The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

[Armenian]

The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

Unfortunately, when we oppose the ruling administration in Yerevan, the ones that gain directly from it are those who are seeking to destroy the Armenian Republic. Sadly, the dangers that the Armenian Republic faces today come not only from Ankara, Washington DC and Baku - it also comes from treasonous Armenians.

My disgust towards the Armenian Assembly of America dates back to when they were first involved with the now infamous TARC fiasco. It is now quite obvious that the Armenian Assembly of America has been the eyes and ears of the US State Department since its inception. The Armenian Assembly has promoted many of the US Department's malicious agendas within the Diaspora and the Armenian Republic. In short, the Armenian Assembly of America can not be trusted to promote Armenian issues within Washington DC, nor can they be trusted within the Armenian Republic.

Whether is the self-righteous pompous scumbag called Van Krikorian, or the convert to Judaism the abomination called Ani Totah, or the numerous wealthy ignorants that saturate the organization, the Armenian Assembly of America is an absolute disgrace and poses a danger to the Armenian nation.

Please read this article in its entirety. I also suggest sending this link to as many Armenian email addresses as one can.

“Look out! Ethnic espionage”: Igor Muradyan about the Armenian Assembly of America

A number of controversial reports about the Armenian Assembly of America have appeared in the media of late. REGNUM has asked Armenian political scientist Igor Muradyan for comments.

“No doubt that the reports have serious grounds. You can turn down some arguments — for the authors seem to be somewhat under-informed about the developments — but certainly it is high time to call a spade a spade. First of all, you should take into account the continuing political struggle in Armenia and view the stance of the Armenian Assembly of America also in this light.”

I don't think that ethnic NGOs enjoy full independence in the US, but the point is that the Armenian Assembly of America is more than dependent. Even more, the Assembly is functionally dependent. The Assembly directors and employees don’t just look down on Armenia's political class and leaders, they look down on them with disdain. Given a whole range of serious political problems of Armenia, the Assembly is focused on the problem of its relations with Robert Kocharyan. Kocharyan has proved not very much convenient a partner for them, just because the Assembly directors are unable to consult, instruct and contact him in private on the phone. One cannot but agree with the opinion that the Assembly is facing a crisis of genre.

First, as an instrument of another state it is very much unwanted in the politics in Armenia. Second, the scope of the Assembly's lobbying has come to its limits — for within the limits of its tasks the US policy in the region is quite conforming to Armenia's interests. And so, the Assembly is forced to search for new domains. Quite enough has been said about this in the internet and so I'd better just remind some facts.

In 2001 the Assembly's board decreed “to fight Armenian nationalism.” This implies suppression of any instance of patriotism, especially over the Karabakh problem and Armenian-Turkish relations. The Assembly is discriminating towards Armenian political parties, NGOs, politicians and experts.

The employees and friends of the Assembly were set to carry out reconnaissance in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh Republic. We know at least six citizens of Armenia and one resident of NKR whom they tried to recruit for information gathering. The above activities envisaged the following directions:

Gathering information on the state of the armed forces of Armenia, including armaments, information on senior officers, on the import of military hardware (invoice numbers, payment terms, transportation routes), receiving analytical notes on the fighting capacity of the Armenian army, information and assessment of typical conflicts inside the military command, the concerns and plans of different groups in the military circles; gathering information on the leaders and activists of political parties, the mass media and political leaders of Armenia, including economic interests, ties with foreign countries.

For example, the Assembly wanted detailed information on the economic interests of Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan in Russia, the possibilities for discrediting him and the military command for economic or other motives. Armenian citizens were shown video pictures of Armenia's military equipment and some military commanders, photos of senior officers. Some of the videos and photos had apparently been made from a very long distance. Special interest was given to possible news about the import of air defense units, first of all, C-300, on plans to develop military aviation, on possible purchases. They were even interested in such non secret information as the parameters of dynamic steel on tanks. They paid visits to Nagorno Karabakh — formal and informal — they visited military units, talked with military commanders. The talk was friendly and candid, but they got no sensations — just stupid and thoughtless things. One NKR officer told an Assembly agent in a friendly manner — “You guys are all but profies or you cook like that in your country — you better learn a bit.”

One of the authors has already mentioned the interest of the Assembly in the military intelligence of Armenia. As a matter of fact, one of the “recruited” young experts in Yerevan says that the Assembly is very much interested in the personality of B.Azoyan. The Assembly believes the exposure of the director of the military intelligence to be one of its exploits. Exposed were quite banal facts — there reportedly are proofs that the military intelligence of Armenia works in “the American direction.”

Visitors from the Assembly have never much cared for political figures in Armenia. They did care for analytical community, individual experts. The experts were mostly very young and initially very much eager to provide Assembly people with some information. But soon they were told to supply information relating to the national security of Armenia. These activities covered also the Armenian Embassy in the US. It is a certainty that there were at least two information leaks from the office of the military attaché. Also using documents from the attaché’s table was repeatedly (and as if accidentally) the military attaché of Belarus. So, it takes one no big effort to carry out such activity. Let's just hope that the military attaché of Armenia may have no interesting information.

Mass media directors are also of interest. Of interest was, for example, the dossier of the editor of Aravot daily Aram Abrahamyan, especially his personal incomes and their sources. Very much of interest was the personality of the well-known Alexander Haroutyunyuan (if I am not mistaken, he is now the director of the public television) and so on and so forth. It seems that the whole political class of Armenia is being computerized.

Of certain interest is the impression I got personally from such contacts. Strange but true: Assembly representatives get openly malicious and bilious over the fact that the Armenian armed forces are highly capable of discharging many combat operations on their own. Would they be more comfortable if the army of their “historical homeland” had other characteristics and was like the armies of some other states? Altogether incompetent the Assembly representatives were as much annoyed to know that Armenia is not a perishing country and is successfully developing economically.

The National Security Service and the Defense Ministry of Armenia are perfectly informed of the activities of the Assembly and have relevant directives on hand. For example, the top military command are strictly forbidden to have meetings with their Assembly counterparts.

But no less worthy of mentioning is the fact that the Assembly representatives are not the only ones to take a special interest in their “historical homeland.” Obviously having their definite interests in Armenia and specialization is also the Armenian community of Washington DC. For example, some Richard Kirakosyan, generally known as analyst or political scientist or someone else, has offered an Armenian citizen closely cooperating with the “Caucasian (Yerevan) Center of Iranian Studies” $10,000 for information on Iran — absolutely definitely saying that this service was ordered by CIA.

I guess not everything is so dangerous for our country – as I do believe that the US is our friend who knows that only Armenia can be a strategic partner in the region (“small Israel” or “Big Armenia”). The Armenian society continues being modestly silent that the US strategy is one of the major factors of our security, if not something more. But somebody wants to be “more Catholic than the Pope is.” These are people for whom ethnicity is their profession. So it is time to hang a sign “Look Out! Ethnic Espionage.” In the meantime, we better remember that our compatriots abroad are overwhelmingly citizens of other states and are obliged to express their interests. We are still far from being a “world nation.” We have yet a long way to go. And young vain analysts and political analysts better keep in mind that our country is an active actor in the regional and global politics, with quite a big interest given to it."

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/565800.html?forprint

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

If the country was a proper democracy with functioning institutions such organizations wouldn't be able to pull out such reports. The reality is that both the assembly and the government are the enemies of the people. Its just that one serves American interests while the other mafioso and Russian interests.

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

If the country was a proper democracy with functioning institutions such organizations wouldn't be able to pull out such reports. The reality is that both the assembly and the government are the enemies of the people. Its just that one serves American interests while the other mafioso and Russian interests.

Such "reports" can be pulled out off any country. Chinese and Russian intelligence serves are doing the exact same thing in USA, Europe and Britain. What's more, the "mafioso" and "Russian" interests are within Armenia, they coincide with Armenian national/economic interests. Thus, as corrupt as Kocharyan and Sarkisian may be they are still interested with protecting Armenia's borders with Turkey, they are interested in protecting the territorial integrity of Artsakh, they are interested in protecting Armenia's strategic partnership with Moscow and Tehran, and they are interested with protecting their source of wealth.

In that respect, they are no different than any other politician on earth. They are no different than any of the royals and nobles we have had. Relatively speaking they have done a commendable job in maintaining the Armenian military, protecting Armenian/Artsakh borders, fostering economic growth, and solidifying strategic relationships with Iran, Russia and others. They have done the above while landlocked, economically stricken, and under immense pressure from abroad.

Being concerned about your nation and its wellbeing is commendable, however, constantly calling for revolution due to dissatisfaction plays into the hands of the enemy. Besides which, as far as I'm concerned, I 'want' our politicians serving Russian interests, that is our only natural option within the Caucasus. And talk about Armenia not having 'true' independence is nonsense - a tiny, fledgling, landlocked nation of two million people cannot hope to oppose its numerous powerful enemies alone.

Besides which, within the few decades the Russian Federation, along with Iran, India and China will be more-or-less ruling the world.

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

Armenian Assembly siding with interests of US State department and Republic of Turkey.

1.
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee (TARC) – Between 2001-2004, Van Krikorian, The chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America, comprised one of the four Armenian members of TARC which was created by the US state department with encouragement and approval of the Republic of Turkey. The purpose of TARC was the portrayal of reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. The end result of TARC was the derailment of Armenian Genocide advocacy efforts in the US congress and elsewhere in the world for several years.

2.
Freedom Support Act (section 907) - In 2002, The Armenian Assembly stayed silent and did not oppose the State department's request to waive section 907. This waiver enables the US President, with nearly unrestricted authority, to provide military aid to Azerbaijan who has been threatening Armenia with renewed aggression.

3.
Museum of Tolerance – In 2003, the Armenian Assembly issued a letter praising the Museum of Tolerance during the midst of a hunger strike organized by young Armenians protesting the museum for its lack of mention of the Armenian Genocide. The protest received wide media coverage in the US and Israel. However, there still remains no permanent mention of the Armenian Genocide at the Museum of Tolerance.

4.
Ambassador Richard Hoagland – In 2007, the Armenian Assembly sided with the US State department and Republic of Turkey by approving of the nomination of a Genocide denier for United States ambassador to Armenia.

5.
US Foreign Aid – Over the years of its existence, the Armenian Assembly has regularly adhered to the US Administration's earmark cut recommendation for aid to Armenia.

6.
Genocide resolutions - Over the years of its existence, the Armenian Assembly has often opposed initiatives for introduction of Armenian Genocide resolutions at the behest of the US State Department.

Source: http://www.armenianassemblyofappeasement.org/

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

The following is related to individuals involved with the Armenian Assembly:

US deploys intelligence facility in Armenia to spy on Iran

The US Global Gold Corporation (GGC) will complete the gold exploration in Arevis village of Sisyan region, Armenia by the end of 2007, APA reports quoting Armenian press. The gold deposit is situated on the border with Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan. Henrich Mkrtchyan, general geologist of GGC office in Armenia said the Corporation that operates in close cooperation with Armenian defense ministry has invested $2.2 million in “Marjan” deposit which is 3000 meters above the sea level.

Unnamed source in Armenian environmental protection ministry said it is not informed of the Corporation’s activity as it is not allowed for that.
Armenian defense ministry sources said the American company is working for the Pentagon and fulfilling errands on Iran in the territory. Chairman and CEO is Armenian Van Krikorian, president on operational works Michael T.Mason and vice-president Hrayr Agnerian. Local residents say the GGC supports the restoration of the infrastructure of Arevis village which is compose dof 24 houses. They say there are also some English-speaking military-like persons besides geologists, who are installing unknown big facility in the territory.

Armenian-born American analyst Richard Kirakosyan has recently announced that Washington and Moscow has reached an agreement on Serj Sarkisyan’s presidency after Robert Kocharian. Armenia is reported to have undertaken certain commitment on providing opportunity for the Us to use its territory against Iran.

Source: http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=30602

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

TARC Moderator’s Book Reveals Initiative’s Anti-Armenian Intent

By Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier

David Phillips, the moderator of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, is about to publish a book that discloses the true motives of those who initiated and supported TARC. Based on an advanced copy of Phillips’s book, "Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation," analyst Emil Danielyan wrote two lengthy reports last week for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Here are some of the highlights of Phillips’s interesting revelations, as reported by Danielyan:

-- Phillips confirms that the US government was the driving force behind TARC. The idea was suggested to him by Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, the number three figure in the State Department under the Clinton and Bush administrations. TARC held its first meeting in Vienna in early 2001.

-- Phillips acknowledges that the State Department provided "some of TARC’s direct costs." All of the sources of TARC’s funds and their uses have not been made public.

-- Phillips accuses Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian of reneging on his pledge to support TARC. Apparently, he would have preferred that Oskanian continue backing TARC, even after it became clear that TARC was a clever ploy to undermine the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

-- Phillips bitterly complains: "Instead of standing by its commitments, the Kocharian government ran for cover." This made Phillips so furious that he slammed the Kocharian regime in an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal by calling it "corrupt and inept," and accusing Pres. Kocharian of "running a mafia state."

-- Phillips attributes Oskanian’s change of mind on TARC to criticism from Armenian "nationalist circles." Once TARC’s anti-Armenian intent became clear, just about everyone in Armenia and the Diaspora opposed this sinister initiative. Shortly after TARC’s creation, one of its Turkish members, Ozdem Sanberk, even gave an interview acknowledging that the purpose of this initiative was to block the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

-- Gunduz Aktan, a Turkish member of TARC, who repeatedly and aggressively denies the Armenian Genocide, put his foot in his mouth by suggesting that an independent panel of experts review the facts of the Genocide. TARC engaged the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) for that purpose. Aktan boasted that he would "destroy" the ICTJ experts with his legal arguments during his testimony. Phillips says that Aktan appeared "nervous" after making his presentation. Aktan had good reason to be nervous. The ICTJ qualified the events of 1915 as genocide.

-- Trying to give importance to his own efforts, Phillips claims that Turkey came within an inch of opening its border with Armenia in the summer of 2003. Showing his political naiveté, Phillips says in his book: "I had hoped that Ankara would quietly open its border sometime during the dead of summer, when everyone was on holiday and not paying attention."

-- Phillips writes that when Turkey’s Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul came to Washington in July 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President xxxx Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice reminded him at every meeting that "the issue of genocide recognition was not going away. He was told that real progress was the best way of deflecting pressure." Not surprisingly, the US officials’ real intent for pressuring Turkey into opening its border with Armenia was not the improvement of Armenia’s economy, but the removal of the nettlesome Armenian Genocide issue from the agenda of the Congress.

-- As further evidence of the sinister intent of the Bush Administration, Phillips writes that Vice President Cheney personally intervened by lobbying against a congressional resolution that barely mentioned the Armenian Genocide. "Cheney worked the phones and was assured by [House Speaker] Dennis Hastert that [the resolution] would be kept from the House floor," Phillips says.

-- In an interesting revelation, Phillips reports that Pres. Kocharian was highly infuriated when the Armenian Genocide resolution was blocked by Pres. Clinton and Speaker Hastert. A month later, when Pres. Kocharian received Stephen Sestanovich, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, the Armenian President was "in a foul mood and railed against Clinton’s betrayal," Phillips says. This is yet another indication that Armenian officials, not just the Diaspora, care deeply about the Genocide issue.

-- Phillips reveals that he helped arrange the controversial February 2001 interview between Pres. Kocharian and prominent Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand that "helped mollify [Turkish] concerns about Armenia’s intentions." Apparently, Phillips promised Pres. Kocharian that should he make conciliatory statements during the interview, the Turks would then open the border with Armenia. Pres. Kocharian kept his end of the bargain. Phillips did not or could not, since the border remained closed!

-- Phillips wrongly blames "Armenian nationalists" for both of his failures – inability to have Turkey lift its blockade of Armenia and collapse of the reconciliation efforts. Phillips refuses to acknowledge that his profound ignorance of Armenian-Turkish issues played a much greater role in his failures than anything said or done by so-called Armenian nationalists.

More on Phillips’s escapades, once we get hold of his book!


Source: http://lalettre.hayway.org/protected...e0001010c.html

Additional relevant articles by Harut Sassounian:

Armenia Should Not Allow TARC to Meet in Yerevan: http://adl.hayway.org/default_zone/g.../page3593.html

Another Turkish-Armenian Effort Fails - This Time in France: http://adl.hayway.org/default_zone/g.../page2344.html

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

Let's take a close look at some of the wording of this article concerning the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National Committee.

Armenian

CRISIS ON US AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA MAY METASTASIZE

Under pressure by pro-Armenian Democratic senators, U.S. President George W. Bush Friday withdrew his pick for ambassador to Yerevan, but his move is seen to be paving the way for further complications.

Bush gave in to Democratic objections and withdrew the nomination of Richard Hoagland to be ambassador to the Armenian capital.

The White House's decision came after Robert Menendez, a staunchly pro-Armenian Democratic senator from New Jersey, placed a hold on Hoagland's nomination for the second time in January because of Hoagland's refusal to call the World War I-era killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire a genocide. Despite the administration's pleas, Menendez' hold has remained in place since then.

Under U.S. law, even one senator can indefinitely veto the nomination of a senior government official.

Such holds are rare, because the move usually puts the dissenting senator under huge pressure, But in Hoagland's case, Menendez' action was supported by many other senators, including some Republicans.

Now Bush needs to nominate another person to replace Hoagland, a career diplomat whose last job was U.S. ambassador to Dushanbe in Tajikistan.

However, regardless of whom Bush picks as his choice for ambassador to Yerevan, that person will face the same problems Hoagland did.

At his confirmation hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2006, Hoagland was repeatedly urged by pro-Armenian senators to qualify the Armenian killings as genocide. But he declined to do so under the U.S. administration's official policy.



History repeating itself?:

Analysts say that the new nominee for ambassador will again face the same pressure from the pro-Armenian senators. If he or she again declines to utter the word genocide, at least one Democratic senator will most likely place a hold on him or her, repeating Hoagland's case.

Another option could be that diplomat uttering the "g-word." But if that happens, it will effectively kill the relationship with Turkey, which sees the administration's acknowledgement of an Armenian genocide as a worse situation than a similar move in Congress.

A third option could be something different. If the new nominee declines to use the word genocide, and faces a senator's hold again, Bush this time may appoint him or her as U.S. ambassador to Yerevan when Congress is in recess. But if this happens, that person will probably not find suitable working conditions in the Armenian capital because of probable reactions there.

"For the United States, all options are bad, some worse and others, and there is no way out for an easy solution," said one analyst.

"It's not our problem," said one Turkish Foreign Ministry official. "If the United States cannot send an ambassador to Armenia because of such moves by the Armenian lobby, it will be their mutual problem, not ours."

The official said Turkey did not expect the Washington administration to change its position on not officially recognizing an Armenian genocide.

John Evans, the previous U.S. ambassador to Yerevan, was fired in May 2006 after he qualified the Armenian killings as genocide in violation of U.S. policy, leading to strong reaction by pro-Armenian groups in the United States.

Armenians welcome withdrawal:

The Armenian National Committee of Armenia (ANCA), an organization of radical U.S. Armenians, welcomed Hoagland's withdrawal.

"We are gratified to see that the administration has finally come to recognize what the ANCA and the Armenian American community have understood for more than a year that xxxx Hoagland – through his own words and action – disqualified himself as an effective representative of either American values or U.S. interests as U.S. ambassador to Armenia," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

Also Menendez said, "this is certainly welcome news." The Armenian Assembly of America (AAA), a more moderate group, had a more nuanced reaction.

"Should this withdrawal indicate that the next nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia shall properly acknowledge and characterize the Armenian Genocide, then this is a positive development," it said in a written statement.

Expressing concern that the United States was not being represented by an ambassador in Yerevan for a long time, the AAA had not joined the ANCA's efforts to stop Hoagland at all costs.

In a related development, the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives backing an Armenian genocide resolution pending in that chamber rose to 224 last week, the AAA said in another statement. This represents a clear majority in the 435-member House. The non-binding bill calls for the official recognition of the Armenian killings as genocide.

Turkey and the Bush administration have so far managed to prevent a House floor vote on the resolution, but Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may hold a vote after Congress returns from its summer recess in September, analysts and congressional sources say.

Source: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/a...?enewsid=80151

[Lucin]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

The rhetoric, the Turds are using to refer to ANCA (and Dashnaks) is quite amusing...

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission: Missed Opportunity

By Kamer Kasım, October 13, 2004

Although the Reconciliation Commission did not attract much attention in Turkey and the Turkish people around the world, it was discussed in the Armenian diaspora and Armenia widely. The establishment of the Commission and the each meeting of it debated among the Armenian diaspora organizations. Despite some exceptions, Armenians’ reaction towards the TRAC was negative. The harshest criticism towards the Reconciliation Commission came from Dashnaks and their organization Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). Contrary to the harsh criticism of Dashnaks, Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) supported the Reconciliation Commission and its activities. Dashnaks (the ANCA and also the Armenian Revolutionary Front -the ARF-) around the world showed negative reaction towards the TARC. The ARF Bureau made a statement in which they stated that although they did not oppose the principle of free dialog between the two peoples and neighboring states, they rejected any initiative mandated by foreign powers, which involves unsanctioned individuals, and which did not depart from Armenian national interests.


The ARF considered the TARC as an initiative aimed at strengthening the position of Turkey vis vis Armenian demands and damaging the national security of Armenia. The ARF feared that the establishment of the TARC would divide the Armenians and undermine their efforts for the recognition of “genocide”. The ARF’s argument about the TARC’s role to divide Armenians will be discussed later. The Armenians, who are against the Armenian National Movement and the AAA, also opposed the TARC. The main reason for this was the features of the Armenian members of TARC. Alexander Arzumanian was the former Armenian Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Minister of Armenia during former Armenia’s President Levon Ter-Petrosyan era. Arzumanian is also Chairman of the Armenian National Movement. David Hovhanissian was Armenian Ambassador to Syria from 1992-1998. They had important positions during Ter-Petrosyan’s presidency. The ANCA and other Armenian organizations, which opposed to the TARC, strongly criticized the US State Department for its involvement in the TARC.

They argued that the State Department was only care about the US oil companies’ strong interests in the Caspian Sea and the US government has supported the Bakü-Ceyhan oil pipeline to carry the Caspian oil to the world markets and the US has vested interests in Turkey. Thus the State Department has no interests in Armenia and Armenian genocide recognition. According to Dashnaks, the TARC was the creation of the State Department in order to convince the Armenian community for concessions on issues such as the Armenian “genocide” and the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The US State Department had very positive reaction towards the TARC. The State Department openly expressed its support for the TARC. Although US Deputy Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones stated that the TARC was a private initiative and the US government did not involve in it, media wrote about the US government’s involvement in the initiative. Congressional Research Service also published the four pages report titled “Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission and US Role”.

The report mentioned that the State Department provided financial assistance to support the Commission's activities as it does other civil society initiatives or people to people contacts. The funds were in the form of a grant to the American University for a conflict resolution program, which is supporting the activities of the Commission. Regarding the claims of the US government’s financial support of the TARC, Van Krikorian stated, “From the beginning the US government said it was supporting us. So I don’t think that is a surprise.” Arzumanian and Hovannisian stated that they did not have information about the US government funding. On the contrary to the harsh criticism from the ANCA, the AAA, which is one of the biggest Armenian organization in the US, supported the TARC. Harair Hovnanian from the AAA stated that “This is the first multi-disciplinary, comprehensive attempt to reconcile differences between two neighbors, separated by bitterness and mistrust, and as such, it is a major advance.”

He further stated, “I am particularly proud that the Assembly's Board of Directors Chairman Van Krikorian is on this high-level Commission.” Carolyn Mugar, from the AAA's board of trustees commented, “We believe that the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission will benefit and build on the experiences of other similar international efforts.” Arti Vartanian, acting executive director of the AAA considered the Commission as a groundbreaking step. She said, “Turkey and Armenia are neighbors. Right now they are not communicating. This is going to open the line of communication and hopefully the border.” The AAA is in competition with Dashnak’s organization, the ANCA. The ANCA views the AAA as an organization closely aligned with the US State Department, which means that it followed the interests of the US rather than those of Armenia and the Armenian people. It might be argued that the ANCA and the AAA have consisted of different social classes and their interests differ accordingly. The AAA is an organization consists of Armenian-Americans that represent the elite and establishment.

The AAA’s members have more business minded and they aware of the fact that if Turkish-Armenian border opened, Armenia and Armenian and American-Armenian businessmen would benefit from it. They realize the benefits of reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. On the other hand, the ANCA members are more politicized and economically less advantaged. The AAA’s support of the TARC and Van Krikorian’s presence there instigated the division among Armenian diaspora especially in the US. As it was mentioned above the ANCA accused the AAA of dividing the Armenians and disrupted their joint lobbying efforts in the US. Van Krikorian, stated, “Armenian-Americans are already divided.” Van Krikorian also pointed out differences between the ANCA and the AAA in terms of structure and capacity.

For example when it was asked why was not the ANCA invited to join the TARC?, he replied that the ANCA/ARF did not have any member who meet the three criteria to join the Commission; 1) Significant international and national political experience; 2) Fluency in English; 3) Willingness to work. It might be argued that the TARC soured relations between the ANCA and the AAA and affected their joint lobbying activities. Indeed, the ANCA and the AAA were in disagreement about the mechanism and timing of introducing a genocide resolution in the House of Representatives. The dialogue was started by the TARC also affected other states’ attitude towards the Armenian genocide claim. The European Parliament attributed significance to the TARC and it refused to include “genocide” issue in a resolution about Turkey.

The European Parliament stated that “It supported the civil initiative launched by a group of former diplomats and academics from Turkey and Armenia, the aim of which was to arrive at a common understanding of the past; hoped that this initiative would contribute towards the normalization of relations between the two communities concerned.” The German Parliament also refused to deal with a petition about Armenian genocide claim. The German Parliament referred to the contact between Turkish and Armenian organizations (the TARC). The establishment of the TARC also affected the ARF’s relations with the Armenian government The ARF had suspicion about the Armenian government’s involvement of the TARC. As a reaction, the ARF voted against a bill about the privatization of the electricity distribution network.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 13th of July 2001 in which it welcomed the establishment of the TARC. However, the Armenian Foreign Ministry emphasized that a full normalization of relations between the two neighboring states only possible after the establishment of diplomatic relations. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated that the Armenian Foreign Ministry was informed about the process but not involved in it. He said, “Nobody had asked us whom we want to see in the commission. Nor did we have a right to say yes or no to any candidate.” Armenian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Dziunik Aghajanian sated that “ In connection with the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Reconciliation Commission, I must say that Armenia has always hailed any public contact and dialog between the Armenian and Turkish peoples, which will promote public discussions on current problems.”

The TARC received a negative reaction from several leading Armenian political parties. They made a joint statement on 31st of July 2001 in which they condemned the TARC and considered it as “artificial reconciliation”. The Armenian political parties’ reaction affected the Foreign Ministry’s opinion about the TARC. As a result, on 1st of August Armenian Foreign Ministry issued a statement different than its earlier statement. As a response to the political parties’ joint statement Armenian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Aghajanian said, “It is noteworthy that the political forces holding the majority in the parliament have assumed a unified position over the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation commission. We believe that opinions voiced in the statement, as well as other opinions made public so far will be taken into account by the commission.”

Armenian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman also stressed that the TARC could not divide Armenians and deviate Armenian authorities from consistently pursuing and realizing the process of Armenian genocide recognition, one of the priorities on the agenda of the Armenia's foreign policy. She also pointed out that the TARC activities could not replace state level discussion and all existing problems between Turkey and Armenia could be solved only through an inter-state dialog. Armenian President Kocharian also stressed that Armenian-Turkish relations should be discussed on the state level. It can be argued that criticisms from Armenian political parties and Armenian diaspora led the Armenian authorities to distance themselves from the work of the commission. As was seen from the reaction of the Armenian diaspora and Armenian political parties the TARC was viewed negatively by some Armenians and Armenian organizations.

As a response of criticisms, the Armenian members of the Commission claimed that most Armenians from around the world have offered support, both publicly and privately towards the TARC and most Armenians believed that if Armenians and Turks talk directly and in a structured fashion, addressing the numerous issues that cause problems, some progress may follow. One of the criticisms to the TARC was about the members of the Commission. As was mentioned above the most Armenian members of the TARC had important position during the former Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan era and they were strongly criticized by the opponents of the Ter-Petrosyan. The Armenians involved the TARC were also criticized of not consulting the other Armenian organizations. The Turkish members of the TARC were criticized by some Armenians as being hardliners on the Armenian question and being connected with the Turkish establishment. 2.2.

Reactions of the Turkish Side Although in Turkey, the TARC did not attract as much interest as it got in Armenia and Armenian diaspora, there were positive reactions towards the TARC and a dialogue between the Turks and the Armenians. Mahmet Ali Briand argued that Turkey should support the TARC and should encourage meetings with Armenian business groups. Ömer E. Lütem, Director of the Institute for Armenian Research emphasized the benefits of the TARC for softening of the strained atmosphere between the two states and nations. Nuzhet Kandemir Turkey’s former Ambassador to the United States argued that the TARC was a positive development, but it would be wrong to have great expectations. He also added, “Turkish participants should coordinate with Azerbaijan when they do something in order to prevent any damage to Turkish-Azerbaijani relations.” Sami Kohen from Daily Milliyet newspaper considered the establishment of the TARC was a right step on the right time. Turkish Armenians welcomed the TARC.

Source: http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=12

[Armenian]

Re: The True Face of the Armenian Assembly Revealed

The double talking human excrement called Daniel Fried featured by the Armenian Assembly...

Armenian

************************************************** ************

Remarks at the Armenian Assembly of America National Conference



Washington, DC March 27, 2006

Ambassador Fried: Thank you for that kind introduction.

I have the disadvantage of having to follow my friend Vartan [Oskanian, the foreign minister]. That is a real disadvantage because he’s very very good. A good interlocutor, a good friend. Most of the time we agree. When he disagrees, I am reminded by just how good he is. [Laughter].

It’s a pleasure to be here at the national conference, and I was happy to accept the invitation from the Assembly and the Armenian General Benevolent Union and the Eastern and Western Diocese of the Armenian Church, one of the great ancient churches of Christendom, to speak to you today. And I understand that this conference is held in partnership with at least 15 other Armenian-American organizations and others are in attendance. But let me say in particular that I value my years of cooperation with the Assembly, and I appreciate its leadership’s professionalism and their [inaudible] commitment as Americans to work with us to support democratic and prosperous Armenia.

Now it’s true that we don’t agree on all issues and the Assembly can be just as frank, which is a diplomatic word -- [Laughter] -- just as frank as they have to be in expressing that. But as Americans it’s not only your right, it’s your duty to speak out to your government when you agree and when you disagree. That’s never gotten in the way of our partnership. I appreciate the candid advice from the Assembly and from the American Armenian community, and I look forward to hearing more of it. It’s good to hear straight out what’s on your minds, what you like about what we’re doing, what you don’t like about what we’re doing. That’s the way a real partnership is made.

I’ve just come back from a visit to Yerevan, and I have to say that it is beautiful to see a city with Mount Ararat floating in the distance, the mountains, the snow, and spring just beginning to come to Yerevan. [Applause].

As Americans, you should be proud that our new embassy compound is up and running. It’s a physical embodiment of our commitment to Armenia. It shows that we have put in the money to reflect our political will to see that Armenia prospers in the 21st Century as a free country, secure and democratic. [Applause].

While I was in Yerevan I had the privilege of meeting with President Kocharian, with Vartan Foreign Minister Oskanian, with the Defense Minister Sargsian, and with political leaders, including leaders of the opposition. That’s what we do when we go abroad in the State Department. We meet with everyone. And we had serious talks. We talked about regional security, which as you know means Nagorno-Karabakh, relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. We talked about strengthening the economy and promoting democratic reform. And I want to say a few words about those issues today and talk about key topics that I think are of interest to you.

President Bush’s new National Security Strategy says that it is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture. Your efforts here and your efforts in Armenia, to help Armenia democratize and prosper economically, matched with U.S. efforts and hopes for the country, and I thank you for them.

I also thank you because in areas of business transparency the Armenian-American community is leading by example. I thank you for that as well.

Now this is a good day in U.S.-Armenian relations. Today the United States and Armenia will sign its Millennium Challenge Cooperation Compact. That is a new assistance agreement for $235 million, and that is new money for Armenia. It is a testament to Armenia’s progress and its commitment to do more on good governance, economic freedom, and investment in its people.

Much remains to be done and no community is more aware of the challenges, as well as the progress, as the Armenian-American community.

The challenge to sustain Armenia’s status as an MCC recipient is allowing voters to independently and freely choose their leaders through elections that meet international democratic standards. We’re looking at the parliamentary and presidential elections next year and in 2008 as key tests. We hope that Armenia is moving in that direction.

We are building and taking at face value assurances from the government, and with our own election strategy geared to work with both the government and the Armenian civil society to try and achieve this goal. We must achieve this goal to sustain our relations.

We believe that Armenia has the potential to be a leader in the region by showing progress on democratic reforms to keep pace with its economic expansion.

Let me turn to an issue that is much on our minds at the State Department and perhaps on yours, which is Nagorno-Karabakh. A solution to Nagorno-Karabakh remains a key focus. Obviously, and I don’t need to tell you this, a resolution would open the door to large investment, deeper integration with the global economy, peace will bring greater prosperity.

Now we were hopeful last month that the meeting at Rambouillet between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan would move us decisively forward. We were disappointed that it didn’t happen, but we did not give up, we did not turn away.

Before I went to Yerevan, I went to Baku and met with President Aliyev. I was sufficiently encouraged by what he said that I went to Yerevan for further discussions, and based on the help and sound thinking of the Armenian side, there is a possibility for progress in 2006. Now this is not easy. Neither side can or will achieve its maximum aims. Peace will require solutions that meet both sides’ concerns as much as possible. And both Armenia and Azerbaijan must prepare for a good settlement, and the best can be the enemy of the good.

The United States is not going to impose a settlement. We’re not going to force Armenia or Azerbaijan to take anything. We don’t have that power, and it is not our intention to try to exercise it. But it is our intention to support a solution if both governments arrive at it, and if there is a solution we are going to get behind it. If the government of Armenia agrees to it, we will support them, and I hope you do as well.

Now we hope, but also anticipate, that a solution on Nagorno-Karabakh will result in an open border with Turkey, which is a consistent goal on our agenda with Ankara. From Yerevan, I went to Ankara and I made this point with the Turkish government that we want the border open, and we want it open as soon as possible. [Applause].

This has not been easy for Armenia, but even with closed borders to the east and west, Armenia has a northern border that is open to it through Georgia, and Armenia’s economic growth is strong. Almost 14 percent last year, which is the fourth straight year of double digit growth. Construction is up 34 percent, and you can see it when you’re in Yerevan. We know that your community is helping fuel this construction boom.

Agriculture is growing, 11 percent last year. Industrial production is growing, and inflation remains low.

The Armenian government has increased its ability to collect taxes. That and corporate taxes which increases government revenues which helps provide better services and the infrastructure for yet more growth in a virtuous cycle. We’re seeing an increase in Armenian government expenditure, on education, science, and health. This investment in citizens will help bring a good future for Armenia.

The U.S.-Armenian relationship is continuing to deepen and our economic support is continuing. Since independence, the United States has contributed more than $1.5 billion of assistance. That’s quite a bit of money for a country the size of Armenia. And many in the Armenian-American community have also made substantial financial contributions to, and investments in, Armenia as well.

Our assistance program, well much of it, is aimed at promoting economic reform to help create the conditions for Armenians to continue their economic growth in the best possible way.

There’s more work to do. Tax collection is up, but you know better than I do how much of the economy remains underground. Corruption is a serious problem. Corruption is a tax on the poor and a tax on honest entrepreneurs. That is a drag. An economy saddled with corruption is moving forward with lead weights tied to each leg.

We want to see greater economic integration between Armenia and Georgia and Armenia and all the states of the Caucasus. We push this regularly, and I did so when I was in Baku. We would like to see greater integration. Now it is difficult in advance of a Nagorno-Karabakh solution, but we keep raising it, and we will keep raising it. It’s good not only for Armenia; it would be good for Turkey and Azerbaijan as well.

Let me talk about regional security and military assistance. We do support Armenia’s efforts to strengthen its relations with the Euro-Atlantic community. Armenia has a policy of complementarity, which means roughly balance in its relations with the West and the Russians. This is not a problem for us. We don’t want to force Armenia to choose between its historic friends and its Western identity, but we do want our relations to grow. We do want our relations to grow, and we don’t want barriers put in the way.

Our relations in the security field have grown. We value and appreciate Armenia’s troop contributions in Iraq. There are 46 non-combatant soldiers serving there now. There are 34 Armenian peacekeepers in Kosovo. And we hope that Armenia will continue to do its part through NATO’s Partnership for Peace to contribute to other operations in the future.

Armenia has increased its cooperation with NATO. The government is reforming its military in cooperation with the U.S. to make it more interoperable with NATO. Armenia is pursuing what NATO calls an individual partnership action plan with NATO. This is basically a chapeau that lets the Armenian military slowly but as fast as Armenia wants, grow closer to NATO so we can work together.

Frankly, I want to express my appreciation for the Assembly’s encouragement last year to Armenia to complete its defense assessment. That cleared the way for deeper security cooperation between our two countries.

Now I know that some in your community, in the Armenian-American community, are concerned about U.S.-Azerbaijani military relations, so let me address this straight up. The fact is Azerbaijan has made contributions to the War on Terror and these contributions -- overflight rights, access to Azerbaijani bases, information sharing, law enforcement cooperation –- are useful. Now Azerbaijan faces security threats not from Armenia, and when I was in Baku I repeated that Azerbaijan’s security problem really doesn’t come from Armenia, it comes from other countries. It’s got a rough neighbor to the south, Iran. And it’s on the Caspian Sea with a lot of oil and gas. Our security cooperation with and assistance to Azerbaijan is meant to improve Azerbaijan’s posture against those threats, not against Armenia. I repeat. Not against Armenia.

President Bush has noted that to succeed in our own efforts, we need the support of our efforts to fight terrorism, we need the support and actions of friends and allies. We must join with others to deny the terrorists what they seek, which is safe haven, financial support, and the support and protection certain nation states historically have given them. So we do need to work with all the countries of the region on a counter-terrorist agenda.

But our assistance to Azerbaijan does not undermine our support for Armenian security, and it is not designed and will not be used for offensive purposes against Armenia. So we design our programs with Azerbaijan very carefully. Counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, programs to counter trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

Now let me mention a couple of words about energy security. In January of this year, disruptions of electricity and gas to Georgia affected Armenia, as well. After this episode, we’re looking at ways to bolster energy security in the region and strengthen Armenia’s energy independence. The key to doing this is to support market forces, to diversify energy supplies, and avoid monopolistic restrictions. We’ve been discussing this in NATO, we’ve been discussing this in the European Union and with key countries in the region. We will continue to look at ways in which the United States can support energy security for all the countries of the south Caucasus.

We are concerned by increased energy ties with Iran, and so we’re looking at alternatives. We’ve talked to the Georgians about them.

Now let me conclude with discussion of a tough issue for all of us. April 24th is less than a month away. I’m not going to duck this issue.

The U.S. position on events of 1915 has not changed. We believe that a productive dialogue is the best way to establish a shared understanding of history that honors the victims of these horrific events, murders on a mass scale, killings without justification, deportations. Over 1.5 million people lost their lives, innocent victims. But we want to foster reconciliation and peace based on an understanding of history, not a denial of it. We believe that the tragedy of 1915, the killings, is of enormous human significance and its historical assessment should be determined not on the basis of politics, but introspection among civic leaders and scholars. This process has begun in Turkey where it needs to take place.

Now I know from experience and consultations with the Assembly and other groups that the Armenian American community has a different view, and I expect that you will express that view, and that is not for us –- I would be surprised if you didn’t, and I welcome the dialogue we’ve established. [Applause].

Voice: Horse manure.

Voices: Be quiet. Sit down.

[...]

Source: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/63791.htm