Author: Toneyan Mark

State lawmakers wield foreign policy power
By Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau

Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Aug 7 2005

WASHINGTON — From the Iraq War to tensions in the Mideast to the
extradition of criminals hiding in Mexico, California’s influence on
U.S. foreign policy is intensifying.

About 25 percent of the U.S. House committee overseeing international
affairs hails from the Golden State, leading some aides to jokingly
refer to the panel’s “California cabal” even as Congress’ foreign
policy demands increasingly reflect the state’s diversity and global
economic ties.

Twelve of the panel’s 50 members represent California, including
the leading Democrat, Tom Lantos of San Mateo, one other Northern
Californian, one from the Central Valley, and nine representing
various parts of the Southland. Three Californians chair subcommittees
on issues ranging from Europe to State Department oversight to
international terrorism.

“California members are very active in international relations because
the state is an economic powerhouse,” said Matthew Reynolds, acting
assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, a liaison
between Congress and the State Department.

Reynolds said California “is on the threshold of a lot of things. Its
interests are political, human rights, there’s interest in security
issues, and I think you’ve probably got every group covered in
California.”

With the largest delegation in Congress, California might be expected
to be represented in large numbers everywhere but isn’t.

Californians make up less than 10 percent of nearly every other panel
in Congress just five members serve on Transportation, six on Armed
Services and five on Appropriations. Only the Resources Committee,
which oversees federal land and water policy, comes close with nine
Californians making up about 18 percent of the panel.

Lawmakers say the state’s relationship as a trade partner with more
than 220 countries, and the fact that Californians trace their roots
from more than 100 nations, primarily account for the Golden State’s
disproportionate involvement in foreign affairs.

“There’s a natural interest in international affairs, perhaps even
greater than other parts of the country,” said Rep. Howard Berman,
D-Van Nuys. “California’s economy, its international dimension,
plays a huge factor as well as the part that so many Californians
come from other countries.”

But California interests are, of course, anything but homogenous.

Orange County’s Vietnamese community, for example, may press for human
rights in Vietnam while Los Angeles’ Armenian community urges an end
to Turkey’s blockade of Armenia.

Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs, uses her position
to encourage better relations between the U.S. and Latin America,
while Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, wields his influence
to highlight long-standing human rights concerns in China. Rep. Adam
Schiff, D-Pasadena, meanwhile, focuses his committee efforts on
curbing nuclear proliferation.

“Foreign policy issues are now intertwined with national security
issues,” he said.

Israel and the Palestinian territories also are frequent points of
contention, even within the California delegation.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, for example, recently worked
language into a bill calling for an end to U.S. aid to the Palestinian
Authority as long as its government-sponsored textbooks deny the
existence of Israel. Lee, in a counteramendment, softened the provision
so that only aid to Palestinian education programs would be affected.

Overall, though, lawmakers say the foreign policy bills emerging
from Congress tend to have an overarching California theme: active
engagement in global affairs.

“Mostly it reflects a recognition of an internationalist approach
rather than an isolationist approach,” Berman said. “What goes on
around the world has an impact on us, and we need to be engaged.”

And engaged they are. For example, two laws about to go into effect
one authorizing the U.S. State Department for another two years
and another approving international U.S. assistance are filled with
provisions authored by Californians.

Among them:

One by Sherman blocking World Bank loans to Iran until the country
abandons its nuclear program.

About $4.5 million in scholarship funds for students in Muslim
countries to attend U.S. schools as part of a program championed by
Berman to expose more students to American ideas and values.

Demands from Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks, and Darrell Issa,
R-Vista, for the State Department to submit detailed statistical
reports regarding Mexico extradition requests.

Meanwhile, the panel will vote next month on whether the killing
of Armenians in Turkey during the Ottoman Empire should be declared
“genocide.” That’s a direct result of Schiff, whose district is home
to many of California’s estimated 400,000 Armenians.

Armen Carapetian, spokesman for the Armenian National Committee of
America’s western region in Glendale, said that for Armenians, having
a lawmaker on the International Relations Committee is as important
as having one on a bread-and-butter panel like Appropriations.

“It certainly helps to have your local congressman represent you in
places where it matters,” Carapetian said.

Added former Los Angeles Rep. Mel Levine, now head of community
relations for the Los Angeles Jewish Federation, “It’s very important,
and there’s no doubt that the pro-Israel community pays a lot of
attention to this committee.”

Levine, who served on International Relations himself when in Congress,
also noted that with more than 15 lawmakers representing a portion of
Los Angeles County, no one lawmaker bears the sole burden of bringing
home federal money. That, he said, frees up politicians who want to
exercise their own intellectual interests in world affairs.

“Our constituents tolerate it, even encourage it,” Sherman agreed. “A
Nebraska congressman might go home (after joining the foreign affairs
panel) and his constituents would say ‘You gave up the Agriculture
Committee for that?”‘

Gallegly said he also thinks California constituents want their
representatives in Washington to be tuned in to the world.

“Let’s face it,” he said. “We live in a global society. People are
a lot more interested in what’s going on around the world and how it
affects us at home.”

MASSAGING THE CHANCELLOR’S SPINE

AZG Armenian Daily #141, 30/07/2005

Armenian Genocide

Fleeing from guilt: Germans, Turks and the genocide of the Armenians

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Feuilleton), 20.06.2005

Just as the commemorations of the sixtieth anniversary of liberation
have been symbolically drawn to a close with the opening of the
“Memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe” in Berlin, the remembrance
of a quite different genocide is unexpectedly raising some general
questions regarding forms of remembrance in Germany. The genocide in
question is that of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915/16,
for which 2005 marks the ninetieth anniversary. It is tightly
interwoven with the history of Europe and in particular that of
Germany, for before the very eyes of the European public, this
systematic genocide, committed in the shadow of the First World War,
marked a turning point in twentieth century history: With this
genocide, it became apparent that the extermination of a whole
population group is not only conceivable, but is also realizable.

Public discussion was triggered last year by the removal of the
genocide of the Armenians from the main school syllabus in the
Federal state of Brandenburg – and this through the intervention of
the diplomatic representation of Turkey in Germany. In April, the
Bundestag addressed this genocide for the first time, with a
cross-party agreement that Turkey, which to this very day continues
to emphatically refute the facts of the genocide, should be asked to
finally face up to this issue. Specific mention was also made in the
discussion to Germany’s own share of the responsibility ` for as an
ally of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, Germany was
informed early on about the extent and goal of the deportation
measures. At the same time, the discussion also implied a way out,
with the setting up of a Turkish-Armenian commission of historians to
devote itself to this question. And yet the Brandenburg schoolbook
affair had only just demonstrated that Germany’s responsibility does
not lie in initiating a reconciliation between Turks and Armenians `
irrespective of the fact that such a reconciliation would lend
legitimacy to the German endorsement of Turkey’s entry into the EU `
but rather in bringing an end to its own tolerance of the denial.

Finally, a Bundestag motion carried by all parties was accepted in
which a rhetoric of obeisance towards the victims was
exerted. However, this rhetoric was only tacit, as the motion was
passed without any previous debate in which regret, lament and the
call to recognise the act could have been articulated. Nevertheless,
the resolution of this motion, supported as it was by all parties,
still incited unrest on the part of the Turks. With a sea of Turkish
flags yesterday in Berlin, the stance of Turkish politics, as rigid as
they are resolute, was expressed. The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan
accused Chancellor Schröder of “spinelessness” and having
“false and ugly politics”. He himself, on the other hand, claimed to
have politics “full of backbone”, open to seeing a country’s work on
its own perception of history as superfluous.

What is notable in this very context, however, is also the consensus
of academics and intellectuals in Germany, who ` with few exceptions `
kept the issue grandly cloaked in secrecy. How can this silence be
explained? Is there, quite simply, no need for intellectual discourse
if “way back there in Turkey the peoples are striking at each other”?
Are we to think of the extermination of the Armenians as an event on
the periphery, an Asian act that does not belong to the history of
Germany, Europe and the civilised world? Or could it be, perhaps, that
the refusal to engage in a discussion of this genocide, which is
challenged by the culture of remembrance in Germany, has something to
do precisely with the specific forms of this remembrance ` and its
goals?

Nowadays, remembrance is preferably brought into play when the
question is no longer of a specific inheritance, but rather of what
history, experience and identity have in common, and indeed of the
common ground of globalising societies. As a foundation of such a
remembrance, designed to create identity, the “experiences of the
totalitarian regime of the twentieth century” and the Holocaust are
defined, as laid down in a joint article in May 2003 by Jürgen
Habermas and Jacques Derrida on the future of Europe (F.A.Z. of the
31st May 2003). The focus in this regard is no longer first and
foremost on the National Socialist policy of violence, but rather on
the status of the Holocaust as a shared symbol for the whole of
Europe. The goal is the constitution of a consensus memory, whose
task is to lead to a humanisation: In a formula of the Holocaust
based on a policy of remembrance that can be universally followed,
the aim is for all experiences of violence to be put aside and future
acts of violence to be prevented.

But what does such a universalisation of the Holocaust actually mean?
What does it mean for the future of remembrance, what does it mean for
the remembrance of other experiences of violence, and above all: what
does it entail for the remembrance of the Holocaust itself? Is there
not a danger that in the process of universalisation, the remembrance
of the Holocaust will be removed from its own direct context, from its
underlying experience, and thus ultimately drained? For with this
universalisation, a remembrance that is preserved through a dynamic,
living process of reconstruction is replaced by a formulated
commemoration.

Memory is always a narration founded on experiences, both direct and
indirect. Memories are orientations, and they are always associated
with identifications. Memory is always tied to its
bearers. Commemoration, by contrast, follows settings of history and
identity, it should not first and foremost preserve, but rather
integrate and harmonise under shared universal values. Memory as a
whole cannot be universal – and a remembrance can only be universal
when it is free of memories, when it removes itself from those
experiences that are preserved in the narrations.

A generic, universal commemoration of the Holocaust, detached from the
experiences of the victims and from those of the perpetrators and the
following generations, would therefore have to be free from any
experience and any ability to experience. As a universalised
singularity, congealed to an abstract commemorative emblem for
collective violence, this formula of Holocaust would refer solely to a
moral imperative. In the vanishing point of this commemorative
formula, which has surely also been cemented in the Berlin monument,
one no longer finds the victims ` nor even the perpetrators ` but
rather the act alone. Thus the universalisation of a Holocaust free of
victims and perpetrators could ultimately prove to be an empty
formula, which is, however, well suited for the – intended? `
overcoming of the memory of the Holocaust itself.

It is this remembrance policy, urging as it does a homogeneity of the
contents of memory, that is today being destroyed by other
experiences of persecutions, collective violence and
extermination. And these experiences appear all the more disturbing
the more closely they are linked with the contents of the official
German remembrance itself. The intensive focus on the Holocaust and
the exemplary way in which German came to terms with its own history
has changed the view of Germany with lasting effect, and this surely
applies both for Germany’s own self-image and for the perception of
Germany held by others. The fact that the Federal Republic so
explicitly placed itself into a position of historical responsibility
has contributed to the emergence of a different Germany and has
recently also legitimised a new role and a new strength for Germany
in international politics. Now, with the genocide of the Armenians
forcing its way into the field of discussion, the challenge is on for
Germans to once again unearth its ` finally laid to rest ` history,
putting pressure, too, on current politics.

Perhaps the German intellectual community’s reticence to discuss the
place of the genocide of the Armenians in the European or global
culture of remembrance can also be explained by a fear that the
painstaking efforts to prove that Germany has faced up to its past may
not be sufficient – and that one might once again be faced with the
task of having to confront German guilt.

Up to now, it has been possible to use the word “guilty” without
actually meaning it, because politics had ritualised and
institutionalised an admission of guilt that acted as a basis of
legitimisation of a post-war Germany. After the building of the
memorial in Berlin, the hope was that it would be possible to use the
word “guilty” in the comfort of finally no longer belonging to the
historical and generational cycle of responsibility for that history;
that the concern was now with a passing, concluded history, in the
remembrance of which the Germans could finally include themselves (as
victims).

Now, though, Germany is confronted with the fact that once again a
right of remembrance is being called for. And this new demand shows
that remembrance can no longer be pushed away as a subjective,
interest-fuelled notion, but rather that the question of the place of
remembrance becomes a legitimate one directed at the current
constructs of society.

For the question of remembrance is linked with the knowledge contents
of our present-day, global society, questions of concepts of
community, minorities and tolerance. Thus the remembrance of the
genocide of the Armenians also represents a challenge for current
politics. Of course, a considerable issue here is also the stance that
Germany takes regarding the integration of Turkey into the European
Union.

Can the Federal Republic really support the admittance of a Turkey
that assumes an attitude towards its own history that is
diametrically opposed to facing up to violence and crime, even though
this has become mandatory in Germany and now also Europe in the
remembrance of the Holocaust? A policy under the postulate of linking
one’s own interests with an action for a “future of Turkey” like that
pursued from the 1890s by Wilhelmine Germany ` and in so doing
neglecting or perceiving as a mere disturbance other population
groups in Turkey, in the past the Armenians and Aramaeans, today the
Kurds ` appears to be continuing in the present day. Today, too, we
are only bargaining for a future where the calls of the Armenians for
a recognition of their history is sacrificed for the interests and
the future of the Europeanised nation states. An intellectual
discussion on the remembrance of the genocide of the Armenians would
call for a reappraisal of the policy towards Turkey, a policy that
finally takes into account a perspective of Europe that has been
developed against the background of the experience of the Holocaust
and the obligation of remembrance. Thus the appeal to allow this
remembrance shows that remembering does not call for an
identification with the victims, but rather to accept the victim as a
victim: as a witness of persecution as well as a voice of the right
to one’s own accepted position, an accepted political place in the
world.

Meaning and workability of a European and then global culture of
remembrance will ultimately be gauged according to whether a plurality
of remembrances is allowed – indeed whether one is prepared to base
this remembrance on the plural nature of memories. The way in which
the Armenian experience is dealt with will therefore also be a
touchstone for whether the discussions on remembrance, recollection
and commemoration have been more than an academic exercise, more than
a virtuoso piece of rhetoric on the politics of remembrance.

BY Mihran Dabag, Director of the Institute for Diaspora and Genocide
Research at the Ruhr University of Bochum (translated by Sarah Mannion

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
July 27, 2005 Wednesday 12:12 PM Eastern Time

Iran, Ukraine sign gas supplies protocol

By Konstantin Kazeyev

TEHRAN, July 27

Iran and Ukraine reached an accord on natural gas supplies. The
relevant protocol was signed in the course of the visit to Tehran by
a delegation of the Ukrainian Ministry of Fuel and Energy, the local
media reported on Wednesday.

The document envisions a supply to Ukraine of 30 billion cubic meters
of natural gas a year. In addition, the countries agreed on a transit
of another 20 billion cubic meters of Iranian gas through Ukraine to
Europe.

“Given Iran’s current problems with gas supplies to Europe through
Turkey, the Ukrainian alternative opens a new perspective for our
export opportunities,” Iran’s Deputy Minister of Petroleum Mohammad
Hadi Nejad told reporters.

Iran and Ukraine decided to invite Russia, Georgia and Armenia to
take part in a pipeline construction project. These countries are
aligned along the route of the future gas pipeline.

Eliminate the dictate of monopolies

Yerkir
July 22, 2005

By Mher Ohanian

We can state that the international experts, donors and financial
organizations as well as various officials assess Armenia’s experience
of transition to the market economy rather positively.

Armenia is listed among countries that have successfully implemented
economic reforms. Nevertheless, among negative consequences of such
reforms experts mention the tendency of convergence of power and
property ownership.

Looking back at the privatization process

At the outset of the economic and political reforms the problem of
delineation between political power and property ownership was
obvious. This situation is common for all societies undergoing
transition to free market economy. The privatization policies
implemented in Armenia partially solved this problem. However, the
Armenian-style privatization had certain negative consequences.

Many people will agree that the privatization processes in the
post-Soviet countries could well be called a `great criminal
revolution’. The case of Armenia fits this characterization. In
Armenia this revolution was made possible as a result of mutually
beneficial deals made between the ex-nomenklatura guys that appeared
on stage on the wave of the national movement.

So in the first years of independence the new nomenklatura that
pretended to be implementing liberal reforms started to expropriate
national property instead of creating a healthy functioning
competitive market. Many people call the decade of `reforms’ a period
of `initial accumulation of capital’.

The dictate of monopolies

As a result of the above mentioned developments, the private sector of
the economy was consolidated mainly through arbitrary processes that
very often derived from political considerations.

This is why we can say that today there are more obstacles on the way
of development of the private sector than there are favorable factors
contributing to its development. We still have a long way to go before
we will understand and apply the conventional norm of equality of all
before the law, a norm that has been practiced in the civilized world
for centuries. If we could adhere to that norm we wouldn’t have such
large scale corruption and shadow economy.

It turns out that the corrupt state apparatus so devotedly
implementing `reforms’ is itself the result of reforms and the main
obstacle to them. Corruption is both a general and specific problem on
the way of development of the private sector. Monopoly and unfair
competition are the other side of corruption.

Ever since Armenia became independent, monopolies have always been
derivatives from political power. Both the well established and the
newly emerged monopolies have been outside of the domain of taxation,
thus they were outside of the domain of fair economic competition.

All this distorts economic competition, alters efficient
redistribution of recourses in the economy and hinders introduction of
new progressive technologies. It is obvious that further convergence
of power and property ownership is unacceptable since it can deter
economic progress and limit the potential for economic growth.

The solution to this problem lies in the political-legal domain `
serious constitutional amendments are needed and laws regulating
property ownership relations and economic competition must be amended
to solve this problem.

HARUTYUNIAN DIDN’T TRY TO BLOW UP BUSH

He Wanted to Undermine Georgia’s Authority

Azg/arm
23 July 05

Georgian President stated that 27-year-old Vladimir Harutyunian didn’t
try to explode the two presidents, he just wanted to undermine
Georgia’s authority and international popularity. The Georgian TV
broadcasted a videotape that showed how Vladimir Harutyunian pleaded
guilty in the attempt to kill US President Bush in Tbilisi, on May
10. “I threw the grenade on Bush. Go and be better servants for
him. May be he will award you a medal,” Vladimir Harutyunian, said.

Zurab Adeishvili, Georgian general public prosecutor, said after the
meeting with his Armenian counterpart Aghvan Hovsepian, that “the
defendant is a Georgian citizen, the incident took place in
Tbilisi. Thus, it doesn’t concern Armenia at all. We are looking for
all the required information and proofs in Georgia.”

Seyran Shahsuvarian, speaker of RA Defence Ministry, denied in the
interview to Radio Liberty that the grenade thrown at Bush and
Saakashvili was made in Armenia. Shahsuvarian said the grenade
couldn’t be made in Armenia, as at present, Armenia doesn’t produce
any grenades.

Zaman, Turkey
July 19 2005

Southeastern Citizens Ask about EU
By Erkan Acar, Yusuf Ipek
Published: Tuesday July 19, 2005
zaman.com

After a busy working term, Turkish MPs who traveled to their election
districts are being asked unexpected questions. Mehmet Fehmi Uyanik,
a Justice and Development Party (AKP) MP, responding to citizens’
questions in the villages of the Turkish Southeastern city of
Diyarbakir was told their demand, “Don’t let the government lose its
enthusiasm about the EU” instead of complaints about unemployment.

After Parliament adjourned for the summer, MPs have begun to return to
their election districts and to listen the problems of local citizens.

One such MP is Uyanik, and he is also a member of National Defense
Commission. Uyanik who visited some villages near the city, mingled
with the citizens and was asked questions about the European Union
instead of being told their complaints about agriculture. Villagers
asked him whether Turkey will be accepted for EU membership and
demanded that the government not to lose its enthusiasm regarding
the EU.

The AKP Diyarbakir MP paid his first visit to Sati village Sunday.
This village is where Armenians resided during the first years of
Turkish Republic and has been a place much frequented by European
delegations during recent years. Representatives coming from the EU
mostly want to see the village’s church, now used as a mosque. The
150-house village went through tough years at times of intensive
terrorism but today it is peace that prevails there. Citizens who
heard that an MP had come to their village gathered around Uyanik.
When villagers, who generally prefer to listen began ask the MP
questions about the EU, Uyanik was surprised. The village head Arap
Aslan asked questions such as, “Would they accept us into the EU?
What will be different in our lives if we enter the EU?” A city
dweller Abdullah Topuz asked, “There are a lot of differences between
European countries and us in terms of economics, how will this gap
be closed?” Uyanik was at first surprised however; he then commenced
answering their questions. He tells about the advantages that EU
membership will bring in terms of economics, law and freedoms and
shows Greece as an example to this. He reminds that Greece, where
the national income per capita was lower than in Turkey before its
membership has now left Turkey behind thanks to EU funding.

Putin, Erdogan discuss stability in region extending from Caucasus to Cyprus

RIA Novosti, Russia
July 18 2005

SOCHI, July 18 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin and
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed stability in
the Caucasus, the situation in Iraq and Iran, and the Cyprus problem.
“We focused on the issue of strengthening stability in the Caucasus
and the Black Sea basin,” Putin said at a press conference in Sochi
after talks with the Turkish Prime Minister. Putin gave assurances
that Russia would continue to help resolve the Cyprus problem. “We
are absolutely convinced that the UN Secretary General is moving in
the right direction,” he said.

Putin also said everyone knows how the situation is developing on
Cyprus. “First, we must resolve the problem of the economic isolation
of a part of the island, create conditions for normal relations between
the two parts, and on this basis fully normalize the situation in
the interests of all people living there,” he said.

“We will think about what can be done by Russia and the island’s two
parts to resolve these issues,” the Russian president said.

Putin and Erdogan said it was necessary to address the issue of
Nagorny Karabakh (a mountainous autonomous region within Azerbaijan
historically populated by Armenians, which unilaterally proclaimed
its independence in 1991).

“I was satisfied to hear the Russian position that it was time to
start settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” Erdogan said.

He added that at his meeting with Putin he had also discussed the
situation in Iraq, Iran, and anti-terrorism efforts.

“We expressed once again our resolve to fight international terrorists,
who are carrying out attacks against innocent people, defenseless
women and children,” Erdogan said.

ANDRANIK MARGARIAN MET UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR COMPLETING MISSION IN ARMENIA

Pan ARMENIAN Network, Armenia
July 15 2005

15.07.2005 03:21

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today Prime Minister Andranik Margarian met with
Ukrainian Ambassador to RA Vladimir Tyaglo, who is completing his
diplomatic mission in Armenia. Highly appreciating the development
of the Armenian-Ukrainian relationships A. Margarian underscored
Tyaglo’s contribution. He thanked the Ambassador for the work carried
out during the recent three years and expressed hope that with the
appointment of the new Ambassador the ties and cooperation between
the two states will dynamically develop. In his turn Vladimir Tyaglo
said he is grateful for the support rendered by the RA authorities and
noted that he leaves Armenia with the warmest feelings and impressions.

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
July 14 2005

Mediators Change Their Route to Karabakh, Reports Say

Baku Today / AssA-Irada 14/07/2005 20:06

The mediating OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Steven Mann of the U.S.,
Bernard Fassier of France and Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia have changed
the route of their visit to Khankandi in Nagorno Karabakh, Armenian
news agencies reported.

The co-chairs left Baku for Khankandi on Wednesday morning. Their
visit program remained unchanged, the reports said.

The mediators met with the head of the separatist regime in Nagorno
Karabakh Arkadi Gukasian prior to leaving for Yerevan late on the
same day.

The radical Karabakh Liberation Organization took to the streets
earlier in a strong protest against the mediators’ previously-planned
visit to occupied territories through Armenia instead of Azerbaijan.

Armenian National Committee of America – Western Region
104 North Belmont Street, Suite 200
Glendale, California 91206
Phone: 818.500.1918 Fax: 818.246.7353
[email protected]

PRESS RELEASE
Friday, July 8, 2005

Contact: Armen Carapetian
Tel: (818) 500-1918

ANCA-WR CONGRATULATES ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA ON INAUGURATION AS MAYOR

— Los Angeles City Officials Sworn in for New Term

LOS ANGELES, CA – Members of the Armenian National Committee of
America – Western Region (ANCA-WR) and Armenian American community
leaders joined thousands of Angelenos in the inauguration ceremonies
held to swear in Los Angeles city officials for a new term on July 1,
2005. Antonio Villaraigosa, who was endorsed by the ANCA, officially
took on the responsibilities of Mayor of Los Angeles from the outgoing
James Hahn.

Echoing his campaign theme of inclusion, Mayor Villaraigosa made the
following comments in his inaugural address:

“Dream with me of a Los Angeles where it doesn’t matter whether you’re
African American, Latino, Caucasian, or Asian. Whether you’re Jewish
or Muslim, Protestant or Catholic. Whether you’re from Watts or
Westwood. Where every Angeleno is an equal stakeholder in our city’s
future.”

Among the many Armenian Americans attending the day’s events were His
Eminence Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate of the Western
Armenian Apostolic Church of America, members of the Consulate of the
Republic of Armenia in Los Angeles, Glendale Mayor Rafi Manoukian and
City Clerk Ardashes Kassakhian, Downey Councilman Kirk Catorzian,
Chairwoman of the Armenian Relief Society of Western US Angela
Savoian, member of the Central Committee of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Karo Khanjian, members of the ANCA-WR Board of Directors
Zanku Armenian, Ara Bedrosian, and Steven Dadaian, and ANCA-WR
supporter Peklar Pilavjian. On hand were high level public officials
such as Vice President Al Gore and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as well
as religious, community, and industry leaders from various
backgrounds.

“The Armenian National Committee has stood with Antonio since his days
in the California Assembly because of his moral stance on issues of
concern to Armenian Americans and his efforts to include individuals
of all ethnic backgrounds in civic affairs,” said Steven Dadaian, who
chairs the ANCA-WR and is a member of Mayor Villaraigosa’s transition
team. “We congratulate Mayor Villaraigosa on his victory and look
forward to working with him in the years to come,” stated Dadaian.

The inaugural events began with an interfaith ceremony held at Our
Lady of the Angeles Cathedral in the morning. Participants joined the
procession from the Cathedral to City Hall following the services. Los
Angeles City Controller Laura Chick, City Attorney Rockard John
Delgadillo, and members of the City Council Eric Garcetti, Janice
Hahn, Alex Padilla, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Jack Weiss,
and Dennis Zine took their oaths of office for their new terms before
the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt, United States Court Of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, swore Antonio Villaraigosa in as Mayor of Los
Angeles.

In his closing remarks, Mayor Villaraigosa praised and challenged his
fellow Angelenos by saying “I will never forget where I came from. And
I will always believe in the value of every Angeleno. This is truly
our town. And we all have a contribution to make.”

Following his speech, Mayor Villaraigosa invited everyone to eat,
drink and watch the live performances that were staged on Main Street
in front of City Hall. Among the performances were three Armenian
dances presented by the Hamazkayin Niari Dance Group led by Katherine
Hairabetian.

The ANCA is the largest and most influential Armenian American
grassroots political organization. Working in coordination with a
network of offices, chapters, and supporters throughout the United
States and affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCA
actively advances the concerns of the Armenian-American community on a
broad range of issues.

Editor’s Note: Photo attached. Photo caption: Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian walking with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa during the
procession to City Hall.