Public Television And Radio Company Council Chairman AddressesOffici

PUBLIC TELEVISION AND RADIO COMPANY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN ADDRESSES OFFICIAL LETTER TO NA SPEAKER

Noyan Tapan
MAr 16 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 16, NOYAN TAPAN. Aleksan Haroutiunian, the Chairman
of the Council of the Public Television and Radio Company addressed
on March 15 an official letter to NA Speaker Artur Baghdasarain,
on the occasion of broadcasting programs concerning work of the
Parliament. A.Haroutiunian particularly proposed to implement
broadcasting of plenary sittings by the public radio and broadcasting
of a number of programs dedicated to works of the Parliament by
the public television not according to the demand of the law as
it’s at present, but based on an agreement to be signed between the
National Assembly and the Council. The Council Chairman stated at
the same day sitting of the National Assembly Standing Committee of
Science, Education, Culture and Youth Issues, that broadcasting of
the mentioned programs according to the force of the law contradicts
the regulations of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the
obligations undertaken by the Public Television on corresponding to the
European standards. Armenia became the EBU full and equal member in
2005. In the letter addressed to the NA Speaker, A.Haroutiunian also
expressed readiness to meet with all the political forces represented
at the Parliament to discuss the problem jointly. According to
him, the agreement to be signed will function till the end of the
commission of the Parliament of present convening, the type and
volume of broadcasting will remain unchanged, no financial problems
will arise. Responding the Noyan Tapan correspondent’s question, the
Council Chairman informed that he’s ready to come with the NA to such
a solution of the issue “for this isn’t considered as any attempts
made before the elections, but at the same time, for the principle
of editorial freedom of the Public Television is secured.” According
to A.Haroutiunian, in the opinion of European experts, the demand
fixed by the law on broadcasting the mentioned programs contradicts
the RA Constitution and principles of freedom of European mass media
as well. He also noticed that there is not any other member country
either of the European Broadcasting Union or the Council of Europe
where such a demand of the law functions.

ANCA: Fifty House Members Call for Military Aid Parity to Armenia a

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

FIFTY HOUSE MEMBERS CALL ON FOREIGN AID APPROPRIATORS TO
MAINTAIN MILITARY AID PARITY TO ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN

— Reps. Pallone and Radanovich spearhead campaign calling for
$75 million in U.S. aid to Armenia; Continued Aid to Karabagh

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressmen Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and George Radanovich
(R-CA) were joined by forty-eight of their House colleagues today in
urging the leadership of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee
to support pro-Armenian provisions in the fiscal year 2007 foreign
aid bill, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

Members of Congress cosigned a letter, addressed to the panel’s
Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY), which
would strengthen the hand of pro-Armenian members of the Subcommittee,
most notably Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Joe Knollenberg, Steve Rothman
(D-NJ), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and John Sweeney (R-NY). Rep. Sweeney, who
joined the panel last year, is one of only two Members of Congress
of Armenian heritage.

The letter notes that members of Congress are “deeply troubled”
that the Administration’s request for military aid for Azerbaijan
is considerably higher then the request for Armenia. By signing the
letter, legislators will add their voice to the effort to ensure that
the agreement struck in 2001 between the White House and Congress
to keep aid levels to these two countries equal is fully respected.
In addition, the letter calls for a hard earmark of at least $75
million for Armenia, a one-year $5 million allocation for Nagorno
Karabagh, and the preservation of Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act.

Members of Congress joining Representatives Pallone and Radanovich
in cosigning the letter included: Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME), Robert
Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Michael
Bilirakis (R-FL), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Dennis Cardoza
(D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Jim Costa (D-CA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY),
William Delahunt (D-MA), David Dreier (R- CA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA),
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Barney Frank (D- MA), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Rush
Holt (D-NJ), Michael Honda (D-CA), Dale Kildee (D-MI), James Langevin
(D-RI), Sander Levin (D-MI), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Stephen Lynch
(D-MA), Carolyn Maloney (D- NY), Edward Markey (D-MA), Doris Matsui
(D-CA), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), James McGovern (D-MA), John McHugh
(R-NY), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Martin Meehan (D-MA), Grace Napolitano
(D-CA), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Bobby Rush (D-IL),
H. James Saxton (R-NJ), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Joe Schwarz (R-MI),
Christopher Shays (R-CT), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rob Simmons (R-CT),
Mark Souder (R- IN), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Diane Watson (D-CA),
Henry Waxman (D- CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Representatives Knollenberg, Pallone, and Rothman also submitted
individual letters citing their foreign aid priorities for Armenia
and Nagorno Karabagh, among other countries.

The House Foreign Operations panel is set to review the FY2007 foreign
aid bill, which will then be considered by the full Appropriations
Committee and then the full U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate
will finalize its own version, which will be reconciled with the
House bill by a conference committee.

The text of the Congressional letter is provided below.

#####

March 17, 2006

The Honorable Jim Kolbe Chairman Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
Appropriations H-150, The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Nita Lowey Ranking Member Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations Appropriations 1016 Longworth Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey:

Thank you for your leadership on the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations. As you prepare the FY2007 Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill, we write in support of Armenia and US-Armenia
relations and we respectfully request that you consider the items
described below in your bill.

Maintain Military Parity

We are deeply troubled that the Administration’s request for Foreign
Military Financing (FMF), Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, De-mining
and Related Assistance (NADR), and International Military Education
and Training (IMET) funding for Azerbaijan is considerably higher
then the request for Armenia. We believe that this imbalance simply
cannot be allowed to occur.

Congress must ensure that Armenia’s level of FMF assistance is raised
to $4.5 million, NADR assistance is raised to $4.8 million, and
IMET assistance is raised to $855,000. U.S. policy toward the south
Caucasus has been to maintain parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
This policy was reached in agreement in Congress and was maintained
by President Bush in last year’s budget proposal. A lack of military
parity would undo this policy and weaken ongoing peace negotiations
regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, we believe that any imbalance
will contribute to further instability in the region if Congress
does not ensure military parity. Therefore, we strongly urge you to
include $4.5 million in FMF, $4.8 million in NADR, and $885,000 in
IMET funding for Armenia in the FY2007 bill, equal to Azerbaijan.

Economic Assistance to Armenia

The dual blockades of Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey continue to
impede Armenia’s economic well-being. Despite these blockades, Armenia
continues to successfully implement economic and democratic reforms.
As long as Armenia suffers from blockades on its east and west borders,
continued and robust U.S. assistance to Armenia will be needed to
help minimize their impact. Our assistance has provided an important
positive effect and will continue to do so when provided at appropriate
levels. For fiscal year 2006, $75 million was provided for Armenia.
Maintaining this level of support is critical. Therefore, we request
you include language ensuring that not less than $75 million in
Economic Support Funds is appropriated for Armenia in Fiscal Year 2007.

Assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh

We thank you for your continued support for assistance to Nagorno-
Karabakh. This support is in our country’s interests and helps
alleviate the conditions of the Nagorno-Karabakh people. It is
important for Congress to maintain a strong position on this funding
to ensure that these programs continue. Therefore, we request you
include language directing USAID to spend $5 million in Fiscal Year
2007 for programs in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Section 907

We request that you join us in opposing any changes to Section 907
in the fiscal year 2007 bill. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act
remains a fundamental element of U.S. policy toward the south Caucasus.
Because Azerbaijan continues its blockade of Armenia, Section 907 is
necessary. As you know, the FY2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act provided a limited and conditional waiver to Section 907 of the
FREEDOM Support Act in order for the U.S. to effectively combat
terrorism. Specifically, at the time, former Secretary of State
Colin Powell asked for flexibility to counter terrorist elements and
organizations operating within Azerbaijan. We strongly support Section
907 and request that you not make any further changes to this law.

We appreciate your consideration of these requests.

Sincerely,

www.anca.org

TBILISI: Ethnic Overtones In Samtskhe-Javakheti Clash

ETHNIC OVERTONES IN SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETI CLASH

The Messenger, Georgia
March 16 2006

The aftershocks of an apparent restaurant fight that left one man
dead in the multi-ethnic Tsalka district illustrate how sensitive
local nerves are to speculations of ethnic-based violence and how
sensitive Georgian politics is to reports of tension.

On March 9 in Tsakla an argument took place in a restaurant between
ethnic Armenians and ethnic Svanetians, Georgians who had been moved
to the region in the early 1990s. It was widely reported in Georgian
press that a fight fueled by alcohol broke out between the two groups
after a disagreement on music playing in the venue.

During the conflict a 23-year-old ethnic Armenian, Gevork Gevorkian,
was killed. Police arrested 5 suspects shortly afterwards and a
representative of the Public Defender’s representative went to Tsalka
at once. As the newspaper 24 Saati quotes Public Defender Sozar Subari
as saying, “We concluded that this was not an ethnic confrontation –
it was just an ordinary struggle.”

But the aftermath of the fight and death is far from ordinary. A group
of Armenian residents, who comprise 57 percent of the population in
Tsalka, called for a lynching of the suspects and raided the local
administrative building. It has been reported that police at the time
stood down in order not to incite a larger conflict.

The Tsalka aftershocks spread to Akhalkalaki, the central city in the
region, where on March 12 an Armenian NGO held a protest action about
the incident. According to 24-Saati, the action grew to anti-Georgian
statements. Eventually the crowd stormed in the local branch of the
Tbilisi State University and the local court building. Finally the
angry mob targeted the bishop’s office of the region after hearing
Georgians were keeping weapons there. The newspaper Akhali Taoba
reports law enforcers and the bishop’s administration agreed to allow
some of the protesters inside; once they confirmed no weapons were
there, the crowd dispersed.

What transpired over these four days is prone to exaggeration and
sensationalism. But the organizer of the initial protest has already
disavowed the mob’s behavior. “There were agents in the action that
called on the population to destroy the university. We did not plan
this,” a member of the Samtskhe-Javakheti Public Organization Council
Khachatur Stepanian told the newspaper 24-Saati. Still the council
plans to hold new, peaceful protests in the near future. “First of all
we demand that government affairs be conducted in Armenian language
and that Armenians stay safe as well,” the newspaper Khvalindeli Dghe
quotes council members as saying.

At the same time, the events in Akhalkalaki have irritated Georgian
society. “Samtskhe-Javakheti separatists want war with Georgians”
on Georgian newspaper, Akhali Taoba, wrote. Many representatives of
the Armenian Diaspora in Tbilisi have countered that the behavior of
the rioters must not me connected with the entire Armenian population
in Javakheti. “There doesn’t exist in Javakheti any anti-Georgian
position. It is impossible for Armenians to have an anti-Georgian
position,” says MP Van Baiburt in Akhali Taoba.

Georgian authorities have attributed the Akhalkalaki incident
to outside forces. The presidential representative in the
Samtskhe-Javakheti region Goga Khachidze says the conflict is
likely tied to Russian special services and resent opposition
demonstrations. He also calls on Speaker of Parliament Nino Burjanadze
to pay more attention to the situation.

Burjanadze on her part also blames ‘outside forces.’ As quoted in the
newspaper Akhali Taoba she said, “The criminals must be punished. It
is obvious that certain forces are apt to create a confrontation
between Georgians and non-Georgians. I am certain that Georgians
and non-Georgians will maximally try not to pay attention to these
provocations.”

Critics accuse the government however of being lackadaisical to the
ethnic dynamics in motion in the Javakheti region. “The president will
have to explain why he does not pay attention to the region, why he
did not work out a Samtskhe-javakheti development plan, why he did
not suggest for Armenians working in Russian markets any alternative
[work] besides potato selling,” wrote the newspaper Akhali Taoba.

It is tragic that the death of Gevork Gevorkian happened in the first
place and it should be also disconcerting for the Georgian government
that local residents have such little faith in the government’s due
process. An effective interactive dialogue with national minorities
in the region still needs development in the region; at the same time,
economic development of the region is also urgently needed.

Artur Abraham To Compete With Dutch Boxer On May 13

ARTUR ABRAHAM TO COMPETE WITH DUTCH BOXER ON MAY 13

Noyan Tapan
Mar 16 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 16, NOYAN TAPAN. World champion among professionals by
the IBF version in the medium weight category Artur Abraham (Avetik
Abrahamian) who upheld this title at the March 4 match, will compete
with a Dutch boxer on May 13. Informing about it at the March 15
press conference, the sportsman mentioned that he wants to compete
with Americans Jermen Taylor and Vinky Right who are considered to
be the strongest boxers in the world by another versions.

The boxer from Yerevan has lived in Germany with his family for already
several years. However, he often visits his homeland. Artur Abraham
started to go in for boxing in Yerevan. He attended the sports school
of olympic champion Vladimir Yengibarian. He became the champion of
Armenia for several times. He served in the Armenian army. After
moving to Germany he became a professional boxer. The 26-year-old
boxer has held 20 matches with professionals and gained a victory in
all of them. He ended 17 of these victories with a knockout. As he
said, though he is currently representing Germany, he feels himself
an Armenian.

Antelias: =?UNKNOWN?Q?COMMUNIQU=C9?= no.:2 – The third Pan-ArmenianW

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:

COMM UNIQUÉ NO.: II

THE THIRD PAN-ARMENIAN WRITERS’ CONFERENCE
IN THE CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA
6-9 APRIL 2006

The preparatory works for the third Pan-Armenian Writers’ Conference to be
held in Antelias on April 6-9 are underway. As we had announced in our first
communiqué, an Organizing Committee of five members was formed. With the
help of the presidency of the Writers’ Union of Armenia, the Committee
successfully collected the addresses of more than 170 Armenian writers in
the Diaspora and sent them invitations.

It is understandable that all the Armenian writers living all over the
Diaspora could not be reached. Realizing this, in our first communiqué we
advised all interested Diaspora writers to contact the Organizing Committee.

Gladly, writers in both Armenia and the Diaspora responded to our
invitations with great enthusiasm. More than 80 writers from Syria, Lebanon,
Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Switzerland, England,
Australia, Georgia, the United States and Canada readily accepted our
invitations. In addition, 50 writers will represent the Writers’ Unions of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.

The Conference is open to all Armenian writers in the Diaspora. Interested
writers should contact the Organizing Committee on the following address:
Kroghneroo Hamahaygagan Kim Hamajoghov
E-mail: [email protected] – Fax : (+961-4) 419 724

Antelias, 14 March 2006
Organizing Committee

NOTE: The Diaspora press is kindly asked to publish the above communiqué.

–Boundary_(ID_rqvXRSNtWtrLQrV2VL9f3g )–

http://www.cathcil.org/
http://www.cathcil.org/v04/doc/Armenian.htm

South Caucasian Confederation: Pro And Contra. Views Of RegionalExpe

SOUTH CAUCASIAN CONFEDERATION: PRO AND CONTRA. VIEWS OF REGIONAL EXPERTS

Regnum, Russia
March 15 2006

After a series of provocations that could well break out into a
large-scale war, there is again a fragile peace in South Ossetia. Is
it for long? How can the South Caucasian nations solve their existing
conflicts when at stake are their state interests, territorial claims,
let alone the feelings of national dignity and revenge? Where can
Abkhazians, Ossetians and Georgians, Armenians and Azeris – nations
that have lived in one common house for centuries in the past – find
common grounds now in the present? More and more authors have recently
been appearing with the idea of a South Caucasian confederation or
federation as a way to resolve the local conflicts.

The article “Deja vu: The Third Attempt of South Caucasian Federation”
by REGNUM examines the two past failures to form such an organism
and hypothesizes about the third attempt. But the objective of the
article is not a theoretical research with a question mark in the end,
but a practical monitoring of views by political experts from Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh. Bellow are the results of the
monitoring giving a true picture of the process.

Political expert from Yerevan Armenak Hovhannisyan tends to think that
the optimal scenario is not a confederation of the South Caucasian
states but a regional organization of the South Caucasian nations. “Our
region is multi-religious and multi-national, and I suppose that the
regional South Caucasian organization will represent the interests of
those nations,” says Hovhannisyan. He notes that conflicts will be
easily resolved if resolved from inside. “Solutions to all existing
conflicts are inside, and the three South Caucasian states should act
as one,” says Hovhannisyan. He doubts that a South Caucasian state can
be formed now. “To form just an organization is already a hard job.”

“I believe that today there is no single prerequisite for a united
South Caucasian state and will not be in the next 20-30-40 years. One
obstacle is continuing wars. But we should get started anyway. For
the beginning we can form a regional organization – not obligatorily
in one day and not obligatorily with agreements and legal rules. At
first, it might pass just recommendations that will take legal force
if the peace process goes on, says Hovhannisyan. He notes that such
organizations are also influenced by time. “No structure is insured
against disintegration – and confederations are no exception. In
their case, they either grow into federations or fall into pieces,”
says Hovhannisyan.

Another Armenian political expert Hrachya Galstyan says that a united
federative institution in the South Caucasus is a far-off prospect.

“Today we better consider forming a corporate – super-state or
extra-state – institution. This can be done, even more, this has
already been done – one vivid example is PACE,” says Galstyan. He notes
that the Caucasus will inevitably unite – for it is common political
and economic space. Galstyan is sure that super-state institution may
also include unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh,
who will be represented by their local authorities and cultural
societies. “This process is already underway,” says Galstyan. He
believes that this is the very “aegis” for resolving the conflicts
in the South Caucasus. “The conflicts in Kosovo and Macedonia have
been resolved under the EU ‘aegis’. We should also form one. This is
the only prospect for resolving our conflicts,” says Galstyan.

“The formation of a united state in the South Caucasus can be a result
of the resolution of conflicts rather than a way to resolve them,”
says the president of the Peaceful Development of the Caucasus union
(Tbilisi), expert Nugzar Gogorishvili. At the same time, “Georgians,
Armenians and Azeris should understand and say what they want –
to form our state or to be fully controlled by the north and the
west. Unfortunately, we are so weak and so afraid of responsibility
that we are looking for someone to shift it onto. The idea is no
news – there was a South Caucasian Federation in the past, but it
fell apart because we were not ready for it, we didn’t understand
what we formed. We, the nations of the South Caucasus, were yet weak,
we were outsiders to such an institution and sought support outside,”
says Gogorishvili.

“There is no sense in copying the past, we should form something the
public will accept. But it is a fact that we must form something,
especially as the US still regards us as a region rather than
individual countries. The West has its own interest in us: we are a
transport-communication corridor for them. But not to minimize our
role and not to marginalize ourselves as a state, all of us, all the
nations of the South Caucasus, need to sit down together and discuss
our interests,” says Gogorishvili. “The last events have shown that
we are still dependent and obedient – because we mostly seek to
preserve our status. The last Aliyev-Kocharyan meeting is a vivid
example. The blow-ups of gas pipelines in the Northern Caucasus and
the following energy crisis have shown that the South Caucasus is a
united region, united space, and we need a united regional structure,”
says Gogorishvili.

For Ossetians and Abkhazians it is better to integrate with the South
rather than North Caucasus. “The key goal of the national-liberation
struggle of small nations – is to preserve their languages, to form
independent states. But if Ossetians and Abkhazians fear assimilation
in Georgia, imagine what percentage they will constitute if part of
Russia. I think they better integrate with the space they are already
naturally integrated with,” says Gogorishvili.

Georgian analyst, representative of International Crisis Group
Georgy Gogia calls the project a utopia. “Integration – yes, but it
is better for Georgia to integrate with Europe rather than with the
South Caucasus,” says Gogia. He does not agree with the view that the
West regards the Caucasus as a region. “This is not quite right. If
one country moves quicker, it is forced to look back and wait for the
rest. With its current democratic processes Georgia should integrate
into the European structures rather than the South Caucasus,” says
Gogia. “I think that Georgia will inevitably integrate with the South
Caucasus – but why confederation? It will give Georgia no privileges,
while the Euro-integration, with its big promises, certainly will,”
says Gogia.

Leader of the Multi-National Georgia movement, Director of the Armenian
community in Tbilisi Arnold Stepanyan shares the opinion that it
is impossible. “It is impossible but indispensable for early peace
process. Everything depends on what relations the member states will
have, how they will coordinate their foreign policies. If the author
is from a foreign country and seeks to achieve non-democratic goals,
nothing will happen. The idea should come from inside, such a structure
should have wide public support,” says Stepanyan. At the same time,
Stepanyan says that the South Caucasus may unite in economy. “This
will happen earlier than the conflicts will be resolved. ‘

‘Tell me who in Azerbaijan is seriously thinking about South
Caucasian federation?” says the political reviewer of Zerkalo daily
Rauf Mirkadyrov (Azerbaijan). “Especially as there already was a
federation in 1918-1920. Though seemingly attractive, it lived for
several months,” says Mirkadyrov. “If one goes back into the history
of united Europe, he will come across a very interesting detail: the
idea of united Europe first appeared in XIX, while the EU was formed
after the WWII – that is, one cannot put the cart before the horse,”
says Mirkadyrov.

He is sure that the first and foremost precondition is to resolve
the conflicts. “We first need to settle the conflicts. Until the
conflicts are over, the sides will show no interest in integration –
and no integration is possible without mutual interest. Regional union
is a better project, but all depends on where we are moving. If we are
moving towards Europe, this should be taken as a fact. If we seek to
join the EU, we should integrate altogether rather than one by one,”
says Mirkadyrov.

His colleague from Azerbaijan Imran Veliyev, Director of Legal Support
Center, also thinks that a united regional institution is possible only
after the resolution of the regional conflicts. “We have studied the
history of such units in XX. Then the three South Caucasian republics
got together for springing from a simple structure to a more complex
one – the common Soviet space. If viewed like that, confederation can
also be a stage for attaining a stronger result. I support the idea
but think that it is unreal for the moment. It is unreal to form a
united structure when conflicts are still alive. It is impossible to
unite two quarrelling neighbors. ”

Veliyev notes that confederation is not an instrument for resolving
conflicts. Confederation is better for solving energy and economic
problems. “So, one better speak about it in some 10-15 years,” says
Veliyev. At the same time he is sure that conflicts must be settled
by nations. “To give Karabakh to Armenia or to give it independence
in no way means an end to the conflict. This is a dead-end, and one
can expect some new territorial claims shortly… The nations should
sit down and decide how to live further,” says Veliyev.

The assistant to the NK president David Babayan says that South
Caucasian state structure can be formed only if all the three
unrecognized republics are recognized. “At first glance, one might
think that a confederation of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the
three unrecognized republics is a solution. But a deeper insight
suggests a very important factor – all the three unrecognized
republics must be recognized. They must be given an equal status with
the three South Caucasian states. Then why expect unification? – we
can first recognize and only then consider forming confederation or
even federation. This is more or less logical, while to try to form a
federation and only then to resolve the conflicts is not a prospect,”
says Babayan.

Babayan is convinced that it is for the South Caucasian nations to
decide if they need such an institution. “They can do this through
a referendum or in some other way. But one can’t drive everybody
into a structure they know nothing about or see no meaning in. For
example, if South Ossetia wants to join North Ossetia, why should
it join Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh? The same is for
Abkhazia, who has definite interests with the Abkhazo-Adyg nations
of the Northern Caucasus. The federation must not be formed by force.

Otherwise, it will give nothing good,” says Babayan.

Nagorno Karabakh representative Edgar Azrumanyan says that it is very
difficult to form such a unit today. “Our antagonism is too strong and
insurmountable yet to make such a unit a possibility,” says Azrumanyan.

First of all, it is necessary to decide how many members the South
Caucasian confederation will have, says independent South Ossetian
expert Gennady Kokoyev. “We’ll not accept a structure of only Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am sure they in Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh
think the same. Each of the three republics has its own orientation
it won’t renounce. Karabakh is oriented to Armenia, South Ossetia is
people wanting to reunify with their brothers in the North. Besides,
one should not forget that Abkhazians are relatives to Adygs living
in the Northern Caucasus.

This all makes confederation hardly possible,” says Kokoyev. At the
same time, he says that if formed, the South Caucasian structure will
be an analogue to the European Union. “In the EU each country has
equal functions. This will hardly be the case in the South Caucasian
confederation even if it is represented by three recognized and
three unrecognized states,” says Kokoyev. “Neither South Ossetia, nor
Abkhazia or Nagorno Karabakh are going to renounce their priorities,
while a united South Caucasian state will only ignore and freeze
their existing problems,” says Kokoyev.

Vice Speaker of the South Ossetian Parliament Yuri Dzitsoity says
that a 3-lateral South Caucasian state will not suit South Ossetia,
Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh, while the 3+3 format will not suit
Georgia and Azerbaijan. Dzitsoity says that if South Ossetia becomes
a member of such a state, it will have to give up its orientation.

“We seek to reunify with North Ossetia. And not only won’t the South
Caucasian confederation solve our problems, but it will make things
even worse: we’ll have to forget the reunification of the separated
Ossetian people,” says Dzitsoity.

As you may see, a united South Caucasian state is not a solution
to the regional conflicts, while a regional organization – a South
Caucasian parliamentary assembly or something else – might well be.

ANKARA: Peres Steps In To Soften Jewish Lobby’s Backlash Over HamasV

PERES STEPS IN TO SOFTEN JEWISH LOBBY’S BACKLASH OVER HAMAS VISIT
Senem Caglayan – The New Anatolian / Ankara

New Anatolian, Turkey
March 7 2006

Israeli moderate leader Peres takes mediator role between Turkey and
American Jewish lobby as Jewish groups criticize Ankara over Hamas
visit. In his meeting with Jewish representatives, Peres asks for
continued support for Turkey, which is significant ahead of April 24,
anniversary of so-called Armenian genocide.

Robert Wexler, pro-Turkish Congressman, will visit Turkey on
Thursday to express behind the closed doors Washington’s concerns
and disappointment over the visit of Hamas.

Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Tuygan goes to Israel to meet his
Israel counterpart and discuss bilateral relations, recent regional
and intl developments.

Shimon Peres, a moderate Israeli political leader and prominent figure
in the leading Kadima party, last week took a mediating role between
Turkey and the American Jewish lobby during his visit to Washington.,
trying to soften negative reaction to last month’s Hamas visit to
Ankara, diplomatic sources told The New Anatolian.

Peres’s visit with the representatives of Jewish lobby was significant
ahead of April 24, the so- called anniversary of the Armenian
“genocide,” when the Armenian lobby steps up its campaign for the
recognition of the so-called genocide in the U.S. Congress.

The Jewish lobby so far backed Turkish efforts to block any resolution
referring to Armenian genocide claims. But following the Turkish
government’s meeting with Hamas representatives last month, important
members of the American Jewish lobby strongly criticized Ankara and
gave signs of withdrawing this key support.

The exiled political leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, visited Ankara
last month, triggering a diplomatic rift between Israel and Turkey.

Ankara rejected Israeli criticism of the visit and said an Israeli
spokesman’s comparison of the Palestinian group to Kurdish guerrillas
in Turkey was an “unfortunate statement.” Later the Turkish and Israeli
prime ministers talked on the phone and agreed not to let disagreement
on Hamas ruin the overall relations and bilateral cooperation which
is significant for both countries.

Jewish-American groups were very furious with Ankara over the Hamas
visit, suggesting that the Turkish government’s move to engage with
the radical group would “lead to consequences.” U.S. Congressman Tom
Lantos, a Jewish-American who is the only Holocaust survivor ever
to serve in the U.S. Congress, sent a protest letter to Erdogan due
to his party’s talks with Hamas. Lantos warned that the meeting with
Hamas would seriously damage Turkey’s national interests, its fight
against terrorism and relations with the United States.

Critical visit from US Congressman Wexler to Turkey

While Ankara tried to ease the concerns of Jewish lobby through
several meetings, it also finalized preparations to host an important
U.S. delegation chaired by Congressman Robert Wexler.

Wexler, who is Jewish and also chairman of Turkish-American Caucus that
supports Turkey against the Armenian “genocide” motions, will begin
his contacts in Ankara on Thursday. According to sources Wexler will
express behind closed doors Washington’s concerns and disappointment
over the visit of Hamas.

Ankara, for its part, is expected to clarify the reasons for
organizing the visit of Hamas to Turkey and explain in detail the
messages conveyed to Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal during the visit,
sources added. Turkish officials will also seek the continuation
of Wexler’s support for efforts to block Armenian genocide claim
resolutions in Congress, the sources said.

Turkish undersecretary to visit Israel

The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced yesterday that the
Undersecretary Ambassador Ali Tuygan went to Israel on Monday for
a two-day visit. Tuygan will meet with his Israel counterpart Ron
Prosor today to discuss bilateral relations, recent regional and
international developments, the statement added.

Robert Kocharyan May Face The Lot Of Eduard Shevardnadze: Armenian M

ROBERT KOCHARYAN MAY FACE THE LOT OF EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE: ARMENIAN MP

YEREVAN, MARCH 7. ARMINFO. If Nagorny Karabakh President Arkady
Ghoukassyan continues insisting on Armenia’s leaving the peace
talks, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan may face the lot of
Eduard Shevardandze, says Armenian MP, political scientist Hamayak
Hovhanissyan.

Kocharyan’s advent into power was due the wish of the international
political centers to have one man representing Armenia and Nagorny
Karabakh and thereby to weaken the position of the Armenian side. Now
the Armenian and Nagorny Karabakh presidents are showing strong
differences concerning the future of the negotiating process and
if Ghoukassyan sticks to his position Kocharyan may prove no longer
necessary for the international political centers.

Hovhannissyan says that the positive tendencies for giving priority
to the self-determination principle may serve Nagorny Karabakh only
if Armenia can restore the membership of the Budapest Summit 1994.

ANKARA: Informative Meeting On”New Approaches To Turkish-Armenian Re

INFORMATIVE MEETING ON “NEW APPROACHES TO TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS” SYMPOSIUM

Anatolian Times, Turkey
March 14 2006

ISTANBUL – Istanbul University Rector Prof. Mesut Parlak held
an informative meeting about the symposium on “New Approaches to
Turkish-Armenian Relations” which will be held at the university from
March 15th to 17th.

Stating that this symposium would be the most comprehensive one with
70 participants from Turkey and some other countries, Parlak underlined
that it would reveal the truths regarding Turkish-Armenian relations.

Parlak said that 1915 incidents had several dimensions –military,
social and psychological–, stating that the matter would be discussed
from a scientific point of view.

“I believe that the symposium will help a new period be started in
Turkish-Armenian relations,” he underlined.

Parlak noted that the university invited Armenian historians to the
symposium, but they said that they would not attend.

USA Reportedly Recalling Envoy To Armenia

USA REPORTEDLY RECALLING ENVOY TO ARMENIA

Arminfo
7 Mar 06

Yerevan, March 7: The US embassy in Armenia has not confirmed rumours
that Washington is recalling its ambassador John Evans from Armenia.

First the information about Evans’ recall appeared in The California
Courier newspaper.

Moreover, it was reported that the ambassador informed the government
of Armenia of this decision. According to the newspaper, the reason
for the recall was the ambassador’s incorrect statement about the
Armenian genocide in the Ottoman empire.

The US Senate has allegedly confirmed Richard Hoagland, the current
US ambassador to Tajikistan, as the ambassador to Armenia. A spokesman
of the Armenian Foreign Ministry said that he has no right to comment
on the affairs of a foreign state.