Author: Badalian Vardan

ARMENIA NOT READY YET TO RECOGNIZE NAGORNY KARABAKH

ITAR-TASS News Agency
September 3, 2007 Monday 12:30 PM EST
Russia

"It is not time yet for Armenia to recognize self-proclaimed Nagorny
Karabakh," Chief of the Press and Information Department and press
secretary of the Armenian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Karapetyan
declared.

The recognition of Nagorny Karabakh was and remains in the arsenal
of the Armenian foreign policy, Karapetyan said. " The recognition
should take place at the moment when it will be of maximum effect and
promote final settlement of the problem. This moment has not come yet,"
Karapetyan said.

The diplomat spoke in the wake of an initiative put forward by
Nasledije (heritage) opposition bloc in the Armenian parliament
that submitted a bill on Yerevan’s recognition of self-proclaimed
Nagorny Karabakh.

Nagorny Karabakh proclaimed itself independent on September 2,
1991 and since then it has been seeking international recognition
of its independence from Azerbaijan. None of the world countries,
including Armenia that renders political and diplomatic support to
Nagorny Karabakh, has recognized Nagorny Karabakh.

SERGE SARGSYAN RECEIVED THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR

armradio.am
31.08.2007 17:59

RA Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan received the Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Armenia Nikolay
Pavlov, Press and Information Department of RA Government informs.

Discussed were issues connected with RA Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan’s
upcoming official visit to the Russian Federation, scheduled for late
September, 2007.

MINISTER DECLINES TO COMMENT RUMORS ON SALE

Lragir, Armenia
Aug 30 2007

"I don’t think there is need to comment on the sale of the VivaCell
Company," said the minister of transport and communication Andranik
Manukyan on August 30. The minister said he got no documents on the
sale, ARKA reported.

The news about the sale of the second mobile operator VivaCell appeared
in the media a few days ago. The Russian MTS is said likely to buy
VivaCell. However, MTS and VivaCell do not confirm or deny the sale.

WHEN WE NEGOTIATE THE PAST, WE ADULTERATE HISTORY

The Globe and Mail (Canada)
August 30, 2007 Thursday

RICHARD FRENCH, Adjunct research professor at the University of
Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs

There is not much but sand on the highway from Alexandria to Egypt’s
border with Libya. The highlight is the museum marking the 1942
Battle of El Alamein that stopped the German expansion in Africa. The
curious Canadian learns that, while there were few Canadians in the
battle, there was a certain amount of Canadian hardware, represented
by an Ontario-made truck among the shattered tanks and artillery
pieces. Inside, we learn something unknown to history: Egyptians
played a vital role at El Alamein.

An entire room of the museum is devoted to this contribution,
not because of any relation to historical fact but because of the
requirements of Egyptian national pride and politics. (Noting this
fiction in no way diminishes the suffering of a nation thrust forcibly
into the role of host to a war between colonial powers.) The museum is
organized on national lines: One sees the German, Italian and British
Empire troops, each in a setting in which the others are foils for
the gallant warriors to whom the chamber is dedicated.

I was reminded of the El Alamein museum when I read the latest episode
in the sad controversy over the Canadian War Museum’s account of
the Canadian role in the strategic bombing campaign over Germany in
the Second World War. It is seductive to imagine that a war museum
"should not fight with its veterans" – seductive but unwise. That
way lies the kind of history represented by the El Alamein museum’s
confabulation of Egyptian heroism.

It is sad that the veterans’ suffering and sacrifice cannot redeem
for them some control over this harsh reality of life. If they triumph
over the wording of a plaque in the museum, they will in no way alter
the reality that historians are skeptical about the effectiveness,
and philosophers are troubled about the morality, of the bombing
campaign on German cities from 1940 onward. They will not erase the
memory of the firestorms in Hamburg, Luebeck, Rostock, Cologne and
Dresden, and they will not alter the bitter legacy of their own and
their comrades’ pain and loss. They will merely have proved that
expediency and sentiment may triumph from time to time over the
intellectual integrity of institutions that should know better.

The Turks have mobilized all the powers of a sovereign nation to try
to expunge the memory of Armenian genocide, and they have earned for
themselves contempt and ridicule. The French lied to themselves for
decades about their collective behaviour during the German occupation,
until their own allegiance to justice and truth overcame nationalist
hypocrisy. The Poles still have not admitted to themselves the extent
of their role in the Holocaust, but they will.

In this struggle for truth, we are all fallible, but we are also
all empowered. History is not static. If someone wants to alter its
interpretation, to influence its shape or direction, the way to do so
is not to deploy political influence – it is to do research, to argue
evidence. No one is compelled to believe anyone else’s version of
events, not even the version of those who were there. Historians know
that individual participants are among the most interesting sources,
but often only marginally reliable.

Some may think this kind of controversy is of no concern to the
practical man. Think again. The Japanese are the most flagrant example
of politically motivated amnesia in the world; most simply do not know
what happened to the people whom their parents and grandparents overran
from 1931 onward. They are taught that Japan was the victim of foreign
aggression, and they understandably retain a strong sense of being
the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Japan applies a history
oriented more to political convenience than to truth: It has failed
the test of moral courage that the Germans have so painfully passed.

And the kicker is this: The ordinary Japanese is so ill-informed that
he or she cannot understand the significance of the assassinations
carried out by ultra-right-wing cells intent on enforcing this
prohibition on questioning Japan’s wartime role. We are talking about
a sophisticated democracy in which editors and professors die for
speaking about historical events. This, in turn, means the Japanese
voter cannot make an informed judgment of his country’s foreign
policy. This matters. The Far East is in the throes of an arms race,
and is second only to the Middle East or Kashmir as a potential spark
of a conventional war. Too bad the population of one of the major
protagonists has only the most partial idea of what happened in the
last one.

Is Needham still No Place For Hate?

By Steven Ryan
GateHouse News Service
Thu Aug 30, 2007, 12:00 AM EDT

Needham –

Remembering the past

Gulnar Sahagian, who grew up in Istanbul, Turkey, remembered her
grandmother’s stories of the Armenian Genocide, which saw the mass
deportation and murder of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire
during the World War I era.

"She cried every single night in prayer," the Hunting Road resident
said, with her son, Luder Tavit Sahagian, by her side. "Her eyes
witnessed so much horror. The way she described the stories every
night, I was there."

Gulnar Sahagian, who came to the United States in 1979, said her
grandmother, Arusiak Hajinian, was on the cusp of adulthood when
tragedy changed her life. At the time, she was married with a child,
while pregnant with a second. Arusiak Hajinian died at 110.

Gulnar Sahagian said Turkish forces came to her grandmother’s home
"collecting soldiers" and took away her husband, whom she never saw
again. Her brothers-in-law were killed, and her sister-in-law was
raped and brutalized, dying shortly thereafter.

In the chaos, her grandmother took the family’s gold and put as much
as possible in a pillowcase before hiding the coins in the wall of a
chicken coop. Hajinian, with others, was eventually captured and taken
into the desert, where she had little food or water for her young
child.

"She told me, ‘The baby is getting nothing from me,’" Gulnar Sahagian
said. "The baby finally died, and she buried it. She did not even put
a stone on top [of the grave], so nobody disturb it."

Gulnar Sahagian said Hajinian also lost the unborn child when a
Turkish soldier put a bayonet into her stomach. After the traumatic
event, she woke up in a Turkish soldier’s house. She was recovering
there before becoming a prisoner when she refused to become the man’s
new wife. She was chained to the basement.

One day, the chains were improperly placed, and Hajinian was able to
break free, climbing through a small window wrapped with metal wire.
Years later, she returned to her home and found the gold she hid in
the chicken coop. There, she connected with the man who became her
second husband, Gulnar Sahagian’s grandfather.

"We’re here because my grandmother escaped through that window," she said.
Seeking acknowledgement

The Anti-Defamation League’s stance on the Armenian Genocide, which
some said was the outright denial of the tragedy, created a furor in
nearby Watertown. The Watertown Town Council severed ties with the ADL
and the No Place for Hate program – which was created through a
partnership of the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the ADL –
after a letter highlighting the ADL’s controversial stance was
published in the Watertown TAB and Press. The government of Turkey
rejects the characterization of events as genocide.

"My personal view is it needs to be identified as a genocide clearly,"
Selectman Jerry Wasserman said, noting he is speaking for himself, not
the board. "To do otherwise would be wrong."

In Newton, members of the Human Rights Commission have postponed their
decision to withdraw from the long-standing program in the city. The
Arlington "No Place for Hate" program steering committee decided
Monday night, in an emergency meeting, to suspend its involvement.
Needham’s Human Rights Committee is holding a meeting Thursday, Aug.
30, to discuss the fallout.

"We’re having a special meeting to talk about the incidents of the
past couple of weeks," said Debbie Watters, chairwoman of the Needham
Human Rights Committee.
Gulnar Sahagian plans to be at the Needham meeting.

"It would only be right for the Needham Human Rights Committee to do
the right thing and cut ties with the ADL," said Luder Tavit Sahagian,
27.

Needham’s main involvement with No Place for Hate revolves around
student-led activities during the month of March. Superintendent Dan
Gutekanst declined to comment on the controversy, saying he didn’t
know enough about it. He did speak positively of the No Place for Hate
event at the high school.

"At the high school level, it was very well done, well thought-out,"
Gutekanst said. "It brought a new awareness of bigotry. It served its
purpose."

Town Manager Kate Fitzpatrick believes the status of No Place for Hate
in Needham "warrants thoughtful conversation."

"No Place For Hate was founded … as a resource to address hate crimes
and discrimination," Fitzpatrick said. "It’s something Needham hopes
to do whether with No Place for Hate or not."

There is legislation before the U.S. Congress which would formally
recognize the deaths as genocide, but the ADL currently doesn’t
support the legislation. Over the past two weeks, the ADL fired
Regional Director Andrew Tarsey after he publicly acknowledged the
Armenian Genocide. He was rehired on Monday, Aug. 27. In between the
firing and rehiring, the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman,
issued a statement that the tragic events of more than 90 years ago
were "tantamount to genocide."

Describing Foxman’s statement as "wishy washy," Gulnar Sahagian
believes the ADL needs to take more significant steps.

"Apologize for the Armenian Genocide and support us in Washington,
D.C.," Gulnar Sahagian said. "Why can’t we go back on the right track?
It’s the only way to have authentic human rights activists."

Steven Ryan can be reached at [email protected].

Source:

DARFUR AND GENOCIDE: WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

St.Louis Jewishlight.com, MO
03526495108.php
Aug 29 2007

JEWISH LIGHT EDITORIAL

The issue of the grave humanitarian crisis facing the people of the
Darfur region of the Sudan, the accuracy of the number of victims
and the appropriate meaning of the term "genocide" have been in the
headlines recently, and some clarification is in order. Related to
these issues is the news that Israel will no longer allow Sudanese
migrants who enter its territory illegally to stay, and that it
would institute a mandatory deportation policy. Each of these issues
deserves discussion.

– Regarding the estimated number of Darfurians killed and displaced,
a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times chided advocates on behalf
of the Darfur victims for using inflated numbers for those killed.

The piece, by Time magazine Africa writer Sam Dealey points out that
while advocacy groups have been saying 400,000 Darfurians have been
killed, the actual number is closer to 200,000. The writer indicated
that whether 200,000 or 400,000 have been killed, along with the
nearly 2 million who have been driven from their homes, it is still
appropriate to refer to what is happening in Darfur and in the refugee
camps in Chad as a "genocide."

– The term "genocide" was coined by the Polish-Jewish lawyer and
Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in
Europe. Lemkin played a major role in the introduction of the Genocide
Convention by the United Nations at its first session on Dec. 11,
1946, when it adopted Resolution 96, which condemned genocide as a
crime in international law. The term "genocide" is defined as actions
in which "their inherent intention is to destroy, wholly or partially,
a national, ethnic, racial or religious group per se," and includes
such actions as "the killing of persons belonging to the group;
the causing of grievous bodily or spiritual harm to members of the
group; deliberately enforcing on the group living conditions which
could lead to its complete or partial extermination; the enforcement
of measures designed to prevent birth among the group; the forcible
removal of children from one group to another."

– The term "genocide" became the focus of a major controversy recently,
when Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation
League, reversed himself on whether it was appropriate to describe
the massacre of l.l million Armenians by the Turkish Ottoman Empire
in 1915-1918 as a "genocide." Foxman had fired ADL’s Boston-based
New England Region director for having denounced that position in
an interview with the Boston Globe. In what was described by the
JTA as a "dramatic reversal," Foxman issued an official national ADL
statement using the term "genocide" to describe the Armenian massacre,
Foxman said he had consulted with his "friend and mentor" Elie Wiesel,
the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who supported
using the term. Foxman indicated that on further reflection he agreed
with the view of Henry Morganthau, Sr.

that the Armenian massacres would have been called "genocide" if the
word had been in use at that time.

All of the verbal gymnastics and gyrations over the term "genocide"
are unseemly in view of the fact that the mass murders continue in
Darfur, and international action is still urgently needed to stop the
bloodbath, regardless of whether official action is taken by the UN
to label it a "genocide," which common sense indicates it is.

Regarding the controversy in Israel on the deportation of Darfurian
refugees coming in from Egypt, the Israeli public is understandably
conflicted. On the one hand, the already weakened government of Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert fears being overwhelmed by masses of refugees.

The Olmert government did decide to grant asylum to about 500 refugees
from the Darfur genocide who had crossed over into Israel from Egypt
in recent months. Olmert’s government was fearful that thousands of
Sudanese migrants who had illegally entered Israel to seek work would
attempt to gain permanent residence because of the crisis. A first
group of about 50 deportees was sent back into Egyptian territory
last weekend.

Indeed, during the term of the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin
it was decided to allow into Israel a number of Vietnamese boat
people for the very reason that human rights groups are pressing for
admission of the Sudanese refugees. Israel had also taken in Bosnian
Muslim refugees during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. While
Israel certainly has an historic and moral obligation to do what it
can to help bring relief to refugees from Darfur, so do the Arab and
Muslim nations in the region, including Egypt, which has thus far
refused to take them in, following the past practice of Arab nations
refusing to absorb refugee populations, including the Palestinians.

While Israel has an obligation to do its share, it is unreasonable to
expect the small and overwhelmed Jewish State to be the sole refuge
for refugees from Darfur.

EDITORIAL

DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE

Darfur and Genocide: What Are the Facts?

JEWISH LIGHT EDITORIAL

The issue of the grave humanitarian crisis facing the people of the
Darfur region of the Sudan, the accuracy of the number of victims
and the appropriate meaning of the term "genocide" have been in the
headlines recently, and some clarification is in order. Related to
these issues is the news that Israel will no longer allow Sudanese
migrants who enter its territory illegally to stay, and that it
would institute a mandatory deportation policy. Each of these issues
deserves discussion.

– Regarding the estimated number of Darfurians killed and displaced,
a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times chided advocates on behalf
of the Darfur victims for using inflated numbers for those killed.

The piece, by Time magazine Africa writer Sam Dealey points out that
while advocacy groups have been saying 400,000 Darfurians have been
killed, the actual number is closer to 200,000. The writer indicated
that whether 200,000 or 400,000 have been killed, along with the
nearly 2 million who have been driven from their homes, it is still
appropriate to refer to what is happening in Darfur and in the refugee
camps in Chad as a "genocide."

– The term "genocide" was coined by the Polish-Jewish lawyer and
Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in
Europe. Lemkin played a major role in the introduction of the Genocide
Convention by the United Nations at its first session on Dec. 11,
1946, when it adopted Resolution 96, which condemned genocide as a
crime in international law. The term "genocide" is defined as actions
in which "their inherent intention is to destroy, wholly or partially,
a national, ethnic, racial or religious group per se," and includes
such actions as "the killing of persons belonging to the group;
the causing of grievous bodily or spiritual harm to members of the
group; deliberately enforcing on the group living conditions which
could lead to its complete or partial extermination; the enforcement
of measures designed to prevent birth among the group; the forcible
removal of children from one group to another."

– The term "genocide" became the focus of a major controversy recently,
when Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation
League, reversed himself on whether it was appropriate to describe
the massacre of l.l million Armenians by the Turkish Ottoman Empire
in 1915-1918 as a "genocide." Foxman had fired ADL’s Boston-based
New England Region director for having denounced that position in an
interview with the Boston Globe. In what was described by the JTA as a
"dramatic reversal," Foxman issued an official national ADL statement
using the term "genocide" to describe the Armenian massacre, Foxman
said he had consulted with his "friend and mentor" Elie Wiesel, the
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who supported using
the term. Foxman indicated that on further reflection he agreed with
the view of Henry Morganthau, Sr. that the Armenian massacres would
have been called "genocide" if the word had been in use at that time.

All of the verbal gymnastics and gyrations over the term "genocide"
are unseemly in view of the fact that the mass murders continue in
Darfur, and international action is still urgently needed to stop the
bloodbath, regardless of whether official action is taken by the UN
to label it a "genocide," which common sense indicates it is.

Regarding the controversy in Israel on the deportation of Darfurian
refugees coming in from Egypt, the Israeli public is understandably
conflicted. On the one hand, the already weakened government of Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert fears being overwhelmed by masses of refugees.

The Olmert government did decide to grant asylum to about 500 refugees
from the Darfur genocide who had crossed over into Israel from Egypt
in recent months. Olmert’s government was fearful that thousands of
Sudanese migrants who had illegally entered Israel to seek work would
attempt to gain permanent residence because of the crisis. A first
group of about 50 deportees was sent back into Egyptian territory
last weekend.

Indeed, during the term of the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin
it was decided to allow into Israel a number of Vietnamese boat
people for the very reason that human rights groups are pressing for
admission of the Sudanese refugees. Israel had also taken in Bosnian
Muslim refugees during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. While
Israel certainly has an historic and moral obligation to do what it
can to help bring relief to refugees from Darfur, so do the Arab and
Muslim nations in the region, including Egypt, which has thus far
refused to take them in, following the past practice of Arab nations
refusing to absorb refugee populations, including the Palestinians.

While Israel has an obligation to do its share, it is unreasonable to
expect the small and overwhelmed Jewish State to be the sole refuge
for refugees from Darfur.

WHO REMEMBERS NOW THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ARMENIANS?
David Weigel

Reason Online, CA

Aug 28 2007

Jamie Kirchick is making sense about the Anti-Defamation League’s
stonewalling on a Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian
genocide:

For pragmatic reasons, a sense of the Congress resolution acknowledging
the Armenian genocide may not be such a great idea.

Turkey is an important ally in the Muslim world. Would it really be
worth hurting that relationship over a resolution that, however morally
just, bears no force? A few weeks ago, however, a legislator told me
that if such a resolution really did offend the Turks to the point
that they would hamper American military maneuvers out of Incirlik Air
Base or by fooling around in Kurdistan, then maybe our relationship
with Turkey is not all it’s cracked up to be in the first place.

But at the end of the day, these realpolitik considerations should have
no bearing on a civic organization committed to humanitarian goals,
which is what the ADL claims to be. Yes, it is part of the ADL’s
mission to defend Israel (and, it bears noting, to debunk Holocaust
deniers)–but the ADL is not a mere extension of the Israeli Foreign
Ministry. Pussyfooting on the existence of the Armenian genocide
works against everything for which the ADL claims to stand.

Incredibly ironic, too, as the title of this post is a much-repeated
paraphrase of Hitler’s August 22, 1939 speech. Hitler’s point was that
founders of great empires are remembered for the kingdoms they build
and not the people they slaughter. He was, unsurprisingly, wrong as
all hell, evidenced by the other example he gave: "history sees in
[Genghis Khan] solely the founder of a state." (The Reich didn’t last
long enough for him to witness John Kerry’s Senate testimony or Bill
and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.) How the ADL expects people to remain
concerned about genocide while forgetting or blowing off a fairly
recent genocide, I have no clue.

I’ve got nothing else to add to Kirchick: Either the ADL is an
organization that dogpiles people who minimize genocides or Nazism
or it’s an extension of Ehud Olmert’s press shop.

And yes, I realize I just quoted Hitler to make a point. If Abe Foxman
wants to sue me, the subpoena should be sent to reason’s Washington,
D.C. office between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. any day this week.

ROMANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: BUCHAREST SUPPORTS PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH UN RESOLUTIONS AND OSCE DECISIONS

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug 27 2007

Romania’s Foreign Minister Adrian Cioroianu’s, interview to APA’s
Eastern Europe bureau

– How do you appreciate relations between Azerbaijan and Romania?

– Romania is the second country after Turkey to recognize
Azerbaijan’s independence. We have recently marked the 15th
anniversary of Romania-Azerbaijan diplomatic relations. Bilateral
cooperation between our countries has always developed. High-level
contacts and continuation of political dialogue on different levels
proves it. High-level visits formed the basis for the bilateral
relations. President Ilham Aliyev paid a successful visit to Bucharest
three years ago. 11 agreements improving legal basis of our bilateral
relations were signed during the visit. These documents created firm
basis for the bilateral relations and are of great importance for their
development. President Traian Basescu’s visit to Baku in October, 2006
created conditions for signing new agreements giving impetus to the
expansion of relations. The presidents’ talks proved that we share
the same opinion regarding bilateral, regional and international
problems. The presidents also exchanged views on stimulation of
bilateral cooperation in energy sphere, so that the international
community is paying more attention to the energy security on global
level. The two presidents confirmed that the number of provision
sources and transport communications for ensuring energy security
is very important. President Traian Basescu’s visit to Baku not only
proved Romania-Azerbaijan relations but also gave impulse to bilateral,
especially commercial and economic relations.

Economic agents of the two countries should deal with these
relations. Romanian president, Mr. Traian Basescu’s recent visit
to Baku on occasion of the second summit of GUAM – organization for
democracy and economic development (June 19, 2007) created conditions
for the high-level dialogue with Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev.

The meeting again proved that the bilateral relations are of great
importance and develop. Romania that left behind the transition period
with complications and difficulties is ready to share its experience
with friendly countries. We attach special importance to the bilateral
relations with Azerbaijan and partnership relations on the level of
Black Sea cooperation.

– What stage is the Paneurope project on? What are Romania’s plans
and expectations concerning Constance-Trieste pipeline?

– Romania actively supports PEOP (Pan European Oil Pipeline) that will
sort Europe’s energy import. It is known that Europe has increasing
need for oil and European Union needs securing this strategic
provision. So, PEOP is the appropriate, effective alternative way of
solution that will help increase energy security of Europe. At the
same time, PEOP ensures direct access of the Caspian oil to Western
Europe. This oil pipeline is also important in terms of growing
industry as it offers new contacts to oil companies between the
Caspian resources and oil refineries in Europe. We are pleased that
European commission is getting more active. This simplified signing
the agreement between the direct partners.

The representatives of participant states together with European Energy
Commissioner inked Declaration of Ministers on Constanza-Trieste
oil pipeline project in Zagreb. This is an important step in the
development of the project. It is hoped the procedure of building a
company for the project will end by the end of the year by the support
of European Commission and Secretariat of the European Charter. In this
respect, Azerbaijan can be an important supplier of this pipeline, and
its involvement would ease successful implementation of the project.

– In what fields may Azerbaijan be interesting for Romania except
for energy sphere?

– Romania regards Azerbaijan as a reliable partner to ensure security
and stability in Black sea region. Speaking of Romanian-Azerbaijani
economic relations, the potential proposed by the both of these
markets has not yet been estimated. The level does not satisfy us
despite the fact that trade turnover has risen recently. Romanian
economy develops very fast and may offer Azerbaijan more that
furniture. Azerbaijani econmy is attractive for foreign economic
agents. I belive that Romanian economic operators would look forward
to accessing to other markets.

– What position does Azerbaijan rank in Black sea initiative supported
by South Caucasus and Budapest?

– Black Sea Forum on dialogue and Partnership is a large regional
platform among littoral states. Azerbaijan completes the line of
Black Sea states. Development of democratic values, human rights,
sustainable or market economy is a basis of partnership affecting
various levels of national and regional societies in Black sea region.

– What is Budapest’s position concerning Transnistria conflict and
other frozen conflicts in Post-Soviet states?

– Romania supports the solution of Transnistria conflict within the
framework of Moldova’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Romania
wants the Nagorno Karabakh conflict be solved by means of talks.

Under the principles of international law, Romania supports peaceful
solution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in accordance with the
corresponding UN Resolutions and OSCE decisions. Taking into account
OSCE efforts and Minsk Group’s activity towards the peaceful settlement
of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict Romania is optimistic that progress
of further important and decisive steps in this field.

– Azerbaijan and Romania are cooperating in military sphere. Does
Bucharest, as NATO Alliance member intent to deepen this cooperation?

– Romania backs the stability, democratic development in Azerbaijan
and its position to integrate into Euro-Atlantic structures.

Azerbaijan is active partner of the Alliance and Romania taking
into account its positive dynamic role in partnership mechanisms,
particularly, its serious insolvent in the operations in Kosovo and
Afghanistan. We appraise Azerbaijan’s successes within the framework
of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with the Alliance
in 2006. We think successful implementation of IPAP’a goals create a
large ground for deepening of Azerbaijan-NATO relations. We welcome
that Azerbaijan will have more enlarged, new IPAP that will bear more
commitments by the end of 2007. As NATO member, Romania is pleased with
Azerbaijan’s progress in application of military reforms. We approve
the cooperation in military and military-political spheres regulated
with the agreements concluded between Bucharest and Baku in 1999,
2000 and 2006 and hope the bilateral political dialogue in the issues
of common interest such as stability and security in the Black Sea
region will be enlarged. We regard Azerbaijan as a player which has a
strong role in defining of regional security atmosphere. This profile
should be completed with the interest towards domestic development
because this is the very factor which guarantees sustainable and
expected targets of foreign policy. We hope NATO summit in Bucharest
scheduled for April, 2008 will achieve significant progress in the
implementation of the projects and brave initiatives made during
Riga summit, including cooperation within EAPC and relations with
the partners in enlarged Black Sea region.

– Romania shows interest in GUAM. What plans does Bucharest have
regarding this organization?

– Romania’s interest in the developments ongoing in its eastern
neighborhood is a natural case for any member of Euro-Atlantic
community dealing with enlargement of stability, security and welfare
area beyond NATO and EU borders. Stable, democratic and prosperous
enlarged Black Sea region, its close integration into Europe and
Euro-Atlantic structures is Romania’s fundamental strategic interest.

In this context, our country is pursuing an active policy on
regional cooperation in both south-Eastern Europe and Enlarged
Black Sea region. Romania is making regular efforts for making Black
Sea Forum for Dialogue and Partnership institution. The initiative
calls for maintenance of democracy and economic development, energy
security, raising of confidence, strengthening of stability, peace
and security. Moreover, our country is active part of European
Commission’s Black Sea Sinergy Declaration. Romania is planning to
have close cooperation with the Black Sea littoral states as well as
other nearby countries, including Azerbaijan in order to implement
these initiatives. Taking into account strategic importance of
the Black Sea region we are following with great interest the steps
taken by all cooperation mechanisms and structures in this region. In
this context, Romania has welcomed GUAM turning to an international
organization and the member states’ finding ways to reach long-term
solution of the challenges that the region face. As the member of
the European Union and NATO, Romania is not considering ODED-GUAM
membership but as Romanian President Mr. Trian Basescu confirmed in
his speech made in Baku summit of ODED-GUAM summit (June 19, 2007)
Romania welcomes positive steps taken by GUAM states and is interested
in having dynamic political and economic relations in energy security
with these states. Romanian president’s presence in GUAM summits
as guest (April 22, 2005, Chisinau; June 19, 2007, Baku) as well as
Romanian Foreign Minister’s attending the summit of ODED-GUAM in Kyiv
(May 22-23, 2006) show that Romania shows a special approach to the
initiatives of regional cooperation and backs their full development.

– What is your assessment of the prospect of Azerbaijan’s access to
the European Union?

– European Union’s including the South Caucasus countries to the
European Neighborhood Policy is a decision on establishing close
relations with them. Romania did a lot for taking such step and
accelerating implementation of this decision. EU-Azerbaijan action
plan concluded in 2006 is a proof of expanding relations between the
Union and your country. We welcome the decision which is of political
nearing character and gives Azerbaijan chance to join to EU PESC
declaration. Azerbaijan is a member of European Neighborhood Policy.

Azerbaijan is the member of European Neighborhood Policy program
encouraging civil society cross border cooperation through European
Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) Cross Border Cooperation
Sea Basin Program. We should understand the efficiency and character
of new tools and funds and appraise it maximally for the benefit of
the region and our domestic development. Moreover, EU has carried
out approach towards the Black Sea region through initiative of
Black Sea Synergy this year which Romania took an active part in its
preparation. We rely on participation of Azerbaijan in the realization
of new regional cooperation initiatives. We positively assess your
country’s participation in Black Sea cross border cooperation program
under European Neighborhood Policy.

– What is your assessment on prospects of SOCAR’s activity in Romania?

– Romania is interesting in having various ways of ensuring its
energy resources and playing active role in ensuring Europe’s energy
security. As a member of EU, Romania supports the Union’s preparing
only policy in energy sector. Following this, we also want to discuss
finding corresponding form for signing bilateral agreement between
Romania and Azerbaijan on cooperation in energy sector. We welcome
SOCAR’s opening a branch establishment in Romania. This company’s
functioning in Romanian market shows that Romanian-Azerbaijan
relations is in the stage of maturity. We examine it as bilateral
prospects, prism of common Euroatlantic security interests. SOCAR
can enter European market using Romania as a transit gate through its
Bucharest representation. Romania can be a passage for the transition
of Azerbaijan’s resources to Central and Western Europe with its
strategic position. Moreover, SOCAR has experienced companies for
being reliable partners.

Our country has great oil refinery enterprises in European standards,
complicated energy transport infrastructure, great internal
distribution net and these are privileges for the development of
efficient cooperation between SOCAR and Romania. On the other hand,
Azerbaijan’s participation in our market coincides with the interests
of Romania and it increases competition.

– How can Romania and Azerbaijan cooperate in the framework of
Nabucco project?

– Nabucco project will have a great share in ensure of energy security
of Europe. Its efficiency has been recognized in EU level by inclusion
into the list of infrastructural projects which is priority for
Europe in the framework of European Commission’s Action Plan on
European Energy Policy adopted by Council of Europe on March 8-9,
2007. Development of Nabucco project and development of relations with
Caspian countries is priority of Romania. Taking into consideration
the energy resources Azerbaijan is of great importance as a potential
supplier.

As a sign of assessing Azerbaijan’s important role in ensure of
energy security of the region and Europe as well both sides plan
establishing energy partnership and development of the cooperation
within the framework of Nabucco project.

8,115 FIRST-FORMERS ENTERED YEREVAN SCHOOLS AS OF AUGUST 27

Noyan Tapan
Aug 27 2007

YEREVAN, AUGUST 27, NOYAN TAPAN. 8.115 first-formers have entered
schools of Yerevan as of August 27, Yerevan’s deputy mayor Komo
Areyan said at the August 27 press conference. According to him, by
the instructions of the city mayor, the issues of uniterrupted water
and power supply of schools will be solved until August 30. The state
motor vehicle inspection of Yerevan will organize a ten-day control
of safe traffic at the school-adjacent areas.

In the words of the deputy mayor, first-formers will be given all
textbooks gratis, while pupils of other forms will be given their
textbooks until the end of the academic year when they will have to
return textbooks.

K. Areyan said that a pilot program on introduction of the senior
school system will be implemented in a number of Yerevan schools this
year. The deputy mayor noted that the introduction of this system
in comprehensive educational institutions will be completed in the
2009-2010 academic year.

He also stated that preparatory work on organizing common examinations
at schools will be done this academic year.

It was mentioned that the educational week will be six-day at
comprehensive educational institutions.

CHILDREN BORN ONLY IN 2001 TO BE FIRST GRADE PUPILS THIS YEAR

Panorama.am
16:32 27/08/2007

Yerevan municipality has issued assignments to respective bodies
to ensure "smooth functioning" of schools and be prepared for the
educational year, Yerevan Deputy Mayor Kamo Areyan told a briefing
today speaking about preparatory days for September.

In his words, Yerevan Water is assigned to ensure uninterrupted water
supply to schools. The Armenian Electric Networks got an assignment
to check and make inventory of energy supply in schools. Other
organizations got orders to improve the areas in the vicinities
of schools.

Kamo Areyan also mentioned that 10 Days of Safe Traffic has been
announced by a road police representative in relation with the new
educational year.

Speaking about first grade students’ school acceptance, the deputy
mayor said that, unlike last year, this year the acceptance to first
grades will be only for children born in 2001.