Author: Tumanian Talar

RA DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER TO LEAVE FOR TURKMENISTAN ON WORKING VISIT

Noyan Tapan
Mar 13 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 13, NOYAN TAPAN. On March 14, RA Deputy Foreign
Minister Gegham Gharibjanian is leaving for Turkmenistan on a working
visit. On March 15-16, in Turkmenistan, he is to have official meetings
with President of Turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov, Foreign Minister
Rashid Meredov, Minister of Oil and Gas Industry and Mining Resources
Kurbanmurat Atayev and Minister of Culture ant TV Communication Maral
Byashimova. As Noyan Tapan was informed by RA Foreign Ministry Press
and Information Department, during the visit G.Gharibjanian will
hand Armenian President Robert Kocharian’s message to President of
Turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov, as well as will take part in the
ceremony of hoisting of the Armenian flag in the territory of new
RA Embassy.

MANN: “I DISCUSSED GARABAGH AND SOME OTHER ISSUES WITH ELMAR MAMMADYAROV”

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
March 13 2006

The US Department of State special envoy for conflicts in Europe and
Asia, OSCE Minsk Group American co-chair met with foreign minister
Elmar Mammadyarov today (APA). After the talks, Steven Mann told
journalists that it was a good meeting.

“We exchanged views on Garabagh and some other issues”.

American diplomat said that he will give information to Daniel Fried,
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, who visited
Azerbaijan today. Elmar Mammadyarov will also receive Mr. Fried today.

US STATE DEPT’S FRIED TO VISIT TURKEY THIS WEEK

New Anatolian, Turkey
March 13 2006

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Daniel Fried will visit
Turkey this week to discuss recent developments in the Caucasus.

The State Department has announced that Fried will come to Ankara on
Thursday, following his talks in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia.

Fried will be in Baku today and will discuss bilateral and regional
issues and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. He is also expected to urge
Baku to move forward with democratic reforms. The U.S. envoy will visit
Georgia tomorrow and will head to neighboring Armenia on Wednesday.

The U.S. diplomat will conclude his regional tour with his meetings
in Ankara on Friday.

US ENVOY WARNS OF GARABAGH CONFLICT THREAT

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
posted on March 13 2006

Baku, March 10, AssA-Irada
The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh is
“real and dangerous”, the US ambassador in Baku Reno Harnish has said.

Harnish said the two countries’ leaders and the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs brokering settlement to the dispute should be active to
achieve a resolution.

“The recent ceasefire violations show that this is not a frozen,
but a real and dangerous conflict. I believe the presidents, foreign
ministers as well as the MG co-chairs should take courageous steps
to find a peaceful solution to the problem,” the diplomat added.

PACE WORKING GROUP ON KARABAKH FORMED

Pan Armenian
17.10.2005 19:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Nagorno Karabakh of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided on formation
of a working group to deal with the conflict settlement. According
to Asim Mollazade, member of the Azeri delegation to PACE, the new
group was formed on the initiative of the Subcommittee chairman
Lord Russell Johnston and consists of representatives of Azerbaijan
and Armenia. “This will be a joint group to elaborate a number of
questions referring the fulfillment of the PACE resolution. Thus,
the issues submitted to the discussion of the Subcommittee will be
first considered by the group,” he said. Mollazade reminded that
the Subcommittee is charged with the task to implement the PACE
resolution on Nagorno Karabakh. “This is the principal task of the
Subcommittee. The structure will submit its report and action plan
during the PACE January session. The Council of Europe wants to
participate in the settlement process,” he noted.

The Azeri parliamentarian said that the replacement of the OSCE MG by
the newly formed group is out of the question. He stressed that the
Minsk Group is the main format of mediation. “The Council of Europe
is trying to settle the conflict within the values it protects. The
council of Europe cannot connive at a tragedy within Europe. Using
its authority the CoE will render wide support to the conflict
settlement. We will certainly act within the organization. I believe it
will have a positive impact upon the conflict settlement,” he stated.

Financial Times,, UK
Oct 14 2005

Insurance payout on Armenian deaths
By John Thornhill in Paris

Axa, the French insurance group, is to pay $17m to compensate the
descendants of victims of the Armenian killings of 1915.

The agreement follows a lengthy class action suit pursued by Armenian
groups in the US state of California.

Under the terms of the agreement, Axa will pay $11m (9.2m, £6.3m)
into a fund to compensate the descendants of Armenian victims who had
insurance policies with companies since acquired by the French group.
It has also agreed to pay $3m to Armenian charities based in France,
with another $3m for fees.

Armenian groups hailed the decision as an important step in their
campaign to force Turkey to recognise as genocide the killings of
about 1.5m Armenians during the break-up of the Ottoman empire.
France, home to an Armenian community of more than 400,000 people,
has already done so. A similar legal deal was reached in February
between Armenians and New York Life, with the US insurance group
paying out $20m.

In 1922 the president of the French company wrote to the French
Foreign Ministry acknowledging that most of those policyholders had
been killed by Turkish soldiers.

Armenian groups have strongly opposed Turkey’s accession to the
European Union until it recognises the genocide. But EU leaders
opened accession talks with Turkey this month. Armenians claim up to
1.5m people died in 1915-18. Turkey denies genocide, and admits only
that hundreds of thousands of both Armenians and Turks died, largely
as a result of civil war and famine.

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

October 7, 2005
___________________

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRIMATE

ANNOUNCING THE 1600TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN ALPHABET

On the Occasion of the Feast of the Holy Translators
October 8, 2005

“Now my dear Armenian people: Continue to hold our authentic Mashdotsian
alphabet close to your heart!” wrote His Holiness Karekin II, the
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, earlier this year, as
he announced the 1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian
alphabet. In roughly A.D. 405, St. Mesrob Mashdots, with the support of
Catholicos St. Sahak Bartev, created an alphabetic script to give form
and literary weight to the spoken Armenian language. The alphabet
opened a new chapter for our people, allowing them for the first time to
understand and implement the word of God.

Our own Diocese will launch the celebration of this milestone on the
Feast of the Holy Translators, and related activities will occur through
the following year. Simultaneously, our Diocese is in the midst of its
“Year of the Youth: Carrying the Flame.” Its objective is to reach out
to our younger generation, inspiring and preparing them to be leaders of
our church. We want them to accept and carry the bright flame of our
heritage. And for us as Armenian Christians, that flame has two parts.
At its hot blue core is the light of Christ, which guided the wise men
to Bethlehem, shined on our homeland 1,703 years ago, and illuminates us
to this day.

Topping off that core, surrounding it, and feeding off it, is the yellow
fire of Armenian culture. That is what constitutes the “uniqueness” of
our church. And no development has contributed more to that uniqueness
than the Armenian alphabet. It strengthens our identity as a people and
church, and gives us the opportunity to maintain and develop the
Armenian Church. The conjunction of our “Carrying the Flame” theme with
the 1600th anniversary year is therefore fitting.

Many have noted that in important ways, the invention of the alphabet
was more momentous than what had come before. Previously, there had
simply been a church in Armenia, as there had been elsewhere. But with
Mashdots’ innovation, henceforth it would be an Armenian Church. Or
rather, the Armenian Church: a home for all the Armenian people.

Essentially, the creation of the alphabet “Armenized” Christianity, and
jump-started a new era, a golden age, for our nation. Amid the
flowering of literature and translations came the birth of the Armenian
Bible, through which the gospels, psalms, and by extension the liturgy,
all were reincarnated as Armenian possessions. And in this way, our
flame grew larger, stronger, and brighter.

Clearly, as we reflect on the 1600 years of progress from the alphabet’s
invention to the present day, we can see that the Armenian language is
not separate from our faith. There is a unity among them, and teaching
the faith and language ought not to be seen as two different things.

Here at the Eastern Diocese, we view the 1600th anniversary year as an
opportunity to celebrate the conjunction of faith and culture that makes
our church unique. We are committed to employing new technologies,
creating new programs, and finding new ways to convey our language,
faith, and identity. And in this “Year of the Youth,” we are committed
to helping young people to understand and carry forward that
identity-that wonderful flame-in a way relevant to our own time.

Regional meetings, local parish programs, publications, and Internet
tools are among the concrete steps we are committed to taking in the
year to come. You will be hearing more about these initiatives in the
weeks to come.

I invite everyone-from our leadership to each and every parishioner-to
be a part of this commitment. Naturally, it is not a commitment for one
year only: in many ways, it is only the beginning of a period of even
greater outreach. Like the Holy Translators of 1600 years ago, our goal
will be to help our people understand and implement the word of God.

Simply put, this 1600th anniversary year is an opportunity to add fuel
to, and fan the fire of, a flame that has nourished and guided our
people for 17 centuries. May our risen Lord continue to shine His light
on our church and people, and grant us the strength to achieve all our
aspirations.

With prayers,
Archbishop Khajag Barsamian
Primate

CENTRAL ASIA: REPLAYING THE GREAT GAME
By Igor Torbakov

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Oct 13 2005

There is a direct parallel between the current Russian-American
rivalry in Central Asia and the military-diplomatic duel that the
Russian and British empires were waging in the Eurasian heartland in
the 19th century, the analysts say. Both Moscow and Washington deny
they are intensely competing in the strategically important region,
but the two sides’ deeds are more eloquent than words.

Uzbekistan, Central Asia’s pivotal state, appears to be in the center
of the two great powers’ geopolitical tug-of-war. During U.S.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s October 10-13 tour of Central
Asia, Tashkent was demonstratively excluded from her itinerary.

Symptomatically, a few days prior to Rice’s visit to the region,
Uzbekistan joined the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community (EEC),
thus having made another regional grouping – Central Asian Cooperation
Organization (CACO) redundant (See EDM, October 11).

Tashkent’s move, the regional experts argue, has intensified
Moscow-sponsored integration process in the post-Soviet lands and given
Russia additional economic and political clout in what it regards as
its natural zone of influence.

Washington intended to punish the authoritarian Uzbek President Islam
Karimov for backtracking on democratic reform, ruthless suppression
of the May 14 riots in Andijan and, last but not least, eviction of
American troops from the Karshi-Khanabad base. Rice, who visited
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan but bypassed
Tashkent, gave Karimov, in the words of U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried, a “very clear
message.” Now, Fried added, “We have to see how he responds.”

In fact, the Uzbek strongman responded even before receiving the signal
from Washington, as he clearly anticipated what this message might
be. On September 19-24, Russia and Uzbekistan conducted joint military
maneuvers in Uzbek territory. The war games, billed as “anti-terrorist
exercises,” appear to be a sign of growing Russian-Uzbek military
ties. Their goal, according to Uzbek military sources, was to
train Russian and Uzbek forces together to quickly put down an armed
rebellion in Uzbekistan similar to the Andijan uprising but larger in
scale. And last week, while in St. Petersburg, Karimov called Russia
the “center of gravitation” for the post-Soviet states and invited
his hospitable host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, to upgrade
the relationship between their countries from the level of strategic
partnership to that of full-blown alliance. Not surprisingly, most
Russian analysts approved the Uzbek leader’s “correct geopolitical
move,” with some commentators adding- in a seeming allusion to his
previous skillful maneuvering between Moscow and Washington – that
this time Karimov had made his “final strategic choice.”

There are several issues vital for the political elites of the Central
Asian states on which Russia and the United States appear to have
different perspectives. The paramount one is securing and perpetuating
the rule of the local powers that be. There is a general consensus
within Russia’s policymaking and analytic community that it was
primarily U.S. pressure and the fear of a possible “color” revolution
that pushed Karimov back into Moscow’s fold. The majority of Russian
experts share a view that the post-Soviet leaders of Central Asian
states are particularly wary of Washington’s democratization drive and
of what they perceive as America’s plan to install pro-Western regimes
in the region. Bush administration policies, one regional expert
contends, scared Central Asia’s autocratic rulers and forced them to
“seek protection under the Russian security umbrella.” Remarkably,
speaking on October 12 in the Federation Council, the Russian
parliament’s upper chamber, at the special hearings on Russia’s
policies vis-a-vis the CIS countries, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
energetically advocated further strengthening Russian-Uzbek ties,
adding that any economic or political sanctions against Uzbekistan
are useless.

The second issue is the outside powers’ military bases in Central
Asia. While happy to get lavish payments from the Pentagon for American
use of the local military facilities, the region’s rulers are uncertain
about Washington’s true strategic intentions. They also know the
U.S. forces will be reluctant to get involved in any local political
conflicts and will not support the local regimes militarily if the
latter are challenged in any kind of mass uprising or “revolution.”

By contrast, Russia, while seeking to beef up its military presence
in the region, is keen to give the Central Asian regimes the
guarantees of its readiness to provide military assistance in the
time of dire need. Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha announced on October 11 that a
“large group of forces” would be created in Central Asia, similar to
the Russia-Belarusian and Russian-Armenian integrated army groups.

(The CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Russia.) Bordyuzha said that the Central Asian army
group would be composed “not from battalions, but from regiments and
divisions and, in the event of a serious military conflict, it will
defend CSTO members from all sides.”

Most Russian experts see Secretary Rice’s Central Asian tour as
an attempt at countering the growing Russian influence in the
strategically located and energy-rich region, although Fried and
other U.S. officials specifically stressed that Washington did not
view Central Asia as a battleground of the Russian-American Great
Game. But the leading Moscow analysts are not convinced. For them,
Russia and the United States are locked in the classic geopolitical
“struggle for the leadership position in Central Asia.” Local security
specialists seem to agree: “Some time ago we were talking about the
Cold War,” commented Col. Gen. Abdygul Chotbayev, the former commander
of Kyrgyzstan’s National Guard. “It ended, having been transformed
into a geopolitical rivalry between the two world powers – the United
States and Russia — over spheres of influence in Central Asia.”

(Rossiiskaya gazeta, October 13, 12; Vremya novostei, Gazeta, October
12; RIA-Novosti, Kommersant, October 11; RFE/RL, October 11, 5;
Washington Times, October 9)

‘REFERENDUM SHOULD DETERMINE NAGORNO KARABAKH’S FINAL STATUS’
By Tatoul Hakobian

AZG Armenian Daily #184
13/10/2005

Stepanakert Labels ICG’s Second Report ‘one-sided and pro-Azeri’

The International Crisis Group published its second report “Nagorno
Karabakh: A Plan for Peace” on October 11. “The two sides appear close
to agreeing on key principles of a peace deal”, says Sabine Freizer,
Director of Crisis Group’s Caucasus Project. “It is essential that
the governments now begin preparing their people for a compromise”.

“Nagorno Karabakh’s status should ultimately be determined by an
internationally sanctioned referendum with the exclusive participation
of Karabakh Armenians and Azeris”, reads the report. The ICG emphasizes
that the referendum can be held only after the Azeris return to
their homes in Karabakh as well as “an international conference
will determine that NK meets the criteria of statehood”. But before
the referendum the ICG offers the following major steps to take:
withdrawal of Armenia-backed Nagorno Karabakh forces from the occupied
districts of Azerbaijan surrounding the entity (from Aghdam, Fizuli,
Jebrail, Zangelan in the first stage and Kelbajar and Lachin in
the second. The Lachin corridor is supposed to remain a link between
Armenian and Karabakh); renunciation by Azerbaijan of the use of force
to reintegrate the entity and deployment of international peacekeepers
(before withdrawal of Karabakh forces from Kelbajar and Lachin); return
of displaced persons and re-opening of trade and communication links.

When will the referendum take place and what are the possible status
options? The ICG thinks that a referendum is realistic in 10 or 20
years. As a result, Karabakh can get independence, wide autonomy within
Azerbaijan, reunification with Armenia or status of confederation with
Azerbaijan. The ICG suggests leaving Nagorno Karabakh in the structure
of Azerbaijan before the referendum “though in practical terms it
would be self-governing and enjoy an internationally acknowledged
interim status”.

The ICG report is under close scrutiny of authorities in
Stepanakert and comments can be expected in a few days. Yet,
in a phone conversation with daily Azg, Davit Babayan, political
analyst from Karabakh, said that “in general, the second report is
the first one’s continuation. It was prepared with the same spirit
and is clearly pro-Azeri”. Babayan thinks the sequence of regulation
steps unacceptable as offered by the ICG report unacceptable as it
offers first return of territories and displaced Azeris – settlement
of consequences of the conflict – only after which the sides turn
to the status – the cause of the conflict. Moreover, he thinks it
unacceptable to leave Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan before the
day of the referendum.

“This shows that the authors of the report offer no option for conflict
regulation to the sides. Every report has its circles of influence
but when it considers the interests of only one side it throws back
settlement. This second report by the ICG is also one-sided and
pro-Azeris, alas,” Babayan said.

The 40-page repot contains more references to Azeri or pro-Azeri
sources than Armenian and Artsakhi. The cited Armenian sources are
compromising in essence.

NEW UNREST IN JAVAKHETI PROMPTS WARNING FROM YEREVAN
By Zaal Anjaparidze

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Akhalkalaki, the main town in the predominantly Armenian-populated
and Armenia-bordered Samtskhe-Javakheti region of Georgia, was the
site of an anti-government protest rally on October 5. The incident
reaffirmed that this turbulent region remains unstable, despite the
Georgian government’s efforts to normalize the situation there.

The unrest began after tax officials from Tbilisi, conducting a
routine inspection of local retailers, closed 10 shops for financial
irregularities. The shop owners, mostly ethnic Armenians, and about
300 supporters, evidently influenced by local provocateurs, gathered
outside the Akhalkalaki district administration building to protest
the alleged violation of the Armenians’ rights. The protestors’s
complaints quickly moved from economic issues to political demands
such as stopping the closure of Russian military bases and granting
political autonomy for the region.

Local police dispersed the rally using rubber truncheons and firing
shots in the air. The clash between the authorities and the protesters
left several people injured. The police efforts to break up the rally
instead prompted more residents of Akhalkalaki and nearby villages
to join the protest, making the situation even tenser.

Civic groups based in Samtskhe-Javakheti, as well as some Russian
sources, have alleged that the government deliberately planned
the brutal end to the protest in order to intimidate the local
Armenian population following local demands for political autonomy
in the region. A council of local non-governmental organizations,
meeting September 23-24, adopted a resolution calling on the Georgian
government to grant autonomy to the region (see EDM, September 29).

Javakhk-Info, the local news agency, distributed a bellicose statement
by regional Armenian non-governmental organizations saying that the
aggressive behavior by the Georgian authorities towards the region’s
ethnic Armenians leaves them “no other choice than the use of force
to protect their interests and dignity” (Regnum, October 5).

However, a source in Georgian law enforcement told Kavkas Press that
the police shot into the air only after one of the protesters had
taken a shot first (Kavkas Press October 5).

Giorgi Khachidze, the presidentially appointed governor of the region,
managed to calm the angry crowd through negotiations.

Khachidze criticized the police for excessive use of force and
promised to hold some of them accountable. “In my opinion, they had no
right to fire shots, even in the air,” he said (TV-Rustavi-2, October
6). Meanwhile, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili hailed the police
actions, saying, “there is no serious problem” and emphasizing that
law-enforcement officials were merely maintaining order in a region
that had been poorly controlled in recent years (TV-Imedi, October 6).

Saakashvili and other Georgian officials have tried to downplay the
latest events in Akhalkalaki, claming that the radical organizations
advocating autonomy for the region do not enjoy serious popular
support.

Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili told the Armenian
newspaper Aikakan Jamanak that Tbilisi welcomes autonomy
for Javakheti so long as that means no more than ordinary
self-governance. Merabishvili said he is not interested in the
Javakheti civic groups expressing political ambitions. “We are going
to listen to the elected deputies,” he said (Regnum, October 6-7).

A diplomatic warning from Yerevan snapped the Georgian authorities out
of their complacency. On October 8, Garnik Isagulian, national security
aide to Armenian President Robert Kocharian, warned Tbilisi to show
restraint when dealing with the predominantly Armenian-populated
Samtskhe-Javakheti. Of the October 5 clash, Isagulyan commented,
“Georgian authorities should be extremely cautious and attentive
in their actions, because any minor provocation could turn into a
large-scale clash.” Isagulian also dismissed rumors about Russian
intelligence playing a role in recent events in Samtskhe-Javakheti
(Regnum, Civil Georgia, October 8).

However, the Russian media’s wide and largely biased coverage of
the October 5 unrest in Akhalkalaki, routinely voicing the Kremlin’s
position, suggests that Russia is not a mere observer.

Georgian media have long speculated that Russia and several radical
Armenian groups are behind the provocations in Javakheti. Van Baiburt,
an Armenian member of the Georgian parliament, confirmed this in an
interview with GazetaSNG.ru. Meanwhile, Levon Mkrtichyan, from the
Armenian Dashnaktsutiun party, one of the alleged supporters of the
Javakheti radical organizations, insisted that Javakheti Armenians
advocate only for cultural autonomy.

The Armenian newspapers are increasingly linking the recent unrest
in Samtskhe-Javakheti with the construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki
railway, which bypasses Armenia. They suggest that as Georgia
increases its ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia may be left
isolated. Armenian papers also argue that if Georgia’s national
interests conflict with those of Armenia, Tbilisi “should not be
astonished at the eruption of a natural expression of self-preservation
and self-defense among the Samtskhe-Javakheti population.”

As the problem becomes increasingly complicated, Tbilisi will be
forced to act. When he visited Armenia on September 29-30, Georgian
Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli stated that Georgia would not implement
any programs directed against Armenia. Meanwhile, Nogaideli publicly
underlined that regional autonomy in Georgia is only available for
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Ajaria.

Nogaideli’s Armenian trip, coming on the heels of the demands
for autonomy in Samstkhe-Javakheti, suggests that stability in
Samtskhe-Javakheti greatly depends on Yerevan’s good will, as
Tbilisi has always appealed to the Armenian government to mediate
serious disturbances in the region. Saakashvili’s government, which
inherited the unresolved problems of Samtskhe-Javakheti from former
president Eduard Shevardnadze, follows the same pattern. Saakashvili,
like Shevardnadze, strives to resolve the region’s problems with
short-term decisions (see EDM, March 23, May 24, August 3).

Meanwhile, Yerevan is gaining more leverage to manage the situation
in Samtskhe-Javakheti and may be clandestinely urging Tbilisi to
reconcile itself to this fact.