Month: April 2007

Nancy Pelosi to address Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.04.2007 18:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On the occasion of the 92nd Anniversary Commemorating
the Armenian Genocide, The Armenian National Committee of America –
Western Region (ANCA-WR) welcomed a letter from Dr. Samuel M.

Edelman, Ph. D., Co-Director of the State of California Center of
Excellence for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights
and Tolerance, urging key Members of the United States House of
Representatives to ensure passage of H. Res. 106, the Armenian
Genocide Resolution.

Dr. Edelman addressed the letter to three Members in the House of
Representatives. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA-29), who authored
H. Res. 106, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA-12), who is the Chairman
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs where H. Res. 106 currently
sits, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08).

The first letter, addressed to Speaker Pelosi asks that "[Speaker
Pelosi] support this resolution and, as Speaker of the House, ensure
its speedy passage by the U.S. House." The second letter, addressed
to Representative Schiff, thanks the Congressman for authoring
H. Res. 106, which is entitled "Affirmation of the United States Record
on the Armenian Genocide Resolution." The second letter, addressed to
Chairman Lantos, asks that "[Chairman Lantos] support this resolution
and, as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ensure its
passage by your committee and its speedy referral to the House."

In each letter, Dr. Edelman notes the United States’ international
humanitarian relief effort in response to the Armenian Genocide and
that comparatively, this effort was one of the greatest relief efforts
of all time. Additionally, he discusses the gravity of the crime of
genocide and the United States’ historical record documenting the
Armenian Genocide which is "all the more poignant given the current
genocide in Darfur," the ANCA reports.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PanARMENIAN.Net

After exterminating the Armenians the Turks were going
to do the same with the Kurds and Arabs

Nazim-Bey: "It is necessary to exterminate the whole
Armenian Nation, not leaving a single Armenian alive.
Even the word "Armenian" must be erased from
everyone’s memory."

25.04.2007 GMT+04:00

The whole story with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide started
right after the world learned about the slaughter. Already in 1916
the governments of the USA and of some European countries called
the Ottoman Turkey to account for the committed. The first American
President, who officially recognized the Armenian Genocide, was Woodrow
Wilson. Unfortunately that was all about it. All the other presidents
of the United States avoid the word "genocide", although such a mass
murder is indeed a massacre, especially being so carefully worked out.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Young Turks weren’t able to conceal the terror of
the tragedy. It is hard to say what they were hoping for. Perhaps they
hoped that the great powers would shut their eyes to it. Nazim Bey;
the ideologist of the Young Turks had announced before the deportation,
"We must be fast and decisive in our actions. The Armenians are as
dangerous as an ulcer, which at first may seem curable, but which will
bring to death if the doctor doesn’t take the necessary measures on
time. If we are contented with local plans only, like in 1909 in Adana,
we will only spoil everything, because we will arose suspicion among
Arabs and Kurds, who we are going to deal with later. Hence, the danger
will treble and the realization of the plans will become even more
difficult. "It is necessary to exterminate the whole Armenian Nation,
not leaving a single Armenian alive. Even the word "Armenian" must
be erased from our memory." The war gives us a unique opportunity and
we do not have to fear the interference of the Great Powers, neither
do we have to fear of the international press protests. They will
not manage to make a move before everything is already finished. It
will be a mass slaughter and not a single Armenian will survive."

Nevertheless, evidences of the extermination of the Armenian Nation
were brought by the immediate witnesses, mainly by the Red Cross
officials, and reached Europe rather quickly. The image of the tragedy
was horrifying; the Armenians were being killed by special gangs,
mainly consisting of the Kurds and troops of "Teshkilyat Makhsuseh"
("Special Troops") organization. Then they were put in concentration
camps with nothing to eat or drink, so it was practically impossible
to stay alive in these terrible conditions.

The roads of Eastern Anatolia were covered with dead bodies having no
one to bury them. Properties left by the Armenians were immediately
sold by the auction. On September 13, 1915 the Majlis passed "the
provisional law on property, debts and real estate of those having
resettled in other regions" with one main purpose of selling all the
belongings and properties left by the Armenians, after which the few
survivors would have no place to return. As a result, from more than
2 million Armenian population of the Empire 1.5 million people were
exterminated, the rest ran away to Russia and other countries, a large
number of women and children were kidnapped by the Kurds. National,
cultural and economic life of the Armenians from Turkey was put an
end to once and for all. Hundreds of invaluable cultural monuments
were destroyed.

In his book "The Turkish National "I" and the Armenian Question"
historian Taner Akcham writes, "It will be no exaggeration to
come to the conclusion that in the organization and success of the
"liberation war" the Armenian Genocide had its decisive role… the
extermination of a whole nation is the basis of the establishment of
the Turkish Republic. In the light of these facts it becomes clear
why the subject having its irreplaceable role in the foundation and
establishment of our national conscious and education has become a
taboo. The fact that the events of 1915 were mass slaughter was beyond
any discussions. The only issue that was worth being discussed was –
how to punish "the Turks" for exterminating the Armenians. One of
the forms of the punishment was the trial; the allotment of Anatolia
was another form of punishment. In other words, the western powers
were trying to conceal their imperial ambitions under the reality
of mass destruction of the Armenians. Mustafa Qemal and his people
accepted this reality – those who are guilty of the committed had
to be punished, – but they objected to the allotment of Anatolia."
"PanARMENIAN.Net" analytical department

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KOCHARIAN SAYS ARMENIA EAGER TO REPLACE OLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WITH MODERN ONE

ARMENPRESS

YEREVAN, APRIL 27, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Robert Kocharian
told the students and faculty of the Yerevan State University today
that Armenia ‘should certainly have a nuclear power production
facility.’ He said the government is considering this option and
practical steps are expected to come in 2008-2009.

Kocharian said the best option for the country would be to build a
new modern plant with advanced technologies on the infrastructures of
the Metzamor power plant built in 1970-s, but added that the question
is to calculate its exact cost and the extent of impact a new plant
may have on electricity tariff policies.

Kocharian said specific actions with regard to construction of a new
power plant or a major reconstruction of the current one may come
in 2012-2013.

Armenia’s Soviet-era Metzamor nuclear power plant, similar in design
to Chernobyl’s nuclear power station, is scheduled to close in 2016
in line with Armenia’s commitments before the European Union.

It generates nearly half of the electricity consumed in the
country. The station consists of two VVER-440 reactors and was shut
down shortly after the 1988 earthquake, but this provoked a severe
energy crisis and the government restarted one of the power units in
November 1995 with a 407.5 MWe capacity.

In 2003, the nuclear power station was handed over to Russian Unified
Energy Systems (RAO UES) to manage for a five-year term to help pay
off Armenia’s debts.

Last year Armenian government pushed through the parliament a legal
amendment allowing it to seek for foreign investors who would be
willing to provide an estimated $1 billion needed for construction
of a new power plant.

Also earlier this month the Russian and Armenian governments agreed
to jointly develop Armenia’s uranium reserves. A relevant agreement
was signed in Yerevan by prime minister Serzh Sarkisian and Sergey
Kirienko, the head of Russia’s Federal Agency on Atomic Energy
(Rosatom).

Under the agreement Armenia and Russia will set up a joint venture
to explore areas in the southeastern Syunik region, where uranium
reserves were estimated by Soviet geologists at 30,000 metric tons.

WORLD RECOGNITION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BECOMING MORE AND MORE UNAVOIDABLE EACH YEAR

AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007

Genocide Recognition

Although President of the USA George Bush continues to avoid saying
"genocide", he still remains the head of the only state in the
world that officially commemorates the victims of the massacres in
1915. Naturally, Turkey is trying to take counter-actions against
the recognition process and the Resolutions of the murder of Hrant
Dink and the Armenian Genocide pending at the both chambers of the US
Congress. Nevertheless it should be noted that the speech of George W
Bush and the Resolutions are not the only matter of Turkey’s concerns.

This year on April 24 statements about the Genocide were made by
Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, main candidates for Presidency in
France and Stefan Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. Royal and Sarkozy
expressed intention to strive against denial of the Armenian Genocide
in France.

Turkey also responded to the statement of Prime Minister
Harper. Foreign Ministry of Turkey says that there can be no friendship
of alliance between two states without justice and truthfulness. The
Foreign Ministry’s statement also says that Harper’s words can by no
means contribute the efforts of reconciliation between Armenia and
Turkey. The Turks call upon Harper to revise the events of 1915 in
objective and impartial atmosphere and urge the Canadian scientists
to do the same.

In any case, the statements by the pretenders fro the post of the
President of France, the April 24 speeches of the USA President and
the Prime Minister of Canada, the resolutions about Armenian issues
display one thing clearly – the world recognition of the Armenian
Genocide is becoming more and more certain year by year.

By H. Chaqrian

WHAT AMERICANS DID IS NOT ONLY UNSERIOUS, BUT ALSO WORRISOME FOR ARMENIA

AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007

Karabakh Issue

At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide"
to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman
Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide… I think we, the
US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest
way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied
it, there’s no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is
unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe
in calling things by their name," he said.

Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal
advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events
of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian
Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added:
" We made many mistakes after WWI."

At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US
follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody
realizes that Karabakh can’t be given back to Azerbaijan. That would
be a disastrous step."

Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service
at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would
be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous,
bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians
back."

But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected
himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United
States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the
term ‘genocide’ speaking in what I characterized as my personal
capacity. This was inappropriate."

Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted,
"The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously
following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a
discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted
to say aloud.

Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows:
Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but
does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more
simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh
is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality,
since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused
a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs,
but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.

The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed
referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since
due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group
Matthew Bryza it’s not a secret for experts, at least. That is to
say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five
territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For
its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno
Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of
the document on the bargaining table.

Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in
an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the
occupied territories is an important component of the main principles
of settlement.

"However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories,
which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If
Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will
do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn,
it will reduce the tension.

However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the
leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult
is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of
Nagorno Karabakh."

Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of
another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, "were unbelievably close
to settlement." The main architect of the Key West was the US. The
document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of
Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia
was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the
content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the
policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If
Washington really changes its policy and accepts that "Armenia
continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh
and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question
arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased
mediator? Let’s pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey,
which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position,
seems to be more unbiased on this background.

If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside
the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia,
that Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed
against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US
Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter
imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If
Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans,
then why do they provide $35 million since 1998 in aid to Nagorno
Karabakh? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that
the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.

If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what
is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past
15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge
Programme?

If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly
written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have
been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the
Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt
any resolution.

It was obvious for the international community that war was logical,
and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia
and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to
be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control
of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting
resolutions one after the other. The international community started
to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of
their imagination.

At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted
two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted
November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair
solution to the conflict, which would reflect the will of the region’s
population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80%
of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was
Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the
resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According
to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, "it was a crude and
self-proclaimed mediation" and "such decision of the Senate panel
caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation
can be understood."

In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail
Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the
demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous
Region with Armenia.

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording
on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording
can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such "unserious"
steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose
why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one
thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake
the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia.

By Tatul Hakobyan, "Radiolur"

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE CITIZENS MAKE A PROTEST AGAINST THE FACT THEIR QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED

AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007

Social

Samvel Danielian, Chief Engineer of Yerevan, was the guest of Azg’
daily website a month ago, and he answered only 8 questions from the
30 asked questions. Citizens A. Baghramian, A. Minasian, H. Abgarian
express their disappointment in this issue with not only the General
Engineer, but also ‘Azg’ daily. ‘We will not have a civil society
until the officials are not punished for being arrogant", they say
in their letter sent to ‘Azg’.

They are disappointed in the fact that the Chief Engineer didn’t
answered 29 questions from 37 and the editorial staff of ‘Azg’
didn’t show an effort to gain the answers to the questions of his
readership. From their point of view ‘Azg’ should apply publicly to
the Governor of Yerevan and demand an explanation for this issue. They
think, that the ‘Law about media’ is broken, and that the fact not to
answering to 29 questions must make the officials pay their attention
to it. In order to have a civil society in our country, the officials
must do their duty for the country diligently.

By Ruzan Poghosian

AZG Armenian Daily #078, 28/04/2007

Science

ACADEMICIAN HOVHANNES HOVHANNISIAN ALREADY A FOUR TIMES LAUREATE

Reading the list of the laureates of 2006 in media, I was very happy to see
the name of our compatriot, orthopedist Havhannes Hovhannisian, who lives in
Moscow. I met him in the Orthopedic Research Institute after Priarov. He has
worked here for several decades after graduating from the Yerevan Medical
Institute.

Hovhannes Hovhannisian is a Doctor of medical sciences, Director of the
Orthopedic Clinic of Adults, professor of the Moscow Academy of Medical
Sciences, more than 30 years an advisor of the General Medical Board of
Russia, and a real member of many international academies. He is an author
of 400 scientific works and the Discovery Number 208; he is also an author
of 95 discoveries. Hovhannisian has 45 abroad (USA, England, Sweden,
Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France, Japan) and 4 Russian licenses. He
discovered 9 orthopedic equipments that were being applied in Russia and 22
other countries. He is a leader of 24 dissertations and 9 doctoral theses.
The director of the Orthopedic Research Institute after Priarov, Chief of
the General Medical Board of Russia Sergey Pavlovich Mironov wrote two
letters to RA President Robert Kocharian, and asked to award Hovhannes
Hovhannisian a medal of St. Mesrob Mashtots, as Hovhannisian is a graduate
of Oshakan school after Mesrob Mashtots. He mentioned in the letter that
after the earthquake of Spitak, H. Hovhannisian organized the medical
treatment of 300 patients. With other orthopedists he actively organized
operations of many Armenians injured by the earthquake.

Hovhannes Hovhannisian is one of the respectable Armenians in the world, and
it’s amazing that the letters of Sergey Mironov have no answer yet.

REPUBLICAN PARTY APPEARS ON TV MORE FREQUENTLY

A1+
[07:27 pm] 27 April, 2007

On April 27 Yerevan Press Club released the results of the monitoring
of media coverage of the election campaign on April 16-23. 13 TV
channels, one radio channel and four newspapers were monitored.

Coverage in broadcast media is balanced and neutral but there are
also irregularities. The Republican Party appears on TV 10-30 times
more often than the others. Moreover, the reports on the Republican
Party are longer.

The ARF Dashnaktsutyun is the second and the Prosperous Armenia Party
– the third. This also refers to the monitored newspapers where the
Republican Party appears most frequently, then come the Prosperous
Armenia Party and the ARF Dashnaktsutyun.

According to the results of the monitoring, H1 Channel does not cover
the election actively. Furthermore, the reports and the speech of
hosts about the opposition contain irony. "H1 provided to all the
parties as much airtime as ALM channel to the People’s Party." 93
percent of the airtime of the People’s Party is provided by the ALM
channel. It is impossible to get deep and detailed information on
other forces on ALM, the monitoring concluded.

Armenia Channel provides 3 times less time for the coverage of the
election.

There is no political advertisement on H2 Channel and Armenia. This
is determined by high prices on political advertisement set by these
channels.

On the whole, political advertisement is expensive in all TV companies,
which implies that "a prearranged and controlled policy is conducted".

On Yerkir Media the ARF Dashnaktsutyun appears more
frequently. Meanwhile, on Kentron on April 18-23 the ARF Dashnaktsutyun
was mentioned most of all.

LIGHTS GO OUT FOR HERITAGE AS CAMPAIGN THUNDERS ON

A1+
[08:25 pm] 27 April, 2007

more images Yerevan-Yesterday, April 26, after Heritage candidates
and volunteers exhausted campaign materials in Gymuri, the campaign
caravan’s final stop of the day, Raffi K. Hovannisian appeared at
the city’s Tsayg television station for a previously scheduled live
interview. Electricity rarely goes off in Gyumri these days, but
nearly ten minutes into the interview, it did for Heritage. And not
just one line of electricity, but the station’s second reserve line,
too. The television administration was not reluctant to find political
explanations behind the sudden outage. When the power was restored
some twenty minutes later, Hovannisian finished the interview, which
was aired in full at a later time.

Today, April 27, Hovannisian headed to Belgium to attend and address
"Brussels Forum 2007," a forum of world leaders, as the campaign bus
"Toward Victory" made its rounds in Yerevan’s Erebuni, Nubarashan,
and Arabkir districts. A sister minibus focused on villages in the
Gavar region.

Tomorrow, April 28, "Toward Victory" will concentrate on the capital’s
Masiv district.

PRYAKHIN IS CONCERNED OVER VOTERS’ PASSIVITY

A1+
[09:28 pm] 27 April, 2007

Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin, the Head of the OSCE Office in Yerevan,
observes relative passivity among the Armenian voters. He is concerned
over the fact that half of the voters have no intention to participate
in the upcoming elections.

"I cannot say what factors their inactivity is determined by, but
the recent polling results suggest that over 90 per cent of the
Armenian voters don’t connect their futures with the outcome of the
parliamentary elections," Mr Pryakhin says.

In his opinion, the Armenians are more united over the NKR conflict
resolution but in most cases they remain indifferent. Armenian families
mainly get financial assistance from oversea countries.

In this view, I want to remind that active civil participation promotes
democracy in the country.

In reply to A1+’s question how he assesses the pre-election scene
in Armenia, Mr Pryakhin said, "In comparison with 2003 elections,
I see many positive achievements. Let’s take the amended Electoral
Code as an illustration. We have issued two booklets covering voters’
rights and duties," Mr Pryakhin adds.