Author: Chakhmakhchian Vatche

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING: WHAT HIDES BEHIND AZERI OFFICIALS STATEMENTS

Pan Armenian News
18.05.2005 08:31

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The statement by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mamedyarov about Armenia’s readiness to return seven regions stirred
up a clamor incited by the Azeri party among the Russian media even
after the Armenian Foreign Ministry refuted it. The articles published
in the Russian press often contradicted one another. On one hand
the matter concerns “the volunteer return of the territories with
the guarantee that Azerbaijan will not wage war” on the other hand
there is hearsay that the Azerbaijani army can receive back the seven
territories by force. Azeri opposition parties accuse the incumbent
leadership of the inability to settle the Karabakh problem and call to
restore Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity by force. The opposition
representatives assure that the Aliyev administration has a plan of
resumption of hostilities in case the domestic situation deteriorates
after the parliamentary elections. However Baku can apply force only
with the “secret consent of US, Russia and… Armenia”, some Russian
sources report. According to Russian media, “lately the hearsay on
US and Russia’s consent for such developments has been spread in
Baku. These countries are allegedly convincing Yerevan not to support
Karabakh during the “little war”, which will not touch Karabakh itself
anyway. There is a version that after convincing the Armenian party
Moscow and Washington can organize a demonstrative withdrawal of
the Armenian troops from Azerbaijan. Then long and inefficient talks
will start. Meanwhile some forces in Baku are celebrating victory and
“generously” give OK to the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border –
the fact Armenia to all appearances “cannot resist”. However, despite
discrepancies the Russian sources are tended to think that Mamedyarov’s
“sensational” statement is addressed first of all to the population of
Azerbaijan on the threshold of the upcoming parliamentary elections,
since with the help of such statements Ilham Aliyev will try to enlist
the support of the voters to secure himself from possible revolution.

The Spectator
May 14, 2005

Lament for lost beauties;
BOOKS

by Philip Mansel

ISTANBUL : MEMORIES OF A CITY by Orhan Pamuk Faber, GBP 16.99, pp.
288, ISBN 0571218326 . GBP 14.99 (plus GBP 2.25 p&p) 0870 800 4848

This magnificent memoir interweaves the political and the personal:
the history of Istanbul with the early years of its most famous
living writer. Born in Istanbul in 1952, to a large, quarrelsome
family which owned and lived in the Pamuk Apartments, the novelist
Orhan Pamuk has never left: ‘I am attached to this city because it
has made me who I am.’

Istanbul: Memories of a City is more solemn and more introspective
than another great Istanbul autobiography, Istanbul Boy by the comic
writer Aziz Nesin. For Orhan Pamuk the Istanbul of his youth in the
1960s and 1970s was dominated by ‘bitter memories of the fallen
empire’, ‘the cloud of gloom and loss that the fall of the Ottoman
empire had spread over Istanbul’.

Here he is projecting his own love of Ottoman culture, which he
rightly calls ‘a sumptuous culture that had been influenced by the
West without having lost its originality or vitality’. Far from being
afflicted by ‘end of empire melancholy’, many Istanbullus were
delighted to be rid of their empire. They soon forgot the Ottoman
dynasty and felt no regret for the lost provinces whence, as so many
songs lamented, few Turkish soldiers ever returned.

Istanbul hearts ached less for the beauty of Ottoman architecture, as
Orhan Pamuk claims, than for Mustafa Kemal, for communism, fascism,
political Islam or simply over the difficulty of earning a living.
The Istanbul of the late 1970s was a battlefield of political and
social creeds the shape of a moustache indicated fascist, communist
or islamist sympathies unrelated to the Ottoman past. Much of the
melancholy which Pamuk calls ‘this feeling that is unique to Istanbul
and that binds its people together’, had personal roots, like
inheritance laws and poverty.

Pamuk writes sadly of his visits to crumbling Ottoman mansions,
inhabited by relations who preferred cats and dogs to humans. The
mansions’ divisions, made with remarks such as ‘you take the harem,
I’ll take the annexe’, were an invitation to disputes. Pamuk knew of
people who built walls simply in order to block their relations’ view
of, or access to, the garden. In his opinion ‘dishonesty and
insincerity’, helped by a flair for deception and manipulation,
dominated personal relations in his parents’ circle of friends.
Writing and painting were for him an escape from this hypocrisy.
Other favourite pastimes of his youth included watching wooden
mansions burn often set on fire by owners for the insurance money and
counting the number of car and boat accidents in the Bosphorus. He
has a marvellous quotation from a handbook on ‘how to escape from a
car that has fallen into the Bosphorus’:

‘slowly open the doors and without panicking get out of the car.’
Pamuk’s perception, attention to detail and many quotations from
books and newspapers give readers direct insight into the life of a
city which he calls ‘so unmanageably varied, so anarchic, so very
much stranger than Western cities’. He grew up in the interlude
between the cosmopolitanism of the late Ottoman empire and the
cosmopolitanism of global capitalism, when the only place that ‘felt
like Europe’ was the lobby of the Hilton hotel. The period’s
intoxication with the West was reflected in interior decoration:
sitting-rooms ‘were designed to demonstrate that their householders
were Westernised’. In those days Islam was regarded by the educated
elite as ‘a strange and sometimes amusing set of rules on which the
lower classes depended’.

Reflecting the cosmopolitan character of the Ottoman capital, Pamuk
shares many educated Turks’ admiration for the Westerners who painted
or wrote about their city. The superb 1800 engravings of the city by
Antoine Ignace Melling, architect to the Sultan’s sister, with their
precision and freedom from sentimentalising Orientalism, were for him
a vision of a ‘lost heaven’. Looking at Melling’s views was like
driving along the Bosphorus.

Pamuk also identified with the accounts of Istanbul by Girard de
Nerval, Flaubert and Gautier. Ottoman writers, who said Istanbul made
the angels in heaven gasp with envy, are ignored; Pamuk even claims,
with considerable exaggeration, ‘For centuries the only literature
our city inspired was penned by Westerners.’ Among the many unknown
aspects of Istanbul to which Pamuk introduces foreign readers are
‘four lonely, melancholy writers’ of the 20th century, who lived
alone and never married: the poet Yahya Kemal, the memoirist Abdulhak
Sinasi Hisar, the novelist Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar (whose novels need
translating into English as urgently as Nesin’s Istanbul Boy, already
published in the United States, needs a London publisher); and the
journalist historian Resat Ekrem Kocu. A mournful lover of beautiful
youths and vanishing Istanbul, Kocu lived in an apartment piled high
with mountains of manuscripts: the last unbound sections of his
Istanbul Encyclopedia found no buyers, even when sold as waste paper.

Pamuk mourns the city’s transformation into a mass of ‘soul-crushing’
and viewblocking apartment blocks. In his youth Istanbul ‘was not an
anonymous multitude of walled-in lives a jungle of apartments where
no one knew who was dead or who was celebrating what’ but ‘an
archipelago of neghbourhoods in which everyone knew each other’. His
laments for Istanbul’s lost beauty are reinforced by the marvellous
(if appallingly reproduced) photographs scattered throughout the
book, many by the great photographer Ara Guler. Shots of his
beautiful mother holding young Orhan are followed by views of
abandoned wooden houses, fog-wreathed minarets, ice on the Bosphorus,
fires, the debris from race riots.

The translation by Maureen Freely, author of one of the funniest
Istanbul novels, The Life of the Party, is a delight.

An underlying theme of the book is loss of cosmopolitanism. Pamuk can
remember the state-inspired anti-Greek riots of 1955 when mobs
pillaged the city with government blessing. As he grew up ‘the city
stagnated, emptied itself out and became a monotonous town in black
and white’. He speaks of ‘cultural cleansing’ and provincialisation.
When French, Greek or Armenian were spoken in the street, the speaker
was told, ‘Citizen, please speak Turkish.’ Both Tanpinar and Yahya
Kemal became nationalists who emphasised Istanbul’s Turkish identity.
Even in 2005 the future of the Greek Orthodox Oecumenical
Patriarchate the oldest institution in Europe after the Vatican is as
uncertain as that of the tiny Greek and dwindling Armenian and Jewish
communities. Recently Pamuk has had the courage to be one of the
first Turkish writers openly to challenge the official version of the
fate of Turkey’s Armenians, who once composed a tenth or more of
Istanbul’s population, a topic which still seems, to visiting
historians, to hang like a cloud over the city.

The battles now engaged over this issue will help decide whether or
not Istanbul’s future will include these living links with what Orhan
Pamuk calls ‘the grand polyglot multicultural Istanbul of the
imperial age’.

Johnston Press Plc
Isle Of Man
May 13, 2005

BATES IN ARMENIA

ISLAND-based Professor St John Bates is leading a small consortium
advising the Armenian Government.

Professor Bates, representing St John Bates Consultancy, recently
spent four days in the capital Yerevan, during which he and
colleagues, had meetings with senior advisors in a number of
government ministries and with senior officials of the National
Assembly of Armenia.

Professor Bates said Armenia was entering an interesting political
and commercial period with the implementation of an approximation
agreement with the European Union.

Azad-Hye, United Arab Emirates
May 14 2005

Armenian Community in Kuwait: Brief History

AZAD-HYE (14 May 2005): After the formation of the United Arab
Republic in Egypt and Syria (1958), many Armenians emigrated to the
United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina and elsewhere. Some of
them arrived in Kuwait, then a desert Emirate, with limited modern
comforts.

In 1959 young priest Gorun Shrikian visited Kuwait on two different
occasions, during which he established a congregation, the core of
the present day Armenian Community.

In 1961 priest Barouyr Sarkissian settled down in Kuwait City and
served the community for more than thirty years.

The Community was originally formed by bachelors who were employed in
light industries, auto repair shops, electronics, services etc.
Eventually they got married and brought to Kuwait their brides from
their countries of origin (Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc.). As their
children reached schooling age, the need for learning the Armenian
language, history and religion led to the establishment of a school
in the late 1960’s. The new premises of the school were inaugurated
in 1972.

Since then the number of the Armenians in Kuwait expanded and reached
a peak of 12000 in the mid 1980’s. The number of students enrolled in
the Armenian School scored a record 700 pupils. High School section
(Azkayin Jemaran) was introduced, enabling graduates to get enrolled
in University level graduate courses worldwide. Today the school
covers the whole range from kindergarten to the 12th grade. It has
some 35 full-time teachers, half of them Armenians.

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces of the ousted regime of Saddam
Hussein caused great damage to the State of Kuwait and the Armenian
Community. Fortunately the invasion took place in August (1990),
during which many Armenian families were already outside the country
and did not directly suffer the consequences of the invasion. Only
500 Armenians remained in Kuwait during the six months of the Iraqi
invasion, many fled the country through the Saudi border.

After the restoration of national authority in Kuwait, many Armenians
returned to their positions in Kuwait, yet a considerable number
continued living in new places. The returned ones were compensated by
the Kuwaiti government (through special arrangement with the United
Nations) with monthly salaries that covered the complete period of
invasion. The number of Armenians after the invasion steadily rose to
3000 in 1994 (present day estimation is 4500, number of students
350).

The eternal problem of the School is to find a lasting and capable
headmaster. The most problematic year was 2000-2001 when the
Headmistress (Knarik Kasbarian) was dismissed in the middle of the
School Year and the School governing body experienced severe conflict
with the National Council (heavily backed by ARF party members).
After a series of unsuccessful choices Minas Hanskehyan was appointed
as Headmaster.

The first Armenian publication of Kuwait appeared in the Armenian
School under the name “Swallow” (Dzidzernag / 1978). The current
student publication is called “Oasis” (second term 2004, 16 pages).
The Armenian scout movement (Homenetmen) is active since the 1970’s.
Church choir “Naregatsi” is conducted by Kevork Hadjian.

The Representative of the Catholicosate of Cilicia for the entire
Gulf Region’s Armenians has its seat in Kuwait City (Salmiya Area, PO
Box 8157, Tel: 00965-5614392, Fax: 00965-5638312). First prelacy
level elections took place in 1994. The dominant political fraction
is ARF, which controls all seats in local bodies, through appointing
loyal members and sympathizers. The official publication of the
Prelacy is called “Aztarar” (since 1993 / dubbed as “bulletin of
Armenian Affairs”, in PDF format since September 2004). It is
basically a compilation of general Armenian news (mostly from ARF
affiliated sources). Compiler is Kevork Hadjian. The present day
Catholicosal Representative is Archbishop Dr. Gorun Babian (long time
Head of Church in Isfahan, Iran, originally from Lebanon). The priest
is Der Ardag Kehyeyan (son of Der Adom, reputed priest in Aleppo for
many generations).

Armenians have a great reputation in Kuwait. The local media
occasionally writes about the Armenians and their activities. On the
occasion of the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide the
Armenians organized a blood donation. About one hundred persons
donated blood to people in need. Media referred extensively to the
blood donation, the Armenian Genocide, the painting exhibition
organized by the Armenian School, etc. Archbishop Babian was
interviewed. Giragos Kouyoumdjian wrote several articles in Kuwait
English and Arabic newspapers, stressing the meaning of the Genocide
and expressing thanks to the Arabs who welcomed the Armenians during
difficult times (World War I). The Turkish Embassy in Kuwait
responded with the usual denial of the Genocide, providing
explanation of the reasons behind the Armenian “deportations”.

Some individual Kuwaiti writers urged the Turkish government to
acknowledge the Genocide. They sympathized with the Armenians,
especially that Kuwait and Armenia are both small nations in a sea of
surrounding bigger entities.

A1plus

| 19:08:04 | 10-05-2005 | Politics |

DISPUTES OVER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Today only 17 deputies were present in the sitting hall during the
discussions of the constitutional amendments, which proceeded in the
atmosphere of complete indifference.

Constitutional right specialist, chairman of Democracy public organization
Vardan Poghosyan made a detailed analysis of all the three drafts pointing
out to their advantages and shortcomings and called the deputies to adopt
the draft submitted by the United Labor Party. In his turn independent
deputy Manuk Gasparyan agreed with Vardan Poghosyan, since, in his opinion,
the coalition’s draft provides too much authority to the President.

Arshak Sadoyan was the only deputy representing the opposition in parliament
today. He said that in case the coalition’s draft is adopted as a basis, the
opposition will have to vote against constitutional amendments.

The NA sitting will be continued tomorrow at about 12.00.

AZG Armenian Daily #084, 11/05/2005

Armenian Genocide

SENATE OF BELGIUM TO RECONSIDER BILL ON GENOCIDE

Recently, Azg informed that the Human Rights Belgian League, the French VAN
NGO and several lawyers demand that the Belgian bill that envisages
punishment for denying the genocides, so that those who deny the Armenian
Genocide can be punished, too. We also informed that if 15 senators suggest
to reconsider the bill adopted on April 21 till May 9, the Senate will be
able to make amendments to it in 60 days.

According to the latest news from Brussels, the European Armenian Federation
submitted grounded arguments for reconsideration to the senators.
Afterwards, the lawyer and the experts of the Senate discussed the issue.

Finally, 15 oppositional senators suggested reconsidering the bill. It is
not excluded that after certain amendments are made to the bill it will
include pro-Armenian formula. Especially, if we take into account the fact
that the Armenian Genocide was recognized by the European and the French
Parliaments.

At the same time, the pro-Turkish forces, particularly the Belgian company
of Ataturk’s Ideas, exert strong pressure over the Senate to hinder the
adoption of the pro-Armenian law.

By Petros Keshishian

Transcript of Press Roundtable with Ambassador Laura Kennedy, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs

United States Embassy (Ankara, Turkey)
May 3, 2005

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Thank you for coming to see me today. This is, I
think, my fourth trip to Turkey in a ten-month period. As always, I
find that there is never enough time to do as many things and see as
many people as I would like. Although we discussed a number of issues
today, it was by no means a comprehensive discussion of all the things
on our very rich agenda. Of course, I came in the wake of
Undersecretary Ali Tuygan’s very good visit to the United States.
While I was here, I took to the opportunity to have the second round
of consultations on the Caucasus and Central Asia at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. In February, Director General Akinci had come to
Washington for discussions, and we had decided to inaugurate regular
exchanges between the United States and Turkey on these specific
areas. Of course, there are many issues, as you know, that the United
States and Turkey have strategic interests in and on which we
regularly consult. When I saw Mr. Tuygan this morning with Ambassador
Edelman, we suggested a number of specific consultations in a range of
different areas that we would propose for the next year. I will leave
it to the Foreign Ministry to comment on that, but I think we have
similar views on the importance of having such consultations over the
next year. I also had another meeting with Mr. Alpogan, whom I have
met a number of times, including when he was formerly Ambassador to
Athens. Also, we saw Mr. Apakan and his team to discuss Cyprus
today. I had the opportunity to exchange views with various experts on
Turkey in a private lunch. Then, most recently, I had a meeting with a
group of parliamentarians this afternoon. Every time I have come to
Turkey, I have met different parliamentarians from a range of
parties. I always think that is one of the most useful exchanges that
I can have. I have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of them
in Washington as well. From Turkey, I will go on to Greece to again
talk about some bilateral issues as well as Cyprus, to exchange views
on the way ahead. Then I will go on to Cyprus, and meet with President
Papadapolous and meet with Mr. Talat to congratulate him on his
victory, as our Secretary of State did recently. I will also meet with
UN officials on the island. Then I will go on to London – the UK,
as you know, has been a guarantor party on Cyprus, and a country with
which we have consulted very closely on the way ahead in Cyprus. Then
I will finish up with a trip to Brussels to discuss Cyprus issues as
well as some other issues with various EU folks. So I would be
delighted to answer any of your questions.

…

QUESTION: So what is the substance of this dialogue? AMBASSADOR
KENNEDY: I am sorry, which dialogue?

QUESTION: On the Caucasus and Central Asia. AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: We
could spend days talking about this, but I would say that some of the
particular areas we focused on were Kyrgyzstan, given the events
there. Aside from these formal consultations we have had in Ankara in
Washington, I certainly have made it a point to be in contact with
your government comparing notes on the way ahead. Of course, your
Foreign Minister is visiting there this coming week. So again, we both
have efforts to support this new interim government in Kyrgyzstan. We
both hope that forthcoming elections will meet OSCE expectations. We
both talked about our respective efforts to provide assistance to the
country. Another effort was on Georgia. There are a number of these
so-called `frozen conflicts’ that we have exchanged views on. Abkhazia
is one in which we both have a strong interest in seeing progress.
Certainly we are very mindful of the fact that there are more Abkhaz
who live in Turkey than in Abkhazia, so Turkey, as a neighbor, has a
particularly useful role to play. So we are just consulting on the way
forward. We certainly talked about Armenia. I discussed briefly the
Nagorno- Karabakh negotiations, although we have a special negotiator
for that conflict who frequently briefs your government and will be
only too happy to visit Turkey in the near future to exchange thoughts
on the way ahead there. Those were the main topics that we discussed
in these Caucasus-Central Asia consultations.

QUESTION: Did you talk about the so-called Armenian genocide issue and
the recent developments — the letters between the Armenian and
Turkish governments?

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Yes, we did. You may have read President Bush’s
statement on April 24. If not, the Embassy can give you a copy. It is
on the White House web page. President Bush specifically referred to
Prime Minister Erdogan’s letter to President Kocharian. We certainly
have a very strong interest in rapprochement and reconciliation
between Armenia and Turkey. This has always been the focus of our
efforts, so we were pleased to see Prime Minister Erdogan’s outreach.
We read the Foreign Ministry spokesman’s statement that President
Kocharian’s response was being studied comprehensively and
positively. That was very much the sense I got from the various
officials with whom I spoke today. We think this is a very promising
exchange between President Kocharian and Prime Minister Erdogan, and
we certainly hope that this will be followed up.

QUESTION: What do you think the next step should be? What about a
meeting between Erdogan and Kocharian? Would that be possible?

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: I think that would be a great thing. I am trying
to think what meetings they might both be at — Council of Europe in
Warsaw? Certainly both governments have very competent

representatives. President Kocharian responded with this notion of an
intergovernmental committee. I think that certainly has merit. For our
part, we very strongly encourage rapprochement between the two
governments.

QUESTION: Do you think you have any roles to play in this (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: We encourage both sides constantly and, as I said,
we noted positively Prime Minister Erdogan’s response to President
Kocharian. We certainly will hope and encourage Armenia to respond. I
think this is a very promising exchange, and we will certainly support
efforts to find a way forward.

QUESTION: Ambassador, with the talks with the Armenian side, have you
ever received a signal that Armenia might recognize Turkey’s borders?
(inaudible)

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: I have never heard anything from the Government of
Armenia to suggest they do not recognize the borders, just as Turkey
does. I hear this often from Turks, so I have asked Armenians. I have
seen speeches that Foreign Minister Oksanian has made in which he has
specifically referred to the Treaty of Kars and the recognition of
borders. So frankly I don’t think you have any cause for concern
there. This is an issue that the two governments can consider, but I
don’t think there is any reason to believe that Armenia does not
recognize the borders with Turkey. I have heard this directly from a
number of Armenian officials.

QUESTION: Linked to this issue, we know that US was expecting Turkey
to open its borders to Armenia. Did you raise this issue at your
talks? (inaudible)

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: This has always been our policy. This is routine
US policy. What I focused on was asking your government’s views on
this and encouraging both sides to build on what I see as a very
promising exchange. That was certainly my focus, and that will
continue. Now in terms of the Nagorno-Karabakh talks, I prefer not to
get into that because we have a specialist who I hope will visit be
visiting Turkey in due course. But I will say that these are very
difficult, complex issues. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic.
There are very tough issues that the sides need to work through. But I
will say that I think this has been a very productive year. In what we
call the Prague Process, the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan have met jointly and separately in various meetings and in
various locations with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, of which the
United States is one. I think it is a very serious process that is
underway. As always, we share our views with Turkey and encourage
Turkey to do its part to encourage the parties on the way forward.

…

QUESTION: I am still a little confused on the Armenian issue. You said
that you support Erdogan’s letter and all these initiatives. But there
is a big difference. Erdogan says the genocide issue should be
discussed by historians, but Kocharian says that all the issues can be
discussed in an intergovernmental commission – that it is our
responsibility, and we cannot delegate it to historians. So what is
the position of the United States? Do you support an intergovernmental
commission (inaudible)? Or do you think that it is an issue for
historians?

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Let me just say that we support, in general,
rapprochement between your governments. We are not going to tell
Turkey or Armenia what to do, because rapprochement and reconciliation
means you are willing to deal with each other. That is central. So we
support any of those efforts. I don’t see that these two proposals
could not possibly be reconciled. Prime Minister Erdogan has proposed
a commission of historians. Kocharian said “why don’t we consider
diplomatic relations? How about an intergovernmental commission?” I
don’t want to do the thinking of your government or the Armenians for
them, but will I personally say that I don’t see why you cannot
reconcile these two proposals. Why not have both? I think it is really
important for this dialogue to continue. So what if initial proposals
don’t mirror each other. Let’s built on the exchange and see if we
can’t come out with a workable next step. I don’t see an antithesis
between the proposals. I don’t see why you can’t proceed on both
tracks.

QUESTION: Did you get the signal that Turkey might find it positive to
(inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Obviously they are looking at it. I don’t want to
get out ahead of your government. You’re a good journalist. You’ll get
the story out of your government probably before any diplomat like me.
Thank you so much for coming today.

CIS leaders to start arriving in Moscow for V-Day events Saturday

ITAR-TASS News Agency
May 6, 2005 Friday 5:22 PM Eastern Time

MOSCOW, May 7 — The CIS leaders will start arriving in Moscow on
Saturday for celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the victory
over Nazi Germany in Word War II.

Six of the 12 CIS presidents will come to Moscow on Saturday. Others
will follow on May 8.

Acting Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev is expected to arrive first,
followed by Armenian President Robert Kocharyan, Uzbek President Islam
Karimov, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Ukrainian President
Viktor Yushchenko, and Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko.

Turkmen President Saparamurat Niyazov and Tajik President Emomali
Rakhmonov will arrive on Sunday morning. Azerbaijani President Ilkham
Aliyev is scheduled to arrive in May 8. Moldovan President Vladimir
Voronin is also expected to come.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashavili is the only CIS leader who
will most likely not attend the celebrations.

President Vladimir Putin invited his CIS colleagues for an informal
summit on May 8 and Victory Day celebrations on May 9.

Putin said Victory Day is a “truly popular holiday for all citizens
of Russia and all CIS countries”.

“It is hard to find another such sacred and consolidating day as May
9,” he said.

Kansas State University: K-State students experience journalism from the front line

M2 Presswire
May 6, 2005

M2 PRESSWIRE-MAY 6, 2005-Kansas State University: K-State students
experience journalism from the front line ©1994-2005 M2 COMMUNICATIONS
LTD

MANHATTAN – A group of Kansas State University journalism students
transformed themselves into embedded reporters as they worked
side-by-side military officers in the midst of attack.

The students were participating in a simulated battle exercise through
the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.

“It was kind of a dual role,” said Jeffrey Pitts, Wichita junior. “We
were there to give them an idea of what it is like to deal with the
media, but we were also there to give ourselves experience in that
sort of journalism.”

For three days the students lived in army barracks and worked
alongside military personnel as they battled the rebel insurgents
threatening attack.

The college at Fort Leavenworth served as the command control center
for the operation that was designed for the United States to help
the Caucasus region – Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey –
deal with insurgents.

“Our students played the role of American reporters who were embedded
in the various U.S. military units,” said Fred Brock, assistant
professor of mass communications.

The students, who volunteered to take part in the experience, were
each assigned to a separate military unit and were responsible for
writing a story about what happened during the day.

“The stories were all different because the students got different
perspectives and they saw different things,” said Brock, who is the
R.M. Seaton Professional Journalism Chair at K-State’s A.Q. Miller
School of Journalism and Mass Communications.

After spending the majority of the day in the command center with
the military, the students would return to the Joint Information
Bureau where they could file their stories. Brock would then read and
critique each story before the students were given the opportunity to
share the stories with the military students and faculty of the U.S.
Army Command and General Staff College.

“This experience was extremely valuable for both our students here at
Fort Leavenworth and the K-State students as well,” said Maj. Shawn
Stroud, public affairs officer and media relations instructor at the
Command and General Staff College. “We recognize the importance of
working with embedded reporters and journalists in combat operations.
By including the K-State journalism students in this exercise, we gave
both the student journalists and the student officers an opportunity
to learn more about each other’s profession and hopefully helped
foster some strong ties between tomorrow’s media and military leaders.

“We are looking forward to working together with K-State in future
exercises and other educational opportunities,” he said.

Students who participated in the program include:

Megan Moser, sophomore in mass communications-print journalism,
Garden City.

>>From Greater Kansas City: Alex Peak, junior in mass
communications-print journalism, international studies and pre-law,
Kansas City, Mo.; and Dayne Logan, junior in mass communications-print
journalism, Overland Park.

Josey Heller, junior in mass communications-print journalism, Hunter;
and Melissa Gore, junior in mass communications-public relations;
Angela Rokey, senior in mass communication-public relations, mass
communications-electronic journalism and modern languages-German;
and Sarah Rice, senior in mass communications-print journalism,
all from Manhattan.

Maggie Sebelius, senior in mass communications-print journalism and
international studies, Norton; Patrice Holderbach, senior in mass
communications-print journalism, international studies and American
ethnic studies, Topeka; Tressa Farrell, senior in agricultural
communications and journalism, Wamego; and Jeffrey Pitts, junior in
mass communications-electronic journalism, mass communications-public
relations and pre-law, Wichita.

>>From out-of-state: Kerry Fischer, senior in mass communications-print
journalism, Loveland, Colo.; and Lee Farquhar, graduate student in
journalism and mass communications, Sutherland, Iowa.

The exercise was April 4-7.

(M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided
within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further
information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at
on the world wide web. Inquiries to [email protected]).

–Boundary_(ID_JjsEU+PCkt5z1cdpA1fKSg)–

Turkish parliamentary speaker cancels Russian visit

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
May 7 2005

Last week, Arinc sent a letter of condemnation to the Polish parliament
for its recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide and cancelled
a planned visit by deputies from Poland to the Turkish parliament.

May 6- The speaker of the Turkish parliament has cancelled an official
visit to Moscow after the Russian parliament voted to acknowledge
allegations that the Ottoman Empire committed acts of genocide against
its Armenian citizens during the First World War.

Bulent Arinc announced Friday he would not be making the trip to
Russia, scheduled for June 6 to 9, after the Duma voted to recognise
the so-called Armenian genocide.

Arinc has stressed in the past that national parliaments were not
the place to make judgments over the controversial historical issues.