Author: Frangulian Shushan

The Messenger, Georgia
March 11 2005
Economic Analysis
Withdrawal of Russian bases carries undeniable economic impact
By M. Alkhazashvili
Parliament on Wednesday and again on Thursday discussed a resolution
declaring Russia’s military bases on Georgian soil illegal. The
resolution calls on the government to introduce measures intended to
force Russia to withdraw its bases, should agreement on the terms of
withdrawal not be agreed as a result of bilateral negotiations within
the next two months.
Discussion of the resolution was met with strong criticism from
Moscow, two influential Duma MPs declaring that sanctions should be
imposed on Georgia in response. Possible measures that the Duma
members should be taken in response to Georgia’s efforts to speed up
the negotiation process, which has dragged on for almost six years
now without result, include either cutting off the country’s
electricity and gas supply or increasing the price of the energy
supplied, deporting Georgians working in Russia, and boycotting
Georgian products on the Russian market.
While the withdrawal of the bases is fundamentally a political issue,
the implication of these threats is that permitting the bases to
remain, or not, is also an economic issue.
Russian threats have led some Georgian analysts to call on the
government to take measures to reduce the country’s economic
dependence on its northern neighbor, saying that otherwise business
and the economy may be used to apply political pressure on the
country. This has provided new ammunition for those Georgians opposed
to the government’s policy, particularly in the privatization
process, to attract more Russian capital into the country.
“The attitude of the Georgian authorities towards Russia is
absolutely incomprehensible. How can we on the one hand say that
Russia is an aggressor and occupying force and on the other sell it
strategic state assets?” asks an incredulous Giorgi Kobakhidze of the
Forward Georgia opposition party, as quoted by Akhali Taoba.
“In return for withdrawing the military bases, we are giving Russia
crucial economic levers. Putting energy resources into Russian hands
is wholly sufficient to allow them have influence on the state,” he
declares.
Besides possible sanctions, social problems that may arise in areas
around the bases also demand consideration. Most of the inhabitants
around the base in Akhalkalaki are ethnic Armenians who are
economically dependent on the base and also view it as protection
from possible ethnic aggression.
Georgian analysts believe Russia will try to use this factor for its
own interests, some even warning that it may attempt to create a new
ethnic conflict. This could destabilize the whole South Caucasus and
cause old conflicts to flare up as well.
Batumi is less reliant thanks to a booming seaport and thru-traffic
from Turkey, but still the bases have preferred hiring locals for
services and trade thus contributing to the area’s economy.
It is therefore imperative that economic development options for the
country and especially for residents of Akhalkalaki be developed in
order to diffuse foreseeable negative reactions to the withdrawal of
the Russian base.

Cambridge Chronicle
Cambridge people
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Kamenova wins bridge award
Ljudmila Kamenova of Cambridge recently won the Mini-McKenney Award
for outstanding bridge performance in her category last year. She was named
Eastern Massachusetts Bridge’s Rookie of the Year.
EMBA’s next tournament will be Feb. 25-27 at the Armenian Cultural
Center, 47 Nichols Ave., Watertown. Players will compete at all levels, from
beginner to expert. For more information, call Ruth Barton at 781-270-1157
or visit

Karabakh conflict: ways of settlement
Vladimir Kazimirov
YERKIR
>>From 1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian
mediation mission; Russian president’s representative for Nagorno
Karabakh issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Vladimir Kazimirov’s analyses regarding the Karabakh conflict are
available on his personal web site at:
Dear readers,
Between February 22 and 28, 2005, you had an opportunity to address
your questions on the Yerkir’s website to VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV. From
1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian mediation
mission; Russian president’s representative for Nagorno Karabakh
issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Below are some of the asnwers in English. The full version of the
interview is available in Armenian and Russian.
Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian,
editor-in-chief of “Yerkir” Weekly.
Lori Holomquist – Dear Mr. Kazimirov, where does Russia stand on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide? It is the latest fashion in academic
and political circles to talk about “the judgment of historians”.
There is a clear tendency to move the issue of genocide from
political to purely historical context, thus eliminating all
possibilities of finding a political solution to the Armenian
genocide. How do you evaluate those efforts? What would be Russia’s
role in this case? Is Russia willing to change attitude and raise its
voice? Because no Russian can claim, that he or she is not aware of
the essence of the problem? How do you explain the silence of Russian
deputies or representatives in different international instances
whenever the Armenian Genocide issue is raised? Thank you.
V. K.- This issue is not directly connected with the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict, thought the indirect impact is undeniable. As
for Russia, its parliament has voiced its opinion long ago. That
black date will mark its 90th anniversary soon, and they do not
forget about it here. Unfortunately, the issue is more discussed in
some countries than it is in Turkey.
Lori Holomquist – Dear Mr. Kazirov, The Caucasus has been an
important strategic region for Russia. Bearing in mind the latest
political events in mind, and the American plans to draw a new map of
the region both in the Middle East and in Asia, it is hard to find
any concrete Russian counter plans. Should we translate this as
concession, has Russia given up its interest in the area? I am
talking especially about the Caucasus. Is there any chance that
Russia will herself come up with a new map of the region? If that is
the case, what could happen to Nakhichevan? Or Georgia, and Armenia?
What would the future Azerbaijan look like? Thank you in advance for
your answers.
V. K.- I think it is the peoples of the region who should suggest a
new map and not Washington or Moscow. However, it should be done
based on good will and consensus. It should not be done roughly and
unskillfully. Let me repeat myself: one of Russia’s priorities is the
ensuring of the security in the region.
Sevak – Mr. Kazimirov, Is there any final solution for Karabakh
problem? And what do you think about the liberated territories of
Karabakh should they (Armenians) return it to Azerbaijan when both
countries rich in final agreement?
V. K. – Of course there is one, there has be one. The expression “the
liberated territories of Karabakh” is somewhat vague; it is not clear
what is meant by it. My opinion is that the Azerbaijani territories
outside Karabakh should be freed stage by stage under certain
conditions (before the final settlement of the status for Karabakh,
demilitarization and so on.) I think that special conditions will be
needed in the case of the Lachin and Kelbajar regions. But before
that, the sides should absolutely and clearly commit that that all
disputes should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means (under
weighty international guarantees), and the outline of Nagorno
Karabakh should be corrected. The former borders of the Nagorno
Karabakh Autonomous Region are too artificial and hence unpractical
for the first decades of reconciliation. This is, however, my
personal view of settling the Karabakh conflict.
Mikhail Aramazdanian – What if, and lets say “if” that Artsakh army
pulls out of Karabakh and all the Armenians leave Artsakh since some
Azeri officials want this. And if so, wouldn’t that area become a
financial burden for Azerbaijan, since this is a large piece of land
we are talking about, wouldn’t it take Azerbaijan years maybe never
to build Artsakh back to where it has been in the past or what it is
today if everyone left. I mean if they don’t have money to Support
the Refugees in Azerbaijan, how could they even hope to rebuild land
and build houses for the Azeri peoples to move back or repopulate? Or
is this not what Azerbaijan wants? But my main question is, if
Azerbaijan does get Artsakh back, will it be able to support this
area of Land or will it be the same as what is happening in Georgia
with Javakhk?
V.K. – I can’t assume knowing everything, I am not used to it. I
think this question should be directed to the Azeris.
Zaven Sarkissian, Toronto, Canada – If peaceful coexistence is the
desired outcome of this conflict, why then the present status quo has
not been accepted by the international community, which has
experienced over ten years of “peaceful” coexistence regardless what
each side ideally wished to achieve? Do you think Karabakh will
always(for the foreseeable future)remain “the unresolved problem”,
such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will erupt once in a
while, coincidentally every time the Superpowers disagree with one
another and/or with one of the sides involved. What is your solution?
V. K. – The eleven years of ceasefire could hardly be called a period
of peaceful coexistence. The main issue, the fate of Nagorno Karabakh
has not been decided; the cancer of the occupied Azerbaijani
territories has not been eliminated; the sides are just training
their muscles, and some are continuously threatening to ignore “any
price.” There is no cooperation whatsoever; no clear negotiations are
even under way. The lack of military activities does not mean
“peaceful coexistence.” Such status quo is deficient for all the
sides; it requires changes but clever ones, without using force,
which should not be allowed. I have published my suggestions long ago
on my web site.
Gevork (Canada) – Mr. Kazimirov, following regularly the hostile
declarations of Azerbaijani leaders and Azerbaijani media as well as
the uncompromising stance of that country, I have the strong
impression that the main problem for the resolution of the NKR
conflict is mostly related to national pride and a great sense of
frustration, due to military failure, in the Azerbaijani society.
Perhaps, if Azerbaijan is healed from this feeling, things would
considerably improve in the negotiation process! (and perhaps you
might consider me naive!). Therefore, what measures does the Minsk
group take (or what could be done) to explain or demonstrate to the
Azeris that Armenia does not consider itself as a “victor” (in the
classical sense), that the populations of Armenia and NKR have also
immensely suffered (maybe more!) from the conflict, that this is not
about “winners” or “losers”, and that correcting a historic mistake
that happened more than 80 years ago is not intended to humiliate the
Azeri nation. In other words, letting them clearly understand that
revenge will only lead to a vicious circle that will paralyze the
region for decades and even centuries. Your thoughts on all of the
above please!
V. K. – The emotional factors, indeed, play some role. In that
respect, Armenians should not boast about their victory. Especially
that all the sides have suffered and continue to suffer from the
conflict. I would like to believe that both nations are looking ahead
to a leader who would have enough courage to openly advocate for a
historic reconciliation of Armenians and Azeris.
See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.

PanArmenian News
March 5 2005
UNITED STATES DO NOT PLAN A ~SCOLOURED REVOLUTION~T IN YEREVAN
It looks like Armenian is not included in the list of states not
suitable for Washington.
In the nearest future, US Congress will consider the draft
legislation introduced by senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
The draft presupposes rendering support to democratic movements in
developing countries of Eastern Europe and Asia. The document is
called ~SAdvance democracy act~T. According to political
correspondents, approval of the legislation will promote the export
of ~Svelvet revolutions~T from Ukraine and Georgia to other CIS
countries. If approved, the initiative of McCain and Lieberman will
also instill confidence in Armenian oppositionists.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In Russia the legislation draft was viewed as a
sanction of US administration to interfere in the internal policy of
other states. The authors of the document do not conceal that their
initiative is mainly aimed at protecting the political interests of
Unites States and not the civil rights of the people of countries
that are considered undemocratic by Washington. «The promotion of
democracy and freedom is simply inseparable from the long term
security of the United States,” said Senator McCain. «When the
security of New York or Washington or California depends in part of
the degree on freedom in Riyadh or Baghdad or Cairo, we must promote
democracy building and society improvement in those countries~T, John
McCain stated. It is quite easy to guess what the senator implies by
saying ~Ssociety improvement~T because he mentions Georgia, Ukraine,
Iraq and Palestinian autonomy as countries where Americans managed to
achieve ~Simprovement~T.
The ~SAdvance democracy act~T supposes allocation of 300 million
dollars for the ~Ssupport to democracy abroad~T. It is planned to
establish in Washington a special structure aimed at coordinating
~Sdemocracy producing~T in developing countries. The ~Soffice of
Democracy Movements and Transitions at the State Department~T will be
in charge for supporting regimes that are convenient for the USA.
Separate ~SRegional Democracy Hubs~T are planned to be established at
American embassies in all those countries that Americans consider
undemocratic. Up to now the role of those structures has been carried
out locally by the departments of US National democratic institute.
Such a department is functioning also in Yerevan and actively
cooperates with more ~Sprogressive~T oppositional parties. After the
arrival of new specialists from Washington the tactics of
~Sinstruction~T of Armenian oppositionists will possibly change.
It is likely that the leader of oppositional ~SJustice~T bloc Stepan
Demirchyan took into account the initiative of Lieberman and McCain
mentioning about his readiness to cooperate with the US National
democratic institute on his Tuesday press conference. Maybe this is a
peculiar signal about the ability of ~SJustice~T bloc to justify the
expectations of Americans. After all 300 millions is not a small sum
and even the hundredth part of that sum will be enough for supporting
~Svelvet revolutions~T that are so much spoken of by Armenian
oppositionists.
However, there are no grounds to suppose that Armenia is one of those
countries ~Sdemocratization~T of which is among the priority tasks of
United States. The authors of the legislation clearly specify in what
countries they want to ~Sintroduce democracy~T. In his speech at the
Senate Joseph Lieberman only mentioned that in the world there are at
least 45 countries that really need to learn from the West what
democracy is. It is likely that the matter concerns the list made by
the international ~SFreedom House~T organization. Armenia is not
included in that list. From CIS countries there are only Russia,
Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
It seems that the answer to the question where the USA is going to
stir up ~Svelvet revolutions~T should be sought in the talk between
George Bush and the leader of Ukrainian revolutionists Vladislav
Kaskiv. At the end of the conversation the leader of all-Ukrainian
~SPora~T non-governmental organization that brought Victor Yushenko to
power said that the US President has blessed him to create an expert
center for supporting democratic movements in neighboring countries ~V
Russia, Byelorussia, Moldova and Azerbaijan. Armenia was not
mentioned. It should noticed that after the meeting of Bush and
Kaskiv ~SPora~T organization sent letters to presidents of several CIS
countries warning about upcoming ~Sorange revolutions~T. In the cabinet
of Ilham Aliev the letter spread panic and Kaskiv was immediately
announced persona non grata in Azerbaijan. Meanwhile the President of
Armenia has nothing to worry about since he has not received any
letters from Kiev…
–Boundary_(ID_fvxvTP0RTfNVKKFza03X1A)–

Breakfast of Champions
A snort with your coffee, Scotch for lunch, and other
Bogosian obsessions at the Sol Theatre
Miami New Times
February 24, 2005
BY RONALD MANGRAVITE ([email protected])
To many, modern art is all about provocation. That was the case with
gonzo journalist and novelist Hunter S. Thompson, whose booze- and
drug-fueled rants were the stuff of popular legend for decades before
he committed suicide last week. Trailing along in Thompson’s wake is
Eric Bogosian, a theatrical provocateur who, for more than twenty
years, has been writing and performing such solo shows as Talk Radio,
Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and the recent Wake Up and Smell the Coffee.
A Bogosian show usually presents a rogue’s gallery of marginal
characters in a string of raucous monologues that critique American
society. One of Bogosian’s early pieces, Drinking in America, is now
in revival at the Sol Theatre Project in Fort Lauderdale. This rant
and rave from the Eighties, which focuses on the addictions and
obsessions of Americans across many social strata, is still funny and
acerbic, but its social observations have lost much of their sting
over the years. As a result, Drinking is now more an exercise in sound
and fury than substance.
Some of the text seems more than a little trite. In one skit, a wired
movie producer in Hollywood keeps putting a caller on hold while he
snorts lines of cocaine for breakfast. In another, a hopped-up
panhandler uses praise and flattery to cajole an audience member to
cough up some money. In still another, a smug, scotch-drinking
professional ticks off the little successes in his life with a
disquieting urgency that suggests all is not well beneath. The
underlying idea, that Americans of all walks of life medicate their
underlying dis-ease, implies an overarching social critique. But
instead of offering some connective argument, Bogosian falls back on
vague references to capitalism and spiritual poverty. The idea,
apparently, is that the audience must connect these scattered dots of
message into some cohesive pattern; despite Bogosian’s gifts with
language and characterization, though, the basis of the idea is
muddled and ill-considered.
If Drinking is more a talent showcase than substantive theater, at
least the talent is engaging. The Sol production takes this solo show
and divides it between two actors, a decision that helps add some
welcome variety. Jim Gibbons and Jim Sweet, who made a fine pair of
tramps in the Sol’s solid production of Waiting for Godot last season,
again bring their gonzo goofball sensibilities to this tag-team
event. Gibbons has a sly, world-weary style and serves a string of
nicely etched cameos. He starts off smartly as a street drunk who
conjures a detailed reverie of luxury, limos, and lovely ladies. He’s
also terrific as a lonely traveling salesman chatting with a hooker in
a hotel room, and a persuasive preacher whose critique of societal
collapse turns into an exhortation to righteous violence. He’s
balanced by the harder-edged, tightly wound Sweet, who’s hilarious in
a wild tale of a New Yorker’s booze- and Quaalude-fueled road trip
that ends in disaster. He also scores as an immigrant restaurateur
who’s obsessed with work. But Sweet, who co-directed the production
with Robert Hooker, often comes across as more calculated than
Gibbons, who provides more character details. All three are credited
with the ominous, bleak set design, a looming, gray stone wall that
suggests both an urban street and a subterranean cavern.
While this production has merit, it’s not nearly as satisfying as many
past Sol projects, and the question arises as to why Hooker and
company opted for this particular script. In a season in which several
theaters seem to be serving decidedly so-so material, it’s fair to ask
what is in store for the Sol troupe and, by extension, South Florida
theaters in general. Over the past several years, a number of new
companies, the Sol included, have moved from mere survival to a
measure of stability. But many of these companies are focused on the
same type of theater, so-called “edgy, contemporary plays,” the
availability of which is in increasingly short supply. At some point
the Sol and other local companies may be forced to expand the scope of
their dramatic sources beyond recent New York hits, making room for
commissioned scripts on specific topics, reinvented classic texts, or
translations of contemporary plays from other countries. This
evolution may well be painful, but is most likely necessary, as the
crowded South Florida theater scene keeps maturing.
**********************
“Drinking in America”
Written by Eric Bogosian.
Directed by Jim Sweet and Robert Hooker.
With Jim Gibbons and Jim Sweet.
Presented through March 13, 2005.
954-525-6555, or
Where: Sol Theatre Project
1140 NE Flagler Dr., Fort Lauderdale.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 3 February, 2005, 11:55 GMT
Burning body suspect due in court
One man has already been charged with murdering Mr Amirian
A man is due to appear before magistrates charged with the murder of a man
whose burning body was found on the Cambs/Northants border.
Armenian Havhannes Amirian’s remains were found at Upton in December 2002.
Misha Chatsjatrjan, from Oldenzaal in the Netherlands, was arrested by Dutch
police on 12 January.
He is due before Peterborough Magistrates’ Court. Police worked on the case
for more than a year before identifying the dead man as Mr Amirian.
‘Unknown male’
At one stage it was feared the body, which was found in a wood, might never
be identified.
It led to Peterborough coroner Gordon Ryall taking the unusual step of
allowing the man to be buried in a grave marked “Unknown Male”.
However after the police made a breakthrough in the case the inquest was
briefly resumed for Mr Amirian’s identity to be announced, more than a year
after his death.
The inquest heard that Mr Amirian was born in Armenia and had family
connections in the Ukraine. However, most recently he had lived in Belgium
and England.

TRUTHFUL EVALUATION OF EVENTS
Azg/arm
01 March 05
The pogroms of Sumgait and the so-called “Khojalu tragedy” both fall
on the end of February. Those two events differ though not only with
their dates but also with political assessment each gets.
Sumgait was the first genocide perpetrated in the Soviet period
against the Armenians and again with the hands of the Turks. But
can we really call the Sumgait events a genocide? Component of the
tragedy allow to speak of genocidal character of the events. Having
rebuffed honest accusations, Azerbaijan assails back claiming that
the events in Khojalu were also a genocide. These two events are
incomparable. The Armenians of Sumgait were a national minority within
Azerbaijan together with other minorities. More importantly, there
was no wide-range confrontation between the two peoples in February
of 1988. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan that slaughtered its Armenian citizens
and forced them out of the country was still a unit of the soviet
empire. Khojalu case is different as the village was a vantage point
for Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys heavy artillery to rocket surrounding Armenian
settlements. Itâ~@~Ys obviously illogical to compare the elimination
of such a bridgehead with genocide.
If the Sumgait tragedy were rightly assessed in its due time,
Azerbaijan would not certainly knock the doors of international
organizations attempting to find associates in equating Khojalu to
Sumgait. The Sumgait tragedy enters the wider context of Karabakh
conflict, it is one of its dark pages and it seems impossible to
find an impartial solution to the conflict leaving out the fact of
genocide in this Azeri town.
One more moment in this regard: if we accept that genocide is a kind
of state terror committed against another nationâ~@~Ys representatives
of the country, then, following Azerisâ~@~Y logic, the fact of Nagorno
Karabakh Republicâ~@~Ys existence should also be recognized. Otherwise,
what should be the perception of genocide in a state formation which
is responsible for “Khojalu tragedy”? And if Azerbaijan wants to label
the Khojalu events of February 26 of 1992 as genocide, though without
any ground, then such approach can be defined as indirect recognition
of Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
Regardless Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys foul play, each tragic event, be it Sumgait
or Khojalu, should receive truthful assessment. The Khojalu events
used to be called tragedy till lately by Azeris themselves (“Khojalu
fajiyasi” â~@~S Khojalu tragedy, was their own wording). Itâ~@~Ys
impossible to turn a tragedy into genocide by a single stroke of pen
years later.
By Kim Gabrielian in Stepanakert
–Boundary_(ID_nIs30thnaRkCYV1dJWzM+Q)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Persian Journal, Iran
Feb 27 2005
Italy computerize Iranian manuscripts
Feb 26, 2005, 17:43
Italian researchers have begun study on old Iranian manuscripts and
handwitten works, according to Italian Iranologist Carloce Rati.
A professor at La Sapienza University in Rome, Carloce said
reaserchers have launched a broad investigation into the Iranian
literary works located all over the world in an attempt to
computerize the masterpieces.
Manuscripts and records dating back to old Iranian Achamanid and
Sassanid era, unearthed in India, Iraq, Armenia and Kurdestan
province have been classified and loaded into computer, since 2003.
Roti, also leading the reaearch team said Italy is interested in
collaborating with Iranian universities and scientific centers to
complete the project.
Rome University highly appreciates the unprecedented breakthrough,
Roti said.

TURKISH AND AMERICAN DIPLOMATS DISCUSS PROBLEM OF NAGORNY KARABAKH IN
WASHINGTON TO DETERMINE COMMON INTERESTS
YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 25. ARMINFO. Turkish and American diplomats discuss
the problem of Nagorny Karabakh in Washington. According to the 525th
newspaper, within the framework of a dialogue on strategic issues
between the two states, Turkey and the USA have arrived at an
agreement to establish a forum on Russia, South Caucasus and Central
Asia.
According to the agreement, Head of the Department for Russia,
Caucasus and Central Asia of the Turkish Foreign Ministry Halil
Akinchi met with one of the heads of the US Department of State for
Europe and Eurasia Laura Kennedy in Washington. The sides discussed
the situation in Georgia, Russia and in the South Caucasus, settlement
of Karabakh conflict, Turkish-Armenian ties, as well as energy
corridor. The discussions aimed determination of common interests of
the USA and Turkey, assistance in settlement of conflicts, energy
problems as well as cooperation in the sphere of political and
economic reforms. Turkish and American diplomats will continue their
discussion in Ankara after a time.

AZG Armenian Daily #035,
26/02/2005
Nagorno Karabakh
THE WAY ‘THOUSANDS OF KHOJALU VICTIMS’ SPRING UP
According to 1926 Population Census Khojalu Was a Purely Armenian Village
with 888 Residents
In its yesterday’s issue daily Azg wrote about the Khojalu tragedy that
claimed lives of 613 Azeris and 34 Armenians. Florance David from Channel 5
TV of France was among the first foreign journalists to visit the places of
hostilities. The editor-in-chief of daily Azg, Hakob Avetikian, recalls that
Florance David came to Azg publishing house at 11 p.m. in early March of
1992 accompanied by 2 guys from Armenian Revolutionary Party. She needed a
satellite phone to send correspondence to the French TV.
“Understanding the importance of the moment we allowed her to use this rare
connection (only daily Azg and the office of Armenian Assembly of America
had satellite line on those days). Florance spoke to her editor first. What
she told him was published in our newspaper at that time”, Avetikian said.
“Referring to Florance’s conversation with her editor, daily Azg wrote in an
article titled ‘The Way ‘Thousands of Khojalu Victims’ Spring Up’ in March
of 1992: ‘On Iranian Red Crescent’s initiative, Armenians and Azeris
exchanged corpses on March 1 as they previously arranged. There were
hundreds of dead bodies on the field. Suddenly an Azeri helicopter with
Azeri and foreign journalists aboard appeared in the air, and they began
taking pictures of the exchange process from above. The Turkish TV and press
used the pictures and videotapes next day to present ‘the massacre of
‘thousands’ of Azeris killed during Armenians’ seizure of Khojalu’. That was
a prize misinformation”.
Avetikian recalls that Florance went on live broadcast after talking to her
editor and began broadcasting things that did not match her previous talk
with the editor. “She did not know I knew French. Noticing the difference we
published not Florance’s live speech but her conversation with the editor”,
he said.
Few days later a LDP French branch member, Levon Kebabjian, called daily Azg
that a legal action was launched against the paper for distorting Florance
David’s correspondence. But the action was shortly after stopped.
Avetikian thinks the reason for that was Ayaz Mutalibov’s statement in
Moscow that the Armenian opened a corridor for the Azeris to leave Khojalu.
Azerbaijan’s trend of labeling the Khojalu tragedy a “genocide committed by
Armenians” continues today. An American congressman from Indiana, Den
Barton, known for his pro-Turkish stance appealed to the Congress few days
ago to “recognize Khojalu tragedy as genocide”. “Khojalu was a small town
before the February of 1992. There is no such town any more. The word
‘Khojalu’ has turned today into sorrow and a symbol of cruelty for every
Azeri. Backed by the Russian air force, Armenians not only took the town
over but also completely ruined it. Armenians brutally executed 613 people”,
Barton said.
Davit Babayan, political analyst from Stepanakert, says that the elimination
was the work of Azeri forces who feigned genocide to remove attention from
the pogroms of Armenian population in Baku and Sumgait. “The killed Azeris
were in a position looking towards Aghdam. That means that the fusillade
came from Aghdam’s direction. Mutalibov himself confessed that Armenians
provided a corridor for the civilians”, Babayan says.
Referring to the Soviet population census of 1926, Babayan noted that
Khojalu was a purely Armenian village at that time with 888 Armenian
residents. The first 2 Azeri families settled in Khojalu only in 60s. Few
years later an Azeri Khojalu springs up by the Armenian one. In 1977 the
Armenian Khojalu was not mentioned and in 1989 census showed that Khojalu
was a purely Azeri settlement with 1661 population.
By Tatoul Hakobian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress