Author: Tavakalian Edgar

DONATION OF $5 MLN TO ARMENIAN CHURCH

AZG Armenian Daily
05/04/2006

Thanks to the efforts of Archbishop Hovnan Terterian, head of the
Western Diocese of the United States, resident of Scottsdale, Arizona,
Anahit Avetisian donated $5 million to the Armavir Diocese of the
Armenian Apostolic Church. In a special ceremony the benefactor will
be honored with “St Gregory the Illuminator” medal in Mother See of
Holy Etchmiadzin, Zartonk newspaper of Beirut reports.

The paper informs also that recently Archbishop Terterian handed the
epistle of Armenian Catholicos and “St Nerses Shnorhali” medal to
Grigor Kanimian for his activities from Beirut to Los Angeles.

NOR ZHAMANAKNER PARTY HOLDS ITS FIRST OPEN-AIR CONFERENCE

Noyan Tapan
Apr 04 2006

YEREVAN, APRIL 4, NOYAN TAPAN. On April 4, the Nor Zhamanakner (New
Times) party held its open-air conference in the territory near
Yerevan Matenadaran.

As party Chairman Aram Karapetian said in his speech, the reason of
holding the conference in the open air is that no hall is given to
the party.

According to Karapetian, he has applied twice with a request to give
the party the governmental sitting hall but he was refused with an
“absurd” motivation.

According to the party Chairman, the conference participants arrived
by buses from different regions of Armenia. He announced that this
time the police did not hamper to people’s coming to the capital
from the regions. Aram Karapetian said that the Nor Zhamanakner’s
first conference can be considered a success as about 1000 people
take part in it instead of the expected 700 delegates.

Mentioning that he liked the idea of party’s open-air meeting, the
Nor Zhamanakner Chairman expressed an opinion that the authorities
do this deliberately so that the opposition not take to the
streets. Representatives of the Forum of Intelligentsia Rafael
Ghazarian, Yervand Manarian, Khoren Palian spoke at the party’s
conference. Garnik Margarian, Petros Makeyan, Vardan Khachatrian and
Aram Martirosian were present from “17+1” format. Aram Karapetian
said that the party is going to organize the next rally in Yerevan
near te Police building as the representatives of this structure
have confiscated the party’s equipments and have not given them
back up to this day. And before it the party plans to go to the
country’s regions by car columns and to organize meetings with the
regional population. The party will establish more than 12 offices
in the regions, the goal of which is to make the population more
active and to gather 50 thousand people in Yerevan if necessary. As
Aram Karapetian told the journalists, it is envisaged to hold the
above-mentioned events in the second half of April. Bofore it the
party Chairman will leave for Moscow, then for Tehran.

U.S. ANNOUNCES MAJOR NEW AID PACKAGE FOR ARMENIA
By Emil Danielyan

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 4 2006

The United States has officially committed itself to providing $235.65
million in additional economic assistance to Armenia, in a further
indication of its deepening ties with the South Caucasus country. The
sum, substantial by Armenian standards, is to be provided over the
next five years under the Bush administration’s Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) program aimed at promoting good governance and economic
reforms around the world.

The administration included Armenia on the list of 16 developing
countries eligible for MCA funding when it unveiled the program two
years ago. The cash-strapped government in Yerevan jumped at the
opportunity to meet some of its pressing socio-economic needs. The
MCA compact that was signed by senior U.S. and Armenian officials in
Washington on March 27 is the product of Yerevan’s lengthy negotiations
with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a U.S. government
agency handling the scheme.

Speaking at the signing ceremony, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice described the agreement as a “testament to the hard work and
dedication of the Armenian people and their elected government.” Rice
stressed that provision of the aid is conditional on the proper conduct
by the Armenian authorities of parliamentary and presidential elections
due in 2007 and 2008 respectively. “These are important commitments
and the United States stands ready to help Armenia to ensure that
its upcoming elections are free and fair,” she said.

Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian assured her that his
government would do its best to honor those commitments. “Our
task until then is to partner with the United States and European
governments to implement the necessary corrective steps to improve
the conditions necessary for an honest and fair expression of people’s
voices,” he said.

The large-scale aid will be channeled into rural regions of Armenia
that have seen little development despite a decade of nationwide
economic growth. The main segment, worth $146 million, will be spent
on upgrading the country’s malfunctioning irrigation networks, which
date to Soviet times. Another $67 million will be used for capital
repairs of about 1,000 kilometers of battered rural roads. U.S. and
Armenian officials say these two infrastructure projects will directly
benefit 75% of the approximately one million Armenians dependent on
farming. The first major installment of the aid is expected to be
disbursed early next year.

Interestingly, Armenia has already been one of the world’s leading
per-capita recipients of U.S. economic assistance, which is approved
by Congress and has totaled $1.6 billion since 1992. The size of
this “regular” aid is commonly attributed to the strength of the
Armenian-American lobby on Capitol Hill. But finding an explanation
for Armenia’s inclusion in MCA, which is single-handedly decided by
the Bush administration, is a more difficult task. Unlike neighboring
Georgia (the only other former Soviet state covered by MCA), Armenia
has no ambition to join NATO and maintains close military and political
ties with Russia.

Many Armenian observers regard the promised MCA funds as a further
incentive for President Robert Kocharian and his most likely successor,
Defense Minister Serge Sarkisian, to accept a compromise solution
to the Karabakh conflict. U.S. officials say a framework peace deal
may still be achieved this year despite the collapse of a crucial
Armenian-Azerbaijani summit in France last February. In this regard,
local observers consider very significant Rice’s remark that Armenians
have an “elected government.” (The State Department strongly criticized
the 2003 Armenian presidential and parliamentary elections.) Haykakan
Zhamanak, a pro-Western Yerevan daily critical of the ruling regime,
editorialized on April 1 that Washington is thereby “removing all
questions about Robert Kocharian’s legitimacy.”

A commentator for another paper, 168 Zham, went further, speculating
that the Americans are disinterested in Armenia’s democratization
because “our society is overwhelmingly pro-Russian.”

The United States was quite cautious in criticizing reports of serious
fraud during last November’s constitutional referendum in Armenia
(and parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan) — a far cry from its
tough reaction to the disputed presidential ballot in Belarus on
March 19. MCC chief executive John Danilovich expressed concern at the
Armenian authorities’ handling of the referendum but promptly lauded
their “commitment to sustaining the democratic reforms” after receiving
relevant assurances from Kocharian last January. In a March 27 speech
at a conference organized by the Armenian Assembly of America,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said Washington is
“taking at face value assurances from the Armenian government” that
the 2007 and 2008 elections will be democratic. Many Armenians are
far more skeptical on this score.

By providing extra aid to Armenia Washington may also be rewarding
the government’s ongoing efforts to forge closer security links with
NATO and America in particular. “We do support Armenia’s efforts to
strengthen its relations with the Euro-Atlantic community,” Fried said,
commending the Kocharian administration for seeking greater “balance in
its relations with the West and the Russians.” Fried’s deputy Matthew
Bryza welcomed “considerable progress made in this regard over the
past year” after holding talks with Armenian leaders in Yerevan on
March 7. “I don’t think that the government of Armenia can move at
a pace that for us is too quick,” Bryza told a news conference. “But
we are very happy with the level of cooperation.

This has been a significant year for U.S.-Armenian security
cooperation.”

(Haykakan Zhamanak, April 1; 168 Zham, March 30-31; RFE/RL Armenia
Report, March 7, 28; Text of Daniel Fried’s address to the Armenian
Assembly of America, )

AZERI AMBASSADOR TO THE UK: “BAKU READY TO TALK WITH ETHNIC ARMENIANS RESIDING IN NK”

Today, Azerbaijan
April 4 2006

Major principles in the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict are based on the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which implies the
observation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, inviolability
of borders and sovereignty.

They are also the principles of the international rule of law that
we have based on, the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador
of Azerbaijan to the UK, Rafael Ibrahimov, said in an interview for
BBCRussian.com.

“As to timeline, I can’t say that it exclusively work for us without
any exclusion in the relationships, but the point is that as times goes
by there appears a critical mass and the attitude of the international
community changes in favor of intensification of a decision making
process,” he underlined.

He noted that changes occur on the accents, estimations and Azerbaijan
holds rather favorable position. Truth about this conflict becomes
known everywhere.

The diplomat underlined that the territorial integrity was the major
principle and Azerbaijan regards it as a basis. As to implementation
of an agreement, if it is achieved it is planned to place peacemaking
forces following the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from
the occupied territory of Azerbaijan. It is to be followed by the
repatriation of the Azerbaijani internally displaced people (IDP) to
their native territory. Azerbaijan has always supported preventing
any authorities for monopolization of the issue of the composition
of the peace-keeping forces. We have always considered the issue on
international peacemakers, Ibrahimov underlined.

Moreover, the Azerbaijani diplomat voiced his disappointment hat every
time when Azerbaijan speaks about its legal demands for rehabilitation
of the territorial integrity, Armenia accepts it as tensioning of the
situation. Azerbaijan continues the negotiation process and is firm
on its ground. Obviously, we have definite short-term, middle-term
and long-term tasks in the issue on the liberation of the sovereign
Azerbaijani territory, he underscored.

At preset the issue of repatriation of the Armenian refugees to
Azerbaijan is also under consideration, Ibrahimov underlined, adding
that the issue must be considered in the context of repatriation of the
Armenian refugees and Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs, which currently
number over 1 million. It is also considered in the context of the
repatriation of Azerbaijani IDPs, who were driven out from the native
lands as a result of Armenian occupation. However, for the time being
it is too early to speak about achievement of a principle agreement
on the conflict resolution unless the exact order, ways and format
of provision of security of the refugees and IDPs are determined and
obviously, a process of repatriation starts.

Compromise by Azerbaijan is obvious. We hold peace talks with Armenia
on the topic of definition of a way and format for peaceable resolution
of the conflict. Over many years Azerbaijan has been imposed to the
aggression and occupation of Armenia.

Azerbaijan does not refuse from the talks and with Karabakh, but it
still depends on the format, he stressed. Baku is ready to speak
with the Azerbaijani citizens, the ethnic Armenians residing in
Nagorno-Karabakh. If they appeal to Baku in this respect, Azerbaijani
will never refuse from talks. In the opposite such dialogue is
desirable to take place, but only on the base of the Constitution
of Azerbaijan and a principle of sovereignty of Azerbaijan. In this
case Azerbaijan could make compromises and discuss the issue with
the subjects of the Azerbaijan Republic. The ethnic communities of
Nagorno Karabakh – Armenians and Azerbaijanis would participate in
this process.

The position has been exactly determined. The UK supports negotiation
process in the context of the OSCE Minsk Group and recognizes the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. As a UN Security
Council member the country backed all 4 resolutions (822, 853, 874
and 884), adopted by the organization in 1993 and chaired in one of
them. London attentively observes over the talks and supports the rapid
resolution of the conflict in a peaceable way. The UK is not member
of the OSCE Minsk Group. The special envoy of the British government,
Brian Fall, regularly visits the region and holds meeting and exchange
of opinions on large specter of issues including the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict London supported the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and remains loyal
to this position, according to the Azerbaijani ambassador.

URL:

ARMENIAN YOUTH DENY ANY POSSIBILITY TO HAND IN NATIVE TERRITORIES

Panorama.am
15:00 31/03/06

Today more than 10 Armenian youth organizations have made a
joint declaration where it is stated: “Being concerned with the
unproductiveness of the negotiations and the announcements about
the possibilities territorial compromise we youth organizations
that signed below, inform the RA and NKR Governments, Armenian and
international community that: ~U we deny any possibility to hand over
our native territories ~U we condemn the announcements made by state
and political figures concerning this question ~U we demand that no
such statements as “area of security”, “controlled territory” and
others should be used about the territories freed during Artsakh
war ~U we call RA and NKR Governments to offer all the favorable
conditions for repopulation and development of the freed territories
~U we call the youth to assist all the state and private programs
that aim at carrying out the above mentioned tasks ~U the youth is
ready to assist the Government to carry out the above mentioned thesis”

The following organizations signed under the document: “Mitk” youth
analytical centre, ARF “Nikol Aghbalyan” students’ union, ARP Youth
Organization, “Vogu Pahpanner” youth and students’ institution,
students’ councils of Yerevan State Economical University, Armenian
State pedagogical University, YSU Faculty of History and several more
youth institutions. /Panorama.am/

Co-chairs of Dartmouth Conference: Armenians have the same right for Karabakh as Indians for America

Regnum, Russia
March 31 2006

A session of Dartmouth conference on Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement under the chairmanship of Harold Saunders (US) and Vitaly
Naumkin (Russia), with participation of Armenian MPs and others has
taken place in the Armenian Academy of Sciences.

The sides noted importance of a framework agreement between
representatives of the conflict sides – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno
Karabakh, and told their opinions on the conflict settlement process.

As Saunders said, the negotiation process must be divided into two
stages. The first will include intermediate steps, namely measures
for establishment of mutual trust, equal concessions by the parties,
synchronized withdrawal of troops, demilitarization of the territories,
return of refugees, restoration of communications, economic and
cultural cooperation. The second stage will comprise talks on the NKR
final status, conclusion of peaceful agreement and establishment of
diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In his words, the formula of the project is following: “Peace and
intermediate status in exchange for territories,” which differs from
the mutually excluding principles of the Azerbaijani and Armenian
sides – “peace in exchange for territories” and “territories in
exchange for status.” Harold Saunders also noted that the project was
submitted to the Russian and U.S. Co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group,
who rated it positive on the whole. “Ambassador Mann specifically
noted the measures for establishment of mutual trust between the
conflicting parties provided by the framework agreement,” Mr.

Saunders said. At that he noted that the Dartmouth Conference is
not a substitute to the OSCE MG. “The task of the Minsk Group is to
propose the final decision, while our task is to offer the possible
ways of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement,” he stressed.

Russian co-chair Vitaly Naumkin said that a framework agreement is one
of the modifications of step-by-step settlement. But to reach such
agreement, the conflicting nations must understand the necessity of
such agreement and their observance. Only by observing every document,
the sides can create new basis for negotiations and peaceful settlement
as a whole.

The sides also discussed different aspects of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. Speaking about his point of view over the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict, Saunders said that it must not be historically grounded,
because in such case, American Indians can demand America back.

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE COMPACT SIGNED BETWEEN ARMENIA AND US

Noyan Tapan
Mar 28 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 28, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenia’s Millennium Challange
Compact worth 236.5 mln USD for a 5-year implementation period
was signed on March 27 in Washington by the RA Minister of Finance
and Economy Vardan Khachatrian and the Executive Director of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) John Danilovich. According
to the press service of the RA Ministry of Finance and Economy, the
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a speech at the signing
ceremony. The main purpose of the program to be implemented in Armenia
is poverty reduction in rural communities: 75% of the Armenian rural
population will be the direct beneficiaries of the investments. Out
of the indicated sum, 67.1 mln USD will be allocated for repairs of
village roads, and 145.67 mln USD – for reconstruction of irrigation
systems. About 23 mln USD is envisaged for the monitoring, management
and control of the program. A 6% reduction in rural poverty is expected
as a result of the program’s implementation.

ALEXANDER MOROZEVICH AGAIN IN THE LEAD IN MONTE CARLO TOURNAMENT

Noyan Tapan
Mar 27 2006

MONTE CARLO, MARCH 27, NOYAN TAPAN. Three tours have remained to the
end of the “Amber” chess tournament proceeding in Monte Carlo with
participation of 12 strongest grand masters. After 8 tours, Alexander
Morozevich is at the top of the tournament table. He gained 11 out of
16 possible points. Vishvantan Anand (India) is in the second place
with 10.5 points, Francisco Valekho (Spain) in the third place with
9.5 points. Representative of Armenia, world cup-holder Levon Aronian
plays rather unevenly in the Monte Carlo tournament. He has 7 points
and shares the 9-10th places. The tournament participants have a rest
on March 27 and will hold the games of the 9th tour the next day,
first by “blind” then quick chess rules.

PAPA: RICORDA PERSECUZIONE ARMENA MA EVITA PAROLA GENOCIDIO

Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)
SDA – Servizio di base in Italiano
20 Marzo 2006

Citta’ Del Vaticano, 20 Mar

Papa Ratzinger manifesta vicinanza al popolo armeno ricordando gli
“anni della terribile persecuzione che resta nella storia col nome
tristemente significativo di metz yeghern, il grande male”.

Benedetto XVI riceve i vertici del Sinodo Patriarcale Armeno e nel
discorso che rivolge loro non manca di fare riferimento alle vicende
storiche che, agli inizi del secolo, costarono la vita ad oltre
un milione di persone per le persecuzioni subite sotto l’impero
ottomano. Ma pur esprimendo dolore Papa Ratzinger nel testo, per
cautela diplomatica, evita di utilizzare il termine “genocidio”.

Forse per non provocare una possibile reazione da parte del governo
turco, la cui posizione in merito ai fatti del 1915 e’ decisamente
negazionista. “Come non ricordare in proposito i tanti inviti rivolti
da Leone XIII ai cattolici perche soccorressero l’indigenza e le
sofferenze delle popolazioni armene?” si chiede il pontefice.

Negli anni passati in Vaticano non si fecero attendere troppo le
lamentele dell’ambasciata turca presso la Santa Sede per l’utilizzo
della parola “genocidio” all’interno di un testo papale. Persino
alla redazione di Civilta’ Cattolica, un paio d’anni fa, arrivarono
lettere di protesta per un articolo riguardante la persecuzione subita
da questo popolo.

Stavolta il discorso papale, pur essendo avendo toni di sincera
benevolenza nei confronti del popolo armeno e di gratitudine (“vi
accompagni la benedizione che di cuore vi imparto, quale segno
del costante affetto del successore di Pietro”) e’ stato calibrato
proprio per non irritare il governo di Ankara, paese che Benedetto
XVI visitera’ alla fine di novembre.

Zaman Online, Turkey
March 25 2006

Intolerance

by MEHMET KAMIS

The modern man is upset and rattled by whatever is different. He
tends to view anyone who does not resemble him, dress like him, live
like him and behave like him as a threat.

Generalizations are not always good; however, modern European
countries such as Germany and France do not enjoy the company of
anyone who appears different, or to be more precise, they refuse to
recognize the right to existence of people who are different. France,
for instance, in the early 20th, century took over all the cultural
and ethnic elements which were active at that time on French soil and
gave them French characteristics. All Jews and Muslims in the Iberian
Peninsula were either put to the sword or forced into exile when
Spain took over the peninsula. There is no Muslim community left in a
peninsula that was under Muslim rule for hundreds of years. Exchange
or takeover of power might have been commonplace during that period;
however, what was not normal was totally rejecting everything that
existed before, that is, eradicating them all.

Remember the workers who were sacked because they talked to each
other in their own languages. Something similar happened in Germany
as well. The media gave extensive coverage to the story of a Turk who
was denied entry into a club because he spoke in Turkish, even though
he was a permanent member of that club.

Foreigners in Europe are being forced to integrate. This is, it is
being said implicitly or explicitly: `I can only recognize your right
to live here if you resemble me. Or else, there is no place for you
here.’ The conscience test is convincing evidence that the idea of
living together with someone different is not welcome. The West is
scared of anything different. There is a general tendency in the West
to consider anyone who is different or thinks differently an
adversary and a potential threat.

The Ottomans recognized the rights of different belief systems and
cultures and enabled them continue their existence under the empire.
There is no example in history of the empire unleashing a
scorched-earth policy in any of the areas the Ottomans conquered. In
Istanbul, besides the Muslims, non-Muslims like the Armenians,
Greeks, Jews and Bulgarians not only had the right to live without
any problems, they were also allowed to operate their own
foundations, hospitals and schools.

Anatolia’s difference is rooted in the of norms that promoted
tolerance among different lifestyles, making it possible for
different people with different backgrounds to live together
peacefully. Partisans of Caliphate Ali, Sunnis, Armenians, Kurds,
Turks, Circassians, people of Syrian origin and even Yezidis
maintained their identities and customs for hundreds of years. If
Anatolia had the prevailing worldview of our age, then none of the
different ethnic or religious identities would have survived.

The modern age is virtually one dimensional. One language, one
thought, one belief, one ethnic origin, one food, one style of
dressing, and so on. This is exactly what fearing anything that is
different means. The `other’ is seen as a bogeyman who threatens and
liquidates. The West wants to dispose of the `other’ or make it look
like itself. This desire for resemblance is like a matter of life and
death.

The ideological backbone of the state does not consider the `other’
qualified enough to become a citizen of the country he/she wants to
live. The state gauges how much the `other’ resembles it. The state
does not look at the expertise, skills and expertise of the `other’
but rather questions his/her worldview. This is the basic idea:
`Whatever is different is definitely dangerous.’

Democracy is not only a form of government. Nor is it just the
freedom to vote for someone from among a group of identical people to
become a ruler. It is a way of life that compels us to acknowledge
the existence of someone different from us and recognize his/her
identity.

Different people used to live together on Turkish soil. Maybe from an
intellectual viewpoint they couldn’t, however, life was built upon
the principle of sympathizing with the `other’ and of recognizing the
other’s existence. Intolerance surfaced when we alienated ourselves
from ourselves. Fear found its way into our subconscious. We resorted
to denying anyone who does not think or live like us the right exist.

That’s not us.