The Russian Year Started In Armenia

THE RUSSIAN YEAR STARTED IN ARMENIA

A1+
25-03-2005

Today Vladimir Putin and Robert Kocharyan officially opened the Russian
year in Armenia. The official ceremony started with the Russian anthem,
after which the Armenian anthem sounded. Robert Kocharyan mentioned
in his speech that the Armenian and Russian nations are tied together
not only with culture and history but also with relations in many
different areas – power, industry, business, bank system, as well as
in the investment field at large.

Vladimir Putin noted that Moscow cannot be imagined without the
Armenian alley, neither the Russian culture without Ayvazovski,
Toukhmanov, Aram Khachatryan and Vakhtangovâ’s theater.

He said that the Armenian nation connects the future of its children
with the Armenian-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin claimed that
Russia would do everything possible to settle the Karabakh conflict.
He announced that there are 3000 Armenian students in Moscow, 2000 of
which study free of charge, while 175 get stipend. The RF President
mentioned the fact that in Yerevan there are 50 Russian schools and
he promised to open Armenian schools in Moscow.

The concert was conducted by the famous announcer of the Russian TV
company “Culture” Svyateslav Belza. And the concert was opened by
the Dance Ensemble conducted by Igor Mayeseev.

And although the Russian year in Armenia could be opened by a
more representative group of musicians, the end of the ceremony
was impressive: the famous song “Day of Victory” was sung by RF
National artist Lev Leshchenko and Tigran Heqeqyan’s choir “Little
singers”. And Svyateslav Belza, noticing the symbolizing detail –
“the legend of the Russian song and the future of the Armenian art –
the marvelous children, sing together”, announced that next year they
will expect the bodies of Armenian art in Moscow during the events
of the Armenian year in Russia.

–Boundary_(ID_sI2Vi+Sno8gK8g3/xYpCNQ)–

NKR MFA Called International Community To Follow Example Of Armeniaa

NKR MFA CALLED INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO FOLLOW EXAMPLE OF ARMENIA AND US

A1+
24-03-2005

March 17, in Vienna, the report of the Fact-Finding mission was
presented at the sitting of the OSCE Permanent Council during which
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs proposed their recommendations to the
conflicting parties and the international community.

It should be noted that though the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs
received the Mission and rendered the essential technical assistance
its representatives were not allowed to take part in the hearings on
the report. As response to the formal inquiry the NKR MFA received
the documents presented during the sitting.

On the basis of the documents received the NKR Foreign Ministry noted
the objectivity of the report. However, it should be noted that the
Mission visited the regions controlled by Karabakh and that is why
the missionaries did not get the complete picture of the humanitarian
catastrophe caused by the war that was waged by Azerbaijan. At that
time over 500 000 Armenian were exiled from their home and lost
their property.

The NKR MFA called the international community to follow the example
of the governments of Armenia and the US and help the refugees,
who found shelter on the territory of Nagorno Karabakh.

The NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms its adherence to the
peaceful settlement of all the conflicts and highly appreciated
the efforts exerted by the OSCE Minsk Group and the international
community.

CRISIS PROFILE – What’s going on in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Reuters AlertNet, UK
March 23 2005

CRISIS PROFILE – What’s going on in Nagorno-Karabakh?
23 Mar 2005

Source: AlertNet
By Theresa Freese

Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer (R) accompanied by Azerbaijan
President Haydar Aliyev (rear) meets Azeri refugees from
Nagorno-Karabak in Baku in 2000.
Photo by STRINGER
TBILISI (AlertNet) – With over a million people displaced and about
30,000 killed, conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the
disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh remains one of the most
intractable problems unleashed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Today Nagorno-Karabakh, a large chunk of the southwestern part of
Azerbaijan, is controlled by neighbouring Armenia, which seized the
territory by force in 1992.

Armenia has ignored numerous U.N. resolutions calling for the
withdrawal troops, and a peace settlement between Armenia and
Azerbaijan remains elusive. The conflict stands at a stalemate,
broken only by occasional cross-border incidents.

Numbers are uncertain, but according to the United Nations, more than
500,000 displaced Azerbaijanis live in squalid refugee camps around
Azerbaijan, more than 200,000 Armenians live in similar conditions in
Armenia and a dangerous no man~Rs land full of mines and snipers
separates Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

Where exactly is Nagorno-Karabakh?

Nagorno-Karabakh, located in Azerbaijan, is in the South Caucasus, a
region consisting of three states — Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
— nestled between the oil-rich Caspian Sea and the Black Sea.

Only a six-mile strip of land called the Lachin corridor, controlled
by Armenian troops, connects Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.

What sparked the conflict?

The roots of the conflict pre-date the creation of the Soviet Union.

Violent clashes in 1905 and 1918 evolved into fighting between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over three contested border areas,
Nagorno-Karabakh, Nakhichevan and Zangezur.

In 1921, Nagorno-Karabakh was incorporated into Soviet Azerbaijan as
the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Province, leaving tension over the
territory to simmer throughout the Soviet period.

As both Soviet republics embraced nationalism and political
demonstrations turned violent, minority populations within each
republic fled ethnic discrimination. Armenia and Azerbaijan witnessed
a total population swap of some 1,000,000 inhabitants.
Nagorno-Karabakh saw most of its minority Azerbaijani inhabitants —
around 25 percent of its total population — flee to other parts of
Azerbaijan.

In 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians voted to secede and join
Armenia. Azerbaijan attempted to prevent Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs secession
by force, and when Armenia and Azerbaijan proclaimed independence
from the Soviet Union in 1991, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs
future escalated into a war between the two states.

Armenian forces invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 1992 and occupied seven
adjoining districts in Azerbaijan, creating a corridor — the Lachin
corridor — connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia proper. Armenia
renamed the province the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and declared it
independent on January 6, 1992.

Nevertheless, the international community, including Armenia, does
not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.

Through Russian mediation, in 1994 Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a
cease-fire agreement. Azerbaijan, by that point, had lost some 15
percent of its territory.

What is Nagorno-Karabakh like today?

Politically, socially, and economically Nagorno-Karabakh behaves like
an autonomous Armenian province.

With a growing population of approximately 200,000, Nagorno-Karabakh
has become ethnically homogenous: 95 percent of residents are
Armenian, and Assyrians, Greeks, and Kurds constitute the remaining 5
percent.

Armenians rely on free movement and trade between Nagorno-Karabakh
and Armenia proper, and Nagorno-Karabakh~Rs first elected leader,
Robert Kocharian, is now Armenia~Rs president.

Is there a solution to the conflict?

In 1993, the U.N. Security Council adopted four resolutions calling
for the withdrawal of Armenian occupying forces and reaffirming the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, with Nagorno-Karabakh as an
integral part of the country.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) Minsk Group, an
ad hoc body co-chaired by Russia, the U.S. and France is responsible
for negotiating a final peace settlement.

To date, however, no peace agreement has been achieved, and the U.N.
resolutions have not been implemented. There are no international
peacekeepers on the ground; instead, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces
maintain a heavy presence along the front line. Finally, with no
political solution in sight, internally displaced people and refugees
are unable to return to their homes.

BAKU: IPI concerned by introduction of new Turkish Penal Code

Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
March 23 2005

IPI concerned by introduction of new Turkish Penal Code

Published: 23.03.2005

CASCFEN, Baku, 23.03.2005 — Johann P. Fritz, the Director of the
Vienna based International Press Institute (IPI) has addressed to
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey in regard to Turkish
Penal Code’s introduction. Following is the text of the letter sent
on 23 March 2005:

“The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of
editors, media executives and leading journalists, is deeply
concerned about the introduction of a new Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
and the continued criminal prosecution of a number of journalists.

The new TCK was adopted last year and will come into force on 1
April. According to reports, the new TCK contains provisions to
punish journalists with prison sentences for their work, as well as
vague wording that could make it easier for the authorities to
suppress the media. The new TCK is the first change to the Penal Code
in 78 years and it revamps Turkey’s criminal laws.

According to information before IPI, the new penal code has 30
articles that threaten press freedom. In the face of these changes,
the Turkish Journalists Association and the Turkish Press Council
have heavily criticised the new TCK.

On 14 March, the Turkish Journalists Association sent a letter
criticising the new TCK to the Minister of Justice, Cemil Cicek. The
minister has promised to consider the complaints and make the
necessary changes.

The Journalists Association maintains that certain articles must be
changed because they prevent journalists from writing about on-going
police investigations. Furthermore, article 125 on “insult” states
that any criticism of a political figure might be interpreted as a
personal insult and could lead to the journalist being imprisoned.
The minimum sentence for committing a crime “against a state official
because of his or her post” is one year in prison.

In addition, the new TCK increases prison sentences where the media
are involved and is in stark contrast to the Press Law. As an
example, where journalists write about an on-going police
investigation, the current Press Law (article 19) provides for large
fines, while the new TCK (article 288) carries prison sentences from
six months to three years.

In this connection, two journalists for the Milliyet daily, Tolga
Sardan and Gokser Tahincioglu, face charges for writing articles
about alleged links between Turkish mafia boss Alaattin Cakici, the
National Information Agency (MYT) and the Court of Appeals.

Hürriyet reporters Toygun Atilla and Cetin Aydin, as well as editor
Necdet Tatlican, are also on trial for allegedly violating the
secrecy of an on-going police investigation in a separate case
involving alleged links between state institutions and the mafia.

The journalists were prosecuted because they published tapes of
telephone conversations that reveal this relationship. They are
accused of breaching article 4422 of the Penal Code that is related
to the fight against organised crime. While they have cited facts in
their articles that shed light on the investigation, they are liable
for breaking the law because the police investigation had not been
concluded. Now the journalists face imprisonment. The case is the
first time that journalists have been prosecuted under the Penal Code
and not sued according to the Press Law.

The new TCK also contains clauses for acting against the “basic
national interest” in return for material benefits from foreigners.
Under article 220, individuals found guilty of setting up an
organisation that aims to commit crimes, or disseminating propaganda
for such an organisation, are given prison sentences, which are
increased by half, if the propaganda is disseminated by media
outlets.

Many other articles also increase the prison sentence by half if the
offence was committed through the media. Thus, article 305 can be
used to charge people who write about controversial issues, such as
Turkish troops in Cyprus or the Armenian genocide; article 318 can be
used to charge individuals, who write critical pieces about the
military.

IPI calls on Your Excellency to take into account the demands of the
Turkish journalists and to amend the Penal Code to decriminalise
defamation. IPI believes criminal insult laws to be an anachronism
that should be removed from every legal system. They should not exist
in a country seeking to join the European Union and no journalist
should have the stigma of a criminal record for merely expressing his
or her opinions.

By keeping defamation as a criminal offence, journalists are forced
to weigh up the public interest of publishing against the fear of
criminal prosecution. This will only encourage greater
self-censorship in Turkey and this is to the detriment of not only
the journalism profession, but also the country’s readership which
will be deprived of valuable information.

IPI would also like to remind Your Excellency that Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the
right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.””

–Boundary_(ID_1ZLRMFd3d750OhsgzJppvA)–

Goran Lenmarker: Issue On Status Of Nagorny Karabakh Is Priority InP

GORAN LENMARKER: ISSUE ON STATUS OF NAGORNY KARABAKH IS
PRIORITY IN PROCESS OF SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH CONFLICT

YEREVAN, MARCH 21. ARMINFO. The issue on the status of Nagorny
Karabakh is priority in the process of settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. Goran Lenmarker, Special Representative of OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly Chairman for Nagorny Karabakh, had stated during the Brussels
meeting with Armenian and Azerbaijani parliament members on March
17-18, Vice Speaker of Armenian parliament, Head of Armenian delegation
to OSCE PA Vahan Hovhannisian informed during the news conference in
Yerevan, Monday.

Vahan Hovhannisian expressed confidence in that this provision will
of course be included in the report of Goran Lenmarker concerning
Nagorny Karabakh. The vice speaker also informed that during the
meeting with Armenian and Azerbaijani MPs Goran Lenmarker said
that all the remaining issues, including the question raised by the
Azerbaijani side regarding the territories under the control of the
Armenian side and refugees, are only derivative problems. On the whole
Vahan Hovhannisian qualified the draft report of Goran Lenmarker on
Nagorny Karabakh as balanced. He stressed this fact roused a concern
of the Azerbaijani delegation, which in every possible way tried to
include in the document the provisions from the resolutions of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Nagorny Karabakh,
elaborated by the British MP David Atkinson. At the same time, Vahan
Hovhannisian stated that the efforts of the Azerbaijani delegation
at this stage did not have a succeed and their proposals were not
included in the draft report of Goran Lenmarker.

“During the discussions we have stressed repeatedly that one of the
consequences of the unbalanced report of David Atkinson on Nagorny
Karabakh was the violation of the cease-fire regime on the contact
line”, Vahan Hovhannisian mentioned. However, the head of the Armenian
delegation considered possible that when discussion of the document
at the summer session of OSCE PA, which will be held in Washington in
July, the Azerbaijani MPs will again try to add it with provisions
from the report of David Atkinson. In Hovhannisian’s opinion, the
parliamentarians of Georgia, Moldova and Turkey will support the
proposals of the Azeri delegation.

Armenian deputy speaker says Karabakh’s status most important in tal

Armenian deputy speaker says Karabakh’s status most important in talks

Arminfo, Yerevan
21 Mar 05

Yerevan, 21 March: The final version of the report by the special
representative of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly [OSCE PA], Goran
Lennmarker, on Nagornyy Karabakh will be submitted to the Armenian
and Azerbaijani MPs in Vienna by the July session of the OSCE PA in
Washington, the deputy speaker of the Armenian National Assembly and
the head of the Armenian delegation to the OSCE PA, Vaan Ovanesyan,
has told a news conference on the results of the meeting between
Armenian and Azerbaijani MPs in Brussels on 17-18 March.

He said that during the meeting, the deputies of the two countries
would familiarize themselves with the final version of the report and
put forward their suggestions. Vaan Ovanesyan said the Azerbaijani
MPs insisted on holding the meeting in London, but the suggestion
was rejected.

“Perhaps, our Azerbaijani colleagues were hoping that if the meeting
was held in London, it would be attended by the author of the PACE
[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] resolution on
Nagornyy Karabakh, David Atkinson, because they are trying to include
some parts of his report in the document being prepared by Goran
Lennmarker,” the deputy speaker said.

He added that after Goran Lennmarker’s report on Nagornyy Karabakh, the
OSCE PA could adopt a resolution which, just as all the other documents
of international parliamentary organizations, will be of a consultative
nature. At the same time, the head of the Armenian delegation said
if the OSCE PA document is similar to the PACE resolution on Nagornyy
Karabakh, it may have bitter ramifications for the Armenian side.

“One negative document may remain without implications for us, but
not two,” he stressed.

The deputy speaker expressed his confidence that Goran Lennmarker’s
report would contain a provision saying that the issue of Nagornyy
Karabakh’s status is of priority importance in the Nagornyy Karabakh
settlement process, while all the other problems, including the issue
of territories controlled by the Armenian side, are derivatives.

ANKARA: Gul: Genocide Allegations will not Influence Membership Proc

Zaman, Turkey
March 21 2005

Gul: Genocide Allegations will not Influence Membership Process
By Anadolu News Agency (aa)
Published: Monday 21, 2005
zaman.com

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said there is no direct or
indirect relation between so-called Armenian genocide allegations and
Turkey’s full membership process for the European Union (EU).

Gul responded to a motion for question submitted to the Turkish
Parliament by the True Path Party (DYP) Deputy Ummet Kandogan that
Turkey had fulfilled the Copenhagen Criteria requirements to begin
accession negotiations with the EU and this was confirmed in both the
Progress report published on October 6, 2004 and the Advisory
document published on December 17, 2004. Determining that the
conditions of the negotiation process were defined for any candidate
and that Turkey’s full membership process would be realized under the
context of the EU acquis communitaire as is the case for the other
candidate states, Gul said, “There is no direct or indirect relation
between Turkey’s full membership into EU and the Armenian genocide
allegations. Although from time to time various circles bring this
issue to the agenda, Turkey’s pursuing a clear and decisive attitude
is known in the EU circles.”

Gul also disclosed that History Research Group under the Turkish The
Institute of History was formed and the group consisting of
distinguished historians were making prominent studies to strengthen
the Turkish thesis on the Armenian allegations and announced that
books that will be published following scientific studies by the
group and will be presented to the international and Turkish public
interests in the very near future. Confirming that the necessary
cooperation had been provided between the related institutions due to
policies developed against the Armenian genocides, Gul added that
Prime Ministry Promotion Fund provided the necessary sources for the
studies.

The birth of genocide

WoonsocketCall.com

The birth of genocide

MICHAEL HOLTZMAN, Staff Writer03/20/2005

PROVIDENCE – The template for genocide in the modern era happened in 1915 to
the Armenian people in their homeland of the Ottoman Empire, an acclaimed
author on this subject shared with an education-minded audience last week at
Rhode Island College.

Former President Theodore Roosevelt called the annihilation of 1-1½ million
Armenians “the greatest crime” of World War I, said Peter Balakian, a
Colgate University English professor and author of “The Burning Tigris: The
Armenian Genocide and America’s Response.”

Balakian, the keynote speaker, and other scholars and writers addressed an
audience of teachers, students and participants during a “genocide
symposium” of workshops titled “Remembering Our Past, Educating Our Future.”

Organizers distributed to teachers a California curriculum guide on human
rights and genocide, the first in the country focused on the Armenians as a
case- study of victims in the 20th century. World history teachers in the
San Francisco Continued from Page A-1

Unified School District prepared it.

“I think this history is in the process of an exciting recovery,” said
Balakian, likening this relearning to previous rebirths of African American,
Native American Indian and women’s history in recent decades.

He and other presenters encouraged educators to find opportunities to teach
about the Armenian and subsequent modern genocides.

Decades of continued Turkish government denial of the Armenian genocide
remains a potent weapon for keeping the event buried beneath world history.
At the same time, genocide scholars like Balakian say America retains “blood
on its hands” for its unacknowledged extermination of Native American
Indians tribes.

With Rhode Island one of a handful of states in the country to recently
legislate pursuit of teaching genocide and human rights issues — coupled
with the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide next month — Armenian
committees organized the symposium at RIC.

Crimes of these proportions, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, (D-R.I.,) told about 100
people, “are usually perpetrated by ordinary people. The people who actually
do it are not too much different than us,” he said.

Reed cautioned that Americans would not necessarily be different under
similar wartime circumstances. “We, individually, have a responsibility to
resist” atrocities like genocide, he noted.

In 1915, the most able-bodied Armenians in the Ottoman Turkish Army were
disarmed, thrown into labor camps and gunned down by their military
comrades. But an even more insidious, systematic extermination followed,
Balakian said.

On the night of April 24, 1915, and the following day, about 250 of the
cultural and community leaders in the capital city of Constantinople
(present-day Istanbul) were rounded up and tortured by the Turks. Most of
them were killed, reported Balakian, who in his award-winning memoir “Black
Dog of Fate” traced his own family roots to this genocide.

“After April 24 it would be easy to carry out the genocide program, for many
of the most gifted voices of resistance were gone,” Balakian wrote.
Subsequently, thousands of other Armenian leaders were quickly rounded up
and killed throughout the country.

He likened the killing the Armenian soldiers and intellectuals by the
Turkish government during World War I to “cutting out the tongue” and
“chopping off the head.”

The women, children and less able men became easy prey for a purpose Adolf
Hitler would openly emulate during his extermination of six million European
Jews during the Holocaust of World War II.

As the Nazi Armies invaded Poland, on Aug. 22, 1939, Hitler reportedly told
his commanding generals that any criticism of his planned genocide would
bring execution by firing squad. “Who, after all, speaks today of the
annihilation of the Armenians?” Hitler said.

The Holocaust has been followed in this century by Cambodian dictator Pol
Pot in the 1970s killing and starving 1.8 million of his people, the Hutus
eliminating 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda and 200,000 to 300,000 killed and 1
million homeless during the ongoing Sudanese genocide in Darfur. Yet the
Armenian genocide, Balakian said, “remains a seminal event.”

“It was the first time Americans were confronted with unfathomable numbers
of the murder of innocent, unarmed civilians,” he said.

When Balakian said half to two-thirds of the 2.5 million Christian Armenians
perished at the hands of the Turkish government, one listener asked if it
was the responsibility of teachers like himself to place this history into
its proper place in the classroom.

“How did this fall off the map?” asked Marco McWilliams, a junior African
American history major at RIC.

Terry McMichael, who teaches social studies at Cumberland High School, said
the symposium information and resources she’s gained would help bridge the
gaps in instruction she provides her students.

“I know the history of the genocide has been neglected in the history
books,” said McMichael. “I think this is important enough to spend a few
days on it. I know about the Armenian genocide. I’m interested in Middle
Eastern history.”

McMichael said she immediately acquired Balakian’s books and two about the
Armenian genocide written for young adults called “Forgotten Fire” and “The
Road from Home” that she’d use in her classroom. “I feel a strong duty to
teach them social responsibility,” McMichael said.

As testimony to that aim, she said after discussing with students the
genocides in Rwanda and elsewhere around the globe, she wrote a letter to
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. She told him the United Nations
“was shirking its duties.”

“How can I teach my kids about the responsibilities of the U.N.?” she asked.

Beth Bloomer, a junior at Cumberland High who accompanied McMichael to the
symposium, said she’s enthusiastic about the Armenian genocide being taught
at her school. Her classmates, she believes, “will respond in a kind of awe
or shock that this was happening,” Bloomer said.

Her parents asked initially why she was going. “I’m into history and I want
to learn more about the world and people around us,” she said, “and how
other people survived.”

“In most history books, it’s not there,” agreed Lincoln High social studies
teacher Caroline Ricci.

“It’s originally a political issue,” said Ricci, who called the symposium
“very valuable.” If you’re at the forefront of a movement and are vocal, you
get your voice heard. And it took a long time to get their voices heard.”

Perhaps it takes a reading of the 400-page “Burning Tigris” and other
literature of the Armenian genocide to understand how it happened — and why
there have been so many obstacles to uncovering this critical piece of
history.

In a way, it’s stunning, because the history is well documented, Balakian
said. In 1915The New York Times published 145 stories, many on the front
page, about a “campaign of extermination” perpetrated upon upwards of 1
million of the Armenian people.

America responded with unprecedented aid to the “starving Armenians,”
sending more than $100 million at a time a loaf of bread cost a nickel.

As the horrors of the genocide unfolded, it was also a time that American
ambassadors in Turkey — most notably Henry Morgenthau — documented the
mass murders of Armenians in an effort to raise alarm and action back home.
Balakian said he used hundreds of those documents in the National Archives
in Washington, D.C. for “Burning Tigris.”

“It was a reminder of a time,” he said, “people in government wrote with
clarity and ethical purpose.” He said it was also shortly before America
adopted its new policies toward the Middle East in the pursuit of oil.

©The Call 2005

Peacekeepr of the Caucasus

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 18, 2005, Friday

PEACEKEEPER OF THE CAUCASUS

SOURCE: Novye Izvestia, March 15, 2005, p. 4

by Mekhman Gafarly

GEORGIA IS PREPARED TO BECOME A MEDIATOR IN THE ARMENIAN-TURKISH AND
ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI RELATIONS

Foreign Minister of Georgia Salome Zurabishvili said on a visit to
Ankara that her country could become an intermediary in the
Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani dialogues – provided
Ankara, Yerevan, and Baku seconded the initiative.

Tbilisi needs the tension in the Armenian-Turkish relations abated.
First and foremost, their improvement will allay the fears and
irritation Yerevan feels viewing Georgia’s friendship with Turkey.
Second, it will be quick pro quo: Zurabishvili appreciates the
positive role Ankara is playing in the Russian-Georgian political
dialogue. Georgia hopes with Ankara’s help to solve some problems
marring its relations with Moscow. Along with everything else,
Georgia is looking for support from the European Union and the United
States and, also importantly, from Turkey as its neighbor now that
Tbilisi’s own relations with Moscow are at so low a level. The matter
is both political and economic. When Moscow introduced the visa
regime on the border with Georgia, Russian cities became out of reach
for thousands and thousands unemployed Georgians seeking jobs abroad.
In an attempt to compensate for it, Tbilisi hopes to secure a
visa-free regime on the Georgian-Turkish border and intends to
establish a regular Batumi-Istanbul plane run. Success will enable
Georgians to find jobs in Turkey and stabilize the socioeconomic
situation in Georgia itself. Before it can accomplish all of that,
however, Georgia has to score some political points. From this point
of view, the role of an intermediary in the Armenian-Turkish and
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations will come in very handy. What it will
result in is a different matter altogether. Tbilisi already offered
its services to Armenia and Azerbaijan at war over Nagorno-Karabakh
in 1992. The offer was turned down then.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze of the expert council of the Georgian parliament
says in the meantime that the situation is different now and that
Tbilisi’s offer may be accepted. According to Sakvarelidze, the
political and economic situation in the region changes with the
years, and the warring sides know now that integration into Europe is
impossible with the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh remaining
unsettled. Moreover, construction of pipelines and establishment of
the TRASECA transport corridor force Ankara, Yerevan, and Baku to
seek ways of improvement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani and
Armenian-Turkish relations. Along with everything else, upper
echelons of the European Union and Parliamentary Assembly demand an
end to political and territorial disputes from these countries or
they may forget about integration into the European Union. From this
point of view, Zurabishvili’s offer is well-timed and therefore may
be accepted, Sakvarelidze said. A neutral intermediary, Georgia is
prepared to arrange a meeting of leaders of Armenia, Turkey, and
Azerbaijan for negotiations on its territory. Baku’s and Yerevan’s
reaction to the offer is not clear at this point.

Turkish parliament to discuss Genocide with Armenian diaspora

PanArmenian News
March 18 2005

TURKISH PARLIAMENT TO DISCUSS GENOCIDE WITH ARMENIAN DIASPORA

18.03.2005 04:12

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Grand National Assembly of Turkey has decided
to put an end to speculations on the Genocide issue and invited
leaders of the Armenian Diaspora of Turkey to participate in the
discussions on the topic to be held April 5. Representatives of the
Armenian Diaspora Etienne Makhchupian and Grant Dink will also take
part in the debates.