Author: Badalian Vardan

ANDRANIK MARGARIAN EMPHASIZES IMPORTANCE OF ARMENIA’S
CONDUCTING COMPLEMENTORY FOREIGN POLICY
AZG Armenian Daily #138, 25/07/2006
Opinion
Armenia conducts balanced foreign policy, making the integration
into Europe and development of the interstate relations within the
framework of CIS, as well as the development of bilateral relations
with several countries are priority course in its foreign policy of
Armenia. RA PM Andranik Margarian, leader of Republican Party, said
at July 22 RPA party congress. “Taking into account our national and
state interests, we state that we are ready to cooperate with the
countries in the region both in the political and economic, and in
the military spheres,” he said. The interstate cooperation should be
built on the principles of equality, Margarian emphasized. Besides,
RA PM Andranik Margarian stated that the current progress fixed in
the Armenian economy is achieved thanks to the cooperation of all
the branches of power.
He added that his party is aimed to preserve the achievements and
complete the programs in progress. He said that the further activities
of the party will be based on the development projects, a well as on
the national safety doctrine. Margarian emphasized that the economic
development of Armenia will secure good living conditions for each
Armenian citizen. As for the cooperation agreement of RPA with ARF
“Dashnaktsiutiun,” the United Labor Party, and other political forces,
Margarian said this will also secure the further stability in Armenia.

Capitalism Magazine, Bahamas
July 22, 2006
“Insulting” The Principle of Free Speech
by Joseph Kellard (July 22, 2006)
The New York Sun reports on July 13 that the Turkish government may
jail a novelist because she supposedly “insulted Turkishness.” The
government tried to prosecute this novelist, Elif Shafak, in June on
the same outlandish Turkish criminal code that prohibits denigration
of any aspect of Turkish culture. The charges were dropped after a
prosecutor argued that “the book is a work of fiction and therefore
does not represent the view of the author,” according to the Sun. But
a higher court overruled this decision following complaints from a
group of nationalist lawyers.
Both Shafak and her publisher speculate that the alleged
“anti-Turkish” part of her novel concerns comments a character makes
about the Turkish massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. In
recent decades, the Turkish government has denied the massacre took
place.
Meanwhile, PEN, an “artistic rights” organization, defends Shafak on
the same awful grounds as the aforementioned prosecutor, that is,
“Writers shouldn’t be held responsible for what their characters say
and do,” a PEN director said.
Actually, a novelist who creates a fictional character is responsible
for whatever that character says and does. She is responsible for her
character’s views, since the character is her creation, just as Ayn
Rand was responsible for creating Ellsworth Toohey. But all of this
is irrelevant to the fundamental issue involved in this case. That
is, like the Danish cartoonists who depicted Mohammad wearing a bomb
for a turban, Shafak has the right to write whatever she wants,
insults or otherwise, and whether or not they are her views. If what
she writes insults others, this violates no one’s rights, but to
prosecute her for this reason violates her right to free speech.
Those who ignore or evade these fundamental facts must then scramble
for rationalizations, like arguing that a novelist who creates a
character is not responsible for that creation. Instead of condemning
the Turkish court for violating Shafak’s right to free speech, and
upholding that right, PEN tries to deny that the novelist is
responsible for creating an “anti-Turkish” character, in a fruitless
attempt to distance her from any connection to violating an elastic,
irrational standard: denigrating Turkish culture.
Like the feeble, so-called defenders of the Danish cartoonists, PEN
needs a primer on why free speech is an absolute. Meanwhile, chalk up
another strike against this fundamental right, at least in Turkey.

Non-recognition of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic is a serious geopolitical threat
Yerkir.am
July 14, 2006
The recent developments around Karabagh settlement process made
it clear to those who deal with this issues that a one-sided and
exclusively political approach to it is unacceptable.
In the beginning the international community and several individual
states were viewing the conflict around the collective right to self
determination as merely an obstacle on the way to full realization of
the potential of the South Caucasus for communications and transit
thus transferring the confrontation between Karabagh and Azerbaijan
to the domain of territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The international mediators’ unwillingness to call things by their
names is explained by this: this is why they are unwilling to see the
true causes of the conflict, to silence the true initiator of ethnic
cleansings and full scale military operations.
This results in a distortion of the problem and the conflict followed
by an equalization of the subject of aggression (Azerbaijan) and the
object of aggression (Nagorno Karabagh and Armenia) in terms of guilt
and level of responsibility. This results in an attempt to settle
the issue without the participation of the side that suffered because
of this aggression – Nagorno Karabagh and the Armenian refugees that
fled from the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR.
The international mediators seem to believe the myth that the
“withdrawal of the Armenian troops” from the territories that appeared
under the control of Nagorno Karabagh as a result of the war launched
by Azerbaijan and the forced return of the Azeri displaced persons
can result in stable and sustainable peace in the region. It should be
noted that the Armenian refugees are never mentioned in this context.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s aggression against the people of Nagorno
Karabagh had not only territorial but also political and legal
consequences. Without taking these consequences into account it
is not possible to achieve a workable and realistic settlement of
the conflict.
The authors of two books – “The Karabagh Conflict: Refugees,
Territories, Security” (published in 2005) and “Azerbaijan against the
Karabagh People. The political-Legal Consequences of Aggression and
Their Impact on the Perspectives of Regional Security” (published in
2006) try to explain the unacceptability of ignoring the humanitarian
and political-legal aspects of the existing situation and their impact
on regional security.
Head of the research department of the Caucasus Media Institute
Sergey Minassian, international lawyer, expert of legal aspects of
the Karabagh conflict Mikhail Aghajanov and chairwoman of the Support
to General Governance NGO Eleonora Asatrian examine the issue on
several levels.
First direction: an attempt to present methods for reparation for
persons who suffered most in the course of the Karabagh conflict,
the Armenian refugees that fled from the former Azerbaijani SSR.
The present stage of the Karabagh conflict started with a humanitarian
crisis – the mass massacres of Armenians in Sumgait and Baku and
the ethnic cleansings of 1988-1991 when about 500 thousand Armenians
were driven out of the Azerbaijani SSR. Most of them still have an
undefined legal status and live in harsh socio-economic conditions.
The issue of protection of property rights of the Armenian population
that was driven out from the former Azerbaijani SSR is viewed as
a mechanism for implementation of Azerbaijan’s international legal
responsibility.
The authors speak not only about material compensation but also about
moral compensation: compensation for the lost Homeland which implies
restoration of the Armenian refugees’ right to live on the territory
of the former Azerbaijani SSR.
Since it is unrealistic to expect that the Republic of Azerbaijan
(which refused to declare itself as the legal successor of the
Azerbaijani SSR) would implement the above mentioned the authors
examine the possibility of Nagorno Karabagh Republic settling the
issue.
The authors believe that Nagorno Karabagh Republic is the only
legal successor of the Soviet Azerbaijan, therefore its sovereign
jurisdiction covers all territories outside the present borders of
Nagorno Karabagh Republic.
The research also examines issues of combatants, refugees, displaced
persons, etc. It is not a secret that some part of the population of
the above-mentioned territories was actively participating in military
actions and was often the initiator of aggression. Naturally, these
people cannot be viewed as refugees or displaced persons.
The authors also try to explain and show that Azerbaijan has exerted
direct domestic and external aggression in the course of the Karabagh
conflict. Domestic aggression was directed at it own citizens of
Armenian origin who were driven out of the country.
External aggression was directed against a new state, Nagorno Karabagh
Republic, that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The
research examines the dynamics of military-technical development
of the conflict, use of various weapons by Azerbaijan, particularly
against peaceful population of Nagorno Karabagh.
Special attention is paid to the increasing militarization of
Azerbaijan in the post-Soviet period which is a destabilizing factor
for regional security and the peaceful settlement of the Karabagh
conflict. At the same time, the perspectives for sustainable and
peaceful settlement of the Karabagh conflict are analyzed in the
context of the new system for regional security.
The authors believe that changes in the status quo can cause bigger
problems for regional security since the military balance around the
conflict in Karabagh can be characterized as a qualitative-quantitative
equality of the sides of confrontation whereby geopolitical factors
play a significant role together with merely technical criteria. Any
changes in this situation can lower the threshold for the possibility
of restarting military actions.
Considering the necessity for preservation of the stable status quo
that excludes the possibility of Azerbaijan’s accumulating resources
for resorting to aggression again, the author site the example of
Eastern Prussia when the international community decided to punish
the aggressor, the Nazi Germany. The latter was deprived of some
geographical, geopolitical platforms from where it
could have started aggression.
The best way out of the existing situation would be recognition
of Nagorno Karabagh Republic by Azerbaijan and the international
community.
Any other approach would block regional communication from the West to
the East which contains serious geopolitical threats for the peoples
of the South Caucasus.
In conclusion we should note that the books were published with
financial assistance from Digranuhi and Edmond Ruhinians and Support
to Total Quality Management NGO.
By Gayane MOVSESSIAN

Georgian-Russian Relations at an All-time Low
Russia Profile, Russia
July 18 2006
TBILISI, Georgia. Since Mikheil Saakashvili and his Rose
revolutionaries came to power in 2003, relations between Georgia and
Russia have plummeted from strained cooperation to mutual distrust
and even hatred; bilateral communication between the two countries is
almost impossible without accusations and insults flying. On taking
the helm, Saakashvili’s government made two key promises, both of
which Moscow found extremely distasteful: Georgian control would be
restored in the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both
currently under Russian influence, and Georgia would be repositioned
internationally, pulling the South Caucasus country firmly away from
Moscow’s sphere of influence and integrating it as quickly as possible
into the “Euro-Atlantic community.” While the first of these promises
has not yet been fulfilled, the second task is well underway.
The first clue to the change of geopolitical orientation in Georgia
comes immediately upon landing at the Tbilisi airport, where Westerners
breeze through passport control with a cursory passport check, while
Russians have their visas studied laboriously. The main route from
the airport is the recently renamed George W. Bush Street, leading to
Freedom Square (formerly Lenin Square) in the heart of the city. Just
off the square stands the newly opened Museum of the Soviet Occupation,
a set of exhibits detailing the “repression of the Georgian people”
between 1921 and 1991. The symbolism and timing of the museum’s opening
irked Russian President Vladimir Putin so much that he complained at
length to Saakashvili at their bilateral meeting in St. Petersburg
in June, pointing out that many of the top figures in the so-called
occupation, such as Joseph Stalin and Lavrenty Beria, were in fact
ethnic Georgians. According to a source in the Georgian government,
Saakashvili’s response was reportedly to suggest offering funds for
Putin to open a Museum of the Georgian Occupation in Moscow.
The tough words between the two countries at the highest levels have
not been restricted to private meetings, however. The spats have a
childish feel to them, with both sides crying that the other started
the hostile moves. Russia bans imports of Georgian wine in a move
that seems overtly political; a Georgian minister responds that the
Russian market is so low-grade that “even feces can be sold.” Putin
calls for referenda in the conflict zones of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia; Georgians accuse Russia of military provocations on
Georgian territory. The list goes on and on. One of the bitterest
clashes came in the heart of winter, when pipeline explosions in
the North Caucasus caused a disruption in gas supplies from Russia
to Georgia for several days in January. When Saakashvili accused
Russia of “sabotage,” the Russian Foreign Ministry responded that
the Georgians were suffering from “hysteria and bacchanalia.” Shota
Utiashvili, head of the Information and Analysis Department at the
Interior Ministry, explained the Georgian suspicions. “Three pipelines
exploded at the same time. Our prime minister repeatedly tried to
call the Russian prime minister, but first they said he was busy,
then he was ill. We offered to send our experts to look at the pipes,
but the Russians refused. Our people were freezing, so we started
importing gas from Azerbaijan. The Russians then decreased the flow
to Azerbaijan.” After this, asked Utiashvili, what conclusions could
the Georgian side draw? “What do they say in Russia when these crises
occur? People say they blame Georgia, but I just can’t understand how,”
he said with seemingly genuine bewilderment.
“Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Georgia-Russia relations have
probably been the most difficult set of relations in the whole
post-Soviet space,” said Oksana Antonenko, senior fellow at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “There was
always a perception in the Georgian elite that Russia is the main
enemy, and with the arrival of Saakashvili, these kinds of sentiments
have become mainstream.”
The overwhelming view in Georgian political circles is that the
problem for Russia is simply Georgia’s aspirations to Western-style
democracy and prosperity. Temuri Yakobashvili, executive vice president
of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies,
a Tbilisi-based think tank, presented the choice facing the Georgian
leadership as simple. “We see countries that were in as difficult
a position as Georgia at the fall of the Soviet Union, but are now
integrating into Euro-Atlantic structures. The EU and NATO have
transformed these Central and Eastern European states into viable
democracies,” he said. “It’s obvious that Euro-Atlantic integration is
the solution,” said the analyst. Antonenko, on the other hand, believes
that the equation might not be so simple for the Georgians. “I’m not
sure that Georgia benefits at all from turning away from Russia,” she
said. “It’s na?ve to think that the West will risk its relationship
with Russia over Georgia, and Georgia suffers much more than Russia
does from the worsening in relations.”
Nevertheless, all over the country, the rhetorical shift from a
post-Soviet to a pre-EU society is startling. At official government
buildings, on billboards, even in giant horticultural arrangements,
the four crosses of the Georgian flag appear alongside the yellow stars
of the European Union’s. Flying the flags ahead of actual membership
of the institutions seems aimed at convincing both Georgians and
foreigners that the trajectory chosen by the Saakashvili government
is irreversible. Unlike in other CIS countries, the second language
in official circles has become English, and most ministers and top
government officials speak the language fluently.
The corridors of the Defense Ministry are lined with photographs of
Georgian troops in both peacekeeping and combat action. Georgia, as
a more-willing-than-most member of the “Coalition of the Willing,”
has around 900 troops in Iraq, the highest per-capita number of any
country. Georgian troops are also in Afghanistan and Kosovo. In his
office, Deputy Defense Minister Mamuka Kudava sits in front of two
large flags – Georgian and NATO. “Before the Rose Revolution, there
was basically no army and no combat capability,” says Kudava. “Now
our troops are well trained and equipped to NATO standards. Before,
nobody wanted their children to join the army. Now, salaries have
increased by between six and 15 times, and it’s a prestigious job.
There is good morale and a sense of patriotism in the army.”
Yakobashvili believes that the choice to look west is logical.
“There’s nothing that Russia can offer us from a security point of
view,” he says. “What kind of security cooperation might Russia
offer? They would train our officers, but do we really want this
training? The Russian army is riddled with ‘dedovshchina,’ [hazing]
there is inappropriate use of funds, loss of equipment and so on.
It’s not an army that you’d wish to copy.”
“A good way to look at how well Georgia is progressing with European
integration is to look at the statements coming out of the Russian
Foreign Ministry,” said the Interior Ministry’s Utiashvili. “If they
are absolutely livid, it means we are doing well, but if they go
quiet for a while, we realize we must be doing something wrong.”
Utiashvili had just returned from Rome, where a Georgian delegation
was making connections with the new government of Romano Prodi. In
contrast to these closely forged links with EU countries and the United
States, Utiashvili said there was very little routine interaction
between Georgian and Russian ministries. “We have perfectly good
relations and frequent contacts with the governments in Armenia and
Azerbaijan. They have different political systems, but it’s none of
our business, we can still deal with them. The problem with Russia
is that they always want to interfere with our affairs.” Antonenko,
however, feels that there might be more the Georgian side could do
to engage Russia. “It’s very strange that the Georgians have failed
completely to identify any positive agenda with Russia – they are
the only country in the CIS that has failed to do so,” she said.
“Russian-Azeri relations were also strained, and there was also
the issue of meddling in internal affairs over Karabakh. But now
Azerbaijan has managed on the one hand to have friendly relations
with the United States, including discussing U.S. military bases
on Azeri territory, and on the other to retain good relations with
Russia.” She also pointed to the situation in Ukraine, where both
sides have made moderately successful attempts to mend relations in
the aftermath of the Orange Revolution.
Not everyone in Georgia is happy with the course that the Rose
Revolution has taken since the triumphant parliament takeover in
November 2003, when almost every pro-democracy politician in the
country jumped on the Saakashvili bandwagon to rid the country of
the government of Eduard Shevardnadze. Though individual opposition
parties remain marginal, the chorus of discontented voices is
growing. The most frequent accusations are that Saakashvili wheels
out the “freedom and democracy” rhetoric for Western leaders, but
the reality for ordinary Georgians is somewhat different. “Personal
freedoms are still sacrificed to achieve bigger societal objectives,”
said David Usupashvili, chairman of the Republican Party, a moderate
opposition force. “There’s no room for the rule of law, human rights
or other basic principles of democracy,” he continued. A particular
sticking point is a high-profile murder case in which high-level
Interior Ministry officials are implicated in a cover-up.
When it comes to relations with Russia, Usupashvili feels that
Saakashvili’s “childish rhetoric” has inflamed the situation: “We
need to engage with Russia, and to behave as a mature government
that is willing to guarantee its own security, but also doesn’t
pose a threat to anyone.” However, even the opposition leaders feel
that Moscow’s intentions are hostile. “It’s more than clear that the
current Russian government and leadership do not want a civilized and
normal relationship with Georgia, nor do they want to recognize its
territorial integrity,” said Usupashvili. “There would be no talk of
NATO if it weren’t for the security threat coming from Russia. We saw
in the 1990s what it means to be alone facing Russia with its unclear,
unbalanced policies in the Caucasus region.”
A particular thorn in the side of bilateral relations are the “frozen
conflicts” in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Georgia has recently
been doing its best to thaw out. Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili
recently promised that if he does not celebrate the coming new year in
the South Ossetian capital, he will resign. In Tbilisi, the conflicts
are seen not as independence struggles but as proxy conflicts fought
by Russia to retain influence in the South Caucasus.
“There are two sides in these conflicts,” said Kudava. “But it’s not
like Russia would like us to believe. This is not between Georgians
and Ossetians, or between Georgians and Abkhaz. These are conflicts
between Russia and Georgia.”
Georgians at all levels are adamant that the impetus for improved
relations with Russia has to come from Russia itself. “Russia
should understand that it is in its best interests to have a stable,
prosperous, integrated and unified Georgia,” said Kudava. “We need
Russia to be more flexible and constructive, and have stability on
the southern slopes of the Caucasus.” Even those ordinary Georgians
who fondly eulogize that the standard of living was better in the
Soviet Union seem to have no warm feelings for the current Russian
leadership. Criticism and non-comprehension of the Putin government
is almost universal. But ultimately, it is Georgia that will lose
out the most from the current state of affairs. “Georgia, after all,
is not an island in the Indian Ocean,” said Antonenko. “It’s on the
border with Russia and it cannot afford to have such poor relations
with its northern neighbor.”

G8: “Core principles on peaceful settlement of Armenia-Azerbaijan
conflict should be agreed in 2006”
Today, Azerbaijan
July 17 2006
The G8 Summit of heads of states held in the Russian city of St
Petersburg was closed today.
As APA reports, the final Communique drawn up on behalf of Russia
chairing the G8 summit touches on the Nagorno Karabakh, Kosovo and
other regional conflicts.
The G8 leaders stress importance of finding and agreeing on
core principles on peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh,
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in 2006.
“We confirmed that the Eight Group supports mediating efforts of
the OSCE Minsk Group and stresses importance of soonest reaching an
agreement on core principles for peaceful settlement of the conflict in
2006. We call on Azerbaijan and Armenia to demonstrate political will,
reach an agreement and prepare their peoples for peace not for war,”
the Communique underlines.
URL:

ARMENIAN COMMAND IS LIKELY TO WAGE WAR WITHOUT PEOPLE
Lragir.am
17 July 06
Over the past ten months the U.S. Army has stepped up a single
military operation without reservists. It happened in Grenada, a tiny
island-state. The operation in Iraq required serious mobilization,
including foreign forces. When a military conflict between two states
is prepared, whose troops count several tens of thousand, military
planning cannot overlook the possibility of a lasting and large-scale
war. At the same time, there is information that the Command of Armenia
is likely to resolve all the military problems without reserves. This
stance is devoid of military logic, it is absolutely nonsensical and
is based on the personal and group interests of the Command and the
government. It seems that the possibility of resumption of war is
rather big, and it will be unforgivable to view the upcoming military
operations as a “medium scale” armed conflict. Nobody has the right
to stake the country’s security on obstinate and pointless assertion
of their doubtful views.
It is not a secret that the Armenian Command is hopeful to crush
the rival in a large-scale preventive operation. However, it would
be impossible without increasing significantly the army personnel.
Military experts say the number of reservists and their effectiveness
is sufficient to carry out a successful military operation. However,
it is nevertheless necessary to revive the tradition of Karabakh War
I and create defense squads. Under certain conditions these defense
squads can carry out important military tasks, not only in trenches
but also in offensives. It should be noted that when there was a
scorched smell in the air in spring 1988, 25,500 participants of
the war in Karabakh returned to Armenia within two weeks, including
a number of young people, who had to leave Armenia to look for jobs
abroad. These people, away from the homeland, organized additional and
charter flights and bus trips from the adjacent regions. It was not
the initiative of the government, it was a natural reaction of this
contingent of people. Now it is high time to take up the registration
of volunteers again and implement the project of distributing weapon
to volunteers. If the government in its present state does not trust
these people, who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the Homeland,
how can one trust such a government? However, mobilization after
resumption of military actions seems even more nonsensical. One can
be sure to state that the reason for such a strange behavior of the
Armenian Command is the reluctance to increase the public and political
status of the Armed Forces and the number of people in the society,
who have guns, because it may lead to an attempt of the military
sets to interfere with political matters. Besides a number of reserve
officers most commanders of defense squads in Karabakh War I share this
opinion. Patriots have not forgotten that there are tasks in Karabakh
which have not been fulfilled yet. This contradicts with the concept
of building of the Armenian armed forces and operational plans. No
doubt the stance of the Armenian Command may lead to military success
and may damage the country’s defensive capacity. It is notable that
this stance of the Armenian Command is officially approved by the
Defense Ministry of Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
In this situation the parliaments of Armenia and NKR, political
parties, non-governmental organizations, military experts and the
media must give their evaluation of this stance. In this situation
different views on the country’s security cannot be left out of
debate. Such an important defense potential cannot be allowed to be
used so inefficiently due to personal and group interests of statesmen
and politicians.
If the leadership of the Armenian Ministry of Defense is so generous
as to hope to fulfill military plans with a limited resource,
combatant generals are eventually obliged to express their point
of view, which essentially differs from that of the administration
and the political leadership. The fact that the officer corps and
participants of volunteer organizations are too politicized is a sign
of moral pureness and responsibility of the public rather than internal
threat or non-loyalty to the government. And the idea put forward in
the political sphere that military actions will be sparked if weapon
is distributed to defense squads is nonsense, and nobody believes it.

MASTER ARTAVAZD PELESHIAN:TIME IS AGAINST ME, WHILE CINEMA IS AGAINST TIME
Yerevan, July 14. ArmInfo.”I believe that the time will come, and the
scientific-technical progress will help the humanity to read the code
of the nature and reveal the unknown world that includes the entire
history of our Universe,” Artavazd Peleshian, one of the great master
of world’s cinematography, prominent documentary director, said this
at today’s master class within the framework of “Golden Apricot” film
festival. Mr. Pelelshian said this in response to a visitor’s question
who asked whether he is concerned about the new technical inventions
that may replace real actors and film production methods used today. He
said that in the beginning the inventions and discoveries may frighten,
but later it turns out that the men of art may use them for their
own purposes without losing the art value of the film.
The author of the so called “distance montage” which helps reveal
“the absent reality” stated that he tries to fully reflect his view
of “the nature’s code” in all of his films. He added that in the
course of the montage a certain magnetic field is created between
the first and the second layers and helps to see the third, a newer
and more real one. Mr. Peleshian stated that as compared with the
associative, poetic and other types of montage, the distance montage
help see the real essence of the world, i.e., in his own terms “the
absent reality.” Besides, he emphasized the importance of musical
accompaniment. “I like when in any film the music and the images
change their places and the music penetrates the space of the image
and the image enters the space of the musical layer. We can’t achieve
the expected effect without this “fusion,” Mr. Peleshian said. At the
same time, he stated with regret that he can’t shoot films for already
14 years because of the financial problems. In particular, the lack of
about $10 million hinders him shoot the film “Homo Sapiens.” Peleshian
wrote the script to this film already in 1968. He even intended to
shoot the film in collaboration with the French cinematographers,
but the financial problems prevented to begin the work. Even Jean
Luc Godard, great French film director, was very impressed by the
film’s script.
He added that in March, 2006, he agreed with Gevorgian, the former
RA Culture Minister, to begin the film screening works. Gevorgian
promised to spare no efforts to help him, but soon he resigned and
a new minister was appointed. “I still hope that I will be able to
begin the screening of the film,” Mr. Peleshian said.
In the end of the master class Mr. Peleshian said: “Some people talk
of the phenomenon of my art, though I personally see no phenomenon. I
believe that the time is against me, while my art is against the time.”

Dance festival after Vanushs Khanamiryan and Sukhishvili to open in Kobuleti
ArmRadio.am
12.07.2006 11:40
An unprecedented dance festival after Vanushs Khanamiryan and
Sukhishvili will open today in Kobuleti, Georgia. 500 dancers from
30 groups will participate in the event.
Seminars will be organized during the six days of the festival. These
will provide the opportunity for the two peoples to introduce each
other to their history and choreography.

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline Opens in Turkey
PanARMENIAN.Net
13.07.2006 14:27 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In Ceyhan, a town in the Mediterranean coast of
Turkey, the opening ceremony of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline
will be held.
The pipeline is considered to be a strategically important corridor,
joining Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia. Presidents of Turkey,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan will participate in the ceremony.
The 1776-km pipeline passes through territories of three countries –
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. 50 million tons of Caspian oil can
be pumped via it to world markets.
Ankara hoped George Bush and Tony Blair would arrive for the opening
ceremony, but they did not. These leaders already have meetings within
G8 summit in St. Petersburg.
Representatives of 32 countries will go to the terminal, named after
late Azeri President Heydar Aliyev. The Presidents will arrive in
Injirlik US military air base nearby. Roads to Ceyhan are taken under
special control, BBC reports.

BÝA, Turkey
July 11 2006
BIA² Releases 2nd Quarterly Monitoring Report
Monitoring media freedoms and rights in Turkey, BIA² discloses 56
“Freedom of Expression” cases launched against 67 individuals from
April through June as government still seeks to impose new
restrictions. Turkey pays ECHR 332,000 YTL in 1.5 years.
BIA News Center
11/07/2006 Erol ONDEROGLU
BÝA (Istanbul) – “Perihan Magden, Birgul Ozbaris and Gokhan Gencay
face up to 27 years imprisonment in total on charges of ‘discouraging
the public from military service’.
Everyone from journalists to tradespeople collide with freedom of
expression limitations as charges are pressed. While Turkey loses at
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) freedom of expression cases,
the taxpayer has to pay the compensation collectively”.
The 2006 2nd Quarterly Report prepared by the “Network in Turkey for
Monitoring and Covering Media Freedom and Independent Journalism” –
BIA² Media Monitoring Desk and covering the months of April, May and
June discloses factual details on the situation of the media in
relation to rights and freedoms.
The 12-page BIA² report discloses that 56 new “Freedom of Expression”
have been launched against 67 individuals from April through June as
the government still seeks to impose new restrictions.
Covering the persecution of journalists and writers Nese Duzel,
Sebati Karakurt, Perihan Magden, Hrant Dink, Birgul Ozbaris, Gokhan
Gencay, Abdurrahman Dilipak, Memik Horuz, Evrim Dengiz, Nesrin Yazar,
Rustu Demirkaya, Elif Shafak, Semih Sokmen, Aslý Bicen, Sabri Ejder
Ozic, Murat Belge, Murat Yetkin, Hasip Kaplan, Emine Senlikoglu,
Mehmet Sevket Eygi and Musa Agacik the report stresses that Turkey
has already been made to pay over 332,000 YTL (USD 207.500) in
compensation in only 1.5 years at cases heard by the ECHR.
“While the reforms on the road to European Union membership were
important steps for freedom of expression the Justice and Development
Party (AKP) government has not only ignored the grave consequences
created by the Criminal Code in just a year but has even passed a new
form of the Anti-Terror Law (TMY) knowing it only brought more
sentences at the ECHR in the past and does so today too” says the
report.
BIA²: Government takes freedoms lightly
BIA² Media Monitoring Desk’s report deals with the situation of
journalists, writers and activists persecuted and prosecuted in
Turkey under the headlines “attacks and threats”, “detentions and
arrests “, “trials and initiatives”, “European Court of Human
Rights”, “RTUK applications”, “adjustments and seeking justice” and
“Reaction to censorship”.
The report contains information on 56 court cases launched against 67
people, four journalists seeking their rights at local courts and 15
individuals who have applied to the European Court of Human Rights.
Charges made under Turkish Penal Code (TCK) article 288 (attempting
to influence justice), 301/159 (Insulting Turkishness and state
institutions), 318 (Discouraging the people from military service),
216 (Inciting hatred and enmity) are highlighted in the report
together with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reply to
criticism of his conduct by filing for damages.
The “Independence” of Justice
The report cites developments over the past three months that reveal
problems with regard to the independence of justice in Turkey.
It notes that while the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors has
no structural or functional autonomy, the fact that the Office of the
Chief of General Staff and the Police force are at top of the list of
institutions filing criminal complaints “creates a concerning picture
for the freedom of media and expression”.
“Covering a wide section of society from journalists to tradespeople
at least 40 people have been put on trial or are still being tried
under article 159 of the old TCK and article 301 of the new Code” it
says.
Anti-Terror Law
The report states that while the consequences of the Penal Code are
so clear the government’s approval of the Anti-Terror Law (TMY) means
“the freedom of media and expression of opinions is taken lightly”.
The TMY that was passed by Parliament on June 29 and is currently the
source of journalist Nese Duzel and Sebati Karakurt’s trial does not
only increase prison terms and extend them to new areas but in
certain conditions also extends the criminal responsibility in
publications from newspaper owners and editor-in-chiefs to
“publication executives” the report warns.
It adds that the law amends previous articles in such way “that
monetary fines are now changed to prison terms and allows the
stopping of publications will also be a serious obstacle in the
debate of issues such as the Kurdish problem and media coverage of
these issues”.
Says the report:
“The case launched against journalist Hrant Dink for his article
series ‘Armenian Identity’ under article 159 turned into an adventure
displaying differences of evaluation between local courts and the
Supreme Court, constituting an important example. As observed in
other “inciting hatred and enmity” cases, the Dink case also damaged
“the feeling of justice” being upheld.
Human rights activists have now tied hoped to President Ahmet Necdet
Sezer’s veto of the TMY which has in the past 1.5 year alone cost
Turkey 332.500 YTL at the European Court of Human Rights”.
10 attacks on media, journalists in prison go up to 4
According to the report, nine journalists and one publishing company
have been attacked in the past three months while two journalists
have been threatened.
In the same period of last year the number of attacks recorded was 7.
Another determination made by the report is that journalists working
for the Kurdish press are frequently being charged with “assisting
the PKK”.
“Isci Koylu” [Workers Peasants] magazine Editor-in-Chief Memik Horuz
was the only journalist “under arrest in prison in the scope of press
freedoms” until the new year but since then Dicle News Agency (DÝHA)
reporters Evrim Dengiz, Nesrin Yazar and Rustu Demirkaya have been
added to the list bringing up the number to 4 in six months.
“Assisting the PKK” cases launched against the three journalists
continues.
“Discouraging military service” a spreading threat
“Ulkede Ozgur Gundem” newspaper reporter Birgul Ozbaris has been
charged seven times in trials related to her news coverage and
interviews on conscientious objection and she faces 21 years
imprisonment if found guilty.
“Birgun” newspaper Sunday Supplementary editor Gokhan Gencay
interviewed conscientious objector Erkan Bolot, “Yeni Aktuel”
magazine writer Perihan Magden wrote an article titled “Conscientious
Objection is a Human Right”. Both journalists face three years
imprisonment each.
With amendments made in the Military justice and trial procedures,
the trial of individuals such as Abdurrahman Dilipak at military
courts will not be possible but civilian courts will be allowed to
attribute to the Military Criminal Code where such trials are heard.
Article 301 puts over 40 on trial
The allegation of “Insulting Turkishness” has last been leveled
against “Father and Bastard” novel author Elif Shafak, Metis
Publishing House chief Semih Sokmen and translatorAsli Bicen.
An investigation on the same charge was also launched against the
Head of the Armenian Apostolic Church Karekin II.
The justice system and security forces continue to show tolerance to
Unity of Jurists group member attorney Kemal Kerincsiz and his
associates who spread violence into court cases.
Radio broadcaster gets 6 months under 301
The Adana 5th Court of First Instance sentenced radio broadcaster
Sabri Ejder Ozic to 6 months imprisonment under article 301 for
“publicly insulting the parliament” despite opinions presented to the
court by the Court of Appeals Public Prosecutor and the court’s own
prosecutor. The court neither deferred the sentence nor turned it
into a monetary fine.
Yetkin faces 4.5 years for criticizing court case
It appears that the allegation of “attempting to influence a fair
trial” that faces journalists every time judicial decisions are
debated, is to continue to be a long-term problem.
Even though the case launched against “Radikal” newspaper writer
Murat Belge for criticizing a court decision banning a conference on
Ottoman Armenians resulted with an acquittal, four writers from
“Radikal” and “Milliyet” newspapers were not fully cleared when the
prosecution appealed against their acquittal.
On top of these, a prosecutor now demands 4.5 years imprisonment for
“Radikal” newspaper writer Murat Yetkin for criticizing the court
case against renown author Orhan Pamuk.
TCK’s article 216 is also leading to different consequences in
judiciary practice. Jurist Hasip Kaplan who expressed his views on
contemporary issues on a television program aired by “Flash TV” was
acquitted in the case where he was charged with “inciting hatred and
enmity”.
However, journalist-writer Emine Senlikoglu was sentenced to 12
months imprisonment for expressing her views on a television program
she attended in Manavgat in the year 2000.
This allegation was also leveled against “Milli Gazete” newspaper
writer Mehmet Sevket Eygi in the past three months.
Following up on the kicking
Journalist Musa Agacik who four years ago was covering Prime Minister
Erdogan during a festival was kicked by the PM’s bodyguard Murat
Oksuz . Star newspaper reporter Agacik could find no one to testify
as witness to the assault but pursued his claim that resulted with an
administrative monetary fine for Oksuz. (EO/II/YE)
* The full report in Turkish can be obtained from Bianet. Please
contact Erol Onderoglu, Tel: 0212 251 1503 Fax: 251 1609 e-mail:
[email protected] for more information.
–Boundary_(ID_E+Rd6Lhe6XN++yOpOkW6J Q)–