Turkey sends a diplomatic note to Bern (in German)

Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Mittwoch 27 Juli 2005
Turkey sends a diplomatic note to Bern: Reaction to Perinçek’s
interrogation
Die Türkei kündigt Bern eine diplomatische Note an
Reaktion auf Einvernahme von Perinçek

it. Istanbul, 26. Juli
Die offiziellen Reaktionen der Türkei auf die Ermittlungen, die in
der Schweiz gegen den Vorsitzenden der Arbeiterpartei, Dou Perinçek,
letztes Wochenende aufgenommen wurden, wollen noch nicht nachlassen.
Am Dienstag hat der Sprecher des türkischen Aussenministeriums, Namik
Tan, mit einer «diplomatischen Note an die Adresse Berns» gedroht.
Die Einvernahme des türkischen Politikers habe in der Türkei
«Unbehagen» ausgelöst, was man Bern auch habe wissen lassen, erklärte
er am Dienstag der Presse. Seine Regierung warte nun auf eine
Entscheidung des Schweizer Staatsanwalts, wolle aber unabhängig von
dieser Entscheidung Bern eine diplomatische Note überreichen.
Dou Perinçek war in den siebziger und achtziger Jahren als linker
Politiker bekannt gewesen, geriet aber nach Mitte der neunziger Jahre
in die Grauzone des betont nationalistischen Lagers. Letzten Freitag
hatte er in Opfikon-Glattbrugg an einer Medienkonferenz zum 82.
Jahrestag des Lausanner Vertrags den von zahlreichen Parlamenten und
Regierungen anerkannten «Völkermord an den Armeniern» als Lüge
bezeichnet. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Winterthur/Unterland eröffnete
darauf von Amtes wegen eine Untersuchung und führte eine Einvernahme
von Perinçek durch. Eine Untersuchung war in der Schweiz zuvor auch
gegen den türkischen Historiker Yusuf Halaçolu eingeleitet worden.
Dieser bestreitet einen von den Osmanen verübten Völkermord an den
Armeniern ebenfalls vehement. Der Pressesprecher des türkischen
Aussenministeriums unterstrich, die Wiederholung des Ereignisses
trage offenbar nicht zur Verbesserung der bilateralen Beziehungen
bei.
Eine Aufgabe der Justiz
C. W. Wer eine Person oder Gruppe «wegen ihrer Rasse, Ethnie oder
Religion in einer gegen die Menschenwürde verstossenden Weise
herabsetzt oder diskriminiert oder aus einem dieser Gründe Völkermord
oder andere Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit leugnet, gröblich
verharmlost oder zu rechtfertigen sucht», wird nach schweizerischem
Recht mit Gefängnis oder Busse bestraft. Der Armeniermord von 1915
fällt unabhängig von einer «Anerkennung» durch den Bundesrat
zweifellos unter die Strafnorm – wie immer man diese politisch
beurteilen mag. Marcel Niggli schreibt in seinem juristischen
Kommentar zudem, dass der Leugnung eines Genozids in der Regel
rassistische Motive zugrunde liegen dürften. Auch wenn das Resultat
der Untersuchungen gegen türkische Nationalisten nicht vorwegzunehmen
ist, hatten die zuständigen Behörden in der Schweiz Grund, aktiv zu
werden. Ein ausländischer Politiker – nicht Parlamentarier – kann
keine Sonderstellung beanspruchen. Die Regierung des zur EU
strebenden Europaratsmitglieds Türkei müsste eigentlich Verständnis
für die Aufgaben einer unabhängigen Justiz aufbringen (die sich von
den politischen Gesten schweizerischer Parlamente für die Armenier
klar unterscheiden). So sollte seinerseits der Bundesrat auf
diplomatischen Druck eines wichtigen Wirtschaftspartners gelassen
reagieren können.

Azerbaijan not to achieve military supremacy soon – Armenian defence

Azerbaijan not to achieve military supremacy soon – Armenian defence minister
Yerkir website
25 Jul 05
YEREVAN
If the combat readiness of the Azerbaijani armed forces was five
minutes ahead of the Armenian armed forces, then Azerbaijan would try
to solve Nagornyy Karabakh problem in a military way, Armenian Defence
Minister said at a meeting with participants in the third Pan-Armenian
Youth Forum on 23 July.
He said that Azerbaijani presidents have been saying for several years
that they can solve the Nagornyy Karabakh problem in a military way,
however, “there is a question – if they can, why are they not doing
it”.
The minister said that in 2005 Armenia has not been even one penny
behind Azerbaijan in financing its armed forces. The Armenian armed
forces have been financed by the state budget and with the help of
allies, benefactors and various organizations, which is the accepted
norm in the world.
Armenia’s position is that if Azerbaijan has more weapons, it will not
make any difference because Azerbaijan will not achieve supremacy in
the near future, Sarkisyan said.

Azerbaijani soldier killed in Nagorno-Karabakh shootout

Azerbaijani soldier killed in Nagorno-Karabakh shootout
AP Worldstream; Jul 21, 2005
An Azerbaijani soldier was killed during an exchange of gunfire with
Armenian-backed forces from the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave,
a defense ministry spokesman said Thursday.
Pvt. Rafael Jafarov, 19, was shot Tuesday and died en route to the
hospital, said spokesman Ramiz Melikov. He blamed Jafarov’s death on
Armenian-backed forces.
Armenian officials could not be immediately be reached for comment.
Nagorno-Karabakh has been under control of ethnic Armenians since a
six-year war against Azerbaijan ended with a 1994 cease-fire. The war
killed some 30,000 people and drove a million from their homes. The
enclave’s status remains unresolved and tensions remain high along
the cease-fire line with both sides regularly exchanging fire.
Meanwhile, in meetings with President Ilham Aliev in Baku, Turkish
Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul pledged to help Azerbaijan reform its
army and make it more efficient. Gonul also met with Azerbaijan’s
foreign minister to discuss cooperation with NATO and ways to solve
the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.
Turkey is Azerbaijan’s closest ally in the region.

BEIRUT: Amid the deepening insecurity Urgent efforts to form agovern

Amid the deepening insecurity Urgent efforts to form a government
Monday Morning weekly, Lebanon
July 18 2005
President Emile Lahoud, who is said to want to see a blocking
minority available in the new cabinet
Premier-designate Fuad Saniora, who said he had no wish to experience
the kind of cabinet deadlock seen in previous governments
General Aoun’s Bloc of Reform and Change meeting after it decided not
to join the “cabinet of the 30”
Saad Hariri: Resolutely optimistic
Walid Jumblatt: No to a cabinet of technocrats
Hezballah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whose party was determined
to get the Foreign Affairs portfolio
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem: “Syria has absolutely
no interest in committing attacks in Lebanon which cause innocent
victims”
BCCIA President Adnan Kassar: Worries about “political immobilism”
Trucks waiting in the no-man’s land between the Syrian and Lebanese
frontier posts last week. Lebanese business groups say they are losing
300,000 dollars a day as a result of the slow processing of goods at
the frontier
Nothing is right anymore at the governmental level, especially after
Prime Minister-designate Fuad Saniora submitted to President Emile
Lahoud a cabinet team comprising 30 members instead of the alternative
of 24 ministers on which the parliamentary blocs had agreed. While
opinions are divided concerning the reasons that led him to change
the governmental combination, Saniora justified himself before the
president, who received him in the morning. The day before he had had
a phone conversation with the Maronite patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah
Sfeir, on the same subject. The cardinal’s view of the matter was
not immediately known.
The situation was so complex that circles close to Saniora disclosed
that he went to Baabda Palace having prepared a letter in which he
asked to be allowed to relinquish the task of forming a cabinet. And if
he did not get the presidential green light on the enlarged formula,
he would either try to return to that of 24 ministers or to opt for
a government of technocrats.
How long, observers wonder, can the country continue with a resigned
government doing no more than transacting routine business and a
premier-designate opposed by three large parliamentary blocs: the
Free Patriotic Current (FPC), the Amal Movement and Hezballah and
their allies.
Following a meeting of his Bloc of Reform and Change (BRC), General
Michel Aoun announced his decision not to take part in the “cabinet of
30”, which went against the agreement concluded with Saad Hariri and
Saniora. He added, “I tried not to complicate the premier-designate’s
task, but he has changed his attitude and only reserved for us a
number of portfolios less than that to which we are entitled… let
them form a ministerial combination of their choice but I won’t cover
anyone. I thought I was dealing with statesmen, but I realize that
they are maneuvering to monopolize all the wheels of power. Public
matters cannot be dealt with in this way.”
Saad Hariri did not conceal his regret and accused “certain allies of
the FPC leader of preventing him of cooperating” with the Hariri group.
Hezballah’s point of view Circles close to Baabda revealed that
Speaker Nabih Berri was demanding seven portfolios in the event
the “cabinet of 30” formula was adopted. Hezballah’s viewpoint was
set out by South Metn MP Ali Ammar. “From the beginning”, he said,
“we called for installation of a government of union or of national
reconciliation capable of facing all challenges on both the internal
and external levels. We hoped to see Saniora taking the principle of
consensual democracy into consideration as well as that of the balanced
representation of the various political forces and groups. This is
the only formula that can help Lebanon get out of this situation and
the long tunnel of pressures and difficulties. And we warn against
allowing the country to return to the system of dividing spoils.”
After two weeks of consultations and maneuvering, no progress had
been made. But Saad Hariri was convinced that everything would be
arranged in a way satisfactory to the great majority of the people.
Why a cabinet of 30?
The explosion that targeted former Defense Minister Elias Murr should
have normally accelerated the formation of the cabinet, but in fact
it was the contrary that occurred.
The reason is that on last Tuesday the premier-designate submitted
to the president a government formed of 30 members instead of 24 on
which the various parliamentary forces had agreed.
This provoked hostile reactions: first of all, from the president,
who complained that the proposed ministerial team was insufficiently
representative of opinion in the country.
For its part, the FPC demanded to be represented by five ministers
in a cabinet of 30, a formula on which it had agreed with Saad Hariri
during the general’s recent visit to Hariri’s home. Finally, Amal and
Hezballah did not conceal their disappointment either, especially
since they were not consulted about the increase in the number of
ministers proposed and the sharing-out of portfolios on a new basis.
The governmental team proposed — the third proposal — by Saniora
comprised: Nayla Mouawad, Jihad Azour, Ghattas Khoury, Joseph Sarkis,
Simon Abi-Ramia, Pierre Gemayel (Maronites); Bahij Tabbara, Hassan
Sabeh, Khaled Kabbani, Mohammad Safadi, Ahmad Fatfat (Sunnites); Elias
Murr, Issam Abou-Jamra, Tarek Mitri, Atef Majdalani (Greek Orthodox);
Marwan Hamade, Ghazi Aridi and Faisal Sayegh (Druzes); Michel Pharaon,
Nehme Tohme, Elias Skaff (Greek Catholics); Jean Oghassabian, Alain
Tabourian (Armenians); Faouzi Salloukh, Mohammad Fneish, Mohammad
Khalife, Trad Hamade, Nawar Sahili, Ghazi Youssef (Shiites).
Why the increase in the size of the cabinet from 24 to 30? Certainly
analysts answer in these terms: the new majority wants to prevent
the formation of a “blocking third” inside the cabinet, which would
comprise representatives of the FPC, Lahoudists and Hezballah, still
close to the Administration — nine ministers in a cabinet of 24. If
the Aounists are deprived of two portfolios, such a “blocking third”
could not be formed.
In any case, protracted political instability is unlikely to
restore desperately needed confidence to an economy burdened by
a 35-billion-dollar national debt built up during reconstruction
following the 1975-90 war. Adnan Kassar, president of the Beirut
Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture, expressed fears about
a worsening of economic, financial and social problems.
“The country can’t stay with two cabinets, one outgoing, the other in
gestation. It’s urgent that we put in place a cabinet up to the level
of the reforms needed. We need ministers who inspire confidence. The
international community won’t help Lebanon if it doesn’t help itself,
as President Jacques Chirac said at the G8 summit.”
An extra-parliamentary cabinet?
On Thursday the premier-designate announced his intention to form
an extra-parliamentary cabinet of 14 or of 24 ministers after the
failure of two attempts to form a government of national union.
“After consulting President Lahoud, I proposed to him the formation
of an extra-parliamentary cabinet comprising non-party personalities
who possess the confidence of the principal parliamentary blocs,”
Saniora told reporters following a 45-minute audience at Baabda
Palace. “The president encouraged me to proceed on that path.”
Sources close to the president said he was hoping for a repetition of
the experience of Najib Mikati, whose non-parliamentary government,
set up to supervise the general elections, had made a very good
impression on local and international opinion.
Named the prime minister-designate on June 30 by the president,
Saniora was making his third attempt to form a cabinet. His two
previous attempts had been rejected by the president, the Shiite
Amal-Hezballah coalition (33 MPs) and the bloc of Aoun and his allies
(21 MPs).
Saniora, right-hand man of Saad Hariri, the head of the parliamentary
majority (72 out of 128), stated that “the situation requires a
homogeneous team that would not become bogged down in squabbles,
as was the case in the time” of Rafik Hariri.
He was referring to the conflicts between the assassinated former
premier and President Lahoud, which had prevented reforms and partly
paralyzed the Executive.
This remark by Saniora led observers to wonder whether, in making
his third attempt, he would not meet with the same problems he had
encountered in his previous attempts.
Hezballah, which rejects UN Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding
the disarming of its party, wants a man it can have confidence in as
foreign minister. Reacting to Saniora’s announcement on Thursday,
the “Hezb” said it would insist on respect for the parliamentary
balances. And a frank hostility to any non-parliamentary cabinet was
shown by two FPC MPs, Nehmatallah Abi-Nasr and Salim Salhab, while
observers suggested that Walid Jumblatt’s bloc (16 MPs) would also
oppose it.
But analysts noted that numerous parliamentary blocs had earlier
welcomed the idea of an extra-parliamentary government and, more
generally, the proposal that MPs should not serve as cabinet ministers,
nor ministers as MPs.
Analysts also spoke of actions by President Lahoud, who had by turns
been the advocate of the Amal-Hezballah tandem and of the FPC in order
to have a blocking minority in the cabinet and prevent Saniora from
having the support of more than two-thirds of the ministers.
And while the president and the premier-designate may agree that
the new government should be the exact reflection of the new chamber
elected in May-June, their interpretations of this fact are in complete
contradiction, observers point out. Saniora holds that Saad Hariri’s
Future Current, to which he belongs, having an absolute majority in
the chamber, should have the same majority in the cabinet.
For the president, however, there must be a blocking minority within
the cabinet so that a procedure for dismissing a government may
always be available in the event of a grave conflict between the
prime minister and the president, as in the case of a fundamental
disagreement between the two heads of the Executive.
According to the Constitution, a government is considered to have
resigned if a third of its members resign. This is practically the
only power over the Executive that still remains to a president,
analysts indicate.
Saniora said he had set a deadline for himself to form a cabinet,
but he did not elaborate. Persons close to him indicated however that
he would stand down if he had not succeeded by the end of the week.
Saniora added that “the greatest danger that Lebanon runs is an
immobilism like that which prevailed during the governments of Mr.
Hariri. I don’t want to repeat that experience.”
On Friday Saniora presented proposal number four, a cabinet of 24.
Lahoud’s rejection of the previous three, palace sources said, was
due to the fact that they were “not sufficiently representative of
national opinion and would therefore not be a cabinet of national
union.” Saniora said the fourth attempt was the best combination he
was capable of and would garner the support of about 100 MPs. He said
he would “have to reassess the situation in the light of President
Lahoud’s reaction to the [fourth] proposal.” He stressed that the
cabinet would abide by “national considerations” and would not be
“a hostage to any internal debates.”
Walid Jumblatt spoke out strongly against any non-parliamentary
cabinet. “We refuse to discuss a government of technocrats,” he told
an interviewer.
“Such a government would not be up to the challenges facing it,
particularly getting to grips with security,” he said in reference
to the spate of bombings that have rocked Lebanon since the February
murder of Rafik Hariri.
He called on the main opposition alliance to use its eight-seat
majority in Parliament to press ahead with forming a government of
its own, regardless of the views of Lahoud.
“If Lahoud rejects it, we’ll know what to do,” he said, referring to
calls for the president to stand down over his links with Syria and the
security apparatus it nurtured before its troop withdrawal in April.
Saad Hariri has previously said that he wants to move cautiously on
the question of Lahoud’s future because of the “sensitivity” of the
issue. The president was given an extra three years in office under
a controversial amendment adopted last autumn.
“Given the pressure which Lebanon is under, the new government must
have the credibility to face the challenges,” a Hezballah source said.
And an Aoun aide said: “You can’t separate such a government from
politics because it’s got to take political decisions.”

UEFA Champ.League; FC Haka 1- FC Pyunik 0

Pasoja boosts Haka hopes
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
Finnish side FC Haka took a step towards setting up a
Scandinavian derby when they defeated FC Pyunik 1-0 in
the first leg of their UEFA Champions League first
qualifying round encounter in Valkeakoski.

Vålerenga await
Juha Pasoja’s solitary goal left the Armenian visitors
facing an uphill task if they are to progress to the
second qualifying round, where Vålerenga IF, the team
who finished second in Norway last year, lie in wait.
First-half strike
Haka, who won the Finnish First Division in 2004 but
trail leaders Myllykosken Pallo-47 by six points at
the halfway stage of the current campaign, went ahead
through 28-year-old defender Pasoja midway through the
first half.
Damage limitation
However, last season’s runaway Armenian Premier League
champions Pyunik managed to limit the damage and will
hope to overturn the 1-0 deficit when they stage the
second leg next Wednesday.

Kamo Atayan appointed to the post of NKR Education, Culture, Sports

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 14 2005
KAMO ATAYAN APPOINTED TO THE POST OF NKR EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
SPORTS MINISTER
YEREVAN, July 14. /ARKA/. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s President
Arkady Ghukasyan signed a decree appointing Kamo Atayan to the post
of Nagorno-Karabakh Education, Culture and Sports Minister, NKR
Presidential Press Service reports.
Before that, Kamo Atayan was the Secretary of the Council of Armenian
State Universities Rectors. M.V. -0–

BAKU: Mediators’ visit raises hopes

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
July 14 2005
Mediators’ visit raises hopes

Another visit by the OSCE mediators to Baku raised hopes for settling
the long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper Garabagh.
The co-chairs of the mediating OSCE Minsk Group did not cite an exact
timeframe for the conflict resolution but said a peace accord between
the conflicting sides may be signed soon.
Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov told a news conference on the
results of the mediators’ two-day visit to Azerbaijan on Tuesday that
the talks held over the past year have been more beneficial than
before. He said that developing the wording of a peace agreement may
take several months.
“We would certainly like for this to happen sooner. As you know, the
Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents will meet in Kazan [Russia] in
August. But developing a draft peace agreement in the same timeframe
is not feasible.”
Radio Liberty quoted a high-ranking diplomatic source as saying that
most issues on the conflict settlement ‘have already been agreed
upon’ and the parties are working ‘on several remaining provisions’
of the peace accord.
The Garabagh conflict may be settled as early as this year or early
in 2006 and the parties are likely to reach an agreement at the
Presidents’ meeting in Kazan.
US co-chair Steven Mann said the timing for the conflict resolution
is uncertain and will depend ‘on the will of the sides’.
“The peace accord may be signed in the coming months or in 100 years.
The issue depends on the heads of state as well as the two peoples. I
believe that both presidents deserve the international community’s
assistance in solving the problem.”
The co-chair said that no new proposals were discussed in Baku. “We
held broader discussions and received more comprehensive explanations
this time”, he said.
Touching upon the possibility of restoring the road connecting
Azerbaijan with Armenia through Upper Garabagh, Mann said he
discussed this with the head of the Azerbaijani community of Garabagh
Nizami Bahmanov as well as Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov. He
noted, however, that it is inappropriate ‘to add the issue to the
range of matters being discussed at this point’.
Commenting on some assumptions that Russia may apply pressure on
Armenia, the Russian co-chair said this contradicts reality.
“Russia cannot rule Armenia. In general, I do not consider this
wording appropriate as Armenians may be offended by it. Russian State
Duma (parliament) chairman Boris Gryzlov did call Armenia a forepost
of Russia a while ago. But we should keep in mind that everyone makes
mistakes and Gryzlov is not an exception.”
Merzlyakov noted that Russia has no ‘separatist peace plans’ on the
Garabagh conflict resolution. “Moscow has shown its unequivocal
approach on this issue. President Putin laid out these principles
several years ago”, he said.
French co-chair Bernard Fassier said the mediators support continuing
the peace process, recalling the Warsaw meeting of Azerbaijani and
Armenian Presidents.
“They realize that an end should be put to war, the occupied land
liberated and refugees returned home. The two Presidents said in our
meetings that the primary goals are to ensure the prosperity of the
two peoples. They understand that this is possible only after peace
is restored in the region.”
“If we take major steps in this direction, the people will start
understanding the benefit of regional peace prospects. We hope the
cities will be restored and lands returned. The people will see the
importance of this and contribute to the process.”
In reply to a statement at a news briefing that a referendum is
scheduled in Upper Garabagh in 10-15 years to determine its status,
Russian co-chair Merzlyakov declined to comment, citing the
confidentiality of the talks. He somewhat clarified the issue
currently being discussed, saying that the parties continue working
to establish framework for the agreements reached during the Paris
talks.
“These elements may be vital for the conflict resolution and envision
the demands of the sides. There is no need to disclose them.”
The French co-chair Fassier disagreed with the statements accusing
the Minsk Group of the lack of activity, saying that the co-chairs
have carried out extensive work on the conflict resolution.
“If no progress has been achieved, we are not to blame. We will be
able to revitalize the process. But we cannot ensure that the parties
will show political will [to resolve the problem].
With regard to some statements that the democratic processes in the
region will greatly affect the conflict resolution, Fassier said this
‘will have a certain impact’ on the negotiations. He also voiced a
hope that the November parliamentary election in Azerbaijan will be
democratic.
As for the involvement of neighboring states in the negotiations, the
French co-chair said he does object to this ‘in principle’. He did
not rule out that Iran, Turkey and Georgia may join the process.
The US co-chair generally approved of the suggestion but came out
against Iran’s involvement in the talks. “As an American, I do not
want to be involved in discussions with Iran”, he said.
The MG co-chairs will leave for Yerevan on Wednesday. They are
further expected to visit Upper Garabagh despite serious discontent
from the radical Garabagh Liberation Organization (GLO).
GLO attempted to hold a picket outside the Foreign Ministry on Monday
in protest against the mediators’ planned visit to Upper Garabagh
through Yerevan.
The protest action came amidst Foreign Minister Mammadyarov’s meeting
with the co-chairs. The protesters demanded that the mediators visit
Garabagh through Azerbaijan but not Armenia. “The co-chairs should
stop visiting Garabagh via Yerevan”, GLO said in a statement.

Baltica Brewing Co to Export More Than 30.000 Dal Beer to ROA in 05

IN 2005 “BALTICA” BREWING COMPANY PLANS TO EXPORT TO ARMENIA MORE THAN
30.000 DAL OF BEER
YEREVAN, JULY 12. ARMINFO. “Baltica” brewing company plans to export
to Armenia more than 30.000 dal of beer in 2005, higher by almost
twice than the last year index, company’s massage says.
“Baltica” has resumed regular supplies of its production to Armenia
and Georgia. 5.000 dal and more than 25.000 dal of beer have been
supplied to Armenia and Georgia respectively so far. The Company
supplies its production to 38 countries. In 2004, total volume of
company’s export sales grew by 14% as against 2003 and made up 11.3
mln dal. In 2005, they plan to grow export sales till 13.5 mln dal.
To note, according to Armenia’s National Statistical Service, 8.7 mln
liter of beer were produced in Armenia in 2004 – higher by 18.8% than
in 2003. There is no information about both import and export of beer
in the report.

Patriarch Visits Plovdiv Armenian Community

Lraper Church Bulletin 11/07/2005
Contact: Deacon Vagharshag Seropyan
Armenian Patriarchate
TR-34130 Kumkapi, Istanbul
T: +90 (212) 517-0970, 517-0971
F: +90 (212) 516-4833, 458-1365
[email protected]
[email protected]
<; ARMENIAN PATRIARCH VISITS PLOVDIV ARMENIAN COMMUNITY His Beatitude Mesrob II, Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul and All Turkey, left Istanbul on Saturday 25 June 2005 for Plovdiv in Bulgaria in order to preside over the 75th birthday, 50th anniversary of priestly ordination and 45th anniversary of episcopal ordination of His Grace Archbishop Dirayr Mardigyan of Romania and Bulgaria. Having said the pilgrimage prayer in the Holy Mother of God Patriarchal Church in Kumkapi, the Patriarch travelled by car, accompanied by the Reverend Fathers John Whooley and Drtad Uzunyan. The Very Revd. Fr. Yeghishe Uchkunyan had already left for Plovdiv on Friday 24 June by bus, heading a group of 90 pilgrims, members of the Surp Takavor Armenian Church Choir and their families. His Beatitude was met at the Bulgarian border by the Very Revd. Fr. Yeghishe Uchkunyan, the Vice-Chairman of the Armenian Diocesan Council of Bulgaria Yeghyazar Uzunyan, and Mgrdic Sertsimsek, an Armenian benefactor from Istanbul. His Beatitude and his entourage were then invited to lunch at a restaurant in the city of Svilengrad in Bulgaria by the Diocesan Council. The group arrived in Plovdiv around 16:00 hours and checked into the Novotel where they were to stay overnight. His Beatitude was met at the entrance of the hotel by His Grace the Armenian Archbishop of Romania and Bulgaria and by Bedros Sirinoglu, the Chairman of the Board of Administrators of Surp Prgic Armenian Hospital in Yedikule, Istanbul. At 19:00 hours, the Patriarch was taken on a short tour of the city of Plovdiv, visited Pinarcik Hill with its magnificent panorama of the city and its environs and then visited the Armenian Cemetery in Plovdiv, where he visited the Saint John the Baptist Chapel and said a prayer for the repose of the souls of all deceased believers before the monument of the Armenian Martyrs. At 20:00 hours, His Beatitude joined Archbishop Dirayr for an official dinner, attended by the Very Revd. Fr. Yeghishe Uchkunyan, the Reverend Fr. John Whooley, the Reverend Fr. Drtad Uzunyan, the Revd. Archpriest Kevork Khatcheryan of Plovdiv, Mr and Mrs Yeghyazar and Victoria Uzunyan, Mr and Mrs Bedros and Leda Shirinoglu and Mr Mgrdic Sertsimsek. The Divine Liturgy and the Following Celebration The services in the historic Armenian Church in the old quarter of Plovdiv began at 09:00 hours on Sunday, 26 June 2005. His Beatitude the Patriarch presided over the services, while Fr. Yeghishe Uchkunyan offered the Holy Eucharist. Participating were Archbishop Dirayr Mardigyan, the other clergymen, the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia in Sofia, His Excellency Sergei Manasaryan, the pilgrims from Istanbul and members of the Armenian community of Plovdiv. The hymns during the liturgy were sung by the members of the Surp Takavor Church Choir, conducted by Sevan Shencan. His Beatitude delivered a homily mentioning the week of fasting which preceded the Feast of the Holy Transfiguration of Christ our Lord. He then offered some considerations on the great confession of Saint Peter the Apostle at Caesarea Philippi. Answering the Lord's question, "Who do you say I am?", Saint Peter the Apostle replied: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15). The Lord answered, "On this rock I will build my church..." (v. 16:18). At the end of his homily, reminding those present of the anniversaries celebrated, His Beatitude made a public tribute to Archbishop Dirayr's long years of service to God, to the Church and the Armenian people and wished him happiness and good health for many more years to come. The Patriarchal Bull of His Holiness Catholicos Karekin II of All Armenians was brought in and His Beatitude Patriarch Mesrob solemnly read it from the bema. Archbishop Dirayr then thanked Catholicos Karekin II and Patriarch Mesrob II for the honour they had given him and recalled the memory of the former primates of the Diocese, Bishop Ghevont Turyan, Archbishop Stepanos Hovagimyan, Bishop Yervant Perdahciyan and Bishop Kusan Garabetyan, who had all served under the aegis of the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople, being not far from the metropolis. To conclude this part of the service, Patriarch Mesrob blessed and dismissed the faithful. The Patriarch then visited the little museum of church artefacts adjacent to the Armenian Church of Plovdiv, following which he presided over the luncheon at the cultural centre in the same complex. Armenian children and youths had prepared an outstanding cultural programme that consisted of poetry, folk dancing and songs which received an enthusiastic ovation from the full hall. Archbishop Dirayr Mardigyan delivered a humorous speech and then presented benefactors Bedros Sirinoglu, Mgrdic Sertsimsek and the Revd. Fr. Drtad Uzunyan with gifts of original paintings from Plovdiv. The concluding speech was delivered by the Patriarch who invited Archbishop Dirayr Mardigyan to Istanbul in order to celebrate his anniversaries there as well. His Beatitude also presented Yeghyazar Uzunyan (Chairman of the Plovdiv Parish Council and Vice-Chairman of the Diocesan Council), Hripsime Tovmasyan (teacher of the children and the youths who had performed), and the Revd. Archpriest Kevork Khatcheryan of Plovdiv with Armenian language books published in Istanbul. The Patriarch then took a stroll through the streets of old Plovdiv, visiting antique shops and church suppliers'. After a short rest at the hotel, he returned to his see in Istanbul by car.

www.lraper.org

Objectives of cultural policy

Objectives of cultural policy
Editorial
Yerkir/arm
8 July 05
Preservation of the cultural identity is not only a cultural issue for
us but first of all an issue of national identity preservation.
Taking into account that the free Armenian republic is based on the
political will of free living, the preservation of national identity
is of vital importance to us. Preservation of national identity is
best in terms of statehood.
For the Armenian nation, independent statehood first of all implies
preservation of identity on the historical, cultural field.
For centuries on having no statehood, we eventually shaped a state due
to that the territory of the population matched the cultural
territory. It is due to the national culture that Armenians differ
from other nations and reproduce themselves as a society.
However, we should clearly distinguish between cultural preservation
and cultural isolation. Certain actions, trying to defy the Western
cultural expansion, simp0ly isolate themselves.
This type of cultural preservation cannot be acceptable for our
nation, since modern Armenian culture is open and creative. Thus, our
issue of cultural preservation and reproduction is not about deepening
our national traditions but shaping a policy of reproduction
mechanisms identity preservation.
Thus, the basic issue today is acknowledge and express the creative
potential of the national culture. We should not focus on mere
preservation of national values and traditions but on creating
conditions for expression of our human resources potential.