Author: Chatinian Lara

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
President
Israel Charny (Israel)
First
Vice-President
Gregory H. Stanton (USA)
Second Vice-President
Linda Melvern (UK)
Secretary-Treasurer
Steven Jacobs (USA)
June 13, 2005
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
TC Easbakanlik
Bakanlikir
Ankara, Turkey
FAX: 90 312 417 0476
Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:
We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an
`impartial study by historians’ concerning the fate ofthe Armenian
people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North
America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial
study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the
extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian
Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United
Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not
just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the
overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of
independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and
whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of
decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk
government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its
Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. Morethan
a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing,
starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the
Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient
civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of
its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United
States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by
thousands of official records of the United States and nations around
the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and
Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of
missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by
decades of historical scholarship.
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly,
legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an
organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously
passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and
Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000
declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’ and urging
western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the
Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical
fact of the Armenian Genocide. 6) Leading texts in the international
law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in
International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian
Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the
law on crimes against humanity.
We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide-how
and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and
moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in
propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims,
and erase the ethical meaning of this history.
We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who
are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions
are not impartial. Such so-called `scholars’work to serve the agenda
of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the
Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing
a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi
University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its
aversion to academic and intellectual freedom-a fundamental condition
of democratic society.
We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people
and their future as a proud and equal participants in international,
democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous
government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German
government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.
Approved Unanimously at the Sixth biennial meeting of
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS)
June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida
Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGS President; Executive Director, Institute
on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide, 972-2-672-0424; [email protected]
Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch,
James Farmer Visiting Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary
Washington; 703-448-0222; [email protected]

News24, South Africa
June 20 2005
Guilty cops free under amnesty
Yerevan – An Armenian court on Monday sentenced two former policemen
to three years in prison for violently forcing a suspect to falsely
confess to raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl. But the two were
freed immediately under an amnesty.
Ruben Saakian and Gurgen Arushanian also were stripped of the right
to work as police officers for violently coercing suspect Armen
Pogosian to confess to the charges, which landed him 15 years in
prison.
After five years, prosecutors established the crime had been
committed by another man, Pogosian was freed, and the two officers
were fired.
They received amnesty because their 1998 crime fell under an amnesty
declared in 2001 to mark the 1 700th anniversary of Armenia’s
adoption of Christianity.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“GOLDEN APRICOT” SECOND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL TO GO UNDER WATCHWORD “ARMENIA AT CROSSROAD OF CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURES”
YEREVAN, JUNE 17, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The “Golden Apricot”
second international film festival under the watchword “Armenia at
Crossroads of Civilizations and Cultures” in which artists of 45
countries of the world will particpate, starts in Yerevan on July
12. Haroutiun Khachatrian, the Director of the festival, a film
director stated this at the June 16 press-conference. According to
Haroutiun Khachatrian, the goal of the festival is to gather directors
of different ethnic, national, religious, aesthetic belonging and their
films. The solemn opening ceremony, to which world famous directors
among them Nikita Mikhalkov, Yos Stelling, Klod Miller, Atom Egoyan,
etc. are invited will take place at the Alexander Spendiarian National
Opera and Ballet Theater. Director Edgar Baghdasarian’s “Mariam” film
will be shown after the opening ceremony. Haroutiun Khachatrian also
mentioned that the festival will have three competitive programs:
the art of acting, documentary and “Armenian Panorama”; as well as
numerous extra-competitive programs “Documentary World,” “Yerevan
Premieres,” “Russian Program,” “Tribute of Respect,” “Artsakh Diary,”
“Genocide-90,” “Day of France.” A regional seminar “Film as Mean
of Intercultural Dialogue” as well as classes of mastery will be
held by famous directors during the days of the festival. Susanna
Haroutiunian, a member of the organization committe of the fetival
informed journalists that in contrast to the previous festival, this
year a new prize is envisaged for the competitive programs of the art
of acting and documentary films. A portrait of Sergey Paradjanov, a
world-famous film director will be pictured on that prize. And prize
winners of the “Armenian Panorama” competitive program will be given
“Golden Apricot” prizes this year as well.

A1plus
| 20:39:33 | 16-06-2005 | Politics |
FREEDOM HOUSE STUDY:NATIONS IN TRANSIT 2005
STUDY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEMOCRACY IN FORMER SOVIET COUNTRIES
New Freedom House Study Warns of Obstacles From Authoritarian Regimes
Recent developments in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan have altered
assumptions about democracy’s prospects in the former Soviet Union,
raising questions about what a new democratic spring means for
countries from Central Europe to Eurasia, according to a major study
released today by Freedom House.
The study, Nations in Transit 2005, presented today at a briefing in
Brussels, suggests that the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the
Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, as well as more recent events
in Kyrgyzstan, may have opened a new wave of democratic expansion
in the post-Soviet environment. The study warns, however, that the
failure of leaders throughout the region to uphold commitments to
democracy and to preserve their own citizens’ meaningful voice in
governance is a political dead end.
“The findings of this year’s Nations in Transit study make clear that
citizens in the former Soviet countries have what it takes to make
their countries democratic,” said Freedom House executive director
Jennifer Windsor. “In particular, Ukraine’s extraordinary return to
the democratic path in 2004 confirmed the potential for the peaceful
spread of liberal democracy and free markets to former Soviet countries
still suffering under corrupt and authoritarian regimes,” she said.
Based on the study, which tracks the movement of countries toward or
away from democracy, Freedom House urges Western leaders concerned with
encouraging democratic practices and good governance in the region to:
~U Assist countries in consolidating important democratic gains. For
example, ensure that additional U.S. foreign assistance is delivered
to Georgia, which has been selected for enhanced support under the
Millennium Challenge Account.
~U Engage and provide incentives to countries, such as Moldova,
whose leaders have communicated a desire for greater integration with
Western democracies.
~U Consider new strategies to deal with consolidated authoritarian
regimes such as in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan.
~U Address countries that are backsliding. Press President Vladimir
Putin to make good on pledges to advance democracy in Russia and
address democratic deterioration in Armenia.
~U Promote nonviolent approaches to change and provide clear and
effective responses to violence when it does occur.
“With the stakes so high, the transatlantic community must renew
efforts to support good governance, independent media, civil society,
the rule of law, and free and fair elections in the former Soviet
states,” said Nations in Transit editor Jeannette Goehring. “The
community also must devise new strategies to deal with governments
that are increasingly consolidating authoritarian rule and give
assistance to countries that previously may have been overlooked.”
Russia warrants special attention. “The fate of Russian democracy
has enormous implications, both for the former Soviet region and
globally,” said Ms. Windsor. “The fact that democracy has failed in
so many countries of the former Soviet Union is due in part to the
increasingly authoritarian Russian example. The U.S. and Europe should
press Moscow to play a constructive role in supporting democratic
practice both at home and abroad.”
Freedom House found that the eight new European Union members
from Central and Eastern Europe held their position as the
highest ranking countries in the study. These countries-Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,
and Slovenia-continued to show the strongest overall performance in
the key areas of democratization tracked: electoral process; civil
society; independent media; governance; corruption; and judicial
framework and independence. However, Nations in Transit also points
to the need of all these countries to tackle widespread corruption.
The Balkan countries showed signs of increased stability in
2004, yet still confronted substantial challenges to democratic
consolidation. Bulgaria and Romania both joined NATO in 2004 and
remained on the road to joining the European Union in 2007. At the
same time, analysis of both countries makes clear that attention is
still needed in areas such as advancing judicial reform, fighting
corruption, and increasing media independence.
The Western Balkan countries of Albania, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Macedonia, and Serbia-Montenegro (including Kosovo) face the most
substantial challenges of democratic consolidation in the Balkans. At
the Brussels briefing, Jasna Jelisic, an advisor to the Nations in
Transit study and a journalist with the Sarajevo-based weekly news
magazine Dani, noted that these countries are “only halfway down
the road to joining the European community of democratic nations and
building prosperous, open societies.”
“Although much remains to be done, the events of 2004 demonstrated that
the European integration process is having a major positive impact
on democratic consolidation and stability in the Western Balkans and
is giving hope to people for the future,” Ms. Jelisic said.
Zamira Eshanova, another advisor to the study and regional
expert on Central Asia for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said:
“The turmoil from power successions-those that have occurred and
those that are anticipated, though nobody knows when-is having an
increasingly destabilizing effect on Central Asia. The question
is: What institutions are in place and how will relative levels of
democratic strength and weakness play out in post turmoil regimes?”
NATIONS IN TRANSIT 2004: THE RATINGS
Produced annually, the Nations in Transit study provides comprehensive
analysis of transitions in 27 post-Communist countries (plus Kosovo) by
tracking progress and setbacks in electoral processes; civil society;
independent media; governance; corruption; and judicial framework and
independence. It also provides a unique set of comparative ratings
based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of
democratic development and 7 the lowest. Nations in Transit 2005 is
an updated edition of surveys published in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001,
2000, 1998, 1997, and 1995. The 2005 study covers the period from
January 1 through December 31, 2004, and includes for the first time
separate analysis and ratings of national democratic governance and
local democratic governance.
Largest Improvements in Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Both Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina experienced ratings improvements
in 4 out of 7 Nations in Transit categories-the highest number in the
study. Ukraine’s ratings improvements were more substantial owing to
the extraordinary challenges the country overcame in late 2004 and the
success of pro-democracy supporters in reinvigorating and jumpstarting
democratic political development in the country. Ukraine’s ratings
improved significantly in the categories of electoral process, civil
society, independent media, and judicial framework and independence. As
in previous years, Bosnia continued slow but steady democratic progress
and received modest ratings advances in the categories of electoral
process, independent media, judicial framework and independence,
and corruption.
Largest Declines in Russia and Azerbaijan, Deterioration in Armenia.
Russia and Azerbaijan both experienced ratings declines in 4 out of 7
Nations in Transit categories-the greatest number in the study-owing
to the consolidation of authority by presidents in both countries. In
Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev’s efforts led to declining ratings
for electoral process, civil society, independent media, and judicial
framework and independence. Russia’s more substantial declines occurred
in the categories of electoral process, civil society, independent
media, and judicial framework and independence. Russia’s performance
in 2004 stands in stark contrast to the positive changes noted in
neighboring Ukraine. Over the last two years, Armenia has shown a
less dramatic but still disturbing decline in the areas of electoral
process, independent media, and judicial framework and independence.
Electoral process.
(+) Nine countries or territories experienced ratings improvements
for electoral process: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.
(-) Five countries or territories experienced declines in electoral
process: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Poland, Russia, and Tajikistan.
Civil society.
(+) Eight countries or territories showed gains for civil society:
Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Tajikistan,
and Ukraine.
(-) Three countries or territories experienced setbacks for civil
society: Azerbaijan, Russia, and Slovenia.
Independent media.
(+) Seven countries or territories experienced improvements for
independent media: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Kyrgyzstan,
Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
(-) Eight countries or territories showed declines in independent
media: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Hungary, Romania,
Russia, and Tajikistan.
New Governance Ratings
~U Eight countries or territories showed better national democratic
governance than local democratic governance: Armenia, Croatia, Estonia,
Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.
~U Thirteen countries or territories showed better local democratic
governance than national democratic governance: Albania, Belarus,
Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Poland,
Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
~U Eight countries or territories received the same ratings for
national and local democratic governance: Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia, and Turkmenistan.
Judicial Framework and Independence.
(+) Nine countries or territories had ratings improvements in this
category: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Kosovo, Latvia, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan..
(-) Seven countries experienced setbacks in their ratings for this
category: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Poland,
and Russia.
Corruption.
(+) Five countries showed improvements in their ratings for corruption:
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, and Slovakia.
(-) Four countries showed regression in their ratings for corruption:
Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkmenistan.

THE NEW ELECTORAL CODE DID NOT JUSTIFY HOPES
A1plus
| 16:42:28 | 17-06-2005 | Politics |
“This time the hopes of the society to have a flawless Electoral Code
which could secure the fairness and transparency of the elections
organized was not justified. The guarantee could be the Electoral
Committees the real balance of which is not secured by the acting
Electoral Code”. This was the announcement of Haroutyun Haroutyunyan,
head of the non-governmental organization “Choice is yours” made
during the discussion in hotel Yerevan.
He considers that even in that case a flawless Electoral Code could
not guarantee fair and transparent elections as for that will is
needed. But he also said that the RA Law on amending the Electoral
Code has some improvements.
Deputy head of the organization Khachik Voskanyan mentioned the
non-introduction of the ink fingerprints as one of the shortcomings
of the Law. He wonders why the deputies considered it something
unsuitable to our mentality and did not accept it. “Forging elections
is suitable for our mentality, and ink fingerprints are not?”, he
asked rhetorically.
Mentioning other shortcoming of the Law, the non-governmental
organization “Choice is Yours” calls everyone to do their best to
secure the fairness of the coming elections of the local governing
bodies in coming September-October.

AZG Armenian Daily #111, 17/06/2005
Ecology
‘IF THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, NO ROAD WILL PASS THROUGH SHIKAHOGH’
Decision to Construct Road Through Shikahogh Declined
“The news that the government has reconsidered the decision to
construct a road through Mtnadzor and discusses the alternatives
submitted by NGOs, isn’t checked yet,” Karine Danielian, chairwoman of
For the Humanity’s Sake Association, member of SOS Shikahogh working
group, said.
According to the circulating news, RA President signed a decree
on constructing a road through Shikahogh. It was sent to relevant
ministries, but soon it was recalled.
The trustworthiness of this news will be proven during the large
discussion at the American University of Armenia. The specialists from
RA Transport and Ecology Ministries, as well as from RA parliament
and other relevant bodies are invited to participate in the discussion.
Notwithstanding the supposed wise decision of the authorities, they
are violating our right for being informed about issues of public
importance and participating in taking decisions. This right is
defined by RA Legislation and the Aarhus Convention.
Armenia Tree Project American program that is carrying out large-scale
tree planting in the regions of Armenia since 1994 unfolded a new
action in the Internet for saving Shikahogh. Stating that thanks to
the interference of NGOs and Diaspora, the program to construct a road
through Shikahogh is interrupted for several weeks, the Armenian Tree
Project announces: “We still want to be sure that this road will not
pass through the state preserve,” and calls for joining the rescue
action of Shikahogh also in the Internet.
Hakob Sanasarian, head of the Green’s Union, informed daily Azg about
the details of his conversation with RA Transport Ministry. “We are
Armenians and we should preserve our sanctuaries. Shikahogh is one
of them. If there is no alternative suggestion, the road will not
pass through Shikahogh,” Andranik Manukian said.
By Karine Danielian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Germans press Turks on Armenian slaughter
The Associated Press
FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2005
BERLIN Germany’s Parliament on Thursday urged Turkey to examine its
role in the killing of an estimated one million ethnic Armenians a
century ago – an issue that could affect Ankara’s hopes of joining
the European Union.
Lawmakers adopted a cross-party resolution asking the German government
to press Turkey to investigate the “organized expulsion and destruction
of the Armenians” and foster reconciliation.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it “regrets and strongly condemns”
the decision. A ministry statement added that Turkey had cautioned
Germany that the text was “biased, contained serious errors and lacked
information,” and had warned that its approval would “deeply wound
the Turkish people.”
Armenia accuses Turkey of genocide in the killings as part of
a campaign from 1915 to 1923 to force Armenians out of eastern
Anatolia. At the time, Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey remains extremely sensitive about the issue. It denies that the
killings were genocide and insists that the death count is inflated
and that Armenians were killed or displaced along with others as the
empire tried to quell civil unrest.
The motion did not mention Turkey’s effort to join the EU, but said
the Armenian issue was an example of how Turkey needs to guarantee
freedom of speech – an area where Ankara has been told it must improve
if it is to join the 25-nation bloc.
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has been one of Turkey’s
strongest supporters in its campaign for membership. But the
conservative opposition – which hopes to win national elections this
autumn – argues that Turkey should be offered a lesser “privileged
partnership.”
The German motion noted that “numerous independent historians,
parliaments and international organizations” describe the killing as
genocide, but stopped short of using that label itself.
The motion proposed the establishment of a commission of Turkish,
Armenian and international historians to examine the killings. It
complained that the Turkish authorities were stifling debate at
home. The Turkish Foreign Ministry statement retorted that the country
“has opened up its archives to all researchers, including Germans and
Armenians, on the premise that historic events can only be assessed
by historians and not by parliaments.”
BERLIN Germany’s Parliament on Thursday urged Turkey to examine its
role in the killing of an estimated one million ethnic Armenians a
century ago – an issue that could affect Ankara’s hopes of joining
the European Union.
Lawmakers adopted a cross-party resolution asking the German government
to press Turkey to investigate the “organized expulsion and destruction
of the Armenians” and foster reconciliation.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it “regrets and strongly condemns”
the decision. A ministry statement added that Turkey had cautioned
Germany that the text was “biased, contained serious errors and lacked
information,” and had warned that its approval would “deeply wound
the Turkish people.”
Armenia accuses Turkey of genocide in the killings as part of
a campaign from 1915 to 1923 to force Armenians out of eastern
Anatolia. At the time, Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey remains extremely sensitive about the issue. It denies that the
killings were genocide and insists that the death count is inflated
and that Armenians were killed or displaced along with others as the
empire tried to quell civil unrest.
The motion did not mention Turkey’s effort to join the EU, but said
the Armenian issue was an example of how Turkey needs to guarantee
freedom of speech – an area where Ankara has been told it must improve
if it is to join the 25-nation bloc.
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has been one of Turkey’s
strongest supporters in its campaign for membership. But the
conservative opposition – which hopes to win national elections this
autumn – argues that Turkey should be offered a lesser “privileged
partnership.”
The German motion noted that “numerous independent historians,
parliaments and international organizations” describe the killing as
genocide, but stopped short of using that label itself.
The motion proposed the establishment of a commission of Turkish,
Armenian and international historians to examine the killings. It
complained that the Turkish authorities were stifling debate at
home. The Turkish Foreign Ministry statement retorted that the country
“has opened up its archives to all researchers, including Germans and
Armenians, on the premise that historic events can only be assessed
by historians and not by parliaments.”
–Boundary_(ID_hLB0Ys09NVC0YEZpYakeSw)–

Tbilisi Softens Stance over Abkhaz Railway
Civil Georgia, Georgia
June 15 2005
If launched, rehabilitation of Abkhaz railway
will cost more than USD 100 mln. and will
take more than one year.
Georgian authorities announced on June 15 that Tbilisi has changed
its stance and now is ready to start talks over reopening of the
Abkhaz section of Russian-Georgian railway, which has been halted
since conflict in this breakaway region in early 90s. Russian
and Georgian officials say more than USD 100 million is needed to
rehabilitate 60-kilometer long portion of railway between Georgia’s
Zugdidi district and breakaway capital Sokhumi.
“Recently, the Georgian authorities are positive about resumption
of railway,” Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said on June
15. He addressed the summit of heads of railway companies from the
CIS countries in Tbilisi.
Genadi Fadeev, who before the evening on June 15 chaired the Russian
Railway Company met with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on
the sideline of this summit and discussed the resumption of Abkhaz
railway. News broke late on June 15 that Fadeev was replaced on this
position by his deputy Vladimir Yakunin. But, it is less likely that
this change of leadership in the Russia’s state-owned Railway Company
will also change the Moscow’s positive stance over resumption of
Abkhaz railway.
If implemented, the project will revive the Trans-Caucasus Railway,
which stretched more than 2,300 kilometers during Soviet times,
connecting Armenia and Georgian Black Sea ports with central Russia;
the railway operated passenger services and handled more than 15
million tons of transit cargo per year.
But, so far, the issue of reopening the railway via Abkhazia has
always been overshadowed by the political agenda pushed forwards
by officials in Tbilisi. Specifically, Georgia demanded return of
Georgian internally displaced persons to Abkhazia in exchange of
resumption rail traffic through its breakaway region.
“Georgia’s previous authorities had a different position and were
against [the reopening of this railway link], but the new authorities
have recently taken a more positive stance on this issue. But this
process [of reopening the railway] has some organizational problems
and, of course, this issue is linked, first and foremost, with the
security of the Georgian population of Gali district [of Abkhazia],”
Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said.
He also said that the “organizational problems” also include the
way how the customs procedures will be arranged, as well as how this
process will be controlled.
In an interview with Civil Georgia Chief of the Georgian Railway
Company Davit Onoprishvili said on June 15 that restoration of rail
link might promote the peace process in Abkhazia.
“In general, the Georgian side is interested in reopening this
railway traffic, because it will boost economy and, in turn, it
[economic levers] might as well foster conflict resolution process,”
Onoprishvili said.
“But this process [of railway rehabilitation] needs technical
preparations. It should be assessed how long it will take – apparently,
I think more than year; and also it should be decided who will fund
this project – it can be not only Georgia and Russia, but also other
interested parties,” he added.
Both, Georgian and Russian chiefs of railway companies say that the
cost of rehabilitation works will exceed USD 100 million.
“This cost [USD 100 million] will further increase if we include
[the expenses related to the] rehabilitation of [the portion of the
railway] over the Enguri river,” Genadi Fadeev told reporters in
Tbilisi on June 15. The Enguri river marks the administrative border
between Abkhazia and rest of Georgia.
“I think all participating countries – Russia, Georgia, also Armenia
and, to a certain extant Azerbaijan as well – should fund the
implementation of this project,” he added.
Davit Onoprishvili said that rehabilitation works should be carried
on the portion of railway which stretches from Abkhaz capital Sokhumi
to Ingiri station in Zugdidi district at the administrative border
with Abkhazia.
“Actually there is no railway [on this portion]. A new railway needs
to be installed there,” Onoprishvili added.
The rest of the portion of the railway, connecting Sokhumi with the
Russian capital Moscow has already been rehabilitated with the active
involvement of the Russian side and operates since September, 2004.
This portion of railway was reopened by Russia unilaterally without
prior agreement with Tbilisi which triggered the latter’s harsh
criticism.
Russia and Georgia agreed to jointly work over resumption of Abkhaz
railway in March, 2003, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and
then-Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze singed an agreement,
during a meeting in Sochi, to resume the railway connection and
simultaneously launch the process of returning Georgian internally
displaced persons to Abkhazia.
Georgian and Russian officials launched two-day talks in frames of this
agreement in Moscow on June 15. Georgian State Minister for Conflict
Resolution Issues Goga Khaindrava told reporters before departure to
Moscow on June 15 that “technical issues” over railway resumption,
as well as return of Georgian IDPs to Gali district will be discussed
during these talks.
This softening stance by Georgia was welcomed by land-locked Armenia,
which seeks for railway connection with its strategic partner Russia.
Ararat Khrimian, chief of the Armenian Railway Department told
reporters in Tbilisi on June 15, that Armenia is ready to contribute
to rehabilitation of railway via Abkhazia, if political agreement is
reached between Moscow and Tbilisi.
Despite, this change of stance by Tbilisi over Abkhaz railway, the
Georgian authorities are anyway cautious to openly talk about this
issue, because of anticipated angry reaction from the public. So
far none of the Georgian official has delivered clear explanation to
the public why this resumption of railway will benefit to Georgia,
or to the conflict resolution.

The Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS (FJC), Russia
June 15 2005
Shavuot Celebrated in Armenia
Wednesday, June 15 2005
YEREVAN, Armenia – For this year’s celebration of the holiday Shavout
in Armenia, the ‘Mordechai Navi’ Jewish Community Center of Yerevan
hosted a communal celebration.
This year’s celebration was met with a healthy turnout of local Jews,
who were eager to mark this important event in the history of the
Jewish people and Judaism. The festivity commenced with a prayer,
led by the Chief Rabbi of Armenia, Gersh Meir Burshtein. The Jewish
leader then took this opportunity to explain the meaning of the Giving
of the Torah to the keen participants.
In accordance to Jewish tradition, he then gave a reading of the Ten
Commandments given to the Jewish people that day at Mount Sinai.
Participants in this festive event then enjoyed a special treat
usually offered available to them at this time of the year – a
delicious kosher lunch comprised of traditional milk dishes.
The Jewish community of Armenia is a member of the Federation of
Jewish Communities of the CIS and Baltic Countries.

CEREMONY COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS TO BE HELD IN UK PARLIAMENT
Pan Armenian News
14.06.2005 08:09
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The British House of Lords will commemorate the
victims of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915, reported
the Yerkir newspaper. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian is
expected to address the event upon his arrival to London from Beijing.