Author: Nalbandian Albert

INVESTIGATION CAN BE RESUMED IF NEW EVIDENCE EMERGES

A1 Plus | 21:10:29 | 09-11-2004 | Politics |

“All sourced of information have already exhausted”, said Tuesday
members of the crew investigating the October 27 terrorist act
committed in 1999 in Armenian National Assembly building and proposed
to close the isolated case on the crime masterminds. And the case
was dismissed…

Aram Sargssyan, Republic party leader and brother of the then
prime minister Vazgen Sargssyan killed in the terrorist attack,
said commenting on the case closure at a news conference there was
nothing surprising to him in it. In his opinion, the authorities
acted this way thinking it will settle the whole matter. “But they
are wrong about that: gap between them and people will widen now
and public scepticism will run high”, he said. He pointed out that,
contrary to Kocharyan, many Armenian officials, including PM and a
number of ministers, believed there were masterminds.

Ashot Sargssyan, the attorney of another victim of the terrorist
action, the then parliament speaker Karen Demirchyan, thinks the
decision to dismiss the case is completely groundless.

The investigation crew head Marcel Matevossyan said at the news
conference that the case closure doesn’t mean the investigation cannot
be resumed in the event that new pieces of evidence emerge.

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
Armenian Studies Program
1080 S. University, Suite 4640
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106
Tel: (734) 764-0350
Fax: (734) 764-8523
Contact: Sara Sarkisian
Email: [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARMENIAN STUDIES PROGRAM/UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR

FOUR DAY CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LOOKS AT PAST AND FUTURE OF
SOUTH CAUCASUS AND KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS

Participants from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and eight other countries
discuss foreign policy challenges and conflicts

The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus was the site of an unprecedented,
four-day conference on ~SArmenia/The South Caucasus and Foreign Policy
Challenges~T from October 21 to 24. Organized by the Armenian Studies Program at
the University of Michigan, the conference brought together scholars and
diplomats from Armenia (3), Georgia (3), Azerbaijan (2), Russia (3), Iran (3),
Turkey (2), Finland (1), the United Kingdom (2), Belgium (1), Canada (1), and
the United States (12).

The purpose of the international conference was to review the foreign policies
of the South Caucasus republics during the past twelve years of independence and
in view of developments in the region and in international relations as well as
to analyze conflict resolution processes with special emphasis on the Nagorno
Karabakh problem. It was hoped that a thorough and joint exploration of these
issues might prompt specialists of the region and experienced diplomats to
pursue new approaches that avoid the mistakes of the past.

The conference had the enthusiastic support of the University and was
co-sponsored by the Center for Russian and East European Studies, the Center for
Middle Eastern and North African Studies, the International Institute, and the
departments of History, Political Science and Near Eastern Studies.

The first session of the conference was held at 5 PM, Thursday, October 21.
Following welcoming remarks by Prof. Gerard Jirair Libaridian (Department of
History, University of Michigan), Prof. Mark Tessler (Director of the
International Institute and professor of Political Science, University of
Michigan) introduced the goals and characteristics of the conference which had
brought together scholars and diplomats to study a region of increasing
strategic significance.

The opening presentations were followed by the first panel, ~SEvolving
International Relations and the South Caucasus,~T chaired by Professor Barbara
Anderson, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies. Three
speakers addressed the following questions: How have the collapse of the USSR
and events of worldwide significance since affected our understanding of
international relations and relations between states? What has been the impact
of these changes on the way states
Such as those in the South Caucasus integrate in the world community? How have
perceptions of the South Caucasus changed considering developments in the Near
East?
Dr. Vitaly Naumkin of Moscow, Director of the International Center for Strategic
and Political Studies and professor of Political Science, presented a paper on
~SThe South Caucasus: A New Geo-Political Paradigm;~T Professor Hadi Semati,
from the International Relations Department, Tehran University and currently at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC discussed the
problems of ~SDealing with Strategic Complexities: Security, Democracy and
Economic Development in a Changing Region;~T and Professor Michael Kennedy,
Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, analyzed ~SExplicit
and Implicit Trajectories of International Relations Since the Collapse of the
USSR.~T

Following the first session of the conference a reception was held at the
William Clements Library of the University of Michigan. Dr. John Dann, Director
of the Library, and Professor Kevork Bardakjian, Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, addresses the participants and guests.

The second day of the conference, Friday October 22, opened with the second
panel of the conference, titled ~SArmenian Foreign Policy in Historical
Context,~T chaired by professor Sonya Rose, Chairperson of the Department of
History, the University of Michigan. The four speakers were asked to address the
following questions: Can one speak of recurring foreign policy problems that
have characterized Armenian history? Are there patterns in the way Armenians
have perceived, developed and practiced foreign policy during the past two
centuries? In what way are these questions relevant to post-Soviet Armenia? What
role has the Diaspora played in the making of Armenian foreign policy? Dr. Ashot
Sargsyan, Senior Researcher in History at the Matenadaran and Senior Archivist,
at the President Ter-Petrossian Archives and Library, Armenia, analyzed
~SForeign Policy as a Derivative of a Value System;~T Professor Kevork
Bardakjian of the Near Eastern Studies Department, and Director of the Armenian
Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented a paper titled
~SUnifying the Armenian World? Armenia and Diaspora Relations in Modern and
Contemporary Times;~T Professor Ronald Suny of the Department of History,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, raised the issue of ~SLiving in a Dangerous
Neighborhood: Armenia~Rs Foreign Relations in the Short Twentieth Century:
1918-1991;~T and a paper by Dr. Razmik Panossian, Director, Policy and Programs,
Rights and Democracy, Montreal, discussed ~SForeign Policy and the Diaspora~T

Speakers on the third panel, titled ~SThe World as Seen by the South Caucasus~T
and chaired by professor Bruno Coppieters of the Free University of Brussels,
addressed the following questions: How do Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
perceive their region in relation each other, to their neighbors, and to the
larger community of states? What do they see as their main challenges in their
foreign policy agenda? Mr. Ivlian Haindrava, a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi, addressed these issues in his
paper titled ~SThe South Caucasus: Split Identities,~T while the paper by
Ambassador Rouben Shugarian, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia,
focused on ~SThe South Caucasus: Search for a New Identity.~T A third
participant, Mr. Araz Azimov, deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan,
had withdrawn his name before the conference convened.

Professor Charles King of Georgetown University chaired the fourth panel, The
South Caucasus as Seen by the Regional Powers,~T dealing with the policies of
the three major powers neighboring this region–Russia, Turkey and Iran~Wtoward
the south Caucasus, the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of
these three states and the effect of the South Caucasus on their relations with
other states. Prof. Hossein Seifzadeh of the International Relations Department,
Tehran University presented a paper on the ~SConflicting Values and Interests:
Iran~Rs Cautious, Pragmatic Approach to the South Caucasus;~T Prof. Ahmet Han,
International Relations Department, Bilgi University, Istanbul, discussed
~STurkish Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus: History vs. Real Politics;~T and
Dr. Evgueny Kozhokin, Director, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Moscow,
focused on ~SThe Essence of Conflicts in the South Caucasus and Ways to Resolve
Them.~T

The last panel of Day 2 covered the topic ~SThe South Caucasus as Seen by the
West.~T Chaired by Dr. Leila Alieva, Director of the Center for National and
International Studies in Baku, Azerbaijan, the session aimed at answering the
following questions: What are the policies of Europe and the US toward the South
Caucasus? What is the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of the
West and how does it affect their relations with other states? Dr. Tamara
Dragadze, scholar and lecturer based in London, covered the subject in her paper
~SThe South Caucasus through Western Eyes; a Fluid View;” Ambassador Terhi
Hakala, Ambassador of Finland to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and former
Karabakh mediator, discussed the subject of ~SEnhancing European Union Relations
with the South Caucasus;~T and Mr. John Fox, Director of Caucasus and Central
Asia Affairs, US Department of State titled his presentation ~SThe US Policy in
the South Caucasus: The Evolving Challenge.~T

The third day of the conference, Saturday October 23, began with the sixth
panel, ~SThe Impact of the South Caucasus on the Study of International
Relations.~T Chaired by Professor Ahmet Han of Bilgi University, Istanbul, the
session focused on developments in the South Caucasus since
independence~Wincluding problems of economic and political transformation,
conflicts, and energy transportation issues. The questions the speakers were
asked to address were: Do these developments compel us to revise our
understanding of international relations and, Are accepted models of relations
between states adequate to explain the South Caucasus? Prof. Charles King of the
Political Science Department, Georgetown University, Washington DC, addressed
these issues in his paper ~STheories and Realities in the South Caucasus;~T
Prof. Stephen Jones, Department of Political Science, Mount Holyoke College,
Massachusetts, focused on
~SGeorgia: A Little Different, But Not Much,~T and Mr. Asbed Kotchikian, Ph.D.
student in the Political Science Department of Boston University presented
~S(Re)defining Small States: The South Caucasus in the New World Order.~T
Dr. Razmik Panossian of Rights and Democracy, Montreal, chaired the following
session on ~SThe World of Conflicts.~T Here the specialists were asked to
address the following questions: How do we explain the high concentration of
conflicts in the South Caucasus? What are the similarities and differences
between them? Which, if any, of the conflict resolution approaches apply to the
region? Is international mediation the proper means to resolve these conflicts?
The four speakers on this panel were: Dr. Ghia Nodia, Director, Center for
Democracy and Peace, Tbilisi, (~SInternational Players and ~QFrozen
Conflicts:~R Ways to Solution or Perpetuation~T); Prof. Bruno Coppieters,
Political Science Department, Free University of Brussels, (~SGeorgia and Its
neighbors: Weak Statehood and Shifting Center-Periphery Relations~T); Mr. Arman
Grigorian, Ph. D. student in International Relations, Columbia University and
Lecturer at Wesleyan University, Conn., (~SThe Fewer the Merrier: Why and When
One Mediator is Better than Two or Three~E~T; and author Tom de Waal of the
Institute for War and Peace Studies, London
(~SCaucasian Conundrums: Internally Driven or Manipulated?~T)

Mr. Tom de Waal also chaired the last session of the third day, ~SNagorno
Karabakh: A Case Study in Conflict Resolution.~T The presentations addressed the
following questions: How did the international community perceive the conflicts
in the region, especially the problem of Nagorno Karabakh? What was right and
what went wrong with the OSCE Minsk Group process charged with the resolution of
that conflict? What lessons can be learned from that process? And, How does the
leadership of Nagorno Karabakh perceive the problem and the solution?

The first speaker on this panel was Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov (retired),
former Karabakh negotiator for Russia, Moscow, who offered ~SAlternatives of
Karabakh Settlement;~TAmbassador Ömer Ersun (retired), former Karabakh
negotiator for Turkey, Ankara (retired) explained ~SWhy We Failed to Devise a
Conclusive Peace Plan for the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict?~T Ambassador Joseph
Presel of Washington, DC, (retired) former Karabakh negotiator for the US, also
focused on ~SWhy the Minsk Process Failed~T
Dr. Mahmood Vaezi, Deputy Director, Center for Strategic Research, Tehran and
former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Karabakh negotiator,
offered his views by forwarding a paper on the Iranian mediation efforts.

The views of the mediators were complemented by presentations by Ambassador
Tofik Zulfugarov, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Karabakh conflict
negotiator, Azerbaijan (~SArmenia~Rs Foreign Policy Toward Nagorno Karabagh:
Critical View From Baku,~T) and Ambassador David Shahnazaryan, former Minister
and Karabakh negotiator for Armenia (~SNew Challenges and Conflicts in the South
Caucasus: The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict as the Key Conflict in the Region.~T)

The final speaker on this session was Mr.Ashot Ghoulian, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert, who discussed ~SThe Nagorno Karabakh
Republic Factor in the South Caucasus Region.~T

The ninth and final session of the conference was held on Sunday morning,
October 24. Titled ~SReconciling the Past and the Future~T and chaired by
Professor Libaridian of the University of Michigan, the panel addressed the
following questions: How can we assess the path traveled by the South Caucasus
republics? What are the main similarities and differences in their foreign
policies? Is there need and/or room for a common foreign policy? What should be
the main focus at this time?

Following a summary of issues raised during the three preceding days of the
conference presented by the chair, Dr. Leila Alieva, President, Center for
National and International Studies, Baku, Azerbaijan, discussed ~SPost-Soviet
Foreign Policy Strategies in the Caucasus;~T Dr. Archil Gegeshidze, Senior
Research Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International
Studies, Tbilisi and foreign policy adviser to former President E. Shevardnadze
of Georgia, analyzed ~SThe South Caucasus: Politics and Interests of the
Regional Actors;~T and Professor Edward Walker of the Political Science
Department, University of California, Berkeley concluded with his paper titled
~SGlobalization, Terrorism, and the Future of the Nation-State in the South
Caucasus.~T

The conference was attended by a large number of students and faculty from the
University of Michigan and universities across the US, guests from Europe, as
well as members of the community. All sessions were followed by a question and
answer period and lively debates.

Participants and members of the audience alike considered the conference a
unique event in its scope and depth. ~SIt is a source if deep satisfaction,~T
stated Professor Libaridian, ~Sthat so much scholarly and diplomatic experience
came together in one conference, that so many experts and diplomats from all
relevant countries were willing to present their views and see them challenged
for the benefit of a better understanding of the South Caucasus. It is
inevitable that both formal presentations and informal discussions during those
four days have produced a better understanding of the challenges facing the
region; it is also possible that these discussions will generate new ideas and
approaches.~T

To assist the participants and audience, the organizers of the conference have
produced a resource book of 64 pages which includes descriptions of the programs
sponsoring the conference, the program of the conference, biographies of the
speakers, a bibliography, a chronology of events and maps. Copies can be
obtained by writing to Prof. G. J. Libaridian, Department of History, 1029 Tisch
Hall, 435 S. State Street, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 or
from the website of the Armenian Studies Program ().

Available papers and audio proceedings of the conference will also be posted on
this website within a short period of time.

–Boundary_(ID_W7vX7mr/N8JU3jVzLLFadg)–

PRESS RELEASE
November 5, 2004
Embassy of the Republic of Armenia
2225 R Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20008
Tel: 202-319-1976, x. 348; Fax: 202-319-2982
Email: [email protected]; Web:

Pan-Armenian Games World Committee Solicits Information from Armenian
Communities

The World Committee of the Pan-Armenian Games has requested that the
Armenian communities preparing to send teams for the 4th Pan-Armenian
Games to submit information on the sports categories in which they
would like and are able to participate.

In view of the fact that at least two new kinds of sports are being
added to the Program of every Pan-Armenian Games, the World Committee
has so far received suggestions that boxing, wrestling, horse-race
and fencing be included in the Program of the 4th Pan-Armenian
Games. Please note that only Olympic kinds of sports can be included
into the Program of the Pan-Armenian Games.

For information and detailed inquiries, please contact the Secretary
General of the World Committee, Armen Grigoryan, at Government House 2,
Yerevan, 375010, Armenia, or by telephone/fax: (+374-1) 526802.

Attached is the press release on the results of the 10th session of
the General Assembly of the World Committee of the Pan-Armenian Games,
submitted by the WCPAG.

******************************
WORLD COMMITTEE OF THE PAN-ARMENIAN GAMES (WCPAG)

Results of the 10th session of the General Assembly
(Yerevan, October 3, 2004)

The 10th session of the General Assembly of the WCPAG was held on
October 3, 2004, in Ararat Hotel, Yerevan. More than 30 members of the
WCPAG and PAG City Committees (Commissions) from over 20 cities of the
world participated in the session. Vartan Oskanian, the President of
the WCPAG (Yerevan), opened the session and greeted the participants
of the General Assembly.

After the adoption of the Agenda the WCPAG President Vartan Oskanian
presented his two-year report, noting the problems of the World Committee.
The Secretary General Armen Grigoryan (Yerevan) also greeted the
participants, presented his report, in which he mentioned the drawbacks that
took place during the Third Pan-Armenian Games and stated that new kinds of
sports should be included into the program of the Games. The participants of
the General Assembly agreed that new kinds of sports should be added to the
program and it was decided that it would be better if participants of the
Games would define the kinds of sports themselves. In this regard a letter
will be sent to the PAG City Committees (Commissions), so that they mention
all kinds of sports the Armenian Community of their city wishes and is able
to participate in. Among suggested kinds of sports were boxing, wrestling,
horse-race and fencing.

The president of the Auditing Committee of the WCPAG Berdj Halajian
(Alexandria) presented the report of the financial activity of the World
Committee. He noted that not all City Committees (Commissions) of the
Pan-Armenian Games pay their membership fees in time and that the WCPAG
needs to find new sources of financing. In this regards President V.Oskanian
charged the members of the WCPAG to follow that City Committees
(Commissions) of the Pan-Armenian Games of their regions fulfill their
financial obligations in the dates prescribed by the Charter. The president
also noted the necessity of finding new sources of financing and informed
that in case of success, the budget of the WCPAG will be included into the
state budget of the RA beginning from 2005. The Vice-President of the WCPAG
Roland Sharoyan (Yerevan) presented the new edition of the Charter of the
World Committee which was unanimously adopted by the participants of the
General Assembly.

The issue of the changing the logo of the WCPAG was also discussed at the
meeting. The participants discussed new variants of the logo, but new ideas
were born and it was decided that all those who wish will send their
variants in 15 days and the Vice-president R.Sharoyan and the Secretary
General A.Grigoryan, authorized by the President, will follow the process of
choosing new logo. It was repeatedly noted that many cities that have large
Armenian communities do not have City Committees (Commissions) of the
Pan-Armenian Games and that corresponding measures should be taken.

Organizational issues of the First Pan-Armenian Basketball Championship and
the First World Pan-Armenian Sports Congress were discussed. The
participants of the General Assembly decided that the Sports Congress will
take place on August 20, 2005 and the Opening ceremony of the basketball
championship will take place in the evening of August 21, 2005. The deadline
for the preliminary application forms is January 30, 2005, and the deadline
for the team application forms – April 30. The representatives of Vanadzor
and Stepanakert suggested that some of the competitions take place in their
cities and expressed their readiness to accept the participants and provide
them with everything they need. In this regard Mr. Oskanian said that these
issues can have a more detailed discussion after the appropriate
examination.

The Vice-President R.Sharoyan presented the new order of paying membership
fees elaborated together with the Auditing Commission of the WCPAG. The new
order runs as follows: “Participant-cities are obliged to cover all expenses
connected with the banking transfer and to clearly mention the name of the
city and the date of the transfer.”

One of the last points of the Agenda were the elections of the President,
three Vice-presidents, Secretary General, members of the Executive and the
Auditing Committee. All these persons were unanimously elected. Two new
members were elected into the World Committee – Andre Kisajikian (San Paulo)
and Zohrab Malek (Roma). The Vice-President Stepan Derbedrossian (Beirut)
informed the participants that Harout Haroutyunyan (Yerevan) is appointed
the representative of HOMENETMEN in the WCPAG instead of Harout Cezar
Chekijian (Beirut). At the end V.Oskanian thanked the participants of the
General Assembly for cooperation and fruitful work.

The same day the participants of the General Assembly watched “Anush” opera
at the Yerevan State Theatre of Opera and Ballet. The next day the
participants of the General Assembly of the WCPAG met with the Prime
Minister of the Republic of Armenia, Andranik Margarian. During the meeting
the Prime-minister noted the importance of the work of the WCPAG in the
sphere of strengthening Armenia-Diaspora relations and expressed hope that
the work of the World Committee will continue to be successful. The Prime
Minister also promised to assist in the process of finding place for the
House of the World Committee of the Pan-Armenian Games.

Europolitique
27 octobre 2004

UE/TURQUIE: PROJET DE RAPPORT PARLEMENTAIRE INTRANSIGEANT SUR
L’ADHÉSION D’ANKARA .

“L’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion avec la Turquie ne constitue
que le point de départ d’un long processus qui doit rester ouvert,
c’est-à-dire qu’il ne doit pas conduire nécessairement à une
adhésion”, estime le député européen Camiel Eurlings (PPE, Pays-Bas),
rapporteur du Parlement européen sur le dossier de l’adhésion de la
Turquie. Son point de vue semble éloigné de celui de la Commission
européenne qui, le 6 octobre dernier, a estimé que la Turquie a
suffisamment respecté les critères de Copenhague (respect des droits
de l’homme en général) pour mériter d’entamer des négociations, avec
pour objectif final l’adhésion pleine et entière à l’Union
européenne. S’il s’aligne sur la recommandation de la Commission
européenne et notamment la possibilité de suspendre les négociations
en cas de manquement grave aux droits de l’homme dans le chef
d’Ankara, le projet de rapport de M. Eurlings ne devrait recommander
l’ouverture des négociations que dans la mesure où celles-ci traitent
en priorité les critères politiques de Copenhague et procèdent,
ensuite seulement, à un examen chapitre après chapitre. La lutte
contre la torture, les violences familiales et la corruption doivent
être également une priorité dans les chefs des autorités turques. Le
dossier du génocide des Arméniens devrait faire l’objet d’un
consensus entre les deux pays et Ankara devrait entreprendre tous les
efforts pour contribuer au règlement de la question chypriote,
souligne encore M. Eurlings.

Un premier débat sur le projet de rapport de M. Eurlings au niveau de
la commission des Affaires étrangères du Parlement est prévu dans la
soirée du 26 octobre en marge de la session plénière du Parlement
européen à Strasbourg. Une fois adopté par l’Assemblée, cet avis sera
présenté aux chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement avant le Sommet européen
du 17 décembre, réunion au cours de laquelle les Vingt-cinq se
prononceront sur l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion avec Ankara.

Fresno State News, CA
Nov. 4, 2004

Contemporary Armenian Music Concert to be Presented Dec. 5

Award-winning composer and musician Robert Amirkhanian will present a
concert of his contemporary Armenian music, accompanied by vocalist
Seda Amirkarayan Sargsyan, on Sunday, Dec. 5, at California State
University, Fresno.

The concert will be held at 4 p.m. in the Music Building Concert Hall.
It is sponsored by the Armenian Studies Program at Fresno State.

Amirkhanian entered the professional musical world in the mid-1960’s
and soon became an acknowledged master of the vocal-instrumental genre.
He is head of the Composers’ Union of Armenia and chair of the
Department of Music Theory at the Komitas Conservatory of Music in
Yerevan.

Vocal accompanist Sargsyan, a graduate of the Komitas Conservatory, has
performed in concerts in Armenia, Russia, Lebanon, the United States
and elsewhere.

Assa Irada, Azerbaijan
Nov. 3, 2004

Armenian Energy Minister Expected to Visit Baku

An international conference with participation of Caspian and Black Sea
countries’ ministers for energy and transport will be held in Baku on
November 12-14, according to the Ministry of Transport.

A meeting of energy ministers from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Iran,
Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and
Uzbekistan will be held on November 12 and 13. The Armenian energy
minister is expected to attend the meeting as well.

Another meeting to be attended by transport ministers from Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,
Russia, Romania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine and
Uzbekistan will be held on November 13 and 14.

Prospects for cooperation among regional countries will be discussed in
both meetings.

ArmenPress
Nov. 2, 2004

RUSSIAN MINSK GROUP COCHAIRMAN AGAINST PUTTING KARABAGH ISSUE ON UN
ASSEMBLY SESSION AGENDA

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 2, ARMENPRESS: The Russian cochairman of the OSCE
Minsk, Yury Merzlyakov, said the UN General Committee’s decision to
include an item on the situation in the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan on the UN General Assembly’s agenda could have negative
consequences, such as harming efforts to bring about a just and lasting
settlement.
Interviewed by Azerbaijan’s ATV television Merzlyakov said the UN
General Assembly’s session is not the proper forum to discuss the
matter.
Merzlyakov recalled the France’s representative speech, who spoke on
behalf of the Co-Chairmanship of the Minsk Group, which also includes
the Russian Federation and the United States, who spoke against the
decision.
“Today when we are all waiting for the sides to resume talks there
was no necessity to raise the issue,” he said, reiterating that placing
the issue on UN agenda would bring about more harms than help to make
progress.

DEMANDING FOR A FAIR TRIAL FROM EUROPEAN COURT

A1+
29-10-2004

Kurds’ Commune of Armenia has today held a protest action near the
Yerevan Office of the delegation of EU European Commission. Kurds
having arrived from many districts of Armenia were singing patriotic
songs and those devoted to Kurd’s Leader Abdullah Ojalan and
spelling “Freedom for Abdullah Ojalan”. They demanded to receive 3
representatives of Kurd Commune in Yerevan Office of the delegation
of EU European Commission.

After the talks for 30 minutes, during which the employees of Yerevan
Office contacted with the Central Office of EU European Office and
found out the attitude about the reception, the Kurds’ delegation
was hosted.

The only demand of Kurds was that the trial for Abdullah Ojalan
starting in European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg on November 1
passes in fair conditions and Kurds’ leader is released. The document
with the demand was handed to the head of Yerevan Office of the
delegation of EU European Commission.

“Hope must live. How can one condemn a man who fights for his nation,
language and culture? How can the nation of 40 million be considered
terrorists? If all the problems were settled in time, if the Armenian
Genocide was criticized, there would be no Kurds’ Genocide”, Jenik
Aghadr, Vice-Chair of “Kurdistan” Committee says.

What are the expectations of Kurdish Commune from the structure, in
which Turkey is going to enroll? â~@~Before becoming the member of
European Union, Turkish Authorities would better cleanse themselves
because of oppressing peaceful nations. Turkish Authorities must
finally realize that they must not go on that way. If we donâ~@~Yt get
the response needed, we will keep protesting up to the end. Peaceful
actions will be held. If hostilities are instigated, they will be
because Kurd people are ready for it. There canâ~@~Yt be one-sided
truceâ~@~], Jenik Aghadr adds.

Yerevan Municipality had sanctioned todayâ~@~Ys protest action
of Kurds.

–Boundary_(ID_0vBkWLndeQSN0zvZbPL9+Q)–

French Armenians challenge Turkey’s EU bid

MARSEILLE, France, Oct 29 (AFP) – France’s Armenian community
said Friday it would appeal to President Jacques Chirac to prevent
negotiations on Turkish membership of the European Union until Turkey
acknowledged responsibility for a World War One massacre of Armenians.

The group’s attorney Philippe Krikorian said it would lodge an appeal
before the nation’s highest administrative tribunal, the Council of
State, requesting Chirac to oppose the start of such talks.

The subject of the Armenian massacre has remained a controversial one
touching Turkish and Armenian sensitivities for nigh on nine decades,
with Turkey consistently refusing to acknowledge that genocide had
occurred in 1915-1917 when up to 1.5 million Armenians died.

Turkey says that between 250,000 and 500,000 Armenians and thousands
of Turks were killed in civil strife during World War One, when the
Armenians rose up against their Ottoman rulers.

The French parliament passed legislation in 2001 stating that genocide
had occurred, thereby causing hard feelings in relations with Turkey.

Organisations, which represent some 450,000 French citizens of
Armenian origin, wished to protest against Chirac’s “willingness not
to subordinate the opening of negotiations to the prior admission of
the Armenian genocide,” said Krikorian.

Last month the European Commission recommended a start to membership
negotiations with Turkey, which has been lobbying for many years to
join the European Union.

Jean-Pierre Berberian, spokesman of a Marseille-based Armenian group,
noted that an EU summit would make the final decision in December on
whether to start negotiations.

Fifty days ahead of that date, it was time to “denounce the violation
by the French government of the terms of the resolution passed on
June 18, 1987 by the European Parliament and of French legislation
of January 2001 recognising the genocide of 1915,” said Berberian,
spokesman of the Euro-Armenia group here, and a Marseille city
councillor.

Chirac has indicated his support for a start to talks, but many in
his ruling party, in the opposition and among the French public are
against Turkey’s EU membership.

“Not only is Jacques Chirac acting in violation of the law, he is
doing so against the will of a majority of French who are opposed to
Turkey’s membership,” said Berberian.

The text of the 2001 legislation passed by parliament here said France
“publicly recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915,” but did not
explicitly identify Turkey as responsible for the deed.

Bulgarian, Slovenian presidents hold news conference, view cooperation, EU

BTA web site, Sofia
26 Oct 04

Ljubljana, 26 October: Bulgaria should not wait for another country or
group of countries in joining the European Union, Slovenian President
Janez Drnovsek told a joint news conference with his Bulgarian
counterpart Georgi Purvanov after their meeting in the Brdo Castle,
near Ljubljana, on Tuesday [26 October].

Drnovsek said this taking a question on how Slovenia would help
Bulgaria along the road to the EU. Slovenia joined the EU on 1 May
this year. Purvanov opened a two-day official visit to Slovenia on
Tuesday. Slovenia believes that the process of Bulgaria’s accession
should continue as planned, within the set time frames, Drnovsek
said, adding that his country would defend this stand. The Slovenian
president said he expects Slovenia to become a member of the Schengen
Agreement by 2007 and to meet all Schengen standards as an external
border of the EU.

Taking a question, Purvanov said that on the whole Bulgaria had no
problems in closing the negotiation chapters with the exception of
the traditionally difficult ones on competition and agriculture. He
pointed out that Bulgaria still has to work on the reform of its
judiciary and administration and with its minorities.

At their one-to-one meeting the two presidents discussed the work of
the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), whose
rotating chairmanship-in-office Bulgaria currently holds. Slovenia
is expected to take over next year. Purvanov said that as holder of
the OSCE chairmanship-in-office Bulgaria prioritized on the fight
against terrorism and against the trafficking of arms and drugs and
other new challenges. The two presidents discussed the hotbeds of
potential tension Kosovo, Transdniestrian region, Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan. These problems cannot be solved within the term of
one chairmanship, Purvanov said, adding that Bulgaria will assist
Slovenia in their solution as former chairman-in-office and member
of the Troika.

Purvanov made a high assessment of the results of political dialogue
between Bulgaria and Slovenia and pointed out that this dialogue
has a positive influence on economic relations. He explained that
this year two-way trade is expected to reach the record high 100m US
dollars. Last year saw a record in investment, Purvanov said. There
are untapped opportunities for bilateral cooperation in tourism,
transport, telecommunications, social security and in promoting direct
contacts between economic agents and the chambers of commerce of the
two countries. Bulgaria was one of the first countries to support
Slovenia’s initiative for a Slavic cultural forum, the Bulgarian
president said. Purvanov also stressed the good relations between
higher educational establishments of the two countries, above all
between Sofia University and Ljubljana University. He thanked for
the support of his idea for cultural corridors in Southeastern Europe.

The Bulgarian president also met with Slovenian parliament Speaker
France Cukjati who was elected to this post on 22 October. Purvanov
is the first foreign head of state whom the new Slovenian parliament
Speaker meets.