Author: Kanayan Tamar

RELIGIOUS COMPROMISE
By Richard Miniter

Wall Street Journal
June 1 2007

Van, Turkey

Our story starts with a small sandstone 10th-century Armenian church,
on an uninhabited rock less than 500 yards wide, in a remote Turkish
lake that changes colors like moods and sometimes bubbles like soda.

If you had seen the ruins of it, as I did in 2000, you might cry. Its
roof was gone. Its bas-reliefs, chiseled by master carvers a millennium
ago, of Adam and Eve, of saints and kings, were wearing away in the
wind. It was an empty husk that had not heard a Mass in more than
90 years.

In March, after years of painstaking restoration, Turkey reopened the
church as a museum. Among the ambassadors and visitors at the opening
ceremonies, I roamed the grounds. The building is now magnificent.

Its roof is restored and its reliefs cleaned.

Church of the Holy Cross in Van, Turkey The Church of the Holy Cross
is one of the holiest sites for Armenian Christians, who once made
up one-third of the population around Van.

They were driven out by the Ottomans in 1915, when some were suspected
of supporting Russia-backed terrorist attacks. During World War I,
the Ottomans were allied with Germany and Austria, fighting Russia,
Britain and France. While most Turkish historians concede there was a
massacre of Armenians (while pointing out that Armenians slaughtered
Turks from 1890 to 1915 and that most Armenians were relocated,
not slain), they hesitate to call it genocide. The Armenians do not
hesitate — and sometimes compare it to the Holocaust. The Armenian
Diaspora has emerged as a real political force in Western Europe,
complicating Turkey’s plans to join the European Union.

The re-opening of the church was a peace offering by the AKP,
Turkey’s Islam-oriented ruling party, but all did not run smoothly at
first. After spending millions on the structure, the Turkish government
refused to restore the stone cross on the steeple. Turkish journalists
were quick to criticize. Ultimately, common sense prevailed.

"I cannot say we will have the stone-cross back there tomorrow, but
I do not see any problem in that," Culture Minister Attilla Koc said.

He wanted time for an "academic council" to consider the
issue. Mr. Koc’s answer might not sound "revolutionary" to our ears,
but Turkish News columnist Yusuf Kanli declared it so. Many Christian
churches have been waiting for decades for permission to restore
their churches at their own expense.

At the opening of the Church of the Holy Cross, I met George Kumar,
bishop of Turkey’s some 20,000 remaining Roman Catholics. He said
that five churches in Istanbul alone are still awaiting approval to
be repaired. "I wish they would let us restore all of the churches,"
he said softly, but he doesn’t want to push. "We will wait and pray."

Nor did Armenian Christians who attended the opening ceremonies
complain. They told me that they were there for history and for
peace. Of course, the Turks would buy a lot of goodwill by lifting
restrictions on repairing churches. Many Turkish politicians (even
members of the AKP) see it this way. But Egemen Bagis, the prime
minister’s foreign policy adviser and a member of Parliament, says
that "Turkey is a democracy, not a sultanate." Rebuilding churches
here is like building mosques in America and Europe, controversial
among ordinary citizens. Still, the blind machinery of the law lets
mosques go up in Boston, Chicago and the rural plains of Virginia.

Italy and Spain have seen some of the world’s largest mosques change
their skylines.

Mr. Bagis stresses religious tolerance. "In my neighborhood in
Istanbul, there are Christians, Muslims and Jews living side-by-side.

My children have Christian and Jewish friends." He is right. That is
the way forward.

So far, everyone has acted with admirable restraint. The Armenian
Patriarch, who spoke at the opening ceremonies, asked only if a Mass
could be celebrated in the church once a year. The culture minister
may let a cross grace the roof. Some 3,000 people have visited the
church since its re-opening earlier this spring. Turkey’s critics
focus on its Ottoman past and, more recently, its Islam-oriented
ruling party. They miss the spirit of compromise that prevails in
the republic. It is this spirit that unites Turkey with the West
and separates it from its Middle East neighbors. A difference made
manifest by a small church in Van.

Mr. Miniter is the Washington editor of PajamasMedia.com and a fellow
at the Hudson Institute.

DASHNAKS AGAIN MEET KOCHARIAN ON NEW COALITION
By Ruzanna Khachatrian

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
June 1 2007

The leadership of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(Dashnaktsutyun) was having what appeared to be final deliberations
on its continued presence in Armenia’s government on Friday after
holding more talks with President Robert Kocharian.

Hrant Markarian, the de facto head of its worldwide governing Bureau,
told RFE/RL that Kocharian presented him and other top party leaders
with "new proposals" on the terms of Dashnaktsutyun’s involvement in
a coalition government to be formed by Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian.

Markarian refused to disclose those proposals, saying only that they
will be presented to the governing Supreme Body of the Dashnaktsutyun
organization in Armenia. The body met later on Friday but made no
decisions apart from instructing its collective leadership to draft
a response to Kocharian’s proposals.

"The meeting was adjourned," a senior party member, Gegham Manukian,
told RFE/RL. "Discussions will continue later on."

Party officials say that the Supreme Body, of which Markarian is
not a member, will have a final say on the matter, even though it is
formally subordinated to the Bureau dominated by Diaspora Armenians.

Markarian implied that the influential party, which has branches in
virtually all major Armenian communities abroad, will announce on
Saturday whether or not it will join Sarkisian’s cabinet.

Markarian and the top Supreme Body member, Armen Rustamian, already
met Kocharian on Wednesday but apparently failed to reach any
agreement. Lragir.am reported that they also held more with Sarkisian
and other senior representatives of the governing Republican Party
(HHK) in Kocharian’s presence late Thursday. According to the online
news service, the Dashnaktsutyun leaders again rejected Sarkisian’s
demands that they commit themselves to supporting him in next year’s
presidential election in return for retaining their control over
three or four government ministries.

Dashnaktsutyun endorsement would give a major boost to Sarkisian’s
chances of succeeding Kocharian as president early next year.

Observers believe this is the reason why he is ready to share power
with the center-left nationalist party despite the fact that his
HHK won an outright majority in the Armenian parliament in the May
12 elections. Dashnaktsutyun, by comparison, will have only 16 seats
in the 131-member National Assembly.

In an interview with RFE/RL earlier this week, Markarian said his party
is seeking a greater say in the formulation of key government policies
and will not be "bribed" by ministerial portfolios. He and other party
leaders had earlier demanded that Armenia’s next defense minister be
affiliated with Dashnaktsutyun. However, the HHK’s landslide election
victory all but ruled out such possibility.

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION LEADER WARNS COUNTERPART TO ACCEPT DEFECTIONS

Arminfo
1 Jun 07

Yerevan, 1 June: New Times party leader Aram Karapetyan sympathizes
with People’s Party of Armenia [PPA] leader Stepan Demirchyan over
the intention of Demirchyan’s two deputies to leave the party.

Karapetyan told Arminfo that he sympathized with Demirchyan but a p
olitician, and especially a party leader, should always be prepared
to the fact that some of his friends may betray and leave him in
hardships. "What can you do, it is their choice. Similar things happen
in politics," Karapetyan said.

It was reported earlier that PPA board secretary Vardan Lazarian has
announced he was going to leave the party. Another board secretary,
Stepan Zakaryan, has said he too may leave the party.

PROBLEM
Ara Papian

Azat Artsakh Daily, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
30 May 07

The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict some people say is
possible through conciliation of the allegedly contradicting principles
of territorial integrity and self-determination of peoples. In speaking
about territorial integrity mainly two documents are referred to, the
Charter of the United Nations (1945) and the Conference on Security
and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act (1975). Let us go through
these documents to see if these references are relevant. First,
let us consider the principles of self-determination of peoples and
territorial integrity according to the Charter of the United Nations
to reveal their legal content in the document and thereby their
relevance to the international law. The charter is dominant over
all the other international documents. This provision is set down
in Article 103 of the Charter, and is accepted by all the members of
the UN. Article 1 of the Charter dwells on the goals and principles
of this organization. According to Article 1 Point 2 of the Charter
of the United Nations, "The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. … 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect
for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal
peace." [1] It is clear that the UN considers self-determination
of peoples (self-determination, not just the right of people for
self-determination, i.e. the application of this right) as not only
one of its basic principles but also as a basis for friendly relations
and universal peace. Hence, rejection of self-determination hinders
friendship and universal peace. In addition, Article 24, Point 2 holds:
"In discharging these duties [the maintenance of international peace
and security] the Security Council shall act in accordance with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." It means in the
maintenance of international peace and security the Security Council
must be guided by self-determination if peoples because it is one of
its principles. As to territorial integrity, it is not included in
the purposes or principles of the UN. The Charter includes (Article
2, Point 4) unacceptability of use of force against territorial
integrity in international relations. "All Members shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…" In
other words, it is not absolute maintenance of territorial integrity of
a state but the unacceptability of use of force against the territorial
integrity of one state by another state. It has nothing to do with
applying the tight of the self-determinate community, separation with
its own territory, if this community wishes to self-determinate through
independence. It should be noted that only the community has the right
to decide the form of its self-determination: a classic independent
country, a federation, sovereignty, or unification with another state
[2]. Most experts on the law of nations acknowledge self-termination as
a legal principle unlike the so-called territorial integrity. Hence,
it is obvious that the political aspect of the issue cannot distort
its legal content [3].

Moreover, the principle of self-determination is part of the jus cogens
of the international law, therefore [4] it cannot be changed. The UN
General Assembly declared by Resolution 637A(VII) (December 16, 1952):
"The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle
of self-determination of all peoples and nations." [5] It is highly
important that the honoring of the right for self-determination is
interpreted as obligation proceeding from the Charter of the United
Nations. (… regards the principle of self-determination as a part of
the obligations stemming from the Charter) [6]. The other important
international document which is often referred to is the Conference
on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act adopted on August 1,
1975. It is also known as Helsinki Final Act. This document allegedly
upholds territorial integrity and indivisibility of border. It does
not. "They [the participating States] consider that their frontiers can
be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means
and by agreement," holds Helsinki Final Act’s Chapter 1. It makes
clear that use of force against territorial integrity and political
independence is unacceptable. "The participating States will refrain
in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations
in general, from the treat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State …" Hence, it is
obvious that the Helsinki Final Act, like the Charter, condemns use
of force against territorial integrity and not absolute maintenance of
territorial integrity. In other words, the unacceptability of threat or
use of force by one of the countries which signed the final act against
another country’s territorial integrity and political independence. It
should be kept in mind that the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter
intend to maintain peace and security through refraining from threat
or use of force in international relations and not eternal borders
or conferring the status of a holy cow to the territories of states.

Self-determination of peoples is one of the basic principles
of the international law in accordance to which the borders of
the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Yugoslavia changed and will
change (Serbia). To conclude, neither the Charter nor the Helsinki
Final Act provide for territorial integrity or indivisibility of
borders. These documents include only commitment assumed by countries
on signing these documents not to threaten or use force against the
territorial integrity of another state. Hence, if Azerbaijan used
force in answer to the free and peaceful expression of the will
of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (rallies, referendums, claims,
appeals), took inadequate means of punishment, perpetrated massacres
of the Armenian citizens of Azerbaijan in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad,
waged a ruthless war with Ukrainian, Afghan, Russian mercenaries
and sustained a defeat losing control over part of the territories
it considers as its own, it has nothing to do with the territorial
integrity mentioned in the abovementioned documents.*** 1. Similar
wording is found in Article 55 of the Charter on stability. 2. Ian
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University
Press, Fifth edition, 2001, p. 599. 3. Ibid., p. 600. 4. Ibid.,
pp. 475-76. 5. Ibid., p. 600. 6. Ibid.

ANOTHER MILITARY CONVOY SET TO LEAVE BASE IN GEORGIA MAY 30

RIA Novosti, Russia
May 29 2007

MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti) – A military convoy will leave a Russian
military base in Georgia Wednesday as part of a 2006 deal on the
withdrawal of Russian bases from the country, a senior military
official said Tuesday.

Igor Konashenkov, an aide to the Russian Ground Forces commander, said
the convoy consisting of over 20 trucks will leave the Akhalkalaki
base in the south of the country and head for Gyumri in neighboring
Armenia, where Russia retains Military Base 102.

The Akhalkalaki base located in a region populated largely by ethnic
Armenians will be completely evacuated before the end of the year,
while the base in the Black Sea port of Batumi is to close by the
end of 2008.

Russia completed the withdrawal of its military garrison from the
Georgian capital, Tbilisi, handing over control of its headquarters
to Georgia’s Defense Ministry, last December.

Konashenkov also said that another military convoy, consisting of 32
carriages and carrying about 200 metric tons of cargo, will leave by
rail the Batumi base on the Black Sea Thursday.

"We plan to send before the yearend 14 more convoys by rail and one
convoy by road from Georgian territory to Russia and Military Base 102
[in Gyumri]," Konashenkov said.

According to the agreement between the countries, Russia must complete
the removal of its bases in Georgia by the end of 2008.

Georgia’s Western-leaning leadership, which is seeking to join NATO,
is uneasy about Russia’s continued military presence and has repeatedly
urged Moscow to close its Soviet-era bases.

TWO FEET IN ONE SHOE: ARMEN ELOYAN

E-Flux, NY
May 29 2007

1 June – 20 July, 2007
Preview 31 May, 6 – 8pm

Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art is pleased to present
Two feet in one shoe: Armen Eloyan, the first solo exhibition of
Eloyan’s paintings in a UK institution.

Armen Eloyan’s paintings adeptly play out an apocalyptic fantasy
world of anxiety, brutality, sexuality and the grotesque with the
contradictory light-heartedness of a cartoon. His theatrical scenes
explore the fragility of life as well as the boundaries separating
security from chaos, comedy from violence and pleasure from cruelty.

Crucially Eloyan’s strikingly gestural paintings use both humour
and horror in a manner that engages him emotionally, mentally and
physically. The brash, attractive, dark colours Eloyan employs collide
and coexist whilst unsettling any sense of harmony in the work.

The instinctive approach Eloyan applies to his painting draws on his
emotional bond to an array of collective and personal experiences.

Significantly these are rooted in his early years in Yerevan, Armenia
yet also claim reference to propaganda, art history, cinema, television
and popular music. Clearly there is a narrative element in Eloyan’s
work however this is disturbingly disrupted by a sense of desolation
and anxiety.

Two feet in one shoe is an exhibition imbued with Eloyan’s verve, vigor
and desire to celebrate the act of painting. His intuitive relationship
to painting is infused with a need to delve beneath the layers of pure
aesthetic and get to the crux with what is messy, foul and discordant.

Two feet in one shoe: Armen Eloyan is accompanied by a full-colour
catalogue with essays by Ziba de Weck Ardalan and Philippe Pirotte.

Born in Yerevan, Armenia in 1966 Armen Eloyan now lives and works in
Amsterdam and Zurich.

Earlier this year, Eloyan had a solo exhibition in the Project Room at
Centre Culturel Suisse, Paris (FR). During 2006, he had a one person
exhibition at Galerie Bob van Orsouw, Zurich (CH) and took part in a
group show at Kunsthalle Bern (CH). In 2005, Eloyan participated in
various exhibitions at l’Arte Contemporanea Luigi Pecci, Prato (I)
and at Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten, Amsterdam (NL).

Opening hours: Tues-Sat, 10 am-6 pm. Sun 12-5 pm

Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art is a non-profit space
devoted to promoting contemporary art for the benefit of the public.

Parasol unit is a privately funded charity with possible and future
additional funding from the public and private sectors. The core
activity of Parasol unit is to showcase the work of contemporary
artists from around the world. Each year, the foundation mounts three
or four exhibitions in various media, such as sculpture, painting,
installation, video, or photography, for which some works might be
specifically commissioned. Each exhibition is usually accompanied by
a publication. Parasol unit does not charge admission fee.

For more information or images please contact [email protected]
or Cliodhna Murphy at 44 (0)20 7490 7373

essage_1180399287.txt

ARSON ATTACK ON OPPOSITION ACTIVIST
By Karine Simonian in Alaverdi

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
May 28 2007

A defeated opposition candidate who alleged serious vote irregularities
in a constituency in northern Armenia on Monday survived an apparent
arson attack on her home which she blamed on her pro-government rival.

Unknown individuals set fire to the entrance door of Larisa
Paremuzian’s apartment in Alaverdi, an industrial town in the Lori
region, in the early hours of the morning. The fire practically
destroyed the door before being put out by Paremuzian and her
neighbors. They prevented a much more severe consequences by making
sure it does reach the apartment building’s gas pipes.

"If I slept well ,I would not stay alive and the whole building would
burn down," Paremuzian told RFE/RL.

Her neighbors were visibly shocked by the incident. "Luckily, my kids
stayed alive," said one woman.

Police in Alaverdian swiftly launched an investigation under an article
of the Armenian Criminal Code that deals with arson and other forms
of damage deliberately inflicted on citizens’ property.

Paremuzian heads the Alaverdi branch of the opposition People’s Party
of Armenia (HZhK) and is an outspoken critic of the municipal and
regional governments. She unsuccessfully ran for parliament in the
local single-mandate constituency in the May 12 elections. Official
vote results there gave victory to Karen Saribekian of the governing
Republican Party (HHK).

Paremuzian refused to concede defeat, accusing Saribekian of
large-scale vote rigging. She detailed her allegations in a May 18
article in the Yerevan daily "Aravot." The article prompted Alaverdi
prosecutors to summon her and the chairman of the local election
commission, Vram Vanian, for questioning on Friday. The opposition
activist claimed that the latter looked "terrified" when one of the
prosecutors suggested that the commission recount ballots.

"I believe this attack was the continuation of that questioning,"
Paremuzian said. "I suspect that it was the work of Vram Vanian and
my rival Karen Saribekian."

Artur Sakunts, head of the regional branch of the Armenian Helsinki
Citizens’ Assembly, also alleged political motives behind the
"terrorist act." "This is the result of Larisa Paremuzian’s political
and public activities," he told RFE/RL. "Law-enforcement authorities
will bear responsibility for the attack if they fail to punish its
perpetrators."

The police reported no arrests in connection with the incident as of
Monday evening.

Trend News Agency
25.05.2007 16:50:15
Armenianism’ to be studied as Threat in Disintegration of South Caucasus

Azerbaijan, Baku / ?rend corr S. Aghayeva / `Armenianism’ as a real threat
in contributing to the disintegration of the South Caucasus should be
studied, the director of the Human Rights Institution at the National
Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Professor Rovshan Mustafayev, said on 25
May. He was commenting on the book `Armenian-Speaking Population of Georgia
and Problems of Revival of Unified Georgian Statehood’ published by the
National Academy of Sciences of Georgia.
Professor Mustafayev was the first to raise the issue of Armenian
ethno-corporation offering his methodology on studying this phenomenon in
his famous work `Virtual Passions’. `I always suggested viewing the format
of studying Armenian ethno-corporation as a threat to stability in the South
Caucasus. Being the most mobile and unified ethno-social organization
`Armenianism’ can fulfil any task for disintegration of a region based on
different imperial centres,’ he noted. According to Mustafayev, the cores of
Armenians’ strategies and methods of violence do not change. What do change
are their slogans.
In the aforementioned book, Georgian scientists wrote about retrospective
discourses on the formation of the Georgian statehood and problems surfacing
from Georgian-Armenian relationships. The authors refer to facts and events
that have not yet been sufficiently studied by contemporary historians.
Expanded details of the Armenian-Georgian military conflict of 1918 that
involved Armenian territorial claims to independent Georgian land, as well
as the genesis of the issue, are provided in the book.
The work reports on the formation of present anti-state activities of
separatist groups uniting the Armenian ethnic minority in Georgia. Clear
examples of attempts by Armenian scientists to falsify South Caucasian
history are provided in the book.

SAAKASHVILI: I AM ARMENIAN, AZERI, OSSETIAN, JEWISH AND 100% GEORGIAN
Written by Sandro Gagua

Abkhazia, CA
May 24 2007

President Saakashvili complained on May 24 about the international
community’s silence on continued human rights abuses in Georgia’s
breakaway regions.

"Two months ago Georgian books from all the schools in Gagra [a town
in breakaway Abkhazia] were publicly burned in the town centre. Where
was the international community at that time and why didn’t anyone
say anything? If we allow the existence of such an ideology, wherein
some one can’t return home just because of ethnic background, it
means that not only do we not have a state, but it also means that
humankind has a serious problem," Saakashvili said.

Saakashvili was speaking at an international conference on
globalization and dialogue among civilizations, which was opened in
Tbilisi on May 24.

In his opening remarks, he also spoke about the importance of tolerance
in multiethnic Georgia.

"When I was in opposition, I said it and I’ll say it again and again:
for those people, who hate Armenians in Georgia, I will be Armenian;
for those who hate Azerbaijanis, I will be Azerbaijani. Recently,
someone said I was Ossetian, which I take as a compliment. Of course,
it would be a great honour for me to be Jewish," Saakashvili said.

KARABAKH PRESIDENTIAL AIDE SEES NO REASONS FOR OPTIMISM IN CONFLICT SETTLEMENT

Arminfo
24 May 07

Yerevan, 24 May: The issue of refugees will not be settled at all if
the issue of Armenian refugees is not solved, Arman Melikyan, Nagornyy
Karabakh republic [NKR] president’s aide on foreign issues and former
NKR foreign minister, told a news conference [in Yerevan] today.

Commenting on today’s statement by OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs that "the
co-chairs do not differentiate refugees based on their ethnicity" and
that "refugees should be given the right to return to their former
places of residence," Melikyan said that it was the first time he
heard the co-chairs make such statement. He said it is possible that
the co-chairs have started to realize that Armenian refugees are
a serious factor and that ignoring them will make it impossible to
reach a solution to the conflict.

"Without settling the issue of Armenian refugees, the issue of refugees
will not be settled at all," Melikyan said. He said that if Armenian
refugees agree to return to Azerbaijan, then it will be possible to
speak about the return of Azerbaijanis [to Karabakh and probably to
Armenia]. "If not, it is necessary to think where these people will
live, where their new homeland will be.

In this context, the liberated territories are the most suitable
place," Melikyan said.

Asked about the negotiations process and possible optimism about
its outcome, Melikyan said that optimism can be shown when there is
specific results that Karabakh agrees with. "At this point, I think
it is too early to express optimist," he said. He added that it is
also too early to speak of individual components separately.

Commenting on Azerbaijani statements that time is working against
Armenia, Melikyan said that time is working for those who know how
to use it.

Melikyan also spoke of political developments in Armenia. "The
political force that has taken the real power and formed the majority
in parliament assumes the responsibility both for the process inside
the country and in the region. I think that this way or another, the
new parliament and the new cabinet should express their clear positions
on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict settlement process as well."