Author: Torgomian Varazdat

ARMENIANS IN MASS. TOWN SLAM ADL OVER ALLEGED GENOCIDE DENIALS
By Ben Harris

Jewish Review, OR
p?Article=2007-08-01-3569
Aug 9 2007

NEW YORK (JTA)-A small, local protest against an Anti-Defamation
League program in the Boston suburbs is shining a spotlight on the
American Jewish community’s refusal to get behind a congressional
bill acknowledging the Armenian genocide.

Introduced in Congress in 2005, the bill states that the Ottoman
Empire massacred 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923,
and calls on the president of the United States to recognize the
killings as genocide. The measure is being vigorously opposed by
Turkey, Israel’s closest ally in the Muslim world, which has enlisted
a number of high-profile Washington lobbyists-including several with
ties to Jewish groups-to press its case.

The Anti-Defamation League, along with B’nai B’rith International,
American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security
Affairs, say they are not taking a position on the bill. At the same
time, however, they are echoing the Turkish line that the debate over
what happened should be settled by historians, not American lawmakers;
also, earlier this year, the four groups passed along to congressional
leaders a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution.

Until now, the consequences of such steps have been limited to a
few critical articles, including a polemic entitled "Fire Foxman,"
published on the Web magazine Jewcy.com. But now, anger over what some
perceive as the ADL’s pandering to Turkey, is threatening to derail
efforts by the organization to bring its highly regarded anti-bigotry
program to Watertown.

The Armenian community of Watertown, Mass.-one of the largest in the
country-is threatening to shut down the local "No Place for Hate"
program, an ADL-sponsored initiative to certify communities that
sponsor educational programs celebrating diversity.

"Here in Watertown, you can’t ignore the Armenian genocide," said
Ruth Thomasian, the sole Armenian member of Watertown’s "No Place for
Hate" planning committee, which operates independently of ADL. "You
can’t call it ‛alleged’ or ‛supposed’ or ‛research
says.’ Genocide happened."

The controversy began a month ago with a letter to the local
weekly newspaper in Watertown, a community of some 32,000 people,
of which as many as 20 percent are of Armenian descent. The letter,
which called for the committee to sever ties with the ADL, sparked a
flurry of responses; soon after, the controversy was the subject of
a front-page story in the Boston Globe.

"The Armenian community in Watertown is a very important part of the
fabric of the town," said Will Twombly, the co-chair of the planning
committee. "Needless to say, when this letter appeared in the newspaper
lots of people had concerns about the issue, and questions as well."

"This is not an issue where we take a position one way or the other,"
Foxman told JTA, referring to the longstanding feud between Turkey and
Armenians over the issue. "This is an issue that needs to be resolved
by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters."

Earlier this year, a delegation of Turkish Jews visiting Washington
warned Jewish leaders that a resolution could harm Turkey’s tilt
towards the West and create problems for the country’s Jews. Some
20,000 Jews live in Turkey, where a community has flourished for
hundreds of years.

Though Jewish organizational leaders would not confirm that either the
safety of Turkish Jews or the alliance with Israel factored into their
position, Turkish Jewish leaders explicitly linked Israel’s well-being
to the defeat of the resolution. In their letter to congressional
leaders, the Turkish Jews noted the importance of close ties between
Israel, the United States and Turkey, before warning that passage of
the resolution could endanger American interests.

Around the same time, Foxman spoke out explicitly against the
congressional resolution, saying it is not the job of Congress to
settle the question. Foxman also asserted that, while massacres
of Armenians undoubtedly did take place, the jury is still out on
whether those massacres qualify as genocide. Such questioning has
been rejected by Armenians as flat out wrong and described by scholars
as disingenuous.

"It’s not a matter of debate," said Deborah Lipstadt, a Holocaust
scholar at Emory University. "There is an overwhelming consensus
among historians that work in this area that there is no question
that this is a genocide. You can’t deny this history."

Joey Kurtzman, the author of the Jewcy article, told JTA that Jewish
organizations should be "visible and vocal in standing with the
Armenian community."

"Unless Jewish Americans are comfortable for others to remain
similarly agnostic about whether the Holocaust took place, we ought
to be every bit as furious with Foxman as are Armenian Americans,"
he said. "Foxman ought to issue a public retraction and an apology
to the Armenian community, and also to the Jewish community. Barring
that, he should be fired."

In an apparent attempt to short-circuit the controversy playing
out in Watertown, ADL’s Boston office seemed to backtrack from the
organization’s line.

"ADL has never denied what happened at the close of the First World
War," the Boston officer asserted in a letter to be published later
this week in the Boston Globe. "There were massacres of Armenians
and great suffering at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. We believe
today’s Turkish government should do more than it has done to come
to grips with the past and reconcile with Armenians."

The "No Place for Hate" committee and the ADL are currently working to
set up a meeting. It appears unlikely that sentiments conveyed in the
letter to the Boston Globe will be enough to assuage the anger that
Armenians feel over what they see as a blatant denial of their history.

"We probably would have to sever our ties if the ADL does not get
into a conversation with us and work this issue out," Thomasian said.

"This is a wonderful opportunity to have a public understanding of
the whole nine yards of this denial, why perfectly reasonable people
fall into traps like this."

BIOGRAPHIES OF BYRON RENDERED OBSOLETE

Daily Telegraph/UK
09/08/2007

Jonathan Bate reviews The Letters of John Murray to Lord Byron ed by
Andrew Nicholson

A writer’s most important relationship is with his publisher – or
at least it used to be, until publishing houses became impersonal
conglomerates and the tradition of a long-term dialogue between
author and editor went into decline. Literary history knows nothing
more glorious than a close collaboration between poet of genius and
publisher of commitment. The greatest of all such collaborations was
that between Lord Byron and John Murray.

Byron’s early works gained some notice, but did not make a particular
splash. Murray was not an especially distinguished figure in the
publishing world until he took on Byron. They came together for
Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. Byron awoke and found himself famous, in
large measure because of Murray’s skilful editorship, publishing and
marketing of a poem that seemed to encapsulate and came to shape the
febrile spirit of the age. Never before had a poetry launch created
such instant celebrity.

advertisementThe partnership lasted for exactly 11 years. Its every
twist was recorded in writing. As neighbours in St James’s, poet
and publisher exchanged notes and letters by hand or by messenger,
sometimes two or three times a day. When Byron fled the country after
the scandalous collapse of his marriage, Murray was his lifeline back
to England, providing literary and society gossip from London, books,
sales figures and suggestions for poetic revisions. Byron in turn
sent news from Europe, contacts, suggested reading and sexual banter.

Byron’s dazzling letters have been in print for years, but the other
side of the correspondence has languished in the John Murray archive,
consulted only by a handful of scholars. Andrew Nicholson begins his
editorial introduction with a simple statement that is little short
of astonishing: ‘This edition collects together for the first time
all John Murray’s letters to Byron.

Apart from one or two, printed not always very accurately by Smiles
in his Memoir of John Murray, none of these letters has been published
before.’

Here they are, then, 171 letters with scarcely a dull
paragraph. Byron’s brio rubs off on Murray, but he is not averse to
offering fatherly advice: ‘It is not well to let the world know –
as a quoteable [sic] thing – your having had both those Ladies. Pray
absorb all your faculties in the tragedy & you will do the greatest
thing you have effected yet and again confound the world.’

An appendix describes in detail the key moment when Murray became
Byron’s publisher in 1811. ‘For the circumstances as to how Murray came
to be the publisher of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,’ Nicholson reports,
‘biographers and editors from Tom Moore to the present day have been
obliged to rely upon R. C. Dallas’s account.’ But the self-serving
Dallas greatly exaggerated his role as broker of the literary marriage.

On the basis of Murray’s letters, Nicholson shows that there is hardly
a word of truth in the Dallas version. This endlessly rewarding volume
is peppered with such discoveries, large and small, whether revealing
that certain letters in the standard edition of Byron are forgeries
or untangling the complex web of allegiances in the cut-and-thrust
world of Regency publishing.

The book is beautifully produced, with handsome colour pictures not
only of the main players but also of original manuscripts and even
souvenirs that Byron sent to Murray – spoils from the battlefield of
Waterloo, a watercolour of his infamous drinking cup fashioned from
a human skull.

The scrupulous transcriptions of the letters themselves are replete
with underlinings and crossings out that make you feel as if you are
looking over Murray’s shoulder as he sits by the fire in Albemarle
Street and sends dispatches to Byron in his Italian exile. Each
letter is cross-referenced to Byron’s replies and annotated with
detail concerning every subject from Napoleon to tooth-powder to
Armenian grammar.

The notes also include a host of ancillary materials. So, for
example, when Byron writes: ‘Croker’s letter to you is a very great
compliment – I shall return it to you in my next,’ we discover that
his Lordship was as good as his word: he duly returned the letter from
J. W. Croker, which compared the art of Byron’s tragedy Manfred to
that of Shakespeare. It is safe in the Murray archive and published
here for the first time.

At a stroke, Nicholson’s towering act of scholarship has rendered
all existing biographies of Byron obsolete.

ARMENIA, ALROSA SIGN DIAMOND DEAL

armradio.am
06.08.2007 17:11

The government of Armenia and Russian diamond-mining monopoly Alrosa
(RTS: ALRS) signed an agreement Monday on cooperation in the jewelry
sector and polishing of gemstones, a source in the country’s Economic
Development and Trade Ministry’s press service told Interfax.

The agreement was signed by Armenia’s Trade and Economic Development
Minister Nerses Yeritsian and Alrosa president Sergei Vybornov, who is
on a one-day visit to Yerevan. Vybornov is also scheduled to meet with
Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian
to discuss the prospects for further cooperation.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version: nian.htm

HIS HOLINESS ARAM I RECEIVES AMBASSADOR DR. SIMON KARAM

His Holiness Aram I received the former Ambassador of Lebanon to Washington
Dr. Simon Karam on August 2. The Pontiff and the Lebanese diplomat discussed
the current situation in Lebanon and underlined the importance of
emphasizing Christian unity.

Referring to His Holiness’ activities, Dr. Karam praised his initiative to
reconcile the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches recently.

The Catholicos and his guest both expressed concern about preserving
Christian unity in the face of the upcoming elections in Metn. They also
stressed the importance for the presidential election to take place.

##
View photo here:
tos/Photos18.htm#2

ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK GOT A SYNDICATED CREDIT FROM EBRD AND CITIGROUP

Mediamax Agency, Armenia
Aug 3 2007

Yerevan, August 3 /Mediamax/. ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK became the
first commercial bank in Armenia that got a syndicated credit from the
European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Citigroup
to the overall amount of $12 mln.

The corresponding agreement was signed by ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK
Director General Stepan Gishian and the Head of the EBRD Yerevan
office, Michael Weinstein, in Yerevan today, Mediamax reports.

According to Stepan Gishian, the EBRD and Citigroup allocated $6 mln
each. The financial resources will be aimed at the crediting of small
and medium business, also in Armenia’s remote districts. The maximum
credit sum will make $300 thousand.

ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE BANK Director General emphasized the importance
of the fact that one of the largest world banking groups showed
"market interest in Armenia". According to him, the EBRD played a
big role in this coming as a "connecting link".

Michael Weinstein said that the cornerstone of the EBRD strategy in
Armenia is the support of the banking sector, as well as that of small
and medium business, and the signed agreement is a "symbolic event"
both for the whole Armenian banking sector and the contracting parties.

EXPERTS SHUNNED BY FALTERING FOREIGN MINISTRY

Polish News Bulletin
Gazeta Wyborcza p. 3
August 3, 2007 Friday
Poland

Since the appointment of Anna Fotyga as foreign minister,
experts holding high posts in Polish diplomacy have been gradually
sidetracked, through many different methods. It would probably be
impossible to find another European state in which the authorities
have deliberately chosen not to use the experience and skills of
seasoned diplomats, including former ministers and deputy ministers,
to their advantage. The situation in Poland is all the more peculiar,
given that a lack of experts is known to be one of the major problems
troubling Law and Justice (PiS), with the Foreign Ministry unable to
appoint ambassadors to countries of particular importance to Poland’s
international relations, such as France, Italy and Spain.

Nearly all of the sidetracked diplomats have been downgraded, without
clear reasons, which has created a lot of space for speculation
regarding the matter. At present, most of them hold low posts in the
institution and their competence is limited. Some have chosen to give
up their posts themselves, as a result of certain steps taken by the
ruling party. Such was the case with Stefan Meller, who stepped down
as foreign minister following PM Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s decision to
appoint Andrzej Lepper, head of the populist Self-Defence (Samoobrona)
party, as deputy PM. Meller is currently working in the East Europe
Department of the ministry, where his job is to oversee relations
between Armenia and Turkey.

Another person to give up a high post in Polish diplomacy was
Stanislaw Komorowski, former deputy foreign minister. He says his
decision was tied to the discomfort he was experiencing in the new
political situation. While normally his qualifications would make
him a strong candidate for the post of Polish ambassador to most
European states, he is presently a clerk in the Asia and Pacific
Ocean Department. Reportedly, Kaczynski said that as long as he
remains president, Komorowski will not head any Polish embassy.

In most cases, however, it was not up to the sidetracked experts
to decide whether they wanted to remain in their post or not. For
example, in autumn 2006 Fotyga dismissed Henryk Szlajfer as head of
the North America Department due to suspicions of his involvement
with the communist special services. Although the diplomat rejected
the accusations and sought to clear his name before the vetting
court, he could not do so as the post he then held was not subject to
vetting. The issue has not been cleared until this day, with Szlajfer
given the low-prestige post of head of the Foreign Ministry’s archive.

Earlier, in May 2006, the authorities got rid of Ryszard Schnepf,
then secretary of state and adviser on economic affairs to previous
PM Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. Officially, the reason for his dismissal
was that he continued to advance the idea of Poland’s involvement
in the German-Russian North European Gas Pipeline, which is to link
the two countries via the Baltic sea bed. According to unofficial
information, however, Schnepf had to go because he made a certain
declaration which was to be made publicly by Marcinkiewicz and which
the Kaczynski brothers did not want to be made at all. Moreover,
Schnepf is in conflict with controversial Polish businessman Jan
Kobylanski, who has gained a strong influence in the Foreign Ministry.

Two other downgraded experts are Pawel Dobrowolski, former head
of the ministry’s information system department, and former Deputy
Foreign Minister Witold Sobkow. Dobrowolski lost his post after he
dared to post an article mocking the Kaczynski brothers, which was
originally featured in German daily Tageszeitung on the ministry’s
Internet site. As for Sobkow, he was sacked after rumours surfaced
that he had been refused access to confidential state documents.

Although the rumours turned out to be untrue, despite his skills and
experience the diplomat continues to hold the post of an ordinary
clerk in the ministry.

Wate rtown TAB & Press
Watertown, MA
email: [email protected]

Friday, August 3, 2007

DiMascio: `No Place for Lies,’ either!

By John DiMascio

The New England director of the Anti-Defamation League, Andrew Tarsy, would
have us believe that they are honest and neutral brokers with respect to the
Armenian Genocide.

According to Tarsy, Abraham Foxman and the ADL never lobbied against a
congressional genocide resolution. Rather, they just told inquiring media
minds: `… that this issue was one to be resolved by the two countries –
Turkey and Armenia.’

Under scrutiny however, Tarsy’s claim seems to fall apart.

The Turkish news Web site `Today’s Zaman’ reported the following on April
26: `In a letter addressing influential members of U.S. Congress….
U.S.-based Jewish groups demanded that voting on congressional resolutions
urging the U.S. administration to recognize an alleged genocide of Armenians
be delayed.

`The letter was jointly signed by B’nai B’rith International, the
Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs.’

This testimony is corroborated by Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency. Kampeas reported as follows on April 23:

`Four groups, B’nai B’rith International, the Anti-Defamation League, the
American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs are set to convey a letter from Turkish Jews who oppose the
resolution to U.S. congressional leaders. The ADL and JINSA have added their
own statements opposing the bill.’

Joey Kurtzman, pundit for , also adds a new wrinkle in his
column: `Fire Foxman – Denying the Armenian Genocide should be the last
atrocity perpetrated by the ADL chief.’

According to Kurtzman, Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, met with
Foxman and others in February. Kurtzman asserts that at the said meeting,
Gul asked them `in essence, to perpetuate Turkey’s denial of genocide.’
Kurtzman goes on to say that Foxman `acquiesced, and in so doing, performed
the pièce de résistance of Foxman’s highly effective, if unintentional,
decades-long campaign to demoralize Jewish America and send young Jews
scurrying for the communal exit doors.’

These sources do not paint a particularly pretty picture. Let us ponder the
brushstrokes in review. A Turkish news site practically boasts that the ADL
lobbied Congress. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency corroborates the story. And
if Kurtzman’s allegations of the February meeting are true, the lobbying was
done at the behest of the Turkish government.

Regrettably, there is no shortage of incriminating information about the
ADL’s treatment of Armenians. One just needs to do a `Google’ search.
Cyberspace is swarming with article after article, editorial after
editorial. All sides are weighing in with their indictments; including those
the ADL claims to represent.

One cannot help but conclude: At the very least, the ADL has a long history
of marginalizing the Armenian experience.

According to the Jewish Journal, in November 1998, the ADL and other Jewish
groups took out an ad (Nov.8, New York Sunday Times) congratulating the
Turkish Republic on its 75th anniversary. That’s understandable.
Post-Ottoman Turkey assisted Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. The ADL promotes
Holocaust awareness and rightly recognizes those who aided Jewish refugees.
Therefore, it would follow that the ADL would observe the founding of the
Turkish Republic.

But that appreciation morphed from being understandable to becoming
outrageous! Commenting on some criticism related to the ad, Foxman said:
`…It [Turkey] has a magnificent history of tolerance.’

Granted, Foxman was referring to historic Judeo-Turkish relations. However,
denying the slaughter of 1.5 million people does not indicate `a magnificent
history of tolerance.’ At least not where the sensibilities of Armenians are
concerned! It only indicates a shameful tolerance of Ottoman atrocities.

It’s a sad but undeniable conclusion. The ADL overlooks and excuses Turkey’s
genocide denial. It’s deplorable and contradictory. Nevertheless it’s their
Constitutional right to do so. However, it’s time for them to stop the
elaborate masquerade. The ADL is supposed to cultivate tolerance and advance
human rights. It should stop acting like a self-serving lobby, wearing its
social conscience only as an ornate costume.

The ADL’s behavior has other unintended consequences. The rapport between
the Armenian and Jewish communities is being strained. And therein lies the
distressing irony. The ADL, which is so devoted to fighting anti-Semitism,
is actually fostering resentment amongst Armenians towards Jews. So much for
promoting `No place for hate’!

Speaking of which, our local ADL surrogate, `No place for hate,’ attempts to
evade complicity by claiming autonomy. Instead of trumpeting their
independence, why don’t they prove it by repudiating Foxman? Surely, his
historical disregard for the Armenian experience, warrants a stern response;
especially from those on the `No place for hate’ soapbox!

On the subject of local entities, there’s another group avoiding the `No
place for hate’ issue. The Town Council better jump off this runaway `Love
Train,’ before anymore of the people’s business gets derailed. It’s time to
rescind the proclamation, take down the silly sign, and withdraw from this
unnecessary program.

Watertown has never been, is not now, and never will be a place to hate. And
we don’t need Abraham Foxman, the ADL, or its ancillaries to say so!

John DiMascio of Copeland Street may be reached at
[email protected].

GYUMRI’S SHIRAK AIRPORT CJSC LIQUIDATED

Noyan Tapan
Aug 2, 2007

YEREVAN, AUGUST 2, NOYAN TAPAN. At the August 2 sitting, the Armenian
government made a decision to approve addition No 2 of the agreement
signed between the Armenian government and Corporation America S.A on
December 17, 2001. NT was informed by the RA Government Information and
PR Department that the head of the Main Department of Civil Aviation
adjunct to the Armenian government Artyom Movsesian was authorized
to sign this addition on behalf of the government.

The head of the State Property Management Department adjunct to the
Armenian government was instructed to revalue the fixed assets of
Gyumri’s Shirak Airport CJSC within 20 days after the decision comes
into force. According to the decision, the above mentioned CJSC has
been liquidated.

The chairman of the State Committee of the Real Estate Cadastre
adjunct to the RA government was instructed to discuss – with the RA
defence ministry, the Main Department of Civil Aviation and "Armenia"
International Airports CJSC – the government’s draft decision on rights
of registration of land plots currently belonging to the indicated
company by the right of owership and on rights of separation of these
lands and their use by "Armenia" International Airports CJSC and the
RA defence ministry and to present the draft to the government for
approval within three months.

THE COOPERATION BETWEEN KAZAKHSTAN AND ARMENIA DEVELOPS IN A FRIENDLY AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL SPIRIT
Alexandr Avanesov

ArmInfo, 14 June 2007
2007-08-01 16:04:00

The cooperation between Kazakhstan and Armenia develops in a friendly
and mutually beneficial spirit Exclusive interview of the Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Kazakhstan to Armenia Ayimdos
Bozjigitov with ArmInfo

-Mr. Ambassador, how do you estimate the situation of
Armenia-Kazakhstan cooperation? Don’t you think that, presently,
the level of political interrelation between the two countries
significantly outstrips the trade-economic cooperation? If yes,
what is it connected with?

-The political interrelation, of course, significantly outstrips the
level of trade-economic cooperation, but, in course of time, with
the development of the two states’ economies the economic constituent
will also develop.

In general, speaking about the political interrelation between
our countries, it is necessary to emphasize that no politics can be
without economics. Since diplomatic relations were established between
Armenia and Kazakhstan, the cooperation between the two states has been
developing in a friendly and mutually beneficial spirit. The mutual
aspiration to expanse the trade-economic cooperation was mentioned
during the first official visit of Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan
Nazarbayev to Armenia on 23-24 May, 2001. Likewise, on 6-7 November,
2006, President of Armenia, Robert Kocharian paid an official visit
to Astana, over which summits and a roundtable on the topic "Economy
of Kazakhstan and Armenia" were held.

Armenia’s economic opportunities were presented in order to attract
investments from Kazkhstan into Armenian economy. R. Kocharian made
a speech before the representatives of business circles of Kazakhstan
during which he presented Armenia’s economic situation, macroeconomic
indicators of your Republic. This proves that trade-economic relations
between the two states are stable and developing according to the
plan. Armenian president’s visit to Kazakhstan became a new starting
point in trade-economic relations between the two states, since it
made possible to outline the basic directions of mutual interest. One
of the main issues of the mentioned visit’s agenda became the further
enhancement of contractual-legal basis of the bilateral cooperation. A
range of basic intergovernmental agreements were signed, such as
the Convention on Avoiding Double Taxation and Prevention of Tax
Avoidance Regarding Income Tax and Property Tax, that on Promotion
and Mutual Support to Investments and on Cooperation in the Sphere of
Culture. In this respect, we still have to strive to strengthening of
the contractual-legal basis of the bilateral cooperation, and in the
future to proceed to reviewing the project of Agreement on "Cooperation
between the Republics of Kazakhstan and Armenia in the sphere of
science and education". Besides, the issues of possible development of
future cooperation in the sphere of seismology, weather forecasting
and reducing earthquake risks, including the issue of concluding a
bilateral agreement in this sphere, were discussed. The agreement
on mutual visits of citizens signed in Astana is no less important,
especially, taking into account that Armenian Community in Kazakhstan
includes 25 000 people, most of whom often visit Yerevan. When we were
opening the Embassy of Kazakhstan in Armenia, we didn’t think that so
many consular issues would emerge. An agreement on transport has also
been signed, which was ratified by the Government of Kazakhstan. A
draft agreement in the sphere of tourism is being worked out.

At the same time, I’d like to emphasize that not all the existing
resources of the trade-economic sphere have been mobilized, yet. These
issues are included in the agenda of our dialogue, as well as in
the intergovernmental commission. Of course, commodity circulation
between the two states is presently insignificant, the development
of which is in no small measure hindered by objective reasons, the
main of which is the transport problem.

Even the ratification of the present agreements and formulation of
new documents will not give their result immediately, the results
appear in a mid-term prospect. In this respect, it is necessary to
establish contacts among corporations and companies of the two states.

-You said about intergovernmental commission. When will its next
meeting take place?

-The next meeting of the Armenian-Kazakh Commission will take place
approximately in autumn 2007. It depends on how quickly we will
manage to prepare all the documents. There are no firm frames, the
Commission’s work will be oriented to its content.

-During the last few years Kazakh capital has actively been invested
in the economy of Georgia and Azerbaijan, while, in Armenia, with the
exception of the bank sector, no serious progress is observed. What
is this connected with, and what measures are you going to take for
activating the bilateral trade-economic cooperation? Which spheres
do you personally consider more prospective?

Today, investments of Kazakhstan in the economy of Armenia total
40 million dollars. The investments were made mainly in the banking
sector of Armenia.

In general, Kazakhstan considers Armenia as a country with high-level
economic freedom. Moreover, there is rather favorable climate for
investors and exporters in Armenia. All this alongside with impressive
macroeconomic indicators create favorable conditions for bilateral
economic cooperation.

At the same time, the investment cooperation between Armenia and
Kazakhstan is insignificant. Our countries have solid mutually
advantageous potential that, unfortunately, is not used completely.

It is important that the constructive political dialogue is
strengthened by effective partnership in the trade and economy
sphere. We are to elaborate effective cooperation models, open
new cooperation possibilities, especially, in energy and transport
spheres. Kazakhstan is considered the possible shareholder in the
stably developing banking sector of Armenia.

Kazakh banks rapidly increase their assets and enter markets of the
neighbouring countries, using surplus resources and low interest rates
in the local market, which makes crediting in abroad profitable. The
second largest bank in Kazakhstan "Turan Alem" has strong positions in
the financial markets of a number of CIS member-states. It established
a branch in Armenia in 2005. Moreover, given Armenia’s interest in the
supply of hydrocarbon material from deposits in Western Kazakhstan,
the planned construction of Kazakh oil terminals in the territory of
Georgia will help organizing oil supply to Armenia. In the nearest
future, the bank intends to extend its presence in you country,
increasing the credit volumes by $10mln.

In particular, these funds will be directed to mortgage loan
activity. In general Kazakhstan has serious resources to invest in
abroad. As of today, the volume of Kazakhstan’s investments totals
$18bln.

Only in Georgia about $1bln was invested and this is not by
chance. Being a landlocked country, Kazakhstan like Armenia
doesn’t have access to sea in order to export its goods in the
world markets. Thereby, it was decided to construct oil and grain
terminals in Georgia, from the services of which Armenia can also
benefit. Taking into consideration Armenia’s interest in hydrocarbon
raw material delivery from the deposits of West Kazakhstan the
planned construction of Kazakh oil terminals in the territory of
Georgia will promote Kazakh oil supply to Armenia. Delivery of Kazakh
grain to Armenia is also considered from this point of view. Joint
ventures have always been considered an effective and strong form of
bilateral cooperation. Armenia is shareholder of 45 small enterprises
in Kazakhstan, including 21 JVs. These enterprises are mainly engaged
on wholesale trade, services and production of building materials. We
are ready to discuss possible establishment of JVs in the sphere of
machine building, tourism and jewelry.

-At the last meeting with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Alieyv in Astana
Kasakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev expressed Kazakhstan’s
interest in Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan projects and in TransCaspian gas
pipe- line.

A month later, when meeting Russia’s President Vladimir Putin they
touched on Kazakhstan’s participation in the joint project of Caspian
gas pipeline with Russia and Turkmenistan. Moreover, Kazakhstan intends
to export its hydrocarbon material to China. Will the country resources
be enough? And what’s your opinion on RA Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan’s statement about the possibility of Armenia’s participation
in the project of TransCaspian gas pipeline taking into consideration
that it was a project of transporting Kazakh and Central Asian gas

– Kazakhstan’s government is holding an active work on learning
possible options of the export oil and gas pipelines taking into
consideration their economic and political expediency, technical
ability and economic security.

The decision about construction of the TransCaspian gas pipeline may
be adopted only after preparing of the technical and economic basis
of the project, as well as after having progress in settling the
international and legal status of the Caspian Sea. Without thorough
study of the technical and economic assessment of the TransCaspian
gas pipeline project, I think it is untimely to comment on the
participation of any country in it.

In general, today Kazakhstan is in the group of states which have
strategic hydrocarbon reserves, which directly influence the formation
and condition of the international energy market. Kazakhstan accounts
for two-third of the whole volume of oil recovered in the Caspian
region. Evaluation of the proved oil stores of Kazakhstan amounts to
9-17,6 bln barrels. It is predicted that by 2010 gas recovery will
grow and amount to 45 bln sq/m.

Exploratory reserves and assay value of natural gas taking into
consideration the new deposits on the Caspian shelf in Kazakhstan
totals about 3,3 trillion sq/m while potential resources reach 6-8
trillion sq/m.

Because of the inner-continental geographical situation of Kazakhstan
and the absence of access to the world oceans, it has a serious
task – to ensure the ways for compatible export of the local raw
materials to foreign markets by means of creation and development
of an effective and rational pipeline infrastructure. The growing
gas and oil recovery in explored and producing fields overland and
on the shelf of the Caspian Sea will inevitably demand increasing of
the general capacity of the existing export systems.

Conducting of the multi-vector export policy of the local resources
is the most acceptable option for Kazakhstan. Legal and commercial
conditions of the oil and gas transportation through transit countries
will play a key role when choosing the export directions of Kazakh
hydrocarbon. Presently Kazakhstan’s government pays a maximal attention
to this aspect. For example, Kazakhstan doesn’t participate in the
construction project of "Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku" railway.

It is necessary to observe the agreement between Kazakhstan and
Azerbaijan signed in June 2006 on assistance when transporting gas
from Kazakhstan via the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and further to the
world markets via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, just from the
point of view of strengthening of the energy security of Kazakhstan
and of the region in general. Moreover, to transport oil via the
TransCaspian route the Kazakh party together with recovery companies
is drawing out the KCTS (Kazakh Caspian Transporting System) which
includes an oil pipeline at the territory of Kazakhstan, sea terminals
in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, sea transporting by tanker fleet and the
connecting pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan. The trilateral declaration
(Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan) about construction of the Caspian
gas pipeline and the quadruple joint declaration including Uzbekistan
as well about development of the gas transporting capacities in the
Central Asia region, which foresee reconstruction of the existing gas
pipeline from Turkmenistan via Kazakhstan to Russia, construction of
the new Caspian gas pipeline as well as extension of capacities of the
Central Asia – Center gas pipeline are of the same significance. It’s
but natural that the China export direction is also worked over.

-Analysts think that the Russian President’s proposal concerning
the Caspian gas pipeline is directed to the neutralization of
Azerbaijan. What do they think in Kazakhstan?

-I understood your question. I don’t know what the analysts you
mentioned think about it but Kazakhstan keeps to the bottom-line
approach, based on the commercial viability and on the competitive
ability of the transit tariffs. Alternative and economically feasible
directions for transporting the energy resources are important for
Kazakhstan.

-You mentioned of mid-term prospect of developing trade-economic
relations between Armenia and Kazakhstan. Are there any calculations
on the timeframes of activating the relations?

-The most unappreciative job is to name concrete dates, like predicting
the results of a sport competition. But basically, our relations
develop according to plan. The meeting of the Intergovernmental
Commission will take place in autumn, when, as planned, several
documents will be signed as well as a business forum will be held. I
think that just after it the market entities of our states will be
activated. Without their participation our activities will be of a
declarative nature.

-Would you, please, tell what projects Armenia invites Kazakhstan to
participate in?

-We already got a proposal on concession of Armenian railroads. We
also suggested that Armenia should participate in an open competition
in Mangyshlak-Bautino railroad construction. We also invite Armenia
not only to be an investor but also a contractor.

-Did Armenia invite Kazakhstan to take part in the construction project
of Iran-Armenia railroad, which would give Armenia an opportunity of
direct entry into the markets of Central Asia and Kazakhstan?

-No, we didn’t get any official invitation for Kazakhstan’s
participation in that project.

-What else can interest Kazakhstan in Armenia?

-We are interested in the opportunity of investing both in the
construction of new power plants and modernization of currently
functioning blocks in Armenia. Moreover, Kazakhstan is interested
in Armenia’s mineral resource industry and in cement production. The
point is that large-scale construction has started in Kazakhstan and
we need cement. It is planned to establish three more cement plants
in Kazakhstan. We are also interested in cooperation in the tourism
sphere. Presently, models of cooperation in tourism business are
under elaboration.

-And what would be Kazakhstan’s position on joint construction of
"GasPromOil" of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline and of an oil-processing
plant on the border of Armenia and Iran?

-Presently, these projects are only studied by the participant-sides,
for this reason it is untimely to speak about Kazakhstan’s joining
them. As I already mentioned, Kazakhstan may decide to participate
in a project only after assessing its viability, as well as the
political and economic dividends. At the same time, we can’t exclude
such possibility taking into consideration that Kazakhstan have good
relations with Armenia, Russia and Iran including at the summit
level, and is concerned about increasing cooperation with them;
the projects are supported by the leadership of Russia and Armenia,
we have the opportunity of their fulfillment especially, in case
of cooperation with Russian business, which is widely represented in
Armenian market. Basically, I am confident that the cooperation between
Armenia and Kazakhstan will prosper. Establishment of partnership
and business relations between our presidents will promote this.

-How would you estimate the cooperation between Armenia and Kazakhstan
within the frame of international structures?

-We actively cooperate within the frames of CIS, CSTO and OSCE. As
international organizations, OSCE in particular stated that
well-organized and transparent parliamentary election was held in
Armenia, which is also very interesting for us. As to the CIS, as you
know, Kazakhstan’s president has suggested that the structure should
be reformed and that they should concentrate on 5 main directions-
agreed migration policy, cooperation on creating of a single transport
communication, cooperation in the sphere of science and education,
fighting trans-frontier criminality and cultural-humanitarian
cooperation. It is also necessary to follow the principle of base-line
approach while making the agenda for the Commonwealth and to work by
the formula "one year-one subject-matter". This implies determining
and working every year till making final decision on a key issue,
touching upon the interests of all the participants in the CIS.

PLOT AGAINST THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH FOILED

By Asia News
Spero News
Aug 1 2007

The Istanbul public attorney’s office is investigating a group of ex
army officers who seem to have plotted to assassinate Bartholomew I
as well as Mesrob of the Armenians.

A group of ex army officers, now retired, plotted to assassinate the
ecumenical Patriarch: this is what has emerged from an investigation
carried out by Istanbul’s public attorney’s office, and brought
to light by a report in Aksam newspaper. The group known as the
Association of National Forces was led by Bekir Ozturk: the hard drive
of his computer revealed the entire project which also consisted of
the assassination of the Armenian Patriarch Mesrob and of a Jewish
businessman.

This network of retired army officials are believed to be in contact
with diverse well rooted nationalist groups on Turkish soil. What is
of even graver concern is the fact that arms in their possession seem
to originate from Army deposits. According to media and diplomatic
sources this only further underlines the deep ties between nationalist
activists and institutions linked to the State, thus forming the
so-called "Shadow State".

These worries are amplified by the recent entrance into parliament
of the nationalist MHP party (which includes the grey wolves)
in national elections, and their strengthening of the opposition,
until now represented by the Kemalist CHP party.

On the subject of the recent elections, observers have not failed
to comment on Erdogan’s reshuffling of his government in favour
of right wing candidates over liberals. A fact that led to his
landslide victory in the centre east of the country. Some recall an
interview he gave in 1998, when he was on the verge of forming his
party, in which he said: "my aim is to unite my party base with the
nationalists", in short uniting political Islam with nationalism,
legitimized by the journey towards European Union membership, with
the country’s obvious economic development as the winning factor,
which also brought election victory as proven by Kodan poll agency,
the only one to have correctly gauged pre-election forecasts.

In the area of religious policies, the Greek foreign minister
Dora Bakojiannis has informed her EU colleagues in Brussels of the
continuous difficulties faced by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Following
her meeting with the President of the European Peoples Party,
Martens, a statement was released criticizing the Turkish Supreme
Court ruling which contests the ecumenical nature of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople. Moreover, Interfax news agency reports that the
Moscow Church, has taken advantage of the Greek foreign minister’s
initiative to contest Constantinople’s primacy among the Orthodox,
while sharing in the Patriarch of Constantinople’s difficulties.

In short, the word in Brussels is that Turkish Nationalists have found
an unlikely ally in the ambitions of the Moscow Church. The reaction of
Fr. Dositheos, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is calm and meaningful:
"The Ecumenical Patriarchate was not born as a national Church, but
as a point of reference for the ancient Christian world according
to the apostolic and patristic tradition, it is universally accepted
and has as its basic precept love in Christ".