BAKU: Russia’s Putin reaffirms ties with Armenia

Pravda, Russia
March 25 2005

Russia’s Putin reaffirms ties with Armenia, reportedly seeking to
open new military bases in ally nation

14:37 2005-03-25
Visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed Moscow’s close
ties with key regional ally Armenia in talks Friday with his Armenian
counterpart, Robert Kocharian.

Putin said he hoped his two-day visit to Yerevan would lay the
groundwork for further strengthening the two nations’ relations.

“We have a good basis for economic cooperation and the development of
relations in the political sphere,” the Russian leader said in
televised remarks.

“The ties between our two countries and peoples have long been very
stable,” Putin said.

Armenia, an impoverished, landlocked Caucasus state, is one of
Moscow’s closest allies on its southern flank, and Russian maintains
a military base there.

The alliance with Armenia _ one of the six countries in an ex-Soviet
military pact led by Moscow _ has taken on added importance since
neighboring Georgia began leaning toward the West after the 2003
“Rose Revolution” brought liberal reformers to power.

In an article headlined “Putin tries to hang onto last ally,” the
Russian daily Kommersant reported that the Russian leader was seeking
agreement to open new military bases in Armenia because of the forced
withdrawal of Russian bases in Georgia.

Putin’s visit came a day after massive opposition protests in the
Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan, where protesters ousted
long-serving ruler Askar Akayev in the third popular revolution in an
ex-Soviet republic within the last year and a half.

Russian Foreign Ministry on Russia’s relations with Armenia

Russian Foreign Ministry on Russia’s relations with Armenia
By Vassily Deyev

ITAR-TASS News Agency
March 24, 2005 Thursday

MOSCOW, March 24 — Relations between Russia and Armenia have taken
on the character of strategic partnership in recent years and their
dynamics is encouraging, Alexander Yakovenko, the ministry’s official
spokesman said on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit
to Armenia.

“We have developed a practice of holding regular meetings between
the two countries’ officials, and bilateral contacts are marked by
the spirit of trustworthiness,” Yakovenko said.

“Fruitful cooperation between Russia and Armenia has a solid
legislative foundation – the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and
Mutual Assistance and almost 160 inter-state and inter-governmental
agreements and declarations,” he said.

The two countries have named 2005 the Year of Russia and Armenia,
and in 2006 Russia will host the Year of Armenia.

“Exchange of reciprocal programs like the year of one country in
another country always envisions many large-scale events,” said
Yakovenko.

“Our nations are bonded by friendship that has lasted centuries
and hase stood the test of time and historic battles [with common
enemies],” he said.

“It’s quite symbolic that the Year of Russia in Armenia has begun
on the eve of the 60th anniversary of victory in World War II,”
Yakovenko indicated.

Spartacus

South China Morning Post
March 24, 2005

Spartacus

Kevin Kwong

Auditorium, Sha Tin Town Hall Tomorrow-Sat, 8pm, Sat-Sun, 3pm

In 1981, at the age of 21, Irek Mukhamedov became the youngest man
to dance the leading role in Spartacus with the Bolshoi Ballet. He’s
now in town to perform this piece that earned him a place in Russian
ballet history – giving it a 21st-century twist with help from the
Hong Kong Ballet.

The name Spartacus is, in the ballet world, forever associated with
the great Russian choreographer Yuri Grigorovich. But the work is
more than three decades old and it’s time for an update.

Mukhamedov, who is now London-based, has returned to the original book
by Raffaello Giovagnoli and devised a new scenario that’s free from
the “political considerations” of the Soviet Union that had dictated
the work in the past.

According to the Hong Kong Ballet, the production will depend more
on lighting than physical scenery, to allow maximum use of space
for dancing.

So it’s only appropriate to put John A. Williams in the lighting
design hot seat. Having trained with one of England’s oldest theatre
companies, the Bristol Old Vic, Williams became its head of lighting
and went on to light more than 250 local and international productions,
including West End and Broadway shows.

Williams is no stranger to the Hong Kong Ballet, having lit numerous
shows for the company, including Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty.
Spartacus will feature top dancers, including principals Nobuo Fujino
and Faye Leung. Both have performed overseas, with Fujino recently
picking up the Hong Kong Dance Awards best performance prize presented
by the Hong Kong Dance Alliance.

Set to a score by Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian, Spartacus
features a demanding choreography for male dancers, including epic
battle scenes, gladiator fights and romantic pas de deux. This new
work is sure to add sparkle to the Hong Kong Ballet’s increasingly
unique repertoire.

Armenian bone marrow donor registry moves to new premises

ArmenPress
March 24 2005

ARMENIAN BONE MARROW DONOR REGISTRY MOVES TO NEW PREMISES

YEREVAN, MARCH 24, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian Bone Marrow Donor
Registry Charitable Trust, founded in July 1998 in Armenia as a
non-profit, non-government organization, has moved today to a new
building. Dr. Frieda Jordan, the chairperson of the Fund, said moving
to new premises will help the Fund to expand its capacities and
establish later a bone marrow transplanting center in the country.
The primary mission of the Fund is to save precious Armenian lives
with the volunteer recruitment of Armenian donors worldwide.
Currently, 9,500 donors are registered.
Doctor Jordan said the pool of existing international donors gives
a chance of survival to patients with Leukemia or other blood related
diseases. Last year 350 people with blood diseases from Armenia and
other countries applied to the registry.
Although Armenians are considered Caucasian, their unique genetic
make up makes it very hard for them to find matches for
transplantation. The Trust’s honorary chairperson is the First Lady
of the Republic of Armenia, Dr. Bella Kocharian.
The Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry is a unique project in the
sense that it links the Diaspora with Armenia, making each individual
in any part of the world dependent on the other for survival.
Italy’s ambassador to Armenia, Marco Clemente was present at the
inauguration ceremony and handed a gift from an Italian child whose
life was saved by an Armenian donor last year. The child sent to his
donor a picture he drew and a medal with an inscription “I Love You.”
Last year the Armenian Registry joined the International Bone
Marrow Donor Registry that unites 53 such registries with 9 million
donors.

The Economist – 19-25March 2005 – City Lights

City lights
Mar 17th 2005
>From The Economist print edition

For Turks who want to get ahead, the places to be are Istanbul or
Ankara

TURKEY is divided into two parts. There is Istanbul and its political
appendage, Ankara, and there is the rest. This “other” Turkey, most
of it in the east, is a vaguely defined area from which the
cosmopolitan inhabitants of Istanbul and Ankara carefully insulate
themselves. Until very recently they would have travelled there only
under firm instructions from the armed forces or the government.

Conversely, people from the eastern regions hardly ever made it to
positions of power. Now, however, there are some easterners in the
ministerial team. Burhan Yenigun, the mayor of the remote eastern
city of Van, says some ministers in office today were at school with
him. In a country where whom you know still matters at least as much
as what you know, that is helping Turkey’s disadvantaged east feel
more involved in the democratic process.

The east also happens to be home to many millions of Kurds, whose
alienation from the mainstream of Ataturk’s republic has been a cause
of dissension and violence almost since the republic was born. When
one Istanbul company’s salesmen go to Diyarbakir, a large Kurdish
city in the east, the locals say (and not in jest): “The men from
the republic have arrived.”

Istanbul, home to up to a fifth of Turkey’s population, is a
microcosm of Turkey itself, with migrants from particular regions
clustering in specific areas. Migration has also made it the largest
Kurdish city in the world. At the same time it is home to some of the
trendiest boutiques in Europe. Meandering beside the Sea of Marmara
and across the Bosphorus for some 40 miles, it houses the
headquarters of every Turkish company of substance. Even Is Bank, a
commercial bank set up by Ataturk and his Republican Party in Ankara,
his own creation, recently moved its headquarters there.

Istanbul is a handsome, ancient place and a magnet for the rest of
the nation. It has an air of noisy, amiable chaos. In far-off Rize, a
city on the Black Sea coast near the border with Georgia, in the
heart of Turkey’s wealthy tea-growing region, an improbably large
number of cars have Istanbul registration plates, recognisable by the
prefix “34”. The locals explain that anybody in the area who makes
money immediately goes to Istanbul to spend it.

Ankara, on the other hand, is a modern place sadly lacking in
man-made beauty. Many a Turkish civil servant has silently rued the
day that Ataturk decided to plonk his republic’s capital in a
treeless expanse of Anatolian wasteland, in the interest of shifting
the nation’s centre of gravity away from Istanbul. So devoid was
Ankara of any structure of note in the early years of the republic
that civil servants had to live in dormitories.

Beyond these now lively metropolises lies the “other” Turkey, vast
tracts of mountainous land stretching from the city of Edirne in the
west, where Ottoman architecture had its finest flowering, to Kars,
once capital of the long-defunct South-West Caucasian Republic, now
wasting near the end of the cul-de-sac leading to Turkey’s closed
border with Armenia.

The typical inhabitant of this other Turkey today lives in a town,
not a village, in a standard apartment that is one-quarter of a floor
in a six- or seven-storey concrete block. These uniform buildings,
sometimes painted in pastel shades to break the monotony, creep
across the hillside scrub on the fringes of fast-growing towns from
Edirne to Sanliurfa. Everywhere the countryside has a half-finished
look, littered with abandoned buildings.

Europe’s new neighbours

Around its eastern and southern edges this landmass touches Georgia,
Iran, Iraq and Syria. With Turkey inside the EU, these will be
Europe’s new neighbours, a Europe whose highest mountain will be
Mount Ararat, not Mont Blanc; a Europe that will include the northern
areas of Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers, often considered the cradle of civilisation.

Turkey’s mountainous hinterland is tightly controlled from Ankara,
which allows the regions little financial autonomy. Ataturk inherited
the Ottoman system for imposing law and order and for gathering taxes
and redistributing revenues. At its heart is the vali, the governor
appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in Ankara who is sent out
to the regions much like ambassadors are to foreign postings.

Every vali has a huge office, which reflects its occupant’s status
both by its size and by the number of black leather armchairs it
contains. The great men are surrounded by acolytes in dark suits who
interrupt continually with requests to sign pieces of paper. In
Turkey today, as in Ottoman times, little can be done without a
governor’s signature. If a vali is absent or ill, official life-from
granting a pay rise to a junior employee to authorising a new office
block-simply goes on hold until the governor can resume signing.

The middle of nowhere

The vali system suits a geography in which towns and cities sit in
bowls surrounded by mountains, isolated and self-contained. The towns
are joined by long asphalt strips with only the occasional petrol
station as a diversion. From time to time a village appears in the
distance. But there is no rural aristocracy or country life of the
sort you find in western Europe. Turks live in villages not because
they have chosen to escape to them, but because they have been unable
to escape from them.

The other power in town is the local mayor, an official elected for a
five-year term. Unlike the vali, who comes from many miles away, the
mayors are usually local folk from the town they represent-often
local tradesmen, in Trabzon even a former professional footballer.
Both the mayor and the deputy mayor of Diyarbakir are Kurds. Their
responsibilities are for the most part limited to transport, drains
and water, and their revenues come from building permits, local
property taxes and central-government grants.

Urban aspirers

It is now government policy to decentralise control and budgets away
from the huge and inefficient ministries in the capital. This year
the “Village Services Department”, a 42,000-strong cohort of civil
servants in Ankara who oversee administration of the villages, is due
to be disbanded. But this is only a drop in the ocean. Turkey’s
public administration still employs more than 2m bureaucrats.

Trying to decentralise further, the government says it would like to
shift power from the vali to the local mayor. Part of the plan is to
send a different sort of individual to these outposts. Efkan Ala, for
example, the governor of Diyarbakir, was appointed to the job last
year at the age of 39. His approach is more informal than that of his
predecessors. He clearly disapproves of the minder from the security
services who attends the meeting with your correspondent and takes
copious notes.

Last autumn the government was due to transfer large chunks of
treasury property to the local authorities. Much of it-such as
sports centres and museums-earns rent and could make a big
difference to the mayors’ budgets, says Volkan Canalioglu, the mayor
of Trabzon. But the plan was shelved. Perhaps the central
government’s success in getting its own budget under control has made
it reluctant to let go. “We don’t want to end up like a Latin
American country,” says Mr Babacan, the economy minister, “where
they don’t know what their budget is.” But the government, he says,
is still “working on how to share revenues with the regions”.

Peculiarities Of The Information War

PECULIARITIES OF THE INFORMATION WAR

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
21 March 05

About 11 years have passed since the ceasefire agreement which put an
end to the military actions in Nagorni Karabakh. It should be mentioned
that the agreement achieved by Azerbaijan, Nagorni Karabakh and Armenia
in May 1994 was more or less maintained. However, this does not mean
that the conflict sides have at least a little approached the final
settlement of the problem. It is quite the opposite; the armistice
may create political, legal, military, economic and informational
conditions for the resumption of military actions. What is more, the
military actions may be wider in scale than they were at the beginning
of the 1990s. In other words, at present the war is going on at the
level of politics, international law, economy, military building and
information. One of the peculiarities of the information war is that
its consequences are graver than those of armed conflict. Destroyed
buildings and communication can be restored soon, whereas uprooting
of hatred for a neighbouring nation may take decades. Therefore, it is
absolutely unacceptable to provoke nationalistic hysteria through the
mass media and instill hatred for a neighbouring nation. Unfortunately,
we have to admit that another peculiarity of the information war
is the atmosphere in which a nation does not tolerate the opposite
side of the conflict. First of all, this refers to the Azerbaijani
machine of propaganda which has from the very beginning chosen the
entire Armenian nation as its target. The evidence to this is the
letter of a group of Azerbaijani scientists to the president of
the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia
Victor Hambardzumian in 1988. Signed by about 240 representatives of
the Azerbaijani intelligentsia the letter ran, “We appeal to your
conscience; for the third time in less than a hundred years the
Armenians are instigating violence between the brotherly nations.
Appeal to your intelligentsia, stop the violence of your citizens!
How can you claim the land which does not belong to you? Azerbaijan
is not a pie to bite off a titbit of it. Who if not you can stop
the ferocious mop? Cruelty is favourable for the foreign Armenian
extremists only. Our internationalist duty is to warn you about
this.” If we clean the dust of the empty words “internationalist duty”
and “brotherly nations” which were then an obligatory homage paid by
the authors of the letter to the Soviet system, we will see that the
content of the letter of the Azerbaijani scientists is impregnated
with hatred for the Armenian nation which is called “instigators of
conflicts” and “extremists” in the letter. Thereby the nature of the
problem of Nagorni Karabakh is falsified as territorial claims of
the Armenian nation to Azerbaijan. What is more (yet this is another
peculiarity of the information war waged by Azerbaijan) the Soviet
authorities connived in the provocation of anti-Armenian hysteria
through the Azerbaijani mass media. And not accidentally because the
Baku authorities could not allow the conflict to be recognized as the
fair protest of the Armenians of Nagorni Karabakh against the policy
of discrimination implemented by the Azerbaijani government, whereas
discrimination was the cause for the protest of the people of Nagorni
Karabakh. Unfortunately, the strategy of the Azerbaijani propaganda
to discredit the Armenian nation is carried on by post-Soviet
Azerbaijan as well, which is the main obstacle on the way of creating
an atmosphere of confidence between the conflict parties. As always,
the role of the flagman in blackening the Armenians is played by the
Azerbaijani mass media. In September 1997 the foreign ministry of
NKR informed the OSCE Minsk Group about the anti-Armenian activity
of the newspaper “Bakinski Rabochi” founded by the administration of
the president of Azerbaijan. The memorandum of the NKR MFA which was
extended to the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group contained citations
from different articles published in the periodical, which are vivid
examples of the determined intolerance to the Armenian nation kindled
by the government of Azerbaijan. The following is quoted from the
news of the state news agency “Azer Taj” about the visit of Heidar
Aliev to the USA published in one of the July 1997 issues of the
newspaper “Bakinski Rabochi”. “The real face of the Armenians was
exposed; this abject nation lost the very little respect it had gained
through money, official posts of criminal gangs.” What is more, one
of the positive results of Heidar Aliev’s visit is, according to the
news, that Azerbaijan and the peaceful policy of its president fully
revealed the foul nature of the Armenians. As to the Armenian sides of
the conflict, their mass media have always attempted to prove to the
world the right of the people of NK for self-determination. Therefore,
from the very beginning the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh
criticized the authorities and not the people of Azerbaijan. This
is one more peculiarity of the propaganda war going on between
the sides of the Nagorni Karabakh conflict. In his article “Truth
Precious of All” published in the Yerevan-based newspaper “Communist”
in 1988 the chairman of the Scientific Council on Ethnic Processes
under the presidium of the Armenia SSR Academy of Sciences, Doctor
Khikar Barseghian, responding to the director of the Institute of
the History of the Communist Party Daniel Guliev arguing that there
is no problem of Karabakh because Nagorni Karabakh had belonged to
Azerbaijan from the beginning, literally wrote, “The people (i.e.
of Azerbaijan ” A.G.) anticipates from him (i.e. from D. Guliev ”
A.G.) only the truth, believes in him. And what is he doing? Can’t
he see that by falsifying the history of the region he is helping the
opponents of socialism torpedoing the policy of perestroika. And who
is this favourable for? The sooner this pseudo-historian gets rid of
the lamentable heritage of Heidar Aliev, the better it will be for
the common cause, restoration of peace between nations.” As you see,
the criticism of the Armenian scientist which reflected the viewpoint
of the authorities of Armenia then does not attack the Azerbaijanis,
although we should confess that it is rich in non-correct word
stock. The criticism is addressed to a concrete addressee, the
Azerbaijani scientist and ruler and not the entire Azerbaijani
nation. This tendency in the mass media of Armenia and Karabakh is
continuing nowadays too (occasional publications of irresponsible
authors in non-governmental mass media do not count). As a result,
there is no anti-Azerbaijani hysteria in the Armenian society, which
allows the governments of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh to be flexible
in the peace process, which is not the case with Azerbaijan. However,
we think the latter circumstance is not preferable either. It is
not preferable because it is unilateral. Imagine during the military
actions one of the sides stops fighting hoping that the opposite side
will act similarly. Is this kind of scenario realistic? Of course,
no. Then why do we think that unilateral pacifism is possible in the
information war? If the ceasefire is not supported by an armistice in
the information war, it means that the conflict sides (or one of them)
do not want to transform the ceasefire into real peace. Thus, if the
Azerbaijani side does not put an end to the propaganda war (which
is waged not only against the people of Nagorni Karabakh but also
against the whole of the Armenian nation), it means that it make use
of the armistice to create conditions which will enable them to take a
military revenge. One of the components of these conditions is the use
of the mass media to provoke common intolerance to the Armenians which
had allegedly challenged the international law thereby obstructing
peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus. This is for the so-called
external use. And as the Azerbaijani soldier will never fight for
the international law, they instill in them hatred for the Armenians
who allegedly encroach on the land belonging to his country. And
this is for internal use. And where is the way out? We think it is
necessary to sign an agreement on cessation of the information war
by both sides. And if the international mediators really seek for a
peaceful settlement, they also should direct their efforts at this
purpose. The side that refuses to sign the agreement must undergo
international obstruction. If after achieving the armistice in the
information war it is maintained by at least the state mass media, it
will already be positive. And the Western organizations may work with
the influential independent mass media and organs of political parties
denying the disobedient “information soldiers” grants and other forms
of help. In the absence of a similar agreement the unilateral pacifism
of the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh is inadmissible as it
may affect the moral and psychological state of the Armenian society
for a due counterattack against the enemy in case military actions
are resumed. Consequently, unilateral pacifism in the information
policy is more dangerous in the sense of resumption of military
actions than at peace. This is, perhaps, the chief peculiarity of
the present information war in the Nagorni Karabakh conflict.

ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN. 21-03-2005

Has Putin lost his touch? It certainly seems so

Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
March 19, 2005 Saturday

Has Putin lost his touch? It certainly seems so: Russian president’s
influence has plummeted

David Marples, Freelance

Today, Russian president Vladimir Putin visits Kyiv to meet with his
Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko.

Arguably, Putin’s influence and popularity is at its lowest level in
years, partly because of a series of extraordinary failures in
foreign policy, particularly in the regions habitually termed by
Russia as the Near Abroad.

The Near Abroad comprises two states that have witnessed changes of
leadership following expressions of mass support in their capitals:
Georgia and Ukraine.

The success of Mikheil Saakashvili in Tblisi and Yushchenko in Kyiv
caused consternation in Moscow. In the latter case, Putin outspokenly
and foolishly expressed support for the designated successor of
Leonid Kuchma, the then prime minister Viktor Yanukovich.

In mid-March, elections took place to the parliament of Moldova, a
country over which Russia has yielded strong influence for the past
13 years, particularly by abetting the breakaway republic of
Transdniester.

Of the 101 parliamentary seats, the Communists took 56, running on a
campaign backed by President Vladimir Voronin to take Moldova out of
the Russian orbit and toward the West.

The pro-Putin Russian press has been openly critical of Voronin, and
his incongruous role as an avowed Communist alongside Saakashvili and
Yushchenko in the GUUAM organization (initially this consisted of
Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), the ostensible
goal of which is to enhance the sovereignty of these nations, and
form a rival power base to the CIS.

On March 8, the Russian security agency (FSB) organized the
assassination of Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov, though the actual
circumstances of the latter’s death have been difficult to
corroborate.

The Russian authorities celebrated the death as a victory, a sign
that a turning point had been reached in a war that — other than a
brief two-year pause in hostilities — has continued for over a
decade.

However, Maskhadov, who was the popular choice for president of
Chechnya several years ago, was surely a man with whom Putin could
have come to terms. The terrorist wing of the Chechen resistance is
under the control of Shamil Basayev, who remains at large.

The appointed successor of Maskhadov, the little-known Abdul-Khalim
Sadulaev, is highly unlikely to come to the conference table —
indeed the death of Maskhadov will more likely prompt acts of
revenge.

Putin’s intransigence is largely responsible for the protraction of a
war that can never be won and has reduced the Chechen capital Grozny
to ruined shells of buildings that resemble Berlin or Dresden in
1945, and in which homeless residents live in appalling conditions.

These diverse events all symbolize the failure of Putin either to
promote Russia’s image abroad or to maintain control of areas that
even after the dissolution of the USSR had remained under Russian
influence.

Arguably, Russia’s image internationally has also been undermined by
its actions.

U.S. President George W. Bush recently issued a public warning to his
erstwhile friend Putin not to backtrack on the introduction of
democracy and ‘freedom’ in Russia.

Bush’s views on Russia appear considerably more moderate than those
of some of his advisers. Russia, to some members of the Bush
administration, is a natural or historical enemy of the United
States. The recent behavior of Putin has merely confirmed these
suspicions.

Putin has also failed to satisfy both ends of the social spectrum in
Russia.

The elderly have been on the streets to protest the loss of
guaranteed pensions, while most of Russia’s richest oligarchs either
live abroad or have been subjected to administrative actions to
restrict their activities.

Significantly last week, several prominent Russian businessmen
arrived in Kyiv to meet with Yushchenko. The message could not have
been clearer: the business climate in Ukraine will soon be better for
them than in Russia.

Not all Putin’s friends have deserted him.

Within the European Union, for example, both France and Germany
perceive Russia as a useful counter to the influence of the United
States.

Armenia has remained overtly opposed to joining GUUAM. Belarus will
retain its close links with Russia because it now fears the sort of
public demonstrations that transformed the governments in Georgia and
Ukraine.

However, the Russian president badly needs a major foreign policy
success to offset the series of failures.

That Russia would have a role of regional rather than global power
was always a difficult pill to swallow, but currently it is losing
its regional authority as well.

Of late it has been reduced to symbolic gestures like the forthcoming
massive military parades to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of
the Second World War. But such commemorations of past glories only
accentuate present failures.

And while there is little doubt that Russia has provided an easy
target for its customary critics, even its friends have been shaken
by recent political developments: the virtual control by the
government of the parliament; the open discussion about changing the
Constitution to ensure that Putin remains in power; the harassment of
real and potential political rivals; the increasingly arbitrary
actions of the police; all in addition to the clumsy and
ill-conceived foreign policy maneuvers that have become so common of
late.

Has Putin lost his touch? It certainly seems so.

David Marples is a professor of history at the University of Alberta
and has written extensively on the former Soviet Union.

University of Notre Dame selects ’05 grad speaker

Observer Online, IN
March 16 2005

University selects ’05 grad speaker
By Eileen Duffy

The President of the United States won’t be speaking to Notre Dame’s
2005 graduates, but a man who has held three presidencies in his life
will.
The University announced Tuesday that Vartan Gregorian, president of
the Carnegie Corporation and former president of Brown University and
the New York Public Library, will be the principal speaker at its
160th commencement exercises on May 15.
Gregorian has held high-ranking positions in a wide variety of
fields, making him an ideal selection, University President Father
Edward Malloy said in a press release.
“In all his many roles in public life, Dr. Gregorian has displayed
extraordinary leadership,” Malloy said. “I know that his remarks will
be an ideal capstone for [our graduates’] educational experiences on
our campus.”
Gregorian has served at the helm of New York’s Carnegie Corporation
since 1997. The corporation, which was founded in 1911, seeks to
carry out founder Andrew Carnegie’s vision of philanthropy, which
Carnegie said should aim “to do real and permanent good in the
world.” Awarding grants in four areas (education, international peace
and security, international development and strengthening U.S.
democracy), the corporation expects its fiscal year 2004-2005 grants
to total over $80 million.
>From 1989 to 1997, Gregorian served as the president of Brown
University, where he taught freshman and senior history seminars and
a course on Alexis de Tocqueville. In addition, he led capital
campaigns that helped triple the endowment there.
Prior to that, Gregorian served for eight years as president of the
New York Public Library – no small task, considering that this system
has four research libraries and 83 circulating libraries. He is
credited with pulling the library out of financial crisis.
Gregorian was born to Armenian parents in Tabriz, Iran. After
receiving his elementary education there and his secondary education
in Lebanon, he enrolled at Stanford University in 1956. He graduated
with honors just two years later.
In 1964, he earned a doctorate in history and the humanities, also
from Stanford.
Gregorian taught European and Middle Eastern history for eight years
at San Francisco State College, the University of California at Los
Angeles and the University of Texas. He then joined the University of
Pennsylvania faculty. In 1972, he became the founding dean of the
Faculty of Arts and Sciences there; in 1972, he became the provost.
Senior Erin Mai said she is “excited and proud” of Notre Dame’s
decision to bring someone with a “different perspective.”
“This is a Catholic university, but it’s still important for people
to be exposed to different ideas and different religions,” she said.
“[Gregorian] seems to know a lot about Islam, and I think that could
bring a lot to his speech.”
Senior Galen Loughrey agreed, calling the University’s choice of
Gregorian a “great change” from the past commencement speakers.
“I would hope [Gregorian] would bring a unique perspective, given his
international experience, that might not be at Notre Dame,” he said.
Gregorian has received myriad accolades and grants during his career.
Currently serving as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, Gregorian has received fellowships from the John Smith
Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the
Social Science Research Council and the American Philosophical
Society.
He received the National Ethnic Coalition of Organization’s Ellis
Island Medal of Honor in 1986, which is annually presented to
“Americans of diverse origins for their outstanding contributions to
their own ethnic groups and to American society,” according to that
organization’s Web site.
He has also been honored by U.S. presidents. In 1998, President Bill
Clinton awarded Gregorian with the National Humanities Medal; last
year, President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of
freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award.
Gregorian is the author of “Emergence of Modern Afghanistan: Politics
of Reform and Modernization, 1880-1946;” “Islam: A Mosaic, Not a
Monolith;” and his autobiography, “The Road to Home.”

Russian bases may stay in Georgia for eight years – mil. official

Russian bases may stay in Georgia for eight years – military official

Interfax news agency
15 Mar 05

Moscow, 15 March: The head of the Russian Defence Ministry main
directorate for international military cooperation, Col-Gen Anatoliy
Mazurkevich, believes that the withdrawal of Russian military bases
from Georgia within three to four years “is not a concession but a
well-thought-through decision”.

“The Russian side has announced that the Russian military bases could
be withdrawn from Batumi and Akhalkalaki within three to four
years. This means that the process itself of the withdrawal from
Georgia of weapons, military hardware and the bases’ personnel could
last that long. As for how long the Russian bases will remain in
Georgia, they may stay there for seven or eight years. Everything
will depend on the negotiating process between the two sides,”
Mazurkevich said today in reply to a question from Interfax-AVN.

He stressed that Russia would hold intensive talks on the issue with
Georgia in the near future.

“At the moment I have no information from the Russian side concerning
the date of the talks and their level,” he said.

Mazurkevich stressed that the problem of the Russian bases’ withdrawal
from Georgia cannot be settled through ultimatums, on which Georgian
MPs insist.

“Under the 1999 Istanbul accords, the withdrawal of our military bases
from Georgia is a bilateral Russian-Georgian process. The accords do
not contain the deadline for the bases’ withdrawal or the date of the
beginning of this process,” he said.

Yerevan Rally Participants call all countries to recognize Genocide

PanArmenian News
March 15 2005

PARTICIPANTS OF RALLY IN YEREVAN CALLED ALL COUNTRIES TO RECOGNIZE
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

15.03.2005 06:14

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ A rally marking the 84-th anniversary of the day of
murder of the person chargeable for the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman
Turkey Taleat pasha by Armenian student Soghomon Teylerian was held
in Yerevan, Regnum news agency reported. The organizers of the
meeting – the youth wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Delegation
Dashnaktsutyun (ARFD) called all countries to unite and recognize the
Armenian Genocide, not admitting Turkey to `the EU with bloody
hands.’ ARFD representative handed the European Commission Secretary
a letter addressed to the EC Chairman. The rally participants had
posters on their hands `March 16, 1921: shot on the asleep memory of
the world,’ `Freedom does not have a value if the people do not
realize the demands of freedom,’ etc. After the completion of the
action people headed to the monument to Soghomon Teylerian, where
they laid 90 flowers. It should be noted that April 24 Armenians mark
the tragic 90-th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.