RA FM handed Armenian flag to mountaineers

RA FM HANDED ARMENIAN FLAG TO MOUNTAINEERS

Pan Armenian News
04.05.2005 07:57

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian met the
Armenian mountaineers, who are going to climb Elbrus Mountain, RA MFA
press service reported. Vardan Oskanian handed the mountaineers the
Armenian flag, which will be hoisted on the peak of Elbrus. Armenian
mountaineers headed by Hayk Tonoian will climb Elbrus within the
international group of 500 people. The expedition is dedicated to the
60-th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War and the
UN 60-th anniversary. Earlier the Armenian mountaineers conquered
the peaks of Tien Shan, Pamirs and the Alaska Mountain Chain. Hayk
Tonoian climbed Ararat Mountain in 1991 and 2001.

TBILISI: Georgian president addresses nation ahead of Bush visit -fu

Georgian president addresses nation ahead of Bush visit – fuller version

Georgian State Television Channel 1, Tbilisi
3 May 05

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has called George Bush’s
approaching visit on 9-10 May “confirmation that Georgia is a regional
leader in spreading democracy and freedom”. In an address to students
broadcast live by several Georgian television channels, he said that
the Rose Revolution had inspired others and given Georgia a “special
mission”. Saakashvili also discussed his ideas of freedom and democracy
and said that the Georgian media had been freed from pressure. During
his speech he said that Georgia was planning to host a conference on
resolving the South Ossetian conflict in June. Answering questions
from students, he said that he hoped to sign an agreement on Russian
bases with President Putin in the next few days. The following in an
excerpt from the broadcast carried on Georgian TV on 3 May;

[Saakashvili] I would like to thank everyone for coming. It is very
unusual to see a red carpet in this room and I don’t like the fact
that it has been laid here. I will be sitting here for only two hours
or maybe one and a half so I do not need a red carpet. This kind of
formality is not necessary for a meeting with the president, nor is
all the fuss leading up to it, which would make you think that this
was going to be a speech from someone who only makes one address
every year. I had a conversation with students a little while ago
and I speak to people every day.

I walked around Lentekhi [northwestern Georgia] recently, before that I
have been visiting various places every day. Yesterday, for example, I
played football with children in Vazisubani [a district of Tbilisi]. We
do not need this kind of formality. The president of today’s Georgia
does not need a red carpet or pomp. From this red carpet you would
think that preparations were being made for a major summit.

For me it is a great gift to have this meeting with you. The last
time I was in this room was after my inauguration with US Secretary
of State Colin Powell. Colin Powell mentioned at the time that we
had both been to the same university, George Washington University in
Washington. He said that he had had only top marks. I replied that I
had slightly lower marks, but look how things have turned out. You are
still a foreign minister, I said, but I am already president. I am not
telling you this so that you neglect your studies, because of course if
you study badly you will not be guaranteed a good professional career.

I am delighted to see such bright faces, despite this catastrophic
weather, which has decided to play with our nerves. A few days ago
I said that whatever the weather we should not be frightened. After
that someone in the weather office decided that there should be bad
weather to see how much we could take. I will stress once again,
it can rain as much as it wants, but – [changes tack]. Yesterday it
was raining when I was opening a football pitch. I played football
and celebrated Easter and everything was fine.

Georgia “regional leader in spreading democracy”

You know that this is a very important stage in the life of our
country, the last two years or year and a half. The important event
ahead is President Bush’s visit to Georgia [9-10 May]. This is a truly
important event. I simply want to explain why this is important for us.

It is not because it will solve every problem at a stroke. It is
important because the leader of the largest democratic country is
coming to Georgia and the format of the visit is extremely rare
for any American president. This is confirmation that Georgia is a
regional leader in spreading democracy and freedom.

Georgia’s role is much greater than many would imagine. Georgia is
not only an example for revolution, in which there was practically
no violence, apart from one broken window in parliament – I don’t
know when it was smashed but I’ll admit it was. But those were just
a few beautiful days and weeks. The most important thing is what has
happened afterwards in the past year and a half. We have shown that
with democracy and freedom it is possible to be successful.

The thing that kleptomaniac and corrupt rulers feared the most in this
region was that someone might show it was possible to be successful
with democracy and freedom. I remember very well what they were saying
after our revolution. Georgia will break up into four or five parts,
they said. A completely inexperienced group of people has come to
power and they will fail. There will be much greater corruption, they
will not achieve anything and the country will eventually disintegrate
and will become a completely unstable zone in an unstable region.

Of course, we are participating in very historic process. We should
understand that now there will be a new Georgian state, in terms
of its institutions, its mentality, its ability and its special
traditions. We are a nation that is several millennia old but to what
extent can we say we have had a tradition of statehood? Georgia has
never had successful experience of modern statehood. It was an almost
hopeless situation.

What has happened in these most recent years? We have managed to create
a state. Of course it is not a very rich or especially comfortable
state, but it is already a state. Our budget in [former President
Eduard] Shevardnadze’s final years was 350m dollars. This year our
budget will be almost 1.9bn dollars. Those who can do the sums can
work out how much it has grown.

What does this increased budget mean? It means that roads are being
built, there are renovations not just in Tbilisi but throughout the
country, there are buses in towns throughout Georgia, a new police
force, a new ambulance service and the most important functions of
the state. The state should be able to have a police force and provide
aid for those in need.

During these [recent] floods everyone saw that the Georgian state
already exists. Not a single family remains in the flood and disaster
zone which has not received state aid. Everyone recognizes this.
Today there is not a single family [left without help] and I saw this
with my own eyes. I walked to see myself, the prime minister walked,
ministers walked 40, 45, or 67 km [presumably distances given by
various ministers]. Our MPs and ministers walked that far. Every
family was provided with aid. This is already a state.

Georgia’s revolution as an example to others

On the first anniversary of our revolution, there was a repeat in
Ukraine. For the whole year they were saying it could not be repeated
in Ukraine, look what a poor state Georgia is in; but the Ukrainians
saw that we had been successful. It was one of the most important
stimuli for what happened. The same thing happened in Kyrgyzstan and
many other places in the world, not just the former Soviet Union. It
also applies, for example, to the countries of the Middle East,
whose representatives I met and who told me that what happened in
Georgia made a great impression on them.

The American president is coming to a country which America
recognizes as an example of democracy and freedom for the region
and the world. That is Georgia’s special role and mission. This is
a special role and a special mission for each of you.

We are proud that there is freedom in Georgia. This is not simply
a notion. I was a student at Kiev University in 1985, my first
year. In my first year the KGB opened a file on me because I read
foreign journals and because I expressed independent opinions. As
a result everything was closed to me. Under that regime I would not
have been able to travel abroad, although that was my profession – I
studied diplomacy. I would never have been able to find normal work,
I would never have been able to make progress in any area or find
a job I wanted. I am not talking about politics. I would never have
been able to stand before you in this room like this.

Out of my family, in which I was brought up, my grandfather spent 10
years in a Siberian camp, his brother was sentenced to 25 years. My
grandmother’s mother, who died last year, had a brother who was
executed and a father who was almost worn to death in Siberian camps.

Therefore, for me and for you freedom is not simply that we hate
the past in which all opportunities were closed to us and in which
there was a closed society. The mark of a closed society is when
someone decides in a corridor somewhere that you should not achieve
anything, that you are done with, a line is drawn under you and you
will never be able to go forward. This does not mean I am a supporter
of democracy just because of that. Democracy is – [changes tack]. I
have seen many people who were oppressed by the Soviet regime and as
soon as the opportunity appeared, they themselves became oppressors
and wanted to oppress someone.

The important thing is that if someone believes in their own power,
in their own talent, if they think they are stronger than others
and can go forward, then they should compete in a free competition,
participate in open debates and exchange opinions freely.

That is important in a free and open society. Why is corruption a
disaster? It is not just because when someone takes a bribe the money
does not go into the state coffers. Corruption is a problem because
it means that three or four groups agree everything among themselves.
Why was our budget only 350m? It was in effect 1.9bn, but the rest of
the money was divided between these three or four groups. No matter
how talented you were, it was their children who went to the best
schools, their children who studied overseas, their children who got
the best jobs and for the rest, you could be a genius – all of you are
very talented, I am well aware of that – but would have no chance or
possibility of success. Therefore open society is a society in which
there are free debates.

Georgian media “freed”

Today is a day for the press. I would like to greet all members
of the press. We have freed the Georgian press from paying taxes,
although that is not the most important thing. We have freed them
from any kind of pressure. A while ago, it makes me laugh, five
intellectuals sat talking for one and a half hours on one channel
and I watched with great curiosity in my office. I turned it on one
evening by chance and was very interested. For an hour and a half
they were complaining that they were not allowed to express their
opinions on television. But it was on television they were saying
that. You get the picture, don’t you? How many times have you seen
them complaining on the most popular shows, saying that they are not
allowed to appear on television? They also complain to foreigners. A
foreigner who does not watch our television stations believes them
but you hear this from our television.

People wrote me a letter asking why I express my views so precisely,
saying that it is not good. I want to say categorically that Georgia’s
president is not the Queen of Great Britain. The president is elected
to express his opinions and put them into practice. The most important
thing is that the president expresses his opinions. You should be
scared of a president who does not express his opinions or whose
views continually change. That is the kind of predecessor I had,
who in general has no views.

Of course, I am the leader of a political party, I have opinions,
I have my own clear ideas of how Georgia should develop. I am the
leader of a political force which has also expressed its opinions.
Sometimes I attack my opponents, not sometimes but often. However,
the most important thing is not that you attack someone but that they
should have the opportunity to respond, that they can express their
own views.

It is not important that I should not express my opinions. There are
many leaders in the world who do not express their opinions but at
the same time smother with both hands their opponents, who cannot
express their opinions; so the country is a swamp.

I believe deeply that the more free debate there is, the higher
the temperature of political debate, the better its quality, the
more opinions and people involved – [changes tack]. You should take
part in these debates. The previous government said they would not
let students be politicized. What could be more idiotic? Of course
students should be interested in politics because it is their future.
They should be more involved in their country’s future than older
people because their fate depends on it. The main thing is that as
a result of the debate we should reach the truth.

This does not mean that we do not have the possibility of a general
consensus where there is a common national interest, general human
values, and what unites us and humanity at large. In a normal society,
if it is to be successful, they need to agree.

As for politicians’ evaluation of events and specific people’s views,
this is a personal choice, whether it regards the president or any
other political leader. We do not have Dalai Lamas in our politics.
No-one can be above criticism, no-one can be without mistakes. The
more people are correctly criticized, the fewer the mistakes.

I, as a leader, recognize that I do many things to scrutinize my staff
from the top. You should not doubt that I want these members of staff
to be honest and to behave correctly. We have truly tackled corruption
in the past year and a half; however, if there is no other control
mechanism, if there is no press scrutiny, if local administration
heads, governors, police chiefs and MPs are not constantly under
scrutiny, society will not be able to go forward and this control
mechanism will not exist.

That is the meaning of freedom. That is the difference between a
stagnant country and a country which moves forward and develops.
Therefore, Georgia is the best example in the former Soviet Union. In
which other country are there seven independent national television
channels and 25 or 26 independent regional channels?

If you take all the rest of the former Soviet Union, the number of
independent channels is less than in little Georgia. This makes
it difficult for us to operate but this is right for society to
be able to develop. That is the first thing. The second aspect is
responsibility. Responsibility for our country and its future.

“Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for
your country”

Sometimes you might think that Georgia was like a car that had been
broken down for a long time, completely stuck in a swamp, the engine
wouldn’t start and the petrol had been stolen. Now a new driver
has come and put petrol in it, fixed the engine, made some effort,
started the engine and begun to drive out of the swamp. But now some of
the passengers are complaining, what are you waiting for, why are we
moving so slowly? What would a normal passenger do? He would get out
and push. If everyone got out and pushed the weight would be less and
the car would move forward. I am not saying I want to be the driver –
[changes tack] I am ready to lie down in front of the car so it can
get out of the swamp. But everyone should help to get our country
out of the swamp. We are already on our way.

We are talking about President Bush’s visit, but at our Easter meeting
the Patriarch [Ilia II] quoted President Kennedy, who said ask not what
your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Ilia
Chavchavadze [Georgian 19th century writer and thinker] said the same
thing much earlier, but in a different way. You are a man if you ask
yourself every day whom you have served. Ilia Chavchavadze said it that
way because he was talking about society and Georgia was not a state
at that time. We should say this every day and note its importance.

All of us have a very important mission. To finish what we have
started in conditions of freedom and democracy. In this region
there is a chance for success, the region can develop and be no less
European than any Western or well-developed Eastern European country.
That is our joint task.

Separatist conflicts, plans for peace conference

However, we also face many obstacles and challenges, for example the
issue of [separatist] conflicts. Abkhazia is our deepest common pain,
because a grave injustice was committed there; most of the people
were driven out, the most decent and peaceful people were driven out.

As regards the Tskhinvali region [South Ossetia], we have unveiled
our peace plan. A few days ago, we offered our help to the Tskhinvali
authorities to deal with the consequences of the floods. We were
ready to give them everything, including money, fuel and equipment.
But they refused to accept anything. So, I want to tell those who are
now watching us in Java or Tskhinvali: we were ready to come and help
you, but the group that has appropriated the region denied this to
you. They deprived you of this. We are still ready to help you. They
have been scaring you that you will have problems with passports, but
I am ready to open a Georgian passport office in Tskhinvali tomorrow
and grant Georgian citizenship to every applicant tomorrow. If it
cannot be done in Tskhinvali, I’m inviting everyone to Gori. I’m
instructing the Gori passport office to issue Georgian passports to
every resident of the Tskhinvali, Java, Znauri and other districts
as soon as they request it.

We are ready to organize a large conference in Tbilisi this June
to discuss every aspect of our peace plan on the settlement of
the Tskhinvali region – South Ossetia conflict. We will invite
all organizations working on conflict settlement and peace issues.
Georgia is very open in this respect but we need everyone else to be
open too. We are ready to go further than probably any other country
in the region, because we are not afraid. We are not talking from a
weak position. Some time ago, we disbanded the [Dzevera] reservists
camp and redeployed it dozens of kilometres away from the conflict
zone, so that no-one could say that we were getting ready for
something. Moreover, we have reduced tenfold the number of Georgian
peacekeepers in the conflict zone. I have done this deliberately
because I’m not afraid. I believe that the Georgian state is strong
enough to protect its citizens even in these conditions and I do not
want to give our enemies an excuse to complain.

However, this cannot be a one-way street. We urge all forces with
at least a bit of common sense to agree to a dialogue with us. It
is unacceptable to keep a 22-year-old boy in a dungeon on so-called
treason charges only because he arranged holidays for 500 [Ossetian]
children in Chakvi, Kobuleti and other resorts in Ajaria. I’m talking
about [Aleksandr] Kozayev who is imprisoned in Tskhinvali. A state
cannot regard itself as a self-respecting state if such things can
happen on its territory.

Economic reforms, ethnic minorities

We have very ambitious plans regarding our economic reforms. We are
starting a large-scale anti-bureaucratic reform. This doesn’t mean
that we are going to mistreat competent officials, but we will reduce
the functions of the state drastically. All kinds of permits and 95
per cent of licenses should be abolished. If you decide to set up a
business, you should not have to go to some agricultural office and
beg them to give you permission to squeeze grapes and bottle the juice.

[Passage omitted: says that Georgia should have “small bureaucracy
with high salaries”, cites examples of unjustified licensing rules;
says that his government “has acquired many enemies” after public
sector job cuts]

We as a society should understand that the country’s progress is
impossible without these reforms. Significant development will
be impossible without these reforms because Georgia is very, very
underdeveloped. During the past 15 years, not even a single kilometre
of a good standard road has been built. We have started a road building
programme. We will only need two years to do the fundamental part of
this. We will need to spend a minimum of 200m dollars to rebuild roads
in Tbilisi. This year, we will spend about 50-60m dollars on that,
and maybe slightly more next year.

As for the regions, we have started building a big road in Samegrelo.
Roads in Akhaltsikhe and Ninotsminda are in ruins. Just imagine what
is happening there: no-one remembers the Georgian state, because
there is no road and Georgian TV is not available. However, despite
this, our fellow Armenian citizens [living there] eagerly teach their
children to speak Georgian. [Passage omitted: talks about his recent
trip to Ninotsminda]

We should take care of these people. They are citizens of
Georgia. We should work on the integration of ethnic minorities. We
are establishing a school of [public] administration for them that
will offer six-month and nine-month study programmes for Azerbaijanis,
Armenians, Ossetians, Greeks, Jews and whoever else is not integrated,
and also Russians who do not speak Georgian. We should teach them
Georgian and let them see that there are highly paid positions for them
too in the reduced, but not corrupt, Georgian state apparatus. They
will not be able to occupy these positions just by chance. But when
we have 100 new Armenian officials this year, 100 Azerbaijanis, 100
Ossetians, and 100 officials of other nationalities, the picture will
change completely. Others will realize that this country is theirs
too and that they have a good chance of taking part in the future of
this country.

This is another unique model for the entire region, the region
which has been devastated by ethnic conflicts, the Balkans of the
former Soviet Union. Therefore we, as a democratic country, should
demonstrate that democracy gives a chance to everyone regardless of
their ethnic background or property status.

Bush visit not like Brezhnev’s

We have embarked on a very important stage of reforms, and President
Bush’s visit is intended to support these reforms. Now, some people,
especially in the Russian press, and some Georgians have joined them
too, have been comparing President Bush’s visit to visits by former
[Communist Party] general secretaries [in Soviet times]. I remember
those times. Once, [Leonid] Brezhnev was coming to Georgia and I
was forced to take part in marching rehearsals for four weeks. It
was in 1981, Brezhnev was no longer on top form, and they said that
the size of the ceremony had to be reduced by three times. Instead
of four hours, it would continue for only an hour and a half. So
they told tall boys to stay and they let the smaller ones go. Well,
I was the tallest guy in my class, but I pretended to be smaller and
they let me go. So I was not there to see Brezhnev.

Those who make these comparisons do not understand that at that time
Georgia was an enslaved country and the general secretaries were our
main slave masters who would come to the enslaved territories in order
to strengthen the slavery. But President Bush, the American president,
is the leader of the free world and is coming to a free country which
has liberated itself, especially now, in order to support freedom,
democracy and the future of this country as an independent and free
country. Those who do not see the difference remain trapped in the
time of the Soviet Union and red carpets. This is not a matter of age,
I know some young people who also fail to see this difference.

This is the difference between Georgia of that period and the present
Georgia. At that time, Georgians did not serve in the army or, if they
did, they were warehousemen or cooks [in the Soviet Army], although
I served in combat units for two years. Now, serving in the Georgian
army is a completely different thing. Now people are proud to serve
in the army. [Passage omitted: praises the morale of Georgian troops
during recent artillery exercises]

Since I have touched on the issue of army, I want to tell you that
I am personally very proud that our soldiers are in Iraq. I am proud
that our soldiers are in Kosovo, because this is an integral part of
our democratic, international role. [Looks at his watch] I was told
not to talk for more than 15 minutes, but I’ve been talking for too
long. So, now I will be listening to you. [Applause]

[Moderator] Mr President, taking into account our situation, students
still have many questions to ask you, despite your comprehensive
comments. [Passage omitted]

Expectations from Bush visit

[Question] Mr President, let me congratulate you on the Easter
holiday. [Passage omitted] Undoubtedly, President Bush’s visit is
very important for Georgia. What results do you expect from this
visit? [Passage omitted]

[Saakashvili] First of all, I want to tell you that when we talk about
President Bush’s visit it is only part of a broader picture. We should
not have the illusion that Bush will come and then everything will then
be fine. It will not be like that. We have to accomplish everything
ourselves. We should not wait for anything. [Passage omitted: describes
how neighbours are helping each other in flood hit Svaneti]

We are not expecting America to come and solve our problems for us,
but this visit underlines that Georgia has international importance as
never before in its history. This visit is not just a show of support
for Georgian democracy. It is a visit which supports democracy in the
region. We need democracy in this region like we need air. Without
Ukraine, Georgia would be in a very difficult situation today. Some of
you were in Ukraine. I will never forget the feeling of pride when I
was standing before a million people on 31 December [in Kiev]. Before
that date, I was so eager to go there that it was very difficult
to convince me that presidents don’t behave like that. Eventually
I was persuaded not to go [before 31 December], but when [Viktor]
Yushchenko was practically president already, although almost no-one
had recognized it apart from us, I went there on 31 December, and
the feeling of pride was amazing.

However, many of you were there before that, young Georgian students
with their eyes lit up, standing together with Ukrainians. By the way,
I’ve heard that some of them started international [Georgian-Ukrainian]
families, so there was a pleasant side to it too, but the risk was
much greater. Those people were our representatives. Without Ukraine,
Georgia would be more isolated and under much greater pressure. Then
there is Moldova. Under Georgia’s chairmanship of GUUAM, it turned from
being a virtually defunct organization into an organization with which
Romania, Lithuania and Poland are actively cooperating, not to mention
Ukraine and Moldova. The Moldovan president said at his inauguration
that Moldovan democracy was inspired by Georgian democracy.

“Freedom will triumph in Belarus”

I am certain that freedom will triumph in Belarus. I am certain of
that. It will win everywhere. In Kyrgyzstan, [MP] Givi Targamadze
was there [during the revolution], I don’t think it is a big secret,
he was there together with some other fighters for democracy. He was
certainly not leading anything, as some people claimed, but when the
first rallies were broken up, Givi got on a horse and crossed the
border. Actually, he says he was on a horse but others say it was a
donkey, although it is not important. He crossed over into Uzbekistan
through minefields, the situation was difficult there.

When we talk about what democracy means, this is a chance for
Georgia to solve its problems, problems with our neighbours, problems
associated with our conflicts. I am sure that in the end the public
should make their views known. Those people in Tskhinvali who were
denied the right to get help from the Georgian state, their state,
whose language they speak, whose capital they visit every other day,
who marry other citizens of that state. They have been denied the
right to get aid and food from this state in the situation when the
Transcaucasian highway is closed and they cannot get help from anywhere
else. They have not received pensions and salaries for several months
but they are deprived of this help. When these people are allowed
to express their views, when Alik Kozayev is released from prison,
I’m sure that nothing will stand in the way of a peaceful settlement
of this conflict.

“Red line” of the Caucasus should not be crossed

This is our meaning for democracy, the meaning of Bush’s visit to
Georgia. The American president’s visit is the final confirmation
that Georgia is an independent country whose borders and territory
are inviolable. The red line lies on the Caucasus Range and no-one
should cross it to this side. Everything that is temporarily on this
side should go back.

I am one of the few presidents in the world who will have the
opportunity, within the space of three or four days – although this
is not finally decided but I have hope – to sign joint declarations
with the presidents of Russia and America. The contents of these
declarations are different but they complement each other. We have
had Russian troops in Georgia for 200 years. There is no point in
this for Russia, and for Georgia it is a risk.

We now have an historic chance for the step-by-step, civilized [changes
tack] – there are other ways, for example Syria withdrew a contingent
three of four times larger in two weeks and without problems. We are
prepared to talk about two years or even three years, but I intend
to resolve this issue during my term of office as stipulated by
the constitution and I’m not going to make any concessions in this
regard. Peacefully, in a civilized manner, we should change the form
of our relations. It is unacceptable to talk to us while using troops,
tanks and weapons. Let us talk about investments. There are many other
issues too. Georgia’s economy needs improvement and I think that Bush’s
visit is a very important sign for our integration into Euro-Atlantic
bodies. This is important support for Georgia’s independence and a
very important stimulus to democracy in the entire region, democracy
which we all need like air.

[Passage omitted: Answering the next few questions, Saakashvili says
that he categorically opposes “nationalization of private companies”,
urges students to sue corrupt officials themselves, talks about student
exchange programmes with foreign countries, the government’s efforts
to build new energy facilities, the lack of qualified engineers in
Georgia, the anniversary of the overthrow of Ajarian leader Aslan
Abashidze, the importance of economic development in provinces, and
“a new air of optimism” in Georgia]

Abkhaz welcome to visit Georgia

[Question] Nino Lomouri, Tbilisi State University. A few years ago
some students of Tbilisi State University travelled to Abkhazia
with the help of the UN. They travelled through Abkhazia to Sochi to
meet students of Sukhumi University. During three days of meetings
the Georgian and Abkhaz students got to know each other. They are
still in touch. Later, there were promises from [former President]
Shevardnadze that the authorities would provide assistance to them
to organize other meetings, but those promises were not kept. We need
help from the authorities to [interrupted by the president]

[Saakashvili] Generally, of course we need help to return to Abkhazia,
but that is another kind of help. As for inviting the Abkhaz here,
you know that last year we invited Abkhaz children [to Tbilisi]. We
financed their trip. The children spent two weeks here, we planted
trees in a park together. But when they went back, their parents
were detained in Sukhumi and some of the children were detained
too. [Georgian government’s spokeswoman] Leila Avidzba is Abkhaz, she
is from Sukhumi, she studied in Tbilisi and now she is a news presenter
for Georgian [State] TV and she also works in the government. Her
mother has been given a suspended sentence because Leila works here,
although she is Abkhaz and she has never betrayed the Abkhaz people.

If you want to invite someone, bring them here, we fully support
these contacts. We should destroy this siege mentality. What is their
mentality now? In the past, [late chairman of the Tbilisi-backed
Abkhaz government in exile, Tamaz] Nadareishvili’s figure was used to
frighten those 35,000 remaining Abkhaz who live there, unfortunately
others have left. Now they have created another bogeyman, [Defence
Minister Irakli] Okruashvili. Okruashvili will come and eat your
children, they say. But nobody is going to carry out any kind of
aggressive action anywhere. We should understand that we must destroy
this wall of mistrust. This will only happen through contacts between
people. Every person should know that this is their country that will
take their interests into account. We are not going to take by force
something which can be resolved through human contacts in a democratic
way. This is a very principled position of the Georgian state. Today
we need economic development, energy facilities, roads and tourism
rather than a war and chaos. Everyone should understand this. At the
same time, we need a strong state. The way to Abkhazia lies through
a strong state. Help us to convince those several dozen thousands of
our compatriots who live on the territory where many more Abkhaz and
more than 300,000 Georgians lived in the past.

[Question] We have a proposal, the Abkhaz agree too, but we need
financing.

[Saakashvili] Submit your proposal to me.

[Moderator] The last question, Mr President.

Russian timeframe for base withdrawal “realistic”

[Question] Mariam Bochorishvili, Tbilisi State University. Mr
President, do you know if President Bush and President Putin are going
to discuss the pullout of the Russian bases from Georgia? Will they
sign a document guaranteeing the pullout?

[Saakashvili] An agreement on this should be signed by me and President
Putin. We have been exchanging documents. Last year, when we first
met the Russians, they told us that they needed 13-15 years [to pull
out the bases]. By that time, you would be of the same age as I am
now. I see [presidential spokesman] Gela [Charkviani] is looking at
me, [smiles] I guess it is inappropriate to talk about age in his
presence. Now their [Russian] Defence Ministry said that they would
need three to four years and their Foreign Ministry said two to three
years. That’s what I call a realistic approach. We are not going to
throw Russians into the sea, as some people are claiming, but neither
are we going to let 200 years [of Russian military presence in Georgia]
grow into 300 years.

Since we are going to resolve this issue during my presidency, we also
need help from the public. They should know this. We have managed
to achieve this progress because Georgia has become a successful
country. We have become a state. State institutions and democracy are
functioning here. Even during debates nothing has been destroyed. I
remember that last year some people predicted after some arguments in
parliament that Saakashvili was doomed to failure. On the contrary,
the more debates we have the better. I am certain that we will win
all these debates. In the end, people should decide this issue rather
than some particular groups or foreign forces. We should reach this
agreement, this is a matter of principle for me. Our position will
be very principled to the end. By the way, this is being decided
right now. Today is 3 May, and we should reach an agreement by 8
May. [Passage omitted: wraps up the meeting]

Sydney: European Armenian Fed. Prez Delivers 2005 Genocide Lecture

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATIVE COMMITTEE
259 Penshurst Street
Willoughby NSW 2068
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Dr Tro Kortian 0412197364

AUSTRALIA, President of European Armenian Federation, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, Delivers 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture in
NSW Parliament

Sydney, AUSTRALIA: [28 April 2005] Accepting the invitation of the
Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, President of the Armenian European Federation for Justice
and Democracy, delivered the 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative
Lecture in the Parliament of New South Wales Theatrette.

The annual Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture series seeks to
honour the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide by
addressing human rights issues of contemporary importance and by
providing a constructive role in the understanding and prevention of
genocide and other crimes against humanity. Accordingly, each year a
distinguished speaker is invited to deliver the Commemorative Lecture
on a topic of contemporary national or international relevance with
respect to issues of tolerance, human rights, international law,
genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Previous speakers have
been Prof. Richard G. Hovannisian (1996), Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian
(1997), NSW Supreme Court Judge Justice John Dowd (1998), Baroness
Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords (2000) and
Israeli scholar Dr Yair Auron (2001): Mr Raffi Hovaannisian, former
Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia (2002); and Dr Sev
Ozdowski, OAM, Human Rights Commissioner and Disability Discrimination
Commissioner (2004)

Below is the text of Mrs Hilda Tchoboian’s 2005 Armenian Genocide
Commemorative lecture:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with
you these words on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the
genocide of the Armenian people.

It is undeniable that although ninety years have passed since the
first genocide of the twentieth century, it is only for the past
quarter century, that its internationalization has been mounting.

At the end of the First World War, the extermination of the Armenians
made an important mark on international doctrines, in particular on
the Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 1920, in which article 230
stipulated that the Turkish leaders responsible for the massacres of
the Armenian populations would be brought to justice before an
international penal court:

`The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers
the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being
responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the
state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on
the 1st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the
right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused
and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal.

Article 144 called for reparations, due to the survivors of the
genocide, and the return of goods confiscated from their Armenian
owners.

`The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915
relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the
supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and
void, in the past as in the future.

`The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the
greatest possible extent the return to their homes and
re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of
non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by
fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914.
It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said
Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can
be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in
whatever hands it may be found¦. The Turkish Government agrees that
arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League
of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions
shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by
summary procedure.

Turkey refused to ratify this text; the Treaty of Lausanne of July 23,
1923, which replaced that of Sevres, remained silent on this
subject. It is here that the first attempt at establishing an
international penal tribunal failed, because of the indifference of
the Allies, who favored Real politik with regard to their trade
relations with Turkey.

It all started in the years following the Genocide, with the
Diaspora’s first commemorations of the Great Catastrophe, “medz
Yeghern” in Armenian. These gatherings were of a private, disorganized
and tragic nature; it was an opportunity for the survivors to remember
their exterminated families or those they lost to deportation; these
gatherings always ended in tears, as people were overcome by the
enormous suffering and the feeling of powerlessness before such an
overwhelming tragedy.

The trials of the Ittihadist perpetrators indeed condemned in
abstencia the organizers of the Genocide; however, in the absence of
international justice, it was the Armenians themselves who had to
bring to justice some of the guilty, in particular the perpetrating
triumvirate Talaat, Enver and Jemal.

The trial of the young Soghomon Tehlirian, in Berlin, for the
execution of Talaat, the Turkish Minister of Interior, raised public
awareness of the extermination of the Armenians, but remained a
judicial act Though it certainly had great impact on public opinion,
it did not reach Germany’s post-war political scene.

At the end of the Second World War, there was hope that the Soviet
Union would address the issue of the genocide and territorial claims
at the UN; but that too, for various reasons, resulted in
disappointment, when Molotov, who represented the USSR at the UN,
ended up asking for the Armenian territories in the eastern part of
Turkey in order to annex them…… to Soviet Georgia.

During the Cold War, the USSR policy froze the genocide issue, and all
of the Armenian Diaspora’s efforts to internationalize the issue
resulted in failure during this time due to unfavorable conditions on
the international political scene. The memorandum that the independent
Delegation of Armenia regularly presented at the UN received no
traction. The UN remained silent in response to repeated demands by
Armenian organizations to consider the issue of plundering following
the Genocide. Similarly, requests made to various world governments
remained unanswered.

Ironically, it is on this foundation that the effort to
internationalize the Genocide issue began. It is through
acknowledgement by a few countries–still rare in the Sixties and
Seventies–that it developed. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide
was at no time a high-stakes issue in international relations; it is
thanks to the diligent work of dedicated activitists in Armenian
organizations, reinforced in their fight by democratic supporters,
often by local elected officials, that the recognition of the Genocide
gradually became a question of Humans Rights and the right to
historical memory, recognized by a growing number of national
parliaments and local and regional political bodies.

>From 1975 to 1985, there was a ten-year battle to retain mention of
the Armenian Genocide in article 30 of the report of the UN Human
Rights Commission’s Subcommission on the Fight Against Discrimination
and Racism. Sixty years after the tragedy, the Armenian Genocide
forced its way onto into the international arena; the mention of the
Armenian question would have almost passed unnoticed if Turkey had not
engaged all its political and diplomatic might to remove it from the
report. Several years of pressure and blackmail by Turkey caused quite
some turmoil in the drafting and adoption of the report.

However, in August 1985, the final report by Benjamin Whittaker
maintained the Armenian Genocide among the Genocides of modern
times. It was a considerable victory, which mobilized the energy of
Armenian activists and independent experts; the Genocide issue left
the private sphere of the Armenian Diaspora, and made its entry into
an international text, and moreover at the level of a UN
Subcommission, which consisted of independent experts and where
Turkish diplomacy had less influence than it would have with a body of
government representatives.

In 1984, one year before the successful conclusion of the UN efforts,
the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, heir to the famous Russel Tribunal,
brought together in Paris a few dozen experts, including several Nobel
Prize recipients and Genocide experts, to in turn affirm that the
Armenian killings indeed constituted a genocide according to the
definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide.

Finally, it is on June 18 1987 that the rapporteur Jaak
Vandemeulebroucke, a Flemish deputy of the European Parliament,
proposed his final report titled “for a political solution to the
Armenian Question”. The text adopted by the European Parliament stated
that denial of the genocide by Turkey constitutes, along with the
occupation of Cyprus and repression of the Kurds, unnegotiable
barriers to Turkey’s entry into Europe. The same year, the European
Council rejected Turkey’s application to join the European Community.

Since then, the worldwide movement to achieve Genocide recognition has
taken on new momentum; great Western Democracies, like France, Italy,
and Belgium have resisted economic and political blackmail, and in
spite of unprecedented Turkish pressures have officially recognized
the Armenian Genocide.

Of course all of these official recognitions had an important impact
on public opinion, but of a moral nature more than having an impact on
Turkey’s relations with the recognizing countries. Turkey continued to
develop its campaign of denial, enveloping into its fold academics and
others who might lend credibility to its policy of denial.

And so, it was the acceleration of Turkey’s EU accession process that
pushed the Genocide question to the forefront of the world political
scene.

In 1999, the European Summit of Helsinki included in its conclusions
that Turkey had a role associated with Europe;

In 2000, the European Commission published its report on Turkey’s
progress, which was followed by the European Parliament, whose
rapporteur, General Morillon refused to include Genocide recognition
as a pre-condition to Turkey’s accession. Our actions were
instrumental in influencing the Parliament’s final decision; indeed,
the Parliament adopted amendments demanding that Turkey recognize the
Genocide and lift the blockade of Arménia. For the first time,
the recognition of the Genocide entered legislation governing the
relations between Turkey and the European Union.

In the following years, and in spite of the reticence of the major
political parties within the European Parliament, we succeeded in
inserting this requirement in all the legislation and resolutions of
this European democratic assembly. We in essence created a cumulative
effect between the European Parliament legislation and the growing
Genocide recognitions by the national Parliaments, in order to create
a situation where the public opinion would consider it totally
anti-democratic not to take into account all these recognitions and
resolutions.

Of course, during the early years, the European Commission turned a
deaf ear; however faced with mounting evidence of Turkey’s obstinate
denial (from the Education Minister’s directives to deny the Genocide
in the schools to the Turkish penal code’s article 305 which calls for
prison sentences for anyone authoring a publication on the Armenian
Genocide or calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus),
the European executive body finally invoked in 2004 the Genocide,
asking Turkey to reconcile its historical disputes with
Arménia.

And so today, Turkey faces the demand for recognition from its
relationships with third-party countries and international entities,
in particular from the European Union and the United States of
America. In this phase of the internationalization of the recognition
issue, Turkey continues to seek a way out through denial and attempts
at diversion.

In the summer of 2001, with the help and financing from the U.S. State
Department and Turkey, a group of Turks and Armenians formed a
so-called “Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission” supposedly to
start a discussion to reconcile the Armenian and Turkish people,
without broaching the genocide issue, since the Turkish members of the
group, all of whom were seasoned former diplomats in the denial
campaign, refused to discuss it.

The true nature of the so-called `Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission’ (TARC) was exposed, a long time ago, by the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA) in Washington and the European
Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) in
Brussels. Those who `masterminded’ the operation have publicly
admitted recently that it was a failure for which the `Armenian
nationalists’ are to be blamed. Armenians everywhere rejected this
suspect operation no sooner than it was launched. European Armenian
organizations, in large numbers, went on record signing the
Declaration initiated by EAFJD.

Since then, other more subtle forms of this Turkish-inspired strategy
are being initiated. Artificial forms of `cooperation’ are being
devised bringing together elements of civil society in Turkey and
Armenia into a propaganda show. Large sums are being committed to
such operations targeting needy intellectuals and institutions in
Armenia who could be tempted. The organizers of TARC know that this
operation, in all of its forms, is doomed to eventual failure. Their
true purpose, however, is to create a false aura of `dialogue’ at the
grass-roots level in order to confuse the political scene in the US
and in Europe. Their purpose is to divert the attention of the world
community away from Turkey’s responsibility for the crime.

During this time of pre-accession negotiations, Europe is sending an
increasingly clear message to Turkey requiring its recognition of the
Genocide. For other reasons related to its economic and strategic
interests, the United States is also searching for a solution to lead
Turkey out of the grave that it continues to dig with its policy of
denial.

With this in mind, TARC commissioned a study on the applicability of
the 1948 Genocide Convention to the Armenian case; the answer was
foreseeable: with great media reinforcement, the “International Center
for Transitional Justice” hired for this study concluded that the
Convention could not apply because of the non-retroactive nature of
the Convention, even if the massacres of the Armenians constitute a
Genocide according to Convention criteria.

However, where crimes against humanity are involved, there can be no
statute of limitation. This is a fundamental principle of
international law. Responsibility for the crime of genocide cannot
lapse with time and it weighs heavily on the shoulders of the nation
whose government has perpetrated the mass annihilation. And ever since
the adoption of the United Nations Genocide Convention, the world
community also has the ancillary moral responsibility to make sure
that the perpetrator nation is brought to justice.

As reflected in the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the
doctrine of State Responsibility for genocide Crimes against Humanity
already existed at the time of the genocide of teh Armenians. Such
State Responsibility entailed both an obligation to provide
restitution or compensation and the personal criminal liability of the
perpetrators.

At the end of the second world war, the Allies adopted he Cherter of
the International Military Tribunal, following the London Agreement of
8 August 1945, which provided for the prosecution of the Crime of
genocide ( « murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population
») as international crimes within the « Crimes against
Humanity ».

Obviously the drafters of the London Agreement had clearly in mind the
genocide against the Armenian people. Thus we read the following in
the History of the United Nations` War Crimes Commission : «
The provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were
obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of
1915, ¦ offences which had been committed on Turkish territory
against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of At menian ¦
race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles
6c) and 5c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, and offers an exa
;ple of the one of the categories of « Crimes against Humanity
» as understood by these enactments ».

On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. The Convention does not purport to create a new crime, but
recognizes in the preamble « thet at all periods of History
genocide has inflicted great losses on Humanity » ; and in
article 1, stipulates ˜ The Contracting Parties confirm that
genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a
crime under international law .. ».

So we see that the Convention merely codified the prohibition of
genocide, because it was not constitutive of a new offence in
internaitonal Law termed « genocide », but was
declaratory of the pre-existing crime.

Today the majority of the 191 member States of the United Nations have
ratified the Convention. But the Genocide Convention underlies
« principles which are recogniwed by civilized nations as
binding on all States, even without any Conventional obligation
» as stated by the International Court of Justice in 1951.

Later the Court stated that the rights involved in the outlawing of
genocide are obligations « erga omnes » which means
obligations « towards the International Community as a whole
».

And because of its « erga omnes » quality, the ceime of
genocide cannot be subject to prescription, and the obligation of the
genocidal State to make reparation and State Responsibility for the
crime does not lapse with time.

In 1968 the United Nations adopted the Convention of the Non
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to war Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity. Although Turkey is not a State-party ot this
Comvention, internatuional Law clearly stipulates that there is no
prescription on the prosecution of the crime of the genocide,
regardless of when the genocide occurredm and the obligation of the
responsible State to make restitution or pay compensation for
confiscated properties does not lapse with time.

Finally a general principle of international Law stipulates that a
State is responsible for injuries causes by its wronglul acts and
bound to provide reparation for it. In the case of the genocidem it is
not a mere violation of International Law, engaging inter-state
responsibity , but an obligation of thd crimimal State toward the
International Community as a whole.

The legal impact of the « erga omnes » nature of the
crime of genocide involves an obligationn to make reparation, which
lays over the responsible State and the International Community.

Responsibility, in this case, involves a formal and genuine
recognition of the crime committed and an official apology by the
perpetrator nation. It involves prosecution and punishment of the
individuals responsible under the accepted norms of international law;
reparations to the survivor population; compensation, for the damages
and pain incurred, to the individual victims (or their rightful
heirs), as well as to the collective interest of the victimized
community or the nation; restoration to the rightful inheritors (and
restitution) of the territories and all other cultural treasures
(mobile and immobile); finally, institution by the successor
government of the perpetrator nation of a massive educational program
about the genocide committed thus restoring the true collective memory
of the society involved for the benefit of the present and future
generations.

We take note of a new attempt by Turkey to escape from the increasing
European pressure.

Prime Minister Erdogan stated recently that he would like to see an
impartial study performed by a group of historians to determine
whether a Turkish genocide against the Armenians did, in fact, take
place. The Prime Minister’s statement confused many in the world
community and for good reason. For a head of government, he was a
little late in trying to learn about his country’s recent past. His
statement was, indeed, the vivid evidence of how systematically the
present Turkish Republic, since its inception, has wiped out Turkey’s
historical memory depriving many generations of Turks of the truth
about themselves.

Knowing Turkey’s policy of denial, however, the world community cannot
be naïve and not see the diversionary tactics behind the
Turkish government’s recent campaign of deception. The facts about the
Armenian Genocide have long been established and recognized by the
world community. An impressive number of nations are on record on this
subject and many more will follow suit. Turkey is too late in meeting
its obligations and it knows it. Relegating this matter to
`historians’ is a discredited tactic. Its aim is to drive this issue
out of the political arena.

Only a few days ago, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister reminding him that he
cannot with any credibility use Turkish claims against Armenian
claims, quite simply because in fact it is not only the Armenians that
affirm that there was genocide, but hundreds of independent academics
whose works make them authorities in many countries.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly demanded
that Turkey own up to its responsibility by recognizing and paying
reparations for the crime of genocide made by Turkey. Because Turkey
is responsible.

90 years later, the Armenian Genocide remains a contemporary
issue. The contemporary nature of the Armenian Genocide comes to
restate fact that there can be no statute of limitations on this
issue. And the children and grand-children of the victims will stand
up to demand justice of Turkey, which is responsible before
International law, whose entire State apparatus including its army,
police and judicial and legislative authorities, conceived, planned,
organized the most horrible Crime against Humanity: the Genocide of
the Armenians.

Turkey may establish relations with Armenia

Turkey may establish relations with Armenia

Apr. 29, 2005 13:29
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANKARA, Turkey

Turkey’s prime minister said his country could establish political
relations with Armenia if the two sides agree to jointly research the
killings of Armenians during World War I, which Armenians say was a
genocide, a newspaper reported Friday.

Turkey has no diplomatic ties with Armenia. But Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan told the daily Milliyet that Turkey might establish
political ties if Armenia agreed to his proposal.

“Political relations might be established on one side and studies
(about killings) can continue on the other side,” Milliyet quoted
Erdogan as saying.

Turkey has been opening up on the subject under pressure from the
European Union ahead of negotiations on membership in the bloc.

Earlier this month, Erdogan sent a letter to Armenian President Robert
Kocharian inviting Armenia to set up a joint research
committee. Kocharian reportedly responded by saying ties should be
formed first, according to Turkish newspapers.

Armenians say some 1.5 million of their people were killed as the
Ottoman Empire forced them from eastern Turkey between 1915 and 1923
in a deliberate campaign of genocide.

Turkey denies a genocide was committed, saying the death count is
inflated and insisting that Armenians were killed or displaced as the
Ottoman Empire tried to secure its border with Russia and stop attacks
by Armenian militants.

GPW veterans awarded

A1plus

| 17:19:22 | 28-04-2005 | Official |

GPW VETERANS AWARDED

By decree of Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan on the occasion of
the 60th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War some honored
workers of the National Academy of Sciences, the GPW veterans were awarded
with certificates and compensation to the sum of 25 thousand AMD.

BAKU: Karabakh talks deadlocked – Azeri paper

Karabakh talks deadlocked – Azeri paper

Zaman, Baku
28 Apr 05

Excerpt from unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zaman on 28
April headlined “The Prague talks are in deadlock”

The talks between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers seem
to have reached deadlock. From this point of view, it is no
coincidence that the venue and timing of the meeting had been changed.
Elmar Mammadyarov and Vardan Oskanyan, who say that they have met in
Prague four or five times and parted with great optimism after every
meeting, recently failed to have tete-a-tete meetings twice. This
gives grounds to assume that there are serious problems in the
process. On the other hand, unlike Mammadyarov, Oskanyan’s absence
from the meeting with the [OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairmen in Frankfurt,
Germany, raised many questions. Political analysts who draw attention
mainly to this aspect of the issue describe this step by Armenia as an
attempt to exert pressure on Azerbaijan.

[Passage omitted: Armenia declined to hold talks after the January
2004 session of the presidents of the CIS countries and resumed them
after the UN debates over Karabakh]

The course of events showed that Armenia had agreed to resume the
talks just to bide its time. The visit to Baku by the US co-chairman
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Steven Mann, in the run-up to the Azerbaijani
foreign minister’s meeting with the co-chairmen in Frankfurt also
raised great interest. Of course, we can see from Mann’s meetings in
Baku that there are several reasons for his visit to our country.
According to some reports, at the meeting with Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev, Mann learnt the president’s attitude to the proposals
that had been put forward by the co-chairmen to solve the problem. The
fact that Mammadyarov returned from Frankfurt together with Mann shows
that the co-chairmen’s proposals satisfy Baku to some extent. Oskanyan
did not attend the Frankfurt meeting. It is still not known why
Oskanyan did not visit Frankfurt. The co-chairmen also prefer to keep
quiet about this.

[Russian co-chairman] Yuriy Merzlyakov said only the following: “We
will have consultations with Oskanyan in a European country after we
meet Mammadyarov in Frankfurt.”

As we understand, Oskanyan resolutely expressed his position during
the London meeting with the co-chairmen. It must be remembered that
the co-chairmen admitted that the meeting between the Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents depends on the results of the two foreign
ministers’ meeting.

“In any case, we must welcome the fact that the co-chairmen made
certain proposals during the talks. Because previously, they only
visited the region and did not put forward any new proposals,”
political scientist Rasim Musabayov said, commenting on the talks
between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers attended by the
co-chairmen.

Musabayov explained Oskanyan’s absence from the meeting by
difficulties arising during the talks. He said that only the
presidents can have a final say about certain points in the talks.

The talks held between the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers
with the participation of the co-chairmen have entered a decisive
stage. Their results will be made public in the near future.

“Ararat”: ein Spielfilm Uber den Volkermord an den Armeniern

Stuttgarter Zeitung, Deutschland
26. April 2005

Nichts als Erinnerung;
“Ararat”: ein Spielfilm über den Völkermord an den Armeniern

von Leinkauf, Simone

Der große Genozid des 20. Jahrhunderts: nicht nur in Deutschland wird
da zuerst an die Gräueltaten des Dritten Reiches gedacht, an die
systematische Vernichtung eines ganzen Volkes. Doch auch Hitler hatte
ein Vorbild. Den Kritikern in seinem Stab erklärte der Diktator bei
der Planung der Judenverfolgung, dass sich schließlich auch an den
Völkermord an den Armeniern in den Jahren 1915/1916 keiner mehr
erinnere. Die türkische Regierung leugnet noch heute den geplanten
Mord an den Armeniern, also einem Teil der eigenen Bevölkerung, und
bricht internationale Kontakte ab, wenn andere Länder diesen Genozid
offiziell anerkennen.

Die Leugnung eines Völkermords: Rund eineinhalb Millionen Armenier –
darunter viele Intellektuelle – fanden damals den Tod. Die Nachkommen
der Überlebenden sind inzwischen über die ganze Welt verstreut.
Jeweils am 24. April begehen alle armenischen Gemeinden in der
Diaspora den Gedenktag für die Opfer des Genozids.

Atom Egoyan, 1960 in Kairo als Sohn armenischer Eltern geboren,
widmet seinen Spielfilm “Ararat” der Geschichte dieses Völkermords.
Der im Dreiländereck Türkei, Armenien und Iran gelegene zweigipflige
Berg Ararat wurde für die überlebenden Armenier zum Symbol der
Heimat. In seinem nach diesem Berg benannten Film lässt Egoyan den
18-jährigen Raffi (David Alpay), einen Kanadier armenischer
Abstammung, einem Zöllner am Flughafen die Geschichte seiner Familie
und seines Volkes erzählen. Dabei geht es Egoyan nicht um eine
Dokumentation, in der die Ereignisse chronologisch erzählt werden,
sondern viel eher um die Frage, wie die in der Diaspora lebenden
Armenier mit der Erinnerung an den Völkermord, wie die Kinder mit den
dramatischen Erlebnissen der Eltern umgehen. Raffi ist auf der
Rückreise aus der Türkei, wo er die Orte besuchte, von denen seine
Eltern Jahrzehnte zuvor fliehen mussten. Im Gepäck hat er eine Kamera
und zwei verschlossene Filmrollen.

Parallel erzählt Egoyan die Geschichte von Raffis Mutter Ani (Arsinée
Khanjian), die sich als Kunsthistorikerin vor allem mit dem Leben des
armenischen Künstlers Arshile Gorky beschäftigt. Gorky ist einer der
wenigen Überlebenden des Massakers in der Stadt Van, von dem der
Regisseur Edward Saroyan (Charles Aznavour) in einem Film über den
Völkermord erzählen will.

“Ararat” ist ein kunstvoll verschachteltes Drama mit englischen und
deutschen Untertiteln, das den Zuschauer ein wenig ratlos
zurücklässt. Aufgelöst wird keine der sich dramatisch zuspitzenden
Situationen, und dennoch scheinen alle Protagonisten gereift aus den
Auseinandersetzungen hervorzugehen. Auf den ersten Blick ein Film,
der Geduld und langen Atem erfordert, damit man sich nicht in einen
schnelleren Film zappt, der den heutigen Sehgewohnheiten eher
entspricht. Auf den zweiten Blick ein Film, der im Gedächtnis bleibt
und auf die Schwierigkeiten hinweist, wenn nicht einmal mehr die
Erinnerungen erlaubt sind.

Dienstag 22.55 3Sat

Die Kunsthistoriker Ani (Arsinée Khanjian) muss mit ihrer eigenen
Geschichte kämpfen. Foto ZDF

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com

Commemoration Event for Students in Antelias

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Genocide Commemoration Committee – Lebanon
Arax Street, Bourj Hammoud, Metn 1203 2050
Armenian Prelacy of Lebanon
Lebanon
Contact: Hovig Hovhannesian
Tel: 01/258300
Cell: 03/043727
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

The educational subcommittee of the Armenian Genocide Commemoration
Committee organized a commemorational gathering on the 22nd of April,
10:30 a.m. in the Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia, in Antelias.

The assembly was attended by all intermediate and secondary classes’
students of the Armenian schools, as well as representatives of the
political parties and the leaders of the religious denominations.

Religious leaders’ and the subcommittee’s speeches all emphasized on
the importance of keeping the memory of the Armenian Genocide alive in
the human conscience and continuing the struggle until achieving the
goals of the Armenian Nation: Recognition and Compensation.

His Holiness Aram I concluded by giving his blessing to the students
and asked God to accompany them in their lives and to help them in
keeping the flame of the Armenian Nation glowing.

www.armeniangenocide90.com

Residents of town bordering Chechnya protest police sweep

Residents of town bordering Chechnya protest police sweep by Chechen
security forces

By ARSEN MOLLAYEV
.c The Associated Press

MAKHACHKALA, Russia (AP) – Residents in the troubled southern Russian
region of Dagestan protested for a third day Monday, outraged after a
recent sweep by security forces who crossed over the border from
neighboring Chechnya.

Officials with the Federal Security Service said up to 200 residents
of Toturbi-Kala, a town 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of the regional
capital Makhachkala, have been demonstrating against last week’s
operation conducted in the nearby border town of Khasavyurt.

More than 100 people briefly blocked a road in Toturbi-Kala on Monday,
transport police spokesman Magomed Getinomagomedov said.

The Chechen presidential security force – a paramilitary group
controlled by Chechnya’s first deputy premier, Ramzan Kadyrov – was
the primary group conducting the operation, in which at least two
Chechen security agents died. Dagestani law enforcement said the
operation was intended to arrest two alleged criminals.

The incident outraged border-town residents, many of whom fear Kadyrov
and fear more violence from war-wracked Chechnya spilling over and
destabilizing their own, often-lawless region.

Kadyrov issued a statement Sunday saying Dagestani law enforcement
allowed his forces to enter Dagestan, and that Dagestani police also
participated. He also blamed local residents in Khasavyurt for firing
on his troops.

Dagestan’s top law enforcement official, Interior Minister Adilgerei
Magomedtagirov, met with his Chechen counterpart, Ruslan Alkhanov, on
Monday to try and defuse the situation.

Speaking at a news conference in Khasavyurt, both ministers
acknowledged “shortcomings” in last week’s police operation, and
agreed to get their respective security forces to cooperate better.

In recent weeks, the Caspian Sea territory, located about 1,600
kilometers (1,000 miles) south of Moscow, has been rocked by a series
of bombings and attacks on law enforcement authorities.

04/25/05 12:51 EDT

ANKARA: Bush Should Make A Statement Remembering All Victims

Turkish Press
April 24 2005

ATAA Chairman: President Bush Should Make A Statement Remembering All
Innocent Victims

WASHINGTON – Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA)
Chairman Vural Cengiz has sent a letter to the U.S. President George
Bush who is expected to issue a statement today (Sunday) on the
incidents of 1915.

“President George Bush should make a statement remembering all
innocent victims of 1915, not just Armenians,“ said Cengiz.

ATAA is an umbrella organization that is comprised of 54 Turkish
American Associations.

“Today, we thank Mr. President for his support of Turkish-American
ties despite certain groups trying to hurt the long term ties between
the two countries,“ said Cengiz. President Bush did not bow to
pressures, told Cengiz.

Cengiz made a request to President Bush to remember all innocent
victims of the First World War who died due to uprisings, domestic
clashes, deportation, famine, poverty and hunger.

“The Armenians began activities as of 1885 to establish an Armenian
state. Armenians were the ones who did uprise in an empire in which
they were citizens of. If we must remember the victims of the First
World War, this remembrance should not only focus on the Armenians,
but also the Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Jews,“ expressed Cengiz.

Cengiz indicated that Armenian gangs massacred innocent Ottomans in
dozens of towns throughout Anatolia. “Just in the Van vicinity, over
40,000 Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Jews lost their lives. Armenians
living in the eastern portion of the Ottoman Empire collaborated with
the Russian and French troops and massacred many innocent Muslims.
Only after such acts of Armenians did the Ottoman government decide
to deport a certain part of the Armenians to other empire cities in
the south. We must note that Armenians living elsewhere in the empire
were not affected by deportations,“ commented Cengiz.

Cengiz expressed that over 4 million Ottoman Muslims, 600,000 Ottoman
Armenians and 100,000 Ottoman Jews perished during World War I.

“Armenians worldwide disregard the activities of their ancestors and
want to make the world believe that a genocide took place. As Turkish
Americans, we are extremely bothered by such acts and lies of
Armenians. Mr. President, I thank you for your continued trust and
confidence in Turkish American ties,“ stated Cengiz.