Author: Jalatian Sonya

Daily Times, Pakistan
July 6 2005
COMMENT: EU membership is a hurdles race for Turkey
– Ijaz Hussain
Turkey must be admired for the determination it has shown in the
face of hurdles put in its way. It is imperative that it perseveres
till it achieves its objective or the EU’s real face of a `Christian
club’ is fully exposed
The results of the recent French and Dutch referenda on the EU draft
constitution surprised no one. However, they also sent out the
unintended signal that Turks, who are keen to get into the EU, are
not welcome to its fold. The message was further highlighted when the
EU summit broke down on the question of a long-term budget that would
provide funding for newcomers. The EU Commission chief, Jose Manual
Barroso, then stated that the EU needed to discuss the signal that
the French and Dutch voters had sent about Turkey’s accession.
The Turkish government, for its part, tried to put up a brave face.
Its foreign minister observed that, `This result is something that
concerns the French public… not Turkey.’ The EU Commission, too,
announced that the accession talks would start on schedule.
In the French referendum the issues for the voters were the
introduction of a market economy (that many saw as savage Anglo-Saxon
capitalism), the threat of NATO controlling European defence and the
policies of President Chirac, all of which they disapproved of. The
Dutch electorate, on the other hand, voted for keeping the Dutch
persona intact and against dissolving into Europe and the individual
losses suffered because of depreciation of guilder when the country
joined the common currency.
The common theme was a vote of no confidence against expansion –
admission of 10 new members last year and possible accession of more
states in the future. The vote was not just against immigrants from
Eastern Europe but also against those from Turkey. Rightist parties
in both countries worked overtime to scare voters of immigration from
Muslim Turkey.
France and Holland were under no obligation to refer the question of
ratification of the draft constitution to a popular vote. They could
have achieved the desired result by referring the matter to the
parliament as more than 10 countries did. Now that they have
exercised the referendum option, this can have implications for the
Turkish membership when the question comes up.
There could be pressure, particularly on the French government to
hold another referendum because President Chirac is on record having
advocated towards the end of last year an amendment in the French
constitution along these lines. The proposal was at that time
supported by Italy’s right-wing Northern League party, which is
currently part of the ruling coalition. A strong lobby in Germany,
represented by the Christian Democrats, is also opposed to the
Turkish entry. Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg also share this
hostility and may opt for a referendum when the time comes.
But a mandatory referendum in any country would amount to changing
rules for admission to the EU. Turkey has warned in the past against
such shifting of the goal post. Following the recent referenda, the
Turkish prime minister, Recip Erdogan, again warned: `If you impose
new conditions on candidate countries, especially a country about to
start negotiations, that would not be right’.
However, the fact remains that the start of accession talks next
October does not mean that the EU would be content with the
fulfilment of the `Copenhagen criteria’ and that the entry rules
would not change. In fact as far as Turkey is concerned, they are
most likely to change in the future just as they have changed in the
past.
For example, the 1999 Helsinki summit, which accepted Turkey’s
eligibility for the EU membership, while envisaging a political
settlement of the Cyprus issue or its reference to the ICJ within a
reasonable period of time, did not make it a prerequisite for
membership. Subsequently the EU practically made it a prerequisite
and gave a date for accession talks only after it was satisfied that
Turkey had made good faith efforts to solve the Cyprus problem and
after Turkish Cypriots had voted for unification in the 2004
unification referendum.
There are indications that the EU may attach a rider of another kind
for the Turkish entry. It relates to the recognition by Turkey of the
`genocide’ of 1.5 million Armenians, supposedly during 1915-23. The
EU parliament recently demanded – on the occasion of the review of
the Turkish penal code, which punishes any suggestion of Armenian
`genocide’ by the Turks as crime against national honour – that
Turkey own up to its past on Armenia. Earlier, on November 15, 2000,
it had formally accused Turkey of `genocide’.
The sentiment against Turkey on Armenia runs in individual countries
as well. The German parliament recently adopted a resolution
condemning Turkey for killing of Armenians by Turks 90 years ago.
Though, it stopped short of calling the killings `genocide’, it
sparked an angry protest from Ankara. In November 2000, the French
Senate had denounced the killing of Armenians by Turks as `genocide’.
The vote had drawn a sharp and swift criticism from the Turkish
government that forced the French to back down on the issue. However,
like the Holocaust the Armenian `genocide’ is today on the French
statute books and denying it is considered a crime.
The resentment against Turkey on Armenia is not restricted to Europe.
The Americans also seem to share it. During the presidency of Bill
Clinton, the US House of Representatives adopted a draft resolution
that referred to the killing of Armenians as `genocide’.
Subsequently, the House withdrew it on request from the president
following a threat by the Turkish government to stop military
cooperation and cancel a $4.5 billion defence deal.
Turkey denies the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. It accepts that
hundreds of thousands of them were killed but argues that even more
Turks died during the partisan conflict resulting from the support
extended by Armenians to the invading Russian troops. It fears that
it would be required by the EU to recognise the killing of Armenians
as `genocide’. Will it eat the humble pie and do what the EU wants?
Indications are that it will – principally, because it is desperate
to get into the EU and seems prepared to do virtually anything to
that end. When the EU accused Turkey of `genocide’ in 2000, the main
opposition, Virtue Party, was prepared to appease it by proposing a
legislative investigation into the matter and removing `wrong and
biased opinions’.
Will Turkey’s acceptance of the EU demand to recognise the killings
as `genocide’ – if and when it comes – signify an end to the hurdles
race to membership? In our opinion, this is far from certain. It
appears that the hurdles – past as well as future – are merely handy
justifications to delay the membership question. There is plenty of
evidence to conclude that the real reason relates to the Islamic
character of the Turkish society. Turkey must be admired for the
dogged determination it has shown so far in the face of hurdles put
in its way beyond the `Copenhagen criteria’. It is imperative that it
perseveres in its efforts till such time that it achieves its
objective or the EU’s real face of a `Christian club’ is fully
exposed.
The writer, a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam
University, is an independent political and legal analyst

A1plus
| 17:41:12 | 04-07-2005 | Social |
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MHER MKRTCHYAN
Today is the birthday of the happiest and saddest artist of the Armenian
cinematography and theater: Mher Lazarian would be 75 today. «I had no
childhood, no kindergarten, and no yard. What I saw was the theater since my
early years», these are the words of Mher Lazarian describing his love for
theater from early childhood.
He lived with the characters he embodied, so the audience so not his play on
the stage, but a life. This was the secret of the endless love the people
had for the artist. This was the power and the magic of his art.
The teacher of Mher Lazarian, Vardan Achemyan, describing him said once,
«This young man has great future, but someone must accompany him all the
time, he cannot do anything alone».
He spent the last days of his life in loneliness. He was alone with his
grief – ruins of his native town, loss of his daughter, illness of his son,
the grave social situation in the country. This was the loneliness which
Vardan Achemyan meant.
For 12 years the Armenian theater has been living without Mher Lazarian,
but the theater named after him will try today to relive one of his
characters in the play «Baker’s Wife» keeping the memory of the Great artist
warm in our hearts forever.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Common Dreams, ME
June 25 2005
No Apologies, Senator Durbin
by Sheldon Drobny

Senator Durbin is the Senior Senator from Illinois, my home state. I
am also a first generation Jewish American whose parents narrowly
escaped the Holocaust. I have lost aunts, uncles and cousins as a
result of that travesty. However, that fact does not give me the
license to own the experience or the so-called `franchise.’ The
devastation caused by World War II was a human tragedy causing the
deaths of about 50,000,000 people worldwide. Yesterday, June 22nd was
the 64th anniversary of the German attack upon the Soviet Union
commonly called Operation Barbarosa. Most Americans are unaware that
the Soviet Union lost approximately 25,000,000 people in what they
call The Great Patriotic War. By comparison, the United States lost
approximately 300,000 military deaths in both the European and
Pacific wars. Millions of Chinese, Germans and Japanese also died.
American bombing of Japanese cities caused the death of over
1,000,000 civilians including the questionable dropping of 2 atomic
bombs.
The brutalities of that war occurred on both sides because that is
what happens in a wartime environment. I have always said that the
other combatants in World War II were lucky that there was a
Hitler/Nazi regime otherwise Japan especially would have been the
prime focus of the Nuremberg type trials. Japan committed horrible
genocidal atrocities against the Chinese. As a matter of fact,
civilian bombing was excluded as an indictable war crime otherwise
the United States and Great Britain would have been subject to such
offenses. The Turkish genocide against the Armenians in 1915 is
unknown to many people today. The Turks killed over 1,000,000
Armenians and Hitler used that to convince his cronies that the
genocide of the Jews would not be remembered by the world. I would
suggest that the movie Ararat is worthy of viewing. The movie gives
one a better perspective of the Armenian genocide.
Inhumanity, torture, genocide, and intolerance are the major
casualties of any war including the war in Iraq. The most common
metaphor for that kind of cruelty is the word Nazi. It is a commonly
used word by many politicians on all sides to reflect the kinds of
cruelties that come from armed conflict. The use of the word Nazi or
the name Hitler has never been any more than a metaphor for that kind
of cruelty and torture. It is as generic as any other description of
intolerance and cruelty.
Senator Durbin would never accuse our soldiers of being Nazis nor
would he have ever defamed the 6,000,000 Jews that died in the
Holocaust. Just as holocaust is a generic word, it is now capitalized
to reflect the World War II phenomenon. But could we not describe the
Armenian massacre as a holocaust without disparaging the memory of
the 6,000,000 Jews that died in the Nazi genocide? Yet, Christian
fundamentalists who constantly exploit the Jewish Holocaust for their
advantage soundly criticized Durbin. The hypocrisy of Christian
extreme fundamentalism is that it is the very teachings of the
Passion stories of the New Testament that created 2,000 years of
Christian anti-Judaism which culminated in the Nazi version of
pseudo-Darwinian anti-Semitism. Many on the extreme Right claim that
the Third Reich was not a theocracy. The fact is that the
constitution of the Third Reich did have only one legal religion
named in it. It was called The National Reich Church and it exploited
the inherent anti-Judaism of the Passion stories. The actual word
hypocrite is defined in The New Testament in Matthew 7: `Thou
hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eyes.’ `The man
who finds fault with another for sin, while he is more guilty, is a
hypocrite.’
Seventy to eighty percent of American Jews vote Democratic. I believe
that most of that percentage had no problem with the quotes used by
Senator Durbin. I would bet that the Jews that were offended by his
remarks came from the highly political minority of Jews who stand
beside these Christian fundamentalists. They make the same mistake
that the German Jews made in the 1930s when they believed that their
native country would not turn against them. That is a lesson in
history that these American Jews may have forgotten.
Sheldon Drobny is Co-founder Air America Radio.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZG Armenian Daily #117, 25/06/2005
Home
ARMENIA ACCORDING TO REPORT OF RA OMBUDSWOMAN
‘Cooperation for Sake of Open Society’ initiated public discussion of the
annual report of RA Ombudswoman.
The ombudsman’s institute managed to get involved in contradictions with
both executive and legislative and judicial powers. They even confiscated
the computer of the ombudsman office with all the information in it. So, the
discussion was also dedicated to protection of the ombudswoman’s institute.
RA Ombudswoman received 1294 written appeals from 2346 citizens. The report
was based on these facts of human rights’ violation cases. “Since last year,
the violation of the property right became widely spread. There is no
response from either Ra National Assembly or any other instance. People are
left alone and face the cruel facts that they are deprived of their own
property. While they can never buy houses with the money they are given for
that property,” Larisa Alaverdian, RA ombudswoman, said, emphasizing the
cases of the Northern Avenue, the Buzand Street residents and the owners of
Dalma Orchards.
RA Ombudswoman conditioned the cases of abuse of official position, bad
management by not only personal but also qualities of the forces. This
seemed to be caused by bad laws. The report touches upon the importance of
such issues too in a separate section.
“This is the first official report on human rights, that includes mainly all
the spheres of violation of human rights in Armenia. It objectively and
often strictly evaluates the situation,” Avetik Ishkahnian, Chairman of
“Helsinki Committee in Armenia” NGO, said during the discussion. In response
to the issue what impression a foreigner will get about Armenia when reading
this report, he said “A foreigner will think that Armenia is a weak
authoritarian country or a state that is imitating democracy.”
By Karine Danielian

A1plus
| 20:09:09 | 21-06-2005 | Politics |
EVERYONE SPEAKS OF WHAT HE WANTS
During the recent several days the Azeri press has been spreading
information that the issue of unblocking the roads was as well discussed by
the Armenian and Azerbaijani FMs. The matter concerns the road connecting
Nakhivachan with Azerbaijan through the Syunik region and the Lachin highway
connecting Armenia with Karabakh.
When responding to the question `What is your reaction to the Azerbaijani
claim that a connecting road was discussed during the most recent meeting in
Paris of the foreign ministers with the co-chairs?’ Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan said, `First, in the negotiation process, each
side has the right to talk about any subject. But when one side introduces
or talks about a topic, any topic, that doesn’t mean that the topic is
automatically on the agenda, nor that there is any, even preliminary
agreement on that topic.
Second, Armenia’s position on these matters is very clear. The primary
matter is the status of Nagorno Karabakh, and until there is clarity and
agreement on that matter, it is premature to speak about any other issue.’

RIA Novosti, Russia
June 21 2005
Georgia’s foreign debt stands at $1.79 billion
19:56
TBILISI, June 21 (RIA Novosti) – The value of Georgia’s foreign debt
and loans received against government guarantees was $1,798,035,000
as of May 31, 2005. The Georgian Finance Ministry’s foreign debt
department said the country owed $682,154,000 to 15 creditor nations.
At the same time, 12 creditor nations restructured Georgia’s foreign
debt in compliance with a decision made by the Paris Club of creditor
nations. They included Austria ($91,997,000), Azerbaijan
($16,190,000), Turkmenistan ($152,395,000), Turkey ($52,457,000),
Iran ($12,456,000), Russia ($154,488,000), the United States
($39,331,000), Armenia ($19,593,000), Uzbekistan ($551,000), Ukraine
($366,000), Kazakhstan ($27,774,000) and China ($3,096,000).
Germany, Japan and Kuwait are not bound by the Paris Club’s decision
because Georgia planned to start repaying its debt to them later.
Georgia owes Germany $51,637,000 and another $57,204,000 on loans
received from it against government guarantees (a total of
$108,841,000). Georgia also owes Japan $45,281,000 and Kuwait
$14,542,000.
Apart from creditor nations, Georgia also took out loans from
international institutions, in particular, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank’s International Development Association, and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, which it owes
$1,058,679,000. Georgia also received a $30,360,000 loan from the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development against government
guarantees.
The above figures involve acknowledged debt and exclude debt service
funds. Georgia’s foreign debt is based on the exchange rates in
effect on May 31, 2005.

HOW TO RETURN KARABAKH?
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
20 June 05
For over 17 years the Azerbaijani politicians and political scientists,
journalists, the military and defenders of rights have been racking
their brains over this question. At different times power was taken
away from five leaders of Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan – Kyamran
Baghirov, Abdurrahman Vezirov, Ayaz Mutalibov, Yaghub Mamedov and
Abulfaz Elchibey – for failure in solving the Karabakh issue by Baku’s
scenario. Heydar Aliev left this world and joined Kyamran Baghirov and
Abulfaz Elchibey without undoing the Karabakh knot. Now Aliev Junior
has taken up the job, promising his fellow countrymen, like his
predecessors, to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Each of these leaders
of Azerbaijan had their own plan of getting over the `insurgent’
people of Karabakh. Under Kyamran Baghirov they tried to scare us
through assaults of the Azerbaijani mob in Askeran, massacres were
perpetrated in Sumgait, our compatriots were forced to leave
Shushi. These did not work. Abdurrahman Vezirov, who succeeded him,
intended to assuage the Armenians (as well as the Azerbaijanis)
through political clownery until a convenient occasion occurred to
take revenge on the people of Karabakh. However, the Azerbaijanis, and
especially the Popular Front of Azerbaijan were not in the way of
joking. The Azerbaijanis would have hung Abdurahman Vezirov at the
home of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan if
the former USSR troops did not save him. After the famous events in
Baku in January 1990 Ayaz Mutalibov, who came to replace Vezirov,
looking quite respectable, not only did not apologize to more than 250
thousand Armenians for having displaced them through medieval methods,
but also persuaded Mikhail Gorbachov to hold the military operation
`Koltso’ in the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh to force out the
Armenian population from Nagorno Karabakh. However, the quick
succession of events in Soviet Union in agony prevented the
realization of this idea Yaghub Mamedov who assumed the duties of the
leader of Azerbaijan for a short period after the dissolution of the
USSR and resignation of Ayaz Mutalibov again `failed’ in the Karabakh
issue, signing armistice with the president of Armenia then Levon
Ter-Petrossian in Tehran a day before the offensive of Shushi. Abulfaz
Elchibey adopted a military method of solving the issue. He was
mistaken in his estimations as well. Then Heydar Aliev took up the
work of saving the nation through military ways. As a result
Azerbaijan lost several more regions, adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh.
The `Father of the Nation’ had to alter his tactics manipulating the
factor of oil and hoping to push the third countries to put military,
political and economic pressure on Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Once
again failure. Finally, Ilham Aliev came to power. He seems to have
decided not to occupy with the Karabakh issue at all and leave the
whole burden of settlement with the international mediators. This
tactics has not produced sought-after results either. Meanwhile, after
the dissolution of the USSR various NGOs and human rights
organizations appeared in Azerbaijan which no more believe the
government could solve the Karabakh issue and propose their own
prescriptions. The prescriptions come to any liking, ranging from
apparently `constructive’ (by Azerbaijani standards, of course) to
naive and even exotic ones. The head of the Azerbaijani National
Committee of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly, Arzu Abdulayeva has been
raving about the Aland model of resolution for many years now. The
Aland Islands where ethnic Swedish people live belong to
Finland. Aland people have a president, a parliament and a prime
minister, that is to say, also a government. They all meet under their
own flag. Besides, the Aland Islands are considered a completely
demilitarized zone, which supposes the absence of military service. If
I am not mistaken, in 1993 the NKR delegation visited the Aland
Islands for studying the experience of reconciliation and co-existence
of nations. It is notable that the speak er of the parliament of NKR
then Karen Baburian who headed our delegation, was asked what his
attitude toward the Aland model was. He unbuttoned his collar
jokingly: `Karabakh is absolutely for it, but on condition that it is
part of Finland and borders with friendly Sweden.’ Thereby Karen
Baburian let the international organizers of the visit know that Asian
Azerbaijan infected with the militaristic germ is far from being
civilized European Finland. However, Arzu Abdulayeva, apparently, has
a different opinion. `We need to shift from abstract, non-concrete
judgements about the independence of Karabakh and the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan to the discussion of opportunities of the
South Caucasians to leave at peace, like the Europeans, securing
economic, political and civil liberties,’ she writes in one of her
newspaper articles. Therefore, Arzu khanum goes on, it is worth
considering whether the model of Aland Islands can serve as a ground
for national (i.e. Azerbaijani – A.G.) agreement. Any government
would have to take it into consideration. `Instead of judging about
some highest form of sovereignty (i.e. Azerbaijani – A.G.) the
authorities will have to recognize that our people accept this model,’
concludes Arzu Abdulayeva. Is this naive? Certainly. It is naive
because Arzu Abdulayeva presents the desirable for the real. Or she
lies consciously when she states that the frenzy of nationalism in
Azerbaijan has gone, and during the years of the cease-fire the
Armenians of Karabakh have become convinced that the traditional
standpoint `unification with Armenia or independence’ is fruitless.
Whereas, it is not possible to build real peace based on a lie. The
representative of the political party `New Greens’, political
scientist Oktay Sadekhzade presented an absolutely `constructive’
model of resolution for Azerbaijan last year. Fairly insisting that
further development of Azerbaijan and Armenia and the fates of the two
nations depend on the resolution of the conflict, Oktay Sadekhzade
proposes a three-stage plan of resolution of the conflict. In the
first stage the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories
except Nagorno Karabakh and Lachin, the return of the displaced
persons and stationing of international peacemaking forces in the
region is proposed. The ratio of the international peacemaking forces
stationed in the conflict area must be the following: USA 25 %, France
25%, Russia 25 % and Turkey 25 %. According to the plan of the
Azerbaijani `Green’, the second stage should be launched only after a
public opinion poll is conducted in Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this
stage the status of Nagorno Karabakh will be determined. Oktay
Sadekhzade provides a vertical – horizontal subordination of our
region to official Baku, which is difficult to understand. For the
Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh he plans double citizenship of
Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. For this aim an exclusive amendment
is to be made to the Constitution of Azerbaijan. At the end of the
second stage Baku and Yerevan are to sign an intergovernmental
agreement by which the Lachin corridor will be rented by Armenia for
99 years and the Meghri corridor will be rented by Azerbaijan for 99
years. And finally, in the third stage, election to the local
governments will be held in Nagorno Karabakh, in which `both
communities’ of the republic will take part. The republic will not
have a president, and NKR will be a parliamentary republic within
Azerbaijan. In other words, Oktay Sadekhzade proposes a rather long
process of returning the Karabakh Armenians to Azerbaijan and in the
future they will be free to leave the Armenian land for whatever place
they wish. Another project on resolution was presented to the
Azerbaijani public by one of the independent newspapers of Baku.
According to their project, the territory of the former Autonomous
Region of Nagorno Karabakh should be given the status of Free Economic
Zone for 50 years. The zone should be run by the board of directors
set up from the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, as well as the members of the OSCE Minsk Group. The OSCE
Minsk Group will act as guarantor of the new status of Nagorno
Karabakh. The project provides for several other `privileges’ as well,
but the passports of the NKR residents will be Azerbaijani with an
appendix of `Free Economic Zone’. The official languages of the Free
Economic Zone will be Armenian and Azerbaijani. The procedure of
legalization of the new status of NK will be carried out in parallel
with `the liberation of the occupied areas of Azerbaijan’. Well, we
have a more `delicate’ plan of returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan, with
all the famous consequences for the Armenians of Karabakh, i.e. you
can leave your motherland for whatever place you like. Here are the
fresh ideas about the ways of resolution of the Karabakh issue, which
fully correspond to the modern trends. One of the authors of these is
the executive director of the National Centre for Strategic Research,
Farhad Mamedov. According to him, only democratic and powerful
Azerbaijan is able to make the West return Karabakh. One has to admit
that this is already serious. This is what we the Armenians say,
seeking for the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic. For this aim Farhad Mamedov points out the necessity for
holding fair parliamentary election in Azerbaijan this November. We
seek for the same in Karabakh. But this is not the real essence. In
all the models of resolution of the Karabakh conflict mentioned above
and many others not mentioned here there is not a single word about
the right of the NK Armenians for self-determination. That is to say,
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is completely denied. Then the question
occurs: `How is it possible to solve a problem without recognizing
it?’ Therefore, the Azerbaijani inventors of various formulae to
return Nagorno Karabakh to the constitutional environment of
Azerbaijan and other `kind intentions’ will remain kind intentions,
not more. Although, among our neighbours there are such who doubt that
the Azerbaijani government wants to return Karabakh. Among them is the
well-known political scientist from Azerbaijan, Rasim Aghaev.
According to him, Azerbaijan had quite a lot of time to Azerbaijanize
Karabakh (about 70 years of the Soviet rule). `It was the only
reliable way of eliminating the so-called Karabakh issue,’ he states
in one of his articles on the Karabakh conflict. Long live Rasim-Bey!
At least you are frank. Although, on the other hand, the leadership of
Soviet Azerbaijan was guided by the principle of Rasim Aghaev for 70
years, which gave rise to the Karabakh issue as it is now. Anyway, how
could the Azerbaijanis return Karabakh¦?
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN.
20-06-2005

Azeri minister sees Karabakh talks in Paris as “complicated”
Azadliq, Baku
20 Jun 05
Excerpt from unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq on
20 June headlined “Mammadyarov-Oskanyan talks have been complicated”
The Paris talks [on 17 June] between the Azerbaijani and Armenian
foreign ministers on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
were complicated, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told
the head of the Foreign Ministry’s information department, Tahir
Tagizada, over the phone after the talks.
[Passage omitted: reported details]
Mammadyarov said that the talks were continuing and he would meet the
[OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairmen again.
The minister went on to say that their meeting had focused on seven or
nine elements which involved the liberation of occupied territories,
the return of refugees to their lands, the future status of Nagornyy
Karabakh, the deployment of peacekeeping forces [in Karabakh] and
others.

Parliamentary voting begins in Azerbaijan’s breakaway region
Regnum, Moscow
19 Jun 05
The parliamentary elections have opened in the self-proclaimed
Nagornyy Karabakh republic, Russia’s Regnum news agency has reported.
International observers and representative of other self-proclaimed
republics are monitoring the polls.
Monitors are expected to give a news conference in the evening,

Orange County Register, CA
June 19 2005
A rebel with a cause
Teacher P.O. Marsubian, often at odds with authority, related to kids
who felt the same. He pioneered a night high school program that
turned him into
Sunday, June 19, 2005
AMY MARTINEZ STARKE
P. O. Marsubian, a Portland high school teacher, had two motives in
the late 1960s when he came up with the idea of an alternative high
school. For starters, he saw juniors disappearing from the halls
at the now-defunct Adams High School in Northeast Portland, and he
wanted to give dropouts, street kids, minorities, throwaway kids,
and gang members a way to earn a diploma.
But he also saw an alternative high school as a way to get away from
bureaucratic rules that chafed and an administration headquarters he
bluntly called “the nut hut.” He identified with disruptive students;
he was a rebel and outsider himself.
So when administrators said no to his idea, it didn’t slow him at
all. It took awhile, but he got his way, and eventually the night
high school began serving young people others had given up on.
“Anybody can teach the stable kids, the smart kids,” he said. The
tougher the challenge, the greater the triumph, P.O. thought.
The night school tolerated street language and unconventional
behavior. P.O.’s own classroom language was quite colorful, but
students could tell he was really angry when he used the king’s
English.
Eventually the waiting list included both teachers and students;
students recruited their friends. P.O. brought students home to feed
or house. The phone rang in the middle of the night, and more than
once he bailed a student out of jail. P.O. retired in the mid-1980s
but continued to substitute.
Students will remember the teacher they called P.O. as a stout man
who wore a suit and tie to school. But at home, he wore faded denim
bib overalls to the day he died, May 24, 2005, of congestive heart
failure. He was 79.
P.O. was born Parimaz Onan Marsubian in Chicago to Armenian immigrant
tailors who escaped the Turkish genocide. He flunked first grade
because he could only speak Armenian, but he soon mastered English.
In 1942, he joined the Navy and, though he asked for combat duty,
was stationed in Pasco, Wash., as a parachute packer. In Pasco,
he met Lee Parker at a dance, and they married in 1945.
After the war, Lee worked while P.O. went to Northwestern University
on the GI Bill. Their son was born in 1947, about the time P.O.
became friends with Martin Luther King Jr., who once held their son
on his lap. They later had a second child, a daughter.
P.O. and Lee decided to move out West, and P.O. taught at Jefferson
and Roosevelt high schools in the 1950s and 1960s. He became a union
official and a thorn in the administration’s side.
At Roosevelt, he convinced a group of students to raise money
for their own purposes by selling dill pickles for 5 cents each,
and he refused the principal’s demand that he turn over the money.
Administrators sought to defuse his energetic union organizing by
plucking him out of Roosevelt and transferring him to Grant — a move
that had the opposite effect.
In the 1960s, P.O. began to study the stock market. “You can’t buy the
company, but you can buy a piece of it,” he figured. Eventually, he
became an informal stockbroker, at one time managing the portfolios of
26 friends, including the mail carrier; he never charged a dime. His
stocks underdogs that made good — were graphed with paper and
pencil. He once gave 1,000 shares in a Canadian gold-mining company
to a student. Hold on to these, he said; gold is coming back.
At night high school, P.O. taught social studies, geography, politics,
survival skills, personal finance, the stock market and real life. He
also taught handyman repair: He could do it all himself.
Night school stayed at Adams until Adams closed as a high school in
1981. It then moved to Grant, where it remains.
P.O. saw some of his former students go on to make good. Although
wedding invitations came regularly in the mail, he refused to attend.
He despised weddings, funerals, organized religion, and gift-giving
and receiving.
In 1990, his wife suddenly died. He made himself available to baby-sit
grandchildren on a moment’s notice, and since 1992 had a girlfriend.
Before he retired, P.O. lived in a decaying North Portland neighborhood
near a notorious prostitution zone. His wife was once mugged at
their home. But when others were fleeing, P.O. refused to move. He
didn’t like the suburbs and predicted a resurgence of Portland’s
inner city. He maintained a free soda machine in the garage for
neighborhood kids.
Near retirement, P.O. and his wife moved to a house on a North
Portland bluff. Every morning , he hosted a club of friends at his
kitchen table, where World War II and political topics were cussed
and discussed. P.O. was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and he
read The New Republic and Mother Jones, with a concession to The Wall
Street Journal. Gore Vidal was without a doubt his favorite author.
Around his home on the bluff, kids like to smoke weed, drink and drive
gangsta-looking cars booming tunes from behind darkened windows. He
was not afraid. He installed a bench, loaned them tools and invited
them to park in his driveway. “Hey, P.O.” they called when he walked
out. Those were his kind of kids.