Author: Emil Lazarian

ANCA: NAGORNO KARABAKH NEVER BEEN PART OF INDEPENDENT AZERBAIJAN

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 19 2006

YEREVAN, July 19. /ARKA/. The Armenian National Committee of America –
ANCA – responded Wednesday to a July 17th speech on the House floor
by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) that seriously misrepresented Nagorno
Karabagh’s history, status, and right to self-determination.

In a three-page fact sheet sent to every Congressional office, the
ANCA challenged Congressman Burton’s inaccurate description of the
Nagorno Karabagh issue as well as the biased and counter-productive
advice he offered to his House colleagues.

In its statement, ANCA points out that Nagorno Karabakh has never
been a part of independent Azerbaijan and reminds that in Soviet era
the republic has repeatedly put forward demand of unification with
Armenia. ANCA also stresses that after seceding from Azerbaijan the
republic has accomplished a great deal in building democracy and
turning to flexible market economy.

Nagorno Karabakh also displays willingness to settle Karabakh conflict
by peaceful means, the statement says.

ANCA says the uncompromising stance taken by Azerbaijan on Karabakh
poses threat to regional stability.

The Committee also point out that the U.S. government takes consistent
steps to promote Nagorno Karabakh development. The U.S.A.
sent its annual humanitarian aid to Karabakh, despite protests from

EAF: INCIDENT WITH ARMENIAN CHURCH LEADER IS ANOTHER EVIDENCE
OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIOLATION IN TURKEY

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 19 2006

YEREVAN, July 19. /ARKA/. Scandalous incident happened in the course
of Armenian Apostolic Church leader Catholicos Garegin II visit to
Istanbul came as another evidence of freedom of speech violation
in Turkey, European Armenian Federation, EAF, says in its press
release issued Wednesday. Garegin II, who was in Istanbul from June
20 to 27, stated there at a press conference held on June 26 that
Armenian genocide fact must be admitted also by Turkey and pointed
out irrelevance of Turkish side’s proposal to set up a commission of
historians for conducting scrutiny over this genocide. EAF Executive
Director Laurent Leylekian urged European Commission to condemn
Turkey’s policy of denial and pay greater attention to violation of
ethnic minorities’ rights and gender equality principle in Turkey.

Garegin II arrival to Istanbul started with a scandal. A group of 50
staged an action just outside Istanbul airport protesting Armenian
Church leader arrival. The protesters hurled eggs at the cars carrying
the high-level clerics. Armenian political and public activists have
condemned the incident. M.V.-0–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU Criticizes Turkish Law on "Insulting Turkishness"

Brussels Journal, Belgium
July 19 2006

EU Enlargment commissioner Olli Rehn demands that Turkey amend
its laws on curbing free expression, in particular Article 301 of
its penal code. Recently, Turkish courts upheld a prison sentence
against a Turkish editor, Hrant Dink. The Turkish citizen, Elif
Shafak – author of Father and Bastard – also faces renewed charges of
"insulting Turkishness" under the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish
Criminal Code, despite the earlier dismissal of the case.

Shafak’s case has already been fraught with complications. The
original trial in June of Elif Shafak and her publisher (Semih Sokmen
of Metis Publishing House) declared that, after the publication of
her bestseller Father and Bastard, there was no evidence to prosecute
her on the charges of "publicly insulting Turkishness."

A subsequent trial brought by The Unity of Jurists – led by the lawyer,
Kemal Kerincsiz – overturned the dismissal. It was in Istanbul’s
Seventh High Criminal Court that the original decision to dismiss the
case was reversed. After that ruling, the case file was passed back
to the original court of prosecution, Beyoglu Republic Prosecutors’
Office.

The charges of "publicly insulting Turkishness" stem from the notorious
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. After previously reviewing the
trial of Orhan Pamuk, it is clear that there is now an extensive list
of journalists and writers whose freedom of expression continues to
be intimidated and suppressed.

In a reaction to an earlier article of mine, comparing the Pamuk trial
to that of Italian writer Oriana Fallaci, who is being prosecuted in
Italy because she "defamed Islam," the weblog Parenthetical Remarks
writes:

What’s curious about McConalogue’s article is the way in which
he couches Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk’s famous battle with the
government over charges that he had "insulted Turkishness" by public
ally mentioning the Armenian genocide and Turkey’s treatment of
the Kurds.

McConalogue would like to draw a parallel between Pamuk and Italian
journalist Oriana Fallaci, who has been charged with defaming Islam
in Italy. To this end, he chooses to see Pamuk as somehow having run
afoul of a Muslim status quo in Turkey.

The only problem is that Pamuk’s case doesn’t demonstrate this in
the least. Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which prohibits
insulting Turkishness and the Turkish military, was dreamed up not
by Muslim extremists, but by the militant secularist diciples of
Kemal Ataturk. The people behind the prosecutions of Pamuk and other
writers are nationalists who adhere to a vision of the Turkish state
that is anathema to radical Islamists in Turkey and beyond.

I agree with McConalogue on the importance of free expression, but
there is absolutely no connection between Pamuk and Fallaci. The
juxtaposition appears to be based on a rather lazy assumption that
because Turkey is a Muslim country, to run afoul of its government
must be to run afoul of Islam. Nothing could be further from the case.

I disagree with the blogger’s critique since in my view, the cases of
both author’s are trials of intimidating/suppressing free expression
through religious forces. I am in agreement with the critic’s issue
of defending free expression and I must apologise for where I did
not clarify the points I made on the Turkish problem in my article.

The basic contention of the criticism seems to be this: Fallaci’s
case concerns the suppression of free expression based on religion
following the author’s vehement attacks on Islam, whereas Pamuk’s case
concerns the suppression of free expression based on nationalists in
the political sphere following his claims of past atrocities by the
Turkish state and its military power. This leads my critic to suggest
that "there is absolutely no connection between Pamuk and Fallaci."

I attempt to keep myself aware of lazy assumptions that I am likely
to make of cultures that I do not belong to. However, Turkey is a
predominantly Muslim country and in assessing its government’s policy
to literary cases, I would assess the geo-political culture in which
its laws are conceived. That is to say, I take a step back from the
immediate legislative developments since June 2005 i.e. Article 301.
(Certainly, I would agree, I may have taken too many steps back in
this article). I am aware that Pamuk is being prosecuted under the
banner of Article 301 and Fallaci is being prosecuted for the rather
odd charge of defaming Islam – both of which are very different
charges and circumstances – but they are essentially a part of the
same trend. They are both concerned with free expression and Islam.
More to the point, both sets of recourse to the law are nothing more
than quick-fix efficient methods of intimidating author’s on matters
relating to religion.

At the centre of my critic’s remark is a passion for intricate
historical divisions in the Turkish political topography at the cost of
forgetting the generalized patterns of social and political analysis
(although I can appreciate that it is important to examine this
immediate evidence before approaching more generalized patterns). My
own analytical framework, for quite some time, has been based upon
Michael Mann’s legendary three volumes of The Sources of Social
Power, which assesses the inter-related historical developments of
ideological, economic, military and political spheres in modern social
and political powers. So when I took to analysing Pamuk’s case, it
was not limited to the military/political divisions in modern Turkey –
I understood religion to play a significant part in underpinning the
nationalist instinct in Turkish society. In short, I believe something
deeper underpins that free-floating secular nationalism. Of course,
this certainly remains a debatable issue.

Yet, Article 301, should we forget, refers to "publicly insulting
Turkishness." Are we then assuming that Turkishness, for Turks, is
now a non-Islamic concept? I can’t help but think that "Turkishness"
in Pamuk’s claims was devoted to a provocation over two issues
irrevocably related to Islamic politics: a discomfort over the
Armenian genocide and the persecution of the Kurds. Thus, a case on the
Turkish nationalist-military-political framework overreaching into the
private realm is very likely to signify a general case of religious
intrusion into free expression. As for the claims of "secularists"
and "secularism", this is a difficult concept to talk of in all
cultures, including in my home country of parochial Christian-centric
islanders. Accordingly, I find it difficult to think of the Turkish
state as "anathema" to the Islamic culture (radical or non-radical)
it is responsible for governing.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Detroit Armenians offer lahmajoun

CHICAGO TRIBUNE
July 19 2006

BY ROBIN MATHER JENKINS

Pine nuts and feta cheese bring a salty, rich finish to lahmajoun.
(JOHN DZIEKAN/McClatchy-Tribune)

Related articles:

Lahmajoun A stop at a Middle Eastern bakery and a stack of freshly
baked pitas rekindled my appetite for lahmajoun, a dish I learned
to make from Armenian-American friends in Detroit. It’s a terrific
solution for the dinner rush. I’m told that lahmajoun (la-ma-ZHOON)
translates from Arabic to "meat dough," but if you think of it as
individual pizzas, you would be closer to the mark.

Here are a few tips:

If lamb isn’t your favorite, substitute ground beef or even ground
turkey.

Try adding diced tomato or tomato paste to the meat while browning.

If you can find za’atar, the Middle Eastern blend of sumac, oregano
and sesame seeds, use that instead of the oregano.

Lemonade and limeade are both so easily made at home that you can
make a pitcher while the lahmajoun bakes. The juice from half a lemon
or a whole lime should be adequate for a glassful. Sweeten to taste.
Serve with chopped salad of cucumbers, onions and tomatoes.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Interview With Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Radio Talk Show Host Dennis Prager

Fox News Network
SHOW: YOUR WORLD WITH NEIL CAVUTO 4:14 PM EST
July 19, 2006 Wednesday

HOST: Neil Cavuto

GUESTS: Dick Armey, Dennis Prager

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Meanwhile, Israeli troops moving into Lebanon, what
are the implications, if this is a start of a major ground offensive?

With us now, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and radio talk
show host and syndicated columnist Dennis Prager.

Dennis, to you first.

What’s the implication here?

DENNIS PRAGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Israel is trying to do what the
— what the West most needs: destroy one of the biggest terrorist
organizations.

This is truly of world significance. This is no longer an Arab- Israeli
dispute. This is the free world vs. the Islamic terror world. And much
of the world recognizes this, from India, to Europe, to the United
States. That is why this is the most muted criticism of Israel ever,
since 1967, in any battle with any Arab country. It is why even some
Arab countries have come out against Hezbollah and not against Israel.

CAVUTO: All right.

PRAGER: There is a real…

CAVUTO: Dick, Dick Armey, do you think the administration tacitly
recognizes, maybe supports, what Dennis is saying, that there’s no rush
to get to the peace table here; let Israel keep pounding Hezbollah?

DICK ARMEY, FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I believe, within
the overall conflict of the war against terrorism, the administration
recognizes, there’s a nasty job to be done. Israel, in their own self-
defense, have undertaken that — this task.

At this point, the situation is what it is, and the administration
could do very little to change things over there. So, the — I think,
right now, everybody is pinning their hopes on the proposition that the
Israeli army, with its efficiency, can clean this nest out, to such
a sufficient level, in a short period of time, that you can maybe,
at that point, get some kind of a cease-fire, reestablish some kind
of order, and have some hope for maintaining it.

But until you thin this group out, I don’t think that’s possible. To
some extent, what the Israelis need to do is win a war of attrition
and just get this band reduced to a — a little bit less of a gang
that takes courage from one another.

CAVUTO: Well, there must be something to what you say, Dick, and —
and — and, tangentially, Dennis, to you as well, because the markets
were sensing — and many a trader were telling me exactly what both
of you have said — that there’s growing confidence that this will
be resolved, and maybe sooner than later.

But what if you guys and the markets indeed have it wrong? It wouldn’t
be the first time — maybe not for you guys, but for the markets.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: So, Dennis, what’s the fallout then?

PRAGER: You’re right.

If — if, in fact, Israel cannot prevail here, then, it’s a huge
victory for our generation’s form of Nazism. And that’s — that’s
a big problem. It doesn’t mean that the war is all over, and we —
we just go with our tail behind our legs — or between our legs,
but — but Israel has to prevail.

The question really is, how long will the — quote, unquote — "world
community," which has never been a force for good in the history of
the world — ask the Armenians — ask the Jews — ask the Rwandans —
ask the Cambodians — world community has always been a force for
bad. At the very — every time I hear "international community,"
I know, uh-oh, bad will prevail.

So long as the international community can stay out of this, Israel
will prevail.

CAVUTO: But I’m not…

PRAGER: It is not…

CAVUTO: You know, Dennis, I’m not so sure of that.

I — and, Dick Armey, it’s a point I want to take up with you.

We already have gotten some European criticism, Jacques Chirac and
others saying, about this disproportionate use of force on Israel’s
part. So, is there going to be ill will following all of this,
hopefully, when all of this is behind us…

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: … that Israel, already persona non grata in the U.N. in
vote after vote after vote, but especially so after this?

ARMEY: Well, I don’t be facetious, but it seems clear, history says
time and time again, that Israel has always better understood the
need to defend itself than the French have.

(CROSSTALK)

ARMEY: And the French, I don’t think, culturally, are quite able to
comprehend the sense of imperative urgency that the Israelis realize
in facing this threat to the freedom and safety of their citizens.

The other thing you have to understand is, again, history tells
us that, when the Israeli military sets its mind to something, it
generally has, historically, accomplished what it — what it set out
to do. So…

CAVUTO: OK.

ARMEY: … we have, I think, historically, good reason to put our
confidence that the Israeli troops can resolve this in quick order.

CAVUTO: OK, Dick, final word on the subject.

Dennis, good seeing you.

PRAGER: Thank you.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM
AND MAY BE UPDATED.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

JUSTICE MINISTRY REGISTERS 4 NEW PARTIES

Armenpress

YEREVAN, JULY 19, ARMENPRESS: Armenian justice ministry has registered
four new political parties in the last six months raising their
overall number to 74. The last registered party on June 5 is called
Protection of National Values.

Gurgen Sarkisian, an official from the ministry dealing with
registration of parties, said five of 74 parties are in the process
of liquidation. He said some fifty parties, which failed to meet
new requirements of the revised law on political parties, had been
already liquidated in the last six months.

Under the law, the parties have also to report, apart from other
things, on the number of their members. Now the Orinats Yerkir party
of the former parliament chairman Arthur Baghdasarian officially
has 42,759 members, more than any other party, followed by the
National Unity of Artashes Geghamian that boasts of 41,535 members,
the People’s Party of Stepan Demirchian with 28,214 members and the
governing Republican party which has 25,309 members.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AU LIBAN
L’evacuation des Canadiens se fait dans le chaos

CPACTUALITES/60719054/1019/CPACTUALITES

Presse Canadienne
Beyrouth, Liban

Une residante de Hamilton, en Ontario, qui cherchait a sortir du
Liban et qui s’etait fait dire de se presenter au port de Beyrouth
aujourd’hui, s’est fait refouler par les autorites sur place.

Lara Tcholakian, enceinte de six mois, etait en vacances au Liban
avec son mari et son fils d’un an.

Les autorites canadiennes avaient communique avec elle pour lui
dire qu’elle serait au sein du premier groupe d’evacues et l’avaient
invitee a se presenter au port a 8h ce matin, heure de Beyrouth.

Elle rapporte toutefois que c’etait le chaos total a son arrivee.

En entrevue telephonique avec la Presse Canadienne, Mme Tcholakian a
explique que des milliers de Canadiens etaient masses a l’entree du
port, sous un soleil accablant.

Un responsable canadien a annonce avec un porte-voix que le navire
accueillerait d’abord les femmes enceintes, les familles avec de
jeunes enfants et les personnes âgees. Or, elle raconte qu’on lui a
dit de facon très impolie que son nom n’etait pas sur la liste.

Après six heures de vaine attente, Mme Tcholakian, 33 ans, a dû se
resigner a retourner chez un membre de sa famille. Elle qualifie
la situation a Beyrouth de veritable cauchemar et deplore l’absence
d’informations en provenance des autorites canadiennes. Elle a indique
qu’une ligne telephonique d’urgence sans frais a ete mise en place
pour les Canadiens mais que les personnes au bout du fil n’ont que
rarement les bonnes informations.

–Boundary_(ID_qVzu3lShYHlnKBCj6qr4 iA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Vartanov’s influential documentary "Parajanov: The
Last Spring" premieres in Poland

Mozart Entertainment
Post Office Box 17257
Beverly Hills, California 90209 US

World’s first Chechnya-born filmmaker, Armenian master documentarian,
Russian Academy of Cinema Arts Award recipient, Mikhail Vartanov
(Vardanov), will arrive to the Polish land on the 21st of July 2006
to present his influential masterpiece "Parajanov: The Last Spring"
which will open the Parajanov film retrospective and exhibiton at
the Era New Horizons Film Festival in Wroclaw, Poland.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

"IT IS GOOD THAT THE SECRECY IS NOW GONE"

(The exclusive interview of Zeyno Baran, Director of the Center for
Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to Armenian Mediamax news agency,
July 2006)

The situation around the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement in
recent several weeks has been developing like a "snowball". Shortly
after the meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in Bucharest
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs issued a statement that was perceived
in the region as an "ultimatum" to the parties in the conflict. Do
you agree with such definition?

– I don’t consider the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs’ statement as an
"ultimatum". It is a statement, however, that makes clear that the
co-chairs believe they have done all they can in this process. From
here on, the burden is going to be on the Armenian and the Azerbaijani
sides–if they want a solution, then they need to work with what
there is. Neither side is very happy with what is on offer, but each
side would be better off if this conflict is resolved, so the two
Presidents and the two peoples need to figure out what they want.

I think it is good that the secrecy is now gone and the people of
Armenia and Azerbaijan see clearly what is on offer. For too long
people were debating the plan based on speculations; the whole process
was in the hands of the Presidents and a small group of people around
them. Having more of the society engaged is part of the democratic
and much healthier way to go about it.

Unfortunately I still do not see how either of the Presidents will
move. There are very good reasons for both of them to accept what is
on offer, and declare it as a major success to their people. However,
I think their calculations are different and both believe it is better
to wait a bit longer and see how the situation may evolve. For example,
we still do not know what will happen with Iran; in case of increased
tension with the West, what will Iran’s policy be towards Armenia
and Azerbaijan? What will their positions be vis-a-vis Iran and the
West? How about the deteriorating relations between Washington and
Moscow, especially in areas Moscow still considers to be in its
"backyard". I think without a clearer picture of the future of
the South Caucasus region and the dynamics that affect it, neither
president will risk making a move that may leave their country in a
worse situation than it is now.

– Can a breakthrough be anticipated at the talks if the G8 Summit
in St. Petersburg discusses the Karabakh settlement?

– Of course it would be very important for the G-8 Summit to include
Karabakh (as well as the other so-called frozen conflicts). While just
raising them at one meeting is not going to lead to any "breakthrough"
it would send a message that the G-8 community is committed to the
peaceful resolution of these conflicts. It would also be important to
underline that it is in Russia’s interest too to see these conflicts
resolved and the South Caucasus prosper.

– Speaking at "The future of democracy in the Black Sea area"
hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
European Affairs on March 8th, 2005 you expressed the opinion that
"to change the political and economic conditions on the ground and
the calculations of two sides U.S. needs to get engaged into the
Karabakh conflict settlement at the highest level." To your mind,
can we speak about such engagement today?

– I think over the last year the US has increased its engagement,
but still not at the sufficient level. That is why we need to see
US President Bush raise Karabakh at the G-8 so he commits the US at
the highest levels. Why? Because everyone knows that in addition to
working out the issues between the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides,
there is also the Russia factor, and only the US has the ability to
work with Russia in a way to help them see that solution to Karabakh
is in their interest as well.

– You have also stated: "Azerbaijan is told by the West that it lost
Karabakh in the war and needs to give up this piece of land for
the sake of peace and prosperity and move on with its EU and NATO
integration process. This kind of talk only hardens the nationalists,
who believe that with massive oil and gas revenues starting to flow
into the budget over the next several years, they can strengthen
their military and take back their land." What, to your mind, is
the West doing wrong and what steps should the West take? Can we
describe as nationalists the senior Azerbaijani government officials
who constantly threaten to increase the military budget and resolve
the problem in a military way?

– There is a lot of frustration in Azerbaijan and a sense that the
international community would have supported them a lot more if they
were Christian. Making compromise is always difficult and especially
in a region where such a tradition is not that prevalent. If one looks
at the facts on the ground in Azerbaijan, especially the two digit
growth rates and oil starting flow in massive quantities, it is easy
to understand that the Azerbaijani people would feel increasingly more
secure and feel that time is on their side. Then there is the rise of
nationalism which is not just an Azerbaijani phenomenon but is seen in
many of the countries, including in neighboring countries like Russia
and Turkey. The talk about the military option may be part of the
negotiating tactic, or it may reflect the sense of frustration. I am in
general opposed to people -including senior government officials–using
such language as it fuels mutual mistrust and makes compromise
even harder.

– How viable the prospect of determining Nagorno Karabakh’s status
at a referendum is?

– I do not believe there can be a referendum held in the short
term that would have international legitimacy, but there could and
probably will be one in the future. It all depends on when and under
what conditions.

– In last several years, the representatives of the U.S. Administration
have stressed that unlike other post-Soviet frozen conflicts, Russia
and the USA cooperate closely in Nagorno Karabakh. Is this conditioned
by the specific character of the Karabakh conflict or you may outline
other reasons?

– There is a major difference between Karabakh and the other frozen
conflicts–in the others, such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia
is almost a direct player. Whereas in Karabakh, it is only an indirect
player and hence it is easier for the US and Russia to cooperate.

– The opinion that the USA will henceforth connect the Nagorno Karabakh
settlement with the internal political developments in Armenia and
the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections abandon in
Armenia. How justified this
tactics will be?

– I frankly have not heard anyone mention this in the US
administration. The only thing I hear being mentioned repeatedly is
that 2006 is the "window of opportunity" to reach a solution as after
this year Armenia will start the election cycle and in that climate
it is much harder to resolve a difficult issue like Karabakh.

– Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European
Affairs last March you said that "the strength of Armenian Diaspora
limits U.S. ability
to encourage democratic change in Armenia." You noted then that
"the U.S.
simply cannot put the same kind of pressure on President Robert
Kocharian as it was able to do with President Leonid Kuchma of
Ukraine. It is inconceivable to think that Washington would threaten
to keep senior Armenian government officials out of the U.S. in case
of falsified elections." To your mind, will this tendency be preserved
or Washington will be ready to harden its position if the elections
in Armenia again fail to meet international standards?

– Well, I guess I do not foresee any change as the Armenian Diaspora
is still as effective as it has been and would not want the Armenian
government to come under any kind of criticism. But Armenians should be
able to join the community of democracies and all those civil society
and NGO activists, as well as those reformers in the government,
should be able to get the kind of support other pro-democracy people
in other parts of the world get from the US. There has to be a way
to come up with some sort of a constructive and effective criticism,
but I don’t have the answer as to how.

– What do you think, has Washington already defined its "allies"
at the upcoming elections in Armenia?

– No, I don’t think anyone in Washington is really thinking about
the elections at this point–those few who cover the region are all
focused on the Karabakh conflict. When it gets closer, Washington (by
that I mean the US government) will of course be mostly interested
in the pre-election process; if there will be some "more favored"
candidates, these will be people who will have a vision for Armenia
that is democratic, on its path to integrate closer with the European
and Euro-Atlantic institutions, has a clear and workable reform
agenda, etc.

– Why do U.S. efforts to normalize relations between Armenia and
Turkey turn out to be fruitless? How real is it to speak about the
possibility of normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations before the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

– I always had difficulty seeing how Turkey would normalize relations
with Armenia, mainly open the border, before there is some progress
on the Karabakh issue–it does not have to be fully resolved, but
there has to be sufficient progress so that the Turkish people and
the Azerbaijani people would let their leaders make such a move. Of
course there are regular flights between Turkey and Armenia, and
people-to-people exchanges and dialogues are going well. But no matter
how much pressure (or encouragement) there is from the US (and the EU),
Turks will not be able to change policy before the conditions on the
ground change. Turks are simply too close with Azeris in many ways
(ethnic, religious, culture, etc) for them to just act on their own.

DEFENSE MINISTER TO THINK ABOUT NOMINATING FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Panorama.am
15:03 19/07/06

Armenian Republican Party vice chairman Razmik Zohrabyan refuted rumors
that Serz Sargsyan is going to take up the post of ARP chairmanship
upon teaming up with the party. Zohrabyan said he has no such plans
but also said that Sargsyan will think about nominating himself for
presidential elections after the parliamentary elections./Panorama.am/

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress