ANKARA: Political News Make Public Disinclined to EU

Zaman, Turkey
April 29 2005

Political News Make Public Disinclined to EU
By Bahtiyar Kucuk
Published: Friday 29, 2005
zaman.com

Turkish General Secretary for the European Union (EU) Ambassador
Murat Sungar has directed allegations to the media making the public
disinclined towards the EU by keeping “political” issues like Cyprus
and Armenia constantly on the agenda.

Calling attention to the first issues that come to mind are those of
political issues such as the Cypriot and Armenian conflicts,
minorities and Heybeliada Seminary, Sungar said: “Before all else,
Turkish society should be told about the economic and financial aid
the EU will provide Turkey. This should not be like ignoring the
entire forest by sticking in a few trees.” Speaking at the
“International Jean Monnet Conference” organized with the
collaboration of the Turkish Quality Association and the Foreign
Politics Forum, Sungar called attention to the economic and financial
advantages that will be gained during the negotiation process.
Ambassador complained: “Unfortunately, the economic issues are far
from the topics being discussion about us and rural development, the
removal of interregional differences; economic and social accords
fall well behind the political issues.”

National revolution takes time out

A1plus

| 19:27:01 | 28-04-2005 | Politics |

NATIONAL REVOLUTION TAKES TIME OUT

How does leader of New Times party Aram Karapetyan explain the fact that
almost all the opposition and pro-governmental parties have signed the
statement condemning the Sevan events? `Political forces came to realize
that it is high time for changes and tried to choose the way, which will
secure them from criminal’, Aram Karapetyan said.

Today the parties gathered in Yerevan Hotel to discuss the situation and
steps to be undertaken to prevent violence.

Aram Karapetyan assured that he will continue the process of the national
revolution and informed that at the request of the coalition no rallies will
be organized till the end of the week.

TBILISI: Georgian troops not to replace Russians in Javakheti

Georgian troops not to replace Russians in ethnic Armenian area – president

Imedi TV, Tbilisi
28 Apr 05

[Presenter] The format of President [Mikheil] Saakashvili’s meeting
with Armenian parliamentary speaker Artur Bagdasaryan has had to be
changed because of Saakashvili’s trip to Ninotsminda. He apologized to
his Armenian guest and explained that he was going to
Samtskhe-Javakheti to open a new Armenian school. Saakashvili also
promised him that after the closure of the Russian base in
Akhalkalaki, local Armenians would not be left unemployed.

[Saakashvili, speaking at an open meeting with Bagdasaryan, in
Russian] Unfortunately we have had to change the format of our meeting
for the simple reason that I am flying to Ninotsminda, the biggest
village in Ninotsminda [District], (?Tandzia). There we are building,
today we are starting to build a new large Armenian school from
scratch. It will be ready by 1 September.

We are taking problems in Javakheti very seriously. We will start
building a major road network there. We are not just repairing the
road linking Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki, but in the centre of
Akhalkalaki I will provide additional funds to build and repair the
road network there.

In the autumn will we start building a major road from Tbilisi to
Akhalkalaki, Akhaltsikhe and the Turkish border. It means that the
road network will cover the whole region.

We are beginning a large programme of social rehabilitation for people
who are employed there, including those who currently work on the
Russian military base. We will conduct a programme of social
rehabilitation for all of them. We are not planning to open a new
military unit there, but we are offering them places in nearby units
for their existing pay, or even more, so that they serve in the
Georgian armed forces. For those who do not want to do that, we will
have a separate programme of social rehabilitation for them, such as
business and other programmes, so they do not feel they are losing
out. It should be the opposite. They must feel that the country is
being rebuilt, that we are moving forward.

We are very grateful to Armenia for their help in solving the energy
problem in this region, and not only in this region. Last winter,
problems in Tbilisi were more or less resolved thanks to Armenian
electricity. We will develop these links and in the future we will buy
this energy.

We will do our utmost to ensure there are no problems with the transit
of Armenian freight through Georgia. There will also be other
contacts. Of course, we have very broad contacts but there is a
painful issue [changes thought] – I had a very good conversation on
this with [Armenian President] Robert Sedrakovich [Kocharyan] not long
ago. Our conversations were much more successful than our skiing. They
were really very good and useful for all of us.

Slow demise of Karabakh Greeks

Institute for War & Peace Reporting
April 27 2005

SLOW DEMISE OF KARABAKH GREEKS

Can a tiny community survive to celebrate its third centenary?

By Ashot Beglarian in Mehmana

Mehmana is a small village hidden in the wooden hills of the northern
part of Nagorny Karabakh. There is an abundance of fruit orchards and
the villagers store up dried fruits for the winter.

There are other villages like this, but Mehmana is remarkable for
another reason – uniquely, in this overwhelmingly Armenian territory,
it is still home to a small community of Greeks, who founded the
village almost 300 hundred years ago.

However, this beautifully situated village is going through hard
times, and many wonder whether it can survive.

At the moment, just 14 families live in the village, of mixed
Armenian and Greek ethnicity. Almost all the inhabitants are elderly,
and the young people can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Yelena Lavasidis, 86, is one of the last surviving Greeks. A war
veteran with a number of Soviet-era medals, she was keen to
demonstrate that she is in good health and that she can “thread a
needle without spectacles”.

“My parents moved to Mehmana from Turkey at the beginning of the last
century,” she said. “Then there were 25 families living in the
village, mostly mixed Armenian and Greek.”

As a child, Yelena studied in Greek in the first three classes of
primary school, then went to the next-door village of Kusapat to
study in Armenian.

“We kept closely to our national customs,” she said. “We kept the
religious traditions very carefully. My father Nikolaos Lavasidis was
a priest and a very educated man. At home we followed a strict regime
– everything had its place, you should never ever contradict an older
person, or talk while eating.”

The village still has a big stone oven called a “katamaya” where
housewives used to bake bread that stayed fresh for ten days.

Yelena’s husband, Avanes Arzumanian, an ethnic Armenian, is a
well-known journalist in Karabakh. “The Greeks are welcoming,
hospitable people,” he said. “They will always slaughter a calf or a
bull for a guest. Armenians and Greeks have a lot of traditions,
customs and holidays in common. One of them is an obligation to help
the poor. On holidays, people who are better off send the poor bags
of food or invite them to dine at their houses.”

One reason the Greeks were drawn to Mehmana in the 19th century was
the precious metals in the hills around it. The mining of metals such
as silver predated their arrival. In Soviet times, lead was extracted
here – which contaminated the water supply and led to a high
incidence of disease.

Another group of Greeks arrived in the village following the
massacres of Armenians and Pontic Greeks in Anatolia in 1915-18.

Tragedy struck the people of Mehmana again during the Karabakh war of
1991-94 when the Mardakert region where the village is located
suffered heavily from the fighting.

Mehmana passed from one side to the other and was virtually levelled
to the ground. Most of the residents were forced to flee for their
lives, and many landmines were left in the ground. Many ethnic Greeks
left for Greece.

“Today there are 21 Armenian-Greek families registered as living in
Nagorny Karabakh, although there are actually more Greeks than that
in the republic” said Sofi Ivanidis, a representative of the Centre
for Armenian-Greek Friendship.

Ivanidis said celebrations were planned to mark the forthcoming 300th
anniversary of the founding of the village, and they hoped to invite
guests from abroad.

The Greeks of Mehmana used to maintain contacts with Greece and
receive aid consignments from there. Now that has practically come to
a halt.

A small humanitarian aid shipment from Greece provided the village
with its only tractor several years ago, but it was blown up on a
mine and now the villagers are forced to work their fields by hand.
Two years ago an Australian Greek, Nick Dallas, a manager in the book
trade, visited Mehmana and promised to organise charitable donations
to the village. But locals say they are getting virtually no aid.

The Karabakh government has offered modest help. Just six houses have
been built here since the end of the war. Telephone, radio and
television connections are poor, there are problems with the water
supply and the road is in poor condition. Residents say that in
winter it is practically impossible for them to leave the village.

One non-government organisation in Stepanakert, the Society for
Cultural Links with Foreign Countries, is trying to organise help for
the beleaguered village. Its co-chairman Irina Agajanian is arranging
cultural events such as concerts and wants to collect money for
Mehmana.

“We are trying to unite around the idea of getting help from Greeks
and Armenians from different countries in the world,” she said.

Time is running out for this quiet isolated village where so few
young people are left, and there is a danger that this unique Greek
community will cease to exist.

Ashot Beglarian is a freelance journalist and regular IWPR
contributor in Nagorny Karabakh.

Manoogian to resign from Metaldyne board

Manoogian to resign from Metaldyne board

Crain’s Detroit Business
April 26, 2005

By Terry Kosdrosky

Richard Manoogian will resign from the board of directors of
Plymouth-based auto supplier Metaldyne Corp., effective May 4.

Manoogian, 68, is also chairman and CEO of Taylor-based Masco
Corp. Manoogian was chairman of MascoTech Inc. when it was acquired by
Heartland Industrial Partners L.P. and became part of Metaldyne.

Manoogian decided to leave Metaldyne’s board mostly because of time
constraints and also because new corporate governance guidelines that
call for membership on no more than two boards, said Samuel Cypert,
vice president of investor relations for Masco.

Manoogian is already on the board of Ford Motor Co. and JP Morgan
Chase & Co.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=5901

Between democracy and the sword in Turkey

Mideast Mirror
April 26, 2005

Between democracy and the sword in Turkey

A recent hard-hitting speech from the Turkish chief of staff may
signal the return of the military to politics, says Mohammad
Noureddine in al-Khaleej

Under the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) rule, Turkey’s
Islamists have been spared much of the Turkish military’s traditional
hostility towards them. But in a recent speech, the Chief of the
Turkish General Staff claimed that Turkey was not an Islamic country
and he adopted many hardline positions on regional issues, notes an
Arab commentator on Turkish affairs. This may signal a turning-point
in relations between the military and the Islamists under Recip
Tayyip Erdogan’s government and a move back from the democratic path
that Turkey managed to take in recent years.

AGE-OLD QUESTION: ‘Has Turkey returned to the era of military
democracy?’ asks Mohammad Noureddine in the UAE daily al-Khaleej.
Is the age-old question about who governs Turkey still relevant?
These and other issues have returned to the fore in the aftermath of
the wide-ranging speech made by the Turkish army’s Chief of the
Turkish General Staff General Hilmi Ozkok at the military academy in
Istanbul last Wednesday, a speech that was 45 pages long.
Ozkok dealt with all political issues: He criticised the Islamists’
attempt to take over the administration, staked out positions against
Europe and the United States, took a hard-line stance on Cyprus, the
Armenians, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Greeks, culminating with the
claim that Turkey was not an Islamic country, was not part of the
U.S. Greater Middle East project, was a secular, civilized,
democratic state.
In ‘normal’ democracies, anyone reading Ozkok’s ‘contribution’ would
have easily speculated that their author was the Prime Minister,
President of the Republic or Foreign Minister. The first surprise is
the fact that he is the foremost military figure in Turkey. The
second and more important surprise, is the fact that Ozkok has said
his piece two years after the wide-scale reforms introduced by the
AKP headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan that have opened the door to
Turkey for EU membership talks.
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy of these reformist moves had to do
with the power of the National Security Council. These powers were
redefined so as to curtail the dominant role of the military
establishment in Turkey’s political life. The reforms included
appointing a civilian Secretary General for the Council, severing its
relations with official civilian institutions, especially those
directly linked to the conservatives.
More than a year ago, it seemed as if Erdogan’s attempt to ‘capture’
the army’s role had succeeded. Ozkok himself refrained from making
sharp political statements. In fact, a central role was attributed to
him in ensuring the success of reform, since he seemed to be among
the most open, reasonable, and democratic military figures.
This in turn led to the conclusion that Erdogan was lucky to have a
military leader with such an outlook. Had there been someone other
than Ozkok as head of the armed forces, Erdogan would not have
succeeded in ensuring the adoption of his reforms.
In addition to enormous popular support, among the factors that have
allowed the AKP to stand on its feet is the cover that the Bush
administration has provided it as a model to be emulated during this
phase in which Washington is calling for reform in the Islamic world.
U.S. policy thus demands that this model remains in place.
But Washington may have noticed that a new mood has developed in
Turkish public opinion opposed to Bush’s policies among about 82% of
the Turkish public. Moreover, Ankara has resisted some of
Washington’s policies regarding Syria and Iran. It also earlier
resisted U.S. use of Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey .
There are those who now believe that Washington has returned to its
old policy of relying on the military establishment, if not to topple
Erdogan, then to restrain his ‘dissent’ from U.S. aims, at least.
The first sign was a statement from the Commander of Turkish Ground
Forces Yasar Buyukanit on the 14th of March, in which he claimed that
Ankara lacks a policy towards Iraq. This was explained as a
transgression of authority on his part, since the expression of
opinions is left to the Army Commander and his Deputy. Moreover, his
statement was an intervention in political affairs.
However, some have interpreted Buyukanit’s position as an attempt to
fill the political ‘vacuum’ resulting from confusion in Turkish
foreign policy towards Iraq and the region as a whole, including
Syria and Lebanon.
While the issue was set aside at the time, the Chief of Staff’s
abandonment of his ‘silence’ last Wednesday has given rise to new
fears and suspicions that time may be running out for the Justice and
Development Party. If a few words by the Commander of Ground Forces
caused such a reaction, how much worse will the situation be when we
come to consider a full speech in 45 pages by the Chief of Staff
himself!
Ozkok’s speech no doubt represents an important juncture in the AKP’s
march since it came to power, especially in the period during which
Turkey is trying to join the EU. It is a speech that damages this
attempt; it harms the progress of political reform, undermines the
authority of Erdogan and his comrades, and revives old sensitivities
especially since Ozkok accused the Islamists of infiltrating the
system in an attempt to change the country’s secular identity.
It is a speech that recalls the warning by the former Chief of Staff
Husseyn Kivrikoglu that the war against the Islamists would be
pursued even if it were to last a thousand years.
‘Turkey and Erdogan are facing a new phase, Who will win: Democracy
or the sword?’ asks Noureddine in conclusion.

Inclusion of Armenian Genocide in international agenda shook Turkey

Pan Armenian News

INCLUSION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN INTERNATIONAL AGENDA SHOOK TURKEY
POSITIONS

26.04.2005 05:09

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ A procession was held in Jerusalem marking the 90-th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey. About a thousand
Armenians took part in it. Before that a liturgy was offered at St. Jacob
church in the memory of the innocent victims, the Yerkir newspaper reported.
Dressed in black the rally participants carried Armenian flags and posters
inscribed: «Armenians demand justice,» «Turkey guilty in Genocide,» «Turkey,
the past will chase you.». Participants of the procession laid wreaths and
flowers to the Monument to Victims of the Armenian Genocide. Jerusalem
Patriarch archbishop Torgom Manukian offered up a prayer. In his statement
Jerusalem Armenian community head Serob Sahakian noted that «after the 90
years of denial the Armenian Genocide issue is included in the international
agenda, which shook Turkey’s positions.»

Armenian President response to Turkish Premier’s letter

Pan Armenian News

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT RESPONSE TO TURKISH PREMIER’S LETTER

26.04.2005 08:59

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian President Robert Kocharian has answered the
letter of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposing to form a
joint Armenian-Turkish commission for studying the fact of the Armenian
Genocide, the Press Service of the Armenian leader reported. The letter
specifically says: «Dear Mr. Prime Minister, I have received your letter.
Actually, as neighbors, we should try to find ways to leave peacefully today
and in the future. Just due to that reason we proposed establishment of
normal relations, opening the borders and starting a dialogue between the
countries and the peoples. There are neighbor states – specifically in the
European continent – whose past was hard and opinions over it do not
coincide. However, it does not prevent them from opening borders, having
diplomatic relations, representatives in the capitals, simultaneously
discussing disputable issues. Your proposal to address the past cannot be
efficient if it does not refer to the present and the future. To get
involved in an efficient dialogue we need to form a favorable political
atmosphere. Governments are responsible for development of bilateral
relations and we do not have the right to delegate historians. Thus, we have
proposed and we again proposed establishment of normal relations between our
countries without preconditions. Just within that context an
intergovernmental commission may be formed to discuss any issue or issues
available between our countries aiming at solving them and coming to mutual
understanding.»

Noventa aniversario del genocidio contra el pueblo armenio

Antena3Noticias, Madrid
Domingo , 14 de abril de 2005

Noventa aniversario del genocidio contra el pueblo armenio

Internacional , Madrid
Centenares de miles de armenios conmemoran hoy el genocidio de 1915.

Un millón y medio de personas fueron víctimas del primer holocausto
del siglo XX. Quince Estados, incluido el Vaticano, han reconocido
ese genocidio contra el pueblo armenio, que todavía hoy no tiene
relaciones diplomáticas con Turquía.

galería de fotos:
;sidicom=si&id’40207

http://www.antena3.com/a3n2004/servlet/Noticias?destino=../a3n/noticia/noticia.jsp&amp

Armenia: genocidio de una nacion La pesadilla vive 90 anos despues

Cronica De Hoy
Hoy es: Domingo 24 de Abril de 2005

Armenia: genocidio de una nación La pesadilla vive 90 años después
( Mario D. Camarillo Cortés )
( 2005-04-24 )

Descargando Foto…

Nacismo, muerte y exterminio se conjugaron entre 1915 y 1917 para
consumar el primer genocidio del siglo XX y que dejó más de un millón
500 mil muertes cometidas en Armenia por una comunidad turca enferma de
poder. Hoy, a 90 años de distancia, la comunidad armenia en el mundo
recuerda este capítulo trágico que durante más de dos años mermó en el
sentir de un pueblo que vio no sólo perder su cultura y sus ideales,
sino también sus raíces.
Armenia además de recordar hoy con ceremonias solemnes aquel trágico
pasaje de su historia, pedirá además, el reconocimiento por parte de
Turquía de esta masacre que ha frenado la normalización de las
relaciones entre ambos países.
Los enfrentamientos sangrientos entre ambos pueblos empezaron a finales
del siglo XIX: cansados de sufrir el yugo otomano desde el siglo XVI,
los armenios constituyeron comités revolucionarios que desencadenaron
una represión entre 1894 y 1909 que causó 200 mil muertos, según fuentes
armenias.
La derrota en la Guerra de los Balcanes (1912-1913) debilitó al imperio
otomano (turco), y aunque Occidente lo presionó para que favoreciera la
independencia de las minorías étnicas y religiosas, en octubre de 1914
entró en la Primera Guerra Mundial del lado de Alemania y
Austria-Hungría, lo que sirvió de pretexto para su plan de exterminio.
Fue el 24 de abril de 1915 cuando el gobierno de la Unión y el Progreso,
conocido como `Jóvenes Turcos’ y que en aquel momento gobernaba el
antiguo imperio otomano, planificó el exterminio de la población armenia
radicada al sureste de Turquía. Esta región, en torno al lago de Van y
la población de Diyarbakir, es conocida como la `patria histórica de los
armenios’, actualmente habitada en su mayoría por kurdos.
El resultado de la decisión de los `Jóvenes Turcos’, instigada por el
entonces visir Talaat Pach¡, fue la expulsión y posterior masacre de un
millón 500 mil armenios. Se considera que la población actual en la
República de Armenia (anteriormente, una de las repúblicas soviéticas,
independiente desde 1991) supera los cinco millones de habitantes,
contando a los numerosos armenios que radican en Estados Unidos,
Francia, Canad¡, Suiza, Sudamérica, Rusia, Siria y Líbano.
ANTECEDENTE. La masacre de 1915 fue continuación de genocidios otomanos
efectuados entre 1894 y 1896 por el entonces sult¡n Abdulhamid, a quien
se le recuerda como el `sult¡n rojo’. Por aquellos tiempos, m¡s de 250
mil armenios murieron a manos de los turcos y sus aliados kurdos,
chechenos y circasianos, quienes también ejercieron una labor en el
genocidio de aquel año. Asimismo, los turcos contaron con la
colaboración de oficiales alemanes, principal aliado en la Primera
Guerra Mundial.
La ejecución comenzó el 24 de abril en Constantinopla, con el arresto
ilegal y posterior asesinato de 600 dirigentes armenios, entre ellos
intelectuales, legisladores, artistas, artesanos y otras personalidades
laicas y religiosas.
Cuando la Primera Guerra Mundial estaba en su clímax, el gobierno Turco
(antiguo gobierno del Imperio Otomano) decidió exterminar a la mayoría
de los armenios varones y deportar por la fuerza al resto de la
población, en su mayoría mujeres, niños y ancianos, éstas se volvieron
una caravana de muerte, con violencia extrema y privaciones.
TESTIMONIO. Quien fuera embajador de Estados Unidos en Turquía por
aquellos años, Henry Morgenthau, según señala un reporte enviado a sus
superiores en Washington y publicado después de la Guerra (EU en ese
tiempo fue neutral en el conflicto), tras presenciar esta pesadilla
refirió que `como el holocausto judío, el genocidio armenio representa
un caso prioritario bien definido de que el objetivo era la población
varonil, seguida de una exterminación de `raíz’ de la mayoría de los
sobrevivientes que fueron conducidos hacia la muerte.
`En la primera parte de 1915, los soldados armenios en el ejército turco
fueron reducidos a un nuevo status. La mayoría fue combatiente, pero
después fueron despojados de sus armas y transformados en obreros. En
lugar de servir a su país como hombres de artillería fueron
transformados en jornaleros y animales de carga. Fueron llevados a
latigazos y forzados a arrastrar sus cuerpos fatigados dentro de las
montañas del C¡ucaso’.
ANIQUILACIÓN Asimismo, refirió que `los soldados armenios fueron
eliminados de manera sumaria, se volvió casi la pr¡ctica general
matarlos a sangre fría. Grupos de 50 ó 100 hombres serían amarrados en
grupos de cuatro y después llevados a un lugar apartado a corta
distancia de la aldea. El sonido de los disparos de los rifles llenaba
el aire y los soldados turcos, quienes habí – an actuado como escolta,
regresaban tétricamente al campo. Aquellos mandados a enterrar los
cuerpos, les encontraban invariablemente desnudos, como era usual, los
turcos habí – an robado toda su ropa. En los casos que llaman mi
atención, señala, los asesinos agregaban un refinamiento al
sufrimiento de sus ví – ctimas, oblig¡ndolos a cavar sus tumbas antes
de que les dispararan…’.
De la misma forma el ex embajador de EU indica que `en Angora, todos los
varones de 15 a 70 años fueron arrestados, reunidos en grupos de cuatro
y llevados por el camino en dirección de Caesarea. Cuando habían viajado
por cinco o seis horas y llegado a un valle apartado, un grupo de
campesinos turcos se iban sobre ellos con martillos, hachas, guadañas,
picos y sierras hasta causarles la muerte’.
`Después de completar esta destrucción, los campesinos y gendarmes
recogidos en la taberna local, comparaban acciones y alardeaban el
número de `infieles’ que cada uno había matado’.
MUJERES. La deportación forzada de mujeres, niños y ancianos que
quedaron con vida tras las masacres de los hombres dio lugar a otras
escenas vergonzosas. A este grupo se les ofrecía convertirse al Islam y
ser esclavos en casas turcas, pero sólo unos cuantos aceptaron y el
resto fue aniquilado a punta de bayoneta. Las mujeres en su mayoría
fueron ultrajadas y dejadas morir de hambre.
RECLAMO. Con estos antecedentes, el genocidio armenio no fue reconocido
mundialmente hasta que lo hizo Uruguay en 1965, un país que cuenta
también con una floreciente comunidad armenia. Otros países siguieron el
ejemplo.
El 29 de agosto de 1985 la subcomisión de Derechos Humanos de la ONU
reconoció el genocidio. En 1987, el Parlamento Europeo lo admitió, el
mismo año en que Turquía realizó su solicitud formal para ingresar a la
Comunidad Europea. En 2001, la Asamblea Nacional Francesa promulgó una
ley donde reconocíel genocidio armenio e instó al gobierno turco a
reconocerlo, como elemento de importancia en las negociaciones de
admisión a la Unión Europea.
Actualmente es obvio el rechazo oficial turco a reconocer estas
masacres, lo que es un obst¡culo que recobra interés, tras la decisión
del Consejo Europeo, el pasado 17 de diciembre de 2004, de fijar para el
3 de octubre de este 2005, la apertura de negociaciones para la admisión
turca en la Unión Europea.

* (Con información de Agencia de Información Solidaria/España,
Crda-france.org, genocidioarmenio.org, BBC y CNN)

http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?idc=178190