Historian who sent Bush to war

The Times (London)
May 15, 2004, Saturday

Historian who sent Bush to war

by Michael Binyon

FROM BABEL TO DRAGOMANS
BY BERNARD LEWIS
Weidenfeld & Nicolson
ÂŁ20; 350pp
ISBN 0 297 84884 4
ÂŁ16 (p&p ÂŁ2.25)
0870 1608080

Professor Bernard Lewis is one of the Western world’s foremost
authorities on Islam. Long a scholar and lecturer at the School of
Oriental and African Studies at London University, he moved to
Princeton 30 years ago, and continued to write incisively and
tellingly not only about the early history of the Muslims, Islamic
theology and Muslim reactions to the West, but also, increasingly,
about how the West should deal with the Muslim world. American
leaders sought him out for advice on the Muslim mind, and since the
September 11 atrocities he has rarely been silent, in demand by
newspapers, universities, conferences and especially at the White
House.

He is now identified as the unofficial author of the Bush doctrine of
spreading, by force if necessary, the values and democracy of the
West in Muslim countries, part of the justification for the Iraq war.
It is a role that has made Professor Lewis, 87, notorious in some
circles. He has become a figure of hatred to many Muslims – partly
because he is Jewish, and is assumed to be lobbying on behalf of
Israel, and partly because he is a relentless critic of what he sees
as decay and spiritual confusion in much of the Muslim world. His
latest book, published last year, on the crisis in Islam, is a
trenchant and incisive analysis of the turmoil now roiling a religion
that he has made his lifetime’s study.

This political role is regrettable. For it has overshadowed Professor
Lewis’s enormous achievements as a linguist – he speaks at least five
Middle Eastern languages – historian and researcher. He is one of a
handful of academics who has been labelled a hawk and whose writings
and research are, therefore, judged largely on the basis on the
policies to which they have been yoked. Richard Pipes suffered the
same fate: a brilliant scholar of the ancien regime in Russia, he was
adopted by the Reagan Administration as its resident apologist for
the anti Soviet line that was seen, at the time, as recklessly
aggressive. The fact that Pipes was largely proved right, after the
fall of communism, never quite restored his academic reputation among
political liberals.

Professor Lewis’s academic credentials are impeccable. Anyone
doubting the breadth of his knowledge and his scrupulously impartial
historical approach has only to dip into this weighty compendium of
his writings. The collection of essays, articles, reviews, lectures
and contributions to encyclopaedias gives a glimpse of his towering
scholarship. The title essay deals with the isolation of the early
Muslims from the learning and experience of the outside world and
their gradual need to find interpreters, “dragomans”, to translate
the manuals and writings, especially on warfare, of a resurgent West.
They tended to rely on people such as Lewis – cosmopolitans, often
Jews, Greeks or Armenians who had mastered another culture by
accident of birth or geography.

Some of the essays are studiously academic – an interpretation of
Fatamid history, the Moguls and the Ottomans, the Shia and attitudes
to monarchy in the Middle East. But the lucid writing is never dry or
obscure, even to the generalist. Even in scholarly analyses,
Professor Lewis brings the wisdom of historical background to issues
that baffle today’s politicians. Why do the Shia in Iraq still lay
such stress on the historical appeal to the wronged, the downtrodden
and the deprived? How much did the Assassins, a 12th-century sect
that prefigured the suicide bombers, influence today’s concept of
martyrdom? Or why, for example, have the rulers of the Middle East
only in the 20th century adopted the title of “king”, a term
originally associated with the West and seen primarily as military
and political rather than traditional weightier titles denoting
religious authority?

Other essays are more topical, political and controversial,
especially to Muslims who resent Western scholars questioning the
contemporary relevance of a theology that is, by definition,
immutable. “The enemies of God”, “The roots of Muslim rage”,
“Religion and murder in the Middle East” and “Not everyone hates
Saddam” deal with the here and now.

Though forthright, Professor Lewis is rarely dismissive or
patronising, although he has become more hawkish over confronting
Islamist activism. “There is an extraordinary belief in some circles
that politics is an exact science like mathematics; and that there
is, so to speak, one correct answer to any problem, all the others
being incorrect,” he says, discussing the Islamic revolutionaries in
Iran. “It is a delusion, a false theory, and its forcible application
has brought untold misery to untold millions of people.”

Professor Lewis is primarily an expert on Ottoman Turkey. This, as he
says in a revealing autobiographical introduction, is because the
Arab world was largely out of bounds to Jews after the establishment
of Israel. History was his first love, but an early fascination with
languages – at one time, he says, he was simulataneously studying
Latin, Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic – drew him to
research in the Middle East. He set out on his first trip there in
1937, enrolling at Cairo University. A year later he was offered the
post of assistant lecturer in Islamic history at the University of
London. With the outbreak of war, he put his languages to good use
with British Intelligence, dealing with Middle East in the Foreign
Office from 1941 to 1945.

After 1949, however, only three countries in the region were open to
Jewish scholars – Turkey, Iran and Israel. He focused on Turkey, and
was lucky to become the first Westerner admitted to the Imperial
Ottoman Archives. It was a treasure-house of neglected learning.
“Feeling rather like a child turned loose in a toy shop, or like an
intruder in Ali Baba’s cave, I hardly knew where to turn first.”

Professor Lewis’s authority rests on his own precept: “The first and
most rudimentary test of an historian’s competence is that he should
be able to read his sources.” He can. Dozens of books and articles
have flowed from his research.

Moving to Princeton in 1974 was a challenge, but a liberation from
the “administrative and bureaucratic entanglements that had built up,
over decades, in England”. Though he reached retirement age in 1986,
and became Emeritus Professor, his political authority grew. He
resisted any censorship or political correctness, just as he resisted
the notion of taboo subjects in many Muslim societies. He says that a
historian “owes it to himself and to his readers to try, to the best
of his ability, to be objective or at least to be fair”. But he
acknowledges the dangers of a historian becoming personally involved
and committed.

That, however, has been his fate. In early studies he says he was
most interested in the period when the Middle East was most different
from the West and least affected by it. Now it is deeply affected,
and scholars are being asked to predict the outcome of this clash.
Eight days after September 11 Professor Lewis was asked to address
the US Defence Policy Board. He has dined with Vice-President Cheney
and advised President Bush. Richard Perle, a lifelong hawk, called
him “the single most important intellectual influence countering the
conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam
and the West”.

He has been seen as an apologist for the use of force to instil fear
“or at least respect” in an Islamic world that is on the defensive
and resentful of the West.

Much of this hawkishness can be traced to his loathing of appeasement
before the Second World War and his closeness to a succession of
Israeli prime ministers. It is a pity, for the “Lewis doctrine”, as
some term his call on the West to implant democracy in the Muslim
world, is far from a proven success. And political foolishness, in
Iraq and elsewhere, may yet overshadow the achievements of a great
scholar.

Read on

Islam in the World by Malise Ruthven (Penguin)

A Fury for God: the Islamist Attack on America by Malise Ruthven
(Granta)

The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? by John Esposito (OUP)

Rethinking Islam and Modernity by Abdelwahab El-Affendi (Islamic
Foundation)

Conference On Armenian Architecture In Brussels

PRESS RELEASE

REF: PR/04/05/011

Assembly of Armenians of Europe
Rue de Treves 10, 1050 Brussels
Tel: +32 2 647 08 01
Fax: +32 2 647 02 00

CONFERENCE ON ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE IN BRUSSELS

Brussels, 13/05/04 – On May 7th 2004 at the CIVA (Centre International
pour la Ville, l’Architecture et le paysage) in Brussels, the Assembly
of Armenians of Europe organized a conference dedicated to Armenian
Medieval Architecture. Mr. Bernard Coulie (orientalist, rector of the
Catholic University of Louvain,), Mr. Sarkis Shahinian (co-chairman
of the Swiss Armenian Association, researcher at the EFP, Zuirch) and
Mr. Patrick Donabedian (PhD in the history of fine arts and fellow
worker at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France) contributed to
the conference, to which architects, members of the cultural units
of the European Commission as well as students and professors were
invited. The idea behind inviting the latter group was to introduce
European specialists and academics to Armenian cultural heritage,
emphasize its role in world heritage and reveal the unknown traditions
of Armenian Architecture.

At the opening of the conference Mr. Bernard Coulie expressed his
condolences to the Belgian Armenian Community on the occasion
of the decease of Arbak Mkhitarian, famous Egyptologist,
armenologist-orientalist and active member of the Armenian community.

Mr. Bernard Coulie gave the audience insights into Armenian history,
culture and Christianity, which became the integral part of the
Armenian identity, while Mr. Sarkis Shahinian presented in detail the
architecture of Armenian Churches in the Middle Ages and revealed the
connection between the Armenian pagan and Medial Christian cultures,
as well as presented a glance to Modern Armenian architecture, in
particular the urbanism of Yerevan, capital of the Republic of Armenia.
Mr. Patrick Donabedian elaborated on the subject of ‘khatchkars’,
cross stones, in which the Armenian valley is abundant. This
conference came to highlight the fact that the majority of those
Armenian monuments concerned are in the territory of Turkey and are
in danger of disappearance. Moreover, none of the mentioned monuments
are under the protection of UNESCO.

The conference was followed by the photo exhibition on Armenia by
the French photographer Wojtek Buss. It was in Armenia that Wojtek
Buss discovered his vocation of photographer and some years later he
returned there in order to realize his dream. His book publish in Paris
in 1998 was entitled “Armenia, Splendour of a secret country”. His
wonderful photos of Armenian monasteries, churches and landscapes
bear witness to the love, mysticism and courage of Armenians.

Ten-year ceasefire marked in Karabakh conflict

Ten-year ceasefire marked in Karabakh conflict

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
May 12, 2004, Wednesday

Yerevan/Stepanakert — The Armenian enclave of Nagorny- Karabakh on
Wednesday marked a shaky ten-year ceasefire in its unresolved conflict
of independence with Azerbaijan.

Unlike in other regional conflicts, the sides have avoided renewed
serious clashes without intervention by international peacekeepers,
the foreign minister of the unrecognized Nagorny-Karabakh republic,
Ashot Gulyan, said in the capital Stepanakert.

The 4,400-square-kilometre mountain territory is formally part of
Moslem Azerbaijan but is populated mainly by Christian Armenians.

At least 20,000 people died and 750,000 Azeris became refugees during
the 1992-1994 war between Azerbaijan and the Karabakh Armenians
assisted by troops from neighbouring Armenia.

The sides called a ceasefire on May 12, 1994, with help from other
former Soviet republics, but attempts to find a lasting solution to
the conflict failed.

There were no serious clashes since then along the demarcation line
although frequent exchanges of fire persist, Nagorny-Karabakh’s
defence chief Sergei Oganyan said Wednesday.

Landmines killed at least eight people in the region this year alone,
according to the British mine-clearing organization Halo Trust. dpa
fk na sc

ASBAREZ ONLINE [05-12-2004]

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
05/12/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1) Uncompromising Opposition Stance Hinders Success of Upcoming Dialogue
2) Just a Scuffle
3) ARF Meets with Iranian Ambassador
4) Turkey Must Shed Its Genocide Burden Says EU’s Gharton
5) ARS Seminar in Bulgaria

1) Uncompromising Opposition Stance Hinders Success of Upcoming Dialogue

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)–Armenia’s government coalition partners put forth a
four-point agenda for its upcoming dialogue with the opposition.
The three political parties of the coalition suggested that the two sides try
to reach an agreement on reforming Armenia’s constitution; formulating
election
legislation to fully correspond to international criteria; working out models
for active participation of opposition in the fight against corruption; and
cooperate in complying with recent resolutions of the Parliamentary
Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE). In a joint statement, the parliamentary leaders
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Orinats Yerkir, and Republican
parties said these issues must be at the heart of the dialogue strongly
encouraged by the PACE and the United States.
The opposition Artarutyun (Justice) bloc and the National Unity Party (AMK)
have called for discussions on “ways of overcoming the political crisis in
Armenia resulting from the 2003 elections,” which they believe were rigged by
the authorities. The coalition leaders said they will agree to include the
issue on the agenda of the talks if the word “crisis” is changed to
“situation.”
The first official negotiations are scheduled for Thursday.
Regardless of the outcome of the talks, however, opposition leaders said
their
rallies in Yerevan would resume on Friday, and would continue to campaign for
Kocharian’s resignation
The uncompromising stance led one of the top coalition figures, deputy
parliament speaker Tigran Torosian, to seriously question the opposition’s
commitment to the dialogue. “I don’t think the negotiations will last too
long,
and I am not particularly optimistic about their results,” Torosian said.

2) Just a Scuffle

TBILISI (Combined Sources)–Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said that
the skirmish between ethnic Georgians and Armenians of the Tsalka region on
May
9 is not an ethnic conflict, and should not be over dramatized. “Let’s not
make
the situation tragic. It’s not an ethnic conflict, rather a fight between
Georgians and Armenians. But we won’t tolerate disorder and we don’t intend to
be drawn into provocation,” he told journalists on Tuesday.
He noted that while Georgia’s enemies have retreated since the quelling of
the
recent Ajarian upheaval, “some enemies of Georgia” seek to involve the country
in a new conflict. “We won’t allow anyone to blackmail us and will respond
appropriately to such tactics.”
Stressing that Georgia’s neighbors are peaceful, he said that both the
Presidents of Armenia and Ukraine applauded the peaceful settlement of the
Ajaria conflict.
Though officials from the Armenian Embassy in Georgia have not issued a
statement on the incident, they did indicate the issue lies within the
jurisdiction of Georgian internal affairs, excluding Armenia’s active
involvement in the matter. A statement was to be released late Wednesday.
Georgians living in the Tsalka region meanwhile rallied in front of the State
Chancellery in Tbilisi on Tuesday, demanding to meet with President
Saakashvili
to discuss disarmament of the Armenian population in Tsalka. The rally
participants said that almost all the Armenian families keep firearms.
There is a pending threat that the frequent conflicts in the Kveda Kartli
region may turn into the armed clashes. Notably, what began as an argument
among soccer fans at the Tsalka stadium on May 9 grew into a brawl, with
scores
reported injured.
After the incident, the Georgian government deployed regional police and
interior forces.

3) ARF Meets with Iranian Ambassador

YEREVAN (Yerkir)–The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Bureau’s Vahan
Hovhannisian, Supreme Body’s representative Armen Rustamian, and member Levon
Mkrtchian, met with the Iranian Ambassador to Armenia Mohammad Farhad Koleini
on Wednesday at the Simon Vratsian Center in Yerevan. They discussed
Armenian-Iranian relations, Armenia’s political developments, and regional
issues.
Addressing the recent political tensions in Armenia, Koleini praised the ARF
for its efforts to resolve the matter politically with its calls for
negotiations.
The sides confirmed that Armenian-Iranian relations are a key in
strengthening
the stability of the region.

4) Turkey Must Shed Its Genocide Burden Says EU’s Gharton

YEREVAN (Yerkir)–Speaking at a roundtable discussion on Wednesday, European
Parliament (EP) member Per Gharton said that Turkey must take responsibility
for the 1915 Armenian Genocide.
“Turkey should get rid of that burden. This year, the European Union
reaffirmed its decision recognizing the Genocide, and calls on Turkey to do
the
same,” Gharton said during the roundtable “Wider Europe: New Neighborhood:
What
are Armenia’s Expectations?”
He said that it is senseless for Turkey to deny the Genocide, pointing to the
decision of Istanbul courts immediately after the Genocide to sentence to
death
the perpetrators and Turkish officials responsible. “Where would Germany be
now
hadn’t it admitted the Holocaust against the Jews,” he asked.
He stressed that though Turkey “improves,” it fails to meet EU’s demands “to
recognize the Armenian Genocide and to cease its blockade against Armenia to
become an EU member.”
He said that the EU will not accept a state with local or regional conflicts.
“Cyprus was a bad precedent and we won’t make the same mistake again,” Gharton
said.
He said that while Armenia is Europeanized politically and is a member of the
Council of Europe, it must still tackle issues tied to democracy, the
environment, and settlement of confrontations.
Also attending the conference was National Assembly Vice-speaker Tigran
Torosian, who noted that Armenian authorities are determined to integrate into
Europe. “Armenia has no alternative,” he stated.

5) ARS Seminar in Bulgaria

Representatives of the Armenian Relief Society (ARS) European chapters will
gather in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, May 21-22, for a Seminar on Voluntary
Organizations in the 21st Century.
Organized by the ARS Central Executive, the seminar will address modernity
and
the Armenian women, as well broader topics on Armenia and the Diaspora.
Lectures include, Status of Armenian Organizations in a Newly Emerging Europe
by Hilda Choboyan, Non-Governmental Organizations by Helen Merdjanian, and
Javakhk by Garine Hovhanessian.

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) 2004 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.

http://www.asbarez.com/&gt
HTTP://WWW.ASBAREZ.COM
WWW.ASBAREZ.COM

Analysis: Armenian, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers Resume Karabakh Ta

Analysis: Armenian, Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers Resume Karabakh Talks
By Liz Fuller

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 11 2004

On 12 May, the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Vartan
Oskanian and Elmar Mammadyarov, will meet for the second time within
one month to discuss approaches to resolving the Karabakh conflict.
Two weeks earlier, the presidents of the two countries, Robert
Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev, held similar talks on the sidelines of
the European Economic Summit in Warsaw (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 29
April 2004).

Oskanian on 30 April quoted Kocharian as saying he believes his talks
with Aliyev in Warsaw “can really contribute to finding common ground
for the basis of negotiations at future meetings,” RFE/RL’s Armenian
Service reported. Oskanian added that “there will be clear instructions
from the presidents to the foreign ministers regarding putting the
negotiations on a certain basis. So we see positive movement and
believe there will be a continuation.”

That formulation suggests that the Warsaw talks clarified the
Azerbaijani negotiating position. In an interview published in the
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” following his 16 April talks with
Mammadyarov in Prague, Oskanian said that meeting failed to shed any
light on how seriously a statement made by Mammedyarov’s predecessor,
Vilayat Guliev, in February should be taken. Guliev had advocated
beginning talks again from zero (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 13 February
2004). Oskanian told the German daily he believes Guliev’s statement
was intended purely for internal Azerbaijani consumption.

Neither Oskanian nor Kocharian has given any indication of what issues
were discussed during their respective talks with their Azerbaijani
counterparts. But Mammadyarov told AFP on 30 April that the two sides
are discussing the withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven districts
of Azerbaijan bordering on the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
in exchange for the restoration of rail communication between the two
countries. “The subject of our negotiations right now is how ready
the sides are to make compromises,” AFP quoted Mammadyarov as saying.

Ilham Aliyev said on 7 May that the proposal that Armenian forces
withdraw from the seven districts in return for the resumption of
rail communication originated in Baku, and was not suggested by
the U.S., Russian, and French co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group,
which has been attempting to mediate a solution of the conflict
for the past 12 years. The EU initially included in a resolution
on the South Caucasus adopted earlier this year a demand for the
withdrawal of Armenian forces from the Agdam, Djabrail, Fizuli,
Gubadly, and Zangelan districts of Azerbaijan in return for the
restoration of rail communication between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
but Oskanian at the time rejected that approach, and the demand
was dropped before the final version of the resolution was passed
(see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 30 January, 3 and 27 February, and 1 March
2004). It is not clear why, having rejected earlier this year the
initial EU proposal to withdraw from five districts, the Armenian side
should now be prepared to discuss withdrawing from seven districts,
as the Azerbaijani officials claim.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Kazimirov, who served in mid-1990s as the Russian
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, has again slammed Armenia’s
stated preference for a “package” solution to the conflict that
would simultaneously resolve all contentious issues. In an interview
published on 30 April in “Nezavisimaya gazeta,” Kazimirov said a
package solution to such a complex conflict is “impossible,” and
that continued insistence on it “will only freeze the situation and
lead the mediation into a blind alley.” Instead, Kazimirov argued,
it would be more advisable to begin the search for a solution with
comparatively minor points.

In a second article, published in “Vremya novostei” on 7 May, Kazimirov
argued that it is important to reestablish a mechanism for constant
contacts between the two sides. He pointed out that the presidents of
the two countries “cannot meet that often, and one should not place the
entire responsibility for concessions on them personally.” Similarly,
Kazimirov continued, the foreign ministers also have numerous other
responsibilities. Therefore, he concluded, it would be better for each
side to choose a delegation that would concentrate exclusively on the
Karabakh conflict. In addition, he argued that the leadership of the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic should be included in talks on
“general issues” related to a solution of the conflict. Azerbaijan,
however, has consistently rejected any Karabakh representation at
peace talks.

Kazimirov suggested that the renewed peace talks should focus
simultaneously on four issues on the principle of “territory
for security.” Those four issues are: strengthening the existing
cease-fire and precluding a resumption of hostilities; removing the
root of the conflict by addressing the future status of Karabakh;
removing the consequences of the conflict by withdrawing Armenian
forces from the occupied Azerbaijani districts, demining operations,
and the return of displaced persons to their homes; and what he terms
“elementary measures to reduce tension and normalize relations.”
Kazimirov acknowledged, however, that progress on the second and
third issues would be slow.

BAKU: BBC To Launch Karabakh Web Page On May 12

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
May 8 2004

BBC To Launch Karabakh Web Page On May 12

Russian service of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is
planning to launch a Karabakh web page on May 12 – the day of the
tenth anniversary of signing a ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan
and Armenia.

According to a press release of BBC World Service, the Karabakh page
is done in partnership with the British NGO Conciliation Resources,
as part of the Consortium Initiative – a new British
Government-funded programme which aims to improve the prospects for a
settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
The press release reads that going live on bbcrussian.com on
Wednesday 12 May, the Karabakh Page will publish news and views from
Russian-speakers in Armenia ,Azerbaijan and across the world.

Visitors to bbcrussian.com who take interest in the Karabakh conflict
and whose lives have been affected by it will have the chance to take
part in weekly online discussions.

The Karabakh Page will publish photos and personal stories and there
also will be a special section for people seeking to re-establish
contacts with old friends and neighbours, the press release reads.

Welcome Back “Aghun”

Welcome Back “Aghun”: Honored actress comes home to revive most popular role

May 7, 2004
By Gayane Abrahamyan
ArmeniaNow arts reporter

After a 15-year absence from Yerevan stage, People’ s Artist of
Armenia Violet Gevorgyan returned last week to her signature role as
Aghun in Hrant Matevosyan’s “Our Corner of the Big World”. Fifteen
years later the actress on her own stage, in her own country.

Since the play was first staged in 1980, Gevorgyan has played the role some
700 times. Fifteen years from her last performance here, she says she hasn’t
forgotten a word or a gesture.

Theater critic and arts professor Henric Hovhannisyan once said Gevorgyan’s
performance “brought such a star down from the sky that this astounded
critic hasn’t and will never see.”

On the stage of the Theater of Young Audience she again brought down that
star this time even brighter and more colorful, welcomed by rousing
applause.

“I am extremely touched; I’m so touched that it’s difficult to play. It’s a
cruel challenge to be away for so many years from your own stage, your own
country, your own audience,” Gevorgyan said.

Gevorgyan gave three nights of performance before returning to her home in
the United States. She moved there in 1990, amid various speculations over
why she left Armenia.

Actor Levon Tukhikyan said the honored actress “simply escaped from here
because she was terribly insulted, they wouldn’t give her any roles because
of human envy.”

The 60-year old actress neither clarified that bitter page of her life then
nor now.

“I left to return, and understand how much I love this soil and water,” she
said.

After starting her career at age 24, Gevorgyan played more than 20 roles in
the Hrachya Ghaplanyan Drama Theater. Her first starring spot was the lead
in “The Diary of Anne Frank”. But it was her bittersweet character Aghun
with whom Gevorgyan would become most identified.

“Violet appeared like a bright star and kept on amazing,” said People’s
Artist Sos Sargsyan. The actor says he’s seen many of Gevorgyan’s
performances as Aghun “and I can say sincerely that intonations of Violet’s
voice are still in my head.”

Violet Gevorgyan and the brother of Hrant Matevosyan, Hrachya Matevosyan.
The actress was invited by the Tekeyan Cultural Union and the performance
was staged in Tekeyan Company headed by State Prize Winner of Republic of
Armenia Artashes Hovhannisyan. After Violet Gevorgyan leaves her role will
be taken over by actress Hasmik Aslanyan.

Aslanyan says it’s hard to play a role in which the audience has already
identified Gevorgyan as her hero Aghun.

“I know that when watching me play I shall always be compared with the
perfect performances of Violet,” says Aslanyan.

Director Artashes Hovhannisyan recalls the 1980s with nostalgia, when
everyone was speaking about the “Autumn Sun” (as the performance is known)
and today he confesses that he was very concerned about the rebirth of the
performance.

“I’m not exaggerating but I’ve spent several sleepless nights thinking how
it will be accepted today after the stunning success it had once,” says
Hovhannisyan.

According to theatre critic Varsik Grigoryan the returning of “Autumn Sun”
and Violet Gevorgyan proves that high art has a mysterious power of rebirth.

“I have seen many actors but I haven’t seen such performing,” Grigoryan
says. “My words are not enough to express how skilled she is.”

ANKARA: No Expectation From Turkey re Recognition Of Greek Cypriots

Anadolu Agency
May 5 2004

Turkey: There Shouldn’t Be Any Expectation From Turkey About
Recognition Of Greek Cypriot Side

ANKARA – There should not be any expectation from Turkey about
recognition of the Greek Cypriot side, Turkish Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Namik Tan said on Wednesday.

Tan said in a weekly press conference, ”we have done everything for
a solution (in Cyprus). There shouldn’t be any expectation from
Turkey. What the other sides have done or will do should be
considered.”

The fact that Greek Cypriots had been internationally recognized was
a reality, Tan said.

Tan stated that Turkey would continue to recognize Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

”We will consider developments in the following months and we will
evaluate the issue with all its legal and political aspects,” Tan
said.

When he was recalled about the news that Azerbaijani representatives
in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (COEPA) did not join
the voting on TRNC saying that ”it might cause recognition of Upper
Karabakh”, Tan said that Azerbaijani representatives had clearly
stated the reason of their attitude.

Tan added that Turkey continued to exchange views with Azerbaijani
authorities on the issue.

Armenian Civil Aviation Gets New Chief

ARMENIAN CIVIL AVIATION GETS NEW CHIEF

Arminfo
4 May 04

YEREVAN

Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan has relieved Samvel
Markaryan of his duty as the chief of the Main Department for Civil
Aviation (Armenian Airlines) under the Armenian government.

Artem Movsisyan has replaced him, the press service of the government
told Arminfo news agency.

(Passage omitted: biography of Movsisyan)

Soccer: Wednesday’s friendly schedule

Sports Illustrated

Wednesday’s friendly schedule
Posted: Wednesday April 28, 2004 1:36AM; Updated: Wednesday April 28, 2004
3:32AM

All times GMT

Algeria v China Clermont-Ferrand, France
Armenia v Turkmenistan Yerevan
Austria v Luxembourg (1830) Innsbruck
Belarus v Lithuania (1530) Minsk
Belgium v Turkey (1815) Brussels
Bosnia v Finland (1800) Zenica
Bulgaria v Cameroon (1500) Sofia
Czech Republic v Japan (1430) Prague
Denmark v Scotland (1800) Copenhagen
Egypt v DR Congo Cairo
Estonia v Albania (1600) Tallinn
Honduras v Ecuador Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Hungary v Brazil (1830) Budapest
Italy v Spain (1900) Genoa
Jamaica v Venezuela Kingston
Kazakhstan v Azerbaijan (1230) Almaty
Latvia v Iceland (1800) Riga
Macedonia v Croatia (1815) Skopje
Morocco v Argentina (2100) Casablanca
Netherlands v Greece (1830) Eindhoven
Northern Ireland v Serbia & Montenegro (1845) Belfast
Norway v Russia (1800) Oslo
Poland v Ireland (1600) Bydgoszez
Portugal v Sweden (2015) Coimbra
Romania v Germany (1700) Bucharest
San Marino v Liechtenstein (1830) Serravalle
South Korea v Paraguay Incheon
Switzerland v Slovenia (1815) Geneva
Tunisia v Mali Sfax
Ukraine v Slovakia (1615) Kiev
United States v Mexico (0030, Thursday) Dallas

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited.