Author: Vorskanian Yeghisabet

Azeris urge Europe’s football body to ban Karabakh FC from Armenian league

Ekho, Baku
1 Dec 04

Text of E. Aliyev’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 1 December
headlined “AFFA protests at the Karabakh team’s participation in the
Armenian championship”

The secretary-general of the Association of Football Federations of
Azerbaijan (AFFA), Fuad Asadov, has sent a letter to the UEFA chief
executive, Lars-Christer Olsson, asking the European body to
investigate the participation of FC Lernain Artsakh from Xankandi
[Stepanakert] in the Armenian championship.

The point is that according to the well-known Russian weekly magazine
Football, the team from the self-styled republic played in the second
division of the Armenian championship this year and won the right to
play in Armenia’s first division next year.

“We have addressed UEFA twice. In our letters, we alerted UEFA to the
fact that FC Lernain Artsakh is playing in the Armenian
championship. This is completely illegal because Nagornyy Karabakh is
an integral part of Azerbaijan and teams from one country cannot take
part in the championship of another. This runs counter to the
principles of UEFA and FIFA,” Fuad Asadov told Ekho.

After AFFA’s letters, UEFA addressed the Armenian football federation
which started denying the information. The secretary-general of the
Armenian federation, Armen Minasyan, whom Fuad Asadov met in
Switzerland, denied the reports as well.

“Minasyan told me: ‘Do you really think that we don’t know the laws of
international football organizations?’ However, the material published
in Football proves that the Armenians lied, which is quite typical of
them. I hope UEFA will look into the issue and ban this team from
playing in the Armenian championship,” he said.

Baku, Rome sign joint declaration

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Nov 26 2004

Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Margherita Boniver arrived in
Baku on Thursday as part of her tour of the South Caucasus region.
The Italian diplomat met with President Ilham Aliyev, Prime Minister
Artur Rasizada and Deputy Foreign Minister Khalaf Khalafov. Boniver
and her Azerbaijani counterpart Khalafov discussed issues related to
prospects for cooperation, expanding participation of Italian companies
in Azerbaijan’s energy and non-oil sector, as well as the situation
with the settlement of the Upper Garabagh conflict. In conclusion of
the discussions, the Azerbaijani and Italian deputy foreign ministers
signed a joint declaration on a consultative forum on economic issues.*

Newropeans Magazine, France
Nov 25 2004

Turkey: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow?
– 1st Part –

© Newropeans Magazine

An exhibition currently at the German Historical Museum on the Unter
den Linden in Berlin entitled Myths of the Nations has attracted
considerable attention with its displays of how people from different
nations have formed and reformed the narratives of their experiences
both of WWII and the Holocaust over the past sixty years. The purpose
of the exhibition is to impress upon the visitor that national memory
is really the past continuously re-interpreted through the present.

United Kingdom , our partner
Nowhere have the memories of the war faded. On the contrary, they are
constantly being renewed in ever-changing variations (German
Historical Museum, Berlin, November 2004)

However, experiencing the layered myths of Berlin at an exhibition
would remain incomplete if does not also include a long look in the
mirror. The Germans have accepted the responsibility for untangling
their past. But there is such terrible history elsewhere – the Gulag,
the ‘disappeared’, Cambodia, Rwanda – that needs to be stripped of
congealed myth and denial.

This congealed myth and denial also applies to Turkey and the
massacres perpetrated by the Ottoman regime against Armenians in
Turkey between 1896 and 1923 – including the Armenian Genocide of
1915. And it becomes even more vivid and germane today as Turkey
gears up to enter into negotiations with the EU with a view toward
membership of the European Club some time after 2015 – assuming that
the negotiations proceed on time and without major hitches.

It is therefore understandable that Turkish candidacy to the EU has
opened up discussions regarding Turkish ‘appurtenance’ to this
regional club. My earlier article of 31 August 2004 entitled Dreaming
West, Moving East focused on some of the issues – from geography to
demography to history to human rights – that are part of the present
discourse. A Convention in Brussels organised last month by the
European Armenian Federation also focused, inter alia, on Turkish EU
membership.

So it seems churlish to re-hash those same points today, save to add
that there are serious concerns voiced by Armenians and non-Armenians
alike not so much over the issue of candidacy per se as much as over
the conditions under which Turkey is being admitted into the EU. In
my view, these conditions or criteria are still not being met today.

Happy is he who calls himself a Turk is the slogan that was devised
by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, as he set about
forging a fresh ‘European’ identity for his people. And for most of
the past eighty years, those principles have been held sacrosanct by
the Turkish authorities that have brooked no criticism and tolerated
no dissent or divergence of opinion.

As the latest edition of the Economist magazine writes, Turkey has
indefatigably tried to consolidate its European character over the
past century. It joined the Council of Europe on 9 August 1949, and
later the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on 18 February 1952. As
far back as 1963, General Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer
had already acknowledged Turkey’s ‘vocation’ to join the European
Community. A Customs Union Treaty was signed on 1 January 1996, and
ever since the EU Council of Ministers’ summits of Helsinki (1999)
and Copenhagen (2002), a tacit understanding was concluded that
negotiations would open between Turkey and the EU in 2005.

But this tacit understanding was also clearly predicated on a number
of ‘pre-conditions’ that Turkey would need to fulfil in the
political, legal and socio-economic spheres prior to negotiations. I
would argue that some of those fundamental criteria have not been met
by Turkey to date. It is quite true that we have witnessed a number
of reforms toward democracy under the present Turkish government.
State-run military courts are in the process of disappearing, the
death penalty has been abolished, the defence of ‘attenuating
circumstances’ in honour killings has been suppressed and the
penalisation of adultery has been abandoned. Also, as the
London-based Minority Rights International qualified in a recent
report, there have been noticeable improvements in the case of
minorities – notably the Kurds.

However, this veneer belies some serious inconsistencies and abuses
of human rights that are either being fudged or side-stepped by the
European Commission in its assessment of Turkey’s readiness toward
negotiations and eventual possible accession. Let me provide simply
one example that underlines a culture of repression still prevalent
within the Turkish establishment that makes sharp distinctions
between reforms on paper and implementation in practice. Three years
ago, the Turkish government set up a panel to take a broad look at
questions of human rights and identity, and to suggest how matters
could be improved on the ground. But the government got more than it
expected: the Board’s report, out last month, included statements
that were considered almost unutterable in Turkey, triggering a sharp
backlash.

Dr Harry Hagopian, Ecumenical, Legal & Political Consultant
Armenian Apostolic Church – London

–Boundary_(ID_39cXW3qRaReINPdvNTu20g)–

Karabakh authorities grant status to refugees from Azerbaijan

Arminfo, Yerevan
25 Nov 04

Stepanakert , 25 November: The Nagornyy Karabakh authorities are carrying out
consistent work to grant a status to refugees living on the territory of the
republic.

At present, registration of people who were deported from Azerbaijan in
1988-92 is being carried out in order to grant them refugee status, the chief of
the NKR department for refugees, migration and resettlement, Serzh Amirkhanyan,
has told an Arminfo special correspondent in Stepanakert. About 900 families
have already undergone registration in the republic.

Talking about the importance of the law “On refugees” adopted at the end of
2003, the chairman of the standing commission on social issues of the NKR
National Assembly, Vasiliy Atadzhanyan, noted in particular that in line with the
law, refugees in the NKR are to receive a status which will allow them to have
the privileges, services and assistance envisaged in the world practice.

Moreover, in accordance with their status, legally they will have the same
rights as refugees in Azerbaijan and Armenia, which will allow them to lay
claims for compensation for damages and losses to the state from where they
emigrated forcibly, in their case to Azerbaijan, Amirkhanyan noted.

NKR President’s Meetings In California

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

The Armenian community of California supported the aspiration of
their compatriots of the eastern states of the USA to increase aid
to Nagorni Karabakh.

Like the Armenians of Boston, New York, Detroit and other cities of
the USA the Armenians of California are eager to take part actively in
the November 25 telethon aimed to raise money for the construction
of the road “North-South” which has a strategic importance for
NKR. The evidence to this is the results of the meeting of the NKR
president Arkady Ghukassian with the representatives of the Armenian
community of California where he arrived on November 19. During the
meeting with a group of Armenian businessmen and benefactors at the
town of New Port Beech, among them Levon and Zara Ghukassian, Ralf
and Savy Tufenkian, Costy and Maryann, as well as Hakob and Maria
Shirvanian told their intention of making their own contribution to
the development of Artsakh. At the same time they pointed out that the
activity of the Armenian community of the USA is directly related to
the increasing confidence in the NKR president and the democratic and
economic reforms undertaken by him. This idea was highlighted during
all the meetings of Arkady Ghukassian in America, especially during
the receptions organized by the board of chairmen of the Armenian
General Benevolent Union and the California branch of the AGBU. In
his address the director of the branch Vahe Imastunian stressed the
importance of the NKR president’s visit to the USA in promoting the
relationships between Artsakh and the Armenian community. In his
turn Ghukassian thanked them for their frank wish to help Artsakh,
and this means that hopefully this year the necessary financial
means will be obtained for finishing the construction of the road,
and next year it will be possible to start the implementation of
other important programs for the overall development of Artsakh. At
the same time he emphasized that during the upcoming telethon the
active participation of the Diaspora will show to the world once again
that they are not apart from the fate of Artsakh. Arkady and Irina
Hovhannissian also promised to participate in the telethon during
the meeting with the NKR president. During the press conference with
local Armenian journalists Arkady Ghukassian again touched upon the
social and economic development of Artsakh and the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. “Artsakh won the war imposed on it owing to the
support of Armenia and the Diaspora,” stated the NKR president. “I am
sure that together we will achieve similar results in the economic
confrontation.” Speaking about the prospects of settlement of the
Karabakh conflict Arkady Ghukassian emphasized that it goes without
saying that Nagorni Karabakh cannot be within Azerbaijan. “We aim
to achieve the de jure recognition of Nagorni Karabakh,” stated
the NKR president. He gave a negative evaluation of the actions of
Baku authorities trying to set forth the question of the so-called
“occupied territories” for discussion at the UN and characterized
these actions as provocative steps. According to him, such steps of
Baku aggravate the already complicated Karabakh issue. The president
of NKR mentioned that the problems of territory and refugees were the
consequences of the military aggression of Azerbaijan against Nagorni
Karabakh. “The main issue of the conflict is the status of Nagorni
Karabakh,” stated Arkady Ghukassian and added that neglecting the
question of Nagorni Karabakh status renders meaningless the discussion
of all the other questions related to overcoming the consequences of
the military confrontation. On November 22 Arkady Ghukassian attended
the Sunday service at the church Saint Karapet in Hollywood served by
the archbishop of the Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church
Parghev Martirossian. The meetings of the NKR president are continuing.

AA.
24-11-2004

ROW OVER ELECTORAL REFORM SPLITTING ARMENIAN COALITION

Emil Danielyan

Eurasianet
11/23/04

An increasingly bitter dispute over election rules for future
parliamentary elections could cause a split within Armenia’s governing
coalition.

The Republican Party (HHK) of Prime Minister Andranik Markarian is at
loggerheads with its two subordinate coalition partners, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and the Orinats Yerkir (Country of
Law) party. The dispute centers on the composition of parliament,
or, more specifically, how MPs are elected.

According to the existing law, 75 of the 131 members of the National Assembly
are elected under the proportional system, with voters choosing a list of
candidates fielded by a party or bloc. The remaining 56 seats are distributed in
single-mandate constituencies under the first-past-the-post, or “majoritarian”
system prevalent in the United States and Britain.

The vast majority of the Armenian lawmakers elected under the majoritarian
system are wealthy government-connected individuals. In the overwhelming number
of instances, these individuals wield immense economic influence within their
respective constituencies, and are widely believed to have secured victory at
the polls through bribery and manipulation. Many of them are affiliated with,
or backed by the HHK — a key reason why Markarianâ~@~Ys party has the largest
parliament faction and controls most local governments. The HHK is certainly
Kocharianâ~@~Ys most influential supporter.

The junior coalition members would prefer to do away with first-past-the-post
constituencies, and base future elections entirely on the proportional
system. At the very least, they want to reduce the number of majoritarian seats
in
the legislature. The ARF, also known as Dashnaktsutiun, has warned that it
could quit the coalition if the HHK continues to oppose a move to increase the
number of parliamentary seats determined under the proportional system.

“Dashnaktsutiun reserves the right to reconsider its participation in the
coalition government in the event of a breach of the goals spelled out in the
[June 2003] memorandum on its [the coalitionâ~@~Ys] creation,” warned Armen
Rustamian, one of its leaders. He said expansion of the proportional system was
one of
the key terms of the coalitionâ~@~Ys power-sharing accord.

The coalition cabinet has been beset by internal wrangling ever since its
creation following the May 2003 parliamentary elections, which were marked by
widespread accusations of fraud. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive
]. The ARF has regularly expressed its dissatisfaction with the slow pace of
economic improvement, persisting government corruption and what its leaders
characterize as the “power of money” in the impoverished country. The
influential
nationalist party, which has branches in Armeniaâ~@~Ys worldwide Diaspora,
toughened its rhetoric in early November after the HHK torpedoed its efforts at
electoral reform.

The two sides have tried unsuccessfully in recent weeks to bridge their
differences. Tigran Torosian, a deputy parliament speaker and an HHK leader,
said
on November 23 that the Republicans will make a final attempt to strike a
compromise deal later this week. Their failure to reach agreement would set the
stage for Kocharianâ~@~Ys personal intervention in the row, which has already
proven
debilitating for the governing coalition. Keeping all of his major allies
happy will be a difficult task, observers in Yerevan say.

Despite the recent rise in heated rhetoric, HHK leaders have been quick to
shrug off the threat of an ARF departure. “Let nobody think that we become very
concerned and nervous every time they talk about leaving [the coalition],”
Markarian said in a recent newspaper interview.

Of all the other Armenian parties only Orinats Yerkir, which is led by
parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian, did reasonably well in individual races
in
the 2003 parliament elections. Yet it too wants a greater share for the
party-list seats. Proponents of the proportional system say that it would spur
the
development of political parties. Increased political competition, in turn,
would
make it more difficult for one party to get away with voting irregularities.

In a bid to prevail in the dispute, the rival camps have turned to other
political groups for support. The Republicans are strongly backed on the issue
by
the Peopleâ~@~Ys Deputy group of non-partisan lawmakers. Orinats Yerkir and the
ARF, meanwhile, have enlisted the support of the United Labor Party (MAK), a
small pro-Kocharian group also represented in the current legislature.

MAK leader Gurgen Arsenian claimed on November 18 that “new realignments”
could occur both inside the parliament and the government. He said opponents of
the majoritarian system are prepared to take “drastic steps,” which he declined
to specify. “Time will tell whether or not there will be a change in the
coalition format,” Arsenian told reporters. “I donâ~@~Yt rule that out.”

The existing balance of forces in parliament favors the HHK, the most
powerful government faction. Together with the Peopleâ~@~Ys Deputy group, they
hold about
60 parliament seats compared to less than 40 seats controlled by their
pro-presidential opponents. However, the junior coalition members could end up
winning the electoral rules debate if they gain the support of the 23 lawmakers
representing Armeniaâ~@~Ys two main opposition groups, the Artarutiun (Justice)
alliance the National Unity Party (AMK).

Whether the opposition parties are willing to join forces with the junior
coalition members on the electoral rules issue is uncertain at this point.
Artarutiun and the AMK are both known to be strong advocates of proportional
representation, but they have boycotted parliament sessions since February 2004.
The
boycott is linked to the pro-presidential parliament majorityâ~@~Ys refusal to
consider a “referendum of confidence” in Kocharian. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive].

The opposition refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Kocharianâ~@~Ys victory in
the 2003 presidential vote. For more than a year after the election, the
opposition pursued a popular protest strategy against Kocharian. That effort,
however, failed to attract a sufficient following that could exert pressure on
the
president to either change political course, or step down. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].

Since abandoning the protest strategy, opposition leaders have kept a low
profile, waiting for an opportunity to capitalize on the renewed government
infighting. They may now believe such an opportunity is at hand and try to stoke
the intra-governmental tensions by openly backing the electoral reform
championed by the ARF. All of which makes the fast resolution of the coalition
dispute
even more urgent for Kocharian.

Editorâ~@~Ys Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and political
analyst.

–Boundary_(ID_mfgWO/sJCL6o5V4fBWfeQg)–

Foreign bases in Azerbaijan to damage regional security – analytical group

Zerkalo, Baku
20 Nov 04

The deployment of foreign military bases in Azerbaijan will have a
negative impact on the whole system of regional security, an Azeri
analytical group has said. Commenting in Azeri daily Zerkalo on
recent reports about the possible US military presence in the country,
the analytical group said that such a move would change the regional
balance in Azerbaijan’s favour, but this would be temporary and the
country would have to face “legal and illegal” protests from its
neighbours, Russia and Iran. The USA is trying to use Azerbaijan as
a bridgehead for invading Iran since it is impossible to do it from
Iraq and Afghanistan. In this connection, Azerbaijan should conduct
a well-balanced policy taking into account the interests of all the
regional powers and avoid deploying foreign troops on its territory,
the analytical group said in conclusion. The following is an excerpt
from the CGR analytical group’s report in Azerbaijani newspaper
Zerkalo on 20 November headlined “Azerbaijan is a bridgehead for a
US invasion of Iran” and subheaded “Or we should not hurry to deploy
American bases here”; subheadings inserted editorially:

Obvious contradiction

The problem of the possible deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan is
already not new and has become a subject of heightened interest from
time to time not only in the Azerbaijani, but also in the Western
press. For example, about a month ago the American news agency United
Press International (UPI) reported that American military bases might
be deployed in the “Armenian-occupied” Azerbaijani districts – Fuzuli,
Cabrayil and Zangilan.

Following these reports, the same Western press abounded with news
about possible US strikes on Iran. Of course, the mutual link between
these two actions does not cause any doubt, while opinions on whether
it is true or not differ. On the one hand, everybody remembers
statements by the deputy commander of the US troops in Europe, Air
Force Gen Charles Wald, who is well-known for his frequent visits to
Azerbaijan, that Washington has no intention of setting up a permanent
base in the South Caucasus. We should remind you that he said this
during his visit to Baku in July this year.

On the other hand, former State Secretary Colin Powell recently made
another interesting statement saying that the USA has no intention
of overthrowing the current regime in Iran. The contradiction between
influential media and statements by US officials is too obvious. The
following issue is also of interest: usually, information about alleged
plans to punish Iran is leaked in the West and then commented on at
the local level. Therefore, we can suppose that a certain process of
influencing public opinion is under way with all the consequences
that ensue. It is exactly this approach that makes it possible to
analyse the situation that has developed around Iran, the Middle East
and the South Caucasus as a whole.

Iran greatest threat to America

To say that the USA has certain plans with regard to Iran means to say
nothing. But these plans should be examined in the context of the new
Middle East doctrine put forward by the Bush administration by the end
of his first year in office and entitled the “Greater Middle East”
project, which has far-reaching consequences. This plan envisages
a complex programme of pacifying and democratizing the Middle East
by creating a system of financial and organizational mechanisms of
influencing the region – the “Greater Middle East” concept. The purpose
of the programme is to minimize all types of threats that currently
stem from the region, create prerequisites for long-term stabilization
on the basis of democratic choice and to observe the minimum set of
“rules of the game” in the domestic and international arena. It is
clear that Washington will not confine itself only to peaceful methods
to achieve these goals. Among other countries of the Middle East, it is
exactly Iran that poses the greatest threat to American interests in
the region. Iran is also the strongest state of the Middle East from
a military point of view, and even Israel, which has nuclear weapons,
is afraid of it. It is no secret that Tehran is trying to spread its
influence to the Muslim countries of the Middle East and, in some
way, is appropriating the role of a leader that unites the disunited
Muslim countries. Although the success of such a mission causes doubt.

Attack on Iran to cause deep crisis in Western economy

However, even such attempts by Tehran cause a sharply negative reaction
from the USA. For this reason, it is no surprise that Iran is turning
into the main object of attacks by Washington. To some extent, the
increasing confrontation between the USA and Iran is furthered by
Iran’s aspirations to influence the processes that are taking place
in Iraq, namely to bring pro-Iranian forces to power. Nevertheless,
we can presume that American wrath against Iran will not turn into
hostilities for the time being. First, oil prices are very high in
the world and will skyrocket even higher if the situation in Iran
destabilizes, as a result of which the Western economy will fall into
a deep crisis. Second, European Union countries, which have great
interests in Iran, unlike the USA, especially in the same fuel issue,
have shown a sharply negative reaction to all talk about it.

[Passage omitted: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said that
a war on Iran will claim hundreds of thousands of lives]

USA to use Azerbaijan as a bridgehead

The war on Iran is not linked only to diplomatic difficulties. It
does not stand up to criticism from a military-tactical point of view
either. Analysts think that, in theory, the USA might use Armenia,
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan as a bridgehead for the
invasion. Armenia can be automatically taken off the list as it is an
ally of Iran and Russia. As for Syria, US relations with this country
are the subject of a separate article. In principle, nothing will stop
the USA from using Iraq and Afghanistan as a bridgehead. However,
neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are suitable for this purpose since
guerrilla warfare is going on in those countries. The only choice is
Azerbaijan whose territory the USA could see as a possible bridgehead
for an invasion of Iran. But to this end, it is necessary to deploy
the aforesaid bases, which even Russia does not have in Azerbaijan.

In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan managed to get Russian troops withdrawn
from its territory. We remember that as a far-sighted politician the
late [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev had stated that not only
Russia, but also any other foreign country will not have military
bases in Azerbaijan. Noting that Azerbaijan has sufficient forces of
its own, he even opposed the arrival of US special security forces
to guard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Not by chance did the
Milli Maclis pass a law forbidding the deployment of foreign troops
on Azerbaijani territory. Azerbaijan’s position on this issue is
clear and understandable, although the USA is almost the only great
power that has interests nearly in all four corners of the world and
military cooperation with that country is of special importance to
Azerbaijan. It is also necessary to take into account the geopolitics
of the region. Our country is geographically situated in a region
where the interests of several centres of power, even non-regional
ones, are concentrated.

The East-West, North-South transport corridors, strategic pipelines and
abundant hydrocarbon resources are ideas that are linked to Azerbaijan
first of all. All this necessitates the conduct of a well-balanced
policy, taking into account the position of all the countries that
are interested in the region in order to preserve regional stability,
balance and ensure the country’s economic development.

Foreign troops in Azerbaijan to damage regional security

For this reason, any deployment of foreign military bases in
Azerbaijan will have a negative impact on the whole system of regional
security. Yes, such a political move would allow us to change the
regional balance in our favour, but this would be temporary and as a
result, Azerbaijan would have to face legal and illegal protests from
the rest of the centres of power. Of course, it would be extremely
foolish to discard neighbouring Russia and Iran.

Although our northern neighbour is lagging behind the USA in many
parameters, it does not necessarily mean that Moscow is going to
give up so easily its positions in the post-Soviet area. The fact
that Russia is giving open support to candidate Viktor Yanukovych in
the presidential elections in Ukraine, is planning to strengthen the
Russian bases in CIS countries, especially in Central Asia, with new
aircraft and other battle-worthy “hi-tech” units and is tiring its
neighbours out by closing the Russian border demonstrates once again
that Moscow has considerable military-political and economic resources
to influence the situation in the CIS region. An American-Russian
confrontation because of Azerbaijan also looks unrealistic. As Charles
Wald pointed out, Russia should not be worried about any redeployment
of US troops from western Europe. He said that the USA looks on Russia
as a “strategic ally, especially from a military point of view”.

For this reason, the deployment of some bases in Azerbaijan seems to
be a hopeless thing. It is not by chance that commenting on the fuss
about the deployment of foreign bases in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov stated that our country is not
having consultations with anyone to allow its territory to be used
for attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, information about
such US intentions allows the USA itself to learn in more detail the
international community’s reaction to its strategic intentions. But
this is not the end of it. The reports circulating around the world
about a war allegedly being prepared against Iran are an integral
part of America’s foreign policy tactics.

This is a sort of information pressure – a policy of verbal deterrence
against Iran in order to make it give up its political ambitions and
weapons of mass destruction. Is this policy effective? At least news
was recently circulated around the world that Iran has agreed to stop
enriching uranium, but as the head of the Iranian Supreme National
Security Council, [Hasan] Rowhani, pointed out, this is temporary
and pursues political aims. Isn’t this tactic part of a long-term
strategy of an armed conflict with Iran? There are no guarantees.
Therefore, Azerbaijan should stick to a well-balanced foreign policy
on the issue of military bases. There is no alternative to this,
and we should not hurry to deploy the bases here.

[Signed] The CGR analytical group.

Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society
Greater Washington, DC Chapter
4906 Flint Dr. Bethesda, MD 20816
[email protected]

PRESS RELEASE
November 19, 2004
Contact: Lorig Armenian
E-mail: [email protected];
[email protected]

Arshile Gorky Expert Discusses Influence of Armenian Culture, Genocide
on Artist’s Work

Washington, D.C.– Renowned art historian and specialist on Arshile
Gorky, Dr. Melvin Lader, presented his insights at a public lecture at
the Armenian Embassy sponsored by the Greater Washington DC Chapter of
the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society and under the
auspices of the Ambassador and Mrs. Arman Kirakossian. A
standing-room-only crowd of over 150 people gathered on November 5th
to hear Dr. Lader’s talk and slide presentation, titled “Arshile
Gorky: the Case of an Unlikely Modernist.”

Dr. Lader, a professor of art history at George Washington University,
is a respected authority on the works of abstract expressionist
pioneer Arshile Gorky, having lectured and published extensively on
the life and works of the artist. He most recently curated (with
Janice C. Lee) an exhibition of Gorky’s drawings at the Whitney Museum
of American Art in New York and the Menil Collection in Houston in
2004.

Drawing upon his research of Gorky’s work, the artist’s writings as
well as side-by-side visual comparisons, Dr Lader highlighted various
influences in Gorky’s life that were eventually reflected in the
artist’s work. These included memories of Gorky’s childhood in Khorkom
(a village near Lake Van in Armenia), color and imagery from Armenian
Christian art, Gorky’s haunting sufferings and loss of family during
the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, and his feelings of exile after
coming to America. He also cited the influence of other artists such
as Cezanne and surrealist Joan Miro.

In referring to Gorky’s famous Portrait of the Artist and His Mother,
Dr. Lader states, “Alone in New York, the memory of his mother, her
tragic death, and the Genocide weighed heavily on his mind. And he
undoubtedly conceived of the painting as a tribute to his mother and
her role in his life. As such, it was the first major work he created
descending from his Armenian memories which would become a central
theme in most of his mature art.”

The formal presentation was followed by a question-and-answer period
and reception in the Embassy, during which Dr. Lader responded to
specific inquiries from the audience. In his opening remarks,
Amb. Kirakossian stated, “I want to thank Hamazkayin for organizing
this event. Obviously we have good cooperation with this society of
dedicated people who are doing all their best to preserve Armenian
culture.” He went on to acknowledge Dr. Lader’s contributions to the
study of this pioneer in American art.

“Dr. Lader’s engaging talk brought to light the profound impact of
Gorky’s Armenian experience on his art, and by extension its impact on
expressionism in general,” stated Maggie Simonian, Chairwoman of the
Hamazkayin Washington Chapter. “We are pleased to have been able to
bring Dr. Lader’s insights and research to the community and thank the
Armenian Embassy for their gracious hospitality and collaboration in
this event.”

Founded in 1928, the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural
Society is dedicated to the preservation and advancement of the
history and the cultural heritage of the Armenian nation. Hamazkayin
has chapters throughout the United States, Canada, South America,
Europe, the Middle East and Australia, as well as the Republic of
Armenia.

Noyan Tapan, Armenia
Nov 17 2004

VARDAN OSKANIAN LEARNS WITH REGRET ABOUT COLIN POWELL`S RESIGNATION

YEREVAN, 17.11.04. `I learned with regret about the resignation of
Secretary of State Colin Powell. During 4 years of Mr Powell`s term
of office the Armenian-US relations have developed noticeably, the
agenda has become more diverse,` the RA Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian stated when asked by journalists to comment on the US
Secretary of State Colin Powell`s resignation.

According to the RA Foreign Minister, Secretary of State Powell
watched closely the developments in the South Caucasian region and
was interested in settling the existing conflicts and establishing
normal relations between the neighbors. Vardan Oskanian noted
Powell`s personal contribution to Armenia`s inclusion in the
Millennium Challenges Program.

Pointing out that he appreciates Colin Powell`s personal qualities,
diplomatic proficiency and wide knowledge which he had a chance to
observe during meetings with Powell, Minister Oskanian wished him a
personal success and health.

`I am sure that we will continue successful cooperation with the new
Secretary of State for further prosperity of our nations,` Vardan
Oskanian stated.

THOUGHT ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF A PAMPHLET

Azg/Arm
10 Nov 04

A friend recently gave me a pamphlet to read and to comment on. The
pamphlet has the title: Religious Tolerance in Armenia. As the date
indicates, it presumably was published in August 2002. Those who
put it together call themselves the “Collaboration for Democracy
Union”. The pamphlet consists of 30 pages, has a glossy cover, with
color photographs on the front and back covers. The photograph on the
front cover is of a group of four people attending a conference. The
back cover contains three photographs of individuals identified as
the president of the organization, the English translator and the
editor of the pamphlet. The first page of the pamphlet is reserved
for the editorial. The last statement of the editorial, as well as
an announcement on the last page of the pamphlet indicate that the
“Religious Tolerance in Armenia” program, and thus the publication
of the present pamphlet, have been sponsored by the “Open Society
Institute Assistance Fund – Armenia”. For those who are unaware, the
“Assistance Fund” is set up by the Soros Foundation.

In spite of my willingness and all of my efforts, I was unable
to read beyond page 16 of the pamphlet. English is not the most
utilized foreign language in Armenia, but for the sake of God,
can anyone explain how dare people write in a language they know
nothing about? Furthermore, how could they hope to win friends
to their viewpoint or to influence people? What is the point of
publishing the pamphlet in English when their purpose clearly is to
agitate the Armenian public? The aim of the pamphlet is supposedly
to promote religious tolerance in Armenia. If so, then what purpose
does it serve to pursue such a noble goal, in a foreign language,
in such an incoherent, incompetent and inept manner? Having raised
these questions, let me return to the issue of the quality of the
language of the pamphlet. The language is simply atrocious. There is
not one single correct or meaningful English sentence in all of the
16 pages of the pamphlet-Which I managed to read. The choice of the
language of the pamphlet is an enigma for me.

The pamphlet is not well researched either. It lacks accurate
information and facts on the religious organizations and minorities in
Armenia. The pamphlet pretends to be the last word on the religious
organizations existing in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet
eras. However, the reader is left without a definite understanding
as to how many of these organizations actually existed or were
registered during the periods referred to above. As a matter of fact,
on a given page the names of only nine of these organizations are
provided prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, but following
some confusing statements, on that very same page, the writers arrive
at the -conclusion that, “…before independence, 14 religious or
divine organization were registered or acting in Armenia”. Note the
“divine organizations” in the previous quotation, for the life of me,
I have been unable to comprehend what is meant by this expression. It
is not simply atrocious, it is ridiculous.

The pamphlet also is offensive to those whom it aims to support or
to create tolerance towards. Instead of referring to the Church of
the Seventh Day Adventists, the Evangelical Church, the Pentecostal
Church, the Hare Krishna, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, the authors insultingly list them as the “Adventists
of the 7th Day Church”, the “Evangelic Church”, the “Pentecosts”,
the “Hare Krishna adherents”, and the “Church of Saints of Christ’s
Last Days.” The writers are ignorant as well. Without hesitation
and with certainty, they talk of the “Osman Empire”. The pamphlet
abounds with such nonsensical expressions as “liberty of conscience”,
“can be conditionally divided”, “As a rule, new communities have been
preaching actively”, “in Armenia have taken place court trials, which
sides are religious communities and members of religious communities”,
“replacing the disputing questions to the court”, “law remains the
true to life issue”, “the field of household activities”, “absence
of democratic traditions obstacle the formation of civil society”,
and these absurdities go on and on.

Bear in mind that in the case of these quotations, I stopped on
page three of the pamphlet. Before going on to the next subject,
let me point out the real beauty of the cover page in the name of the
organization. “What’s in a name?” was the famous question. I would
say, quite a lot. To manifest the self is the most important component
of a name, particularly when it relates to an organization. Forgetting
for one moment the negative connotation of the word “collaboration”,
permit me to ask the question, collaboration with whom, at what
price and for what purpose? Couldn’t they put a more positive spin on
their name, by choosing instead a more neutral terminology, such as
“cooperation”? No! It had to be that name, it had to be crystal clear
for the sake of self-manifestation. After all, the editorial page
speaks of “fulfilling” several times. One fulfills an order, a command,
or a demand. Whose order, command or demand does this group fulfill?

Now let us return to the name of the organization, “Collaboration
for Democracy Union”. Forgetting the unanswered questions the name
brings to mind, as to who is collaborating with whom, is a union
collaborating with someone for the sake of democracy? Or is someone
joining a democracy in collaboration with others? I simply have to
state is it a wonderful discovery! Three nouns and a preposition
are supposed to convey a meaning, form a sentence. The logic is,
one throws words together and voila, a sentence is formed. And to
think that these ignorant people have been entrusted with the task
of altering the priorities of the Armenian people.

Those who sponsored the organization, which “researched” and published
this pamphlet, obviously had the specific intent in mind to discredit
some of the newspapers in Armenia. That was the demand. The pretense
was a court case regarding the misdeeds of a “preacher” of one the
sects, a story which some of the newspapers did not cover to the liking
of the sponsors of the organization. How dare they?! Let’s teach them
a lesson! Thus, the newspapers have become the targets of a diatribe
in the pamphlet. Those who put the pamphlet together incoherently
tried to create a stir, jumping from one issue to the next, making
unwarranted accusations about these newspapers and all of a sudden,
in the middle of these accusations, the internal division within the
worldwide Armenian Apostolic Church is brought to the surface. The
strategy is simple: Confuse people, diminish the credibility of
your opponents, and going beyond, point out the weakness or the
perceived shortcoming of your real target. After all, in the minds
of the sponsors, the real culprit is the Armenian Apostolic Church,
it should be vanquished and subdued.

Is that so Mr. Soros? You are used to getting your way, through
your maleficent benefactions with your so-called “foundations”
and the like, disturbing the peace of countries and disrupting
societies. Seemingly, your appetite has been whetted by your latest
conquest in the neighborhood of Armenia, when your victims so easily
succumbed to your onslaught. People of Armenia, it is up to you how
to respond to this new threat. With the power of tenacity and the
gift of devotion to principles, you have survived in the past against
all odds. My hope is that these God-given traits have not diminished
within you and in spite of the prevailing conditions in Armenia;
you will find the resources within you to withstand this new menace.

By Bishop Paren