Author: Emil Lazarian

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
October 7, 2004
___________________
NORTH AMERICAN PRIMATES WORK ON COOPERATION
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of
the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern), joined the
Primates of the two other North American dioceses for the third meeting
of the three Diocesan leaders. They met at the Holy Trinity Armenian
Church of Toronto, Canada.
Archbishop Barsamian joined Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, Primate of the
Diocese of Canada, and Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, Primate of the
Western Diocese of America. The trio discussed various issues
concerning the role and the mission of the Armenian Church in North
America.
The primates agreed to further organize and cooperate in making the
mission of the Armenian Church more vibrant. Discussions focused on
Christian education, outreach to our youth, the upcoming 90th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, next year’s 1,600th anniversary of
the creation of Armenian Alphabet, pilgrimages to the Mother See of Holy
Etchmiadzin, and trips between the three North American dioceses.
“The more we work together, the stronger we are as a church,” Archbishop
Barsamian said. “We face many of the same opportunities in the coming
years, and to make our faith even more vibrant here in North America,
it’s best that we work as an extended family.”
— 10/07/04
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News
and Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): From left, Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, Bishop
Bagrat Galstanian, and Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, meet in Toronto on
Thursday, September 30, 2004.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Council of Europe urges Azerbaijan to honour commitments
Assa-Irada
6 Oct 04
Baku, 5 October: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
today discussed a resolution on Azerbaijan’s commitments to the
Council of Europe. The resolution says that serious reforms have been
conducted in the country following Ilham Aliyev’s election as
Azerbaijani president in 2003, and this was important from the
viewpoint of honouring Azerbaijan’s commitments as a member of the
Council of Europe. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the
resolution points out that Azerbaijan has been conducting a
pro-European independent foreign policy. At the same time, the
resolution stresses the possibility of tension within the government
which could lead to slowing down the pace of the current reforms in
the face of the president’s wish to have them speedily implemented.
In addition, the resolution demands that the government and parliament
resolve a number of issues. These demands include clearing up cases of
human rights violations during and after the presidential elections,
pardoning seven opposition activists arrested after the elections,
resolving the issue of political prisoners in full, eliminating
problems with regard to freedom of the press, publishing the
presidential election results in every polling station and punishing
those guilty of election fraud.
There was a discussion on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict as
well. Rapporteur Mevlut Cavusoglu [Turkish MP] said that while being a
Council of Europe member, Armenia occupies one-fifth of the territory
of another Council of Europe member country, Azerbaijan. The Council
of Europe should take serious measures to address this issue, he
added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESIDENT KOCHARYAN RECEIVES AGBU CONGRESS DELEGATES
A1plus
6 Oct 04
President Kocharyan received overseas delegates of 83rd congress of
AGBU, Armenian benevolent organisation, held in recent days in
Yerevan.
He welcomed the congress participants and stressed the importance of
such a kind of events.
The union chair Perch Sedrakyan, in turn, said positive changes are
visible in Armenia though there are many obstacles that are
successfully being overcome.

TERI DAVIS ANSWERING QUESTIONS
A1Plus
04-10-2004
Azeri journalists asked the CE Secretary General Teri Davis about
CE-Azeri relations after Azeri president Ilkham Aliev’s visit to CE.
Davis said some changes are visible in Azerbaijan – a part of
political prisoners are released. Works need to be continued.
What for including Karabakhi issue in the PACE winter session agenda,
Davis said he had completed his report on Karabakh.
`New reporter is already appointed. I can’t predict his steps: he can
use some parts of my report or can not to do that’, said Davis without
clarifying whether Karabakh will be put in the winter session agenda
or not.
Asked about Abkhazia, Davis said it goes without question that
Abkhazia is a part of Georgia like Chechnya is Russia’s and
Pridnestrovie Moldova’s. He didn ‘t mention Karabakh.

Azeri pressure group vows to thwart Armenian presence at NATO seminar
ANS TV, Baku
5 Oct 04

[Presenter Ceyhun Aliyev] The Karabakh Liberation Organization [KLO]
is planning to stage protest actions against Armenian MPs’ visit to
Baku [to attend the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Rose-Roth seminar on
26-28 November].
[Correspondent over video of news conference] The Armenian MPs’ visit
to Baku should be thwarted, the KLO chairman, Akif Nagi, told a news
conference today. He said that opinions on the issue varied.
[Nagi] As long as Azerbaijan and Armenia are at war, as long as our
lands are under occupation, establishing any relations between
Azerbaijan and Armenia both at the official or unofficial levels is
beneficial to Armenia. Today Armenia has an interest in establishing
relations with Azerbaijan to demonstrate to the world that allegedly
nothing is happening between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
[Correspondent] Nagi said that this position was inadmissible. He
added that the KLO would do its best to thwart the Armenian MPs’ visit
to Baku. But he did not speak about details of the planned actions.
Afat Telmanqizi, Baxtiyar Salimov, Zeynal Zeynalov for ANS.

Armenians uneasy at proposed Iraq deployment
ISN
4 Oct 04
Critics say that the Armenian government’s decision to send non-combat
personnel to Iraq could turn Iraq’s entire Armenian community into
hostages.
By Liz Fuller for RFE/RL
The Armenian government’s decision to send non-ombat personnel to
serve with the international peacekeeping force in Iraq has met with
resistance from civic groups, opposition parties, one member of the
three-party ruling coalition, and some senior military
officers. Acknowledging that unease, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
told parliament on 22 September that the Armenian contingent, which
numbers some 50-60 medics, US-trained sappers, and drivers, will be
sent to Iraq only after the legislature has approved the planned
deploymentthat he stressed is of a “humanitarian” nature. Deputy
Defense Minister Artur Aghabekian told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service on 3
September that the Armenian contingent would serve in central-southern
Iraq as part of a Polish-led international peacekeeping force. On 6
September, Armenian President Robert Kocharian and his Polish
counterpart Aleksander Kwasniewski signed a protocol formalizingthe
Armenian commitment. John Evans, the new US ambassador to Yerevan,
hailed Armenia’s announced intention to send noncombat troops to Iraq,
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported on 16 September. But some senior
military officers were less than enthusiastic. Deputy Defense Minister
Lieutenant General Yuri Khachaturov told journalists on 7 September he
is “not delighted” at the prospect. He expressed concern that the
deployment could create future problems both forthe Armenian community
in Iraq and for Armenians in general.
Fear for Iraq’s Armenian communityArmenians across the political
spectrum appear to share those misgivings. Parliament deputy Grigor
Harutiunian of the opposition Artarutiun faction warned on 14
September of the potential danger to Armenian communities throughout
the Middle East, Noyan Tapan reported. One week later, a second
Artarutiun parliamentarian, Viktor Dallakian, argued that the threat
could extend to Armenia, RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported. He told
parliament that “sending a medical, humanitarian or any other Armenian
contingent to Iraq is dangerous for the security of the Republic of
Armeniaas well as for the Armenian population of Iraq”. That minority
is estimated to number some 20’000 – 25’000 people. Armenian civic
groups issued astatement on 24 September appealing to the Armenian
parliament not to approve the planned deployment. One signatory told
RFE/RL that the deployment risks turning theentire Armenian minority
in Iraq into hostages; a second argued that “60 people cannot cause a
breakthrough in the Iraq war.” In a 25 September press release, the
extraparliamentary Hayrenik front argued that the dispatch of an
Armenian contingent to Iraq “will destroy the mutual trust and
friendship between the Armenian and Arab peoples”, Noyan Tapan
reported. The press release suggested that the entire Armenian diapora
could suffer “human, cultural, and economic losses” as a result.
`Friendly’ Armenia to help `occupiers’ – The planned deployment may
even exacerbate perceived tensions within the governing three-party
coalition. On 24 September, Vahan Hovannisian, a leading member of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun, one of the two
junior coalition partners, told parliament that as a signatory to the
CIS Collective Security Treaty, Armenia should consult with Russia
before sending its contingent to Iraq, RFE/RL’s Armenian Service
reported. He added that as a member of the Council of Europe, Armenia
should similarly take into account the opinion of those European
states – he mentioned specifically France and Germany – that opposed
the US intervention in Iraq. But Hovannisian too stressed that the
primary consideration should be the safety of the large Armenian
communities throughout the Arab world. Finally, members of the
Armenian community in Iraq have themselves signaled their opposition
to the planned deployment. Archbishop Avak Asadurian told RFE/RL’s
Armenian Service on 28 September that he has written to both President
Kocharian and the Armenian parliament asking that Yerevan not send
troops to Iraq lest the Armenian community there become “a target for
terrorists”. The wife of the priest at Baghdad’s sole Armenian church
said that the Arab population has already learned from media reports
of the imminent Armenian deployment, andis displeased that “even
friendly Armenia […] is going to help the occupiers”. But during
talks in Yerevan on 28 September with Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister
Ruben Shugarian, Tariq Muhammad Yahya, an official from the interim
Iraqi government, praised what he termed Armenia’s “balanced” policy
towards Iraqand called for the restoration of bilateral economic ties,
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“ARMENIA DECIDED TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST IRAQ? WHY?”
Azg/am
5 Oct 04
Arab Newspaper Gives Some Advices
“Urgent news coming from Armenia don’t predict a good outcome and it
becomes certain that this honest state, which has unsolved territorial
problems with neighboring Azerbaijan, has decided to campaign against
its seventh neighbor. Why?”, the Azzaman, an Arab newspaper published
in London, writes in its September 12 article titled “Advices for
Armenia”.
“Armenia decided to send a squad of 50 soldiers to become victims of
kidnappers – We are not ready to protect Armenian soldiers and advise
that they bring bodyguards with them to stay as long as they will be
in this land burnt under the feet of our friends and enemies”, Azzaman
writes.
This article would not be of much importance if not the fact that it
expresses the position of the Iraqi society about the Armenian group
of deminers, drivers and doctors to be sent to Iraq. The author of the
article uses suchwords as “squad” and “campaign against Iraq”.
A retired Iraqi official was reporting lately. He was certainly aware
of Armenia’s decision to send 50 unarmed people. “‘Armenia Sends
Troops, Joins American Coalition’, this was the headline of all Iraq
newspapers today”, he said.
Iraqi Armenians (a considerable part of whom are survivors of the
Armenian Genocide) pointed at different occasions that Armenian
presence may endanger the future of Iraqi Armenians as (no matter that
the group will join Americans only for humanitarian purposes) Armenia
is still joining the Americans, Iraq’s occupants and murderers of
Arabs.
Armenian authorities promised the US (probably under pressure) to
contribute to the war on terror. Therefore it will be wrong to break
the promise because the US may, the least, condemn Armenia of dropping
out of the anti-terror fight. President Bush warned after 9/11 saying:
“You are either with us or against us”.
Armenian media’s critical coverage of the group sending obviously
makes the authorities frustrated. So, the defense minister Serge
Sargisian stated during his televised appearance: “Why fall behind
Georgia and Azerbaijan?” But why did Armenia fall behind the two
neighbors in the case of Afghanistan? Why didn’t we send deminers,
doctors and drivers to Afghanistan? The fact that the Afghan
mojahedins fought against the Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh could
bevalid grounds for joining the anti-Afghani campaign.
Is Armenia sincere in claiming that it joins the US anti-terror war?
If yes (that is, if Saddam Hussein was somehow connected with Al Qaeda
and Iraq was a threat for the world community) then why did only 30
states out of 191 UN support America?
Vartan Oskanian, foreign minister, notes that Armenia is ready to
contribute to Iraq in the humanitarian sphere. Again a question comes
up: isn’t it possible that Armenia support Iraq without joining the US
coalition? Why doTurkey, US’s close ally, and Jordan succeed in this?
There may also be other questions addressed to the Armenian
government. For instance, why did Yerevan refer to the UN’s
legislation in case of Yugoslavia’ s bombing and didn’t in case of
Iraq?
The Azzaman goes on with advices: “Armenia’s calculations are obsolete
as there is no time to sign treaties now, when America faces
elections. Neither the 50 soldiers will save Bush, nor will they
influence social researches in favour of Kerry”.
“Armenia has dropped its mask. If it tends to be part of the
multinational forces then we are ready to provide a place in `red’s
knick-knack market’ adding a ration card, certificate of death and a
videotape of being kidnapped”, newspaper writes.
By Tatoul Hakobian

Turkey in facts and figures
EUbusiness
03 October 2004
Turkey, which hopes to get the nod Wednesday from the European
Commission to obtain a date in December to launch membership talks
with the European Union, stands at the center of a strategic zone
between the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Balkans.
Following is a factsheet on Turkey, comparing some figures with those
of the European Union:
GEOGRAPHY: Covering an area of 779,452 square kilometres (311,781
square miles), Turkey borders Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Greece and Bulgaria, and is washed by the Mediterranean
to the south, the Aegean to the west and the Black Sea to the north,
and surrounds the Sea of Marmara. It is divided between two
continents, Europe and Asia. The area west of the Dardanelles and the
Bosphorus (the straits between Europe and Asia) accounts for five
percent of the total.
Comparatively, the total area of the EU countries is 3,691,214 sq km
(1,476,486 sq miles).
POPULATION: 70.7 million inhabitants (2003), including 13 to 19
million Kurds.
With Turkey joining, the EU’s population, which stood at 455 million
in January 2004, would pass the half-billion mark.
CAPITAL: Ankara, population 3.5 million.
Istanbul is the country’s largest city and industrial and commercial
hub with a population in excess of 10 million (Turkish State
Statistics Institute, 2000 – latest figures available).
OFFICAL LANGUAGE: Turkish.
The EU currently has 20 official, but only three working languages:
English, French and German.
RELIGION: Muslim (99 percent): 80 percent Sunni, 20 percent
Alevi. Armenians form the largest religious minority, with about
45,000 people, followed by some 35,000 Jews.
Turkey’s entry into the EU would bring the number of Muslims in the
European bloc to around 80 million.
RECENT HISTORY: Founded in 1923, the Republic of Turkey was created
after the collapse of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War
I. The republic became a modern secular state under its founder,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (“father of the Turks”), until his death in
1938. His successor, Ismet Inonu, ran the counry as a single-party
dictatorship until 1946, when he introduced a multi-party
system. Turkey was the scene of military coups, followed by periods of
repression, in 1960, 1971 and 1980.
>From 1984 to 1999, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) led an armed
rebellion in southeastern Turkey, which claimed more than 37,000
lives. The PKK, which is considered a terrorist organization by Turkey
and many other countries and international organisations, called a
unilateral truce after the capture in Kenya in 1999 of its founder and
leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who was tried and sentenced to death; his
sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.
The PKK has changed names several times since, and its latest
incarnation, the Kurdistan People’s Congress (KONGRA-GEL), in June
announced the end of their truce, which the Turkish army had never
recognized.
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS: Ahmet Necdet Sezer has been president since
May 5,
Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the Welfare Party, became Turkey’s first
Islamic prime minister on June 28, 1996, in a coalition with his
predecessor, Tansu Ciller, the country’s first woman premier.
He was pressured into resigning by the army in June 1997 and was
replaced by Mesut Yilmaz, leader of the Motherland Party, who headed a
left-right coalition.
The Yilmaz coalition fell from power in November 1998 amid allegations
of corruption and links to organised crime. It was replaced by another
left-right coalition led by Bulent Ecevit.
In general elections in November 2002, the Justice and Devlopment
Party (AKP), which has its roots in radical Islam but describes itself
as simply “conservative”, swept to power and obtained the absolute
majority of seats in Parliament. Its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
became prime minister in March
ECONOMY: The economy, which is based mainly on textiles, light
industry, tourism and agriculture, saw considerable growth until it
was hit by a severe crisis in the aftermath of the first Gulf War in
1991.
With 14 million foreign visitors generating 13.2 billion dollars of
income, tourism in 2003 was the country’s biggest earner. Long hit by
PKK terror attacks and the effects of the Gulf War, the sector boomed
in 2003 and 2004, with incoming tourist figures increasing by 43.5%
for the first six months of this year compared with the first six
months of 2003.
Turkey has been linked with the EU with an association accord signed
in 1963 and a customs agreement signed in 1996.
Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership was rejected in 1989, largely due
to its human rights record, but was accepted on December 10, 1999.
GNP PER CAPITA: 2.790 dollars.
By comparison, the highest per capita GNP in the EU belongs to
Luxembourg, with 38,830 dollars; the lowest, Latvia’s, is 3,480
dollars. The average per capita GNP of the EU is 19,775 dollars (World
Bank, 2003).
FOREIGN DEBT: 147.035 billion dollars (Turkish State Statistics
Institute,
ARMED FORCES: 514,850 men, of whom 402,000 are land forces, 52,750
naval forces and 60,100 air forces (IISS 2003/2004).
Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Referendum Surprise for Turkey
Zaman
10.01.2004 Friday
After the approval of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) in the parliament
put Turkey-European Union (EU) relations back on track, the French
referendum demand inflamed the discussions about Turkey in Europe.
First Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to lead the ruling Union for a
Popular Movement (UMP) party come November, and now French President
Jacques Chirac, who strongly supported Turkey so far, entertains the
idea of holding a referendum on Turkey.
Political parties other than Radical Left and the Greens, both of
which have no impact on political life in France, view Turkey’s
membership either negatively or as conditional.
Gathering the rightist parties under one umbrella, UMP defended from
the beginning that Turkey has no place in Europe. Meanwhile, the main
opposition Social Democrat Party wanted Turkey to recognize the
So-Called Armenian Genocide as a prerequisite to starting
discussions. Despite his party’s negative attitude, Chirac, who sends
warm messages to Turkey, announced that he would make his decision
according to the results of the Progress report. In addition, polls in
France indicate that more than half of the French do not want Turkey
in the EU.
Political parties did not hold back from using Turkey as a political
tool in recent local and European elections. After it became
increasingly obvious that the progress report will most likely be
positive, the referendum issue was thrown into the mix. It has reached
a point that the rightist parties seem likely to turn the EU
Constitution referendum, which is planned for 2005, into a “yes” or
“no” referendum on Turkey.
French Parliament EU Delegation Vice President Christian Philip
comments that the end of this process amounts to the “EU running into
a brick wall.” Phillip, in order to emphasize the importance of
France’s attitude, reminded that Charles de Gaulle vetoed Great
Britain. The EU parliamentarian suggests that other countries are
likely to take the issue to referendum as well.
Meanwhile, this is not the first time that a referendum has been
required for a candidate country’s EU membership. In 1972, then
President Georges Pompidou had sent the British membership, which De
Gaulle had vetoed twice, to referendum. Only 68 percent of the public
said “yes”.
The referendum demand in France could be interpreted as the first
concrete confrontation between a Europe that has so far regarded
Turkey’s accession to EU as “distant” and a Turkey that sees Europe as
a reality.
10.01.2004
ALI IHSAN AYDIN
Paris

Azeri pundits say Armenia trying to provoke resumption of hostilities
Zerkalo, Baku
1 Oct 04

Armenia is trying to speak to us in the language of threats. This
conclusion can be inferred from Armenian Defence Minister Serzh
Sarkisyan’s statement made in an interview with Armenian Public
Television. He said that the fallout from hostilities in Nagornyy
Karabakh would be extremely unpleasant for both Armenia and
Azerbaijan. He added that “whatever the outcome of a possible war,
even the most beneficial for Armenia, we have no desire to be dragged
into hostilities”.
He said Armenia would have to fight only if the Azerbaijani side
launched an attack. Sarkisyan noted that Armenia was capable of giving
“a response that would discourage Azerbaijan from fighting for many
years”. Let’s recall that Armenian officials have repeatedly made such
statements.
We have asked some Azerbaijani analysts what they think about the
Armenian defence minister’s remarks. The former foreign minister,
Tofiq Zulfuqarov, said that the statement is unlikely to stem from the
Armenian minister’s desire to maintain peace in the region. He said
the statement reveals Armenia’s intention to blame Azerbaijan for a
possible resumption of hostilities.
Zulfuqarov said Sarkisyan’s statement comes at a time when, as he
thinks, another round of talks has not produced results due to
Armenia’s non-constructive position. “To demonstrate Armenia’s
firmness in the issue, the Armenian minister is trying to show that
Armenia can defend its position even by force,” the former minister
said.
He added that the resumption of hostilities is mainly impeded by the
position of the international community. At the same time, he said “if
no breakthrough is reached in the negotiations, the start of
hostilities is practically inevitable”. The former minister did not
rule out the possibility of Armenia attempting to resume hostilities,
thus capitalizing on the factor of the US presidential elections when
the country’s attention will focus on domestic problems.
Zulfuqarov believes that in a move to solve domestic problems, the
Armenian administration may provoke Azerbaijan to start a war. He
added that such statements must send a message to the Azerbaijani
authorities that the resumption of hostilities by Armenia is a real
threat and “at this juncture, our country must take specific and
large-scale action to strengthen its defence capability”.
[Passage omitted: comments by another political analyst]
Military expert Uzeyir Cafarov said that Sarkisyan’s statement
proceeds from his confidence in Russia. He said that the agreement on
strategic partnership between these countries enables Moscow to
provide assistance to Yerevan. Cafarov believes that the wait-and-see
position of the Azerbaijani authorities is very convenient for
Armenia. The military expert thinks that while Armenia continuously
builds up its military potential, Azerbaijan acts like a “guilty
schoolboy”. He added that Azerbaijan must not allow Armenia, its
defence minister in particular, to make such statements.
Considering Sarkisyan’s statement that starting from 5 January 2005
Armenia will be able to sign agreements directly with Russian
[military] enterprises on arms and ammunition supplies on the same
terms as the Russian army, our country has to think carefully about a
reciprocal action.