Valeri Mkrtumian Appointed RA Consul General To Sao Paulo

VALERI MKRTUMIAN APPOINTED RA CONSUL GENERAL TO SAO PAULO

Noyan Tapan
Dec 05 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. By the RA Foreign Minister’s decree,
Valeri Mkrtumian was appointed the RA Consul General to the city of Sao
Paulo, Brazil, starting from December 1. According to the information
submitted to Noyan Tapan by the RA Foreign Ministry’s Press and
Information Department, V.Mkrtumian was born in 1948, in Dresden,
Germany. He graduated from the English Language Department of the
Romanic-German Faculty of the Yerevan State Institute of Foreign
Languages after V.Brusov in 1971, and from the Two-year highest
courses of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages after M.Torez,
getting the senior lecturer’s title. V.Mkrtumian has been in the RA
Foreign Ministry’s system since 1992. He occupied posts of the Europe
Department and America Department Chief, was the Foreign Ministry’s
Deputy Secretary General. He worked as the RA Charge d’Affaires to
Canada in 1999-2000, and was the RA Consul General to Los Angeles
in 2000-2003. He was elected the Deputy Chairman of the UN Committee
for Programme and Coordination in 2004. He has occupied the post of
the Foreign Ministry’s International Organizations Department Chief
since 2003. V.Mkrtumian was conferred the diplomatic level of the RA
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in 2001.

Misunderstanding Islam II: In Defense Of Pope Benedict XVI

MISUNDERSTANDING ISLAM II: IN DEFENSE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
Written by Gregory Borse

ChronWatch, CA
Dec 3 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has just returned from an historic visit to Turkey
and some find his trip remarkable more for what it was not rather
than for what it was: namely, a Christian challenge to Islam.

One example of criticism of the Pope’s visit is from the opinion
section of ABC News International. (I employ it here not because it
is exemplary, but because I think it typical).

In an article entitled "Pope’s Silence on Armenian Genocide Shameful",
Attorney Mark Geragos takes the Pontiff to task for his failure to
call attention to the many shortcomings of the Turkish government,
especially in regards to its refusal to admit to the Turkish sponsored
genocide of Armenians in 1915. Mr. Geragos, who is of Armenian descent,
is to be sympathized with-he is a board-member of the "All-Armenian
Fund," an organization dedicated to raising money in support of
substantial infrastructure improvement in Armenia.

Still, his article is perhaps representative of a type-open
criticism of a Christian leader in a post 9/11 world is less risky
than open criticism of Muslim sponsored terrorism, whether emanating
(historically) from Turkey or (presently) from Iran, Syria, or anywhere
else . . . just ask Salman Rushdie, or the family members of murdered
film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the cartoonists who offended Islam in
the Netherlands, or, for that matter, Pope Benedict himself, whose
remarks at Regensburg University in Germany last September caused such
controversy in the Muslim world and led to the murder of a Catholic
nun in Africa, prompting the would-be assassin of his predecessor,
John Paul the Great, to write a letter warning the present Pontiff
not to travel to Turkey . . .

Mr. Geragos’ opening salvo is to criticize Pope Benedict’s "ill
advised" remarks about the "legacy of Mohammed," in his speech
made at the University of Regensburg. Then, Benedict quoted what
Christopher Orlet called "the antepenultimate emperor of the
Byzantine Empire," the now little known Manuel II Paleologus (go
here: 368). At
the time, Paleologus was traveling 14th century Europe trying to
convince the Western and Eastern Christian Empires to set aside
their differences long enough to repel the Muslim threat against
Constantinople. Paleologus failed, Constantinople fell, and, as
Orlet writes, the "Roman-Byzantine Empire. . . disappear[ed] from
the earth forever."

The comments made by Benedict about Islam and jihad that so offended
Muslims-and apparently Geragos-were widely quoted: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman . . ."

But here is the context for the above from Benedict’s actual speech:

"In the seventh conversation
(διά&# 955;εξις – controversy)
edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads:
‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ According to some of the experts,
this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed
was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor
also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’
and the ‘infidels,’ he addresses his interlocutor with a startling
brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central
question about the relationship between religion and violence in
general, saying: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached’. . . The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is not
pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν
&#95 5;όγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born
of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening
a person with death…’" (emphasis added).

(Go here for a translation of the Pope’s entire speech:
tml?sid=94748)

First, it must be understood that the Pope’s remarks are directed not
at Muslims specifically, but at members of the scientific community at
Regensburg University and his topic is not jihad or even violence in
the spreading of any religious faith, but the notion of the splitting
off of reason from faith (and the reverse) in our understanding not
only of religion or science, but of civilization, politics, society,
culture, and human nature. Benedict recognizes that Peleologus faced
a similar dilemma as we face today: he too lived in a world in which
two essential qualities of the human soul were increasingly at odds
with each other-reason and faith. That Benedict made his remarks to the
scientific community of a German University is telling, as it implies
that Europe’s current problems are rooted in the deep antagonism
that secular-humanist reason has especially toward the specifically
Christian faith upon which European civilization was built. But an
important and related corollary for the post 9/11 Western world is
the deeply antagonistic attitude that a radical interpretation of
Islamic faith has of reason of any kind. And Benedict seems not to
have chosen his words by accident.

In a world in which people who have abandoned faith in favor of reason
are pitted against people who have abandoned reason in favor of faith,
disaster lurks.

Hence, to call Benedict’s comments "ill-advised" is simply to
betray a deep ignorance. Benedict’s remarks are the antithesis of
ill-advised-they are quite carefully considered, crafted, precise,
and deliberate-nuanced even. They imply that Europe today faces a
double enemy-one within and one without. And Europe’s denial of the
enemy within (the insistence upon a false dichotomy between reason
and faith) is precisely the weakness that invites the enemy without
(which operates according to a false dichotomy that pits faith against
reason). In this sense, Benedict is a kind of Winston Churchill on
the eve of World War II-warning Europe that it is on the verge of a
disaster, not only because it cannot and will not recognize the enemy
that openly defies it at every turn, but also because it refuses to
assess appropriately those weaknesses of its own character that may
well prove to be suicidal.

To be fair, Geragos’ real concern, something he credits "more
discerning" members of the European Union for being able to recognize,
is "Turkey’s ongoing legacy of intolerance and oppression." Such
a statement, however, in an article that uses the War in Iraq as a
framing device to imply that any success by that measure is actually
failure, is rather astonishing. Turkey, among Muslim nations,
is a model of moderation-from a Western, and especially American,
point of view. And yet, if Geragos is to be believed (and I have
no reason to doubt any facts Geragos offers about life in Turkey
for its non-Muslim minorities), Turkey ought not to be admitted to
the European Union until it "adopt[s] something other than medieval
standards of justice." Geragos’ clear implication is that the Pope,
as a leader of the Christian world, has missed a real opportunity
to instruct the Muslims in Turkey regarding lessons important to
their civilization and, perhaps more significantly, about joining
ours. This assumes, of course, that the European civilizational model
is superior to Turkey’s and that they ought to want to join Europe,
rather than desire to make the EU like them . .

.a stance that is, Mr. Geragos might be interested to know,
antithetical to the prevailing liberal view (according to which all
cultures are equally valid, including Turkey’s–even when it sponsors
Armenian genocide).

But did Benedict actually miss the opportunity presented to him by
his being received in Turkey?

Perhaps a look at some of Benedict’s own words would be
enlightening. Here is part of what he said to the President of the
Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey:

"For more than forty years, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
has inspired and guided the approach taken by the Holy See and by local
Churches throughout the world to relations with the followers of other
religions. Following the Biblical tradition, the Council teaches that
the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny:
God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Christians
and Muslims belong to the family of those who believe in the one
God and who, according to their respective traditions, trace their
ancestry to Abraham (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate 1,
3). This human and spiritual unity in our origins and our destiny
impels us to seek a common path as we play our part in the quest for
fundamental values so characteristic of the people of our time. As men
and women of religion, we are challenged by the widespread longing
for justice, development, solidarity, freedom, security, peace,
defense of life, protection of the environment and of the resources
of the earth. This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate
autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer
in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.

Above all, we can offer a credible response to the question which
emerges clearly from today’s society, even if it is often brushed
aside, the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for
each individual and for humanity as a whole. We are called to work
together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent,
giving Almighty God his rightful place. The best way forward is
via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on
truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better,
respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. This
will lead to an authentic respect for the responsible choices that
each person makes, especially those pertaining to fundamental values
and to personal religious convictions" (emphasis added).

These words are significant given that they were delivered to an
almost entirely Muslim audience. For, they deny some fundamental
Muslim realities. First and foremost, they seek to lay as common
ground between Christians and Muslims that we share a belief in "one
God." But, the Muslim faith denies the Holy Trinity-and, more to the
point, counts Christians as infidels precisely for their expressed
belief in "one God in Three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

According to Islam, this makes Christians idolators and pagans. But is
this a mistake on Benedict’s part? Perhaps it is an indication that one
of the world’s leading Christian theologians is not very well versed
in the Islamic faith. It would be naïve to believe that to be the
case. Pope Benedict is quite well aware of the differences between
Christianity’s understanding of God and Islam’s. His deliberately
quoting that bit about the 14th century Paleologus’ dialogue with a
"learned Persian" proves it. And yet, in a pilgrimage to Turkey-on
a trip that he was warned not to take in a letter from the would-be
assassin of his predecessor, John Paul the Great-a land rich in
Christian history (Benedict said Mass in Ephesus, honored by both
Muslims and Christians as the home if not the final resting place
of the Virgin Mother), he makes these remarks. They are not a
mistake. They are a challenge.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger chose his name, upon his election as
Pontiff, deliberately-pointing to two other Benedicts, especially,
as foundations for his present pontificate. He explained his choice
of name this way:

"Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak
of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict
XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through
turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the
service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally,
I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life
evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all
to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life:
May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions"
(go here for quote: ).

So, his name evokes two dedicated to Europe-one in "turbulent times
of war" and the other the "co-patron" of Europe, "whose life evokes
the Christian roots of Europe." Significantly, St. Benedict, founder
of the Benedictine Order and of Western Monasticism, is the principal
model in Europe for Christian life as a balance between prayer and
work-in other words, between our concerns for our relations with the
divine and for our relations with our fellow man. The implication is
clear-we must care for both if we are to be whole-as individuals and
as culture-bearers.

It is those Christian roots that are, at present, under attack-not
only in Europe, but in the West. And this Pope has assumed his role
as a Christian leader in a time that requires someone able to see the
forest, as it were, despite the trees. In an age that plays witness
to the ramifications of the war between reason and faith, Benedict
has stepped forth to speak directly to the consequences of such an
artificial-and potentially fatal-bifurcation of the very nature of
man. He makes such comments in the breach. He does so, now, directly
(as at Regensburg) and indirectly, as in Turkey.

And, for such a one, there will be nothing but persecution-from those
within the Europe whose very nature he wishes to preserve and from
those without, members of the Islamic faith, to whom he offers the
olive branch of peace, and an invitation to a coexistence in the
mutual recognition of not merely a common humanity, but a common
humanity rooted in the Divine.

Perhaps the fact that his gestures are being rejected by both parties
is a sign that he is right.

Related: "Misunderstanding Islam" by Gregory Borse
play.asp?aid=23917&catcode=13

–Boundary_(ID_ Z550TtsHZXwhw82+MOK+OQ)–

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.ph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_benedict_XVI
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDis

Oskanian Says No Impasse in Karabakh Talks

Armenpress

OSKANIAN SAYS NO IMPASSE IN KARABAKH TALKS

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: Foreign minister
Vartan Oskanian brushed aside today speculations that
the talks over the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict were at an impasse, describing the November
28 meeting of Armenian and Russian presidents in
Belarus as ‘positive and constructive."
Oskanian said the presidents, who met on the
sidelines of a CIS summit, centered on those issues
which are not yet solved. ‘Armenia would like the
presidents to reach a complete agreement on these
issues, but regretfully this is not the case yet and
there are disagreements both on basic principles and
details," Oskanian said.
He said the presidents will soon give clear
instructions and guidelines to their foreign ministers
to go on with the talks. Oskanian said there is a real
chance to break the impasse as the 2.5 page document
on the table is a rationale document which may offer a
fresh window of opportunity to resolve the conflict in
2007.
Oskanian then reiterated Armenia’s fundamental
position that the dispute must be settled only on the
basis of the principle of self-determination saying a
referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh could eliminate the
conflict between this and the other principle of
territorial integrity, which Azerbaijan insists must
be respected.
He also commented on Azerbaijani president Ilham
Aliyev’s remarks that the sides approached the final
stage of negotiations. "It is hard to say whether we
have indeed reached this point as there are still many
stumbling blocks, but if Mr. Aliyev thinks so then
Azerbaijan must agree to injecting the authorities of
Nagorno-Karabakh into the talks as the conflict cannot
be resolved without Karabakh participation in the
final stage," he said.

Pope and Armenian Seek to Surmount Schism

Zenit News Agency, Italy
Dec 1 2006

Pope and Armenian Seek to Surmount Schism

Benedict XVI Visits Cathedral to Attend Prayer Service

ISTANBUL, Turkey, NOV. 30, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The ecumenical
character of Benedict XVI’s journey to sister Churches in Turkey was
further highlighted with his visit to the Armenian Apostolic
Cathedral.

The Pope visited the cathedral today to attend a prayer service and
to meet with Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafina.

During the celebration of the Word, following the patriarch’s
address, Benedict XVI clarified that "Our meeting is more than a
simple gesture of ecumenical courtesy and friendship."

"It is a sign of our shared hope in God’s promises and our desire to
see fulfilled the prayer that Jesus offered for his disciples on the
eve of his suffering and death: ‘That they may all be one. As you,
Father, are in me and I in you, may they also be one in us, so that
the world may believe that you have sent me,’" the Pope said, quoting
from John 17:21.

"We must continue therefore to do everything possible to heal the
wounds of separation and to hasten the work of rebuilding Christian
unity," the Holy Father continued. "May we be guided in this urgent
task by the light and strength of the Holy Spirit."

The Armenian Apostolic Church separated from Rome after the Council
of Chalcedon in the year 451, which it was unable to attend because
of war.

Misunderstandings arose when it came to translating the terms of the
Council, thus altering its conceptual comprehension. That, and the
political confrontation with Byzantium, caused the schism, though
Armenian "Monophysitism" always remained a purely verbal error.

Plaque unveiled

The personal meeting and common prayer, as well as the unveiling of a
plaque in the Armenian and Turkish tongue, in memory of the visits of
Paul VI and John Paul II and, now, of Benedict XVI sought to express
the bond that exists between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the
Catholic Church.

It was a moment of recollection, in which the prayers and ritual
sequences making up the prayer service were drawn from various
elements of the Eucharistic celebration of the Armenian liturgy.

Before the entrance procession in the cathedral, in accordance with
the Armenian national tradition, the Holy Father was presented with
bread, salt and rose water as symbols of welcome and good wishes.

As Benedict XVI and Patriarch Mesrob II entered the cathedral, the
choir performed the chant Herasciapar Asdvadz (O Wondrous God), which
recounts the story of the conversion of the Armenian people to
Christianity — the first Christian nation in history — through the
efforts of St. Gregory the Illuminator.

At the foot of the altar, a prayer was recited. The Holy Father and
the patriarch then took their places before the sacred altar, from
which the Gospel, carried in procession from the entrance of the
cathedral, was solemnly proclaimed.

The prayer service in the Armenian cathedral expressed the joy of the
Armenian Apostolic Church at the visit of Benedict XVI.

[no subject]

For Turkey’s Armenians, painful past is muted

By Anne Barnard,
Globe Staff
November 30, 2006

ISTANBUL — When Mesrob II, the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul and All
Turkey, meets today with Pope Benedict XVI, the o – ne topic he says he
definitely won’t bring up is the o – ne that most intensely interests his
people around the world: the Armenian genocide.

Getting Turkey and the rest of the world to acknowledge the slaughter of
more than 1 million Armenians in the early 20th century, many by troops of
the collapsing Ottoman Empire, is a cherished goal of the Armenian diaspora.
The visit from the spiritual leader of 1 billion Roman Catholics might seem
the perfect opportunity not o – nly to draw attention to the problems of the
tiny Christian minority here, but also to ask the pontiff to press Turkey
for an apology.

But for about 68,000 Turkish citizens of Armenian descent, who — along with
20,000 to 30,000 people from neighboring Armenia who have migrated here in
search of jobs — make up by far the largest Christian community in Turkey,
the situation is much more complicated, even dangerous.

Armenians here must balance a deep need to preserve the memory of the
killings, known in Armenian as metz yeghern, or "the big calamity," with
safeguarding the small community that remains, which to them means avoiding
conflict with the Muslim Turk majority or the nationalist government.
Turkish citizens who mention the killings — including Orhan Pamuk, the
Turkish author who won the Nobel Prize this year — have been charged with
the crime of "insulting Turkishness," and risk fines, jail sentences, and
even death threats.

The Armenian community is treading cautiously around the pope’s visit.
Leaders are seeking his support o – n general issues of religious expression;
during his first two days Benedict has already stressed the importance of
religious freedom. But they are being careful not to embrace too closely a
pontiff widely seen by Muslims as having insulted Islam — and they are
avoiding any public reference to the genocide.

Many Armenians here say they have chosen to leave the past buried — or
partly buried — in order to press for more immediate benefits. They want to
persuade the government to ease o – nerous restrictions, such as laws that ban
Christians from bequeathing land to the church or running independent
seminaries to train priests. And they want to live in peace with the rest of
this country of nearly 80 million people, about 99 percent of whom are
Muslim and overwhelmingly ethnically Turkish.

Mesrob, the leader of the Armenian Orthodox Church here, is a case in point.
Speaking the confident English he perfected at Memphis State University, he
chose his words carefully in an hourlong conversation with three foreign
reporters.

Asked whether he would discuss the genocide with the pope, he said he never
brings up "local issues" with visiting dignitaries. Asked whether he could
state for the record that a genocide took place, he fixed a reporter with a
friendly gaze and was silent for a long moment. Then he said, "I acknowledge
that people were killed."

But Mesrob, 50, spoke more readily when asked what had happened to his own
family at the time. His grandfather’s six brothers were all deported from
the town of Izmit, during a time when many Armenians were shipped off to the
Syrian desert. His grandfather, who escaped to Istanbul and became a baker,
never heard from them again. He assumed most of them died.

Mesrob’s parents and grandparents never told him the details. "They never
talked about it. They didn’t want us to be at odds with our Muslim
neighbors," he said.

"There is no family that didn’t share this situation," said Navart Beren,
51, an administrator at St. Mary’s Church, across the street from the
patriarch’s residence o – n a winding street near the Sea of Marmara, where
she was attending Mass last Sunday. Her parents were close-mouthed, too, she
said: "They didn’t want us to carry revenge in our hearts."

"All that is in the past," said her friend Margarit Nalbantkazar, 52. "But
this did happen: My husband’s father was 8 or 9 years old. He saw them take
his father by hitting him o – n the back of the head with a gun. . . . They
never saw him again."

Murat Belge, a Turkish academic who runs the publishing house that prints
Pamuk’s books, explained why Armenians inside Turkey walk such a fine line
between forgetting and accusing.

Told of the patriarch’s comments, Belge said: "If he had said there was an
Armenian genocide, it’s very likely that he would be assassinated by some
fascists, the patriarchate would be burned, and Armenians leading their
daily lives would be shot by unknown people."

Turkey has always insisted that the deaths, most of them in 1915, were part
of a war in which a beleaguered Ottoman Empire was facing Armenian rebels
allied with its enemies, which included the United States, Britain, and
Russia.

But most historians agree that Armenians were systematically killed and
driven out. The subject is extremely sensitive in Turkey because many of the
military leaders of the dying Ottoman Empire went o – n to found the secular
Turkish republic in 1923.

Also in the 1920s, hundreds of thousands of Greek Orthodox Christians were
forced to leave Turkey as smaller numbers of Muslims were forced out of
Greece, under the agreement that established the Greek and Turkish borders.
Today, Christians make up less than 1 percent of the population.

US policy o – n the Armenian deaths is to respect the position of Turkey, an
important NATO ally, though the 1.2 million Armenians in America fiercely
lobby Congress to recognize the genocide.

Pope John Paul II called the events a genocide in a 2000 document, and in
2001 visited a memorial to the victims in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital. In a
speech there, he avoided the term genocide but adopted the Armenian phrase
"big calamity."

The Vatican has given no indication of whether Benedict will mention the
issue.

Mesrob said he hoped the pope’s visit would improve interfaith relations,
but whether it does "depends o – n what kind of language he’s going to use,"
he added with a chuckle. He said the pope’s September remarks, quoting a
Byzantine ruler’s criticism of Islam as violent, "jeopardized" Christian
minorities.

A metal detector and security checkpoint stand outside Mesrob’s ornate
residence, and security will be extra tight during the pope’s visit, he
said.

Mesrob said Turks do not bear all responsibility for the killings of
Armenians but have "the most important responsibility" because "they were
ruling the country." He said many people believe "ethnic cleansing" was
carried out to "remove Christians from public life."

When asked if Armenians in Turkey have a ceremony or memorial site to
commemorate the killings, he said that they do not, but that people remember
the date April 24, 1915, when Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul were
rounded up and deported, as a kind of "beheading of the community."

Mesrob dismissed recent allegations that he forbids church officials to
speak of the killings. "It’s not a question of silence," he said. "How can
you make friends with someone if you confront them?"

Instead, he recommends cultural exchanges between Armenia and Turkey to pave
the way for an honest discussion of the events, he said. In the meantime, he
said, when foreign governments raise the issue, ethnic Armenians in Turkey
get nervous.

Aida Barsegian, 56, a house cleaner who moved here from Armenia, said it
didn’t help when France passed a law last month declaring it a crime to deny
the genocide. "If they care so much, they should open the borders of France
and let us find work there," she said after lighting candles at the church.
"Here they give me work."

Anne Barnard can be reached at [email protected]

ld/middleeast/articles/2006/11/30/for_turkeys_arme nians_painful_past_is_muted/

http://www.boston.com/
http://www.boston.com/news/wor

Media Advisory: News Conf At The End Of Year Of Armenia In Russia

MEDIA ADVISORY: NEWS CONF AT THE END OF YEAR OF ARMENIA IN RUSSIA

ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
November 29, 2006 Wednesday 08:46 AM EST

A news conference devoted to results of the outgoing Year of Armenia
in Russia will be held at the Itar-Tass news agency (2, Tverskoi
Boulevard, 6th floor) at 10:00 on Thursday, November 30.

Taking part in the conference will be Head of the Federal Agency for
Culture and Cinematography, Mikhail Shvydkoy, Armenian Ambassador to
Russia Armen Smbatian, and others.

Admission of Russian and foreign mass media workers to the news
conference is by journalist identification cards.

For more information, please call the Itar-Tass Press Centre at
629-6034, 629-6403 or 629-0585.

The Armenian Peacekeeper Is Recovering, Doctors Say

THE ARMENIAN PEACEKEEPER IS RECOVERING, DOCTORS SAY

Public Radio, Armenia
Nov 30 2006

The health condition of the Armenian peacekeeper Georgy Nalbandyan,
who was seriously injured in Iraq on November 12, has considerably
improved, Mediamax agency reports.

During the past 10 days Lieutenant Georgy Nalbandyan underwent two
surgeries in the Landstuhl medical center near the American Ramstein
military base of Germany.

The peaqcekeeper’s doctor told Mediamax that the patient is rapidly
recovering.

The doctor informed that Georgy Nalbandyan will recover in 2-4 weeks.

He did not rule out that next week Nalbandyan will try to wear the
temporary artificial limb.

Construction Of Armenia-Iran Railroad Considered

CONSTRUCTION OF ARMENIA-IRAN RAILROAD CONSIDERED
By Ara Martirosian

AZG Armenian Daily
30/11/2006

The Agriculture Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Reza
Esqandar and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Andranik
Margarian on a today meeting in Yerevan considered the cooperation
of the two states in the sphere of agriculture and the progress in
the economical relations.

The Governmental Department for Information and Communication with the
Society reports that the officials emphasized the cooperation between
Armenia and Iran in the field of power engineering. They considered the
issues of construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, exploitation
of the second high-voltage electricity line and construction of an
Iranian-Armenian Hydro Power Plant on the river Arax.

The Armenian Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister of Iran
also discussed a number of transportation communications project, of
which they emphasized the construction of a new alternative road from
Armenia to Iran, which would make North-South cargo transportations
through Armenia more attractive.

The project of constructing an Iran-Armenia railway was also
considered.

‘Art Of Isfahan’ Exhibition Launches In Yerevan

‘ART OF ISFAHAN’ EXHIBITION LAUNCHES IN YEREVAN
By Melania Badalian

AZG Armenian Daily
30/11/2006

The cooperation of Armenia and Iran in the cultural sphere testifies
to friendly relations between two ancient religions – Christianity
and Islam, Advisor for Cultural Affairs of the Iranian Embassy in
Armenia Reza Atufi stated at the opening ceremony of the "Art of
Isfahan" exhibition in the Yerevan State Museum of Folk Art. R. Atufi
emphasized that that any piece of art which has reached us from the
ancient times can tell us about a nation’s feelings, thoughts and
ambitions, its past history. He was happy to note that thanks to this
exhibition, Armenians will be able to gain better knowledge of works
by Iranian world-famous masters.

It’s worth mentioning that on January 1, 2006, Isfahan was recognized
the cultural capital of the Islamic world in compliance with the
decree of culture ministers of 57 Islamic countries and members of
the Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

BAKU: Interview Of President Ilham Aliyev To Azerbaijan National Tel

INTERVIEW OF PRESIDENT ILHAM ALIYEV TO AZERBAIJAN NATIONAL TELEVISION

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Nov 29 2006

Following is the interview the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev
gave to the Azerbaijan National Television while flying back to Baku
from Minsk, where he had participated in the summit of the heads of
CIS member-states.

– Mr. President, on the sidelines of the summit of the heads of CIS
member-states, you met with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan. What
could you tell about the outcomes of the meeting?

– It is nearly three years since the Armenia-Azerbaijan,
Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks have been conducted within the framework
of the Prague process. Over this period, there have been quite a few
meetings at both presidents’ and foreign ministers’ level. Of course,
ways of solution to the problem were discussed at the meeting. We
have gone through several stages, and I can say, we are approaching
the final stage of the negotiations. Because, you know, over the three
years of negotiations, all aspects of the problem have been discussed,
and positions of the sides have been completely formed. We already are
at the stage when the future of the negotiations depends on our own
steps. So, in general, I value the outcomes of the meeting as normal.

As you are aware, the Minsk group co-chairs have recently been to
Baku and Yerevan. The Azerbaijani side accepted their proposal i.e.
agreed to have the meeting. On the meeting itself, the talks were
held in a constructive way, focusing on the vexed points, as over the
past period, we have managed to find solution to a number of problems
we could not agree on before. But divergences remain on the crucial
points. As for the Azerbaijan’s position, I would like to reiterate
that our position remains unchanged. Azerbaijan is insistent that
the problem must be solved within our territorial integrity.

The United Nations Security Council’s four resolutions must be
fulfilled: Azerbaijan’s territories must be freed from the occupation
forces, with more than one million Azerbaijanis returning to their
home lands.

I can say, the recent activities of the international organizations
completely satisfy us. The influential international organizations
have already expressed their stance on the problem’s territorial
integrity-based resolution. Of course, this makes our position
stronger. In general, any problem can only be resolved within a
certain framework such as an international law, norm or principle.

Not a single problem can be settled beyond this, and any precedent,
if set, could cause great problems for other countries in future. So,
I would like to say that the Azerbaijan’s fundamental stance remains
unchanged: Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity must be restored. The
people in Nagorno Karabakh must be provided with the high status of
governing within the framework of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

– Mr. President, during the past two months you had successful
visits to a number of countries. How do you assess the results of
those visits?

– In general, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is very active and
successful. I can say, over the past two months, I took quite a
few trips within the country; in particular, in October, I visited
provinces many times. In November, I paid a number of foreign visits.

This visit is the fifth one. In the beginning of the month, I visited
Brussels, the home to the headquarters of the European Union and
NATO. The visit was very successful with important results achieved.

As you know, we have already started the neighborhood policy with
the European Union; this is a very extensive, five-year program. It
applies to both political and economic issues, and I am convinced that
its implementation will accelerate the processes of democratization
in Azerbaijan.

With NATO, we are cooperating within the Individual Partnership Action
Plan, and both sides are very satisfied with the cooperation.

In general, my Brussels visit means strengthening Azerbaijan’s
integration into the EuroAtlantic structures. It is our strategic line,
and it is being successfully implemented. Azerbaijan’s position is
becoming increasingly stronger.

After that, I paid official visit to Russia. It was very important
too. Because Russia is our strategic partner, with which we are
strongly bound up politically and economically. Our meeting with
President Putin was very significance for both sides. I can say, the
visit and its outcomes will serve further deepening of the bilateral
relations, and, I am convinced, will have a positive impact on the
processes taking place in the region.

Later I visited Turkey to partake at the summit of the heads
of Turkic states. We attach great importance to this. As known,
several months ago, the Turkish states and communities held their
congress in Turkey and I attended it. But this one was the summit
of the heads of Turkic states and I had bilateral meetings with the
presidents of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrkyzstan. Strengthening of the
Turkic world is of huge significance. As you know, the summits were
not held for long years. Next summit will be in Azerbaijan. It was
my offer and was accepted. Our relations with both Turkey and other
Turkish-speaking countries fortify and strengthen. These relations
have great significance both on bilateral and multilateral format. As
you know, Azerbaijan is also very active in this direction.

Afterwards, I visited the United Arab Emirates. This visit is of
great importance to develop bilateral relations. Sure, the reached
agreements will lead to intensification of our economic ties, the
delegations will have exchange visits, and of course, our political
relations will enhance. On other hand, I regard this visit in the frame
of Azerbaijan’s cooperation with the Islamic world. We carry out active
work in the frame of the Organization of Islamic Conference. This year,
Azerbaijan hosted two authoritative conferences. Ministers of foreign
affairs and ministers of tourism held conferences in Baku. Cooperation
with the Islamic countries has great importance for us. Azerbaijan
carries out enormous works in this direction and we persistently
feel support of the Islamic countries at UN, the Islamic Conference
Organization, in other international structures. In voting, these
countries uphold us, and we support them. The Islamic solidarity has
become stronger. This is necessary for both the Islamic world and us.

Today, in Minsk, the CIS heads of state had their summit. In the frame
of this meeting, also took place the meetings with the presidents of
Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus. We had useful meetings.

That is, this November, if admitted, combine all major aspects of
our foreign policy. It shows how effective, active and flexible is
our foreign policy. This is very significant. The foreign policy
boosts domestic policy of each country, and it is continuation of
interior policy.

In our country, very successful processes are underway. Political
and economic reforms, solution of the social problems, improvement
of the welfare of people, strengthening of stability and safety –
we achieve all these and strengthen our country. Our foreign policy
has certainly to be successful to reinforce these accomplishments.

Azerbaijan should actively take part at the ongoing regional
processes, and our cooperation with the neighboring countries,
partners, and international organizations is high level. Azerbaijan’s
international position strengthens, and its image on international
arena grows. Azerbaijan, as a reliable partner and friendly country
enhances its position on the world.

– Mr. President, last times, some oppositional forces make claims
connected with mass media. How can you regard them?

– You know, as a whole, the political processes ongoing in Azerbaijan
are positive. Along with political reforms, we continue the economic
reforms either, and I have told several times and I reiterate that
the political reforms should complete the economic reforms. Both of
them should be carried out in parallel. We have already big economic
potential, we have created it. Political reforms, development of
democracy in the country, freedom of word, press, belief, supremacy of
law – all these are our priorities. The more important is carrying out
of economic reforms the more significant are the political reforms. In
absence of strong public control and free society in Azerbaijan, our
economic successes will not have prospects, and they will be for the
short term. Therefore, last years, the core of the political reforms
in Azerbaijan, their essence is to develop the country all-roundedly,
and every citizen benefited all freedoms.

Press freedom in Azerbaijan is available. There are over 500
press organs in the country and function freely. We make serious
steps in this direction. Ensuring freedom of press and word is one
of our priorities, and I can say Azerbaijan has reached notable
accomplishments in this field. As you know, we have joined the new
neighborhood policy of European Union. That plan of activity also
includes continuation of political reforms, that is, it is our
choice. Should we not be definite in this question, nobody could
enforce his views on us. This is our choice, our wish and our will.

That’s way, we should not politicize the situation in connection with
some media bodies. All questions should be solved on legal ground.

Recently, remove of the Azadlig newspaper to other premises has long
been discussed among the oppositional media. This technical matter
is artificially exaggerated as though the state wants to suppress
the oppositional press. On the contrary, we have created very good
conditions for Azadlig newspaper. They, too, will be provided at the
Azerbaijan Publishing House, where all the media bodies are placed.

The question should be treated only on legal ground. There is freedom
of word and press in Azerbaijan, and nobody should doubt it. Sure,
these processes will intensively go ahead in Azerbaijan. As our country
modernizes, enriches, becomes a modern state, and put limits to press
is impossible. In globalizing world, it is impossible to restrict
the press.

As to the situation connected to ANS TV channel, it is, of course,
a matter of discussions, and I consider that this also should not be
regarded politically. I always support strengthening of free press –
years ago and after I was elected President of the country – including
the ANS TV, for which I have also made necessary efforts.

In hard years for the channel, in any case, the Channel’s officials
can affirm this – I have been beside them. I have done this, for, I
consider the strengthening of free and independent press in Azerbaijan
is necessary.

Nevertheless, along with that, every question should be solved on
legal ground. Law is the same for all. We create a legal state in
Azerbaijan. I demand from all officials to follow the laws. From
simple citizens to the head of state, from a journalist to manager
of channel – all should obey the law. One may like the law, another
may dislike. However, this is law and these laws rule society and
country. Nobody can be above the law. In some cases, they disseminate
such opinion that having a press organ, being a journalist or
representative of media, gives special privileges. That is not
right, all are the same before the law. There are public bodies,
the National Television and Radio Council, and they have right
objections, substantial offers and every media organ should provide
them. Therefore, I consider these questions can find their solution
in a working atmosphere and on good intention. Should the objections
and demands are fulfilled in the warning, then, the channel can
function further.

You know, I would note once again, in the present time, it is
impossible to close and restrict any media organ. We live in the
period of Internet. Now, why do we connect the schools to Internet?

That, our people, our children, the youth could be familiarized with
the ongoing processes in world, comprehend the global novelties,
acquire and apply in life.

I often visit the regions, the remote villages. There are satellite
antennas in the far distant villages, and not seldom, but in mass.

That is, restriction of any media is not possible. Soon, the TV
programs will be broadcasted in mobile phones. That is, restriction
is not the goal, and there is no such intention. Merely, all should
observe the law, and all should act in the frame of law. Nobody will
have special conditions. This is my position of principle and I shall
not change it. Every question should be solved on the ground of law.

In that case, not a problem will remain. Should everybody perceive
this and obey the laws, then, all matters will find solution.

I reiterate that it is my viewpoint, and it is my philosophy. I want to
see Azerbaijan as a modern state. Rich and economically strengthened,
politically free, modern, open to the world, ready for cooperation,
able to defend its position, with powerful army, able to restore its
territorial integrity, and I will do my best for this.

Nobody and nothing can avoid me from this way. Thank you.