Author: admin

IRAN CONDEMNS OCCUPATION, USE OF FORCE BY ANY COUNTRY – PRESIDENT

IRNA web site, Tehran
24 Jan 05

TEHRAN

Immediately after the formal ceremony to welcome Azeri President Ilham
Aliyev, Iranian and Azeri presidents talked to reporters calling for
expanding Tehran-Baku relations.

President Mohammad Khatami accompanying President Ilham Aliyev told
reporters at Sa’dabad that Iran is keen on further development of
relations with Azerbaijan Republic.

Responding to an Azeri reporter about what Iran will do to help
resolve Karabakh crisis, President Khatami said that Iran is among the
few countries which supports Azerbaijani national sovereignty and
territorial integrity.

“Iran believes that the Karabakh crisis would be resolved through
logic and understanding between the two parties without resorting to
force. I believe that Karabakh conflict will be resolved if the two
sides seriously decided to do so,” President Khatami said.

He said that Iran has friendly relations with both Azerbaijan and
Armenia and is ready to mediate between them to help resolve the
crisis and hoped for immediate settlement of Karabakh conflict.

Another Azeri reporter asked Khatami whether there is similarity
between occupation of the Arab lands by the Zionist regime and
occupation of Karabakh by Armenia, the Iranian president said that
Iran condemns occupation and use of force being exercised by any
country.

“Of course, there is a difference. I believe Israel has occupied the
entire Palestine and has established illegitimate existence, but,
Armenia is a country itself and at the same time occupation and
seizure of an inch of the other’s territory is condemned and the
international community should help end the occupation,” President
Khatami said.

President Aliyev told reporters that his visit to Iran is aimed at
developing relations in all fields including the economy.

He pointed to the accords President Khatami has signed during his
visit to Baku and said Azerbaijan Republic calls for implementation of
these accords.

The Azeri president said that Tehran-Baku relations are developing
rapidly and political and economic cooperation is excellent.

“The exchange of visits by presidents of the two countries indicated
the extent of relations both countries enjoy,” President Aliyev said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Copley News Service
January 23, 2005 Sunday

A countdown for the daring and the distinctive
By George Varga

With more than 30,000 albums released each year, just getting heard –
let alone making an impact – is a daunting challenge. This holds even
more true for bold, uncompromising artists outside the mainstream.

In a just world, these performers would be household names. For now,
they remain hidden treasures whose work should be savored, shared and
savored again.

So let the countdown begin (record company Web sites are provided for
each album):

10. “Skeleton Key Orchestra,” Nathan Hubbard
()

A tour de force from this drum dynamo, whose dazzling fusion of avant
jazz, electronica, Afro-Cuban and more is showcased on this two-CD
set by a talent-rich group that numbers up to 28 members.

9. Jenny Scheinman, “Shalagaster” ()

This New York violinist bills her music as “modern folk jazz,” but
that hardly does justice to her daring blend of classical, tango,
klezmer, blues and Middle Eastern music.

8. David Murray & The Gwo-Ka Masters, featuring Pharoah Sanders,
“Gwotet” ()

On which the two saxophone masters create a propulsive, multicultural
gumbo of funk, zouk and jazz with musicians from Guadeloupe, Cuba and
the United States.

7. Karan Casey, “Distant Shore” ()

The former lead singer in Ireland’s Solas shines on this often
hushed, but consistently enchanting, collection of Celtic ballads,
stirring laments and bluegrass-tinged reveries.

6. World Saxophone Quartet, “Experience” ()

Jimi Hendrix’s music is saluted and reinvented by this heady,
guitar-free group, which has long been noted for its ability to
eviscerate, not merely push, musical envelopes.

5. Rokia Traore, “Bowmboi” ()

The third album by this charismatic singer-songwriter from Mali finds
her celebrating and extending the traditions of the griot, the
singing, kora-playing oral historians of West Africa that helped lay
the foundation for rap 600 or so years ago.

4. Hem, “Eveningland” ()

A treasure-trove of finely crafted music, topped by Sally Ellyson’s
heavenly vocals, which suggests an alt-country chamber group
performing down-home yet urbane art songs.

3. Youssou N’Dour, “Egypt” ()

Accompanied by a 15-piece Egyptian orchestra and a West African vocal
and percussion group, this Senegalese vocal star has rarely sounded
so intimate or impassioned as on this stunning homage to Sufism,
Arabic culture and the timeless power of love.

2. Jerry Gonzales y Los Piratas del Flamenco, “Los Piratas del
Flamenco” ()

The marriage of flamenco and jazz takes on new life as expatriate New
York trumpeter Jerry Gonzalez and his Madrid-based group inject new
vigor into both idioms. Their mesmerizing synthesis indicates what
might have happened had Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk been Spanish.

1. Diamanda Galas, “Defixiones: Will and Testament” and “La Serpenta
Canta” ()

These two double albums by vocal master Diamanda Galas couldn’t be
more different. But each is as rewarding as it is provocative, and
both are utterly distinct from the work of any other artist working
in any idiom.

At once wrenching and cathartic, “Defixiones” was inspired by the
still-controversial Greek, Armenian and Assyrian genocides of the
early 1920s.

It finds Galas using her four-octave voice to expertly perform lyrics
in six languages, including Greek, Hebrew and Arabic. With them she
creates an earthy yet otherworldly palette of richly textured music
that explores emotional extremes in a manner simultaneously horrific
and strangely beautiful. Only by embracing the darkness, she
suggests, can we move to the light beyond, and “Defixiones” succeeds
on both counts.

The comparatively inviting “Serpenta” features Galas performing
wonderfully original versions of songs by John Lee Hooker, Hank
Williams, Ornette Coleman and other American roots-music icons, along
with her own “Baby’s Insane,” a jaunty music-hall ballad from hell
that begins with her singing: “I was covered in blood, the war has
begun / Hide the straight razor, because baby’s insane,” and later
finds her quipping: “It’s very pretty, don’t you think?”

The two-CD set is a showcase not only for her expressive singing, but
for her incisive piano work.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Transitions Online, Czech Republic
Jan 24 2005

Unwanted Brotherly Aid

by Anna Hakobyan, TOL correspondent

Armenia bucks the trend and sends troops to Iraq, to the chagrin of
Iraq’s Armenian community.

YEREVAN, Armenia–Other countries may be pulling their troops out or
thinking of doing so, but there is one country–Armenia–that is
doing the reverse: On 18 January, Armenia sent troops to Iraq for the
first time.

Yerevan’s small contingent of 46 noncombat servicemen will operate in
the Shiite city of Karbala and the nearby town of al-Hila in a
multinational division headed by Poland–which is itself cutting its
number of troops in Iraq and thinking of pulling them out entirely.
Most of the Armenian servicemen will drive military trucks, while 10
sappers will bring experience gained from de-mining Armenia’s border
with Azerbaijan after the ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh, a former
part of Soviet Azerbaijan that is now controlled by ethnic Armenians.

The unit may be small, the mission strictly “humanitarian,” and the
deployment long in the offing (Yerevan promised Washington a year ago
that it would deploy troops), but the decision has spurred
significant controversy in a country that is not only close to the
conflict, but also has a sizable diaspora within Iraq.

The results of a Vox Populi opinion poll published on 12 January
showed that 60 percent of Armenians are against sending troops to
Iraq, and only 6 percent are in favor.

Those divisions were reflected in the parliament when, on 24
December, it voted in favor of the deployment. The leading opposition
alliance, Artarutyun, broke a 10-month boycott of the parliament to
vote and found that it was joined in opposition by a member of the
three-party ruling coalition, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Party (Dashnaktstyun). The motion was carried by 91 votes to 23.

Even the deputy defense minister, Yuri Khachaturov, afterwards went
on record as saying, “I am not delighted with the decision to send
our troops there or with the war in general.”

“If Armenian servicemen were sent to Karabakh to protect their home
country, I would understand this,” said one of the leaders of the
Artarutyun bloc, Aram Sargssian, “but I cannot understand seeing off
Armenian servicemen with fanfare to a country that is in a war for
its independence, its own interests.”

While that that statement highlights deeper questions about the
United States’ campaign in Iraq, the main concern for Artarutyun and
Khachaturov–and for much of the public–is the possible threat to
the community of 20,000 to 28,000 Armenians living in Iraq.

In August, an Armenian church was one of five churches bombed in a
wave of attacks on Iraq’s Christian community. Two Armenian churches
were among the targets in subsequent attacks in October, November,
and December. At the same time the Armenian troops were deployed, the
dangers for Christians were highlighted by the 17 January abduction
of Basile Georges Casmoussa, the Roman Catholic archbishop in Mosul.
(He has since been released.)

The fear is that the deployment will add fuel to the flames. Iraq’s
Armenian community itself has been urging the Armenian government not
to send troops to Iraq, believing it will immediately result in
attacks on Iraqi Armenians. Artarutyun’s Sargssian believes the
effects of the deployment are already apparent. “In the United Arab
Emirates, Lebanon, and Syria, anti-Armenian sentiment is already
emerging,” he told the daily Aravot on 21 January.

Similar concerns were factors in Yerevan’s initial decision to remain
on the sidelines after the 2003 invasion. The government came out
neither in explicit support of nor opposition to the U.S.-led war.

WHY THE CHANGE?

Ministers have been quite open in explaining why the government has
changed its position. After the parliamentary vote, Prime Minister
Andranik Margarian told the newspaper Haiastani Hanrapetutiun that
“Armenia’s presence is primarily symbolic and for political
purposes.” The major supporter of the move, Defense Minister Serzh
Sargssian, has argued that the deployment is needed if Armenia is to
develop its military cooperation with the United States.

It is also a preventative measure designed to avoid isolation, as
Azerbaijan and Georgia already have troops in Iraq.

While seeking to maximize the geopolitical benefits, the government
has sought to reassure the Armenian public, stressing repeatedly that
the deployment is “humanitarian” in character.

Washington-based security analyst Richard Giragosian believes the
government’s calculations are accurate and that the deployment
“offers significant geopolitical gains for Armenia.”

“One lesson for tiny Armenia from [11 September 2001] was the need to
seize the new opportunities while minimizing the risks from such a
dynamic shift in international security. In the wake of 9/11, for
example, Azerbaijan was able to exploit and exaggerate its role or
entry in the war on terrorism to a much greater and more effective
degree than Armenia.”

The situation was the same prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
“Armenia was portrayed as a reluctant or even resistant nation,”
Giragosian says. “In U.S. eyes at that time, the misperceptions of
Armenian policy and the rather inaccurate image of Azerbaijan as the
new loyal ally were only strengthened by the twin perceptions of
Armenia as little more than a Russian vassal or garrison state, or as
a weak, isolated state thoroughly controlled by its Russian ‘ally.'”

“Given the participation of its neighbors, Armenia cannot afford to
abstain from strategic engagement” such as involvement in Iraq,
Giragosian believes.

However, Armenia’s contingent will remain the smallest from the
Caucasus. Azerbaijan has 150 troops in Iraq, and Georgia plans to
increase its force to 850. The Armenian contingent’s tour of service
is six months. It is unclear whether the mission would continue after
that.

Though primarily a gesture in relations with the United States, the
deployment “conforms to the overall trajectory of Armenian military
strategy” and to Armenia’s broader balancing act, Giragosian argues.
“Armenia has both participated in Russian-led war games and training
simulations within the Collective Security Treaty Organization as
well as with the U.S. and other Western states within the NATO
Partnership for Peace program,” says Giragosian.

Armenia’s borders continue to be patrolled by Russian troops, and it
retains very close political, economic, and military ties with
Moscow.

More generally, Giragosian argues that Armenia’s engagement with both
Russia and NATO and its deployment of troops to Kosovo, for example,
fits within a concerted drive to professionalize its army.

WHAT NOW FOR THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY?

But are the Armenian Iraqis being made sacrificial lambs in Armenia’s
broader geopolitical interests? Giragosian believes that the
deployment “poses no real or new risk to the Armenians in Iraq.”

He contends that the Armenian community “has already been living in a
state of insecurity and vulnerability, which will be neither
exacerbated nor extinguished by this deployment.” He sees “the record
of attacks, violence and intimidation [as] all part of a broader
campaign by insurgents against the ethnic Christian minorities of
Iraq” and that “the deployment is both far too small and much too
marginal to result in any serious or specific anti-Armenian strategy
by the insurgents.”

In recent decades, Armenians have found themselves in the crossfire
of another civil war in a heavily Muslim country, Lebanon. There, the
Armenian minority’s pursuit and policy of neutrality generally
protected it, Giragosian says. But the situation in Iraq is nothing
like the civil war in Lebanon, he believes.

“The Armenians of Iraq, like much of the ordinary Iraqi population,
face a reality marked by a faceless insurgency, with no choice or
option of abstaining from the conflict,” Giragosian says.

Nor is the longer-term outlook good for the Armenian community. “The
future of Iraq stands between becoming a state under siege or a
failed state, neither of which offers much hope for a non-Arab,
non-Muslim minority,” Giragosian says.

;IdPublication=4&NrIssue=99&NrSection=1&NrArticle=13374

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
Jan 24 2005

GEORGIAN AUTHORITIES PLAN MAJOR ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN JAVAKHETI

AKHALKALAKI, JANUARY 24, ARMENPRESS: A senior official of the
Georgian Department of Roads was quoted by A-Info news agency as
saying that Samtskhe-Javakheti, the predominantly Armenian-populated
region of South Georgia, will see a number of road building projects
this year.
Giorgy Tsereteli, deputy head of the department, reconfirmed
during a Saturday meeting at the region’s governor’s office that the
Tbilisi-Tsalka-Akhalkalaki-Kartsakh road will be repaired on funds
expected from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a
US-government-funded organization.
Tsreteli said some $105 million are earmarked also for the repair
of another key road in the region stretching from Akhalkalaki to
Akhaltsikha.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Macedonian Press Agency

MONDAY, 24 JANUARY 2005

SAE PRESIDENT VISIT TO WASHINGTON

Washington, 24 January 2005 (14:39 UTC+2)

World SAE President Andrew A. Athens, attended the festivities for President
Bush’s inauguration in Washington and concluded a series of meetings dealing
with the U.S. position on Turkey and Cyprus, Omogeneia issues in Albania and
SAE’s medical program.

`It was a very productive visit, especially in planning Omogeneia actions on
Cyprus’, Mr. Athens stated. `At the meeting with the officers of the major
Cypriot organizations we decided to focus on a short-term, intensive effort
in anticipation of the October deadline Turkey is facing on the future of
its discussions with the European Union.’ The meeting was requested by PSEKA
President Phil Christopher and attended by Cyprus Federation of America
President Panicos Papanicolaou and former president Savvas Tsivicos; Greek
Ambassador George Savvaidis and Cypriot Ambassador Evripides Evriviadis.

In meetings with highly placed Congressmen and State Department officials,
Mr. Athens sought and received key U.S. backing in support of the
application of Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and Albania to be granted
Albanian citizenship. `Because Albania does not have clear laws regarding
citizenship, it has taken a long time to act on the application of his
Eminence’, Mr. Athens said.

At a dinner hosted by Mr. Athens and Mr. Andrew Manatos of the Coordinated
Effort of Hellenes, the Omogeneia honoured his Eminence Archbishop Demetrios
of America. Among about 50 invitees were Congressman Bilirakis and State
Department and National Security Council officials, including Undersecretary
Barbara Pope, and USAID Director Andrew Natsios.

During his visit to Washington, Mr. Athens also presented reports on the
Primary Health Care Initiative to USAID Director Natsios and Ambassador for
Humanitarian Assistance Tom Adams. The development agency supports SAE’s
health care program for Hellenes and recently utilized PHCI to upgrade
health care stations in Armenia and Georgia.

After the visit to Washington, Mr. Athens was scheduled to fly to
Thessaloniki to attend the commemoration of the Memorial Day honouring Greek
victims of the Holocaust.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EurasiaNet Organization
Jan 24 2005

PROMISES STILL POWER GEORGIA’S ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
Molly Corso 1/24/05
A EusrasiaNet Photo Essay

This New Year’s, the television was on at Imzari Chartishvili’s home
in the West Georgian village of Lesa. Although no one watched it most
of the time, its presence was a comfort. The broadcasts came as a
special holiday gift from the Georgian government: a 24-hour supply
of electricity.

After years of inadequate or non-existent maintenance following the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the problems of Georgia’s electricity
system are legion – and legendary. But with expectations of a cash
windfall from the current privatization campaign, the government is
promising that the situation might – after 13 years – finally change.

A December 23 statement by Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania set the tone.
In it, Zhvania pledged that $70 million out of an expected $200
million from state property sales would go to “securing electricity
supplies” by autumn 2005. Energy Minister Nika Gilauri later went one
step further and even named a concrete date: October 1, 2005.

But whether that amount will be enough to turn the lights on is open
to debate. Dana Kenney, senior energy advisor at the US Agency for
International Development’s Office of Energy and Environment in
Tbilisi, stated that the figures touted by the government will fall
far short of solving Georgia’s energy woes. Pervasive corruption and
problems with bill collection also plague the energy sector. Though
breaking the system up into separate generation, transmission and
distribution units helped curtail some of the corruption, Kenney
said, those problems still linger on. “Money has to flow through the
system,” she commented.

How the government plans to keep that money flowing, however, is
unknown. For now, in addition to the privatization revenue, emphasis
is being placed on outside assistance. At a June 2004 donors’
conference in Brussels, Georgia submitted requests for $82 million in
assistance for the energy sector, an amount second only to “budget
support,” the online news service Civil Georgia reported. The
government also expects to use funds from the US-run Millennium
Challenge Program for refurbishing small hydropower stations and
monies from the German bank KWF to revamp the regions’ electricity
supplies, Gilauri told a January 6 press conference, the Prime News
Agency reported. The exact amount of these funds has not been
disclosed.

A comprehensive government plan to revamp the energy system has also
been announced, but not made public. The Energy Ministry did not
respond to EurasiaNet requests for information on the plan in time
for this article.

Meanwhile, despite the government’s promises, public exasperation
with Georgia’s energy crisis shows no sign of abating. In December
2004, some 600 protestors in Kutaisi, Georgia’s second largest city,
took to the streets with placards bearing a simple message: “Give us
light.” They were joined by 200 demonstrators in the nearby town of
Zestafoni.

At the time, local officials appeared divided on how to respond to
the crisis. While Giga Shushania, deputy governor for Imereti
province, home to Kutaisi, took aim at power distributors for leaving
the city “blacked out for the past few months” and without adequate
drinking water, Deputy Governor Gia Tevdoradze took issue with
protestors, asking “You haven’t had electricity for 13 years [so] why
do you remember it?” the daily 24 Hours reported.

Georgia produces mainly hydropower, which provides enough energy for
the spring, summer and autumn when water levels are high. When water
levels fall in the winter, imports – from Russia, Armenia, Turkey and
Azerbaijan – cover the gap. Energy Efficiency Center Georgia, a
renewable energy consultancy sponsored by the European Union,
estimates that Georgia’s domestic oil, gas and coal supplies can
cover only 20 percent of annual demand.

These days, the degree of the problem is not always felt in Tbilisi,
where the situation has drastically improved over the past few years.
But the capital still feels the pain of aging transmission lines and
equipment. Periodic blackouts hit the capital in October, November
and December; largely the result of faulty transmission lines, in
addition to the general disrepair of the entire sector.

But while Tbilisi may go several days without reliable electricity,
several weeks or even months is more the norm in the regions, home to
approximately 68 percent of Georgia’s population of 4.7 million.

Bill payment is one frequent explanation cited by both the government
and energy sector experts for the electricity system’s woes.
According to statistics from the Energy Efficiency Center, roughly 60
percent of Tbilisi residents pay their electricity and gas bills. In
the regions, though, that number drops to around 30 percent.

“There is a difference between [electricity company] management in
Tbilisi and the rest of the country,” said George Abulashvili,
director of Energy Efficiency Center Georgia, “The customers in
Tbilisi are paying for the energy.”

But in the western province of Guria, home to Imzari Chartishvili,
paying or not paying electricity bills makes little difference. While
electricity company officials have announced that they will provide
electricity for a few hours per day only to account holders who have
paid their monthly bills (roughly nine lari, or about $5), recently,
even those residents who had paid their bills have still been left
sitting in the dark for days on end, villagers in Lesa say. What
power there is comes for a few hours at night only.

Ongoing corruption at each stage of the electricity system –
generation, transmission and distribution – plays a large role in
hampering bill payment, commented USAID’s Dana Kenney. “People don’t
want to pay because they don’t know where the money is going,” she
said.

So far, under Saakashvili’s relatively free-form anti-corruption
campaign, few details have been provided on how the government plans
to tackle that problem.

Meanwhile, outside interest in Georgia’s energy industry continues
apace. In December, plans were announced by Canargo Energy
Corporation, a Channel Islands-based oil and gas production company,
for a $57 million oil drilling project in the Samgori and Ninotsminda
fields. Georgia’s Vartsikhe Hydro Power Plant was recently sold
together with Chiaturmanganumi, a manganese mining enterprise, to the
Russian company EvrAz Holding and the Austrian-Georgian company
DCM-Ferro for $132 million. Talks have also reportedly started about
selling the country’s gas distribution stations, a heating plant and
a backline pipeline, to Russian energy giant Gazprom, according to
Rustavi-2 television – deals that would require amendments to
existing legislation.

But whether or not this show of investor interest will make a
difference for ordinary Georgians remains unknown. So far, the lack
of workable solutions has only slowed Georgia’s economic recovery
still further, observers say. The country’s per capita income and
economic growth rates lag far behind those of neighbors Armenia and
Azerbaijan.

“Energy is everything for our people . . .They can’t do anything
without energy,” said Manana Dadiani, head of the EEC’s Renewable
Energy Department. “Giving them energy gives them the possibility to
do something.”

Editor’s Note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist and photographer
based in Georgia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UN asks if world can stop future genocide

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 24 (Reuters) – If the world had listened to the
horrors of the Nazi death camps, perhaps genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia
and Rwanda could have been prevented, speakers told the first-ever
U.N. General Assembly session on the Holocaust.

Both U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Nobel Laureate author Elie
Wiesel, a World War Two death camp survivor, questioned whether the
nations had the will to stop mass murder in the future.

“If the world had listened, we may have prevented Darfur, Cambodia,
Bosnia and naturally Rwanda,” Wiesel said.

“We know that for the dead it is too late. For them, abandoned by God
and betrayed by humanity, victory did come much too late,” Wiesel
said. “But it is not too late for today’s children, ours and yours. It
is for their sake alone that we bear witness.”

Annan told the assembly that at this moment, “terrible things are
happening today in Darfur, Sudan.” He asked the U.N. Security Council
to take action once it received a new report determining whether
genocide had occurred in Darfur and identifying gross human rights
abuses.

The special session, at which survivors and the foreign ministers of
Germany, France, Argentina, Armenia, Canada and Luxembourg spoke, is a
memorial to the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the
largest Nazi death camp.

The meeting was first called by the United States and backed by Annan,
who polled the 191-member assembly.

More than 150 nations agreed to the session, including Islamic
nations. But among Muslim nations, only Afghanistan and Jordan’s
U.N. ambassadors are scheduled to speak to the General Assembly, often
accused by Israel of being anti-Semitic.

BACH AND SCHILLER

The liberation of Auschwitz is to be observed this year as Holocaust
Memorial Day, with world leaders attending ceremonies in Poland on
Jan. 27, exactly 60 years after Soviet Red Army troops liberated the
camp.

Up to 1.5 million prisoners, most of them Jews, were killed in
Auschwitz alone, dying in gas chambers or of starvation and
disease. During the war, six million Jews overall were exterminated
and millions of others including Poles, homosexuals, Russians and
Gypsies were killed or used as slave labor, at several Nazi death
camps.

“How could intelligent, educated men, or simply law-abiding citizens,
ordinary men, fire machine guns at hundreds of children every day” and
read Schiller and listen to Bach in the evening,” Wiesel asked.

To warm applause, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer called the
Holocaust “barbaric. “For my country it signifies the absolute moral
abomination, a denial of all things civilized without precedent or
parallel,” he said.

He assured Israel that it could “always rely” on support because “the
security of its citizens will forever remain nonnegotiable fixtures of
German foreign policy.”

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who lost most of his
extended family in the Holocaust, said if there was one thing the
world had learned, it is that nations “cannot close their eyes and sit
idly by in the face of genocide.”

“We know that there have been far too many occasions in the six
decades since the liberation of the concentration camps when the world
ignored inconvenient truths so that it would not have to act or acted
too late,” Wolfowitz said.

And Israel’s foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, warned that “the brutal
extermination of a people began not with guns or tanks but with words
systematically portraying the Jews and others as not legitimate,
something less than human.”

He said one would never know if the United Nations, born from the
ashes of World War Two and instrumental in the founding of the State
of Israel, could have prevented the Holocaust. But he said each
U.N. member state needed “to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that it
will never happen again.”

Wiesel also drew attention to the indifference of the West during the
war to accept more refugees, allow more Jews to go to Israel, or bomb
the railway lines to the vast Auschwitz-Birkenau camp site.

“In those times those who were there felt not only tortured, murdered
by the enemy but also by what we considered to be the silence and
indifference of the world,” Wiesel said. “Now, 60 years later, the
world at least tries to listen.”

French Foreign minister Michel Barnier acknowledged that German
occupiers were helped by the Vichy government in deporting Jews but
that others resisted.

“When the first signs of persecution of the Jews announcing the Shoah
occurred, how many stood up? How many spoke out?,” Barnier asked.

01/24/05 14:37 ET

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Global Politician, NY
Jan 24 2005

EXPERT INTERVIEW: Caucasus is No Longer the Source of Discord for
Russia and Turkey

By GP Interview Staff

Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. is a Professor of International Relations at
Acharyan University in Yerevan, Armenia. He’s also the Director of
the Department of Turkish Studies at the Armenian National Academy of
Sciences. In the past, he served as a Counselor of the Armenian
Embassy in Germany and was the Deputy Director of the Department of
Political Analysis for the Office of the President of Armenia.

Mr. Safrastyan, the results of the visit of Vladimir Putin to Ankara
and the following visit of Turkish Prime Minister R. T. Erdogan to
Moscow testify that Russian-Turkish relations have become closer.
Only the fact that 600 Turkish businessmen accompanied Erdogan
testifies much. How great is the potential of political rapprochement
of Turkey and Russia in your opinion? Or the observed processes come
to lobbying of the interests of Russian business in Turkey?

Well, as regards 600 Turkish businessmen, it is an absolute record.
Usually, prime ministers take with them some 200 people. Of course,
it testifies that the Turkish business circles are rather interested
in Russia. The volume of Turkish investments in Russia is rather
great, at present. The economic interests prevail on the part of
Russia as well. In general, Putin’s Administration has marked the
economic direction as a priority, as I understand. In this
connection, I’d like to mention the statement of Anatoliy Chubays
about the liberal empire, which, by the way, made enough fuss in
Armenia as well. Anyhow, it is evident that both Russia and Turkey
are interested in development and deepening of the economic component
of the cooperation in various spheres. It is the most important, but,
at the same time, just one side of the medal.

The second factor is that both Russia and Turkey are not enough
satisfied with their present positions in the world. These states are
dissatisfied with the fact that they are not the leading players in
the world arena, and this dissatisfaction makes them closer, to some
extent. The changes which took place in the foreign policy of Turkey
during the last years connected with worsening of its strategic
relations with the USA, and, which is the most important, worsening
of the Turkish-Israeli relations, testify to a new direction in the
Turkish policy. That is, aspiration for more independence. The same
concerns Russia. Moscow tries to use the privileges gained during the
last years due to high prices for oil not only in the economic
sphere, but also to make it a certain strategic unit. Thus, the two
super powers dissatisfied with their role in the world try to find
their new place, a new niche in the world policy. In this background,
rapprochement of Russia and Turkey is possible not only in economy,
but also at a strategic level. The declaration on the results of
Putin’s visit to Ankara contained such a concept as multilateral
cooperation for the first time. In the course of Erdogan’s last visit
to Moscow, the strategic cooperation was already in question, though
it was not put on paper. Meanwhile, the term `multilateral
cooperation’ was not only fixed, but also was perceived and presented
by the parties to the world as a new degree in the bilateral
relations. It is necessary to pay attention to another circumstance.
Putin stated in Astana that quite unexpectedly for him Turkey had
displayed an interest in Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(Kazakhstan, China, Kirgizistan, Russia and Uzbekistan are included
in SCO – ed.). The Shanghai six is known to try to lay a foundation
of a new union of states, which will play a considerable role in that
region in future, as SCO leaders think. Russia and China are mainly
in question. The fact that Turkey has displayed an interest in SCO is
an evidence of rather serious changes in the foreign policy of that
country. In this connection, it is necessary to mention the concept
presented by Erdogan’s adviser for foreign policy, Professor Ahmet
Davutoglu in his book entitled `Strategic Depth’ in 2000. The term
strategic depth itself belongs to military science and characterizes
an interest of a country that its strategic facilities are in the
depth inaccessible for a possible rival. However, during the last
decades, several states, in particular, Pakistan, Israel, applied the
given concept to general political and strategic issues. It was just
in this light that Professor Davutoglu tried to apply the given
concept to Turkey perceiving the strategic depth not only in the
spatial, but also historical expression. He speaks of Turkey like a
country having a historical depth and entering the 20th century
alongside with seven empires controlling over the big regions in the
world. At the same time, he draws a conclusion that Turkey must play
a great role in the world arena and it must not be treated as a small
European country. According to the concept, all the territories once
included in the Ottoman Empire are strategically important
territories for present day Turkey and it must play a special role
there. In the special expression, the strategic depth is interpreted
by Davutoglu as establishment of not only good-neighbored relations
with the direct neighbors of Turkey, but also an aspiration that
these states enclose the greatest part of their policy in Turkey. For
example, for Georgia and Bulgaria cooperate through Turkey. In this
connection, Davutoglu is perceived in Turkey as a supporter of
neo-Ottomanism.

Giving an analysis to the Party Justice and Development (PJD) ruling
in Turkey, we arrive to a conclusion that it tried to put the
aforementioned concept into practice. Today Turkey exerts great
efforts to improve the relations with its neighbors. For example, at
the end of the 20th century, Turkey was in disagreeable relations
almost with all its neighbors, both in the Arab world and in the
Caucasus and with Iran. The picture is different at present. One
should not ignore the Eurasian subject matter either. The program of
the PJD mentions the Eurasian subject matter as well. An agreement of
cooperation in Eurasia was signed between Turkey and Russia in New
York in 2001. According to this document, task groups at a high level
were formed, which would coordinate the policy of the two countries
in the Eurasian space. Despite the fact that these groups gathered
some three of four times in that period of time, the attempt to
coordinate geo-strategies between Turkey and Russia in the Eurasian
space testifies much.

As a result, if one studies the conceptual basis of the existing
Russian-Turkish relations, the following two concepts go into it:
strategic depth and Eurasian subjects. In this aspect, the existing
trends can be characterized as an aspiration of the two regional
super powers to deaden regional cooperation, which, of course, still
remains, to strengthen economic cooperation and gradually begin to
solve geo-strategic tasks.

Let us suppose that Russia and Turkey are dissatisfied with their
positions in the world arena and try to coordinate their acts to
increase their rating. How will the USA and Europe response to it? It
is right to consider the rapprochement with Russia an alternative for
Turkey in the issue of joining the EU, taking into account the
tension in the relations of Russia with the EU?

I shall start with the last question. In the course of his visit to
Ankara, Putin, in particular, said the following: you needn’t
admission to the European Union; you’d better deepen the cooperation
with us. If Turkey becomes a EU-member, it will be more difficult for
it to cooperate with Russia. It was in early December. By the way,
these words of Putin arouse a negative response of Turkey. However,
already on December 17, the situation changed. In the course of
Erdogan’s visit to Moscow, Putin made a cardinally opposite statement
coming to the following: it is very good that the EU has made a right
decision and Turkey will be admitted to the EU. As a result, our
cooperation will even more strengthen.

There are rather influential forces in Turkish elite, which thinks
about the following: Europe is a good think, indeed, and we should
become part of it, but to be respected, we must have a reliable and
influential rear. And the greater is the influence outside the EU,
the more influence we shall gain inside it. Thus, Turkey, of course,
will do everything to use the privileges gained during the last
two-three years in the aspect of the increase in its influence and
reputation in the eyes of Europeans, including though development of
relations with Russia. It is the meaning of a group.

These is also a pro-American group sure that Turkey should aspire for
maintenance of special relations with the USA, and that aspiration
for the EU and the relations with Russia are of secondary importance,
in the given case. At present, this group is ousted from big
politics, but it is still very strong. The Eurasian group, which is
marginal, belongs to the third wing. It is for the necessity of
deepening relations with Iran, as well as with Russia and China,
including, within the frameworks of SCO.

As regards the top ruling over Turkey at present, one should not
forget that these people belong to the traditional Turkish elite.
There is a very interesting opinion that today Turkey is coming back
to the very natural appearance it must be in. It is connected with
the fact that the ruling party expresses the aspirations and
interests of the greatest part of the population unlike all the other
Turkish rulers, starting from Young Turks, who implanted definite
concepts contradicting to the Turkish mentality. In this aspect, the
greatest part of the Turkish elite does not perceive seriously the
people who are in power at present. The first think that Turkey must
not exceed the frameworks of the traditional policy, as it is
stronger in an alliance with the USA. Thus, anti-Americanism in
Turkey cannot bring any considerable political dividends, though, at
the same time, the country itself is one of the most anti-American
ones, as to public sentiments, leaving behind the same Iran. It is
this public anti-Americanism that is used by the PJD ruling in
Turkey. They play on it and it is part of their very big internal
popularity.

What do you think of Moscow’s position on the Cyprus problem,
especially in the light of the failure of UN Secretary General’s
plan?

After the Turkish part of Cyprus voted for Kofi Annan’s plan,
Vladimir Putin stated that it is absolutely senseless and foul to
continue isolating the Turkish part of Cyprus. Of course, Turks were
pleasantly surprised with the words of the Russian President. Judging
by the official reaction of the Greek and Cyprian parties, they have
seen no real sign of a change in Moscow’s policy in this issue yet.
The EU is known to prepare for presentation of a new plan of
resolution to Cyprian problem, however, as I know, Russia is for
Annan’s plan and it will not support that of the EU. I think, the
fact that Turks provided Russia with an opportunity to occur in the
internal gas, oil and now energy markets of Turkey played a definite
role here. The privatization of Turkish energy distribution networks
is in process, with Russia displaying an interest in it. Besides, a
possibility of laying electricity transmission lines along the bottom
of Black Sea is currently under consideration. It is most probably
that Russia also gave its agreement on the construction and even
financing of the Trans-Thracian oil pipeline. Construction of a gas
terminal in the port Ceyhan is supposed to become the largest Russian
investment program abroad, though no official announcements have been
made in this connection.

It is necessary to assess as another factor that 40,000-strong
Turkish army is dislocated in Cyprus, which is favorable for the USA
as Cyprus is close to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and, which is the most
important, to Ceyhan. Factually, in the strategic aspect, Cyprus
protects Ceyhan, i.e. the uninterrupted supply of oil from Ceyhan
terminal. Americans plan to construct a military base in Cyprus,
where they have a tracking base, which is the largest in the Middle
East controlling over the South Caucasus, Middle East and Arab
states. As regards Europe, it is also favorable for it that Cyprus be
restored as a united state. If Annan’s plan were accepted, Europe
would have to allocate over $20 billion for its implementation.

Still, how real is Turkey’s full membership at the EU? Whether
Europe’s response will be in favor of Ankara in this connection?

I do not think the prospect of a positive response so simple. Turkey
may receive a negative answer as well. In my opinion, the European
public is not satisfied with the decision to start talks for Turkey’s
admission to the EU adopted on December 17. In their turn, France and
Austria stated that they would announce a referendum on the given
issue. Meanwhile, it is a factual rejection to Ankara taking into
account the existing realities. Evidently, there is a great field for
bargaining here and the result will depend on Turkey’s state. Let’s
think of the issue seriously. Europe feels no need in Turkey. Just
one geo-political factor can be a clear answer to it – EU with Turkey
is one thing, while EU without Turkey is quite another. On the other
hand, I have grounds to suppose that Armenia will become a EU
member-state sooner than Turkey.

In the course of Russian-Turkish negotiations in Moscow, the issues
of the Armenian agenda, including Karabakh problem and the blockade
of the Armenian-Turkish boundary, were also in question. What do you
think, whether the rapprochement of Russia and Turkey is able to
influence the position of the Russian party on the Karabakh problem
or become a reason for an unfavorable shuffle of the Armenian cards?

Before answering the question, I’d like to draw your attention to
data of a survey carried out by the Russian Center for Public Opinion
Studies (VCIOM) on the attitude of Russians to Turkey. According to
these data, 71% of Russians display a positive attitude to Turkey,
51% consider it a reliable trade-and-economic partner, and 16% think
it a fraternal country. The Gallop International in Georgia asked a
similar question. The following data were fixed: only 7% of Georgians
consider Turkey a reliable partner, another 13% see some danger in
that country. To compare, only 3% of Russians think that Turkey is an
enemy country and a probable rival.

Deepening of political cooperation of Russia with Turkey is in the
background of a factual closure of Turkey’s approach to the South
Caucasus. I think the spring of 2002 a crucial point in this respect.
Then Americans made a decision to dispatch a limited contingent of
military instructors to Georgia. As I know, dispatch of Turkish
specialists to Georgia was considered initially. However, in future,
Washington refused from that idea. Probably, Turkey’s role as a
junior partner, assistance of the USA in its expansion to the South
Caucasus, is brought to the minimum at present. Though, we
mechanically keep considering Turkey the major guide of US policy. It
is not so. I think, establishment of new type mobile bases of the USA
in Georgia is a question of time, but probably it will happen in
Azerbaijan at first. So, in this respect, in the Caucasus, Turkey is
no longer dangerous for Russia. That is, the Caucasus, which was an
apple of discord for the two empires for centuries, is
no longer the same. It should be noted that at the beginning of the
last century, the Caucasus was divided between Soviet Russia and
Kemalist Turkey, in the first half of 90s when Russia’s withdrawal
resulted in vacuum in the Caucasus, Turkey tried to fill that vacuum.
Then Russia began returning and Turkey withdrawing again. But, then
occurred the USA, which neglected both Russia and Turkey in the same
way and acted as it thought fit. Hence, the geo-political rivalry of
Russia and Turkey in the Caucasus has been brought to the minimum,
which made their deeper cooperation possible, on the whole. In this
background, of course, the Turkish party each time raises an issue to
Moscow concerning the pressure on its ally, Armenia, to make it
release the territories. Turkey raised this issue in the course of
Putin’s visits to Ankara and to Moscow recently. However, to all
appearances, Russia each time rejects it. Speaking at a press
conference, Putin stated rather exactly that Russia had no intention
to exert pressure on any country; it would limit itself with the role
of a mediator and a guarantor of fulfillment of the agreements to be
signed by the parties. Sergey Ivanov stated almost the same in the
USA. That is, I do not share the concerns of definite political
circles of Armenia that Russia will expert pressure on us in the
issue of Karabakh in favor of Turkey. There are no real grounds for
it. Russia and Turkey have many other spheres to go on compromises.
But, I repeat, at the present level of Russia-Turkey and
Russia-Armenia relations a pressure on Yerevan on Karabakh problem is
ruled out.

Is it possible that Moscow exerts pressure both on Armenia and
Azerbaijan demanding resolution of the issue in the nearest future?

Turkey is not a country able to affect the process of Karabakh
conflict’s resolution within the framework of OSCE Minsk Group. It
can influence the process as it did one or two times torpedoing
almost ready agreements in 90s using all its influence on Azerbaijan.
At the given stage, Turkey is unable to influence Russia in order
that it, in its turn, influences Armenia. Moscow will not go on it.

A decision to start negotiations with Turkey for its admission to the
EU was made on December 17. Naturally, the process will last long.
What do you think, how heavy factor of pressure on Turkey by Europe
can become the Armenian Clause?

At first, Armenia does not perceive adequately what has happened. The
Armenian Clause is included into the agenda of the big European
politics. That is, it has happened what Armenians aspired for
decades. It is a fact, which Armenia is not fully aware of. By the
way, it does not mean that this issue cannot be in the same agenda.
Yet at the beginning of the last year, Chirac said although the fact
of the Genocide was adopted by the French Parliament, the issue of
recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey must be solved by
Ankara and Yerevan; but, everything changed by the end of the year.
It was not only Chirac that pointed out the necessity of raising the
issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, but also one
of the leading politicians N. Sarkozy and Foreign Minister M.
Barnier.

One should not forget that Armenia is a sovereign state, which is
able to play a definite role and does it. At the same time, for me
personally, dividends can be exclusively moral. Recognition of the
Genocide by Turkey is my duty to the annihilated generations. What is
the policy of the European Union? These are political decisions
adopted by bureaucratic structures of the EU and the EU
member-states. However, not only pragmatic calculations and political
interests, but also public opinion influence the adoption of these
decisions. It is a very strong resource of influence on the policy of
the EU in the Armenian Clause. I think Armenia does not use it fully.
I think diplomacy is diplomacy, but the public resource must be used.
Today Turkey exerts great efforts to protect its interests in the
issue of Genocide. At the end of December, the Foreign Minister of
Turkey, Abdullah Gul, met MPs and stated, in particular, the
following: the issue of admission to the EU comes to that of
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. That is, as to the remaining
issues, compromises can be found. Meanwhile, there is no compromise
in the issue of the Genocide, either Turkey recognizes it or not. I
think Europe will be adherent in this issue. Meanwhile, one should
not hope for Diaspora, but to express its position exactly and insist
on it.

What do you think, whether the crisis in the American-Turkish
relations is able to lead to recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
Turkey, taking into account Washington’s statements that Turkey
should not forget about the events of the beginning of the last
century when raising the issue of Kirkuk? It is necessary to mention
that 30 States have recognized the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian Diaspora of the USA has rather wide lobbying activities.
However, I think that it made a very big fault. In the course of the
last presidential election in the USA, it supported John Kerry only
and has practically broken its ties with Republicans unlike the first
elections. Definite attempts of diversifications are currently made,
however, the positions of the Armenian lobby in the USA have become
considerably weak. Even without taking it into account, I do not
think that the Republican Administration of the White House will go
on recognition of the Genocide. In my opinion, neo-conservatives just
dislike Armenians.

Today the Armenian public is concerned for the possibility of
Armenia’s being bypassed by the new project to build a railroad
connecting Turkey with Georgia and Azerbaijan. Do you see any good
grounds in the urges for abandoning the idea of the Armenian Genocide
recognition in order to avoid the lot of a deadlock country for
Armenia?

I don’t accept such a formulation. There can be no 100% benefit or
detriment from one or another decision. As for concerns, they are
inspired by Turkey and come to one single formula – cooperation or
deadlock. Meanwhile, Armenia has a big advantage over the other South
Caucasian states. We have preserved our territorial integrity unlike
Georgia and Azerbaijan, which, according to the well-known concept,
is the first feature of a full-fledged state. Armenia has been
controlling big (in regional dimensions) territories for ten years
already managing in the meantime to enhance its economic growth.

These two factors alone show that Armenia cannot be a deadlock
country. On the contrary, today we are the dominating center of this
geo-political area and being in the center both geographically and
geo-politically one cannot simply get in a deadlock. This is an
axiom. Of course, Turkey and Azerbaijan may want to bypass Armenia.
But I don’t think that Georgia might want the same. The real actors
on the global arena, such as the US and Russia, will nonetheless be
guided by geo-political ends in the first place. It’s not a
coincidence that Armenia has been officially included in the
`North-South’ international transport corridor. As for the
above-mentioned Kars (Turkey)-Akhalkaki (Georgia) railroad, this idea
was first expressed by Shevardnadze while Saakashvili signed the
agreement already. As you may know Saakashvili has an idée fix to
make Batumi a big transport center with an airport of international
importance. To have a free hand he needs to connect Batumi with Kars
– this project is part of his plan. In any case, I don’t see any big
threat for Armenia – if the South Caucasian borders are opened we
will be able to join this road at any moment.

The interview was originally conducted by the Regnum News Agency and
provided to the Global Politician by Prof. Safrastyan.

PRESS RELEASE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia & New Zealand
10 Macquarie Street
Chatswood NSW 2067
AUSTRALIA
Contact: Laura Artinian
Tel: (02) 9419-8056
Fax: (02) 9413-1709
Email: [email protected]

24 January 2005

REMEMBERING THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTIMS OF BAKU & AZERBAIJAN

Sydney, Australia – On Sunday, 23 January, 2005, a solemn requiem service
was held during the Divine Liturgy in memory of the many hundreds of
Armenians killed in the course of the pogroms in Baku, Sumgait and other
regions of Azerbaijan in January 1990. The commemoration of the victims was
observed by Armenian churches worldwide at the call of His Holiness Karekin
II Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians.

In his sermon, His Eminence Archbishop Aghan Baliozian, Primate of the
Diocese of Australia and New Zealand remembered the tragic events that led
to the campaign of persecution directed at the Armenians of Baku. As
history shows, the sacrifice of life is not uncommon for the Armenian people
but the memorial of Armenian martyrs will remain forever in the fibre of the
Armenian identity. Archbishop Aghan called on the voices of power to
condemn and remedy the injustices that were executed upon the Armenian
victims of Azerbaijan.

The congregation was led in prayer for the repose of the souls of these
victims.

SwissInfo, Suisse
Dimanche, 23 janvier 2005

France: l’UDF en congrès vote pour la Constitution européenne

PARIS – Quelque 2000 élus et militants du parti français de
centre-droit UDF ont entériné leur volonté de faire campagne pour le
“oui” au référendum sur la Constitution européenne. Ils ont réaffirmé
leur opposition à une adhésion de la Turquie à l’UE.

Les participants ont approuvé samedi soir à une écrasante majorité,
lors d’un vote à main levée, un texte disant que “l’UDF partage
l’inquiétude de ceux qui voient dans l’élargissement à des pays non
européens comme la Turquie un risque de dissolution du projet
européen”.

L’UDF “considère que la perspective d’un partenariat privilégié
aurait dû figurer dans l’accord d’ouverture des négociations (avec la
Turquie), exigeant en même temps la reconnaissance de Chypre, du
génocide arménien” et de la question kurde par Ankara, poursuit le
texte adopté à l’issue d’un débat.

Le document stipule aussi que “plus il y a risque de dissolution,
plus vite il faut rendre l’Europe solidaire et démocratique. L’UDF
votera donc oui et fera campagne résolument pour le oui au référendum
sur la Constitution européenne”.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress