Author: Kajoyan Gevork

REFORMS IN SCIENCE EXPECTED

Panoraman.am
16:30 03/11/06

After the government approved timetable of reforms in science,
three working groups were created which separately developed
draft reform projects. Ara Avetisyan, deputy minister of science
and education, told a press conference today that three papers
were drafted to ensure multiple opinion. After discussions, one
single document was developed. Avetisyan said the draft will be
suggested for public hearing in November. In the words of the deputy
minister, special attention was paid to management and financial
mechanisms. /Panorama.am/

TURKEY INSISTS ON GENOCIDE STUDY OFFER
By Aza Babayan in Moscow

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Nov 1 2006

Turkey renewed on Wednesday its calls for joint Turkish-Armenian
academic research of the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, saying that their acceptance by Armenia is a precondition
for normalizing relations between the two nations.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Ankara insists on the idea of
setting up a commission of Turkish and Armenian historians which
was floated by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a letter to
President Robert Kocharian last year.

Kocharian effectively turned down the proposal, saying that this and
other problems hampering Turkish-Armenian rapprochement should be
tackled by the two governments. Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora
believe that the 1915-1918 genocide of some 1.5 Armenians in Ottoman
Turkey is a proven fact that can not be disputed by historians.

Armenian leaders see the Turkish proposal as a ploy to scuttle greater
international recognition of the genocide.

"We wish to establish good neighborly relations with Armenia, but
there are some political problems," Gul said, speaking to RFE/RL on
the sidelines of a meeting in Moscow of foreign ministers of Black
Sea countries. "To solve them, our parliament, our prime minister
sent a letter to [the Armenian] president. But unfortunately, we
haven’t received a positive response."

"This is a great opportunity, in fact," continued Gul. "So many
countries are supporting this initiative. I hope that your leadership
will think it over again and that we will talk and solve our problems
in good faith."

The initiative has been backed by the United States and some European
Union countries. The European Parliament also effectively endorsed
it in a September resolution that at the same time reaffirmed the EU
legislature’s earlier calls for Turkish recognition of the Armenian
genocide.

Gul made no mention of another Turkish precondition for the
establishment of diplomatic relations and reopening of the border
with Armenia: a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that
would satisfy Azerbaijan, Turkey’s closest regional ally.

The unresolved conflict seems to have been overshadowed by last
month’s approval by France’s parliament of bill making it a crime to
deny the Armenian genocide. Ankara has reacted furiously to the move
which undermines its strong denial of the genocide. In an October 17
statement, the Turkish parliament said Armenia greatly contributed
to the passage of the bill with its "hostile policies against the
rights and pride of the Turkish nation."

THE ARMENIAN SOCIETY AND RUSSIA NEED A NEW MEDIATOR
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir, Armenia
Nov 1 2006

All this fuss about the Iran-Armenia pipeline has two underlying
components, and both have a core strategic importance for Armenia.

And perhaps we can say the second remains outside the attention
focused on the first, whereas it is more important than the first.

Certainly, by entitling Russia to the gas pipeline, which is already
a fact, the Armenian government makes a major strategic mistake.

There has been a lot of consideration on this, although this
consideration cannot be too much when the security and development
of a country is concerned. However, I think, there is another thing
in all this story, which refers to and threatens the security and
development of the state but does not get sufficient attention.

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan stated during his meeting with
Putin on October 30 in Moscow that "the serious arrangements with
Gazprom are already brought into being." In fact, Armenia confesses
on a presidential level that no negotations were conducted with
Gazprom, though the prime minister and the defense minister assured
the contrary, for months on, but there were "serious arrangements".

Consequently, it is already clear that the Armenian government has
cheated its citizens for several months on. And when the government
cheats its citizens, this is a more serious and bigger threat than
giving or not giving something to another country. After all this
giving or not giving is also a consequence of the lie in the relations
of the government and the public. Consequently, the government is
first accountable for denying information to the public than for
giving the gas pipeline to the Russians.

And if the society ever makes up its mind to restore the national
property, which already belongs to another country, even though a
friendly country and a strategic partner, it first needs to solve the
problem of honesty of the government. Otherwise, we are sure to lose
whatever we get back.

It is also interesting why the government hides the truth if sooner
or later it will inevitably float, especially that the talks are
conducted with a friendly country the Armenian society definitely
sympathizes with, still even more than with France. Why does the
Armenian government hide these negotiations and the arrangements
made in these negotiations until these are brought into being? The
reason is perhaps to be sought in the same policy of lie. Official
Yerevan perhaps also cheats official Moscow. It is clear that if the
negotiations with Russians were conducted openly, they would get a
strong backlash from the society. At least, if the Armenian society
does not consist of "hopelessly grateful people" mainly, who are
ready to spend the rest of their conscious life ragging their knees
or the ground in front of one embassy or another, giving away objects,
which are connected with the national security, to even the strategic
partner should arouse dissatisfaction among this society.

And if the partner is truly strategic, and its Caucasian policy is
based on serious calculations and analyses rather than "serious
arrangements with Armenia", it is simply obliged to take into
consideration the public moods and opinion, especially regarding
the issues it is directly concerned with. After all, the meaning of
taking something should be the belief of the majority that it is the
best solution for the fate of that object. Otherwise, the obtained
object may serve as a truncheon which can demolish but never create,
perhaps only demolish creatively. And a policy, which is based on
the principle of demolition does not have a chance to succeed. Does
Russia realize this? It appears to be highly simple, and it would
be surprising if it did not. And the fact that the Kremlin regularly
tossed pieces of information on the acquisition of the gas pipeline,
whereas the Armenian government tenaciously denied, means that the
Russians, nevertheless, realized the nuances of the situation and
gave direct messages to the Armenian society.

In fact, these messages did not get a response, or it was not
sufficient. Or the government managed to shift the problem of lie
into the problem of giving or not giving, and would announce easily
that we won’t give away anything, and everything would be forgotten.

The Russians would raise the issue again, and the Armenians would
settle the problem again. The two main victims of this deal in
perspective should draw conclusions: the Armenian society, which is
losing almost the sole guarantee of its energy security, and Russia,
whose reputation is diminishing like a geometric progression in already
the third country of the Caucasus. Consequently, the "victims" should
seriously consider finding a new mediator for their relations because
it is evident that the existing mediator, the Armenian government
cheats both parties. Of course, this does not mean that Russia should
consider changing the government of Armenia.

This is the problem of the Armenian society. Russia had better not
disturb. Especially that it has a lot of other work to do in Armenia.

The Kremlin had better attend to its "emissaries" supplying information
from Armenia in order to have them be closer to the public than one
government official or another.

It is possible that Russia is not interested in all this. It is
possible that this is so, but this is politics, and if you do not
attend to this, it will attend to you. Of course, it is also possible
that the Armenian society and Russia do not need a new mediator but
a new Armenian society and a new Russia.

WHY FRANCE SHOULDN’T LEGISLATE TURKEY’S PAST.
by Philip H. Gordon & Omer Taspinar

The New Republic, DC
Oct 30 2006

Historical Crimes
Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.30.06 Discuss this article

As European nations debate the idea of accepting Turkey
into their ranks, vestiges of the country’s authoritarian
nationalism–particularly its tendency to constrain free speech in
the name of national honor and unity–have antagonized proponents
of the European Union’s accepted liberal values. For example, when
Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk was recently prosecuted for claiming that
a million Armenians were massacred by the Ottomans during World War
I–in violation of a Turkish law that prohibits "insulting Turkish
identity"–Europeans howled in protest until the charges were finally
dropped. In recognition of his politics and his writing, Pamuk was
awarded the Nobel Prize for literature.

More recently, the Turkish stance on the Armenian massacres themselves
is becoming an obstacle to its entry into the EU. On a recent visit
to Armenia, for example, French President Jacques Chirac suggested
that Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU until it recognizes
the Armenian genocide. The European Parliament has similarly requested
that Turkey "acknowledge" the genocide, although it has so far avoided
making that a formal condition for membership.

But, while liberal states that demand accountability for the past are
usually well-intentioned, they can also go too far–as new legislation
in France clearly shows. In a blatant ploy to win over France’s 500,000
residents of Armenian origin, the lower house of France’s parliament
passed a bill on October 12 that, if agreed to by the Senate, will make
it illegal to deny that the 1915 massacres of Armenians constituted
genocide. The Socialist-proposed bill, which gives sentences of up
to a year in jail or up to a ~@45,000 fine, passed by a lopsided vote
of 106-19, and it was supported by the two leading candidates in the
presidential election scheduled for next spring, Nicolas Sarkozy and
Segolène Royal. The parliament even rejected a proposed amendment to
exempt scholarly research from the reach of the bill.

Not surprisingly, the reaction in Turkey to all of this has been
furious. Well beyond the extremists demonstrating in the streets,
nearly all Turks–including the most liberal and pro-European
ones–resent seeing one of the most sensitive issues in their history
being used as a pawn in French politics. Pamuk himself, no flack for
the Turkish government, has criticized the French legislation. Turks
rightly see the legislation as a cynical ploy not only to win
Armenian votes but to put one more obstacle on the path to Turkey’s
EU membership, which France has formally, if unenthusiastically,
promised to negotiate. The backers of the new law claim that its
purpose is to facilitate Turkish-Armenian reconciliation; its effect
will likely be the opposite.

Worse, the French parliament’s vote is a dangerous step down a slippery
slope. If it is a crime to disagree that what happened to Armenians
90 years ago should be considered genocide, why stop there?

Shouldn’t it be a crime to minimize the impact of other historical
tragedies, such as colonialism or the slave trade? Should the
Turkish parliament pass a law making it a criminal offense to deny
that France practiced torture in Algeria or that a million Muslims
were killed there? Should African governments make it illegal to
deny that genocide took place in Rwanda? Once you go down that road,
it is hard to see where the line should be drawn.

Indeed, the new French legislation is just the latest illiberal
policy in Europe masquerading as liberalism. Since the end of World
War II, a number of European countries, including Germany, Austria,
and France, have passed laws against Holocaust denial. Proponents of
the laws argue that they allow these nations to atone politically for
their past sins, while working to ensure that Holocaust deniers could
not foster the same sort of anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust in
the first place. Now, however, they could also serve as inspiration to
scores of different ethnic and religious groups that wish to win legal
acknowledgement of their own past suffering and historical grievances,
as the Armenians have. But parliaments across Europe would be better
off taking the current legislation off the books than giving equal
treatment to every group’s claims. Do we really want the government to
start deciding that some historical views are acceptable but others
merit prison sentences? And would the historical narratives that won
legislative protection be those most clearly supported by "the facts"
or those which had the most powerful political support?

Moreover, though the laws against Holocaust denial were–emotionally
and politically–difficult to oppose, the consequences of compromising
free speech are becoming clear. This February, for example, several
months after European leaders defended the right of a Danish newspaper
to publish a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad that offended Muslims,
an Austrian Court sentenced historian David Irving to prison for
Holocaust denial. The trial exposed European free speech advocates to
charges of hypocrisy and undermined their efforts to convince Muslims
that their tolerance of the cartoons was based on principle–and not
a double standard.

To his credit–and despite his wish that Turkey acknowledge
the Armenian genocide–Chirac and his government opposed the new
legislation, arguing that history should be left up to historians,
not lawmakers. He took the same principled stance last year, when he
successfully opposed a law, backed by a majority in his coalition,
that praised the "positive role" of colonialism.

As Pamuk’s prosecution reminds us, Turkey’s own record on free speech
is far from pristine, and Turks would do well to be more open about
their past. Instead of prosecuting those who challenge the official
history, Ankara should support debating it openly and accepting its
scars. Already, there are signs that this is taking place. Last year,
Istanbul’s Bilgi University held a conference on Armenian history at
which a range of views were presented. Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan supported that conference, and he has also come out
in favor of a joint Turkish-American committee of historians to study
and report on the issue.

Turks should keep moving in this direction and do more to
acknowledge that atrocities–however characterized–occurred. But
these initiatives need to come from Turks themselves in a spirit of
reconciliation, instead of being imposed from the outside under threat
of prosecution. Ultimately, historians, not governments, should be the
ones to decide these sensitive issues. The response to illiberalism in
Turkey must not be illiberalism in France. What an irony if Turkey is
kept out of the EU because of its position on free speech by a country
that would put historians in jail for questioning the official line.

Philip H. Gordon is a senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the
Brookings Institution. Omer Taspinar is a professor at the National
War College and a research fellow at the Brookings Institution.

30&s=gordontaspinar103006

–Boundary_(ID_39t6 MRDa4UWN/4MPFyYFZA)–

TURKS STILL RULE EUROPE

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 30 2006

If you are reading me for the first time, please read to the end before
sending me hate mail. Yes, it is provocative to claim such a thing. You
may be asking yourself, "How come this poor nation which has no major
contribution to Europe other than Turkish coffee, doner(shwarma)
and kebap can rule Europe?" But, at the end of this article you will
probably have some sympathy for me, of which I need a lot. Love me!

We, Turks, with our tiny GDP and large population, are ruling Europe
without doing anything. Absolutely anything…We watch our Ibo Shows on
Sunday nights, we curse to referees and football players on Saturdays,
invade Cyprus and kill Armenians for the rest of the week, and that
is enough for Turks to rule Europe…

You may be thinking that I am becoming sarcastic again, and yes,
you are right!

But honestly, weren’t the Turks a determining factor in the EU
constitution referendums in Holland and France? How about the German
elections? Let’s think about the coming French elections, too.

Meanwhile, what is happening in Austria?

So, what are Turks doing to humbly enjoy this much importance?

Nothing, a million zeros without any significant digits…

Think about the referendums across Europe: What if Turkey had asserted
its position as "If there is a ‘Yes’ for this constitution, we will
not be joining Europe and we will skip out on our plans to be in
the union.". This move alone may result with 5 or 6 percent shift
between confronting opinions, which will be more than enough to get
the constitution approved.

In France, being anti-Turkish may earn you those crucial points to be
a president. Turkey saying that "We will increase our trade and aspire
to join EU if Sarkozy is elected. Oh meanwhile, Sarkozy privately
promised us to join Schengen by 2008" will probably neutralize
the Armenian game. Worse than that, it may cost Sarkozy the French
presidency… A dirty game to rule Europe!

How about Austria? The election billboards based on Turkey- EU
relations are helping the some political parties to increase their
share and hence power in the parliament. If someone can spice up
another "Armenian game" for Austria, Turkey can be one of the crucial
elements in determining the government in Austria.

But once again, what is the role of the Turks in this? Absolutely
nothing! The whole "European Turkey" discussion is going on with
little or no interference from the Turks. The European leaders promise
"carrots", show their "Armenian", "Cyprus", and "Kurdish" sticks, but
at the end of the day, they become locked inside these carrot-stick
policies…

Actually, I have a much more radical, sarcastic theory. Turks determine
the governments in major parts of Europe. They are enjoying this power,
which the Ottoman Empire could only dream of.

There is also that paradox, I suspect, which may be quite real. The
road to the power is made up of several parameters. Generally, there
are not too many differences between political parties regarding
economic, military, and social policies. But the main differences
appear as Turks enter into any one of these parameters.

So being against a "European Turkey" becomes a key determinant for
power. But after grabbing power, a new picture emerges in which
there is the necessity to integrate Turkey into Europe somehow
(full/privileged membership), as we have seen with elected leaders
changing position like Merkel and possibly, in the future, Sarkozy.

This is not an indication of the changing ideas but real politik.

Think otherwise, when Turkey rejects being part of the EU, the EU
presses Turkey more for completing reforms and being part of a larger
EU. When Turkey completes the reforms and expects end results, the EU
will start discussing whether Turkey is part of Europe or not. This
discussion will annoy Turks and Turkey will once again suspend being
part of Europe, and again Europe presses and so on….

Why is Turkey hard to reject or accept? This has many answers, which
I do not have time to discuss…

During the power play, this real politik ebbs from the popularity
of these elected leaders, because of their way of manipulating the
public opinion to grab the power. And once again, Turks cost these
leaders their thrones.

Also, in this political game, Turks owe most to the Armenian
Diasporas, Greek Cyprus, and other anti-Turkish lobby groups. It
is a pleasure to sit in our homes, watching TV, and being able to
determine the governments in Europe by just being fantastic "Conan
the Barbarian"-like characters in the poor European voters’ mind.

It is a pleasure dear guys, especially Armenians, Cypriots, and
Christian Europeanists! Work more. If you do so, and if I like it,
I will buy you candy.

A flashback to the original question… In a Europe, where the
differences between political parties and their leaders become less
and less visible, what are the main parameters to determine those
crucial 4-5 points for the power? You cannot deny that Turks or Turkey
joining Europe is among one of them.

Do you still think I am provocative? I may be…but whether Turkey
is European or not, Turks still and probably will rule Europe and
European politics. Now, you can kiss my hand!

[email protected]

WHAT HAPPENED TO ADVISERS TO PRESIDENT
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006

Robert Kocharyan has a number of advisers (in 2003 many political
parties got less than 5 percent, and besides, most people cannot
imagine themselves in the role of opposition), at least there are
a number of people who advise the president. Although in this case
we deal with the classic theory on the correlation of quality and
quantity, nevertheless, we will state without evoking this theory
that out of this quantity two advisers are distinguished for their
public statements. One is Garnik Isagulyan, the other is Vahram
Nersisyants. And by an amazing coincidence the two advisers "featured"
the TV channels on Saturday. It was also interesting that both had come
onto the stage to edit or deny their previous statements. For instance,
Garnik Isagulyan stated that he had not stated that "after quitting
office President Robert Kocharyan will influence the political thought
in Armenia with a higher status." But it is possible even to understand
Isagulyan’s behavior. He is adviser to president on national security,
and a straightforward thinking and predictable behavior may lead to
a rather vulnerable situation.

Therefore, his vocation makes Garnik Isagulyan maneuver.

Vahram Nersisyan, who is economic adviser to president, is a
different issue. He is a man, who has successful experience of work
in international financial organizations. And he should have realized
that from an economic aspect, given the importance of flexibility,
predictability and consistency is encouraged. Vahram Nersisyan was
hosted at the National Press Club, where he stated with pity and
pain in his voice that they "had thought the revaluation of the dram
would reduce the price of certain imported products, but it did not
happen, and the reason was the lack of competition." In other words,
the adviser to the president confirmed that there is monopoly or
collusion in the sphere of imports of certain goods, because otherwise
it is difficult to explain the lack of competition. It goes without
saying that in this case the government should battle monopoly and
collusion. And since Vahram Nersisyan is the economic adviser to the
head of state, this statement was a surprise, although a pleasant one
in the sense that if the existence of monopolies is admitted on a top
level, they have surely decided to wage a real anti-monopoly battle.

Meanwhile, the public expected that some time later they would see
the result of this battle and would see that the revaluation of the
dram, besides cropping their income, would cause the prices of some
products to go down. But how could Bibilical Susanna know that only
old men were waiting for her? How could the society know that instead
of waiting for the anti-monopoly battle they should have waited for
a refutal of statements about it, or excuses. And since the society
did not expect it, it was definitely a surprise when the same Vahram
Nersisyants, who had been so sincere several weeks ago, explained to
the public on the Public Television on October 28 why the price of
sugar did not go down but on the contrary, it went up. The adviser to
the president not only pointed to the curve of the growth of the price
of sugar on the international market and simultaneously pointed to the
curve of the growth of the price of the same product on our market,
using one to explain the other.

It is clear that Vahram Nersisyants explained the growth on our
market by the growth of the price on the world market. Although it is
possible that our officials will become confused in their efforts to
excuse themselves that very soon they will lose the logical tie not
only between their previous and present statements but also between
the words uttered at the moment. But for the time being let’s return
to the non-logic that Vahram Nersisyants offered to the public as
an explanation of the growth of the price of sugar. Meanwhile, it
is very easy to prove that this explanation is illogical, to put
it mildly. Even if we assume that the wholesale price of sugar has
grown, with at least 20 percent revaluation of the dram the price
of this product could at least remain the same. In other words, if
the importer could not cut the price because now he buys at a higher
price, he could keep the price low because the revaluation of the dram
enables him to do. Perhaps in this case it is unnecessary to continue
the debate over the words of the adviser to president, and perhaps it
is only worthwhile to mention that even if the price of this product
goes up on the international market, in Armenia they could cut the
price because the growth of the price on the international market
was less than the revaluation of the dram in Armenia.

But we should try to understand Vahram Nersisyan. He advises the
president because it is his job but this does not mean that the
president cannot advise him. And perhaps Robert Kocharyan used
his right and advised the adviser to give advice rather than news
conferences. If the news conference were a good thing, the president
would give news conferences.

A1+

SOMETIMES BRIBE IS NO BRIBE?
[05:26 pm] 27 October, 2006

Will the opposition have majority candidates in all the electoral
areas during the 2007 Parliamentary elections? According to deputy
Stepan Zaqaryan, this is an idea which must be discussed taking into
account the experience of the previous elections.

«We must discuss if a famous politician, for example Vazgen Manoukyan,
should be nominated in an electoral area where people have been bribed
during the last four years. Although, if they give people money for
several years in a row, maybe it is no more bribe; maybe people prefer
not an experienced politician but those candidates who solve their
everyday problems», Mr. Zaqaryan said half jokingly.

During the NA briefings the journalists tried to find out the opinion
of deputy Mekhak Mkhitaryan about the possible initiatives of the
opposition. He considered this `a truly progressive step’ saying that
putting forward candidacies by the majority system the opposition will
be able to check its reputation in the society.

HEAD OF RPA FACTION OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS AGAINST RETURN OF MUSIC OF
ARMENIAN ANTHEM OF SOVIET PERIOD

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 27, NOYAN TAPAN. Galust Sahakian, the head of the RPA
faction of the RA National Assembly estimates positive the
government’s decision concerning prolonging for one year the activity
of the "Mets Hayrenik" (Great Fatherland) state anthem. The deputy
also foresaw at the October 27 briefing that "the problem will not be
solved during the coming one year, and it must be prolonged till it
becomes a public demand or a new anthem is born."

G.Sahakian spoke against return of the music of the Armenian anthem of
the Soviet period. "I’m not against Aram Khachatrian’s music, but it
served a system which is inadmissible today."

CONFERENCE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF OPENING THE ARMENIA-TURKEY BORDER TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN

ArmRadio.am
26.10.2006 16:10

The Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) is organizing
an international conference on "The Economic and Social Consequences
of Opening the Armenia-Turkey Border". The conference is to be held
on January 13-14, 2007 in Yerevan, Armenia.

The border between Armenia and Turkey has been closed since 1993. In
recent years, there has been increased pressure both external and
internal to open the border and normalize bilateral relations.

The conference will bring together researchers, policymakers,
international organizations, and other stakeholders to examine the
potential benefits and costs of opening the border and normalizing
relations between Armenia and Turkey. The conference aims to provide
the policymakers and general public with a comprehensive analysis
about potential benefits and costs of border opening.

There will be a specific focus on the following areas: static
implications of opening the border, dynamic implications of opening
the border, distributional consequences of opening the border,
trade creation versus trade diversion, relative competitiveness and
infant-industry protection, regional labor markets, migration, and
remittances, the role of the public sector, implications for other
nations in the region, lessons from other border opening/political
normalization experiences. There will be several high-profile
participants from Armenia and the rest of the world including the two
keynote Speakers, Yegor Gaydar, Russia’s First Prime Minister and the
Director of the Transformation Economy Institute; and Gary Hufbauer,
Senior Economist at the Institute of International Economics and
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for State of International Trade
and Investment Policy, USA Treasury.

The conference is co-sponsored by USAID, Eurasia Foundation and the
UK Embassy in Armenia.

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

October 25, 2006
___________________

SPORTS WEEKEND STRENGTHENS CHURCH CONNECTIONS TO YOUTH

Start with some basketball and sports, mix thoroughly with friends and fun,
before adding a dash of Christian fellowship. That’s the winning recipe for
the ACYOA Jrs. Sports weekend.

Over Columbus Day weekend, October 6 to 8, 2006, 176 young participants from
18 parishes participated in the weekend, which was hosted this year by the
Holy Trinity Church of Cambridge, MA.

While the weekend was centered on sports, it also included ample Christian
ministry opportunities. The weekend began with an evening prayer service
before participants headed home to their host families.

Early Saturday morning the fun and games started with team sports and
individual games, followed by a dance in the evening. On Sunday morning,
the participants came together during Divine Liturgy and then headed
straight to the gym for the finals.

Trophies were awarded in red carpet style at the Sunday night "Hollywood
HYElights" banquet. The girls’ basketball trophy went to the 16-member team
from the St. James Church of Watertown, MA. The trophy for boys’ basketball
was earned by a team comprised of members from several parishes. The co-ed
volleyball trophy went to the St. Mary Church of Washington, D.C.

The ACYOA Jrs. from Washington, D.C., also took home the honor of earning
the most overall points from team and individual games. While the
participants from the Church of the Holy Translators in Framingham, MA, were
honored with the "Best Team Sportsmanship Award."

BUILDING CONNECTIONS

This was the first time in more than two decades that Holy Trinity hosted
the annual event. Yn. Arpi Kouzouian, the youth director of the Cambridge
ACYOA Jrs., attributes much of the weekend’s success to the enthusiasm
demonstrated by the entire parish.

Pastor of Holy Trinity, Fr. Vasken Kouzouian, agreed that the opportunity
not only brought together young people from throughout the Diocese, but
bonded the parishioners in Cambridge.

"From our parish perspective, hosting the Sports Weekend was a wonderful
opportunity to bring together the many skills and talents of our
parishioners," he said. "Our hope is that every teen who participated in
this Sports Weekend will leave Cambridge with stronger connections to their
own parish, with an appreciation for being together as young Armenians, and
with the realization that they are loved by God and His church. Our church
is blessed to have such young people."

For more information about upcoming events for ACYOA Juniors please contact
the Diocesan coordinator of youth outreach, Jennifer Morris, at
[email protected].

— 10/25/06

E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News and
Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,

PHOTO CAPTION (1): Zachary Haydanek from the host parish, Holy Trinity
Church OF Cambridge, MA, reads the lections for the day during Divine
Liturgy as part of the ACYOA Jrs. Sports Weekend.

PHOTO CAPTION (2): ACYOA Jrs. members from the St. James Church of
Watertown, MA, hang out at the gym before their next big game during the
ACYOA Jrs. Sports Weekend October 6 to 8, 2006.

PHOTO CAPTION (3): ACYOA Jrs. from the Church of the Holy Translators in
Framingham, MA, pose with their chaperones after receiving the honor for
best sportsmanship at Sunday night’s dinner dance capping off the AYOCA Jrs.
Sports Weekend, October 6 to 8, 2006.