Category: News

“NATIONAL UNITY” HELD THE MEETING IN GAVAR
A1 Plus | 20:48:23 | 02-06-2004 | Politics |
Despite Police bans “National Unity” meeting with the electorate took
place in Gavar. Gavar Police head Manvel Shahinyan forbade reasoning
the party had no permit to hold the rally.
“National Unity” Chair Artashes Geghamyan referred to the statement
Robert Kocharyan made in Gyumri on June 1. Kocharyan had announced
Vazgen Sargssyan and Karen Demirchyan wouldn’t make attempts in
Strasburg to act against their state.
According to Geghamyan, Robert Kocharyan has no right to cite even
the names of the political figures killed on October 27.

MEETING IN ECHMIADZIN TOOK PLACE
A1 Plus | 20:18:03 | 02-06-2004 | Politics |
The meeting initiated by MP Hakob Hakobyan took place in
Echmiadzin. About 1500 people partook in the rally.
In his speech Mr. Hakobyan stated that Coalition is occupied with
distributing posts. He announced it’s necessary to ask President to
enter into a serious dialogue with Opposition.
This meeting was sanctioned and security of everyone was guaranteed.

* Argentinian ‘Galacticos’
* Nalbandian ends Kuerten’s love affair, Hewitt outwitted
* Argentinians’ day
* Nalbandian beats Kuerten at French Open
* Nalbandian downs Kuerten to reach semis
* Nalbandian, Gaudio Advance to French Open Semifinals (Update3)
***************************************************************************
Argentinian ‘Galacticos’
Agence France Press
June 3 2004
Nalbandian ousts Kuerten, Gaudio knocks out Hewitt to reach semis
PARIS: David Nalbandian and Gaston Gaudio joined compatriot Guillermo
Coria in the semifinals of the French Open yesterday to leave
Britain’s Tim Henman standing alone against the three-pronged
Argentinian assault on the Roland Garros title.
Nalbandian, the eighth seed, shattered Gustavo Kuerten’s dream of
becoming only the second man in history to win four French Open
singles crowns with a commanding 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (8/6) win over
the popular Brazilian.
Unseeded Gaudio reached his first ever Grand Slam sem-final by
outclassing Australian 12th seed Lleyton Hewitt, the former Wimbledon
and US Open winner, 6-3, 6-2, 6-2.
He will now face Nalbandian on Friday for a place in Sunday’s final,
guaranteeing an Argentinian in the title match-up, while third seeded
Coria, the overwhelming favourite, faces ninth-seed Henman.
Yesterday’s 3hr 07min quarterfinal proved to be just one too many
exertion for the 27-year-old Kuerten, who is still trying to
recapture the sort of form which took him to the 1997, 2001 and 2002
titles here before a hip operation threatened to send his career into
freefall.
But he had his chances squandering four set points in the fourth set
before going down to defeat after a tense tie-break where he had been
just a point away from levelling the tie against the 2002 Wimbledon
runner-up.
The 25-year-old Gaudio had never previously got beyond the last 16 of
any Grand Slam but yesterday he was in devastating form, never
allowing Hewitt to settle on a cold, blustery Philippe Chatrier
court.
“It was my childhood dream to win Roland Garros,” said Gaudio. “I
thought I would be more nervous playing in my first Grand Slam
quarterfinal but that wasn’t the case and it all worked out well.”
Hewitt, who had been bidding to become the first Australian winner
here since Rod Laver in 1969, believes the unheralded Gaudio has a
chance of the title.
“Coria is probably the best player on clay but Gaudio is not far
behind,” said Hewitt.
Coria, the third seed, reached the semifinals on Tuesday with a 7-5,
7-6 (7/3), 6-3 win over Spain’s 1998 winner Carlos Moya and will now
face the unpredictable Henman.
Henman became the first British player to reach the last four here
for 41 years and must beat red-hot favourite Coria if he is to become
the first Briton to make the final since 1937.
Henman, the ninth seed, clinched an easy 6-2, 6-4, 6-4 win over
Argentina’s Juan Ignacio Chela in his quarter-final. Mike Sangster,
back in 1963 was the last British man to get to the last four, and
should Henman overcome the formidable hurdle of hot favourite Coria,
he will be the first Briton in the final since Bunny Austin in 1937.
Fred Perry remains the only British man to have won the French Open
in 1935. Until this year, Henman’s best Grand Slam performances had
all come on grass at Wimbledon where he has been a semi-finalist four
times.
Furthermore, outside of Wimbledon, he had never got beyond the round
of 16 in any of the other three Grand Slam events and had never
survived the third round in Paris before.
But the 29-year-old, who started this tournament coming back from two
sets down in the first round against Cyril Saulnier and saved two
match points in his fourth round win over Michael Llodra,
served-and-volleyed his way into the history books in the Paris gloom
on Tuesday.
Coria’s win was his 47th in his last 49 matches on clay and gives him
the chance to go one better than last year at Roland Garros where he
lost his semifinal to Martin Verkerk of the Netherlands. – AFP
***************************************************************************
Nalbandian ends Kuerten’s love affair, Hewitt outwitted
Reuters
June 3 2004
PARIS, June 2: Gustavo Kuerten’s love affair with Roland Garros
turned sour on Wednesday as the three-time champion was upended in
the quarterfinals by Argentina’s David Nalbandian.
Kuerten has led a charmed life at the French Open since his unlikely
run to the first of his trio of titles in 1997, but his luck deserted
him on centre court as he fell 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6.
The Brazilian’s samba style was silenced. Instead the centre court
pulsed to the tune of the tango. Nalbandian joins compatriots Gaston
Gaudio and Guillermo Coria in the last four – the first time there
have been three Argentine semifinalists at a Grand Slam tournament.
Briton Tim Henman completes the line-up.
“It’s truly unbelievable,” Nalbandian said. Former world number one
Kuerten had never lost to a fellow South American in a grand slam
tournament but Nalbandian proved too solid from the baseline.
“Everybody knows what it means to me to play in this tournament,”
Kuerten said as he left the court. “I had a tough time today. “Today
he made me run a lot and I really suffered.”
In the day’s other quarterfinal, Lleyton Hewitt found that
unflinching determination and bottomless heart were insufficient as
his claycourt failings were exploited by Gaudio.
The resolve on which the Australian has built his career was of
little use against an Argentine master who ran rings round him on
centre court to reach the semifinals 6-3, 6-2, 6-2.
“He was too good,” was Hewitt’s candid analysis. “Today I just lost
to a guy that was too good. “You know, he’s very good at any time,
but especially today he was able to get that ball back extremely
deep, so he didn’t give me a lot of chances to actually attack him
out there today. He’s a class player on this surface.”
For Gaudio, ranked 44th in the world, victory over the former
Wimbledon and US Open champion propelled him into his first Grand
Slam semifinal. “It has always been my dream to win this tournament,”
the 25-year-old said. “But there is a long way to go yet because the
two most difficult matches are yet to come.”
Coria faces Henman in the other semifinal. Coria comfortably saw off
Carlos Moya on Tuesday while Henman became the first British man in
more than 40 years to reach the French Open semifinals.
While Coria is the tournament favourite, Henman is a fast-court
player with four Wimbledon semifinals behind him. He had never
progressed beyond the fourth round of any grand slam tournament
outside of Wimbledon, and had never won more than two matches in any
of his nine previous visits here.
If Tuesday belonged to Henman, Wednesday was Nalbandian’s day. The
22-year-old barely put a foot wrong on a windswept centre court. Try
as Kuerten might, he was unable to repel the sturdy Argentine who
bombarded him with forehand after forehand, punching the ball deeper
and deeper into the corners.
Eventually Kuerten could resist no longer. Having failed to serve out
the fourth set despite holding three set points he allowed himself to
be overhauled in the tie-break to hand the eighth seed victory.
Henman sparkled as Tuesday’s daylight faded with a 6-2, 6-4, 6-4
victory over Argentine claycourter Juan Ignacio Chela. His victory
was as impressive as it was unexpected, coming as it did on his least
favourite surface.
“I’ll settle for that,” Henman smiled. “I think, again as I’ve been
banging on about for some time, it’s about trying to play the right
way. “I really imposed my game from the start and never let him get
into a rhythm. But why stop here? I feel good about my game and I am
feeling in good shape.
I’m ready to come here on Friday and do it all again.” Coria, the
best clay courter so far this year, will be a huge mountain to climb.
The third seed beat Spanish former champion Carlos Moya 7-5, 7-6,
6-3.
Wednesday’s results (prefix number denotes seeding):
MEN’S SINGLES:
QUARTERFINALS: 8-David Nalbandian (Argentina) beat 28-Gustavo Kuerten
(Brazil) 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (8-6); Gaston Gaudio (Argentina) beat
12-Lleyton Hewitt (Australia) 6-3, 6-2, 6-2.
Tuesday’s remaining results:
MEN’S SINGLES:
QUARTERFINALS: 9-Tim Henman (Britain) beat 22-Juan Ignacio Chela
(Argentina) 6-2, 6-4, 6-4; 3-Guillermo Coria (Argentina) beat
5-Carlos Moya (Spain) 7-5, 7-6 (7-3), 6-3. -Reuters
***************************************************************************
Argentinians’ day
Associated Press
June 3 2004
(AP)
3 June 2004
PARIS – Gustavo Kuerten’s bid for a fourth French Open title was
ended yesterday by David Nalbandian, who won 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (6)
to give Argentina three men’s semifinalists.
Kuerten failed to convert four set points in the fourth set,
squandered a 5-2 lead in the tiebreaker and sailed a forehand long on
match point.
The No. 8-seeded Nalbandian’s opponent in the semifinals tomorrow
will be unseeded compatriot Gaston Gaudio, who beat No. 12 Lleyton
Hewitt 6-3, 6-2, 6-2.
No. 3 Guillermo Coria of Argentina will play No. 9 Tim Henman of
Britain in the other semifinal.
Spain had three men’s semifinalists at Roland Garros two years ago.
But Argentina has never before advanced more than two men as far as
the quarterfinals in a Grand Slam event.
“This is like a history event – an unbelievable week,” Gaudio said.
“Maybe an Argentinian guy is going to take the final, and it’s going
to be like a dream.”
Paola Suarez of Argentina is in the women’s final four and will face
Elena Dementieva today.
Playing in the first Grand Slam quarterfinal of his career, the
25-year-old Gaudio rose to the occasion with a nearly flawless
performance.
“I thought I was going to be really nervous,” Gaudio said. “But, in
fact, I was not at all.”
His biggest stumble came in the second game of the final set, when he
slipped and fell chasing a shot and scraped his knee on the clay.
Blood still trickled down his shin after the match, but his strokes
were unaffected.
The baseliner finished with 27 winners and just 19 errors, and he won
20 of 21 points at the net, playing serve-and-volley to close out two
games.
“He was too good,” said Hewitt, who was seeded 12th.
“He’s very confident at the moment, especially on this surface, and
his movements are as good as anyone on this surface.”
***************************************************************************
Nalbandian beats Kuerten at French Open
(Agencies)
China Daily
June 3 2004
Updated: 2004-06-03 09:16
Gustavo Kuerten’s bid for a fourth French Open title ended Wednesday
when David Nalbandian won 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (6) to give Argentina
three men’s semifinalist.
David Nalbandian of Argentina reacts after defeating Gustavo Kuerten
of Brazil in their quarterfinal match of the French Open tennis
tournament at the Roland Garros stadium in Paris, Wednesday, June 2,
2004. Nalbandian won 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6. [AP]
Kuerten failed to convert four set points in the final set,
squandered a 5-2 lead in the tiebreaker and sailed a forehand long on
match point.
The No. 8-seeded Nalbandian’s opponent in the semifinals Friday will
be unseeded compatriot Gaston Gaudio, who beat No. 12 Lleyton Hewitt
6-3, 6-2, 6-2. No. 3 Guillermo Coria of Argentina will play No. 9 Tim
Henman of Britain in the other semifinal.
“It’s incredible for Argentina,” Nalbandian said. “For us it’s not
normal. It’s the first time, so it’s something special.”
Spain had three men’s semifinalists at Roland Garros two years ago.
But Argentina has never before advanced more than two men as far as
the quarterfinals in a Grand Slam event.
“This is like a history event — an unbelievable week,” Gaudio said.
“Maybe an Argentinian guy is going to take the final, and it’s going
to be like a dream.”
Gaudio, Nalbandian and Coria all hope to become the first Argentine
to win a major men’s title since Guillermo Vilas won the 1979
Australian Open.
Paola Suarez of Argentina is in the women’s final four and will face
Elena Dementieva on Thursday. The other match will be between 2001
champion Jennifer Capriati, who beat Serena Williams on Tuesday, and
No. 6-seeded Anastasia Myskina, who upset Venus Williams.
Kuerten has been a favorite in Paris since winning the first of his
three Roland Garros titles in 1997, and the Brazilian captivated
French Open fans with this year’s surprising run to the
quarterfinals.
Seeded only 28th and nursing a chronically sore hip, he engaged
Nalbandian in grinding rallies for more than three hours. But Kuerten
was hampered by his hip, requiring treatment from a trainer several
times, and Nalbandian played better on the biggest points.
“He made me run a lot,” Kuerten said. “Today I suffered a lot on the
court. I had a very tough time.”
Kuerten lost his serve three times in the third set, including the
final game. Serving at 4-5, 30-all, he hit a forehand barely long.
The umpire climbed down from his chair to confirm the call in
consultation with a line judge.
On the next point, Kuerten sprinted into the corner to hit a backhand
and slipped and fell. Nalbandian hit a forehand into the open court
to close out the set, and Kuerten limped to his chair, tossing his
racket at it in frustration.
Fans hoping for a Kuerten comeback kept waving Brazilian flags and
singing his nickname: Guga. But he missed repeated chances in the
final set to even the match against Nalbandian.
“By just a little bit it escaped from my hands,” Kuerten said. “He
was able to play pretty well in the right time, and that was probably
the difference.”
Nalbandian erased a set point serving at 3-5, overcame two more in
the next game to break Kuerten, then broke again to reach 6-6.
In the tiebreaker, Kuerten played serve-and-volley — a rare tactic
for him — and put away a shot at the net for a 6-5 lead. But
Nalbandian erased another set point with a forehand winner, and
consecutive errors by Kuerten gave Argentina yet another victory at
Roland Garros.
The crowd gave Nalbandian a warm ovation, then raised the decibel
level when Kuerten took a curtain call.
“The fans were fantastic,” Nalbandian said. “It’s normal that they
rooted for Guga because of what he represents to Paris.”
Playing in the first Grand Slam quarterfinal of his career, the
25-year-old Gaudio rose to the occasion with a nearly flawless
performance.
“I thought I was going to be really nervous,” Gaudio said. “But, in
fact, I was not at all.”
His biggest stumble came in the second game of the final set, when he
slipped and fell chasing a shot and scraped his knee on the clay.
Blood still trickled down his shin after the match, but his strokes
were unaffected. The baseliner finished with 27 winners and just 19
errors, and he won 20 of 21 points at the net, playing
serve-and-volley to close out two games.
“He was too good,” said Hewitt, who was seeded 12th. “He’s very
confident at the moment, especially on this surface, and his
movements are as good as anyone on this surface.”
Gaudio won 11 consecutive points early in the second set to take
control and needed less than two hours to complete the victory. He
improved his career record in major events to 20-20.
***************************************************************************
Nalbandian downs Kuerten to reach semis
The News, PAkistan
June 3 2004
PARIS: Eighth seed David Nalbandian shattered Gustavo Kuerten’s
dreams of winning a fourth French Open title with a 6-2, 3-6, 6-4,
7-6 (8/6) win on Wednesday that made him the third Argentine to make
the semi-finals of the men’s singles.
Nalbandian, Wimbledon runner-up in 2002, will now take on countryman
Gaston Gaudio for a place in the final while third seed Guillermo
Coria will face Britain’s Tim Henman.
The 3-hour quarter-final proved to be just one too many exertion for
the 27-year-old Kuerten. But he had his chances in this match
squandering four set points in the fourth set before going down to
defeat after a tense tiebreak where he had been just a point away
from levelling the tie.
Nalbandian and Kuerten exchanged breaks in the first two games of the
opening set but it was Nalbandian who was to dominate breaking serve
on two more occasions to lead 5-2. He took the set after 39 minutes
with an ace, just as he had wrapped up the three sets he won in his
fourth round victory against Russia’s Marat Safin.
But spurred on by passionate support inside his beloved Philippe
Chatrier court, Kuerten soon found his range and his artillery of
whipped backhands, flat forehands and sweetly-timed drop shots was
enough to level the match after 78 minutes. To his credit, Nalbandian
overcame losing his first service game of the third set to take a 4-1
lead.
Back came Kuerten to level at 4-4 before Nalbandian carved out a set
point in the tenth game when the Brazilian hit a fraction long. A
cross-court forehand, which left Kuerten scrambling, gave the
Argentine the edge again as he took the third set after exactly two
hours. Kuerten again broke in the opening game of the fourth set and
held to lead 2-0 as his confident touch around the court returned,
illustrated when he matched an exquisite Nalbandian drop shot with
one even more subtle to win the opening point of the ninth game. But
the Argentine wasn’t able to capitalise on his hard work handing the
break straight back to Kuerten to lead 6-5 before fighting back to
take the set to a tiebreak.
Kuerten struck first with a fierce, cross-court drive, which left
Nalbandian wrong- footed as the Brazilian took a 5-2 lead before his
opponent rallied to 5-5. Nalbandian saved another set point at 5-6
before he went to match point off a Kuerten netted return and
clinched the tie and a place in the last four when Kuerten hit a
return wide.
***************************************************************************
Nalbandian, Gaudio Advance to French Open Semifinals (Update3)
Bloomberg
June 3 2004
June 2 (Bloomberg) — David Nalbandian became the third Argentine to
reach the semifinals of tennis’s French Open with a four-set victory
over three-time champion Gustavo Kuerten.
The 2002 Wimbledon finalist will face unseeded countryman Gaston
Gaudio, who beat Lleyton Hewitt to advance to his first Grand Slam
semifinal.
Nalbandian, Gaudio and Guillermo Coria, who plays Britain’s Tim
Henman in the last four, are vying to become the first Argentine
since Guillermo Vilas in 1977 to win on the clay courts of Roland
Garros in Paris. Paola Suarez, also of Argentina, is in the women’s
semifinals.
“At this stage of the competition there are no more favorites,”
Nalbandian told France Television. “Anyone can win.”
Nalbandian, who had never been beyond the third round at the second
Grand Slam of the year in two prior visits, reached the quarterfinals
of the Australian Open in January and was a semifinalist at the U.S.
Open in 2003.
After the pair split the opening sets today, the 22-year-old
capitalized on a stumble by his Brazilian opponent at 5-4 to punch a
volley home and take the third set.
Kuerten, seeded 28th, let slip two set points that allowed Nalbandian
to pull level at 5-5 in the fourth set. Nalbandian opened the 11th
game with two double faults and Kuerten converted the second of two
break points to lead 6-5 before he lost his serve to set up a
tiebreak.
Crowd Support
After three hours and six minutes, Nalbandian took the tiebreak 8-6
for a 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 victory. Kuerten, whose preparation was
curtailed by a hip injury, made 68 errors to Nalbandian’s 46.
“The great support from the crowd helped lift me and helped me bear
the pain from my hip, but today I was made to run a lot and I
couldn’t quite make it,” Kuerten, 27, said. “It was still a
fabulous tournament for me.”
Gaudio needed less than two hours to dispose of 12th seed and former
world No. 1 Hewitt 6-3, 6-2, 6-2. The 25-year-old had never advanced
beyond the fourth round at one of the four majors.
Gaudio, who had five-set victories in the first two rounds, is 44th
in the world rankings and won two ATP Tour singles titles in eight
years as a professional. Even though clay is his favorite surface,
his previous best showing in five appearances at Roland Garros was
reaching the fourth round in 2002.
Title Dream
“I thought I’d be really nervous but not at all; everything went
great,” said Gaudio, seeking to become the first unseeded winner
since Kuerten in 1997. “To win the French Open is a childhood dream.
Now I have to believe I can do it.”
Gaudio has now beaten Hewitt, the 2001 U.S. Open winner and 2002
Wimbledon champion, in three of five encounters. Hewitt made 43
unforced errors, while Gaudio made 19.
“He was just too good,” Hewitt said. “Coria is probably the best
on clay right now, but Gaudio’s not far behind.”
While Nalbandian’s match with Gaudio will see a face-off between
baseline players, Friday’s semifinal between ninth seed Henman and
No. 5 Coria pits a serve-volleyer against a clay-court specialist.
Henman, 29, may be the first Briton to reach the French final since
Bunny Austin in 1937 and the first to lift the title since Fred Perry
in 1935. Yannick Noah, in 1983, was the last serve-volley player to
win the French Open.
Coria, 22, reached the semifinals last year and lost one of his last
37 matches on clay. Coria is rated a 1/6 bet to reach the final at
U.K. bookmaker William Hill, with Henman a 7/2 shot. Henman was 100-1
at the start of the competition.
“He is the player to beat in this tournament, the player to beat on
clay,” Henman said. “I am just excited to have the opportunity.”
***************************************************************************

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
June 6, 2004
___________________
PRIESTLY ANNIVERSARIES MARKED IN CT AND NJ
On Saturday and Sunday, May 22 and 23, 2004, Archbishop Khajag
Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
(Eastern), celebrated priestly anniversaries with two parish
communities.
On Saturday, the Primate was in Trumbull, CT, marking the 25th
anniversary of the priestly ordination of Fr. Untzag Nalbandian, pastor
of the Church of the Holy Ascension. On Sunday the Primate traveled to
Livingston, NJ, where he attended a banquet honoring the 10th ordination
anniversary of Fr. Shnork Souin.
Also while in Livingston, the Primate ordained Matthew Dalakian as a
sub-deacon and Matthew Krikorian, Alan Chaderjian, Erik Chamberjian, and
Julie Hoplamazian as acolytes.
FR. UNTZAG NALBANDIAN
During the celebration marking his anniversary, Archbishop Barsamian
presented Fr. Nalbandian with a pontifical encyclical from His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, elevating
Fr. Nalbandian to the rank of “arch-priest”.
“Der Hayr has been a spiritual leader to so many people,” the Primate
said during the celebration. “I’m sure that every person here could add
their own story about how his presence made a difference at a critical
time.”
Fr. Nalbandian was born in Beirut, Lebanon, to survivors of the Armenian
Genocide. He studied at the Melkonian Educational Institute in Nicosia,
Cyprus, before heading to the Seminary of Holy Etchmiadzin.
He served as a deacon to the Armenian community in Parish before moving
to the United States in 1978. Once in America, Fr. Nalbandian served as
deacon-in-charge of the St. Sarkis Church of Niagara Falls, NY, where he
was ordained as a priest by Archbishop Torkom Manoogian. Before being
assigned to Trumbull in 1984, Fr. Nalbandian served the St. John Church
of Greenfield, WI.
Since 1999, he has served as the director of youth and education for the
Eastern Diocese, while continuing as pastor to the Church of the Holy
Ascension.
“Throughout my years as Primate, I’ve always been comforted to know that
I could rely on Der Untzag to rise to every challenge,” the Primate
said. “And it was for that reason that I called on him to lead the
various program ministries of the Diocese – which he has accomplished
with great skill these past five years.”
Fr. Nalbandian and his wife, Yn. Setta, have three children.
FR. SHNORK SOUIN
A native of Toronto, Canada, Fr. Souin’s first vocation was as a sales
representative for a large Canadian company. He was called to the
seminary in 1992, and was ordained as a priest in 1994 by Archbishop
Hovnan Derderian, then Primate of the Canadian Diocese.
His first pastoral assignment was with the St. Gregory Church in St.
Catharine’s, Canada. He was appointed as pastor at the St. Mary
Armenian Church in Livingston, NJ, in September 2001.
“He is a man whose whole life has been directed towards the heavenly
Light. And when he accepted ordination 10 years ago, he chose to step
more fully into Christ’s light, because his heart was indeed true and
pure,” Archbishop Barsamian said during a banquet celebrating Fr.
Souin’s anniversary. “He had no apprehension about acting in the light,
for his deeds were truly part of the greater work of God.”
Fr. Souin and his wife, Yn. Julie, have three children.
— 6/2/04
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable on the Eastern
Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): The Primate joined Fr. Untzag Nalbandian, pastor of
the Church of the Holy Ascension in Trumbull, CT, and his family during
a celebration marking Fr. Nalbandian’s 25th year as a priest on May 22,
2004.
PHOTO CAPTION (2): Archbishop Barsamian marks the 10th anniversary of
the ordination of Fr. Shnork Souin, pastor of the St. Mary Church of
Livingston, NJ, on May 23, 2004.
# # #

“Aztag” Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 258529, +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: [email protected]
AZTAG: Interview with Igor Mouradian
Interview by Khatchig Mouradian
Eighth of May 2004
Igor Mouradian has played a key role in the early stages of
the struggle for self-determination in Karabagh. A member
of The International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS), Dr. Mouradian is also the author of a number of
books, in Russian, about geo-politics and geo-economics (
).
I spoke to him in Beirut.
Aztag- What is your take on the current ruling elite in Georgia?
Igor Mouradian- It was clear from a long time that the culinary change
in Georgian politics will be connected to the right forces not to
the leftist ones. The right in Georgia would become the most popular
and the most active in the political arena. This has something to do
with the connection with the United States. Georgia was always keen
to demonstrate its orientation towards the west. However, this was
only declaration; the orientation was only towards the U.S. However,
the U.S. is maintaining a very rigid framework in its international
politics in general and regional politics in particular. Some people
think that the U.S. politics is very wide, but it’s an illusion. The
interest of Georgia and other countries in the region cannot really
fit into the framework of U.S. interest, and the situation is dramatic
for this very reason.
Armenia has chosen a different path. Some analysts accuse Armenia of
being isolated. This is rubbish. Either these people do not understand
the realities on the ground, or they’re simply lying. In fact, Armenia
has a well-balanced international policy. Because of their policies,
Georgia and Azerbaijan are much more isolated than Armenia. The
main problem of Georgia is that the regime is not adequate. The
ruling elite is more than a marionette, it is extremely dependant on
foreign signals. It is not capable of creating long-term international
policies, because the U.S. is demanding that they quickly solve very
important issues. The new Georgian president does not really understand
the problems of the Georgian foreign policies.
Aztag- What are these problems?
Igor Mouradian- This country has chosen its main political and
economic profile, which is based on the development of transit and
services. If they want to succeed as a transit country, they should
be keen on establishing good relations with their neighbors. Georgia
cannot really develop the model it had chosen when it is in conflict
or confrontation with Russia. Of course, one can understand why the
Georgian elite is behaving in this way: Russia has been carrying
forward inconsistent policies in the area, and it has done little to
improve its relations with Georgia.
The main problem that the Georgian politics is facing at the moment
is not Adjaria or Abkhazia and not even the economical issues,
but creating an effective and a centralized administration. Most
members of the new administration have already had the experience of
administrative work, but with no positive results. In my opinion,
the present Georgian administration is illegitimate, inadequate,
and it is clear that it’s not permanent.
Aztag- How can it be illegitimate? After all, it is the people that
brought this administration to power.
Igor Mouradian- No revolution can create legitimate governments; it can
create efficient regimes, but never legitimate governments. Georgia
has neither. The leaders are very ambitious, and they will refuse to
be consistent in setting up a well-balanced regime. The current regime
is doomed to catastrophe. The foreign influences are too strong. The
situation is very dangerous for Yerevan not because this experience
could also be applied to Armenia, but because the current situation
in Georgia is very inconvenient for our interests and us.
Aztag- And what are, in your opinion, the factors that make an unstable
Georgia a problem for Armenia?
Igor Mouradian- One and only one factor: Communication. Even the
situation of Armenians in Georgia is not that much of a problem. The
politicians in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East are interested
in the following question: could the Georgian scenario happen in
Armenia as well? That’s rubbish. We have a completely different
social and economical system, our country is developing very fast,
the shortcomings of the ruling regime in Armenia are being compensated
by the presence and the activities of very stable political structures
within the country, the parliamentary process, and other factors. We
have created a powerful army, and at the same time, a very efficient
security system.
Armenia is approaching a time when the opposition will be represented
by nationalistic forces. The political parties oriented towards
Russia, Europe, or the U.S. will refuse to maintain policies that have
anything to do with external factors. Armenia will become a patriotic
nationalist state. In this respect, we can become an example to the
other independent states. And of course, our main problem will be the
problem of the elite, but our administration is much more adequate. The
problem of elite is a problem that runs for decades, and therefore,
it is not worthwhile to speed up any process; a revolution is not
something that is necessary. Revolution would make sense in only one
instance: if the ruling regime ignores the national interests.
Aztag- The western media refers to the current Georgian elite as
“nationalists” and “pro-western”. You are saying that Sahakashvili’s
government is extremely dependent on the U.S. How can this dilemma
of nationalism-dependence be explained?
Igor Mouradian- Every nation has its own notion of
nationalism. Nationalists cannot be “anti”. If nationalism is directed
against a political pole or a major political force then it is
defective. Nationalism is not only about maintaining the uniqueness
of your own nation but also that of other people. Liberalism and
cosmopolitism, especially imperialistic liberalism and communism,
do not respect the notion of nation. But nationalism is fighting for
the uniqueness of all nations. Perhaps the ruling elite in Georgia is
not really nationalist. Or it might be a pseudo-nationalist regime,
or a racist regime. Any idea could be perverted. The thing is that
Georgia has established a European political system; the leftists and
the rightists are very obvious. Armenia doesn’t have that; Armenia
has a different scheme: the conservatives and the liberals. I don’t
think that any of those as better or worse than the other. Georgian
nationalism has not become a uniting force; it has not created
national ideas. Moreover, the policies of the regime have divided the
society. Of course, the situation in Armenia is not ideal; there, the
clash between fake liberalism and conservatism will become fiercer
with time. One has to be reminded that in Armenia, nationalism has
very deep roots. One can even speak of national fundamentalism.
Unfortunately, our social situation does not allow this national
ideology to become a real thing. One has to be reminded that
Pan-Armenian National Movement and the satellites of this movement
are not incidental. The basic aim of this movement was ideological
modernization, a desire to modernize Armenian politics…it would
have had positive results, of course, but their aims were very low.
Aztag- Currently, Ankara is bringing up the issue of opening the
borders with Armenia more frequently. Some analysts say that the
Armenian side might gain from such a move on the economic level, but
it has things to lose on the political front. What are the factors
at work here?
Igor Mouradian- The economic interests and the national interests
are not necessarily conflicting. Now we do have trade relations with
turkey. According to different estimates, we buy goods from Turkey
worth something between 100 and 160 million U.S. dollars. Our export
to Turkey is about 20 million U.S. dollars. Politically, all this
doesn’t change much.
There are two major problems for the U.S. in the region: The
Russo-Georgian relations and the Turkish-Armenian relations. Both
problems are connected with the idea of getting rid of Russian
influences. Despite the fact that the relationship between the
U.S. and Turkey have deteriorated recently and it continues to
deteriorate because the Americans are not insisting on solving
the Cyprus problem, the U.S. continues to insist on improving the
Armenian-Turkish relation. The American idea is very simple: once
they improve the relations, this will create a security; Armenia
will become so much more secure. It’s a lie or failure to appreciate
the situation. The relations can be improved, the border may get
opened at some point and investments might start flowing to Turkey
and Armenia, but the threat will still be there. Turkey appreciates
only strong position. We must be strong in order to become partners
with Turkey. Now we have a strong army, an efficient security system,
and developed international relations. We are more prepared to start
relations with Turkey. However, one has to separate two things that
have little to do with each other: our economic development and our
relations with Turkey, which include the issue of Genocide recognition.
Aztag- but couldn’t the economic factor be used to pressure Armenia
to get other concessions on the political front?
Igor Mouradian- We speak of Armenia as some other country that has
nothing to do with us. Armenia is us. It all depends on us. We should
sort our own problems and not the problems of Turkey. We should do
everything we can to make sure that we have a government that has a
nationalistic agenda and is not a marionette. Refusal to push for the
recognition of the Armenian genocide, concessions in the Karabagh issue
will not improve our relations with Turkey. Turkey is not interested
in Karabagh at all and they are not interested in the opinions of
Azerbaijan. This is an illusion that has been created. Turkey has its
own tasks, its own problems. Turkey is more interested in the question
of genocide than in the question of Karabagh. It wants to show the
western community that apart from the genocide problem there’s also
the Karabagh problem that Turkey is interested in.
Aztag- What are the strategic aims of Turkey in the region?
Igor Mouradian- They want to achieve firsthand political and economic
dominance in the region. Apart from pan Turkism, there’s also the
doctrine of neo-Ottomanism. When it became clear that Turkey is not
capable maintaining its important presence in central Asia, and that
the U.S. is doing nothing to help Turkey become a Eurasian power,
Turkey has become more interested in neo-Ottomanism. I couldn’t find a
better term to describe this doctrine, according to which Turkey must
suck non-Turkish people (Albanians, Bosnians, Georgians, Chechens,
and Uzbekistanis) into Turkish politics. Turkey is now interested in
closer regions like the Caucasus, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Iraq. It’s
very important that the Armenian communities in the U.S. and the Middle
East appreciate one thing: the U.S. is now carrying out anti-Turkish
policies in the Caucasus. They are doing everything they can to make
sure that Turkey loses its influence on Azerbaijan, they are doing
everything they can to pressure Turkey by creating alternative air
bases in Georgia and they are also using the Armenian factor as a
tool for pressure. It seems that the U.S. likes to create a little
Israel in Armenia, simply because Armenia is the most stable, the
most organized country in the region.
Aztag- What do you mean by “a small Israel”?
Igor Mouradian- Israel means an isolated country serving as an aircraft
carrier for the U.S. It’s a very dangerous perspective for us, we
shouldn’t allow this to happen, we should maintain very good relations
with the Arab countries, Iran, and central Asian countries. This
is extremely important for us. Armenia has demonstrated that under
conditions that are far from perfect, it can make breakthroughs in
many areas. Georgia and Azerbaijan cannot be genuine partners of the
U.S. They are very unreliable partners not only for the U.S. but also
for Russia, Iran, and Europe. There are only two countries in the
south Caucasus capable of maintaining the role of strategic partners:
the republic of Armenia, and the N.K.R.
Aztag- Armenia boasts excellent relations with Iran, despite the
religious and cultural differences between the two countries. What
are the foundations of this alliance?
Igor Mouradian- The region is coming up with new alliance and with
new blocks that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. These
blocks they are called geo-civilizations, which are not formed within
a cultural-religious framework.
Aztag- So you don’t believe in Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”
theory.
Igor Mouradian- I do believe in the clash of civilizations, but I
think alliances based merely on historical and cultural factors do not
work. The geo-civilizations which are based on geopolitical interests
are the ones that work. The Slavic countries are acting against
Russia and there’s lots of conflict between Christian countries, and
between Muslim countries. And the major conflict of them all is not
the conflict between the Islam and Christianity, but between U.S. and
Europe. Islam civilization does not have a common policy. The Islamic
world is being used by many, even by Israel. The Islamic world is not
capable of creating a common policy; even the Arab world isn’t capable
of doing that. Accordingly, however well the relations with Turkey and
Azerbaijan develop, Iran will never refuse to maintain good relations
with Armenia. This is because of fundamental geopolitical interests.
Aztag- What does the future hold for the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict? The
status quo cannot be maintained forever, can it?
Igor Mouradian- The conflict is not going anywhere. One
should understand a few things: Russia is not interested in any
changes. Russia is now maintaining its relations with Azerbaijan in
a completely different dimension. There are the other issues where
Russia and Azerbaijan understand each other well. Russia is supportive
of the political regime in Azerbaijan; there are also the issues
of Caspian oil, the Russian gas imports, the question of the Azeri
economic migrants in Russia, and some security questions connected
with Russian interests in northern Caucasus. The Azeri leadership
has no illusions about Russian intentions in the Karabagh problem.
On the other hand, Europe has no operational abilities in Caucasus at
all and has no goals or aims in the region. The only European task
is to make sure that Americans feel uncomfortable; this is the only
thing that they are interested in.
Turkey has no time at all for Karabagh. The Turks are terrified
of this topic, because if they are accused of supporting one side,
the Azeri side, it will create for them another problem in terms of
joining the EU. Iran is also very happy with the status quo.
In turn, the U.S. has only three aims: oil, oil and oil. Sometimes
people confuse priorities and goals; the priority is stability,
and the status quo perfectly corresponds to the U.S. interests. The
U.S. administration has had the chance to see for itself in Key West
that there’s no political solution to the Karabagh problem, which
can only be solved militarily. The U.S. will not accept a military
solution, they’re afraid of military solution, and they are supportive
of the current administration on one condition: Ilham Aliev should
not try to solve the Karabagh problem by resorting to the option of
war. For the U.S., if there is no political way, there is no other way.
If you had asked me three years ago “what is the future of Karabagh?” I
would have told you that it will stay like this for decades and it
will be capable of developing successfully in its current state. But
now, seeing the current movements and tendencies, I’ve come to
understand that the western community will have to decide the status of
uncontrolled territories (Kosovo, Bosnia, Taiwan, Sumatra, Palestine,
Karabagh, Adjaria, Abkhazia, the Iraqi Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus
and possibly another 10 more territories including Kashmir and some
territories in Afghanistan).
Sometimes they ask the question “how many U.S. congressmen know the
surname of the Nigerian president?” I don’t think that many do.
It’s a country with 100 million people. However, Ghougasian,
the president of Karabagh, is known to many congressmen and so is
Denktash. They’re playing an extremely important role in the external
balance of power. And this problem will persist and it should be
solved. Moreover, there’s another question of task or problem: not
all the territories will receive its formal status, and the Americans
have discussed this publicly. Nevertheless, Karabagh has more chances
than anyone else does to become internationally recognized. Of course,
there is a danger when discussing the recognition of the N.K. state;
the question of territories will arise, but there is probably a way
out. Perhaps Karabagh will play an exceptional role in political
history by demonstrating how a tiny country coming out of the fierce
and bloody war can create a fascinating democratic society.

PRESS OFFICE
Armenian Holy Apostolic Church Canadian Diocese
Contact; Deacon Hagop Arslanian, Assistant to the Primate
615 Stuart Avenue, Outremont Quebec H2V 3H2
Tel; 514-276-9479, Fax; 514-276-9960
Email; [email protected] Website;
A CLOSE FRIEND OF ARMENIANS AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH CANADIAN DIOCESE
HAS BEEN ELECTED PRIMATE OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA
During the 37th General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, the
chief governing and legislative body Archbishop Hutchison of Montreal
was elected Primate or Presiding Bishop of the National Church. On
behalf of His Eminence Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, Primate Deacon Hagop
Arslanian congratulated the Most Reverend Andrew S. Hutchison , on June
1st, 2004 he then said “Your Eminence, on this blessed occassion we
wish you good health and success in all your apostolic endeavors. Our
prayers are with you as you prepare to undertake a new challenge”.
Archbishop Hutchison has served as Bishop of the Diocese of Montreal
for the past 14 years, as Bishop Ordinary to the Canadian Forces since
1997, and as Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada
since 2002. He has been in Montreal since 1984, when he became Rector
of Christ Church Cathedral and Dean of Montreal. Prior to his arrival,
he had been active in parish ministry in the Diocese of Toronto.
In the past years, Archbishop Hutchison has been a close friend
of the Armenian Church Canadian Diocese. He has supported the many
Diocesan spiritual and cultural projects on various occasions as well
as the Armenian Cause. He was the guest speaker on April 23rd 2004,
when a Martyrs’ Prayer and Ecumenical Service were held in St Gregory
Armenian Cathedral. During his speech, dedicated to the victims of the
Armenian Genocide His Eminence lauded the Armenian Church as the most
ancient one in Christendom, and presented an overview of the historical
events of the Armenian Genocide. He then concluded by saying, “It
is important to remember, because there can be no real hope without
memory; and it is clear that we have not sufficiently remembered,
nor learnt from those dreadful events, nor from the failure of the
community of nations to respond to them appropriately. There can be no
healing, reconciliation and justice for Armenians, if the genocide is
not fully acknowledged, and responsibility for it accepted. Without
it there is no basis for the rebuilding of trust and a more secure
future in the community of nations.”
An official visit is scheduled to take place on the 15th of June, 2004.
Bishop Bagrat Galstanian will personally meet with Archbishop Andrew
Hucthison to congratulate him on his election to the highest Anglican
ecclesiastical position in Canada.
Divan of the Diocese
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Big Insinuations For Little Armenia
Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Rosbalt, 31/05/2004, 11:05
It has been repeatedly hinted to Armenia this past month that Yerevan can
better prioritize its foreign policy. Behind the noise and dust raised by
the government and the opposition, Washington is systematically pursuing the
entrenchment of its position in the region.
The opinion of American experts
Washington regularly reminds Yerevan that without its help, Armenia cannot
stand on its own feet and will remain a banana republic in the backwaters of
civilization. And what that help means is not difficult to understand. Thus,
the analytical center STRATFOR, which some regard as a CIA mouthpiece,
recently released a report entitled ‘The Battle for the Former USSR: Wooing
Armenia.’ The experts at STRATFOR think that the United States needs Armenia
in order to become a key player in the region, and that goal is being
hindered by Russia and Iran, with which Yerevan has overly good relations.
Therefore, the report continues, Washington needs to make a policy decision:
‘The United States must do all it can to squeeze Armenia into a corner, and
then a reorientation of Armenian priorities in the US’s favor will be the
only alternative.’ Moreover, a partnership with Washington will be the
panacea for the region’s greatest ill – the conflict in Karabakh. And the
prescription to the problem in this case has more than one application.
‘Armenia has seized the territory of neighboring Azerbaijan, and has made
clear that it has no intention of leaving. But it is only possible to
triumph over a partner of the United States if you yourself become a partner
of the United States,’ SRATFOR openly recommends to Yerevan.
In order that the decision not be made in Armenia, according to the center’s
experts, its fate has already been decided. ‘Nevertheless, the task of
conquering Armenia is doable, and will in the long term be achieved by the
US thanks to the active and assiduous work of diplomatic agencies. All
diplomatic efforts dedicated to the conquest of Armenia must be very
delicate and must take several years.’ True, the center’s experts recognize
that the activities of Russia and Iran might prove a serious hindrance, and
could completely derail US plans.
Practically in tandem, the CIA, together with non-governmental centers, has
released a report entitled ‘Global Trends 2015.’ Until 2015, the report
reads, Armenia will continue to be isolated and dependent on Russia and
Iran, and therefore will continue to be a regional wild card. According to
CIA predictions, the region will continue to be unstable as the result of
unresolved conflicts.
Karabakh damper
Those unresolved conflicts, and the Karabakh conflict in particular,
continue not only to poison relations between Yerevan and Baku, but hang
like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of every Armenian president. It
should be remembered that Levon Ter-Petrosian was obliged to leave his post
early when he tried to reach a compromise on the conflict in Karabakh. At
the time, he left to the unanimous applause of Armenian society. Karabakh is
an issue which has the ability to unite Armenians of all political stripes.
Now, Robert Kocharian appears to be in the same position. What actually
threatens Kocharian now is not the opposition, which wants to depose him,
but pressure from Washington to resolve the Karabakh conflict and reach an
unfavorable compromise. At STRATFOR, that is an openly advocated position:
‘Washington’s support for Azerbaijan’s position regarding the resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could drive Armenia into a corner, and then
the reorientation of Armenian priorities in the US’s favor would become the
only alternative.’ It appears as if the situation could take that turn – to
drive Armenia into a corner and force it to distance itself from Russia and
Iran. For any Armenian president, that option would appear far easier than
to compromise on the issue of Karabakh.
Washington is systematically increasing its pressure on Yerevan, gradually
broaching the subject of Karabakh. In particular, the State Department
recently published a particularly harsh addendum to its annual human rights
report: ‘President Robert Kocharian was defeated in 2003 in a disputed
election, which was marred by serious violations and did not meet
international standards.’ In the February version of the report, all that
was said was that violations had occurred. Such declarations look like
unambiguous threats.
At the same time, George Bush has proposed a new ambassador to Armenia to
replace John Ordway. He has proposed John Marshall Evans, the head of the
Russian section at the State Department. The train of thought is hard to
miss. In addition, the new American representative to the OSCE group on the
Karabakh conflict has been named as Steven Mann, who in his time opened the
first diplomatic mission to an independent Armenia, and it is said just as
successfully forced the door open to the new republic’s government.
Moreover, Steven Mann, who is considered to be one of the founding fathers
of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, has remained a senior adviser on energy issues
in the Caspian region.
The Pentagon’s hand?
Meanwhile, according to knowledgeable observers, the issue of Karabakh has
recently been handed over from the State Department to the Pentagon.
According to a source in the Armenian government, the Karabakh question now
has the potential to generate serious and unpredictable complications as the
result of the Pentagon’s decisive involvement in the process, which
diplomats had previously managed to quiet.
What the American military has managed to initiate in the South Caucasus is
difficult to miss. The Boston Globe recently published an article which
stated that the United States is intent on implementing serious military
programs in the South Caucasus, continuing a ‘careful application of soft
power.’ In particular, according to the Boston Globe, a recent conference in
the German city of Garmisch-Partenkirchen of NATO members was dedicated to
the coordination of efforts regarding the Caucasus, which included the
participation of Georgia and Armenia.
The results are already before us. In particular, the Armenian army is
modernizing its most vulnerable sector – communications – with the help of
the United States. Moreover, the Defense Department was obliged at the end
of April to deny reports that Armenia and the US had signed an agreement on
the use of Armenian airfields by the US Air Force. The source of the report
was the very same STRATFOR following a visit to Armenia by US Commander for
Europe, Charles Wald. ‘The true aim of the agreement was the provision of
aid in the material-technical sphere at the request of the other country,
taking into account the interests of one’s own country,’ the Defense
Department hastily explained. But as it is said, there is no smoke without
fire.
Incidentally, Armenia is not only being pressured, it is being given
incentives. In particular, Armenia was recently included on the list of 16
countries which the United States intends to help with its program
‘Millennium Challenges.’ It is anticipated that the Armenian government will
receive in the next two years more than USD 300 million, which will not be
standard American aid, most of which goes to finance American experts, but
rather direct investments in the country’s budget. True, in Washington they
are parsing their words – aid will only be forthcoming if the Armenian
government behaves. And the Armenian government needs that aid urgently, in
order to reduce social tensions in the country and not allow an explosion
being prepared by the opposition to occur. Samvel Martirosian, Rosbalt,
Yerevan.
Translated by Alex Anderson

The Center for Public Integrity
2 June, 2004
A Human Rights Issue
In Europe, nations ban reproductive cloning, but allow research to continue
By M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, June 2, 2004 – As in much of the rest of the world,
the 1997 announcement of the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first
mammal cloned from an adult cell, forced Europe’s legislators,
bioethicists and religious leaders to deal with the topic of human
cloning. When Italian fertility expert Severino Antinori, along with
American physiologist Panayiotis Zavos, declared, the next year, that
they would help infertile couples to have children through cloning,
the continent’s public policy makers responded quickly.
The 45-member Council of Europe, the oldest multilateral political
organization on the continent, outlawed “[a]ny intervention seeking
to create a human being genetically identical to another human being”
by amending its Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
The additional protocol to the treaty noted that such an action
was necessitated by “scientific developments in the field of mammal
cloning, particularly through embryo splitting and nuclear transfer.”
Great Britain, whose biotech industry is the largest in Europe, is
one of the many countries to adopt legislation on the issue. “The
Human Reproductive Cloning Act,” enacted in 2001, mandates up to
10 years of prison and an unlimited fine, if convicted of creating
human clones. At the same time, the law allows research on cloning for
therapeutic purposes with strict regulation. The Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Authority regulates embryo research in the country.
In the other continental biotech giant, Germany, all embryo research
is banned.
Other Western European countries that prohibited reproductive
cloning include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy,
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
“Issues of human genetics and bioethics in Europe have been widely
accepted as human rights issues concerning human dignity and
fundamental freedoms of the citizens,” according to Emilia Ianeva,
director of the Center for Human Rights at California State University,
Hayward.
About half of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe and former
Soviet republics in the Caucasus have ratified the Protocol on the
Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. “Notable non-signatories are
Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Armenia
and Azerbaijan, making them possible places of choice for companies
that would like to do human genetic engineering, including cloning,
shielded from legal regulations,” Ianeva wrote in a paper published
last year.
Russia, however, adopted a five-year moratorium on human reproductive
cloning, which is in force until 2007. The Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Romania and Slovakia have also banned reproductive cloning and have
ratified the protocol.
On the issue of research cloning, the political climate differs from
country to country. While Switzerland is against creation of cloned
embryos, and France has proposed a ban, Britain permits it.
Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly, recently told the British media that he
would clone human embryos for research. The scientist’s application
will be the first submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority, according to news agency PA News. “He wants to study what
goes wrong in the nerve cells of patients suffering from motor neuron
disease,” the agency reported.
Europe has the finest biotech infrastructure outside of the United
States. There are 96 publicly traded biotech companies in Europe,
compared to 314 in the United States, William Powlett Smith, who
heads of Ernst & Young’s U.K. Health Sciences Group, told the Center
for Public Integrity. However, there are more private companies in
Europe than in the United States, according to Smith.

“Geopolitics trumps genocide”
Our views in brief
Opinion Section B8
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
Fresno Bee Editorial Board:
Ray Steel Jr.
Jim Boren
Edward R. Jimenez
Russell Minick
Gail Marshal
House Speaker Dennis Hastert was in Fresno on Friday for a fund-raiser
that drew a protest from the local Armenian community. Hastert has
refused to allow a resolution that recognizes the Armenian Genocide
come to the floor for a vote.
Hastert is carrying water for the Bush Administration on the touchy
issue. Like administrations before it, the Bush administration,
especially the State Department, is afraid of offending the Turkish
government by designating the savage events of early last century as
a genocide.
But the genocide did occur, and that must be recognized by
our government. Between 1915 and 1923, and estimated 1.5 million
Armenians were killed at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish empire and
its successor regime.

Revolution in Georgia: What Next for Armenia?
Posted on Wednesday, June 02 2004
By Onnik Krikorian
Great Reporter
June 2 2004
The activists behind Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” made history by
ousting President Eduard Shevarnadze – now their neighbours are
eyeing a similar bid for democracy.
When the newly-elected president of the Republic of Georgia, Mikhail
Saakashvili, forced his way into parliament last November and sealed
the fate of his predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze, there were few
analysts that didn’t examine what impact the “Rose Revolution” might
have on neighbouring Republics.
Since Azerbaijan showed no sign of any increased political activity,
all attention turned to Armenia where last month, the opposition took
to the streets in an attempt to replicate events in Georgia.
Throughout April, thousands rallied to call for the resignation of
the Armenian President, Robert Kocharyan, re-elected for a second
term in flawed elections held last year.
At first, however, there were more immediate concerns. Land-locked
and blockaded by Turkey and Azerbaijan, approximately 90 per cent of
all Armenian trade goes through its northern neighbour. Had
trade-routes been affected, it would have spelt disaster for the
poverty-stricken Republic. Although there has been economic growth in
recent years, it has mainly benefited the corrupt and connected.
Half the population lives below the national poverty line and over
one million Armenians have left the country to find work and a better
life abroad.
Inspired by the November events in Georgia, therefore, the first
demonstration held by an opposition party in the Armenian capital,
Yerevan, eventually took place on 5 April, almost a year after
President Robert Kocharian’s controversial inauguration. But whereas
President Eduard Shevardnadze was reluctant to use force to suppress
the protests in Georgia, the Armenian president was not.
More than a dozen shaven-head thugs, believed to be the bodyguards of
oligarchs close to the authorities, threw eggs at opposition figures
and attacked journalists, smashing the cameras of photographers and
film crews. However, the worst was yet to come. In the early hours of
13 April, after 15,000 opposition supporters marched on the
Presidential Palace only to be halted in their tracks by razor wire
blocking the road, a core group of 2-3,000 camped overnight on
Yerevan’s central Marshal Baghramian Avenue.
At 2am, water cannon and stun grenades were used to disperse peaceful
demonstrators who were then ambushed by groups of riot police waiting
on street corners as they fled the scene. According to eye witness
accounts, the Deputy Head of the Armenian Police, Hovannes Varyan, is
alleged to have personally beaten one photographer, Hayk Gevorkian,
from the pro-opposition Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper. Other
journalists including a Russian TV cameraman were also attacked.
Hundreds of opposition activists, including two opposition MPs, were
detained and others beaten and allegedly tortured in custody. As was
the case during and immediately after the 2003 Presidential
Elections, freedom of movement in the republic was restricted and
roads into the capital were blocked in order to prevent supporters
from the regions attending this and later rallies.
As a result, Human Rights Watch and the Council of Europe issued a
stern warning to the Armenian Government that any repeat of such an
incident would be unacceptable. They also demanded the immediate
release of more than a dozen leading activists whom human rights
activists consider political prisoners. The request, however, fell on
deaf ears.
But despite the perseverance of the opposition, many analysts
conclude that attempts to remove Kocharyan from power were doomed
from the outset. Despite his unpopularity in Georgia, Shevardnadze
was nonetheless more democratic than his Armenian counterpart who
many consider autocratic and ruthless in comparison.
But the reasons for the failure of the opposition to achieve regime
change in Armenia, however, go far deeper than that. One other factor
has been the lack of a figure on any side of the political divide
with the charisma and credibility of Mikhail Saakashvili, the new
president of Georgia. In last year’s presidential elections, for
example, Kocharyan’s main opponent was the son of the former
communist-era boss of Armenia, Karen Demirchyan.
Although Stepan Demirchyan has the support of some part of the
population at least, he lacks the oratory skills and experience of
other less popular but more dynamic figures in the opposition such as
Artashes Geghamian of the National Unity Party and Aram Z Sargsyan of
the Republic Party. Even today, Demirchyan remains in the background
at opposition rallies, allowing others to take center stage.
And whereas Shevardnadze was reliant on the United States to maintain
power, Moscow rules the roost in Armenia. Last year, the Americans
might have pulled the rug out from underneath the Georgian
President’s feet but there are so far no signs that Russian President
Vladimir Putin will do the same to Kocharyan. Armenia remains
Moscow’s last outpost in the Southern Caucasus.
However, while attempts to unseat the Armenian President will prove
an uphill struggle, street demonstrations continue. Moreover, as the
situation remains unpredictable, it is not impossible that regime
change could happen in Armenia. At the very least, recent events in
Georgia have contributed to the emergence of an active opposition for
the first time since 1996 and civil rights activists are finding a
new lease of life.
Moreover, in a few years, Armenia will find itself in the exact same
situation that gave birth to the Georgian “Rose Revolution” with
parliamentary elections scheduled for 2007 determining the outcome of
presidential elections to be held the following year. Although it is
not unthinkable that President Kocharian might attempt to run for a
third term in office in 2008, he is prohibited from doing so under
the Armenian constitution.
And if the Georgian experiment with democracy is seen to be
successful, many in Armenia might eventually conclude that the only
way to break free from the vicious cycle of stagnation and regression
in place is to completely overthrow the system. Until then, leading
international bodies such as Human Rights Watch and Freedom House
have warned that democracy, human rights and media freedom are
already in decline as a direct result of the president’s attempts to
cling on to power.
In the meantime, current events in Armenia can perhaps be viewed in
the context of both the government and opposition preparing for an
inevitable change of power that will have to occur by 2008 at the
very latest and quite possibly, depending on other domestic and
external factors, even earlier than that.