511) DIASPORA, WHOSE TOOL IS IT?

The approval of the dual citizenship within the framework of the constitutional amendments acknowledged with the referendum held in November 2005 is assessed by the Armenian circles as a development determining the formation of the internal and foreign policy of the country.


Grigor Hakobyan who works in Washington as a political expert on the regions of Central Asia and Caucasus and as an author at the same time published an assessment on the short term effects of the constitutional amendments including granting the diaspora members dual citizenship.

According to Hakobyan, with the diaspora members that will attain dual citizenship obtaining rights such as the right of voting in elections in Armenia, right of acquiring estate or land, the right of benefiting from the legal regulations and the right of establishing party, the diaspora the position of which is strengthened considerably with respect to Armenia is made to turn into an important economic and political factor.

Hakobyan points out in his assessment that the diaspora gaining a determining role in Armenian policies as an additional strength of vote is expected to create an important change in the formation and implementation of the foreign policy.

Hakobyan notes that with the influence of different value judgments and the countries they are living, the diaspora will cause important changes in the policy of Armenia especially through elections, through the presidential elections that will be held in 2008 in particular.

In this case, it is very likely that the diaspora with the influence of its great number and economic power will be effective during the election campaigns in Armenia. Defending that the diaspora groups in Russia, CIS countries and the Middle East region will support a pro-Russia president and the Armenians in the USA, Canada and Europe will support a pro-Western president, Hakobyan is voicing his concerns that thus “the geo political conditions that Armenia has to pursue will be overlooked”.

In fact, Hakobyan’s assessments match with the worries of Igor Muradyan, the Intelligence Service Councilor of Armenia that “especially the Armenian diapora operating in the USA has come under the guidance of the USA completely.

Muradyan stated that American-Armenian Assembly conducts intelligence activities for the USA in Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh and that an Armenian citizen is collecting intelligence for CIA in Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh.

Stating that Armenians in diaspora have been assimilated in the countries where they live forgetting their identities and most of them are serving the intelligence of the country where they live, Muradyan noted that Armenians which experienced assimilation rather than integration have not achived to become a nation of the world.

And now the extent of the worries that have to be felt has increased more. For, the worries that are voiced for the diaspora members that will obtain dual citizenship – thus the countries where they live – do not portend for good.

Grigor Hakobyan’s worries are not limited to this. The political expert of Armenian origin has strange concerns related with Armenia’s foreign policy on Turkey:

Hakobyan claims that the current Government of Armenia pursues a policy that is “not very aggressive” towards Turkey (!), it supports the Turkey’s EU membership (!) and by means of this it tries to ensure the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide.

While Hakobyan’s citing the concepts of “Turkey’s EU membership” and “genocide” creates a strange conflict within the context of “support”-“barrier”; we can not help asking ourselves what will be the more “aggressive” policy that Armenia which has mobilized all its means for the anti-Turk initiatives would pursue against Turkey be like.

The answer to this exists in the assessments of Hakobyan:

“The diaspora will cause changes especially with regard to foreign policy. Primarily the hostile and aggressive attitude that is based on opposing Turkey will gain strength. The diaspora will oppose Armenia’s support for Turkey’s EU membership(!), the legal initiatives will be raised against Turkey in international platforms. The diaspora will be a compelling and strong element for including the demands of financial compensation and demands for land from Turkey into the official state policy.”

Hakobyan must have forgotten that the diaspora that have made calls for “not letting Turks that do not recognize “genocide” into the EU!” in the entire Europe and the the government of Armenia’s attempts to this end in European countries are parallel in nature. Also it is necessary to remind Hakobyan the statements of Armenian politicians who say that “the fact that we have no demands for land and compensation today does not mean that w won’t make tomorrow”. The points that “Turkey’s territorial integrity is not recognized” are included openly in three official documents of Armenia: “The Declaration of Independence”, “Independence Decision” and “Constitution”

What if a deep disagreement occurred between diaspora and the administration in Armenia, and the Armenians of diaspora are under the guidance of the country in which they are present as Muradyan expressed? Then, who are those who oppose Turkey’s EU membership and who have made financial compensation and demands for soil?

Who are those who fuel Armenian aggressiveness and discord? Is it the diaspora? Is it the countries where they live? In other words;

Whose tools are Armenians this time?

diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=1408

Read Full Post !

510) ARMENIA’S DREAM ON THE TURKISH TERRITORIES GOES ON

70 representatives coming from various countries had participated in the 28th Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) held on January 30th, 2000 in Yerevan. It had been announced that the party agenda comprised the issues of ensuring independence of the (so-called) Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, supporting Karabakh in the international arena, protecting Armenians’ rights in their home country and the “recognition of the (so-called) genocide of 1915-22 by international public opinion”.


Six years later in 2006, we see that Dashnaktsutyun increased its’ activities till the 100th anniversary of the (so-called) Armenian genocide in the year 2015.

Dashnaktsutyun now wants that organizations in Europe and particularly university youth in Europe acquire a more active appearance so that Turkey’s EU membership process will be undermined.

Actually, certain European countries found it appropriate to judge Armenian claims unilaterally – even without feeling the necessity of investigating historical facts -, and recognized (so-called) Armenian genocide through their parliaments.

Whereas now, those with commonsense who make their voices heard in France, which has been the principal advocate of Armenians’ genocide claims in Europe, create confusion among Armenian circles.

Dashnaktsutyun panicked with the developments that occurred following the declaration published by 19 prominent historians of France under the title of “Freedom for History”, with a formal request for the annulment of the laws that are not acceptable for a democratic regime, primarily the act on the (so-called) Armenian genocide. And the party initiated a new drive in its’ activities.

With the initiatives of the office of Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), a conference was held in Athens with the participation of offices based in Europe and of the organization of Ay Data on January 14-15 2006. The conference aimed to ensure that Armenian case is more vigorously advocated by the university students abroad and by European structures as well as aiming to completely interconnect baseless Armenian claims with Turkey’s EU membership process.

In the conference that was attended by representatives from France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Britain, as well as representatives from the Near East Committee of Ay Data organization, Dashnaktsutyun office staff and deputies in the Armenian Parliament, “the need to conduct a study before the EU puts forward (so-called) Armenian genocide as a condition for Turkey’s membership” was emphasized.

In the conference in which a demand was made that “tactical and strategic policy conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Dashnaktsutyun Party concerning Turkey’s membership to the EU should be maintained”, it was also required that “Armenian youth should have a more active role in the realization of Armenian ideals” and “Armenian organizations in Europe should become more active.

But this is not all of it, following are the statements of Giro Manoyan, Director of Yerevan Office of the extreme nationalist Dashnaktsutyun Party concerning “territory demands that they could make from Turkey in future”…

“The present government to which we also belong and the President whom we support and will continue to support, will not abandon our demands for motherland,” told Manoyan, also claiming that “none Armenian government can tell that it will not make territory demands from Turkey”; and he went on to say that “Not any Armenian government can do this. Because, for me, Armenian people do not allow such a government to remain in power”.

The speaker of the Dashnaktsutyun Party, partner of the government in Yerevan, demonstrates the extent of Armenian boldness by stating that “Lack of such demands today does not mean that there will not be such kind of demands in the future”.

Armenian press, which reported the above statements of Manoyan made during a round-table meeting in Yerevan, also reported that “Armenia could demand part of the Turkish territories where mostly Armenians inhabited before 1915”.

Statements made by Dashnaktsutyun make it clear in the international arena that “Armenia does not recognize Turkey’s territorial integrity” and thus once more verifies Turkey which wants to attract attention to the reality behind so-called genocide allegations.

Now eyes are turned to France where we hear statements such as “It does not fall to parliaments and politicians to write the history. History is written by historians.” And it is also time to see whether countries that acknowledge so-called genocide claims will realize their mistakes…


diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=1405

Read Full Post !

509) Denmark Socialist Party’s Council member and its Economy Speaker Ole Riigaard

We frequently come across a cliché “Turkey should face up its history.” It is thought provoking that the cliché is not used for other countries that are currently EU members. After Turkey displayed its determination about the EU membership, the claims regarding the Armenian genocide settled into the agenda and it does not leave. It is worth reminding the history of Europe that in the cliché that is heard among the EU public. A reader’s letter written by the Denmark Socialist Party’s Council member and its Economy Speaker, Ole Riigaard, was published by the Denmark based Information Daily on January 18, 2006. It is as follows:
“In the process of discussing the genocide that Turkey implemented against Armenians during the Word War I, it is repeatedly demanded of Turkey to recognize the genocide and to offer an apology as a condition for its membership.

I just wonder and ask: Has Austria, in a proper sense, accepted its common responsibility in the Jewish genocide? Has France gotten on knee to apologize after the genocide in North Africa in 1950’s? Did Britain apologize for its adventures in the colonies?

Well, what about Word War I? Word War I was a meaningless crook’s war in which the great powers sent millions of soldiers to kill each other. An ordinary European citizen has no connection with that war. As a result, shouldn’t the governments of Germany, Austria, England and France apologize to their people for what they made them live through?

I almost agree on all other demands regarding Turkey. However, why do EU members ask historic confessions from themselves? It would be proper to issue a series of confessions and apologizes. Thereby it would help to make international relation depend only upon international laws. But no, instead of this, the demand for recognition of the past problems is just a means used to keep Turkey in the cold. That is hypocrisy. Nevertheless hypocrisy is always being a means for international policy


diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=1401

Read Full Post !

508) Applying the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention to Armenians

"Genocide Scholars" such as Israel Charny claim Turkey conducted a genocide under the regulations of the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide. (For example, as Charny wrote in a 2005 open letter to Turkish leader Erdogan.) Since Charny is a "genocide scholar," one would think he would at least be an expert on what the 1948 Convention says, since Charny in particular has shown little evidence of being a scholar in most everything else. (See "Revealing the true identity of the sham 'genocide expert' Dr. Israel Charny," evidently written by a fellow Israeli, at the bottom of this page.) . . .

Let's examine more closely the requirements of the U.N. Convention.

Armenian Diaspora's Accusing Turkey Of Genocide Is A Legal Crime

ANKARA - ''Armenian diaspora's accusing Turkey of genocide is a legal crime,'' Sukru Elekdag, MP of the main opposition party --Republican People's Party (CHP)-- said on Thursday.


Sukru Elekdag
Speaking at an international symposium held at Ankara's Gazi University on ''Turkish-Armenian Relations and 1915 Incidents'', Elekdag said, ''those who advocate Armenian thesis, cannot prove their allegations within the context of the United Nations Conventions on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Article 4 of the Convention says that only persons and public officials can be accused of genocide, not juristic persons or states. Also, Article 6 of the same convention says that those allegations should be determined by competent tribunals.''

''Parliaments of several countries decided to recognize so-called Armenian genocide by violating the United Nations Convention. A decision made by violating international laws does not have any legal ground. The law does not define the 1915 incidents as crime of genocide. Therefore, an undefined act cannot be considered crime. This is the principle of 'there is no crime without law'. Under all these principles, it is impossible to describe the 1915 incidents as genocide, and to accuse the Ottoman Empire and Turkey of genocide. Those allegations have both political and legal dimensions. Therefore, a court of arbitration should be formed to deal with the issue,'' he said.

(Source misplaced)

A competent tribunal was set in motion, to find individual Ottomans guilty of massacres. This was the Malta Tribunal. It never went to trial, because for over two years, its administrators could not find evidence for conviction. The archives of several nations were searched, including the archives of the United States, and certainly the archives of the Ottoman Empire, which was under the control of the British occupying Istanbul. Every accused was set free at the end.

"Nullum Crimen"


Along with the the principle of 'there is no crime without law,' as stated above, is the principle of Nullum Crimen.

The principle called "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" is a basic maxim in continental European legal thinking,and recognized in virtually all modern democracies. It was authored by Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach as part of the Bavarian Code in 1813. This maxim states that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of penal law as it existed at the time. This basic legal principle has been incorporated into international criminal law. It thus prohibits the creation of ex post facto laws.

What this basically means is that penal law cannot be enacted retroactively, for an offense not existing when that offense was committed ("nullum crimen"); that is, one cannot be penalized for doing something that isn't prohibited by law.

Apart from it, the alleged acts against Armenians in 1915 do not constitute the crime of genocide because International law did not prescribe it as the crime of genocide in 1915. Moreover, if we apply logic to generality then, “the killing of Jesus on (the) cross constitutes the crime (of) torture under the European Convention on Human Rights”. How (is it) consistent with ... common sense? How can you apply the present concepts retroactively? How could any reasonable person argue that (the) British Empire’s occupation of Egypt in (the) 1800(s) constitutes the crime of aggression? Was that act considered aggression at that time?
Nurlan, http://genocide.com/


More 1948 U.N. Convention Requirements

Other requirements:

"INTENT" must be proven. That's the magic word. The only evidence put forth implicating the Ottoman government of the INTENT of systematically destroying the Armenians has been the Aram Andonian documents. These have been proven to be forgeries.


"There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

Henry R. Huttenbach, history professor who appears to support the Armenian viewpoint exclusively, as do... curiously... nearly all so-called "genocide scholars"; The Genocide Forum, 1996, No. 9


"POLITICAL ALLIANCES" are exempted. The Armenians allied themselves with the enemies of their Ottoman nation. "I must emphasize the fact, unhappily known to few, that ever since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts." (Boghos Nubar)

The U.N. Itself has Refused to Designate this Episode as a Genocide


Propagandist-Activists like Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier, are still going around claiming the United Nations has recognized their genocide. This is a falsehood.

In 1985, a pro-Armenian rapporteur who was part of a U.N. sub-committee, Benjamin Whitaker, attempted to force this issue down the U.N.'s throat. (Sassounian was one of the activists involved.) The issue was debated, and Whitaker's report was refused. The details may be read in this article, "The Truth About the Whitaker Report." Genocide websites such as preventgenocide.org, unethically or ignorantly, have put up this report, bearing the opinion of its author, as if the Armenian Genocide were officially accepted by the United Nations.

Here is the truth, established after 1985:

"(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a
report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide."

Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000.

On June 4-7, 2005, at a Florida Atlantic University genocide conference, Juan Mendez, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide to the Secretary General of the United Nations, was criticized for calling the Armenians' genocide an "event." This article tells us that the Argentinian "responded that since the UN has not officially recognized the genocide, he was not allowed to call it that."

As reader Conan put it: "The UN is the organ that has established the Genocide Convention. If even such an institution doesn’t recognize the Armenian genocide, Turkey has the right to punish the so called Armenian genocide as libel. That is the right of every nation."

A Genocide Conference Deals with INTERNATIONAL LAW

The following is from a program of a genocide conference, the details for which weren't handy. Nevertheless, there were some interesting ideas. See what you think. (The emphases are mine.)


Session Five: Implications for International Relations [Saturday 9-10:30]
P. Terrence Hopmann (Brown University): Chair
Gerard J. Libaridian: "An Assessment of Armenian-Turkish Relations"
Xxx: "The Turkish Position"
Xxx: Discussant


GENOCIDES, WAR CRIMES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:

International Law appears to be undergoing significant readjustments, through a process of trials and errors and in response to the dynamic changes taking place in the international world and economic order. Many of the changes point to a compromise of the hitherto theoretically absolute sovereignty of the "nation-state". New concepts of international sanctions are emerging, and efforts are made to build or strengthen international courts and fact gathering independent organizations.

The diplomatic struggle that takes around the Armenian "Genocide" has important bearings on the search for new international legal concepts and for a revised and more autonomous international legal system:

The concept of "Genocide" as a crime entered the international law in 1951, by an act of the United Nations General Assembly. It was not until 1993 that the United Nations was able to establish the War Crimes Tribunal to investigate and prosecute people involved in crimes against humanity, including genocide. From a purely legal point of view, is it possible to "try" a case that occurred in 1915-16 on the basis of a "law" established in 1951 and in a court established in 1993, or in any "court" or legislative organ for that matter.

There would be sufficient evidence to make criminal charges against the Unionist Ottoman government of the Great War years on the basis of international conventions of which it was a signatory, namely the conventions about the obligation to protect civilian lives in war times. Perhaps we can make similar charges against the revolutionary Ankara government for the offenses against civilian Armenians living under its jurisdiction in 1919-23. However, can we charge a government for the crimes committed by the one it succeeded not in any peaceful way but because of a radical defiance of and rebellion against its authority? What are the criteria to determine the continuity of responsibility from one regime to the next in a given territory? One would presume, from a purely legal point of view, that one has to look at the international treaties that recognized the establishment of a new regime for answers to the question of the continuity of responsibility. If so, there would be little ground to make a case against the Republic of Turkey for what happened in 1915-16 or 1895-1918.

Let us presume that we can think of other legal criteria to link the Republic of Turkey to the Ottoman State concerning the flagrant offenses against peaceful and civilian Armenians. Will we (and can we) then apply the same criteria uniformly to all the other cases of flagrant offense against civilian and peaceful people that occurred in the same era, as one would expect in legal matters? Would not the list of such crimes committed by extinct or extant governments be a very long one, even if we limited ourselves to the modern era alone, as suggested above?

Perhaps we should focus our energies to the development and strengthening of international legal principles and institutions that would help prevent the recurrence of genocides and similar offenses against humanity. In that case, past incidents should still provide us with the necessary insight as well as the necessary moral resolve to develop legal principles and institutions that would be effective in preventing similar atrocities in the future.

-------------------------------------------------
©Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/united-nations.htm
-------------------------------------------------

Read Full Post !

507) "Prisoners of History"

Over the last week, as things proceeded to their regrettable denouement on Friday afternoon, I wrote and rewrote drafts for this column several times. When you're dealing with a historical conflict in which there's a lot at stake and in which almost everyone involved has tunnel vision, it's difficult not to get sucked into the whirlpools of controversy. . . .

So much is at stake in the Turkish-European Union relationship, and for both sides, that it's important to get things right. But instead, everyone seems to be getting it wrong. Antipathies and tensions which were laid to rest long years ago peril. Who's to blame?

Since some of the aspects are still sub judice and on others many people are in a state of high dudgeon, I shall try and pick my words and, perhaps unfairly, take those involved.

At the center of this event lies history and people's freedom to say and think what they like about it, but not just that: It's also about the pressures and entanglements that sprout hideously when ancient history is allowed to reach into our own times.

On Sunday morning readers of British daily The Observer were being told by Mr. Denis McShane, Labour MP for Rotherham, a staunch friend and defender of Turkey and one of the visitors who endured a certain amount of physical ill-treatment (for which I hope he's received an apology) in Istanbul on Friday, that "Turkey must not be allowed to airbrush its past."

I'm not sure what qualifications Denis, a university contemporary of mine many years ago, has where Turkish history is concerned. But there's a New Testament saying which is that "One should first cast the mote out of one's own eye" before attempting to perform the same service on someone else. There are motes on all sides.

While the head of steam over the case against author Orhan Pamuk was building up last week, I heard a distinguished Ottoman historian, Professor Justin McCarthy, telling me how last summer he was almost refused permission even to enter the European Parliament building. It was actually Denis's Socialist Group, by the way, who eventually ensured that he could step across the portals. Good for them. When he got inside, he found that the room booked for him to speak in had been cancelled.


Justin McCarthy

Nor is that the end of Professor McCarthy's difficulties. In France he's being prosecuted and publication of his books is actually illegal, because they deny the French version of Turkish history.

And, as we know, Professor McCarthy is not the first to suffer this fate. An even more distinguished historian, Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton, the U.S., was unwise enough to write in the 1980s that he didn't believe the Armenian tragedy (and on that word I hope we can all agree) in World War I constituted a "genocide." Professor Lewis is, in my opinion, one of the great scholars of the 20th century. When the French authorities launched a court case against him, he spent quite a lot of money on legal fees defending himself. He lost and was sentenced to pay a token fine.

So in some parts of the EU if you write history the local politicians believe to be incorrect, you end up losing a court case and being fined, even if you're great scholar while their knowledge of history could be written on the back of a postage stamp. Is that so very different from events elsewhere?

Now let's briefly glance at the controversy which has shot Mr. Pamuk to even greater celebrity across the world. The Armenian controversy is part of a long and complex tragic historical process in which millions of people died. If you're in Western Europe, you of course think that they were Christians killed by Turks. But you're wrong.

In 1821 the Ottoman Empire was an ethnically and religiously mixed Christian-Jewish-Muslim entity ruling Turkey, Greece, the Balkans and the Middle East. To create the modern map of the same region, an immense amount of blood was spilt and the greater part of it was spilt by Christians shedding the blood of Muslims and driving people out of their homes to make way for ethnically homogeneous nation-states such as Serbia, Greece, Armenia and others. The climax of that conflict came in World War I when just under 2.4 million people died in Anatolia. The greater part of them were Ottoman Muslims, though as we know very many Armenians died too. Overall, about 5.5 million Ottoman Muslims died between 1821 and 1923 as victims, direct or indirect, of the Christian ethno-nationalists.

Essentially Professor McCarthy is being harassed by the French legal system for drawing attention to that inconvenient fact.

With so much violence, responsibility can hardly be one-sided, but it has to be remembered that, whatever they claimed, the Christian nationalists were the expansionists and very often the killers. When the victorious Balkan Christians took over an area, they killed or evicted all the Muslims and Jews they could.

In Bulgaria, for example, when the Russians arrived to evict the Ottoman government in 1877-78, about 200,000 Muslims died, many of them from starvation or disease, not just warfare it's true. But also, and nobody has paid much attention to this, the Christian liberators raped and murdered the local Jewish population wherever they could. Until December 2005 (note the date) when Israeli scholar. Dr Zvi Keren read a paper on this, there seems to have been no international attention given to this at all. But everyone in Western Europe has heard of the "Bulgarian Massacres" in which from 12,00 to 15,000 Christian Bulgarians died -- the victims of Circassians who had themselves been evicted from their homelands in yet another forgotten genocide.

What about Britain, Mr. McShane's country and mine? It was always the most pro-Turkish and pro-Ottoman of the western European states. But Britain too picked up the airbrushing habit even before the events above were history. From 1878 to 1923, the British government systematically and knowingly ignored all questions about violence against Ottoman Muslims, while energetically pursuing claims of violence against Christians. Examine the pages of Hansard, the Parliamentary record, during that period if you doubt this.

But about half the population of Turkey knows these things through what their grandparents lived through and told them. Now Mr. McShane and others are saying that they cannot "airbrush" history. But from their point of view, it's the West which has airbrushed away their whole side of the story and their sufferings.

Western public opinion has not stopped ignoring present-day violence against Muslims in former Ottoman lands. I know of no cases of Armenians murdered by Turks, while I have personally met several Turks who know of people murdered by Armenians. A future historian would never be able to guess that from reading the British media. How much attention did Western Europe give, in the 1990s, to the expulsion of about 1 million people from the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh who were driven into other parts of Azerbaijan? Come to think of it, I don't recall any protests from Mr. Pamuk on this issue. And the murders in Bosnia only became headline news because a group of dedicated journalists and academics bucked the trend, took up cudgels and forced the public and politicians to pay attention.

So, though none of this justified the unruly and ugly scenes in Istanbul last week, it certainly helps explain why public opinion in Turkey is so explosively strong on this matter. It's not just a question of some extremist bad guys causing trouble and wanting to wreck Turkish-EU relations. It's much deeper than that. And it bodes badly for EU and Western politicians if they can't see this.

EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn's poorly judged eve-of-hearing remarks helped twist the situation a little further. Yes, of course, EU norms are at stake. Could he not have explained those norms -- and displayed a little more sensitivity and insight?

The saddest thing of all is that these historical conflicts and tensions are ones which were fading until the EU began its march eastwards into the Balkans and let itself get caught up in its ethnic disputes. Now perhaps we have a rupture between Turkey and the EU, a split in the fabric of Europe, and once again we're all becoming the prisoners of history, and perhaps even its victims. Ever hear the Turkish proverb about the idiot who threw a stone into a well?


David Barchard
New Anatolian
21 December 2005
----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/Prisoners-History.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Read Full Post !