Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

RUSSIAN, ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS DISCUSS KARABAKH SETTLEMENT BY PHONE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
July 18 2011
Russia

A telephone conversation took place on 18 July between Sergey Lavrov,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and Edvard
Nalbandyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia,
during which they discussed various aspects of the situation
surrounding Nagornyy Karabakh.

The urgency was accentuated of the practical realization of the
accords reached as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had met with
President Serzh Sargsyan of the Republic of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev
of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Astrakhan (27 October 2010) and Sochi
(5 March 2011) on the need to strictly observe the cessation of fire
regime, to implement on a reciprocal basis additional security and
confidence building measures and to cooperate in the investigation
of incidents.

The humanitarian component of efforts to establish a favourable
atmosphere for resolving the conflict also was touched upon.

Nalbandyan advised that a response from Serzh Sargsyan to Dmitry
Medvedev’s message following the meeting among the Presidents of
Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in Kazan on 24 June 2011 would soon
arrive.

From: Baghdasarian

IS THE KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS PUSHING GOVERNMENT-OPPOSITION DIALOGUE?
by Marianna Grigoryan

EurasiaNet

July 20 2011
NY

After years of acrimony, the Armenian government and the country’s
largest opposition group sat down recently to open a political
dialogue. Some analysts in Yerevan believe the discussions stem
from a government desire to minimize distractions as it considers
recent Russian proposals to resolve the 23-year-long Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

Just last month, the government backed away from earlier suggestions
that it would meet with representatives of former president Levon
Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress (ANC). “Ultimatums are
unacceptable, and addressing each other with ultimatums is a behavior
that leads nowhere,” President Serzh Sargsyan asserted in a June
17 statement.

Presidential spokesperson Armen Arzumanian surprised many Armenians
on July 9 when he announced that the governing coalition, in fact,
had formed a working group to meet with ANC representatives. The
closed-door talks on July 18 went on for nearly two hours at Yerevan’s
downtown Erebuni Plaza Hotel. After wrapping up the meeting, both
sides pledged to continue discussions on “a wide range of issues.” A
date for their next meeting has not yet been set.

“The main goal is to pass from absolute confrontation to more
cooperative work, and this does not at all mean that political
disagreements between us will be smoothed away,” the head of the
government’s delegation, Republican Party of Armenia member David
Harutiunian, told journalists. “However, such a platform will enable
us to hear each other’s opinion.”

The ANC delegation echoed that position. “We have our solution
[to the standoff with the government] — that is, presidential and
parliamentary elections,” said ANC coordinator Levon Zurabian. “But
at the same time, we have agreed that both parties have equal rights,
and [the government] also can propose their solutions.”

Independent political analyst Yervand Bozoian sees more than a desire
for cooperation as the motivation behind the government’s about-face
on the talks. As elsewhere in the Caucasus, July is tends to be quiet
time for politics, he noted. “The prompt response by Serzh Sargsyan
saying he is ready to speed up the process made me think that he has
serious problems on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and has to come to
terms with Levon Ter-Petrosian,” Bozoian reasoned. “Only one factor
can be present here; I suppose it is the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.”

After lackluster round of Karabakh peace talks on June 24 in the
Russian city of Kazan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited
Yerevan on July 8 with fresh proposals for a political settlement. The
Armenian government’s about-face on talks with the opposition came
a day later.

Lavrov shuttled off to Baku the same day, and then, on July 11, he
visited Washington, DC. Yerevan has not yet made an official statement
concerning the new Russian proposals, but Azerbaijan reportedly
has provided a written response. Details of that response, however,
have not been made public.

Asked whether Karabakh could have influenced the Armenian government’s
decision to engage the opposition, governing Republican Party MP
Hovhannes Sahakian conceded that “[f]oreign policy dictates domestic
policy.” At the same time, Sahakian underlined that “we cannot say
that, following the Kazan meeting, the authorities have weakened their
position and that is why they agreed to meet with the opposition.”

Armenian Center for Political and International Studies political
analyst Ruben Mehrabian believes that the Karabakh conflict is one of
the “reasons” for the dialogue, but added that public pressure may
also have played a role. The government, mindful of the Arab Spring
example, could not “but pay attention to the voice of society,” which
is expressing increasing anger about unemployment and labor migration,
among other topics, Mehrabian claimed. He termed the dialogue “a
manifestation of rationality” by both government and opposition.

Which side will emerge from the talks as the perceived “winner” is
anyone’s guess. Bozoian contends that the government’s decision to
start negotiations strengthened the ANC’s position, but ANC coordinator
Zurabian noted that no concrete proposal from the government yet has
been put on the negotiating table.

Both Mehrabian and Bozoian nonetheless predict that change – in
whatever form — is in the wind. “[T]his will happen despite the hot
weather and the perception that summer is a dead season in terms of
politics,” concluded Mehrabian.

Editor’s note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in
Yerevan and the editor of MediaLab.am.

From: Baghdasarian

OF ARMENIA INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS

Mnistry of Foreign Affairs

July 14 2011
Armenia

Speech by H.E. Mr. Edward Nalbandian, Foreign Minister of the Republic

Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,

It is my pleasure to be in the friendly Ireland and deliver a speech
at the esteemed Institute of International and European Affairs. It
is not so often that we have mutual visits to Dublin and Yerevan, but
this does not decrease the warmth and friendly feelings both Armenians
and Irish people emanate towards one another. The Irish proverb
“what is seldom is wonderful” (An rud is annamh is iontach) probably
contains much truth in it, but in promoting political dialogue and
strengthening friendship regularity of contacts and meetings is a must.

I have a particular feeling being here because with the Irish people
the Armenians share many similarities. We both have huge diasporas
spread around the world. Thus, Armenians and the Irish meet one
another on a daily basis in the USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia
and other places.

We share interesting similarities in belief systems, art, literature
and architecture, despite the fact that for a very long period of
history Ireland and Armenia represented the opposite frontiers of
the Christian world. It is a historical fact that the cousins of
the modern day Irish, the ancient Galatian Celts, were neighbors to
our Armenian forefathers some 2.000 years ago. It is also a striking
similarity of historical past that Christianity became the religion
of the Armenians and the Irish quite early in history.

Armenians were the first in the world to become a Christian state
in the beginning of the 4th century, Christianity was introduced to
Ireland in the beginning of the 5th century. Another amazing similarity
is that the Armenians and the Celts are the two only peoples around
the world which have richly decorated cross-stones and which are one
of our civilisational heritages. The similarities of the cross-stones
are simply striking. By the way, UNESCO named the Armenian cross-stone
art as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

The political history of Armenia and Ireland, have had some
interesting features too. An example of them is that, one of the
prominent Armenians of the 18th century, Joseph Emin, who was also
a key figure in the Armenian liberation movement, for more than 30
years was a close friend to one of the Irish national heroes and most
eminent political thinkers, Edmund Burke and was greatly influenced
by Burke’s ideas. The fact that Irish academic institutions have been
interested in Armenian history and culture can not go unnoticed.

Recently Chester Beatty Library published a book “The Armenians: Art,
Culture and Religion”, which is a new assessment of the Armenian
Collection of Chester Beatty Library. This library has one of the
largest collections of Armenian medieval manuscripts in Europe.

Not only the close contacts since the earliest times and the
preservation of those ties throughout centuries, but also the
strong civilizational links between the two nations, sympathy
towards each other and sharing similar or very close approaches on
many international and regional issues have made our countries as
natural friends.

Currently the Armenian-Irish relations could have been much more
developed given the existing potential for developing political,
economic, touristic, trade, and cultural relations. And together
with my colleague, Mr. Eamon Gilmore, Minister of Foreign Affairs
and Trade of Ireland we will try to fill in this gap.

Armenia pursues multi-vector foreign policy. On the regional level it
is motivated not by attempts of capitalizing on differences between
the major powers, but by partnership and cooperation. In building
and developing such relations with our partners we believe in the
principles of reciprocity, trust, goodwill, mutual interests and
respect. These values are entrenched in our strategic relations with
Russia, in our close friendly partnership with the United States, in
our strong relationships with the European Union and in the meaningful
cooperation with other regions.

Armenia-EU relations stand high in Armenia’s foreign policy agenda.

With the launch of the Eastern Partnership two years ago we have
got increased opportunities of cooperation in all spheres of mutual
interest. Armenia is strongly committed to making the most of those
opportunities as we regard them not only a useful mechanism for
the advancement of the reforms process in Armenia, but also for
good-spirited cooperation among the partner states.

With this being said I would like to refer to the good progress in
negotiations on the future Association Agreement between Armenia
and the EU, which will define our new contractual relations for the
years ahead. In terms of boosting and deepening of economic and trade
cooperation we expect the establishment of a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Area to be conducive to increased economic relations with
the EU, Armenia’s largest trade partner.

The issue of visa facilitation remains of high importance for us too.

As we speak of partnership between participating states and the EU we
bear in mind that the primary beneficiaries of this process are the
societies on both sides. Therefore we must provide favorable conditions
for our citizens to exercise their right to free communication,
interaction and exchanges. We have strong indications from Brussels
that decision on visa facilitation talks can be issued before the
Eastern partnership summit in Poland this September.

I would not go into the specificities in this respect and would rather
turn to the recent developments in the two foreign policy challenges
that are of concern to Armenia, as well as to the whole region and
the international community in general. They are the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process and the Armenian-Turkish relations.

The history of the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is well known. As
a week ago the Washington Post coined it, Karabakh was assigned,
by Joseph Stalin, to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. So I
would not go back to the period of 1921, when a group of Bolsheviks
with just one signature decided to pass the Armenian territories of
Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhijevan to a recently created state, which
in 1918 was named Azerbaijan. The ethnic cleansing successfully
carried out in Nakhijevan throughout the Soviet period, failed in
Nagorno-Karabakh. The desire of the Nagorno-Karabakhi Armenians to
implement their right to self determination was reacted by massacres
of Armenians in different parts of Azerbaijani. In this situation
Armenia faced two options. Either stand by and witness the total
extermination of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh
and Azerbaijan or defend their right to survival. We chose the second
option. An agreement signed in May 1994 between Nagorno-Karabakh,
Azerbaijan and joined by Armenia ended the military phase of the
conflict.

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, represented by the USA, Russia and
France, has been the internationally mandated negotiating format for
this conflict.

Here I would like to underline that the fact that next year Ireland
will assume the chairmanship of the OSCE is of essential importance
in terms of contribution to the negotiation process within the OSCE
Minsk group format.

In the past there have been different approaches, proposals and
suggestions by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs for the resolution of the
conflict. The negotiations are currently conducted on the basis of
the Madrid proposals that were presented to the sides in November 2007.

And as history tends to repeat, ten years after the Key West, in 2011,
the current Azerbaijani leadership currently also is unable to heed
to the appeals of the international community “to take a decisive
step towards a peaceful settlement.”

The essence of the Madrid proposals are the three principles of non
use or threat of force, self-determination and territorial integrity,
and 14 elements, the main six of which were presented in the statements
of Presidents of the Co-Chair countries, Barack Obama, Dmitri Medvedev
and Nikolas Sarkozy, in the frameworks of the G8 Summits in L’Aquila
in 2009 and Muskoka 2010. Less than two months ago, in late May, ahead
of the planned Kazan meeting, the Presidents of Co-Chair countries
made another statement in Deauville, referring to their earlier
statements, added that “the use of force created the current situation
of confrontation and instability. Its use again would be condemned by
the international community.” The three Presidents strongly urge the
leaders of the sides to prepare their populations for peace, not war.

Anyone with the minimum knowledge of the political climate in the
South Caucasus region knows well which of the sides of the conflict
is preparing its population for war, which of the sides is repeatedly
threatening to use force, which of the sides is preaching war, which
of the sides is multiplying its military budget and bragging about
it, which of the sides is propagating hatred towards the other side,
which of the sides is blockading the other and feeding tales of
distorted history about the other.

In this regard there was no shortage of practical proposals which
could ameliorate the situation. The international community, the UN
Secretary General, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, and different
OSCE Chairmanship, including the current Lithuanian, have made several
proposals on consolidation of cease-fire and on withdrawal of snipers
from the Line of Contact, which were all rejected by the Azerbaijani
side, while Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh responded positively. The
President of Armenia proposed to reach an agreement on non-use of
force, which was supported by international community. Azerbaijan
rejected again.

All principles and elements proposed by the leaders of the three
Co-Chair countries have been conceived as an integrated whole. Armenia
welcomed this approach. While Azerbaijan rejects all the proposed
principles but one, and all the elements, but one. Azerbaijan attempts
to misrepresent that only one principle, the territorial integrity
and only one element, return of territories, have priority over all
the others.

That is why in Almaty in July 2010 the three Co-Chairs stated that all
the principles and elements have been conceived as wholeness and no
principle or element can be separated from the others or can prevail
over the others. In Astana, the US Secretary of State, on behalf of
the other Co-Chair countries, reaffirmed this approach.

We went to the Kazan meeting, initiated by the President Medvedev and
supported by Presidents Obama and Sarkozy, with a positive mood and
feeling that we could reach an agreement on the Basic Principles of
the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. In Deauville the Co-Chair countries
had urged the Presidents to come to an agreement in Kazan. President
Obama in his phone conversations with the Presidents had made the
same appeal. The President of France Sarkozy had sent messages to the
Presidents, as well.The President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan during his
speech in PACE in Strasbourg just before Kazan stated that it would be
possible to expect positive results, progress in Kazan if Azerbaijan
did not propose new amendments as was expected by the three Co-Chairs.

Yet, the Kazan summit didn’t achieve a breakthrough, because Azerbaijan
was not ready to accept the last version of the Basic Principles
proposed by the three Co-Chairs. The Azerbaijani side proposed ten
changes and amendments, and that is the reason why the Kazan meeting
did not result in a breakthrough.

As soon as Azerbaijan gets rid of its big illusions that money
stemming from oil revenues could become a major factor in the conflict
resolution in favor of its interests, as soon as Azerbaijan gets rid
of its attempts of directing oil revenues for funding a new military
adventurism then, we can hope that progress in the peace process
could be more visible. Azerbaijan would gain more by redirecting
its resources and energies to peaceful discourse and at reaching a
compromised solution.

Concerning the Armenian-Turkish normalization process, the
Armenian-Turkish relations were in a deadlock when the President
of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan initiated the normalization process with
Turkey. The Armenian initiative met a positive response by the Turkish
President and allowed us to attempt to make an investment in a durable
rapprochement.

Our position was reflected in the well-known approach of normalization
of relations without any preconditions. It was the bottom-line
principle for starting the negotiations with Turkey. With this
common understanding we started, conducted this process and came to
the agreements. From the beginning of the process up until now this
approach has been shared by the whole international community-starting
from the Swiss mediators to the Secretary-General of the U.N, the OSCE,
the EU, the U.S., Russia, France and many other countries.

Unfortunately Turkey has backtracked from the reached agreements. Not
only has it refrained from ratifying the protocols, but Ankara has
returned to the language of preconditions that it had used before
the beginning of the process. Turkey has attempted to link the
Armenian-Turkish normalization process to the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, thus keeping its borders with Armenia
closed and refusing to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia.

Any Turkish attempts to link the normalization of its relations with
Armenia upon its own perception of progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh
talks, harms both processes. This is a position that countries involved
in Armenia-Turkey normalization and Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks,
representing the whole international community, have emphasized
several times.

Turkey also uses the normalization process as a smokescreen for
baseless argument that the adoption of resolutions on the Armenian
Genocide in various countries can damage the normalization process.

Yet, from the beginning of the process we made clear both in our
contacts with the Turkish partners as well as publicly that Armenia
will never put under question the fact of the Armenian Genocide or
the importance of its international recognition.

The negotiations between Armenia and Turkey were finalized by the
signature of the protocols and now the only remaining step in this
long lasting process is the ratification and implementation of the
Armenian-Turkish protocols without any preconditions and delays. And
the international community expects exactly that from Turkey.

When Secretary Clinton was in Armenia last year on the National Day
of the USA, during the Press Conference echoing the international
community’s common stance on this issue she observed that Armenia
passed its way, and that the ball is in Turkey’s court and Turkey
should take the steps that it promised to take.

I would like to summarize by a quote from the great James Joyce’s novel
Ulysses, which the Armenian reader has a pleasure to read in Armenian.

Bloom says: “Force, hatred. That’s not life for men and women, insult
and hatred. And everybody knows that it’s the very opposite of that,
that is really life.”

“What?” says Alf.

“Love,” says Bloom. “I mean the opposite of hatred.”

We, the Armenians and Irish know well what hatred can lead to and
what love can lead to.

I should stop here and give the floor to you for questions.

Thank you!

From: Baghdasarian

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON ‘RETURN OF CHURCHES’ TO CHRISTIANS IN TURKEY

news.am
July 20 2011
Armenia

WASHINGTON. – On the 37th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion in Cyprus,
a key Congressional panel will vote on the amendment aiming to press
Turkey to end its repression of its Christian minorities and call
to the return of Christian churches to their rightful owners, the
Armenian Weekly informs.

According to the sources on Capitol Hill, members of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee will amend the State Department Authorization bill
in accordance with Resolution 306-the “Return of Churches”. It was
initiated by representatives Ed Royce and Howard Berman. Both are
members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Armenian Americans across the U.S. are continuing to make thousands
of phone calls to their Representatives in support of the measure.

Armenian American clergy on Wednesday are expected to attend the
House panel proceeding.

The measure has also received broad support from the Greek and Assyrian
communities in the U.S.

From: Baghdasarian

POLITICAL ANALYST: ARMENIANS’ GROWING INFLUENCE IN KREMLIN STIPULATES COLLAPSE OF RUSSIA’S POLICY IN CAUCASUS

Trend
July 20 2011
Azerbaijan

Center for Political Innovation and Technologies Director Mubariz
Ahmadoglu

The Armenians slightly calmed down during the last period of Russian
ex-President Boris Yeltsin’s and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin’s presidency and activated after Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev. This activity is directed against Russia, and especially
against the interests of Russia in the Caucasus region.

For example, famous actor Armen Jigharkhanyan, who lives in Moscow,
has been recently making statements to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Official Yerevan does not like these statements. Therefore,
his name is not on the list of Moscow’s rich Armenians, who got the
positions from the Russian government and participate in social and
political life of the country.

The Armenians, who openly or covertly support the Armenian separatism
and anti-Russian activity of Armenia, get positions and are rewarded
by the current leadership of Russia.

Surrounding the Russian leadership, the Armenians are trying to prevent
it from thinking independently and to make decisions. A good example
is the collapse of the USSR under the guise of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Although there were periods when Russian politicians and
officials put much more pressure on Azerbaijan, than the Armenians.

The growing influence of the Armenians in the Kremlin stipulates the
collapse of Russia’s policy in the Caucasus because the main goal
of the Armenians is to keep Russia’s relations with the Caucasian
peoples in its monopoly. Because of this, Russia has never been able
to establish normal relations with the Georgians, Azerbaijanis and
the peoples of the North Caucasus. Russia’s ties with the peoples of
the Caucasus must be established with the help of the Armenians. In
this case, the Russian people will more need the Armenians.

The Armenians need Russia to threaten its neighbors. Armenia does not
have normal relations with any of the four neighboring countries. Even
the Armenian-Iranian relations are rather inconsistent. A group of
people in Iran thinks that Armenia is tired of Russia and is ready
to integrate with Iran any moment.

Armenian officials and politicians have a deeply thought-out policy
and strategy toward Iran, which significantly helps Armenia. The
experts knowing Armenia understand very well the purpose of this
policy. Armenia protects its “anti-Iranian plans” for the future for
the sake of its political goals.

Armenian territorial claims against Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia
are obvious. But in terms of the territory, population and other
resources, Armenia is a small country. It can not threaten anybody
alone. Therefore, Armenia has a military base of the Russian Federation
on its territory on its own means.

Controversial Armenia tries first to create conflicts against Russia
for it to come under Armenian influence. Otherwise, it is impossible
to explain the behavior of the Armenians, discussing the problems of
the Northern Caucasus in Europe and the Baltics, although they have
no geographical and ethnic links with the North Caucasus.

However, if necessary the Armenians build mosques for Muslims in
the North Caucasus. There are many examples of these “disservices”
provided to Russia by Armenia. Armenia openly supports the independence
movement of the North Caucasus peoples, including Chechens.

Russia is a source of resources for Armenia. While granting loans to
Armenia, the international financial institutions or countries are
interested in Russia’s financial state, rather than Armenian. It
is known where Armenia spends the financial resources received
from Russia.

Armenia knows what it does, by protracting the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. The Armenians, who caused a serious blow to Russia and the
image of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, want to make differences
in the relations between Medvedev and Putin now.

At present, the West thinks that Russia has no power in the Caucasus.

Armenians have done everything to make such an opinion about Russia.

Armenians think that Russia will soon get tired of Azerbaijan and
Azerbaijan – of Russia. In this case, the Armenians will be able
to easily establish relations with Turkey. At present, the reason
for the lack of normal relations with Turkey is Azerbaijan. Russia
benefits from this. The Armenians’ complex policy is designed for
violating the geostrategic stability in the region.

Sometimes, Armenia and Russia want to “punish” their neighbors and
large countries, and then they think about China. On the one hand,
Armenia has secretly signed a strategic cooperation agreement with
NATO, on the other hand, it calmly calls itself a strategic partner of
Russia. The most interesting is that Russia also considers Armenia as
its strategic partner. The actions of Armenia and the Armenians more
intensified during Medvedev’s presidency. The Armenians’ conflict
features threaten not only the presidents but also the countries
they lead.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIANS MAY ONCE BUY HOUSE IN TURKEY-TURKISH FM

news.am
July 20 2011
Armenia

Representatives of 5 Armenian non-governmental organizations met with
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu during their visit to Turkey
at the invitation of Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey
(TEPAV).

Aghavni Karakhanyan, head of an Armenian NGO told the Turkish FM that
his ancestors are from Erzurum and she is eager to see those places.

In response, the Turkish FM said once they will be able to travel to
Erzurum, buy an apartment and stay there, Turkish Radikal newspaper
reports.

A discussion on the Armenian Genocide was also held during the
45-minute meeting.

From: Baghdasarian

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry
3111 Los Feliz Avenue, #206,
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Contact person: Dr. Frieda Jordan
Tel: 323-663-3609
Email: [email protected]

ABMDR delegation participates in
International Medical Congress of Armenia,
visits Stem Cell Harvesting Center

Los Angeles, July 20, 2011 – On the occasion of the Third
International Medical Congress of Armenia, a delegation of the
Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry (ABMDR) visited Yerevan earlier
this month, participating in the prestigious medical congress and
becoming familiarized with the registry’s life-saving work in the
homeland. The Third International Medical Congress of Armenia was
held from July 7 to 9, at the Yerevan State Medical University.

The ABMDR delegation consisted of several members of the registry’s

Board of Directors and Board of Advisors, including Frieda Jordan,
PhD; Arpi Kestenian, representative of Glendale Memorial Hospital;
Ramella Markarian, representative of Glendale Adventist Medical
Center; Lara Yeretsian, Esq.; Naz Atikian; Vergine Madelian, PhD; and

Taleen Peroomian, as well as Vicken Sepilian, MD, president of the
Armenian Medical Society of California.

For members of the delegation, most of whom were visiting the ABMDR
Stem Cell Harvesting Center in Yerevan for the first time, becoming
familiarized with its operations was a highly gratifying experience.
The delegation’s visit coincided with the facility’s 13th stem cell

harvesting procedure, which was carried out for a patient residing in

Belgium.

`Although we’ve been volunteers and supporters of the registry for

the past several years, and we’ve seen photos and videos of its work

in the homeland, actually visiting the Yerevan site was an amazing,
wonderful revelation,’ Arpi Kestenian said. Her impressions were
echoed by Dr. Vicken Sepilian. `Words can hardly describe my
admiration and sheer joy as my colleagues and I were given a tour of
the ABMDR premises,’ he stated.

As the delegation visited the registry’s Stem Cell Harvesting Center,

it had the opportunity to see all facets of the facility’s work.
Welcoming the delegation were Sevak Avagyan, MD, the registry’s
executive director; Mihran Nazaretyan, MD, PhD, MPH, the registry’s

medical director; and other local staff members.

During its visit to the Stem Cell Harvesting Center, the delegation
was shown the Wall of Angels, on which are inscribed the names of
those who have made financial contributions to the ABMDR, including
delegation members themselves.

Later the delegates were honored at a dinner hosted by former First
Lady of Armenia and ABMDR Honorary Chair Dr. Bella Kocharian. During
this event, which likewise was held in the Armenian capital, Dr.
Avagyan spoke of the far-reaching contributions of each delegation
member to the registry’s work and thanked them for their continued
support.

At the medical congress
The ABMDR participated in the Third International Medical Congress of

Armenia as a globally recognized Armenian health organization
dedicated to immunogenetics research, stem cell harvesting, and bone
marrow transplantation.

At the Armenian Medical International Committee (AMIC) meeting during

the conference, Dr. Vergine Madelian presented a groundbreaking
research paper that has been published in the July issue of Tissue
Antigens. The paper, which contains the results of an extensive study

conducted by a team of ABMDR scientists and researchers, for the
first time confirms the uniqueness of the immunogenetics of Armenian
populations across the world.

Dr. Frieda Jordan was also a featured speaker at the conference.
Addressing the Diasporan Project session of the AMIC meeting, she
spoke of the pan-Armenian mission of the ABMDR and familiarized
attendees with the registry’s future goals and activities. In
particular, Dr. Jordan spoke of the ABMDR’s leadership in organizing

the first-ever European Federation for Immunogenetics meeting to be
held in Armenia, in November 2011, and announced the registry’s
urgent objective of establishing a full-fledged bone marrow
transplantation center in Yerevan.

Both Dr. Madelian and Dr. Jordan’s presentations were received
enthusiastically, and attendees were able to obtain additional
details about the ABMDR through an information booth set up outside
the conference hall.

About the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry: Established in 1999,
the ABMDR, a nonprofit organization, helps Armenians worldwide
survive life-threatening blood-related illnesses by recruiting and
matching donors to those requiring bone marrow stem cell transplants.

To date, the registry has recruited over 20,000 donors in 13
countries across three continents, identified 2,000 patients, found
1,656 potential matches, and facilitated 13 bone marrow transplants.

From: Baghdasarian

TURKEY URGED TO RETURN ARMENIAN AND CHRISTIAN CHURCHES TO THEIR LAWFUL OWNERS

Panorama
July 20 2011
Armenia

The House Foreign Affairs Committee offers discussion for the amendment
calling upon Turkey to return Christian Churches, “Daily News” writes.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee considers a voting on Wednesday
urging Turkey to return Armenian and other Christian Churches to
their lawful owners.

The Armenian National Committee of America says the amendment will
likely be offered during the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s
consideration of the State Department Authorization bill.

ANCA executive director Aram Hamparian called on US Armenians to
contact their US representative to support the project.

From: Baghdasarian

ANTI-TURKEY BILL AT CONGRESS MOBILIZES TURKS IN WASHINGTON

Today’s Zaman
July 19 2011
Turkey

The prospects of adopting a recently introduced bill which blames
the Ottoman Empire for “intentional destruction” of its Christian
population and which calls on the Republic of Turkey to “safeguard
its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church properties”
have mobilized both Turkish officials and the Turkish community living
in the US capital.

Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are set to amend
the State Department authorization bill with language similar to that
of H.Res.306 — the “Return of Churches” resolution spearheaded by Rep.

Ed Royce (R-CA) and Howard Berman (D-CA), both members of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.

In order to be adopted, the amendments need to be approved by both
the House of Representatives and the Senate. Observers say even
if the House approves the bill, the amendment concerning Turkey
is likely to be rejected by the Senate. Still, with both Ankara and
Turkish-Americans not wanting to take any chances, an intense lobbying
campaign against the bill has been set in motion.

Turkish, Azerbaijani and other Turkic-American groups have been
holding talks with members of the Congress, while the Turkish Embassy
in Washington has mobilized its official lobbyists to lobby against
the bill.

A number of Armenian and Greek-American groups have, however, been
lending strong support to the bill.

The resolution, which has been included in the State Department
authorization bill, urges the Turkish government to “allow the
rightful church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without
hindrance or restriction, to organize and administer prayer services,
religious education, clerical training, appointments, and succession,
religious community gatherings, social services, including ministry
to the needs of the poor and infirm, and other religious activities;
return to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other places
of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy
sites, and other religious properties, including movable properties,
such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments, vessels, and other artifacts;
and allow the rightful Christian church and lay owners of Christian
church properties, without hindrance or restriction, to preserve,
reconstruct, and repair, as they see fit, all Christian churches and
other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments,
relics, holy sites, and other religious properties within Turkey.”

From: Baghdasarian

AZERBAIJAN CONCERNED OVER PRESENCE OF RUSSIAN MILITARIES IN ARMENIAN TERRITORY

news.az
July 19 2011
Azerbaijan

Official Baku is concerned over the presence of the Russian militaries
in Armenia.

According to Ekho Moskvy radio station, the statement came from
personal representative of the Azerbaijani president on resolution of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan~Rs
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov.

He believes that Russia must shift from militaristic to economic
conception of presence in the South Caucasus.

‘Unfortunately, Russia considers it necessary to hold troops
in Armenia. We see less and less grounds for such a militaristic
conception of its presence in the South Caucasus-it is time to change
tanks for tankers that is the military form of presence for economic
form’, he said.

Azimov believes that it is in Russia~Rs interests to persuade Armenia
to accept constructive proposals voiced during negotiations.

Deputy editor-in-chief of Ekho Moskvy Sergey Buntman will be allowed
to Azerbaijan after Nagorno Karabakh is resolved, Araz Azimov said.

Sergey Buntman has been blacklisted by Azerbaijan for visiting
Nagorno Karabakh and interviewing several high ranking officials of
the separatist regime of the Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

From: Baghdasarian