Author: Karagyozian Lena

Armenia under diplomatic siege

Mirror Spectator Editorial
1/02/2005

Critical or desperate situations are not new for Armenia, and today we are in
one of those situations. To sound more patriotic we may claim that against
all odds Armenia will survive and Armenians are destined to live to the end of
history and contribute to the world civilizations. But history has prevalence
over patriotic rhetoric; the historic truth is that after the fall of the
Cilician Kingdom in 1375 AD, Armenia was not able to survive as a sovereign
nation
and fell under Seljuk and Ottoman rules for six centuries.

Also, the first Republic in early 20th Century did not survive for more than
two years, and it was soon absorbed into the Soviet Empire until its second
independence in 1991. In both instances the genesis of an Armenian Republic was
more of a geo-strategic fallout from the regional new political formations,
rather than any specific design by any Armenian entity. Of course in both cases
Armenians hung on the opportunity and they revived their sovereignty, albeit
in a decimated portion of their historic territory.

Today, the world is being reshaped, especially in the Caucasus region, and
the fallout may spell danger to the very existence of the fledgling Armenian
Republic.

Any prudent policy may not save the country from extinction, if the
powers-to-be so decide, but an imprudent act may exacerbate the situation and
contribute to the demise of a sovereign state.

Armenia’s foreign policy is not defined by anyone’s whims; it is derived from
its urgent needs. In order survive: Armenia needs Iran as its trading
partner, and Russia, both for trade and for defense against real Turkish danger.
Unfortunately, those ties are at best tenuous for strategic reasons, over which
Armenia has no control.

Armenia has been vying for the lifting of the Turkish blockade and resumption
of diplomatic relations with that country, which has become an international
player with Armenia on the bottom of its priority list. Georgia’s “friendship”
is at best treacherous, given the actual facts on the ground. On top of all
these complexities the U.S. has grand designs over the region, strengthening
Armenia’s enemies, not necessarily out of any specific animosity against
Armenia. The U.S. Ambassador to Baku is vocally advocating the lifting of
Section 907
of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which will further embolden bellicose
parties in Baku.

The diplomatic world is crumbling over Armenia, and yet some armchair
politicians â~@~S in Armenia and the Diaspora â~@~S are engaged in their petty
game,
oblivious of the rising tide. No one can say that Armenia is curbing the freedom
of
the press after reading the nihilistic and insane statements in that press.
Unfortunately, that irresponsible diatribe is making its way into the Diaspora
press as well.

The diplomatic salvo began with the Azeri initiative to place the Karabagh
issue on the UN General Assembly agenda as a case of ethnic cleansing. Armenian
diplomacy, aided by OSCE group, was successful in deflecting the assault, only
temporarily. Then came the statement by retiring U.S. Assistant Secretary
Elizabeth Jones, accusing the Karabagh leaders as “criminal elements”; along
with
all the secessionist movements in the former Soviet territory. That was
certainly not a slip of the tongue, as Ms. Jones clarified to Foreign Minister
Oskanian, in view of overall U.S. policy in the region.

Then came the next tide of the diplomatic pressure, when Parliamentary
Assembly of the European Council (PACE), headed by David Atkinson (UK) and Mats
Einarsson (Sweden) formulated and passed a very unfavorable resolution, which
states that “considerable parts of territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by
Armenian forces” and that “separatist forces are still in control of
Nagorno-Karabagh”. The only saving grace in the resolution is that it recommends
that
the Baku government negotiate directly with the Nagorno-Karabagh leadership.

There were also references to so-called “ethnic cleansing” by Armenians
against Azeris, just reversing the roles.

Deputy Speaker of Armenia’s Parliament, Vahan Hovanissian, deplored the
Atkinson resolution characterizing that “it smells petroleum”, while Armenia’s
representative at PACE, Tigran Torossian, lamented Russian inaction in view of
this dangerous turn of events, saying that Russia is Armenia’s ally, but also
has
interests in Azerbaijan. That was a most revealing position on Moscow’s part,
and it raises a very serious question: whether Russia will be willing to
defend Armenia militarily if a conflict arises, when it is reluctant to defend
diplomatically.

Some setbacks have also been recorded on the European front when the EU
decided to place the Armenian Genocide issue on the back burner. An earlier
resolution adopted in 1987 no longer is in force, and European leaders are not
embarrassed to state that genocide recognition is no longer a pre-condition for
Turkey’s admission into the EU. That shift of position has helped transfer the
diplomatic initiative to Ankara, whose unrepentant leaders have been pressuring
Yerevan to declare its position on 1921 Kars Agreement, which had sealed
Armenia’s border with Turkey. Aggressive Turkish policy is being pushed one step
further by asking Armenia to drop all claims on its historic territories and to
table the genocide issue from its foreign policy agenda.

To aggravate the situation further the U.S. has turned the heat up on Iran.
Condoleezza Rice, the face of U.S. war machine, declared during her
confirmation hearing, that Washington couldn’t allow an Iranian regime that
threatens
Israel to survive. Of course no one dared to ask if Iran threatened the U.S. in
any way.

It seems that Iran’s conciliatory gestures in supporting the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq has not been sufficient to assuage or convince any
leader in Washington. Any overt or covert attack in Iran will only strengthen
Azerbaijan, which has become a staging base for such an attack. Iran’s
dismemberment or containment will embolden the ruthless rulers in Baku and
seriously
damage Armenia’s economic sustenance.

Armenia’s leadership may not be the best, and many groups have grievances,
especially since the last elections. But thus far it has been able to navigate
safely through perilous waters. Besides, none of the critics have demonstrated
the proven ability to conduct a better diplomacy, nor have they come up with
an alternative. Should a calamity take place and the present administration is
toppled or replaced, it is doubtful that the new leaders will be less corrupt
and smarter statesmen.

Einstein’s theory of relativity not only applies to science, but also to
diplomacy. Armenia has inherited and has been experiencing all the problems of
the
fallen Soviet Empire, and yet it is faring much better economically and
diplomatically than most of the other republics. One has to keep in mind the
perspective relativity in assessing the situation in Armenia. Nothing happens in
a
political vacuum. Everything is relative and calls for the overthrow of the
current regime must be accompanied with far better recommendations and
demonstrable viability.

As Armenia is under intense diplomatic siege, even from the viewpoint of the
fierce critics, the current administration seems to be the “necessary evil”. A
stable Armenia can fare much safer under current conditions than one going
through political experiments.

–Boundary_(ID_mmPGqnbaWii8DcaMt/fEeA)–

ANSA Notiziario Generale in Italiano
February 6, 2005

GENOCIDIO ARMENI: FRANCIA, MINISTRO INDUSTRIA CONTRO ERDOGAN

PARIGI

(ANSA) – PARIGI, 6 FEB – Gli interlocutori turchi della
missione parlamentare francese guidata dal presidente
dell’assemblea nazionale Jean-Louis Debre che si e’ recata ad
Ankara ed Istanbul si sono mostrati delusi o meravigliati dalla
resistenza al progetto di adesione turca all’Unione europea,
soprattutto a causa del mancato riconoscimento da parte della
Turchia del genocidio degli armeni del 1915.

Ma il ministro dell’industria francese Patrick Devedjian si
e detto a sua volta scioccato dal fatto che il primo ministro
turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan non sapesse che in Francia “400 mila
armeni potevano far saltare il referendum” sull’adesione della
Turchia all’Unione europea. “Sono rimasto molto sorpreso – ha
detto il ministro – della brutalita’ della risposta del primo
ministro turco. Sono shockato perche in un certo modo sembrava
esprimere il rammarico che ci fossero ancora 400 mila armeni
sopravissuti in Francia”.

Devedjian ritiene che Erdogan non sembra “aver capito che,
ad esempio, l’Olocausto non indigna solo gli ebrei ma tutti i
democratici” mentre “dovrebbe capire che l’Europa si e
ricostruita sulla base della riconciliazione dei popoli”. Da
questo punto di vista “Erdogan ha ancora delle cose da
imparare”. Il parlamento francese ha riconosciuto nel 2001 che
quella contro gli armeni e’ stata una forma di genocidio.
(ANSA).

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Feb 2 2005

AZERBAIJANI DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: TERRITORIAL COMPROMISE IS
UNACCEPTABLE
[February 02, 2005, 21:08:18]

On February 2, at the `Europe’ hotel was commenced a two-days
workshop under the aegis of NATO ` Economics, security and defence:
the security aspects of the macroeconomic stabilization and
structural reforms including a management of the defence resources’.

The workshop have been attended by representatives NATO members
countries, partners of the organization and diplomatic corps in
Azerbaijan.

NATO secretary general’s deputy on the regional, economics and
security issues Patric Hardown said that it is a second workshop in
the region. As he noted Azerbaijan and Georgia are two most
developing countries in the South Caucasus region, as well as in the
world. According to reports of the EBRD the given countries have
expanding the economy and cooperation with both countries is very
important for NATO.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov has noted that
organizing of the workshop in Azerbaijan showen a great interest of
NATO to our country. As he said, the economic development is
necessary for providing of security and these issues is interrelated.
Mr. Azimov also has speaking of the integration of Azerbaijan into
Euroatlantic structures, taking by government measures for membership
in WTO, for reduction of poverty and regional development.

As regards the Armenian-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Mr.
Azimov has remind of inadmissibility of the compromise on territorial
issues. He said that PA of COE has adopted in January a document
which once again confirmed the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

Then representatives of the several countries has gave a reports.

The workshop is continues.

ARMENIAN LAWYER TO FLY TO BUDAPEST FEBRUARY 2 TO DEFEND GURGEN
MARGARIAN FAMILY’S INTERESTS

YEREVAN, JANUARY 31, ARMENPRESS: An Armenia lawyer will travel
February 2 to Budapest to defend the interests of the family of Gurgen
Margarian, an Armenian officer who was hacked to death by his Azeri
colleague, Ramil Safarov last February.

The officers were attending an English-language course within the
framework of the Partnership for Peace program, which is aimed at
increasing co-operation between neutral and former Soviet bloc nations
and NATO in peacekeeping and other areas.

The trial was started last year but was adjourned until February
8. The court will hear an Azerbaijani and also a Lithuanian officers
who were also attending the courses, apart from psychologist and
criminal experts. If found guilty Safarov may face up to 15 year
prison sentence.

Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:43 Tbilisi

EU-Caucasus, interview with Damien Helly [4/4] [PERCEPTION – EUROPEAN
IDENTITY]
By François GREMY in Paris
On 14/11/2004

Perception of EU in Caucasus : Interview with Damien Helly, independent
researcher in Brusells and former director of the « Caucasus » project of
the International Crisis Group –

May EU exist and be perceived as a unique entity, whereas European States
invest quite considerably and visibly in the three South-Caucasus countries
( France in Armenia, Germany in Georgia and Great-Britain in Azerbaijan ) ?

Untill recently, the European Union had a problem of visibility. Its major
member States were the Ses grands Etats membres en étaient la vitrine. The
efforts that EU undertook by EU by way of the humanitarian and Tacis
programs have slightly changed the situation. The nomination of its special
representative, Heikki Talvitie, also changed it. This visibility is getting
better, but from the point of view of the Caucasian citizen who does not
know those issues in detail, EU is still assimilated to the Council of
Europe, or even to the United States sometimes. The confusion between the
European Institutions has been noticed in other places, is it not the case
even among EU ?

Do the Caucasian leaders have the same expectations of EU than EU has of
Caucasus ?

There have always been comprehension issues and a mismatch between
perceptions. Mainly, the Caucasian political leaders have a short-term
approach : they would want to take benefit of the relations with EU on the
practical and financial level, or also for the political prestige. When
Europeans are still on a long-term prospect as for creating a real political
and economic change.
This mismatch is decreasing, but the issue is still the same : to take the
common decision to move forward in the same direction. We do not know wether
the three countries of South-Caucasus really have the choice to move on
toward Europe, or if all this is only rhetoric.

EU tries to promote the developments of democracy and the civil society.
Does not it seem too early or to not be among the priorities of the
Caucasian countries which still depend on latent conflicts?

It is not because the democratisation of Caucasus is taking time that we
have to push it back. It is preferable to initiate this process upstream in
order to quickly get the relative effects. Moreover, the conflicts-solving
depends very strongly on the societies’ democratisation. Indeed the
authoritarian systems, by way of propaganda and a national rhetoric, do not
favour the free expression of the public opinion about the conflicts issue.
On the other hand, within a politicaly open society there could be a debate
about the conflicts and intercommunities relations. In this case, to
democratise the conflicts issue makes it consequently less dramatic. Thus
those two process are absolutly linked.

Translated by Marie Anderson

Saturday, January 29, 2005
Las Vegas Review-Journal
FREED FROM IMMIGRATION CUSTODY: `I’m still in shock’
Federal agents quietly bring home two Henderson teens who faced deportation
By LISA KIM BACH
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Emma Sarkisian cries as she talks on the phone Friday while sisters Mariam
and Patricia hug at the family’s Tropicana Pizza parlor in Henderson. U.S.
immigration officials returned Emma and Mariam to Southern Nevada from a Los
Angeles detention facility.
Photo by Jeff Scheid.

Goar Sarkisian kisses her niece Emma as family members celebrate the return
of Emma and sister Mariam on Friday in Henderson.
Photo by Jeff Scheid.

Immigration officials handled the Friday release of two Las Vegas teenagers
reprieved from deportation to the Republic of Armenia as a stealth
operation.
While attorneys for Emma Sarkisian, 18, and Mariam Sarkisian, 17, waited for
the girls at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services building at noon,
detention officers secretly dropped them off behind the family’s Tropicana
Pizza parlor in Henderson, where they were left alone.
Attorney Troy Baker said it was an attempt to avoid more publicity on a case
that’s garnered broad-based community and media attention.
The manner of their release didn’t trouble the girls, who said they’ve been
desperate to come home ever since they were taken into federal custody two
weeks ago and sent to a Los Angeles detention center to wait out the
deportation process.
“You have no idea what it was like,” said Emma, who was surrounded by a
welcoming family soon after she called to tell them where she was. “Every
day, it just got harder. If I hadn’t gotten out, I would have had a nervous
breakdown.”
The two girls, born in Armenia when it was part of the former Soviet Union
and raised in the United States, discovered in July that they were illegal
after trying to obtain documentation for their licenses to drive.
Until then, they were under the mistaken belief that they, like their
father, had successfully obtained legal residency status. The girls’
residency applications had been received and accepted by the U.S. Department
of Justice in 1997, but were voided when Rouben Sarkisian divorced his
American wife. The three emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Sarkisian, who is legal and is pursuing U.S. citizenship, said immigration
officials did not inform him of his daughters’ change in status. When the
error was discovered, the girls were placed on a fast track to deportation,
headed for a country where they don’t speak the language and have no
resources for support. They would have left behind their father and three
U.S.-born younger sisters.
That process came to an abrupt halt Thursday night, after Secretary of
Homeland Security Tom Ridge intervened at the request of U.S. Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., and deferred action on the case against the girls.
“Senator Reid is thrilled that the girls got to go home,” said Reid’s
spokeswoman Tessa Hafen. “We hope this works out for the best for them.”
Rouben Sarkisian opened the pizza parlor early Friday and staged a
homecoming party for his girls, complete with singing, balloons, flowers and
their favorite kinds of pizza. Emma, the younger sisters said, favors
pineapple and ham. Mariam, they laughed, eats everything. Sarkisian bustled
proudly among his children, repeatedly laying a hand on Emma’s arm or
touching Mariam’s hair as he passed by them, partly to reassure himself that
they were really home.
“It’s wonderful,” Sarkisian said, laying his hand on his heart. “I am so
happy.”
Mariam Sarkisian, a senior at Palo Verde High School, joyfully hugged her
sisters and clowned around with them, doing her best imitation of “American
Idol” stars, a routine that won her an audience among the Los Angeles
detention officers. Emma, who was overtaken with bouts of tears as she
watched, said her sister’s zany performances helped break the ice while they
were among strangers in Los Angeles.
“We went from being detainees to being Emma and Mariam,” Emma said. “One
officer, who was Armenian, asked me if she was like this all the time. I had
to tell him yes.”
Both girls said they believe they were treated fairly while imprisoned, but
painted a dismal picture of life in a detention center. Guards woke them at
6:30 a.m., when they were taken out of lockdown in a hotel room to the
detention center cells. They spent 11 to 13 hours a day sitting on metal
benches or standing around with other women and children detainees.
“I’m still in shock,” Mariam said. “It’s like it was all a nightmare, and I
just woke up.”
The worst part, Emma said, was the lack of access to any kind of
information. They woke up each day not knowing if they would be deported.
Often, guards would tell them they were being deported that day. Twice,
authorities tried to place them on a plane, only to be stopped by the
intervention of defense lawyers.
“Nobody will tell you anything,” Emma said. “We couldn’t find out anything.
You just had to try not to think about it.”
The sisters said they clung to each other, becoming so dependent that when
Emma was taken briefly to see a doctor, Mariam nearly lost it.
“When I came back, she was talking on the phone to nobody,” Emma said.
The comfort they derived from each other was something U.S. Magistrate Judge
Robert Johnston sought to preserve on Thursday, when he had to rule against
an order of release that would have freed the girls until their status is
resolved.
Johnston directed immigration attorneys to make sure the girls were kept
together as much as possible and directed them to ensure the family had
access to the girls. Rouben Sarkisian was not told for more than week where
his daughters were detained.
Johnston’s ruling was a mental blow to both girls, and they realize that
they would still be in detention if some of the nation’s most highly placed
government officials hadn’t come to their aid.
Both Mariam and Emma said they will express their thanks to Reid as soon as
they’re eligible to vote. And they said they were surprised and grateful to
all the people who championed their cause.
“I was shocked that people would come together to help me, someone they
don’t even know,” Mariam said. “It’s amazing.”
The girls are still technically illegal, and will have to regularly check in
with immigration officials. But the deferment means that the father will be
given time to obtain citizenship. Once he has that, he can sponsor both his
daughters for legal residency.
“I’m going to help him study,” Emma said. “I don’t want to ever go through
this again.”

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
January 27, 2005, Thursday
19:59:04 Central European Time

Lebanese cabinet approves draft election law

Beirut

The Lebanese cabinet voted Thursday in favour of a new election law
drafted by pro-Syrian Interior Minister Suleiman Franjieh which has
ignited wide criticism by opposition figures. Twenty-four ministers
voted in favour of the law, while six abstained – four of these loyal
to Shiite house speaker Nabih Berri, Information Minister Elie ferzli
said. The draft was referred to parliament for making it a law that
would regulate general elections slated for spring. The new bill is
based on the 1960 election law, with some modifications. These
include a proposal reducing the voting age level to 18 years, a
control on campaign spending and provisions for solitary ballots
guaranteeing voting privacy. The draft comprises 75 articles, key
among which are articles 2 and 3 specifying the number of
constituencies and the sectarian deputies in each. Beirut would have
three constituencies, the first with six deputies (four Moslem
Sunnis, one Christian Orthodox and one Druze), the second with nine
deputies (two Moslem Sunnis, two Moslem Shiites, three Orthodox
Armenians, one Evengelical and Catholic Armenian) and the third with
four (one Catholic, one Orthodox, one Maronite and one for
minorities). All in all, Lebanon will have a total of 26
constituencies. In initial reaction, former prime minister Rafik
Hariri threatened to resign from parliament along with his bloc if
the legislative body passed the draft into law, sources close to the
premier said. Hariri rejected especially vehemently the way the
Beirut cosntituencies were drawn up by Franjieh, a Christian
Maronite, one of Syria’s staunchest allies and a supporter of
Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud. Hariri charged the
constituencies have been tailored for political goals and could spark
sectarian sedition. Hariri’s parliamentary bloc, Beirut’s Choice,
includes 18 MPs. Hariri said earlier he would run for election in the
third constituency instead of the first if the draft remained as it
is. His aim would be to ensure balance between the constituencies.
Hariri’s ally Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said the upcoming
parliamentary elections were very important for the country’s future,
adding: “Our aim is to end the Syrian tutorship via democratic means
and turn the page of the war to no return.” Jumblatt, once a Syrian
ally, fell out with Damascus after it influenced the Lebanese
parliament to extend the term for Lahoud for another three years.
Since then, Jumblat has been leading a campaign calling for
implementing the Saudi-sponsored Taif accord, on the basis of calling
for the withdrawal of some 14,000 Syrian troops in the eastern Beka’a
region and ending the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence agencies’
meddling in Lebanese domestic affairs. Maronite cardinal Christian
Mar Nasrallah Butros Sfeir also criticized the draft, saying: “The
law should be fair to ensure an honest and fair elections and keep
away from any outside influence.” dpa wh sc

PanArmenian News
Jan 27 2005

ATKINSON’S REPORT WILL NOT SAVE AZERBAIJANIANS

PACE resolution on Karabakh cannot be considered an achievement of
Azerbaijan dimplomacy.

Hearing the report on Karabakh, prepared by the British deputy David
Atkinson, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly passed a
resolution. The Assembly accepted only one of the three amendments
proposed by Armenian delegation. Nevertheless, the final edition of
the text does not pose any threat to Armenia and cannot become a
ground for undesirable processes.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Baku leaders assert that they are satisfied with
the passed resolution and find the resolution quite acceptable for
Azerbaijan. However, Baku oppositionists and independent political
scientists do not hold the same opinion. They have detected a number
of points that are dangerous for Azerbaijan. In-depth study of the
resolution text allows to note that the Azerbaijani should have no
less pretensions to Atkinson than Armenians. To make sure, let us try
to go through some of the points of the passed resolution.

In the first point there is something not accepted for Yerevan, since
in this part of the document it is mentioned about the `occupation of
considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan’ and the `control
of separatist forces over Nagorno-Karabakh region’. But the
Azerbaijani didn’t manage to achieve mentioning of Armenia in that
point. Here the matter concerns `occupation’ by `Armenian forces’,
that is to say Karabakh with whom official Baku refuses to contact.

The second point is most problematic for Azerbaijan. In this part
PACE actually confirms that the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh will
be fully allowable if it is achieved through a lawful process. In the
resolution it is mentioned: `…independence and secession of a
regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful
and peaceful process based on democratic support by the inhabitants
of such territory’. This formulation which is completely undesirable
for Azerbaijan was kept in the final version of the document.

The third point is about the necesseity of fulfilling the four
resolutions of the United Nations. It should be mentioned that all
the resolutions passed yet in the war did not only call Armenians to
quit the territories under control, but also demanded from Azerbaijan
to agree on armistice immediately. It was Baku that broke the
resolution first. This was admited also by the former co-chairmen of
OSCE Minsk group, for instance Nikolay Gribkov.

The fourth point of the resolution touches upon the inadmissibility
of the use of force and condemns aggressive appeals and `military
propaganda’. This cannot refer to Armenia since aggressive appeals
are made from Baku only. Thus, this point is also a stone thrown in
the garden of Azerbaijan.

In the fifth point it is mentioned about the necessity to create an
`ad hoc Committee’ within the frames of PACE for dealing with the
Karabakh conflict. Regardless of the wish of Azerbaijan to involve
European Union in the process of conflict resolution, the `ad hoc
Committee’ will not dublicate the mission of the Minsk group but will
become a bridge between the two mediators and the Assembly. The
Committee will be formed of the deputies representing the member
countries of the Minsk group and will `report annually to the
Assembly on the action of their governments in this respect’.

The sixth point of the resolution is about the inadmissibility of
armed conflict. It is common knowledge that Armenia is not interested
in recommencing military actions. Meanwhile on Monday president Ilham
Aliev again mentioned about the determination of Azeri authorities to
regain controll over Karabakh by means of military actions.

The eighth point mentions the importance of regional cooperation.
This doesn’t refer to Armenia since official Yerevan has always been
ready for any contacts with neighbouring countries including
Azerbaijan. It is Baku that rejects any cooperation with Armenia
within the frames of regional programmes.

The ninth point is not favorable for Armenia since it talks about the
existence of two communities in Karabakh. It means that the legally
elected president of NKR Arkadi Ghukasyan stands on the same level
with some Nizami Bakhmanov who introduces himself as the `leader of
Azerbaijan community of Nagorno Karabakh’. Nevertheless, in Baku they
are also not very happy with the formulation of this point since
according to the stated appeal, Ilham Aliev will have to enter into
negotiations with Arkadi Ghukasyan. In this case he may not be called
the president of NKR but the `political representative’ of Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh.

Quite important is the accent of the tenth point where it is talked
about the ethnic expulsions. Azerbaijan delegation didn’t manage to
achieve the mentioning of territories contolled by Karabakh forces.
It means that PACE condemns both the creation of conditions for
Azerbaijani to quit the security zones around NKR and the ethnic
expulsions carried out by Azerbaijan authorities in Shahumyan and
Getashen.

The eleventh point of the reolution condemns the propaganda of
hatred. PACE calls on Armenia and Azerbaijan to `foster
reconciliation, confidence-building and mutual understanding among
their peoples through schools, universities and the media’.
Meanwhile, it is widely known that it is Azerbaijan that hampers the
contacts between social and professional structures of the two
countries, their youth and journalists. Armenia anyway encourages any
attempts to establish dialogue on a non-governmental level.

Thus, it is absolutely obvious that together with all its
shortcomings, the resolution cannot be considered an achievement of
Azerbaijan diplomacy. The attempts of Baku parliamentarians to
convince their compatriots that they have won a serious victory over
Armenians is just a propaganda.

Artem Yerkanyan

The Guardian (London) – Final Edition
January 25, 2005

G2: Shortcuts: The meaning of holocaust: Mind your language

by John Mullan

In the week that sees the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz, an argument about some of the most terrible events in
human history turns on a preference for the definite or indefinite
article. The Muslim Council of Britain is to boycott this week’s
public commemoration of the Holocaust because, in effect, our usual
word for the Nazi’s mass extermination of Europe’s Jews implies its
singularity. Iqbal Sacranie, the council’s secretary general, says it
will not attend because the event does not acknowledge “genocide” in
the occupied territories of Palestine.

In effect, he is proposing that we return Holocaust to the range of
meaning that it had up until the 1940s. Contrary to what is often
supposed, the word had long referred to what the OED calls drily “the
complete destruction of a large number of persons”. In the 19th
century it was readily used for mass slaughter, especially of
innocent or unarmed victims. Churchill, like others, used it just
after the first world war to refer to the killing of Armenians by
Turks. He called this “a holocaust”: appalling, but not
unprecedented.

The horrors of mass murder during the second world war pressured the
English language into a new, now sickeningly familiar word: genocide.
It was only retrospectively, during the 1950s, that “the Holocaust”
came to acquire its definite article and capital letter. This was
much influenced by historians, trying to account for what was now
seen as a singular chapter of human history. It was to be the
equivalent for non-Jews of “the Shoah”. By the 1960s, the usage was
generally accepted in Britain, in particular by broadcasters and
journalists. Now there was something called “Holocaust studies”: the
examination not of mass murder in general, but of one particular
project for exterminating a race.

We have other words, notably the Nazi’s own impeccably bland
euphemism, Endlosung (“the final solution”). Their term certainly
presumes the appalling uniqueness of what they were doing. Holocaust,
however, has a power that comes from its older roots. From the 13th
century it was used to mean a sacrifice that was wholly consumed by
fire (from the Greek words for whole and burned). It awakens
recollections of the burnt offerings of the Old Testament (holocaust
was used in some of the earliest English translations) and then of
another burning: the industrialised cremations organised by the
Nazis. No contestation is likely to unroot these associations, or the
word’s terrible singleness of meaning.

Sunday Times (London)
January 23, 2005, Sunday

Felix Aphrahamian (1914-2005)

by David Cairns

I got to know Felix Aprahamian, who died last week, when I began
writing for The Sunday Times in the 1970s. As number-two music
critic, 1948-89, Felix had the job of rounding up, in a few hundred
deftly turned words, the events of the week not covered by the main
review. Felix was the ideal person to do it: he knew everyone and
everything. Not that he was ever a familiar public figure. One of
that remarkable band of musical Armenians, he operated, very
effectively, behind the scenes. The average music-lover would have
had no idea how important he was as middleman. As teenage secretary
of the Organ Society, Felix arranged for Messiaen and Durufle to come
here, and thereafter energetically promoted them. French music and
the organ were his great loves.

The blind organist Andre Marchal left him his chamber organ in his
will; it was installed in the family house in Muswell Hill where
Felix spent most of his 90 years. There -or in his fabulous
Japanese-style garden with its famous tree, against which Poulenc
once relieved himself -Felix would preside over a company of friends
and acquaintances, delighting in showing them his vast collection of
scores, many autographed by their composers. But though he loved
telling you what he had done and was a wonderful gossip, he was not
bigheaded. He once told me Beecham had him to dinner only because Sir
Thomas’s friends had been driven away by the interminable monologues
of his wife. I don’t doubt Beecham appreciated Felix as the original
he was. He was the most kind and considerate of colleagues and
critics, but he had a mischievous side. His profile of Sir Malcolm
Sargent -“Flash Harry” to the musical profession -caused more than
one rehearsal to break up in laughter, as a member of the orchestra
insisted on reading out: “… quick as a flash. Harry him though we
may …”