“Hay Dprots” Gives New School Furniture to Border Village Schools

FUND “HAY DPROTS” GIVES NEW SCHOOL FURNITE TO SCHOOLS OF OTHER 10
BORDER VILLAGES

YEREVAN, MAY 13, NOYAN TAPAN. The fund “Hay Dprots” (Armenian school),
with the financing of Diasporan Armenian benefactors, implements a
program, by which it is envisaged to give desks and chairs to more
than 100 border schools having up to 120 pupils of nearly all the
marzes. On May 12, within the framework of the program, schools of 10
border villages of the marz of Gegharkunic, received 275 desks and 550
chairs. So, up to now, the fund presented 1104 desks and 2208 chairs
to 24 comprehensive schools where 2208 pupils study. According to Mary
Zenjirjian, the Director of the Fund, other 1896 desks and 3992 chairs
will be presented till the beginning of the new school year. And this
means that 6 thousand pupils will start the new school year in
convenient school conditions. It was also mentioned that the program
will be continuable. About 600 desks and 1200 chairs are envisaged to
be monthly given to border schools.

BAKU: EU envoy says Armenia ready to compromise

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
May 13 2005

EU envoy says Armenia ready to compromise

Baku, May 12, AssA-Irada
Armenian defense minister Sarkisian said in a meeting with the
European Union (EU) special envoy on South Caucasus Heikki Talvitie
in Yerevan last week that his country is ready for compromises for
the Upper Garabagh conflict settlement, Talvitie told reporters in
Baku on Thursday.
`The compromise may dwell upon the return of some territories. This
is the first time Armenia has made such a statement.’
The EU envoy noted that the conflict resolution also depends on the
talks between Turkey and Armenia.
Talvitie said that Azeri and Armenian foreign ministers have not met
since March due to the fact that `issues on agenda have been
exhausted’.*

TBILISI: Why Armenia & Azerbaijan leaders did not attend Bush visit

The Messenger, Georgia
May 13 2005

Why Armenia and Azerbaijan leaders did not attend Bush’s visit

George Bush’s visits to Latvia and Georgia were markedly different in
that while in Riga the U.S. president met not only the president of
Latvia, but also the leaders of Estonia and Lithuania, in Tbilisi he
was unable to meet Presidents Aliev and Kocharian.

This suggests one major difference between the Caucasus and the
Baltic – that while the three Baltic countries have managed to
coordinate their domestic and foreign political strengths, and in so
doing have achieved great success, the three South Caucasian
countries have been unable to manage such cooperation.

Aside from a lack of cooperation, there are two major reasons why
such a joint meeting was not possible – the Nogorny Karabakh
conflict, and the Georgian precedent of democratic change through
velvet revolution.

President Bush was in Georgia, he said, primarily to express support
for the democratic developments he sees taking place in the country.
Bush hailed the Rose revolution as a model for others to follow,
noting that since then there have been similar developments in
Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and also outside the post-Soviet sphere, in
Lebanon and Iraq.

In Armenia and Azerbaijan, however, there have so far been no such
changes, although many regional analysts believe that both countries
could see similar upheavals in the near future. The Rose and Orange
revolutions have encouraged the opposition in Armenia and Azerbaijan,
and it is apparent that although Georgia enjoys good relations with
both countries, its model of velvet revolution is seen as a threat in
both Baku and Yerevan.

In Azerbaijan, parliamentary elections are to be held this autumn and
the opposition has already warned Ilham Aliev not to falsify
elections. It is notable that although President Aliev did not travel
to Tbilisi during Bush’s visit, a group of students did. According to
the Liberty Institute of Georgia, the Azerbaijan organization
includes a local youth group called Iokhi – a group akin to Georgia’s
Kmara – and it was their representatives who greeted Bush with
placards condemning Aliev.

While Aliev could have come to meet with Bush, however, despite the
placards, Armenian President Robert Kocharian was in little position
to do so. Armenia is highly dependent on Russia, its main strategic
partner, and given that Moscow was clearly upset by Bush’s visit to
Georgia, for Kocharian to have appeared in Tbilisi would certainly
have had a negative effect on Armenian-Russian relations.

The other important issue is that of Nogorny Karabakh. Ilham Aliev
refuses to attend any event also attended by Kocharian, meaning that
while it might have been possible for one of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents to visit Tbilisi, both at the same time
certainly was not. This situation seems unlikely to change unless the
Karabakh issue is resolved, something which seems even more
improbable at present, given that Armenia under Kocharian, who was de
facto president of the region before becoming president of Armenia,
is wholly opposed to returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan, something the
United States backs.

This should be of concern to the United States, as well as Russia and
other interested parties, as the continuing existence of frozen
conflicts in the South Caucasus – not only in Nogorny Karabakh but
South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well – poses a threat to the stability
of the region. Resolving all three conflicts through peaceful means
is in the interests of everybody concerned and should be a major
priority.

Increased regional cooperation should also be a priority. President
Saakashvili and others have frequently noted that the Caucasus
countries have much to learn from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia,
former Soviet countries that today boast strong economies and EU
membership. The cooperation symbolized by their three leaders
together meeting Bush is area where Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
could learn by their example.

Armenia to pay off debts on schedule – official

Armenia to pay off debts on schedule – official

Mediamax news agency
12 May 05

YEREVAN

Armenia owes 11m dollars to various international organizations,
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan said today.

Asked by our correspondent, the Armenian foreign minister said that
agreements had been reached on schedules of paying off debts and
Armenia will not be deprived of its right to vote in any international
structure.

Poland Enacts New National Minorities Law, Report Views Minority #s

Poland Enacts New National Minorities Law, Report Views Minority
Numbers Warsaw Polityka in Polish 30 Apr 05 pp 28-31

[Report by Jan Dziadul: “Republic of the Nine Nations” — first
paragraph published in boldface]

On 1 May, Poland’s national minorities will receive their own
constitution: the “Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the
Regional Language.” It confirms nationality-based privileges,
introduces new ones, and will soothe many flashpoints. But it will
also ignite new ones?since it overlooks the aspirations of the
Silesians and Kashubians.

The Silesians have promised to put up a tough fight for their
rights, this time in Brussels. The Kashubians believe that they do
form a nation, and will argue painstakingly in favor of being treated
like a minority. They maintain that the law looks more towards the
past than towards the present day. The Germans, Ukrainians, and
Belarusians also have their doubts.

In the 2002 general census, 471,000 individuals, in other words 1.5
percent of the Polish Republic’s citizens, declared themselves to be
of a nationality other than Polish. This result is being questioned by
national and ethnic activists, who estimate their strength (very
modestly) at 5 percent of Poland’s 39 billion inhabitants.

The Ukrainians seek the causes for their weak representation in
ongoing Polonization?some would say coerced?which affects them in
particular because they are dispersed as a result of the postwar
resettlement operation.

The Belarusians are afraid of an explicit nationality identity or
of the label “kacap” [an ethnic slur] and do not want to be identified
with what is going on across the eastern border in their kindred
state.

The small numbers of Germans in the census is the result, in their
opinion, of political and PR techniques: namely, the result of the
nonexistent “Silesian nationality,” which drastically reduced the
Germans’ holdings.

The Jews do not know why the census showed that there were only a
bit more than a thousand of them, although they were counting on a
result ten times higher. Everyone pins the blame for the poor results
on the methodology of the census.

If we assume that three times as many of our citizens might have
admitted to having national roots, we still have hardly any minorities
at all. Yet our level of dislike for other nations as revealed by the
CBOS [Public Opinion Research Center] research carried out at the end
of 2004 — if these results can be translated into attitudes towards
nationalities residing in Poland?is astonishingly high. In descending
order, we are not fond of: the Roma/Gypsies (56 percent negative
assessments), Russians (53 percent), Jews (45 percent), Belarusians
(37 percent), Ukrainians (34 percent), Germans (34 percent),
Lithuanians (21 percent), Slovaks (16 percent), and Czechs (14
percent).

The idea of enshrining minority rights in a statutory act was
promoted as far back as in 1990, by Jacek Kuron. Then he fought for
nationality rights for two years. The law took on a conclusive form at
the end of 2004. “By a miracle we managed to finish work, because
during the final stretch such underlying layers of xenophobia
manifested themselves, such great grievances against minorities, that
it seemed that we had come up against insurmountable barriers,” says
Eugeniusz Czykwin from the SLD [Democratic Left Alliance],
parliamentary deputy rapporteur and a representative of the Belarusian
community. He says that for years he has not heard so many negative
opinions about minorities at the Sejm: “If those of us on the
commission had not broken several parliamentary deputies from the
Civic Platform [PO], the law would still be in its infancy,” Czykwin
believes.

Disputed Language

The Polish state had multiethnic roots from the very beginning. In
the prewar Polish Republic (in 1931), as many as 10.5 million of its
some 32 million inhabitants (more than 32 percent) declared themselves
to be of a nationality other than Polish. Minorities, as well as the
so-called “from-round-heres” (those who were unable to identify a
group they belonged to), had a numerical advantage over Poles in close
to one-third of the country’s territory. Nationality-based animosity
was a common event?and it has historical repercussions to this very
day. The war and postwar migrations fundamentally changed the ethnic
proportions. PRL [People’s Republic of Poland] propaganda propounding
the moral and political unity of the Polish nation also had its
effect.

A representative of the Internal Affairs and Administration
Ministry who took part in the work at the Sejm says that he could
clearly sense the old fears among parliamentary deputies. Bad memories
were revived. Even after the law was passed, Jerzy Czerwinski, a
parliamentary deputy from the Catholic-National Movement [RKN] from
the Opole region, still thought that it was unnecessary: “Because
minority rights are very well protected in Poland even without it,” he
reiterates. He also sought to restrict minority privileges in terms of
supplementary languages in public offices, geographical names, and
schooling. Jacek Kuron at one time proposed that a second language be
established in gminas [the lowest level of Polish territorial
administration, smaller than powiats] where no less than 8 percent of
the population declared themselves to belong to a different national
group. This criterion applied to 48 gminas in the country. Then the
bar was raised to 20 percent?which reduced the number of gminas
inhabited by nationalities to 42. In the autumn of last year, the Sejm
voted to institute a 50 percent threshold, which would have granted
statutory rights to only five gminas in Poland: one Lithuanian one and
four Belarusian ones. None of the gminas resided in by Germans would
have been able to benefit from privileges (this is because the local
population was divided into Germans and Silesians). After the Senate
made amendments, parliament ultimately adopted a 20-percent threshold,
and so we have 42 gminas with nationalities (see map below).

Border Lines

As concerns the Germans, symbols remain a bone of
contention. Tensions have been sparked not simply by monuments
commemorating the death of the German soldiers from a given village
(this is a tradition of Catholic and protestant parishes in these
lands), but rather by the Nazi motifs placed on them?for example, the
name Hitlersee on a monument in Szczedrzyk: “There has been surprising
stubbornness to the retain names imparted by the Third Reich, even
though German activists knew full well that such practices are banned
in Germany itself,” says Professor Danuta Berlinska, a sociologist
from Opole University. When this law comes into force, it should solve
this touchy issue?it forbids minorities from referring to names from
the years 1933-1945, which were imparted by the Third Reich or by the
USSR. But a large number of German names that might appear after 1 May
could spark new conflicts. As might the introduction of German as a
“supplementary language” in public offices.

Sometimes what gets people’s goat boils down to very detailed
issues, for example concerning German soldiers. The Germans write on
their plaques that these soldiers “fell” [a term entailing an
honorable death in Polish], while we refuse them this right and want
soldiers in Nazi uniforms to be identified as “victims” of the
war. This issue has repercussions with the civil rights ombudsman’s
office, for example: “I understand that people oppose soldiers of an
aggressor army being made equivalent to those who defended
independence,” believes Tomasz Gellert, chief of the division for
protecting the rights of foreigners and national minorities. “But the
way the world is, soldiers are treated as having fallen in battle,
regardless of what they were fighting for and whether they wanted to
take part in this war or not.”

Wartime history also constantly casts a shadow over
Polish-Ukrainian relations as well: “We are talking about the
respectful commemoration of the victims of the borderland conflict, as
we call it,” says Miron Kertyczak, president of the Union of
Ukrainians in Poland. To put things explicitly, this is about
commemorating the soldiers of the UPA [Ukrainian Insurrection Army]:
“This raises controversy; we do not receive consent for our proposed
wording on monuments.” He believes an breakthrough is imminent,
however. “If the issue of the Lyczakowski Cemetery in Lvov is settled
in line with Warsaw’s thinking, then the ice will be broken for us
too.”

But if chairman Kertyczak were to evaluate the state of
Polish-Ukrainian relations, he would give them a B grade. The
Ukrainians have accepted apologies for their postwar resettlement,
received modest compensation for their sojourn at the labor camp in
Jaworzno (for them this was a deportation camp, where 161 Ukrainians
died). “We consider the issue closed, although we were not successful
in securing compensation under the regulations that apply to victims
of repression,” the chairman says. “But we have our own education,
publishers, we are building churches?there are no major complaints
here.”

The good assessment is undoubtedly affected by the fact that
attitudes towards Ukrainians are changing before our very eyes. In the
CBOS research investigating likes and dislikes, Ukrainians were for
years among the most disliked nationalities: 65 percent of Poles gave
them a negative evaluation in 1993, and this ratio remained around the
level of 50-60 percent for years. In 2003, more than half of Poles
still felt dislike for them. In the surveys taken before the end of
last year, the rate dropped to 34 percent: “This is the effect of the
orange revolution,” Kertyczak says. “Poles’ support for the events in
Kiev meant that in our mutual relations we have moved beyond the elite
circle,” he goes on to say. Ordinary people saw ordinary people,
rather than Ukrainian devils. “We began to return to internal
emigration, to admit to our Ukrainian roots,” the leader of Ukrainians
explains. “If a census were held today, we would make a much better
showing.”

Parliamentary deputy Eugeniusz Czykwin, one of the Belarusian
leaders, gives the state of mutual relations a grade of C+. “We do not
have the kind of historical events haunting us as there are in
relations with the Germans or Ukrainians,” he says. Although there are
wounds here too: “The commanders who operated in these lands after the
war have been rehabilitated,” he explains. They try to make heroes out
of them, when for us they remain terror-mongers, arsonists of our
churches, who wanted to throw Belarusians to the other side of the
border.”

What is going on in Belarus has an impact on the perception of the
Belarusian minority: “The authoritarian government in Minsk definitely
does not improve our position,” Czykwin agrees. The statements by
Aleksandr Lukashenka, such as his recent state of the nation address,
contain very controversial assertions about Belarusian Poles,
Polesians, who allegedly support his regime profoundly. And this, in
turn, has its effect on Belarusians in Poland. Belarusian television
programs, where Polish areas bordering on Belarus are portrayed as a
zone of destitution and ruined collective farms, augment the problem.

A Belarusian identity is not in fashion today. Czykwin is traveling
around the minority gminas in connection with the coming into force of
the minority law. It permits geographical names to be established in
the minority language: “Elderly people are decidedly against this;
they say that they do not want to additionally irritate Poles,” he
reports. “Young people are bolder, but they are dampened by the dark
image of Belarusians as portrayed in Polish media.” The Belarusians’
mood was also affected by the downfall of the SLD, which they have
stuck by for years. “I will only say for myself: my mother associates
Belarusian’s civilizational advance with the PRL,” Czykwin says, but
he also points out that during the first elections Belarusians were on
the side of the Solidarity camp: “We were pushed into the embrace of
the left wing by the Catholicism and nationalism fighting it out
here. There is vast disappointment in the left, but in the forthcoming
elections it will transla te more into a low turnout?Belarusian voters
will not switch to other groups.”

Unknown Nations

The Kashubians, on the other hand, have consistently backed the
Solidarity camp since 1989. The UW [Freedom Union], and then the AWS
[Solidarity Electoral Action] won strong support among them, now there
is every indication that they will cast the most votes for the PO
[Civic Platform]. These sympathies did not help them in attaining the
status of a nation. The issue of their own statehood proved to be an
insurmountable obstacle: “We submitted a compromise request, for us to
be treated as an ethnic minority,” says Artur Jablonski, starosta
[powiat-level administration head] of Puck, chairman of the
Kashubian-Pomeranian Association. The Kashubians have their own
language, literature, and demonstrate clear cultural
distinctiveness. “But there was resistance; we were led to understand
that the commission would not consent to the proliferation of minority
entities. We did not go to battle over it so as not to hamper the
legislative process, because the law would still not have been
passed.” Suspended in a vacuum, the Kashubians nevertheless enjoy all
the benefits awarded to minorities. “And we do our own thing, even
so!” Jablonski adds.

Silesians, on the other hand, with 173,000 individuals the largest
minority in the census, want an explicit expression of this. In
February, the Regional Court in Katowice refused to register the Union
of People of Silesian Nationality. An application to this effect had
first been first submitted in 1996. That case made its way through all
the court levels in Poland, and ended up in 2004 before the Great
Chamber of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ruled that
the Polish courts had not violated their rights by refusing to
register the Silesians. The judges in Strasburg did not deal with
whether the Silesians constituted a nation or not, but rather pointed
out that in requesting registration the Silesian activists were
seeking election privileges.

The statutes were amended, but the court rejected them, stating
that only cosmetic changes had been made. “We are considering the
possibility of registering an association on the level of European
structures,” says Andrzej Roczniok, a leader of the new Silesian
national initiative. The Silesians will move heaven and earth to
achieve their goal. “Those in Warsaw will not manage to sweep the
largest minority in the country under the carpet,” he insists. In the
forthcoming elections to the Sejm, some of the Silesians want to run
on the tickets of the German minority, which are privileged in terms
of not having to cross the election threshold.

One can also expect tensions with respect to the Roma
minority. “Last year we received some 30 complaints from Roma,” we
were told by Gellert from the office of the civil rights
ombudsman. “We are attempting to assuage tensions, but it is clearly
evident that we understand them, but they are not trying to understand
us.” The Roma still utilize the topic of discrimination when applying
for asylum abroad.

Officially we are a Republic of nine nations and four ethnic
minorities. On paper, everything checks out, although this doesn’t
include any Vietnamese, Chinese, or individuals from the post-Soviet
republics at all. They will probably ultimately be found, and then we
will have a truer picture of the situation. The problems reported by
minorities still frequently come up against irritation and scorn; we
still consider them to be on the very fringe of the fringe. Although
many people believe that we are dealing here with a statistical error,
or with rare oddities against the wider Polish backdrop, it is
important to show some appreciation for these oddities. For the good
of the majority. And the EU is touchy on this issue.

[Box] Changes in Signs

In mid-March, the voivode of the Podlaskie Voivodship met with the
authorities of the 13 gminas where the regulations of the minority law
can be applied. “The voivode declared his assistance, but it was
astonishing that we did not notice any zeal to exercise the new
regulations in the 12 Belarusian gminas, even those where the minority
is in the clear majority,” says Marek Liberadzki, the viovode’s
officer for national and ethnic minorities. Perhaps our Belarusians
are waiting for some sort of practical models to follow. “We will wait
and see,” Liberadzki comments.

Applications could come in from the Punsk gmina in the voivodship’s
north eastern corner, which is three-quarters dominated by
Lithuanians. “We will begin by changing the signs along the entry and
exit roads to our villages,” says Witold Liszkowski, wojt [village
administration head] of Punsk. The voivode will finance this change;
putting up additional street signs is up to the gmina’s own
authorities. Neither is there any zeal in terms of changing the
orthographic rules for writing surnames. Perhaps they will appear
first in the personal identity cards of young Lithuanians.

“We are approaching this issue very practically,” the wojt
explains. Changing one’s personal identity card requires one to change
all one’s documents, including property records: “It’s a shame to
waste the time and money; what is most important is that we do have
such a right.” And in terms of the supplementary language in public
offices, the act only upholds the existing state of affairs: “All the
employees know Lithuanian, and in contacts with the population it has
for years been the primary language. Official letters are of course
written in the official language, and here probably nothing will
change.” They are issued, after all, in order to function in Poland.

[box] National and Ethnic Minorities

First figure: data from 1931 census?second figure: activists
estimates in 2002 — third figure: data from 2002 census

Belarusians [national minority] — 1 million — 200,000-300,000 —
50,000

Czechs [national minority] — 38,000 — 3,000 — 800

Karaims [ethnic minority] — 1,000 — 200 — 43

Kashubians [neither an ethnic minority nor a national minority] —
200,000 — 300,000-400,000 — 5,100

Lithuanians [national minority]: 8,000 — 20,000-25,000 — 5,800

Lemks [ethnic minority]: 1.2 million — 60,000-70,000 — 5,800

Germans [national minority]: 800,000 — 300,000-500,000 — 153,000

Armenians [national minority]: 6,000 — 5,000-8,000 — 1,100

Roma [ethnic minority]: 50,000 — 20,000-30,000 — 12,700

Russians [national minority] 140,000 — 10,000-15,000 — 6,100

Slovaks [national minority]: not accounted for — 10,000-20,000 — 2,000

Silesians [neither an ethnic minority nor national minority]: (no
figure) — (no figure) — 173,000

Tatars [ethnic minority] — 13,000 — 5,000 — 453

Ukrainians [national minority]: 3 million — 200,000-300,000 — 31,000

Jews [national minority]: 3 million — 8,000-10,000 — 1,100

Poland’s population in total: approx. 32 million — 38
million?approx. 39 million.

[Box] What Does the Law Give Them?

Individuals who belong to the minority have the right to: write
their names and surnames in accordance with the orthographic rules of
their language, to learn the minority language and to freely use it in
public and private life. In gminas where a minority exceeds 20 percent
of the population, its language can be used as a supplementary
language in public offices and used in the names of localities, sites,
and streets (with the exception of those names which were given by the
Third Reich or the USSR in the years 1933-1945). The public
authorities have the obligation to support cultural, publishing, and
educational activities of minorities (including through subsidies).

[The map shows the powiats [the middle level of Polish territorial
administration, larger than gminas, smaller than voivodships] where
national or ethnic minorities are strongly represented: Belarusians,
Lithuanians, Kashubians, and Germans.]

Genocide seeks to erase memories

Genocide seeks to erase memories
By Terri Fine | Special to the Sentinel
Posted May 9, 2005

Orlando Sentinel , FL
May 8 2005

I recently attended a conference at Yad Vashem, the Jewish Holocaust
victims’ memorial in Jerusalem. The conference brought together
Holocaust educators from around the world to honor the 50th
anniversary of Yad Vashem and to share strategies for teaching about
the uniqueness of the Holocaust and how it helps us understand other
mass genocides such as those in Armenia, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Rwanda and Chile.

One challenge to understanding the Holocaust is that genocide is very
much a part of our present tense. It was not an historical anomaly,
where a combination of political leaders and institutions, mass
support, economic circumstances and a permissive international
environment, made the murder of 6 million Jews, and 5 million others,
including gypsies, homosexuals, members of the political resistance
and the disabled, appear a legitimate government exercise in the name
of a “Final Solution” to racial and ethnic impurity. Two-thirds of
all European Jewry was murdered. Victims included 90 percent of all
Jewish children and 80 percent of Jewish intellectuals and religious
leaders.

Genocide is a 20th century phenomenon. One goal of genocide is to
erase the memory of its victims by eliminating the very physical,
historical and social roots of those peoples. It is one thing to
destroy someone; it is another to erase any memory or record of their
existence. Nazi efforts to erase non-Aryans involved destroying the
communities in which they lived. Entire villages, including homes,
shops, schools, houses of worship, public records and government
offices, were razed to the ground, destroying any signs of their
residents’ daily lives. In 1945, the Nazis worked frantically once
liberation was nearby, destroying their own genocide records,
incinerating dead bodies and removing living victims from the
concentration and death camps by taking them on death marches and
murdering them. Most Holocaust survivors were left without friends
and relatives to cling to for support, homes to return to or
possessions and financial assets to secure. Most survivors were
ailing and terrified upon their liberation; they had no homes to
return to because their own pasts had been destroyed.

Today, at Yad Vashem, remembering what the Nazis sought to eliminate
provides important lessons for more recent genocides. One exhibit is
a cattle car. Cattle cars were used to transport victims from their
homes and villages to concentration and death camps. One hundred
victims were usually herded into a single cattle car and transported,
standing up, with no food, water, fresh air or sanitary facilities,
for several days. Many died during these trips. Those who lived
through such journeys arrived diseased and dehydrated.

At Yad Vashem, the cattle car is placed on a railroad trellis at a
distance from the nearest road. The car itself is unreachable and
untouchable, although the trellis extends to the road. The symbolism
is clear. Genocide makes its victims unreachable and untouchable, as
not only are they themselves victims of murder but so, too, are any
memories of them. Nearly all Holocaust victims lost all or most of
their family members leaving no one to remember them.

There is a traditional Jewish custom of leaving a stone at a
gravesite when one is visiting a cemetery. The stone symbolizes one’s
presence; it is a sign of attendance. In essence, leaving a stone
signifies that the person may be lost but their memory is not. At Yad
Vashem, there are piles of stones placed on that part of the railroad
trellis nearest the road. Persons leaving stones do so because the
unknown victims existed; persons leaving stones believe that victims’
memories should not be erased with their bodies.

The cattle car at Yad Vashem is, in many respects, a poignant symbol
of the causes and consequences of genocide because genocide seeks to
erase the very roots of entire peoples. By dehumanizing its victims,
creating distance between the victimizers and their victims, genocide
makes legitimate the most illegitimate and inhumane of all human
acts. Efforts to confront the effects of genocide, such as those
being undertaken at Yad Vashem and other projects supported by the
United Nations, seek to identify the names and background information
of genocide’s victims.

Such efforts at humanizing genocide’s victims by preventing the
genocide of their memories is the first step toward preventing
genocide itself.

Terri Fine is an associate professor of political science at the
University of Central Florida. She wrote this commentary for the
Orlando Sentinel.

ANKARA: Turday Members Condemn Switzerland

Turday Members Condemn Switzerland

Turkish Press
May 7 2005

ANKARA (AA) – Members of Turkish World Solidarity Group (TURDAY)
met Swiss Ambassador to Turkey Walter Gyger and presented him a
letter which condemns the decision of Swiss authorities to open a
legal procedure against Prof. Yusuf Halacoglu, Chairman of Turkish
Institute of History.

TURDAY Executive Board Secretary Prof. Dr. Orhan Kavuncu told reporters
that besides the letter they also presented a statement including views
of 81 organizations of TURDAY against so-called Armenian genocide. “We
asked Gyger to convey these views to Swiss officials,” added Kavuncu.

“Gyger said that he hoped this incident will not deteriorate relations
between Turkey and Switzerland,” said Kavuncu.

Switzerland opened a legal procedure against Prof. Halacoglu because of
his statement against the allegations of so-called Armenian genocide.

‘Erdogan may meet Kocharian’

AZG Armenian Daily #082, 06/05/2005

Armenia-Turkey

‘ERDOGAN MAY MEET KOCHARIAN’

Turkish Foreign Minister States

In his speech at the Turkish National Assembly, foreign minister Abdullah
Gul said hinting at the resolutions on Armenian Genocide, “Parliaments of
some countries are taking decisions. Injustice against Turkey continues.
None of these decisions will remain unanswered. We’ll send a challenge.
We’ll tell those slandering us: ‘Prove if you can’ and will make them
provide evidence. We are working on this direction. We’ll present the
results in near future. We are in disadvantage. Armenians have gone far
ahead. We need to separate Armenia from Diaspora for our struggle. We are
going to send letters to all countries that have taken decisions on the
genocide and the EU states”.

Answering a question concerning possible meeting of Erdogan and Kocharian in
Warsaw, Abdullah Gul said that sides hold meetings at international forums
but only between foreign ministers so far. Meanwhile Gul thinks it possible
that Armenian President and Turkish Prime Minister will meet in Warsaw
though, he emphasized, there was no arrangement. He then reminded that there
are no diplomatic relations between the countries.

By Hakob Chakrian

Educational issues in Georgia’s Armenian schools demand Armenian’sat

EDUCATIONAL ISSUES IN GEORGIA’S ARMENIAN SCHOOLS DEMAND ARMENIA’S ATTENTION

AZG Armenian Daily #080, 04/05/2005

Diaspora

The 20.000 pupils of Georgia’s 150 Armenian schools are taught their
native language and literature in accordance with Armenia’s educational
program. But the retraining of teachers of these subjects is provided
in Armenia on the level of a Sunday school. The subject of Armenian
history is left out of the program as the Georgian authorities
noticed disputable issues in there. Armenian teachers suggest to
begin the course with historic periods that are of no doubt and to
consider preparing a joint history textbook by Armenian and Georgian
specialists.

All of Georgia’s Armenian schools suffer textbook shortage and lack
of teachers’ professionalism. 8 Armenian schools of Tbilisi with
overall 900 pupils need to get on higher educational level. Partly
because of the low quality of education Armenian schools of Tbilisi
provide, our compatriots prefer entering Russian schools. Today,
90 percent of students of Russian departments within Georgian
universities are Armenians. This fact alarms Georgian Armenians
as the best professionals with Russian mentality are not demanded
in Georgia and they are presumably leaving for Russia. University
entrance examinations are going to be held according to a national
program, which presupposes that exams will be in Georgian. This
is another threat to the possibility of higher education in
Armenian. Georgia’s Armenian community asked Artur Baghdasarian to
provide free education not only at the Yerevan Pedagogical University
but at other universities of Armenia as well.

Artur Baghdasarian promised that RA foreign minister who is going to
visit Georgia this month will take a closer look to those issues.

By Nana Petrosian

New leader

NEW LEADER

A1plus

| 19:47:11 | 02-05-2005 | Politics |

On Saturday Tigran Urikhanyan, leader of the Armenian Renewed Communist
Party, announced that the three communist parties and the Marxist party
will unite and will defend Serge Sargsyan in the coming Presidential
elections.

Today David Hakobyan, leader of the Marxist party, denounced the news
saying that no one has offered them to unite, and he does not find
it suitable to unite with “political elements subject to constant
political transformations”.

The chief Marxist of the country notes that they will not cooperate
with any coalition party, and they will take part in the Parliamentary
elections by themselves. What is most interesting is that David
Hakobyan announced that the candidate of the Marxist party in the
Presidential elections will be himself. That’s to say, the group of
the oppositional “leaders” has a new member.