Author: Harutyunian Christine

National Public Radio (NPR)
SHOW: Weekend All Things Considered 8:00 AM EST NPR
June 26, 2005 Sunday

New film “Yes”

ANCHORS: JOHN YDSTIE

REPORTERS: HOWIE MOVSHOVITZ

JOHN YDSTIE, host:

British filmmaker Sally Potter is known for taking on difficult
subjects. Her latest film is called “Yes.” The title comes from the
last word of James Joyce’s novel “Ulysses,” but it’s inspired by the
terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. Howie Movshovitz of
Colorado Public Radio reports.

HOWIE MOVSHOVITZ reporting:

In “Yes,” Joan Allen plays a character known only as She, an
American-Irish biologist who lives in London with her cold British
husband. She has an affair with He, played by French
Lebanese-Armenian actor Simon Abkarian. He was a surgeon in Beirut,
but when he fled to London, he could only get work as a cook. Every
word of dialogue is spoken in iambic pentameter.

(Soundbite of “Yes”)

Ms. JOAN ALLEN: (As She) Do you believe in God?

Mr. SIMON ABKARIAN: (As He) Oh…

Ms. ALLEN: (As She) She didn’t. So I had to pray at school and then
go back home and say that I thought reason was the way, the light,
that God was dead. This was a Catholic school. They fed us catechism,
fear of hell, fear of punishment as well.

MOVSHOVITZ: To pull off the rhymes, writer and director Sally Potter
told her actors to think about hip-hop, not Shakespeare.

Ms. SALLY POTTER (Director, “Yes”): In rap, in hip-hop, people bring
together, again, in a long kind of flow of playful rhyming language,
the big, big issues of the day: God, sex, love, relationships, war,
guns, hate and so on. And so I think verses is an incredibly alive
way of showing somehow the deep recesses of the mind, where we don’t
think in paragraphs and in sentences; we think in a kind of long
river, a flow. So I thought, `Well, OK, try and write it for the
cinema. Try and do it for the screen and see how it works.’

MOVSHOVITZ: It works pretty well, according to Karen Durbin, film
critic for Elle magazine.

Ms. KAREN DURBIN (Film Critic, Elle): I was thinking about
recommending this movie to various friends, just nice, intelligent
people but who are regular moviegoers. They are not film buffs or
whatever. And, you know, I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t tell them
that the dialogue was in verse, and so I’m going to start out on the
defensive because immediately I’m going to say, `But I promise you,
it’s very subtle. You’ll love it. It’ll fall beautifully on your ear.
You will, after a while, forget it completely, you’ll be so drawn
into the story.’ I really want people to see this movie. I think
that, in the best possible way, it’s mind-expanding.

(Soundbite of “Yes)

Mr. ABKARIAN: (As He) I need wash you, yes, from head to toe.

Ms. ALLEN: (As She) What did you say?

Mr. ABKARIAN: (As He) How can you doubt me so?

Ms. ALLEN: (As She) Wash my feet? Do you see some dirt? Do you not
see how your words hurt?

Mr. ABKARIAN: (As He) Divinity.

Ms. ALLEN: (As She) Oh, don’t call me that. It isn’t me.

Mr. ABKARIAN: (As He) In long afternoons I’ve felt your lovely arms
about me, tasted you and known the charms of flesh on flesh, of skin
on lovely skin. But when your blood is going, it’s a sin, to…

Ms. ALLEN: (As She) Right. No, wait. Blood? Sin? What’s happening?

Mr. ABKARIAN: (As He) I have remembered who I am.

MOVSHOVITZ: For the actors in “Yes,” speaking in verse turned out to
be easier and more effective than they expected, says Joan Allen.

Ms. ALLEN: The rhythm of it became just very much part of this fabric
of the acting as well. I didn’t approach the character any
differently. It became very natural, and it was incredibly easy to
memorize, much easier to memorize than most material because it had a
rhythm and a musicality to it but also with all the meaning attached
to it as well.

MOVSHOVITZ: Allen says the story of a cross-cultural love affair
could produce a preachy film, but the very artificiality of poetry as
dialogue actually made the conversation believable, and that was
essential to filmmaker Sally Potter.

Ms. POTTER: This isn’t a lecture about the current global situation.
It’s two individuals, both of whom we can love, both of whom we can
understand their perspective. And maybe that will help us, as a kind
of microcosmic example, get some kind of insight into the dynamic of
this very, very difficult moment we find ourselves in historically.

MOVSHOVITZ: To take on a complicated history that has divided
cultures for centuries, Potter says she needed a simple story.

Ms. POTTER: It’s a woman in an unhappy marriage meets a man. They’re
attracted, they start to have an affair. Where does it go? It’s as
simple as that. It’s the oldest story that exists, really: Two lovers
who try to love each other, but there is an obstacle in the way. That
was the basis of “Romeo and Juliet.” Well, here, we’re dealing with a
global feud: East and West.

MOVSHOVITZ: To play the role of He, Simon Abkarian drew on his own
complicated personal history. He was born in France to parents who
had fled Lebanon in 1958. His Armenian grandparents had themselves
fled to Lebanon during the Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915.
Abkarian says like his character, he feels, in his words, `out of his
place.’

Mr. ABKARIAN: Luckily I became an actor because being an artist,
being an actor, you can open another point of view on the work, and
you can develop another understanding and create spaces that you can
relate with people, even if different, you know. The thing that Sally
did with this film, she starts writing the script right after 9/11;
10/11 she started to write. And the theme is telling that, that we
have to know who we are. Even if we don’t like each other, you know,
it’s important to know about the other.

MOVSHOVITZ: The loss of identity, the difficulty people have
expressing themselves and the burden of history are just some of the
themes “Yes” tries to address. They’re summed up by a housecleaner
who sees them as just the dirt generated by people as they go about
their daily lives.

(Soundbite of “Yes”; vacuum cleaner)

Unidentified Woman: They say my cleaning is the best they’ve ever
known. That cleanliness, of course, is an illusion. Those of us who
clean as a profession know the deeper source of dirt is always there.
You can’t get rid of it. You cannot hide or put a lid on it as long
as human life is there. It’s us.

MOVSHOVITZ: Filmmaker Sally Potter.

Ms. POTTER: There’s a place where the furthest extreme of scientific
exploration, whether it’s in physics or in microbiology, meets the
furthest outreach of spiritual thought and philosophical thought in
many disciplines. They all seem to arrive at the same place, which is
where all is interconnected, all is interdependent, all is
impermanent. And that’s really what the cleaner is addressing through
her own look at the metaphysics of dirt and dust. I came to love
cleaners more and more as I wrote her monologue. I have great respect
for those who clean up after us.

MOVSHOVITZ: “Yes,” Sally Potter’s movie about the mess we make for
ourselves, opened in theaters this weekend. For NPR News, I’m Howie
Movshovitz.

(Soundbite of music)

YDSTIE: That’s ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I’m John Ydstie.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 1 2005

AUSTRIAN SCHOLAR TO PRESENTS REPORT ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
[July 01, 2005, 20:17:40]

Prof. Erich Feigl, the well-known Austrian scholar is expected to
deliver the lecture at the Congress Center in Karlsruhe, Germany,
covering historical roots of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well
as Armenian vandalism in 1915, the State Committee on Working with
Azerbaijanis Living in Foreign Countries told AzerTAj reporter.

Reportedly, the lecture will present historical facts confirming the
acts of genocide committed by Armenians against Azerbaijanis, and
disclose the causes having led to the Armenia-Azerbaijan,
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Prof. Feigl will also let the audience know about the methods of
anti-Turkish propaganda and historical falsification the Armenians
have used to mislead the international community, and based on the
Turkish archival documents, will prove that no a single act of
genocide was committed against Armenian people.

Azerbaijan News Service
July 2 2005

OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY DENIES AZERI DELEGATION’S DRAFT
RESOLUTION
2005-07-02 17:42

As the Armenians didn’t possess any resolution draft, they said that
one-sided discussion of the issue is not proper.’ said Head of Azeri
Delegation to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Sattar Safarov. Qoran
Lenmarker in his Draft Resolution, called `An Elusive Opportunities,
some Concerns on the Daqliq Qarabaq Conflict’, didn’t consider the
problem to be frozen. Because, till now, both sides give losses in
the front-line, refugees and IDP suffer from the Conflict. Apart
praising the continuation of peace efforts made within the framework
of OSCE Minsk Group, Council of Europe and other international
organizations, Qoran Lenmarker called the conflict sides and
mediators to be active. At the Draft Resolution it was also told that
as in the Caucasus lots of minorities live, it is dangerous to divide
into minor independent states, and than could not be an alternative
to the Conflict Settlement. All these are details, the Azeri
Delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is satisfied by. The
main provisions of the Draft Resolution, presented by the Azeri side
mainly consist of the followings: `A Draft Resolution by the Council
of Europe recognizes Armenia as the aggressor. The Daqliq Qarabaq is
under the occupation of separatist forces. Currently, the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan are out of control. In the Draft Resolution
these provisions are made clear, and the Resolutions made by UN
against the Armenian occupation and maintaining of practical issues
for their realization is recommended.’ According to Sattar Safarov,
despite the Draft Resolution of Azerbaijan was not accepted, the
Azeri Delegation is planning to make clear its position at the
Plenary Session, where parliamentarians of 56 countries to take part.
`We want the World Community, including OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
to accept that the Armenia is an aggressor, and economic and
political sanctions against Armenia should be maintained. The main
aspects of our attempts directed to this. We propose the discussion
of OSCE Minsk Group activities towards the settlement of the conflict
at the Parliamentary Assembly’ said Sattar Safarov. He added that
Azeri Delegation to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly coincides its
activities on the Upper Qarabakh Conflict with its counterparts in
the Council of Europe. Natavan Babayeva. ANS.

Armenpress

AEN DENIES REPORTS ABOUT SELLING SHARES TO RUSSIAN COMPANY

YEREVAN, JULY 1, ARMENPRESS: A spokesman for a British-registered Midland
Resources Holding Ltd., the owner of Armenian Electricity Networks (AEN),
denied today press reports claiming that the AEN sold all its shares to
Interenergo, a subsidiary of the Russian United Energy Systems (RAO UES) at
$73 million, in an ostensible deal that was described as ” a fresh move” to
further tighten Russian grip of Armenian electricity generating facilities.
The spokeswoman, Margarit Grigorian, reiterated her June 29 statement
saying “the distribution network was not and will not be for sale.” She said
the Midland Resources Holding sold to the Russian giant only “the right to
manage the company,’ saying AEN holds all its shares, but she did not
mention the cost of the deal. Russia already owns the biggest thermal power
plant in central town of Hrazdan, a chain of small hydro power plants known
as Sevan-Hrazdan Cascade and was given the financial management of Metsamor
nuclear power plant two years ago.
AEN is owned by a British-registered Midland Resources Holding Ltd with
Russian capital. It bought the energy distributing networks at $37 million
in 2002. The Armenian government expected the privatization to put an end to
huge annual losses, about $50 million, at the state-run enterprise.
According to experts, after a set of sweeping reforms the AEN makes now
around $20 million in annual profits

Turkish envoy to Azerbaijan notes importance of peace in region

ANS TV, Baku
27 Jun 05

What is important to us is the establishment of peace in the region,
the Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan, Turan Morali, said while
commenting on the redeployment of Russian military hardware from
Georgia to Armenia.

Speaking on the “Point of View” programme on ANS TV, Morali said that
something like this should be done “without disturbing others, i.e.
between Armenia and Russia”.

He also said that the idea of opening a road from Xankandi
[Stepanakert] in Nagornyy Karabakh to Turkey through Susa, Lacin,
Armenia and Naxcivan was “a good project”.

No further processing is planned.

US POSITIVELY ASSESSES ARMENIA’S IPAP WITH NATO

Pan Armenian News
27.06.2005 03:08

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The US positively assesses Armenia’s Individual
Partnership Action Plan with NATO”, US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans
stated. In his words, a huge deal of work has been done, however it is
the Alliance to decide on the Plan. “The Armenian-American relations in
defense and security develop independently of any circumstances”, the
US Ambassador stated. When asked whether the dislocated Russian bases
can impede close cooperation between Armenia and the US Mr. Evans said,
“Both the US and Russia maintain good relations with Armenia. I hope
the Russian Ambassador will agree with me. We do not see any opposition
here. We wish Armenia to develop economically and socially. The matter
concerns not only military cooperation but the cooperation between
the people”, IA Regnum reports.

Global Politician, NY
June 26 2005

Russia and Turkey in South Caucasus: A Geostrategic Armistice
Prof. Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. – 6/26/2005

Two meetings of the Russian president V. Putin and Turkish Prime
Minister R.T. Erdogan, held in the end of the last year and in the
beginning of this year, as well as the wide spectrum of problems
discussed and contents of the signed documents, marked the start of
the a new phase in the Russian-Turkish relations. Experts spoke about
that start in several recent years, and this phase can be
characterized as the starting period of the real strategic process.

Answers to the questions about the depth of that process, its
direction and how it will affect the situation in the region, are of
vital importance for Armenia. In our memory the remembrance about how
in 1920 the Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia, uniting their
efforts against the common enemy – the Entente, came to a secret
agreement and at the expense of Armenia put an end to the century-old
confrontation, in particular, in the Caucasus. As a result, the
`Sovietized ‘ Armenia had to sign the Kars treaty of 1921, which
defined the distorted borders of the present Republic of Armenia.

The anxiety, expressed by some representatives of the Armenian
political elite, that some rapprochement between Turkey and Russia,
may have its negative impact on Armenia at present as well, and in
particular, weakening its positions in the settlement process of the
Karabakh conflict, are well-grounded just by the reason, that the
historical precedent had already happened. These fears may be proved
or denied only as a result of an impartial and comprehensive
analysis.

The period of instability and confrontation

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and Turkey found
themselves in absolutely new geopolitical conditions, while:
-for the first time in several centuries (with the exception of
1918-1920) they have no land frontier, and the South Caucasus is
nothing but a buffer zone;
-for the first time in several decades they do not belong to two
opposing military and political blocs;
– Russia, rapidly losing its military and economic potential, the
ideological axis and political willpower, is unable to keep the
regions, belonging to former USSR, including the South Caucasus and
Central Asia, in the sphere of its geopolitical influence any longer.

The present situation produced some vacuum in the mentioned regions,
which was use by Turkey. First relying on the ideological and
political grounds of Pan-Turkism, Turkey started to rapidly spread
its influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Its actually
pan-Turkist goals were presented by Turkey as a need for spreading
the `Turkish model’ of development in the Muslim republics of the
former Soviet Union. Such policy was supported by the West, mainly by
the USA, because it dad fears that those newly independent states may
be influenced by the politicized radical Islam. In addition, the
approaches, typical to the period of the Cold War, were still strong
in the USA, we, welcoming Turkey’s diverse engagement the processes
on the territory of the former USSR, counterbalancing the Russian
influence.

In the first of half of 1990s, the Russian-Turkish relations were
quite unstable and tense from time to time, explained by their strong
geostrategic confrontation. Turkey used all possibilities, except
military, for spreading its influence not only in the South Caucasus
and Central Asia, but also in the North Caucasus and the regions of
Russia, populated predominantly by the Turkic-speaking peoples.

Russia was trying to concentrate its efforts and stop the increasing
Turkish influence. Being unable to resist as required at that time,
Russia focused its attention to the conflicts, broken out in the
South Caucasus, using them as an instrument for preserving its
influence in that region.

>From this point of view, the Karabakh conflict is remarkable, being a
culmination of the Russian-Turkish confrontation in the South
Caucasus. Turkey helped the Azerbaijani side, and Russia – to the
Armenian one. No surprise, that the conflict between the two
countries in that case was the most aggravated in the last decades of
the Russian-Turkish relations. In 1992-1993, Turkey threatened to use
force against Armenia, which followed by a swift and hard
counteraction by Russia, which openly declared its readiness to use
nuclear weapon against Turkey. Both states in that period not only
were strategic opponents, but also took the counter-partner as a
bearer of the military threat. In this sense, it is worth mentioning
the statement by the Chief of the Headquarters of the Turkish troops,
made in 1994, that Russia is the only state, posing a military threat
to Turkey.

The victory of Armenians in the military phase of the Karabakh, and
the firmness of Russia were the main factors to prevent increasing
positions of Turkey in the South Caucasus. Although Turkey
established itself in the geopolitical region and became an important
factor there, Russia, in spite of serious losses, Russia has managed
to partially preserve its influence in the region and not so big
military bases. The last circumstance, apart military, had a
geopolitical importance, which allowed to establish some balance of
powers between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus.

Stabilization

In the second half of the 1990s, the geopolitical situation in the
zone of the South Caucasus, was mostly characterized by the problems,
related to the Caspian energy resources. The level of the US
involvement in the region had been increasing, and Turkey in the new
conditions tried to get maximum, cooperating with the United States,
which was also interested in decreasing Russian influence in the
region. Such approach was materialized in the idea by President
Suleyman Demirel to create the `Stability pact of the South
Caucasus,’ in which the US was supposed to have the role of the most
important regional factor.

In the Russian-Turkish relations of that period, direction to their
stabilization was dominant. Rapid development of the trade and
industrial relations, which had been also visible in previous years,
started to turn into a geostrategic factor and play a stabilizing
role to some extent, which was also by such phenomena as billions in
the `shuttle trade,’ significant Turkish investments in Russia, in
particular, in the construction and public catering An unprecedented
growth took place in such a `traditional’ sphere of trade relations
between the two states as the Russian gas supply to Turkey thanks to
the multi-million `The Blue Stream’ deal, envisaging direct gas
supply to Turkey. So its dependence on the Russian gas had been
increasing.

The strategy of the Turkish regional policy, preserving its
anti-Russian direction, however, lost its aggressiveness of previous
years. For the political elite of the country, the lacking efficiency
of the political line, based on the pan-Turkist ideas, became
obvious. Not having necessary economic potential and being unable to
compete with the other external forces, Turkey had to give up its
pretentious plans in the Central Asia, which alleviated its
competition with Russia in that region.

In the South Caucasus, the Russian-Turkish confrontation developed in
the context of the ways of transportation of the Caspian oil. At the
same time Turkey tried to counterbalance the Russian military
presence in Armenia by developing the military cooperation with
Georgia. As for Russia, trying to counterbalance Turkey’s involvement
in the Chechen conflict, it started to ue the Kurdish factor to exert
pressure on Turkey. However, all these processes did not have any
substantial impact on the balance of powers, which had been
established in the second half of 1990s in the Russian-Turkish
relations, and in the South Caucasus, as a whole.

New geostrategic processes

The period of autumn 2001 – spring 2002 was critical for the whole
region, and for the Russian-Turkish relations, in particular. Two
geopolitical processes have been going on just since then, as a
reaction to the terrorist attack against the USA in September 2001.

The start of the first one was caused by a diplomatic document, which
remained unnoticed even by many experts. It was the Russian-Turkish
`Agreement on Cooperation in Eurasia,’ signed in New York in November
2001. It envisaged periodical consultations between the Foreign
Ministries of the both states for some coordination of the regional
policy. Actually, two regional powers reacted on then just emerging
intentions of the only superpower – the United States, to spread the
scope of its influence in the Eurasian continent under the pretext of
the struggle against the Islamic terrorism.

The above-mentioned US intentions materialized in spring 2002, when
the dislocation of the US advisers in Georgia. The Russian reaction
was quite stormy and very negative. The Turkish reaction was also
negative, but less exposed. Actually, the Americans chose not to
apply for Turkish assistance, and to have their own, though symbolic,
military presence in the South Caucasus. So the new US strategy was
started in the South Caucasian region, aimed at rapidly changing the
balance of powers that have been established here in the recent
years. The `Rose revolution’ in Georgia comes to prove that.

The reciprocal visits of the Russian and Turkish leaders, mentioned
just in the beginning of this article, which were considered as an
evidence of the Russian-Turkish rapprochement, took place in these
new realities. However, from the geostrategic view, the process,
going on here, is different – two powerful regional forces, old
geostrategic opponents, which remains intact up to the present, on
the basis of mutual consent are trying to alleviate or stop their
competition to resist the third force – the United States with their
unprecedented activity in the region. Actually, Russia and Turkey are
trying to preserve the status quo in the region, meanwhile the USA
wish to break it.

This new situation supposes a new quality of the bilateral relations,
for which an appropriate diplomatic wording has been found and fixed
in official documents – `multifaceted cooperation.’ We think that
within the geostrategic analysis, it would be correct to characterize
the current stage of the Russian-Turkish relations as a `geostrategic
armistice.’ In their verbal statements, Russian and Turkish officials
note that these new realities are an interim stage on the way to the
`strategic cooperation.’ it seems that both parties are trying to
create an impression that they have allegedly overcome all
contradictions, but it is not so. In particular, in spite of all
attempts to reach some mutual consent in the Chechen and Kurdish
questions (Russians passed to Turks some intelligence information
about Chechen terrorist organizations,
operating in Turkey, expecting that the authorities would suppress
their
activity; and Turks demand from Russia to ban the PKK, etc), there is
no news
about any positive results.

Some ideological and political concepts of Eurasianship and
`strategic depth’ there appeared as an ideological ground for the
outlining rapprochement in the Russian-Turkish relations. The
apologist of the first idea is the Russian geopolitician A. Dugin,
frequently visiting Turkey in the recent time; and the second concept
belongs to the foreign policy advisor of the Prime-Minister
R.T.Erdoghan, Professor A. Davudoglu.

Conclusion

So the geopolitical situation of the South Caucasus in the recent
years has entered the second phase of the post-Soviet era, which is
characterized by the above-mentioned new trends. Certain geostrategic
changes are also taking place in the Russian-Turkish relations, and
their main sense is in the striving of the both parties to preserve
the balance of powers, established between them in the South
Caucasus. This means that Russia and Turkey will try to keep what
they have already had. For Russia, it is its military presence in
Armenia and by that in the entire South Caucasus, meaning that
Russian will never make any concession to Turkey, for example, in the
Karabakh issue, will not endanger its allied relations with Armenia.
In any case, in this stage of the `geostrategic
armistice’ with Turkey.

Prof. Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. is a Professor of International
Relations at Acharyan University in Yerevan, Armenia. He’s also the
Director of the Department of Turkish Studies at Institute of
Oriental Studies, Armenian National Academy of Sciences. In the past,
he served as a Counselor of the Armenian Embassy in Germany and was
the Deputy Director of the Department of Political Analysis for the
Office of the President of Armenia.

European rapporteur threatens expulsion if Azerbaijan fails to hold fair
polls

Turan news agency, Baku
23 Jun 05

Strasbourg, 23 June: “I welcome certain changes in Azerbaijan and the
president’s desire to change things for the better,” the rapporteur of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] monitoring
committee for Azerbaijan, Andreas Gross, has said in an exclusive
interview with Turan.

Commenting on the discussion of a report on democratic institutions in
Azerbaijan held at PACE yesterday, Gross said the situation in
Azerbaijan was ambiguous – there are both positive and negative
developments.

“On the one hand, there are people trying to change the situation for
the better, but on the other, there are those who kill
[editor-in-chief of Monitor magazine] Elmar Huseynov,” he said. He
added there were people in the government who hamper positive changes.

Gross also touched on pro-government NGOs which are fulfilling certain
“orders”. He said a group of such NGOs had come out against his and
[another rapporteur on Azerbaijan] Andres Herkel’s report in June.

“I wouldn’t have paid attention to that if they hadn’t appeared here
in the Co uncil of Europe so quickly and tried to affect the mood
here. My colleagues are very surprised with such behavior. It is
obvious what objectives they are pursuing. Their behavior and role
leave much to be desired,” Gross said.

Gross said he would visit Azerbaijan on 4-8 July and travel to four
“very important” towns: Ganca, Saki, Qazax and possibly Balakan.

“We want to see firsthand how profound the positive changes are in the
country. I am talking not only about preparations for elections, but
also about how free citizens are and how they are exercising their
basic freedoms. If this is not the case, then free elections are out
of the question,” Gross said.

Speaking about reforms, the rapporteur said that historically oil-rich
countries were not very democratic. Norway is an exception. In
Azerbaijan’s case, democracy is necessary to ensure that oil revenues
are not embezzled. Gross expressed the hope that state governance
reforms in Azerbaijan will bring about positive changes in the
country.

Asked about possible sanctions against Azerbaijan, Gross said if
Azerbaijan does not hold free and fair elections, the Council of
Europe “will simply not renew its mandate for a new Azerbaijani
delegation”.

“We think the opposition should receive at least 25 seats in the
parliament. But this has to be real opposition, not fictitious,”
Gross concluded.

PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7810
Fax: 212-689-7168
e-mail: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: Iris Papazian

June 23, 2005

PRELATE WILL BE IN RACINE THIS SUNDAY;
ATTEND ARMENIAN REPORTER’S 40TH ANNIVERSARY SATURDAY
Archbishop Oshagan, who will return from Lebanon tomorrow evening, will
visit the St. Hagop Armenian Church community in Racine, Wisconsin, this
Sunday, June 26.
On Saturday evening, June 25, His Eminence will attend the 40th
anniversary gala for the Armenian Reporter in New Jersey.

MORE THAN 70 STUDENTS WILL ATTEND
ST. GREGORY OF DATEV INSTITUTE SUMMER PROGRAM
Over seventy students (ages 13-18) from thirteen parishes, and ten
clergymen will gather at the St. Mary of Providence Center in Elverson,
Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 3, for the 19th annual weeklong St. Gregory of
Datev Institute Armenian Christian Studies Program, under the directorship
of Very Rev. Fr. Anoushavan Tanielian, the Vicar General of the Eastern
Prelacy.
A few days ago-Monday, June 20 to be exact-“Datevatsies” from the New
York New Jersey metropolitan area came to the Prelacy to help put together
program material for the participants of the weeklong St. Gregory of Datev
Institute. “Datevatsies” who came to help are: James Haddad, Taleen
Kupelian, Mardo Piramian, Lousine Galoyan, Mgo Piramian, and Mary Gulmezian.

GERMAN PARLIAMENT PASSES ARMENIAN RESOLUTION
Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, adopted a unanimous resolution last
Thursday condemning the massacres and deportation of Armenians in Ottoman
Turkey ninety years ago. The petition, endorsed by all German political
parties, urges Turkey to “take historic responsibility” for the massacres
and expulsion of Armenians by the Ottoman government. The Bundestag also
regretted the “inglorious role” of the German Reich, which in spite of
information about the “organized expulsion and extermination of Armenians
did not try to stop the atrocities.” Germany is the ninth European Union
nation to issue a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. The Bundestag also
criticized Turkey’s continued denial noting, “This Turkish position
conflicts with the idea of reconciliation that guides the community of
values of the EU.”

REPRESENTATIVE OF ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
VISITS CILICIAN CATHOLICATE IN ANTELIAS
Fr. Anthony Ball, the representative of Archbishop Rowan Williams of
Canterbury in the Middle East, visited the Catholicate of Cilicia on June
17. He was greeted by Bishop Nareg Alemezian, Ecumenical Officer for the
Catholicate.
Bishop Alemezian and Fr. Anthony consulted on various ecumenical issues
of interest to the Armenian and Anglican Churches. They discussed the
possibility for the continuation of the official theological dialogue
initiated between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Church.
Fr. Anthony was part of an Anglican delegation that visited Deir Zor in
April on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

NORA BAIRAKDARIAN APPOINTED CHAIR OF CATHOLICATE’S
ECUMENICAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Dr. Nora Bairakdarian-Kabakian was appointed chair of the Ecumenical
Relations Committee of the Catholicate of Cilicia by His Holiness Aram I,
during a recent meeting of the committee. Dr. Bairakdarian is a professor of
international law and political science at Lebanese University. During
recent years she has been very active in ecumenical relations and has
represented the Cilician Catholicate at various international meetings. Also
announced was the appointment of two new members to the committee:
Archbishop Sebouh Sarkisian, Primate of the Diocese of Tehran, and Mrs. Teny
Pirry-Simonian, Executive Secretary of the Relations Department of the World
Council of Churches.
Ecumenical Relations officer Bishop Nareg Alemezian reported on various
ecumenical conferences and meetings during the past few months. The
Catholicos identified the significant aspects of the current ecumenical
landscape and the specific role of the Catholicate of Cilicia. His Holiness
praised the commitment of the delegates who represented the Armenian Church
in various ecumenical activities.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS CITES BEASTS ON THE MOON
AS ONE OF FIVE “MUST-SEE” PLAYS
Drama Critic Howard Kissel has named Beast on the Moon as one of “Five
Must-See Plays” currently running in New York. Writing in today’s edition of
the New York Daily News, Mr. Kissel notes, “There is a surprising amount of
serious theater in New York now.. There are exciting dramas in theaters all
over the city, from the West Village to the upper East Side to what has
become Off-Broadway’s busiest thoroughfares, 15th Street, just off Union
Square.”
About Beast he writes: “Richard Kalinoski’s Beast on the Moon, at the
Century Theater (111 E. 15th St.), is about a woman who survived the 1915
Armenian genocide and has arrived in Milwaukee five years later as a
mail-order bride. The play moves from tragedy and turmoil to a profound
sense of promise, a journey director Larry Moss captures powerfully.”
Crossroads learned today that for the month of July David Grillo, the
producer of the play, will play the lead role of Aram Tomasian, while Omar
Metwally takes a leave of absence to work in a new Steven Spielberg film.
The part is not new to Grillo who has played Aram in a production in Boston
in 1999. Grillo said: “I first fell in love with Beast on the Moon when I
played Aram in the Boston production. I knew then that this was a play that
had to reach New York audiences. I have been standing-by for Omar since we
began previews this spring. While Omar is off filming, I am looking forward
switching hats and revisiting Richard Kalinoski’s beautiful play from an
actor’s perspective.”
For information about tickets and performances,

REMEMBERING THE TWELVE APOSTLES AND PAUL
This Saturday, June 25, the Armenian Church remembers the Twelve
Apostles and Paul, often referred to as the “thirteenth disciple.”
The word apostle is Greek meaning “one who is sent out.” In the New
Testament the word is used to describe Jesus’ disciples, who were selected
by Him to accompany Him, follow His instructions, and continue His work.
Although not one of the “twelve,” Paul is considered to be the most
effective apostle of early Christianity and the church’s “first theologian.”
More than one-fourth of the New Testament consists of his writings.

FAST OF TRANSFIGURATION
This Sunday, June 26, begins the Fast leading to the Feast of the
Transfiguration which is on Sunday, July 3-fourteen weeks after Easter.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the
close of the age.”
The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 28, Verses 19-20.

Visit our website at

Armenpress

ARMENIAN PRISON EMPLOYEES TO TRAIN IN POLAND

YEREVAN, JUNE 23, ARMENPRESS: An official of Armenian justice ministry
told Armenpress that a verbal agreement was reached with Polish counterparts
about regular training of Armenian prison employees in Poland.
Samvel Hovhanesian, head of a ministry department, said the written
agreement to this end was expected to be signed soon. He said training
courses would last from 2 to 4 months. According to a preliminary agreement,
he said, the Polish side agreed to cover all expenses, except travel
expenses. The verbal agreement was reached during a visit of Armenian
justice ministry delegation to Poland on June 12-19, where Armenians had a
series of meetings with Polish counterparts and visited also several
correctional facilities.
Hovhanesian said there is a lot that Armenians can learn from Polish
experience of treating prison inmate and drug and alcohol addicts, singling
out especially how prison staff treats the inmates. Poland has a 39 million
population, and 82,000 prison population, Armenia’s population is 3 million
and there are 3,000 prison inmates.