Author: Karakhanian Suren

SO ANYONE WHO ISN’T WITH US IS AGAINST US?

Mariam Magomedova

Novye Izvestia
June 18, 2008

What the Papers Say
Russian citizens identify our country’s allies and "enemies"

Opinion poll results: which countries are Russia’s friends?; A recent
opinion poll indicates that most Russian citizens still see America
as Russia’s chief "enemy" and Belarus as its leading ally. The experts
we approached for comments say that the likes and dislikes of Russian
citizens are fairly stable, remaining unchanged over many years.

An opinion poll done by the Bashkirova and Partners agency indicates
that most Russian citizens still see America as Russia’s chief "enemy"
and Belarus as its leading ally. The experts we approached for comments
say that the likes and dislikes of Russian citizens are fairly stable,
remaining unchanged over many years.

This is the second year in a row that most respondents have named
the United States as Russia’s chief "enemy." The idea that America is
hostile to Russia is accepted by 33.3% of respondents – a change of
only 0.5% since last year. Second on the list of unfriendly nations
is Georgia, named by 31% of respondents. Estonia, which ranked second
in the 2007 poll, has slipped to fifth (13.3% of respondents. Ukraine
and Latvia scored 18% each. Among European countries, those identified
as unfriendly to Russia were Britain (6.6%), Germany (3.8%), Italy
(1.1%), and France (0.7%). Three Islamic states – Afghanistan, Iran,
and Iraq – all scored 6%. Only 4.5% of respondents said that no
countries are hostile to Russia.

The pollsters say that attitudes to other countries are "clearly
linked to media coverage of international issues." As the Bashkirova
and Partners report notes, Georgia’s position in the ranking is a
consequence of the crisis in Russian-Georgian relations associated
with the Abkhazia situation; attitudes to Estonia have become less
negative since the Bronze Soldier relocation controversy died down.

Alexei Makarkin, VP of the Political Techniques Center, told us that
"the United States is regarded as our historical rival," but there
are also many other irritants involved – such as NATO expansion and
missile defense. "Similarly, all the other irritants are countries
with which we experience a deterioration in relations from time to
time. For example, due to NATO expansion, Russian citizens experience
periodic upswings of dislike for Georgia and Ukraine. Relations with
the Baltic states are soured by differing perspectives on Soviet
history in general and Second World War history in particular."

The list of Russia’s "friends" remains almost unchanged since last
year’s poll. Belarus is at the top of the list – named by 35.3% of
respondents. China is second with 18%. Germany, which was second last
year, is now down to 16.1%. Other allies identified by respondents
are Armenia (12.7%), France (9.4%), Italy (9.1%). Lithuania scored
less than one percent in the ranking of Russia’s friends. Georgia
and the United States scored 2.8% and 4.4% respectively.

FORMS OF INFORMATION IN CONFLICTS: POSSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THEIR DIFFERENTIATION – THE CASE OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT
Christian KOLTER

Defacto Agency
June 19

Unlike the unsettled Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the nearly settled
Kosovo conflict, the unsettled Karabakh conflict is not in the focus
of the international public respectively of the western media. This
affects the level of information about the conflict. There are gaps
of tenable information, which can be filled easily with propaganda
and the like. Moreover, western politics concerning the Karabakh
conflict are contradictory, as they are in the territorial conflicts
from the Kosovo to the Caucasus in general. Since the end of the Cold
War, the West respectively the super powers have tacitly decided that
modifications of borders are no longer admissible and have declared the
independence of the Kosovo-Albanians as exceptional case. All in all,
it’s a half-hearted and risky game to prefer territorial integrity
for the CIS-territories no matter how they are built, while at the
same time stressing the right for self-determination in the name of
humanitarian politics in the courtyard of Europe for the Kosovo. This
situation produces a lot of rhetoric of double standard and good will,
which is sheer (and non-clarified) ideology, especially in connection
with the on-going oil-business.

Unlike the unsettled Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the nearly settled
Kosovo conflict, the unsettled Karabakh conflict is not in the focus
of the international public respectively of the western media. This
affects the level of information about the conflict. There are gaps
of tenable information, which can be filled easily with propaganda and
the like. Moreover, western politics concerning the Karabakh conflict
are contradictory, as they are in the territorial conflicts from the
Kosovo to the Caucasus in general. Since the end of the Cold War,
the West respectively the super powers have tacitly decided that
modifications of borders are no longer admissible and have declared
the independence of the Kosovo-Albanians as exceptional case. All
in all, it’s a half-hearted and risky game to prefer territorial
integrity for the CIS-territories no matter how they are built,
while at the same time stressing the right for self-determination
in the name of Furthermore, the informational differentiation in
the Karabakh conflict is determined and endangered by an info-war,
launched by Azerbaijan trying to compensate its military defeat
with aggressive info-campaigns in the misplaced name of morals,
international law and human rights (like in the case of Khojaly). It
is doubtful, whether western media can handle that info-war without
reinforced counter-information coming from Artsakh and Armenia. This
information is not only countering the Azeri campaigns, but better,
that is more explanatory. In the context of the recent events
that took place near Levonarkh, Azerbaijan exploited the crisis in
domestic politics of Armenia thus launching a test offensive. The most
explications and descriptions I read in German media were completely
adopted from Azeri media. This is alarming. (If the media does not
have first-hand accounts or equivalent informational securities,
it should argue along the lines of probabilities, which here refer
quite clearly to an Azeri responsibility for the incidents. But there
was no independent argumentation and no search for clarification.)
My basic deduction from this case is the following: the more unlikely
it is that one side in an armed conflict can force its will upon the
opposing side (mostly by the realistic threat of annihilation); the
more important are information strategies and forms of knowledge in
the conflict – for its intensification as well as for its settlement.

This implies that the international public (third groups, which
are external to the conflict) assumes a crucial role as observer,
commentator, mediator or even intervening force, and hereby becomes
a part of the conflict dynamics. In turn, this requires that the
international public, although formally external to the conflict, is
seriously interested in the conflict. Thus, it reflects and expresses
their own knowledge and interests as clearly as possible and beyond
good-will rhetoric (like often quite puristic, one-sided and abstract
fixations on human rights and international law). Consequently, they
want the direct conflict groups to do the same. Otherwise, the conflict
deteriorates because of doublespeak and an uncoordinated clash of
international interests, which cannot be cushioned by secret diplomacy.

If we transfer these considerations to the Karabakh conflict, we
can see: despite the fact that Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh has reached
its factual independence by a military victory, this result and
real equivalents are all together refused by both Azerbaijan and
Turkey. Furthermore, the legal status of the independence of Artsakh
is contested or not recognized by the international community of
states, mostly in connection with the argument or the hidden fear of
a precedent case and its worldwide destabilizing aftermath.

We can also ascertain that the international public orientates its
observations, statements, and attempts at mediation of the conflict
towards constellations of political and economic alliances. Or else,
they are based on too abstract, too idealistic or too puristic
legal argumentations, which explain or clarify nearly nothing (they
are lacking political analysis or power as interpreting factors)
and blame everybody, so to speak. Moreover, these arguments often
reveal more about the problems and interests of the commentators’
countries than about concrete ideas for a settlement. Eventually we
are witnessing an increased internationalization of the Karabakh
conflict. The unsettledness and international involvement in the
conflict serve Azerbaijan as basis for an info-war, which addresses the
half-informed international public and challenges the indispensability
of informational differentiation.

Considering all this, we can say and ask, the international public
is interested in the Karabakh conflict, but is it a serious or a
seriously pursued interest? Which informational differentiation
in the Karabakh conflict should the international public be aware
of? Is the international public nowadays able and willing to deal
with different information strategies in and around the conflict,
(which is necessary as precondition for saving the minimum of
informational differentiation, which is again integral to the
settlement)? Concerning their information strategies, what can
or should the direct conflict groups do to overcome the vicious
circles and particularistic strategies of mutual suspicions about
hidden motives and reproaches of unscrupulous instrumentalization –
in order to make a settlement more probable?

Since it is impossible for me to come up with comprehensive solutions,
for an approximation to these questions, I would like to discuss
shortly some theoretical aspects concerning forms of information
in conflicts, which I will illustrate by some examples from the
Karabakh conflict.

1. Different forms of information or knowledge in conflicts
For my informational analysis concerning conflicts, commonly
used distinctions, such as official/unofficial, governmental/
non-governmental, conflict group-related/not conflict-group-related
(or – based) information is quite insufficient: – as all these
distinctions do not say anything about the validity, consistency or
quality of the corresponding information.

Instead, I suggest holding on to old if not old-fashioned categories
and focusing on the incessantly developing criteria to distinguish
between these categories.

In (and about) conflicts we can – not always easily – distinguish
between political and scientific information and knowledge. Just
as political information and programs can be included in scientific
analysis scientific information can be used or misused in political
communication.

However, politics care about collectively binding decisions of living
together (or separately); science cares about reasons, arguments,
and theories of everything (which is explainable). They (that means
reasons, arguments, and theories) overstep or even negate the limits
and borders of the collectives and cannot claim binding character
by repressive law, but only by voluntary, respectively reasonable
imitation of scientific conventions.

But in order to provisionally analyze information differentiation in
conflicts, I think we need at least a third category namely ideology
or ideological, which is harder to distinctly identify all the more
as the differentiation and attribution of ideology is conflicting
and even more often an element of the conflict itself.

Ideology is about unchanging concepts, ideas, and convictions and
about group-privileging aims – thus is anti-scientific (against
evolution of cognition) and particularistic (against political and
legal equality and universalism).

If Azerbaijan tries to compensate its military defeat by launching
an info-war via internet, TV and newspapers, it is in order to reach
informational hegemony. Obviously, there is a lot of ideology in
it: sheer and crude propaganda (for example: "Armenians as fascist
occupants of Azerbaijani territories"), old- and new-fashioned
conspiracy theories (for example: "Armenians as henchmen and favorites
of the West as well as of Russia, in former times and in times of
the Karabakh conflict" or "Armenians as initiators of the pogroms in
Sumgait", pseudo-scientific theories (the ethno-genetic theory of the
Albanians presenting the Azeris as their privileged descendants with
corresponding territorial claims), but also trickier strategies of
disregarding or denying of consolidated knowledge in the misplaced
name of relativism, pluralism or freedom of discourse (for example:
strategies of negationism, which deny the Armenian genocide)
and finally, and surely connected with the latter, an exclusive
self-victimization of Azerbaijan (Khojaly as genocide against Azeris,
which is untenable, even if we assume Armenians as offenders in and
around Khojaly).

I think Artsakh and Armenia cannot avoid the competition of ideas and
arguments in, about and around the conflict, including the criteria
for knowledge production, which enables them to identify the forms
of information being effective in the Karabakh conflict. This leads
us to the question, who or what is differentiating these forms.

2. Who or what differentiates information in conflicts?

Are powerful persons or groups differentiating the crucial
knowledge? – It is possible, that influential persons (authors,
politicians, entrepreneurs) or groups (lobbies, parties or other Power
Institutions) control some medias and hereby can partly define and
differentiate the forms of information as well as the epistemological
status of disseminated knowledge in and about conflicts. – But: the
more relevant and/or internationalized a conflict becomes, the more
improbable is a one-sided design, definition and differentiation of
information and knowledge in and about it. The world’s complexity
does not allow any group proper control over information on phenomena
like internationalized conflicts. We can analyze influences of groups
and persons, but if we reduce the differentiation of information to
them, we get stuck in the impasse of conspiracy theories, explaining
"everything and nothing". For example, the opinion expressed by
some Azeris according to which the US-Armenian lobby determines
US-policy in the Karabakh conflict is in stark contrast to the
turns and contradictions of US-policies in the Caucasus. Hence,
the informational influence of particular groups is not decisive. –
Also in conflicts, the definition and differentiation of knowledge
may not be reduced to groups: this is an encouraging point.

Are interests differentiating the crucial knowledge? More abstract
than persons or groups, economic and/or political interests often
serve in analyses as designing and defining variables of knowledge
as well as the interpreting factor of information in conflicts. Thus,
for many cases we can easily identify groups and decisions and hereby
information strategies as agents of interests; but if we want to
provide a stronger analysis, this interest-centered approach makes us
lose orientation. On the one hand, if we start to go more into detail
we come across groups and decisions deviating from their alleged
interest. Groups and their decisions in concrete processes lack the
consistency of a clear interest, they partly have to forget about
interests, they often do not know (or identify) them or they serve
diverging or even incompatible interests and so on. Therefore, even
on a more abstract level we cannot make profound analyzes or reliable
predictions of complex phenomena using the category of interest, and
consequently not of the phenomenon of informational differentiation
in conflicts. Interest only clarifies information, if they are very
abstract which in turn suggests that the conflict groups and people
in general serve almost the same interest (happiness, welfare, and
maintenance of power…). – We cannot sufficiently differentiate
information in conflicts using the category of interest.

Instead we have to find and outline some cognitive rules both as
differentiating criteria and real factors. They are applied by
relative and partial observers, who are independent from ethnic or
organizational membership, and who both take into consideration
and go beyond economic or political interest. This requires an
international public to be willing and able to share, discuss,
and develop criteria and standards of both knowledge production and
distribution, an international public who resists regional prejudice,
privileges or preferences. Nevertheless, regional characteristics
can survive while using and enriching these global standards. Thus,
internationality or the common ground of global discussions (in
politics, arts, science, law, etc.) is rather defined by the same
problems than by the same answers. All this leads to the conception
of a political, scientific, ethical and legal universalism, which is
compatible with contemporary phenomena of pluralism or relativism,
and which I consider to be fundamental for the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. But in this particular case, it is quite doubtful,
whether the international public is observing the same problem.

3. How can information in conflicts be or become
differentiated? (Possibilities of informational differentiation)
Bearing in mind the categories of scientific, political and ideological
information, we can identify internal and external differentiation
of information in conflicts. Internal differentiation consists of
statements and decisions made by direct conflict groups or by indirect
conflict groups who intervene from a formal outside.

External differentiation consists of observations made by the
international public (that is by third groups external to the
conflict). Their observations are neither determined by the conflict,
nor do they contribute to its dynamic. (Everything can be used and
misused elsewhere). Moreover, I subsume under external differentiation
texts and statements regardless of the speaker’s/author’s group
membership if they overcome particularistic points of view. This
means, they use criteria, which explain their aims and means only
within the limits of their own group and its position in the conflict.

It is obvious that there is no clear or absolute border between
external and internal differentiation, there is a fight over
this border, over its shifting, its blurring, its definition, its
conservation and so on, according to what the context requires. We can
even observe incessant switching to the other side, if the resonance
corresponds to the implicated or intended messages. If Azerbaijan,
considering respectively presenting itself as victim, wants the UN to
demand the Armenian retreat, this is about shifting the border between
internal and external differentiation: because it is an attempt to
integrate the half-informed international public into the internal side
of the conflict. Azerbaijani information strategy classifying Khojaly
as genocide aims at blurring the borders between internal and external
differentiation as well as between politics, science and ideology. It
is a fierce political struggle over the informational borders of
the conflict, in which science plays a crucial and ambivalent role
to discriminate ideology. It is only after science has succeeded
in saving itself, that we can expect it to be of practical use. We
are constantly exposed to the danger of particularism, tempting us
to encircle universal or at least supranational values of science,
politics, law and so on with expectations which serve only our
own group. This temptation we must resist. But what goes beyond
particularism? I think the right for national self-determination
does go beyond particularism. It is compatible with political and
legal universalism; it includes the potential right for all people
for self-determination. The only real objections to it are one-sided
imperial dreams.

In conflicts, the value of information is often systematically
put into question. One part of the way out of the conflict leads
over the upgrading of information, which can only be reached via
differentiation.

4. Why do we need different forms of information in
conflicts? (Functions of informational differentiation in conflicts)
I see two main and abstract functions of informational strategies and
differentiation in conflicts: outward (it is the) reputation of the
conflict group’s decisions and expectations, respectively the plans and
proposals supported by the group (we can also say: outward reputation
is about general recognition of more or less specific aims and means,
for which the group is assuming responsibility.) The main function
inward is the control over the power resources of the own group. That
is also to weaken the opponent’s power resources. I think both
functions are unavoidable. Other and more concrete functions are more
optional and subordinated to reputation and control: clarification and
disinformation, appeal to or isolation from international interests,
limitation and intensification of the conflict.

There is no peaceful alternative to the competition of defining and
re-defining the limits and contents of these functions, especially
if the conflict is unsettled. It requires a public that is able
and willing to identify and set out its provisionally diverging
expectations in the conflict, in order to reach a differentiated
language as common language and as common ground for a settlement.

5. Some final comments for a little outlook 1) It is a crucial point to
continue and, if possible, strengthen the efforts to bring the Karabakh
conflict more into the focus of the international public. This is
necessary to ensure discussions about and beyond patterns and effects
of established political and economic alliances, and to handle the
info-war, on which Azerbaijan pins its hopes (connected with massive
armament).

2) The Karabakh conflict has to be an object of research also outside
of Artsakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as outside of think tanks –
it is by far relevant and complex enough to be broadly analyzed.

3) Although the distinction between propaganda (ideology) and tenable
information is political, this distinction is defined and re-defined
only by the means of science. A non-catastrophic settlement needs
the fight for informational differentiation. In that fight, despite
the political, financial, and media resources of Azerbaijan, the
matter of Armenian self-determination in Artsakh is hardly beatable,
particularly since the propaganda sins of the Azeri science are severe.

4) I’m confident, that one day the matters of territorial integrity
and national self-determination will be mediated more consistently
in international law and politics. The name of Kosovo will not
rest, not even after its complete settlement. The double standard
of decisions and settlements will at least approximate each other
by virtue of developing and comparing perspectives in the name of
an incomplete universalism. Not least because of their inner and
mutual contradictions, the super powers cannot forever separate their
courtyards from their no man’s lands. There are some signs, that the
long way of imperial dreams is reaching its end – and leads to the
sober equality of national groups.

AZERBAIJAN’S DEFENSE MINISTRY: "WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT AZERBAIJANI SOLDIERS KILLED TWO ARMENIAN CITIZENS"

Today.Az
society/45793.html
June 19 2008
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry has commented on the death of two
Armenian citizens, killed in the result of fire attack on the
Azerbaijani border, as read Armenian mass medias.

Spokesman for Azerbaijani Defense Ministry Eldar Sabiroghlu commented
on the said issue, saying he has received no information about
the issue.

It should be noted that Armenian mass medias have apread information
that yesterday at 15:40 local time, an Azerbaijani sniper fired on
21 year old Levon Petrosyan, Chinari village resident, working in
the field from the dominating heights and shot him dead.

Moreover, on the same day at 20.30 local time the sniper fired at
Chinari village resident Rafik Sogoyan, who worked in the field,
from the dominating heights. Armenian side reports Sogoyan dead.

It is also reported that in the result of fire resident of the same
village Samwel Mirzoyan, born in 1961, was wounded in his leg and
brought to hospital.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO CONSIDER TWO SUITS BROUGHT BY AZERBAIJANI CITIZENS AGAINST ARMENIA

Azeri Press Agency
June 18 2008
Azerbaijan

Yerevan-APA. About 500 complaints have been sent to the European
Court of Human Rights from Azerbaijan against Armenia, said Armenia’s
representative in the European Court of Human Rights, Deputy Justice
Ministry of the country Gevork Kostanyan, APA reports quoting Regnum
agency.

Gevork Kostanyan said that two of these complaints would be
considered. He noted that Armenian government participated as a third
party in the investigation of the suits. Gevork Kostanyan said one
of the suits against Armenia was brought by an Azerbaijani displaced
from this country. According to him, the suit against Azerbaijani
government brought by two Armenians displaced from Azerbaijan was
also being investigated.

Association for Trauma Outreach and
Prevention, 185 E 85 Street, New York, NY 10028

UPCOMING EVENTS

June 11-22
Follow-up mission to Armenia

June 28
All day training on "Non-Violence, Peace Building, Conflict
Transformation , Anger Management, Self-Empowerment, Assertiveness,
and Forgiveness". The training session will be held at Fordham
University (Lincoln Center Campus).

July 20-25
XXIX International Congress of Psychology held in Berlin,
Germany.

August 3
White water rafting on Delaware River at Kittattinny Canoes

August 14-17
American Psychological Association Convention in Boston,
Massachusetts,

September 3-5
61st Annual DPI/NGO Conference. Theme: "Reaffirming Human Rights for
All: The Universal Declaration at 60". United Nation’s Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization will host a three day event at
their headquarters in Paris, France. Dr. Kalayjian has organized and
will chair workshop on "Women’s Rights are Human Rights: Cases from
Africa, Caucuses, Europe and the Middle East".

September 18
International Day at Fordham University from 3pm-5pm. For additional
information, please contact [email protected]

September 19-21
Mind-Body-Spirit Connection for Health and Happiness at the Ararat
Center. Dr. Kalayjian is key note speaker and will present on "Empower
Yourself Through Movement, Laughter, Forgiveness, and
Love".

September 23-29
Training Session in Mexico City

October 20-24
UN Week of Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns. The UN will
celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights

October 24
ATOP’s newly formed group on Healing, Transformation and Spirituality
will host a workshop on "Seeds of Forgiveness" from 10am
to 12pm

November 25
UN’s Day on Prevention of Violence Against Women

November 30
UN’s Psychology Day

December 5
Healing Circle held at Fordham University

__________

PAST
EVENTS

April 1-2
UN General Assembly Thematic Debate on the Millennium Development
Goals

April15
"The Lark Farm" a film about genocide was shown at Two Boots Pioneer
Theater in New York. A discussion about genocide and the movie was
held directly after the film.

April 18
NEAA Teacher’s College Columbia. 45th Annual Isabel Maitland Stewart
Conference on Research in Nursing and Awards luncheon. The theme was
"Restructuring the Nursing Environment: Self Sufficiency, Innovation
and New Directions".

April 24
General Committee meeting of the UN NGO Committee on Spirituality,
Values, and Global Concerns. Dr. Kalayjian was the Keeper of the
Sacred.

May 29-31
WNGE Board of Directors Retreat at Fielding Graduate University held
in Santa Barbara, California.

MEANINGFUL WORLD

ATOP Forms Working Group at UN on
Healing, Transformation and Spirituality
The NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values, and Global Concerns has
just approved a new working group entitled ‘Healing, Transformation, &
Spirituality’.
The Committee aims to integrate spirituality and values into all
areas of the United Nations agenda and of public policy. We aspire to
support the spiritual principles, global ethics and universal values
such as respect, justice, peace, dignity, freedom, responsibility and
cooperation, that underlie the work of the United Nations as reflected
in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
In order to fulfill the promise of the United Nations to create a
more peaceful, just and sustainable world, we support the recognition
and acceptance that spirituality and adherence to universal values are
key factors in providing solutions to global concerns. We believe that
an increased awareness and application of the importance of a value,
spirit and soul conscious dimension at all levels of society
particularly at the United Nations will allow for the finest and the
highest levels of human potential to flourish for the benefit of all.
This working group is spearheaded by Dr. Kalayjian supported by
Georgina Galanis, The UN Representative of the Institute for
InterBalkan Relations, of Athens, Greece, and Dr. William Gellermann,
UN Representative of the Communication Coordination Committee for the
United Nations (CCC/UN). Invited Board of Advisers include: JP
Farrell, Executive Director of the Global Health Chaplaincy, NY, &
Dr. John Bolling of the Soul Centered Therapy in Harlem, NY.
For additional information on the NGO Committee on
Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns and Dr. Kalayjian’s newly
formed group within the Committee, kindly visit CSVGC-ny.org.
___________________

On April 4, 60 people attended the Symposium on -The Roots of Evil- at
Fordham University, where Rachel Dink from Istanbul accepted a
posthumous award to her murdered husband, Istanbul journalist Hrant
Dink (1952-2006).

Dr. Kalayjian introducing Ms. Rakel Dink and presenting her with The
2008 Outstanding Achievement Award Plaque.

Rakel Dink, wife of Hrant Dink, a humanitarian assassinated for his
views of non-violence and human rights in Turkey.

For more information about the event, please read The Mirror
Spectator’s "Dinner for Rakel Dink at Diocese":

__ _________________

Intern Spotlight: Katherine Czado

Katherine Czado joined the Meaningful World family as an intern after
completing Dr. Kalayjian’s Practicum in Psychology course at Fordham
University. Katherine has become the Meaningful World newsletter
coordinator and contributes to activities sponsored by the
organization.
Katherine will be beginning her senior year at Fordham University
where she is a Psychology major. Throughout her years at Fordham, she
has completed volunteer internships at The Rosedale Center located in
the Bronx, New York and Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, New York. At
Rosedale, she mentored and tutored girls within the Bronx
community. While interning at Belleview Hospital, Katherine worked
with Child Life and Development pre-hospitalization program and
volunteered in the pediatric clinic’s playroom.
This summer Katherine is living in Arizona and will do volunteer
work in the downtown area of Phoenix. Katherine is currently preparing
for application to graduate school and would like to complete her
doctorate in Clinical Psychology.

"Lunch with Thomas James,
Provost and Dean of the College"
The NEAA Courier’s spring edition spotlighted the March 4, 2008 event
held at Teacher’s College:
"Ani Kalayjian and Connie Vance joined other alums, faculty, and
staff at TC on March 4, 2008 to meet with the new Provost and Dean of
the College, Thomas James, and with professor Erica Walker who lead a
discussion of mathematics education policy. Provost James spoke of the
importance of faculty research and connecting this with the human
community. Human needs are enormous, and Dr. James said that learning
is key. He called on us to leverage human learning to growth and
healing, by integrating the old wisdom with the new technologies."
For the entire article and more information, please visit
tcneaa.org.

ATOP & SCORE Teach Value of Community Service

By: Amanda Fogle, ATOP program coordinator
On Friday June 6 ATOP partnered with SCORE in order to raise funds for
ATOP’s Community Enrichment program. SCORE! Educational Centers works
with children in grades pre-K through 10th grade to help them achieve
their goals and reach their academic potential in math, reading,
spelling, and writing.
ATOP began working with Fund for Armenian Relief (from here on
known as FAR) in December of 07 to create a partnership to raise funds
for the center. The goal of the partnership is to assist FAR with
funding to run many of its children and family programs, these
programs include supportive as well as preventive services.
ATOP and SCORE partnered to create a community service program in
which children learned about the important of community service
whether it be local or in this case international. The children set a
goal of $ 200.00 to raise for FAR and were able to reach the
goal. ATOP’s team rewarded the kids with a pizza party to celebrate
their efforts. The children’s’ faces lit up as they ate together and
shared stories about how they managed to raise the money. After
dinner, ATOP led the children in some exciting team-building
exercises. The kids laughed and played, all the while learning the
value of team-work, outreach and community building.
ATOP will seek to continue to build its relationship with SCORE in
the future by partnering on similar events. TO learn more about SCORE
educational centers please visit: , to learn more about
ATOP’s community enrichment program please contact Amanda Fogle or in
her absence Ani Kalayjian.

Continued Work with WNGE
The WGNE, Worldwide Network for Gender Empowerment, is an
international community of activists and scholars who are committed to
further knowledge and research of gender issues.
The WGNE participates in action research on many themes including
the impact of globalization, diversity, and prevention of violence and
is affiliated with Fielding Graduate University.
Dr. Kalayjian has worked with the group for many years and is
pleased to share that streaming video has been recently added to the
WNGE’s website. For more information on the group or work done with
Dr. Kalayjian, please visit fielding.edu/wnge/index.htm.

Kalayjian Featured in Azad Hye
Dr. Kalayjian recently was interviewed in Azad Hye, a Middle Eastern
Armenian newsletter. The following is the some of the March 10
interview transcript:
Q: You have been dealing with trauma therapy in Armenian and other
instances. How can an event like the Armenian Genocide that happened
almost a century ago affect the lives of modern day Armenians? At what
stage of the healing from the Genocide trauma we are situated as a
nation?
A: I was really tired of years of people denying and trying to
combat and react to revisionist Turkish historians, and Turkish
government propagandas. I thought the best way to affirm that the
Genocide has taken place was to reach out to the scholarly community,
show them that these are the reactions of the Genocide survivors. Once
you present what the survivors are feeling, there is less question of
whether it happened or not, because you are looking at the outcome,
almost like a fait accompli. That was the very first paper that was
published on the Genocide because it was a systematic research. Forty
survivors were interviewed using the same questionnaire and we
compiled and analyzed the findings and we had it published in the
Journal of Traumatic Stress. When we finished the paper, it was a
25-30 page paper. But the Journal’s Editorial Board (which comprised
of 75% Jewish scholars) objected to the historical view because of the
Turkish pressure. We handed it in 1991 an
d it
was published in 1995. It’s natural to wait 1-2 years to have the
article approved but we went back and forth through several
revisions. It wasn’t because of the merit of the research; it was only
the historical information that we had to revise. That shows the
political nature of the article and the subject.
For more information on Dr. Kalayjian and her work within the
Armenian culture, kindly visit meaningfulworld.com.

ATOP’s Mental Health Outreach Project to Armenia Second Team Press
Release June 2008
New York, NY: The Association for Trauma Outreach and Prevention
(ATOP) has organized the second team of the Mental Health Outreach
Project (MHOP) in Armenia from June 12- 22. Dr. Ani Kalayjian and Ani
Jilozian, President and Public Relations Coordinator for ATOP,
respectively, will be delivering this mission to Armenia. They will be
conducting post-disaster humanitarian outreach training projects,
delivering lectures, working with refugees from Iraq, visiting
orphanages, and setting agendas for collaborative research and future
trainings. This MHOP team will be conducting training at the Stress
Center. In addition the MHOP team will visit the FAR Children’s Center
to train the personnel, social workers, and psychologists in
preventative and restoration methods for treating children with
trauma. They will utilize Dr. Kalayjian’s Biopsychosocial & Spiritual
Model to administer the program.
The team will also work with the Office of UN High Commissioner for
Refugees in Yerevan who are working with the Iraqi refugees migrated
to Armenia.
The team will visit various children’s centers (previously called
orphanages) as part of second phase of a 10-year follow-up mission to
observe progress and development. Donations of clothing and supplies
from several generous individuals will be given out at these centers.
The team has been invited to travel to Nagorno Karapagh to assess
the needs of war torn enclave, and develop training for their
mental-health professionals, to conduct research, and to help the
Children’s Centers. Currently ATOP has undertaken the Sponsor an
Armenian Child Project: By donating $250, you can help support a child
for one year, including food, clothing, and education. Please send
your tax-deductible donations to ATOP and make a difference in a
child’s life. You will receive a photo of the child and will be able
to communicate with him or her on regular basis. Mail your checks to
ATOP, subject: Sponsor Armenian Child, 139 Cedar Street, Cliffside
Park, NJ 07010-1003, or visit our website at

Holistic Interventions in International Psychology:
A Mind, Body, and Spirit Continuum
A workshop was held to explain and better educate on Mind-Body-Spirit
approaches – including medically proven techniques such as meditation,
yoga, guided imagery, breathing and forgiveness. The activity was
chaired by Dr. Kalayjian who also presented on the Mind-Body-Spirit
continuum. Other presenters were Dr. Rivka Bertisch Meir who spoke on
the power of the mind and Dr. Artemis Pipinelli on the obstacle of
obesity and how it challenges one’s mind, body, and spirit.
Up to 80% of all illnesses are related to chronic stress, and the
other 20% depends on our attitude. One in five women are on
antidepressant, and the men are not too far behind. – can make a
significant contribution when dealing with illnesses such as cancer,
heart disease, chronic pain, depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder, diabetes, asthma, back ache, gastrointestinal problems,
digestion, elimination and anxiety. This workshop focused on how to
transform roots of evil and anger into empowerment, assertiveness,
through the practice of forgiveness
This workshop provided the scientific basis for the
Mind-Body-Spirit model, and the most important research in the
field. The program included an added emphasis on the role of
forgiveness on the mind-body-spirit health. Dr. Kalayjian – who has
over twenty years of experience as a psychologists, psychotherapist,
logotherapist and international traumatologist – brought a
comprehensive overview of the mind-body-spirit, with hands-on
experiences from the field, personal stories, and prepared the
audience on how to integrate the Biopsychosocial and Spiritual model
into one’s everyday life, and coached on how to share this
transformative way of thinking and behaving in our work, our families,
and loved ones.
Dr. Pipinelli talked about obesity and using her own example she
illustrated how to make a life plan instead of diets. She gave a
comprehensive historic perspectives on weight gain, and meaning of
food.
Dr. Meir talked about fix beliefs and how they affect our attitudes
as well as our daily practices. Dr. O’Roark talked about the need for
evidence-based practice as it impacts international psychology.

Announcement for Internship Availability!!
Any creative contributions are welcomed and greatly appreciated. A
preceptor will guide you initially and as needed throughout your
term. Kindly send your resume and short statement of purpose and
length and kind of internship.
Deadlines for internship candidates are as follows:
July 1 – Summer , September 1 – Fall, November 1 – Winter
E-mail Contacts: [email protected], [email protected]

This message was sent by: Association for Trauma Outreach and
Prevention, 185 E 85 Street, New York, NY 10028

AN INTERVIEW WITH NKR PRESIDENT BAKO SAHAKYAN

Azat Artsakh Daily,
14 June 08
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic de facto is the most stable of CIS
unrecognized states, has a position of an independent side of the
conflict and persists direct negotiations with Azerbaijan. NKR
President Bako Sahakyan has stated about it in interview with Ã?Ã?Ã? –
daily (Russia) – Are Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia ready to
discuss the question of status of some liberated territories, which are
beyond the administrative borders of post Nagorno-Karabakh
self-government? – Armenia is an independent state. Proceeding
from its independence and interests, it negotiates with Azerbaijan. But
there is the main side of the conflict – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
just with the same primary tasks, which Azerbaijan, Armenia and other
independent states have. We are rather integrated with Armenia, we have
common economical field, common moneycurrency system. But it doesn’t
impede our independence. We respect our people’s opinion, who has
declared its independence, who adopted the Constitution last year, we
respect all attributes of our state authorities. And before expressing
our viewpoint round this or other question, we should be endowed with
possibility of participating in negotiating process. We can’t speak
about fatal question, as Karabakh’s status is – not being a participant
of negotiations. – Do you appear in favour of tripartite size
of negotiations or NKR-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan individual
negotiations? – We don’t attach importance to the quantity of
negotiations’ participants. But yet Azerbaijan doesn’t treat directly
with us, these all other sizes won’t be effective. – How do you
treat to military preparations of Azerbaijan and statements about
inevilability of a new war? – Militarization and warlike
oratory don’t have a psychological influence on us. The use of force
will lead to numerous human victims from two sides, but it doesn’t
solve the Karabakh problem. First of all there is an effective balance
of forces in the region, armed forces of our republic are able not only
to halt Azerbaijan’s aggression. In case of need military actions will
move to the depths of its territory. And in case of aggression we shall
treat in such way, as broadening of safety zone will be the unique way
of securing of the peace for our people. – Statements about
probability of territorial compromise in negotiations round Karabakh
are sounded in Erevan – In condition of Azerbaijan’s today’s
attitude, the conception `compromise’ becomes impossible.We are only
sure, that the problem shouldn’t be solved by unilateral order. The
problem is, that does Azerbaijan really respect the right of
Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination? So far periodic threats are
sounded about our state by Azerbaijan, they threaten to wipe out
Karabakh and Karabakh people. In such conditions it’s not appropriate
to use `compromise’ expression. -In Azerbaijan they speak about
probability of joit use of Lachin’s corridor (which connects Karabakh
with Armenia), on condition, that it will be inseparable part of
Azerbaijan. Your attitude in regard towards such suggestions. –
Azerbaijan hasn’t applied to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with such
requests and suggestions. But I’d like to note, that without Kashatagh
region, which is very important in strategical sense, the
administrative centre of which is Berdzor (formerly Lachin), it will
not be possible to secure the safety and progressive development of
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as an independent state. – Will you
let Azerbaijan refugees come back to Nagorno-Karabakh? –
Authorities of our republic don’t exclude return of Azerbaijan refugees
to Karabakh. We are sure, that its not merely possible till political
solution of the problem.We can’t lead this contingent of refugees to
new tragic events by unthinking actions. It’s also necessary to
coincide with the problem of Armenian refugees. While today it is
discussed unilaterally. Naturally, it is not sufficient for us.
– In Azerbaijan they state, that NKR management has settled 25 thousand
people in Lachin and Kalbadjar, and that 30 % of migrants as if has
left these regions.What’s the demographical policy of NKR in liberated
territories? – A great part of population of these regions are
refugees from Shahumyan region, North Artsakh, as well as different
settlements of former Azerbaijan SSR. They lost everything, and
founding here they returned to normal life. The refugees and inner
migrants are one of the most vulnerable layers of our country’s
population, and we have special attitude towards them irrespective of
where they live. – Marks of social state are noticed in NKR,
which are rare phenomena for post soviet region: benefits for mothers
and young couples, privileged hypothec crediting, considerable expenses
in the sphere of education and health service.Why has NKR decided to
incur such expenses in political and economical not clear situation?
– In the first point of the first clause of our Constitution it is
noted, that Nagorno-Karabakh republic is self-independent, democratic,
legal and social state. And one of the best indices of social state are
socially safed citizens. And we practically realize what the supreme
law of our republic obligates. Simultaneously such expenses only
strengthen our statehood. – How does it have to do with market
conditions, in which the economy of NKR and its main partners develops?
– Quite naturally. World practice shows, that market economy
and social state are categories filling each other. Permenant
development and presence of social sphere have a positive effect on the
rate of the economy’s growth. As many people are socially safed, as
much optimistically they will see future. – What do you expect
from Russia? Does the role, which it has in OSCE Minsk Group, satisfy
you? – The crumbly peace, which we have today, is a great merit
of Russia, especially in the first stage – just after the contract’s
signing. Naturally, we want Russia has greater influence on the work of
regulation of either our conflict or such other conflicts. As Russia
simultaneously bears also the historical responsibility for which is
going on in the region. But it’s a problem of world character, and such
countries like United States, France, England also bear responsibility
for everything taken place in the South Caucasus. Naturally they pursue
their own interests, which in my opinion, is also normal. – In
your opinion, are the size and degree of responsibility of Russia, the
USA and France comparable in the question of the region’s fate?
– Today they can be comparable, but the degree of Russia’s historical
responsibility, of course, is greater, than the degree of historical
responsibility of the USA. Because, when we have had relations with
Russia, the United States have not generally been here.

UKRAINIANS IRKED OVER GENOCIDE SNUB
By Brett Clarkson

Toronto Sun
06/13/5864731-sun.html
June 13 2008
Canada

Leaders of an "insulted" Ukrainian community last night blasted the
Toronto District School Board for approving a genocide class that
doesn’t include the 1932-33 Holodomor in its list of three atrocities
to be studied in-depth.

The TDSB last night unanimously approved the course design for
the Grade 11 genocide class, which will focus mainly on three mass
murders — the 1915 Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the 1994
Rwandan genocide.

But a board superintendent, Nadine Segal, said other genocides,
including the current Darfur crisis as well as the Soviet-engineered
Ukrainian Holodomor famine, will be touched upon in a broader, survey
context. Students will have the opportunity to choose other genocides
for independent study, Segal said.

The three atrocities studied in-depth will introduce the students
to the concept of genocides and crimes against humanity to give them
the tools to look critically at the world and its atrocities, she said.

"There’s certainly no attempt to undermine anybody’s tragedy or to
suggest that anyone’s suffering is less important than anyone else’s,
by focusing on the three that we did," Segal said.

The Ukrainians at the packed meeting last night were angered by the
decision because they want the Holodomor to be a core area of study
in the course, while members of the Turkish-Canadian community were
upset over the inclusion of the Armenian genocide.

"We’re insulted as a worldwide Ukrainian community, and we’re insulted
as a local community," said Markian Shwec, president of the Ukrainian
Canadian Congress Toronto branch. "We have 100,000 people in Toronto,
over 1.2 million Canadians are of Ukrainian descent, and we’re being
refused the opportunity to teach one of the worst tragedies of mankind
(as a core component), so we are insulted."

The 50 or so Turkish-Canadians, who carried placards that read "Stop
Armenian Hate Propaganda!", said Turks dispute the genocide claim,
and that the 1.5 million Armenian deaths were a result of war and
two million Muslims in the Ottoman Empire also died.

"I don’t want our kids to be subjected to this kind of hate
propaganda," said Ali Bukey, 52, a Turkish-Canadian.

But Aris Babikian, executive director of the Armenian National
Committee of Canada, disagreed.

"These people are ultra-nationalists who are propagating the Turkish
government’s policy of denial," Babikian said. "These people don’t
represent the Turkish-Canadian community. They are extremists."

The class, which will be offered in 12 high school across the city
in September, is the first of its kind for the school board.

JOB FAIR TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN ON JUNE 14
X-X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Listprocessor -Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

NOYAN TAPAN

Ju ne 12, 2008

On the initiative of the State Employment Service of the RA Ministry of
Labour and Social Issues a job fair will be held in the Dinamo sports
ground of Yerevan on June 14. According to the information provided to
a Noyan Tapan correspondent by Anush Haroutiunian, the Spokesperson of
the agency, about 60 employers representing different spheres of the
republic will take part in the fair. According to her, the objective
of the job fair is to organize the "meeting" of employers and those,
looking for a job, as well as to contribute to the increase in the
level of employment.

The job fair organized in Yerevan by the agency is the third one. Such
fairs have already been organized in Abovian and Goris.

ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTIAL MEETING CONSTRUCTIVE
ARKA
JUne 12, 2008

The latest meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents,
Serge Sargsyan and Ilkham Aliev, when the sides discussed a peaceful
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, was constructive, stated
RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan.

"It was a hope-inspiring meeting, after which the Presidents instructed
the two countries’ Foreign Ministers to continue the negotiations on
the basis of the Madrid principles," Nalbandyan told reporters.

The Minister reported that the sides discussed numerous issues. Many
points were discussed in private.

Commenting on the Azerbaijani side’s statement on its being unaware
of the Madrid principles, the RA Foreign Minister pointed out that
it is not "bargaining, but serious talks" that are in question.

"Of course, we will not settle all the issues with Azerbaijanis. We
are ready for bargaining as well, but it is serious talks that are in
question now, and Armenia is ready to continue the talks on the basis
of the proposals made by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen in Madrid,"
Nalbandyan said.

The Minister expressed the opinion that the Azerbaijani side will be
able to summarize its positions on the Karabakh problem.

"Azerbaijani officials make different comments on numerous facts. As
for us, we speak one language. The President, Foreign Minister,
Minister of Defense and other officials state the same principles,"
Nalbandyan said.

Since 1992, negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been held within the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chaired by the USA, Russia and France.

SERGE SARGSIAN: WE MUST UNIFY ALL FORCES OF SOCIETY

Noyan Tapan

Ju ne 9, 2008

YEREVAN, JUNE 9, NOYAN TAPAN. The Armenian president Serge Sargsian
on June 9 invited a number of famous intellectuals and public figures
to consult on the process of forming the Public Council.

In his speech S. Sargsian in particular said: "I have repeatedly said
and now I am also of the opinion that we must unify all forces of the
society in order to aim their efforts at solving the problems of our
country, and I think no one doubts that these problems are numerous. I
sincerely believe that that we can unite, I sincerely believe that this
problem exists in all countries because no party, no person receives
a 100% vote at an election, and naturally some forces and individuals
remain in society who, first, are displeased, and secondly, they do
not attach importance to solving the problems in cooperation with
others. In this connection I consider as incorrect the claim that
a Public Council is unnecessary if we have a parliament. I think we
should act in such a way that the public, people, individuals will be
able to participate, in a formal or informal format, in discussion
of problems that worry them, to participate in processes necessary
to advance our country. I must say frankly that I was somewhat – not
very much inspired, as after instructions, my aids reported that there
have been numerous responses, even some draft regulations, proposals,
some people even proposed their candidates, but I think we should not
hurry and you should use your authority so that the formation of the
Council will not be a bureaucratic process. This is most important. I
ask you to use your authority and knowledge and prompt us how to form
the Public Council so that it will not become a next in turn measure,
a structure resembling a state body, so that sincere discussion will
be held and idies will be born at the Council and it will be an extra
channel for perceiving the situation and taking respective steps. This
is my current goal and the reason why I have invited you".

In order to form a correct idea about the process, the president
gave some explanations, saying: "I do not consider those invited as
a working group, I view you as experienced people who have authority
among the public and I just want their experience and authority to
be used for correct organization of the process".

During the discussion, the meeting participants presented their
considerations and views about activities and organization of work of
the social body to be created. They welcomed the president’s initiative
and considered the Public Council as a mechanism for establising
an open and constructive dialog and bringing problems of the public
to attention of the highest bodies of power. They were unanimous in
their opinion that the Public Council should involve various strata
of the society and be a place for generation of proposals and ideas
and a rostrum that will allow to voice opinions, discuss problems
worrying the society and make proposals.

According to a press release of the RA president’s press service, S.

Sargsian explained that creation of the Public Council is not dictated
by the current situation and he has spoken about its necessity for
a long time.

He regarded the discussion as useful to himself and an agreement was
reached to continue the process.