Author: Emil Lazarian

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian National Committee
San Francisco – Bay Area
51 Commonwealth Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118
Tel: (415) 387-3433
Fax: (415) 751-0617
[email protected]

Contact: Roxanne Makasdjian (415) 641-0525

Bay Area Armenians Commemorate Genocide

– Kossakian calls on community to prepare for the next phase of Hai Tad
– City of Oakland Recognizes Armenian Genocide for First Time

San Francisco – The Armenian-American community commemorated the
Armenian Genocide with various activities over several weeks, including
public resolutions, screenings, a youth program and student events,
religious ceremonies and a program of speakers and cultural presentations.

Bay Area Cities Recognize the Armenian Genocide
The San Francisco and Santa Clara counties and the cities of Berkeley
and Oakland honored the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide
by declaring April 24th a day of remembrance for the Armenian Genocide.
This was the first year Oakland recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Over the previous two months, ANC members in Oakland brought the issue
of the Armenian Genocide to the attention of Oakland City Council
members, who unanimously voted for the resolution, which was passed and
discussed during a public City Council meeting. At the urging of the
Bay Area ANC, the San Francisco and Santa Clara county Boards of
Supervisors sent letters to President Bush calling for the appropriate
recognition of the Genocide by the administration.

Community Evening of Commemoration
On the evening of April 24th, Armenian-Americans gathered to hear
speakers Jean Kossakian, principal of Ferrahian Armenian High School,
and Barlow Der Mugrdechian, Armenian Studies lecturer, Fresno State
University, in addition to Armenian songs and recitation.

Speaking in Armenian, Kossakian spoke of the importance of continuing to
remember the Armenian Genocide, saying that if the Armenian people can
continue to celebrate Vartanants after 1500 years, we can surely
continue the struggle for recognition of the Genocide until justice
prevails.

Kossakian described the evolution of the Hai Tad struggle, beginning
with the early decades of lamentation, to the cries of `Our lands, our
lands!’ to the acts of political assassination, to nations beginning to
officially recognize the Genocide, to the struggle for an independent
Armenia and Karabagh.

`The entire Diaspora stood together for the independence of Armenia and
Karabagh,’ Kossakian said, adding that Armenia, Karabagh and Javakhk
constitute the basis of a free and independent Armenia. `Genocide
recognition has become a part of the Armenian foreign policy, and we are
now moving into a new era, moving from recognition towards reparations.’

Emphasizing the fact that the Armenian Genocide is unique because it not
only took lives, but lands and property, Kossakian said the Genocide
continues with Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s genocide denial, their claims
that Armenians are the newcomers to the region, their continued
blockades of Armenia, their construction of a pipeline which bypasses
Armenia, and their ever-growing populations compared to Armenia’s
diminishing population.

Kossakian said our people must prepare for the day when Armenia will
bring the Armenian Case to the International Court of Justice, by
continuing to persuade cities, states and nations to recognize the
Genocide, persuade governments and schools to include the history in
their educational systems, and by developing new approaches to the
Armenian Cause. `Within the next few years we have to prove that the
Diaspora is represented by Armenia, ask for reparations, and put Turkey
on the defensive.’

Barlow Der Mugrdechian, speaking in English, also called on Armenians to
participate in Armenian life. `While some call for unity,’ he said, `I
would call for unity of spirit.’

Der Mugrdechian urged Armenians to see Armenia and Mt. Ararat, not as a
tourist experience, but as an educational experience, learning from the
people there and contributing in some way. He reminded community
members that the Armenian Case is still unresolved and people should
participate in the Cause.

`Germany and the Secret Genocide’
The Bay Area Armenian National Committee invited the public to a
screening of `Germany and the Secret Genocide,’ and a discussion with
filmmaker Michael J. Hagopian. The film, which reveals Germany’s
involvement in the Armenian Genocide screened on April 14th at the San
Francisco Public Library with a diverse crowd in attendance.

Armenian Students’ Associations of UCB, UCD and Stanford
Armenian-American students at three Bay Area universities organized a
variety of events: at UCB, students organized lectures, a film
screening, and `Hands Across Campus’ bringing together many student
groups linking hands across campus to take a stand against Armenian
Genocide denial and human rights abuses everywhere. At UC Davis,
students held a public evening vigil where students and other campus
speakers addressed the crowd. At Stanford, the Stanford Daily newspaper
published an opinion piece about the need for recognition of the
Armenian Genocide.

Youth Program and `Hokehankeest’ at Mt. Davidson Cross
Representatives of the ACYO (Armenian Christian Youth Organization), KZV
Armenian School and the HMEM Armenian Scouts conducted a solemn
proceeding at the 103-ft Mt. Davidson Cross. Mt. Davidson Cross is the
largest cross in the country and stands atop the highest peak in San
Francisco overlooking the city. The Armenian-American community of the
Bay Area owns the Cross, after having won it at a city auction approved
by city voters in 1997. They have been able to maintain ownership and a
memorial plaque at the foot of the cross despite several lawsuits by
atheists which reached the Supreme Court and a recent lawsuit by the
Turkish consul.

##

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

London Free Press, Canada
May 8 2004

Couple building a new life here

NORMAN DE BONO, Free Press Business Reporter

They moved across the globe, gave up high-paying jobs in Washington
and miss their home and families in Armenia. For Hamayak Arazyan and
Yelena Stepanyan, it is worth it to build a life in London.

“We made a choice, we knew it would be a tradeoff but you live just
once and it’s not all about money,” says Yelena. “In the world,
Canada is seen as a country of immigrants. We really like it here and
we want to stay.”

It looks now, for the first time in years, as if the young couple
might finally get their wish. Hamayak (just call me Mike) this week
began his new job as account manager at the Business Development Bank
of Canada.

As for Yelena, his wife of seven years, she is in the MBA program at
the Richard Ivey School of Business and has just landed a summer job
at the financial services business, Highstreet Asset Management in
London.

They hope the positions mark the end of what has been a long road to
their new home.

“I decided to come to Ivey because of the reputation of the school,
but we were expecting London to be a much smaller city. It’s bigger
than we thought,” she said.

When they got here and saw that London is a mid-sized community, with
resources for families and children, they realized it was the kind of
city in which they wanted to raise their two children, Alexander, 20
months, and Victoria, 6.

“When we moved from Armenia to the U.S., we had in our minds we
wanted to stay in North America,” but they weren’t certain where.

“We talked to a lot of people (in Washington) and did some research
and realized that for family, for our kids, we wanted to live in
Canada.”

Hamayak and Yelena left Armenia for him to study for his MBA at the
University of Pennsylvania. After graduation in 2001, they moved to
Washington where he worked for the World Bank as a business and
financial consultant. She found work at the International Monetary
Fund, doing research in the Swiss Executive Office.

When Yelena decided she also wanted to study for her MBA, they
decided to combine that with a move to Canada.

As Yelena began her studies, Hamayak worked out of their London home
for the World Bank but craved an office environment and began looking
for work.

“I thought it would be easy to find a job,” said Hamayak, adding he
could have worked in Toronto. “But it’s not the same here as Toronto.
There may be three jobs here for every 200 in Toronto.”

The job search proved frustrating, and they were considering a move
to Toronto when managers at the Ivey school, who work closely with
MBA students, came to their aid, putting feelers out into the
business community to gauge job interest for Hamayak. Meetings with
John Kime, chief executive officer with the London Economic
Development Corp., were followed by a series of interviews at the BDC
beginning in January.

“If I did not find a job here, we would have had to move to Toronto,
there is such a small job market here,” he said.

Some local businesses also declined to hire him, saying that since
his wife was an MBA student, they are certain to leave the city.

“There was a lot of reluctance. One person came right out and said
‘you will not stay here.’ But we want to stay here,” he added. “Even
our daughter has said she thinks kids here are friendlier (than in
Washington).”

Hamayak was also offered a job with Highstreet, but declined it due
to the BDC offer — and asked if they could speak to his wife about
the position.

As for his new BDC job, “it went very well,” he said of his first
week. “They were very supportive. Everyone came in to say hello, ask
if they could help or if I had any questions. That’s the thing we’ve
noticed about London, the people here are very warm.”

In Armenia, Hamayak and Yelena also had good jobs. He was at the
U.S.-funded Armenia Foundation and she was at a European Union-funded
project, but the country is still struggling to rebuild after years
of Soviet rule and they wanted a new start.

“We had a very good life there, we were at the top of our fields and
we went to the U.S. not knowing what we would do after that — it was
a risky step,” said Hamayak. “But in Armenia, there was no place to
grow. We were limited.”

The only drawback to London, they say, is that there are no Armenian
schools for their children. In fact, there are only about 15 Armenian
families in London. Curious to connect to someone from their home
when they arrived, they went to an Alexanian Carpets store — it is
an Armenian name — to meet the owner. They also found three stores
in Masonville owned by Armenians.

“I care very much about the people there, but our family comes
first,” said Yelena. “If everything goes well, I hope we can return
to Armenia this summer for a visit, but I definitely want to come
back and stay in London, it’s my first choice.”

“Here, we can plan what we will do tens of years from now,” adds
Hamayak. “In Armenia, you could not do that.”

In addition to his work, Hamayak is also completing a certified
management accountant course at Carleton University in Ottawa.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

United Press International
May 7, 2004 Friday

The Peter Principles: Prisoner’s base

By PETER ROFF

WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI)

The Bush administration’s public standing appears badly damaged by
the unfolding scandal that was kicked off by the discovery of
photographs seeming to show U.S. military personnel mistreating
inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

Since the revelations, Bush’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll
dropped 3 points, from 52 percent in mid-April to 49 percent in early
May. Those who said they disapproved of the way he is handling his
job as president increased by the same amount.

Like Claude Raines in Casablanca, there are any number of people who
claim they are “shocked, shocked” to discover that prisoners may have
been tortured or abused. While upsetting — and a potentially
damaging revelation as far as U.S. diplomatic relations with the Arab
world are concerned — the news is hardly Earth shaking. Anyone with
an even passing knowledge of what occurs in U.S. correctional
facilities on a daily basis is aware that prisons are not, to put it
mildly, nice places.

Prisoners are assaulted — and worse — on a regular basis by other
inmates and, if some claims are to be believed, also by their
warders. The same is true in countless prisons and detention
facilities throughout the world, some of the worst of which were
located in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. There, prisoners were routinely
tortured in unspeakable ways for political reasons or simply for
amusement.

While the purported incidents in the Abu Ghraib prison are disturbing
by U.S. standards, they are fairly benign when measured against what
goes on in the rest of the world. In reality, it is President George
Bush’s reaction that should really give the world pause, because it
explains yet again why the United States is different from most other
nations.

In remarks following his meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan,
comments certain to be broadcast throughout the Arab world, Bush
addressed the issue at length. The two leaders talked, Bush said,
“about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own
country, but overseas — the images of cruelty and humiliation.”

“I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be
brought to justice,” Bush said, “and that the actions of those folks
in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America.”

“I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi
prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families. I told him
I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures
didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.”

And, in what may be one of the most remarkable admissions ever made
by a U.S. leader in wartime, “I assured him Americans, like me,
didn’t appreciate what we saw, that it made us sick to our stomachs.
I also made it clear to His Majesty that the troops we have in Iraq,
who are there for security and peace and freedom, are the finest of
the fine, fantastic United States citizens, who represent the very
best qualities of America: courage, love of freedom, compassion and
decency.”

In the Arab world, where much worse torture and abuse is routine if
not required, the president’s words must come as a true revelation.
The leader of the world’s most powerful nation humbled himself and
his country not just before its own citizens but before the people of
the world, admitting that an injustice had been done, not by another
nation but by the United States itself. More importantly is Bush’s
commitment that the perpetrators of the abuse would be punished and
that steps would be taken to insure that the abuse would not occur
again.

Other nations are rarely if ever as public in their expressions of
humility.

The People’s Republic of China has not apologized for the 1989
massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The
Turkish government has never apologized for the slaughter of
Armenians. Neither the Soviets nor the members of the Commonwealth of
Independent States that succeeded it have fully atoned for the gulags
or uttered meaningful expressions of remorse for the pogroms
committed by the Czars against Russia’s once considerable Jewish
population.

The Japanese have never fully atoned for the infamous 1937 “Rape of
Nanking.” The British are still silent about their invention of the
concentration camp during the Boer War, the violence they perpetrated
against the Irish people over centuries and for not doing all they
could to alleviate 1942’s Bengal famine that killed at least 2
million people.

An even longer list of similar atrocities, against which the alleged
abuses in Abu Ghraib prison pale by comparison, could be assembled.
What is unique to the Abu Ghraib incident is not the abuse but the
apology.

That Abu Ghraib matters, not even but especially at the highest
levels of the U.S. government, should stand as proof before the world
that the United States is a great nation full of good people who can
do amazing things. It is not just a matter of not letting the single
bad apple spoil the entire barrel but a triumph of the idea that, in
the view of the United States, all men are created equal and should
be treated accordingly, with respect.

(The Peter Principles is a regular column on politics, culture and
the media by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of
the Washington scene.)

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Karabakh
AGBU.org
April 2004

The Karabakh Question: After a decade of cease-fire, now what?
Karabakh

Tony Halpin

The ceasefire that ended the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh between Azerbaijan
and Armenian forces sees its 10th anniversary in May. It is a date that is
both a remarkable landmark and a symbol of the continued elusiveness of a
permanent solution to the conflict.

February marked an older anniversary, the 16th year since the emergence of
the Karabakh Movement that was the catalyst for the independence of Armenia.
The two events define the modern republic and its relationship with the
worldwide Diaspora, perhaps even more than recognition of the Genocide in
the immediacy of its importance for the future security of the Armenian
nation.

Few of the one million people who massed in the streets of Yerevan in those
early heady days of demonstrations would have predicted that Armenia would
have a Karabakhtsi as head of state within a decade and another as defense
minister. Fewer still might have believed that the “Karabakh Question” would
remain unsolved in the international arena.

That question is settled in the minds of the men and women on the street,
who have paid a terrible price in blood and endured massive economic
sacrifice to secure military victory and Artsakh’s (historic Armenian name
of Karabakh) independent status. But it remains open to interpretation in
the arena of international politics and there are many signs that 2004 will
see a marked increase in the pressure for a final settlement.

President Robert Kocharian occupies a unique position. His political
authority as a wartime leader and former President of Karabakh is viewed by
many as a guarantee that he won’t make concessions that undermine the
country’s de facto independence. Conversely, he is seen as someone who can
sell possibly painful concessions to the Armenian public, in Armenia,
Karabakh and further afield, precisely because of his political authority.
He runs the risk of being damned if he does, therefore, and damned if he
doesn’t.

The suggestion of compromise with Azerbaijan was enough to force former
president Levon Ter Petrosian from office in 1998, partly at the hands of
Kocharian, whom he had brought to Yerevan as Prime Minister. Kocharian does
not forget that he owes his present position to negative public reaction and
that he may lose it the same way.

That political crisis exposed a philosophical divide at the top of the
Armenian leadership. The Ter Petrosian faction considered a settlement to
the conflict an essential precondition of economic recovery for Armenia,
burdened by the impact of the Azerbaijani blockade and the cost of
sustaining the defense of Karabakh, and that it could be achieved through a
step-by-step process of confidence-building measures. Kocharian represented
the view that a stronger Armenian economy was possible without a settlement
and would improve the prospects of achieving one through an all-embracing
package deal.

The latter policy has dominated for five years now and Armenia’s economy has
certainly improved, recording the fastest growth of any former Soviet
republic in 2003. This year will likely put Kocharian’s argument to the
test: Has his hand been strengthened in striking a deal-or perhaps resisting
one-with Azerbaijan under the auspices of the international mediators in the
Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)? Or has pursuit of a “package” solution over step-by-step measures
weakened Armenia’s bargaining position through delay?

About the only thing that unites the different elements of the divided
political landscape in Yerevan is the view that a settlement must
incorporate one of these two objectives. The gray area is what may be
conceded to achieve it and whether it is achievable at all in the face of
Azerbaijan’s repeated refusal to entertain any solution that does not leave
Karabakh under Baku’s jurisdiction.

The position of the government in Stepanakert is clear: Karabakh must either
be independent or reunited with Armenia. One of the ironies of Kocharian’s
elevation in Yerevan, however, has been Karabakh’s relegation from any
involvement in talks on its future status. Armenia used to argue that the
issue was best addressed by dialogue between Artsakh and Azerbaijan, in
which it was the guarantor of Karabakh’s security. Kocharian, however, has
taken upon himself the responsibility of representing the position of both
Karabakh and Armenia, dropping any pretense that the two may be separate.

In many ways this is only common sense (though diplomatically it may cause
problems). Stepanakert remains dependent on Yerevan for financial support,
encouragement of inward investment, and transport links to the wider world.
It could not support anything at odds with Armenia’s view of the conflict,
even assuming there were circumstances in which it would wish to.

Drive the road from Yerevan to Stepanakert, the capital of Karabakh-the
linking Artsakh section built with money raised in the Diaspora-and the two
already feel as one. Nothing any longer defines the strip of land between
Armenia and Artsakh as Azeri territory. Only a road sign and a traffic
police post mark the passage into Nagorno Karabakh Republic, as if you were
driving from one region of Armenia into another.

Kocharian has made plain that a final settlement must include a common
border between Armenia and Artsakh and it is inconceivable that it could be
any other way now. The land between the two is being populated with Armenian
families, creating facts on the ground that the Minsk Group mediators will
find impossible to ignore.

The secrecy that envelopes the negotiating process, however, makes it almost
impossible to divine the shape of the settlement being put together by the
mediators. Kocharian and the late Heydar Aliyev were believed to have
achieved the outline of a deal at the Key West summit hosted by Secretary of
State Colin Powell in 2001, only for it to break down after the latter
balked at selling it to his public.

With power now passed to Aliyev’s son Ilham as president, the question is
whether discussions pick up where they left off or whether the new Aliyev
has a different perspective on the future shape of a deal. Kocharian’s
meeting with him in Geneva late last year was little more than an
opportunity to look his opponent in the eye to see what measure of a man he
was dealing with. The hard bargaining remains and always with the risk that
the outcome may be derailed by negative public reaction in either country
once the details are revealed. In that regard, Kocharian’s recent offer to
put any proposals to a referendum can be viewed in two lights. Approval by
the public narrows the scope for being ousted by hardliners in the manner of
Ter Petrosian. Kocharian also knows that public rejection in a vote offers
him an escape route from international pressure to agree to an
unsatisfactory deal involving, for example, an exchange of territory
involving the southern Meghri region.

Two issues could break the deadlock. One, inevitably, is oil. Construction
of the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan in Turkey is well advanced and oil is
expected to start flowing by the middle of next year. Azerbaijan is on the
brink of a boom in which it expects to earn some $20 billion in oil revenues
over the next two decades. For comparison, Armenia’s total state budget this
year is about $480 million.

It does not follow, as some commentators insist, that a newly wealthy
Azerbaijan will rearm for the specific purpose of launching a war of
“liberation” over Karabakh. Desperate people fight because they have nothing
to lose. The more comfortable life becomes in Baku, the less likely its
young men will be willing to exchange the pleasures of a consumer life for
the prospect of a painful death in a land most will never have seen. Far
from fueling conflict, oil may give Azerbaijan a reason to avoid war and an
incentive to seek a deal with Armenia. Azeri prosperity, therefore, may
become a security goal for Armenia and certainly a bargaining chip in
securing a settlement that allows Baku to enjoy the fruits of its good
fortune while giving Karabakh effective independence.

The second issue relates to Kocharian’s changed status. With the senior
Aliyev’s death and the sudden demise of Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia’s
“rose revolution”, Armenia’s president has gone from junior head of state to
elder statesman of the Caucasus. Georgia’s new young president Mikhail
Saakashvili has already expressed a determination to build closer ties with
Armenia. Separatist movements in different parts of Georgia present him with
considerable challenges in holding his country together.

It may be that Kocharian can achieve a permanent solution to the Karabakh
issue by enlarging the context to include a broader common view of Caucasus
stability. All three countries in the region have an interest in avoiding
war and promoting prosperity, yet each is locked into narrow ethnic
conflicts whose resolution appear to demand a winner and a loser. Seeking
common approaches to securing minority rights may permit them to escape the
traps of a Soviet landscape that was never designed to serve their
interests.

Perhaps his seniority would give Kocharian an opportunity to take just such
an initiative. Now into his second term, he knows that history’s judgement
of him will be shaped by his ability to settle the Karabakh Question, the
issue that formed him as a man and that brought him to the presidency. He
feels the pressure of time. It remains to be seen whether 2004 will provide
the opportunity for him to seize the moment.

Karabakh
AGBU.org
April 2004

City of Dreams? Karabakh’s center of culture hangs on and hopes
Karabakh

Marianna Grigoryan and Sona Danielyan

Gray-haired and aged by war and hardship, 68-year old Rima Danielian moves
with care down the edge of a bluff approaching a row of unremarkable shops
in her town, Shushi.

She passes children coming home from school who are growing up in a Shushi
far different than the one Rima sees in her memory.

“My city is the most beautiful,” says Rima. “For centuries Shushi had been
considered as the heart and center of culture of Artsakh. And today it seems
life has become silent. Many things have changed.”

In fact, in the decade since Shushi-on its strategic vantage point
overlooking the capital, Stepanakert the site of prolonged and vicious
fighting between Armenian and Azeri forces-almost everything has changed.

Rima’s memory is good and its facts well known. Before the war, Shushi had
12,000 residents. It was a beacon of culture, a center of art, of publishing
and of a refined life that, if found in Shushi today, is somewhere under the
city’s scarred exterior where 3,500 hang on.

A Borrowed Life: Roosters announce the beginning of the day in Shushi, soon
followed by the ringing of bells at St. Ghazanchetsots Church-33 clangs from
the tower, one for each year of Christ’s life.

The bells mark the beginning of Anahit Danielian’s working day. She sells
candles at the church and says that even though most of her neighbors have
nothing to do with their days, even the poorest ones come to pray; probably
for a better life.

“It’s true that it seems that people’s life conditions don’t change,” Anahit
says. “But in recent years people have been getting married more often and
it delights the heart.” It has become tradition, she says, for couples from
Stepanakert (about 10 kilometers away) to come to the church for their
weddings.

And the occasion to have outsiders in Shushi is welcomed by owners of the
little shops that are evidence of the commerce of necessity, even in a
skeleton of a city.

“Residents of Shushi mainly buy vermicelli, sugar, oil and cheap vodka,”
says 24-year old Liana Harutyunian, a shop worker. But “buy” is not exactly
the right word. “They mainly borrow,” she says. There are two bottles of
champagne on her shelf, so long there that Liana can’t remember where they
came from.

“Sometimes those who come from Stepanakert for wedding ceremonies plunge
themselves into excesses like that if, of course, they forget to bring that
stuff with them. Such things are not for residents of Shushi.”

Liana moved to Shushi from Masis six years ago with her two little girls and
says that they couldn’t live and exist here if her parents didn’t help them
by sending flour, potatoes and other necessary foodstuff from Masis.

“Many people don’t work but I have a job,” Liana says. “However, for two
months I haven’t been getting my monthly 15,000 thousand drams (about $26).
She shows a notebook in which she keeps a record of “borrowed” food. “Only
this copybook grows thicker and thicker. This month people’s debt to the
shop has become more than 100,000 drams (about $177).”

Buying on credit has become a way of life that, for many, is necessary but
humiliating.

Stella Hakobian has seven children and receives a government subsidy for
having a large family-an incentive by the State. “Every month the owner of
the shop gets my children’s allowances,” says Stella, who moved to Shushi
from Hrazdan, a town north of Yerevan. “During the month we take some things
from the shop and then take my children’s allowances directly to the shop.
This is how our debts are covered.”

Stella recently was given an apartment, another perk of having a large
family. She and her children have a three-bedroom flat, but the only
furniture in it is beds. “We have no job,” says Stella. “The only good thing
is that in winters we can go ‘sticking’ in the neighborhood forest for wood
to heat our apartment. And in the spring we pick berries and sell them for
cheap prices to earn money.”

Shushi has not recovered in any comparable way with the development that has
taken place in neighboring Stepanakert. And while the number of “large”
families (having four or more children) is increasing in response to the
State programs, the overall birth rate has dropped, officials say.

“When we were at war we thought everything would be ok,” says veteran
Karineh Danielian. “However, it was understood that there would be
difficulties in the future. Anyway, hope still lives.”

Culture as Pastime: City leaders say that Shushi’s future lies in finding a
way to keep its young people and assure a future for them in their city.

“The majority of young people don’t think about leaving the city because
they haven’t got enough opportunities for thinking about it,” says 22-year
old Armen Poghosian. “For many of them a marshrutka (Russian for mini-bus)
ticket from Shushi to Yerevan is as much as the sum they spend for living
during a month.”

But even in the diminished version of its former self, Shushi shows glimpses
of what it once was, and efforts are made at providing a “normal” life that
would encourage youth to stay.

In fact, cultural life shows the most obvious development in Shushi.

In this place of damaged and vacant buildings one can find an arts college,
a drama theater, a puppet theater, a choir, a quartet, a dance group, and
the list can continue. A few summers ago an arts festival was even started.

The State Humanitarian College named after Arsen Khachatrian is the only
educational option given to students from Shushi and neighboring or remote
villages. The college mainly teaches various arts and crafts such as
painting, carpet making, decorative art, etc.

In May 2003, a technical school was renamed into the college, which, though
small, is a sign of Westernization in a place that seems largely detached
from the rest of the world-or more connected to its former Soviet regime.

The college was reopened in 1992 after the liberation of Shushi. Today the
college has 181 students, ranging in age from 15 to 23.

During a recent day in the winter session at the college, students gathered
to discuss the topic: “Love, Marriage, Family and Law”, while teachers sat
at a table to moderate the discussion.

After a short introduction students discussed questions on divorce, on
children’s rights and whether love is enough reason to get married, and
looked for answers from their experienced teachers.

As is often the case in small towns, the youth of Shushi and their teachers
have relationships that are open and relaxed. After the day’s special
program they all met to sing songs, read poetry, dance, eat, drink, then
dance and sing some more. The scene, not typically found in institutions of
learning, for example, in Yerevan provides a glimpse of life in Shushi.

Such events are a big thing for the youngsters here. It is noticeable that
the day was planned with great care, especially through the way the girls
prepared themselves in their best manner.

Shushi doesn’t offer many opportunities, outside school, for its younger
generation to socialize and even then, the events are restricted to daylight
hours. When the sun goes down, activity is mostly limited inside apartments
among family.

Our future is vague, the youngsters say. And they complain that their city
of rich cultural heritage is too often overlooked.

“Stepanakert is Karabakh’s advertising town,” says David Avagimian, age 22,
who joins other actors at the puppet theater after school. “For some reason
they prefer to concentrate everything there.”

The kids at the puppet theater say officials making promises to revive
Shushi’s cultural life don’t seem to understand that culture is all that’s
developing in Shushi.

In fact the only singing ensemble in Karabakh is from Shushi (so, too, is a
former “Miss Karabakh”).

First it was a quintet founded in 2000 by girls singing in Shushi’s Varanda
choir, and now it is a quartet called Nareh who have become celebrities in
Karabakh.

Karine,19, Alina 27, Christina 23 and Gayane 22, have taken part in some
folk and pop festivals in Stepanakert where they’ve taken first place. The
girls are mainly performing folk songs but in a modern way.

First they would travel around Karabakh and perform for free, just to become
known. Sometimes they get paid today and they consider $200 ($50 each) a
fair price. However they don’t always get that much.

“If we have a good sponsor we’ll get promoted,” says Gayane. “If not we’ll
stay here and no one will probably know about us except Karabakh.”

Anush Danielian, 22, says she dreams of having an Internet café in Shushi to
connect youth with each other and the outside world. “The only thing we do
now is visit each other, but that gets old.

“All of us have interesting dreams but to make them come true we need
opportunities. And if dreams and possibilities coincided with each other,
then Shushi would become the city of our dreams.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A1 Plus | 16:00:09 | 07-05-2004 | Politics |

HARUTYUN ARAKELYAN FINDS NO USE OF PRESIDENT KOCHARYAN’S RESIGNATION

Armenian Ramkavar-Azatakan Party leader Harutyun Arakelyan convened a news
conference to say that confidence referendum could lead the country to
deadlock. He offers constitutional referendum instead.

Speaking on National Assembly, he said, in his opinion, its seats should be
filled only through party lists.

As always, Arakelyan criticized the ruling coalition, this time referring to
the party-conducted survey, which showed 60% of respondents were opposed to
the coalition government.

He voiced disapproval over the idea of president Kocharyan’s resignation.
“Will all problems be solved if Kocharyan resigns?” he asked.

Arakelyan was reluctant to speak also on the party’s internal troubles. Four
members were dropped out of the party because of the party charter
violation, he said without specifying their exact wrongdoing.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkish Press
May 7 2004

The Azerbaijanis And Cyprus
BYEGM: 5/7/2004
BY ERDAL GUVEN

RADIKAL- The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared its
independence on November 15, 1983 and was recognized by Turkey the
very same day. But for the next 21 years, no other country extended
recognition. How could this be? After the TRNC was founded, the UN
Security Council adopted Resolution 541 condemning the TRNC’s
self-declared founding and calling on all UN members not to recognize
any Cypriot state besides the `Republic of Cyprus’ (that is, Greek
Cyprus). Therefore only Ankara recognized the TRNC and even if Turkey
turned its nose up, the whole rest of the world recognizes the
`Republic of Cyprus’ as the sole legal representative of the island.

The issue also carries a geopolitical aspect. The TRNC is a concrete
form of separation in the context of international relations and was
formed unilaterally as a result of military intervention by Turkey.
However, today’s geopolitics frowns on separatism, micro-nationalism
and political formations based on ethnicity excepting where there is
mutual consent. On the contrary, today’s geopolitics favors
integration based upon democracy, political equality and economic
sharing. This is another political reason why the TRNC is not
recognized. The interests and policies of countries faced with splits
or threatened by separation are in line with this geopolitics. One of
those countries is Azerbaijan, with its problem of upper Karabakh.
The serious problem faced by Baku is that 20% of its land is
currently occupied by Armenia and the upper Karabakh separatist
movement. Therefore, the Azerbaijani representatives in the European
Council’s Parliament were leaning towards not recognizing the TRNC.
`The Parliament vote would mean recognizing the TRNC,’ said one
Azerbaijani official. `This would set a risky precedent for the
future recognition of the administration in upper Karabakh.’ This
development should remind Turkey that in international relations
there is no friendship or brotherhood, but only interests.

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS
AND INFORMATION

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian opposition continues talks with authorities

Mediamax news agency
7 May 04

YEREVAN

The Armenian ruling coalition and the opposition have announced their
readiness to continue their consultations on the previously-agreed
agenda.

This was said in a joint statement issued by representatives of [the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation] Dashnaktsutyun, the Republican
Party of Armenia and Orinats Yerkir [Law-Governed Country Party] and
the Justice bloc and the National Unity Party after the five-hour-long
consultations which ended in Yerevan on 6 May.

The statement said that “the participants in the consultations
stressed the importance of creating a new political situation in the
country on the basis of a statement issued by the coalition parties
and the joint statement issued by the Justice bloc and the National
Unity Party on 4 May”.

According to preliminary information, they are expected to discuss
more than 30 issues at the talks today.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ITAR-TASS
May 7, 2004 Friday

Tbilisi open to cooperation with all – foreign minister

MOSCOW

Georgia will no longer play on geo-strategic contradictions; it has
chosen a course towards partnership with everybody, Foreign Minister
Salome Zurabishvili stated.

“Our orientation is that we should move towards Europe, towards the
strengthening of friendship with the United States and integration
with NATO, with very close neighborhood with Russia,” Zurabishvili
told a news conference at the Itar-Tass agency on Thursday.

“Earlier, we had a choice between the main players, and Tbilisi
played on contradictions between them, but it gained nothing. Our
true way is cooperation with all. We want everybody to cooperate with
us,” she said.

The Georgian foreign minister noted a positive role of Russia in
settling the conflict in Adzharia. “The important role of Russia is
clearly visible in these events,” she said, “democracy in Georgia has
scored another victory peacefully, for a second time in the past six
months,” Zurabishvili said.

Igor Ivanov took part in this process in both cases, she added.

Ivanov, on the Russian president’s order, visited Georgia for
consultations over settling the crisis in Adzharia.

As the Russian foreign minister, he took part in a peaceful
settlement of the situation during the velvet revolution in Georgia
last year.

The Georgian foreign minister said she did not want “to draw a
parallel between problems of Adzharia and Abkhazia, but a peaceful
solution of the Adzharian problem has an important significance for
Abkhazians as well.”

Unlike Abkhazia, Adzharia had no conflict provoked by separatism, she
said, “it was a conflict between democracy and non-democracy.”

At the same time, Zurabishvili categorically denied the existence of
the so-called Adzharian scenario for Abkhazia. She expressed doubts
that “somebody in Abkhazia was planning to blow up bridges.”

“This is no approach to the solution of the problem,” she said.

Georgia received the support of all its partners in settling the
situation in Adzharia. “Adzharia was an enclave of the old era which
has no future either for us or our neighbors and partners,”
Zurabishvili said.

“Therefore the solution of this problem has an important significance
both for the Georgian people and our partners,” she underlined.

Answering a question, she said “terrorism is a global danger
threatening all states, especially small countries in strategic
regions, where it is difficult to control the movement of people. It
increases terrorists’ chances of hiding,” she said.

“In this context, there was a danger of Adzharia’s turning into the
so-called “black hole,” the foreign minister added.

“As regards the situation in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia took dramatic
measures /in settling the situation/, while Americans provided
serious assistance to us. We took joint measures with Russia in
patrolling the state border; we believe this issue is among those
where cooperation is possible among all European countries and the
United States,” Zurabishvili said.

In her view, neither Russia nor Georgia are interested in delaying
the solution of the issue of the Russian bases in Georgia.

Georgia does not need these or other bases, she stressed noting that
it was one of the main issues at her talks with Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Tbilisi has a pragmatic approach to cooperation within the CIS
framework and interaction with the neighboring countries, the
Georgian official said when answering a question about the importance
of the Commonwealth of Independent States for it.

CIS members are very important, from Georgia’s immediate neighbors,
such as Armenia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, to those of strategic
importance for Tbilisi.

Salome Zurabishvili flew to Moscow on Thursday and held talks with
her Russian colleague Sergei Lavrov. The main items on the agenda
were Russian-Georgian relations and the situation in Adzharia.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili appointed Salome Zurabishvili
the foreign minister in March. A Frenchwoman of Georgian descent, she
was France’s ambassador to Georgia and has dual citizenship – French
and Georgian.

She was also France’s ambassador in Italy and worked at the United
Nations and NATO. Salome Zurabishvili is a fluent speaker of Russian.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Boston Globe
May 7, 2004, Friday ,THIRD EDITION

JAZZ PICKS

BY SCOTT HELLER

Heads up: The phenomenal singer – and spitfire – Dee Dee Bridgewater
is at Scullers Jazz Club next Thursday and Friday. If you have time
to see one jazz show, make it this. Otherwise: Sergio Mendes and
Brazil 2004 are at Scullers tonight and tomorrow night; on Tuesday
night Julia & Zerounian Ensemble perform songs from Armenia, Russia,
and France. At Ryles Jazz Club tonight at 9:30, it’s singer Marta
Gomez; tomorrow night the Teresa Ines Group is at the Cambridge
venue. Finally, Tuesday at the Zeitgeist Gallery, vocalist/composer
Dominique Eade is part of a women’s jazz event called “Estrojam” at 7
p.m.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress