Month: August 2008

MOSCOW ON THE WAY TO RECOGNISING THE SEPARATISTS
By M. Alkhazashvili

The Messenger
Aug 26 2008
Georgia

August 25 might become a historic day for Russia. For this was the
day it passed its own death sentence.

Both chambers of the Parliament unanimously supported recognition of
South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence. However the last word on
the matter belongs to President Medvedev, or in reality most probably
Prime Minister Putin.

Russian legislators were "generous" in blaming, criticizing and
threatening Georgia and the West. The illusion that the old empire is
already recovered was clearly there. But the Duma forgot one thing
in the euphoria of its "glorious victory" over Georgia. The Soviet
Union with its satellite states was more powerful and dangerous than
Russia is today. But what happened? It collapsed.

The Kremlin’s intention to legalize the separatist regimes is just a
challenge to the West to show it who’s boss. Once again the inferiority
complex of the Russian leadership is demonstrated. "Tit for tat, you
recognize Kosovo and we will recognize the separatists in Georgia,"
Moscow has threatened many times. It is more than naive to speak
about "independence" for South Ossetia or Abkhazia. The people living
there have been given Russian passports and Russian occupation forces
control whatever goes on there.

The Russian political elite regrets it did not completely destroy
Western-oriented Georgia. However grabbing two Georgian regions and
keeping the Russian armed forces on the territory of another sovereign
state, to say nothing about the refusal to follow the terms of the
Sarkozy-brokered ceasefire agreement, show clearly that the Kremlin
ignores any international law and is prepared to repeat its aggression
any time, anywhere, against anyone.

What will Medvedev/Putin do? Some analysts think they will pause until
the September 1 EU summit is convened, in order to try and bargain,
whatever it is they think they have to bargain with.

Russian analysts frequently warn their hot blooded politicians about
the threats their country could face by recognizing Georgia’s breakaway
territories. Russia has several dozen autonomous ethnic entities of
its own, which might slowly move in the separatist direction. Chechnya
could be repeated once again followed by Ingushetia, Dagestan and
others which are quiet for the time being. Russia will find itself in
complete isolation in the political or, more seriously, the economic
and financial spheres. Russia’s next door neighbour Ukraine will
start taking urgent steps to protect itself, and NATO at least will
now take commonsense measures to help it do so.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are following the developments in Georgia
and its separatist regions closely. Armenia hopes that the precedent
Russia has set will make it easier for it to legalize its occupation
of Nagorno Karabakh. However it is hopefully aware that if it too
recognizes the Georgian separatist regions it will create problems
for itself concerning the transit route through Georgia. So Russia
is on the edge of creating a storm over the Caucasus. It can step
back at any time. Or will it prove itself absolutely irresponsible?

P.S. Yesterday around 3 p.m. Russian President Medvedev put his
signature on the Russian Parliament’s appeal. Thus Russia recognized
the independence of separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is
no longer about Georgia, its regions or Russia. It is a challenge to
the entire world.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CONFLICT AFFECTS RUSSIAN, GEORGIAN ECONOMIES

Financial Express
Aug 27 2008
India

In international conflicts economic levers are sometimes more
effective than military moves. Blockading supplies of strategic raw
materials, freezing money transfers, and strikes at the businesses of
the national diaspora may deal as much damage as tank attacks and air
strikes. Since coming to power Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili
has repeatedly complained about Russian economic pressure, and has
done much to separate the economies of the two countries.

Today, economic relations between Russia and Georgia have been reduced
to the minimum. In conditions of tough confrontation, not to mention
armed conflict, this situation is in many respects favorable to
Georgia because it reduces the threat of economic pressure.

Georgia needs about 1.8 billion cubic metres of gas per year, but
unlike many countries in the region it does not depend on Russia for
it. It receives almost all of its oil and gas from Azerbaijan. However,
a pipeline pumping Russian gas to Armenia passes through Georgian
territory. This year, Armenia is to receive 2.1 billion cubic metres of
gas. Georgia gets 10%, or 210 million cubic meters, as a transit fee.

Despite the recent conflict the supplies have not been
stopped. Georgian minister of energy Alexander Khetaguri said recently
that there was no threat to the pipeline at all. However, on August
11, Georgian gas workers reduced supplies by 30%, later explaining
that this was because they needed to conduct some tests.

Armenia, meanwhile, has no grievances against either side. The
reductions do not affect its consumption, and the deficit can be
compensated by gas from its underground depot. If the conflict
escalates, however, Georgia may lose 210 cubic metres of gas,
which amounts to 11.6% of its consumption. The Armenian economy
would lose much more. There have been no reports of fuel shortages
in Georgia. After Georgia reported a bombing in the vicinity of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, Azerbaijan’s state oil company
announced it would suspend oil imports through sea ports.

Until the end of the last year, Russia was the main supplier of
electricity to Georgia, which received 100 megawatts of electricity
per year via the Kavkasioni transmission lines. But after the electric
power station in Inguri reached capacity last November, deputy minister
of Energy Archil Nikoleishvili reported that Georgia would not need
supplies from Russia anymore. Nonetheless, Saakashvili has failed to
break all links between the two economies. Like most former Soviet
republics, Georgia is overpopulated, and estimates…

CONFRONTATIONAL RUSSIA

Economist
urope/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11998649
Aug 27 2008
UK

Russia’s diplomatic recognition of two breakaway bits of Georgia is
more bad news

TO GEORGIAN fury, Western consternation and strong support at home,
Russia’s government recognised two breakaway regions of Georgia as
independent countries on Tuesday August 26th. The map of Europe is
different, and darker, as a result.

The planned dispatch of Russian diplomats to open embassies in
Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, the main cities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
respectively, marks the formal dismemberment of Georgia: until very
recently, Russia had at least in theory accepted its neighbour’s
territorial integrity.

As long as Russia kept up its recognition of Georgian territorial
integrity, it could claim that its soldiers in both places were
peacekeepers operating under international mandates. Cynics, such
as Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had long joked that the
Russian forces should be called "piece-keepers", whose real role was
to maintain the Kremlin’s influence in the former empire. Russia
says that its forces are protecting the Abkhaz and Ossetians from
Georgian attack.

Diplomatic historians may find that the two new countries will not
make for enduring study. The next act in the drama may well be that
both new countries ask to become part of the Russian Federation. That
underlines Russia’s dramatic military victory against Georgia in this
month’s war, giving it a permanent presence south of the Caucasus
mountains, close to the vital oil and gas pipelines that bring energy
from the Caspian region and Central Asia to Turkey and beyond.

Russia likes to draw parallels with Kosovo–a state carved out
of Serbia as a result of Western military intervention. But the
parallel is superficial. Few embassies will open in South Ossetia
(which, following the ethnic cleansing of its Georgian population,
has a population little bigger than that of Liechtenstein). Close
Russian allies such as Belarus and Tajikistan will be keen to put on
a show of support. Others may be more chary of recognising Russian
puppet states as independent countries. Moldova and Azerbaijan, for
example, have headaches with similar entities, Transdniestria and
Nagorno-Karabakh. Like South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are the result
of ethnic flare-ups in the dying days of the Soviet Union. Russian
allies farther afield, such as Venezuela and Cuba, may be tempted to
join in the humiliation of the West.

Hard words are flying. Britain and America have condemned
the move. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, called it
"unacceptable". She is on a hastily arranged visit to the Baltic
states, which are now shivering in anticipation of what Russia’s
foreign policy may hold in store for them. France, which holds the
presidency of the European Union, had already called an emergency
summit for September 1st to review ties with Russia. It was the French
president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who brokered a ceasefire on August 12th. He
is furious with what he sees as Russian double-dealing.

Some of the strongest words came from Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign
minister: "That the Russian government leadership now has chosen this
route means they have chosen a policy of confrontation, not only
with the rest of Europe, but also with the international community
in general," he said.

All that may be true. But for now, criticism of the Kremlin’s actions
in Georgia seems to be fuelling the Russian leadership’s determination
to do more of the same. Public opinion seems strongly behind the
muscular new foreign policy, seeing it as a sign that Russia has
recovered from the weakness of the 1990s. Russia seems not to care
that Western countries are now threatening to block its membership
of the World Trade Organisation.

Indeed, Russia feels it can easily withstand Western
displeasure. Soaring oil and gas prices have put nearly $600 billion
in its hard-currency reserves. Many Russians reckon that in the end
the big European countries that matter will decide that they care
more about trade ties and reliable energy supplies than they do about
Georgia. On the evidence so far, that assessment may be correct.

RUSSIA BACKS INDEPENDENCE OF GEORGIAN ENCLAVES
By Clifford J. Levy

International Herald Tribune
ope/27russia.php#
Aug 27 2008
France

MOSCOW: Russia on Tuesday recognized the independence of two enclaves
that have long sought to secede from neighboring Georgia. The action
deepened strains with the West over the conflict in the economically
vital crossroads of the Caucasus and roiled a broader debate over
how to respond to separatist movements around the world.

The Russian decision was intended to consolidate its political and
military gains in the two and a half weeks since it invaded Georgia
after hostilities flared over the breakaway territory of South Ossetia,
an ally of Moscow.

The Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, declared in a nationally
televised address that South Ossetia and the other pro-Russian enclave,
Abkhazia, would never again have to endure what he described as
oppressive Georgian rule.

"This is not an easy choice, but it is the only way to save the lives
of people," Medvedev said.

With Russia’s image and financial markets suffering in recent days,
Medvedev took the unusual step of giving a series of interviews to
foreign media on Tuesday to explain the move. He said Russia had
abided by international law in recognizing the two enclaves, but he
left no doubt that the decision was in part retaliation for the West’s
support earlier this year for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia,
which Russia had opposed.

The United States and its allies denounced the decision, saying
that Georgia must not be broken apart and contending that Russia
was violating the cease-fire framework that it signed to halt the
fighting. The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, accused Russia
of trying to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"This is a challenge for the entire world," Saakashvili said. "Not
just Georgia."

In Washington, President George W. Bush said, "Russia’s action only
exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations."

While the dispute centers on two slices of land, it has been playing
out against a much broader backdrop of historic antagonism among the
major powers over separatist movements.

World leaders have for years struggled to determine which ones
to recognize, often making decisions and then trying to limit the
repercussions by warning that each situation is unique.

The questions now are: whether that hesitance to bestow recognition
could be eroding, as witnessed by Kosovo and Russia’s action in
Georgia; and whether other independence movements will use the
recognition of the two enclaves to further their own ambitions by
citing similar grievances. Not far from Georgia, for example, is an
Armenian enclave that wants to secede from Azerbaijan, and Kurdish
separatists are seeking their own homeland in regions of Turkey
and Iraq.

In the past, most countries feared that if they waded into one such
conflict, it could be used against them in a future one. On Tuesday,
no other big power followed Moscow’s lead and voiced support for
South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence.

Many in Abkhazia have expressed the desire to be separate both from
Georgia and Russia — and some experts say it might be viable as an
independent nation, albeit a very small one, because of its larger
size and busy port.

South Ossetia, in contrast, has only 70,000 people and borders on the
Russian region of North Ossetia. Suspicions have long arisen that after
seceding from Georgia, South Ossetia would be absorbed by Russia and
joined with North Ossetia — and most Ossetians say they support that.

The Kremlin said Tuesday that it had no plans to take over South
Ossetia. It has already given Russian passports to many residents of
both places, thereby widening its influence.

Medvedev announced the enclaves’ independence with unexpected
swiftness, only a day after the Russian Parliament unanimously called
upon him to do so. Diplomats and analysts had surmised that the Kremlin
might draw the process out as part of negotiations with the West.

But tensions between the sides have been escalating, and not only
over the status of the regions. On Tuesday, Russian military and
diplomatic officials continued to complain about NATO efforts to
assist Georgia, suggesting that the alliance might be trying to send
military equipment, rather than humanitarian aid. The Russians also
expressed discomfort about the presence of NATO ships in the Black
Sea off the coast of Georgia.

Russia has for months been seething over the West’s decision this
year to recognize Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, a traditional
Russian ally. The Russians were especially angered when Western
diplomats emphasized that Kosovo was not any sort of precedent and
had no bearing on the standing of the breakaway enclaves in Georgia.

As if to drive home the idea that recognition of the enclaves was
in some sense payback, Medvedev used an interview on Tuesday with
Russia Today, the Kremlin-financed English-language channel, to turn
the West’s rationale on Kosovo against it.

"There was a special situation in Kosovo, there is a special situation
in South Ossetia and Abkhazia," he said. "Speaking about our situation,
it is obvious that our decision is aimed at preventing the genocide,
the elimination of a people, and helping them get on their feet."

Still, Russia, a sprawling nation with many nationalities, has faced
its own secessionist pressures, notably in the Muslim region of
Chechnya, where Moscow has fought two wars to crush an independence
movement. Even as they were hailing the independence of the two
enclaves, Russian officials were trying to explain why Chechnya did
not deserve the same right.

They contended that when Chechnya had had autonomy in the late 1990s,
it became a source of tremendous instability, and Russia had no choice
but to reassert complete control.

"You know what they did to their own place," the Russian foreign
minister, Sergey Lavrov, said Tuesday. "They turned it into a place
where international terrorists were feeling at home."

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this part of the world has
been a locus of the problem of addressing separatist aspirations.

For a time, a consensus developed in the West, but with two aims
that sometimes appeared to be in conflict. On one hand, the allies,
led by the United States, were quick to recognize the independence of
former Soviet republics, including Georgia itself, the better to wrest
these countries away from Russia’s orbit and into the arms of the West.

"Depending on where you sat, you could easily call those places
breakaway republics," said Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the
Center for a New American Security in Washington, adding that many
hard-liners in Russia did see those countries as breakaway regions.

On the other hand, a post-cold-war understanding, hardened by the
experience in Bosnia, developed that the West should be very careful
about recognizing breakaway regions, so as not to set a precedent,
or embolden secessionist areas, Chollet said.

That consensus held until February, when Kosovo declared independence,
and the West said Serbia lost its right to Kosovo because of actions
over the years by the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who died
in 2006.

Igor Lukes, a professor of international relations at Boston
University, said international law contained clear standards for
evaluating whether an independence movement should be recognized, in
part based upon whether such a territory has well-defined borders,
a well-established central authority and a populace that strongly
desires secession.

The problem is that these judgments typically become hostage to
conflicts between large nations, as in the case of Kosovo, South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, Lukes said.

"These situations are not really murky," he said. "What makes the
situations murky is each superpower tries to exploit ad hoc situations
as they emerge to advance its interests and to hurt its rivals. It’s
really the way the superpowers manipulate the reality. It’s not the
reality that is complicated."

On the border area around Russia and South Ossetia on Tuesday, there
was mostly joy. Hundreds of South Ossetians streamed south to their
homes, buoyed by Russia’s decision.

At a rest home in Alagir, an hour’s drive from the border, aid
workers sat alone, eating sardines. It was one of the first moments
since the crisis began early this month when they looked out at an
empty dormitory.

Three hundred refugees had left in the morning, and 400 more were
expected to pass through on Wednesday on their way to the narrow Roki
Tunnel, which cuts through the nearly vertical ridge of the Caucasus
to South Ossetia.

"This was the only hope of people who live on the other side of the
pass to return to a normal way of life," said Avan Galachiyev, an agent
of the Federal Migration Service who had been helping the refugees.

Artur Dzhoiyev, whose family fled their village, Hampalgon, 18 years
ago, was thinking idly about returning to his "historic motherland,"
maybe building a house.

Now, he reasoned, things would be different. No Georgian checkpoints,
no need to lurch along rocky bypass roads, no rooting for documents
under the hostile gaze of soldiers.

The Georgians, Galachiyev said, have lost control of the road.

"And they won’t get it back," he said.

Reporting was contributed by Ellen Barry in Vladikavkaz, Russia;
Helene Cooper in Washington; Nicholas Kulish in Tallinn, Estonia;
and Steven Erlanger in Paris.

THE VIEW FROM THE KREMLIN

Western Morning News
August 25, 2008 Monday
Plymouth

He diplomatic war of words flew. Nato announced curtly that it would
no longer "do business as usual" with Russia. Russia promptly snapped
back that it would not "do business as usual" with Nato – which may
have some awkward consequences for the supply lines to Nato troops
in Afghanistan, some of which are sent overland through Russia,
with Moscow’s consent.

No matter. Neither side is giving any quarter. At the time of writing
Russia was still pulling the vast majority of its troops out of
Georgia, but Nato remains bristling.

An emergency meeting of the Western alliance warned Moscow last week
that it would not be allowed to draw any "new line" in Europe that
prevented Georgia and other like-minded countries from joining Nato
should they so wish.

And we all know these smaller countries do so wish. Georgia, for
one, is absolutely gagging to join Nato. For Tbilisi, it is the only
possible protection from the menace of the Russian bear.

But let us flip the coin. What follows is not a justification of the
Russian regime, let alone its invasion of Georgia.

But if we are to manage the present crisis intelligently it is vital
that we in turn understand that, from the Kremlin’s perspective,
it is not Russia but Nato that is drawing the new line in Europe.

It is Nato that is rampantly extending its reach right up to the
Russian borders.

To those in the West, accustomed to viewing Nato as an entirely benign
organisation, that might seem an inconsequential development – but
that’s not how they see it in Russia.

Since its formation, right the way through the Cold War, Nato was
a terrifying nuclear alliance expressly pitted against the might of
Soviet Russia.

The collapse of communism and the removal of a political system that
was committed to the destruction of Western values enabled a fresh
start. Hands of friendship were extended that would never have been
possible when most of us were children.

The hopeful believed that with the rise of fundamental Islamic
terrorism, the old Nato versus Russia antagonism would be forgotten
as both forces regrouped to combat a mutual enemy.

The trouble is that neither forgot the old combat. Russia’s grip on the
energy supplies for much of Europe alarms EU governments, while Russia
itself has become extremely jumpy as first the European Union and
then Nato have extended their warm embraces to its former satellites.

It has been nerve-racking for Moscow to see Hungary, Poland, the
Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia all scuttle into the Nato tent.

It had no illusion that these former satellites had fled to Nato
precisely for protection from itself, and however bellicose or not
the Kremlin was, the knowledge that Nato was prepared to extend its
protection to its former satellites was seen as an aggressive act.

Moreover, with the membership of Estonia and Latvia, Nato’s military
might now reach right up to the Russian border, albeit only along a
small proportion of it.

But Nato did not stop there. It opened dialogue with a host of
other countries Russia once considered its own. Under the so-called
Partnership for Peace programme, Nato began forging its own direct
links with Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrghyz
Republic, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. And those were
just the pygmies.

Nato also formed "Partnerships for Peace" with those three major
nations on Russia’s underbelly – Georgia, Belarus and the Ukraine.

To calm the Kremlin’s nerves, Nato also opened a Partnership for Peace
dialogue with Russia itself, but if you are of a mildly paranoid
disposition it is easy to see how Russia would remain profoundly
discomfited by the onward march of Nato’s influence into regions
Russia has historically considered to be its own stamping ground.

Russian fears have been fuelled by two further developments. The
first was the decision by Nato’s April summit to consider applications
from both Georgia and the Ukraine to become full-blooded members of
the alliance. Russia’s envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, declared that
"pushing Georgia into the alliance is a provocation that could lead
to a bloodbath".

The second was the agreements the Americans struck with Poland and the
Czech Republic to base sections of its missile defence shield on their
soil – a shield the Russians believe to be targeted against themselves.

Let us be clear. Russia is a dangerous and unpredictable power. It
needs to be handled firmly, but it must also be handled wisely.

I repeat my conclusion from last week. Goading the bear that has
an iron grip on much of your energy supplies when you yourself are
overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan is folly of the highest order.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SMALL NATIONS SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN CONFLICTS BETWEEN WORLD POWERS

Interfax News Agency
Aug 25 2008
Russia

Small Caucasian nations should try hard to smooth over contradictions
between world powers that occur in their region, Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan said in an interview with the Austrian newspaper
Der Standard.

A key provision of our recent policy is that small nations located in
the highly sensitive region should do their best to minimize possible
confrontations between super powers instead of inflating them, he said.

It is very easy for any region to get short-time benefits from
contradictions between world powers that occur from time to time,
he said. However, it is much more difficult and useful to cooperate
impartially in the sphere of common interests.

Bearing in mind the challenges we have to withstand, it would be
senseless to create new division lines and artificial ideological
groups, he said.

Attempted armed resistance to the self-determination ambitions in
South Caucasian nations is fraught with major military and geopolitical
consequences, the president said.

The latest events clearly showed the real danger presented by the
arms race, unfounded enlargement of military budgets and militant
declarations in the South Caucasus. They also showed that such
conflicts should be settled through the free expression of will by
the people seeking self-determination. Otherwise, ethnic cleansing
and breach of international humanitarian laws would be unavoidable,
he said.

Strategic partnership with Russia has never impeded Armenia’s normal
and effective cooperation with regional and non-regional countries
and international organizations. This is proven by the vast amount
of joint programs with the EU and NATO and the dynamic relations with
European states, the U.S. and Iran, Sargsyan said.

Asked whether the Russian dominance in the South Caucasus was
beneficial for Armenia, which housed a key Russian military base,
Sargsyan said, I think that in our times military bases are symbols
of efficient cooperation rather than of dominance.

Efficient sovereignty is important for Armenia, the same as for any
other state. The modern notion of sovereignty implies involvement in
international and regional security systems, he said.

ARMENIA: 80-85% OF GRAPE USED FOR COGNAC PRODUCTION
by Esmerk

VinMoldova.md
August 26, 2008 Tuesday

Avag Arutyunyan, Chairman of the Union of Armenian Winemakers,
has announced that 80-85% of grape grown in the country are used for
cognac production. For large Armenian producers cognac is a commercial
product, while wine an image one. According to the Union of Winemakers,
cognac output decreased to 6.39mn litres in Armenia in H1 2008, against
7.31mn litres in the same period of 2007. Cognac export surged 61%,
to 13mn litres in 2007, against 2006.

ARMENIAN CHANGE OF COMMAND

US Fed News
August 26, 2008 Tuesday 8:05 AM EST

The Multi-National Division Central-South issued the following press
release:

05 AUG 2008. Iraq. There was a celebration of taking over of
responsibility by eighth shift by Armenian Contingent.

On the same a joint assembly stand Armenian soldiers, who will leave
Iraq soon and new one of eighth rotation, who will stay here within
next six months. "I am very proud that I had possibility to lead
so high qualified soldiers" – MULTINATIONAL DIVISION CENTRAL SOUTH
Commanding General Andrzej Malinowski (MND CS CG) said to Armenian
soldiers. "Your outstanding job, which has been done here, would not
be forgotten". Seventh rotation of Armenian Contingent was a part of
Multinational Division Central South since 2008. Armenian doctors made
an excellent job among Group of Medical Support in MND CS and second
part of contingent were attached to Camp Commander Base who executed
tasks connected with engineering support of abase. Seventh rotation was
commanded by Maj. Arsen Sahakyan. "Those six months which we spent here
in Iraq is a time which we keep in our mind forever. Our staying here
was needed and this is the most important "- said Armenian Commander.

During that celebration MND CS CG Andrzej Malinowski honored soldiers
of seventh rotation with congratulation letters and plaques of MND CS.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version: nian.htm

THE "RICHARD AND TINA CAROLAN FUND" CONTINUES FINANCING
NEW PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA

The "Richard and Tina Carolan" Publishing Fund unveiled its most recent
publication- Manuel Keshishian’s "Mokagan Hayeliner" (Magic Mirrors), a
series of plays- during a meeting of its jury on August 26.

The "Richard and Tina Carolan" Fund has been established under the auspices
of the Catholicosate of Cilicia and the members of the jury are assigned by
His Holiness Aram I. The Fund provides an opportunity to Diaspora Armenian
intellectuals and writers, particularly from the new generation, to publish
their works.

The members of the Fund’s jury include Archbishop Varoujan Hergelian, V.
Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian (Secretary), Dr. Zaven Meserlian (Chairman),
Barour Aghbashian and Sarkis Giragosian.

The Fund has thus far financed the publication of four volumes: Vartan
Mateossian’s "Haravayin Goghmn Ashkhari" (The Southern Side of the World);
Hagop Tcholakian’s "Andioki Mertsaga Roudgi Hovidi Hayere" (The Armenians of
the Valley of Roudge near Antioch; Dr. Saleh Zahreddine’s "Hayots
Yegeghetsvo Teragadaroutyoune 1915-I Tcharteroun" (The Role of the Armenian
Church in the Massacres of 1915); and the most recent volume mentioned
above.

His Holiness Aram I chaired the meeting of the Jury, which expressed its
commitment to fund new publications in order to encourage the intellectuals
of the new generation.

All works submitted are discussed by the Jury. Upon the Jury’s approval, the
works are published as the new volumes of the "Richard and Tina Carolan"
Fund.

##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the books
published in the Printing House of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer
to the web page of the Catholicosate,
The Cilician Catholicosate, the administrative center of the church is
located in Antelias, Lebanon.

Press and Information Department
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Armenia
Tel. + 37410 544041. ext. 202
Fax. + 37410 565601
e-mail: [email protected]
web:

Answer of Tigran Balayan, Head of MFA’s Press Office to the questions by
Regnum News Agency

Question: What is Armenia’s position on the recognition of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia independence.

Answer: Armenia has always favored and continues to believe that any attempt
for military solution to conflicts is futile. Such conflicts should only be
resolved on the basis of free expression of the will of the people.