Chief of Romanian Army meets crisis management representatives

Rompres news agency
2 Feb 05

BUCHAREST

Chief of Romanian Army General Staff, Gen Eugen Badalan, on Wednesday,
2 February, at the Military Command Operational Centre met
representatives of the structures with attributions in the field of
crisis management, part the National Crisis Committee on the occasion
of the NATO CMX 05 exercise.

Analysed at the meeting was the activity of the 91 participants, as
regards the cooperation and the right answer to situations created by
the leaders of the exercise, as well as the first lessons taught after
the CMX 05.

Gen Badalan at the end of the meeting said that a permanent
cooperation among the elements of the National System of Answer to
Crisis was necessary, as well as their connection with similar
sub-systems of NATO. A conclusion of the meeting was that a joint
draft law should be adopted, that is to integrate all institutions of
the national system with attributions in the field of crises
management, Badalan underscored.

This type of exercise, organized each year under the chairmanship of
the NATO secretary-general was conducted by the International
Secretariat, the International Military General Staff and the two NATO
commands (Allied Command Operations and the Allied Command
Transformation), designed to maintain and strengthen the alliance’s
capacity to manage crisis situations.

The nine NATO partners involved in the CMX 05 exercise’s planning and
execution together with the alliance’s members are Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Croatia, Switzerland, Finland, Ireland, Macedonia and
Sweden. Attending the exercise, as observers were representatives of
the UN, EU and OSCE.

The hypothetical scenario of CMX 05 included a NATO answer operation
to a crises situation, under an UN mandate, outside the Euro-Atlantic
space, with the purpose of easing tensions between two countries. The
scenario also mentioned the possibility of a conventional conflict to
emerge, and took into account an asymmetric dimension of it, that
included terror threats and the use of mass destruction weapons
against the NATO and partner forces. No troops have been dispatched on
the field during the operation.

JEW AND POLISH COMMUNITIES TO COMMEMORATE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF AUSWENTSIN
LIBERATION

Azg/arm
3 Feb 05

The Armenian Office of the International Center for Russia’s
Scientific-Cultural Cooperation initiated an arrangement at the hall
of Union of Relations with Foreign Countries. The arrangement was
dedicated to 60th anniversary of liberating the Auswentsin
prisoners. The Jewish and Polish communities of Armenia also
participated in the arrangement.

Genady Barishnikov, representative of the ICRCSC Office in Armenia,
stated that they will do everything so that people do not forget these
important period of the world history, when the Soviet Army greatly
contributed to achieving full victory over the Nazi. “The Russian
President emphasized in his speech dedicated to liberation of
Auswentsin prisoners that very often people confuse the terms `to
liberate’ and `to conquer’, a`victim’ and an `executor’. This widely
spread phenomenon is not accidental, people mix these terms
deliberately to hide the dark pages of the past and pretend heroes
today,” he said.

Valeria Fljian, representative of the Jew community, talked of the
awful brutality of the Nazi that killed a great number of Jews. “When
talking of Auswentsin, each Jew remembers Holocaust, as they are
directly connected with each other. One can hardly imagine how the
Nazi could annihilate all these innocent people,” she said.

“I was 14 when the WW II broke out. I saw and heard everything. I have
exciting memories and I want the humanity to remember forever these
horrible years when great number of innocent people died. I was in
Poland and I visited Auswentsin and suffered that horror after so many
years. We pray so that our children do not pass this path of
tortures. We pray for a better and a brighter life for them. We pray
for Peace,” Alla Kuzminskaya, head of the Polish community said.

Nikolay Madoyan, honored violinist of Armenia, Eduard Baghdasarian,
People’s Artist of Armenia, Vazgen Ghazarian, 5th year student at
Yerevan State Conservatoire, and the Chorus of the Polish Community
performed a concert during the evening.

“I think that such arrangements are very important, as they build a
bridge between the old and the new generations and give them an
opportunity to learn lessons from the history,” Mr. Barishnikov said.

By Ruzan Poghosian

EXPERTS SEEK REASONABLE SETTLEMENT FOR NAGORNO KARABAKH

Azg/arm
3 Feb 05

A round table at Yerevan hotel on February 1 gathered together
representatives of a new oppositional faction (Vazgen Manukian, Paruyr
Hayrikyan and Ashot Manucharian), political experts from Armenia and
NKR to discuss the present-day viewpoints on Nagorno Karabakh issue.

Both the political figures, and the political experts stated that the
inner processes of Armenia and NKR lead to the direction that can
threaten the security of the Armenian nation.

The meeting was directed to elaborating an objective policy on the
experts’ level. The participants of the meeting said that the
establishment of the control mechanism for the decisions made by the
official institutions concerning the inner policy. The publicities of
both Armenia and Artsakh should care about the establishment of this
mechanism.

The initiators of the round table stated that our “unprotected
national interests” are caused by the fact that “the political order
shaped in Armenia and the functions of the state bodies do not
correspond with the constitutional criteria. This factor creates the
atmosphere of preferences for some groups’ interests in conducting
home and foreign policy.”

According to Ashot Manucharian, the political field of Armenia
constantly lost potential in the course of the last ten years. Both
the nation and the political elite with the political experts are
withdrawn, leaving the political area to a small group of
people. “Meanwhile, quite contrary processes are fixed in the
world. The foreign policy is shaped by the whole potential of the
society.”

The political figures envisage to organize some other meetings with
the participation of the political experts, including NKR as
well. These meetings should contribute to making more concrete and
reasonable suggestions for achieving the settlement.

By Karine Danielian

Azeri official hopes international mission to prove settlement in occupied
lands

Trend news agency
2 Feb 05

BAKU

The information registered by the [OSCE fact-finding] mission, which
is establishing facts of settlement in Nagornyy Karabakh, should be
seen as proof of the documentary evidence provided by Baku,
Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov told Trend today.

Azimov said “it is of course impossible to expose all facts of
settlement in the occupied Azerbaijani territories, but there are
sufficient facts to conclude that the Armenian side is implementing it
as a programme”.

“And this has not been done unofficially. This officially approved
policy is being implemented with the immediate support of the Armenian
government. We have sufficient facts published in the Armenian media
which provided strong emotional and ideological support for this
policy,” the deputy minister said.

Azimov added that the mass media describe those who agree to being
settled as heroes. These people enjoy different privileges, including
tax and land benefits, while their children get an exemption from
military service.

All this information has been taken from open sources, the web sites
of the Armenian media, as well as collected by relevant services and
handed over to the OSCE fact-finding mission in Baku.

“I hope the documents and facts we have provided have given them some
insight into the problem. They cannot be denied or ignored. The facts
will be registered,” Azimov said.

[Passage omitted: reported details]

Russian foreign minister about to embark on visits to Armenia, Georgia

ITAR-TASS news agency
2 Feb 05

MOSCOW

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “will be visiting Armenia in
the second half of February before his visit to Georgia”. Aleksandr
Yakovenko, the official representative of the Russian Foreign
Ministry, has reported this today.

In his words, “the visit will be taking place before the head of the
Russian Foreign Ministry’s visit to Georgia, which is planned for 18
February”.

Yakovenko reported earlier that the minister intends to make trips to
all the capitals of the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States].

Sergey Lavrov “is planning to visit all the commonwealth’s states soon
in order to discuss the process to reform the CIS”. Russia, noted
Yakovenko, “is heading this work in the commonwealth and is currently
gathering proposals from participating countries”.

Sergey Lavrov’s talks in Baku with the Azerbaijani leadership ended
today.

Settlers in Karabakh say they will be happy to go back – TV

Artsakh Public TV, Stepanakert
2 Feb 05

Today the OSCE fact-finding mission continued its visits to the
regions controlled by Armenian forces.

Today, it was a bit different from other days since this time
journalists were allowed to accompany the group and less places were
visited, while previous visits had been very hectic and tiring.

In Agdam, the group stopped at an Azerbaijani mosque and inspected it
for some time. Afterwards they spoke to some herdsmen. They spoke to
people without the presence of journalists.

The next stop on the way to Mardakert was the village of Nor
Maraga. People living there are from Maraga that is currently under
Azerbaijani occupation. They said that they would be happy to return
to their native village once it was possible. Until then they have no
other place to go. There, too, the group talked to people
individually.

Asked by journalists whether the information they had been provided by
the Azerbaijani side was true, [head of the mission] Ms [Emily]
Margarethe Haber said that it was early to make any judgments as
yet. We will have to sit and talk, all of us, to analyse the facts we
have found once our mission is over and only after that we will be
able to say something in this regard, she said.

Asked whether the group would also visit the north of Karabakh,
currently under Azerbaijani occupation, Margarethe Haber answered that
they were a technical group and that they did what they were asked
to. It is up to the OSCE to decide what they should do.

The group is continuing visits to the remaining districts.

Azeri paper warns of row with Georgia over military aid to Armenia

Zerkalo, Baku
2 Feb 05

Excerpt from C. Sumarinli and M. Yasaroglu report by Azerbaijani
newspaper Zerkalo on 2 February headlined “A military scandal is
brewing between Georgia and Azerbaijan” an subheaded “If Tbilisi
continues repairing Armenian tanks, this issue will be discussed at a
parliament session”

Zerkalo has repeatedly written about Georgia’s inconsistent and more
than strange policy towards Azerbaijan. In some issues, our Georgian
neighbours pretend that they are giving us all-out support, but do
quite the opposite in other cases.

The information we have discovered may trigger a new incident between
the two countries’ authorities as it is directly related to
Azerbaijan’s interests in the Karabakh issue. The point is that
[Russia’s] Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported yesterday that the Tbilisi
tank repairing plant of the Group of Russian Troops in the
Transcaucasus [GRTT], which is the only plant of the sort in the South
Caucasus, has been handed over to the Georgian Defence Ministry.
[Passage omitted: details of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta report]

In a word, no problem is anticipated between the Georgian and Russian
defence ministries. However, problems may arise with Azerbaijan.

The point is that until recently, not only Russian and Georgian tanks,
but also armoured vehicles of the Armenian army were repaired in
Tbilisi. Let us recall that several years ago, official Baku accused
Georgia of giving military aid to unfriendly Yerevan. Official Baku
turned down the Georgian and GRTT offer to provide the Azerbaijani
army with the same services.

What will neighbouring Georgia do now that it owns the plant? And one
should not forget that Georgia is Azerbaijan’s strategic partner.
[Passage omitted: details of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta report]

Interestingly, Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry displayed “enviable
awareness” of the issue. To put it simply, the Azerbaijani Defence
Ministry has no idea about this at all. At least this is what Col
Ramiz Malikov, head of the Defence Ministry’s press office, told our
Zerkalo correspondent.

“I have no idea about this information and that’s why I cannot say
anything specific,” he said.

Despite the spartan calm of the head of the Defence Ministry press
office, a member of the parliament’s standing commission for defence
and national security, Alimammad Nuriyev, views this issue as quite
serious. He says that official Baku should focus on the issue,
“carefully study it and express its concern to the Georgian side”.

Nuriyev believes that the handover of the tank repairing plant to
Georgia has fundamentally changed the situation. Given the fact that
Russia and Armenia are military and strategic partners, the repairing
of Armenian military hard ware at the Georgian plant is a logical
reality, which, however, is not in Azerbaijan’s interests. But if the
situation has changed in favour of Georgia, official Tbilisi simply
has to take into account the interests of Baku, which is its strategic
partner. What’s more, like Azerbaijan, Georgia has chosen to integrate
into NATO.

“Given all these factors, one should not view normally the fact that
Georgia is repairing Armenian military hardware,” Nuriyev said. He
voiced his hope that the Azerbaijani government will express its
position on the issue.

Nuriyev believes that if the situation develops in the direction that
goes against Azerbaijan’s interests, the issue will be raised at the
Azerbaijani parliament. He said Azerbaijan has many levers to pressure
Georgia, and the Georgian side understands this. However, he refused
to elaborate on this, as Azerbaijan has not announced its official
position.

In turn, independent military expert Col-Lt Uzeyir Cafarov said that
official Tbilisi should take account of Azerbaijan’s interests and,
most importantly, of the fact that we are at war with Armenia. Georgia
should limit its military cooperation with Armenia. Otherwise, the
expert said, tensions may emerge in Azerbaijani-Georgian relations in
the near future.

Cafarov is sure that Armenia will continue having its military
hardware repaired at that plant for a long time. However, sooner or
later official Tbilisi will have to take into account Azerbaijan’s
interest, he said.

The expert thinks that it is of benefit to Azerbaijan to have its
tanks repaired at this plant instead of Armenia. As a person who used
to serve in Georgia, he also noted the high professionalism of the
plant’s staff in this sphere. Many, including Azerbaijan, have
refused the services of the plant, as a result of which the capacity
of the plant has halved.

“I think that the plant will be upgraded to modern international
standards with the help of NATO. This will be possible in three or
four years. It will be good if Azerbaijan also used the services of
this plant,” he said. [Passage omitted: minor details]

Azeri official rules out territorial compromise with Armenia

MPA news agency, Baku
2 Feb 05

BAKU

Certain changes are observed in the process of settling the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister
Araz Azimov has told MPA.

He said Azerbaijan continues to adhere to a negotiated settlement to
the problem, to the restoration of contacts between Karabakh’s
Armenian and Azerbaijani communities and between Baku and
Yerevan. However, territorial compromises are ruled out. In other
words, it is impossible to resolve the problem by these kinds of
concessions.

As a member of European organizations, Azerbaijan has acquired some
European experience, Azimov said. At issue is not the transfer of
lands from one state to another, but their integration. Those
observing the situation in the region have to pay attention to two
factors. Several suggestions of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
towards resolving the conflict with South Ossetia were voiced at a
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] session and
some of them could facilitate solution to the Karabakh problem. The
latest PACE resolution pertaining to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict,
Azimov said, attests to the fact that this European organization is
moving in the right direction.

“A solution to the Karabakh conflict represents special importance for
the region’s integration into Europe,” the Azerbaijani diplomat said.

International mediators to pressure Armenia over Karabakh – paper

Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
2 Feb 05

Text of unattributed report by Armenian newspaper Haykakan Zhamanak on
2 February headlined “Cat’s game is death for mice”

While the OSCE’s mission is continuing to monitor the
liberated-occupied territories, political analysts are trying to guess
what consequences this may have for Armenia, Karabakh and for the
further settlement of the Karabakh issue on the whole.

There is a wrong approach against this background, according to which
the monitoring mission is conceived as an event. It would be more
correct to say that this is the beginning of a new process in the
Karabakh settlement which may take a long time and whose main purpose
is to gain a new lever to put pressure on the authorities of
Armenia. The fact that the OSCE monitoring mission has refused to
visit Shaumyan and Getashen districts shows that the authorities of
Armenia will be the main target of this pressure. Thus, the mission’s
report on the result of the monitoring will greatly depend on whether
the Armenian authorities will be able to assure the world community
that they are ready to settle the problem.

It is also important that assurances of the Armenian authorities are
not fragmentary and turn into a businesslike process. This logic
prompts that at the first stage the monitoring mission will
demonstrate that it acts solely within its mandate, i.e. it is only
trying to clarify to what extent Armenia has settled the
liberated-occupied territories, but their report could go beyond this
framework.

But due to the political necessity, members of the monitoring mission
will make revelations in their interviews and commentaries on the
topic “What I have seen in the occupied territories”. This will happen
if the OSCE is convinced that Armenia is not in a hurry to make
compromises. But in case Armenia continues to follow its “victorious”
policy, the members of the monitoring mission will make harsher
revelations. This will be followed by the second and third visits of
the mission to the region.

Incidentally, this is not a political complication, as the world
community has already fixed in several documents that the
liberated-occupied territories are an integral part of Azerbaijan.
That is, to return to these areas they only need new monitoring
themes suggested by Azerbaijan. In this case international documents
will contain provisions that will aim not to encourage the Armenian
authorities to be constructive but have quite a different purpose.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
02/02/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1) Karabagh TV Airs Flip-flopping by PACE’s Atkinson
2) AGBU Addresses Lawsuit Filed by Archbishop Mutafyan
3) Phillips Discusses History of TARC in New Book
4) Nine Candidates Approved for City Clerk Race

1) Karabagh TV Airs Flip-flopping by PACE’s Atkinson

STEPANAKERT (Combined Sources)–The Public TV and Radio Broadcasting
Company of
Mountainous Karabagh Republic recently aired a 1993 interview with the current
Parliamentary of Council of Europe’s (PACE) Rapporteur on Mountainous Karabagh
David Atkinson, in which Atkinson affirms the rights of the people of
Mountainous Karabagh, and condemns Azerbaijan for launching the war in the
region.
“I think the people of Karabagh have the right to decide their own destiny
and
future. Our organization and I shall personally do everything so that the
Karabagh Armenians live a free and full life on their land,” David Atkinson
notes in a 1993 interview conducted in the village of Kichan, in the Mardakert
region of Karabagh.
But after his 2004 appointment as Rapporteur, he sharply announced that the
principle of right to self-determination is not applicable to Mountainous
Karabagh Republic.
Just last week, in his recommendations presented to PACE, Atkinson criticized
Armenian forces for occupying considerable parts of Azerbaijan’s territory,
and
said that the 1988-94 war has led to large-scale ethnic expulsions and the
creation of mono-ethnic areas that “resemble the terrible concept of ethnic
cleansing.”
In 1993, Atkinson categorically blames Azerbaijan for starting the war, “What
I have seen is above my imagination. Here is a real war which is taking away
many lives on a daily basis. It is obvious that Azerbaijan launched this war;
Azerbaijan will not be a member of the Council of Europe unless it is
stopped.”
He further describes the Azeris as “vandals” for desecrating Christian
churches
in Shushi.

2) AGBU Addresses Lawsuit Filed by Archbishop Mutafyan

NEW YORK–The AGBU Central Board of Directors responded to the lawsuit
filed by
Archbishop Mesrob Mutafyan against the New York-based organization on January
13. The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
addressing the formal announcement made by the AGBU in March 2004 that it
would
be closing the Melkonian Educational Institution in Nicosia, Cyprus at the end
of the 2005 school year.
In a statement released on January 28, the AGBU Board of Directors expressed
that Archbishop Mutafyan “has not been fully informed of the true position
with
regard to AGBU’s operation of the Melkonian Educational Institute.”
The statement continues to stress AGBU’s committment “to serve and pursue the
best interests of the Armenian nation and not the particular interests of the
few, no matter how vocal.”
“The decision to close the Melkonian Educational Institute was carefully
considered and is fully permitted under the terms of the unconditional grant
made to AGBU. In addition, contrary to the allegations made, through the years
AGBU has paid to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, pursuant to Garabed
Melkonian’s wishes, all sums provided for by him and much more, as
evidenced by
receipts and other documents,” it concludes.

3) Phillips Discusses History of TARC in New Book

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)–In a new book titled `Unsilencing the Past,’ former chair of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), David Phillips offers
his perspective on the activities of the controversial organization, and its
relationship with high-ranking government officials and political
organizations
in Armenia and abroad.
The 170-page publication delves into the history behind the creation of the
panel, which was largely the brainchild of the US government. According to the
book, Phillips was approached by Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Marc Grossman in 2000 with the idea of creating an Armenian-Turkish joint
commission. At the time of their meeting, Phillips held senior positions at
the
Council on Foreign Relations, the American University in Washington and the
Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. He also served as an advisor to the State
Department on issues of democracy and regional stability.
Additionally, Phillips had in the past worked to help bridge the Greek and
Kurdish communities with their Turkish neighbors. The United States’s
approach,
labeled `Track-Two diplomacy,’ held that various sections of civil societies
can facilitate the resolution of long-running ethnic disputes through meetings
in which root causes are dissected and analyzed. According to Phillips,
Grossman believed that the Track-Two efforts, as applied in Turkey and Cyprus,
could be used to resolve the Turkish-Armenian conflict, `one of the world’s
most intractable problems.’
Once the work began, the State Department, as noted by Phillips, covered only
`some of TARC’s direct costs’ and `never interfered in [his] work.’ That work
was effectively catalyzed by Armenian threats to veto the choice of
Istanbul as
the venue for the December 1999 summit of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, in protest of Turkey’s refusal to normalize relations
with Armenia. Phillips contends that the threats were used by the authorities
in Yerevan to provoke stronger US pressure on Ankara. He also states that Van
Krikorian, the then chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America who would
later become a key member of TARC, was asked to `undertake discussions with
the
State Department,’ circumventing Armenia’s ambassador to Washington.
Once the foundation was laid, senior State Department officials approached
the
Armenian and Turkish governments several months later with a formal offer,
which according to Phillips, was welcomed by both sides. Discord, however,
resulted in October 2000, when President Clinton blocked a congressional
resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.
The process regained momentum soon after, when the sides agreed to meet in
Vienna in early 2001. The idea, according to Phillips, was backed by Armenian
officials. `I had met with [Foreign Minister Vartan] Oskanian on several
occasions to brief him,’ he writes. `At every turn, he endorsed the
initiative.
Robert Kocharian also directly communicated his support for TARC.’
The first official reaction from the Armenian government offered support to
the newly developed group. `Armenia has always had a positive attitude towards
public contacts and dialogue between the two peoples, which allow for the
exchange of opinions and discussions on the existing problems,’ a Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman stated.
However, according to Phillips, when pressure was exerted by a number of
Armenian groups, most notably the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the
Armenian government decided to reverse its stance. `Instead of publicly
endorsing the initiative, which Oskanian had committed to do, the Armenian
government got nervous about being associated with TARC,’ the book reads.
Armenian critics of TARC argued that it has no popular mandate to deal with
the issue and accused the Armenian members of the commission of participating
in a Turkey-US conspiracy to derail international recognition of the genocide.
Given this sentiment, Phillips asserts that the Armenian commissioners
insisted
during the process that then government of Turkey needs to come to terms with
its past. The commissioners and were also `incensed’ with comments made by
TARC
member Gunduz Aktan, whose aggressive denials of the genocide nearly disrupted
initial efforts to form the commission.
`Do you know how we feel when you try to embarrass us by introducing
resolutions in parliaments around the world? Our feelings are hurt,’ Aktan is
quoted in the book as telling his Armenian counterparts at the Vienna meeting
in 2001.
`How do you think we feel?’ former Armenian foreign minister Alexander
Arzoumanian is said to have replied. `We are the ones who were genocided.’
`The Armenians saw TARC as a vehicle for approaching Turkish elites and
initiating a dialogue about the genocide. Even if the Turks are sympathetic to
the suffering of Armenians, they were not prepared to have TARC acknowledge
the
genocide,’ Phillips explains.
This problem, Phillips notes, is rooted in the `selective memory’ of the
modern Turkish state founded by Mustafa Kemal in the aftermath of the Armenian
genocide. `Turks refuse to acknowledge the genocide because acknowledgement
contradicts their noble self-image…In addition, the government of Turkey fears
that the campaign is laying the legal groundwork for reparations or
territorial
claims.’
Turkey’s persistent denials of the genocide prevented TARC from conducting
meaningful work. Meeting in New York in November 2003, the organization agreed
to ask the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a New
York-based human rights organization, to conduct a study on the applicability
of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide to the
mass killings and deportations of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey.
Shortly afterward, two of the Turkish commissioners bypassed their colleagues
by instructing the ICTJ to `refrain from studying the subject matter.’ The
Armenian members responded with an angry statement stating that `TARC is not
going to proceed.’
`I insinuated that Ankara was responsible for scuttling the initiative. Just
mentioning the Genocide Convention stirred anxiety in the Turkish Foreign
Ministry,’ Phillips writes. He then appealed to US officials to help salvage
the endeavor.
Despite the dispute, TARC decided to go ahead with the ICTJ study when its
members converged on the Turkish resort town of Bodrum in July 2002. According
to Phillips, Van Krikorian and Aktan appeared before an ICTJ panel in
September
2002 to present the Armenian and Turkish interpretations of what happened in
1915. Aktan, in Phillips’s words, promised to `destroy’ ICTJ researchers with
his legal arguments but appeared `nervous’ after making his case.
He had reason to be edgy. On February 4, 2003, the ICTJ submitted to TARC a
detailed analysis which concluded that the slaughter of an estimated 1.5
million Ottoman Armenians includes `all the elements of the crime of genocide
as defined by the [UN] Convention.’ The study at the same time found that the
Armenians can not use the Convention to make `legal financial or territorial
claims arising out of the Events.’
`In a private conversation with Van, Oskanian `offered congratulations’ and
said it was a great accomplishment,’ Phillips says. `However, he refused to
publicly embrace the ICTJ analysis.’ Armenian political groups and public
figures also barely reacted to it.
Phillips’s discontent with the Armenian government’s repudiation of his work
found an outlet in his article on Armenia that appeared in `The Wall Street
Journal’ last April. It slammed Kocharian’s regime as `corrupt and inept’ and
welcomed opposition attempts to topple the Armenian president. In his book,
Phillips bluntly accuses Kocharian of `stealing’ the 2003 presidential
election
from opposition leader Stepan Demirchian.
TARC, meanwhile, held several more meetings before announcing the end of its
mission in Moscow on April 14, 2004 and submitting a list of policy
recommendations to the Turkish and Armenian governments. The first and
foremost
of them was an unconditional opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. However,
Ankara seems unlikely to drop its preconditions for lifting Armenia’s economic
blockade in the foreseeable future.
Although the initiative failed, Phillips believes `TARC broke the ice and
helped catalyze a wide array of civil society Track Two activities,’ he
concludes. `It was also a lightning rod for criticism, thereby enabling other
civil society initiatives to proceed `under the radar.’ Though
people-to-people
contacts cannot solve core political problems, they can help prepare the
ground
for negotiations.’

4) Nine Candidates Approved for City Clerk Race

GLENDALE (Combined Sources)–As the city clerk race heats up, the petitions of
nine candidates have been finalized for the April 5 municipal election.
The City Clerk verified the petitions to certify that the candidates have
been
nominated by a minimum of 100 registered voters. The list of qualified
candidates and the order in which the names will appear on the ballot was
announced on February 2.
Ardashes Kassakhian began a 10-week sabbatical from the Armenian National
Committee to focus on his campaign for city clerk. He will campaign full-time
for the April 5 election, he said.
The other eight candidates are Paulette Mardikian, a customer service
representative for the city’s Building and Safety Department, Lorna Vartanian,
a financial accounting manager for a law firm, Narineh Barzegar, a graduate
student, Stephanie Landregan, a landscape artist, George McCullough, Gary
Sysock, deputy executive officer with Los Angeles County Clerk of the Board,
Kathryn Van Houten, an attorney, and Stephen L. Ropfogel, an independent
business owner.
All candidates filed the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot by
Tuesday’s deadline.
Since 1929, the city clerk position has been a political hand-me-down, with
incumbents retiring mid-term and the council choosing a replacement. During
those 75 years, the incumbent has never lost.

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.