Author: Nahapetian Boris

Armenia 0 Finland 2

sportinglife.com, UK
Sept 8 2004

Finland enjoyed their second successive victory in the World Cup
qualfiers with a comfortable result in Armenia.

Goals from Mikael Forssell and Aleksei Eremenko Jr in either half
secured the win for the Finns, who now have six points from three
games in Group One.

Hosts Armenia came into the match having lost their opening qualifier
3-0 against FYR Macedonia last month, while their opponents were on
a high after managing the same result over Andorra just four days ago.

And it was the Finns who laid out their intentions from the start,
with coach Antti Muurinen to play in an attacking style with captain
Jari Litmanen and Eremenko encouraged to get forward from midfield
as much as possible.

The tactics paid off after 23 minutes with Forssell’s opener. The
striker received the ball from Eremenko just outside of the area, made
his way past two defenders before firing a shot into the bottom corner.

Forssell almost added a second on the stroke of half-time when he
once more tricked his way past the Armenian defence, but the final
ball flew past the wrong side of the post.

Finland eventually doubled their advantage after 68 minutes, when
Joonas Kolkka’s perfect pass found an unmarked Eremenko who had a
simple tap-in into the net.

Substitute Pekka Lagerblom should have made it 3-0 five minutes later
but failed to hit the ball into an empty net leaving the Finns content
with a two-goal win.

Teams

Armenia Hovsepyan, Mkrtchian, Nazarian (Aleksanian 73), Dokhoyan,
Albert Sargsian (Manucharian 54), Khachatrian, Artur Petrosian,
Melikian, Karamian (Grigorian 78), Movsisian, Hambardzumian.

Subs Not Used: Berezovsky, Nikolay Sargsian, Hakobian, Galust
Petrosian.

Booked: Melikian, Albert Sargsian, Aleksanian.

Finland Niemi, Pasanen, Hyypia, Vayrynen, Nurmela, Forssell, Litmanen
(Lagerblom 46), Kolkka (Pohja 86), Kuivasto, Riihilahti, Eremenko Jr
(Kopteff 73).

Subs Not Used: Jaaskelainen, Koppinen, Kallio, Johansson.

Booked: Riihilahti.

Goals: Forssell 23, Eremenko Jr 68.

Ref: Paulius Malzinskas (Lithuania).

Armenian, Polish defence ministers meet

Polish Press Agency
PAP News Wire
September 6, 2004 Monday

Warsaw, Sept. 6

Security in the Caucasus, Iraq and Afghanistan and military cooperation
dominated Monday’s talks in Warsaw between Armenian and Polish defence
ministers Serge Sargsyan and Jerzy Szmajdzinski.

Szmajdzinski described Poland’s experience with NATO and UN peace
missions in the Mideast and the Balkans, both politicians also
discussed a defence cooperation agreement sealed today in the presence
of both countries’ presidents.

Sargsyan also announced the inclusion of a 50-strong Armenian military
unit in the Polish led stabilization force in Iraq.

Our earliest Pravasis
by Indrajit Hazra

Hindustan Times, India
Sept 5 2004

Long before the Kumars had moved into No. 42 or Bombay Dreams wowed
West End, an Armenian lady from the Mughal court of Jehangir in Agra
married William Hawkins, an English representative of the East India
Company in 1609. Two years later, they set sail towards Britain.
Unfortunately, Mariam was widowed before she reached her husband’s
land. But in between Hawkins’ death and Mariam’s arrival, she became
romantically involved with Gabriel Towerson, another Englishman
travelling on the ship. In London, the two married and lived happily
ever after — or, at least, till Towerson returned with Mariam to
India in 1617, after which their marriage went to pieces.

What is revealing is that in her three years in London, an Indian
married (twice) to an Englishman — something that in later centuries
may have been considered ‘inter-racial’ — did not evoke any adverse
comments. In fact, like Mariam, there were many other Indians who
noiselessly fitted into the cubbyholes of class and gender of British
— marrying Britons, keeping English servants, going to church. Like
the Cambridge-educated Guy Perron in Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet three
centuries later, who feels a great affinity with the Indian Hari
Kumar, who went to the same public school as he did, pre-Company and
Company Raj Britain was class driven in its interactions with
Indians.

Counterflows to Colonialism traces Indian responses to Britain and
the interactions of Indians with Britons in the latter’s ‘natural
habitat’ from 1600 to the year of the Sepoy Mutiny, a pivotal point
in the history of two cultures looking at each other. The book is
also about two other aspects of this gradually one-sided
cross-cultural exchange. Apart from providing rich streams of
narratives on the first Indian travellers to Britain and the ‘first
NRIs’, it also explores a much neglected part of British history —
the existence of a multicultural Britain that wasn’t just a
pluralising gesture of what a country should be, but what a country
was. Fisher also charts how self-perception changed for Indians as
the mirrors available for viewing oneself overwhelmingly started
carrying the ‘Made in England’ tag.

The lay reader learns that in the British-Indian matrix, Indians had
not always been objects of scrutiny but also observers and of the
outsiders-turned-colonisers. The first Indians to travel to Britain
were overwhelmingly seamen, slaves and servants — and wives of
Englishmen. (Exchanges between Indians and Arabs, Africans, Persians,
other Asians predate those with Britons, and the initial interactions
with Westerners were shared with the Dutch, the French and the
Danes.) Fisher delves into archival material to tell us what people
like Mariam, Catherine Bengall, John the Indian and many others faced
in a country that had not yet turned into the HQs of the British
Empire.

Perhaps the most rivetting portion of the book is the section that
deals with the Indians who went to vilayt to establish themselves as
teachers. One of the primary figures in this list was Mirza Abu Talib
Khan Isfahani who went to Britain during 1799-1802 intending to
establish a British government-sponsored Persian language training
institute. His writings, especially Masir Talibi fi Bilad Afranji,
detailing his experiences and judgments about British life was meant
for both Indian and European (Persian-reading) consumption.

The reason we know so little about the experience of early Indians
in Britain even at the archival level — especially when compared with
the mountains of archival, historical and popular material about the
British experience in India — may be pinpointed to one year: 1837.
Two years after Thomas Macaulay’s ‘Minute on Education’ (“a single
shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native
literature of India and Arabia”), the East India Company changed its
official language for administration from Persian to English.

Almost overnight, Company colleges at Haileybury and Addiscombe (and
at the shortlived Fort William College in Calcutta) changed the
status of Indian teachers in England and in India forever. Out went
the earlier ‘Orientalist’ approach as championed by the likes of Sir
William Jones, who believed the key to better trade and administer
was understanding and using the Indian languages and cultures.
Instead, there was the new ‘Anglicist’ approach to India, a
proto-Neocon strategy of ‘taming’ a land with British values.

Fisher’s immensely readable and scholarly book showcases the two-way
traffic that took place between two civilisations, and its gradual
mutation into a one-directional flow — that is, until Bollywood
started correcting matters somewhat.

Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travellers and Settlers in
Britain 1600-1857
By Michael H. Fisher
Permanent Black
Rs 795

Kerry Targets Armenian Votes with Promise to Recognize ‘So-Called Genocide’

Zaman, Turkey
Sept 3 2004

With two months left before the November 2nd U.S. Presidential Election
public polls indicate that Democratic candidate John F. Kerry and
his Republican rival, US President George W. Bush, are neck and neck.

Kerry hopes that the promise he made yesterday to recognize the
So-Called Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2005, will earn him the
support of Armenian American voters and push him ahead in the polls.

Kerry, who is known for his long running support of the Armenian
cause in Washington, sent a letter to a music festival organized by
American Armenian National Congress. In the letter Kerry assures the
Armenians that he will fight against the denial of so-called Armenian
Genocide and, if he is elected, his administration will recognize
this violence on April 24, 2005, its 90th anniversary.

Kerry went on to say that this represents a crime against humanity
and that it should be used as a tool to prevent future genocide. The
Democratic Candidate added that there can be no compromising of morals
when trying to end genocide.

The American Armenian National Congress announced last month that
they will support Kerry since he has been one of their voices inside
Washington for the past 20 years.

Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press
September 1, 2004

Tbilisi Poised for New Conflicts With Rebel Regions

ABKHAZIA ENDS TALKS WITH TBILISI AFTER GEORGIAN COAST GUARD VESSEL
FIRES ON TURKISH FREIGHTER IN ABKHAZ WATERS; SYSOYEV: MOSCOW HOPES TO
USE GEORGIA’S CONFLICTS TO RETAIN ITS INFLUENCE THERE; GIVEN LINKS
WITH ARMENIA, IT COULD THEN REGAIN CONTROL OF TRANSCAUCASUS, CENTRAL
ASIA

SOURCE: GEORGIA IS READY TO TAKE ON EVERYONE. — Tbilisi Is
Determined to Recover Remaining Territory. Kommersant, Aug. 2, 2004,
p. 9. Condensed text:

(By Vladimir Novikov in Tbilisi and Oleg Zorin [in Moscow]). —
Georgia is on the verge of war with its former autonomous regions.
Abkhazia announced on Saturday [July 31] that it was withdrawing from
all talks with Tbilisi. . . .

The Abkhaz authorities’ announcement that they were pulling out of
talks with Tbilisi followed an incident that occurred in the
unrecognized republic’s coastal waters. A Georgian coast guard cutter
patrolling the Abkhaz coast on Saturday spotted a Turkish freighter
headed for Sukhumi. In an attempt to detain the vessel, the cutter’s
commanding officer ordered the crew to open fire with a large-caliber
machine gun. The freighter was damaged, but the attempt to detain it
failed.

For several years now, Georgia has been demanding that all foreign
ships calling at Abkhaz ports undergo preliminary inspection in the
West Georgian port of Poti. Tbilisi maintains that this is necessary
in order to stop shipments of weapons and narcotics to Abkhazia. Over
the past several years, dozens of ships flying the Turkish flag, as
well as the flags of other states, have been detained in Abkhaz
waters and sent to Poti. Some of them have subsequently been fined
and released, while others have been seized and sold at auction.
Until now, this hadn’t had any major repercussions.

But this time officials in Sukhumi responded angrily to Saturday’s
incident. Prime Minister Raul Khadzhimba announced that Abkhazia was
withdrawing from the negotiating process on the grounds that
Georgia’s attack on the freighter was a flagrant violation of the
1994 cease-fire agreement.

Tbilisi responded immediately. “The Abkhaz leadership had better
think long and hard before it withdraws from the negotiating
process,” Georgia’s state minister for conflict resolution, Georgy
Khaindrava, told Kommersant. Mr. Khaindrava said that Sukhumi’s
decision could lead to a complete suspension of the peace process to
resolve the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.

Officials in Tbilisi maintain that the incident involving the ship
has nothing to do with the 1994 cease-fire agreement. Georgia’s State
Border Protection Department said that the crew of the patrol vessel
had acted in accordance with Georgian law and had not violated any
international agreements. Moreover, the Georgian authorities say they
will continue their efforts to stop the unmonitored entry of foreign
ships into Abkhaz ports. So neither Tbilisi nor Sukhumi intends to
back down.

The new flare-up in relations between Tbilisi and Abkhazia
coincides with an escalation of the conflict between the Georgian
government and the leadership of South Ossetia. There were incidents
involving the use of weapons in several villages of the unrecognized
republic early Sunday morning.

South Ossetian authorities accused Tbilisi of shelling the southern
part of Tskhinvali with mortars. And Georgian Minister of Internal
Affairs Irakly Okruashvili reported yesterday that two Georgian
policemen had been wounded and six South Ossetian residents killed in
an incident near the village of Prisi. . . . The Georgian internal
affairs minister issued a warning: “We have no intention of
tolerating South Ossetia’s escapades. Every time the South Ossetians
open fire, we will fire back.”

Moreover, Irakly Okruashvili said that Georgia has no plans as yet
to close down its police post in the village of Tamarasheni, which is
not far from Tskhinvali. The day before, at a meeting of the Joint
Monitoring Commission for a settlement of the conflict in South
Ossetia (the meeting was attended by representatives of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and mediated by
Russia), Tbilisi and Tskhinvali seemed to have reached an agreement
whereby Georgian police in the Georgian village of Tamarasheni . . .
would be replaced with posts manned by the trilateral peacekeeping
forces — i.e., by Russian, Georgian and Ossetian peacekeepers.

But after the commission meeting, the Georgian internal affairs
minister said he was prepared to order a withdrawal of Georgian
policemen from Tamarasheni only “if there are guarantees that the
local Georgian population will be safe.” Georgia is demanding a trial
period to see if the trilateral peacekeeping contingent (in other
words, the Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers) is in fact neutral. The
Georgian side is also calling for the establishment of trilateral
peacekeeping posts in several Ossetian villages on a reciprocal
basis. Finally, Georgia categorically refuses to dismantle financial
police checkpoints on the administrative border between South Ossetia
and other parts of Georgia, citing the need to combat smuggling.

All of Tbilisi’s demands will no doubt be unacceptable to the
Ossetian and Russian sides. And this is now spawning fears that a
further escalation of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict could lead to
another war between Tbilisi and Tskhinvali, one in which Russia would
inevitably become involved.

In an interview with Mze Television on Saturday, Georgian Defense
Minister Georgy Baramidze said, “Georgia is prepared for war and does
not advise anybody to start one.” The minister added that Georgia is
ready to “respond to any armed provocation, including actions by
those who represent the Russian side.”

But Kommersant’s sources in Tbilisi say that for Georgia, getting
involved in another armed conflict would not be in the country’s best
interests. The person who would most like to avoid war is President
Mikhail Saakashvili himself. An armed conflict would cancel out all
his plans to rebuild the Georgian economy and improve the
population’s standard of living, which was one of the president’s
main campaign promises. What’s more, a war in the immediate vicinity
of the pipelines leading from the Caspian basin to Europe via Georgia
would hardly be to the West’s liking. Finally, no one knows how a war
might go for Tbilisi, given the powerful Russian backing enjoyed by
both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officials in Tbilisi think that war
in the Transcaucasus would be disadvantageous for Russia as well,
since it would completely discredit Moscow’s peacekeeping efforts.

So Georgia is not inclined to burn all its bridges. On a visit to
Kiev in late July, Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania, one of President
Saakashvili’s closest associates, said that the “new Georgian
authorities are trying to achieve something that [former Georgian
President] Eduard Shevardnadze never could” — better relations with
Russia. And in support of that statement, Mr. Zhvania once again
urged Russia to participate in the privatization of strategic
facilities in Georgia, such as ports and power stations. The prime
minister also declared that the Russian military bases [in Georgia]
are an “anachronism that hampers the development of bilateral
relations,” and proposed the creation of a joint counterterrorism
center near Tbilisi. According to Kommersant’s sources, Georgia is
prepared to provide the counterterrorism center with not only heavy
equipment but also aircraft, and to allow several thousand Russian
soldiers to serve there.

But Moscow is against linking the establishment of a
counterterrorism center to the dismantling of its military bases in
Akhalkalaki and Batumi. Moreover, Russia is demanding that Georgia
record in a bilateral treaty a pledge by Tbilisi not to allow foreign
military bases on Georgian territory. But Georgia feels that solving
the problem in this way would be degrading for a sovereign state and
is proposing another option — a statement by the Georgian president
(at the UN, for example) that no foreign bases would be permitted on
Georgian territory. . . .

* * *

What’s at Stake. (By Gennady Sysoyev). — . . . The current
conflict over Abkhazia and South Ossetia involves more than just the
Georgian authorities fighting the leaders of the self-proclaimed
republics for control over Sukhumi and Tskhinvali. It is primarily a
battle for Georgia — not in the sense of the country’s restoring its
integrity, but in the sense of gaining control over Georgia. And one
of the main combatants is Russia.

The prominent American political analyst Zbigniew Brzezinski once
gave US leaders the following advice: Never let Russia bring Ukraine
under its influence — without Kiev, Moscow will never be able to
regain control over the former Soviet empire. In a certain sense,
Georgia is now just as important to Russia as Ukraine.

If it can maintain its influence over Tbilisi, Moscow, given its
strategic partnership with Armenia, will be able to control more than
just the Transcaucasus. In such a situation, Central Asia, where the
US has significantly increased its political and military presence of
late, is all but bound to eventually return to the orbit of Russian
influence as well. Because with no alternative to the Russian route
for exporting their strategic resources to the West (and the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline is primarily meant to provide such
an alternative), the Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan will
sooner or later be forced to seek refuge once again under Moscow’s
“umbrella.” And with the return of Central Asia and the Transcaucasus
to the fold, the restoration of the former Soviet empire — albeit on
the basis of different principles — will no longer be such a utopian
goal for Moscow. On the other hand, if Moscow loses effective levers
of influence on Tbilisi, this will render Russia’s military presence
in Armenia all but pointless, lead to a weakening of its influence
throughout the Transcaucasus, and consign the idea of regaining its
former influence in Central Asia to oblivion once and for all.

Moscow apparently hopes to maintain its influence in Georgia
chiefly through the breakaway republics. It allowed President
Saakashvili to emerge triumphant in the battle for Batumi and was
counting on reciprocity. For one thing, it expected Tbilisi to drop
its demands for the removal of the Russian bases on Georgian
territory. But Mikhail Saakashvili failed to repay his debt to Russia
for Adzharia; instead, he decided to press for control of South
Ossetia. If he quickly succeeds, he will substantially reduce
Russia’s ability to bargain over Abkhazia, and Moscow is extremely
reluctant to let that happen.

Russia has yet another major stake in the battle for Georgia. If a
policy of holding on to Tbilisi at any price prevails in Moscow, this
is bound to be seen by the rest of the world as showing that Russia
has adopted the imperialist ambitions of the former USSR.

Armenian, Azeri ministers’ Prague talks seen as “positive and productive” by
experts – TV
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
30 Aug 04

The Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers ended a meeting on the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict a couple of hours ago in the Czech
capital of Prague.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs from the USA, France and Russia,
including the personal representative of the OSCE chairman-in-office,
Andrzej Kasprzyk, attended the meeting.

As before the meeting had no special agenda. Oskanyan and Mammadyarov
discussed various aspects and prospects for the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. They exchanged opinions about this at the previous
three meetings as well.

According to experts, the meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
foreign ministers was positive and productive.

Taipei Times, Taiwan
Aug 28 2004

Kurd relations require deft touch

By Fang Tien-sze ¤è¤Ñ½ç

`Taiwan should carefully assess both international and internal
Kurdish factors before offering unequivocal support for a Kurdish
state.’

During his recent visit to Taiwan, Prime Minister Nechervan Idris
Barzani of the Kurdistan Regional Government was received by high
government officials. Because they were the first officials from Iraq
to visit Taiwan since the establishment of the Iraqi interim
government, the delegation was the focus of much attention.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen (³¯ – ð¤s) revealed that Barzani
during his visit exchanged ideas with Taiwanese officials regarding
the founding of a state belonging to the Kurdish people, and he also
wanted to exchange representative offices. Based on the principle of
creating a wide range of friendly relationships, we should seize on
this opportunity for exchange and further strengthen the relationship
between Taiwan and Kurdistan.

Due to the complexity of the question of independence for the Kurdish
people, however, Taiwan should carefully assess both international
and internal Kurdish factors before offering unequivocal support for
a Kurdish state and deciding whether or not to exchange
representative offices.

The Kurdish people have long hoped to be able to establish their own
state, but opposition from various countries together with Kurdish
disunity have made the road toward nationhood an arduous one. Armed
intervention by the US and UK was the main reason why Iraqi Kurds
could enjoy autonomy following the 1991 Gulf War.

In order to protect the Kurds and weaken the power of Saddam Hussein,
the US, UK and France in April 1991 created a no-fly zone in Iraq
above the 36th parallel, forbidding Iraqi aircraft to enter the zone.
A US-led multinational force patrolled the area and enforced the
regulations so Saddam could not take military action against Kurds in
the northern part of the country. Thus they could establish an
autonomous regional government, of which Barzani is the incumbent
prime minister.

It should be noticed that the Kurdish area in Iraq remains split. The
Kurd Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani are the two main forces
among Iraq’s Kurds. The two parties formed a joint government in
1992, but the power distribution issue gradually led to a dispute
that exploded into a full-blown civil war in 1994. In an attempt to
defeat the PUK, the Kurd Democratic Party requested the help of
Saddam’s troops in 1996. The two parties set up separate governments,
both claiming control over the whole Kurdish area in northern Iraq.
British and US mediation resulted in the two parties signing a
cease-fire agreement, but to this day the two parts of the Kurdish
area remain separately ruled.

The internal Kurdish split has always been one of the factors
impeding the formation of a Kurdish state. Kurds in different areas
often rule themselves, and some of the leaders of important
organizations do not get along with each other. Some countries are
using these weak points to further weaken the Kurdish people. During
the Iran-Iraq war, both countries made use of Kurds in the opponent’s
country, and Turkey has used Iraqi Kurds to fight Kurds in Turkey.
The Iraqi general elections planned for March next year will be key
to answering the question of whether a peaceful solution to the split
in the Kurdish area will be possible.

Nechervan Idris Barzani, the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional
Government, is a member of the Kurd Democratic Party. But because the
Kurd Democratic Party and the PUK are equally strong, it is difficult
to predict the outcome of the elections. When expressing its support
for the Kurdish people, Taiwan should avoid giving the impression
that we as outsiders are choosing sides.

In addition to the unpredictability of internal factors, we must also
consider the attitudes of other countries concerning the Kurdish
issue. Apart from Iraq, the Kurdish people are distributed over
Turkey, Iran, Syria and Armenia. None of these countries want
independence for Iraq’s Kurds lest Kurds in their own country emulate
them, creating an independence domino effect. During the war between
the US and Iraq, Turkey was concerned that the Kurds in Iraq would
declare independence, and therefore threatened military intervention.
Unless these countries change their policies, they will continue to
block the formation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq.

Although the US has assisted the Kurds in obtaining autonomy, its
main goal has been to restrain Saddam, not to support the formation
of an independent Kurdish state. The CIA has intervened in the
Kurdish civil war by supporting attacks by the PUK on the Kurd
Democratic Party. With Saddam now gone, the Kurdish people’s
strategic importance to the US is dwindling, and the US is unwilling
to offend main Iraqi ethnic groups or Turkey over the Kurdistan
issue.

These internal and international factors make it unlikely that Iraq’s
Kurds will be able to establish an independent state in the short
term. Iraq’s Kurdish leaders also recognize these limitations. If
Iraq establishes a federal system of government offering the Kurds
some autonomous powers, the Kurds would be willing to compromise and
refrain from seeking independence from Iraq.

Given this situation, there is no need for Taiwan to take a position
on the question of an independent Kurdish state. The Kurdistan
Regional Government’s suggestion that Taiwan and Kurdistan exchange
permanent representative offices would strengthen mutual exchanges
between Kurdistan and Taiwan. Taiwan must, however, give cautious
consideration to the reaction of Turkey and other concerned states.
If such an exchange does not win the understanding of these states,
Taiwan’s losses would outweigh its gains. The visit by the delegation
from the Kurdistan Regional Government is encouraging from a
diplomatic perspective, but we shouldn’t be too eager, and should
instead cautiously assess the situation in order to maximize gains.

Fang Tien-sze is an assistant research fellow at the Cross-Strait
Interflow Prospect Foundation.

Translated by Perry Svensson

Novinite, Bulgaria
Aug 26 2004

Bulgarian Ace Captures Bronze on Mats

Bulgaria’s greco-roman wrestler Armen Nazarian (R) grabbed the
Athens 2004 Bronze medal on the mats defeating his Russian rival in
the 60kg category Alexey Shevtsov. Photo by BNT.

Sports: 26 August 2004, Thursday.

Wrestler Armen Nazarian enlarged Bulgaria’s collection of Olympic
medals winning another bronze in the 60kg category.

Double Olympic, double World and six-times European Champion Nazarian
defeated Russian Alexey Shevtsov 4:3 to step on the honorary podium
of Athens 2004 medallists on Thursday.

“I am extremely disappointed and upset that I could not win a third
Olympic gold and make Bulgarians happy again. I was very well
prepared and I fought to the very end. The Korean hit me with his
head during the semifinal and now I have a bump above my right eye.
However, the judges pretended they did not see and did not sanctioned
him”, Nazarian said.

Earlier the same day he failed to qualify directly for the finals
after suffering defeat from South Korea’s Jung Ji Hyun who beat
Nazarian 3-1.

The South Korean won the gold medal in the Greco-Roman wrestling 60kg
category with a 3-0 overtime victory over Cuban Roberto Monzon
Gonzalez.

Boca Raton News, FL
Aug 26 2004

Protesters demand halt to Sudan `genocide’
Boca Raton religious leaders

by Dale M. King

Death is rampant in the Sudan.
And South County religious leaders want it to stop.
Some 40 people, many carrying signs, gathered at noon Tuesday in
front of Boca Raton City Hall to demand an end to the senseless
carnage and to pray for the victims.
`We are gathering out of moral imperative,’ said Rabbi Richard Agler,
senior rabbi and spiritual leader of Congregation B’nai Israel in
Boca Raton.
`The world has seen entirely too much of this,’ he said. `We know
that such evils are most likely to occur when people are either
unaware or looking away. We are doing our part to make sure that
people are both aware and informed.’
Leaders from several congregations joined the demonstration held one
day before the `Sudan Day of Conscience’ on Wednesday.
`In situations like this, it is incumbent upon all decent human
beings to make their voices heard,’ said the Rev. Henry Willis,
pastor of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church in Boca Raton.
`Whether mass murder of the innocent is taking place in Europe, Asia
or Africa, it cannot be tolerated,’ he said. `This time, it is
Africa. Next time, it may be somewhere else. But as religious leaders
of conscience, we say that is something the world cannot tolerate.’
The Very Rev. Nareg Berberian of St. David Armenian Church in Boca
Raton added his voice, saying that humanity cannot `stand idly by
while another genocide takes place.’
`Given the history of the 20th century, which has included so many
genocides,’ he said, a genocide in the 21st century `cannot be
tolerated.’
While demonstrators massed at City Hall, the International Committee
of the Red Cross this week airlifted supplies to Sudan’s troubled
Darfur region which has been scourged by a war between African rebel
troops and Arab militia known as the Janjaweed.
The United Nations reports that more than 30,000 people have been
killed and 1.4 million were forced from their homes during the past
18 months of fighting.
In a passionate address, Rabbi Agler said `organized mass murder of
the innocent, state-sponsored or at least state-aided murder of the
innocent’ is happening `before our very eyes.’
Organizers of the event said they will call on the government of the
Sudan to halt all activity that is causing the mass murder, rape and
plundering of villages in the Darfur area.

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Aug 24 2004

Issues to be discussed by Azeri, Armenian FMs not disclosed

Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers will discuss a number of
issues during the meeting to be held in Prague on August 29-30,
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has told journalists.
However, he didn’t elaborate what concrete issue related to the
Garabagh conflict will be in focus during the meeting.
Noting that Azerbaijan has already unveiled its standpoint towards
the settlement of the conflict, Mammadyarov underlined that all
details have been discussed during the meetings held so far.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian told the press earlier that
he didn’t expect the upcoming meeting to yield results.*