Author: Nalchajian Markos

PanArmenian News Network, Armenia
July 12 2005

ARMENIAN PEACEKEEPERS TO LEAVE FOR IRAQ JULY 13

11.07.2005 08:58

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Secretary of the National Security Council at the
President of Armenia, Defense MinisterSerge Sargsyan today met with US
Ambassador to Armenia John Evans on the occasion of presenting US newly
appointed military attache in Armenia lieutenant colonel Russell Grimley.
Press Secretary of the Defense Minister, colonel Seyran Shahsuvaryan told
PanARMENIAN.Net. In the course of the meeting S. Sargsyan thanked ex-attache
Geoffrey Friedmor for his office, noting that within the 2.5 years of his
tenure the Armenian-American military cooperation has strengthened more.
Speaking of the cancelled departure of the second shift of Armenian
peacekeepers to Iraq, the US Ambassador to Armenia informed it is
conditioned by purely technical reasons. At the moment the Armenian Defense
Ministry and the US Armed Forces command work for sending the Armenian
peacekeepers to Iraq July 13.

PAPSR RAISED LEVEL OF PRESS-SECRETARIES’ SKILLS AND STARTS TO TEACH
JOURNALISTS

YEREVAN, JULY 11. ARMINFO. “I am satisfied greatly with the results of
both a teaching-seminar for press-services workers and the training
level of its participants”, Head of the Program of Armenia’s Public
Sector Reforms (PAPSR) Scott Newton-Avalyan stated journalists today.

He informed that the working-meeting was organized for 42
press-secretaries and workers of public relations departments from 24
state institutions. An international expert from the Great Britain
George Eykin acquainted seminar listeners with the theory of planning
tactics and strategy of both public relations and communication. To
note, Armenia’s presidential staff initiated the substitution process
of single press-secretaries with public relations sub-departments in
Apr, 2004. Press-services of ecology, health-care, education and
town-planning ministries have been organized since the beginning of
2005. The teaching-seminar has been the fifth since the beginning of
June.

According to Newton-Avalyan, the PAPSR will be focused on the raising
the level of Armenian journalists’ skills within the nearest two
years.

National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Talk of the Nation 3:00 AM EST NPR
July 4, 2005 Monday

Nino Burzhanadze discusses the Rose Revolution in the former Soviet
republic of Georgia and the current state of the country

ANCHORS: LYNN NEARY

LYNN NEARY, host:

It’s been more than 200 years since American revolutionaries rose up
in protest against their rulers and replaced them with a new
government. For the former Soviet republic of Georgia, it’s been less
than two. In what is known as the Rose Revolution, protesters in the
capital city, Tblisi, carried roses as they stormed the Parliament
and drove Edward Shevardnadze, a president whom they blamed for
corruption and economic failure. He resigned, and now Georgia is
working to rebuild its economy and its democracy.

We are now joined in Studio 3A by one of the leaders of the
revolution, Nino Burzhanadze. She is now the speaker of the Georgian
Parliament.

Thanks so much for being with us.

Ms. NINO BURZHANADZE (Speaker of the Georgian Parliament): Thank you.
It’s a pleasure.

NEARY: If you have any questions about the Georgian revolution or
what’s going on in that country today, give us a call at (800)
989-TALK; that’s (800) 989-8255.

Well, it’s very exciting to have you here on our Fourth of July. Of
course, our American Revolution was a long and costly war. Tell us a
little bit about the Rose Revolution. Very different from our own
revolution, wasn’t it?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Thank you. First of all, I would like to use this
opportunity and to congratulate American people, our friendly
American people, with this national day of independence. It’s really
very important because your country is really fighting for democracy
in the whole world. And I would like and Georgian people would want
to wish you all, all of you, a success and peace and all the best.

About our revolution, I’m really very proud the Georgian people
really fighted for democracy and for their rights to defend their
choice, because Georgia really is a former Soviet republic, which the
second time being independent from ’91 and during the 10, 12 years of
independence, we really had a lot of problems and challenges, as
there was no electricities. The level of living in the country was
really very bad, and people had a lot of social and economic
problems. But we had two unsolved conflicts in our territory, in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We had very bad relations with Russia. We
had civil war during those 10 years. But nevertheless, people tried
to keep silent; people were very patient; they’re trying to keep
stability in the country and never entered into the street.

But in 2003, when they were waiting for free and fair elections just
to find solution and to change corrupted government which was not
able to solve many problems of our people. When people saw that
government and unfortunately President Shevardnadze, they don’t want
to pay attention on people’s voice. They don’t care what people are
saying about–they don’t care about free and fair elections and real
democracy in the country. One hundred thousand people went in front
of the Parliament, were standing during three weeks, day and night,
under rainy and very cold weather, in front of the majority in
Parliament, defended their right to have free and fair election in
the country. That was why revolution happened.

NEARY: Yeah. Revolution is an exciting kind of thing to happen, but
then you become a member of the government; you have to rule the
country. That’s a difficult transition; it’s a difficult change.

Ms. BURZHANADZE: I was–even before revolution for two years, I was
speaker of the Georgia Parliament, elected from opposition. And being
the speaker of the Parliament, I was at the same time in opposition
with President Shevardnadze, which was really quite difficult. But of
course to be now a member of governmental party and to be support of
president and to be–to ruling the country after revolution is really
very serious problem and challenges because people supported us; they
had huge expectations that everything will be solved in very short
period of time. And of course, it’s really very serious obligation
not to disappoint these people.

And President Saakashvili, myself and all of us were trying to do our
best not to disappoint these hundreds of thousand people who were
fighting with roses but nevertheless for democracy. We really don’t
want to disappoint our Western friends and friends in United States,
and we have to do too many things. And we are doing real a lot. We
are trying–we are fighting against corruption, and I can say that
during these two years–of course, we can’t say that there is no
corruption anymore in Georgia, but corruption is not exist as
institution anymore. We are making lot of reforms to strengths in
civil society, to strengths in democratic institutions, to strengths
in independent judiciary, to improving Western climate in the
country, but we still need time.

NEARY: What was the hardest challenge that you faced at the end of
the revolution?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: First of all, it was the ability to keep stability
in the country, because Georgia, located in very difficult and
complicated region, too many forces, let’s say, who really didn’t
want to have Georgia a successful example of fighting for democracy.
And it was really quite difficult to keep stability. But fortunately,
people, government, president, we–all together, we did a lot and
keep stability in the country.

NEARY: And the situation now is stable?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Situation is now absolutely stable, but the main
problem is that we still have two unsolved conflicts on our
territories. And when you have 500 million population and 300,000
refugees, it’s very difficult to speak about stability.

NEARY: I’m talking with Nino Burzhanadze. She is the house speaker
for the Georgian Parliament. If you have any questions for her about
the situation in Georgia in the years since the revolution, give us a
call; we’re at (800) 989-TALK; that’s (800) 989-8255.

And you’re listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

And we’re going to take a call now from–I think it’s John, and he’s
calling from California, from San Francisco. Hi, John.

JOHN (Caller): Hello, and congratulations to the Georgian people and
to the speaker. Here’s my question. Since the time of Gamsakhurdia,
the Armenians of Georgia, who comprise about 10 percent, have
complained of government oppression against their religion, their
religious sites and against them as a people. What is the new
government doing to remedy these problems, including the extreme
poverty in Javak?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Thank you for this question. Concerning Armenian
population, we are really trying now to solve this problem. I would
like to thank American government because of Millennium Challenge
Account Corporation, we decided to have very serious project in
Javakheti region to improve infrastructure, what gives possibility to
these people to be integrated in Georgian society much better. We
have very friendly relations with Armenia as a state, and we have
very good relations with Armenian people themself. But they really
have problems, but the same problems and in other regions. So–but
nevertheless, we tried to put Armenia region in the first priority to
help to these people to be involved in Georgian reality and Georgian
state building processes more seriously. And I hope that in nearest
future we will have full success in this region.

NEARY: Does that answer your question, John? Yeah, I think so. Thanks
very much.

Are Armenians represented in this government?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Yes, of course, and in the Parliament, too.

NEARY: Let’s take another call, then, from Kemp(ph) in Raleigh, North
Carolina. Hi, Kemp.

KEMP (Caller): Good afternoon.

NEARY: Good afternoon.

KEMP: My question is: How do you see the United States as an example
as you’re trying to promote democracy in Georgia? We’re, of course,
celebrating our Independence Day today, and I’m curious how we are
setting a good example for your country. Thank you.

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Thank you very much for this question. First of all,
I really don’t want to miss this opportunity and to thank President
Bush for his wonderful and fantastic visit in Georgia. It was really
very important for us, and President Saakashvili mentioned during
President Bush’s visit that we had a lot of guests during our
history, but it was the first time when a leader of a superpower was
in Georgia as a friend who really supported Georgian people and
continued to stay support. And that was why people were so happy. One
hundred fifty thousand people came to Independence Square just to
welcome President Bush, because these people have the feelings that
President Bush and the American people, you have a country who really
tried to help other countries, even small countries like Georgia, to
protect their rights, to build real democracy.

You know why it’s so important for us to have very close relations
with United States. Some of our Russian colleagues don’t understand
this. Even yesterday during …(unintelligible) parliamentary
assembly, a wise speaker of Russian state Duma called Georgia as
gubernia who is under influence of United States. But these persons
and the persons like her don’t understand that our relations are
based on common values. These values are human rights; these values
are building democracy, strong state institutions.

And one very good example–you asked about example–you know, until
now, all success which we achieved in Georgia depended a lot from the
leadership from presidents, from other leaders, because state
institutions in the country were really very weak. And one of the
mistakes of former President Shevardnadze was that he didn’t
strengthen state institutions, and everything depended from him. And
when he made one mistake or two mistakes and when people surrounding
him were making mistakes, it created serious problem for the country.
We have good example in United States when you are trying not to be
dependent only from the leadership, which is always very important,
but you are trying really to strengthen state institutions, to
strengthen government, Parliament, civil society, NGOs, free press.
This is grat examples for us.

NEARY: Briefly–we have less than a minute–I’m just curious; you’re
the speaker of–the house speaker for Parliament. Do you have any
ambition to become president or prime minister yourself?

Ms. BURZHANADZE: No, concerning prime minister, first of all, I would
like to say that I have been already president as a president of
Georgia. I served two months after revolution.

NEARY: Oh, that’s right.

Ms. BURZHANADZE: And, you know, I can say that it was most difficult
period of time in my life, even more difficult than during
revolution. Concerning prime minister, of course not. I think I have
serious obligations to strengthen Parliament.

NEARY: All right. Thanks so much for being with us.

Ms. BURZHANADZE: Thank you.

NEARY: We’re out of time. Nino Burzhanadze is the house speaker for
the Georgian Parliament. She is with us today in Studio 3A.

Thanks so much for being with us.

This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. I’m Lynn Neary.

Neue Zürcher Zeitung
9. Juli 2005

Geschichte als Schlüssel zur Zukunft

Auswärtige Autoren

Der Armeniermord und die Identität der Türkei

Der Völkermord von 1915/16 an den Armeniern ist virulente Gegenwart.
Mit dem Vorwurf, sie stiessen der türkischen Nation einen Dolch in
den Rücken, liess der türkische Justizminister Cemil Çiçek am 24. Mai
wutentbrannt eine Historikerkonferenz in Istanbul über die
spätosmanisch-armenische Geschichte platzen. Unter den Eingeladenen
war auch der “dissidente” Historiker Taner Akçam, nicht eingeladen
hingegen war der Präsident des staatlichen Instituts für Geschichte,
Yusuf Halaçoglu, der oberste Hüter türkischer Nationalgeschichte. Im
Folgenden sollen je zwei Bücher dieser zwei Antagonisten sowie eine
Veröffentlichung deutscher Quellen besprochen werden, die für das
Thema zentral sind.

Ein Tabu aus der Gründungszeit

1976 wegen publizistischer Tätigkeit verurteilt, floh Akçam nach
Deutschland, wo es ihm trotz vielen Schwierigkeiten, darunter
Todesdrohungen von Seiten türkischer Nationalisten, gelang, einen
eigenständigen akademischen Weg einzuschlagen und hartnäckig zu
verfolgen. Wichtig war dabei die Unterstützung durch Jan Philipp
Reemtsma, den Direktor des Hamburger Instituts für Sozialforschung.
Akçam, gegenwärtig Gastprofessor für Geschichte an der University of
Minnesota, widmet ihm seinen Band “From Empire to Republic”. Dieser
besteht aus mehreren Essays, die um Akçams Einsicht vom armenischen
Völkermord als dem zentralen Tabu der türkischen Nationalgeschichte
kreisen. Radikal und zugleich einfühlsam hinterfragt er die
innertürkische Perspektive auf die nationale Gründungsepoche
(1913-1938). Er hat seine grundlegende These bereits 1992 in einem
Buch auf Türkisch formuliert – jetzt ist sie konzentriert im zweiten
Kapitel des Bandes auf Englisch nachlesbar.

Akçam verbindet seine These mit der Überzeugung, dass ohne ein
radikales Überdenken der Entstehung des Nationalstaats die politische
Kultur der Republik beschädigt, das heisst in Sachen Menschenrechte
und Demokratie defizitär bleiben wird. Insofern ist das historische
Schaffen für ihn der Schlüssel zur demokratischen Zukunft seines
Landes. Dies umfasst sowohl gegenwartsgeschichtliche Reflexion als
auch dokumentarische Knochenarbeit mit türkischen, osmanischen,
armenischen und anderen Quellen. So analysiert Akçam detailliert die
jungtürkische Politik ethnischer Homogenisierung Anatoliens, die 1913
einsetzte, im Frühjahr 1914 mit heimlich organisierten Vertreibungen
osmanischer Christen von der Westküste einen ersten Höhepunkt fand
und im Ersten Weltkrieg in der Vernichtung der armenischen
Gemeinschaft gipfelte. Auch rekonstruiert er die Herausbildung der
konkreten Entscheidung dafür im März/April 1915.

Der Prozess gegen die Verantwortlichen

Akçams Buch “Armenien und der Völkermord” enthält drei Teile: eine
Darstellung des Völkermordes und seiner Vorgeschichte, eine Recherche
über die internationalen und liberalen osmanischen Anstrengungen, den
Verantwortlichen 1918-1920 den Prozess zu machen, und eine Auswahl
von Übersetzungen der Prozessprotokolle. Diese 1996 erstmals
veröffentlichte, weiterhin aktuelle Doktorarbeit Akçams verdiente
eine Neuauflage. Schade ist nur, dass die Gelegenheit nicht genutzt
wurde, um einen Namenindex beizufügen und Errata zu korrigieren;
inakzeptabel ist, dass jeglicher Hinweis auf die Erstauflage fehlt. –
Nicht nur nationalistische Drohungen, auch Demütigungen akademischer
Art musste Akçam in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten über sich
ergehen lassen. Im Gegensatz zum akademischen Establishment hat der
marginalisierte Dissident die Zeichen der Zeit und die
Herausforderungen der Gesellschaft früh erkannt. Daher hat er
intellektuell etwas zu sagen und wird – so ist für die Türkei zu
hoffen – bald eine Lehrposition in seinem eigenen Land erhalten.

Deutsche Zeugen und Akteure

Das Versagen, sich mit dem Völkermord auseinanderzusetzen, hängt
damit zusammen, dass der Staat den Wissenschaftsbetrieb kontrolliert
und die Positionen entsprechend verteilt, zu einem guten Teil auch an
den Privatuniversitäten. Damit ist für Selbstreproduktion und
-referenzialität gesorgt. Das lässt sich vom deutschsprachigen
Wissenschaftsbetrieb so nicht sagen. Und doch ist es nicht die
Historikerzunft – ihr ist die deutsche Vergangenheit an der Seite der
Jungtürken bisher ziemlich fremd geblieben – , sondern ein
pensionierter Journalist, der im April dieses Jahres eine
wissenschaftliche Ausgabe der überaus bedeutenden deutschen Quellen
zu Kleinasien im Ersten Weltkrieg vorgelegt hat. Damit kam er gerade
noch rechtzeitig für eine Debatte, die unterdessen, mit 90 Jahren
Verspätung, auch die “politische Klasse” erfasst hat. Wolfgang Gust,
der Herausgeber, wurde dabei von seiner Frau Sigrid, einer Juristin,
und einem internationalen Netzwerk von Experten unterstützt.

In einer substanziellen Einleitung von rund hundert Seiten fasst Gust
die Etappen und Schauplätze des Völkermords zusammen und wirft
zugleich einen guten, kritischen Blick auf die deutschen Akteure vor
Ort. Darunter befanden sich so verschiedene wie Johannes Lepsius
(deutscher Patriot, aber schliesslich doch noch mehr ein Christ,
Chronist und humanitärer Aktivist) sowie Kriegsminister Enver Paschas
Freunde Hans Humann, Marineattaché bei der Botschaft, und Fritz
Bronsart von Schellendorf, der Chef des Generalstabs. Auf die
Einleitung folgen 500 Seiten mit einer Auswahl diplomatischer Akten,
dann deren englische Kurzversion und schliesslich ein Index. Die
deutsche Dokumentation ist zentral, weil Deutsche als
Kriegsverbündete privilegierte Zeugen waren, sowohl in unmittelbarer
Nähe der militärischen und zivilen Eliten als auch mit relativ freiem
Zugang ins Landesinnere, wo sich der Völkermord abspielte. Die
Gesamtheit der einschlägigen deutschen diplomatischen Akten hat Gust
auf dem Internet zugänglich gemacht (), wo auch die
Möglichkeit einer elektronischen Suche besteht.

Die Propagandaversion

Yusuf Halaçoglu und sein Team haben sich die Aufgabe stellen lassen,
eine nationalistische Up-to-date-Version zu formulieren, wie die
Armenier aus Kleinasien “verschwanden”. Vor allem der Band aus dem
Jahr 2004 bemüht sich darum, auch ausländische Quellen zu
berücksichtigen, insbesondere prestigeträchtige deutsche. Dabei soll
das Thema von seiner “mathematischen, das heisst demographischen
Dimension” angegangen werden. So wird Walter Rössler, der deutsche
Konsul in Aleppo, als Beleg für die Behauptung genommen, nur etwa
200″000 Armenier seien während “der Ereignisse im Ersten Weltkrieg”
umgekommen.

Rössler machte allerdings in seinem Brief an Reichskanzler Bethmann
vom 20. Dezember 1915 darauf aufmerksam, dass die von Grossbritannien
vorgebrachte Zahl von 800″000 armenischen Toten leider realistisch
sei, und warnte eindringlich vor Gegenpropaganda. Der Missbrauch
dieser Quelle geht so vor sich: Rössler schätzte im selben Schreiben,
dass eine halbe Million Deportierter noch lebend Syrien erreichte und
dass eine weitere halbe Million gar nicht deportiert wurde. Diese
Million übernehmen die Autoren, subtrahieren sie von den 1,5
Millionen, die sie selbst als Anzahl kleinasiatischer Armenier
annehmen, ziehen weitere Hunderttausende ab, die sie als
auslandabwesend taxieren, und enden so bei einer Minimalzahl, die für
naive Leser als gestützt durch deutsche Quellen erscheint.

Wege der Verdrehung

Gewalt wird nicht nur den deutschen Quellen angetan. Halaçoglu
spricht in seinem ersten Buch von vorübergehenden Umsiedlungen und
der vorgesehenen Rückgabe der umfangreichen armenischen Besitztümer.
Die vielfach bezeugte Wirklichkeit vor Ort, aber auch Quellen des
Zentralstaats sagen anderes aus: Nach seiner Inspektionsreise nach
Mittel- und Ostanatolien hielt der Innenminister Talat am 5. Dezember
1916 befriedigt fest, wie segensreich es gewesen sei, die Armenier zu
entfernen, und wie erfolgreich die Muslime deren Güter und Läden in
Besitz genommen hätten.

Es fehlt an Terrainkenntnis, am Willen zum Gesamtbild und an
historischer Quellenkritik. So ist es absurd, die Anweisungen in
einem Telegramm Talats vom 29. August 1915 an die Provinzgouverneure
Mittel- und Ostanatoliens als einen Beleg dafür zu zitieren, dass bei
der Deportation keine Vernichtungsabsicht geherrscht habe, die
Sicherheit gewährleistet gewesen sei, gewalttätige Beamte bestraft
worden sowie die Katholiken und Protestanten von der Deportation
ausgeschlossen gewesen seien. Denn die dortigen Verschickungen waren
zum grossen Teil schon abgeschlossen, inklusive Katholiken und
Protestanten, die meisten Männer ausserhalb der Städte massakriert,
Frauen und Kindern vielfacher Drangsal – Massenvergewaltigung,
Hunger, Durst, Krankheit – ausgesetzt worden, und Talat hatte kurz
zuvor dem deutschen Botschafter Hohenlohe mitgeteilt: “La question
arménienne n’existe plus.”

Das Telegramm vom 29. August, das als “Beweis” gegen den Völkermord
aufgeführt wird, hatte schon Botschafter Hohenlohe als
Propagandatrick durchschaut. Denn zusammen mit weiteren Telegrammen
hatte Talat Bey es am 2. September 1915 in deutscher Übersetzung dem
deutschen Botschafter zuhanden der europäischen Presse übergeben.
Hohenlohe riet jedoch in seinem Brief vom 4. September dem
Reichskanzler Bethmann-Hollweg von einer Publikation ab – zu
offensichtlich war die Propagandalüge, zu grotesk war der Widerspruch
zu den gegenteiligen Berichten des eigenen Nachrichtendienstes.

Man nimmt als Historiker erschüttert zur Kenntnis, dass
Berufskollegen im Staatsdienst die Disziplin und Ordentlichkeit der
Deportationen, die vorzügliche Verpflegung und gesundheitliche
Betreuung sowie den komfortablen Transport mittels Eisenbahn oder
Ochsenwagen behaupten und sich damit brüsten, es habe sich dabei
“wohl um die systematischste Organisation von Umsiedlungen im 20.
Jahrhundert” gehandelt. Vollends tragikomisch wird es, wenn der
Steuererlass des Innenministeriums für die Deportierten vom 4. August
1915 – als das meiste armenische Gut geraubt war und viele Armenier
schon getötet waren – als besonders humanitäre Massnahme des Staates
gepriesen wird. Solche Geschichtsvorstellungen sind unhaltbar und
Teil einer zu überwindenden politischen Kultur. Justizminister Çiçeks
Rückgriff auf nationalistische Instinkte, um eine kritische
Historikerkonferenz zu torpedieren, belegt dies. Die heftigen
Reaktionen in der Presse gegen Çiçek nähren indes die Hoffnung, dass
die Öffentlichkeit dies fortan nicht mehr duldet und die Konferenz
bald doch noch stattfinden kann.

Hans-Lukas Kieser

Taner Akçam: From empire to republic. Turkish nationalism and the
Armenian genocide. Zed Books, London 2004. 288″S.

Taner Akçam: Armenien und der Völkermord. Die Istanbuler Prozesse und
die türkische Nationalbewegung. Verlag Hamburger Edition, Hamburg
2004. 439″S., Fr. 28.60, “16.-.

Wolfgang Gust (Hg.): Der Völkermord an den Armeniern 1915/16.
Dokumente aus dem Politischen Archiv des deutschen Auswärtigen Amts.
Verlag zu Klampen, Springe 2005. 675″S., Fr. 69.-, “40.-.

Yusuf Halaçoglu: Ermeni tehciri ve gerçekler (1914-1918). Türk Tarih
Kurumu, Ankara 2001. Im gleichen Verlag auf Englisch: Facts on the
relocation of Armenians 1914-1918. 2002.

Yusuf Halaçoglu, Ramazan Çalk, Kemal Çiçek, Hikmet Özdemir, Ömer
Turan: Ermeniler. Sürgün ve göç. Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara 2004.

A1plus

| 20:35:22 | 08-07-2005 | Politics |

LENMARKER’S POINT OF VIEW

Today head of the Armenian delegation to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, NA
deputy speaker Vahan Hovhannisyan and member of the delegation Samvel
Nikoyan rendered a press conference and reported details about the OSCE PA
summer session in Washington on July 1-5.

OSCE PA President special representative of the NKG conflict Goran Lenmarker
had represented a report about the Karabakh conflict there. According to
Vahan Hovhannisyan, the report was balanced and had positive provisions for
the Armenian side, whereas for the Azeri side it caused much hubbub.

The report about Karabakh was prepared as a result of hard work in which the
NKR ex-national Assembly and ex-President Oleg Yesayan had their
contribution. A very important provision for the Armenian side has been
included in the report: they consider it unacceptable to relate the
cooperation with Armenia to the return of the security zone lands. The
report stresses cooperation without preconditions, for which the program
`Enlarged Europe – New Neighbors’ gives a good possibility. According to the
NA deputy speaker, the report treats the Armenian-Azeri relations more than
the Karabakh conflict.

The second important fact is that in the report not only the positions of
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been mentioned but those of the third side –
Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Vahan Hovhannisyan brought the example of the
Azeri side offering to hold negotiations with Karabakh.

According to the document, the Caucasian region must not be divided into
small republics. Therefore, the most acceptable variant is to unite Karabakh
with Armenia one way or another. Nevertheless, the report stresses the
necessity to return the areas near Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

The head of the Armenian delegation underlined that the represented report
is the only official document about the conflict in the OSCE PA, and all the
other documents will be based on it.

RUSSIA’S STATE DUMA TO CONSIDER PROLONGATION OF RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN
AGREEMENT ON REGULATION OF VOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT

YEREVAN, JULY 8. ARMINFO. Today Russia’s State Duma will consider
ratifying the protocol prolonging the Russian-Armenian agreement on
the regulation of voluntary resettlement signed Aug 29 1997 and
prolonged by the Armenian side Mar 4 2004.

The agreement excepts resettles from private property export-import
restrictions and from customs duty and tax payments as well as
envisages assistance in their housing.

Any property disputes with concerned people in the exit country should
be settled according to the legislation o that very country. The
protocol was approved by the Russian Government May 16 2005.

RIA Novosti, Russia
July 4 2005

Russia has greatest influence on Armenia – poll
16:09

YEREVAN, July 4 (RIA Novosti, Gamlet Matevosyan) – Most Armenians say
that Russia has the greatest influence on their country.

Stepan Safaryan of the Armenian Strategic and National Research
Center (ATsSNI) said that 85% of experts polled and 58.9% of other
respondents considered Russia to be the country with the greatest
influence on Armenia.

Safaryan also said that 52.5% of the Armenian experts supported
Armenia joining NATO, with 30% against. Most supporters of NATO
accession (63.7%) said that Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan needed a
common security system, and 31.8% of them said that NATO was the most
effective.

77.8% of experts who opposed joining NATO said Armenia would not be
welcome in the alliance, while 22.2% said accession was impossible
because of tensions with Turkey.

Safaryan said that only 34.7% of civilian respondents backed the idea
of the accession to NATO, citing the need for an effective security
system, while 33.9% were against, saying Armenia should remain a
member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which also
includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

ATsSNI conducted the poll of 40 experts and 1,500 civilians on June
18-25.

Mehr News Agency, Iran
July 3 2005

Art News in Brief

Armenian Iranian composer and conductor Loris Tjeknavorian has begun
composing his 3rd orchestral work, the opera `Siyavash’, which is
based on the Shahnameh stories, ISNA reported on Sunday.

Pan Armenian News

ROBERT KOCHARIAN CONGRATULATED US EMBASSY STAFF WITH INDEPENDENCE DAY

01.07.2005 03:28

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On the occasion of the US national holiday – the
Independence Day – Armenian President Robert Kocharian visited the US
Embassy in Yerevan, RA Presdient’s press center reported. Robert Kocharian
congratulated the embassy staff with the holiday and expressed assurance
that the close ties established between the two states will develop in
future.

Future Prospects for Armenia

REMARKS BY EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN
DIRECTOR OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AT RICE
UNIVERSITY
TO THE ARMENIAN REPORTER INTERNATIONAL
FORTIETH-ANNIVERSARY GALA
June 25, 2005

Dear Friends,

It is indeed a pleasure to be here with you tonight to participate in
the celebration of the Armenian Reporter’s Fortieth Anniversary and to
honor the outstanding work of its Senior Editor, Ed Boghossian. The
Armenian Reporter, under Ed Boghossian’s leadership, has long been an
important independent voice of the Armenian community in America. The
Armenian Reporter has shunned the strident partisanship that has,
unfortunately, characterized far too much of the Armenian Diaspora’s
history. The Reporter has been a strong advocate of democracy in Armenia
and for Armenia’s regional integration and strong relations with the
United States. It has informed the Armenian Diaspora on these critical
issues and, in so doing, has played that central role of open discussion
and debate that the free press should. So, I congratulate the Armenian
Reporter and Ed Boghossian on these accomplishments and wish you the
best success in the years ahead.

Allow me to take this opportunity to express some of my views on how I
see the future of Armenia at this important crossroads in its history.

First, let us not forget that we are very fortunate indeed to see in our
lifetime the emergence of Armenia as a free and independent state after
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. And for
me, as I am sure for all of us here tonight, Armenia’s independence and
evolution as a democratic and prosperous state is a cherished goal.

When I was assigned to the United States Embassy in Moscow where I was
the Political Counselor during President Jimmy Carter’s Administration,
it was a very difficult period following the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. Toward the end of our tour of duty, my wife and I and our
young son visited Soviet Armenia. The Armenian Communist Party
leadership was a bit nervous about my visit, given the adversarial state
of US-Soviet relations at that time. In stark contrast, our visit was
warmly welcomed by the Armenian Church and we had a direct introduction
to the role of the Armenian Church as the symbol of Armenian
nationalism. After my rather fruitless and protocolaire meetings with
government officials in Yerevan, I was met by a young, staunchly
nationalist Armenian priest who escorted us on our first visit to
Etchmiadzin. While the car was passing under the red Soviet propaganda
banners displayed across the road, the young priest asked me if I could
read Russian and I replied affirmatively- He then said, what does that
banner say? 1 replied, “the unity of the people and the party”. The
priest then turned his head toward me and said, “You are not a good
Armenian.” Rather surprised, I asked why not. He replied that “a real
Armenian would have read that banner to say “the unity of the people and
the Church”. We were, indeed, on our way to Etchmiadzin and this young
Armenian priest’s words would prove to be especially prophetic a decade
later.

But the challenge today is for Armenians in Armenia and throughout the
Diaspora to work together to ensure that Armenia realizes the true
fruits of independence by evolving as a truly democratic state living
under the rule of law, providing its people with economic prosperity and
security, and pursuing an enlightened foreign policy that maximizes
Armenia’s great potential to be a cultural, economic, commercial,
scientific and democratic center in the South Caucasus and as a regional
bridge between the North and South and the East and West.

Most importantly, while the realization of an independent Armenia is an
impressive achievement, the current challenge lies in determining what
type of country Armenia will become. And that, my friends, is the key
question facing the Armenians of Armenia and the Armenians of the
Diaspora. We can no longer afford to ignore the shortcomings, nor can we
blindly accept some of the more troubling trends in today’s Armenia,

While Armenia has made important progress, particularly in terms of
economic reform and marketization, the absence of a long-term solution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict serves to only constrain economic
growth, restricts efforts to improve regional security, harms normal
relations with its neighbors and impedes integration into Euro-Atlantic
institutions. Domestically, and faced with an ongoing constitutional
debate and upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections, Armenia
now has a window of opportunity to take important ~W and long overdue ~
steps forward on democratic reform.

On constitutional reform, it is especially important to correct the
imbalance of power that defines the country’s political system. Armenian
governance is largely characterized by an overly dominant executive
branch that needs to govern with much more accountability. The lack of
an independent judiciary and an ineffective and overly compliant
legislature mandates greater “checks and balances” in Armenia. The
current discussion of constitutional amendments should also be brought
into the public sphere now, while there is time to have public input and
buy-in. The support of the Armenian people is essential if Armenia is
able to evolve in a truly democratic manner.

Armenians deserve to have full confidence in their elected leaders.
Armenia’s authorities must ensure that parliamentary and presidential
elections in 2007 and 2008 are free and fair. The U.S. Government and
others are already working toward this goal. The Diaspora should
actively underscore this message with the Armenian Government. Armenia’s
leaders must govern the country in the national interest, not from
self-interest.

Allow me to make a comment here on the Armenian Diaspora. Armenians
living in countries which enjoy the fruits of liberty, democracy and the
benefits of private market economies have a strong hope, I believe, that
Armenia will evolve as a strong and stable democracy endowed with
freedom and the rule of law as the hallmarks of the Armenian political
system, Armenia, since it became an independent republic in 1991, had
set out on this path. But this evolution must be consolidated and
attempts, as we have seen in the recent past, to thwart Armenia’s
democratic evolution, especially by resorting to extralegal means and
violence, must be prevented at all costs. We must ensure that the past
incidents of political violence remain only one-time aberrations in the
course toward true democracy. We have waited far too long for Armenian
independence and any retreat from democracy must neither be tolerated
nor excused. These democratic ideals are veal values which Armenians
both in Armenia and in the Diaspora hold to be dear. Especially, as
Americans, we must be true to our values and must be strong advocates of
the consolidation of democracy in Armenia.

Democracy and economic development and reforms go hand in hand.
Armenia’s business environment, economic development and foreign
investment must be promoted in a more even and transparent manner. Over
the past decade, Armenia has achieved remarkable economic growth in
spite of being cut off from markets (10.1% GDP growth in 2004, 8%
projected growth for 2005), but could do far better in attracting
foreign investment. Reforms are necessary in the financial sector and
tax administration. The business environment is not conducive to foreign
investment due to overregulation, systemic corruption, which is a very
serious problem, and the lack of administrative courts to protect
investors ~W these are all disincentives to sustained growth and development.

Concerning the Diaspora’s role in investment in Armenia and despite the
structural problems, several Diaspora investors are now active in
Armenia and appear to be turning a profit (most notably in the IT,
tourism and export sectors). However, most of the outside investments in
Armenia axe coming from Armenians in Russia, who know how to “work the
system”. The Armenian Diaspora in Russia has a very important role to
play in Armenia, including the prospects of Armenians there eventually
returning to Armenia. However, much more needs to be done to encourage
and facilitate investment from other Armenians in the Diaspora who live
in the countries of Europe, the United States, Latin America and the
Middle East. Business in Armenia requires on-the-ground attention and a
considerable investment of time. The U.S. Government encourages smart
U.S. investments that will bring American know-how and
business standards to Armenia. It is important to inculcate these values
and standards in Armenia. Let us not forget that Armenia was once
considered to be the Silicon Valley of the Soviet Union, providing
advanced avionics for Soviet aircraft and supercomputers. With literacy
rate of 98+6%f is there any question that Armenia’s highly educated
population could not aspire to play a comparable role now in the region?

However, to accomplish this, the rule of law and anti-corruption
policies need to be more vigorously pursued. More specifically, Armenia
all too often demonstrates a rule of law that is more a “law of rulers.”
An anti-corruption strategy exists, but it has no teeth; it must be
unambiguously supported by Armenia’s current and future political
leadership and it needs strong enforcement provisions- The international
community — including the Diaspora – can help by insisting on the
implementation of a meaningful and sustained anti-corruption strategy.

The economic and social situation in Armenia has, unfortunately, been
characterized by the emigration of human capital-people who are seeking
better opportunities elsewhere. Unfortunately, one of Armenia’s most
important exports has been its people. This is particularly troubling
given the small size of Armenia. With a population of less than three
million, Armenia can ill afford to lose its ~Sbest and brightest,”
Foreign direct investment, trade, commerce and economic development will
all be enhanced with progress in one area: a negotiated settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Indeed, borders can be opened, blockades
lifted and the long journey toward the reconciliation of all peoples and
countries of the region can move forward.
Further, Armenia must look at current trends in the region. Russia will
continue to seek deeper ties with the West and beyond. Turkey is looking
westward, seeking to be part of the European Community, while
strengthening its ties in the Middle East and Central Asia and improving
its relationship with the United States. Georgia and Azerbaijan are
actively pursuing stronger relations with the West.

Armenia’s relations with the United States are very important and
involve interaction on issues such as non-proliferation and border
security, international narcotics, money laundering and the trafficking
in persons, and the development of democratic institutions and
sustainable economic growth. Washington appreciates Armenia’s support in
Iraq and that both countries are working together in a peacekeeping
battalion.

Iran’s future direction remains problematic, but it is a major regional
player. Increasingly, change in Iran is not a question of if, but of
when. Iran’s policies will have important implications for Armenia.
While Armenia’s relations with Russia will remain very important,
Armenia must avoid becoming over-dependent on Russia.

Thus, the promise for Armenia’s security and prosperity rests with
following the major trends toward regional and international
integration. Armenia can no longer risk being “the odd man out”. Indeed;
Armenia should rediscover and reaffirm its historic role as a bridge
between the North and South, and the East and West.

Armenians recognize that open borders with its neighbors will bring
peace and prosperity. The government of Armenia should continue efforts
that will benefit the country in the long-term: Namely, serious efforts
within the OSCE Minsk Group process on Nagorno-Karabakh and work toward
establishment of full diplomatic relations with Turkey should remain top
priorities. The Diaspora should strongly discourage the false idea that
time is on Armenia’s side.

Every year without full relations with neighbors comes with huge
opportunity costs for Armenia. For example, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline’s
most economically commercial routing would have been through Armenia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey will benefit from this energy-related
commercial linkage. Despite Azerbaijan’s current internal political
difficulties, its economic and military potential will only grow in the
years ahead. Rhetorically, this was underscored by Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliev in June, 2005, who boasted of his country’s military muscle
at a rally of the ruling party in the capital of Baku: “Azerbaijan has
recently got the upper hand in negotiations with Armenia over the
resolution, of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Military and economic
potential are on our side. We will get our lands back/’ Aliev said.
While this militant posturing does little to help the situation, it does
reveal the fact that Armenia’s current military advantage is only
temporary, and should not be taken for granted.

Despite the rhetoric and looking ahead to the period beyond Azerbaijan’s
upcoming parliamentary elections, Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the help
of the international community, must make every effort to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabagh issue in a timely and comprehensive manner. Let me make
clear that the period ahead is the time for diplomacy. And while there
is now a window of opportunity, that window will not remain open for too
long.

In 1999 and in my current capacity as the Director of the Baker
Institute at Rice University we conducted a conflict resolution mission
and flew to Baku and to Yerevan to help facilitate the negotiations
between the parties on the issue of Nagorno-Karabagh. We were received
at the highest levels in both countries and did what we could to move
the process forward. I was heartened later in 2001 by the high level
involvement of President George W. Bush, and then Secretary of State
Colin Powell and the State Department team in urging the parties to move
forward. A unique opportunity with the highest level of United States
involvement to achieve a peaceful settlement was missed by the Azeri and
Armenian leadership; I am convinced that a negotiated settlement is
still possible. But it will take strong political will on the part of
the leadership of the parties directly involved and creative and active
diplomacy on the part of the OSCE members, especially the United States,
France and Russia, There are different approaches which have been
discussed and put on the table for discussion and there is reason to
believe that, when negotiations resume, a focused effort to narrow the
differences on some of the key issues can help the parties reach a
resolution both sides can support and agree upon.

At the same time, there must be resort by both sides to Public Diplomacy
so that public opinion in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, can begin to
better understand the merits of a negotiated settlement and the benefits
that both the Armenian and Azeri people will enjoy from the peaceful
resolution of this dispute. This means that both governments in Yerevan
and Baku must make public gestures and statements that ameliorate the
atmosphere so that the negotiating process
Obtains the support of the people of both countries. Such an approach
would be an important confidence building measure.

What concerns me the most now is that it has been over a decade since
the Nagorno-Karabagh ceasefire; and failed efforts to find a negotiated
settlement are resulting in the hardening of political attitudes amongst
certain domestic constituencies in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. It would
indeed be a tragedy if the willingness expressed by the leaders of both
Armenia and Azerbaijan to make a lasting peace coupled with the progress
made in recent years during negotiations at different levels should all
falter. Both sides must take steps now to confront those groups, both in
Armenia and Azerbaijan that have vested interests in the status quo.
Without a determined effort of public diplomacy, the entrenched
hard-line posturing on all sides could become one of the most serious
obstacles to peace.

Even if there is no outbreak of fighting in the near term, the absence
of an agreement will have a major negative effect posing an obstacle to
the political economic and social development and progress of both
Armenia and Azerbaijan and can lead to regional instability in the South
Caucasus. But again, it is not just the peace process itself that is the
sole challenge. The need to “sell” and secure any peace deal is an
equally difficult challenge for both sides.

Looming large in the background of this overall situation is the
strategic importance of Armenian-Turkish relations. I am an advocate of
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and between the Turkish and
Armenian people. Armenia cannot obtain its full potential without full
and normal diplomatic relations with Turkey, and the Armenian government
has called for that. And Turkey, likewise, can enhance significantly its
international standing and foreign policy goals, e.g., with the EU, by
the establishment of full and normal relations with Armenia.

Two major issues impede the establishment of such relations and
reconciliation; the lack of a negotiated agreement and comprehensive
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh issue, and the issue of the Armenian
genocide+ What needs to be done, in my view, is for all parties to
engage on these issues concomitantly.

First, as I mentioned earlier, is the need to engage in discussions and
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan seeking a peaceful
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh issue. And second is to pick up on
the two public proposals~Wone Turkish and one Armenian~Wby Prime Minister
Erdogan in his letter to President Kocharian for the creation of a joint
commission to address the history of the Turks and Armenians, and
President Kocharian’s proposal for an intergovernmental commission to
meet and discuss all outstanding issues between the two countries with
the aim of resolving them. Let that discussion begin now.

My friends, it is, as I said, the time for diplomacy and dialogue. Let
us work to encourage the leaders in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey to
take the path of statesmanship with the strong support of the
international community and the Armenian Diaspora. The stakes are too
high to do anything less. Our vision for a truly democratic and
prosperous Armenia living in peace and security with all of its
neighbors demands nothing less.

Thank you.