Author: Topchian Jane

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
March 23 2006

COUNCIL OF YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY NOT MANAGE TO ELECT NEW RECTOR

YEREVAN, March 23. /ARKA/. The Council of the Yerevan State
University could not elect a new Rector yesterday. The dean of the
department of law Gagik Gazinyan lacked only one vote out of the
necessary 37 votes.
The next elections of the Rector will be held in 50 days.
These elections are held in three rounds. There were four candidates
in the first rounds: YSU Pro-rector Aram Simonyan, deans of the
departments of physics and mathematics Samvel Harutyunyan and Gegham
Gevorgyan, and the dean of the department of law Gagik Gazinyan. R.O.
-0–

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
03/23/2006
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://WWW.ASBAREZ. COM

1) ‘Armenian Genocide’ Will Show at Hollywood Theater
2) Newly Declassified State Department Files Reveal US Opposition to Armenian
Genocide Recognition by UN
3) Status of US Ambassador to Armenia Questioned

1) ‘Armenian Genocide’ Will Show at Hollywood Theater

LOS ANGELES (LA Times)With local PBS affiliate KCET-TV refusing to air his
documentary [The Armenian Genocide], filmmaker Andrew Goldberg has decided to
rent out Hollywood’s Egyptian Theatre to show the film in continuous free
screenings on April 17–the same day it will air on most of the major PBS
affiliates throughout the country.
“We will continue to screen the film that day and night as long as we have
the
theater,” Goldberg said Wednesday.
The filmmaker, who is paying for much of the $10,000 tab out of his own
pocket, noted that “the largest market of Armenians outside Armenia is in Los
Angeles.”
Goldberg’s one-hour documentary focuses on the Ottoman Empire’s role in the
Armenian genocide during and right after World War I.
The film also focuses on ongoing denial in the modern republic of Turkey,
successor of the Ottoman Empire.
The documentary has already created some controversy, in part because PBS
commissioned a 25-minute panel discussion to run afterward, which featured two
genocide deniers.
A group called the Armenian Tidorts launched an online petition against the
panel program and several members of Congress complained to PBS. They argued
that the network would never follow a documentary about the genocide of Jews
during World War II with a panel discussion featuring holocaust deniers.
KCET said it would not run either the documentary or the panel follow-up.
Bohdan Zachary, the station’s executive director of programming, said it
would
instead air a French documentary about the Armenian genocide, which the
station
felt offered a more comprehensive examination of the issue.

2) Newly Declassified State Department Files Reveal US Opposition to Armenian
Genocide Recognition by UN

WASHINGTON, DC–A series of formerly classified State Department cables,
recently made available through the National Archives and Records
Administration, provide first-hand insights into the cooperation during the
early 1970s between the US and Turkish governments seeking to block the
recognition of the Armenian genocide by the United Nations.
“These files provide new insights into the depths to which our own government
has sunk in its complicity with Turkey’s denial of the Armenian genocide,”
said
ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Knowing that sunshine truly is the
best disinfectant, we welcome the release of these documents and value the
growing public awareness of the internal mechanics of our government’s immoral
and short-sighted policy of denial–an increasingly untenable policy that is
destined to collapse under the growing weight of its own lies.”
Commenting on Turkey’s efforts to delete a reference to the Genocide in a
Human Rights Subcommission report, the Secretary of State wrote in a March
1974
cable to the US Mission to the UN that:
“Dept [State Department] appreciates Turkish concerns on Armenian Question
and
agrees that subject should be handled even-handedly. Para [paragraph] objected
to by Turkish del [delegation] reads as follows: Quote: Passing to the modern
era, one may note the existence of relatively full documentation dealing with
the massacres of the Armenians, which has been described as “the first case of
genocide in the twentieth century” unquote.
Apparently seeking to avoid the international criticism it would face for
openly supporting Turkey’s outright efforts to delete this passage, the State
Department advised the UN Mission to present its opposition on procedural
grounds:
“We would like to support the Turks and Dept [State Department] therefore
concurs in USDEL [US Delegation to the UN] suggestion that we inform Turks we
willing to speak in support of procedural proposal to urge rapporteur to
assure
evenhandedness in study. We do not think it would be appropriate to request
the
rapporteur simply to delete the offending para [paragraph], although we would
not oppose deletion if other dels [country delegations] indicate support for
Turkish position.”
In March of 1974, the US Embassy in Ankara wrote to the State Department
outlining its rationale for opposing the UN’s recognition of the Armenian
genocide. Among the reasons cited were:
“[…] Another reason is that the Turks are apprehensive that this year’s
commemoration of the Armenian massacres by Armenian communities throughout the
world will be on a more impressive scale than in the last few years.”
“[…] In addition, at a time when we are trying to persuade the Turks to
exhibit some appreciation of our position on the opium issue, we would like to
be able to show some understanding for a position on which Turkish emotions
have characteristically run high.”
In a March 1974 note following the support expressed by the US for the
Turkish
position, the US Mission informed the Secretary of State that:
“Turk del [delegation] warmly thanked US del [delegation] for support
following our intervention.”
These files also provide insight into the early efforts by the Turkish
Government to obstruct US legislation and prevent other
constitutionally-protected efforts by American citizens to work toward the
recognition of the Armenian genocide. In an April 1973 cable, the State
Department wrote to the US Embassy in Ankara that:
“It clear GOT [Government of Turkey] would like USG [US Government] to halt
all Armenian demonstrations, and indeed other Armenian activities which are
hostile or offensive to a close ally.”
In a second cable, also from April of 1973, the State Department reports that
it has responded to Turkish concerns in the following manner:
“We pointed out that peaceful demonstrations could probably not be prevented,
but expressed belief that with adequate policing, they could be stopped from
getting out of hand.”
A June 1974 cable reports on protests raised with the State Department by
Turkey’s Ambassador, Selcuk Esenbel, over a recently introduced Armenian
genocide Resolution. Under-Secretary of State Joseph Sisco dismissed the
legislation, according to the cable, explaining to Ambassador Esenbel that the
“resolution must be seen as part of normal domestic electoral politics.”
Despite Turkey’s efforts, the United Nation has established a record of
recognizing the Armenian genocide:
* In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian
genocide “precisely… one of the types of acts which the modern term ‘crimes
against humanity’ is intended to cover” as a precedent for the Nuremberg
tribunals. The Commission stated that “[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the
Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with
the
Allied note of 1915… offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory
against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This
article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the
Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the
categories of
‘crimes against humanity’ as understood by these enactments.”
* In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations
SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled “Study of the Question of the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” which stated “[t]he Nazi
aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th
century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are… the
Ottoman
massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916.” This report also explained that “[a]t
least 1,000,000, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are
reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent
authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United
States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the
Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany.”

3) Status of US Ambassador to Armenia Questioned

WASHINGTON, DC (LA Daily News)–Members of California’s congressional
delegation are asking for an explanation of reports that the US ambassador to
Armenia is being recalled for openly acknowledging the Armenian genocide.
In separate letters to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Representatives
Adam Schiff (D-Pasadena) and Grace Napolitano (D-Santa Fe Springs) demanded
answers about Ambassador John Marshall Evans’ status. Both strongly opposed
recalling him.
Schiff said he reiterated that message last week in a meeting with State
Department officials.
“I expressed my opposition to any disciplinary action being taken against the
ambassador for speaking the truth,” Schiff said. “I made it very clear I
thought any action taken against him would merely compound the erroneous
policy
of the administration.”
A State Department spokesman insisted that Evans has not submitted his
resignation nor been told to return to the US. However, there have been
continuing reports about his recall.
“It’s very concerning and very upsetting,” said Zanku Armenian, a member of
the Armenian National Committee’s board in Glendale.
“The word that we have is pretty clear that this is in the works,” Armenian
said about Evans’ recall. “It’s clear that the State Department is bowing to
pressure from Turkey.”
Evans was praised in Armenian-American communities last year when he
unequivocally referred to the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in post-World
War I Ottoman Turkey as a genocide.
“I think it is unbecoming of us as Americans to play word games here,” Evans
said in February 2005 during a stop at the University of California at
Berkeley. “I will today call it the Armenian genocide.”
In doing so, Evans became the first US administration official to use the
word
genocide. The Bush administration, like its predecessors, refers to the
killings as a massacre and a tragedy, but never genocide.
“It felt like a breakthrough moment,” Armenian said. “It felt like we were
getting somewhere.”
Turkey, a key US and NATO ally, strongly opposes the genocide label.
Tuluy Tanc, minister counsel at the Turkish embassy in Washington, DC, called
Evans’ comments “personal views” and not a reflection of US policy. He said he
did not have any knowledge about Evans being recalled.
But Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of
America, said the State Department is already quietly vetting a new ambassador
to replace Evans in late spring or early summer.
“I think it’s pretty clear he’s being ushered out the door,” Schiff said.
Evans, for his part, has sidestepped questions about his tenure in
Armenia. In
response to a query during a press conference last week, he replied, “I serve
at the pleasure of the president. Period.”

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2006 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.

Panorama.am

15:04 22/03/06

EQUIPMENTS REPLACE PEOPLE

Today the opening of education centre attached to RA frontier troops
was opened in Yerevan. The centre is intended for educating beginners
as well as qualifying professional staff.

The building was repaired with the assistance of the US Embassy in
Armenia. All in all the American Embassy let $ 214 000 to repair and
equip the building. On the opening ceremony of the centre the
Ambassador of the USA in Armenia John Evans mentioned that `the
contribution to the education of frontier guards is both in the
interests of Armenia and the whole world community.’ As frontier
troops’ commander Armen Abrahamyan said the opening of the centre was
realized in the scopes of program `Control over Exportation and
Security on the Frontier’.

About 100 frontier guards took part in the first stage of 2-months
program. As it is said in the US Embassy press-release the courses are
intended for preparation of Armenian specialists who will relieve
Russian frontier troops in `Zvartnots’ airport. At the same time,
colonel Abrahamyan rejected that information saying: `The control in
`Zvartnots’ is carried out jointly. We carry out joint service. And it
is in our interests as we have no specialists qualified enough,’ the
commander mentioned. He also noticed that the number of servers will
decrease in connection with the increase of number of
equipments. /Panorama.am/

ARMENIAN-GERMAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONSULTATIONS TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN ON MARCH 21-22

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
March 21 2006

YEREVAN, March 21. /ARKA/. Armenian-German Interparliamentary
consultations on financial and technical cooperation will be held
in Yerevan on March 21-22, according to the Press Service of the RA
Ministry of Finance and Economy.

Issues of implementation of financial and technical programs of Germany
in Armenia, particularly in the spheres of energy, development of
mortgage market, public infrastructures, healthcare, small and medium
business are going to be discussed during the consulting.

Consultations will be under the administration of the Ra Ministry
of Finance and Economy Vardan Khachatryan and representative of the
German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development Rolf Baldusi.

The German Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Armenia
Heike Renate Peitsch and representative of KfW German bank and RA
Ministry will take part in the consultations.

US-SPONSORED BORDER GUARD TRAINING CENTRE OPENS IN ARMENIA

Mediamax news agency
22 Mar 06

Yerevan, 22 March: A training centre of the Armenian border troops,
renovated with money provided by the US government, opened in Yerevan
today.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, US ambassador to Armenia John
Evans stressed the importance of the centre in ensuring the reliable
protection of the Armenian borders and preventing the illegal
transportation of dangerous cargoes and smuggling and trafficking,
Mediamax reports.

According to the diplomat, “the operation of the centre meets the
interests of the Armenian people and the international community”.

The USA invested a total of 214,000 dollars in the renovation of the
centre’s building.

Armen Abramyan, commander of the Armenian border troops, said that
the USA has been supplying Armenian border guards with transport and
technical control facilities, state-of-the-art radio stations and
computers since December 2001.

The building of the Bagratashen checkpoint on the Armenian-Georgian
border was opened in May 2005 with the assistance of the US
government. The construction of a barracks at the Gogavan checkpoint
on the border with Georgia will be completed in the near future.

An official statement released by the US embassy said that “several
groups of Armenian border guards have already attended one- and
two-month courses in preparation for replacing Russian border guards
at Zvartnots airport.” At the same time, Armen Abramyan said that
not all of the Russian border guards at the airport will be replaced,
Mediamax reports.

Mediamax recalls that under bilateral agreements, Armenian and Russian
border guards are jointly protecting Armenia’s border with Turkey
and Iran. Russian, not Armenian, border guards have been working at
the checkpoint Armenia at Zvartnots international airport in the past
few years.

Mediamax notes that the head of the Russian Federal Security Service’s
Border Directorate in Armenia, Lt-Gen Sergey Bondarev, said in January
2006 that Armenian and Russian border guards started to serve jointly
at the checkpoint Armenia. Bondarev said that “joint work has already
proved its efficiency”.

VAHAN HOVHANNISYAN: POSITIVE CHANGE IS OBSERVED IN THE ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS OVER GAS

ArmRadio
21.03.2006 17:57

Returning form the 10th sitting of the Armenian-Russian
Interparliamentary Committee, Vahan Hovhannisyan declared that positive
change is observed in the Armenian-Russian negotiations over gas, which
allows to consider that the gas price will be reconsidered. However,
Vahan Hovhannisyan did not mention any concrete numbers. According
to him, their Russian colleagues were trying to convince the rise of
Russian price is not the will of Russia but Georgia’s demand to supply
gas to everyone at the same price. Vahan Hovhannisyan considers this
the official position of the Russian authorities. The Vice-Speaker
does not take serious Vladimir Zhirinovski’s statement that the gas
will be supplied to Armenia on lower price in case Armenia joins the
Russia-Belarus Union. This is the opinion of the Liberal-Democratic
Party of Russia, which cannot be official.

Vahan Hovhannisyan was given the opportunity to deliver a report on
political relations of the two countries.

Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue” Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub project.

As a part of the project web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************* **********************************

============ ================================================== =============
REGION
============================= ==============================================
AMB ASSADOR OF GEORGIA IN ARMENIA VERSUS GEORGIAN INTERESTS
—————————————- ————————————
Source: `Akhali Taoba’ newspaper [March 19, 2006]
Author: Georgi Udzilauri

In the interview to `Azg’ Armenian daily, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Georgia in Armenia, Revaz Gachechiladze stated that
the construction of Kars-Akhalkalaki railway is allegedly unfavorable
to Georgia. Gachechiladze holds that there seems to be no need for
constructing this section of the railway. It would be more efficient
to launch another railway route `Kars-Gyumri (Armenia)-Tbilisi’.

This statement of the Georgian diplomat seemed so unlikely that we
tried to contact both the Georgian Embassy in Yerevan and the Foreign
Ministry of Georgia. Bringing apologies, the Embassy refused to give
comments, while the press service of the Foreign Ministry did not even
do this much, no one answered the phone calls there.

If the Armenian journalists do not make inventions and Gachechiladze’s
statement is not the product of their imagination, that is the
Ambassador really criticizes the state plans on the construction of
`Kars-Akhalkalaki’ railway, he is incompetent. Or may be it is the
Turkish President Ahmed Necdet Sezer, having visited Georgia a week
ago, that is incompetent. He stated that Turkey is interested and
keeps working on the project of constructing
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway.

Almost a year ago, in May 2005 the Presidents of the three countries,
Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan – Sahakashvili, Sezer and Aliev agreed
on the implementation of Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku project and
stated in particular that the construction of Kars-Akhalkalaki needs
450 million Euros. They asserted the public that these funds should
immediately be recalled because of the anti-Georgian interests
involved.

In a normal democracy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tries to give
an up-to-date explanation of such absurd situations. However,
unfortunately our Ministry does not care about the image of the
Georgian state on such a serious issue. If Gachechiladze confirms his
statements in the Armenian press, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Gela Bejuashvili, similarly to the Minister of Interior Vano
Merabishvili, starts defending his staff, the opposition will have the
right to demand resignation of two Ministers at a time.

========================================= ==================================
CONFLICTS
===== ================================================== ====================
“NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE IN A `PLACE CONVENIENT TO ALL…”
—————————————— ———————————-
Source: `Novoye Vremya’ newspaper (Armenia) [March 18, 2006]
Author: Tamara Hovnatanian

The regional visit of American diplomats Daniel Fried and Steven Mann
came to an end, developing into a stage of numerous post-comments,
especially active in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The process will be
underway until the meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen in
Istanbul, scheduled for March 20. Why on the territory of Turkey in
particular? The American Co-chairman answered this question as
follows, `there is no political implication here’, simply Istanbul
appeared to be `a place convenient to all’…

In Yerevan, the American diplomats were not very
outspoken. Introducing the purpose of his visit to the region, Daniel
Fried singled out three main points. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, there
was a discussion of Karabagh conflict; further on the issue of energy
security in the face of the January crisis after the explosion of the
gas pipeline was raised. Finally, attention was centered on the future
of the South Caucasus. It is when, as Fried put it, `all the current
conflicts are resolved, the countries of the region enter into a
period of peace and the authorities can make decisions without
external pressure”. All the other implications of the visit seem to
keep to the mentioned frames. Also the agenda of the discussions in
Turkey that Fried preferred avoiding, and the Iranian issue that is
still to be considered. The press conference, given by Daniel Fried
and Steven Mann after the meetings with RA President, Foreign Minister
and the Minister of Defense, as well as the business lunch with the
representatives of Armenian political parties was extremely brief. The
diplomats managed to answer only 5-6 questions. The priority is
Karabagh settlement.

The current stage of negotiation process was characterized by Daniel
Fried as `absence of stagnation”. “On the basis of the meetings
between Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, we may state with
confidence that the negotiations will continue”, Fried stated.

On his behalf, Steven Mann noted that both Presidents show interest in
the progress, and USA is ready to support them by all means. He
refuted the rumors about the contradictions among the mediators and
assured the assembled journalists that he acts with the support of all
members of OSCE Minsk Group, secured in advance.

Raising the issue of energy security, the assistant to the secretary
of state said, `In the newly-formed situation of diversification of
energy sources, the European Union and USA again started discussing
the prospects of using nuclear energy”.

“For the time being, I cannot really say what conclusions we will make
on the results of these discussions in general and with reference to
Armenia in particular. The people I spoke with in Armenia mentioned
the interest of Yerevan in the new, safe and commercially viable
sources of nuclear energy. I will take these proposals to Washington
and we will attentively discuss these issues’, Daniel Fried noted.

Baku reacted to this quite negatively. `Armenians are very smart –
they are trying to solve the problem of energy supply at the expense
of Americans’, Baku `Zerkalo’ writes. `No doubt, it is reasonable
tactics. If the Americans need conflict settlement and control over
the South Caucasus so much, why not do good bargaining’…

The American diplomats had not left Baku before they again took up the
old record of the military budget growing like mushrooms and the
`limitless patience of Azerbaijani people’.

The issue of patience was raised by the President at the 2d congress
of Azerbaijanis of peace. “Hoping for efficiency of negotiations, we
participate in the talks, but for how long? This process cannot be
permanent. The patience of Azerbaijani people cannot be limitless”,
Ilham Aliev stated.

Taking up the reference to patience, the Azerbaijani press nourished
it with another, no less disputable thesis on the tolerance of its
people. At the same time, it expressed discontent with Lord Russell
Johnson. Making a speech at the recent session of PACE ad hoc
committee on Karabagh settlement in Paris, he stressed the necessity
of `refraining from instigation of enmity”. “Instead of calling for
tolerance, he better mind the fact that Armenia is an aggressor
country”, the Baku press, discarding the thesis of tolerance, brings
its claims to the Lord.

“We are devoted to the peace process, and our participation shows that
we want to resolve this issue peacefully, not by war”, one more
quotation of Aliev, who started his speech at the PanAzerbaijani
congress `to the good health’ of the peace process and came up to `a
bad end’ at the finish. `…However, if we see that the process is of
imitational nature and Armenia is still not sincere at the
negotiations, continuing its attempts to mislead the international
community… we will refuse to participate and will try to return our
territories”.

“What will happen if we start the war?’ the press develops the
topic. `Naturally, we will not be allowed to have a real war given the
interference of the international organizations, cochairmen,
transnational corporations, with a flow of telephone calls from the
capitals of world powers… In other words, the military operations
will have to be terminated, probably very quickly. However, if the
Azerbaijani army is really capable of liberating at least several
occupied regions, why not starting a little blitzkrieg?”

“No war will be quick and decisive”, Steven Mann stated in
Baku. However, apparently they did not hear him or pretend not to
hear, characterizing the regional visit of the representatives of the
Department of State as a `shuttle visit”, in the process of which they
`will try to reanimate the negotiation process, hopelessly blocked
after the obvious failure in Rambouillet”.

Under this approach, the talks about the future, mentioned by the
American diplomats within the visit framework, are left in the fog.

“Neither now nor in 20 years, the military option will be decisive in
conflict resolution’, these are the words Steven Mann said in Baku,
just to remind.

“The resolution of the Karabagh issue by military means is not
possible either now or in 15-20 years”, RA Defense Minister Serj
Sargsian expressed his agreement on this issue.

“Neither in 10 nor in 100 years, will we allow secession of
Mountainous Karabagh”, Ilham Aliev responded.

Still more interesting is the indirect dialogue of RA Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian and AR President Ilham Aliev.

“I set a target to equalize the military budget of Azerbaijan to the
Armenian budget in the short term. Armenia will never be able to
compete with us. The sooner the Armenian authorities realize it, the
better for them”, Aliev stated at the PanAzerbaijani congress, which,
judging by the reports from Baku, was almost totally devoted to
Karabagh issue.

“In the civilized world, the volume of military budget has long ceased
to be subject of competition between the countries and the peoples’,
RA Foreign Minister stated in the interview to the Second Armenian
Channel. `For several years, Azerbaijan has daily produced 400
thousand barrels of oil; however, Armenia is still ahead of its
neighbor by the volume of GDP per capita”.

“The Mountainous Karabagh has always been historical Azerbaijani land,
and the Armenians moved to this region in mid XIX century. They came
as guests and then, having acquired numerical advantage, they
instigated separatist trends”, Ilham Aliev assures the delegates of
PanAzerbaijani congress.

“Karabagh is Armenian land. For thousands of years, these lands were
populated by only Armenians, preserving their sovereignty’, Vartan
Oskanian parries back. `Azerbaijan has no moral right for any claims
to Mountainous Karabagh, having lost it in the 90s, when several times
it tried to exert pressure and even start ethnic cleansing. If not for
the resistance of the Armenians, we would not have Karabagh today”, RA
Foreign Minister emphasized.

Aliev also referred to the future of the whole region. “Today one of
our priorities is implementation of the project of constructing
Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway. It will promote basic cargo transportation
in the region. This project, similarly to all the other regional
projects, leaves Armenia out. We will never allow a country, having
occupied our territories, to have equal cooperation in the
region. With time, the gap between Azerbaijan and Armenian will keep
growing”.

We should note that Aliev spoke about it at the moment when Daniel
Fried made his speech in Yerevan about the future of the countries of
the region, `when they leave in peace and make their choice themselves
– without any external pressure…’

=================================== ========================================
INT. STRUCTURES
======================================= ====================================
EU WOULD DEPLOY PEACEKEEPING FORCES IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
—————————————– ———————————–
Source: `Zerkalo’ newspaper (Azerbaijan) [March 18, 2006]
Author: F. Teymurkhanli

According to EU Special Representative Peter Semneby, it is possible
after concrete results on Karabagh issue

“When the sides arrive at concrete results in Karabagh issue, it is
possible that the European union will send its peacekeeping forces to
the region and render assistance in rehabilitation of the war-torn
territories. EU may carry out a peacekeeping operation both by its own
efforts and in coalition with other international structures”, as
stated by new Special Representative of EU in the South Caucasus,
Peter Semneby.

At the same time, he added that EU does not intend to interfere in the
mandate of OSCE Minsk Group, acting as mediator in conflict
settlement. He was also uncertain about the composition and the
concrete location of the peacekeeping contingent.

As for the settlement of Karabagh conflict proper and a possible
`breakthrough’ in this issue in 2006 with a variety of statements
frequently voiced on this issue, P. Semneby said, `I still hope for
the conflict to be settled peacefully, and not all the possibilities
are exhausted. None of the sides needs war”.

At the same time, P. Semneby stated that the high claims put by the
Armenian and Azerbaijani sides prevent reaching a maximum positive
decision. `Definite amendments are essential in the positions of the
opposite sides, the important part is to start the process of peaceful
settlement. In the future, this willingness will help us facilitate
the final resolution of Karabagh issue’, EU Special Representative in
the South Caucasus emphasized.

According to P. Semneby, he intends to continue the activity of former
Special Representative Heike Talvitie, however, his mandate will
include larger powers. In particular, the European Union intends to
allot greater attention and resources to resolution of `frozen’
conflicts in the South Caucasus region.

Besides, if the headquarters of H. Talvitie were in Finland, the
office of the new Euro-Parliamentarian will be based in Brussels. The
new location is not accidental. According to P. Semneby, this
circumstance will help improve coordination of the activity of various
European structures.

Recently, the interest of the European Union in the South Caucasus
region has considerably increased. As P. Semneby thinks, it is
conditioned by two basic reasons. First, two South Caucasus countries
at a time (Georgia and Azerbaijan) aspire to EU membership. Second,
Turkey, now under negotiations for EU accession, has borders with all
the three countries of the South Caucasus region. In his opinion, with
ratification of the European Neighborhood Action Plan, the ties
between EU and the South Caucasus will be intensified.

Answering the question of `whether the EU will support the South
Caucasus countries if they face a tangible threat from the North or
South”, P. Semneby stated that his mandate embraces regional
cooperation, including the relations of South Caucasus countries with
the neighboring states. “Naturally, all the emerging problems interest
EU. However, I am not sure how the EU will act when there is a
concrete problem in place. In any case, we are interested in the
regional stability”, EU Special Representative stated.

As for the issue of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan,
P. Semneby stated that EU views these aspects as priorities.

Besides, EU Special Representative stated that on his two-day visit,
he met the Head of State Ilham Aliev, Parliament Speaker, Prime
Minister and other officials.

As reported by `Turan’ agency, in the conversation with EU Special
Representative, I. Aliev wished P. Semneby successful implementation
of his mission. I. Aliev pointed to a progress in the cooperation
between Azerbaijan and EU, and expressed hope that these relations
will be strengthened in the future. On his behalf, P. Semneby noted
that he started his mission in the region from the visit to
Azerbaijan. He referred to the growing interest of EU in the South
Caucasus. P. Semneby expressed confidence that the relations between
EU and Azerbaijan will be developing in the future as well.

P. Semneby also met the opposition leaders. During the meetings, they
discussed the social political situation in Azerbaijan, parliamentary
elections of November 6 and the post-election period, paths for
settlement of Karabagh conflict, prospects for developing the
relations between Azerbaijan and EU.

============================================ ===============================
NEIGHBOURS
======= ================================================== ==================
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “TURKISH DEMOCRACY ON COLLAPSE”
—————————————- ————————————
Source: `Milliyet’ newspaper (Turkey) [March 15, 2006]
Author:

The article in The Wall Street Journal criticizes the member of the
governing board of the Turkish Lawyers’ Union Kemal Kerincsiz, who
filed a suit against the organizers of the scientific conference on
the Armenian issue, and Orhan Pamuk. Bearing the signature of Philip
Shishkin, Istanbul correspondent of the newspaper, the article
characterizes Kemal Kerincsiz as a person trying to isolate Turkey
from the West.

In his article, Shishkin states that the claims of Kerincsiz to limit
the freedom of expression reduce to zero Ankara’s efforts for raising
the democratic prestige of Turkey in the period of EU membership
negotiations.

Shishkin writes that the actions taken by Kerincsiz fit in the
strategy of nationalistic forces, pursuing the aim of isolating Turkey
from USA and Europe, and transforming it into a regional superpower,
similarly to the Ottoman Empire at the time.

The article stressed that intensive efforts of Kerincsiz have not yet
brought any effect, since civil society is developing in Turkey and
people speak about the necessity of rejecting the archaic means of
accusation in Turkey.

In the article, Shishkin calls attention to the fact that in the
process of Turkey-EU negotiations quite a number of laws and
traditions changed. Overall, the Turks opt for closer relations with
Europe. So the statement of Kerincsiz that Turkey does not need EU,
likely to strengthen its positions in the region, does not enjoy the
support of the majority in the society.

The article mentions that last year Kerincsiz brought suits against
two universities that organized `Armenians in Turkey” joint
conference, writer Orhan Pamuk and Editor of `Agos’ newspaper Hrant
Dink. In particular, the Lawyers’ Union brought charges to the
organizers of the conference and their supporters. Despite all
obstacles, the conference on the Armenian issue was held on September
24-25, 2005 at Bilgi University. The organizers asserted that its most
positive result was `academic freedom”. Last year, lawyer Kemal
Kerincsiz and two other persons in the interview to `Die Welt’ German
newspaper accused Orhan Pamuk of insulting a Turkish soldier. There
was an attempt to accuse Joost Lagendijk, deputy of European
Parliament from Netherlands of insulting the Armed Forces of
Turkey. None of the suits brought the desired result.

The Wall Street Journal also quotes the statement of the Foreign
Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gull that the laws,
directed against freedom of expression, have a negative impact on the
image of the country. However, the newspaper writes that the
government has not yet made any real steps towards supporting freedom
of expression.

************************************ ***************************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
or by sending a message to the Editor:
[email protected].

For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].

ARMENIA AND INDIA HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS

Noyan Tapan
Mar 20 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 20, NOYAN TAPAN. The visit of the Indian representative
business delegation headed by the RA Honorary Consul Harshad Mehta
in Mumbai (former Bombay) shows that the sides have a considerable
intention to strengthen the existing links. RA Deputy Foreign Mininster
Armen Bayburtian stated this during his welcoming speech at the
Armenian-Indian business forum that opened at the Armenian Development
Agency (ADA) on March 20. According to him, the Honorary Consulate
of Armenia in Mumbai that opened last year has already generated the
first results of its activities. 36 representatives of various Armenian
companies and departments and 18 representatives of the Indian side
are participating in the event. Mrs. Reena Pandey, the Extraordinary
and Plenipotentairy Amabassador of India to Armenia, said that trade
turnover between the two states has grown by 50% in recent year and
this growth tendency is continuing, since there are opportunities for
cooperation, particularly in such spheres as metallurgy, information
technologies, film making industry, pharmaceutics, jewelry making,
precios stone cutting, tourism, and food industry.

(According to the RA official data, in 2005 the trade turnover
between the sides made about 15.9 mln USD. As of late 2005, 50
legal entities were operating in Armenia with Indian capital – with
investments of about 1.1 mln USD). The ambassador noted that issues
of economic cooperation development will be discussed at the sitting
of the Armenian-Indian intergovernmental commission in Yerevan this
year. The RA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentairy to India
Ashot Kocharian underlined that the programs on joint work of the
Honorary Consulate of Armenia in Mumbai, the Armenian embassy in India
and the Indian embassy in Armenia have alrady been worked out. Harshad
Mehta, Honorary Consul of Armenia in Mumbai, promised that the office
headed by him will do everything to promote economic cooperation
between the two countries. He pointed out the already formed efficient
cooperation in the precious stone cutting sector. According to RA
Deputy Minister of Trade and Economic Development Tigran Davtian,
there is a great potential for developing the trade and economic
relations between Armenia and India. The two countries have entered
a stage of sustainable dynamic development, with almost the same
branches being considered as leading ones both in the economies of
Armenia and India. According to him, the annual export volumes of
India’s information and high technology enterprises have exceeded
10 bln USD, while at one time this index made only 50-100 mln USD,
as currently in case of Armenia. T. Davtian said that having arrived
in Armenia on March 18, the members of the Indian business delegation
have already had a number of meeting with the Armenian partners,
thanks to which some agreements have been reached. The representatives
of the Indian business delegation will continue their meetings with
Armenian businessmen on March 21.

GROWING INFLUENCE OF ISLAM ALIENATING ALEVIS, TURKEY’S ‘TRUE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS’

Irish Times
Feb 20, 2006

AZG Armenian Daily
21/03/2006

TURKEY: Most Alevis wholeheartedly aligned themselves with Kemal
Ataturk’s secular revolution of the 1920s, writes Nicholas Birch
in Istanbul Remote, mountainous and poor, Tunceli has all the
ingredients of a typical, conservative eastern Turkish town. Except
that Tunceli is anything but typical. Few women under the age of 60
wear headscarves. The fine central mosque lies empty, even on Fridays.

Dominated by a medley of Marxist-Leninists, communists and socialists –
political groupings insignificant elsewhere in Turkey – local politics
has a distinctively cold war feel about it.

The key to Tunceli’s strangeness lies in the identity of its
people. Like around 20 per cent of Turkey’s population, they are
not Sunni Muslims, but Alevi, members of a sect whose beliefs are
distantly related to Shiism.

Not that the place of worship opened on the outskirts of town five
years ago in any way resembles the mosques of neighbouring Shia Iran.

Attended by men, women and children, the Thursday meeting at the cemevi
opens with a lament sung to the accompaniment of an amplified saz,
the metal-stringed lute played throughout Anatolia.

Later, the music gathers speed, and a group of young men and women
stand to perform a stylised circular dance. The ceremony ends with
the religious leader, in tears, describing the death of the Imam
Hussein at the hands of the Sunni Caliph’s army.

Persecuted by the Ottoman Sultans, most Alevis wholeheartedly aligned
themselves with Kemal Ataturk’s secular revolution of the 1920s. Many
continue to describe themselves as staunch Kemalists.

But Islam, all but banished in the early years of Republican Turkey,
crept back in with multi-party democracy in the 1950s. Its growing
influence continues to alienate Alevis.

“Do you know what is really meant by ‘how happy is he who can say
I am a Turk’?” asks schoolteacher Nuriye Bagriyanik, referring to
one of Ataturk’s most popular slogans. “How happy is he who can say
‘I am a Sunni Muslim.'”

She ascribes the resurgence of Alevi identity to ultra-nationalist-led
pogroms in the late 1970s in which well over 100 Alevis
died. Forty-five more were killed in a second bout of sectarianism
in the mid-1990s in Istanbul and the Anatolian city of Sivas.

The real triggers to Alevi activism came later, though, first with
Turkey’s improving relations with the EU. And then there was the
overwhelming 2003 electoral success of the Justice and Development
Party (AKP), a pro-western offshoot of traditional Turkish political
Islam.

“Every one of the AKP’s 360-odd MPs is a Sunni,” explains Tunceli
journalist Haydar Toprakci, adding that “it’s the Alevis, not the
Kurds, who are Turkey’s true second-class citizens”. His attitude is
shared by Izzetin Dogan, head of Turkey’s most influential Alevi group,
the Istanbul-based Cem Foundation.

“Previous governments may have been cowardly on the Alevi issue, but
at least we could talk to them”, Mr Dogan says. “With the present
government, all contact has been lost.” Deteriorating relations
left his Cem Foundation with no alternative but to take the Turkish
Education Ministry to court over school religious classes that were
made obligatory after the 1980 military coup.

The curriculum teaches only Sunni Islam. Individual Alevis have taken
their complaints far further. Any day now, the European Court of
Human Rights is expected to rule on a landmark case brought by parents
demanding that their children be excused from religious education.

“The thought of going to court didn’t occur to me until one Ramadan,
when the religious teacher began insisting all Muslims should fast,”
parent Hatice Kose told Turkish daily Radikal. “My son said that
because everybody else in the class was fasting, he would too.” If
they fast at all, Alevis do so not during Ramadan, but Muharrem,
four months later.

In an apparent effort to stave off further legal cases, Turkey’s
education minister Huseyin Celik last week announced that the
curriculum had been changed to include a discussion of Alevi beliefs.

Izzetin Dogan describes the move as an attempt by the government
“to get Brussels on its side”. The ministry’s aim, he adds, “is to
present our beliefs as being no different from Sunni Islam”.

The fisticuffs over the school syllabus are, however, only the most
visible symptom of a much broader debate – not just confined to Alevis
– about the role of Islam in Turkish society.

Turkey is often described as a model of Muslim secularism. In fact,
the state keeps close tabs on religion, seeing it both as a threat
and a potential social cement.

As the well-known Istanbul theologian Zekeriya Beyaz puts it, “the
state promotes and protects religion while religion encourages people
to support the state”. The centre of the bureaucratic web is the
Diyanet, the powerful state body responsible for maintaining Turkey’s
80,000 mosques and monitoring their state-employed preachers. Sitting
in his elegantly furnished office in the outskirts of Ankara, Diyanet
head Ali Bardakoglu brushes off suggestions that his foundation is
a Sunni monopoly. “Every belief group is our partner,” he insists.

But then he goes on to argue that Alevis are actually Sunni. “It’s
not that we are opposed to cemevis,” he says, “but they are not an
alternative to mosques. ”

Ali Bardakoglu is a moderate. After the 1980 coup, led by generals
who saw Sunni Islam as an alternative to murderous clashes between
left and right, his predecessors complied in a campaign to build
mosques in 100s of Alevi villages.

The initiative was not a success, says Aykan Erdemir, a sociologist
specialising in Alevism. “Some imams gave up and left within months of
arriving, and others never left their homes. I’ve even heard stories
of preachers corrupted by the villagers’ beliefs.”

Attempts at forced conversion have now stopped. Even now, though,
Turkey’s few cemevis exist in a legal limbo, officially described as
cultural centres, not places of worship.

And while imams in state-funded mosques receive their salaries from
Ankara, Alevi communities pay everything from their own pockets.

LATVIA IS INTERESTED IN THE ISSUES OF NKR AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A1+
06:16 pm 17 March, 2006

Today meetings with the Latvian Ambassador extraordinary and
plenipotentiary to Armenia Ayvars Vovers took place in the NA.

During the meeting with the NA Speaker Arthur Baghdasaryan it was
mentioned that within the framework of the EU “New Neighborhood
Program” Latvia supports the member countries, and Armenia too will
be included in the program. By the way, a number of deputies of
the Latvian Parliament have taken the initiative to organize the
Armenian Genocide.

The Ambassador of Latvia also met the head of the NA Standing Committee
on Foreign Relations Armen Rustamyan.

Referring to the regional problems and in particular tot he process of
settlement of the Karabakh conflict Mr. Rustamyan mentioned that the
settlement of the conflict is the issue N1 of the political agenda of
Armenia. He expressed opinion that the negotiation process cannot be
successful without the participation of Nagorno Karabakh as a side,
as the agreements signed in 1992 and in 1994 which have been working
successfully for all those years are signed by Karabakh. And if there
is a third agreement, it must be signed by Karabakh too.