Author: Antonian Lara

Full Frame Jihad
By Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 27, 2004
Frontpagemag.com
May 27 2004
It is no secret that people with left-leaning political perspectives
dominate film festivals, and thus they tend to promote films that
reflect their worldview, while shunning those that contradict it.
This is certainly the case when it comes to films about Islam, one of
the Left’s pet subjects in the post-9/11 world. If a film does not
portray Muslims in a positive light (or as victims), it will
inevitably be labeled “propaganda” instead of “art.” Yet strangely
enough, actual propaganda is often lauded as “art.”
Mohammed Bakri’s Jenin Jenin, for instance, advances the myth that
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) “massacred” Palestinians during
Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. [1] Despite being widely
discredited, this so-called documentary played at the Big Sky
Documentary Film Festival in Montana this year, [2] as well as
various “Palestinian Film Festivals” on college campuses across the
country, and it won Best Film at the Carthage International Film
Festival. [3] In contrast, Pierre Rehov’s Road to Jenin, an expose
about how the Palestinians perpetrated a media fraud in Jenin, has
played at very few film festivals. [4]
This year the Islam documentary making the rounds is Noble Sacrifice
(Thabh-ul-Azim) by Vatche Boulghourjian, an ethnic Armenian born in
Kuwait and educated in the United States and Britain. Shot in
southern Lebanon, this controversial film, which draws a connection
between the Shiite ritual of Ashura (self-flagellation) and the
popular mythology of “martyrdom” throughout the Islamic world,
recently screened (April 2, 2004) at the Full Frame Documentary Film
Festival in North Carolina. [5] The film description at the Full
Frame website demonstrates a typical moral ambiguity towards Islamic
terrorism, saying:
“Noble Sacrifice examines the historical and philosophical
implications of Ashura on current socio-political conditions and
military theaters. More importantly, it challenges audiences to
contemplate the rationality underlying the act and discourse of what
has become one of the most controversial topics in contemporary
history – suicide bombing – recognized locally as martyrdom
operations. [6]”
Unsurprisingly, the documentary’s bloody imagery and glorification of
suicide bombings were the subject of a heated debate after the
screening. What film festival promoters had billed as a “provocative
discussion,” turned out to be a revealing experience. Boulghourjian
vowed never to show the film “in the United States again,” after a
Muslim woman in the audience called it “irresponsible for connecting
violence to Islam” and someone else labeled it “propaganda”. [7]
Tellingly, no one commented on the film’s celebration of terrorism,
only its politically incorrect depiction of Islam.
The Noble Sacrifice panel discussion also shed light on the
intersection of film festivals and universities. Panelists included
two Duke University professors, Negar Mottahedeh and Miriam Cooke.
Both Mottahedeh, a professor of Literature and Film, and Cooke, a
professor of Modern Arabic Literature and Culture, have a long
history of promoting leftist politics through their work at Duke
University. Professor Cooke has also been very active in Duke
University’s Islamic Studies Department. She is co-director of the
university’s Center for the Study of Muslim Networks (CSMN), [8] as
well as being involved in the 2003-2004 Carolina Seminar on
Comparative Islamic Studies. [9] And it turns out that Cooke had
crossed paths with Boulghourjian’s film once before.
Noble Sacrifice had been set to screen at Full Frame in 2003 (during
the liberation of Iraq) but was canceled at the last minute due to
“wartime sensitivities.” [10] Nancy Buirski, the festival’s founder
and executive director, was uncomfortable with the film’s negative
portrayal of Muslims and pulled it in what she called, “the spirit of
reconciliation and tolerance.” In making her decision, Buirski
deferred to Professor Cooke, who was to introduce the documentary.
But after viewing it at home the night before, Cooke refused,
describing it as “a sensationalistic film that was treating people
not as devotees but as fanatics.” She labeled the filmmaker “biased”
and called his linking of Ashura and suicide bombings
“reprehensible.” Cooke maintained that the rituals portrayed in the
film represented only a “local, cultish version” of Ashura, and
worried that they might “inflame anti-Arab sentiments.” [11] In other
words, Islam’s reputation as a “religion of peace” was at stake and
Cooke was not about to aid in its destruction.
In an interview in April of 2003, filmmaker Vatche Boulghourjian,
[12] disputed Cooke’s assertions, pointing out that self-flagellation
occurs in South Lebanon, “whether Miriam Cooke and other scholars of
Islamic or Asian studies like it or not.” And he stood by his
decision to associate Ashura with suicide bombings. Boulghourjian
cited Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of the Lebanese
terrorist group Hezbollah, for making “the connection between Ashura,
politics, resistance and self-sacrifice very clear.”
The documentary relies on archival footage obtained from Hezbollah
officials and includes scenes of suicide bombings, as well as a
videotaped “pre-martyrdom message” from Salah Ghandour, the Lebanese
suicide bomber who blew himself up near an Israeli base in southern
Lebanon in 1993.
Considering all this, Cooke’s assertions of bias seem a tad bit
misdirected.
The Full Frame Festival was by no means professor Cooke’s first brush
with notoriety. She gained attention in 2003 for co-organizing Duke
University’s “Axis of Evil” film festival, along with professor
Mottahedeh. [13] The series was dubbed “Reel Evil” and featured films
from Iran, Iraq and North Korea, as well as rogue states Syria,
Libya, and Cuba. The timing of the festival coincided with the advent
of the war in Iraq, which made it essentially a platform for anti-war
sentiment. Considering Cooke and several of her students attended an
anti-war rally in Washington D.C. the same year, this was hardly
surprising. [14]
Of course, the real target of the festival was President Bush and his
famous “axis of evil” phrase in the 2002 State of the Union address.
As Cooke said at the time, the festival was an “opportunity to see
the kind of work, cultural work, that people are doing in the
countries that our government has labeled evil.” [15] The fact that
the film from North Korea, Pulgasari, was produced by Dictator Kim
Jung Il and featured an actress and director who had been kidnapped
from South Korea and forced to work on the project, didn’t seem to
factor into Cooke’s reasoning.
Why professor Cooke, Buirski, and the Full Frame Documentary Film
Festival brought Noble Sacrifice back a year later remains something
of a mystery. Buirski had promised the film would resurface and with
the war in Iraq no longer a new development, she may have considered
the timing better. [16] Or it could be that organizers decided to
take the film festival’s motto to heart: “How much reality can you
handle?” How much indeed.
Notes:
[1] Lee Kaplan, “PLO Propaganda Film ‘Jenin, Jenin,'” February 20,
2004. FrontPageMagazine.com:
[2] Big Sky Documentary Film Festival, 2004 Official Selections,
HighPlainsFilms.org: ilms.org/festival/selections.htm
[3] Eric J. Greenberg, “Mapping a Controversy,” The Jewish Week,
January 31,
2003:
;print=yes
[4] Greg Myre, “Battle for Jenin camp flares anew on TV,” New York
Times,
April 3, 2004. SunSentinal.com:
,0,610 3335.
story?coll=sfla-features-headlines
[5] Full Frame Documentary Film Festival:
[6] Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, Panels:
[7] Holly Hickman, “Full Frame airs ‘Noble Sacrifice,’ pulled from
2003
festival,” Associated Press, April 2, 2004. NewsObserver.com:
[8] Holly Hickman, “Full Frame airs ‘Noble Sacrifice,’ pulled from
2003
festival,” Associated Press, April 2, 2004. NewsObserver.com:
[9] Center for the Study of Muslim Networks, Duke University:
n_about.html
[9] Carolina Seminar on Comparative Islamic Studies, Upcoming Events
on the
Middle East and Muslim Civilizations, 2003-2004:
[10] David Fellerath, “Confronting Reality From Home and Abroad; the
2003
Full Frame Doc Fest,” Independent Weekly, On the Scene:
[11] David Fellerath, “Nausea on a sea of blood: Why did the Full
Frame
Festival yank Noble Sacrifice?” Independent Weekly, April 23, 2003.
IndyWeek.com:
[12] David Fellerath, “Confronting Reality From Home and Abroad; the
2003
Full Frame Doc Fest,”Independent Weekly, On the Scene, April. 2003:
[13] David M. Lewkowict, “Staff, Students ‘Duke’ It Out Over Film
Festival,”
FoxNews.com, March 12, 2003:
,2933,80849,00.html
[14] Arts & Sciences and Trinity College News, Miriam Cooke:
[15] David M. Lewkowict, “Staff, Students ‘Duke’ It Out Over Film
Festival,”
FoxNews.com, March 12, 2003:
,2933,80849,00.html
[16] David Fellerath, “Noble Sacrifice,” The Independent Weekly,
March 31,
2004. IndyWeek.com:
.asp?ID=13546

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
05/26/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Armenia, US Sign Agreement on Protection of Cultural Heritage 2) ANCA Capitol Hill Lobby Days Highlight Variety of Issues 3) Amnesty Slams 'Bankrupt' Vision of US in Damning Human Rights Report 4) Education Conference Targets Changing Armenian-American Identity 5) Community Congratulates Prelate Mardirossian's Reelection 1) Armenia, US Sign Agreement on Protection of Cultural Heritage WASHINGTON, DC--An important cultural agreement was signed on Tuesday between the United States and Armenia. The agreement provides that the cultural heritage of all national, religious, or ethnic groups residing and having resided in both countries will be safeguarded. Armenia's Ambassador to the US Dr. Arman Kirakossian, and Chairman of US Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad Warren L. Miller, signed the Agreement on Protection and Preservation of Certain Cultural Properties. The signing ceremony took place at the State Department, in the presence of Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, as well as officials from State Department and Embassy of Armenia. The Agreement commits both parties to protecting and preserving the cultural heritage of any ethnic group residing on their territory, or against the nationals of the other Party in its laws concerning the protection and preservation of their cultural heritage; the right to contribute to the protection and preservation of their cultural heritage; and public access to such heritage, including places of worship, sites of historical significance, monuments, cemeteries and memorials to the dead, as well as archival materials. The Agreement also stipulates that "each Party shall take special steps to ensure such protection and preservation of cultural heritage within its territory and shall invite the cooperation of the other Party and its nationals where assistance is required for this purpose." Speaking at the ceremony, Undersecretary Grossman and Chairman Miller hailed the agreement as another bridge linking the peoples of the United States and Armenia. In his remarks during the ceremony, Ambassador Kirakossian said the agreement is the first such treaty regulating cultural affairs between the two countries, augmenting already strong cooperation on economic, political, and security areas. Ambassador Kirakossian summed up the significance of the agreement for Armenia saying, "we understand the value of cultural heritage and the importance of its protection and preservation." 2) ANCA Capitol Hill Lobby Days Highlight Variety of Issues ARMENIAN AMERICANS PARTICIPATE IN ALMOST 100 MEETINGS AND VISITS TO CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES WASHINGTON, DC--A record number of activists from across the US traveled to Washington, DC this April for a series of advocacy meetings on Capitol Hill, coinciding with the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) 10th annual Armenian Genocide Observance. Over 90 meetings were held with Members of Congress from California, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. "We were gratified by the growing number of participants who traveled to Washington, DC for this year's Capitol Hill Observance," explained ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "Each year, we have seen increased enthusiasm, sophistication, and confidence among our activists in their advocacy for the Armenian Cause." Among the numerous issues discussed with Representatives, Senators, and their staff were the Congressional Genocide Resolutions (H.Res.193 and S.Res.164), US assistance to Armenia and Karabagh, US-Armenia economic relations--namely the Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) legislation currently pending in the US Senate, maintaining equal levels of military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Armenia's cooperation in the war on terrorism. They presented to members of Congress folders that had detailed information on the issues being discussed. This year, joining the ANC activists in the Congressional meetings were Colgate University Professor Peter Balakian and the Honorable Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, lead sponsor of the recently adopted Armenian Genocide motion in the Canadian House of Commons. During several meetings, Dalphond-Guiral took the time to brief Congressional Members on the passage of the Canadian resolution and encouraged them to take similar steps to reaffirm the United States record on the Armenian Genocide. Professor Balakian--author of the New York Times best seller "The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response"--detailed to Members the exhaustive record of the US reaction to the Armenian Genocide and pointed out the tremendous amount of US archives available on the Armenian Genocide. Both Balakian and Dalphond-Guiral were honored by the ANCA during the Capitol Hill Observance of the Armenian Genocide. Activists met with and visited the following Senate offices: Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bob Graham (D-FL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Arlen Specter (R-PA), John Sununu (R-RI), and Jim Talent (R-MO). ANC representatives also met with the following House offices: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Representatives Joe Baca (D-CA), Charles Bass (R-NH), Bob Beauprez (R-CO), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jeb Bradley (R-NH), Robert Brady (D-PA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Michael Castle (D-DE), Philip Crane (R-IL), John Culberson (R-TX), Susan Davis (D-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Philip English (R-PA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Michael Ferguson (R-NJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Bob Filner (D-CA), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Sam Graves (R-MO), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Wally Herger (R-CA), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Tim Holden (D-PA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Michael Honda (D-CA), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Patrick Kennedy (D-NH), James Langevin (D-RI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), William Lipinski (D-IL), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-MA), Robert Matsui (D-CA), Scott McInnis (R-CO), Howard McKeon (R-CA), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Timothy Murphy (R-PA), John Murtha (D-PA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Doug Ose (R-CA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), John Peterson (R-PA), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Richard Pombo (R-CA), Jon Porter (R-NV), Ed Royce (R-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Don Sherwood (R-PA), Bill Shuster (R-PA), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Thomas Tancredo (R-CO), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), John Tierney (D-MA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Diane Watson (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Curt Weldon (R-PA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). 3) Amnesty Slams 'Bankrupt' Vision of US in Damning Human Rights Report LONDON (AFP)--The United States has proved "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle" in its fight against terrorism and invasion of Iraq Amnesty International charges in its 2004 report on the state of human rights around the globe. Though the London-based group's report cites grave violations in dozens of other nations, it specifically targets the "war on terror" initiated by US President George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001, for sanctioning human rights abuses in the name of freedom. The unilateral nature of the conflict to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq additionally "virtually paralyzed" the United Nations' role in guaranteeing human rights on a global level, said the Amnesty report which was released on Wednesday. The 339-page document, detailing the human rights situation in 157 nations and territories, reserved the most column inches for the United States, with almost as many critical words to Russia and China. Other perennial violators are also highlighted such as North Korea, Cuba, and the central Asian state of Turkmenistan where Amnesty summarized the situation simply as "appalling." "The global security agenda promulgated by the US administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," wrote Amnesty's secretary general Irene Khan in the report's introduction. "Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad and using preemptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty." The notion of fighting a campaign against terrorism so as to support human rights, while simultaneously trampling on them to achieve this, is no more than "double speak," she said. "The United States has lost its moral high ground and its ability to lead on peace and human rights elsewhere," Khan added at a press conference in London to launch the annual report. The report also states that events in 2003 "dealt a mortal blow" to the UN's vision of universal human rights, with the global body "virtually paralyzed in its efforts to hold states to account" over the issue. "Not since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 has there been such a sustained attack on [its] values and principles," Khan told the press conference. While the report only briefly deals with damning allegations that US and British troops tortured Iraqi prisoners--these first came to light just last month--it has harsh words about the overall record of the two nations in Iraq. "Coalition forces failed to live up fully to their responsibilities as occupying powers, including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and to provide food, medical care and relief assistance," it states. Elsewhere, Amnesty details a long list of abuses in Russia, where security forces "continue to enjoy almost total impunity for serious violations of human rights and international law" in the breakaway republic of Chechnya. China, despite a new Communist government under President Hu Jintao, made "no significant attempt" to end the use of torture and other abuses, which "remained widespread," states the report. In the Middle East, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority were taken to task, with Amnesty saying that some actions by the Israeli army, such as the destruction of property, "constituted war crimes." One of the most damning assessments is handed to Cuba, which saw a "severe deterioration in the human rights situation" during 2003, most notably through the jailing of dozens of dissidents after "hasty and unfair" trials. 4) Education Conference Targets Changing Armenian-American Identity GLENDALE--Armenian Schools of North America have a history dating back more than forty years. With the challenges of the 21st century, however, it has become imperative to reassess the mission of Armenian education along with the Armenian-American cultural identity in Armenian schools. Thus, in order to re-examine the mission of Armenian education in North America in the context of the changing "Armenian-American Identity," the Board of Regents of Prelacy Armenian Schools will hold a two-day conference June 4-5 at Woodbury University in Burbank. The Board's goal in initiating the conference is to spark valuable dialogue among community educators and experts, and to insure that the education offered correspond to current expectations and imperatives. All Armenian daily schools and their leaders are invited to participate and offer their expertise. Well-known professionals and experts on "Armenian-American Cultural Identity" issues will either present lectures or participate as panelists. Sessions of the conference are open to the public, and the Board believes that those involved in the field of education can bring their valuable contribution as well as benefit by participating. For further information, contact the Board of Regents office 818-500-0822, fax 818-500-0622, or email [email protected]. 5) Community Congratulates Prelate Mardirossian's Reelection Members and the leadership of the Los Angeles Armenian community congratulated Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian's unanimous reelection to the position of Prelate by the 32nd Representative Assembly of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. During a series of receptions held on May 21, 23, and 24, spiritual leaders and representatives of area parishes, as well as representatives of the ARS, ARF, Homenetmen, Mashdots College, compatriotic unions, and other organizations offered heartfelt congratulations to Prelate Mardirossian. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets.

PROTESTERS DEMANDING TO RELEASE POLITICAL PRISONERS
A1 Plus | 13:41:04 | 25-05-2004 | Politics |
Protest actions outside Prosecutor General Office in Yerevan has
already become commonplace. Today, plastic bottles appeared near the
symbolic barbed wire stretched before the building in a protest of
Edgar Arakelyan’s arrest.
Edgar Arakelyan, 24, had been taken in custody for defending himself
from the police’s brutal assault by throwing plastic bottles at
them. Edgar is also charged with using foul language and making
insulting remarks toward the authorities.
Chair of New Armenia organization Eleonora Manandyan finds it absurd
to prosecute someone for using a plastic bottle for self-defense. She
and the action’s other participants have already collected 5,500
signatures demanding to release political prisoners.
The protesters intend to continue their action for another ten days.

RUSSIAN DEFENCE CHIEF RULES OUT “HASTY” WITHDRAWAL FROM GEORGIA
ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow,
20 May 04
Yerevan, 20 May: Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov says that
there can be no question of a hasty withdrawal of Russian servicemen
from the military bases in Georgia.
“There can be no hasty withdrawal of Russian military bases from
Georgia. There can be no question of this. In this case, there will
be no repetition of what happened in the early 1990s when Russian
troops withdrew from Germany,” Ivanov said after meeting his Armenian
counterpart, Serzh Sarkisyan.
“For the withdrawal of the Russian military bases from Georgia,
time and large financial resources are needed so that the troops
that are being withdrawn can be relocated on Russian territory,”
Ivanov went on to say.
Ivanov said that recently the process of withdrawal of Russian military
bases from Georgia had “slowed somewhat for objective reasons due
to the change of governments in both Russia and Georgia”. “As soon
as the composition of the delegations has been changed, talks on
withdrawing the bases will be continued,” he said. “The talks will
turn on the time-frame for a withdrawal and, first and foremost,
on the status of the bases which form part of the group of Russian
troops in the Transcaucasus.”

BOOKS: Paperbacks – Gilgamesh By Joan London ATLANTIC pounds 7.99 (256pp)
The Independent – United Kingdom
May 21, 2004
Emma Hagestadt
Taking a baby on the Orient Express before the days of disposable
nappies is one of the many challenges faced by Edith, the heroine of
London’s spirited debut novel. Brought up on a rickety farmstead in
south-western Australia, Edith finds her life transformed by a visit
from her exotic cousin, Leopold, and his Armenian friend, Aram. By
the end of their stay Edith is pregnant. Ignoring warnings about the
outbreak of war, she sets off to Armenia. London peoples her European
checkpoints with black market racketeers and threadbare bohemians.
Sadly, Edith’s adventure is wrapped up a little too soon. EH

Time Passing Slowly
by Anna Hakobyan
Transitions onLine, Czech Republic
May 17 2004
The war may have hurt Armenia, but most seem happy with a status quo
that is binding Nagorno-Karabakh closer to Armenia.
YEREVAN, Armenia–In a symbolic move apparently designed to show
that peace talks are continuing, the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan met on 12 May, the 10th anniversary of the cease-fire that
ended the killing in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The end of hostilities in this once autonomous region of Azerbaijan
saved “the lives of many thousands of both Azeris and Armenians
and prevented the South Caucasus from turning into a region with a
humanitarian catastrophe,” according to Karen Ohanjanian, a leading
figure in Helsinki Initiative-92, a nongovernmental organization
involved in the current peace process.
By the time the shooting stopped, 20,000 people–perhaps 30,000–had
been killed in three years of fighting and an estimated 1 million
Azeris and 300,000 Armenians had become refugees.
Since then, there have also been successes, with some rebuilding, an
effective end to the troublesome issues of 500 hostages and prisoners
of war, the development of civil society and democratic institutions,
contacts between NGOs across the ethnic divide, and some integration
into the international community. The admission of both Armenia and
Azerbaijan into the Council of Europe was also a step forward for
Nagorno-Karabakh, as membership required both Yerevan and Baku to
agree to settle the Karabakh conflict peacefully.
However, the meeting on 12 May was also a symbol of failure. A
decade of talks has produced no breakthrough and cost the job of one
Armenian president, Levon Ter-Petrossian. For a time in April 2001, it
looked as if both Armenia’s president, Robert Kocharian, and his Azeri
counterpart, Heidar Aliev, would be able to reach an agreement in talks
that centered on the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azeri land in
a corridor linking Armenia and Azerbaijan, a lifting of Azerbaijan’s
blockade on Armenia, the return of displaced persons and refugees,
and the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The hope was that Aliev,
the longtime leader of Azerbaijan, would be able to seal a deal before
his departure from the political scene. However, the talks collapsed.
THE EFFECT ON ARMENIA
In Ohanjanian’s opinion, the conflict has continued to be
destructive. The war and years of uncertainty have ensured that
the military remains a powerful force in Armenian politics and, in
his words, “the leading military force in the Caucasus.” The war,
he believes, has strengthened the power of the state, ensured that
the restructuring of the economy has been primarily aimed at meeting
military needs, and gradually warped Armenia’s political development,
putting the political scene increasingly under the influence of tough
figures and criminal elements.
While the cost of the war may have been a stilted economy, less
democracy, and continued relative international isolation, Armenians
continue to give broad support to the current status quo. Over the
past decade, Nagorno-Karabakh has enjoyed independence from Azerbaijan
while becoming more integrated both economically and politically
with Armenia.
However, in Azerbaijan, the anniversary highlighted just how angry
Azeris continue to feel, with President Ilham Aliev, son of Heidar,
telling Azeri soldiers on 12 May that “Azerbaijan is ready to start
a war to liberate its territories if the peace talks do not produce
any results.”
The reaction of Armenian officials was calm. The Foreign Ministry
in Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-declared and unrecognized republic,
issued a statement calling on Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the
international mediators, “to reaffirm their commitment to maintaining
the cease-fire regime.” Kocharian downplayed Aliev’s comments, telling
Russian television on 15 May that “we have been hearing different
versions of this statement since May 1994” and suggesting that Aliev
was grandstanding to the Azeri public. Armenia would, however, be
ready to react should Azerbaijan choose the military option, he said.
THE IMPASSE AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE
Even if Aliev’s warning proves hollow, both sides continue to face
the 10-year-old problem of how to reduce tensions.
On 12 May, supporters of former president Ter-Petrossian, speaking
to Radio Liberty, urged a return to the “step-by-step” solution that
Ter-Petrossian had advocated. This would require both sides to send
important signals of intent before the final status of the disputed
region could be decided. It would, for example, require Armenia to
cede control of occupied corridors leading to Karabakh. In return,
Baku would lift its economic blockade on Armenia. That approach,
which was proposed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) and the international powers mediating for the OSCE
(the United States, Russia, and France), was supported by Azerbaijan.
The decision by Ter-Petrossian to throw his weight behind the formula
led to his removal by other members of his government in 1998.
Armenia and the leadership in Nagorno-Karabakh are suggesting a
“package approach” in which every issue, including the final status
of the disputed region, would be decided in a single treaty. That is
opposed by Azerbaijan.
The OSCE’s Minsk Group continues to advocate the “common state”
solution proposed in the failed talks held in 2001 at Key West,
Florida. Under this plan, Nagorno-Karabakh would join a confederation
with Azerbaijan. It would enjoy its own constitution, police, and
army and be the same size as the prewar Karabakh region of Soviet
Azerbaijan. This was ultimately rejected by Baku. Earlier this year,
Ilham Aliev denied that his father had been close to agreeing to a
deal in 2001, calling it “another lie circulated by the Armenian side.”
The current state of limbo was apparent in a statement by Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, who said that the meeting with his
Azeri counterpart on 12 May had “no agenda. The parties can bring up
any idea.”
One idea that Ohanjanian believes should be explored is a proposal
that he put forward on behalf of Helsinki Initiative-92. In it, he
advocates offering Nagorno-Karabakh the possibility of independence,
but only on condition that all refugees are allowed to return and
that international standards of human rights and democracy are met.
In the open-ended probationary period, international peacekeepers
would replace ethnic Armenian troops and the region would be governed
on a rotating basis by ethnic Armenians and Azeris.
Realistically, though, he foresees further complications. Until
now, talks have been conducted through the Minsk Group or between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. He believes that Kocharian will increasingly
push for direct talks between Baku and Stepanakert, the capital of
Nagorno-Karabakh, as the Armenian president is aware that, in Key West,
he made promises that he would not be able to deliver on without the
agreement of the Karabakh authorities. However, Baku would object to
such a model.
Based on his involvement in attempts to resolve the conflict,
Ohanjanian believes that Baku might ultimately push for a radically
different approach to conflict resolution, in which talks would be
held not under the auspices of the OSCE but of the European Union or
the United Nations.
THE CHILL FACTORS
Whatever the political initiatives, formidable obstacles remain in the
form of public attitudes. In Armenia, the notion of Nagorno-Karabakh as
historical Armenian territory “remains a national idea” that Ohanjanian
believes Armenians would be unwilling to concede, while the anger
felt by Azeris was recently highlighted when an Azeri military officer
killed an Armenian officer in Hungary over a dispute about Karabakh.
Other, geopolitical reasons suggest there will be little change in
the status quo. While Aliev might hint at war, to resume fighting
would jeopardize foreign investment into Azerbaijan’s huge oilfields,
and oil and geopolitical interests would force the great powers to
exert heavy pressure on Azerbaijan to halt any fighting.
In early 2004, Aliev said that Azerbaijan was in no hurry to settle
the conflict. The likeliest scenario continues to be that the conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh will remain frozen when the foreign ministers
next meet, in June–and for a long time after that.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
May 8 2004
PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC ILHAM ALIYEV AND PRESIDENT OF
RUSSIAN FEDERATION VLADIMIR PUTIN HAVE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
[May 08, 2004, 19:19:06]
President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev telephoned to
President of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on May 8, Azerbaijan
president’s press-service told AzerTAj.
President Ilham Aliyev offered his sincere congratulations to
Vladimir Putin on reassuming the office of President of the Russian
Federation. The head Azerbaijan state expressed satisfaction with
dynamically developing bilateral cooperation between Azerbaijan and
Russia, and stressed that deepening of mutual relations in all
spheres meet fundamental interests of the two peoples.
The two leaders exchanged views on urgent peaceful settlement of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and pointed out the
importance of the problems’ resolution from the standpoint of
security and future development of the region.
During the conversation, the two Presidents also touched upon the
legal status of the Caspian and emphasized the necessity to continue
cooperation in this sphere.
Russian President Vladimir Putin thanked President Ilham Aliyev for
the sincere congratulations, expressed hope for further joint efforts
to bring relationship between the two countries to a higher level.

Washington Post
May 8-9 2004
A Sorry State
The Artlessness Of the Apology
By Tony Judt

We live in the age of the public apology. When a crisis occurs or a
scandal is exposed, the first instinct of many public figures today
is to erupt in a torrent of remorse. From Bill Clinton’s 1992 apology
to his wife for his sexual infidelities to the notorious 1998 Oprah
Winfrey show where guests apologized to people they had “hurt,”
saying sorry has become all the rage. On the Oprah show experts even
offered tips on how to apologize. “Don’t be afraid to apologize,” the
incomparable Ms. Winfrey advised on her Web site. “Apologizing to
your child doesn’t mean you lose.”

President Bush could have used a few such tips this month. Faced with
the evidence of serial abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers,
Bush condemned, decried and regretted; but he didn’t apologize for a
week. In a world where victims — real or presumptive — demand not
merely justice but penitence, the president’s reluctance became a
political issue in its own right.
For the second time this spring the Bush administration was caught up
in the media’s passion for public contrition. In late March the
public commission investigating security lapses before 9/11 was
transformed into a daytime soap opera. Would Condoleezza Rice follow
Richard Clarke’s cue and offer a telegenic “sorry” for letting it all
happen? How would she “look” if she did offer an all-points apology?
And — of even greater media interest — how would she look if she
didn’t?
Rice is a mediocre national security adviser but a good tactician. By
refusing to express remorse (“I don’t think that there is anyone who
is not sorry for the terrible loss that these families endured,” she
told Ed Bradley on “60 Minutes,” but she added, “the best thing that
we can do for the future of this country is to focus on those who did
this to us.”), she paid a small price in the congeniality stakes
while keeping journalists’ attention firmly diverted from anything
that mattered. It was Rice’s present sentiments, rather than her past
actions, that held center stage. We used to pay attention to what
public figures did and what they thought. Now all we really want to
know is how they feel. And everyone, even the president,
enthusiastically obliges.
Public apologies used to be a very serious matter — that’s why they
were so uncommon. In the past, when faced with bad news, politicians
would do anything rather than confess. Typically, they dissimulated.
Rather than tell you how they felt about something unpleasant for
which they might be held accountable, they just issued denials: “It
never happened.” Later, when denial was no longer possible, they
downplayed the matter: “All right, it happened, but it wasn’t as bad
as you say.” And then, later still, when the scale of the crime or
scandal was clear to all, they would concede that, “Well, yes, it
happened and it was every bit as bad as you say. But it’s all so long
ago — why dredge up the past?”
That is still the response in cultures where the public confession of
failure or misbehavior carries heavy social penalties. In Japan, the
wartime mistreatment of Chinese and Koreans is still mired in
semi-denial and official mis-memory. Turkish authorities — and many
Turks — shift uncomfortably between exculpatory re-description and
outright denial when confronted with the massacre of the Armenians.
Australia’s leaders no longer deny the near-genocide of the
Aborigines, but it is such old news that they refuse to dwell on it.
Even where international pressure has made official “regrets” and
restitution unavoidable, as in the case of the Holocaust, heartfelt
official remorse is rare — the recent apology by President Alexander
Kwasniewski for his countrymen’s part in the destruction of their
Jewish neighbors was all the more effective for being unprecedented
in Poland.
The public apology, in short, is not a universal political response
to bad news. But in the United States, where virtually everyone
(except the 43rd president) apologizes at the first opportunity, it
has a very different resonance. This does seem to be a distinctively
American development. True, Tony Blair also indulges in it, but then
in his well-advertised religiosity and his propensity to wax
moralistic, Blair is the most “American” prime minister in modern
British history. He is also of an age with Bill Clinton, Al Gore,
George W. Bush and other baby boomers molded by the pedagogical
revolution of the ’60s and the narcissistic preoccupations of the
era.
For this generation of political leaders — and followers — it has
always been important to have the right sort of feelings and to
display them copiously. Thus (according to his spokesman) President
Bush — hitherto seemingly immune to the sensibilities of his
generation — feels sorry for the “pain caused” by the publication of
pictures and reports of American soldiers torturing Iraqis. In Bush’s
own words he feels “bad” about what happened, “sorry for the
humiliation” of Iraqi prisoners. He might not say that he exactly
“feels their pain” — that is a more distinctively Clintonian
sentiment — but it is the same general idea: Saying “sorry” makes it
better. The victim feels better and so does the perpetrator —
indeed, you score a triple: You are good, you do good and you feel
good.
The preferred use of sorry, however, is in the formulation “I’m sorry
that such and such happened,” distancing the speaker from any
connection to the events, thereby relieving the speaker of any need
for self-examination.
But in any case, in its transition from private relations to public
affairs, the apology encounters some intriguing paradoxes. In the
first place, it is self-undermining. As anyone knows who has ever
dealt with young children, saying “sorry” has a dual purpose: It
concedes guilt and exculpates the perpetrator. “I said I’m sorry —
why are you still upset?” Thus President Bush undoubtedly hopes that
by saying how sorry he feels that his army has disgraced itself he
can speedily put the affair behind him. But in this he is surely
mistaken.
In our age of instant remorse the currency of penitence has been
hyperinflated and has lost almost all its value. Most of those who
heard the president expressing his regrets, above all the Arab and
Muslim audience to which they were primarily directed, will have
echoed the celebrated response of Mandy Rice-Davies at the height of
the Christine Keeler affair in Swinging London, when Lord Astor
denied under oath that he had been involved with her: “Well, he would
say that, wouldn’t he?”
Moreover, while the president’s regrets are doubtless heartfelt, his
skeptical international audience is likely to reflect that he is no
less “sorry” that the news leaked out. He may also come to rue the
carefully qualified apologies offered by his subordinates: Maj. Gen.
Geoffrey Miller, in charge of Abu Ghraib prison, first offered his
apologies and then spent some time explaining that what he was
referring to were the “illegal or unauthorized acts” of “a small
number of soldiers.” Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. army spokesman
in Iraq, similarly qualified his expression of regrets — “a small
number of soldiers doing the wrong thing.” Such grudging, formulaic
repentance (alleged sodomy “with a chemical light and perhaps a
broomstick” is now “the wrong thing”?) merely calls attention to its
own inadequacy — and invites charges of bad faith.
So what is a democratic leader to do? If you apologize too soon it
rings false — particularly to foreign audiences unfamiliar with the
American cult of contrition. But if you stay silent it suggests
callous indifference or a coverup. The crimes in Abu Ghraib and
elsewhere are not comparable to My Lai in Vietnam or other atrocities
committed in the heat of battle by terrified GIs and inadequate
officers. They were born of that arrant indifference to laws,
regulations, rights and rules that has characterized this
administration from the outset, and that was bound, sooner or later,
to percolate down to the sergeants and mercenaries who do the dirty
work. Thus Bush had no option but to acknowledge immediately that
terrible things had been done in Iraq — and he would be wise to make
sure that he has been told and is telling the whole story. But a
public expression of his pain and sorrow will no longer suffice.
What is missing in the modern American cult of “sorry” is any sense
of responsibility. Whether it concerns the incompetence of the
security apparatus before 9/11, a misguided and failed imperial
adventure, the mismanagement and degradation of the army, or the
criminal behavior of Americans in Iraq, everyone feels “bad” and
everyone expresses “regret.” But until Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld testified on Friday, no one even hinted at feeling
“responsible.” According to Bush (interviewed on the U.S.-funded Al
Hurra Arabic language television network), “We believe in
transparency, because we’re a free society. That’s what free
societies do. If there’s a problem, they address those problems in a
forthright, upfront manner.” Except, of course, we don’t.

For in the very next sentence, Bush assures his interlocutor that
“I’ve got confidence in the secretary of defense, and I’ve got
confidence in the commanders on the ground . . . because they and our
troops are doing great work on behalf of the Iraqi people.” So the
commanders are off the hook.
Meanwhile the New York Times (on May 6) carries a touching little
story about the confused and helpless GIs who actually did the
torturing, claiming that they were following orders/ had no orders/
misunderstood those orders/ were themselves misunderstood/ suffered
great stress at the time/ are suffering even greater stress now —
and so forth.
Everyone is sorry “it” happened. But unless its leaders can get
beyond that sanctimonious and self-serving response, the United
States is in deep trouble. If Rumsfeld (who on Friday offered his
“deepest apology”), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz or
Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard B. Myers were honorable men they would
resign in shame. But they are not.
If Bush were of presidential caliber he would have sacked them by now
— and taken full personal responsibility for their incompetence. But
wherever the buck stops these days, it surely is not on the
president’s desk. Yet nothing short of such an old-fashioned
assumption of duty can now retrieve America’s standing in the
community of nations.
To the rest of the world Bush’s apologies are mere exercises in
damage control. The same president who spoke of leading God’s crusade
against Evil and who basked in the self-congratulatory aura of his
invincible warriors will have difficulty convincing the rest of
humanity that he really cares about a few brutalized Arabs.
Given the president’s simultaneous and reiterated insistence that
neither he nor his staff have done anything wrong and that there is
nothing to change in his policies or goals, who will take seriously
such an apology, extracted in extremis? Like confessions obtained
under torture, it is worthless. As recent events have shown, America
under Bush can still debase and humiliate its enemies. But it has
lost the respect of its friends — and it is fast losing respect for
itself. Now that is something to feel sorry about.
Tony Judt is the Remarque professor of European studies at New York
University.

Internews
May 7 2004
Armenia Hosts its First Youth Film Festival

Internews Armenia Programs Manager David Matevossian granting an
award to the film “Noradus.”
(May 6, 2004) Internews presented a special incentive prize to two
young Armenian filmmakers, Artak Margaryan and Susan Simonyan, during
the first youth film festival in Armenia.
The special prize – a certificate and 200 US dollars – was presented
by Internews Programs Manager David Matevossian for camera work and
sound design in the documentary, `Noradus,’ a film that highlights
the history and present concerns of an Armenian village near Lake
Sevan, one of the largest high altitude lakes in the world.
More than 160 films were featured at the `It’s Me’ Film Festival in
Yerevan held April 25 through May 2 and organized by the
Cinematographers’ Union of Armenia, the Institute of Cinema and
Theatre and Internews. The festival brought together young filmmakers
from Armenia, Russia, Syria, Iran, Canada and France.
The grand prize went to Yevgenya Shekoyan for her film `There I saw
the World,’ which was distributed to Armenian TV stations by
Internews under the Open Skies project, `Films of Crisis Times.’ A
film produced during an Internews training project about a children’s
development center was among the finalists and was screened at the
festival.
Internews Armenia is funded by grants from the United States Agency
for International Development.

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
May 7, 2004
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION MAKES FIRST PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT OF ARMENIA TRADE BILL
DURING PAN-ARMENIAN CONFERENCE
Activists Hail Announcement from Ambassador Jones
Washington, DC – Ambassador Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, in a major announcement publicly
endorsed pending legislation that would extend trade benefits to Armenia.
Jones’ remarks, addressed to Armenian-American activists attending a
national non-partisan conference on April 19, mark the Bush Administration’s
first public endorsement of the trade bill.
The conference, April 18-20, was jointly held by the Armenian Assembly, the
Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the Eastern and Western Diocese
of the Armenian Church.
Below is the full-text of Ambassador Jones’ remarks:
I’d like to thank our hosts, the Armenian Assembly of America, Armenian
General Benevolent Union and the Armenian Church of America, for their warm
welcome.
I accompanied Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on his recent visit
to Armenia. It was a great pleasure to see such obvious growth and dynamism
in Yerevan. Mr. Armitage met with President Kocharian and Foreign Minister
Oskanyian during his stay to reaffirm our strong relationship with Armenia
and to encourage closer cooperation in the security area. President
Kocharian and Mr. Armitage also discussed the domestic political situation
and the need to intensify efforts toward political reform.
Armenian-Americans are making a critical contribution to economic reform and
growth in Armenia. We appreciate your input into the foreign policy process
and assistance programs. Thank you for inviting me to brief you on U.S.
priorities and policy in the South Caucasus.
This is an exciting time for all those interested in the Caucasus. The “Rose
Revolution” in Georgia decalcified Georgian politics by bringing in a new
generation of young, pro-western reformers. There is also a new, younger
leader in Azerbaijan with ideas on how to modernize his own country. The
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will see the transportation of first oil next
year, bringing new opportunities for prosperity to the region, including
opportunities to improve energy options for Armenia.
NATO and EU enlargement has made the Caucasus a new “neighbor” to those
organizations, which are now taking a greater interest in the region. All
this change offers new hope for the region and new opportunities for the
U.S. to strengthen its relationships with the Caucasus nations.
What are the primary U.S. interests in the region? The most important can be
simply described as security, reform and regional stability.
SECURITY
The nations of the Caucasus are making an important contribution to
international peacekeeping missions as well as to the Global War on
Terrorism. Azerbaijan and Georgia have troops on the ground in Iraq;
Azerbaijan also has troops in Afghanistan. An Armenian cargo truck company
is expected in Iraq by September to contribute to stability operations
there.
U.S. assistance to the region is aimed toward improving our cooperation. It
has the following goals:
* Enhance partnerships in the Global War on Terror;
* Strengthen democratic institutions and civil society;
* Create jobs and support for the emerging entrepreneurial class;
* Fight global threats including weapons proliferation and trafficking
in persons.
Our Foreign Military Finance (FMF), International Military Education and
Training (IMET) programs and peacekeeping assistance promote
interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces.
Armenia has taken big steps to enhance its security relationship with the
United States and NATO in the past six months
* Signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to become a partner in
the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) program;
* Signed a reciprocal Article 98 Agreement with the United States to
prevent Armenian and U.S. troops from prosecution at the International
Criminal Court, an organization that does not have U.S. representation;
* Agreed to deploy a truck company to Iraq;
Concluded an Acquisitions and Cross-Servicing Agreement with U.S.;
* Hosted a NATO Partnership for Peace exercise in the summer of 2003;
* Deployed a peacekeeping company to KFOR in Kosovo
We have strongly encouraged the Armenian government to permit closer
military cooperation with the U.S. and look forward to a positive response
from Yerevan.
REFORM
Economic Reform
Across the nations of the former Soviet Union, reform has both economic and
political components. Economic reform is essential to creating prosperity
for the people of the region. Armenia faced the steepest economic decline
after the fall of the Soviet Union, but has now reached 82% of its 1989 GDP.
Widespread unemployment and uneven growth plague the Caucasus. Our policies
focus on creating jobs and strengthening the investment climate by lending
money to micro, small and medium enterprises (SME) in order to promote
profitability and job growth, helping Armenia achieve energy security and
providing the tools to help Armenia quality for the Millennium Challenge
Account.
Our assistance programs have resulted in many tangible results.
* The total value of exports from companies supported by USAID in
Armenia jumped from $l.7 mil in 2002 to $2.4 mil in 2003;
* Through loan guarantees, we provided credit to four financial
institutions in Armenia making $450,000 available for loans to small and
medium size enterprises;
* Our agriculture programs created more than 2,000 jobs in FY 2003;
* Partly because of our assistance to the electrical sector,
collections rose to 92% in 2003 (from 70% in 2001);
* In the earthquake zone, by the end of 2003, U.S. assistance helped
provide 7,000 families with homes;
* U.S. supported Armenia’s WTO accession in 2003 and we’re providing
technical assistance to help Armenia meet its new obligations and benefit
from membership.
Breaking down the barriers to trade is one of our priorities. The U.S. and
Armenia have had normal trade relations since 1992, but the U.S. government
supports extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Armenia and will
support Congressional efforts to graduate Armenia from the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment to the Trade Act. The purpose of Jackson-Vanik legislation was to
encourage religious freedom and free emigration. Armenia is fully compliant
with Jackson-Vanik standards. The House of Representatives approved lifting
Jackson-Vanik on Armenia in 2003. This year, a similar provision is attached
to Senate Bill S1637. If Congress acts, the President will certify that
Jackson-Vanik no longer applies to Armenia.
Another key U.S. priority to facilitate increased trade throughout the
region is encouraging Turkey to open its border with Armenia. With this
border open, transportation costs would fall by 50 percent or more, likely
increasing trade between Turkey and Armenia, and between Armenia and Western
Europe via Turkey. As Mr. Armitage stated during his press conference in
Yerevan, we frequently engage the Turkish government on the border issue but
may not see progress in the short term. Ankara is currently struggling with
a panoply of other difficult issues, including stability in Northern Iraq,
Cyprus and the possibility of EU accession.
Political Reform and Democratic Change
We have noted slow and steady progress in democratic reform and institution
building in the nations of the former Soviet Union since independence, but
also backsliding in recent years. In the past year, all governments in the
Caucasus region were guilty of manipulating the pre-election environment and
limiting access to the media.

Georgia’s revolution showed the possibility of peaceful political change. We
did not play a role in the choice exercised by the Georgian people for a
change, nor should we have. However, U.S. assistance was key to building the
capabilities of Georgians and Georgian organizations.
The U.S. is also working on democracy and good governance programs in
Armenia and Azerbaijan. More than 400 Armenians came to U.S. in 2003 on
exchange programs. In addition to exchanges, the U.S. plans to spend
approximately $9.4 million on democratic reform programs in Armenia in 2004.
We are working with nongovernmental organizations, media, political parties
and parliament deputies and staff.
Since March 2003 presidential elections, relations between the government
and the opposition in Armenia have worsened. We are concerned about the
recent escalation in rhetoric and confrontation between the government and
opposition. The government’s decision to forcibly disperse protestors at an
April 13 demonstration and the detention of opposition members of parliament
and activists are not helpful. Such actions don’t encourage opposition
activists to engage in dialogue with the government in order to resolve some
of the differences that separate them, including accountability for the
flawed elections in 2003.
We urge both sides to agree to political dialogue and not allow
recriminations and tensions to build. There has clearly been little public
support for the government’s handling of the situation. The government
assures us it will reduce political pressure on the opposition.
REGIONAL STABILITY
Unfortunately, the Caucasus region is still plagued with separatist
movements and unresolved conflicts almost thirteen years after independence.
If these conflicts are left unresolved, the region cannot realize its
economic potential, and will forever be at danger of a return to war. The
U.S. is re-thinking how best to tackle separatist conflicts in Georgia and
seeking closer cooperation with the United Nations and Russia in support of
Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The U.S. continues to seek a resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict,
both bilaterally and through its role as Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group,
along with France and Russia. On April 16, we announced the appointment of
Ambassador Steve Mann as new U.S. Special Negotiator for Eurasian Conflicts.
Steve was our first U.S. envoy to Armenia in 1991 and helped setup our first
embassy until the arrival of Ambassador Gilmore. Steve will also continue in
his role as the coordinator for Caspian Sea Energy Issues. It has been ten
years since an uneasy cease-fire was declared between Armenia and Azerbaijan
on Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, Yerevan and Baku have made no effort to
prepare their populations for the politically difficult compromises
necessary to effect a genuine peace agreement. At Key West in 2001, the
parties came close to agreement, but momentum was lost. The status quo harms
overall security in the region and restricts economic growth in both
nations. This prevents Armenia and the rest of the Caucasus from fully
integrating into Europe and the other Euro-Atlantic institutions.
To recap, U.S. priorities in the South Caucasus region relate to overall
security of the region, intensifying political and economic reform and
resolving regional conflicts in order to attain long-term stability.
Armenian-Americans have made a great contribution to the development of the
modern nation of Armenia. My colleagues and I look forward to working with
you to push for reform in Armenia and to seek an improvement in the lives of
Armenia’s people. I wish you a successful convention. My thoughts are with
you this April 24 as you commemorate Armenian Remembrance Day.
Thank you.
The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
NR#2004-039