Author: Jabejian Elizabeth

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

“We must move forward with clear vision and firm commitment”

Stated His Holiness Aram I

Antelias, Lebanon – On Sunday 27 June 2004 the 9th Anniversary of the
election and consecration of His Holiness Aram I was celebrated in all
Armenian dioceses and churches all over the world under the jurisdiction of
the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia. On this occasion a special
thanksgiving service took place in the Armenian Cathedral, in Antelias,
Lebanon. In their speeches and interventions the celebrant and the senior
Archbishops emphasized the significant role that His Holiness had played in
the last nine years of his pontificate in different areas of the Armenian
Church’s mission. They also indicated that a number of important
achievements have been made under the leadership of Catholicos Aram I.

Speaking about his pontifical ministry, His Holiness Aram I said: “The 9th
Anniversary celebration is for me primarily an occasion to give thanks to
God for His gifts of life and ministry which made me to put the whole of my
life and abilities at the service of His Church. I have always perceived my
ministry as one of mission and I will continue in faithful obedience to the
call of God to carry on my God-given mission with renewed faith and strong
commitment. The 9th Anniversary celebration is also an occasion for me to
look back and realistically and objectively identify the failures and
successes of my ministry at home and abroad, in my Church and in the
ecumenical movement at large. Looking back must help us to look ahead more
clearly and courageously. Our Church is faced with tremendous challenges and
concerns; we cannot simply avoid them. To be a responsible Church in the
context of the present day world means to take these issues very seriously.
It means to become a relevant and a credible Church. This is how I see the
future of our Church and the way we must follow”.

At the end of his brief word His Holiness Aram I expressed his thanks and
appreciation to all those who have conveyed to His Holiness their sympathy
and best wishes on this joyful occasion.

##

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
June 26, 2004 Saturday

Armenia, Russia have allies relations – Kocharyan

By Tigran Liloyan

YEREVAN

Relations between Armenia and Russia are rightfully viewed as
relations of allies and are based on traditional cooperation between
the two nations, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan noted in a
greeting addressed to participants of the constituent assembly of the
Russian-Armenian Business Cooperation Association to be held in
Moscow on Tuesday.

The organisation is being set up under the leadership of Federation
Council member and former Soviet prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov.

Kocharyan will be honorary chairman of the organisation.

Bilateral relations between Armenia and Russia were always enriched
and supported by close cooperation in various organisations,
associations and creative unions, Kocharyan noted.

The president expressed the hope the new association would promote
developing strategic partnership between the two states and give new
dynamism and quality to trade and economic cooperation.

The association uniting well-known representatives of science,
business, medicine, education, culture, tourism and other areas is
believed to be able to solve difficult problems and implement
specific business projects and programmes, the Armenian president
said.

Protesters hold country up for ridicule over NATO conference – Azeri paper

Zerkalo, Baku
25 Jun 04

The three-day planning conference of the Cooperative Best Effort-2004
field exercises ended in Baku yesterday. The conference was part of
NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme.

It was attended by 32 representatives from 10 NATO member countries
and 49 representatives from 11 partner states, including Armenia.

[Passage omitted: reported details]

Strange as it may seem, the conference was in the public spotlight not
because of the seriousness of the issues it discussed, not even
because of the forthcoming NATO exercises, but because it was attended
by Armenian officers.

Members of the Karabakh Liberation Organization (KLO), several
political parties and media outlets issued harshly-worded statements
in this regard, saying that the arrival of Armenian officers was
unacceptable. But hard as I tried, I could not understand who those
protests were addressed to. The conference was organized within the
framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme, invitations had
been sent out to all partner states and Armenia is a partner country
of the North Atlantic bloc, as is Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani authorities agreed to hold the conference in Baku and
ensure the security of its participants, including the Armenian
officers. The rules of the game within this programme are established
by the bloc and, as the proverb goes, when in Rome act as the Romans
do.

In principle, we could have demanded that the NATO administration
expel Armenia from the programme. We could have asked the
administration of our own country not to hold the conference in Baku
or to bar the Armenian officers from it.

But “infuriated patriots” did not ask for any of these. Was anyone
actually so naive to expect the Armenian officers to see things from
our point of view and refuse to come over?

By and large, all this speculation surrounding the arrival of the
Armenian officers is designed only for very short-sighted people,
though it may be far-reaching. Suffice it to remember the hue and cry
raised over the issue of visas to the Armenian officers. While
everything is clear on the Armenian side, which wanted to show the
world that Azerbaijan is rejecting all attempts to establish a
dialogue, it remains unclear why Baku chose to play the second fiddle
to Armenia.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly been visited by Armenian officials,
including the prime minister and the interior minister. Likewise,
Azerbaijani officials have visited Armenia. Mutual visits have been
paid at the level of media representatives and nongovernmental
organizations. And no-one had to obtain a visa, not because our
countries maintain normal inter-state relations, but because there are
no visa regulations among the CIS countries. That’s all.

Under such circumstances it is not clear why a representative of our
embassy in Georgia stated without expanding on the reasons that the
Armenian officers will never receive Azerbaijani visas in Tbilisi. Why
play a game of patriotism when it is not necessary at all? All these
issues should have been sorted out by the conference organizers
through diplomatic channels.

The statement by Azerbaijani Parliament Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov that
the Armenian officers had come to Baku “secretly” and without the
consent of relevant institutions could hardly be any more absurd. If
we were to believe Alasgarov, the officers of the Armenian Defence
Ministry crossed the border illegally. If this were so, then the
relevant bodies should have arrested them immediately. Besides, if the
law-enforcement authorities were unaware of their arrival, which hotel
could have provided them with accommodation?

Furthermore, our valorous police, which so “professionally” crushed
the opposition’s banned demonstrations, could not withstand the
pressure of a dozen of KLO members outside the conference venue and
let them chant their anti-Armenian slogans in the assembly room.

[Passage omitted: known details]

It is always said in Azerbaijan that the country is at war with
Armenia. But in terms of international law, this is not the case. For
a country to be officially at war with another, a corresponding note
has to be sent to the head of the aggressor state and all relevant
international organizations. But Azerbaijan has never issued such a
note. Armenia is quite happy with the “neither peace nor war”
situation, because it leaves it a lot of room for manoeuvring. But why
aren’t we doing anything? Because if the two countries were really at
war, hardly anyone could offer economic cooperation to Azerbaijan
before the conflict with Armenia is resolved, and the situation such
as this could not have happened.

The gist of this story is that we should target our protests, and not
simply display patriotism, because by doing this, not only do we hold
ourselves up for ridicule, we also undermine our relations with such
international bodies as NATO.

Israel National News
They Already Got Their “Right of Return”
by Steven Plaut
Jun 23, ’04 / 4 Tammuz 5764

Try to imagine what the world would be like if Israel had granted the
“Palestinian refugees” who fled from Israel in 1948-49 the right to return
to Israel. Not to the West Bank. Not to the Gaza Strip. But to Israel within
its pre-1967 borders.

Imagine a situation in which Israel agreed to allow tens of thousands of
Arabs who fled from the battle zones of the Israeli War of Independence the
possibility of returning to Israel, in many cases to the very homes they had
abandoned during the fighting. Imagine how the same world, currently
obsessed with achieving a “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees” were
forced to acknowledge that Israel had already granted the possibility for
tens of thousands of these refugees to return to Israel, in many cases
decades ago. What would the world then have left to bash Israel about? What
would the anti-Semites have left to scream about, or the crowd claiming to
be “anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites”, who only enjoy seeing “Zionist”
children mass murdered, or the self-hating leftist Jewish anti-Semites?

Well, hold on to your shtreimel, because I have a whopper of a revelation to
make to you. Israel did grant the “Palestinian refugees” the right to return
to Israel!

Let us back up a bit. In 1947-48, the United Nations proposed partitioning
“Palestine” into a Jewish and an Arab state of approximately equal sizes.
The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. When the British
Mandate over “Palestine” was ended under the UN decision, the Arab states
attacked the newborn state of Israel, tried to annihilate it and its
population, and at the same time gobbled up most of the territory that the
UN had allotted to become a Palestinian Arab state.

The territory that became Israel had never been a Palestinian Arab state,
ever. Most of the Arabs in “Palestine” had migrated in from neighboring Arab
countries after the 19th-Century start of the Zionist Jewish immigration,
taking advantage of the influx of capital, the availability of jobs and of
services, like hospitals. In other words, the Arabs of “Palestine” in 1948,
exactly like the Jews, were by and large people from families who had been
in the country for three generations or less.

During the fighting in the 1948-49 war, thousands of Arabs living in the
territory that became Israel fled. The main reason they fled was that they
understandably wanted to put some distance between their families and the
battle zones. At the same time, they were ordered by the Arab political
leadership to leave the territory of Israel. Why take my word on this?
Listen to Arab sources:

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes
temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”-
Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

“The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out,
but they did not get in.” – from the Jordanian daily A-Difaa, September 6,
1954

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the
Zionist tyranny, but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate
and to leave their homeland.” (emphasis added) – Abu Mazen, erstwhile “Prime
Minister” of the Palestinian Authority, in “What We Have Learned and What We
Should Do”, published in Falastin Al-Thawra, the official journal of the
PLO, in Beirut, March 1976.

And there are scores of other Arab sources confirming this.

So, how many Arabs fled? The number has become enormously distorted over
time by the Bash-Israel Lobby and by Arab propagandists and their
apologists, who usually claim between 500,000 and a million. A more
realistic estimate is between 300,000 and 450,000, based in part on Arab and
UNRWA sources themselves
(). Most of these refugees
ended up in some of the twenty-two sovereign Arab states, including those
Arab countries from which they had migrated into “Palestine” in the late
19th and early 20th centuries in the first place. In other words, the
“refugees” went back to their earlier homelands in Lebanon, Syria and
Jordan. It was a sort of “right of return.”

At the same time, the Arab states carried out a near-total ethnic cleansing
of around a million Jews, who had been living in those lands since Biblical
days, in many cases, before these states had Arab populations
(). The Jews from Arab countries
left behind far more property than did the Palestinian Arab refugees
(). Most of these Jewish
refugees were resettled in Israel.

In the years immediately after World War II, there were more than 50 million
refugees: Poles, Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Hungarians, Chinese,
Japanese, Koreans, etc., etc. They were all long ago resettled and
forgotten, all except for the “Palestinian refugees”. How come?

Because for decades, the Arab aggressor states found it convenient to
utilize the “refugees” as a political and military weapon against Israel,
not only of propaganda and spin, but of terrorism
(). “Palestinians”
inside Arab states were trained as terrorists and sent out to murder. At the
same time, there was enormous incentive for the Arab locals in the countries
into which the refugees had entered to pretend also to be “Palestinian
refugees” ().
After all, the UN and other agencies were handing out free food and perks to
anyone pretending to be a refugee from “Palestine”. (For further information
and documentation, see )

Unlike all those many millions of other people considered refugees in the
late 1940s, the “Palestinians” were the only ones for whom the “right of
return” to their previous homes was considered an entitlement. The reason
was not a selective affection for Palestinians, but a selective hostility
towards Israel and Jews. Those demanding the wholesale “return” to Israel of
Palestinian “refugees”, including the countless thousands of
non-Palestinians pretending to be Palestinian refugees, had one goal in
mind, the eradication of Israel.

Israel would have been insane to allow itself to be inundated with real and
make-pretend Palestinian “refugees”, this in a tiny sliver of land the size
of Maryland, at the same time that the 22 Arab states have territory-galore
stretching from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Central Asia. The
Palestinian Arabs and their sponsors had tried to annihilate Israel and
failed. Just like the infant United States, which refused to allow any of
the tens of thousands of Tory Loyalists expelled by the patriots to “return”
to the United States after the War of Independence, Israel was entirely in
its rights to refuse to allow the “return” of masses of “Palestinians”,
whose migration was being demanded by those seeking to liquidate Israel via
a demographic flooding.

There is just one little wrinkle though.

Israel did let the Palestinian refugees return. Tens of thousands of them
were quietly allowed to return to Israel, in many cases to their original
homes, once the fighting in 1949 subsided. Many continue to be admitted
today within the framework of “family reunification” agreements.

>From 1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 “Palestinian refugees” or
their families to “return” to Israel proper (Jerusalem Post, January 2,
2001; see also Ha’aretz, December 28, 2000). These are in addition to about
57,000 Palestinians from Jordan illegally in Israel, towards whom the
authorities are turning a blind eye (Ha’aretz, April 4, 2001). They are not
migrating to the West Bank, not to Gaza, but to Israel inside its pre-1967
“Green Line” borders. In the Camp David II meetings in 2000, Israeli leftist
Prime Minister Ehud Barak rather insanely offered to allow another 150,000
“refugees” to enter Israel as part of a peace accord. The PLO’s response was
to launch pogroms and four years of atrocities, because the number was
finite. (See also )

The demand for a “right of return” by Palestinians to Israel is no doubt the
most absurd political demand floating anywhere around the planet. There is
already an Arab state in two thirds of Mandatory Palestine, named Jordan,
and most of its population is Palestinian Arab. The Oslo Accords and
Israel’s Camp David II offer would have created a second Arab state in
Palestine, in the West Bank and Gaza, as part of a comprehensive peace
settlement. Any “Palestinian” from anywhere could have moved to “Palestine”
or to Jordan, within the framework of such a peace, the same way any Jew who
wishes to may immigrate to Israel, or any Armenian may immigrate to Armenia,
and Greeks from the Greek Diaspora are automatically welcomed in Greece.

The PLO and the Islamofascist states backing it demand that in addition to
establishing a second Arab state in Palestine within the framework of any
peace settlement, Israel itself must also be converted into a third Arab
Palestinian state, via unlimited massive immigration of people claiming to
be Palestinians. Benjamin Franklin, who opposed granting even a dime in
compensation to the Tory refugees expelled from the United States during the
War of Independence, would be splitting his sides laughing.

But the most Orwellian absurdity of all is that Israel long ago did grant
the right to “return” to Israel itself to tens of thousands of “Palestinian
refugees”. Did this earn Israel the world’s gratitude for its uniquely
generous gesture? Did the world denounce the Arab fascist states who ignored
this generosity, and continued to seek Israel’s destruction militarily and
the genocide of its population? Do today’s bleeding hearts and recreational
compassion posturers, pretending to feel uncontrollable pain and caring for
Palestinian refugees, even know about the limited “right of return” granted
by Israel over the past decades?

Hindus have never been returned to Pakistan, Moslems from Pakistan have not
been returned to India, ethnic Germans were not returned to their pre-war
homes in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia or Romania, Japanese have not been
returned to Manchuria, Greeks have not been returned to Anatolia, Jews have
not been compensated for the billions they left behind when ethnic cleansing
of Jews in Moslem countries took place, and Tory Loyalists were never
returned to New England. But tens of thousands of “Palestinian refugees”
were granted by Israel what none of these others received.

It is time to say enough is enough. The only remaining reasonable plan
regarding those still claiming to be “Palestinian refugees” is simply –
“Foggedaboutit.”

Azeri pundits against Armenian officers’ presence at Baku-hosted NATO
meeting

Ekspress, Baku
23 Jun 04

Text of Telman report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekspress on 23 June
headlined “Armenians pursue certain goals in coming to Baku” and
subheaded “According to experts, they are trying to disrupt the NATO
event”

Armenian officers have attended a regular NATO conference which was
held in Baku within the framework of the Partnership for Peace
programme.

Political expert Aydin Agayev thinks that the Armenian officers tried
to disrupt the conference by attending it and damage relations between
our country and this bloc. [Unclear sentence omitted]

Agayev thinks that refusal to cooperate with leading organizations
will bring about Azerbaijan’s isolation as is the case with
neighbouring Iran. However, our interviewee said he was tired of those
organizations’ biased statements and double standards.

Political expert Xaladdin Ibrahimli described the green light to the
Armenians’ arrival in Baku as a mistake.

“I cannot understand how the Armenian officers who have occupied our
lands are allowed to come to Azerbaijan?”

The political experts think that not only individuals, but also
society itself – politicians, NGOs, the intelligentsia and journalists
– should oppose such cases.

The chairman of the supreme council of the Democratic Party of
Azerbaijan [DPA], Nuraddin Mammadli, thinks that protest actions over
the Nagornyy Karabakh problem are not sufficient. However, the DPA
member, who regards cooperation with NATO on military service as
important, does not want to see Azerbaijan and Armenia in the same
organization.

“According to the alliance’s regulations, its member countries should
not attack each other. Under these circumstances, the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem will become less important,” Mammadli said.

Libération, France
17 juin 2004

Mobilisation écolière contre des expulsions

LA CASINIERE Nicolas de

Enfants, parents et enseignants créent un collectif à Nantes pour
défendre des étrangers.

Nantes, correspondance.

Des enfants ont alerté leur classe. “Une petite Arménienne de 7 ans a
dit qu’elle devait quitter l’hôtel, que la famille allait dormir dans
une voiture. Pour les enfants et les enseignants, ç’a fait un choc”,
explique Nadège, institutrice à Sainte-Luce (Loire-Atlantique), près
de Nantes. Enfants, enseignants et parents se sont mobilisés autour
de ces déboutés du droit d’asile expulsés de leur logement provisoire
et menacés d’expulsion, découvrant chaque jour de nouvelles familles
étrangères menacées.

“Ces enfants, on les côtoie au quotidien. Ils sont sur les photos de
classe dans nos cuisines et aux anniversaires de nos enfants. Hier
soir, au conseil d’école, deux familles péruvienne et africaine ont
annoncé leur expulsion possible. On ne le savait pas ! Ça prend aux
tripes”, dit Frédéric Cherki, parent d’élève à l’école Louise-Michel
à Nantes. Un établissement occupé ce matin, comme bien d’autres
depuis vendredi. “Les enfants ont justement travaillé sur la
fraternité dans bien des projets d’école, ajoute un autre enseignant.
L’école primaire, c’est un lieu d’intégration évident qui marche.
Casser ça, quel gâchis !” Les enfants ont spontanément proposé un
duvet et un canapé pour leurs camarades, “qui n’ont rien fait de
mal”. “Et un copain juif, en 42, on aurait fait quoi ?” demande un
père.

Un collectif, Enfants étrangers-citoyens solidaires, s’est formé en
urgence, élargi à de nouvelles écoles chaque jour. Il estime que 80
familles étrangères et 130 écoliers sont menacés d’ici à la fin de
l’année scolaire. Le maire de Nantes, Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS), parle
de prise en compte humanitaire au cas par cas, soulignant que bien
des refus d’asile sont justifiés. Mais quid de cette famille
algérienne de trois enfants avec une mère enceinte de près de neuf
mois, mise à la rue mardi ?

Great Valley to up Armenian cognac sales

Interfax
June 16 2004

Yerevan. (Interfax) – Armenian-Cypriot wine company Great Valley
plans to sell 5.3 million bottles of Armenian cognac in 2004, up 18%
from last year, the company told the press.

Great Valley sells 70% of its cognac in 0.5-liter bottles and the
rest in 0.7-liter bottles.

Great Valley sold 4.5 million bottles of Armenian cognac in 2003. The
company exports 98% of its output. Some 90% is sold in Russia,
and the rest is exported to the United States, Britain, Japan and
other countries.

KOCHARIAN FLIES TO KAZAKHSTAN FOR CSTO COUNCIL SUMMIT

ArmenPress
June 16 2004

YEREVAN, JUNE 16, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Robert Kocharian will
head a delegation that is flying tomorrow to Kazakhstan’s capital
of Astana for participation in a regular session of the Collective
Security Treaty Organization’s (CSTO) Council. Kocharian’s press
service said defense minister Serzh Sarkisian, other senior officials
and journalists will accompany the president.

The Council session will be preceded by three meetings of foreign
and defense ministers of the countries, members of the CSTO Council
and secretaries of national security councils. Heads of states are
expected to exchange their views in narrow circle concerning the
situation in the zone of responsibility of CSTO and its role and
importance in building a new international security system.

The heads of states will sign a range of documents, particularly
on CSTO priorities in 2004-2005, the concept on formation of and
application of peacemaking mechanisms. The leaders of states will
also brief journalists on the results of the meeting.

President Kocharian will also address the opening of an international
forum on Eurasian Integration-Trends of Contemporary Developments and
Globalization Challenges. The Armenian delegation will fly back home
on June 19.

ARKA News Agency
June 14 2004

Robert Kocharian and Yerji Yaskernia discuss fulfillment of Armenian
commitments to CE

Chief Architect of Yerevan released from the position

RA Prime Minister received YBC Director General

RA Foreign Minister leaves for Washington with a working visit

Armenia does its best to comply with the commitments to the Council
of Europe in due time

>>From June 15 students graduated from Universities to be enlisted in
the army in Armenia

Symposium on tourism and preservation of cultural –historic values of
Gyumri-Ghars to take place tomorrow in Gyumri (Armenia)

RA Secretary of Security Council and Iranian Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary to Armenia state of the necessity of regional
co-operation development

CBA committed to open dialogue with journalists

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

ROBERT KOCHARIAN AND YERJI YASKERNIA DISCUSS FULFILLMENT OF ARMENIAN
COMMITMENTS TO CE

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. RA President Robert Kocharian and
Co-Reporter of PACE Monitoring Commission Yerji Yaskernia and the
Secretary of the Commission David Kupin discussed fulfillment of
Armenian commitments to CE. The parties discussed process of
commitments’ fulfillment considering constitutional and election
reforms.
The parties also discussed the issues brought up in April resolution
of PACE on internal political situation in Armenia. L.D. –0–

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

CHIEF ARCHITECT OF YEREVAN RELEASED FROM THE POSITION

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. With the decision of RA Prime Minister
Andranik Margarian, Chief Architect of Yerevan, Deputy Mayor of
Yerevan Narek Sargsian was released from the position, RA Government
press office told ARKA.
Narek Sargsian was the Chief Architect of Yerevan since 1999.
Sargsian graduated from Yerevan Engineering University. He was taking
the position of a dean at Architect Faculty of Yerevan Engineering
University. L.D. –0—

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

RA PRIME MINISTER RECEIVED YBC DIRECTOR GENERAL

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. RA Prime Minister Andranik Margarian
received Yerevan Brandy Company Director General Pierre Larech, RA NA
told ARKA. During the meeting Larech expressed gratitude to the
Government of Armenia and to its head for assistance and cooperation
in more than 5-year work in Armenia. He said that successes of YBC
consider not only Pernod Richard Group, but the whole Armenia. YBC
Director told the Premier about future plans of the company targeted
on increase of grape purchasing volumes and expanding of foreign
markets.
Margarian in his turn highly estimated the activity of Larech and
said that it contributed to development of wine-growing in Armenia
and provided new working places and stable incomes of Armenian
farming.
In June 1998, YBC entered into Pernod Ricard international
corporation, owning a number of world famous brands of alcoholic
drinks. Pernod Ricard purchased YBC thru international tender for USD
30 mln. In 2003 Armenia produced 7 mln l of brandy, of which 4 mln l
was produced by YBC. L.D. –0–

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

RA FOREIGN MINISTER LEAVES FOR WASHINGTON WITH A WORKING VISIT

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian left
for Washington with a two-day working visit, RA MFA told ARKA.
Oskanian will meet with the Chairmen of U.S. Department of State.
During the meetings the parties will discuss regional problems and
Armenian-American relations. Besides, Oskanian will meet with the
staff of President’s administration on national security, with the
congressmen and senators. L.D. –0–

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

ARMENIA DOES ITS BEST TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMITMENTS TO THE COUNCIL
OF EUROPE IN DUE TIME

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. Armenia does its best to comply with the
commitments to the Council of Europe in due time, as stated by RA NA
Speaker Arthur Baghdasaryan during his meeting with the PACE
monitoring commission co-reporter on Armenia Yerzy Yaskiernia.
According to RA NA Press Service Department, in the course of the
meeting the importance of holding political dialogue between the
opposition and the coalition and compliance with the commitments to
PACE was emphasized. The parties noted that importance of the
dialogue for the opposition to return to the Parliament and its
participation in works on reforming the Constitution, Election Code,
Legislation in the area of self-governance and legal and judicial
system. A.H. –0–

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

FROM JUNE 15 STUDENTS GRADUATED FROM UNIVERSITIES TO BE ENLISTED IN
THE ARMY IN ARMENIA

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. From June 15 students, who graduated from
Universities, will be enlisted in the army in Armenia. Such info is
published on the official website of RA Ministry of Defense. In
regard with this, tomorrow for the purpose of getting acquainted with
the order of enlistment and informing the public, a meeting of RA
General Armed Forces Headquarter Head, the first Deputy Minister of
Defense, General-Colonel Michael Harutyunyan and Deputy Minister of
Defense, General-Lieutenant Arthur Aghabekyan with Mass Media
representatives. A.H. –0–

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

SYMPOSIUM ON TOURISM AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL –HISTORIC VALUES OF
GYUMRI-GHARS TO TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN GYUMRI (ARMENIA)

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. Symposium on tourism and preservation of
cultural –historic values of Gyumri-Ghars will take place tomorrow in
Gyumri (Armenia).According to AED (Academy for Educational
Development) Armenian office, the first two days of the symposium
will be held in Gyumri, after which a two-day trip to Ghars is
planned. The representatives of local authorities, as well as
architects, businessmen, and specialist in tourism and preservation
of historic-cultural objects from Armenia, Turkey, and Bulgaria will
take part in the symposium. They will discuss the issue relating to
preservation of historical monuments and to tourism development.
According to the press-release, the participants will consider the
current state of historical and natural monuments in Ghars province
in Turkey and Shirak region in Armenia, as well as will discuss the
necessary steps to be taken for their protection. Besides, issues of
regional tourism development, protection of culture territories and
the possibilities of implementation of joint economic programs will
be considered. According to the press-release, the strategy of
tourism development and protection of monuments in Ghyumri will be
discussed during the symposium and then submitted to state authority
structures, donor and international organizations.
The symposium is organized by AED together with some organizations
and people concerned and funded by USAID. Gyumri-Ghars photo
exhibition will take place in the framework of the symposium.
A.H.—0–

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

RA SECRETARY OF SECURITY COUNCIL AND IRANIAN AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY
AND PLENIPOTENTIARY TO ARMENIA STATE OF THE NECESSITY OF REGIONAL
CO-OPERATION DEVELOPMENT

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. Issue relating to bilateral relations and
participation in regional programs ere discussed by the RA Secretary
of Security Council at RA President, Serge Sargsyan, the RA Minister
of Defense and Iranian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
to Armenia Mohammad Farhad Koleini whose diplomatic mission will be
over soon. According to Minister of Defense Press Secretary Seiran
Shakhsuvaryan, the parties exchanged opinions about the recent
military and political events. The Minister expressed his gratitude
to the Ambassador for his personal input into strengthening of
Iran-Armenian multilateral relations and expressed hope that the new
Iranian Ambassador to Armenia will continue improving the positive
development of the relations. A.H.–0—

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

CBA COMMITTED TO OPEN DIALOGUE WITH JOURNALISTS

YEREVAN, June 14. /ARKA/. The Central bank of Armenia is committed to
an open dialogue with all mass media, as Tigran Sargsyan, Chairman of
CBA stated when making his speech on the press conference “Banking
System and Public Relations: Actual Tasks and Solutions” held in
11-13 June in Tsakhkadzor. He also stressed that this is very
important task in respect to the formation of new mentality aimed at
availability of the information. “It would be useful if the mass
media report to what extent the state structures secure the
availability of the information”, he said. At that, he offered CBA’s
cooperation in working out of required criteria foe definition of
openness of this or that structure. As Sargsyan mentioned, such
practice may change the way of mentality of those managers that still
refuse in disclosing the information. “This would secure a big
progress and change of the mentality from the point of view of
formation of a civil society”, he stated. T.M. –0–

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

A reluctant Turkey begins Kurdish-language broadcasts 11.06.2004

ISN, Switzerland
June 11 2004

The long-awaited implementation of Kurdish-language state
broadcasting in Turkey has earned Ankara reserved praise from the EU,
which has hailed the move as a good first start in meeting human
rights criteria for accession negotiations. In light the several
decades of bloody civil war between Turkish forces and Kurdish
separatists, the symbolism of the once taboo idea should indeed not
be downplayed, but at the same time, the lacklustre programming is
sadly insufficient.

By Burak Bekdil for ISN Security Watch

Two long years after Ankara approved the broadcasting of
Kurdish-language programs, the first such programs were aired on
Wednesday – a delay that illustrates there is still some serious
resistance to EU-inspired political reforms in Turkey. But the final
implementation of the broadcasting reforms is still a positive
indication from Ankara that its desire to join the EU – which
requires meeting the bloc’s basic human rights criteria – is growing
stronger than its desire to maintain the status quo. While the new
weekly 30-minute Kurdish-language programs are far from winning any
broadcasting awards, they are at least a positive prelude of what is
to come. The project represents the slow metamorphosis of the
official and public Turkish mindset. Only a few years ago the mere
advocacy of Kurdish-language broadcasting would have been a criminal
offence. “Either Turkish, or Nothing!” is one ultra-nationalist
slogan that still decorates the various corners of Ankara.

A slow and silent revolution through music

Speaking Kurdish was outlawed in Turkey until 1991, and until a few
years ago, the issue of the Kurdish language was taboo for the state
establishment. It had taken the guardians of Turkey’s territorial
integrity quite some time to digest Kurdish music and concerts, which
were likely the precursors to wider recognition of the language. In
many ways, the dozens of Kurdish singers who released CDs in their
own language broke the vicious circle, showing that language was not
synonymous with terrorism. Their songs worked as a catalyst,
demonstrating that the use of language, per se, was not a threat to
Turkey’s territorial integrity. Those artists sparked a slow and
silent revolution. What was unthinkable in Turkey only half a decade
ago is now becoming a reality, but it will still take several years
for the minority-language broadcasting reforms to please everyone. To
praise the reforms without reservations is premature, but it would
also be unfair to play them down altogether.

A reservedly historic move

Most analysts have contributed Ankara’s historic move was largely
designed to persuade the EU to open accession talks. Though the first
Kurdish-language program was broadcast on Wednesday, the project had
begun earlier in the week with broadcasts in other minority
languages, Bosnian and Arabic. Numerically and politically, though,
Wednesday’s Kurdish program was of much greater significance. The
Wednesday program, aired by TRT-3 state television, offered 30
minutes of news highlights, sports, folk music, and a nature
documentary in Kurmandji – one of the two main Kurdish dialects, of
which there are around 40, spoken in Turkey. Kurdish is an
Indo-European tongue unrelated to Turkish, though it has many Turkish
words. On Friday, the TRT-3 was scheduled to broadcast a second
program in the Kurdish dialect of Zaza. The programs also broadcast
Turkish subtitles. State radio also broadcast a program in Kurmandji
earlier in the week. Various estimates put the number of Turkish
Kurds anywhere between eight million and 25 million, as Turkish
population censuses do not produce statistics on ethnic origin. There
is, however, empirical evidence that the Kurds are the largest ethnic
minority in the country, with nearly 100 different races.

The Turkish legislative malady

The legislation approving minority-language broadcasting was passed
in 2002, but the typical gap between passing legislation and
implementing it, the Turkish malady, delayed the project for two
years. Though the legislation paved the way for lifting the ban on
minority-language broadcasting, there was still no legal basis to
regulate such broadcasting. For over a year, various state agencies
passed the buck down the line, none wanting to spearhead the
controversial program – not, at least, until Brussels stepped up the
pressure, waving the EU carrot before them. Despite pressure from the
government to implement the reforms, the administration of TNT
remained reluctant. The day before the first Kurdish program was to
be aired, police in Istanbul detained 25 journalists from pro-Kurdish
media outlets in a security sweep ahead of the NATO summit on 28
June. In a series of raids in Istanbul, a journalist from the small
Dicle News Agency said police had seized computers and other records.
He said the charges against his agency included belonging to an
illegal organization and publishing in Kurdish. Strange timing,
indeed.

Mixed reactions

The minority-language programs have sparked a wide range of reactions
in Turkey. Most Turks remain indifferent to the broadcasts. According
to Reha Tartici, director for the Istanbul-based Consensus research
house, the early results of a survey show that a majority of Turks
“do not see broadcasting in ethnic languages as a threat against the
country’s territorial integrity”. After all, if Kurdish music has not
posed a threat to territorial integrity, why should state-sponsored
programs? However, the Turkish nationalists are divided over the
issue. Ulku Ocaklari, an ultra-nationalist youth organization dating
back to the street fights in the 1970s that claimed half a dozen
lives a day, staged a protest against broadcasting in non-Turkish
languages – though no more than a handful of people turned out for
the demonstration. In a conspicuously soft tone, Mehmet Agar, a
right-wing opposition leader and a former police chief with quite a
notorious pan-Turkic past, labeled the programs a “democratic
overture.”

Minority indifference and opposition

Like the rest of the population, Kurds also seem to be indifferent to
the programs. “Most Kurds in the countryside have different
priorities and problems, mostly economic ones,” a local journalist
based in Van, eastern Anatolia, told Security Watch. “State
broadcasting in their own language will not add much to their lives.
Besides, there are many Kurds who do not understand the two main
dialects.” Other minorities have had reacted differently. Bosnians
and Arabs had raised objections to the program, saying they could not
understand the Kurdish dialects. Circassians, too, have objected, but
for a different reason. A spokesman for the Circassian community in
Turkey said that the country’s ethnic Caucasians did not their own
language programs. “Although we come from Circassian descendants, our
country is Turkey and our language is Turkish,” he said. Apparently,
the Circassians, who have remained extremely loyal to Turkey, do not
want to be labelled as separatists. Another group, the Laz, or Black
Sea people of Georgian/Caucasian-origins, have also objected, saying
that they have been left out of the program.

Down-playing the program’s Kurdish aspect

Ali Bayramoglu, a commentator writing in the liberal, pro-Islamic
Yeni Safak, takes a fairly negative view of the programs. He accuses
the Turkish authorities of trying to down play broadcasts in Kurdish
by introducing other, less relevant minority languages, such as
Bosnian and Arabic. “In order not to prioritize the broadcasts in
Kurdish they had added such languages as Arabic, Circassian, and
Bosnian,” he told Security Watch. At the same time, the Ankara has
could argue that the reforms could not justify prioritizing any
particular language, which would be unconstitutional. As part of the
Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey gives equal status to its non-Muslim
minorities in terms of religion and education. A few thousand Greeks
have the same rights as the 25’000 Jews and 65’000 Armenians living
in Turkey. The Supreme Court could have annulled the
minority-language broadcasting legislation if it had proposed only
Kurdish dialects.

The reward for reform

Most importantly, the proposed “recipient” of the move, the EU, is
content, but also has many reservations. “This is a good start, but
not the finished product yet,” said an EU ambassador in Ankara.
“Thinking about the bureaucratic resistance, it is a big step for the
state establishment. But it may not be sufficient.” Another EU
diplomat in the Turkish capital warned that Brussels might soon start
to pressure Ankara to broaden the scope of minority-language
broadcasting. “This is only a first move for informative,
professional broadcasting. You cannot please an audience with
week-old news or hastily picked programs. We reckon that the Turkish
government should be quite keen for upgrades.” According to George
Coats, a London-based Turkey specialist, the EU will inevitably be
looking for further steps. “You need something more substantial,
topical,” he told Security Watch. For now, the program is not
receiving praise for its content merits, but only for the symbolic
value seen in diminishing Turkish paranoia. State broadcasting is
limited and its content still reflects a hostile mindset. The
government would do best to encourage private stations to get in on
the program, but Ankara has made it clear it wants complete control
over sensitive Kurdish-language broadcasting – a message taken to
heart with the arrest, the day before the first scheduled state
Kurdish broadcast – of 25 “pro-Kurdish” journalists.

Burak Bekdil is a columnist for the Ankara-based Turkish Daily News
and the Athens-based Kathimerini. He is a correspondent for Defense
News weekly, Virginia, United States.