Author: Hovik Karapetian

New California Media, CA
April 22 2005
Colombia vs. Venezuela: Big Oil Turns Up Heat in Border Region
Pacific News Service, News Analysis,
Bill Weinberg, Apr 22, 2005
Editor’s Note: Longtime U.S. involvement in Colombia may be
transforming and expanding from a “war on drugs” into a Washington-led,
oil-company fueled destabilization campaign against Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez.
“Oilmen are like cats; you can never tell from the sound of them
whether they are fighting or making love,” said the famous Armenian
entrepreneur Calouste Gulbenkian, as oil companies and Western
governments at a post-World War I summit in Ostend, Belgium, carved
up oil rights in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
Now, even as world attention is riveted on Iraq, military and oil
company agendas seem to be converging in South America’s Orinoco
Basin, which holds the greatest proven reserves outside the Persian
Gulf. The region is split by the border between Colombia, Washington’s
closest South American ally, and Venezuela, ruled by a left-populist
government sharply at odds with the White House.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez would do well to heed Gulbenkian’s
warning. Chavez has just entered into an agreement with ChevronTexaco
for a natural gas project that will span the Colombian border.
The Colombian oil heartland of Arauca is one the country’s most
violent regions. It lies just across the Rio Arauca from Venezuela’s
own Orinoco Basin oil heartland.
Arauca’s main oil field is Caño-Limon, run by California-based
Occidental Petroleum. Many of the 800 U.S. military advisers in
Colombia are assigned to Arauca, where they oversee a new Colombian
anti-guerilla army unit especially created to police Caño-Limon. This
project, for which Occidental lobbied heavily, markedly departs from
the U.S. policy of only assisting “narcotics enforcement” in Colombia.
Some fear the oil field could become a base for aggression against
Venezuela. Oscar Cañas, adviser to Colombia’s Central Workers Union,
told Venezuelan journalist Alfredo Carquez, “They are transforming
the Caño-Limon facilities into a small military fort.” Claiming U.S.
advisers and surveillance planes are now based there, Cañas notes
Caño-Limon’s proximity to the border and reports of Colombian
paramilitary attacks on the Venezuelan side. “Who is to guarantee
that all this is not being used against Venezuela?” he asks.
Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid, after
Israel and Egypt, and U.S. training of Colombian military personnel
is rapidly escalating. Meanwhile, Washington is launching a major
propaganda push against Venezuela.
A March statement from the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (JINSA), “South America — the Next Swamp?” warns that even as
the United States is “draining the swamp” in Afghanistan, “ideological
killers are regrouping with the aid of leftist governments and drug
lords” in the western hemisphere. The principal “leftist government”
in question is that of Chavez.
JINSA, a top advocate of the Iraq adventure, cites a London Times
report (actually based on Colombian government allegations) that mortar
experts from the Irish Republican Army have set up a training camp for
Colombian guerillas on Venezuelan territory in the Sierra de Perija,
a mountain chain that forms the border north of Arauca.
Another salvo comes from Otto Reich, who was Bush’s assistant secretary
of state for hemispheric affairs, a former ambassador to Venezuela
and a key figure in the Reagan-era covert destabilization campaign
against Nicaragua. Reich, in the April 11 National Review, writes:
“The first task of the U.S., and whatever coalition of the willing
it can muster in the region, is to confront the dangerous alliance
posed by Cuba and Venezuela.”
Chavez is inviting new multinational investment for the oil zone. In
August 2001, Venezuela, Colombia and Texaco agreed to sponsor a
study on a new pipeline linking natural gas fields in La Guajira,
on Colombia’s Caribbean coast, to Maracaibo, Venezuela’s main export
terminal.
In May 2003, Venezuela announced new oil finds of up to 2.4 billion
barrels in the Orinoco. Texaco (which merged with Chevron in 2001)
proposed another pipeline to pump the crude to the coast. On April 1,
2005, ChevronTexaco announced a multibillion-dollar investment in
the new oil field.
But oil companies have a sweeter deal in Colombia, where Uribe is
moving to free the industry from public oversight. Chavez, in contrast,
has boosted royalties companies must pay to fund his ambitious social
programs.
La Guajira is another of Colombia’s most violent regions, with a string
of assassinations of indigenous leaders, presumably by paramilitary
forces, already reported this year. The new cross-border pipeline
may bring human rights abuses to Venezuela as well as gas.
This pipeline would cross the Sierra de Perija, where Uribe and
JINSA now claim Colombian guerillas are based. On April 4, hundreds
of indigenous peoples’ representatives from the Venezuelan side of
the mountains marched in Caracas, demanding a halt to coal mining on
their traditional lands by such companies as ChevronTexaco and Shell.
The new pipeline would add to the military and ecological pressures
they face.
Chavez is in a difficult position. He needs oil and gas revenues
to fund the populist programs that guarantee his popularity. But
cooperating with the multinational agenda in the border zone may
cost him support among indigenous peoples. And, some critics warn,
he may be welcoming the very oil companies that are complicit in the
destabilization drive against him.
PNS contributor Bill Weinberg is editor of World War 4 Report. He is
working on a book about Colombia for Verso Books.
–Boundary_(ID_QhXs2sp4OpqAqLKPwoE1Iw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

WB TO CARRY OUT 2.8 MLN DOLLARS INVESTMENT PROGRAM OUR LADY MEDICAL
CENTRE OF YEREVAN
YEREVAN, APRIL 11, NOYAN TAPAN. 2.8 mln dollars investment program
will be carried out in Our Lady Medical Centre of Yerevan with the
World Bank financing. As Kamo Areyan, the Deputy Mayor of Yerevan
informed at the April 11 press-conference, the RA Health Ministry, the
Yerevan Mayor’s Office and the WB signed the corresponding agreement
last week. It was mentioned that the investment program of the Saint
Gregory Illuminator Medical Centre is at the stage of development.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian National Committee of Toronto
45 Hallcrown Place
North York Ontario
Tel: 416 491.2900
Fax: 416.491.2900
E-mail: [email protected]
April 8, 2005
The Armenian National Committee Of Toronto invites you to an “ANC
Update”, where the Committee will be reporting to the public on our
activities during the last few months and our plans for the future.
A representative from ARFYOC will also be reporting on the activities
and plans of the youth during this period.
The ANC Update will be held this Sunday, April 10, 2005, at the
Armenian Community Centre (45 Hallcrown Place). The guest speaker
is Mr. Shahen Mirakian. The event will be held in the library,
and begin at 2:00 pm.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NEWS & VIEWS
HALI Tour of Paris
Hali Magazine On-line
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Timothy Gerwin reports: To celebrate the Institut du Monde Arabe’s
momentus exhibition ‘Le Ciel dans un Tapis’ HALI organised a weekend
of carpet and textile events in Paris to coincide with a lecture
series hosted by the Institut on 11 March 2005. For those carpet
lovers who braved Paris’ most recent transit strike the events began
that afternoon, with a rendez-vous at Galerie Triff to preview its
suzani exhibition.
At the IMA the lecture series was opened by one of the carpet
exhibition’s co-curators, Roland Gilles, who interprets Islamic
architecture and art as a transliteration of heavenly bodies. He brings
the stars to ground in the constellations he perceives in the designs
of the carpets assembled for the exhibition, whence comes its title,
The Sky in a Carpet. Mr Gilles completed his imagery by suggesting
that the red medallion of a 16th-century Ushak (cat. no. 39) may be
meant to represent the Earth floating in the infinite space of the
carpet’s dark blue field. His neo-Platonist theory appealed greatly
to the French au dience.
Co-curator Joelle Lemaistre then questioned the dating of a compartment
rug fragment (cat. no. 33).  Her argument, based on related forms
and motifs in Chinese and Timurid art, pondered whether the carpet’s
origins lie in the late 15th century, rather than the early 16th
century. Ms Lemaistre points to the medallions of a later Turkish
rug in the exhibition (cat. no. 31) as possible descendants of the
fragment’s design. She persevered for her appreciative audience
despite the technical problems that plagued the slide presentations
of all the speakers.
Next Susan Day, whom HALI congratulated in the November/December
issue for her Louvre appointment as carpet advisor, spoke of the
new Department of the Arts of Islam. She elaborated on the project
to convert the Louvre’s Cour Visconti into new Islamic galleries to
house the expanded collection created by a long-term loan from Paris’
Musée des Arts Decoratifs. The winner of a concours to select the
project architect may be announced in April. The combined collection
of Islamic art will be amongst the world’s largest.
Ms Day previewed the combined carpet collection, illustrating the
collection’s history and honoring the Musée des Arts Decoratifs’
early 20th-century benefactor, Jules Maciet. She also announced her
hopes for a reunion of the 16th-century Paris-Krakow medallion carpet
in a Safavid exhibition for 2007, and her plans for a comparative
study of the many Indo/Persian carpets held in the museum. Susan Day
is authoring a catalogue raisonné planned for the opening of the
Louvre’s new galleries in 2009.
Concluding the lectures, Paris dealer Berdj Achdjian recounted tales
about a huge figure in the carpet world, a man well represented at
the IMA’s exhibition, Calouste Gulbenkian. “Monsieur Gulbenkian”,
as all knew him, said the works in his collection were like his
children; after 45 years spent gathering them their care was his
greatest concern. He insisted that repair work be done in his home
and met Berdj Achdjian’s father, a restorer, as he sat on the floor
of the Gulbenkian home working on a carpet.
A proud Armenian born in Kayseri, Turkey, Gulbenkian had no
formal education in art history. His wealth and good taste being
necessary but not sufficient, his collection’s richness is due to
Gulbenkian’s many connections with art dealers, art historians, and
related experts; he sought multiple recommendations before making
any acquisition. Fortunately for those of us who enjoy his legacy,
Calouste Gulbenkian was not cheap.
Next morning Achdjian welcomed Hali, collectors such as Betthany
Mendenhall, dealers like Mr Vrooyers from Antwerp, specialists,
including Marcel and Annettte Korolnik-Andersch, and the Louvre
to view an impressive range of North African weavings, including a
bold Moroccan Ahmar carpet. Everyone pored over three 19th-century
embroidered Tunisian silk marriage tunics, and the tour of Achdjian’s
inventory ran from a 15th-century Armenian brocade from Jerusalem to
a luxurious First Empire cape with ermine border.
After lunch under the Pyramid of the Louvre, the party ended with a
walk through the Islamic galleries.
–Boundary_(ID_vJ3cuoLrreLqLfMCSCi6kA)–

California Courier Online, March 24, 2005
1 – Commentary
Pastor Shocks Turkish TV Viewers
By Bold Remarks On Genocide
By Harut Sassounian
California Courier Publisher
2 – A Critical Evaluation of Book by TARC Mediator
3 – Dr. George Kooshian Appointed
Visiting Movel Professor at UCLA
4 – UAF Shipped $24 Million
Of Aid to Armenia in 2004
5 – Alumnus Charlie Keyan Donates
$150,000 For Scholarships at CSUF
6 – George Deukmejian Endorses Sen.
Poochigian for Attorney General
7 – Pepperdine ALSA
To Honor Karabian
At March 30 Reception
8 – Activist Hrand Simonian Receives
‘Gontag’ From Catholicos Aram
*************************************************************************
1 – Commentary
Pastor Shocks Turkish TV Viewers
By Bold Remarks On Genocide
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Even though the Turks are supposed to be on their best behavior in order to
convince the Europeans that they are civilized enough to join the European
Union, they are still extremely intolerant of anyone who dares to bring up
the taboo subject of the Armenian Genocide.
Last month, when Orhan Pamuk, an internationally-known Turkish novelist,
boldly told a foreign reporter that one million Armenians were killed
around 1915, just about all Turkish commentators, historians
(government-paid propagandists) and politicians severely condemned the
writer for making such a statement. A radical Turkish group even called for
the murder of this “traitor.” Furthermore, a Turkish publisher is being
prosecuted by the government for releasing the Turkish translation of an
English language book that urges the acknowledgment of the Armenian
Genocide. Around six months ago, in the midst of trying to qualify for the
start of membership talks to join the EU, the Turkish Parliament adopted a
new law that makes it a crime for anyone to acknowledge the Armenian
Genocide. If this is how the Turkish government is acting, while trying to
impress the Europeans, imagine what it would do if its actions were not
under scrutiny!
Given all the controversy this issue has generated within Turkey, the
Turkish “Flash TV” decided to air earlier this month a five-hour live talk
show on the Armenian Genocide. The host of the program requested that the
Armenian Patriarchate send a representative to take part in this show.
However, the Patriarchate refused to participate by saying that it did not
have an expert on the subject to be discussed. The host then invited Rev.
Krikor Aghabaloghlu, the outspoken and courageous pastor of a local
Armenian evangelical church, to present “the Armenian point of view.” Rev.
Aghabaloghlu is a well-known activist who has already been jailed once for
challenging the confiscation of his church’s property by the Turkish
government.
While there have been many talk shows on the Armenian issue, no one has
ever dared to go on Turkish TV and repeatedly assert in a bold and brazen
manner, as Rev. Aghabaloghlu did, that there is no doubt a genocide was
committed against the Armenians. Both Hulki Jevizoglu, the host of the
show, and his main guest, historian Mehmet Saray were dumb-founded and
tongue-tied by the Armenian clergyman’s unexpectedly outspoken remarks. In
a very calm and congenial manner, and with always a smile on his face,
Pastor Aghabaloghlu said on national Turkish TV that all Turks in Anatolia
know the truth about the Armenian Genocide. He said that no one dared to
talk about this subject and that anyone who had the courage to speak about
it, is called a traitor, condemned by the media, taken to court, and sent
to jail.
Despite all attempts to shut him up during the show, Rev. Aghabaloghlu kept
on insisting that as a clergyman he has the obligation to tell the truth.
When asked to back up his comments, he said that he knew the facts
first-hand from the experiences of his own family. Besides, he added, there
is plenty of evidence for the Genocide in thousands of books and that
everyone knew that the Armenians in Anatolia were the victims of Genocide.
Otherwise, he said, what did happen to the Armenians inhabiting that
region?
Did they evaporate? Did they decide to migrate en masse? Are there any
Armenians left in Anatolia?
Making the Turks even angrier, Rev. Aghabaloghlu said that since Armenians
are mistreated in Turkey today, one can only imagine how much worse their
treatment must have been back then under the Ottoman Empire?
Mehmet Saray, the Turkish historian, was so enraged by the Armenian
clergyman’s assertions that he kept asking the host of the show, “where did
you find this man?” Saray said he would have refused to appear on the show
if he had known that he would take part in such a “low quality” discussion
and that his years of research and his books on this issue would be
ignored.
When a viewer from Erzeroum called to say that mass graves of Turks were
recently uncovered, Rev. Aghabaloghlu immediately retorted: “How do you
know that these bones did not belong to Armenians?”
This astounding conversation, broadcast live to millions of Turkish
viewers, went on until the wee hours of the morning.
Rev. Aghabaloghlu is the courageous shepherd not only of his own flock, but
that of all Armenians in Turkey who dare not to speak out fearing for their
lives! The good pastor risked his life by making such bold remarks on a
taboo subject in Turkey. European Union officials should warn the Turkish
government that Turkey’s EU membership prospects would be seriously
jeopardized should anything happen to this brave Armenian servant of God
who, as he says, has an obligation to tell the truth!
**************************************************************************
2 – Review
A Critical Evaluation of Book by TARC Mediator
Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation, by David L. Phillips (Preface by Elie Wiesel), Berghahn
Books, New York/Oxford (2005)
By Charles Garo Ashjian, J.D., Ph.D
Newark, New Jersey
This is a book about third party mediation (i.e. Track Two Diplomacy) in a
world filled with “intractable conflicts that confound traditional
diplomacy.” Whereas, according to Phillips, the U.S. State Department
“inculcates a risk-adverse culture that discourages initiative and stifles
creativity;”(page135). Informal third party mediation or Track Two
Diplomacy embodies a flexibility which compensates for such inherent
constraints on government officials. Thereby, private citizens may succeed
or make inroads where officials seem only like to fail. This book depicts
the author’s own experiences as chair and facilitator of the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) which was the fulcrum for
the Track Two Program on Turkey and the Caucasus. The Commission was
quietly financed by the State Department and initiated during the Clinton
Administration and formally established in 2001, and, at least, tacitly
approved by the governments of Armenia and Turkey. Presumably based on the
author’s experiences, the book concludes with the offering of practical
principles which may be of utility to those involved in such future
endeavors.
However, even though the author attempts to depict important
accomplishments as the direct result of the efforts of TARC, there is no
actual resolution of the conflicts and issues which, nevertheless, still
exist between the governments and peoples of Turkey and Armenia. Actually,
the Track Two activity merely aggravated and compounded the situation.
Contrary to the insinuations of success by the author, the overall activity
of TARC was a failure. The book unwittingly or transparently corroborates
and underlines this failure. For instance, in the Preface, Eli Wiesel asks
the question: “Has it been fruitful?” Wiesel refrains from giving an
answer. The author, Phillips, nearly gives an answer when, summarizing and
referring to the concluding activity of TARC, he states: “Track Two rarely
results in a breakthrough.” The Bush administration never reacted with
anything but a courteous nod toward this activity.
The major obstacle to rapprochement or reconciliation between the
governments and people of Turkey and Armenia is the matter of the Armenian
Genocide. The TARC addressed this matter by seeking and obtaining a legal
opinion, purportedly objective and unbiased, which was entitled, “A Legal
Analysis on the Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to Events Which Occurred
During the Early Twentieth Century” (i.e. the Armenian Genocide). They did
so by referring the request to the International Center for Transitional
Justice (ICTJ). The ICTJ is a reputable and expert organization founded by
and presided over by Alex Boraine.
Its purpose is to “advise emerging democracies on addressing legacies of
human rights abuse.” The ICTJ, in turn, merely and only facilitated the
request of TARC by referring it to an independent third-party for a legal
analysis or opinion. In actuality, and since then, the ICTJ has distanced
itself from the ensuing analysis by a “legal analyst” who remains
unidentified, according to my knowledge, and said analyst has also been
referred to as “the group” to be contacted through Phillips at the Council
on Foreign Relations. (Note: The brief legal analysis is not even printed
in the book.)
It is repeatedly false for Phillips to indicate (e.g. pp. 154-116) that the
resultant “opinion” or “analysis” is authored by the ICTJ. Why does
Phillips persistently do so throughout the book while also providing the
contradictory text of the letter, dated 9/16/02, to him from Boraine? The
letter states: “ICTJ has agreed to facilitate the provision of a legal
analysis. The analysis will be performed entirely independently of the
ICTJ. The analysis will not be conducted by any ICTJ staff member; nor will
the ICTJ be involved in any way in seeking to influence the conclusions
reached by the analysis. Our role is merely that of helping to identify an
appropriate expert to undertake the analysis requested by Tarc.” (page 110)
Why is the resultant opinion or analysis so onerous? Firstly, it falsely
states that the term “genocide,” though applicable to the “Events” (i.e.
the Armenian Genocide), is merely a “terminological” one with “no legal
applicability” whatsoever; secondly, the opinion or analysis, in
contradiction of overwhelming prevalent evidence and scholarship,
challenges the historical truth and verity of the Armenian Genocide as
merely a yet unresolved historical issue; thirdly, it treats the Genocide
as a local or limited regional event and minor in both its character and
magnitude; and fourthly, it disputes the direct involvement and culpability
of the governmental leadership and officialdom of the time. This is
historical reductionism and revisionism. This is genocide denial.
The actual purpose of this so-called analysis was to break the truth and
throw a distorted fragment of it to each side. Armenians were supposed to
become grateful before they were being given permission or sanction by
TARC, even though strictly qualified, to apply the term “genocide” to their
past plight. Armenians do not need permission from anyone. But perhaps some
of this is not entirely correct as Phillips, the chairman of TARC, in
reference to Turkish Armenian relations, states: “I was not concerned with
the response of Armenians.”
Phillips was not concerned about the Armenian response to the harmful
misdeeds of TARC since the key Armenian member of TARC had privately
offered him assurances of support from the unidentified and most prominent
or powerful members of the Armenian community (see page. 57). The Armenian
community was supposed to line up in lockstep behind TARC. It did not
happen. It never will happen. (Lest there be any mistake as to identity of
this key Armenian member of TARC, it is Van Z. Krikorian, a New York
attorney.)
In turn, the Turkish side was supposed to become elated because if the term
“genocide” does not have any legal applicability, then the Genocide
Convention may not be used by Armenians to claim territory or financial
reparations. Actually, even if the Genocide Convention did not exist, there
remains an abundance of legal ground upon which Armenians may still pursue
such claims if they so choose. However, I do not believe this legal course
is presently the prevailing disposition of the worldwide Armenian community
or the government of Armenia. The entirely of this matter is otherwise
amenable to solution.
Phillips describes Krikorian as a “champion of the Armenian people.” With
this kind of champion, who needs an enemy? This member of TARC chose to
propound and argue that the ICTJ analysis “should give both sides
something.” (see page 109). Accordingly, both Phillips and this member
openly advocated that the analysis achieve a “balanced outcome.” These
words had different meanings for each of the parties. One leading Turkish
member of TARC, vocally fearful of the truth, was guaranteed such a
“balanced outcome” by Phillips (See page 111). This analysis was wrongly
guided by standards more appropriately applicable to a fair and
conscientious business transaction. The goal should not have been to assure
a “win-win” situation. This is the source of the rot. The improper goal of
TARC, which suerely was communicated to the “legal analyst” for direction,
was to gild and memorialize lies and provide plausible and comforting
arguments for both sides, however false, for respective public consumption
in the guise of seeking and establishing reconciliation. The outcome of the
“legal analysis” with its false historical and legal conclusions was
designed and rigged beforehand. The members of TARC should not, as they do,
rationalize that truth was not their proper or paramount concern. The proof
is the stench coming from all of the lies. Everyone can smell it.
What TARC and its anonymous “legal analyst” merely accomplished, because of
the multitude of ulterior and ill-concealed personal and political motives,
was to unduly disappoint and discourage and aggravate each side. The book
by Phillips, though otherwise intended, actually provides a case study in
what should not be done during Track Two Diplomacy.
Phillips should have heeded his own admonition: “Track Two will flounder if
its integrity is compromised by either participants or the organizer.” (see
page 144). Actually, it will eventually drown. The whole truth of any
genocide should actively be sought and maintained. The people who do
otherwise should be exposed and rebuked. Any attempt to establish
reconciliation or rapprochement upon a duplicitous base of distortion and
falsity is outrageous and intolerable.
Ultimately, this is the most important lesson to be derived from the book.
The book itself should have been titled “Distorting the Past.”
I hope the book is read widely with due credit.
Editor’s Note: The author is a practicing attorney in New Jersey.
***************************************************************************
3 – Dr. George Kooshian Appointed
Visiting Movel Professor at UCLA
UCLA -Dr. George B. Kooshian, Jr. has been appointed as Visiting Movel
Professor at UCLA for the Spring Quarter. A specialist on Armenian
immigration, Dr. Kooshian will teach a course on the history of the
Armenian community in California from its earliest settlers to the present.
Professor Richard Hovannisian, AEF Chair in Modern Armenian History at
UCLA, stated: “The Armenian community of California has a rich and colorful
history, which unfortunately remains virtually unknown to great waves of
recent Armenian immigrants. The course Dr. Kooshian has been invited to
teach will certainly help to fill this void.”
Kooshian was born and reared in Pasadena, attended local public schools and
Pasadena City College. He graduated from Seattle Pacific College with a
degree in Latin. After two years in the Army, he entered graduate school at
UCLA and received an M.A. in Linguistics and a Certificate in the teaching
of English as a Second Language. Dr. Kooshian then entered the Armenian
History program and studied under Professor Hovannisian.
He was granted a Ph.D. in 2002. His interest in the American-Armenian
community of his birth led him to write his dissertation on “The Armenian
Immigrant Community of California, 1880–1935.” This work was based
primarily on original accounts in California Armenian-language newspapers
and other sources.
For many years Dr. Kooshian has taught English as a Second Language,
American History and
Government, Citizenship, and other subjects to adults in the Los Angeles
Unified School District.
He has also taught at the University of La Verne and the American Armenian
International College,and has served as a teaching assistant at UCLA. He
recently delivered papers on the history of the Armenian immigrant
community of Pasadena in New York and San Francisco and is currently
preparing the stirring autobiography of his father for publication. Dr.
Kooshian is a member of the Society for Armenian Studies, the Middle East
Studies Association, and the National Education Association.
He has been active as a volunteer in the Pasadena Unified School District
and in the Armenian Church, where he has served as a teacher, clerk, and
lector.
In announcing the appointment, Dr. Hovannisian stated: “I am deeply
gratified to Nora and the late Bob Movel for establishing the Movel Fund
at UCLA to support the Armenian Studies program through fellowships
andpost-doctoral lectureships. The Fund allows us to bring innovative
courses and special events to campus and to assist promising graduate
students.”
Dr. Kooshian has placed information about the course on the Internet at
<;, together with the course syllabus and many readings available for download, including the complete ************************************************************************** 4 - UAF Shipped $24 Million Of Aid to Armenia in 2004 Glendale, CA -During 2004, the United Armenian Fund contributed over $24 million of humanitarian assistance, consisting primarily of medicines and medical supplies, according to the latest audit of its financial statements. The UAF spent less than 1% of its total revenues on administrative expenses, allocating the remaining 99% to assisting the people of Armenia and Karabagh, according to the audit. During its 15 years of operations, the UAF delivered to Armenia a grand total of $400 million worth of relief supplies on board 132 airlifts and 1163 sea containers. The U.A.F. is the collective effort of the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian Missionary Association of America, the Armenian Relief Society, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, the Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, and the Lincy Foundation. For more information, contact the U.A.F. office at 1101 North Pacific Avenue, Suite 301, Glendale, CA 91202 or call (818) 241- 8900. ************************************************************************** 5 - Alumnus Charlie Keyan Donates $150,000 For Scholarships at CSUF FRESNO - A former Fresno State football team athletic manager has donated $150,000 to California State University, Fresno. Fresno State alumnus and retired businessman and farmer Charlie Keyan of Indio, Calif., has established two endowed scholarships, one in the Armenian Studies Program for $100,000 to establish the Charlie Keyan Endowed Scholarship in Armenian Studies. Income from the endowment will be used to provide scholarships for students at Fresno State who enroll in Armenian Studies courses, with preference for freshmen. At the same time, Keyan established a second endowed scholarship of $50,000 in the Athletic Department of Fresno State. The income from this endowment will be used for scholarships to student-athletes in the Fresno State football program. Keyan's goal for most of his adult life has been to help young people who need help to go to college and to complete their education. He had been assisted when he was in college, and now he wants to help others stay in college. Keyan chose to give to Fresno State and in particular to the Armenian Studies Program, because he had heard from former classmates and friends how well the Armenian Studies Program has been doing under the leadership of Armenian Studies Program director Dr. Dickran Kouymjian and Barlow Der Mugrdechian. A conversation with old acquaintances and former classmates Berge Bulbulian and Aram Garabedian led to the generous endowment. Keyan plans to add more to the existing scholarships and establish a separate endowment to benefit students studying agriculture at Fresno State. Keyan was born in Fresno to Ohan and Jouhar Keyahian. Ohan Keyahian was a native of Karachor (Kharpert) and Jouhar Keyahian was from Hussenig. The future donor graduated from Malaga Grammar School, Fowler High School, and began attending Fresno State in 1944, graduating with a major in history and physical education in 1948. He enjoyed his years at Fresno State, fondly remembering how he enjoyed the social life. Fresno State in 1944 had a student population of less than 1,000 students. It was a small school where everyone knew each other and Keyan made lots of friends. After graduation, he went into the liquor business with his brother-in-law in Los Angeles. Keyan also learned the building trade and he began purchasing property in the San Fernando Valley, building duplexes and triplexes, and later built and managed a 50-unit and a 75-unit apartment complex. He moved to the Coachella Valley, and bought some 140 acres of land. He grew grapes on 75 of those acres, shipping and selling his own produce in his own facilities. The vineyard became quite successful. Later, Keyan began investing in the stock market where he was also very successful. He retired in 1988. He has traveled extensively, visiting every continent. Perhaps his most memorable journey was taken in 1995 when he visited historic Armenia. There were 10 people in the group, with each person having the opportunity to visit the village or city where their families had once lived. The group traveled more than 2,000 miles in 2 weeks, visiting Aintab, Istanbul, and saw much of historic Armenia. In particular the historic ruins of Ani were a memorable stop. Keyan's family includes two sisters, Rose Kasimian (also his former business partner) and Agnes Margosian of Dinuba, a long-time elementary school teacher who recently retired. ************************************************************************** 6 - George Deukmejian Endorses Sen. Poochigian for Attorney General LOS ANGELES - In a letter to California voters, former Governor George Deukmejian has officially endorsed Sen. Chuck Poochigian in his bid to be California's next Attorney General. "Chuck Poochigian, one of the most decent men I know, is extraordinarily well qualified to become California's next Attorney General," said Deukmejian, who served as California's Attorney General from 1979-1983. "His list of legislative accomplishments in the area of crime prevention is long," Deukmejian said. "Chuck successfully passed laws to increase protections for victims of crime, to increase DNA training which will lead to the prosecution of more crimes, and to increase law enforcement in the rural communities of the state." Deukmejian also commended Poochigian's ability to work with the majority party. "Chuck Poochigian is so respected by all members of the California Legislature that he is able to introduce strong legislation across a broad range of issues and work it all the way into law," Deukmejian said. "As Governor and Attorney General, George Deukmejian made public safety his number one priority," Poochigian said. "Over the years, his passion for protecting the safety of California's citizens, his commitment to public service, his intelligence and his integrity have taught me a great deal about leadership. I am honored to have his endorsement." Poochigian is serving in his second term in the State Senate. He previously served four years in the State Assembly. Poochigian worked for both Deukmejian and former Gov. Pete Wilson, serving as Wilson's Appointments Secretary. For more information on Poochigian and his record, visit *************************************************************************** 7 - Pepperdine ALSA To Honor Karabian At March 30 Reception LOS ANGELES - The Pepperdine Armenian Law Students Association will host its First Annual Alumni Reception on March 30, from 6 to 8 p.m., at the Jonathan Club in Downtown Los Angeles and will honor former California State Assemblyman and Majority Leader Walter Karabian. The honor is being rendered in recognition of Karabian's professional accomplishments, his contribution to the Armenian American legal community as a whole, and his ongoing support of the Armenian students at Pepperdine University School of Law. The reception will be attended by Pepperdine F aculty and Alumni, including Law School Dean Kenneth Starr, Dean Emeritus Ronald F. Phillips, and Associate Dean Richard L. Cupp, Jr. Founded in 2000, the Pepperdine ALSA currently consists of approximately 20 students, and boasts over 80 alumni. For more information about the March 30 event or ALSA, contact the Pepperdine ALSA at [email protected]. ************************************************************************** 8 - Activist Hrand Simonian Receives 'Gontag' From Catholicos Aram I LOS ANGELES - Hrand Simonian, of Hollywood, Calif., a columnist and community leader, has received an encyclical from Catholicos Aram I, of Antelias, for Simonian's life-long dedication to Armenian community life, culture, religion and education for over 60 years. The Gontag was presented by Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian at a special ceremony at the newly built church in Tujunga. Simonian recently donated an 18th Century hand written Holy manuscript written in Zeitoun, to the Catholicossate of Cilicia. The manuscript had been appraised at over $100,000.00 in value. "I felt the proper place for the manuscript was with the religious library of the Catholicos in Cilicia, where the present and future Armenian communities could read and enjoy it," said Simonian. The honoree will celebrate his 80th birthday this year. Hrand and wife Manoushak have been married for 55 years, and are the proud parents of three sons. Raffi and Armen are both pharmacists living in San Diego. Both have been recognized as "Pharmacists of the Year" in California. Vicken is an attorney and Judge Pro Tem, and former Chairman of the Board of the Armenian Bar Association. Hrand Simonian was born in Aleppo, Syria, and immigrated to the United States in 1952. He was a successful businessman prior to retiring in 1974 to pursue his interest in journalism. He was the founding editor of Nor Gyank weekly newspaper, and has a weekly column in the US-based Armenian Life weekly newspaper, where he comments on issues of interest to the Armenian community. ************************************************************************** ************************************************************************** The California Courier On-Line is a service provided by the California Courier. Subscriptions or changes of address should not be transmitted through this service. Information in that regard should be telephoned to (818) 409-0949; faxed to: (818) 409-9207, or e-mailed to: [email protected]. Letters to the editor concerning issues addressed in the Courier may be e-mailed, provided it is signed by the author. Phone and/or E-mail address is also required to verify authorship. From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkiye, Turkey
March 17 2005
ARMENIAN AMBASSADOR: `THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA CREATED THE GENOCIDE
ISSUE’
Armenian Ambassador to the European Union Viguen Tchitechian said on
Tuesday that the genocide issue had been created by Armenians living
abroad in the diaspora. Speaking to the European Parliament’s
Interparliamentary Cooperation Commission meeting in Strasbourg,
Tchitechian said that he did believe a `genocide’ had occurred, but
added that the responsibility for this should not be put on the
shoulders of modern Turkey and the Turkish nation. Stressing that
some 3 million Armenians were living in Armenia, while some 5 million
others were living abroad in the diaspora, Tchitechian stated that
the diaspora had made the matter into a problematic issue. /Turkiye/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PanArmenian News
March 16 2005
ARMENIA RE-ELECTED UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEMBER
16.03.2005 04:40
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenia is re-elected member of the UN Commission
on Human Rights. As reported by Regnum news agency, addressing the
Commission 61st session Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
touched upon the Nagorno Karabakh problem, specifically, the right of
Armenians for self-determination. In his speech the Armenian FM said
remarked, “Ironically even as societies have learned to support the
victims of domestic violence, we have not yet graduated to offering
the same support to victims of international or government violence.
At best, the world watches silently as the victims attempt to defend
themselves, and if somehow, against great odds, they succeed, then
the world quickly pulls back, as the state loudly cries foul and
claims sovereignty and territorial integrity. Just as the perpetrator
of domestic violence loses the moral right to custody, so then, does
a government that commits and promotes violence against its own
citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the notion of
self-determination is significant and legitimate.” Summing up his
thoughts the minister noted `for us, defense and protection of human
rights is not an abstract principle. It is the difference between
survival and annihilation. We believe it is the same for many in the
world.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 8, 2005 Tuesday
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMITTEE: SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE: EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN BLACK SEA AREA
TESTIMONY-BY: VLADIMIR SOCOR, SENIOR FELLOW
AFFILIATION: JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION
Statement of Vladimir Socor Senior Fellow, Jamestown Foundation
Committee on Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European
Affairs
March 8, 2005
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I am grateful for the
opportunity to appear and testify in this important hearing on a
region that has surged to salience in debates on U.S. foreign and
security policy and strategy: the broader Black Sea region, new
frontier in the advance of Euro-Atlantic security and democracy. My
presentation will succinctly identify the interests of the U.S. and
its friends in the region, threats to those interests, and steps the
U.S. can take to promote its security and democratic goals together
with its friends in the region. Interests The Black Sea region forms
the hub of an evolving geostrategic and geo-economic system that
extends from NATO Europe to Central Asia and Afghanistan, and as such
is crucial to U.S.-led antiterrorism efforts. It provides direct
strategic access for American and allied forces to bases and theaters
of operation in Central Asia and the Middle East. It also provides
westbound transit routes for Caspian energy supplies which are key to
our European allies’ energy balance in the years ahead. Countries in
the Black Sea region rarely if ever experienced security, democracy,
or prosperity. Their chance came with the end of Soviet dominance and
the enlargement of the Euro-Atlantic community of interests and
values. At present, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin leads a
campaign to halt and turn back that process at the former Soviet
borders, so as restore a sphere of Russian political, economic, and
military dominance in a large part of the Black Sea region. Threats
of force against Georgia, refusal to withdraw Russian troops from
that country and from Moldova, overt support for secessionist
enclaves in those two countries, fanning of civil confrontation
during the presidential campaign in Ukraine, the poison attack on
Viktor Yushchenko, are among the recent brutal hallmarks of Mr.
Putin’s policy in this region.
The answer must be a redoubling of democratic institution building
within these countries, and anchoring them to Euro- Atlantic
institutions. The U.S. is uniquely equipped to lead this effort
within the Euro-Atlantic community and in the region itself. With
Romania and Bulgaria now in NATO and set to join the European Union,
and with old NATO ally Turkey aiming for EU entry, now is the time to
start planning for the Euro-Atlantic integration of countries that
have declared that aspiration in the broader Black Sea region:
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan. Friends and Partners American
and overall Western interests in this region require stable,
reform-capable states, in control of their own borders, safe from
external military or economic pressures or externally-inspired
secessions, secure in their function as energy transit routes, and
capable of supporting U.S.-led or NATO coalition operations. Those
interests can only be sustained if the region’s countries develop
good governance, with functioning democratic institutions and
political processes resistant to corruption or hostile manipulation,
and if they are protected by international law and Western-led
security arrangements.
Thus, effective state- and democracy-building and strategic interests
are twin sides of a common set of U.S. and Euro- Atlantic interests
in the Black Sea region. By the same token, security threats to
countries in this region and actions that undermine their sovereignty
run counter to those interests. Within this region, Romania and
Bulgaria became providers of security and contributors to coalition
operations even before accession to NATO. Their role is set to grow
further as the two countries become hosts to U.S. military
installations on the Black Sea littoral. NATO aspirants Ukraine,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan have acted as de facto allies in providing
political backing, guaranteeing air and land passage rights, and
fielding peace-support troops for NATO and U.S.-led operations.
Georgia and Azerbaijan, active members of the anti-terrorist
coalition, have thus graduated from the role of pure consumers of
security to that of net consumers and incipient providers of security
to the region and beyond.
Tbilisi and Baku regard their participation in the anti-terrorism
coalition as synonymous with their national interests. Already before
9/11 they had experienced terrorist threats and attacks in the form
of externally inspired coup- and assassination attempts against their
leaders and ethnic cleansing. Thus they are vitally interested in
combating terrorism in all its forms. For both Georgia and
Azerbaijan, participation in the anti-terrorism coalition is also a
means to maintain close relations with the U.S., advance the
modernization of their security sectors, and earn their credentials
as NATO aspirant countries. Moreover, Georgia and Azerbaijan are on
the alert to prevent a spillover of the Russian-Chechen war into
their territories and to interdict the passage of any foreign gunmen,
their suspected accomplices, or radical Islamist missionaries. With
U.S. assistance, Georgia cleaned up the Pankisi Valley in 2002-2003
and holds it under control since then. For its part, Azerbaijan gave
radical Islamist organizations no chance to make inroads into the
country. Successful development of Azerbaijan as a Muslim secular
state is also a shared interest of that country and the West. This
goal has good prospects of fulfillment in Azerbaijan’s society
characterized by religious tolerance and receptiveness to Western
models. The success of pro-democracy movements, known as Rose and
Orange Revolutions, in Georgia and Ukraine recently, is seen by many
as potentially repeatable in Armenia, but unlikely to be duplicated
in Azerbaijan or Moldova. In these two countries, democratization
will likely follow an evolutionary path. Last week, Presidents
Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine,
meeting with Moldova’s president Vladimir Voronin, announced their
readiness to work with him toward completing Eastern Europe’s third
wave of democratization — that in the broader Black Sea region. Mr.
Voronin and his team, communists in name only, have reoriented
Moldova westward and are resisting what they describe as “Russia’s
attempts at re- colonization.” These presidents along with Ilham
Aliev of Azerbaijan are scheduled to meet again next month in Moldova
with a view to revitalizing the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
Moldova) group of countries. Security Threats: Old, New, Newest The
region’s Western-oriented countries are facing a wide spectrum of
threats to their security, mainly from Russia and its local proteges.
The overarching goal is to thwart these countries’ Euro-Atlantic
integration and force them back into a Russian sphere of dominance.
The scope, intensity, and systematic application of threats has
markedly increased over the last year, as part of President Putin’s
contribution to the shaping of Russia’s conduct. These may be
described as old-, new-, and newest-type threats to security. The
“old-type” threats stem from troops and bases stationed unlawfully in
other countries, seizures of territories, border changes de facto,
ethnic cleansing, and creation of heavily armed proxy statelets.
Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan are the targets of such blackmail.
“New-type” threats are those associated with illegal arms and drugs
trafficking, rampant contraband, and organized transnational
criminality, all of which use the Russian-protected secessionist
enclaves as safe havens and staging areas. Such activities are
usually associated with non-state actors, often of a terrorist
nature. In the Black Sea region, however, state actors within Russia
are often behind these activities, severely undermining the target
countries’ economies and state institutions. The “newest-type” threat
to security can be seen in Russia’s assault on electoral processes,
some months ago in Ukraine’s presidential election and in recent
weeks in Moldova’s parliamentary elections (and meanwhile even in
loyalist Abkhazia). Using massive financial, mass-media, and covert
action means, Russia has sought to influence the outcome of elections
or hijack them outright in order to install its favorites in power.
Closely related to this is the export of the Russian model of
governance, characterized by a symbiosis of neo-KGB structures,
organized crime, state bureaucracy, and government-connected big
business.
In all of the situations described above, security and democracy are
equally at risk. “Frozen” Conflicts The Black Sea region is the most
conflict-plagued region along the new Euro-Atlantic perimeter. This
situation limits the ability of the U.S. to capitalize on the
region’s high strategic value. Thirteen years after the USSR’s
dissolution, Moscow continues heavily to dominate conflict-management
in this region. Russia, largely responsible for sparking or fanning
these conficts, has a vested interested in keeping them smoldering,
so as to pressure Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Moldova and
thwart their Euro-Atlantic integration. Russias policy consists of
freezing not the conflicts as such, but the rather the negotiating
processes, which Russia itself dominates. The U.N. and OSCE, left
largely to their own devices, have merely conserved these conflicts.
There are those who suggest that the U.S. should defer to Moscow on
this issue, lest Russia’s cooperation with the U.S. in anti-
terrorism and anti-WMD-proliferation efforts be jeopardized. This
thesis seems to underestimate Russia’s own declared interest in
cooperating in such efforts; to overestimate the practical value of
Moscow’s contributions; and to ignore Russia’s outright obstruction
of U.S. efforts in a number of cases. Moreover, that thesis would
seem to confirm the Kremlin in its dangerous expectation that
strategic partnership with the U.S. should entail acceptance of
Russian paramountcy on “peacekeeping” and conflict-resolution in the
“post-Soviet space.” This is an ingredient to sphere-of-influence
rebuilding. It is crucial to avoid the perception (let alone the
fact) of a Russia-U.S. or Russia-West division of peacekeeping and
conflict-management spheres, or an informal partition of countries’
territories.
Strategic partnerships can not long be sustained with rump countries
vulnerable to armed secessionist pressures across uncontrolled
external borders. It is high time to move this issue to the front
burner of U.S. security policy. Preferably in synergy with NATO and
EU countries, the U.S. is best placed for promoting
conflict-settlement solutions that would consolidate the region’s
states in strategic partnership with the the U.S. Turning the broader
Black Sea region into a policy priority need not compete with the
priorities assigned to other areas.
On the contrary, stabilization of this region would entail
incomparably lower risks and incomparably smaller resources compared
to the risks and resource commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, or
emergent initiatives in the broader Middle East. The fact is that a
secure and stable Black Sea region is necessary for sustaining those
U.S.-led operations and initiatives.
CFE Treaty, Istanbul Commitments Russia has openly repudiated its
obligations under the 1999-adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in
Europe and Istanbul Commitments (twin parts of a single package)
regarding withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia and Moldova. The
OSCE, custodian of those documents, has cooperated with Russia in
eviscerating them. Troop withdrawal deadlines were postponed and then
removed altogether; preconditions to withdrawal were attached where
the troop withdrawal was to have been unconditional; excuses were
found for retaining some Russian troops in place where the withdrawal
was to have been complete; wide verification loopholes were tacitly
accepted; heavy weaponry — coyly designated as “unaccounted-for
treaty-limited equipment” by a complacent OSCE — was transferred
from Russia’s arsenals into those of the separatist enclaves; the
creation of Russian-staffed separatist forces was tolerated; and the
requirement of host-country consent (to the stationing of foreign
troops) is being flouted. Since 2002, Moscow has rejected the very
notion that it had made “commitments” in Istanbul to withdraw its
troops from Georgia and Moldova.
The OSCE itself all along termed those Russian commitments only
“politically binding,” as distinct from legally binding; i.e., not
binding in practice. All these concessions notwithstanding, the OSCE
is no longer able since 2003 even to cite its own 1999 decisions,
because Russia has easily vetoed such references in the
organization’s routine year-end resolutions. Realistically speaking,
the Istanbul Commitments are dead. Since 2004, moreover, Moscow
threatens to destroy the OSCE by blocking the adoption of the
organization’s budget and terminating certain OSCE activities. Russia
does not want to kill the OSCE, but rather to harness and use the
weakened organization. Under these circumstances, no one can possibly
expect the OSCE to resurrect the Istanbul Commitments, let alone
ensure compliance with them. Meanwhile, the U.S. and NATO governments
collectively take the position that they would not ratify the adapted
CFE Treaty (which Moscow wants ratified) until Russia has complied
with the Istanbul Commitments. This form of leverage has, manifestly,
proven too weak to induce Russia to withdraw its troops from Georgia
and Moldova.
Russian officials scoff at calls for troop withdrawal based on the
Istanbul documents. It is high time for Georgia and Moldova to go
beyond the OSCE to international organizations, and argue the case
for Russian troop withdrawal on the basis of national sovereignty and
international law. The U.S., along with the Euro- Atlantic community,
should place these issues prominent on the agenda of U.S.-Russia,
NATO-Russia, and EU-Russia agendas, and not just at summit time (as
has been done occasionally and feebly thus far) but also on a regular
basis until this legitimate goal is achieved.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkish Daily News
March 12 2005
Germany says archives open to all
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Ankara – Turkish Daily News
The German Embassy in Ankara announced that all documents in German
archives relating to the Armenians were open to everybody.
“All of the German official archives belonging to the pre-1945 era
are open for any research,” the embassy said. “Those documents — in
the political archives section of the German Foreign Ministry — have
a significant importance since Germany had intensive diplomatic and
military relations with its ally the Ottoman Empire at that time.”
Turkey is keen to conduct a joint study for full access to state
archives both in Turkey and Armenia to settle the argument once and
for all; however, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan, in an
interview with Reuters, reiterated that Armenia rejected a Turkish
proposal for an impartial panel of historians to test Armenian claims
that their people suffered a genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turkey.
Turkish daily Milliyet reported that a symposium to be funded by
the Foreign Ministry was scheduled to be held on May 28 in Turkey to
discuss so-called genocide allegations attended by a number of
Turkish and foreign experts.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

North Shore Times (Australia)
February 23, 2005 Wednesday
Club gives vandals a spray
GRAFFITI vandals have defaced daily the Armenian Cultural Centre in
Willoughby.
Centre members have repainted the outer wall of the building many
times recently.
“We painted one morning, went in for lunch, and it was there again in
the afternoon,” centre member Berdj Momdjian said.
“We can’t keep painting. It’s cost us a fortune.”
Sergeant Peter Lunney of Chatswood Police said there was not much
they can do.
“It’s just a regular thing people get up to when they’re bored,” he
said. “They paint something on the wall and the community centre
paints over it to make it presentable again. That makes it attractive
to go back and graffiti.”
Willoughby Mayor Pat Reilly recently met Chatswood Police after a
surge in graffiti attacks.
Council said the most effective strategy was to remove the graffiti
as quickly as possible.
“This strategy deprives the graffiti vandals of the exposure of their
handiwork,” a council representative said.
Mr Momdjian said graffiti vandals have recently struck the centre’s
Scout Hall in Naremburn Park but he does not believe the illegal acts
to be racial crimes.
Willoughby residents can report graffiti attacks to council’s
customer service officers on 9777 1000.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress