Author: Emil Lazarian

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE NEWLY ELECTED CHAIRMEN OF NA STANDING COMMITTEES
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
June 5 2006
Aramayis Grigoryan was born on October 6, 1965 in the village of
Avshar in the Ararat region.
In 1988 Mr. Grigoryan graduated from St. Petersburg (RF) Institute of
Light Industry From 1985-1987 he served in the Soviet Army, worked as
a quality engineer, head of workshop in Ararat Knitted-Goods Factory.
In 1988-1990 he headed the organi­zational division of the Vedi Council
of Ararat Regional Committee of the Leninist Communist Youth Union
(LCYU). In 1999-2002 he worked first as a deputy director and then
in 2002-2003 as general director of Avshar Wine Factory.
On May 25, 2003 he was elected to the NA from electoral district #
25 and from 2003 he has been a member of the NA Standing Committee on
Financial-Credit, Budgetary and Economic Affairs. He is not a member
of any faction or deputy group and he is non-partisan.
On June 2, 2006 he was elected Chairman of the NA Standing Committee
on Defence, National Security and Internal Affairs.
He is married and has three children.
Mnatskan Petrosyan was born on February 16, 1956 in the town of
Akhaltsikeh in Georgia.
He graduated from the Yerevan Institute of National Economy in 1980
with excellent marks. Economist.
In 1973-1976 he was a worker in the Yerchimshin Trust. In 1980 he
worked as an economist in the Elektrasark Industrial Complex. In
1980-1983 he was the first secretary of LCYU Committee at the Yerevan
Financial and Economic College. In 1980-1985 he gave lectures in the
Yerevan State University (YSU). In 1983-1986 he was an instructor
in the Division of the Communist Youth Organizations in the LCYU
Central Committee. In 1986 he was head of the Accounting and
Statistics Subdivision. In 1986-1989 he was the deputy head of the
Communist Youth Organizations Division. From 1989-1990 he was the
Department Administrator. In 1990-1994 he was the administrative
officer in the Armenia Youth Union. In 1994-1997 he worked as a
chief accountant in the Hayk Association. In 1997-1998 he was the
manager of Echmiatsin branch of Hayeconombank. In 1998-2000 he was
the manager at HayAgrobank, and in 2000-2002 he was deputy executive
director. In 2002-2003 he was the deputy executive director of Arsoil
Armenian Enterprise CJSC.
On December 11, 2003 he was elected to the NA from the proportional
list of the United Labor Party (ULP) and he was on the NA Standing
Committee on Social, Health Care and Environmental Protection
Affairs. He is a member of both the United Labor Party faction
and party.
On June 2, 2006 he was elected Chairman of the NA Standing Committee
on Social, Health Care and Environmental Protection Affairs.
He is married and has two children.
–Boundary_(ID_1wPnDKGfXNh/tRgO+OWpgA)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

WORLD BANK TO FUND AVIAN FLU PROJECT IN ARMENIA
Mediamax news agency
5 Jun 06
Yerevan, 5 June: The World Bank will allocate a credit to the tune
of 6.26m dollars for preventive measures against avian flu in Armenia.
The Japanese government will allocate a grant to the tune of 804,000
dollars to Armenia within the framework of the project, the director
of the World Bank’s representative office in Yerevan, Roger Robinson,
said in Yerevan on 5 June.
The programme consists of several components: human health, animal
health, compensation to farmers and public awareness. The compensation
fund will total about 750,000 dollars.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKISH AUTHOR PAMUK CALLS FOR FREE DEBATE OF ARMENIAN ISSUE
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 5 2006
Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk made a plea today for freedom of expression
particularly in relation to the dispted 1915 Relocation Campaign.
The acclaimed Turkish writer was in Moscow to promote the Russian
translation of his book, “Istanbul: Memories And The City.”
Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kinsmen died in orchestrated
killings during World War I, and describe the events as genocide.
Turkey argues that 100,000 Armenians and 520.000 of Turks were
killed in civil strife when the Armenians rose up against their
Ottoman rulers.
It is almost impossible to discuss the 1915 events in Armenia. Last
year a Turkish researcher was arrested and put into prison when
he wanted to study the Armenian archives. No Turkish book has been
translated to Armenian lanuguage on the issue.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KAZAKHSTAN AND ARMENIA FMS MET IN ASTANA
source: KazInform
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 5 2006
ASTANA – On June 1 Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kassymzhomart
Tokayev held a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Vartan Askanyan,
who pays an official visit to Kazakhstan.
The sides debated urgent issues of foreign affairs and a wide range
of matters concerning bilateral cooperation in various domains,
Kazakhstan MFA’s press service reports.
As stated there, transport and energy collaboration may become
priority one.
According to Askanyan Armenia considers Kazakhstan as the Central
Asian leader. He underlined a need for deepening further bilateral
as well as multilateral interaction.
Kazakhstan and Armenia established diplomatic links back to 1992. The
fundamental documents regulating bilateral relations are Treaty on
principles of relationship and Treaty on friendship and cooperation.
Mutual striving for widening mutual benefit trade and economic
cooperation was highlighted during the first official visit of
Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev to Armenia May 2001. A
great deal of agreements were signed then.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DARCHINYAN KOS MEXICAN TO RETAIN TITLE
Grantlee Kieza
Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia
June 5 2006
VIC Darchinyan is a little man with a huge punch and yesterday
Australia’s world flyweight champion showed it on the world stage,
knocking out previously unbeaten Mexican Luis Maldonado in Las Vegas.
Australia’s best fighter stunned the crowd at the Thomas and Mack
Centre, trading heavy shots with the rugged Mexican before finally
overwhelming him in the eighth round to retain his IBF flyweight title.
When referee Joe Cortez rescued Maldonado from Darchinyan’s relentless
onslaught it was the Mexican fighter’s first loss in 35 starts.
The undefeated Darchinyan scored his 26th win and his 21st KO. All
five of his world title bouts have ended inside the distance and he
looks a good chance to emulate his friend Kostya Tszyu in unifying
all the world titles in his 51kg weight division.
Both fighters promised fireworks and both delivered, trading heavy
shots in the opening three rounds until Maldonado was cut above the
right eye in round four.
Darchinyan, a Sydney Olympian, dropped the Mexican in round six and
although Maldonado bravely fought back, he was taking a beating when
the referee intervened midway through round eight.
The bout was scheduled as the main supporting bout to the third war
between lightweight stars Diego Corrales and Jose Luis Castillo. But
after Castillo failed to make the weight for the bout, Darchinyan’s
title defence was elevated to the main event on a huge pay per view
card throughout the world.
“It was a great chance to show the world my power,” Darchinyan said.
“I put on a good show and hopefully this win against a very good
Mexican opponent will give me more fans. I hope my supporters in
Australia liked what they saw because I have many more world titles
to win.
“I feel I can beat the champions now in three more weight classes
all the way up to super-bantamweight if I have to.”
Darchinyan’s trainer Jeff Fenech implored Australian boxing fans to
support the Armenian-born southpaw who has much more success attracting
fans overseas.
“We just saw 30,000 people turn up to see Anthony Mundine-Danny Green
in a non-title fight that no one outside Australia could care less
about,” Fenech said.
“Vic Darchinyan is an outstanding, undefeated world champion who has
crushed everyone put before him. He deserves to get recognition as
a global boxing star.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

An interview with Ara Sarafian – Turkish review VIRGUL- Issue 95 – May 2006
23050)
dimanche 4 juin 2006, Stéphane/armenews
AN INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN

published in the monthly book review Virgul, Issue 95, May 2006

OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in Turkey
in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives was
interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your name is
mentioned in connection with the `Treatment of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire 1915-1916′, known as the “Blue Book”.

At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made a
presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book as
your topic ?

ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey,
and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the
official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case
against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis,
relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I
call many of my antagonists `denier’ of the Armenian Genocide rather
than people I disagree with.

O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?

A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not
know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but
certainly we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James
Bryce, acted in good faith when putting it together. We can make this
assertions because we have Toynbee’s working papers from this period
(including his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later
published works where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian
Genocide.

O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness
account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?

A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book
was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness
accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States,
which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until
April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they
also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans in
these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss
missionaries.

Given these source of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt the
originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they judged
their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.

I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess
their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They even
made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their case
on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two
documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative
of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other
foreigners, in case the `native evidence’ (those from Armenian or
Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.

In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports
were provided by non-Armenians, and that the `native evidence’ merely
provided additional information.

According to the available evidence, the report that was compiled by
Bryce and Toynbee was accepted as a Parliamentary Blue Book in the
summer of 1916 because of the strong case it represented. Certainly
Toynbee had no idea that the report he compiled would become a
Parliamentary report.

The strength of the Blue Book today lies in the fact that we have a
complete record of how it was put together. We also know where (most
of) the original documentation came from, as well as how these
documents were selected from a wider body of archival records in the
United States. This is why we can still find the original records
today (and can not simply speculate about their real or fictitious
origins).

I used these archival and published sources to carefully annotate my
critical edition of the 1916 work.

O.K. : Do you think we can refer to the Blue Book as a propaganda
tool? What were the means/methods used by the British in their
propaganda efforts at that time ?

A.S. : The British used propaganda as part of their war effort. Some
of this was crude, and some of it not so crude. The British government
was careful such propaganda did not backfire. That is why they did not
publish anything on Ottoman Turkey early in the war (for example when
they were landing at Gallipoli), because they did not have reliable
information. They were concerned that, if they made a poor case
against the Ottoman Empire, it would offend the Muslim population of
the British Empire. The first pamphlet they printed, not under an
official title, was after October 1915-when they first began receiving
reliable information about the destruction of Armenians. In fact, the
basis of that booklet was a speech Bryce made in Parliament, based on
the new evidence from the USA. Toynbee was asked to create a
publication from Bryce’s speech, which is what he did, and it was
published under his own name.

As more evidence of atrocities against Armenians was revealed, Toynbee
and Bryce continued to collect such records in a more formal way in
February 1916, for a more critical and systematic report. Once the
decision was taken to publish the Blue Book, it was used for effective
propaganda purposes. However, the work itself was not compromised by
crude propaganda considerations, nor fabricated as some deniers of the
Armenian Genocide like to suggest. The Blue Book was compiled to a
high academic standard, and the archival records we have today support
this point out.

O.K. : As you know, Ottoman Empire too published a book, `Ermeni
Komitelerinin Amal ve Harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi’, for propaganda purposes
about the Armenian issue during the WWI. What can you say on this book?

A.S. : Regarding Ottoman wartime propaganda against Armenians, it
cannot be compared with the Blue Book. Turkish nationalists have
republished the Ottoman government’s anti-Armenian propaganda without
serious examination where the records came from, who compiled and
edited them, who forwarded them to the compilers, where the original
materials are today, how records were included or excluded from the
Ottoman publication, etc. It would be an interesting exercise for the
TTK (Turkish History Association) to undertake and publish such an
annotated republication, as the Gomidas Institute has done for the
Blue Book.

O.K. : You are the editor of the 2000 “uncensored” edition of the Blue
Book ? What does “uncensored” mean ?

A.S. : I am the editor of the 2000 and the 2005 `uncensored’ editions!
The latter one came out last year with minor additions in the
introduction.

I decided to call my annotated republication the `uncensored edition’
because I included information that was left out of the original
publication. In 1916, many of the witnesses whose reports appeared in
the Blue Book, were still in the Ottoman Empire (for example, the US
consuls in Trabzon, Harput, Aleppo, Mersin). The British could not
reveal the identities of these people for obvious reasons. In other
cases, the eyewitness accounts were so specific, that the identities
of the sources inside the Ottoman Empire could be revealed by the
witness statements, so some place names also had to be obscured as
well. When Toynbee censured such information he also placed it into a
confidential key, which was not made generally available-except to
trusted individuals.
Toynbee also explained all of this in his introduction to the main
volume.

The confidential key was made public after WWI and has been in print
for the past 50 years. So, when we reproduced the Blue Book at the
Gomidas Institute, we also put all of this information back into the
main work. This is why we called it the `uncensored edition,’ because
we put all of the missing information that was taken out in 1916 was
put back into the main text.

Deniers of the Blue Book today do not acknowledge these facts and
argue that the Blue Book hid its sources because the report used by
the British were fictitious ! Recently, at the Istanbul University
Symposium, Sukru Elekdag claimed that Justin McCarthy had just
`discovered’ a copy of the key in the British National Archives at
Kew, and that the key showed that the reports comprising the Blue Book
were not creditworthy. Of course, Elekdag’s assertions remain absurd :
as mentioned before, the key to the Blue Book has been available for
many decades. Furthermore, if one looked at McCarthy’s work over the
last 20 years, one can see in his bibliographies that he has been
consulting archival collections that have included the confidential
key (most notably the Toynbee Papers, Record Group of the State
Department). In fact the same is also true for other deniers, such as
Mim Kemal Ã-ke, Salahi Sonyel, Kamuran Gurun and others. The
publication of the `uncensored edition’ of the Blue Book has forced
McCarthy to change his position, but it is not enough to save him. He
has acknowledged the key only to claim (again wrongly) that the
content of the Blue Book is inadequate.

Other than collapsing the confidential key back into the main Blue
Book, I also used the Toynbee Papers in the British National Archives
to trace the original records that were sent to him. Having traced the
bulk of these records to the United States National Archives, I
checked if the reports sent to the British were selective (i.e. were
there any reports which did not support the Armenian Genocide thesis
?), and if the accounts that were sent were changed by communicants in
the USA or by Bryce and Toynbee themselves. I then annotated the blue
book with this additional information, including full citations where
the original records could be found, and I gave my analysis in a new
introduction to the `uncensored’ Blue Book.

What were the results ? The Blue Book was exactly what it claimed it
was in its original introduction. It was carefully put together with
the authenticity of each document examined. I can also say that the
U.S. reports appearing in the Blue Book were not selective nor
distorted. In fact, if we added all of the missing records from the
State Department files (i.e.including those which were not sent to the
British in 1916), the Blue Book thesis would actually be
strengthened. Some of the worst accounts about the Armenian Genocide
were not made public by the Americans-but we can certainly read them
today.

I have also published these sources in another book called `United
States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17′ and these
records (and more) will soon appear on the internet on
_www.gomidas.org_ () .

O.K. : Turkish retired ambassador and member of parliament Sukru
Elekdag said, in the conference at the Istanbul University, that the
Blue Book was the “last fortress of the Armenian genocide
allegations”. Is this true ? Aren’t there any other publications or
archival records on Armenian genocide.

A.S. : Sukru Elekdag is like the captain of a sinking ship who
continues telling his passengers that he knows what he is doing. The
Blue Book issue is a personal debacle for him, as well as others who
have worked for him on this issue. The choice of staking Turkey’s
reputation on the denial of the Blue Book was a political blunder
which will only bring shame to the Turkish republic.
I say the Turkish republic because Elekdag managed to get the whole
TGNA behind him on this issue. I do not feel sorry for Elekdag, but I
feel sorry for those well meaning Turks who trusted his judgement.

Furthermore, at the Istanbul University symposium, Elekdag claimed
that his Blue Book campaign was part of the Turkish government’s peace
initiative last year to resolve the Turkish-Armenian issue and to hand
down a peaceful legacy to future generations of Armenians,Turks (and
presumably Kurds). If his Blue Book campaign is a measure of that
initiative, then we have to questions the actual peaceful intentions
of the Turkish authorities.

Elekdag and his supporters seem to be mocking us when addressing the
Armenian issue. They seem to believe that they are in a position of
power, and that they think they can get away with anything they
want. They are part of the problem in Turkish-Armenian relations
today, not part of the solution.

I suggest Turkish intellectuals consider carefully the case I am
making here. The Blue Book issue is very instructive how Turkey looks
in the outside world-especially as the TGNA has made it into an
international issue.

I believe the most important sources that are available on the
Armenian Genocide are the memoirs of Armenian survivors. Many of these
sources are incredibly detailed and provide the perspective of
victims. Then there are the diplomatic records of the United States,
Germany, Italy and other countries. Of course Ottoman records have
their own significance, though I cannot comment on them. I was only
recently readmitted back into Ottoman archives and I hope to have the
opportunity to return to Turkey and work with such materials as well.

The Gomidas Institute has published the memoirs and diaries of foreign
diplomats and missionaries, such as the diaries of Ambassador
Morgenthau. The latter manuscript was published in its entirety,
because it is a crucial primary source. It also supports Morgenthau’s
stance on the Armenian issue. Most people in Turkey know about
Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which misrepresents
Morgenthau’s reports and diaries and castigating the American
ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s
assessment of Morgenthau is wrong and part of Elekdag’s denialist
campaign from the 1980s. Lowry and Elekdag have worked together
closely to deny the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there was a big
scandal about this very subject not so long ago, following a clerical
error at the Turkish embassy, when Lowry’s correspondence with
Elekdag, where they discussed the denial of the Armenian Genocide, was
sent to an American scholar. That scholar exposed this correspondence
and there is plenty of information about that scandal on the internet.

The Gomidas Institute is currently fund-raising so that it can
continue its research and publishing work, in English, Armenian and
hopefully Turkish. Right now we have a number of key books to
publish, including translations in our new Turkish language series.

However, as an independent academic institution, the Gomidas Institute
has no government or other institutional backing. We are also not a
lobbying organisation. We have to raise funds for each project we
undertake and each book we publish. Sometimes we have to refuse
funding because potential sponsors try to twist our work for partisan
purposes. Like many other institutions, we have to remain vigilant to
maintaining our academic integrity. There is no question where we
stand in such matters. I hope we will continue our work and start
cooperating with similar institutions in Turkey.

O.K. : Have you come across reference to a specific incident mentioned
in the Blue Book in some other records/archival documents or books ?

A.S. : Yes. For example, the events in Harpout, including the mass
murder of Armenian community leaders are corroborated in the diaries
of Maria Jacobsen and Tacy Atkinson, as well as the memoirs of Henry
Riggs. Similarly, the appalling condition of Armenian deportees in
Osmaniye are corroborated by many sources, including the diaries of an
Armenian schoolboy from Corum, Vahram Dadrian. There are many such
examples.

O.K. : What do you think is the significance of the Istanbul
University symposium on the future of Turkish Armenian relations ? And
what are your expectations to follow ?

A.S. : By holding this conference, the participants at the Istanbul
University symposium demonstrated a fundamental point : the treatment
of Armenians in 1915, including the Armenian Genocide thesis, is a
legitimate topic of discussion in Turkey today. This is a radical
departure from the past, when the subject was both a taboo and
proscribed by law. This does not mean that the official Turkish
thesis, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, has
changed. But it does mean that the subject is open to scrutiny and
discussion.

I expect that there will be many participants in future discussions,
where Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and other historians will agree and
disagree on concrete historical issues regarding their common
history. I hope it will be a fruitful endeavour.

Even now, many ethnic Turks do not agree with the official Turkish
thesis, just as many Armenian historians do not agree with the
established Armenian one. The important thing is that the Armenian
Genocide (and the genocide of Assyrians) can now be addressed within
the boundaries of sensible academic debates.

O.K. : It was a big surprise for us that Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the
TTK (Turkish History Association), offered you to make researches
together and you accepted it. Doesn’t the Gomidas Institute and the
TTK stand in opposition to each other on the events of 1915 ?

A.S. : Despite all our differences in the past, I accepted
Dr. Halacoglu’s offer in good faith. I will try to work with him and
the TTK as well as I can. The TTK and the Gomidas Institute stands in
opposition to each other on the events of 1915. But I hope we can show
by our example that it is still possible to agree and disagree with
each other in a scholarly manner, in the interest of truth, as well as
peace. Besides, the TTK is not the only body that discusses the
Armenian issue in Turkey. There are many other official and unofficial
organisations, as well as private individuals, who already take part
in such work and discussions. The Gomidas Institute is only one party
in this debate.

O.K. : Don’t you see any pitfalls and difficulties ahead ?

A.S. : Yes, there is always the possibility of failure for all sorts
of reasons. But that is not a reason not to try. Peace is a great
prize we can all share together.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri, Armenian leaders discuss Karabakh settlement in Bucharest
ANS TV, Baku
4 Jun 06

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is holding a tete-a-tete meeting
with his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharyan to discuss the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict in the Romanian capital Bucharest at the moment, the
Azerbaijani commercial TV channel ANS reported on the evening of 4
June.
The meeting is being held at the Polish embassy in Bucharest, ANS
Vice-President Mirsahin Agayev reported by phone from Bucharest.
Agayev said the venue was chosen at the request of Russian mediator
Yuriy Merzlyakov. There is still no information regarding the results
of the meeting, ANS said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Bucharest Daily News, Romania
June 4 2006
Foreign affairs minister: No taboo themes at the Black Sea Forum
Andreea Pocotila

Basescu is seen with his Azeri conterpart, Ilham Aliyev, at te
presidential palace in Bucharest.

The Black Sea region is among Romania’s top concerns on matters of
foreign affairs, as today it holds a forum aimed at tackling the main
issues of the region.
The Black Sea Forum held today in Bucharest will include debates on
multilateral issues and there will be no taboo themes during the
presidential discussions, yesterday said Foreign Affairs Minister
Mihai Razvan Ungureanu in an interview with the Mediafax news agency.
“Unfortunately, the Black Sea region has a pretty bad image – that of
an area burdened by conflicts, an area where policies seem unclear or
subversive, not open and orientated towards cooperation,” was one of
the reasons Ungureanu gave for the organization of the Black Sea
Forum.
The Black Sea Forum is aimed to help build mutual trust in the
region, facilitate synergy between regional initiatives, identify and
initiate ideas, promote pragmatic regional projects that meet the
actual needs of the region and generate a mutual awareness dialogue
and share lesson learned by the region with the extra regional
partners, says the event’s presentation. The forum will be based on
active and open dialogue between institutions and civil society
within the Black Sea region, as well as with European and
Euro-Atlantic partners.
The event’s purpose is to create a platform for cooperation and
commitment to development of a regional strategy and a common vision,
as manifestation of a new political vision, and to identify
coordination opportunities based on this vision.
Ungureanu said the Romanian initiative of organizing a Black Sea
Forum drew the attention of European leaders, as many representatives
of foreign affairs ministries announced their participation at the
event. He pointed out that these officials will transform the
summit’s message into a political guideline of the European Union.
“Romania is now a NATO member, it is getting ready to become a member
of the EU, it will be country on the cusp of the two clubs, the
European and the Euro-Atlantic,” Ungureanu said, adding that it is
time for the Black Sea region to be included on the agenda of serious
problems of both NATO and the EU.
The minister underlined that cooperation is rare in the Black Sea
region and there are no institutions that can guarantee or activate
collaboration.
“Indeed, the Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (OCEMN)
has several successful projects that have functioned and are
functioning, but they are insufficient for the energies invested in
this format of cooperation,” said Ungureanu.
The Black Sea forum is intended to create a reflex of dialogue, and
dialogue means trust, while the latter generates cooperation,
explained Ungureanu.
“It is a Romanian idea, organized by Romania, but for a general
benefit,” said the official.
Ungureanu said there is not an incompatibility between the regional
dialogue on the Black Sea area and the internationalization of this
issue.
“International policy stopped isolating parts of the globe, it does
not hide them anymore behind tall fences, for them to be solved
through the minimum contribution of two or three actors;
globalization means drawing everybody’s attention to complicated
themes,” Ungureanu explained. The minister said globalization implies
the involvement of world players such as the Russian Federation, the
United States and China.
“The Black Sea has a global destiny, it can become not only a
European or continental sea, but a sea of the world,” Ungureanu said,
adding that it is a place where several civilizations converge and it
can either be an energetic bridge, a political one or an amalgamation
of economic factors.
“Everybody needs the Black Sea,” Ungureanu added.
Asked what gives him the guarantee that the forum will manage to ease
dialogue between regional leaders, Ungureanu’s main argument was that
nothing like this has ever been initiated: “It is the first bold step
forward.” However, he added the journey will not end until dozens of
similar steps have been taken, using the Romanian initiative as a
model.
Asked if instead of an active and cooperative dialogue the forum
might witness quarrels and arguments, Ungureanu said such things will
not happen because the region is mature enough and it only needs for
this maturity to be recognized.
Representatives from Armenia, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan,
Turkey, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Greece, and Russia were
invited to the forum. Officials form European and international
organizations will also attend the event.
By yesterday no representative of Russia had confirmed his or her
presence at the forum, according to the list of participants released
yesterday by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Russia has always been
reticent about attending and consenting to agreements regarding the
Black Sea. President Traian Basescu last year said it is time for the
Black Sea to cease being a Russian lake.
The list of participants at the Black Sea Forum includes Armenian
President Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham
Aliev.
Kocharian and Aliev are slated to meet on the sidelines of the summit
in Romania, for talks over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh,
which is inside Azerbaijan but populated mostly by ethnic Armenians,
who have run it since an uneasy 1994 cease-fire ended six years of
full-scale fighting.
Kocharian on Saturday dampened expectations for today’s meeting with
his Azerbaijani counterpart, again accusing Azerbaijan of being
belligerent and insincere about peacefully resolving the nearly
two-decade conflict over the disputed area.
Talks held between the two leaders in France in February ended in
failure, despite international mediators’ involvement, and the lack
of resolution has hindered development throughout the strategic
Caucasus region.
Sporadic border clashes have grown more frequent.
“We are discussing a variation that, by my reckoning, allows a
long-term and peaceful resolution. But I have modest expectations for
this meeting,” Kocharian told reporters.
“The impression is forming that the Azerbaijani side is not fully
devoted to peaceful resolution of the conflict, which the
militaristic statements heard in Baku demonstrate,” he said.
Aliev’s spokesman, Novruz Mammadov, meanwhile accused Armenia of
stoking tensions on the eve of the meeting of the two presidents in
Romania and said Yerevan was not prepared for serious dialogue.
“On the one hand, (Kocharian) agreed to such a meeting, but on the
other, he is already anticipating no results. I think that Kocharian
wants to just protect himself,” Mammadov said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NDTV.com, India –
June 4 2006
Chess: Anand crashes in penultimate round

Sunday, June 4, 2006 (Turin):
World number two Viswanathan Anand crashed to a shocking defeat as
Indian men suffered another humiliation going down to a low ranked
Canada by a 1.5-2.5 margin in the 12th and penultimate round at the
Chess Olympiad.
Anand lost early against Pascal Charbonneau on the top board and that
set the tone for another disaster as Surya Shekhar Ganguly was also
stunned by unheralded International Master Thomas Roussel-Roozmon
later in the day.
Former World Junior champion P Harikrishna saved some blushes for the
Indians with a victory on the third board against Krnan Tomas while
Krishnan Sasikiran could only manage a draw against GM Mark
Bluvshtein on the second.
The second seeded Indian team struggled from the first round despite
starting as the second favourites in the 37th edition of the
Olympiad.
Meanwhile, at the top of the tables, Armenia took a huge 2.5 points
lead over nearest rivals China with a clinical 2-2 draw with France
without much ado.
Armenian players settled for peace pretty quickly while the Chinese
men had to work hard for a 3-1 victory over Czech republic and now
they are firmly in second place on 31.5 points, a half point adrift
of nearest rival Russia.
Russian also did well to beat Cuba by a 3-1 margin and even as
Armenia is now almost confirmed for the gold medal the fight for the
silver is still on between Russia and China. (PTI)

Los Angeles Times, CA
June 4 2006
Pounding at the Box Office
Sparse crowd attends card a day after title bout was canceled because
of Castillo’s failure to make weight. Promoters will take a financial
bath.
By Steve Springer, Times Staff Writer
June 4, 2006
LAS VEGAS – As the two preliminary fighters circled each other in the
ring at Thomas & Mack Center, Diego Corrales watched from a tunnel,
his infant daughter, Daylia, in his arms, agony in his eyes.
“It’s tough watching people throw punches,” Corrales said, “knowing I
can’t hit anybody because of him.”
By “him,” Corrales was referring to Jose Luis Castillo, who was back
home in Mexico on Saturday night instead of in the ring battling
Corrales for the World Boxing Council lightweight title. The fight
was canceled Friday afternoon when Castillo weighed in at 139 1/2
pounds, 4 1/2 pounds over the lightweight limit. Corrales came in at
exactly 135.
“Why didn’t he call me up and tell me, ‘I can’t make the weight?’ ”
Corrales said. “This fight could have been salvaged. I would have
done [an agreed-upon] weight of 137 pounds, 136 pounds if we had
known earlier. This is heartbreaking, being here and not being able
to fight.”
Instead, the scheduled semi-main event between International Boxing
Federation flyweight champion Vic Darchinyan, an Armenian living in
Australia, and Luis Maldonado of Mexico became the main event on a
card that included six other fights.
But the public wasn’t buying. Certainly not, for the most part, at
full price.
Arena officials would not release a crowd figure, but there appeared
to be between 2,000 and 2,500 people scattered among the great
expanse of empty red seats and that might be a generous estimate.
Gary Shaw, Corrales’ promoter, estimated the crowd would have been
between 10,000 and 12,000 had Castillo and Corrales fought.
With the hotels dropping their price to one quarter of face value,
Shaw estimated the live gate at $30,000. Shaw, who is suing Castillo,
figures both he and Bob Arum, Castillo’s promoter, will lose about
$250,000 each.
And that’s not counting a $175,000 penalty due the Showtime cable
network, according to one source.
A reporter seeking fans who’d laid out actual money for tickets went
through two sections before finding two paying customers from
Arkadelphia, Ark.
“We had never seen a live fight,” said Fred Owens.
“We were here in town anyway. And some is better than none,” said
Randy Wade.
Coincidentally, among those in the crowd was Eddie Mustafa, who
failed to make weight for his 1981 fight against Michael Spinks. That
was the only other instance longtime boxing observers could remember
when a fight failed to materialize because of a weight issue.
Mustafa, who weighed in at 177 in Washington, D.C., for the 175-pound
match, continued to maintain Saturday night, a quarter of a century
later, that, unlike Castillo, he was the victim of a rigged scale.
The crowd finally made its presence felt during the
Darchinyan-Maldonado fight with Australian, Armenian and Mexican
flags battling for supremacy in the stands.
Darchinyan retained his title and remained unbeaten (26-0, 21
knockouts) by handing Maldonado (33-1-1, 25) his first loss. The
fight was stopped at 1:38 of the eighth round by referee Joe Cortez
after Darchinyan had previously knocked Maldonado down in the sixth.
Most fans may not have paid full price, but some were still willing
to buy Corrales-Castillo shirts, said David Goldfarb, whose company
produces them.
“They think they could be collectors’ items,” Goldfarb said.
Keith Kizer, executive director of the Nevada State Athletic
Commission, reiterated Saturday that penalties against Castillo could
be announced this week, which would be followed by an appeals
process. Castillo could be fined and/or have his license suspended or
revoked. A revocation would mean Castillo could not reapply for a
license for a year.
That would be fine with Shaw.
“Something like this breaks down the fabric of the sport,” Shaw said.
“This is a flagrant violation. The public has been defrauded.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress