best handled by the parties themselves” rather than by Congress. He also noted that since the Gaza operation, the ADL had seen Turkey take steps to deal with anti-Semitism domestically.

But for all the assurances, some Jewish groups say they are beginning to see support for Turkey’s positions decrease among American Jews.

In February, shortly after the worst of the Israel-Turkey row over Gaza, a senior official in a major American Jewish organization admitted that “no Jew or Israeli in his right mind will insult Turkey, but next time they might not come to Turkey’s aid or equivocate quite so much on the issue.”

Another senior official, speaking to The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, suggested the shift may be more dramatic. “The grassroots membership of the major organizations has never been happy about looking the other way about the massacre of Armenians, even if it happened so long ago. After all, ’so long ago’ was just 25 years before the Holocaust,” the official said. “But [supporting Turkey] was seen as a matter of life or death for Israelis.”, HETQ

---

Professor Cicek: "Bardakci Is Not Even An Amateur Historian"
Turkish Historical Society reacted to the book of Murat Bardakci, "The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha."

President of Turkish Historical Society Armenian Researches Department Professor Kemal Cicek said that 924 thousand Armenians were telled as they were massacred in the book of Bardakci and reacted the book saying, "Bardakci is not even an amateur historian".

Turkish Historical Society harshly reacted to the book of historian and writer Murat Bardakci's book "The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha". President of Turkish Historical Society Armenian Researches Department Professor Kemal Cicek said that the contribution of the Bardakci to the book is nothing more than writing a preface for it and said, "The job of historian is not converting historical documents into latin alphabet." He said, "History science is comparing the documents you reached with other sources and presenting them in the methodology of science of history. Leaving many numbers and tables alone and telling ‘comment is left to the reader’ is not practice of an historian, not even an amateur historian's."

A BIG MISTAKE
Stating that the documents of Talat Pasha that is published by Bardakci is important since it shows that the Armenian population is reduced about 924 thousand which was 1,5 million before the deportation, Cicek said that the enormous mistake is mentioning them as death. Cicek said that the report of Presidency of General Staff in 1915 defines the number of Armenian citizen that were deported as 413 thousand and the number of Armenian citizen that is deported is more than that number since those are the records of 1917. Cicek said that all of the migrations in Otoman geography is showed in the documents of Talat Pasha but there are no documents that tells where those Armenians migrated after deportation.

Professor Doctor Kemal Cicek said that Armenians struggles to make world recognize 1915 events as genocide even after 100 years. He complained over the lack of studies on Armenian issue in Turkey and said that Turkey does not attach enough importance to the issue. Cicek said that Armenians have research centers in four big university and academics and students studies 1915 events.

Stating that European historians claiming that those 924 thousand Armenian were death refering to the book of Murat Bardakci, Professor Kemal Cicek said that this number includes the Armenians who migrated to another state in the Ottoman Empire or Russia, Armenia and Georgia. Cicek said that according to the report of humanitarian organizations about 300-325 thousand Armenian migrated to Caucasia. Cicek said that the total number of Armenians that are deported is about 700,000.
http://historyoftruth.com/

---

Remembrance Of Things Past, by Christopher Vasillopulos* - Zaman
Some years ago in my first days on northern Cyprus, I participated in an ugly incident. While attending an international conference on nationalism at Eastern Mediterranean University, I lost my temper with a Turkish-Canadian economist. Instead of presenting an academic paper, he complained of Armenian-Canadian efforts to insert the Armenian massacre into the school curriculum.

His children were being called "war criminals" and "murderers." As a father he was outraged and eager to protect his children from abuse. As an ethnic Turk he felt disrespected and misunderstood. He went so far as to deny that anything happened to the Armenians beyond the normal horrors of war. As he received a standing ovation from a largely Turkish-Cypriot audience, the rest of us were stunned into silence. Except for me.

I had agreed to go to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) despite many objections, mostly from the Greek-American community, and personal concerns. I did not want to become a propaganda weapon in an inter-cultural conflict. And I certainly did not want to be associated with a claim that several hundred thousand Armenians took a walk in the Syrian desert and who knows what happened to them. So I confronted a Turkish-Canadian colleague in a way that was rude and insensitive to his concerns as a father and an ethnic Turk. When I regained my composure, I apologized to him and forgot the incident.

Until this week, that is. A friend of mine, Manoug Manougian, had produced an award-winning four-hour documentary, "The Genocide Factor." As part of our human rights program, he spoke to faculty and students at my university. Some of my Turkish students came to the lecture, which included graphic illustrations of many massacres and heart-breaking descriptions of rape, torture and murder by survivors and relatives of survivors, including Armenians. I was concerned that Manougian's natural and inevitable emphasis on Armenians would trouble my Turkish students. They said they were all right, when I inquired about their reaction to what must have seemed to them to be a one-sided presentation. Although the presentation did speak of many other atrocities, it did spend more time on Armenians than any other. My students seemed stricken and upset. What surprised me more was how upset I was. It was not that I thought the presentation was unfair, but that I could not stand to see my students hurt.

So, finally, after 20 years, I understood, at least partially, my Turkish-Canadian colleague's concern for his children. It is not disrespectful to the suffering of thousands to be worried about the suffering of your children or your students or anyone you feel responsible for. My thoroughly decent students were being singled out, unintentionally to be sure, as the descendents of war criminals, no matter how many years ago, no matter how many regime changes have intervened. So the damage to Armenians nearly 100 years ago continues to do damage today.

Resuming my role as a political scientist, I considered what might be done to close out this tragic issue. What must be done to place it in its proper historical and cultural context? What must be done to honor the deaths of so many innocent women and children? What must be done to honor the children of the present of all nationalities? What must be done to make such tragedies less likely? I do not have answers to these questions. Let me echo instead the suggestions of my German colleagues, who have had experience in this sort of thing. There should be an inquiry conducted under the supervision of international scholars who produce a report. The purpose of the report is not to indict or condemn but to ascertain the facts in the context of the political and cultural conflicts of World War I. This is more than a process of setting the historical record straight, of eliminating the exaggerations of the victims and the denials of the perpetrators. It is more than an acknowledgment of Armenian suffering and Turkish complicity. A definitive and objective account would enable Turks and their friends to live in the present and to face the future without fearing that their children will be held responsible for atrocities done by different people in a different time and a different place and under circumstances than can only be imagined. I cannot say that the pain inherent in this revisiting the past will be worth it. I can say that the pain endured by many by not clearing the record is as difficult to endure as its promise to be unending.

*Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.
23 March 2009

---

Pre-Emptive Gestures In Turkish-American-Armenian Triangle k.balci todayszaman.com
Turkey is going to be the first predominantly Muslim country that US President Barack Obama will step foot in after assuming office. That is no privilege.

He could have easily chosen to start from Iraq, and while that wouldn't make Iraq the leader of the Muslim world, neither would it say anything about the future of Iraqi-US relations. The visit is exciting, indeed, but it becomes even more exciting when examined within its contextual setting.

Once the US secretary of state made known the plans of the US president to visit Turkey in April, Turkish diplomats tried to use this new opportunity in order to show that "there is nothing extraordinary in this since Turkey and the US have been strategic allies for over half a century"; the politicians usurped it in order to show that "our prime minister's manners in Davos are actually being implicitly supported by the US president." President Abdullah Gül has moved up from the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, and we have heard him adopting a more diplomatic line; Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's line is understandably political.

Neither line is objective.
Let it be known that the writer of this column is happy that the US president is coming to Turkey. I would have loved to see him come to Turkey even before he went to Canada as his first trip abroad. But I have a feeling that what makes this visit exciting is not the contrast between what Turkey did previously and the fact that the US president is still willing to come; it is more about the contrast between what the Americans are planning, or are feeling obliged to do after the visit and the fact that they wanted to pay this visit as a pre-emptive gesture in order to prevent the destruction of a probable Armenian genocide resolution may have on mutual relations.

Obama's visit will overlap with the Second Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations that will be held on April 6-7 in Istanbul. Spanish diplomats claim that Obama is actually coming to the forum. However, the United States is still not a member of the Group of Friends of the Alliance and it probably won't ever be as the Euro-centrism of the alliance is well-known and its reports about world peace have been loaded with implicit criticism of Israeli policies.

A better explanation for Obama's visit is the Armenian genocide resolution that will come to the US Congress. The US president is a prisoner of what he promised during his election campaign: legislative acknowledgment of the genocide claims. Capitol Hill knows very well how Turkey will retaliate. Let me just speculate: If the government does not close down İncirlik Airbase, the people will do so. That is not what I would like to see, but that is what a careless US administration will see. Turks won't let the Americans label our forefathers as "genocide perpetrators" without any historical insight and then continue to fly over this land.

Neither the Turkish government nor the Americans want that to happen. So the American president is coming to Ankara to make a pre-emptive gesture to Turkey in order to prevent the destructive effect of an Armenian genocide resolution that will most probably pass both the Congress and the Senate. The content of this gesture is open to speculation, and I am sure the Americans are still working on a better package rather than just guaranteeing the resolution won't be reflected in the administration's foreign policy decisions in any way whatsoever.

The Turkish government, on the other hand, is working on a "repelling pre-emptive" gesture: a further rapprochement package with Armenia that will include not only opening the borders between Turkey and Armenia, but also a future "road map" for the solution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial disputes. Foreign policy observers have been speculating that Turkey and Armenia would disclose the details of a deal during the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) meeting on April 16. Originally set for April 29, the meeting was moved to April 16, the observers claim, just to pre-empt the April 24 events and the resolution in the US Congress. Obama's visit may further push the agenda, and we may have a warm Turkish-Armenian spring before the Golden Age of Turkish-American relations.

If the US president is coming to Ankara in order to apologize for a yet to be made mistake, he will most probably be received by a surprise rapprochement bouquet that no genocide resolution can ever bring about. 24 March 2009 zaman

---

Syrian Armenians' Last Chance To File Claims For Their Properties In Turkey Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier
In a column I wrote last year, I alerted Armenians in Syria, Egypt and Iraq that they had a unique opportunity to receive compensation for their properties in Turkey.

All four governments, after protracted negotiations stretching over several decades, are finally close to resolving their conflicting land claims arising from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Republic of Turkey had confiscated tens of thousands of properties owned by citizens of the three Arab countries and vice versa.

During a meeting on May 12, 2008, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan signed an agreement which is expected to be implemented shortly.

Turkey claims that in 1956 the Syrian government confiscated a large number of lands belonging to Turkish citizens. In a reciprocal move, Ankara confiscated in 1966 properties owned by Syrian nationals. After lengthy negotiations, Turkey and Syria signed a protocol in 1972 and created a joint commission to investigate these claims, including the properties Syrian Armenians left behind in the Sanjak of Alexandretta (Hatay), after its annexation by Turkey in 1938.

The Turkish government transferred the title of the confiscated Syrian-owned properties to the National Real Estate General Directorate. The total estimated value of real estate owned by Turks and Syrians in each other's countries, including rental income since 1966, is more than $40 billion, according to an article by Ercan Yavuz in the March 3, 2009 issue of Today's Zaman. The Real Estate Directorate has been renting these Syrian properties to Turkish farmers and businesses. The Central Bank of Turkey is holding the rental income in a special account under the name of "the rightful owners." The agreement signed by Syria and Turkey stipulates that by 2010 the Central Bank will return these accumulated funds to the original property owners, according to Yavuz. The Turkish National Real Estate General Directorate's figures indicate that Syrians own 15,067 properties in Turkey, corresponding to 135,000 hectares (334,000 acres or 135 million square meters). On the other hand, Turks reportedly own 2.3 million square meters of property in Syria. "The monetary value of Syrian property in Turkey is estimated to be $10 billion, while the estimated value of Turkish property in Syrian territory is $40 billion," Yavuz reported. In an interesting sideline, Turkish citizen Mustafa Muzaffer Salih, whose father was a major landowner in Syria, told Yavuz: "Syrians own more than 200 stores in Istanbul's Grand Bazaar=80¦. Some of these properties were given to relatives of ministers in the parties that were in the coalition governments of the first and second National Front governments." To set things right, Salih advocates that "The shame of the past should be cleansed."

Turkey, Egypt and Iraq have had a similar quarrel. In 1982, Turkish officials signed an agreement with Egypt to settle their land dispute. In 1985, Turkey and Iraq agreed to allow property owners in their respective countries five years to file a claim. The due date was subsequently extended twice. Turkey claimed that its citizens own in Iraq about 160,000 acres of land, 150 buildings, 11 charitable foundations, more than 2 million Iraqi dinars and 8,000 pounds sterling. On the other hand, Iraq claims that its citizens own 48 buildingsand 11 plots of land in Turkey. The American invasion of Iraq interrupted the settlement of these claims.

Armenian organizations in Syria, Iraq and Egypt should urge Armenians citizens of these countries, including those who have migrated overseas, tosubmit to them copies of trust deeds or other documentary evidence of properties they owned in Turkey. The organizations should then provide the list of these properties to their respective governments, demanding that Turkey pay an appropriate compensation to the heirs of the original owners.

As I mentioned in my earlier column, the main advantage of this approach is that Armenians do not need to hire lawyers and go to court, as officials ofthe three Arab countries, on behalf of their citizens, are negotiating directly with their Turkish counterparts to settle all such reciprocal claims. This is a unique opportunity for Armenians in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to take advantage of without delay. Once the settlement is finalized, it would be too late for Armenians to make any further claims from the Turkish government regarding their properties.

Just to set the record straight, receiving compensation for such personal properties does not invalidate the Armenian people's legitimate claims to Western Armenia which remains under Turkish occupation.

---

When Armenia Is Not A Component In The Armenian And Turkish Relations James Hakobyan, Lragir.am 20/03/2009
Barac Obama is not the first U.S. president candidate who promised to recognize the Armenian genocide during his electoral campaign. In other words, if he does not fulfil his promise, it can hardly be a tragedy for the U.S. Except the Armenian community in the U.S. no on else will note that Obama went back to his promise. But, considering that Obama is a decent person, he will try to reason why he cannot fulfil his promise on the Armenian genocide recognition now. And the reason may be the Armenian and Turkish relations, which acquired a new external shade after the "football diplomacy". Within the framework of this diplomacy, conversations on the opening of the Armenian and Turkish border began to circulate very often. It is not ruled out, that Turkey will bind a red ribbon on the Armenian and Turkish border and cut it on the eve of the April 24 at the opening ceremony of the Armenian and Turkish relations. Evidently, Barac Obama is not the person who will ruin the Armenian and Turkish relations. It is above all doubts that he may prefer harming his reputation by going back on his promise rather than ruining the Armenian and Turkish cordiality.

To this extent, it is probably senseless to except that on April 24 Obama will pronounce the word "genocide" and also that the U.S. administration will not obstacle the Congress to adopt the resolution on the Armenian genocide. What is that theatrical spectacle needed for which is being played on these days through the conversations on the opening of the border and through the resolution introduced on the Congress Agenda? This show is performed in connection with the visit of Barac Obama to Turkey in the beginning of April. Turkey will try to manoeuvre with the help of the conversations circulated about the opening of the Armenian and Turkish border, and the U.S. will try to make some demands to Turkey with the help of the resolution introduced before the Congress. In other words, Turkey and the U.S. are balancing each other before Obama's upcoming visit to Turkey. But this does not mean that the visit is the end; in other words, if nothing valuable is reached during the meeting the U.S.

will certainly recognize the genocide. Everything is continuous and natural, and Turkey will go on the exploitation of the Armenian and Turkish relations in its sake and the resolution will assume the role of an instrument against Turkey for the U.S.

This entire is so simple that even a person who is not aware of anything seems to be able to understand everything. Moreover, the simpleness is so evident that one begins to doubt whether questions of this scale maybe so simple. No doubt, there are other components in the 0ATurkish and American relations, besides the Armenian and Turkish relations and the question on the Armenian genocide. And these components may wield influence on the significance of the Armenian and Turkish relations and the genocide issue.

But, the question is that Armenia does not seem to have any role in all of this. In other words, for instance, the Armenian and Turkish relation is a component, but Armenia is not. At first sight it seems a paradox, but everything is very logic. The point is that the process called Armenian and Turkish ties, even if at some point was under Armenia now Armenia does not have any other role besides meeting with the Turkish officials. Armenia succeeded in one thing: Turkey does not demand trilateral meetings with the participation of Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is clear that this format would be just unacceptable for the Armenian government because the threat to the Armenian security is too evident in this case. Although this format creates additional work for the Turkish party, after each meeting with the Armenian side it has to meet with the Azerbaijani side too, nevertheless Turkey made that step, because in the opposite case it may lose every chances to meet the Armenian authorities, while Turkey needs them just for its links with the U.S., let alone its relations with the EU and Russia.

In this state of things, it seems that the main worry of Armenian should be the elevation if its position and, for example, the Genocide recognition issue should be viewed in this context. Will the recognition increase the Armenian role both in connection with its relation with Turkey and in general with the regional matters? But, perhaps, the problem is that Armenia, especially during the last months, has embraced too many enterprises which in fact do not have anything in common with the Armenian State interest and has done this for hiding its failures in the home policy, and afterwards, Armenia lost both its capacity to decide its own role and the capacity of thinking about it.

---

---

---

---

Prominent German historian Hilmar Kaiser Challenges Politically Motivated 1915 Arguments
The general tendency to debate the events of 1915 -- the killings of Anatolian Armenians during World War I -- by employing politically motivated theories on the nature of these events stands as a barrier between the peoples of Armenia and Turkey, preventing them from adequately airing their deep, almost century-old grievances.

Prominent German historian Hilmar Kaiser is presently in Ankara carrying out research in the Turkish archives. In an interview with Sunday's Zaman this week, Kaiser says the field of history "is flooded with political advocates who are less historians than opinion-formers," drawing a picture full of gray areas, showing there is still ample room for research on the 1915 events.

In the 1990s, Kaiser was working exclusively in İstanbul and that period, he was only granted access to the Ottoman archives, which were under special regulations, and had been declined permission to carry out his research in any other library or archive by the then-Tansu Çiller government. Today, however, Kaiser believes that there aren’t any issues as far as access to the state archives is concerned.

“Two weeks ago, I was in Washington, D.C., presenting my research and photos at an Armenian Assembly [of America] conference, and I suggested that if they are looking for a good director for their archives and genocide museum, they might consider hiring Yusuf Sarınay, the head of the Turkish state archives, or Mustafa Budak, the head of the Ottoman archives. These are two highly qualified people with vision, determination and commitment. Some people were surprised, but I was very serious about it,” says Kaiser.

“Yes, there are still problems, but having said this, I should immediately add there are problems everywhere. The important thing is there is a process in place to overcome these problems. It’s a huge administration, and encountering problems is part of the daily work. I can only say that, as far as I’m concerned, and I know the same for many, many researchers -- both Turkish or foreigner -- that they have had exactly the same experiences. If there is a problem, it’s immediately addressed and resolved. That’s all you can ask for. Turkey has gained a lot of credit with its new archive policy, and it will gain more credit if the present government would support the archives more strongly with additional funding,” he notes.

Historical research and reassessments
Kaiser is critical of colleagues who prefer doing their work without researching the context of original documents and thus making “reassessments” of certain theses -- one of which is that the İttihat ve Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) had a racist motivation, acted premeditatedly and had developed a systematic extermination policy during the 1915 events.

“One should stop thinking of the [Committee of Union and Progress] CUP as a kind of monolithic party. Research on the Armenians in WWI has tended to try to create the impression of a Turkey that was like a small version of Nazi Germany, with a single party and with a poor man’s SS named Teşkilat’ı Mahsusa. I think this is totally wrong; one has to study the Turkish-Armenian case on its own. Yes, there were some people within the CUP inspired by European positivists, who were partly racist, but thinking that this was not the general party line. That racism was not the driving motive behind the Armenian policy is quite clear because if you compare it to the German racism, you cannot explain the survival of tens of thousands of Armenian women and children in Muslim houses, even in the government orphanages. This would have been completely impossible if the government had been inspired by the German type of racism,” says Kaiser.

“People like to compare Young Turk-Turkey to Nazi Germany, but it is not a comparison; they equate it. A comparison should also stress the fundamental differences,” he continued. “Racism as well as Muslim fundamentalism were not driving forces. Some allege that Islam was very conducive to large-scale massacres of Armenians. It’s totally illogical. If Islam is very conducive to large-scale massacres of Armenians, why were they here for 600 years? Second, why did the survivors survive in Muslim societies in the Middle East?”

‘Ridiculous’ mega explanations
There is a major argument over demographic planning, suggesting that it was planned by the Committee of Union and Progress and culminated in the Armenian relocation.

Kaiser stresses demographic planning is as old as the Ottoman Empire, starting in the 14th century.

“There has always been demographic planning -- before and after 1915. One has to establish a direct link between the policy against Armenians and demographic planning, more specifically that the demographic planning was a motive behind the policy. I’m very skeptical about this. Demographic planning played a role, but let’s be realistic: When you have tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and from the Russian border areas camping in the open and you start deporting Armenians, and you have access to empty houses, what do you do with it? Of course, you use it. To make the claim that this was the driving force behind the deportations is, in my view, wrong because it cannot explain the timing of the deportations. This demographic argument is in a way a substitute for a blueprint,” he asserts.

“People who believe there was more some kind of long-term planning, like since 1909 or 1912, have had a problem in showing a concrete link between what happened in 1915 and these alleged earlier plans. So we are faced now with a lot of substitutes after the earlier arguments had been dismantled. Yes, demographic planning is very important, but is not the driving motive. Not in my research; I haven’t found any convincing proof -- on the contrary, the evidence points in different directions.”

Kaiser also is opposed to those who depict the Committee of Union and Progress and the Ottoman army as homogeneous bodies.

“Yes, the CUP was a nationalist group, but it also included very religious groups. These people cannot be united. They obviously put on a straight face in public, like some politicians do today. And even if you’re a Turkish nationalist, that doesn’t make you a killer. There were people who were famous Turkish nationalists like Halide Edip; she advocated assimilation of Armenians, but she very strongly opposed any kind of murder. On the other hand, this opposition against it was not just limited to nationalists; it also included anti-CUP opposition, for example, from the Liberal Party. Believe it or not, this opposition that concentrated on Cemal Pasha in the area of the Fourth Army cooperated -- there is proof for this -- with the Armenian underground against Talat,” he explains.

“Let me say something more radical: The one person who saved most Armenians in World War I was nobody other than Cemal Pasha. That this hasn’t been discussed so far is just due to the fact that we have a couple of political problems with the whole thing, and our field is really flooded with political advocates who are less historians than they are opinion-formers. We have reports from German navy officers who were on the staff of Pasha because he was also minister of the navy. Sometimes when he saw abuse of Armenian deportees, he just let the official be hung on the spot, he didn’t even wait for it. There are many, many Armenian sources about this as well, like memoirs. On the other hand, one should not be too romantic about it.”

And cheap political arguments
Kaiser also has crucial notes suggesting that the Turkish Republic was built by killers, and the alleged “Armenian genocide” was the founding act.

“Then you can also find other founding acts like the defeat in the Balkan Wars. I mean this is nonsense. You have to establish a direct link. The Armenian population base was destroyed, and look around Turkey today: It’s obvious, and this had a strong impact, but the republic wasn’t founded on this. This is very important; it was a part of the environment that the republic was founded in, and as far as I can see, I haven’t found anything from contemporary sources that would suggest that Mustafa Kemal was involved in the killings. The only thing I found is that he was very much opposed to it, very outspoken at the time. But that later his opinions about Armenians changed has something to do with the war in the Trans-Caucasus and then the Soviet-Turkish problems. But what we were told about what happened in 1915, 1916 does not lend itself to any kind of interpretation that Kemal followed any policy that was not dignified for a Turkish officer.

“Coming to the army -- the Fourth Army, they have resisted. We do have a problem with the military; this is the Third Army because it is there where the big killing took place. The problem with the Third Army is that you have a kind of ‘çorba’ [soup in Turkish] among political officers who owed their quick advancement to positions of prominence to their party connections, or their dependency on Enver Paşa. These people were not very much liked by the standard career officers who had earned their position on merit.

“Secondly, you have all sort of elements of the so-called Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa, the special organization operator, and I remind you I was able to identify some of these units who were killing Armenian villagers before even Sarıkamış. So there you have elements and players that had been already active under Abdulhamid. They were just continuing that trade under a different name.

“We need precision in research and these mega explanations -- the army, the Turks, the Muslims -- this is simply ridiculous, and this is only useful if you want to make a cheap political argument, which I don’t.”
22 March 2009, EMİNE KART Zaman

---

Campaign Vow to Call Armenians' Deaths 'Genocide' to Be Tested, by Glenn Kessler; Washington Post March 20, 2009
For years, President Obama has not minced words about labeling as "genocide" the deaths of Armenians more than 90 years ago during the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Nor have Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden.

All three regularly signed letters to President George W. Bush demanding that he recognize "the mass slaughter of Armenians as genocide" and saying that such an act "would constitute a proud, irrefutable and groundbreaking chapter in U.S. diplomatic history." During last year's presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly insisted that, as president, he would "recognize the Armenian genocide."

"An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy," Obama said in a statement dated Jan. 19, 2008.

Obama's pledge may have been smart politics: His campaign rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), infuriated Armenian Americans when he said it was unfair to blame present-day Turkey for the deaths. But now that Obama is president, his pledge has put him in a diplomatically difficult position. The question of calling the deaths a genocide has returned just as Obama is preparing for a visit next month to Turkey, which firmly rejects such a label.

"There is no substitute for speaking plainly when you are talking about mass murder," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who introduced this week a resolution calling on the president to publicly recognize a genocide and whose district contains the largest concentration of Armenian Americans in the country. "I hope he will use the opportunity to prepare Turkey for U.S. recognition and to encourage Turkey to have an open examination of its past."

The Armenia resolution is but one example of how a candidate's narrowly tailored and effective foreign policy appeals can become problematic once he is in office.

Clinton, for instance, has come under fire from some conservative Jewish groups for criticizing Israeli plans to demolish homes in East Jerusalem -- which Palestinians want to make the capital of a future Palestinian state -- during her recent trip to Israel.

"She used to be very strong on a united Jerusalem, and now that's out the window," said Morton A. Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, citing a September 2007 position paper from Clinton's campaign. "I am beginning to wonder if she just said what she needed for the Jewish vote."

Administration officials argue that Obama has made huge strides in fulfilling many of his campaign promises on foreign policy. They point to his moving to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; ordering the withdrawal of troops from Iraq; appointing a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian peace; and reaching out to Syria, Russia and other countries on bad terms with the Bush administration.

But officials also acknowledge that Obama's pledge on Armenian genocide poses a tricky diplomatic balancing act.

"Our focus is on how, moving forward, the U.S. can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past," said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer. "It is important that countries have an open and honest dialogue about the past. At the same time, we want to work closely with both Turkey and Armenia on the key issues that confront the region."

Few people deny that massacres killed hundreds of thousands of Armenian men, women and children during and immediately after World War I. But Turkish officials and some historians say that the deaths resulted from forced relocations and widespread fighting when the 600-year-old Ottoman Empire collapsed, not from a campaign of genocide -- and that hundreds of thousands of Turks also died in the same region during that time.

U.S.-Turkish relations are on an upswing after a dismal period immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Turkey, a NATO member, also plays an increasingly important role in the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans.

Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan, said he stressed that point in meetings this week with senior administration officials. He also made the case that Turkish-Armenian relations are improving in the wake of Erdogan's recent visit to Armenia, and that any U.S. resolution on genocide would only set back that progress.

"There is a process, and everyone should strengthen this process and not try to weaken it," Davutoglu said in an interview. "We hope that the discussions on the Armenian issue do not affect this process in a negative sense."

Davutoglu sidestepped a question of what would happen if Obama raised the Armenian issue before or during his trip to Turkey. "His visit will be a historic visit in terms of U.S.-Turkish relations," he said. "We think the success of this visit is essential."

But the administration's outreach to Turkey must be balanced against the high hopes that Obama inspired among Armenian Americans. For decades, they feel they have been disappointed by presidents on the genocide debate. Only President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, referred to "the genocide of the Armenians."

Among other things, the proposed House resolution calls on the president to use his annual message to "accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide." Obama repeatedly has said he would embrace that language.

"This is the change he promised, and this is the change we expect," said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

---

Foreign Desk at New York Times: Maintaining Balance in Turbulent Times by Aydogan Vatandas , Journal of Turkish Weekly March 21 2009
Greg Fabian Winter is a Foreign Desk Editor at the New York Times, responsible for Latin America and Africa coverage. He previously worked as a reporter, covering education and business. In the following interview, Winter discussess the challenges of providing foreign news coverage in these pressing times, when newspapers are cutting back budgets and the internet is replacing traditional mainstream media. A staunch believer in the power of truth telling, Fabian says The Times will continue to stick to its mission of delivering global news, at a time when the public may prefer celebrity gossip soundbites.

Winter takes us through the inside process of deciding the daily news and shares his insights on reporting such events as the Israel-Palestenian conflict.

How long have you been working as a journalist and how and when did you decide to be a journalist?

I actually have an untraditional, unorthodox path into journalism. I worked as a homeless advocate and public policy director in San Francisco after collage for a number of years building houses for homeless families and trying to develop a coordinated strategy for the city of San Francisco in terms of dealing with issues of poverty, substance abuse, homelessness, welfare things of that nature and I decided that I was tired of smashing my head against a very very solid brick wall. It was not moving at all. So I am very interested in writing and obviously interested in social issues so I transitioned to journalism about 10 years ago and what I did not expect actually is how much you can actually change things and move the ball within journalism. I was not always working as a foreign editor, I was a writer for five years of The Times and I wrote about education, business and national news. You know one story can spark legislation in congress and really change the major issues. It teaches you to be very careful about what you say and teaches you to be very, very attentive to details, what you write because people really watch them.

How many correspondents do you have all over the world right now?

Right now probably in the order of 40 correspondents working around the world in various bureaus and then those correspondents work also with a number of stringers, so for example, any given country (for example my area that I supervise is Latin America, Africa and UN) but we all have to dabble pretty much in everything because they are not enough of us in terms of editors. And one of my correspondents, for example, is based in Nairobi and he covers all of East Africa. It is impossible for one person to be in upwards of 20 countries at any given time, so he has a network of journalists that he works with who we pay locally in places like Somali, Uganda, Ruwanda, Congo- all over the place who can feed him information when things are developing so that he can know what is occurring around the region.

Do you think the quality for the coverage has been impacted by the recent cutbacks in the news industry?

Generally, around the country with regard to American media there has been major closure of bureaus around the world. For example just look at Iraq, if you are talking about the time of invasion you probably have upwards of 100 organizations that have permanent presence or some kind of continuing presence in Iraq. Now you have about five news agencies in the US that have a permanent presences in Iraq. The Times, like any news paper, has had major financial constrains, everybody probably read about, it has not yet impacted foreign coverage. There has been a very concerted effort on the part of the paper to maintain foreign bureaus not cut them back sometimes we trade one bureau for another. So for example we closed one in Jakarta but we are going to open additional slots in India for example. We may do some of that trading but we haven't reduced the number of over all correspondents. I hope that doesn't change. It is still very very expensive to cover foreign news. Our bureau in Bagdad for example costs more than three million dollars a year. It costs a hundred Iraqi journalists, as well as security guards, as well as translators who we hire, so these things are extremely expensive to maintain that is why there is a lot of pressure on Wall Street to especially for public companies to reduce your spending on news gathering. Locally at the Times we have a strange stock situation where the publisher, the family actually owns the controlling stock so while Wall Street always is calling on us to severely cut the newsroom the family resists. So I hope that maintains a balance quite a while.

When you send correspondents throughout the world how important is it that they speak the local language and have some in depth knowledge of the region they are covering?

It depends. Obviously it is always important as far as language training it depends on where they are going. If they are going to China for example we typically put the correspondent in a year language training before they go. Some people who are going to China have been experts in China for a long time they speak Chinese before they sign up for the post. Some people are neutral it is usually a mix. If you are going to Paris there are people who speak French already. We don't have to put them into language training probably just insist person who knows French before hiring. So it depends on where you are going. But generally there is always primacy on the correspondent speaking a language but that doesn't mean that they won't rely on translators as well. Often times a correspondent will learn to be able to conduct all of their interviews in the local language within a relatively short time being there. Let's say, after the first year and then they have a few more years where they can pretty much go on their own.

How do you go about covering a story like Israel-Palestine situation for example? And how do you maintain balance in covering something that is this sensitive?

Well, in truth nobody is happy with the coverage of the Middle East, you know nobody is happy. And sometimes that is a major sign that you are doing a good job because you are heading extremely angry responses from readers who are favoring the Palestinians and from readers who favor Israelis. Amazingly there is a balance in terms of angry response of them. And they are extremely vociferous. Personally I would hate to be the Jerusalem bureau chief. That is a very tough job. The strategy for covering something like Gaza is multiple, manifold. First of all, you have problem of not getting into Gaza yourself. So that is a very difficult problem luckily the Times has a correspondent who is Palestinian and who lives in Gaza. We had somebody there from day one. In fact, the moment the air strikes started, people were fleeing away from the buildings , she ran toward them. She has been there for a long time. She covered the Second Intifada, she covered the battle between Hamas and Fatah, so she started going straight toward the missiles, straight toward the hospital and she was there throughout the entire time and she wrote a number of front page stories from there. Now, she was very endangered by her coverage. First of all, she lived in Gaza she lived in an apartment building.

She lived near various important sites that were constantly being bombed. She had a very difficult time of sleeping at night. She slept with the windows open since the bombs could shatter the glass. She slept under a table because of air strikes. In a situation like that I may know my neighbors a little bit but I don't know who lives in the apartment down the way. I don't know if that person is wanted by Israel or suspected by Israel to be some kind of a militant. I don't know the family next door, maybe they are nice but I don't know what is the status of their son.

There is constant fear when she is reporting and she is going around to the various areas alone. She could not obviously do it alone. Later as the conflict started to wane we were actually able to also get Sabrina Tavernise who is the Istanbul bureau chief. She was able to come and she was a very experienced war correspondent she covered the Hezbollah War, she was in Iraq for a long time so she is very good in those situations but in addition to that we had two of our Jerusalem correspondents who were writing every day. We also had our Paris correspondent who used to be the Jerusalem bureau chief, he was going to the border of Gaza through Rafah after Egypt. Now how do you make sure that everything is fair? Now, first of all, any journalist has to apply the measures of fair journalism. You know, this really angers a lot of readers. Because Israel would say things and reporters would report it. Reporters might offer evidence or an assertion. Let's take a specific example, the shelling of the UN school, outside of the UN school, innocent people were killed. Israel says fire was coming outside of the school, they were responding to the warfire and other types of militants there. So the story will include the assertion by Israel. The story will also include the assertion by the UN, saying `look, that is not true, we had no knowledge of any activity in the area. We have no reason to believe there are any militants there'. The story also found somebody who was in the area;'yes, I think, there was somebody who is known to be militant, but he was several hundred yards away¦'

These are all things that you do as a journalist. You try to report what each side says as well as you try find whatever independent confirmation you can. But all three of those things angers the readers depending upon where you are coming from. You will hear one side that says the U.N. especially INRA!(the organization working in Gaza) has historically had a bias so anything they say will be against Israel. You cannot possibly include anything they said. The problem you have as a journalist is that by doing your job you will be open to very vociferous criticism on both sides. The only thing you can really do is to try to be consistent in what you do. You do a story about Palestinians mourning the deaths of many civilians in Gaza. We did several of those and you make sure that at some point you are also doing a story about Israelis' mourning deaths, when they occur as well. The question then becomes should you do more stories on the Palestinians' dying than you do on Israelis' dying. Of course you end up doing it that way because news drives in that way but many pro-Palestinian readers would say `Why would you even include any stories on Israelis' dying when they were such a small proportion of those who die'. It is a very difficult balance in the end. It includes not only the articles that you write because each day you might have four or five articles on the conflict itself so you try to include the right mix each day as well as the right mix of pictures as well as the right mix of headlines but whatever you do you are going to be criticized very angrily. That is fine, that is part of democracy. I am not saying that you should not be criticized.

What kinds of measures do you take to guarantee the safety of your correspondents in these kinds of conflict regions?

Well, we give them flak jackets and helmets and body armor in Iraq, Bagdad we provide them armored cars secured with body guards.

Do they have bodyguards?

Yes, sure. Lots of bodyguards it used to be that you could go into Gaza when things were getting very heavy they sometimes would go around with a team of bodyguards. In some places you can't operate without that. Three million dollars spent, a lot of it is security. It is over hundred people strong, the Iraqi staff and about a quarter of Iraqi journalists and translators but there are a lot of body guards, drivers, translators, security consultants. Ultimately however, if you are in a war, if you are going to a country like Zimbabwe, where may reporters often go, there is always so much you can do. I have many reporters arrested and held, sometimes by the government sometimes by separate agents who have a political ax to grind. We had reporters held by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the end, it is the choice of the reporter whether they want to go. We do not force a reporter to go into that type of situation in which their life is going to be in danger. That is their choice. It turns out that most reporters who are foreign correspondents are motivated by an intense interest and desire to get the story. So we often times have to hold them back. I say maybe this is not the best time to go into Zimbabwe, given they have arrested reporters. Have you considered the security measures that you have to take? But it is very difficult to be the boss of somebody who is deciding to go risk their life. And people do get killed, we actually had two Iraqi correspondents killed in the past seven years. Sometimes just working for a news agency makes you a target. We had one person just recently killed in the past year in Bagdad who was clearly assassinated and the only reason is he worked for The New York Times.

Can you please give some details about the process of putting a story in the paper? For example how do you decide which foreign photos land on the front page?

We actually don't decide which foreign photos land on the front page. Front page is its own entity, if you will. The front page web site is a separate entity. But I will talk about the paper. There are obviously multiple sections in The New York Times. There is foreign news which is obviously a very critical one. There is business and these days business is very important, obviously. There is national news, there is metro. There is sports. There is culture. There is dining. There are a million different sections. Some of them are never going to be in the front page. But everyday all of main news sections go to a meeting twice a day with the top editors of the paper, including the executive editor, the managing editors and the people who decide hear pitches from us, just like our reporters pitch stories to us and say I want to do this and we say that sounds good or I don't know I would skip that focus and on something else. The heads of each of these news sections go to the front page and say `yesterday we had multiple foreign stories that we think you should consider' we had the story about an investigation. There was a story about Hamad Karzais brother, the entrepreneur. There were further stories about the attacks on the cricket team in Pakistan. There was the international criminal court issue for President Basir of Sudan. These are a number of stories and these are foreign stories. So the front page editors have to decide which of all those they are going to put on front page. We don't control that, we try to influence its best we can. But in the end the decision is not ours. The same thing is for the photo. Photo editors go and show the pictures. Sometimes it is a compromise. For example in today's paper you notice that the picture of president of Sudan is on the front page but the article is inside the paper. You get half what you are looking for. So we don't really control the front page. As far as the inside foreign section, however, we can have more control over that there is a separate picture editor but she will show us in the course of the day the kinds of pictures that she is looking at various stories. If we have a problem with one of the pictures because it does not match the story then we would say so. That becomes particularly important in issues like you are saying covering the Gaza war because we have a ton of pictures of dead Palestinians which we did and ran everyday. Then we might also say ok well in the next day let's make sure we have a picture of funeral in Israel from a rocket attack. Again, it is a judgment- there is no science to it. It is all a judgment call.

So we can say that The New York Times isn't just influential in the U.S. but all over the world. When The New York Times gives a certain story attention, the world will pay attention.

We would like to think so but I don't know¦

I am curious if American readers are really interested in what is happening in Sudan?

A lot of the stories that we put on the front page are not things that American readers necessarily are interested in. And we are aware of that.

What is the reason?

Because the people don't necessarily want to take their medicine either but you have to give it to them just because Americans might be more interested in Britney Spears than in Omar Bashir. That does not mean we are going to change our approach to covering, what we think are the most important stories of the day. If you would govern by that then we would be a very different news paper. There is some attention to try to get what we might call a light story on the front page. Obviously the front page is dominated by bad news most days, most a lot of are news is dominated by bad news. So the front page is conscious of trying to get some kind of light feature, sometimes on the front page something that maybe a little bit more entertaining than just sad but that only sort of reinforces the notion that their primary job is to designate what we think that the most important stories of the day the most important occurrences and to signal that to the readers.

Can we say that NYT is an `agenda setter' of the world?

It depends. I think that honestly the hegemony of the mainstream press has definitely lessened in recent years. My own personal theory (this is not the theory of NYT) is that while the proliferation of news outlets on the internet has been beneficial in many ways, it actually detracts from people's understanding of what is going on the world. There was a time period in which you had a great powerful mainstream press and as a result you had a greater common understanding and focus of whats going on in the world. Now I am not saying that the picture of the world was always accurate or always perfect, but you did have a greater solidification or common set of understanding in principles of what was happening in the world. Currently what you have is if you are a believer of a right wing agenda or if you have right wing sympathies you have no reason to pay attention to what is necessarily in the mainstream press. You can go straightly to FOX news. And your view of the world will be entirely shaped according to your personal political preferences. So the same goes on the left you could read a blog or you could read a particular outlet that is suited to your own ideological preferences. As a result, the two readers that we are talking about have wildly different conceptions on what is going on in the world, what is actually happening people are operating not only from a different political perspective but from a wildly different set of facts. And I don't actually think that that is necessarily a great service to public debate. You have a very scattered conception on what is actually happening in this country and in this world. And it does not necessarily serve political discourse because people end up being unable to talk to each other about the same issue.

Do you sometimes question the reliability of the stories sent to you from your correspondents and what kind of measures do you have for the accuracy of the stories?

You have to challenge if any time a correspondent is making an assertion in a story. First of all, if they are making an assertion in the story as a matter of a fact, as an assertion of fact. lf it is not understood to be a mutually accepted fact it needs to have attribution it needs to have a source. You have to say `where did you get that fact, is it coming from this particular government or agency? That is just basic journalism, it has to have attribution. If you feel like the reporter is making an assertion, for example, of a trend that is occurring or some other assertion that is not merely a fact, but an assessment. There are issues of fact and then there is `how did you bring these facts together' to say what is the story that were actually telling provides some analysis on what is going on. If the person is making an analysis you don't think that substantiated by the fact. Then that is your job as an editor to make sure that any assertion or analysis is going to be substantiated by fact. That should be spelled out in the story more or less. Not every single attribution is going to be listed in the story because there is somethings we may have reported multiple times that we may know already to be fact. But for the most part everything should be well substantiated. As far as the agendas, is your question also is somebody is pushing a particular personal agenda? I think that most of the reporters you know over time and you know sort of what they think about `x' and `y', so you are able to police them. You are able to say `ok, I know you don't like this person very much' because you think that he is bad guy. But really you don't need to call them a dictator; you can call them an authoritarian president. I think everybody would agree. So there are some ways of policing people over time just because they are human beings they have natural preferences. For the most part I don't really feel like there are strong agendas on the part of the correspondents. Correspondent never let their personal biases getting in the way of a good story. For example, my own personal background is, I was an education writer for a long time as well as a business writer. I am personally in favor of affirmative action. In terms of an educational policy I probably should not be saying that but I am saying `I believe that affirmative action has been an important tool to rectify educational discrimination over the years'. But as an educational writer I certainly had to write stories in which new social science findings came out saying that affirmative action did not work for one reason or another or there is a new research study coming out debunking the affirmative action for this or another. So as a journalist you don't let your personal feelings get in the way of a story. That is why you are there you are there to be deliverer the information and to provide an analysis, so the correspondents. They are seasoned journalists. They are not there because they are pushing an agenda.

I remember the story of your Istanbul bureau chief about the Gulen Schools. She is based in Istanbul and wrote about the schools in Pakistan. So how did the Pakistan reporter contribute? How did they cooperate?

This was a story about how the Turkish schools movement was actually quite moderate even though in Turkey it was a big controversial issue. But when you look at these schools they are actually quite moderate and they are nothing like necessarily the more religious schools, hard line schools you might find in much of Pakistan. First of all she is writing about a line of schools which are relevant in Turkey. And have been an issue in Turkey. When you are a correspondent you can travel all over the world. You don't have to just stay in your area. While she is reporting the story in the course of her reporting leads her to Pakistan to illustrate a point about Turkey then it is just simple. First of all it is logical to do that. Secondly, she can tell the correspondents in Pakistan do you mind if I come and work on this topic as it relates to Turkey?

How would you characterize the importance of foreign news to NYT and its impact on the readers in the US and do you think American readers care enough about the issues out of the borders. Because sometimes it is said that before September 11 American people were not necessarily interested in foreign news, do you think that was true and if so, do you think September 11 has changed that?

I think that there was probably a lot more interest in foreign news immediately after September 11 than we could expect to be sustained certainly they are not interested in Iraq any longer certainly people probably their eyes glaze over when they hear the words Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan you know what I mean. I think there is substantial numbers of American readers who are very interested in foreign news. Certainly the paper believes that it would not continue to spend so much money on foreign news coverage at a time when everybody is telling to cut back and spend less money. But as far as the Times is concerned they consider the foreign news one of the essential elements of its trade mark. If you are interested in foreign news you come to the NYT, you don't go to USA Today. That is not only part of its identity but also its marketing strategy. I would say that it will continue for a long time as long as the paper stays in business, hopefully that is a long time.

It is very amazing that the news about Turkey takes place in the Europe section in NYT in the web site.

I think there is a strange quandary about Turkey in terms of how it is categorized. Geographically it is categorized in Europe or Asia or Middle East. I think that we generally categorize it in terms of technicality as Europe. I don't know how that decision was made.

Where do you think Turkey is?

I guess if there was a quasi category that you could say spanning the bridge of the continents. But personally I think it is not terrible to list it as part of the Europe. But I am sure there is a plenty of room for debate over that.

Do you think that one day Turkey will be a member of EU?

It is hard to tell. It depends as much on the EU and what happens in the EU and anything that Turkey does. It seems like obviously the thrust for the EU in recent years to add the Eastern European members. The war in Georgia seemed like it will slow that process. The financial crisis exposed a lot of tensions within the EU even the referendum on the EU constitution did not exposed. So I actually don't know.

Do you think that the image of Turkey changed in the US when the Turkish Parliament did not allow the American troops to use their territory to invade Iraq.

I don't know if people were paying a close attention honestly. I don't know what the American image of Turkey is right now. I know, we have read about Turkey and I think Turkey is in a very interesting moment politically, culturally with the tension between political power of religious groups and traditional seculars. I think it is a very fascinating time for Turkey. I would guess that most Americans have not paid attention to that.

Do you think that during Obama's presidency the foreign policy for Turkey would change, considering the Armenian issue or Cyprus ?

I would be surprised if the Armenian issue changes under the presidency of Obama. I don't think Turkey is its highest priority at this time. He clearly made Afghanistan is his primary priority.

Why is that?

First of all he is responding to intense pressure from generals there and the military establishment there who have been calling for more troops for Afghanistan. He seems to indicate that Afghanistan is a war he thinks he can wage and make a significant difference. Where in Iraq he has indicated that he wants to remove the emphasis there. I think in Afghanistan it's clear that things are spinning out of control there and Afghanistan is in tremendous flux. So I don't think it is an improper assessment to say that the war in Afghanistan has not been going very well for Americans and that if anything, destabilizing Pakistan to a significant degree. I am guessing he thinks Afghanistan is a big enough issue that it requires immediate attention. I won't make any statement on whether or not it is right to send more troops. I am not even a military expert.
21 March 2009

---

Dialogue And Intrigue: Yerevan Forum And Visits Between Leaders Focus Spotlight On Armenian Genocide Recognition By Aris Ghazinyan Armenianow reporter

A weekend conference in Yerevan brought together more than 30 Armenian and Turkish Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) on the initiation of the Turkish side and sponsored by the British Embassy in Turkey. According to Artak Kirakosyan, Civil Society Institute NGO representative, although there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, trade relations are more active, and relations on the level of public organizations are in the intermediate stage between diplomatic and trade relations. "The visit of the President of Turkey Abdullah Gul to Armenia (last September) was the green light for the societies of the two countries to come closer." Regardless of the issues discussed at the forum, the very fact of holding the meeting is noteworthy in this case. It is perceived against the background of activation of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, which is in the interests of the current authorities of Armenia and Turkey.

Turkey's interest is also manifested in the striving to fit the issue of the Armenian Genocide recognition into the narrow frame of bilateral dialogue. This is particularly visible today, when the situation is more favorable than ever - and when, just this week, a new resolution on the issue was raised in the US Congress (see "New Chance for US to do the Right Thing"). It comes, too, as US President Barack Obama has announced an early-April trip to Turkey. Before he was even a candidate for presidency, Obama had supported recognition. In August 2005, when he was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Senate, he dispirited Azeri journalists announcing in Baku that he was one of the few American senators to sign the petition to George Bush about the necessity to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Azeri journalists labeled him "a good-for-nothing" politician. However, Obama called the genocide "a historical fact" and stated that mass extermination of civilians in the course of military clashes is unacceptable. In 2006, he, a senator for the state of Illinois, announced the importance of recognizing the Armenian Genocide again and called on the Turkish government to stop campaigning the denial of this crime.

Obama called the Armenian Genocide "the most terrible tragedy of the 20th century" brought about by the Turkish government. The Senator also stressed that "it's time to start telling the truth, which in some systems is a hindrance to people's careers." It was taken as a reference to American Ambassador to Armenia John Evans who was recalled from Yerevan because of a statement he made in which he described Turkey's crimes as "genocide". Obama had sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in which he condemned her removal of Evans. Obama's views are likewise shared by his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton who, as senator from New York supported HR106, an earlier resolution pressing the US to join other countries in condemning the 1915-23 acts as "genocide".

In general, an unprecedented situation has taken shape, including the fact that for the first time the Jewish lobby may take at least a neutral, if not "pro-Armenian" position, following a recent squabble between Turkey and the Jewish community. It was in this very period that a stage of radical activation of Armenian-Turkish contacts began. Turkey is very seriously considering this issue, and it is not surprising that Barack Obama will visit Ankara exactly in April. No wonder the visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan is planned to take place in Yerevan exactly in April. It is clear that a simple chronological coincidence is out of the question. The coincidences are too many.... "Turkey is making every effort to hinder the process and is doubtlessly interested in show-off activeness in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue," states Armen Ayvazyan, Head of "Ararat" Strategic Research Center. "That's exactly why Turkey has come up with the initiative of the forum in Yerevan." A Turkish delegate to the forum Aka Ataman stated in an interview to "Liberty" radio station that "the communication of Armenian and Turkish societies will eventually grow into natural relations between countries." Another conference participant Geka Kelench pointed out that there are distinct problems between the two nations. "We have gathered here to find a solution to those problems. And to do that, it is necessary not to focus exclusively on the past, but also to look ahead. We need to discuss what we can do in the future by joining our efforts.

" An interesting announcement was made on March 16 by Kiro Manoyan, the Head of "Hay Data" Central Office and ARF "Dashnaktsutyun" political expert. He made a supposition that "in the spring of 2009 a certain Armenian-Turkish agreement will be signed." In his opinion, this is seen from the announcements made by the Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Gul. "I don't suppose such a document will be signed before April 24, even on the basis of the results of Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan's visit to Yerevan. Turkey will wait and use the opportunity of signing an agreement with Armenia as a factor forcing Barack Obama to abstain from using the word "genocide" in his annual address to the Armenians of the world," said Manoyan. One way or another, little time is left to wait. It is evident that by the end of April the picture concerning the prospects of the development of Armenian-Turkish relations will considerably clarify.

---

Second Blow To Armenian Diaspora
U.S. Ministry of Justice decided for a federal investigation to be made for Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) over accusations of participating in political campaigns and violation of federal tax law.

Last month director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Melanie Sloan had applied to U.S. Ministry of Justice and filed a complaint pointing that ANCA does not behave as a charitable organization but acts like a foreign agent of a political party in Armenia.

The reply that is sent to director of CREW Sloan by President of U.S. Ministry of Justice National Security Department Heather H. Hunt said that an investigation will be initiated to investigate whether acts of ANCA violates laws and the documents that are supplied by CREW will be taken into account during investigation.

The seven page complaint file that is issued by CREW to U.S. Ministry of Justice says that ANCA has close relationship with Tashnaktsutiun Party of Armenia and participates political campaigns in US. Complaint also pointed that ANCA and ANCA Endowment Fund violated tax law.

U.S. Ministry of Justice may decide for a judicial fine. http://historyoftruth.com

---

Armenian Issue Conference In Munich
International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO) member and Abant Izzet Baysal University lecturer Associate Professor Kamer Kasim gave a lecture on 1915 events in Munich, Germany.

Speaking in the meeting that is held in Munich, Kasim said that the events that took place in 1915 definitely can't be defined as a genocide and the process was the transfer of the Armenian people from one region to another within the lands of Ottoman Empire.

Reminding that the archives on this issue are open for researchers, Kasim said that Armenia or Armenian diaspora does not interest in these archives. Kasim said that it is the best way for this issue is leaving the issue to the decision of historians.
http://historyoftruth.com

---

"Mass Graves Should Be Showed To Obama"
President of Federation of Organization for Fighting Against Groundless Genocide Claims, Associate Professor Suleyman Cigdem invited U.S. President Barack Obama, who is about to pay an official visit to Turkey, to Erzurum to see mass graves of Turkish people who massacred by Armenians.

Associate Professor Cigdem said that they decided to invite American President Obama to Erzurum by sending a mail, who will pay a visit to Turkey as a last stop of his Europe visit. Reminding that Armenian diaspora arranges campaigns that are slandering Turkey especially in US, Cigdem said, "Turkey visit of Obama should be used very well and we should correct lies of Armenian diaspora with archive documents. We invite President Obama to Erzurum to terminate the continuing lies of Armenian diaspora. We want to show President Obama Cinis, Alaca and Yanikdere and want to show who made the real massacre. We want to tell the truth by showing some of the mass graves that belongs to our 520,000 people who were massacred by Armenian partisans."

Stating that Obama mentioned about a 'change' in the foreign policy of U.S. during elections, Cigdem said, "We hope for Obama to bring a new understanding over genocide claims which bases on information and documents. The genocide claims against Turkish people who treated all the nations under its administration with tolerance and justice since the first day of it in Anatolia, is nothing more than production of a systematic fictional lie."

Contrarily, historical truths, documents tell how Armenian gangs murdered people who treated them with tolerance and justice for centuries, how they committed merciless tortures. We invite Mr Obama to see the truth in the place where it was lived. http://historyoftruth.com

---

Hitler And Enver Pasha In 'Genocide' Resolution Names of Hitler and Enver Pasha found place in the resolution that foresees Congressional recognition of 'Armenian genocide' allegations by United States. Signed by 77 members of Congress, Armenian resolution calls for reflection of 'genocide' that allegedly happen between 1915 and 1923, to the foreign policy of U.S. by President.

Resolution claimed that major leaders of 'genocide' action were Minister of War Enver Pasha, Minister of Internal Affairs Talat Pasha and Minister of Navy Cemal Pasha. The resolution claimed that provost court that is held after World War One sentenced these officials to death but that was not applied. The resolution that is issued to Congress claimed that Hitler wanted his commanders to attack over Poland because so called Armenian genocide inspired Hitler since he allegedly told to opposing commanders; "Who remembers termination of Armenians?"

Resolution also stated that Raphael Lemkin, inventor of the word 'genocide' defined Armenian events as the first 'genocide' of the 20th century.
http://historyoftruth.com/

---

London Symposium On "Remembering Adana 1909" Is Rescheduled For Istanbul Turkey AZG DAILY 21-03-2009
The Gomidas Institute is pleased to announce that its London symposium, "Remembering Adana 1909: A Hunderd Year Perspective", at the London School of Economics on 28 March 2009 has been changed and will now take place at Sabanci University in Istanbul on 6-7 November 2009. The new time and venue was recently agreed and the meeting will take place with the sponsorship of the Gomidas Institute, the Hrant Dink Foundation and Sabanci University.

"Holding our symposium on Adana 1909 in Istanbul later on this year was an opportunity we could not miss", said Ara Sarafian, the current director of the Gomidas Institute.

"The Adana massacres of 1909 are part of Ottoman history and there is already great interest to have such a meeting in Turkey. We plan to broaden our approach with a new call for papers to encourage more Turkish participants".

The Gomidas Institute is also launching a photographic exhibition on Adana 1909 as well as a commemorative publication. For more information please contact adana@gomidas.org or visit www.gomidas.org

The Gomidas Institute is an independent academic institution specializing in modern Armenian history.

---

Against Falsification Of Armenian History, AZG DAILY 21-03-2009
Dear Armenian!
There has been ongoing falsification of Armenian history in the academic publications and universities across the United States. Please raise your voice and publish the official statement made by the Pan Armenian Network (PanArmenian.net). Also, please sign and urge all your readers to sign the petition Against Falsification of Armenian History

---

Online Armenian History Textbook To Be Launched
09.03.2009 /PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian students in the United States called on the academic councils of the universities in the U.S. to remove from circulation the book titled "The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times" because of the numerous mistakes it contains, the student initiative group told PanArmenian.net.

"Outrageous mistakes and falsifications in The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times are countless. Any student, who would make such horrible mistakes during an exam, would receive an F and fail. So, how come this anti-scholastic book and its authors have continued to use this book since 1997, and even have republished it in 2004 without making ANY CORRECTIONS whatsoever? For many years, Armenian scholars from Armenia have repeatedly exposed and criticized this falsified book in their scientific publications. Yet, the chief editor continues to insist that the critics of this unscientific textbook are violating the freedom of academic expression," the students' letter says.

On February 23, 2009, Armenian Ministry of Diaspora sent an official letter, which stated that the efforts of creating an online Armenian History textbook for colleges and universities are already underway. This textbook will be in many languages (Armenian, English, Russian, etc.) and will be available online at the official site of the Armenian National Academy of Sciences for a free download to all students of Armenian History and Culture. Finally, the New Generation of Diasporans will have at their disposal an Armenian History textbook that will contain genuine Armenian Studies book, without falsifications and distortions.http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=29268

See the material below on how the Armenian History is grossly falsified in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. This "textbook" is used throughout many colleges and universities across the United States. The removal from circulation of this anti-scholastic and anti-Armenian textbook is essential.

It is beyond ignorance to speak about "Ancient Turkey" and "Ancient Turkish Art" in 330 BC. This is simply falsification of history in a "prestigious" United States university like UC Berkeley.

There are more than 130 gross mistakes and falsifications of Armenian History in this textbook entitled - The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Armenian students are being "taught" this falsified History of Armenia throughout the colleges and universities in the United States.

The Petition against Falsification of Armenian History

We, the undersigned, call on the academic councils of the universities in the US to remove from circulation the book - The Armenian People: >From Ancient to Modern Times.

Why is it essential that The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times two-volume textbook must be removed from circulation? We will present a number of simple examples.

1. There are countless gross mistakes in this textbook. The book (J. Russell) calls the Armenian people "colonists" (Vol. I, page 23-24) in their own Motherland, who have "overran" the native "Hurro-Urarteans". The textbook (J. Russell) falsely "teaches" (Vol. I, page 27) that the Fortress of Erebuni was erected by Argishti the Second, when in fact the fortress was built by Argishti the First. Furthermore, the book (N. Garsoian) states (Vol. I, page 42) that during the Yervanduni dynasty (5th to 2nd centuries BC) the Armenians did not have cities. (Garsoian also falsely states that the Yervanduni dynasty is not Armenian). In the ninth chapter (R. Thomson), 5th century Armenian historians are called "extremely shadowy figures" who "cannot be taken at face value". Furthermore, the same author (Vol. I, page 215) calls the Father of Armenian History, a pseudo-historian who never lived in the 5th century. In the chapter on the medieval Armenian literature and culture (Vol. I, page 295), the author (P. Cowe) reaches new heights of treachery by presenting giants of Armenian culture like Kostandin Erznkatsi, Hovhannes Erznkatsi and Nahapet Kuchak as authors who "adopted" Turkish, Persian and other Islamic literature. In fact, in the same book, Cowe claims that Nahapet Kuchak is a pseudo-author. He also claims that the Armenian national epic, the Daredevils of Sasun, is simply the later Armenian version of the Persian Rustam Zal. In many of the chapters of the book a number of authors use the Turkish terminology for Armenian Highland and call it "eastern Anatolia" (just one example from R. Suny, Vol. II page 127). The chief editor of this book, R. Hovannisian, in Volume II, page 232, purposefully states (Vol. II, page 232) that even after the Armenian massacres of 1909, Armenian freedom fighters continued to "collaborate" with the Turkish government and Armenian leaders called the people to enlist into the Turkish Army and fight with "valorous deeds" against the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs during the Balkan Wars. In line with unending unscientific gross mistakes, the book states (Volume II, page 432) that the first Armenian book was printed in 1660, in Holland, when in FACT it was published by Hakob Meghapart in 1512, in Venice.

As we noted above, these kinds of outrageous mistakes and falsifications in The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times are countless. Any student, who would make such horrible mistakes during an exam, would receive an F and fail. So, how come this anti-scholastic book and its authors have continued to use this book since 1997, and even have republished it in 2004 without making any corrections whatsoever? For many years, Armenian scholars from Armenia have repeatedly exposed and criticized this falsified book in their scientific publications. Yet, the chief editor continues to insist that the critics of this unscientific textbook are "violating the freedom of academic expression".

2. In this textbook, the Armenian people are presented as newcomers and "colonists" in their own homeland who have overran the indigenous "Urartian" population (Vol. I, pages 23-26). In fact, you can find these kinds of "theories" only in the publications of Turkish "historians". In fact, world renowned scholars from various disciplines including linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, molecular biology and genetics have proven that Armenian Highland is the cradle of the Indo-European speaking peoples and that the Armenian people are native to their homeland. Why is this fundamental scientific proof on the origins of the Armenian people completely LEFT OUT of the above noted textbook?!

---

Khachatur Marozyan: Corruption In Armenian Universities Terrifying 20.03.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Lawyers and Psychologists Association NGO surveys have shown that in 2008 corruption was more common for State Universities and central schools of Yerevan, rather than for uptown schools.

"Corruption in Armenian Universities assumes terrifying forms, and unhealthy relations between teachers and students present a serious threat to effective education and reforms in this area. Tutors take unprofessional attitude towards students," Lawyers and Psychologists Association President Khatchatur Marozyan noted.

To eliminate corruption, the OGO has created anticorruption auditoriums in Universities, to organize meetings and discussions between tutors and students outside educational process.

According to Khatchatur Marozyan, the organization has already addressed to RA Ministry of Education and received an endorsement to undertake struggle against corruption in schools and universities.

---

Russia Is Turkish Intelligence's Top Priority 20.03.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Turkish national intelligence has defined 10 priorities of their activity: tracing Russia's policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as delivering energy carriers from the Caspian Sea to the world markets.

According to Sabah newspaper, the Turkish secret service laid stress on foreign intelligence and resolution of problems affecting the international society in the framework of their reforms.

Russia and its policy in the Caucasus is the top priority for the Turkish intelligence. In Central Asia and Caspian Sea region, the Turkish special services are interested in Russia's energy policy of, Russian-Chinese energy cooperation, the problem of oil and gas output in the Caspian Sea, the construction of mains and the strategies of delivering energy carriers to the world markets.

Georgia's aspiration to join NATO, relations between Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict are also among the priorities.

---

No Congressional Vote On Armenian Genocide Resolution Soon 20.03.2009
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked if it is a good time to bring up the Armenian resolution, reiterated her view that Genocide occurred.

Whether Obama travels to the region or not "does not deny the fact that there was an Armenian Genocide, and there are those of us in Congress who will continue to make that point," the California lawmaker told Reuters.

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said he does not know whether the sponsors of the latest resolution have enough support for it to pass in the House but "no one's talking about a vote any time soon."

Similar resolutions have been introduced in Congress for years and Pelosi has been a longtime supporter of having Congress declare the killings a genocide.

But as speaker, she did not bring the legislation to the floor for a vote in 2007 after pressure by the Bush administration, amid concerns over the sensitivities of Turkey.

Obama has not said whether he will support the resolution. He must also decide whether to mark an Armenian remembrance day on April 24 with a statement using the term Genocide.

---

The Department Of State Does Not Reflect The Usa's Position? Aravot March 19, 2009 Armenia
MP from the [ruling] Republican Party of Armenia, Armen Ashotyan, yesterday [18 March] asked Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan in the parliament why Armenia had not reacted to the section of the US Department of State's annual report on Azerbaijani territories, including on the "occupation" of Nagornyy Karabakh.

Nalbandyan answered: "If you mean the territorial integrity, that is the emphasis put in that report, it had been announced numerous times previously and after that, and at present as well. You can find this on the website of the US embassy in Armenia - that the USA's position in this issue is based on three principles. Those are - the non-use of force, the right of self-determination and the territorial integrity. I do not believe that this formulation in the report in question reflects their [USA's] attitude towards the Karabakh settlement itself."

---

Turkey Belongs in Europe by Jan Marinus Wiersma*
Almost four years ago Turkey and the EU took a historical step forward and started accession negotiations. However, full Turkish membership in the union does not look much closer today than it did in 2005. Increasing ambivalence on the European side and the exclusionary discourse of some European leaders negatively affect Turkey's reform process.

But the main reason for this state of affairs is the uncertainty about the process of internal reform in Turkey. Even a sympathetic outside observer cannot but notice the deepening polarization in Turkish politics and society. Controversy over secularism and the role of religion in the public sphere is one of the divisive issues. The hopes and enthusiasm in Turkey and in Europe seem to be giving place to doubts and skepticism on both sides.

As a European Socialist, I have always supported the accession of Turkey to the EU and rejected the notion of "privileged partnership" advocated by European conservatives as a euphemism for the rejection of Turkey. I believe in a Europe united by shared values, principles and ideals, not in a closed club bound by fixed cultural and religious identities. To us, Turkey is not a threatening "other," but a European country that has a place in the EU. To achieve it, Turkey must be a fully democratic and secular country where respect for human rights, individual liberties, protection of minorities, separation of religion and state and the rule of law are fundamental values.

It is because of the European Socialists' commitment to this historical vision that I am so concerned about the slowdown of the pro-European reform process in Turkey over the past few years. To be sure, there are some encouraging developments, like the launching of 24-hour broadcasting in Kurdish and steps toward reconciliation with Armenia. But joining the EU is unthinkable without fundamental consensus about basic values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, signs of growing polarization are disconcerting for Turkey's friends in Europe. I am fully aware of the difficulties of the transition from a tutelary democracy to a full-fledged one. But it is imperative that Turkey forge a democratic system that respects not just the right of the majority to decide, but also protects and guarantees the rights of the minority.

This means that whoever emerges victorious in the upcoming local elections on March 29 must engage in a dialogue with the opposition and civil society, and demonstrate tolerance for dissenting views. In this context, the track record of the administration of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in its relations with the critical media is unconvincing. In a democratic country, it is not acceptable for a prime minister to call for a boycott of the press that is critical of him and his party. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) also needs to pay utmost attention to the concerns about the creation of pro-government business circles through a selective granting of contracts and licenses. Such practices can be a hindrance to the efforts of joining the EU, since they go against EU rules and norms on competition.

The concerns on the rule of law in Turkey are even broader. I appreciate the importance of the Ergenekon case in cleansing Turkey's politics and security apparatus of clandestine networks and coup plotters. However, the investigation itself, the conduct of security forces during the arrests, privacy violations, public exposure of persons who may not be related with the case and other violations of legal procedures raise serious concerns and may in the end overshadow the final verdicts. It is extremely important to ensure that this case is not perceived as a case of partisan revanchism by the government and its supporters.

There is a growing tension between secularist and religiously oriented visions for Turkey. The tactics used by some secularists, particularly their failure to condemn the e-ultimatum in April 2007 and the closure case against the AK Party, are unsavory. But these unhelpful tactics of some groups need to be decoupled from the legitimate concerns voiced by the secular part of Turkish society.

In the aftermath of its landslide victory in the July 2007 elections, the AK Party government did not seek consensus with the opposition and civil society on further pro-European reform. Instead, it opted for a piecemeal approach, rushing to ease the restrictions on wearing Islamic headscarves at universities. While the initiative is in itself commendable, the AK Party has failed to change the perception that it cares only about the pious Turks and ignores the large secular segment of the society.

Freedom to choose one's religion and to practice it openly is a fundamental human right. But the right not to hold religious beliefs and to lead a secular way of life is just as fundamental. This is why the concerns that the right to lead a nonreligious life is under strain in some places in Turkey need to be taken seriously. To prevent any possible pressure, abuse and discrimination based on beliefs, nonreligiousness and lifestyle choices, Turkey could establish an office of "secularism ombudsman" -- a proposal already made by Turkish political scientists and Olli Rehn, the EU's enlargement commissioner. Most importantly, all stakeholders in Turkey must realize that secularism is not an abstract philosophical concept, but a core tenet of a democratic and inclusive polity.

The situation of women is at the heart of the secular vision. The creation of an equal opportunities committee in the Turkish Parliament is a step in the right direction. More importantly, a value revolution in the society must follow legal reforms. Women must be provided with opportunities to make their own choices and be emancipated from intrusive control. The key is women's access to employment, education and social and political life. It is disappointing that out of 14,000 candidates nominated for local offices throughout the country for the upcoming March 29 elections, only 400 are women.

To bring Turkey closer to the EU and its values, Turkish advocates of their country's European future can make an effective use of the possibilities already there. Turkey's political parties, NGOs, trade unions and other civil society organizations need to get involved in creating alliances, negotiating common platforms and sharing ideas with partners in Europe. European Socialists are ready to collaborate with likeminded individuals and organizations in Turkey.

Turkey's EU membership will benefit both Turkey and the EU. The government, the opposition and civil society must recommit themselves fully to the reform process. The EU must shed its ambivalence toward Turkey and help the vision of a fully democratic, secular, pluralist and prosperous Turkey to come true.

*Jan Marinus Wiersma is the vice president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

22 March 2009, Zaman

---

Letter of National Security Department to CREW
U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division
Washington, D.C. 20530
MAR 16 2009

Ms. Melanie Sloan
Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
1400 Eye Street, NW
Suite 450
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Sloan:
This is in response to your letter of February 18, 2009 requesting that the Department of Justice initiate an investigation of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C.§ 611 et seq. (FARA).

Your interest in this matter is appreciated. We will take the information you provided under advisement to determine if it raises a FARA concern, and we assure you that if the statute is applicable, we will take the appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Heather H. Hunt, Chief
Registration Unit
Counterespionage Section
National Security Division

---

The Armenian Genocide Resolution, Ömer Engin Lütem, AVIM
On March 17 a draft resolution describing the events of 1915 as genocide was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This legislation, H.Res. 252, is identical to H. Res. 106 introduced in the previous legislative period which, after not being adopted, became null and void.

In brief, this draft resolution calls upon the President to ensure that U.S. foreign policy “reflects the appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide”. This vague wording appears to express the aim of enabling the U.S. to intervene in other countries concerning the stated three issues.

In addition, the said draft resolution calls upon the President to “characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide” in the annual Presidential message issued on April 24. As is known, President Bush refrained from using the term genocide in the presidential statements issued on this day during his term in office; however, to placate the Armenians he resorted to synonymous expressions such as ”annihilation” and “mass killings”.

It should be pointed out that in the findings set forth in the draft resolution many errors are present. For example, the resolution makes mention of the “deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians”; however there is not a single Armenian or other source which parallels or upholds such a number. In tandem with this, it is not appropriate to talk of the deportation of Armenians, as the Armenians were moved within, and not expelled from, the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. To cite another fallacy found within the resolution, one may draw attention to how it claims that the United Nations recognized the Armenian “genocide”. However, as stated by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, there have been no resolutions issued to this affect concerning events preceding the establishment of the UN. It is bizarre that this error repetitiously made in (and brought to the attention of those who spearheaded) similar resolutions issued over the years, has not been corrected. As such, it appears that the pioneers of this resolution are concerned not with establishing historical truths, but with vilifying the Ottoman Empire.

The resolution garnered 77 members of the House as co-sponsors. This number, however, appears to be insufficient should one take into account how 218 votes are required for an absolute majority in the House. It seems that many members are waiting on President Obama to declare his stance vis-à-vis this draft resolution.

On the issue of the haste with which the resolution was introduced in the House, this may very well be related to Presdient Obama’s imminent visit to Turkey. If so, one may deduce that extremist Armenians have been persistent in pushing forth the recognition of Armenian genocide claims. It also appears possible that this resolution may have helped the White House as it has set forth the extent of the pressure faced by the U.S. government with respect to Armenian genocide claims.

Meanwhile the word is spreading that during his visit to Ankara, President Obama may press forward either the House of Representatives option or that of the presidential message. Ankara is not expected to make such a choice.

In closing it should be stated that the Armenian genocide allegations, which have no basis in fact, should immediately be taken off the agenda of both these nations.

---

The AKP Has Promised The United States Opening The Armenian Border States Sukru Elekdag 20 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
The House Republican People's Party (CHP) Sukru ELEKDAG made a sensational statement, writes the newspaper Sabah.

The newspaper writes that at meetings of the delegation to discuss "alleged Armenian genocide in the U.S. Congress, parliamentarians from the AKP promised that the borders with Armenia be opened after the elections in Turkey."

The delegation included Murat Mercan, Suat Kiniklioglu, Nursuna Memecan the AKP, Mithat Melen's Sukru ELEKDAG MHP and the CHP.

"The members of the AKP said that the borders would start after March 29 (local elections). They said that negotiations with Armenia were at the last step and that any decision by the U.S. Congress would have a negative influence on the relationship. I told them not to say that. But they said the agreement would be reached in connection with this, "said Sukru ELEKDAG.

The AKP parliamentary Nursuna Memecan rejected those assertions and said: "The presidents will meet". "During the meeting we said that Turkey and Armenia were in talks for a year and have stressed that the negotiations were held with Azerbaijan. The presidents of three countries deal with this issue. If in this step the United States passed a resolution that will have a negative influence, "said Memecan Nursuna. Memecan Nursuna confirmed they said negotiations between Turkey and Armenia was at the last step. "But we did not say that we open the borders after the municipal elections."

---

An Armenian Film Festival in Istanbul 20 March 2009, by Stéphane / armenews
Efforts to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is growing day by day. Thus, Thursday, Vanyan George, president of the Center for peace initiatives in the Caucasus, announced to journalists that the Armenian Film Festival will be held this year in Istanbul in September.

The Armenian Film Festival in Istanbul following the Turkish Film Festival in Armenia held these days in several cities. It was created to "educate young people with the Turkish way of life and the problems of Armenian youth," says Vanyan, adding: "It is a tool for dialogue between the two countries."

No restrictions are imposed on participants. They will submit a short or feature film, but also a documentary

The non-governmental organization "Center for peace initiatives in the Caucasus" was founded in February 2002 in order to establish good relations between the peoples of the South Caucasus, through regional cooperation in the protection of human rights, ecology, education, art and information exchange. Jean Eckian

---

Turkey Has Three Problems - Cyprus, Kurdish And Armenian observercyprus.com 20.03.2009
France's ex Prime Minister Michel Rochard said that he believes that Turkey deserves its place in Europe but, on Turkey's road to acceptance into the EU, it has to face three major obstacles, namely the Cyprus, Kurdish and Armenian problems. Rochard said that a Cyprus solution will be a political decision that would greatly help Turkey move a step closer to the EU. According to a press release from Turkey's Altogether Development Foundation (IKV), joint work has been carried out by IKV, Yeditepe University Law School and the University of Paris X Nanterre with there aim being 'To Move on from the fears of Turkey entering Europe'. A conference was held in Paris on the 12 and 13 March at which the former French PM made a speech in which he said that their main aim was to abolish customs duties between the rest of Europe and Turkey and after a while for it, like the rest of Europe, to start using the euro. He believed that Turkey deserved a place in the EU, but that they will immediately have to face their three biggest problems, the Cyprus, Armenian and Kurdish problems. Rochard said the current state of the Cyprus problem is the main cause of the set back. Turkey has taken the right steps under the United Nations supervision and by the Turkish Cypriots saying 'Yes' to the referendum was also one step closer to a set solution and EU acceptance.

---

Making Plans For Obama's Trip To Turkey Next Month By Thomas Omestad U.S. News & World Report March 19 2009
Shaping an agenda for the visit to a majority Muslim nation that is a close U.S. ally

Barack Obama's upcoming visit to Turkey--his first as president to a majority Muslim nation--is expected to touch heavily on themes of partnership with the NATO ally and like-minded views on key security issues rather than the disagreements that plagued U.S.-Turkish relations during the Bush administration.

A senior Turkish foreign policy official, Ahmet Davutoglu, is in Washington to help prepare for the April 6-7 visit. "Our policies are almost identical on all issues," he says.

Obama is expected to stop both in the capital, Ankara, and in Istanbul.

Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy adviser to Turkey's prime minister, said that his consultations with the State Department, lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and White House National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones--a meeting that ran longer than expected this morning--had gone well, prompting him to add, "There is no historical baggage" in the Turkish-U.S. relationship.

That signals Ankara's desire to set aside past tensions with Washington over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (which Turkey advised against), U.S. Middle East policy, and interest inside the United States in formally recognizing the mass deaths of Armenians early in the past century as a genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Turks.

Davutoglu conceded, though, that since 2005 there has been a "problem of image perception of the United States inside Turkey." Opinion polls in Turkey have shown dramatically low favorability ratings for the United States in recent years.

Obama is making U.S. outreach to the Muslim world a key foreign policy goal, in part to repair damage done during the Bush years. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included a stop in Turkey on her first swing through Europe. In Turkey, she hailed the country's democracy and secular Constitution as well as its embrace of religious freedom and free markets. The upcoming Obama visit, at the end of his first trip to Europe as president, is "a reflection of the value we place on our friendship with Turkey."

Turkey's backing is needed, or at least helpful, in the reconstruction of Iraq and in the withdrawal over time of American soldiers and military equipment. Turkey says it wants to help with both, and its OK is needed to use the U.S. air base at Incirlik, Turkey, for troop and materiel transit.

Turkey has also been an important player in NATO forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. And as a country with generally friendly and full relations with Israel, it played a key role in organizing recent indirect talks between Israel and Syria. Davutoglu said Turkey is ready to continue with the effort if the next Israeli government--now being formed under conservative Likud leadership--wants to. He said five rounds of the talks had "achieved a lot."

On Iran, another key security issue in which Turkey has a stake, Ankara is urging Iran to comply with all of its obligations for running a transparent nuclear program as laid out by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Davutoglu cautioned that Turkey opposed any efforts to restrict energy trade in the region--a possible tactic in any stronger, future efforts to pressure Iran to suspend its nuclear activities.

The Turkish official sought to play down the issue of Obama's own stance on the question of past genocide. As a candidate, Obama clearly stated that he believes "the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view but rather a widely documented fact." However, expressing the same as president could renew tensions with Turkey and complicate getting Ankara's help on issues that Obama says are central to his foreign policy.

The Turks seem determined to avoid the Armenian issue and to welcome Obama's visit as a fresh start. "I am sure it will be a very successful visit," Davutoglu predicted. "Nothing can shatter this successful visit."

---

Turkey, U.S. Play Down Tensions Over Armenia Issue By Sue Pleming Reuters March 19 2009 UK
WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - Seeking to avert tensions during
President Barack Obama's visit to Turkey, both sides are playing down potential fallout from a renewed attempt by some U.S. lawmakers to declare the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks genocide.

Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign policy advisor to Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, told reporters on Thursday the issue, which caused U.S.-Turkish relations to plummet in 2007, would not "hijack" Obama's visit early next month.

"Nothing can shadow the success of this visit," Davutoglu told reporters after meeting Obama's national security advisor Jim Jones at the White House.

During his 2008 campaign for the White House, Obama referred to the killings of Armenians in World War One as genocide, which Turkey strongly rejects. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a genocide resolution on Armenia when she was in the Senate.

The reintroduction on Tuesday by several lawmakers of a new resolution in the House of Representatives could complicate Obama's visit and Davutoglu said the issue was discussed in his meeting with Jones.

Asked whether Obama's views might have changed, Davutoglu was noncommittal.

"I did not say yes or no," he said. "Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of General Jones, but we went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner."

Recognizing how sensitive the issue could become in U.S.-Turkish relations, the State Department has avoided comment on the resolution or what the Obama administration's policy is on labeling what happened as genocide.

"I don't want to go any further on it until we have had a chance to take a closer look at it and discuss it within the government, and that's where I'm going to leave it," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters on Wednesday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked if it was a good time to bring up the Armenian resolution, reiterated her view that genocide occurred.

Whether Obama travels to the region or not "does not deny the fact that there was an Armenian genocide, and there are those of us in Congress who will continue to make that point," the California lawmaker told Reuters.

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said he did not know whether the sponsors of the latest resolution had enough support for it to pass in the House but "no one's talking about a vote any time soon."

Similar resolutions have been introduced in Congress for years and Pelosi has been a long-time supporter of having Congress declare the killings a genocide.

But as speaker, she did not bring the legislation to the floor for a vote in 2007 after pressure by the Bush administration, amid concerns over the sensitivities of NATO ally Turkey. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Obama’s Trip to Turkey: Genocide Recognition on the Back Burner? 2009/03/20 HETQ
The plethora of reports in the international press regarding U.S. President Barack Obama’s upcoming trip to Turkey and the predictions surrounding whether or not the American leader will bring up the issue of the 1915 Armenian Genocide while in Turkey, continue unabated. Today, both Reuters and U.S. News and World Report, have articles devoted to the issue.

A senior Turkish foreign policy official, Ahmet Davutoglu, is in Washington to help prepare for the April 6-7 visit. “Our policies are almost identical on all issues,” he says.

Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy adviser to Turkey’s prime minister, said that his consultations with the State Department, lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and White House National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones—a meeting that ran longer than expected this morning—had gone well, prompting him to add, “There is no historical baggage” in the Turkish-U.S. relationship.

The USNWR article comments that, “That signals Ankara’s desire to set aside past tensions with Washington over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (which Turkey advised against), U.S. Middle East policy, and interest inside the United States in formally recognizing the mass deaths of Armenians early in the past century as genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Turks.”

The article goes on to say that the Turkish official sought to play down the issue of Obama’s own stance on the question of past genocide. As a candidate, Obama clearly stated that he believes “the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view but rather a widely documented fact.” However, expressing the same as president could renew tensions with Turkey and complicate getting Ankara’s help on issues that Obama says are central to his foreign policy.

The Turks seem determined to avoid the Armenian issue and to welcome Obama’s visit as a fresh start. “I am sure it will be a very successful visit,” Davutoglu predicted. “Nothing can shatter this successful visit.”

Meanwhile Reuters reports that Davutoglu met with ” Obama’s national security adviser, Jim Jones, at the White House. “Nothing can shadow the success of this visit,” Davutoglu told reporters after meeting

During his 2008 campaign for the White House, Obama referred to the killings of Armenians in World War One as genocide, which Turkey strongly rejects. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a genocide resolution on Armenia when she was in the Senate.

Asked whether Obama’s views might have changed, Davutoglu was noncommittal. “I did not say yes or no,” he said. “Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of General Jones, but we went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner.”

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer declined to comment on what Jones and Davutoglu discussed regarding the Armenian issue.

“Our focus is on how, moving forward, the U.S. can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past,” he said. “It is important that countries have an open and honest dialogue about the past. At the same time, we want to work closely with both Turkey and Armenia on the key issues that confront the region.”

Recognizing how sensitive the issue could become in U.S.-Turkish relations, the State Department has avoided comment on the resolution or what the Obama administration’s policy is on labelling what happened as genocide.

“I don’t want to go any further on it until we have had a chance to take a closer look at it and discuss it within the government, and that’s where I’m going to leave it,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters on Wednesday.

---

Lobby Accuses Turkey Of Dividing Armenian Diaspora
WASHINGTON - The largest U.S. Armenian group Wednesday has accused Turkey of seeking to divide Armenia from the Armenian diaspora.

"Turkey's leverage over America is starting to slip; its ties with Israel fraying; its threats falling on deaf ears. Desperate, they're spreading lies to try to divide the diaspora from Armenia, and stop the president and Congress from recognizing the genocide this April," Ken Hachikian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, said in a late Wednesday statement for U.S. Armenians.

"We've got to strike while the iron is hot," said Hachikian, calling on U.S. Armenians to grant money to the ANCA to bolster the Armenian cause.

Ankara is presently working on a measures package to normalize relations with Yerevan. But Turkey also warns that any formal U.S. recognition of the World War I-era killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide would greatly damage recent efforts in Turkey-Armenia reconciliation.

If normalization measures take effect, including the establishment of normal diplomatic relations and the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border, Armenia would greatly benefit, analysts agree.

Meanwhile, the top objective for U.S. Armenians is to win U.S. genocide recognition.

Hachikian's remarks came one day after a group of pro-Armenian lawmakers introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives a resolution calling for the recognition of Armenian deaths as genocide.

It is not clear when the resolution might enter the House agenda but President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Ankara and Istanbul in early April to boost ties with Turkey.

Obama is also expected to release a statement on April 24, the day of commemoration of the Armenian deaths.

Turkey and the Armenians are both waiting to see whether Obama qualifies the deaths as genocide in that statement.

At a time when Turkey and Armenia are working on the package to normalize relations, many analysts suggest that Obama is not expected to qualify the Armenian killings as genocide on April 24.

---

Obama Visit To Be Start Of New Era, Atilgan Says
US President Barack Obama's planned visit to Turkey in April will be a milestone in the two countries' relationship, according Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) deputy and Retired Gen. Kürşat Atılgan.

Speaking to Today's Zaman about his views on Obama's plans, Atılgan said he believed Obama's visit will be followed by military operations against Kurdistan Workers' Party's (PKK) terrorist bases in northern Iraq.

Atılgan expressed the opinion that Obama's decision to visit Turkey at such an early phase of his presidency could be a watershed event for future developments. "This visit could be the first step in changing the region's balances from head to toe."

Also a member of the NATO Parliamentarians Assembly, Atılgan projected: "President Obama's first point of discussion will be the NATO summit. I think his decision to visit Turkey after the summit is highly indicative of the importance the US administration attaches to Turkey. … The US administration understands that none of its policies would succeed without Turkey's support and contribution," he said.

He listed four central themes to the discussions taking place in the upcoming meeting: developments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and the Caucasus, highlighting the issue of Iraq as the most crucial subject.

"This will be a visit where conflicting policies over Iraq will be harmonized. With the US's partial pullout from Iraq, Turkey's new position in the region will be established," Altıgan noted.

He said the US has taken terrorist organizations PKK and the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian offshoot of the PKK, out of the equation and will start clearing these elements from the region in April and May, believing the US would support a Turkish operation into northern Iraq in April. However, the US will support the Kurdish political struggle. "The armed Kurdish movement has nothing left to do. But the US has made its mind up to take the initiative in the resolution of the Kurdish question.

The issue will be put on the table at events such as conferences, summits and international gatherings. .... As long as they don't contradict Turkey's sensitivities, important steps can be taken in the region towards solution of the Kurdish question."

He also said he doubted that Obama would appease the Armenian community, adding that the president will not fulfill his promise to declare that the killings of Anatolian Armenians during the early 20th century amounted to genocide. However, Atılgan said the US will ask Turkey to do more to normalize its relations with Armenia.

"Armenia has the [political] position of being the country in the Caucasus closest to Russia. They [the US] will want Turkey to open its border with Armenia in order to pull Armenia out of Moscow's sphere of influence. Turkey might have special demands, and in return for these, Obama might not mention genocide in his speech on April 24. The Armenian diaspora, which is aware of this, has already started pressuring Obama to keep his promise." 20 March 2009, ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA

---

Obama Gets Big Thumbs Up From Turks Ahead Of Visit
More than half of all Turks have a positive opinion of Barack Obama, marking a stark contrast to their perceptions of his predecessor, George W. Bush, an recent opinion poll has revealed.

Indeed, Obama, who took over the post from Bush on Jan. 20, tops the list of foreign leaders with a healthy approval rating, according to İstanbul-based İnfakto Research Workshop's poll conducted in mid-February, before US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Ankara earlier this month, when she announced that Obama will pay one of his first foreign visits in office to Turkey in April. According to the poll's results, 51.6 percent of Turks have a positive opinion of Obama. Popularity rates of the United States or Americans are lower when compared to Obama himself: 25.5 percent of Turks say they have a positive opinion of the United States -- up from 22.9 percent in 2005 -- and 40.8 percent say they view Americans positively, representing a slight improvement from 37.5 percent in 2005.

Obama is also seen as a trustworthy leader by 39.2 percent of the poll's participants. In this category, he is followed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was the most trusted leader in 2005 with a 24.9 percent credibility rating, which dropped slightly in 2009 to 22.5 percent. In 2005 Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, with a score of 9.3 percent, was only under-ranked by Osama bin Laden, who was at the bottom of the list of trustworthy leaders with 4.6 percent.

According to the survey, Obama was viewed most favorably by voters aligned with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), with 56.9 percent. The most skeptical segment of the population is the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) electorate (43.6 percent).

The survey shows Obama and Assad are followed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel (15.5 percent) and Russian President Alexander Medvedev (12.4 percent). Bin Laden is still at the bottom of the list with 4.1 percent.

Despite giving the thumbs up to Obama, the poll also revealed that Turks see the United States as Turkey's greatest enemy (44 percent). Israel follows with 15.2 percent and Greece with 5.7 percent. Emphasizing the dominant feeling of insecurity in the international arena, 33.4 percent of respondents said Turkey has no international ally. Azerbaijan and the United States topped the list of the countries viewed as friends, with 5 and 4 percent, respectively. In a break with past trends, the respondents also mentioned Iran as an ally of Turkey, following the United States on the list with 3.7 percent.

Relations between the United States and Turkey were badly strained after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Turkey refused to cooperate militarily with the United States in the war, and the United States later appeared to be punishing Turkey by turning a blind eye to Turkish demands for action against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists, who launch attacks on Turkey from their bases in northern Iraq. The mood has been improving gradually since late 2007, when the US administration described the PKK as a common enemy and began to actively cooperate with Turkey in its efforts to fight the terrorist group.
20 March 2009, TODAY'S ZAMAN İSTANBUL

---

U.S. To Host Conference On Diaspora Relations 19.03.09 Azerbaijan, Baku, March 19 /Trend News, A.Huseynbala/
New York will host a scientific-practical conference on "Role of diaspora organizations in developing relations amongst nations and countries as in Azerbaijan and U.S. case".

"The Azerbaijan-New York Association, Caucasus Jews Cultural Centre in U.S. and AZEM society which comprise representatives of different nations moving to U.S. from Azerbaijan are organizers of the event," the Azerbaijani State Committee on Diaspora told Trend News on March 19.

The conference will take place with support of the State Committee and the Azerbaijani Permanent Representation to UN. "The event will focus on discussions, and reports on the topic: cultural relations between the diaspora organizations in U.S., intellectual potential diaspora, countrymen's adaptation to conditions of the new U.S. policy, as well as perspectives of its relations with the Azerbaijani and Jewish Diaspora organizations," the committee said.

Officials of the Azerbaijani diaspora organization Azerbaijan-New York Association, US-Azeris Network, International Mirvari Foundation, American-Azerbaijani Cultural Centre in Boston, as well as Turkish diasporas, Georgian community, community of highland Jews, Bokharan Jews, including representatives the Jewish organizations in New York will attend the conference. "An exhibition of work of Azerbaijani artists and sculptors in U.S. will be held as part of the event," the state committee said.

---

Vahan Hovhannisyan: If Barack Obama Pronounces A Word Genocide, According To His Promise, We Should Turn This Word Into Resolution And Set New Tasks To Turkey ArmInfo 2009-03-18
ArmInfo. 'It will be very correct and fair if President of the United States Barack Obama fulfills his promise and pronounces a word Genocide on April 24', Head of the parliamentary faction of ARF "Dashnaktsutyun" party Vahan Hovhannisyan told ArmInfo.

'It is also important for the Armenian people to show activity as regards recognition of the Genocide. Unfortunately, there are people both in the Parliament and in the government, as well as in the different public organizations who are even unaware of what April 24 is connected with', the parliamentarian emphasized. According to him, the USA president gave a promise to his electorate during the election campaign. Armenia is looking forward to see whether Obama will fulfill his promise or not. 'If Obama pronounces a word Genocide, according to his promise, we should turn this word into a resolution and set new tasks to Turkey', V, Hovhannisyan emphasized. He also said the primary target of B. Obama's upcoming visit to Turkey is discussion of the Armenian- Turkish relations.

'Naturally, the Turkish party will claim that pronouncing of the word Genocide hinders the process of establishment of the Armenian-Turkish relations, however, the Armenian party must insist on the contrary', the parliamentarian emphasized.

---

Obama And Genocide by Spectator.co.uk March 18 2009
It's nearly April which means it's nearly Armenia time too. That is, we are approaching the latest edition of Washington's reluctance to call the Armenian genocide what it is and was: genocide. On the campaign trail, of course, everyone says how important this is; in power such concerns melt away. My friend Matt Welch points out that, unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is no different to any of its predecessors in discovering that the responsibilities of power require a degree of historical trimming.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the administration is "hesitating" about making any presidential statement affirming the genocide or, presumably, endorsing the annual effort to have Congress call a genocide, you know, genocide. Apparently...

"At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past," said Michael Hammer, a spokesman for the National Security Council. He said the administration was "encouraged" by improvements in relations and believed it was "important that the countries have an open and honest dialogue about the past."

If you think you've heard this tune before it's because you have. It's become a ritual: all Presidential candidates decry the Armenian genocide on the campaign trail and the successful ones always welsh on calling it that once they are in power. George W Bush was no exception. Realpolitik you say? Just the usual campaign stuff you have to say? Well, perhaps. But if politicians want to be taken seriously perhaps they should cease being quite so cynical.

Here's what Obama said on the campaign trail:

I also share with Armenian Americans - so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.
In a better world it would be tough to walk back from this.

---

Let Turkey And Armenia Work Out Their Differences Mar 18 2009,
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the administration is reconsidering President Obama's campaign promise to declare that the Armenians were victims of a genocide during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred years ago.

Also yesterday, the House of Representatives introduced H. Res 252, which declares the killings genocide.

To understand these recent announcements, it is important to understand the underlying politics.

To paraphrase Brent Scowcroft, the issue of whether to declare the killings genocide is not a foreign policy issue, but a domestic political issue. Similar to our policies toward Israel and Cuba, a well-mobilized and well-funded minority - in this case led by the Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America - wields disproportionate influence.

President Obama's decision to "postpone" his genocide declaration should not come as a surprise. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton each also refrained from using the word as president after pledging to do so as candidates.

The reason for this is simple.

A genocide declaration would be deeply harmful to our relationship with Turkey, a relationship that has already suffered in recent years - due primarily to disagreements about the Iraq war, but also because of Turkey's increasingly independent foreign policy and prominent regional role under the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) that assumed power in 2002.

Washington needs Turkish cooperation on a wide range of issues - Iraq, Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran to name a few - and is in no position to alienate the Turks.

Those who doubt the likely severity of the Turkish response should note the uproar that the "I apologize" campaign - an initiative by Turkish intellectuals and journalists to apologize for the "Great Massacre" of Armenians - has caused.

Furthermore, this year there is another, perhaps even more compelling reason to leave history to the historians.

Turkey and Armenia are closer to normalizing relations than at any point since Turkey closed the border in 1993. But a genocide declaration by Washington would likely undo more than a year of diplomatic progress.

As part of the ongoing dialogue between Ankara and Yerevan, Turkish officials have offered to compose a joint commission of historians to determine whether a genocide occurred or not - and Armenian president Serzh Sargsian has left the door open to this possibility.

If Turkey and Armenia can let the historians decide, then so too should the United States.

As Sameer Lalwani has written on this blog, we have skeletons in our own past - including what might be considered the genocide of Native Americans and more than 75 years of racial slavery.

Supporters of the resolution tend to make arguments like Scott Paul's (from October 2007) - "that setting an example by doing the right thing might build some goodwill and encourage others to behave similarly, which would advance our interests in the long run."

While I agree that setting examples that lead to genuine norm creation and that raise the global moral bar are important, it would make more sense for us to confront our own historical memory than to meddle in the historical memories of others.

We also need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, outlaw torture, and honor civil liberties. Those are the kinds of examples that we need to set.
-- Ben Katcher

Reader Comments
Posted by Aram Hamparian, Mar 18 2009,
I read this piece hoping for a thoughtful analysis or insightful treatment of the moral imperative for the U.S. to end its complicity in Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide.

Instead, I found a rather clumsy reworking of the Turkish Embassy's standard set of talking point.

Your readers deserve better.

Posted by ..., Mar 18 2009,
ben - i agree with you... this is one more potential example of the usa getting involved in issues that they'd be better off not.. far better as you said to raise the mantle of the usa's role in the world by abiding by the geneva conventions, outlawing torture and honoring civil liberties...

politicians can't resist a handout from a lobby group... it seems everything goes to the highest bidder with usa's present political system and values being up for sale like everything else...

Posted by Dany Beylerian, Mar 18 2009,
Ben, everyone know that what happened to American Indians was genocide. No one is denying it. Similarly, no one is denying the Holocaust or Slavery. The dangers of denial invite infinitely more problems than outright recognition. It makes us look weak. It hands moral leadership to countries that have already recognized it (and did not suffer retaliation). Turkey can swallow this pill and in the long run will benefit from it. The ongoing denial is pathological considering Turkey's own documents and tribunals. Worse, your approach helps create a blueprint for genocide denial. Imagine this same article about the Holocaust 30 years down the line when a new right-wing German government decides to 'revisit' the Holocaust. See what I mean? I hope you consider this other view.

Posted by Ben Katcher, Mar 18 2009,
Dany,
Thanks for commenting. I do have to take issue with you claim that "everyone knows what happened to American Indians was genocide."
I bet that if you polled Americans, most would say that there was no genocide. Therefore, a government recognition would likely make a difference.

Aram,
Thank you also for commenting, though I think it is only fair that you identify yourself as the executive director of the Armenian Committee of America.
I would like to ask you sincerely whether you think that a resolution would complicate Turkish-Armenian relations, and why such a resolution is worth that price.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Posted by Dany Beylerian, Mar 18 2009,
Ben, thanks for your response. I totally agree and strongly believe that the Genocide of American Indians is not properly discussed. That said, I don't know know of any country or organization that outright denies the Genocide of American Indians. And we have come a long way from the days of Western movies that depicted them as savages. We have extended almost extra-national privileges to descendants and now have a monumental museum in DC. There is plenty more to do...

As for your inquiry, on the contrary, I believe that passage of this resolution would greatly benefit Turkish-Armenian relations. Both recognition and the opening of the borders are inevitable and must come together. And I believe the administration knows this. By prolonging we are giving hope to the old guard in Turkey. By prolonging the inevitable we are encouraging all sides to dig their heals. By prolonging we are being detrimental to all sides, including to ourselves. There is a new Turkey now, and after the forthcoming elections, I believe passage of the resolution will encourage further crackdown on extremist elements in Turkey, especially those elements linked to Ergenekon. Intellectuals in Turkey have already spoken. A strong, reliable Turkey needs its intellectuals - yet they are still purged and marginalized by fascist elements. They need our help. How else can Turkey come to terms and move forward?

The issue of the Armenian Genocide was often used as a US foreign policy tool to extract benefits from Turkey and its old guard. We used this as leverage, but it is now antiquated. I strongly believe that the way forward for Armenia and Turkey is total honesty. And by giving hope to extremists, we are sending Turkey in the wrong direction. No doubt, many in Turkey will be disappointed by official US recognition. But that will be short-lived, and in no time Armenia and Turkey can embark on their new journey. I strongly believe that US recognition and leadership is sound policy. it's good for Turkey in the medium and long run, it's good for us, for Armenians, and it's good for the region, for trade, for stability and cooperation -- it is inevitable, and I hope writers like you can help all sides move on.

Posted by Bruce Tasker, Mar 19 2009,
The problems the US would face should it recognize Armenian Genocide are well understood, as are the reasons for Turkeys steadfast denial. But it is hard to understand, at this time when the US is so close to eventually adding its recognition, following numerous promises from President Obama and the most senior members of his administration, plus a House of Representatives resolution introduced by 77 congressmen, why the Armenian administration has given the US the chance to again back down from its promises by pressing ahead with the establishment of the joint commission of historians for which Turkey has been pressing for many years.

Posted by Sandie Minasian Orsini, Mar 19 2009,
Of course this is another example of yellow journalism. What did we expect?

If in fact it is true that past presidents have "changed their minds" about declaring what happened to 1.5 million Armenians, then we can only assume The Jerk Turks have something very heavy they are holding over our nations head, just WHAT it is, is to be determined. It is very clear this nation is being manipulated by these mass murders, the question is WHY? WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON THE USA THAT MAKES US ABRUPTLY BACK DOWN every time we take a step forward on declaring it A GENOCIDE? I believe our country has a very dark secret that only the Turks know about. Was the United States somehow involved in the genocide directly or indirectly? What IS the great cover up? It is time to for answers. There is a lot more going on then we are being led to believe by our own government.

Posted by Rich, Mar 19 2009,
Ben Katcher paraphrased by writing;

"To paraphrase Brent Scowcroft, the issue of whether to declare the killings genocide is not a foreign policy issue, but a domestic political issue. Similar to our policies toward Israel and Cuba, a well-mobilized and well-funded minority - in this case led by the Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America - wields disproportionate influence."

"...disproportionate influence," from who's perspective?? Is it the State Department, the past Executive Branches, Eight former Secretaries of State? Past President Bush personally calling Congressmen not to vote on the Armenian genocide resolutions? Limitless millions of dollars by the Turkish Governments media blitz, year after year?
Surrogates such as yourself witting or un-witting enablers of genocide denial? Threatening public statements by Turkey to US Officials, by phone calls/meetings with US Heads of State? U.S. President's annual April 24th message shamelessly watered down each year and never accuratly described the genocidal events, as a genocide.

On the other end of the spectrum grass roots organizing, multiple human rights organizations representing various ethnic groups. Congressmen representing there constituants working to represented the people, tax payers of the United States want fair and just representation!

How utterly ubsurd equating Cuba and Isreal to a grassroots organisations. Those are State Governments with practically limitless funds.

You know what has the ultimate value and is NOT on the side of genocide enablers?

The Truth...

Posted by temoc94, Mar 19 2009,
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the administration is reconsidering President Obama's campaign promise to declare that the Armenians were victims of a genocide during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred years ago.

Wow, big surprise there. Will Samantha Power call Obama a monster now? Posted by Sebastien J. Vals, Mar 19 2009, 4:56AM - Link

Ben, by chance I see your analysis on the Armenian question from France.

I want to recall you that France recognized the Armenian genocide without worrying about the bad political repercussions with Turkey. This is a fundamental question of Human rights. It is also the way to say, no blackmail is not acceptable, while Turkey supports Sudan President Omar El Bechir… Where is the error?

Not, this genocide is a black spot in the History of humanity. The descendants still suffer from the injustice, as suffered black people with slavery. Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

Ben, President Obama knows this history. Himself enters the history by the large door and understands that these people have suffered enough for 94 years.

Posted by Richard, Mar 19 2009,
This emotional issue is pushed far more in the US by the Armenian Committee in America than by native Armenians. Armenia is an ally of the Russian Federation, whose troops provide security as a trip wire. There is no real industry of any sort and the comparisons of Armenia to Switzerland, which I often heard from government officials, is laughable.

After living three years in the impoverished, land-locked and barely democratic Armenia it was clear that the Armenians and its government should be left alone by the American, in particular, diaspora to resolve their disputes with Turkey and Azerbaijan. They want to come to an agreement, open their borders and settle generational issues but can't do it because of outside interference, particularly on this issue. The diaspora sends it children to Armenia for a couple of weeks vacation to supposedly get in touch with their heritage. They might learn more from actually working in the country and actually providing much needed assistance for a long period of time, such as happened in Israel.

Finally, if we want to look at this from a purely geopolitical point of view, Armenia is strategically insignificant to US interests while Turkey is a NATO ally, a significant economic, military and social player in the entire region. Why on earth should this be jeopordized? And please save us all from people who want to "do the right thing" (and this declaration is really marginal and helps no one)even though it will disrupt whatever progress is being made and further irritate the really important players. This declaration if signed will not be forgotten in Turkey as has been stated and will result in serious damage to Turkish/US cooperation for which the proponents will garner a self-satisfying, meaningless victory to assuage their historical memory. The United States should cease its pandering to groups like this (and the Israeli lobby) especially since they will simply continue to discover issues by their ceaseless patrol of the borders of their own damaged self-esteem.

Posted by Harout Ekmanian, Mar 19 2009,
I'd like to be more specific about this part:
"... and Armenian president Serzh Sargsian has left the door open to this possibility."
This is another example of how one sided is this article, in other words, its writer.
In Moscow, President Serzh Sargsyan has declared that "after establishing diplomatic relationships we are open for any discussion".
I don't think that diplomatic relationship means in any way a commission of historians, which draws doubts about the fact that a genocide has occurred. Way too different.

It was just an intended mal interpretation by the Turkish newspaper "Zaman", which was answered back then by the President's office and made clear that the President doesn't accept the Turkish preconditions about the Armenian Genocide.

Apart from that, the foreign minister of Armenia Mr. Edward Nalpantyan himself has declared in France that "Armenia will welcome every step forward in the process of worldwide campaign of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide".

"If Turkey and Armenia can let the historians decide, then so too should the United States."
As mentioned above, Armenia have made it clear in several occasions that there's no place for discussion about the fact of the Armenian Genocide.

I think Mr. Ben should check the press about the topic he chose to write, before publishing.

Thank you.

Posted by Ertank, Mar 19 2009,
Let me put my cards on the table from the beginning:

* I'm a Turkish citizen, born and bred.
* I believe what the military officers of the late Ottoman Empire planned and executed qualifies as genocide.
* I also believe that the political atmosphere in Turkey is not liberal enough to freely discusss this issue.
* I argue that the Armenian Genocide is not the only issue in Turkey's history of nationalisation. As a matter of fact, my country has a very bloody history, because of nationalism, the most disastrous concept that could have been introduced to the Balkans.
* Nevertheless, I find the US intervention on the issue a) imperial, b)patronising, c)having a great potential to backfire. although, I have to make it clear that the US avoiding to use the term 'genocide' solely because of realpolitik is highly unethical. It's either genocide or not.
* As far as I observe, a substantial majority of the Armenian population in the US adopts the patronising approach that Turkey can and should be 'forced' to admit genocide, partly because Turkey's political dynamics will never get to the level that requires facing the past, the truth.
* I think such an approach damages the just and fair Armenian demand that their right to own their memory, their sufferings, should be respected. However, no one asks the question whether this would help a true experience of coming to terms with history.
* On the other hand, it would be a big mistake to define AKP, the current conservative political party on power, as a potential actor to solve the issue. Addressing Dany Beylerian's comment, let me remind you that it was the spokesperson of AKP, who is a prominent extreme right-wing figure, denounced the organisers of the Armenia