Author: Vardanian Garo

NIKOLAY BAGHDASSARIAN

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
12 Nov 04

In the past several years the Armenians of Artsakh had considerable
progress in the economy of the country, in particular development
of certain infrastructures, creation of jobs, certain growth of the
quality of life of the population. On November 9 the 14 km section
of the road connecting the villages of Saroushen and Karmir Shuka
was opened. At the ceremony of opening were present NKR president
Arkady Ghukassian, president of the Republic of Armenia Robert
Kocharian, prime minister Anoushavan Danielian, defence minister of
Armenia Serge Sarghissian, members of parliament of NKR, members of
the NKR government, representatives of the pan-Armenian foundation
“Hayastan”. The total cost of building works implemented by the chief
contractor of the construction of the section Saroushen – Karmir Shuka
“Karavan” Ltd. was 849 million drams. The head of the company Hakob
Hakobian said the specialists of the pan-Armenian foundation “Hayastan”
and the institute of engineering tested the road for quality.

AA.
12-11-2004

Balkanalysis.com, AZ
Nov 10 2004

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Infighting Dominate Political Agenda (Part 1)

Posted on Saturday, February 28 @ 12:15:00 EST by balkanalysis

C Deliso writes ” Eurasianet.org reports that talks between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed province of Nagorno-Karabakh
have ground to a halt. Speaking at a conference in Geneva, Armenian
representatives “…flatly rejected Baku’s recent suggestion to restart
the process ‘from scratch,’ according to Armenian journalist Emil
Danielyan.

In addition, says Danielyan, “…Armenian leaders have threatened to
freeze direct contacts with Azerbaijan if Baku refuses to revive
agreements reportedly reached by the two countries three years ago.”

This is in reference to a supposed deal reached in Key West, Florida
by Armenian president Robert Kocharian and his late counterpart,
Heydar Aliyev.

This echoed Interfax’s report of 18 February, quoting Kocharian as
ruling out restarting talks “from scratch:”

“…over the years, we have invested significant efforts in laying the
groundwork for resolving the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict… I will not
throw away that effort.

…I do not think that the Azerbaijani president opposes any changes
but in the 10 years of peace, a situation has emerged in which the
two sides are reconciled to facts, so a change of the status quo is
more dangerous than maintaining it.”

Brief history of Nagorno-Karabakh

An almost kidney-shaped, mountainous area within Azerbaijan but
populated by an Armenian majority, Nagorno (‘Upper’) Karabakh has
been the subject of contentious dispute for many generations.
Somewhat like Bosnia, it was a Christian region partially Islamicized
by the Turks. In the 11th century, the low-lying eastern parts of the
Christian province fell to the Seljuk Turks, who left the mark of
religion and language on people who were “the direct descendents of
present-day Azerbaijanis,” according to Armenian-American scholar
Ronald Grigor Suny.

Through the many centuries of different empires that ruled in the
Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh changed hands several times but, says
Suny, “semi-independent Armenian princes” ruled there until the early
19th century, when the Russian Tzar annexed the region from Iran.

A century later, with the coming of the Russian Revolution, the
Armenian-dominated province tried to reunify with Soviet Armenia, but
the Turkish-supported Azerbaijanis forced them to remain part of
Azerbaijan. The communist Kavbiuro promised in 1920 to return the
region to Armenia, and resolved to do so on 3 July 1921. However,

“…mysteriously, two days later, the bureau reversed itself
‘considering the necessity of national harmony between Muslims and
Armenians, the economic linkage between upper and lower Karabagh, and
its permanent ties to Azerbaijan.”

Stalin had already found it useful for his greater Soviet strategy to
preserve this localized enmity, thus preventing either Armenia or
Azerbaijan from becoming too powerful or independent. Suny adds,

“…For sixty years Karabagh remained an enclave within Azerbaijan, an
anomaly in the Soviet system- the only autonomous national region
with a majority that was of the same ethnicity as a neighboring
Soviet republic yet was not permitted to join that republic.
Discontent with Azerbaijani rule grew, as discrimination against
Armenian language, culture, and contacts with Soviet Armenia became a
persistent practice. Armenians believed that Azerbaijan preferred to
invest economically in regions where its own nationality were a
majority rather than in Karabagh where 75 to 80 percent of the
population was Armenian.

…The city of Shusha, once an Armenian cultural center, became almost
entirely Azerbaijani. In 1959 Armenians made up 84.4 percent of
Karabagh’s population. Twenty years later they were just under 76
percent.” (pp. 194-5)

After Stalin’s death, nationalist ferment increased among Armenian
politicians, intellectuals and the people. This phenomenon was
mirrored in Azerbaijan. Both sides have long lists of grievances
detailing the murders, perfidy and general transgressions allegedly
carried out by the other side.

As could have been expected, the demise of the Soviet Union saw the
explosion of this long-suppressed, localized cold war. The rekindled
national zeal of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis led to open fighting
in 1992, which raged for two years, resulting in additional
grievances for the list-keepers.

According to Baku, 700,000 Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their
homes in Nagorno-Karabakh because of the war, as were 300,000 ethnic
Azerbaijanis then living in Armenia proper. Yet this had been
preceded by the expulsion of up to 300,000 ethnic Armenians from
Azerbaijan from 1988-90, when re-unification desires began to
intensify.

The current state of play

An international mediating committee called the Minsk Group, headed
by France, the United States and Russia, was set up in 1995. Yet
Nagorno-Karabakh is quite possibly one of the region’s great
unresolvable issues. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan consider the area
their historically rightful property, the former because they have
always lived there and the latter because their co-religionists, the
Turks and Iranians, ruled over the area for long periods.

Now, Azerbaijan is indignant because of alleged Armenian violations
of cease-fire agreements. For their part, Armenians are especially
incensed because of apparent Azerbaijani greed. Azerbaijan already
has official ownership of the Nakhichevan province, an
Azerbaijani-majority area on Armenia’s border with Iran- and one
completely cut off from any physical connection with Azerbaijan, a
situation comparable only to Russia’s ownership of the similarly
geographically estranged city of Kaliningrad. There is a sentiment
that due to this reality Armenia has already given away far too much-
especially considering the much earlier loss of the majority of its
historical territories to the Turkish state.

While the situation remains unresolved, Armenia feels it now has the
upper hand in Nagorno-Karabakh. The province is largely free of
Baku’s interference. Armenia also claims that a nearly-finalized deal
between the two countries, made by Kocharian and the late President
Aliyev, should be honored.

Key West: the agreement that almost was

According to Eurasianet’s Emil Danielyan, Armenia and Azerbaijan

“…have engaged in lots of political maneuvering in early 2004. Aliyev
and other leaders in Baku complained that existing Minsk Group
proposals fail to ensure that Karabakh would remain part of
Azerbaijan, going on to accuse the international community of tacitly
wanting to reward ‘Armenian aggression.’

Armenian officials, in turn, have repeated their claim that Karabakh
is now an ‘integral part’ of Armenia. ‘Our aim is to win
international recognition of the aforesaid, but it is difficult to
say when we will achieve this,’ Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian told
Yerevan TV on February 12. Armenian insists the only way to break the
existing impasse is to return to the agreement reportedly reached by
Kocharian and Ilham’s late father and predecessor, Heidar Aliyev,
during April 2001 talks on the Florida resort island of Key West.”

The reason Armenia will not consider returning to negotiations ‘from
scratch’ is that they believe Key West constituted a breakthrough,
and one that should be honored as final:

“Armenian officials say the Key West framework would effectively
transfer Karabakh to Armenia in return for Armenia’s withdrawal from
occupied territories in Azerbaijani proper. Armenia would also have
to guarantee unfettered transport and communication — and possibly
open a permanent land corridor — between the Nakhichevan exclave and
the rest of Azerbaijan. According to the chief US negotiator on
Karabakh, Rudolf Perina, the parties were ‘incredibly close’ to a
deal. ‘The issues of principle have been decided, and what is left
are technical differences,’ Perina told a conference in Washington in
May 2002.

In the aftermath of the Key West talks, according to the Armenian
version of events, Heider Aliyev suddenly and without explanation
backed away from the agreement. Today, Baku maintains no formal deal
ever existed. Azerbaijan’s presidential Chief of Staff, Novruz
Mammadov, said during a live video link between Baku and Yerevan on
February 13 that ‘there is no {Key West agreement] and there cannot
be any such document.'”

Despite the affirmation of the negotiations by American
representative Perina, Baku denies that an agreement was ever
reached. Instead, claimed Azerbaijani Presidential Chief of Staff
Novruz Mammadov Friday, “…certain people thought they could impose
some ideas on us, but we rejected them at once.”

Baku argues that Washington actually favors its own side: right now,
Azerbaijan is making hay of this year’s US State Department February
25 report on human rights, claiming that it supports its position
over Nagorno-Karabakh:

“…as usual, the Department of State recognized the continuing
aggression of Armenian against Azerbaijan.

…In the Report on human rights, it is noted that occupation of the
Azerbaijan territories is one of the major factors impeding
democratic and economic development of Azerbaijan. Further, it is
noted that the repeated violation by the Armenians in 2003 of the
ceasefire regime led to death of the civilians and militaries.”

Despite stepped up diplomatic efforts from the internationals,
prospects for peace remain distant. The young and untested
Azerbaijani president is more concerned with issues like the economy.
Recent provocations have not helped, either.

For example, Baku gleefully reported recently that its spy rings in
Yerevan have yet to be cracked:

“‘…Not a single agent of [Azerbaijani] Ministry of National Security
has ever been found in Armenia. This network is still functioning,’
Azerbaijani Minister of National Security Namiq Abbasov told
reporters. The minister didn’t rule out the possibility that the arch
foe neighbor, Armenia, also has infiltrated spies into Azerbaijan,
but said those spies would be gradually found out.”

Abbasov’s comments came in reaction to the recent Armenian
announcement that 5 Russian nationals had been arrested in Yerevan,
and charged with betraying military secrets to the Azerbaijanis.

Most galling for the Armenians, however, was the perceived
‘heroicization’ of an Azerbaijani soldier who hacked to death an
Armenian colleague on 19 February- ironically, at a NATO ‘Partnership
for Peace’ conference in Hungary. Emil Danielyan relays that for the
Yerevan daily ‘Aravot,’ “…this is a political murder provoked by that
country’s government which has been pursuing a policy of hatred
towards Armenians and filling Azerbaijani hearts with hostility.”

;file=article&sid=273

–Boundary_(ID_QiAWJvN3+K9gz9ggZCypxA)–

Naira Melkumian: Let’s Pass Victorious Path Together

Azg
9 Nov 04

$12,5 Million More Needed to Strengthen Artsakh

On November 25, “Hayastan” Pan-Armenian Fund will hold a TV marathon
in Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora. The sums accumulated through the
marathon will be assigned for the construction of “North-South”
road that is considered a key one in Artsakh. During the recent 4
years 57,2 km of the road has been constructed, while $12,5 million
are needed for the construction of the 31,5 km left. We talked with
Naira Melkumian, executive director, about the envisaged TV marathon
and the issues connected with the Fund’s activities.

– Mrs. Melkumian, are there any innovations in this year’s marathon
that can help accumulate money?

– TV marathons are being organized since 1996. We consider this
year’s marathon as not only a mere means of accumulating money, but
also a means that contributes to the communication of the Armenians
throughout the world and see the development of Armenia and Artsakh. We
also consider TV marathon as a patriotic arrangement that can unite
the nation. Millions of Armenians who love their motherland watch the
marathon. And we want to give them an opportunity to see Armenia as
it is. We aim to tell about the best sons of our nation during the TV
marathon. We have already unfolded large-scale propaganda that includes
some stories about Armenian philanthropist. We called the program
“Golden Book” and Nerses Catholicos’ life opens this series. “Never
refuse to pay your debts to your motherland,” words said by Alexander
Mantashiants, great Armenian philanthropist, became a slogan for
us. He addressed these words to the Armenian businessmen long ago.

– After being appointed an executive director, you have visited
a number of Armenian communities. What do you expect from this
year’s marathon?

– We hope that we will manage to gather sufficient money to complete
the construction of this road. We need $12,5 million more for the
construction of “North-South” road. We hope that our philanthropists
will be more active, they are always generous. But there is one issue
that they put forward in front of our nation: they are ready to hand
out huge sums for Armenia and the developments of the recent years
testify to that. But they want each Armenian to participate in these
activities. The activities of “Hayastan” Pan-Armenian Fund are based on
the idea that each Armenian should contribute to the strengthening of
his motherland. One may give millions of dollars, some other – just a
dollar. It is very important for the establishment of the fund. This
fund contributes to the maintenance of the state, of Artsakh and
it is not accidental that we direct our main activities to Artsakh
during the recent years. Artsakh is the part of our homeland that
receives no international aid and which is considered a risky zone for
investments. But we see that our efforts are not in vain, Artsakh is
developing. If each of us understands that in order to hold Artsakh in
our hands we need to develop it economically. In that case we can say
that Artsakh is an inseparable part of Armenia and the Armenian nation.

– We are through with the 50 per cent of road construction. What did
this road give Artsakh from the economic viewpoint?

– Roads and telecommunications are the guarantee for every state’s
development. The road indeed has great impact on Artsakh’s development.
There is a new hotel at the road section leading to Gandzasar. Drmbon
mine is already operating. This road will secure Martakert region’s
development. Besides being an agricultural region Martakert has
industrial potential. Plants of agricultural good processing spring
up at the paved sections of the road. There were 70 per cent more
tourists visiting Artsakh this year. The spheres of agriculture and
tourism are directly connected with roads. Artsakh should not lag
behind Armenia because if we want more people to settle there then we
should create conditions where people will feel as real citizens. The
Fund has created 1000 work places this year.

– Previous marathons showed that the Russian-Armenians stood aloof
of the money accumulation. What will you do this year to include
Russian-Armenians in the marathon?

– Firstly, Russia’s great Armenian community has to be objectively
evaluated. There are lot of wealthy Armenians there. But we should not
forget that this is a young community and that it has close ties with
Armenia. Russian-Armenians are rather generous at handing money out
and we should not try to drag more money out. I think the numbers are
not that important in this case. We must take into consideration that
Armenians invest in Russia and help their families here in Armenia.

– Travelers often share their good impressions of Stepanakert. But
Shushi leaves a sad impression on visitors. Do you have projects for
rebuilding the town?

– Shushi’s reconstruction is a great challenge that Armenians
should take. As soon as we are able to say that there is enough
money for the road, we may turn to Artsakh regions. I think Shushi
will be a priority in that case. The Board of the Trustees takes
our projects of strategic importance into consideration and I hope
that we’ll look forward to new programs from May. We are already
carrying out few projects in Shushi. There are donors who have started
reconstruction works. Shushi’s reconstruction has a personal meaning
for me. I adore Shushi and think that it should become a cultural
center for the Armenian nation. Shushi and Gyumri played a huge role
in the cultural life of Armenians and they both should gain their
former role in our lives.

By Tatoul Hakobian

Opposition figure says security chief resigned due to no changes in Armenia

Noyan Tapan news agency
8 Nov 04

Yerevan, 8 November: The chairman of the New Times Party, Aram
Karapetyan, thinks that Karlos Petrosyan has voluntarily resigned from
the post of chief of the National Security Service of the Republic
of Armenian. This announcement was made by Karapetyan at a meeting
with journalists on 6 November.

Karapetyan noted that Petrosyan “had been trying for a long time to
introduce changes in Armenia, especially in the economic sphere” and
“finally, the man got tired of all this”.

“I regard his resignation as voluntary, he was tired of fighting and
of seeing no changes in action,” Karapetyan said.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
November 2, 2004 Tuesday

Russia abstains from voting on UN GA agenda item on Karabakh

By Yelena Pankratyeva

MOSCOW

Russia abstained from voting in favor of putting an item concerning the
situation on Azerbaijan’s occupied territories on the agenda of the
U.N. General Assembly session.

Moscow believes that “the initiative of considering this issue at the
U.N. General Assembly session in parallel with its consideration by the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe can hardly produce
a positive impact on the negotiating process related to the
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement,” a Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry
official said.

The results of the voting “show that a majority of the members of the
international community stick to a similar position.”

Russia “is interested in a prompt solution to the Karabakh issue and is
doing all in its power to facilitate the solution, be it in a bilateral
format or in a its capacity as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk group.”

Moscow believes that the Minsk group format “enables it to handle any
issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and to secure progress
towards peace.” “A recent meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia outlined prospects for the resumption of the talks aiming to
find a mutually acceptable solution,” the Russian Foreign Affairs
Ministry official noted.

The U.N. General Assembly took a vote on the motion to put an item on
the situation in Azerbaijan’s occupied territories on the agenda of its
current, 59th session. Forty-two delegations voted in support of
Azerbaijan’s request, two delegations voted against with ninety-nine
states, including Russia, abstaining.

KurdishMedia.com

Armenia’s Yezidi struggle to find a post-Soviet identity
31 October 2004

Hetq online – By Onnik Krikorian

Armenia`s Yezidi community is the largest ethnic minority in the
Republic of Armenia. Yet, despite its small size, the community is
divided over its ethnic origins. Although many Yezidi outside of Armenia
consider themselves Kurds, in the Republic, most do not.

YEREVAN, Armenia — When Aziz Tamoyan sits behind his desk in the
cramped and dilapidated room that serves as his office in the Armenian
capital he says that he does so as President of the Republic’s largest
ethnic minority, the Yezidi. He also says that he is President of the
Yezidi worldwide even if few outside of Armenia appear to have heard of him.

Although their precise number is unknown, the followers of this small,
ancient Middle Eastern Religion are spread throughout Iraq, Syria,
Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, and, as recent immigrants and refugees, in
Germany. Widely misconceived as “devil worshippers” because they believe
that Lucifer is reconciled with the creator, Yezidism in fact combines
elements from Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Yet, despite the belief that the Yezidi are also ethnic Kurds who
resisted pressure to convert to Islam from the eleventh century onwards,
there have been attempts in Armenia to identify the minority as an
ethnic group separate from the Kurds since 1988. Moreover, in recent
years, and despite the fact that the Yezidi speak the Kurmanji dialect
of Kurdish, there have also been moves to reclassify their language as well.

Aziz Tamoyan, as President of the National Union of Yezidi in Armenia,
is considered to be one of the main proponents of such an initiative.

Pointing at the hand-made posters stuck on the wall to one side of his
cluttered desk, Tamoyan reads aloud the slogan that also serves as the
strap line for his newspaper. “My nationality is Yezidi, my language is
“Yezideren” and my religion is Sharfadin,” he proclaims, opening a copy
of “Yezdikhana” to reveal the results of the last census conducted in
Armenia three years ago.

“There are 40,620 Yezidi and 1,519 Kurds living in Armenia,” he
continues. “These are the official figures from the census and this
should be all that you need to know. The Yezidi have no connection with
the Kurds and there are no Moslem Kurds in Armenia. The 1,519 mentioned
are actually Yezidi who became Kurds and, according to the census,
nobody speaks Kurdish in Armenia.”

Tamoyan, however, doesn’t seem too interested in the section marked
“other” or the fact that few academics outside of the Republic appear to
agree with him. Instead, reflecting the deep divide that now exists
within the Yezidi community in Armenia, he wants to again emphasize that
not only is the very suggestion of any connection with the Kurds absurd,
but it is also insulting.

But Professor Philip Kreyenbroek, Chair of Iranian Studies at the
University of G?ettingen in Germany and a leading specialist on the
Kurds and the Yezidi of Turkey and Northern Iraq, disagrees.

“A community is naturally free to define its own identity but even so,
the Armenian Yezidi view is not easy to maintain,” he explains. “The
Yezidi religious and cultural tradition is deeply rooted in Kurdish
culture and almost all Yezidi sacred texts are in Kurdish. The language
all Yezidi communities have in common is Kurdish and most consider
themselves to be Kurds, although often with some reservations.”

And as if to illustrate the fact that these reservations have manifested
themselves in Armenia as a problem far out of proportion to the size of
the community, next door to Tamoyan’s office sits Amarik Sardar,
Chairman of the Council of Kurdish Intellectuals. Sardar is also the
editor of Riya Taza, established in 1930 and still the oldest surviving
Kurdish newspaper in the world.

“Unlike some people that confuse nationality with religion, I recognize
the distinction,” he says. “I am Yezidi by religion but also consider
myself to be a Kurd. The majority of Kurds in Armenia are also Yezidi
but apart from this religious distinction there is no other difference.”

Back next door, Tamoyan reacts angrily. “Nobody has the right to say
such things. If we are Kurds, why were 300,000 Yezidi killed along with
1.5 million Armenians during the Genocide [in Ottoman Turkey]? Why did
they [the Turks and Kurds] deport us? The Kurds are the enemies of both
the Armenians and the Yezidi.”

Indeed, most of Armenia ‘s Yezidi minority fled persecution and massacre
in Ottoman Turkey at the beginning of the twentieth century and it is
perhaps this shared experience that makes the issue of an albeit
non-Moslem Kurdish identity so sensitive in the Republic.

The Yezidi Movement in Armenia

During the atheistic system that determined identity based on language
in the soviet era, the Yezidi and Moslem Kurds living in Armenia were
once indeed considered members of the same ethnic group. However, during
the period of glasnost in 1988, some of Armenia’s Yezidi religious and
political leaders challenged this idea and a “Yezidi Movement” was formed.

The following year, an appeal was made to the soviet authorities
requesting that the Yezidi be considered as a separate nation. The
request was granted and in the last soviet-era census conducted in 1989,
out of approximately 60,000 Kurds that had been formerly identified as
living in the Soviet Republic of Armenia, 52,700 were for the first time
separately identified as Yezidis.

However, perhaps the timing for the emergence of this movement was not
entirely coincidental. In 1988, during the new period of “openness” that
defined the last years of the former Soviet Union, the Yezidi were not
the only ones to form a new national movement. In February, Armenians
took to the streets to demand that Nagorno Karabagh, a mainly
Armenian-inhabited territory situated within Moslem Azerbaijan, be
united with Christian Armenia.

The “Karabagh Movement” was born and pogroms against Armenians were
reported in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. In the tit-for-tat
expulsions that followed — marking the beginning of an ethnic conflict
that still remains unresolved to this day — 350,000 Armenians fled
Azerbaijan and 200,000 Azeris and Moslem Kurds left Armenia. The Yezidi,
along with smaller groups of other non-Moslem minorities, remained.

But Professor Garnik Asatrian, Director of the Caucasian Institute for
Iranian Studies in Yerevan — another driving force behind attempts to
identify the Yezidi as a separate nationality — disagrees that there
was any connection between the start of the conflict over Karabagh and
the promotion of a separate Yezidi identity. Instead, he says that
rivalry and animosity has always existed between the two groups.

“The Yezidi have always been persecuted by the Kurds,” he says, “and
they have a deep hatred for them. Although they speak Kurmanji, the
Yezidi don’t consider themselves Kurds and so, during the rebirth of
Armenia, it was natural that they try to regain their own identity and
religion. This was the main reason for the emergence of the Yezidi
movement.”

However, at a recent event in the predominantly Yezidi-inhabited village
of Shamiram in the Aragatsotn Region of Armenia, pro-Kurdish speeches
were made on a stage that was also shared with government and local
officials — and in front of an audience that somewhat ironically,
identified themselves as non-Kurds. At the event held at the end of
September was Heydar Ali, a Kurd from Iraq who openly identifies himself
as the Caucasus Representative of Kongra-Gel, the organization formerly
known as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

“Certain [Armenian] officials are using this artificial division in the
community for their own interests,” says Ali. “Of course, when the
Moslem Kurds and Azeris left Armenia, some Yezidi might have hid their
Kurdish identity because they were frightened but in general, the
attitude of Armenian society towards Kurdish issues is otherwise
positive. We have lived together for centuries and we also have some
common interests.”

Nineteen-year-old Gohar Saroava, for example, is one of the few Moslem
Kurds that remain in Armenia and says that her family and two Kurdish
neighbors living in an otherwise Armenian village in the Kotayk Region
of the Republic have never experienced any discrimination. As a young
journalist working for the Kurdistan Committee in Yerevan, she is also
very open about her views on the Yezidi.

“I write about Kurdish life in Armenia and about our leader, Abdullah
Ocalan,” she says. “I have come to this [Yezidi] event today because we
are Kurds. Our religions may be different but we are from the same nation.”

Despite Saroava’s own personal experience, however, that is not to say
that there are many other Moslem Kurds left in Armenia. According to
reliable estimates, their actual number stands at around a few hundred
individuals (at most). Even Government officials privately acknowledge
that the 1,519 Kurds recorded in the 2001 census are mainly those Yezidi
who instead identified themselves as Kurds.

“Another complicating factor seems to have been the lure of PKK ideology
which attracts some Armenian Yezidi as it does many others,” explains
Kreyenbroek. “As the PKK stresses that Kurdish identity takes precedence
over religious affiliations, those that are influenced by it naturally
go back to calling themselves Kurds.

“On the other hand,” he continues, “more traditional groups feel
threatened and deny the connection between the Kurds and Yezidi all the
more strongly. To a lesser extent the same developments can be seen in
Germany , where dislike of the PKK causes some Yezidi to play down their
Kurdish identity, stressing the Yezidi aspect.”

“The division of the Armenian Yezidi into one smaller group identifying
themselves as Kurds and Kurmanji-speakers and one group defining
themselves as Yezidi with their own language is part of the post-Soviet
search for Identity,” adds Dr. Robert Langer, a member of the Dynamics
of Ritual Collaborative Research Unit at Ruprecht Karls University of
Heidelberg in Germany .

And it is the issue of language that might prove to be the greatest and
most immediate problem facing the Yezidi in Armenia. According to
Hranush Kharatyan, Head of the Government’s Department for National
Minorities and Religious Affairs, so significant is the issue that it is
now “the most actual problem existing among national minorities in the
Republic of Armenia .”

When the Armenian Government considered ratifying Kurmanji as the name
for the language spoken by the Yezidi and Kurds, for example, emotions
ran high and Kharatyan, in her capacity as a Government official, says
she was accused and threatened by both sides. In particular, she says,
Yezidi spiritual leaders demanded that their language instead be
classified as “Yezidi” even if in private they acknowledge that it is
Kurmanji.

Unable to satisfy both sides of the community, therefore, the Armenian
Government instead ratified both “Yezidi” and “Kurdish” under the
European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages even though they
are in fact, the same tongue. Kharatyan, however, says that because the
issue is so sensitive, the Yezidi should be allowed to determine their
own identity.

But, while such an attitude is commendable given the complexity of the
problem, others remain convinced that there are those in positions of
power that are intent on interfering. Some Kurds, for example, allege
that the reason for promoting a non-Kurdish identity among the Yezidi is
to prevent Armenia from being accused of supporting Kurdish separatists
in neighboring Turkey .

And during the presidency of Levon Ter Petrosyan, senior officials
including the President himself denied that there were any Kurds at all
in Armenia. More recently, under President Robert Kocharyan, the results
of the 2001 census have only complicated matters. Hranush Kharatyan,
however, strongly denies that there has been any interference at all.

“Despite the fact that I am an ethnologist and a scientist, I will call
people with the same name that they are calling themselves,” she says.
“I also understand that during the establishment of a national identity
that this transformation brings with it some very difficult and serious
problems. Because of this, the Government of the Republic of Armenia
will not interfere.”

“I don’t know what will happen to both sides of the community,” she
concludes, “but I do know that there are some people who are trying to
establish themselves. In the world, this is not the only example. Right
now, Croatians and Serbs are enemies even though genetically, they are
the same nation. However, there are no genetic nations. Nations are
social and from time to time, things change.”

—

International Conference Focuses on EU-South Caucasus Relations

Eurasia
30/10/2004 13:42

International conference, organized by Friedrich Ebert Foundation and
South Caucasus Institute of Regional Security, is held in Tbilisi on
October 30-31 to focus on the South Caucasus countriesâ~@~Y foreign
policy priorities and relationship with the European Union.

One of the topics of discussion at the conference, which gathered
officials and representatives from the think-tank organizations
from the European and South Caucasus countries, will be EUâ~@~Ys
Neighborhood Policy.

In June the EU included the three Southern Caucasian countries â~@~S
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the European Neighborhood Policy.

–Boundary_(ID_G1rNtTK1+SSX1NmLZyEl5g)–

CENN – OCTOBER 28, 2004 DAILY DIGEST
Table of Contents:
1. Ex-Chief of GIOC to Advise Azeri Oil Company
2. Experts Propose New Method for Energy Tariff Calculation
3. $ 170 mln. Allocates for State oil Company
4. Cooperation Between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Field of Ecology
Impossible
5. Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran Prepare to Synchronize Energy Systems
6. International Energy Agency’s world energy outlook runs out of
control
7. Russia Eyes the Kyoto Market
8. IUCN Welcomes Russia’s Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
9. Regional Winners of 2004 Reuters-IUCN Environmental Media Awards
Announced

1. EX-CHIEF OF GIOC TO ADVISE AZERI OIL COMPANY

Source: Civil.ge, October 28, 2004

Azeri news agencies report that ex-chief of Georgian International Oil
Company (GIOC) Gia Chanturia was appointed as an advisor for the Azeri
State Oil Company. According to the reports Mr. Chanturia would
coordinate on Georgia-related projects with the Azeri company.

Mr. Chanturia presided over GIOC since its inception in 1995 and was
considered one of the closest allies of President Eduard Shevardnadze.
He was in charge of negotiating and implementing the construction of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines. Before the
November 2003 Rose Revolution, it was rumored that Chanturia may succeed
Shevardnadze after his retirement in 2005. Mikheil Saakashvili dismissed
Gia Chanturia on September 9, 2004.

Azeri internet portal Day.Az speculates that an arrest warrant on Mr.
Chanturia was issued in Georgia, but Azeri President Ilham Aliev vouched
for him with Saakashvili, who agreed on the condition that Chanturia
leaves Georgia.

2. EXPERTS PROPOSE NEW METHOD FOR ENERGY TARIFF CALCULATION

Source: Sarke, October 27, 2004

Experts have proposed to review the energy tariff in case of the 7 per
cent change of the lari exchange rate instead of the current 5 per cent,
according to the National Energy Regulation Commission. Temur
Torjanidze, a professor, and Levan Jamberia, a programmer from the
Razmadze Mathematics Institute, have worked out an adequate mathematic
model.

3. $ 170 MLN ALLOCATES FOR STATE OIL COMPANY

Source: State Telegraphic Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Azertag,
October 25, 2004

Agreement on allocation of the credit in $ 170 mln will be signed
between the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic / SOCAR/ and
European Bank of Reconstruction and Development / EBRD/ in Baku, AzerTAj
correspondent reports.

$110 mln will be spent for financing of 10% share of Shah-Deniz gas
condensate well, as well as $60 mln for trusteeship on the construction
of the Southern Caucasus gas pipeline.

4. COOPERATION BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA IN THE FIELD OF ECOLOGY
IMPOSSIBLE

Source: State Telegraphic Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Azertag,
October 26, 2004

Cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the field of ecology is
impossible since the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh conflict is
not settled. Minister of ecology and natural resources of Azerbaijan
Huseyngulu Bagirov at conference of the ministers of environment of the
countries of the East Europe, Caucasus and the Central Asia, which was
taken place in Tbilisi, stated it. Officials have taken part in work of
conference from the European Union, the USA, and also representatives of
some international organizations.

As was informed to correspondent of AzerTAj in the press-service of the
ministry of ecology and natural resources, during discussions around the
question on regional cooperation and presentation of the report
Environment and the initiative of safety on the Southern Caucasus,
prepared by OSCE, UNDP and the Program of the United Nations on
environment, the head of the Azerbaijan delegation, minister Huseyngulu
Bagirov in reply to the offer of the international organizations
concerning cooperation with Armenia, has called them to act from real
positions and has stated that in conditions of absence of safety for
life of people in zone of the conflict there can not be a speech about
the solution of problems of ecological safety in any way. It has been
marked, that as a result of occupational policy of Armenia, serious
damage was caused to the unique nature of region, and natural riches of
Azerbaijan are plundered. Non-alignment of some countries of region to
the conventions regulating ecological questions of trans-national
character prevents solution of available problems, in particular,
connected with the Kur River.

At the conference, also were discussed realization of ecological
strategy for the countries of the East Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
adopted at the Kiev conference of ministers of environment of the
European countries last year. The head of the Azerbaijan delegation who
has acted at the Conference, devoted to questions of partnership of
private and public sectors at realization of strategy, has told about
the successes achieved in Azerbaijan in sphere of preservation of
environment, and on the basis of concrete examples has informed on
synthesis of private and public sectors in the decision of environmental
problems.

During discussion of the questions of partnership between the
countries-participants of strategy and international donors, the
Azerbaijani minister, speaking about donors in solution of environmental
problems, with the purpose to reduce dependence on the donor assistance,
has expressed a wish about more effective utilization of national
resource.

Minister Huseyngulu Bagirov has carried out in Tbilisi also a number of
meetings – with the prime minister of Georgia Zurab Zhvania, minister of
protection of environment and natural resources of this country Tamara
Lebanidze and minister of Moldova – Konstantin Mikhailesku, and also
with heads of the international organizations.

5. AZERBAIJAN, RUSSIA, IRAN PREPARE TO SYNCHRONIZE ENERGY SYSTEMS

Source: RFE/RL Newsline, 28 October, 2004

A draft agreement has been prepared that will pave the way for an
exchange of electric power between Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran,
Interfax reported on 26 October citing the Azerenergy press service.
Russian Unified Energy Systems (EES) chief Anatolii Chubais discussed
the draft agreement, under which the three countries would provide each
other with power during winter months and in the case of emergency, with
President Aliyev during a visit to Baku last week. ITAR-TASS on 20
October quoted Chubais as telling journalists in Baku that a
Russian-Azerbaijani delegation will travel to Iran shortly in the hope
of finalizing the exchange agreement.

6. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY’S WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK RUNS OUT OF
CONTROL

Source: ENWL-eng, October 28, 2004

Amsterdam, October 26th 2004 — Greenpeace today criticized the
International Energy Agency (IEA) to fail to properly assess the world’s
energy trends for the next decades in its “World Energy Outlook 2004”
which was presented today. The IEA contradicts its own publications on
energy efficiency and ignores the scientifically recognized need for an
urgent, global shift away from fossil fuels in the interest of
protecting the climate.

“With this report, the IEA sends a dangerous signal to policy makers and
the industry worldwide to continue to massively waste energy, burn
fossil fuels and forget about climate change,” says Jan Vande Putte of
Greenpeace International.

The IEA today presented its annual ‘World Energy Outlook’, which
predicts that if governments stick with the policies in force, the
world’s energy needs will be almost 60% higher in 2030 than they are
now, electricity demand will double and CO2 emissions will increase by
more than 60%.

In IEA’s view, fossil fuels will continue to dominate, with shares of
nuclear power and renewable energy remaining limited. Furthermore, they
neglect their own research on energy efficiency (1) and disregard the
draft EU directive on energy efficiency, which sets an objective of
decreasing energy demand by 1% per year (2).

Aside from their ‘Reference’ scenario, the IEA is presenting an
‘Alternative’ scenario with a decrease of CO2 emissions by 16%, needing
a “technological breakthrough” and a shift to renewable and nuclear
power.

“Despite the ‘Alternative’ scenario, the IEA remains fixated on old and
dirty fossil fuel technologies, and neglects the ongoing boom of
renewable energy technologies,” says Jan Vande Putte. “Wind energy has
been growing at an average of 30% over the last decade and is costs
competitive with coal and cheaper then nuclear power, despite massive
subsidies for both dirty technologies.” (3)

The UK government’s Energy Review estimates that by 2020 wind power
will be the cheapest available electricity source, even beating gas. A
report from Greenpeace and the European Wind Energy Association
estimates that by 2020, more than 12% of the global electricity needs
could be generated by wind. The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)
(4) estimated that by 2030, renewables could supply 35% of the global
energy needs.

“By massively investing in available renewable and efficiency
technologies and ruling out dirty and expensive nuclear and fossil
fuels, a genuinely sustainable energy sector is possible.” said Jan
Vande Putte. “With an estimated 16 trillion dollars to be invested in
the next 25 years, the world has a clear choice: either put the money in
destruction or in solutions.”

Notes to Editor:

1) IEA, Cool Appliances – Policy Strategies for Energy Efficient Homes
Paris, 2003.
2) 2) European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on the Promotion of
End-use efficiency and Energy Services, COM (2003) 739 final

3) EWEA and GREENPEACE, Wind Force 12. May 2004.
d%20Force%2012.pdf)
4) EREC, Renewable Energy Scenario to 2040. 2004.
cenario%202040.pdf

7. RUSSIA EYES THE KYOTO MARKET

Source: ENWL-eng, October 28, 2004

LONDON, Oct 22 (IPS) – Nobody stands to gain more than Russia through
its move to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement to cut
atmosphere-warming emissions and through that to contain climate change.

Clearly Russian President Vladimir Putin did not wake up one day and
decide to do his bit to cool down a warming atmosphere. Ratification had
its reported opponents within Russia but few can argue that at least for
the next eight years Russia has much to gain and little to lose.

Ratification by the Lower Duma is expected to be approved by the upper
house of Parliament and then by President Putin, all within the next
couple of weeks. That would then satisfy conditions for the Kyoto
Protocol to come into force.

The protocol had been awaiting ratification by at least 55 countries
said to be producing at least 55 percent of greenhouse gases
(principally carbon dioxide and methane that are said to cause global
warming). Russian entry would take it past the barrier.

The Kyoto Protocol would bind signatory countries to reduce emissions to
at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012. The
overwhelming view of climate scientists is that this would be too little
to do the climate much good. But a lot of companies stand to gain
through mechanisms agreed to make such reduction possible.

And with companies, countries; and none more than Russia. Its
representative had made sure of that at a meeting in Marrakesh in
Morocco in November 2001. The Marrakesh agreements set out the nuts and
bolts for implementation of the Kyoto targets. The Marrakesh agreements
are more significant than the protocol itself signed in Kyoto in Japan
in 1997.

The principal tools given shape were emissions trading, two other
agreements called joint implementation (JI) and the clean development
mechanism (CDM), and the so-called carbon sinks. Hard bargaining by
Russia at Marrakesh gave it strong advantages in all these.

Under emissions trading a company that is emitting less than its
permissible limit of greenhouse gases can ‘sell’ the excess credit to a
company counted as emitting more. The idea is that the buying company
can find this a cheaper option than introducing technology to reduce
emissions.

Under joint implementation an agreed group of industrialised countries
(what are called the Annex I countries of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change) were allowed to gain credits for reduction
of emissions by implementing reduction measures in other countries on
the same list. In effect this would mean implementation in Eastern
Europe where the cost of implementing such measures would be much less.

Under the CDM credits could be earned for emissions-savings in projects
in developing countries where measures were likely to cost even less
than in Eastern Europe. Carbon sinks was a facility to gain credit
through the existence of forests, on the ground that trees absorb carbon
dioxide and therefore count as contribution towards carbon reduction.

These measures all place Russia in an enviable position. Following a
decline in industrial activity in the 1990s, emissions in Russia have
been calculated – on the basis of data supplied by the Russian
government FB to have fallen to 30 percent below 1990 levels anyway.
That means Russian industry has to do virtually nothing to meet its
reductions target by the end of the first Kyoto reduction period
(2008-2012).

The low recorded emissions translates potentially as a lucrative
industry for emissions trading, that is due to begin within the European
Union (EU) from January next year. It is hardly a coincidence that
Russian ratification means that the Kyoto protocol will take effect at
the same time. Russia would be on the emissions market straightaway for
EU emissions trading and for wider emissions trading among other Kyoto
signatory countries.

Since Russian industry is emitting far less than the quota its officials
have negotiated, large sections of the Russian industry will be in a
position to ‘sell’ their quotas to emit more. Depending on how the
market goes, this could bring significant income for Russian industry
with almost no investment required to upgrade to more
environment-friendly technology.

At the same time Russian industry is well-placed through investments and
partnerships in Eastern Europe through historical associations to claim
reductions in emissions to its credits at a cost far lower than is
likely for Western industry. It can also add to its huge reserves of the
right to emit through CDM projects. Both these provide cheap
opportunities for Russia to develop new environment-friendly technology,
which too it can sell.

Russia finally capitalised on its huge lakes and forest reserves
available to count to its credit by way of carbon sinks. Russian
officials managed at Marrakesh to double the amount of credits it was
assigned for these ‘sinks’ from 17 million tonnes of carbon to 33
million tonnes. The Russian demand was accepted because if it rejected
the Kyoto protocol as the United States had done, the protocol itself
would be seen to collapse.

Russian leaders waited seven years after the Kyoto protocol to move
towards ratification. Because it is only now that the Kyoto protocol is
taking shape as the Kyoto market.

8. IUCN WELCOMES RUSSIA’S RATIFICATION OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

Source: IUCN October 22, 2004

IUCN – The World Conservation Union warmly congratulates the Russian
Federation on today’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the only
international agreement aimed at slowing global warming. Russia’s
ratification has been the key to Kyoto’s coming into force since 2001
when the United States pulled out of the pact. The Protocol stipulates
that it must be ratified by industrialized countries whose combined 1990
emissions exceed 55% of that group’s total. With Russia accounting for
17% of emissions, it was the only country outside of the US who could
push the agreement over that threshold, and bring it into force. “Today
marks a turning point in the history of efforts to tackle climate change
as a global community of nations. We now have a binding international
agreement. It may just be a beginning but the costs of inaction would
have been far higher to the increasingly vulnerable communities around
the world,” said IUCN Director General Achim Steiner.

9. REGIONAL WINNERS OF 2004 REUTERS-IUCN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA AWARDS
ANNOUNCED

Source: IUCN October 25, 2004

Reuters Foundation and IUCN – The World Conservation Union today
announced the regional winners of the 2004 Reuters-IUCN Media Awards for
Excellence in Environmental Reporting, who will vie for the global prize
of US$ 5,000. Her Majesty Queen Noor, IUCN Patron, will present awards
to these six winners and announce the global winner of the 2004
Reuters-IUCN Media Awards at a ceremony in Bangkok, Thailand, on 18
November, during the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress. The regional
winners – representing Latin America, North America and Oceania, Europe,
Asia, English-speaking Africa and the Middle East and French-speaking
Africa – have been selected from some 300 print entries from over 50
countries. A global winner will be chosen from the six regional winners
by a Global Master Jury, comprised of Her Majesty Queen Noor, Mr Geert
Linnebank, Reuters Chief News Editor, Mrs Yolanda Kakabadse, IUCN
President, Mr Dennis Dimick, Senior Editor, Environment and Technology,
National Geographic Magazine, Mr Mario Lubetkin, Director General of the
Inter Press Service, and Ms Denise Ham?, Chair of IUCN Commission on
Education and Communication and CEO of WWF-Brazil.

–Boundary_(ID_dDi6MZjM+RwSLSNVNff4RQ)–

Armenian church holds annual dance

Press & Sun-Bulletin, NY
27 Oct. 2004

Binghamton’s St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Church will host
its fifth annual fund-raising Armenian Dance from 8 p.m. to “after
midnight” Saturday at the Kalurah Temple, 625 Dickson St., Endicott.
Featured will be Armenian delicacies, door prizes, raffles and dancing
to the New England Ararat Orchestra, which specializes in Armenian
and American music.

Admission: $25 (students and ages 6-18, $12). Buy tickets at the
door, or, for reservations, call 237-6330 or 722-8801, or visit
[email protected].

New Silk Road linking China to west Europe to be completed within 10 years

Agence France Presse — English
October 27, 2004 Wednesday 5:18 AM GMT

BEIJING Oct 27 — A new Silk Road connecting China’s hinterland with
the industrial centers of western Europe is expected to be completed
within 10 years, officials involved in the project were cited as
saying Wednesday.

The road will extend westward from eastern China through central
Asian and European countries to the Atlantic Ocean.

“Ten years is a reasonable goal,” Antony Pearce, acting
director-general of the International Road Federation (IRF), was
quoted as saying by the Xinhua news agency.

“If you look at what China has achieved in the last five years,
it is an achievable goal.”

The IRF advocated rehabilitating the ancient Silk Road seven years
ago to meet the increasing demand for businesses among countries
along the route.

China completed its section stretching 4,395 kilometres (2,724 miles)
from Lianyungang in east Jiangsu province to Helgus in northwest
Xinjiang region this month, cutting a two-week journey to 50 hours.

Chaos caused by war in some regions along the road has temporarily
delayed progress over the past five years, but officials remain
confident of its completion within their expected timeframe.

At present, transportation capacity of the section from Turkey
to China, crossing Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Kazakhstan, cannot meet the demand.

Pearce said the job at hand was to “connect the missing link.”

“The important thing is that this road crosses many countries, what
we need to do is collaboration and cooperation of these countries to
realize the goal of reconstructing this road,” he said.

Transportation ministers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia,
Iran, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are currently meeting in China to discuss
the project.

In a statement, they said they would exploit ways of financing from
international institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, and
further increase investment in transport infrastructure.

They also agreed to create favorable trans-boundary and cross-border
transport conditions to further remove non-physical barriers.

Agreement was also reached to establish an open and sustainable
integrated transport system to provide safe and reliable services
for passengers and freight.

Xinhua said China has already drafted several transport pacts with
central Asian countries.

With rapid development in China and other central Asian regions,
Europe is increasing turning its eyes towards their markets, and a
road network is seen as vital to transport goods.

The Silk Road has a history of more than 2,000 years and served as
an important bridge for economic and cultural exchanges between the
East and the West.

It connected the ancient Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arabic, Greek and
Roman civilizations.