ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
06/25/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1. Gorky Family Representative Expounds Family's Decision 2. House Panel Vote Maintains Parity in US Military Aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan 3. Poll Shows Universal Rejection of Karabagh's Return to Azerbaijan 4. Kocharian Delivers Powerful Message to PACE 1. Gorky Family Representative Expounds Family's Decision On behalf of Arshile Gorky's family, son-in-law Matthew Spender recently explained to Asbarez that although the chances of transferring Gorky's remains to Armenia are small, the Gorky family would review a formal request. In May of this year, the family was stunned by the announcement of the Yerevan-based Arshile Gorky Foundation, that efforts were underway to transport and bury the remains of the artist in Armenia, so as to carry out Gorky's greatest dreams "to return home and to be one with the soil of Armenia." Spender had responded saying that neither Gorky's daughter Maro, her mother, nor sister had been informed of the plan, and were against the idea. "Gorky's resting place in Connecticut is final," emphasized Spender. In a June 23 letter, Spender explained that a similar attempt had been made many years ago by Gorky's nephew Karlen Mooradian, but was rejected by the family. "The confidence with which the present group has been raising money for the scheme has also created a bad impression, as you can imagine," Spender told Asbarez. "But it is only fair to give the proposal a hearing." Addressing the point of Gorky's remains being at one with the soil of Armenia, Spender explained that Gorky's relationship to Armenia is unclear. "Vartoosh and her husband returned there in 1935 and had a terrible time. It was only with difficulty that Gorky, through a US relief agency (to which he remained eternally grateful), was able to bring them back to the United States." In fact, Spender says that Gorky never really mentioned the Republic of Armenia, except in one letter in which he "seemed diffident," about it. "Regarding what one might guess to have been his feeling on the subject, it would make more sense to translate his remains to Van than to Armenia. But that, of course, is out of the question," concludes Spender. Spender is the author of the 1999 Gorky biography, From a High Place: A Life of Arshile Gorky. 2. House Panel Vote Maintains Parity in US Military Aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan WASHINGTON, DC (ANCA)--A key House Appropriations Subcommittee, voted on June 23 to maintain parity in US foreign military financing (FMF) assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan. The decision counters President Bush's FY 2005 budget proposal, which would have broken an earlier agreement between the Administration and Congressional leaders to ensure balanced military assistance to the two countries. The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, chaired by Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe, voted to allocate $5 million in military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, respectively, as opposed to President Bush's request of $8 million for Azerbaijan and $2 million for Armenia. The Committee also supported a hard earmark of $65 million in US assistance to Armenia, and $5 million for Mountainous Karabagh. By contrast, the Bush Administration had requested $62 million for Armenia and had not specified any funds for Mountainous Karabagh. The Subcommittee's decision would effectively reduce US assistance to Armenia by $10 million from FY 2004 levels. The reduction reflects an overall reduction of US assistance to former Soviet countries. In the months leading up to the Subcommittee mark up of the foreign aid bill, Armenian American activists from across the country participated in ANCA WebFax campaigns calling attention to potential repercussions to breaking US military assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In February, activists noted that the brutal murder in Hungary of 26-year-old Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen Markarian during a NATO language course underscored the dangers posed by adopting President Bush's policy. That tragedy was followed by disturbing rhetoric by the Azerbaijani leadership threatening to resolve the Mountainous Karabagh issue militarily. As Armenians and Azerbaijanis were marking the 10th anniversary of the Mountainous Karabagh ceasefire on May 12th, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that, "We [Azerbaijan] must increase our military potential. Our army is able at any moment to free our territory." Aliyev went on to note that military expenditures have grown over the past several years and "it will keep increasing in the future." In a briefing paper faxed to House and Senate members earlier this year, the ANCA noted that "a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would destabilize the region, emboldening the new Azerbaijani leadership to continue their threats to impose a military solution to the Mountainous Karabagh conflict. More broadly, breaching the parity agreement would reward the leadership of Azerbaijan for walking away from the OSCE's Key West peace talks, the most promising opportunity to resolve the Mountainous Karabagh conflict in nearly a decade." Members of Congress concurred with this assessment, with over 30 House members cosigning a February 24th letter to President Bush, initiated by Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ), stating that they "strongly believe that providing unequal military assistance to Azerbaijan and Armenia will contribute to instability in the region and could unintentionally tip the military balance." Earlier that month, on February 11, Representatives Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) pressed Secretary of State Colin Powell to explain the Administration's reasoning for the proposed break in Armenia-Azerbaijan military parity in spoken and written statements submitted during his testimony before the House International Relations Committee. In April, Rep. Pallone and New York Republican John Sweeney initiated a letter to Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Nita Lowey (D-NY) urging that military parity be maintained. Foreign Operations Subcommittee member and Congressional Armenian Caucus co-Chairman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) was outspoken in his efforts to maintain a balance in military assistance to the two countries. During the ANCA Capitol Hill Observance of the Armenian Genocide, Rep. Knollenberg stated, "every single time we have gotten the federal government's dollar numbers for Armenia, they have always been down and we've always had to bring it up. And we aren't going to stop fighting to bring it back and to ensure there is parity on the military issue." The foreign aid bill will likely be considered by the House Appropriations Committee on July 9, followed by a full House vote thereafter. The Senate version of the bill will follow a similar path. 3. Poll Shows Universal Rejection of Karabagh's Return to Azerbaijan YEREVAN (ACNIS/RFE/RL)An opinion poll publicized by the Yerevan-based think tank on Friday shows that less than only one percent of Armenians support Mountainous Karabagh's return to Azeri rule as part of a possible peaceful settlement. The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) said nearly 60 percent of some 2,000 people around the country recently interviewed by its researchers want Karabagh to formally become a part of Armenia, while 39 percent of them would agree to its independence. The pollsters said only about a third of those surveyed are against the return of the Armenian-controlled territories in Azerbaijan proper under any circumstances, the others being ready to trade them for Karabagh's independence or a lasting peace. According to the poll, thirty percent of ordinary Armenians view Russia as the most trustworthy of international mediators and only three percent believe the United States tends to have a pro-Armenian stance on the issue. This perception contrasts sharply with the findings of a separate poll conducted by the ACNIS among 50 political and public policy analysts. Eighteen percent of them said US interests in the region are good for a pro-Armenian solution to the Karabagh dispute. Only ten percent mentioned Russia in that regard. The ACNIS survey confirms the strong Armenian opposition to any deal that would restore Baku's control of Karabagh. It comes amid a fresh international push to end the conflict. Since the raising of the Karabagh question (1988-2004), 82% of respondent experts consider the greatest achievement to be independence and sovereignty, 8% guarantees of physical security, 4% confidence in our own abilities, and 4% enhancement of territory. As for the public survey, 49.7% think that the most important accomplishment is independence, 6% guarantees of physical security, 10% confidence in one's own abilities, and 12.8% enhancement of territory. 54% of responding specialists see the status of Mountainous Karabagh as a part of Armenia, 32% as an independent and sovereign republic, while 10% find it acceptable for Karabagh to be an autonomous part of Azerbaijan. Among the broader public, these figures are 59.7%, 38.6%, and 1.1%, respectively. All 50 professionals who took part in the focus poll are from Yerevan. 90% of them are male, and 10% female; 8% are 30 years of age or below, 40% 31-40, 42% 41-50, and 10% 50 or above. All of the experts surveyed have received higher education: 20% are candidates of science (PhD), 76% hold a Master's degree, while 4% have earned solely a Bachelor's degree. As for the 1,950 citizens polled, 50% of them are male and 50% female; 30.5% are 30 years of age or below, 45.2% 31-50, 20.6% 51-70, 3.7% 71 or above. 45.7% of the responding citizens have received higher education, whereas 11.2% incomplete higher, 17.3% specialized secondary, 21.6% secondary, and 2.4% incomplete secondary training. Urban residents constitute 60.7% of the citizens surveyed, and rural residents make up 39.3%. 34.3% are from Yerevan, and 65.7% from all of Armenia's regions. 4. Kocharian Delivers Powerful Message to PACE STRASBOURG (PACE)--In his speech to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) on Wednesday, President Robert Kocharian addressed the domestic opposition's efforts against his administration, the Mountainous Karabagh conflict and Armenia's relations with Turkey. The 20-minute speech was followed by a question-and-answer session. The two PACE parliamentarians representing the Armenian opposition boycotted the speech and were not on hand to pose questions. Azeri and Turkish lawmakers, however, attempted to grill the president. Asked by one of the Azeri parliamentarian whether he had any role in the war over Mountainous Karabagh, Kocharian replied, "Yes, I took part in the war. My children were hiding in a basement for three years and had no childhood. I am proud of my participation in the war." The following are excerpts from the speech: Mr President, members of the Parliamentary Assembly and ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and pleasure to address you. The last time that I addressed the Assembly was on a very significant day for Armeniathe day of our accession to the Council of Europe. There have been three demanding years of reforms since then that have touched upon all domains of life in our country and necessitated the full-time employment of all our efforts. Today I am here to announce proudly that Armenia has fulfilled the vast majority of its accession commitments. For the few outstanding ones, there is a timetable agreed, with a deadline for conclusion fixed at the end of this year. If I were asked what the single greatest achievement was, I would definitely point to the perception Armenian society has about its own future. The people of Armenia are now more involved in the everyday life of the country. There is more attachment to the values of freedom and democracy and the formation of the civil society is burgeoning. Does this mean Armenia has achieved the desirable level of democratic freedoms? The obvious answer is no. Democracy has a long way to go in any country that has a high poverty rate. To assure the peoples' full participation in the democratic process, it is essential to have at least minimal social guarantees. This is precisely why we strived to synchronize reforms in the economy, political system, the judiciary and the social field. In essence, Armenia has completed the process of dismantling the former centralized system of power and economy, which allowed for total control over the society. The Armenian economy has undergone radical transformation both in terms of diversifying areas of economic activity and of liberalizing property law and regulations. The scope and depth of the reforms allowed for a full-scale enactment of the market economy. At present over 85% of Armenia's GDP is produced in the private sector and over 38% of it in small and medium enterprises. Annual GDP growth has averaged 12% for the last three consecutive years, despite the blockade implemented by two fellow members of this very Organization. Our biggest problem is the unacceptable difference in levels of income in our society. Our dynamic economic growth has allowed us to develop a long-term poverty elimination strategy. For the first time in Armenia, this governmental program was developed in close co-operation with international financial institutions and the wide involvement of society. That strategy now guides us in political decision-making and in choosing our budget priorities. Fighting corruption is yet another important step towards effective democracy. The Government of Armenia sees corruption as a systemic evil, which cannot be eradicated merely through rhetoric or model prosecutions. We concentrate on the systemic change aimed at ruling out the sources of corruption. That is exactly why we have joined the Greco groupthe Group of States Against Corruptionwhere we can learn from the experience of other states on combating corruption. Through a wide discussion including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we have developed a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy. A few weeks ago I established an Anti-Corruption Council. We count on the international community to help us combat this scourge. Ladies and gentlemen, I know many of you wonder: what was happening in Armenia last spring? What fostered the activity of the opposition to replace parliamentary work with revolutionary rallies? You are right to wonder, since you have been all informed by the monitoring group of rapporteurs, who had visited Armenia only very recentlyin Januarythat there have been significant advances in fulfilling the commitments accepted at our accession. Most of those dealt with advancing democracy. Recently, Resolution 1361 of the Assembly was adopted, setting out the extent to which Armenia has fulfilled its commitments. Expert evaluations of Armenia by international financial institutions are more than optimistic. Double-digit economic growth figures and budgetary surpluses are not fertile ground for revolution. Moreover, there are three full years before the next parliamentary elections. Therefore, there were no internal factors that would explain the increase in political activity. So what happened? The answer is easy. The opposition, encouraged by the results of the `rose revolution' in neighboring Georgia, decided to duplicate it in the Armenian reality, which, however, had nothing in common with the Georgian one. They disregarded the fact that Armenia's economy, as opposed to Georgia's, is undergoing dynamic advance. Our government is efficient and our democratic achievements are safeguarded by institutional structures, including a law enforcement system capable of protecting public order. History has often demonstrated that inspiration from foreign revolutions never results in positive outcomes. Unfortunately, learning often comes only from people's own mistakes. That also happened in our case. The opposition left the parliament and organized rallies in the streets. They openly declared their goal was to destabilize the situation in the country, attract the maximum possible number of participants to street action, surround the building of the Presidency and force me to resign. Once the opposition witnessed the lack of public interest in their action, they decided to increase the tension, most probably to attract attention. They blocked the busiest boulevard of the city of Yerevan. That resulted in disruption of traffic and prevented the normal functioning of the National Assembly, of the Administration of the President and of the Constitutional Court. In the area they blocked off, there are four embassies, the National Academy of Science and one of the biggest schools. The organizers called on the public to undertake civil disobedience. The police were left with no choice; public order was restored quickly, without any significant damage to the health of the participants. Calling on the police for such operations is always regrettable. Still, authorities have to protect the society from political extremists. That is particularly important in young democracies, which still lack the advanced traditions of the political and legal culture, and even more so when part of the population lives in poverty and can be easily manipulated by populist rhetoric. I would particularly like to mention that the parties comprising the ruling coalition have many times offered co-operation to the opposition. Unfortunately, those offers were rejected. The opposition probably thinks that co-operation would undermine the revolutionary temper of their supporters. Our proposals were announced in the press and on television and were made in writing and orally but they were rejected. Our country is at an important stage of its advancement, and I am confident that there are many things that need to be done jointly. We have offered to work together with the opposition on the most important issues: constitutional reform and the new electoral code. The offer is still valid; however the discussions must be held in parliament, not in the street. I would not refer to all this but for the last Parliamentary Assembly resolution on Armenia. I regret that the Assembly was dragged into the discussion. I am convinced that the Council of Europe is not the best forum in which to clarify relations between the domestic authorities and the opposition; that should be done in one's own parliament. I regret that, and I felt duty-bound to comment on what has been happening in Armenia. Let me now turn to one of the priority interest issues for Armenia. At the time of accession Armenia undertook to take steps towards peaceful settlement of the Mountainous Karabagh conflict. We have done so because we greatly appreciate the necessity of friendly relations among neighboring states. However, the ability to secure a long-lasting solution requires a deep understanding of the essence of the conflict. I would like to outline two important characteristics of the Karabagh conflict. First, Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union two states were formed: the Azerbaijani Republic on the territory of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh on the territory of the Mountainous Karabagh autonomous region. Establishment of both these states has similar legal grounds. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan henceforth has nothing to do with the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh. We are ready to discuss the issue of settling that conflict in the legal domain. Secondly, the war of 1992-94 was launched by the aggression of the Azeri authorities, which attempted to implement ethnic cleansing of the territory of Mountainous-Karabagh with the purpose of its annexation. The situation in place today is the result of a selfless fight of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh for survival on their own land. It is a classic example of both the implementation of the right to self-determination and misuse of the `territorial integrity' concept as a justification for ethnic cleansings. The people of Karabagh have prevailed in their striving for independent life in an egalitarian society. Independence of Karabagh today has sixteen years of history. An entire generation grew up there that can think of no other status for the country. The Mountainous Karabagh Republic today is an established state, in essence meeting all the Council of Europe's membership criteria. It is the reality which cannot be ignored. That is exactly why we insist on direct participation by Mountainous Karabakh in the negotiations, in which Armenia actively participates. The solution will emerge from the substance of the conflict, not from the perception of the possible strengthening of Azerbaijan through future `oil money." The `oil money' approach is the formula of confrontation and not of compromise. Armenia is ready to continue and advance the ceasefire regime. We are ready for serious negotiations on a full-scale solution for the conflict. That is exactly why we have accepted two last formulas of solution offered by the international mediators, which, unfortunately, were rejected by Azerbaijan. I want to comment on Armenian-Turkish relations, or rather on its absence. Those relations are shaded by the memories of the past: the Genocide, its consequences and the lack of repentance. Nowadays the situation is worsened by the blockade of Armenia by Turkey. I would like to outline two principles which in my view are crucial to finding the way out of this impasse. First, the development of practical ties and deliberations over the inherited problems must take place in different dimensions, and one must not influence the other. Secondly, Armenian-Turkish relations must not be conditioned by our relations with a third country. No prizes for guessing that I am referring to Azerbaijan. Any precondition terminates all positive expectations. 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) 2004 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.