Author: Chatinian Lara

FBI agent appreciates Armenia’s cooperation in arms smuggling probe

Mediamax news agency
21 Mar 05

Yerevan, 21 March: “The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
appreciates the professionalism and active cooperation of the Armenian
authorities,” the US embassy in Armenia has quoted FBI agent Bryan
Paarmann, who has been in Armenia since 18 March, as saying.

Bryan Paarmann, jointly with the Armenian law-enforcement bodies,
is investigating the illegal weapons smuggling into the USA.

One of those arrested on this case is Armenian citizen Artur
Solomonyan.

The US embassy said further that “the investigation has not found
any evidence that arms were taken outside Armenia and transported to
the USA”.

“The Armenian authorities are actively cooperating and have already
made several arrests to make sure that arms are not taken outside
Armenia illegally,” the embassy told Mediamax.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
March 19, 2005 Saturday 6:46 AM Eastern Time

Georgia border guards to participate in V-anniversary relay race

By Tengiz Pachkoria

TBILISI

Georgian border guards will participate in the relay race taking
place along the borders of CIS countries to mark the 60th anniversary
of Victory over Nazism, the Georgian border guard department told
Itar-Tass on Saturday.

The relay race began on February 27.

It is organised in accordance with the decision of the Council of CIS
border guard chiefs.

Georgian border guards will join the action next week. The meeting of
Russian and Georgian border guards will take place at the Kazbeg
section of the Georgian-Russian border on March 22, and during the
meeting the relay race symbols will be handed over to the Georgian
border guards.

Mementoes will be presented to border guard veterans of the two
countries during the meeting at the section, departmental sources
noted.

Representatives of the North Caucasian regional border guard
department and Georgian border guard department senior officials will
participate in the ceremony on the border.

Georgian border guars will hand over the relay race symbols to
Armenian colleagues on March 23. The ceremony will take place at the
Georgian checkpoint Sadakhlo near the border with Armenia.

Turkish Press
Depending on the intentions
Published: 3/18/2005
 
BY ERDAL SAFAK

SABAH- Turkey is now concerned over its European Union membership
talks since Brussels decided to postpone entry talks with Croatia due
to its failure to arrest a top war crimes suspect. ˜Will this
decision be a precedent for other candidate countries?’ our diplomats
are now asking. According to our Foreign Ministry, the issue has
nothing to do with Turkey’s membership talks.

However, the international community has interpreted the decision as a
powerful signal to other would-be EU members that they must fully
respect human rights. For example, French Foreign Minister Michel
Barnier said that the EU’s decision is a precedent for Turkey, proving
that Brussels would never give any ground on human rights. In
addition, Joost Lagendijk, the co-president of the Turkey-EU Joint
Parliamentary Commission, stated that Turkey must take the decision to
heart. ˜On Oct. 3, Brussels will examine the list of conditions
that it stipulated had to be completed by that date,’ he added. ˜If
Ankara fails to fulfill even one of them, Brussels can decide to
postpone the country’s accession talks, as in the case of Croatia.’

The final statement of last December’s Brussels summit covered Croatia
in three paragraphs. In the first, Brussels praised the country’s
preparations for EU membership. In the second, Brussels urged Zagreb
to surrender a Croatian former general to the UN war crimes tribunal
for trial. The last paragraph underlines that this is the only
precondition to start the nation’s accession talks.

What about the paragraphs on Turkey? There are seven articles on our
country, from which there seem to be two preconditions: First, the
amendment of the Ankara Agreement in line with the EU’s current
members. In other words, Ankara must recognize the Greek Cypriot
administration. Second, six laws must be approved by the Parliament by
Oct. 3.

However, there are also certain sentences that could be interpreted as
preconditions as well, depending on the intentions of the reader. For
example, Brussels will closely monitor both Turkey’s reform process to
ensure the protection of human rights and basic freedoms, and Ankara’s
progress on political reforms in line with the Accession Partnership
Document.

Moreover, the statement also stressed that Brussels noted the earlier
European Parliament decision on Turkey, which lists a number of
preconditions for Turkey’s membership talks such as Ankara’s official
recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide, opening the Armenian
border, reopening the Heybeliada Seminary and ending compulsory
religion courses in schools. If the EU leaders said that they noted
this EP decision, should we see these as further preconditions or not?
As I said, everything hinges on the intentions. If Brussels has good
intentions towards Ankara, the only problem we’ll have is the Customs
Union. However, if the EU leaders decide to see the summit statement
through another, wider-angle lens, then everything will grow much more
complicated¦

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 15 2005

Separatist Leaders Plan Summit

Leaders from four secessionist regions – Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Transdnestria and Nagorno-Karabakh – are planning to hold summit in
an attempt to coordinate policies, Sergey Bagapsh, the President of
Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia, said at a news conference in Moscow on
March 15.

`Tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, we will decide when to hold
this meeting. The venue – it may be held here [in Moscow], or
somewhere in the South,’ Bagapsh said without specifying details, RIA
Novosti news agency reported.

EUROPA (press release), Belgium
March 14 2005

Margot Wallström

Vice President of the European Union responsible for Institutional
Relations and Communication Strategy

The European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership

Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly
Cairo, 14 March 2005

Mr President,

Members of the Assembly,

It is a great honour for me to take part on behalf of the European
Commission in this first session of the Euro-Mediterranean
Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr President,

Let me first greet you in particular as an Egyptian presiding over
the work of this first session hosted in Egypt’s capital, Cairo.
These two circumstances are symbolic and reflect your country’s
commitment to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership since its inception.
This commitment will be illustrated yet again at the upcoming
inauguration in Alexandria of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean
Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures.

Members of the Assembly,

There is no need for me to stress the importance the Commission
attaches to the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary
Assembly. As you know, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership rests on
three pillars: political, economic and social, cultural and human.
Since the launching of the Barcelona process, it has become apparent
that these pillars were not equally strong and that whereas the
economic and trade pillar was solid, those supporting the political,
cultural and social aspects of the partnership were less so. The
creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which has
a political mandate above all (even if it deals with other issues),
bolsters the Partnership’s foundations. The Commission will cooperate
closely with your Assembly, and of course take account of any
suggestions, ideas and initiatives that it puts forward.

The Presidency of the European Union – represented by Mr Nicolas
Schmit, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg –
have reviewed the Barcelona process and taken stock of its
implementation. For my part, I wish to speak to you about a
relatively new aspect of the EU’s foreign policy, namely the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), or rather spell out the ENP’s
relationship with the Barcelona process, which remains the nucleus of
relations between the European Union and its southern Mediterranean
partners.

* * *

What does the European Neighbourhood Policy consist of ? It is based
on a simple idea formulated by the Copenhagen European Council of
December 2002 which stated that the Union should seize the
opportunity offered by its enlargement to enhance relations with the
neighbouring countries on the basis of shared values and avoid the
creation of new divides within Europe.

To that end, the Council called for stronger relations with Ukraine,
Moldova, Belarus and the countries of the southern Mediterranean.
This circle of neighbours has been extended to other countries:
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The idea of the circle of friendly
neighbouring countries has taken concrete shape over the last two
years, notably since the EU Council meeting of 28 June 2003.

The main features of the Neighbourhood Policy are:

The new Neighbourhood Policy complements the Barcelona process and
should not supplant the current framework of the EU’s relations with
its southern Mediterranean partners established in the context of the
Barcelona process and complemented by association agreements and the
common strategy.
The European Neighbourhood Policy has general objectives which are
similar to the Mediterranean partnership and based on it, namely to
work together with our partners to reduce poverty, create a space of
prosperity and shared values, based on free trade, increased economic
integration, stronger political and cultural ties, greater
cross-border cooperation and shared responsibilities in the
prevention and resolution of conflicts.
These strands overlap with those defined in 1995 in Barcelona but
with new stress on certain aspects. The most important is the
prospect of gradual participation in the EU internal market and its
regulatory structures, including those relating to sustainable
development (health, consumer and environmental protection), based on
the approximation of legislation. Whereas the idea underlying
Barcelona, implemented through association agreements, was trade
integration which stopped at the borders (notably through tariff
dismantling), the Neighbourhood Policy goes beyond that and provides
for greater integration, going beyond borders so to speak by means of
approximation of legislation. In short, this policy will enable
partners to share in the European internal market. More emphasis will
also be put on integrating the two sides of the Mediterranean in
transport, energy and telecommunications networks.
Differentiation is at the root of the new EU policy towards its
neighbours and is implemented by action plans. These action plans
will become the key instruments of the medium-term policy conducted
by the Union in its relations with its neighbours. These are policy
papers based on existing association agreements and clearly setting
out overall strategic objectives, shared objectives and political and
economic reference criteria and a timetable for achieving them. This
is an approach that is more precise, more concrete and better defined
in its timing than that of the association agreements. As you know,
action plans were already negotiated in 2004 with Israel, Jordan,
Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority and Ukraine. Negotiations
are planned with Egypt and Lebanon in 2005. An important thing to
note is that these action plans are drawn up jointly between the
Union and its partners and adopted by the Association Councils.
This policy will be financed by a new neighbourhood instrument aimed
at promoting sustainable economic and social development among the
neighbouring countries, pursuing regional and transnational and
cross-border cooperation and ensuring the smooth functioning and
secure management of frontiers. They will be among the financial
instruments included in the new financial perspectives beyond 2006.
***

I have just outlined the main features of this European Neighbourhood
Policy. We have to admit that this policy, when it was announced,
provoked among our Mediterranean partners first surprise, then
questions and even concern. Will this policy replace the
Euro-Mediterranean policy, swallow it up or water it down? Would
there be two policies for the same countries? What would be the
relationship between the Neighbourhood Policy and the
Euro-Mediterranean partnership? Some commentators pointed out certain
contradictions between the Neighbourhood Policy and the
Euro-Mediterranean policy. I see two main ones:

On the geo-political level, despite the differences that exist within
the area, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership encompasses countries
which geographically the Mediterranean draws closer together more
than it divides them. Historically, these countries have seen their
destinies intertwined, even if this was sometimes through conflict.
The Euro-Mediterranean idea is highly symbolic. As for the
neighbourhood policy, it has to be admitted that it concerns
countries which are much more diverse.

Secondly, whereas the Euro-Mediterranean partnership approach is
mainly regional, the Neighbourhood Policy is more bilateral and
differentiates among the partners.

The few differences I have mentioned can be overcome. As it is a
regional framework, we have to reiterate that the Barcelona process
remains key to relations between the European Union and the southern
Mediterranean. It is not matter of recasting Barcelona but rather
rereading it, rediscovering it and realising, as certain analysts
have said, its potential.

Where the model is concerned, we probably have to go beyond the
framework of association which was in some respects rather vague. Or
we might use that framework but apply more specific methods. The idea
of harmonisation or at least convergence of legislative systems,
which was embryonic in the association agreements, is spelled out
more clearly in the Neighbourhood Policy and above all in the action
plans.

But the differences in the Neighbourhood Policy approach should not
be taken too far. Whilst the action plans already agreed with the
first signatory Mediterranean countries contain differences, they are
also bedrock of shared values and objectives which the Commission
deems indispensable if we are to avoid diverging paths. It is more in
the pace of progress that the divergences can exist. The ultimate
objective, participation of those countries in large parts of the
European internal market, is what those countries are aiming at.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

As I have tried to point out, the European Neighbourhood Policy does
not replace the process launched ten years ago in Barcelona. It
renews it, clarifies it and breathes fresh life into it.

Convergence between the two policies will be at the core of the
Commission’s communication ahead of the tenth anniversary of
Barcelona Declaration. This communication, still in the pipeline,
will propose for the next five years a limited number of initiatives
with three main thrusts:

Continued promotion of political reform, including protection of
human rights, in the Mediterranean, as reform is the key to security,
peace and stability in the region.
Support for the development of education, particularly primary
education, and vocational training, substantially increasing the
means of financial cooperation earmarked for them.
Continued progress on trade liberalisation and economic reform, by
starting negotiations on balanced liberalisation of services and
adopting for agriculture an approach combining the opening up of
markets and cooperation on rural development.
This does not exclude continuation of activities conducted under the
Barcelona process on migration, cooperation on energy or transport
and the environment.

In conclusion, celebrating Barcelona must not simply be about marking
the date. Anniversaries are about bringing us closer to events and
not making them more remote. The European Neighbourhood Policy does
not make Barcelona more remote, rather it brings it into sharper
focus.

Akhalkalaki Residents Rallied Against Russian Base Pullout

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 13 2005

Around 4,000 local residents of Akhalkalaki, town in Georgia’s
south-western region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, which is predominantly
populated by ethnic Armenians, rallied on March 13 to protest against
withdrawal of Russian military bases stationed in this town.

The rally was organized by newly set up public movement United
Javakhk, which was established on March 10 after several local
public organizations united in an attempt, as the founders put it,
“to protect local Armenian population of Javakheti.”

“The main slogans of the protest rally in Akhalkalaki were: ‘Together
with Georgia’ and ‘No to Russian Base Pullout,” Edward Avertian of
United Javakhk told Civil Georgia on March 13.

The part of the local population in Akhalkalaki is employed at the
Russian military base. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on
March 11, while commenting on this issue: “I do not want to create any
problems to these people; the Georgian authorities will support them.”

Forbes.com

International

Privatization Progress In Central Eastern Europe

Oxford Analytica, 03.10.05, 6:00 AM ET

In terms of the private sector share of gross domestic product, the new EU
member states from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE-8) have achieved
substantial convergence towards the developed Western countries. Private
activities generate over 80% of national income in the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia, 75% in Lithuania and Poland, 70% in Latvia
and 65% in Slovenia.

This article is part of Oxford Analytica’s Daily Brief Service. Click here
for information about how to subscribe.

Furthermore, the 2004 Transition Report of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development gives the whole CEE-8 a ranking of 4.3 (in a
range of 1.33 to 4.33) in small-scale privatization, a structural indicator
comparable to the average of advanced capitalist economies. In contrast to
the Soviet successor states (e.g., Armenia and Georgia), whose high private
income shares reflect the outsized role of retail trade and services with
little value-added, private small and medium-sized enterprises in CEE make a
significant contribution to regional manufacturing and local job creation
along with a growing integration in foreign trade.

However, nearly a year after EU accession and 15 years after the 1989
revolutions, the CEE-8 still exhibit significant gaps in large-scale
privatization. The EBRD identifies Poland and Slovenia as the main laggards,
with Latvia and Lithuania occupying intermediate positions behind the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia. However, even early reformers like
Hungary, which began large-scale privatization in the early 1990s, have
encountered delays privatizing major state-owned enterprises. The CEE-8’s
remaining SOEs are clustered in four sectors: financial institutions,
energy, telecommunications and transport.

In November 2004, Poland’s Treasury Ministry divested its shares of PKO BP,
the country’s largest state-owned bank, via a public issue on the Warsaw
Stock Exchange (WSE). Ministry officials conceded that the offer price was
lower than what might have been obtained–underscoring that political
considerations can influence the use of public offerings as a divestiture
tool in CEE. Major insurer PZU may follow this year.

Following the global trend towards cross-border consolidation, foreign
mergers and acquisitions are driving bank privatization in other CEE-8
countries, where political concerns over the remaining “national assets”
being bought by foreign firms are generally less than in Poland. For
example, in January 2005, Austrian-based Erste Bank exercised an option to
purchase the residual 20% shares of Slovakia’s Slovenska Sporitelna to
supplement its assets in Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia.
Possible candidates for further privatization in Hungary include the Land
Credit and Mortgage Bank.

Under pressure from the EU to restructure their energy sectors, CEE
governments are turning to strategic foreign investors to buy shares in
state energy companies: The authorities in Bratislava are in discussions
with Italy’s Enel to sell 66% of power monopoly Slovenske Elektrarne; Nafta
Polska, the state agency overseeing energy privatization in Poland, is
negotiating with ConocoPhillips (nyse: COP – news – people ), possibly to
purchase a 17.5% stake in oil group PKN Orlen; PKN is expected soon to
finalize its purchase of a 63% stake in the Czech Republic’s Unipetrol,
signalling the growing importance of intraregional investments in CEE power;
and regional investors are also figuring importantly in the divesture of
state shares of Hungary’s energy giant MOL, which initiated trading on the
WSE in December 2004 to augment its long-standing listing on the Budapest
bourse.

However, political factors have impeded energy privatization in CEE-8. For
example, citing unacceptably low bids, the Czech government cancelled a
tender for coal-mining firm Severoceske Doly in March 2004. The low offer
prices reflected conditions (notably the effective exclusion of foreign
buyers) imposed to avoid mine closures. The country’s accession to the EU
removed the foreign investor restriction and opened the way for a renewal of
the Severoceske tender in 2005. The government must now reconcile the allure
of an attractive offer price (which would boost privatization revenues to
lower its budget deficit) with the socio-economic fallout of a foreign
divestiture (which might heighten unemployment at marginal mines). The
government has postponed the privatization of energy firm CEZ beyond the
2006 parliamentary elections.

The Czech government has pursued a more proactive strategy in the telecoms
sector, launching an aggressive restructuring of Cesky Telecom (CT)–the
last state-owned telephone company in the CEE-8–to maximise the firm’s
attractiveness to foreign buyers. From a $78 million loss in 2003, the
company reported a $235 million profit in 2004, the best performance of any
telecoms operator in CEE. This will be the country’s flagship privatization
this year. Government authorities have invited tenders from five bidders
(including Belgacom, Swisscom, Telefonica and Tiscali), whose final offers
are due by March 29, and anticipate proceeds surpassing $2 billion for the
51.1% stake.

Rising fuel costs, eroding pricing power and diminishing margins have
complicated divestiture of CEE-8 transport sectors. The Czech Republic has
deferred privatization of Czech Airlines and Czech Airports until after the
2006 elections. Similarly, the Hungarian government has postponed selling
railway firm MAV and bus company Volan until after the next electoral cycle.
However, Hungarian officials are proceeding with plans to divest state
shares of troubled national airline Malev–problems in privatizing the
company have exemplified the challenges to divestiture of state-owned
carriers in CEE.

The CEE-8 stock exchanges (led by Slovakia, Slovenia and the Baltic states)
posted stellar performances in 2004, well surpassing those of the West
European bourses. This largely reflected the salutary effects of EU
accession, strong GDP growth and increasing trading activity. However, the
regional stock market surge also demonstrates the growing use of initial
public offerings as a privatization method in CEE. This phenomenon is most
pronounced on the WSE, which, in addition to issues by MOL and PKO, has
served as an IPO platform for Polish liquor companies (Polmos Lublin) and
biotechnology firms (Bioten). Notwithstanding the controversy surrounding
the PKO offer price, the CEE stock markets will be important mechanisms for
divestiture of the region’s remaining state banks.

Yet IPOs are unlikely to become dominant privatization venues for CEE’s
energy, transport and telecoms sectors, whose large capital requirements
favor strategic foreign investors. Among a dwindling number of regional
divestiture targets, those sectors are apt to attract the bulk of
privatization-related foreign investment as “second wind” FDI ramps up in
the new member states.

Economic factors–namely the absorptive capacity of local equity markets and
the strategic calculations of Western investors–are likely to shape the
final phase of CEE privatization during the second half of the decade.
However, political sensitivities remain, and will continue to complicate and
potentially delay some major sell-offs.

Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic consulting firm drawing on a
network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading
universities and research institutions around the world. For more
information please visit , and to find out how to subscribe to
the firm’s Daily Brief Service, click here.

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
 
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 9, 2005
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
Email: [email protected]

ASSEMBLY BOARD OF TRUSTEES CONVENE FOR ANNUAL MEETING IN FLORIDA
Organization Officials & Supporters Review Year, Discuss Future Agenda

Boca Raton, FL – The Armenian Assembly held its annual national meeting
in Boca Raton, Florida last week to review operations in Washington,
Los Angeles and Yerevan, launch new initiatives and honor those who
have served the Armenian cause with distinction.

The 33rd annual Board of Trustees meeting was held March 4-5 at the
Boca Raton Resort and Club and included two full days of business
meetings.

As the first order of business, Board of Trustees Chairman Hirair
Hovnanian welcomed participants and thanked them for their involvement
in the meeting. Reflecting on the standard for the Assembly’s
three decades of service to the Armenian people, Hovnanian said
it was imperative to continually “strive for perfection in all the
Assembly does.” He also challenged each member to grow the Assembly
exponentially, so that the organization can better support the citizens
of Armenia and Karabakh to face the enormous challenges ahead.

Looking ahead, participants reviewed the Assembly’s legislative
priorities which include: maintaining robust assistance to Armenia and
Karabakh, maintaining U.S. military assistance parity for Armenia and
Azerbaijan, further promoting U.S.-Armenia trade relations, confronting
Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades and reasserting the basis for Nagorno
Karbakh’s self-determination. In addition, the Assembly reiterated
its pledge to secure U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide and
actively participate in community-wide commemorations of the 90th
anniversary. To achieve these goals and others, including assisting
Armenian communities in war-torn Iraq, Assembly leaders said they will
need to rely more strongly on members and activists across the country.

Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues Co-Chair Frank Pallone,
Jr. (D-NJ), who attended and participated in the events, addressed
supporters during the Friday night welcoming reception. Pallone
discussed the recent public declarations by U.S. Ambassador to Armenia
John Evans, who candidly affirmed the Armenian Genocide during his
visit with Armenian communities across the U.S. Pallone said Evans’
remarks did not contradict U.S. policy, but rather articulated
the same message that the Bush Administration has set forth in the
President’s annual April 24 proclamations. Pallone again pledged to
pursue U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide.

Also during the meeting, the following Trustees Officers were
re-elected for 2005: Chairman Hirair Hovnanian, President Carolyn
Mugar, Vice President Gerard L. Cafesjian, Vice President Robert
A. Kaloosdian, Vice President Noubar Afeyan, Vice President Joyce
Stein, Secretary Peter Vosbikian, Counselor Robert A. Kaloosdian and
Solicitor Albert Momjian. Edele Hovnanian was elected Treasurer,
a position previously held by Afeyan.

Assembly officials also welcomed two new members to the Board of
Directors – Associate Trustee Lu Ann Ohanian of Belmont, Massachusetts
and former Director John Waters of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ohanian,
a longtime Assembly supporter, serves as Development Co-Chair. Waters,
who was not in attendance, is Vice President of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation which is headed by Assembly Life Trustee and well-known
Armenian issues advocate Gerard L. Cafesjian.

Ohanian and Waters replace outgoing Board of Directors Members Charles
Barsam, who was not present, Public Affairs Chair Arda Haratunian
and former Development Chair and Treasurer Gail O’Reilly.

Barsam, a longtime Fellow Trustee who resides in Huntington Beach,
California, was commended for his five-year service to the Assembly,
which included a stint as Development Co-Chair.

Fellow Trustee Arda Haratunian, a former Assembly intern who lives
in Manhasset, New York, was recognized for her service on the Board
of Directors which spans over a decade. Haratunian was specifically
commended for her contributions to the Assembly’s Public Affairs
Program.

Similarly, Life Trustee Gail O’Reilly was saluted for her work
with the Board of Directors which began in 1993. O’Reilly, who
lives in Winchester, Massachusetts and joined the organization after
participating in the Assembly-led Mission to Armenia, served separately
as Development Co-Chair and Treasurer during her tenure.

Both O’Reilly and Haratunian were presented with certificates from
the Armenia Tree Project.

As is customary, the Trustees Weekend closed with a Saturday night
dinner banquet held in the hotel’s elegant ballroom. Board of
Directors Member Peter Vosbikian presided over the event which
recognized former Canadian Parliamentarian Sarkis Assadourian and
longtime Assembly volunteer Mary Atamian.

Barsamian presented Assadourian with the Governor George Deukmejian
Award for Public Service for his distinguished service as a Member
of Parliament from 1993 to 2004, for his pioneering promotion of
relations between Canada and Armenia and for his singular achievement
in securing House of Commons Acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

Contributing Affiliate Mary Atamian of Worcester, Massachusetts
was honored with the 2005 Award for Outstanding Contributions to
Membership and Development. Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar
commended Atamian for her efforts in successfully heading the New
England Regional Council’s fashion show in Massachusetts each year.
Under her leadership, the Council raised almost $120,000 towards
Assembly programs over the years.

Guests enjoyed a special musical performance by New Names of Armenia –
a troupe of young, talented musicians from Armenia. Established in
1989, New Names seeks and promotes gifted musicians from ages 9 to 16
in its program. Later Onnik Dinkjian and the John Berberian Ensemble
kept dancers on their feet with traditional Armenian folk music.

Two special events were also held in conjunction with the Trustees
Weekend. The Assembly’s Legacy Society, which was established in 2004
and allows members to support the organization through a planned
gift, held its inaugural dinner on March 3. Board of Trustees
President Carolyn Mugar, Board of Directors Vice Chair Annie Totah,
Life Trustees James and Marta Batmasian and Fellow Trustee Edgar
Hagopian were inducted into the Legacy Society and presented with a
brooch or lapel pin.

On March 6, Mission to Armenia participants reminisced about their
experiences in the homeland during a reunion brunch at the hotel.
Mission Leader and Board of Directors Vice Chair Annie Totah said it
was wonderful to see so many faces from past Mission trips and hear
their heartfelt stories about their time in Armenia and Karabakh.
The group discussed future Assembly excursions which include the
first-ever Next Leadership Group trip to Armenia in June and the
annual Mission trip in October.

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt membership
organization.

###
NR#2005-020

Photographs available on the Assembly’s Web site at the following link:

020-1.jpg

CAPTION: Members of the Assembly’s Board of Directors. Left to right,
front row: Edele Hovnanian, Gail O’Reilly, Jirair Haratunian, Lu Ann
Ohanian, Lisa Esayian, Chairman Anthony Barsamian, Lisa Kalustian,
Annie Totah, Richard Mushegain and Ralph Tufenkian. Second row: Board
of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar and Board of Directors Members
Danny Ajamian, Van Krikorian, Peter Vosbikian and Berge Ayvazian.

CAPTION: Board of Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian, right,
presented former Canadian Parliamentarian Sarkis Assadourian with
the Governor George Deukmejian Award for Public Service during the
Saturday night banquet.

CAPTION: Contributing Affiliate Mary Atamian, left, is the first
recipient of the Assembly’s 2005 Award for Outstanding Contributions
to Membership and Development. The award was presented by outgoing
Board of Directors Member and Life Trustee Gail O’Reilly.

CAPTION: Assembly leaders and supporters saluted outgoing Board
of Directors Members Arda Haratunian, second from left, and Gail
O’Reilly for their years of distinguished service to the Assembly.
Haratunian and O’Reilly are flanked by Board of Directors Chairman
Anthony Barsamian, far left, and Executive Director Ross Vartian.

CAPTION: The Assembly’s Legacy Society held its first annual dinner
for its members on March 3 at the hotel. Left to right: Life Trustee
Gail O’Reilly, Life Trustees James and Marta Batmasian, Board of
Trustees Chairman Hirair Hovnanian, Board of Directors Vice Chair
Annie Totah, Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar and Board of
Directors Member Edele Hovnanian.

CAPTION: Assembly members and supporters discussed issues facing
the Armenian-American community and the homeland during the two-day
national meeting.

CAPTION: New Names, an ensemble of gifted musicians from Armenia,
gave a rousing performance during the Saturday night dinner banquet.

CAPTION: Left to right: Assembly Life Trustees Mrs. Charles Talanian,
Irene Vosbikian and Papken Janjigian.

CAPTION: Left to right: Fellow Trustees Lita Chadrjian and Jirair
Haratunian with Associate Trustees Rita and Vartkess Balian.

CAPTION: Left to right: Assembly Life Trustees Elizabeth Kircik,
Leon Kircik and Joe Stein.

-30-

–Boundary_(ID_LHXkVbuduecW03z7dX96gw)–

TV hosts not all good examples
By Remo Alexandri

Glendale News Press
Published March 7, 2005

There are some things that non-Armenians could not appreciate about
the Armenians living in Glendale. So, I decided to share some funny
but little-known facts about Glendale’s Armenians. This could be
revealing and very appropriate in this election season. I hope you
would also share your inner-circle stories, which are hidden from
the general public.

One of the funniest categories that I like to bring to your attention
is the peculiar Armenian-Glendalian talk-show industry, which has
become a distinguished genre in the world of talk-show business, and a
unique cultural feature in Glendale. Some of these shows attract tens
of thousands of people every morning, afternoon, night and even past
midnight. But I’d like to concentrate on the crown-jewels of these
shows — the sociopolitical talk shows, which are the strangest in
the world.

advertisement For the most part, these shows are very similar. Most of
them are conducted in small studios in the Glendale area. For the most
part, the host is not prepared and does not use any sort of notes. A
host doesn’t need to have any credentials in order to become the
absolute authority on any topic. The host or the participants can claim
outrageous things without any supportive, legitimate arguments. The
only thing needed in order to push an argument is a particular jest,
which is to look grim and serious and to act like a mythical, wise
chieftain who knows everything just because of who he is.

About a year ago, in one of these “serious” patriotic talk shows,
the host announced that he had a very important guest who happened
to be a composer. He said the show wouldn’t be about the guest’s
accomplishments, but about a new movement, led by the distinguished
guest, to save Armenians’ glorious past from being undermined by
the dark forces of the world. One of the concerns was the seal of
the independent republic of Armenia. They announced that they had
discovered a serious conspiracy. That was, the new seal didn’t contain
Mt. Ararat, and most importantly, Noah’s Ark on its top.

I want to remind you that this was a live show. They were very proud
of their genius in unraveling this evil conspiracy. Then, there were
callers who shared the concerns of our super-patriots and thanked
them for educating people. Almost at the end of the show, a caller
said he had a large picture of the current seal, and he had noticed
that, actually, Mt. Ararat and Noah’s Ark were in the center of the
current seal, and it would be easily missed if you happened to have
a small picture or copy of it.

Our “great leader” and the host hadn’t even bothered themselves to at
least take a closer look at the seal before making such outrageous,
reckless claims on a live television show. They mumbled a little bit,
and the host strangely enough burst out at the caller, shouting that
despite the fact they had made a small factual mistake in the case
of the seal, still, the conspiracy warning was legitimate, and the
caller had to appreciate him and his distinguished guest.

However, the most outrageously funny (and on the same hand worrisome)
live talk shows are the ones that discuss local politics, especially
in this unusually hot upcoming local election. It is very normal, for
example, for a host to announce that he has been living in Glendale
for 20, 30 or 40 years, and he has no clue about local politics, but
he just knows what is right (translation: I am a mythical chieftain
who happens to know everything)! Then there are these opportunist
“medical doctors” whose livelihood is dependent, for the most part, on
how many elderly people they could lure to their offices for imaginary
sicknesses. One sits next to a candidate and asks phony questions about
Section 8 to imply how much he cares for his “patients,” but not,
for sure, for the noble purpose of democracy. Another one, without
any hesitation, prescribes a split vote of “two Americans!” and “two
Armenians!” So, we could quiet things down! It does not matter what
the candidates’ profiles are, their experiences and all the other
things — all the things that a responsible voter takes into serious
consideration before casting a vote.

It is sad that some people who’ve got the privilege of playing a
positive role in the democratization of the Armenian community still
think of an election as a mere formality, a game (similar to their
previous experiences)! These are, unfortunately, some of the sad
factors in the politics of Glendale.

I hope we, as the people of Glendale, could discuss politics not
just within our own communities, but with our different neighbors
and the community at large. This would be the only way to overcome
the ridiculous stereotypes and stereotype lovers.

Unfortunately, the political players (elected or appointed) at local
or state levels, for their own short-term interests, encourage
the undemocratic, crude, bossy political culture of the Armenian
community by taking these gadflies and other self-claimed chieftains
too seriously.

We, as a community, are too generous in recognizing some of these
illiterate and out-of-touch gadflies and chieftains as our leaders
and political experts. We deserve better ones.

* REMO ALEXANDRI is a resident of Glendale.

Niagara Falls Reporter
March 01, 2005

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE LED TO FALLS IMMIGRATION
By Bob Kostoff

An Armenian from the Detroit area who has close ties to Niagara Falls has
written of the incredible hardship he faced as a youngster fleeing from the
Turkish mass murder of the first part of the 20th century.
Souren Aprahamian, a retired engineer and businessman, tells the tale in his
autobiography. He met his late wife, Arminuhe Amirian, in Niagara Falls, and
still has relatives here, including a cousin, retired Niagara Falls Police
Captain Aris Ohanessian.
The story of his younger years growing up in Turkish Armenia is full of
danger and fear. He and his family were at death’s door many times and, in
fact, much of his family was wiped out.
To understand the current upheaval in the Middle East and the undying
animosity between Christians and Muslims there, one must go back to the
brutal Ottoman Empire of the Turkish nation. The Turks ruled that area with
an unforgiving iron fist for more than 500 years.
While many conquered Christian countries, including Bulgaria, Greece and
parts of the old Yugoslavia, suffered under this yoke of oppression, the
Armenians probably experienced the most casualties.
The first genocide of the 20th century, occurring in the era of World War I,
resulted in the deaths of between 300,000 and 1.5 million Armenians.
Aprahamian’s family numbered 50 in 1915 and there were only 15 alive in
1921, when six of them arrived in America.
Aprahamian was born in 1907 in the village of Lezk, just north of Van, in
Armenian Turkey.
His father had gone to America and graduated from high school in Providence,
R.I., before returning to his family in Lezk. I
n the months leading up to World War I, unrest was rife in that area.
Aprahamian writes, “Armenians were fair game for any Turk or Kurd. These
merciless roamers could rob, plunder, kidnap or kill Armenians without
having to answer to anyone.”
This, along with forced conscription into the Turkish army in April of 1915,
caused terror among the villagers.
Aprahamian writes that “fear, danger and horror were always in the air.”
His father had built the largest home in the village. It became a target for
the military, which needed to quarter about 15 soldiers.
He writes, “Mother thought it prudent for our family to abandon the house to
the military and move into the ancestral home with our grandmother and
uncles and aunts.”
Battles raged near Van between the Turks and Armenians, aided by Russian
troops. The Turks were routed, but then the Russians pulled out and the
Armenians had little hope left. The population was directed to retreat to
the Caucases and Russian Armenia.
There was a mass exodus, in which Aprahamian took part at the age of 8.
He writes, “There was much weeping and wailing, commotion, chaos and turmoil
as caravan after caravan streamed out from every village and hamlet.”
The family of seven took turns walking and riding in a cart pulled by a
donkey and filled with whatever possessions they could bring. A group of
about 10,000 refugees was attacked by Turkish and Kurdish troops, with only
2,000 Armenians surviving.
Aprahamian and his family were among the survivors and made it to the
village of Aghta, north of Yerevan in Armenia.
But the exhausting trip, poor food and unhealthy water led to an outbreak of
disease. Many were buried in mass graves. His father succumbed to the
cholera epidemic.
A return home, another exodus, another return home, and still another flight
for survival will be recounted next.

Bob Kostoff has been reporting on the Niagara Frontier for four decades. He
is a recognized authority on local history and is the author of several
books. E-mail him at [email protected].
Niagara Falls Reporterwww.niagarafallsreporter.comMarch 1 2005