Author: Kafian Jirair

SPOILS OF WAR
by Lutz Kleveman

New Statesman
October 3, 2005

Spoils of war: Years of work in battle zones have convinced Lutz
Kleveman that the role energy resources play in causing conflicts is
the big story behind the headlines

About three years ago, I visited the American airbase of Bagram in
Afghanistan. A US army public affairs officer gave me a tour of the
sprawling camp, set up after the ouster of the Taliban in December
2001. As we walked past the endless rows of tents and men in desert
camouflage uniforms, I spotted two makeshift wooden street signs.

They read “Exxon Street” and “Petro Boulevard”. Slightly embarrassed,
the officer explained: “This is the fuel handlers’ workplace. The
signs are a joke, a sort of irony.”

As I am sure they were. It just seemed an uncanny sight given that
I was researching potential links between the “war on terror” and
American oil interests in Central Asia. Years of work in war zones
have convinced me that the role energy resources play in causing armed
conflicts is the big story behind the headlines. Dwindling supplies and
the ever-surging global consumption of oil, especially in China and
India, have caused its price to soar to new heights. As doubts grow
about the true size of Saudi reserves, global production is expected
to peak soon, making oil unaffordable to many people and countries,
and raising the prospect of a “last man standing” oil endgame.

The deepening rivalry over fossil reserves, especially between the
US and China, makes energy wars increasingly likely. No Iraqi I know
believes America would send soldiers to the Gulf region if there
were only strawberry fields to protect. My research in places such as
Nigeria, Azerbaijan and Iraq has shown that oil wealth is more of a
curse than a blessing. In all oil-producing countries (except Britain
and Norway), it has led to environmental degradation, economic decline,
corruption, political instability, coup d’etats or even civil wars.

Central Asia offers a perfect case study of what is the trouble
with oil. The warlords, diplomats, politicians, generals and
oil bosses I have interviewed in the region are all players in a
geostrategic struggle that has become increasingly intertwined with
the anti-terrorist campaigns: the “New Great Game”. The main spoils
in this rerun of the 19th-century “Great Game” are the Caspian oil
and gas reserves, the world’s biggest untapped fossil fuel resources.

While estimates range widely, the US Energy Department believes that
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone could sit on more than 130 billion
barrels of crude. Oil giants such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and
BP have already invested more than $40bn in new production facilities.

In May 2001 Dick Cheney, the US vice-president and ex-CEO of
Halliburton (a provider of products and services to the oil and
gas industries), recommended in the seminal national energy policy
report that “the president make energy security a priority of our
trade and foreign policy”, singling out the Caspian Basin as a
“rapidly growing new area of supply”. Since 11 September, the Bush
administration has accordingly used the “war on terror” to further
American energy interests in Central Asia, deploying thousands of
US troops not only in Afghanistan, but also in the newly independent
republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.

By 2010, the US will have to import more than two-thirds of its
energy needs, and the Caspian region has become vital to its policy
of “diversifying energy supply”, designed to wean America off its
dependence on the volatile Middle East. Yet Central Asia is no less
volatile than the Middle East, and oil politics are making matters
worse. Disputes persist over pipeline routes from the Caspian
region to high-sea ports. While Russia promotes crude transport
across its territory, China wants to build eastbound pipelines from
Kazakhstan, and Iran is offering its pipeline network for exports via
the Persian Gulf. Washington, on the other hand, has championed the
$3.8bn Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline through the South Caucasus, which was
recently inaugurated amid much pomp. Controversial for environmental
and social reasons, the project has also perpetuated instability in
the South Caucasus.

With thousands of Russian troops still stationed in Georgia and
Armenia, Moscow has for years sought to deter western pipeline
investors by fomenting bloody ethnic conflicts near the pipeline
route, in the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and in the
Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ajaria. In
return, the US has despatched 500 elite troops to Georgia. Moscow
and Beijing resent the growing US influence in their energy-rich
strategic backyard, and have repeatedly demanded that the Americans
pull out. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has signed new security
pacts with the Central Asian rulers and, in 2003, personally opened
a new Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan, only 50km away from a US
airbase. China, in turn, has conducted major military exercises with
Central Asian states. In August, China’s biggest state-owned oil
company bought a major oil producer in Kazakhstan for $4,2bn. The
purchase fits in with China’s efforts to quench its enormous thirst
for oil by intensifying ties to major energy-producing countries and
buying a wide array of foreign petrol assets.

Besides raising the spectre of interstate conflict, energy imperialism
also exacerbates the terrorist problem. Many Muslims hate America
because for decades successive US governments, in a Faustian pact,
were indifferent towards how badly the Middle Eastern regimes treated
their people – as long as they kept the oil flowing. In Central Asia,
the Bush administration repeats the mistakes that gave rise to Bin
Ladenism in the 1980s and 1990s. Oil-motivated American support
for Central Asian autocrats – such as Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev,
Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov –
causes more and more of their disgusted subjects to embrace militant
Islam and anti-Americanism. The Caspian region may be the next big
gas station but, as in the Middle East, there are already a lot of
men running around throwing matches.

Ultimately, no matter how many troops are deployed to protect oilfields
and pipelines, the oil infrastructure might prove too vulnerable
to terrorist attacks such as in Iraq to guarantee a stable supply
anyway. In Iraq, chaos and violence have so far prevented any major
oil companies from investing a huge amount in the country’s old petrol
industry. Efforts by Halliburton and the US army corps of engineers
to rehabilitate the oilfields near Kirkuk and Basra have been largely
undermined by insurgent attacks on pipelines. To make matters worse,
conflicts have broken out between Iraq’s Kurds and Arabs over who
should control the Kirkuk oilfields.

With so much oil-related trouble looming, old-style policies of
yet more fossil fuel production and waste continue in the wrong
direction. The only wise strategy is a sustainable alternative
energy policy that will steer us into the post-oil era. Reducing
our dependence on oil will go a long way towards “defuelling”
terror-breeding regimes and lessening international tension. This
policy will require saving energy through more efficient technologies,
increasing the role of other energy carriers (including gas but not
nuclear power) and introducing next-generation transport fuels on a
huge scale.

A new energy policy is badly needed anyway to slow the greenhouse
effect and global climate change, which might turn out to be the
worst energy-related source of conflict. Hurricane Katrina – with
violence, anarchy and refugees in its wake – gave merely a foretaste
of the suffering that global warming could cause. That was nature,
some say with a shrug, but in fact it was nature on drugs – and we
need a detox soon.

Lutz Kleveman ([email protected]) is the author of The New Great Game:
blood and oil in Central Asia (Atlantic Books, ),
and the host of an authors’ conference on climate change. For more
information visit

Natural gas is by some distance the least fascinating of all energy
sources – at least, it is to most British citizens and their media.

In the “debate” on energy and carbon policy, which largely amounts to
special pleading for government funding or regulatory protection for
(in particular) clean coal and nuclear power, there is virtually no
interest in gas. The subject surfaces mainly in the context of claims
made by supporters of other forms of generating capacity that, in 15 to
25 years from now, the power sector will be overwhelmingly dependent
on imported gas from “unstable” countries, and that this will expose
the British public to unacceptable security risks. A BBC2 docudrama –
set in the future – showed Chechen terrorists blowing up a gas pipeline
running from Russia’s Baltic coast to Britain, plunging London into
darkness an hour later. The debate that followed was largely about the
future of nuclear power, rather than the unreality of such a scenario.

This lack of public interest in, or information about, gas is slightly
strange given that it is the country’s most important source of energy,
accounting for 41 per cent of primary energy last year (compared
with oil at 34 per cent), and 40 per cent of electricity generation
(compared with 33 per cent from coal and 19 per cent from nuclear
power). This was never intended to happen. But the post-privatisation
“dash for gas” in power generation – partly a dash away from the
problems of the coal and nuclear power industries – was followed by
a realisation that the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation
had made a big contribution towards meeting CO2 reduction targets.

In 2000, North Sea gas production peaked and began to decline at
a faster rate than had been anticipated. Over the past few years,
there has been a growing tightness of supply in the winter months,
when gas usage peaks. This has been accompanied by much higher
levels of prices, with substantial volatility and price spikes. These
developments have caused regulatory and parliamentary investigations
into the functioning of gas markets and improper corporate behaviour,
which have failed to substantiate any allegations of wrong-doing. At
the same time, an unprecedented amount of new import infrastructure
is under construction, with two new pipelines, the expansion of an
existing line, and three new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.

This sudden interest in supply, demand and prices is a far cry from
the focus of the past two decades, which has been on developing
competition in utility markets. Since the mid-1980s, politicians,
regulators and consultants have marched around the world lecturing
the less fortunate on the wonders of “British experiment”. The answer
to all problems was to “privatise and leave it to the market”, which
would produce “the most efficient outcome”. This proved to be the
case for much of the 1990s and early 2000s, when British businesses
and citizens enjoyed substantially cheaper gas prices than their
counterparts in Continental Europe, where governments have been
reluctant to liberalise their markets.

Gas production was allowed to proceed at the fastest possible rate –
abandoning the careful “depletion policy” of the nationalised industry
era, which was designed to eke out UK resources with the judicious use
of imports. Government was also responsible for starting the process
that resulted in a pipeline between Britain and Belgium exporting
surplus UK gas, with the aim of accelerating European competition. With
the peaking of domestic production, that pipeline is increasingly being
used to import, and 2004 marked the end of the country’s relatively
short-lived spell as a net gas exporter, giving rise to dire warnings
of impending disaster arising from dependence on foreign supplies.

Large-scale imports, when they begin in 2007-08, will initially return
the UK to the position 20 years ago, when more than 20 per cent
of gas demand was imported from Norway. Subsequently, and assuming
higher prices do not stimulate the discovery and production of new
gas, import dependence on piped and liquefied gas will increase
from a variety of sources: Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Algeria,
Egypt, Qatar and others. The diversity of sources and supply routes
provides protection against problems with any individual supplier or
facility. Gas imports, far from being the main problem, are going to
be a large part of the solution to supply problems.

“Unreliable and nasty foreigner” theories of security ignore the
most important current problem – the reliability of ageing North Sea
infrastructure and concern about how these may perform in severe
weather conditions. The impact of severe weather on offshore and
coastal oil and gas infrastructure – as demonstrated by Hurricane
Katrina – is a major potential problem.

Both Transco and Ofgem have given assurances that, even if it is
very cold, there will be sufficient gas and delivery capacity to get
through next winter. But experience of the past year suggests that
any significant supply problem or severe weather causing increases
in demand, even of short duration, will at the very least lead to
short-term price spikes. After this winter, imported supplies start
to flood in and new gas storage (which was not needed when supply
was overwhelmingly from domestic sources) will open up, making the
position much more comfortable. In fact, so much new supply will be
available that, through the early 2010s, exports may continue for a
significant part of the year.

The future of UK energy supplies may be renewables, clean coal, some
form of nuclear power and, more distantly, hydrogen. For the next 20
years, and probably for a great many more, natural gas will dominate
the UK energy balance outside the transport sector. This is a closely
guarded secret revealed only in discussions about supply security.

But there is no specific reason to think that security of gas supplies
will be a major problem – once we get through this winter.

Jonathan Stern is director of gas research at the Oxford Institute
for Energy Studies and honorary professor at the Centre for Energy,
Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee

Armenica.org
October 2, 2005
Editorial: Turkey Swings Back and Forth

By Ake Daun

Turkey’s negotiations with EU start on October 3. Confronted with the
demands for freedom of speech, the Turkish government has turned on its
heel. The conference in Istanbul, entitled `Ottoman Armenians during the
decline of the Empire’, which was stopped shortly before its opening on
May 25, was instead rescheduled for September 23-25.

In May, the minister of justice described the conference as `a stab in
the back of the Turkish nation’. The participants were risking
prosecution. In August, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül declared instead:
`Turkey does not avoid discussing the Armenian Question. We have nothing
to fear. Let the Turkish general public discuss this issue under calm
conditions and draw its own conclusions’.

On Thursday, September 22, just before the opening, the conference was
stopped once again. The denial of the Christian minority genocide in
that beginning of the 20th century has been official policy since 1920s.
The Armenian Question has been as taboo as the Kurdish one. At the same
time the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk is charged with the crime against
the `Turkish national identity’. He has mentioned the Armenian
Genocide.

But in order to mark its change of position, the Turkish state has
decided to spend one and a half million (US Dollars) on the
reconstruction of the Armenian church of Sourp Khatch on the Akhtamar
Island, a architectural treasure from the old Great Armenia. The measure
is a sensation, keeping in mind the large number of churches in the old
Armenian areas which have been left to fall into disrepair.

Regardless to the fact whether a positive social change is politically
forced on or not, it should be confronted with respect ` without malice!
It will be a gift from history to the next generation, which will be
spared to bear the legacy of its forefather’s inability.

It is though problematic that Turkey has several contradictory centres
of power. When the conference was stopped with threat of prosecuting the
participants, the organizers decided to move the conference from the two
state universities of Bosporus and Sabanci to the foundation owned Bilgi
University which could be excluded from the court jurisdiction. The
court decision had met by government’s anger, who, at the prospect of
starting the EU membership negotiations, did not wish for any new
spanner into the works. Foreign Minister Gül bitterly noted that `few
countries in the world are so skilled in damaging themselves so much.’

But the lawyers have not given up so easily. According to the Internet
edition of a Turkish newspaper, the same group who threatened the
organizers of the conference with legal actions, now asked the Chief
Prosecutor to raise charges against 17 of the involved people in the
conference at the Bilgi University. Among the names on the list are also
Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gül, who have been forced to
join those who committed crime against the `Turkish national identity’.
The quite peculiar situation seems to have aroused ` or actually is
asserting more clearly than ever that the Turkish foreign policy is
driven only partially by its government.

>From government’s direction there is, at the prospect of the EU
negotiations, a more conciliatory posture than before. A similar opening
has not been given in the Cyprus question, which could put a stop to the
EU entry. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a state. It is difficult
to consider this as a negotiation manoeuvre. That a member country would
not recognise another member country is as imaginable as unrealistic.

With some knowledge about the Ottoman Empire the posture of Turkey is
more comprehensible. The Greeks were actually involved in the same
history which resulted in the Armenian Genocide. Both were Christian
minorities in the mighty Turkish state. The other subjected Christians
were the Assyrian-Syrians and the Chaldeans. They carry on the same
memory. Even the Greeks are waiting for Turkey to make up with its
bloody past.

The history ` which has a much longer political background history ` is
in short the following: In 1878 Turkey was forced to give up Cyprus to
Great Britain, one of many decisions which altered the history of the
Ottoman Empire. In 1960 Cyprus became an independent state, ruled by
Greek-Cypriot president and a Turkish-Cypriot vice president. The mere
fact that these two could not fall into each other’s arms should have
been realised much sooner.

Let us study Eastern Anatolia from a different hypothetical perspective,
i.e. the old Armenian nucleus area in Turkey. Imagine that it has become
an independent state with an Armenian president and a Turkish vice
president (yes, as unrealistic as Cyprus!). Then imagine that the
country, after internal conflicts, have been divided in an
Armenian-Anatolian part and a Turkish-Anatolian part. Imagine that the
Turks had made the Turkish part to a federal state within Turkey and
nine years later declared it as an independent state, illegal according
to the UN Security Council.

And finally. Imagine that our virtually Armenian-Anatolian government
have applied for EU membership and has received it in 2004. What would
EU had said if Turkey then refused to accept the demands of EU about
recognition of this Armenian ruled country, already an EU state?

Turkey had most likely reacted in the same recalcitrant manner as the
country has done in the reality in regard to Cyprus. Does this long
grievous history belong to the kind out of the possibility range of the
diplomats? Maybe all the factors which decide the outcome already in
place. I do not think so.

________________________________________________________________________
Ake Daun is professor in ethnology at the Nordiska musset and Stockholm
University. Daun’s speciality is within the field of European culture.
He has been editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter and the TCO newspaper
and is often consulted expert and lecturer in ethnical issues.

Flint Journal, MI
Sept 30 2005

Raw energy permeates SOAD’s concert
Review

By Nikki Poisson
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

DETROIT – There were no frills Thursday night at Joe Louis Arena.
There was no “I’m glad to be back in Detroit.” There were no
self-serving guitar solos.

There were only 105 minutes of raw energy served up by one of today’s
most thought-provoking bands, System of a Down.

A quartet of Armenian-Americans from Los Angeles, System of a Down is
today’s answer to protest rock. And while lambasting topics such as
war, mass media brainwashing and overconfident white Americans isn’t
anything new, no one has done it in the punk rock heavy-hitting
intensity that SOAD has.

The show opened with the band behind a large black veil of cloth
donning the cover of their new album “Mezmerize” with a spotlight
casting a shadow on guitarist Daron Malakian.

As the cloth dropped and a haze fell over the audience, SOAD broke
into “Soldier Side” and then onto their recent radio hit “B.Y.O.B.”
featuring the infamous line “Why don’t presidents fight the war?/ Why
do they always send the poor?”

>From there the band went into a pulverizing rendition of “Revenga,”
while bassist Shavo Odadjian stalked the stage.

“Hypnotize,” the title track from the other half of their double
album due out Nov. 22, gave the audience a sneak peek into what
sounds to be another huge success.

>From there the night transcended from one song to another with such
precision it was as if System of a Down were a well-oiled machine.
>From “Know” to “Needles” to “Deer Dance” the floor erupted each time
frontman Serj Tankian led out one of his signature verses.

Tankian fervently belted out lyrics about war, mass media
brainwashing and man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man. While
Malakian danced in circles, Odadjian continued to stalk both sides of
the stage and drummer John Dolmayan pounded the skins with such
intensity it’s no wonder the crowd was on its feet from beginning to
end.

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:

PRESS RELEASE
September 30, 2005
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, COMMUNITY GROUPS MARK 14TH ANNIVESARY
OF NAGORNO KARABAKH INDEPENDENCE ON CAPITOL HILL

NOTE TO THE EDITOR: Following please find a press release
issued by the Office of Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the USA,
on the Capitol Hill Observance of the 14th anniversary
of Nagorno Karabagh independence.

The event, titled “14 years of Nagorno Karabakh’s Independence:
Progress Toward Freedom, Democracy and Economic Development”
was organized by the Office of Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the
USA, Embassy of the Republic of Armenia, Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA) and Armenian Assembly, in cooperation
with the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues.

#####

OFFICE OF THE NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC IN THE USA
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 223-4330
Fax: (202) 315-3339
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site:

PRESS RELEASE
September 30, 2005

NAGORNO KARABAKH INDEPENDENCE MARKED ON CAPITOL HILL

Baroness Caroline Cox, Members of Congress, Armenian-American
Community Mark Fourteen Years of Freedom, Democracy and Economic
Development in NKR

WASHINGTON, DC – Members of Congress and leading human rights
activist, British House of Lords Vice-Speaker Baroness Caroline
Cox, joined together on Capitol Hill September 28 to mark the 14th
anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s (NKR/Artsakh)
independence. Over 100 Armenian-Americans, Congressional staff
members and human rights advocates attended this unprecedented
event, hosted by the Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the
USA, the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia, the Armenian Assembly
of America (AAA) and the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA) in cooperation with the Co-Chairs of the Congressional
Caucus on Armenian Issues.

During the two-hour event entitled “14 years of Nagorno Karabakh’s
Independence: Progress Toward Freedom, Democracy and Economic
Development,” participants highlighted the great strides the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic has made since shaking off foreign
oppression.

“Fourteen years have passed since the day when the people of
Karabakh said a firm NO to continued foreign oppression,” said NKR
Representative to the United States Vardan Barseghian in his
opening remarks.

“Fourteen years of ongoing struggle to survive and prosper against
overwhelming odds. Fourteen years of serious achievements. Fourteen
years of success. Many formally recognized countries would wish to
be able to say this about their recent history, but only a few
can.”

Making the case for international recognition of NKR independence,
Barseghian stressed that the Nagorno Karabakh Republic now meets
all of the traditional, internationally acceptable requirements for
statehood, such as control over a defined territory, a permanent
population, democratically elected government, capable armed
forces, and the capacity to conduct international relations,
including participation in peace negotiations and functioning
representative offices in Moscow, Paris, Washington, DC and
elsewhere.

Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-
MI) stressed the progress Nagorno Karabakh has made since declaring
its independence in 1991, and the pivotal role of U.S. humanitarian
assistance in the region. “Progress is the key word here,” stated
Rep. Knollenberg. “The people of NK continue to make progress
despite the challenges they face. I think in the future they will
continue to make progress with the support of the U.S. Congress and
from the United States.” He emphasized that in Karabakh “the
economy is working, the democracy is functioning and they continue
to have successful elections, which are more open and free than
[those in] some countries in the region.” Knollenberg also
commended the Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the USA
and its staff for keeping Members of Congress abreast of ongoing
developments in NKR.

Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-
NJ) reminded participants that “often times when Karabakh is
mentioned in the media, they forget to mention that it became
independent legally under international law and under Soviet law…
We need to keep stressing that this truly is a democracy that has
an elected president and does so in a very transparent way.” Rep.
Pallone also pledged continued Armenian Caucus support for Nagorno
Karabakh’s democratic aspirations. “We will continue to urge the
Bush Administration, or any other administration, and State
Department that they need to be more supportive to Karabakh,” he
said.

Representative George Radanovich (R-CA) stressed the important role
the Armenian-American community plays in educating Congressional
leaders about the vital concerns in Nagorno Karabakh. “Your
presence here [on the Hill] helps us to better the relationship
between [our] two countries,” explained Rep. Radanovich, as he
congratulated Nagorno Karabakh’s 14 years of independence.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) concurred, stating “I want to express my
admiration for the Armenian-American community which has been a
wonderful example to the other Americans about how you take
democracy seriously . . . and how you do it for the moral
principle. Thank you for insisting we take this principle of self-
determination, that we so fiercely defend in America, and apply it
elsewhere.” Rep. Frank went on to remark about Azerbaijan’s
continued attempts to deny Nagorno Karabakh freedom. “I don’t
understand . . . and this is directed to the government of
Azerbaijan: Governing when people are willing to be [governed] can
be difficult; I can’t imagine why anyone would want to go through
the aggravation of governing people against their will. It really
just is a dumb thing to do. . . I do not understand why any
government anywhere would want to hold people against their will.”

California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff noted that he supports
“independence for NKR because it is both consistent with American
values and because it makes practical political sense.” He praised
the growing democracy in the region, stating that “even though they
have been politically and militarily challenged by Azerbaijan and
its powerful ally Turkey, the people of Karabakh have continued to
build all the requisites of statehood.”

The final Congressional speaker of the evening, Rep. Maurice
Hinchey (D-NY), summed up the sentiments of previous speakers,
stating “the people of Nagorno Karabakh have the right to assert
their independence and freedom; they have that right and they
should be provided the opportunity to do so. . . I am very proud to
be with you to assert my unity with you and your enterprise.”

Armenian Ambassador to the U.S. Dr. Tatoul Markarian noted, “self-
determination for Nagorno Karabakh is the key to achieving real
freedom and to bringing long-term peace and prosperity in the
region. NK conflict’s distinction from other conflicts in Eurasia
is acknowledged by the international community. We understand that
settlement of the conflict requires serious compromise from all
parties. Meanwhile, I am convinced, and it is widely shared, that
any solution to the conflict will be based on the fact and the
right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh,
which the core and the final settlement must take into account.”

World-renowned human rights activist and an outspoken champion of
Karabakh’s right to self-determination, Baroness Caroline Cox gave
the keynote address. Baroness Cox, who recently returned from her
60th trip to the region, provided an eye-witness account of
Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing campaign, pogroms and outright war
against the people of Nagorno Karabakh and spoke passionately about
the incredible progress – both democratic and economic – Karabakh
has made since the 1994 cease-fire accord. Through a powerful slide
presentation, the Baroness gave Members of Congress, staffers and
attendees a first-hand view of reconstruction and rehabilitation
efforts throughout the country.

Lady Cox concluded her remarks by urging the international
community to respect the rights to freedom, justice, and democracy
of the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

“It is high time for the international community to address the
challenges raised by the conflict of the principles of self-
determination and territorial integrity. Surely, there must be some
recognition of the rights of a vulnerable minority, threatened by a
repressive state with attempted ethnic cleansing or genocide, to
have the right to claim their independence in order to survive …
The time for recognition of the rights of the people of Karabakh
for self-determination is NOW for the sake of justice, peace and,
in due course, the economic prosperity and stability for all who
live in the region.”

“If any people in the world today deserve the right to self-
determination and the recognition of independence, it is the people
of Nagorno Karabakh,” said Baroness Cox.

Among speakers at the program were ANCA Executive Director Aram
Hamparian and AAA Executive Director Bryan Ardouny. Hamparian
stressed the significance of NKR achievements and thanked Members
of Congress for their ongoing support of Artsakh’s freedom,
democracy and economic development.

“Today, as Armenians, we thank the U.S. Congress for years of
moral, financial, and political support for Nagorno Karabagh,” said
Hamparian. “In turn, as Americans, we thank the people of Nagorno
Karabagh, first, for their courage and leadership in sparking the
democracy movement that spread to other republics and eventually
helped to end the Soviet threat to the free world, and, second, for
today being on the front lines in the advance of freedom worldwide
– an enduring goal of the American people.”

Ardouny concurred by saying: “We have heard this evening about the
importance of freedom, liberty and democracy fundamental principles
that guide us today just as they did over 200 years ago during the
founding of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Nagorno Karabakh is a geographical fact. It is a political and
moral fact [Karabakhtsis] are the first people of the former Soviet
Union to launch a freedom movement and set out in principle to
institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human
equality as is evidenced today,” said Ardouny, drawing a parallel
with what American statesman Adlai Stevenson once said about the
U.S.

Providing first-hand knowledge of the most recent election held in
Nagorno Karabakh was Dr. Aleyda Kasten, who traveled to NKR last
June as one of six members of the American Independent Monitoring
Delegation. Dr. Kasten, who also observed presidential elections in
the United States and last year’s presidential election in the
Ukraine, testified that over 75% of eligible citizens of Karabakh
turned out to elect the Republic’s Fourth Parliament since
independence. “This was a tightly contested ballot that left no
single party in majority control of the legislature. We, as a
group, did not observe irregularities during voting or vote count.
We were struck by the people’s determination to democratically
decide their future. We can honestly say that from our observations
the elections were carried out freely and transparently,” said
Kasten.

NKR Representative Barseghian closed the event by saying that
“during its 14 years of independence NKR has shown demonstrable
progress toward freedom, democracy and economic development —
values championed by the United States and shared by the people of
Karabakh. As the United States supports and promotes freedom and
democracy for all peoples around the globe, we call on the U.S. to
also continue to support the aspirations of the Karabakh people to
live in freedom, security and prosperity.”

On behalf of the people of Artsakh, Barseghian thanked the
Government of the United States and the American people for their
ongoing aid to rehabilitate Nagorno Karabakh’s war-torn economy and
the shattered lives of its citizens and called on the U.S. to play
a greater role in its conflict mediation efforts by encouraging the
government of Azerbaijan to negotiate directly with the leaders of
Nagorno Karabakh and to respect the will of the people of Karabakh
to live in freedom.

“This event would not have been possible without the strong support
of the two Co-Chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Representatives
Pallone and Knollenberg, Ambassador Markarian, the Armenian
Assembly and the Armenian National Committee,” said Barseghian. He
also thanked Tim Delmonico from Rep. Pallone’s office and Craig
Albright, legislative director for Rep. Knollenberg, for their
invaluable input.

“The Nagorno Karabakh Republic is strong and successful because it
has committed friends like you,” concluded Barseghian.

The Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States is
based in Washington, DC and works with the U.S. government,
academia and the public representing the official policies and
interests of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

#####

To request photos for publishing with the press release, send an
email to [email protected]

This material is distributed by the Office of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic in the USA on behalf of the Government of the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. The NKR Office is registered with the U.S.
Government under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Additional
information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.

A1+

| 18:32:37 | 30-09-2005 | Politics |

THE MEETING PLACE MUST NOT BE CHANGED

«I am glad that International Constitutional Legislative Conferences are
traditionally organized in Yerevan. Armenia is preparing for serious
Constitutional reforms. They must be harmonious with the social developments
and contribute to them», said the RA President Robert Kocharyan today during
the Conference organized in connection with the 10th anniversary of the
adoption of the Constitution and formation of the Constitutional court.

The CoE Venice Commission secretary, the heads of the Human Rights European
Court and the Constitutional Right International Association as well as
heads of the Constitutional Courts, lawyers and scientists of several CoE
member-countries have arrived in Armenia in order to participate in the
Conference.

By the way, this is the 10th time a suchlike conference has been organized
in Yerevan.

The Daily Star

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Crushing Turkey’s hopes for EU entry is a death sentence for its reform
drive

Editorial

Although the European Parliament’s resolution to add new conditions to
Turkey’s accession to the European Union will not affect the start of
negotiations toward this end, the move was yet another example of Europe’s
deep reluctance to welcome Turkey into the union. It has been over 40 years
since Turkey first applied to be a member of what was then the ECC, and
during the course of a long and tedious journey toward membership, Turkey
has patiently waited for a sign that the desired outcome is within reach.

The Turkish government has now made it clear that its patience is running
out. Yesterday, the Foreign Ministry reiterated that Turkey will reject an
offer of “privileged partnership” and will only participate in negotiations
that are geared toward full membership. A failure on the part of the EU to
offer membership will likely disrupt the process of engagement that Europe
has maintained with Turkey in recent years.

We have already seen the benefits of Europe’s engagement with the Turkey. To
get this far in the process, Turkey has made great strides in implementing a
number of wide-ranging political reforms. The government has abolished state
security courts, reformed the penal code, scrapped the death penalty and
allowed Kurdish to be taught and spoken in schools. There is still much more
that needs to be done in terms of political reform, improving human rights,
protecting minorities, recognizing Cyprus and acknowledging the Armenian
genocide. But keeping the process of negotiations alive will ensure that
there is continued progress on these and other fronts.

Breaking away from this process prematurely, however, would be a recipe for
disaster. Without the goal of membership in view, there is little motivation
for Turkey to continue on its current path.
Turkey’s accession could take as long as 10 years and it stands to reason
that during the lengthy process of negotiation, there will be ample time for
Turkey to make even greater advancements toward a democratic state. The
start of membership talks should therefore be viewed as the beginning of a
prolonged dialogue in which Europe has an opportunity to promote democracy
in Turkey, and by extension, in the entire Middle East.

;article_id=18872&categ_id=17#

THE “MODEL” OF THE STATE
Aram Abrahamian

Aravot (Morning), Armenia
Sept 27 2005

Nobody will be beaten in the coming parliamentary and presidential
elections, the activists of the opposition won’t be taken to
Police, ballot boxes will be filled a little and numbers won’t be
drawn. At the same time those elections will be too far from European
standards. Violence against the voters is in the second plan in modern
Armenian “technologies”. Power and administrative levers came to the
first plan and certainly money.

In that case elections held in the Kentron aren’t specific. Here
the DPA chose a wrong strategy from the beginning not nominating a
person who has experience of economic and administrative activities but
chose our colleague Rusan Khachaturian who yields the current district
ruler by objective showings. Beglarian’s victory was natural that is
he would win without using the above-mentioned levers and without
bribing the voters. And it doesn’t have reasonable explanation why
it did in the Kentron somewhere.

The “model” of our state was seen more clearly in the elections of
Arabkir. Both candidates Hovhannes Shahinian and David Gyulumian could
work theoretically as a district ruler. But ULP party which was for
D. Gyulumian refused of the fight before the elections. It happened
so as Serge Sargsian and Alraghaci Lyov assisted H.

Shahinian and on the other hand the criminals of the community,
“district authorities”. The ULP leader Gurgen Arsenian is a big
businessman consequently he has something to loose from both sides.

On the one hand the authority can examine his business in the way that
if it isn’t closed it will loose. On the other hand the hooligan of
the district may explode his cars, for example.

And what about the people? A white microbus 67ss653 by numbers stopped
in front of my building. Young people “with convincing appearance”
came out from the car with the lists in their cars. My neighbors sat
into that microbus, in particularly old people. They went for voting
after which the same bus gave them back.

Here in this way, without any violence, with flower branches in
their hands our voters would go and say, “yes” to the constitutional
amendments and then they will give their votes to the candidates of
the authority in the parliamentary and presidential elections.

New York Times
Sept 24 2005

Armenian massacre conference to proceed at new site in Turkey

ISTANBUL, Turkey – After a Turkish court’s decision to cancel an
academic conference on the killing of hundreds of thousands of
Armenians during World War I, the conference’s organizers said Friday
that the event would go ahead at a new site today.

The organizers were encouraged by a wave of support from the European
Union and senior Turkish government officials.

A court on Thursday blocked Bogazici University in Istanbul from
holding the event, a debate and symposium on the killing of Armenians
by Ottoman forces in the eastern part of what is now Turkey.

In its ruling, the court called into question the credentials of the
scholars taking part.

It was the second time the courts blocked the conference at the
request of nationalist groups. The event was canceled in May, as
well, and at that time Justice Minister Cemil Cicek condemned
continued attempts to hold the meeting as “treason.”

But the conference’s organizers said it would go ahead today after
Bilgi University in Istanbul agreed to be the new host.

The conference is to be the first time in Turkey that the killings
have been publicly examined.

More than 50 intellectuals, scholars and writers are to analyze the
massacres, which took place from 1915 to 1917 and have been
recognized as genocide by several European governments.

Turkey has long maintained that the deaths were part of a war in
which an equal number of Turks died.

A1+

| 22:35:36 | 23-09-2005 | Politics |

THE «YES» IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL

The head of Robert Kocharyan’s working group Artashes Toumanyan does not
rush to make announcements about the Constitutional Referendum. In any case
he is sure that «the result of the referendum is not an end in itself –
either happy future, or nothing».

«If the Constitutional reforms are adopted, there is still much to be done»,
Mr. Toumanyan is convinced. However, unlike other pro-governmental
politicians, he is not sure that the referendum will say «Yes» to the
amended Constitution.

«He who claims the referendum will say yes, is exaggerating his power», says
Artashes Toumanyan.

THE NEW PARTY IS INEVITABLE

The head of Robert Kocharyan’s working group Artashes Toumanyan avoids
direct answers, but he does not deny the information that he is going to
found a new party. At present he is negotiating with his co-thinkers.

Artashes Toumanyan claims that if his party is created, the people will see
new people there. The future leader of the party-to-be-created thinks the
political power must not be created at the expense of the reputation of
individuals. That is – ideology is primary.

«If the party is created, we will participate in the 2007 Parliamentary
elections. Plain and pragmatic aims», says the head of Robert Kocharyan’s
working group.

As for the name of the party-to-be-created, it is still secret. «It will be
beautiful and harmonious».

PRESS RELEASE
September 17-20, 2005

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA
40 Marshal Baghramian
Yerevan 375019 ARMENIA
Telephone: (37410) 512-522
Fax: (37410) 270-859; 512-512

Contact: Diana Manukyan
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

XXVII Annual ASPHER Conference hosted by the College of Health Sciences at
the American University of Armenia

Yerevan- The College of Health Sciences (CHS) at the American University of
Armenia hosted the XXVII Annual ASPHER (Association of Schools of Public
Health in The European Region) Conference entitled `Educating the Public
Health Workforce: Development Perspectives for the European and
Mediterranean Regions’ from 17-20 September 2005.

The conference addressed development perspectives of Public Health schools
in the European and Mediterranean regions of the World Health Organization,
revealing possible barriers and catalysts to the process of development. For
the first time this exclusive conference hosted about 130 participants from
the Public Health Schools of the European, Mediterranean, and African
regions. Delegates came from 5 continents and over 50 countries, ranging
from South Africa to Finland and from the United States to Mongolia.

The conference was opened by AUA graduate (MBA and MPH) and Honorary Chair
of the Scientific Committee Dr. Tatul Hakopyan Vice Minister of Health,
Armenia, along with, Dr. Haroutune Armenian, AUA President (Chair,
Scientific Committee) and Dr. Michael E. Thompson, Director of the AUA
Center for Health Services Research and Development (Chair, Organizing
Committee).

`Beyond all the assistance from international donors and agencies, the
health care system of Armenia has been running primarily on a capital of
dignity invested by the health care professionals. A dignity that has become
second nature when your history is pot marked by generations of repression
and destruction and you have that continuing urge to survive and move
forward,’ said Haroutune Armenian, AUA President.

Keynote speakers were Dr. Huda Zurayk, Dean, and Faculty of Health Sciences,
American University of Beirut and Dr. Donald A. Henderson, Dean Emeritus,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Henderson led the
World Health Organization program leading to the eradication of smallpox.

`It seems to me that there is not only a need but an important opportunity
for a fuller mature development of Schools of Public Health that are
professional schools; that work closely with those who are dealing with real
world problems… and that define and actively advocate for needed public
policy. The need is international’, pointed out Dr.Henderson, professor of
Public Health and Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and Resident
Fellow of the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center.

During the conference the Association of Schools of Public Health in the
European Region (ASPHER) awarded its 13th Stampar Medal to Mr. George Soros
of Open Society Institute (OSI), in recognition of OSI’s support to the
development and improvement of public health training in Central and Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union. Mr Michael Borowitz, Director of Open
Society Institute’s Public Health Programs, accepted the award on behalf of
OSI’s Public Health Programs.

According to Dr. Anders Folsprang, ASPHER President, `We were delighted to
have the first time the conference is held in a former Soviet Republic
coincide with the College of Health Sciences’ 10th Anniversary. The
Scientific and Organizing Committees did a superb job in preparing a well
organized, stimulating scientific and cultural program.’

—————————————-

The American University of Armenia is registered as a non-profit educational
organization in both Armenia and the United States and is affiliated with
the Regents of the University of California. Receiving major support from
the AGBU, AUA offers instruction leading to the Masters Degree in eight
graduate programs. For more information about AUA, visit
<; .