Author: Emil Lazarian

MEETING OF THE DELEGATIONS OF THE CATHOLICOSATE OF ALL ARMENIANS AND THE
CATHOLICOSATE OF THE GREAT HOUSE OF CILICIA
Azg/arm
17 March 05
Under the auspices of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and
Catholicos of All Armenians, and His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of
the Great House of Cilicia, a meeting of delegations of the
Catholicosate of All Armenians and the Catholicosate of the Great
House of Cilicia took place on March 4-5 in the Mother See of Holy
Etchmiadzin with the goal of the prosperity of the sacred mission of
the Armenian Church and the further strengthening of internal
solidarity. The purpose of the meeting was the preparation of a draft
agenda with the theme of “The Imperative for the Renewal of the
Armenian Church”.
The delegation members representing the Catholicosate of All Armenians
were:
His Eminence Archbishop Khajag Barsamian (Chairman)
His Grace Bishop Mikael Ajapahian (Secretary)
Mr. Rafael Papayan
Mr. James Kalustian
The delegation members representing the Catholicosate of the Great
House of Cilicia were:
His Eminence Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan (Chairman)
His Grace Bishop Nareg Alemezian (Secretary)
Mr. Yervand Pamboukian
Mr. Arsen Danielian
Rev. Fr. Vahram Melikian recorded the minutes of the meetings.
On Friday, March 4, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and
Catholicos of All Armenians, received the two delegations in the
Mother See. His Holiness gave his Pontifical blessing to the members
of the delegations andspoke of his and Catholicos Aram I’s
expectations of the meeting. ArchbishopOshagan Choloyan conveyed the
warm greetings of love of His Holiness Aram I and the filial respect
of the participants to His Holiness Karekin II.
Following the Lord’s Prayer and a reading from the Holy Bible (1
Corinthians 12:12-26), the meeting commenced, the result of which was
the preparation of the draft agenda.
Consisting of nine agenda items, it includes the primary spheres of
the identity, life and witness of the Armenian Church:
1. The canonical condition of the Armenian Church – ecclesiological,
administrative and canonical refinement.
2. Christian and Armenian education, evangelical mission and
preservation of spiritual and cultural values.
3. Liturgical and ritual life.
4. Preparation of clergy and reactivation of monastic life.
5. Ecumenical and Inter-religious relations.
6. Positions on modern social and moral issues.
7. Relations between Church and State; relations between Church and
Social Institutions.
8. Pursuit of the rights of the Armenian people.
9. Use of modern technologies.
Each aforementioned topic was discussed in detail as an initial step
for the further overall analysis and adoption of appropriate
measures. The meetings were conducted in a warm atmosphere of
Christian love, for the vigorous accomplishment of the multifaceted
mission of the Armenian Church in the Homeland and the Diaspora.
At the end of the meeting it was decided that the draft agenda will be
presented to His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians; and
His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, for
their consideration and filially petitioning them for the commission’s
work to proceed.

Warped advice blights American intervention
By Anatol Lieven
FT
March 16 2005 20:11
In Armenia in the late 1990s, I visited a very brave former Soviet
Armenian dissident. He had spent years in Soviet prison and his walls
were festooned with awards from western organisations devoted to
supporting democracy and human rights. Indeed, I have no reason to
doubt the sincerity of his commitment to Armenian democracy. But what
I mainly remember is his territorial vision. He believed that Armenia
should seek the annexation of the whole of eastern Turkey on the basis
of ancient historical and ethnic ties.
As many examples have made clear since the Soviet Union’s collapse,
the Soviet dissident movement had two starkly different faces, often
combined in the same person. Both were about freedom but very
different kinds of freedom. The first was about freedom for the
individual; the second, freedom for a particular nation.
Natan Sharansky, the Israeli government minister, has gained
considerable influence over George W. Bush thanks to his heroic past
as a Soviet dissident.
Mr Sharansky’s book The Case for Democracy is one of the few works on
the Middle East that Mr Bush has read. According to Mr Bush himself,
Mr Sharansky has been a key inspiration for the US president’s
rhetoric of spreading democracy and freedom.
Tragically, however, Mr Sharansky’s record in Israel, and Mr Bush’s
apparent indifference to this record, demonstrate the almost Orwellian
contradictions in the US approach to the Muslim world. They also go to
the heart of European doubts about both the practicality and sincerity
of US progressive agendas in the Middle East. The grounds for such
doubts are especially worth recalling at present, given the short-term
exuberance produced by developments such as the Iraqi elections and
anti-Syrian demonstrations in Lebanon. Mr Bush was first attracted to
Mr Sharansky by his noble record of resistance to Soviet tyranny,
which earned him years in Soviet jails. Today, however, Mr Sharansky
is a leader of the Soviet immigrant-based Yisrael Ba’aliyah party,
which takes a hard line on Palestinian demands and security issues,
and has supported the expansion of settlements.
In his book, Mr Sharansky writes that peace depends on the spread of
democracy and this should be driven by a coalition of all “free
nations” of the world. In his words: “The free world should not wait
for dictatorial regimes to consent to reform. We must be prepared to
move forward over their objections . . . we can live in a world where
no regime that attempts to crush dissent will be tolerated.”
Mr Sharansky’s demand for greater democracy is, of course, focused
foremost on the Palestinians. He said in February that he would be
prepared to give the Palestinians “all the rights in the world” once
they fully adopted democracy. The problem is that Mr Sharansky has
never said what land he would be willing to concede, even to a fully
democratic Palestinian state. His record in office, however, has
reflected utter contempt for the lives, property and well-being of
Palestinians, as well as for their opinions, whether democratically
expressed or not.
As Israel’s minister of Jerusalem affairs, Mr Sharansky decided last
June to interpret a 1950 law in such a way as to allow the Israeli
government without legal process to confiscate Palestinian land around
Jerusalem – a decision that has now been struck down by Israel’s
attorney general on the grounds that it is legally indefensible,
contrary to “the rules of customary international law” and bound to
encourage violence.
In writing of the need to bring democracy to the Arab world, Mr
Sharansky makes repeated parallels with America’s propagation of its
democratic message to the subject peoples of the Soviet Union and
eastern Europe. But the peoples of eastern Europe, the Baltic states
and the Caucasus had good reason to identify America and democracy not
only with personal freedom but with national liberation from Soviet
domination. Ask many ordinary Arabs which superpower today is playing
a role in the Middle East analogous to that of the Soviet Union in
eastern Europe and what answer would you get?
The parallel with eastern Europe therefore, far from being
encouraging, actually suggests the greatest problem faced by
proponents of westernising reform in the Middle East today: namely,
the immense difficulty they have in mobilising nationalism in support
of their programme.
Of course, were it possible for the US to act in the Muslim world as
it has done in eastern Europe, and to spread freedom and development,
this would indeed be a wonderful boon for the region and the
world. But none of this can possibly happen as long as the US is
identified both by Muslims and by Europeans with agendas such as Mr
Sharansky’s. If Mr Bush really wants to play a progressive role in the
region, he badly needs other sources of advice and inspiration.
* Natan Sharansky (with Ron Dermer), The Case for Democracy: The Power
of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror (Public Affairs)
The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington DC; his latest book is America Right
or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (OUP/HarperCollins)

PanArmenian News
March 16 2005
US AMBASSADOR TO AZERBAIJAN CONCERNED OVER DEVELOPMENTS AT CONTACT
LINE OF AZERBAIJAN AND KARABAKH ARMED FORCES
16.03.2005 07:55
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish is
concerned over the developments at the contact line between the Armed
forces of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, Day.az reported. `The
repeated breaks of the cease-fire makes worry. At the same time it
proves that the conflict is not frozen and it demands a solution,’ R.
Harnish told journalists Wednesday. The Ambassador emphasized that
the US follows with attention the developments in the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict region. `We understand the importance of not
admitting breaks of the cease-fire regime at the front line,’ he
noted.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly
2005-03-16 10:40:59
Turkey Vows to Implement Reforms for EU Membership
LONDON (JTW) Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Tuesday rejected
criticism his government had failed to fulfill reform pledges and said
preparations for membership negotiations with the EU were on track.
Abdullah Gul, in an interview with the Financial Times, also said a
controversial draft law on regional subsidies would be revised to enable the
International Monetary Fund to approve a $10 billion stand-by program by
early April.
“We know that implementation (of the reforms) is most important,” said Gul,
referring to criticism by Brussels there had been a lack of implementation
on several rights reforms Turkey passed last year to win a date for EU
accession talks.
“We will continue. There is no way to stop this,” he said.
‘WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE WITH TURKEY’
European Union Commission Turkey Representative Hansjorg Kretschmer has said
he has forgotten the remarks made by Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
about him and wanted to look forward to a future with Turkey. Indicating
that the European Union (EU) train covered distance very quickly, Kretschmer
emphasized that a political crisis would make the negotiation process
difficult. Saying Turkey’s image was stained due to the pictures of police
hitting a woman at an International Women’s Day demonstration, Kretschmer
explained: “There is a historical process ahead us. If we can achieve this,
we will achieve something that will not only affect the EU and Turkey but
also the entire world. I personally want this to be achieved.”
Kretschmer gave his first interview since Minister Gul’s provacative
statement, ‘Who is Krestchmer?’ to Zaman. Evaluating the current process,
the EU ambassador wants to ‘look to the future’. Explaining that some
Europeans wanted to stop the process due to the events in Istanbul,
Kretschmer told: “They were individual acts; however, Turkey’s image was
stained. It is necessary not to let these kinds of cases occur again in
order not to discourage Turkey’s supporters in the EU. The faster the reform
process, the faster the negotiations progress. If a slowdown occurs, the
completion of the process will be delayed.”
`ARMENIAN CLAIMS ARE NOT EU CRITERIA”
On the other hand, Armenian allegations on the agenda in France have raised
questions about how it will affect Turkey’s European Union (EU) ambitions.
European Union Commission Turkey Representative Hansjorg Kretschmer thinks
that the Armenian issue will not become a political criterion before Turkey.
Giving a brief statement about the political criteria, Kretschmer said,
“With the December 17 decision, it was accepted that Ankara had
‘sufficiently’ fulfilled the political criteria. Of course, it cannot be
said they were totally fulfilled. Government officials also think in this
way.”
Priorities according to Kretschmer: Some advice was given to the goverment
about 103 legal issues. Judicial reform should be made to ensure harmony
with the EU. Religious freedom of non-Muslim minorities should be provided.
The laws for foundations should be reviewed. Women’s rights should be made a
priority. Defects in the implementation of freedom of expression and the Law
of Association should be immediately eliminated.
Many in the EU remain deeply uneasy about admitting Turkey, a large,
overwhelmingly Muslim country of more than 70 million people, even though
negotiations could last a decade. Many extreme groups in the EU argue that
there is no room in Europe for Muslims because they think European Union is
a Christian civilization. There are many Muslim states, including Turkey,
Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkish Cypriot State, in Europe but none of
them is EU member.
Compiled by JTW Staff from Zaman, NTV and news agencies. 16 March 2005
Turkey-EU
2005-03-16 10:40:59
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Kazinform, Kazakhstan
March 15 2005
Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister: CIS is extremely sick
Astana. March 15. KAZINFORM. `CIS needs serious reformation or it
will ruin,’ people say in Kazakhstan. The unified economic area is a
promising idea, and many post-Soviet countries will have to fight to
enter it.
Events in Georgia and Ukraine changed the situation across former
USSR. The movement of goals by some member countries raised a query
about the existence of regional organizations. Official Kazakhstan
that always initiated integration processes throughout post-Soviet
territory feels definitely disappointed about the quality of activity
of such establishments (like the Commonwealth of independent states).
Thanks to Kazakhstan’s administration there were founded CIS,
EuroAsEC, UEA (Unified Economic Area), Collective security treaty,
and Shanghai cooperation organization.
During the CIS summit in Astana Nursultan Nazarbayev, one of its
founders, severely criticized the Commonwealth’s activity and offered
reformation ways.
The Kazakhstan Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart Tokayev shares official
Kazakhstan’s outlooks about CIS and UEA, and its ties with
neighboring countries.
UEA’s destiny:
– How the new Ukrainian authority’s plans of entering European Union
may affect the establishment of the Unified Economic Area (UEA) and
CIS’s destiny?
– I consider it’s nothing at all serious. Any state has a right to
choose its own way. If the official Ukraine suggests membership in
UEA contradicts country’s concerns then we have to take it. The
unified economic area was initiated as the economic structure – the
common market for goods, services and capital. The idea sounded
promising. By now four countries had done well and proceeded to agree
documents, with a part of them signed at the level of heads of
governments. There was no political project to unite huge markets of
Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
In any case, we should wait until Ukrainian administration makes
final decision. They need time to study all documents signed in the
course of talks, and documents which government and legislative
agency were to debate, as far as I understood President Victor
Yushchenko and his minister Boris Tarassyuk’s statements. The idea of
UEA will not lose its significance even if Ukraine is out of the
process. Kazakhstan will uphold UEA and continue bilateral relations
with Russia and Ukraine. Our interests dictate this approach as
Kazakhstan has overheated economy and excess of finance required to
invest.
Russia and Kazakhstan have common borders, economic attraction and
penetration. The same is with Ukraine. V. Yushchenko stated Russia
would be Ukraine’s ever strategic partner. It is not a simple
sentence, this is to admit Russia’s potential, to recognize existing
realias. To any extent but every country depends on Russia, being
frank. Russia is a core of the post-Soviet area. Besides, Russia is a
permanent member of UN Security Council. We are extremely interested
in Russia to develop successfully, democratically. It is not
propaganda, not a diplomatic flirting. It is a bottom-line approach.
– May the idea fail if Ukraine rejects the UEA establishment? Or the
Unified economic area is possible for opportunities of the three
powers?
– It’s not over yet. Who knows, Ukraine will probably get interested
in the project and join UEA. Documents signed within the new
establishment read no restriction to enter some other unions or
associations. I think that Ukraine will have interest in working with
Kazakhstan and Russia though has always been inclined to EU. Recently
the State Secretary of Ukraine Alexander Zinchenko has visited Astana
to hand over his President’s message to Nursultan Nazarbayev. The
point of the document is that Ukraine is very much interested in
further cooperation with Kazakhstan.
– Do you think Ukraine has a reasonable chance to enter EU?
– Ukraine has chance to, if wishes. And if there is a wish, there are
necessary reforms conducted. One should admit that on a series of
parameters the Ukraine economics has not been reformed as seriously
as Kazakhstan and Russia ones. Kiev has much to do to bring its own
legislation to correspondence with European standards. Ukraine has to
come to terms with the EU as membership binds. By the way, within the
framework of UEA also it has to tighten laws up to a market standard.
– What terms do you mean?
– Firstly Ukraine has to sacrifice own interests. May be, it has to
shut some enterprises down. E.g. to get an access to EU Lithuania
faced to liquidate electric power station that had played a notable
role in the economy. Bulgaria is suffering the same, the point in
Kozloduy atomic power station. There are too many things to
sacrifice. It is not an occasion that so many high level headshakers
have appeared. The President of Czech Republic Vaclav Claus, who has
lately visited Kazakhstan, became a tough Euro-skeptic, though nobody
doubts his adherence to the market. There is no fire without smoke
– What happens if only Russia and Kazakhstan out of current UEA
participants stay alone in the process?
– I think anyway it will be UEA as far as too many papers have been
elaborated already there. However, none intends to exclude Belarus
from the Unified economic area’s design, though its economic
structure differs from ones of Russia and Kazakhstan. I believe UEA
will become the perspective establishment in due time because the
initial purpose is to unify the four countries, then to enqueue other
states which have to follow requirements to join UEA. This is the
right way. It is like the European Union, as building a union with
the required reforms. It is impossible to build a market with closed
borders, unreformed economy and bad ties with neighboring countries.
– What do you say about the statement by the Foreign Minister of
Ukraine Boris Tarassyuk that Ukraine has to enter NATO in 2007 before
joining EU? How does it rub off on the treaty and the integration
process?
– It’s up to Ukraine. I think it will not affect relationships
between Kazakhstan and Ukraine. It may rub off on Ukraine’s
membership in CIS and UEA, in my opinion. Though we should remember
Ukraine is not the CIS Collective Security Treaty member state.
Besides, having not signed the Charter Ukraine is just an associate
member of the Commonwealth. It’s high time to think over the CIS’s
future
Don’t make a laughing-stock of CIS
– The President of Kazakhstan during September top summit in Astana
proposed CIS reforming, and the President of Russia upheld this idea.
Later deputy foreign ministers met in Moscow to discuss reformation
process outlooks. Can you tell about the results?
– It was a work meeting with disappointing results, to put it baldly.
There is Ukraine and some other countries that take the Security
Council foundation with a grain of salt. Russia offered to make
unified humane and cultural area within the CIS; however this idea
was received skeptically as well. Generally, all countries cautiously
refer to the CIS reforming process, exclusive of Kazakhstan and
Russia, to some extent. Kazakhstan hails the idea as CIS is going. It
is turning into the very expensive club of presidents and ministers.
I have participated almost all summits and might say they are being
bureaucratized more and more. At a recent Yalta meeting the audience
debated terminology of the free economic zone. How to name it – `free
market’ or `unified market’. It took an hour and a half. During the
break I went to next room. There was a table Stalin, Roosevelt and
Churchill had worked at. The three were accompanied by a few experts
and ministers. It was wartime but they managed to agree and share the
bossdom, without crowds of advisors. When I came back I saw 1 300
persons sitting and yawning. CIS is turning into incapable and
inefficient structure.
– What does the opposition say about CIS reforming?
– There are two points of view. One, no need to reform the CIS
otherwise it will ruin. There will be no consensus between countries
then. Second, Kazakhstan is for reforming. It is not a fellowship if
there are countries conflicting with each other like Armenia and
Azerbaijan, if the tension grows like between Georgia, Moldova and
Russia, if there are thousand of documents signed but ineffective.
The idea of the free economic zone is being debated for years but
none knows how to do it as economies differ too much. Turkmenistan is
not a CIS country member; it signs no documents, and has a neutral
status. Don’t make a laughing stock of the CIS.
There is one more point of view by Russia stressing the construction
of unified humane and cultural area. This idea is also resisted. We
have time before August summit in Tatarstan to make some agreement.
We have to continue consultations and debates otherwise CIS will
encounter big crisis.
Kazakhstan and Russia
-What do you say about the mutual penetration of Russian and
Kazakhstani capital. Parliament suggests the advent of Russian money
is non grata for the national business?
-Incompetent and unversed people say that. If Russian capital is
invested in a Kazakhstani enterprise it has to pay taxes and improve
management. By the way, I am really disappointed that the joint
venture on the basis of Ekibastuz hydroelectric power station I
started when I was a Prime-Minister is uncompleted yet. To my mind,
it might have been a huge investment by Russia in Kazakhstan’s energy
system. It is required as Kazakhstan has old power debts it could
regulate by own means. Unfortunately, the present Kazakhstan remains
unknown for the people of Russia, both for the ordinary public and
high-ranked officials. This kind of arrogance does not play in favor
of Kazakhstan-Russian cooperation.
– Many in Russia worry about Russian language in Kazakhstan.
– This is an intricate point. The President and people suggest
Russian language is a treasure not to be lost. It is the language of
intra-national communication. Besides, it is the official language of
UNO. On the other hand, we have to raise Kazakh language as the state
one. I see no contradiction. Why not Kazakhstan be a bilingual
country. One knows Kazakh, he (she) has access to Turkic languages. I
think that people should speak and write both languages, Russian and
Kazakh on a par.
No reasons for revolution
-Lately you have become number one figure in Kazakhstan. Opposition
mass-media name you Nursultan Nazarbayev’s probable successor
-I sicken at everything that happens in Russia is put on Kazakhstan.
It proves Kazakhstan is a satellite, though considered sovereign
country for a decade. Russia experienced wonder by handing power to
the unknown person. Somebody decided the same script is good for
Kazakhstan, having not considered that President Nazarbayev is
sound-minded whereas Yeltsin was sick, and had a zero rating.
-Many in Russia worry about the possible Georgia and Ukraine events
in Kazakhstan.
-Georgia and Ukraine events can not happen in Kazakhstan. The
population of Georgia lived in poverty; they could not stand
Shevardnadze’s ruling anymore. Prime-Minister Zhvania died of
gas-heater.
There was a set of different factors in Ukraine. Economy has started
boosting, especially in Kiev. Then it happened to choose the shady
heir. We shared opinions with the President of Kazakhstan when Victor
Yushchenko came in Astana, he was the prime-minister then. Nazarbayev
was positive about him. He said to Kuchma and Putin: he is an
advanced man, understands economics and politics both. But Victor
Yushchenko was discredited and fell into opposition.
Everyone was let down in the end. When they say Kuchma’s epoch is not
over yet I feel funny. His epoch ended disgracefully as soon as EU
envoys landed Ukraine.
-Is it possible to hold `an orange revolution’ with the
PR-technologies in Astana?
-It was a big mistake to withdraw Kiev. The position of the capital
is very important. In Kazakhstan Almaty’s position is very
significant together with Astana’s. If Nursultan Nazarbayev completes
his policy – de-monopolizes mega-holdings, gives a spur to small and
medium business development, tightens corruption and red-tape- no
revolution will have chance. It’s up to authorities to control the
situation.
-The historic division into West and South-East parts played role in
Ukraine. Do you think the same is possible in Kazakhstan, the
counteraction between the agrarian South and industrial North-East.
-No. The Government should place production forces, human resources,
establish clusters, educational centers, fight poverty.
-During last year parliamentary elections the opposition had major
support in the South.
-It points miscalculations in power structures. It is a good lesson
to remember. In terms of Kazakhstan, we have to enlarge authorities
of local legislative power, to let it elect akims- heads of regional
administration.
-Does it mean indirect elections?
-Yes, indirect elections. I think it is a good decision.
-What about opposition’s dialogue with the power?
-Unfortunately, there is no dialogue yet. There was a good chance to
start talks within the National Commission on Democracy and Civil
Society, but opposition refused to take part in. It’s a pity because
we have smart opposition as current opposition members worked in
power structures for a long while.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP IN ANKARA TO SAP GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION EFFORTS
Azg/arm
15 March 05
In a March 11 article entitled “Armenian Genocide Claims to Be
Discussed In Ankara” Turkish Miliet newspaper informs about Turkey’s
counter-attack on the Armenian Genocide’s 90th anniversary this
year. The paper reports that the Ankara Park Hotel is hosting an
international workshop “1915-16: genocide, jurisprudence, psychology
and history” on May 28-29.
The Foreign Affairs’ Ministry and the National Security Council of the
country will finance the seminar and the Armenian Studies’ Institute
of Eurasian Strategic Research Center will coordinate the meeting.
Numerous specialistsand journalists from all over the world were
invited to the workshop. Hrant Dinq, editor-in-chief of Akos newspaper
in Istanbul, and Etienne Mahtchupian, Zaman daily columnist, are among
the invited to make speeches together with famous Turkish journalists
Taha Aqyol, Ali Bayramoglu, Jan Dyundar and others.
Miliet published the list of those participants who will lecture at
the workshop. The following names should be singled out: the head of
Eurasian Strategic Research Center, former ambassador, Gyunduz Aqtan,
Turkish History Foundation president, Yusuph Halacoglu, dean of
Ataturk University History Chair, Enver Qonuqcu, and foreign scholars
Justin McCarty, Norman Stone, Stanford Shaw- all known for supporting
Turkey’s denialist policy.
Jair Auro from Israel and Richard Hovhannisian, head of the Modern
Armenian History chair at the California University, were also invited
to take part. Meanwhile Miliet notes that Turkish scientist, Halil
Berktay, was not invited. Turkish paper’s reasoning is interesting:
“Halil Berktay claims that the law of deportation designed for
Armenians in 1915 aimed at `ethnic cleansing’. So, they were deported
not only from the eastern regions of the country but also from cities
like Izniq, Izmir and Corlu. He expressed an opinion that `this is
enough today to label events as genocide’. For that reason he was not
invited”.
By Hakob Chakrian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GONZALO GUARCHA’S ARMENIAN FAMILY TREE’ TO BE REPRESENTED TO ARMENIANS ON
DAYS OF COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Azg/arm
15 March 05
Gonzalo Guarcha, Spanish writer, architect, author of many books on
struggle and suffering, war and peace, lives and creates in city of
Almeria in Spain. His book “The Armenian Family Tree” depicts the
Armenian Genocide.
Guarcha visited Armenia thanks to the efforts of Eduard Khojoyan, RA
Ambassador to Spain and Portugal. He was warmly received by RA
President Robert Kocharian, Levon Ananian, chairman of RA Writers’
Union. Robert Sharoyan, former RA culture minister, awarded the writer
with a medal. “The Armenian Family Tree” was published by Rosetta
Yusufian, an honored Argentinean-Armenian.
The Writers Union of Armenia and Armenian revolutionary Party are
going to pay the expenses for the Armenian translation of the
book. “The Armenian Family Tree” will be represented to the readers on
April 24, on the day of commemorating the 90th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide.
The writer promised to write another book for the Armenians and
dedicate it to the memory of Soghomon Tehlerian, the avenger of the
genocide.
By Hamo Moskofian in Almeria
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 14 2005
US co-chair says fact-finding mission’s report `precise and detailed’
Baku, March 11, AssA-Irada
The OSCE fact-finding mission’s report on settlement of Armenians in
the occupied regions of Azerbaijan is precise and detailed, the US
co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Steven Mann has said.
`Everyone should understand that the report by the fact-finding
mission targets promoting the Armenia-Azerbaijan talks,’ said Mann,
underlining that this is desired by the Minsk Group and the US
government.
The report will be elaborated upon at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent
Council in Vienna on March 19.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Times Union, Albany, NY
March 13 2005
Close and ‘The Shield’ make sense
By MARK McGUIRE, Staff writer
First published: Sunday, March 13, 2005
Go back four years ago: Could you imagine Glenn Close joining a TV
show and taking second billing?
The star of “The Big Chill” and “Fatal Attraction” taking a
theoretical back seat — on a basic cable show? It would make no
sense.
Makes sense now, especially when you’re talking about FX’s “The
Shield.”
Close plays Capt. Monica Rawling, who takes over the Los Angeles
precinct that includes volatile Detective Vic Mackey (Michael
Chiklis), one of the most indelible characters on TV today. By the
end of the first episode of the fourth season (airing at 10 p.m.
Tuesday), I was ready to declare them to be arguably the strongest
tandem of actors on any current series. You may come up with a better
pair; I did say “arguably.” But Close and Chiklis have to be in the
debate.
Close, who turns 58 on Saturday, is as good as advertised, displaying
her trademark ability to slip into roles without overwhelming the
part. Maybe the best compliment you can give her is that you stop
concentrating on the fact it’s Glenn Close by about the second
episode. (By the way: She looks ridiculously good in jeans and a
jacket.)
Rawling arrives at “The Barn” even as former boss David Aceveda
(Benito Martinez) — who was elected to the City Council last year —
hovers in the background. A street cop who rose through the ranks,
she recognizes the value of a bruiser like Mackey, even as she
realizes his hothead streak can make things go very, very wrong. Then
again, if she knew Mackey like viewers of the first three seasons of
“The Shield” know him, Vic would be in cuffs.
One of her first impressions of Mackey is watching him come close to
a brawl with Aceveda, whose blistering evaluation of Vic submarined a
promotion.
“One happy family, huh?” Rawling says to Wyms (CCH Pounder), whose
own career was stymied last season when she ran afoul of the district
attorney’s office.
“Oh, yeah,” Wyms replies. “You hit the jackpot.”
In the world of “The Shield,” clean cops like Wyms often find
themselves on the outs; the dirty ones get ahead. As season four
begins, Mackey’s strike team has been disbanded, but their past
illicit activities — especially ripping off the Armenian mob — will
continue to have repercussions.
While most of the team attempts to stay legit and keep in the new
captain’s good graces, Mackey’s former sidekick, Shane Vendrell
(Walton Goggins), is working vice and also working the angles.
Without Mackey to rein him in, Goggins and his new partner — a
veritable rookie — are headed for trouble. If Vendrell goes down,
Mackey and the rest are sure to follow.
Close’s addition makes the cast of “The Shield” as overloaded with
talent as the Yankees’ lineup, but she isn’t the only big-screen star
to join up: Anthony Anderson (“Barbershop”) plays Antwon Mitchell, a
former gangbanger and drug slinger who returns to Farmington
preaching community revitalization. In reality, he’s back controlling
the streets.
With its strong ensemble cast and guerrilla-style camera work, “The
Shield” is most remarkable for its portrait of the brutal concessions
decent people make in the effort to seek civic justice and personal
advancement. At the same time, the show’s bad guys carry a streak of
decency; they can’t be dismissed as amoral monsters. The gray area
between right and wrong provides the thematic setting for some of the
best shows on TV, including “The Sopranos,” “Deadwood” and “Lost.”
It’s also the terrain where the men and women of “The Shield” patrol.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Talks with Armenia constructive – Georgian premier
Noyan Tapan news agency
12 Mar 05
Yerevan, 12 March: Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, who
has paid a two-day working visit to Armenia, left for Georgia on 12
March. Asked by journalists at Zvartnots airport, Noghaideli pointed
out that the bilateral negotiations were constructive.
He said that at present, relations between the two countries are at a
level when not only current problems, but also programmes for the next
three-five years can be discussed. The Georgian prime minister thinks
that with this aim, the intergovernmental commission will soon hold a
meeting in Yerevan. Beginning from the next week, the two countries’
delegations will start working meetings, during which they will touch
on the issues that were discussed, including cooperation in the sphere
of energy.
Noghaideli said that this is the first meeting when representatives
of the Armenian Energy Ministry had no complaints about the Georgian
side. “As far as I remember, when I was a deputy and then finance
minister, the Armenian side had complaints during our meetings. We
can discuss not only the problems we had last year, but also the
tasks of further cooperation,” he said.
The Georgian prime minister pointed out that the commodity turnover
between the two countries had doubled over the last year, which,
however, cannot be called satisfactory for the time being. Although
the issue of railway tariffs was not discussed these days, the current
tariffs are nevertheless quite normal for the commodity turnover,
the prime minister thinks.
Noghaideli also assured the journalists that nothing is threatening
Armenian cultural-historical monuments in Georgia.
It must be noted that Noghaideli visited the Holy See of Echmiadzin
and met Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II before his departure.