Providence Journal , RI
March 26 2004

Icon of Cranston political circuit, sub shop owner Pashalian dies

The back room of his humble sandwich shop became a political hub
where regulars hashed out different issues everyday and state leaders
stopped to speak.

BY BARBARA POLICHETTI
Journal Staff Writer

CRANSTON — Over the past 45 years, Joe Pashalian made the most of
the large front windows of his Gansett Avenue sandwich shop, using
them to post signs that not only touted menu favorites like the
“sensational steak sandwich,” but also provoked public comments with
questions such as, “When is a contribution not a bribe?”

Pashalian, owner of the Boston Submarine Sandwich Shop, which for
decades has been affectionately known in political circles as “The
Back Room,” died yesterday at Cedar Crest Nursing Centre at the age
of 92.

With Pashalian presiding over both the ovens and the daily
discussions, the back room of the humble shop became a political hub
where regulars hashed out different issues daily and state leaders
periodically stopped to speak.

The list of guest speakers included Sen. Claiborne Pell, Gov. Bruce
Sundlun, Sen. Jack Reed, business leader John Hazen White, former
vice presidential hopeful Geraldine Ferraro, and Dr. Stanley M.
Aronson, dean of medicine emeritus at Brown University.

The shop, which was also known for the hearty wheat bread and sizable
sandwiches Pashalian served up, was practically a mandatory stop on
the campaign trail for candidates vying for city or statewide office.

“We came to recognize the place as a wonderful place for political
forums,” Anna Minicucci said yesterday, recalling the 15 years she
and her husband, David, spent frequenting the sub shop. “As word got
around, all the television stations and newspapers would show up,
too, and the place would be packed.”

In the 1990s, Minicucci assumed the unofficial role of event
organizer and said that every famous visitor left with a hefty loaf
of Pashalian’s whole-grain bread. “He baked these huge, huge loaves
of wheat bread,” she said, “and before he’d give them to people, he’d
say, ‘Well, you know, we don’t give dough, but we do give bread.’ ”

Both Minicucci and Aram Garabedian, former legislator and Cranston
mayoral candidate, said that the politics and guest speakers may have
gotten the spotlight, but the real attraction at the Boston Sub Shop
was Pashalian himself.

“He was always bright and always funny and he simply loved words,”
Garabedian said yesterday remembering the variety of dictionaries
that Pashalian kept handy in the back room. “He was a man of words —
he loved to throw out a word and see if you knew the meaning.”

Pashalian’s love of words was evident not only in the ever-present
dictionaries, but in the hand-lettered signs that he plastered his
front windows with and hung from the light fixtures of the back room.
And he always kept a miniature copy of Rodin’s statue The Thinker in
the center of the back room table.

Always kindhearted, Pashalian nonetheless loved to play devil’s
advocate and provoke debates at almost any cost. “He was a charmer,”
Minicucci said, “but he would deliberately take the opposite view to
keep discussions going. Then, when everybody was yelling at him, he’d
yell back, ‘What do I know, I’m just a baker.’ ”

Pashalian was much, much more than just a baker, Garabedian said,
noting that the proud businessman had once studied to be a lawyer.

He served as an ensign in the Coast Guard after graduating from its
academy at Fort Trumbull in Connecticut, graduated from Providence
College, and attended Boston University Law School.

Garabedian, who has been a regular at the shop since the 1960s, said
that it was shortly after his own bid for Cranston School Committee
that he dubbed the shop “the back room” and the name stuck.

Eventually The Back Room drew national media attention in newspaper
and magazine articles, Garabedian said. And while Pashalian enjoyed
the limelight and the visitors, his loyalty was always to his
longtime friends.

Garabedian said he remembers the day that a reporter for a national
newspaper called during lunch hour hoping to interview Pashalian.
“Joe got on the phone and said, ‘I’m too busy waiting on customers,’
” Garabedian said.

“Even though he was operating this little innocuous sandwich shop, he
managed to get attention from all over,” he said.

The small brick-fronted shop, located across the street from Hugh B.
Bain Middle School, may have looked modest, Garabedian said, but the
food was as impressive as the list of guest speakers. Everything
Pashalian made — from sandwiches to hermit cookies — was good,
Garabedian said. Pashalian was known especially for the thin Armenian
cracker bread that reflected both his baking skill and his pride in
his heritage.

In 2000, Mayor John O’Leary honored Pashalian by making him the
recipient of one of Cranston’s “Outstanding Seniors” awards.

Garabedian said that Pashalian had started to falter physically
recently, but he still showed up at the sub shop everyday. Family
members said that the shop will continue to operate under longtime
friend Mike Vittulo.

Yesterday, Pashalian’s big signs were still up in the front windows
— one promising pizza and broccoli pies and another declaring that
“No university ever gave a degree in common sense.”

One small new sign was taped to the door. It notified customers that
the shop will be closed tomorrow for Pashalian’s funeral.

“Joe is the type of guy who wouldn’t want the shop closed too long,”
Garabedian said. “He was still working in the back room when I left
for Florida a couple of weeks ago, and I expected to see him there
when I came back.”

Both Garabedian and Minicucci noted that Pashalian never declared any
party affiliation despite the parade of politicos who dined and
campaigned at his shop.

“I really think that he hated politics, but loved the politicians,”
Minicucci said. “I think that deep down, he just loved people.”

Pashalian, who lived on Bretton Woods Drive, was the husband of Alice
R. (White) Pashalian. They were married for 68 years.

Joseph Pashalian was born in Providence, a son of the late Charles
and Paris (Tashjian) Pashalian. He owned Pashalian’s Market in
Providence before opening the sandwich shop 45 years ago.

Besides his wife, he is survived by two daughters: Joyce C. Pashalian
of Providence and Joan A. Morrison of Jamestown. He was the brother
of the late George and Anna Pashalian, Irene Juskalian, Rose
Meldonian and Zarie Dionne.

The funeral will be held tomorrow at 8:45 a.m. from the Nardolillo
Funeral Home, 1278 Park Ave., Cranston, with a service at 10 a.m. in
Sts. Sahag & Mesrob Armenian Apostolic Church, 70 Jefferson St.,
Providence.

Burial will be in North Burial Ground Cemetery, Providence.

Armenian National Committee
San Francisco – Bay Area
51 Commonwealth Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118
Tel: (415) 387-3433
Fax: (415) 751-0617
E-mail: [email protected]

SPEECH BY ARSINÉE KHANDJIAN AT BAY AREA ANC “HAI TAD EVENING”
Saturday, March 6, 2004

When I was first invited for an opportunity to speak tonight, I wasn’t sure
what it was that the organizers were hoping to hear me say. The response
came back to me very quickly in the form of a self-evident suggestion which
was to address the topic of “the role of the artist in Hay Tad (the Armenian
cause)”. When I say self-evident, I mean, from the perspective of the
organization’s mandate and history which is to keep the subject of and the
work towards the recognition of the Armenian Genocide alive and continuous.

As we know, both politics and the arts have been driving forces for social
change throughout history. Cultures that have rejected the influences and
challenges presented by artists have remained poorer and weaker as a society
and a civilization.

When artistic activities have been embraced by societies, the artists have
often found themselves inscribed in the history of that culture. Not only
in its art history, but also in the larger collective history. Over time,
the process of the creative endeavor as well as its outcome have come to be
identified with the personal beliefs and views of the artist himself.
Undoubtedly, his personal experiences and morals influence his inspiration;
but if the resulting expression runs counter to the dominant, accepted
ideology of a particular society, – sadly, we’ve seen time after time, – the
most common reaction is to label the work as “propaganda”.

Over the years, as Atom Egoyan and I discussed the question of the Armenian
Genocide, the history’s effects on us as survivors, and the burden on the
Diaspora to face the denial of this inconceivable pain, one question kept
coming back unfailingly. It was a question in two parts: “Why and how to
remember?”

As long as we were not directly exploring this very history through our
work, the challenge for us remained in understanding it on a personal level
– in understanding its effects on our identity. However, when we decided to
address these issues in a film work that would explore our Armenian identity
and expose the effects of the Genocide on it, not only did the two-part
question resurface – more than that – what became clear was that there was
an inherent danger in the simple fact of raising the topic. In the face of
an unsettled historical event, it was difficult to just follow the natural
law of the creative process which normally allows artists to speak from what
they know and what they believe in, what inspires their work and what
substantiates their imagination. The infamous question of `why to remember’
started putting us in a defensive position. Explaining and contextualizing
our work were not unusual to us. Artists’ views and observations are often
challenged for their meaning, their accuracy, and their pertinence in light
of established conventional values. But the position we found ourselves in
this time was atypical because as our responses ran the risk of being
perceived as political stances. For some, the initiative of the film was
further evidence of our engagement in a political act. They felt that not
only had we decided to remember the Genocide, but we were also suggesting
“how to remember” it – which brings me to the heart of the subject.

“Ararat” was designed to be first and foremost a work of art inspired by
humanistic and creative concerns previously present in the filmmaker’s body
of work. Atom Egoyan says in his introduction to the screenplay: “The
problem with any film that deals with the “Armenian issue” is that there are
so many issues to deal with… From the moment I began to write this
script, I was drawn to the idea of what it means to tell a story of horror.
In this case, the horror isn’t only about the historical events that took
place in Turkey over eighty-five years ago, but also the enduring horror of
living with something so cataclystic that has been systematically denied.
Without getting into the mechanics of that denial (there are a number of
books and articles on that issue), it is important to note that the role of
the director in my film-within-the-film is monumental. Edward Saroyan, and
his screenwriter, Rouben, are faced with an awesome task. They will be the
first filmmakers to present these images to a wide public. If their film
seems raw and blunt in its depictions, it’s because they are the first
people to cinematically present these “unspeakable horrors.” (later he adds)
most of the conflicts that occur in the contemporary story are related to
the unresolved nature of not only the Genocide, but also the difficulties
and compromises faced by the representation of this atrocity. How does an
artist speak the unspeakable? What does it mean to listen? What happens when
it is denied? (and finally) thus the screenplay had to tell the story of
what happened, why it happened, why it’s denied, why it continues to happen,
and what happens when you continue to deny. Ararat is a story about the
transmission of trauma. It is cross-cultural and inter-generational. The
grammar of the screenplay uses every possible tense available, from the
past, present, and future, to the subjective and the conditional.”

These incessant questions, – either in preparation for the production, or as
voiced by the character of Saroyan in the film, and again raised by the
filmmaker after the completion of Ararat, – are a clear indication that at
no point was there a desire to prove that the history was true. Instead,
the only concern was to find a way to give voice to a true history, to
retrieve it from oblivion and make the viewers ask themselves why they have
never heard of it. These were the obligations felt by the filmmaker.

Nevertheless, in the last two and a half years, we were to be confronted by
many politically charged situations and accusations. There is no doubt that
in the case of Ararat, the artifact itself, the film as an object, has
become in many cases a political instrument. As you may well know, opinions
are expressed regularly from various Turkish sources that adamantly reject
what the film represents, despite the fact that only a few of the respective
parties have actually even seen it. And, perhaps, there are Armenians who
may have not fully appreciated the thematic treatment of the movie and yet
they will unconditionally support it because it is “about the Armenian
Genocide”. These reactions and developments may be considered inevitable
given the political contrapositions on the subject. They do, however,
suggest that as artists we, nonetheless, have to be prepared to enter into
political discourse and sometimes directly so.

I will take a moment to describe one recent incident that not only caught
Atom and me by surprise but once again made us wonder to what extent the
artist is to be involved in the realm of political action even if that is
not his objective or choice.

It was end of December last year, just before the holidays, when we heard
that Erkan Mumcu, the Turkish minister of culture and tourism, had announced
that “Ararat” will finally be shown in Turkey. This came as a big surprise
mixed with excitement and suspicion. After all, we had already heard when
the film was screened publicly that festival organizers would invite it to
the Istanbul film fest. We had heard encouraging words from Turkish
journalists and critics that the film should be shown to Turkish audiences.
We were even approached by the head of a distribution company called Belge
film, who would take it upon himself to open the movie in Turkey. But all
these expressions of interest and curiosity had amounted to very little.
The individual initiatives were either not sincere enough or strong enough
to change a government policy shunning all discussion about anything
directly related to the subject of the Armenian Genocide. The more
organized campaigns were to refute the validity of the film both from a
historical and artistic perspective. Just before the opening of the film in
the states, over two thousand e-mails had inundated Disney’s and Miramax’s
head offices, claiming historical distortion and propaganda. One may
imagine, therefore, our amazement at this latest news where the minister was
announcing, through one of the most important press agencies in the world,
associated press, that “Ararat” was to be screened to Turkish audiences.
This was to show that the country was a serious proponent of democratic
ideals and that the release of the film was an example of Turkey’s tolerance
and openness as a society. The message appeared to be that Turkish citizens
should be entitled to their own opinion after having a chance to see the
film. These statements were commendable but they indicated a drastic shift
in the government’s position. Why now, we asked ourselves? After all, most
of the initial buzz, impact, concerns and accusations had already had their
run and the subject of the controversy around the film was slowly fading away.

Atom, in his magnanimously generous and optimistic outlook was happy about
this news. It was his hope that Turkish society would have a chance to see
this work along with previous ones, as part of his ongoing fascination with
human tragedy.

I, on the other hand, was much more skeptical. The news was too good to be
true. The vociferous articles that had been published over the past two
years in so many Turkish papers did not give me a sense that this
announcement could be anything other than rhetorical. I decided not to get
my hopes too high and naively be seduced by an intangible gesture. In a
strange way, I was even uneasy that “Ararat” would finally be released in
Turkey. I felt a sense of manipulation and opportunism guiding this highly
volatile announcement. As if, someone was walking into my garden, picking
up my golden apple, and walking out into the world to show the discovery. I
was determined to follow the turn of events as closely as possible until I
heard that the film was actually running in Turkish theatres.

Unfortunately, my instincts were well founded. It didn’t take us long to
find out that not only was the decision of the government challenged by the
nationalist action party, but also that any individual choosing to attend
screenings would suffer the consequences of the decision to shame Turkey by
paying dearly with his or her life.

Of course, this time no international media was to report these latest
developments. We found out about it through individuals who read Turkish
newspapers and who took it upon themselves to inform us of the way the
situation was unfolding.

As one may guess, Turkey needed to persuade the European Union through a
grandiose gesture of her ongoing efforts to establish democratic values as
an enduring principle of social and political course. “Ararat” with its
international profile was a perfect “golden apple” to show off at this
occasion. This strategy would not, however, survive the precarious
democratic structures on which this recently elected government was trying
to hold itself up.

My feeling was that something had to be done before this development would
go unnoticed and the world would remain with an initial false impression.
“Ararat” was not to see “the light of projector” in Turkey, and this,
everyone had the right to know without ambiguity. This was, yet again,
another example of deception, not only for us the filmmakers, but also for
every righteous citizen in the international community. Often our
politicians, for political expediency and alliances, fail to keep us from
knowing what is true and what is not. But this sort of knowledge is not a
privilege, it’s a public right.

I started to talk about it with friends, with community leaders, with
activists. To my surprise, I was to be given predictable generic responses
such as: “Oh well! It’s hardly surprising! But what can be done?” Or “there
are so many other issues to deal with when it comes to denial; this is more
or less one other small example of it”. Or “Armenian organizations have
more important ongoing concerns and this situation is only another
“velveloug”, rumor, not worth prioritizing it necessarily”. When I called
an American/Armenian organization to exchange ideas about a possible way to
address the situation, my phone call was not to be returned. Amazed by this
dismissal, I complained to someone in private, at which point I heard
something that amazed me even more: “What! Just because you’re a movie star
you think the person would have to take your call? Don’t you realize how
busy they are handling major Armenian issues?” I didn’t need insult from my
own people over injury from Turkish politicians.

I informed Atom that this case was not to be abandoned. We needed to
publicize the incident in a media-wide splash. After all, the Turkish
government has had the “presence d’esprit” to use the press in the first
place. Why stop them in their own device?

That’s when the ANC chapter in Toronto was contacted. I will personally
name Aris Babikian because he was the one person, who listened carefully to
what I was proposing as an opportunity and as an approach to turn the
situation around in our interest. I am thankful and humbled by his
generosity to commit the time and effort to this cause. He did it single
handedly by calling upon every Toronto newspaper editor. Soon, the
journalists were calling in to speak with Atom and find out what sources in
Turkey had to be contacted to substantiate the story. They managed to get
hold of the distributor who had rejected the offer of the minister of
culture to provide police force in protection for audiences attending the
public screenings. How could one take on, after all, the responsibility of
threatened lives? The Turkish ambassador in Ottawa was asked for an opinion.
He responded that this situation was not an example of a failing democracy
in Turkey… Finally, the same minister of culture gave in. Pressured by
demands for answers from Canadian journalists, he claimed that it was all a
ploy by the Canadian distributor of “Ararat” who had forced Turkey to
purchase the film, in order, to show later that Turkey was not an open,
tolerant society.

Yes. All this was reported in the Canadian press, nationally.

But the major success of this media campaign was marked when the editor of
the globe and mail, one of our most influential national papers, gave a most
unprecedented editorial write up, firmly establishing an explicit editorial
policy by calling the events of 1915 a genocide, and venturing even further.
Under the title, blocking Ararat, read the following passages: “If only
stories were as powerful as Ulku Ocaklari, the youth wing of a Turkish
nationalist group, seems to think they are! Threats of violence from the
group this month caused a film distributor in Turkey to withdraw Atom
Egoyan’s movie Ararat, about the 1915 genocide of an estimated 1.5 million
Armenians, before its debut on Turkey’s movie screens. Ulku Ocaklari must
be among the last believers in the power of art to change the world. (He
continues) the movie provides a test of the country’s political maturity at
a time when Turkey is pressing to join the European Union… Turkey is
failing the test. (later, he asks) What do the nationalists fear would
happen if Turks sat down to watch Mr. Egoyan’s complicated tale, much of
which is about the effects of the Genocide on Canadian Armenians today? The
stirrings of empathy, the desire for reconciliation? A wish to know more, to
seek the truth about their country’s history?… Despite the efforts of
countless writers to bear witness – genocidal campaigns still flourished in
Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Even so, the artists and others
will continue to come forward, because they must. (and he concludes) in the
end, the Turkish people are the poorer for this violent threat against their
freedom to think.”(1)

Soon, ANC Washington and Los Angeles chapters were contacted and took it
upon themselves to alert the American press. What started up as being one
more affront in the ocean of assaults and deceptions regularly obstructing
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, turned into a premise to serve the
truth. This time, both the New York Times and the Los Angeles times
reported on the blocking of the film, not with such a unequivocal sense of
outrage as their Canadian counterpart, but then again, it is consistent with
the differences that mark the Canadian and American ways of contemplating
the world!

So, what is the role of the artist in Hay Tad?

Anatole Baja, a French theorist of the decadence movement, asks the
following question regarding the poet’s pursuit : “Isn’t their (the poets)
aim to seek the quintessence of things, to extract from them the most
intense perfume, in order to produce, in a few instants, a saraband of
striking visions giving the sensations of the manner of facts?”(2)

If this is the blessing, the power, the talent, and the vocation of the
artist and of the poet, then let me answer that question with another
question. What is the role of hay institutions, of hay politicians and
lobbyists, of hay culture and hay nation towards the artist? How do we
ensure that we acknowledge each other’s presence and we validate, as a
worldwide community, the differences among us? How do we bridge the gaps,
the lack of communication, and the ignorance that often plague the ever so
crucial bond linking a society to the voice of the artists?

I firmly believe that the role of the artist is to make art. But more
importantly, I consider it indispensable that societies appreciate closely
artistic processes and legitimize the endeavor of their artists; that they
come to understand there are several ways to accomplish goals towards a
promising future and that, in this respect, the artist is a major asset,
influence, and contributor.

Atom Egoyan and I never dreamt of writing a manifesto or a work of
propaganda with Ararat. All we wished for was to explore with rigor and
critical honesty the very essence of what we have to carry on as an identity
in our lives. That Armenians and hundreds of thousands of other citizens in
the world heard what “Ararat” had to tell is nothing other than a
celebration of the power of art to reach the heart and the mind of humanity.

If we played a role in Hay Tad, it was only because we first and foremost
believed in the need to tell our story as we know it. Thank you.

___________

(1) “Blocking Ararat”, in The Globe and Mail, Monday, Jan. 26, 2004.
(2) Legitimizing The Artist, Manifesto Writing and European Modernism,
1885-1915, Luca Somigli, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo,
London, 2003, p. 85.

Dar Al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia
March 24 2004

Between Islam And The West
Mustafa Al Faqi

The study of the Turkish phenomenon needs historical awareness and an
understanding of the Turkish character and the various factors that
form its identity and determine its policies that oscillate between
the historical Ottoman Turkey and the geographical European Turkey.
The Turkish State is not disturbed by being in Europe’s backside
instead of being in the Islamic world’s front. There are many aspects
to consider within the Turkish phenomenon: First of all, Turkey’s
location as a link between Asia and Europe and its control of the
straits gave it historical powers whose remnants remain to this day.
Secondly, the European dream that tickles Turkish feelings and
dominates its policies has led it to seek the appeasement of the
European Union and subsequently the United States and Israel. There
is no doubt that Ataturk’s ideology contributed substantially to
Turkey’s turn of perspective from the east to the west, despite all
the difficult conditions and concessions it had to face.
Nevertheless, the former French President, Valerie Giscard D’Estaing
has deemed that Turkey’s membership in the EU is almost impossible
and that perhaps a country like Morocco, in his point of view, has a
priority over it.

Ataturk’s secularism distanced Turkey from the Arab East, for the
eradication of the traditional headwear is not just symbolic but an
indication of the end of the Ottoman era and the beginning of
adopting Latin letters and turning Islam to a unique “Ataturkian”
model that is guarded by the army. We should also not forget that
Turkey is an important member of the NATO alliance and has played an
essential role in protecting Western and American interests and so it
is a key member of the Western defense system, which stood by its
side during its security troubles whether pertaining to the Cypriot
or Kurdish issues. Furthermore, the expansion of the Islamic tide in
modern Turkey represents an exceptional phenomenon, for new
generations express enthusiasm about returning to Turkey’s Islamic
character.

Hence, Turkey is a distinctive country and has played a significant
historical role in the entire region. Arabs have not properly used
the Turkish “card” in all their issues particularly in the
Arab-Israeli struggle. It is about time that Arabs deal with Turkey,
perhaps through the Arab League or bilateral ties, in a new
perspective because the diversity of its role makes it in a position
that can exert pressure on major world powers. The Turks are probably
enthusiastic about such a role but we Arabs have failed in taking
advantage of that role. Arab-Turkish relations definitely vary from
one Arab country to another as well as from one period to another
depending on international circumstances. We will not forget the
confrontation in 1998 with Syria that was avoided by the wisdom of
late President Assad and the efforts of the current Egyptian
President Mubarak.

Arab-Turkish relations have a lot of potential and should focus on
the following points: Overcoming the past’s negative aspects and
concentrating on the partnership that lasted for many centuries in
order to boost relations and give Turks the incentive to reconsider
their total secularism and change of identity without hurting Turkish
pride or the image of their legendary conqueror, Mustafa Kemal. The
Israeli-Turkish relations should not be an obstacle but a quality in
this course for Turkey could exert pressure in favor of peace. That
is why it should be given the status of observer in the Arab League
since it and Iran constitute the Arabs’ northern and eastern
neighbors. Moreover, the Turkish model of Islam should be considered
a fact. The recent visit by the current Syrian President to Turkey
has created a better atmosphere and has strengthened Arab-Turkish
relations and possibly gave way to a mediation role with Israel on
the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. The situation in Iraq might also be a
factor in bolstering these relations especially that Northern Iraq
has an ethnic Turkish minority.

This is our point of view concerning that country, at the center of
the world and that carries a part of human heritage and occupies a
strategic and unique position, which we share with a long history
including points of strength and weakness, particularly at the time
when the Turkish army perpetrated historic misfortunes that were
embodied in “Damascus’s hangings” in addition to the “Armenian
massacre.” Yet, history exonerates and peoples forgive and at the end
it is the long-term perspective of the relations between Arabs and
the country, oscillating between east and west that persist.

, Dalton, Georgia, USA
March 22 2004

Opinions Editorial
Is Islam Trying to Conquer the World by Sword?

By Habib Siddiqui

An allegation that is widespread these days in the United States is
that Muslims are trying to conquer the world with sword. The
anti-Islamic hawks repeat this mantra like a brain-dead devotee. Alan
Caruba is one such paranoid journalist. He claims, `Since the birth
of the Islamic revolution, begun by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of
Iran, Islam has been attempting to conquer the modern world by the
sword.’

One has to be totally out of touch with reality to make such a silly
and wacky observation. In contradistinction to Caruba’s accusation,
what we find is Christian Zionists collaborating with neoconservative
Zionist Jewish intellectuals (the protégés of Prof. Leo Strauss of
University of Chicago) to establish global hegemony. They misled the
world with false accusations about WMDs in order to justify the
invasion of Iraq. Strategic deception – the `Big Lie’ technique to
deceive others – is kosher in their political arsenal. They are the
Machiavellian ideologues that preach tyranny as the purest form of
statecraft. They exploit fear of an `enemy’ to get to political power
and to sustain that process of hanging on to it. They manipulate 9/11
the same way Nazis manipulated the Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933.
Their criminal doctrine of `regime change’ is a carbon copy of
Hitler’s threat to Eduard Benes in 1938. Bush invaded Iraq on the
same type of pretext used by Hitler for his 1939 invasion of Poland.
The `Patriot Act’ drafts, Guantanamo Bay base and related doctrines
of Ashcroft are copies of the Nazi concentration camps and related
dogma in law developed by fascist intellectuals like Carl Schmitt of
Germany. It is this cabal inside the Bush Administration that desires
and works for world domination, and surely not Muslims. Their
intellectual forefathers were responsible for creating fascists like
Mussolini, Hitler and Franco from the 1922-1945 pages of modern
history. Lust for spilling of human blood is a hallmark of their
mindset.
The blueprint for world domination can be seen in the drafts,
documents and books published (since 1991) by this neo-con cabal that
now influences the Bush Administration. Among the strategies spelled
out by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby (in 1992 to then Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney) are: `Deterring potential competitors from
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role,’ and taking
preemptive action against states suspected of developing WMDs.
Then came the `Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’
(proposed in 1996 by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert,
David & Meyrav Wurmser and others) to be followed by the `Project for
the New American Century’ (proposed by William Kristol and Robert
Kagan in consultation with collaborators at the American Enterprise
Institute in 1997). In an open letter to President Clinton on Jan.
26, 1998, PNAC called for immediate `regime change’ in Iraq. Most of
the signatories of that letter now are well placed in the current
Bush Administration. While Iraq was the latest nation (after
Taliban-run Afghanistan) to undergo a regime change, it won’t be the
last one if Bush were to prevail in the next election.
If Caruba were right we would have expected Muslim nation-states to
wage wars against non-Muslim territories. Instead, what we notice is
Christian and Jewish states that have been invading Muslim
nation-states. Indonesia was forced to secede East Timor; and already
plans are in place to secede southern Sudan from the rest of the
country. Armenian Christians also grabbed Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia killed nearly half a million
Muslims in the Balkans and Chechnya in just the last decade alone.
The USA and UK, two Christian countries with born-again Christian
heads of state, killed another half a million infants in Iraq through
a criminally imposed embargo over Iraq. In little over two years,
they have killed tens of thousand civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq,
the two Muslim countries that they now militarily occupy. Through
their unilateral and preemptive strikes they have dumped decades of
international laws into oblivion.
Not a single Muslim soldier is stationed in any non-Muslim country
(outside UN peace-keeping duty). On the other hand, there are nearly
half a million Christian forces that are now stationed, albeit as
unwanted guests, in several Muslim countries. Are these the signs of
Muslims `attempting to conquer the modern world by the sword’? One
must be hallucinating to even propose something like this.
If we go a little bit back in history, we find how these powerful
Christian nations helped to implant the Zionist state within the
heart of Islam. It is a story of how the Muslims in the Middle East
would be cruelly penalized for the monumental crime of European
Christianity, committed against European Jewry. Logically, the Jewish
state should have come out of the belly of Europe where the Jewish
Holocaust occurred, and not in the Middle East. But Christian Europe
never had a penchant for a non-Christian, much less a Jew who had
been vilified for centuries as a `Christ-killer’; `pluralism’ and
`multi-culturalism’ are oxymoronic terms in European vocabulary. So,
they gave the European Jewry a piece of land that they did not own,
without even bothering to consult with the legitimate owner who was
robbed. What could be more criminal than a process that led to
uprooting of nearly three quarter of a million Palestinians from
their ancestral homes?
It reminds me of a story. A very notorious criminal was known to have
much influence in his territory. Once he robbed one of his neighbors.
The victim complained the matter to the local judge who himself was
one of the beneficiaries of the robber. The evidence against the
robber, however, was so strong that the judge ruled that the victim
be compensated. Inside the courtroom there was an outsider who was
watching the court procedure with much curiosity. After the verdict
was read, the accused called that outsider to come close to him. He
then quickly manhandled the non-local, robbed him of his money, and
compensated from it the local victim. The local victim was now
satisfied. The outsider was very furious. When he complained the
matter to the judge, the latter had him beaten and thrown out from
the courtroom for causing disturbance.
Does this story help to understand the plight of the Palestinian
people?
The Zionists were happy to settle the Diaspora Jews in the land of
their prophets. They owned only 6% of the land, but were allotted 56%
by their former persecutors. But that was not enough. In 1949,
shortly after declaring independence unilaterally, the Zionists took
possession of nearly 80% of the land by driving out Palestinians. In
1967 Six-Day War, they occupied the remainder territory. And much in
common with Herzl’s vision, the state of Israel, since its
establishment, has been acting as a `rampart’ of the West against its
Muslim neighbors. The USA has armed the Jewish state so outlandishly
that it acts like the Pharaoh and kills Arabs without feeling an iota
of guilt. Just in the last three years alone, since the second
Intifadah, more than 3000 Palestinians were murdered execution-style
by the Jewish state with tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval of
the Bush Administration.
The USA armed the Catholic Philippines to kill thousands of Moro
Muslims – the natives of the territory. Let us also not forget the
near extinction of the Muslims in those islands whose survivors have
been forced to take refuge in the southern Mindanao Islands as a
result of the Spanish-style Inquisition that they faced since the
days when the Catholic Spaniards moved into the territory.
After the fall of King Zahir Shah, Afghan Muslims were also exploited
by America as guinea pigs to engage the Soviet Army in a prolonged
war that would be responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union.
In that process, more than two millions Muslims were killed and the
entire country turned into a rubble.
One cannot forget the fact that most Muslim nation-states achieved
`political independence’ after centuries of colonization from
Christian Europe. However, other forms of domination by Christian
West continued in the post-colonial era. So, most of these
nation-states were independent only in name, but in reality were
mortgaged to big Christian powers of the West. CIA would come to play
the role of king/dictator-maker. Democracy would be hijacked. The US
Embassies would be used as spy nests and control rooms to dictate how
the state would be run. Popular Muslim leaders would be toppled
through military coups (with tacit support from Washington) and
replaced by repressive regimes whose allegiance would be more to
these foreign masters than to their own people. Some examples are
Iran, Indonesia, Iraq and Bangladesh. The entire Iranian nation was
`hijacked’ for nearly a quarter century by the CIA before the Islamic
Revolution reclaimed the country back for its people in 1979. The
fall of the Shah was something that caught Washington by surprise and
the ensuing hostage crisis at the `spy-den’ only maddened her. The
CIA even tried to bring down the new regime but miserably failed in
its effort.
Washington enticed Saddam (now viewed as the `bad’ guy, but then the
much adored figure by Rumsfeld, Kissinger & Co.) to destabilize the
Islamic regime, which brought about the prolonged Iran-Iraq war.
Christian America and its allies and stooges in the Middle East
helped the Saddam regime with military and economic supplies. The
trigger-happy US Navy even brought down a passenger plane carrying
some 250 Iranian passengers. The UK and USA were responsible for
training and transferring biological warfare to Iraq, which the
latter used against both the Kurds and Iranians, something that
Washington not only did not condemn then, but also blocked UN
resolutions that would have condemned such war crimes. The oil also
became a curse for the Middle East. It invited neo-imperial
Anglo-American forces for establishing their hegemony.
For sustaining its grip of world domination, the Christian West also
ensured that the Muslim nation-states never realize self-sufficiency,
not just in economy but also in defense and technology. Through IAEA
it would also try to ensure that not a single Muslim nation-state
ever become a nuclear power. Abdul Qadir Khan fooled them and
developed the first bomb for a Muslim state. Since then IAEA is extra
vigilant not to allow a repeat of such an incident. Frustrated by
decades of embargo, Libya has recently caved in to pressure and
disbanded the program.
So, what we see is that it was rather the Christian West that have
had tried to conquer the world by not only its daisy cutters,
laser-guided bombs and missiles, but also through agencies like the
UN, IAEA, IMF, World Bank and other world agencies, let alone its
missionary troops that are dispatched to save the `soul’ of `heathen’
Muslims.
Caruba’s charge that Islam has been trying to conquer modern world is
debunked by history. It is outright criminal and mendacious to the
core. His analysis lacks scholarship and gives a bad name to
journalism.

Dr. Habib Siddiqui can be reached at [email protected]. He submitted this
article to Al-Jazeerah on March 17, 2004.

Daily Telegraph, UK
March 24 2004

Tom Young

Tom Young, who has died aged 60, was from 1993 to 1997 Britain’s
first ambassador in Azerbaijan, before ending his diplomatic career
as High Commissioner in Zambia.

Azerbaijan, between Russia and Iran on the west side of the Caspian,
declared itself independent in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet
Empire. In its early years the new republic was mired in political
instability and economic chaos, largely caused by the struggle of the
Armenian population to control the enclave of Nagornyi Karabakh.

The Foreign Office decided that it needed representation in Baku,
chiefly in order to support British interests in oil contracts. Young
took up his post in September 1993, shortly after Heydar Aliyev
became President.

Aliyev was a former KGB apparatchik who had risen to considerable
power in Moscow before being dismissed by Gorbachev in 1987 – a
setback from which he emerged as a sudden champion of Azerbaijani
nationalism. Yet Aliyev’s ruthless ways with opposition did not
immediately restore order.

Young and his wife Elisabeth therefore arrived in Baku to discover
that even the basic necessities of life – food, power and lodging –
were uncertain. And since there was no reliable banking system in
Azerbaijan, he had to finance the new embassy out of a bag containing
$30,000 in cash.

For nearly two years the Young family lived in one old Communist
Party hotel overlooking the Caspian Sea, while the British
ambassador’s office occupied three rooms in another. Every Tuesday,
the British community in Baku – all 10 of them – would meet to share
a crate of beer and Soviet “champagne”. This proved to be the
foundation of the British Business Group of Baku, whose membership
would later run into hundreds.

Young took the situation in his stride: his main relaxation was
walking around Baku, where he would encounter people whose way of
living was far beneath the normal ambassadorial ken.

He already spoke Turkish and, through his contacts on the street,
soon mastered Azeri. One man he encountered on these peregrinations
had lost both legs and been reduced to begging. Young and his family
became frequent visitors to his lodging, where they gained insights
into the Azerbaijan economy denied to the experts from the
International Monetary Fund. Typically, Young continued to support
this man long after leaving Baku.

At the other end of the scale, he managed to stay on good terms both
with President Aliyev and his opponents, as well as with the human
rights activists who sought to combat the excesses of the regime. At
a time when the rule of law was shaky, and free speech dangerous,
this was a considerable achievement, of paramount importance to the
British oil interests which were at stake.

Thomas Nesbitt Young was born at Godalming on July 24 1943, the
middle son of Frank Young, who would be Professor of Biochemistry at
Cambridge and the first Master of Darwin College, Cambridge. Frank
Young was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1949, and knighted
in 1973.

At the Leys School in Cambridge, young Tom also became a scientist,
and indeed was obliged to struggle with his father’s chemistry
textbook. After school his spirit of adventure took him to Uganda,
where he taught at Kigezi College in Kabale. Back in England, he read
Chemistry at Pembroke College, Oxford.

After joining the Foreign Office in 1966, he opted to learn Turkish,
studying the language with Roger Short, who was killed in Istanbul
last November.

In 1969 Young took up his first foreign posting, as Third Secretary
in Ankara. There he met Elisabeth Hick, who was also working in the
embassy, and whom he married in 1971. They proved a brilliant team,
both equally intrepid. Together they travelled throughout Turkey,
making many friends who stood them in good stead when – after four
years in Madrid – Young returned to Ankara in 1978 as Head of
Chancery.

His Turkish contacts served him particularly well in September 1980,
when he learnt of General Kenan Evren’s pro-Western, anti-Islamic
military takeover as it was happening, in the middle of the night.
Deciding to go to the British embassy before the dawn curfew was
imposed, he met the Turkish guard, who expressed surprise at his
early arrival. “There has been a military coup,” Young explained.
“Where?” demanded the guard. “In England?”

Young always sought posts in developing countries. In 1981, however,
the Foreign Office appointed him Deputy Director of Trade and
Development in New York, from where he went to Washington as First
Secretary. This was followed by a spell in London, between 1984 and
1986, as assistant head of the nuclear energy department at the FCO.

Young’s next appointment, from 1987 to 1990, was as Deputy High
Commissioner in Ghana, where once more he was able to satisfy his
adventurous instincts. When a new High Commissioner arrived in 1989,
he was able to profit from Young’s knowledge of the country, secure
in the knowledge that while he discovered Ghana, the Deputy High
Commissioner would be holding the fort in Accra.

>From 1990 to 1993 Young was director of trade promotion at the
British High Commission in Canberra, which gave him the grateful duty
of ranging extensively across Australia. But the fall of the Soviet
Empire caused him to volunteer for the discomforts of Baku. Here
again he did not miss the opportunity for travel, venturing with his
wife across the Caspian Sea and along the Silk Road to Samarkand.

As High Commissioner in Zambia between 1997 and 2002, Young found
another post well suited to his talents. His humanitarian instincts
responded both sympathetically and effectively to the problems of a
country ridden with Aids, and he was able to provide vital support
through the distribution of funds from the Department of
International Development and other organisations. His humour and
imagination shone through to all he met.

On retiring from the Foreign Office in 2002, Young was appointed
director of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe’s regional centre for Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he
worked tirelessly to build bridges, both figuratively and literally,
between divided communities.

Besides his passion for challenging travel, Young enjoyed
hill-walking and sailing. Indoors, he loved Renaissance music. He
died on February 11.

Tom and Elisabeth Young had a son and a daughter.

Kazinform, Kazakhstan
March 24 2004

Ukraine grants rights to deportees

Astana. 24 March. KAZINFORM – The Ukrainian Parliament passed the
national rehabilitation draft law, Kazinform reports with reference
to ITAR-TASS.
The governmental document reads that `the state guarantees equal
Constitution rights and residential terms including housing,
employment, education, national, cultural and spiritual growth to
deportees who return to their native land.’ The draft law binds
authorities to establish terms for voluntary return, adaptation and
integration in the Ukrainian Deportees’ Community.

In 1944 nearly 200 thousand Crimean tatars were deported after Crimea
had been freed from fascist oppression. Local Bulgarians, Armenians,
Greeks, 38 people in total, shared the same fate. Earlier, in 1941
over 50 thousand Germans who lived for a century and a half were
deported. They were permitted only in the late 80-es. Since 1988 more
than 260 thousand Crimean tatars, 12 thousand Bulgarians, Armenians,
Greeks and Germans returned to Crimea.

Kingston Daily Freeman, NY
March 24 2004

International role appeals to retiring judge

By Hallie Arnold , Freeman staff 03/24/2004

KINGSTON – Ulster County Surrogate’s Court Judge Joseph J.
Traficanti Jr., who rose from his early days as a local attorney to
become a state deputy chief administrative judge and statewide
director of drug treatment court programs, says he will leave the
bench in May to help developing countries build judicial systems.

“When I took over management of drug courts in New York state, I
began to see how you can really see results when you help people at
that level,” Traficanti, 61, said Tuesday. “I thought I could help
make a contribution to people in the developing world, and help
modernize their judicial system. A judicial system is essential to
any democracy to survive.”

Early on, Traficanti worked for the town of Rochester, the Accord
Fire District, and the Ulster County District Attorney’s Office. He
was elected Surrogate’s Court judge in 1982. In 1991, he was
appointed deputy chief administrative judge for courts outside New
York City, overseeing operations in 57 counties. In 2000, he became
the state’s first director of drug treatment court programs.

“Judge Traficanti was entrusted with the critical responsibility of
providing centralized direction for the statewide rollout of New
York’s landmark court-mandated drug treatment initiative,” Judith
Kaye, chief judge of the state Court of Appeals, said in a prepared
statement. “He served admirably in this regard, overseeing the
implementation of a new protocol in which all criminal cases would be
screened for substance abuse, as well as the establishment of drug
courts in jurisdictions across the state.”

Traficanti plans to pursue a career as an independent international
legal consultant. He’ll first travel to Russia for 10 days, lecturing
on commercial courts, small claims, arbitration and mediation for the
U.S. Agency for International Development.

Shortly after that, he’ll set off on the first of several trips to
Armenia over the course of a year to analyze and recommend
improvements to court operations.

“It’s bittersweet, in a way,” Traficanti said of leaving the bench.
“I’ve worked for the best chief judge. It’s been a terrific job, and
a wonderful job. Some people would think I’m crazy to leave. But the
time comes in life when you need to climb another mountain.”

Traficanti’s two state posts will be filled by appointment by Chief
Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman. The post of Ulster County
Surrogate’s Court judge will be filled in the November election.

ITAR-TASS, Russia
March 24 2004

Russian bank gets controlling stake in Armenia’s Savings Bank

YEREVAN, March 24 (Itar-Tass) – Russia’s foreign trade Vneshtorgbank
(VTB) is expected to become the owner of a 70 percent stake in the
Armenian savings bank Armsberbank.

VTB Presiden, Andrei Kostin, is expected to sign documents on
finalizing the acquisition.

He will also meet with Armenian government officials to discuss the
prospects for bilateral economic ties.

Mikhail Bagdasarov, one of Armenia’s leading business people and
Armsberbank president, believes the deal with the VTB will unite
business in the two countries and will give it a solid financial
backing.

He said the VTB planned to boost Armsberbank’s registered capital
fourfold to fivefold, as well as to increase the list of its
services.

Bagdasarov believes that the arrival of a large Russian bank in
Armenia is essential for normal development of business relations
with Russia.

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
March 24 2004

THE LANGUAGE OF LEARNING
Key to English success: parents

Not all parents agree with the English Language Development program,
and some take their children out of it. Officials say that’s not the
best decision for the child.

By Gary Moskowitz, News-Press

GLENDALE – Olga Sargsyan removed her son, Naenarek, from an English
Language Development program recently, saying she saw no progress in
his reading skills after several months in the program.

The Glendale Unified School District’s English Language Development
program is designed to help students whose primary language is not
English meet state proficiency standards in reading, writing and
speaking the English language.

Under state law, the district must provide the program. Parents can
remove their child from it at any time.

Sargsyan’s son was born in the United States, and speaks and writes
English, but his reading skills needed improvement, Sargsyan said.

After a few months in the English program, Sargsyan was unhappy
because she saw no improvement in Naenarek’s reading skills. She was
also unhappy with district officials, who she felt did not answer all
of her questions and did not adequately explain aspects of the
program.

Since pulling her son from the program this fall, Sargsyan spends
about three hours a day reading and writing English with him, and she
thinks his work has improved.

Her dissatisfaction with the district’s English language program
prompted Sargsyan to keep her daughter, Anni, out of the program
altogether. She recently told school site officials that her daughter
speaks only English, even though all family members at home speak
Armenian.

“I can tell you [the program] was awful for my son,” Sargsyan said.
“I know if I put my daughter in ELD, it will be a problem for me
again and again. This might be a good program for kids who don’t know
any [English] words, but for kids who were born here, they learn
fast. I pulled him out, but I work with him every day, and he is now
in very good condition. His reading skills have improved.”

Mary Mason, principal at Keppel Elementary School and a former ELD
teacher, said that specific information on students’ academic
performance is confidential, so she could not discuss Naenarek’s
progress.

Mason did say teachers are able to make general academic assessments
about students who are removed from the ELD program early.

“It wouldn’t be unusual for a child like him to see his grades drop
after being removed from the program,” Mason said. “Since you have
dropped those ELD standards, the child is now seen as an English-only
child, and will not be given the extra support and time to learn
English and learn grade-level curriculum. The ELD students go through
a different grading process that actually separates their ELD grades
from the standard grades, which helps us and the parents see their
progress more clearly.

“I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be bombarded with a
new language all day. It takes a lot of mental energy for the student
to keep up.

“We know parents care about their children, and sometimes schools can
be an imposing place, with all of our acronyms and our procedures,”
Mason continued. “But parents are free to come in and talk to us
about their child’s progress. That’s what we’re here for. This is
their child, and we want them to know what’s going on and how we can
support their children.

“They have done research into the sink-or-swim method, where you get
thrown in and you either make it or you don’t,” Mason added.
“Research shows that ELD learning helps them access the curriculum as
it’s coming at them. They have found that kids with ELD support
performed better rather than with no support.”

‘WE RELY ON PARENTS TO TELL THE TRUTH’

The district’s Intercultural Education Department operates the
English Language Development program at district headquarters.

Immigrant parents who want to enroll their children at a Glendale
school are first asked to set up an appointment at the Welcome
Center, where students’ English speaking, writing and reading skills
are assessed through state-mandated testing.

Officials ask all students and parents a series of questions about
languages, including: “Which language did your son or daughter learn
when he or she first began to talk?” “What language does your son or
daughter most frequently use at home?” “What language do you use most
frequently to speak to your son or daughter?” and “Name the language
most often spoken by adults at home.”

Based on the answers to those questions and the results of student
language tests, the results are explained to parents, and students
are placed in the appropriate English language classes, officials
said.

Students who remain in the English Language Development program must
eventually pass a state standardized test to be moved out of the
program and into standard English classes.

Parents like Sargsyan are not uncommon at district schools, but they
are the minority, said Joanna Junge, coordinator of the English
Language Development program and the district’s Welcome Center.

The Welcome Center serves English language learners through testing
and translation services, and also provides a counseling program for
refugees and families seeking asylum.

“We have to rely on parents to tell the truth when they fill out
surveys about their children,” Junge said. “If we don’t have accurate
information, we’re not focusing in on the right needs, and you’re
risking making things miserable for the child and the teacher.”

Some parents and students attach a stigma to the English Language
Development program, saying they feel like it’s a “label” they would
prefer to avoid, said Alice Petrossian, GUSD’s assistant
superintendent for educational services.

“Sometimes kids feel like they’re wearing a scarlet letter, but they
are getting information that is critical to their learning,”
Petrossian said. “They need to be fluent in English to succeed at all
other levels. And, if their primary language skills are lacking, they
will have additional problems with learning English and other
subjects like math.”

PARENTS CAN OVERSEE THE PROCESS

Local parents have the opportunity to attend regular meetings of each
school’s English Learner Advisory Committee and of the District
English Learner Advisory Committee.

District officials, administrators, educators and parents who
participate in the committees meet throughout the year to discuss
ways to improve the program and evaluate the district’s master plan
for providing education services to the immigrant student population.

The school site committees meet about four times each year, and the
district committee meets monthly at district headquarters. All
meetings are open to the public.

Valentine Oanessian, the district committee’s chairwoman,
Parent-Teacher Assn. president at Marshall Elementary School and a
member of Marshall’s school site council, was born in Iran and moved
to the United States in 1979. She speaks Armenian, English, Italian,
Persian and some Spanish. Her 8-year-old daughter, Athena, has been
enrolled in the English Language Development program at Marshall
Elementary School for two years.

“I have seen improvement with my daughter, and her English is quite
good,” Oanessian said. “I think her writing has improved the most.
She started writing poems a few weeks ago, and I was amazed. Now, she
wants to talk only in English, which is great, but I don’t want her
to lose her Armenian completely. Now she’s more fluent in English
than Armenian.”

Parent involvement with English learner students is crucial to
students’ success, Oanessian said.

“I think when it comes to parents, the best thing they can do is
first get the knowledge about the [ELD] program first, from the
roots, and then ask questions,” Oanessian said. “Mainly, I have
always said if you want your child to be successful, you have to be
there working with them. I want to know what my child is learning, so
I can help her more, and also teach other parents whose English
language is their barrier.

“We have to make sure we make it easy for them. If every parent tried
to show up, we would all learn so many things.”

FIRST GROUP OF REPATRIATES TO ARRIVE IN ARMENIA FROM RUSSIA IN LATE SUMMER

23.03.2004 17:18

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The first group of repatriates from Russia will arrive in
Armenia from Russia in late summer, said Chief of the Department of
Migration and Refugees under the Armenian Government Gagik Yeganian. It
should be noted that he is in Moscow at present to acquaint Armenian
citizens living in Russia with the details of the Armenian-Russian agreement
on voluntary resettlement. It should be noted that the document, signed
already in 1998, remained idle due to absence of mechanisms for its
realization. In the course of the visit to Moscow members of the Armenian
delegation met with the Consul of Armenia in Russia, representatives of
Armenian non-governmental organizations, head of the New Nakhichevan Diocese
of the Armenian Apostolic Church Bishop Yezras and local Armenians. “These
meetings are called to contribute to our compatriots getting to know about
benefits being granted in case of their return to the fatherland. For
example, many people do not know that in case of moving, the Armenian party
will assume all property transportation expenses,” G. Yeganian said, noting
that repatriates are generally preoccupied with issues referring to paper
work.