Author: Karagyozian Lena

The thorns in Georgia’s rose
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 10, 2005
The Guardian
President George Bush will publicly congratulate the people of Georgia
on their peaceful “rose revolution” in November 2003 when he addresses
a crowdof up to 100,000 in Freedom Square, Tbilisi, today. But his
private message to President Mikhail Saakashvili is likely to be more
nuanced. He will remind the Georgian leader that democracy means more
than elections, and further reforms are essential if the former Soviet
republic is to fulfil its EU and Nato membership ambitions.
Stephen Hadley, the US national security adviser, highlighted
Washington’s concerns about simmering disputes in the separatist
regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia prior to Mr Bush’s
arrival. Georgia’s attitude to its Russophile, Azeri and Armenian
minorities and the rule of law were also seen as key tests of future
progress, he suggested. The US is anxious that an argument with Russia
over the timetable for closing two Soviet-era military bases in
Georgia should not rekindle broader tensions with the Kremlin. Despite
ongoing talks, Mr Saakashvili cited the problem as his reason for
boycotting yesterday’s VE Day celebrations in Moscow.
Mr Bush has been quick to respond to a recent statement by the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was
“the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”.
He said at the weekend that post-1945 Soviet domination in eastern
Europe and central Asia was “one of the greatest wrongs of
history”. He warned Mr Putin to eschew further interference in
neighbouring countries while reserving that right for the US. His next
target is Belarus.
But the US needs Mr Putin’s cooperation on issues ranging from Iran to
oil. It shares Moscow’s concern about the use of Georgian territory
by Islamist extremists attempting to destabilise Chechnya and the
northern Caucasus. The US recently instituted a $50m (£27m) military
training programme in Georgia but has renounced any intention of
replacing the Russian bases with Nato installations.
In other words, Washington will support Mr Saakashvili with words,
advice and financial assistance – as long as he does not upset more
important apple carts.
“There is still some optimism about the rose revolution but it is
tempered by greater realism,” said Professor Charles King, an expert
on US-Georgia relations at Georgetown University in
Washington. “Democratic assistance isall very well – but you have to
have a functioning country first.”
Continually blaming “the nefarious designs of the Russian Federation”
for Georgia’s ills was counterproductive, Prof King said. “In time
even Georgia’s friends may come to wonder whether a country with
fictitious borders and noplan for making them real is a country worth
helping.” This increased sense of caution, teetering on
disillusionment, is reflected in opinion polls indicating a 25% fall
in Mr Saakashvili’s approval ratings.
Street protests over electricity and water shortages, controversial
anti-corruption measures, and mutterings about Mr Saakashvili’s
“arrogance”have prompted speculation that Georgia’s rose is beginning
to wilt.
“This is the very same wave of social discontent that propelled the
rose revolution and brought down [former president] Eduard
Shevardnadze,” said Jaba Devdariani, writing in Transitions On
Line. “The government should worry lest the unrest turn into an
explosion.” This was unlikely at present, Mr Devdariani
admitted. Georgia’s leader retained 38% support in the face of a
fragmented political opposition.
Prof King said Mr Saakashvili had made progress in some areas, notably
in Adjaria and in improved tax collection.
But if Mr Saakashvili did not put his weight fully behind systemic
reforms, popular counter-revolution was not entirely out of the
question, Prof King said. “Saakashvili needs to listen to what is
called ‘the shout from the streets’ or he could go the way of
Shevardnadze. After all, he created the template.”

The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 9 2005
Erdogan in Moscow for 60th Anniversary of VE Day
SENEM CAGLAYAN
The New Anatolian/ Ankara
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday flew to Moscow to
participate in the 60th anniversary of VE Day. May 8 commemorates the
end of fighting in Europe during World War II.
His trip came a few days after Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc
postponed a trip there in protest of Russia’s decision to recognize
the so-called Armenian genocide claims.
Arinc’s office said the speaker was postponing his upcoming trip to
Russia following last month’s decision by the Russian Duma, or lower
house of Parliament, which had recognized the Armenian claims of
“genocide.” Arinc was scheduled to travel to Russia around mid-June.
The United Nations last year declared May 8 and 9 as Remembrance and
Reconciliation Days, but they also have a special national meaning
for Russia.
Erdogan’s visit comes at a time when Turkey’s close ally, the U.S.,
and Russia are at odds due to escalating tensions over the U.S.’
pressure on Russia to own up to its wartime past. In Russia, victory
in the “Great Patriotic War” is treasured as an unvarnished triumph,
while many of its Eastern European neighbors regard the Red Army’s
success to be the start of 50 years of brutal Soviet oppression.
Anger over that unacknowledged history remains particularly potent in
the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which were
annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 and won independence just 14
years ago.
U.S. President George W. Bush has promised that such matters, part of
Washington’s broader concerns about Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s commitment to democracy, will come up when the two meet —
first formally, then over dinner with their wives — at the Russian
leader’s dacha.
Putin retorted that U.S. has no business criticizing Russia’s
domestic affairs because the U.S.’ system of electing presidents,
including the Electoral College, is not without flaws.
Erdogan reciprocates Putin’s visit
Erdogan’s visit is the first to Russia since Putin’s two-day visit to
Turkey last year.
Last September, Putin visited Ankara some three decades after the
last visit by President of the Soviet Union Nikolay Podgorny in 1973.
Although Turkey and Russia no longer share a border, following the
collapse of the Soviet Union, they continue to have common strategic
interests. The two countries still overlap in the “near abroad”
regions, i.e. the Caucasus and Central Asia, where some degree of
geopolitical competition is inevitable.

Christian Science Monitor
May 3 2005
Early gambit to fill Putin vacuum
Several men, including chess great Garry Kasparov, are vying to
succeed him. But Putin may stay in office.
By Fred Weir
MOSCOW The effort to succeed Russian President Vladimir Putin is
getting started three years early, with a gaggle of unlikely candidates
lining up at the starting gate.
They include a disgraced former prime minister, a world chess
grandmaster, the current Minister of Defense, and the pro-Kremlin
speaker of Russia’s parliament, the Federal Assembly. Although the
Constitution bars him from seeking a third term, many experts say Mr.
Putin cannot be counted out.
Russians are calling it the “2008 problem.” Putin has constructed an
increasingly autocratic system that depends largely on his personal
control. Unless a trusted successor takes the helm, some fear that a
change in leadership could provoke conflict among Russia’s fractious
elites.
A law passed last month by the State Duma, Russia’s powerful
pro-Kremlim chamber of the Federal Assembly, will create a Public
Chamber, a citizens’ assembly made up of representatives handpicked by
Putin. Experts say it could be the launchpad for a new constitutional
project that might extend the president’s term or return him to office
under a new system of power.
Putin weaker
Putin, elected to a second four-year term by an electoral landslide
last March, seemed unassailable just a few months ago. But a series
of political shocks, including a democratic upheaval in neighboring
Ukraine and an ongoing wave of protests by impoverished Russian
pensioners, have unnerved the Kremlin and inspired a few opponents
to position themselves as presidential candidates.
“A number of disastrous mistakes of the authorities have led to a very
serious crisis of power,” says Andrei Piontkovsky, director of the
independent Center for Strategic Studies in Moscow. “The main problem
is a dramatic loss of confidence in Putin by the power elites. This
has plunged the system into instability, and brought new challengers
into the open.”
The would-be candidates for Putin’s job include former Prime Minister
Mikhail Kasyanov, fired by the Kremlin a year ago. He has made
several statements slamming Putin’s authoritarian drift. And he’s
hinted that he might lead a democratic revolt such as the one that
overturned a fraudulent election and vaulted former Prime Minister
Viktor Yushchenko into Ukraine’s presidency late last year.
“The main thing is not who it’s going to be,” Mr. Kasyanov said
recently. “The main thing is that whoever comes to power spearheads
a movement toward democratic values.”
In March, Kremlin critic Garry Kasparov, arguably the strongest
chess player in history, quit the game to nurture what many experts
say may be his own presidential run. “I’ve done everything in chess
that I could,” Mr. Kasparov said. “Now I intend to use my intellect
and strategic thinking in Russian politics.”
While few experts take Mr. Kasparov’s challenge seriously, some say
Kasyanov could be a key contender. “Kasyanov has calculated it well,”
says Alexander Konovalov, director of the independent Institute
of Strategic Assessments in Moscow. “The fact they’ve started
campaigning now suggests the present authorities may not have three
years. Something may happen soon.”
Russia’s largest democratic liberal party, Yabloko, which failed to
win the votes needed to enter Federal Assembly in 2003, announced
recently that it aims to build a broad democratic coalition to serve
as a springboard for anti-Putin forces in the 2007 Duma elections
and the presidential polls in 2008.
“We need to unite everyone who believes Russia has a chance to be a
European country, with democracy, press freedom, and a competitive
economy,” says Alexander Shishlov, a member of Yabloko’s governing
bureau. “We must move into action now.”
Experts say the Kremlin has ordered two Putin confidantes, Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov and Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov, to raise their
public profiles as potential presidential heirs in 2008.
But the failure of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma to secure
his own successor through fixed elections last year may have the
Kremlin doubting its ability to carry off a similar operation.
“The events in Ukraine scared Russia’s authorities,” says Alexei
Makarkin, deputy director of the Center for Political Technologies
in Moscow. “It showed the system of control, though stable now,
has its limits.”
Former President Boris Yeltsin, seriously ill and hobbled by corruption
scandals, kept everyone guessing until the last moment about his plans
for the succession. He went through a string of prime ministers –
the legal heir under Russian law – before appointing Putin in August
1999. Four months later, Mr. Yeltsin abruptly resigned, giving Putin
time to consolidate his grip as acting president before having to
face elections.
A likely scenario, many experts suggest, is that the Kremlin will do
an end run around all its opponents by reworking Russia’s Constitution
to keep Putin himself in office after 2008.
“A new group of oligarchs has come to power under Putin” who stand
to lose a lot if he leaves, says Dmitri Oreshkin, an expert with the
Merkator Group, a political consultancy. “Putin himself has developed
a taste for power. It would be difficult for him to part from it.”
‘Public Chamber’
The Public Chamber will be a kind of parallel parliament, proposed by
Putin after last September’s terrorist siege in Beslan to “increase
citizens’ participation in government.”
All delegates to the 126-member body would be appointed by the
president or his representatives. The Chamber could put forward
sweeping constitutional revisions by the end of this year.
“The Public Chamber can put forward the initiative to change the
Constitution, and it will seem to have come from the public,” says
Mr. Pribylovsky. He says Putin has the necessary backing in the Duma
and Russia’s regions to impose a new charter, which could include
a third term for the president or a whole new system of power, but
needs to get started now to have changes in place by 2008.
The idea of rewriting fundamental law to suit one man may sound
odd to Americans, but Russian Constitutions have frequently been the
playthings of individual leaders. Every major head of state since Czar
Nicholas II has produced his own, including Vladimir Lenin in 1924,
Joseph Stalin in 1936, Leonid Brezhnev in 1978, and Boris Yeltsin in
1993. The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was working on his
version when the USSR collapsed in 1991.
“Putin’s citadel has weakened,” says Mr. Oreshkin. “The idea at the top
now is that they should do everything to stay in power, at any cost.”

VIEW: A day of liberation –Michael Mertes
Daily Times – Site Edition Sunday, May 08, 2005
The way people see the past tells us more about their present attitudes
than about the past itself. This is what the term “politics of memory”
is meant to indicate. A violent conflict in the past may survive as
a war of memories in the present, as can be observed in the current
dispute between China and South Korea on one side, and Japan on
the other
When I was seven years old, in 1960, my grandmother Angelica opened
my eyes to the meaning of May 8, 1945, the day when Nazi Germany
surrendered and World War II ended in Europe. We were spending our
summer holidays in Normandy where the liberation of Europe from Nazism
had started on D-Day, June 6, 1944. One evening, I listened to my
parents and my grandmother talking about the past. I have forgotten the
details of their conversation, but I can still hear my grandmother’s
sigh of relief when she said: “Thank God we lost that war!”
>From a child’s perspective, it wasn’t self-evident that losing was
a good thing. But of course, my grandmother was right to equate
defeat with liberation. The more I have thought about the lesson she
taught me 45 years ago, the clearer I have seen another, less obvious
dimension in what she said: It is “we” who lost the war. Collectively,
the Germans had not been the innocent victims of a small gang of
criminal outsiders called “Nazis” — Nazism had been an inside ideology
supported by millions of Germans, and every German was liable for
its atrocities whether or not he or she had adhered to it individually.
In today’s Germany, an overwhelming majority subscribes to the
proposition that May 8, 1945 was a day of liberation — not only
for Europe, but also for Germany itself. Compared to public opinion
in 1960, that’s certainly an enormous progress. But paradoxically,
it may also contain an element of forgetfulness, because it tends to
conceal the fact that liberation required a military defeat. To use
my grandmother’s parlance, it is not “us” who were the liberators,
but “them”.
The way people see the past tells us more about their present attitudes
than about the past itself. This is what the term “politics of memory”
is meant to indicate. And this is why it doesn’t matter whether the
relevant events happened 60 years ago (as World War II), 90 years
(as in the case of the Armenian genocide) or even 600 years (such as
the battle of Kosovo in 1389). A violent conflict in the past may
survive as a war of memories in the present, as can be observed in
the current dispute between China and South Korea on one side, and
Japan on the other. A war of memories, in turn, may sometimes lead
to a violent conflict in the future.
Former perpetrators often try to de-legitimise their former victims’
moral superiority by claiming they were victims themselves. Therefore,
the 60th anniversary of the firebombing of Dresden by Allied forces
on February 13, 1945 has probably been a more crucial moment in terms
of the German “politics of memory” than the 60th anniversary of May 8,
1945 is going to be.
Far-right groups infamously dubbed the attack by which at least 30,000
people were killed “Dresden’s Holocaust of bombs”. Fortunately,
their propaganda campaign has been a failure. Although it is true
that thousands of the civilians killed in Dresden and other German
cities were innocent at an individual level, there can be no doubt
it was morally imperative that Germany be defeated collectively.
On the left side of the German political spectrum, the proposition
that May 8, 1945 was a day of liberation remains unchallenged.
However, it is sometimes repressed that the massive use of force
had been necessary to achieve that result. Left-wing pacifism tends
to overlook this simple fact. Its slogan “Never again war!” is only
half the truth — the other half is “Never again appeasement!” May 8,
1945 was not “zero hour”, as a popular saying in Germany goes. It had
an antecedent, that is, a lack of pre-emptive resistance at home and
abroad to the threat that built up in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.
There is yet another lesson to be learnt. Yes, May 8, 1945 was a day
of liberation to which the Soviet army contributed decisively. But
for millions of Central and East Europeans, liberation was followed
by Stalin’s oppressive regime.
The current war of memories between the Baltic republics and Russia,
with regard to the international celebration in Moscow on May 9,
this year, reminds Germany of a special historic responsibility. The
German-Soviet non-aggression treaty, the so-called Hitler-Stalin pact,
concluded in August 1939, had been supplemented by a secret appendix
dividing the border states — Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Romania — into spheres of interest for the two parties. But
excusing Nazi atrocities by pointing to Stalinist crimes is an
intellectually and morally unacceptable stratagem. When Chancellor
Schröder travels to Moscow for the Red Square celebrations, he should
bear in mind Nazi Germany’s contribution to the Baltic tragedy.
On May 8, this year, public speakers will remind us how important it
is not to forget. They will stress that if the lessons of history are
not learnt, history is bound to repeat itself. All this is perfectly
true. But personally, I will also remember my grandmother’s sentence
“Thank God we lost that war!” Thank God — and thanks to all those
brave Allied soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the sake of
Europe’s liberty. –DT-PS
Michael Mertes was national security and foreign policy adviser to
former German chancellor Helmut Kohl
–Boundary_(ID_Qf4F7KxYp104w505aEFDdQ)–

‘Erdogan-Kocharyan meeting not certain’
NTV MSNBC, Turkey
May 6 2005
Armenian’s Foreign Minister has played down suggestions that the
Armenian head of state Robter Kocharyan and Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan will hold an informal meeting in the near future.
May 6- No official proposals have been made, Oskanyan said. Commenting
on suggestions from Ankara that a meeting might take place in Poland,
Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan said late Thursday that
nothing had been confirmed on the matter.
Reports in the media on a meeting between the Turkish premier
and Kocharyan were based on an indirect proposal from Ankara and
presumptions made by the journalists, Oskanyan said.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul raised the possibility of a
meeting between Erdogan and Kocharyan on Thursday, saying there was
nothing planned but that it was possible informal talks could take
place in Warsaw.

Russia govt submits to State Duma agreements with Armenia, Yemen
ITAR-TASS News Agency
May 5, 2005 Thursday 9:34 AM Eastern Time
MOSCOW, May 5 — The Russian government has endorsed and submitted
for the ratification to the State Duma lower house of parliament the
agreements with the governments of Armenia and Yemen on encouraging
and mutual protection of capital investments, the government press
service reported on Thursday, says PRIME-Tass.
Russia’s agreement with Armenia was signed in Yerevan on September
15, 2001. The agreement with Yemen was signed in Moscow on December
17, 2002.
According to the April 29 resolutions, Maxim Medvedkov, the director
of the trade negotiations department of the Ministry of Economic
Development and Trade, was appointed the official representative of
the Russian government at the discussion of the ratification of both
agreements by the houses of the Federal Assembly.

HAMSHEN” MEMBERS IN ARMENIA ASKED ASSISTANCE OF RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA
Pan Armenian News
05.05.2005 08:17
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Council of Hamshen philanthropic non-governmental
organization of the Republic of Armenia has appealed to Russian
Ambassador to Armenia N. Pavlov, asking for assistance to register
Hemshins cultural association in Krasnodar Territory, reported the
Yerkramas, the newspaper of Armenians of Russia. In its letter the
Hamshen organization Council expresses serious concern over the
situation in Krasnodar Territory of the Russian Federation over a
Hemshin NGO (Islamized Armenians) – a subethnoconfessional group of
the Armenian people. Hemshin representatives are denied registration
of their society – the cultural association of Hemshin – for the fourth
time. The concern of the Armenian organization is conditioned with the
fact that the constant refusals to register the cultural association
far-fetched. Thus, the latest refusal was due to the sole reason –
the application for registration did not mention the proper name
of the registering body. At that the official refusal, conveyed
to Hemshin representatives May 3, was dated May 4. The message to
the Russian Ambassador further said: “When registering any other
organization it is not a basis for refusal – the applicant is given
an opportunity to make corrections and again apply to the registering
body. It did not take place in the Hemshin case, however the state
duty of 2000 rubles was duly levied four times. Thus, the actions
of the representatives of the Central Administrative Board of the
Federal Registration Service of Krasnodar Territory form a precedent
for the appearance of another people leaving Russia as political
refugees. It is not a secret that representatives of the International
Organization of Migration, who realize a project on resettlement of
Turk-Meskhetians from Krasnodar Territory to the US, already arrange
similar projects to resettle Kurd-Kurmanji people that also live in
Kuban and the Hemshins. We cannot stay indifferent toward the fate
of Hemshins, as Hamshen Armenians and Hemshins are one people. Due
to the mass forced imposition of Islam upon the Armenian population
of the Hamshen district in Western Armenia (now Turkey’s territory)
in the 18-th century and ethnoconfessional group with pronounced
self-consciousness was formed and it called itself Homshetsi and
spoke the Hamshen dialect of the Amrenian language. A small group
of Hemshins lived in Ajaria – in the 20-es it was composed of 600
members. In 1944 Hemshins of Ajaria along with Turk Meskhetians and
Kurd-Kurmanjis were deported to Kirgizia and Kazakhstan. In 70-es
part of the Hemshins moved to Krasnodar Territory and today they
live in the Apsheron, Belorechensk and other regions (some 1000
persons). The problem of determination of the ethnic belonging of
the group in question is linked with political aspects. Hemshins of
Turkey perceive their ethnic and linguistic difference from Turks,
however the policy of the Turkish state suppresses their urge to
forming of an ethnic self-consciousness. Hemshins living in Russia
acknowledge their kinship with the Hamshen Armenian community.”

SPECIAL SESSION IN THE NA. “EUROPE MUST GET READY FOR WASHING”
A1plus
| 13:36:55 | 06-05-2005 | Politics |
«Where is Arshak Sadoyan? », the NA special session started with this
question of the NA President with a delay of an hour. It was convened
to discuss the three draft constitutions. At 10:00 a.m. only 54
delegates were registered instead of the 66 necessary to secure quorum.
The United Labor Party fraction did not register although there were
in the hall. «We are boycotting», announced head of the fraction
Gourgen Arsenyan without any explanation. Nevertheless, at 11:00 the
United Labor Party was registered too. The session started with the
representation of the Arshak Sadoyan’s draft constitution articles
on Local Governing bodies and referendum. Yesterday Arshak Sadoyan
had not had enough time to finish his speech.
“Today in Armenia there is no real system of local governing”,
announced Sadoyan. He offered to divide Armenia into 25 parts where
local self-governing will be realized in two levels – community and
regional. That is – not only the heads of the communities but also
the regional governors will be elected. Sadoyan offers two variants
of elections of the latter.
The first variant is that each community aldermen elects a
representative who will form the regional aldermen, and choose one
as regional governor. The second is that the regional governor is
chosen by means of direct election. In Yerevan too both the community
heads and the mayor are elected.
Arshak Sadoyan invited attention on the chapter about referendum. “Not
only the constitutional amendments but also the issues of national
importance must be put to referendum”, said Sadoyan. The President,
the Government and the Constitutional Court can take the initiative
of organizing such referendums. In case of collecting 250 thousand
signatures the referendum can be organized by civil initiative.
By the way, Arshak Sadoyan warned that if the above mentioned point is
not stipulated in the Constitution, he will have to “wash our dirty
linen in Europe”. “The Armenian nation must decide himself whether,
for example, to give the nuclear power station to Chubays or not”,
commented the delegate.
Delegate Mekhak Mkhitaryan asked Sadoyan why he was not against when
the present division of regions was being admitted, as he was in the
Supreme Council Local Governing Bodies Committee. Arshak Sadoyan
said that in any case everyone must feel guilt for it, including
himself. But at those times Levon Ter-Petrosyan wanted to make the
regional governors appointed.
–Boundary_(ID_g6/9YpuWKqKB7fvZNL4vLw)–

Today, Azerbaijan
May 5 2005
Yuri Merzlyakov: “After the meeting of the presidents negotiations
will be continued previous format”
04 May 2005 [16:28] – Today.Az
Co-chairmen of Minsk Group of OSCE are not preparing for the meeting
of Azerbaijan and Armenia presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan
to be held during the measures dedicated to the 60-ty anniversary of
the victory over fascism on May 9″.
This information was given to APA exclusively by the Russian
co-chairman of the Minsk Group of OSCE Yuri Merzlyakov. He called
the negotiations conducted with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar
Mammadyarov on April 27 in Frankfurt, very advantageous and efficient.
Yuri Merzlyakov saying “We have worked well” noted that at present
the co-chairmen tackled with organizing of the meeting with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan. According
to his words, they work on the variants of planning the place and
time of the meeting to be held: “The meeting could either be spent
in Moscow or in Warsaw 2 days before the summit of Council of Europe,
or in one of the cities of Europe”. After the meeting with Oskanyan,
he didn’t exclude conducting the next meeting between Azerbaijan and
Armenia presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan about regulating
the Upper Garabagh conflict on May 16-17 in the frame of the summit
of state heads of Council of Europe.
“After the meeting of the presidents we will return to the previous
format – to the format of negotiations carried out between both the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs” -Yuri Merzlyakov stressed.
Yuri Merzlyakov stating his relation to forming the Committee according
to Upper Garabagh at the Assembly of Parliament of Council of Europe
recently he didn’t agree with the opinion of identity of this committee
and the Minsk Group: “Forming of such committee was put forward in
the report of David Atkinson. The secretary general of Council of
Europe declared that this committee cannot replace the Minsk Group,
and its main task is connected with human rights”.
He also stated that the co-chairmen aren’t going to visit the region
recently.
URL:

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
Armenian version:
HIS HOLINESS ISSUES AN ENCYCLICAL ON THE OCCASION OF
THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEMINARY’S ESTABLISHMENT
His Holiness Aram I’s Encyclical dedicated to the 75th anniversary
of the establishment of the Seminary of the Catholicosate of Cilicia
was read out in the St. Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral on May 1. Fr
Bartev Gulumian, the Dean of the Seminary, read the encyclical during
the holy mass.
His Holiness focuses in the encyclical on the history of the Seminary’s
establishment and through it on all those, including catholicoi and
teachers, who have contributed to the material, intellectual and
spiritual formation of the seminary. The encyclical combines the
views of each Cilician Catholicos towards the institution and their
visions for its future.
The encyclical addresses all the former students of the seminary,
who have passed through this spirit-building institution, all
the benefactors, who have believed and continue to believe in the
Seminary’s irreplaceable mission, the Seminary’s current students,
calling upon them to consciously evaluate their years at the
institution, and all the Armenians, calling upon them to support
the Seminary.
The encyclical was read out in all the dioceses under the jurisdiction
of the Catholicosate of Cilicia. Commemorations and celebrations will
be held throughout the year in Lebanon and all the dioceses on the
occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Seminary’s establishment.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates
of the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the
Cilician Seminary, you may refer to the web page of the Catholicosate,
The Cilician Catholicosate, the administrative
center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.