Author: Taslakhchian Andranik

U.S.-ARMENIAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION DEVELOPING IN RIGHT DIRECTION

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.04.2006 20:40 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ U.S.-Armenian economic cooperation is continuing to
develop in the right direction, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans
stated in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net. In his words, in addition
to the U.S. assistance programs, more than seventy American firms
are currently doing business in Armenia, several of which have made
sizeable investments. “In addition, a number of Armenian products have
found markets in America. As this cooperation continues to develop,
we hope to establish additional, stronger economic links between the
United States and Armenia,” the Ambassador remarked.

CE OFFICIAL SAYS GARABAGH ACCORD ‘NEEDED FOR ENTIRE WORLD’

ASSA-IRADA, Azerbaijan
April 27 2006

Baku, April 26, AssA-Irada
The settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh
conflict would serve the interests of the entire world, Armenian
Mediamax news agency quoted the Council of Europe Secretary General
Terry Davis as saying.

Davis said he is closely following the ongoing peace talks and voiced
disappointment over the protracted conflict.

“It has been unfortunately impossible to settle it for a long time.

However, its settlement would benefit both Azerbaijan and Armenia,
and Upper Garabagh in particular,” he said.

Asked whether the CE plans to step up its role in the conflict
resolution, Davis said the international community had vested this
task in the OSCE Minsk Group (MG) brokering the peace process. “The
MG is currently working to achieve a solution. I wish success in this
respect to the Russian, French and American co-chairs.”

Touching upon cooperation in the South Caucasus, Davis said this
is always necessary, but conflicts flaring in the region are posing
obstacles for such interaction.

From: Fr Ktrij Devejian <[email protected]>
Subject: April 24 Commemorated in Holy Etchmiadzin

PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address:  Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact:  Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel:  (374 10) 517 163
Fax:  (374 10) 517 301
E-Mail:  [email protected]
Website: 
April 27, 2006

April 24 Commemorated in Holy Etchmiadzin

A special Divine Liturgy was celebrated in the Mother See of Holy
Etchmiadzin on April 24, the annual commemoration day of the Armenian
Genocide.  His Eminence Archbishop Nerses Bozabalian celebrated the Liturgy.

Following the Liturgy, the procession of clergy escorted His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, to the
Memorial of the Armenian Genocide located on the grounds of the Mother See. 
Standing near the monument of Khatchkars (Stone-crosses), His Holiness
presided during a special Repose of Souls service offered in memory of the
1.5 million victims of the Genocide of the Armenians from 1915-1923.

HASANOV: “WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT OSCE MG CO-CHAIR STATES WILL INTENSIFY THE PRESSURE ON OFFICIAL YEREVAN”

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 26 2006

“We think that the US and Azerbaijani presidents will discuss Nagorno
Garabagh conflict, Iran problem and other problems of regional
concern and will exchange views on these issues,” President’s Office
socio-political department chief Ali Hasanov told journalists (APA).

“We are hopeful that the US and OSCE MG co-chair countries will
intensify pressures on Yerevan in order to achieve its constructive
stance and will help intensify the negotiations within international
legal norms”.

Expressing his regret for the opposition’s spreading ambiguous
information about President Ilham Aliyev’s visit to the USA, Mr.
Hasanov stated that being in opposition to statehood and national
interests is not honor to the opposition leaders.

“It is natural for every person, political party and government to
be in opposition to any idea or notion. But Being in opposition to
national interests can’t be honor to anybody. One of the main reasons
for such people’s being in opposition but not in authority is their
opposition-style stance on their own nation and country. Azerbaijani
president’s invitation to the US and creation of good relations
between Azerbaijan and a prestigious country like the US satisfy the
interests of every citizen as well as the opposition. Unfortunately,
the opposition doesn’t understand this”.

POLES AND ALBANIANS OF UK COMMEMORATED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS

PanARMENIAN.Net
26.04.2006 01:59 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Events dedicated to the 91st anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915 were held in London April
21-24. April 21 a commemoration soiree in Ealing was attended by
Mayor Michael Elliot, member of the House of Commons Steven Pound,
representatives of the Armenian community, Poles, Albanians and
other nations residing in the district. RA Ambassador to the UK Vahe
Gabrielyan was also present at the event.

April 22 some 500 representatives of the Armenian community marched
along the London streets. They were carrying posters condemning
Turkey’s Genocide denial policy. The action participants laid wreaths
to the monument of those killed in World Wars and also conveyed a
message to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Iran’s Azeris or the Azeris’ Iran
By Cem Oguz

New Anatolian, Turkey
April 20 2006

[email protected] April 2006

A couple of years ago a close friend of mine, after coming back from
a long journey by car across northern Iran (or “Southern Azerbaijan,”
as it is referred to in nationalist Azeri literature), was telling me
how Iranian Azeris were undergoing a cultural revival. There was a
real boom in nationalist publications and a growing interest in both
Azerbaijan and Turkey among Iranian Azeris. A considerable part of
Azeris he spoke to said that they only watched Turkish TV channels.

The most popular songs playing on the streets of Tabriz were those of
Turkish singers.

This cultural revival (or transformation) has seemingly attracted
increasing interest from the U.S. administration that was recently
reported to be willing to foment ethnic-inspired unrest in Iran. It
is for this reason that the book by Brenda Shaffer, whom I happened
to meet in the second half of the 1990s when she was doing her Ph.D.,
has captivated the attention of many influential figures in
Washington. In the book, entitled “Borders and Brethren: Iran and the
Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity,” Shaffer, currently Harvard
University’s Caspian Studies director, challenges the popular
assumption that a broad Iranian national identity supersedes ethnic
identities and discusses the cultural reawakening among Iranian
Azeris.

The revival of nationalist sentiment among ethnic groups in Iran,
first and foremost among Azeris, is indeed a fact. But the question
henceforth should be what this phenomenon might lead to. Could it be
a catalyst for a regime change, as asserted by some circles in the
U.S.? To find a reliable answer to this question we need to elaborate
on the fundamental features of the Azeri community in Iran.

Until Ahmed Shah, who was replaced in 1925 by Reza Khan (Pahlavi),
Iran was mainly ruled by the Turkmen/Azeri Qajar dynasty. Historical
legacy thus had an important impact on the mentality of today’s
Iranian Azeris. Their feeling of affiliation with Iran and the
Iranian state is undisputable. One would not be surprised to even see
the most nationalist Iranian Azeris denounce aspirations of
separation, since, in their words, “Iran is theirs.” Given this
backdrop, Iranian Azeris, the total number of which is estimated to
be anywhere between 16 to 30 million, according to different sources,
are well-integrated into Iranian society. Presently some highly
influential figures in the establishment are of Azeri descent; even
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose native town is Ardebil, a mostly
Azeri-populated place in the western part of the province of Western
Azerbaijan in Iran, is rumored to come from an Azeri family. Azeris
also constitute a considerable part of people in Tehran.

An important factor that influences bi-communal relations, on the
other hand, is economics. Some among Persian nationalists question
why the oil-rich south should feed the relatively poorer northern
regions which are mostly populated by Iranian Azeris. Due to such a
line of thinking, Persian nationalism has gradually come to contain a
considerable level of anti-Azeri feeling. The Azeris, in turn, don’t
seem to be willing to renounce the wealth coming from the south’s oil
reserves.

The influence of nationalist leaders among Iranian Azeris is very
limited as well. This, in fact, should be well understood by the U.S.

authorities. A couple of years ago, Movement of National Revival of
Southern Azerbaijan head Mahmudali Chehregani, a prominent and
respected academic imprisoned for three years in the past for his
outspoken opposition to the regime, was invited to Washington. With
the help of Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican advocate of regime
change in Iran, he held various meetings with U.S. officials. The
main claim asserted by Chehregani was that his movement could spur
millions of its followers into protesting on the streets. However,
such public demonstrations never materialized.

No one can deny that Tabriz, the so-called capital of Southern
Azerbaijan, is at present the center of the most active student
democracy movement outside Tehran. Nevertheless the aspirations of
Iranian Azeris are more for cultural autonomy. In fact, their
ultimate goal is not at all different from the rest of the country:
More reforms and more rights.

In such an atmosphere, to assume that Iranian Azeris are ready to
rise up against the mullah-led regime in Tehran is not only
unreliable but also risky. Nonetheless, there are clear signs that
some circles in Washington are very eager to play the Azeri card up
to the last moment. It is in this regard, for instance, that three
years after his election Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has only
just now received an official invitation to visit Washington. His
meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush is set for April 28. The
two main issues to be discussed between both leaders, analysts argue,
will be the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Iran. There is no doubt
that Aliyev’s stance on the Iranian question will exercise a
considerable level of influence on the U.S.’ position over the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute as well as the future of
Azerbaijani territory still under Armenian occupation.

We will soon see how Washington’s attempts at influencing their
allies’ strategic calculations, as put in the U.S.’ new National
Security Strategy just recently, works.

ROBERT KOCHARIAN AND STEVEN MANN DISCUSS CURRENT STATE AND PROSPECTS
OF NAGORNO KARABAKH SETTLEMENT

YEREVAN, APRIL 20, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. On April 20, RA
President Robert Kocharian received OSCE Minsk Group American Co-chair
Steven Mann. As Noyan Tapan was informed from RA President’s Press
Service, the interlocutors discussed the current state of Nagorno
Karabakh settlement, exchanged thoughts about the prospects of the
negotiations.

Recognition of Karabakh should be on agenda- ARF Bureau member

20.04.2006 16:38

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Bureau
member and National Assembly Vice Speaker Vahan Hovannisian spoke on
Thursday about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Armenia-Russia relations
and domestic political developments.

Taking a question on Yerevan’s current position on the Karabakh
conflict settlement, Hovannisian said that Yerevan is not going to
make more concessions other than those already spelled out for years.

“The statements Armenia makes to succeed in talks and show the
country in a better light should not be confused with the final goal,”
Hovannisian said. “If Azerbaijan admits even once it recognizes the
self-determination right of Nagorno Karabakh, it would be hard for
it to take its words back later.”

“Today, the negotiations with Azerbaijan should not be the first
issue on the agenda. Instead, the first item on the agenda should
be the recognition of Karabakh – in any form – by the international
community. This would make Azerbaijan go for more compromise.”

He added that presently not only the ARF but also state officials
realize this. Referring to the latest gas deals with Russia,
Hovannisian said that the political side of the deal was “really very
obnoxious,” but in terms of economics, the deal was the best solution
currently possible.

Speaking of the prospects of the political developments and the
possible outcome of the parliamentary election due next year,
Hovannisian said he was sure the ARF will be presented at the National
Assembly, noting that unlike the opposition, he believes the elections
will be fair.

PRESIDENT CONSIDERS IMPRORTANT CONTINUATION OF POLICE REFORMS

Noyan Tapan
Apr 17 2006

YEREVAN, APRIL 17, NOYAN TAPAN. The RA Police must decisively implement
its functions with respecting fully the human rights and fundamental
freedoms. RA President Robert Kocharian formulated in this way the
main issue of the police, having a welcome speech at the April 15
celebration of the 5th anniversary of foundation of the RA Police. The
President mentioned at the same time that the Police must not implement
functions not characteristical for it. He considers necessary to pay
special attention to the issue of providing the police with modern
means, to constinuous work of improvement of professional skills
of the staff. “Modern challenges make the command of time widening
of international cooperation of the police as well, otherwise, it is
impossible to struggle productively against such types of crime as the
money laundering, illegal circulation of narcotics, trafficking are,”
R.Kocharian mentioned, attaching importance to continuing reforms of
the police system as well. The President finds that it is especially
necessary to pay attention to improvement of activity of those circles
which directly and in everyday life relate to citizens. “You must led
with the consciousness that the general characteristic and development
of our country are greatly provided by the quality of your work as
well,” he said. RA Chief Police Officer Haik Haroutiunian mentioned in
his speech that during the recent years serious and fundamental steps
were taken in the direction of activity of the police, formation and
strengthening of the legal field, the cooperation with legal structures
of a number of countries and the Interpol reached a new qualitative
level. “In essense, we already work in new conditions and the evidence
of productivity of this new and modern approaches is not only indexes
fixed in prevention and founding out of crimes but citizens’ belief
towards the police increasing day by day, their intention to support
us, to assist in the struggle against crime,” he said.

PBS STANDS BY ‘ARMENIAN GENOCIDE’
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff

Boston Globe
April 18 2006

Andrew Goldberg realized how powerful a word could be — particularly
a powerful word like “genocide” — when he got a call, several years
ago, from a PBS station in Fresno, Calif. A studio full of Armenians,
answering phones for a pledge drive, had been watching his 2001
film “The Armenians: A Story of Survival.” When a Turkish scholar
acknowledged that his country’s massacre of Armenians was genocide,
the room burst into applause.

For decades, the Turkish government has resisted the “genocide” label
for the events of 1915-1918, insisting that the deaths of 1.5 million
Armenians were part of a civil war. Turkey has lobbied vigorously to
keep the US government from declaring the killings a genocide. The New
York Times only officially added “Armenian genocide” to its stylebook
in 2004. The Globe, before 2003, would only use the term “genocide”
in direct quotations when referring to the Armenian genocide.

So it is significant that Goldberg’s latest documentary, which airs
tonight at 10 on Channel 2, is called “The Armenian Genocide” — no
equivocation, no hint of doubt. And, in a sense, it’s surprising that
PBS decided to air the film, title and all. “I shopped it at multiple
cable networks,” Goldberg said. “Nobody would touch this thing.”

PBS, he said, “never wavered. They were strong. I really appreciated
that.”

Critics have accused PBS of squandering that good will by commissioning
a companion piece: a half-hour panel discussion that includes Turkish
scholars who deny that a genocide took place.

Armenian-Americans and their allies say the forum gives voice to an
untenable point of view; some have compared it to following a World
War II film with a panel stocked with Holocaust deniers. Several
major PBS stations, including Boston’s WGBH, have chosen not to air it.

Lea Sloan, PBS’s vice president of communications, said the panel
doesn’t question the genocide, but explores “how historians can come
to such radically divergent conclusions about these events.” She
said PBS has produced discussions to accompany about a dozen recent
documentaries, including a May 2005 film on the Rwandan genocide and
a January 2004 film on Alzheimer’s disease.

And she noted that the panel’s title is “Armenian Genocide:
Exploring the Issues.” That’s “an implicit positioning,” Sloan said,
an acknowledgement that genocide took place. That, in itself, is
a sign of how much has changed since the 1980s, when Boston-based
filmmaker Ted Bogosian proposed a documentary on the subject. At
the time, Bogosian said, he had to leave his job as a staff producer
at WGBH-based “Nova” and form his own company to make his film. He
had to pitch the documentary as a first-person account, a search
for his roots. And when the documentary was set to air, he said,
PBS downplayed the publicity, expecting — correctly — that the
Turkish backlash would be fierce.

Bogosian was propelled by his ethnic background and his journalistic
hunger. He snuck into Turkey, filmed a genocide survivor in her
village in eastern Turkey, and retrieved Turkish war crimes trial
transcripts that corroborated her story. The resulting film, 1988’s
“An Armenian Journey,” was “the most satisfying credit I’ve ever had,”
Bogosian said.

Like Bogosian, Goldberg sets out to settle history; his film features
omniscient narration, context from scholars, and harrowing footage
from the time, along with descriptions of Armenian death marches and
suffering families.

Goldberg includes official denials from both Turkish leaders and
Turks on the streets. He acknowledges that Armenians murdered some
Turks at the time of World War I, and that Armenian terrorists
slaughtered Turkish officials in the 1980s. But he also features
vivid testimonials from Turks who recall their own relatives’ stories
of being encouraged to kill Armenians. And he shows footage of an
interview with Rafael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide” in the
1940s, partly in reference to the Armenian slaughter.

The result is so balanced that a panel discussion seemed unnecessary,
said Lucy Sholley, a spokeswoman for WGBH. (KCET, in Los Angeles,
is showing neither Goldberg’s film nor the discussion; it is airing
a French documentary on the Armenian genocide.)

Bogosian said he’s cheered by the fact that so many stations have
turned down the panel — and that so many more scholars and journalists
have been focusing on the Armenian massacre. Over time, he said,
“the lens sharpens, the filter changes, and this stuff stands out in
much more sharp relief.”

6/04/18/pbs_stands_by_armenian_genocide/