UN Security Council member states China and Turkey have reiterated commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
“We will do everything possible to build trust between Iran and the United States and Iran and the West to avoid a military confrontation and possible sanctions,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was quoted as saying by London-based Al-Hayat newspaper.
Davutoglu went on to call for “more diplomatic efforts to engage with Iran in order to build trust between (all) sides.”
The remarks come one day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in an address before the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the UN headquarters in New York, confronted the United States for refusing to exclude Iran from the list of countries that could become the target of US nukes.
Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters on Tuesday that the permanent UNSC member state was in favor of “relevant measures” to help resolve the issue through talks.
“Dialogue and negotiations are the best way out to resolve this issue and relevant discussions are still under way,” she added.
Washington and its allies are rallying support for tougher UNSC sanctions against Iran. However, the imposition of sanctions requires nine affirmative votes including those of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council.
Permanent UNSC member China and temporary members Turkey and Brazil are among the countries that support Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program.
While the West accuses Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program, Tehran has repeatedly rejected the allegation and argues that as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is entitled to the peaceful use of the technology for electricity generation and medical research.
President Ahmadinejad offered an itemized proposal to the NPT review conference, calling for measures to limit the power held by nuclear armed states in the UNSC.
Avustralya’da eski Labor milletvekilerinden Tayfun E. Eren dostumuzun hasmı ve Türk davasına 1999’dan beri aktif bir şekilde sürekli köstek olan Dollis ile ilgili arkaplan aşağıda… En son Assyrian “Genocide” ve Pontus konusunu planlayan ve yürürlüğe sokan kişi bu Dollis… 1999 dan evvel de Avusturalya meclisinde Yunanistan’ın ‘köstebek’ görevini yapıyordu. Şu anda Papandreou’nun danışmanlarından oluyor kendileri… Ve 1999’dan beri de Yunanistan’ın Dışişlerinde çalışıyor… İlgililerin dikkatine sunulur… Detaylı bilgi isteyenler Turkish Forum’a başvurabilirler…
Saygılar,
Tayfun E. Eren
Haluk Demirbag
—
George Papandreou faces early test after winning Greek elections
Peter Wilson, Europe correspondents
From:The Australian
October 05, 2009 1:57PM
Greek socialist party leader George Papandreou after being elected prime minister of Greece. Picture: Getty Images Source: The Australian
GREEK voters have thrown out their five-year-old conservative government and made centre-left leader George Papandreou prime minister, a post previously held by both his father and grandfather.
Mr Papandreou, a US-born former foreign minister, will follow his father Andreas and grandfather George in heading Greece’s government but he faces urgent economic challenges and a major battle to curb corruption.
AUDIO: Peter Wilson talks to George Papandreou
The PASOK socialist party that his father founded in 1974 is expected to win about 160 seats in the 300-seat parliament, reassuring markets by securing a stable majority at a time when urgent government reforms are needed.
Mr Papandreou pledged to “turn a page” on scandals and economic malaise associated with the outgoing conservative government.
“We stand here united before the great responsibility which we undertake,” Mr Papandreou told cheering supporters in central Athens when the result became clear.
“We have a mandate to turn a new page,” Mr Papandreou said as supporters of his Pasok party celebrated the socialists’ return to power after more than five years in opposition.
“Today we start together the great national effort of placing the country back on a course of revival, development and creation. We don’t have a day to waste.”
He said PASOK had waged “a good fight to bring back hope and smiles on Greeks’ faces … to change the country’s course into one of law, justice, solidarity, green development and progress”.
PASOK won by a larger than expected margin of 44per cent to 34per cent over the conservative New Democracy party.
Mr Papandreou, 57, told The Australian last week that if elected he would make several reforms to help members of the Greek diaspora in Australia and elsewhere, making it easier for them to work in Greece and to vote in Greek elections.
He said he would change Greece’s tough education rules so as to recognise three-year bachelor degrees issued by Australian universities as the equivalent of four-year Greek degrees, removing a hurdle that has long frustrated Australians wanting to work in Greece.
He also vowed to allow the one million-plus registered Greek voters who live overseas to vote by mail or at local consulates instead of the current system which requires them to travel to Greece to cast a ballot.
Often criticised in Greece for speaking English more fluently than Greek, Mr Papandreou has fought PASOK’s old-style party chieftains in a bid to modernise the party, dropping from its candidate list several factional heavies including the former prime minister Costas Simitis.
The defeated prime minister, Costas Karamanlis beat Mr Papandreou in elections in 2004 and 2007 but yesterday resigned the leadership of New Democracy to accept responsibility for his failed gamble of calling a snap election just half way into a four-year term of parliament.
Dora Bakoyannis, the 55-year-old foreign minister who served as mayor of Athens during the 2004 Olympic Games, is the frontrunner to replace him as leader of the conservative party, a post once held by her father Constantine Mitsotakis.
Mr Karamanlis had called for an austere series of government cuts to rein in the deficit and national debt but he was hampered by the fact that he had made little progress in the previous five years on his vows to fight corruption and reform an outdated government bureaucracy.
Mr Papandreou campaigned on a promise of a 3 billion Euro ($5b) stimulus package but faces immediate talks with Euro zone officials concerned that Greece’s budget deficit is already twice the 3 per cent of GDP allowed under the rules of the common currency.
The socialist leader has vowed to increase wages and pensions and fund the extra spending by increasing taxes on the rich and cracking down on tax evasion.
Raised in Sweden and the US when his father was in political exile, Mr Papandreou promised to appoint an advisory panel of foreign economic experts and tackle Greece’s high levels of corruption and its tradition of new governments handing out state jobs and contracts to their own cronies.
A senior job in the new administration is certain to go to close Papandreou advisor Demetri Dollis, a former Victorian Labor MP who served as deputy leader of the state opposition before being stripped of his ALP preselection by then leader Steve Bracks in 1999 for spending too much time overseas.
Mr Dollis held a high-level job in the foreign ministry when Mr Papandreou was foreign minister and has worked in Mr Papandreou’s personal office over the past five years.
, October 05, 2009
[2]
Papandreou looks to Greek diaspora as he forms new cabinet
George Papandreou is expected to tap international talent for his government to help tackle Greece’s multiple crises
Helena Smith in Athens
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 October 2009 10.50 BST
George Papandreou is expected to announce his cabinet later today. Photograph: Simela Pantzartzi/EPA
Greece‘s socialist leader George Papandreou was sworn in as prime minister this morning amid clear indications that the new government he will lead will seek to tap talent in the diaspora to address the multiple crises facing the country.
The English-speaking prime minister, propelled into office following an overwhelming victory in Sunday’s elections, is expected to announce a cabinet this afternoon to take on Greece’s financial and economic crisis and social malaise.
US-born Papandreou was educated in Sweden, England and Canada and is a Harvard University fellow. His closest aides include English-speaking Greeks born and brought up in Africa, America and Australia. The 57-year-old politician is himself more comfortable speaking English than Greek.
“Part of my identity is being a Greek of Greece and a Greek of the diaspora,” Papandreou told the Guardian. “I think in many ways being Greek is being ecumenical, open to the world. We are a country that has always been open with ideas and contact with the rest of the world as a shipping nation and tourist destination.”
Through his network of connections as head of Socialist International, the global grouping of leftwing parties, Papandreou has already embarked on talks with renowned experts in the fields of economy and public health. The Nobel economics laureate Joe Stiglitz is in touch with him “on a daily basis”, offering advice on how to rescue Greece’s debt-ridden economy from the brink of bankruptcy.
Also a Harvard professor and international health expert now sits in the Greek parliament following his appointment as a non-elected MP with Papandreou’s Pasok party.
“George has always said there is an untapped world and that is the other Greece in the diaspora that he is going to work with, talk to and take advice from to help us get the country out of this situation,” said Dimitris Dollis,a Greek Australian who is among Papandreou’s senior advisers. “Ties with the diaspora are going to be much stronger.”
Among candidates for prominent cabinet roles are George Papaconstantinou, a graduate of New York University and the London School of Economics who worked at the OECD in Paris, and Louka Katseli, a former economics professor at Yale.
After years of introspection under the outgoing centre-right government, Greece is also expected to become far more “open and outward looking” in its foreign policy under Papandreou, who won international plaudits back in the 90s when he almost single-handedly improved relations with Turkey by daring to pursue reconciliation.
“Being parochial is a state of mind and we want to get out of it,” said a source close to Papandreou who will be one of his senior foreign affairs advisers. “The [outgoing] conservatives chose to tread water in a turbulent sea, no initiatives were taken and relations with out neighbours gradually stalled. Our approach is going to be a lot more cosmopolitan, open and creative which is George’s natural inclination.”
The change in style has been welcomed by western diplomats startled by the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Greece in recent years.
And amid speculation that Papandreou will assume responsibility for foreign affairs – at least initially – many are hopeful that relations with neighbouring Turkey, Macedonia and the rest of Europe will improve. In Istanbul and Ankara there were scenes of jubilation with some Turks cracking open bottles of champagne when news of Pasok’s victory came through. In recent months ties with Turkey have worsened with tensions in the Aegean rising noticeably.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/06/george-papandreou-sworn-greek-pm, 6 October 2009
[3]
Greek NGO teacher Lerounis returns to Greece after release by Afghan Taliban militants
Greek teacher and NGO worker Athanassios Lerounis arrived in Athens on Saturday following his release earlier in the week by Afghan Taliban militants seven months after they kidnapped him in the Chitral region in northern Pakistan.
Lerounis, chairman of the non-governmental organisation Greek Volunteers, was kidnapped outside his museum in the remote Kalash valley last September, while his guard was fatally shot. He had been working on a cultural project in the area since 2001.
Professor Lerounis, a Greek teacher and social worker, was kidnapped on September 8, 2009 following an attack on the Kalash village of Brun, in Pakistan, where he lived. He was abducted outside the ethnological museum Kalash-Dur he had created himself in Pakistan to preserve and showcase the culture of the Kalash people. Lerounis has also founded two primary schools, three motherhood centers and the Kalash Cultural Center in Bumburate Valley.
Lerounis was released in Nooristan province in Afghanistan on Wednesday, and Pakistani officials took him to Chitral later that night. He was taken to the Greek embassy in Islamabad on Friday morning to await transportation back to Greece arranged by the Greek government.
A visibly moved and relieved Lerounis arrived Saturday at Athens’ ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ International Airport, where he thanked everyone who had helped in securing his release.
“I am very happy to be standing on Greek ground after so many months. A big thank you to the people in Pakistan, the Greek government and the personal interest of the prime minister, who acted as a human being and not a politician,” Lerounis told waiting reporters.
Lerounis also thanked prime minister George Papandreou’s personal envoy to Islamabad, ambassador-at-large Dimitris Dollis, and the Greek ambassador in Islamabad Petros Mavroidis, who accompanied the NGO volunteer on his flight to Greece, as well as all people who were supportive throughout his ordeal.
Dollis confirmed a statement by Wazir on Thursday that no ransom was paid, adding that Lerounis’ release was a big success of the Greek government, Greek diplomacy and the country, and called Lerounis “an example of perseverance”.
Asked if he would return to the Kalash tribe, Lerounis said that “with the support of the Greek and Pakistani government, I would like to return there some day and continue my work”.
http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2010/10-04-12.ana.html#10, 12 April 2010
The US State Department seems disappointed, but not entirely surprised, by Yerevan’s April 22 suspension of Armenian-Turkish “normalization.” Assistant Secretary of State, Philip Gordon, in charge of this policy, finds solace in Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan’s decision to suspend, rather than terminate the effort; and hopes that Yerevan would continue to cooperate with the US-driven process goal. Gordon as well as State Department Spokesman, Philip Crowley, argued that such normalization meets the interests of Armenia, Turkey, and other [unnamed] countries in the region (press releases cited by News.Az and Arminfo, April 23).
These statements, however, seem to ignore Azerbaijan’s view and the change in Turkey’s view. Inasmuch as the normalization focuses on opening the Turkish-Armenian border unconditionally, or no longer linked to a withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan’s interior –Baku deemed it to be against its interests all along. Ankara had rallied to Baku’s view last December already.
Since April 2009, US President, Barack Obama’s administration has pressed for opening Turkey’s border with Armenia unconditionally Thus, the October 2009 Zurich protocols, strongly backed by the US, required Turkey to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and open the mutual border “without preconditions.”
Washington’s policy seems driven primarily by domestic politics. The administration hopes to remove the annual drama of Armenian genocide recognition from the center-stage of US politics. It seeks its way out of the dilemma of losing Turkey versus any loss of the US Armenian vote. “Normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations, centered on the re-opening of that border, was offered as a substitute for the unfulfilled electoral-campaign promises to recognize an Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey.
Washington’s normalization concept, however, has also turned out to be unfulfilled. Tilting sharply in Armenia’s favor at Azerbaijan’s expense, it backfired first in Azerbaijan and shortly afterward in Turkey. Instead of de-aligning Ankara from Baku, as seemed briefly possible, it led Turkey and Azerbaijan to close ranks against an unconditional “normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations, prior to a first-stage withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan.
The US initiative seemed unrelated to any regional strategy in the South Caucasus. It actually coincided with an overall reduction of US engagement in that region, downgrading the earlier goals of conflict-resolution and promotion of energy projects. Moreover, it risked splitting its strategic partner Azerbaijan from Turkey, compromising the basis for a subsequent return to an active US policy in the region.
Previous US administrations had also proposed to open the Turkish-Armenian border, but never as a goal in itself, unconditionally, or by some deadline in the political calendar, as has most recently been the case. Moreover, those earlier discussions considered opening both the Turkish and Azeri borders with Armenia, as part of an overall settlement, without dividing Ankara and Baku from each other on that account. Those border-opening proposals were being discussed as one element in comprehensive negotiations toward stage-by-stage resolution of the Armenian-Azeri conflict, and in conditional linkage with Armenian troop withdrawal from inner-Azeri districts, again in contrast to Washington’s recent proposals.
Yet, there is an element of continuity between those earlier border-opening proposals and the latest one. That common element is the optimistic belief that open borders and freedom to trade are a prerequisite to resolution of conflict and durable peace. This carryover from Manchesterianism often colored US political debates about the possibility of opening the Azeri and Turkish borders with Armenia. Yet, the diplomatic process integrated this issue within the broader negotiations. It did not single it out from that context or allow it to become a currency of exchange in US domestic politics.
The logic of the administration’s initiative from 2009 to date has implied that Washington would “deliver” the re-opening of Turkey’s border with Armenia; while Turkey would in turn “deliver” Azerbaijan by opening the Turkish-Armenian border, without insisting on the withdrawal of Armenian troops from inner-Azeri territories. That conditionality is a long-established one in these negotiations. However, Washington currently insists that the two processes be separated and that Turkey opens that border unconditionally as per the October 2009 Zurich protocols.
Breaking that linkage would irreparably compromise the chances of a peaceful, stage-by-stage settlement of the Armenian-Azeri conflict. It would indefinitely prolong the Armenian military presence inside Azerbaijan, placing Russia in a commanding position to arbitrate the conflict, with unprecedented leverage on an Azerbaijan alienated from its strategic allies.
Washington had persuaded Ankara to break that conditionality in the October 2009 protocols, which came close to splitting Turkey from Azerbaijan. However, Turkey reinstated that conditionality unambiguously from December 2009 onward. Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared this repeatedly and publicly, contradicting Obama and the US State Department on this account at the December 2009 and April 2010 Washington summits and afterward. Following the latter event, Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Baku with reassurances that Turkey would only open the border with Armenia if Armenian troops withdrew from inner-Azeri districts. The assurances were the more significant after the US White House had demonstratively excluded Azerbaijan from the Washington summit (Anatolia News Agency, April 14, 18-20).
The US administration’s policy has now backfired on all sides, Yerevan being the last to abandon it after the policy had failed to “deliver” Ankara and Baku. The Obama administration can now be expected to revert to a balanced approach by taking Azeri and Turkish views more carefully into account.
Yerevan’s unilateral decision, as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu describes it, to put the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement on hold should have had a cold shower effect on those who had long been fed up with the overcooked so-called Armenian genocide debate.
On April 22, Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan signed a decree suspending the ratification of the “Protocol on Establishing Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” and “Protocol on Opening the Border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.”
In his televised address to his fellow Armenians, Sarksyan said, “Our political objective for normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey remains valid, and we shall consider moving forward when we are convinced that there is the proper environment in Turkey and the leadership in Ankara is ready to reengage in the normalization process.” Referring to Ankara’s demand for Armenia to end its occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan before Parliament ratifies the protocols, the Armenian president charged Ankara with causing the breakup in the normalization process by making the end of Armenian occupation a precondition to the ratification.
While Ankara repeatedly reiterated its wish to continue the normalization of relations with Yerevan, on April 24 Armenian demonstrators burned Turkish flags as well as posters of Turkish President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Davutoğlu during the so-called Armenian genocide commemoration ceremonies attended by President Sarksyan and other Armenian officials.
Like the Armenian officials, some inside and outside Turkey have criticized Ankara for pushing the end of Armenian occupation in Nagorno-Karabakh as a precondition to the ratification of the protocols. Some even argued that there was no relationship between the occupation and the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and that Azerbaijan stood as an obstacle to normalization.
As a matter of fact, the real obstacle to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is Armenia’s irredentist attitude toward its neighbors. As such, Armenia’s irredentism not only constitutes a national security threat to Turkey, but also is the major obstacle to any step toward sustainable security and stability in the South Caucasus. So long as Yerevan does not irreversibly change this attitude, it is unlikely to achieve any sustainable relationship between Turkey and Armenia.
Armenia is an irredentist country. That is, it is a country with aspirations on a part of another country’s land, over which it claims to have the political right to control. Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence reads, “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia,” referring to contemporary eastern Turkey as Western Armenia. Article 12 reads, “This declaration serves as the basis for the development of the constitution of the Republic of Armenia and, until such time as the new constitution is approved, as the basis for the introduction of amendments to the current constitution; and for the operation of state authorities and the development of new legislation for the republic.” So obviously, the crux of the Armenian Constitution and of the guideline for the state authorities is Yerevan’s unrelenting aspirations to seize eastern Turkey as well as other possible monetary and political reparations.
Yerevan has proven its characteristic as such by invading and occupying 20 percent of a neighboring country — Azerbaijan. Consequently, another neighboring country, Turkey, which has long been the main target of Yerevan’s irredentist aspirations, closed its common border with Armenia. Although Turkey and Azerbaijan do have deep cultural, ethnic, social, economic and political ties and as such Turkey’s closure of the border may seem and has long been portrayed as an emotional response to Armenia’s invasion of Azerbaijan’s territories, Turkey’s response to the invasion is purely a rational one.
*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst
It is only normal for a country to seal its common border with an irredentist neighbor to maintain its national security and territorial integrity.
It is more so given that Armenia has never officially recognized and acknowledged its common border with Turkey, constitutionally considers part of Turkey’s lands as its own and worse, has for almost two decades been occupying 20 percent of another neighboring country. So, the reason Turkey shut its border with Armenia and why Turkey should keep it as such is not simply Turkey’s affinity with Azerbaijan, but Armenia’s irredentist nature and the security threat that it clearly poses to its neighbors. The fact that Armenia cannot dare to confront Turkey militarily neither ceases its aspirations on Turkish territories nor changes its malignant nature that has long obstructed progress toward security and stability in the South Caucasus.
Moreover, the impunity Armenia has long enjoyed despite its continuous violations of international law, humanitarian law, Geneva conventions and United Nations Security Council resolutions during and after its invasion of Azerbaijani territory makes Yerevan even more reckless about paralyzing its peace talks with Turkey and Azerbaijan. On April 30, 1993, the UN Security Council adopted resolution S/RES/822 (1993), “noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces, Expressing grave concern at the displacement of a large number of civilians and the humanitarian emergency in the region, Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory, [and demanding] the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.” This resolution came after Yerevan-backed local Armenian forces killed 613 Azerbaijani civilians, including 106 women and 83 children, in the town of Khojali on Feb. 25-26, 1992. Instead of ceasing their attacks, the Armenian forces expanded their killing campaign to beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh region into surrounding districts such as Lachin, Kubatly, Jebrail, Zangelan, Aghdam and Fizuli. As Armenian forces continued to invade these districts, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions 853, 874 and 884 in the same year demanding a cease-fire and the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories.
To this day, however, these districts, totaling 8.9 percent of Azerbaijani territory, as well as the Nagorno-Karabakh region remain under the control of Armenia. The way Sarksyan recalls the Khojali massacres is quite telling: “We don’t speak loudly about these things. But I think the main point is something different. … Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]. And that is what happened.” (Thomas de Waal, “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War,” NYU Press 2004, p.172) By that, President Sarksyan also implies what they aspire to do so long as the circumstances permit.
The way forward
In the final analysis, the current leadership in Yerevan does not seem to be ready to acknowledge its past transgressions, let alone make due reparations to their victims. Yet it can start by revisiting Armenia’s irredentist characteristic and finding ways to get rid of it instead of asking Ankara to give up its precondition to the ratification of the protocols.
In the meantime, Ankara should recognize that the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations is directly contingent to not one but two preconditions: First, Armenia must end its occupation of the Azerbaijani territories in the Nagorno-Karabakh region as well as the surrounding districts, and second, it must remove from its constitution the articles that describe eastern Turkey as “Western Armenia.” In the absence of the other, satisfying one of these conditions is not enough, because while one literally certifies Yerevan’s irredentist aspirations toward Turkey, the other practically illustrates that Yerevan would seek to fulfill those aspirations once the circumstances permit. Until then, Turkey’s common border with Armenia should remain sealed.
*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst
The House of Representative of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State (USA) has accepted relative document on the day of 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre.
The document dated on 25 February 2010 is signed by Speaker of the House Robert De Leo says: “Be it hereby known to all that: The Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgment of: the 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre”.
Justice for Khojaly campaign expresses its gratitude for the initiative of Members of House of Representatives to commemorate the 18th anniversary of the Khojaly massacre in House’s session that took place on February 25, 2010.
We appreciate and applaud the initiative on remembrance and recognition of Hause of Representatives this historical tragedy of humanity perpetrated against the civilian population of the Khojaly town (Azerbaijan) by Armenian military gangs and Ex-Soviet 366th regiment in February 1992. By raising this issue in legislative institutions it will be possible to make it globally heard by decision-makers around the globe and condemn crimes that are perpetrated against innocent victims of conflicts.
We also invite the friends of Justice for Khojaly campaign to sign the petition to World leaders and call them to recognize the Khojaly massacre as a crime against humanity at the following link http://www.justiceforkhojaly.org/?p=petition. By signing the petition the one can address the drafted letter to UN, President of the US, European Union, Council of Europe, OIC Parliamentary Unit chairpersons and other decision-makers of your geographical organizations.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Justice for Khojaly
on http://www.facebook.com/pages/Khojaly-town/Justice-for-Khojaly-Campaign/101823787520
We appreciate and applaud the initiative on remembrance and recognition of Hause of Representatives this historical tragedy of humanity perpetrated against the civilian population of the Khojaly town (Azerbaijan) by Armenian military gangs and Ex-Soviet 366th regiment in February 1992. By raising this issue in legislative institutions it will be possible to make it globally heard by decision-makers around the globe and condemn crimes that are perpetrated against innocent victims of conflicts.