Author: Nahapetian Zhanna

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND NATO SUMMIT IN ISTANBUL
ArmenPress
May 10 2004
YEREVAN, MAY 10, ARMENPRESS: Ashot Kocharian, a spokesman for
president Robert Kocharian (not a relation) who has marked today the
first year in his tenure, told reporters that president Kocharian
will visit Russia on May 13-15. “Armenian-Russian relations are
of strategic-partnership nature and they are an important factor of
securing economic growth and security for Armenia,” the spokesman said,
adding that bilateral relations have progressed during the last year,
especially in economy.
He said during the visit Kocharian will confer a number of issues with
president Putin, prime minister Mikhail Fradkov and also with chief
managers of gas supplying companies to Armenia and with representatives
of business community.
Armenian president Robert Kocharian will not travel to Turkish Istanbul
in late June to attend a NATO summit, the spokesman said. He said
Armenia will be represented by foreign minister Oskanian.
“This is not determined by Armenia-NATO relationship as they are now on
the rise,” the spokesman said, adding that Armenia’s cooperation with
NATO proceeds within the frameworks of Partnership for Peace program
“and last year president Kocharian was in Brussels to meet with top
NATO officials and also NATO secretary general visited Armenia last
year.” The spokesman said Kocharian’s decision not to travel to Turkey
hinges rather on the current level of Turkish-Armenian relations.
According to him, last year marked no major progress in
Armenian-Turkish relations. Dialogue on the level of foreign ministers
continued, though. Armenia has always expressed its readiness to
engage in dialogue without preconditions and establish multifaceted
relationship with Turkey.

System Of A Down Get Back To Business
By: ChartAttack.com Staff
Chart Attack, Canada
May 10 2004
System Of A Down have been incredibly busy lately and they’re
only going to get busier. Having recently completed their massively
successful Souls 2004 benefit concert, System Of A Down are currently
in the late stages of pre-production on their new album.
System Of A Down have been passionate about their Armenian heritage
and vocal about political inequities since their emergence onto the
music scene in 1998, and their new album will surely be no exception.
SOAD’s new album, will be the follow-up to their hugely popular
Toxicity, which was released in September 2001.
System Of A Down band members Serj Tankian, Daron Malakian and John
Dolmayan have been in a North Hollywood, California rehearsal studio
since January. The band members have been busy writing and rehearsing
almost non-stop since the beginning of this year, with recording of
the album beginning this summer.
The details surrounding the new album are fairly top-secret. However in
a recent statement Malakian was able to give some hints. “Two or three
years ago, Serj and I knew that we wanted something different for this
album … the whole world’s gone crazy over the past couple of years,
so that’s brought out a lot of emotions and affected our songwriting,”
he said. “We just want to make a great rock record, a record that
will be heavy, but heavy in emotion, not just heavy in riffs.”
Some fans at the April 26 Souls 2004 benefit concert (to commemorate
the lives lost in the Armenian Genocide) expected SOAD to play a
couple of their new songs – unfortunately, the band did not fulfil
expectations. In a statement to Rolling Stone, bassist Shavo Odadjian
said that they’re not going to play or perform any of the songs from
their upcoming record until they’re “really ready.” Expect SOAD’s
new album to hit record stores late this year.
-Stephanie Lagopoulos

Ottawa Citizen
May 7, 2004 Friday Final Edition
Democracy is no cure-all, and can’t be imposed by force
by: Gamal Solaiman
In a recent column (“East is East,” April 25), David Warren asked for
a “well-informed imam” to buttress several points he has raised in
his premise that democracy and Islam are at loggerheads. I shall try
to do the best I can.
While I do not possess the broad and in-depth knowledge that Mr.
Warren has attained and expresses well in his columns of late about
Islam, I can only explain my narrow parochial view gained through
researching my doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence at the University
of Exeter in England.
The Islamic court system is what Mr. Warren thinks is a stumbling
block to democracy in the Muslim World. Shariah has its roots in the
Covenant Patriarch Abraham made with God. Even the word Canon is
derived from the Arabic word for law, Qanun.
Shariah, the law, is inherent principles of Islam and should not be
confused with Fiqh, the Islamic jurisprudence or the humane
application of Shariah justice — no eye for an eye in Islam. If a
starving person steals to quell pangs of hunger, he or she cannot be
punished under Fiqh.
If Shariah were that bad, why then in some Muslim countries do
minority Christians opt for it as being fairer than a civil code
available to them exclusively for relief and redress?
Contrarily, the premise that Muslims cannot accept non-Muslim civil
authority is also erroneous. There are more than 60 million Muslims
in China, and 150 million in India where some hold high positions in
politics, government and the military, unlike in the democratic West.
In Egypt, 10 seats are reserved for the Christian minority regardless
of their electoral successes, and they always hold two cabinet posts.
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former United Nations secretary
general, is a Christian and was Egypt’s Foreign Minister. The
president of Lebanon is a Christian. Much of the Palestinian
leadership is Christian.
Pakistan has 10 seats out of 217 for its minorities. Iran has five
seats out of 275 for Jews, Armenian Christians and Assyrian
Christians. The Patriarch of the Orthodox Rite, the Pope of the
Eastern Church, has for centuries resided in Istanbul (the Second
Rome). Tariq Aziz, the former lieutenant of Saddam Hussein, is a
Christian. What about the Western democratic deficit for Muslims?
The example of Turkey is well taken by Mr. Warren. Even though the
country is proclaimed as a secular republic, Turks claim themselves
to be 99 per cent Muslim and as democrats they do not consume pork,
either.
It is social inertia that is not much understood in the West. The
U.S. could not eliminate alcoholism through Prohibition in the 1930s.
Similarly, Muslims will not abjure their religious principles
regardless of the promise democracy may enticingly offer to erode
their values. Turks never abandoned Islam: today they are being ruled
by an Islamist party!
Although Christianity and Islam share a community of beliefs — One
God, Angels, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man, the
Prophets, one life, life hereafter, Resurrection, the Day of
Judgment, Heaven and Hell — the rudimentary difference is that,
while Jesus is central to Christianity, the word of the Quran is
paramount to Muslims.
Furthermore, Islam does not deny the Virgin Birth, Jesus being the
Messiah of God (Messih’Allah) or his Second Coming. However, Islam
does not share the changing dynamism of Christianity (Santa Claus and
his entourage would be considered Bida, or innovation, in Islam and
forbidden, or Haram. So is Shirk, ascribing partnership to God;
Muslims do not pray to Prophet Mohammad, but pray for his salvation.)
Granted that the West, which Mr. Warren believes has synonymy with
Christianity, has unwittingly found itself at the end of the Cold War
and the demise of Communism with Islam as a counterforce and
adversary.
Let me step backwards into time to the Dark Ages when Tariq Ben Ziad
landed at Jebel Tariq (now Gibraltar) in 711 AD and during the Muslim
era until 1492 AD when democracy flourished in Spain such that the
Jews had their Golden Age under the Islamic rule. Muslims introduced
astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine and philosophy
of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Al-Khwarizmi
(Algorithm) to Europe to generate such venerable scholars as St.
Aquinas and Descartes.
Long before democratic institutions were in vogue in Europe, the
Moghals in India had the Grand Trunk Road, gold coinage, a justice
system and revenue collection to enable them to build such
architectural wonders as the Taj Mahal and sundry mosques. This was
prior to the British occupation and colonization of that subcontinent
with a superimposition of a class system atop the caste one which was
prevalent there.
The West’s abrogation of Christian values such as the rescission of
the Lord’s Prayer in 1994 from the Canadian House of Commons, recited
since 1877, did not give our Parliament any democratic surplus. In
fact, Christianity has been replaced by utilitarianism’s relativistic
ethics, i.e. if God is needed, God exists; otherwise He is dismissed.
Such an attitude does not exist in Islamic countries as His
omnipresence is neither negotiable nor negated. God is an integral
part of Islamic life, not something utilized and then shelved for
later reference.
If democracy were such a cure-all, then the West would not have to
use extreme force to destroy any country’s insignia, infrastructure
and institutions to deliver such a panacea. The recent deletion of
“Allaho Akbar,” “Deo Maximo” or “God is Great” from the flag of Iraq
probably has the same significance as the Trinity — “Father, Son and
Holy Ghost” — to Christians.
And the Real World that Mr. Warren mentions raises some interesting
prospects: If 50-per-cent-plus-one of Canadians were against same-sex
marriage, would that proposition become invalidated? If these are the
remedies available through democracy, then I would rather take refuge
under “Virtual Reality” so deeply entrenched in our society.
The democratic prescription may become a bitter pill to swallow. If
it would kill rather than cure — the operation was successful, but
the patient died — then perhaps democracy is not meant for the
Muslims and they may have to live with this deficiency as they do
without alcohol.
Remember what Sir Winston Churchill said in the Mother of
Parliaments: “Indeed, it has been said that Democracy is the worst
form of Government except for all those other forms that have been
tried from time to time.”
But what about the other brand, Communism, under which democracy was
sold for decades and still prevails in some parts of the world? Lest
we forget the Democratic Republics of East Germany, North Korea,
North Vietnam, etc. What an epitaph for democracy!
Gamal Solaiman is the Imam of the Ottawa Mosque.

YEREVAN PRESS CLUB WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
APRIL 30 – MAY 6, 2004
HIGHLIGHTS:
PRESS FREEDOM PAYS
ARMENIAN MEDIA STILL NOT FREE
DEMONSTRATION AND RALLY TO SUPPORT “A1+”
ENEMIES OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
CASE OF ATTACK ON JOURNALISTS ON APRIL 5 SENT TO PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
BROADCASTING HAS NOT STARTED BUT THE PROBLEMS HAVE
CEC RATIFIED THE ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST DEMANDS TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
CORRESPONDENT OF “HAYOTS ASHKHAR”
DIVERSITY IN LIFE AND IN MEDIA
ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION OF JOURNALISTS
PRESS FREEDOM PAYS
On May 3 in Yerevan “Partnership for Open Society” initiative that unites
around 50 public organizations of Armenia, held a round table meeting on the
World Press Freedom Day.
Ambassador of Germany in Armenia Hans-Wulf Bartels who opened the meeting
congratulated the journalists on the international professional day. He
stressed that the European Union closely follows the situation of freedom of
expression in Armenia.
The Country Manager of World Bank Armenia Office Roger Robinson mentioned as
a positive example of cooperation with the journalistic community the book
“The Right to Tell. Role of Mass Media in Economic Development”, published
by Yerevan Press Club with the assistance of the WB and the Open Society
Institute (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, April 2-8, 2004). In his speech Mr.
Robinson referred to the recently published article of the World Bank
President James Wolfenson “Press Freedom Helps Fight Poverty”. Basing on the
researches showing that the freer the press is, the less corruption there is
in the country, the WB President believes: “As we mark World Press Freedom
Day on May 3, this year’s campaign theme, ‘Press Freedom Pays’, provides an
excellent opportunity to reflect on the catalytic role that an open and free
media can play in economic development and particularly in the fight against
global poverty.”
The effective cooperation of the legislative and the “fourth” estates of the
country is illustrated by the work on the improvement and adoption of the RA
Law “On Mass Communication”, the Chairwoman of the Standing Committee on
Science, Education, Culture and Youth Issues of the RA National Assembly
Hranush Hakobian said.
The representative of the UN Department of Public Information Valeri
Tkatchouk read out the message of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in
which the United Nations, that proclaimed May 3 the World Press Freedom Day
in 1993, reaffirms its “commitment to the freedom and independence of the
media as an essential requirement for building a better and fairer world”
and states its readiness to do its utmost for the journalists to be able “to
do their vital work in safety and without fear”.
The possibility to perform the professional duty without caution is becoming
all the more important in Armenia due to the frequent and unpunished
displays of violence towards media representatives. The Chairwoman of the
Journalists Union of Armenia Astghik Gevorgian familiarized the participants
of the round table with the statement of the “Partnership for Open Society”
initiative for May 3.
The statement says:
“‘Partnership for Civil Society’ initiative congratulates all the media on
the World Press Freedom Day.
Having analyzed the media situation in Armenia, we state:
1. In 2003 the RA National Assembly passed two laws that directly relate to
the media sphere – “On Freedom of Information” and “On Mass Communication”.
The two documents were adopted as a result of public dialogue and are mainly
compliant with international standards. At the same time it is a source of
much concern that amendments to the RA Law “On Television and Radio”,
criticized by the journalistic community and international organizations,
were shallow and inessential, failed to solve the main problem – ensuring
the independence of the two regulatory bodies, the National Commission on
Television and Radio and the Council of the Public Television and Radio
Company. In the legislation another concern-provoking fact is that the
implementation of the RA Law “On Freedom of Information” is in fact delayed,
as the government to this day has not fulfilled the provision of the law: it
has not defined the procedure for provision of information or its duplicate
(copy) by the state structures and local self-governance bodies, state
institutions and organizations. And, finally, having adopted legislation
containing rather progressive clauses that regulate the media activities,
the authorities must amend other laws to make them correspond to
international standards and the newly passed bills. This calls, in
particular, for the removal of libel and insult provisions from the Criminal
Code passed in 2003 (Articles 135, 136, 318) that endanger the freedom of
expression and can induce media to exercise self-censorship.
2. The consistent refusal to provide license to “A1+” TV company by the
results of the broadcast licensing competitions in 2003 came to reconfirm
that the National Commission on Television and Radio is not guided by the
principles of objectivity and impartiality. Moreover, the National
Commission declined the proposal of non-governmental organizations to
involve independent experts with a right to consultative vote at least in
one of the competitions, although this procedure is provided for by the law
and the presence of experts would have ensured the transparency of the
tender.
3. The Public Television of Armenia remains an addendum to the executive
power and serves as its rostrum. This TV company has adopted the policy of
praising the authorities and relegating the opposition, does not provide
objective and impartial information, diversity of opinion.
4. The press mostly fulfils its function of disseminating diverse
information, however, the newspapers circulations are small, they are mostly
sold out in the capital and the regional centers. The press remains
polarized and entangled in the controversy of authorities and opposition.
5. On April 5 and in the early morning of April 13, 2004 violence was exerte
d on the journalists covering the opposition rallies. If in the former case
those who beat the journalists and broke their photo and video cameras were
people dressed in civilian clothes, on the latter occasion the attackers
were policemen. These offenders have not as yet been found and punished, and
the damages to the media have not been compensated.
6. The reputable international organization “Freedom House” qualified the
Armenian media in 2003 as not free.
We, the representatives of non-governmental organizations of “Partnership
for Open Society” again demand the law enforcement bodies to find and punish
the individuals who violently attacked journalists on April 5 and April 13
as strictly as the law stipulates.
We demand that Armenian authorities ensure the free and unimpeded activity
of media and journalists, remove Articles 135,136 and 318 from the Criminal
Code as being dangerous for the freedom of expression, refraining from their
application till this is accomplished.
We state that we will continue to advocate the improvement of the
media-related legislation, the establishment of real freedom of expression
and truly independent media.”
During his presentation at the round table the President of Yerevan Press
Club Boris Navasardian quoted the address of the UNESCO Director General
Koiichiro Matsuura: “The theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day is the
media in conflict and post-conflict zones and in countries in transition. In
such situations, the media’s work to provide independent and trustworthy
information can contribute significantly to processes of reconstruction and
reconciliation.” In this regard the YPC President noted that the Armenian
media, using the freedom that the authorities must guarantee, are to ensure
the free information flow and by this contribute to the establishment of a
dialogue both in the country and on the regional level to arrive at
consensus of the parties.
Among those speaking at the event were the UNDP Resident Representative in
Armenia Lise Grande, the Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States in
Armenia Vivian Walker, the Executive Director of the OSI Assistance
Foundation-Armenia Larisa Minasian.
At the round table the statement of “Article 19” international organization
was disseminated on the incidents of violence against journalists. “Article
19” in particular called upon the authorities of Armenia “to respect the
international standards in the field of freedom of expression, to conduct an
immediate and full investigation of the reported assaults of journalists and
human rights activists, and to undertake all necessary measures to ensure
the safety of journalists in the future”.
ARMENIAN MEDIA STILL NOT FREE
On April 28 the international human rights organization “Freedom House”
published the annual global survey of media independence in 2003.
“Press freedom suffered a substantial worldwide decline in 2003” is the main
conclusion of the researchers who evaluated the media situation in 193
countries of the world. Legal harassment, political pressure and violence
against journalists combined to worsen conditions in many countries,
resulting in the second consecutive year of global decline in freedom for
news media, “Freedom House” stressed.
The situation with the media was evaluated using the numerical scale from 1
to 100 based on the following criteria: free (1-30 points), partly free
(31-60), not free (61-100) – the lower the score the higher the degree of
freedom. The freedom of press was evaluated along three dimensions:
legislation influencing media; political pressure, control and violence
towards media; economic pressure and control over media. The sum of the
scores along the three dimensions yielded the aggregate rating of the
condition of media in a country.
In 2003 the rating of Armenia made 64 points. In other words, the Armenian
media remain in “not free” category where they found themselves in 2002,
having scored 65 points. The insignificant difference in the evaluation of
the press freedom situation in Armenia in 2003 versus 2002 is due to the
somewhat improved legislation.
As to the CIS overall, “other than in Georgia, the situation remained deeply
troubled”. Having scored 54 points, similarly to 2002, the Georgian media
retain the characteristics of partly free ones, while the Moldova was unable
to do it and entered the category of “not free” press (63). The somewhat
improved situation in Azerbaijan (71 points versus 73 in 2002) did not
impact the general picture of the media in this country as they remain not
free. The media of other CIS countries also remain in this category. The
most unfavorable ones are the ratings of Turkmenistan (95), Uzbekistan and
Belarus (84 each).
DEMONSTRATION AND RALLY TO SUPPORT “A1+”
On May 3 in Yerevan a demonstration and rally to support “A1+” TV company
were held. About 150 participants of the action passed from the House of
Press to Charles Aznavour Square. At the meeting on the World Press Freedom
Day the demands of the journalistic community to the authorities of the
country were voiced again: to hold broadcast licensing competitions for the
vacant frequencies and involve the representatives of public organizations
into the process of rating evaluation of the bids.
ENEMIES OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
On May 3 the National Press Club (NPC) once again announced the names of
“enemies of press” in 2003. For the third year already the main media-enemy
has been named to be the Armenian President Robert Kocharian. This time the
title was conferred on him in particular for signing the RA Law “On Mass
Communication” and not punishing those who obstructed the professional
activities of journalists during the opposition rallies. Another “press
enemy” was named to be the Chairwoman of the Parliament Committee on
Science, Education, Culture and Youth Issues Hranush Hakobian that assisted
the adoption of the Law “On Mass Communication”, by, as NPC thinks,
concealing the conclusions of the international experts from the deputies
and thus disorienting them.
Notably, another three of the nine candidates were nominated by NPC to this
title because of the same Law “On Mass Communication” – the author of the
draft law himself, the RA Deputy Minister of Justice Ashot Abovian, the
Speaker of the RA National Assembly Artur Baghdasarian, who, as NPC alleges,
held the voting on the draft with violations, and the President of Yerevan
Press Club Boris Navasardian, who assisted the adoption of the law.
Meanwhile, Yerevan Press Club continues to think that the RA Law “On Mass
Communication”, passed in December 2003, is generally progressive and
complies with international standards. This opinion as well as the reasons
for the unhealthy climate around the draft were given a detailed analysis
and argumentation in the article of YPC President Boris Navasardian “Going
towards Liberal Legislation through the Self-Elimination War”, published in
the YPC Weekly Newsletter (see the issue of December 12-18, 2003).
As to the attitude of the National Press Club to this law, it is prompted by
the fact that this organization on its behalf had proposed an alternative
draft law on media, evaluated very negatively both by the Government and the
NA, as well as by the media experts, and NPC cannot forgive everyone whose
lawmaking proved to be more effective.
CASE OF ATTACK ON JOURNALISTS ON APRIL 5 SENT TO PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
On May 5 the press-service of the RA General Prosecutor’s Office reported
that by the order of the General Prosecutor Aghvan Hovsepian the criminal
case on the violent acts against media representatives during the opposition
rally on April 5 is passed to the authority of Yerevan Prosecutor’s Office.
The proceedings were instituted by the RA Police on Article 258 (“Public
Disorder”) of the RA Criminal Code. As it has been reported, on April 5
journalists were assaulted by a group of “strong guys”, when they tried to
shoot them throwing eggs at the rally participants. As a result the media
and their representatives incurred physical, material and moral damage (see
details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, April 2-8, 2004).
BROADCASTING HAS NOT STARTED BUT THE PROBLEMS HAVE
On May 4 the representatives of the traffic police of Kotayk region of
Armenia impeded the work of the shooting crew of “Aravot” TV channel. This
was reported on May 5 by “Aravot” daily. On the eve of an opposition rally
in the capital the TV journalists tried to check whether the complaints of
citizens that the policemen restrict their freedom of movement on the main
routes to Yerevan are true. According to “Aravot” daily, at the moment of
shooting the car with the TV channel staff was stopped by the
representatives of the Nairi Division of traffic police who called their
boss to help. Arriving on site, the head of Nairi Division of traffic police
Avetik Abrahamian, as the newspaper writes, first demanded the journalists
to give him the tape and then made them erase the shots on it.
As it has been reported, “Aravot” TV company (previously “Kentron”) has
changed its owner and name quite recently (see details in YPC Weekly
Newsletter, April 23-29, 2004) and has taken a temporary time out till May
10, to go on air with a new image. In other words, “Aravot” TV has not as
yet started its broadcasts, but the problems with law enforcement bodies
already have.
CEC RATIFIED THE ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE
On April 29 RA Central Election Commission, in accordance with the RA Law
“On Mass Communication”, ratified the Procedure for accrediting journalists
at the RA CEC. The document mainly adheres to the provisions of the Law “On
Mass Communication” as well as the Model Procedure for Accrediting
Journalists at the State Administration Bodies approved by the Government on
March 4 (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 19-25, 2004). However, some of the
provisions of the Procedure cause concern that they may become an obstacle
for the activities of journalists. Thus, for example, while according to the
Procedure, the CEC accreditation is sufficient for a journalist to enter any
election commission, Item 8 stipulates restrictions on this: not more than
two journalists and two photographers/2cameramen from each medium. It should
be noted here that the number of district and divisional precincts during
elections in Armenia is usually about a thousand. Besides, Item 17 calls for
coordinating each visit to CEC by an accredited journalist with its
Chairman – unless for CEC events, while the permission of a press-secretary
would have sufficed.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST DEMANDS TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
CORRESPONDENT OF “HAYOTS ASHKHAR”
On April 28 the Chairman of Helsinki Association of Armenia Mikael Danielian
addressed a letter to the RA General Prosecutor Aghvan Hovsepian demanding
to institute criminal proceedings against the correspondent of “Hayots
Ashkhar” daily Kima Eghiazarian on clauses 2 and 3 of Article 135 of the RA
Criminal Code (“Libel”). The reason for the appeal was the article by Kima
Eghiazarian titled “Mika’s Hullabaloo for the Council of Europe”
(“Hayots Ashkhar”, April 24, 2004) where, in the opinion of the human
rights activist, an “ungrounded conclusion” is made that Mikael Danielian is
“the spy of the Council of Europe in Armenia”.
DIVERSITY IN LIFE AND IN MEDIA
The London-based Media Diversity Institute (MDI) held two more seminars on
the subject of “Covering Diversity: Making the Difference” under the South
Caucasus project of MDI “Minority Empowerment and Media Development” with
the support of European Commission. The first of the seminars was held on
April 27-29 in Stepanakert for Karabagh journalists with the assistance of
Stepanakert Press Club. The event was interactive and was moderated by
Milica Pesic (MDI Director), Adam James (free-lance journalist, specialized
on the problems of people with mental disorders) and Elina Poghosbekian
(Editor of YPC Weekly Newsletter).
The second seminar was held on May 1-2 in Yerevan with the assistance of
Yerevan Press Club, the MDI Armenian partner. This time the event was
moderated, besides Milica Pesic, by Alistair Crington (media consultant,
Deputy Editor of “Cyprus Mail” newspaper) and Tatul Hakobian (observer of
“Azg” daily).
During the two seminars the principles of diverse coverage of various social
groups were discussed, as well as the editorial approach to pieces on this
issue, the degree of media attention to the minorities, the need for the
media to avoid the formation of negative stereotypes in the society.
ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION OF JOURNALISTS
On April 28-29 in Tsaghkadzor a seminar “Key Environmental Issues and Their
Coverage by the Media” was held by the OSCE Office in Yerevan and the Public
(Aarhus) Environmental Information Center. A lecture course of the leading
scientists of the country on the basics of ecology and environmental issues,
environmental legislation and seismology was presented to the seminar
participants – the representatives of local and national media of Armenia.
When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
Press Club is required.
You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
[email protected]
Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]
Editor of YPC Newsletter – Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
____________________________________________
Yerevan Press Club
9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
375007, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+ 374 1) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
Fax: (+374 1) 53 56 61
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site:

Milliyet, Turkey
April 29 2004
TRUMP CARD OF ”WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS”
Europe closely follows steps that Turkey will take on ”its relations
with Greek Cypriot side” and ”its military existence in Cyprus”
while Ankara discusses the timing of two important decisions.
European diplomats agree with Turkish opinion that Turkish Cypriots
should not be punished after referendums. A European diplomat who
said that Greece and Greek Cypriots were expected to bind their votes
on Turkey in December on the condition of ”decrease in Turkish
military existence in Cyprus” noted, ”we know that also withdrawal
of Turkish and Greek troops was rejected in the referendum. However,
you have a powerful hand if you announce now that some number of
troops would be withdrawn in next six months or one year
symbolically.”
Meanwhile, alternatives of ”withdrawal of troops” discussed in
Ankara are as follows:
1- Whole world stands by us if we immediately announce that symbolic
number of troops like five thousand would be withdrawn. Getting a
date from the EU becomes definite. (especially advisors to Prime
Minister Erdogan and diplomats who defend that solution in Cyprus
would come onto agenda again)
2- It can be considered in October-December period which is the final
stage of Turkey-EU bargaining. (Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and his
ministry’s departments for EU have this opinion)
3- Signal of ”withdrawal of troops” while we are the absolute
winner of referendum shows that we are ready to make more
concessions. Instead of it, if the EU decides to open entry talks
with Turkey, we can withdraw troops as a positive reaction. (Foreign
Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal and the ministry’s departments for
EU) If pressure of ”recognize Greek Cypriots” from the EU
increases, relations with Greek Cypriots will be carried out in a
similar way as the relations with Armenia. According to it, Turkey
will recognize Greek Cypriot side but they won’t be allowed to open
embassy and representation in Turkey.

Permanent Mission of the Republic of Armenia
to the United Nations
119E 36th street, New York, NY 10016
Tel.: 1-212-686-9079
Fax: 1-212-686-3934
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
April 26, 2004
PRESS RELEASE
Ambassador Martirosyan speaks at the Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide
in the City Hall, New York
On April 23, 2004, Amb. Armen Martirosyan, Permanent Representative of
Armenia to the UN, made a speech at the New York City Hall gathering
commemorating the Armenian Genocide. In his speech he reflected on various
aspects of genocide as a crime against humanity, and touched upon questions
of the responsibility of the international community to protect people
threatened by genocide and ways to avert the repetition of this crime.
Please find below the text of the speech in full.
Speech of H.E. Ambassador Armen Martirosyan, Permanent Representative of
Armenia to the United Nations at the Armenian Genocide Commemoration in the
City Hall
April, 23, 2004, New York
Your Eminence, Reverend Clergy
Distinguished members of United States Congress,
Your Excellency Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus, representative of a
country that officially recognized the Armenian Genocide,
I thank all of you for being today among us and with us.
Professor Balakian, Professor Melson,
Dear compatriots,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to thank the organizers for making this important forum and for
granting me the opportunity to address the participants. I am indeed
privileged to speak in this historical hall, which has hosted many
remarkable events of this great city.
We have gathered again, as we do every year, to pay our respect to the
memory of the 1.5 million innocent Armenians that fell victim to the first
genocide of the 20th century. We are looking for the ways to future, but our
thoughts go back again and again to the nearly century-old events of 1915
and we keep asking: “WHY?” Why did it happen to us? Why did the world keep
silent when all the signs of the looming tragedy were there? Why did the
great powers of the time turn a blind eye when the ethnic cleansing was
being carried out in broad daylight? Why did not they bring the perpetrators
to justice? Why are attempts made to try to push the memories of the
Armenian genocide into oblivion, which allows for rejectionist policies not
only to be contemplated but also implemented? Did we, Armenians, learn our
lesson from the tragedy of our grandparents? Did the world learn from the
tragedy of Armenians?
Presumably, one may say that the world has changed today. The international
community adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide in 1948 out of necessity “to prevent from happening again
that what had happened to Armenians during World War I and to Jews during WW
II”, as Rafael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide” and co-authored the
Convention put it. “Never again”, was the basic message of the authors of
the Genocide Convention. Yet, about 2 weeks ago the world community was
commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.
It is ironic that the same questions were being asked by the international
community on the reach of the international justice, the roots of violence,
responsibility of the international community to protect people threatened
by genocide and ways to avert the repetition of this crime against humanity.
“If the international community had acted promptly and with determination,
it could have stopped most of the killing. But the political will was not
there,” stated UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his message to the Rwandan
Forum organized in March. When I read these words, they seemed to echo the
outcry of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, the then US Ambassador to Turkey: “My
failure to stop the destruction of the Armenians made Turkey for me a place
of horror, and I found intolerable my further daily association with men
who, …were still reeking with the blood of nearly a million human beings.”
During the Armenian genocide the military and political establishment of the
world main actors allowed murder to take place without facing any
consequences. Thus cleansing became part of the political culture, an
“acceptable” way for solving problems.
The Armenian Genocide showed that it could be done: the policy of genocide
by the Ottoman Turkish Government went unchecked by other powers and in time
the possibility of such policy built up new brutalities. The vicious
developments did not stop at Auschwitz. The Holocaust and the tragic events
of WW II did not conclude the “age of genocide.” We, Armenians witnessed
another attempt in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku at the end of the 20th
century…
There was one lesson the international community did not learn from the
Armenian Genocide: impunity, indifference and inaction pave the way for
repetition of the most horrible crime against humanity. The world has
witnessed Rwanda, Cambodia, Balkans.
“The silence that had greeted genocides in the past must be replaced by a
global clamor and a willingness to call what has happened by its true name,”
I would gladly subscribe to these words of the UN Secretary General hoping
that this message of remorse for the past inaction and negligence on behalf
of the international community also reflects the resolve and sound
commitment to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.
Pursuing this goal the international community during the second half of
20th century has undertaken necessary steps in the field of prevention of
genocide. 50 years after the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the
International Criminal Court was established to prosecute those responsible
for the crime of genocide, individual tribunals were established to punish
the perpetrators. Nowadays the United Nations is contemplating the idea of a
special rapporteur to analyze what further steps could be taken to better
equip the UN and member states to prevent genocide with resolve.
“There was a glaring and tragic lack of political will to intervene to stop
genocide, especially on the part of the UN most powerful members,” is the
resume of the messages repeated over and over by the speakers at the
commemoration of the Rwandan genocide. 90 years after the tragic events in
the Ottoman Turkish Empire we still hear the same words.
It is an awakening call. Unless the international community unanimously
acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, unless it accepts its responsibility for
negligence that allowed about 1.5 million innocent victims slaughtered for
their ethnic belonging, unless historical justice is done and selective and
politically-motivated application of the term of genocide stops, there will
be no guarantee for non-repetition and we may still hear the same words for
future atrocities: “If there was a political will…”
Armenian Genocide is an undeniable and incontrovertible fact. This is
absolutely clear not only for us, but is acknowledged by a large number of
countries that putting aside the sensitivity of their bilateral relations
with Turkey officially recognized and condemned the crime of Genocide
committed against the Armenian people. We are grateful to them.
It is vexing, however, that some states that exemplify democratic standards
and advocate protection and promotion of human rights worldwide, when faced
with the recognition of the Armenian genocide, still pursue their
geopolitical interests at the expense of universal human values. However,
reconciliation starts from the acknowledgement of the crime committed:
avowal is as vital for the victim as it is essential for the perpetrator. I
believe this moral ethics is particularly important for the present Turkey
striving to become a member of the European civilization at the same time
desperately avoiding of culpable pages of its own history.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Armenian legacy counts decades of centuries, during which we often had
to fight against different conquerors, paying a high price for our faith,
our geography, and sometimes our own mistakes. However, we have managed to
come out of all the ordeals and trials of the destiny hardened in their
flames and contributing to the world cultural heritage. And there would be
few nations on this sinful Earth to be as grateful to the Lord as we,
Armenians, for our dramatic but rewarding journey through the history.
We are given much, but the expectations are also high. We are responsible
both to the memory of our ancestors and to the future generations, and we
cannot evade either of them.
We have learned our lesson: We are the guarantee for the tragedy not to
repeat itself. We have to build a strong nation with a competitive economy,
a society based on democratic stability and respect for human rights, which
is actively and constructively engaged in world affairs. The foundation is
there.
For the last three years Armenia has been registering double-digit growth
rates in economy and exports. Notwithstanding the recent turmoil, Armenia is
still the most stable country in the region and is considered to be a
reliable partner. It is steadily moving towards establishment of democratic
and rule-of-law society. It is not easy. There are many challenges ahead.
And as the not-so-past history shows, the most dangerous ones may come from
within. They threaten to shatter the foundations of the country inevitably
affecting internal stability and weakening the country’s bargaining power
internationally. Some would do anything to achieve their narrow personal
gains shrouding it under political stance. They even try to use the
Diasporan sentiments to their advantage by manipulating the public opinion
through negative and sometimes fabricated propaganda.
We have no choice but to be resolved: state-building is not an easy task and
we all learn on the path to democracy. A society based on rule-of-law should
be built through legal and constitutional actions. Following the law is a
thorny path both for the government and the civil society. Nevertheless, it
is the only acceptable and most profound one. We have to take it to build a
prosperous nation to pay a tribute to the memory of the victims of the
genocide and due respect to survivors who suffered through enormous
hardships to lay the foundation for our future. I do think about such a
future with all the hope that can come out of the warmest feelings, deep
commitments and dedication towards our Motherland-Armenia.
Thank you
END

Feature Article
Tuesday, 04 May 2004
Georgia: Tensions Continue To Rise Between Central Government And Adjaria
By Jeremy Bransten
Violent clashes broke out in Adjaria today as the head of the renegade
Georgian region, Aslan Abashidze, warned that the situation could
explode into a full-blown conflict. Abashidze defended his decision to
blow up bridges linking his region to the rest of Georgia as a
defensive measure against an anticipated offensive from
Tbilisi. Meanwhile, in the capital, Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili called on Russia to restrain some of its military
personnel, who he claimed were helping the Adjar authorities in their
rebellion.
Prague, 4 May 2004 (RFE/RL) — Violent clashes erupted in the streets
of Adjaria’s capital of Batumi today, as security forces loyal to
Adjar leader Aslan Abashidze beat back hundreds of protestors with
truncheons and water cannons.
Reports from Batumi say crowds opposed to Abashidze’s policies took to
the streets in separate protests that were violently dispersed by the
security forces.
The demonstrations took place shortly after Abashidze declared a state
of emergency and a curfew in the region and closed all secondary
schools and universities for two weeks. One protestor, who gave his
first name as Achiko, described today’s events.
“They [security forces] were beating people on the head. I saw people
with bleeding heads and some were nearly unconscious. I saw some women
with blood on their faces. After they dispersed our demonstration,
these madmen [security forces] went to the offices of the ‘Our
Adjaria’ [opposition] movement and demolished everything. Not a single
window was left unbroken. The situation in Batumi remains very tense,”
he said.
Another protestor, teacher Khatuna Tavdigiridze, who took part in a
related demonstration, gave her version of events: “We had just
organized a street march and the police tried to block our way. But
then we started a rally in a school next to the university and the
police tried twice to disperse that meeting. They were able to
disperse us into several groups and my group joined a protest
organized by university teachers. One hour later, we saw people from
the special forces and a fire truck, and they used water cannons
[against the protesters].”
Today’s protesters are another sign of the escalation of tensions
around Adjaria and its rebellious leader. Abashidze today appeared on
local television to defend his decision on 2 May to blow up bridges,
including a rail line, connecting Adjaria to the rest of
Georgia. Abashidze said he undertook the move as a defensive measure
to avoid a Georgian military offensive.
Saakashvili, in the opinion of most analysts, cannot afford to back
down in this test of wills without endangering his own hold on
power.In Tbilisi, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili condemned the
move and he accused retired Russian Major General Yurii Netkachov of
being behind the operation. While being careful not to directly blame
Moscow for the bridge explosions, Saakashvili called on the Russian
authorities to do everything in their power to stop Netkachov from
acting to destabilize the situation even further.
Abashidze has long counted prominent Russian officials among his
friends. But according to Robert Parsons, director of RFE/RL’s
Georgian Service, Moscow’s leverage may be limited in this particular
crisis, especially if Abashidze — feeling threatened by Saakshvili’s
drive to reimpose central authority — feels war is the best way for
him to preserve his personal power. And although relations between
Tbilisi and Moscow are improving, Saakashvili will likely be reluctant
to accept Russia’s mediation efforts, if offered.
“Russia certainly does have leverage with Adjaria, in particular with
Aslan Abashidze. Traditionally, he’s had close ties with certain
sections inside the Russian military and with a number of businessmen
and also the mayor of Moscow, Yurii Luzhkov. These are people who
certainly have influence and certainly they’re interested in a
peaceful resolution of the situation in Adjaria. It’s a different
matter, though, whether the Russians now will be prepared or willing
or able even to persuade Aslan Abashidze to back down. Certainly it’s
unlikely that they’re prepared to use the Russian military forces that
are in Batumi at the moment — about 2,000 men in the garrison there,”
Parsons said.
Parsons noted that Abashidze’s decision to cut road and rail links
with the rest of Georgia significantly aggravates the situation. If
the links are not restored soon, the economic impact for the region as
a whole could be grave.
“The cutting of the road links and the cutting of the rail links are
critically important for everybody in the region, not just for the
Georgians but also the Armenians as well. Armenia is dependent on the
port of Batumi for imports and exports. Without it, the situation in
Armenia, which is critical enough as it is, could become
catastrophic. In Georgia, too, the incipient economic recovery of the
last few months could well be jeopardized if this standoff between
Adjaria and the central authorities is allowed to continue,” Parsons
said.
Saakashvili now finds himself in a very difficult position. Since
coming to power, he has staked his reputation on reimposing law and
order throughout the country and issued a series of ultimatums to
Abashidze, who continues to flout his authority.
Saakashvili, in the opinion of most analysts, cannot afford to back
down in this test of wills without endangering his own hold on
power. Although today’s demonstrations in Batumi are clear evidence of
opposition in the region to Abashidze’s authoritarian rule, Parsons
does not believe Adjaria’s leader will be toppled from within.
“I think at the moment the opposition in Adjaria is not strong enough
to depose Aslan Abashidze from within. He has ruled the province by
fear for the last few years and that still is a very potent force for
him in Adjaria. Some people have been protesting, we’ve seen it on the
streets today and they’ve paid a heavy price. A lot of them have been
beaten, we’ve seen pictures of bloodshed on the streets of Batumi
today. It’s unlikely I think that the people of Adjaria will rise
against Aslan Abashidze to try and overthrow him,” Parsons said.
Ironically, unlike the other separatist conflicts that have rocked
Georgia in recent years, Adjaria’s rebellion is not fueled by ethnic
or religious motives, according to Parsons. “There is no ethnic
component to the situation in Adjaria,” he said. “Approximately 90
percent of the population is composed of ethnic Georgians. The
remainder are a mix of Armenians, Russians, Greeks, and others. There
is a minor religious factor in that a relatively large minority of the
population are Muslims. Traditionally, this has been a Muslim part of
Georgia. However, these days, the greater part of the population is
either atheist or Christian.”
The future of Georgia now appears to be in the hands of two
strong-willed and angry leaders — Mikheil Saakashvili and Aslan
Abashidze, with few venturing to predict how the crisis will end.
(RFE/RL’s Georgian Service contributed to this report.)
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2004 RFE/RL, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ARKA News Agency
May 4 2004
NEWLY APPOINTED AMBASSADOR OF IRELAND TO ARMENIA HANDS CREDENTIALS TO
RA PRESIDENT ROBERT KOCHARIAN
YEREVAN, May, 4. /ARKA/. Newly appointed Ambassador of Ireland to
Armenia Justin Harman (residence in Moscow) handed credentials to RA
President Robert Kocharian. The parties discussed perspectives of
development of Armenian-Irish interstate links. According to
Kocharian, both parties have lots of common and Irish experience of
transition period and eurointegration can be useful for Armenia. L.D.
–0–

Kathimerini, Greece
April 26 2004
Armenian genocide
Government and parliamentary officials yesterday attended a ceremony
in Athens to honor the memory of the estimated 1.5 million Turkish
Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. In Thessaloniki,
hundreds of Armenians marched on the Turkish consulate to demand that
Ankara recognizes the genocide.

Guardian, UK
April 24 2004
Greek Cypriot voters set to derail UN plan for island’s reunification
President and church accused of whipping up bitterness ahead of
today’s referendum
Helena Smith in Nicosia
Greek Cypriots are today expected to resoundingly reject a UN peace
plan that presents a historic opportunity to reunite their divided
island. After 30 years of conflict the bitterness whipped up by the
president and the Greek Orthodox church shows no signs of ebbing –
nor do the accusations of intimidation sponsored by the government in
Nicosia.
The Greek choice looked set last night to mar Cyprus’s May 1 entry to
the EU, entrenching the partition of the island, and barring entry to
the bloc of its ethnic Turkish minority. Mounting anger in Brussels
at the prospect of the union’s borders ending at the heavily
militarised “green line”, rather than the waters of the
Mediterranean, was reflected in a rare outburst by the EU’s
enlargement commissioner, Günter Verheugen.
Mr Verheugen blasted the Nicosia government for “cheating” its way
into the union by reneging on promises to do its utmost to bring
about a solution.
Despite the public dressing down – and the obvious disappointment of
the minority Turkish Cypriots who have enthusiastically endorsed the
UN plan – President Tassos Papadopoulos stuck firmly to his guns. He
described the UN’s 9,000-page plan for a power-sharing arrangement,
envisaging a federated bizonal, bicommunal country, as “neither
workable nor viable”.
Hogging the airwaves as the campaign ended on Thursday night, the
hardline leader rejected suggestions that today’s referendum was the
last chance to solve the Cyprus conundrum. The US secretary of state,
Colin Powell, had joined the UN in describing the vote as a “golden
opportunity” that will not be repeated.
But in a two-hour interview broadcast by all four of the island’s
television channels, Mr Papadopoulos told the nation: “From my
experience, such proposals or plans do not disappear, they are
revived and reproduced.”
As the Greek Cypriot president spoke, tens of thousands of Turkish
Cypriots took to the streets in their part of the island. Most shared
the view of Mustapha Cirakli, who sees reunification as the key that
will unlock decades of international isolation and crippling economic
deprivation. “Say yes and you connect Cyprus to the world,” he said.
“We’re really upset with the Greek Cypriots, we were expecting
different things from them. After all, a dove of peace can’t fly with
one wing.”
Although around 1,000 Turkish nationalists arrived in the
impoverished north from the Turkish mainland to try to scupper a yes
vote, the referendum has been met with relief by most Turkish
Cypriots.
The scenes of optimism in the self-declared mini-state contrasted
deeply with the climate of fear that has taken hold of the much
wealthier Greek south.
The vehemence of Mr Papadopoulos’s opposition to the plan has been
matched only by the heavy handedness of the tactics to which the
authorities have allegedly resorted in the run-up to the poll.
Media manipulation and outright bullying by government-appointed
campaigners determined to see civil servants vote oxi (no) have
reportedly been rife. On the orders of the education minister,
schoolchildren were told to abandon the classroom on Thursday to
distribute as many oxi leaflets and stickers as they could. In the
process those bold enough to say nai (yes) were branded “traitors” or
“Turk lovers”. Many yes supporters have been heckled or reprimanded
by police for defacing no signs.
EU diplomats said the way the campaign had been conducted would sour
the island’s EU entry and raise questions about the nature of its
democratic values.
“Its embarrassing and absolutely shameful,” said the former president
George Vassiliou. “What we have seen is an industry of misinformation
at work – a special kind of police state where people have been told
what to vote and indirectly threatened.”
Until last April, when the veteran Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf
Denktash opened the “green line” under domestic popular pressure,
most Greek Cypriots had no memory of “the other side”.
Since 1974, when Turkish troops invaded in the wake of an
Athens-backed coup to unite the island with Greece, cross-ethnic
contact has been kept to a minimum. On either side of the
UN-patrolled “dead zone” the two communities have led different
lives: Greeks performing an economic miracle to make up for the loss
of territory and 180,000 refugees, and the Turks proclaiming
independence in an enclave that is recognised by Turkey but no one
else.
History
For decades Greek history books have been fixated with Turkey’s
crimes: the genocide of the Armenians, the Asia Minor catastrophe,
the sacking of Constantinople, the “cleansing” of the Greeks, the
Cyprus invasion and the killing of the Kurds.
Confronted with a solution for the first time – and the reality of
its attendant compromises – insidious nationalist fever, nurtured in
classrooms, has erupted with a vengeance.
This week, for the first time since the 70s, the motto “A good Turk
is a dead Turk” appeared daubed across the walls of Nicosia’s English
school, founded when Cyprus was a British crown colony.
Mr Vassiliou, who negotiated the island’s EU accession, apologised
profusely to a top aide of Mr Verheugen.
“I am very upset for my country,” he told her. “No one expected such
a virulent no campaign from Papadopoulos. He has deliberately played
on peoples’ fears by talking about the plan’s negative rather than
positive aspects. Even if it’s late we still hope to salvage the
situation.”
Unlike the no camp, which has been able to rent giant billboards and
print leaflets thanks to donations from banks and business, the yes
supporters have been largely self-funded. Some have resorted to using
bed sheets as banners.
But while the latest polls have shown at least 70% of Greeks oppose
the UN plan, many in the silent yes camp hope they could yet reduce
their lead at the polls.
The undecided vote is said to have increased lately, not least since
Bishop Pavlos of Kyrenia warned Greek Cypriots that they would face
damnation if they approved the accord. If those favouring a
settlement exceed 35%, senior local EU diplomats and political
figures told the Guardian that they hoped a second referendum could
be held soon, possibly in the autumn.