Author: Tashjian Arbi

Zaman Online, Turkey
June 21 2005

Armenian Lobby Takes Media Under Close Scrutiny
By Foreign News Desk
Published: Tuesday 21, 2005
zaman.com

One of the prominent “radical” organizations among Armenian lobby
groups in the US, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
has reacted with a seven article action plan to “protest genocide
denial” by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The plan wholly foresees using the US media to protest against the
administration of those who deny the genocide and for sending
bombardments of thanks to those who support them. Time magazine
apparently “ignored” the so-called genocide by distributing DVDs with
this months publication and was protested against by the lobby group
as the Washington Post, which accepted an advertisement denying the
“genocide”, will also be protested. The Armenian lobby plans to thank
The New York Times for publishing their advertisements. NBC TV was
harshly reacted to due to the manner of its objection relating to the
issue. The ANCA also plans to protest US President George W. Bush
“since he has not called on them to help end the ignorance regarding
the genocide” along with the US Secretary Department for not reacting
to the cancellation of the “genocide” conference that was due to be
held in Istanbul. The organization also called for support to the
so-called genocide draft that will be presented to the House of
Representatives.

Agence France Presse
20 juin 2005 lundi 8:09 AM GMT

Les jeunes du Karabakh : guerre ou paix sur l’internet (PAPIER
D’ANGLE)

Par Mariam HAROUTIOUNIAN

STEPANAKERT (Azerbaïdjan) 20 juin 2005

Albert a 15 ans et se rend chaque jours après l’école dans un
café-internet de Stépanakert, la principale ville du Nagorny
Karabakh, pour bavarder sur la “toile” avec tous les garçons et les
filles de son ge. A condition qu’ils ne soient pas azerbaïdjanais.

Albert ne se souvient ni des bombardements, ni de la vie dans les
caves pendant la guerre avec les forces de Bakou qui a débuté en 1988
et s’est poursuivie pendant de longues années pour aboutir à la
séparation de l’enclave arménienne du reste de l’Azerbaïdjan. Mais
son père a été tué et la maison familiale détruite.

“Je n’ai jamais vu un seul Azerbaïdjanais, mais je les considère
comme des ennemis. S’il n’y avait pas eu cette guerre avec eux, mon
père serait vivant et notre maison serait intacte”, dit l’adolescent.

“Je me suis fait beaucoup d’amis sur les forums de dialogue russes et
arméniens. On parle foot et ciné. J’aimerais échanger aussi avec
d’autres étrangers, savoir comment ils vivent et à quoi ils pensent,
mais la langue est encore une barrière”, raconte l’adolescent.

Il fait partie de la nouvelle génération qui n’a pratiquement pas
connu l’époque où le Nagorny Karabakh était une province
azerbaïdjanaise. Mais les échanges de tirs survenant de temps à autre
à la frontière lui rappellent régulièrement que la guerre n’est pas
vraiment terminée.

Cette génération a également intégré le fait qu’il n’y aura pas de
retour en arrière. “Nous ne vivons pas trop mal sans l’Azerbaïdjan
et, franchement, je ne comprends pas les hommes politiques qui
voudraient encore nous remettre sous sa coupe”, dit Narek, un jeune
homme de 17 ans, déjà à l’université où il suit des cours d’économie.

L’approche de Svetlana, une juriste de 27 ans qui a connu à un ge
plus avancé la guerre, est différente : elle dialogue volontiers avec
des Azerbaïdjanais par l’intermédiaire de son ordinateur.

“J’ai peur de la guerre et je ne voudrais pas qu’elle se répète.
C’est pourquoi nous devons communiquer, nous connaître mutuellement,
apprendre à nous faire confiance”, dit-elle.

Après la guerre, les jeunes du Karabakh étaient obligés de “monter” à
Erevan pour continuer leur formation. Aujourd’hui, il est possible de
faire des études supérieures à Stépanakert. Et le soir, les étudiants
emplissent les trottoirs, les cafés et les discothèques du principal
boulevard de la ville.

Ils y discutent souvent politique : l’essentiel ne leur paraît pas de
savoir qui remportera les élections législatives de dimanche dernier,
mais que leur déroulement sera libre et honnête, avec une bonne
participation.

“Nous voudrions profiter de notre jeunesse dans un pays à la fois
développé et démocratique”, dit Narek.

Media Monitors Network, CA
June 20 2005

Turks show growing opposition to EU membership
by M. S. Ahmed
(Monday June 20 2005)

“Interestingly, western politicians and media frequently describe
prime minister Recep Tayip Erdogan’s regime and party (the Justice
and Development Party) as `Islamist’ or `pro-Islam’. Adopting this
false line clearly enables them to maintain their pressure for
continued secularism in politics and public policy. But secularism is
only one part of the EU’s many requirements for admission. Respect
for human rights and ethnic minorities also figure prominently.”

The assumption that it is the European Union’s transparent
unwillingness to admit a Muslim country, rather than the reluctance
of a Muslim people to join a Christian union, that is mainly
responsible for the failure of membership-negotiations to make any
progress is being steadily revised. The EU member-states’ undisguised
disdain for Ankara’s application to join, while warmly and
expeditiously admitting East European countries that, unlike Turkey,
were until recently anti-western and pro-Russian, is turning Turkish
popular opinion against the project and against the government’s
commitment to it. Even secular groups that backed the application, to
get rid of Turkey’s past and present as a Muslim country, are now
criticising the government for its attitude; army generals, who are
normally keen to disguise their grip on political power and refrain
from making public statements, have openly taken the EU to task for
trying to impose foreign values on Turks. The recent ruling by the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that Turkey must grant Abdullah
Ocalan, the Kurdish rebel leader, a new trial, has caused a furore.

Many ordinary Turks – whose country, after all, was once a superpower
and ruled some of the European countries now being welcomed into the
EU – feel that Brussels’ treatment of their effort to join the EU is
humiliating, and describe it as only fit for a `banana republic’. For
instance Sencan Bayramuglu, a retired teacher, was recently quoted in
an American magazine as using that very phrase. `We can’t just do
everything the Europeans say,’ she said. `They behave as if we are
some sort of banana republic.’ It is true that her anger was provoked
by the ECHR’s demanding a new trial for Ocalan, and that her son was
one of 30,000 victims of the 15-year uprising that resulted
eventually in the capture and imprisonment of Ocalan in 1999. But, as
the magazine points out, her fury is not directed only against the
Kurdish rebel-leader, whom she blames for her son’s death, but also
against the European institutions that demand Turkey conform to their
standards as a precondition for joining the EU.

Many nationalists see the court ruling as `playing into the hands of
Kurdish militants’, fearing that it will lead to the division of
Turkey into `ethnic enclaves’. Many would agree with the warning of
Talat Salk, who prosecuted Ocalan in 1999, that a retrial would have
serious implications and play directly into the hands of Kurdish
`terrorists’ by providing them with a pretext to hold demonstrations
in major cities. One nationalist politician who agrees, and publicly
expressed his objection to the ruling, is Devlet Bahceli. He said
that the retrial ordered by the ECHR would be like a `time-bomb’ and
lead to simmering tensions.

But general Hilmi Ozkok, head of the powerful Turkish military, made
the most powerful attack on the court ruling even before it was
issued. He said in April that `outside influences are trying to
change our national culture by imposing foreign values, fashion and
language that do not match Turkish customs and traditions.’ When the
ruling was issued, he criticised it as `political manipulation’. He
also observed that his country had a security interest in northern
Cyprus, that allegations of genocide against Armenians in 1915 have
no basis, and that the Americans were not `doing enough’ to get rid
of Turkish terrorists of Kurdish origin in Iraq. It is not strange
that the general also insisted that secularism was the driving force
of Turkish democracy, and that the Turkish state must remain united.

It is part of the EU’s requirements for admission that Turkey
diminish the role of army generals in politics, yet no criticism was
made of general Ozkok’s intervention, and the Americans ignored his
criticism of their failure to curb Kurdish activists from Turkey who
operate in Iraq. Both the EU and the US are comfortable with the role
of the military in politics, which ensures that Turkey remains
secular and pro-West. It is interesting that though the general is
critical of the Turkish government’s EU programme, he has said
nothing so far against its outrageous recent plan to rewrite Turkish
history and retrain imams to comply with EU demands to entrench
secularism. And although the government’s intervention in the
country’s educational system for purely political reasons is far from
democratic, neither the EU nor the US has objected to this
totalitarian offensive on another people’s cultural and religious
rights. To their shame, the nationalists who are now rightly
resisting EU invasion and their government’s acquiescence have failed
to object to its pro-secularism bias and policies.

Interestingly, western politicians and media frequently describe
prime minister Recep Tayip Erdogan’s regime and party (the Justice
and Development Party) as `Islamist’ or `pro-Islam’. Adopting this
false line clearly enables them to maintain their pressure for
continued secularism in politics and public policy. But secularism is
only one part of the EU’s many requirements for admission. Respect
for human rights and ethnic minorities also figure prominently. But
nationalists (and indeed others) believe that the EU is not exercised
about the fate of Kurds, as it is not about the human rights of all
Turks, and that it is using both issues to keep Turkey out and
probably to weaken it by causing its division into ethnic states.
This is becoming increasingly clear to many Turks of different
backgrounds and beliefs; as a result the government is coming under
severe pressure to stand aloof. As Turkey should stay out of the EU
in the higher interests of its religion and cultural values, so the
pride of the Turkish people will be assuaged if Turkey’s exclusion
from the EU depends on its own decision rather than on a rejection by
Brussels.

INTERVIEW WITH NKR FOREIGN MINISTER

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
17 June 05

H 2: `Mr. Minister, the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
meet in Paris On June 17th. This is their first meeting after the
meeting Kocharian ` Aliev in Warsaw. What does Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic anticipate from this meeting? What standpoint would you like
to confirm once again before this meeting?’ Arman Melikian: `We do not
have a problem of confirming once again any standpoints because we
have already expressed our standpoint. As to the meeting, we do not
expect anything special from one meeting, which is natural. Today the
process of negotiations is flowing by its usual course. We must follow
to see what the results of the meeting are. Perhaps, it is not the
moment to have any special anticipation.’
H 2: `Mr. Minister, the Azerbaijani parliamentarians have recently
been declaring at different organizations that Armenia agrees to
returning the so-called occupied territories. What is the standpoint
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic toward this issue and are there
principal changes in your standpoint?’
A.M.: `There are no principal changes in our standpoint. As to the
statements of the Azerbaijanis, this is not the first time they try to
make psychological pressure on all of us and persuade us to return the
territories. At any rate, I have not heard similar statements from the
Armenian side. Instead I have heard them deny the statements of the
Azerbaijanis.’
H 2: `In the past two or three years Azerbaijani journalists and
representatives of public organizations have visited Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic. In Azerbaijan their information is always met with
discontent. What is your attitude towards the mutual visits of
Armenian, including Armenians of NKR, and Azerbaijani journalists and
representatives of NGOs?’
A.M.: `We approve mutual visits because we consider that due interest
should be paid to the life in the neighbouring state. So far this
country has had a hostile attitude toward us, and we need to know
possibly much about the moods within the society for everything
offered to us through the Azerbaijani press and other mass media
emanates from the interests of the political elite of that country. In
fact, the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to keep away the truth
about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from the Azerbaijani society. We must
try to make this truth reach the Azerbaijanis; the Azerbaijanis have
the right to know what is going on in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. We
are willing to give the chance to the Azerbaijani journalists and
people. Not once or twice have they visited Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
met with people from all classes, both authorities and common people
in villages, regions and got a clear impression of the present day of
NKR, the expectations of people from the future day, and their vision
of the future in general. And when they get convinced that an ordinary
Karabakh man envisages Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to be independent and
only at this condition is he ready to set up relationships with
Azerbaijan, this is, I think, an important fact for both peoples. The
people that does not want to see the truth and evaluate the reality
objectively, the people, government, country is doomed to failure.’
H 2: `Soon the parliamentary election will be held in Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic. Have you invited foreign observers, and have they agreed to
come? There is an opinion that this election is going to be the most
fair and transparent election ever held in our region. What is your
opinion on this?’
A.M.: `Elections in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are first of all to
improve life in our country. Let others make comparisons in this
regard. It is not our aim to be commended by the international
community for holding exemplary elections. We need to hold such
elections, and if they correspond to the international standards, and
I am sure they do, it is all the best. But again I want to underline
that this is an issue of improving our life and, therefore,
successful, transparent and democratic elections are important. As to
the observers, we have, of course, invited observers. We in vited a
large number of international organizations, individuals,
NGOs. Hundreds of people have agreed to come and monitor the upcoming
election to the National Assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The
geography of the observers is very wide. There will be observers from
the CIS, Europe, the USA, as well as the Islamic countries.’
H 2: `Mr. Minister, the Azerbaijanis keep declaring in international
organizations about the issue of returning of 1 million refugees. In
fact, the number must be about 400 thousand. Why do I tell this
number? Because almost as many Armenians have been expelled from Baku
and the areas adjacent to the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh
(in 1988). Why is the issue of these people returning to their homes
not raised? Who will do this? Why can the Azerbaijanis claim redress
and the Armenians cannot?’
A.M.: `This is a very important issue. I do not agree that the issue
has not been raised. We have raised the issue in Nagorno Karabakh. I
consider the issue of the Armenians refugees from Azerbaijan one of
the most important components of the resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We must also emphasize the difference
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees. The Armenians were
expelled from Soviet Azerbaijan due to the efforts of the Azerbaijani
authorities. This was ethnic cleansing. These people left the
territory of the Azerbaijan and are now scattered all over the
CIS. Part of them is living in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, others in
Armenia, but the majority is in Russian Federation and other
places. As to the Azerbaijani refugees, in the long run they cannot be
considered as refugees because they are internally displaced
persons. The status of refugee supposes passing internationally
recognized border. A person can be considered as a refugee if the
latter fact has taken place. Today, if these people are regarded as
refugees, the fact of Nagorno Karabakh not being part of Azerbaijan
and being an independent state is recognized indirectly. Otherwise,
those people were to be recognized as internally displaced persons,
and the government of Azerbaijan was to take care of them and not the
international organizations, which usually aid refugees. There is
another problem as well. The Azerbaijanis left these territories
forced by the war waged by Azerbaijan. Not recognizing the
independence of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Azerbaijan tried to force
the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh to admit the fact that they would
continue being part of Azerbaijan. The war began. As a result of the
military actions people were forced to leave their homes and move from
one place to another within Azerbaijan. In this respect I believe that
the Azerbaijani government should be responsible for the future of the
internally displaced persons, recovery of their material losses. The
issue of recovery of the losses of the Armenian refugees also should
be solved on the resources of Azerbaijan. We must view the problem of
resolution from the point of view of interests of all the people
involved in the conflict who suffered losses. The rights of the
Armenian refugees should be protected both in terms of the lost
property and return to their homes. When we consider the territories,
we say this issue cannot be solved separately. If, on the one hand,
these territories are viewed as a buffer zone for Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic, on the other hand they must also be viewed as a security for
recovering the rights of the Armenian refugees, and as such be
included in the negotiation process. I think this is the obligation of
every one of us.’
H 2: `Today promoting Euro integration is widely discussed in the
South Caucasus, as well as in terms of resolution of conflicts. Do you
think Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with its present-day status can be
involved in Euro integration? In other words, does the involvement of
the recognized republics of the South Caucasus in the EU New
Neighbourhood Policy mean that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic can also be
involved in it?’
A.M.: `It would, perhaps, be pointless to make forecasts on the
process. One thing is clear. In Europe and Nagorno Karabakh the same
system of values works, and there is cultural ground and similar
worldview for getting closer to Europe. But we must recognize that the
European Union is not a charity organization. When speaking about Euro
integration they do not mean that in the upcoming 10 ` 15 years the
countries of the South Caucasus will become members of the EU. The
process has not even started for Turkey. It is foreseen that EU must
start negotiating with Turkey on the issue of membership. Currently,
even the possibility for starting negotiations is at stake. You know
that France and Holland said `no’ to the Euro constitution. This means
that the process of European integration encounters problems in
Europe. I think it will be more reasonable to provide prerequisites
for Euro integration so that when the time comes we are ready to be
involved in the process actively. Today it is early to make optimistic
forecasts.’
H 2: `The advisor to the prime minister of Turkey R. Erdoghan visited
Yerevan with a delegation of parliamentarians and journalists. They
made use of every opportunity to state that they had come to begin
negotiations anew and to open a new page in the Turkish-Armenian
dialogue. What is your attitude toward the factor of Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic in the settlement of problems between Turkey and Armenia?’
A.M.: `First, as to the factor of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in Turkish
`Armenian relationships, both Azerbaijanis and Turks often say that as
long as the issue of Nagorno Karabakh is not solved, and there are
Armenian troops in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the
prospect of opening of the Turkish ` Armenian border and the
improvement of Turkish ` Armenian relationships is vague. I think this
argument is aimed to disguise absolutely different political
interests. I believe that Turkey uses the issue of keeping the Turkish
` Armenian border closed for gaining advantages in the negotiations
with the EU members. The EU members in their turn raise the issue of
recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey. That is two say, two
issues important for Armenians have become an object of talks and
trade between Turkey and the European Union. The Armenian side should
try to view the issue from this standpoint. Getting rid of illusions,
let us try to use the opportunities to create a favourable situation
for us.

AA.
17-06-2005

trag_jsp/key=3Dnews2746903.html

Geschichte

Türki sche Gemeinde protestiert in Berlin

In Berlin haben am Sonntag etwa 1500 Türken gegen die
Bundestagsresolution zum Völkermord an den Armeniern demonstriert. Sie
folgten einem Aufruf der türkischen Gemeinde.

Nach Polizeiangaben versammelten sich die Teilnehmer des Protestzugs
auf dem Adenauerplatz in Charlottenburg. Von dort zogen sie Richtung
Gedächtniskirche weiter. Die Demonstranten forderten die Überprüfung
der Resolution. Es dürfe nicht sein, dass die Bundestagsentscheidung
einen EU-Beitritt der Türkei verhindere, sagte ein Sprecher. Der Fall
habe zudem großen Einfluss auf die Gefühle der in Deutschland lebenden
Türken.

Der Bundestag hatte am Donnerstag die Türkei zur Aufarbeitung der
Vertreibung und der Massaker an den Armeniern vor 90 Jahren im
Osmanischen Reich aufgefordert. Türkische Politiker reagierten
verärgert und hatten mit der Verschlechterung der deutsch-türkischen
Beziehung gedroht.

Stand: 19.06.2005 14:12

Breakaway Caucasus republic seeks recognition through polls
by Mariam Arutyunyan

Agence France Presse — English
June 17, 2005 Friday 9:49 AM GMT

STEPANAKERT, Azerbaijan June 17 — Nagorny Karabakh, a breakaway
republic claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan since the Soviet
Union’s collapse, holds parliamentary polls Sunday in a bid to convince
the world it is truly independent.

“I will vote whatever happens because I am sure that the world will see
a country that legally elects its leaders as an island of democracy
and will respect our wish to be independent and autonomous,” said a
resident of Stepanakert, Shumi Jora Tovmasyan, 65.

Nagorny Karabakh, which is inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians
and effectively controlled by Armenia, declared independence from
Azerbaijan in 1991, sparking a conflict that, according to differing
estimates, killed between 25,000 and 30,000 people.

In addition to the dead, the conflict also displaced up to one
million people.

The elections are being held in the face of opposition from Azerbaijan,
which still claims sovereignty over the territory, but was beaten
back by Armenian forces in the 1988-1994 war.

Armenia is the only country in the world that recognises Nagorny
Karabakh as an independent state.

“The impact of this poll on the settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh
conflict will depend on the way it goes. If it is free and transparent,
up to international standards, it will have a certain influence on
the way Karabakh and its democracy are viewed,” said the head of
Nagorny Karabakh’s ruling Artsakh Democratic Party, Ashot Gulyan.

Solving the conflict has been the emblematic issue for all six parties
and one electoral bloc seeking election to the 33-seat parliament.

“Karabakh’s independence is already a reality for us, but our country
is not recognized by the world community. This is why we seek a
definitive resolution of the conflict through dialogue,” Gulyan said.

But a leader of the opposition Dashnaktsutyun party, Vache Zakaryan,
said Azerbaijan would not compromise over the dispute. Repeated
diplomatic efforts, encouraged by Moscow, Washington and the United
Nations, have failed to achieve a settlement.

Low-level conflict between Armenian and Azeri forces continues to
this day, with dozens of casualties on both sides since the 1994 end
of major hostilities and brokering of a ceasefire.

The elections will be monitored by more than 100 independent observers
from Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Central Asia, but the
West’s main election monitoring body, the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will not carry out formal observations.

The self-styled president of Nagorny Karabakh, Arkady Gukasian,
was re-elected in August 2002 in what many called an unfair poll,
with skewed media coverage and a ban on political rallies. Gukasian’s
predecessor, Robert Kocharian, is now president of Armenia.

Karabakh is one of eight regions that Armenia seized from Azerbaijan
in the war and continues to control. The eight regions amount to 14
percent of internationally recognised Azeri territory.

GEORGIA RESUMED ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES FROM ARMENIA

Pan Armenian News
17.06.2005 05:45

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Georgia has resumed electric power supplies from
Armenia at a daily rate of 40 MW, reported the Ministry of Fuel and
Energy of Georgia. At that regions will consume all electric power
received from Armenia, Utro.ru reported. It should be reminded that
export of electric energy from Armenia to Georgia was suspended due to
the fall of the dollar exchange rate. Due to that price of 2.5 cents
for 1kWh electric energy did not fit the Armenian party any more. At
the same time the Georgian party did not wish to buy electricity from
Armenia at a higher price.

Karabakh DM denies reports on ceasefire violation in crisis area
By Tigran Liloyan

ITAR-TASS News Agency
June 15, 2005 Wednesday 11:18 AM Eastern Time

YEREVAN, June 15 — Nagorno-Karabakh’s Defence Ministry denies reports
on a violation of ceasefire in the area of the Karabakh conflict.

Head of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Ministry press service
Senor Asratyan told Itar-Tass by telephone on Wednesday: “This is
misinformation and propaganda.”

The minister said, “Azerbaijan seeks to aggravate the situation
in Nagorno-Karabakh ahead of the parliamentary elections slated
for Sunday.”

Earlier in the day, Azerbaijani Deputy Interior Minister and commander
of interior troops, Lieutenant-General Zakir Gasanov, said Azerbaijan
is worried by frequent violations of a ceasefire in the area of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,

“International organisations, including the U.N., are handling this
problem,” he told reporters. “When the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh
is resolved, the interior troops of Azerbaijan will keep public
order there.”

Gasanov said the interior troops “will keep public order in the
republic (of Azerbaijan) at the highest level” during the preparation
and conduction of parliamentary elections.

“All unlawful acts of extremists will be stopped, we shall have no
problems with it,” he said.

The Chronicle of Higher Education
June 10, 2005, Friday

Europe’s Effort to Standardize Higher Education Now Includes 45
Nations

AISHA LABI

Bergen, Norway

European education ministers meeting here in May admitted five new
participants to the Bologna process, an ambitious program aimed at
harmonizing higher-education systems across Europe.

That action means that 45 nations are now committed to the creation
of the European Higher Education Area — a region of shared academic
standards, in which universities play a central role in promoting
Europe’s culture and development. The newest members are Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

The conference marked the midpoint of a process that began in 1999,
when 29 nations signed the Bologna Declaration. Its objectives
include the synchronization of degree structures, with a first degree
cycle of three years culminating in a bachelor’s degree, and a second
cycle for master’s and doctoral degrees. Another goal of the process
is to make it easier for students, professors, and staff members to
move among institutions in different countries.

The participants in the Bologna process include all 25 members of the
European Union, which is trying to become the most competitive
knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010, as well as European
nations whose economic development is far less advanced.

With such a range of participants, each with its own higher-education
system, the challenges include not just synchronizing degree
programs, but also ensuring adherence to common standards. A key
Bologna objective, singled out by European education ministers at
their last summit, two years ago in Berlin, is quality assurance.

The communique the ministers issued at the end of the Bergen
conference noted that “almost all countries have made provision for a
quality-assurance system.” However, it said, “there is still progress
to be made, in particular as regards student involvement and
international cooperation.”

The mention of student involvement highlights one significant change
that has taken place since the Bologna process began: Each national
delegation to Bergen included a student representative. Vanja
Ivosevic, the chairwoman of the National Unions of Students in
Europe, addressed the conference. Students represent the largest
group in higher education, Ms. Ivosevic pointed out, but when the
Bologna process was inaugurated their representatives had to sneak
into the meeting.

Americans Are Watching

Ms. Ivosevic’s organization has conducted its own analysis of the
Bologna process and is critical of some of its effects, including
what the student organization claims is a lack of flexibility in
terms of student access to graduate studies. But despite a couple of
dozen demonstrators who protested outside the conference with
placards calling for free education for all, Ms. Ivosevic said most
students are satisfied with the direction of the Bologna process.

Students were particularly pleased, she said, that the ministers in
their communique had emphasized the need for students to complete
their studies “without obstacles related to their social or economic
background.”

David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, was one
of three U.S.-based educators who attended the conference here. There
is growing awareness in the United States of the Bologna process and
its accompanying reforms, he said, driven by a practical need to
learn how to assess the new three-year undergraduate-degree
transcripts. Mr. Ward said that what interests him most about the
European undertaking is the way its architects have focused on the
social dimensions of higher education.

“The idea that while they’re going through all these changes to make
themselves more competitive, they want to improve access and at the
same time make it available to underrepresented groups — this has
been the crisis in the United States for the past 30 years and we
still haven’t solved it,” he said. “It’s important that Americans
recognize that Europeans collectively are addressing the right
issues.”

The Bologna reforms will make it easier for students to move among
institutions within Europe, and will also make Europe more attractive
to students from outside the region, said Debra W. Stewart, president
of the U.S.-based Council of Graduate Schools. International students
have always had opportunities in Europe, but the inability to move
easily across borders, especially at the doctoral level, has been a
barrier, she said. Now, the elimination of that barrier will have
direct consequences for American universities.

Her organization found that international applications to American
graduate programs declined 28 percent last year, and are expected to
fall another 5 percent below that figure this year. “It would be a
terrible mistake to assume that was all a 9/11 effect,” she said. It
would have happened anyway, she noted, “because the world, for all
the right reasons, is becoming more competitive.”

The Bologna participants are planning the kinds of changes that make
universities attractive, Ms. Stewart said. “If they do these things
they will be a very formidable competitor, and that’s good.
Competition is good. We should only attract the best students in the
United States if we’re providing the best opportunities for them.”

ARMENIA HAS CHANCE TO USE BAKU-TBILISI-ERZERUM GAS AND
BAKU-TBILISI-CEYHAN OIL PIPELINES IN ITS OWN INTERESTS

YEREVAN, JUNE 11. ARMINFO. Armenia has a chance to use the
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline in its own interests, says Director General of ArmRosgazprom
company Karen Karapetyan.

It would be desirable if the pipeline ran via Armenia but even the
very fact of their existence is already good. Georgia may give Armenia
part of its transit quota gas. Armenia may repay in electricity. It
depends on Armenia to what an extent it will be involved in these or
other projects, says Karapetyan reminding that Georgia has already
expressed interest in the Iran-Armenian gas pipeline project. Why can
we say that we want to take part in the construction of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline? wonders Karapetyan. Abundant in
electricity when completing the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline project and
restoring the Abovyan underground gas storage Armenia may become a
serious regional player.

We should turn negative geo-political situation into a positive one.
Armenia may become a good market for energy resource sale especially
that its neighbors may well face electricity shortage in the near
future. If we are aggressive and flexible enough we will get back what
we have lost, says Karapetyan. It is no coincidence that Georgia has
already begun talks for the construction of a new electricity
transmission line from Armenia, he notes.